{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_70963/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_70963","id":"gutenberg_70963","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70963","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church year","Fasts and feasts"],"text":"HEORTOLOGY\n\n                A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVALS FROM\n                     THEIR ORIGIN TO THE PRESENT DAY\n\n                                    BY\n                        DR K. A. HEINRICH KELLNER\n                    PROFESSOR OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IN\n                          THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN\n\n               TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHOR\u2019S PERMISSION FROM\n                        THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION\n                                    BY\n                  A PRIEST OF THE DIOCESE OF WESTMINSTER\n\n                                  LONDON\n                KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TR\u00dcBNER & CO., LIMITED\n                     DRYDEN HOUSE, GERRARD STREET, W.\n                                   1908\n\n\n\n\n    _NIHIL OBSTAT_\n\n        FR. OSMUND, O.F.M.,\n            Censor deputatus.\n\n    _IMPRIMATUR_\n\n        \u2720 GULIELMUS,\n            Episcopus Arindelensis, Vicarius Generalis.\n\n    Westmonasterii,\n        _die 24 Feb., 1908_.\n\n    _IMPRIMATUR TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION_\n\n        \u2720 THOMAS,\n            Archiepp\u0304s.\n\n    Friburgi Brisgovi\u00e6,\n        _die 8 Maii, 1906_.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION\n\n\nIn older works on liturgy, the festivals of the Church have been\ngenerally dealt with as forming part of a greater whole, while in more\nrecent times various questions relating to them have been discussed in\nseparate articles in encyclop\u00e6dias and reviews. The time seems now to\nhave come when the cycle of ecclesiastical festivals ought to be regarded\nas a definite department of study by itself. The older works, besides\nbeing difficult of access, do not come up to the standard of modern works\non the same subject, and the independent investigations of recent date,\nalthough throwing much new light upon some points, have left others\nuntouched, with the result that the reader is unable to gain a clear\nconception of the matter as a whole.\n\nThe solid results gained by investigations into this branch of study in\nearlier and later times must now be collected, and systematised, and\nbrought up to the level demanded by modern science. Much remains to be\ndone in this department owing to the fresh light that has been thrown\nupon it by the publication of documents hitherto inaccessible, among\nwhich we may mention the so-called Peregrinatio Silvi\u00e6 discovered by\nGamurrini, the Lectionaries of Silos, and the critical edition of the\nso-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum of de Rossi and Duchesne. The\nlast-named document has so far been more of a hindrance than a help in\nthis branch of study, some attributing too much importance to it, and\nothers none at all.\n\nIt has seemed to the author that the time for gathering together the\nascertained results derived from these and similar books has come. It\nis chiefly for theological students and the younger clergy that the\nfollowing book is intended. Such a work as would make it easy to deal\nwith the subject in sermons and catechetical instructions, and, at the\nsame time, would give clearly and briefly all the information necessary\nfor dealing with the question from the historical standpoint, avoiding\nequally uncritical credulity and sceptical unbelief\u2014such a work seems to\nthe author demanded by the circumstances of the time.\n\nMoreover, the Minister of Public Worship in Prussia has recently\n(12th Sept. 1898) required from candidates for the office of catholic\nteacher in higher grade schools, a considerable acquaintance with the\necclesiastical year among their other qualifications.\n\nThis is the reason why the author has confined his attention solely to\nthe worship of the Roman Catholic Church, merely alluding occasionally\nto the usages of other religious bodies. For the same reason, in\naccordance with the meaning of the term \u201cHeortology,\u201d he has concerned\nhimself with those festivals alone which are publicly celebrated, or\nwere so celebrated formerly. The majority of these afford no features of\nhistorical interest, owing, as they do, their origin to the action of\nauthority. In cases which do not here come under discussion, reference\nmay be made to separate works and to the Bollandists in general. In a\nmatter of such practical interest as this, it cannot fail that some\npoints have been omitted; still, I think, the amount of material\ncollected in the following pages is sufficient for the end I have had\nin view. In support of the views herein expressed, a somewhat detailed\naccount is given in the third part of the documents which serve as\nthe sources of our information. It has not seemed practical to print a\nselection from the large number of these documents by way of supplement,\nsince to have done so would have interfered with the object of this book.\n\nBONN, _All Saints\u2019, 1900_.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE OF THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION\n\n\nThis second (revised and enlarged) edition\u2014from which Dr A. Mercati,\nProfessor in the Seminary of Reggio, Emilia, has made the Italian\ntranslation\u2014is in substance the same as the first. The sections dealing\nwith the dedication of churches and the feast of the patron saint, with\nthe feast of the Immaculate Conception, with the feasts of St Mary\nMagdalen, St Cecilia, and St Catherine, and the two concluding sections\nhave been added, and some appendices.\n\nBONN, _May 1906_.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR\u2019S NOTE\n\n\nIn this translation, the excursus on the German Protestant\n\u201cBuss-und-Bettage\u201d and on St Ursula have been omitted as being of less\ngeneral interest, and a few notes have been added.\n\nLONDON, _April 1908_.\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS QUOTED AND REFERRED TO\n\n\n(A) MEDI\u00c6VAL WORKS, WHICH IN SOME DEGREE ARE OF THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL\nSOURCES\n\nISIDORE of Seville (\u2020 658).\u2014_De Officiis Ecclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxxxiii.\n\nAMALARIUS SYMPHOSIUS (\u201cchor-episcopus\u201d at Metz, \u2020 between 850 and\n853).\u2014_De Officiis Ecclesiasticis libri quattuor._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\ncv.\n\nRABANUS MAURUS (Abbot of Fulda, later Archbishop of Mainz, \u2020 856).\u2014_De\nOfficiis Ecclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii.\n\nADO (Bishop of Vienne, \u2020 875).\u2014_Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apost._\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiii.\n\nJOHANNES ABRINCENSIS (Bishop of Rouen, \u2020 1079).\u2014_De Officiis\nEcclesiasticis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. _Ordinarius Canonicorum\nReg._, _ib._ 188-191.\n\nPSEUDO-ALCUIN (middle of the eleventh century).\u2014_De Officiis\nEcclesiasticis._ Incomplete in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci. 1175. According\nto B\u00e4umer, Amalarius Fortunatus is really the author.\n\nBERNO of Reichenau (\u2020 1045).\u2014_De Officio Miss\u00e6_, and two small tracts on\nAdvent and the Embertides. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii.\n\nLANFRANC (\u2020 1089).\u2014_Decreta pro Ord. S. Benedicti._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\ncl.\n\nBERNOLD of Constance (\u2020 1100). According to B\u00e4umer, the author of the\n_Micrologus_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cli.\n\n_De C\u00e6rimoniis, Sacramentis, Officiis et Observantionibus Ecclesi\u00e6 libri\ntres_, by HUGO (Canon of St Victor in Paris, \u2020 1118), or by ROBERTUS\nPULLUS. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxxvii. 381.\n\nRUPERT of Deutz (\u2020 1135).\u2014_De Divinis Officiis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nclxx.\n\nGUIGO I. DE CASTRO (Prior of the Grande Chartreuse about\n1137).\u2014_Consuetudines Carthusienses._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clii. 631-759.\n\nHONORIUS of Autun (\u2020 _circ._ 1145).\u2014_Gemma Anim\u00e6._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nclxxii.\n\nJOHANNES BELETH (Professor of Theology at Paris, \u2020 1190).\u2014_Rationale\nDivinorum Officiorum._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii.\n\n_Consuetudines Farfenses_, ed. B. Albers. Stuttgart, 1900. Older editions\nin MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, c. 4, and (HERGOTT) _Vetus Disciplina Monast._\nParis, 1776.\n\nSICARDUS (Bishop of Cremona, \u2020 1215).\u2014_Mitrale._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nccxiii.\n\nINNOCENT III. (Pope, \u2020 1216).\u2014_De S. Altaris Mysterio libri sex._ MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, ccxvii.\n\nODERICUS (Canon of Siena, 1213).\u2014_Ordo Officiorum Eccl. Senensis._ Ed.\nTrombelli. Bononi\u00e6, 1766.\n\nCODINUS.\u2014_Curopalates s. de Officialibus Palatii Constantinopolitani et\nde Officiis Magn\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6._ Rec. Imm. Bekker. Bonn, 1839.\n\n\n(B) MORE RECENT WORKS EMPLOYED OR REFERRED TO\n\n\n(_a_) BY CATHOLIC AUTHORS\n\nALLATIUS, LEO.\u2014_De Dominicis et Hebdomadibus Gr\u00e6corum Recentiorum._ Col.,\n1648.\n\nARENS, FRANZ.\u2014_Der Liber Ordinarius der Essener Stiftskirche_, Essen,\n1901.\n\nASSEMANI, JOS. SIM.\u2014_Kalendaria Ecclesi\u00e6 Univ._ Rom\u00e6, 1730. Six vols.\n\nBAILLET, ADRIEN (\u2020 1706).\u2014_Les Vies des Saints._ Paris, 1703; second ed.\n1739, in ten vols. 4to. Vol. ix. contains a history of the movable feasts.\n\nB\u00c4UMER, SUITB.\u2014_Geschichte des Breviers_, etc. Freiburg, 1895.\n\nBENEDICT XIV. (Prosper Lambertini).\u2014_De Festis D.N. Jesu Christi et B.\nMari\u00e6 Virginis libri duo._ Patavii, 1756.\n\n\u2e3a _Commentarius de Festis B. Virg. Mari\u00e6_, etc. Dillingen, 1754.\n\nBINTERIM, ANTON. JOS.\u2014_Denkw\u00fcrdigkeiten der Kathol. Kirche._ Mainz, 1829,\nespecially vol. v. part i: \u201cDie kirchichle Heortologie und Chronologie.\u201d\n\n\u2e3a _Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen Konzilien._ Mainz, 1836.\n\nCHEVALIER, UL.\u2014_Biblioth\u00e8que Liturgique. Ordinaires de l\u2019Eglise cath.\nde Laon._ Paris, 1897.\u2014_Sacramentaire et Martyrologe de S. Remy et de\nReims._ Paris, 1900. _Ib._ of Bayeux. Paris, 1903.\n\nCOMBEFIS, FR., O.S.D. (\u2020 1679).\u2014_Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria._\nParis, 1662. Eight vols. A collection of sermons of the Fathers and older\nscholastics up to St Thomas Aquinas for the whole ecclesiastical year and\nthe principal saints\u2019 days.\n\nDUCHESNE, L.\u2014_Origines du Culte Chr\u00e9tien._ Third ed. Paris. [Engl.\ntransl. by M. L. Maclure, London, 1903.]\n\nGAVANTUS, BARTH. (Mediol.).\u2014_Thesaurus Sacrorum Rituum._ Rom\u00e6, 1628.\nAmstelod., 1634.\n\n\u2e3a _Id. op._, with _Nov\u00e6 observationes et additiones_, etc., by C. M.\nMERATI. Rom\u00e6, 1735. Aug. Vind., 1740.\n\nGRETSER, JAC., S. J.\u2014_De Festis Christianorum libri duo._ (Ingolstadii,\n1612), with Auctarium.\n\nGU\u00c9RANGER, PROSP.\u2014_L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Liturgique._ Translated anonymously into\nGerman, with a Preface by J. B. HEINRICH. MAINZ, 1888-1894. Thirteen vols.\n\nGUYET, CAR.\u2014_Heortologia._ Venetiis, 1729. Almost entirely occupied with\nthe rubrics.\n\nHOEYNCK, F. A.\u2014_Gesch. der kirchl. Liturgie des Bistums Augsburg._\nAugsburg, 1889.\n\nHOLWECK, F. G.\u2014_Fasti Mariani._ Frib. Brisg., 1892.\n\nMABILLON, JOH.\u2014_De Liturgia Gallicana libri tres._ Paris, 1685, and in\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii.\n\nMART\u00c8NE, EDMUND.\u2014_De Antiquis Ecclesi\u00e6 Disciplinis._ Antwerp, 1737.\n\nMARZOHL, J., and J. SCHNELLER.\u2014_Liturgia Sacra oder Gebr\u00e4uche und\nAltert\u00fcmer der Kathol. Kirche._ Five vols. Lucerne, 1841. Vol. iii. pp.\n55-172 deals with the ecclesiastical year and festivals.\n\nMIGNE, ABB\u00c9.\u2014_Diction. des C\u00e9r\u00e9monies et des Rites Sacr\u00e9s._ German\ntransl. by E. Schinke and Jos. K\u00fchn. Breslau, 1850.\n\nMORCELLI, SEPH. A.\u2014\u039c\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f19\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, _sive\nKalendarium Eccl. Constantinopolitan\u00e6 Mille Annorum Insigne_. Rom\u00e6, 1788.\n\nMURATORI, L. A.\u2014_Liturgia Rom. Vetus, tria Sacramentaria complectens\nLeon., Gel., et Antiquum Gregor. Accedunt Missale Francorum, Gothicum et\nGalicana duo_, etc. Venetiis, 1748. The Preface and the _Gelasianum_ are\nprinted in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv.\n\nNICKEL, MARC. AD.\u2014_Die heiligen Zeiten und Feste nach ihrer Geschichte\nund Feier._ Six vols. Mainz, 1825-1838.\n\nNILLES, NIC. S. J.\u2014_Kalendarium Manuale utriusque Ecclesi\u00e6 Orient. et\nOccid._ Ed. Altera. Two vols. \u0152niponte, 1896.\n\nPILGRAM.\u2014_Kalendarium Chronol. medii potissimum \u00e6vi monumentis\naccomodatum._ Vienna, 1781.\n\nPROBST, FERD.\u2014_Die \u00e4ltesten R\u00f6mischen Sakramentarien und Ordines\nerl\u00e4utert._ Paderborn, 1892.\n\nSCHMID, FRZ. X.\u2014_Liturgik der christkathol. Religion._ Three vols.\nPassau, 1831. Vol. iii. pp. 441-610 deals with the festivals.\n\nSCHULTING, CORN.\u2014_Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica._ Col. Agr., 1599. Tom. i. c.\n9-17 and tom. ii.\n\nTHOMASSIN, LOUIS (Cong. Orat. Presb.)\u2014_Trait\u00e9 des Festes de l\u2019Eglise._\nThe second vol. contains \u201cTrait\u00e9s Historiques et Dogmatiques sur divers\nPoints de la Discipline de l\u2019Eglise et de la Morale Chr\u00e9tienne.\u201d Paris,\n1683.\n\nTOMASI, GIUS. MARIA (Cardinal, \u2020 1731).\u2014_Opera._ Ed. Vezzosi. Rome, 1748,\netc.\n\nVEITH, P. ILDEFOUS.\u2014On the Latin Martyrologies in the _Hist.-pol.\nBl\u00e4tter_, 1895 and 1896. On the Greek Martyrologies in _Studien und\nMitteilungen aus dem Benediktinerorden_, 1896 and 1897. See the\n_Katholik_, 1894, ii. 314 _et seqq._\n\n\n(_b_) BY NON-CATHOLIC AUTHORS\n\nACHELIS, HANS.\u2014_Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert._ Berlin,\n1900.\n\nALT, HEINRICH (Preacher of La Charit\u00e9).\u2014_Das Kirchenjahr._ Berlin, 1860.\n\nAUGUSTI, J. CHR. WILH.\u2014_Denkw\u00fcrdigkeiten._ Leipzig, 1817, etc. Vols.\ni.-iii.: \u201cDie Feste der alten Christen f\u00fcr Religionslehrer und gebildete\nLaien aller Konfessionen.\u201d (The author gives one or two sermons from the\nFathers for each feast as an appendix.)\n\nDANIEL, HENR. ADALF.\u2014_Codex liturgicus ecclesi\u00e6 univers\u00e6._ Four vols.\nLipsi\u00e6, 1847.\n\nDRESSER, MATTH.\u2014_De festis et pr\u00e6cipius anni partibus._ Lipsi\u00e6, 1584.\n\nERBES.\u2014_Das Syrische Martyrologium und der Weihnachtsfestkreis_ in\nBrieger\u2019s \u201cZeitschr. f\u00fcr Kirchengesch,\u201d 1905, iv., and 1906, i.\n\nHALTAUS, CHR. GOTTLOB.\u2014_Jahrzeitbuch der Deutschen des Mittelalters._\nTranslated by G. A. Scheffer. Erlangen, 1797.\n\nHOSPINIANUS (WIRTH), RUD.\u2014_De Festis Christianorum._ Genev\u00e6, 1574.\nTurici, 1593.\n\nMALTZEW, A. VON.\u2014_Fasten- und Blumen-Triodion_, etc. Berlin, 1899.\nThe Introduction deals with the ecclesiastical year of the Orthodox,\nArmenian, and Roman Catholic Churches.\n\nRANKE, E.\u2014_Das Kirchl. Perikopensystem aus den \u00e4ltesten Urkunden der\nr\u00f6mischen Liturgie dargelegt und erl\u00e4utert._ Berlin, 1847.\n\nSTRAUSS, FRIEDR.\u2014_Das evangelische Kirchenjahr in seinem Zusammenhange\ndargestellt._ Berlin, 1850.\n\nUSENER, HERM.\u2014_Religionsgeschichte Untersuchungen._ Das Weihnachtsfest.\nBonn, 1889.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n  SECT.                                                               PAGE\n\n                                 PART I\n\n                    THE CHURCH\u2019S FESTIVALS IN GENERAL\n\n     1. INTRODUCTION                                                     1\n\n     2. SUNDAY AND ITS OBSERVANCE AS A DAY OF REST                       6\n\n     3. THE CLASSIFICATION OF FESTIVALS                                 13\n\n     4. THE GRADUAL INCREASE OF FESTIVALS. THEIR DECREASE IN THE\n          LAST THREE CENTURIES. THE PRESENT POSITION                    16\n\n                                 PART II\n\n                      CHAPTER I.\u2014THE CHURCH\u2019S YEAR\n\n        _A._ EASTER, AND THE SACRED SEASONS CONNECTED WITH EASTER\n\n     1. EASTER, ITS NAME AND HISTORY                                    37\n\n     2. THE CONNECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL WITH THE JEWISH        41\n\n     3. THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO EASTER BEING A MOVABLE FEAST     46\n\n     4. THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DATE OF EASTER, AND THE\n          ATTEMPTS MADE TO COMMEMORATE THE DAY OF THE MONTH\n          ON WHICH CHRIST DIED                                          52\n\n     5. THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATION OF HOLY WEEK AND EASTER              59\n             PALM SUNDAY                                                66\n             MAUNDY THURSDAY                                            69\n             GOOD FRIDAY                                                73\n             HOLY SATURDAY                                              79\n             EASTER AND THE EASTER OCTAVE                               84\n\n     6. THE PREPARATION FOR EASTER\u2014QUADRAGESIMA AND THE FAST            88\n\n     7. THE SEASON OF PREPARATION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE\n          CHURCH\u2019S YEAR                                                100\n\n     8. THE TRANSFIGURATION                                            105\n\n     9. THE ASCENSION                                                  106\n\n    10. WHITSUNDAY                                                     109\n\n    11. TRINITY SUNDAY                                                 116\n\n    12. CORPUS CHRISTI. THE FORTY HOURS\u2019 PRAYER. THE FESTIVAL\n          OF THE SACRED HEART                                          119\n\n                 _B._ CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTMAS SEASON\n\n     1. CHRISTMAS                                                      127\n\n     2. ADVENT AND THE SUNDAYS UNTIL SEPTUAGESIMA                      158\n\n     3. THE OCTAVE OF CHRISTMAS. THE CIRCUMCISION. THE NEW YEAR        163\n\n     4. THE EPIPHANY                                                   166\n\n     5. THE PURIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (CANDLEMAS)        173\n\n     6. THE SUNDAYS OF THE CHURCH\u2019S YEAR AS FORMING CONNECTING\n          LINKS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL FEASTS                           176\n\n                _C._ OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE CHURCH\u2019S YEAR\n\n     1. THE EMBERTIDES                                                 183\n\n     2. LITANIES OR ROGATIONS                                          189\n\n     3. THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH AND THE FESTIVAL OF THE PATRON\n          SAINT                                                        194\n\n                      CHAPTER II.\u2014THE SAINTS\u2019 DAYS\n\n     1. THE ORIGINS OF THE CULTUS OF THE SAINTS AND THE GROUNDS\n          ON WHICH IT RESTS                                            203\n\n     2. THE FESTIVALS OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ST STEPHEN THE\n          PROTO-MARTYR                                                 217\n\n     3. FESTIVALS OF OUR BLESSED LADY IN GENERAL                       225\n\n     4. THE THREE ANCIENT FESTIVALS OF OUR BLESSED LADY\u2014THE\n          NATIVITY, THE ANNUNCIATION, THE ASSUMPTION                   230\n\n     5. INSTITUTION AND SPREAD OF THE FESTIVAL OF THE IMMACULATE\n          CONCEPTION                                                   239\n\n     6. THE LESSER FEASTS OF OUR LADY\u2014\n                i. The Name of Mary                                    264\n               ii. The Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple          265\n              iii. The Visitation                                      266\n               iv. The Feast of the Holy Rosary                        268\n\n     7. THE FEAST OF ST JOSEPH. THE CULTUS OF SS. JOACHIM AND ANNE     272\n\n     8. THE FESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES IN GENERAL                       277\n\n     9. THE FESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES AND EVANGELISTS IN PARTICULAR    282\n                i. St Peter and St Paul                                282\n               ii. The Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chains                      287\n              iii. The Conversion of St Paul                           288\n               iv. St Andrew and St Luke the Evangelist                289\n                v. St James the Great                                  291\n               vi. St Philip and St James the Less                     293\n              vii. St John                                             296\n             viii. St Simon and St Jude (Thaddeus)                     298\n               ix. St Mark the Evangelist                              300\n                x. The Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair                       301\n\n    10. THE FESTIVALS OF ST MARY MAGDALEN, ST CECILIA, AND ST\n          CATHERINE\u2014\n               i. St Mary Magdalen                                     309\n              ii. St Cecilia                                           315\n             iii. St Catherine                                         321\n\n    11. THE FESTIVAL OF ALL SAINTS                                     323\n\n    12. THE COMMEMORATION OF ALL SOULS                                 326\n\n    13. THE FESTIVALS OF THE ANGELS                                    328\n\n    14. THE TWO FESTIVALS IN HONOUR OF THE HOLY CROSS                  333\n\n                                PART III\n\n        THE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL\n                              YEAR IS BASED\n\n     1. THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES IN GENERAL                             342\n\n     2. THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN CALENDARS                               347\n\n     3. THE ARIAN CALENDAR OF THE FOURTH CENTURY                       352\n\n     4. THE SO-CALLED MARTYROLOGIUM HIERONYMIANUM                      363\n\n     5. THE LECTIONARY AND MARTYROLOGY OF SILOS                        378\n\n     6. EGYPTIAN (COPTIC) CALENDARS AND SYNAXARIA                      381\n\n     7. THE MENOLOGY OF CONSTANTINOPLE                                 387\n\n     8. THE MENOLOGY OF THE EMPEROR BASIL II., AND THE SYRIAN\n          LECTIONARY OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY                           390\n\n     9. THE KALENDARIUM MARMOREUM OF NAPLES                            394\n\n    10. WESTERN AUTHORITIES FROM THE SIXTH TO THE EIGHTH CENTURIES     396\n\n    11. THE MARTYROLOGIES OF BEDE, FLORUS, WANDELBERT, AND \u0152NGUS       401\n\n    12. THE MARTYROLOGIES OF ADO, USUARDUS, RABANUS MAURUS, AND\n          NOTKER BALBULUS                                              405\n\n    13. IMPORTANT CALENDARS FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE ELEVENTH\n          CENTURIES                                                    410\n\n        CONCLUSION                                                     419\n\n                                APPENDIX\n\n     I. CLASSIFICATION OF FEASTS IN THE ROMAN CALENDAR                 421\n\n    II. ON SOME LISTS OF FESTIVALS                                     421\n\n   III. THE FESTIVALS OF OBLIGATION AS OBSERVED IN DIFFERENT\n          COUNTRIES                                                    423\n\n    IV. LITURGICAL VESTMENTS                                           428\n\n     V. THE WORD MASS AS A NAME FOR THE SACRIFICE OF THE ALTAR         430\n\n    VI. ON THE DATE FOR CHRISTMAS IN HIPPOLYTUS                        437\n\n   VII. CHRISTMAS IN ENGLAND DURING THE COMMONWEALTH                   439\n\n  VIII. EXCURSUS ON THE THREE HOLY KINGS                               441\n\n    IX. THE GREEK ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR                                  442\n\n     X. ENGLISH WRITERS AND THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION     445\n\n    XI. EXCURSUS ON THE SO-CALLED TYPICA                               447\n\n        CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE                                            449\n\n        INDEX                                                          457\n\n\n\n\nHEORTOLOGY\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\nTHE CHURCH\u2019S FESTIVALS IN GENERAL\n\n\n1. _Introduction_\n\nThe external worship of God, if it is not to remain vague and indefinite,\nfinds expression on the one hand through certain elements belonging to\nthe senses, such as signs and words, and on the other it is connected\nwith places and times. By the changes of day and night, of seasons\nand years, Creation calls upon man to raise his mind to God at stated\ntimes and to enter into communion with Him. The day with its brightness\nis suited for work, night with its stillness invites man to turn his\nthoughts in upon himself. The change of day and night calls upon us to\nbegin the day\u2019s work with God, and to commend ourselves to His keeping\nin the darkness of the night. The course of the seasons, too, matures\nthe fruits of the earth necessary for our support, and the succession of\nyears reminds us of the fleeting nature of everything earthly, for our\nwhole life is composed of successive years. Consequently the civilised\npeoples already in remote antiquity have found a call to the worship of\nGod in the changing seasons and times, and so have introduced sacred\nseasons. Sacred times and places are common to all religions in general.\nThe change of times, bringing with them corresponding changes in nature,\nmade a religious impression upon mankind. In turn, man sanctified certain\ntimes and dedicated them to God, and these days thus consecrated to God\nbecame festivals.\n\nThe worship of God takes precedence over the daily affairs of common\nlife, and accordingly displaces such of them as are not necessary for\nthe support of natural life or the wellbeing of society. Thus it came\nto pass that the ordinary affairs of life gave place to the worship of\nGod, and rest from labour became an essential part of the worship paid to\nHim. Man abstained from his wonted tasks on certain days, which received\nin consequence a higher consecration. And so among the ancient Romans,\nthe idea of a day of rest and a holy day were intimately connected and\nreceived the name of _feria_. But it was among the Hebrews that the days\nset apart for the worship of God received the most distinctive character\nas days of rest.[1]\n\nThe Christian Church on her part, in wishing that the day set apart\nfor the worship of God should be observed as far as possible as a day\nof rest from labour, acts in accordance with ideas and customs which\nnature itself has planted in the human race, and which need no other\njustification. The term _sabbatismus_ (Sabbath rest) soon entered into\nthe theological language of Christendom, and in public life the Christian\nholy days, at first only Sundays, gradually, even in secular legislation,\nbecame recognised as days of rest, sometimes in a larger and sometimes in\na smaller number.\n\nThe entire number of ecclesiastical holy days and seasons is actually\ncodified for us in the different Church Calendars. Their contents fall\ninto two essentially different divisions, each possessing an entirely\ndifferent origin and history. The first division consists of festivals\nof our Lord, distributed over the year, regulated and co-ordinated\nin accordance with certain laws. The second division consists of\ncommemorations of the saints in no wise connected with the festivals of\nour Lord or with one another. Occupying to some extent an intermediate\nposition between these two chief divisions come the festivals of our\nBlessed Lady, which have this in common with the festivals of the\nsaints, that they fall on fixed days, but, on the other hand, they are\nto a certain extent connected with each other, and with some feasts of\nour Lord. This is carried out in such a way that they are distributed\nthroughout the entire Church\u2019s year, and are included in each of the\nfestal seasons.\n\nThe former of these two divisions is the most important, and its chief\nfeasts are also the oldest. The festivals of our Lord, Easter and\nPentecost especially, compose what is called the Church\u2019s year in the\nstricter sense, and, if they coincide with a saint\u2019s day, they take\nprecedence. The Church\u2019s year is built upon a single basis and according\nto one plan, which did not originate in the mind of any one person, but\ndeveloped out of the historical conditions resulting from the connection\nof Christianity with Judaism.\n\nIn the course of the ecclesiastical year, the Church brings before us the\nchief events in our Lord\u2019s life and the most striking instances of His\nwork of redemption. The central point of the whole is the commemoration\nof His death and resurrection\u2014_i.e._ Easter\u2014to which all other events are\nrelated, whether those which reach backward to Christmas, or those which\nreach onwards to the completion of His redemptive work at Whitsuntide.\nIn addition, there is, on the one hand, Advent, as a time of preparation\nfor our Lord\u2019s coming, reminding us of the four or five thousand years\nwhich intervened between the Creation and that event, and, on the other,\nthe Sundays after Pentecost, representing the period after the foundation\nof the Church, and devoted to the consideration of the redemption won for\nus, along with its doctrines and blessings. The weeks of the year form\nthe links of the chain, each Sunday marking the character of the week\nwhich follows it.\n\nThe sacred seasons, as they pass in orderly succession, give outward\nexpression to the spirit which animates the Church, and are of the\nutmost importance from the point of view of her worship, since they form\none of the chief elements in the instruction of mankind in the truths\nof Christianity. By them one easily becomes familiar with Christianity\nitself.\n\nEvery religion has its festivals, but none has so rich and so carefully\nthought out a system of feasts as the Catholic Church. If we may compare\nit to some artistically constructed edifice, we can regard the festivals\nof our Lord as forming the piers which support all the rest, the lesser\nfeasts as contributing the decorations, and the Sundays, with their\nattendant weeks, as the stones of which the walls are built. Naturally\nall this did not exist at first, but, like many other things in the\nChurch, has grown up into its present proportions from small beginnings.\n\nWe are not told that the Divine Founder of the Church appointed a single\nfestival or left behind Him any instructions on the matter; still the\ngerm, destined by Providence to develop afterwards into the system of\nfestivals with which we are familiar, existed from the beginning. The\nsubsequent rich and varied development of this system was not the work\nof individuals, but was due to the working of the spirit which ever rules\nthe Universal Church, and ever renews itself within her. Love towards the\nRedeemer and gratitude for what He has done for us called the round of\nChristian festivals into being. The authorities in the Church have played\nthe part of the gardener, pruning away superfluous shoots and branches.\nIn view of the numerous institutions of this kind, some of which date\nback to remote antiquity, it was not a mere figure of speech which\nTertullian made use of when, referring to the numerous heathen festivals,\nhe addressed the Christians of his time with the words, \u201cYou have your\nown \u2018_fasti_\u2019\u201d (\u201c_Habes tuos fastos._\u201d\u2014_De Corona_, c. 13).\n\nThe outline of the ecclesiastical year was prefigured in the Old Law,\nwhile the synagogue furnished the fundamental elements in its festivals,\nthe Sabbath in particular, and in the division of the year into weeks.\nThis renders a glance at the religious year of the Jews necessary, for,\napart from it, it is impossible to understand the essential character of\nthe Christian year.\n\nThe Jewish festivals in the time of Christ were instituted either in\ncommemoration of events connected with the divine covenant, such as the\nPassover, or they were of an agrarian character or commemorated some\nnational event, as the dedication of the Temple, Purim, Jom Kippar, etc.\n\nAccording to the dates of their origin they fall into two classes:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The ancient festivals instituted by Moses: the Passover, the Feast\nof Weeks, in the earlier part of the year; the Feast of Trumpets, the\nDay of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles, in autumn, _i.e._ on the\nfirst, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month Tizri.\n\n(_b_) The more recent festivals instituted by the Synagogue, such as the\nDedication of the Temple on the 25th Chisleu; Purim, or the Feast of\nHaman, on the 14th Adar. To these were added four fast days as days of\nnational humiliation.\n\nConsequently, since the death of Christ took place on the first day of\nthe feast of the Passover (15th Nisan), and since the Descent of the Holy\nGhost followed on the day of Pentecost, the chief Jewish feasts served\nas the foundation of the Christian ecclesiastical year, and the Apostles\ncould join with the Jews in their Passover celebration. Certainly the\nobject of their feast was very different from that of the Jews, yet,\noutwardly there was no separation from the synagogue.\n\n\n2. _Sunday and its Observance as a Day of Rest_\n\nThe Sabbath and the week of seven days, by their appointment in the\nancient Law, formed already a necessary element of the ecclesiastical\nyear and maintained their position in the Church. The division of the\nyear into weeks is not specifically Jewish, but rather Semitic, since we\nfind it in existence in ancient Babylon, though there a new week began\nwith the first day of every month, and the first, seventh, fourteenth,\ntwenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month were always days of\nrest.[2] This system of dividing time into weeks received a religious\nconsecration among the Jews, inasmuch as the Sabbath rest was enjoined\nby the Law under the severest sanctions. All servile work of whatsoever\nkind must be laid aside on the Sabbath, according to the Jewish law. It\nwas not even permitted to light a fire or prepare food. Important as\nwas the place given to rest, it was, however, only one part, and that a\nsubordinate part of the Sabbath festival. The most important part was the\nperformance of the acts of divine worship God enjoined upon the people,\nthat is to say the sacrifice of a holocaust, consisting of two yearling\nlambs, along with \u201cflour tempered with oil and the libations.\u201d[3]\n\nThere is no evidence of the Sabbath having been abrogated by Christ or\nthe Apostles, but St Paul declared its observance was not binding on\nGentile converts, who soon formed the majority of those converted to the\nfaith; and in Col. ii. 16, he classes it along with the feasts of the new\nmoon. Accordingly, the observance of the Sabbath fell more and more into\nthe background, yet not without leaving some traces behind.[4] It appears\nat first to have rather existed side by side with Sunday.[5] Among the\nChristians, the first day of the Jewish week, the _prima sabbati_, the\npresent Sunday, was held in honour as the day of our Lord\u2019s resurrection\nand was called the Lord\u2019s Day.[6] This name took the place of the name\n_dies solis_, formerly in use among the Greeks and Romans. The different\ndays of the week were named after the heavenly bodies, which in turn\ntook their names from the chief divinities of heathen mythology. Thus\nthe names _dies solis_, _lun\u00e6_, _Martis_, etc., were very general and\nwidespread in antiquity. The Christians did not employ these titles\nfor liturgical purposes, but called the week-days simply _feri\u00e6_, and\ndistinguished them merely by numbers.[7] In the romance languages the\necclesiastical name for Sunday, _dies dominica_, has quite taken the\nplace of all others.\n\nThese names were already in use in the Apostolic period, and Sunday\nwas the day on which the eucharistic worship of God was performed.[8]\nChristian worship in the earliest time consisted of two parts. Already,\nin the letters of Pliny, we find mention of a nocturnal service of\npreparation at which psalms were sung, prayers recited, and passages\nread from Holy Scripture. The eucharistic part of the service followed\nat dawn. These two parts appear sharply distinguished, especially in\nthe diary of Silvia (or Etheria). The vigil service developed out of\nthe first part. The second part in Silvia\u2019s diary usually bears the\nname of _Oblatio_, while the term _missa_ denotes merely the dismissal\nof the faithful and the respective divisions of the psalmody.[9] There\nalso seems to have been a general confession of sins at the commencement\nof the service, which explains the exhortation of the \u201cTeaching of the\nApostles,\u201d that the faithful should confess their sins on Sunday. At\nany rate, Eusebius plainly refers to the practice, and adds, \u201cWe, the\nadherents of the New Covenant, are constantly nourished by the Body of\nChrist; we continually partake of the Blood of the Lamb, and celebrate\nevery week on Sunday the mysteries of the true Lamb, by Whom we have been\nredeemed.\u201d[10] Upon the cessation of persecution, the present arrangement\nof divine service soon became established\u2014that is to say, Mass and Sermon\nat nine A.M., with Vespers and Compline as popular devotions in the\nafternoon.\n\nBesides Sunday, at least in Tertullian\u2019s time, the liturgy was performed\non Wednesday and Friday, the so-called Station Days. In the East, on\nthe other hand, it was performed only on Saturdays, at least in many\nplaces.[11] To put on one\u2019s best clothes for attendance at worship was\na custom of the heathen, which the Christians retained, and which has\nsurvived to the present day.[12]\n\nAs to the grounds for celebrating Sunday, the Fathers are unanimous from\nthe earliest times\u2014it was kept as a festival because Christ rose again on\nthe first day of the Jewish week.[13] A clear indication of this is given\nby the practice observed in Jerusalem in the fourth century of reading at\nthe psalmody on each of the Sundays in Quinquagesima, the Gospel of the\nresurrection of Jesus.[14]\n\nThe first Christian Emperor did his best to promote the observance of\nSunday and to show it all respect as a day of prayer. He gave leave\nto the Christian soldiers of his army to be absent from duty in order\nthat they might attend divine service. The heathen soldiers, however,\nhad to assemble in camp without their arms, and offer up a prayer for\nthe Emperor and his family.[15] Eusebius, in his \u201cLife of Constantine,\u201d\nmentions in detail these pious endeavours of the Emperor, yet his\ninformation must have been incomplete, since Sozomen[16] informs us that\nConstantine also forbade the law-courts to sit on Sunday. It has been\nattempted to throw doubt on the veracity of this information because of\nthe silence of Eusebius; but Sozomen was an advocate, and must have been\nbetter up in the existing legislation than Eusebius, and, moreover, a\nclear grasp of the point at issue along with a lucid representation of\nall the facts concerned is not one of the excellences of Eusebius. The\ninformation given by Sozomen is further supported by the fact that a law\nof Constantine\u2019s directed to the same end is in existence.[17]\n\nThe prohibition of the transaction of legal business on Sunday was\nfrequently renewed by his successors, and extended so as to suspend the\ncourts of arbitration, and to prohibit summonses for debt.[18]\n\nA law of Valentinian II., in A.D. 425, forbade games in the Circus, and\nall theatrical representations on Sunday. To the honour of the Emperors\nit must be said that they suppressed these representations more than\nonce.[19] The Emperor Leo also renewed the law concerning the Sunday\nrest, and went so far as to forbid music on Sundays,[20] but his law is\nnot included in the general collection of statutes, having been repealed\nafter a short time.\n\nAs regards working on Sunday, the Church very carefully avoided the\nadoption of a pharisaical observance of the day; but, from the beginning,\nthere was a consensus of Christian opinion against the continuance\nof all work which rendered the attendance of the faithful at divine\nworship impossible\u2014as, for instance, the labours of slaves or the\nwork of servants. In course of time this was extended so as to exclude\nall kinds of work out of keeping with the dignity of the day. As to\ndetails, different views prevailed to a great extent in different places\nand times.[21] The first Christian Emperor had already, according to\nEusebius,[22] made a law prescribing throughout his Empire rest on\nSundays, and even on Fridays as well. Ecclesiastical legislation on its\npart maintained that slaves must have sufficient free time to attend\ndivine worship and receive religious instruction in church. Attendance\nat this was regarded as the duty of all grown up Christians.[23] For\nthe rest, the prohibition of work on Sunday was not always regarded in\nantiquity as of general obligation. Thus, for example, the Council of\nLaodicea forbade Christians on the one hand to celebrate Saturday in the\nJewish manner, and, on the other, enjoined rest from labour only \u201cin so\nfar as it was possible.\u201d[24]\n\nThat the establishment of rest from labour had special reference to\nslaves is shown by the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In them we\nhave (8, 33) the days on which slaves were to be free from labour once\nmore enumerated in detail, and the limits of the earlier legislation\nconsiderably extended.\n\nDays of rest for slaves were to be: Saturday and Sunday, Holy Week\nand Easter Week, the Ascension, Whitsunday, Christmas, Epiphany, all\nfestivals of Apostles, St Stephen\u2019s Day, and the feasts of certain\nmartyrs. Naturally the object of this ordinance was not to make all\nthese days festivals in the strict sense of the word.\n\nIn his anxiety to do honour to the holy days of the Church, the first\nChristian Emperor went still further. He desired to make Friday, the\nday of Christ\u2019s death, a day of rest and devotion as well.[25] We have\nno information as to how far this regulation took practical effect\nduring his life. No trace of such a custom exists at a later date except\namong the Nestorians. How earnest he was in securing the execution of\nthese decrees is shown by the fact that he commanded the prefects of\nthe provinces not only to observe Sundays, but also to celebrate the\ncommemorations of the martyrs, within their jurisdictions.[26]\n\nIt has been already observed that Saturday as well as Sunday had\nits liturgical observance. In certain Eastern countries it attained\nto a position almost equal to that of Sunday. For, in the Apostolic\nConstitutions, it is laid down that the faithful shall attend divine\nservice on this day also, and abstain from servile work,[27] although the\nrank of Sunday was acknowledged to be higher.[28] The Council of Laodicea\nforbade indeed, as we have observed above, the abandonment of work on\nSaturday, but it enjoined the reading of the Gospel as on Sunday (Can.\n16). Traces of this pre-eminence of Saturday among the week-days exists\nat the present time in the Churches of the East.[29]\n\nIn conclusion, it is to be noticed that, in the Middle Ages, the rest\nfrom labour commenced, contrary to our present custom, with the Vespers\nof Saturday. Pope Alexander III., however, decreed that local custom\nshould retain its prescriptive right, and so it came to pass that the\npractice of reckoning the feast day from midnight to midnight became\ngeneral.[30]\n\n\n3. _The Classification of Festivals_\n\nAccording to the points of view taken, festivals may be divided into\ndifferent classes:\u2014\n\n1. According to the object of the festival, into festivals of our Lord\nand festivals of the saints.\n\nThe former fall into three divisions: (_a_) movable feasts\u2014Easter,\nPentecost, etc.; (_b_) immovable feasts\u2014Christmas, Epiphany, etc.; (_c_)\nsuch as are not included in the above cycles and are immovable, _e.g._,\nthe Transfiguration, Invention of the Cross, etc.\n\nThe saints whose feasts are celebrated are either Old Testament\npersonages\u2014although these do not appear in the Roman Calendar as they\ndo in others, especially those of the Oriental Churches\u2014or Apostles,\nmartyrs, virgins, confessors, angels, and, finally, the Mother of our\nLord.\n\n2. With regard to their observance, festivals may be either local or\ngeneral.\n\n3. According to their character, we may theoretically divide the\nfestivals into commemorative and devotional festivals. Commemorative\nfestivals are those which celebrate a historical event, _e.g._, the\nbirth, and death of Jesus, the death of an Apostle, of a martyr,\netc. These, in many cases, are celebrated on the actual day of the\nevent commemorated. As devotional festivals, we may rank those which\ncelebrate some mystery of the Faith, _e.g._, the Holy Trinity, or those\nwhich, although they commemorate a particular event, such as the\nTransfiguration, do not celebrate it on the day on which it actually\nhappened.\n\nSince the number of festivals altered much in the course of centuries,\nand their objects are so various, they are distinguished from one another\nby differences of rank and a whole series of gradations has arisen.\n\nIn the first place there are purely ecclesiastical festivals whose\ncelebration is confined within the four walls of the Church (_festa\nchori_), and festivals which have their bearing upon the common life of\nthe people, chiefly on account of the rest from labour which is conjoined\nwith them (_festa fori_).\n\nThe so-called _feri\u00e6_ and the festivals strictly so called are clearly\ndistinguished from one another. According to the practice of the Church,\nthe ordinary days of the year have their place in the liturgy, and share\nto a certain extent in the festal character of the season, although\ndistinguished from those days on which is commemorated some mystery of\nour redemption or the memory of a saint. These latter are holy days\n(_festa_) in a higher sense.\n\nThese holy days again are divided into greater or lesser feasts\u2014in the\nlanguage of the rubrics, into _festa duplicia_ and _simplicia_, with\nan intermediate class, the _semi-duplicia_. This is more marked in the\narrangements of the Breviary than in the Missal. This does not exhaust\nthe differences between festivals, for there are further distinctions\nin their rank, especially in the case of the festivals of our Lord and\nof the chief mysteries of our redemption, _i.e._ _duplicia majora_,\nand _duplicia prim\u00e6_ and _secund\u00e6 classis_. The _festa duplicia prim\u00e6\nclassis_ are usually kept up for eight days\u2014the so-called octave; so too\nsome of the _secund\u00e6 classis_.\n\nThe different rank of feasts is not so elaborate among the Greeks\nand Russians, for they divide their festivals simply into greater,\nintermediate, and lesser, which are marked in their Calendars by special\nsigns.\n\nThe octave which belongs to the chief festivals has its origin in\nJudaism, for the Jews prolonged for eight days the festivals which\ncommemorated the two chief religious and political events in their\nhistory\u2014the Exodus from Egypt or the Passover, and the Dedication of the\nTemple.[31] With regard to the Passover, there was another reason for\nprolonging the feast during eight days. Since many Jews, after the Exile,\nremained scattered throughout various countries, there was a risk, owing\nto the uncertain character of the Jewish Calendar, that the correct date\nof the feast might not be known to all. In order to avoid the misfortune\nof celebrating the feast on a wrong day, the feast was prolonged for\neight days, one of which would certainly be the right day. The first,\nsecond, seventh, and last days were especially regarded as festivals.[32]\nThen Pentecost and Christmas were also observed with an octave, and so\nmatters remained for a long period. It was owing to the influence which\nthe Franciscan Order exerted in liturgical affairs that the number of\noctaves was increased. The Franciscans provided an inordinate number\nof festivals with octaves in their Breviary, and observed each day of\nthe octave with the rite of a _festum duplex_. In this way a number of\nsaints\u2019 festivals, in addition to the feasts of our Lord, were provided\nwith octaves. According to the ancient Roman rite, the observance of\nthe octave consisted merely in a simple commemoration of the festival\ninserted in the office on the eighth day, without taking any notice of\nthe festival on the intervening six days.[33] A single example of this\nancient custom still exists in the Breviary in the _festum S. Agnetis\nsecundo_.\n\nFormerly saints\u2019 festivals were not distinguished from one another in\nrank, but all were kept with the rite of a _festum simplex_, as it\nis now called, and also were provided with one lection only, as the\nBreviary developed. An alteration in this respect was introduced by\nGregory VII., who appointed that the commemoration of Popes who were also\nmartyrs should be celebrated as _festa duplicia_.[34] Next, Boniface\nVIII., in 1298, ordered that the feasts of the Apostles, Evangelists,\nand four great doctors of the Western Church should be advanced to the\nsame rank.[35] The Franciscans brought about a complete revolution by\ncelebrating in their Breviary and in their churches all festivals of the\nsaints as _duplicia_, and by adding a number of new saints.[36] Pius\nV. reduced the rank of many feasts, but over and above the _duplicia_\nhe permitted doubles of the first and second class. To the ordinary\n_duplex_, or _duplex simpliciter per annum_, Clement VIII. added yet\nanother species, the _duplex majus_.[37] Thus, according to the present\nregulations, feasts are ranked either as _simplex_, _semiduplex_,\n_duplex_, _majus_, _duplex II._ and _I. classis_.[38]\n\n\n4. _The Gradual Increase of Festivals. Their Decrease in the Last Three\nCenturies. The Present Position_\n\nIt is a recognised fact in history that the festivals of the Church in\nthe course of centuries considerably increased in number, and that, when\nthis increase had reached its highest point, their number began again to\ndiminish. This was partly effected by means of legislation and without\ndisturbance, but partly by the violent proceedings attendant upon the\nFrench Revolution. The stages in this process will be best understood\nfrom an account of the secular and ecclesiastical legislation by which\nthey were brought about.\n\nTertullian[39] is the first ecclesiastical writer who enumerates the\nfeasts celebrated among the Christians. The only festivals known to him,\nand to Origen after him, are Easter and Pentecost.[40] His statement\nis all the more noteworthy, because the exigencies of his controversy\nwith Celsus required he should specify all the festivals by name. These\nare, besides Sundays, the Parasceve, Easter, and Pentecost. Tertullian\nand Origen are witnesses respectively for the East and West, and since\ntheir evidence coincides, it is certain that in the third century only\nthe first germs existed of that Church-life which subsequently was to\nreach so rich a development. The cessation of persecution removed those\nhindrances which up to then had stood in the way of its evolution.\n\nThe increase of festivals can now be traced with the assistance of\nsecular legislation, inasmuch as the Christian Emperors prohibited the\nsitting of the law-courts and games in the circus on certain days. It\nhas been already shown that Constantine, as early as 321, appointed that\nno legal business should be transacted on all Sundays of the year. In a\nproclamation concerning the regulation of legal vacations, put forth by\nValentinian II. and his colleague in the Empire, and dated from Rome on\nthe 7th August 389, the seven days before and after Easter are added to\nthe Sundays.[41] In the same way as special sittings of the law-courts\nwere abolished on Sundays, so, later on, the proceedings before the judge\nof arbitration were forbidden.\n\nWhen a day became recognised as exempt from legal business, this did\nnot at once render it a festival or holy day, otherwise, according to\nthe law of 389, there would have been fifteen consecutive holy days.\nThe prohibition of legal proceedings in the courts on a given day, had\nregard, in the first place, to the removal of all hindrances which\nmight interfere with attendance at divine worship on the part of those\nemployed therein. In the second place, however, it must be remembered\nthat in those days the sittings of the criminal courts almost always\nimplied the application of torture; and such proceedings on holy days\nseemed especially out of place. This must also have been the reason why\nValentinian and his colleague forbade prosecutions in the criminal courts\nthroughout the whole of Lent. He certainly did not aim at changing all\nthe days of Lent into feast-days. This law was renewed by Justinian.[42]\n\nThe legislation concerning Christmas and Epiphany exhibits a good\ndeal of vacillation, probably connected with the fact that these two\nfestivals were not yet generally celebrated and recognised everywhere\nin the fourth century. They seem to have been originally mentioned in\nthe law of 389, but to have been struck out by the redactors of the\n_Codex Theodosianus_.[43] It was only through the inclusion of the law\nin question in the Code of Justinian that they were finally marked\nas days on which the law-courts did not sit. This privilege had been\nalready taken away from heathen festivals by a law of Valentinian and his\ncolleague in 392.[44]\n\nAlongside these laws we find others forbidding games in the Circus and\nin the theatres. These interfered with the attendance of many persons\nat divine service as much as, or even more than, the proceedings in the\nlaw-courts, for they began early in the morning and lasted the whole\nday. Valentinian II. and his colleague, on the 19th June 386, re-enacted\none of their earlier laws forbidding the performance of such plays on\nSundays.[45] Through later legislation, it came to pass that the same\nheld good for the seven days before and after Easter as well, and in 395\nwere added all the days of the year which were regarded as _feri\u00e6_.[46]\nFinally, a law of Theodosius II. of 1st February 425, gives a list of\nall those days on which these spectacles (_theatrorum atque circensium\nvoluptas_) were forbidden. These were all the Sundays of the year,\nChristmas, Epiphany, and the whole period from Easter to Pentecost.[47]\nIn A.D. 400 Arcadius and Honorius forbade races on Sundays, plainly for\nthe reason that they drew away the people from divine service.[48]\n\nIn order to illustrate the increase in the number of festivals, we make\nuse, as we have said, of the official decrees on the subject put forth by\nthe authorities both in Church and State, where such are at our disposal.\nThe service-books, which do not always give the distinction between\n_festa in choro_ and _in foro_ with precision, will be consulted when\nnecessary.\n\nA list of feasts and sacred seasons appears for the first time in the\nfifth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, viz. the Birthday of our Lord\n(25th December), Epiphany, Lent, the Holy Week of the Passover, the\nPassover of the Resurrection, the Sunday after Easter, on which is read\nthe Gospel of unbelieving Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost. This gives\nthe festivals in the fourth century. Other evidence of the same period,\n_i.e._ the sermons of Chrysostom and others, affords certain proof for\nthe existence of five or six festivals only, according as Good Friday is\nincluded among them or not, viz. Christmas, Epiphany, the Passion, the\nResurrection, the Ascension of Christ, and Pentecost.[49]\n\nA list of the festivals celebrated at Tours and in the neighbouring\nAbbey of St Martin\u2019s during the fifth century, is given us by Perpetuus\n(461-91), the sixth bishop of the see.[50] In this is shown the days on\nwhich the principal service is held in the cathedral, and those on which\nit is held in other churches in the town:\u2014\n\n    _Natalis Domini._ _In ecclesia._\n\n    _Epiphania._ _In ecclesia._\n\n    _Natalis S. Joannis_ (24th June). _Ad basilicam domni Martini._\n\n    _Natalis S. Petri episcopatus_ (22nd February). _Ad ipsius\n    basilicam._\n\n    _VI._ (_al. V._) _Cal. Apr. Resurrectio Domini Nostri J. Chr._\n    _Ad basilicam domni Martini._[51]\n\n    _Pascha._ _In ecclesia._\n\n    _Dies Ascensionis. In basilica domni Martini._\n\n    _Dies Quinquagesimus_ (Pentecost). _In ecclesia._\n\n    _Passio S. Joannis._ _Ad basilicam in baptisterio._\n\n    _Natalis SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli._ _Ad ipsorum basilica._\n\n    _Natalis S. Martini_ (_i.e._ the day of his consecration as\n    bishop, the 4th July). _Ad ejus basilicam._\n\n    _Natalis S. Symphoriani_ (22nd July). _Ad basilicam domni\n    Martini._\n\n    _Natalis S. Litorii_ (13th September). _Ad ejus basilicam._\n\n    _Natalis S. Martini_ (11th November). _Ad ejus basilicam._\n\n    _Natalis S. Brictii_ (13th November). _Ad basilicam domni\n    Martini._\n\n    _Natalis S. Hilarii_ (13th January). _Ad basilicam domni\n    Martini._\n\nThe regulations for festivals contained in the statutes of Sonnatius,\nBishop of Reims (614-31), show a further development. It marks as\nfestivals: _Nativitas Domini_, _Circumcisio_, _Epiphania_, _Annunciatio\nBeat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6_, _Resurrectio Domini cum die sequenti_, _Ascensio Domini_,\n_dies Pentecostes_, _Nativitas beati Joannis Baptist\u00e6_, _Nativitas\napostolorum Petri et Pauli_, _Assumptio beat\u00e6 Mari\u00e6_, _ejusdem\nNativitas_, _Nativitas Andre\u00e6 apostoli et omnes dies dominicales_. These\nthirteen days were to be celebrated \u201c_absque omni opere forensi_.\u201d[52]\nThe omission of Candlemas Day is remarkable. The day after Easter appears\nfor the first time as a holy day. The Council of Ma\u00e7on, however, had\nalready gone further and forbidden (Can. 2) servile work throughout the\nwhole of Easter week. This extension of the festival was probably at that\ntime unique, while we often meet with it in the ninth century, when it\nhad probably become general.\n\nAccording to this document, the number of days which in the course\nof the year were exempt from labour did not exceed sixty-three in\nthe seventh century. Their number was considerably increased in the\nsubsequent period. In the notes on festivals ascribed to St Boniface, it\nhas increased to seventy-one, including the two Sundays on which Easter\nand Pentecost fall. These notes are included in the collection known as\n_statuta qu\u00e6dam S. Bonifacii_,[53] and even if they do not owe their\norigin to St Boniface, they belong without doubt to his period. Days in\nwhich rest from labour (_sabbatismus_) is enjoined in this document are\nChristmas (four days), the Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, Easter\n(four days), Ascension, Nativity of St John the Baptist, the festival of\nSS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, St Andrew\u2019s\nDay (30th November). Pentecost is passed over because it has already been\nmentioned in the thirty-fourth canon, but it was to be celebrated in the\nsame manner as Easter, that is, during four days with a vigil.\n\nIn the Frankish Empire, during the ninth century, the regulations for\nholy days were everywhere reduced to order, and in consequence we\npossess numerous ordinances bearing on the subject. With the exception\nof festivals of local saints and patrons, they present little variety.\nWith regard to the _Assumptio B.V.M._ alone, there seems to have been\nsome fluctuations in France at the beginning of the ninth century,\nas a statement of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 proves. The\nCouncil enumerates the following festivals: _Natalis Domini_, _natales\nS. Stephani_, _S. Joannis Evangelist\u00e6_, _SS. Innocentium_, _octabas\nDomini_ (the Circumcision), _Epiphania_, _Purificatio S. Mari\u00e6_, _Pascha\ndies octo_, _Litania major, scensa Domini_, _Pentecoste_, _natales S.\nJoannis Baptist\u00e6_, _SS. Petri et Pauli_, _S. Martini_, _S. Andre\u00e6_.\n_De Assumptione S. Mari\u00e6 interrogandum reliquimus._[54] The Council of\nMainz in 813, however, in its thirty-sixth canon, includes this last\nfestival along with the others, as well as the _litania_ with four days,\n_i.e._ including the preceding Sunday. It also directs that, besides the\ncommemoration of those martyrs and confessors whose relics repose within\nthe diocese, the anniversary of the dedication of the church shall also\nbe celebrated.[55] About the same time, _i.e._ in 827, Bishop Hetto of\nBasle put out a statute, in the eighth chapter of which the festivals\nentailing rest from servile work (_dies feriandi_) are enumerated:\nChristmas and the three following days, _Octava Domini_, _Theophania_,\n_Purificatio S.M._, _Pascha_ (which, according to the seventh chapter,\nwas prolonged for eight days), the three Rogation days, the Ascension,\nthe Saturday before Pentecost, St John Baptist, the festivals of the\nApostles, _Assumptio S. Mari\u00e6_, St Michael, the Dedication of the Church,\nand the Feast of the patron saint, these two last to be observed locally.\nThree other days, _i.e._ St Remigius, St Maurice, and St Martin, were\nnot exempt from servile work.[56] This arrangement differs from the\npreceding, inasmuch as it includes all the Apostles, while the other\nmentions only SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. The festivals of the\nApostles are also absent from the list given by the Council of Mainz in\n809.\n\nThe Council of Mainz in 813, and the statutes of Bishop Rudolph of\nBourges and Bishop Walter of Orleans in the same century, prescribe\neight days for the festival of Pentecost, as well as for Easter,\nand mention in addition the Nativity of our Lady and St Remigius as\nfestivals.[57] The Council of Ingelheim in 948 retained the Easter octave\nbut reduced the festival of Pentecost to four days, which were finally\nreduced to three by the Council of Constance.[58] A few additions to\nthese festivals are given in the collections of canons put out at a\nsubsequent period by Burchard of Worms[59] and Ivo of Chartres.[60]\n\nThe Canon Law contains two lists of festivals, the one representing the\nstate of things in the twelfth, the other that in the thirteenth century.\nThe former, in the decretal of Gratian,[61] enumerates all the Sundays\nin the year from Vespers to Vespers, and then, throughout the year, the\nfollowing days are exempt from servile work: Christmas and the three\nfollowing days, St Silvester, _Octava Domini_, _Theophania_, _Purificatio\nS. Mari\u00e6_, Easter and the entire Easter week, the three Rogation days,\nthe Ascension, the days of Pentecost (probably three), St John the\nBaptist\u2019s Day, all the Apostles, St Lawrence, _Assumptio_ and _Nativitas\nB.M.V._, the Dedication of the Church, St Michael and All Saints, and,\nfinally, the festivals approved by the bishop of the diocese. This list\nexhibits a further increase on its predecessors.\n\nThe decretal of Gregory IX., _Conquestus est nobis_, of the year\n1232,[62] is important for the Middle Ages, although it does not\nrepresent the highest point in the development. According to it, legal\nbusiness was not to be transacted on the _Natalis Domini, S. Stephani,\nJoannis Evangelist\u00e6, SS. Innocentium, S. Silvestri, Circumcisionis,\nEpiphani\u00e6, Septem Diebus Dominic\u00e6 Passionis, Resurrectionis cum septem\nSequentibus, Ascensionis, Pentecostes cum duobus qui sequuntur,\nNativitatis Baptist\u00e6, Festivitatum omnium Virginis Glorios\u00e6, Duodecim\nApostolorum et pr\u00e6cipue Petri et Pauli, Beati Laurentii, Dedicationis\nBeati Mich\u00e6lis, Sollemnitatis omnium Sanctorum ac Diebus Dominicis\nceterisque sollemnitatibus, quas singuli episcopi in suis di\u00e6cesibus\ncum clero et populo duxerint sollemniter celebrandas_. Setting down the\nnumber of Our Lady\u2019s feasts as five, and the Apostles\u2019 as eleven, we have\nhere ninety-five days in the year on which no legal proceedings took\nplace, not counting the particular festivals of the country and diocese.\nThe above-mentioned decretal is silent concerning servile work. We may\nassume that there were ten out of the fifteen days exempt from legal\nproceedings on which servile work was permitted, and thus the total of\ndays exempt from labour must have amounted to eighty-five in the course\nof the year, omitting the festivals proper to the diocese.[63]\n\nWith this, the highest point of development was almost attained, for\nonly a very few festivals were added later, such as _Corpus Christi_,\nand, for certain localities, the Conception of Our Blessed Lady,\nand one or two more, but the number of local festivals might, under\ncertain circumstances, be largely augmented. Between the thirteenth\nand the eighteenth centuries there were dioceses in which the number\nof days exempt from labour reached or even exceeded a hundred, so\nthat, generally speaking, in every week there was another day besides\nthe Sunday on which ordinary occupations were laid aside.[64] In some\ndioceses[65] the number of festivals observed exceeded those proscribed\nby lawful authority.[66]\n\nIn the Byzantine Empire the number of days exempt from legal proceedings\nwas even more considerable than in the West. A distinction was made\nbetween whole holidays and half holidays. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus\nreduced their number by a constitution, dated March 1166. According\nto this, the first-class comprised no fewer than sixty-six days, not\nincluding Sundays, and the second comprised twenty-seven.\n\nFrom the Calendar of Calcasendi,[67] we learn what were the festivals\nobserved by the Copts in Egypt, in the eighth century, under Mahomedan\nrule. They distinguished between greater and lesser festivals, and kept\nseven of each.\n\nThe greater festivals are:\u2014\n\n    1. _Annuntiatio_, Calcasendi adds: _Innuunt per eam\n    annuntiationem consolatoris, qui ipse est juxta eorum\n    disciplinam Gabriel, Mari\u00e6, super quam sit pax, de nativitate\n    Jesu, super quam sit misericordia Dei._ The festival was held\n    on 29th Barchamoth\u201425th March.\n\n    2. _Olivarum s. festum palmarum in die solis postremo jejunii\n    illorum_, _alias_ _festum Alschacaniu_ (a corruption of\n    Hosanna), Palm Sunday.\n\n    3. _Pascha celebrant die solutionis jejunii eorum._\n\n    4. _Feria quinta quadraginta_ (_scil._ _dierum_), _i.e._\n    _festum ascensionis_.\n\n    5. _Festum quinque_ (_scil._ _decadum dierum_), _i.e._\n    _pentecoste_.\n\n    6. _Nativitas Domini._\n\n    7. _Immersio_, _i.e._ _baptismus Domini_, Epiphany.\n\nThe lesser festivals are:\u2014\n\n    1. _Circumcisio Domini._\n\n    2. _Quadragesima_ (_scil._ _dies_, reckoned from Christmas),\n    Candlemas Day; the date 8th Mesori is given.\n\n    3. _Feria quinta conf\u0153derations sive testimonii_, Maundy\n    Thursday.\n\n    4. _Sabbatum Luminis_, Holy Saturday.\n\n    5. _Festum claudens s. terminans est octiduo post pascha_, Low\n    Sunday.\n\n    6. _Festum transfigurationis_ (6th August).\n\n    7. _Festum crucis_, on the 14th September.\n\nFor the Egyptian Christians, Good Friday was not a festival of either the\nfirst or second class. In this it stood in marked distinction from the\npreceding and following days\u2014Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday, which\nwere regarded as festivals of the second class.\n\nThe festivals observed in the latter period of the Byzantine Empire under\nthe Paleologi are found in the treatise of an official of the palace,\nGeorge Codinus, _De Officiis Palatii_, in which detailed information is\ngiven of the costume, insignia, etc., with which the Emperor and his\ncourtiers attended divine service in the different churches of the\ncapital. Beside the great festivals\u2014Christmas, Epiphany, Hypapante,\nEaster, and Pentecost\u2014the following days were distinguished by the\nattendance of the Court at divine service: the First Sunday in Lent,\ncalled by the Greeks Orthodox Sunday, Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday and the\nEaster Octave, the 1st September being New Year\u2019s Day. To these were\nadded a great number of saints\u2019 days, _i.e._ 1st January, St Basil;\n23rd April, St George; 21st May, Constantine; 24th June, Nativity of St\nJohn the Baptist; 30th June, the Feast of the Apostles; 8th August, the\nTransfiguration; 15th August, the Assumption (\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5); 29th August, the Beheading of St John the Baptist; 31st August\nor 2nd July, the Translation of Our Lady\u2019s garment to the Church of the\nBlachern\u00e6; 8th September, the Nativity of Our Lady; 14th September, the\nInvention of the Cross (\u1f55\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6); 26th October, Feast of the\nMartyr Demetrius Myroblyta; 13th November, St Chrysostom; 21st November,\nthe Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple; and, finally, the day of\nthe Resurrection of Lazarus, which was kept on the Saturday before Palm\nSunday. The Court did not attend divine service on Good Friday, although\nit did on Holy Saturday. No mention is made of the Ascension.\n\nThe large increase in festivals in the Middle Ages was due to the fact\nthat the bishops exercised the right given them by Canon Law,[68] of\nintroducing new feasts within the limits of their dioceses. This arose\nfrom the ancient custom, that it belonged to them to watch over the\ncultus of the martyrs, and it depended upon their authorisation whether\nor not a given martyr should be recognised and venerated as such. Later,\nwhen the religious orders became widespread and influential, it usually\nhappened that some monastery began to venerate a mystery or a saint, and\nthen, as this cultus was taken up by the people, other monasteries, or\nthe whole Order, adopted the festival,[69] and, finally, the bishops gave\ntheir approbation to the institution of the holy day in question. Lastly,\nthe civil power and the Roman See intervened, and the new holy day was\nin this way fully sanctioned. Things, however, did not always proceed so\nfar, for in many cases the festival was confined to a single diocese, the\nresult being great variety in particulars and general uncertainty. These\nabuses became more deeply felt in course of time, and so Urban VIII.,\nin his constitution _Universa per orbem_, published in 1642, warns the\nbishops not to use their rights in this respect for the future, and at\nthe present day these rights, without having been abrogated, are regarded\nas antiquated.[70]\n\nThe fact that formerly the bishops enjoyed the right of introducing\nfestivals into their dioceses, or of excluding them, must constantly be\nborne in mind, because, if it is left out of sight, the institution and\ndevelopment of even a single festival cannot be understood, much less\nthe historical development of the whole festal cycle. When we realise\nthat this principle was acted upon from the beginning, and for more than\na thousand years, during a period remarkable for its rich development\nin many directions, the wonder is that the result is as harmonious and\nsystematic as it is. No departure was made from the natural basis upon\nwhich the whole was built up, and the attempts of the Councils were all\nin the direction of uniformity.\n\nThe abuses resulting from the excessive multiplication of holy days was\nremarked upon even in Catholic times, especially by John Gerson, at a\nprovincial synod at Reims in 1408, and by Nicholas de Clemangiis, who,\nin a work[71] devoted to that purpose, published about 1416, spoke out\nboldly against the introduction of any more festivals. In the sixteenth\ncentury, the Protestants in their _Gravamina_ denounced the great number\nof festivals, and already in 1524 the legate Campeggio settled their\nnumber, and so put an end to their arbitrary increase for the future.[72]\n\nBy the introduction of diocesan and local festivals, the number of holy\ndays became excessive in some localities, and great uncertainty arose\nas to which festivals should be celebrated by all, in accordance with\nthe general precepts of the Church, and which should not. This, and the\ncomplaints of the poor that they were prevented by the number of holy\ndays from gaining their livelihood, while others again took advantage\nof them to indulge in laziness or the pursuit of pleasure, was the\nground which Gerson had already adduced in his time. The same reasons\nnow induced Pope Urban VIII. to regulate the arrangements of festivals\nand to fix limits for the whole Church beyond which it would not be\nlawful to go. For this purpose, he published, on the 24th September\n1642, the important constitution _Universa per orbem_, in which the\nfollowing holy days are prescribed: 1. Feasts of our Lord\u2014Christmas,\nEaster and Pentecost, with the two following days, New Year, Epiphany,\nthe Ascension, Trinity, Corpus Christi, the Invention of the Cross. 2.\nFeasts of Our Lady\u2014Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Assumption, and the\nNativity. 3. Saints\u2019 Days\u2014St Michael (8th May), Nativity of St John the\nBaptist, SS. Peter and Paul, St Andrew, St James, St John, St Thomas,\nSS. Phillip and James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, SS. Simon and Jude,\nSt Matthias, St Lawrence, St Silvester, St Joseph, St Anne, All Saints\u2019,\nand the patron saint of the country. The actual reduction was small, and\nconcerned chiefly the lesser saints days, such as St Mary Magdalene, St\nCecilia, St Catherine, St Martin, etc. A more important consequence of\nthis constitution was, that the original right of the bishop to appoint\nfestivals, although recognised by the Council of Trent, was rendered\npractically ineffective.\n\nIn the eighteenth century, the hatred against the Church which showed\nitself at the Courts of the Bourbon sovereigns, and the so-called advance\nof culture, necessitated fresh regulations on this point. First of\nall, at the request of the provincial synod of Tarragona in 1727, Pope\nBenedict XIII. consented to the reduction of the number of festivals for\na part of Spain. From this arose the distinction between half and whole\nholy days.[73] Rest from servile work was maintained only on the Sundays\nand seventeen festivals, _i.e._ half the number given in the list above,\nand for the other seventeen days it was enjoined that the faithful assist\nat Mass only. After attendance at divine service, all kinds of work were\nto be permitted. This permission was extended in 1748, by Benedict XIV.,\nto Naples, Sicily, and several Spanish dioceses.\n\nThe same Pope extended this reduction of festivals to Austria in 1754,\ninasmuch as only fifteen complete holy days besides Sundays were left;\nwhile on the other days, which were to be observed according to the\nprovisions of the bull, _Universa per orbem_, it was enjoined that Mass\nshould be heard and the fast kept on their vigil. This last injunction\nsoon fell into disuse, and even assistance at Mass on the suppressed holy\ndays was not strictly observed. Accordingly, the Empress Maria Teresa\ndesired an alteration, and Pope Clement XIV. issued a new brief in 1771.\nIn this, the direction to keep a fast on the vigil of the suppressed\nfestivals, and to attend mass, was set aside, and the following festivals\nwere prescribed to be kept as complete holy days; Christmas, St Stephen\u2019s\nDay, New Year, Epiphany, Easter (two days), the Ascension, Pentecost (two\ndays), Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the five principle\nfeasts of our Lady, and the festival of the patron saint of the country,\n_i.e._ eighteen days in addition to the Sundays. A similar arrangement\nwas introduced, in 1772, into the then electorate of Bavaria, in 1775,\ninto Poland and East Prussia, and in 1791, into the whole of Spain.[74]\n\nUnder Pius VI. permission was frequently given for the reduction of the\nnumber of festivals at the request of certain dioceses and districts as\nappears from the _bullarium_ of this Pope.\n\nIt became necessary to make new arrangements concerning festivals for\nPrussia, after the incorporation of Silesia. This was effected by a brief\nof Clement XIV. of the 24th June 1772, especially granted to the diocese\nof Breslau, but applying to all Prussia as it then existed. The festivals\nretained were: Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas (each two days), the\nCircumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, five feasts of Our\nLady, (_i.e._ the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity, and\nConception), SS. Peter and Paul and All Saints. Where there were several\npatron saints, only one, the principal, was to be celebrated.\n\nThese regulations remained in force only until 1788, for King Frederick\nWilliam II. requested a further reduction in the number of festivals\nthrough his agent in Rome, Ciofani. In consequence of this, Pius VI.\ntransferred the feasts of the Assumption and Nativity of our Lady to the\nSundays following, and, at the express wish of the King, appointed that\nthe Wednesday in the third week after Easter, one of the Protestant days\nof penitence and prayer, should rank as a festival, an order that all\nmight implore the same God for a fruitful harvest. In compensation for\nthe suppressed festivals of the Apostles and other Saints, there was to\nbe observed the commemoration of all the Apostles on the 29th June, and a\nsimilar commemoration of all the holy martyrs on the 26th December. These\nhad already been appointed by Clement XIV.[75]\n\nThese regulations remained in force for Prussia, and were even extended\nto its newly acquired territories by a brief of Leo XII., dated 2nd\nDecember 1828. By this means, the districts on the left bank of the\nRhine, which, while under French dominion had only kept the four holidays\nprescribed by the Code Napoleon, again enjoyed a notable increase in\nthe number of festivals. In order that this might not interfere with\nthe livelihood of the industrial classes, who had to compete with\nProtestants, it was conceded at the representations of Archbishop\nvon Spiegel that, in the industrial districts, servile labour might\nbe performed after attendance at Mass on the festivals introduced\nin obedience to the brief of Leo XII. Owing to the deeply religious\ncharacter of the district in question, very little use was ever made of\nthis concession, and it has accordingly become obsolete. This is the\norigin of the regulations for Catholic festivals at present in force in\nPrussia. In one point, however, an alteration has been made, for when the\nProtestant day of penitence in prayer which falls in November, was fixed\nby authority in 1893, the Catholics fell in with the arrangement, and now\ncelebrate the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple as a movable feast\non the same day.\n\nThe greatest alterations in respect of the Church\u2019s holy days was caused\nby the French Revolution. By a decree of the Convention on 5th October\n1793, the Christian mode of reckoning was abolished and a new mode\nsubstituted for it. The years were to be reckoned from the establishment\nof the French Republic on 22nd September 1792. The division of time into\nweeks was also abolished and the months, now uniformly of thirty days,\nwere divided into the decades. The French observed this mode of reckoning\nuntil 1st January 1806. While it was in force, Napoleon undertook the\nre-establishment of ecclesiastical affairs in France, and as far as the\nregulations for holy days are concerned, traces of the then existing\nstate of things survives until the present day. For the Church had\nto fall in with the reckoning then in force, to the extent of either\nabolishing all holy days which fell in the week, or of transferring\nthem to the Sunday. According to the ordinance of the Cardinal Legate\nCaprara, dated Paris, 9th April 1802, only four holy days were left,\n_i.e._ Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption (because the 15th August was\nNapoleon\u2019s name-day), and All Saints. This ordinance affected all France\nas it was then, that is including the Netherlands, and the whole left\nbank of the Rhine.\n\nIn the Appendix[76] will be found a detailed list of the festivals\nobserved in different countries upon which servile work is forbidden. A\nlist of this kind, in addition to its practical value, is instructive\nas showing how the interests of religion are affected by the culture\nand social conditions of each country at a given period, and also how\npolitics have intruded themselves into the sphere of religion. The latter\nfact is especially prominent in Protestantism. From the beginning,\nProtestantism was affected by two opposing streams\u2014one favourable to the\nobservance of festivals, prevailing among the Lutheran, the other opposed\nto it, prevailing among the Calvinists. Luther wished to retain all\nfeasts of our Lord, and even Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation found\nfavour with him as such. Saints days and the two festivals of the Holy\nCross were alone to be abolished. Certain secular governments tolerated\neven more festivals, such as St Michael and St John the Baptist. The\nChurch Order of Brandenburg retained the feasts of Apostles, and even\nCorpus Christi, but without a procession, and the Assumption\u2014this last\nfor the sake of the peasants.[77] The same regulations were observed\nin Saxony and W\u00fcrtemburg. Strict Calvinism retained only Christmas,\nEaster, and Pentecost; its spread and increasing influence manifested\nitself gradually in the regulations concerning festivals. The Prussian\nUnion, and the _Agenda_ of the so-called Evangelical State Church of\n1895 recognise as holy days of obligation only the three principal\nfestivals, each with two holidays, _i.e._ the Sunday and the Monday,\nNew Year, Epiphany, Good Friday, the Ascension, along with the days\nof penitence and prayer. Contrary to the principles of Calvinism, the\nEstablished Church of England possesses a Calendar richly furnished with\nfestivals.[78]\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE CHURCH\u2019S YEAR\n\n\nA. EASTER, AND THE SACRED SEASONS CONNECTED WITH EASTER\n\n\n1. _Easter, its Name and History_\n\nWere it our object to deal with the Church\u2019s year as affording material\nfor a series of doctrinal instructions, we should begin with Christmas,\nthe festival of Christ\u2019s birth, for, so viewed, the ecclesiastical year\nbecomes chiefly a compendium of the chief acts in the drama of our\nsalvation, and recalls in orderly succession the principal events in our\nSaviour\u2019s life. But if we make the Church\u2019s year in itself the object of\nour studies, especially if we deal with it historically, we are bound\nto commence with Easter, because, in order of time, it existed from the\nfirst and formed the natural starting-point for all the rest. It did\nnot, as other festivals, come into existence gradually, but formed a\nconnecting link with the Old Testament, and was, in the strictest sense\nof the words, the appointment of a Higher Power, providentially ordering\nall things according to Its good pleasure. Easter owes its origin not to\nhuman wisdom, or piety: it comes to us with higher sanctions.\n\nEaster is the chief festival of Christendom, the first and oldest of all\nfestivals, the basis on which the Church\u2019s year is built, the connecting\nlink with the festivals of the Old Covenant, and the central point on\nwhich depends the date of the other movable feasts. At an early date,\nthe Fathers mention Easter as the most important of the festivals, as,\nfor example, St Leo the Great,[79] on the grounds that the incarnation\nand birth of the Son of God served as a prelude to the mystery of the\nResurrection, and that Christ had no other purpose in being born of\na woman than that He should be nailed to the Cross for us.[80] Other\nFathers and the Roman martyrology call it the feast of feasts (_festum\nfestorum_).\n\nWith regard to the name, the English word \u201cEaster\u201d comes from Eastre,\nin German \u201cOstra,\u201d[81] the goddess of Spring worshipped by the ancient\nSaxons and Angles, whose name survives in many place-names, such as\nOsterode, Osterberg, etc. In her honour fires, known as the Easter\nfires, were kindled in spring. In Latin, we find at first _dominica\nresurrectionis_ alone used in the liturgy, never _Pascha_. _Pascha_ has\nno connection with the Greek \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9, but is the Aramaic form of _pesach_,\nto pass over, \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d7\u200e\u200f for \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e1\u05b7\u05d7\u200e\u200f. In Christian times, the\nsimilarity in the sound of the words easily suggested, by a sort of play\nupon the words, that which to Christians is the chief object of the\nEaster festival. In the Pentateuch, _pascha_ is only found in the strict\nsense of _transitus_, _phase_.[82]\n\nThe points to be dealt with regarding Easter are its antiquity, and its\nconnection, in point of view of time and of signification, with the\nJewish Passover, with which it is connected by the death of Christ, as\nwell as by the day on which that death took place. Then, the character\nand duration of the feast, the preparatory solemnity of Lent, and the\nsubsequent Octave must be dealt with.\n\nWith regard to Easter and its antiquity in early ecclesiastical\nliterature, the Apostolic Fathers, owing to the questions dealt with in\ntheir writings, do not mention it. Only in the interpolated letter of\nIgnatius to the Philippians (c. 14) is Easter mentioned. The passage\nis directed against the Quartodecimans, which of itself is proof\nof its later date. Nothing is to be found in the Didach\u00e9 or in the\npseudo-Clementine Homilies. When we come to the apologists, we find no\nreference to Easter in Justin\u2019s Dialogue with Trypho (c. 40), and nothing\nin either of his Apologies. Clement of Alexandria speaks only of the\nJewish passover, without referring to the Christian feast. Melito of\nSardis, however, wrote an entire treatise on the festival of Easter, in\nthe year when Servilius Paulus was Pro-Consul of Asia, for at that time\na disagreement concerning Easter had broken out in Laodicea. Clement\nof Alexandria replied to Melito, who had written in defence of the\nQuartodeciman practice.[83]\n\nIn 198, when the difference between Asia and the rest of the Church\nconcerning Easter came under discussion, an exchange of letters took\nplace between the leading authorities of the Church, Pope Victor, Bishop\nNarcissus of Jerusalem, Polycrates of Ephesus, Bacchylus of Corinth,\nIren\u00e6us, and others taking part. Iren\u00e6us composed a special treatise _De\nPaschate_, sometimes called _De Schismate_, unfortunately lost. In the\nfragments falsely attributed to him, Easter is referred to in the third\nand seventh.\n\nReferences to Easter are frequent in Tertullian. With regard to the name,\nit is to be noticed that with him _pascha_ denotes, not the single day\nof the Easter festival, but a longer period of time, in which a fast\nwas observed and baptism administered,[84] in other words, Passion-tide\nand the Easter Octave.[85] Moreover, for the actual day of our Lord\u2019s\ndeath, he uses the word, _parasceve_.[86] The festival of Easter, as he\nfurther relates, was kept in the first month (_i.e._ March),[87] and was\nprefigured by the Jewish Passover.[88] We possess a treatise on Easter,\nof the year 243 A.D., formerly attributed wrongly to St Cyprian, but,\nprobably, a translation of work of Theophilus of C\u00e6sarea. It is entitled\n_De Paschate Computus_, and was written elsewhere than at Rome, in the\ninterest of the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus. The\nremarks of Hippolytus on the Quartodecimans afford us important evidence\nfor the Ante-Nicene period. \u201cThese,\u201d he says, \u201cagree with the Church\nin preserving all the apostolic traditions, but differ from her in one\npoint, inasmuch as, out of contentiousness, wilfulness, and ignorance,\nthey maintain that the Christian feast must always be kept on the 14th\nNisan, no matter on what day of the week it falls.\u201d[89]\n\nIf the Arabic Canons ascribed to Hippolytus, especially the\ntwenty-second, are really his, it would appear that he held Easter might\nbe kept in the same week as the Jewish Passover, but on the Sunday, and\nshould be preceded by a week\u2019s fast on bread and water.[90] This date\ncoincides with the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus,\nand which, after all, is only the Jewish cycle of eight years doubled.\n\nThe seventh and sixty-ninth of the so-called Apostolic Canons refer\nto Easter and its preparatory fast. The seventh is also important on\naccount of what it says about the period within which Easter may fall:\n\u201cWhosoever keeps Easter with the Jews before the vernal equinox, let him\nbe anathema.\u201d From which it appears that the Jewish Passover could fall\nbefore the vernal equinox. The last day of Nisan alone must never precede\nthe equinox, and, consequently, the Passover must frequently have fallen\nbefore the 21st March, and may have done so in the year of our Lord\u2019s\ndeath.\n\nOf Eusebius\u2019 treatise on Easter,[91] dedicated to the Emperor, only a\nportion remains and this contains nothing either about Easter or its\ndate. Constantine gratefully accepted the dedication in a letter which\nEusebius, not without vanity, incorporated in his _Vita Constantini_ (4,\n35). The Emperor\u2019s encyclical,[92] communicating to the churches the\nconclusions concerning Easter arrived at by the Nicene Council, would\nhave been more deserving of a place in the same work.\n\n\n2. _The Connection of the Christian Festival with the Jewish_\n\nThe connection between the Christian and the Jewish feasts is both\nhistorical and ideal\u2014historical because our Lord\u2019s death happened on the\n15th Nisan, the first day of the Jewish feast; ideal, because what took\nplace had been prefigured in the Old Testament by types of which it was\nitself the antitype.\n\nThe Jewish Passover was a repetition of what had taken place on the\nevening of the exodus from Egypt. On that occasion, the children of\nIsrael had killed a lamb and marked their doorposts with its blood in\norder that the destroying angel might pass over their houses. Then,\ndressed for the journey, they had consumed the lamb at a ceremonial meal.\nThis last meal of which the Israelites partook in Egypt on the eve of\ntheir departure, _i.e._ on the 14th Nisan, was of a religious character,\nand was, on this account, to be repeated every year on the same day, and\nat the same hour, as a memorial feast, at which each father of a family\nhad to instruct his household in the signification of the rites they were\nperforming.[93]\n\nThe manner of celebrating the feast was minutely prescribed. Each\nhouseholder, for example, had to choose a lamb without blemish of the\nfirst year, on the 10th of the first month, _i.e._ Nisan, as it came to\nbe called later, or, if he had none in his own herd, he must procure one\nfrom elsewhere and keep it in readiness for the feast on the evening of\nthe 14th Nisan. The lamb was to be killed, roasted, and eaten by the\nhousehold, who remained standing, along with unleavened bread, and bitter\nherbs, nothing being allowed to remain over.[94] From this onwards to\nthe 21st Nisan inclusive, unleavened bread was alone to be eaten, and\nhence the period from the 15th to the 21st Nisan was called the days\nof unleavened bread. The first and last days, the 15th and the 21st,\nwere regarded as especially sacred, and servile work was forbidden on\nthem.[95] During the whole week, holocausts, meat offerings, and sin\nofferings were offered daily in the Temple on behalf of the entire\npeople, as well as offerings presented by individual believers on their\nown behalf. The 16th Nisan was marked by an offering of a special kind,\nthat of the first-fruits of harvest, consisting of the presentation of\na sheaf of ripe barley along with the offering of a yearling lamb.[96]\nThis offering of the first ripe fruits served also to mark the time when\nthe Passover was to be celebrated, for, owing to the fact that the Jewish\nyear did not begin on a fixed date, this had to be in some way determined\nby a stated event in the order of nature. In Palestine the barley was\nalready ripe by March.\n\nSeveral of the actions prescribed at the offering of this lamb pointed\nforward to the atoning death of the Messias, such as the sprinkling of\nthe doorposts with its blood, in order that the destroying angel might\npass over the house, and the direction that none of the lamb\u2019s bones\nwere to be broken. There were also several other small particulars which\nemphasised and completed the ideal connection between the sacrifice of\nthe Passover and that of the Cross, as certain Fathers perceived at an\nearly date.\n\nIsaias, speaking in his prophecy, of the sufferings of the Messias, calls\nHim the Lamb chosen by God, who bears the iniquity of others.[97] St\nJohn the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the\nsins of the world, and by the writers of the New Testament the same idea\nis frequently employed. St John the Evangelist expressly refers to the\ntypical character of the Passover rites, when he applies the passage, \u201cA\nbone of it shall not be broken,\u201d[98] to Christ on the Cross, and sees\nits fulfilment in the fact that the soldiers refrained from breaking\nHis limbs. St Paul declares in general that the sacrifice of Christ\nreplaces the Passover, and sees a typical signification in the unleavened\nbread.[99] It appears, he had no objection to Christians holding a\nPassover supper, although, elsewhere he expresses himself strongly\nagainst their continuing to observe Jewish practices, such as Sabbaths\nand new moons.[100] As to the Fathers, it is sufficient, to quote Justin\nand Tertullian,[101] who in particular see in the fact that the Passover\nlamb was transfixed in two pieces of wood arranged cross-wise, a figure\nof the Cross in which Christ was stretched. Speaking generally, there\nis no doubt the Jewish Passover was taken over into Christianity, and\nthereby its typical ceremonies found their true fulfilment.\n\nApart from the relation of the sacrifice of Christ\u2019s death to the Jewish\nPassover, and its dogmatic signification, sentiment and mere human\nfeeling would have led Christians to regard with reverence the day on\nwhich our Lord, the Founder of the Church, died, and to keep the day\nsacred in each succeeded year on which He had offered the sacrifice of\nHimself. But for this it was necessary, in the first place, to know on\nwhat day exactly His death had taken place.\n\nFor the Jews, this was easy; it was the 15th Nisan in their Calendar,\nbut for Christians of other countries, it was very difficult. In the\nRoman Empire, to which they all belonged, different methods of reckoning\ntime and different calendars were in use. Since 45 B.C., the Romans\nthemselves used the revised Julian Calendar, leaving at the same time\nperfect freedom to subject nations either to adopt it, or continue their\nown methods.[102] Chief among the existing systems were the Egyptian,\nthe Syro-Macedonian, and the Semitic, each with its own way of dating\nthe year. The two first systems admitted of being brought into agreement\nwith the Roman Calendar, with more or less difficulty, since, according\nto them, the year began on a fixed date, but with the Jewish Calendar it\nwas not so, for its was based on the lunar year, and never synchronised\nwith the solar year as to the beginning of months and years. The Egyptian\nyear, at the commencement of the Christian era, began on the 29th August,\nand consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and five additional\ndays (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) belonging to no month. Every fourth year was a\nleap-year, namely the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth year, according\nto the Julian reckoning. The Syro-Macedonian Calendar commenced with the\nautumnal equinox. The Syrians, however, later on, partially adopted the\nJulian Calendar in a somewhat modified form.[103] The Egyptian system\nof introducing additional days was essentially the same as the Roman,\nexcept that their leap-year was always one year in advance of the Roman\nleap-year. To their usual five additional days, they added yet one more,\nmaking a total of six. Consequently the next year, _i.e._ the fourth,\neighth, twelfth, sixteenth, etc., began on the 30th instead of the 29th\nAugust.[104] For reckoning years, the Egyptians made use of the years of\nthe sovereign\u2019s reign, but as they began the year with the 1st Thoth,\npreceding the proclamation of the sovereign\u2019s accession, it often\nhappened that more years than he was entitled to were set down to one\nsovereign, while another who had reigned for less than a year was simply\npassed over.[105]\n\nIt was extremely difficult for those nations, whose Calendars were\narranged on a different system, to fix the day of Christ\u2019s death by their\nown chronology, for the Jewish 15th Nisan might fall on widely different\ndays, sometimes in March, sometimes in April. How difficult it was to\ndiscover, the days on which the death and resurrection of Christ ought to\nbe commemorated, will become more obvious from what follows.\n\n\n3. _The circumstances which led to Easter being a movable Feast_\n\nTo the real and historical connection between the Christian Easter and\nthe Jewish Passover, is due the explanation of a striking peculiarity\nin the Church\u2019s year, viz., the movable feasts, of which Easter is the\nstarting-point. Easter falls on no fixed date, because the Jewish 15th\nNisan, unlike the dates of the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, varied\nyear by year. The extent and nature of this discrepancy are caused by the\nSemitic Calendar. At the commencement of the Christian era, this Calendar\nwas not only used by the Jews, but also extensively followed in Syria,\nArabia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Armenia, Osrho\u00ebne, and in a great part of\nAsia Minor, although other nationalities in these countries kept each to\nits own Calendar. Thus, for example, the Greeks in Antioch followed the\nSyro-Macedonian Calendar, and so on. Where a mixed population existed in\nany place, different Calendars would be found in use.\n\nThe special features of the Semitic, or Jewish Calendar, which concern us\nin this connection are the following:\u2014\n\n1. The Jewish day ended at sunset, and so the evening hours, from about\nsix p.m. belonged to the following day. This caused difference in dates,\nfor what happened according to Roman ideas at ten p.m. for example, was\nregarded by the Jews as happening on the following day.\n\n2. The Jewish year was a variable lunar year, _i.e._ it consisted of\ntwelve months, each of which began with the new moon, the full moon\nconsequently falling on the 14th of each month. The moon completes her\norbit round the earth in twenty-nine and a half days, or two orbits in\nfifty-nine days. The Jewish months, accordingly, varied from twenty-nine\nto thirty days alternately (Tischri and Nisan having thirty days), it\nbeing impossible to commence a month in the middle of a day. Thus the\ntwelve months of the Jewish year make up 354 days. Eleven and a quarter\ndays were required to make up the length of a solar year. Had this\ndiscrepancy not been rectified in some way, every Jewish month, and the\nnew year as well, would, in the course of thirty years, have made the\ncircle of the year. For, if in one year, the 1st Nisan coincided with the\n1st March, in the next it would fall on the 12th, and so on.\n\nThe Semites brought about the necessary adjustment, not by leap-years,\nbut by the insertion of an additional month. For example, eight solar\nyears have a total of 2920 days, not counting the addition days of leap\nyears. The same number of days make up ninety-nine lunar months, or, in\nother words, eight lunar years and three intercalary months, are equal to\neight solar years. Thus, in eight years, three additional months must be\nintroduced, making the number of days almost equal with the days of eight\nsolar years, except for a small discrepancy, caused by the additional\nday in leap year. When these additional days had reached the number of\nthirty, they could be accounted for by the introduction of a further\nadditional month. In regulating these points, the equinoxes were of the\nutmost importance, and, in the second place, the ceremonial oblation of\nthe first fruits.\n\nIf it was evident that the month Nisan would terminate before the vernal\nequinox\u2014its beginning and middle had to precede the equinox, as well as\nthe _quarta decima lun\u00e6_\u2014and if the barley was not in ear by the 14th,\nthen it was considered the discrepancy had to be set right. This was done\nby prolonging the last month of the expiring year, Adar, for twenty-nine\ndays longer than usual. In other words, an additional month was added to\nthe year, designated merely as Veadar. This was the intercalary month.\nThis, happening thrice in eight years, brought the lunar and solar\nyears into agreement by a very simple expedient. The equinox could be\ncontrolled by help of the Zodiac, for, on the 20th March, the sun enters\nAries, and, on the 23rd September, Libra.\n\nHad the Jews followed out this method scientifically, _i.e._, had the\nintroduction of the intercalary months followed fixed laws and been\nruled by astronomical observations and calculations, then, though still\ndifficult, it would have been possible to make the Jewish Calendar\nsynchronise with others. But the introduction of these additional days\nwas, so to speak, arbitrary and dependent upon the good pleasure of the\npriests. Thus we can never say for certain that such and such a year was\na leap year with the Jews, and accordingly no date in the past can with\ncertainty be made to synchronise with a date in the Julian or any other\nCalendar.[106]\n\nUntil their dispersion after the Jewish war in A.D. 70, and even much\nlater, the Jews reckoned their new moons and leap years, and also the\nbeginning of each year, not by strictly astronomical data, but by the\nmethod just described. The rule was that the month began with the day on\nthe evening of which the new moon first became visible, and also that\nthe passover should be kept when the sun was in Aries.[107] Maimonides,\nagreeing with what we have said above, informs us that a second Adar\nwas interposed if the vernal equinox fell on the 16th Nisan or later.\nBut it would be a great mistake to think that a scientifically accurate\nsystem, founded on these principles, was employed for calculating the\nnew moons and leap years, such as would make it possible to bring the\ndates of the Jewish year into certain correspondence with the Julian\nCalendar. Still we must not think no attempts were made to reduce the\nCalendar to order on the basis of some cyclic system, but the caprice of\nthe Sanhedrin always succeeded in rendering these attempts unavailing.\nIdeler (i. 512) shows how the new moons were treated, and Maimonides\ntells us that the Sanhedrin was influenced by many considerations in the\nchoice of leap years. The Talmud preserves a remarkable letter written by\nRabbi Gamaliel, the teacher of St Paul, to the Jews of Babylon and Media,\nwhich may appositely be quoted here. \u201cWe herewith inform you that we, in\nconjunction with our colleagues, have deemed it necessary to add thirty\ndays to the year, since the doves (to be offered in sacrifice) are still\ntoo tender, and the lambs (for the passover) too young, and the time of\nAbib (the barley harvest) has not arrived.\u201d\n\nThis passage may well serve as a warning to those who, whenever they\nfind a fixed date in ancient Jewish writings, forthwith, with the aid of\nlunar tables, transpose it into a date according to the Julian method of\nreckoning, and possibly flatter themselves they have found a fixed point\nwhich will form a basis for further calculations.\n\nIn consequence of what we have said, it seems natural that Jewish\nconverts to Christianity in apostolic times in the East should have fixed\nthe date of Easter by Jewish methods, without departing, in this respect,\nfrom Jewish customs, especially as they formed the majority in the\nChurch. This was all the more natural since in Syria and in many parts\nof Asia Minor, a Calendar drawn up on similar principles to the Semitic,\nwas in use alongside the Greek (_i.e._ Roman) Calendar. This custom,\nhowever, although retained by the Quartodecimans, was never widespread,\nand did not long survive. The principal consideration, which demanded\na departure from Jewish methods, was, that from the Christian point of\nview, the Resurrection, and not the day of Christ\u2019s death, formed the\nchief feature of the commemoration; the latter, although a day to be had\nin remembrance, could not well be kept as a joyous festival. But the\nResurrection took place on the Sunday after the 15th Nisan, and so this\nSunday came to be the chief day of the Christians\u2019 feast.\n\nThrough the gradual spread of Christianity in non-Semitic lands in the\nWest, the necessity must soon have arisen of fixing the day of the\nResurrection by the Julian Calendar, and of deciding according to it the\nday on which Easter had to be celebrated. But, as we have said, it is\nvery difficult to transfer a date from the Jewish to the Julian Calendar,\nand, in most cases, quite impossible when the date is that of an event\nalready long past.\n\nLet us apply all this to the point in question.\n\nIf it was asked, \u201cOn what day did Christ die?\u201d the answer was, \u201cOn the\n15th Nisan.\u201d But if it was asked again, \u201cOn which day of the Roman\nCalendar does the 15th Nisan fall?\u201d the reply must be, \u201cWho can tell? In\none year it may fall in March, in another in April; sometimes on one day\nof our Calendar, sometimes on another.\u201d\n\nThe reply, \u201cOn the 15th Nisan,\u201d conveyed nothing either to the Romans or\nto the Egyptians; it was intelligible to the Semites alone. Thus, where\nthe Semitic Calendar was not understood, it was necessary to fix the day\nby some other method. In the choice of methods, the Church of Alexandria,\nand, most of all, the Church of Rome, took the lead. The simplest plan\nwould have been to discover on which day of March or April the 15th Nisan\nhad fallen in the year of Christ\u2019s death, _i.e._ 782 U.C. But it was\nimpossible to do this with certainty after a few decades had elapsed.\nAnother starting-point had to be sought, and this was naturally given by\nthe spring full moon, _i.e._ the full moon nearest to the vernal equinox,\nfor the 15th Nisan must fall either on this full moon or thereabouts.\nThus in Rome and Alexandria, all the principles which are in force at the\npresent day were gradually adopted, _i.e._ Easter is to be celebrated on\nthe Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. There is\nevidence that this rule for determining the date of Easter was followed\nin Rome from the time of Pope Sixtus I., possibly even earlier. The\nfurther developments do not concern us here.\n\nHere and there in the West, there was a tendency to commemorate the death\nand resurrection of Christ on fixed days in the Julian Calendar\u2014on the\n25th and 27th of March, for example\u2014but it never became general. For\nthe most part, the data for the calculation of Easter were the same as\nthose employed for calculating the Jewish passover; that is to say, the\nfull moon on the one hand, and the vernal equinox on the other, Sunday\nbeing introduced as an additional factor in the calculation, since our\nLord had risen on that day of the week. In this way the above rule was\nestablished, and so, in the date of Easter as determined at the present\nday, the variable Jewish lunar year has left a trace behind it, and,\nalso, the connection in which Christianity stands to Judaism receives a\npractical expression deserving of being preserved to the end of time.[108]\n\n\n4. _The Final Settlement of the date of Easter and the Attempts made to\ncommemorate the day of the Month on which Christ died_\n\nThe manner in which the commemoration of our Lord\u2019s passion and death\nadmitted of being celebrated in agreement with the Jewish Calendar, is\ndue to the minuteness with which the fourth Evangelist describes the\nevents of Holy Week.\n\nOn the 9th Nisan our Lord arrived at Bethania. The next day, the 10th,\ntook place the triumphal entry into Jerusalem[109]\u2014Palm Sunday.\n\n    11th Nisan, Monday. Curse pronounced on the barren fig-tree,\n    and second, cleansing of the Temple.\n\n    12th Nisan, Tuesday. Conferences between our Lord and the\n    Pharisees and Sadducees; the widow\u2019s mite; attempts of the\n    Greeks to see our Lord.\n\n    13th Nisan, Wednesday. Judas betrays our Lord to the Chief\n    Priests.\n\n    14th Nisan, Thursday. The Last Supper and the Betrayal.\n\n    15th Nisan, Friday. Condemnation and Death of Jesus.[110]\n\n    16th Nisan, Sabbath. The body of Jesus in the sepulchre.\n\n    17th Nisan, Sunday. The Resurrection.\n\nIn this way, these events could be annually commemorated on the same\ndays in the Jewish Calendar, the day of the week, however, varying, as\nit does in the case of the Jewish passover. That this was actually done\nis recognised by Isidore of Seville, when he says,[111] \u201cFormerly the\nChurch kept Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth day of moon, no matter\non what day of the week it fell.\u201d But where the Julian, or even the\nEgyptian, Calendar was in force, if a man wished to proceed accurately\nin this way, without being tied down to fixed days of the week (_i.e._\nFriday for the day of our Lord\u2019s death, and Sunday for the Resurrection),\nhe would nevertheless have to learn on what day of his own Calendar the\n15th Nisan of the Jews fell in the year of our Lord\u2019s death. For it was\nquite impossible for him to look for it at one time in March, at another\ntime in April, according to his own Calendar.\n\nHence arose a striking divergence at the very beginning, which did not\nadmit of being adjusted. Obviously, another method for fixing the date\nof Easter had to be devised for Gentile converts and for those districts\nwhere the Julian, or, at any rate, a non-Jewish, Calendar was in force.\nAt the same time, it is also quite credible, because resting on clear\nproof, that in Syria and Asia Minor, the Apostles fixed the date of\nEaster on Quartodeciman principles, while at Rome and Alexandria another\nmethod obtained from the beginning. Granted that the Roman Church, during\nthe Apostle\u2019s lifetime, consisted only of converts from Judaism, still\nthe Jews as a whole were such a small minority in Rome that they must\nhave conformed to the Roman method of reckoning time, and were probably,\nmost of them, unfamiliar with the Jewish Calendar. It was different in\nAsia Minor where the Jews were very numerous and free to follow their own\ncustoms, and where a Calendar closely allied to the Jewish was used by\nthe native population.\n\nWhen the Christians of Asia Minor claimed for this practice the\nordinance of the Apostles, especially St John and St Philip,[112] their\nappeal is as much deserving of credit as the claim of the Romans to base\n_their_ practice on the ordinance of St Peter. That they actually did so,\nwe learn from the Festal Letters of St Athanasius,[113] who says: \u201cThe\nRomans lay claim to a tradition from the Apostle Peter, forbidding to go\nbeyond the 26th Pharmuthi (the 21st April), on the one hand, and the 30th\nPhamenoth (the 26th March), on the other.\u201d Here we have also the limits\nof the period within which Easter at that time fell, the 25th March being\nreckoned as the day of the vernal equinox.\n\nThe Churches which had never followed the Quartodeciman practice,\nsurpassed the others in number and influence, so much the more as Egypt,\nwhere the Church had been organised by a disciple of St Peter, and also\nGreece, were among their number. When strife arose over this point, the\nnumerically weaker party ought to have yielded, but rather than this,\nthey separated from the Catholic Church under the form of Ebionitism.\nIren\u00e6us traces the opposition of the Roman Church to the Quartodeciman\nEaster back to Sixtus I. (116-125). \u201cThe Roman Bishops,\u201d he says\naccording to Eusebius,[114] \u201cneither observed the Passover in this way\nthemselves, nor allowed those under their authority so to observe it.\u201d\nShould the thought here arise in the mind that the Roman practice came\ninto existence first under Sixtus, it is contradicted by the letter of\nPolycrates to Pope Victor where it is said that Rome appealed to the\nApostles Peter and Paul in support of her custom.\n\nThe chief reason why the Jewish Quartodeciman practice of the other\nChurches finally succumbed, was that Christians desired to commemorate\nnot merely the day of our Lord\u2019s death alone, which was linked to the\n15th Nisan, but also His Resurrection. The Resurrection had a close\nconnection with His death in point of time, and its commemoration was\nalready firmly established in apostolic times in the form of Sunday (see\nabove, p. 5). It was thus impossible to pass over the Sunday, and so\npractically an entire week was occupied by the commemoration. The events\nof Holy Week given above could not be separated from each other; they\nmust be kept in connection. The Jews, as Epiphanius[115] remarks in his\npolemic against the Audians, keep their passover on a single day, while\nthe Christians required a whole week for their Easter commemorations. And\nso, although they took the date of the Jewish passover as the basis of\ntheir calculations, they nevertheless did not limit the duration of their\nfeast to that one day. Finally, another point which had weight, was that\nthe Christians of the fourth century had a fixed idea that the 14th Nisan\nmust not fall before the vernal equinox.[116]\n\nAlong with this generally observed custom of commemorating in the Church\nthe passion and death of our Lord, repeated attempts were made to\ndiscover and establish a fixed date for the solemnity. Already in the\nthird century it was thought this had been successfully achieved, and in\nTertullian we find 782 U.C. given as the year of Christ\u2019s death, and the\n15th Nisan identified with the 25th March. This date would be incorrect\nin any case, even if 782 were really the year of Christ\u2019s death, for in\nthat year, the Jewish passover could only have fallen on either the 19th\nMarch or the 17th April of the Julian Calendar. Nevertheless the 25th\nMarch met with no small acceptance, being accepted, amongst others, by\nHippolytus, Augustine, and Perpetuus of Tours, who accordingly marked\nthe 27th March in his Calendar as the true day of the Resurrection. It\nappears also in the spurious acts of Pilate. In the Carolingian period\nthis date constantly occurs in the martyrologies, as, for instance, in\nthe _Gellonense_ of 804, in that of Corbie of 826, in Wandelbert of Pr\u00fcm,\nin the different recensions of the so-called martyrology of Jerome, and\nothers. Whether this day was liturgically observed, or had merely an\nhistoric interest, cannot be decided from the Calendars, but the former\nis probable.\n\nFinally, it may not be without interest to observe how in subsequent\ncenturies attempts were made to explain the fact that Easter, unlike\nother festivals, was movable. It is conceivable that in course of time,\nthe true explanation, viz., the connection of the Christian with the\nJewish feast and its consequent dependence on the Jewish Calendar, was\nforgotten, and attempts began to be made to account for the fact on other\ngrounds, typical or otherwise.\n\nAfter the observance had everywhere become well established, it must\nhave struck people that the day of our Lord\u2019s death was very differently\ncommemorated in the Church from the day of His birth, viz. as a movable\nfeast. Among the questions which Januarius submitted to St Augustine,\nthere was one bearing on this point. Augustine[117] replied that our\nLord\u2019s birthday was merely a commemorative festival, while Easter had a\nmystical connection with the Jewish passover, as also its name is of\nHebrew, not Greek, origin. Easter is the fulfilment of our redemption\nwhich consists in an inward renewal of mankind, and with this idea\nof renewal, the first month of the Jewish and ancient Roman year\ncorresponds. Afterwards, however, Augustine forsakes this safe path and\nloses himself in the symbolism of numbers and in forced astronomical\ninterpretations.\n\nShorter and more to the point is the explanation given by Martin, Bishop\nof Dumio (561-572), who died Bishop of Braga in 580. In his treatise\n_De Paschate_,[118] he says many people only add to the confusion by\ntheir unsuccessful attempts to explain why the date of Easter is fixed\nby the moon, after the Jewish custom. So, too, the attempts recently\nmade by many bishops of Gaul to celebrate the Resurrection on a fixed\nday (the 25th March) cannot be approved. Now the passion of Christ is\nthe redemption of the creature. The creation of the world took place in\nSpring (c. 4), and, consequently, the renewal of the world must also take\nplace in Spring, in the first month of the year. Two things had to be\ntaken into consideration with regard to this festival\u2014the day of the week\nand the phase of the moon. In order to be right in both, ecclesiastical\nantiquity had appointed that Easter should not be kept before the 23rd\nMarch or after the 21st April (c. 7).\n\nThe most important passage in this treatise bearing upon the history of\nEaster is the remark that many Gallic bishops about 570 commenced their\ncelebration of the festival on the 25th March as an immovable feast. This\nis also confirmed by Bede,[119] who had a distinctly clearer insight\ninto the nature of the question, and thus expresses himself concerning\nthe dispute about Easter. \u201cOriginally the Apostles kept Easter on the\nfull moon in March, on whatever day it fell. After their death different\ncustoms prevailed in different provinces. The Gauls kept the festival\non the 25th of March. In Italy, some fasted twenty days, others seven,\nbut the Easterns remained faithful to the custom of the Apostles.\u201d To\nremedy this state of things, Pope Victor put himself in communication\nwith Theophilus of C\u00e6sarea, who held a Synod which decided that the\nResurrection should be commemorated on a Sunday, so fixing the day of the\nweek on which it was to be kept.\n\n\n5. _The Liturgical Celebration of Holy Week and Easter_\n\nThe Christian passover, as originally limited to Holy Week and Easter\nWeek, was consecrated in the first place to the remembrances of Christ\u2019s\npassion, death, and resurrection, and to this the religious ceremonies,\nin so far as they differed from the ordinary services, owed their special\ncharacter. But, in the second place, it is to be observed that so long\nas the Catechumenate remained in existence, and even to some extent\nafterwards, Easter was the only season regularly appointed for baptism.\nAt Easter, the labours of the Catechists came to an end, the course of\npreparation was finished, the Catechumens received the sacraments of\nbaptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. To this fact, in the\nsecond place, the Easter services owe much of their special character,\nand even now, long after the practice of the Church has changed, rites\nconnected with the administration of baptism are to be found in the\nritual of the Easter festival. Thus, the consecration of the font on Holy\nSaturday, first of all, and then the consecration of the Holy Oils on\nMaundy Thursday, must be owing to the fact that they were required for\nthe administration of Baptism and Confirmation. On this ground, as well\nas because of the importance of the feast in itself, it is obvious that\nEaster, from the liturgical point of view, is conspicuous among all the\nother festivals, and that a number of rites are then performed which are\nnot repeated in the course of the whole year.[120]\n\nTo these rites belong the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday, and\non the Tuesday and Wednesday in Holy Week, the procession on Palm\nSunday, the Consecration of the Holy Oils on Maundy Thursday, the _missa\npr\u00e6sanctificatorum_ on Good Friday. More than the others, Holy Saturday\nis conspicuous for a number of rites peculiar to itself, viz.:\u2014\n\n    1. The blessing of the fire from which the other lights in the\n    Church are lit, and the blessing of the five grains of incense\n    for the pascal candle: both ceremonies being performed outside\n    before the door of the Church.\n\n    2. The procession thence into the Church.\n\n    3. The blessing of the pascal candle by the singing of the\n    _Exsultet_ or _pr\u00e6conium paschale_.\n\n    4. The reading of the prophecies from the Old Testament.\n\n    5. The blessing of the baptismal font, in which the pascal\n    candle is employed.\n\n    6. The baptism of catechumens, if there are any.\n\n    7. The chanting of the Litany of the Saints during the _humi\n    prostratio_.\n\n    8. The mass of Holy Saturday without introit, and with the\n    threefold Alleluia, _i.e._, instead of Vespers.\n\n    9. In many places Easter festivities take place on the evening\n    of Holy Saturday, but these are not liturgical.\n\n    10. On Easter morning, the lifting up of the Crucifix from the\n    sepulchre; procession, opening of the doors, and entry into the\n    church. The gospel being St Mark xvi. 1-7.\n\nIn the Middle Ages other special ceremonies and forms of rejoicing took\nplace.\n\nThat Easter was the special season for the baptism of those catechumens\nwhose preparation had extended over the whole of the preceding year,\nis made prominent only at a comparatively later date, in special laws,\nwhen the catechumenate was already dying out, as, for example, in the\nseventh canon of the Roman Synod of 402, the fourth Canon of Gerunda,\nthe eighteenth Canon of Auxerre, where it is expressly laid down that\noutside the Easter season, baptism must be given to none save the sick.\nBy the time of the Second Synod of Ma\u00e7on (585), the custom of baptising\nall the year round on any day had already become very common. This Synod,\nhowever, endeavoured to reinstate the ancient custom and also prescribed\nrest from work for the whole Easter week.[121] However, as late as the\nseventh and eighth centuries, Easter continued to be the regular season\nfor baptism, at least in Rome, as the so-called scrutinies[122] show,\nand even the Synod of Neuching (772), in its eighteenth canon, wished to\nrestrict baptism to only two dates in the year.[123]\n\nAt an early date, Holy Week had already received a special name,\n_septimana major_, which appears already in the fourth century,[124] and\nwhich it still retains in liturgical books. The German name (Karwoche)\ncomes from the old German _chara_ or _kara_, sadness or lamentation, and\nserved to mark the character of the time, always and everywhere regarded\nin the Church as a time of sadness.\n\nThe description of the liturgical ceremonies of Holy Week is best\nintroduced by the account of a pilgrim from Gaul in the fourth century.\nTo the account of her travels, written between 383 and 394, at the end of\na pilgrimage extending over three years, she added a description of all\nthat took place during Holy Week in Jerusalem at that period. There, the\nHoly places themselves suggested devotional practices which were imitated\nthroughout the Church, and have partially survived to the present day,\nas, for example, the procession of palms and the _adoratio crucis_.\nLiturgical scholars, being ignorant of this source of information,\nformerly sought the origin of these practices in a wrong quarter: it is\nnow beyond doubt that they originated in Jerusalem.\n\nTo begin with, students of the liturgy used to be divided over the\nquestion when and where the palm procession originated, and various\nconjectures were put forth. Binterim thought Bishop Peter introduced\nthe blessing of palms at Edessa in 397, while Mart\u00e8ne, attributed its\norigin to the eighth or ninth century. As a matter of fact, not a trace\nof the blessing of palms is found in the Gregorian sacramentary.[125] We\nshall certainly not be mistaken if we look for the origin of the palm\nprocession in Jerusalem, for the Gallic pilgrim gives us the following\naccount: On the Sunday, at the beginning of Holy Week, the usual Sunday\nmorning services were held in the larger church on Golgotha, then called\nthe _Martyrium_, but at the seventh hour of the day (about one P.M.) all\nthe people assembled on the Mount of Olives, where was the cave in which\nthe Lord used to teach. There for two hours, hymns and antiphons were\nsung and lections from the Scriptures were read. At the ninth hour, they\nascended to the summit, whence the Lord ascended to heaven. Here again,\nhymns were sung, lections suitable to the place and day were read, and\nprayers were offered up. At the seventh hour, when the gospel account\nof Christ\u2019s entry into Jerusalem had been read, all rose up, and with\nbranches of palm or olive in their hands, and, singing _Benedictus qui\nvenit_, proceeded from the hill down into the city, and continued their\nprocession until they reached the Church of the Anastasis where vespers\nwere sung, and an _oratio ad crucem_ offered up.[126]\n\nIt was quite in keeping with the dramatic character of Catholic worship\nto represent, in some marked way, Christ\u2019s memorable entry into Jerusalem\nat the last passover. On the very scene of the event especially, one\nwas, so to speak, drawn on to do so without any special exercise of the\ninventive faculty being required.\n\nHowever, we must follow the pilgrim\u2019s description to the end. On Tuesday,\nthere was another procession to the Mount of Olives, where the Bishop\nread the gospel, St Mark xxv. 3 _et seqq._ On Wednesday, the account of\nthe treason of Judas was read as the gospel, and during it, the people\nwept and lamented. On Maundy Thursday, the psalmody began at cock-crow;\nat four P.M.,[127] mass was said in the _Martyrium_ by the Bishop, at\nwhich the people communicated. Towards seven o\u2019clock in the evening, the\npeople assembled in the Eleona, as the church which then stood on the\nMount of Olives was called, and, towards eleven o\u2019clock, ascended to the\nsummit of the mount, praying and singing. This lasted until cock-crow the\nfollowing day. Then, about three A.M., the assembly broke up and a start\nwas made for the Garden of Gethsemani, where they found the beautiful\nchurch lit up by two hundred lamps. Here the bishop said a prayer; a\nsuitable psalm followed, and then the reading of the gospel, St Matt.\nxxvi. 41 _et seqq._, which narrates the capture of Christ in Gethsemani.\nThen the procession slowly descended the mount into the city, and passed\non until it reached the place of the crucifixion. Here the gospel\nnarrative of Christ\u2019s trial was read: the bishop addressed the people\nand dismissed them with an exhortation to return about seven o\u2019clock,\nfor the adoration of the Holy Cross. Whereupon, the people proceeded to\nMount Sion to pray at the column of the flagellation, and then returned\nto their homes.\n\nAt seven o\u2019clock, the bishop took his seat on his throne in the chapel of\nthe Holy Cross. Before him was placed a table covered with a white linen\ncloth, round which the deacons took up their position. Then the silver\nshrine containing the wood of the Holy Cross was brought in. It was\nopened and the Holy Cross itself, along with the inscription (_titulus_)\nlaid upon the table. The faithful and catechumens approached, knelt,\nkissed the Cross, and touched it with their forehead and eyes, but\nnot with their hands. In this way, they passed by, one by one, while\nthe deacons kept watch. Then the deacons exhibited also to the people\nSolomon\u2019s ring and the horn with which the Jewish kings used to be\nanointed: these also were kissed.\n\nAt the sixth hour, noon, the service proceeded in the following manner.\nThe people assembled in the open court between the chapel of the Holy\nCross and the Church of the Anastasis; the bishop took his seat on the\nthrone, and then lections from the Scriptures were read continuously,\nuntil the ninth hour. These related to the passion, and were taken from\nthe Old Testament, from the psalms and prophets, as well as from the New\nTestament. At the ninth hour, the passage from St John xix. 30, which\nspeaks of the death of Jesus, was read and the assembly was dismissed.\nThe service was then immediately resumed in the chief church (the\n_Martyrium_), and continued until the reading of the passage (St John\nxix. 38), describing the descent from the Cross, and then again a prayer\nwas recited and the blessing of the catechumens took place. With this,\nthe service for the day concluded and the people were dismissed. The\nyounger clerics, however, remained throughout the night watching in the\nchurch.\n\nWith regard to the liturgy for Good Friday, the pilgrim found that the\nceremonies she saw in Jerusalem differed not at all from what she was\nfamiliar with in her own country. She only observes that the baptised\nchildren were conducted by the bishop first to the Church of the\nResurrection and then to the principal church (the _Martyrium_).[128]\n\nThis is the earliest complete description of the ceremonies of Holy Week\nwhich we possess. We now pass to the usages of a later date.\n\n\nPALM SUNDAY\n\nThe Sunday next before Easter is commonly called Palm Sunday (_Dominica\nin ramis palmarum_, Gr. \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u0390\u03bf\u03bd). At an earlier date it was\nalso called _Dominica competentium_, because on it catechumens requested\nbaptism. In some sacramentaries it is called _in capitilavio_,[129] from\nthe washing and shaving of the head in preparation for baptism.\n\nAmong the characteristic ceremonies of this day, is the procession, at\nwhich branches of palm, or of some other similar tree, are carried. In\nthe Middle Ages, this was fairly common; not so, however, the blessing\nof the palms.[130] In the Roman ritual, this blessing is performed with\nmuch ceremony. It resembles in form the _ordo miss\u00e6_, consisting of an\nintroit, collect, epistle, gospel, another prayer and a preface, followed\nby the actual blessing comprising five more prayers, sprinkling with holy\nwater and incensation. Upon this, the procession starts, which passes out\nof the church, the doors of which are then closed. They are reopened when\nthe deacon has knocked with the staff of the processional cross, and the\nprocession enters, recalling the entry of our Lord through the gates of\nJerusalem. In the Mass which follows, the Passion according to St Matthew\nis read or sung.\n\nIn the oldest Roman sacramentaries, however, nothing is found relating\nto the blessing and procession of palms, but the ritual for them is\nminutely described in the Ordos, xii. c. 9 (of Cencio Savelli), and\nxv. c. 53 _et seq._ These clearly belong to the Middle Ages. The first\ntrace of the practice of holding palm-branches during divine service,\nas far as the rituals of the Roman Church are concerned, is found in\nthe later recension of the Gregorian sacramentary used in Gaul in the\nninth and tenth centuries. Among the prayers for the day is found one\nfor the blessing, not of the palms, but of those who carried them. In\nthe Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries, the Sunday is at any rate\ncalled _Dominica in Palmas_, but only in the title. It seems as if people\nwere satisfied at first with holding palms during the Mass, and that the\npalm procession only took shape later. In the Gotho-Gallican missal,\nthe Sunday has no special name and no mention is made of palms. On the\nother hand, the name appears in the lectionaries of Silos and Luxeuil.\nEverything points to the blessing of the palms, and, probably, also the\nprocession, having become customary in the second half of the ninth\ncentury.[131] Isidore of Seville[132] is familiar with the name _dies\npalmarum_, but not with the procession. Amalarius,[133] on the contrary,\nmentions the custom of carrying palm branches through the church and of\nshouting Hosanna.\n\nThere was, however, a rite, universally observed on Palm Sunday, which\nhad reference to the administration of baptism. As is well known, the\ncatechumens in primitive times were instructed in Christian doctrine\nduring Lent, and even for a longer period. The instruction of catechumens\nand the solemn administration of baptism took place only once a year.\nThe former began eight weeks before Easter, and ended with the baptism\nwhich was administered on Easter Eve. The concluding part of this course\nof instruction was composed of the so-called mystagogical instructions\ntreating of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the three sacraments of\nbaptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. The words of the Creed,\nso the _disciplina arcani_ enjoined, were the last, not the first thing\nto be imparted. The catechumens learnt the Creed for the first time on\nPalm Sunday. This was the custom in Spain,[134] Gaul,[135] Milan,[136]\nprobably also in Rome. There seems, however, to have been divergences\nas to the choice of the day, for it was necessary, at any rate in Gaul,\nto enjoin uniformity, since the Synod of Agde (506) prescribes in its\nthirteenth canon: In every diocese, the Creed shall be imparted in church\nto the catechumens on one and the same day, _i.e._ eight days before\nEaster Sunday. This ceremony was called the _traditio symboli_.\n\nThe manner in which this was done is fully described in the Gelasian\nsacramentary, although at that date the catechumenate, strictly speaking,\nno longer existed. After some introductory remarks from the priest, an\nacolyte rehearsed the Creed to the candidates for baptism, who were\nexhorted to impress it on their minds and hearts.[137] The rite, at all\nevents, was the same as in earlier times. In the Gregorian sacramentary\nthese practices are already omitted. A similar practice was followed with\nregard to the Our Father. It was first taught _verbatim_ to the baptised\nafter their baptism.[138] This ceremony formed the chief characteristic\nof the Sunday next before Easter, in service-books in which the name Palm\nSunday was as yet unknown. Accordingly, in the Gallican missal the Mass\nfor the day is called, _Missa in Traditio Symboli_.\n\nDuring the Middle Ages, in various places, and especially in Germany,\nChrist\u2019s entry into Jerusalem was represented in a somewhat na\u00efve manner\nby carrying round in the procession a wooden figure representing the\nSaviour seated on an ass. Afterwards it was brought into the Church and\nplaced in a conspicuous position. While suitable hymns were being sung,\nthe clergy and people venerated it on their knees, and there it remained\nfor the rest of the day. Figures of the so-called \u201cPalmesel\u201d are still\nnumerous in museums, as, for example, at Basel, Zurich, Munich, N\u00fcrnberg,\netc.\n\n\nMAUNDY THURSDAY\n\nThe fifth day of Holy Week, the day on which Christ partook of the last\nPassover with His disciples and instituted the memorial of His Passion,\nis generally called _C\u0153na Domini_ in service-books. The Greeks, however,\ncall it merely \u1f21 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7, the Great and Holy Thursday.\n\nIn the Calendar of Polemius Silvius is found, under the 24th March, the\nremarkable note _Natalis Calicis_. This is owing to the fact that at that\nperiod the 25th March was regarded as the day of Christ\u2019s death, and the\n27th as the day of His resurrection. The day of the institution of the\nHoly Eucharist and of the Sacrifice of the Mass was not passed over in\neven such an imperfect list of the Church\u2019s festivals as that contained\nin this Calendar. The day had something of a festival character belonging\nto itself. Indeed, among the Copts it appears as a regular festival.\n\nThe name _Natalis Calicis_ seems to have been common in southern and\nwestern Gaul, for it is found in Avitus of Vienne, and in Eligius of\nNoyon, in the sixth and seventh centuries. The same writers mark the day\nas a festival, _sollemnitas_, on which those who had been put to public\npenance were everywhere received back into the Church, and on which the\nChrism was consecrated.[139]\n\nThe most unlikely of the many attempts to explain the German name for the\nday is that which connects it with St Luke xxiii. 31, and makes the name,\nGreen Thursday, signify that the withered branches, sinners, by their\nreception again into the bosom of the Church once more grow green.[140]\nApart from the fact that this interpretation is far-fetched, it savours\ntoo much of the study to have ever given rise to the name among the\ncommon people. The fact is that red vestments were worn at the reception\nof the penitents on Maundy Thursday, but green vestments at the Mass,\nand this gave rise to the name.[141] The older service-books, however,\ndrawn up before liturgical colours had been introduced and their use\nhad become regulated, do not specify the colour for the vestments, but\ncontent themselves with prescribing the use of festal vestments (_vestes\nsollemniores_) in general. Later on, the Roman custom of wearing white\nvestments on this day became general.[142]\n\nIt was only to be expected that the Church should keep with special\nsolemnity the day on which Christ had celebrated the last passover with\nHis apostles, and had instituted the mystery of His Body and Blood. In\nfact, Holy Saturday alone of the days of Holy Week can vie with it in\nthis respect. It frequently ranks as a Church festival, and is expressly\ncalled a _sollemnitas_.[143]\n\nThe ritual directions for Maundy Thursday, of which we possess a\nconsiderable number dating from the Middle Ages, naturally begin with\nthe Psalmody. This began at midnight, and its distinguishing feature\nwas, that the lights lit at its commencement did not remain burning,\nbut were extinguished, one at a time, after each psalm, until, at the\nconcluding prayers, the church was in total darkness. The number of\ncandles varied in different places, between fifteen, twenty-four, thirty,\nand thirty-four.[144] Such was the \u201cdark mattins,\u201d _tenebr\u00e6_.\n\nThe second characteristic ceremony of the day was the reconciliation of\nthe penitents. These had to remain prostrate on the ground while the\nMiserere and other prayers were recited over them and their absolution\npronounced. On this occasion, as we have remarked above, red vestments\nwere worn. The reconciled penitents were admitted to communion with the\nrest of the congregation at the Mass which followed.\n\nThis Mass was of a festal character, and, in many places, in primitive\ntimes, two Masses were celebrated, one at the usual hour in the morning,\nand the other towards evening at the time of vespers. In other places,\non the contrary, there was only one Mass, at which all the faithful\ncommunicated.[145] These different customs in course of time became a\ncause of astonishment and offence, and so Bishop Januarius enquired of\nSt Augustine what ought to be done. The reply was, that each ought to\nfollow the custom of his own diocese. In Rome also, at the period when\nthe Gelasian sacramentary was in use, two Masses were still celebrated,\nfor the sacramentary gives a _Missa ad Vesperum_.[146] The same authority\nnotices only the reconciliation of penitents and the consecration of\nthe Holy Oils among the other ceremonies performed on Maundy Thursday.\nThe Gregorian sacramentary gives only the latter, as also does Ordo I.,\nthe earliest of the sixteen ancient Roman ordos.[147] In liturgical\nwritings relating to our subject which belong to the Middle Ages,\nespecially in the pseudo-Alcuin, the consecration of the Holy Oils is\ngiven at considerable length.[148] St Cyprian had already spoken of the\nconsecration of oil required for ritual purposes without saying on what\nday it took place.[149]\n\nAt the conclusion of the Mass, the altar was washed by the bishop or\nofficiating priest, and, in the afternoon, the washing of the feet was\nperformed, at which the Superior washed the feet of his subjects, or the\nbishop the feet of twelve old men representing the twelve apostles. In\nthe Middle Ages, the usual name for this ceremony was _Mandatum_.[150]\nThe washing of the altar and the consecration of the Chrism is spoken of\nby Isidore of Seville.[151] In the later Middle Ages, to these ceremonies\nwas added the reading of the Bull in _C\u0153na Domini_, containing a list of\nerrors condemned by the Church under pain of excommunication. The reading\nof this Bull continued from the fourteenth to the end of the eighteenth\ncentury.\n\nFinally, in some countries, the public ceremonial recitation of the\nCreed by the catechumens (_redditio symboli_) was prescribed for Maundy\nThursday, as by the forty-sixth canon of the Synod of Laodicea, and by\nthe sixty-eighth Trullan canon. This, however, in Rome, was done on\nHoly Saturday by each person in turn from some conspicuous place in the\nchurch.[152]\n\n\nGOOD FRIDAY\n\nThe day of our Lord\u2019s Passion was universally regarded as a day of\nmourning\u2014\u201c_dies amaritudinis_,\u201d St Ambrose calls it, \u201con which we\nfast.\u201d[153] A fast day, on liturgical principles, can never be a\nfestival, though, _vice vers\u00e2_, a festival can fall on a fixed day of\nfasting or abstinence, as, for example, the Annunciation.\n\nWhen, at an early date, the Roman emperor made a law forbidding the\nCourts to sit on Good Friday, this did not make it a festival. On the\ncontrary, the Church Order of the period of Constantine expressly\ndeclares that \u201cboth it and Holy Saturday are days of sorrow, and not\nfeasts.\u201d[154] Accordingly, there was enjoined upon all whose health\nenabled them to observe it, an unbroken fast lasting over the two days,\ndirectly based upon St Mark ii. 20. For, as the eighth canon of the\nfourth Synod of Toledo says, \u201cThe whole Church is wont to spend Good\nFriday in fasting and sorrow, on account of our Lord\u2019s Passion.\u201d There\nis scarcely any other point on which such liturgical agreement exists\nin all lands and in all periods of Christian antiquity as on this. The\nabove-named Synod mentions with reprobation a mistaken expression of\ngrief, _i.e._ in many places the churches were shut up for the whole day,\nand no services, neither divine office nor sermon, were held (seventh\ncanon). The Synod does not blame the omission of Mass, for this was\nuniversal. This sentiment of sorrow was outwardly manifested, after the\nintroduction of liturgical colours, by the fact that on Good Friday,\nblack vestments were worn.[155] In the Middle Ages, discussion arose over\nthe question why the days of the saints\u2019 deaths were kept as festivals,\nbut Good Friday as a day of mourning. The monk Helperich, who lived at St\nGall at the end of the ninth century, replied; Christ, unlike the saints,\nattained to no higher degree of glory through His death. He died not for\nHis own sake but for us. The Jews, His enemies, rejoiced over His death,\nbut the apostles bewailed and lamented.[156]\n\nIt may be observed here that in W\u00fcrtemburg, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Reuss \u00e4.\nL., Altenburg, and Lippe, Good Friday is one of the days of penitence and\nprayer, but, on the other hand, wherever Calvinism is in the ascendent,\nthe dogmatic significant of the day, as the day of our redemption has\nbeen partially changed. There it ranks as a Church festival, and in other\nrespects is given up to excursions and entertainments, just as if someone\nwould pass the day of his father\u2019s death in rejoicings, because a rich\ninheritance had fallen to him.\n\nThe Good Friday services began at night with mattins, at which the lights\nwere extinguished in the same manner as on the previous day. In addition,\nthe low tone in which the devotions were pitched, and the omission of the\n_Gloria Patri_ at the end of the psalms, gave outward expression to the\nsentiment of sorrow.\n\nThe liturgy proper to Good Friday, according to the rite now in use,\nbegins with the prostration (_humi prostratio_) of the celebrant on the\nsteps of the altar. Then, without their title being given out, follow\nlections from the prophets, in which the death of the Messias and its\nvirtue were foretold. These sufferings themselves are described in\nthe words of the Passion according to St John, which are said or sung\nimmediately afterwards. Then follow the general intercessions, at the\nconclusion of which, the Host, consecrated on the previous day, is\nbrought to the altar from the place where it has been reserved. The\npaternoster is then sung followed by the elevation of the Host and the\ncommunion of the celebrant. This _missa pr\u00e6sanctificatorum_ is nothing\nmore than an elaborate rite of communion. It is preceded by the _Adoratio\nCrucis_, and followed by the laying of the Cross in the sepulchre, which\ndates from about the tenth century.\n\nAt an earlier period, the ceremonies were simpler, and even restricted\nto psalmody, for Innocent I., says,[157] that in his time, generally\nspeaking, Mass was not celebrated on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.\nThis is still the custom among the Greeks and Russians. Their Good\nFriday service consists of the singing of psalms and the veneration of\na representation of our Lord on the Cross, similar to our _adoratio\ncrucis_. At the evening service, that is, a painted, not carved,\nrepresentation of the dead Christ is brought in and venerated.[158]\nThese expressions must be taken quite literally, in the sense that on\nGood Friday not even the _missa pr\u00e6sanctificatorum_ was celebrated, nor\nthe now usual Mass on the morning of Holy Saturday. For the Gelasian\nsacramentary gives no Mass for either of these days but only the\nvarious prayers, so too the old Gallic missal,[159] and the same must\nbe understood when we hear of the Churches in parts of Spain not being\nopened on Good Friday. Sermons, however, were preached on Good Friday,\nfor we possess several of Leo I., and Gregory the Great preached on this\nday. It is difficult to say what was the custom as to Holy Communion.\nIn France, the people seem to have communicated, but not in Rome or in\nGermany; at least Rabanus Maurus is silent on the point.[160]\n\nAccording to the evidence afforded by the ancient service-books, it may\nbe conjectured that the adoption of the _missa pr\u00e6sanctificatorum_, as\nwell as the striking insertion of the Greek passages in the Reproaches,\nis due to Greek influence. That alterations were made at a considerably\nlater date in these parts of the rite will be noticed elsewhere.\n\nWith regard to the service-books of the Roman Church in particular, we\nfind a rubric in the Gelasian sacramentary, directing that the Holy\nCross be placed on the altar, and then that the priests and attendant\nclerics take their position at the altar in silence and begin the solemn\nintercessions for the whole Church, for all estates of men, etc.; the\nintercessions being prefaced by the summons to kneel (_flectamus genua_).\nThe genuflection seems at that time to have been made also before the\nprayer for the Jews, for the rubric directs the deacon to proceed \u201c_ut\nsupra_.\u201d[161] The prayers are the well-known Good Friday prayers.\nThere is no mention at this point of the _Adoratio Crucis_, but at the\nconclusion of the intercessions, the sacred Species, in both kinds, which\nhad been consecrated the previous day were brought from the sacrarium by\nthe deacons and placed on the altar. The priest consumed them, having\nfirst adored and kissed the Cross. Whereupon all present adored the Cross\nand communicated. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that the\nGelasian sacramentary does not represent the Roman rite in its purity,\nbut embellished with numerous Gallican additions, which probably owe\ntheir origin to Alcuin or his contemporaries. The same is true of the\nedition of the Gregorian sacramentary employed in France.\n\nIn this last we find the general intercessions recurring twice in Holy\nWeek, on Wednesday and again on Good Friday,[162] but they are not\nplaced at the beginning of the liturgy, as they are in the Gelasian\nsacramentary. After the bishop has taken his seat, the tract, _Domine\naudivi_, a lection from the Scriptures, and then another tract followed\nin succession. The Passion according to St John came next, and then the\nprayers in question. At their conclusion the altar was stripped. The\nsolemn adoration of the Cross before the altar by clergy and people\ntook place at the time of vespers, and, during it, the antiphon, _Ecce\nlignum crucis_, was sung. The _missa pr\u00e6sanctificatorum_ proceeded in\nessentially the same manner as at present, except that the elevation is\nnot expressly mentioned. The altar remained bare from the afternoon of\nMaundy Thursday until Good Friday morning. The Gregorian sacramentary in\nits original form knew nothing of these rites. It proscribed nothing more\nfor Good Friday than the nine prayers still in use and a blessing of the\ncatechumens.\n\nA full description of the whole ritual for Holy Week is to be found in\nthe first of the ancient Roman Ordos edited by Mabillon, which gives\nboth the psalmody and the special ceremonies. Mabillon attributes\nthis ordo to the ninth century.[163] According to it, the psalmody\nbegan at midnight. As on the previous day, the candles were gradually\nextinguished, and the sad character of the service was indicated by\nthe low tone taken for the prayers and by the omission of the _Gloria\nPatri_. The consecrated Host was brought back from the place where it\nhad been reserved the day before, and the _missa pr\u00e6sanctificatorum_\ncommenced. This consisted of preface, Our Father, the prayer _Libera\nme_, the pax, and communion of the people. This last is omitted from the\nexisting Roman rite. The adoration of the Cross preceded the Mass, as at\npresent. In monasteries a procession took place within the cloister. The\nceremonies of the Mass here described agree in all essential points with\nthe Frankish edition of the Gregorian sacramentary, as, for instance,\nin the recitation of the _orationes sollemnes_ on both Wednesday and\nGood Friday. Thus the earlier liturgical services for Good Friday were\nreplaced in the ninth century by an elaborate ritual, which agrees in all\nimportant respects with that in use at the present day.[164]\n\n\nHOLY SATURDAY\n\nThis too is a day of mourning, as appears also from the fact that, in the\nEastern Church, it is numbered among the fast days, although originally\nin the East no Saturday was kept as a fast. But the sadness of the day is\nalready modified by the approach of the Resurrection, and the Alleluia,\nwhich has not been heard since Septuagesima, is sung again at the\nMass.[165]\n\nThe solemnity begins, as on the preceding days, with the night office,\nat which the lights are again extinguished. This custom is very ancient,\nbut the use of the triangle with the _lumen Christi_ is of later\nintroduction.[166]\n\nMedi\u00e6val writers begin their description of the other ceremonies with\nthe blessing of the fire, which, even then, was performed early in the\nmorning. Concerning the origin of this rite, it has been held that it\ntook place not only on Holy Saturday, but every evening at Vespers.[167]\nStill the evidence for this is not sufficiently strong, and, on the other\nhand, this rite harmonises in an especial way with Holy Saturday as the\nappointed date for the administration of baptism, for which a favourite\nname was illumination (_illuminatio_, \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2). The name _illuminandi_\nwas common also for those about to be baptised.\n\nTo the same association of ideas, the Paschal candle certainly owes\nits origin. It is not yet clear where we are to look for the origin of\nthis custom. In Spain, there is evidence to show that the blessing of a\ncandle or lamp (_lucerna_) on Easter night was common. The fourth synod\nof Toledo (633), in its ninth canon, recommends the adoption of this\npractice to the churches of Galicia. The Paschal candle is a symbol of\nChrist, and is blessed through the chanting of the _pr\u00e6conium paschale_\nor _Exsultet_, a grand song of triumph, said to have been composed by St\nAugustine. This candle, placed in its own candlestick near the altar, is\nlit at High Mass throughout Eastertide. Two prefaces for its blessing are\nfound in the writings of Bishop Ennodius of Pavia (\u2020 521), and medi\u00e6val\nliturgical writers generally attribute the blessing of the Paschal candle\nto Pope Zosimus.[168]\n\nAt an earlier period, the special ceremonies of Holy Saturday commenced\nin the afternoon, the forenoon being devoted to decorating the church\nand preparing for the festival.[169] These ceremonies are, the blessing\nof the Paschal candle, the lections from the Old Testament, and the\nblessing of the baptismal font, all of which are only preparatory to the\nsolemn administration of baptism. As has been said, these ceremonies\nonly commenced towards evening and continued into the night, which was\nobserved as a vigil (_pervigilium paschale_). When they were concluded,\nthe neophytes were baptised, and then, also in the night, followed the\nMass of the day. To this the newly baptised, along with the people and\nclergy, proceeded in a solemn procession from the baptistery, when there\nwas one, to the principal church. The Emperor Constantine allowed the\nstreets and squares of the capital to be illuminated on this night.\nHe himself as a catechumen passed the night in prayer in his private\nchapel, and hallowed the Easter festival by the bestowal of rich alms.\nThe Mass is entitled in the service-books, _in vigilia pasch\u00e6_. Since it\ncame after midnight, the Alleluia could be sung at it. This arrangement\nas regards the time of the Mass still held good in the eleventh century,\nfor Rupert of Deutz (_De div. Off._, 7, 11) still speaks of it as being\nthe established practice, and only later on were the above-mentioned\nceremonies and the Mass transferred to the afternoon of Saturday, the\nAlleluia thus coming before its time. Upon this followed the psalmody\nof Easter, which had to be made as short as possible on account of the\nlength of these ceremonies. Sermons also were usually short at Easter,\nfor the same reason.[170]\n\nIn the early centuries, the Roman rite was much simpler. The festival\ncommenced with the recitation of the creed by the candidates for baptism\nand a prayer by the Pope over them. Then followed the other preparations\nfor baptism, the renunciations, four lessons from the Old Testament,\nthe singing of Psalm xli., two prayers, the blessing of the baptismal\nwater, the baptism itself, and the confirmation of the baptised. The Mass\nconcluded the function.[171]\n\nWe must now see what special features the other liturgical documents\ncontained. In the _missale Gallicanum_,[172] we find, after the prayers\nfor each of the hours, the _Exsultet_, and the blessing of the Paschal\ncandle, then the general intercessions for all estates of Christian\nmen, concluding with intercessions for the neophytes and _competentes_.\nUpon this follows the baptismal rite (_opus ad baptizandum_), viz., the\nexorcisms, the blessing of the baptismal water, the washing of the feet,\nand the baptism itself. Then come the prayers for the Mass. The rite in\nthe _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_ is exactly the same.[173]\n\nThe Gelasian sacramentary prescribes the following rite for Holy\nSaturday: Early in the morning, the exorcisms shall be made over the\ncatechumens, and, after they have made their solemn renunciations, they\nshall repeat the creed (_redditio symboli_). About the eighth hour, the\nclergy shall assemble in the _sacrarium_, commence the litanies there,\nand proceed to the altar; at the _Agnus Dei_, the Paschal candle is to\nbe lighted and blessed, but without the chanting of the _Exsultet_. Then\nthe lections from the Old Testament are read, each with a prayer, and\nafter them takes place the blessing of the font and the baptism of the\nneophytes.\n\nAccording to the edition of the Gregorian sacramentary used in France,\nthe clergy and people assemble in the church about the eighth hour,\n_i.e._ about 2 P.M., according to present reckoning. Two candles were\nthen lit, which were held by notaries, one on the right, the other on\nthe left of the altar; while a lector from the pulpit read the Old\nTestament lections, each of which concluded with a prayer. Thereupon the\nclergy and the bishop proceeded in procession, the notaries with the\ncandles leading the way, to the baptistery, where the baptismal water was\nblessed. After the blessing of the water, which was the same as that now\nin use, the baptism followed, at which it is to be observed a distinction\nis made between children and those who are grown up. The former were\nconfirmed also immediately after baptism, the ritual and significance\nof confirmation being here clearly shown.[174] After the baptism, the\nlitanies are sung in the church by singers, who then intoned the _Gloria\nin Excelsis_. The Mass of the day brought the function to a close.\n\nJust as the Church marked the anniversary of the dedication of a church\nand of ordination by a special festival, so was the anniversary of their\nbaptism a day of joy and thanksgiving for the baptised. It was also a\nday for renewing their baptismal vows, and for serious self-examination.\nThe Church provided for this inasmuch as she was accustomed to celebrate\nthis anniversary, and appointed a special Mass for it. It was called the\n_pascha annotina_.[175] A festival of this nature had a _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_\nonly so long as it was customary to baptise people when they were grown\nup. When it became general to baptise little children immediately after\ntheir birth, this festival fell out of use. The _pascha annotina_,\nhowever, appears in the _Homilarium_ compiled by Paul the Deacon by\ncommand of Charlemagne, about 785-90, and in the Sacramentary of Essen,\ncomposed between 850 and 874.\n\n\nEASTER AND THE EASTER OCTAVE\n\nIf one wishes to form a correct idea of the festival of Easter, one must\nalways bear in mind its close connection with the solemn administration\nof baptism. The preliminary ceremonies began on Saturday afternoon and\nlasted throughout the night. When the number to be baptised was very\nlarge, the administration of baptism and the Easter festival could be\ncombined. This connection was lost at only quite a late date, in days\nwhen all remembrance of the grounds for it had died out, and people had\nno longer any idea of the catechumenate. The chief and most striking\nceremonies were then transferred to the forenoon, and it is much to be\nregretted that, in those centuries, no creative force was forthcoming\nto form something in keeping with the altered conditions of the time.\nOwing to the alteration in the hour, many of the ceremonies are rendered\nmeaningless.\n\nThe interval thus produced was occupied by the festival commemoration of\nthe Resurrection, and by a great procession. The latter can easily be\ntraced back to the solemn procession of the catechumens and clergy from\nthe baptistery to the cathedral, which took place in primitive times\nafter baptism. It was probably ignorance of this custom which led later\nwriters to trace the origin of this procession to the words of Christ to\nHis disciples: \u201cI will go before you into Galilee\u201d (St Matt. xxvi. 32;\nxxviii. 16),[176] directing them to go to Galilee after His resurrection.\n\nThe Easter ceremonies varied in different countries and in different\ndioceses. The earliest mention of them appears in the _Ordo Romanus_\nbelonging to the thirteenth century which goes by the name of Cardinal\nJames Cajetan.[177] It would lead us too far from our subject to describe\nthem and the other customs formerly observed on Easter Day; besides,\nsuch special points of ritual are better dealt with in connection with\nthe liturgy itself. We shall here only mention the blessing of food,\nespecially those kinds of food which, after having been forbidden in\nLent, again become lawful, such as flesh meat in particular, eggs,\ncheese, butter, and other things as well. The original object of this\nblessing of food was plainly to check the tendency to over-indulgence\nwhich might assert itself after a prolonged period of self-denial.[178]\n\nWe must now return to the account of the Gallic pilgrim. She speaks of\nprocessions to the different churches and to the Mount of Olives as\nhaving taken place in Jerusalem not only on Easter Day, but on the other\ndays of the octave as well. She finds no other points to notice in which\nthe customs at Jerusalem differed from those observed at her own home.\nOn the Saturday and Sunday after Easter, the narrative of St Thomas\u2019s\nunbelief formed the Gospel, as at the present day.[179]\n\nWith regard to the Easter octave, the two first days rank as festivals\nof the first class. On Monday, the supper at Emmaus is commemorated, the\nGospel being St Luke xxiv. 13-35; on Tuesday, the appearance of our Lord\nand His apostles, narrated in St Luke xxiv. 36-47; on Wednesday, His\nappearance by the Sea of Tiberias to Peter and the others, as they were\nfishing, St John xxi. 1-14; on Thursday, His appearance in the garden\nto Mary Magdalen, St John xx. 11-18; on Friday, His appearance on the\nmountain in Galilee, St Matt. xxviii. 16-20; on Saturday, the Gospel\ncontains the account of the first appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalen\nimmediately after His resurrection, St John xx. 1-9.\n\nThe following Sunday forms the conclusion of the Easter octave, and,\naccordingly, was formerly called simply _octava pasch\u00e6_, or _pascha\nclausum_, later it was called White Sunday, _dominica in albis_, _scil._\n_deponendis_, because the neophytes wore their white baptismal garments\nuntil this day. When Easter ceased to be the day for baptisms, it was\nappointed, as being in harmony with White Sunday, that children should\nreceive their first communion, and renew their baptismal vows. Rabanus\nMaurus[180] further observes that in his time confirmation was given on\nWhite Sunday. The prayers during the Easter octave contain references\nto the two great sources of festal gladness, the resurrection of our\nLord and the increase in the number of the faithful. The prayers for the\nthird, fifth, and sixth ferias are specially concerned with the latter,\nwhile the Gospels throughout are occupied with the appearances of our\nLord after His resurrection to His disciples. The Epistles, however, are\neither for the most part taken from the Acts, or describe that spiritual\nrenewal of mankind which follows upon the work of redemption. The prayers\nfor the whole octave, with the exception of two on Monday, are the same\nat the present day as those in the Gregorian sacramentary.[181] For\nthe following Sundays, until Whitsunday, they only occasionally agree\nwith the prayers of this sacramentary, being taken bodily, with two\nunimportant exceptions, from the Gelasian. The Sundays lead up to the\nfulfilment of Christ\u2019s redemptive work and His return to the Father.\nThe Gospels from the third to the fifth are accordingly taken from the\nsixteenth chapter of St John.\n\nRight in the middle of the period anciently called _quinquagesima_, that\nis to say on the twenty-fifth day after Easter, or, in other words, on\nthe Wednesday of the fourth week after Easter, the event recorded in St\nJohn vii. 1 was formerly commemorated in certain churches. In the midst\nof the feast of Tabernacles, Christ went up into the Temple and taught\n(St John vii. 14). On the last day of the feast, He stood in the Temple\nand cried, referring to the usual libation of the Jews on this day,[182]\n\u201cIf any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink\u201d (v. 37). On this day,\nin the Eastern Churches, the rite of blessing the waters still takes\nplace, which is not to be confused with that which is performed on the\n6th January, in honour of the baptism of Jesus in Jordan (_missa aqu\u00e6_).\nThis commemoration is called by the Greeks \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, _festum medi\u00e6\npentecostes_. The name, as we have already observed, belongs to the\noldest ecclesiastical terminology, according to which Pentecost meant not\nWhitsunday but the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday.[183]\n\n\n6. _The Preparation for Easter\u2014Quadragesima and the Fast_\n\nThe chief festivals are usually preceded by a time of preparation,\nconsisting in many cases of only a single day, the vigil, but the\npreparation for Easter extends over nine weeks, and is composed of two\nparts, Lent, the more immediate preparation, and the three preceding\nSundays, as a more distant and merely liturgical preparation.\n\nIn Lent, it is the fast which plays the chief part, and presents itself\nas the essential feature of the whole time of preparation. From it, also,\nthe other developments take their rise.[184]\n\nThere are indications that, in the earliest times, Christians fasted on\nall Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. This pious custom seems\nto have been so generally observed that, without having been enjoined\nby any formal enactment, it had, so to speak, the force of law. It is\nmentioned in the Didach\u00e9, in Hermas, and by Tertullian.[185] The latter\ncalls these fasts \u201cstation-fasts,\u201d and mentions that the fast lasted\nuntil 3 P.M. The custom had possibly been adopted from the Jews, for the\nPharisees and Jewish ascetics in the time of Christ were wont to fast\ntwice a week, on Monday and Thursday.[186]\n\nWith regard to the East, Clement of Alexandria mentions[187] Wednesday\nand Friday as fast days, and, which is especially remarkable, these days\nwere also so observed in the period after Constantine, at least for a\ngreat part of the year. The _Didascalia_ enjoins that these days be kept\nas fasts in the time after Whitsunday. The preceding season, the fifty\ndays between Easter and Whitsunday, was a season of unmixed gladness, and\nso, according to the _Didascalia_, in Whitsun Week, these days were not\nfasts. We are led to the conjecture that this custom fell out of use in\nproportion as fasting became otherwise regulated, and the fast of forty\ndays before Easter became a general law.\n\nThat fasting should form an essential feature in the commemoration of\nPassion-tide had already been indicated in our Lord\u2019s words (St Matt.\nix. 15): \u201cCan the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the\nbridegroom is with them?\u201d To which question He Himself replied, \u201cThe days\nwill come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then\nshall they fast.\u201d The days when the Bridegroom was taken away were held\nfrom the first to be those in which He lay in the grave, Good Friday and\nHoly Saturday. In the earliest times, these days were everywhere kept as\nfasts, and were observed by all, with exception of the quartodecimans, as\nobligatory fasts of the strictest kind.[188]\n\nThis fact is supported by a remark of St Iren\u00e6us, in an official letter\naddressed to Pope Victor (189-99), on the occasion of the second dispute\nabout Easter. It is given, for the most part, by Eusebius in his history\nof the Church.[189] This is the earliest evidence for the fast before\nEaster. It shows that the practice had not yet received a fixed and\nspecial form. Some, for instance, thought only one day ought to be kept\nas a fast, Good Friday; others fasted for two days, Good Friday and Holy\nSaturday\u2014the two days, as Tertullian says, on which the Bridegroom was\ntaken away. Others again fasted for more than two days (unfortunately, it\nis not said for how many), and others reckoned as their fast day, forty\nconsecutive hours. That is to say, they kept a continuous fast for forty\nhours night and day, and regarded this as their fast day.[190] Which\nthese forty hours were is easy to say, for our Lord lay in the grave\nfor about forty hours, from the afternoon of Good Friday until Easter\nmorning, or from Good Friday morning to the evening of Saturday.\n\nIren\u00e6us and Tertullian know nothing as yet of the fast of forty days,\nalthough in their days it was the universal custom to fast, and that\nvery strictly, on the two last days of Holy Week. About the middle of\nthe third century, a week\u2019s fast was customary in many places\u2014the entire\nHoly Week being fasted on water and bread and salt, while on the last\ntwo days nothing whatever was eaten. The _Didascalia_ describes the fast\nin the same way, and also the Apostolic Constitutions (5, 15). After\nthis manner, accordingly, the fast was observed in Syria, and Dionysius\nwitnesses to the same practice in Alexandria.[191]\n\nHowever the words, \u201cThe fast shall be broken when a Sunday\nintervenes,\u201d[192] found on the well-known statue of Hippolytus in Rome,\nshow that already, by the middle of the third century, the fast extended\nover several weeks. The fast here alluded to must have extended over\nfourteen days at least. The disputed canons of Hippolytus (the twentieth\nand twenty-second) receive some confirmation from this passage.\n\nIn the fourth century, many witnesses to the fast of forty days are\nforthcoming, both writers, such as Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem,\nAmbrose, etc., as well as ecclesiastical enactments, _e.g._, the\nsixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons. The Fifth canon of the First\nCouncil of Nic\u00e6a, in particular, mentions Lent as an observance already\nestablished. Nevertheless it clearly was not as yet uniformly observed\nin all parts of the Church, as the Festal Letters of St Athanasius bear\nwitness.\n\nThese letters are in any case the most important evidence for the fast\nof forty days before Easter. The first of them, for the year 329, is\nsatisfied with appointing \u201ca holy fast of six days\u201d from the Monday to\nthe Saturday in Holy Week;[193] the second, however, for 330, and all the\nfollowing require a fast of forty days, beginning on the Monday of the\nsixth complete week before Easter.[194] The Festal Letters give no direct\nexplanation of how, and for what reason, the six days\u2019 fast was changed\ninto a fast of forty days.\n\nHowever, the covering letter which Athanasius sent along with his\neleventh Festal Letter, written from Rome in 339, throws some light upon\nthe process. He writes, namely, to Serapion, first Abbot and then Bishop\nof Thmuis, that he may announce the fast of forty days to his brethren\nand impress upon them the necessity of the fast, \u201clest, when all the\nworld fasts, we only who live in Egypt be derided for not fasting.\u201d\nThis warning is repeated with still greater emphasis: Serapion is to\ninstruct those under him that they must fast forty days,[195] which seems\nto show that the custom of fasting for forty days was not yet in force\nin Egypt, though elsewhere it was universally observed, and especially\nin Rome. At the conclusion of the nineteenth Festal Letter is found a\nsharp reproof of those who disregarded the fast.[196] This is the forty\ndays\u2019 discipline (\u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) observed during the six weeks before Easter\naccording to Eusebius.[197]\n\nThe Gallic pilgrim, already so often quoted, gives the following minute\ninformation concerning the manner in which the fasts were observed in\nJerusalem in the fourth century. The preparatory period before Easter\nlasted eight weeks, not forty days, as in Gaul, and all the days of\nthe week, Saturday and Sunday excepted, were fasted. Holy Saturday was\nan exception to this rule, being kept as a fast. Thus there were in\nall forty-one fast days, which were called in Greek \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af; in Latin,\n_feri\u00e6_. On Wednesday in Lent, the Psalmody was performed as on Sunday,\nand the bishop read the appointed Gospel, but the Mass (_oblatio_) was\noffered only on Saturday and Sunday. On certain days processions were\nalso made to different churches which lasted until eleven o\u2019clock.\n\nThe fare on fast days consisted of water and broth made with flour;\nfruit and oil and bread were also eaten. The catechumens also fasted\non Wednesdays and Fridays. Among the faithful, there were some who ate\nnothing from their repast on Sunday until the following Saturday, _i.e._\nfor five days, and who all the year round took only one meal a day.\nOthers abstained in Lent from all food for two consecutive days, but\nothers fasted by taking nothing to eat all day until the evening.[198]\nThis last recalls the practice described by Iren\u00e6us. Here one may observe\nthat the custom of not fasting on the Saturdays in Lent existed also in\nMilan in the time of St Ambrose.[199] The fast must have commenced on\nthe Monday after Sexagesima Sunday, since it had to extend over forty\ndays.\n\nWith this agrees the directions given in the so-called Apostolic\nConstitutions (5, 13-20). In these, the fast of Holy Week is called\ndistinctively the fast of Easter (\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1), and is\ndistinguished from the fast of Lent.[200] From Monday to Friday in Holy\nWeek, the fast is to be kept on bread, salt, vegetables and water, flesh\nmeat and wine being forbidden. On Good Friday and Holy Saturday, the days\nwhen the Bridegroom was taken away, those who are able are to eat nothing\nwhatever until early on Easter Sunday, while the usual fast lasted until\n3 P.M., or sunset.[201] On Saturday, people are not to fast, because it\nis the day on which the Creation was complete, with the exception of the\nSaturday on which the Lord lay in the earth.[202]\n\nLeo the Great in his sermons teaches us the objects and significance\nof the fast before Easter. According to him, Lent was appointed in\norder to prepare souls for a fruitful commemoration of the mystery of\nEaster. It was to be a time for inner purification and sanctification;\na time, first of all, of penance for past sins, and of breaking off\nsinful habits, a time also for the exercise of all virtues, especially\nalmsgiving, reconciliation, and the laying aside of enmities. It was\nin correspondence with the spirit of Lent that the Christian emperors\npardoned criminals.[203] Fasting was to form only a part of this penance\nand preparation, though the most essential part, and Leo declares it\nto be incumbent upon all, not only the clergy, but all the faithful as\nwell.[204] Leo regarded this fast of forty days before Easter as an\napostolic institution.[205]\n\nWhen the duration of the fast became generally fixed at forty days, a\nreason for this was not far to seek\u2014the length of the fast of Jesus.\nFrom the beginning, however, a difference became apparent, according as\nHoly Week was either included in Lent or regarded as something distinct\nin itself. The ante-Nicene practice afforded a precedent for this. The\nlatter practice is adopted in particular in the Apostolic Constitutions,\nand prevailed in a great part of the East. But in the East, Saturday was\nexempt from fasting, and so the number of fast days was, as a matter of\nfact, not greater than in the West, where the other practice obtained.\nLater, it was expressly set forth that Lent should be a _quadragesima_,\nnot a _quinquagesima_, as by the first and fourth councils of Orleans in\nthe sixth century.[206] In some quarters, our informant unfortunately\ndoes not say where, Thursday was also exempted from fasting.[207]\n\nOriginally, it appears, the fast of forty days, _quadragesima_, was\ntaken to mean the days before Easter as a whole, Sundays included. This\ngave for a period of six weeks only thirty-six fasting days, and, where\nSaturday was not kept as a fast day, only thirty. To rectify this, the\nnumber of fast days was increased actually to forty, with the result\nthat in the West, the beginning of Lent (_caput jejunii_) was put back\nfour days; but in the East, where only five days in each week were\nfasted, it was put back further still. In the West, especially in Rome,\nthis alteration, by which the fast began on the Wednesday before the\nsixth Sunday before Easter, had not yet been accomplished by the time of\nGregory the Great.\n\nIn the East, too, the tendency to make up the full number of fast days to\nforty was apparent also at an early date. There, owing to Saturday not\nbeing a fast day, the beginning of Lent had to be thrown further back\nthan in the West, and Lent began eight weeks before Easter, and since the\nSaturdays, Holy Saturday excepted, were not fast days, extended actually\nover forty-one days instead of forty. Abstinence from flesh meat began on\nthe Monday after the eighth Sunday before Easter, corresponding to the\nLatin _dominica sexagesima_, which is called the Sunday of Abstinence\nfrom Flesh Meat (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2). From the following Sunday, called\nthe Sunday for Eating Cheese (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5), _lacticinia_ are\nforbidden. The following Sundays are reckoned as merely the first to the\nfifth Sundays in Lent, and only the first of them has the additional\ndesignation of Orthodox Sunday, in commemoration of the settlement of\nthe Iconoclastic controversy. Later on, the Easterns attached great\nimportance to the question whether Saturday ought or ought not to be\nkept as a fast day. As early, indeed, as the Apostolic Canons, it is\nexpressly forbidden to fast on Saturday under threat of ecclesiastical\npenalties.[208] At a later date this difference became one of the points\nof dispute between the Greeks and Latins.\n\nThe assertion of Socrates[209] that in Rome the fast lasted only three\nweeks is now regarded on all hands as erroneous, all the more so as\nSocrates adds\u2014also incorrectly\u2014\u201cSaturdays and Sundays excepted.\u201d In\nRome, Saturday was always kept as a fast. His statement cannot be\naccepted against the clear evidence of Leo I. concerning Lent, even\nalthough Valesius and Baillet wish to defend it.\n\nThat the fast of forty days was not originally observed in all parts of\nthe Church, and only gradually came into force, can probably be explained\nby the fact that there were already fast days enough. There are, for\ninstance, many indications that the custom of fasting on Wednesdays and\nFridays all the year through\u2014the period between Easter and Pentecost\nexcepted\u2014was fairly generally observed. Wednesday was kept as a fast,\nbecause on that day our Lord had been betrayed to the Jews; Friday,\nbecause it was the day of His Passion. At Carthage, where we find\nreliable evidence for the practice, they were called the fasts of the\nstations.[210] Even in the East, the custom was apparently general.[211]\nThe Apostolic Constitutions are acquainted with it; the so-called\nApostolic Canons prescribe it;[212] the Canons of Hippolytus[213] refer\nto the fast of the fourth and sixth _feria_ as well as the fast of Lent.\nAs these fasts are never mentioned in the literature of a later date, and\naltogether disappeared from practice, one is driven to the conclusion\nthat, as the Lenten fast became more widely observed, these others fell\nout of use. However, the weekly fast-days continued to be observed for\na long time together with the Lenten fast, and, among the Greeks, are\nobserved even to the present day.[214] Not only Augustine mentions that,\nat the end of the fourth century, in Rome, Wednesdays, Fridays, and also\nSaturdays were fasted, but Innocent I. regarded it as a duty to fast on\nSaturday all the year round, and Prudentius also alludes to it.[215] In\nthe Syrian Church the three weekly fasts appear to have been obligatory\non Bishops and Priests alone.[216]\n\nAfter the adoption of the fast of forty days, attempts were made, in the\nWest, to further regulate fasting, but these were confined to certain\ndistricts and in course of time ceased. For example, Bishop Perpetuus\nof Tours introduced a special practice into his diocese, which lasted\nuntil on in the sixth century, _i.e._ from Whitsunday to St John, and\nalso from 1st September to St Martin, two fast-days were observed in\neach week; from then until Christmas, three; from St Hilary\u2019s Day (14th\nJanuary) until the middle of February two again. The second canon of\nthe fourth council of Orleans (A.D. 541) opposed the attempts of some\nbishops to extend the fast over fifty, or even sixty days. Amalarius\nmentions other divergences from the Roman custom, such as keeping three\nLents in the year, one before Christmas, the second before Easter, and\nthe third before Whitsunday, and, again, fasting on the days before\nthe Ascension.[217] In Germany, too, there were peculiarities in the\ndiscipline observed with regard to fasting during the eighth and ninth\ncenturies.[218]\n\nThe essence of fasting consists in abstinence from meat and drink during\na specified time. This in itself is not sufficient, for fasting entails\nmoreover that the food taken after the lapse of this time be of a\nplainer kind, _i.e._ abstinence from the better sorts of food and drink,\nwhich is now called abstinence in the strict sense. The prohibition of\ncertain meats in the Old Testament must be regarded as of a disciplinary\nnature, and not as a merely dietary regulation.\n\nIn ecclesiastical antiquity, along with abstinence from the usual daily\nmeals, we find certain viands also forbidden\u2014flesh and wine. To this\nperiod belong the _xerophagi\u00e6_ spoken of by Tertullian,[219] at which\npeople abstained not only from flesh and wine but from liquid food and\nfruit as well. These, however, seem to have gone beyond the abstinence\nthen usual throughout the Church. The Montanists held these _xerophagi\u00e6_\ntwice a year for fourteen days.[220]\n\nAmong Catholics also abstinence was pushed to great lengths. The canons\nof Hippolytus[221] prescribe for Holy Week only bread and salt. The\nApostolic Constitutions will only permit bread, vegetables, salt and\nwater, in Lent, flesh and wine being forbidden; and, on the last two days\nof Holy Week, nothing whatsoever is to be eaten.[222] The ascetics, whose\nacquaintance the Gallic pilgrim made in Jerusalem, never touched bread in\nLent, but lived on flour and water.[223] Only a few could keep so strict\na fast, and generally speaking people were satisfied with abstaining\nfrom flesh and wine. But this lasted throughout the entire Lent, and\nChrysostom[224] tells us that in Antioch no flesh was eaten during the\nwhole of Lent. Abstinence from milk and eggs (the so-called _lacticinia_)\nwas also the general rule.\n\nThus abstinence from flesh meat (_i.e._ abstinence in the strict sense)\nwas combined with the diminution of the quantity of food taken. It\nwas also voluntarily practised by itself, without being accompanied by\nfasting (_jejunium a carne et sanguine_), by pious persons and ascetics,\nand was prescribed as a duty on certain days in monasteries and other\nreligious communities, as, for instance, among the Canons of Chrodegang.\n\nThroughout the early ages, abstinence was merely a pious custom. It was\nnot until a later date that it was enjoined by law, as, for instance,\nby the fifty-sixth Trullan Canon, the Decree of Nicholas I. for the\nBulgarians, the fourth and eighth councils of Toledo, the seventh canon\nof the council of Quedlinburg (1085), and the decretal of Gratian.[225]\nThe custom of abstinence was then recognised and prescribed by\necclesiastical law for the whole of Lent, for all Fridays and Saturdays\nthroughout the year, for the Ember Day, and a number of vigils.[226] No\nauthentic document of antiquity is forthcoming to show that abstinence\nby itself, without an accompanying fast, had been prescribed by the\nChurch.[227]\n\n\n7. _The Season of Preparation as an Integral Part of the Church\u2019s Year_\n\nThe division of this season of preparation into two parts, with special\nnames for the Sundays, does not appear in the sermons of Augustine or\nLeo the Great. But in the ancient Gallic sacramentary\u2014the _missale\nGothico-Gallicanum_\u2014five Masses, entitled simply _missa jejunii_ or\n_in quadragesima_, are found assigned to the five Sundays before Palm\nSunday. The names _sexagesima_ and _quinquagesima_ appear already in\nthe canons of the fourth council of Orleans (541), but, as generally\nrecognised titles for the Sundays before Easter, they begin to appear in\nservice-books dating from the eighth century and onwards. The Gregorian\nSacramentary is familiar with the names for the Sundays from Septuagesima\nto Quinquagesima, and then numbers five Sundays in Quadragesima until\nPalm Sunday.\n\nIn the ancient Spanish Mozarabic Sacramentary, the names Septuagesima,\netc., do not yet appear, but the Sundays after Epiphany are numbered\nfrom one to eight, although the entire number was not always required,\naccording as Easter fell early or late. After them follows the _Dominica\nante diem Cineris_, then the five Sundays in Lent, and, finally, the\n_Dominica in Ramis Palmarum_.\n\nThe recently published Lectionary of Silos, belonging to the ancient rite\nof Toledo and compiled about 650, represents a much simpler form of the\nChurch\u2019s year. It enumerates neither the Sundays after Epiphany nor those\nafter Pentecost, but merely those in Lent, and then is satisfied with\ntwenty-four Masses for the remaining Sundays of the year.\n\nA trace of the original length of Lent\u2014six weeks, or forty-two\ndays\u2014exists still in the present missal, inasmuch as the _secreta_ for\nthe First Sunday in Lent runs: _Sacrificium quadragesimalis initii\nsolemniter immolamus_.[228] Sundays, as we know, were never kept as\nfasts, and so the Western Church in reality kept only thirty-six fast\ndays, a proof that the word _quadragesima_ originally merely denoted the\nnumber of days over which the period of preparation extended. Since,\nhowever, our Lord had fasted forty days, the Church felt moved to keep\nto this number exactly, and so added the four missing days to the\nbeginning of Lent. This alternation was first accomplished at the end\nof the seventh or beginning of the eighth century, and appears for the\nfirst time in the so-called Gelasian sacramentary,[229] while Gregory\nI.[230] himself still counted the days actually fasted as thirty-six. The\nthree preceding Sundays were now included in the season of preparation\nand received the names of Quinquagesima, Sexagesima, and Septuagesima.\nThe actual commencement of the fast fell on the Wednesday before\nQuadragesima, which appears in the Gregorian Sacramentary with a Mass\nof its own, but without its present name of Ash Wednesday (_Feria IV.\nCinerum_).\n\nThis name comes from the sprinkling of ashes. Sprinkling ashes upon\nthe heads of penitents, in token of sorrow, formed part of the ancient\nceremonies connected with ecclesiastical penance. Since public penance\nusually began and ended with Lent, this custom was associated with this\nparticular day. It soon became a general custom no longer restricted\nto penitents, although the Council of Benevento (1091) prescribes it\nprincipally for clerics. The ashes were prepared from the palms of the\nprevious Palm Sunday. At the present time they are blessed in addition.\n\nIt is to be observed further that Lent is not devoted to consideration\nof Christ\u2019s sufferings. This occupies the mind during Holy Week. The\naim of Lent is not to move the faithful to dwell upon the passion of\nChrist, but only to prepare them for keeping Easter worthily through\nfasting, penance, and abstinence. The liturgical prayers in Lent contain\nno reference to the Redeemer\u2019s sufferings, but speak of fasting and\nmortification alone. It is the same with the Epistles and Gospels. On\nPalm Sunday for the first time, our thoughts are directed to the Passion\nin the collect for the day, while in the prayers for the so-called\nPassion Sunday it is not mentioned.\n\nThose weeks of Lent had an exceptional character in which, in the sixth\nand following centuries, the scrutinies took place, _i.e._ the services\ndesigned for the examination of candidates in preparation for baptism.\nThese began on the Wednesday of the third week in Lent, and lasted until\nHoly Saturday. Originally seven, they were reduced in course of time to\nthree, owing to the adoption of the Gelasian sacramentary. Accordingly,\nthe Masses for the third, fourth, and fifth Sunday and for the Saturday\nbefore Passion Sunday speak of baptism and not of the Passion.[231] In\nthe present Roman Missal scarcely a trace of this is to be found.[232]\n\nThe prayers of the Masses both for Sundays and week-days, for by far\nthe greater part, are still identical with those of the Gregorian\nSacramentary, while the lections from Scripture are in some instances\nmuch older. The Gospel for the First Sunday in Lent, which narrates the\nfast of Jesus and His temptation by the devil, was read on this day\nalready in the time of Leo the Great. The Gospel for the second Sunday\ntreats of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, the Gospels for the two\nfollowing Sundays, the healing of the dumb man, and the casting out of\nthe devil, and the miracle of the loaves. The Gospel for Passion Sunday\ncontains the account of our Lord\u2019s encounter with the Jews and their\nattempt to stone Him.\n\nIn the Middle Ages, the commencement and beginning of Lent was marked in\na way visible to all by hanging a curtain between the nave of the church\nand the choir on Ash Wednesday, or, according to Durandus, on the First\nSunday in Lent. This was called the Lenten Veil, or, in common parlance,\nthe \u201cHunger-veil.\u201d It remained hanging until Good Friday, but in many\nplaces was drawn aside on Sundays, obviously because Sundays were not\nfast days. The veil was usually quite plain, but sometimes it was adorned\nwith pictorial representations from sacred history. It is first referred\nto in writings of the ninth century, but was in use much earlier. In\nsome places in Westphalia and Hanover it exists to the present day.\nThese Lenten-veils are still to be frequently seen in museums and church\nlumber-rooms, where not infrequently they are erroneously mistaken for\ncarpets. They were practical in their object\u2014the ordinary man who had no\ncalendar was put in remembrance by them that it was the season of Lent.\nAllegorical interpretations were naturally not lacking, and are to be\nfound in Rupert of Deutz.[233] A similar custom also exists in Russia,\nwhere, on the first Sunday in Lent, the altar curtains are drawn together\nand so remain until Palm Sunday.\n\nDuring the first six centuries, it was taken for granted that saints\u2019\ndays must not be observed during Lent. The Trullan synod introduced the\nfirst exception to this rule in favour of the Annunciation. In the West,\nthis rule was soon entirely set aside, but, on the other hand, in token\nof sorrow, the Allelujah ceases during the entire Lent, a custom of which\nthe Greek Church knows nothing. The Lenten prayers have a particularly\nearnest tone, and Lent from quite an early date appears richly provided\nfrom a liturgical point of view, each week-day having its own special\nMass. In old days in Rome, there was a procession every day, for the Pope\nand clergy proceeded from the papal palace in solemn array to some church\nin the city where a halt (_statio_) was made, and Mass was sung.\n\n\n8. _The Transfiguration_\n\nIn the existing calendar, the Transfiguration of our Lord is commemorated\nby a special festival, the _festum Transfigurationis_, which, as it\nis kept on a fixed date, is excluded from the proper sequence of the\necclesiastical year and treated in the same manner as the saints\u2019 days.\nFrom quite an early date, this festival had been celebrated in divers\nchurches, both East and West, on different days. The date now observed,\nthe 6th August, was appointed for the festival by Calixtus III. in 1457,\nin memory of the victory over the Turks, gained by John Capistran and\nGeorge Hunyadi, at Belgrade. In the choice of a day, he seems to have\nbeen influenced by the Greek calendar, where the festival had already\nbeen kept on this day. It appears in the Synaxaria of the Copts in Selden\nand Mai, in the menology of Constantinople belonging to the eighth\ncentury, and, later, in the _Neapolitanum_, and among the orthodox\nSyrians. In the East it was commonly observed. Sermons on the event are\nfound among those of St Augustine and Leo the Great.[234] The tendency to\ntransfer to another period of the year the commemoration of those events\nwhich fell within Lent, is also perceptible in the case of the feast of\nthe Seven Dolours. More will be said on this point in the second part.\n\n\n9. _The Ascension_\n\nA special festival in commemoration of the return of the Redeemer to\nheaven does not indeed appear in the earliest lists of Church festivals\ngiven by Tertullian and Origen in the third century. Still, the terms\nin which the earliest witnesses refer to it, prove that this day was\nkept as a festival in quite early times. The first witness for it is\nEusebius, who calls it a high festival in the treatise he composed\non the discussions concerning Easter at the first General Council in\n325. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates speaks of it as a general\nfestival.[235] With regard to documents of an official character, the\nchurch-order contained in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions,[236]\ngives it the name of The Taking Up [into Heaven] (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, St Luke ix.\n51, where the form \u1f01\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 occurs). Numerous sermons among the works\nof the Fathers afford further evidence for the existence of the feast.\nAugustine[237] is inclined to attribute the appointment of the festival\nto an ordinance of the Apostles or to the injunction of a general\ncouncil. The latter cannot be proved as certain. As soon as persecution\nceased, the feast of the Ascension made its way naturally in all parts\nof the Church, unassisted by any authoritative enactment, for it was\nimpossible that the concluding act of our Saviour\u2019s earthly life should\nremain unnoticed among festivals and in the Liturgy. This was all the\nmore unlikely, as the spot from which our Lord returned to the Father\nat once became the object of reverence. The Empress Helena had already\nordered a splendid basilica to be built on the Mount of Olives, which,\nunfortunately, was destroyed by the Saracens, and has never been rebuilt.\nAt the present day, a small unimposing church marks the spot which was a\nplace of pilgrimage as early as the fourth century,[238] and where it is\nbelieved one of our Lord\u2019s footprints in still visible.\n\nWith regard to the liturgical observance of the day, its chief\ncharacteristic until well on in the Middle Ages was a procession. At the\ntime of the Gallic pilgrim\u2019s visit to Jerusalem, this was observed in\na striking manner. The people proceeded in solemn procession after the\nsixth hour (towards 12 o\u2019clock) on Wednesday from Jerusalem to Bethlehem,\nthere to celebrate the Vigil in the church built over the grotto where\nChrist was born. The next day, divine service, with a sermon, was\nperformed in the accustomed manner, and, in the evening, the procession\nreturned to Jerusalem.[239] The question which naturally presents itself,\nwhy the service was not rather held on the Mount of Olives, as it was\nin the eighth century,[240] remains unanswered. It is to be further\nobserved that the name Ascension (_ascensa_) is not used to designate the\nfestival. The pilgrim simply speaks of the fortieth day (_quadragesima_)\nafter Easter.\n\nElsewhere in the East, it was customary to observe the Festival of the\nAscension outside the city, as, for example, in Constantinople and\nAntioch. In the latter place, the people went to the small town of\nRomanesia, where Chrysostom delivered his sermon on the feast.[241] In\nthe Middle Ages, processions were wont to take place on this day in Gaul\nand Germany, and this custom shows how deeply people were moved by the\ndesire to imitate as far as possible, in the introduction of liturgical\npractices, the actions of our Lord. In this case, the determinating\nfactor was that our Lord had led the Apostles out of the city to the\nMount of Olives.[242]\n\nAnother custom peculiar to this festival is that, after the reading of\nthe Gospel at the High Mass, the Paschal candle, which up till then has\nbeen burnt at all High Masses, is extinguished and put aside. In earlier\ntimes, the event of the day was represented by hanging up a figure of our\nLord, which was made to disappear through an opening in the roof. The\nfestival has an octave since the fifteenth century, and, in consequence,\nthe following Sunday, formerly called simply _Dominica post Ascensionem_,\nis now called _Dominica infra Octavam_. The Mass of the feast forms one\nof the rare exceptions where the event commemorated is described in the\nEpistle, Acts i. 1-11. The Gospel for the day is taken from St Mark xvi.\n14-20, where, in verse 19, the Ascension is briefly alluded to. As a\nmatter of fact, verses 10-20 are wanting in the oldest Alexandrian MSS.\nStill they are in other respects well supported, and must be regarded as\ngenuine.[243]\n\nThe introduction of the festival of the Ascension was rendered all the\neasier since Scripture distinctly specifies the day on which the event\ntook place.[244]\n\n\n10. _Whitsunday_\n\nWhitsunday is of equal rank with the two other chief festivals, but has\nno special season either preceding or following it, and is unattended\nby any lesser festivals depending upon it. Whitsunday is the close of\nthe whole period which began with Easter, called in the early centuries\n_Quinquagesima_, because it extended over fifty days. This entire period\nis festal in character, and therefore so long as it lasted people in\nancient days prayed standing upright, and no fasting was practised.[245]\nThe ascetics did not observe a single fast during this time,[246] and it\nseems that even the day before Whitsunday was not a fast in the earliest\nages, any more than it is now among the Greeks. A number of ascetics\nwere of opinion that this period of joy should last only forty days,\nbecause our Lord appeared to His disciples for only forty days, and that\nthe following ten days, as far as fasting, prayer, and kneeling were\nconcerned, should be like the rest of the year\u2014an opinion which Cassian,\namong others (Coll. 20, 21), strongly opposed.[247] This divergence\nof opinion, which was rather widespread, seems to have resulted in\nWhitsunday being passed over and ignored. So, for example, it is entirely\nomitted from the oldest Gallican Sacramentaries, the series of festivals\nending with the Ascension.[248] In the later service-books, it appears\nsimply under the name _Quinquagesima_.\n\nPentecost meant originally the entire period from Easter to Whitsunday,\nand this terminology had been already in use among the Jews, and is\nemployed by St Luke in Acts ii. 1 (_cum complerentur dies pentecostes_).\nThe Greek word Pentecost was gladly adopted by the Latins in early times,\nand more especially, later on, since the Latin term _quinquagesima_ might\neasily be confused with the Sunday of the same name.\n\nWhitsunday, of course, commemorates the descent of the Holy Ghost\nupon the Apostles and disciples. This happened fifty days after the\nResurrection, on an ancient Jewish festival called in the Pentateuch the\nFeast of Weeks,[249] because it was celebrated exactly seven weeks after\nthe Passover. As it fell on the fiftieth day after the Passover, it was\nalso called Pentecost, even in pre-Christian times.[250]\n\nThe Jewish Pentecost was originally only a festival of thanksgiving\nfor harvest, and, although the Law was given on Mount Sinai and the\nMosaic Church came into existence on the same day, yet the feast was not\ndevoted to the commemoration of this event. This purpose was served by\nthe festival of the Simchah Thorah in October, which owed its institution\nto the Rabbis. On the other hand, the fact that the descent of the Holy\nGhost implied the foundation of the Christian Church, afforded the\nFathers a parallel which they were not slow to make the most of.[251] The\nFeast of Weeks was to the Jews only the conclusion of the harvest, in\nthanksgiving for which, bread, made from the newly gathered wheat, was\npresented to Jehovah as a sacrifice.\n\nThe festival of Whitsunday reaches back to the commencement of the\nChurch, although there is no evidence for it, as there is in the case of\nEaster, it being uncertain whether the passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, refers to\nthe Jewish or to the Christian Pentecost. This is not astonishing, for,\non the one hand the feast, originally of only one day\u2019s duration, fell on\na Sunday, and, on the other, it is so closely bound up with Easter that\nthe one entails the other. That the festival of Whitsunday belongs to\nApostolic times is stated in the seventh of the fragments attributed to\nIren\u00e6us, but these are admitted to be interpolated. In Tertullian, the\nfestival, along with Easter, appears as already well established, so that\nit must have been in existence for some time. As at Easter, prayer was\nmade standing, and it was the second and last date for the solemn baptism\nof catechumens.[252] Tertullian, moreover, in accordance with the usage\nalready in use, gives the name of Pentecost, not merely to the day of the\nfestival, but to the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday\u2014a use of the\nterm which appears here and there at a later date,[253] and points out\nthe period as a time of joy.[254] The last day, however, was clearly held\nin Tertullian\u2019s time to be a festival in an especial sense.[255] Origen\nand the Canons of Hippolytus make references in passing to the festival\nof Whitsunday.[256] The Apostolic Constitutions say Whitsunday is to be\nregarded as a high festival, because on it the Lord Jesus sent down the\nHoly Ghost.\n\nThe Gallic pilgrim gives a detailed and circumstantial account of\nthe manner in which the feast was observed in Jerusalem.[257] On the\nnight before Whitsunday, the vigil was celebrated in the Church of\nthe Anastasis, at which the bishop, according to the usual custom in\nJerusalem on Sundays, read the Gospel of the Resurrection, and the\ncustomary psalmody was performed. At dawn, all the people proceeded to\nthe principal church (_Martyrium_), where a sermon was preached and Mass\ncelebrated. About the third hour, when the psalmody was finished, the\npeople accompanied the bishop with singing to Sion. There, the passage\nfrom the Acts of the Apostles, describing the descent of the Holy Ghost,\nwas read, and a second Mass was celebrated, after which the psalmody was\nresumed. Afterwards the archdeacon invited the people to assemble in the\n\u201cEleona,\u201d from whence a procession was made to the summit of the Mount\nof Olives. Here psalms and antiphons were sung, the Gospel was read,\nand the blessing given. After this, the people descended again into the\n\u201cEleona,\u201d where Vespers were sung, and then, with the bishop at their\nhead, proceeded in a solemn procession with singing back to the principal\nchurch, which was reached towards 8 P.M. At the city gate, the procession\nwas met by torch-bearers who accompanied it to the _Martyrium_. Here, as\nwell as in the Anastasis, to which the people proceeded in turn, and in\nthe Chapel of the Holy Cross, the usual prayers, hymns, and blessings\ntook place, so that the festival did not conclude until midnight.\n\nThe Pilgrim makes no mention of rites or preparations connected with the\nadministration of baptism. It seems, then, that in Jerusalem, Whitsunday\nwas not observed as a second or supplementary time for baptism, or may\nnot have been required as such. Nevertheless, this feature appears in the\nWestern liturgies, and had much to do, for instance, in the determining\nthe manner in which the vigil of the feast was observed.\n\nAccording to the more ancient service-books, the catechumens were to\nassemble at midday on Saturday. Lections from Scripture, less numerous\nthan on Holy Saturday, were read, and then, after suitable prayers, took\nplace the blessing of the baptismal water, the baptism, and, during the\nnight, the Mass of the vigil.[258] St Augustine shows that, in Africa\nas well, the people assembled in the afternoon, and that the Mass was\ncelebrated during the night. He thus addresses the newly baptised on\nWhitsunday: \u201cWhat you here see before you on the altar, you have already\nseen during the past night.\u201d[259]\n\nIn order to complete the resemblance to Easter, a large candle was, in\nsome churches, blessed and set up during the singing of the _Exsultet_\nin a slightly altered form.[260] In monastic churches, in which baptism\nwas not administered, the baptismal ceremonies were omitted, though the\nspecial celebration of the vigil still commenced in the afternoon.[261]\n\nAs far as the most ancient period is concerned, the so-called Leonine\nMissal contains a Mass for Whitsunday, and the ceremonies for baptism.\nThe Gelasian Sacramentary also has numerous directions for the\nadministration of baptism on this day, but no form for the blessing\nof a candle. It seems to imply that the candidates for baptism shall\nbe especially invalids, or such as for some reason or other had been\nprevented from receiving baptism at Easter, or Energumens, etc. These\ndirections, however, are absent from the Gregorian Sacramentary, and only\ntwo lections from the prophets are given. In the present Roman rite,\nthe function takes place in the forenoon; still the prophecies and the\nblessing of the font remain as survivals of the ancient practice. The\nlitany of the saints is also sung, upon the last Kyrie of which the Mass\nof the vigil follows immediately without an introit. The office of the\nday until nones belongs to the Octave of the Ascension.\n\nThe Apostolic Constitutions[262] speak of the feast of Pentecost lasting\nfor eight days, but in the West it was not kept with an octave until\nquite a late date, and the last day was never called _dies octava_, but\nmerely the first Sunday after Pentecost, and the days within the octave\nwere merely called the first or second day after Pentecost, and so on.\nAs appears from Berno of Reichenau,[263] it was a debatable point in\nhis day whether Whitsunday ought to be kept with, or without, a _dies\noctava_. Berno relied upon the analogy of Easter, the special time for\nbaptisms, which was observed with an octave. Whitsunday was the day on\nwhich the Apostles received their baptism of fire, and so it too ought\nto have an octave. He had other reasons besides which would have no\nweight at the present time. It is obvious that Whitsunday had at first no\noctave, which can be inferred also from the whole scheme of the Church\u2019s\nfeasts. Whitsunday was merely the fiftieth day after Easter, the end of\nthe period called Pentecost, and so in itself brought the season to a\nconclusion.\n\nThe Mass for Whitsunday had a sequence which was repeated daily during\nthe week. Formerly the law-courts did not sit during the entire week, and\neven servile work was forbidden as well.[264] A Council of Constance, in\n1094, limited this to the first three days of the week. With us, at the\npresent time, only the second day is observed _in foro_, but not even\nthis is observed any longer in Rome.\n\nIn earlier times it was customary in many places to scatter roses\nfrom the roof of the church to recall the miracle of Pentecost. Hence\nin Sicily, Whitsunday is called _pascha rosatum_. The Italian name,\n_pasqua rossa_, however, comes from the colour of the vestments. In\nmany districts of France it was usual to blow trombones or trumpets\nduring divine service in memory of the sound of the \u201cmighty wind\u201d which\naccompanied the Holy Spirit\u2019s descent.\n\n\n11. _Trinity Sunday_\n\nIt was not until a late date that the first Sunday after Pentecost was\nraised to a higher rank, for in the Gregorian Sacramentary it has no\nspecial name, while in the Gelasian Sacramentary, and in the appendixes\nto the Gregorian,[265] it is called merely the Sunday after the octave of\nPentecost, or the Sunday after Pentecost. In the Latin Church, it is now\na festival devoted to the honour of the Most Holy Trinity.\n\nConcerning the introduction of this new feast into the Church\u2019s year,\nwe learn from the Micrologus that, the Sunday after Pentecost being a\n_dominica vacans_ without any special office of its own, many used on\nthis day the office of the Trinity drawn up by Bishop Stephen of Li\u00e8ge\n(903-20). When Pope Alexander II. (\u2020 1073) was questioned on the point,\nhe replied that it was not the Roman custom to set apart any particular\nday in honour of the Holy Trinity, since the Trinity was honoured every\nday by the _Gloria Patri_ in the psalmody. It is to be noted, continues\nthe Micrologus,[266] that Alcuin, at the request of the Saint Boniface,\ncomposed a Mass in honour of the Holy Trinity.\n\nBinterim speaks sarcastically of this reference, because Boniface had\ndied long before the time when Alcuin flourished. The reference is not\nto be passed over on this account, for the mistake arose merely from a\nmisunderstanding. Alcuin had put together from the missal employed in\nhis Abbey Church a number of Masses\u2014votive Masses, as they would now be\ncalled\u2014for each day of the week, to be used under certain conditions,\nand to these was added, amongst others, a Mass in honour of St Boniface\nfor the monks of Fulda.[267] This explains the misunderstanding in the\nMicrologus. Alcuin had also arranged a collection of prayers drawn from\nthe Gregorian Sacramentary to form a prayer-book. This, by itself,\nenables us now to appreciate Alcuin\u2019s share in the matter.[268] It merely\nmeans that he recommended the Mass of the Trinity should be said on\nSundays, in case a priest had not a complete missal, or through ignorance\nwas unable to use it properly.\n\nThe fact is plain. The later Frankish recension of the Gregorian\nSacramentary contained for the Sunday after Pentecost a Mass in honour\nof the Holy Trinity, with the same preface which is still in use.[269]\nIn addition to this, Bishop Stephen of Li\u00e8ge drew up a suitable office,\nand so all was in readiness for the institution of an especial feast\nin honour of the Trinity, which, in the natural course of things, was\nfixed for the first Sunday after Pentecost. The custom of regarding it\nas a festival became more and more popular in the Netherlands, England,\nGermany, and France. Several diocesan synods expressed themselves in\nfavour of it, _e.g._, that of Arles in 1260. As we have found in other\ninstances, so here, it was the monasteries which prepared the way for the\nadoption of the festival. Thus, for example,[270] the Cistercians adopted\nthe festival in 1270, the Cluniacs still earlier. The introduction of the\nfestival into each diocese followed gradually in course of time, and it\nbelongs to local historians to investigate the circumstances in each case.\n\nAlthough Alexander II. had officially declared the festival to be\nsuperfluous,[271] it nevertheless continued to increase in popularity in\never-widening circles. Its adoption did not follow any uniform law, for\nin several places it was observed on the last Sunday after Pentecost,\nas in several dioceses of France, until on in the seventeenth century,\nand here and there we find it kept with an octave. Uniformity was at\nlength attained when the Roman Church under John XXII., in 1334, accepted\nthe festival and ordered it to be generally observed. The Franciscan,\nJohn Peckham, Canon of Lyons, and, from 1278 to 1292, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, composed a new office. The one actually in use dates from\nthe times of Pius V.,[272] and is one of the most beautiful in the\nbreviary, remarkable alike for sublimity of thought, depth, and elegance\nof form. Although the first Sunday has thus been placed in a rank by\nitself, the Roman rite still continues the older enumeration of the\nSundays from Pentecost. In Germany and elsewhere it was the custom to\nreckon the Sundays from Trinity, and so each Sunday is one less than the\ncorresponding Sunday according to the Roman enumeration.\n\nThe Greeks on this Sunday commemorate All Saints, and on this account\ncall it All Saints\u2019 Sunday (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n\n12. _Corpus Christi. The Forty Hours\u2019 Prayer. The Festival of the Sacred\nHeart_\n\nOn Maundy Thursday, the consecration of the Holy Oils and other\nceremonies overshadow almost entirely the commemoration of the important\nevent which took place on that day\u2014the institution of the Holy Eucharist.\nIt was this fact which suggested the introduction of a festival specially\nintended to commemorate that event, as is expressly stated in the papal\nconstitution _Transiturus_. The introduction of this feast dates from\na comparatively late time, and its adoption is limited to the West,\nalthough the Uniat Greeks have also partially accepted it. The earliest\ntrace of a special reference to the Holy Sacrament of the altar in the\npublic worship of the Church is probably the appearance of the name\n_Natalis Calicis_, in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, on the 24th\nMarch. In order to understand this entry, it must be remembered that\nanciently the 25th March was often regarded as the day on which Christ\ndied (_vide ante_, p. 57).\n\nDivine Providence made use of a humble nun to further the introduction of\nthis festival. Juliana,[273] born at Retinne, near Li\u00e8ge, in 1193, was\nreceived as an orphan into the cloister, and became a nun of the order\nof St Augustine. She was appointed prioress of the lazar-house of _Mons\nCornelii_ (Mont-Cornillon), near Li\u00e8ge, where she passed the greater\npart of her life. When this institution received another prior who fell\nout with the authorities of Li\u00e8ge over some matters of administration,\nJuliana was obliged to leave the lazar-house in 1240. She took up her\nabode in Li\u00e8ge, with a kindred spirit, the recluse Eve. She returned to\nMont-Cornillon after three years, but when fresh disagreements broke\nout again, on the death of Bishop Robert (\u2020 1246), she was compelled to\nleave Li\u00e8ge altogether. She found a refuge with the Cistercian nuns at\nSalsinnes in the diocese of Namur. But this convent was destroyed in\nthe wars which then disturbed the country, and Juliana was once more\ndestitute. She ended her life on the 5th April 1258, as a recluse at\nFosses, where she had found a refuge, and was buried in the monastery of\nVilliers, in the diocese of Namur.\n\nJuliana of Retinne had been a zealous worshipper of the Blessed Sacrament\nfrom her youth, and, from her sixteenth year, had repeatedly seen a\nvision of the disc of the full moon from which as it were a part had\nbeen broken off. A vision of our Lord enlightened her mind as to the\nsignification thereof. The moon\u2019s disc represented the Church, which\nstill lacked a festival in honour of the Blessed Sacrament, and she was\nto announce this want to the world and direct all her efforts towards the\nintroduction of such a festival. In 1230, she communicated her secret,\non account of which she had much to suffer, for the first time, to\nJohn of Lausanne, Canon of St Martin at Li\u00e8ge, and to some other pious\nand learned men, namely, Guyard, afterwards Bishop of Cambrai, Hugo,\nafterwards Cardinal Legate, the Archdeacon of Li\u00e8ge, James Pantaleon of\nTroyes, who became Bishop of Verdun, then Patriarch of Jerusalem, and,\nfinally, Pope.\n\nSince in those days bishops exercised the right of appointing feasts\nin their own dioceses, it was of the utmost importance that Robert de\nThorete, Bishop of Li\u00e8ge since 1240, was in favour of the introduction\nof this festival. He gave a sympathetic hearing to the proposals of\nthose in favour of the feast, called a diocesan synod in 1246, which\ndecided in favour of its introduction,[274] and proscribed for his\nclergy the recitation of an office composed by Canon John, but died on\nthe 16th October 1246, without having formally instituted the festival.\nIt was kept, however, as agreed upon, by the canons of St Martin\u2019s in\nthe following year, and later on it was approved by the Papal Legates,\nCardinals Hugo and Peter Capocci.\n\nWhen James Pantaleon ascended the papal throne in 1261 as Urban IV.,\nhe received from the Bishop of Li\u00e8ge a letter concerning the festival,\nwritten at the request of the recluse Eve, who took an active part in the\nintroduction of the new feast. To this he wrote a favourable reply.\n\nThe general adoption of the feast of Corpus Christi seemed now assured.\nUrban\u2019s personal predilections in its favour were further increased by\nthe incident of the Bohemian priest at Bolsena in 1262, and, shortly\nbefore his death, on the 8th September 1264, he addressed a bull[275]\nto all bishops and prelates in which he directed a festival in honour\nof the Blessed Sacrament should be held throughout Christendom, on\nthe Thursday after Trinity Sunday, and granted indulgences to all who\nobserved it. He commissioned moreover St Thomas Aquinas to compose a\nspecial office, which speedily replaced the former one.[276] Owing to the\ndeath of Urban, which followed closely on the promulgation of this bull,\nthe affair proceeded no further, and the spread of the festival came to\na standstill. The transference of the papal residence to Avignon caused\na further delay. Still in Li\u00e8ge the matter was not dropped, and the\ndiocesan synod of 1287 is the first which definitely ordered that this\nfestival should be observed.[277]\n\nAt length, after a long silence, Pope Clement V., Bertrand de Got, took\nup the matter once more, and by his influence the \u0152cumenical Council,\nwhich he had assembled at Vienne in 1311, authorised the festival and\nenjoined its observance throughout Christendom. For this end, he renewed\nthe constitution of Urban IV. in his own bull _Si Dominum_. Neither in\nthis document, nor in the constitution of Urban, is there any mention of\na procession of the Blessed Sacrament, but only of a Mass and the office.\nThe procession was a later addition which, like the festival itself,\ngradually spread throughout different dioceses and countries. It was\nnot, however, altogether a novelty, for already in the eleventh century,\nthe Benedictines in England carried the Blessed Sacrament on Palm Sunday\nin procession outside the church.[278]\n\nThe Corpus Christi procession, more recent than the introduction of the\nfeast itself, was at first a much simpler affair than it is at present.\nAs early as the twelfth century, it was by no means unusual to carry the\nBlessed Sacrament hidden from sight in a chalice or pyx round the church,\nand a procession of this kind is specially provided for in the ritual\nfor Holy Week.[279] The _Ordinarium_ of the Church of Rouen contains\ndirections for the performance of such a procession, but unfortunately\nthe date of this document is uncertain.[280] According to this, the\nBlessed Sacrament was carried round the church by two priests in white\nchasubles, accompanied by four choristers carrying censers. Two other\nclerics carried torches, and the remainder, vested in copes, sung various\nversicles and responses. The shrine in which the Blessed Sacrament was\ncarried was placed in the middle of the choir, and the Sacrament was\ncensed by a priest accompanied by a deacon, while the singers remained\nkneeling. They sang, _Ave, verum corpus natum, etc._, which the choir\nrepeated still kneeling, and then added other hymns. When this was\nconcluded, the archbishop was to give the blessing and commence the Mass.\n\nThe date at which the Corpus Christi procession was introduced varies\nvery much in different dioceses and countries. In Cologne, it was held,\nfor the first time, even earlier than 1279, in the monastery of St\nGereon, when red vestments were worn.[281] In 1308, it was ordered for\nthe parish churches of the archdiocese. The direction of John XXII.\nwas certainly in most cases the reason of the feast becoming general\nthroughout the universal Church. The procession took place for the first\ntime in Worms in 1315, in Aix-la-Chapelle in 1319. In Strassburg, Bishop\nJohn I., on 22nd July 1318, ordered the adoption of the festival, and the\nrecitation of the office. The first official appearance of the festival\nand procession in Treves was at the synod held under Archbishop Baldwin\nin 1338; in Utrecht in 1347, in Prague in 1355. On the other hand, it\nwas introduced at W\u00fcrtzburg as early as 1298, before the Council of\nVienne, as appears from the statutes of the synod for that year. At\nAugsburg, already in 1305, a lady of rank, Katharina Ibsung, left all\nher property to the cathedral for the due performance of the Corpus\nChristi procession, and it would appear that the procession had taken\nplace at Augsburg as a usual thing before this.[282] In the fifteenth\ncentury the Popes Martin V. and Eugenius IV.[283] encouraged the spread\nof the procession by granting indulgences to those who took part\u2014the\nlatter especially in his bull _Excellentissimus_, of the 26th May 1433.\nIn the fourteenth century, the four stations were added at which the\nopening passages of the four Gospels were sung, and in the sixteenth\ncentury these were finally authorised.[284] The _Liber Ordinarius_ of\nthe Monastery of Essen, belonging to the second half of the fourteenth\ncentury, affords us some information concerning this change in\nparticular. It speaks of two processions\u2014one composed of the canons and\nwithout stations, which passed out of the church and then returned; the\nsecond of the congregation, which had four stations, at each of which the\nbeginning of St John\u2019s Gospel was read and benediction given.[285]\n\nThe Forty Hours\u2019 Prayer, with exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, owes\nits introduction to the Capuchin Joseph Plantanida of Fermo. In 1556-57\nhe urged the senate of Milan to take steps for observing this devotion in\nall churches of Milan in turn, on account of the war with France which\nwas then threatening, and also with reference to the plague which twelve\nyears earlier had devastated the city. The custom of spending forty\nhours in prayer for some special intention had arisen earlier than this,\nfor a priest of Grenoble, called Antony, for example, had established a\nconfraternity in Milan in 1527, the members of which met four times a\nyear for forty hours\u2019 adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which, however,\nwas not exposed.[286]\n\nAt the conclusion of the octave of Corpus Christi comes the comparatively\nmodern festival of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As it is thus in point\nof time closely connected with Corpus Christi, so also it resembles it\nin many points. In the first place, it is essentially appointed for\nthe glorification of the Incarnation and the Person of the Incarnate,\nand, secondly, its origin has many points in common with that of Corpus\nChristi. Its introduction is connected with the visions of the Blessed\nMargaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90), which she saw in the Convent of the\nVisitation at Paray-le-Monial, during the years 1673-75. The cultus of\nthe Sacred Heart seems to have existed earlier as a form of private\ndevotion. In support of it certain passages are appealed to in the\nwritings of saints of earlier times, which contain its fundamental\nprinciples. Among others, St Gertrude, and the Carthusian James of\nLandsberg, are quoted. The Blessed Margaret Mary had much to suffer in\nher attempts to establish the cultus, but finally it was introduced for\nthe first time in 1686 at Paray-le-Monial, or, according to others, in\nthe Convent of the Visitation at Moulins in 1674. The public cultus was\nintroduced by Charles Fran\u00e7ois de Lom\u00e9nie, Bishop of Coutances, who,\nin consequence of Margaret Mary\u2019s revelations, consecrated a chapel\nin honour of the Sacred Heart in his seminary in 1688, and erected a\nconfraternity under the same title. He was followed by Peter de Grammont,\nBishop of Besan\u00e7on, who, in 1692, ordered a special Mass with the title\n_Cordis Jesu_, to be printed in the missal for his diocese, for the\nFriday after the octave of Corpus Christi. The Bishop of Langres adopted\nthis Mass in his diocese, and finally the Archbishop of Lyons, Primate\nof Gaul, at the end of 1718 ordered the feast to be kept by the churches\nunder his jurisdiction. The authoritative recognition of the feast was\ngiven by Clement XIII. in 1765.[287]\n\n\nB. CHRISTMAS AND THE CHRISTMAS SEASON\n\n\n1. _Christmas_\n\nChristmas, or the feast of our Lord\u2019s birth (_Nativitas Domini_, \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), has this in common with Easter that it also\nis the centre of other festivals which group themselves around it, but it\ndiffers from Easter inasmuch as it is an immovable feast, and so falls\non a fixed day of the month. The whole Church, and all the sects, agree\nin observing the 25th December as this date. As it has cost us already\nsome trouble to show how the determination of Easter was arrived at, so\nthe questions which arise in regard to the date of Christmas are by no\nmeans few. The answer to these questions entails a special and critical\ninvestigation into several points of history, which, though it may not\nprove interesting to everyone, will nevertheless be full of information\nto those who undertake to study it.\n\nFormerly it was taken for granted that Christ had actually been born\non this day, and, accordingly, the learned were of opinion that the\nChurch had observed it from the beginning as the day of His birth.\nEven at the present day, it will be difficult for many to give up this\nidea. But there is no Christmas among the Christian feasts enumerated\nby Tertullian, Origen, and the recently published _Testament of Jesus\nChrist_. On the contrary, there is clear proof that even in the fourth\nand fifth centuries it was unknown in some parts of the Church, where its\nintroduction, at a much later period, can be proved historically. To this\nevidence we shall now turn our attention, beginning with Egypt.\n\nAt the beginning of the fifth century the learned monk, John Cassian,\nbetook himself to Egypt to study the observances of the monasteries\nthere, and later on, between 418 and 427, he wrote down the result of his\nobservations in his Collations. He informs us that the bishops of those\nparts at that time regarded the Epiphany as our Lord\u2019s birth-day, and\nthat there was no separate festival in honour of the latter. He calls\nthis the \u201cancient custom.\u201d[288]\n\nThis old custom, although generally observed at that time in Egypt,\nhad soon to give place to a new one. For under Cyril, Patriarch of\nAlexandria, Bishop Paul of Emesa, while on a visit to him, preached on\nthe festival of our Lord\u2019s nativity, and the date on which this happened\nwas the 29th Chijak, or 25th December, in the year 432. Christmas, then,\nhad been introduced into Egypt before this time, that is to say, between\n418 and 432,[289] and from then onwards it was firmly established, as the\nexisting Calendars of subsequent date show.\n\nThe learned Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis lived in Cyprus at the end of\nthe fourth century. In his answer to the Alogoi he gives the chronology\nof our Lord\u2019s life, according to which the 6th January is the day of our\nLord\u2019s birth, and the 8th November the day of His baptism in Jordan. For\nhim the Epiphany was plainly the festival of Christ\u2019s nativity.[290]\n\nThe old custom was still in force in Jerusalem about 385. Our Lord\u2019s\nbirth was celebrated there with great rejoicings, not on the 25th\nDecember, but on the 6th January. For according to the evidence of the\nPilgrim from Bordeaux, the festival on which the gospel was read, giving\nthe account of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and His meeting\nwith Simeon and Anna\u2014Candlemas Day\u2014was celebrated forty days after the\nEpiphany and not forty days after Christmas.[291] Epiphany must then have\nbeen the festival of the Nativity. In another passage, where the same\npilgrim has reason to name the chief festivals of the year, she mentions\nas such only Epiphany and Easter.[292] And so at that time there was no\nspecial festival of Christmas observed in Jerusalem.\n\nAmong the witnesses for the old custom, we find Ephrem Syrus, who\ninforms us that, in his time, the church of Mesopotamia commemorated the\nIncarnation of the Son of God on the thirteenth day after the winter\nsolstice, in the month when the light begins to increase, _i.e._ on the\n6th January.[293]\n\nIt is a well-known fact that the festival of the 25th December, as\nChrist\u2019s birth-day, was entirely unknown to the ancient churches of\nArmenia and Mesopotamia, and remained so partially until on in the\nfourteenth century.[294] In the most of the great churches of the East,\non the contrary, this feast was introduced during the last decades of the\nfourth century, in others somewhat later. Most interesting particulars\nconcerning the introduction of Christmas in various localities are\nextant, and, since they refer to its _introduction_, we are safe in\nconcluding, from the historical evidence before us, that these churches\nhad not celebrated Christmas until then. This is the case with regard to\nConstantinople.\n\nThe second capital of the empire had long been a stronghold of Arianism,\nso that the orthodox had dwindled down to a mere handful, and no longer\npossessed a church of their own in the city. During this period Christmas\nwas certainly not celebrated in Constantinople. Not till after the death\nof Valens, and the elevation of Theodosius the Great to the empire\n(19th January 379), did the Catholics breathe freely once more. They\nreceived as bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, formerly Bishop of Sasima, but\nthen living in retirement at Seleucia in Isauria. He began his labours\nas a stranger and sojourner in a small private chapel which he called\nthe Anastasia. Here, on the 25th December 379 or 380, Christmas was\ncelebrated for the first time in Constantinople, as he himself informs\nus, and on this occasion he delivered his thirty-eighth homily.[295]\nThus one of the first acts of the restorer of Catholicism in the capital\nwas the introduction of the new festival. In the above homily indeed\nhe says nothing about its being celebrated for the first time, but in\nthe following homily (c. 14), when speaking of the previous Christmas,\nhe calls himself its originator (\u1f14\u03be\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2). Gregory\u2019s activity in the\ncapital was unfortunately of short duration. Soon after the meeting\nof the second General Council, in 381, he was compelled through the\nintrigues of his opponents to retire from his post.\n\nIt would not be impossible, and certainly would not be surprising, if\nGregory\u2019s expulsion also imperilled his new institution, and that the\nfestival of Christ\u2019s Nativity would have to be re-introduced. At any\nrate, a late and not very reliable writer, though one not to be passed\nover in this connection, speaks of the emperor Honorius as having been\nthe means of introducing the feast of Christmas at Constantinople. On the\noccasion of a visit to Constantinople he persuaded his mother and his\nbrother Arcadius to celebrate the feast of Christmas, and in the Roman\nmanner.[296] This must have taken place after the year 395.\n\nIn Cappadocia the separation of the two feasts, Epiphany and Christmas,\nhad been effected in 380, at least as far as Nyssa was concerned. For\nGregory of Nyssa, in his funeral oration on Basil, speaks of the festival\nof Christ\u2019s birth as well established.[297] He says the same in his two\nsermons for the feast of St Stephen.\n\nWith regard to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the\nfestival at Antioch, we are fully informed by St Chrysostom in a sermon\nhe preached there on the 20th December 386.[298]\n\nThe festival had been known in Antioch for about ten years already, and a\ncertain party there among the faithful were in the habit of celebrating\nit publicly, but its official introduction was first effected by Bishop\nFlavian, who was seconded in this by St John Chrysostom, recently\nordained priest in the February of the same year. Chrysostom began his\npriestly activity with a course of sermons against the thorough-going\nArians\u2014the Anom\u00e6ans. These discourses treat of the nature of God, His\nincomprehensibility, and triune personality, but the preacher had to\ninterrupt the course from time to time in order to deal with other\nmatters affecting the faithful themselves, such as their superstitious\nrespect for, and imitation of, the Jews and their customs. Some went so\nfar as to regard oaths taken in the synagogue as more sacred and binding\nthan those taken in the church. Many Christians observed the Jewish\nfestivals as well as their own. On this account Chrysostom departed from\nhis first subject and directed his first four sermons against the Jews.\nThen his eloquence was directed to the task of winning over the faithful\nof Antioch to the observance of Christmas.\n\nIt was on the festival of the Antiochene martyr Philogonius that he\nannounced to his hearers that on the following 25th December Christmas\nwould be celebrated for the first time in the Church of Antioch. The\nday had been observed in the West from the beginning (\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd), but only\nduring the last ten years had the knowledge of it penetrated to Antioch.\nFor his own part, he had for a long time made his prayer in secret\nthat the festival should be kept also in Antioch. He had found many,\nespecially of the lower orders, in favour of it, but many, on the other\nhand, were opposed, and so the introduction of the festival had been\ndelayed.\n\nThe efforts of the great preacher were crowned with success. A very large\nnumber of the faithful were present in the church when the new festival\nwas celebrated. The sermon which Chrysostom delivered on the occasion has\nhappily come down to us.[299] In the introduction he says he wished to\nspeak to them himself concerning the festival over which there had been\nso much controversy in Antioch. Some considered it a mere innovation,\nbut others knew that it was observed in the West from Thrace to Cadiz.\nThis last assertion was an exaggeration, as the next words of Chrysostom\nthemselves show. He says he proposes to commend the feast to the\ndevotion of his hearers on three grounds: first, because the feast has\nspread with remarkable rapidity, and has met with so much favour in all\ndirections;[300] secondly, because the time of the census taken in the\nyear of Christ\u2019s birth can be determined by ancient documents preserved\nin Rome; thirdly, the year of our Lord\u2019s birth can be computed from the\ntime of the angel\u2019s appearance to Zachary in the Temple. Zachary, as High\nPriest, had entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.\nThe Jewish Day of Atonement fell in September. Six months afterwards\nthe angel came to Mary, and nine months later Christ was born, _i.e._\nin December. Chrysostom concludes with an attack upon those who do not\nbelieve in the incarnation of the Son of God.\n\nAll this, however, as far as the determination of the date is concerned,\nrests upon an insecure foundation. Since Zachary was only an ordinary\npriest, and not the High Priest, his entry into the Holy of Holies cannot\ntherefore be identified with that of the High Priest on the Day of\nAtonement. But this is of little importance, if on independent grounds\nthese calculations could still point to the month of December, though the\n25th need not on this account have been the precise day on which our Lord\nwas born.\n\nWhen we consider the facts, we see that it was no mere accident that\nChristmas began to be celebrated in the East just at this particular\nperiod, and that its introduction was due to the influence of the great\nmen whom we have named.\n\nIt was the moment when Catholics began successfully to repel Arianism;\nit was just those who attacked Arianism with most vigour and success\nwho promoted the spread of the new festival in the East. We must add\nto this the evidence afforded by secular enactments. Neither the laws\nof Valentinian II., nor the revisers of the _Codex Theodosianus_ in\n438, nor the _Breviarium Alaricianum_ of 506, regard the 25th December\nas a festival established by law. It was made to appear for the first\ntime as such by Tribonianus in the _Codex Justinianus_.[301] From these\nadditional facts, we gather that Christmas was of later introduction\nin the Church than Easter or Whitsunday. In such matters secular law\ngenerally follows the lead of ecclesiastical law. If Christmas had been\ncelebrated in the Church from the beginning, one can see no reason why\nit should not have enjoyed equal privileges with Easter and Whitsunday.\nStill there was a law of the Emperor Arcadius as early as 400 which\nincluded Christmas among the days on which at least the games of the\ncircus were forbidden.[302]\n\nChrysostom, in the sermon referred to above, states plainly that, at the\ntime when the attempt was being made to introduce the festival in the\nEast, it was already celebrated in Rome. Our attention is thus naturally\ndirected to Rome, and it will be interesting to learn how long it had\nbeen so observed there. This question we must now consider more fully.\n\nJohn, Bishop of Nic\u00e6a, informs us that the Roman Church had begun under\nPope Julius I. (337-352) to celebrate the birth of our Lord on the\n25th December.[303] This pope, with the assistance of the writings of\nJosephus, had ascertained that Christ was born on the 25th December.\nJohn of Nic\u00e6a then recurs substantially to the reckoning which we have\nalready produced from Chrysostom, according to which the appearance of\nthe angel to Zachary in the Temple happened on the 23rd September and the\nAnnunciation on the 25th March. From these data it followed as a matter\nof course that the 25th December was the day of Christ\u2019s birth. John had\ngained this information from an alleged correspondence between Cyril of\nJerusalem and Julius, from which he quotes. But this correspondence is\ncertainly not authentic, as will appear from one of the facts quoted\nfrom it further on.[304] But the fact that it cannot stand the test of\ncriticism does not prove the spuriousness of the treatise of John of\nNic\u00e6a in itself, nor the incorrectness of everything else contained in it.\n\nWhen we turn to the authentic evidence for the practice of the Roman\nChurch on this point, our attention is at once arrested by one document\nwhich is quoted under very different names\u2014_Anonymus Cuspiniani_,\n_Catalogus Bucherianus_, the Calendar of Furius Philocalus, or the\nChronographer of 354. These different ways of quoting the same document\nare apt to lead to confusion. They are due to the fact that from time to\ntime different scholars have published larger or smaller portions of the\ndocument, without ever placing it before the public in its entirety. The\ndifferent portions of which it is composed are of a rather heterogeneous\ncharacter, and, accordingly, as each student was interested in this or\nthat portion, he published as much of it as concerned his own studies,\nleaving the remainder unnoticed. In order to form a correct judgment\nof the evidential value of this document, and the importance of the\nfacts recorded in it, it will be well at this point to describe it more\nparticularly, although to do so may lead us away from our main subject.\n\nBriefly, we have to do with a collection of chronological data belonging\nto the time of Constantine, in which the unknown compiler collected\ntogether from official sources all kinds of chronological and historical\nnotices, such as might be useful for people in official positions. His\nobject was to supply them with a compendium of all that might be of\npractical assistance to them. John Cuspinianus (1473-1529) was the first\nto make use of this work, because he recognised that the list of Roman\nconsuls contained in it is the most correct that has come down to us. In\nhis _Commentarius de Consulibus Romanis_, published at Basel after his\ndeath, in 1552, a part of the work is printed.[305]\n\nOther students then edited such portions as related to the special\nstudies they had in hand, such as Onuphrius Panvinius, \u00c6gidius Boucher,\nS.J.,[306] Lambeck, Henschen, Cardinal Noris, Eccard, Preller, and\nespecially Roncalli. Finally, in the transactions of the \u201cAkademie der\nWissenschaften\u201d of Saxony for 1850, Mommsen printed almost the whole\nof it with the exception of the later portions. A collection of the\nallegorical illustrations of the document, as far as they exist, has also\nbeen published,[307] and thus at length this remarkable document has been\nplaced within the reach of all to whom it may be of interest.\n\nThe different sections therein contained are partly of ecclesiastical\nand Christian origin, and partly secular and heathen. Of purely\necclesiastical origin, in addition to the table for calculating Easter,\nare the _Depositio Episcoporum_, the _Depositio Martyrum_, and the\nlist of popes. The remaining sections fall into two classes: they are\neither entirely heathen, or they have interpolations of a Christian\nand ecclesiastical character. This is especially the case with the\nlists of consuls. Up to 753 U.C. they contain merely the names of the\nconsuls, with notices of the dictators; from 753 U.C. to 55 A.D. four\necclesiastical notices have been interpolated, but none from thence\nonwards. These four notices relate to the date of Christ\u2019s birth and\ndeath, the arrival of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and their\ndeath there. These notices, naturally, did not originally form part of\nthe lists of consuls. Who added them? Philocalus himself or someone else?\n\nSince the list of consuls contains ecclesiastical interpolations, it is\nall the more remarkable that none have been added to the Calendar. Where\nelse would we more naturally look for them, and where could they have\nbeen more easily introduced? Why did not Philocalus set down the birth\nof Christ here under the 25th December, the _Natalis Invicti_, since he\nconsidered it of sufficient importance to be interpolated into the lists\nof consuls, with which it is out of keeping?\n\nBut if, it is objected, the date of Christ\u2019s birth is also given in the\n_Depositio Martyrum_, let us examine this document more closely. As\nthe title indicates, it contains only the days of the death and burial\nof Roman martyrs and other martyrs venerated in Rome in the earliest\nages, _e.g._ Cyprian, Perpetua, Felicitas. To these there are added two\nexceptions: VIII. Kal. Jan. (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem) and VIII.\nKal. Mart. (the feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair). Neither of these belong in\nany sense to a _Depositio Martyrum_, and on this account, De Rossi wished\nto change the title of the document to _Feriale Ecclesi\u00e6 Roman\u00e6_. But in\nthis he was mistaken. The MSS. have the title _Depositio Martyrum_ alone,\nand to change it would be arbitrary. The two days mentioned above, the\n25th December and the 22nd February, must rather be struck out as later\nadditions which do not belong to the document.\n\nThat such entries do not appear in the Calendar is explained, in my\nopinion, by the fact that soon afterwards succeeding emperors forbade the\ngames of the circus and energetically suppressed heathen customs. When\nthis had been done, the Calendar would no longer be of any practical use,\nand so it would not be worth while to make alterations in it. The other\nchronological pieces, however, had a permanent value, and it naturally\noccurred to those who used them later on to adapt them to the altered\ncircumstances of the time.\n\nWe must now examine more minutely the notice of Christ\u2019s birth given us\nin this document. It runs as follows: _I p. Chr. C\u00e6sare et Paulo sat.\nXIII. Hoc cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII. Kal. Jan. de ven. luna\nXV._[308] Which means, Christ was born during the consulship of C. C\u00e6sar\nAugustus and L. \u00c6milius Paulus (754 U.C.), on the 25th December, which\nwas a Friday, on the fifteenth day of the new moon.\n\nThis notice gives rise to several questions. First of all the Epact is\nnot correct, as according to our tables it ought to be 11.[309] But this\nneed not detain us, as two or three peculiarities of this kind are to be\nmet with in this list of the consuls. The error concerning the day of\nthe week is more important. To expose this error we need only give the\ndominical letters for the years in question:\u2014\n\n    751 U.C., Dom. let. F  = 25th Dec., Wednesday.\n    752 U.C.,     \u201d     E  =     \u201d      Thursday.\n    753 U.C.,     \u201d     DG =     \u201d      Saturday.\n    754 U.C.,     \u201d     B  =     \u201d      Sunday.\n\nThe compiler of this chronology might have set down the birth of Christ\nin either 754 or 753 U.C. 754 is a possible year, although the 25th\nDecember 753 is more probable, yet in either case the day of the week\nwould be wrong. In 752, the 25th December fell on Thursday, but since 753\nwas a leap year, the dominical letter advances two places, and Friday is\npassed over. At the same time, there has been a fairly constant tradition\nthat the 25th of December fell on a Wednesday in the year of Christ\u2019s\nbirth. In any case, the notice that the 25th December fell, in this year,\non a Friday is based on a mistaken reckoning. This notice, then, does\nnot represent a tradition, but is merely the result of a calculation\nwhich unfortunately is incorrect. Consequently the whole interpolation is\nundeserving of credit. We now pass on to a second point.\n\nWhile all writers before 354 fix the year of Christ\u2019s birth by the year\nof the Emperor\u2019s reign, here, for the first time, it is fixed by the year\nof the consuls. This is a marked departure from the original usage. The\nforty-first or forty-second year of Augustus correctly converted into\na consular year would have run: _Augusto XIII. et Silvano conss._ or\n_Lentulo et Messalino_, which would also be the year 751 or 752 U.C.,\naccording as the year of the emperor is taken as \u201c_effektiv_\u201d or not,\n_i.e._ according as one places Christ\u2019s birth in the first or second half\nof the year.[310]\n\nMoreover, when the chronographer dates the year of Christ\u2019s birth in the\nconsulship of \u201cC\u00e6sar and Paulus\u201d (754 U.C.), he anticipates the Dionysian\nera some two hundred years before Dionysius, and, further, when, in\naccordance with a very ancient tradition, he places the year of Christ\u2019s\ndeath in the consulship of the \u201c_duo gemini_\u201d (29 A.D.), he thus only\nallows twenty-eight and a quarter years for Christ\u2019s earthly life, while\nSt Luke (iii. 23) speaks of Him as having wellnigh thirty full years.\nWhoever he may have been who inserted this notice under the consulship\nof C\u00e6sar and Paulus in the chronology, he certainly made a mistake. He\nalso stands alone in placing Christ\u2019s birth in the year 754 U.C., for\nthe writers and annalists who wrote at a later date, such as Sulpicius\nSeverus, Orosius, Prosper, Hydatius, and even Cassiodorus, give other\ndates.\n\nThe anonymous compiler of this chronology differs also, both as to\ncontents and form, from those who preceded him. While Iren\u00e6us, Clement\nof Alexandria, Tertullian, the pseudo-Cyprian, etc., fix the year of\nChrist\u2019s birth by a year of the emperor, _i.e._ the forty-first or\nforty-second of Augustus, it is given in this document in the form of a\nconsular year, and while the former give 751-752 U.C. as the year, the\nlatter gives 754. All this creates great difficulty in accepting the\nevidence of the compiler.[311]\n\nWe must now deal with the day of the month given in the chronology,\nthe 25th December, which, strictly speaking, alone is of importance in\nconnection with the end we have in view, although it cannot well be\nseparated from the previous question as to the year. It has recently\nbeen thought that Hippolytus afforded some very early evidence on this\npoint, owing to a passage in his commentary on Daniel bearing upon the\nsubject. However, this hope has proved deceptive,[312] since the passage\nin Hippolytus proves to be the addition of a much later hand; we are thus\nleft with the chronology of 354 as the earliest evidence for placing the\nbirth of Christ on the 25th December.\n\nThe result of our investigation of this compilation, made up of\nhistorical, chronological, and other materials, proves that the compiler,\nin collecting his materials in 354, added to the lists of consuls, which\nnaturally he did not draw up himself, the notice that Christ was born\nunder these particular consuls on the 25th December, because it was at\nthat time the generally accepted date. It could only be widely accepted,\nwhen the festival of Christ\u2019s birth had already been celebrated on this\nday, not recently but during a considerable period. It is very improbable\nthat it had just been introduced by any one person in particular, such\nas the Bishop of Rome, for the first years of the reign of Liberius\nwere very troubled and ill suited for the introduction of so important\nan innovation. Moreover, history shows that a thing like this cannot be\ndone all at once by a stroke of the pen, or at the will of an individual,\neven though he be the Bishop of Rome, but is rather the outcome of a long\nperiod of preparation.\n\nThe compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in\nRome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced\nthere, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December.\nThis statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage\nin Hippolytus is an interpolation, the _Depositio Martyrum_ and the\n_Depositio Episcoporum_ have been worked over by the hand of the same\ncompiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without\nprejudice to their original contents.\n\nNevertheless attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other\ngrounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and\neven in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt,\nwithout falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They\nreckoned as follows:\u2014when the angel announced to Zachary his son\u2019s\nbirth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing\nthe service of the Temple.[313] At the dedication of the Temple under\nSolomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned\nin 1 Paral. xxiv. 7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession\nthroughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for\na week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being\nthe eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were\nre-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before,\nso soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[314] According to the\nassertion of Josephus,[315] this arrangement survived to his own time,\nand was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian\nera.\n\nSince the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been\ncalculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year\nof the Lord\u2019s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season.\nThis was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the\nrestoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by\nthe fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular\nperformance of divine service was interrupted.[316] In the time of the\nMachabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three\nyears. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses\nmight be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or,\nat the re-establishment of worship, that course might undertake duty\nwhose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or,\nfinally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these\ncases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but\nwhich of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is\nnot told us.\n\nEven if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid\nfoundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year,\nleaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to\nbe accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during\nthe week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at\nonce. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again\nin autumn, St Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the\nyear the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during\nthe Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on\nduty as well.\n\nWe are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of\nJerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[317]\nfor again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared.\nIf we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved.\nEven if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on\naccount of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question\nwhether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they\nceased on the 8th Gorpi\u00e6os, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or\non the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[318]\nIt is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really\nthe day of Our Lord\u2019s birth.[319]\n\nIt follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the\nRedeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that\neven when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times\nwhen Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not\nwanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is\nthe case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious\nwritings of St Jerome: \u201cWhether our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized\nto-day, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in\nthe world, and according to the different traditions different views are\nmaintained.\u201d[320] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St\nJerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to\nthe gilded temples of Rome (_aurata capitolia_).\n\nWhat then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning\nthe true day of Christ\u2019s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to\nanswer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest\nwriters in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to\nsee that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain,\nand that those who were interested in the question did not agree among\nthemselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second\ncentury. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian\nmonth Pachon (_i.e._ 20th May) as the day of our Lord\u2019s birth. The\nBasilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (_i.e._\n10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings.\nThe majority celebrated Christ\u2019s birth on the 11th Tybi (_i.e._ 6th\nJanuary).[321]\n\nIn a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St Cyprian,\nwhich deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The\nanonymous writer of this treatise (_De Pascha Computus_), which was\ncomposed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the\ntrue day of Christ\u2019s birth,[322] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus\nsets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct\ninterpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth\ncenturies, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th\nDecember, and St Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of\nthis opinion.[323]\n\nThe four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates.\nTheir authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim\nin writing was to give information concerning our Lord\u2019s life, and,\neven if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of\nfixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning\ntime. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of\nwinter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered\nit necessary that the inhabitants of Jud\u00e6a should be enrolled each in\nhis own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the\ncensus was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as\nthe late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical\ntradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest\ntimes it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which\ncommemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.\n\nThese are the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the 25th\nDecember as the actual date of the Nativity, and they must be taken into\naccount by any one who desires to form a judgment for himself on this\nmatter. The other questions relating to the same point are more easily\ndisposed of.\n\nWhether the accepted date is correct or not, we find it definitely set\ndown by the chronographer of 354, who directly states that Christ was\nborn on the 25th December (_natus est octavo Kalendas Januarias_), while\nit follows indirectly from his words that this day was solemnly observed\nas the day of His nativity. The Calendar ends with the year 354, and\naccordingly Christmas was observed then in the same way as at present.\nThe year 354 brings us within the pontificate of Liberius, and it is just\nin his pontificate that we find further authentic evidence concerning the\nfeast.\n\nDuring his pontificate Liberius gave the veil to Marcellina, an elder\nsister of St Ambrose. This took place on the day of our Lord\u2019s birth\n(_Natalis Salvatoris_), and on this occasion Liberius delivered a\nsermon preserved for us by Ambrose in his _De Virginitate_. In this\nwork he recalls to his sister\u2019s memory what the Pope had said: \u201cWhen\nthou sealedst thy vow of virginity in St Peter\u2019s by changing thy habit\non the birth-day of the Redeemer\u2014on what more fitting day could it have\ntaken place than that on which the Virgin (Mary) brought forth her\nchild\u2014and in the presence of many of God\u2019s hand-maidens who strove for\nthy companionship, he (Liberius) said, \u2018Thou hast desired excellent\nespousals, my daughter. Thou seest what a crowd of people have come\ntogether to celebrate the birth-day of thy Bridegroom, and that no one\ngoes away from hence unnourished. He it is who, when invited to the\nmarriage, changed water into wine. He will vouchsafe the true secrets\nof virginity to thee, who until now hast been subject to the beggarly\nelements of nature. He it is who, with five loaves and two fishes,\nsatisfied four thousand men in the wilderness.[324] He could have\nsatisfied more had more been there. Finally, He has invited still more\nto thine espousals, not to give them barley-bread, but a Body from\nheaven.\u2019\u201d[325]\n\nLiberius here represents taking the vows of religion under the familiar\nfigure of a marriage. The marriage feast always forms part of every\nmarriage, and accordingly it was the duty of the Bridegroom whom\nMarcellina had chosen to provide one. He had changed water into wine and\nfed thousands with a few loaves, but now He feeds a still greater number\nwith His mystical Body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the thought running\nthrough the Pope\u2019s address.\n\nSt Ambrose does not inform us of the year in which the ceremony took\nplace at which Liberius spoke the above words. Liberius had been elected\nbishop of Rome (17th May 352) in troublous times under the Emperor\nConstantius, a strong Arian. As he refused to communicate with the\nEusebius and protected St Athanasius, he was banished to Ber\u0153a at the end\nof 355, where he was compelled to remain until 357. The Archdeacon Felix,\nrelying on the Emperor\u2019s support, allowed himself to be consecrated\nbishop in his stead, but found no following in Rome. On this account,\nConstantius consented to the recall of the lawful bishop, and Liberius\nresided in Rome for the remainder of his pontificate, and died there in\n366.\n\nIt is more probable that Marcellina\u2019s clothing with the religious habit\ntook place during the latter part of this pontificate. For according to\nthe received opinion, St Ambrose was born about the year 340,[326] and\nthus in 353 he would have been only thirteen years old, and although\nhis sister was older, yet in 353 she would not have been twenty-five,\nthe canonical age for taking the veil.[327] Still it is not impossible\nthat the ceremony and the address of Liberius took place between 352\nand 354, and at any rate this much is certain that it took place on the\n25th December and not on the Epiphany (6th January), according to the\nview formerly held.[328] There is no evidence that the Epiphany was\nobserved in Rome, as it had been in the East, as the day of Christ\u2019s\nbirth, and Liberius in this address does not say that the commemoration\nof the miracles of the loaves and of the changing water into wine was\nbeing celebrated precisely on the day of Marcellina\u2019s taking the veil,\n_i.e._ on the day of the Saviour\u2019s birth (_Natalis Salvatoris_). These\nthings were alluded to only because of their connection with the train of\nthought followed by Liberius in his address.\n\nNothing can be gathered from the words of Liberius as to when Christmas\nwas first observed in Rome on the 25th December. In any case, it did not\ncome into existence suddenly, but would require time, and, like other\nfestivals, a considerable period would have to elapse before it became\ngeneral and gained official recognition. Contemporary evidence on this\npoint is wanting; one ancient witness, unfortunately not altogether\nreliable, speaks of Julius I. and not Liberius as the originator of\nChristmas.\n\nWe must now conclude by giving the view we have arrived at. In Rome\na distinctive custom had arisen of celebrating Christ\u2019s nativity on\nthe 25th December, while in other quarters it was celebrated on the\n6th January. How this was brought about must remain a matter for\nconjecture. It has been thought that in some places heathen festivals\nof various kinds were kept in the month of December; in particular, the\nKikellia[329] was kept at Alexandria on the 25th December, in Bostra and\nPella, a festival of local observance,[330] and in Rome, the Saturnalia\nbegan on the 17th December and lasted until the 23rd.[331] It is only\nnatural that the winter solstice should give rise to a festival, and find\nits place marked in the Calendar of Feasts. Indeed, in the Roman Calendar\nof much later date\u2014that of Philocalus\u2014the 25th December is marked as the\nbirth-day of the unconquerable Sun-God (_Natalis Solis Invicti_).\n\nSince on the 21st December the sun reaches its lowest point, and then\nbegins once more to rise higher in the heavens, man, in his simplicity,\nmarked the day on which this change in the sun became perceptible as\nthe new birth or birth-day of the sun, the invincible Sun-God. What\nwas more natural for the Christians of that age than to connect this\nobvious natural event with the thought of the nativity of Him who is\nthe Light of the World! Even if the Holy Scriptures had not suggested\nthis idea, it must have presented itself to the Christian mind. The\ncomparison of Christ with the sun, and of His work with the victory\nof light over darkness, frequently appears in the writings of the\nFathers. St Cyprian[332] spoke of Christ as the true sun (_sol verus_).\nSt Ambrose[333] says precisely, \u201cHe is our new sun\u201d (_Hic sol novus\nnoster_). Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeno of\nVerona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc.[334]\n\nEvery child knows that Simeon addressed the new-born Messias as \u201ca\nlight to the revelation of the Gentiles,\u201d and, since the Messias is also\ncalled by the Prophets the light in the darkness and the Sun of Justice,\nit is easy to see how such expressions passed into the Church\u2019s liturgy\nfor this festival.[335] It was natural for the Romans to set down the\nbirth-day of this new Sun on the day marked of old time in their Calendar\nas a _Natalis Solis_, and observed as a festival by all the heathen\ninhabitants of Rome.[336] The choice of the day cannot be due to the\ndesire to supplant the heathen festival, for it was not a festival of\nany special importance. But the similarity between the natural fact (the\nsolstice) and the revolution in the spiritual sphere (Christ\u2019s nativity),\nwas sufficient to suggest the idea. It was not necessary to wait for the\ntime of Constantine in order to hit upon this idea.\n\nWe must now return once more to the usages of the Church of Jerusalem\nand the festival observed there. The 6th January, indeed, was called\nin Jerusalem Epiphany, nevertheless the nativity of Christ formed an\nespecially prominent feature of the commemoration.\n\nA detailed description of the function is given in Silvia\u2019s diary.\nUnfortunately the beginning is missing,[337] and the account opens\nwith the return of the great procession which took place annually from\nJerusalem to Bethlehem the evening before the feast. The next morning,\nthe procession returned to Jerusalem and proceeded to the Church of the\nAnastasis, which was richly decorated. The monks remained all night in\nthe church at Bethlehem, which, all through the octave, remained in\nfestal array.[338] A procession to Bethlehem, on the Epiphany would have\nno meaning, if the baptism of Christ was the only event commemorated at\nthat feast, for this, of course, took place in the Jordan. In Jerusalem,\nas in the other Eastern Churches, no special Christmas festival had been\nas yet instituted, still at the commencement of the fifth century there\nwere some who regarded the Epiphany as the day of Christ\u2019s nativity in\nthe flesh, although, as St Jerome says,[339] the Son of God did not\nreveal Himself in flesh but rather concealed Himself. Indeed, if we are\nto believe Cosmas Indicopleustes, who lived in the middle of the sixth\ncentury, the nativity of Christ was commemorated at Jerusalem, and there\nonly on the Epiphany\u2014\u201ca superstitious fancy,\u201d as he calls it.[340]\n\nOn the other hand, it has been stated that Bishop Juvenal (425-458), who\nobtained for the Church of Jerusalem patriarchal rank, introduced the\nfeast of Christ\u2019s birth.[341]\n\nPerhaps it was specially difficult to establish this festival in\nJerusalem on the 25th December because another festival was already\nobserved there on that day\u2014the commemoration of David and the Apostle St\nJames.[342] Their commemoration, along with that of St Joseph, is kept\nboth by the Greek Church and the Church of Jerusalem on the Sunday before\nChristmas.[343]\n\nA document already referred to, dating from the end of the ninth or\nbeginning of the tenth century, affords an interesting proof of the\nmanner in which these matters which we have placed before the reader\nwere regarded at a later date. John, Bishop of Nic\u00e6a, who flourished\nabout the year 900, endeavoured to induce the Armenians to adopt the\n25th December as the day of Christ\u2019s birth, and set down in an elaborate\ntreatise the reasons he thought calculated to influence them. This\ncomposition is especially interesting because in it the introduction of\nChristmas is ascribed to a particular individual, none other than Pope\nJulius I. (337-352). Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) is said to have\ncorresponded with him on this question. Even if, from point of view of\ndates, this were not impossible, the letter of Cyril would in itself\ngive rise to suspicion.[344] For Cyril would have been more likely to\nintroduce or establish the feast on another day, while it is historically\ncertain it was not yet observed in Jerusalem in 385.\n\nIn this pretended letter, Cyril alleges as a reason for transferring the\nfeast to a different day from the Epiphany, that it is impossible for\nthe inhabitants of Jerusalem to keep both feasts on the same day with\nbefitting solemnity. Bethlehem lies three miles west, and the Jordan\nfifteen miles east of Jerusalem. It is stated in this letter that a\nprocession went to both places on the same day, and so it was impossible\nfor the clergy to accompany both. The often quoted diary of the Gallic\nPilgrim[345] shows us that the procession to Bethlehem actually took\nplace, but she is silent about a procession to the Jordan. This is first\nmentioned by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century.[346] It only was\npossible when the Nativity had been transferred to another day. The\nwriter of the letter has antedated a later practice and certainly was not\nBishop Cyril of Jerusalem.\n\nThe manner in which this letter brings forth evidence in favour\nof choosing the 25th December for the Nativity of Christ is also\ninteresting. Titus, says the supposed Cyril in this letter to Pope\nJulius, had carried off all the books of the Jews to Rome after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem. There they still remain, and Julius\nmight make a search to see if the true birth-day of Christ cannot be\ndiscovered.[347] Julius then discovered from the writings of Josephus\nthat Zachary had seen the vision of the angel in the Temple in the\nseventh month, on the Day of Atonement, which on that occasion had fallen\non the 23rd September. On that day his son, St John the Baptist, was\nconceived, who was born on the 24th June following, but Christ, according\nto St Luke i. 36, was born six months later, on the 25th December.\n\nAs regards the liturgical celebration of the feast, the oldest sermons\non the _Nativitas Domini_ which have come down to us, are those of Zeno\nof Verona (\u2020 380).[348] They are purely moral exhortations, and throw no\nlight upon the date of the feast. He has no sermon for the Epiphany, and\nit may be inferred he did not observe it or that it was identified with\nthe Nativity.\n\nThe representation of the crib on a side-altar or some other conspicuous\nplace in the church is a special feature of the Christmas festival at\nthe present day. This remains in the church until Epiphany, or even to\nthe 2nd February. The Christmas crib dates back to St Francis of Assisi,\nwho, with the permission of the Pope, set up in 1223 for the first time a\nrepresentation of the child Jesus in the manger.\n\nIt is also the custom to celebrate three Masses, of which the first,\naccording to the ancient use, commenced at midnight. As the words of the\nMass show, this first Mass commemorates the eternal generation of the Son\nfrom the Father, the second commemorates His Incarnation and birth into\nthis world, the third His birth through grace, in the hearts of sinners.\nThe Gelasian sacramentary mentions the _trina celebratio_. The custom\nis one which reaches back to early Christian times. Gregory the Great\nmentions it in _Hom. viii._ in _Evang._ The Leonine sacramentary contains\nnine different formularies for Christmas, but the other western rites,\nincluding the Mozarabic, have only one Mass for the feast. The Menology\nof Basil Porphyrogenitus gives the flight of Mary into Egypt on the 26th\nDecember, and St Stephen only on the following day.\n\nSince the 25th December was only chosen for reasons of a more or less\naccidental and external character, so too the days which immediately\nfollow\u2014St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents\u2014have\nno real connection with Christmas, although they are of very ancient\ninstitution. The 26th December was already a special festival in the\nfourth century, as appears from the sermons of St Augustine (_Sermo_\n314, c. 1), though he knows nothing of the two following days. The 220th\nsermon, which celebrates the Holy Innocents, is spurious.[349] They\nappear, however, in the African Calendar of the sixth century. On the\nInnocents\u2019 Day in the Middle Ages the schoolboys used to elect a bishop\nwho was nothing more than their leader, and the ceremony was quite\nharmless. For this ceremony, as well as for the crib and other popular\ncustoms still practised, the reader is referred to Heuser\u2019s elaborate\narticles in the _Kirchenlexikon_, iv\u00b2., 1395-1436.\n\nThe introduction of Christmas and its appointment on the 25th December\nbrought about the establishment of three other festivals: 1. the feast\nof the _Circumcisio Domini_, eight days after the Nativity, according to\nSt Luke ii. 21, (_postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur\npuer, vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus_). 2. The Annunciation on the 25th\nMarch, which is also the day of Christ\u2019s conception, and so is placed\nnine months before the 25th December. The historical evidence for this\nday is on a par with that for Christmas. 3. The Nativity of St John the\nBaptist, on the 24th June. Another consequence was that the festival of\nthe _Occursus Domini_ (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7), _i.e._ the meeting of our Lord with\nSimeon in the Temple, on Candlemas Day, which was observed in Jerusalem\nbefore the introduction of Christmas, had to be transferred to another\nday. According to the regulations of the Jewish Law in Lev. xii. 6, the\nperiod of uncleanness after birth lasted forty days. And according to St\nLuke ii. 22, Mary submitted to the Law in this respect. So long as our\nLord\u2019s birth was commemorated at Epiphany on the 6th January, the 15th\nFebruary was the fortieth day after the Nativity, and so, as a matter of\nfact, the festival of the _Occursus Domini_ was celebrated in Jerusalem\non this day in 385.[350] But when the Nativity came to be celebrated on\nthe 25th December, the other festival had to be placed thirteen days\nearlier, on the 2nd February, as it is at the present time.[351]\n\n\n2. _Advent and the Sundays until Septuagesima_\n\nChristmas, like Easter, besides its Vigil and Octave, has also a\nconsiderable period of preparation. This, naturally, could only come into\nexistence after the institution of the festival, and indeed a certain\ntime had to elapse before it was organised. Since Christmas itself was\nfirst observed in the middle of the fourth century, it is not remarkable\nthat the earliest clear reference to Advent, from an official source,\ndates from the end of the sixth century.\n\nSome sort of preparatory season to Christmas, however, existed before\nthis. As in the case of Easter, this preparatory season was marked by a\nfast commencing on St Martin\u2019s Day (11th November), and lasting until\nChristmas. All Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were fasted as in Lent.\nSuch was the preparation observed in Gaul since the appointment of the\nfestival by Bishop Perpetuus of Tours (\u2020 491). The same observance\nexisted in other parts of Gaul, for the first Council of Ma\u00e7on (581)\nprescribes exactly the same order, and also that from St Martin\u2019s Day\nto Christmas the Mass shall be the same as during Lent\u2014the first sign\nof the liturgy for Advent. In the province of Tours there was a similar\nenactment, although affecting the monks alone, ordering them to fast\nthrough the whole of December.[352] The Roman Church did not observe the\nfast, although she treated Advent as a liturgical portion of the Church\u2019s\nyear and incorporated it therein.\n\nAlthough the Greek Church has not marked the preparation for Christmas in\nher liturgy, still she has observed the fast since the eighth century.\nThis begins on St Philip\u2019s day (the 14th November), and continues for six\nweeks until Christmas. According to the Mozarabic and Milanese rites,\nthis is the length of Advent. The Copts observe an Advent fast beginning\non the 19th Athyr (15th November).[353]\n\nOnce the observance of Advent had been established in Rome, it spread\nthroughout the entire West. In Spain we find it extended over five\nSundays according to the Lectionary of Silos, dating from about 650.\nIt took longer to make its way in France, although the way had already\nbeen prepared for it by Perpetuus of Tours. The service-books of the\nseventh century, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, and the so-called _Missale\nGothico-Gallicanum_, edited by Mabillon, commence with the _Vigilia\nNatalis Domini_, without Advent. In Rome, the institution of Advent\ncannot be traced further back than to the sixth century, for the sermons\nof St Augustine and Leo I. make no mention of it. Unmistakable evidence\nfor its observance is found for the first time in the homilies of Gregory\nthe Great.[354]\n\nThe want of uniformity in the duration of Advent in different parts\nof the Church is due to the fact that local Churches, conformably to\nthe ancient discipline, acted independently of each other. Thus, in\nRome Advent lasted only four weeks, as we gather from the Gregorian\nsacramentary, which provides three Sundays in December with collects _de\nadventu Domini_, and a _dominica vacans_; in the Appendix, however, five\nSundays are reckoned before Christmas.[355] The first traces of Advent\nare to be sought for in the lectionaries, as, for instance, in that drawn\nup by Bishop Victor of Capua (546-547), and used by St Boniface.[356]\nThis contains four Epistles for the Sundays before Christmas (de\nAdventu). The Gelasian sacramentary has five Sundays in Advent, but it\nhas obviously been revised for the use of the Frankish Churches. All\nservice-books containing only four Sundays in Advent belong to the Roman\nrite.\n\nIn course of time the divergence between the Roman and Frankish uses\nbecame noticeable and gave rise to confusion. Amalarius remarks: In all\nmissals and lectionaries there are five Sundays in Advent, but in the\nAntiphoner there are only three offices and a _Dominica vacans_, and the\nGregorian missal has only four Sundays in Advent. In support of five\nSundays, it was urged that from the beginning of the world until the\nChristian era five of the seven ages of the world had passed. Even in\nthe tenth century, opinions were expressed in favour of five weeks. It\nwas urged that, according to the other practice, if Christmas fell on a\nMonday, Advent strictly speaking lasted only three weeks. Abbo of Fleury\n(\u2020 1004) is witness to the existence of a twofold practice in a later\nperiod.[357] In the eighth century, an Advent of four weeks was observed\nin France wherever Roman influence extended. Berno of Reichenau in his\nwritings on Advent is only occupied with the question how to deal with\nthe vigil of Christmas when the 25th December falls on a Monday. The\nMicrologus does not mention an Advent season of five weeks, nor does\nBeleth.[358] A deviation from this custom appears in the Milanese and\nMozarabic rites which prescribe a duration of six weeks for Advent, thus\nbringing it into conformity in this respect with Lent.\n\nAt first Advent was regarded merely as a time for penance and\nmortification in the same way as Lent. On this account, it was widely\nobserved as a time of fasting, although the Church had nowhere so ordered\nit. Later on, again, Advent was regarded as a type or memorial of the\nOld Testament or the time before Christ. However, the view that the four\nweeks of Advent typify the four thousand years from Adam to Christ,\nimpressive as it is, finds no support from the Liturgy. On the contrary,\nthe lections from Genesis in the Breviary begin in Septuagesima, while\nduring Advent the lections are taken from the Prophet Isaias.\n\nAs far as the lections from Scripture are concerned, the Gospel for\nthe second Sunday in Advent recounts our Lord\u2019s Messianic labours,\nwhile His birth is only commemorated some two or three weeks later. The\nGospel for the first Sunday speaks of the end of the world, not, as one\nwould expect, of its creation. The medi\u00e6val lectionaries, moreover,\nreplace St Luke xxi. 25 _et seqq._ on this Sunday with the Gospel _Cum\nappropinquasset Jerusalem_, etc. (St Matthew xxi. 1 _et seqq._),[359]\nand the preceding Sunday is sometimes called _Dominica in pr\u00e6paratione\nAdventus_, or _Dominica Quinta ante Natalem Domini_, in which we see a\nremnant of the more ancient reckoning. The collects of the Mass express\nthe hope of the Messias and the longing for His appearance.\n\nWe must also consider Christmas in connection with the festivals which\nfollow in the course of the year, such as the Circumcision of our Lord,\nwhich, of course, falls on the eighth day after Christmas, the _Octava\nDomini_, the Epiphany, and Candlemas Day. Thus quite naturally, as it\nwere, a cycle of festivals has grown up round Christmas Day.\n\nWe may also mention the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas with its\nGospel giving the account of the meeting of Jesus and His parents with\nSimeon and Anna. The Gospel for the Sunday after New Year\u2019s Day records\nthe flight into Egypt. The Sundays after Epiphany form connecting links\nbetween Christmas and Easter, varying from two to six, according as\nEaster falls earlier or later. Only the two first Sundays have any\ndistinctive character, the first commemorating the visit of our Lord to\nthe Temple at the age of twelve years, and the second His first miracle\nat Cana of Galilee.[360] The remaining Sundays, along with Septuagesima\nand Sexagesima, do not commemorate any historical event in their lections\nfrom Scripture; Quinquagesima and the Sundays in Lent direct our\nattention to the approaching Passion. In the case of the Sundays three\nto six after Epiphany, this is intentional, since they are liable to be\ntransferred from their proper place to the end of the year when necessary.\n\nThe Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, or, as it was formerly called, the\nSunday after Christmas, has as its Gospel St Luke ii. 33-40, which gives\nthe account of Simeon\u2019s prophecy. Chronologically speaking, this passage\ncomes before its time, for, in St Luke\u2019s Gospel, it comes after the\npassage chosen as the Gospel for Candlemas (St Luke ii. 22-32), of which\nit forms the continuation. In the last verse (ii. 39), mention is made of\nthe return from Jerusalem or Bethlehem to Nazareth. The events, however,\nwhich follow in the course of the Church\u2019s year\u2014the circumcision and the\narrival of the Wise Men\u2014must have happened before the return to Galilee.\n\n\n3. _The Octave of Christmas. The Circumcision. The New Year_\n\nSince Easter, after the example given by the Synagogue, was from the\nfirst observed with an octave, and, since Epiphany had its octave already\nin the eighth century, it was inevitable that Christmas should be\nprovided with one also. Accordingly, the eighth day after Christmas bears\nthe name _Octava Domini_ (In Octavas Domini) in the Gelasian[361] and\nGregorian sacramentaries, whence it may be inferred that it was not yet\nregarded as an independent festival and passed unnoticed if it fell on a\nweek-day.\n\nOn the other hand, it was partially observed as a popular holiday, at\nleast it gave occasion in many places for popular rejoicings,[362] being\nthe day on which the Roman Calendar began a new year. In Ravenna it\nwas marked by dancing and masquerades, against which Peter Chrysologus\ninveighed in his 155th Sermon. Since he forbids Christians to put in\neven an appearance at these entertainments, they must have been of\nan objectionable nature. It was the same in Gaul even in the sixth\ncentury and later. The second Council of Tours, and the Councils of\nAuxerre and Rouen (650) were compelled to forbid these rejoicings.\nWith a view to counteracting their influence, the bishops exhorted the\nfaithful to attend divine service on this day, and appointed somewhat\nearlier penitential processions (_litani\u00e6_) to be privately performed\nin atonement for the sins committed at this season.[363] In Spain, the\neleventh canon of the fourth Council of Toledo commanded a strict fast\nand abstinence for the same object, and the Allelujah was omitted from\nthe psalmody. In 650, a law of the Kings Recceswinth and Erwig made\nthe Kalends of January a festival of obligation.[364] In Rome, in the\neighth century, the people spent the nights dancing in the streets\nto the scandal of pilgrims from the north, as Boniface informed Pope\nZacharias. These abuses lingered longest in France though divested of\ntheir heathen character. Late on in the Middle Ages, we find a remnant\nof them in the so-called Feast of Fools, at which ecclesiastical customs\nwere travestied by the election of a Bishop of Fools and by all sorts\nof misconduct in the churches. Things became so bad that the papal\nlegate, Cardinal Peter, felt compelled to order Odo, Bishop of Paris, to\npronounce excommunication on all who took part in such proceedings. The\nbishop prohibited the abuse in the strongest manner in 1199, but in spite\nof repeated ecclesiastical censures, it continued on into the fifteenth\ncentury, as appears from a report of the theological faculty of Paris in\n1444.[365]\n\nThe 1st January appears as an ecclesiastical festival at Rome for the\nfirst time at the beginning of the ninth century, where it is called from\nthe first _Circumcisio Domini_, the name which it bears among the Greeks,\nSyrians, and Copts.\n\nWe have already observed that in the Gregorian sacramentary the 1st\nJanuary is simply called _Octava Domini_. The same is also the case in\nthe Calendar of St Genevi\u00e8ve, edited by Fronteau, which was written\nbetween 714 and 731.[366] In the _Homiliarium_ of Charlemagne compiled\nby Paul the Deacon between 786 and 797, the day is still called _in\noctavas Domini_, i.e. _Calendas Januarias_.[367] The change of name\nmust have been effected shortly after this. Although among the sermons\nof Zeno of Verona,[368] there is one on the circumcision of our Lord,\nthis only proves that he treated of this subject in his discourse, and\naffords no evidence for the existence of the festival. In the Calendar\nof Charlemagne, edited by Piper, dating from between 731 and 781, the\nname _Circumcisio_ occurs, so too in the list of Festivals of Sonnatius.\nOn the other hand, the Gregorian sacramentary written, under Archbishop\nOtgar, about 840 for the monastery of St Alban near Mainz, has only\n_Octava Domini_.\n\nThe idea and date of this festival are derived from St Luke ii. 21, since\neight days after birth our Lord was circumcised and received His human\nname, which, according to Jewish usage, was given at the same time.\nLater on, a special feast in honour of the Holy Name was instituted and\nappointed for the second Sunday after Epiphany. Its celebration was\npermitted to the Franciscans by Clement VII. in 1530, but the cultus of\nthe Holy Name is due in a great measure to the influence of St Bernardine\nof Siena. On 20th December 1721, Innocent XIII. appointed this feast to\nbe observed by the whole Church.\n\nThe Liturgy makes no reference to the commencement of the civil year,\nalthough in the lectionary of Silos this day is called _Caput Anni_.\n\n\n4. _The Epiphany_\n\nAs the name Epiphany implies, the origin and early celebration of this\nfestival is to be sought in the East. Among the Syrians, it is called\n_denho_, or \u201cGoing forth,\u201d in the sense of \u201c_oriens ex alto_\u201d (St Luke i.\n78). Among the Greeks, it goes by the name of \u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 or \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\nsc. \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. For the most part, the Latins employed the\nGreek name, or an equivalent, such as _Festivitas Declarationis_, used\nby Leo the Great, _manifestatio_, by Fulgentius, or _apparitio_ by\nothers.[369] The root, from which the Greek \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 is derived, was\nemployed to describe the dawn, and the adjective \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 was applied to\nthe appearances of the gods bringing help to men.\n\nThese names sufficiently disclose the idea commemorated by the feast\u2014the\ncommemoration of the appearance of the Son of God on earth in general,\nwith special reference to those occasions in His life on which His divine\nsonship was revealed in some distinctive manner. Prominent among those\noccasions were His Nativity, the worship of the three wise men from the\nEast, the baptism in Jordan with its accompanying theophany, and the\nmiracles through which He manifested His divine power, especially the\nfirst miracle at the marriage in Cana. Accordingly people spoke of divine\nmanifestations, in the plural, for the name _dies epiphaniarum sive\nmanifestationum_ was known to the heathen.[370]\n\nThe feast was kept on the 6th January. The first indication that this\nday was marked in some special way in the Christian Calendar is given\nby Clement of Alexandria, who says that some of the orthodox in his day\nregarded it as the birth-day of Christ, while the Basilidians observed\nthe 10th January.[371] This of course does not prove that the 6th January\nwas observed at that time in Alexandria as a festival. Origen omits it\nfrom the list of festivals he gives in _C. Cels._, 8, 22. It appears,\nhowever, among the writings of Hippolytus, in an earnest exhortation\nwhich he addressed to a candidate for baptism shortly before the day of\nthe \u201cDivine Manifestations\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), when baptism was to\nbe received. He starts with the baptism of Jesus, and then treats of the\neffects of baptism, and of worthy preparation for its reception.[372] A\nmuch later writer, who is however not to be quite disregarded, Bishop\nJohn of Nic\u00e6a in the ninth century, traces back the institution of the\nfestival to disciples of St John.\n\nEpiphany commemorates several events in the life of Jesus by which He\nmanifested His divinity. One of these is His baptism by St John in\nJordan,[373] for, according to the scriptural narrative, at the time of\nHis baptism a voice from heaven was heard proclaiming Jesus to be the\nSon of God, and the Holy Ghost visibly appeared in bodily shape as a\ndove. The baptism in Jordan is the special event commemorated by Epiphany\namong the Easterns, _e.g._, in the oldest Coptic Calendar Epiphany\nis called _Dies Baptismi Sanctificati_, and in a later one _Immersio\nDomini_.[374] The earliest existing sermon on the day\u2014the homily of\nHippolytus\u2014treats exclusively of the baptism of Jesus. Chrysostom, in\naddition to the baptism, speaks of our Lord\u2019s second coming in Judgment\nas an event commemorated by the festival. On account of its connection\nwith the baptism, this festival has among the Greeks the secondary title\nof \u201cFeast of Lights,\u201d (\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd);[375] and in Ireland, contrary to\nthe ancient custom of the Church, solemn baptism was administered on this\nday.[376]\n\nThe second event commemorated on the 6th January is the visit of the\nthree Wise Men who, by their gifts, recognised Christ as God and Man and\nRedeemer, and worshipped Him as the long expected King of the Jews. The\nWise Men found the divine Child still in Bethlehem, though no longer\nin the stable, as artists usually represent the scene, but in a roofed\nhouse[377] where His parents were temporarily lodged. The evangelists\ngive no indication how long after the Nativity this took place.\n\nThe visit of the Magi appears as the sole event commemorated by Epiphany\nin the six sermons of Augustine delivered on the feast (Sermons 199-204).\nFulgentius in his four sermons on Epiphany treats only of this event and\nof the slaughter of the innocents.\n\nThe Mass in the Gelasian sacramentary refers in the collects and preface\nonly to these mysteries, and not to the two others, and the Gospel[378]\nrelates the visit of the Magi.\n\nThe third event commemorated is the first miracle performed at the\nmarriage in Cana, by which our Lord manifested His divine power. This\nthreefold commemoration is still recognised in the present Roman liturgy,\nand finds expression in the antiphon to the _Benedictus_, which runs: \u201cOn\nthis day the Church is joined to her celestial Bridegroom, because Christ\nwashed away her sins in Jordan, the Magi hasten with gifts to the royal\nespousals and the guests are gladdened with water changed into wine.\u201d\n\nPolemius Silvius notices the three events in his Calendar on this day.\nPaulinus of Nola[379] expressly mentions them. They are especially dwelt\nupon and distinguished in a sermon of Sedatus, Bishop of B\u00e9ziers, in the\nsixth century.[380] Maximus of Turin was acquainted with the threefold\ncommemoration, but doubts if they all actually happened on the same day,\nthe 6th January.\n\nLater on, in medi\u00e6val times, there was a tendency to include under the\nEpiphany other manifestations of Christ\u2019s divine power, such as the\nmiracle of the loaves, and the resurrection of Lazarus.[381]\n\nThere is hardly any trace in the West of Epiphany as the festival of our\nLord\u2019s birth,[382] and even in the East this significance of the feast\nwas forgotten after the institution of Christmas. Lingering traces of the\nearlier conception which had not quite died out in the East, may perhaps\nhave been the occasion of a polemic from St Jerome,[383] when he declared\nthat the Epiphany had never been regarded as a festival of Christ\u2019s\nnativity.\n\nBy the introduction of Christmas, Epiphany naturally lost its character\nas the day of Christ\u2019s birth, even in those parts of the Church where\nit had originally been regarded as such. It is not, therefore, to be\nwondered at that Chrysostom, as introducer of Christmas, felt compelled\nto explain to his hearers more particularly the difference between the\nfeasts. Christ, he says, did not appear at His birth openly and to all,\nbut only to a few persons, and so little was His divinity manifested\nthereby that St John the Baptist was able to say: \u201cThere hath stood one\nin the midst of you, whom you know not.\u201d From the moment of His baptism,\nHis divinity was evident to all, and consequently the festival instituted\nin honour of the baptism of Jesus bears the name of Epiphany. Moreover,\nthere is yet another and a fuller appearance of the Lord which will take\nplace at the end of the world. Hence the necessity, according to St\nChrysostom, of celebrating in addition to the Epiphany a special festival\nin honour of Christ\u2019s birth.[384]\n\nEpiphany first appears with an octave in the Calendars of the eighth\ncentury. In the Gregorian sacramentary it is without an octave, but has a\nvigil. In the Calendar of Fronteau the festival is kept up for three days.\n\nOne of the special observances connected with the feast was the\npublication on the 6th January of the annual pastoral letter of the\nPatriarchs of Alexandria\u2014the _epistola festalis_\u2014announcing the date of\nEaster for the current year. In 541, the fourth Council of Orleans (can.\n1) ordered the same thing for the West, also the Councils of Auxerre in\n578 and 585 (can. 2). In the Middle Ages the dates of the other movable\nfeasts were added to the date of Easter (Pontif. Rom.), as is still done\nin some places, as for example, Turin, at the present day.\n\nThe festival was kept with special solemnity at Jerusalem, as we learn\nfrom the description of it given by the Gallic Pilgrim. Unfortunately,\nthe beginning with the special account of the feast is missing, but there\nis no doubt that the foregoing paragraph described the Epiphany, for the\nsucceeding festival is spoken of as _quadragesima de Epiphania_ (c. 26).\n\nAccording to this document a procession from Jerusalem to Bethlehem\ntook place on the eve, returning in the early morning. After a time for\nrest, the service commenced about the second hour of the day in the\ngreat church on Golgotha, which was richly decorated. At the conclusion\nof the function the faithful proceeded to the church of the Anastasis,\nand, about the sixth hour, or twelve o\u2019clock, the festival was at an\nend. In the evening vespers (_lucernare_) were sung. On the second and\nthird days service was held in the same church, on the fourth day in the\nchurch called Eleona on the Mount of Olives, on the fifth day in the\n_Lazarium_, the grave of Lazarus in Bethania, on the sixth day in Sion,\non the seventh day in the church of the Anastasis, on the eighth day in\nthe church of the Holy Cross. Thus both in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem the\nfeast lasted eight days\u2014a kind of octave.\n\nIn the Eastern Churches the day is further distinguished by the solemn\nblessing of the water, mentioned by Chrysostom and intended to recall the\nmiracle at Cana. This is a very popular festival, but in many places has\nbeen stripped of its religious character; it is performed by the clergy\ngoing in procession to the sea or to a river, reciting a prayer, and then\nthrowing a crucifix into the water which is fetched out again by swimmers\nand takes place on the 18th January (old style).\n\nWith regard to the antiquity and spread of the feast, it was unknown in\nNorth Africa during the third century, for Tertullian makes no reference\nto it, and even in the time of St Augustine it was rejected by the\nDonatists as an Oriental novelty.[385] In Origen\u2019s time, at least, it\nwas not generally observed as a festival in Alexandria, since he does\nnot reckon it as such. For Rome, evidence is wanting for the earliest\ntimes, but since the daughter Church of North Africa knew nothing of the\nfestival at first, it may be inferred that originally it was not kept at\nRome but was introduced there in the course of time. In Spain, it was a\nfeast-day in 380, in Gaul, in 361, and there is evidence of its existence\nin Thrace as early as 304.[386] In the East it generally held the place\nof Christmas as our Lord\u2019s birth-day,[387] and as such it had already,\nas early as the first half of the third century, become domiciled in\nthe Church, as is shown by the recently published _Testamentum Jesu\nChristi_, where it is twice named as a high festival along with Easter\nand Pentecost.[388] In the Roman Empire, as early as A.D. 400, Epiphany\nwas one of the days on which games in the circus were forbidden by law.\nNot until Justinian\u2019s[389] time were the law courts closed[390] on this\nday also.\n\n\n5. _The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary_\n\n(CANDLEMAS)\n\nBy the mosaic law, every mother, after giving birth to a son, remained\nunclean for seven days, in the first instance, and then, for thirty-three\ndays longer, was excluded from participation in public worship. After\nthe birth of a daughter the period of ceremonial uncleanness was twice\nas long. Thus the whole period lasted for forty or eighty days, and at\nits conclusion the woman had to bring a yearling lamb for a holocaust and\na pigeon for a sin-offering. In case of poverty, two young pigeons or\nturtle-doves sufficed as an offering (Lev. xii. 2-8). According to the\nnarrative in the Gospels, Mary, after the birth of Jesus, fulfilled the\ncommands of this law and brought the prescribed offering to the Temple on\nthe fortieth day, on which occasion the meeting with Simeon and Anna took\nplace (St Luke ii. 22 _et seqq._).\n\nOur Blessed Lady and her divine Son, in the first place, and,\nsecondarily, Simeon and Anna are the actors in this scene, and it would\nhave been strange had this event not been commemorated very early among\nthe Church\u2019s festivals.\n\nThe first reference to such a commemoration belongs to the last decades\nof the fourth century and comes from Jerusalem. It is contained in\nthe diary of the so-called Silvia. The day was ushered in by a solemn\nprocession, followed by a sermon on St Luke ii. 22 _seqq._, and a Mass.\nIt had as yet no special name, but was known merely as the fortieth day\nafter the Epiphany. This goes to prove that at that time the Epiphany\nwas regarded in Jerusalem as the day of the Lord\u2019s birth, and it follows\nindirectly from the expressions used (_hic_) that the festival was not\nyet known in the Pilgrim\u2019s home.[391]\n\nIt seems probable that the festival was first of all observed in\nJerusalem from whence it spread through out the whole Church. The person\nby whom, and the time when it was first introduced into Constantinople\nand the Byzantine empire, are known to us. A plague having caused\nfrightful mortality, the Emperor Justinian, as soon as it had passed\naway, ordered the Purification to be observed for the first time\nin 542.[392] The contradictory evidence in Georgius Hamartolus and\nNicephorus[393] that it was the Emperor Justin, Justinian\u2019s predecessor,\nwho introduced the festival and ordered it to be observed throughout the\nworld, seems due simply to a confusion between the two emperors. In any\ncase the spread of the feast throughout a wider area dates from this time.\n\nThe name by which the festival was known, now that it was widely adopted\nin different districts, was \u201cThe Meeting,\u201d in Greek _Hypapante_, in Latin\n_Occursus Domini_, in reference to the meeting between the Child Jesus\nand Simeon and Anna; it may be that this festival was introduced at Rome\nin consequence of Justinian\u2019s commands, but no evidence to that effect\nis extant. As far as Rome is concerned, it appears in the Gelasian\nsacramentary with the new name of _Purificatio_, and as a feast of our\nBlessed Lady, without any mention of a procession.[394] Pope Sergius\nI. (687-701) ordained, however, a procession on this as on the other\nprincipal festivals of Our Lady. In the passage in question of the _Liber\nPontificalis_, the festival has the remarkable name of St Simeon\u2019s Day,\n\u201cwhich the Greeks call Hypapante,\u201d which seems to show that the festival\nhad not yet been well established in Rome. Moreover, the 2nd February was\nobserved among the Greeks as the actual day of Simeon\u2019s death, because\nin his canticle he had said, \u201c_Now_ Thou dost dismiss Thy servant ...\nin peace.\u201d[395] That the festival was only introduced at a late date in\nmany places in the West is proved by the fact that in the Lectionary of\nSilos, the oldest belonging to the Spanish Church, and dating about 650,\nit does not appear. The same is the case with regard to the Calendar of\nSt Genevi\u00e8ve in Paris (731-741) published by Fronteau.\n\nFormerly the general opinion was that it had been introduced in Rome by\nPope Gelasius I. in order that he might replace the heathen _Lupercalia_,\nwith their midnight torch processions and disorderly proceedings, by a\npopular Christian festivity. This opinion[396] cannot be maintained in\nthe face of the facts referred to above. The _Lupercalia_ indeed fell\non the 15th February, which also happened to be the day on which this\nfestival was originally kept in Jerusalem, but the Gallic pilgrim makes\nno mention of lights carried in the procession. Again, processions, with\nor without lights, were so common both among the Christians and heathen\nof the early Christian era, that any connection between the procession on\nCandlemas Day and the _Lupercalia_ cannot be inferred.\n\nThe _Invitatorium_ (_Gaude et l\u00e6tare, Jerusalem, occurrens Deo tuo_), and\nthe preface, which is that for Christmas, show that originally the feast\nwas rather a festival of Our Lord than of Our Lady. The collect for the\nday speaks of the presentation of the Lord in the Temple alone, and the\nantiphons for the most part refer to the same event, while the psalms are\nthose of Our Lady\u2019s feasts. The Gospel for the day (St Luke ii. 22-23),\nthe same now as in the fourth century, chronologically speaking, precedes\nthe Gospel for the previous Sunday. For the Sunday after Christmas has\nSt Luke ii. 33-40 for its Gospel, which relates the return of the Holy\nFamily from Jud\u00e6a to Galilee.\n\n\n6. _The Sundays of the Church\u2019s Year as forming connecting-links between\nthe principal Feasts_\n\nDuring the age of the persecutions it was scarcely possible for\nChristians to observe any other festival than Sunday, and so it is not\nsurprising that the two writers, who have occasion to speak of the\ninstitution of the festivals of the Church, mention only Easter and\nPentecost, both of which fall on Sundays. To these Christmas was added in\nthe fourth century, and Epiphany somewhat earlier. These chief festivals,\nalong with others soon added to their number, formed the elements for the\norganisation of a festal system in the Church, as centres round which the\nlesser festivals grouped themselves.\n\nThe last step of importance, however, in this development of the Church\u2019s\nyear was to connect these chief festivals with one another, so as to\nmake them parts of a whole. The Sundays afforded a convenient means\nfor effecting this. They were associated with the festal character\nof the nearest feast and were connected with it as links in a chain.\nThe way for this development had been prepared by the season of\npreparation before Easter, and by the relation in which Easter stood to\nPentecost. The Sundays of Lent had their own character as a preparation\nfor Easter, and the Sundays in the fifty days between Easter and\nPentecost\u2014Quinquagesima\u2014were marked by the festal character with which\nantiquity invested the whole period. All that was needed was, first of\nall, to connect Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and, in the second\nplace, the institution of a season of preparation before Christmas. This\nwas accomplished between the sixth and the eighth centuries.\n\nDuring the first six centuries, the ordinary Sundays of the year had\nneither liturgical position or character, since they were not even\nenumerated. There was a sort of _commune dominicarum_, _i.e._, a number\nof masses existed from which one could be chosen at will for each Sunday.\nTo these Sundays, which were called simply _dominic\u00e6 quotidian\u00e6_, those\nafter Epiphany and Pentecost belonged.\n\nThey numbered altogether twenty-nine or thirty, according as the Calendar\ngave fifty-two or fifty-three Sundays in the year. For the sum of the\ndays of the year, 365, divided by seven makes fifty-two and one over,\nand so the year which commences on a Sunday has fifty-three Sundays,\nthe others only fifty-two. The smaller number of these, six at most,\ncome between Epiphany and Septuagesima, but the larger, twenty-three\nto twenty-eight, between Whitsunday and Advent. The variation depends\nupon the date of Easter. There is no historical circumstance forthcoming\nto give these Sundays a specially festal character. With Pentecost the\ncommemoration of Our Lord\u2019s redemptive acts concludes, and it was not the\ncustom in the West to include events from Church history in the cycle of\nfeasts, although the East celebrated a few, as, for example, the General\nCouncils.\n\nWith regard to the Roman rite in particular, there are no special masses\nfor the Sundays after Easter and Pentecost in the Leonine sacramentary.\nA further development appears in the Gelasian sacramentary, where the\nSundays in Lent and those between Easter and Pentecost alone have a\nclearly defined liturgical character, and keep their special place in\nthe Calendar. For the remaining Sundays of the year, there was a choice\nof only sixteen masses, which are not in the first book of the Gelasian\nsacramentary containing the course for the year (_anni circulus_, i.e.,\n_Proprium de tempore_), but at the commencement of the third book. Along\nwith the masses for week-days and masses for special occasions, they form\nthe contents of this volume. The masses for Advent, however, strange to\nsay, are contained in the second book, thus out of chronological order.\n\nIn the Gregorian sacramentary, at the end of the eighth century, the\nChurch\u2019s year has the same form as at the present day, with the sole\nexception that the Sundays in Advent come at the end, instead of, as at\nthe present time, at the beginning of the Missal. This is due to the fact\nthat Christmas was then usually regarded as the commencement of the year.\n\nIn the construction of the ecclesiastical year, the Gallic and Spanish\nChurches followed the Roman. The Mozarabic breviary has five Sundays in\nAdvent, but they stand at the beginning. They are in the same position\nin the _Liber Responsalis sive Antiphonarius_, contained in a Codex of\nCompi\u00e8gne belonging to the ninth century, and falsely attributed to\nGregory the Great.[397]\n\nThe Gregorian sacramentary simply numbers the Sundays consecutively\nafter Pentecost, but in the Frankish lectionaries there are signs of an\nattempt to separate the Sundays after Pentecost into groups\u2014Sundays after\nSS. Peter and Paul, Sundays after St Lawrence, etc.\u2014but the custom was\nafterwards abandoned.\n\nIn France, this division of the Sundays after Pentecost seems to have\nbeen general in the eighth century. The _Homilarium_ of Charlemagne\ndivides them as follows:\u2014\n\n       { Four Sundays after Epiphany.\n       { Three Sundays after Pentecost.\n       { Seven Sundays after SS. Peter and Paul (Post Natale Apostolorum).\n    22 { Five Sundays after St Lawrence.\n       { The September Ember Week (Feria iv., vi., et sabb. et Dominica).\n       { Six Sundays after St Michael, 29th Sept. (Post S. Angeli).\n\nThe _Kalendarium Frontonis_ divides them thus:\u2014\n\n       { Two Sundays after Pentecost.\n       { Six Sundays after SS. Peter and Paul (Post Natale Apostolorum).\n    19 { Four Sundays after St Lawrence.\n       { Seven Sundays after St Cyprian (Post S. Cypriani).\n\nThis gives only nineteen after Pentecost, and so the _Kalendarium\nFrontonis_ has ten Sundays after Epiphany until Septuagesima, which must\nclearly have helped to fill up, when necessary, what was wanting at the\nend of the year.\n\nThe _Comes Albini_ in Ranke (App. iv.) gives:\u2014\n\n         Five Sundays after Epiphany.\n       { Four Sundays _post Pentecosten_.\n       { Five Sundays _post natale SS. Apostolorum_.\n    21 { Five Sundays _post natale S. Laurentii_.\n       { One _Dominica mensis septimi_.\n       { Six Sundays _post S. Angeli_ _scil._ _dedicationem basilic\u00e6 S.\n           Archangeli_ (_Mich\u00e6lis_).\n         Four Sundays in Advent.\n\nThe Gregorian sacramentary, written for Mainz under Archbishop Otgar\nabout 840, has six Sundays after Epiphany, four _post Pentecosten_, then\nsix _post natale Apostolorum_, six more _post natale S. Laurentii_ and\neight _post S. Archangeli_\u2014in all, twenty-four.\n\nThe Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century stands alone in giving\nmerely two Sundays _post Theophaniam_, and three _post Cathedram S.\nPetri_. The Sundays in Lent as well as Septuagesima are not marked in\nany special way. The first of these peculiarities is less remarkable\nsince, even in the Gelasian sacramentary, the Sundays after Epiphany are\nnot given a distinctive name. All these attempts to split up the Sundays\ninto small groups were subsequently abandoned, and the simple manner\nof enumeration found in the Roman rite was adopted. A careful observer\nwill have noticed that the year is divided into two very unequal parts.\nThe movable feasts all fall in the first half, leaving the second half\ndevoid of festivals. Even the week-days in Lent, and in the octaves\nof Easter and Pentecost, are each provided with special lections and\nmasses. Without doubt this is due to the fact that in the earliest times\nthe entire season before Easter was occupied with the instruction of\nCatechumens. The necessity of providing them with as much instruction as\npossible led to this increased liturgical activity. It appears almost as\nif the abandonment of the Catechumenate resulted in a decrease of this\nactivity, and brought matters to a standstill. A long period elapsed\nbefore any fresh efforts were made in the direction of completing the\ncourse of the ecclesiastical year.\n\nThe Greeks have stopped short with their ecclesiastical year only half\nmade. They have a fairly complete cycle of Easter festivals, and they\nhave adopted Christmas, but without its proper setting since they have no\nAdvent. But their manner of enumerating the Sundays after Pentecost is\nvery different from that adopted in the West. That is to say, they name\nthe Sundays after the passages of Scripture read in the Gospel for the\nday.\n\nFrom Easter to Whitsunday, the Gospels for Sundays and other days are\ntaken from St John; from the Sunday after Pentecost to the exaltation of\nthe Holy Cross (14th September), from St Matthew; and for the following\nfifteen weeks from St Luke. The former Sundays are called Sundays after\nSt Matthew, the latter, Sundays after St Luke. The latter extend over the\nNew Year and Epiphany\u2014for no notice is taken of Advent in the lections.\nSt Mark\u2019s Gospel supplies lections for most of the Saturdays and Sundays\nof Lent, as well as for a number of week-days throughout the course of\nthe year. But the Sundays in question are not called Sundays after St\nMark, any more than the Sundays between Easter and Pentecost are called\nSundays after St John; but they take their names partly from their\nposition as Sundays in Lent and partly from the incidents related in the\nGospel for the day. In the Eastern system the connection between the\nSundays and the festivals is purely external and not organic.[398]\n\nIn speaking of the ecclesiastical year of the Greeks and Orientals, it\nmust be borne in mind that they do not possess the same quantity of\nformularies for the Mass as we do, but, throughout the course of the\nyear, they employ only two or three. The result is monotony, and it is\npractically only the Gospel for the day in which the festal character of\nthe celebration finds expression. Among the Latins, on the other hand,\nthe introit, collect, etc., all emphasise the character of the feast, and\nstill more clearly the lections from Scripture. On this account, a few\nremarks as to their origin and that of the lections in the Breviary may\nnot be out of place.\n\nEvidence for the earliest period is lacking, but there is no doubt the\nchoice of what was to be read rested with the bishop and that he also\nfixed the length of the lections. In certain cases, and for many days,\nthe choice presented no difficulty, the lections being determined by\nthe character of the feast itself. We can, for example, determine the\nlections for a number of days used in the fourth century in Jerusalem.\nSeveral of them agree with those now in use.[399] Very early, a series\nof lections for the canonical hours must have been drawn up for use\nin monasteries, and then this in its turn influenced the lections in\nthe liturgy. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that St Jerome was the\noriginator of such a series of lections, and accordingly the lectionary\nwas called by his name. It is certain that a lectionary existed as early\nas the fifth century, for which the so-called _Carta Cornutiana_ affords\nproof.[400]\n\nWhen we examine more closely the order of lections, we notice they do\nnot harmonise with the ideas presented by the different parts of the\necclesiastical year, as now existing, but they do agree with the form\nwhich it took in the earliest stages of its development. The consequence\nis that the lections are appropriately chosen for the pascal season and\nfor Whitsuntide, but do not fit in with the festal character of Advent\nand the Christmas cycle. As we have said, the ecclesiastical year began\noriginally with the preparation for Easter, _i.e._ Lent. The lections\nfrom the five books of Moses which start with Septuagesima were then in\ntheir proper place, treating as they do of the fall and the divine scheme\nfor man\u2019s restoration.\n\n\nC. OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE CHURCH\u2019S YEAR\n\n\n1. _The Embertides_\n\nThe Embertides[401] are peculiar to the Western or Roman Church. In\nRome they have been observed from the earliest times, and so Leo the\nGreat was inclined to ascribe to them an apostolic origin. This Pope\nconnects them with the four seasons of the year,[402] and gives them\na special signification in as much as we then give God due honour and\npraise for the gifts He gives us to support our bodily life. Again, they\nmove us to make a good use of the gifts thus bestowed, to abstain from\nsuperfluities, and to impart our gifts generously to those in need. We\nmust neither murmur over the fewness of some gifts, nor be discontented\nwith the excess of others, as may even sometimes happen. God\u2019s will\nshould be our will.[403] The Embertides in general, but especially that\nof December, he directly connects with agriculture and the harvest (_ut\nomnium fructum collectione conclusa_, etc., _Sermo 16_, c. 2); and the\nearliest liturgies[404] contain prayers for the same purpose; such\nindications as these give us the clue to the origin of these fasts. By\nthem practices originally heathen have assumed a Christian form and\ncharacter. The Romans, originally, were compelled to be an agricultural\npeople, and their gods were for the most part deities who presided over\nagriculture, as Tertullian early remarked (Sterculus, Epona, Mutunus,\netc.), and their worship was closely connected with the stages of\ncultivation. The chief incidents were accompanied by religious ceremonies\nand usages. A blessing was asked on the sowing of the seed at the _feri\u00e6\nsementiv\u00e6_, observed between the end of November and the Winter solstice,\n_i.e._ in December. At the time of harvest, the _feri\u00e6 messis_ were\ncelebrated, and at the vintage, the _feri\u00e6 vindemiales_.[405]\n\nWith the fact that the heathen worship of Rome recognised three sorts\nof such _feri\u00e6_ observed thrice in the year (no evidence of a fourth\nbeing forthcoming), agrees a passage in the _Liber Pontificalis_, which\nhas long been regarded as the earliest evidence for the observance of\nEmbertides, though it fell short of absolute proof. The passage states\nthat Calixtus (217-222) ordained a fast on three Saturdays in the\nyear.[406] The number corresponds well with the three sets of heathen\n_feri\u00e6_ mentioned above. As St Leo speaks of four fasts of this kind\nyearly in the fifth century, the fourth fast, corresponding to the\nfourfold division of the year, must have been added in the course of the\nfourth century. It may be that the passage, Zacharias viii. 19, referring\nto a Jewish custom of sanctifying by a fast the four seasons of the year,\nhelped to bring this about.\n\nAll four Embertides are mentioned in the sermon of Leo the Great, and\nboth the Leonine and Gelasian sacramentaries agree in marking Wednesday,\nFriday, and Saturday as the days to be observed as fasts.[407] Pope\nGelasius[408] appointed that ordinations of priests and deacons were to\nbe held on all Embertides, and in the middle of Lent, whereas in St Leo\u2019s\ntime the ordination of priests took place at Easter only.[409]\n\nThe Ember fasts were called _jejunium primi, quarti, septimi et decimi\nmensis_, in the earliest service-books, and fell in March, June,\nSeptember, and December. The week in each of the aforesaid months,\nin which the Ember fast was to be observed, appears not to have been\ndefinitely fixed in earlier days.\n\nIf the opinion of Morin is correct, this would agree with the fact that\nthe harvest feast was not fixed for any day in particular, but was\ndetermined by the pontiffs in each case. However, it remained for a\nlong period undetermined whether the first Embertide should be observed\nbefore or during the course of Lent, and also in which week of Advent\nthe last Embertide should fall. The present arrangement, according to\nthe Micrologus[410] was first made by Gregory VII., _i.e._, the first\nEmbertide to fall in the first week of Lent, the second in Whitsun week,\nthe third in the third week of September, the fourth in the third week in\nAdvent.\n\nAccording to what has been said the Ember fasts were distinctively Roman\nin origin, and indeed belonged to the city of Rome, and the Roman bishops\nby repeated injunctions ordered their colleagues in Italy to adopt\nthem in the first instance. In Gaul and in the Christian districts of\nGermany, their adoption was due to the patronage given to Roman usages by\nthe Carolingians: in Spain the Ember Days were unknown until the Roman\nritual was introduced in the eleventh century, and in Milan they were\nintroduced much later, in fact by St Charles Borromeo.[411] It does not\nappear from history that the original object of the Ember Days was to\npetition God to raise up worthy priests in His Church. They are first\nmentioned in this connection after the popes had appointed them as the\nfixed times for ordinations. They owe their origin to the agricultural\nfestivals of ancient Rome, as appears plainly from the references of Leo\nthe Great,[412] to the December fast.\n\nIn a later age, they lost entirely their early significance and came to\nbe regarded solely as days of penitence and prayer. In the prayers of\nthe actual Roman missal, no trace of their original character is to be\nfound. The Ember masses of Advent refer to the coming of Christ, those of\nLent to the suffering caused by sin, and its Atonement, those of Whitsun\nweek to the descent of the Holy Ghost. Where the prayers do not relate\nto these subjects they contain no special references, or deal only with\nfasting in general and its necessity. The masses for the September Ember\nDays alone preserve some traces of their historical origin, in as much as\nthey are principally of a festive character (_Exultate_, etc.), such as\nmight refer to a harvest safely gathered in. But such a connection cannot\nbe proved beyond doubt.\n\nWhen we go through the prayers in the oldest sacramentaries we find the\nsame thing. The name of Embertide is not indeed employed, and the days\nare not yet marked as fast-days, but the Saturdays are distinguished,\ntwice in the Gelasian, and on all four Embertides in the Gregorian\nsacramentary, by having twelve lessons.[413] With regard to the later\nrecensions of these two sacramentaries, the Gelasian contains two formul\u00e6\nfor announcing the Ember fasts to the faithful after the \u201c_Pax Domini sit\nsemper vobiscum_\u201d[414] in the Mass. In the first part, there is a Mass\nfor the three Ember Days of the fourth month, June, and, in the second\npart, for September and December as well,[415] while the March Ember\nDays are merely indicated in Nos. XIX. and XX. of the first part. In the\nFrankish Gregorian sacramentary it is the same; masses are given for\nMarch, June, and September but not for December.[416] Few of the prayers\nin these two sacramentaries are contained in the missal actually in use.\nIt is to be remarked concerning the lections that they numbered twelve\non the Saturdays. The present Roman missal prescribes three lections for\nthe Wednesdays, but for the Fridays only two as usual. For the Saturdays,\nhowever, the number reaches six, and, in the Advent Embertide, seven,\nincluding the Gospel.\n\nThat there were only three Embertides (_i.e._ the _jejunium quarti,\nseptimi, et decimi mensis_) given in the ancient service-books is not\nsurprising, since the fast in March fell usually in Lent and so needed no\nspecial mention.\n\nWith regard to the spread of Ember Days in the West, they made their way\nslowly and seemed to have been earliest adopted by the Anglo-Saxons,\nwho at their conversion accepted the Roman ritual as a whole. They are\nordered to be observed by the Council of Cloveshoe (can. 18) in 747.\nNeither Chrodegang nor Theodulf speak of Ember Days in their writings,\nthough they seem to have been introduced by St Boniface into Germany and\nFrance. Even if the so-called statutes of St Boniface are not in all\npoints contemporary with the saint, Ember Days were certainly enjoined\nin the Frankish Empire by the Capitulary of Charlemagne in 769, where up\ntill then they had not been observed.[417] The circumstance, too, that\ntheir observance had to be repeatedly enjoined by the Councils of the\nninth century, _e.g._ the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, and later\nones, proves that they had not yet won their way as a popular observance\nin northern countries.[418]\n\nMoreover, it still remained uncertain in which week of the months in\nquestion the Ember Days should come. In Rome they came in the first week\nof the month. Elsewhere doubts arose as to what ought to be done when\nthe Ember Days in June came in Whitsun Week, and as to whether one ought\nto fast when the 1st March fell on a Thursday or Friday, the Wednesday\nfalling on the last day of February.[419] Gregory VII. put an end to\nthese variations by establishing the present usage.[420]\n\n\n2. _Litanies or Rogations_\n\n_Litani\u00e6_ is the name given to solemn processions of clergy and\npeople accompanied by prayer at which sacred pictures and emblems are\ncarried. It was impossible to perform such devotions in the days before\nConstantine. But when Christianity became a recognised religion they\nwere quickly adopted, and all the more so as the heathens had similar\npractices which they performed frequently and at stated times.\n\nLitanies were especially frequent in Rome. There, during Lent, the Pope\nwas wont to set out with his assistants with great solemnity from his\nresidence to celebrate Mass in the various churches of the city. Each\nday he went to a different church, where the halt or station was made. A\nsurvival of this remains in the word _Statio_, which appears so often in\nthe missal. This custom was abandoned in course of time.\n\nStill some of these _litani\u00e6_ found their way into the regular worship of\nthe Church, and have their place in the ecclesiastical year, _i.e._ the\nprocession on the 25th April, St Mark\u2019s day, called _litania major_, and\nthose on the three days before the Ascension, called _litania minor_. The\nnames are remarkable, for the _minor_ lasts three days and the _major_\nonly one, but it is explained by the history of their institution.\n\nThe Christian processions are a continuation of the heathen processions\nwhich they have replaced. This is especially clear with regard to the\n_litania major_ which was performed on a stated day, the 25th April.\nIt has nothing to do with St Mark, whose feast was only much later\nintroduced in the Roman Church.\n\nThe ancient Romans had their processions which took place both within and\nwithout the city, the latter corresponding to our rogation processions;\nthe former were called _amburbalia_ from _urbs_, and the latter\n_ambarvalia_ from _arva_.[421] They served as supplications either for\nblessings from the gods on the fruits of the earth, and were observed\nyearly on stated days, or to avert calamities and were appointed as need\nrequired.[422]\n\nThe better known of these processions of ancient Rome, the _ambarvalia_,\ntook place on vii. a. Kal. Maias (25th April). The procession passed\nalong the _Via Flaminia_, the present Corso, and went as far as the fifth\nmilestone, _i.e._ as far as the Milvian Bridge, where, the entrails of\na dog and of a sheep were offered to the god _Robigus_.[423] As the\nprocession was primarily intended to ward off blight (_robigo_) from the\ncrops the day was called \u201c_Robigalia_\u201d in the Calendar. When Rome became\na great city, agriculture and its festivals fell unto the back ground,\nand both in the Calendar of the fourth century and in that of Polemius\nSilvius the _Robigalia_ is no longer mentioned on this day. There was\nanother great procession in heathen Rome, the _Argea_, which took place\non the 16th and 17th March, and Bishop Vigilius of Trent, speaks of a\nrural festival of the same character.[424]\n\nAs to Christian Rome, Rupert of Deutz is of opinion that processions had\nbeen performed there since Constantine\u2019s days, and Beleth names Liberius\nas their originator. Although it is not impossible these writers may have\ngained their information from ancient sources, still one cannot draw any\ncertain conclusion from their remarks.\n\nWe have, however, sure proof of the introduction of Rogations by Bishop\nMamertus of Vienne. That part of the country had been visited for a\nconsiderable period by various calamities and earthquakes. On Easter\nnight, 469, the royal palace in Vienne was struck by lightning, which\ncaused such a panic among the entire congregation assembled in church,\nthat they fled from the building. Mamertus put himself into connection\nwith the civil authorities and along with them organised the Litanies,\nwhich had been used before this time, but in an informal and irregular\nmanner. It was ordained they should take place on the three days before\nthe Ascension, that they should be accompanied by a fast, and that the\nslaves should do no servile work. This institution was soon imitated\nthroughout the whole of Gaul. Under Bishop Sidonius Apollinaris they\nwere adopted at Clermont, next the first Council of Orleans (511), in\nits twenty-seventh canon, prescribes them for the Frankish part of the\ncountry, and Avitus could say they had already spread throughout the\nwhole world, and been accepted with eagerness.[425]\n\nNevertheless there is no clear evidence in antiquity, to show how matters\nwere arranged in Rome. Only when we come to the time of Gregory the\nGreat, do we get detailed accounts which have been preserved by Gregory\nof Tours. In autumn of the year 589, a terrible inundation devastated\nthe city of Rome, overthrowing the ancient buildings, destroying all\nprovisions, and leaving behind it a pestilence which carried away Pope\nPelagius II. in February 590. To avert the divine wrath, Gregory, as\nadministrator of the vacant see, ordered a procession of especial\nsolemnity.[426] It was apparently the procession of the 25th April, but\ncarried out on a larger scale than heretofore. It may, however, have been\nan extraordinary procession such as had never before taken place, for its\ndate is unknown, and it is not certain if the often quoted statement of\nGregory really refers to it. In his numerous letters there is no mention\nof this procession.\n\nGregory prepared the people for the procession some days before by a\nsermon. The procession was divided into seven parts, and hence received\nthe name of _Litania Septiformis_. Each division started from a different\nchurch, and all met in the basilica of St Mary Major. As Gregory says\nin another place, \u201cThe return of this annual solemnity warns us to keep\nit with devout hearts,\u201d we conclude it was not a new observance just\nintroduced.[427] In Rome the _litani\u00e6_ of Rogation Week, as the _Liber\nPontificalis_ informs us, were first adopted under Leo III. (795-816),\nthrough the Frankish influence[428] then dominant there. The observance\nof days of penitence in this season of the year was a departure from the\noriginal principle that the Quinquagesima was a time of ecclesiastical\njoy, as Amalarius rightly observes. The procession of the 25th April\nbelonged especially to the city of Rome, and the name _litania major_\nis due to the fact that the processions of Rogation Week were only\nintroduced later. They too were performed with great solemnity. In other\nplaces there were yet other days appointed for litanies, but whether in\naddition to those already mentioned or in place of them is not clear.\nThus the second Council of Lyons in 567, in its sixth canon, enjoined\nthat in the first week of November, litanies similar to those customary\nbefore the Ascension should be performed. The Church of Milan celebrated\nthe Rogations in the week after the Ascension. The Council of Gerunda in\n517, in its second canon, places them in the week after Pentecost, and a\nsecond _litania_ on the first of November when it was not a Sunday (Ib.,\nCan. 3). The second canon of the sixth Council of Toledo (638) places\nthem on the Ides of December. It may be conjectured from this that the\nlitanies in Spain developed on peculiar lines.[429] Here as in Gaul,\nthe Rogation Days were kept as fasts. In Germany, the Rogations were\nonly introduced in the ninth century, for the Council of Mainz in 813\n(Can. 33), prescribed they should be observed by a three days\u2019 fast, and\nthe Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 836 (Can. 11), ordered expressly the\nperformance of the processions after the Roman manner.\n\n\n3. _The Dedication of a Church and the Festival of the Patron Saint_\n\nThe festival of the dedication of a Church has indeed no connection with\nthe ecclesiastical year, and the festival of the patron saint belongs to\nthe same category as the ordinary saints\u2019 days, but formerly, and even to\nsome extent at the present time, both have such a marked position among\nthe festivals that they deserve some special mention.\n\nIn order to distinguish one church from another, different ways of\nnaming them were adopted in course of time. In Rome they took their\nnames originally from their founders and from those to whom the site\non which they stood had previously belonged, _e.g._, the Basilica of\nthe Lateran, the Sessorian Basilica (Sta. Croce), the Licinian Basilica\n(Sta. Bibiana), the Liberian (Sta. Maria Maggiore), etc. Elsewhere they\nreceived their names partly in the same way, and partly from other\nreasons, as we see from the oldest churches in Jerusalem\u2014the _Martyrium_\nand Anastasis in the city, the Eleona or Imbomon on the Mount of Olives,\nand the _Lazarium_ in Bethania, close to Jerusalem.[430] Churches built\nover the graves of martyrs, _Martyria_, were naturally called after\nthe saint over whose tomb they were erected, and as many such churches\nserved for ordinary divine worship, it gradually became customary to call\nchurches after a saint, or to dedicate them specially to his honour.[431]\nSuch was the custom in Carthage. From the point of view of the historical\ndevelopment, one must consider (1) the day on which the church was made\nover for public use, and (2) the patron saint. The former was the day\nof the church\u2019s dedication or consecration. The heathen, both civilised\nand barbarian, had been accustomed to set apart the edifices erected for\nthe service of their gods by a special ceremony of consecration.[432]\nEveryone knows with what magnificence Solomon dedicated the first temple.\nAccordingly, it only was to be expected that so symbolical a ceremony\nwould be adopted by the Church, and, as a matter of fact, immediately\nafter the cessation of persecution, under the first Christian Emperor,\nwe find the dedication of churches performed with great display. We have\nan example of this in the dedication of the Church at Tyre, about which\nEusebius has so much to say in his Ecclesiastical History, having himself\ndelivered a long and very tedious and commonplace discourse on that\noccasion. (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, 10, 3 and 4.)\n\nThe dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in\n335, was performed with remarkable magnificence. After the Synod of\nthe Eusebians at Tyre in this year, many bishops at the invitation of\nthe imperial representative proceeded to Jerusalem, for the great\nbasilica which Constantine had commenced to build on Mount Calvary was\nnow finished. The dedication took place on the 14th September, the day\non which the Empress Helena had found the Holy Cross, and which, as the\nGallic Pilgrim states, was observed later as an annual festival. Two\nanniversaries fell, in this case, on the same day and consequently we are\nunable to conclude that the anniversary of a church\u2019s dedication was at\nthis time already celebrated as a regular thing. It became customary to\ndo so, however, shortly afterwards both in the East and in the West.[433]\nTo the same period belongs the consecration of the so-called Golden\nBasilica at Antioch, also commenced by Constantine but completed under\nConstantius in 341. On this occasion also a Synod was held.[434]\n\nUnfortunately nothing definite regarding the ceremonies employed at the\ndedication of a Church can be gathered from Eusebius\u2019 wordy description.\nHe says: \u201cThe bishops performed the divine service, and the priests\nfulfilled their functions, and very magnificent were the ecclesiastical\nceremonies. One heard the psalms and the other hymns which come from God,\nand saw the mystic rites of the service performed; the mystical symbols\nof the saving Passion were there also. Moreover each of the bishops\npresent delivered a festal address and strove to the best of his ability\nto promote the festivity.\u201d In the West, even in the fourth century,\nspecial ceremonies of dedication were in use, and Ambrose mentions them\nas generally observed, but the particulars of which they were composed,\nwe cannot now ascertain. However, one of the ceremonies was the placing\nof relics of the martyrs in the new church, if there were not some there\nalready. In an unconsecrated church there could be no performance of\ndivine service.[435]\n\nBefore this, and in many places afterwards, it appears that the\nconsecration of the altar alone was required. At least the oldest Gallic\nmissal[436] contains a mass for the consecration of an altar only, and\nnone for the dedication of a Church. This is borne out by the fact that\nin the liturgical writings of Ephrem and of the pseudo-Dionysius we find\nmention of the consecration with holy oil of the altar, while nothing is\nsaid of the consecration of churches. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions\nnor the so-called Testament of Jesus Christ contain any reference to\nit.[437] The Old Testament furnished models for the elaboration of the\nliturgical services used at the dedication of churches; in particular,\nthe octave and the annual commemoration of the dedication day follow\nJewish precedents.[438] The impressive solemnities with which Solomon\ndedicated the first temple in the twelfth year of his reign lasted\nfor seven days (iii. Kg. viii. 65). When the second temple, built by\nZorobabel, had been defiled by the heathen rites of the Syrians, it was\npurified by Judas Machabeus, B.C. 165, and restored to the worship of\nJehovah. It was then settled that the festival of this purification of\nthe temple should be observed annually for eight days, beginning on the\n25th Casleu (1 Mach. iv. 42 _et seq._, 2 Mach. i, 9 and 18).\n\nThe prolongation of the dedication festival for eight days, and the\nrecurring celebration of its anniversary soon make their appearance\nin liturgical writings and spread throughout all Christian countries.\nThe Leonine Sacramentary contains a mass for the anniversary of the\ndedication of St Peter\u2019s, the Gelasian Sacramentary has a short rite\nfor the consecration of a church along with forms for the consecration\nof altars, chalices, and altar cloths, but omits the blessing of the\nwater.[439] At the consecration of a church in St Augustine\u2019s time, the\ntwenty-ninth psalm was directed to be sung. We possess three sermons\npreached by St Augustine at a _Dedicatio_ (336-338). In the text of the\nGregorian sacramentary, there is no Mass for the consecration of a new\nchurch, but a special one for the anniversary. That the latter was kept\nas a festival of obligation is not stated. The form for the consecration\nof a church, with the Mass belonging to it, is given in the Appendix.[440]\n\nIn the middle ages, the anniversary of the dedication (_natale\necclesi\u00e6_) was observed as a general festival of obligation for the\nlocal congregation irrespective of whether it fell on a week-day or on\na Sunday; it was also to be observed with an octave.[441] In Germany it\nwas ordered by the Synod of Mainz in 813, and, along with the feast of\nthe Patron Saint, in the statute of Bishop Hetto of Basel about 827. Both\nfestivals are found together in the statutes of Lanfranc of Canterbury\nand in the decrees of the Council of Szabolcs in Hungary, in 1092. The\necclesiastical celebration consisted of a vigil, solemn High Mass, and\nprocession in which the relics of the saints belonging to the church\nwere carried. A flag was wont to fly from the church tower, the floor\nwas strewn with green leaves, the altar and pulpit were decorated with\nboughs, and a bunch of flowers was placed before the picture of the\nPatron Saint. The anniversary of the dedication of each altar was also\nobserved, but only inside the walls of the church.[442]\n\nFestivals of the Patron Saints were not enjoined as of obligation in\nthe decretal of Gregory IX. in 1232, although placed by Lanfranc in the\nhighest class of feasts. They were regarded as such in various countries,\nespecially throughout Germany. Thus, the diocesan Synod of Cologne,\nunder Archbishop Heinrich II., placed them along with the dedication of\nchurches among the holy days of obligation,[443] and so also did the\nstatute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves in 1338. On the other hand,\nthe provincial Synod of Cologne in 1549, under Adolf III., expressly\nsuppressed them as holy days of obligation, and desired they should be\ncelebrated only in choir, in order, as it said, festivals should not\nbecome too numerous. It also forbade noisy revels, such as dancing, etc.,\nat the festival of the dedication of a church.\n\nTo have a church of its own, especially a parish church, was of the\ngreatest importance to each district, on account of the spiritual and\neven material benefits of which it was the source. This explains the\nenthusiasm with which the dedication of the church was observed. With the\necclesiastical festival were soon associated secular amusements, fairs,\nmerry-makings, and shows. The dedication was especially the festival of\nthe people in the middle ages, and, as always happens in such cases,\nthe secular influences proved stronger than the spiritual, although the\ndedication was one of the days on which indulgences were usually granted.\n\nAs parishes and churches became more numerous, the number of these\nfestivals increased also, and the result was that not only the parish in\nquestion observed the feast, but all the neighbouring parishes joined in\nthe celebration. Thus these feasts and the merry-making associated with\nthem increased without limit. Among the country people especially it was\ninevitable that excess and licence should give rise to grave disorders.\n\nAt the outbreak of the Reformation, the innovators availed themselves\nof these abuses to wage war against all Dedication Feasts,[444] and\nsome provincial Synods of the sixteenth century directed that all the\ndedications in a diocese should be kept on one and the same day. In\nthe bull of Urban VIII. in 1642, reducing the number of festivals,\nthe dedication is no longer named among the festivals which were to\nbe retained. By a decree of Clement XIV. in 1772, the festival of the\nPatron Saint was to be celebrated on its proper day, and if there were\nmore than one patron, only the chief patron was to be commemorated. The\nbrief of Pius VI. of 1788 for Breslau removed the festival of the Patron\nSaint out of the range of the ordinary life of the people by transferring\nits celebration to the Sunday.[445] Finally, the French revolution and\nthe Concordat abolished these celebrations altogether, and put an end\nto all Dedication Festivals throughout the extent of the French Empire.\nThis caused the churches in most dioceses to keep a general Dedication\nFestival on some one Sunday in the year, and only inside the walls of\nthe church. The dedication of the cathedral is either included in this\ngeneral celebration, or, in some instances as in Cologne, is still\ncelebrated by itself.\n\nThe people were by no means pleased at the suppression of these popular\nfeasts, but consoled themselves by transferring to the festival of the\nPatron Saint, even when transferred to the Sunday, the rejoicings which\nthey had hitherto associated with the Dedication Festival.\n\nIn those parts of Germany which in 1802 did not belong to France, the\nearlier usages continued and the traditional rejoicings still continue to\nbe observed, but in a manner corresponding to the more refined spirit of\nthe time.\n\nThe custom of keeping the day of the Patron Saint as a holiday of\necclesiastical and civil obligation still continues in all the several\nAustrian crown lands. In Bavaria each diocese celebrates the feast of the\nPatron Saint of the diocese on the proper date.\n\nAs regards the present usage, the law for every parish is that the feast\nof the patron of the church, or, if the church is dedicated to a mystery,\nthe day on which that mystery is commemorated in the calendar, is to be\nkept as a double of the first class with an octave. The popular festival,\ncalled in Germany _Kirmes_, takes place on the following Sunday. The\nexistence of these popular feasts to the present day, in spite of so much\nopposition, proves their inherent right to exist, for each part of a\ngreat whole, having its own separate existence, naturally wishes to have\nsomething distinctively its own in addition to what it shares in common\nwith others.[446]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE SAINTS\u2019 DAYS\n\n\n1. _The origins of the Cultus of the Saints and the Grounds on which it\nRests_\n\nThe ecclesiastical year recalls to the memory of the faithful all that\nGod has done for the salvation of mankind, especially through the\nmysteries of the new Covenant, _i.e._ the life and passion of Jesus\nChrist, and she re-enacts them, as it were, before their eyes within\nthe compass of each recurring year. To this the Sundays and festivals,\nespecially those from Advent to Pentecost, are devoted. They form\nan organic whole, constituted in accordance with one definite idea,\nconsisting of the three great festivals Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost,\neach in itself the centre of a special season. The foundations and heart\nof the whole festal system of the Church were given by a higher Hand, and\nonly the development\u2014the much less important part of the whole\u2014is to be\nattributed to the thoughts and contrivances of men.\n\nIt now remains for us to consider the second division of the Christian\nfestival system\u2014the Saints\u2019 Days. These are distinguished from the feasts\nof our Lord both by their institution and by their treatment, their\ndistribution throughout the year, their development and their diffusion\nthroughout Christendom.[447]\n\nFrom the foundation of the Church, there has been no controversy over\nthe holiness and worshipfulness of those who laid down their life for\nthe Christian faith. The New Testament itself did not omit to hand on\nto posterity the memory of those whose death fell within the apostolic\nperiod, such as the Holy Innocents, St James the Great, and before all\nothers the first martyr St Stephen. The seer of the Apocalypse saw the\nmartyrs of Jesus beneath the altar of God, Who did not forget them (Apoc.\nxvii. 6; vi. 9-11).\n\nNeither did the Church forget them. From its foundation each Christian\ncongregation was at pains to preserve the memory of the martyrs belonging\nto it. Thus, for example, Pionius and his companions celebrated the\n\u201ctrue day\u201d of St Polycarp\u2019s death (_natale genuinum_) at Smyrna in\n250, during which festival they were themselves seized and condemned\nto death.[448] Among the larger congregations, where the number of\nmartyrs rapidly increased, special means were taken at an early date to\npreserve their memory. This was necessary in large communities if the\nmemory of these heroes of the Faith was not to pass away. It is true\nthat for the Church of Rome alone, do we possess definite information\nas to her mode of proceeding in this respect, but there is no room for\ndoubt that smaller communities followed on the same lines, and for some\nindeed we have clear evidence that they did so. In many instances, the\nreverence which continued to be paid to the tomb of such an individual\nwas sufficient to keep his memory alive. Those who suffered a shameful\ndeath as law-breakers in the opinion of the civil power nevertheless\nreceived honourable burial. According to Roman ideas earthly Justice was\nsatisfied by the death of the guilty person, the body was given to the\nrelations and friends to be duly buried.[449] Only when there was risk of\na tumult was this permission withheld, which happened very rarely in the\nRoman Empire before the reign of Diocletian\u2014or, where it was a question\nof high treason.\n\nNot only the relations and friends were careful to preserve the memory\nof the martyrs, but, as we have already said, the congregation to which\nthey had belonged. While the former erected chapels over the tombs of the\nmartyrs, and preserved the information relating to them, the community on\nits part marked down in its registers their names and the days on which\nthey suffered. In large communities the Bishops took steps for drawing up\nauthoritative reports concerning the martyrs belonging to their flocks.\nAccording to the _Liber Pontificalis_, Clement I. is said to have divided\nRome into seven regions, with a Christian notary appointed over each\nwhose business it was carefully to investigate matters of this nature\nbelonging to his region.[450] The size of the city of Rome rendered this\nnecessary. Augustus had divided Rome for civil purposes into fourteen\nregions, but Clement, for the purpose he had in view, formed one region\nout of every two. Pope Fabian again adopted similar measures, and\nenjoined upon the seven sub-deacons the duty of seeing that the seven\nnotaries made a complete collection of the acts of the martyrs. He thus\ndoubled the number of persons employed in this matter, and placed the\nsubdeacons over the notaries.[451] His predecessor Anteros (235-236)\ncollected the _gesta martyrum_, and carefully preserved the Acts of\nthe martyrs, as we learn from a somewhat obscure notice in the _Liber\nPontificalis_.[452] This is again referred to in the same work, where\nit is stated that Pope Caius appointed the regions of the city to the\ndeacons during the Diocletian persecution.\n\nSt Cyprian adopted the same plan at Carthage during the persecutions\nunder Decius and Valerian. He ordered the priests and deacons of Carthage\nnot only to interest themselves in every way on behalf of the faith of\nthose in prison, but also to take thought for the bodies of those who\ndied in bonds, even when they died without having undergone torture,\nand also to keep a record of the name and date of death of each one, in\norder that his memory might be celebrated along with the memorials of\nthe martyrs.[453] The order to take down the date could be easily obeyed\neverywhere, since in every city, Calendars engraved on marble tablets\nwere set up for public use.[454]\n\nWe have an authoritative document of this kind in the detailed account\ngiven by the communities of Lyons and Vienne, of the martyrdoms which\ntook place there under Marcus Aurelius. Owing to its having been sent to\nAsia Minor, Eusebius was able to utilise it and incorporate the chief\nparts of it into his history of the Church.\n\nThe same thing happened more or less everywhere; the names of the martyrs\nbelonging to the community were entered in the Calendars of the Church,\nand their memory was celebrated annually on the anniversary of their\ndeath. These were the so-called _martyres recogniti_, _i.e._ those who\nwere recognised as martyrs by the community. Each large community,\nespecially the patriarchal Churches, thus possessed their calendar of\nsaints, which became more and more full of names in process of time.\nAuthentic fragments of such calendars are contained in the Roman\n_Depositio Martyrum_, which, along with the _Depositio Episcoporum_, was\ncompiled not later than the episcopate of Liberius (352-354). Fuller,\nbecause less ancient, is the Calendar of Carthage, dating from the end of\nthe fifth century or from the beginning of the sixth, printed by Mabillon\nin his _Analecta Vetera_,[455] and of which he treats in iii. 398, of\nthis work.\n\nIn the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neoc\u00e6sarea in\nPontus, was no less zealous than St Cyprian in collecting information\nconcerning the martyrs. He travelled throughout the whole district,\ninspiring the people everywhere with zeal for the celebration of the\nmemory of those who had suffered for the faith.[456] And thus in all the\ngreater cities, catalogues of the local martyrs were compiled, as Sozomen\ntestifies for two neighbouring towns, Gaza and Constantia. Each of these\ntwo towns, he says, had their own bishop and clergy, and also their own\nfestivals of martyrs and catalogues of the priests who had presided over\nthem.[457]\n\nAt a much later date, Maximus of Turin gives us some interesting\nevidence concerning these attempts of the different communities: \u201cAs\nwe must celebrate the general commemoration of all the holy martyrs,\nso, my brethren, ought we to celebrate with special devotion the feasts\nof those who shed their blood in our own locality. For while all the\nsaints, wherever they may be, assist us all, yet those who suffered for\nus intercede for us in a special manner. For the martyr suffers not for\nhimself alone, but also for his fellow-citizens. By his sufferings, he\nobtains for himself a reward in heaven, and gives a good example to his\nfellow-citizens. He gains rest for himself and salvation for them.\u201d[458]\n\nThe official cultus of the saints was at first confined to the martyrs.\nThe earliest example of the public worship of saints, not martyrs, dates\nfrom the time of Pope Symmachus, under whom, about A.D. 500, a church was\nbuilt and dedicated to Pope Silvester and Martin of Tours, in Rome, the\n_basilica Silvestri et Martini_.[459]\n\nOur information concerning the martyrs is derived from three\nsources[460]:\u2014\n\n1. The _Acta_, _i.e._ the report of the trial taken down by the notary\nof the proconsul or procurator (_notarius_, _commentariensis_, and\n_exceptor_), containing the accusation, the examination, the depositions\nof the witnesses, the description of the tortures employed and the\njudgment given. Even in the time of Cicero the evidence of the witnesses\nwas taken down in writing, and during the Empire full reports of both\ncivil and criminal actions were taken and preserved. A proclamation of\nthe Emperor Severus in 194, enjoins that these _acta_ be preserved, and\nbe produced when required for ascertaining the truth. Copies were given\nfor payment to people interested or concerned in the trial. Some of\nthese reports of the trials of the martyrs have come down to us in their\noriginal form, and afford the most valuable materials which we possess\nfor the history of early Christian times. The best known are the _Acta\nProconsularia S. Cypriani_, along with the acts of Pionius, Maximilian,\nand Marcellus, etc.\n\n2. _Passiones_, _i.e._ an account of the imprisonment, trial, and\nexecution of the martyrs drawn up by Christian eye-witnesses at the time\nor immediately afterwards. They are worthy of all credit, for among the\nRomans legal proceedings took place as a rule in public. It was only\nunder the later emperors that this publicity was so far curtailed that\nthe proceedings were conducted in the basilicas or buildings set apart\nfor that purpose. The earliest and best-known examples of these Passions\nare the letter of the church of Lyons to the churches of Asia Minor, the\n_Passio S. Perpetu\u00e6 et Felicitatis_, the _Martyrium Polycarpi_, etc.\n\n3. Legends, _i.e._ narratives based upon documents of the nature\ndescribed above, and worked up by later writers, either for the purpose\nof edification or from the point of view of a historian. This class of\nwritings is very large, beginning with the account of the martyrdom of\nSt Ignatius. The writings, however, differ endlessly as to their value,\naccording to the knowledge and authority possessed by the writers,\nand according to their nearness to the date of the events described.\nThere were many martyrs whose sufferings were recorded in no _acta_ or\n_passiones_, but were imprinted upon the memory of men, and became part\nof the traditions handed down in the community, until they were finally\ncommitted to writing. The later this took place, the worse for the\nauthenticity. For it was then that anachronisms, alterations in titles,\nchanges in the persons, and other similar historical errors could more\neasily creep into the narrative, as we know, in fact, they have done in\nmany instances. The historical sense was unfortunately lacking to the\nFranks and Byzantines, as well as all idea of sound criticism.\n\nA false kind of patriotism and national pride often goes along with\ncredulity, so that we find here and there in literature of this kind\neven downright fabrications. After the introduction of printing, by\nwhich literature became more widely diffused and comparative criticism\nwas rendered possible, it at once became evident among Catholics that\nerror was mixed with truth, and that a sifting of the one from the other\nwas necessary, and, in many cases, quite possible. In this province of\ncriticism, those who have most distinguished themselves for judgment\nand insight are Launoi, Henschen, the Bollandists, Tillemont, Baillet,\nRuinart, and in more modern times, Franchi di Cavalieri and others who\nhave avoided extremes in either direction.\n\nThe matter from these writings incorporated in the service books\npossesses the same historical value as the source from which it is drawn.\nFor, as B\u00e4umer justly remarks, \u201cit was not the intention of the Church,\nor of the compilers and authors of the service books, to claim historical\nauthority for their statements. And so the Popes themselves have directed\nmany emendations to be made in the legends in the Breviary, although\nmany others still remain to be effected.\u201d[461] The legends, by their\nincorporation into the Breviary, gain no higher degree of credibility\nthan that which the person who incorporated them is able to confer upon\nthem from a purely natural standpoint. This must be emphasised and\nmaintained, for since the time of Bishop Aurelian of Arles,[462] the\nreading of the histories of the martyrs made its way more and more into\nthe psalmody in the West, and became an essential part of the Breviary.\n\nThe honour of having cultivated for the first time the province of\nhagiography as a whole and not merely in a few particulars, belongs,\nas far as we know, to the historian Eusebius. Before he completed his\nhistory of the Church, he planned a collection of the Acts of the Martyrs\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c9\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd), which he quotes in his history (v. 1, 6).\nUnfortunately this compilation has been lost, although it was probably\nused by Gregory of Tours.[463] He gives further information in his work\non the martyrs of Palestine which took place in his own lifetime during\nthe Diocletian persecution, between 303 and 310. This book seems to have\nbeen composed after the completion of his History of the Church.[464] Had\nwe similar writings of the same period relating to other provinces of\nthe Church, we should be better informed concerning those extraordinary\nevents.\n\nThe method adopted was plainly that each local community worked for\nitself alone without troubling itself about what happened elsewhere.\nThe worship of the martyrs was also at first limited to particular\nlocalities. Certainly there was no lack of interest in what took place\nin other districts, as is shown by the letter from the churches of\nLyons and Vienne to the Christians of Asia Minor, but liturgical and\necclesiastical worship was paid to the martyrs of the place alone. For\nexample, the Calendar of the Roman Church contained those martyrs alone\nwho belonged to the Roman community; in the same way the Alexandrian\nCalendar contained only those belonging to Egypt, the Antiochene Calendar\nonly those of Syria, and so on. This state of things continued until the\nninth century. A striking proof of this is the fact that Ignatius of\nAntioch, although he suffered death in Rome, finds no place in either\nthe _Gelasianum_ or the _Gregorianum_, while at Antioch he was venerated\nas a saint from the beginning. A remarkable exception is the veneration\nwhich St Perpetua, St Felicitas, and St Cyprian enjoyed in Rome. In this\ncase the relationship between the mother and the daughter church must\nbe taken into account, for Christianity had spread to Carthage from\nRome. From what has been said, it follows that information concerning\nthe manner of a martyr\u2019s death and the exact day on which he suffered,\nderived from local sources, is trustworthy in the highest degree, but it\nis forthcoming in a few cases only.\n\nAs it was the day of the martyr\u2019s death which was kept and marked in the\ncalendar, it must be observed that this day was sometimes called the\nmartyr\u2019s birthday, _natalis_, _natalitium_, and sometimes also _dies\ndepositionis_. Owing to the burial taking place on the day of death, as\nwas the custom among the ancients, _dies obitus_ and _dies depositionis_\ncould be used as synonymous terms.[465]\n\nAmong the Romans burial followed as soon as the death was certified.\nNearly every one belonged to a burial society, which undertook the\npreparations for the funeral. In addition to these, there were only the\npreparations in the house to be thought of, and these\u2014the washing and\nclothing of the corpse\u2014could be quickly performed. Hence the burial\ncould take place in a very short time. The Jews also buried their dead\nimmediately after death, as the story of Ananias and Saphira shows.\n\nThe Christians of the first centuries followed out all the customs\nrelating to burial usual in their time and country, excluding only those\nwhich were specifically heathen and idolatrous. That they buried their\ndead with the same expedition as the heathen is clear from an incident\nrelated by Tertullian.[466] The burial of a woman who seemed to be dead\nwas for some reason delayed. While she lay ready for burial and the\npriests were reciting the prayers, she raised up both her hands, and,\nwhen the prayer for peace was concluded, laid them down again in their\nformer position. It was only in the fourth century that it began to be\nthe custom to delay burial to the third or fourth day after death,[467]\nbut the earlier practice continued still to exist for a considerable\nperiod.[468]\n\nAs it was already the custom to inter those who died a natural death\non the day of their decease, so there was no reason why the burial of\nthe martyrs should be delayed, and thus with them the _dies obitus_ and\nthe _dies depositionis_ were one and the same. Consequently the ancient\ndates in question, even when given as that of the burial, are always to\nbe understood as referring to the day of the martyr\u2019s death, and, when\nthey form part of the traditions of the community to which the martyr\nbelonged, they are to be received as absolutely reliable.\n\nIn the case of the martyrs, the rule of venerating them on the day of\ntheir death admitted of no exception, although it might be set aside in\nthe case of those saints who were not martyrs, for certain reasons and\nin particular instances. Thus, for example, the day of St Chrysostom\u2019s\ndeath, the 14th September, was already occupied in the fourth century\nby the festival of the Invention of the Holy Cross. St Basil died on\nthe 1st January, and St Ambrose on the 4th April, which fell within the\nPascal season. During Lent, no festivals of martyrs were to be celebrated\non week-days, according to the fifty-first Canon of Laodicea, but only\non Saturdays and Sundays at most. But this prohibition was by no means\ngeneral.\n\nBesides the lists of the _depositiones_, the service-books, the\nsacramentaries or missals, helped to preserve the memory of the martyrs.\n\nIn the earliest service-books of the Roman and also of a few other\nchurches, the Masses in honour of the martyrs were not classed by\nthemselves apart, but were incorporated with the others, and not\nseparated from the course of the ecclesiastical year, or, to use a modern\nexpression, the _Proprium de Sanctis_ and the _Proprium de Tempore_\nwere still fused together. Only in the _Gelasianum_ are the _Natalitia\nsanctorum_ separated from the ecclesiastical year and collected together\nin the second volume. Still later were the catalogues of the saints\nformed into independent works, the so-called martyrologies. In the East\nthese began to appear at an early date. In this a return was made to the\nolder arrangement, except that now it was not the martyrs of the local\nchurches alone which were taken into consideration, but those of the\nChurch Universal.\n\nIt is just this insertion of the saints\u2019 days in the course of the\nChurch\u2019s year which proves that the names of the martyrs and the days\nof the commemoration were subject to the control of authority; that\nis to say, the compilations in question have all the weight attaching\nto public official documents and to reliable sources of information,\nand, for this reason, they may be used as material in historical works.\nValuable information can be gained from a judicious employment of these\ncompositions.\n\nThe restriction of festivals to those commemorating saints of a specific\nlocality disappeared only slowly, and at a late date in the West.\nIt disappeared still later, and only to a limited extent, among the\nEasterns, who showed a tendency to fill up their calendars with other\nthings rather than with the feasts of foreign martyrs and saints, as, for\nexample, the commemorations of Councils, Old Testament personages, and\neven the four beasts of the Apocalypse were pressed into the service.\nIn the West the entrance of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons into the Roman\nChurch gave the first impulse to an extension of the martyrologies and\ncalendars in the direction of universalism or universal Catholicity. Both\nthese nations, having no Christian antiquity of their own, adopted along\nwith the ritual of the Roman Church her calendar of saints as well. Soon,\nhowever, they added to this the names of their own particular saints, and\nso prepared the way for more universal ideas; while, on the contrary, the\nRoman Church did not include in her calendar the saints and martyrs of\nthe Franks and Anglo-Saxons. Only at the revision of the service-books\nin the sixteenth century did she so far yield as to act in some degree\nupon the principle of Catholicity in this matter. The subsequent increase\nand development of the festivals of the saints in the Calendar of the\nCatholic Church had a disturbing effect upon the ecclesiastical year and\ndaily office. Ordinary Sundays have lost their position and have given\nplace to the commemoration of saints, and green vestments only rarely\nmake their appearance. The first step towards the general observance of\nthe cultus of particular saints throughout the Church, and the admission\nof other than merely local saints to a place in the devotions of each\ncommunity, may have been effected by the Litanies which came into use in\nFrance. The oldest form of a Litany of the Saints is contained in the\nprayer-book of Charles the Bald.[469]\n\nThe saintly personages of the Old Testament have really the same right\nto veneration as those of the New, being justified through faith in\nthe future Messias, many of them were martyrs, and all attained to the\nBeatific Vision after our Lord\u2019s resurrection. They are on this account\ncalled blessed by St Paul in Heb. xi. 4-39. The synagogue paid no worship\nto saints, but honoured the memory of the prophets so far as to erect\nmonuments over their graves (St Matt. xxiii. 29). Accordingly there was\nnothing to prevent the same cultus being paid to them as to the saints\nof the New Testament, yet nevertheless it remained exceptional. Eastern\ncalendars contain the names of many Old Testament worthies, Western\ncalendars only a few, and the Roman Church commemorates none with the\nexception of the Machabees. But even the Eastern Churches have appointed\nno days in their honour, and so this part of the worship of the saints\nlies without the scope of this work.[470]\n\n\n2. _The Festivals of St John the Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-Martyr_\n\nIn saying that in antiquity the worship of the martyrs was confined\nto the localities to which they belonged, it must be borne in mind\nthat this rule admitted of two exceptions from the first. St John the\nBaptist and St Stephen the Proto-martyr, were honoured throughout the\nwhole Christian Church from the beginning; their commemoration was\nuniversally celebrated, and even the former was regarded as a martyr in\nthe ecclesiastical sense of the word.\n\nThe Baptist had at once been designated by his father in a moment of\nprophetic inspiration as a prophet and the Forerunner of the Lord,\nand later on he received from our Lord Himself the recognition of his\nremarkable sanctity (St Matt. xi. 11). Accordingly it causes no surprise\nto find proof of his worship and his festivals at a very early date. The\nlatter already appear in the sermons of St Augustine as _solemnitates_,\nand as fixed on definite dates. Indeed, in course of time a regular\nlittle cycle of festivals of the Baptist came into existence. The date\nof his birth, for instance, was fixed by that of our Lord, as falling\nsix months before Christmas; nine months earlier came the date of\nhis conception,[471] and, in addition to these, the day of his death\nwas celebrated on the 29th August, under the title of _Passio_ or\n_Decollatio_.\n\nThe festival of St John\u2019s birth does not appear indeed in the Calendars\nof Philocalus and Polemius Silvius, although it is found in the most\nancient calendar of the African Church, and in the list of festivals\ndrawn up by Perpetuus of Tours. Among the sermons of St Peter Chrysologus\nand Maximus of Turin there are also to be found many allusions to it.\nIt was numbered, by the Council of Agde in 506, among the chief feasts\non which all the faithful must attend divine service in their parish\nchurches and not in private oratories.[472] In the Middle Ages servile\nwork was proscribed on it,[473] and until our own times it continued\nuniversally to rank as a high festival, but at the present time it is\nkept as such in only a few countries, as we have observed on page 35.\n\nThe festival of the Baptist\u2019s conception was celebrated, especially in\nthe East, and appears in the Calendars of Calcasendi and of the Syrians,\nalso in the Neapolitan Calendars, and in that of Silos as well as in the\nMozarabic Calendar, in the Calendar of Bede, in the Greek calendars, and\nin both menologies, _i.e._ that of Constantinople and that of Basil.\nIts introduction[474] at an early date is due to the circumstance\nthat St John\u2019s conception was announced by the angel, and also to the\nsupposition, which appears as early as St Augustine, that by the meeting\nof his mother with Mary he was already purified from original sin before\nhis birth.\n\nThe 29th August was kept as the commemoration of his death at an early\ndate, both in Africa and in the East. The collection of St Augustine\u2019s\nsermons contains two sermons for this festival (307 and 308), and it has\nits place among the festivals in the list of Perpetuus. The same date is\ngiven in the Coptic Calendar in Selden, in the Syrian, Neapolitan, and\nMozarabic. As regards Rome, it had not yet made its way into the Leonine\nsacramentary, though it is found in the _Gelasianum_.\n\nIn addition, a so-called _synaxis_ of St John the Baptist is marked in\nthe two Greek menologies. This is an instance of a peculiar custom among\nthe Greeks, according to which, after certain chief feasts of our Lord\nand our Lady, there is held a second festival, or _synaxis_, on the\nfollowing day, in honour of the personages who had taken part in the\nevent commemorated by the feast. Thus with the feast of the 2nd February\nis coupled that of St Simeon, with that of the Nativity of our Lady,\nthe feast of Joachim and Anna, and here, after Epiphany, the day of\nChrist\u2019s baptism, we have the feast of St John the Baptist, on the 7th\nJanuary.[475]\n\nThe cultus of St John the Baptist received a great extension throughout\nthe whole Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, owing to the\ndiscovery of his relics. The records of the Church contain much\ninformation concerning both the discovery and the translation of these\nrelics, though they give rise to insoluble difficulties.\n\nIn the first place one must bear in mind how the disciples of St John, on\nhearing of the death of their teacher in the fortress of Mach\u00e6rus,[476]\ncame and took his body and buried it (St Matt. xiv. 12; St Mark vi.\n29). The head doubtless remained at first in the keeping of Herodias,\nwho had accepted it as a present. According to a creditable tradition,\nSamaria was the place of St John\u2019s burial, as it was outside the limits\nof Herod\u2019s tetrarchy, and under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor.\nThe remains reposed there until the persecution of Julian in 362, when\nthe pagan rabble violated the tomb and burnt the remains. A portion\nof them, however, was saved by monks and carried to Alexandria, where\nAthanasius deposited them provisionally in a church. Later on they were\nplaced in the church erected by the Patriarch Theophilus in honour of the\nBaptist in the ruins of the destroyed Serapeum. The dedication of this\nchurch followed on the 27th May 385 or 386.[477] Tillemont was inclined\nto regard the 29th August as the day of the translation, which in this\ncase as in others came to be regarded as the ecclesiastical commemoration\nof the event. Against this, however, is the fact that the more ancient\nCoptic Calendars know nothing of the 29th August as a feast of the\nBaptist.[478]\n\nWith regard to the saint\u2019s head, there are two different accounts in\nexistence. According to one account, given by Sozomen (7, 21), it is said\nto have been found in Jerusalem in the possession of monks belonging\nto the sect of the Macedonians, who carried it to Cilicia, when they\nwere driven out from that city. When the Emperor Valens heard of this,\nhe despatched an official to convey the relic to Constantinople. As\nthey approached Chalcedon, the mules which drew the vehicle in which\nthe messenger travelled with the relic refused to proceed any further,\nand all efforts to continue the route were unavailing\u2014a circumstance\nfrequently repeated in later legends. Valens and his court regarded\nthis as miraculous and did not venture to bring the relic near the\ncity. Accordingly it remained in a village near Chalcedon in charge of\nadherents of the Macedonian sect, until the reign of Theodosius, who\nbrought it to Hebdomon, a suburb of Constantinople, where he had a\nchurch erected in honour of the Baptist.\n\nThe Paschal Chronicle makes mention of this translation in 391, as well\nas of another under the date 453, without throwing any light on the\nconnection of the one with the other. This second translation, of which\nRufinus also speaks (\u201cHist. Eccl.\u201d 2, 28), is said to have come about in\nthe following manner.\n\nThe head is reported to have been brought from Mach\u00e6rus to Jerusalem\nand there buried. In the time of Constantine it was taken to Emesa and\nhidden away in a cave. Why this was necessary at that particular period\nis not stated. Here it was discovered by a priest called Marcellus, the\nsuperior of a monastery in those parts. He composed a long and detailed\naccount of the discovery, containing also a history of the previous\nvicissitudes of the relic.[479] The discovery was made in consequence\nof many dreams, and a fiery star is said to have guided Marcellus to\nthe spot where the sacred treasure rested in an urn, deeply buried in\nthe earth. Marcellus informed Bishop Uranius of Emesa of his discovery,\nand the bishop solemnly removed the relic on the 24th February, 452. It\nwas first of all placed in the cathedral, and then soon afterwards in a\nchapel expressly built to receive it, to which it was conveyed on the\n26th September of the same year. Here it rested under the Mohammedan\ndominion, and in 760 a large church was even built to replace the\nchapel. We have here a threefold translation of the head of St John the\nBaptist. It is asserted that a part of it is preserved at Amiens which\nwas brought thither from Constantinople in the thirteenth century. Two of\nthe three days commemorating these translations are marked in the Greek\nmenologies, the 24th February and the 26th September.[480] The story of\nthese translations throws no light upon the choice of 29th August for the\nbeheading of the saint.\n\nFrom a liturgical point of view, the birth of the Baptist was kept with\nspecial distinction at Rome in earlier times. In the Leonine sacramentary\nit is already provided with a vigil. Other saints\u2019 days indeed were\nsimilarly provided, but the vigil of St John was to be kept as a fast,\nand, moreover, in addition to the two formularies for the Mass of his\nfeast, there are two more specially intended for use in the Baptistery of\nSt John. As early as the fifth century in Rome, three Masses seem to have\nbeen celebrated on St John\u2019s Day as on Christmas, one on the vigil after\nVespers, one during the night, and the third on the morning of the 24th\nJune\u2014this last being celebrated in the Baptistery. In the _Gelasianum_\nwe find only two Masses, one for the vigil, and one for the day itself,\nbut in the _Gregorianum_ we find three again to be said at special times,\nas in the _Leoninum_.[481] Accordingly, Menard observes that Alcuin[482]\nalso speaks of three Masses on St John\u2019s Day commemorating the three\ngreat triumphs\u2014as he calls them\u2014which the Baptist had celebrated in\npreparing the way for our Lord, in baptizing Him, and in having been a\nNazarite from his mother\u2019s womb. The ordo of the Canon Benedict of St\nPeter\u2019s, belonging to the year 1143, makes no mention of three Masses,\nthough it speaks of two offices.[483] When the Council of Seligenstadt in\n1022 (cap. 1) prescribed abstinence for the fourteen days before St John,\nit was acting without precedent, and was influenced by the desire to make\nthe festival of the forerunner as like to Christmas as possible.\n\nAs at Rome, so too in Latin North Africa, the Nativity of the Baptist\nmust have been celebrated with special honour, for we possess no fewer\nthan seven sermons of St Augustine on it, and he distinctly speaks of it\nas a festival which had come down from his predecessors.[484]\n\nTHE PROTO-MARTYR ST STEPHEN. The cultus of this saint received also a\ngreat impulse from the discovery of his relics at Kaphar-Gamala.[485]\nThis took place on the 5th December, in consequence of a revelation said\nto have been made to a priest of Jerusalem called Lucianus, in presence\nof John Bishop of Jerusalem, and of a Spanish priest from Braga, named\nAvitus, who was then stopping in Jerusalem. Lucianus wrote an account of\nthe event in the form of a letter to all the churches,[486] which Avitus\ntranslated into Latin.[487] Whereupon the worship of the first martyr\nspread, one might say, in every direction. Pilgrims seeking relief from\ntheir sufferings visited his churches and chapels, numerous answers to\nprayer and miracles of healing followed, of which the sermons of St\nAugustine and his work on the \u201cCity of God\u201d afford evidence.[488] Pope\nSimplicius (\u2020 483) erected a basilica in St Stephen\u2019s honour at Rome. The\nfestival of the discovery of his relics was fixed for the 3rd August.\n\nUpon their discovery the relics were first taken to Jerusalem, but\nportions of them were bestowed upon other places, as, for example, a\nhand to the city of Constantinople, or rather to the Emperor Theodosius\nII.,[489] and smaller relics elsewhere. In the year 439 the Empress\nEudocia brought the remaining relics to Constantinople and had them\nplaced in the basilica of St Lawrence.[490] Over the tomb a chapel was\nerected, well known to pilgrims of the sixth century as the grave of St\nStephen.[491] St Augustine, in the passages already quoted, speaks of\nchurches erected in St Stephen\u2019s honour in many places.\n\nThe worship of St Stephen, however, does not date merely from this\nperiod, but was much older, and may even be said to be as old as the\nChurch herself, since St Paul gave him the title of \u201cMartyr of Christ\u201d\n(Acts xxii. 20). Many churches and chapels were dedicated to him in\nConstantinople, of which the oldest was built by or under Constantine, if\nCodinus is rightly informed.[492]\n\nApart from this, his name is to be found already in the earliest\nliturgical sources, _e.g._ the Arian martyrology, belonging to about 360,\nand in all Calendars ancient and modern excepting the Coptic Calendars,\npublished by Selden and Calcasendi. A remarkable variation is observable\nwith respect to the date, for the most ancient Calendars and also\nthe Roman give it invariably as the 26th December, while the Eastern\nCalendars give it sometimes on the 27th, _e.g._ the two menologies of\nConstantinople and the Syrian lectionary. It cannot now be ascertained\nwhether one of these days was the day of his martyrdom or not; it is not\nimpossible, but it must be observed that the Coptic Calendar given in\nMai notices only a discovery of his relics on the 27th December, with\nwhich agrees a later tradition of the Egyptian Church.[493] Accordingly\nthe 26th or 27th December may have been observed as only the day of a\ntranslation of St Stephen\u2019s relics.\n\n\n3. _Festivals of our Blessed Lady in General_\n\nThe unique position occupied by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the scheme\nof salvation called for a corresponding recognition from the Church in\nthe development of her festal system. As a matter of fact the Church has\namply discharged this duty, inasmuch as not only the events in our Lady\u2019s\nlife recorded in Scripture have been made the occasion of festivals,\nbut others also not mentioned therein. A considerable period, however,\nelapsed before this work was accomplished. This circumstance has been\nexplained by reference to the fact that the Church, while paganism was\nstill in power, refrained from publicly honouring the parents of our\nLord after the flesh, on account of the myths and genealogies current\nabout the gods. More weight may be given to the circumstance that the\nfacts relating to the life of Jesus and the redemption He accomplished\nhad first to be commemorated by fixed festivals before an extension of\nthe Calendar in other directions could be thought of. Then again, in\nthe early ages, it was felt to be an imperative duty to duly honour the\ncommemorations of the numerous martyrs, and the custom of appointing days\nfor the commemoration of saints not martyrs only came into existence\nlater.\n\nThe cultus paid to the Mother of God by the Church existed long before\nthe institution of her feasts, for Constantine is said to have built\nthree churches in her honour in his new capital. According to recent\ninvestigations, a Church dedicated to her, Maria Antiqua,[494] is said\nto have existed in Rome before the erection of the Liberian basilica,\ngenerally reckoned as the oldest Church of our Lady in the Eternal City.\nIt is certain that Ephesus had a noteworthy Church of our Lady in 431, in\nwhich the third Ecumenical Council held its meetings.\n\nAs regards festivals, all the churches of the ancient patriarchates\nobserve many of them, especially the oriental Greeks and the Roman\nCatholic; the latter, without question, observes the largest number.\nBut the ancient Church of Egypt also distinguished itself by its zeal\nfor the worship of our Lady, and in the Coptic Calendars we find a\n_commemoratio Domin\u00e6 Virginis Mari\u00e6_ on the 21st (corresponding to the\n15th in the Julian Calendar) of each month.[495] Formerly every Saturday\nwas generally dedicated to her. The first certain instance of the\nobservance of a festival in honour of the Mother of God, which has so\nfar come to light, is found in the panegyric on St Theodosius, preached\nby Theodore about the year 500. In this it is stated that a commemoration\nof the holy Mother of God (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7) was celebrated annually in\nthe Palestinian monasteries, attended by a concourse of all the monks.\nUnfortunately neither the date of this festival nor its name is given,\nalthough there is good reason for thinking that it was the feast of the\n15th August, which had been regarded as the day of our Lady\u2019s death from\nthe earliest times.[496] In Spain, in the time of Bishop Ildephonsus\nof Toledo (\u2020 667), a festival of the Mother of God was also solemnly\nobserved. This prelate made penitential processions (_litani\u00e6_) in the\nthree preceding days, and composed a special mass for the feast. Here\nagain the particular name of the feast is unfortunately not given. Still\nit can only have been the feast of the 15th August.[497]\n\nThe number of feasts of our Lady observed at the present time in the\nCatholic Church is, as we have said, considerable, among them being some\nwhich affect the public life of the community and some whose observance\nis confined to the four walls of the Church. They can also be classified\nas greater and lesser, or, according to the date of their institution,\nas earlier or later. Among the greater feasts are the Conception, Birth,\nAnnunciation and Assumption of our Blessed Lady, and Candlemas; among the\nlesser are the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple, her Espousals, the\nVisitation, and now the Feast of the Holy Rosary.\n\nIt is not, however, possible to speak, as many liturgists do, of a\nMarian ecclesiastical year. For the dates of our Lady\u2019s feasts, viewed\nin their chronological order, overlap the limits of the year, and\nbeing subject to the same principles which regulate saints\u2019 days, fall\ninvariably on fixed days in the Calendar, and so cannot be said to form\nan integral part of the ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless they form in\nthemselves a cycle of festivals, as is also the case in a lesser degree\nwith regard to St John the Baptist. Two of them, however, have been\nbrought into connection, at least externally, with the ecclesiastical\nyear, _i.e._ the Annunciation, whose date depends upon Christmas, and the\nVisitation, whose date is regulated by the births of Christ and St John\nthe Baptist. The former interrupts the course of the Church\u2019s year, and\nfalls within a cycle of feasts with which it has no inner connection. The\nConception of our Blessed Lady, the latest in date of her great feasts,\ndepends naturally upon the date of her birth. Finally, nothing can be\nsaid touching the grounds which led to the choice of these dates, for no\nhistorical evidence for the first institution of these festivals has come\ndown to us. They have been appointed and sanctioned by custom.\n\nWe shall first deal with the great festivals of our Lady, the observance\nof which affected public life. From these we omit Candlemas, originally\nregarded rather as a festival of our Lord. Three others\u2014the Nativity,\nAnnunciation, and Assumption\u2014can be considered together as far as their\ninstitution is concerned, inasmuch as they made their appearance in\nhistory at the same period\u2014that is to say, in the seventh century. The\nreliable evidence for their introduction in Rome is confined to the\nfollowing; in the later MSS. of the _Gregorianum_ appears a notice\nwhich confines the work of Gregory the Great to the first part of the\nsacramentary. This is the important preface \u201cHucusque.\u201d[498] In this it\nis stated the entire preceding part of the book is due to Gregory I.,\nwith the exception of what concerns the Nativity and Assumption of our\nLady, and a few other matters. From this it follows that the sacramentary\nused in the time of Gregory I. did not contain these two festivals of the\nMother of God.\n\nThey had been already introduced, however, by the end of the seventh\ncentury. This is clear from the fact that they appear in the\n_Gelesianum_, and, secondly, from a statement in the life of Sergius\nI. (687-701),[499] to the effect that this pope directed that on the\nAnnunciation, Nativity, and Assumption of our Lady, and in the festival\nwhich the Greeks call _Hypapante_, a procession (_litania_) should go\nfrom St Adrian\u2019s to St Mary Major\u2019s. These festivals were at that time\nalready observed in Rome, when Sergius ordered these processions as\nadjuncts to existing festivals. This comprises all the reliable evidence\nat our disposal regarding these feasts of our Lady.[500]\n\nAll that we can with certainty deduct therefrom is that these three\nprincipal feasts of our Lady were introduced in the Roman Church only\nin the course of the seventh century. The sermons belonging to the same\nperiod also support this conclusion. The rich collections of sermons of\nSt Augustine, St Leo the Great, Peter Chrysologus,[501] Fulgentius, and\nMaximus of Turin, contain no sermons for feasts of the Mother of God.\nAll the chief, and also the majority of the lesser, feasts of our Lady\nhad their origin rather in the East, and only at a comparatively late\ndate made their way into the West. This also explains why none of them\nhave been incorporated, as most of them might easily have been, into the\necclesiastical year. Their adoption by Rome resulted from the political\ndependence of Italy on Byzantium and from the intimate relations existing\nbetween the Apostolic See and the Imperial Court.\n\n\n4. _The Three Ancient Festivals of our Blessed Lady\u2014the Nativity, the\nAnnunciation, the Assumption_\n\n\n(1) THE NATIVITY OF OUR LADY\n\nThe spread of this feast seems to have been retarded, for it does not\nappear in many Calendars which contain the Assumption, _i.e._ in the\nGotho-Gallican, in that of Luxeuil, in the Toledan Calendar of the tenth\ncentury, and in the Mozarabic; that it is not to be found in older\nCalendars goes without saying. On the other hand, it appears along with\nthe Assumption in the _Gelasianum_ and in the Frankish Calendars drawn up\nunder Roman influence in the Carolingian period, the earliest being those\nof Reims and Bede. It cannot be said to have been generally celebrated\nin the eighth and ninth centuries, although in many places it makes its\nappearance much earlier. Some writers have maintained that, on the\nwhole, Fulbert of Chartres (\u2020 1028) was the first to introduce it.[502]\nBut this is certainly wrong. Nevertheless he probably exerted himself to\nspread the observance of the feast in the northern parts of France, since\nwe have two sermons of his preached on the feast, the oldest genuine\nLatin sermons on this festival, as it seems. In Greek there are two\nsermons of Andrew of Crete dealing also with the festival.[503] Evidence\nis wanting to show why the 8th September was chosen for the Nativity of\nour Lady.\n\n\n(2) THE ANNUNCIATION\n\nThe official title of this feast is now _Annuntiatio B. Mari\u00e6 Virginis_,\nbut formerly other titles were used, _i.e._ _Annuntiatio Angeli ad\nB.V.M._, _Annuntiatio Domini_,[504] _Annuntiatio Christi_, or even\n_Conceptio Christi_, etc., showing that it was regarded more as a\nfestival of our Lord than of our Lady. That it owes its existence\nentirely to Christmas, and depends upon the date (25th December) assigned\nto the birth of Christ, requires no proof. But the reference to Mary is\nso striking that it could not fail to be regarded as essentially one of\nher feasts.\n\nIt is well known that the custom of the ancient Church was not to\ncelebrate the festivals of martyrs and other saints during Lent, which\nrule the Spanish Church followed even with regard to this feast. But in\nConstantinople an exception was made in its favour, which was expressly\napproved by the fifty-second canon of the Trullan Council. The feast is\nabsent from the ancient Gallican Missal and the Lectionary of Luxeuil,\nbut in Rome, according to the evidence afforded by the _Gelasianum_ and\n_Gregorianum_, the feast was observed on the same date as in the East.\n\nThe feast of our Lady in Advent (S. Mari\u00e6), noted, without further\nspecification, in the Lectionary of Silos dating from about 650, can\nbe no other than the Annunciation. Soon afterwards, however, the tenth\nCouncil of Toledo (656) took occasion to remark upon the difference\nof date. External influences (_traducti homines_) had been the cause.\nThe Council decided in favour of the date hitherto observed in Spain,\nand ordained in its first canon that the feast should be celebrated\nthroughout Spain eight days before Christmas\u2014on the 18th December.\n\nBut in the East the other date was already so widely observed that it\nwas even employed as a fixed indication of time, as, for example, when\nthe Alexandrian Paschal Chronicle states in 624 that Heraclius and his\nforces started for the East on the day of Mary\u2019s Annunciation.[505] This,\nalong with other indications, shows that in the East the festival had\nbeen earlier adopted and was widely spread. A circumstance of special\nimportance is that the schismatic Armenians, whose ecclesiastical year\nin other respects is very primitive in character, observe this feast.\nThey keep it, however, on the 7th April. This is due to the fact that\nthey have not adopted Christmas, and still celebrate the birth of Christ\nin the ancient manner on the 6th January. Counting back nine months\nfrom this date one arrives at the 7th April. The Armenians certainly\ncelebrated this festival before their separation from the Church. It was\nknown and loved in the East as early as the fifth century, as the sermons\nof Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (\u2020 446), and of Peter Chrysologus\nof Ravenna (\u2020 450), prove.[506]\n\nBoth methods of dating the festival existed side by side for a long\nperiod. The majority was in favour of the 25th March, but the other date\nwas not without supporters, especially in Upper Italy, for according to\nthe Milanese rite the _Annuntiatio_ falls in Advent, and, indeed, on the\nfourth Sunday. In southern France the difference in date gave rise to\nsundry differences and disputes which terminated in a victory for the\nRoman usage. Certain Spanish monks, who came to Cluny under Abbot Odilo,\ndesired to celebrate the festival after their own fashion, which was at\nfirst allowed them. In the eleventh century several Councils occupied\nthemselves with the question, and decided, obviously out of regard for\nRome, for the 25th March.[507]\n\nA further consideration of the question shows that an agreement was\narrived at by both parties. The Spaniards, in their _Missale Mixtum_,\ncelebrated the feast twice\u2014on the 18th December and the 25th March\u2014with\nthe same Mass,[508] and in Rome, in eighteenth century,[509] the feast\nof the _Expectatio Partus B.M.V._, was placed on the 18th December, the\nGospel for the Mass being that of the Annunciation.\n\nThe sermons of Proclus already referred to give rise to an important\nobservation. This preacher in other passages of his works enumerates the\nfestivals celebrated in his time and in his diocese, among which, strange\nto say, the Annunciation does not appear.[510] Since there are not only\ntwo sermons of his composed for this feast, but the day itself is clearly\nmarked out as a festival, this contradiction can only be explained by\nthe fact that in the fifth century the Annunciation was kept simply as\na festival inside the Church, but had not yet won its way to public\nrecognition.\n\nIf the conception of the ecclesiastical year taken in Section I. of this\nchapter be assumed as correct, the Annunciation is most suitably observed\nin Advent, where it was correctly placed in the ancient Spanish liturgy.\nBut owing to the fact that the Eastern Church did not sufficiently carry\nout the idea which underlay the ecclesiastical year, the feasts of our\nLady were not incorporated therein, but were treated as ordinary saints\u2019\ndays by being tied down to fixed dates. And so it comes to pass that with\nus the Annunciation, instead of coming in Advent, falls in Lent, and from\ntime to time even in Holy Week, where it is singularly out of place. In\nNorth America, when this feast falls on one of the three last days of\nHoly Week or in Easter Week, it is now transferred, which on the whole\nmay be regarded as a desirable arrangement.\n\n\n(3) THE DEATH AND ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY\n\nIn all probability this is the earliest of our Lady\u2019s feasts. From the\nbeginning, there was a general sentiment in the Church which led to the\ndays on which the martyrs suffered being kept as solemn commemorations.\nThe same thing took place at a later date with regard to the other\nclasses of saints\u2014confessors, virgins, etc.\u2014and so Christian sentiment\nwas soon directed towards the question of our Blessed Lady\u2019s death. It is\nhighly probable, if not certain, that the feast of our Lady, mentioned\nabove as having been celebrated by the monks in Palestine, was that which\nwe are now considering. Both in the East and in Rome the 15th August was\nkept as the day of our Lady\u2019s death, while we find another date observed\nin Gaul.\n\nAs regards the references to the decease of the Holy Virgin found in\npatristic literature, we find Epiphanius alluding to it, but in such\ngeneral terms as to show he knew nothing about it for certain.[511]\nThen we have a letter of the so-called Areopagite Dionysius containing\nthe essential points of the tradition for the death and burial of the\nHoly Virgin, which we find later on in St John Damascene. The date of\nthis letter depends upon the view taken of the author and date of the\npseudo-Dionysian writings. The garden of Gethsemani is named as the place\nof burial.[512] The same tradition appears in the apocryphal Apocalypse\non the \u201c_transitus_\u201d of Mary, where the year of her death is given as\nthe third after our Lord\u2019s resurrection,[513] while other authorities\ngive it as the twelfth.\n\nThe chief authority, however, for the event is St John Damascene. Relying\non the history of an otherwise unknown Euthymius, he describes the\ncircumstances in detail. According to this informant, Pulcheria, wife\nof the Emperor Marcian (450-457), had erected a Church in honour of the\nHoly Virgin in the suburb of Constantinople called Blachern\u00e6, to which\nshe wished to translate the earthly remains of our Lady. With this end\nin view, she addressed herself to Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem during\nthe sitting of the Council of Chalcedon, but he informed the Emperor\nand Empress that the body of the Mother of God was not to be found in\nJerusalem. She had indeed been buried there in the Garden of Gethsemani\nin the presence of all the Apostles; Thomas alone was absent, and only\narrived on the third day after the burial; in order that he too might\nvenerate the body of the Mother of God, the tomb was opened, but nothing\nwas found save the linen grave-clothes, which gave forth a fragrant\nperfume. Whereupon the Apostles concluded that our Lord had taken up into\nheaven the body which had borne Him. In his panegyric on the Holy Virgin,\nModestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (\u2020 634), states that already in the\nseventh century there was a special festival in Jerusalem to celebrate\nher decease (\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In addition, we have sermons dealing with this\nevent by Andrew of Crete (\u2020 720 _circ._) and Germanus, Patriarch of\nConstantinople (\u2020 733).[514] The bodily assumption of Mary into heaven\nwas already known in the West in the sixth century, and is alluded to in\nGregory of Tours.[515]\n\nThe Emperor Maurice is said to have appointed the festival of our Lady\u2019s\ndeath (\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), and fixed it on the 15th\nAugust. Although this information is given by an historian of a much\nlater date,[516] it must not be altogether set aside. Maurice may well\nhave given official recognition to the festival, and by so doing settled\nthe question of the day on which it was to be kept. The festival itself\nwas, however, much older, for not only the heretical sects, which\nseparated from the Church in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites\nand Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their separation,\nbut most ancient national Churches, such as the Armenian and Ethiopian,\nhave it in their Calendars. Accordingly the 15th August must have already\nbeen generally regarded in the Church as the day of our Lady\u2019s death\nbefore the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, although not mentioned by\nhistorians of that time.\n\nWe have unfortunately no information concerning the introduction of this\nfestival in Rome. All we know is that it was celebrated there along with\nour Lady\u2019s Nativity and Annunciation under Sergius I., at the end of the\nseventh century. About 847 Leo IV. ordained that it should be celebrated\nwith a vigil and octave in the basilica of St Lawrence without the Walls.\nIn the Gothico-Gallican missal of the seventh or eighth century, edited\nby Mabillon,[517] the festival is placed on the 18th January,[518] and\nnot on the 15th August, as is also the case in the Lectionary of Luxeuil\nof the seventh century. This circumstance points to the conclusion\nthat, independently of Byzantine influence, it was observed already at\nan earlier date in other parts of the Church as well, and came into\nexistence spontaneously, so to speak.\n\nIt is also noteworthy that the feast appears already with the title\n_Assumptio_ in the canons of Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, composed\nsometime about the year 630.[519] In the canons ascribed to St Boniface\nsome amount of vacillation is observable. By the thirty-sixth canon of\nthe Council of Mainz, in 813, it is appointed as a feast for the whole\nFrankish Empire, while the earlier Council of 809 had decided nothing\nconcerning its adoption.\n\nAmong the Latins the festival did not at first bear the name _Assumptio_,\nbut was called _Domitio_ or _Pausatio_, corresponding to the Greek title.\nThis name left the particular object of the feast uncertain\u2014whether it\ncommemorated merely the decease or the bodily assumption of Mary into\nheaven. It was probably due to this that in the ninth century doubts as\nto the latter were here and there expressed.[520]\n\nUnlike both Easterns and Westerns, the Copts have placed the death and\nbodily resurrection of the Mother of God on the 16th January (21st Tybi).\nWe find it so in the _Synaxarium_ of the ninth century in Mai, and in\nthat of Michael of Atriba; while the older Calendar of saints belonging\nto the seventh century given by Seldenius has a \u201c_Planctus Domin\u00e6 Mari\u00e6_\u201d\non this day, which may well mean the same thing.[521]\n\nIn not a few German and Sclavonic dioceses a blessing of the fruits of\nthe field takes place on the 15th August. This is of ancient Germanic\norigin, but has been adopted into the Roman ritual. It seems to have\narisen from some popular custom connected with harvest.[522]\n\n\n5. _Institution and Spread of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception_\n\nThe two dogmatic definitions formulated during the pontificate of\nPius IX. had this in common that they came as a surprise to many,\nalthough they only set at rest questions which had been ventilated for\ncenturies. This is especially the case with regard to the doctrine\nof the Immaculate Conception, for the discussion of the question had\nbeen prolonged during a thousand years. Bound up with the discussion\nwas the contention whether the festival in question ought or ought not\nto be celebrated; and these two things, the theoretical treatment of\nthe doctrine, and the fortunes of the festival, were most intimately\nconnected with one another, and found at one and the same moment their\nfinal solution. Indeed, the festival has a longer history than the\ndoctrinal controversy. For the observation that Church festivals required\na long time from their inception\u2014which is for the most part to be looked\nfor in monasteries\u2014until they obtained general approbation and acceptance\nfrom the ecclesiastical authorities, applies to many festivals; but none\nhas had so long and changeful a history as the festival of the Immaculate\nConception of the Mother of God. It has now, for the last fifty years,\nbeen celebrated as a festival of obligation throughout the Catholic\nChurch, and has even been adopted in those countries which formerly set\nthemselves most strongly against the increase of ecclesiastical holy days.\n\nOur object is to give a comprehensive and detailed history of the\nvicissitudes of this festival, while leaving aside the history of\nthe doctrine. Naturally they cannot be kept entirely distinct, still\nthe latter shall only be touched upon in so far as is necessary for\nthe elucidation of the history of the feast.[523] Passaglia and his\ncollaborator Clemens Schrader, S.J., in their well known work, \u201c_De\nImmaculato Deipar\u00e6 Conceptu_\u201d (Rome, 1854 and 1855, 3 vols. 4to.), have\ngiven us a rich and noteworthy collection of materials for this purpose.\nWe must do justice to the immense learning expended upon this work both\nin its dogmatic and historical sections, but the historical explanations\ncan no longer be regarded as satisfactory. On the one hand, subsequent\ninvestigations have brought fresh facts to light which give a new turn to\nthe history; and, on the other, Passaglia was deficient in the critical\nfaculty, and merely in order to marshal as many proofs as possible, he\nmade use of several which cannot stand close investigation, and must be\nset aside if the whole question is not to be misrepresented.\n\nFor the correct understanding and examination of the sources of evidence,\nit must first be observed that anciently both among the Greeks and the\nLatins the term _conceptio_ (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) was taken in the active sense,\nwhile we are accustomed to take it in the passive sense. _Conceptio\nMari\u00e6 Virg._ signified then the conception of Christ by Mary, while the\n(passive) conception of Mary was called the _Conceptio S. Ann\u00e6_.\n\nThus it follows that the festival of \u201cthe Conception of Mary\u201d and\nthe festival of \u201cthe Immaculate Conception\u201d are not the same thing.\nOriginally only a _festum Conceptionis B.M.V._ was celebrated, and only\nin course of centuries has a _festum Immaculat\u00e6 Conceptionis_ been\nevolved therefrom. This must not be regarded as a mere question of terms\nwhich might be employed interchangeably. Passaglia has not sufficiently\nemphasised this distinction, and consequently his presentation of the\nfacts creates the impression that there was already in the fifth century\na festival of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is altogether\nerroneous. The simple statement of the facts will make this clear, and\nshow that in the course of centuries the feast originally celebrated\nas the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was changed into a feast\nof the Immaculate Conception. This change came about in proportion\nas the matter was made clearer by dogmatic discussion, and as the\ndoctrine of Mary\u2019s exemption from original sin gained adherents in the\nschools. Even when this doctrine had found general acceptance in the\nWest, and had authoritatively received the support both of conciliar\ndecrees and of papal dogmatic decisions, the ancient title of the feast\nstill remained in use for a long time. If we consult the service-books\nprinted before 1854, we find in them indeed on the 8th December the\n_festum conceptionis_, but the word _immaculata_ is nowhere found in the\noffice for the feast. An orderly representation of the historical facts\nconcerned will show how this was brought about.\n\nEvidence shows that the feast of our Lady\u2019s Conception arose in the\nEastern Church, and had gained civil recognition in the Byzantine Empire\nat a time, when in the West, ecclesiastical circles were still debating\nwhether or not its celebration ought to be permitted. In a constitution\nentitled, \u201cConcerning the days of the year which are whole holidays\nand half holidays,\u201d the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1166 recognised it\nas a public festival on which servile work was forbidden. Now it is a\nknown fact that the civil authorities are slow to give recognition to\necclesiastical festivals, and accordingly festivals have often been\ncelebrated by the Church for a long period before they received the\nrecognition of the State. So it was in this case. The Calendar of the\nChurch of Constantinople in which the feast of the 9th December is\nmarked as the \u201cfestival of the Conception of St Anne, the mother of the\nTheotocos,\u201d is a century and a half older than this constitution. It\nbears the name of the Emperor Basil, meaning the second of this name\nsurnamed Porphyriogenitus (976-1025), and, accordingly, it follows that\neven then the festival had received some lesser degree of recognition\nfrom the State.[524]\n\nConcerning the date of the introduction of this feast, we have detailed\ninformation in a sermon of John of Eub\u0153a, who lived in the middle of the\neighth century. He was first a monk and then Bishop of the island, and\nwas contemporary with St John Damascene, whom he occasionally visited.\nJohn declares that there are ten points in the life of the Holy Virgin\nwhich must be commemorated, and these he enumerates in the tenth section\nof his sermon. The most of them are at the same time feasts of our\nLord, the only ones entirely relating to our Lady being her Nativity,\nAnnunciation, and Assumption. With regard to the feast of our Lady\u2019s\nConception, John hesitates. First of all, in the passage referred to\nabove, he enumerates it among the feasts, but at the end of his sermon he\nstates that it is not acknowledged by all,[525] but he speaks highly in\nits favour, and considers in conclusion that it ought to be celebrated.\nFrom this it is plain that in his time the feast was not yet generally\naccepted, and that he exerted himself to spread it. If Passaglia, who\nquotes this sermon as evidence for the feast, had noticed this passage,\nhe would have learnt that in the eighth century the festival had not yet\nbecome generally popular in purely ecclesiastical circles, such as among\nthe specially devout and the religious, and he would have avoided the\nmistake of throwing back the inception of the feast to the fifth century\nin reliance on an interpolated and much later _Typicum S. Sab\u00e6_.[526]\nJohn mentions the 9th December as the day of the feast. The contents of\nthis sermon of his are in other respects of no importance.\n\nGeorge of Nicomedia, who lived about a century later, is the second Greek\npreacher of whom we possess a sermon for this festival.[527] It bears\nthe title, \u201cConcerning the Conception of St Anne,\u201d and was delivered\nupon a festal occasion (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), and the day is already distinctly\ncalled a feast (\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae). George considered it no longer necessary to\nmerely commend the acceptance of the feast, but regarded its adoption as\na matter of course. He reveals, however, the comparatively late date of\nits institution, by saying that the day was not to be kept \u201cas one only\nrecently added to the Calendar, but as one adopted on the best grounds,\nsince it naturally belonged to the course of the year and is prescribed\nby the nature of things. In doing so we become partakers of the joy it\npromises.\u201d\n\nAs far as the East is concerned these two witnesses are sufficient,\nespecially as they throw light on the date of the institution of the\nfeast. As in other cases, so here the origin of the feast is doubtless\nto be sought in religious communities. They were the first to think of\nhonouring this act of redemption. It was certainly the monks, to whom\nis due the development of the Church\u2019s psalmody, who in their canonical\nhours celebrated Mary\u2019s Conception, and appointed a special day for this\npurpose, the 9th December, which was always kept as such in the Greek\nmenologies. In course of time the feast issued forth from the limits of\nthe monasteries, and from the inner circles of the devout, and attained\npublicity. Preachers glorified it. It met with a sympathetic reception in\never widening circles, until it gradually attained the rank, if not of\na feast of obligation, at any rate, of a simple feast of devotion, and,\nfinally, it obtained both ecclesiastical and civil authorisation.\n\nThe Byzantine Empire comprised during the whole of the period of which\nwe have been speaking, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. In the eighth\ncentury Byzantium was no longer able to retain its hold over the duchy of\nRome and the Exarchate of Ravenna; at a still later date it lost Apulia,\nCalabria and Sicily, especially when the Normans settled in those parts.\nIt retained its hold over the city of Naples longest of all; it was only\nin 1127 that Naples was taken by Roger II., who had himself crowned king\nof the Two Sicilies in 1130.\n\nThe constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 mentioned above was never\npromulgated in Naples, and had no force there, but the connection with\nByzantium had lasted sufficiently long for the feast of Mary\u2019s Conception\nto obtain an entrance into Naples. That it actually did make its way\nthere is proved by the Calendar of the Neapolitan Church of the ninth\ncentury, engraved on marble, and showing traces of Byzantine influence,\nwhich was discovered in 1742 in the Church of San Giovanni Maggiore.\nApart from the historical facts which we have mentioned, the name and\ndate of the feast\u2014_Conceptio S. Ann\u00e6_, and the ninth December\u2014show a\nByzantine origin. And so in respect of the history of this feast, Naples,\nalong with Lower Italy and Sicily, must be classed with the Eastern half\nof the Catholic Church as celebrating a feast, of which at Rome no one\nhad as yet thought.\n\nFrom all this it follows that the feast of Mary\u2019s Conception was known\nin the Byzantine Empire as early as the beginning of the eighth century,\nalthough under a different name from that which it now bears. Was the\nfeast, in its essential idea, the same as ours? This question the\nreader may answer for himself. There is much doubtless in favour of\nan affirmative answer. Greek writers refer to our Lady in the highest\nconceivable terms, as can be amply proved from the lections of the office\nfor the 8th December now in use. They exalt her not merely above all\nmen, but absolutely above every creature. Moreover, the feast of the\nConception has a meaning only when the conception is regarded as sinless,\njust as the Greeks celebrate a commemoration of the conception of St\nJohn the Baptist solely On the ground that John was sanctified in his\nmother\u2019s womb. In all other cases, it is not the birthday of the saints\nwhich is kept, but the day of their death. All this tells in favour of\nthe affirmative. But on the other hand, the fathers of the Eastern Church\nhave never either used or even discovered the specific terms to designate\nthe Immaculate Conception, nor have they ever proposed the question if\nour Lady was free from original sin.\n\nIt is indeed very difficult to maintain the former view in the face of\nthe fact that the Greeks, at the present day, do not regard their feast\nof Mary\u2019s Conception as implying this meaning, but among them it is a\nfeast of little importance. Their Breviary contains the following notice\nof the feast: \u201cGod sent His angel to the pious couple Joachim and Anna,\nand announced to them that the barren would give birth, and so to prepare\nthe way for the conception of the Virgin. Thus the holy Virgin Mary was\nconceived in consequence of an announcement, but by means of man and from\nhis seed. For our Lord Jesus Christ alone was born in an ineffable manner\nof the holy Virgin Mary without the co-operation of man and his seed.\u201d\n\nThis announcement by an angel is based on an apocryphal legend, which\nappears in Byzantine sermons on our Lady, belonging to the eighth and\nninth centuries. Joachim, according to Jewish custom, desired to present\nan offering in the Temple, but was driven back and insulted by members\nof the tribe of Reuben because he was childless. This caused him so much\npain that instead of returning to his home, he sadly betook himself into\nsolitude. Anna, in her anxiety, prayed earnestly to God, and was informed\nby an angel she should give birth to a daughter richly endowed with gifts\nof grace. This legend derived from the _Proto-evangelium_ of James, and\npropagated chiefly in the sermons of John of Eub\u0153a and of Peter Siculus,\nwas also known in the West, and figures largely in works of art; as, for\nexample, in the beautiful picture in the cathedral at Augsburg, by Hans\nHolbein the Elder.\n\nThe Greek Breviary, however, shows that there was current among the\npeople a still stranger idea, which it strongly opposes, _i.e._ that Mary\nwas born on the seventh month after her conception, and so was what is\ncalled a seven months\u2019 child. The reason why it is worth while to allude\nhere to this will be plain later on. We may merely point out how all this\nshows the unimportant character of the festival among the Greeks.\n\nIt was otherwise in the West.[528] Here the festival in question makes\nits appearance on the scene just as its development in the East came to\nan end. To the tentative attempts at the introduction of this festival in\nmonasteries, and among the inner circles of the devout, there followed\nits acceptance by several dioceses, not however without opposition.\nThe theoretical discussion over the warrant and significance of the\nfestival accompanied the early instances of its official introduction.\nThese discussions lasted through centuries, and were only brought to a\nconclusion in our own times.\n\nIn attempting to trace out its introduction in detail, it must be borne\nin mind that we are treating of what was in the first instance a festival\nof the Conception only, not of the Immaculate Conception; that it was\nnot a public holy day of obligation, but only a religious commemoration\nconfined to the four walls of the churches; and, finally, that when it\nwas adopted by some religious order or celebrated in some monastery, it\ndoes not follow that it was at the same time adopted by the diocese or\ncountry wherein such a monastery was situated.\n\nClear and detailed evidence for its introduction comes to us first of all\nfrom England. The individuals who more or less exerted themselves in this\nconnection were a certain Elsinus or Helsinus, a monk of St Augustine\u2019s,\nCanterbury, and later Abbot of Ramsay in the diocese of Winchester\n(1080-1087), St Anselm of Canterbury and his nephew of the same name,\nOsbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, Warinus, Dean of Worcester,\nAbbot Hugh of Reading, and finally, the historian Eadmer.[529] Further\nparticulars concerning these persons will be found in the appendix.[530]\n\nWe begin with the history of Elsinus, or Helsinus. He is not an imaginary\npersonage, but one whose story is historically true. He was monk at St\nAugustine\u2019s, and then Abbot of Ramsay under William the Conqueror. A\nlegend, current in the middle ages in various forms as either a sermon\nor a letter of Anselm the Elder, states that he was sent by William with\npresents to the King of Denmark, in order to discover if he contemplated\nan invasion of England. Having fulfilled his embassy, he was overtaken on\nhis return voyage by so severe a storm that the ship seemed about to be\ndashed in pieces. As all were invoking our Blessed Lady in this moment\nof peril, a form arrayed in episcopal vestments appeared, which was\nsupposed to be St Nicholas, the patron of sailors. He addressed Elsinus\nby name, and promised him he would be saved, if he in his turn promised\nto celebrate the feast of our Lady\u2019s Conception annually on the 8th\nDecember, and to exhort others to celebrate it also. Elsinus promised,\nand all were saved.[531]\n\nThis legendary narrative was adopted formerly for the lections in the\nBreviary,[532] but more recently it has been altogether discredited. The\nlearned Maurist Gerberon, editor of St Anselm\u2019s works, in particular\nhas objected to this narrative on the grounds that after the battle of\nHastings in 1066, William returned to Normandy, and the landing of the\nDanes followed immediately. Gerberon has overlooked the fact that since\nElsinus undertook this journey as Abbot, not as a simple monk\u2014which in\nitself would have been highly improbable\u2014it must be placed between 1080\nand 1087, not in 1066. However, although the story be a legend, yet this\nmuch is true, that Elsinus did introduce the feast of the 8th December\ninto his monastery.[533]\n\nThat Anselm the Younger introduced it into his monastery at Bury St\nEdmonds is proved by two letters, dating from 1128-29, of Osbert\nde Clare, a zealous defender of the doctrine. He laments that two\nbishops, Roger of Salisbury and Bernard of St Davids, have opposed the\nintroduction of the feast. They had even held a Synod, and forbidden the\nfeast as an absurd novelty. This fact, and also the circumstance that\nOsbert himself in a sermon on the 8th December made no mention of the\nImmaculate Conception of Mary from fear of the opponents, as he himself\nsays, show how strong the opposition to both feast and doctrine must have\nbeen among the Anglo-Saxon secular clergy of that period.[534]\n\nFrom what has been said it can be regarded as historically certain\nthat the feast of Mary\u2019s Conception was observed in many Benedictine\nmonasteries in England, about the year 1128\u2014in Ramsay, Bury St Edmonds,\nReading, Worcester and Westminster.[535]\n\nPossibly also in some others, but in no case was the feast celebrated\noutside the walls of the monasteries.[536] It must have encountered\nopposition, for important personages, both ecclesiastical and secular,\nlooked upon it with disfavour, and it was still very far from gaining\nthe support of the secular clergy, of bishops and synods. Indeed one\nsynod of the period forbade the feast altogether. Its adoption followed\nonly in the fourteenth century. When we bear in mind the ecclesiastical\nand civil circumstances of the times, we are astonished to find how such\na novelty\u2014for so the feast is called in the writings already quoted\u2014could\nhave made its way to England first of all. For, in the eleventh century,\nthat country was torn by internal strife, and invaded by foreign foes;\nwhile the national clergy, according to the statement of a contemporary\nEnglish historian, were sunk in simony and worldliness.[537] That\nis scarcely the atmosphere suitable for the inception of a feast so\nintimately connected with the inner religious life of the community.\nFor this some impulse from without was required. Such an impulse came\nindirectly from the East through intercourse with Normandy, whence so\nmany learned and zealous monks and clergy came to England after the\nconquest. The political, or rather dynastic, connection of the country\nwith Normandy dates not only from the battle of Hastings in 1066, but\ngoes back to the times of King Edward the Confessor, whose wife Emma was\na Norman princess.\n\nThe official introduction of the feast of our Lady\u2019s Conception in\nEngland only commenced in the thirteenth century, and only spread\nslowly. The provincial Synod of Oxford in 1222, Canon VIII., refused\nto recognise it as a feast of obligation, although it established its\nprivate observance. The diocesan Synod of Worcester does not mention\nit in its list of festivals. On the other hand it was celebrated at St\nAlbans in 1228,[538] and the diocesan Synod of Exeter in 1287 formally\nadopted it by a decree which naturally affected that diocese alone.\n\nIn Normandy the feast, whose celebration found in England precarious\ntoleration in the retirement of the cloister, was already introduced\nby the secular clergy without encountering any opposition. This is\nstated by Osbert himself when he remarks in his letter to Anselm how,\non the other side of the channel, the feast had been solemnly kept by\nsome bishops.[539] If these words do not apply to Normandy, we should\nlike to know of some other country on the Continent where the feast was\nthen observed. It is certain that it was kept at Rouen under Bishop\nRotricus (1165-1183), and placed on a level with the feast of the\nAnnunciation.[540] Owing to the law that, in the province of Rouen,\nconsisting of six dioceses, the daughter churches must follow in their\nritual and Breviary the use of the metropolitan Church, this feast would\nsoon be celebrated all over Normandy.[541] When the Corporation of\nNorman students at the Paris University chose it as their particular\nfestival, it was not a mere fancy on their part, but must have had its\norigin in the ecclesiastical observances of their home. Still less must\nthis fact have been the cause why the feast in the middle ages went\nby the name of the \u201cNorman\u2019s feast\u201d (_festum nationis Normannic\u00e6_).\nThis name can only have come into existence because the feast had been\nzealously celebrated in Normandy for a long time, by all the people,\nbefore it was kept in any other country of the West. Henry of Ghent,\na member of the Sorbonne, distinctly declares this to have been the\ncase.[542] The Normans, however, could not have been the originators\nof the feast. Doubtless they got their knowledge of it in Lower Italy,\nwhere it had been observed for a long time, after they had begun to\nsettle there. Those who are unwilling to adopt so rationalistic an\nexplanation of the matter, draw attention to the fact that the two\nAnselms, the earliest known propagators of the feast in England, were\nnot uninfluenced by other Eastern forms of showing honour to our Blessed\nLady. This is shown not only by Anselm\u2019s hymns on the Mother of God, in\nwhich the refrain, _Ave sponsa insponsata_, has been adopted from the\nso-called _hymnus acathistus_, but also by an entry in an Irish Calendar\n(upon which too much stress has recently been laid), in which Mary\u2019s\nconception is put down on the 3rd May, in accordance with the ridiculous\nGreek legend,[543] that Mary was born seven months after her conception.\nGranting that this entry really belongs to the ninth century, it is only\nevidence of monastic learning, but affords no proof for the existence of\nthe feast in Ireland. It only shows that the writer knew of the Greek\nfable in question, and made use of it for his Calendar.\n\nIt may be asked if the feast made its appearance in the West first of\nall in Normandy, and in England, which since 1066 had been politically\nunited with Normandy, or had been observed earlier elsewhere? Could we\nbelieve Passaglia, it had been celebrated already in Spain in the seventh\ncentury.[544] If so, it is impossible to think it could have disappeared\nlater on without leaving a trace behind. The genuine Mozarabic liturgy\ndoes not contain it, and in the oldest Spanish Calendars, _e.g._ that of\nToledo of the tenth century, published by Morinus, it does not appear.\nThe Jesuit Lesl\u00e6us, who wrote the introduction to the Mozarabic liturgy,\nadmits candidly that the feast came into Spain through France.[545] The\ntwo reasons which Passaglia gives for his opinion are worthless. He\nrelies upon a spurious life of St Isidore of Seville, which contains\nlater interpolations, while the genuine life written by Ildefons makes\nno mention of it, and upon a passage in the laws of the West Goths. But\nthis latter passage has to be taken as referring to the Conception of\nChrist by Mary in accordance with the terminology then in use. When the\nsame author wishes to make his readers believe that the feast existed in\nCremona already in the tenth century,[546] it has to be borne in mind\nthat Bishop Sicardus of Cremona,[547] in the thirteenth century, strongly\nopposed its introduction there.\n\nIt may be regarded as certain that the feast of our Lady\u2019s conception\nwas introduced into the Benedictine monasteries of England by the two\nAnselms at the end of the eleventh century. We must not, however, regard\nEngland as especially the home of the feast in the Latin Church, for both\nSt Anselm and his nephew had received their training in Normandy, which\nwas their second home. From thence they passed in later middle life to\nEngland, for William liked to fill the chief spiritual posts in England\nwith foreigners.\n\nWhen the author of the tract _De Conceptione B.M.V._ laments that\nthe feast met with much opposition both from clergy and laity, his\ncomplaints were well grounded, for the names of a number of famous men\nare known to us at the present day as having strongly opposed both\nthe feast and the doctrine which underlay it. For the most part they\nwere men of importance. We can name Roger of St Albans, Bishop of\nSalisbury, and Bernard, Bishop of St Davids (\u2020 1147). The former was\nminister and adviser of King Henry II., the latter chaplain to Queen\nMatilda. In France the most famous opponent of the feast was St Bernard,\nthe celebrated preacher Maurice de Sully (\u2020 1196), Bishop of Paris,\nand Peter of Celle, Abbot of Moutier-la-Celle, from 1181 Bishop of\nChartres.[548] It is especially remarkable that the greatest liturgists\nof the middle ages, Beleth, Sicardus of Cremona, and Durandus of Mende,\nall opposed the feast.[549] In Germany, the monk Potho of Pr\u00fcm may be\nnamed, although his views are obscure.\n\nThe conduct of St Bernard must be more closely examined. The opportunity\nof expressing his views was furnished by the circumstance that the\nCanons of Lyons commenced, about 1140, to celebrate the feast of our\nLady\u2019s conception, without having obtained the authority of the Holy See\nfor this \u201cnovelty.\u201d According to the then existing state of canon law,\nthe bishops had the right of arranging by themselves the festivals to\nbe celebrated within their respective dioceses. But St Bernard in his\nletter to the Canons makes no mention of the bishop. This is explained\nby the fact that the letter was written at a time when the Church of\nLyons was without any recognised head, and when St Bernard was exerting\nhimself with the Pope to obtain the confirmation of Fulco, the bishop\nelect.[550] It may well have been that in this matter the canons acted\ndespotically. St Bernard, however, does not bring this charge formally\nagainst them in his letter, but lays all the stress upon objections to\nthe inner significance of the feast. It was customary, he says,[551] to\ncelebrate the day of our Lady\u2019s birth, because she, like Jeremias and\nJohn the Baptist, had been sanctified before birth (fuit ante sancta\nquam nata). Mary could not be holy before she existed, but her existence\nbegan at her conception and that was not free from concupiscence. If her\nconception was to be regarded as holy, one must logically hold that her\nparents were already holy also. Christ our Lord was conceived by the\nHoly Ghost, and consequently His conception was holy and a feast of the\nChurch (Annuntiatio). Before taking any steps in the matter, St Bernard\nconcludes, the Apostolic See ought to have been consulted, to whose\nauthority he commits the matter. The Roman Church, to which he appealed,\nwas, however, in no hurry. More than three hundred years had to pass\nbefore she in any degree broke through her reserve on this question.\n\nThe effect of this letter is not known, but there is no doubt that\nduring the twelfth century the feast made steady progress in France.\nUnfortunately we possess only a few data to illustrate its development,\nfor the investigation into the ecclesiastical history of special\nlocalities requires to be more extensively taken in hand. In Rouen, the\ncapital of Normandy, it was certainly observed at that period, as we\nhave already seen. Next, its observance is prescribed by the statutes of\nLe Mans, in the Province of Tours, in 1247.[552] In Rheims it appears\nbetween 1261-1271. A more important fact is that the General Chapter of\nthe Franciscans, held at Pisa in 1263, decreed that the feast should be\ncelebrated throughout the entire order.[553] Although it did not attain\nto the rank of a feast of obligation for clergy and people, yet it\nbecame known throughout the world, and especially at the papal Court at\nAvignon, where Franciscan influence was strong. Finally the standpoint\nof the thirteenth century with regard to this feast is best summed up\nin the words of St Thomas Aquinas, \u201cAlthough the Roman Church does not\ncelebrate it, she allows other Churches to do so,\u201d[554] and in those of\nSt Bonaventure who justifies the keeping of a festival on the day of our\nLady\u2019s conception.[555] Accordingly the number of dioceses and provinces\nwithin which it was celebrated was constantly on the increase; for the\nfourteenth century we have Canterbury 1328; Treves between 1338 and\n1343;[556] Paderborn 1343; M\u00fcnster 1350;[557] Utrecht 1350; Brixen 1399,\nwhile other diocesan synods, _e.g._ Prague in 1355, did not yet adopt it.\nWhen it is asserted that the feast had been introduced at Li\u00e8ge under\nBishop Albero II. (\u2020 1145), it must be urged on the other side that the\nlist of feasts drawn up by the diocesan synod of Li\u00e8ge in 1287 makes no\nmention of it.[558] The synod of Cologne of 1308 does not mention it\neither, although it is contained in the Cologne Calendar of the same\ncentury. For Mainz we have the fact that this feast is employed for\ndating a decree of the year 1318.[559] In the province of Canterbury, the\nfeast obtained official recognition only in 1328, _i.e._ two hundred and\nnineteen years after the death of those who had first exerted themselves\nin its favour.[560]\n\nAs far as Canon law and the liturgy are concerned, the feast of the\n_Conceptio B.M.V._ remained in the fourteenth century as incomplete as\nit had been in the twelfth and thirteenth. Generally speaking, however,\neach bishop had then the right of appointing the festivals for his own\ndiocese, but this right was always restricted to the appointment of\nthose festivals already recognised and permitted by the Church universal\nwhich he desired should be observed within his own diocese\u2014as, for\nexample, whether St Mary Magdalene should be kept as a holiday or not.\nBut in this case it was not a question of a feast already recognised by\necclesiastical authority, and its opponents could always object with\nreason: _Non est authenticum_.\n\nImportant if not decisive steps were at length taken by ecclesiastical\nauthorities in the fifteenth century. In the meantime, the doctrine,\nwhich had been defined and formulated by Duns Scotus was so widely\naccepted, except among the Dominicans, and enjoyed so much popularity\namong the people, who violently took sides on the question, that it was\npossible for the Council of Basel (which began by being ecumenical,\nbut became schismatical after its quarrel with the pope), to state in\nits thirty-sixth session, on the 17th September 1439, in answer to the\npetition of the theological faculty of Paris, that the doctrine that Mary\nby a special gift of grace had never been subject to original sin was\n\u201cpious and agreeable to the worship of the Church, the Catholic Faith,\nand the teaching of Holy Scripture.\u201d The Council forbade the contrary\ndoctrine to be taught. At the same time it renewed the decree in regard\nto the feast of \u201cher Holy conception, which was kept on the 8th December\nboth by the Roman Church and by others.\u201d[561] Granting that the Council\nwas ecumenical, all circumstances connected with the feast, with regard\nto both doctrine and ritual, were now formally settled. This decree was\nnot without effect, as soon appeared from the fact that in the Mainz\nBreviary of 1507 the lections for the second nocturn of the feast are\ndrawn from it. It also certainly influenced the further spread of the\nfeast, as soon appeared from its being expressly authorized and received\nby a provincial synod at Avignon, held under the presidency of a papal\nlegate in 1457.[562]\n\nAlthough the fathers of the Council of Basel were of opinion that the\nfeast was celebrated by the Roman Church on the 8th December, this was\nonly partially correct. The fact is that at Avignon, with the full\nknowledge of the Papal Court, it had been already celebrated without\nmeeting with any opposition from the authorities. So, too, in Rome it had\nbeen celebrated by religious in the churches of their monasteries. It\ncan well have been that Alvarus Pelagius (\u2020 1340), as we are informed,\npreached on this day in Rome; this, however, does not prove that the\ndiocese of Rome, or the Papal Court, had adopted the feast at that date,\nfor that, it would have been necessary to include the day in question in\nthe Calendar and treat it as a festival in the Missal and Breviary. And\nso it would appear that it was kept as a purely ecclesiastical holy day,\nand not as yet as a public official holiday with rest from servile work.\nNevertheless there were those at Basel who maintained it was a festival\nof the Roman Church.\n\nThe Franciscan order, as has been already said, added our Lady\u2019s\nconception to the number of the feasts observed by themselves. They\ncelebrated it everywhere where they had a church of their own, and also\nin Avignon and Rome during the residence of the popes. Other orders\nfollowed their example\u2014namely, the Benedictines, Cistercians, Carmelites,\nall of which had houses in Rome,[563] and so, since there were many\nchurches belonging to these orders in Rome, it might well seem as if the\nRoman Church herself kept the festival, all the more since the popes\nknew of it and tolerated the practice. In Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), a\nFranciscan ascended the Papal throne, and he it was who finally took the\ndecisive step in the direction of recognition instead of toleration.\nOn the 27th February 1477[564] he published the Constitution \u201c_Cum pr\u00e6\nexcelsa_,\u201d in which he granted indulgences on the feast. In particular\nhe granted to all those who on this day recited the office composed by\nthe Papal notary, Leonardo Nogaroli of Verona, and assisted at Mass and\nthe canonical hours, the same indulgences which his predecessors granted\nfor Corpus Christi. In this way the feast was adopted into the diocese\nof Rome, and made its way into the Calendar, Breviary and Missal, but\nonly as a purely ecclesiastical feast. It must also be observed that no\nadvance was made in the doctrine concerned, for the pope in his decree\nspeaks of a _Conceptio immaculat\u00e6_, or, as he expresses himself in\nanother place, _pr\u00e6libat\u00e6 virginis_, not of an _immaculata conceptio_.\n\nThis was not the only official act of Sixtus IV. in favour of the\nfeast. In 1479 he built a chapel in old St Peter\u2019s, which he dedicated\nand endowed in honour of our Lady\u2019s conception and in honour of the\nFranciscan saints, Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. In 1483,\nhowever, he was compelled to forbid, by a special constitution, the\nsupporters and opponents of the doctrine of Mary\u2019s exemption from\noriginal sin to call each other heretics. This proves that the strife\nbetween the two parties had then waxed warm. Even in Germany there\nwere bitter contentions concerning the point in question in Frankfurt,\nMarburg, Heidelberg, and at Bern in Switzerland.\n\nBy the decree of Sixtus IV., in 1477, the office for the feast was\nfinally prescribed for the diocese of Rome as a _duplex_, but not for\nother dioceses; these were free as before to adopt it or not. Clement\nVIII. raised it to a _duplex majus_. Clement IX., added an octave, and\nClement XI., by a decree of 6th December 1708, prescribed it for the\nwhole Church.[565] It had already been observed in Spain as a regular\nholy day of obligation, for Philip IV. petitioned Innocent X. for it\nand the pope had granted his request in a constitution of 10th November\n1644.[566] It was only in 1854 that it became, through the zeal of Pius\nIX., a holy day of obligation for the whole Catholic world.\n\nThe steps in regard to this feast taken by Rome were, as we have seen,\nseparated from one another by considerable periods of time. With regard\nto the significance of the feast, however, in spite of the declaration\nof the Council of Trent, a policy of delay and _laissez-faire_ was\nmaintained. The feast remained a simple _festum conceptionis_, and the\nidea of the _immaculata conceptio_ did not receive outward expression,\nexcept that Paul V. permitted the recitation on all free Saturdays of\nan _officium conceptionis B.M.V._, in which the _invitatorium_ is,\n\u201cImmaculatam conceptionem Mari\u00e6 virginis celebremus.\u201d\n\nPius IX. had a new office drawn up which he prescribed for use on the\n25th September 1863, in which the idea contained in the _invitatorium_ is\nexpressed beyond all doubt. Hymns expressing the same idea were inserted,\nand the bull \u201cIneffabilis\u201d was drawn upon for some of the lections, while\nfor others the preference was given to the homilies of the later Greek\nwriters. The pope\u2019s letter elevating the feast to the rank of a holy day\nof obligation for all Christendom received an enthusiastic reception\neverywhere. The rank of the feast was not increased. It was only by Leo\nXIII. that it was placed on an equality with the three chief festivals of\nthe year.\n\nIn tracing out the long process of development by which this feast passed\nfrom Byzantium by Lower Italy to Normandy and England, and from thence\nthroughout the entire West, our attention has been drawn especially to\nthe conduct of the Roman See. Passaglia endeavours by every means to\nmagnify the part it played, and to date its intervention as far back as\npossible. Still he is finally obliged to own that the Roman Church was\nnot the first to pay a special cultus to the Mother of God as conceived\nwithout original sin. But, he adds, she has done everything during the\nspace of five hundred years[567] for the glorification of this feast and\nfor the spread of the doctrine which forms its basis. It is difficult to\nsee what is gained by magnifying the part of the Roman See at the cost\nof historical truth. Others regard with satisfaction the fact that Rome\nin no way pressed matters forwards. In a question so much debated, Rome\ncould not have adopted a better course than to wait until the conviction\nof all Christendom, in so far as it was interested in the question, had\narrived at maturity. The Immaculate Conception had been the dominant\ndoctrine for a long period, and wanted nothing but the formal approbation\nof the teaching church.\n\n\n6. _The Lesser Feasts of Our Lady_\n\nWhile the number of lesser feasts of our Lady according to the existing\nRoman rite is very considerable, yet only a few of them come much before\nthe public, and the history of the most of them affords no points of\ngeneral interest. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the following:\u2014\n\n1. The Feast of the Name of Mary owes its origin to the devotion of\nthe faithful, and was first authorised by the Apostolic See for the\ndiocese of Cuen\u00e7a, in Spain, in 1513. It was abolished by Pius V., but\nre-established by Sixtus V., and finally prescribed by Innocent XI. to\nbe observed by the whole Church on the Sunday after the Nativity of our\nLady. This was done in 1683, on the occasion of the deliverance of Vienna\nfrom the Turks.[568]\n\nMaria, or Miriam, is the Greek form of Miryam, a name over the etymology\nof which many opinions were held in antiquity. Eusebius explains it\nto mean \u201cilluminatrix una vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris vel\nstella maris.\u201d[569] St Peter Chrysologus and St John Damascene derive\nit from the Syrian _mar_ (feminine _martha_), lady, which appears\nalso in the Roman breviary along with the other explanation, \u201cstella\nmaris.\u201d In the Middle Ages this was the usual, and even yet is the\nfavourite, explanation. O. Bardenhewer maintains that the only derivation\npermissible is from \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e\u200f, fat or stout, in the sense of the imposing\nor stately one. Those to whom Bardenhewer\u2019s derivation does not commend\nitself will be glad to hear that Professor Macke has had the happy\nthought to refer back to the first bearer of the name, Miryam, the sister\nof Moses, and to derive the names of both brother and sister from the\nEgyptian. In Egyptian it would be: _Meri jom_, which would be equivalent\nto Friend of Water, or Bride of the Sea, and so approaches more to the\nmeaning of _Stella Maris_.\n\n2. The Presentation of our Lady in the Temple[570] (Pr\u00e6sentatio B.M.V.,\n21st November). The story that Mary at the age of three years was brought\nby her parents to the temple in fulfilment of their vow, there to be\neducated, appears only in apocryphal writings,[571] but it fell in so\ncompletely with the ideas of religious, both in ancient and modern times\nin East and West, that it was not long before it asserted its influence\non the cycle of our Lady\u2019s Feasts. The commemoration appears officially\nfor the first time in the constitution of Manuel Comnenus, published in\n1166, as a fully recognised festival on which the law courts did not sit.\nThe date is the same as at the present day.[572] The feast was introduced\ninto the West by a French nobleman, Philip de Maizi\u00e8res, who spent some\ntime at the Court of Gregory XI. at Avignon in 1371 as representative\nof the King of Cyprus. He represented the manner in which the day was\ncelebrated in the East in such a way as to move Gregory to ordain it as\none of the festivals of the Papal Court. It soon made its way in other\nplaces also\u2014in Navarre in 1374, in Treves in 1381, in Metz in 1420, in\nCologne and elsewhere. In Rome it was introduced by Sixtus IV., and an\noffice for it was added to the Roman breviary without its recitation\nbeing imposed (_inter festa ad libitum_ and _pro quibusdam locis_). It\nwas only Sixtus V. who, in 1585, ordained it for the whole Church after\nit had been for a time suppressed by Pius V. The original office was\naltered under Clement VIII. Although the feast at first was regarded as\nunimportant, it attained in Prussia to the rank of a feast _in foro_,\nand this in an unexpected way, in 1893. It falls in Prussia on the third\nWednesday in November, and occupies a position midway between the movable\nand immovable feasts.\n\n3. The Visitation (_Visitatio B.M.V._) was formerly included among\nthe lesser feasts of our Lady, although the most prominent and popular\nof them. At the present day it has a higher rank (_duplex II. cl._),\nand, in certain localities, it has an octave. It used to be kept as\nan entire holiday. It is not only grounded upon Scripture, but the\nevent it commemorates is one of the most important related in the New\nTestament, both on account of the sanctification of St John the Baptist\nin his mother\u2019s womb, and because of its being the occasion on which the\nMagnificat was first uttered. Nevertheless this feast does not exist\namong the Greeks, but, on the 2nd July, they celebrate the translation of\nthe Holy Virgin\u2019s garment in the church of the suburb of Constantinople\ncalled Blachern\u00e6, which took place under the Emperor Leo I. in 469.[573]\n\nThe earliest traces of the feast are found in the thirteenth century.\nThey appear in different localities at about the same date, which may\nbe due to the fact that the newly founded order of the Franciscans had\nadopted the feast and promoted its celebration. It appears among the\nFranciscans as early as 1263, and received official recognition during\nthe great schism from Urban VI., and Boniface IX. in 1389. After the\nschism was healed, the Council of Basel was compelled in its forty-third\nsession, on 1st July 1441, to issue a decree authorising the feast, and\ngranting indulgences to those who assisted at divine service on the\nday. They felt obliged to adopt this measure, the feast not having been\nadopted within the obedience of the anti-pope.\n\nThere is nothing to show why the 2nd July was chosen for this feast, and\none must needs have recourse to surmise. There seem to be indications\nthat it is connected with the date of the Annunciation on the one hand,\nand, on the other, with the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the octave\nof which it immediately follows. It was regarded as probable that Mary\nhad chosen the time of Elizabeth\u2019s confinement for her visit, and had\nremained some time with her afterwards.[574] Perhaps, however, the real\nreason was that the Greek Church had already for some time kept this\nfestival of our Lady on the 2nd July. The feast was, moreover, kept on\ndifferent days in different countries. In Paris, for example, it was kept\non the 27th June; Archbishop John II. of Prague, who introduced it into\nhis province in 1385, placed it on the 28th April. Its proper place, if\nthe main idea of the ecclesiastical year were carried out, would be in\nAdvent.\n\n4. The Feast of the Holy Rosary (_Sollemnitas SS. Rosarii B.M.V._).\nTowards the end of the twelfth century we find it had become usual to\nuse the angelic salutation (St Luke i. 28), along with the salutation\nof Elizabeth (St Luke i. 41), as a prayer. This prayer was authorised\nand imposed by many councils. We have evidence to this effect from a\nsynod of Paris under Bishop Odo de Sully (1196-1208),[575] and, in the\nperiod immediately following, from the synods of Orleans, Durham (1217),\nTreves (1237), and elsewhere.[576] The new prayer was joined to the \u201cOur\nFather\u201d in such a way that ten \u201cHail Marys\u201d were recited after one \u201cOur\nFather\u201d fifteen times, each prayer being counted on a string of beads.\nThe originator of this form of prayer, called the Rosary, is generally,\nbut without foundation, considered to have been St Dominic. The custom\nof using a string of beads on which to count a stated number of prayers\nhad already been in existence for a long time, and only became general\nwhen the custom grew up of reciting one hundred and fifty \u201cHail Marys\u201d\nto correspond to the number of the psalms. This was called the \u201cMary\nPsalter,\u201d the Rosary, or the \u201cPsalter of the Laity.\u201d[577] When this form\nof prayer took shape is not exactly known, but it has quite recently been\nmaintained that St Dominic did not originate it, as is often affirmed.\nHis biographer and other contemporaries do not ascribe the invention of\nthe rosary to him. It is only at the end of the fifteenth century that a\nDominican, Alanus de Rupe (de la Roche), produced this story,[578] which\nunfortunately has found its way into the breviary. A notable improvement\nwas made in this devotion in the fifteenth century, by adding after the\nname Jesus in each Hail Mary the mention of some event in the lives of\nJesus and Mary bearing on the work of salvation, beginning with the\nmessage of the angel and concluding with the descent of the Holy Ghost\nand the Assumption. Among these, the five points taken from the Passion\nof Christ\u2014the so-called \u201csorrowful Mysteries\u201d\u2014form the centre, and\nthus the entire rosary now falls into three parts, each complete in\nitself.[579]\n\nBy this means the devotion gained a more definite meaning. The mere\nrecitation of the prayers is closely connected with meditation, and\neach mystery has more or less reference to some feast of our Lord or of\nour Lady, and so is brought into relation with the different liturgical\nseasons. It can thus to a certain extent be connected with the whole\ncycle of festivals of which indeed it was a sort of summary.\n\nIn its completed form the Rosary became the favourite devotion of all,\nhigh and low, clerical and lay, and a special confraternity, favoured\nby the popes and endowed with indulgences, was formed for its spread\nand encouragement.[580] The Rosary was a source of innumerable graces\nnot only to individual believers, but even Christendom as a whole had\nrecourse to its assistance in times of general distress and danger,\nespecially when pressed by the Turks. Remarkable answers to prayer,\namong which was numbered the victory of Lepanto (7th October 1571),\nfirst moved Pius V. to institute a feast in thanksgiving. Gregory XIII.\ngave stability to this feast by ordering in 1573 that in every church\npossessing a chapel, or at least an altar of the Rosary, it should be\ncelebrated as \u201cthe Feast of the Holy Rosary\u201d on the first Sunday in\nOctober. Clement X. granted the feast to the whole of Spain without this\nproviso. Clement XI. extended the feast to all Christendom in consequence\nof the victory gained at Peterwardein by Prince Eugene on the 5th August\n1716.[581]\n\nA commemoration much beloved by the people, is that of the Seven Dolors\nof Our Blessed Lady, which cannot be regarded as a festival in the usual\nsense of the term. It takes place on the Friday after Passion Sunday.\nIts introduction was prepared by the ascetic literature of the twelfth\ncentury, in which also its roots are to be sought. The pious monk Eadmer\nin his treatise \u201cOn the Excellencies of the Virgin Mary\u201d chapter v.\n(see App. x., page 446) deals with the share taken by Our Lady in the\nsufferings of her Son. The writing of an unknown author (_De Passione\nChristi et Doloribus et Planctibus Matris Ejus_, MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nclii.), attributed to St Bernard, while full of deep piety, is yet rather\neffeminate and sentimental. The third treatise belonging to this subject\nis composed by Amadeus, a disciple of St Bernard, Abbot and afterwards\nBishop of Lausanne (\u2020 1159), whose fifth homily is entitled _De Mentis\nDolore et Martyrio B.M.V._ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxxxviii., 1325-1331).\nHe deals with Our Lady\u2019s share in her Son\u2019s sufferings in a merely\ngeneral way and in outline. At a later date, the matter was treated in\nmore detail and with additions, so that the Seven Dolors of Our Lady\nwere the result. In this form, the matter was taken up by the Servites,\nwhose order came into existence in 1240, and to whom Innocent IX. in 1688\ngranted a second feast of the same name to be celebrated out of Lent on\nthe third Sunday in September.\n\n\n7. _The Feast of St Joseph.[582] The Cultus of SS. Joachim and Anne_\n\nDuring the first centuries of the Church\u2019s existence it was only the\nmartyrs who, as we have said, enjoyed religious veneration. It was\nprobably owing to this custom that no cultus was paid even to those\npersonages who had been closely related to our Lord during His earthly\nlife. St Joseph, our Lord\u2019s foster-father, is a striking instance of this\nlaw. Although mentioned as a \u201cjust\u201d man in Holy Scripture, and the object\nof occasional eulogies in patristic literature, he received universal\npublic veneration only at a late date. While we possess much information\nconcerning the tombs of the Apostles, and while even the graves of the\nOld Testament prophets have frequently had attention drawn to them,\ntradition has nothing to report concerning the death, burial, and relics\nof St Joseph.\n\nThe earliest traces of a direct cultus appears in one of the Coptic\ncalendars[583] published by Seldenius. In this \u201cJoseph the Carpenter\u201d\nis entered on the 20th July, as also in the somewhat later _Synaxarium_\nin Mai,[584] which at latest may belong to the ninth century. The\ndate, 20th July, had no influence upon other churches. The menology\nof Constantinople does not contain St Joseph\u2019s name, and even the\n_Basilianum_ only mentions him by the way on the 25th December, in the\nform of a commemoration. After the Nativity of our Lord, the Magi are\nfirst mentioned, and then St Joseph as spouse and protector of the Holy\nVirgin (\u1f41 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5). He has no special day of his\nown.\n\nIn the West, an Antiochene martyr called Joseph, otherwise unknown,\nappears in the so-called martyrology of St Jerome on the 20th March.[585]\nThis cannot refer to the foster-father of Christ on account of the\nmention of Antioch and the absence of any indication of the saint\u2019s\ncondition, although this transformation has taken place in some\nmartyrologies. With the unmistakeable title of foster-father of our Lord\n(_nutritor Domini_), St Joseph appears first in the martyrologies of the\ntenth century, as in one belonging to Fulda[586] and in others. As these\nare of private origin, and of merely local importance, it cannot be said\nthat the cultus of St Joseph had therefore become universal. Throughout\nthe whole Middle Ages it remained rather a private devotion, although\nnumerous traces of the esteem in which St Joseph was held, and even of\nexternal veneration paid to him by individuals are to be found.[587]\n\nIt was through the private devotion of many important or holy members\nof the Church that the public cultus of St Joseph came into existence.\nAmong these may be named St Bernard, St Gertrude, St Brigid of Sweden,\nand St Vincent Ferrer. Among the most enthusiastic and influential in\nthis respect was the Chancellor John Gerson, following the lead of his\nmaster Peter d\u2019Ailly, and, at a later date, the Abbot Trithemius. In\n1400, Gerson composed an office in honour of the Espousals of Joseph with\nMary, and urged the Council of Constance to take steps for the spread\nof the devotion. The way had been already prepared by the Franciscans,\nespecially St Bernardine of Siena, and Bernardine de Bustis, who showed\ngreat zeal for the worship of St Joseph.[588]\n\nThese attempts resulted in the approval given to the cultus by Sixtus\nIV.,[589] who inserted St Joseph\u2019s day in the Roman Breviary as a\nfeast with one lection (_festum simplex_). Under Clement XI. it was\nchanged into a feast with nine lections. Accordingly, at the end of\nthe fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, the 19th March\nbegan to be kept as St Joseph\u2019s day in the Missals and Breviaries of\nmany religious orders, _i.e._, the Carmelites, Hermits of St Augustine,\nPremonstratensians, Dominicans, Knights of St John; these were followed\nby the Benedictines and Jesuits, while the service-books of the\nCarthusians, Camaldules, Cistercians and Cluniacs of the same period\nremained without it.[590]\n\nOwing to the fact that later on, several royal personages such as the\nEmperors Ferdinand III. and Leopold I. of the House of Habsburg, and King\nCharles II. of Spain, were devoted to the cultus of St Joseph, Gregory\nXV. raised his festival to the rank of a festival of obligation in 1621.\nBenedict XIII. inserted his name into the Litany of the Saints, and Pius\nIX., on the 8th December 1870, conferred upon him the office of Patron of\nthe Universal Church.\n\nAmong the Greeks, the parents of Our Lady enjoyed a religious cultus\nfrom a comparatively early date, although all that was known of them was\nderived from the apocryphal _Proto-evangelium_ of James. Joachim and Anne\nalready had their own commemoration on the 9th September in the menology\nof Constantinople, and Justinian I. is said to have built a church in\nhonour of St Anne in Constantinople.[591] Their names are mentioned by\nEpiphanius[592] and appear in the oldest Neapolitan Calendar on the 9th\nSeptember, a circumstance which shows Byzantine influence, for among the\nSyrians their festival is kept on the 25th July.\n\nIn the West, however, their legend was received with considerable\nreserve, and although Pope Leo III. had their pictures placed in the\nchurch of _Maria ad Pr\u00e6sepe_, no trace of any liturgical commemoration\nappears in calendars before the Middle Ages. It is no proof that any\nspecial cultus was paid to them, that we find them occasionally mentioned\nin writings and spoken of as saints. It was only in 1378 that Urban VI.\nauthorised the worship of St Anne for the English at their own request.\nSixtus IV. especially approved of it,[593] and Gregory XIII., in 1584,\nappointed the 26th July for her feast. In the fifteenth century she was\nvenerated with special devotion in Germany, the town of Annaberg being\nnamed after her.\n\nAs regards Joachim, Julius II. is said to have approved of his being\ncommemorated with a special office on the 22nd March. Gregory XII.\nintroduced a new and improved office, and fixed the commemoration for the\nSunday within the octave of the Assumption. Leo XIII. raised it to the\nrank of a feast of the second class.[594]\n\nBaillet has some remarks concerning Our Lady\u2019s parents which are worthy\nof notice. He thinks that Mary at the time of her espousals to Joseph was\nan orphan; consequently, since her parents died before the death of the\nRedeemer, they were considered as belonging to the Old Testament, and\nwere not made the object of a cultus. Whether they were actually named\nJoachim and Anne is doubtful,[595] for Anna in Hebrew means \u201cGrace,\u201d and\nJoachim, \u201cPreparation of God.\u201d It is possible that owing to ignorance\nof their real names, these appellations were chosen for them. The names\nappear in Epiphanius only at the end of the fourth century.\n\n\n8. _The Festivals of the Apostles in General_\n\nThe cultus of the apostles followed the same lines of development as that\nof other saints. At first it was merely local, but although the tendency\nto observe the festivals of the apostles throughout the whole Church\nwas stronger than in the case of other saints, still their festivals\ndid not attain earlier to universal observance than those of ordinary\nsaints, that is to say, at the period of the compilation of universal\nmartyrologies, though there were, of course, some exceptions.\n\nThe earliest calendars of particular churches have, on the average, only\na few feasts of apostles, usually only one or two. It was only in course\nof time that the longing for completeness appeared, which in the tenth\ncentury was carried to such a pitch by the Greeks that they set down in\ntheir calendars not merely every personage who had received honourable\nmention in the New Testament, but even the Seventy Disciples, although\nthere was but slender authority for their names.\n\nFrom the first a difference was made between the apostles who had lived\nand worked within the existing boundaries of the Roman Empire, and those\nwho had ended their lives in barbarian countries. In the far East, there\nwas a second world-power similar to the Roman power in the West, _i.e._,\nthe empire of the Parthians, or that earlier Persian Empire of the\nAch\u00e6menides, which in its turn, again, had risen from the ruins of the\nancient empires of Babylon and Assyria. The Jews had obviously numerous\nrelations from old time with this Eastern Empire in consequence of their\nhistorical connection with it. After the return from exile, many Jews\nhad remained there, and probably many others returned thither at a later\ntime. In fine, the circumstances attending on the first Whitsunday show\nthat many Jews were scattered throughout those provinces. The Eastern\nEmpire consisted of a number of vassal states, which recognised a\nsupreme sovereign, the King of Kings, but, in other respects, remained\nindependent and sovereign, as for example, Armenia, whose inhabitants\nwere moreover closely allied by blood with the Persians.\n\nThe Jews, as Semites, had naturally more sympathy with these Easterns,\nonce their ancient grievances had been forgotten, than they had with the\nGreeks and Romans who, at the beginning of the Christian era, were their\noppressors. This explains why some of the apostles, some for life and\nothers only temporarily, betook themselves thither, and spent their lives\nthere in mission work and even ended their days in those parts. This is\nalso the reason why we have so little reliable information concerning\ntheir life and work, and why the days of their deaths were not celebrated\nfor so long a period in the West. The apostles who devoted themselves\nto the Eastern Empire were probably Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Simon\nZelotes, and Jude. Thaddeus also laboured there for a time in Mesopotamia\nand Osrho\u00ebne. No traces remain of the labours of Matthias who is said to\nhave preached to the Ethiopians, and of whose life, a writer of the ninth\ncentury, Autpert, Abbot of Monte Cassino, confesses nothing is known.[596]\n\nSeveral of the apostles have been commemorated from the first in the\ncalendars, and always on the same day, while others, on the contrary,\nappear on different days in different parts of the Church, a circumstance\nwhich seems confusing to the historical investigator, but which can\neasily be explained when one has correctly grasped the principles which\noperate in liturgical matters. With regard to those who have everywhere\nbeen commemorated from the first on the same day, one can usually be\ncertain that they died as martyrs in the Churches in question.\n\nAlthough the only correct view is to maintain that the commemorations\nof the apostles were treated in the same way as the days devoted to the\nmemory of the martyrs, and that their names appeared in the calendars\non the day of their death (_dies natales_), still this is true of only\na few indeed of their commemorations in the calendars actually in use.\nFor the majority of the apostles died in barbarian countries with no one\non the spot to collect information, and only much later a few floating\npieces of information concerning them were collected from popular\ntradition. Another difficulty may have arisen from the different systems\nof chronology in use, and so even when the day of an apostle\u2019s death was\nset down it was probably not understood by the Greeks and Romans, and so\nwas forgotten. For these and other reasons it came to pass that, later\non, when the commemoration of a certain apostle had to be fixed in the\ncalendar, the date of the invention or translation of his relics was\ngenerally chosen, or finally the date was fixed simply by chance.\n\nAs absolutely trustworthy, I can, therefore, regard only the day of the\ndeath of St Peter, St Paul, and St Andrew, perhaps also the day of the\ndeath of St Mark and St Luke, since they ended their days in civilized\ncountries, at a period when the hierarchy of the Church had already been\nestablished in those parts. With regard to St John, the question is open\nto doubt, first, because he did not die a martyr\u2019s death, and secondly,\nbecause he did not preside as bishop over a particular congregation. Had\nhe done so, the list of bishops for that particular city would have been\ncareful to inform us of the fact.\n\nAlthough the cultus of each apostle was originally local, yet there\nare early traces that the cultus became universal. Thus already in the\nfifth century a day within the octave of St Peter and St Paul seems\nto have been dedicated to the cultus of all the apostles in common.\nWe find in the so-called Sacramentary of Leo I. the following prayer:\n_Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui nos omnium apostolorum merita sub una\ntribuisti celebritate venerari_, etc. The same prayer appears also in the\nGelasianum, where it is found in _lib._ 2, No. 33.[597]\n\nA medi\u00e6val liturgist, Beleth, gave expression to the view that the\nseparate apostles had no special festivals in the primitive Church, but\nthat all together were commemorated on the 1st May,[598] and that finally\nonly St Philip and St James continued to be commemorated on this day. The\nfacts, however, as far as we have been able to learn, do not bear out the\nopinion of this writer which he inferred from the greater calendars, but\nthe festivals of each of the apostles came into existence one by one,\nfrom the ninth century onwards, until they reached their full number.\nThe council of Erfurt in 932 raised all feasts of apostles to the rank\nof holy days of obligation for Germany. Pope Boniface VIII. in 1293 made\nthem all _duplicia_.\n\nEven before the meeting of the Nicene Council, Constantine had built\na church in honour of all the apostles[599] in Constantinople, in\nwhich he was afterwards buried.[600] It was rebuilt under Justinian\nand re-dedicated on the 29th June 550, the feast of St Peter and St\nPaul.[601] This church had considerable influence upon the cultus of the\napostles inasmuch as under Constantius attempts were made to provide\nit with their relics, obviously with the intention of resembling Rome\nas closely as possible. The relics of St Timothy were first translated\nthither from Ephesus on 1st July 356, which caused a great increase\nof devotion to this saint. He had lost his life in a popular uprising\nin Ephesus under Nerva on 22nd January 97, of which his successor,\nPolycrates, has given us an account.[602] The church became possessed\nof a still greater treasure in the following year when the relics of St\nAndrew and St Luke were placed in it.\n\nAs we should expect from what has been said above, there exists\nhistorical material for the feasts of only a certain number of the\napostles, while others, as, for example, the feasts of St Matthew, St\nMatthias, St Bartholomew, and St Thomas, are of no further interest than\nto mark the translation of their relics.\n\nIn conclusion it may be useful to draw attention to the actual increase\nof the festivals of the apostles in the calendars. The _Leoninum_ has\nonly two, the 29th June and the 30th November. The lectionary of Luxeuil\nin the seventh century has the same number, _i.e._, the 22nd February and\nthe 29th June, that of Silos, about 650, has four (22nd February, 29th\nJune, 30th November, 27th December), and, in addition, the feast of St\nPeter\u2019s Chains. The calendar of St Genevi\u00e8ve (between 714-731) has the\nsame number, omitting St Peter\u2019s Chains. From this point the number of\nfeasts of the Apostles increases rapidly; the calendar of Charlemagne\nof 781 has eight already, and subsequent calendars contain ten or more.\nA singular peculiarity appears in the calendar of Polemius Silvius (see\nbelow) where we find only one feast of apostles, the 22nd February,\n\u201cDepositio SS. Petri et Pauli.\u201d The ancient Neapolitan calendar brings\nthe number up to sixteen days, giving two commemorations to some apostles\nand including the disciples Thaddeus and Barnabas.\n\n\n9. _The Festivals of the Apostles and Evangelists in Particular_\n\n\n(1) ST PETER AND ST PAUL\n\nThe 29th June, the commemoration of the martyrdom of the two chief\napostles, is the only feast of apostles that is still observed as a\npublic holiday. It can be regarded under two aspects as a universal and\nas a local festival. It is important as a local festival, because, since\na constant tradition maintained that St Peter and St Paul were put to\ndeath in Rome under Nero on the same day, it is only natural that this\nday should be kept in Rome as the _dies natalis ss. apostolorum_, in\nthe customary manner from the first, and so was never forgotten. But\neven in other localities, apart from Roman influence and tradition, we\nfind efforts made in antiquity to devote a day to the commemoration of\nthese same two apostles. This is proved by the fact that in the Arian\nmartyrology in use in the East, it had already a place, on the 28th\nDecember, after St Stephen and the apostles St James and St John. This\nis by no means an isolated phenomenon, for in the Armenian calendar it\nhas a corresponding place, _i.e._, on the 27th December, while in the\nNestorian calendar it appears on the second Friday after Epiphany.[603]\nIn Cappadocia, or at least in Nyssa, we find the Christmas season\nagain considered to be the suitable time for a collective feast of the\napostles, for the commemoration of the apostles Peter, James, John and\nPaul follows the Feast of St Stephen.[604] Even in the upper valley of\nthe Rhone, it was felt necessary to observe the day of the death of the\ntwo chief apostles, for the calendar of Polemius Silvius, which belongs\nto this region, contains the entry: _depositio ss. Petri et Pauli_, but\non the 22nd February, the day on which in other parts of Gaul the Feast\nof St Peter\u2019s Chair was celebrated. That this calendar gives no feast of\nany sort on the 29th June, shows that in his choice of the day, Polemius\nwas quite independent of the Roman tradition. The considerations which\nweighed with him in so doing will be explained further on.\n\nIn other parts of Italy, the true day of the apostle\u2019s death was\nwell known, and observed, as for example, at Milan in the time of St\nAmbrose.[605] Among the sermons of Maximus of Turin, belonging to the\nfifth century, we find no fewer than ten[606] for this feast. The sermons\nof St Augustine, among which are five for this festival, show that in\nNorth Africa the day was kept as a holy day; he speaks of it as a _dies\nfestus_ and a _sollemnitas_.[607] Moreover St Augustine belongs to the\nnumber of those Fathers who expressly state that although both apostles\ndied on the same day of the month, they died in different years,[608] a\nfact which the historical and biblical science of the day persistently\noverlooks, which naturally must cause serious misgivings as to the\nreliability of the principles on which its chronology is constructed.\n\nAmong the numerous sermons of St Peter Chrysologus there are none for\nthis day. As regards St Chrysostom, while we have seven sermons of his in\nhonour of the apostle Paul, we have only one \u201con Peter and the Prophet\nElias\u201d conjointly, in which St Peter is only briefly mentioned in the\nintroduction and treated as of secondary importance. There is nothing to\nshow that it was preached on the 29th June.[609] The fact that neither\nof these saints preached on this day, is an indication of the practice\nfollowed at Ravenna and Antioch.\n\nWith regard to Rome, the local tradition, which regarded the 29th June\nas the day on which both apostles were put to death, was committed to\nwriting by the chronographer of 354, and all later chronographers. A\nwestern tradition, supported by many of the great Fathers of the Church,\nadds further that, though both apostles died on the same day of the\nmonth, they died in different years. This idea appears in St Augustine,\nin the _Leoninum_, Arator, Gregory of Tours, and in three Greek writers,\nbut scholars have so far ignored it. It is further evident from the\n_Depositio Martyrum_ that the day of their death was specially chosen\nfor a translation of their relics which took place in 258. The special\nfestivities observed in Rome are described for us by Prudentius from what\nhe had seen himself when he visited the city about 405. According to him\nthe whole city was in commotion: the faithful visited the tombs of the\napostles and in the two churches erected in their honour, pontifical mass\nwas celebrated.[610] This is in complete agreement with the tradition\naccording to which devotion to the martyrs was closely connected with\nthe spot where they suffered and with the date on which they suffered,\nand the chief commemoration consisted in the offering up of the Holy\nSacrifice over their tombs. Owing to the distance which separated the\ntwo churches of the apostles from one another, it was most fatiguing to\ncelebrate mass at both places, and so in course of time the festival was\ndivided into two parts, and the Mass in honour of St Paul took place\non the 30th June. An examination of the earliest Roman missals shows\nthat in the _Leoninum_ there is a number of masses for this day, all\ncommemorating the two apostles together, but, in the _Gelasianum_, on the\ncontrary, there is only one mass for the two apostles conjointly (_III.\nKal. Jul. in Natali SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli_), and, in addition,\none for each of them separately. It may be that the division of the feast\nwas then customary, but the 29th June continued to be called _Natalis SS.\nApostolorum Petri et Pauli_. As early as the fifth century the feast was\nkept at Rome with a vigil and octave.[611]\n\nAt an early date, the 29th June, which had hitherto been celebrated\nchiefly in the West, _i.e._, in Rome and the surrounding districts, began\nto be observed as a universal festival of the whole Church, inasmuch as\nit began to be celebrated in Constantinople. The Roman Senator Festus,\nwho had been sent on matters of state to the new Emperor Anastasius,\nin 491, moved the emperor, according to Theodorus Lector, to celebrate\nthis feast solemnly in Constantinople.[612] Although the feast may have\nbeen kept already in Constantinople before this time, it now began to\nbe celebrated with greater pomp. The day must certainly have been known\nin Constantinople before this date, but can hardly have been kept as a\nfestival.\n\nAfter this the 29th June appears in all Calendars and martyrologies as\nthe commemoration of the two chief apostles. In the West we find it\nfirst in the Calendar of Perpetuus of Tours. The Carthaginian Calendar\nis unfortunately defective, but that the day was kept there cannot be\ndoubted on account of the evidence given by St Augustine\u2019s sermons. It is\nalso found in the later oriental Calendars, with the exception of a few\nbelonging to Egypt.[613]\n\nWhile this feast, like the festivals of all martyrs, was originally\nlocal, and was celebrated only in Rome and in the churches dependent upon\nRome, the esteem in which the Roman Church and the apostles were held\nearly gained for it the character of a universal feast.\n\n\n(2) THE FEAST OF ST PETER\u2019S CHAINS\n\nThe Roman breviary bases the foundation for this feast upon the following\nlegend. Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II.[614] since 421, was presented\nwith a chain at Jerusalem which was believed to have been that with which\nSt Peter was bound while imprisoned, as recorded in Acts, chap. xii. She\nbrought this chain to Rome, where another chain was already preserved in\nthe Church of St Peter on the Esquiline.[615] This is said to have been\nthe chain with which St Peter was confined during his Roman imprisonment.\nBoth chains appeared to be of the same workmanship, and united themselves\ntogether of their own accord. Whereupon the church was rebuilt at the\nEmpress\u2019s expense, and received the name of _Eudoxi\u00e6 ad Vincula_. There\nis no trustworthy proof for the presentation of the second chain by\nEudocia, although there is evidence that in Rome the faithful prided\nthemselves on possessing a chain of St Peter before this supposed gift\nof the Empress.[616] Under Benedict XIV. it was proposed to suppress the\nlections in the breviary containing these legends.\n\nThe feast of St Peter\u2019s chain is not in the _Gelasianum_, and appears\nonly in Calendars of the eighth century, as, for example, in that of\nBede, but not yet as a feast of obligation. The decree of the Emperor\nManuel Comnenus raised it to this rank in 1166. The spread of the feast\nwas undoubtedly facilitated by the circumstance that in 969 a courtier of\nthe Emperor Otho I. was healed in Rome by touching the chain.[617] That\nthe commemoration was fixed for the 1st August does not imply that this\nwas the day on which the apostle was set free from imprisonment; but in\nthis, as in other cases, the date of the Church\u2019s dedication caused this\nday to be chosen.\n\n\n(3) THE CONVERSION OF ST PAUL\n\nThe Conversion of St Paul was kept as a holiday of obligation in\nseveral dioceses of France and Germany, and especially in England.\nIt is uncertain where and when it first became so. It is not in the\n_Gelasianum_ nor in the older editions of the _Gregorianum_, but appears\nin the later texts of more recent editions, as a later addition, for\nit is still frequently lacking in later MSS. and Calendars.[618]\nNevertheless it appears in Ado and Usuardus. The 25th January seems\noriginally to have had another signification; for in the recent critical\nedition of the _Hieronymianum_ of De Rossi and Duchesne, the two oldest\nrecensions give on this day a translation of the relics of St Paul,\nwhich is said to have taken place in Rome (_Rom\u00e6_, _Translatio B. Pauli\nApostoli_). The most recent of the ancient codices, that of Metz, now in\nBern, belonging to the tenth century, has a translation and conversion of\nSt Paul on the 25th January. The idea of the conversion soon replaced\nthat of the translation, and fixed the character of the feast. As such\nit spread, and soon attained to universal acceptance. The translation\nwhich the feast originally commemorated is believed by De Waal to have\ntaken place in the time of Constantine, when the basilica of St Paul was\nerected[619] (_Translatio et Conversio S. Pauli in Damaso_, the words\n_conversio_ and _in Damaso_ being added by a later hand).\n\n\n(4) ST ANDREW AND ST LUKE THE EVANGELIST\n\nWe can deal with the festivals of these two saints together, for in the\nyear 357, on the 3rd March, their relics were solemnly translated at the\nsame time to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople.[620] Until\nthis date the tomb of St Andrew was in Patras, where he had suffered\ndeath. The previous burial place of St Luke is not specified, but it\nmay have been either in Patras or somewhere in the neighbourhood.\nThe possession of St Andrew\u2019s relics was of great importance to\nConstantinople, because he was regarded as the apostolic founder of\nthe Christian community there, and the catalogue of bishops, which,\nhistorically speaking, only begins with Metrophanes (315-325), has\nbeen carried back to him, inasmuch as it was maintained he had\nordained Stachys as first bishop of the See. More certain, from an\nhistorical point of view, is his martyrdom at Patras, of which we have a\ntrustworthy account.[621] Besides this, there is a well-known encyclical\nletter to the priests and deacons of Achaia, which in all essential\npoints agrees with the account of the martyrdom, although in some other\nrespects it is open to criticism.[622] The so-called martyrology of\nJerome on 5th February commemorates St Andrew\u2019s ordination as Bishop of\nPatras.\n\nThe date for St Luke\u2019s death never varied and seems to be correct. Both\ndates, the 18th October and the 30th November, appear in the oldest\nNeapolitan Calendar, which contains no other festival of an apostle\nexcept St James the Less (27th December). From the fact that the relics\nof St Andrew and St Luke happened to be translated at the same time,\nmany ancient and modern writers drew the hasty conclusion that St Luke\nhad also died in Patras and been buried there. A document which, though\ncertainly late, can yet be traced back to Philostorgius,[623] gives the\ntrue place of his death and burial as Thebes, which Paulinus of Nola\nconfirms. His relics may well have been translated thence at the same\ntime as those of St Andrew were brought from Patras. They were carried to\nConstantinople at the command of the Emperor Constantius by the official\nArtemius, who had also brought the relics of St Timothy to the capital.\n\n\n(5) ST JAMES THE GREAT\n\nJames, the son of Zebedee and brother of St John the Evangelist, was a\nnative of Galilee. His labours, after the Crucifixion, were not of long\nduration, for in the year 42 or 43 he was beheaded at the instigation\nof King Herod Agrippa I., who had enjoyed indeed the dignity of king of\nJudea since 37, but only during the last years of his reign did his power\nextend over Jerusalem. According to the usual custom he came to Jerusalem\nfor the Passover, and then, in order to gain favour with the Jews, he had\nSt James seized and made away with shortly before the feast; and when\nhe saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also, in\norder to make away with him too, after the feast. This happened not long\nbefore the death of Herod himself, which is narrated in the same chapter\nof the Acts (Acts xii. 1-4 and 23).\n\nThe day of St James\u2019s death was shortly before Easter, or, as we should\nsay, in Holy Week, and, in accordance with this circumstance, the Copts\nkeep his commemoration on the 12th April,[624] and the Syrian lectionary\nof Antioch on the 30th of the same month. Although these do not exactly\nrepresent the actual day of his death, they are not far off from it.\nThe observance of the actual day was, moreover, interfered with by the\ncircumstance that it came at a season when the thought of our Lord\u2019s\npassion prevented the celebration of a martyr\u2019s feast. In the menologies\nhe is mentioned only in the _Basilianum_ on the 9th October.\n\nThe bodily remains of St James, as well as those of St James the Less,\nwere still in Jerusalem in the sixth century.[625] In the ninth century\nwe find them in Spain, at Compostela, where they were an object of\ngreat veneration, as we learn from Notker Balbulus.[626] They must have\nbeen taken there some time between the seventh and ninth centuries. An\naccount of the translation, such as we possess in other instances, is\nnot extant; there is no information in any author to show when or by\nwhom the translation was carried out. The translation itself can well be\nhistorically true, although the opinion that St James preached the gospel\nin Spain is only a legend.[627] One is led to think that the relics were\nsecretly carried off by Christians from Jerusalem from fear of the Arabs,\nand finally found a second resting-place in Spain.\n\nThe Roman breviary and martyrology place his feast on the 25th July,\nwhich is marked as the day of a translation of his relics, without\ngiving any further particulars. The _Gelasianum_ does not mention St\nJames, and he appears in liturgical books only at the end of the eighth\ncentury. His name is entirely absent from the older liturgical books of\nthe ancient Spanish Church, an inexplicable circumstance had he been\nthe apostle of Spain. The veneration for him begins to show itself in\nSpain only from the ninth century. In Western Calendars he appears in\nthat ascribed to Charlemagne of 781, published by Piper, and also in\nthe later MSS. of the _Gregorianum_, but not in the sacramentary of\nMainz dating from 840. The entries in the different recensions of the\n_Hieronymianum_ are noteworthy. The Weissenburg codex on the 25th July\nhas simply a martyr James, with no other specification except _Portus\nRomanus_ as an indication of place; the Echternach codex describes\nthis martyr as _apostolus_ and _frater Joannis Evang._,[628] and adds\n_Hierosolym_; the codex of Bern has briefly _Passio S. Jacobi_. It is not\nevident on what grounds the two later recensions have made James, the\nmartyr of _Portus Romanus_, into the apostle. The _Neapolitanum_ does not\nmention an apostle James on the 25th July, although it does on the 15th\nNovember,[629] and, along with Philip, on 1st May. Although he is found\nin Bede, he is absent from the Calendar of St Genevi\u00e8ve, dating from\n731-741.\n\n\n(6) ST PHILIP AND ST JAMES THE LESS\n\nIt is well known that in early days lists were drawn up containing the\nnames of those bishops at least who had presided over the chief sees,\nalong with the duration of their episcopates. Since some apostles had\nacted as bishop in certain cities for a length of time, while others\u2014as,\nfor example, St Paul\u2014never settled down for long in one place, the\nformer, in addition to their martyrdom, had a yet further claim to be\ncommemorated. This is the case with St Peter, St James the Less, and St\nMark.\n\nSt James the Less, son of Alpheus or Clopas, immediately after Christ\u2019s\ndeath was entrusted with the office of Bishop of Jerusalem by the other\napostles, which he held for thirty years.[630] His death was caused by\nthe High Priest Ananias II., who availed himself of the interregnum\nthat intervened between the death of Porcius Festus and the arrival of\nthe new procurator Albinus. Gessius Florus succeeded Albinus in A.D.\n64. St James\u2019s death, according to St Jerome\u2019s precise statement, fell\nin the seventh year of Nero. According to St Jerome\u2019s way of reckoning,\nwhich agrees with the official method, Nero reigned fourteen years and a\nhalf, and his seventh year corresponds with the sixtieth of the Christian\nera.[631]\n\nSt James was commemorated in the East on the 27th December. This is his\ndate in the Arian martyrology, which is followed by the very ancient\nCarthaginian Calendar. Although the latter incorrectly adds that he\nwas killed by Herod, it is evident that St James the Less is intended,\nfor all the Eastern documentary sources place the commemoration of St\nJames the Less in the Christmas season. They differ as to the day, some\ncommemorating him on the 26th, some on the 28th, the Neapolitan and\nMozarabic Calendars on the 29th, and the Syrian lectionary has his name\nboth on the 28th December and on the 23rd October.\n\nIn accordance with these ancient witnesses we would willingly place\nhis death on the 27th December, but there are strong reasons against\nthis. First, in these documents he is coupled for the most part with\nSt John the Evangelist, and it is unlikely that both of them died\non the same day. Secondly, in the most ancient document of all, the\nArian martyrology, immediately after St James and St John, on the 28th\nDecember, come St Peter and St Paul, who suffered death on a different\ndate altogether; the compiler simply placed the chief personages\nconnected with our Lord on the days after Christmas. Thirdly, the church\nbuilt by Helena on the Mount of Olives, in which St James and St John\nreceived special veneration, was dedicated on the 27th December.[632]\nHere again, as in so many other cases, the date of the church\u2019s\nconsecration became the date of the festival of the saint specially\nconnected with it. Of course it may be thought that the church was\nconsecrated on the day of the saint\u2019s death, but for this there is, at\nany rate, no proof concerning this particular church. And so we must give\nup the 27th December as the real day of St James\u2019s death. It may have\nbeen the day of his appointment to the episcopate.[633]\n\nThat this is so is further confirmed by the accounts written by pilgrims,\nin which it is stated that St James was buried in the church on the\nMount of Olives, and that he had owned a house in Jerusalem and a burial\nplace, in which he had buried Zachary and Simeon.[634] It is true that\nlater Latin authorities expressly give his _dies natalis_, _i.e._ the\nactual day of his death, on the 27th December,[635] but their evidence\nis not conclusive. In marked distinction from the Eastern tradition, the\n_Hieronymianum_ gives his death on the 25th March: \u201cHierosolyma passio\nJacobi Justi,\u201d or, as in the Bern codex, \u201cfratris Domini.\u201d This date\ncoincides strikingly with the statement of Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, 2,\n23, 11), that the death of St James happened during the season of Easter.\n\nThe Constantinopolitan authorities, like the Roman, take an independent\nline. The most ancient among the former do not mention St James the Less,\nbut the _Basilianum_ names him on the 23rd October and the 30th April,\nboth times with the title then only given to martyrs (\u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). We shall\nhave occasion to refer elsewhere to the arbitrary and singular character\nof this work.\n\nWith regard to the Roman service-books and those derived from them, they\nagree, beginning with the _Gelasianum_, in placing St James along with\nSt Philip on the 1st May. This is owing to the fact that in the sixth\ncentury a church was erected in honour of these two apostles in Rome,\nwhich is known at the present day as the Basilica of the Apostles. Pope\nPelagius I. (556-561) commenced the erection of the church, which was\ncompleted by his successor John III.[636] It was dedicated on the 1st\nMay, and so it came to pass that the commemoration of these two apostles\nis celebrated in the Roman rite on this day. Later on, the 1st May came\nincorrectly to be considered their _dies natalis_.\n\nThe commemoration of St Philip in the menology of Basil, and in the\n_Neapolitanum_, is on the 14th November. A monastery of St Philip existed\nin Constantinople as early as 511.\n\n\n(7) ST JOHN\n\nAs regards St John the Apostle and Evangelist, we have seen his\ncommemoration was joined with that of St James the Less, on the 27th\nDecember, although this was not the date of their deaths. In course\nof time St John gradually eclipsed St James and gained possession of\nthis day for himself alone; yet in the _Hieronymianum_ and in the\nGothico-Gallic missal, ascribed by Mabillon to the eighth century, St\nJohn and St James are still commemorated together (_Natalis Jacobi et\nJoannis_). In the _Gelasianum_, and also in later Roman and Frankish\nmartyrologies, and in Bede, St John alone is commemorated, as at the\npresent day.\n\nSt John died and was buried in Ephesus. When his grave was opened,\nprobably under Constantine, who built a church in his honour in the part\nof Constantinople called Hebdomon, no remains of his body were found in\nit, but only powder, which was called manna. The intention evidently\nwas to provide this church in Constantinople with relics of its titular\nsaint. It is not surprising that the idea became prevalent among the\nGreeks that St John, like our Blessed Lady, had been taken up bodily into\nheaven. This opening of his grave must have taken place on the 8th May,\nfor the menology of Constantinople makes mention on this day of the manna\nmentioned above.[637] The 26th September seems to have been regarded as\nthe day of his death, for the same authority mentions the \u201cDeparture\u201d\nof the apostle (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u0399\u03bf\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5)[638] on\nthis date. So, too, does the Calendar of Naples under the name of his\nAssumption (_Adsumptio Joannis Evangelist\u00e6_). Among the Jacobites of\nAntioch also the 26th September was kept as the day of his departure\n(_decessus Joannis Evang. ex mundo_).[639] Where there is so much\ndivergence, nothing certain can be determined. Most probably Morcelli is\ncorrect in supposing that the 26th September was the day on which St John\ndied in Ephesus, and that on the 27th December some church or chapel, or,\nat least, an altar, was dedicated to his honour.[640]\n\nThe 6th May appears already as a festival of St John the Evangelist in\nthe Gothico-Gallic missal, without any further specification, but simply\nwith the rubric: _Missa S. Joannis Apostoli et Evangelist\u00e6_. The Roman\nfestival on this day, \u201cJoannis ante Portam Latinam,\u201d was introduced on\nthe ground of Tertullian\u2019s statement.[641] The oldest recensions of\nthe _Hieronymianum_ do not mention it, nor yet the recension of Metz\nbelonging to the ninth century.\n\n\n(8) ST SIMON AND ST JUDE (THADDEUS)\n\nThe apostles Simon and Jude, like St Philip and St James, are constantly\ncommemorated together in Western Calendars, but in their case there is\nan inner reason for this arrangement. According to a tradition, which\nappears in the pseudo-Abdias, the two apostles spent thirteen years\ntogether in Persia labouring for the spread of Christianity, and there\nsuffered death at the same time in the city of Suanir.[642] The day of\ntheir death is here given as the 1st July, which is also given in some\nWestern martyrologies\u2014such as those of Naples and Toledo, which plainly\nderive their information from this source.\n\nIn the Roman Calendar, and in those dependent upon them, the two apostles\nare indeed constantly commemorated together, but on the 28th October. No\nreason has been discovered for the choice of this date. It does not seem\nto have been due either to the _Hieronymianum_ or to Bede. The former\nhas \u201cIn Suana, a city of Persia, the birthday of the apostles Simon\nand Jude\u201d[643] (_Cod. Epternac._). As far as Roman sacramentaries are\nconcerned, St Simon and St Jude appear only in the later recensions of\nthe _Gregorianum_.\n\nThe menology of Constantinople does not contain St Simon, but it has\nThaddeus on the 20th August. The _Basilianum_ has an apostle Simon on\nthe 29th April who is called Jude, and on the 10th May the apostle Simon\nZelotes, and, further, an apostle Jude on the 22nd May and 19th June.\nAll this is obscure and arbitrary. The fact that these apostles are\nnot joined together, but have each their separate day, agrees with the\nEastern service-books. The lectionary of the Syrians of the eleventh\ncentury has St Simon on the 10th May, Jude on the 16th May. The Coptic\nCalendar in Seldenius has Jude Thaddeus on the 20th May.\n\nA remarkable proof of the obscurity hanging over the apostles is found in\nthe circumstance that in some calendars which commemorate them together\non the same day other saints of the same name are found in addition.\nThus in the _Neapolitanum_ there is a Jude on the 26th May and a \u201cpassio\nS. Simonis Ap.\u201d on the 10th September, as well as the commemoration of\nthem both together on the 1st July. In the Parisian lectionary of St\nGenevi\u00e8ve, in the Calendar of Charlemagne, and in the _Gelasianum_, there\nis no mention of St Simon and St Jude.\n\n\n(9) ST MARK THE EVANGELIST\n\nAccording to a constant and universal tradition, he was the first Bishop\nof Alexandria, and his name appears first in all lists of the bishops\nof that See. However, as far as calendars and martyrologies go, his\nname does not appear in those of the West until the ninth century, nor\nin the _Constantinopolitanum_ until the same period. Unfortunately the\nmost ancient Coptic Calendar in Mai is imperfect for the month of April.\nIt is only in the _Synaxarium_ of the ninth century, published by Mai,\nthat he appears. His name appears in all later Coptic Calendars, in the\n_Neapolitanum_, which mentions him a second time on the 17th May, and in\nthe _Basilianum_. There is not much to be said in support of the 25th\nApril as the day of St Mark\u2019s death. Moreover, the _Hieronymianum_ gives\nthe 23rd September as the date of his death, but the Paschal Chronicle\nputs it down on the 1st Phormathi, _i.e._ the 26th March.[644] St Jerome\nin his chronicle gives the year of his death as the eighth of Nero.\n\nThat the processional litanies take place on St Mark\u2019s day is a mere\naccident, as is proved by the circumstance that in the oldest Latin\nCalendars\u2014as, for example, in that of Fronteau, and in the Mainz edition\nof the _Gregorianum_\u2014the _Litania major_ alone is put down on the 25th\nApril without any mention of St Mark.\n\n\n(10) THE FEASTS OF ST PETER\u2019S CHAIR\n\n(_18th January and 22nd February_)\n\nThe historical investigation of these two feasts necessitates the\nconsideration of two questions which must be discussed separately\u2014first,\ntheir name and significance, and, secondly, the dates on which they are\ncelebrated.\n\n_Cathedra_, when used in its literal sense by the oldest ecclesiastical\nwriters, means the bishop\u2019s seat in the apse of the church behind\nthe altar, upon which he sat, when not otherwise engaged, during the\nperformance of divine service. Figuratively, the _cathedra_ is the symbol\nof episcopal authority in general and of the bishop\u2019s teaching authority\nin particular, just as the throne is the symbol of royal authority.\n_Cathedra Petri_, then, signifies especially the teaching authority of\nSt Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, or, in other words, the\nPrimacy. This can easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, and\nthe evidence for it has often been set forth in writings and treatises\ndealing specially with this question, and so it need not be repeated\nhere.[645] That the feast was intended to celebrate the bestowal of the\nPrimacy on St Peter is clear from the oldest liturgies, and will become\nsufficiently evident in the course of our remarks.[646]\n\nBut how came it to pass that the Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair\u2014we\nare considering at present only the more ancient of the two\ncommemorations\u2014was fixed for the 22nd February? This question can only\nbe answered by a critical investigation into the history of the feast.\nThe two feasts present entirely different peculiarities. The second half\nof February among the heathen Romans was marked by popular festivities\npartly religious and partly secular in character; on the 13th February\ncommenced the great festival of the dead, _Parentalia_, and lasted\neight days, the concluding day being called _Feralia_. During this time\nno marriages were celebrated, the temples remained closed, and the\nmagistrates laid aside the external insignia of their office. Upon the\ncommemoration of the departed followed immediately, on the 22nd February,\nthe festival of surviving relatives\u2014the _Chari_\u2014named in consequence\n_Charistia_ or _Cara Cognatio_. This celebration had no recognised place\namong the functions of the official worship of the State, and no public\nfestivities presided over by the colleges of priests were provided for\nit.[647] Nevertheless, it was a very popular feast, and stuck its roots\ndeeper into the life of the people than any of the official festivals.\nAll ranks joined in celebrating it; the portraits of the ancestors of\neach family were adorned with garlands, a sacrificial meal was presented\nto the household gods, incense was burnt, and a pig was offered in\nsacrifice; where quarrels had broken out in a family, harmony was again\nrestored, and the religious ceremonies were performed amid the rejoicings\nof all; the deeds of famous members of the family were recited, and the\nday concluded with a banquet, which lasted until a late hour.[648] In\naddition to this, the _Charistia_ was also a festival in the schools;\nthe walls were hung with garlands, and presents were given to the\nteachers.[649]\n\nSuch a festival must have been highly popular. It seems to have been\nobserved everywhere wherever Latin was spoken, in Africa as well as in\nGaul. In Gaul the feasting customary on this occasion continued to take\nplace long after it had been given up elsewhere.\n\nThese banquets are censured in two sermons, attributed to St Augustine,\nbut not by him, though they are ancient, and date from about the sixth\ncentury. From these we see that the _Feralia_ and the _Charistia_ are\nno longer separate; the preacher speaks only of the meals and gifts\nwhich were offered on behalf of the departed.[650] These continued on\ninto Christian times, and in Gaul took place on the 22nd February,\nalthough this was not the correct day for the _Feralia_.[651] It seems,\nthen, that in many places the memory of both living and dead relatives\nwas celebrated on one and the same day, and this was always the 22nd\nFebruary. About 1198 an Englishman, who lived in the North of France,\ninformed Beleth[652] of the feastings which took place on this day.\n\nAccordingly it cannot be mere accident, when we find a Christian feast\nvery early fixed for this day. Gregory the Great recognised that people\nmust not be all at once deprived of the old customs; he ordered that in\nEngland, at the dedication of churches and on the feasts of the martyrs,\nthe newly converted Christians might retain some of the heathen customs\nwhich had been usual on similar occasions.[653] Instances in which this\nprinciple was put into practice are, for example, the processional\nlitanies and the customs observed at the New Year. It is clear that the\nappointment of a Christian feast on the _Charistia_ is another instance\nof the tendency to deprive the heathen festivals of their harmful\ncharacter.\n\nThat this held good of the feast in question, and that a determined\nattempt was made to give it a Christian character, is shown by the fact\nthat in other countries a different feast was appointed for this day.\nPolemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, in the upper valley of the Rhone,\ncomposed a calendar for the year 448, the most ancient Christian calendar\nin existence, which he dedicated to Bishop Eucherius of Lyons.[654] In\nthis document the heathen festivals are omitted, everything especially\nheathen has been removed, and only historical and meteorological notices\nremain; it contains some saints\u2019 days, although very few in number. On\nthe 22nd February we find the entry, _Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli_,\nalong with a note on the _Charistia_, which shows that the intention of\nthe writer was to supplant the heathen feast of the _Cara Cognatio_.\nAgain, it is noteworthy that an event was chosen for this purpose\nwhich was commemorated in Rome, _i.e._ the burial of the two chief\napostles. The 29th June was not then kept as a festival of the apostles\nin the upper valley of the Rhone, which belonged at that time to Gaul,\nand probably was not kept either in the whole province to which Sion\n(_Sedunum_) belonged.[655]\n\nThe idea of Polemius Silvius in making the 22nd February into a\ncommemoration of St Peter and St Paul found no imitators, but the custom\nof celebrating instead the _Cathedra Petri_ on this day became general\nin the Gallican liturgies. The significance of this feast is expressed\nin the words of the collect for the day: \u201cGod who on this day hast given\nBlessed Peter to be head after Thee to the Church\u201d (_Deus qui hodierna\ndie B. Petrum post te dedisti caput ecclesi\u00e6_); _i.e._ the occasion\nof the feast was not the foundation or organisation of one particular\nchurch, either Rome or Antioch, but the appointment of St Peter to be\nhead of the whole Church in general, or, in other words, the bestowal of\nthe Primacy upon him, or his ordination as bishop (_natale episcopatus_),\nas others prefer to have it.[656] In this connection it must be borne\nin mind that, in antiquity, it was already the custom to celebrate the\nanniversary of the bishop\u2019s consecration, and that special masses exist\nin the old sacramentaries, and among the sermons of St Leo the Great\nthere are some for such occasions.\n\nFrom the fourth to the ninth century, we find this feast of the 22nd\nFebruary (Cathedra Petri), without further specification, in the\ngreater number of calendars and martyrologies, especially in those of\nGaul. As the latest which give only one feast of this name, we may\nmention the martyrology of Wandlebert, the Calendar of Corbie of 826 in\nd\u2019Achery,[657] and also the Gothic Calendar. Nevertheless, there are\nsome Frankish calendars which contain no feast of this name, as, for\nexample, that of St Genevi\u00e8ve, published by Fronteau, and the Calendar of\nCharlemagne. It is not in the _Neapolitanum_, nor in certain lectionaries\nof the same period, such as the _Comes Albini_, the lectionary of\nSpires, and, finally, the Roman sacramentaries.[658] It is remarkable\nthat neither the _Gelasianum_ nor the _Gregorianum_ have a feast of St\nPeter\u2019s Chair, yet it is certain that the feast was known in Rome in the\nfourth century, for the chronographer, referred to on page 295_n._, in\nhis _Depositio Martyrum_ sets down: \u201cVIII. Kal. Martias, Natale Petri de\nCathedra.\u201d\n\nA remarkable alteration now took place, doubtless caused by another view\nbeing taken of the meaning of the feast. When the words _Cathedra Petri_\nwere no longer taken as referring to the bestowal of the Primacy or\nthe episcopal and teaching office in general, but as referring to some\ndefinite episcopal See, then the question was asked, Is Antioch meant or\nRome? For although the official lists reckon Evodius, and not St Peter,\nas first bishop of Antioch, still there were writers of antiquity, such\nas Origen, who represent St Peter\u2019s residence in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) as\nhis Antiochene episcopate. This view led to the division of the feast\ninto a Roman and an Antiochene Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair; for reasons\nwhich are unknown, the 18th January was chosen for the former, while the\nlatter continued to be celebrated on the 22nd February.\n\nThe martyrology of the Venerable Bede marks the date at which this\ndivision of the feast came into existence. In the original recension,\ngiven by the Bollandists, the feast of the 18th January does not\nappear, but the feast of the 22nd February has the note attached, \u201cAt\nAntioch.\u201d It is possible that Bede considered the feast commemorated\nthe commencement of a particular episcopate, and since, according to\nhis idea, the Antiochene episcopate of St Peter preceded his Roman, and\nAntioch must have been the first See occupied by the apostle, he added\nthe words, \u201cAt Antioch, where the disciples were first named Christians.\u201d\n\nThe separation is complete in Ado and Usuardus, and appears in the oldest\neditions of the _Hieronymianum_, and, in defect of further information,\nthe compiler of this document may be regarded as the originator of the\nseparation.[659] There thus arose a threefold practice\u2014either both feasts\nwere kept, or neither, or that of the 22nd February; the last was the\ncase in only a few dioceses. The Cologne Calendar of the fourteenth\ncentury had only one feast, but the more ancient calendar belonging to\nthe ninth century had both.[660]\n\nThis diversity of usage, resulting from the independence of each diocese\nin the adoption of festivals, was put an end to by Pope Paul IV. at the\nadvice of Cardinal Sirleto, when, on the 6th January 1558, he ordered\nthat both feasts should be observed throughout the entire Catholic\nworld.[661] At the consultations concerning the reform of the Breviary in\n1742, it was considered that the two feasts should once more be joined\ninto one, but this, however, was not done, which,[662] from a historical\npoint of view, is to be regretted, for neither Eusebius nor the official\nlists of bishops know anything of an Antiochene episcopate of St Peter.\nThe pseudo-Clementines make use of St Peter\u2019s activity in the See of\nAntioch for their own ends,[663] and to them must be traced back the\nstatements of Origen, Jerome, and others, for in antiquity, as well as in\nthe Middle Ages, they enjoyed more consideration, and were more widely\nread, than at the present day. In the ninth century it was regarded as\nan inviolable principle of canon law\u2014as we know from the case of Pope\nFormosus\u2014that a bishop must not be translated from one See to another.\nHow could this principle have been maintained in the face of so striking\nan instance of translation?\n\nThe Feast of St Peter\u2019s Chair was unknown to the Greeks and Easterns in\nantiquity, but the modern Uniats have naturally adopted it.\n\n\n10. _The Festivals of St Mary Magdalen, St Cecilia, and St Catherine_\n\n(_22nd July, 22nd and 25th November_)\n\nThe saints which have occupied us until now were all prominent figures\nthroughout Christendom, and stood in close relation to the Redeemer\nand His work; in consequence, their festivals were kept as feasts\nof obligation in the Middle Ages, at a period when it seemed almost\nimpossible to do too much towards the development of the cycle of\nfeasts; a large number kept this rank until recent times. Other saints\nof less importance enjoyed the same distinction through their being the\npatrons of particular countries, dioceses, or localities; it would take\ntoo long to deal with such here; besides, their festivals are not of\nhistorical importance. Still, among festivals of this sort there are\nsome which formerly were kept as feasts of obligation; of these several\nare deserving of notice, since they attained a rank above that of a mere\nlocal festival, either because of some special circumstance, or because\nthe life of the particular saint in some way or other caught the popular\nfancy.\n\n\n(1) ST MARY MAGDALEN\n\nThis is especially the case with regard to St Mary Magdalen, whose\nfeast, not indeed in Rome, but throughout the South of France, and even\nelsewhere, as in Cologne, was kept as a feast of obligation in the Middle\nAges.\n\nAccording to the general opinion, Mary, the sinner of Magdala, who took\nher name from that place, either because she was born there, or because\nit was the scene of her excesses, was the sister of Lazarus and Martha\nof Bethania; she was the same person who humbly bathed the feet of our\nBlessed Lord with her tears and anointed them with ointment. According to\nanother opinion, prevalent in the Greek Church, there were three Marys\nconnected with our Lord\u2014Mary, the sister of Lazarus; Mary of Magdala,\non the Lake of Gennesaret; and the sometime sinner mentioned in St Luke\nvii. 37. This latter opinion distinguishes Mary Magdalen from Mary,\nthe sister of Lazarus. The Latin tradition, on the other hand, from\nTertullian downwards, regards them as identical; the sister of Lazarus\nhaving lived a life of sin at Magdala, came, after her repentance, to\nlive with her brother and sister at Bethania, but was still popularly\nknown as Mary Magdalen. She was also the same person, mentioned by the\nother two synoptists (St Mark xvi. 9; St Luke viii. 2), who was possessed\nby seven devils.[664] Both opinions received support from the words of\nthe gospels; but the Roman liturgy has adopted the latter, and even the\nlections drawn up for St Martha\u2019s Feast are influenced by it. This office\nof St Martha is only of late introduction in the Liturgy.\n\nIn addition, we must take into account the adventures of the Magdalen\nand her family after our Lord\u2019s death, or rather the adventures ascribed\nto her. Our information is scanty; the pseudo-Clementines state that\nLazarus followed St Peter in his missionary journeys in Syria;[665]\nother documents mention Cyprus as the scene of his labours and death.\nAbsolutely no information concerning the further doings of his sisters\nhas come down to us from antiquity; however, Western medi\u00e6val documents\ndating from the thirteenth century are remarkably rich in details; in\nthese it is admitted, indeed, that he was Bishop of Cyprus, although this\nwould have been incompatible with the actions here ascribed to him. This\ninformation is contained in a voluminous work which has been audaciously\nascribed to Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda, although it is difficult to\nsee how he, in his retired monastery, surrounded by forests, could have\ngained possession of such information.[666] The greater part of this\nwork, chapters i.-xxxv., is devoted to a description of the life of St\nMary Magdalen and her family, which follows and elaborates the biblical\nnarrative; but it contains several additions to the facts mentioned in\nthe New Testament; especially there is a great deal said about Marcella,\nas the housekeeper of the family at Bethania is said to have been called,\nwho later on played an important part in the legend. The second part\nbegins with the thirteenth year after Christ\u2019s Ascension, when St James\nthe Great had been beheaded and St Peter was in prison. Then, according\nto the story, Herod Agrippa drove the faithful from Palestine, and\ntwenty-four of the disciples of Jesus, with Maximinus at their head,\nwere sent by the apostles as missionaries to Spain and Gaul. St Mary\nMagdalen joined them, and Martha and Lazarus followed her example, the\nlatter being at the time Bishop of Cyprus; they embarked unmolested,\nand were carried by the south-east wind to the shores of Southern Gaul,\nwhere Maximinus became Bishop of Aix in Provence. The other disciples\ndistributed themselves over the other provinces, of which there were\nseventeen in Gaul and seven in Spain\u2014twenty-four in all, just the number\nof the disciples. As a matter of fact, Spain and Gaul did comprise this\nnumber of provinces, not however in the time of Christ, but in the fifth\ncentury, as the _Notitia Dignitatum_ shows. This betrays the late origin\nof the legend. St Mary Magdalen is said to have lived at Aix with Bishop\nMaximinus, and to have often preached there to the faithful. According\nto other accounts, she is said to have passed thirty years in a life of\nsolitude and penance in the cave of the Ste Baume, near Marseilles, while\nLazarus is said to have been Bishop of Marseilles, where he died a martyr.\n\nMore trustworthy, though not so interesting, is the information which\nwe find in Greek sources concerning Lazarus and his sisters. From these\nwe learn no more than that the Emperor Leo VI. in 887 built a church in\nhis honour in Constantinople, and in 899 a monastery;[667] thither the\nrelics of Lazarus, but not those of his sisters, were translated from\nCitium in Cyprus, where they had hitherto reposed. The menology of Basil\nand the calendars of the Copts and Syrians show that St Mary Magdalen\nwas honoured in the Greek Church on the 22nd July. The resurrection of\nLazarus was specially commemorated in the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus\non the second Saturday before Easter.[668]\n\nIn the West the earliest traces of the cultus of St Mary Magdalen are\nfound in Bede, and then in the martyrologies of Rabanus, Ado, and\nUsuardus, always on the 22nd July, and with the designation, \u201cNatale.\u201d\nThe _Hieronymianum_ does not mention Lazarus and St Mary Magdalen,\nbut the name of Martha occurs five times; however, the sister of\nLazarus cannot be intended, for the days (29th July and 17th October)\nare not those on which she is commemorated. Although the first-named\nmartyrologies contains the mention of St Mary Magdalen, it knows nothing\nof her voyage to the South of France. Usuardus, indeed, puts Lazarus\nand Martha together on the 17th December, but merely says that a church\nwas erected in their honour at Bethania. As far as the service-books\nare concerned, the name of St Mary Magdalen appears for the first time\nin a missal of Verona of the tenth century, and then in some missals\nof the eleventh century, but the missals of the Roman rite (secundum\nconsuetudinem Rom. curi\u00e6) mentions her only in the thirteenth century;\nit is the same with regard to St Martha.[669] Even to the present\ntime Lazarus has not obtained a place in the Roman Breviary, but his\ncommemoration is sanctioned for certain localities on the 17th December.\nThe lections for his office contain no account of his life.\n\nThe attitude of the Roman Breviary is significant as indicating the\nchange of views. The lections for St Mary Magdalen are simply taken\nfrom a homily of St Gregory, and contain no references to her life,\nwhile those of the much later office of St Martha (29th July) contain\nthe more recent form of the legend with the later additions. They know\nnothing, however, of the pseudo-Rabanus, according to whom St Mary and\nher companions were forcibly placed by the Jews on board a boat without\nrudder or sail, and yet, notwithstanding, reached Marseilles in safety.\n\nWith regard to St Mary Magdalen in particular, the tradition must not\nbe overlooked which states that she was originally buried in Ephesus;\nthis is maintained by Gregory of Tours at the end of the sixth century,\nand then, at the beginning of the seventh century, Bishop Modestus of\nJerusalem states that St Mary joined St John at Ephesus after the death\nof our Lady, and there suffered martyrdom; the third witness is Bishop\nWillibald of Eichst\u00e4tt, who visited her grave in Ephesus.[670] In 887, as\nwe have said, Leo VI., the Philosopher, placed her relics in the Church\nof St Lazarus, which he had built in Constantinople, but the writers\nwho mention this fact do not imply that her relics were translated from\nCyprus, as some modern writers arbitrarily assert, on account of the\nmention of St Lazarus\u2019 relics being brought from that island on the same\noccasion.[671] However this may be, the tradition says nothing about St\nMary Magdalen being the sister of Lazarus; in fact, she is described by\nGlycas as a daughter of Simon the Leper. This tradition furnishes fresh\ngrounds for the belief that the account of the translation of St Mary\u2019s\nrelics refers to a truly historical event.[672]\n\nThe investigation of scholars have brought to light the following facts\nas throwing light upon the Provencial legend: (1) An early sarcophagus\nat Marseilles, belonging to a certain Lazarus, Bishop of Aix (407-417),\nwho was thought to be the Lazarus mentioned in the New Testament; (2)\nthe existence of reputed relics of St Mary Magdalene in the Monastery of\nVezelay in the diocese of Autun. The earliest official mention of Lazarus\nis in a decree of Pope Benedict IX. of the year 1040[673]; this pope\nconsecrated the Church of St Victor at Marseilles, and from this date the\nlegend developed rapidly. Its complicated history has been clearly set\nforth in the investigations of L. Duchesne and J. Rietsch; the latter\nshows that it is probable the Emperor Leo VI. presented the relics of St\nLazarus to the widowed Empress Richardis on her visit to Constantinople\nduring her travels in the East; she probably gave them to the Convent of\nAndlau in Alsace, over which she presided.\n\nAmong the numerous works on this subject we may mention: M. Faillon,\n_Monuments In\u00e9dites sur l\u2019Apostolat de Sainte Marie Madeleine en\nProvence_ (a collection of all documents genuine and otherwise bearing\non the question), Paris, 1848. Lacordaire, _Vie de Sainte Marie\nMadeleine_, Paris, 1860, popularised the legend, and made it a point of\nnational honour to defend it. L. Clarus (Volk), _Geschichte des Lebens,\nder Reliquien und des Kultus der heiligen Geschwister Magdalena_,\n_etc._ Regensburg, 1852, is uncritical, but pleasantly written. L.\nDuchesne, _Sainte Marie Madeleine_, Toulouse, 1892. J. Rietsch (_Die\nNachevangelische Geschichte der Bethanischen Geschwister_, _etc._,\nStrassburg, 1902) has probably settled the question of the relics by his\ncareful investigations.\n\n\n(2) ST CECILIA\n\nA parish church was dedicated to St Cecilia in Rome as early as 499,\nto which two priests were attached, and a cemetery was named after\nher fellow-sufferers, Tiburtius and Valerian, in the sixth century.\nNo further information respecting her cultus has come down to us from\nantiquity, and in the literature of the patristic period, with the\nexception of Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth century, her name is not\nmentioned. Her cultus was apparently limited to Rome, although she had a\nchapel or church in Ravenna,[674] as the poet just mentioned states.\n\nA change took place when Pope Paschal I. in 821 discovered the saint\u2019s\nbody, in consequence, as he said, of a vision; until then it was believed\nthat the Lombards had carried it away with them. Paschal had the body\ntaken from the cemetery of SS. Sixtus and Pr\u00e6textatus, where he found it,\nand brought to her church in Rome, where it still remains. Immediately\nafter her death, according to the statement in her _Passio_, her body\nmust have been placed in the papal crypt.[675] Her name was then inserted\nin the martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, and Rabanus Maurus, and placed\nunder the 22nd November, which is certainly the day of the translation\nof her relics, for the _Hieronymianum_ in its oldest recension gives the\n16th September as the day of her death (_Natalis_). St Cecilia appears in\nBede and in the Frankish calendars of the eighth century composed under\nRoman influence, but in the most ancient calendar of Carthage, one looks\nfor her name in vain.[676] After the miraculous discovery of her relics\nand their translation, on account of the interest taken in such matters\nin the ninth century, her fame spread throughout the whole Christian\nworld; and churches were dedicated to her, even in the recently converted\nNorth Germany.\n\nFrom the point of view we are considering, sufficient has been said about\nSt Cecilia, still we cannot omit the opportunity of making some remarks\non the date and circumstances of her martyrdom. We have a full account\nof it in the _Passio S. C\u00e6cili\u00e6_, which, according to Fachm\u00e4uner, was\ndrawn up at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century.\nThis document states that Cecilia was condemned to death and executed\nby a prefect of Rome called Turcius Almachius; a Roman bishop (papa\nurbanus) placed her body in the papal crypt, and dedicated her house as\na church; this pope had already been a confessor for the Faith on two\noccasions before the death of St Cecilia. These statements cause great\ndifficulty, since Pope Urban I. (223-230), who can alone be meant here,\nlived during the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, who was very\nwell disposed towards the Christians, and during whose reign they were\nfree from persecution. It is exceedingly improbable that a high official\ncould have persecuted them in Rome, under the eyes of the emperor, in the\nway described in the _Passio_. It is impossible that Pope Urban I. could\nhave twice been a confessor at this time, and no evidence of such a thing\nexists; moreover, we have no evidence for the existence of a prefect of\nRome called Turcius in that period, but we do find persons of this name\nin official positions in the time of Constantine and later. All this,\ntaken along with the circumstance that it was a time of much unsettlement\nin Rome, agrees well with the fourth century, when the emperor was seldom\nin the capital, but does not suit the reign of Alexander Severus.\n\nThe fact that St Cecilia appears neither in the ancient Roman Calendar,\nthe _Depositio Episcoporum_, nor in the chronographer of 354, points\nto the conclusion that she must belong to the reign of Julian. All\nthe indications of time agree with this date; the only thing against\nit is the name of the contemporary pope\u2014Urban; this may be an error,\nbut how the name found its way into the _Passio_ can be explained on\nvarious grounds; either the original text did not contain the pope\u2019s\nname, which was introduced by mistake at a later date by some redactor\nof the original document, or, if the words \u201cpapa urbanus\u201d were in the\noriginal document, they are to be taken in the sense of \u201cBishop of the\ncity of Rome.\u201d[677] This falls in with the pontificate of Liberius all\nthe better, since, in the years 355-365, he was opposed by an anti-pope,\nFelix, who had a small following, and spent his time mostly outside Rome,\nwhere also he died.\n\nThe circumstance that the pope, whatever his name may have been, had\nbeen twice a confessor for the Faith also suits Liberius, who had been\nbanished under the Arian Constantius to Ber\u0153a (355-357). After the\nCouncils of Seleucia and Rimini in 359, Constantius even desired his\ndeath, because he refused to subscribe to the Arian Creed, and he was\nobliged to remain in hiding for two years in the catacombs until the\ndeath of the tyrant (November 361).[678]\n\nThe opinion that the martyrdom of St Cecilia took place under Alexander\nSeverus has hitherto received the most support, and the difficulties have\nbeen explained on the supposition that it happened while the emperor\nwas absent from the capital; this, however, is arbitrary, and does not\nreally remove the other difficulties. There is no need to dwell upon the\ndates which have been assigned in more recent times. With regard to the\nmore ancient dates, Ado, Usuardus, and De Rossi place the martyrdom under\nMarcus Aurelius and Commodus, plainly on account of the use of the plural\nby the prefect when he said (c. 24) \u201cthe emperors\u201d had commanded that\nthe Christians should be punished by death, but this general command was\nrepeated during all the persecutions from Nero to Diocletian. Less wide\nof the mark is the most ancient attempt of all to fix the date, _i.e._,\nmade by the first compiler of the _Liber Pontificalis_, for although not\nremarkable for historical knowledge, he places the death of Cecilia under\nDiocletian.\n\nThe family of the Turcii did not belong to Rome, but came from Samnium,\nwhere one of the name in the third century is mentioned as a proprietor\nof brick works in Aufidena.[679] Various members of the family quickly\nmade their way to high offices in the State,[680] and in the summer of\n363 a Turcius Apronianus was prefect of Rome, where he distinguished\nhimself as a persecutor of the Christians. His wife, however, was\na sister of the elder Melania, St Jerome\u2019s pupil, through whose\ninfluence the whole family was baptised in 397. As a Christian Turcius\nApronianus enjoyed the friendship of St Paulinus of Nola and the priest\nRufinus.[681] His descendants flourished all through the fifth century,\nat the end of which a Turcius Asterius Secundus was consul. All this,\ntaken in conjunction with the influential position of the family, easily\naccounts for the absence, in ecclesiastical literature of a subsequent\nperiod, of references to St Cecilia, at whose death a Turcius had played\nsuch an evil part. Otherwise it would be incredible that the preacher and\npoets of that date should have passed over a story which presented so\nmany points of interest.[682] Nothing more is known of Turcius Almachius\nthan what is related in the passion of St Cecilia. He must have been\nprefect from the end of 361 to the autumn of 362.\n\nWhen all has been said, we must admit that the account of St Cecilia\u2019s\nmartyrdom, as it has come down to us, gives rise to serious difficulties\nfrom whatever point of view we regard it. Tillemont and Baillet were\ninclined to regard it as lacking all authority. The only way to give full\nforce to all the facts of the case is to place it in the period to which\nit really belongs, _i.e._ to the reign of Julian the Apostate.\n\n\n(3) ST CATHERINE\n\nThe Festival of St Catherine, though only of late introduction,\nquickly spread throughout the whole of Western Christendom; not only\ndid Faculties of Theology select her as their patroness, but her day\n(25th November) was widely adopted for annual fairs, and her name\nwas frequently given to children of both noble and lowly families.\nThe original form of her name was \u00c6caterina (\u0391\u1f30\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1), the modern\nRussian Jekaterina; its derivation from the Greek _katharos_ cannot,\ntherefore, be maintained. Catherine is said to have been a noble virgin\nof Alexandria, who, according to the legend, expostulated with the tyrant\nMaxentius on account of his cruelty during the Diocletian persecution,\nand was, in consequence, seized by him and forced to hold a disputation\nwith fifty philosophers. Not only did St Catherine hold her own against\nthe philosophers, but even won them over to Christianity; whereupon the\nempress, who had heard of her wisdom, visited her in prison, escorted by\ntwo hundred soldiers. The soldiers, however, along with their captain,\nwere converted also, and condemned to death in a body by the emperor.\nThe martyr herself was next tortured, milk, instead of blood, flowing\nfrom her wounds, and then put to death by the sword. So far the legend as\ngiven by Metaphrastes; the carrying of her body by angels to Mount Sinai\nis a later addition.\n\nIt does not require much exercise of the critical faculty to realise\nthe improbabilities of this story, and at the present day critics are\nall but unanimous[683] in rejecting it; and so we need only concern\nourselves with it here in so far as it has given rise to the Feast of\nSt Catherine. In this connection we observe that not only the ancient\nChurch as a whole knew nothing of St Catherine, but, what is still more\nto the point, neither the Syrian nor Egyptian Calendars published by\nSelden and Mai make any mention of this remarkable martyr. Among the\nGreeks, the _Menologium Basilianum_ is the first to mention her, while\nin the Latin Church she does not appear until the fourteenth century.\nDurandus, although he treats of all the important saints\u2019 days, does\nnot name St Catherine, neither does the _Liber Ordinarius_ of Siena\nconcluded in 1263. In the numerous Italian missals consulted by Ebner,\nSt Catherine is usually found only in the supplements which date from\nthe fourteenth century. In the body of the missal, she appears only in\nthe missal of Trani, belonging to the end of the thirteenth century.\nIt is not difficult to fix the period at which the legend met with\ngeneral acceptance, for St Catherine is absent from the menology of\nConstantinople, but is commemorated as a martyr of the second class in\nthat of Basil. To this period belongs three Latin poems found among the\nworks of Alfanus,[684] Abbot of Monte Cassino, and later Archbishop of\nSalerno (1058-1085). Alfanus, whom St Peter Damian calls a lover of\ntruth, but who is proved to have been very credulous by a story which he\ntells of some unnamed Byzantine monarch,[685] appears to have been the\nfirst to make the legend known in the West. The origin of the story is\nlost in obscurity, and, as in the case of the legend of St Lazarus, we\nhave hitherto been unable to discover reliable data on which to base any\nconclusion. The story of St Catherine may well be one of those popular\ntales, drawn up in a historical form, which were circulated in the Middle\nAges, and occupied the place of poetic fiction. Its excision at any early\ndate from the service-books is much to be desired in the interests of the\nrespect due to them.\n\n\n11. _The Festival of All Saints_\n\nThe Festival of All Saints has no intimate connection with the\necclesiastical year, but is of the nature of an addition from without,\nand, like the saints\u2019 days, is fixed for a special date. In the earliest\nages the Church paid an external cultus to the martyrs alone, among whom\nshe included, at an early date, St John the Baptist, but it was only in\nthe course of centuries that other saints, not martyrs, attained to this\ndistinction. The cultus of simple confessors, however, formed at first\nquite the exception, and only became general along with the introduction\nof canonisations. Thus in the early ages there was no Festival of All\nSaints, but only a commemoration of all the martyrs, the intention being\nthat no martyr might be left unhonoured. Their number had been increased\nto such an extent by the Diocletian persecution, that it was no longer\npossible to celebrate a special commemoration of each one separately, and\nso many martyrs had to be passed over; thus a commemoration of all the\nmartyrs was instituted as a matter of course.\n\nAs far as we know at present, we first meet with this commemoration in\nthe Church of Antioch, which, on the first Sunday after Pentecost, kept\na commemoration of all the holy martyrs. We have some sermons of St John\nChrysostom preached on this day.[686] In course of time the feast became\ngeneral throughout the East, and an All Saints\u2019 Sunday finds a place in\nthe Eastern calendars, while the Uniats have accepted the Roman date for\nthe feast.\n\nIn the West the festival passed through the following phases. The Emperor\nPhocas (\u2020 4th October 610), as master of Rome and lord of Central Italy,\ngave the Pantheon to Boniface IV. at the pope\u2019s request. The building had\nbeen erected by Agrippa in honour of Augustus in 27 B.C. The learned are\nnot agreed as to whether it was originally a temple or a bath (Laconicum\nsudatio), but it had certainly statues of the gods in the niches which\nadorn its interior; however, in the seventh century it no longer served\nits original purpose, and its maintenance was a source of expense to the\nimperial treasury. The pope had the building cleansed and made into a\nchurch, which he dedicated to our Lady and all the martyrs;[687] the day\nof the dedication was the 13th May (609 or 610), which thus came to be\nobserved in Rome as a commemoration of all the holy martyrs.\n\nA second stage in the early development of the feast was reached in the\nnext century, when Gregory III. (731-741) dedicated an oratory in St\nPeter\u2019s to \u201cthe Redeemer, His holy Mother, all the Apostles, Martyrs,\nConfessors, and all the just and perfect who are at rest throughout\nthe whole world.\u201d In this oratory the monks were to celebrate vigils\nand say mass in honour of the saints.[688] Here we have the same idea\nmanifested which underlies the Festival of All Saints. A Roman basilica\nhad been already dedicated in honour of all the apostles, and the day of\nits dedication, the 1st May, probably served as a commemoration of all\nthe apostles. The Church of \u201cS. Maria ad Martyres,\u201d the Pantheon, was,\nmoreover, thoroughly restored by Gregory III.[689]\n\nThe third and decisive stage in the progress was reached under Gregory\nIV. (827-844). A medi\u00e6val, but, in this case, well-informed writer states\nthat a great number of pilgrims went annually to Rome for the Feast of\nall the Martyrs (13th May), and that, since the supply of provisions in\nRome in spring was insufficient for the support of both pilgrims and\ninhabitants, Gregory IV. changed the feast from the 13th May to the 1st\nNovember.[690] Frankish writers of the same period inform us that this\npope exhorted Louis the Pious to introduce the festival into France, and\nthat Louis, with the consent of all the bishops of Gaul and Germany,\naccordingly ordered it to be observed throughout his empire in 835.[691]\n\nMany writers on this account give this as the year in which the festival\nwas instituted, and attribute its origin to Louis the Pious, but in this\nthey are mistaken. Sixtus IV. (1471-1484) provided All Saints\u2019 with an\noctave.[692]\n\n\n12. _The Commemoration of All Souls_\n\nThe pious duty of prayer for the departed (2 Machabees xii. 46) finds\nexpression in private and public devotions. The public prayers usually\ntake place on stated days, _i.e._ the day of the death, the seventh\nand thirtieth days after death, and the anniversary; the observance of\nthese devotions is left in the hands of the relatives and friends of the\ndeceased. The religious Orders began at an early date to observe these\npious customs with regard to their own departed members.[693] Besides\nthis, for the last thousand years a particular day in the year has been\nset apart for the commemoration of all the departed in general; this was\nthe 2nd November, or, if the 2nd fell on a Sunday, the 3rd. The impulse\nwhich led to its introduction into the ritual of the Church came from\nCluny, for in 998 the Abbot Odilo issued an ordinance to this effect\n(the so-called _Statutum S. Odilonis pro Defunctis_)[694] to all the\nmonasteries of his congregation. In this it was directed that in all\nmonasteries of the Order on the 1st November, after vespers, the bell\nshould be tolled and the office of the dead recited, and on the next day\nall the priests of the congregation were to say mass for the repose of\nthe faithful departed.\n\nThis example found imitators without there being any legislation on the\npoint. Other Orders speedily took it up, such as the Benedictines and\nCarthusians, etc.;[695] but it was longer before the secular clergy\nadopted this practice in each diocese. The date of its introduction\nvaries greatly in different countries; it will be sufficient for us to\ngive a few dates for which we have certain information, which have a\nspecial interest for us.\n\nThe first diocese to adopt All Souls\u2019 Day seems to have been Li\u00e8ge,\nwhere it was introduced by Bishop Notker (\u2020 1008).[696] It appears in\nthe martyrology of Besan\u00e7on, called after Bishop Protadius, and compiled\nbetween 1053 and 1066; it is mentioned in the fourteenth of the Roman\nOrdos, which belongs to the thirteenth century; it is not found in\nthe Cologne Calendar of the same century, nor in the more ancient one\npublished by Binterim; it is also absent from a calendar put out in\n1382.[697]\n\nWe have more detailed information respecting the Church of Milan. Bishop\nOtricus (1120-1125) had already introduced the observance of All Souls\u2019\nDay, but placed it on the day following the dedication of the cathedral,\n_i.e._ the 15th October. This arrangement continued to the time of St\nCharles Borromeo, who in 1582 adopted the Roman, or rather the original\ndate.[698] In the Greek and Russian Churches the commemoration of the\ndeparted is kept on the Saturday before the Sunday \u201cApoecros,\u201d which\ncorresponds to our Septuagesima Sunday. The Armenians keep it on Easter\nMonday.\n\n\n13. _The Festivals of the Angels_\n\nThe existence of higher and purely spiritual beings formed part of the\nreligious belief of the Jews; they are mentioned in countless passages\nof the Old Testament, but no worship was paid directly to them by the\nSynagogue. In the Christian Church the cultus of the angels, especially\nof St Michael, can be traced back to remote antiquity. In more recent\ntimes special days have been set apart in honour of the other two angels\nnamed in the Holy Scriptures, and also of the Guardian Angels; St Gabriel\nis honoured on the 18th March, St Raphael on the 24th October.\n\nThe first Christian emperor built a church in honour of St Michael on\nthe headland called Hesti\u00e6 on the Bosphorus. It was built on the spot\ncalled Anaplus, distant from Constantinople seventy stadia by land and\nthirty-five by water. The place afterwards took the name of Michaelion,\nafter the church. On the opposite headland on the Asiatic shore Justinian\nalso erected a church of St Michael. Nicephorus makes Constantine the\nfounder of both churches, but Theophanes speaks only of one built by\nhim.[699] According to Du Cange, there is said to have been no fewer\nthan fifteen churches and chapels of St Michael in Constantinople and\nthe neighbourhood in the Middle Ages. Other towns also erected, at an\nearly date, churches dedicated to St Michael, as, for example, Ravenna in\n545. St Michael enjoyed special veneration at the same period at Chon\u00e6\nin Phrygia,[700] an ancient and celebrated place of pilgrimage, and the\nchief centre in the Byzantine Empire of the cultus of the angels.\n\nChon\u00e6, the present Khonas on the Lycus, situated on a tributary of\nthe M\u00e6ander in the ecclesiastical province of Laodicea, is the name\ngiven since the ninth century to the ancient Coloss\u00e6, to the Christian\ncommunity of which city St Paul addressed one of his epistles, wherein\nhe already speaks of the worship of angels. Even in the time of the\napostles there existed a half-Jewish, half-Gnostic sect which disturbed\nthe peace of the local church by teaching that Christ was inferior to the\nangels, who must be worshipped and invoked in preference to Him; St Paul\n(Colossians ii. 18) rejects this teaching as heretical, nevertheless, it\ndid not die out, for in the fourth century the Council of Laodicea was\ncompelled to censure this false worship of the angels in its thirty-fifth\ncanon.[701] This was not a prohibition of the cultus of the angels in\ngeneral, for at the same period St Ambrose and St Hilary in other parts\nof the Church exhorted the faithful to invoke them.[702] The true worship\nof the angels existed also in Coloss\u00e6, for Metaphrastes tells us that an\napparition of the Archangel Michael himself took place there, in honour\nof which Manual Comnenus later on prescribed that the Festival of the\nApparition of St Michael should be kept as a festival of the second class\non the 6th September (Apparitio S. Mich\u00e6lis in Chonis).\n\nThe first church dedicated to the Archangel in Rome, or rather in its\nneighbourhood, seems to have enjoyed great veneration. The oldest Roman\nsacramentary, which goes by the name of Leo the Great, gives no less than\nfive masses for the anniversary of its dedication; in three of them St\nMichael is mentioned by name in the prayers or prefaces. From the fact\nthat in the other masses the angels in general are spoken of without\nspecial mention of St Michael, we must not conclude, as many liturgical\nwriters have done, that they deal with the cultus of the angels in\ngeneral. The church was situated, according to subsequent information,\non the Via Salaria at the sixth milestone from Rome; but beyond this\nnothing further is known about it. These masses for the day of the\nConsecration of the Basilica of the Holy Angel in the Via Salaria[703]\nare placed on the 30th September in the _Leonianum_. As regards later\nRoman sacramentaries, the prayers for a mass in honour of St Michael are\ngiven in the _Gelasianum_ on the 29th September. The _Gregorianum_ gives\non the same day the dedication of the basilica of St Michael without the\naddition \u201cin via Salaria.\u201d[704] It is probable that another church of St\nMichael is meant here whose dedication took place on the 29th and not the\n30th September. The day of this church\u2019s dedication has continued to our\nown time to be kept as the Festival of St Michael the Archangel.\n\nIn the city itself there was also a church erected in honour of St\nMichael, the date and founder of which are both unknown. Among the\necclesiastical buildings of Pope Symmachus (498-514) in the city of\nRome, the _Liber Pontificalis_ says that he enlarged and beautified the\nbasilica of St Michael.[705] A church of St Michael was also built by a\npope of the name of Boniface near the Circus Flaminius,[706] and, in the\nninth century, the Church of St Michael _in Sassia_ was also erected.\n\nThe Churches of the West accepted the Roman date, the 29th September,\nfor the Feast of St Michael,[707] and in the Middle Ages it ranked as\na holy day of obligation, especially in England, where King Ethelred\nin 1014 provided it should be observed with a vigil and a preparatory\nfast of three days.[708] In Germany the Council of Mainz (813) in its\nthirty-sixth canon established it as a festival; and the imperial banner,\nto be carried in battle, bore the figure of St Michael. In France the\nfeast was established by the sixty-first canon of the diocesan Synod\nof Tours in 858. In Constantinople the feast was observed on the 8th\nNovember; it is marked in the menology as the Synaxis of the Archangel\nMichael, while in the _Basilianum_ the same day is called only a Synaxis\nof the Archangel. In the later Coptic Calendar of Calcasendi, St Michael\noccurs no less than six times (7th April, 6th June, 5th August, 9th\nSeptember, 8th November, and 8th December). In the Syrian lectionary he\nis set down in the 6th September.\n\nIn the course of the sixth century a second Festival of St Michael began\nto be celebrated in the West, in consequence of an apparition near\nSipontum on Monte Gargano which took place on the 8th May; the year,\nunfortunately, is not known, but the Bollandists place it in the interval\nbetween 520 and 530. Since Monte Gargano, like Chon\u00e6 in the East, became\na famous Western place of pilgrimage, this local festival gradually\ncame to be observed in other places in the West. The calendars and\nmartyrologies frequently confuse it with the feast of the 29th September,\nas, for example, the two oldest recensions of the _Hieronymianum_,\nthose of Metz and Weissenburg; and similar mistakes occur in other\ncalendars.[709]\n\nGabriel and Raphael have no special commemoration either in the\n_Hieronymianum_ or in other ancient martyrologies and calendars of the\nLatin Church, neither do they appear in the Greek menologies; it is only\nin the tenth and eleventh centuries that in a few instances we find\nthem commemorated on special days.[710] Although Gabriel appears in the\nmost ancient Coptic Calendar, it is doubtful whether the day chosen for\nhis commemoration, the 18th December, is not in the first instance a\ncommemoration of the Annunciation, and only secondarily and accidently a\nfeast of the Archangel. In the same way, his name appears in the Syrian\nlectionary on the 26th March, the day after our Lady\u2019s Annunciation.\n\nA special festival in honour of the Guardian Angels was first celebrated\nin the sixteenth century in Spain on the 1st March,[711] and afterwards\nin France on the first free day after Michaelmas. Pope Paul V. permitted\nthe whole Church to celebrate the Feast of the Guardian Angels (27th\nSeptember 1608), and, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand II.,\nprescribed its observance throughout the imperial dominions. Clement IX.\nin 1667 placed the feast on the first Sunday in September, and provided\nit with an octave. Clement X. in 1670 made it a _festum duplex_ of\ngeneral obligation, and gave it a fixed place in the calendar on the 2nd\nOctober; the older date, however, still remains in Germany and in a part\nof Switzerland.[712] Leo XIII. raised it to a duplex majus.\n\n\n14. _The Two Festivals in Honour of the Holy Cross_\n\n(_3rd May and 14th September_)\n\nThe discovery of the true cross is ascribed to St Helena, the mother of\nConstantine the Great. Helena was born about 246 at Drepanum in Bithynia,\nof humble origin, having served as maid in an inn (stabularia) where\nConstantine Chlorus made her acquaintance about 273. From their union\nsprang the future Emperor Constantine, born on 27th February 274 at\nNa\u00efssus, now Nisch in Servia. When Constantine Chlorus was raised to the\nrank of C\u00e6sar on 1st March 292, he, like his colleague, had to separate\nfrom his wife (whether Helena or another is disputed), in order to form\na more influential alliance, with Theodora, daughter of Maximianus\nHercules, by whom he had three sons.\n\nBut in 306, when Constantine after his father\u2019s death became the\nemperor\u2019s colleague and C\u00e6sar, he raised his mother to a position\nof honour and brought her to the court. When, in 311, he professed\nChristianity, Helena also followed his example, and at the age of\nsixty-four or sixty-five became a Christian. The misfortunes of her\nson\u2019s family life disturbed her last years, and she was especially\ngrieved at the death of her grandson Crispus, whom Constantine caused to\nbe murdered in 326, at the instigation of his stepmother Fausta.[713]\nAs a pious Christian she found consolation in the performance of good\nworks, to which she devoted herself. She died in 326, and her body was\nburied at Rome in the Via Lavicana, but two years later it was taken to\nConstantinople.[714] In her honour Constantine changed the name of her\nbirthplace to Helenopolis, and bestowed upon her the title of Augusta; on\nmedals she is called Flavia Julia Helena.\n\nShe obtained great honour after her death, and in Jerusalem especially\nher memory was held in veneration by the religious virgins of the\nlocality;[715] St Ambrose calls her a woman of good and holy memory;\nSt Paulinus of Nola had a high idea of her worth, and speaks of her as\ndeserving all veneration, and Theodoret, although imperfectly informed\nas to the facts of her life, praises her exuberantly.[716] As to her\nadmission among the ranks of the saints, this was effected only at a late\ndate, and in a few instances. We find her name, indeed, in the eighth\ncentury in the menology of Constantinople set down along with that of\nher son on the day of his death (21st May). This shows that the author\nof the menology was ignorant of the day of her death, and also that no\ncultus was paid to her immediately after her decease; still, to both the\nterm saint is applied in this document. No trace of her cultus appears\nin the West before the ninth century. The most ancient MSS. of the\n_Hieronymianum_ do not contain her name; she is not to be found either\nin Bede or Ado; Usuardus has placed her in his martyrology under the\n18th August,[717] and from him her commemoration passed into the Roman\nmartyrology on the same day, but in the other liturgical books she has\nno place.[718] When we find \u201cS Helena\u201d in a graffito or in an itinerary,\nthis cannot be regarded as a fact of much importance.[719]\n\nSoon after he became sole emperor, Constantine decided to erect a church\nover the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. According to Eusebius,[720] the\nheathen had filled up the place with rubbish, raised the level of the\nground, and built a temple to Venus on the site. This was now destroyed,\nthe rubbish removed, and deep under the surface the cave of the Holy\nSepulchre was discovered.[721] The emperor\u2019s letter to Bishop Macarius\nof Jerusalem concerning the building of the church is given in full\nby Eusebius. The erection of the building was undertaken at once, and\nEusebius has given us a full description of it.[722] At this point\nEusebius begins to speak of Helena, and relates how she came to the East\nand visited the holy places, and on this occasion she gave rich presents\nto the churches which her son had built both in Bethlehem and on the\nMount of Olives.[723] Whereupon Eusebius relates the death of Helena,\nbut of her discovery of the Holy Cross he says not one word; it is only\nin his Commentary on the Psalms (lxxxvii. 11; cviii. 29) that certain\nmysterious expressions are found which may refer to it.[724] This silence\nis all the more remarkable since Jerusalem belonged to the ecclesiastical\nprovince of C\u00e6sarea, and Eusebius must in any case have known of the\nevent.\n\nLater historians and writers, beginning with Socrates and Sozomen,[725]\nhave a great deal to say upon the subject. According to them, the cross\nof our Lord, and those also of the two thieves, along with the title\nwritten by Pilate, were all found deep under the surface of the ground;\nbut the cross on which our Lord suffered could not be distinguished from\nthe other two. Bishop Macarius solved the difficulty by obtaining a\nmiracle from God, in answer to his prayers; the three crosses were laid,\none after another, upon a sick woman, in the belief that she must be\ncured when touched by our Lord\u2019s cross. And so it happened, as the third\ncross touched her body, she recovered. This healing of a sick person\nhas become in later writers, as, for example, in Paulinus of Nola,[726]\na resurrection from the dead, showing in this, as in other cases, the\ndevelopment of the legend. In addition, the nails of the cross were also\nfound, and these, along with half of the cross, were sent by Helena to\nher son in Constantinople; the other half was preserved in Jerusalem in a\nsilver shrine in a chapel specially built for its reception.\n\nSocrates, from whom these details are taken, places these events after\nhis account of the Nicene Council; many writers place them in the year\nafter the Council, but this is incorrect, since in that year Helena died;\nthe Alexandrine Chronicle alone, which in such matters is very reliable,\ngives the day and the year for these events, _i.e._ 14th September\n320.[727] Other authorities give a yet earlier date; indeed, a Syrian\nlegend relates that a certain Protonika had discovered the Holy Cross\nduring the reign of Tiberius.[728]\n\nThe day of the discovery of the Holy Cross was kept annually at Jerusalem\nwith great ceremony, all the more as the consecration of the church was\nkept on the same day. The two principal churches in Jerusalem, the one on\nGolgotha, which bore the title of _Martyrium_ and _Ad Crucem_, and the\nother, also built by Constantine, and called the _Anastasis_, were both\nconsecrated on the same date, _i.e._ the 14th September.[729] Already in\nthe fourth century numbers of pilgrims came to Jerusalem to celebrate\nthis festival; they came from distant countries, from Mesopotamia and\nEgypt, and among them several bishops were to be found. The Gallic\npilgrim, of whom we have so often spoken, was present at this festival,\nand has left an interesting description of it, and a later pilgrim, the\npenitent Mary of Egypt, was converted on the occasion of the festival. We\nhave already related how the Holy Cross was exposed for the veneration of\nthe faithful every year in Jerusalem on Good Friday.\n\nThe 14th September was at first only a local festival at Jerusalem and\nin those other towns which possessed portions of the Holy Cross, such as\nConstantinople and Apamea; it spread afterwards to other places, and soon\nbecame universal in the East. It is called in the East the Exaltation of\nthe Cross (\u1f55\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fe6, or \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd),\nfrom which is taken its Western name, _Exaltatio Crucis_, but the pilgrim\nTheodosius, who visited the Holy Land about 530, employs the correct\nterm, the Finding of the Cross (inventio crucis).[730] According to the\nmenology of Constantinople, the festival was preceded by a preparation of\nfour days (10th to 13th September). On the three last days of Holy Week\nthe court and all the high officials took part in the public worship of\nthe Holy Cross, as we learn from a writer[731] of the seventh century.\nThe Coptic calendars usually prolong the celebration during three days.\n\nIn the seventh century the relic of the Holy Cross was connected with an\nevent of great importance. Chosroes II., King of Persia, began to make\nwar against the Eastern Empire at the time when Heraclius ascended the\nthrone; he captured the cities of Apamea and Edessa, and defeated the\nGreeks in several engagements; in June 614 his general Salbarus took\nJerusalem with great slaughter. He laid waste the churches, and carried\noff to Persia, with the rest of the booty, the portion of the Holy\nCross which was preserved there. The course of the war still remained\nunfavourable to the Greeks until Heraclius, having made peace with\nthe Bulgarians, himself led the full strength of his army against the\nPersians in 621. The fortune of war changed, and the Greeks reconquered\ntheir lost territory, being aided in this by internal discord among\nthe Persians. Chosroes was deposed and murdered in 628; his successor,\nSiroes, hastened to make peace with the Greeks, and restored to them\nthe wood of the Holy Cross. At the end of the year Heraclius returned\nas victor to his capital, and at the beginning of the following year he\nset out for Syria, taking the Holy Cross with him. He brought it himself\nfrom Tiberias to Jerusalem,[732] where he handed it over to the Patriarch\nZacharias on the 3rd May, if the traditional date be correct. Tradition\nfurther adds that, arrayed in his royal robes, he essayed to carry it\nupon his shoulders, but at the foot of the hill of Calvary he found\nhimself unable to proceed further until, upon the advice of Zacharias, he\nlaid aside his royal apparel. No festival in commemoration of the event\nwas introduced in the East, although it was in the West.[733]\n\nWith regard to the spread of these two festivals throughout the Church,\nwe must call attention to a remarkable fact; the day of the discovery\nof the Holy Cross by Helena (14th September) naturally existed as\na festival from the first in Jerusalem, from whence it soon spread\nthroughout the entire eastern half of the Church, but in the West,\nalthough the discovery of the cross was already well known in the fourth\ncentury, the festival in honour of the event was not adopted, at least\nnot at once.\n\nIt was just the opposite with regard to the recovery of the cross by\nHeraclius; the grief at the news of its loss was equalled by the joy\nwhich the whole Christian world felt at its recovery. While in the East\npeople remained content with the already existing feast, in the West the\nday of the recovery of the cross was kept as a solemn commemoration, and\nwas placed in the calendars and martyrologies at an early date; we find\nit mentioned by the name \u201cDay of the Holy Cross\u201d (_dies sanct\u00e6 crucis_)\nin the lectionary of Silos, which belongs to about 650\u2014probably the\nearliest mention of the festival. The ancient Gallic liturgies published\nby Mabillon, both the lectionary and sacramentary, contain the Festival\nof the Holy Cross in spring, but call it \u201cThe Finding of the Cross\u201d\n(_Inventio Sanct\u00e6 Crucis_).[734] None of these service-books mention the\nfeast of the 14th September. The _Gregorianum_ has both feasts, so has\nthe _Gelasianum_, at all events in Thomasi\u2019s edition, but the second is a\nlater addition.[735]\n\nThe way in which the _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_ treats these feasts\nis worthy of notice. The Weissenburg Codex, written about 750, has both\ndays; the Echternach Codex, which represents the oldest form of the text,\nhas neither, and the Bern Codex, the latest of the three recensions,\nhas only one, _i.e._ the 3rd May, which, in common with all Latin\nauthorities, it calls the Finding of the Cross.[736] The authentic text\nof Bede has only the 3rd May, so too has the sacramentary of Padua,\nbelonging to the first half of the ninth century.[737]\n\nThese notices might easily be increased, but they are sufficient to show\nhow that in the West, when it was known that the Holy Cross had been\nrecovered from the Saracens, the feast of the 3rd May was, in the seventh\ncentury, immediately introduced, but the feast of the 14th September\nonly became known in the eighth century, and won its way to acceptance\nslowly and partially. In many churches it was received quite late, as for\nexample in Milan in 1035.[738]\n\n\n\n\nPART III\n\nTHE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR IS BASED\n\n\n1. _The Documentary Sources in General_\n\nThe sources from which the history of the ecclesiastical year and the\nfestivals of the saints is drawn are first of all official documents,\nnamely service-books, decrees of councils, papal constitutions and bulls;\nin the second place come the information derived from ecclesiastical\nwriters of various periods and countries which must be used and brought\ninto connection with the official sources.\n\nAmong the liturgical books of the Church, the missals and breviaries hold\nthe first place. In earlier times these were differently arranged and had\ndifferent names from those which they bear at present. The collects and\npsalms in particular employed at the mass were not included in one volume\nas they are now, but were taken from a number of books. The essential\nprayers of the mass were contained in the so-called _Sacramentarium_,\nin which were also to be found the collects, prefaces, and, in certain\ncases, even the whole canon. The lections from Holy Scripture, the\nEpistles and Gospels, were collected together in the Lectionaries, either\nall together, or the Epistles and Gospels in separate volumes; another\nname for this kind of book was _Comes_. The psalms and other portions to\nbe sung by the choir were contained in separate books, the Antiphonaries,\nGraduals, and Hymnaries, etc. It was only in the Middle Ages that\nfor the sake of convenience all the different parts of the mass were\ncontained together in one volume, called a _missale plenarium_, but the\nseparate volumes still continued in use for certain occasions.\n\nIn the course of our investigations, we have often had to refer to the\nso-called sacramentaries, of which the three most ancient belonging to\nthe Roman Church are also the most important. These are:\u2014\n\n1. _Sacramentarium Leonianum._ This is a collection of older formularies\nwhich had been already drawn up by an unknown author, some of which may\nwell be the work of Leo the Great; the title, which gives rise to the\nopinion that Leo was the author of the book, is due to the first editor.\nThe only existing codex is in Verona, and is unfortunately imperfect,\nbeing deficient in all that relates to Lent and Easter. Since it contains\na prayer for Pope Simplicius (\u2020 483), Rome must be regarded as the place\nwhere it was drawn up, and where it was used, while the date when it took\nits present shape was the pontificate of Felix II. (483-492).\n\n2. The _Gelasianum_, so called after Gelasius I. (492-496). This pope did\nactually compose some liturgical books, but the _volumen sacramentorum_,\nascribed to him by Gennadius, cannot have been one of them, since it\ncontains the four festivals of our Lady which were celebrated in Rome\nonly after Gregory the Great. On the other hand it does not contain the\nstations for the Thursdays in Lent introduced by Gregory II. (715-731);\nconsequently, it represents the liturgical usages of the seventh century,\n_i.e._ of the period after St Gregory the Great, and bears the name of\nGelasius incorrectly. It consists of three books: (1) _De Tempore_,\nbeginning with Christmas; (2) _De Sanctis_, beginning with the 1st\nJanuary; and (3) masses for the ordinary Sundays, votive masses, and\nmasses for the dead. The number of prefaces contained in the sacramentary\namounts to over a hundred. The Stowe Missal, which is independent of the\n_Gelasianum_, gives the _canon Gelasii Pap\u00e6_. This book was drawn up in\nRome and was intended for local usage, but we only possess the MSS.,\nwhich were meant for the churches of France; the most ancient belongs to\nthe end of the seventh century, and was written apparently for the Abbey\nof St Denys (Cod. Vat. Reg. Sueci\u00e6, 316). The other existing codices only\ngive an edition specially adapted from the original Roman book for use in\nthe Frankish Empire; this is shown by the prayer, \u201cRespice propitius ad\nRomanum sive Francorum imperium.\u201d\n\n3. _The Gregorianum._ This represents the Roman rite of the period of\nPope Adrian I. (772-795) and Charlemagne. It is entirely a compilation of\nRoman origin belonging to the eighth century, destined originally for the\nuse of the popes but afterwards adapted for general use. The canon stands\nat the head of the work, which commences with Christmas, but Advent comes\nat the end of the _Proprium de Tempore_. The _Agnus Dei_, added to the\ntext of the mass by Pope Sergius I., is given here in its place, while it\nis absent from _Gelasianum_.[739] The earliest mention of this work is in\nthe collection of letters of the popes of the eighth century known as the\n_Codex Carolinus_, in a letter of Adrian I. to Charlemagne who received\na copy of the work from Adrian between 784 and 791,[740] from which date\nit was introduced into the Frankish Empire, copied, and circulated, and\nalso added to. In his letter Adrian ascribes a personal share in the\nproduction of the work to his predecessor Gregory, relying, of course, on\nthe tradition of his Church.[741]\n\n4. This last-named book gradually supplanted the ancient liturgies\nand service-books of Gaul; of these we possess the _Sacramentarium\nGallicanum_, along with its lectionary, the _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_,\nand the _Missale Francorum_;[742] the Mozarabic missal and breviary are\nalso very important documents.\n\nThe ecclesiastical calendars and martyrologies come next under\nconsideration. As regards the former, the service-books of which we have\nbeen speaking were on the whole drawn up in accordance with the local\ncalendar and added both the movable and immovable feasts as best they\ncould. In proportion as the number of feasts increased the calendars were\nregarded as independent catalogues of festivals, and are found both as\nseparate documents, or bound up with the other liturgical books; in the\nlatter case, they are usually placed at the beginning of the volume.\n\nWhile the calendars give merely the names of the saints or the date of\ntheir feasts, the martyrologies or _Synaxaria_ contain more detailed\nnotices, giving the place, time, and circumstances of the saints\u2019 death,\nrank, etc., according as the compiler had more or less material at his\ndisposal; in many instances these notices have grown into considerable\nhistorical narratives, and on this account, the character of the\ndifferent martyrologies varies greatly. As to their employment for\nhistorical purposes, the shorter the contents the higher the value and\ntrustworthiness of a calendar. The martyrologies were usually compiled\nby private individuals, even when intended for ecclesiastical use, but\nthe calendars shared in the official character of the liturgical books\nof which they formed part, since alterations could not be made in them\nwithout the knowledge and consent of the authorities of the church or\ncorporation to which they belonged.[743]\n\nManuscript calendars belonging to earlier centuries exist in large\nnumbers, for all missals and breviaries were provided with them. Their\nvalue for historical research depends upon their age, and also upon our\nknowledge of the locality for which they were drawn up, the best data\nfor discovering this latter point being afforded by the names of local\nsaints contained in the calendar itself. No calendar can be set aside\nas altogether useless, for in case of need all can throw light upon the\nhistory of at least their own locality. For this reason, and for others\nas well, an increasing amount of attention has been given to them in\nrecent times, and a large number of them have been printed (see sect. 10\nof this part). The days marked in the calendars are those of the saints\u2019\ndeaths (_vid._ _ante_, p. 213); but the days on which their relics were\ntranslated to some particular church are also marked as festivals in the\ncalendar of the church in question. When in different calendars different\ndays are given to the same saint, the date in the calendar belonging to\nthe church where he died is usually to be regarded as the day of his\ndeath; the others are days on which his relics were translated.[744]\n\nAnother class of documents consists of the ordos drawn up for divine\nservice belonging to particular countries, dioceses, or the more\nimportant ecclesiastical foundations (ordines, ordinaria; in Greek,\ntypica). These were not originally drawn up for the course of merely\none year, like our present ordos, but contained the list of recurring\nfestivals and fasts observed from year to year in some monastery or\ncathedral, along with detailed directions for the performance of divine\nservice. The most important of these are the thirteen oldest ordos\nof the Roman Church, collected and published by Mabillon, but other\ndioceses and monasteries as well as the Church of Rome had similar ordos,\nsome of which have been already printed,[745] while others still await\npublication.[746]\n\n\n2. _The Earliest Christian Calendars_\n\nThe worship of the saints, especially of the martyrs, asserted itself in\nvarious ways in the liturgy of the Church. Among the Latins, it appeared\neven in the liturgy of the mass, since special masses in honour of the\nsaints were composed at an early date for the commemorations of the\nmost celebrated saints. These were included in the sacramentaries, and,\nfinally, as their number continued to increase, they were placed together\nin a separate division of the book (_proprium sanctorum_), instead of\nbeing distributed, as formerly, over the whole year. Among the Greeks,\nthis was not possible, since they repeat the same mass daily, and employ\nonly two or three mass formularies throughout the entire year.\n\nIn the second place, the cultus of the saints gained a footing in the\nCanonical Hours, the Psalter, both among Latins and Greeks. It was\ncustomary among the Latins as early as the sixth century to read a\nportion of the account of the martyrdom (passiones martyrum), as Aurelian\nof Arles tells us;[747] this was the commencement of the existing\nlections of the breviary. Then collections of lives of the saints for the\nwhole year were drawn up on the lines of the calendar, which came to be\ncalled martyrologies on account of the character of the larger part of\ntheir contents. In course of time, two kinds of martyrologies came into\nexistence, those containing legends of greater length more suited for\nprivate reading, and those distinguished by the brevity of their notices\nintended for employment in the services of the Church. Even these have no\nimmediate connection with the liturgy, although the names of the saints\nfor the day were read at Prime, a custom which possibly the Council of\nAix-la-Chapelle of 817 had in view in its sixty-ninth canon.[748] These\nmartyrologies developed out of the diptychs and calendars of particular\nchurches, by way of compilation and expansion; like the calendars,\nthey contain simply the names of the saints, but with the mention of\nthe locality to which the saint belonged, and, in many cases, with an\nindication of the date at which he lived.\n\nThe martyrologies aimed at completeness in other directions. First, it\nwas attempted to unite together the names of all the martyrs who had\never suffered throughout the whole Church, along with the day of their\ndeath, and secondly, an attempt was made, but only in later times, to\nfill up the calendar by allotting every day in the year to at least one\nsaint. This latter attempt was made in the West only in the seventh and\neighth centuries, and achieved considerable success. While the first\nefforts in this direction attained to only relative completeness, since\nthey took into consideration only a part, and not the whole, of the\nuniversal Church, as the Arian and Carthaginian martyrologies had done,\nyet the tendency towards universality appears unmistakably at a later\ndate, especially in the so-called _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_.\n\nWith regard to the Greek service-books, menology means the same thing\nas martyrology\u2014a catalogue of saints arranged in the form of a calendar\naccording to the days of the month, and merely giving the name of the\nsaint against the particular day set apart by the Church in his honour.\nThe lives of the saints arranged according to months and days are\ncalled Men\u00e6a or Meni\u00e6a, and the shorter abstracts from it are called\nSynaxaria.[749]\n\nThe list of calendars opens with two documents, the most ancient of\ntheir kind possessed by the Roman Church, _i.e._ the lists of popes and\nmartyrs with the days of their death, which have often been referred to\nalready\u2014the _Depositio Episcoporum_ from Lucius to Julius I., and the\n_Depositio Martyrum_, a catalogue of the martyrs of the city of Rome,\nextending only to 304, three martyrs not belonging to Rome being included\nin this list, Cyprian, Perpetua, and Felicitas. The connection of these\ntwo lists to one another is shown in their titles (_item_), and also by\nthe fact that Sixtus, who is placed among the martyrs, is omitted from\nthe list of popes. This latter list comprises the period from Lucius\n(\u2020 255) to Julius (\u2020 352) only; either the compiler had no material at\nhand for the earlier period, or he set it aside as not bearing upon the\npoint he had in view. The list of martyrs contains the names of popes\nwho were also martyrs, such as St Peter, St Clement, St Calixtus, St\nPontianus, St Fabian, and St Sixtus; of martyrs, not bishops, we have\nhere the most famous saints of the city of Rome, St Agnes and St Lawrence\n(but not St Cecilia), as well as many other quite obscure names. In\nreply to the inquiry what principle was followed in drawing up this\nlist, Mommsen,[750] relying on the title which connects the document\nwith Carthage, replies that it contains \u201cthe names of those martyrs and\nbishops whose commemoration was celebrated annually in the Church.\u201d Both\nthese lists were first published by \u00c6gidius Bucherius (Gilles Boucher),\nand form a portion of the work on the Calendar of Dionysius Philocalus\n(see above, p. 136 _seqq._).\n\nNext in order comes a Calendar of the North African Church belonging to\nthe fifth century, and edited by Mabillon from a codex of the seventh\ncentury formerly belonging to the Monastery of Cluny. The original\nmust have been completed after 505, for Bishop Eugenius of Carthage is\nmentioned in it. It contains St John the Baptist, some apostles and\nmartyrs not belonging to North Africa, Sixtus, Gervasius and Protasius,\nLawrence, Clement of Rome, Eulalia, Felix of Nola, Agnes, Agatha,\nVincent, and the Machabees, who belong to the Churches of Rome and Spain.\nUnfortunately, the list is not quite perfect owing to the bad state of\nthe MS.\n\nThe Calendar of Philocalus for the year 352 contains nothing definitely\nChristian.[751] On the other hand, the Calendar of Polemius Silvius,\nBishop of Sion, drawn up between 435 and 455, is interesting as showing a\nmixture of Christian and heathen entries. Destination, character, place,\nand time of the compilation can be learnt from the calendar itself; it\nwas not drawn up for one particular year, at least there is nothing by\nwhich to determine the year, for Dominical letters, movable feasts, etc.,\nare all wanting; among heathen festivals we have the _Carmentalia_,\n_Lupercalia_, _Terminalia_, _Quinquatria_, and _Lavatio Cereris_, all of\nwhich recall heathen religious customs. The _Saturnalia_ are included on\naccount of their popular, not on account of their religious significance,\nand appear as _feri\u00e6 servorum_ on the 17th December, as well as _feri\u00e6\nancillarum_ on the 7th July. In addition, there are many other popular\ncommemorations, such as the 7th January, 13th September, etc., and a\ngreat number of _natales_ of emperors. The number of ecclesiastical\nfeasts is very small, being limited to Epiphany, the 25th and 27th of\nMarch as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christmas, and six\nsaints\u2019 days\u2014_Depositio Petri et Pauli_ on the 22nd February instead\nof the 29th June, Vincent, the Machabees, Lawrence, Hippolytus, and\nStephen on their usual days. Besides these we have the _natales_ of\nauthors\u2014Cicero and Virgil, and finally, the days are marked on which\nthe Senate usually held sittings and games were given in the circus.\nIn comparison with the Calendar of Philocalus, the number of such days\nis much reduced; in the former there are over a hundred, here only\nfifty-three. The meteorological entries are numerous. The calendar was\nevidently intended for the provinces of the western half of the empire,\nand takes into account both the ecclesiastical and civil requirements,\nalthough it deals with the former to a limited extent.\n\n\n3. _The Arian Calendar of the Fourth Century_\n\n(_About 370-380_)\n\nOne of the most interesting documents in connection with our subject in\nvirtue of its age, contents, and plan is the Arian martyrology, published\nby W. Wright in 1865.[752] As is well known, the Arians were an active\nparty who, until about 380, attempted with some success to gain the upper\nhand in the Church. As a means to this end, it was to their interest\nto invest their followers as much as possible with the appearance\nof sanctity, and the Arian historian Philostorgius devoted himself\nespecially to this; he characterises as saints and workers of miracles\nAgapetus and a certain Theophilus who worked in India, and also A\u00ebtius,\nEunomius, and Leontius, the ringleaders of thorough-going Arianism.[753]\nAs a consequence of this the Arians encroached in various ways upon the\ndomain of liturgy also. It goes without saying that they did not wish\nto figure as heretics, but as forming the true Church, and so they\nexhibited a corresponding activity in hagiology.\n\nWhile, generally speaking, the local churches confined themselves each\nto its own diocese, and the principle of individualism continued to hold\nits own for a long time throughout the whole Church, the Arians early\nabandoned this method, and even while they did not completely adopt the\nprinciple of universality, yet they did so partially, their position as\na minority among Christians giving them an impulse in this direction.\nThus we find their martyrology embraces Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, M\u0153sia,\nIllyria; in fact, the entire eastern half of the empire, and even Italy\nand North Africa are not passed over altogether.\n\nWe must first of all turn our attention to the external and historical\nside of the document. Wright found it in a Syrian MS., belonging to\nNitria in Egypt, of the time of Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch (404-413),\nand written in the year 411.[754] It consists of two different parts,\nof which the first is a martyrology drawn up in accordance with the\ncalendar, and originally composed in Greek. Unfortunately, the section\nfrom the 1st to the 25th December is missing. This part is the original\ndocument, and was early translated into Syriac, although, as we shall\nsee later, it is full of defects. The fact that, nevertheless, it\nwas considered worthy of being translated, and that by an orthodox\ntranslator, shows that it was regarded as a remarkable piece of work.\nWhat impressed its contemporaries was its universal character, then quite\na novelty. At the end, there is a somewhat mutilated appendix consisting\nof a list of Persian martyrs arranged, not by the date of their death,\nbut according to their rank in the hierarchy, into three groups\u2014bishops,\npriests, and deacons.\n\nThe second part, originally composed in Syriac, was an addition of the\nSyrian translator. Among the persons named in this part, it is noticeable\nthat there are no Arians, nor even Nestorians, who, when expelled from\nthe Roman Empire by Theodosius II. in 435, made themselves masters\nof the Persian Church. Of the sixteen bishops mentioned in the first\nsection, at least eight are known to have been orthodox Persian martyrs,\nall belonging to the period before 400, _e.g._ Simon Bar-Sabai, Bishop\nof Seleucia-Ctesiphon (\u2020 17th April 344), his successor, Schahdust (\u2020\n346), and Sapor, Bishop of Beth Gormai.[755] Miles (Milles), Simeon,\nBarbasimas, Joannes, Sapores, Gudiab, Sabinus, Abdos, Paul, and Ebedjesus\nare mentioned by Sozomen as Persian martyrs of the reign of Sapor I.[756]\nThis very primitive calendar contains only the names of martyrs to the\nexclusion of other persons who were even regarded as saints, such as\nMares, the second bishop of Seleucia (\u2020 82).[757] The compiler calls\nthose whom he included in his calendar the Holy Martyrs who had been put\nto death in the East, while he regards those named in the first part as\nthe Holy Confessors of the West, regarding the Roman Empire as the West\nin respect to Persia.\n\nThe first part, which concerns the West, differs from the second in many\nrespects. It was drawn up by another hand, and was written originally\nin Greek. The latter is a document entirely historical in character,\nwhile the former is liturgical; the one belongs to Persia, the other\nto the Roman Empire, and probably to Nicomedia. It was then employed\nin Antioch, where it was enlarged, and finally, as it appears, was\ntranslated into Syriac at Edessa. It forms one of the most remarkable\ndocuments of ancient Christian literature.\n\nThat this Arian martyrology belonged to the Roman Empire, and especially\nto its eastern part, is proved by the calendar employed therein, _i.e._\nthe Julian, with the addition of the Chaldean names for the months,\nthe days of the month being given simply without reference to calends\nand nones and ides. The author is well-informed with regard to the\neastern half of the Roman Empire; he knows names and date of death of\neight bishops of Antioch, the name Antioch occurs in all twenty-four\ntimes, Nicomedia is named thirty-two times, but the name of no bishop\nof Nicomedia is given, Alexandria is mentioned nineteen times,\nConstantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem only twice.\n\nThe date of this work is fixed by the mention of the celebrated Bishop\nJames of Nisibis on the 15th July. He was alive after 350, when the\nPersians besieged Nisibis, and flourished, according to the somewhat\nvague expression of the Chronicle of Samuel of Ani, in the 283rd\nOlympiad, _i.e._ 353-356.[758] Thus the martyrology was written in the\nperiod between 370 and 400, and sometime about 380, when Arianism was the\ndominant religion in the eastern half of the empire.\n\nThe Arian character of the martyrology is shown by the fact that Arius\nhimself is mentioned in it, while none of the adherents of the Nicene\nfaith of that date are included, and the only orthodox bishop whose name\nappears is James of Nisibis. Since he was orthodox, and since Nisibis\nbelonged to Persia, his name could not have been in the Greek original,\nwhich, besides being Arian, was limited to worthies belonging to the\nRoman Empire, but the insertion of his name is probably due to the\northodox Persian translator.\n\nThe compiler drew his information from the works of his predecessors,\nto which he made additions of his own. One of these sources he names,\nfor he states with regard to the names of eleven personages, that they\nare taken from the \u201cNumber of the Ancient Confessors.\u201d He also used an\nold list of martyrs, which he does not further describe. To judge by\nthe character of the quotations from this document, it must have dealt\nwith the same part of the Church as the new compilation. Antioch (four\ntimes), Synnada, Nicomedia, Pergamus, and Heracleia are named in it,\nwhile Alexandria is not mentioned. By the \u201cAncient Confessors\u201d are to be\nunderstood the martyrs before Diocletian, and it is probable that they\nwere taken from the lists of \u201cDepositions\u201d belonging to each city, just\nas the chronographer has preserved for us those of Rome.[759]\n\nAs regards the contents, they resemble those of similar documents of\nearlier and later date, and are fully described in the superscription,\nwhich states that it \u201ccontains the names of the Lords, _i.e._ the saints,\nconfessors, and victors, and the days on which they received their\ncrowns.\u201d One would expect to find the place of their death mentioned as\nwell, but many saints are given without any indication of the locality\nto which they belonged, perhaps on account of imperfect information on\nthe part of the author. The date of death is on the whole correctly\ngiven, a remarkable instance to the contrary being the commemoration of\nSS. Peter and Paul, which is placed on the 28th December. This cannot\nthrow doubt upon the date observed in Rome itself, for the Greeks were,\nas a rule, very imperfectly informed concerning ecclesiastical events\nin the Latin portion of the empire. The sources from which the compiler\ndrew his information cannot have been very full, for there is no mention\nof the famous Western martyrs, Agnes and Lawrence, and, indeed, beyond\nthe mention on the 1st Ab (August) of Aksitus, Bishop of Rome, by which\nXystus II. is probably intended (the day of St Xystus\u2019 death was the 6th\nand not the 1st August), and of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, correctly\ngiven on the 7th March, no Western saints are commemorated.[760]\n\nAmong the bishops of Alexandria there are two mentioned whose names do\nnot occur in the official lists, Artemon on the 3rd September, and Hodion\n(Orion) on the 16th August. Similarly, among the bishops of Antioch,\nthere are two not mentioned elsewhere, Amphimelus (4th March) and\nPhilippus (27th March). Can these have been Arian prelates?\n\nBesides St Peter and St Paul, the only two apostles commemorated are St\nJohn and St James, who held the most important place in the eastern half\nof the empire; they are placed together on the 27th December, on which\nday the latter especially was formerly commemorated. St Stephen, also\ncalled an apostle (schelico), appears on the day still consecrated to\nhis memory (26th December).\n\nThe bishops, priests, and deacons appear with their proper titles; all\nthe others have the designation, confessor (mandaya). This designation\nimplies martyrdom, for in the first three centuries _confessor_ means a\nmartyr whose sufferings stop short of death. It is also worthy of notice\nthat some who appear not to have been martyrs have to be content with\na mere commemoration (dukrana = _commemoratio_), as, for example, St\nXystus, James of Nisibis, Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, etc. The names, again, of\nothers are merely mentioned without any addition or title.\n\nFinally, there are still some peculiarities in this menology which\nought to be mentioned. Some of these may be due to oversight, or to\nthe ignorance of the compiler, others seem to be mistakes made in\ntranscribing the document, and ought not to appear in documents of an\nofficial character. Thus Marcianus of Tomi appears twice (on the 5th and\non the 10th June), Dius once as confessor and once as presbyter (11th\nand 12th June). Especially remarkable is the circumstance that three\nindividuals, whose names occur in no other calendar, not even in the\n_Menologium_ of Constantinople, are given three times, namely, Cosconius,\nMelanippus, and Zeno, sons of Theodota, once for Nicea on the 19th\nJanuary, once for Asia on the 23rd February, and once for Nicomedia on\nthe 2nd September. As slips of the pen, we may notice Hadriopolis for\nHadrianopolis, Pedinthus for Perinthus, Tunjus (10th June) for Tomi,\nwhich is elsewhere spelt correctly, Sindus for Synnada, which once (30th\nJune) has the addition, \u201cin Phrygia,\u201d and once (15th June) is without it.\nThe proper names are frequently wrongly spelt, or so confused as to be\nunrecognisable.\n\nOf the Church festivals, only Epiphany and Easter are marked. The MS.\nis, unfortunately, imperfect where we should expect to find the 25th\nof December. On the Friday after Easter the Commemoration of all the\nConfessors, _i.e._ Martyrs, is set down.\n\nThe relation of the Arian martyrology to Eusebius\u2019 work on the Martyrs of\nPalestine deserves to be considered. One would expect to find this work\noften referred to, but it is not so, and the compiler seems to have had\nno knowledge of it. This is all the more remarkable since Eusebius always\ngives the dates of the death of the martyrs. The two works have, however,\nvery few points of contact, but they confirm one another in the points\nwhere they do coincide. Both place the death of the priest Pamphilus\nand his eleven companions at C\u00e6sarea on the 16th February; both mention\nthe martyr Romanus at Antioch, Eusebius placing his death on the 17th\nNovember, the martyrology on the 18th\u2014a trifling discrepancy which proves\ntheir independence of each other. Hermes the Exorcist, Domnion of Salona,\nJames of Nisibis, etc., are given on the dates which they occupy in the\ncalendars of other Churches.\n\nThe so-called martyrology of St Jerome has many names in common with this\nArian martyrology. St Jerome often assigns to one place and day more\nmartyrs than this Arian Calendar, as, for example, on the 25th March,\nDulas, on the 4th, 18th, and 21st April, etc. Sometimes the Arian gives\nmore names than St Jerome, _e.g._ on the 11th March, the 2nd May, etc.,\nwhile in some places they are in perfect agreement, _e.g._ on the 13th\nMarch, Modestus and twenty-one companions\u2014the _Hieronymianum_ gives the\nnames of the whole twenty-one, while here only the number is given\u2014on\nthe 16th April, Leonidas and eight companions in Corinth, etc. We cannot\ninfer from this that the compiler of the _Hieronymianum_ incorporated the\nwork of his Arian predecessor in his own, but he certainly was acquainted\nwith it, and made use either of it or of common sources.\n\nThe comparison of the Arian martyrology with that of St Jerome has\nfurther led to a curious discovery,[761] _i.e._ that the entries from the\n6th (or more correctly from the 8th) to the 30th June are indeed included\nin the martyrology of St Jerome, but have been bodily transferred to\nthe corresponding dates in July.[762] This latter month has only three\nentries, and it has been thought that the mistake is due to the Arian\ncompiler or his transcribers, but it is just as likely that the change\nof date was made by the author of the _Hieronymianum_. How this fact\nis to be explained must be left to conjecture. Another important point\nbearing upon the connection between the two documents is the fact that\nthe one mentions Bishop Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea on the 30th May, but the\nother in more detail on the 21st June, as follows: _In C\u00e6sarea Pal\u00e6stin\u00e6\nDep. Eusebi Epi. Historiographi_. Which is correct? Certainly the\nSyrian document, which also gives correctly the day of Arius\u2019 death.\nThe entry on the 6th June clearly exhibits the Arian character of the\ndocument: \u201cIn Alexandria, Arius Presbyter.\u201d The fact that he is merely\ncommemorated, proves that it is incorrect to suppose, as many do, that\nanother Arius, a reputed, but otherwise unknown, martyr of Alexandria is\nintended. The martyrs in this document are treated to more than a mere\ncommemoration (dukrana). Accordingly he did not regard this particular\nArius as a martyr.\n\nFrom the description which we have given of this highly important\ndocument, one is led to expect that it will throw fresh light on certain\nhistorical questions, and so, as a matter of fact, it does. For instance,\nwe can fix the death of Arius by its assistance on the 6th June 336.\nArius died on a Saturday shortly before sunset. On the following day he\nwas to have been solemnly received into the Church.[763] The only year\nwhich can be taken into consideration is 336, for in it the 6th June fell\non a Saturday.[764]\n\nThe historian Eusebius died about the time when Athanasius returned to\nAlexandria from his first exile. This was shortly after Constantine\u2019s\ndeath (\u2020 22nd May 337). Since Eusebius died soon after he had finished\nthe life of Constantine, whom he did not long survive, his death is to\nbe placed on the 30th May 338. This takes for granted that the Bishop\nof Palestine mentioned on the 30th May is identical with the historian,\nwhich can scarcely be called in doubt. C\u00e6sarea was the ecclesiastical\nmetropolis of Palestine, and this accounts for his title, Bishop of\nPalestine.[765] His successor and heir and biographer was the energetic\nAcacius.\n\nA more important fact is that the martyrdom of Bishop Babylas of Antioch\ncan now be definitely established. We have in this document reliable\nevidence that he suffered on the 24th January, which corresponds with the\nevidence of Chrysostom, who stated that the Festival of SS. Juventinus\nand Maximin, which was kept on the 4th February, followed closely on\nthat of St Babylas.[766] Moreover, St Babylas was generally commemorated\non the 24th January. According to Eusebius,[767] Babylas died in prison\nunder Decius, and, according to Jerome, in the first year of his reign.\nDecius reigned from October, or, according to other authorities, from\nAugust 249 to 27th July 251, and one of his first acts was to inaugurate\nthe persecution against the Christians. Accordingly the death of Babylas\nmust have happened on the 24th January 250. Since all authorities agree\nin stating that he had been bishop for thirteen years, we are now able to\nfix the year of the death of Zebinas, his predecessor, _i.e._ 237, and\nthe day of the month is given as 13th January in the Arian martyrology.\nThis document must be regarded as a thoroughly reliable source for the\ndates of the death of the Antiochene bishops in particular, and we\ncan, therefore, place the death of Maximin, the seventh in the list of\nbishops, on the 4th February 191, and the death of Serapion on the 14th\nMay 215.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to observe that this calendar, although it is\nan Arian document, contains not merely the names of Arian worthies, but\nmany which belong to Catholic antiquity. It is chiefly to this that it\nowes its importance for the history of the Church, and it is also due to\nthis that it was capable of being combined with the catalogue of Persian\nsaints, which is an essentially Catholic document. On the other hand, it\nis by no means a complete martyrology, and is in itself a liturgical, and\nnot a historical, document intended by its unskilful compiler to serve\nparty ends.\n\nThe Goths in Italy had also a menology of their own, of which a fragment\nwas discovered by A. Mai. Unfortunately, it contains only the month of\nNovember. It is noteworthy that it mentions the Apostle Andrew, whose\nname does not occur in the similar martyrology of which we have just\nbeen speaking. The fragment, with this exception, contains Gothic names\nalone. St Clement and St Cecilia do not appear, which proves its freedom\nfrom Roman influence, and shows that it was essentially a national\nproduction.[768]\n\n\n4. _The so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum_\n\n(_Second Half of the Seventh Century_)\n\nAlready in the time of St Gregory the Great there existed in Rome a\ncomplete and universal list containing merely the names of the martyrs\nand the place where they suffered, arranged according to the days of the\nyear. Eulogius, the contemporary bishop of Alexandria, besought the pope\nto send him the complete collection of the acts of the martyrs drawn\nup by Eusebius in the time of Constantine. He believed these were to\nbe found in Rome. He had doubtless in view the \u201cCollection of Martyrs\u201d\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) just mentioned. St Gregory replied that they had\nin Rome a collection of the names of all the martyrs in one volume, but\nno complete collection of their acts.[769]\n\nThe work of Eusebius here referred to was not forthcoming in Alexandria\neither, and was already regarded as lost, but the fact that such a work\nhad once existed was not forgotten. A work of the same kind was also\nattributed to St Jerome, which is also no longer in existence. The\nsenator Cassiodorus exhorts his monks to read diligently the histories\nof the martyrs (_passiones martyrum_) who have lived throughout the\nwhole world, in order to stir themselves up to the practice of virtue.\nThese they will find in the letter written by St Jerome to Chromatius\nand Heliodorus. These last words are somewhat obscure, for it would be\nimpossible to deal with the acts of all the martyrs in one letter.[770]\nHowever, so much is plain that Cassiodorus ascribed to St Jerome a work\nof this kind. Finally, it must be borne in mind that St Jerome had\ntranslated some of the historical writings of Eusebius. This may have\ngiven rise to the idea that he had also translated his collection of the\nmartyrdoms. It is not impossible that he may have done so, although we\nhave no evidence of the fact. Bede also speaks of a martyrology of St\nJerome, but with some uncertainty, for he had never seen it himself, and\nthought St Jerome may have been only the translator and not the author of\nthe work.[771] In Bede\u2019s day the so-called _Hieronymianum_ was already\nin existence, as the researches of De Rossi and Duchesne have recently\nshown. That it was also known to Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus cannot\nbe maintained, especially as the words of the latter are so obscure. It\nis, however, certain from his words that Cassiodorus believed Jerome to\nhave been the author of a work of this kind. Further evidence for this\nis, unfortunately, lacking, though the thing is not impossible in itself.\nAbbot Hilduin, a writer of the ninth century, referred also to this\npoint, and was of opinion that Constantine had collected all the acts of\nthe martyrs from all parts of the empire, and had sent them to Eusebius\nat C\u00e6sarea.[772] This statement, however, is not of much importance,\nsince it represents a view originating in the interpolated letter of St\nJerome already referred to.\n\nHowever this may be, there have existed since the eighth century\nnumerous MSS. of a collection of the names of the martyrs of all times\nand countries belonging to the Roman Empire which went by the name\nof the _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_, and to which was attached two\nreputed letters of St Jerome to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia, and to\nHeliodorus, Bishop of Altinum. The work corresponds to that mentioned by\nCassiodorus.\n\nUpon close examination, it is quite clear that the work, as we have\nit now, cannot have been composed by St Jerome. It includes the names\nof many persons who lived at a date subsequent to St Jerome, as, for\nexample, to name one out of many, St Gregory the Great on the 12th March.\nIn other respect the names do not extend beyond the seventh century, as\nappears upon an inspection of the earliest codices. In later recensions\nwe naturally meet with the names of many persons who lived at a still\nlater date.\n\nAs regards the date of composition, the personality of the compiler and\nkindred questions, we are face to face with an historical and literary\nproblem resembling that of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the\nDonation of Constantine. Still some light has now been cast upon these\ndifficulties, since we have at last a thoroughly critical text of the\ndocument, the investigations of De Rossi and Duchesne having determined\nwhich of the existing MSS. is the earliest.[773]\n\nAmong the MSS. belonging to the eighth century, is one written for the\nMonastery of Weissenburg in the diocese of Spires, now preserved in\nWolfenb\u00fcttel, _Codex Wisseniburgensis_, 23. De Rossi believed it was\nwritten shortly before the death of Abbot Wando (\u2020 756) of Fontanelle\nin the diocese of Rouen, because his death has been added by a later\nhand on _XV. Kal. Mai_. It is certain that the codex was written before\n772, because this date is referred to in it. Of about the same period is\nthe Parisian Codex 10 837, belonging to Echternach. It is written in an\nAnglo-Saxon hand, and is perhaps somewhat later than the former, but is\nderived from an original MS. certainly older than the Weissenburg Codex.\nThis view which is that of De Rossi gains support from the fact that the\ntwo festivals in honour of the Holy Cross are not contained in the codex,\nwhile they appear in the Weissenburg and all later codices. Both codices\nare full of errors of grammar and spelling. The codex from the monastery\nof Hilariacum originally belonging to Metz and now at Berne, is more\ncorrect and better written, but unfortunately only extends to the 21st\nNovember. The latest entries made in it by the first hand belong to the\nyear 766 and refer to Bishop Chrodegang. The text dates from the time of\nClotaire II. (584-628).\n\nThese three most ancient recensions do not differ from one another to any\ngreat extent, but the MSS. belonging to later times, when the work was\noften copied and used, show much greater divergencies, for alterations\nand additions were continually being made in it corresponding to the\nrequirements of the local churches and monasteries where it was employed.\n\nSince the two learned editors have succeeded in detecting the original\nmatter common to the three recensions, we are in possession of the\nfollowing result: the martyrology which formed the original source of\nall later texts as far as they are known to us was written in Auxerre\nbetween 592 and 600. The grounds for this conclusion are briefly as\nfollows: the compiler is evidently well informed as to ecclesiastical and\nsecular events in Gaul, in fact far better than with regard to any other\ncountry. In naming the cities of Gaul, he gives the provinces in which\nthey are situated, and gives also many unusual details respecting the\nindividuals named, as for example when he gives in the case of bishops,\nnot only the day on which they died, but the date of their ordinations\nas well; the names are also always given correctly, while in other\ndocuments they are often frightfully distorted. A circumstance which\nespecially points to Auxerre as the locality from which the martyrology\noriginated is that this not very important city is mentioned thirty\ntimes while the neighbouring and much larger city of Lyons is named\nonly twenty-six times. Moreover, all the bishops of Auxerre, with one\nsolitary exception, are named, while there are many gaps in the lists\nof the bishops of Lyons and Autun. Thirdly, a _litania_ is enjoined on\nthe first of each month, and this custom was peculiar to the Church of\nAuxerre, having just been introduced at that time by Bishop Aunarius.\nAgain, the day of the ordination of this not very famous Bishop Aunarius\nis marked (II. Kal. Aug.), but not as we might have expected the day of\nhis death. The same holds good of Syagrius, Bishop of Autun; the date of\nhis consecration (natale suscepti episcopatus) is given, but not the date\nof his death which happened in 599 or 600. The last Gallic bishop whose\ndeath is noticed is Avitus of Clermont (\u2020 592).\n\nOn account of these facts, Duchesne arrived at the conclusion that\nthe so-called _Martyrologium Hieronymianum_ originated at Auxerre\nbetween 592 and 600. This conclusion is not weakened by the fact that\npersonages belonging to the seventh century are included,[774] such as\nDesiderius of Vienne (\u2020 606-7), Columbanus (\u2020 615), Eustasius, Abbot of\nLuxeuil (\u2020 629), and Abbot Attala, the date of whose death is unknown.\nDesiderius, indeed, appears in the Berne and Weissenburg Codices, and\nthe three others in that of Echternach, but they have been added by the\ntranscribers, and both De Rossi and Duchesne are agreed that none of\nthese codices represent the original text composed at Auxerre.\n\nThe editors go yet further, and show that the compiler was also very\nwell informed concerning ecclesiastical matters in Italy, especially in\nNorthern Italy and Milan; while he has comparatively little to say about\nSpain, Rh\u00e6tia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, and nothing at all about Scotto-Irish\nsaints. This postulates the existence of a yet older work, used by the\ncompiler of Auxerre, which may have been identical with the work familiar\nto Cassiodorus.[775] This document, however, has entirely disappeared\nwithout leaving behind it any other documents derived from it. If one\nfollows the perspective thus opened out, the connecting links may finally\ncome to light which connect this document with the work of Eusebius,\nreferred to by Eulogius of Alexandria and in the two letters attributed\nto St Jerome.\n\nHowever, we shall not follow these interesting suggestions further, but\nshall content ourselves with the fact that in the _Hieronymianum_, in\nthe earliest form in which it has come down to us, we have a primitive\nmartyrology,[776] with additions and alterations made to it by a\nFrankish transcriber or compiler between 592-600. In its original form\nit contained only saints belonging to the Gr\u00e6co-Roman empire, and this\naccounts for the absence of the Irish saints and those of Mesopotamia.\nThus at last the so-called _Hieronymianum_ has been made serviceable for\nuse in historical and liturgical investigations; the learned editors, in\ngiving us as far as possible the original text, have given us for the\nfirst time a reliable edition of the document, and the Bollandists have\nrendered the work still more serviceable by the addition of a reliable\nalphabetical index, thus considerably lightening the labours of those\nwho use this work. This is no common gain for liturgical study, since\nthe _Hieronymianum_, obtained in the course of time, an increasingly\nprominent position, more prominent indeed at last than it deserved;\nmoreover it has not been without its influence upon later martyrologies\nand calendars, and has had an appreciable effect even on the development\nof the Church\u2019s cycle of festivals.\n\nTo know the number and condition of the Christians who had laid down\ntheir lives for the faith within the limits of the Roman empire would\nbe of the highest interest now and always; to record the name, date,\nand locality of each with statistical accuracy would have been a work\ndeserving the thanks of posterity. It might have been done immediately\nafter the cessation of the Diocletian persecution, but only with the\nassistance of the secular authorities. Eulogius and the writer of the\nletters ascribed to St Jerome were on the right track in thinking that\nEusebius had undertaken to furnish a work of this character with the\nassistance of the emperor; the latter informs us that Eusebius actually\ndid so, and that the collection contained the names of from five to eight\nhundred martyrs for every day of the year, thus giving a total of between\n182,500 and 292,000 martyrs.\n\nOur Latin compiler indeed has not brought together so many names, and he\nstates in the reputed letter of St Jerome that he only admitted those\nmartyrs whose commemoration was celebrated with special solemnity (qui\nsunt in amplissima festivitate). However he has brought together in\nround numbers 6000 names\u2014quite a respectable number when compared with\nthe _Menologium Basilianum_, which belongs to a much later date, and it\nremains a question how it was possible for a Frankish scholar of the\nsixth century to get together so many names. Some of them certainly are\ndistorted, others are repeated in a remarkable way, and others again\nhave an unreal sound,[777] but when all deductions have been made, there\nstill remains so much that is historical and unexceptional that the whole\nwork cannot be dismissed as devoid of all authority. With regard to the\norigin and value of this mass of names, one finds oneself confronted by a\nquestion which seems equally insoluble, whether the compiler was a native\nof Gaul, of North Italy, or of anywhere else. He certainly incorporated\ninto his martyrology the older lists of martyrs existing at his day,\nmany of which are known to us, and the two editors have displayed both\nindustry and insight in making this clear in several cases; yet all these\nlists of martyrs taken together contain scarcely a thousand names. From\nwhat sources has the compiler obtained the rest? This is the question\nwhich still awaits an answer. On the other hand the compiler has given\nexpression to an important principle to which is due his influence on the\nhagiology and liturgy of later ages. The Arian Calendar of which we have\nspoken, concerned itself with the eastern half alone of the empire, and\nis composed almost entirely of names belonging thereto, but the author\nof the _Hieronymianum_ set to work on quite another principle; he had\nin view the entire Christian world, East and West, Africa and Gaul. His\npoint of view is infinitely wider than that of his predecessors, and even\nof many of his successors, and he made use of the fruitful principle of\nuniversalism, rejecting all particularism in the ecclesiastical sphere.\n\nWhile there had been calendars in the West containing the names of\nmartyrs belonging to a particular diocese or country, the compiler of\nthe _Hieronymianum_ regarded the Church as a whole\u2014as catholic. The\nmeaning of this will be seen from a glance at the service-books, the\nsacramentaries especially. In the ninth century and later, the Roman\nsacramentaries, even those intended for use in other countries such as\nthose of St Gall, Mainz, Cologne, and Essen, contain only Masses for the\nRoman saints, confining themselves to one or two local saints in the\nsupplement. The principle of universality only very gradually affected\nthe formularies of the Mass, and did not reach its full expression until\nthe sixteenth century, but it came to the fore much earlier in the\nmartyrologies, as early indeed as Ado, Usuardus, Notker, and Rabanus\nMaurus, chiefly owing to the influence of the _Hieronymianum_.\n\nThis document is not without peculiarities of its own. In all recensions\nof the text, the 25th March is given as the day of Christ\u2019s death, and\nsince James the Lord\u2019s brother, here called also \u201cThe Just,\u201d died at\nEaster, his death is placed also on the 25th March. In the Berne Codex\nthe sacrifice of Isaac is commemorated on the same day. There is a goodly\narray of Old Testament names, _e.g._ Aggeus, Habacuc, Job, Joel, Aaron,\nEliseus, etc. In the Berne Codex, the 28th September is given as the day\nof Noe\u2019s going out of the ark, the 7th January as the day of the Exodus,\nand the 1st May as the commencement of our Lord\u2019s preaching.\n\nNow that the date of its composition has been fixed, the _Hieronymianum_\nis specially valuable for the information which it gives concerning\nFrankish hagiography and its gradual development. Whoever will\ndevote himself in the future to investigating St Denys of Paris, St\nUrsula, etc., must pursue his studies in the various recensions and\ntranscriptions of the _Hieronymianum_. It will well repay the trouble,\nif someone would investigate how many of the reputed martyrs of Lower\nGermany are named in this important document. It only knows of two\nmartyrs at Cologne, Asclinius and Pamphilus, in addition to the Moorish\nmartyrs whose numbers, however, vary greatly in the MSS.; their commander\nis named Gereon. No saints are given for Mainz. For Treves we have\nValerius, Paulinus, Maximinus, and a Bishop Militius; Palmatius Thyrsus\nand his Innumerable Company had not yet been discovered or invented. For\nBonn the connection in which Cassius, Florentius, and Mallusius stand to\none another on the 10th October is worthy of notice. We find some African\nmartyrs first of all on this day, and then, without indication of Bonn or\nany other locality, we have: \u201cEt alibi Cassi, Eusebi, Florenti, Victoris,\nAgrippin\u00e6, Mallusi cum alii trecentos xxx.\u201d (_sic_). The later legends\nomit Eusebius, and put Mallusius instead, who was buried at Birten and\ndiscovered by Bishop Evergisil; the martyr Victor is said to have been\nalso originally buried at Birten.[778]\n\nWith regard to the Roman martyrs and the succession of the popes, the\n_Hieronymianum_ is not altogether independent of the Philocalian list,\nalthough it is fuller. The earliest pope mentioned in it is Cornelius,\nand the last St Leo I., while the Philocalian list begins with Lucius\n(\u2020 254), and ends with Boniface I. (\u2020 422). The _Hieronymianum_ gives\nalso the days of the consecration of some of them, _e.g._ Miltiades,\nLiberius, Innocent I., and Boniface I. On the other hand the earlier\nmartyrs are omitted with the exception of Clement I.\n\nThe indications of place are dealt with on various principles. For the\nmost part the city is naturally given where the martyrdom took place;\noccasionally only the province is given, as, for example, Achaia, Asia,\nCampania, Sardinia, and Sicily, this being especially the case in regard\nto the last-named island. Remarkable on account of its vagueness is the\nphrase _in Africa_ which occurs more than a hundred times without the\nname of any town being given, but, nevertheless, in the case of many\nAfrican martyrs the town is given.[779] Often so many personal names\nfollow one another that one suspects that some indications of place have\ndropped out, a conjecture to which one is all the more inclined as the\nindefinite expression _et alibi_ is very often employed.\n\nThe martyrs themselves are only distinguished by their rank in the\nhierarchy, when they belonged to the sacred ministry, _i.e._ deacon,\npresbyter, bishop, but by far the larger number of personages are without\nany indication of place, date, etc. In many cases it is evident that the\nsame person has been entered twice or oftener,[780] and mutilations,\ndisfigurements and alterations are very numerous, more especially in the\nlater MSS. The transcribers allowed themselves considerable freedom,\nadding supplements and corrections, apart from the unintentional mistakes\nthey made. A hint of a literary nature is given by the remark, \u201ccujus\u201d\nor \u201cquorum acta habentur,\u201d indicating the existence of the acts of such\nand such a martyr. Later transcribers were not satisfied with this, but,\nwhen the acts were forthcoming, added larger or shorter notices from them\nto the text.[781] Had we the work as it came originally from the hands\nof the compiler of Auxerre, these imperfections would disappear to a\nconsiderable extent. A glance at any entry in the three recensions shows\nhow freely the earliest transcribers dealt with the original text; in the\nnew edition the three recensions are printed in parallel columns.[782]\nAll these remarks have an intimate bearing upon the question of the\nsources and origin of the work. With regard to sources, the Roman\n_Depositio Martyrum_ has been incorporated bodily, and a great part of\nthe Carthaginian Calendar as well, but the compiler must have had the\nArian Martyrology in a better copy than that which has come down to us,\nor even in its original form; this is shown by the fact that frequently\nhe has quite correctly enlarged some of its indefinite entries.[783]\nHis use of this martyrology is clear from his inserting Eusebius among\nthe saints, in ignorance of his Arianism; he inserted the name in all\nsimplicity, a mistake avoided by the Greek menologies, and the same may\npossibly have been the case with regard to Arius in the Weissenburg\nCodex.[784]\n\nThis employment of earlier sources coupled with the numerous correct\nentries in the _Hieronymianum_ entirely excludes the view that the\ndocument is a fabrication. Indeed its composition can safely be said\nto have come about in the following manner:\u2014in the two first centuries\nthe persecutions were on the whole local, and the number of martyrs not\nvery large, although the persecution at Lyons in 177 caused the death of\nmore than forty martyrs, not counting confessors; a change took place\nin the third century, when persecutions were commanded by the emperors\nfor the whole extent of the empire, and, under Diocletian, the martyrs\nwere to be reckoned, if not by millions, at least by thousands. At the\nconclusion of the persecutions, it must have occurred to many to ask\nhow many had lost their lives in this troublous period, and the idea of\ndrawing up statistics of the martyrdoms must have sprung up. We have no\nevidence of anything of this sort actually having been done, but in the\nsixth century there was a widespread opinion that a work of this kind\nhad been accomplished by Eusebius under Constantine, and the passages\nquoted from Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great show it was believed a\nlist of the martyrs for the whole year existed in Italy or in Rome. If\nthis work contained merely a list of names and dates, its interest must\nhave been merely statistical and in no wise scientific, since little\ncould be learnt from the names by themselves. In the seventh century,\nhowever, either in Auxerre or in North Italy, it seems to have been held\nin greater esteem; it found a transcriber and reviser, and finally was\nbrought into connection with the liturgy owing to its being read at the\nchoir-offices in monasteries and convents, and by this means, it won its\nway to a position of widespread importance, which, however, did not have\nan advantageous effect on the purity of the text.\n\nWith regard to the printed editions, there are several published\nby various scholars who relied upon late MSS. of little value. We\nmay mention the editions of Fiorentini, Lucca 1668 (incomplete), of\nD\u2019Achery in the _Spicilegium_, ii. 1 (Migne, xxx.), and of Galesinius,\nMilan, 1577. It used to be disputed which of these editions gave the\nearliest text, but they are all quite superseded now. There are also\nmany abstracts of the _Hieronymianum_ in medi\u00e6val handwriting, as, for\nexample, the _Martyrol. Gallicanum_; Mart\u00e8ne, _Ampliss. Coll. VI._,\ncalled after Chauvelin (Migne, _Patr. Lat._, xxx. 607); the _Fuldense_;\n_Anal. Boll. XIII._; the Reichenau martyrology, etc., but they are of\nsmall scientific importance.\n\n\n5. _The Lectionary and Martyrology of Silos_\n\nSince the appointment of special Masses in honour of the saints is a\ndistinguishing feature of the Latin rite, Western liturgical books are\nin themselves a source from which we can increase our knowledge of\nthe saints\u2019 festivals, the most important in this respect being the\nsacramentaries, but the other books used at the celebration of Mass, the\ncollections of epistles and gospels especially, also throw light on the\nsubject.\n\nIn addition to the books of this kind already named, the _Lectionarius_\nof Silos has, in recent times, attracted much attention in this\nconnection.[785] It is of the highest importance both for the history\nof the development of the ecclesiastical year and for the festivals of\nthe saints, for as it belongs to the period preceding the Carolingian\nliturgical reform, it represents a very ancient rite of which, until its\ndiscovery, all trace had disappeared. This rite is not the same as the\nsouthern Spanish rite of the Province of Boetica from which the so-called\nMozarabic rite is derived, but belongs to the ancient ecclesiastical\nprovince of Toledo. The codex in which it is contained was written\nbefore the year 1062, for a later event, _i.e._ the translation of St\nIsidore\u2019s relics from Seville to Leon, is added by a later hand. This\ncodex, originally belonging to the monastery of St Sebastian at Silos and\nnow in the National library of Paris, contains two distinct documents, a\nlectionary giving the lections from scripture for the whole of the year,\nand a martyrology; the latter was compiled between 925 and 1000; but the\nlectionary much earlier. Its antiquity is proved: (1) By the limited\nnumbers of saints\u2019 days; (2) by the circumstance that the catechumenate\nis still in force; (3) that the Saturdays in Lent are not fast days,\nagreeing with the eastern custom; (4) the Sundays after Epiphany and\nPentecost do not appear as forming part of the ecclesiastical year, and\nare not even numbered, but, as in the _Gelasianum_, there are added\ntwenty-four Masses called \u201cdominic\u00e6 quotidian\u00e6\u201d; (5) there are five\nSundays in Advent; (6) with regard to saints\u2019 days, Anastasius the\nPersian is not yet placed along with St Vincent on the 21st January, and\nthe Apostle James is also omitted along with all reference to the Spanish\nlegend connected with his name. From this it is plain that St James, at\nthe time when this work was compiled enjoyed no special worship in Spain.\nOn these grounds the first editor, G. Morin, regards the lectionary as\ncertainly belonging to 650.\n\nThe book represents a rite hitherto entirely unknown but which can be no\nother than the ancient rite of Toledo, since in it the Annunciation is\nplaced on the 18th December as is prescribed by the first canon of the\ntenth council of Toledo. It differs from the Mozarabic rite as to the\nnumber of Sundays in Advent, of which the latter reckons six, and also in\nthe eight Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; another\npeculiarity is that the Innocents\u2019 Day is omitted on the 27th December,\nbut an \u201cAllisio Infantium\u201d is kept instead in the 8th January. None of\nthe Roman and Byzantine feasts of our Lady are mentioned, and only one\nfeast of the Holy Cross on the 3rd May, omitting the other on the 14th\nSeptember; all Masses for saints\u2019 days have two epistles.\n\nThe martyrology of Silos also is an important document on account of its\noriginal character, although it is some three centuries later than the\nlectionary. It is entitled, _Martyrum Legium_, and it is considerably\nricher in names of saints than the lectionary, and is quite independent\nof the _Hieronymianum_, though influenced in a slight degree by the Roman\nrite. The martyrs in the Moorish persecution, under, Abdurrhaman II.,\nwhich lasted from 850 to 860, appear in large numbers. The historian of\nthis persecution, the priest Eugenius of Toledo, who was put to death\non 11th March 859, is entered, but placed on 1st June, the day of the\ntranslation of his relics; St Pelagius of Corduba, who suffered death on\n26th June 925 under Abdurrhaman III. is also entered, and this date gives\none limit in fixing the date of the work, the other limit being the year\n1000. There are five additions by a later hand, _i.e._ on 12th March,\n_Gregorii Pap\u00e6_; on 1st May, _Transitus Philippi Apostoli_, without St\nJames; on 28th April, _Prudentii et Sociorum ejus_; on 21st December,\n_S. Thom\u00e6 Apostoli_, and on 22nd December the _Translatio corporis S.\nIsidori_. Some personages are entered, who are not called saints, but\nonly _Domnus_, four of whom belong to Toledo, two being bishops: Julian\n(\u2020 6th March 690) and Eugenius II. (\u2020 29th May 647); on 14th January,\nanother Julian, and, on 13th March, _Depositio Leandri_. Half of the\nentire names belong to Spain, the other half to Rome and the East; of the\nFrankish martyrs, Denys of Paris, Afra of Augsburg, and Boniface of Mainz\nare commemorated. As regards the feasts of our Lady, besides the ancient\nSpanish feast on the 18th December, we have only the Assumption on 15th\nAugust. Litanies are appointed for 10th September, 7th November, and\n15th December, besides a fast on 2nd January. The name of the Apostle\nSt James is absent from the martyrology as well as from the lectionary.\nBishop Torquatus and his companions are placed on 1st May, in both\ndocuments, but in the martyrology they are not described as disciples\nof the apostles, which is favourable to their historical existence. The\nApostles Simon and Jude are on the 1st July instead of the 28th October,\nand there is also a _Symon Apostolus_ on 19th October as well. Although\ntraces of later influence appear in this martyrology, it has still\npreserved the independent character of the early Christian Calendars.\n\n\n6. _Egyptian (Coptic) Calendars and Synaxaria_\n\nThe anglican archeologist, John Selden (\u2020 1634), has given us the\nearliest Egyptian calendars in his work on the Jewish Sanhedrin which\nwas left unfinished when he died. In the third book of this work, Selden\nintended to deal with the rite for the dedication of Christian churches,\nalthough this lay beyond the immediate purpose of his investigations,\nand he thought that some Arabic Calendars in his possession might have\nsome bearing on the question.[786] Unfortunately, he gave no information\nconcerning the MSS. from which these calendars were taken, and they seem,\nmoreover, when discovered, to have been by no means in a good condition.\nLudolf declared himself dissatisfied with these publications, and\nW\u00fcstenfeld remarked: \u201cThe Arabic MSS. employed, must have been faulty,\nand were made still worse by the faulty reading and transcribing of the\neditor and the printing is so incorrect that some words would be almost,\nand others quite unintelligible, were there not other helps to their\nmeaning at hand.\u201d[787] Still, in spite of these well-founded criticisms\nfrom specialists, Selden\u2019s work cannot be over-looked. There seem also to\nhave been gaps and undecipherable passages in the MS. itself.\n\nThere are three calendars edited by Selden: two short, and one long,\nthe latter being of later date than the others. The two first have a\nsupplement to each month, called _ordo alter_, both appear to have been\noriginally drawn up for the use of monasteries, but are distinguished\nfrom one another in important points. We shall designate them by the\nletters A and B. A is at any rate of Egyptian origin and is monophysite\nin character, because the heresiarch Severus, who lived in the sixth\ncentury, twice appears in it, on 8th February and 29th September. Other\npeculiarities in the document are: 1. It has two feasts of the Holy\nCross, on 6th March _Inventio Crucis_, by which doubtless the recovery\nof the Cross by Heraclius in 629 is meant, and _festum crucis glorios\u00e6_\non 14th September. 2. The Nativity of our Lady is on 26th April. 3.\nThe commemorations of the Mother of God in use in Egypt, are given on\nthe 21st of the months January, March, May, July, and October: B omits\nthese feasts. 4. A has the archangel Gabriel on the 18th December, but\nno festival of the Annunciation, while B places _Evangelismus_ on the\n25th March, and no feast on the 18th December pointing onwards to the\nimpending Nativity of our Lord. 5. A has the four living creatures of\nthe Apocalypse on the 4th November who appear also later on in Coptic\ncalendars: B omits them. 6. In A the conquest of Egypt by the Mahometans\nis seven times mentioned, _e.g._ 26th May, 10th December, etc. 7. A\ndoes not mention St Ignatius of Antioch, but B places him on the 20th\nDecember. 8. B has the Emperor Theodosius on the 3rd March, St John\nChrysostom on the 7th May and 13th November, also Ephrem Syrus on the 9th\nJuly, and Dioscorus of Alexandria on the 31st August.\n\nFrom these entries we see that B is catholic and Syrian, and A\nmonophysite and Egyptian. Both certainly belong to the same period. B was\nprobably also used in Egypt, for the Patriarch Isaac I. of Alexandria is\nmentioned, who died on the 10th Athyr = 6th November 688 or 689.[788]\nThe Athanasius mentioned on the 6th September must have been Athanasius\nII. who became patriarch of Antioch in 629.[789] These calendars and\nthe following one as well are contained in the Arabic translation of\nAbulaibsan Achmed Calcasendi who has prefaced them with a list of\nCoptic festivals (see above p. 26). Had they come down to us in better\ncondition, they would be of the utmost importance in the investigation\nof our subject, notwithstanding their heretical character. The third of\nthe calendars published by Selden has fared little better; it certainly\nbelongs to the same period as the others, although somewhat later in\ndate. The latest person mentioned in it seems to be the Patriarch\nIsaac I., named already in A. It was thought that this was the second\nmonophysite patriarch of that name who died in 954, but it is not so, for\nthis personage is named on the 10th Athyr = 6th November, and the Coptic\nSynaxarium, translated by W\u00fcstenfeld, which mentions him on the same day,\nexpressly states that he was the immediate successor of John, surnamed\nSemnud\u00e6us from the place of his birth, Sebennytos, who died on the 9th\nAthyr 686, after having pointed him out as his successor. The predecessor\nof Isaac II., however, was Sophronius, and his successor was called Job.\nAccordingly Isaac I. must be intended here, and thus the calendar belongs\nto the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.[790]\n\nIts monophysite character is proved from the mention of the heresiarch\nSeverus three times, _i.e._ on the 26th April (_festum Severi_), on the\n4th September, and on the 1st December. It has no feast of St Peter and\nSt Paul on the 29th June, but only a _Planctus Pauli_ on the 18th March.\nThe following points are worthy of notice:\u201425th March is the day of the\nCrucifixion, the 28th May is kept as the _Inventio ossium S. Luc\u00e6_ and\nthe 6th March as the _Manifestatio Crucis_, where the later calendar\nadds, _per Heraclium imperatorem_. We have the beginnings of the Egyptian\ncustom of commemorating the Mother of God on the 21st of each month,\n_i.e._ on the 21st Payni and the 21st Phaophi. The _festum Domin\u00e6_ on the\n2nd August is certainly a feast of our Lady, but the _festum Mirjam_ on\nthe 22nd July is probably a festival of St Mary Magdalen. There are many\nthings in this document the meaning of which can only be surmised.\n\nA welcome addition to our knowledge of liturgical matters among the Copts\nexists in a calendar of the ninth century in the Vatican library; it is\nfound along with a Coptic _Evangeliarium_ in a codex written in 1328.\nThe document is described and translated into Latin by A. Mai in the\nfourth volume of his _Nova Collectio_.[791] The date is determined by\nthe fact that the Patriarch Amba Zacharias, who is entered as a saint\nin the later Synaxarium on the 13th Athyr,[792] does not appear in the\ncalendar; he was patriarch, according to Le Quien from 1005 to 1032. The\nlast Jacobite patriarchs mentioned are those who succeeded one another\nfrom Alexander to Michael (Chail). Michael was succeeded by John, after\na vacancy of ten years, who ruled from 766-799.[793] Accordingly this\ncalendar belongs to the ninth century. A striking peculiarity in it is\nthat the _Manifestatio Crucis_ is on the 17th-19th September instead of\nthe 14th as in all other calendars.\n\nThe circumstance that several saints, instead of having one\ncommemoration, have several, may give rise to confusion. St Thecla\nappears no less than five times, twice with the title martyr (on the 25th\nFebruary and the 10th September), once as _apostola_ (on the 12th July),\non the 6th May and 3rd December she has no title. Although there was a\nsecond St Thecla, still this would not altogether explain the entries.\nThen James the son of Zebedee is mentioned on the 28th and 30th of April,\nas well as James the Lord\u2019s brother on the 12th July and 23rd October.\nSt Michael the Archangel occurs eight times. Our Lady\u2019s Nativity is\ncelebrated on both the 26th April and the 7th September. No importance\nis to be attached to these repetitions; they are purely arbitrary, and\nare due to the desire to provide a name for every day in the calendar,\nand to fill up vacant places.[794] This appears especially from the\ncircumstance that on the 29th of every Egyptian month, corresponding to\nthe 25th in the Julian Calendar, a commemoration of Christ\u2019s Nativity is\ngiven, and on the 21st of each month a feast of our Lady (Commemoratio\nDomin\u00e6 S. Mari\u00e6). The Death and Assumption of our Lady is placed on\nthe 16th January. St Joseph the Carpenter has his commemoration on the\n20th July. Fides, Spes, and Charitas appear as three martyrs under\nHadrian on the 25th January; they are said to be daughters of a reported\nSophia. No St Catherine appears either in this calendar or in the later\n_Synaxarium_ but the heretic Severus (\u2020 539) is twice commemorated: on\nthe 29th September (_Adventus Severi Patrarch\u00e6 in \u00c6gyptum_) and on the\n8th February, when he died.\n\nCoptic calendars of a later date are still richer in names, but are full\nof legends and absurdities which show the steady decline of culture among\nthe sect under Mahometan rule. This is especially the case with the\n_Synaxarium_ or collection of legends compiled from ancient sources by\nBishop Amba Michael of Atriba and Malidsch at the end of the fourteenth\ncentury.[795] The basis of the collection is an older work of the\nsame kind composed sometime about the year 1090 (see 3rd Athyr).[796]\nInformation concerning the saints who lived in monasteries was taken by\nBishop Michael from a so-called \u201cGuide,\u201d used by both the Egyptian Copts\nand Melchites.[797] A \u201cGuide\u201d of this kind had been written especially\nfor Alexandria by Bishop Amba John of Kift. Michael refers in his work to\nthe years 1382 and 1387 (see 7th Bermahat and 19th Bermuda), and so must\nhave lived in the fourteenth century.\n\nAs the work contains much information drawn from the ecclesiastical\nhistories of the Copts and Abyssinians, it has been translated and much\nused in spite of its faulty character. It affords many useful particulars\nconcerning the traditions and feasts of the Egyptian Church, and on this\naccount Stephen Assemani undertook to make an abstract of the whole work\nwhich is printed in the fourth volume of Mai\u2019s _Nova Collectio_. F.\nW\u00fcstenfeld made a translation of the first part containing the first half\nof the Egyptian year, from September to February; the second half, from\nMarch to August including the intercalary days, is unfortunately still\nuntranslated.\n\n\n7. _The Menology of Constantinople (Eighth Century)_\n\nThe Eastern Church possesses a calendar of Saints belonging to the eighth\ncentury, which occupies an intermediate position between a merely Eastern\nCalendar, and one that is universal. Its title runs, Calendar of the\nGospels for Festivals (\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd), for it\ngives the passage from the Gospels to be read on each day; it contains a\nconsiderable number of saints belonging to the East, though the days are\nfar from being all occupied. March and April have remarkably few feasts;\nthis is owing to the ancient, but even then obsolete injunction of the\nTrullan Council that the feasts of no martyrs were to be kept in Lent.\n\nSeveral circumstances prove that Constantinople was the locality where\nthis document originated and was in use. Certain quarters of the\ncity, as for example, Blachern\u00e6 and Chalcoprateia, are mentioned; the\n11th May is mentioned as the day of the city\u2019s foundation; so too is\nthe earthquake which threw down the city walls on the 24th September\n557. A large number of the patriarchs of Constantinople are included,\ntwenty-nine in all, beginning with Metrophanes (4th June 305-325)\nand ending with Paul who was patriarch from September 686 to the 2nd\nSeptember 693. The absence of the twenty-one reputed bishops from St\nAndrew to Metrophanes suggests the thought that when this document was\ndrawn up this invention had not been accepted.\n\nMorcelli maintains that the Paul the younger mentioned on the 2nd\nSeptember is the Patriarch Paul II., under whom the Trullan Council was\nheld in 692, but he would, however, exonerate him from participation\nin the schismatic council, since he opposed it at a later date; this,\nhowever, contradicts the accepted chronology. No patriarch, not even\nGermanus, and none of the many martyrs and confessors belonging to\nthe time of the Iconoclastic controversy under Leo the Isaurian and\nConstantine Copronymus, are mentioned. From this one concludes that\nthe menology was composed immediately after the cessation of the first\nIconoclastic controversy, at a date when the judgment on the sanctity\nof these personages had not yet been concluded, or when people were\nunwilling to revive the painful recollections which their name evoked.\n\nThe martyrs, confessors, and doctors of the Eastern Church are there in\nlong array, at least all the celebrated ones, not only those belonging to\nall four patriarchates, but also those belonging to other countries, such\nas Anastasius the Persian (\u2020 628, on the 22nd January). The popes and\nsaints of the West are excluded with the exception of the three martyrs\nLawrence, Gervasius, and Protasius.\n\nThe names of many Old Testament personages are included: Moses, Aaron,\nElias, Jeremias, etc., also almost all the apostles and their immediate\ndisciples, but for the most part they occur on different dates from\nthose which they usually occupy in the Roman Calendar. For instance,\nSt John the Evangelist is on the 8th May and the 26th September, St\nBarnabas on the 11th June, SS. Peter and Paul on the 29th June, St Titus\non the 25th August, St Thomas on the 6th October, St Philip on the 14th\nNovember, St Andrew on the 30th November. SS. Joachim and Anna appear\non the 9th September, the day after our Lady\u2019s Nativity, the Archangel\nMichael on the 8th November, St Thecla (here entitled proto-martyr) on\nthe 24th September, and the Holy Innocents on the 31st December. For the\nfirst time, Constantine and his mother Helena, appear as saints in the\ncalendar; they are commemorated together on the 21st May, a day which\nfalls before that on which Constantine actually died. Justinian and his\nconsort Theodora are commemorated also, but do not appear with the title\n\u201csaint\u201d; they are placed on the 14th November, the day on which Justinian\ndied, Theodora having preceded him on the 28th June 548. Justinian was\ncalled a prince of pious memory by the popes Pelagius II. and Gregory the\nGreat.[798]\n\nFrom these indications it appears that this martyrology was\nintended principally if not exclusively for the city and diocese of\nConstantinople. The safest conclusion to arrive at is to regard it as\nthe martyrology of the patriarchate of Constantinople, since it steers\na middle course, as it were, between particularism and universality: it\nis the most ancient of the Greek menologies known to us. Among the Greeks\nSt John Damascene is regarded as the originator of calendars of this\nkind,[799] corresponding to Ado in the Latin Church. The menology has\nbeen edited with an excellent commentary by Stephen A. Morcelli (Rome,\n1788), having previously been published in Latin at Urbino (1727) from\nthe Codex of Cardinal Albani.\n\n\n8. _The Menology of the Emperor Basil II., and the Syrian Lectionary of\nthe Eleventh Century_\n\nThis menology takes its name from Basil II. _Porphyrogenitus_ (976-1025),\nand was given to the public for the first time in its entirety by\nCardinal Albani at Urbino in 1727, from two codices each containing\nsix months. It is distinguished from the menology which we have just\ndescribed by having a saint on every day of the year, and most of the\ndays have more than one; the saints are drawn from the whole extent of\nthe Eastern Church, and the Western Church, especially Sicily and Rome,\nis more prominent than in the former document.\n\nAs regards Rome, there are a large number of popes given who are entirely\nabsent from the other menology: Silvester, Leo, Agatho, Gregory I.,\nCelestine, etc. With the exception of Gregory I. they are generally\nplaced on different dates from those on which they are commemorated in\nthe West, _e.g._ Silvester on the 2nd January, Leo on the 18th February,\nand Alexander on the 16th March, etc. It appears as if the sources which\nthe compiler had at his disposal for the West were insufficient, since,\nfor example, he gives St Perpetua, St Felicitas and companions once on\nthe 2nd February, and again on the 14th March, with the addition, \u201cin\nRome\u201d; from this it would appear that he thought the saints mentioned on\nthe first date had belonged to some other locality. St Agnes is given on\nthe 5th July.\n\nNot so many patriarchs of Constantinople are given as one would have\nexpected, and many, indeed, are omitted who are included in the menology\nof which we have spoken in the previous section, as, for example,\nNectarius, Paul II., Gennadius, Thomas II., but on the other hand we find\nsome who lived after the composition of the earlier document, especially\nGermanus, Tarasius, and Antonius II., surnamed Cauleas (\u2020 12th February\n896).[800]\n\nIn other points the _Basilianum_ resembles the former work, except that\nit is fuller in every respect. The most striking feature is the large\nnumber of saints belonging to religious orders contained in it, who\nfor the most part are specially designated; even the patriarch of the\nWestern monks, St Benedict, is not forgotten, and is given on his proper\nday. Names from the Old Testament occur frequently, and from the New\nTestament, we have almost all the disciples of the apostles whose names\nare given, and these are designated as \u201cbelonging to the Seventy.\u201d The\nnumber of the days of apostles is considerable, though seldom coinciding\nwith the days observed in the Western Church, except in the case of St\nMark, St Barnabas, SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. Both the St James\nare absent, and so are deprived of veneration within the region in which\nthis document was followed,[801] but there is a feast of all the apostles\non the 30th June. St Anna appears on the 25th July; St John the Baptist\non the 24th June and 29th August. It is to be noticed that the first four\ngeneral councils have each a special day allotted to them, while in the\n_Constantinopolitanum_ all are commemorated on the same day\u201416th July.\nIt is strange to find not only earthquakes, included, but also defeats\nin the wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Bulgarians, but unfortunately\nthere is nothing to indicate the localities where these events happened\n(see the 7th and 20th February, the 23rd March, the 24th May, etc.). This\nexceeds the limits observed in liturgical documents.\n\nAs the day of the foundation of Constantinople (the 11th May) is again\nincluded in this document, we must conclude that it belongs to this city.\nSince, too, Goths and Persians find a place in it, it is ahead of its\npredecessors in its attempts to achieve universality.[802]\n\nWhile the admission of foreign names is to be welcomed as a step in\nadvance, it may yet, on the other hand, be a source of confusion and give\nrise to mistakes later on. We find, namely, in this menology, that the\nnames of foreign saints are not always given on the correct date, but\nare arbitrarily placed on other days than those to which they belonged.\nLater redactors, when they found the same name on different dates, may\nhave thought that different persons were meant, and this may have been\nthe cause of the repetition of the names of saints. This shows that in\nadmitting names of new saints, and the correct day of whose death had not\nbeen transmitted, they acted according to their fancy. This was the case\nwith regard to the majority of the Seventy Disciples, many of whom appear\nhere for the first time. The same must have taken place also with feasts\nof our Lord, as when the Flight in Egypt is given on the 26th December,\nand so placed before the Circumcision and the Presentation. The admission\nof foreign names was left to chance or opinion. Thus, _e.g._ the Western\nsaints Ambrose, Martin of Tours, and Hosius are admitted, but Hilary,\nAugustine, Jerome, etc., are passed over.\n\nThe impression made by the entire document is that the principles which\nwere on the whole followed in its composition were not maintained with\nsufficient care, but yielded more than was right to opinion and caprice.\nIn many cases, too, the necessary knowledge of history, and a sufficient\nsupply of literary material seems to have been lacking.\n\nA useful document, especially for saints\u2019 days, is a lectionary of the\northodox Syrians contained in the codex xix. of the Vatican Library.\nIt was written in the monastery of Mar Mussa at Antioch in 1030, and\ncontains in the first section the lections for the ecclesiastical year,\nin the second, those for saints\u2019 days, beginning with the 1st September\nas New Year\u2019s Day. In it are given the martyrs of the Iconoclastic\ncontroversy, several orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicephorus\n(\u2020 2nd June 828) being the last; then come many names from the old\nTestament, and many feasts of apostles, the _Caten\u00e6 Petri_ on the\n16th January being one of them, four feasts of St John the Baptist,\nand six of our Lady. There are no Roman or Western saints with the\nexception of St Lawrence. This document has been published by Count F.\nMiniscalchi-Errizzo under the title _Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_ (2\nvols. 4to, Verona, 1682).\n\nIn using documents of this kind for purposes of historical investigation,\nas for instance in order to determine the day on which a historical\npersonage died, the appeal must always be to the local sources. In\nthe case of saints belonging to the Western Church no importance must\nbe attached to the fact that the Easterns may have transferred them\nto a different day, and _vice vers\u00e2_, as, for example, in the case of\nSt Ignatius of Antioch. Where the day is given in some local source,\notherwise deserving of credit, we can be then certain that it is correct.\nThis must be done with regard to SS. Peter and Paul, for whom the local\nsources give invariably the 29th June, while foreign calendars give other\ndates, as we find is the case with Polemius, Silvius, and the Arian\nmartyrology. The compilers of these calendars wished to celebrate the\nPrinces of the Apostles, but, being ignorant of the actual day of their\ndeath, placed them on any day that seemed suitable. Finally, at a later\ndate the correct date came to the knowledge of foreign churches, and\nfound its way into their calendars.\n\n\n9. _The Kalendarium Marmoreum of Naples_\n\nIn the ninth century, a time of great activity in matters relating to\nhagiography, the Church of Naples undertook a revision of its calendar,\nwhich exhibits noteworthy peculiarities.\n\nFirst of all, nearly every day of the year is provided with the name\nof a saint, which indicates considerable care and study. This result\nwas achieved by following the Eastern custom of admitting Old Testament\npersonages, although not to the same extent. The grounds on which the\nselection was made cannot be discovered, for we have Abraham on the 9th\nOctober, Isaac on the 17th March, Eliseus on the 28th November, Daniel\non the 17th December, Zacharias on the 13th May, while other important\npersonages, such as Isaias, etc., are omitted. We are also reminded of\neastern usage by the commemoration of the council of Ephesus on the 4th\nAugust, and other traces of eastern influence are noticeable in the\nadmission of a few bishops of Constantinople, such as Metrophanes, and\nalso of the names of Constantine (without Helena) on the 21st May, and\nTheodosius on the 10th November. With regard to Metrophanes, the compiler\nis guilty of a remarkable oversight; he has placed him once on the right\nday (the 4th June), without his title, and again on the 4th January with\nhis title, \u201c_Patr. Const._\u201d The confusion between the 4th of June and the\n4th of January might easily escape a transcriber, and must have already\nexisted in the source which the compiler used. In order not to omit any\nname the compiler preferred to enter the same name twice, once with, and\nonce without, its proper title.\n\nThis reminds us that St Mark also occurs twice, on the 25th April and\nthe 17th May. St Philip is united to St James on the 1st May (a trace\nof Roman influence), and is found again alone on the 14th November. St\nSilvester comes on the 31st December and a _Depositio Silvestri P.P._,\non the 2nd January; a _Jacobus Ap._ and Mattheus on unusual dates, the\n15th and 16th November, other Apostles are on more usual dates, _e.g._\nSt Jude is commemorated on the 21st May. St Bartholomew\u2019s day (the 25th\nAugust) is given wrongly as _Nat. Pass._, being in reality the day of his\ntranslation. The names of Apostles and their disciples are very numerous.\n\nWith regard to the worship of the Holy Cross, both days occur (_i.e._\nthe 3rd May and 14th September), with the title now in use, although\nformerly, the feast of the 3rd May was alone observed in the West, and\nthat of the 14th September in the East. The reason for this circumstance\nhas been already given in this book. Bishops of Naples naturally appear\nfrequently; _e.g._ Maro (15th June) belongs to the third century, others\nbelong to the period from the sixth to the eighth century, such as Redux\non the 27th March (\u2020 584), Agnellus on the 9th January (\u2020 691), Adeodatus\non the 1st October (\u2020 671), Fortunatus on the 14th June (\u2020 600 circ.),\nPaulus the elder on the 3rd March (\u2020 760). The last to be named is\nprobably Paul the younger on the 17th February (\u2020 820).[803] Paul III. of\nConstantinople cannot be intended here, for his day is the 30th August.\nWe may add that the feast of All Saints had not yet been admitted, a\ncircumstance which throws light on the probable date when this calendar\nwas drawn up. Special importance attaches to this calendar on account\nof its intermediate position between the calendars of the Eastern and\nWestern Churches.\n\nIt was discovered in 1742 in S. Giovanni Maggiore and edited incorrectly,\naccording to Mai, by Marinius, correctly by Mazzochius (Naples, 1744).\nThe most recent edition is by A. Mai himself.[804]\n\n\n10. _Western Authorities from the Sixth to the Eighth Centuries_\n\nIn the West the worship of the saints exerted a much stronger influence\non the liturgy than in the East. The Roman and kindred rites provided\nspecial Masses for saints\u2019 days, while in the East the worship of\nsaints as far as it effected the liturgy continued to be limited to the\ncanonical hours. At first the lections used at the Psalmody were drawn\nfrom the Holy Scriptures alone, but from the sixth century, passages\nfrom the _passiones martyrum_ were admitted.[805] In course of time,\nthese became more numerous, and in this way the martyrologies obtained\nan ever increasing importance. As regards the Mass, in the earliest\nGallican Masses published by Mone, we find one for the feast of St\nGermanus,[806] and several in the _Sacramentarium Leoninum_, and for\nmany centuries the Masses for saints\u2019 days remained considerably less\nnumerous than the Masses _de tempore_. Later on, however, they became so\nnumerous that they were finally indicated in a special calendar bound up\nwith the sacramentary, such as is now prefixed to the massal as one of\nits integral parts. Equally important with the sacramentaries in this\nconnection are the service-books, containing the epistles and gospels,\ncalled lectionaries. We shall examine these first, and then those of the\nmartyrologies specially bearing upon the subject we are investigating,\nand afterwards we shall utilise whatever we find in the sacramentaries in\nconnection with saints\u2019 days.\n\nThe lectionaries of Luxenil and Silos show very plainly that in the\nseventh century the worship of the saints had as yet very slightly\naffected the liturgy. The saints\u2019 days are somewhat more numerous in the\n_Leoninum_ and in the _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_ edited by Mabillon and\nbelonging to the end of the same century.\n\nIn both the other Roman sacramentaries the increase of saints\u2019 days is\nnoticeable. The _Gelasianum_ was originally drawn up especially for the\ncity of Rome, but the recension in which it has come down to us was\nobviously compiled at the request of some other church; at any rate it\ncontains a number of saints who do not belong to the city of Rome. For\ninstance, on the 7th August we have the Confessor Donatus who belongs\nto Imola, on the 19th a martyr called Magnus who can only be assigned\nto C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia, and on the 27th a martyr Rufus belonging to\nCapua; the appearance of the legendary family of martyrs Marius, Martha,\nAudifax, and Ambacum or Habacuc is curious, and in addition to these,\nthere is also a number of saints whose names one would search for in vain\nin the better and older recensions of the _Gregorianum_, _e.g._ Soter,\nVitalis, Felicula, Juliana, Euphemia, Juvenal, Nereus and Achilleus,\nCyrinus, Nabor, Nazarius, and Vitus. Of these many were certainly\nvenerated in Rome, yet had hitherto received no recognition in the\ncalendars attached to the service-books.\n\nFor the Gregorian Sacramentary, the edition most frequently employed is\nthat of Menard printed in Migne. According to the introduction, it is\ntaken from a _codex S. Eligii_ and a somewhat later _codex Rodradi_,\nwhich, in Menard\u2019s opinion, was written about 853, but even the earlier\ncodex has additions belonging to a later period, _e.g._ Projectus (25th\nJanuary)[807] and Leo (28th June), as a comparison with the Mainz codex\nof St Alban shows. This codex (_i.e._ of St Eligius) according to the\nreceived opinion, was written between 834 and 847, and consists of\nthree different parts, proceeding indeed from the same hand, but clearly\ndistinguished from one another. The first part contains the _Gregorianum_\n(fol. 1-129) to which have been added as an appendix the Masses of St\nAlban, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, All Saints\u2019, and St Augustine, which the\ntranscriber did not find in the original. In the second part (Collectio\nii., fol. 165-183) the expressions _contestatio_ and _ad complendum_ are\nused which show it to be of Frankish origin, and like the first part it\ncontains the ecclesiastical year, beginning with Christmas. The third\npart (fol. 183-204) contains a few additions consisting of prayers and\nMasses for special occasions.\n\nIt is to be observed that the first part still has the obsolete feast\nof the 13th May, _Dedicatio S. Mari\u00e6 ad Martyrs_, and only the _Natalis\nS. C\u00e6sarii_ on the 1st November, the Mass for All Saints\u2019 being placed\nat the end, and not in its proper place (fol. 131). This recalls the\ncircumstance that Gregory IV. (827-844) transferred the feast of the\n13th May to the 1st November. This change was also introduced into the\nFrankish empire in 835. The original document was then certainly written\nbefore 835, or indeed earlier, for the _litania minor_, introduced into\nthe Roman rite by Leo III. about 801, is not given; nevertheless the\nthree chief feasts of our Lady are already inserted in their proper\nplaces. In the following period until the fifteenth century only a\nlimited number of new saints\u2019 days were added to the Roman Missal. A\nmissal written in 1374\u2014_Ordo Missalis secundum Consuetudinem Roman\u00e6\nCuri\u00e6_\u2014belonging to the Public Library of Munich, shows an increase of\nonly twenty-five Masses for saints\u2019 days over the _Gregorianum_ after\nmore than five hundred years.\n\nFronteau, chancellor of the University of Paris, published a lectionary\nwhich has important bearings on the study of liturgies; he took it from a\ncodex written in gold characters belonging to the Church of St Genevi\u00e8ve\nin Paris.[808] The editor correctly described it as appertaining to the\ncity of Rome, because the Roman station churches are given, and the\nsaints mentioned almost all belong to the city of Rome. The omission\nof the festival of St Petronilla (the 31st May) is of importance in\nfixing the date of this document, for Gregory III. was the first to\nadd the Church of the _C\u0153meterium S. Petronill\u00e6_ to the other station\nchurches.[809] Petronilla had already been regarded as a saint in the\ncity of Rome, but her festival had not made its way into the liturgy\nbecause no _statio_ was held in her Church or in her _C\u0153meterium_. The\n_Litania Minor_ on the three days before the Ascension, introduced into\nthe Roman rite by Leo III., is also not to be found here. The editor,\nhowever, deduces that the Lectionary of St Genevi\u00e8ve is later than\nGregory II. from the fact that the Thursdays in Lent are provided with an\n_officium_ of their own, an addition introduced first by this pope.[810]\n\nAccordingly this lectionary was composed under Gregory II., between 714\nand 731, and it is of great importance for the liturgical student. Its\nmanner of naming the Sundays after Pentecost deserves especially to be\nnoticed, the feasts of our Lady of the 15th August and the 8th September\ndo not fall on these days, but on the 14th August and the 9th September,\nand the beheading of St John the Baptist on the 30th August. The only\nGreek saint mentioned is Mennas and the only non-Italian, St Cyprian.\nThe _Cathedra Petri_, _Exaltatio Crucis_ (3rd May), and _Joannes ante\nPortam Lat._ (6th May), are not yet known, and on the 28th June, where\n_Leo II. Papa et Confessor_ now stands, we have a _Translatio corporis S.\nLeonis_. Fronteau points out that this cannot refer to Leo II.[811]\n\n\n11. _The Martyrologies of Bede, Florus, Wandelbert, and \u0152ngus_[812]\n\nBefore the ninth century, the Frankish Church had produced no martyrology\nof its own, apart from the so-called _Hieronymianum_, but on the other\nhand the young Anglo-Saxon Church put out a work of this kind in the\neighth century, its author being the learned historian of the Anglo-Saxon\nChurch, the Venerable Bede. Whether he undertook the work spontaneously\nor at the desire of his superiors, whether it was intended merely for\nhis own monastery, or for a wider circle are questions which cannot be\nanswered, for there is no introduction to the work to inform us on these\npoints. The work was used in the Frankish empire as is proved by the MSS.\nof it found there as well as by the later additions of Florus.\n\nBede composed his _Martyrologium_ in 731, as he informs us at the\nconclusion of his history.[813] It was his intention to give in addition\nto the days of the saints\u2019 deaths, the nature of their deaths, and the\nnames of the judges by whom they were condemned, for by this means the\ndate of their deaths could be determined with certainty. The basis of\nhis work was the existing Roman Calendar while he exceeded its limits\nin many directions. In the first place, he added to it the saints of\nEngland such as were then venerated; these were few in number, Alban,\nCuthbert, Augustine, Mellitus, Etheltrud, Victor and Paulinus (10th\nOctober), Brigid, etc. Then a comparatively large number of names of\nFrankish saints were also introduced, _e.g._ Maximin of Treves (31st\nMay), Clodoald (St Cloud), Remigius, Denys, Lambert (\u2020 17th September\n709), the Theban legion, and a few others. Bede rises still further above\nthe standpoint of national churches and particularism by admitting some\nnames from the Old Testament, _e.g._ Ezechiel (10th April), Jeremias (1st\nMay), Eliseus (14th June), Isaias (6th July), Samuel (20th August), etc.;\nthe dates on which they are commemorated being taken for the most part\nfrom Greek menologies.\n\nBede collected material for his _Martyrologium_ with great diligence, and\nenriched his subject matter with notes from his own reading, as is shown\nfor instance by his reference to St Cyprian\u2019s treatise _De Lapsis_ in\nconnection with the martyrs Castus and \u00c6milius (22nd May) who are named\nin it; other sources upon which he also drew were the _Gesta Pontificum_,\nthe writings of Eusebius, St Gregory\u2019s Dialogues, and especially a\nnumber of _Passiones Martyrum_. Bede\u2019s work shows both diligence and\noriginality, and an intelligent employment of the materials which came to\nhand. Yet, in spite of his diligence, he found material to fill up only\na hundred and eighty days, and so the half of the year remains vacant;\nstill his compilation is fuller than the Frankish calendars of the eighth\ncentury, and the notes attached to the names of each saint are remarkable\nfor brevity and precision.\n\nAlthough the value of Bede\u2019s work is incontestable it was soon found\ninsufficient; it was diligently copied, and used, but additions of all\nsorts were made to it as is proved by the large number of variations in\nthe existing MSS. Perhaps it met with more acceptance abroad than at\nhome, for the thirteenth canon of the second council of Cloveshove which\nmet in 747, only twelve years after Bede\u2019s death, enjoined the use of the\nRoman martyrology, without even mentioning Bede.\n\nAs regards its publication, the martyrology of Bede was printed for the\nfirst time in Cologne in 1616, but as in the text thus published, all the\ndays of the year are provided with the names of saints, it is impossible\nthat it represents the original text of Bede, for all old writers agree\nin stating that in it many days were left vacant. The Bollandist Henschen\nfound first of all a fragment of the genuine Bede among the MSS. of Queen\nChristina of Sweden, and then, later on, the complete text at Dijon.[814]\n\nBede\u2019s martyrology was newly worked over and considerably enlarged by\na certain Florus; according to Wandelbert of Pr\u00fcm,[815] this was the\nsubdeacon Florus of Lyons, who, later on, as deacon, wrote against Scotus\nErigena in 852, and died in 860; he was a contemporary of Wandelbert\u2019s.\nAgainst this must be set down the authority of Trithemius, who considers\nthat this Florus was a Monk of the monastery of St Trudo in the diocese\nof Li\u00e8ge about 760. Although Trithemius gives no authority for this\nstatement, still writers on the history of literature, especially\nFabricius, are in complete agreement with him. Still which ever of the\ntwo is correct, one is inclined to ask how it came to pass that so\nstriking an enlargement of the work\u2014each day of the year being provided\nwith the name of a saint\u2014could have appeared so soon after Bede and\nbefore the appearance of the great martyrology of Ado.\n\nWandelbert of Pr\u00fcm turned Bede\u2019s martyrology into verse in the\ntwenty-fifth year of the Emperor Lothaire I. (848); his version is of\nno importance for the history and development of this department of\nliturgical studies, yet it may be consulted for questions connected with\nlocal history.[816]\n\nThe martyrology of \u0152ngus the Culdee, written in the ancient Irish\n(Celtic) language certainly belongs to the same period. Nothing further\nis known of the author except that he was a monk in the Monastery of\nConenagh in the ninth century. The martyrology is written in rhymed\nverse, extends over the entire year, and contains for the most part\nthe names of Irish saints.[817] Certainly later is the similar work of\nGorman, Abbot of Louth in Leinster. It was written in unrhymed verse\nbetween 1166 and 1174.[818]\n\n\n12. _The Martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, Rabanus Maurus, and Notker\nBalbulus_\n\nThe most important document in this department of literature, and one\nwhich bears directly upon scientific investigations, is the martyrology\nof Ado, Bishop of Vienne. Ado was born in northern France about 800, and\nentered at an early age the Monastery of Ferri\u00e8res in the diocese of\nSens, from whence he was sent to the Monastery of Pr\u00fcm where he lived\nfor many years under Abbot Markward (829-853). In consequence of some\nmisunderstandings he left Pr\u00fcm and went to Rome, where he spent five\nyears and then went to Ravenna. He returned to France later and lived for\nsome time as a simple monk in a monastery in the neighbourhood of Lyons.\nAfter the death of Bishop Agilmar of Vienne (\u2020 7th July 860) he succeeded\nto the see and died on the 16th December 873.\n\nHe compiled the martyrology which bears his name in 858 before he became\nbishop,[819] the basis of his work being a very ancient martyrology with\nwhich he had become acquainted in Ravenna. If his information can be\ntrusted, a bishop of Ravenna, whose name he does not give, received this\nancient document from a bishop of Rome who is also nameless. The rest\nof the material he collected himself, and in particular he made notes\nof any information concerning martyrs which had come in his way. Many\nof the sources at his disposal have since been lost, thus rendering his\nmartyrology all the more important for us.\n\nIt consists of three parts: 1. A calendar containing the names of one\nor more saints for each day accompanied by notices naturally brief; in\nthe printed edition it bears incorrectly the title, _Vetus Martyrologium\nRomanum_, given to it by its first editors, Jacob Mosander and Heribert\nRosweyde;[820] 2. _A Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apostolorum_;[821] 3.\nThe martyrology itself,[822] consisting of extracts from the acts of the\nmartyrs and other writings.\n\nHis preface contains matter which deserves attention.[823] He had often\nbeen urged, he says, by holy men, by his superiors, and by Bishop\nRemigius of Lyons to complete the martyrology; since the martyrology of\nBede, which Florus had enlarged, still leaves many days without saints,\nhe had undertaken to fill up these gaps, and for this purpose he had made\nuse of the MSS. describing the sufferings of the martyrs, from which he\nhad made quotations for the benefit of the weaker brethren; the ancient\nmartyrology which came originally from Rome, served him as a foundation\nupon which to build.\n\nThe frank avowal of his intention to fill in the spaces left vacant by\nhis predecessors, might create a prejudice against the trustworthiness\nand excellence of his work, but a closer inspection will dispel this\nsuspicion, and this would be still more the case had we the original form\nof the work before us; in the existing editions there are additions of a\nlater date, such as the name Rictiovarus.\n\nFrom the entries on the 20th April and the 17th November it is plain that\nthe Cologne MS. of this martyrology edited by Rosweyde comes from Stablo,\nand it may have been that at Stablo the names of some Frankish saints\nwere inserted into it. Ado went much further than Bede in admitting names\nfrom the Old Testament. Roseweyde\u2019s conjecture that this calendar, the\nso-called \u201cLittle Ado,\u201d is the Roman martyrology mentioned by Gregory I.\nin his letter to Eulogius, is devoid of proof and obviously mistaken,\nfor in that document there were no Old Testament names. This \u201cLittle\nAdo\u201d is not a martyrology at all, but a calendar, and displays none of\nthe peculiarities which characterise the calendars of the city of Rome\nof that date; neither is it an independent work, but only an abstract\nmade by Ado from his own larger work, and a summary of its contents. The\npreface prefixed to the two other parts is chiefly concerned with the\nmartyrology, and not with this abstract, and it is only the circumstance\nthat this abstract is found in MSS., with some later additions and\naltogether separate from the larger work, which led the first editor to\nregard it as a treatise by itself; it is merely the abstract used at\nStablo and Malmedy, and not an original Roman work, though it is plain\nfrom Ado\u2019s preface that the existing Roman calendar was employed in its\ncomposition.[824]\n\nTwo or three decades later, Usuardus composed his martyrology after\nAdo\u2019s example, which he dedicated to Charles the Bald in 875. Usuardus\nwas a monk of St Germain des Pr\u00e8s, then outside the gates of Paris, but\nnow surrounded by the city; his work is by no means so full as Ado\u2019s,\nbut is more polished in style, and more uniform in its treatment of\nthe different entries, and on this account is more suited for use in\nchoir. It was accordingly used throughout the entire West, and in all\nBenedictine monasteries,[825] and even in Rome itself with the exception\nof the Vatican basilica. At the end of the fifteenth century it was so\nto speak, the universal martyrology of the Western Church, and indeed no\nother was known.[826]\n\nThe value of these works depends naturally upon the sources employed by\nthe redactor, and also upon his personal qualities, as, for instance,\nwhether he revelled in the miraculous or was inclined to be critical.\n\nTwo martyrologies by German authors must now be dealt with\u2014those of\nRabanus Maurus and Notker Balbulus.\n\nThe former when Archbishop of Mainz completed a martyrology which he\nhad compiled from secondary sources; it is dedicated to Abbot Radleich\nof Seligenstadt, who died in 853-54, and whose epitaph was composed by\nRabanus,[827] but the composition of the martyrology must be dated a few\nyears earlier, about 850, though the exact date cannot be discovered.\nAs sources, he drew upon the Acts of the martyrs which he found ready\nto hand, and also the _Hieronymianum_, Bede, and Florus; the treatment\nof the material is very unequal, sometimes a long account being given,\nsometimes nothing more than the name; legends and historical errors are\nfrequent.\n\nThe same is true of the martyrology of Notker Balbulus who was a monk\nat St Gall from 840 to 912, and composed his work under Pope Formosus\n(891-896). He knew and used the _Hieronymianum_, as, for example, for\nthe 9th August, _V. Id. Aug._ First class sources were beyond his reach,\na loss of which he was himself conscious.[828]\n\nAll these martyrologies of which we have spoken, were private\ncompilations without anything of an official character about them. The\nexistence of so many following upon the _Hieronymianum_ shows that it did\nnot satisfy liturgical requirements and was little used. On this account,\nmartyrologies were drawn up at a later date containing full descriptions\nof the lives and sufferings of the saints for each day of the year, which\nwould serve as edifying and entertaining reading for religious, priests\nand other pious persons. However even the best of them were no longer\npracticable in the sixteenth century, and Gregory XIII. conceived the\npurpose of putting out one better adapted for use in divine service. A\nfurther step was taken in 1580 when he commissioned the learned Cardinal\nSirleto to compare the martyrology used in Rome with the oldest and best\nMSS. and to correct the errors which had crept into it in course of\ntime.[829] Sirleto associated ten other learned men with himself among\nwhom were C\u00e6sar Baronius and Aloysius Lilius, the astronomer. Baronius\nwas the soul of the undertaking, and, after three years\u2019 labour, the\n_Martyrologium Romanum Gregorii XIII._ was completed, and a papal brief\nof the 14th January 1584, prescribed the exclusive use of this work in\nchoir at the canonical hours. Baronius based his labours on Usuardus,\ncorrecting and enlarging his martyrology by means of the materials then\nforthcoming; could he have used the materials discovered later, or those\nwhich we now possess, his work would naturally have been much better;\nmany, too, of the earlier mistakes remain uncorrected. The editors\nwere far from claiming freedom from errors for their work, and made\nimprovements in later editions, beginning with that of 1586. It is not\nnecessary to regard all the individuals named in the Roman martyrology as\nsaints in the liturgical sense of the word, and their admission there,\naccording to the expression of Benedict XIV. is in no wise equal to\ncanonisation.[830] Since the time of Baronius, the official martyrology\nhas indeed remained untouched, but science has not been inactive during\nthis long period; much has been explained and corrected, and, on the\nwhole, it has come to be recognised as a principle which must be followed\nin investigating the histories of the saints of ancient times, that\nrecourse is to be had to the earliest existing sources of information,\nand also, where the evidence is contradictory, local official sources,\nwhere they exist, are to have the preference.\n\n\n13. _Important Calendars from the Eighth to the Eleventh Centuries_\n\nWhile the martyrologies were for the most part the outcome of individual\neffort, the calendars, on the other hand, are entirely official in their\norigin. In times when annual calendars, like our present ordos, had\nnot yet appeared, their place was taken by the official calendar, and\nevery one had to make out his ordo for himself with its assistance. From\nmany points of view they are more important for our purpose than the\nmartyrologies.\n\nAs complete missals took the place of the sacramentaries they were\nusually provided with a table, like an index, which gave a list of\nthe saints\u2019 days contained in the missal; these so-called calendars\nhave from then until now formed an integral part of written and printed\nmissals, and even appear by themselves like abbreviated martyrologies. A\nremarkably large number of calendars of this kind have come down to us\nfrom the Middle Ages, and, since they are important for the history of\nlocal churches, they have recently been published, as, for example, by\nMart\u00e8ne-Durand, Misset and Weale, Grotefend, Ulysse Chevalier, Lechler,\netc.[831] For our purpose, the following deserve to be noticed:\n\n1. A Roman calendar of the seventh century, discovered by Prof. de Ram,\nand printed in Binterim, Denkw. vii. 56-67. It begins with Christmas,\nMarch is called _mensis primus_, the station churches of Rome are given\nin Lent, on the 13th May there is the _Dedicatio Mari\u00e6 ad Martyres_, All\nSaints does not appear. The only litany is the so-called _litania major_;\nthe Annunciation and the _Cathedra Petri_ are omitted, in March a _pascha\nannotina_ is inserted without date, St Athanasius is passed over on the\n20th January; there are only faint traces of Advent. This calendar is\nvery ancient and formed part of the codex of the gospels written under\nLouis the Pious; in the time of Lothaire I., it belonged to the Monastery\nof M\u00fcnsterbilsen in the diocese of Li\u00e8ge.\n\n2. A calendar belonging to Bologna. It is found in a codex of the\nMonastery of Leno, was discovered by Giovanni Mercati in the Ambrosiana,\nand published in the R\u00e9vue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine, 1902 (353-355). It has the\n_Ordinatio Episcopatus Jacobi Apost._ on the 27th December, and, on the\n17th May a _natalis S. Marci Evang._, found nowhere else.\n\n3. The so-called calendar of Charlemagne forms, along with an Easter\ntable, the beginning of an _Evangeliarum_ written in 781 by command of\nthe emperor and his consort by a scribe called Godescale.[832] It is only\ndeserving of notice from the number of names of Frankish saints inserted\ninto a calendar originally Roman, _e.g._ Bishop Maximin of Treves (31st\nMay), Boniface (5th June), Medard (8th June), Martialis (30th June)\nKilian (1st August), Mauritius (22nd September), Remigius (1st October),\netc. The Apostle Thomas is placed, strange to say, on the 3rd July, and\nSt Petronilla on the 31st May.\n\n4. A calendar is incorporated in a treatise _De Computo_, by an unknown\nauthor, written in 810 (published by Muratori, _Analecta_, iii. 108, and\nalso in Migne, _Patr. Lat._, cxxix. 1274). It seems to come from the\ndiocese of Sens on account of _S. Columb\u00e6 Virg._ on the 31st December;\nAll Saints is omitted. This calendar is Roman with Frankish additions;\nfor the date see chap. 153, Migne, cxxix., 1364.\n\n5. The last four months of the year are unfortunately missing from the\ncalendar of Alt-Corbie (Corbeiense) given by Mart\u00e8ne-Durand, _Thes. Nov.\nAnced._, iii., 1591, Paris, 1717. The same is the case with a very old\ncalendar of Tours.\n\n6. Codex 83\u1d35\u1d35. of the cathedral library in Cologne contains an ancient\ncalendar, fol. 72 B-76. This codex contains a large collection of\nannalistical writings and computation tables and was written under\nArchbishop Hildebold. The second treatise in the volume is Isidore\u2019s\nchronicle which concludes with the words: \u201cSeven hundred and eighty-nine\nyears have passed since Christ\u2019s Nativity\u201d; further on, fol. 76 B, was\ninserted after the death of Charlemagne, and also of Hildebold (818).\nThus the codex was written between 798 and 818, and belonged to the old\ncathedral of Cologne which was dedicated to St Peter. The calendar,\nhowever, does not belong to Cologne for the local saints are absent, but\nthere is a number of names of Frankish saints, pointing to the north\nof France as the locality where it was drawn up; no explanation of the\nlegend of St Ursula can be learnt from it. For a calendar of its early\ndate, it is remarkably full of saints, while the Cologne Calendar,\nshortly to be referred, to has many vacant days. The codex has been\ndescribed by Jaff\u00e9 and Wattenbach, _Ecclesi\u00e6 Metrop. Colon. codices\nmanuscripti_, Berlin, 1874, 29 _et seqq._\n\n7. The _Gellonense_ comes from the Monastery of St Guillaume du D\u00e9sert in\nthe diocese of Lod\u00e8ve, and belongs to the beginning of the ninth century,\nand has been edited by D\u2019Achery, _Spicilegium_, ii. 25 _et seqq._ It\nbegins with Christmas and is preceded by a _Breviarum Apostolorum_ in\nthirteen sections containing information concerning the apostles.\n\n8. A _Kalendarium Gothicum_ (ed. Lorenzana) of the seventh century\n(Migne, lxxxvi. 38 _et seqq._). Besides this, there is the Mozarabic\n_Sanctorale_ (_ib._ 1031 _et seqq._) and a fragment of a _Kalendarium\nGothico-Hispanum_ (Migne, lxxxv. 1050 _et seqq._).\n\nOf later date, but still always useful for historical investigation are:\u2014\n\n9. Two Anglo-Saxon calendars of the tenth century belonging apparently to\nthe diocese of Winchester (Migne, lxxii. 619 _et seqq._).\n\n10. Two from Corbie; in Mart\u00e8ne and Durand (_Thes. Nov. Anecd._, iii.\n1571-1594).\n\n11. A calendar of Floriac and a martyrology of Auxerre (Migne, cxxxviii.\n1186-1258).\n\n12. A calendar of Mantua and two of Vallombrosa (_Ib._ 1258 _et seqq._).\n\n13. A calendar of Besan\u00e7on of the eleventh century, which goes by the\nname of _S. Protadii_ (Migne, lxxx. 411), and an old French calendar\ncalled after the name of its first owner Chauvellin (Migne, lxxii. 607).\n\nFor convenience we separate the most ancient calendars of German origin\nfrom the others, and consider them by themselves.\n\n1. The oldest calendar of Mainz belongs to the first half of the ninth\ncentury, and was published from a codex in the Vatican by Jostes in\nthe Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsches Altertum (Schr\u00f6der and R\u00f6the) for 1896,\n148-158. All Saints is absent, and the resurrection of Christ is entered\non the 25th March.\n\n2. A _Kalendarium Verdinense_, from the Monastery of Werden on the Ruhr,\npublished by Bandini (_Catal. Bibl. Lauretian\u00e6 Suppl._, Migne, cxxxviii.\n1203 _et seqq._). It contained All Saints, and the _Dedicatio S. Mari\u00e6 s.\nTurris Vincentii_ on the 13th May as well. Among the special saints of\nCologne are given the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Gereon, the Moors, and the\neleven thousand virgins, but without Ursula, and designated as simply\nvirgins and not martyrs; it also contains the names of the two first\nbishops of Halberstadt, Thiatgrim (\u2020 840) and Hildegrim (\u2020 21st December\n888), which indicates the date of its composition, and it has the name of\nthe first abbot of Werden, Hetharicus, and the _Dedicatio Eccl. Majoris_.\nUnfortunately the months from April to July are missing.\n\n3. The sacramentary in the cathedral library of Cologne (codex 88, fol.\n3-9) contains a complete calendar for this cathedral. It is essentially\nthe Roman Calendar of the ninth century, with the addition of the local\nsaints of Cologne, the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Brictius, Quintinus,\nSeverin, Gereon and his 318 companions, the 360 Moors, and the 11,000\nvirgins without Ursula, and designated simply as virgins. Other names\ndeserving notice are: Briga (Brigida) 1st February, Arealis (?) 28th\nApril, _Marcus episcopus_, Boniface the martyr, Medard, Lambert, and\nMauricius with 6666 companions. The calendar belongs to the second half\nof the ninth century, and is proved to have belonged to the cathedral of\nCologne begun by Hildebold and consecrated by Willibert in 873, by the\nfact that it gives the day of the consecration of the cathedral correctly\n(23rd September), and is described as belonging to the Church of St\nPeter, to whom the former cathedral was dedicated. The sacramentary, but\nnot the calendar, has been printed by J. Pamelius in his \u201cLiturgicon\nEcclesi\u00e6 Latin\u00e6,\u201d tom. ii. (Col. Agr. 1571), but unfortunately with so\nmany arbitrary alterations that it is quite useless as an edition of the\ntext.\n\n4. In the library at D\u00fcsseldorf there is a sacramentary, (codex D. I.)\nwritten in the lifetime of Bishop Altfrid of Hildesheim (\u2020 874), which\ncontains (fol. 217-222) a calendar showing northern French influence.\nOnly the 11,000 virgins are given of the local saints of Cologne, and\nhere again Ursula is not named, and the virgins are not called martyrs.\nThe book belonged to the Convent of Essen on the Ruhr founded by Altfrid.\nThis MS. gives in fol. 64 A the order of the festivals observed within\nthe jurisdiction of the monastery during the ninth century: \u201cIstas\npr\u00e6cipuas solemnitates in anno totus populus sabbatizare debet: In die\nNat. Domini dies IV., in octabas Domini, in Teophania, in Purificatione\nMari\u00e6, in Pascha Domini dies IV., in Ascensione Domini, in Pentecoste\ndies IV., in Nat. S. Johannis, in Nat. Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et\nPauli, in Assumptione S. Mari\u00e6, in Nat. S. Remedii [Remigii], in Missa\nMichahelis, in Solemnitate Omnium Sanctorum, in Nat. S. Martini, in Nat.\nS. Andre\u00e6.\u201d\n\nBinterim published a Cologne calendar, apparently of the ninth century,\nunder the title _Kalendarium Ecclesi\u00e6 Germ. Coloniensis S\u00e6culi Noni_\n(Cologne, 1824), and Harless attributes it to the second half of the\nsame century (Archiv. f. die Gesch. des Niederrheins, vi. 67). It is,\nhowever, much later, for it gives all the feasts of the apostles, and\nprovides them with vigils, and all the days of the year are filled in\nwith the names of saints. For these reasons I should date the calendar as\nbelonging to the eleventh century at the earliest.\n\n5. The _Kalendarium Germanicum Pervetustum S\u00e6c. X._, printed by M.\nFr. Beck (Aug. Vind., 1687). Gerbert (_Mon. Lit. Alem._ i. 455 A. I.)\ncorrectly regards it as coming from Alsace and probably from Strassburg,\nbecause it contains the saints venerated in that city, Arbogast (20th\nJuly), Florentius, Ottilia and Aurelia. The basis of this document is\nagain the Roman Calendar, still many Frankish saints have been added, but\nGereon alone of the saints of Cologne. The latest date given in it is the\n_Dormitio S. Uodalrici_ (4th July). It has only one name from the Old\nTestament, that of the prophet Ezechiel.\n\n6. A calendar of Freising, drawn up under Bishop Abraham, between 893 and\n993. The 25th March is marked as _Conceptio Domini_. There is only one\nfeast of St Peter\u2019s Chair. The calendar has been printed by Lechler,\n\u201cMittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien in Bayern,\u201d Freiburg, 1891.\n\n7. The so-called _Martyrologium Stabulense_, the calendar of the\nMonastery of Stablo. The date of the original MS. can be deduced from\nthe fact that on the _vii. Idus Junii_ the coronation of King Henry II.,\nwhich was performed by Archbishop Willigis at Mainz on the 7th June 1002,\nis entered by the first hand, while the ordination of Archbishop Tagino\nof Magdeburg in the 2nd February 1004, has been entered by a second\nhand. Archbishop Tagino\u2019s death is not entered. The calendar has only\nGereon with 319 companions of the local saints of Cologne. St Ulrich of\nAugsburg, although he died in 997, is entered by the second hand. The\ncalendar has been published by Mart\u00e8ne, _Ampl. Coll._, and by Zaccaria,\n_Antiq. Med. \u00c6vi_ (see Migne, cxxxviii. 1194).\n\n8. Hontheim has published the five most ancient calendars of Treves in\nthe _Prodromus Histori\u00e6 Trevirensis_, i. 378-405. According to him, only\nthe first belongs to the tenth century, all the others being later. For\na calendar of the tenth century, it is very full of names, many of them\nbeing from the old Testament\u2014Ezechial, Daniel, etc.; it mentions neither\nthe legend of the Innumerable Company of Martyrs at Treves on the 4th and\n5th October, nor Palmatius, Thyrsus, etc.; neither does it contain All\nSouls, St Catherine, or St Peter\u2019s Chair, but it has Gereon and his 318\ncompanions. It is only in the fourth and fifth calendars which belong\nto the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that Thyrsus, Palmatius, etc.,\nappear.\n\nWhen one considers the details presented by calendars, one is bound\nto acknowledge that the Roman _Depositio Martyrum_ stands at the head\nof this long line of liturgical documents, and was the model after\nwhich they were composed. Like them, the _Depositio Martyrum_ was drawn\nup according to months, and commenced with Christmas. Like them, it\ncontained the official list of the martyrs who received ecclesiastical\nveneration in the local church of Rome in the fourth century. Were it\nnot so, it would not have deserved to be incorporated in the Philocalian\ncollection, the _Hemerologium Valentini_, since this comprised only\nofficial documents; had it not been official it would not have been worth\ntranscribing.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nAll estates of men in the Church have had their share in the formation\nof the ecclesiastical year, for the growth of the Church\u2019s festivals has\ncontinued without interruption from the beginning until now, and has\nextended over all the countries of Christendom. Having wended our way\nthrough the centuries and arrived at the conclusion of our work, it is a\npleasure to render our tribute of thanks and praise to the men who have\nin the past made this sphere of study their own.\n\nThe few writers of the Middle Ages who treated the Church\u2019s year and\nthe festivals of the saints in a comprehensive manner were entirely\noccupied with contributing to the correct performance of ecclesiastical\nceremonies, and with explaining why each ceremony must be done in one\nway and not in another. They not infrequently brought allegorical and\nsymbolical considerations to bear on the question.\n\nIn more modern times, Cornelius Schulting, a native of Steenwijk in\nNorth Holland, and afterwards professor of theology at Cologne and canon\nof St Andrew\u2019s (\u2020 1604) undertook a full exposition of the matter; his\nobject was mainly practical, and his work can only be regarded as a first\nattempt. The keen controversialist, Jacobus Gretser S.J. (\u2020 1625), is\nmore occupied with his polemic against the Calvinists than with lucid\ndemonstration. More in harmony with modern requirements, is the French\noratorian Louis Thomassin, a native of Aix in Provence, and a partisan of\nPort Royal, who died in 1695; he wrote a small compendium which may be\nused with profit at the present day.\n\nThe study of the ecclesiastical year was considerably advanced by the\nlabours of Adrien Baillet, born in 1649, in the diocese of Beauvais (\u2020\n1706), parish priest of a small country living at Baumont and librarian\nto M. de Lamoignon; he was entirely devoted to the pursuit of knowledge,\nand scarcely ever allowed himself any relaxation. He composed a great\nwork worthy of ranking alongside the labours of Tillemont, to whom he is\nclosely related in spirit. The course of his historical treatment of the\nsubject is considerably obscured by the superabundance of biographical\nmatter. Two valuable monographs were published by Prosper Lambertini\n(Pope Benedict XIV.) when bishop of Bologna, which treat in a masterly\nmanner of the feasts of our Lord and of our Lady respectively.\n\nFinally, the learned priest of Bilk, near D\u00fcsseldorf, Fr. Ant. Binterim\n(\u2020 1855) dealt with this subject in one volume of his _Denkw\u00fcrdigkeiten_.\nHe treats in the first place of the observance of Sunday, then of the\nSundays of the Church\u2019s year in general, and finally of the movable\nand immovable feasts. Of these he naturally deals only with the most\nimportant, following the order of the calendar, by which arrangement\nChristmas comes last.\n\nThe author of this book commenced his researches by a comparative\nstudy of the martyrologies, calendars, annals, and works dealing with\nthe computation of time, and then set to work upon the historical and\nliturgical material which he had before him from the point of vantage\nthus obtained. The fortunate circumstance that the most of the works\nrequired for this branch of study are contained in Migne\u2019s collection,\nrenders the labour of comparison possible, and frequently brings\nremarkable parallels to light.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nI\n\n(p. 16)\n\nAccording to the existing Roman Calendar, feasts are classed as follows:\u2014\n\nDUPLICIA PRIM\u00c6 CLASSIS. _Nativitas Domini, Epiphania, Annunciatio, Pascha\ncum tribus antecedentibus et duobus sequentibus diebus, Ascensio Domini,\nPentecoste cum duobus sequentibus diebus, festum Corporis Christi, festum\nSS. Cordis Jesu, festum S. Joseph sponsi B.M.V., Nativitas Joannis Bapt.,\nfestum SS. App. Petri et Pauli, Assumptio B.M.V., festum Immaculat\u00e6\nConceptionis B.M.V., festum Omnium Sanctorum, Dedicatio propri\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6,\nPatronus vel titulus ecclesi\u00e6._\n\nDUPLICIA SECUND\u00c6 CLASSIS. _Circumcisio Domini, festum SS. Nominis Jesu,\nfestum SS. Trinitatis, festum Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. J. Chr.,\nInventio Crucis, Purificatio, Visitatio, Nativitas B.M.V., Sollemnitas\nS. Rosarii, Dedicatio Mich\u00e6lis Arch., festum Patrocinii S. Joseph sponsi\nB.M.V., Natales Apostolorum et festa Evangelistarum, festum S. Stephani,\nProtomartyris, SS. Innocentium, S. Laurentii, S. Ann\u00e6 matris B.M.V., S.\nJoachim patris B.M.V._\n\nDUPLICIA MAJORA. _Transfiguratio Domini, Exaltatio S. Crucis, festa VII.\ndolorum B.M.V., Commemoratio B.M.V. de monte Carmelo, festa Ad Nives, S.\nNominis, de Mercede, et Pr\u00e6sentatio, B.M.V., Apparitio S. Mich\u00e6lis Arch.,\nfestum SS. Angelorum Custodum, Decollatio S. Joannis Bapt., Cathedra\nPetri utraque, S. Petri ad vincula, Conversio S. Pauli Ap., Commemoratio\nS. Pauli Ap., festum S. Joannis ante Portam Latinam, S. Barnab\u00e6 Ap., S.\nBenedicti Abb., S. Dominici Conf., S. Francisci Assis. Conf., festum\nPatronorum non principalium._\n\n\nII\n\n(p. 24)\n\n(_A_) A marked increase appears in the statute of Lanfranc, Archbishop\nof Canterbury (\u2020 1089). He divides the festivals into three classes.\nIn the first class he reckons five, the three chief festivals of the\nChristian year, the Assumption, and the feast of the local patron; in the\nsecond, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Gregory, the Annunciation, Low Sunday,\nSt Alphege, the Ascension, St Augustine of Canterbury, the Octave of\nPentecost, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the\nTranslation of the Relics of St Benedict, the Nativity of our Lady, St\nMichael, All Saints, St Andrew, and the Dedication of the Church; the\nfestivals belonging to the third class were St Vincent, the Conversion\nof St Paul, SS. Philip and James, the Exaltation of the Cross (3rd May),\nSt James (29th July), St Peter\u2019s Chains, St Lawrence, the Octave of the\nAssumption, St Bartholomew, St Augustine of Hippo, the Beheading of St\nJohn the Baptist, the Invention of the Cross, St Matthew, SS. Simon and\nJude, St Martin, and St Thomas.\n\nLanfranc issued this decree as archbishop, still it was only to hold good\nfor the Benedictine monasteries and the Cathedral.[833]\n\n(p. 25)\n\n(_B_) The festivals of obligation for the archdiocese of Cologne were\nregulated according to the months by the provincial synod of 1308.\nJanuary: the Circumcision, Epiphany, St Agnes, the Conversion of St\nPaul. February: Candlemas, St Peter\u2019s Chair, St Matthias. March: the\nAnnunciation. April: Easter and St George. May: SS. Philip and James,\nthe Invention of the Cross. June: the Nativity of St John the Baptist,\nSS. Peter and Paul. July: St Mary Magdalen, St James, St Pantaleon.\nAugust: St Peter\u2019s Chains, St Lawrence, the Assumption, St Bartholomew,\nthe Beheading of St John the Baptist. September: the Nativity of our\nLady, the Exaltation of the Cross, St Matthew, St Michael. October: St\nGereon, the Eleven Thousand Virgins, St Severin, SS. Simon and Jude.\nNovember: All Saints, St Martin, St Cunibert, St Cecilia, St Catherine,\nSt Andrew. December: St Nicholas, St Thomas, Christmas, St Stephen, St\nJohn the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents. In all, forty-two days.[834] The\nfeasts of Easter and Pentecost extended over three days; the Ascension is\nomitted. In the city of Cologne were celebrated in addition: the Arrival\nof the relics of the Three Holy Kings on the 23rd July, the Dedication of\nthe Cathedral, SS. Cosmas and Damian, the Dedication and Patronal feast\nof each parish church, and, finally, the feast of Corpus Christi was\nenjoined in addition.\n\nThe Synod of 1549 under Adolf III. gives the following list: All\nSundays, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas\u2014two days each, the third day _in\nchoro_ only\u2014Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, the Holy Trinity, Corpus\nChristi, these being feasts of our Lord. The feasts of our Lady are:\nthe Purification, the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Assumption, the\nNativity, the Presentation, and the Conception. Saints\u2019 days are as\nfollows: all the Apostles, St John the Baptist, St Mary Magdalen, St\nLawrence, St Michael, All Saints, St Martin, and the Dedication of the\nChurch; there are also six other saints\u2019 days which were optional for\nplaces where they were customary. The feast of the Patron Saint is passed\nover, and thus a decrease of fifteen festivals is brought about.[835]\n\n(p. 26)\n\n(_C_) The statute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves, published in 1338,\ncontains fewer festivals, _i.e._ Christmas, Easter with the three\nfollowing days and Pentecost with two, Corpus Christi, Circumcision,\nand Epiphany. Our Lady\u2019s feasts were: the Nativity, Annunciation,\nPurification, and Assumption; a few years later her Conception was added.\nThen came the festivals of the twelve apostles, St Michael (8th May),\nthe Invention of the Cross, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, St\nLawrence, St Martin, St Mary Magdalen, St Catherine, All Saints\u2019, the\nHoly Innocents, the Dedication of the Church and the feast of the Patron\nSaint.\n\n\nIII\n\n(p. 35)\n\nTHE FESTIVALS OF OBLIGATION AS OBSERVED IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES\n\nRome. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, one day each; Circumcision,\nEpiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph (19th March), the Annunciation, Ascension,\nSt Philip Neri (26th May), Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St John the\nBaptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All\nSaints, the Immac. Conc., St John the Evangelist (27th December). The\ncivil law of the Italian Kingdom recognises the following days as\nlegal holidays: the Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and\nPaul, the feasts of Our Lady on the 15th August, 8th September, and 8th\nDecember, Christmas and the patron saint of the city and diocese.\n\nFrance. In accordance with the concordat of Napoleon four feasts were\ncelebrated: Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints. All\nother festivals when they fell on a week day were transferred to the\nfollowing Sunday. Even in Belgium and in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg,\nin the part of Limburg belonging to Holland, and in the bailiwick of\nMeisenheim in the diocese of Treves, this scanty provision of feasts\nholds good.\n\nAustria. The Cis-and-Transleithan countries observe the same holy days.\nChristmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the Circumcision,\nEpiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS.\nPeter and Paul, the Assumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception.\nThe feasts of the patron saints were transferred by Joseph II. to the\nfollowing Sunday, but in each of the Crown-lands the local patron is\ncommemorated on his proper day, _i.e._ in Austria above and below the\nEnns, the feast of St Leopold: in Upper Austria, St Florian: in Moravia,\nSS. Cyril and Methodius: in Galicia, St Stanislaus and St Michael: in\nSilesia, St Hedwig: in Bohemia, St Wenceslaus and St John Nepomuk: in\nStyria, Carinthia, Camiola, the provinces of the Litoral, Salzburg, Tyrol\nand Vorarlberg, St Joseph: in Sclavonia, St John the Baptist: in Hungary,\nSt Stephen the Confessor: in Croatia, St Elias: in Transilvania, St\nLadislaus: in Salzburg, St Rupert: in Dalmatia, St Jerome: in Goritz, St\nHermagoras and St Fortunatus.\n\nIn the eight old provinces of Prussia, the festivals recognised by\nthe state are: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the\nCircumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter\nand Paul, All Saints, the (Protestant) day of penitence and prayer, the\nAnnunciation and the Immaculate Conception. In the archdiocese of Posen,\nthe Nativity of Our Lady, and the Assumption as well as St Stanislaus\nare observed, and in Gnesen, St George as patron of the diocese. The new\nprovinces have had also to adopt the Protestant day of penitence.\n\nHanover, the dioceses of Hildesheim and Osnabr\u00fcck. Besides the days\nobserved in Prussia, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the Nativity\nand Assumption of Our Lady, St Michael, and the local patrons St Bernward\nand St Martin.\n\nFor the countries of the Northern Mission in the diocese of Osnabr\u00fcck,\nthe following are omitted from the list just given: Nativity of St John\nthe Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and all the feasts of Our Lady, thus\nleaving only Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each with two days; the\nCircumcision, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, All Saints.\nThis applies to Bremen, Hamburg, L\u00fcbeck, Schleswig-Holstein, both the\nMecklenburgs and Denmark.\n\nBavaria. The following festivals are observed: Christmas, Easter, and\nPentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St\nJoseph, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of\nSt John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of\nOur Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Each diocese of Bavaria\ncelebrates its own particular patron as well.\n\nThe Palatinate, diocese of Spires. Here the effects of the French\ndominion are still observable, and the only festivals of obligation\nobserved are: the Circumcision, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the\nAssumption, All Saints. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are kept each\nfor two days.\n\nThe Kingdom of Saxony. The festivals of obligation are: the Circumcision,\nthe Epiphany and Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter\nand Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, the Immaculate\nConception, All Saints; Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each for two\ndays.\n\nIn the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine there are different\nregulations in each diocese.\n\nW\u00fcrtemburg, diocese of Rottenburg. The Circumcision, the Epiphany,\nCandlemas, the Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St\nJohn the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of\nOur Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception; Christmas, Easter, and\nPentecost, each for two days.\n\nBaden, archdiocese of Freiburg. The five chief feasts of Our Lady are\nkept on the day itself; so too is the feast of St Joseph, and the other\nfestivals are the same as in W\u00fcrtemburg, with the exception of the 24th\nJune.\n\nHesse-Nassau: the dioceses of Fulda and Limburg. Christmas, Easter and\nPentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas,\nAnnunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption,\nAll Saints; the Prussian day of penitence is observed in November, and\nin Limburg, the patron saint on his own day.\n\nHesse-Darmstadt: diocese of Mainz. The same regulations as in the\nPalatinate.\n\nAlsace-Lorraine. The four French holy days. An edict of 10th October 1887\nadds to these Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Whit Monday, as general\nholidays in the legal sense, and as holidays and days of rest in the\nsense of the Code de proc\u00e9dure civile.\n\nIn Holland, in the archdiocese of Utrecht, and in the diocese of Harlem,\nthe following rank as full holy days on which no work is to be done:\nthe day following the three chief feasts of the year, the Circumcision,\nEpiphany, Annunciation, and the Assumption. It is of obligation to hear\nmass only on Candlemas, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the Immaculate\nConception. In the dioceses of Breda and Bois-le-Duc, these three\nfestivals are days of full obligation.\n\nFor England, Pope Pius VI. appointed the following holy days on the\n9th March 1777: Easter and Pentecost, each two days: Christmas, the\nCircumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Annunciation,\nthe Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, and the feast of the\npatron saint. At the present time are observed, Easter, Pentecost and\nChristmas, one day each, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus\nChristi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, and All Saints. St Andrew\u2019s\nday is added for Scotland, and St Patrick\u2019s day and the Annunciation for\nIreland. The Immaculate Conception is a purely ecclesiastical festival.\n\nSwitzerland affords an interesting study owing to the great varieties\nexisting within so small a space. The diocese of Basel-Soleure:\nChristmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Corpus Christi, the\nAssumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception. In the canton of\nLucerne, St Joseph\u2019s day and the Annunciation are celebrated, the latter\nalso in the canton of Zug. The three chief festivals are kept for day\nonly. The diocese of Coire, comprising the cantons of Grisons, Schwyz,\nUri, Unterwalden, Zurich, Glarus, and the principality of Liechtenstein:\nthe three chief festivals, each two days, the Circumcision, Epiphany,\nCandlemas and St Joseph. The last two days do not rank as holy days\nin the canton of Zurich, nor does the Annunciation in the cantons of\nZurich and Schwyz. The Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St\nJohn the Baptist, and SS. Peter and Paul are not kept in either of these\ntwo cantons, but the Assumption and All Saints are kept everywhere. The\nNativity of Our Lady is not kept in Zurich and Schwyz, but the Immaculate\nConception is kept everywhere except in the canton of Zurich. The\nfollowing patron saints are kept, St Fridolin (6th March) in the canton\nof Glarus, Nicholas von der Flu (21st March) in Unterwalden, St Martin\nwith an octave in Schwyz and Uri, St Lucius (3rd Dec.) in Coire. St Gall,\ncomprising the cantons of St Gall and Appenzell, keeps the Epiphany,\nCandlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Assumption, All Saints, and the\nImmaculate Conception; the three chief feasts, each for two days, and\nSt Gall\u2019s day (16th Oct.) as patron of the diocese. In the diocese of\nGeneva-Lausanne, consisting of the four French cantons: the Circumcision,\nthe Epiphany (with the exception of the cantons of Geneva and Vaud),\nCandlemas, the Annunciation (with the exception of Vaud and Neuch\u00e2tel),\nthe Ascension, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate\nConception (with the exception of Geneva, Vaud, and Neuch\u00e2tel). The three\nchief feasts are kept for one day each. This is also the case in the\ncanton of Valais, diocese of Sion, but the following days are also kept\nin this canton: the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation,\nAscension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and\nPaul, Assumption and Nativity of Our Lady and her Immaculate Conception,\nand St Maurice as Patron Saint (22nd Sept.).\n\nRussian Poland. The three chief feasts, each for two days, the\nCircumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension,\nCorpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul,\nAssumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception,\nSt Stanislaus as patron. This last named day is not observed in the\nschools and law-courts on account of its nationalistic character.\n\nSpain. The Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation,\nEaster, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul,\nAssumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception,\nChristmas. The three chief festivals are kept for only one day each.\n\nPortugal. The three chief festivals for one day each. The Circumcision,\nEpiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi,\nthe Sacred Heart, St Antony of Padua (13th June), SS. Peter and Paul,\nAssumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Before the last\nreduction, the Nativity of Our Lady, and from mid-day on Maundy Thursday\nto mid-day on Good Friday were also holy days of obligation. Lisbon keeps\nthe feast of St Vincent (22nd January) as patron of the city.\n\nThe United States observe only six festivals which may fall on week-days;\nall the others are transferred to the Sunday. These are Christmas, the\nCircumcision, Ascension, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate\nConception. The three chief festivals are kept for one day only. Since\nthe number of festivals varied originally in the different states, an\nattempt was made after uniformity, and the council of Baltimore in 1852\ndesired to retain only four festivals as in France. Rome, however, was\nnot satisfied with this, and, in 1866, the six festivals mentioned above\nwere adopted. The provincial synod of Cincinnati in 1861 agreed to adopt\nthe Epiphany, Annunciation, and Corpus Christi as well.\n\nBrazil. The three chief festivals, each for one day. The Circumcision,\nEpiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity\nof St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity of Our\nLady, All Saints and the Immaculate Conception.\n\nRussia. Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany,\nAscension, Transfiguration, Candlemas, Annunciation, our Lady\u2019s\nPresentation and Assumption, and the Exaltation of the Cross (14th\nSept). All these are, of course, kept according to the Julian calendar.\nTo these are added the following feasts peculiar to Russia: the three\nfeasts of the Jordan so-called, _i.e._ the Blessing of the Water, and the\nthirteen so-called Gala-feasts, _i.e._ the commemoration of the reigning\ndynasty (see _Kirchenlexikon_, X., 2nd ed. 1399). The schismatics in\nAustria-Hungary keep their festivals according to the Julian calendar, so\nthat where the population is mixed, each feast is as a rule kept twice.\n\n\nIV\n\n(p. 71)\n\nFor many centuries the liturgical vestments were exclusively white, like\nthe ordinary dress of classic times. The writers of the Carolingian\nperiod in their desire to find parallels between the enactments of the\nOld and New Testaments, were the first to remember that different colours\nwere used in the vestments of the Jewish high priest. In addition to the\nwhite under garment which he wore in common with the simple priests, he\nwore an upper garment of blue, and a particoloured shoulder-garment, the\nephod, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, interwoven with gold\nthread. The repeated references to these vestments gradually led to the\nadoption of coloured vestments for the mass.[836]\n\nTheir introduction was at first tentative. Neither Rupert of Deutz,\nHonorius of Autun, Beleth, nor Hugh of St Victor mention the liturgical\ncolours in their writings, or, if they do, only with reference to the Old\nTestament; Sicard of Cremona, a contemporary of Innocent III., clearly\nalludes to them, although he only mentions two\u2014white and red.[837]\n\nInnocent III. was the first to speak of all the liturgical colours, and\nto regulate their use in the Roman Church, but always with reference to\nthe regulations of the Old Testament. According to him, white was to be\nused on the feasts of Confessors, Virgins, and Angels, and on Christmas,\nEpiphany, Candlemas, Maundy Thursday, and the Ascension; it was used as a\nmatter of course on all other days where it was not otherwise specified,\nsince until then white had been the universal liturgical colour. Red\nvestments were to be worn on feasts of Apostles and Martyrs. On feasts\nof the Holy Cross a choice between white and red was allowed. Red was to\nbe used on Pentecost in memory of the fiery tongues, and on the feast\nof SS. Peter and Paul. On the Conversion of St Paul and on the feast of\nSt Peter\u2019s Chair, white was to be used. White was the colour for the\nNativity of St John the Baptist, red for his Beheading. On All Saints\nmany used red vestments, but the Roman Church used white, because it is\nsaid in the Apocalypse that the saints stand before the Lamb in white\ngarments, with palms in their hands.\n\nBlack vestments are to be worn on days of penitence and abstinence, and\nalso on the Commemorations of the dead. They were also worn during Advent\nand Lent, except, of course, on festivals falling within those seasons.\nWith regard to the Holy Innocents some decided in favour of black, some\nin favour of red, but the Roman pontiff decided for violet. For ferias\nand ordinary days the colour was green. One might, in addition, wear\nscarlet for red, violet for black, and yellow for green.\n\nIn Durandus (\u2020 1296) we find the same rule, in parts verbally identical\nwith the above. The only point to notice in regard to what he says is\nthat he says black vestments are to be worn on Rogation days, violet\nseems to have the preference over black for Advent and Lent, and the use\nof the former colour is represented as peculiar to the Roman Church.[838]\n\nThere is accordingly nothing strange in the circumstance that in the more\nancient rituals, only _vestes solleminores_ in general are prescribed\nfor Maunday Thursday, without reference to colour. The Roman use,[839]\nfrom the beginning, was to use white on this day, and this superseded the\ncustoms observed elsewhere.[840]\n\n\nV\n\n(p. 79)\n\nTHE WORD MASS AS A NAME FOR THE SACRIFICE OF THE ALTAR\n\nThe term mass does not owe its position to theology, but became\nestablished in the course of centuries by popular usage. The most\nancient writers of the church speak frequently, and with all the\nprecision desirable of the holy sacrifice of the altar, but they speak of\nit by other names which fully indicate its essential character, such as\n_oblatio_ and _sacrificium_, or even _sacramenta_ and _collecta_. These\ntwo last names have a more general significance; _collecta_ is the late\nLatin abbreviation for _collectio_, and means an assembly of men for some\ngiven purpose, in this case for divine service. _Colligere_ appears in\nthe same sense in the Latin translation of Iren\u00e6us and in Tertullian; the\nsubstantive is found in Jerome and other ancient authors; a survival of\nthis primitive usage appears in the name _collecta_ given to the first\nprayer of the Mass.[841] It owes its name of _collecta_ to the fact that\naccording to the most ancient ritual it formed the commencement of the\nMass. In the service-books, _collecta_ was merely a name which served\nto distinguish the prayers of the Mass from those which preceded or\nfollowed. According to the Roman rite, the Mass began with the prayer of\nthe priest at the altar as soon as the _invitatorium_ sung by the choir\nwas finished, the psalm _Judica me_, the _Confiteor_, the _Kyrie_ and\n_Gloria_ being later additions. Thus the name _collecta_ became attached\nto this opening prayer, and is so given to it in most medi\u00e6val and Roman\nmissals, until the reform under Pius V., when it was replaced by the name\n_oratio_ now in use. At the same time the name _postcommunio_ replaced\nthe older title _ad complendum_. Whenever we find in prayer-books and\nexplanations of the Mass, that the prayer was called the Collect because\nthe priest \u201ccollected\u201d the petitions of the faithful, we can only regard\nsuch an interpretation as silly and unhistorical; the same could be said\nequally well of all, or, at any rate, of most of the prayers of the Mass.\n\nThe term _sacramentum_ or _sacramenta_ served also not unfrequently as a\nname for the Mass,[842] and so gave rise to the name _sacramentarium_,\ngenerally given to the missal in ancient times. In addition to these\nnames, _oblatio_ and _sacrificio_ were especially employed as having\nthe advantage of adequately expressing the essential character of the\nrite. The former was the particular favourite of Tertullian, the founder\nof Latin ecclesiastical terminology, and afterwards of St Cyprian, but\nit may be said to belong to all writers and to all periods.[843] St\nAugustine, who had already propounded a formal theory of the sacrifice of\nthe Mass, shows a preference for _sacrificium_.[844]\n\nWhen we turn to the word _missa_, we must not treat it as a participle,\neven in the _Ite missa est_, for there is nothing with which the feminine\nparticiple can agree, and so it must be a substantive. In order to\nexplain the meaning of this substantive, and to show how it acquired its\nposition as the technical term for the most sacred act of the Church\u2019s\nworship, requires an excursus dealing with the matter from the point of\nview of etymology, patrology, and liturology. As regards the etymology\nof the word, attempts have been made from time to time to derive _missa_\nfrom the Hebrew, (\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\u200f Deut., xvi. 10), in the belief the name must\nbe as old as the thing it signifies, an attempt abandoned as absurd at\nthe present day.[845] A better idea was that of the medi\u00e6val liturgists\nwho explained the word as equivalent to _transmissio_ in the sense of the\noffering up and presentation of the oblation before God. But fortunately\nthere is one man, thoroughly conversant at first hand with primitive\nusages and terminology, who has left us an explanation of the word and\nof the origin of its application to the sacrifice of the altar. Bishop\nAvitus, of Vienne (\u2020 518), flourished at the period between the ages of\nantiquity and the medi\u00e6val period, and is, therefore, a reliable witness\nin this matter. He was asked by his sovereign, King Gundobad of Burgundy,\nwhat was the meaning of the word _missa_, and replied that _missam\nfacere_ was the same as _dimittere_, and was used by the Romans at both\naudiences in the royal palace and sittings of the law courts to intimate\nto the assembly that the audience or session was at an end and that\nthey were free to depart; it was used in the same way in the churches.\nAvitus[846] himself uses _missa_ simply for divine service.\n\nIt is clear that the explanation given by Avitus is correct. For since\nthe conclusion of every session and assembly must be officially announced\nwith words such as, \u201cThe session is at an end,\u201d so in church, where\na still greater number of men meet together, it is necessary to make\nknown to them the conclusion of divine service. Such was the custom\nof the ancient Romans at their sacrifices and religious ceremonies,\nand the Christians naturally did the same. Tertullian speaks already\nof a _dimissio plebis_,[847] and we find the same thing in the Greek\nliturgies, although the formul\u00e6 vary in some respects from that in use\namong the Latins.[848]\n\nIt was not, however, the Mass which was first called by this name, but\nthe other services of the ancient Church\u2014the Psalmody, or, in other\nwords, the Canonical Hours. From the striking account given by the\nso-called Silvia,[849] we can see how important these services were and\nwhat a prominent position they occupied in the worship of the Church.\n\u201cEvery day, in the early morning, the doors of the church were opened,\nand all the monks and nuns, as well as many of the laity, assembled, and\nuntil sunrise, sing hymns and psalms, in alternate choirs, along with the\nantiphons and prayers. About sunrise they begin to say the \u2018_matutinas\nymnos_.\u2019 The bishop arrives with the clergy and sings the prayer within\nthe chancel. Then he comes forth and blesses the people one by one. _Et\nsic fit missa_,\u201d _i.e._ so the service ends, which comprised Nocturns,\nLauds, and Prime, as they would now be called. The same ceremonies were\nobserved at the Little Hours which followed later. Vespers were performed\nwith more ceremony; at the conclusion the deacon directed the faithful\nto bow their heads in order to receive the bishop\u2019s blessing. Again the\npilgrim ends her description with the words, \u201c_Et sic fit missa_.\u201d\n\nWe must notice that the Psalmody took place daily in this way, while the\nMass, especially in the East, was not celebrated daily; in Lent, for\nexample, it was celebrated on Saturdays and Sundays only. At each hour\nthere took place a dismissal, _missa_, and thus it was brought about that\nthis word came to be used as a name for each of the canonical hours.\nThe name was far-fetched and unsuitable, but popular usage does not\nform its nomenclature upon scientific principles, but from what most\nstrikes the popular fancy. Thus the pilgrim, who expresses herself in\npopular language, speaks of _missa vigiliarum_, for Mattins, and _missa\nlucernaris_ for Vespers. The word _missa_ in itself means dismissal\nand nothing more. Once, in her na\u00efve manner, she explains what sort\nof dismissal she means; it is dismissal out of the church (\u201c_missa de\necclesia_,\u201d c. 37, \u00a7 3, line 20). Which of the various dismissals out of\nthe church is intended in a given case is shown by an additional phrase,\nas in the cases given above, when it is not clear from the context. Of\ncourse it may mean the dismissal which took place at the Mass, but not\nthe sacrifice of the Mass itself. How far _missa_ is from being in the\npilgrim\u2019s diary the technical term for Mass\u2014which is all we are concerned\nwith here\u2014is sufficiently clear from the circumstance that wherever she\nlets slip the word _missa_ for Mass, she at once hastens to add that the\n_missa_ of which she speaks is the _oblatio_.[850] When she wishes to\nexpress herself with precision, she always calls the Mass _oblatio_, and\nin a few cases _sacramentum_ (singular or plural). Of course _missa_, as\na general term, may have been used as a name for the Mass, since there\nare one or more dismissals therein; had it not been so, _missa_ could\nnever have become the name _par excellence_ for the Mass.\n\nThe same terminology is found at a somewhat later date in Cassian, to\nwhom we are especially indebted for our intimate knowledge of monastic\nobservances. An important part of these observances were the daily hours\nof prayer, the canonical hours, and we naturally expect to find the\ntechnical terms for them in Cassian\u2019s writings. And so, indeed, we find\nthe names formed with the help of the word _missa_, as in Silvia\u2019s diary;\nMattins and Lauds are called _missa nocturna_ or _missa vigiliarum_,[851]\nwhile the Mass, on the other hand, is called _oblatio_ or _sacrificium_.\n\nFrom these passages it appears that _missa_ in its strict sense means\n\u201cdismissal,\u201d and is a general term capable of receiving a particular\nsignificance by the addition of _vigiliarum_, etc. The same thing appears\nin Pope Innocent I. (_Epist._ 17, c. 12; MIGNE, xx. 535), where he\nspeaks of the priests belonging to the party of Bonosus, and asks if\nthey have celebrated Mass, which he calls _sacramenta conficere_, if\nthey have given Holy Communion (_si populis tribuit_), and if they have\nperformed the customary dismissals (_si missas complevit_). Apart from\nthe fact that in the same passage two different terms cannot well stand\nfor the same thing, the use of the plural shows that it is not the Mass\nwhich is meant but the other _miss\u00e6_, the hours, the performance of\nwhich concerned both the bishop and the priests. There is no doubt as\nto which term Leo I. used for the Mass, for _oblatio_ and _sacrificium_\noccur several times in his writings. When in one passage we find the\nword _missa_ as well, this can only mean the dismissal, the conclusion\nof divine service.[852] Thus even in the fifth century _missa_ by\nitself always meant merely dismissal, never Mass; for Mass, the terms\n_sacrificium_ and _oblatio_ were employed.\n\nThis was the correct use of the terms in question during that period. But\nsince, as we have said, the ceremonial dismissals (_miss\u00e6_) at the end of\ndivine service gave rise to the name, and since dismissals of this kind\noccurred in the Mass,[853] once at the end and once after the sermon at\nthe dismissal of the Catechumens, it is not remarkable that _missa_ came\ninto use as a name for the Mass, and came to be regarded as its special\nname in proportion as the canonical hours became less services for the\nlaity than of obligation for clergy and religious. There was however an\nintermediate period before _missa_ became solely and exclusively the\npopular name for the Mass. This transitional state of affairs extended\nover the whole of the sixth century, and appears in the writings of\nSt Benedict and St Gregory the Great, who both employ _missa_ without\ndistinction as a name for the Mass and for the canonical hours.[854]\nThe same thing appears in Gregory of Tours and in other writers. The\nlast appearance of _missa_ as a name for both kinds of divine service\nwithout distinction appears to be a passage in the life of St Ludgerus by\nAltfrid.[855]\n\nThe terminology employed by the official organs of the Church is\nnaturally of weight in this matter. When the authorities of the Church\nmade use of a term so little expressive of the nature of the thing as\n_missa_, which had already taken the popular fancy, it was inevitable\nthat it should become the only recognised name for the Mass; and this\nis just what happened. On glancing through the canons of the ancient\nCouncils of the West, we find all the terms with which we are already\nfamiliar\u2014_oblatio_ by the Council of Arles in 314 (Canons 5 and 19), and\n_sacrificium_ by the Councils of Carthage (that of 390, Canon 8; that\nof 397, Canon 14), etc. We also find the term _miss\u00e6_ applied to the\nparticular parts of the Psalmody,[856] and to the other services composed\nof Psalmody and Mass together.[857] As a term clearly and unmistakably\napplied to the Mass by itself, _missa_ appears for the first time in the\nfourth Synod of Arles in 524 (Canon 4), and then in sundry other Gallic\nsynods of the sixth century.\n\nOn the other hand it must be stated once for all that _missa_ in the\nsense of Mass is not to be found in the fourth century. The one solitary\ninstance which for a long time seemed to countenance such a view is\nin a letter of St Ambrose,[858] in which he tells his sister of the\nattempts made by the Arians on Palm Sunday 385 to gain possession of the\nprincipal church of Milan. Ambrose was performing divine service, the\nhomily was concluded, and he was just on the point of dismissing the\ncatechumens, when the alarming news arrived that the Arians has seized\na basilica situated outside the walls; he did not allow himself to be\nupset by the news, but remained where he was, dismissed the catechumens,\nand commenced the Mass, during which he received further information\nconcerning the tumult. The question turns upon the words, \u201cEgo tamen\nmansi in munere, missam facere c\u0153pi. Dum offero,\u201d etc. Hitherto _missa_\nhas here been always taken in the sense of Mass, but it has really the\nsense of dismissal. For on Palm Sunday in Milan, the so-called _traditio\nsymboli_ to the more advanced class of catechumens was performed with\nmuch ceremony, something like a first Communion with us; on this day a\ntwofold dismissal of the catechumens was necessary, the first of the\nlower class of catechumens, because they must not yet learn the creed\nwhich was now to be recited by the more advanced, and then followed the\ndismissal of the more advanced catechumens, the _competentes_, because\nthese, as being still unbaptised, could not yet assist at the Mass.\n\nAgainst this interpretation it has been urged[859] that _missa_ must\nmean Mass, because, the act of dismissal being so short, Ambrose\ncould scarcely have said, \u201cMissam facere c\u0153pi,\u201d had he meant only the\ndismissal of the catechumens. How long an act must continue in order\nthat its beginning, middle, and ending may be observable depends upon\ncircumstances, but the dismissal of the _competentes_ was sometimes far\nfrom brief. The Apostolic Constitutions, for instance, give a formula\nfor this act, and the prayers used cover three printed pages (_Constit.\nApost._, 8, 5, \u00a7 6 to 6, \u00a7 4). At the dismissal of the candidates for\nbaptism, three prayers were recited (_ib._ 8, 7, \u00a7 2, to c. 7, \u00a7 1), one\nby the deacon, one by the catechumens, and one by the bishop, who then\ngave his blessing. Then followed an address by the bishop, of which we\nhave two examples, in the 215th and 216th of the sermons of St Augustine.\nThe act lasted long enough to have a beginning, middle, and ending.\n\nFrom what has been said, we conclude, _missa_ appears in the fourth\ncentury as a technical name for the various parts of divine service,\nespecially for the canonical hours. During the sixth and seventh\ncenturies it became a technical term for the Mass, and gradually usurped\nthe place of other names for the Mass. These, however, survived in\nisolated instances until the ninth century, but disappeared entirely in\nthe Middle Ages.\n\n\nVI\n\n(p. 142)\n\nON THE DATE FOR CHRISTMAS IN HIPPOLYTUS\n\nConsidering the uncertainty as to the day of our Lord\u2019s birth shown by\nClement of Alexandria, and the reserve which Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian\nmaintain on the same point, it is surprising to find the most precise\ndata given for its determination by a writer very little posterior to\nthose just mentioned. In the commentary of Hippolytus on Dan. iv. 23 (in\nBratke\u2019s ed., 19), we read in the text discovered in 1885; \u201cThe first\nAdvent of our Lord in the flesh, when He was born in Bethlehem, happened\non the eighth day before the calends of January, on a Wednesday, in the\nforty-second year of Augustus, in the year 5500, reckoning from Adam. He\nsuffered in His thirty-third year, on the eighth day before the calends\nof April (25th March), on a Friday, in the eighteenth year of Tiberius,\nwhen Rufus and Rubellius were consuls.\u201d[860]\n\nNot merely the astonishing minuteness of the data, but also the\ncircumstance that this passage is to be found in a shorter form in a\nfragment, long well known to scholars, preserved in the Chigi Library in\nRome, coupled with the fact that ancient ecclesiastical writers quote\nfrom it the year of world alone,[861] must give rise to doubts concerning\nthe longer form of the passage in itself, as well as concerning the\nseparate data of which it is composed.\n\nIf we turn our attention first to these separate data, we find the names\nof the consuls wrongly given; their names are Fufius and Rubellius, not\nRufus and Rubellius. Mistakes in the names of consuls are certainly\nnot rare in Eastern writers, but in the case of a man like Hippolytus,\nwho lived in Rome, such a mistake is very astonishing, since he could\neasily have found out the right names. Next, according to the authentic\nHippolytus, our Lord\u2019s life lasted only thirty-one years, and not\nthirty-three; this appears from the passage in the so-called _Liber\nGenerationis_ representing in a Latin translation part of the \u201cChronicle\u201d\nwhich, according to the inscription on his statue, Hippolytus had\ncomposed.[862] Again, the eighteenth year of Tiberius is also wrong. The\nforty-second year of Augustus and the two week-days may be correct (see\n_Comm. Dan._, 4, 9; in Bratke 8), for the latter appear also in the same\nconnection in the inscription on the statue. Wednesday found acceptance\nas the day of Christ\u2019s birth owing to the Messias being called in Malachy\niv. 2, \u201cthe Sun of Justice,\u201d from which it was inferred that He must have\nbeen born on the same day of the week as that on which the visible sun\nhad been created (Gen. i. 19).\n\nBut, moreover, the days of the week have been interpolated into the text,\nsince they do not fit in with the sequence of thought but rather disturb\nit. The aim of Hippolytus was here to calm the Christians agitated by\nthe persecution of Severus; many went so far as to think that the last\nday was close at hand, and Hippolytus opposed himself to this alarm by\ndeclaring God had created the world in six days, with God a thousand\nyears are as one day (Ps. lxxxix. 4), and thus the world would last six\nthousand years. Until the birth of Christ only five thousand five hundred\nyears had passed, and so the end of the world was not to be expected yet.\nIn such a train of thought, what place is there for days of the week\nand consulates? The late origin of the passage is also betrayed by the\nparallel grouping of the data given, for elaborate attempts of this kind\nwere popular in the Middle Ages, but not in primitive times. Accordingly\nonly the year 5500 of the world, and perhaps also the forty-second year\nof Augustus, belong to the original form of the passage in Hippolytus,\nall the rest having being added by a later hand.[863]\n\n\nVII\n\n(p. 158)\n\nCHRISTMAS IN ENGLAND DURING THE COMMONWEALTH\n\nChristmas was abolished in England in the seventeenth century during\nthe reign of the Puritans, and its prohibition was strictly enforced.\nIn 1644, after the overthrow of the monarchy, when the Puritans came\ninto power, an Act of Parliament forbade all observance of Christmas,\nfor it was held that Christmas was not originally a Christian festival\nat all, but was of heathen origin. Parliament directed that the 25th\nDecember, \u201cwhich had hitherto been commonly called Christmas Day,\u201d was\nto be kept as a fast. This law remained in force for sixteen years,\nand during this period the enactment was repeated and made still more\nstringent. No church dare be opened, no service of any kind held; the\nlaw expressly enacted that on Christmas Day everyone was to go on as\nusual with his work, and every merchant who shut his shop on this day\nwas brought before the judge and punished. Markets were held on this day\nwhich had hitherto been held on other days, merely to make it impossible\nto keep the day as a festival. Plum-pudding and mince pies were branded\nas heathenish inventions. The soldiers were charged to break into houses\nin order to see that no one had food in his home such as used to be\neaten at Christmas and when anything of this kind was discovered, the\nsoldiers were to seize it and the people were punished into the bargain.\nThere were naturally some who refused to abstain from the celebration\nof Christmas in obedience to these directions of the Parliament; many\nministers performed service in their churches and several of them were\ntaken before the judge and punished. In different places disturbances\nbroke out, especially owing to the orders of Parliament that markets\nwere to be held on Christmas Day while they were forbidden on other days\nof the week. In Canterbury, for instance, there was a general riot; the\nwhole town was divided into two parties\u2014those who observed Christmas\nand their opponents, and the festival of peace ended in a general row;\nmany houses of the town were totally destroyed and some set on fire.\nCharles II. made it his aim to revoke as quickly as possible the laws\npassed during the Commonwealth, and so before long Christmas was once\nmore observed as before. The Nonconformists, however, long held by\ntheir determination not to celebrate Christmas, and they kept a sharp\nlook-out that at least their ministers should eat no Christmas pudding\nor mince pies; they called Yuletide Fooltide. In Scotland, Christmas\nis still regarded as something heathenish; the Presbyterians will have\nnothing whatever to do with its celebration, and throughout the country\nno special notice is of it as a religious feast. [This, of course, only\nrefers to the Protestants of Scotland. Trans.]\n\n\nVIII\n\n(p. 173)\n\nEXCURSUS ON THE THREE HOLY KINGS\n\nEpiphany is a feast of our Lord and not the feast of the Three Holy\nKings, although it is popularly called so, and, in the liturgy for the\nday, they are referred to. In a small number of dioceses, and only at a\nlate date, they have been the object of a cultus, but in the calendars\nand menologies of the principal Churches they find no place; ancient\necclesiastical literature and tradition has also nothing to relate of\nthem. Only in the twelfth century did they emerge from oblivion when\nthe imperial chancellor, Rainald von Dassel, afterwards Archbishop of\nCologne, translated their reputed relics to Cologne, 23rd July 1164,\nhaving received them as a gift from Frederick Barbarossa after the\ndestruction of Milan. Until this time they had rested in the little\nChurch of St Eustorgius at Milan, to which they are said to have been\nbrought from Constantinople. The life of St Eustorgius, Bishop of Milan,\n315-331, relates how this happened:\u2014there lived in Constantinople a pious\nman called Eustorgius, a Greek by birth, and a favourite and adviser of\nthe emperor. (The name of the emperor is passed over in silence by the\nauthor.) He sent Eustorgius as ambassador\u2014the purpose of the embassy is\nnot disclosed\u2014to the province of Liguria, of which the capital is called\nMilan\u2014which, however, is a mistake. Eustorgius won the affections of the\nMilanese to such a degree that they desired to have him as their bishop;\nafter long resistance he consented, and went to the emperor in order\nto obtain his approval. The emperor rejoiced over the love which his\nambassador had inspired, as Gratian had rejoiced over the appointment\nof St Ambrose, ratified the election, and forthwith remitted all taxes\nto the Milanese (!). Eustorgius was unwilling to return empty-handed\nand begged for some relics from the emperor with which to enrich his\nbishopric. The emperor allowed him to take whatever he liked, and he\nchose the relics of the Three Holy Kings, which had been sent from the\nEast by Helena. A church was now built in Milan in which the relics were\nlaid, where they attracted a great concourse of pilgrims and devotees.\n\nThe author regrets that he is not in a position to give us further\ninformation concerning the doings of Bishop Eustorgius, but he merely\ntells us that he died on the 18th October and was succeeded by Dionysius.\nThis is incorrect for Protasius came first. The author of this document\nmust have lived in Milan, for he gives some correct dates in the\necclesiastical history of Milan; nevertheless, gross blunders against\nhistorical truth and other indications show that we are dealing with a\nthoroughgoing fabrication of the eleventh century based upon events in\nthe life of St Ambrose. The names Gaspar, Melchior, Baltassar make their\nfirst appearance here. A still more na\u00efve account is given in a sermon\nbelonging to the end of the twelfth century, Eustorgius being made a\ncontemporary of the Emperor Comnenus; this is printed in Floss.\n\nContemporaries who had the opportunity of seeing the relics, state that\nthe remains were embalmed and incorrupt; to judge from the face and hair,\none of the bodies was that of a boy of about fifteen years; they were\nin an excellent state of preservation considering their age. The story\nof their translation to Milan is obviously a romance and the search for\ntheir bodies by Helena is formed upon the recognised model according\nto which Helena steps in to effect what cannot be otherwise explained.\nAnd so there is no doubt that we are face to face with a remarkably\nsuccessful fabrication, such as were, unfortunately, by no means rare in\nthe Middle Ages. In Cologne, the Three Holy Kings\u2014all three of them\u2014were\nat once set down as martyrs, although it is difficult to see how they\nwould have suffered, granting them to have been kings. The Carmelite John\nof Hildesheim composed a popular _Vita Trium Regum_, composed in a simple\nstyle, which was widely read. See USENER, ii. 7-10, and the instructive\ntreatise of H. J. Floss, \u201cDreik\u00f6nigenbuch,\u201d Cologne, 1864. The _Vita\nEustorgii_ is only to be found in Mombritius, _Sanctuarium_, i. 166.\n\n\nIX\n\n(p. 182)\n\nTHE GREEK ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR\n\nThe Greek ecclesiastical year begins not with Advent but with Easter, or\nrather with the season preparatory to Easter, _i.e._ according to our\nphraseology, with Septuagesima Sunday.[864]\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. The Sunday of the Publican\n    and the Pharisee; so called on account of the Gospel for the\n    day, St Luke xviii. 9-14.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The Sunday of the Prodigal\n    Son, the Gospel being St Luke xv. 11-32.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,[865] corresponds with Septuagesima Sunday of\n    the Latins, and is called Abstinence Sunday because with it\n    Lent with its abstinence from flesh-meat commences. The week\n    following is called Butter-Week by the Russians, because the\n    use of _lacticinia_ is still permitted. The Gospel, St Matthew\n    xxv. 31-46, refers to Christ\u2019s return at the last judgment. On\n    this account, the Sunday is also called \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. Sunday of Cheese-Eating, because\n    from henceforth the use of _lacticinia_ is also forbidden\n    (Sexagesima of the Latins).\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f22\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The first Sunday in\n    Lent, called Orthodox Sunday in memory of the conclusion of the\n    iconoclastic controversy (corresponding to Quinquagesima).\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7, \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd. The\n    second to the fifth Sundays in Lent, corresponding to the first\n    to the fourth of the Latins.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u0390\u03c9\u03bd: Palm Sunday from \u03b2\u03b1\u0390\u03c2 a palm.\n\n    \u1f29 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7: Maundy Thursday.\n\n    \u1f29 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae: Good Friday.\n\n    \u03a4\u1f78 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd: Holy Saturday.\n\n    \u1f29 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1: Easter Day; \u1f21 \u1f15\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._, the Week of Renewing, Easter Week.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae: Whitsunday, called also \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\n    \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03c9\u03bc\u1fb6, as the Gospel relates St\n    Thomas\u2019s unbelief, St John xx. 19 _seqq._ At the end of mass\n    blessed bread is distributed to the people.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5: the\n    Sunday of the Women who brought incense and Joseph the Just.\n    See St Mark xvi. 1-7; St Luke xxiv. 1-10.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5: the Sunday of the palsied man. See Acts\n    ix. 32 _seqq._\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 or \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2: the Sunday of the\n    Samaritan woman, from the Gospel St John iv. 1-42.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6: the Sunday of the man born blind; the\n    Sunday before the Ascension.\n\n    \u03a4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 with the following week, \u1f15\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2\n    \u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd 318 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3\n    \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, dedicated to the commemoration of the first\n    general council; the Sunday after Christ\u2019s Ascension.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, Whitsunday.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd: our Trinity Sunday is among the\n    Greeks kept as the festival of All Saints, and is preceded by a\n    fast. From this onwards until the exaltation of the Holy Cross,\n    the 14th September, the gospels for the Sundays are taken from\n    St Matthew. Hence the sixteen following Sundays are called\n    Matthew-Sundays.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 to \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: Sunday before the Exaltation of the\n    Holy Cross (the 15th after Matthew).\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f55\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: Sunday after the Exaltation of the\n    Holy Cross (the 16th after Matthew).\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6 to \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6, also\n    called the Sunday of the Holy Patriarchs (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: the Sunday before Christmas,\n    also called the Sunday of all the Holy Fathers.\n\n    \u1f29 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2: Christmas.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: Sunday after Christmas.\n\n    \u1f29 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae: the Circumcision.\n\n    \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd: the Sunday of Lights. See above, page\n    168. The Sunday before Epiphany. Among the Latins a _dominica\n    vacans_.\n\nThe remaining four Sundays of the Greek ecclesiastical year serve to fill\nup the inequality due to Easter falling earlier or later, in the same\nmanner as in the Latin rite. One, two, or all four of them, as occasion\nrequires, are inserted after Epiphany. They are the Sundays (1) \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1, the first after Epiphany, which is pressed into use when\nEaster falls in March; (2) the twelfth Sunday after St Luke; (3) the\nfifteenth after St Luke (the two Sundays in the Christmas season are\nreckoned as the thirteenth and fourteenth after St Luke since their\ngospels are taken from that evangelist); (4) the seventeenth Sunday after\nSt Matthew. All four are required when Easter falls on the 22-25 April.\nIn this way the gaps between the end of the old ecclesiastical year and\nthe beginning of the new are filled up.\n\nAs far as the immovable feasts are concerned, the Greeks divide all\nfeasts, both movable and immovable, into four classes. The first and\nhighest class contains: Christmas, Epiphany (6th January), Candlemas (2nd\nFebruary, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd), the Annunciation (\u1f41 \u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2),\nEaster, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Transfiguration,\nthe Assumption (\u1f21 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 15th August), our Lady\u2019s Nativity (8th\nSeptember), the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14th September), and the\n_Presentatio B.M.V._ (21st November).\n\nSomewhat lower in rank are the _Circumcisio_, _Nativitas S. Joannis\nBapt._ (24th June), SS. Peter and Paul (29th June), and the _Decollatio\nS. Joannis Bapt._ (29th August). It is not necessary here to enumerate\nthe remaining feasts.\n\n\nX\n\n(p. 248)\n\nENGLISH WRITERS AND THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION\n\nThe well known Doctor of the Church, Anselm, was born of a German stock,\nas his name implies, at Aosta in 1036. In 1053 he entered the Benedictine\norder at Bec in Normandy where Lanfranc was at that time abbot. In 1078\nhe was himself elected abbot of the monastery, and in this capacity was\nbrought into relation with William the Conqueror and William Rufus.\nDuring an illness of the latter, he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury\nat the end of 1093 and his appointment was confirmed by the king. Serious\nmisunderstandings soon arose between them on the questions of investiture\nand Church property, and Anselm was obliged to go to Rome, where he\nremained until the king\u2019s death. Further misunderstandings, moreover,\nsoon arose between him and William\u2019s successor, Henry I., which detained\nhim in France, until an agreement was arrived at in 1106, by which he was\nenabled to return to England and to his bishopric. He died there on the\n21st April 1109.\n\nHis nephew, Anselm the younger, came from Lombardy, and as a youth\nhad entered the monastery of St Michael at Chiusa, and received his\ntheological training from the Benedictines of Canterbury.[866] After\nhis uncle\u2019s death, he was for a short time abbot of St Saba in Rome. In\n1115 he was chosen by the pope to bring the pallium to the newly elected\nArchbishop of Canterbury, Radulf. As legate, he strongly maintained the\nrights of the pope in the election of bishops, and consequently fell\nunder King Henry\u2019s displeasure, and had to retire to France until a\nreconciliation had been effected between the King and Pope Calixtus II.\nHe was then elected abbot of Bury St Edmond\u2019s and confirmed as such in\n1121. Here he remained until his death on the 11th January 1148. The\nattempt of a section of the chapter of St Paul\u2019s in 1136 to make him\nbishop led to no result, but rather caused him much annoyance.\n\nThe Anglo-saxon, Eadmer or Edmer, was a disciple and faithful attendant\nof the older Anselm. Born in Kent, he entered the monastery at Canterbury\nand accompanied Anselm in his banishment to Rome. After Anselm\u2019s death,\nhe lived in retirement from which he emerged for a short time in 1120\nto be Bishop of St Andrews in Scotland. But after a year he resigned\nand returned to his monastery, where he died after 1124. He wrote a\nhistory of England, a number of lives of English saints, and some\ntheological treatises, two of which were in praise of the Mother of God\n(_De Excellentia Virg. Mari\u00e6_ and _De Quatuor Virtutibus Mari\u00e6_). It\nhas been recently conclusively proved that he is also the author of a\ntreatise on our Lady\u2019s conception (_De Conceptione S. Mari\u00e6_), hitherto\ngenerally attributed to one or other of the two Anselms.[867] In his\nwork on the Excellences of our Lady, in which her share in the work and\nsufferings of Christ is brought into prominence, Eadmer adopts a neutral\nposition with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and\nadmits the possibility that she was purified from original sin only\nat the Annunciation. In the last-named composition, however, which\nadvocates the introduction of the festival, he endeavours to establish\nthe doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and defends it warmly, and\nnot unskilfully, against many objections, having, as he says, upon more\nmature consideration of the matter, recognised its correctness. The\ncircumstance that this is the first treatise which aims especially and\navowedly at defending this opinion, endows it with a special interest.\n\n\nXI\n\n(pp. 243, 347)\n\nEXCURSUS ON THE SO-CALLED TYPICA\n\nThe term _Typicum_ is used first of all by Greek liturgists and\nrubricists to denote those short parts of the liturgy which are composed\nof verses from the psalms in connection both with the Canonical Hours\nand with the Mass, there is nothing exactly corresponding in the Western\nrite. (Leo Allatius, _De Libris Eccl. Gr\u00e6c._, 14, 15. Daniel, _Thes.\nLit._, iv. 313, 319). _Typicum_ is also used as a technical term, in\nthe Eastern Church especially during the Byzantine period, in the sense\nof statute, regulation, etc. It was applied chiefly to two kinds of\ndocuments. First, it designated the catalogues of the possessions of\necclesiastical establishments and corporations, especially in so far\nas they were based upon testamentary donations, along with the duties\nentailed by them upon the clergy. _Typica_ of this kind were called\n(\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac), and correspond to the chartularies and \u201ctraditiones\u201d of\nWestern monasteries and bishoprics. Secondly, _typicum_ was a term of a\nliturgical character, and as such must be considered here. _Typica_, in\nthis sense, were the lists of the feasts recurring in the course of the\nyear, of liturgical observances, fasts, etc., such as were to be observed\nin one of the larger churches or monasteries, along with detailed\ndescriptions of each; they correspond to the _consuetudines_ of Western\nmonasteries and cathedrals.\n\n_Typica_ of this last kind exist in large numbers, although only a\nfew of them have been published, and these not in editions useful for\ncritical purposes. The best known and most important are: (1) the\n_Typicum S. Sab\u00e6_; (2) that belonging to the monastery of the Studium at\nConstantinople; and (3) that formerly belonging to the famous Monastery\nof St Auxentius in Bithynia, now Ka-ish-dagh, dating from the time of\nMichael Paleologus (\u2020 1268).\n\nThe _typicum_ of St Sabas is sometimes valuable as a source of liturgical\ninformation, and for its references to the festivals of the Church, but\nit is only to be used with the greatest caution. It derives its name not\nso much from St Sabas himself as from the monastery called after him near\nJerusalem. Leo Allatius gives the following account of its origin from\na dialogue of Simeon of Thessalonica; St Sabas drew up an order for the\ncanonical hours and divine service to be observed in his monastery; this\n\u201c_diatyposis_\u201d was destroyed owing to the ravages of the Saracens, but\nwas re-established by the patriarch Sophronius from memory, and retouched\nby St John Damascene; later on it was altered yet again to meet the\nrequirements of the time. In the sixteenth century it was printed for\npractical purposes, as, for example, in Venice in 1545. In this form the\n_typicum_ contains the order for divine service throughout the year for\nmonasteries following the rule of St Sabas, rubricks for the canonical\nhours, the fasts and festivals, with information as to the liturgy to\nbe used, the gospels and epistles, the menology, instructions on the\ncanonical hours, etc., also rules of life and statutes for the monks\nand selected passages from the Greek Fathers. It received its present\nform apparently from John _Grammaticus_ in Constantinople in the twelfth\ncentury, and cannot, of course, be regarded as a work of St Sabas. This\ncannot be appealed to for evidence concerning ecclesiastical customs in\nuse before the twelfth century.\n\nIn the Eastern Church _typica_ are issued from time to time, somewhat\ncorresponding to our directories.\n\nWith regard to the literature on this point, it is well to mention:\nTheodoras Toscanus, _Ad Typica Gr\u00e6corum Animadversiones_, Rom\u00e6, 1864.\nPitra in _Spicil. Solem._, iv. 466 _seqq._ Ehrhard, _R\u00f6m. Quartalschr._,\n1893. Krumbacher, _Byzant. Zeitschr._, ii. 348; iii. 167 _seqq._ Waldemar\nNissen, _Die Diataxis des Michael von Attalia von 1077_, Jena, 1894.\nMeyer in the _Theol. Literaturztg._ of Sh\u00fcrer and Harnack, 1894, 588\n_seq._, and 1896, No. 10. Gedeon, \u039c\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u1f78\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, etc.,\nConstantinople, 1895.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] The Greek word \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae had become associated with the ideas of paganism\nand mere enjoyment. Christians called the week-days following on a Sunday\n_feria secunda_, etc. This use was already established in Tertullian\u2019s\ntime.\n\n[2] J. BARTH, _Babel und das israel. Religionswesen_, Berlin, 1902. See\nSCHMID, _Die Kirche und die Sonntagsruhe_: Innsbr. Zeitschr. f. Kath.\nTheol., 1901, 436 _et seq._ LINZER, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1900, 12.\n\n[3] Num. xxviii. 9, 10; Ezec. xlvi. 3, 4.\n\n[4] See the article \u201cSonnabendfeier,\u201d by KR\u00dcLL, in Kraus\u2019\n_Realenzyklop\u00e4die_.\n\n[5] Heb. iv. 9; Acts xiii. 27; xviii. 4.\n\n[6] Apoc. i. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.\n\n[7] EUSEB., _De Mart. Pal._ 1; see BAILLET, IX. x.-xiv.\n\n[8] Acts xx. 7 _seq._; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.\n\n[9] _E.g._, \u201cEt facta oblatione fit missa\u201d (c. 38, p. 68).\n\n[10] EUSEB., _De Pasch._, c. 7; see c. 12a. E. MONTFAUCON, _Introduction\nto Eusebius\u2019 Commentary on the Psalms_, Paris, 1707. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._,\nxxiii. 51.\n\n[11] TERT., _De Orat._, 14. SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 8. DUCHESNE,\n218-22.\n\n[12] OVID, _Fasti_, i. 79. LEO M., _Sermo_, 41, 1. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nliv. 272; BINTERIM, v. 134.\n\n[13] BARNABAS, _Epist._, 15. IGNATIUS, _Ad Magn._, 9. JUSTIN, _Apol._, i.\n67.\n\n[14] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, 102, 71 cod.; ed. Geyer, c. 44, 2.\n\n[15] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 19, 20.\n\n[16] _Hist. Eccl._, i. 18, towards the end: \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f02\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f02\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[17] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, _de feriis_ 1. Law of 321.\n\n[18] _Op. cit._, 2, 8, 18; 8, 8, 3; 11, 7, 13. In these laws Sunday is\nstill called \u201cdies solis,\u201d but with the addition, \u201cquem dominicum rite\ndixere majores.\u201d\n\n[19] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, 5, _de spectaculis_.\n\n[20] _Chron._, _Pasch._, ad a 467.\n\n[21] For instances, see BAILLET, ix. art. 1, c. 5 _et seq._\n\n[22] _Vita Const._, 4, 18.\n\n[23] _Constit. Apost._, 2, 59; 5, 20; 7, 23 and 30; 8, 33. TERT., _De\nOrat._, 20.\n\n[24] _Laod. can._, 29: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c7\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. This Council was held\nbetween 343 and 381. For further particulars, see BINTERIM, v. 134-52.\n\n[25] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 19.\n\n[26] _Op. cit._ 4, 23.\n\n[27] _Const. Apost._, 2, 59; 8, 33.\n\n[28] _Op. cit._ 7, 37.\n\n[29] THOMASSIN, i. 2, c. 2, 176 _seqq._\n\n[30] Council of Rouen (650), Can. 15. _Decr. Grat._, Can. 1, dist. 3,\nde consecr.; Can. 10, _de feriis_, 3, 9. For the variations in the\nobservance of the Sabbath, see ALT., 10 _seqq._\n\n[31] Lev. xxiii. 24.; 3 Kings viii. 65.; 2 Chr. xxix. 17.; xxx. 22.\n\n[32] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i., Berlin, 1825, 515.\n\n[33] B\u00c4UMER, 325 _et seq._\n\n[34] _Micrologus_, 43. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cli. 1010. There are,\nhowever, still exceptions to this rule, _e.g._, St Cornelius, St\nSilverius, etc. Moreover, the above regulation only took effect in the\ncity of Rome.\n\n[35] B\u00c4UMER, 314, 354.\n\n[36] _Op. cit._ 325.\n\n[37] _Op. cit._ 499.\n\n[38] Appendix i.\n\n[39] _De Bapt._, 19.\n\n[40] _C. Cels._, 8, 22.\n\n[41] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 1, 19.\n\n[42] _Cod. Justin._, 3, 12, No. 6.\n\n[43] _Op. cit._ 3, 12, No. 7, compared with _Cod. Theod._ 2, 8, 19.\n\n[44] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 20.\n\n[45] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, 2.\n\n[46] _Op. cit._ 2, 8, Nos. 20, 21, 25.\n\n[47] _Op. cit._ 15, 5, No. 5, compared with 2, 8, 24.\n\n[48] _Op. cit._ 2, 8, 23.\n\n[49] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 13-20; compare 8, 13. CHRYS., _Hom. 4 Pentec._\nPROCLUS, _Or._ 3, 1. PHILASTRIUS (_De H\u00e6r._, 141) enumerates eight\nfestivals, because he adds the Wednesday in Holy Week.\n\n[50] GREGOR. TUR., _Hist. Franc._, 10, 5. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 566.\n\n[51] The 27th or 28th March was frequently regarded in the Gallic Church\nas the actual date of the resurrection of Christ, and the 25th March as\nthe date of His death.\n\n[52] SONNATIUS, _Statuta_, c. 20. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxx. 446.\n\n[53] HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, i. 73. HARD., iii. 1944. MANSI, xii. 383.\n\n[54] _Conc. Aquisgr._, Can. 19. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 326.\nBINTERIM, _Conc._ ii. 331.\n\n[55] BINTERIM, _op. cit._ 466. HARD., iv. 1241. MANSI, xiv. 393.\n\n[56] _Capit. Hettonis._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 763. BINTERIM, _Denkw._,\nv. 302.\n\n[57] HARTZHEIM, _Conc._, l. 44. See also ii. 612, 692.\n\n[58] _Op. cit._ iii. 221, Can. 6. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxviii. 832.\n\n[59] BURCHARD, _Decreta_, 2, 77. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxl. 640. IVON.,\n_Decret._, 4, 14. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxli. 260.\n\n[60] See Appendix ii. (a).\n\n[61] Can. 1, dist. 3, _de Consecr._, taken from a Council of Lyons.\n\n[62] Can. 5, x., _de Feriis_ 2, 9. The feasts of Our Lady are the same as\nin _Decretum Grat._\n\n[63] See Appendix ii. (b).\n\n[64] In the diocese of Lyons, for example, in 1577 there were no fewer\nthan ninety-nine days of this kind, including Sundays, Easter and\nPentecost being observed each for three days. See MIGNE\u2019S _Handbook_, 347.\n\n[65] BINTERIM, _Conc._, vi. 118 and 524; _Denkw._, v. 1, 303, etc.\nBINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdi\u00f6zese K\u00f6ln im Mittelalter_, i., K\u00f6hn,\n1892, 526. HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, v. 106; vi. 498. Further information\nis contained in the collections of Church Councils. See the Council of\nSzabolcs in Hungary, 1092 (i. cap. 37 and 38; MANSI, xx. 757); Oxford,\n1222, can. 8; Toulouse, 1229, cap. 26; Worcester, 1240; the statutes of\nLe Mans (MANSI, xxiii. 764); the Councils of Li\u00e8ge, 1287; W\u00fcrtzburg,\n1298; Utrecht, 1347; Prague, 1355 (HARTZHEIM, iii. and iv.), and BAMBERG,\n1491 (tit. 36; HARTZHEIM, v. 619), which, with fifty-four holy days of\nobligation besides Sundays, represents the _non plus ultra_ in this\ndirection.\n\n[66] See Appendix ii. (c).\n\n[67] Printed by SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii., Amstel. 1679, c. 15, 204.\n\n[68] Dist. 3, _de Conscr._, Can. 1 Conquestus, _de Feriis_. See also\nMatisconense, Can. 10.\n\n[69] THOMASSIN, i. 131 _seqq._\n\n[70] FERRARIS, _Prompta Bibl._, iii., art. Festa, \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3.\n\n[71] _De Novis Festivitatibus non Instituendis._\n\n[72] HOSPINIANUS, 18. THOMASSIN, i. c. 11; _De la diminuation du nombre\ndes f\u00eates_.\n\n[73] J. FESSLER, Concerning the suppressed Holy Days, in the _Archiv\nf\u00fcr Kirchenrecht_, v. (1860) 194. SCH\u00dcCH-GRIMMICH, _Handbuch der\nPastoraltheol._, 10th ed., 338 _seqq._\n\n[74] _Bull. Rom. Contin._, ix., Rom\u00e6, 1846, 120.\n\n[75] These briefs of Clement XIV., Pius XI., and Leo XII., are printed in\nDUMONT, _Sammlung kirchl. Erlasse f\u00fcr d. Erzd. K\u00f6ln_, 2nd ed., 199 _seqq._\n\n[76] See Appendix iii.\n\n[77] Alt., 454.\n\n[78] This Calendar contains twenty-six days in addition to the chief\nfeasts. See the table in the Book of Common Prayer.\n\n[79] _Sermo_ 47, in Exod. In omnibus solemnitatibus Christianis non\nignoramus paschale sacramentum esse pr\u00e6cipium.\n\n[80] _Sermo_ 48, c. 1.\n\n[81] BEDA, _De rat. Temp._, 1, 5.\n\n[82] Exod. xii. 11; Num. xxviii. 16.\n\n[83] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 33.\n\n[84] _De Orat._, c. 18.\n\n[85] By Pascha, TERTULLIAN probably understands Holy Week and Easter Week\ntogether, as a time during which each day had its liturgical celebration,\n\u201ccollecta,\u201d which was not the case generally. Similarly, Quinquagesima\nmeans the period from Easter to Whitsunday.\n\n[86] _Adv. Mar._, 4, 12; _De Jeiun._, 14. _Cf._ _De Bapt._, 19; _De Cor._,\n3.\n\n[87] _De Jeiun._, 14.\n\n[88] _Adv. Marc._, 5, 7.\n\n[89] _Philos._, 8, 18.\n\n[90] _Can. Arab._, 22.\n\n[91] MAI, _Nova Coll. Vet. Script._, iv. 208; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._ xxiv.\n694.\n\n[92] _Vita Const._, 3, 17, _seqq._\n\n[93] Exod. xii. 42.\n\n[94] Exod. xii. 6-8.\n\n[95] Lev. xxiii. 7, 8.\n\n[96] _Ibid._ ver. 10 _et seqq._\n\n[97] Isa. liii. 7 _et seq._\n\n[98] Exod. xii. 46; St John xix. 36.\n\n[99] 1 Cor. v. 7, 8.\n\n[100] Col. ii. 16.\n\n[101] JUSTIN, _Dial._, c. 40, 111. TERT., _Adv. Marc._, 4, 40; 5, 7.\n\n[102] The Greeks of the province of Asia, for example, voluntarily\nadopted the Julian Calendar under Augustus, according to an inscription\ndiscovered at Priene. _R\u00e9vue Arch\u00e9ol_, 1900, 357. Mitteil. des kaiserl.\narch\u00e4ol. Instits at Athens, 1899.\n\n[103] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i. 433.\n\n[104] _Op. cit._ 142.\n\n[105] IDELER, _Handbuch der Chronol._, i. 113, 117, 119.\n\n[106] So IDELER, who is certainly an authority, _Handbuch der Chronol._,\ni. 570 _et seq._\n\n[107] JOSEPHUS, _Ant._, i. 1, 3: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. IDELER,\n_op. cit._ 401, 514, 570.\n\n[108] Nilles (p. 286) expressly declares himself opposed to the feast of\nEaster being fixed on a stated Sunday in April. According to information\ngiven in the _K\u00f6lnischen Volkszeitung_ for the 22nd May 1894, the\nBarnabite C\u00e6sar Tondini is said to be at work upon a reform of the\nCalendar, the chief features of which are the giving a fixed date for\nEaster and the transferring of the extra day in leap year to the end of\nthe year. He is of opinion that this reform will be acceptable to the\nRussians also.\n\n[109] St Luke xix. 29 _seqq._; St John xii. 1 _seqq._\n\n[110] Among the Fathers, St Ambrose, more especially, deals with the\nquestion of the day of the week and day of the month on which the Last\nSupper took place. _Cf._ _Epist._ 23, written in 386. He says the Last\nSupper was held on the 14th Nisan which was a Thursday, on the 15th,\nChrist was crucified, and, on the 17th, He rose again. The day of His\ndeath must be kept in sorrow and fasting. Therefore the two events\ncannot be commemorated on the same day, and Christ\u2019s death cannot be\ncommemorated on a Sunday. If the 15th Nisan falls on a Sunday, Easter\nmust be postponed to the following week. When Johannes Philoponus, in the\ntreatise _De Paschate_ (ed. C. Walter, Leipzig, 1899) makes our Lord keep\nthe Last Supper on the 13th Nisan and celebrate not the old, but a new\nmystical passover, and then says: \u03a4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd (St Mark xxvi. 17)\nmeans \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nHARNACK and SH\u00dcRER, _Theol. Literaturztg._, 1900, No. 4.\n\n[111] _Etymol._, 6, 17, 10; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxii. 247.\n\n[112] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 21; 5, 27.\n\n[113] Twenty-first Festal Letter, for the year 349, in Larsow 33.\n\n[114] _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 27.\n\n[115] _Adv. H\u00e6r._, 70, c. 12: \u039c\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f15\u03be, \u1f10\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, etc.\n\n[116] _loc. cit._ c. 11.\n\n[117] _Ep. ad Januarium._, 55, c. 1-3.\n\n[118] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 47-51.\n\n[119] _De Ord. Fer._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xc. 607.\n\n[120] For a full account of the ceremonies, etc., belonging to this part\nof the Church\u2019s year, see _Lent and Holy Week_, by H. THURSTON, S.J.,\nLondon, 1904. [Trans.]\n\n[121] _Matiscon_, 2, 3.\n\n[122] _Cf._ _Ordo I._, 7. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 954, 994 _et\nseqq._\n\n[123] HEFELE, _Konciliengesch._, 2nd ed., Freiburg, 1877, iii., 36, 42,\n577, 596.\n\n[124] _Peregrinatio Silvi\u00e6_, c. 30, ed. Geyer, 67 cod., and CHRYSOST.,\n_Hom. 30 in Gen._, 10 t. 4. fol. 29. BINTERIM (_Denkw._ v. 179) prefers\nto derive \u201cKarwoche\u201d from \u201ccarena,\u201d which in the Romance languages has\ntaken various forms (car\u00eame carenzia) and also in the old German is found\nas Karina, in reference to the strict fast then observed.\n\n[125] Nor in the Antiphonarium Greg., to which BINTERIM (_Denkw._ v. 174)\nrefers.\n\n[126] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, c. 30, 31, ed. Geyer, 64 cod. Since the pilgrim,\nin describing the size and strength of the Euphrates (c. 18, p. 61, 11),\nrecalls the Rhone, it seems certain she belongs to Southern France. I use\nthe expression, \u201cGallic pilgrim,\u201d as her name may have been either Silvia\nor Egeria. She travelled in the East between 378 and 394.\n\n[127] Hora decima. _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed. Geyer, c. 35.\n\n[128] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed. Geyer, c. 36-38, p. 67-69 cod.\n\n[129] The name was usual in Spain. MABILLON, _De Lit. Gal._, 32. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 186, quotes for it ISIDOR., _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 28.\n\n[130] According to MIGNE (_Handbuch_, 671) in several dioceses of France\nit is not even yet the custom.\n\n[131] I have arrived at the conclusion that in the missal in the\ncathedral library at Cologne (cod. 88), the _benedictio palmarum_ has\nbeen added by another hand. In the Essen cod. D.I., it appears in the\nfirst part (fol. 45), but in neither of the other parts.\n\n[132] _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 28. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxiii. 763. ISIDORE\nmakes no mention of carrying palm branches in the church, as DUCHESNE (p.\n237) implies, but he does speak in this passage of the _traditio symboli_\nand of the _capitilavium_ which in Spain were both performed on Palm\nSunday.\n\n[133] _De Off. Eccl._, 4, 10. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 1008.\n\n[134] ISIDOR., _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 27.\n\n[135] MABILLON, _Lit. Gall._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 265. _Cf._ Synod\nof Agde (506), can. 13.\n\n[136] AMBROSIUS, _Epist._, 20, c. 4.\n\n[137] _Sacr. Geb._, 1, 35, 36. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1088.\n\n[138] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 58, c. 11. \u201cIdeo die sabbati\u201d: _Sermo_, 212, c.\n1, 2.\n\n[139] Avitus (\u2020 518), in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lix. 302, 309, 321-326.\nEligius (\u2020 between 640 and 659), _Hom._, 10. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxxvii. 628.\n\n[140] _Kirchenlexikon_, v., 2nd ed., 1309, art. Gr\u00fcndonnerstag by PUNKES.\n\n[141] MART\u00c8NE, iii., 237, 346, 352. Incipiat cantor cum cappa _viridi_\nmissam, presbytero, diacono et subdiacono indutis ornamentis _viridibus_,\netc. Also WICKHAM LEGG, whose pamphlet on the _History of the Liturgical\nColours_ (London, 1882) is only concerned with the last three centuries,\nshows (p. 21) that green was used in many places, in Mainz among others.\n\n[142] _Cf._ App. iv.\n\n[143] _e.g._ by GREG. of Tours, _Hist. Franc._, 8, 43; festa Dominic\u00e6\nC\u0153n\u00e6.\n\n[144] MART\u00c8NE, _De Ant. Eccl._, iv. 22; ed. Antw. 1727, iii. p. 227\n_seqq._, where the prayers over the penitents are given in full.\n\n[145] An offerendum sit mane et rurus post c\u0153nam ... an jeiunandum et\npost c\u0153nam tantummodo offerendum, an etiam jeiunandum et post oblationem\nsicut facere solemus c\u0153nandum. AUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 54 _ad Januarium_, c.\n4; 11, 302.\n\n[146] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1102.\n\n[147] MURATORI, ii. 55 and _Ordo I._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 951.\n\n[148] _Pseudo-Alcuin._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci. 1205 _et seq._\n\n[149] Oleum in altari sanctificatum. CYPRIAN, _Epist._, 70, c. 2.\n\n[150] So called from St John xiii. 34: mandatum novum do vobis. The\nwashing of the feet preceded vespers. Each monk had to wash the feet\nof the poor, and, lastly, the abbot and prior washed the feet of the\nbrethren. _Consuet. Farf._, 49. [Hence the English name for the day.\nTrans.]\n\n[151] _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 29. _Lit. Mozar._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv.\n406.\n\n[152] ST AUGUSTIN., _Conf._, 8, 5; de loco eminentiori.\n\n[153] _Epist._, 23, c. 12. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 1030.\n\n[154] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18; \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[155] This is also the custom in the Russian Church. \u201cThe priests wear\nblack vestments during the whole service on Good Friday, as a sign of\ngrief for the death of the Redeemer.\u201d (MALTZEW, lxxxiv.) By the law of\n2nd Sept. 1899, in Prussia, Good Friday was made a general public holiday.\n\n[156] His dissertation is incorporated in the treatise, _De Divinis\nOfficiis_ of the pseudo-Alcuin (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ci., 1211 _et\nseqq._). He is also the author of the short treatise _De Computo_ (MIGNE,\ncxxxvii. 18 _seqq._). Trithemius wrongly locates him in the eleventh\ncentury.\n\n[157] _Epist. ad Decentium Eng._, 25, c. 2: Constat apostolos biduo isto\nin m\u0153rore fuisse et propter metum Jud\u00e6orum occuluisse. Quod utique non\ndubium est, in tantum eos jeiunasse biduo memorato, ut traditio ecclesi\u00e6\nhabeat, isto biduo sacramenta penitus non celebrari. Sacramenta here\nmeans masses, as well as Sacramentarium Missale. It appears that the\ntwo last days of each week in Lent were without a celebration of the\nliturgy, for the Pope continues: Qu\u00e6 utique forma per singulas tenenda\nest hebdomadas, etc.\n\n[158] MALTZEW, lxxxvi. _et seqq._\n\n[159] _Missale Gothico-Gallic._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 267.\n\n[160] AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 1, 15; Et inde communicet populus. De\nqua observatione interrogavi Romanum archidiaconum et ille respondit:\nIn statione ubi apostolicus salutat crucem, nemo ibi communicat. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, cv. 1032. _Ordo Rom. I._ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.\n954) has the general communion (et communicant omnes cum silentio).\nRABANUS MAURUS (_De Cleric. Instit._, 2, 37) mentions the other\nceremonies (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii. 349).\n\n[161] Adnuntial diaconus ut supra. _Sac. Gelas._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxiv. 1105.\n\n[162] _Liber Sacramentorum_, ed. Menard. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.\n79, 86 _et seq._\n\n[163] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 57.\n\n[164] _Vide_ Appendix iv.\n\n[165] Among the Greeks it is continued during Lent. MALTZEW, lxxxvi.\n\n[166] It first appears in _Ordo Rom._, xiv. _n._ 94 (13th cent.). MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1218. BINTERIM, _Denkw._ v. 221.\n\n[167] This view is maintained by THOMASSIN, 330 _seq._ Against this\nBINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 214) rightly defends the opinion that the blessing\nof the new fire was unknown in Rome in the eighth century. This appears\nfrom the answer of Pope Zacharias to the inquiry of St Boniface on the\npoint. It was only introduced at Rome by Leo IV. The ecclesiastical rite\nseems to have been moulded on the \u201cOsterfeuer\u201d in use among the Germans.\nThe most ancient Roman sacramentaries know nothing of it.\n\n[168] In the life of Zosimus (\u2020 418) it only says: \u201cPer parrocia concessa\nlicentia cereum benedici.\u201d It is doubtful if these obscure words refer to\nthe Paschal candle. _Cf._ DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, i. 225.\n\n[169] \u201cHoc autem die inclinante ad vesperam statuta celebratio noctis\nDominic\u00e6 in ecclesia incipitur,\u201d etc. (RABANUS MAURUS, _De Cleric.\nInstit._, 2, 38; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvii. 350). \u201cPost nonam (3\np.m.) vestiantur omnes qui ad sacram aliquid habuerint legendi,\u201d etc.\n(_Consuet. Farf._, ed. Albers, 55). The _Constit. Lanfranci_ give the\nsame hour (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._ cl. 466). According to _Ordo Rom._, x.\nApp., No. 16, the ceremonies began at hora sexta (noon). The Greeks and\nRussians have their Mass after their evening service or Vespers. MALTZEW,\nxciii.; HEFELE, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, ii. 291.\n\n[170] _Cf._ AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 228 in die pasch\u00e6 V._: \u201cPost laborem noctis\npr\u00e6terit\u00e6 ... diu vos tenere sermone non debeo.\u201d In Africa the baptism\ntook place in the night between Saturday and Sunday, _Sermo 214_, c. 1.\n\n[171] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 61-66.\n\n[172] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 364-71.\n\n[173] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 268-77.\n\n[174] MIGNE, lviii. 90. _Ordo Rom. I._ (_ib._ 951 _et seqq._) gives the\nlater ritual directions for the three last days of Holy Week.\n\n[175] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 247) thinks it was not observed when the\nanniversary of the previous Easter fell on Lent.\n\n[176] So DURANDUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 6, 88. In the _Consuet. Farf._ (ed.\nAlbers), 58, a solemn procession of the monks in the monastery and in the\nchurch is also mentioned.\n\n[177] _Ordo Rom._, xiv. c. 95; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1219. Some\nof the customs approached the dramatic, _e.g._, MART\u00c8NE, iii. 483, 506\n_et seq._\n\n[178] THALHOFER, _Liturgik_, ii. 2, 551. For ancient and popular customs,\nsee MIGNE, _Handbuch_, 662 _et seqq._\n\n[179] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6._, ed. Geyer, c. 39 and 40. In many dioceses of\nFrance processions were made throughout the entire week (MART\u00c8NE, iii.\n510).\n\n[180] _De Cleric. Instit._, 2, 39; KN\u00d6PFLER, 138.\n\n[181] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 67-75. The designation of the\nseveral days of Easter week differs only in form from that now in\nuse. The ferias are called \u201cferi\u00e6 in albis,\u201d the Sunday after Easter,\n\u201cDominica post albas, scil. depositas.\u201d\n\n[182] This consisted in pouring out at the altar water drawn from the\npool of Siloe (WINER, _Bibl. Realw._, ii. 8).\n\n[183] Athanasius, translated by LARSOW, 94, and for the whole subject,\nNilles: Innsbr. _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr kath. Theol._, 1895, 169 _seqq._\n\n[184] The history of fasting, abstinence, and kindred subjects is\nexcellently given by BAILLET (ix. 37-130), according to the information\nat his disposal. Of more recent works, FUNK, _Die Entwicklung des\nOsterfastens in seinen kirchengeschichtlichen Abhandlungen_, Paderborn,\n1897, 241-70.\n\n[185] _Didach\u00e9_, c. 8; HERMAS, _Simil._, 5, 1; TERT., _De Jej._, c. 2,\n10, 14.\n\n[186] \u201cJejuno bis in sabbato\u201d (St Luke xviii. 12); DUCHESNE, _Orig._,\n218; FUNK, _Anm. zur Didach\u00e9_, 8, 1.\n\n[187] _Strom._, 7, 74, ed. Sylburg.\n\n[188] TERTULLIAN, _op. cit._ 2, 13, 14.\n\n[189] EUS., _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 24, 11-18.\n\n[190] \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (EUSEB., _op. cit._). FUNK, _op. cit._ 242 _et seq._,\ndefends the above interpretation of the passage against Probst.\n\n[191] Origen cannot be quoted for the fast of forty days, for the\nevidence attributed to him is really that of his translator, Rufinus.\n_Cf._ FUNK, _op. cit._\n\n[192] \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae. This passage is not\nquoted in the treatise of Funk already referred to. His conclusions must\naccordingly be modified.\n\n[193] LARSOW, _Festbriefe deshl. Athanasius_, 62.\n\n[194] _Op. cit._ 69.\n\n[195] _Op. cit._ 127.\n\n[196] LARSOW, _Festbriefe deshl. Athanasius_, 149.\n\n[197] _De Paschate_, c. 4.\n\n[198] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6._, ed. Geyer, c. 27, 28 (60-62 cod.).\n\n[199] _De Elia._, c. 10.\n\n[200] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 13.\n\n[201] _Op. cit._ 5, 18, 19.\n\n[202] _Op. cit._ 5, 15, \u00a7 1.\n\n[203] LEO M., _Sermo_ 40, 5.\n\n[204] _Sermo_ 48, 1.\n\n[205] _Sermo_ 44, 2; 47, 1.\n\n[206] _Aurel. I._, A.D. 511, can. 24; _Aurel. IV._, A.D. 541, can. 2.\n\n[207] AUGUSTIN., _Epist. ad Januarium_, c. 4; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ii.\n202.\n\n[208] _Trull._, 55.\n\n[209] _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 22. SOZOMEN (7, 19) and CASSIODORUS (_Hist.\nMisc._, 9, 38) have merely copied Socrates.\n\n[210] TERT., _De Jej._, 2, 10, 13, 14, etc.\n\n[211] _Didach\u00e9_, c. 8; CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, 7, 12; ORIGEN, _C.\nCelso._, 8, 21.\n\n[212] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 15, 20; 7, 23; _Can. Apost._, 69 (68).\n\n[213] _Can. Arab._, 20.\n\n[214] _Alt._, 123.\n\n[215] AUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 36, _n._ 8; INNOC. I., _Epist._, 25, 7; MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, xx. 555; PRUDENT., _Perist._, 6, 52.\n\n[216] RAHMANI, _Test. I. Chr._, 1, 22, 33; 36, 71.\n\n[217] GREGOR. TUR., _Hist. Franc._, 10, 51; AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._,\n4, 37; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cv. 1250.\n\n[218] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, ii. 589.\n\n[219] _De Jej._, c. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 17.\n\n[220] HIERONYMUS, _Epist. 27 ad Marcellam_.\n\n[221] _Can. Arab._, 22.\n\n[222] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18.\n\n[223] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, c. 28, 4.\n\n[224] _Hom. de Statius_, 3, 4.\n\n[225] _Decr. ad Bulg. Epist._ 97, c. 4; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 980.\nBINTERIM, _Denkw._ v. 2, 160 _seqq._ Dist. 3, de consecr. de esu carnium.\nDist. 5, c. Quia dies.\n\n[226] FERRARI, _Prompta Bibl._, art. Abstinentia, 1, 42.\n\n[227] Since the fasts were very strictly observed in the Middle Ages, it\nwas a custom to have an especially good meal in the day or evening before\nthey began. Hence the German expression \u201cFastnacht.\u201d Unfortunately the\nFastnacht is not limited nowadays to one night, but lasts for three days,\nand even, where possible, right into Ash-Wednesday.\n\n[228] The rubric, according to which Vespers, from the First Sunday in\nLent onwards, are to be said _ante comestionem_, also belongs to the more\nprimitive arrangement.\n\n[229] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1065.\n\n[230] _Hom. I._ 16 _in Evang._, c. 5; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxvi. 1137.\n\n[231] _Sacram. Gelas._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1076 _et seqq._\n\n[232] See, however, fer. iv. after _L\u00e6tare_: \u201cEffundam super vos aquam\nmundam,\u201d and the Saturday before Passion Sunday: \u201cSitientes venite ad\naquas.\u201d\n\n[233] LANFRANC, _Decreta_, sectio 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 453; RUPERT\nTUIT., _De Div. Off._, 4, 9; HONORIUS AUG., _Gemma_, 3, 46; DURANDUS,\n_Rationale_, 1, 3 (this last speaks of two such curtains\u2014cortin\u00e6).\nHEUSER, _Art. Fastentuch_, in _Kirchenlex_., iv., 2nd ed., 1255;\nSCHRIVER, _Der Dom zu Osnabr\u00fcck_, etc., 1901; MALTZEW, _Triodion_, vi.\n\n[234] For the Transfiguration, see BAILLET, v. 104; B\u00c4UMER, _Gesch. des\nBreviers_, 299, 355; MARZOHL U. SCHNELLER, iv. 653 _seqq._\n\n[235] \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1: EUSEB., _De Sol. Pasch._, c. 5; MIGNE, _Patr.\nGr._, xxiv. 699; SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 7, 26: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae. On can.\n43 of Elvira, _cf._ p. 110.\n\n[236] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 18.\n\n[237] _Epist. ad Januarium_, 54, c. 1; _Sermo_ 261-65.\n\n[238] CYRILL. HIEROS., _Catech._, 14, c. 23.\n\n[239] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, 70 cod., ed. Geyer, c. 42.\n\n[240] ADAMNAN., _De Locis Sanctis._, 1, 22; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxxviii. 803.\n\n[241] CHRYSOST., _Sermo in Ascens._, ed. MONTFAUCON, ii. 2, 420.\n\n[242] St Luke xxiv. 60, where \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd means, in the direction of\nBethania. Acts i. 12; Heb. vi. 14; ix. 24; Eph. iv. 9; Col. iii. 1.\n\n[243] _Cf._ the commentary of Schanz, _in loc._\n\n[244] When CHRYSOSTOM (_Hom. in Acta Apost._, 3, 1) places our Lord\u2019s\nAscension on Saturday, it may be that he reckoned the interval after\nthe Resurrection as consisting of forty full days. One is not justified\nin concluding, as some do, that in Antioch the Ascension was kept on\nSaturday.\n\n[245] TERT., _De Orat._, c. 23; _De Cor._, 3.\n\n[246] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed. Geyer, b. 41 (69 cod.).\n\n[247] The aim of the forty-third canon of Elvira seems to be the\nabolition of this custom. A later addition to the canon adds: \u201cpost\npascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadragesima.\u201d The date of this\naddition is unknown. HEFELE-KN\u00d6PFTER, _Konziliengesch._ ii., 2nd ed.,\n174. Dr HERBST (_ibid._) thought the reference was to the Montanists, but\neven if there were any Montanists in Spain at that period, their heresy\ncould scarcely be called \u201cNova.\u201d\n\n[248] _Cf._ MURATORI, ii. 750-58, and 873.\n\n[249] Exod. xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 10.\n\n[250] 2 Mac. xii. 32; Acts ii. 1; Joseph., _Antt._, 3, 10, 6.\n\n[251] LEO M., _Sermo 75 in Pentec._; AUGUSTIN., _Epist. 56_, c. 16 _Ad\nDisqu. Januarii_, 2, 218.\n\n[252] TERT., _De Cor._, 3, and _De Bapt._, 19, where probably \u201clatissimum\nspatium,\u201d and not \u201cl\u00e6tissimum,\u201d is the correct reading.\n\n[253] TERT., _De Bapt._, 19; _De Idol._, 14; CASSIAN., _Coll._, 21, 11,\n19; _Bened. Regula_, 15.\n\n[254] TERT., _De Jej._, 14.\n\n[255] TERT., _De Bapt._, 19: \u201cpentecoste qui est proprie dies festus.\u201d\n\n[256] _Can. Arab._, 22.\n\n[257] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed. Geyer, c. 43 [70] cod.; _cf._ 44, 2.\n\n[258] MART\u00c8NE, _De Ant. Eccl. Rit._, iv. 28, 441-543.\n\n[259] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 272 ad infantes_.\n\n[260] MART\u00c8NE, iv. 28, 441-543.\n\n[261] According to the _Consuet. Farf._ (ed. Albers, 73), a Mass for\nthe dead was to be celebrated in the forenoon; at mid-day the brethren\nwere to rest, and then about 2 P.M. begin the lesser hours, which were\nfollowed by the High Mass. Afterwards came a meal.\n\n[262] _Constit. Apost._, 5, 20, 7: \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n[263] _De Off. Miss\u00e6_, c. 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1062.\n\n[264] _Conc. Mogunt._, A.D. 818, can. 36.\n\n[265] MURATORI, ii. 95: Die dominica vacat; ii. 164: Dominica prima\npost pentecosten; ii. 321: Dominica octav\u00e6 pentecosten (sic). For the\n_Gelasian Sac._, _cf._ i. 606.\n\n[266] C. 59 and 60; MIGNE, cli, 1019.\n\n[267] Vid. the _Pr\u00e6fatio_ of Froben to Alcuin 11 in MIGNE, cl. 440.\nSimilar votive Masses for each day\u2014Sunday, in honour of the Trinity, and\non the week-days in honour of the angels, of the wisdom and of the love\nof the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Cross, and of our Blessed Lady\u2014are found\nin the _Liturgia Fontavellanensis_ (MIGNE, cli. 938).\n\n[268] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 270) rejects the view that Alcuin had\nanything to do with the matter, and considers that the festival was\nintroduced not through him, but through a certain Catulfus at the court\nof Charlemagne. The well-meant but rather obscure letter of this Catulfus\nis printed in MIGNE, xcvi. 1363. Careful consideration of the passage in\nquestion shows he is speaking of the honour of the Trinity in general,\nand not of any festival of the Holy Trinity.\n\n[269] _Cf._ the so-called Mass of Alcuin (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 445).\nThe circumstance that the present preface of the Trinity appears in the\nVatican MSS. used by Muratori, and is printed in his _Liturgia Rom.\nVetus_ (11, 285, and 321), can easily have given rise to mistakes.\n\n[270] Potho of Pr\u00fcm (1152) has an interesting remark to which Hospinian\ndraws attention: \u201cMiramur satis, quod visum fuerit hoc tempore\nquibusdam monasteriis mutare colorem optimum novas quasdam inducendo\ncelebritates.... Qu\u00e6 igitur ratio h\u00e6c festa celebrandi nobis induxcit,\nfestum videlicet s. trinitatis et festum transfigurationis Domini?\nAdditur his a quibusdam, quod magis absurdum videtur, festum conceptionis\nS. Mari\u00e6\u201d (_De Statu Domus Dei lib._; DE LA BIGNE, _Magna Bibl. Vet.\nPatrum_, ix. 588). One must make allowances for Potho\u2019s standpoint. He\nset himself energetically against the monks having the cure of souls or\nany say in the administration of the Church, as detrimental to their\nvocation to the contemplative life. On the same grounds, he set himself\nagainst all alterations in the rule, and all innovations in the festivals\nof the Church\u2019s year.\n\n[271] Cap. 2, x. _de feriis_, 2, 9, \u00a7 3.\n\n[272] BAILLET (ix. 2, 158) considers this office was then a new\none, though based upon one of the three ancient offices. BINTERIM,\n265 _seqq._, and B\u00c4UMER, 298 (where, however, a few statements need\ncorrecting) take a different view.\n\n[273] _Vita S. Julian\u00e6 ab auctore co\u00e6vo conscr._, 1, c. 2, in Acta SS.\nBoll., April 1, 473-75, with its _Prolegg._, 442.\n\n[274] The letter of this synod is printed in BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 1,\n276 _et seqq._ For the original office so far as it is extant, _cf._\n_ibid._ 284.\n\n[275] The bull \u201cTransiturus\u201d is contained in the Constitution of Clement\nV. in 1311 (_Clementini_, 3, 16). It is also in Labbe\u2019s Councils (xi.\n1, 817). _Cf._ Bened. XIV., _Institutiones Constit._, v. 20, for the\nprocession.\n\n[276] BINTERIM has brought forth fresh evidence in favour of the fact,\nwhich many have questioned (_op. cit._ 282, and vii. 1, 77).\n\n[277] HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, iii. 699.\n\n[278] LANFRANCI, _Decreta_, sec. 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 456 _et\nseq._ [_Cf._ GASQUET, _Parish Life in Med. England_, viii. 171.\u2014Trans.]\n\n[279] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, vii. 3, 367 _et seqq._; J. GRETSER, _De\nProcessionibus_, 2, 19; BINTERIM, _Geschichte der Konzilien_, _etc._,\nv. 368. The synod of Cologne in 1452 forbade the Blessed Sacrament to\nbe carried round the church in a monstrance on other days than Corpus\nChristi (_op. cit._ vii. 486).\n\n[280] _Acta Vetera Eccl. Rotom._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. 123.\n\n[281] P. JOERRES, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Gesch. des Fronleichnamsfestes_;\n_R\u00f6mische Quartalschrift_, 1902, 170 _et seq._; SDRALEK, _Die\nStrassburger Di\u00f6zesansynoden_, _Strassb. theol. Studien_, ii. 1, 121.\n\n[282] HOEYNCK, _Gesch. d. K. Liturgie des Bist. Augsburg_, 229 _et seq._\n\n[283] MAUREL, _Abl\u00e4sse_, Paderborn, 1874, 238.\n\n[284] HOEYNCK, _op. cit._ 231. For a description of the Roman use, _cf._\nMIGNE, _Handbuch_, 304 _et seqq._\n\n[285] The oldest pictorial representation of the Corpus Christi\nprocession is probably that contained in the chronicle of the Council of\nConstance, by ULRICH of Richental (49 _et seqq._). The original MS. is\nin the Rosgarten Museum at Constance; it is reproduced in No. 158 of the\n_Stuttgart Literar. Verein_ of 1882 (Photolitographie by H. Bach). It\nrepresents the procession as it took place during the council in the year\n1415. The monstrance is carried by two ecclesiastics on a sort of small\nplatform.\n\n[286] _Cf._ BENED. XIV., _Institutiones_, 30, 206, and the article of P.\nNORBERT, \u201cOrd. Cap.,\u201d in the _Katholik_ for August 1898, 151.\n\n[287] NILLES, _De rationibus festorum SS. Cordis Jesu et Pur. Cordis\nMari\u00e6 libri quattuor_, 5th ed., \u0152niponte, 1885; NIX, art. \u201cHerz Jesu und\nMari\u00e4\u201d in the _Kirchenlexikon_, v., 2nd ed., 1921 _et seqq._; B\u00c4UMER, 525\n_et seq._\n\n[288] CASSIAN, _Coll._ 10, c. 2: \u201cMos antiqua traditione servatus.\u201d\n\n[289] USENER, i. 1, 320, has investigated the circumstances which\nattended the introduction of Christmas in different countries, and his\nconclusions have met with entire recognition from HARNACK, _Theol.\nLiteraturztg._, 1889, 199, _et seqq._, and from DOM SUITBERT B\u00c4UMER,\n_Katholik_, 1890, i. 1-15. Exception was taken to certain points by\nDUCHESNE, _Bull. Critique_, 1890, No. 3. These circumstances have been\nalready dealt with by BAILLET, viii. 582 _et seqq._\n\n[290] EPIPHANIUS, _Adv. H\u00e6r._, 2, 1; _H\u00e6r._, 51, c. 16 and 24.\n\n[291] _Cf._ c. 26, ed. Geyer, 60; ed. Gamurrini, 84.\n\n[292] C. 49, ed. Geyer; ed. Gamurrini, 109.\n\n[293] LAMY, _Ephr\u00e6mi Syri hymni et sermones_, i., Mechl., 1882, 10, on\nthe Benedictus, 2, 415. This hymn is translated into German by Zingerle\nin the _Kempten Bibl. d. Kirchenv\u00e4ter_, ii. 27.\n\n[294] _Cf._ HEFELE, _History of Councils_, vi., 1st ed., 504, 575, etc.\n\n[295] GREGOR, _Naz. Hom. 38 in Theophania_; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xxxvi.\n\n[296] John, Bishop of Nicea, in COMBEFIS, _Hist. H\u00e6r. Monoth._, Paris,\n1648, 306. BAUMSTARK (_Oriens Christ._, 1902, 441-446) is in favour of\nthe date 398 to 400.\n\n[297] GREGOR, Nyss., _Or. Fun._; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 789. _Cf._\n_ib._, 701 and 725. Basil was dead before 1st January 379.\n\n[298] The date 386 depends upon the order of the sermons referred to.\nUsener, who places them at unnecessary wide intervals, gives 388, Clinton\n387, Combefis, Montfaucon, and Tillemont 386. The period from February to\nDecember is ample for the above sermons.\n\n[299] CHRYSOST., _Hom. in Nativ. I. Chr._; MONTFAUCON, ii. 352; MIGNE,\n_Patr. Gr._, x. 2, 351.\n\n[300] \u03a4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u03a4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 does not contradict\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, for Chrysostom distinguishes between the knowledge of the day\nof Christ\u2019s birth and its solemn celebration. The former had been known\nfor ages in Rome, but the celebration of the festival, on the contrary,\nhad spread rapidly in all directions, and this rapid diffusion of the\nfestival shows in its turn that the 25th December is really the day of\nChrist\u2019s birth.\n\n[301] _Cod. Justin._, 3, 12, 6.\n\n[302] _Cod. Theod._, 2, 8, 27. _Cf._ the law of the year 425, _ib._, 15,\n5, 5.\n\n[303] COMBEFIS, _Hist. H\u00e6r. Monoth._, 304: \u1f18\u03be \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f21\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1f72\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Combefis was\nthe first to discuss the question, and his disquisition is excellent,\nthough now forgotten. _Cf._ MIGNE, viii. 964-968. Combefis has also\ncollected all the material for the history of Christmas in his _Bibl.\nPatrum Conc._, 300 _et seq._\n\n[304] COMBEFIS (_Hist. H\u00e6r. Monoth._, 302 and 314, A. 4) considered it\nsuspicious.\n\n[305] RONCALLI, _Chronica Vetustiora_, Introd., xxix.\n\n[306] Bucherius, in its Latinized form.\n\n[307] JOS. STRZYGOWSKI, _Die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre\n354_, with 30 plates, Berlin, 1888, published for the Archeological\nInstitute. The rest is to be found in _Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores\nAntiquissimi_, t. ix., vol. i., fasc. i., Berol., 1891. The Natales\nC\u00e6sarum and the Calendar are printed in the _Corp. Inscr. Lat._\n\n[308] MOMMSEN, _Abhandl. der S\u00e4chs. Akademie d. Wissensch._, 1850, 1,\n618. The figure XIII. signifies the Epact. This proves that the 1st\nJanuary fell on a Saturday, and that B was the dominical letter.\n\n[309] _L\u2019Art de v\u00e9rifier les Dates dep. J. Chr._, I. 111.\n\n[310] [This refers to the ancient practice of dating the years of an\nemperor\u2019s reign, not from the actual date of his accession, but from the\nNew Year\u2019s Day either preceding or following his accession. The years\nof the emperor\u2019s reign were thus brought into artificial agreement with\nthe calendar year. Numbering the years of the emperor\u2019s reign from the\nactual date of his accession is, in Mommsen\u2019s phrase, taking them as\n_effektiv_.\u2014Trans.]\n\n[311] I have attempted to show how this difference is to be explained in\nan article in the _Innsbr. Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Kath. Theologie_, xv. (1891),\n519 _et seqq._\n\n[312] Vid. Appendix vi.\n\n[313] St Luke i. 5, 8.\n\n[314] 1 Esdr. vi. 18.\n\n[315] _Antiq._ vii. 14, 7.\n\n[316] _Antiq._ vii. 11, 7, 1; 12, 6, 4; 7, 6. 1 Mach. i. 57; iv. 18.\n\n[317] So LAMY (_Apparatus Chronol. et Geogr._, 61) referring to the\nTractate _Erachin and Taanit_.\n\n[318] JOS., _Bell. Jud._, 4, 8, 5; 4, 5. According to IDELER (i. 400,\n433) Josephus employs the Syro-Macedonian names of the months, not with\nthe intention of adjusting them to the Julian Calendar, but merely as\nGreek names for the Jewish months.\n\n[319] The attempt to fix the time of Christ\u2019s birth by the help of\nthe course of Abia was undertaken by Scaliger, abandoned as useless\nby Petavius, resumed by B. Lamy. In modern times, it was resumed by\nSEYFFARTH (_Chronol. Sacra_, Leipsig, 1846, 97 _et seqq._), WEIGL\n(_Theol. und Chronol. Abhandlungen \u00fcber das wahre Geburts- und Sterbejahr\nChristi_, Sulzbach, 1848), and STAVARS (_T\u00fcb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1866,\n201 _et seq._).\n\n[320] HIERON, _Opera_, ed. Migne, xi. 220. It is evident from St Jerome\u2019s\ncommentary on Ezechiel that his views on the subject were not those of\nthe preacher of this sermon. The sermon for the 25th December, published\nby Morin (_Anecdota Mareds._, iii. 2, 392, _et seqq._), agrees with the\nsermon quoted above.\n\n[321] CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, i., ed. Sylburg, 340.\n\n[322] CYPRIANI, _Opera_, ed. Hartel, ii. 266.\n\n[323] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_ 190, 1; 192, 3; 196, 1.\n\n[324] Luke ix. 13 _seqq._\n\n[325] AMBR., _De Virg._, 3, 1; MIGNE, xvi. 219.\n\n[326] PAULINUS, _Vita Ambr._, c. 4, and his life in the Benedictine\nedition of his works, c. 7. The chronology of the youthful period of St\nAmbrose\u2019s life is unfortunately obscure.\n\n[327] _Conc. Cathag._, iii. can. 4; BRUNS, i. 123.\n\n[328] USENER (272 _seqq._) starts with the preconceived opinion that\nLiberius delivered his address on the 6th Jan. 353, and so is of opinion\nthat Christmas was celebrated for the first time in Rome on the 25th\nDec. 353. On the other hand, DUCHESNE (_Bull. Crit._, 1890, No. 3, p. 41\n_seq._), having the circumstance in view that the Depositio Episcoporum\nbegins the year with the 27th Dec. and the Depositio Martyrum with the\n25th Dec., thinks he has proof for holding that the 27th Dec. for a long\ntime already, indeed even from about 243, had been a marked day in the\nChurch\u2019s Calendar, and, accordingly, that the 25th Dec. had been kept as\nthe Natalis Domini as early as the third century. We leave these points\nto the reader\u2019s discretion. Christmas was kept in Rome certainly before\n353.\n\n[329] MOMMSEN, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._, v. 481.\n\n[330] MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN, _R\u00f6m. Altert._, vi., 2nd. ed., 588.\n\n[331] Hospinian (fol. iii.) and others held that the 25th December was\nchosen purposely in order to supplant the Saturnalia. But the Saturnalia\ndid not last over the 25th, although Maximus of Turin seems to think it\ndid.\n\n[332] _De Orat. Dom._, 35.\n\n[333] SERMO, 7, 1, 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvii. 614.\n\n[334] ZENO VER., _Tract._, 2, 9, 2, calls Christ \u201cSol noster, sol verus.\u201d\nGREGOR. I., _Hom._, 29 _in Evang._, c. 10: \u201cQuis solis nomine nisi\nChristus designatur?\u201d PRUD., _Cathem._, 11, 1: \u201cQuid est, quod arctum\ncirculum sol jam recurrens deserit?\u201d GREGOR. NAZ., _Orat. in S. lumina_,\ncalls Christ the sun.\n\n[335] On the Vigil: \u201cSidus refulget jam novum\u201d; at Lauds: \u201cOrietur sicut\nsol salvator mundi\u201d: in the Preface: \u201cPer incarnati Verbi mysterium nova\nmentis nostr\u00e6 oculis lux tu\u00e6 claritatis infulsit\u201d: on the octave: \u201cTu\nlumen et splendor Patris\u201d; in the hymn: \u201cIn sole posuit tabernaculum\nsuum\u201d; in the antiphons: \u201cHodie descendit lux magna in terris. In sole\nposuit tabernaculum suum,\u201d etc.\n\n[336] MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom._, 103; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii. 491.\n\n[337] _Peregr. Silv._, 82 (59 cod.), ed. Geyer, c. 25.\n\n[338] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77. In c. 49, No. 3, the chief\nfestivals are Easter and Epiphany.\n\n[339] In Ezech. 1, 3; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xxv. 18, written about A.D.\n411.\n\n[340] COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, ed. Galland. Bibl., xi. 461; MIGNE,\nlxxxviii. 198.\n\n[341] So USENER, who quotes a passage from a sermon of Basil of Seleucia.\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 469.\n\n[342] COSMAS, _op. cit._ 462.\n\n[343] _Evangeliarium Hierosol._, 482, 494. See USENER, 323, 327.\n\n[344] COMBEFIS, _Hist. H\u00e6r. Monoth._, 314 A, 4.\n\n[345] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77.\n\n[346] GREGOR TUR., _Microl._, 1, 88; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 783.\n\n[347] COMBEFIS, _op. cit._ 302 E.\n\n[348] _Opera_, ZENONIS VER., ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xi. lib. 2, tract\n7-9. Lib. i. tract 13 may be spurious.\n\n[349] _Sermo 10 de sanctis_ according to the old enumeration, _sermo 220\ninter suppos._ according to the new.\n\n[350] _Peregr. Silv._, 84 (60).\n\n[351] See Append. vii.\n\n[352] MATISCON. 1, can. 9; TURON., 11, can. 27. _Cf._ GREGOR. TUR.,\n_Hist. Franc._, 10, 31.\n\n[353] _Synaxarium_ of MICHAEL of Atriba, under 15th November.\n\n[354] GREGOR. M., _Hom. in Evang._, 1, 1, 6, 7, and 20. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxxvi. 1078 _et seqq._ CABROL (_R\u00e9vue B\u00e9n\u00e9d._, 1905, 1, 1),\nthought he had discovered traces of Advent in the fifth or even in the\nfourth century. It is best to reserve judgment until clearer evidence is\nforthcoming.\n\n[355] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, ii. 133-135 and 342-346.\n\n[356] Printed by Gerbert, _Lit. Allem._, 410-416, which also contains\nthe _Evangelarium_ of SPIRES, 8th Cent., 417-444, and _Kalendarium_ of\nFRONTEAU, 155 _et seq._\n\n[357] AMALARIUS, _De Eccl. Off._, 3, 40; 4, 30. ABBO, _Apolog._ MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, cxxxix. 472.\n\n[358] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 139. BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 167.\n\n[359] Thus the Comes Pamelii in RANKE\u2019S supplement and the old\nlectionaries of Cologne, Treves, and M\u00fcnster. See SCHUE, _Die bibl.\nLesungen_, etc., Treves, 1861, 129 _et seqq._\n\n[360] Since 1893, the third Sunday after Epiphany has also a special\ncharacter owing to the Feast of the Holy Family falling on it.\n\n[361] See the critical edition of C. A. WILSON (Oxford, 1894), p. 9.\n\n[362] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 198_, c. 1. \u201cVos quasi solemniter hodie convenire\nconspicimus.\u201d\n\n[363] _Turon._, 2, can. 17, 22; _Antissiod._, can. 1.\n\n[364] TOLET., 4 (633), can. 11; _Lex Visigoth._, ii. tit. i. 12, and xii.\n3, 6; Mon. Germ. Leges Sect. 1, tom. i. 1, 59 and 434. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxxxi. 478.\n\n[365] MIGNE, i. 212, col. 70-73 for the text. See HEUSER,\n_Kirchenlexikon_, iv., 2nd ed., 1395 _seqq._ The so-called Feast of\nAsses, about which so much has been written, was a harmless affair. It\ntook its name from semi-theatrical performances inspired by passages of\nScripture which happen to mention an ass.\n\n[366] In this document it is called \u201cNatale S. Mari\u00e6.\u201d\n\n[367] WIEGAND, 27.\n\n[368] _Tractat._, 1, 13.\n\n[369] LEO I., _Sermo 2 de Epiph._ FULGENTIUS, _Sermo_. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxv. 732.\n\n[370] AMMIANUS MARCELL., 21, 2.\n\n[371] CLEMENS ALEX., _Strom._, i. 21, \u00a7 45; ed. Potter, 407; Sylburg, 340.\n\n[372] In the edition of BONWETSCH and ACHELIS, Leipsig, 1897, No. 22, p.\n255 _et seq._, ACHELIS and others regard it as spurious but without just\nreason. It is translated by PROBST, _Lehre und Gebet_, 247. Although not\na sermon, it was evidently an address delivered to certain individuals.\n_Cf._ c. 6 and 9 (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad and \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5).\n\n[373] _Constit Apost._, 8, 33; _cf._ 5, 13.\n\n[374] SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii. 15, 204, 220.\n\n[375] See GREGOR. NAZ., _Orat._, 39, c. 2.\n\n[376] _Synodus II. S. Patricii._, can. 20.\n\n[377] St Matthew ii. 10 _seq._\n\n[378] St Matthew ii. 1-12.\n\n[379] _Poema_, 27; _Natal_, 9, v. 47 _et seqq._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi.\n649.\n\n[380] SEDATUS, _Hom. de Epiph._ MIGNE, lxxii. 773. MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom.\n7 in Epiph._ MIGNE, lvii. 271. \u201cFuerunt enim hodie ... quid potissimum\npr\u00e6senti hoc factum sit die, noverit ipse, qui fecit.\u201d\n\n[381] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo supposit._, 136, c. 1, and the hymn \u201cIlluminans\nAltissimus,\u201d in KAYSER, _Hymnen_, 2nd ed., 370. See also the article\n\u201cFeste\u201d by FUNK and KRIEG in KRAUS\u2019S _Realenzyklop\u00e4die_.\n\n[382] This also appears from the fact that some, as PHILASTRIUS (_De\nH\u00e6r._, c. 140) informs us, omitted Epiphany and kept Christmas alone.\n\n[383] _Comm. in Ezech._, i. 1.\n\n[384] CHRYSOST., _Hom. ad Pop. Ant. de Bapt. Chr._, c. 2. _Migne_, _Patr.\nGr._, xlix. 363 _et seq._ It appears from this sermon that the Antiochene\nChristians were in the habit of taking some of the baptismal water home\nwith them, and keeping it for a year without its becoming corrupt.\n\n[385] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo 202_, c. 2.\n\n[386] _C\u00e6saraug._, A.D. 380, can. 3. AMMIANUS MARC., _op. cit._ Passio S.\nPhilippi Heracleensis in Ruinart, _Acta_, 440, c. 2.\n\n[387] EPIPHANIUS (_H\u00e6r._, 51, c. 16 and 24), Ephrem, Cassian, etc. See\nabove, pp. 128 _seqq._\n\n[388] Testam. D. N. Jesu Chr., ed. Rahmani (Mainz, 1899), i. 28; iv. 67,\n101. The discussion of the date of this document cannot be entered into\nhere from want of space.\n\n[389] Cod. Theodos., 2, 8, 20, 25; 5, 2; Cod. Justin., 3, 12, 6.\n\n[390] See Appendix No. viii.\n\n[391] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, 60, ed. Geyer, c. 26: \u201cQuadragesim\u00e6 de Epiphania\nvalde cum summo honore _hic_ celebrantur, etc.\u201d\n\n[392] THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, ed. Bonn, 345 ad ann. 534.\n\n[393] NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 17, 28: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9. See MURALT, _Chronogr.\nByz._, St Petersburg, 1855, i. 134.\n\n[394] _Sacr. Gelasianum_, 2, 8, among the Natalitia Sanctorum. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, lxxiv. 1158. There is no mention of a procession in the\nGregorian sacramentary either.\n\n[395] MORCELLI, i. 86, 288.\n\n[396] The statement was made by BARONIUS (ad ann. 534), repeated by PAGI,\nand, in recent times, by WISSOWA (_R\u00f6m. Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 446) and\nby USENER (332), but rejected by GRISAR (_Gesch. Roms._, i. 455).\n\n[397] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii.\n\n[398] See Appendix No. ix.\n\n[399] CABROL (_Etude sur la Peregr. Silv._, 167 _et seqq._) gives a\nsurvey of the lections then in use.\n\n[400] Printed by BIANCHINI, _Opera Anast._, i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\ncxxvii. 994. DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, I. cxlvi.\n\n[401] BINTERIM\u2019S statement (_Denkw._, v. 2, 133-152) is out of date. The\narticle \u201cFastenzeiten\u201d by HEUSER in the _Kirchenlexikon_, iv., 2nd ed.,\nmust be supplemented by the investigations of Dom G. MORIN in the _R\u00e9vue\nB\u00e9n\u00e9dictine_, 1897, 336-347\u2014\u201cL\u2019Origine des Quatre-Temps.\u201d\n\n[402] LEO M., _Sermo_, 19 (18), c. 2.: \u201cPer totius anni circulum\ndistributa sunt (jejunia), ut lex abstinenti\u00e6 omnibus sit adscripta\ntemporibus. Siquidem jejunium vernum in quadragesima, \u00e6stivum in\npentecoste, autumnale in mense septimo, hiemale in hoc qui est decimus\ncelebretur.\u201d\n\n[403] LEO M., _Sermo_, 16 (15), c. 1, 2; _Sermo_, 12 (11), c. 3.\n\n[404] MORIN (_op. cit._ 345) quotes passages from the Leonine and\nGelasian sacramentaries. See MIGNE, lv. 153 _et seqq._\n\n[405] Concerning the \u201cferi\u00e6 conceptiv\u00e6\u201d and \u201csementiv\u00e6\u201d of the Romans,\nsee MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN, _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 198 _seqq._\n\n[406] _Liber Pont._, _Callistus_: \u201cHic constituit jejunium die sabbati\nter in anno fieri, frumenti, vini et olei secundum prophetiam.\u201d Ed.\nDUCHESNE, i. 141.\n\n[407] LEO I., _Sermo_, 19, c. 2; _Sacram. Leon._, 101, No. xxvii. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, liv. 186; lv. 105.\n\n[408] _Epist. ad Episc. Luc._, c. 11. MIGNE, lix. 47.\n\n[409] LEO I., _Epist. ad Dioscorum Al._, c. i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, liv.\n626.\n\n[410] MIGNE, cli. 978; c. 24-27.\n\n[411] MORIN, _R\u00e9vue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine_, 1897, 338 _seqq._\n\n[412] _Sermo 2 de Jejun. X. mensis_: \u201cDecimi mensis celebrandum esse\njejunium, quo pro consummata perceptione omnium frugum dignissime\nlargitori earum Deo continenti\u00e6 libamen offertur.\u201d\n\n[413] In MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._, i. 511, 603; ii. 33, 94, 123, 136.\n\n[414] H. MENARD, _Not\u00e6 et Observ. in Sacr. Greg._, in MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxxviii. 393.\n\n[415] _Sacr. Gelas._ MIGNE, lxxiv. 1069, 1133, 1178 _seqq._\n\n[416] _Sacr. Gregor._ MIGNE, lxxviii. 59-61, 113-115, 140-142.\n\n[417] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcvii. 124: \u201cUt jejunium quattuor temporum et\nipsi sacerdotes observent et plebi denuntient observandum.\u201d This shows\nthat until then it had not been customary in the Frankish empire.\n\n[418] See BINTERIM, _Gesch. d. d. Prov.- u. Di\u00f6z.-Konzilien_, ii. 273\n_seqq._; iii. 517 _seqq._\n\n[419] The disagreement arose from the fact that the ancient missals\n(Sacramentorum libri), only mentioned the month without specifying the\nweek when the Ember fasts were to be observed. See BERNO of Reichenau\n(MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1097), whose small treatise, composed\nbetween 1020 and 1031, deals with the question.\n\n[420] _Micrologus_, c. 24.\n\n[421] SERVIUS, Comm. on Virgil., _Bucol. Eccl._, 3, 77.\n\n[422] See examples in USENER, 305 A. 22, 306-345.\n\n[423] OBID., _Fasti_, 4, 905 _seqq._, and _Fasti Pr\u00e6nest._, _Corp.\nInser. Lat._ i. 392. For the \u201cRobigali\u00e6\u201d see MARQUARDT-MOMMSEN,\n_Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 574.\n\n[424] VIGILII, _Epist. ad Simpl._ i.; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xiii. 550.\n\n[425] AVITUS, _Hom. de Rogat._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lix. 289. GREGOR.\nTUR., _Hist. Franc_, 2, 34.\n\n[426] This fact is mentioned by both the biographers of Gregory, JOAN.\nDIAC. i. 41-43, and PAUL. DIAC. c. 10, as well as by AMALARIUS 4, 24, and\nBELETH c. 122, etc., but all draw their information from GREGOR. TUR.,\n_Hist. France_, 10, 1. See BAILLET ix, 2, 87-103, who also makes use of\nthe designations \u201cLitani\u00e6 Gallican\u00e6\u201d and \u201cLitani\u00e6 Roman\u00e6.\u201d\n\n[427] These words come from a letter without an address in the appendix\nto the Register of Gregory the Great. MIGNE, lxxvii. 1329.\n\n[428] _Lib. Pont._ ed., BIANCHINI, ii. 386.\n\n[429] In Spain the litanies were on 10th Sept., 7th Nov., and 15th Dec.,\naccording to the lectionary of Silos.\n\n[430] The Martyrium was erected on Golgotha, close to the site of\nthe present Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Anastasis, built by\nConstantine, was the larger of the two, and served as the usual place of\nassembly for the faithful in the fourth century. (_Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed.\nGeyer, c. 27, 30, 39, 43).\n\n[431] J. P. KIRCH, _Die Christl. Kultusge\u00e4nde in Altertum_, 34-40.\n\n[432] St Gregory the Great ordered that the Anglo-Saxons should keep the\ndedication of churches and the _natalitia martyrum_ in the same way as\nthey had previously observed the festivals while they were yet heathen,\nthat is to say by erecting huts of branches and by feasting. (Epist. ii.\n76, of the year 601).\n\n[433] For the East, see JOHANNES EUB., _Orat. in Concep. B.M.V._, c.\n23. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvi. 1499. For the West, see the Sermons of St\nAugustine on the \u201cDedicatio,\u201d _Sermo 336-338_.\n\n[434] Our informants are EUSEB., _Vita Constant_, 4, 6; SOZOMEN, _Hist.\nEccl._, 2, 26; 3, 5; SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 6.\n\n[435] EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 10, 3; AMBROSE, _Ad Marcellinam Epist._, 22,\n1 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 1019). PAULINUS of Nola, _Nat. S. Fel._, 9;\n_Poema_, 27, 402 _seqq._ (MIGNE, lxi. 657); _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, as above.\n\n[436] _Missale Francorum_ in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 328.\n\n[437] DIONYS, _De Hier. Eccl._, 4, 12. See RAHMANI, _Testam. D.N.I.\nChr._, 156.\n\n[438] DURANDUS (_Rationale Div. Off._ 1, 23; 7, 262) expressly follows\nthe model of the Old Testament.\n\n[439] MURATORI, _Lit. Rom. Vet._ i. 308, 609, 613.\n\n[440] _Op. cit._ ii. 467-489 and 186.\n\n[441] GREGOR., ix. c. 5, x. _de feriis_ 2, 9. See Burchard of Worms,\n_Decr._ 2, 77; Ivo of Chartres, _Decr._, in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxi.\n203.\n\n[442] _Liber Ordin._ of Essen, 62 _et seqq._\n\n[443] BINTERIM (_Denkw._, v. 1, 303 _et seqq._; _Conc._, v. 91) places\nthis synod in 1308. HARTZHEIM, _Conc. Germ._, iv. 106; vi. 498.\n\n[444] Amongst others, Naogeorgius (Kirchmair aus Straubing) poured\ncontempt on the observance of these feasts and the abuses to which they\ngave rise. HOSPINIANUS, 175.\n\n[445] DUMONT, _Sammlung Kirchl. Erlasse f\u00fcr d. Erzd. K\u00f6hn_, 2nd ed., 165,\n167.\n\n[446] Remigius, a monk of St Germain, a diligent exegete who lived at the\nend of the ninth century, attempted to give an allegorical interpretation\nto the rites observed at the consecration of a church. The custom of\nwriting the letters of the alphabet in Greek and Latin on the floor of\nthe church seems to have presented difficulties to him. He commences his\nexplanation of this rite by the words: \u201cQu\u00e6 res puerilis ludus videretur,\nnisi ab apostolius viris instituta crederetur.\u201d He interprets it as\nmeaning that the Church instructs the unlearned in the elements of faith.\nHis tractate in seven chapters is in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 846-866.\nG. Mercati, however (_Studi et Testi_, Roma, 1902, 9) attributes it to\nIvo of Chartres.\n\n[447] Literature: Lebrun, _De Martyrum Natalitiis Diss._ MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxi. 519, _seq._ Sollerius, Pr\u00e6f. to the _Mart. Usuardi_. MIGNE,\ncxxiii. 459, _seqq._ Ruinart, Pr\u00e6f. to the _Acta mart. sincera et\ngenuina_. Le Blant, _Les Actes des Martyrs_, in _M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Institut_,\n1888, 57-336.\n\n[448] _Passio S. Pionii et Soc._, c. 2 in Ruinart, 188.\n\n[449] DIGG., 48, tit. 24, No. 3: \u201cCorpora animadversorum quibuslibet\npetentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt.\u201d\n\n[450] _Lib. Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 52, 128.\n\n[451] _Op. cit._ 65, 148, EUSEB., _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 45, \u00a7 11, also refers\nto the seven deacons and seven subdeacons of Rome in the third century.\n\n[452] _Lib. Pont._, I. xcv. 147.\n\n[453] _Epist._, 12, 2.\n\n[454] _Bullettino d. Comm. Arch. Communale di Roma_, 1894, 240 _seqq._\n\n[455] RUINART, _Acta Sincera_, 630, with his Admonitio.\n\n[456] GREGOR. NYSS., _Vita Greg. Thaum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 954.\n\n[457] SOZOM., _Hist. Eccl._, 5, 3.\n\n[458] MAXIMUS TAUR., _Hom._ 81. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii. 427.\n\n[459] _Lib. Pont._, _Symmachus_, c. 9.\n\n[460] [See _The Legends of the Saints_, Delehaye, translated by Mrs V. M.\nCrawford (London, 1907), especially chap. iv. Trans.]\n\n[461] B\u00c4UMER, _Gesch. des Breviers_, 456; see also 429, 447.\n\n[462] _Regula ad Monachos_, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii. 396. See\nalso N. PAULUS, _Martyrologium und Brevier als historische Quellen_;\nKatholik, 1900, i. 355 _seqq._\n\n[463] _De Gloria Martyrum_, c. 48.\n\n[464] _Cf._ _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 13.\n\n[465] MURATORI, in a valuable work, _De Martyrum Natalibus_, shows in\nopposition to Pagi that \u201cnatales martyrum\u201d indicates the actual day of\ntheir death. The work is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 819-26;\n_Dissert._ 19.\n\n[466] _De Anima_, 51.\n\n[467] AUGUSTIN., _Epist._ 288. GREGOR. TUR., _De Gloria Conf._, 104.\n\n[468] See the fourth canon of the Council of Valentia in A.D. 524.\n\n[469] Edited by Baluzius, _Capitul. Reg. Franc._, Appendix. Also in\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcix. 633. Other formul\u00e6 of the Carolingian period\nare given in MIGNE, cxxxviii. 885-902.\n\n[470] This branch of hagiography has been carefully dealt with by\nBaillet. The entire first volume of his great work, _Les Vies des\nSaints_, is devoted to Old Testament Saints, more than a hundred in\nnumber, and to the history of their cultus.\n\n[471] E. A. Kneller, in order to explain the choice of the 24th for\nthe 25th June, draws attention to the way in which the ancient Roman\nCalendars were written, _i.e._ viii. Kal. Jan. = 25th December; viii.\nKal. Jul. = 24th July (_Innsbr. Zeitschr. f\u00fcr kath. Theol._, 1901, 527).\n\n[472] _Agath. Can._ 31, 63.\n\n[473] IVO CARN., _Decretum_, 4, 14. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clxi. 266.\n\n[474] According to St Augustine (_sermo 292_, c. i.) it was \u201ctraditione\nmajorum receptum.\u201d\n\n[475] MORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, ii. 13 _seq._ No less than fifteen\nchurches and chapels were dedicated to St John the Baptist in\nConstantinople.\n\n[476] JOSEPHUS, _Antt._, 18, 5, 2.\n\n[477] TILLEMONT, _M\u00e9m._, i. 44; vii. 163.\n\n[478] SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis_, iii. 220-47.\n\n[479] Dionysius Exiguus translated this account into Latin (MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, lxvii. 418). See also TILLEMONT, _M\u00e9m._, i. 44; vii. 163.\nMORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, i. 167; ii. 65, 222. BAILLET, iv. 825 _seqq._;\nvi. 291 _seqq._ DU CANGE, _Trait\u00e9 du Chef de S. J. B._ (Paris, 1665),\nwrote against the trustworthiness of Marcellus. The chronology of the\nPaschal Chronicle was corrected by Du Cange and Pagi. See RAUSCHEN,\n_Jahrb\u00fccher d. Theol._, 356 A.\n\n[480] NILLES, i., 2nd ed., 111.\n\n[481] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 120, 394.\n\n[482] Pseudo-Alcuin, _De off. Eccl._, c. 30.\n\n[483] _Ordo Rom. XI._, c. 66. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxviii. 1050. There\nis not sufficient evidence to support Binterim\u2019s view (_Denkw._, v. 379)\nthat the procession to the Baptistry proves that solemn baptism was\nadministered at Rome on the 24th June.\n\n[484] _Sermo 287-93._ In _Sermo 292_, c. 1, appears the passage quoted on\npage.... \u201cHoc majorum traditione suscepimus, etc.\u201d\n\n[485] A town of Gamala was situated on the eastern shore of the Lake\nGenesareth, on a mountain. Josephus, _Bello Jud._, 4, 1, 1-7; _Antt._,\n18, 1, 1, etc. Nothing is known of the village of Gamala near Jerusalem.\n\n[486] For the fullest account of the particulars, see HYDATIUS, _Chron._\n(RONCALLI, ii. 99), \u201cHonorio X. et Theodosio VI. Conss.\u201d With this date\nagrees MARCELLINUS (_op. cit._, ii. 279), but not the _Chron. Breve._\n(_op. cit._, ii. 259) or THEOPHANES, _Chrongr._, ed. Bonn, i. 133.\n\n[487] GENNADIUS, _De Script. Eccl._, 46, 47. The writings relating to the\n\u201cInventio S. Stephani\u201d are in Latin. The translation is printed in MIGNE,\nxli., _Opera S. Augustini VII._, 805-54.\n\n[488] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 316, 320-24; _Civ. Dei_, 22, c. 8.\n\n[489] THEOPHANES, _Chrongr._, ad ann. 420.\n\n[490] MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 48.\n\n[491] As, for example, to Antoninus. See GEYER, _Itinera Hierosol._, 176.\n\n[492] CODINUS, ii.\n\n[493] The Syrian list of Abul Barakat gives for the date of St Stephen\u2019s\ndeath the 12th Sept. A.D. 37, and for the date of the first discovery\nof his relics the 27th Dec. A.D. 40. Chr. IV. Caji. BAUMSTARK, _Oriens\nChrist._, i. 266.\n\n[494] GRISAR, _Gesch. Roms und der P\u00e4pste_, i. 194 _seqq._\n\n[495] See the Calendars in SELDENIUS, _op. cit._; also the Synaxaria in\nMAI, _Bibl. Vet. Patr._, iv.\n\n[496] USENER, _Der hl. Theodosius_, Leipsig, 1890, 38, 144.\n\n[497] JULIAN of Toledo in the _Vita S. Ildephonsi Tol._, c. 6. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, xcvi. 46.\n\n[498] It is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxi. 798, from _Pamelius\nLiturgica Lat._, Col. Agr. 1571, tit. ii. 70. [See also an article in\nthe _Dublin Review_, vol. cxv., on \u201cThe Earliest Roman Mass-book,\u201d by Mr\nEdmund Bishop.\u2014TR.]\n\n[499] _Liber Pont._, SERGIUS, No. 86.\n\n[500] In the calendar of Sonnatius of Reims (quoted on p. 21), dating\nfrom ten or twenty years after Gregory the Great, these three feasts are\nalready mentioned.\n\n[501] There are, however, among the sermons of Peter Chrysologus, three\n(140, 142, and 143) entitled \u201cde annuntiatione,\u201d but of these No. 140\ncontains no allusion to a festival of our Blessed Lady, and the two\nothers belong to Christmas.\n\n[502] ST THOMASSIN, 409. See MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxv. 406. Fulbert,\nhowever, speaks of the feast as of recent institution. _Sermo_, 4. MIGNE,\ncxli. 320 _seqq._\n\n[503] MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvii. 806 _seqq._\n\n[504] So in the passage from the _Liber Pontificalis_ quoted above and\nin the _Kalend. Fronteau_. Bede calls it the \u201cAnnuntiatio Dominica.\u201d The\nGreek name for the feast is \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[505] _Chron. Pasch. Olymp._, 351, ed. Bonn, i. 713.\n\n[506] PETRUS CHRYS., _Sermo_, 140, 142, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lii.\nAmong the spurious sermons of Leo the Great is one which is believed to\nbe a translation of a discourse of Proclus, _Sermo 15_. See the note of\nBallerini in MIGNE, _Patr Lat._, liv. 508. PROCLUS, _Orat. I._ MIGNE,\n_Patr. Gr._, lxv. 679.\n\n[507] RADULFUS GLABER, _Hist._, 3, 3.\n\n[508] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 170, 734.\n\n[509] HOLWECK, 292. When the 25th March falls on one of the three last\ndays in Holy Week or Easter Week, it must be translated. BINTERIM\n(_Denkw._, v. 356) gives several historical references concerning this.\n\n[510] PROCLUS, _Oratio III._, c. 2. When we find in collections of\nsermons (_e.g._ COMBEFIS, _Bibl. Conc._), some by the Fathers, such as\nOrigen, St Ambrose, St Athanasius, etc., ascribed to the feasts of our\nLady, we must not jump to the conclusion that these feasts were observed\nat the period when the authors of these sermons lived. These reputed\nsermons are only homilies on texts which suit the feast in question, and\non this account have been inserted into the collection.\n\n[511] EPIPH., _H\u00e6r._, 79, c. 11: \u201cI say not she did not die, yet I am not\ncertain that she did die.\u201d\n\n[512] VETTER, _T\u00fcb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1887, 133 _seqq._ The letter is\nalso given in the treatise by NIRSCHL, _Das Grab der heiligen Jungfrau\nMaria_, Mainz, 1896, 80 _seqq._\n\n[513] _Transitus Mari\u00e6_ in TISCHENDORF, _Apocal. Apocr._, Lips., 1866,\n114.\n\n[514] We have three sermons of John on the Assumption (MIGNE, _Patr.\nGr._, xcvi.), one of Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem (MIGNE, _Patr.\nGr._, lxxxvi. pars 2), three of Andrew of Crete, who, before becoming\nbishop, was a monk in Palestine (MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcvii., oratio\n12-14), and three of Germanus (MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xcviii. 339-72).\n\n[515] _De Gloria Mart._, i. 4.\n\n[516] NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 17, 28.\n\n[517] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 225. See also MABILLON\u2019S note in the\nsame col., 475.\n\n[518] In the _Martyr. Luccense_ of FIORENTINI, on the 22nd January:\n\u201cDepositio B. Mari\u00e6 Matris D. N. J. C.\u201d\n\n[519] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxx. 446. In HARDUIN (iii. 2946) it is so\nnamed.\n\n[520] H. J\u00dcRGENS, _Die kirchl. Uberlieferung von der leibl. Aufnahme\nMariens in den Himmel_: Innsbr. _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr kath. Theol._, 1880,\n595-650.\n\n[521] W\u00dcSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_ of Bishop Michael of Atriba and Malidsch,\n251. MAI, _Script. Vet. Nova Collectio_, iv. 1. 5. SELDENIUS, _De\nSynedriis_, iii. c. 15, 320 _seqq._\n\n[522] A form for the blessing of the fruits of the field appears in the\nRitual of Augsburg, 1487. See RAICH, _Katkolik_, 1901, ii. 144. FRANZ,\n_Das Ritual von St Florian aus dem 12. Jahrhundert_; Freiburg, 1904.\n\n[523] BAILLET (viii. 434-441) and BENEDICT XIV. (_De festis_, c. 184-210)\ncollected materials for this purpose.\n\n[524] The Emperor Leo VI., the Philosopher (896-903), spread the\nobservance of the feast. Passaglia relied (iii. 1750) on a speech of his\npreserved in the Sforza library in Rome. It does not appear among the\nspeeches of this Emperor printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, cvii.\n\n[525] \u0395\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, c. 23. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._,\nxcvi. 1499. Observe the article with \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u039f\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 means all\ncollectively, _i.e._ the whole community or church.\n\n[526] For the so-called Typicum S. Sab\u00e6, see Appendix xi.\n\n[527] It is the first among his sermons. MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, c. 1353.\n\n[528] The change from the 9th Dec., the date of the festival among the\nGreeks, to the 8th, is probably to be explained by the fact that in the\nRoman Calendar vi., Idus Dec. corresponds to the vi. Idus Sept., the date\nof our Lady\u2019s Nativity, while the 9th Dec. is written v. Idus Dec.\n\n[529] [The feast was, however, observed in England before the Norman\nConquest. The evidence for this is given by Mr Edmund Bishop in his\ntract, _On the Origins of the Feast of the Conception of the Bl. V.\nM._, London, Burns & Oates, 1904. From this the following is taken: (1)\nCalendar contained in Cotton MS. Titus D., xxvii., has the entry in the\noriginal hand at 8th Dec: \u201cConceptio sancte Dei genitricis Mari\u00e6.\u201d This\nMS. was written in the New Minster, Winchester, under Abbot Aelfwin\n(1034-57). (2) Calendar of the Old Minster, Winchester (Cotton MS.,\nVitellius E., xviii.), has the same entry. The MS. is attributed by Hicks\nto or about 1030. (3) Add. MS., 28, 188, a pontifical and benedictional\nof the eleventh century probably written for Bp. Leofric (1046-72),\nand \u201cdistinctly pre-Norman.\u201d In this, fol. 161, is a \u201cBenedictio in\nConceptione Sancte Mari\u00e6.\u201d (4) Harl. MS. 2892, also a pontifical and\nbenedictional written for Canterbury in the first half of the eleventh\ncentury (to judge from the handwriting); a similar benediction occurs,\nff. 189-90. (5) To these, in a letter to the translator, Mr Bishop adds:\nI. In the Leofric Missal, among the Masses added to the book by Bp.\nLeofric, is a Mass for the feast of the Conception (p. 268); II. In a\nWorcester Calendar of about 1064, and written therefore under St Wulstan\nand before the conquest, the feast of the Conception is entered at 8th\nDec. Trans.]\n\n[530] See Appendix x.\n\n[531] Two accounts of Elsinus are found among the spurious writings of St\nAnselm (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clix. 319-326). Three others have recently\nbeen published by Thurston & Slater, _Eadmeri Mon. Cant. Tractatus\nde Conceptione S. Mari\u00e6_, 88-98. Another by Lechler, _Mittelalterl.\nKirchenfeste_, 92 _et seq._\n\n[532] _E.g._ in the Roman Breviary of 1473 (Univ. Bibl., Freiburg i.\nBr.), in the Breviary of Sitten of 1493, National Mus., Zurich, and in\nthat of Constance of 1509.\n\n[533] Gerberon in the introduction to Anselm\u2019s works. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, clviii. 43 _et seq._\n\n[534] Osbert\u2019s letters were first published along with those of Herbert\nde Losinga by Robt. Anstruther (Brussels, 1846), unfortunately very\nimperfectly. Lately they are given by Thurston and Slater, _op. cit._, 53\n_et seq._\n\n[535] _Osbert de Clara_ in Thurston and Slater, App. B. 60 _et seq._\n\n[536] [Mr Bishop, _op. cit._, 30, 31, says the Normans probably treated\nthe celebration of this feast by the English with contempt, as \u201ca\nproduct of insular simplicity and ignorance.\u201d Its public celebration was\ndiscontinued most probably at Winchester and Canterbury, but \u201cit did not\ndie out of the hearts of individuals.\u201d\u2014Trans.]\n\n[537] Osbert, Epist. i. _op. cit._ 55. \u201cEt in hoc regno et in\ntransmarinis partibus a nonnullis episcopis et abbatibus in ecclesiis\nDei instituta est illius diei recordatio.\u201d That the feast was introduced\n\u201cin hoc regno,\u201d _i.e._ England, by abbots but not by bishops, is clear\nfrom Osbert\u2019s second letter, and from other evidence; and, therefore, his\nremark is true only of Normandy. Of the one English bishop whom he names\nas in favour of the feast, he can only say he was \u201cde his sufficienter\ninstructus\u201d (_op. cit._ 58). Osbert has no knowledge of his having\nintroduced the feast. By \u201ctransmarin\u00e6 partes,\u201d British chroniclers of\nthat period always mean Normandy and Brittany.\n\n[538] Matth\u00e6us Paris. ad ann., 1228, _Chron. maj._ 3, 161.\n\n[539] Wilhelm. Malmsbur., _Gesta Reg. Angl._ 4, 338. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nclxxix., 1290. Eadmer., _Hist. Nov._, _Pr\u00e6f._ et passim. MIGNE, clix. 347.\n\n[540] This appears from a decree of Bishop Walter of Rouen in 1207,\nprinted in the collection of Bigot in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccvii. 1179.\nWalter had withheld certain endowments which his predecessor Rotricus\nappointed for the metropolitan chapter on certain festivals. These he\nnow restored. Vacandard (_Les origines de la F\u00eate d. C. Imm._: R\u00e9vue des\nQuestions Hist., 1897, 166) was unacquainted with this decree, else he\nwould have arrived at a different conclusion. Moreover he himself brings\nforward proof that the feast was celebrated during the twelfth century in\nJumi\u00e8ges and St Owen, but not until the thirteenth century at F\u00e9camp.\n\n[541] _Syn. Rotom._ of 1189, can. 1. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccvii. 1180.\n\n[542] HENRICUS A GANDAVO, _Qu\u00e6st. quodlib._, 15 qu. 13 fol., 584 B.:\n\u201cNormanni, in quorum territorio dicitur hujusmodi revelatio facta fuisse,\npr\u00e6 ceteris populis illam conceptionem praccipue celebrant.\u201d Again, fol.\n385 A., it is twice called \u201cfestum quod a Normannis celebratur.\u201d It would\nappear from this that the Normans before 1260 were still the only people\nwho kept the feast.\n\n[543] This legend must have enjoyed a wide circulation, since the\nGreek Breviary finds it necessary to attack it. See the edition of\nConstantinople, 1843, 77.\n\n[544] PASSAGLIA (_De Imm. Conc._, iii. 1755 _seqq._) is not at all\nshaken in his opinion by the fact that Mabillion, as he himself admits,\nhas shown the falsified life was not written by ILDEFONSUS, _Acta Ord.\nS. Bened._, ii. 521. The title \u201cconceptio S.V.M. Genitricis Domini\u201d\nrefers to Christmas. It is an altogether absurd idea that the Jews in\nthe seventh century joined in the celebration of the 8th December.\nUnfortunately SCHWANE (_Dogmengesch._, iii. 414) has copied Passaglia\u2019s\nmistake.\n\n[545] LESL\u00c6US, _Miss. Mixtum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxv. 933 A.\n\n[546] PASSAGLIA (_op. cit._, iii. 1760) relies on a deed of gift of\n1047, in which occurs the expression \u201cConceptio Immac.,\u201d at that period\nunknown\u2014a clear proof of falsification. The document comes from Antonio\nDragoni, an industrious fabricator. See SICKEL, _Acta Regum, etc._, i. 23.\n\n[547] SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, c. 43. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccxviii.\n\n[548] PETRUS CELL., _ad Nicolaum Mon. Epist._, 2, 171. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, ccii. 614.\n\n[549] See BELETH, _Rationale Div. Off._, c. 146. SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, c.\n43. DURANDUS, _Mim. Rationale_, also does not know of the feast.\n\n[550] BERNARD., _Epist._, 171. Vacandard would like to place this letter\nbefore 1128, but this is out of the question.\n\n[551] BERNARD., _Epist._, 184.\n\n[552] MANSI, _Conc._, xxiii. 764. CHEVALIER, _Bibl. Lit._, 7.\n\n[553] WADDING, _Annales Minorum_.\n\n[554] THOMAS, _S. Theol._, 3 q. 27, art. 2.\n\n[555] SCHWANE, _Dogmengesch._, iii. 418.\n\n[556] BINTERIM, _Konzil._, vi. 536, A. I.\n\n[557] SCHATEN, _Annal. Pad._, ad ann. 1343.\n\n[558] PASSAGLIA, _De Imm. Conc._, iii. 1767. BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 1,\n302 _seq._\n\n[559] BINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdi\u00f6zese K\u00f6ln I._, D\u00fcsseldorf, 1892,\n538. W\u00dcRDTWEIN, _Diplomat Magunt._, i., Mainz, 1788, 131, No. 69.\n_Urkunde des Klosters Jechaburg in Th\u00fcringen_, see FALK, _Katholik_,\n1903, 1.\n\n[560] The 2nd Canon of this synod of Canterbury runs:\u2014\u201cVenerabilis\nAnselmi, pr\u00e6decessoris nostri, qui post alia qu\u00e6dam B.M.V. antiquiora\nsollemnia Conceptionis festum superaddere dignum duxit, vestigiis\ninh\u00e6rentes, statuimus, etc.\u201d On the one hand the synod does not say that\nAnselm had actually introduced the feast, and, on the other, the words\nare too plain to allow of us thinking, with some recent writers, that\nthe synod confused the uncle and the nephew. One cannot charge it with\nignorance of this kind. See HARDOUIN, _Conc._, vii. 1538; LABBE-COSSART,\n_Conc._, ix. 2478.\n\n[561] HARDOUIN, _Conc._, viii. 1266. SCHWANE, _Dogmengesch._, iii. 427.\n\n[562] NAT. ALEXANDER., _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 546, ed. Paris, 1627.\nLABBE-COSSART, _Conc._, viii. 1403.\n\n[563] The feast was kept with special devotion by the Carmelite nuns in\ntheir church in Rome. Under Innocent VIII. the order of the Conceptio\nB.M.V. for women was also instituted in Rome. PASSAGLIA, _De Imm. Conc._,\niii. 1776.\n\n[564] PASSAGLIA, _op. cit._, 1777, and, after him, TAPPEHORN,\n_Predigtentw\u00fcrfe_, ii. 9, give the date incorrectly as 1476.\n\n[565] FERRARIS, _Prompta Bibl._, 3, 379.\n\n[566] PASSAGLIA, _op. cit._, iii. 1788; Constitution of 10th November\n1644: \u201cIn his qu\u00e6 per.\u201d\n\n[567] From 1477-1854 is scarcely four hundred years.\n\n[568] BENEDICT XIV., _De Festis._, 2, 152.\n\n[569] EUSEBIUS, _De Nom. Hebr._ MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xxiii. 789.\n\n[570] See the excellent article by J. B. Kraus in the first ed. of the\n_Kirchenlexikons_, with the additions of SCHROD in the 2nd ed. For\nspecial treatises, see BENEDICT XIV., _Commentarius de Festis B.M.V._,\nand for a more modern work, HOLWECK, _Fasti Mariani_, Freiburg, 1892.\n\n[571] _Protoevangelium_, 7. _Evang. de Nativitate Mari\u00e6_, 6. See\nTAPPEHORN, _Ausserbibl. Nachrichten oder die Apokryphen_, 25.\n\n[572] MORCELLI, i. 287. The title runs, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u1f76\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. J. B. KRAUS (_Kirchenlex._, vi., 1st ed., 884) states it\nwas observed in Constantinople in 730, on the authority of Simeon\nMetaphrastes, without giving the passages. ALT (p. 52) and others have\ncopied from him, also without citing the passages. The statement is very\nimprobable, for in 725 the Iconoclastic controversy had broken out,\nrendering its introduction unlikely. It might be considered probable if\nthe homily of TARASIUS, _De Pr\u00e6sentatione B.M.V._, were genuine. MORCELLI\n(ii. 250) considers it spurious. The feast is also not included in the\nMenologium of Constantinople.\n\n[573] \u201cDepositio,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, etc., is the actual name of the feast in\nthe Calendars, and in the older menologies it is called \u201c\u1f21 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03a3\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\u201d Arca or loculus is the wooden coffin in which Mary is\nsaid to have been originally placed in Jerusalem, and which was brought\nto Constantinople under Marcian. MORCELLI, ii. 151. MURALT, _Chronogr.\nByz._, i. 83.\n\n[574] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 407.\n\n[575] _Constit. synodica Odonis Episc. Par._ MANSI, _Conc._, xxii. 681,\nNo. 10.\n\n[576] MANSI, _op. cit._, 1108, i. 4. BINTERIM, _Konzilien_, iv. 480;\n_Denkw._, vii. 1, 98-129. TH. ESSER, _Gesch. des Engl. Grusses_; Histor.\nJahrbuch, 1884, 92. [For the use of the Angelic Salutation in England,\nsee FR. BRIDGETT, C. SS. R., \u201c_Our Lady\u2019s Dowry_,\u201d chap. iv. Trans.]\n\n[577] [For questions connected with the history of the rosary, see a\nseries of articles in vols. 96 and 97 of _The Month_, by FR. HERBERT\nTHURSTON, S.J.; also, _Unserer Lieben Frauen Rosenkrantz_, by FR. TH.\nESSER, O.P., Paderborn, 1889. Trans.]\n\n[578] HOLZAPFEL, _S. Dominicus und der Rosenkranz_, Munich, 1903.\n\n[579] The originators of this form of prayer were Dominic of Prussia and\nAdolf of Essen, two monks of the Charterhouse in Treves in the fifteenth\ncentury. TH. ESSER, _Beitrag zur Gesch. des Rosenkranzes, Katholik_,\n1897, ii. 409 _seqq._, and 1904, ii. 98 _seqq._\n\n[580] There is historical proof for the existence of confraternities of\nthe Holy Rosary in the second half of the fifteenth century. That founded\nin Cologne in 1474 by Prior Jacob Sprenger, O.P., was celebrated. TH.\nESSER, _U.L. Fr. Rosenkranz_, Paderborn, 1889, 289. It was confirmed by\nSixtus IV. in 1478. _Kirchenlexikon_, x., 2nd ed. 1281.\n\n[581] _Kirchenlexikon_, viii. 2nd ed. 818; Brev. Rom. Dom i., Oct. lectio\n7-9. On the 5th August takes place the local feast of Our Lady of the\nSnows, \u201cMaria ad Nives,\u201d in the basilica of Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome.\nAs the office has been incorporated in the Breviary, a short account of\nit may be justified in this place. Pope Liberius erected a basilica on\nthe Esquiline, on the site of Livia\u2019s market, which was called after him\n\u201cLiberiana.\u201d In the next century, Sixtus III. restored the church and\nchanged its title, dedicating it to the Mother of God (_Lib. Pont._,\nLiberius, No. 52, Xystus III., No. 63). From henceforth it was known as\n\u201cBasilica S. Mari\u00e6,\u201d at the present day, Sta. Maria Maggiore. The miracle\nof the snow is not mentioned in any of the original documents, but\nonly in medi\u00e6val writings. The 5th August may have been the day of the\ndedication of the basilica. See GRISAR, _Gesch. Roms._, i. 153 A. 1. The\nlegend of the translation of the Holy House of Loreto (10th Dec.) will\nnot stand historical investigation. According to trustworthy accounts,\npilgrims to Nazareth already in the eighth century found the holy house\nthere no longer, but only a church on the site where it had stood.\nADAMNAN, _De Locis Sanctis_, 2, 26; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxxviii. 304.\nANTONINUS PLAC., _Itinerarium_, c. 5, in GEYSER, _Itinerarium Hieros._,\n161, 197; NICEPHORUS CALL., (_Hist. Eccl._, 8, 30), names Helena as\nthe foundress of the church built on the spot where the house of the\nAnunnciation had stood. See L. DE FEIS, _La Santa Casa di Loreto ed il\nSantuario di Nazareth_, Florence, 1904.\n\n[For Our Lady\u2019s feasts as observed in England, see Fr. Bridgett, _op.\ncit._, chap. vi. For what may be urged in favour of the Holy House of\nLoreto, see an article by the Rev. G. E. Phillips, S.J., in the _Ushaw\nMagazine_, March 1908. Trans.]\n\n[582] PF\u00dcLF, _Die Verehrung des hl. Joseph in der Geschichte_, in Stimmen\naus Maria-Laach, xxxviii (1890), 117, _et seqq._ _R\u00e9vue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine_,\nxiv. 1897, 106 _seqq._, 145 _seqq._, 203 _seqq._ _Le D\u00e9veloppement Hist.\ndu Culte de St Joseph._\n\n[583] _De Syn._, iii. c. 15, 220 _et seqq._\n\n[584] _Script. Vet. Nova Coll._, iv. 15, _et seqq._\n\n[585] \u201cIn Antioch. natalis Josephi,\u201d _Codex Epternac._\n\n[586] Printed in the _Analecta Bolland._, i. 19.\n\n[587] _R\u00e9vue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine_, xiv. (1897) iii. _seqq._ and 145 _seqq._\n\n[588] _Ib._, 145 _seqq._\n\n[589] PANVINIUS _Vita Sixti IV._, in the continuation to Platina.\n\n[590] GROTEFEND, _Handbuch der Chronol._, ii. _passim_.\n\n[591] PROCOPIUS, _De \u00c6dif._, i. 3.\n\n[592] _De H\u00e6r._, 79.\n\n[593] PANVINIUS, _op. cit._\n\n[594] See the article \u201cAnna\u201d by Schegg, and \u201cJoachim\u201d by Jocham in the\n_Kirchenlexikon_, 2nd ed., i. and vi. Trithemius wrote a tract on the\nworship of St Anne in 1484.\n\n[595] BAILLET, v. 363.\n\n[596] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxix. 1023; _Sermo de S. Matth._, Acta SS.\nBoll., 3 Febr. 487.\n\n[597] _Opera S. Leonis I._; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lv. 57; lxxiv. 1168\nunder No. 33.\n\n[598] BELETH, _Rationale Div. Off._ c. 124; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii.\n131.\n\n[599] SOCR., _Hist. Eccl._, i. 16: \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[600] EUSEB., _Vita Const._, 4, 71.\n\n[601] Theophanes, Nicephorus, etc. MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 197.\n\n[602] Edited in Greek by Usener in the Bonn _Lektionskatalog_ for 1877.\n\n[603] DUCHESNE, _Origines_, 255.\n\n[604] GREGOR, Nyss. _Opera_; MIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, xlvi. 725, 787.\n\n[605] AMBROS., _De Virg._ c. 19, No. 124: \u201cDies factus est Petrus, dies\nPaulus ideoque hodie natali eorum Spiritus Sanctus increpuit dicens,\netc.\u201d MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi. 299.\n\n[606] _Hom._, 68-73 and _Sermo_, 66-69; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lvii.\n\n[607] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 295, c. 8; 296, c. 1.\n\n[608] See my article \u201cPetrus und Paulus\u201d in the _Katholik_, 1887, i.\n11-39.\n\n[609] CHRYSOSTOM, _Opera_, ed. Montfaucon, ii. 1.\n\n[610] PRUDENTIUS, _Perist._, 12, 2: \u201cRomam per omnem cursitant orantque;\u201d\nv. 52: \u201cAspice per bifidas plebs Romula funditur plateas,\u201d and especially\nv. 63: \u201cTranstiberina prius solvit sacra pervigil sacerdos, Mox huc\nrecurrit duplicatque vota.\u201d\n\n[611] _Sermo_, 84, al. 81 of Leo the Great is entitled: In Octavis SS.\napostolorum. See AMALARIUS, _De Off. Eccl._, 3, 36.\n\n[612] _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 16, ed. Vales, 518. THEOPHANES, ad an. 492.\n\n[613] Among the Calendars published by Seldenius (_De Synedriis III._, c.\n15) one contains it, another on 27th June has \u201cPlanctus Pauli\u201d (see p.\n212), and the third (p. 241) has another martyr called Basamon. Binterim\nis mistaken in thinking the feast is absent from no ancient Calendar\n(_Denkw._, v. 383).\n\n[614] Eudocia lived as a widow at Jerusalem, 450-455, and died there. She\nhad previously visited Jerusalem in 438. MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 47, 68.\n\n[615] A priest of this church, called Philip, was papal legate at the\nCouncil of Ephesus.\n\n[616] DE ROSSI, _Inscr. Chr._, ii. 1, 110, 134, 164. GRISAR, _Gesch.\nRoms._, i. 172, pt. I. Other witnesses for the existence of St Peter\u2019s\nchain at Rome are ARATOR, _Acta Apost._, i. 1067; JUSTINIAN, _Epist._, in\nLabbe-Cossart, iv. 1416; GREGOR M., _Epist._, i. 30, ix. 122, xi. 53, etc.\n\n[617] SIGEBERT of Gemblours mentions the event _ad ann._ 969. MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, clx. 191.\n\n[618] It is not in the Kalendarium Gothicum, the Neapolitan Calendar, nor\nin that of Charlemagne belonging to 781 (ed. Piper), nor in the Greek\nmenologies of Basil and Constantinople.\n\n[619] _R\u00f6mische Quartalschrift_, 1901, 244 _seqq._ Ranke is much mistaken\nin thinking that Bede celebrated the conversion of St Paul \u201cin the\nancient manner\u201d on 30th June. See BEDA, _Martyrol._, ed. Migne, _Patr.\nLat._, xciv. 962.\n\n[620] HIERON. _De Vir. Ill._, c. 7, _Chron. Pasch._ The FASTI IDAT. and\nTHEOD. LECTOR (_Hist. Eccl._, 2, 61) agree in giving the 3rd March as the\ndate.\n\n[621] Edited by Usener from a Parisian MS. of the ninth to twelfth\ncentury, in _Anal. Boll._, xiii. 373-78. See the author\u2019s art., \u201cZur\nGesch. des Aposels Andreas,\u201d in the _Katholik_, 1906, vol. iii.\n\n[622] Printed by Mombritius & Surius in Latin only. C. Chr. Woog (Lips.,\n1749) published the Greek text. MORCELLI, _Menol. Const._, i. 245, and\nTISCHENDORF, _Acta Apost. Apocr._, Lips., 1861, 105 _seqq._ The \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (_op. cit._, 432 _seqq._) are full of childish\nlegends.\n\n[623] _Passio S. Artemii auctore Johanne mon._, c. 16. MIGNE, _Patr.\nGr._, xcvi., 1266. PAULINUS NOL., _Poema_, 19, 33. See also the\n_Enconium S. Luc\u00e6_, printed for the first time in the August number of\nthe _Jahrbuch f\u00fcr protest. Theologie_ for 1890, by Ph. MEYER, and ABU\u2019L\nBARAKAT, _Oriens Chr._, Rome, 1902, 337, No. 6. _T\u00fcb. Quartalsch._, 1905,\n596 _et seqq._\n\n[624] See the Calendar in SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis Hebr._, and that given\nby Mai.\n\n[625] VENANTIUS FORT., _Carmina_, 8, 6. See _Kirchenlexikon_, iii., 2nd\ned., 774, art. \u201cCompostela,\u201d by Hefele.\n\n[626] NOTKER BALBULUS, ad VIII. Kal. Aug., says: \u201cIussu Herodis regis\ndecollatus est Hierosolymis.... Hujus ossa ad Hispanias translata.\u201d\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 1125.\n\n[627] Pope Innocent I. flatly denies that any apostle had founded the\nChurch of Spain. _Epist. ad Decentium_, 25, c. 2: \u201cAut legant, si in his\nprovinciis alius apostolorum invenitur, etc.\u201d MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xx.\n552.\n\n[628] Edited by Duchesne in _Acta SS. Nov._, vol. ii., pars. 1, 96.\n\n[629] [And also on the 25th May.\u2014Trans.]\n\n[630] HIERON., _De Vir. Ill._, c. 2.\n\n[631] For the proof of this, see the Author\u2019s art. in the _Katholik_,\n1887, i. 23.\n\n[632] MORCELLI, i. 168. He can only produce as evidence the Calendars of\nReichenau and Rheinau, but they are sufficient for his purpose.\n\n[633] The _Hieronymianum_ at least says so on the 27th December:\n\u201cAdsumptio S. Johannis Evangelist\u00e6 apud Ephesum et _ordinatio_\nepiscopatus S. Jacobi fratris Domini qui ab apostolis primus ex Judaeis\nHierosolymis episcopus est ordinatus.\u201d\n\n[634] THEODOSIUS (530 _circ._), _De Situ Terr\u00e6 Sanct\u00e6_, ed. Vindob.,\n1898, 142, 174. VENANTIUS FORT., _Carmina_, 8, 6.\n\n[635] So the Chronographer of 354. The _Hieronymianum_ in its oldest\nrecension (Weissenburg) has the entry: \u201cIn Africa natalis S. Philippi\nApostoli, Jacobi, Quintiani, etc.\u201d The recensions of Echternach and Metz\nhave: \u201cNatalis SS. Apostolorum Philippi et Jacobi,\u201d and the incorrect\naddition in Africa is transferred to another place.\n\n[636] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 303, 306, note 2.\n\n[637] MORCELLI, ii. 97, gives more particulars. The name Manna implies\nthat the substance was white\u2014probably the salt which gathers upon walls.\n\n[638] _Op. cit._, i. 167 _et seq._\n\n[639] BAUMSTARK, _R\u00f6m. Quartalschrift._, 1899, 314.\n\n[640] There is no explanation of the entry on the 24th June, \u201cVIII. Kal.\nJul. Natalis dormitionis S. Joannis Apost. et Evang. in Epheso.\u201d The view\nof those who ascribed the death of a martyr to St John on the grounds of\nSt Mark x. 39 has never found much support. See SCHANZ, _Kommentar zu\nJoh._, 332.\n\n[641] _De Pr\u00e6ser._, c. 36.\n\n[642] ABDIAS, _De Historia Certaminis Apostolorum Libri X._, GUTSCHMID\n(_Kleine Schriften_, ii. 364-372), considers the author of the _Acta\nSimonis_ _et Jud\u00e6_ contained in this history is familiar with Persian\ncustoms and lived in the ante-Nicene period. Gutschmid adds that both\napostles preached in Armenia, A.D. 39-47, which was then subject to\nPersia, and fancies he can discover allusions to the civil war waged by\nthe two Persian kings, Vardanes and Gotarzes. In the history Vardanes was\nfavourable to Greek customs and had been visited by Apollonius of Tyana.\n\n[643] Suana is mentioned by Claud. Ptolem., 5, 13, \u00a7 119, as situated in\nGreater Armenia. The Suani were a Caucasian tribe. See MURALT, _Chron.\nByz._, i. 85, 150, 211, 218, 250.\n\n[644] _Chron. Pasch._, ed. Bonn, 471; see also 432, and _Cal. Calcasendi_\nin Seldenius.\n\n[645] Card. RAMPOLLA, _De Authentico Rom. Pontificis Magisterio_, in\n_La Papaut\u00e9 et les Peuples_, ii., Paris, 1900, 8-48. ANDRIES, _Cathedra\nRomana, etc._, Mainz, 1872. KELLNER, _Verfassung Lehramt u. Unfehlbarkeit\nd. Kirche_, Kempten, 1873.\n\n[646] BENEDICT XIV. (_Opera ined. Heiner_, 65-67) deals with the question\nwhether the feast commemorates St Peter\u2019s ordination, or the day of his\narrival in Rome, or the foundation of the Roman Church, etc. His history\nof the feast is based upon antiquated material, and the greater part of\nthe treatise is occupied with the proof that St Peter had visited Rome.\n\n[647] MARQUARDT MOMMSEN, _R\u00f6m. Staatsverwaltung_, iii., 2nd ed., 311\n_seqq._\n\n[648] Such exclamations as \u201cBene vos! Bene te patri\u00e6 pater, Optime\nC\u00e6sar!\u201d were common. OVID, _Fasti_, 2, 616-638. VALERIUS MAX., 2, 1, 8.\nMARTIAL., 9, 54. BONGHI, _Die r\u00f6mischen Feste_, translated by Ruhemunn,\nVienna, 1892, 41.\n\n[649] TERTULLIAN., _De Idol._, c. 10.\n\n[650] AUGUSTIN., _Sermo_, 190, 191; _Opera_, v.\n\n[651] See the second Council of Tours, A.D. 567, can. 22.\n\n[652] _Rationale div. off._, c. 83. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii. 87.\n\n[653] GREG. I., _Epist. ad Mellitum_, 11, 76 al.; 9, 71. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, lxxvii. 1215. Statements to the same effect are found in\nAUGUSTIN., _Epist._, 47; THEODORET, _De Gr\u00e6c. aff. cur._, 8; SIDONIUS\nAP., _Epist._, 4, 15.\n\n[654] Edited by Henschen, _Acta SS. Boll. Junii VII._; MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, xiii.; and recently by Mommsen in the _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, tit. i.\n\n[655] The bishops of Sedunum attended the Councils of Ma\u00e7on, and\nbelonged, at a later date, to the province of the Tarantaise. WILTSCH,\n_Kirchl. Geographie u. Statistik_, i. 323, 355.\n\n[656] MABILLON, _De Lit. Gall._, ii. 23. MIGNE, lxxii. 182; see also 472,\nand DUCHESNE, _Origines du Culte Chr\u00e9tien_, 266 _et seq._\n\n[657] _Spicilegium_, t. ii.; see _infra_, p. 401.\n\n[658] RANKE, VI. xxx.\n\n[659] According to the edition of DE ROSSI and DUCHESNE in the _Acta SS.\nBoll._, we find on the 20th Jan., XV. Kal. Febr., in the Weissenburg\nCodex: \u201cDedicatio Cathedra (sic) S. Petri Apostoli, qua primo Rom\u00e6 Petrus\nApostolus sedit.\u201d Epternach Codex: \u201cDepositio S. Mari\u00e6 et Cathedra Petri\nin Roma.\u201d The Bern Codex is imperfect here. On the 22nd February, VIII.\nKal. Mart., the Weissenburg Codex has: \u201cNatale S. Petri Apostoli Cathedra\nquam sedit apud Antiochia\u201d (sic). The Epternach has: \u201cCathedra Petri in\nAntioc. et Rom\u00e6.\u201d The Bern Codex: \u201cCathedra S. Petri Apostoli quam sedit\napud Antiochiam.\u201d\n\n[660] BINTERIM & MOOREN, _Die Erzdi\u00f6zese K\u00f6ln im Mittelalter_, i., 2nd\ned., 528.\n\n[661] _Bullarium_, ed. Lux., i. 832.\n\n[662] See B\u00c4UMER, 510.\n\n[663] CLEMENTIS ROM., _Recogn_., 10, 70. For a different opinion, see FR.\nX. KRAUS, in the third appendix to his _Roma Sott._, and MARUCCHI, who\nwrongly considers the feast of the 22nd February commemorated the Vatican\nchair of St Peter and that of the 18th January his chair at the Ostrian\nCemetery. Unfortunately the latter feast was unknown in Rome before the\n16th century.\n\n[664] Concerning this point, see SCHANZ, _Kommentar zu Matth\u00e4us_, 504;\n_Markus_, 417; _Lukas_, 251.\n\n[665] CLEMENTIS ROM., _Recogn._, 3, 68.\n\n[666] According to Duchesne, it is the work of a student of Magdalen\nCollege, Oxford, called Rabanus, and belongs to the year 1456. RIETSCH,\n10. The work is printed in Migne, _Patr. Gr._, i. 112.\n\n[667] MURALT, _Chron. Byz._, i. 468, 477.\n\n[668] MORCELLI, i. 101, 288 note. Baumstark communicated to the _R\u00f6m.\nQuartalschrift_, 1900, 310, a Syrian text independent of the Byzantine\ntradition, which mentioned Citium as the place of Lazarus\u2019 burial.\n\n[669] EBNER, _Inter Ital._, Freiburg, 1896, 292, 5, 14, 104, etc.\n\n[670] GREGOR. TUR., _De Gloria Mart._, c. 30. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxi. 731. MODESTUS in _Photius_, _Bibl._, cod. 275; ed. Bekker, \u00a7 11.\nANONYMUS, in _Vita Willibaldi_, c. 5. MABILLON, _Vit\u00e6 SS. Ord. Bened._,\niii., 2, 384. TILLEMONT, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 4.\n\n[671] GLYCAS, _Ann._, 4, 198; ed. Bonn, 554. ZONARAS, 16, 12, \u00a7 11, _op.\ncit._\n\n[672] See Sdralek, art. \u201cTranslation\u201d in KRAUS\u2019 _Realenzykl_., and\nACHELIS, _Die Martyrologien_, 74-76. The editors of the _Monumenta\nGermani\u00e6_ are fully alive to the value of incidents of this kind for the\nhistory of any period.\n\n[673] JAFF\u00c9 (_Reg. R.P._) is doubtful as to its authenticity.\n\n[674] _Synodus S. Symmacho_, 499. THIEL., _Ep. Rom. Pont._, 653. _Lib.\nPontif._, ed. Duchesne, i. 305, 307. VENANTIUS FORT., _Miscellanea_, i.\n20; 8, 6.\n\n[675] PASCHALIS I., _Epist._, i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cii. 1086.\n\n[676] Printed in RUINART, _Acta Mart._, 633. The Calendar of\nM\u00fcnsterbilsen in BINTERIM is mentioned further on, page 411.\n\n[677] Pope Symmacus is called \u201cpapa urbis\u201d by Avitus in the inscription\nof one of his letters. THIEL, _Epistol\u00e6 Romanorum Pontificum_, 730. In\nan inscription in the catacombs the pope describes himself as: \u201cEgo,\nDamasus, urbis Rom\u00e6 Episcopus.\u201d\n\n[678] GRISAR, art. \u201cLiberius\u201d in the _Kirchenlexikon_, vii., 2nd ed.,\n1945, and J. WITTIG, _Papst Damasus: R\u00f6m. Quartalschrift_, 1902, 77-86.\n\n[679] DESSAU and VON ROHDEN, _Prosographia Imperii Rom._, iii., Berlin,\n1897, 349.\n\n[680] See NORIS, _Cenotaphia Pisana_, Venet. 1781, 431 _et seq._, and\nMURATORI, _Dissertatio_, i. and ii., in the _Opera S. Paulini Nol._\nMIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 779 _et seqq._\n\n[681] PAULINUS NOL., _Poema_, 21; v. 60-80, 210-215, 285-290, refer to\nthe father; v. 314-324, to the son Turcius Asterius. See MURATORI, _op.\ncit._\n\n[682] _Cf._ my articles in the _T\u00fcb. Quartalschr._, 1902, 237 _seqq._;\n1903, 321 _seqq._; 1905, 258 _seqq._ Fr. Hippolyte Delahaye, in\nthe _Analecta Bollandiana_ (xxii. 1903, 86 _seq._), when reviewing\nmy articles, characterised my statements as \u201ctrop ingenieuses\u201d and\n\u201cfragiles,\u201d without, however, being able to adduce any arguments on the\nother side. My first opponent, Dr Kirsch, was at least sufficiently\nfortunate as to ferret out a misprint. The sole attempt to overthrow my\nconclusions reduces itself to the remark that the \u201cDepositio Martyrum\u201d\nis not an exhaustive catalogue of all the Roman martyrs who had suffered\npreviously to its compilation. I never said it was. But did it not\ncontain all the _martyres recogniti_ in Rome at the commencement of the\nfourth century (_cf._ below, page 350, for Mommsen\u2019s remarks on this\npoint), it would be a worthless piece of paper from which nothing could\nbe gathered. Fr. Delahaye seems not to understand that, in dealing with\nmaterial of this kind, it is of the utmost importance to start with\nwhat is actually known of the Roman officials and governments of the\nperiod. When he scornfully criticises my work as \u201ctrop ingenieux,\u201d I\nmust say that on my part I have found nothing in his obscure ex cathedra\nassertions to upset the date given above to the martyrdom of St Cecilia.\n[See LIGHTFOOT, _Apostolic Fathers_, pt. ii. vol. i. 516-522, for a\ndiscussion on St Cecilia\u2019s martyrdom.\u2014Trans.]\n\n[683] NILLES (_Kalendarium_), who usually pays no regard to his reader\u2019s\ndesire for information on disputed questions, is entirely silent\nconcerning St Catherine. On the other hand, Kaulen has been satisfied\nwith following the much criticised article by PF\u00dcLF (_Kirchenlexikon_,\nvii\u00b2. 335), an imperfect piece of work.\n\n[684] _Carmina_, 22-24, ed. Ughelli, _Ital. S._, 10, 47. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, cxlvii. 1240 _seqq._\n\n[685] See PETRUS DAM., _Epist._, 8, 5. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxliv. 471.\n\n[686] \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\nMIGNE, _Patr. Gr._, l. 706-712.\n\n[687] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 317: \u201cFecit ecclesiam B. Mari\u00e6\nsemper virginis et omnium martyrum.\u201d See BEDE, _Hist. Angl._, 2, 4;\nPAULUS DIAC., _Hist. Long._, 4, 37; RORBACHER-RUMP, _Kirchengesch._, x.\n107 _seqq._\n\n[688] _Liber Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 417.\n\n[689] _Id. op._, i. 419. BIANCHINI, 200.\n\n[690] BELETH, _Rationale_, 127. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccii. PROBST\n(_Kirchenlexikon_, i., 2nd ed., art. \u201cAllerheiligen\u201d) is incorrect in\nsome of his statements concerning the parts played by Gregory III. and\nGregory IV.\n\n[691] ADO, _Martyrol._, Kal. Nov.: \u201cIn Galiis monente s. record. Gregorio\npontifice piissimus Ludovicus imperator omnibus regni et imperii sui\nepiscopis consentientibus statuit, ut solemniter festivitas omnium\nsanctorum in pr\u00e6dicta die annuatim perpetuo ageretur.\u201d MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, cxxiii. 387. Sigebert Gembl. gives the year of its introduction:\n\u201cMonente Gregorio papa et omnibus episcopis assentientibus Ludovicus imp.\nstatuit, ut in Gallia et Germania festivitas omnium sanctorum in Kal.\nNov. celebraretur, quam Romani ex institutione Bonifatii pap\u00e6 celebrant.\u201d\n_Chron._, ad ann. 835. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clx. 159.\n\n[692] NAT. ALEXANDER, _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 23; ed. Paris, 1699.\n\n[693] See ISIDORI, _Reg. Mon._, c. 24, No. 2. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxxiii. 894. A mass for the dead was to be celebrated for all the\ndeparted on the day after Pentecost.\n\n[694] Printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlii. 1038, from the _Bibl.\nCluniac._, 338.\n\n[695] _Consuet. Farf._; ed. Albers, 124 (where it is enjoined that the\nmasses be applied for all souls). _Consuet. of the Carthusians_, by Guigo\n(\u2020 1137), c. 11. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, clii. 655.\n\n[696] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 494.\n\n[697] BINTERIM and MOOREN, _Die Erzdi\u00f6zese K\u00f6ln_, i., 2nd ed., 536.\nThe archivium of St Peter\u2019s in Aix-la-Chapelle possesses a martyrology\nbelonging to the monastery of the \u201cKreuzherren,\u201d formerly existing there.\nIt dates from 1382, and is preceded by a calendar. In this All Souls\u2019 Day\ndoes not appear, neither do St Peter\u2019s Chair on the 18th January, nor St\nGereon and his companions; the eleven thousand virgins are mentioned, but\nwithout St Ursula.\n\n[698] BEROLDUS, 222 _seqq._ (ed. Magistretti). Magistretti is plainly\nmistaken when he says the Church of Milan was the first to follow the\nexample of St Odilo.\n\n[699] SOZOMENUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 3. THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, 18, ed.\nBonn, 33. PROCOP., _De Acclif._, i. 9. NICEPHORUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 7, 50.\n\n[700] MORCELLI, i. 219, and _Acta SS. Boll._, _loc. cit._, 57.\n\n[701] EPIPHANIUS, _H\u00e6r._, 21, and THEODORET on _Col._ ii. 18, speak of\nthe heresy in question. See THOMASSIN, 440.\n\n[702] AMBROSIUS, _Epist._, 21 (11). HILARIUS, _Hom. in Matth._ xxviii.,\nand on _Psalms_ 119 and 137. See BAILLET, vi. 2, 404-413.\n\n[703] _Sacram. Leon._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lv. 103.\n\n[704] This addition is also found in a missal at Padua belonging to the\nninth century. See EBNER, _Iter Ital._, 127.\n\n[705] _Lib. Pont._, ed. Duchesne, i. 262: \u201cintra civitatem,\u201d and the note.\n\n[706] _Acta SS. Boll._, Sept. tit. viii. ADO, _Mart._, 29th Sept. It\nstood, according to Ado, in summitate circi, according to Baronius:\ncirculi molis Hadriani, _i.e._ on the terrace of the Castle of St Angelo.\n\n[707] _Cf._ Lectionary of Silos.\n\n[708] SPELMAN, _Conc._, i. 520.\n\n[709] As, for example, in the ninth century Calendars of Stablo and\nCologne. Notker Balbulus is ignorant of the church on the Via Salaria,\nbut gives the story of Monte Gargano on the 29th September. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, cxxxi. 1154.\n\n[710] It is the same with the missals of Ivrea and Florence in EBNER,\n_Iter Ital._, 28 and 52.\n\n[711] See SCHROD., art. \u201cSchutzengelfest\u201d in the _Kirchenlexikon_, x.,\n2nd ed., 2015. The Spanish calendars printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxxv. and lxxxvi., have not the Festival of the Guardian Angels.\n\n[712] MARZOHL and SCHNELLER, iv. 707 note.\n\n[713] TILLEMONT, _Hist. des Emp._, iv., art. ix. 251 _et seq._ Also 93,\nart. lxii.\n\n[714] NICEPH. CALL., _Hist. Eccl._, 8, 31. TILLEMONT, _M\u00e9m._, vii., art.\nviii. 8.\n\n[715] THEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, ed. Bonn, i. 37-40.\n\n[716] AMBROSIUS, _De Obitu Theod._, c. 40. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xvi.\n1399. PAULINUS NOL., _Epist. ad Severum_. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxi. 326.\nTHEODORET, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 18.\n\n[717] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiv. 374: \u201cVia Lavicana S. Helen\u00e6, matris\nConstantini imperatoris.\u201d The place of her first burial was the present\nTorre Pignattara.\n\n[718] [She appears, however, in the supplement to both the Breviary and\nMissal. Trans.]\n\n[719] MARUCCHI, _Nuovo Bull. di Arch. Christ._, iv. 163, takes the\nopposite view.\n\n[720] _Vita Constant._, 3, 25.\n\n[721] _Op. cit._, cc. 26-28.\n\n[722] _Op. cit._, cc. 33-40.\n\n[723] _Op. cit._, cc. 42, 43.\n\n[724] In this he says that wonderful things have taken place at the\nLord\u2019s sepulchre during his own life-time. In Constantine\u2019s letter to\nMacarius also the references are expressed in general terms.\n\n[725] SOCRATES, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 17. SOZOMENUS, 2, 1. THEODORET, i. 18.\nTHEOPHANES, _Chronogr._, i., ad ann. m. 5817, Chr. 317. CHRYSOSTOM., _In\nJoann._, 84. RUFIN., _Hist. Eccl._, i. 8. SULPICIUS SEV., 2, 34.\n\n[726] _Epist. ad Severum_, 21, 5.\n\n[727] _Excerpta Lat. Barbari_, ed. Frick, 359. THEOPHANES gives a\nstill earlier date, _i.e._ 5817 of the world = 317 A.D. He also places\nthe death of Macarius and Helena in the same year as the discovery of\nthe cross. In the _Excerpta Barbari_ we find the words \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, but this must be an error, for immediately afterwards follows\n\u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03ce\u03b8 \u03b9\u03b6\u2019. THOTH coincides with September, not with December.\nSee SCHOENE, _Euseb. Chron._, i. 234. The _Liber Pontificalis_, \u201cVita\nEuseb.,\u201d i. 167, places the finding of the cross on the 3rd May 310; but\nthis is obviously a mistake.\n\n[728] DUCHESNE, _Lib. Pont._, i., preface, cviii.\n\n[729] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, c. 48, ed. Geyer, 74 cod.\n\n[730] GEYER, _Itin. Hierosol._, 149.\n\n[731] ARCULF in Adamnanus, _De Locis Sanctis_, 3, 3; _ib._ 287.\n\n[732] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i., 272, 286. THEOPHANES, ed. Bonn, i.\n504, ad ann. 6120. _Chron. Pasch._, ed. Bonn, i. 704, ad ann. 6122,\nrelates only the carrying away of the cross, and then concludes.\n\n[733] The _Menologium Constantinopolitarium_ has an \u201cAdoratio Pretios\u00e6\nCrucis\u201d on 31st July, the meaning of which is not stated. MORCELLI, i. 63.\n\n[734] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 285, 511.\n\n[735] See the new edition by Wilson.\n\n[736] The text of DE ROSSI and DUCHESNE in _Act. SS._ (54). A better word\nwould have been \u201crecuperatio.\u201d\n\n[737] EBNER, _Quellen und Forschungen zur Gesch. des Missale_, _etc._,\nFreiburg, 1896, 123. In addition to these two festivals in honour of the\nHoly Cross, the Egyptians and Abyssinians celebrate one on the 6th March,\n\u201cManifestatio S. Crucis per Heraclium Imp.,\u201d instead of the 3rd May. See\nthe _Synaxaria_ in SELDENIUS and MAI.\n\n[738] MAGISTRETTI, _op. cit._, 141.\n\n[739] DUCHESNE, _Origines_, 113-137.\n\n[740] EBNER (_Iter. Italicum_, 381) proves against Probst that the letter\ndeals not with an antiquated rite, but with the rite then actually in use\nin Rome.\n\n[741] _Epist. Hadr._, 49; _Cod. Carol._, 72. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcviii.\n435. The oldest of the numerous existing MSS. is the Codex Ottobonianus\n313 (ninth century), originally belonging to Paris. The codex in the\nlibrary of the seminary at Mainz is of the middle of the ninth century.\nIn the Cathedral Library at Cologne are two codices, No. 137 belonging to\nthe end of the ninth century, and No. 88 somewhat more recent.\n\n[742] Printed together in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii., from the edition\nof Mabillon. [See E. Bishop\u2019s art. on the \u201cEarliest Roman Mass-book,\u201d\n_Dublin Review_, Oct. 1894. Trans.]\n\n[743] BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v. 18 _et seq._ HONTHEIM, _Prodromus_, i. 358.\n\n[744] See the author\u2019s article in the _T\u00fcb. Quartalschrift_, 1905,\n590-608.\n\n[745] _E.g._, the Ordinarium of the diocese of Rouen, etc., in MIGNE,\n_Patr. Lat._, cxlvii. 157; the _Consuetudines Avellanenses_, _ib._ cli.\n\n[746] See Appendix xi.\n\n[747] _Regula ad monachos._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii. 396.\n\n[748] \u201cUt ad capitulum primitus martyrologium legatur et dicatur versus,\ndeinde regula aut homilia qu\u00e6libet legatur, deinde a \u2018Tu autem\u2019 dicatur\u201d\n(HARDOUIN, _Conc._, iv. 1232).\n\n[749] LEO ALLATIUS, _De Libris Eccl. Gr\u00e6corum_, Rom\u00e6, 1645, 78, 82, 91.\nDANIEL, _Cod. Lit._, iv. 320 _et seq._\n\n[750] With regard to the Chronograph of 354, Leipzig, 1850, 581, the\ntitle runs: Hic continentur dies nataliciorum martyrum et depositiones\nepiscoporum, quos ecclesia Carthaginis anniversaria celebrat.\n\n[751] The statement in TEUFFEL (_Gesch. der R\u00f6m. Literatur_, iv. 118)\nthat everything savouring of heathen superstition is omitted, is\nincorrect.\n\n[752] W. WRIGHT, in _Journal of Sacred Literature_, October 1865 and\nJanuary 1866. A better edition is given by DUCHESNE, _Acta SS. Boll._,\nNov. II. 1, lii.-lxv., under the title: Breviarium Syriacum. [It is\nperhaps only fair to add that all scholars are not agreed upon the Arian\ncharacter of this document. Trans.]\n\n[753] PHILOSTORGIUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 7, _passim_.\n\n[754] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 718.\n\n[755] _Op. cit._, ii. 1107 and 1237.\n\n[756] SOZOMENUS, _Hist. Eccl._, 2, 13, 14.\n\n[757] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 1102. NESTLE, _Theol.\nLiteraturztg._, 1894, No. 2, 43.\n\n[758] SAMUEL ANIAN., ed. Mai, 43.\n\n[759] See H. ACHELIS, _Die Martyrologien, ihre Geschichte und ihr Wert_,\nBerlin, 1900, 61.\n\n[760] The Bononia mentioned on the 30th December is not Bologna, but\nBononia in M\u0153sia, now Widdin, to which, according to other documents,\nthe martyr Hermes also belonged. The town of Tomi, now Kustendsche, was\ncalled Constantia at the end of the fourth century, but in this document\nand in Peutinger\u2019s table it appears under its old name. Constantinople\n(11th May) and Byzantium (19th May) appear side by side, which marks the\ndate when this document was drawn up. Babiduna is a slip for Noviodunum\nin M\u0153sia, now Isaktscha.\n\n[761] See ACHELIS, _op. cit._, 33 _et seq._, for the connection between\nthe Arian martyrology and the _Hieronymianum_.\n\n[762] DUCHESNE, _Acta SS. Boll._, Nov. II., lviii. It is better to say\nfrom the 8th to the 30th than from the 6th to the 30th; for Tirinus\nand his sixteen companions are not to be found in the _Hieronymianum_,\nand, instead of Arius on 6th June, the Bern Codex has: In Alexandria\nArthoci; the Epternach has Artotis; and the Weissenburg, Ari-thoti. It is\nimpossible to say whether these names are intended for Arius or not.\n\n[763] See TILLEMONT, _M\u00e9m._, vi. 8, art. xxv.\n\n[764] According to the view of DUCHESNE and ACHELIS, the 6th July was the\nday of his death. In this case the year would be 335.\n\n[765] The name Eusebius occurs very frequently in this calendar, both\nwith and without distinguishing additions.\n\n[766] CHRYS., _Hom._, i. 291.\n\n[767] _Hist. Eccl._, 6, 39, 4.\n\n[768] It is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xviii. 878.\n\n[769] Nos autem p\u00e6ne omnium martyrum distinctis per dies singulos\npassionibus collecta in uno codice nomina habemus atque cotidianis\ndiebus in eorum veneratione missarum solemnia agimus. Non tamen in eodem\nvolumine quis qualiter sit passus indicatur, sed tantummodo nomen,\nlocus et dies passionis ponitur. Unde fit, ut multi ex diversis terris\natque provinciis per dies, ut pr\u00e6dixi, singulos cognoscantur martyrio\ncoronati.\u2014GREG. M., _Registrum_, 8, 29.\n\n[770] The passage is capable of receiving various interpretations. See\nDUCHESNE, _Prolegg. ad Mart. Hieron. in Acta SS._, Nov. II. xi., xlvii.\nThe words are as follows: \u201cPassiones martyrum legite constanter, quas\ninter alia in epistola S. Hieronymi ad Chromatium et Heliodorum destinta\nprocul dubio reperietis, qui per totum orbem terrarum floruere, ut sancta\ninvitatio vos provocans ad c\u0153lestia regna perducat.\u201d CASSIODOR., _Instit.\nDiv. Lit._, 32. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxx. 1147.\n\n[771] BEDA, _Liber Retractionis in Acta Ap._, c. i. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nxcii. 997: Liber martyrologii, qui B. Hieronymi nomine ac pr\u00e6fatione\nintitulatur, quamvis Hieronymus illius libri non auctor sed interpres,\nEusebius autem auctor exstitisse videatur.\n\n[772] HILDUIN., _Epist. ad Ludov. Pium._ MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cvi. 19.\n\n[773] [Since the appearance of the second edition of Dr Kellner\u2019s\n_Heortologie_, a work of the first importance on the Roman martyrology\nhas been published, _Les martyrologes historiques du moyen \u00e2ge, par Don.\nHenri Quentin, b\u00e9n\u00e9dictin de Solesmes_, Paris, 1908, Lecoffre. Trans.]\n\n[774] B. KRUSCH (_Neues Archiv f\u00fcr \u00e4ltere deutsche Gesch._, xx. [1895]\n437-440 and xxvi. [1901] 349-389) is in favour of Autun as the place of\nits origin. But what is gained?\n\n[775] GRISAR (_Gesch. Roms._, 291) thinks it may belong to the time of\nXystus III. (433-446).\n\n[776] Aug. Urbain has attempted to reconstruct the original Martyrologium\nRomanum, as it was at the end of the fifth century from the\n_Hieronymianum_ HARNACK: _Texte und Unters._, vi. 3, Leipzig, 1901.\n\n[777] Martyrs of the name of Felix, number 118, Saturniuus 86, Januarius\n68, Donatus 64, Cajus 40, Alexander 42, Lucian 28, etc. Similarly the\ncommon feminine names and Thecla. Afra occurs four times. Strange\nsounding names are found everywhere: _e.g._ Piperion, Prunimus,\nTipecirus, Herifilius, Manira, Itercola, Eunuculus, and Eununculus,\nBarbalabia, etc. We are, however, ignorant of the names which the wealthy\nRomans were wont to give to their slaves.\n\n[778] See GREGOR. TURON., _Mirac._, i. 63. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxxi. 762.\n\n[779] ACHELIS sees in the phrase \u201cin Africa\u201d a reference to the massacres\nof Christians by the Vandals. See 101, _seqq._\n\n[780] ACHELIS gives examples, 209, 242, etc.\n\n[781] ACHELIS, 115-118, has collected together 68 instances, which he has\nanalysed critically and historically as far as possible.\n\n[782] The entries respecting St Gereon and his companions may serve as\nan example. St Ursula and Palmatius with the \u201cinnumerabiles trevirenses\u201d\nhave no existence in the _Hieronymianum_. viii. Id. Oct. (8th October):\u2014\n\n          BERNE          |EPTERNACH                |WEISSENBURG\n                         |                         |\n    Nothing.             |  Agrippin. sct. Gereon  |  Nothing.\n                         |et aliorum cccxcii. mart.|\n                         |                         |\n    vii. Id. Oct. Gereon |  Et alibi Cassi, eusebi,|  Coloni\u00e6 Agrippine\n  cum sociis suis        |florenti, jocundi;       |nat. sctorum cccxvii.\n  trecentorum decim et   |Agrippin\u00e6 depos. scor.   |quorum nomina Deus\n  vii martirum quorum    |mart. mart. maurorum cum |scit.\n  nomina Deus scit.      |alis cccxxx.             |\n                         |                         |\n    vi. Id. Oct. Et      |  Nothing.               |  Et alibi ... Heracli,\n  alibi Cassi, eusebi,   |                         |cassi, eusebi,\n  florenti, victoris,    |                         |florenti, victoris,\n  Agrippin\u00e6 mallusi      |                         |Agrippin\u00e6 mallus\n  cum aliis trecentos    |                         |cum aliis cccxxx.\n  xxx.                   |                         |\n\n[783] ACHELIS, 91 _seqq._\n\n[784] If this be the case, and it is not free from doubt, still the name\nof Arius was not read out \u201cat the altar,\u201d as ACHELIS states (87 and 98),\nfor the martyrologies were not read at the altar but in the choir, and\nit would have happened only were the Weissenburg Codex in use, for other\ncodices have different readings. The reading of the martyrology\u2014not of\nthe \u201cPassions\u201d of the martyrs\u2014at the choir office dates back, as far as\nthe evidence exists, to the ninth century. Bishop Gregorius of Corduba,\nwhom ACHELIS (98, note 4) places at a very early period, is not an\nhistorical personage; he exists only in the list of bishops contained in\nthe letters ascribed to St Jerome.\n\n[785] In Codex 2171 nov. acqu. of the Nat. Libr., Paris, ed. by G. Morin\nin _Anecdota Maredsolana_, vol. i. 1893. _Cf._ pr\u00e6f., ii., viii., xiii.,\netc. [See also _Le Liber ordinum de l\u2019Eglise d\u2019Espagne du V\u1d49 au XI\u1d49\nsi\u00e8cle_, published by Dom. M. F\u00e9rotin, 1904. Trans.]\n\n[786] JOH. SELDENIUS, _De Synedriis et Pr\u00e6f. Jurid. Vet. Ebreorum._,\nAmstelod., 1679, lib. 3, c. 15, 204-247.\n\n[787] F. W\u00dcSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_, Gotha 1879. Introduction.\n\n[788] LE QUIEN, _Oriens Christ._, ii. 453.\n\n[789] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i. 286.\n\n[790] LE QUIEN, _op. cit._, 452, 476.\n\n[791] A. MAI, _Nova Collectio Veterum Script._, iv. 15-34.\n\n[792] W\u00dcSTENFELD, _Synaxarium_, 10, Hatur. The Patriarchs mentioned above\nare also omitted.\n\n[793] LE QUIEN, _op. cit._, ii. 479 and 445-466.\n\n[794] When the name of St John Chrysostom occurs more than once in the\nByzantine, Egyptian, and Syrian calendars, it commemorates certain events\nconnected with him besides the day of his death (14th September). Such\ndates are the 7th May and the 13th November, the 27th January is the day\nof his return to Constantinople, _i.e._ his translation by Proclus under\nTheodosius II., in 448, and is celebrated by the Greeks and Syrians. The\nmeaning of the other two days is unknown; See Morcelli, i. 223; ii. 41.\n\n[795] A. MAI, _Nova Collectio Veterum Script._, iv. 92-122.\n\n[796] W\u00dcSTENFELD, _Synaxarium, etc._, 97.\n\n[797] _Op. cit._, 120 _seqq._\n\n[798] MORCELLI, _Calend. Eccl. Const._ i., 227.\n\n[799] MORCELLI (_op. cit._, i. 15), declares it is the oldest, and older\nthan the Menologium Sirleti in particular.\n\n[800] MURALT, _Chronogr. Byz._, i. 475.\n\n[801] Both appear in the Calendar of the Syrian Church: Jacobus Zebed\u00e6i\non the 30th April, Jacobus Alph\u00e6i on the 9th October, and Jacobus frater\nDomini on the 23rd October and 28th December.\n\n[802] Printed in MORCELLI, i. 69-105.\n\n[803] GAMS, _Series Epp._, 904.\n\n[804] _Nova Collectio Script. Vet._, v., Rom\u00e6, 1821, 58-65.\n\n[805] _E.g._ in Aurelian of Arles, \u2020 553 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, lxviii.,\n596): \u201cIn martyrum festivitatibus, etc.\u201d\n\n[806] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxviii., 881. MONE, _Lat. und. Griech.\nMessen aus dem 2-6 Jahrhundert_, Frankfurt, 1850.\n\n[807] Projectus, deacon of Bishop Evasius of Asti, appears to belong\nto the Lombard period, and his veneration dates from about the time of\nLuitprand (713-743).\n\n[808] _Calendarium Romanum nongentis annis antiquius_, ed. F. Joh.\nFronto, Parisiis, 1652. The title Calendarium is not well chosen.\n\n[809] _Liber Pontif._, ed. Duchesne, i. 420.\n\n[810] _Op. cit._, 402, Vita Gregorii, ii.\n\n[811] _Introduction_, 98.\n\n[812] [Much light has recently been thrown upon these calendars and their\nrelation to one another by Dom. Henri Quentin, _op. cit._ Trans.]\n\n[813] BEDA, _Hist. Eccl._ iii., 24. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcv. 290.\n\n[814] Printed in the _Acta SS. Boll._, March, vol. ii. Both recensions\nare placed side by side in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xciv. A \u201cKalendarium\nAnglicanum\u201d is in the same vol., 1147 _et seqq._ BEDE\u2019S words under the\n7th Feb. are remarkable: \u201cBritaniis in Augusta natale Augusti Episcopi et\nmartyris.\u201d The feast of All Saints is given on the 1st Nov. as well as\nthe feast on the 13th May, whose transference to the 1st Nov. only took\nplace later under Gregory IV. (827-844). No explanation has been given of\nAndrew with 2597 companions on the 19th August.\n\n[815] WANDELBERT, ed. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxi. 577. See also cxix. 10,\n11.\n\n[816] And the same is true of the other works mentioned: _e.g._, FLORUS\nhas admitted Gereon and 315 companions on the 10th October, who are\nomitted by BEDE, but he knows nothing of Ursula. WANDELBERT mentions on\nthe 21st October flocks of virgins amounting to some thousands murdered\nby the tyrant in Cologne, whose trophies adorn the banks of the Rhine.\nGereon has Cassius, Florentius, and Victor as his companions (MIGNE,\n_Patr., Lat._, xciv. 1067, 1078; cxxi. 614).\n\n[817] Edited with an introduction, English translation, and notes by\nWhitley Stokes in the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, i.,\nDublin, 1880.\n\n[818] Edited by the same under the title, _Felire hui i Gorman: The\nMartyrology of Gorman_, among the publications of the Bradshaw Society,\nLondon, 1895. See also _Analecta Boll._, xiii. 193. BELLESHEIM, _Gesch.\nder kathol., Kirche in Irland_, i. 239 _seqq._\n\n[819] D\u00dcMMLER (_Das Martyrologium Notkers_, _etc._, in the _Forschungen\nz. deutsch. Gesch._, xxv. 201), incorrectly dates it from between 860-870.\n\n[820] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxiii. 146-178.\n\n[821] _Ib._, 182-202.\n\n[822] _Ib._, 292-419.\n\n[823] _Ib._, 143, 144. Mosander, before Rosweyde, had edited the larger\nAdo by itself without the smaller.\n\n[824] \u201cQuod ego diligenti cura _transscriptum_ ... in capite hujus libri\nponendum putavi.\u201d _Transscriptum_ cannot be understood of mere copying\n(describere) but of re-editing. The Roman Calendar makes no mention of\nOld Testament names, Jeremias, Moses, etc., nor of Alban, Servatius, etc.\nAccordingly this _Mart. Rom. Parvum_ has not the importance which ACHELIS\n(p. 112) attributes to it.\n\n[825] B\u00c4UMER, 474.\n\n[826] H. L\u00c6MMER, _De Martyrol. Rom._, 19.\n\n[827] B\u0152HMER-WILL, _Regesta Archiep. Mogunt._, i. 67, 68. The martyrology\nof Rabanus is printed in MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cx.\n\n[828] MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxxxi. 1070. See also BINTERIM, _Denkw._, v.\n62. \u201cCujas caus\u00e6 nos utpote barbari et in extremis mundi climate positi\nsumus ignari.\u201d\n\n[829] L\u00c6MMER, _op. cit._, 10-17.\n\n[830] BENEDICT, xiv., _De Servorum Die Beatificatione_, i. 43, and iv.\n2, 17. N. PAULUS, _Martyrolog. u Brevier als histor. Quellen_, Katholik,\n1900, i. 355.\n\n[831] [The reader will find much information bearing upon English\nheortology in the following works:\u2014_A Menology of England and Wales_, by\nR. Stanton, 1887, London, Burns & Oates; _Die Heiligen Englands_, by F.\nLiebermann, 1889, Hannover, Hahn; _The Bosworth Psalter_, ed. by Gasquet\nand Bishop, 1908, London, Bell & Sons. Trans.]\n\n[832] Edited by Ferd. Piper, Berlin, 1858.\n\n[833] LANFRANC, i. 9. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cl. 472-478.\n\n[834] HARTZHEIM, iv. 106, for A.D. 1307. The correct date, according to\nBinterim, is 1307. _Conc._, vi. 118, note 1, 1308. JOERRES regards the\nsixth canon as not authentic, _R\u00f6m. Quart. Schr._, 1902.\n\n[835] HARTZHEIM, vi. 498.\n\n[836] J. Braun (_Innsbr. Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Kath. Theol._, 1901, i. 155\n_seqq._) contends that white was not the only liturgical colour in\nantiquity, and rests his contention on some representation (not\nminiatures) of the fifth to the ninth centuries in which yellow, brown\nand other colours appear. But \u201cwhite\u201d is not to be taken as meaning\nalways \u201csnow-white,\u201d and the natural colour of silk and wool would border\non yellow. The representations may have grown darker through age, or been\npainted over at a later date. At any rate the proofs on which he relies\nare not sufficiently strong to overthrow the received view which is based\non many statements in original sources.\n\n[837] SICARDUS, _Mitrale_, 2, 5 (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, ccxiii. 77): In\ncolore pro qualitate temporis alternatur, albo utimur in resurrectione\n... rubeo in pentecoste. The passage in Johannes Abrinc., _De Off. Eccl._\n(MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, cxlvii., 62) is defective and obscure. It seems\nonly to refer to the high priest of the Old Testament.\n\n[838] DURANDUS, _Rationale Div. Off._, 3, 18. The _Ordo Rom._ xiv., c.\n49 _seqq._ of the thirteenth century mentions five colours: white, red,\ngreen, violet and black.\n\n[839] INNOCENT III., _De S. Alt. Myst._, i. 65; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nccxvii., 799-802.\n\n[840] For the history of liturgical vestments, see J. Braun, S.J., _Die\nPriesterlichen Gew\u00e4nder des Abendlandes_, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897,\nand a larger and more recent work by the same author, _Die Liturgische\nGewandlung im Occident u. Orient, etc._, Freiburg im Breisgau,\n1907. [Also J. Wilpert, _Die Gewandlung der Christen in den ersten\nJahrhunderten_, Cologne, Bachem, 1898. Trans.]\n\n[841] See THALHOFER, _Liturgik_, ii. 82, who points out this meaning in\nMicrologus.\n\n[842] \u201cSacramenta\u201d is found, amongst others, in INNOCENT I., _Epist._,\n17, c. 5, 12; 25, c. 4.\n\n[843] TERTULL., _De Exhort. Cast._, 11; _Apol._, 2; _Ad uxor._, 2, 8; _De\nPr\u00e6scr._, 4; _De Virg. Vel._, 13; _De Corona_, 2; _De Carne Christi_, 2,\netc. Tertullian uses \u201csacrificium,\u201d _De Cultu Fem._, 2, 11, etc. CYPRIAN,\n_Epist._, 12, 2; 15, 1; _Ad C\u00e6c._, 9 and 17, etc. AMBROSIUS, _De Obitu\nValent._, 2, 113; _In Psalm._, 38, c. 25; 118, c. 48; _Epist._, 39, 4.\n\n[844] _De Civ. Dei_, 10, 6-20; _Cont. Faustum_, 20, 18; _Enarr. in\nPsalm._, 33, c. 6; 106, c. 13; _Epist._, 54, 4; 149, 15; 159; _Sermo_,\n137, 8; 310, 30; 311, 18; 345, 4, etc.\n\n[845] BARONIUS, _Annales_, ad an. 34, c. 59.\n\n[846] _Epist. I. ad Gundobadum_, c. i., and _Epist._, 3.\n\n[847] _Test. De Anima_, c. 9.\n\n[848] The formula in question runs: \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3, _i.e._ \u201cDepart\nin peace,\u201d or, \u03a0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3, or, \u1f18\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. DANIEL,\n_Cod. Lit._, iv. 79, 131, 370, 449. \u201cIte missa est\u201d literally means: Go,\nit is the dismissal.\n\n[849] _Peregr. Silvi\u00e6_, ed. Geyer, c. 24 _seqq._\n\n[850] \u201cMissa autem qu\u00e6 fit ... hoc est oblatio\u201d; the passage seems to\nhave been corrected. The other passage adduced by Professor Funk (_T\u00fcb.\nTheol. Quartalschr._, 1904, 56) to prove the contrary\u2014\u201cfit oblatio in\nAnastase maturius, ita ut fiat missa ante solem\u201d\u2014ought to be translated:\n\u201cthe Mass took place earlier, so that its conclusion came before\nsunrise.\u201d Missa here = the dismissal at the end of Mass.\n\n[851] CASSIAN, _De C\u0153nobiorum Institutis_, 2, 7, 13 and 15; 3, 7; 11, 15.\n\n[852] See LEO I., _Sermo_, 41, c. 3; _Epist._, 156, c. 5. Once, in\n_Epist._, 9, c. 8, we find \u201cmissa.\u201d But the general employment of the\nterm cannot be inferred from its use in one isolated instance.\n\n[853] \u201cMissa catechumenorum\u201d meant originally not that part of the Mass\nat which the catechumens assisted, but the dismissal of the catechumens.\n\n[854] For _miss\u00e6_ in the sense of the canonical hours, we may cite\nGREGOR. M., _Epist._, 2, 12; 3, 63; 11, 64; MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._,\nlxxvii. 1187; in the sense of the Mass: _Epist._, 4, 39; _Hom._, 50,\n8; as a general term for both, _Epist._, 3, 63; 4, 18, etc. As regards\nSt Benedict\u2019s usage, Fr. Lindenbauer, O.S.B., draws our attention to\nMattins. It means dismissal at the hours: _Regula_, c. 17 (MIGNE, lxvi.\n460), but Mass, _ib._ c. 35, 60.\n\n[855] _Acta S. Ludgeri_, c. 20. MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, xcix. 779.\n\n[856] _Agathense_ 506, can. 30: \u201cmiss\u00e6 vespertin\u00e6.\u201d\n\n[857] _E.g._, _Braccarense_, ii., can. 64; _Agath._, can. 47.\n\n[858] _Epist._, 1, 20, c. 3-5.\n\n[859] As by Prof. Funk, _T\u00fcb. Theol. Quartalschr._, 1904, No. 1.\n\n[860] It was published by B. Georgiades from a MS. discovered in the\nMonastery of Chalki (Constantinople, 1885-86), then by Bratke, Bonn,\n1891, and by BONWETSCH, _Hippolyts Werke_, vol. i., Leipsig, 1897.\n\n[861] In Cyril of Scythopolis, the Arabian bishop, George of Horta\n(before 724), and Photius, _Bibl. cod._, 222, 163 b, ed. Bekker, and\nperhaps also in Germanus. The passages are collected in BONWETSCH, _op.\ncit._, xv. _seqq._, and partially in GALLANDI, _Bibl. Vet. Patr._, II.\nSuch minute indications of time in so ancient a writer were too precious\nto be passed over.\n\n[862] The _Liber Generationis_ (MIGNE, _Patr. Lat._, iii. 651 _seqq._,\n_Corp. Inscr. Lat._, and FRICK, _Chron. Min._, i. 1-77) is certainly a\npart of the Chronicle of Hippolytus, as Mommsen has conclusively proved\n(_Abhandl. der S\u00e4chs. Akademie d. Wissensch._, 1850, i. 586 _seqq._).\n\n[863] That interpolations of this kind were formerly made by unskilful\nhands is shown by the addition to the MS. belonging to Mount Athos, by\nthe Slav translation: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n(instead of Sentii) \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, the consuls for the year 41 A.D., which\nBonwetsch has placed in the text, although within brackets.\n\n[864] LEO ALLATIUS, _De Dominicis et Hebdom. Recent. Gr\u00e6corum_, Cologne,\n1648, 1400 quoted by Daniel, _Cod. Lit._, iv. 212 _seqq._ ALT., 181-221.\nNILLES, II. xvii.-xxi.\n\n[865] The adjective is formed after the analogy of \u1f04\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[866] ANSELM speaks of him, _Epist._, 3, 43 and 77; 4, 114. MIGNE, _Patr.\nLat._, clviii. EADMER refers to him, _Hist. Novorum._, 5, 492 and 497.\nMIGNE, clix.\n\n[867] It is found in MSS. among the works of the elder Anselm, to whom\nit was at first ascribed. Fr. de Buck and others set it down to the\nnephew, but in the earliest codex at Canterbury, belonging to the twelfth\ncentury, it is expressly described as a work of Eadmer\u2019s. See THURSTON\nET SLATER, _Eadmeri Mon. Cant. Tractatus de Conceptione S. Mari\u00e6_, Frib.\nBrisg., 1904.\n\n\n\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\n\nGIVING THE CHIEF EVENTS RELATING TO THE LITURGY AND FESTIVALS OF THE\nCHURCH\n\n\n1st cent. Reference to Easter by St Paul (1 Cor. v. 7 _et seqq._). Pascha\nnostrum immolatus est Christus. Itaque epulemur, non in fermento veteri\n... sed in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis.\n\n2nd cent. The 6th Jan. observed as Christ\u2019s birthday in Alexandria by a\nsection of the Christians.\n\n3rd cent. The Festivals of Easter and Pentecost mentioned by Tertullian\n(_De Bapt._, 19) and Origen (_C. Cels._, 8, 22).\n\n304. Evidence for the Feast of the Epiphany in Thrace.\n\n320. Discovery of the Holy Cross by St Helena. Excerpta lat. Barbari.\n\n321. Constantine the Great, by the law of 3 July, forbids law courts to\nsit on Sunday (_Cod. Theod._, 2, 8 de feriis i.).\n\n325. The Ascension mentioned by Eusebius.\n\n326. Death of St Helena at the age of 80, foundress of the churches at\nBethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.\n\n335. Consecration of the church built by Constantine in Jerusalem on 14th\nSept. It was named Martyrium or Anastasis (Euseb., _Vita Constant._, 3,\n25, and 35). The same day is also the Feast \u1f51\u03c8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n340. Observance in Egypt of the fast of forty days mentioned by St\nAthanasius.\n\n337-352. Under Pope Julius I., 25th Dec. kept at Rome as Festival of\nChrist\u2019s Nativity.\n\n354. In Rome, 22nd Feb. kept as Natale Petri de Cathedra, and 29th June\nas day of the Apostles\u2019 death.\n\n356. Translation of St Timothy\u2019s relics to Constantinople on 1st July\n(Fasti Idat., _Hieron. Chron._).\n\n357. 3rd March, translation of relics of St Andrew and St Luke to the\nbasilica of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (Fasti Idat., _Chron.\nPasch. Hieron._, catal. 7).\n\n360. The Festival of the Epiphany in Gaul mentioned by Ammianus\nMarcellinus.\n\n379. 25th Dec. celebrated for the first time as Christmas in\nConstantinople by St Gregory Naz.\n\n380. Evidence for Epiphany in Spain (_Syn. Sarag._, c. 3). Theodosius the\nGreat publishes a law on 27th March forbidding the sittings of law courts\nduring the forty days of Lent.\n\n385-387 (_circ._). The Presentation of Christ in the Temple mentioned by\nthe pilgrim from Gaul in Jerusalem; also the feast of the 14th Sept.\n\n370-380 (_circ._). Compilation of an Arian Calendar on Martyrology.\n\n386. The Nativity of Christ celebrated for the first time in Antioch\non 25th Dec. By a law of 26th Feb., Theodosius forbids unauthorised\ntranslations of the bodies of the saints, the dividing into parts of the\nremains of the martyrs, and all traffic in relics.\n\n386. By the law of 26th Feb., judges of arbitration were forbidden to\nexercise their functions on Sunday. 20th May games in the circus and\ntheatrical representations were forbidden.\n\n389. Theodosius I. and Valentinian II. publish a law forbidding the law\ncourts to sit for seven days before and seven days after Easter.\n\n394. The relics of the Apostle St Thomas translated to the great church\nin Edessa (Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._, 4, 18; _Chron. Edess._, ed. Assemani).\n\n395. Christmas definitely established in Constantinople.\n\n398. St John Chrysostom chosen patriarch of Constantinople, 26th Feb.\n\n399. Honorius and Arcadius forbid races on Sunday (_Cod. Theod._, 2, 8,\n23).\n\n400. The same emperors forbid games in the circus on Christmas, Epiphany,\nand during Eastertide.\n\n402. Discovery of the relics of St Stephen, Gamaliel, and Nicodemus by\nthe priest Lucian of Jerusalem at Caphargamala. Some writers date this\n5th Dec. 415.\n\n405. The day of the death of SS. Peter and Paul mentioned as an\necclesiastical festival in Rome by Prudentius (_Perist._, 12).\n\n425. Theodosius extends prohibition of games to Whit-week.\n\n431. Bishop Paul of Emesa mentions that Christmas had been introduced in\nAlexandria.\n\n348. The patriarch Proclus has the relics of St John Chrysostom brought\nto Constantinople on 27th Jan.\n\n439. The Empress Eudocia translates the relics of St Stephen from\nJerusalem to Constantinople and lays them in the basilica of St Lawrence,\n21st Sept.\n\n440 (_circ._). St Leo refers to the Ember fasts in Rome.\n\n448 (_circ._). The Calendar of Bishop Polemius Silvius of Sion for\nSouthern Gaul.\n\n452. Discovery of the head of John the Baptist, and its translation to\nConstantinople on 24th Feb.\n\n470 (_circ._). Rogation procession introduced by Mamertus of Vienne.\n\n491. Perpetuus, Bishop of Tours, orders the Advent fast. The two\nFestivals of the Nativity and Beheading of the Baptist celebrated in\nTours.\n\n492. The Festival of SS. Peter and Paul on 29th June adopted in\nConstantinople.\n\n492-496. Pope Gelasius appoints the ordination of priests to take place\nat the Embertides.\n\n500 (_circ._). The monks of Palestine keep the annual commemoration of\nthe Holy Mother of God (\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5) in their monasteries.\n\n504. The Emperor Anastasius has the relics of the Apostle Bartholomew\nbrought to the city of Daras, on the borders of Mesopotamia, which he had\nfortified.\n\n506. The Council of Agde (canon 63) includes the Nativity of St John\nBaptist among the festivals of obligation.\n\n534. Justinian I. renews the prohibition against the sittings of the law\ncourts on 25th Dec. and 6th Jan.\n\n542. Candlemas celebrated for the first time in Constantinople on 2nd\nFeb., and ordered to be observed throughout the empire by Justinian. The\npatriarch Menas translates the relics of SS. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to\nthe recently completed basilica of the Apostles in Constantinople.\n\nBefore 565. Justinian I. builds a church of St Anne in the second region\nof Constantinople.\n\n582-602. The three Festivals of Our Lady\u2019s Nativity, Annunciation, and\nPurification said to have been introduced by the Emperor Maurice.\n\nSixth cent. The Sundays in Advent to the number of five appear in the\nGelasianum.\n\n592-600. Composition of the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum.\n\nBefore 604. Pope Gregory the Great increases the solemnity of the Litania\nMajor in Rome.\n\n609 or 610. The Emperor Phocas grants the Pantheon to Pope Boniface IV.,\nwho adapts it as a church, and dedicates it to our Lady and all the Holy\nMartyrs, on 13th May. Since then it has been called Maria ad Martyres.\n\n629. King Siroes of Persia restores to the Emperor Heraclius the part of\nthe Holy Cross which had been taken from Jerusalem.\n\n650 (_circ._). Evidence for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross\nfor Spain in the Lectionary of Silos.\n\n687-701. Pope Sergius I. orders processions (litani\u00e6) in Rome on the\nFeasts of the Annunciatio Domini, Dormitio, and Nativitas B.V.M.\n\n731. The Ven. Bede composes his martyrologium.\n\n747. The Embertides legally established in England.\n\n769. The same in Germany.\n\n781 (_circ._). The Octava Domini (1st Jan.) appears as the Festum\nCircumcisionis in the Calendar of Charlemagne.\n\nBetween 784 and 791. Under Adrian I., the Sacramentarium Gregorianum sent\nto the Frankish Empire, and introduced there.\n\nBetween 786 and 797. Paul the deacon compiles a Homilarium at the command\nof Charlemagne.\n\n787. The second Council of Nic\u00e6a re-establishes the worship of images.\n\n800 (_circ._). Compilation of the Menologium of Constantinople.\n\nBetween 827 and 835. Gregory IV. changes the Feast of All the Martyrs\n(13th May) into a Feast of All Saints, and places it on the 1st Nov.\n\n835. The Emperor Louis the Pious introduces the Feast of All Saints into\nthe Frankish Empire.\n\nBetween 902 and 920. The first Sunday after Pentecost kept as a Festival\nof the Holy Trinity in Li\u00e8ge by Bishop Stephen.\n\n993. The first papal canonisation\u2014that of St Ulrich by Pope John XV.\n\n998. Abbot Odilo of Cluny introduces the Commemoratio Omnium Fidelium\nDefunctorum (2nd Nov.) in his Order.\n\n10th cent. The Festum Conceptionis B.V.M (8th Dec.) appears in several\ncalendars (_e.g._ the Neapolitan).\n\n1000-1025. Composition of the Menologium Basilianum.\n\n1068-1071. Adoption of the Roman rite in Aragon under King Sancho Ramirez.\n\n1078. Adoption of the Roman rite in Castile.\n\n1080 (_circ._). Gregory VII. fixes the number of Sundays in Advent at\nfour, and suppresses deviations from the Roman custom of observing Advent.\n\nBetween 1093-1109. The Festum Conceptionis B.V.M. introduced into England\nby St Anselm of Canterbury.\n\n1128-29. The Feast of Our Lady\u2019s Conception introduced into some English\nmonasteries.\n\n1140. The same feast introduced at Lyons.\n\n1166. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus puts out an order concerning festivals.\n\n1198. Innocent III. enjoins the Bishop of Worms to celebrate the Festum\nConversionis S. Pauli Ap. in his diocese as it is in Rome (_Reg._, i.\n44). In the statutes of the synod held by Bishop Odo of Paris it is\nenjoined to say the Ave Maria.\n\nBefore 1216. Innocent III. regulates the use of liturgical colours.\n\n1247. Corpus Christi celebrated for the first time in Li\u00e8ge.\n\n1260. The Conversion of St Paul adopted in Cologne by Archbishop Conrad\nvon Hochstaden.\n\n1263. The General Chapter of the Franciscans at Pisa enjoins the Feast of\nOur Lady\u2019s Conception for the whole Order.\n\n1264. The Feast of Our Lady\u2019s Visitation prescribed for the whole Church\nby Urban IV.\n\n1298. Boniface VIII. raises all festivals of Apostles to the rank of\nFesta duplicia.\n\n1311. Clement V. at the Synod of Vienne repeats the injunction to\ncelebrate Corpus Christi throughout the Church.\n\n1316. John XXII. repeats and confirms the bull of Urban IV. with regard\nto Corpus Christi.\n\n1328. The Synod of London appoints the Conceptio B.V.M. as a holy day of\nobligation for the province.\n\n1334. The Festum SS. Trinitatis enjoined by John XXII. to be kept\nthroughout the Church.\n\n1354. Innocent VI., at the request of the Emperor Charles IV., appoints\nthe Festum Lance\u00e6 et Clavorum.\n\n1371. Gregory XI. institutes the Festum Pr\u00e6sentationis B.V.M.\n\n1389. Urban VI. makes the Festum Visitationis B.V.M. a universal feast\nfor the whole Church.\n\n1408. Chancellor John Gerson finds fault with the number of festivals.\n\n1416. Publication of the book of Nicholas of Clemangis against the\nincrease of holy days.\n\n1423. The Festum VII. Dolorum B.V.M. adopted in Cologne.\n\n1452. The Feast of the Seven Dolors approved by the provincial Synod of\nCologne.\n\n1456. Calixtus III., following the precedent of the Greeks, orders the\nFeast of Our Lord\u2019s Transfiguration to be celebrated on 6th Aug.\n\n1464. The Festival of Our Lady\u2019s Presentation introduced into the Duchy\nof Saxony, and, in 1468, into the province of Mainz.\n\n1474. Sixtus IV. gives his approval to the public veneration of St Joseph\nand St Anne.\n\n1477. Sixtus IV. inserts the Conceptio Immaculat\u00e6 Virg. Mari\u00e6 into the\nRoman Breviary.\n\n1523. Publication of Luther\u2019s little work on baptism in German.\n\n1536. Cardinal Qui\u00f1ones, O.S.F., puts out his edition of the Breviary for\nthe use of the secular clergy. It was approved by Clement VII. and Paul\nIII., and widely used, but withdrawn under Pius V. in 1568.\n\n1536-37. The Devotion of the Forty Hours introduced in Milan.\n\n1563. The Council of Trent in its session (xxv.) of 5th Dec. commits to\nthe Pope the final arrangements concerning the details of the Breviary\nand Missal.\n\n1568. The revised Roman Breviary published.\n\n1570. The revised Roman Missal published.\n\n1582. Reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII. takes effect on 15th Oct.\n\n1584. Publication by papal bull of 14th Jan. of the official\nMartyrologium Romanum prepared by Baronius.\n\n1588. Sixtus V. institutes the Congregatio Rituum by the bull Immensa\n\u00c6terni.\n\n1596. Publication of the Pontificale Romanum.\n\n1602. Clement VIII. takes steps for a revision of the Roman Breviary,\nand, in 1604, of the Roman Missal.\n\n1608. Paul V. institutes the Feast of the Guardian Angels.\n\n1614. Paul V. publishes the Ritual prepared by the Cardinal of San\nSeverino.\n\n1621. Gregory XV. appoints the 19th March as a Festival of St Joseph for\nthe universal Church.\n\n1631. Urban VIII. proposes a fresh revision of the Breviary.\n\n1634. Revision of the Roman Missal by Urban VIII.\n\n1642. Urban VIII. reduces the number of festivals (in foro) by the bull\nUniversa per orbem.\n\n1644. The Conceptio B.V.M. made a holy day of obligation for Spain.\n\n1666. Archbishop Harduin of Paris suppresses the festivals of three\nApostles and St Michael. These feasts were restored by his successor, de\nHarlay, in 1673.\n\n1668. Publication of Thiers\u2019 book \u201cDe Festorum Dierum Imminutione\u201d at\nLyons. Commencement of the public worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.\n\n1669. Clement IX. institutes the Congregatio Indulgentiarum et SS.\nReliquarum.\n\n1683. Innocent XI., at the request of the Emperor Leopold, establishes\nthe Festival of the Name of Mary in commemoration of the relief of Vienna.\n\n1708. The Conceptio B.V.M. appointed a feast in choro of the universal\nChurch.\n\n1721. Pope Innocent XIII., at the request of the Emperor Charles VI.,\nappoints the Feast of the Name of Jesus to be celebrated on the second\nSunday after Epiphany.\n\n1727. Benedict XIII. proposes a further reduction of feast days for Spain.\n\n1741-1747. Commission in Rome, under the presidency of Cardinal\nGonzaga, for the improvement of the Breviary. The legends were severely\ncriticised, and much valuable material was collected for future use.\n\n1747. Muratori speaks in favour of the reduction of feast days in his\nwork \u201cDella Regolata Divozione de\u2019 Cristiani.\u201d\n\n1765. Clement XIII. appoints the Feast of the Sacred Heart. M. Gerbert\nwrites his \u201cDe Dierum Festorum Numero Minuendo, Celebratione Amplianda.\nS. Blasian.\u201d Benedict XIV. discusses the same subject (_Diss. de Festorum\nde Pr\u00e6cepto Imminutione._ _Cf._ _De Serv. D. Beatif._, 4, 2).\n\n1772. New regulations for feast days in Prussia.\n\n1788. Decrease of Catholic festivals in Prussia by Pius VI. This\narrangement forms the basis of that now in use.\n\n1802. Concordat with France, by which the feasts falling on week days\nwere reduced to four.\n\n1828. Convention of Leo XII. with Prussia concerning feast days.\n\n1854. Definition of the Conceptio Immaculata and extension of the feast\nto the whole Church.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abbo of Fleury, 160\n\n  Abdias [pseudo-Abdias], 298\n\n  _Acta, The, of Martyrs_, 208 _seq._\n\n  Ado, _see_ Martyrology\n\n  Adolf III. (Archbishop of Cologne), 199\n\n  \u2e3a of Essen (Carthusian), 270 n.\n\n  Adrian I. (Pope), 344\n\n  Agde, Synod of, 68\n\n  d\u2019Ailly, Peter, 274\n\n  Aix-la-Chapelle, Council of, enumeration of festivals, 22, 188, 194,\n        348\n\n  Alacoque, Marg. Mary, Bl., 126\n\n  Alanus de Rupe, 269\n\n  Albero II. (Bishop of Li\u00e8ge), 258\n\n  Alcuin, 72, 78, 116 _seq._, 222\n\n  Alexander II. (Pope), 116, 118\n\n  \u2e3a III. \u201d on rest from labour, 12\n\n  \u2e3a Severus (Emperor), 317 _seq._\n\n  Alfanus (Abbot of Monte Cassino), 322\n\n  Altfrid, his use of the word _Missa_, 436\n\n  Alvarus Pelagius, 260\n\n  Amadeus of Lausanne, 272\n\n  Amalarius, 67, 98, 160, 193\n\n  _Ambarvalia, The_, 190\n\n  Ambrose, St, on the date of Easter, 53 n., 73, 92, 93, 148 _seqq._,\n        196, 283, 334, 436 _seq._\n\n  _Amburbalia, The_, 190\n\n  Anastasius (Emperor), 286\n\n  Andrew of Crete, 236\n\n  Anne, St, festival of the Conception of, 242\n\n  Anselm of Canterbury, St, 248 _seqq._, 255, 445\n\n  \u2e3a the younger, 248 _seqq._, 255, 445\n\n  Antioch, the Lenten fast at, 99, 108;\n    Christmas at, 131 _seq._\n\n  Antony of Grenoble, 125.\n\n  Apostles, The, on the date of Easter, 54\n\n  _Apostolic Canons, The_, 41, 92, 96 _seq._\n\n  \u2e3a _Constitutions, The_, on observance of Sunday and Saturday, 12;\n    list of feasts in, 20;\n    on fasts, 91, 94 _seq._, 97, 106, 112, 114\n\n  _Arabic Canons, The_, 40\n\n  Arator, 284\n\n  Arcadius (Emperor), forbids races on Sunday, 19, 131, 135\n\n  _Arian Martyrology, The_, 282, 294, 349, 360;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Arius (heretic), 360 _seq._\n\n  Arles, Synods of, 118, 436\n\n  Artemius, St (Martyr), 290\n\n  Athanasius, St, 55, 92, 149, 220\n\n  Augsburg, Corpus Christi procession at, 124\n\n  Augustine, St, 57, 72;\n    said to have composed the _Exsultet_, 81, 97, 100, 106, 113, 146,\n        156, 159, 168, 172, 217 _seq._, 223, 229, 283 _seq._, 303\n\n  Aurelian (Bishop of Arles), 210\n\n  Austria, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Autpert (Abbot of Monte Cassino), 278\n\n  Auxerre, Synods of, 61, 164, 171\n\n  Avignon, Synod of (A.D. 1457), 260\n\n  Avitus (Bishop of Vienne), 70, 192;\n    on the word _Missa_, 432\n\n  \u2e3a (priest of Braga), 223\n\n\n  Bacchylus of Corinth, 39\n\n  Baillet, Adrien, on the Lenten fast, 97, 210, 216 n., 320, 420\n\n  Baldwin (Archbishop of Treves), 124, 199;\n    statutes of, 423\n\n  Bardenhewer, O., 265\n\n  Baronius (Cardinal), _see_ Martyrology\n\n  Basel, Council of, 259 _seq._, 267\n\n  Basil II. (Emperor), _see_ Menology\n\n  _Basilidians, The_, 146, 167\n\n  B\u00e4umer, Dom. (O.S.B.), 210\n\n  Bavaria, festivals for, 32, 201;\n    _see_ Festivals of obligation: _German States_\n\n  Bede, The Ven., on date of Easter, 58 _seq._, 231 n., 289 n., 297;\n    _see_ Calendars; Martyrology\n\n  Beleth (liturgist), 256, 280, 304\n\n  Belgium, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Belgrade, Victory over the Turks at, 105\n\n  Benedict IX. (Pope), 315\n\n  \u2e3a XIII. \u201d 31, 275\n\n  \u2e3a XIV. \u201d 32, 287, 302 n., 410, 420\n\n  \u2e3a Canon, the Ordo of, 222\n\n  _Benedictines, The_, and the Immaculate Conception, 250 _seq._, 255,\n        261\n\n  Benevento, Council of (A.D. 1091), 102\n\n  Bernard, St., 255 _seq._, 272, 274\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of St Davids), 250, 255\n\n  Bernardine de Bustis, 274\n\n  \u2e3a of Siena, St., 166, 274\n\n  Berno of Reichenau, 115, 160, 189 n.\n\n  Bethlehem, Christmas at, 153\n\n  Binterim, Ant., 62, 327, 420\n\n  Bolsena, The miracle of, 122\n\n  Bonaventure, St., on the Immaculate Conception, 258\n\n  Boniface, St., on festivals, 22, 80 n., 116 _seq._, 160, 164, 188,\n        238;\n    _see_ Lectionary\n\n  \u2e3a IV. (Pope), 324\n\n  \u2e3a VIII. \u201d 16, 280\n\n  \u2e3a IX. \u201d 267\n\n  Bonn, The Martyrs of, 373\n\n  Borromeo, Charles, St., 186, 327\n\n  Boucher [Bucherius] \u00c6gidius (S.J.), 137\n\n  Braun, J. (S.J.), 430 n.\n\n  Brazil, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Brigid, St. (of Sweden), 274\n\n  Burchard of Worms, Canons of, 24\n\n  Byzantine Empire, festivals in the, 26 _seqq._\n\n\n  Cecilia, St., 315 _seqq._\n\n  Caius (Pope), 206\n\n  Cajetan, James (Cardinal), the _Ordo Romanus_ of, 85\n\n  Calcasendi, Abulaibsan Achmed, _see_ Calendars\n\n  _Calendars_:\u2014\n    Alt-Corbie, 412\n    Anglo-Saxon (Winchester), 413\n    Arian, 352 _seq._\n    Armenian, 283\n    Bede, 218, 230, 287;\n      _see_ Martyrology\n    Besan\u00e7on (S. Protadii), 414\n    Bologna, 411\n    Calcasendi, 26, 218, 225, 300 n., 331, 383\n    Carthage, 206, 286, 294, 316, 350\n    Charlemagne, 165, 282, 292, 300, 306, 412\n    Cologne, 307, 327, 332 n., 412, 416\n    Coptic, 168, 211, 218, 224 _seq._, 273, 299 _seq._, 312, 332, 338;\n      description of the, 381 _seq._\n    English (Church of England), 36\n    Floriac, 414\n    Freising, 416\n    Fronteau (of St Genevi\u00e8ve), 165, 170, 175, 179 _seq._, 293, 300\n        _seq._, 306;\n      description of the, 400\n    \u201cGermanicum pervetustum s\u00e6c. X.,\u201d 416\n    Gotho-Gallican, 230, 306, 413\n    Gregorian, 46, 211, 299\n    Jewish (Semitic), 15, 44, 46, 47 _seq._, 49, 51\n    Julian, 45, 46, 50 _seq._, 57\n    Luxeuil, 230\n    Mainz, 414\n    Mantua, 414\n    Mozarabic, 218, 230, 254\n    Neapolitan, 218, 245, 275, 282, 290, 293 _seq._, 300, 306;\n      description of the, 394 _seqq._\n    Nestorian, 283\n    Philocalian, 136 _seqq._, 151, 217, 350 _seq._;\n      _see_ Chronograph\n    Polemius Silvius, 69, 119, 169, 191, 217, 283, 351\n    Roman (of the 7th century), 411\n    \u2e3a (Modern), 421\n    Silos, 218\n    Stablo, 332 n., 417\n    Syro-Macedonian, 45, 46, 50, 211, 218\n    Toledo, 230\n    Tours, 412;\n      _see_ Perpetuus\n    Treves, 417\n    Vallombrosa, 414\n    Werden (Verdinense), 414\n    _See_ Ideler; Mai; Maimonides; Selden; Sonnatius; Tondini\n\n  _Calendars, Early_, 206 _seq._, 316, 345, 347 _seqq._, 410 _seq._\n\n  Calixtus I. (Pope), 185\n\n  \u2e3a III. \u201d 105\n\n  _Calvinism_, the festivals retained by, 35, 75\n\n  Campeggio (Cardinal-legate), 30\n\n  Capistran, John, St, 105\n\n  Capocci, Peter (Cardinal), 121\n\n  Carthage, fasts of the stations at, 97;\n    dedication of churches at, 195, 206;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Cassian, John, 110, 128, 434\n\n  Cassiodorus, 141, 364\n\n  Catulfus, on the Holy Trinity, 117 n.\n\n  _Charistia, The_ (or _Cara Cognatio_), 302 _seq._\n\n  Charlemagne, 84;\n    Homilarium of, 165, 179;\n    Capitulary of, 188, 344;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Charles II. (King of Spain), 275\n\n  Chosroes (King of Persia), 338 _seq._\n\n  Chrodegang, Canons of, 100, 188\n\n  _Chronograph, The_ (A.D. 354), 140 _seq._, 295 n., 306, 350 n.\n\n  Chrysologus, Peter, St, 163, 218, 230, 233, 265, 284\n\n  Chrysostom, John, St, 99, 108, 131 _seqq._, 143, 168, 170, 284, 324\n\n  Ciofani (Prussian agent in Rome), 33\n\n  Clemangiis, Nicholas de, 30\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, 39, 89, 141, 167, 437\n\n  \u2e3a I. (Pope), 205\n\n  \u2e3a V. \u201d 122\n\n  \u2e3a VII. \u201d 166\n\n  \u2e3a VIII. \u201d 16, 262, 266\n\n  \u2e3a IX. \u201d 262, 333\n\n  \u2e3a X. \u201d 270, 333\n\n  \u2e3a XI. \u201d 262, 271, 274\n\n  \u2e3a XIII. \u201d 127\n\n  \u2e3a XIV. \u201d 32 _seq._, 200\n\n  Cloveshove, Council of, 188, 403\n\n  Codinus, George, the _de officiis_ of, 27, 224\n\n  Cologne, Synod of, 123 n., 199, 258;\n    feasts for archdiocese of, 422;\n    the Three Kings at, 441 _seq._;\n    _see_ Calendars; Lectionary; Sacramentary.\n\n  Compostela, relics of St James at, 292\n\n  Constance, Council of, 24, 115, 125 n.\n\n  Constantine (Emperor), on the observance of Sunday, 9 _seq._, 17, 41,\n        74, 81, 136, 196, 281, 297, 328, 333\n\n  Constantinople, festival of the Ascension at, 108;\n    _see_ Menology\n\n  Constantius (Emperor), 149, 196, 281, 290, 318\n\n  Copts, festivals observed by the, 26 _seq._, 70;\n    Synaxaria of the, 105, 159, 238, 291;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Cosmas Indicopleustes, 153\n\n  Cuspinianus, John, 137\n\n  Cyprian, St, 40, 72, 138, 146, 151, 206, 431\n\n  Cyril, St, of Alexandria, 128\n\n  \u2e3a of Jerusalem, 92, 135, 154 _seq._\n\n\n  Delahaye, Hipp. (S.J.), 320 n.\n\n  _Depositio Episcoporum, The_, 137 _seq._, 149 n., 318, 349\n\n  \u2e3a _Martyrum_, 137 _seq._, 149 n., 320 n., 349, 356, 375, 417\n\n  De Rossi, J. B., 138, 319, 365\n\n  De Waal, 289\n\n  Diocletian (Emperor), 205\n\n  Dionysius of Alexandria, 91\n\n  \u2e3a the Areopagite, 235\n\n  Dominic, St, and the Rosary, 269 _seq._\n\n  \u2e3a of Prussia (Carthusian), 270 n.\n\n  _Dominicans, The_, and the Immaculate Conception, 259 _seq._\n\n  Duchesne, L., Mgr., 315, 365, 368\n\n  Durandus, on Lent, 104;\n    on the Immaculate Conception, 256, 322\n\n\n  Eadmer, 271, 446\n\n  _Easter_, the centre of the Church\u2019s year, 3;\n    history of, 37 _seqq._;\n    _see_ Martin; Nilles; Passover\n\n  Ebner, 322\n\n  Eccard, 137\n\n  Eligius of Noyon, 70\n\n  Elsinus, _see_ Helsinus\n\n  Elvira, Synod of, 110 n.\n\n  England, Feasts of the B.V.M. in, 271 n.;\n    Christmas in, 439 _seq._;\n    The Immac. Concept. in, 445 _seq._;\n    _see_ Calendars; Festivals of obligation\n\n  Ennodius (Bishop of Pavia), 81\n\n  Ephesus, Death of St John at, 297 _seq._\n\n  Ephrem Syrus, 129, 197\n\n  Epiphanius, 56, 128\n\n  Erfurt, Council of, 280\n\n  Erwig (Spanish King), 164\n\n  Essen, The _Liber Ordinarius_ of, 125;\n    _see_ Sacramentary\n\n  Ethelred (King), and the feast of St Michael, 331\n\n  Eucherius (Bishop of Lyons), 304\n\n  Eudocia (Empress), 224, 287\n\n  Eugenius IV. (Pope), 124\n\n  Eusebius (Eccl. historian), 9 _seq._;\n    on Easter, 41, 55, 90;\n    on Lent, 92 _seq._, 106, 149, 195 _seq._, 206, 211, 296, 308, 335,\n        359 _seqq._\n\n  Eustorgius (Bishop of Milan), 441\n\n  Euthymius, on the Assumption, B.V.M., 236\n\n  Eve (recluse at Li\u00e8ge), 120 _seq._\n\n  Exeter, Synod of, 252\n\n\n  Fabian, Pope, 205\n\n  Felicitas, St (Martyr), 138\n\n  Felix (anti-Pope), 149, 318\n\n  \u2e3a II. (Pope), 343\n\n  _Feralia_ (concluding day of the _Parentalia_), 302 _seq._\n\n  Ferdinand III. (Emperor), 275\n\n  _Feri\u00e6_, origin of the name, 2, 7;\n    as distinguished from festivals, 14\n\n  _Festivals_, their two chief divisions, 3;\n    Jewish, 5 _seq._;\n    their classification, 13 _seq._;\n    increase in number of, 19;\n    first lists of, 20 _seq._;\n    in Canon law, 24;\n    large number of, 25 _seq._;\n    rights of bishops in respect of, 28 _seq._, 31;\n    their reduction, 31 _seq._;\n    of the Greek eccl. year, 442 _seqq._;\n    _see_ Feri\u00e6; Paleologi\n\n  _Festivals of obligation in_:\u2014\n    Austria, 424;\n    Belgium, 424;\n    Brazil, 428;\n    England, 426;\n    France, 424;\n    German States, 424 _seq._;\n    Holland, 426;\n    Italy, 424;\n    Poland, 32, 427;\n    Portugal, 427 _seq._;\n    Prussia, 32 _seqq._, 424;\n    Rome, 423 _seq._;\n    Russia, 428;\n    Spain, 427;\n    Switzerland, 426;\n    United States, 428.\n\n  Festus (Senator), 286\n\n  Flavian (Bishop of Antioch), 132\n\n  _Forty Hours Prayer, The_, _see_ Plantanida\n\n  France, alteration in festivals in, 34 _seq._;\n    Holy Saturday in, 83;\n    _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Franchi di Cavalieri, 210\n\n  Francis of Assisi, St, introduces the Crib, 156\n\n  _Franciscans, The_, influence on the Liturgy, 15 _seq._;\n    and the Immac. Conc., 257 _seqq._;\n    and Visit. B.V.M., 267;\n    and cultus of St Joseph, 274\n\n  Frederick William II. (King of Prussia), 33\n\n  Fronteau, _see_ Calendars\n\n  Formosus (Pope), 308\n\n  Fulbert (Bishop of Chartres), 231\n\n  Fulgentius, 166, 168, 230\n\n\n  Gabriel the Archangel, 332.\n\n  _Gallic pilgrim, The_, _see_ Silvia\n\n  Gamaliel (Rabbi), on the Jewish Calendar, 49\n\n  Gelasius I. (Pope), 175, 343;\n    _see_ Sacramentary\n\n  Gellonense, _see_ Martyrology\n\n  George (Bishop of Nicomedia), 243\n\n  Georgius Hamartolus, 174\n\n  Gereon, St (Martyr), 373, 414 _seq._\n\n  Germanus (Patr. of Constantinople), 236\n\n  Germany, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Gerson, John (the Chancellor), 30, 274\n\n  Gertrude, St, 126, 274\n\n  Gerunda, Synod of, 61, 193\n\n  Glycas, on St Mary Magdalen, 314\n\n  Gorman (Abbot), _see_ Martyrology\n\n  Grammont, Peter de (Bishop of Besan\u00e7on), 126\n\n  Gratian, decretal of, 24, 100\n\n  Gregory the Great (Pope), 76, 96, 102, 151, 159, 179, 192, 229, 343,\n        363, 407, 435;\n    _see_ Calendars; Sacramentary\n\n  \u2e3a II. (Pope), 343, 400\n\n  \u2e3a III. (Pope), 324 _seq._, 400\n\n  \u2e3a IV. \u201d 325\n\n  \u2e3a VII. \u201d 16, 186, 189\n\n  \u2e3a IX. \u201d decretal of, 24 _seq._, 199\n\n  \u2e3a XI. \u201d 266\n\n  \u2e3a XII. \u201d 276\n\n  \u2e3a XIII. \u201d 270, 276, 409\n\n  \u2e3a XV. \u201d 275\n\n  Gregory of Nazianzus, 130 _seq._, 151\n\n  \u2e3a of Nyssa, 131\n\n  \u2e3a of Tours, 192, 211, 237, 284, 314, 435\n\n  \u2e3a Thaumaturgus, 207\n\n  Gretser, Jacobus (S.J.), 419\n\n  Guyard (Bishop of Cambrai), 121\n\n\n  Heinrich II. (Archbishop of Cologne), 199\n\n  Helena (Empress), 107, 196, 333 _seq._\n\n  Helperich (Monk of St Gall), 74\n\n  Helsinus (_or_ Elsinus), 248\n\n  Henry of Ghent, 253\n\n  Henschen (Bollandist), 137, 210, 403\n\n  Heraclius (Emperor), 232, 338 _seq._\n\n  Hermas, on fasting, 89\n\n  Hetto (Bishop of Basel), statute of, 23, 198\n\n  Hilduin (Abbot), on the Martyrology, 365\n\n  Hippolytus (Bishop of Porto), canons and cycle of, 40 _seq._, 57, 91,\n        97, 99, 112, 141 _seq._, 146, 167 _seq._;\n    on the date of Christmas, 437 _seq._\n\n  Holland, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Honorius (Emperor), forbids races on Sunday, 19, 131\n\n  Hugh (Abbot of Reading), and the Immac. Conc., 248\n\n  Hugo (Cardinal-legate), approves feast of Corpus Christi, 121\n\n  Hunyadi, George, 105\n\n  Hydatius, on the date of Christ\u2019s birth, 141\n\n\n  Ibsung, Katharina, her legacy for feast of Corpus Christi, 124\n\n  Ideler, on the Jewish Calendar, 49\n\n  Ignatius, St (of Antioch), 39, 209, 212\n\n  Ildefonsus, St (Bishop of Toledo), 227\n\n  Ingelheim, Council of, 24\n\n  Innocent I. (Pope), 76, 98, 292 n., 434\n\n  \u2e3a III. \u201d on liturgical colours, 429\n\n  \u2e3a VIII. \u201d 261 n.\n\n  \u2e3a IX. \u201d 272\n\n  \u2e3a X. \u201d 262\n\n  \u2e3a XI. \u201d 264\n\n  \u2e3a XIII. \u201d 166\n\n  Iren\u00e6us, St, 39, 55, 90 _seq._, 111, 141, 431, 437\n\n  Isaias, his prophecy on the Messias, 43\n\n  Isidore of Seville, 54, 67, 73, 254\n\n  Italy, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Ivo (Bishop of Chartres), Canons of, 24\n\n\n  _Jacobites, The_, 297\n\n  James of Landsberg (Carthusian), 126\n\n  James of Nisibis (Bishop), 355\n\n  James Pantaleon (afterwards Pope Urban IV.), 121\n\n  Januarius (Bishop), his inquiries from St Augustine, 57, 72\n\n  Jerome, St, 145, 153, 182, 273, 294, 300, 308, 364 _seq._, 431;\n    _see_ Lectionary; Martyrology\n\n  Jerusalem, practices observed at, 9, 62 _seq._, 99, 107, 112 _seq._,\n        152 _seq._, 171, 173 _seqq._, 194 _seq._\n\n  Joachim, St, in the Greek Breviary, 246\n\n  John, St (Apostle and Evangelist), 43\n\n  \u2e3a Damascene, St, 235 _seq._, 242, 265, 390, 448\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Eub\u0153a), 242, 246\n\n  \u2e3a of Hildesheim (Carmelite), 442\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Jerusalem), 223\n\n  \u2e3a of Lausanne, 121\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Nicea), 131 n., 135 _seq._, 154, 167\n\n  \u2e3a III. (Pope), 296\n\n  \u2e3a XXII. \u201d 118, 124\n\n  \u2e3a II. (Archbishop of Prague), 268\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Strassburg), 124\n\n  Josephus, 143, 145 n., 155\n\n  Juliana of Retinne, 120\n\n  Julius I. (Pope), 135, 150, 154 _seq._\n\n  \u2e3a II. \u201d 276\n\n  Justin (Emperor), 174\n\n  Justin, Martyr, on Easter, 39, 44\n\n  Justinian (Emperor), legislation about Sunday, 18, 173 _seq._, 275,\n        281, 328\n\n  Juvenal (Bishop of Jerusalem), 153, 236\n\n\n  _Kings, The Three_, 441 _seq._\n\n\n  Lacordaire, P\u00e8re (O.P.), 315\n\n  Lambeck, 137\n\n  Lanfranc (Archbishop of Canterbury), statutes of, 198 _seq._, 421\n        _seq._, 445\n\n  Laodicea, Synod of, decree on celebration of Saturday, 11 _seq._, 73\n\n  Launoi, 210\n\n  Lazarus, St, 310 _seqq._\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Aix), 314\n\n  _Lectionary_:\u2014\n    of St Boniface, 160\n    of Cologne, 161 n.\n    \u201cComes Albini,\u201d The, 161 n., 306\n    of St Jerome, 182 _seq._\n    of Luxeuil, 67, 159, 180, 232, 238, 281, 397\n    of M\u00fcnster, 161 n.\n    of Silos, 67, 101, 159, 166, 175, 340;\n      description of, 378 _seqq._, 397\n    of Spires, 306\n    Syrian, The, 225, 291, 294, 299, 331;\n      description of, 393\n    of Treves, 161 n.\n    of Victor of Capua, 160\n\n  Leo I. (Emperor), 267\n\n  \u2e3a VI. \u201d on the observance of Sunday, 10, 242 n., 312, 314\n\n  Leo the Great, St (Pope), 76;\n    on fasting, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 151, 159, 166, 183, 185 _seq._,\n        229, 306, 435;\n    _see_ Sacramentary\n\n  \u2e3a III. (Pope), 193, 275, 400\n\n  \u2e3a IV. \u201d 80 n., 237\n\n  \u2e3a XII. \u201d 33\n\n  \u2e3a XIII. \u201d 263, 276, 333\n\n  Leopold I. (Emperor), 275\n\n  Lesl\u00e6us (S.J.), on feast of the Immac. Conc., 254\n\n  Liberius (Pope), 142, 147 _seqq._, 191, 207, 271 n., 318\n\n  Li\u00e8ge, Synod of, 258\n\n  _Liturgy, The_, in time of Tertullian, 9\n\n  Lom\u00e9nie, C. F. de (Bishop of Coutances), 126\n\n  Loreto, the Holy House of, 271 n.\n\n  Louis the Pious (Emperor), 325 _seq._\n\n  Lucianus (priest of Jerusalem), 223\n\n  Luther, on observance of festivals, 35\n\n  Lyons, Second Council of, 193\n\n\n  Mabillon (O.S.B.), 78, 159, 207, 237, 297, 340, 350, 397\n\n  Macarius (Bishop of Jerusalem), 335 _seq._\n\n  Ma\u00e7on, Synod of, 21, 61, 158\n\n  Mai (Cardinal), Calendars published by, 322, 384, 396\n\n  Maimonides, on the Jewish Calendars, 49\n\n  Mainz, Council of, directions about festivals, 23, 194, 198, 238,\n        331;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Maizi\u00e8res, Philip de, and feast of Present. B.V.M., 266\n\n  Mamertus (Bishop of Vienne), and Rogation processions, 191\n\n  _Mandatum, The_, 73\n\n  Manuel Comnenus (Emperor), reduces number of holidays, 26, 242, 245,\n        266, 288, 312, 329\n\n  Marcellina (sister of St Ambrose), 148 _seq._\n\n  Marcellus, his discovery of head of St John Baptist, 221\n\n  \u201cMaria,\u201d explanation of the name, 264\n\n  Maria Teresa (Empress), 32\n\n  Mart\u00e8ne, on the blessing of Palms, 62\n\n  Martin (Bishop of Dumio), on date of Easter, 58\n\n  \u2e3a V. (Pope), 124\n\n  _Martyrologies_, 214, 273, 292, 297, 345 _seq._\n\n  _Martyrology_:\u2014\n    of Ado, 288, 307, 312, 316, 319, 335;\n      description of the, 405 _seq._\n    of Bede, 293, 307, 312, 335, 341;\n      description of the, 401 _seq._\n    of Besan\u00e7on, 327\n    of Corbie, 57, 306\n    of Florus, description of the, 401 _seq._\n    the Gellonense, 57, 413\n    of Gorman, 404\n    of St Jerome, 57, 288, 290, 293, 295, 297 _seqq._, 307, 312, 316,\n        332, 335, 340, 359 _seq._, 363 _seq._\n    of Notker Balbulus, description of the, 405 _seq._\n    of \u0152ngus, description of the, 401 _seq._\n    of Rabanus Maurus, 312, 316;\n      description of the, 405 _seq._\n    the Roman (of Baronius), 409\n    of Toledo, 299\n    of Usuardus, 288, 307, 312 _seq._, 316, 319, 335;\n      description of the, 405 _seq._\n    of Wandlebert, 306;\n      description of the, 401 _seq._\n\n  Mary, the Blessed Virgin, position of her festivals, 3\n\n  _Mass_ [Missa], explanation of the word, 430 _seqq._\n\n  Maurice (Emperor), 237\n\n  \u2e3a de Sully (Bishop of Paris), 256\n\n  Maximinus (Bishop of Aix), 311\n\n  Maximus of Turin, 151 n., 169, 207, 218, 230, 283\n\n  Melito of Sardis, 39\n\n  _Menology_:\u2014\n    of Basil, 156, 218, 242, 273, 291, 296, 299 _seq._, 312,\n        322, 331, 370, 390 _seqq._\n    of Constantinople, 105, 218, 225, 273, 300, 322, 338, 339 n., 387\n        _seqq._\n\n  Metaphrastes, Simeon, 266 n., 321, 329\n\n  Metrophanes (Bishop of Constantinople), 289\n\n  Michael of Atriba, Synaxarium of, 238, 386\n\n  _Micrologus, The_, 116 _seq._, 161, 186\n\n  _Missa_, _see_ Mass\n\n  _Missal_:\u2014\n    Gallican, 197, 232\n    Gotho-Gallican, 67, 69, 76, 83, 101, 159, 237, 297, 397\n    Leonine, 114, 397\n    Roman, 103, 188, 399\n    Trani, 322\n    _See_ Sacramentary\n\n  _Missals_, The earliest, 214, 343, 345\n\n  Modestus (Patr. of Jerusalem), 236, 314\n\n  Mommsen, T., 137, 320 n., 350\n\n  _Montanists_, Xerophagi\u00e6 of the, 99, 110 n.\n\n  Monte Gargano, 332\n\n  Morcelli, S. A., 298, 390\n\n  Morin, G. (O.S.B.), 186\n\n\n  Naogeorgius, 200 n.\n\n  Napoleon I. (Emperor), his regulations for holy days, 34 _seq._\n\n  Narcissus (Bishop of Jerusalem), 39\n\n  Neuching, Synod of, 61\n\n  Nic\u00e6a, 1st Council of, 92, 106\n\n  Nicephorus (historian), 174, 328\n\n  Nicolas I. (Pope), 100\n\n  Nilles, on the date of Easter, 52 n.\n\n  Nisan, the 15th day of, 41;\n    Jewish celebrations on, 42, 53 n.\n\n  Nogaroli, Leonardo, composes office of the Immac. Conc., 261\n\n  Noris (Cardinal), 137\n\n  Normandy, Feast of the Immac. Conc. in, 251 _seqq._\n\n  Notker Balbulus, 292, 332 n.;\n    _see_ Martyrology\n\n  \u2e3a of Li\u00e8ge, 327\n\n\n  _Octave_, origin of the, 15\n\n  Odilo, St (of Cluny), 233, 326\n\n  Odo de Sully (Bishop of Paris), 164, 268\n\n  \u0152ngus, _see_ Martyrology\n\n  _Ordos_ [Ordinaria, Ordines], description of, 347\n\n  Origen, festivals known to, 17, 106, 112, 127, 167, 172, 306, 308\n\n  Orleans, Synods of, 95, 98, 101, 171, 192\n\n  Orosius, on the date of Christ\u2019s birth, 141\n\n  Osbert de Clare (O.S.B.), and the Immac. Conc., 248, 250, 252\n\n  Otgar, (Archbishop of Mainz), 165, 180\n\n  Otho I. (Emperor), 288\n\n  Otricus, (Bishop of Milan), 327\n\n  Oxford, Synod of (A.D. 1222), 252\n\n\n  Paleologi, The (Emperors of Constantinople), festivals under, 27\n\n  _Palms_, blessing of, 62, 67 _seq._;\n    figures carried in the procession of, 69\n\n  Panvinius Onuphrius, 137\n\n  _Parentalia, The_ (heathen festival of the dead), 302\n\n  Paschal I. (Pope), 316\n\n  Passaglia, on the Immac. Conc., 240 _seqq._\n\n  _Passiones_, of Martyrs, 209, 317\n\n  _Passover, The_, its connection with Easter, 38, 40, 41 _seqq._, 57\n\n  Paul, St (the Apostle), on the Passover, 44;\n    in Rome, 138\n\n  \u2e3a (the Deacon), 84, 165\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Emesa), 128\n\n  \u2e3a IV. (Pope), 308\n\n  \u2e3a V. \u201d 263, 333\n\n  Paulinus of Nola, 169, 290, 319, 334\n\n  Peckham, John (Archbishop of Canterbury), 118\n\n  Pelagius I. (Pope), 296\n\n  \u2e3a II. \u201d 192\n\n  Perpetua, St (Martyr), 138\n\n  Perpetuus of Tours, his list of festivals, 20;\n    calendar of, 57;\n    on fasts, 98, 158 _seq._, 218, 286\n\n  Peter St (the Apostle), date of arrival and death in Rome, 138\n\n  \u2e3a (Cardinal-legate), 164\n\n  \u2e3a of Celle (Bishop of Chartres), 256\n\n  \u2e3a Damian, St, 322\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Edessa), 62\n\n  Philastrius, on Christmas, 169 n.\n\n  Philip IV. (King of Spain), 262\n\n  Philocalus, Furius, 136;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Philogonius (Martyr), 132\n\n  Philoponus, Joannes, on the date of Easter, 53 n.\n\n  Philostorgius (historian), 290, 352\n\n  Phocas (Emperor), 324\n\n  Pilate, The spurious Acts of, 57\n\n  Pius V. (Pope), 16, 119, 264, 266, 270, 431\n\n  \u2e3a VI. (Pope), 32 _seq._, 200\n\n  \u2e3a IX. \u201d 239, 262 _seq._, 275\n\n  Plantanida, Joseph (O.S.F.C.), and the Forty Hours Prayer, 125\n\n  Pliny, letters of, 8\n\n  Poland, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Polemius Silvius, 304, 305;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Polycrates of Ephesus, 39, 55, 281\n\n  Porphyrius (Bishop of Antioch), 353\n\n  Portugal, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Potho of Pr\u00fcm, on feast of the H. Trinity, 118 n.;\n    on the Immac. Conc., 256\n\n  Preller, 137\n\n  _Processions_, 189 _seqq._\n\n  Proclus (Patr. of Constantinople), 233, 234\n\n  Prosper (of Aquitaine), on date of Christ\u2019s birth, 141\n\n  Protadius (Bishop of Besan\u00e7on), his Calendar, 327\n\n  _Proto-evangelium_ of James, The, 246\n\n  Protonika, legend of, and the Holy Cross, 337\n\n  Prudentius, 98, 285\n\n  Prussia, Good Friday in, 74 n.;\n    _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Pulcheria (Empress), 236\n\n\n  _Quartodecimans, The_, 39, 40, 50, 54\n\n  Quedlinburg, Council of, 100\n\n\n  Rabanus Maurus, 77, 87, 311;\n    _see_ Martyrology\n\n  Rainald of Dassel (Archbishop of Cologne), 441\n\n  Raphael, The Archangel, 332\n\n  Ravenna, The New Year at, 163\n\n  Recceswinth (Spanish King), 164\n\n  Reims, Synod of, 30\n\n  Remigius (Monk and Bishop of Lyons), 202 n., 406\n\n  Richardis (Empress), 315\n\n  Rietsch, J., on St Mary Magdalen, 315\n\n  Robert de Thorete (Bishop of Li\u00e8ge), 120 _seq._\n\n  _Robigalia, The_, 191\n\n  Roger II. (of Naples), 244\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Salisbury), 250, 255\n\n  Romanesia, Feast of the Ascension at, 108\n\n  Rome, method of fixing Easter in, 51, 54;\n    Synod of, 61;\n    _see_ Calendars; Festivals of obligation; Martyrology\n\n  Roncalli, on the Calendar, 137\n\n  _Rosary, The_, 268 _seqq._;\n    Confraternities of the, 270 n.\n\n  Rotricus (Bishop of Rouen), 252\n\n  Rouen, Council of (A.D. 650), 164\n\n  Rudolph (Bishop of Bourges), 23\n\n  Rufinus, 319\n\n  Russia, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n\n  Sabas, St, _see_ Typicum\n\n  _Sabbath, The_, its position in the Church, 6\n\n  _Sacramentaries_, description of the, 342 _seqq._\n\n  _Sacramentary_:\u2014\n    Cologne, in Cathedral library at, 415\n    D\u00fcsseldorf, in library at, 415\n    Essen, 84\n    Gallican, 110\n    Gelasian, 67 _seq._, 76, 78, 83, 102 _seq._, 114, 116, 156, 160,\n        163, 169, 175, 178, 180, 184 n., 187, 198, 219, 222, 229, 280,\n        285, 288, 292, 306, 330, 340;\n      description of, 343, 398\n    Gregorian, 62, 69, 72, 78, 83, 87, 101 _seqq._, 114, 116 _seq._,\n        163, 165, 170, 175 n., 178 _seqq._, 187, 198, 222, 228, 288,\n        292, 299, 306, 330, 340;\n      description of, 344, 398 _seq._\n    Leonine, 156, 178, 184 n., 198, 219, 222, 280, 285, 330;\n      description of, 343\n    Mozarabic, 101, 156\n\n  Salbarus (Persian General), 339\n\n  _Saturday_, its liturgical observance, 12\n\n  Saxony, festivals in, 35\n\n  Schrader, Clemens (S.J.,), on the Immac. Conc., 240 _seqq._\n\n  Schulting, Cornelius, 419\n\n  Scotus, Jo. Duns, 259\n\n  Sedatus (Bishop of B\u00e9ziers), 169\n\n  Selden, John, Calendars published by, 218, 225, 238, 273, 286 n.,\n        299, 322, 381\n\n  Seligenstadt, Synod of, 223\n\n  Serapion (Abbot of Thmuis), 92\n\n  Sergius I. (Pope), 175, 229, 237, 344\n\n  Servilius Paulus (proconsul), 39\n\n  Severus, Sulpicius, 141\n\n  Sicardus (Bishop of Cremona), 255 _seq._\n\n  Siculus Peter, 247\n\n  Sidonius Apollinaris, 191\n\n  Siena, The _Liber Ordinarius_ of, 322\n\n  Silos, _see_ Calendars; Lectionary\n\n  Silvia (The Gallic pilgrim), on Christian worship, 8, 62 _seqq._, 86;\n    on Fasts, 93, 99, 107, 112 _seq._, 129, 152, 154 _seq._, 171, 173,\n        175, 196, 338, 433 _seq._\n\n  _Simchah Thorah_, festival of the, 111\n\n  Simplicius (Pope), 224\n\n  Sirleto (Cardinal), 308, 409\n\n  Siroes (King of Persia), 339\n\n  Sixtus I. (Pope), 51, 55\n\n  \u2e3a III. \u201d 271 n.\n\n  \u2e3a IV. \u201d 261 _seq._, 266, 274, 276, 326\n\n  \u2e3a V. (Pope), 264, 266\n\n  Socrates (Eccl. historian), 96, 106, 336\n\n  Sonnatius (Bishop of Reims), statutes of, 21;\n    Calendar of, 229 n., 238\n\n  Sophronius (Patriarch), 448\n\n  Sozomen (Eccl. historian), 9 _seq._, 207, 336\n\n  Spain, reduction of festivals in, 31;\n    Advent in, 159;\n    Feasts of B.V.M. in, 227, 254, 262;\n    St James in, 292 _seqq._;\n    _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Sprenger, Jacob (O.P.), 270 n.\n\n  Stachys (Bishop of Constantinople), 289\n\n  Stephen (Bishop of Li\u00e8ge), 116 _seq._\n\n  _Sunday_, origin of the name, 7;\n    laws for its observance, 9 _seq._;\n    law-courts cease to sit on, 18;\n    races forbidden on, 19\n\n  Switzerland, _see_ Festivals of obligation\n\n  Symmachus (Pope), 208, 318 n., 331\n\n  _Synagogue, The_, its influence on the Church\u2019s year, 5\n\n  _Synaxis_ [Synaxaria], of St John Baptist, 219, 345, 349;\n    _see_ Copts, Michael of Atriba\n\n  Szabolcs, Council of, 198\n\n\n  Tarragona, Synod of, 31\n\n  _Tenebr\u00e6_, The Office of, 71\n\n  Tertullian, 5;\n    his enumeration of feasts, 17;\n    on Easter, 40, 44, 56, 89 _seqq._, 99, 106;\n    on Pentecost, 111 _seq._, 127, 141, 172, 184;\n    on Christian burial, 213, 310, 431, 437\n\n  Theodore, on Feasts of B.V.M., 227\n\n  Theodorus Lector, 286\n\n  Theodosius II. (Emperor), his legislation about holy days, 19, 130,\n        220, 224\n\n  Theodulf, on Ember days, 188\n\n  Theophanes (historian), 328, 337 n.\n\n  Theophilus of Alexandria, 220\n\n  Theophilus of C\u00e6sarea, on Easter, 40, 59\n\n  Thomas Aquinas, St, 122, 258\n\n  Thomassin, Louis, 419\n\n  Tillemont (historian), 210, 220, 320, 420\n\n  Toledo, 4th Synod of, 74, 80, 100, 164\n    6th \u201d, 193\n    8th \u201d, 100\n    10th \u201d, 232\n    _See_ Calendars, Martyrology\n\n  Tondini, C\u00e6sar (Barnabite), on the Calendar, 52 n.\n\n  Tours, festivals celebrated at, 20;\n    second council of, 164, 331;\n    _see_ Calendars\n\n  Trani, _see_ Missal\n\n  _Translation_, of relics, 220, 267, 281, 292\n\n  Trent, Council of, 31, 263\n\n  Treves, Synod of, 268;\n    _see_ Calendars, Lectionary\n\n  Tribonianus, 134\n\n  Trithemius (Abbot), 274, 276 n., 403\n\n  Trullan Synod, the, 73, 100, 105, 232, 387\n\n  Turcius Almachius (Prefect of Rome), 317 _seqq._\n\n  _Typicum, The_, of St Sabas, 243, 447 _seq._\n\n  Tyre, Synod at, 195\n\n\n  Uranius (Bishop of Emesa), 221\n\n  Urban I. (Pope), 317\n\n  \u2e3a IV. \u201d _see_ James Pantaleon\n\n  \u2e3a VI. \u201d 267, 276\n\n  Urban VIII. (Pope), his constitution _Universa per orbem_, 29, 30, 200\n\n  Usuardus, _see_ Martyrology\n\n\n  Valens (Emperor), 130, 220\n\n  Valentia, council of, 213 n.\n\n  Valentinian II. (Emperor), law on Sunday rest, 10;\n    regulation of legal vacations, 17 _seq._, 134\n\n  Valesius, on the Lenten fast, 97\n\n  _Veil_, the Lenten [Hunger Veil], 104\n\n  Venantius Fortunatus, 316\n\n  _Vestments_, Liturgical, 428 _seqq._\n\n  Victor (Bishop of Capua), _see_ Lectionary\n\n  \u2e3a (Pope), 39, 55, 59, 90\n\n  Vienne, Council of, 124\n\n  Vigilius (Bishop of Trent), 191\n\n  Vincent Ferrer, St, 274\n\n\n  Walter (Bishop of Orleans), 23\n\n  \u2e3a (Bishop of Rouen), 252 n.\n\n  Wandelbert of Pr\u00fcm, 57;\n    _see_ Martyrology\n\n  Warinus of Worcester, 248\n\n  Willibald, St (Bishop of Eichst\u00e4tt), 314\n\n  Worcester, Synod of, 252\n\n  W\u00fcstenfeld, F., 381 _seq._\n\n\n  _Xerophagi\u00e6, The_, 99\n\n\n  Zacharias (Patr. of Jerusalem), 339\n\n  \u2e3a (Pope), 80 n., 164\n\n  Zeno of Verona, 151, 155, 165\n\n  Zosimus (Pope), 81\n\n\nPRINTED BY TURNBULL AND SPEARS, EDINBURGH","title":"Heortology : $b A history of the Christian festivals from their origin to the present day","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":148874}