Heortology

AUTHOR’S PREFACE OF THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

In this translation, the excursus on the German Protestant “Buss-und-Bettage” and on St Ursula have been omitted as being of less general interest, and a few notes have been added.

London, April 1908.

BOOKS QUOTED AND REFERRED TO — (A) MEDIÆVAL WORKS, WHICH IN SOME DEGREE ARE OF THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL SOURCES — (B) MORE RECENT WORKS EMPLOYED OR REFERRED TO — ( a ) By Catholic Authors — ( b ) By Non-Catholic Authors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEORTOLOGY — PART I THE CHURCH’S FESTIVALS IN GENERAL — 1. Introduction — 2. Sunday and its Observance as a Day of Rest — 3. The Classification of Festivals — 4. The Gradual Increase of Festivals. Their Decrease in the Last Three Centuries. The Present Position

The external worship of God, if it is not to remain vague and indefinite, finds expression on the one hand through certain elements belonging to the senses, such as signs and words, and on the other it is connected with places and times. By the changes of day and night, of seasons and years, Creation calls upon man to raise his mind to God at stated times and to enter into communion with Him. The day with its brightness is suited for work, night with its stillness invites man to turn his thoughts in upon himself. The change of day and night calls upon us to begin the day’s work with God, and to commend ourselves to His keeping in the darkness of the night. The course of the seasons, too, matures the fruits of the earth necessary for our support, and the succession of years reminds us of the fleeting nature of everything earthly, for our whole life is composed of successive years. Consequently the civilised peoples already in remote antiquity have found a call to the worship of God in the changing seasons and times, and so have introduced sacred seasons. Sacred times and places are common to all religions in general. The change of times, bringing with them corresponding changes in nature, made a religious impression upon mankind. In turn, man sanctified certain times and dedicated them to God, and these days thus consecrated to God became festivals.

The worship of God takes precedence over the daily affairs of common life, and accordingly displaces such of them as are not necessary for the support of natural life or the wellbeing of society. Thus it came to pass that the ordinary affairs of life gave place to the worship of God, and rest from labour became an essential part of the worship paid to Him. Man abstained from his wonted tasks on certain days, which received in consequence a higher consecration. And so among the ancient Romans, the idea of a day of rest and a holy day were intimately connected and received the name of feria. But it was among the Hebrews that the days set apart for the worship of God received the most distinctive character as days of rest.[1]

The Christian Church on her part, in wishing that the day set apart for the worship of God should be observed as far as possible as a day of rest from labour, acts in accordance with ideas and customs which nature itself has planted in the human race, and which need no other justification. The term sabbatismus (Sabbath rest) soon entered into the theological language of Christendom, and in public life the Christian holy days, at first only Sundays, gradually, even in secular legislation, became recognised as days of rest, sometimes in a larger and sometimes in a smaller number.

The entire number of ecclesiastical holy days and seasons is actually codified for us in the different Church Calendars. Their contents fall into two essentially different divisions, each possessing an entirely different origin and history. The first division consists of festivals of our Lord, distributed over the year, regulated and co-ordinated in accordance with certain laws. The second division consists of commemorations of the saints in no wise connected with the festivals of our Lord or with one another. Occupying to some extent an intermediate position between these two chief divisions come the festivals of our Blessed Lady, which have this in common with the festivals of the saints, that they fall on fixed days, but, on the other hand, they are to a certain extent connected with each other, and with some feasts of our Lord. This is carried out in such a way that they are distributed throughout the entire Church’s year, and are included in each of the festal seasons.

The former of these two divisions is the most important, and its chief feasts are also the oldest. The festivals of our Lord, Easter and Pentecost especially, compose what is called the Church’s year in the stricter sense, and, if they coincide with a saint’s day, they take precedence. The Church’s year is built upon a single basis and according to one plan, which did not originate in the mind of any one person, but developed out of the historical conditions resulting from the connection of Christianity with Judaism.

In the course of the ecclesiastical year, the Church brings before us the chief events in our Lord’s life and the most striking instances of His work of redemption. The central point of the whole is the commemoration of His death and resurrection—i.e. Easter—to which all other events are related, whether those which reach backward to Christmas, or those which reach onwards to the completion of His redemptive work at Whitsuntide. In addition, there is, on the one hand, Advent, as a time of preparation for our Lord’s coming, reminding us of the four or five thousand years which intervened between the Creation and that event, and, on the other, the Sundays after Pentecost, representing the period after the foundation of the Church, and devoted to the consideration of the redemption won for us, along with its doctrines and blessings. The weeks of the year form the links of the chain, each Sunday marking the character of the week which follows it.

The sacred seasons, as they pass in orderly succession, give outward expression to the spirit which animates the Church, and are of the utmost importance from the point of view of her worship, since they form one of the chief elements in the instruction of mankind in the truths of Christianity. By them one easily becomes familiar with Christianity itself.

Every religion has its festivals, but none has so rich and so carefully thought out a system of feasts as the Catholic Church. If we may compare it to some artistically constructed edifice, we can regard the festivals of our Lord as forming the piers which support all the rest, the lesser feasts as contributing the decorations, and the Sundays, with their attendant weeks, as the stones of which the walls are built. Naturally all this did not exist at first, but, like many other things in the Church, has grown up into its present proportions from small beginnings.

We are not told that the Divine Founder of the Church appointed a single festival or left behind Him any instructions on the matter; still the germ, destined by Providence to develop afterwards into the system of festivals with which we are familiar, existed from the beginning. The subsequent rich and varied development of this system was not the work of individuals, but was due to the working of the spirit which ever rules the Universal Church, and ever renews itself within her. Love towards the Redeemer and gratitude for what He has done for us called the round of Christian festivals into being. The authorities in the Church have played the part of the gardener, pruning away superfluous shoots and branches. In view of the numerous institutions of this kind, some of which date back to remote antiquity, it was not a mere figure of speech which Tertullian made use of when, referring to the numerous heathen festivals, he addressed the Christians of his time with the words, “You have your own ‘fasti’” (“Habes tuos fastos.”—De Corona, c. 13).

The outline of the ecclesiastical year was prefigured in the Old Law, while the synagogue furnished the fundamental elements in its festivals, the Sabbath in particular, and in the division of the year into weeks. This renders a glance at the religious year of the Jews necessary, for, apart from it, it is impossible to understand the essential character of the Christian year.

The Jewish festivals in the time of Christ were instituted either in commemoration of events connected with the divine covenant, such as the Passover, or they were of an agrarian character or commemorated some national event, as the dedication of the Temple, Purim, Jom Kippar, etc.

According to the dates of their origin they fall into two classes:—

(a) The ancient festivals instituted by Moses: the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, in the earlier part of the year; the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles, in autumn, i.e. on the first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month Tizri.

(b) The more recent festivals instituted by the Synagogue, such as the Dedication of the Temple on the 25th Chisleu; Purim, or the Feast of Haman, on the 14th Adar. To these were added four fast days as days of national humiliation.

Consequently, since the death of Christ took place on the first day of the feast of the Passover (15th Nisan), and since the Descent of the Holy Ghost followed on the day of Pentecost, the chief Jewish feasts served as the foundation of the Christian ecclesiastical year, and the Apostles could join with the Jews in their Passover celebration. Certainly the object of their feast was very different from that of the Jews, yet, outwardly there was no separation from the synagogue.

The Sabbath and the week of seven days, by their appointment in the ancient Law, formed already a necessary element of the ecclesiastical year and maintained their position in the Church. The division of the year into weeks is not specifically Jewish, but rather Semitic, since we find it in existence in ancient Babylon, though there a new week began with the first day of every month, and the first, seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month were always days of rest.[2] This system of dividing time into weeks received a religious consecration among the Jews, inasmuch as the Sabbath rest was enjoined by the Law under the severest sanctions. All servile work of whatsoever kind must be laid aside on the Sabbath, according to the Jewish law. It was not even permitted to light a fire or prepare food. Important as was the place given to rest, it was, however, only one part, and that a subordinate part of the Sabbath festival. The most important part was the performance of the acts of divine worship God enjoined upon the people, that is to say the sacrifice of a holocaust, consisting of two yearling lambs, along with “flour tempered with oil and the libations.”[3]

There is no evidence of the Sabbath having been abrogated by Christ or the Apostles, but St Paul declared its observance was not binding on Gentile converts, who soon formed the majority of those converted to the faith; and in Col. ii. 16, he classes it along with the feasts of the new moon. Accordingly, the observance of the Sabbath fell more and more into the background, yet not without leaving some traces behind.[4] It appears at first to have rather existed side by side with Sunday.[5] Among the Christians, the first day of the Jewish week, the prima sabbati, the present Sunday, was held in honour as the day of our Lord’s resurrection and was called the Lord’s Day.[6] This name took the place of the name dies solis, formerly in use among the Greeks and Romans. The different days of the week were named after the heavenly bodies, which in turn took their names from the chief divinities of heathen mythology. Thus the names dies solis, lunæ, Martis, etc., were very general and widespread in antiquity. The Christians did not employ these titles for liturgical purposes, but called the week-days simply feriæ, and distinguished them merely by numbers.[7] In the romance languages the ecclesiastical name for Sunday, dies dominica, has quite taken the place of all others.

These names were already in use in the Apostolic period, and Sunday was the day on which the eucharistic worship of God was performed.[8] Christian worship in the earliest time consisted of two parts. Already, in the letters of Pliny, we find mention of a nocturnal service of preparation at which psalms were sung, prayers recited, and passages read from Holy Scripture. The eucharistic part of the service followed at dawn. These two parts appear sharply distinguished, especially in the diary of Silvia (or Etheria). The vigil service developed out of the first part. The second part in Silvia’s diary usually bears the name of Oblatio, while the term missa denotes merely the dismissal of the faithful and the respective divisions of the psalmody.[9] There also seems to have been a general confession of sins at the commencement of the service, which explains the exhortation of the “Teaching of the Apostles,” that the faithful should confess their sins on Sunday. At any rate, Eusebius plainly refers to the practice, and adds, “We, the adherents of the New Covenant, are constantly nourished by the Body of Christ; we continually partake of the Blood of the Lamb, and celebrate every week on Sunday the mysteries of the true Lamb, by Whom we have been redeemed.”[10] Upon the cessation of persecution, the present arrangement of divine service soon became established—that is to say, Mass and Sermon at nine A.M., with Vespers and Compline as popular devotions in the afternoon.

Besides Sunday, at least in Tertullian’s time, the liturgy was performed on Wednesday and Friday, the so-called Station Days. In the East, on the other hand, it was performed only on Saturdays, at least in many places.[11] To put on one’s best clothes for attendance at worship was a custom of the heathen, which the Christians retained, and which has survived to the present day.[12]

As to the grounds for celebrating Sunday, the Fathers are unanimous from the earliest times—it was kept as a festival because Christ rose again on the first day of the Jewish week.[13] A clear indication of this is given by the practice observed in Jerusalem in the fourth century of reading at the psalmody on each of the Sundays in Quinquagesima, the Gospel of the resurrection of Jesus.[14]

The first Christian Emperor did his best to promote the observance of Sunday and to show it all respect as a day of prayer. He gave leave to the Christian soldiers of his army to be absent from duty in order that they might attend divine service. The heathen soldiers, however, had to assemble in camp without their arms, and offer up a prayer for the Emperor and his family.[15] Eusebius, in his “Life of Constantine,” mentions in detail these pious endeavours of the Emperor, yet his information must have been incomplete, since Sozomen[16] informs us that Constantine also forbade the law-courts to sit on Sunday. It has been attempted to throw doubt on the veracity of this information because of the silence of Eusebius; but Sozomen was an advocate, and must have been better up in the existing legislation than Eusebius, and, moreover, a clear grasp of the point at issue along with a lucid representation of all the facts concerned is not one of the excellences of Eusebius. The information given by Sozomen is further supported by the fact that a law of Constantine’s directed to the same end is in existence.[17]

The prohibition of the transaction of legal business on Sunday was frequently renewed by his successors, and extended so as to suspend the courts of arbitration, and to prohibit summonses for debt.[18]

A law of Valentinian II., in A.D. 425, forbade games in the Circus, and all theatrical representations on Sunday. To the honour of the Emperors it must be said that they suppressed these representations more than once.[19] The Emperor Leo also renewed the law concerning the Sunday rest, and went so far as to forbid music on Sundays,[20] but his law is not included in the general collection of statutes, having been repealed after a short time.

As regards working on Sunday, the Church very carefully avoided the adoption of a pharisaical observance of the day; but, from the beginning, there was a consensus of Christian opinion against the continuance of all work which rendered the attendance of the faithful at divine worship impossible—as, for instance, the labours of slaves or the work of servants. In course of time this was extended so as to exclude all kinds of work out of keeping with the dignity of the day. As to details, different views prevailed to a great extent in different places and times.[21] The first Christian Emperor had already, according to Eusebius,[22] made a law prescribing throughout his Empire rest on Sundays, and even on Fridays as well. Ecclesiastical legislation on its part maintained that slaves must have sufficient free time to attend divine worship and receive religious instruction in church. Attendance at this was regarded as the duty of all grown up Christians.[23] For the rest, the prohibition of work on Sunday was not always regarded in antiquity as of general obligation. Thus, for example, the Council of Laodicea forbade Christians on the one hand to celebrate Saturday in the Jewish manner, and, on the other, enjoined rest from labour only “in so far as it was possible.”[24]

That the establishment of rest from labour had special reference to slaves is shown by the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In them we have (8, 33) the days on which slaves were to be free from labour once more enumerated in detail, and the limits of the earlier legislation considerably extended.

Days of rest for slaves were to be: Saturday and Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Week, the Ascension, Whitsunday, Christmas, Epiphany, all festivals of Apostles, St Stephen’s Day, and the feasts of certain martyrs. Naturally the object of this ordinance was not to make all these days festivals in the strict sense of the word.

In his anxiety to do honour to the holy days of the Church, the first Christian Emperor went still further. He desired to make Friday, the day of Christ’s death, a day of rest and devotion as well.[25] We have no information as to how far this regulation took practical effect during his life. No trace of such a custom exists at a later date except among the Nestorians. How earnest he was in securing the execution of these decrees is shown by the fact that he commanded the prefects of the provinces not only to observe Sundays, but also to celebrate the commemorations of the martyrs, within their jurisdictions.[26]

It has been already observed that Saturday as well as Sunday had its liturgical observance. In certain Eastern countries it attained to a position almost equal to that of Sunday. For, in the Apostolic Constitutions, it is laid down that the faithful shall attend divine service on this day also, and abstain from servile work,[27] although the rank of Sunday was acknowledged to be higher.[28] The Council of Laodicea forbade indeed, as we have observed above, the abandonment of work on Saturday, but it enjoined the reading of the Gospel as on Sunday (Can. 16). Traces of this pre-eminence of Saturday among the week-days exists at the present time in the Churches of the East.[29]

In conclusion, it is to be noticed that, in the Middle Ages, the rest from labour commenced, contrary to our present custom, with the Vespers of Saturday. Pope Alexander III., however, decreed that local custom should retain its prescriptive right, and so it came to pass that the practice of reckoning the feast day from midnight to midnight became general.[30]

According to the points of view taken, festivals may be divided into different classes:—

1. According to the object of the festival, into festivals of our Lord and festivals of the saints.

The former fall into three divisions: (a) movable feasts—Easter, Pentecost, etc.; (b) immovable feasts—Christmas, Epiphany, etc.; (c) such as are not included in the above cycles and are immovable, e.g., the Transfiguration, Invention of the Cross, etc.

The saints whose feasts are celebrated are either Old Testament personages—although these do not appear in the Roman Calendar as they do in others, especially those of the Oriental Churches—or Apostles, martyrs, virgins, confessors, angels, and, finally, the Mother of our Lord.

2. With regard to their observance, festivals may be either local or general.

3. According to their character, we may theoretically divide the festivals into commemorative and devotional festivals. Commemorative festivals are those which celebrate a historical event, e.g., the birth, and death of Jesus, the death of an Apostle, of a martyr, etc. These, in many cases, are celebrated on the actual day of the event commemorated. As devotional festivals, we may rank those which celebrate some mystery of the Faith, e.g., the Holy Trinity, or those which, although they commemorate a particular event, such as the Transfiguration, do not celebrate it on the day on which it actually happened.

Since the number of festivals altered much in the course of centuries, and their objects are so various, they are distinguished from one another by differences of rank and a whole series of gradations has arisen.

In the first place there are purely ecclesiastical festivals whose celebration is confined within the four walls of the Church (festa chori), and festivals which have their bearing upon the common life of the people, chiefly on account of the rest from labour which is conjoined with them (festa fori).

The so-called feriæ and the festivals strictly so called are clearly distinguished from one another. According to the practice of the Church, the ordinary days of the year have their place in the liturgy, and share to a certain extent in the festal character of the season, although distinguished from those days on which is commemorated some mystery of our redemption or the memory of a saint. These latter are holy days (festa) in a higher sense.

These holy days again are divided into greater or lesser feasts—in the language of the rubrics, into festa duplicia and simplicia, with an intermediate class, the semi-duplicia. This is more marked in the arrangements of the Breviary than in the Missal. This does not exhaust the differences between festivals, for there are further distinctions in their rank, especially in the case of the festivals of our Lord and of the chief mysteries of our redemption, i.e. duplicia majora, and duplicia primæ and secundæ classis. The festa duplicia primæ classis are usually kept up for eight days—the so-called octave; so too some of the secundæ classis.

The different rank of feasts is not so elaborate among the Greeks and Russians, for they divide their festivals simply into greater, intermediate, and lesser, which are marked in their Calendars by special signs.

The octave which belongs to the chief festivals has its origin in Judaism, for the Jews prolonged for eight days the festivals which commemorated the two chief religious and political events in their history—the Exodus from Egypt or the Passover, and the Dedication of the Temple.[31] With regard to the Passover, there was another reason for prolonging the feast during eight days. Since many Jews, after the Exile, remained scattered throughout various countries, there was a risk, owing to the uncertain character of the Jewish Calendar, that the correct date of the feast might not be known to all. In order to avoid the misfortune of celebrating the feast on a wrong day, the feast was prolonged for eight days, one of which would certainly be the right day. The first, second, seventh, and last days were especially regarded as festivals.[32] Then Pentecost and Christmas were also observed with an octave, and so matters remained for a long period. It was owing to the influence which the Franciscan Order exerted in liturgical affairs that the number of octaves was increased. The Franciscans provided an inordinate number of festivals with octaves in their Breviary, and observed each day of the octave with the rite of a festum duplex. In this way a number of saints’ festivals, in addition to the feasts of our Lord, were provided with octaves. According to the ancient Roman rite, the observance of the octave consisted merely in a simple commemoration of the festival inserted in the office on the eighth day, without taking any notice of the festival on the intervening six days.[33] A single example of this ancient custom still exists in the Breviary in the festum S. Agnetis secundo.

Formerly saints’ festivals were not distinguished from one another in rank, but all were kept with the rite of a festum simplex, as it is now called, and also were provided with one lection only, as the Breviary developed. An alteration in this respect was introduced by Gregory VII., who appointed that the commemoration of Popes who were also martyrs should be celebrated as festa duplicia.[34] Next, Boniface VIII., in 1298, ordered that the feasts of the Apostles, Evangelists, and four great doctors of the Western Church should be advanced to the same rank.[35] The Franciscans brought about a complete revolution by celebrating in their Breviary and in their churches all festivals of the saints as duplicia, and by adding a number of new saints.[36] Pius V. reduced the rank of many feasts, but over and above the duplicia he permitted doubles of the first and second class. To the ordinary duplex, or duplex simpliciter per annum, Clement VIII. added yet another species, the duplex majus.[37] Thus, according to the present regulations, feasts are ranked either as simplex, semiduplex, duplex, majus, duplex II. and I. classis.[38]

It is a recognised fact in history that the festivals of the Church in the course of centuries considerably increased in number, and that, when this increase had reached its highest point, their number began again to diminish. This was partly effected by means of legislation and without disturbance, but partly by the violent proceedings attendant upon the French Revolution. The stages in this process will be best understood from an account of the secular and ecclesiastical legislation by which they were brought about.

Tertullian[39] is the first ecclesiastical writer who enumerates the feasts celebrated among the Christians. The only festivals known to him, and to Origen after him, are Easter and Pentecost.[40] His statement is all the more noteworthy, because the exigencies of his controversy with Celsus required he should specify all the festivals by name. These are, besides Sundays, the Parasceve, Easter, and Pentecost. Tertullian and Origen are witnesses respectively for the East and West, and since their evidence coincides, it is certain that in the third century only the first germs existed of that Church-life which subsequently was to reach so rich a development. The cessation of persecution removed those hindrances which up to then had stood in the way of its evolution.

The increase of festivals can now be traced with the assistance of secular legislation, inasmuch as the Christian Emperors prohibited the sitting of the law-courts and games in the circus on certain days. It has been already shown that Constantine, as early as 321, appointed that no legal business should be transacted on all Sundays of the year. In a proclamation concerning the regulation of legal vacations, put forth by Valentinian II. and his colleague in the Empire, and dated from Rome on the 7th August 389, the seven days before and after Easter are added to the Sundays.[41] In the same way as special sittings of the law-courts were abolished on Sundays, so, later on, the proceedings before the judge of arbitration were forbidden.

When a day became recognised as exempt from legal business, this did not at once render it a festival or holy day, otherwise, according to the law of 389, there would have been fifteen consecutive holy days. The prohibition of legal proceedings in the courts on a given day, had regard, in the first place, to the removal of all hindrances which might interfere with attendance at divine worship on the part of those employed therein. In the second place, however, it must be remembered that in those days the sittings of the criminal courts almost always implied the application of torture; and such proceedings on holy days seemed especially out of place. This must also have been the reason why Valentinian and his colleague forbade prosecutions in the criminal courts throughout the whole of Lent. He certainly did not aim at changing all the days of Lent into feast-days. This law was renewed by Justinian.[42]

The legislation concerning Christmas and Epiphany exhibits a good deal of vacillation, probably connected with the fact that these two festivals were not yet generally celebrated and recognised everywhere in the fourth century. They seem to have been originally mentioned in the law of 389, but to have been struck out by the redactors of the Codex Theodosianus.[43] It was only through the inclusion of the law in question in the Code of Justinian that they were finally marked as days on which the law-courts did not sit. This privilege had been already taken away from heathen festivals by a law of Valentinian and his colleague in 392.[44]

Alongside these laws we find others forbidding games in the Circus and in the theatres. These interfered with the attendance of many persons at divine service as much as, or even more than, the proceedings in the law-courts, for they began early in the morning and lasted the whole day. Valentinian II. and his colleague, on the 19th June 386, re-enacted one of their earlier laws forbidding the performance of such plays on Sundays.[45] Through later legislation, it came to pass that the same held good for the seven days before and after Easter as well, and in 395 were added all the days of the year which were regarded as feriæ.[46] Finally, a law of Theodosius II. of 1st February 425, gives a list of all those days on which these spectacles (theatrorum atque circensium voluptas) were forbidden. These were all the Sundays of the year, Christmas, Epiphany, and the whole period from Easter to Pentecost.[47] In A.D. 400 Arcadius and Honorius forbade races on Sundays, plainly for the reason that they drew away the people from divine service.[48]

In order to illustrate the increase in the number of festivals, we make use, as we have said, of the official decrees on the subject put forth by the authorities both in Church and State, where such are at our disposal. The service-books, which do not always give the distinction between festa in choro and in foro with precision, will be consulted when necessary.

A list of feasts and sacred seasons appears for the first time in the fifth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, viz. the Birthday of our Lord (25th December), Epiphany, Lent, the Holy Week of the Passover, the Passover of the Resurrection, the Sunday after Easter, on which is read the Gospel of unbelieving Thomas, Ascension, and Pentecost. This gives the festivals in the fourth century. Other evidence of the same period, i.e. the sermons of Chrysostom and others, affords certain proof for the existence of five or six festivals only, according as Good Friday is included among them or not, viz. Christmas, Epiphany, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension of Christ, and Pentecost.[49]

A list of the festivals celebrated at Tours and in the neighbouring Abbey of St Martin’s during the fifth century, is given us by Perpetuus (461-91), the sixth bishop of the see.[50] In this is shown the days on which the principal service is held in the cathedral, and those on which it is held in other churches in the town:—

The regulations for festivals contained in the statutes of Sonnatius, Bishop of Reims (614-31), show a further development. It marks as festivals: Nativitas Domini, Circumcisio, Epiphania, Annunciatio Beatæ Mariæ, Resurrectio Domini cum die sequenti, Ascensio Domini, dies Pentecostes, Nativitas beati Joannis Baptistæ, Nativitas apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Assumptio beatæ Mariæ, ejusdem Nativitas, Nativitas Andreæ apostoli et omnes dies dominicales. These thirteen days were to be celebrated “absque omni opere forensi.”[52] The omission of Candlemas Day is remarkable. The day after Easter appears for the first time as a holy day. The Council of Maçon, however, had already gone further and forbidden (Can. 2) servile work throughout the whole of Easter week. This extension of the festival was probably at that time unique, while we often meet with it in the ninth century, when it had probably become general.

According to this document, the number of days which in the course of the year were exempt from labour did not exceed sixty-three in the seventh century. Their number was considerably increased in the subsequent period. In the notes on festivals ascribed to St Boniface, it has increased to seventy-one, including the two Sundays on which Easter and Pentecost fall. These notes are included in the collection known as statuta quædam S. Bonifacii,[53] and even if they do not owe their origin to St Boniface, they belong without doubt to his period. Days in which rest from labour (sabbatismus) is enjoined in this document are Christmas (four days), the Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, Easter (four days), Ascension, Nativity of St John the Baptist, the festival of SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, St Andrew’s Day (30th November). Pentecost is passed over because it has already been mentioned in the thirty-fourth canon, but it was to be celebrated in the same manner as Easter, that is, during four days with a vigil.

In the Frankish Empire, during the ninth century, the regulations for holy days were everywhere reduced to order, and in consequence we possess numerous ordinances bearing on the subject. With the exception of festivals of local saints and patrons, they present little variety. With regard to the Assumptio B.V.M. alone, there seems to have been some fluctuations in France at the beginning of the ninth century, as a statement of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 proves. The Council enumerates the following festivals: Natalis Domini, natales S. Stephani, S. Joannis Evangelistæ, SS. Innocentium, octabas Domini (the Circumcision), Epiphania, Purificatio S. Mariæ, Pascha dies octo, Litania major, scensa Domini, Pentecoste, natales S. Joannis Baptistæ, SS. Petri et Pauli, S. Martini, S. Andreæ. De Assumptione S. Mariæ interrogandum reliquimus.[54] The Council of Mainz in 813, however, in its thirty-sixth canon, includes this last festival along with the others, as well as the litania with four days, i.e. including the preceding Sunday. It also directs that, besides the commemoration of those martyrs and confessors whose relics repose within the diocese, the anniversary of the dedication of the church shall also be celebrated.[55] About the same time, i.e. in 827, Bishop Hetto of Basle put out a statute, in the eighth chapter of which the festivals entailing rest from servile work (dies feriandi) are enumerated: Christmas and the three following days, Octava Domini, Theophania, Purificatio S.M., Pascha (which, according to the seventh chapter, was prolonged for eight days), the three Rogation days, the Ascension, the Saturday before Pentecost, St John Baptist, the festivals of the Apostles, Assumptio S. Mariæ, St Michael, the Dedication of the Church, and the Feast of the patron saint, these two last to be observed locally. Three other days, i.e. St Remigius, St Maurice, and St Martin, were not exempt from servile work.[56] This arrangement differs from the preceding, inasmuch as it includes all the Apostles, while the other mentions only SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. The festivals of the Apostles are also absent from the list given by the Council of Mainz in 809.

The Council of Mainz in 813, and the statutes of Bishop Rudolph of Bourges and Bishop Walter of Orleans in the same century, prescribe eight days for the festival of Pentecost, as well as for Easter, and mention in addition the Nativity of our Lady and St Remigius as festivals.[57] The Council of Ingelheim in 948 retained the Easter octave but reduced the festival of Pentecost to four days, which were finally reduced to three by the Council of Constance.[58] A few additions to these festivals are given in the collections of canons put out at a subsequent period by Burchard of Worms[59] and Ivo of Chartres.[60]

The Canon Law contains two lists of festivals, the one representing the state of things in the twelfth, the other that in the thirteenth century. The former, in the decretal of Gratian,[61] enumerates all the Sundays in the year from Vespers to Vespers, and then, throughout the year, the following days are exempt from servile work: Christmas and the three following days, St Silvester, Octava Domini, Theophania, Purificatio S. Mariæ, Easter and the entire Easter week, the three Rogation days, the Ascension, the days of Pentecost (probably three), St John the Baptist’s Day, all the Apostles, St Lawrence, Assumptio and Nativitas B.M.V., the Dedication of the Church, St Michael and All Saints, and, finally, the festivals approved by the bishop of the diocese. This list exhibits a further increase on its predecessors.

The decretal of Gregory IX., Conquestus est nobis, of the year 1232,[62] is important for the Middle Ages, although it does not represent the highest point in the development. According to it, legal business was not to be transacted on the Natalis Domini, S. Stephani, Joannis Evangelistæ, SS. Innocentium, S. Silvestri, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniæ, Septem Diebus Dominicæ Passionis, Resurrectionis cum septem Sequentibus, Ascensionis, Pentecostes cum duobus qui sequuntur, Nativitatis Baptistæ, Festivitatum omnium Virginis Gloriosæ, Duodecim Apostolorum et præcipue Petri et Pauli, Beati Laurentii, Dedicationis Beati Michælis, Sollemnitatis omnium Sanctorum ac Diebus Dominicis ceterisque sollemnitatibus, quas singuli episcopi in suis diæcesibus cum clero et populo duxerint sollemniter celebrandas. Setting down the number of Our Lady’s feasts as five, and the Apostles’ as eleven, we have here ninety-five days in the year on which no legal proceedings took place, not counting the particular festivals of the country and diocese. The above-mentioned decretal is silent concerning servile work. We may assume that there were ten out of the fifteen days exempt from legal proceedings on which servile work was permitted, and thus the total of days exempt from labour must have amounted to eighty-five in the course of the year, omitting the festivals proper to the diocese.[63]

With this, the highest point of development was almost attained, for only a very few festivals were added later, such as Corpus Christi, and, for certain localities, the Conception of Our Blessed Lady, and one or two more, but the number of local festivals might, under certain circumstances, be largely augmented. Between the thirteenth and the eighteenth centuries there were dioceses in which the number of days exempt from labour reached or even exceeded a hundred, so that, generally speaking, in every week there was another day besides the Sunday on which ordinary occupations were laid aside.[64] In some dioceses[65] the number of festivals observed exceeded those proscribed by lawful authority.[66]

In the Byzantine Empire the number of days exempt from legal proceedings was even more considerable than in the West. A distinction was made between whole holidays and half holidays. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus reduced their number by a constitution, dated March 1166. According to this, the first-class comprised no fewer than sixty-six days, not including Sundays, and the second comprised twenty-seven.

From the Calendar of Calcasendi,[67] we learn what were the festivals observed by the Copts in Egypt, in the eighth century, under Mahomedan rule. They distinguished between greater and lesser festivals, and kept seven of each.

The greater festivals are:—

The lesser festivals are:—

For the Egyptian Christians, Good Friday was not a festival of either the first or second class. In this it stood in marked distinction from the preceding and following days—Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday, which were regarded as festivals of the second class.

The festivals observed in the latter period of the Byzantine Empire under the Paleologi are found in the treatise of an official of the palace, George Codinus, De Officiis Palatii, in which detailed information is given of the costume, insignia, etc., with which the Emperor and his courtiers attended divine service in the different churches of the capital. Beside the great festivals—Christmas, Epiphany, Hypapante, Easter, and Pentecost—the following days were distinguished by the attendance of the Court at divine service: the First Sunday in Lent, called by the Greeks Orthodox Sunday, Palm Sunday, Holy Saturday and the Easter Octave, the 1st September being New Year’s Day. To these were added a great number of saints’ days, i.e. 1st January, St Basil; 23rd April, St George; 21st May, Constantine; 24th June, Nativity of St John the Baptist; 30th June, the Feast of the Apostles; 8th August, the Transfiguration; 15th August, the Assumption (κοίμησις τῆς ὑπεραγίας θεοτόκου); 29th August, the Beheading of St John the Baptist; 31st August or 2nd July, the Translation of Our Lady’s garment to the Church of the Blachernæ; 8th September, the Nativity of Our Lady; 14th September, the Invention of the Cross (ὕψωσις τοῦ σταυροῦ); 26th October, Feast of the Martyr Demetrius Myroblyta; 13th November, St Chrysostom; 21st November, the Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple; and, finally, the day of the Resurrection of Lazarus, which was kept on the Saturday before Palm Sunday. The Court did not attend divine service on Good Friday, although it did on Holy Saturday. No mention is made of the Ascension.

The large increase in festivals in the Middle Ages was due to the fact that the bishops exercised the right given them by Canon Law,[68] of introducing new feasts within the limits of their dioceses. This arose from the ancient custom, that it belonged to them to watch over the cultus of the martyrs, and it depended upon their authorisation whether or not a given martyr should be recognised and venerated as such. Later, when the religious orders became widespread and influential, it usually happened that some monastery began to venerate a mystery or a saint, and then, as this cultus was taken up by the people, other monasteries, or the whole Order, adopted the festival,[69] and, finally, the bishops gave their approbation to the institution of the holy day in question. Lastly, the civil power and the Roman See intervened, and the new holy day was in this way fully sanctioned. Things, however, did not always proceed so far, for in many cases the festival was confined to a single diocese, the result being great variety in particulars and general uncertainty. These abuses became more deeply felt in course of time, and so Urban VIII., in his constitution Universa per orbem, published in 1642, warns the bishops not to use their rights in this respect for the future, and at the present day these rights, without having been abrogated, are regarded as antiquated.[70]

The fact that formerly the bishops enjoyed the right of introducing festivals into their dioceses, or of excluding them, must constantly be borne in mind, because, if it is left out of sight, the institution and development of even a single festival cannot be understood, much less the historical development of the whole festal cycle. When we realise that this principle was acted upon from the beginning, and for more than a thousand years, during a period remarkable for its rich development in many directions, the wonder is that the result is as harmonious and systematic as it is. No departure was made from the natural basis upon which the whole was built up, and the attempts of the Councils were all in the direction of uniformity.

The abuses resulting from the excessive multiplication of holy days was remarked upon even in Catholic times, especially by John Gerson, at a provincial synod at Reims in 1408, and by Nicholas de Clemangiis, who, in a work[71] devoted to that purpose, published about 1416, spoke out boldly against the introduction of any more festivals. In the sixteenth century, the Protestants in their Gravamina denounced the great number of festivals, and already in 1524 the legate Campeggio settled their number, and so put an end to their arbitrary increase for the future.[72]

By the introduction of diocesan and local festivals, the number of holy days became excessive in some localities, and great uncertainty arose as to which festivals should be celebrated by all, in accordance with the general precepts of the Church, and which should not. This, and the complaints of the poor that they were prevented by the number of holy days from gaining their livelihood, while others again took advantage of them to indulge in laziness or the pursuit of pleasure, was the ground which Gerson had already adduced in his time. The same reasons now induced Pope Urban VIII. to regulate the arrangements of festivals and to fix limits for the whole Church beyond which it would not be lawful to go. For this purpose, he published, on the 24th September 1642, the important constitution Universa per orbem, in which the following holy days are prescribed: 1. Feasts of our Lord—Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, with the two following days, New Year, Epiphany, the Ascension, Trinity, Corpus Christi, the Invention of the Cross. 2. Feasts of Our Lady—Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Assumption, and the Nativity. 3. Saints’ Days—St Michael (8th May), Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, St Andrew, St James, St John, St Thomas, SS. Phillip and James, St Bartholomew, St Matthew, SS. Simon and Jude, St Matthias, St Lawrence, St Silvester, St Joseph, St Anne, All Saints’, and the patron saint of the country. The actual reduction was small, and concerned chiefly the lesser saints days, such as St Mary Magdalene, St Cecilia, St Catherine, St Martin, etc. A more important consequence of this constitution was, that the original right of the bishop to appoint festivals, although recognised by the Council of Trent, was rendered practically ineffective.

In the eighteenth century, the hatred against the Church which showed itself at the Courts of the Bourbon sovereigns, and the so-called advance of culture, necessitated fresh regulations on this point. First of all, at the request of the provincial synod of Tarragona in 1727, Pope Benedict XIII. consented to the reduction of the number of festivals for a part of Spain. From this arose the distinction between half and whole holy days.[73] Rest from servile work was maintained only on the Sundays and seventeen festivals, i.e. half the number given in the list above, and for the other seventeen days it was enjoined that the faithful assist at Mass only. After attendance at divine service, all kinds of work were to be permitted. This permission was extended in 1748, by Benedict XIV., to Naples, Sicily, and several Spanish dioceses.

The same Pope extended this reduction of festivals to Austria in 1754, inasmuch as only fifteen complete holy days besides Sundays were left; while on the other days, which were to be observed according to the provisions of the bull, Universa per orbem, it was enjoined that Mass should be heard and the fast kept on their vigil. This last injunction soon fell into disuse, and even assistance at Mass on the suppressed holy days was not strictly observed. Accordingly, the Empress Maria Teresa desired an alteration, and Pope Clement XIV. issued a new brief in 1771. In this, the direction to keep a fast on the vigil of the suppressed festivals, and to attend mass, was set aside, and the following festivals were prescribed to be kept as complete holy days; Christmas, St Stephen’s Day, New Year, Epiphany, Easter (two days), the Ascension, Pentecost (two days), Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the five principle feasts of our Lady, and the festival of the patron saint of the country, i.e. eighteen days in addition to the Sundays. A similar arrangement was introduced, in 1772, into the then electorate of Bavaria, in 1775, into Poland and East Prussia, and in 1791, into the whole of Spain.[74]

Under Pius VI. permission was frequently given for the reduction of the number of festivals at the request of certain dioceses and districts as appears from the bullarium of this Pope.

It became necessary to make new arrangements concerning festivals for Prussia, after the incorporation of Silesia. This was effected by a brief of Clement XIV. of the 24th June 1772, especially granted to the diocese of Breslau, but applying to all Prussia as it then existed. The festivals retained were: Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas (each two days), the Circumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, five feasts of Our Lady, (i.e. the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity, and Conception), SS. Peter and Paul and All Saints. Where there were several patron saints, only one, the principal, was to be celebrated.

These regulations remained in force only until 1788, for King Frederick William II. requested a further reduction in the number of festivals through his agent in Rome, Ciofani. In consequence of this, Pius VI. transferred the feasts of the Assumption and Nativity of our Lady to the Sundays following, and, at the express wish of the King, appointed that the Wednesday in the third week after Easter, one of the Protestant days of penitence and prayer, should rank as a festival, an order that all might implore the same God for a fruitful harvest. In compensation for the suppressed festivals of the Apostles and other Saints, there was to be observed the commemoration of all the Apostles on the 29th June, and a similar commemoration of all the holy martyrs on the 26th December. These had already been appointed by Clement XIV.[75]

These regulations remained in force for Prussia, and were even extended to its newly acquired territories by a brief of Leo XII., dated 2nd December 1828. By this means, the districts on the left bank of the Rhine, which, while under French dominion had only kept the four holidays prescribed by the Code Napoleon, again enjoyed a notable increase in the number of festivals. In order that this might not interfere with the livelihood of the industrial classes, who had to compete with Protestants, it was conceded at the representations of Archbishop von Spiegel that, in the industrial districts, servile labour might be performed after attendance at Mass on the festivals introduced in obedience to the brief of Leo XII. Owing to the deeply religious character of the district in question, very little use was ever made of this concession, and it has accordingly become obsolete. This is the origin of the regulations for Catholic festivals at present in force in Prussia. In one point, however, an alteration has been made, for when the Protestant day of penitence in prayer which falls in November, was fixed by authority in 1893, the Catholics fell in with the arrangement, and now celebrate the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple as a movable feast on the same day.

The greatest alterations in respect of the Church’s holy days was caused by the French Revolution. By a decree of the Convention on 5th October 1793, the Christian mode of reckoning was abolished and a new mode substituted for it. The years were to be reckoned from the establishment of the French Republic on 22nd September 1792. The division of time into weeks was also abolished and the months, now uniformly of thirty days, were divided into the decades. The French observed this mode of reckoning until 1st January 1806. While it was in force, Napoleon undertook the re-establishment of ecclesiastical affairs in France, and as far as the regulations for holy days are concerned, traces of the then existing state of things survives until the present day. For the Church had to fall in with the reckoning then in force, to the extent of either abolishing all holy days which fell in the week, or of transferring them to the Sunday. According to the ordinance of the Cardinal Legate Caprara, dated Paris, 9th April 1802, only four holy days were left, i.e. Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption (because the 15th August was Napoleon’s name-day), and All Saints. This ordinance affected all France as it was then, that is including the Netherlands, and the whole left bank of the Rhine.

In the Appendix[76] will be found a detailed list of the festivals observed in different countries upon which servile work is forbidden. A list of this kind, in addition to its practical value, is instructive as showing how the interests of religion are affected by the culture and social conditions of each country at a given period, and also how politics have intruded themselves into the sphere of religion. The latter fact is especially prominent in Protestantism. From the beginning, Protestantism was affected by two opposing streams—one favourable to the observance of festivals, prevailing among the Lutheran, the other opposed to it, prevailing among the Calvinists. Luther wished to retain all feasts of our Lord, and even Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation found favour with him as such. Saints days and the two festivals of the Holy Cross were alone to be abolished. Certain secular governments tolerated even more festivals, such as St Michael and St John the Baptist. The Church Order of Brandenburg retained the feasts of Apostles, and even Corpus Christi, but without a procession, and the Assumption—this last for the sake of the peasants.[77] The same regulations were observed in Saxony and Würtemburg. Strict Calvinism retained only Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost; its spread and increasing influence manifested itself gradually in the regulations concerning festivals. The Prussian Union, and the Agenda of the so-called Evangelical State Church of 1895 recognise as holy days of obligation only the three principal festivals, each with two holidays, i.e. the Sunday and the Monday, New Year, Epiphany, Good Friday, the Ascension, along with the days of penitence and prayer. Contrary to the principles of Calvinism, the Established Church of England possesses a Calendar richly furnished with festivals.[78]

PART II — CHAPTER I THE CHURCH’S YEAR — A. Easter, and the Sacred Seasons connected with Easter — B. Christmas and the Christmas Season — C. Other Incidents in the Church’s Year

1. Easter, its Name and History

Were it our object to deal with the Church’s year as affording material for a series of doctrinal instructions, we should begin with Christmas, the festival of Christ’s birth, for, so viewed, the ecclesiastical year becomes chiefly a compendium of the chief acts in the drama of our salvation, and recalls in orderly succession the principal events in our Saviour’s life. But if we make the Church’s year in itself the object of our studies, especially if we deal with it historically, we are bound to commence with Easter, because, in order of time, it existed from the first and formed the natural starting-point for all the rest. It did not, as other festivals, come into existence gradually, but formed a connecting link with the Old Testament, and was, in the strictest sense of the words, the appointment of a Higher Power, providentially ordering all things according to Its good pleasure. Easter owes its origin not to human wisdom, or piety: it comes to us with higher sanctions.

Easter is the chief festival of Christendom, the first and oldest of all festivals, the basis on which the Church’s year is built, the connecting link with the festivals of the Old Covenant, and the central point on which depends the date of the other movable feasts. At an early date, the Fathers mention Easter as the most important of the festivals, as, for example, St Leo the Great,[79] on the grounds that the incarnation and birth of the Son of God served as a prelude to the mystery of the Resurrection, and that Christ had no other purpose in being born of a woman than that He should be nailed to the Cross for us.[80] Other Fathers and the Roman martyrology call it the feast of feasts (festum festorum).

With regard to the name, the English word “Easter” comes from Eastre, in German “Ostra,”[81] the goddess of Spring worshipped by the ancient Saxons and Angles, whose name survives in many place-names, such as Osterode, Osterberg, etc. In her honour fires, known as the Easter fires, were kindled in spring. In Latin, we find at first dominica resurrectionis alone used in the liturgy, never Pascha. Pascha has no connection with the Greek πάσχω, but is the Aramaic form of pesach, to pass over, ‎‏פַּסְחָח‎‏ for ‎‏פֶּסַח‎‏. In Christian times, the similarity in the sound of the words easily suggested, by a sort of play upon the words, that which to Christians is the chief object of the Easter festival. In the Pentateuch, pascha is only found in the strict sense of transitus, phase.[82]

The points to be dealt with regarding Easter are its antiquity, and its connection, in point of view of time and of signification, with the Jewish Passover, with which it is connected by the death of Christ, as well as by the day on which that death took place. Then, the character and duration of the feast, the preparatory solemnity of Lent, and the subsequent Octave must be dealt with.

With regard to Easter and its antiquity in early ecclesiastical literature, the Apostolic Fathers, owing to the questions dealt with in their writings, do not mention it. Only in the interpolated letter of Ignatius to the Philippians (c. 14) is Easter mentioned. The passage is directed against the Quartodecimans, which of itself is proof of its later date. Nothing is to be found in the Didaché or in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies. When we come to the apologists, we find no reference to Easter in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (c. 40), and nothing in either of his Apologies. Clement of Alexandria speaks only of the Jewish passover, without referring to the Christian feast. Melito of Sardis, however, wrote an entire treatise on the festival of Easter, in the year when Servilius Paulus was Pro-Consul of Asia, for at that time a disagreement concerning Easter had broken out in Laodicea. Clement of Alexandria replied to Melito, who had written in defence of the Quartodeciman practice.[83]

In 198, when the difference between Asia and the rest of the Church concerning Easter came under discussion, an exchange of letters took place between the leading authorities of the Church, Pope Victor, Bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem, Polycrates of Ephesus, Bacchylus of Corinth, Irenæus, and others taking part. Irenæus composed a special treatise De Paschate, sometimes called De Schismate, unfortunately lost. In the fragments falsely attributed to him, Easter is referred to in the third and seventh.

References to Easter are frequent in Tertullian. With regard to the name, it is to be noticed that with him pascha denotes, not the single day of the Easter festival, but a longer period of time, in which a fast was observed and baptism administered,[84] in other words, Passion-tide and the Easter Octave.[85] Moreover, for the actual day of our Lord’s death, he uses the word, parasceve.[86] The festival of Easter, as he further relates, was kept in the first month (i.e. March),[87] and was prefigured by the Jewish Passover.[88] We possess a treatise on Easter, of the year 243 A.D., formerly attributed wrongly to St Cyprian, but, probably, a translation of work of Theophilus of Cæsarea. It is entitled De Paschate Computus, and was written elsewhere than at Rome, in the interest of the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus. The remarks of Hippolytus on the Quartodecimans afford us important evidence for the Ante-Nicene period. “These,” he says, “agree with the Church in preserving all the apostolic traditions, but differ from her in one point, inasmuch as, out of contentiousness, wilfulness, and ignorance, they maintain that the Christian feast must always be kept on the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it falls.”[89]

If the Arabic Canons ascribed to Hippolytus, especially the twenty-second, are really his, it would appear that he held Easter might be kept in the same week as the Jewish Passover, but on the Sunday, and should be preceded by a week’s fast on bread and water.[90] This date coincides with the Easter cycle of sixteen years drawn up by Hippolytus, and which, after all, is only the Jewish cycle of eight years doubled.

The seventh and sixty-ninth of the so-called Apostolic Canons refer to Easter and its preparatory fast. The seventh is also important on account of what it says about the period within which Easter may fall: “Whosoever keeps Easter with the Jews before the vernal equinox, let him be anathema.” From which it appears that the Jewish Passover could fall before the vernal equinox. The last day of Nisan alone must never precede the equinox, and, consequently, the Passover must frequently have fallen before the 21st March, and may have done so in the year of our Lord’s death.

Of Eusebius’ treatise on Easter,[91] dedicated to the Emperor, only a portion remains and this contains nothing either about Easter or its date. Constantine gratefully accepted the dedication in a letter which Eusebius, not without vanity, incorporated in his Vita Constantini (4, 35). The Emperor’s encyclical,[92] communicating to the churches the conclusions concerning Easter arrived at by the Nicene Council, would have been more deserving of a place in the same work.

2. The Connection of the Christian Festival with the Jewish

The connection between the Christian and the Jewish feasts is both historical and ideal—historical because our Lord’s death happened on the 15th Nisan, the first day of the Jewish feast; ideal, because what took place had been prefigured in the Old Testament by types of which it was itself the antitype.

The Jewish Passover was a repetition of what had taken place on the evening of the exodus from Egypt. On that occasion, the children of Israel had killed a lamb and marked their doorposts with its blood in order that the destroying angel might pass over their houses. Then, dressed for the journey, they had consumed the lamb at a ceremonial meal. This last meal of which the Israelites partook in Egypt on the eve of their departure, i.e. on the 14th Nisan, was of a religious character, and was, on this account, to be repeated every year on the same day, and at the same hour, as a memorial feast, at which each father of a family had to instruct his household in the signification of the rites they were performing.[93]

The manner of celebrating the feast was minutely prescribed. Each householder, for example, had to choose a lamb without blemish of the first year, on the 10th of the first month, i.e. Nisan, as it came to be called later, or, if he had none in his own herd, he must procure one from elsewhere and keep it in readiness for the feast on the evening of the 14th Nisan. The lamb was to be killed, roasted, and eaten by the household, who remained standing, along with unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, nothing being allowed to remain over.[94] From this onwards to the 21st Nisan inclusive, unleavened bread was alone to be eaten, and hence the period from the 15th to the 21st Nisan was called the days of unleavened bread. The first and last days, the 15th and the 21st, were regarded as especially sacred, and servile work was forbidden on them.[95] During the whole week, holocausts, meat offerings, and sin offerings were offered daily in the Temple on behalf of the entire people, as well as offerings presented by individual believers on their own behalf. The 16th Nisan was marked by an offering of a special kind, that of the first-fruits of harvest, consisting of the presentation of a sheaf of ripe barley along with the offering of a yearling lamb.[96] This offering of the first ripe fruits served also to mark the time when the Passover was to be celebrated, for, owing to the fact that the Jewish year did not begin on a fixed date, this had to be in some way determined by a stated event in the order of nature. In Palestine the barley was already ripe by March.

Several of the actions prescribed at the offering of this lamb pointed forward to the atoning death of the Messias, such as the sprinkling of the doorposts with its blood, in order that the destroying angel might pass over the house, and the direction that none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken. There were also several other small particulars which emphasised and completed the ideal connection between the sacrifice of the Passover and that of the Cross, as certain Fathers perceived at an early date.

Isaias, speaking in his prophecy, of the sufferings of the Messias, calls Him the Lamb chosen by God, who bears the iniquity of others.[97] St John the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and by the writers of the New Testament the same idea is frequently employed. St John the Evangelist expressly refers to the typical character of the Passover rites, when he applies the passage, “A bone of it shall not be broken,”[98] to Christ on the Cross, and sees its fulfilment in the fact that the soldiers refrained from breaking His limbs. St Paul declares in general that the sacrifice of Christ replaces the Passover, and sees a typical signification in the unleavened bread.[99] It appears, he had no objection to Christians holding a Passover supper, although, elsewhere he expresses himself strongly against their continuing to observe Jewish practices, such as Sabbaths and new moons.[100] As to the Fathers, it is sufficient, to quote Justin and Tertullian,[101] who in particular see in the fact that the Passover lamb was transfixed in two pieces of wood arranged cross-wise, a figure of the Cross in which Christ was stretched. Speaking generally, there is no doubt the Jewish Passover was taken over into Christianity, and thereby its typical ceremonies found their true fulfilment.

Apart from the relation of the sacrifice of Christ’s death to the Jewish Passover, and its dogmatic signification, sentiment and mere human feeling would have led Christians to regard with reverence the day on which our Lord, the Founder of the Church, died, and to keep the day sacred in each succeeded year on which He had offered the sacrifice of Himself. But for this it was necessary, in the first place, to know on what day exactly His death had taken place.

For the Jews, this was easy; it was the 15th Nisan in their Calendar, but for Christians of other countries, it was very difficult. In the Roman Empire, to which they all belonged, different methods of reckoning time and different calendars were in use. Since 45 B.C., the Romans themselves used the revised Julian Calendar, leaving at the same time perfect freedom to subject nations either to adopt it, or continue their own methods.[102] Chief among the existing systems were the Egyptian, the Syro-Macedonian, and the Semitic, each with its own way of dating the year. The two first systems admitted of being brought into agreement with the Roman Calendar, with more or less difficulty, since, according to them, the year began on a fixed date, but with the Jewish Calendar it was not so, for its was based on the lunar year, and never synchronised with the solar year as to the beginning of months and years. The Egyptian year, at the commencement of the Christian era, began on the 29th August, and consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, and five additional days (ἐπαγόμεναι) belonging to no month. Every fourth year was a leap-year, namely the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth year, according to the Julian reckoning. The Syro-Macedonian Calendar commenced with the autumnal equinox. The Syrians, however, later on, partially adopted the Julian Calendar in a somewhat modified form.[103] The Egyptian system of introducing additional days was essentially the same as the Roman, except that their leap-year was always one year in advance of the Roman leap-year. To their usual five additional days, they added yet one more, making a total of six. Consequently the next year, i.e. the fourth, eighth, twelfth, sixteenth, etc., began on the 30th instead of the 29th August.[104] For reckoning years, the Egyptians made use of the years of the sovereign’s reign, but as they began the year with the 1st Thoth, preceding the proclamation of the sovereign’s accession, it often happened that more years than he was entitled to were set down to one sovereign, while another who had reigned for less than a year was simply passed over.[105]

It was extremely difficult for those nations, whose Calendars were arranged on a different system, to fix the day of Christ’s death by their own chronology, for the Jewish 15th Nisan might fall on widely different days, sometimes in March, sometimes in April. How difficult it was to discover, the days on which the death and resurrection of Christ ought to be commemorated, will become more obvious from what follows.

3. The circumstances which led to Easter being a movable Feast

To the real and historical connection between the Christian Easter and the Jewish Passover, is due the explanation of a striking peculiarity in the Church’s year, viz., the movable feasts, of which Easter is the starting-point. Easter falls on no fixed date, because the Jewish 15th Nisan, unlike the dates of the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, varied year by year. The extent and nature of this discrepancy are caused by the Semitic Calendar. At the commencement of the Christian era, this Calendar was not only used by the Jews, but also extensively followed in Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Armenia, Osrhoëne, and in a great part of Asia Minor, although other nationalities in these countries kept each to its own Calendar. Thus, for example, the Greeks in Antioch followed the Syro-Macedonian Calendar, and so on. Where a mixed population existed in any place, different Calendars would be found in use.

The special features of the Semitic, or Jewish Calendar, which concern us in this connection are the following:—

1. The Jewish day ended at sunset, and so the evening hours, from about six p.m. belonged to the following day. This caused difference in dates, for what happened according to Roman ideas at ten p.m. for example, was regarded by the Jews as happening on the following day.

2. The Jewish year was a variable lunar year, i.e. it consisted of twelve months, each of which began with the new moon, the full moon consequently falling on the 14th of each month. The moon completes her orbit round the earth in twenty-nine and a half days, or two orbits in fifty-nine days. The Jewish months, accordingly, varied from twenty-nine to thirty days alternately (Tischri and Nisan having thirty days), it being impossible to commence a month in the middle of a day. Thus the twelve months of the Jewish year make up 354 days. Eleven and a quarter days were required to make up the length of a solar year. Had this discrepancy not been rectified in some way, every Jewish month, and the new year as well, would, in the course of thirty years, have made the circle of the year. For, if in one year, the 1st Nisan coincided with the 1st March, in the next it would fall on the 12th, and so on.

The Semites brought about the necessary adjustment, not by leap-years, but by the insertion of an additional month. For example, eight solar years have a total of 2920 days, not counting the addition days of leap years. The same number of days make up ninety-nine lunar months, or, in other words, eight lunar years and three intercalary months, are equal to eight solar years. Thus, in eight years, three additional months must be introduced, making the number of days almost equal with the days of eight solar years, except for a small discrepancy, caused by the additional day in leap year. When these additional days had reached the number of thirty, they could be accounted for by the introduction of a further additional month. In regulating these points, the equinoxes were of the utmost importance, and, in the second place, the ceremonial oblation of the first fruits.

If it was evident that the month Nisan would terminate before the vernal equinox—its beginning and middle had to precede the equinox, as well as the quarta decima lunæ—and if the barley was not in ear by the 14th, then it was considered the discrepancy had to be set right. This was done by prolonging the last month of the expiring year, Adar, for twenty-nine days longer than usual. In other words, an additional month was added to the year, designated merely as Veadar. This was the intercalary month. This, happening thrice in eight years, brought the lunar and solar years into agreement by a very simple expedient. The equinox could be controlled by help of the Zodiac, for, on the 20th March, the sun enters Aries, and, on the 23rd September, Libra.

Had the Jews followed out this method scientifically, i.e., had the introduction of the intercalary months followed fixed laws and been ruled by astronomical observations and calculations, then, though still difficult, it would have been possible to make the Jewish Calendar synchronise with others. But the introduction of these additional days was, so to speak, arbitrary and dependent upon the good pleasure of the priests. Thus we can never say for certain that such and such a year was a leap year with the Jews, and accordingly no date in the past can with certainty be made to synchronise with a date in the Julian or any other Calendar.[106]

Until their dispersion after the Jewish war in A.D. 70, and even much later, the Jews reckoned their new moons and leap years, and also the beginning of each year, not by strictly astronomical data, but by the method just described. The rule was that the month began with the day on the evening of which the new moon first became visible, and also that the passover should be kept when the sun was in Aries.[107] Maimonides, agreeing with what we have said above, informs us that a second Adar was interposed if the vernal equinox fell on the 16th Nisan or later. But it would be a great mistake to think that a scientifically accurate system, founded on these principles, was employed for calculating the new moons and leap years, such as would make it possible to bring the dates of the Jewish year into certain correspondence with the Julian Calendar. Still we must not think no attempts were made to reduce the Calendar to order on the basis of some cyclic system, but the caprice of the Sanhedrin always succeeded in rendering these attempts unavailing. Ideler (i. 512) shows how the new moons were treated, and Maimonides tells us that the Sanhedrin was influenced by many considerations in the choice of leap years. The Talmud preserves a remarkable letter written by Rabbi Gamaliel, the teacher of St Paul, to the Jews of Babylon and Media, which may appositely be quoted here. “We herewith inform you that we, in conjunction with our colleagues, have deemed it necessary to add thirty days to the year, since the doves (to be offered in sacrifice) are still too tender, and the lambs (for the passover) too young, and the time of Abib (the barley harvest) has not arrived.”

This passage may well serve as a warning to those who, whenever they find a fixed date in ancient Jewish writings, forthwith, with the aid of lunar tables, transpose it into a date according to the Julian method of reckoning, and possibly flatter themselves they have found a fixed point which will form a basis for further calculations.

In consequence of what we have said, it seems natural that Jewish converts to Christianity in apostolic times in the East should have fixed the date of Easter by Jewish methods, without departing, in this respect, from Jewish customs, especially as they formed the majority in the Church. This was all the more natural since in Syria and in many parts of Asia Minor, a Calendar drawn up on similar principles to the Semitic, was in use alongside the Greek (i.e. Roman) Calendar. This custom, however, although retained by the Quartodecimans, was never widespread, and did not long survive. The principal consideration, which demanded a departure from Jewish methods, was, that from the Christian point of view, the Resurrection, and not the day of Christ’s death, formed the chief feature of the commemoration; the latter, although a day to be had in remembrance, could not well be kept as a joyous festival. But the Resurrection took place on the Sunday after the 15th Nisan, and so this Sunday came to be the chief day of the Christians’ feast.

Through the gradual spread of Christianity in non-Semitic lands in the West, the necessity must soon have arisen of fixing the day of the Resurrection by the Julian Calendar, and of deciding according to it the day on which Easter had to be celebrated. But, as we have said, it is very difficult to transfer a date from the Jewish to the Julian Calendar, and, in most cases, quite impossible when the date is that of an event already long past.

Let us apply all this to the point in question.

If it was asked, “On what day did Christ die?” the answer was, “On the 15th Nisan.” But if it was asked again, “On which day of the Roman Calendar does the 15th Nisan fall?” the reply must be, “Who can tell? In one year it may fall in March, in another in April; sometimes on one day of our Calendar, sometimes on another.”

The reply, “On the 15th Nisan,” conveyed nothing either to the Romans or to the Egyptians; it was intelligible to the Semites alone. Thus, where the Semitic Calendar was not understood, it was necessary to fix the day by some other method. In the choice of methods, the Church of Alexandria, and, most of all, the Church of Rome, took the lead. The simplest plan would have been to discover on which day of March or April the 15th Nisan had fallen in the year of Christ’s death, i.e. 782 U.C. But it was impossible to do this with certainty after a few decades had elapsed. Another starting-point had to be sought, and this was naturally given by the spring full moon, i.e. the full moon nearest to the vernal equinox, for the 15th Nisan must fall either on this full moon or thereabouts. Thus in Rome and Alexandria, all the principles which are in force at the present day were gradually adopted, i.e. Easter is to be celebrated on the Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. There is evidence that this rule for determining the date of Easter was followed in Rome from the time of Pope Sixtus I., possibly even earlier. The further developments do not concern us here.

Here and there in the West, there was a tendency to commemorate the death and resurrection of Christ on fixed days in the Julian Calendar—on the 25th and 27th of March, for example—but it never became general. For the most part, the data for the calculation of Easter were the same as those employed for calculating the Jewish passover; that is to say, the full moon on the one hand, and the vernal equinox on the other, Sunday being introduced as an additional factor in the calculation, since our Lord had risen on that day of the week. In this way the above rule was established, and so, in the date of Easter as determined at the present day, the variable Jewish lunar year has left a trace behind it, and, also, the connection in which Christianity stands to Judaism receives a practical expression deserving of being preserved to the end of time.[108]

4. The Final Settlement of the date of Easter and the Attempts made to commemorate the day of the Month on which Christ died

The manner in which the commemoration of our Lord’s passion and death admitted of being celebrated in agreement with the Jewish Calendar, is due to the minuteness with which the fourth Evangelist describes the events of Holy Week.

On the 9th Nisan our Lord arrived at Bethania. The next day, the 10th, took place the triumphal entry into Jerusalem[109]—Palm Sunday.

In this way, these events could be annually commemorated on the same days in the Jewish Calendar, the day of the week, however, varying, as it does in the case of the Jewish passover. That this was actually done is recognised by Isidore of Seville, when he says,[111] “Formerly the Church kept Easter with the Jews on the fourteenth day of moon, no matter on what day of the week it fell.” But where the Julian, or even the Egyptian, Calendar was in force, if a man wished to proceed accurately in this way, without being tied down to fixed days of the week (i.e. Friday for the day of our Lord’s death, and Sunday for the Resurrection), he would nevertheless have to learn on what day of his own Calendar the 15th Nisan of the Jews fell in the year of our Lord’s death. For it was quite impossible for him to look for it at one time in March, at another time in April, according to his own Calendar.

Hence arose a striking divergence at the very beginning, which did not admit of being adjusted. Obviously, another method for fixing the date of Easter had to be devised for Gentile converts and for those districts where the Julian, or, at any rate, a non-Jewish, Calendar was in force. At the same time, it is also quite credible, because resting on clear proof, that in Syria and Asia Minor, the Apostles fixed the date of Easter on Quartodeciman principles, while at Rome and Alexandria another method obtained from the beginning. Granted that the Roman Church, during the Apostle’s lifetime, consisted only of converts from Judaism, still the Jews as a whole were such a small minority in Rome that they must have conformed to the Roman method of reckoning time, and were probably, most of them, unfamiliar with the Jewish Calendar. It was different in Asia Minor where the Jews were very numerous and free to follow their own customs, and where a Calendar closely allied to the Jewish was used by the native population.

When the Christians of Asia Minor claimed for this practice the ordinance of the Apostles, especially St John and St Philip,[112] their appeal is as much deserving of credit as the claim of the Romans to base their practice on the ordinance of St Peter. That they actually did so, we learn from the Festal Letters of St Athanasius,[113] who says: “The Romans lay claim to a tradition from the Apostle Peter, forbidding to go beyond the 26th Pharmuthi (the 21st April), on the one hand, and the 30th Phamenoth (the 26th March), on the other.” Here we have also the limits of the period within which Easter at that time fell, the 25th March being reckoned as the day of the vernal equinox.

The Churches which had never followed the Quartodeciman practice, surpassed the others in number and influence, so much the more as Egypt, where the Church had been organised by a disciple of St Peter, and also Greece, were among their number. When strife arose over this point, the numerically weaker party ought to have yielded, but rather than this, they separated from the Catholic Church under the form of Ebionitism. Irenæus traces the opposition of the Roman Church to the Quartodeciman Easter back to Sixtus I. (116-125). “The Roman Bishops,” he says according to Eusebius,[114] “neither observed the Passover in this way themselves, nor allowed those under their authority so to observe it.” Should the thought here arise in the mind that the Roman practice came into existence first under Sixtus, it is contradicted by the letter of Polycrates to Pope Victor where it is said that Rome appealed to the Apostles Peter and Paul in support of her custom.

The chief reason why the Jewish Quartodeciman practice of the other Churches finally succumbed, was that Christians desired to commemorate not merely the day of our Lord’s death alone, which was linked to the 15th Nisan, but also His Resurrection. The Resurrection had a close connection with His death in point of time, and its commemoration was already firmly established in apostolic times in the form of Sunday (see above, p. 5). It was thus impossible to pass over the Sunday, and so practically an entire week was occupied by the commemoration. The events of Holy Week given above could not be separated from each other; they must be kept in connection. The Jews, as Epiphanius[115] remarks in his polemic against the Audians, keep their passover on a single day, while the Christians required a whole week for their Easter commemorations. And so, although they took the date of the Jewish passover as the basis of their calculations, they nevertheless did not limit the duration of their feast to that one day. Finally, another point which had weight, was that the Christians of the fourth century had a fixed idea that the 14th Nisan must not fall before the vernal equinox.[116]

Along with this generally observed custom of commemorating in the Church the passion and death of our Lord, repeated attempts were made to discover and establish a fixed date for the solemnity. Already in the third century it was thought this had been successfully achieved, and in Tertullian we find 782 U.C. given as the year of Christ’s death, and the 15th Nisan identified with the 25th March. This date would be incorrect in any case, even if 782 were really the year of Christ’s death, for in that year, the Jewish passover could only have fallen on either the 19th March or the 17th April of the Julian Calendar. Nevertheless the 25th March met with no small acceptance, being accepted, amongst others, by Hippolytus, Augustine, and Perpetuus of Tours, who accordingly marked the 27th March in his Calendar as the true day of the Resurrection. It appears also in the spurious acts of Pilate. In the Carolingian period this date constantly occurs in the martyrologies, as, for instance, in the Gellonense of 804, in that of Corbie of 826, in Wandelbert of Prüm, in the different recensions of the so-called martyrology of Jerome, and others. Whether this day was liturgically observed, or had merely an historic interest, cannot be decided from the Calendars, but the former is probable.

Finally, it may not be without interest to observe how in subsequent centuries attempts were made to explain the fact that Easter, unlike other festivals, was movable. It is conceivable that in course of time, the true explanation, viz., the connection of the Christian with the Jewish feast and its consequent dependence on the Jewish Calendar, was forgotten, and attempts began to be made to account for the fact on other grounds, typical or otherwise.

After the observance had everywhere become well established, it must have struck people that the day of our Lord’s death was very differently commemorated in the Church from the day of His birth, viz. as a movable feast. Among the questions which Januarius submitted to St Augustine, there was one bearing on this point. Augustine[117] replied that our Lord’s birthday was merely a commemorative festival, while Easter had a mystical connection with the Jewish passover, as also its name is of Hebrew, not Greek, origin. Easter is the fulfilment of our redemption which consists in an inward renewal of mankind, and with this idea of renewal, the first month of the Jewish and ancient Roman year corresponds. Afterwards, however, Augustine forsakes this safe path and loses himself in the symbolism of numbers and in forced astronomical interpretations.

Shorter and more to the point is the explanation given by Martin, Bishop of Dumio (561-572), who died Bishop of Braga in 580. In his treatise De Paschate,[118] he says many people only add to the confusion by their unsuccessful attempts to explain why the date of Easter is fixed by the moon, after the Jewish custom. So, too, the attempts recently made by many bishops of Gaul to celebrate the Resurrection on a fixed day (the 25th March) cannot be approved. Now the passion of Christ is the redemption of the creature. The creation of the world took place in Spring (c. 4), and, consequently, the renewal of the world must also take place in Spring, in the first month of the year. Two things had to be taken into consideration with regard to this festival—the day of the week and the phase of the moon. In order to be right in both, ecclesiastical antiquity had appointed that Easter should not be kept before the 23rd March or after the 21st April (c. 7).

The most important passage in this treatise bearing upon the history of Easter is the remark that many Gallic bishops about 570 commenced their celebration of the festival on the 25th March as an immovable feast. This is also confirmed by Bede,[119] who had a distinctly clearer insight into the nature of the question, and thus expresses himself concerning the dispute about Easter. “Originally the Apostles kept Easter on the full moon in March, on whatever day it fell. After their death different customs prevailed in different provinces. The Gauls kept the festival on the 25th of March. In Italy, some fasted twenty days, others seven, but the Easterns remained faithful to the custom of the Apostles.” To remedy this state of things, Pope Victor put himself in communication with Theophilus of Cæsarea, who held a Synod which decided that the Resurrection should be commemorated on a Sunday, so fixing the day of the week on which it was to be kept.

5. The Liturgical Celebration of Holy Week and Easter

The Christian passover, as originally limited to Holy Week and Easter Week, was consecrated in the first place to the remembrances of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, and to this the religious ceremonies, in so far as they differed from the ordinary services, owed their special character. But, in the second place, it is to be observed that so long as the Catechumenate remained in existence, and even to some extent afterwards, Easter was the only season regularly appointed for baptism. At Easter, the labours of the Catechists came to an end, the course of preparation was finished, the Catechumens received the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. To this fact, in the second place, the Easter services owe much of their special character, and even now, long after the practice of the Church has changed, rites connected with the administration of baptism are to be found in the ritual of the Easter festival. Thus, the consecration of the font on Holy Saturday, first of all, and then the consecration of the Holy Oils on Maundy Thursday, must be owing to the fact that they were required for the administration of Baptism and Confirmation. On this ground, as well as because of the importance of the feast in itself, it is obvious that Easter, from the liturgical point of view, is conspicuous among all the other festivals, and that a number of rites are then performed which are not repeated in the course of the whole year.[120]

To these rites belong the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday, and on the Tuesday and Wednesday in Holy Week, the procession on Palm Sunday, the Consecration of the Holy Oils on Maundy Thursday, the missa præsanctificatorum on Good Friday. More than the others, Holy Saturday is conspicuous for a number of rites peculiar to itself, viz.:—

In the Middle Ages other special ceremonies and forms of rejoicing took place.

That Easter was the special season for the baptism of those catechumens whose preparation had extended over the whole of the preceding year, is made prominent only at a comparatively later date, in special laws, when the catechumenate was already dying out, as, for example, in the seventh canon of the Roman Synod of 402, the fourth Canon of Gerunda, the eighteenth Canon of Auxerre, where it is expressly laid down that outside the Easter season, baptism must be given to none save the sick. By the time of the Second Synod of Maçon (585), the custom of baptising all the year round on any day had already become very common. This Synod, however, endeavoured to reinstate the ancient custom and also prescribed rest from work for the whole Easter week.[121] However, as late as the seventh and eighth centuries, Easter continued to be the regular season for baptism, at least in Rome, as the so-called scrutinies[122] show, and even the Synod of Neuching (772), in its eighteenth canon, wished to restrict baptism to only two dates in the year.[123]

At an early date, Holy Week had already received a special name, septimana major, which appears already in the fourth century,[124] and which it still retains in liturgical books. The German name (Karwoche) comes from the old German chara or kara, sadness or lamentation, and served to mark the character of the time, always and everywhere regarded in the Church as a time of sadness.

The description of the liturgical ceremonies of Holy Week is best introduced by the account of a pilgrim from Gaul in the fourth century. To the account of her travels, written between 383 and 394, at the end of a pilgrimage extending over three years, she added a description of all that took place during Holy Week in Jerusalem at that period. There, the Holy places themselves suggested devotional practices which were imitated throughout the Church, and have partially survived to the present day, as, for example, the procession of palms and the adoratio crucis. Liturgical scholars, being ignorant of this source of information, formerly sought the origin of these practices in a wrong quarter: it is now beyond doubt that they originated in Jerusalem.

To begin with, students of the liturgy used to be divided over the question when and where the palm procession originated, and various conjectures were put forth. Binterim thought Bishop Peter introduced the blessing of palms at Edessa in 397, while Martène, attributed its origin to the eighth or ninth century. As a matter of fact, not a trace of the blessing of palms is found in the Gregorian sacramentary.[125] We shall certainly not be mistaken if we look for the origin of the palm procession in Jerusalem, for the Gallic pilgrim gives us the following account: On the Sunday, at the beginning of Holy Week, the usual Sunday morning services were held in the larger church on Golgotha, then called the Martyrium, but at the seventh hour of the day (about one P.M.) all the people assembled on the Mount of Olives, where was the cave in which the Lord used to teach. There for two hours, hymns and antiphons were sung and lections from the Scriptures were read. At the ninth hour, they ascended to the summit, whence the Lord ascended to heaven. Here again, hymns were sung, lections suitable to the place and day were read, and prayers were offered up. At the seventh hour, when the gospel account of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem had been read, all rose up, and with branches of palm or olive in their hands, and, singing Benedictus qui venit, proceeded from the hill down into the city, and continued their procession until they reached the Church of the Anastasis where vespers were sung, and an oratio ad crucem offered up.[126]

It was quite in keeping with the dramatic character of Catholic worship to represent, in some marked way, Christ’s memorable entry into Jerusalem at the last passover. On the very scene of the event especially, one was, so to speak, drawn on to do so without any special exercise of the inventive faculty being required.

However, we must follow the pilgrim’s description to the end. On Tuesday, there was another procession to the Mount of Olives, where the Bishop read the gospel, St Mark xxv. 3 et seqq. On Wednesday, the account of the treason of Judas was read as the gospel, and during it, the people wept and lamented. On Maundy Thursday, the psalmody began at cock-crow; at four P.M.,[127] mass was said in the Martyrium by the Bishop, at which the people communicated. Towards seven o’clock in the evening, the people assembled in the Eleona, as the church which then stood on the Mount of Olives was called, and, towards eleven o’clock, ascended to the summit of the mount, praying and singing. This lasted until cock-crow the following day. Then, about three A.M., the assembly broke up and a start was made for the Garden of Gethsemani, where they found the beautiful church lit up by two hundred lamps. Here the bishop said a prayer; a suitable psalm followed, and then the reading of the gospel, St Matt. xxvi. 41 et seqq., which narrates the capture of Christ in Gethsemani. Then the procession slowly descended the mount into the city, and passed on until it reached the place of the crucifixion. Here the gospel narrative of Christ’s trial was read: the bishop addressed the people and dismissed them with an exhortation to return about seven o’clock, for the adoration of the Holy Cross. Whereupon, the people proceeded to Mount Sion to pray at the column of the flagellation, and then returned to their homes.

At seven o’clock, the bishop took his seat on his throne in the chapel of the Holy Cross. Before him was placed a table covered with a white linen cloth, round which the deacons took up their position. Then the silver shrine containing the wood of the Holy Cross was brought in. It was opened and the Holy Cross itself, along with the inscription (titulus) laid upon the table. The faithful and catechumens approached, knelt, kissed the Cross, and touched it with their forehead and eyes, but not with their hands. In this way, they passed by, one by one, while the deacons kept watch. Then the deacons exhibited also to the people Solomon’s ring and the horn with which the Jewish kings used to be anointed: these also were kissed.

At the sixth hour, noon, the service proceeded in the following manner. The people assembled in the open court between the chapel of the Holy Cross and the Church of the Anastasis; the bishop took his seat on the throne, and then lections from the Scriptures were read continuously, until the ninth hour. These related to the passion, and were taken from the Old Testament, from the psalms and prophets, as well as from the New Testament. At the ninth hour, the passage from St John xix. 30, which speaks of the death of Jesus, was read and the assembly was dismissed. The service was then immediately resumed in the chief church (the Martyrium), and continued until the reading of the passage (St John xix. 38), describing the descent from the Cross, and then again a prayer was recited and the blessing of the catechumens took place. With this, the service for the day concluded and the people were dismissed. The younger clerics, however, remained throughout the night watching in the church.

With regard to the liturgy for Good Friday, the pilgrim found that the ceremonies she saw in Jerusalem differed not at all from what she was familiar with in her own country. She only observes that the baptised children were conducted by the bishop first to the Church of the Resurrection and then to the principal church (the Martyrium).[128]

This is the earliest complete description of the ceremonies of Holy Week which we possess. We now pass to the usages of a later date.

Palm Sunday

The Sunday next before Easter is commonly called Palm Sunday (Dominica in ramis palmarum, Gr. κυριακὴ τῶν βαΐον). At an earlier date it was also called Dominica competentium, because on it catechumens requested baptism. In some sacramentaries it is called in capitilavio,[129] from the washing and shaving of the head in preparation for baptism.

Among the characteristic ceremonies of this day, is the procession, at which branches of palm, or of some other similar tree, are carried. In the Middle Ages, this was fairly common; not so, however, the blessing of the palms.[130] In the Roman ritual, this blessing is performed with much ceremony. It resembles in form the ordo missæ, consisting of an introit, collect, epistle, gospel, another prayer and a preface, followed by the actual blessing comprising five more prayers, sprinkling with holy water and incensation. Upon this, the procession starts, which passes out of the church, the doors of which are then closed. They are reopened when the deacon has knocked with the staff of the processional cross, and the procession enters, recalling the entry of our Lord through the gates of Jerusalem. In the Mass which follows, the Passion according to St Matthew is read or sung.

In the oldest Roman sacramentaries, however, nothing is found relating to the blessing and procession of palms, but the ritual for them is minutely described in the Ordos, xii. c. 9 (of Cencio Savelli), and xv. c. 53 et seq. These clearly belong to the Middle Ages. The first trace of the practice of holding palm-branches during divine service, as far as the rituals of the Roman Church are concerned, is found in the later recension of the Gregorian sacramentary used in Gaul in the ninth and tenth centuries. Among the prayers for the day is found one for the blessing, not of the palms, but of those who carried them. In the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries, the Sunday is at any rate called Dominica in Palmas, but only in the title. It seems as if people were satisfied at first with holding palms during the Mass, and that the palm procession only took shape later. In the Gotho-Gallican missal, the Sunday has no special name and no mention is made of palms. On the other hand, the name appears in the lectionaries of Silos and Luxeuil. Everything points to the blessing of the palms, and, probably, also the procession, having become customary in the second half of the ninth century.[131] Isidore of Seville[132] is familiar with the name dies palmarum, but not with the procession. Amalarius,[133] on the contrary, mentions the custom of carrying palm branches through the church and of shouting Hosanna.

There was, however, a rite, universally observed on Palm Sunday, which had reference to the administration of baptism. As is well known, the catechumens in primitive times were instructed in Christian doctrine during Lent, and even for a longer period. The instruction of catechumens and the solemn administration of baptism took place only once a year. The former began eight weeks before Easter, and ended with the baptism which was administered on Easter Eve. The concluding part of this course of instruction was composed of the so-called mystagogical instructions treating of the sacrifice of the Mass, and the three sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. The words of the Creed, so the disciplina arcani enjoined, were the last, not the first thing to be imparted. The catechumens learnt the Creed for the first time on Palm Sunday. This was the custom in Spain,[134] Gaul,[135] Milan,[136] probably also in Rome. There seems, however, to have been divergences as to the choice of the day, for it was necessary, at any rate in Gaul, to enjoin uniformity, since the Synod of Agde (506) prescribes in its thirteenth canon: In every diocese, the Creed shall be imparted in church to the catechumens on one and the same day, i.e. eight days before Easter Sunday. This ceremony was called the traditio symboli.

The manner in which this was done is fully described in the Gelasian sacramentary, although at that date the catechumenate, strictly speaking, no longer existed. After some introductory remarks from the priest, an acolyte rehearsed the Creed to the candidates for baptism, who were exhorted to impress it on their minds and hearts.[137] The rite, at all events, was the same as in earlier times. In the Gregorian sacramentary these practices are already omitted. A similar practice was followed with regard to the Our Father. It was first taught verbatim to the baptised after their baptism.[138] This ceremony formed the chief characteristic of the Sunday next before Easter, in service-books in which the name Palm Sunday was as yet unknown. Accordingly, in the Gallican missal the Mass for the day is called, Missa in Traditio Symboli.

During the Middle Ages, in various places, and especially in Germany, Christ’s entry into Jerusalem was represented in a somewhat naïve manner by carrying round in the procession a wooden figure representing the Saviour seated on an ass. Afterwards it was brought into the Church and placed in a conspicuous position. While suitable hymns were being sung, the clergy and people venerated it on their knees, and there it remained for the rest of the day. Figures of the so-called “Palmesel” are still numerous in museums, as, for example, at Basel, Zurich, Munich, Nürnberg, etc.

Maundy Thursday

The fifth day of Holy Week, the day on which Christ partook of the last Passover with His disciples and instituted the memorial of His Passion, is generally called Cœna Domini in service-books. The Greeks, however, call it merely ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη πέμπτη, the Great and Holy Thursday.

In the Calendar of Polemius Silvius is found, under the 24th March, the remarkable note Natalis Calicis. This is owing to the fact that at that period the 25th March was regarded as the day of Christ’s death, and the 27th as the day of His resurrection. The day of the institution of the Holy Eucharist and of the Sacrifice of the Mass was not passed over in even such an imperfect list of the Church’s festivals as that contained in this Calendar. The day had something of a festival character belonging to itself. Indeed, among the Copts it appears as a regular festival.

The name Natalis Calicis seems to have been common in southern and western Gaul, for it is found in Avitus of Vienne, and in Eligius of Noyon, in the sixth and seventh centuries. The same writers mark the day as a festival, sollemnitas, on which those who had been put to public penance were everywhere received back into the Church, and on which the Chrism was consecrated.[139]

The most unlikely of the many attempts to explain the German name for the day is that which connects it with St Luke xxiii. 31, and makes the name, Green Thursday, signify that the withered branches, sinners, by their reception again into the bosom of the Church once more grow green.[140] Apart from the fact that this interpretation is far-fetched, it savours too much of the study to have ever given rise to the name among the common people. The fact is that red vestments were worn at the reception of the penitents on Maundy Thursday, but green vestments at the Mass, and this gave rise to the name.[141] The older service-books, however, drawn up before liturgical colours had been introduced and their use had become regulated, do not specify the colour for the vestments, but content themselves with prescribing the use of festal vestments (vestes sollemniores) in general. Later on, the Roman custom of wearing white vestments on this day became general.[142]

It was only to be expected that the Church should keep with special solemnity the day on which Christ had celebrated the last passover with His apostles, and had instituted the mystery of His Body and Blood. In fact, Holy Saturday alone of the days of Holy Week can vie with it in this respect. It frequently ranks as a Church festival, and is expressly called a sollemnitas.[143]

The ritual directions for Maundy Thursday, of which we possess a considerable number dating from the Middle Ages, naturally begin with the Psalmody. This began at midnight, and its distinguishing feature was, that the lights lit at its commencement did not remain burning, but were extinguished, one at a time, after each psalm, until, at the concluding prayers, the church was in total darkness. The number of candles varied in different places, between fifteen, twenty-four, thirty, and thirty-four.[144] Such was the “dark mattins,” tenebræ.

The second characteristic ceremony of the day was the reconciliation of the penitents. These had to remain prostrate on the ground while the Miserere and other prayers were recited over them and their absolution pronounced. On this occasion, as we have remarked above, red vestments were worn. The reconciled penitents were admitted to communion with the rest of the congregation at the Mass which followed.

This Mass was of a festal character, and, in many places, in primitive times, two Masses were celebrated, one at the usual hour in the morning, and the other towards evening at the time of vespers. In other places, on the contrary, there was only one Mass, at which all the faithful communicated.[145] These different customs in course of time became a cause of astonishment and offence, and so Bishop Januarius enquired of St Augustine what ought to be done. The reply was, that each ought to follow the custom of his own diocese. In Rome also, at the period when the Gelasian sacramentary was in use, two Masses were still celebrated, for the sacramentary gives a Missa ad Vesperum.[146] The same authority notices only the reconciliation of penitents and the consecration of the Holy Oils among the other ceremonies performed on Maundy Thursday. The Gregorian sacramentary gives only the latter, as also does Ordo I., the earliest of the sixteen ancient Roman ordos.[147] In liturgical writings relating to our subject which belong to the Middle Ages, especially in the pseudo-Alcuin, the consecration of the Holy Oils is given at considerable length.[148] St Cyprian had already spoken of the consecration of oil required for ritual purposes without saying on what day it took place.[149]

At the conclusion of the Mass, the altar was washed by the bishop or officiating priest, and, in the afternoon, the washing of the feet was performed, at which the Superior washed the feet of his subjects, or the bishop the feet of twelve old men representing the twelve apostles. In the Middle Ages, the usual name for this ceremony was Mandatum.[150] The washing of the altar and the consecration of the Chrism is spoken of by Isidore of Seville.[151] In the later Middle Ages, to these ceremonies was added the reading of the Bull in Cœna Domini, containing a list of errors condemned by the Church under pain of excommunication. The reading of this Bull continued from the fourteenth to the end of the eighteenth century.

Finally, in some countries, the public ceremonial recitation of the Creed by the catechumens (redditio symboli) was prescribed for Maundy Thursday, as by the forty-sixth canon of the Synod of Laodicea, and by the sixty-eighth Trullan canon. This, however, in Rome, was done on Holy Saturday by each person in turn from some conspicuous place in the church.[152]

Good Friday

The day of our Lord’s Passion was universally regarded as a day of mourning—“dies amaritudinis,” St Ambrose calls it, “on which we fast.”[153] A fast day, on liturgical principles, can never be a festival, though, vice versâ, a festival can fall on a fixed day of fasting or abstinence, as, for example, the Annunciation.

When, at an early date, the Roman emperor made a law forbidding the Courts to sit on Good Friday, this did not make it a festival. On the contrary, the Church Order of the period of Constantine expressly declares that “both it and Holy Saturday are days of sorrow, and not feasts.”[154] Accordingly, there was enjoined upon all whose health enabled them to observe it, an unbroken fast lasting over the two days, directly based upon St Mark ii. 20. For, as the eighth canon of the fourth Synod of Toledo says, “The whole Church is wont to spend Good Friday in fasting and sorrow, on account of our Lord’s Passion.” There is scarcely any other point on which such liturgical agreement exists in all lands and in all periods of Christian antiquity as on this. The above-named Synod mentions with reprobation a mistaken expression of grief, i.e. in many places the churches were shut up for the whole day, and no services, neither divine office nor sermon, were held (seventh canon). The Synod does not blame the omission of Mass, for this was universal. This sentiment of sorrow was outwardly manifested, after the introduction of liturgical colours, by the fact that on Good Friday, black vestments were worn.[155] In the Middle Ages, discussion arose over the question why the days of the saints’ deaths were kept as festivals, but Good Friday as a day of mourning. The monk Helperich, who lived at St Gall at the end of the ninth century, replied; Christ, unlike the saints, attained to no higher degree of glory through His death. He died not for His own sake but for us. The Jews, His enemies, rejoiced over His death, but the apostles bewailed and lamented.[156]

It may be observed here that in Würtemburg, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Reuss ä. L., Altenburg, and Lippe, Good Friday is one of the days of penitence and prayer, but, on the other hand, wherever Calvinism is in the ascendent, the dogmatic significant of the day, as the day of our redemption has been partially changed. There it ranks as a Church festival, and in other respects is given up to excursions and entertainments, just as if someone would pass the day of his father’s death in rejoicings, because a rich inheritance had fallen to him.

The Good Friday services began at night with mattins, at which the lights were extinguished in the same manner as on the previous day. In addition, the low tone in which the devotions were pitched, and the omission of the Gloria Patri at the end of the psalms, gave outward expression to the sentiment of sorrow.

The liturgy proper to Good Friday, according to the rite now in use, begins with the prostration (humi prostratio) of the celebrant on the steps of the altar. Then, without their title being given out, follow lections from the prophets, in which the death of the Messias and its virtue were foretold. These sufferings themselves are described in the words of the Passion according to St John, which are said or sung immediately afterwards. Then follow the general intercessions, at the conclusion of which, the Host, consecrated on the previous day, is brought to the altar from the place where it has been reserved. The paternoster is then sung followed by the elevation of the Host and the communion of the celebrant. This missa præsanctificatorum is nothing more than an elaborate rite of communion. It is preceded by the Adoratio Crucis, and followed by the laying of the Cross in the sepulchre, which dates from about the tenth century.

At an earlier period, the ceremonies were simpler, and even restricted to psalmody, for Innocent I., says,[157] that in his time, generally speaking, Mass was not celebrated on Good Friday and Holy Saturday. This is still the custom among the Greeks and Russians. Their Good Friday service consists of the singing of psalms and the veneration of a representation of our Lord on the Cross, similar to our adoratio crucis. At the evening service, that is, a painted, not carved, representation of the dead Christ is brought in and venerated.[158] These expressions must be taken quite literally, in the sense that on Good Friday not even the missa præsanctificatorum was celebrated, nor the now usual Mass on the morning of Holy Saturday. For the Gelasian sacramentary gives no Mass for either of these days but only the various prayers, so too the old Gallic missal,[159] and the same must be understood when we hear of the Churches in parts of Spain not being opened on Good Friday. Sermons, however, were preached on Good Friday, for we possess several of Leo I., and Gregory the Great preached on this day. It is difficult to say what was the custom as to Holy Communion. In France, the people seem to have communicated, but not in Rome or in Germany; at least Rabanus Maurus is silent on the point.[160]

According to the evidence afforded by the ancient service-books, it may be conjectured that the adoption of the missa præsanctificatorum, as well as the striking insertion of the Greek passages in the Reproaches, is due to Greek influence. That alterations were made at a considerably later date in these parts of the rite will be noticed elsewhere.

With regard to the service-books of the Roman Church in particular, we find a rubric in the Gelasian sacramentary, directing that the Holy Cross be placed on the altar, and then that the priests and attendant clerics take their position at the altar in silence and begin the solemn intercessions for the whole Church, for all estates of men, etc.; the intercessions being prefaced by the summons to kneel (flectamus genua). The genuflection seems at that time to have been made also before the prayer for the Jews, for the rubric directs the deacon to proceed “ut supra.”[161] The prayers are the well-known Good Friday prayers. There is no mention at this point of the Adoratio Crucis, but at the conclusion of the intercessions, the sacred Species, in both kinds, which had been consecrated the previous day were brought from the sacrarium by the deacons and placed on the altar. The priest consumed them, having first adored and kissed the Cross. Whereupon all present adored the Cross and communicated. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that the Gelasian sacramentary does not represent the Roman rite in its purity, but embellished with numerous Gallican additions, which probably owe their origin to Alcuin or his contemporaries. The same is true of the edition of the Gregorian sacramentary employed in France.

In this last we find the general intercessions recurring twice in Holy Week, on Wednesday and again on Good Friday,[162] but they are not placed at the beginning of the liturgy, as they are in the Gelasian sacramentary. After the bishop has taken his seat, the tract, Domine audivi, a lection from the Scriptures, and then another tract followed in succession. The Passion according to St John came next, and then the prayers in question. At their conclusion the altar was stripped. The solemn adoration of the Cross before the altar by clergy and people took place at the time of vespers, and, during it, the antiphon, Ecce lignum crucis, was sung. The missa præsanctificatorum proceeded in essentially the same manner as at present, except that the elevation is not expressly mentioned. The altar remained bare from the afternoon of Maundy Thursday until Good Friday morning. The Gregorian sacramentary in its original form knew nothing of these rites. It proscribed nothing more for Good Friday than the nine prayers still in use and a blessing of the catechumens.

A full description of the whole ritual for Holy Week is to be found in the first of the ancient Roman Ordos edited by Mabillon, which gives both the psalmody and the special ceremonies. Mabillon attributes this ordo to the ninth century.[163] According to it, the psalmody began at midnight. As on the previous day, the candles were gradually extinguished, and the sad character of the service was indicated by the low tone taken for the prayers and by the omission of the Gloria Patri. The consecrated Host was brought back from the place where it had been reserved the day before, and the missa præsanctificatorum commenced. This consisted of preface, Our Father, the prayer Libera me, the pax, and communion of the people. This last is omitted from the existing Roman rite. The adoration of the Cross preceded the Mass, as at present. In monasteries a procession took place within the cloister. The ceremonies of the Mass here described agree in all essential points with the Frankish edition of the Gregorian sacramentary, as, for instance, in the recitation of the orationes sollemnes on both Wednesday and Good Friday. Thus the earlier liturgical services for Good Friday were replaced in the ninth century by an elaborate ritual, which agrees in all important respects with that in use at the present day.[164]

Holy Saturday

This too is a day of mourning, as appears also from the fact that, in the Eastern Church, it is numbered among the fast days, although originally in the East no Saturday was kept as a fast. But the sadness of the day is already modified by the approach of the Resurrection, and the Alleluia, which has not been heard since Septuagesima, is sung again at the Mass.[165]

The solemnity begins, as on the preceding days, with the night office, at which the lights are again extinguished. This custom is very ancient, but the use of the triangle with the lumen Christi is of later introduction.[166]

Mediæval writers begin their description of the other ceremonies with the blessing of the fire, which, even then, was performed early in the morning. Concerning the origin of this rite, it has been held that it took place not only on Holy Saturday, but every evening at Vespers.[167] Still the evidence for this is not sufficiently strong, and, on the other hand, this rite harmonises in an especial way with Holy Saturday as the appointed date for the administration of baptism, for which a favourite name was illumination (illuminatio, φωτισμός). The name illuminandi was common also for those about to be baptised.

To the same association of ideas, the Paschal candle certainly owes its origin. It is not yet clear where we are to look for the origin of this custom. In Spain, there is evidence to show that the blessing of a candle or lamp (lucerna) on Easter night was common. The fourth synod of Toledo (633), in its ninth canon, recommends the adoption of this practice to the churches of Galicia. The Paschal candle is a symbol of Christ, and is blessed through the chanting of the præconium paschale or Exsultet, a grand song of triumph, said to have been composed by St Augustine. This candle, placed in its own candlestick near the altar, is lit at High Mass throughout Eastertide. Two prefaces for its blessing are found in the writings of Bishop Ennodius of Pavia († 521), and mediæval liturgical writers generally attribute the blessing of the Paschal candle to Pope Zosimus.[168]

At an earlier period, the special ceremonies of Holy Saturday commenced in the afternoon, the forenoon being devoted to decorating the church and preparing for the festival.[169] These ceremonies are, the blessing of the Paschal candle, the lections from the Old Testament, and the blessing of the baptismal font, all of which are only preparatory to the solemn administration of baptism. As has been said, these ceremonies only commenced towards evening and continued into the night, which was observed as a vigil (pervigilium paschale). When they were concluded, the neophytes were baptised, and then, also in the night, followed the Mass of the day. To this the newly baptised, along with the people and clergy, proceeded in a solemn procession from the baptistery, when there was one, to the principal church. The Emperor Constantine allowed the streets and squares of the capital to be illuminated on this night. He himself as a catechumen passed the night in prayer in his private chapel, and hallowed the Easter festival by the bestowal of rich alms. The Mass is entitled in the service-books, in vigilia paschæ. Since it came after midnight, the Alleluia could be sung at it. This arrangement as regards the time of the Mass still held good in the eleventh century, for Rupert of Deutz (De div. Off., 7, 11) still speaks of it as being the established practice, and only later on were the above-mentioned ceremonies and the Mass transferred to the afternoon of Saturday, the Alleluia thus coming before its time. Upon this followed the psalmody of Easter, which had to be made as short as possible on account of the length of these ceremonies. Sermons also were usually short at Easter, for the same reason.[170]

In the early centuries, the Roman rite was much simpler. The festival commenced with the recitation of the creed by the candidates for baptism and a prayer by the Pope over them. Then followed the other preparations for baptism, the renunciations, four lessons from the Old Testament, the singing of Psalm xli., two prayers, the blessing of the baptismal water, the baptism itself, and the confirmation of the baptised. The Mass concluded the function.[171]

We must now see what special features the other liturgical documents contained. In the missale Gallicanum,[172] we find, after the prayers for each of the hours, the Exsultet, and the blessing of the Paschal candle, then the general intercessions for all estates of Christian men, concluding with intercessions for the neophytes and competentes. Upon this follows the baptismal rite (opus ad baptizandum), viz., the exorcisms, the blessing of the baptismal water, the washing of the feet, and the baptism itself. Then come the prayers for the Mass. The rite in the Missale Gothico-Gallicanum is exactly the same.[173]

The Gelasian sacramentary prescribes the following rite for Holy Saturday: Early in the morning, the exorcisms shall be made over the catechumens, and, after they have made their solemn renunciations, they shall repeat the creed (redditio symboli). About the eighth hour, the clergy shall assemble in the sacrarium, commence the litanies there, and proceed to the altar; at the Agnus Dei, the Paschal candle is to be lighted and blessed, but without the chanting of the Exsultet. Then the lections from the Old Testament are read, each with a prayer, and after them takes place the blessing of the font and the baptism of the neophytes.

According to the edition of the Gregorian sacramentary used in France, the clergy and people assemble in the church about the eighth hour, i.e. about 2 P.M., according to present reckoning. Two candles were then lit, which were held by notaries, one on the right, the other on the left of the altar; while a lector from the pulpit read the Old Testament lections, each of which concluded with a prayer. Thereupon the clergy and the bishop proceeded in procession, the notaries with the candles leading the way, to the baptistery, where the baptismal water was blessed. After the blessing of the water, which was the same as that now in use, the baptism followed, at which it is to be observed a distinction is made between children and those who are grown up. The former were confirmed also immediately after baptism, the ritual and significance of confirmation being here clearly shown.[174] After the baptism, the litanies are sung in the church by singers, who then intoned the Gloria in Excelsis. The Mass of the day brought the function to a close.

Just as the Church marked the anniversary of the dedication of a church and of ordination by a special festival, so was the anniversary of their baptism a day of joy and thanksgiving for the baptised. It was also a day for renewing their baptismal vows, and for serious self-examination. The Church provided for this inasmuch as she was accustomed to celebrate this anniversary, and appointed a special Mass for it. It was called the pascha annotina.[175] A festival of this nature had a raison d’être only so long as it was customary to baptise people when they were grown up. When it became general to baptise little children immediately after their birth, this festival fell out of use. The pascha annotina, however, appears in the Homilarium compiled by Paul the Deacon by command of Charlemagne, about 785-90, and in the Sacramentary of Essen, composed between 850 and 874.

Easter and the Easter Octave

If one wishes to form a correct idea of the festival of Easter, one must always bear in mind its close connection with the solemn administration of baptism. The preliminary ceremonies began on Saturday afternoon and lasted throughout the night. When the number to be baptised was very large, the administration of baptism and the Easter festival could be combined. This connection was lost at only quite a late date, in days when all remembrance of the grounds for it had died out, and people had no longer any idea of the catechumenate. The chief and most striking ceremonies were then transferred to the forenoon, and it is much to be regretted that, in those centuries, no creative force was forthcoming to form something in keeping with the altered conditions of the time. Owing to the alteration in the hour, many of the ceremonies are rendered meaningless.

The interval thus produced was occupied by the festival commemoration of the Resurrection, and by a great procession. The latter can easily be traced back to the solemn procession of the catechumens and clergy from the baptistery to the cathedral, which took place in primitive times after baptism. It was probably ignorance of this custom which led later writers to trace the origin of this procession to the words of Christ to His disciples: “I will go before you into Galilee” (St Matt. xxvi. 32; xxviii. 16),[176] directing them to go to Galilee after His resurrection.

The Easter ceremonies varied in different countries and in different dioceses. The earliest mention of them appears in the Ordo Romanus belonging to the thirteenth century which goes by the name of Cardinal James Cajetan.[177] It would lead us too far from our subject to describe them and the other customs formerly observed on Easter Day; besides, such special points of ritual are better dealt with in connection with the liturgy itself. We shall here only mention the blessing of food, especially those kinds of food which, after having been forbidden in Lent, again become lawful, such as flesh meat in particular, eggs, cheese, butter, and other things as well. The original object of this blessing of food was plainly to check the tendency to over-indulgence which might assert itself after a prolonged period of self-denial.[178]

We must now return to the account of the Gallic pilgrim. She speaks of processions to the different churches and to the Mount of Olives as having taken place in Jerusalem not only on Easter Day, but on the other days of the octave as well. She finds no other points to notice in which the customs at Jerusalem differed from those observed at her own home. On the Saturday and Sunday after Easter, the narrative of St Thomas’s unbelief formed the Gospel, as at the present day.[179]

With regard to the Easter octave, the two first days rank as festivals of the first class. On Monday, the supper at Emmaus is commemorated, the Gospel being St Luke xxiv. 13-35; on Tuesday, the appearance of our Lord and His apostles, narrated in St Luke xxiv. 36-47; on Wednesday, His appearance by the Sea of Tiberias to Peter and the others, as they were fishing, St John xxi. 1-14; on Thursday, His appearance in the garden to Mary Magdalen, St John xx. 11-18; on Friday, His appearance on the mountain in Galilee, St Matt. xxviii. 16-20; on Saturday, the Gospel contains the account of the first appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalen immediately after His resurrection, St John xx. 1-9.

The following Sunday forms the conclusion of the Easter octave, and, accordingly, was formerly called simply octava paschæ, or pascha clausum, later it was called White Sunday, dominica in albis, scil. deponendis, because the neophytes wore their white baptismal garments until this day. When Easter ceased to be the day for baptisms, it was appointed, as being in harmony with White Sunday, that children should receive their first communion, and renew their baptismal vows. Rabanus Maurus[180] further observes that in his time confirmation was given on White Sunday. The prayers during the Easter octave contain references to the two great sources of festal gladness, the resurrection of our Lord and the increase in the number of the faithful. The prayers for the third, fifth, and sixth ferias are specially concerned with the latter, while the Gospels throughout are occupied with the appearances of our Lord after His resurrection to His disciples. The Epistles, however, are either for the most part taken from the Acts, or describe that spiritual renewal of mankind which follows upon the work of redemption. The prayers for the whole octave, with the exception of two on Monday, are the same at the present day as those in the Gregorian sacramentary.[181] For the following Sundays, until Whitsunday, they only occasionally agree with the prayers of this sacramentary, being taken bodily, with two unimportant exceptions, from the Gelasian. The Sundays lead up to the fulfilment of Christ’s redemptive work and His return to the Father. The Gospels from the third to the fifth are accordingly taken from the sixteenth chapter of St John.

Right in the middle of the period anciently called quinquagesima, that is to say on the twenty-fifth day after Easter, or, in other words, on the Wednesday of the fourth week after Easter, the event recorded in St John vii. 1 was formerly commemorated in certain churches. In the midst of the feast of Tabernacles, Christ went up into the Temple and taught (St John vii. 14). On the last day of the feast, He stood in the Temple and cried, referring to the usual libation of the Jews on this day,[182] “If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink” (v. 37). On this day, in the Eastern Churches, the rite of blessing the waters still takes place, which is not to be confused with that which is performed on the 6th January, in honour of the baptism of Jesus in Jordan (missa aquæ). This commemoration is called by the Greeks μεσοπεντεκοστή, festum mediæ pentecostes. The name, as we have already observed, belongs to the oldest ecclesiastical terminology, according to which Pentecost meant not Whitsunday but the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday.[183]

6. The Preparation for Easter—Quadragesima and the Fast

The chief festivals are usually preceded by a time of preparation, consisting in many cases of only a single day, the vigil, but the preparation for Easter extends over nine weeks, and is composed of two parts, Lent, the more immediate preparation, and the three preceding Sundays, as a more distant and merely liturgical preparation.

In Lent, it is the fast which plays the chief part, and presents itself as the essential feature of the whole time of preparation. From it, also, the other developments take their rise.[184]

There are indications that, in the earliest times, Christians fasted on all Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. This pious custom seems to have been so generally observed that, without having been enjoined by any formal enactment, it had, so to speak, the force of law. It is mentioned in the Didaché, in Hermas, and by Tertullian.[185] The latter calls these fasts “station-fasts,” and mentions that the fast lasted until 3 P.M. The custom had possibly been adopted from the Jews, for the Pharisees and Jewish ascetics in the time of Christ were wont to fast twice a week, on Monday and Thursday.[186]

With regard to the East, Clement of Alexandria mentions[187] Wednesday and Friday as fast days, and, which is especially remarkable, these days were also so observed in the period after Constantine, at least for a great part of the year. The Didascalia enjoins that these days be kept as fasts in the time after Whitsunday. The preceding season, the fifty days between Easter and Whitsunday, was a season of unmixed gladness, and so, according to the Didascalia, in Whitsun Week, these days were not fasts. We are led to the conjecture that this custom fell out of use in proportion as fasting became otherwise regulated, and the fast of forty days before Easter became a general law.

That fasting should form an essential feature in the commemoration of Passion-tide had already been indicated in our Lord’s words (St Matt. ix. 15): “Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?” To which question He Himself replied, “The days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast.” The days when the Bridegroom was taken away were held from the first to be those in which He lay in the grave, Good Friday and Holy Saturday. In the earliest times, these days were everywhere kept as fasts, and were observed by all, with exception of the quartodecimans, as obligatory fasts of the strictest kind.[188]

This fact is supported by a remark of St Irenæus, in an official letter addressed to Pope Victor (189-99), on the occasion of the second dispute about Easter. It is given, for the most part, by Eusebius in his history of the Church.[189] This is the earliest evidence for the fast before Easter. It shows that the practice had not yet received a fixed and special form. Some, for instance, thought only one day ought to be kept as a fast, Good Friday; others fasted for two days, Good Friday and Holy Saturday—the two days, as Tertullian says, on which the Bridegroom was taken away. Others again fasted for more than two days (unfortunately, it is not said for how many), and others reckoned as their fast day, forty consecutive hours. That is to say, they kept a continuous fast for forty hours night and day, and regarded this as their fast day.[190] Which these forty hours were is easy to say, for our Lord lay in the grave for about forty hours, from the afternoon of Good Friday until Easter morning, or from Good Friday morning to the evening of Saturday.

Irenæus and Tertullian know nothing as yet of the fast of forty days, although in their days it was the universal custom to fast, and that very strictly, on the two last days of Holy Week. About the middle of the third century, a week’s fast was customary in many places—the entire Holy Week being fasted on water and bread and salt, while on the last two days nothing whatever was eaten. The Didascalia describes the fast in the same way, and also the Apostolic Constitutions (5, 15). After this manner, accordingly, the fast was observed in Syria, and Dionysius witnesses to the same practice in Alexandria.[191]

However the words, “The fast shall be broken when a Sunday intervenes,”[192] found on the well-known statue of Hippolytus in Rome, show that already, by the middle of the third century, the fast extended over several weeks. The fast here alluded to must have extended over fourteen days at least. The disputed canons of Hippolytus (the twentieth and twenty-second) receive some confirmation from this passage.

In the fourth century, many witnesses to the fast of forty days are forthcoming, both writers, such as Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, etc., as well as ecclesiastical enactments, e.g., the sixty-ninth of the Apostolic Canons. The Fifth canon of the First Council of Nicæa, in particular, mentions Lent as an observance already established. Nevertheless it clearly was not as yet uniformly observed in all parts of the Church, as the Festal Letters of St Athanasius bear witness.

These letters are in any case the most important evidence for the fast of forty days before Easter. The first of them, for the year 329, is satisfied with appointing “a holy fast of six days” from the Monday to the Saturday in Holy Week;[193] the second, however, for 330, and all the following require a fast of forty days, beginning on the Monday of the sixth complete week before Easter.[194] The Festal Letters give no direct explanation of how, and for what reason, the six days’ fast was changed into a fast of forty days.

However, the covering letter which Athanasius sent along with his eleventh Festal Letter, written from Rome in 339, throws some light upon the process. He writes, namely, to Serapion, first Abbot and then Bishop of Thmuis, that he may announce the fast of forty days to his brethren and impress upon them the necessity of the fast, “lest, when all the world fasts, we only who live in Egypt be derided for not fasting.” This warning is repeated with still greater emphasis: Serapion is to instruct those under him that they must fast forty days,[195] which seems to show that the custom of fasting for forty days was not yet in force in Egypt, though elsewhere it was universally observed, and especially in Rome. At the conclusion of the nineteenth Festal Letter is found a sharp reproof of those who disregarded the fast.[196] This is the forty days’ discipline (ἄσκησις) observed during the six weeks before Easter according to Eusebius.[197]

The Gallic pilgrim, already so often quoted, gives the following minute information concerning the manner in which the fasts were observed in Jerusalem in the fourth century. The preparatory period before Easter lasted eight weeks, not forty days, as in Gaul, and all the days of the week, Saturday and Sunday excepted, were fasted. Holy Saturday was an exception to this rule, being kept as a fast. Thus there were in all forty-one fast days, which were called in Greek ἑορταί; in Latin, feriæ. On Wednesday in Lent, the Psalmody was performed as on Sunday, and the bishop read the appointed Gospel, but the Mass (oblatio) was offered only on Saturday and Sunday. On certain days processions were also made to different churches which lasted until eleven o’clock.

The fare on fast days consisted of water and broth made with flour; fruit and oil and bread were also eaten. The catechumens also fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. Among the faithful, there were some who ate nothing from their repast on Sunday until the following Saturday, i.e. for five days, and who all the year round took only one meal a day. Others abstained in Lent from all food for two consecutive days, but others fasted by taking nothing to eat all day until the evening.[198] This last recalls the practice described by Irenæus. Here one may observe that the custom of not fasting on the Saturdays in Lent existed also in Milan in the time of St Ambrose.[199] The fast must have commenced on the Monday after Sexagesima Sunday, since it had to extend over forty days.

With this agrees the directions given in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (5, 13-20). In these, the fast of Holy Week is called distinctively the fast of Easter (νηστεία τοῦ πάσχα), and is distinguished from the fast of Lent.[200] From Monday to Friday in Holy Week, the fast is to be kept on bread, salt, vegetables and water, flesh meat and wine being forbidden. On Good Friday and Holy Saturday, the days when the Bridegroom was taken away, those who are able are to eat nothing whatever until early on Easter Sunday, while the usual fast lasted until 3 P.M., or sunset.[201] On Saturday, people are not to fast, because it is the day on which the Creation was complete, with the exception of the Saturday on which the Lord lay in the earth.[202]

Leo the Great in his sermons teaches us the objects and significance of the fast before Easter. According to him, Lent was appointed in order to prepare souls for a fruitful commemoration of the mystery of Easter. It was to be a time for inner purification and sanctification; a time, first of all, of penance for past sins, and of breaking off sinful habits, a time also for the exercise of all virtues, especially almsgiving, reconciliation, and the laying aside of enmities. It was in correspondence with the spirit of Lent that the Christian emperors pardoned criminals.[203] Fasting was to form only a part of this penance and preparation, though the most essential part, and Leo declares it to be incumbent upon all, not only the clergy, but all the faithful as well.[204] Leo regarded this fast of forty days before Easter as an apostolic institution.[205]

When the duration of the fast became generally fixed at forty days, a reason for this was not far to seek—the length of the fast of Jesus. From the beginning, however, a difference became apparent, according as Holy Week was either included in Lent or regarded as something distinct in itself. The ante-Nicene practice afforded a precedent for this. The latter practice is adopted in particular in the Apostolic Constitutions, and prevailed in a great part of the East. But in the East, Saturday was exempt from fasting, and so the number of fast days was, as a matter of fact, not greater than in the West, where the other practice obtained. Later, it was expressly set forth that Lent should be a quadragesima, not a quinquagesima, as by the first and fourth councils of Orleans in the sixth century.[206] In some quarters, our informant unfortunately does not say where, Thursday was also exempted from fasting.[207]

Originally, it appears, the fast of forty days, quadragesima, was taken to mean the days before Easter as a whole, Sundays included. This gave for a period of six weeks only thirty-six fasting days, and, where Saturday was not kept as a fast day, only thirty. To rectify this, the number of fast days was increased actually to forty, with the result that in the West, the beginning of Lent (caput jejunii) was put back four days; but in the East, where only five days in each week were fasted, it was put back further still. In the West, especially in Rome, this alteration, by which the fast began on the Wednesday before the sixth Sunday before Easter, had not yet been accomplished by the time of Gregory the Great.

In the East, too, the tendency to make up the full number of fast days to forty was apparent also at an early date. There, owing to Saturday not being a fast day, the beginning of Lent had to be thrown further back than in the West, and Lent began eight weeks before Easter, and since the Saturdays, Holy Saturday excepted, were not fast days, extended actually over forty-one days instead of forty. Abstinence from flesh meat began on the Monday after the eighth Sunday before Easter, corresponding to the Latin dominica sexagesima, which is called the Sunday of Abstinence from Flesh Meat (κυριακὴ ἀπόκρεως). From the following Sunday, called the Sunday for Eating Cheese (κυριακὴ τοῦ τυροφάγου), lacticinia are forbidden. The following Sundays are reckoned as merely the first to the fifth Sundays in Lent, and only the first of them has the additional designation of Orthodox Sunday, in commemoration of the settlement of the Iconoclastic controversy. Later on, the Easterns attached great importance to the question whether Saturday ought or ought not to be kept as a fast day. As early, indeed, as the Apostolic Canons, it is expressly forbidden to fast on Saturday under threat of ecclesiastical penalties.[208] At a later date this difference became one of the points of dispute between the Greeks and Latins.

The assertion of Socrates[209] that in Rome the fast lasted only three weeks is now regarded on all hands as erroneous, all the more so as Socrates adds—also incorrectly—“Saturdays and Sundays excepted.” In Rome, Saturday was always kept as a fast. His statement cannot be accepted against the clear evidence of Leo I. concerning Lent, even although Valesius and Baillet wish to defend it.

That the fast of forty days was not originally observed in all parts of the Church, and only gradually came into force, can probably be explained by the fact that there were already fast days enough. There are, for instance, many indications that the custom of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays all the year through—the period between Easter and Pentecost excepted—was fairly generally observed. Wednesday was kept as a fast, because on that day our Lord had been betrayed to the Jews; Friday, because it was the day of His Passion. At Carthage, where we find reliable evidence for the practice, they were called the fasts of the stations.[210] Even in the East, the custom was apparently general.[211] The Apostolic Constitutions are acquainted with it; the so-called Apostolic Canons prescribe it;[212] the Canons of Hippolytus[213] refer to the fast of the fourth and sixth feria as well as the fast of Lent. As these fasts are never mentioned in the literature of a later date, and altogether disappeared from practice, one is driven to the conclusion that, as the Lenten fast became more widely observed, these others fell out of use. However, the weekly fast-days continued to be observed for a long time together with the Lenten fast, and, among the Greeks, are observed even to the present day.[214] Not only Augustine mentions that, at the end of the fourth century, in Rome, Wednesdays, Fridays, and also Saturdays were fasted, but Innocent I. regarded it as a duty to fast on Saturday all the year round, and Prudentius also alludes to it.[215] In the Syrian Church the three weekly fasts appear to have been obligatory on Bishops and Priests alone.[216]

After the adoption of the fast of forty days, attempts were made, in the West, to further regulate fasting, but these were confined to certain districts and in course of time ceased. For example, Bishop Perpetuus of Tours introduced a special practice into his diocese, which lasted until on in the sixth century, i.e. from Whitsunday to St John, and also from 1st September to St Martin, two fast-days were observed in each week; from then until Christmas, three; from St Hilary’s Day (14th January) until the middle of February two again. The second canon of the fourth council of Orleans (A.D. 541) opposed the attempts of some bishops to extend the fast over fifty, or even sixty days. Amalarius mentions other divergences from the Roman custom, such as keeping three Lents in the year, one before Christmas, the second before Easter, and the third before Whitsunday, and, again, fasting on the days before the Ascension.[217] In Germany, too, there were peculiarities in the discipline observed with regard to fasting during the eighth and ninth centuries.[218]

The essence of fasting consists in abstinence from meat and drink during a specified time. This in itself is not sufficient, for fasting entails moreover that the food taken after the lapse of this time be of a plainer kind, i.e. abstinence from the better sorts of food and drink, which is now called abstinence in the strict sense. The prohibition of certain meats in the Old Testament must be regarded as of a disciplinary nature, and not as a merely dietary regulation.

In ecclesiastical antiquity, along with abstinence from the usual daily meals, we find certain viands also forbidden—flesh and wine. To this period belong the xerophagiæ spoken of by Tertullian,[219] at which people abstained not only from flesh and wine but from liquid food and fruit as well. These, however, seem to have gone beyond the abstinence then usual throughout the Church. The Montanists held these xerophagiæ twice a year for fourteen days.[220]

Among Catholics also abstinence was pushed to great lengths. The canons of Hippolytus[221] prescribe for Holy Week only bread and salt. The Apostolic Constitutions will only permit bread, vegetables, salt and water, in Lent, flesh and wine being forbidden; and, on the last two days of Holy Week, nothing whatsoever is to be eaten.[222] The ascetics, whose acquaintance the Gallic pilgrim made in Jerusalem, never touched bread in Lent, but lived on flour and water.[223] Only a few could keep so strict a fast, and generally speaking people were satisfied with abstaining from flesh and wine. But this lasted throughout the entire Lent, and Chrysostom[224] tells us that in Antioch no flesh was eaten during the whole of Lent. Abstinence from milk and eggs (the so-called lacticinia) was also the general rule.

Thus abstinence from flesh meat (i.e. abstinence in the strict sense) was combined with the diminution of the quantity of food taken. It was also voluntarily practised by itself, without being accompanied by fasting (jejunium a carne et sanguine), by pious persons and ascetics, and was prescribed as a duty on certain days in monasteries and other religious communities, as, for instance, among the Canons of Chrodegang.

Throughout the early ages, abstinence was merely a pious custom. It was not until a later date that it was enjoined by law, as, for instance, by the fifty-sixth Trullan Canon, the Decree of Nicholas I. for the Bulgarians, the fourth and eighth councils of Toledo, the seventh canon of the council of Quedlinburg (1085), and the decretal of Gratian.[225] The custom of abstinence was then recognised and prescribed by ecclesiastical law for the whole of Lent, for all Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year, for the Ember Day, and a number of vigils.[226] No authentic document of antiquity is forthcoming to show that abstinence by itself, without an accompanying fast, had been prescribed by the Church.[227]

7. The Season of Preparation as an Integral Part of the Church’s Year

The division of this season of preparation into two parts, with special names for the Sundays, does not appear in the sermons of Augustine or Leo the Great. But in the ancient Gallic sacramentary—the missale Gothico-Gallicanum—five Masses, entitled simply missa jejunii or in quadragesima, are found assigned to the five Sundays before Palm Sunday. The names sexagesima and quinquagesima appear already in the canons of the fourth council of Orleans (541), but, as generally recognised titles for the Sundays before Easter, they begin to appear in service-books dating from the eighth century and onwards. The Gregorian Sacramentary is familiar with the names for the Sundays from Septuagesima to Quinquagesima, and then numbers five Sundays in Quadragesima until Palm Sunday.

In the ancient Spanish Mozarabic Sacramentary, the names Septuagesima, etc., do not yet appear, but the Sundays after Epiphany are numbered from one to eight, although the entire number was not always required, according as Easter fell early or late. After them follows the Dominica ante diem Cineris, then the five Sundays in Lent, and, finally, the Dominica in Ramis Palmarum.

The recently published Lectionary of Silos, belonging to the ancient rite of Toledo and compiled about 650, represents a much simpler form of the Church’s year. It enumerates neither the Sundays after Epiphany nor those after Pentecost, but merely those in Lent, and then is satisfied with twenty-four Masses for the remaining Sundays of the year.

A trace of the original length of Lent—six weeks, or forty-two days—exists still in the present missal, inasmuch as the secreta for the First Sunday in Lent runs: Sacrificium quadragesimalis initii solemniter immolamus.[228] Sundays, as we know, were never kept as fasts, and so the Western Church in reality kept only thirty-six fast days, a proof that the word quadragesima originally merely denoted the number of days over which the period of preparation extended. Since, however, our Lord had fasted forty days, the Church felt moved to keep to this number exactly, and so added the four missing days to the beginning of Lent. This alternation was first accomplished at the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century, and appears for the first time in the so-called Gelasian sacramentary,[229] while Gregory I.[230] himself still counted the days actually fasted as thirty-six. The three preceding Sundays were now included in the season of preparation and received the names of Quinquagesima, Sexagesima, and Septuagesima. The actual commencement of the fast fell on the Wednesday before Quadragesima, which appears in the Gregorian Sacramentary with a Mass of its own, but without its present name of Ash Wednesday (Feria IV. Cinerum).

This name comes from the sprinkling of ashes. Sprinkling ashes upon the heads of penitents, in token of sorrow, formed part of the ancient ceremonies connected with ecclesiastical penance. Since public penance usually began and ended with Lent, this custom was associated with this particular day. It soon became a general custom no longer restricted to penitents, although the Council of Benevento (1091) prescribes it principally for clerics. The ashes were prepared from the palms of the previous Palm Sunday. At the present time they are blessed in addition.

It is to be observed further that Lent is not devoted to consideration of Christ’s sufferings. This occupies the mind during Holy Week. The aim of Lent is not to move the faithful to dwell upon the passion of Christ, but only to prepare them for keeping Easter worthily through fasting, penance, and abstinence. The liturgical prayers in Lent contain no reference to the Redeemer’s sufferings, but speak of fasting and mortification alone. It is the same with the Epistles and Gospels. On Palm Sunday for the first time, our thoughts are directed to the Passion in the collect for the day, while in the prayers for the so-called Passion Sunday it is not mentioned.

Those weeks of Lent had an exceptional character in which, in the sixth and following centuries, the scrutinies took place, i.e. the services designed for the examination of candidates in preparation for baptism. These began on the Wednesday of the third week in Lent, and lasted until Holy Saturday. Originally seven, they were reduced in course of time to three, owing to the adoption of the Gelasian sacramentary. Accordingly, the Masses for the third, fourth, and fifth Sunday and for the Saturday before Passion Sunday speak of baptism and not of the Passion.[231] In the present Roman Missal scarcely a trace of this is to be found.[232]

The prayers of the Masses both for Sundays and week-days, for by far the greater part, are still identical with those of the Gregorian Sacramentary, while the lections from Scripture are in some instances much older. The Gospel for the First Sunday in Lent, which narrates the fast of Jesus and His temptation by the devil, was read on this day already in the time of Leo the Great. The Gospel for the second Sunday treats of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, the Gospels for the two following Sundays, the healing of the dumb man, and the casting out of the devil, and the miracle of the loaves. The Gospel for Passion Sunday contains the account of our Lord’s encounter with the Jews and their attempt to stone Him.

In the Middle Ages, the commencement and beginning of Lent was marked in a way visible to all by hanging a curtain between the nave of the church and the choir on Ash Wednesday, or, according to Durandus, on the First Sunday in Lent. This was called the Lenten Veil, or, in common parlance, the “Hunger-veil.” It remained hanging until Good Friday, but in many places was drawn aside on Sundays, obviously because Sundays were not fast days. The veil was usually quite plain, but sometimes it was adorned with pictorial representations from sacred history. It is first referred to in writings of the ninth century, but was in use much earlier. In some places in Westphalia and Hanover it exists to the present day. These Lenten-veils are still to be frequently seen in museums and church lumber-rooms, where not infrequently they are erroneously mistaken for carpets. They were practical in their object—the ordinary man who had no calendar was put in remembrance by them that it was the season of Lent. Allegorical interpretations were naturally not lacking, and are to be found in Rupert of Deutz.[233] A similar custom also exists in Russia, where, on the first Sunday in Lent, the altar curtains are drawn together and so remain until Palm Sunday.

During the first six centuries, it was taken for granted that saints’ days must not be observed during Lent. The Trullan synod introduced the first exception to this rule in favour of the Annunciation. In the West, this rule was soon entirely set aside, but, on the other hand, in token of sorrow, the Allelujah ceases during the entire Lent, a custom of which the Greek Church knows nothing. The Lenten prayers have a particularly earnest tone, and Lent from quite an early date appears richly provided from a liturgical point of view, each week-day having its own special Mass. In old days in Rome, there was a procession every day, for the Pope and clergy proceeded from the papal palace in solemn array to some church in the city where a halt (statio) was made, and Mass was sung.

8. The Transfiguration

In the existing calendar, the Transfiguration of our Lord is commemorated by a special festival, the festum Transfigurationis, which, as it is kept on a fixed date, is excluded from the proper sequence of the ecclesiastical year and treated in the same manner as the saints’ days. From quite an early date, this festival had been celebrated in divers churches, both East and West, on different days. The date now observed, the 6th August, was appointed for the festival by Calixtus III. in 1457, in memory of the victory over the Turks, gained by John Capistran and George Hunyadi, at Belgrade. In the choice of a day, he seems to have been influenced by the Greek calendar, where the festival had already been kept on this day. It appears in the Synaxaria of the Copts in Selden and Mai, in the menology of Constantinople belonging to the eighth century, and, later, in the Neapolitanum, and among the orthodox Syrians. In the East it was commonly observed. Sermons on the event are found among those of St Augustine and Leo the Great.[234] The tendency to transfer to another period of the year the commemoration of those events which fell within Lent, is also perceptible in the case of the feast of the Seven Dolours. More will be said on this point in the second part.

9. The Ascension

A special festival in commemoration of the return of the Redeemer to heaven does not indeed appear in the earliest lists of Church festivals given by Tertullian and Origen in the third century. Still, the terms in which the earliest witnesses refer to it, prove that this day was kept as a festival in quite early times. The first witness for it is Eusebius, who calls it a high festival in the treatise he composed on the discussions concerning Easter at the first General Council in 325. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates speaks of it as a general festival.[235] With regard to documents of an official character, the church-order contained in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions,[236] gives it the name of The Taking Up [into Heaven] (ἀνάλεψις, St Luke ix. 51, where the form ἁνάλημψις occurs). Numerous sermons among the works of the Fathers afford further evidence for the existence of the feast. Augustine[237] is inclined to attribute the appointment of the festival to an ordinance of the Apostles or to the injunction of a general council. The latter cannot be proved as certain. As soon as persecution ceased, the feast of the Ascension made its way naturally in all parts of the Church, unassisted by any authoritative enactment, for it was impossible that the concluding act of our Saviour’s earthly life should remain unnoticed among festivals and in the Liturgy. This was all the more unlikely, as the spot from which our Lord returned to the Father at once became the object of reverence. The Empress Helena had already ordered a splendid basilica to be built on the Mount of Olives, which, unfortunately, was destroyed by the Saracens, and has never been rebuilt. At the present day, a small unimposing church marks the spot which was a place of pilgrimage as early as the fourth century,[238] and where it is believed one of our Lord’s footprints in still visible.

With regard to the liturgical observance of the day, its chief characteristic until well on in the Middle Ages was a procession. At the time of the Gallic pilgrim’s visit to Jerusalem, this was observed in a striking manner. The people proceeded in solemn procession after the sixth hour (towards 12 o’clock) on Wednesday from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, there to celebrate the Vigil in the church built over the grotto where Christ was born. The next day, divine service, with a sermon, was performed in the accustomed manner, and, in the evening, the procession returned to Jerusalem.[239] The question which naturally presents itself, why the service was not rather held on the Mount of Olives, as it was in the eighth century,[240] remains unanswered. It is to be further observed that the name Ascension (ascensa) is not used to designate the festival. The pilgrim simply speaks of the fortieth day (quadragesima) after Easter.

Elsewhere in the East, it was customary to observe the Festival of the Ascension outside the city, as, for example, in Constantinople and Antioch. In the latter place, the people went to the small town of Romanesia, where Chrysostom delivered his sermon on the feast.[241] In the Middle Ages, processions were wont to take place on this day in Gaul and Germany, and this custom shows how deeply people were moved by the desire to imitate as far as possible, in the introduction of liturgical practices, the actions of our Lord. In this case, the determinating factor was that our Lord had led the Apostles out of the city to the Mount of Olives.[242]

Another custom peculiar to this festival is that, after the reading of the Gospel at the High Mass, the Paschal candle, which up till then has been burnt at all High Masses, is extinguished and put aside. In earlier times, the event of the day was represented by hanging up a figure of our Lord, which was made to disappear through an opening in the roof. The festival has an octave since the fifteenth century, and, in consequence, the following Sunday, formerly called simply Dominica post Ascensionem, is now called Dominica infra Octavam. The Mass of the feast forms one of the rare exceptions where the event commemorated is described in the Epistle, Acts i. 1-11. The Gospel for the day is taken from St Mark xvi. 14-20, where, in verse 19, the Ascension is briefly alluded to. As a matter of fact, verses 10-20 are wanting in the oldest Alexandrian MSS. Still they are in other respects well supported, and must be regarded as genuine.[243]

The introduction of the festival of the Ascension was rendered all the easier since Scripture distinctly specifies the day on which the event took place.[244]

10. Whitsunday

Whitsunday is of equal rank with the two other chief festivals, but has no special season either preceding or following it, and is unattended by any lesser festivals depending upon it. Whitsunday is the close of the whole period which began with Easter, called in the early centuries Quinquagesima, because it extended over fifty days. This entire period is festal in character, and therefore so long as it lasted people in ancient days prayed standing upright, and no fasting was practised.[245] The ascetics did not observe a single fast during this time,[246] and it seems that even the day before Whitsunday was not a fast in the earliest ages, any more than it is now among the Greeks. A number of ascetics were of opinion that this period of joy should last only forty days, because our Lord appeared to His disciples for only forty days, and that the following ten days, as far as fasting, prayer, and kneeling were concerned, should be like the rest of the year—an opinion which Cassian, among others (Coll. 20, 21), strongly opposed.[247] This divergence of opinion, which was rather widespread, seems to have resulted in Whitsunday being passed over and ignored. So, for example, it is entirely omitted from the oldest Gallican Sacramentaries, the series of festivals ending with the Ascension.[248] In the later service-books, it appears simply under the name Quinquagesima.

Pentecost meant originally the entire period from Easter to Whitsunday, and this terminology had been already in use among the Jews, and is employed by St Luke in Acts ii. 1 (cum complerentur dies pentecostes). The Greek word Pentecost was gladly adopted by the Latins in early times, and more especially, later on, since the Latin term quinquagesima might easily be confused with the Sunday of the same name.

Whitsunday, of course, commemorates the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and disciples. This happened fifty days after the Resurrection, on an ancient Jewish festival called in the Pentateuch the Feast of Weeks,[249] because it was celebrated exactly seven weeks after the Passover. As it fell on the fiftieth day after the Passover, it was also called Pentecost, even in pre-Christian times.[250]

The Jewish Pentecost was originally only a festival of thanksgiving for harvest, and, although the Law was given on Mount Sinai and the Mosaic Church came into existence on the same day, yet the feast was not devoted to the commemoration of this event. This purpose was served by the festival of the Simchah Thorah in October, which owed its institution to the Rabbis. On the other hand, the fact that the descent of the Holy Ghost implied the foundation of the Christian Church, afforded the Fathers a parallel which they were not slow to make the most of.[251] The Feast of Weeks was to the Jews only the conclusion of the harvest, in thanksgiving for which, bread, made from the newly gathered wheat, was presented to Jehovah as a sacrifice.

The festival of Whitsunday reaches back to the commencement of the Church, although there is no evidence for it, as there is in the case of Easter, it being uncertain whether the passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, refers to the Jewish or to the Christian Pentecost. This is not astonishing, for, on the one hand the feast, originally of only one day’s duration, fell on a Sunday, and, on the other, it is so closely bound up with Easter that the one entails the other. That the festival of Whitsunday belongs to Apostolic times is stated in the seventh of the fragments attributed to Irenæus, but these are admitted to be interpolated. In Tertullian, the festival, along with Easter, appears as already well established, so that it must have been in existence for some time. As at Easter, prayer was made standing, and it was the second and last date for the solemn baptism of catechumens.[252] Tertullian, moreover, in accordance with the usage already in use, gives the name of Pentecost, not merely to the day of the festival, but to the whole period from Easter to Whitsunday—a use of the term which appears here and there at a later date,[253] and points out the period as a time of joy.[254] The last day, however, was clearly held in Tertullian’s time to be a festival in an especial sense.[255] Origen and the Canons of Hippolytus make references in passing to the festival of Whitsunday.[256] The Apostolic Constitutions say Whitsunday is to be regarded as a high festival, because on it the Lord Jesus sent down the Holy Ghost.

The Gallic pilgrim gives a detailed and circumstantial account of the manner in which the feast was observed in Jerusalem.[257] On the night before Whitsunday, the vigil was celebrated in the Church of the Anastasis, at which the bishop, according to the usual custom in Jerusalem on Sundays, read the Gospel of the Resurrection, and the customary psalmody was performed. At dawn, all the people proceeded to the principal church (Martyrium), where a sermon was preached and Mass celebrated. About the third hour, when the psalmody was finished, the people accompanied the bishop with singing to Sion. There, the passage from the Acts of the Apostles, describing the descent of the Holy Ghost, was read, and a second Mass was celebrated, after which the psalmody was resumed. Afterwards the archdeacon invited the people to assemble in the “Eleona,” from whence a procession was made to the summit of the Mount of Olives. Here psalms and antiphons were sung, the Gospel was read, and the blessing given. After this, the people descended again into the “Eleona,” where Vespers were sung, and then, with the bishop at their head, proceeded in a solemn procession with singing back to the principal church, which was reached towards 8 P.M. At the city gate, the procession was met by torch-bearers who accompanied it to the Martyrium. Here, as well as in the Anastasis, to which the people proceeded in turn, and in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, the usual prayers, hymns, and blessings took place, so that the festival did not conclude until midnight.

The Pilgrim makes no mention of rites or preparations connected with the administration of baptism. It seems, then, that in Jerusalem, Whitsunday was not observed as a second or supplementary time for baptism, or may not have been required as such. Nevertheless, this feature appears in the Western liturgies, and had much to do, for instance, in the determining the manner in which the vigil of the feast was observed.

According to the more ancient service-books, the catechumens were to assemble at midday on Saturday. Lections from Scripture, less numerous than on Holy Saturday, were read, and then, after suitable prayers, took place the blessing of the baptismal water, the baptism, and, during the night, the Mass of the vigil.[258] St Augustine shows that, in Africa as well, the people assembled in the afternoon, and that the Mass was celebrated during the night. He thus addresses the newly baptised on Whitsunday: “What you here see before you on the altar, you have already seen during the past night.”[259]

In order to complete the resemblance to Easter, a large candle was, in some churches, blessed and set up during the singing of the Exsultet in a slightly altered form.[260] In monastic churches, in which baptism was not administered, the baptismal ceremonies were omitted, though the special celebration of the vigil still commenced in the afternoon.[261]

As far as the most ancient period is concerned, the so-called Leonine Missal contains a Mass for Whitsunday, and the ceremonies for baptism. The Gelasian Sacramentary also has numerous directions for the administration of baptism on this day, but no form for the blessing of a candle. It seems to imply that the candidates for baptism shall be especially invalids, or such as for some reason or other had been prevented from receiving baptism at Easter, or Energumens, etc. These directions, however, are absent from the Gregorian Sacramentary, and only two lections from the prophets are given. In the present Roman rite, the function takes place in the forenoon; still the prophecies and the blessing of the font remain as survivals of the ancient practice. The litany of the saints is also sung, upon the last Kyrie of which the Mass of the vigil follows immediately without an introit. The office of the day until nones belongs to the Octave of the Ascension.

The Apostolic Constitutions[262] speak of the feast of Pentecost lasting for eight days, but in the West it was not kept with an octave until quite a late date, and the last day was never called dies octava, but merely the first Sunday after Pentecost, and the days within the octave were merely called the first or second day after Pentecost, and so on. As appears from Berno of Reichenau,[263] it was a debatable point in his day whether Whitsunday ought to be kept with, or without, a dies octava. Berno relied upon the analogy of Easter, the special time for baptisms, which was observed with an octave. Whitsunday was the day on which the Apostles received their baptism of fire, and so it too ought to have an octave. He had other reasons besides which would have no weight at the present time. It is obvious that Whitsunday had at first no octave, which can be inferred also from the whole scheme of the Church’s feasts. Whitsunday was merely the fiftieth day after Easter, the end of the period called Pentecost, and so in itself brought the season to a conclusion.

The Mass for Whitsunday had a sequence which was repeated daily during the week. Formerly the law-courts did not sit during the entire week, and even servile work was forbidden as well.[264] A Council of Constance, in 1094, limited this to the first three days of the week. With us, at the present time, only the second day is observed in foro, but not even this is observed any longer in Rome.

In earlier times it was customary in many places to scatter roses from the roof of the church to recall the miracle of Pentecost. Hence in Sicily, Whitsunday is called pascha rosatum. The Italian name, pasqua rossa, however, comes from the colour of the vestments. In many districts of France it was usual to blow trombones or trumpets during divine service in memory of the sound of the “mighty wind” which accompanied the Holy Spirit’s descent.

11. Trinity Sunday

It was not until a late date that the first Sunday after Pentecost was raised to a higher rank, for in the Gregorian Sacramentary it has no special name, while in the Gelasian Sacramentary, and in the appendixes to the Gregorian,[265] it is called merely the Sunday after the octave of Pentecost, or the Sunday after Pentecost. In the Latin Church, it is now a festival devoted to the honour of the Most Holy Trinity.

Concerning the introduction of this new feast into the Church’s year, we learn from the Micrologus that, the Sunday after Pentecost being a dominica vacans without any special office of its own, many used on this day the office of the Trinity drawn up by Bishop Stephen of Liège (903-20). When Pope Alexander II. († 1073) was questioned on the point, he replied that it was not the Roman custom to set apart any particular day in honour of the Holy Trinity, since the Trinity was honoured every day by the Gloria Patri in the psalmody. It is to be noted, continues the Micrologus,[266] that Alcuin, at the request of the Saint Boniface, composed a Mass in honour of the Holy Trinity.

Binterim speaks sarcastically of this reference, because Boniface had died long before the time when Alcuin flourished. The reference is not to be passed over on this account, for the mistake arose merely from a misunderstanding. Alcuin had put together from the missal employed in his Abbey Church a number of Masses—votive Masses, as they would now be called—for each day of the week, to be used under certain conditions, and to these was added, amongst others, a Mass in honour of St Boniface for the monks of Fulda.[267] This explains the misunderstanding in the Micrologus. Alcuin had also arranged a collection of prayers drawn from the Gregorian Sacramentary to form a prayer-book. This, by itself, enables us now to appreciate Alcuin’s share in the matter.[268] It merely means that he recommended the Mass of the Trinity should be said on Sundays, in case a priest had not a complete missal, or through ignorance was unable to use it properly.

The fact is plain. The later Frankish recension of the Gregorian Sacramentary contained for the Sunday after Pentecost a Mass in honour of the Holy Trinity, with the same preface which is still in use.[269] In addition to this, Bishop Stephen of Liège drew up a suitable office, and so all was in readiness for the institution of an especial feast in honour of the Trinity, which, in the natural course of things, was fixed for the first Sunday after Pentecost. The custom of regarding it as a festival became more and more popular in the Netherlands, England, Germany, and France. Several diocesan synods expressed themselves in favour of it, e.g., that of Arles in 1260. As we have found in other instances, so here, it was the monasteries which prepared the way for the adoption of the festival. Thus, for example,[270] the Cistercians adopted the festival in 1270, the Cluniacs still earlier. The introduction of the festival into each diocese followed gradually in course of time, and it belongs to local historians to investigate the circumstances in each case.

Although Alexander II. had officially declared the festival to be superfluous,[271] it nevertheless continued to increase in popularity in ever-widening circles. Its adoption did not follow any uniform law, for in several places it was observed on the last Sunday after Pentecost, as in several dioceses of France, until on in the seventeenth century, and here and there we find it kept with an octave. Uniformity was at length attained when the Roman Church under John XXII., in 1334, accepted the festival and ordered it to be generally observed. The Franciscan, John Peckham, Canon of Lyons, and, from 1278 to 1292, Archbishop of Canterbury, composed a new office. The one actually in use dates from the times of Pius V.,[272] and is one of the most beautiful in the breviary, remarkable alike for sublimity of thought, depth, and elegance of form. Although the first Sunday has thus been placed in a rank by itself, the Roman rite still continues the older enumeration of the Sundays from Pentecost. In Germany and elsewhere it was the custom to reckon the Sundays from Trinity, and so each Sunday is one less than the corresponding Sunday according to the Roman enumeration.

The Greeks on this Sunday commemorate All Saints, and on this account call it All Saints’ Sunday (κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων πάντων).

12. Corpus Christi. The Forty Hours’ Prayer. The Festival of the Sacred Heart

On Maundy Thursday, the consecration of the Holy Oils and other ceremonies overshadow almost entirely the commemoration of the important event which took place on that day—the institution of the Holy Eucharist. It was this fact which suggested the introduction of a festival specially intended to commemorate that event, as is expressly stated in the papal constitution Transiturus. The introduction of this feast dates from a comparatively late time, and its adoption is limited to the West, although the Uniat Greeks have also partially accepted it. The earliest trace of a special reference to the Holy Sacrament of the altar in the public worship of the Church is probably the appearance of the name Natalis Calicis, in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, on the 24th March. In order to understand this entry, it must be remembered that anciently the 25th March was often regarded as the day on which Christ died (vide ante, p. 57).

Divine Providence made use of a humble nun to further the introduction of this festival. Juliana,[273] born at Retinne, near Liège, in 1193, was received as an orphan into the cloister, and became a nun of the order of St Augustine. She was appointed prioress of the lazar-house of Mons Cornelii (Mont-Cornillon), near Liège, where she passed the greater part of her life. When this institution received another prior who fell out with the authorities of Liège over some matters of administration, Juliana was obliged to leave the lazar-house in 1240. She took up her abode in Liège, with a kindred spirit, the recluse Eve. She returned to Mont-Cornillon after three years, but when fresh disagreements broke out again, on the death of Bishop Robert († 1246), she was compelled to leave Liège altogether. She found a refuge with the Cistercian nuns at Salsinnes in the diocese of Namur. But this convent was destroyed in the wars which then disturbed the country, and Juliana was once more destitute. She ended her life on the 5th April 1258, as a recluse at Fosses, where she had found a refuge, and was buried in the monastery of Villiers, in the diocese of Namur.

Juliana of Retinne had been a zealous worshipper of the Blessed Sacrament from her youth, and, from her sixteenth year, had repeatedly seen a vision of the disc of the full moon from which as it were a part had been broken off. A vision of our Lord enlightened her mind as to the signification thereof. The moon’s disc represented the Church, which still lacked a festival in honour of the Blessed Sacrament, and she was to announce this want to the world and direct all her efforts towards the introduction of such a festival. In 1230, she communicated her secret, on account of which she had much to suffer, for the first time, to John of Lausanne, Canon of St Martin at Liège, and to some other pious and learned men, namely, Guyard, afterwards Bishop of Cambrai, Hugo, afterwards Cardinal Legate, the Archdeacon of Liège, James Pantaleon of Troyes, who became Bishop of Verdun, then Patriarch of Jerusalem, and, finally, Pope.

Since in those days bishops exercised the right of appointing feasts in their own dioceses, it was of the utmost importance that Robert de Thorete, Bishop of Liège since 1240, was in favour of the introduction of this festival. He gave a sympathetic hearing to the proposals of those in favour of the feast, called a diocesan synod in 1246, which decided in favour of its introduction,[274] and proscribed for his clergy the recitation of an office composed by Canon John, but died on the 16th October 1246, without having formally instituted the festival. It was kept, however, as agreed upon, by the canons of St Martin’s in the following year, and later on it was approved by the Papal Legates, Cardinals Hugo and Peter Capocci.

When James Pantaleon ascended the papal throne in 1261 as Urban IV., he received from the Bishop of Liège a letter concerning the festival, written at the request of the recluse Eve, who took an active part in the introduction of the new feast. To this he wrote a favourable reply.

The general adoption of the feast of Corpus Christi seemed now assured. Urban’s personal predilections in its favour were further increased by the incident of the Bohemian priest at Bolsena in 1262, and, shortly before his death, on the 8th September 1264, he addressed a bull[275] to all bishops and prelates in which he directed a festival in honour of the Blessed Sacrament should be held throughout Christendom, on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, and granted indulgences to all who observed it. He commissioned moreover St Thomas Aquinas to compose a special office, which speedily replaced the former one.[276] Owing to the death of Urban, which followed closely on the promulgation of this bull, the affair proceeded no further, and the spread of the festival came to a standstill. The transference of the papal residence to Avignon caused a further delay. Still in Liège the matter was not dropped, and the diocesan synod of 1287 is the first which definitely ordered that this festival should be observed.[277]

At length, after a long silence, Pope Clement V., Bertrand de Got, took up the matter once more, and by his influence the Œcumenical Council, which he had assembled at Vienne in 1311, authorised the festival and enjoined its observance throughout Christendom. For this end, he renewed the constitution of Urban IV. in his own bull Si Dominum. Neither in this document, nor in the constitution of Urban, is there any mention of a procession of the Blessed Sacrament, but only of a Mass and the office. The procession was a later addition which, like the festival itself, gradually spread throughout different dioceses and countries. It was not, however, altogether a novelty, for already in the eleventh century, the Benedictines in England carried the Blessed Sacrament on Palm Sunday in procession outside the church.[278]

The Corpus Christi procession, more recent than the introduction of the feast itself, was at first a much simpler affair than it is at present. As early as the twelfth century, it was by no means unusual to carry the Blessed Sacrament hidden from sight in a chalice or pyx round the church, and a procession of this kind is specially provided for in the ritual for Holy Week.[279] The Ordinarium of the Church of Rouen contains directions for the performance of such a procession, but unfortunately the date of this document is uncertain.[280] According to this, the Blessed Sacrament was carried round the church by two priests in white chasubles, accompanied by four choristers carrying censers. Two other clerics carried torches, and the remainder, vested in copes, sung various versicles and responses. The shrine in which the Blessed Sacrament was carried was placed in the middle of the choir, and the Sacrament was censed by a priest accompanied by a deacon, while the singers remained kneeling. They sang, Ave, verum corpus natum, etc., which the choir repeated still kneeling, and then added other hymns. When this was concluded, the archbishop was to give the blessing and commence the Mass.

The date at which the Corpus Christi procession was introduced varies very much in different dioceses and countries. In Cologne, it was held, for the first time, even earlier than 1279, in the monastery of St Gereon, when red vestments were worn.[281] In 1308, it was ordered for the parish churches of the archdiocese. The direction of John XXII. was certainly in most cases the reason of the feast becoming general throughout the universal Church. The procession took place for the first time in Worms in 1315, in Aix-la-Chapelle in 1319. In Strassburg, Bishop John I., on 22nd July 1318, ordered the adoption of the festival, and the recitation of the office. The first official appearance of the festival and procession in Treves was at the synod held under Archbishop Baldwin in 1338; in Utrecht in 1347, in Prague in 1355. On the other hand, it was introduced at Würtzburg as early as 1298, before the Council of Vienne, as appears from the statutes of the synod for that year. At Augsburg, already in 1305, a lady of rank, Katharina Ibsung, left all her property to the cathedral for the due performance of the Corpus Christi procession, and it would appear that the procession had taken place at Augsburg as a usual thing before this.[282] In the fifteenth century the Popes Martin V. and Eugenius IV.[283] encouraged the spread of the procession by granting indulgences to those who took part—the latter especially in his bull Excellentissimus, of the 26th May 1433. In the fourteenth century, the four stations were added at which the opening passages of the four Gospels were sung, and in the sixteenth century these were finally authorised.[284] The Liber Ordinarius of the Monastery of Essen, belonging to the second half of the fourteenth century, affords us some information concerning this change in particular. It speaks of two processions—one composed of the canons and without stations, which passed out of the church and then returned; the second of the congregation, which had four stations, at each of which the beginning of St John’s Gospel was read and benediction given.[285]

The Forty Hours’ Prayer, with exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, owes its introduction to the Capuchin Joseph Plantanida of Fermo. In 1556-57 he urged the senate of Milan to take steps for observing this devotion in all churches of Milan in turn, on account of the war with France which was then threatening, and also with reference to the plague which twelve years earlier had devastated the city. The custom of spending forty hours in prayer for some special intention had arisen earlier than this, for a priest of Grenoble, called Antony, for example, had established a confraternity in Milan in 1527, the members of which met four times a year for forty hours’ adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which, however, was not exposed.[286]

At the conclusion of the octave of Corpus Christi comes the comparatively modern festival of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As it is thus in point of time closely connected with Corpus Christi, so also it resembles it in many points. In the first place, it is essentially appointed for the glorification of the Incarnation and the Person of the Incarnate, and, secondly, its origin has many points in common with that of Corpus Christi. Its introduction is connected with the visions of the Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90), which she saw in the Convent of the Visitation at Paray-le-Monial, during the years 1673-75. The cultus of the Sacred Heart seems to have existed earlier as a form of private devotion. In support of it certain passages are appealed to in the writings of saints of earlier times, which contain its fundamental principles. Among others, St Gertrude, and the Carthusian James of Landsberg, are quoted. The Blessed Margaret Mary had much to suffer in her attempts to establish the cultus, but finally it was introduced for the first time in 1686 at Paray-le-Monial, or, according to others, in the Convent of the Visitation at Moulins in 1674. The public cultus was introduced by Charles François de Loménie, Bishop of Coutances, who, in consequence of Margaret Mary’s revelations, consecrated a chapel in honour of the Sacred Heart in his seminary in 1688, and erected a confraternity under the same title. He was followed by Peter de Grammont, Bishop of Besançon, who, in 1692, ordered a special Mass with the title Cordis Jesu, to be printed in the missal for his diocese, for the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi. The Bishop of Langres adopted this Mass in his diocese, and finally the Archbishop of Lyons, Primate of Gaul, at the end of 1718 ordered the feast to be kept by the churches under his jurisdiction. The authoritative recognition of the feast was given by Clement XIII. in 1765.[287]

1. Christmas

Christmas, or the feast of our Lord’s birth (Nativitas Domini, τὰ γένεθλια, γέννησις Χριστοῦ), has this in common with Easter that it also is the centre of other festivals which group themselves around it, but it differs from Easter inasmuch as it is an immovable feast, and so falls on a fixed day of the month. The whole Church, and all the sects, agree in observing the 25th December as this date. As it has cost us already some trouble to show how the determination of Easter was arrived at, so the questions which arise in regard to the date of Christmas are by no means few. The answer to these questions entails a special and critical investigation into several points of history, which, though it may not prove interesting to everyone, will nevertheless be full of information to those who undertake to study it.

Formerly it was taken for granted that Christ had actually been born on this day, and, accordingly, the learned were of opinion that the Church had observed it from the beginning as the day of His birth. Even at the present day, it will be difficult for many to give up this idea. But there is no Christmas among the Christian feasts enumerated by Tertullian, Origen, and the recently published Testament of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, there is clear proof that even in the fourth and fifth centuries it was unknown in some parts of the Church, where its introduction, at a much later period, can be proved historically. To this evidence we shall now turn our attention, beginning with Egypt.

At the beginning of the fifth century the learned monk, John Cassian, betook himself to Egypt to study the observances of the monasteries there, and later on, between 418 and 427, he wrote down the result of his observations in his Collations. He informs us that the bishops of those parts at that time regarded the Epiphany as our Lord’s birth-day, and that there was no separate festival in honour of the latter. He calls this the “ancient custom.”[288]

This old custom, although generally observed at that time in Egypt, had soon to give place to a new one. For under Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, Bishop Paul of Emesa, while on a visit to him, preached on the festival of our Lord’s nativity, and the date on which this happened was the 29th Chijak, or 25th December, in the year 432. Christmas, then, had been introduced into Egypt before this time, that is to say, between 418 and 432,[289] and from then onwards it was firmly established, as the existing Calendars of subsequent date show.

The learned Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis lived in Cyprus at the end of the fourth century. In his answer to the Alogoi he gives the chronology of our Lord’s life, according to which the 6th January is the day of our Lord’s birth, and the 8th November the day of His baptism in Jordan. For him the Epiphany was plainly the festival of Christ’s nativity.[290]

The old custom was still in force in Jerusalem about 385. Our Lord’s birth was celebrated there with great rejoicings, not on the 25th December, but on the 6th January. For according to the evidence of the Pilgrim from Bordeaux, the festival on which the gospel was read, giving the account of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and His meeting with Simeon and Anna—Candlemas Day—was celebrated forty days after the Epiphany and not forty days after Christmas.[291] Epiphany must then have been the festival of the Nativity. In another passage, where the same pilgrim has reason to name the chief festivals of the year, she mentions as such only Epiphany and Easter.[292] And so at that time there was no special festival of Christmas observed in Jerusalem.

Among the witnesses for the old custom, we find Ephrem Syrus, who informs us that, in his time, the church of Mesopotamia commemorated the Incarnation of the Son of God on the thirteenth day after the winter solstice, in the month when the light begins to increase, i.e. on the 6th January.[293]

It is a well-known fact that the festival of the 25th December, as Christ’s birth-day, was entirely unknown to the ancient churches of Armenia and Mesopotamia, and remained so partially until on in the fourteenth century.[294] In the most of the great churches of the East, on the contrary, this feast was introduced during the last decades of the fourth century, in others somewhat later. Most interesting particulars concerning the introduction of Christmas in various localities are extant, and, since they refer to its introduction, we are safe in concluding, from the historical evidence before us, that these churches had not celebrated Christmas until then. This is the case with regard to Constantinople.

The second capital of the empire had long been a stronghold of Arianism, so that the orthodox had dwindled down to a mere handful, and no longer possessed a church of their own in the city. During this period Christmas was certainly not celebrated in Constantinople. Not till after the death of Valens, and the elevation of Theodosius the Great to the empire (19th January 379), did the Catholics breathe freely once more. They received as bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, formerly Bishop of Sasima, but then living in retirement at Seleucia in Isauria. He began his labours as a stranger and sojourner in a small private chapel which he called the Anastasia. Here, on the 25th December 379 or 380, Christmas was celebrated for the first time in Constantinople, as he himself informs us, and on this occasion he delivered his thirty-eighth homily.[295] Thus one of the first acts of the restorer of Catholicism in the capital was the introduction of the new festival. In the above homily indeed he says nothing about its being celebrated for the first time, but in the following homily (c. 14), when speaking of the previous Christmas, he calls himself its originator (ἔξαρχος). Gregory’s activity in the capital was unfortunately of short duration. Soon after the meeting of the second General Council, in 381, he was compelled through the intrigues of his opponents to retire from his post.

It would not be impossible, and certainly would not be surprising, if Gregory’s expulsion also imperilled his new institution, and that the festival of Christ’s Nativity would have to be re-introduced. At any rate, a late and not very reliable writer, though one not to be passed over in this connection, speaks of the emperor Honorius as having been the means of introducing the feast of Christmas at Constantinople. On the occasion of a visit to Constantinople he persuaded his mother and his brother Arcadius to celebrate the feast of Christmas, and in the Roman manner.[296] This must have taken place after the year 395.

In Cappadocia the separation of the two feasts, Epiphany and Christmas, had been effected in 380, at least as far as Nyssa was concerned. For Gregory of Nyssa, in his funeral oration on Basil, speaks of the festival of Christ’s birth as well established.[297] He says the same in his two sermons for the feast of St Stephen.

With regard to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the festival at Antioch, we are fully informed by St Chrysostom in a sermon he preached there on the 20th December 386.[298]

The festival had been known in Antioch for about ten years already, and a certain party there among the faithful were in the habit of celebrating it publicly, but its official introduction was first effected by Bishop Flavian, who was seconded in this by St John Chrysostom, recently ordained priest in the February of the same year. Chrysostom began his priestly activity with a course of sermons against the thorough-going Arians—the Anomæans. These discourses treat of the nature of God, His incomprehensibility, and triune personality, but the preacher had to interrupt the course from time to time in order to deal with other matters affecting the faithful themselves, such as their superstitious respect for, and imitation of, the Jews and their customs. Some went so far as to regard oaths taken in the synagogue as more sacred and binding than those taken in the church. Many Christians observed the Jewish festivals as well as their own. On this account Chrysostom departed from his first subject and directed his first four sermons against the Jews. Then his eloquence was directed to the task of winning over the faithful of Antioch to the observance of Christmas.

It was on the festival of the Antiochene martyr Philogonius that he announced to his hearers that on the following 25th December Christmas would be celebrated for the first time in the Church of Antioch. The day had been observed in the West from the beginning (ἄνωθεν), but only during the last ten years had the knowledge of it penetrated to Antioch. For his own part, he had for a long time made his prayer in secret that the festival should be kept also in Antioch. He had found many, especially of the lower orders, in favour of it, but many, on the other hand, were opposed, and so the introduction of the festival had been delayed.

The efforts of the great preacher were crowned with success. A very large number of the faithful were present in the church when the new festival was celebrated. The sermon which Chrysostom delivered on the occasion has happily come down to us.[299] In the introduction he says he wished to speak to them himself concerning the festival over which there had been so much controversy in Antioch. Some considered it a mere innovation, but others knew that it was observed in the West from Thrace to Cadiz. This last assertion was an exaggeration, as the next words of Chrysostom themselves show. He says he proposes to commend the feast to the devotion of his hearers on three grounds: first, because the feast has spread with remarkable rapidity, and has met with so much favour in all directions;[300] secondly, because the time of the census taken in the year of Christ’s birth can be determined by ancient documents preserved in Rome; thirdly, the year of our Lord’s birth can be computed from the time of the angel’s appearance to Zachary in the Temple. Zachary, as High Priest, had entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The Jewish Day of Atonement fell in September. Six months afterwards the angel came to Mary, and nine months later Christ was born, i.e. in December. Chrysostom concludes with an attack upon those who do not believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.

All this, however, as far as the determination of the date is concerned, rests upon an insecure foundation. Since Zachary was only an ordinary priest, and not the High Priest, his entry into the Holy of Holies cannot therefore be identified with that of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. But this is of little importance, if on independent grounds these calculations could still point to the month of December, though the 25th need not on this account have been the precise day on which our Lord was born.

When we consider the facts, we see that it was no mere accident that Christmas began to be celebrated in the East just at this particular period, and that its introduction was due to the influence of the great men whom we have named.

It was the moment when Catholics began successfully to repel Arianism; it was just those who attacked Arianism with most vigour and success who promoted the spread of the new festival in the East. We must add to this the evidence afforded by secular enactments. Neither the laws of Valentinian II., nor the revisers of the Codex Theodosianus in 438, nor the Breviarium Alaricianum of 506, regard the 25th December as a festival established by law. It was made to appear for the first time as such by Tribonianus in the Codex Justinianus.[301] From these additional facts, we gather that Christmas was of later introduction in the Church than Easter or Whitsunday. In such matters secular law generally follows the lead of ecclesiastical law. If Christmas had been celebrated in the Church from the beginning, one can see no reason why it should not have enjoyed equal privileges with Easter and Whitsunday. Still there was a law of the Emperor Arcadius as early as 400 which included Christmas among the days on which at least the games of the circus were forbidden.[302]

Chrysostom, in the sermon referred to above, states plainly that, at the time when the attempt was being made to introduce the festival in the East, it was already celebrated in Rome. Our attention is thus naturally directed to Rome, and it will be interesting to learn how long it had been so observed there. This question we must now consider more fully.

John, Bishop of Nicæa, informs us that the Roman Church had begun under Pope Julius I. (337-352) to celebrate the birth of our Lord on the 25th December.[303] This pope, with the assistance of the writings of Josephus, had ascertained that Christ was born on the 25th December. John of Nicæa then recurs substantially to the reckoning which we have already produced from Chrysostom, according to which the appearance of the angel to Zachary in the Temple happened on the 23rd September and the Annunciation on the 25th March. From these data it followed as a matter of course that the 25th December was the day of Christ’s birth. John had gained this information from an alleged correspondence between Cyril of Jerusalem and Julius, from which he quotes. But this correspondence is certainly not authentic, as will appear from one of the facts quoted from it further on.[304] But the fact that it cannot stand the test of criticism does not prove the spuriousness of the treatise of John of Nicæa in itself, nor the incorrectness of everything else contained in it.

When we turn to the authentic evidence for the practice of the Roman Church on this point, our attention is at once arrested by one document which is quoted under very different names—Anonymus Cuspiniani, Catalogus Bucherianus, the Calendar of Furius Philocalus, or the Chronographer of 354. These different ways of quoting the same document are apt to lead to confusion. They are due to the fact that from time to time different scholars have published larger or smaller portions of the document, without ever placing it before the public in its entirety. The different portions of which it is composed are of a rather heterogeneous character, and, accordingly, as each student was interested in this or that portion, he published as much of it as concerned his own studies, leaving the remainder unnoticed. In order to form a correct judgment of the evidential value of this document, and the importance of the facts recorded in it, it will be well at this point to describe it more particularly, although to do so may lead us away from our main subject.

Briefly, we have to do with a collection of chronological data belonging to the time of Constantine, in which the unknown compiler collected together from official sources all kinds of chronological and historical notices, such as might be useful for people in official positions. His object was to supply them with a compendium of all that might be of practical assistance to them. John Cuspinianus (1473-1529) was the first to make use of this work, because he recognised that the list of Roman consuls contained in it is the most correct that has come down to us. In his Commentarius de Consulibus Romanis, published at Basel after his death, in 1552, a part of the work is printed.[305]

Other students then edited such portions as related to the special studies they had in hand, such as Onuphrius Panvinius, Ægidius Boucher, S.J.,[306] Lambeck, Henschen, Cardinal Noris, Eccard, Preller, and especially Roncalli. Finally, in the transactions of the “Akademie der Wissenschaften” of Saxony for 1850, Mommsen printed almost the whole of it with the exception of the later portions. A collection of the allegorical illustrations of the document, as far as they exist, has also been published,[307] and thus at length this remarkable document has been placed within the reach of all to whom it may be of interest.

The different sections therein contained are partly of ecclesiastical and Christian origin, and partly secular and heathen. Of purely ecclesiastical origin, in addition to the table for calculating Easter, are the Depositio Episcoporum, the Depositio Martyrum, and the list of popes. The remaining sections fall into two classes: they are either entirely heathen, or they have interpolations of a Christian and ecclesiastical character. This is especially the case with the lists of consuls. Up to 753 U.C. they contain merely the names of the consuls, with notices of the dictators; from 753 U.C. to 55 A.D. four ecclesiastical notices have been interpolated, but none from thence onwards. These four notices relate to the date of Christ’s birth and death, the arrival of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and their death there. These notices, naturally, did not originally form part of the lists of consuls. Who added them? Philocalus himself or someone else?

Since the list of consuls contains ecclesiastical interpolations, it is all the more remarkable that none have been added to the Calendar. Where else would we more naturally look for them, and where could they have been more easily introduced? Why did not Philocalus set down the birth of Christ here under the 25th December, the Natalis Invicti, since he considered it of sufficient importance to be interpolated into the lists of consuls, with which it is out of keeping?

But if, it is objected, the date of Christ’s birth is also given in the Depositio Martyrum, let us examine this document more closely. As the title indicates, it contains only the days of the death and burial of Roman martyrs and other martyrs venerated in Rome in the earliest ages, e.g. Cyprian, Perpetua, Felicitas. To these there are added two exceptions: VIII. Kal. Jan. (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem) and VIII. Kal. Mart. (the feast of St Peter’s Chair). Neither of these belong in any sense to a Depositio Martyrum, and on this account, De Rossi wished to change the title of the document to Feriale Ecclesiæ Romanæ. But in this he was mistaken. The MSS. have the title Depositio Martyrum alone, and to change it would be arbitrary. The two days mentioned above, the 25th December and the 22nd February, must rather be struck out as later additions which do not belong to the document.

That such entries do not appear in the Calendar is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that soon afterwards succeeding emperors forbade the games of the circus and energetically suppressed heathen customs. When this had been done, the Calendar would no longer be of any practical use, and so it would not be worth while to make alterations in it. The other chronological pieces, however, had a permanent value, and it naturally occurred to those who used them later on to adapt them to the altered circumstances of the time.

We must now examine more minutely the notice of Christ’s birth given us in this document. It runs as follows: I p. Chr. Cæsare et Paulo sat. XIII. Hoc cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII. Kal. Jan. de ven. luna XV.[308] Which means, Christ was born during the consulship of C. Cæsar Augustus and L. Æmilius Paulus (754 U.C.), on the 25th December, which was a Friday, on the fifteenth day of the new moon.

This notice gives rise to several questions. First of all the Epact is not correct, as according to our tables it ought to be 11.[309] But this need not detain us, as two or three peculiarities of this kind are to be met with in this list of the consuls. The error concerning the day of the week is more important. To expose this error we need only give the dominical letters for the years in question:—

The compiler of this chronology might have set down the birth of Christ in either 754 or 753 U.C. 754 is a possible year, although the 25th December 753 is more probable, yet in either case the day of the week would be wrong. In 752, the 25th December fell on Thursday, but since 753 was a leap year, the dominical letter advances two places, and Friday is passed over. At the same time, there has been a fairly constant tradition that the 25th of December fell on a Wednesday in the year of Christ’s birth. In any case, the notice that the 25th December fell, in this year, on a Friday is based on a mistaken reckoning. This notice, then, does not represent a tradition, but is merely the result of a calculation which unfortunately is incorrect. Consequently the whole interpolation is undeserving of credit. We now pass on to a second point.

While all writers before 354 fix the year of Christ’s birth by the year of the Emperor’s reign, here, for the first time, it is fixed by the year of the consuls. This is a marked departure from the original usage. The forty-first or forty-second year of Augustus correctly converted into a consular year would have run: Augusto XIII. et Silvano conss. or Lentulo et Messalino, which would also be the year 751 or 752 U.C., according as the year of the emperor is taken as “effektiv” or not, i.e. according as one places Christ’s birth in the first or second half of the year.[310]

Moreover, when the chronographer dates the year of Christ’s birth in the consulship of “Cæsar and Paulus” (754 U.C.), he anticipates the Dionysian era some two hundred years before Dionysius, and, further, when, in accordance with a very ancient tradition, he places the year of Christ’s death in the consulship of the “duo gemini” (29 A.D.), he thus only allows twenty-eight and a quarter years for Christ’s earthly life, while St Luke (iii. 23) speaks of Him as having wellnigh thirty full years. Whoever he may have been who inserted this notice under the consulship of Cæsar and Paulus in the chronology, he certainly made a mistake. He also stands alone in placing Christ’s birth in the year 754 U.C., for the writers and annalists who wrote at a later date, such as Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Prosper, Hydatius, and even Cassiodorus, give other dates.

The anonymous compiler of this chronology differs also, both as to contents and form, from those who preceded him. While Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the pseudo-Cyprian, etc., fix the year of Christ’s birth by a year of the emperor, i.e. the forty-first or forty-second of Augustus, it is given in this document in the form of a consular year, and while the former give 751-752 U.C. as the year, the latter gives 754. All this creates great difficulty in accepting the evidence of the compiler.[311]

We must now deal with the day of the month given in the chronology, the 25th December, which, strictly speaking, alone is of importance in connection with the end we have in view, although it cannot well be separated from the previous question as to the year. It has recently been thought that Hippolytus afforded some very early evidence on this point, owing to a passage in his commentary on Daniel bearing upon the subject. However, this hope has proved deceptive,[312] since the passage in Hippolytus proves to be the addition of a much later hand; we are thus left with the chronology of 354 as the earliest evidence for placing the birth of Christ on the 25th December.

The result of our investigation of this compilation, made up of historical, chronological, and other materials, proves that the compiler, in collecting his materials in 354, added to the lists of consuls, which naturally he did not draw up himself, the notice that Christ was born under these particular consuls on the 25th December, because it was at that time the generally accepted date. It could only be widely accepted, when the festival of Christ’s birth had already been celebrated on this day, not recently but during a considerable period. It is very improbable that it had just been introduced by any one person in particular, such as the Bishop of Rome, for the first years of the reign of Liberius were very troubled and ill suited for the introduction of so important an innovation. Moreover, history shows that a thing like this cannot be done all at once by a stroke of the pen, or at the will of an individual, even though he be the Bishop of Rome, but is rather the outcome of a long period of preparation.

The compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in Rome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced there, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December. This statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage in Hippolytus is an interpolation, the Depositio Martyrum and the Depositio Episcoporum have been worked over by the hand of the same compiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without prejudice to their original contents.

Nevertheless attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other grounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and even in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt, without falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They reckoned as follows:—when the angel announced to Zachary his son’s birth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing the service of the Temple.[313] At the dedication of the Temple under Solomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned in 1 Paral. xxiv. 7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession throughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for a week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being the eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were re-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before, so soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[314] According to the assertion of Josephus,[315] this arrangement survived to his own time, and was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian era.

Since the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been calculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year of the Lord’s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season. This was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the destruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the restoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by the fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular performance of divine service was interrupted.[316] In the time of the Machabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three years. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses might be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or, at the re-establishment of worship, that course might undertake duty whose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or, finally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these cases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but which of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is not told us.

Even if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid foundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year, leaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to be accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during the week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at once. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again in autumn, St Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the year the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during the Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on duty as well.

We are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of Jerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[317] for again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared. If we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved. Even if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on account of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question whether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they ceased on the 8th Gorpiæos, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or on the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[318] It is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really the day of Our Lord’s birth.[319]

It follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the Redeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that even when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times when Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not wanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is the case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious writings of St Jerome: “Whether our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized to-day, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in the world, and according to the different traditions different views are maintained.”[320] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St Jerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to the gilded temples of Rome (aurata capitolia).

What then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning the true day of Christ’s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to answer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest writers in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to see that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain, and that those who were interested in the question did not agree among themselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second century. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian month Pachon (i.e. 20th May) as the day of our Lord’s birth. The Basilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (i.e. 10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings. The majority celebrated Christ’s birth on the 11th Tybi (i.e. 6th January).[321]

In a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St Cyprian, which deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The anonymous writer of this treatise (De Pascha Computus), which was composed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the true day of Christ’s birth,[322] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus sets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct interpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th December, and St Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of this opinion.[323]

The four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates. Their authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim in writing was to give information concerning our Lord’s life, and, even if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of fixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning time. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of winter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered it necessary that the inhabitants of Judæa should be enrolled each in his own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the census was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as the late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical tradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest times it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which commemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.

These are the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the 25th December as the actual date of the Nativity, and they must be taken into account by any one who desires to form a judgment for himself on this matter. The other questions relating to the same point are more easily disposed of.

Whether the accepted date is correct or not, we find it definitely set down by the chronographer of 354, who directly states that Christ was born on the 25th December (natus est octavo Kalendas Januarias), while it follows indirectly from his words that this day was solemnly observed as the day of His nativity. The Calendar ends with the year 354, and accordingly Christmas was observed then in the same way as at present. The year 354 brings us within the pontificate of Liberius, and it is just in his pontificate that we find further authentic evidence concerning the feast.

During his pontificate Liberius gave the veil to Marcellina, an elder sister of St Ambrose. This took place on the day of our Lord’s birth (Natalis Salvatoris), and on this occasion Liberius delivered a sermon preserved for us by Ambrose in his De Virginitate. In this work he recalls to his sister’s memory what the Pope had said: “When thou sealedst thy vow of virginity in St Peter’s by changing thy habit on the birth-day of the Redeemer—on what more fitting day could it have taken place than that on which the Virgin (Mary) brought forth her child—and in the presence of many of God’s hand-maidens who strove for thy companionship, he (Liberius) said, ‘Thou hast desired excellent espousals, my daughter. Thou seest what a crowd of people have come together to celebrate the birth-day of thy Bridegroom, and that no one goes away from hence unnourished. He it is who, when invited to the marriage, changed water into wine. He will vouchsafe the true secrets of virginity to thee, who until now hast been subject to the beggarly elements of nature. He it is who, with five loaves and two fishes, satisfied four thousand men in the wilderness.[324] He could have satisfied more had more been there. Finally, He has invited still more to thine espousals, not to give them barley-bread, but a Body from heaven.’”[325]

Liberius here represents taking the vows of religion under the familiar figure of a marriage. The marriage feast always forms part of every marriage, and accordingly it was the duty of the Bridegroom whom Marcellina had chosen to provide one. He had changed water into wine and fed thousands with a few loaves, but now He feeds a still greater number with His mystical Body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the thought running through the Pope’s address.

St Ambrose does not inform us of the year in which the ceremony took place at which Liberius spoke the above words. Liberius had been elected bishop of Rome (17th May 352) in troublous times under the Emperor Constantius, a strong Arian. As he refused to communicate with the Eusebius and protected St Athanasius, he was banished to Berœa at the end of 355, where he was compelled to remain until 357. The Archdeacon Felix, relying on the Emperor’s support, allowed himself to be consecrated bishop in his stead, but found no following in Rome. On this account, Constantius consented to the recall of the lawful bishop, and Liberius resided in Rome for the remainder of his pontificate, and died there in 366.

It is more probable that Marcellina’s clothing with the religious habit took place during the latter part of this pontificate. For according to the received opinion, St Ambrose was born about the year 340,[326] and thus in 353 he would have been only thirteen years old, and although his sister was older, yet in 353 she would not have been twenty-five, the canonical age for taking the veil.[327] Still it is not impossible that the ceremony and the address of Liberius took place between 352 and 354, and at any rate this much is certain that it took place on the 25th December and not on the Epiphany (6th January), according to the view formerly held.[328] There is no evidence that the Epiphany was observed in Rome, as it had been in the East, as the day of Christ’s birth, and Liberius in this address does not say that the commemoration of the miracles of the loaves and of the changing water into wine was being celebrated precisely on the day of Marcellina’s taking the veil, i.e. on the day of the Saviour’s birth (Natalis Salvatoris). These things were alluded to only because of their connection with the train of thought followed by Liberius in his address.

Nothing can be gathered from the words of Liberius as to when Christmas was first observed in Rome on the 25th December. In any case, it did not come into existence suddenly, but would require time, and, like other festivals, a considerable period would have to elapse before it became general and gained official recognition. Contemporary evidence on this point is wanting; one ancient witness, unfortunately not altogether reliable, speaks of Julius I. and not Liberius as the originator of Christmas.

We must now conclude by giving the view we have arrived at. In Rome a distinctive custom had arisen of celebrating Christ’s nativity on the 25th December, while in other quarters it was celebrated on the 6th January. How this was brought about must remain a matter for conjecture. It has been thought that in some places heathen festivals of various kinds were kept in the month of December; in particular, the Kikellia[329] was kept at Alexandria on the 25th December, in Bostra and Pella, a festival of local observance,[330] and in Rome, the Saturnalia began on the 17th December and lasted until the 23rd.[331] It is only natural that the winter solstice should give rise to a festival, and find its place marked in the Calendar of Feasts. Indeed, in the Roman Calendar of much later date—that of Philocalus—the 25th December is marked as the birth-day of the unconquerable Sun-God (Natalis Solis Invicti).

Since on the 21st December the sun reaches its lowest point, and then begins once more to rise higher in the heavens, man, in his simplicity, marked the day on which this change in the sun became perceptible as the new birth or birth-day of the sun, the invincible Sun-God. What was more natural for the Christians of that age than to connect this obvious natural event with the thought of the nativity of Him who is the Light of the World! Even if the Holy Scriptures had not suggested this idea, it must have presented itself to the Christian mind. The comparison of Christ with the sun, and of His work with the victory of light over darkness, frequently appears in the writings of the Fathers. St Cyprian[332] spoke of Christ as the true sun (sol verus). St Ambrose[333] says precisely, “He is our new sun” (Hic sol novus noster). Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeno of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc.[334]

Every child knows that Simeon addressed the new-born Messias as “a light to the revelation of the Gentiles,” and, since the Messias is also called by the Prophets the light in the darkness and the Sun of Justice, it is easy to see how such expressions passed into the Church’s liturgy for this festival.[335] It was natural for the Romans to set down the birth-day of this new Sun on the day marked of old time in their Calendar as a Natalis Solis, and observed as a festival by all the heathen inhabitants of Rome.[336] The choice of the day cannot be due to the desire to supplant the heathen festival, for it was not a festival of any special importance. But the similarity between the natural fact (the solstice) and the revolution in the spiritual sphere (Christ’s nativity), was sufficient to suggest the idea. It was not necessary to wait for the time of Constantine in order to hit upon this idea.

We must now return once more to the usages of the Church of Jerusalem and the festival observed there. The 6th January, indeed, was called in Jerusalem Epiphany, nevertheless the nativity of Christ formed an especially prominent feature of the commemoration.

A detailed description of the function is given in Silvia’s diary. Unfortunately the beginning is missing,[337] and the account opens with the return of the great procession which took place annually from Jerusalem to Bethlehem the evening before the feast. The next morning, the procession returned to Jerusalem and proceeded to the Church of the Anastasis, which was richly decorated. The monks remained all night in the church at Bethlehem, which, all through the octave, remained in festal array.[338] A procession to Bethlehem, on the Epiphany would have no meaning, if the baptism of Christ was the only event commemorated at that feast, for this, of course, took place in the Jordan. In Jerusalem, as in the other Eastern Churches, no special Christmas festival had been as yet instituted, still at the commencement of the fifth century there were some who regarded the Epiphany as the day of Christ’s nativity in the flesh, although, as St Jerome says,[339] the Son of God did not reveal Himself in flesh but rather concealed Himself. Indeed, if we are to believe Cosmas Indicopleustes, who lived in the middle of the sixth century, the nativity of Christ was commemorated at Jerusalem, and there only on the Epiphany—“a superstitious fancy,” as he calls it.[340]

On the other hand, it has been stated that Bishop Juvenal (425-458), who obtained for the Church of Jerusalem patriarchal rank, introduced the feast of Christ’s birth.[341]

Perhaps it was specially difficult to establish this festival in Jerusalem on the 25th December because another festival was already observed there on that day—the commemoration of David and the Apostle St James.[342] Their commemoration, along with that of St Joseph, is kept both by the Greek Church and the Church of Jerusalem on the Sunday before Christmas.[343]

A document already referred to, dating from the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century, affords an interesting proof of the manner in which these matters which we have placed before the reader were regarded at a later date. John, Bishop of Nicæa, who flourished about the year 900, endeavoured to induce the Armenians to adopt the 25th December as the day of Christ’s birth, and set down in an elaborate treatise the reasons he thought calculated to influence them. This composition is especially interesting because in it the introduction of Christmas is ascribed to a particular individual, none other than Pope Julius I. (337-352). Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) is said to have corresponded with him on this question. Even if, from point of view of dates, this were not impossible, the letter of Cyril would in itself give rise to suspicion.[344] For Cyril would have been more likely to introduce or establish the feast on another day, while it is historically certain it was not yet observed in Jerusalem in 385.

In this pretended letter, Cyril alleges as a reason for transferring the feast to a different day from the Epiphany, that it is impossible for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to keep both feasts on the same day with befitting solemnity. Bethlehem lies three miles west, and the Jordan fifteen miles east of Jerusalem. It is stated in this letter that a procession went to both places on the same day, and so it was impossible for the clergy to accompany both. The often quoted diary of the Gallic Pilgrim[345] shows us that the procession to Bethlehem actually took place, but she is silent about a procession to the Jordan. This is first mentioned by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century.[346] It only was possible when the Nativity had been transferred to another day. The writer of the letter has antedated a later practice and certainly was not Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem.

The manner in which this letter brings forth evidence in favour of choosing the 25th December for the Nativity of Christ is also interesting. Titus, says the supposed Cyril in this letter to Pope Julius, had carried off all the books of the Jews to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem. There they still remain, and Julius might make a search to see if the true birth-day of Christ cannot be discovered.[347] Julius then discovered from the writings of Josephus that Zachary had seen the vision of the angel in the Temple in the seventh month, on the Day of Atonement, which on that occasion had fallen on the 23rd September. On that day his son, St John the Baptist, was conceived, who was born on the 24th June following, but Christ, according to St Luke i. 36, was born six months later, on the 25th December.

As regards the liturgical celebration of the feast, the oldest sermons on the Nativitas Domini which have come down to us, are those of Zeno of Verona († 380).[348] They are purely moral exhortations, and throw no light upon the date of the feast. He has no sermon for the Epiphany, and it may be inferred he did not observe it or that it was identified with the Nativity.

The representation of the crib on a side-altar or some other conspicuous place in the church is a special feature of the Christmas festival at the present day. This remains in the church until Epiphany, or even to the 2nd February. The Christmas crib dates back to St Francis of Assisi, who, with the permission of the Pope, set up in 1223 for the first time a representation of the child Jesus in the manger.

It is also the custom to celebrate three Masses, of which the first, according to the ancient use, commenced at midnight. As the words of the Mass show, this first Mass commemorates the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, the second commemorates His Incarnation and birth into this world, the third His birth through grace, in the hearts of sinners. The Gelasian sacramentary mentions the trina celebratio. The custom is one which reaches back to early Christian times. Gregory the Great mentions it in Hom. viii. in Evang. The Leonine sacramentary contains nine different formularies for Christmas, but the other western rites, including the Mozarabic, have only one Mass for the feast. The Menology of Basil Porphyrogenitus gives the flight of Mary into Egypt on the 26th December, and St Stephen only on the following day.

Since the 25th December was only chosen for reasons of a more or less accidental and external character, so too the days which immediately follow—St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents—have no real connection with Christmas, although they are of very ancient institution. The 26th December was already a special festival in the fourth century, as appears from the sermons of St Augustine (Sermo 314, c. 1), though he knows nothing of the two following days. The 220th sermon, which celebrates the Holy Innocents, is spurious.[349] They appear, however, in the African Calendar of the sixth century. On the Innocents’ Day in the Middle Ages the schoolboys used to elect a bishop who was nothing more than their leader, and the ceremony was quite harmless. For this ceremony, as well as for the crib and other popular customs still practised, the reader is referred to Heuser’s elaborate articles in the Kirchenlexikon, iv²., 1395-1436.

The introduction of Christmas and its appointment on the 25th December brought about the establishment of three other festivals: 1. the feast of the Circumcisio Domini, eight days after the Nativity, according to St Luke ii. 21, (postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer, vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus). 2. The Annunciation on the 25th March, which is also the day of Christ’s conception, and so is placed nine months before the 25th December. The historical evidence for this day is on a par with that for Christmas. 3. The Nativity of St John the Baptist, on the 24th June. Another consequence was that the festival of the Occursus Domini (ὑπαπάτη), i.e. the meeting of our Lord with Simeon in the Temple, on Candlemas Day, which was observed in Jerusalem before the introduction of Christmas, had to be transferred to another day. According to the regulations of the Jewish Law in Lev. xii. 6, the period of uncleanness after birth lasted forty days. And according to St Luke ii. 22, Mary submitted to the Law in this respect. So long as our Lord’s birth was commemorated at Epiphany on the 6th January, the 15th February was the fortieth day after the Nativity, and so, as a matter of fact, the festival of the Occursus Domini was celebrated in Jerusalem on this day in 385.[350] But when the Nativity came to be celebrated on the 25th December, the other festival had to be placed thirteen days earlier, on the 2nd February, as it is at the present time.[351]

2. Advent and the Sundays until Septuagesima

Christmas, like Easter, besides its Vigil and Octave, has also a considerable period of preparation. This, naturally, could only come into existence after the institution of the festival, and indeed a certain time had to elapse before it was organised. Since Christmas itself was first observed in the middle of the fourth century, it is not remarkable that the earliest clear reference to Advent, from an official source, dates from the end of the sixth century.

Some sort of preparatory season to Christmas, however, existed before this. As in the case of Easter, this preparatory season was marked by a fast commencing on St Martin’s Day (11th November), and lasting until Christmas. All Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were fasted as in Lent. Such was the preparation observed in Gaul since the appointment of the festival by Bishop Perpetuus of Tours († 491). The same observance existed in other parts of Gaul, for the first Council of Maçon (581) prescribes exactly the same order, and also that from St Martin’s Day to Christmas the Mass shall be the same as during Lent—the first sign of the liturgy for Advent. In the province of Tours there was a similar enactment, although affecting the monks alone, ordering them to fast through the whole of December.[352] The Roman Church did not observe the fast, although she treated Advent as a liturgical portion of the Church’s year and incorporated it therein.

Although the Greek Church has not marked the preparation for Christmas in her liturgy, still she has observed the fast since the eighth century. This begins on St Philip’s day (the 14th November), and continues for six weeks until Christmas. According to the Mozarabic and Milanese rites, this is the length of Advent. The Copts observe an Advent fast beginning on the 19th Athyr (15th November).[353]

Once the observance of Advent had been established in Rome, it spread throughout the entire West. In Spain we find it extended over five Sundays according to the Lectionary of Silos, dating from about 650. It took longer to make its way in France, although the way had already been prepared for it by Perpetuus of Tours. The service-books of the seventh century, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, and the so-called Missale Gothico-Gallicanum, edited by Mabillon, commence with the Vigilia Natalis Domini, without Advent. In Rome, the institution of Advent cannot be traced further back than to the sixth century, for the sermons of St Augustine and Leo I. make no mention of it. Unmistakable evidence for its observance is found for the first time in the homilies of Gregory the Great.[354]

The want of uniformity in the duration of Advent in different parts of the Church is due to the fact that local Churches, conformably to the ancient discipline, acted independently of each other. Thus, in Rome Advent lasted only four weeks, as we gather from the Gregorian sacramentary, which provides three Sundays in December with collects de adventu Domini, and a dominica vacans; in the Appendix, however, five Sundays are reckoned before Christmas.[355] The first traces of Advent are to be sought for in the lectionaries, as, for instance, in that drawn up by Bishop Victor of Capua (546-547), and used by St Boniface.[356] This contains four Epistles for the Sundays before Christmas (de Adventu). The Gelasian sacramentary has five Sundays in Advent, but it has obviously been revised for the use of the Frankish Churches. All service-books containing only four Sundays in Advent belong to the Roman rite.

In course of time the divergence between the Roman and Frankish uses became noticeable and gave rise to confusion. Amalarius remarks: In all missals and lectionaries there are five Sundays in Advent, but in the Antiphoner there are only three offices and a Dominica vacans, and the Gregorian missal has only four Sundays in Advent. In support of five Sundays, it was urged that from the beginning of the world until the Christian era five of the seven ages of the world had passed. Even in the tenth century, opinions were expressed in favour of five weeks. It was urged that, according to the other practice, if Christmas fell on a Monday, Advent strictly speaking lasted only three weeks. Abbo of Fleury († 1004) is witness to the existence of a twofold practice in a later period.[357] In the eighth century, an Advent of four weeks was observed in France wherever Roman influence extended. Berno of Reichenau in his writings on Advent is only occupied with the question how to deal with the vigil of Christmas when the 25th December falls on a Monday. The Micrologus does not mention an Advent season of five weeks, nor does Beleth.[358] A deviation from this custom appears in the Milanese and Mozarabic rites which prescribe a duration of six weeks for Advent, thus bringing it into conformity in this respect with Lent.

At first Advent was regarded merely as a time for penance and mortification in the same way as Lent. On this account, it was widely observed as a time of fasting, although the Church had nowhere so ordered it. Later on, again, Advent was regarded as a type or memorial of the Old Testament or the time before Christ. However, the view that the four weeks of Advent typify the four thousand years from Adam to Christ, impressive as it is, finds no support from the Liturgy. On the contrary, the lections from Genesis in the Breviary begin in Septuagesima, while during Advent the lections are taken from the Prophet Isaias.

As far as the lections from Scripture are concerned, the Gospel for the second Sunday in Advent recounts our Lord’s Messianic labours, while His birth is only commemorated some two or three weeks later. The Gospel for the first Sunday speaks of the end of the world, not, as one would expect, of its creation. The mediæval lectionaries, moreover, replace St Luke xxi. 25 et seqq. on this Sunday with the Gospel Cum appropinquasset Jerusalem, etc. (St Matthew xxi. 1 et seqq.),[359] and the preceding Sunday is sometimes called Dominica in præparatione Adventus, or Dominica Quinta ante Natalem Domini, in which we see a remnant of the more ancient reckoning. The collects of the Mass express the hope of the Messias and the longing for His appearance.

We must also consider Christmas in connection with the festivals which follow in the course of the year, such as the Circumcision of our Lord, which, of course, falls on the eighth day after Christmas, the Octava Domini, the Epiphany, and Candlemas Day. Thus quite naturally, as it were, a cycle of festivals has grown up round Christmas Day.

We may also mention the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas with its Gospel giving the account of the meeting of Jesus and His parents with Simeon and Anna. The Gospel for the Sunday after New Year’s Day records the flight into Egypt. The Sundays after Epiphany form connecting links between Christmas and Easter, varying from two to six, according as Easter falls earlier or later. Only the two first Sundays have any distinctive character, the first commemorating the visit of our Lord to the Temple at the age of twelve years, and the second His first miracle at Cana of Galilee.[360] The remaining Sundays, along with Septuagesima and Sexagesima, do not commemorate any historical event in their lections from Scripture; Quinquagesima and the Sundays in Lent direct our attention to the approaching Passion. In the case of the Sundays three to six after Epiphany, this is intentional, since they are liable to be transferred from their proper place to the end of the year when necessary.

The Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, or, as it was formerly called, the Sunday after Christmas, has as its Gospel St Luke ii. 33-40, which gives the account of Simeon’s prophecy. Chronologically speaking, this passage comes before its time, for, in St Luke’s Gospel, it comes after the passage chosen as the Gospel for Candlemas (St Luke ii. 22-32), of which it forms the continuation. In the last verse (ii. 39), mention is made of the return from Jerusalem or Bethlehem to Nazareth. The events, however, which follow in the course of the Church’s year—the circumcision and the arrival of the Wise Men—must have happened before the return to Galilee.

3. The Octave of Christmas. The Circumcision. The New Year

Since Easter, after the example given by the Synagogue, was from the first observed with an octave, and, since Epiphany had its octave already in the eighth century, it was inevitable that Christmas should be provided with one also. Accordingly, the eighth day after Christmas bears the name Octava Domini (In Octavas Domini) in the Gelasian[361] and Gregorian sacramentaries, whence it may be inferred that it was not yet regarded as an independent festival and passed unnoticed if it fell on a week-day.

On the other hand, it was partially observed as a popular holiday, at least it gave occasion in many places for popular rejoicings,[362] being the day on which the Roman Calendar began a new year. In Ravenna it was marked by dancing and masquerades, against which Peter Chrysologus inveighed in his 155th Sermon. Since he forbids Christians to put in even an appearance at these entertainments, they must have been of an objectionable nature. It was the same in Gaul even in the sixth century and later. The second Council of Tours, and the Councils of Auxerre and Rouen (650) were compelled to forbid these rejoicings. With a view to counteracting their influence, the bishops exhorted the faithful to attend divine service on this day, and appointed somewhat earlier penitential processions (litaniæ) to be privately performed in atonement for the sins committed at this season.[363] In Spain, the eleventh canon of the fourth Council of Toledo commanded a strict fast and abstinence for the same object, and the Allelujah was omitted from the psalmody. In 650, a law of the Kings Recceswinth and Erwig made the Kalends of January a festival of obligation.[364] In Rome, in the eighth century, the people spent the nights dancing in the streets to the scandal of pilgrims from the north, as Boniface informed Pope Zacharias. These abuses lingered longest in France though divested of their heathen character. Late on in the Middle Ages, we find a remnant of them in the so-called Feast of Fools, at which ecclesiastical customs were travestied by the election of a Bishop of Fools and by all sorts of misconduct in the churches. Things became so bad that the papal legate, Cardinal Peter, felt compelled to order Odo, Bishop of Paris, to pronounce excommunication on all who took part in such proceedings. The bishop prohibited the abuse in the strongest manner in 1199, but in spite of repeated ecclesiastical censures, it continued on into the fifteenth century, as appears from a report of the theological faculty of Paris in 1444.[365]

The 1st January appears as an ecclesiastical festival at Rome for the first time at the beginning of the ninth century, where it is called from the first Circumcisio Domini, the name which it bears among the Greeks, Syrians, and Copts.

We have already observed that in the Gregorian sacramentary the 1st January is simply called Octava Domini. The same is also the case in the Calendar of St Geneviève, edited by Fronteau, which was written between 714 and 731.[366] In the Homiliarium of Charlemagne compiled by Paul the Deacon between 786 and 797, the day is still called in octavas Domini, i.e. Calendas Januarias.[367] The change of name must have been effected shortly after this. Although among the sermons of Zeno of Verona,[368] there is one on the circumcision of our Lord, this only proves that he treated of this subject in his discourse, and affords no evidence for the existence of the festival. In the Calendar of Charlemagne, edited by Piper, dating from between 731 and 781, the name Circumcisio occurs, so too in the list of Festivals of Sonnatius. On the other hand, the Gregorian sacramentary written, under Archbishop Otgar, about 840 for the monastery of St Alban near Mainz, has only Octava Domini.

The idea and date of this festival are derived from St Luke ii. 21, since eight days after birth our Lord was circumcised and received His human name, which, according to Jewish usage, was given at the same time. Later on, a special feast in honour of the Holy Name was instituted and appointed for the second Sunday after Epiphany. Its celebration was permitted to the Franciscans by Clement VII. in 1530, but the cultus of the Holy Name is due in a great measure to the influence of St Bernardine of Siena. On 20th December 1721, Innocent XIII. appointed this feast to be observed by the whole Church.

The Liturgy makes no reference to the commencement of the civil year, although in the lectionary of Silos this day is called Caput Anni.

4. The Epiphany

As the name Epiphany implies, the origin and early celebration of this festival is to be sought in the East. Among the Syrians, it is called denho, or “Going forth,” in the sense of “oriens ex alto” (St Luke i. 78). Among the Greeks, it goes by the name of τά ἐπιφάνια or ἡ ἐπιφάνιος sc. ἡμέρα, and θεοφάνεια. For the most part, the Latins employed the Greek name, or an equivalent, such as Festivitas Declarationis, used by Leo the Great, manifestatio, by Fulgentius, or apparitio by others.[369] The root, from which the Greek ἐπιφαίνω is derived, was employed to describe the dawn, and the adjective ἐπιφανής was applied to the appearances of the gods bringing help to men.

These names sufficiently disclose the idea commemorated by the feast—the commemoration of the appearance of the Son of God on earth in general, with special reference to those occasions in His life on which His divine sonship was revealed in some distinctive manner. Prominent among those occasions were His Nativity, the worship of the three wise men from the East, the baptism in Jordan with its accompanying theophany, and the miracles through which He manifested His divine power, especially the first miracle at the marriage in Cana. Accordingly people spoke of divine manifestations, in the plural, for the name dies epiphaniarum sive manifestationum was known to the heathen.[370]

The feast was kept on the 6th January. The first indication that this day was marked in some special way in the Christian Calendar is given by Clement of Alexandria, who says that some of the orthodox in his day regarded it as the birth-day of Christ, while the Basilidians observed the 10th January.[371] This of course does not prove that the 6th January was observed at that time in Alexandria as a festival. Origen omits it from the list of festivals he gives in C. Cels., 8, 22. It appears, however, among the writings of Hippolytus, in an earnest exhortation which he addressed to a candidate for baptism shortly before the day of the “Divine Manifestations” (εἰς τὰ ἅγια ἐπιφάνεια), when baptism was to be received. He starts with the baptism of Jesus, and then treats of the effects of baptism, and of worthy preparation for its reception.[372] A much later writer, who is however not to be quite disregarded, Bishop John of Nicæa in the ninth century, traces back the institution of the festival to disciples of St John.

Epiphany commemorates several events in the life of Jesus by which He manifested His divinity. One of these is His baptism by St John in Jordan,[373] for, according to the scriptural narrative, at the time of His baptism a voice from heaven was heard proclaiming Jesus to be the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost visibly appeared in bodily shape as a dove. The baptism in Jordan is the special event commemorated by Epiphany among the Easterns, e.g., in the oldest Coptic Calendar Epiphany is called Dies Baptismi Sanctificati, and in a later one Immersio Domini.[374] The earliest existing sermon on the day—the homily of Hippolytus—treats exclusively of the baptism of Jesus. Chrysostom, in addition to the baptism, speaks of our Lord’s second coming in Judgment as an event commemorated by the festival. On account of its connection with the baptism, this festival has among the Greeks the secondary title of “Feast of Lights,” (ἑορτὴ τῶν φώτων);[375] and in Ireland, contrary to the ancient custom of the Church, solemn baptism was administered on this day.[376]

The second event commemorated on the 6th January is the visit of the three Wise Men who, by their gifts, recognised Christ as God and Man and Redeemer, and worshipped Him as the long expected King of the Jews. The Wise Men found the divine Child still in Bethlehem, though no longer in the stable, as artists usually represent the scene, but in a roofed house[377] where His parents were temporarily lodged. The evangelists give no indication how long after the Nativity this took place.

The visit of the Magi appears as the sole event commemorated by Epiphany in the six sermons of Augustine delivered on the feast (Sermons 199-204). Fulgentius in his four sermons on Epiphany treats only of this event and of the slaughter of the innocents.

The Mass in the Gelasian sacramentary refers in the collects and preface only to these mysteries, and not to the two others, and the Gospel[378] relates the visit of the Magi.

The third event commemorated is the first miracle performed at the marriage in Cana, by which our Lord manifested His divine power. This threefold commemoration is still recognised in the present Roman liturgy, and finds expression in the antiphon to the Benedictus, which runs: “On this day the Church is joined to her celestial Bridegroom, because Christ washed away her sins in Jordan, the Magi hasten with gifts to the royal espousals and the guests are gladdened with water changed into wine.”

Polemius Silvius notices the three events in his Calendar on this day. Paulinus of Nola[379] expressly mentions them. They are especially dwelt upon and distinguished in a sermon of Sedatus, Bishop of Béziers, in the sixth century.[380] Maximus of Turin was acquainted with the threefold commemoration, but doubts if they all actually happened on the same day, the 6th January.

Later on, in mediæval times, there was a tendency to include under the Epiphany other manifestations of Christ’s divine power, such as the miracle of the loaves, and the resurrection of Lazarus.[381]

There is hardly any trace in the West of Epiphany as the festival of our Lord’s birth,[382] and even in the East this significance of the feast was forgotten after the institution of Christmas. Lingering traces of the earlier conception which had not quite died out in the East, may perhaps have been the occasion of a polemic from St Jerome,[383] when he declared that the Epiphany had never been regarded as a festival of Christ’s nativity.

By the introduction of Christmas, Epiphany naturally lost its character as the day of Christ’s birth, even in those parts of the Church where it had originally been regarded as such. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Chrysostom, as introducer of Christmas, felt compelled to explain to his hearers more particularly the difference between the feasts. Christ, he says, did not appear at His birth openly and to all, but only to a few persons, and so little was His divinity manifested thereby that St John the Baptist was able to say: “There hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not.” From the moment of His baptism, His divinity was evident to all, and consequently the festival instituted in honour of the baptism of Jesus bears the name of Epiphany. Moreover, there is yet another and a fuller appearance of the Lord which will take place at the end of the world. Hence the necessity, according to St Chrysostom, of celebrating in addition to the Epiphany a special festival in honour of Christ’s birth.[384]

Epiphany first appears with an octave in the Calendars of the eighth century. In the Gregorian sacramentary it is without an octave, but has a vigil. In the Calendar of Fronteau the festival is kept up for three days.

One of the special observances connected with the feast was the publication on the 6th January of the annual pastoral letter of the Patriarchs of Alexandria—the epistola festalis—announcing the date of Easter for the current year. In 541, the fourth Council of Orleans (can. 1) ordered the same thing for the West, also the Councils of Auxerre in 578 and 585 (can. 2). In the Middle Ages the dates of the other movable feasts were added to the date of Easter (Pontif. Rom.), as is still done in some places, as for example, Turin, at the present day.

The festival was kept with special solemnity at Jerusalem, as we learn from the description of it given by the Gallic Pilgrim. Unfortunately, the beginning with the special account of the feast is missing, but there is no doubt that the foregoing paragraph described the Epiphany, for the succeeding festival is spoken of as quadragesima de Epiphania (c. 26).

According to this document a procession from Jerusalem to Bethlehem took place on the eve, returning in the early morning. After a time for rest, the service commenced about the second hour of the day in the great church on Golgotha, which was richly decorated. At the conclusion of the function the faithful proceeded to the church of the Anastasis, and, about the sixth hour, or twelve o’clock, the festival was at an end. In the evening vespers (lucernare) were sung. On the second and third days service was held in the same church, on the fourth day in the church called Eleona on the Mount of Olives, on the fifth day in the Lazarium, the grave of Lazarus in Bethania, on the sixth day in Sion, on the seventh day in the church of the Anastasis, on the eighth day in the church of the Holy Cross. Thus both in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem the feast lasted eight days—a kind of octave.

In the Eastern Churches the day is further distinguished by the solemn blessing of the water, mentioned by Chrysostom and intended to recall the miracle at Cana. This is a very popular festival, but in many places has been stripped of its religious character; it is performed by the clergy going in procession to the sea or to a river, reciting a prayer, and then throwing a crucifix into the water which is fetched out again by swimmers and takes place on the 18th January (old style).

With regard to the antiquity and spread of the feast, it was unknown in North Africa during the third century, for Tertullian makes no reference to it, and even in the time of St Augustine it was rejected by the Donatists as an Oriental novelty.[385] In Origen’s time, at least, it was not generally observed as a festival in Alexandria, since he does not reckon it as such. For Rome, evidence is wanting for the earliest times, but since the daughter Church of North Africa knew nothing of the festival at first, it may be inferred that originally it was not kept at Rome but was introduced there in the course of time. In Spain, it was a feast-day in 380, in Gaul, in 361, and there is evidence of its existence in Thrace as early as 304.[386] In the East it generally held the place of Christmas as our Lord’s birth-day,[387] and as such it had already, as early as the first half of the third century, become domiciled in the Church, as is shown by the recently published Testamentum Jesu Christi, where it is twice named as a high festival along with Easter and Pentecost.[388] In the Roman Empire, as early as A.D. 400, Epiphany was one of the days on which games in the circus were forbidden by law. Not until Justinian’s[389] time were the law courts closed[390] on this day also.

5. The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(CANDLEMAS)

By the mosaic law, every mother, after giving birth to a son, remained unclean for seven days, in the first instance, and then, for thirty-three days longer, was excluded from participation in public worship. After the birth of a daughter the period of ceremonial uncleanness was twice as long. Thus the whole period lasted for forty or eighty days, and at its conclusion the woman had to bring a yearling lamb for a holocaust and a pigeon for a sin-offering. In case of poverty, two young pigeons or turtle-doves sufficed as an offering (Lev. xii. 2-8). According to the narrative in the Gospels, Mary, after the birth of Jesus, fulfilled the commands of this law and brought the prescribed offering to the Temple on the fortieth day, on which occasion the meeting with Simeon and Anna took place (St Luke ii. 22 et seqq.).

Our Blessed Lady and her divine Son, in the first place, and, secondarily, Simeon and Anna are the actors in this scene, and it would have been strange had this event not been commemorated very early among the Church’s festivals.

The first reference to such a commemoration belongs to the last decades of the fourth century and comes from Jerusalem. It is contained in the diary of the so-called Silvia. The day was ushered in by a solemn procession, followed by a sermon on St Luke ii. 22 seqq., and a Mass. It had as yet no special name, but was known merely as the fortieth day after the Epiphany. This goes to prove that at that time the Epiphany was regarded in Jerusalem as the day of the Lord’s birth, and it follows indirectly from the expressions used (hic) that the festival was not yet known in the Pilgrim’s home.[391]

It seems probable that the festival was first of all observed in Jerusalem from whence it spread through out the whole Church. The person by whom, and the time when it was first introduced into Constantinople and the Byzantine empire, are known to us. A plague having caused frightful mortality, the Emperor Justinian, as soon as it had passed away, ordered the Purification to be observed for the first time in 542.[392] The contradictory evidence in Georgius Hamartolus and Nicephorus[393] that it was the Emperor Justin, Justinian’s predecessor, who introduced the festival and ordered it to be observed throughout the world, seems due simply to a confusion between the two emperors. In any case the spread of the feast throughout a wider area dates from this time.

The name by which the festival was known, now that it was widely adopted in different districts, was “The Meeting,” in Greek Hypapante, in Latin Occursus Domini, in reference to the meeting between the Child Jesus and Simeon and Anna; it may be that this festival was introduced at Rome in consequence of Justinian’s commands, but no evidence to that effect is extant. As far as Rome is concerned, it appears in the Gelasian sacramentary with the new name of Purificatio, and as a feast of our Blessed Lady, without any mention of a procession.[394] Pope Sergius I. (687-701) ordained, however, a procession on this as on the other principal festivals of Our Lady. In the passage in question of the Liber Pontificalis, the festival has the remarkable name of St Simeon’s Day, “which the Greeks call Hypapante,” which seems to show that the festival had not yet been well established in Rome. Moreover, the 2nd February was observed among the Greeks as the actual day of Simeon’s death, because in his canticle he had said, “Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant ... in peace.”[395] That the festival was only introduced at a late date in many places in the West is proved by the fact that in the Lectionary of Silos, the oldest belonging to the Spanish Church, and dating about 650, it does not appear. The same is the case with regard to the Calendar of St Geneviève in Paris (731-741) published by Fronteau.

Formerly the general opinion was that it had been introduced in Rome by Pope Gelasius I. in order that he might replace the heathen Lupercalia, with their midnight torch processions and disorderly proceedings, by a popular Christian festivity. This opinion[396] cannot be maintained in the face of the facts referred to above. The Lupercalia indeed fell on the 15th February, which also happened to be the day on which this festival was originally kept in Jerusalem, but the Gallic pilgrim makes no mention of lights carried in the procession. Again, processions, with or without lights, were so common both among the Christians and heathen of the early Christian era, that any connection between the procession on Candlemas Day and the Lupercalia cannot be inferred.

The Invitatorium (Gaude et lætare, Jerusalem, occurrens Deo tuo), and the preface, which is that for Christmas, show that originally the feast was rather a festival of Our Lord than of Our Lady. The collect for the day speaks of the presentation of the Lord in the Temple alone, and the antiphons for the most part refer to the same event, while the psalms are those of Our Lady’s feasts. The Gospel for the day (St Luke ii. 22-23), the same now as in the fourth century, chronologically speaking, precedes the Gospel for the previous Sunday. For the Sunday after Christmas has St Luke ii. 33-40 for its Gospel, which relates the return of the Holy Family from Judæa to Galilee.

6. The Sundays of the Church’s Year as forming connecting-links between the principal Feasts

During the age of the persecutions it was scarcely possible for Christians to observe any other festival than Sunday, and so it is not surprising that the two writers, who have occasion to speak of the institution of the festivals of the Church, mention only Easter and Pentecost, both of which fall on Sundays. To these Christmas was added in the fourth century, and Epiphany somewhat earlier. These chief festivals, along with others soon added to their number, formed the elements for the organisation of a festal system in the Church, as centres round which the lesser festivals grouped themselves.

The last step of importance, however, in this development of the Church’s year was to connect these chief festivals with one another, so as to make them parts of a whole. The Sundays afforded a convenient means for effecting this. They were associated with the festal character of the nearest feast and were connected with it as links in a chain. The way for this development had been prepared by the season of preparation before Easter, and by the relation in which Easter stood to Pentecost. The Sundays of Lent had their own character as a preparation for Easter, and the Sundays in the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost—Quinquagesima—were marked by the festal character with which antiquity invested the whole period. All that was needed was, first of all, to connect Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and, in the second place, the institution of a season of preparation before Christmas. This was accomplished between the sixth and the eighth centuries.

During the first six centuries, the ordinary Sundays of the year had neither liturgical position or character, since they were not even enumerated. There was a sort of commune dominicarum, i.e., a number of masses existed from which one could be chosen at will for each Sunday. To these Sundays, which were called simply dominicæ quotidianæ, those after Epiphany and Pentecost belonged.

They numbered altogether twenty-nine or thirty, according as the Calendar gave fifty-two or fifty-three Sundays in the year. For the sum of the days of the year, 365, divided by seven makes fifty-two and one over, and so the year which commences on a Sunday has fifty-three Sundays, the others only fifty-two. The smaller number of these, six at most, come between Epiphany and Septuagesima, but the larger, twenty-three to twenty-eight, between Whitsunday and Advent. The variation depends upon the date of Easter. There is no historical circumstance forthcoming to give these Sundays a specially festal character. With Pentecost the commemoration of Our Lord’s redemptive acts concludes, and it was not the custom in the West to include events from Church history in the cycle of feasts, although the East celebrated a few, as, for example, the General Councils.

With regard to the Roman rite in particular, there are no special masses for the Sundays after Easter and Pentecost in the Leonine sacramentary. A further development appears in the Gelasian sacramentary, where the Sundays in Lent and those between Easter and Pentecost alone have a clearly defined liturgical character, and keep their special place in the Calendar. For the remaining Sundays of the year, there was a choice of only sixteen masses, which are not in the first book of the Gelasian sacramentary containing the course for the year (anni circulus, i.e., Proprium de tempore), but at the commencement of the third book. Along with the masses for week-days and masses for special occasions, they form the contents of this volume. The masses for Advent, however, strange to say, are contained in the second book, thus out of chronological order.

In the Gregorian sacramentary, at the end of the eighth century, the Church’s year has the same form as at the present day, with the sole exception that the Sundays in Advent come at the end, instead of, as at the present time, at the beginning of the Missal. This is due to the fact that Christmas was then usually regarded as the commencement of the year.

In the construction of the ecclesiastical year, the Gallic and Spanish Churches followed the Roman. The Mozarabic breviary has five Sundays in Advent, but they stand at the beginning. They are in the same position in the Liber Responsalis sive Antiphonarius, contained in a Codex of Compiègne belonging to the ninth century, and falsely attributed to Gregory the Great.[397]

The Gregorian sacramentary simply numbers the Sundays consecutively after Pentecost, but in the Frankish lectionaries there are signs of an attempt to separate the Sundays after Pentecost into groups—Sundays after SS. Peter and Paul, Sundays after St Lawrence, etc.—but the custom was afterwards abandoned.

In France, this division of the Sundays after Pentecost seems to have been general in the eighth century. The Homilarium of Charlemagne divides them as follows:—

The Kalendarium Frontonis divides them thus:—

This gives only nineteen after Pentecost, and so the Kalendarium Frontonis has ten Sundays after Epiphany until Septuagesima, which must clearly have helped to fill up, when necessary, what was wanting at the end of the year.

The Comes Albini in Ranke (App. iv.) gives:—

The Gregorian sacramentary, written for Mainz under Archbishop Otgar about 840, has six Sundays after Epiphany, four post Pentecosten, then six post natale Apostolorum, six more post natale S. Laurentii and eight post S. Archangeli—in all, twenty-four.

The Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century stands alone in giving merely two Sundays post Theophaniam, and three post Cathedram S. Petri. The Sundays in Lent as well as Septuagesima are not marked in any special way. The first of these peculiarities is less remarkable since, even in the Gelasian sacramentary, the Sundays after Epiphany are not given a distinctive name. All these attempts to split up the Sundays into small groups were subsequently abandoned, and the simple manner of enumeration found in the Roman rite was adopted. A careful observer will have noticed that the year is divided into two very unequal parts. The movable feasts all fall in the first half, leaving the second half devoid of festivals. Even the week-days in Lent, and in the octaves of Easter and Pentecost, are each provided with special lections and masses. Without doubt this is due to the fact that in the earliest times the entire season before Easter was occupied with the instruction of Catechumens. The necessity of providing them with as much instruction as possible led to this increased liturgical activity. It appears almost as if the abandonment of the Catechumenate resulted in a decrease of this activity, and brought matters to a standstill. A long period elapsed before any fresh efforts were made in the direction of completing the course of the ecclesiastical year.

The Greeks have stopped short with their ecclesiastical year only half made. They have a fairly complete cycle of Easter festivals, and they have adopted Christmas, but without its proper setting since they have no Advent. But their manner of enumerating the Sundays after Pentecost is very different from that adopted in the West. That is to say, they name the Sundays after the passages of Scripture read in the Gospel for the day.

From Easter to Whitsunday, the Gospels for Sundays and other days are taken from St John; from the Sunday after Pentecost to the exaltation of the Holy Cross (14th September), from St Matthew; and for the following fifteen weeks from St Luke. The former Sundays are called Sundays after St Matthew, the latter, Sundays after St Luke. The latter extend over the New Year and Epiphany—for no notice is taken of Advent in the lections. St Mark’s Gospel supplies lections for most of the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent, as well as for a number of week-days throughout the course of the year. But the Sundays in question are not called Sundays after St Mark, any more than the Sundays between Easter and Pentecost are called Sundays after St John; but they take their names partly from their position as Sundays in Lent and partly from the incidents related in the Gospel for the day. In the Eastern system the connection between the Sundays and the festivals is purely external and not organic.[398]

In speaking of the ecclesiastical year of the Greeks and Orientals, it must be borne in mind that they do not possess the same quantity of formularies for the Mass as we do, but, throughout the course of the year, they employ only two or three. The result is monotony, and it is practically only the Gospel for the day in which the festal character of the celebration finds expression. Among the Latins, on the other hand, the introit, collect, etc., all emphasise the character of the feast, and still more clearly the lections from Scripture. On this account, a few remarks as to their origin and that of the lections in the Breviary may not be out of place.

Evidence for the earliest period is lacking, but there is no doubt the choice of what was to be read rested with the bishop and that he also fixed the length of the lections. In certain cases, and for many days, the choice presented no difficulty, the lections being determined by the character of the feast itself. We can, for example, determine the lections for a number of days used in the fourth century in Jerusalem. Several of them agree with those now in use.[399] Very early, a series of lections for the canonical hours must have been drawn up for use in monasteries, and then this in its turn influenced the lections in the liturgy. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that St Jerome was the originator of such a series of lections, and accordingly the lectionary was called by his name. It is certain that a lectionary existed as early as the fifth century, for which the so-called Carta Cornutiana affords proof.[400]

When we examine more closely the order of lections, we notice they do not harmonise with the ideas presented by the different parts of the ecclesiastical year, as now existing, but they do agree with the form which it took in the earliest stages of its development. The consequence is that the lections are appropriately chosen for the pascal season and for Whitsuntide, but do not fit in with the festal character of Advent and the Christmas cycle. As we have said, the ecclesiastical year began originally with the preparation for Easter, i.e. Lent. The lections from the five books of Moses which start with Septuagesima were then in their proper place, treating as they do of the fall and the divine scheme for man’s restoration.

1. The Embertides

The Embertides[401] are peculiar to the Western or Roman Church. In Rome they have been observed from the earliest times, and so Leo the Great was inclined to ascribe to them an apostolic origin. This Pope connects them with the four seasons of the year,[402] and gives them a special signification in as much as we then give God due honour and praise for the gifts He gives us to support our bodily life. Again, they move us to make a good use of the gifts thus bestowed, to abstain from superfluities, and to impart our gifts generously to those in need. We must neither murmur over the fewness of some gifts, nor be discontented with the excess of others, as may even sometimes happen. God’s will should be our will.[403] The Embertides in general, but especially that of December, he directly connects with agriculture and the harvest (ut omnium fructum collectione conclusa, etc., Sermo 16, c. 2); and the earliest liturgies[404] contain prayers for the same purpose; such indications as these give us the clue to the origin of these fasts. By them practices originally heathen have assumed a Christian form and character. The Romans, originally, were compelled to be an agricultural people, and their gods were for the most part deities who presided over agriculture, as Tertullian early remarked (Sterculus, Epona, Mutunus, etc.), and their worship was closely connected with the stages of cultivation. The chief incidents were accompanied by religious ceremonies and usages. A blessing was asked on the sowing of the seed at the feriæ sementivæ, observed between the end of November and the Winter solstice, i.e. in December. At the time of harvest, the feriæ messis were celebrated, and at the vintage, the feriæ vindemiales.[405]

With the fact that the heathen worship of Rome recognised three sorts of such feriæ observed thrice in the year (no evidence of a fourth being forthcoming), agrees a passage in the Liber Pontificalis, which has long been regarded as the earliest evidence for the observance of Embertides, though it fell short of absolute proof. The passage states that Calixtus (217-222) ordained a fast on three Saturdays in the year.[406] The number corresponds well with the three sets of heathen feriæ mentioned above. As St Leo speaks of four fasts of this kind yearly in the fifth century, the fourth fast, corresponding to the fourfold division of the year, must have been added in the course of the fourth century. It may be that the passage, Zacharias viii. 19, referring to a Jewish custom of sanctifying by a fast the four seasons of the year, helped to bring this about.

All four Embertides are mentioned in the sermon of Leo the Great, and both the Leonine and Gelasian sacramentaries agree in marking Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday as the days to be observed as fasts.[407] Pope Gelasius[408] appointed that ordinations of priests and deacons were to be held on all Embertides, and in the middle of Lent, whereas in St Leo’s time the ordination of priests took place at Easter only.[409]

The Ember fasts were called jejunium primi, quarti, septimi et decimi mensis, in the earliest service-books, and fell in March, June, September, and December. The week in each of the aforesaid months, in which the Ember fast was to be observed, appears not to have been definitely fixed in earlier days.

If the opinion of Morin is correct, this would agree with the fact that the harvest feast was not fixed for any day in particular, but was determined by the pontiffs in each case. However, it remained for a long period undetermined whether the first Embertide should be observed before or during the course of Lent, and also in which week of Advent the last Embertide should fall. The present arrangement, according to the Micrologus[410] was first made by Gregory VII., i.e., the first Embertide to fall in the first week of Lent, the second in Whitsun week, the third in the third week of September, the fourth in the third week in Advent.

According to what has been said the Ember fasts were distinctively Roman in origin, and indeed belonged to the city of Rome, and the Roman bishops by repeated injunctions ordered their colleagues in Italy to adopt them in the first instance. In Gaul and in the Christian districts of Germany, their adoption was due to the patronage given to Roman usages by the Carolingians: in Spain the Ember Days were unknown until the Roman ritual was introduced in the eleventh century, and in Milan they were introduced much later, in fact by St Charles Borromeo.[411] It does not appear from history that the original object of the Ember Days was to petition God to raise up worthy priests in His Church. They are first mentioned in this connection after the popes had appointed them as the fixed times for ordinations. They owe their origin to the agricultural festivals of ancient Rome, as appears plainly from the references of Leo the Great,[412] to the December fast.

In a later age, they lost entirely their early significance and came to be regarded solely as days of penitence and prayer. In the prayers of the actual Roman missal, no trace of their original character is to be found. The Ember masses of Advent refer to the coming of Christ, those of Lent to the suffering caused by sin, and its Atonement, those of Whitsun week to the descent of the Holy Ghost. Where the prayers do not relate to these subjects they contain no special references, or deal only with fasting in general and its necessity. The masses for the September Ember Days alone preserve some traces of their historical origin, in as much as they are principally of a festive character (Exultate, etc.), such as might refer to a harvest safely gathered in. But such a connection cannot be proved beyond doubt.

When we go through the prayers in the oldest sacramentaries we find the same thing. The name of Embertide is not indeed employed, and the days are not yet marked as fast-days, but the Saturdays are distinguished, twice in the Gelasian, and on all four Embertides in the Gregorian sacramentary, by having twelve lessons.[413] With regard to the later recensions of these two sacramentaries, the Gelasian contains two formulæ for announcing the Ember fasts to the faithful after the “Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”[414] in the Mass. In the first part, there is a Mass for the three Ember Days of the fourth month, June, and, in the second part, for September and December as well,[415] while the March Ember Days are merely indicated in Nos. XIX. and XX. of the first part. In the Frankish Gregorian sacramentary it is the same; masses are given for March, June, and September but not for December.[416] Few of the prayers in these two sacramentaries are contained in the missal actually in use. It is to be remarked concerning the lections that they numbered twelve on the Saturdays. The present Roman missal prescribes three lections for the Wednesdays, but for the Fridays only two as usual. For the Saturdays, however, the number reaches six, and, in the Advent Embertide, seven, including the Gospel.

That there were only three Embertides (i.e. the jejunium quarti, septimi, et decimi mensis) given in the ancient service-books is not surprising, since the fast in March fell usually in Lent and so needed no special mention.

With regard to the spread of Ember Days in the West, they made their way slowly and seemed to have been earliest adopted by the Anglo-Saxons, who at their conversion accepted the Roman ritual as a whole. They are ordered to be observed by the Council of Cloveshoe (can. 18) in 747. Neither Chrodegang nor Theodulf speak of Ember Days in their writings, though they seem to have been introduced by St Boniface into Germany and France. Even if the so-called statutes of St Boniface are not in all points contemporary with the saint, Ember Days were certainly enjoined in the Frankish Empire by the Capitulary of Charlemagne in 769, where up till then they had not been observed.[417] The circumstance, too, that their observance had to be repeatedly enjoined by the Councils of the ninth century, e.g. the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, and later ones, proves that they had not yet won their way as a popular observance in northern countries.[418]

Moreover, it still remained uncertain in which week of the months in question the Ember Days should come. In Rome they came in the first week of the month. Elsewhere doubts arose as to what ought to be done when the Ember Days in June came in Whitsun Week, and as to whether one ought to fast when the 1st March fell on a Thursday or Friday, the Wednesday falling on the last day of February.[419] Gregory VII. put an end to these variations by establishing the present usage.[420]

2. Litanies or Rogations

Litaniæ is the name given to solemn processions of clergy and people accompanied by prayer at which sacred pictures and emblems are carried. It was impossible to perform such devotions in the days before Constantine. But when Christianity became a recognised religion they were quickly adopted, and all the more so as the heathens had similar practices which they performed frequently and at stated times.

Litanies were especially frequent in Rome. There, during Lent, the Pope was wont to set out with his assistants with great solemnity from his residence to celebrate Mass in the various churches of the city. Each day he went to a different church, where the halt or station was made. A survival of this remains in the word Statio, which appears so often in the missal. This custom was abandoned in course of time.

Still some of these litaniæ found their way into the regular worship of the Church, and have their place in the ecclesiastical year, i.e. the procession on the 25th April, St Mark’s day, called litania major, and those on the three days before the Ascension, called litania minor. The names are remarkable, for the minor lasts three days and the major only one, but it is explained by the history of their institution.

The Christian processions are a continuation of the heathen processions which they have replaced. This is especially clear with regard to the litania major which was performed on a stated day, the 25th April. It has nothing to do with St Mark, whose feast was only much later introduced in the Roman Church.

The ancient Romans had their processions which took place both within and without the city, the latter corresponding to our rogation processions; the former were called amburbalia from urbs, and the latter ambarvalia from arva.[421] They served as supplications either for blessings from the gods on the fruits of the earth, and were observed yearly on stated days, or to avert calamities and were appointed as need required.[422]

The better known of these processions of ancient Rome, the ambarvalia, took place on vii. a. Kal. Maias (25th April). The procession passed along the Via Flaminia, the present Corso, and went as far as the fifth milestone, i.e. as far as the Milvian Bridge, where, the entrails of a dog and of a sheep were offered to the god Robigus.[423] As the procession was primarily intended to ward off blight (robigo) from the crops the day was called “Robigalia” in the Calendar. When Rome became a great city, agriculture and its festivals fell unto the back ground, and both in the Calendar of the fourth century and in that of Polemius Silvius the Robigalia is no longer mentioned on this day. There was another great procession in heathen Rome, the Argea, which took place on the 16th and 17th March, and Bishop Vigilius of Trent, speaks of a rural festival of the same character.[424]

As to Christian Rome, Rupert of Deutz is of opinion that processions had been performed there since Constantine’s days, and Beleth names Liberius as their originator. Although it is not impossible these writers may have gained their information from ancient sources, still one cannot draw any certain conclusion from their remarks.

We have, however, sure proof of the introduction of Rogations by Bishop Mamertus of Vienne. That part of the country had been visited for a considerable period by various calamities and earthquakes. On Easter night, 469, the royal palace in Vienne was struck by lightning, which caused such a panic among the entire congregation assembled in church, that they fled from the building. Mamertus put himself into connection with the civil authorities and along with them organised the Litanies, which had been used before this time, but in an informal and irregular manner. It was ordained they should take place on the three days before the Ascension, that they should be accompanied by a fast, and that the slaves should do no servile work. This institution was soon imitated throughout the whole of Gaul. Under Bishop Sidonius Apollinaris they were adopted at Clermont, next the first Council of Orleans (511), in its twenty-seventh canon, prescribes them for the Frankish part of the country, and Avitus could say they had already spread throughout the whole world, and been accepted with eagerness.[425]

Nevertheless there is no clear evidence in antiquity, to show how matters were arranged in Rome. Only when we come to the time of Gregory the Great, do we get detailed accounts which have been preserved by Gregory of Tours. In autumn of the year 589, a terrible inundation devastated the city of Rome, overthrowing the ancient buildings, destroying all provisions, and leaving behind it a pestilence which carried away Pope Pelagius II. in February 590. To avert the divine wrath, Gregory, as administrator of the vacant see, ordered a procession of especial solemnity.[426] It was apparently the procession of the 25th April, but carried out on a larger scale than heretofore. It may, however, have been an extraordinary procession such as had never before taken place, for its date is unknown, and it is not certain if the often quoted statement of Gregory really refers to it. In his numerous letters there is no mention of this procession.

Gregory prepared the people for the procession some days before by a sermon. The procession was divided into seven parts, and hence received the name of Litania Septiformis. Each division started from a different church, and all met in the basilica of St Mary Major. As Gregory says in another place, “The return of this annual solemnity warns us to keep it with devout hearts,” we conclude it was not a new observance just introduced.[427] In Rome the litaniæ of Rogation Week, as the Liber Pontificalis informs us, were first adopted under Leo III. (795-816), through the Frankish influence[428] then dominant there. The observance of days of penitence in this season of the year was a departure from the original principle that the Quinquagesima was a time of ecclesiastical joy, as Amalarius rightly observes. The procession of the 25th April belonged especially to the city of Rome, and the name litania major is due to the fact that the processions of Rogation Week were only introduced later. They too were performed with great solemnity. In other places there were yet other days appointed for litanies, but whether in addition to those already mentioned or in place of them is not clear. Thus the second Council of Lyons in 567, in its sixth canon, enjoined that in the first week of November, litanies similar to those customary before the Ascension should be performed. The Church of Milan celebrated the Rogations in the week after the Ascension. The Council of Gerunda in 517, in its second canon, places them in the week after Pentecost, and a second litania on the first of November when it was not a Sunday (Ib., Can. 3). The second canon of the sixth Council of Toledo (638) places them on the Ides of December. It may be conjectured from this that the litanies in Spain developed on peculiar lines.[429] Here as in Gaul, the Rogation Days were kept as fasts. In Germany, the Rogations were only introduced in the ninth century, for the Council of Mainz in 813 (Can. 33), prescribed they should be observed by a three days’ fast, and the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 836 (Can. 11), ordered expressly the performance of the processions after the Roman manner.

3. The Dedication of a Church and the Festival of the Patron Saint

The festival of the dedication of a Church has indeed no connection with the ecclesiastical year, and the festival of the patron saint belongs to the same category as the ordinary saints’ days, but formerly, and even to some extent at the present time, both have such a marked position among the festivals that they deserve some special mention.

In order to distinguish one church from another, different ways of naming them were adopted in course of time. In Rome they took their names originally from their founders and from those to whom the site on which they stood had previously belonged, e.g., the Basilica of the Lateran, the Sessorian Basilica (Sta. Croce), the Licinian Basilica (Sta. Bibiana), the Liberian (Sta. Maria Maggiore), etc. Elsewhere they received their names partly in the same way, and partly from other reasons, as we see from the oldest churches in Jerusalem—the Martyrium and Anastasis in the city, the Eleona or Imbomon on the Mount of Olives, and the Lazarium in Bethania, close to Jerusalem.[430] Churches built over the graves of martyrs, Martyria, were naturally called after the saint over whose tomb they were erected, and as many such churches served for ordinary divine worship, it gradually became customary to call churches after a saint, or to dedicate them specially to his honour.[431] Such was the custom in Carthage. From the point of view of the historical development, one must consider (1) the day on which the church was made over for public use, and (2) the patron saint. The former was the day of the church’s dedication or consecration. The heathen, both civilised and barbarian, had been accustomed to set apart the edifices erected for the service of their gods by a special ceremony of consecration.[432] Everyone knows with what magnificence Solomon dedicated the first temple. Accordingly, it only was to be expected that so symbolical a ceremony would be adopted by the Church, and, as a matter of fact, immediately after the cessation of persecution, under the first Christian Emperor, we find the dedication of churches performed with great display. We have an example of this in the dedication of the Church at Tyre, about which Eusebius has so much to say in his Ecclesiastical History, having himself delivered a long and very tedious and commonplace discourse on that occasion. (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., 10, 3 and 4.)

The dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 335, was performed with remarkable magnificence. After the Synod of the Eusebians at Tyre in this year, many bishops at the invitation of the imperial representative proceeded to Jerusalem, for the great basilica which Constantine had commenced to build on Mount Calvary was now finished. The dedication took place on the 14th September, the day on which the Empress Helena had found the Holy Cross, and which, as the Gallic Pilgrim states, was observed later as an annual festival. Two anniversaries fell, in this case, on the same day and consequently we are unable to conclude that the anniversary of a church’s dedication was at this time already celebrated as a regular thing. It became customary to do so, however, shortly afterwards both in the East and in the West.[433] To the same period belongs the consecration of the so-called Golden Basilica at Antioch, also commenced by Constantine but completed under Constantius in 341. On this occasion also a Synod was held.[434]

Unfortunately nothing definite regarding the ceremonies employed at the dedication of a Church can be gathered from Eusebius’ wordy description. He says: “The bishops performed the divine service, and the priests fulfilled their functions, and very magnificent were the ecclesiastical ceremonies. One heard the psalms and the other hymns which come from God, and saw the mystic rites of the service performed; the mystical symbols of the saving Passion were there also. Moreover each of the bishops present delivered a festal address and strove to the best of his ability to promote the festivity.” In the West, even in the fourth century, special ceremonies of dedication were in use, and Ambrose mentions them as generally observed, but the particulars of which they were composed, we cannot now ascertain. However, one of the ceremonies was the placing of relics of the martyrs in the new church, if there were not some there already. In an unconsecrated church there could be no performance of divine service.[435]

Before this, and in many places afterwards, it appears that the consecration of the altar alone was required. At least the oldest Gallic missal[436] contains a mass for the consecration of an altar only, and none for the dedication of a Church. This is borne out by the fact that in the liturgical writings of Ephrem and of the pseudo-Dionysius we find mention of the consecration with holy oil of the altar, while nothing is said of the consecration of churches. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions nor the so-called Testament of Jesus Christ contain any reference to it.[437] The Old Testament furnished models for the elaboration of the liturgical services used at the dedication of churches; in particular, the octave and the annual commemoration of the dedication day follow Jewish precedents.[438] The impressive solemnities with which Solomon dedicated the first temple in the twelfth year of his reign lasted for seven days (iii. Kg. viii. 65). When the second temple, built by Zorobabel, had been defiled by the heathen rites of the Syrians, it was purified by Judas Machabeus, B.C. 165, and restored to the worship of Jehovah. It was then settled that the festival of this purification of the temple should be observed annually for eight days, beginning on the 25th Casleu (1 Mach. iv. 42 et seq., 2 Mach. i, 9 and 18).

The prolongation of the dedication festival for eight days, and the recurring celebration of its anniversary soon make their appearance in liturgical writings and spread throughout all Christian countries. The Leonine Sacramentary contains a mass for the anniversary of the dedication of St Peter’s, the Gelasian Sacramentary has a short rite for the consecration of a church along with forms for the consecration of altars, chalices, and altar cloths, but omits the blessing of the water.[439] At the consecration of a church in St Augustine’s time, the twenty-ninth psalm was directed to be sung. We possess three sermons preached by St Augustine at a Dedicatio (336-338). In the text of the Gregorian sacramentary, there is no Mass for the consecration of a new church, but a special one for the anniversary. That the latter was kept as a festival of obligation is not stated. The form for the consecration of a church, with the Mass belonging to it, is given in the Appendix.[440]

In the middle ages, the anniversary of the dedication (natale ecclesiæ) was observed as a general festival of obligation for the local congregation irrespective of whether it fell on a week-day or on a Sunday; it was also to be observed with an octave.[441] In Germany it was ordered by the Synod of Mainz in 813, and, along with the feast of the Patron Saint, in the statute of Bishop Hetto of Basel about 827. Both festivals are found together in the statutes of Lanfranc of Canterbury and in the decrees of the Council of Szabolcs in Hungary, in 1092. The ecclesiastical celebration consisted of a vigil, solemn High Mass, and procession in which the relics of the saints belonging to the church were carried. A flag was wont to fly from the church tower, the floor was strewn with green leaves, the altar and pulpit were decorated with boughs, and a bunch of flowers was placed before the picture of the Patron Saint. The anniversary of the dedication of each altar was also observed, but only inside the walls of the church.[442]

Festivals of the Patron Saints were not enjoined as of obligation in the decretal of Gregory IX. in 1232, although placed by Lanfranc in the highest class of feasts. They were regarded as such in various countries, especially throughout Germany. Thus, the diocesan Synod of Cologne, under Archbishop Heinrich II., placed them along with the dedication of churches among the holy days of obligation,[443] and so also did the statute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves in 1338. On the other hand, the provincial Synod of Cologne in 1549, under Adolf III., expressly suppressed them as holy days of obligation, and desired they should be celebrated only in choir, in order, as it said, festivals should not become too numerous. It also forbade noisy revels, such as dancing, etc., at the festival of the dedication of a church.

To have a church of its own, especially a parish church, was of the greatest importance to each district, on account of the spiritual and even material benefits of which it was the source. This explains the enthusiasm with which the dedication of the church was observed. With the ecclesiastical festival were soon associated secular amusements, fairs, merry-makings, and shows. The dedication was especially the festival of the people in the middle ages, and, as always happens in such cases, the secular influences proved stronger than the spiritual, although the dedication was one of the days on which indulgences were usually granted.

As parishes and churches became more numerous, the number of these festivals increased also, and the result was that not only the parish in question observed the feast, but all the neighbouring parishes joined in the celebration. Thus these feasts and the merry-making associated with them increased without limit. Among the country people especially it was inevitable that excess and licence should give rise to grave disorders.

At the outbreak of the Reformation, the innovators availed themselves of these abuses to wage war against all Dedication Feasts,[444] and some provincial Synods of the sixteenth century directed that all the dedications in a diocese should be kept on one and the same day. In the bull of Urban VIII. in 1642, reducing the number of festivals, the dedication is no longer named among the festivals which were to be retained. By a decree of Clement XIV. in 1772, the festival of the Patron Saint was to be celebrated on its proper day, and if there were more than one patron, only the chief patron was to be commemorated. The brief of Pius VI. of 1788 for Breslau removed the festival of the Patron Saint out of the range of the ordinary life of the people by transferring its celebration to the Sunday.[445] Finally, the French revolution and the Concordat abolished these celebrations altogether, and put an end to all Dedication Festivals throughout the extent of the French Empire. This caused the churches in most dioceses to keep a general Dedication Festival on some one Sunday in the year, and only inside the walls of the church. The dedication of the cathedral is either included in this general celebration, or, in some instances as in Cologne, is still celebrated by itself.

The people were by no means pleased at the suppression of these popular feasts, but consoled themselves by transferring to the festival of the Patron Saint, even when transferred to the Sunday, the rejoicings which they had hitherto associated with the Dedication Festival.

In those parts of Germany which in 1802 did not belong to France, the earlier usages continued and the traditional rejoicings still continue to be observed, but in a manner corresponding to the more refined spirit of the time.

The custom of keeping the day of the Patron Saint as a holiday of ecclesiastical and civil obligation still continues in all the several Austrian crown lands. In Bavaria each diocese celebrates the feast of the Patron Saint of the diocese on the proper date.

As regards the present usage, the law for every parish is that the feast of the patron of the church, or, if the church is dedicated to a mystery, the day on which that mystery is commemorated in the calendar, is to be kept as a double of the first class with an octave. The popular festival, called in Germany Kirmes, takes place on the following Sunday. The existence of these popular feasts to the present day, in spite of so much opposition, proves their inherent right to exist, for each part of a great whole, having its own separate existence, naturally wishes to have something distinctively its own in addition to what it shares in common with others.[446]

CHAPTER II THE SAINTS’ DAYS — 1. The origins of the Cultus of the Saints and the Grounds on which it Rests — 2. The Festivals of St John the Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-Martyr — 3. Festivals of our Blessed Lady in General — 4. The Three Ancient Festivals of our Blessed Lady—the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Assumption — 5. Institution and Spread of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception — 6. The Lesser Feasts of Our Lady — 7. The Feast of St Joseph. [582] The Cultus of SS. Joachim and Anne — 8. The Festivals of the Apostles in General — 9. The Festivals of the Apostles and Evangelists in Particular — 10. The Festivals of St Mary Magdalen, St Cecilia, and St Catherine ( 22nd July, 22nd and 25th November ) — 11. The Festival of All Saints — 12. The Commemoration of All Souls — 13. The Festivals of the Angels — 14. The Two Festivals in Honour of the Holy Cross ( 3rd May and 14th September )

The ecclesiastical year recalls to the memory of the faithful all that God has done for the salvation of mankind, especially through the mysteries of the new Covenant, i.e. the life and passion of Jesus Christ, and she re-enacts them, as it were, before their eyes within the compass of each recurring year. To this the Sundays and festivals, especially those from Advent to Pentecost, are devoted. They form an organic whole, constituted in accordance with one definite idea, consisting of the three great festivals Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each in itself the centre of a special season. The foundations and heart of the whole festal system of the Church were given by a higher Hand, and only the development—the much less important part of the whole—is to be attributed to the thoughts and contrivances of men.

It now remains for us to consider the second division of the Christian festival system—the Saints’ Days. These are distinguished from the feasts of our Lord both by their institution and by their treatment, their distribution throughout the year, their development and their diffusion throughout Christendom.[447]

From the foundation of the Church, there has been no controversy over the holiness and worshipfulness of those who laid down their life for the Christian faith. The New Testament itself did not omit to hand on to posterity the memory of those whose death fell within the apostolic period, such as the Holy Innocents, St James the Great, and before all others the first martyr St Stephen. The seer of the Apocalypse saw the martyrs of Jesus beneath the altar of God, Who did not forget them (Apoc. xvii. 6; vi. 9-11).

Neither did the Church forget them. From its foundation each Christian congregation was at pains to preserve the memory of the martyrs belonging to it. Thus, for example, Pionius and his companions celebrated the “true day” of St Polycarp’s death (natale genuinum) at Smyrna in 250, during which festival they were themselves seized and condemned to death.[448] Among the larger congregations, where the number of martyrs rapidly increased, special means were taken at an early date to preserve their memory. This was necessary in large communities if the memory of these heroes of the Faith was not to pass away. It is true that for the Church of Rome alone, do we possess definite information as to her mode of proceeding in this respect, but there is no room for doubt that smaller communities followed on the same lines, and for some indeed we have clear evidence that they did so. In many instances, the reverence which continued to be paid to the tomb of such an individual was sufficient to keep his memory alive. Those who suffered a shameful death as law-breakers in the opinion of the civil power nevertheless received honourable burial. According to Roman ideas earthly Justice was satisfied by the death of the guilty person, the body was given to the relations and friends to be duly buried.[449] Only when there was risk of a tumult was this permission withheld, which happened very rarely in the Roman Empire before the reign of Diocletian—or, where it was a question of high treason.

Not only the relations and friends were careful to preserve the memory of the martyrs, but, as we have already said, the congregation to which they had belonged. While the former erected chapels over the tombs of the martyrs, and preserved the information relating to them, the community on its part marked down in its registers their names and the days on which they suffered. In large communities the Bishops took steps for drawing up authoritative reports concerning the martyrs belonging to their flocks. According to the Liber Pontificalis, Clement I. is said to have divided Rome into seven regions, with a Christian notary appointed over each whose business it was carefully to investigate matters of this nature belonging to his region.[450] The size of the city of Rome rendered this necessary. Augustus had divided Rome for civil purposes into fourteen regions, but Clement, for the purpose he had in view, formed one region out of every two. Pope Fabian again adopted similar measures, and enjoined upon the seven sub-deacons the duty of seeing that the seven notaries made a complete collection of the acts of the martyrs. He thus doubled the number of persons employed in this matter, and placed the subdeacons over the notaries.[451] His predecessor Anteros (235-236) collected the gesta martyrum, and carefully preserved the Acts of the martyrs, as we learn from a somewhat obscure notice in the Liber Pontificalis.[452] This is again referred to in the same work, where it is stated that Pope Caius appointed the regions of the city to the deacons during the Diocletian persecution.

St Cyprian adopted the same plan at Carthage during the persecutions under Decius and Valerian. He ordered the priests and deacons of Carthage not only to interest themselves in every way on behalf of the faith of those in prison, but also to take thought for the bodies of those who died in bonds, even when they died without having undergone torture, and also to keep a record of the name and date of death of each one, in order that his memory might be celebrated along with the memorials of the martyrs.[453] The order to take down the date could be easily obeyed everywhere, since in every city, Calendars engraved on marble tablets were set up for public use.[454]

We have an authoritative document of this kind in the detailed account given by the communities of Lyons and Vienne, of the martyrdoms which took place there under Marcus Aurelius. Owing to its having been sent to Asia Minor, Eusebius was able to utilise it and incorporate the chief parts of it into his history of the Church.

The same thing happened more or less everywhere; the names of the martyrs belonging to the community were entered in the Calendars of the Church, and their memory was celebrated annually on the anniversary of their death. These were the so-called martyres recogniti, i.e. those who were recognised as martyrs by the community. Each large community, especially the patriarchal Churches, thus possessed their calendar of saints, which became more and more full of names in process of time. Authentic fragments of such calendars are contained in the Roman Depositio Martyrum, which, along with the Depositio Episcoporum, was compiled not later than the episcopate of Liberius (352-354). Fuller, because less ancient, is the Calendar of Carthage, dating from the end of the fifth century or from the beginning of the sixth, printed by Mabillon in his Analecta Vetera,[455] and of which he treats in iii. 398, of this work.

In the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocæsarea in Pontus, was no less zealous than St Cyprian in collecting information concerning the martyrs. He travelled throughout the whole district, inspiring the people everywhere with zeal for the celebration of the memory of those who had suffered for the faith.[456] And thus in all the greater cities, catalogues of the local martyrs were compiled, as Sozomen testifies for two neighbouring towns, Gaza and Constantia. Each of these two towns, he says, had their own bishop and clergy, and also their own festivals of martyrs and catalogues of the priests who had presided over them.[457]

At a much later date, Maximus of Turin gives us some interesting evidence concerning these attempts of the different communities: “As we must celebrate the general commemoration of all the holy martyrs, so, my brethren, ought we to celebrate with special devotion the feasts of those who shed their blood in our own locality. For while all the saints, wherever they may be, assist us all, yet those who suffered for us intercede for us in a special manner. For the martyr suffers not for himself alone, but also for his fellow-citizens. By his sufferings, he obtains for himself a reward in heaven, and gives a good example to his fellow-citizens. He gains rest for himself and salvation for them.”[458]

The official cultus of the saints was at first confined to the martyrs. The earliest example of the public worship of saints, not martyrs, dates from the time of Pope Symmachus, under whom, about A.D. 500, a church was built and dedicated to Pope Silvester and Martin of Tours, in Rome, the basilica Silvestri et Martini.[459]

Our information concerning the martyrs is derived from three sources[460]:—

1. The Acta, i.e. the report of the trial taken down by the notary of the proconsul or procurator (notarius, commentariensis, and exceptor), containing the accusation, the examination, the depositions of the witnesses, the description of the tortures employed and the judgment given. Even in the time of Cicero the evidence of the witnesses was taken down in writing, and during the Empire full reports of both civil and criminal actions were taken and preserved. A proclamation of the Emperor Severus in 194, enjoins that these acta be preserved, and be produced when required for ascertaining the truth. Copies were given for payment to people interested or concerned in the trial. Some of these reports of the trials of the martyrs have come down to us in their original form, and afford the most valuable materials which we possess for the history of early Christian times. The best known are the Acta Proconsularia S. Cypriani, along with the acts of Pionius, Maximilian, and Marcellus, etc.

2. Passiones, i.e. an account of the imprisonment, trial, and execution of the martyrs drawn up by Christian eye-witnesses at the time or immediately afterwards. They are worthy of all credit, for among the Romans legal proceedings took place as a rule in public. It was only under the later emperors that this publicity was so far curtailed that the proceedings were conducted in the basilicas or buildings set apart for that purpose. The earliest and best-known examples of these Passions are the letter of the church of Lyons to the churches of Asia Minor, the Passio S. Perpetuæ et Felicitatis, the Martyrium Polycarpi, etc.

3. Legends, i.e. narratives based upon documents of the nature described above, and worked up by later writers, either for the purpose of edification or from the point of view of a historian. This class of writings is very large, beginning with the account of the martyrdom of St Ignatius. The writings, however, differ endlessly as to their value, according to the knowledge and authority possessed by the writers, and according to their nearness to the date of the events described. There were many martyrs whose sufferings were recorded in no acta or passiones, but were imprinted upon the memory of men, and became part of the traditions handed down in the community, until they were finally committed to writing. The later this took place, the worse for the authenticity. For it was then that anachronisms, alterations in titles, changes in the persons, and other similar historical errors could more easily creep into the narrative, as we know, in fact, they have done in many instances. The historical sense was unfortunately lacking to the Franks and Byzantines, as well as all idea of sound criticism.

A false kind of patriotism and national pride often goes along with credulity, so that we find here and there in literature of this kind even downright fabrications. After the introduction of printing, by which literature became more widely diffused and comparative criticism was rendered possible, it at once became evident among Catholics that error was mixed with truth, and that a sifting of the one from the other was necessary, and, in many cases, quite possible. In this province of criticism, those who have most distinguished themselves for judgment and insight are Launoi, Henschen, the Bollandists, Tillemont, Baillet, Ruinart, and in more modern times, Franchi di Cavalieri and others who have avoided extremes in either direction.

The matter from these writings incorporated in the service books possesses the same historical value as the source from which it is drawn. For, as Bäumer justly remarks, “it was not the intention of the Church, or of the compilers and authors of the service books, to claim historical authority for their statements. And so the Popes themselves have directed many emendations to be made in the legends in the Breviary, although many others still remain to be effected.”[461] The legends, by their incorporation into the Breviary, gain no higher degree of credibility than that which the person who incorporated them is able to confer upon them from a purely natural standpoint. This must be emphasised and maintained, for since the time of Bishop Aurelian of Arles,[462] the reading of the histories of the martyrs made its way more and more into the psalmody in the West, and became an essential part of the Breviary.

The honour of having cultivated for the first time the province of hagiography as a whole and not merely in a few particulars, belongs, as far as we know, to the historian Eusebius. Before he completed his history of the Church, he planned a collection of the Acts of the Martyrs (συλλοωὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων), which he quotes in his history (v. 1, 6). Unfortunately this compilation has been lost, although it was probably used by Gregory of Tours.[463] He gives further information in his work on the martyrs of Palestine which took place in his own lifetime during the Diocletian persecution, between 303 and 310. This book seems to have been composed after the completion of his History of the Church.[464] Had we similar writings of the same period relating to other provinces of the Church, we should be better informed concerning those extraordinary events.

The method adopted was plainly that each local community worked for itself alone without troubling itself about what happened elsewhere. The worship of the martyrs was also at first limited to particular localities. Certainly there was no lack of interest in what took place in other districts, as is shown by the letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne to the Christians of Asia Minor, but liturgical and ecclesiastical worship was paid to the martyrs of the place alone. For example, the Calendar of the Roman Church contained those martyrs alone who belonged to the Roman community; in the same way the Alexandrian Calendar contained only those belonging to Egypt, the Antiochene Calendar only those of Syria, and so on. This state of things continued until the ninth century. A striking proof of this is the fact that Ignatius of Antioch, although he suffered death in Rome, finds no place in either the Gelasianum or the Gregorianum, while at Antioch he was venerated as a saint from the beginning. A remarkable exception is the veneration which St Perpetua, St Felicitas, and St Cyprian enjoyed in Rome. In this case the relationship between the mother and the daughter church must be taken into account, for Christianity had spread to Carthage from Rome. From what has been said, it follows that information concerning the manner of a martyr’s death and the exact day on which he suffered, derived from local sources, is trustworthy in the highest degree, but it is forthcoming in a few cases only.

As it was the day of the martyr’s death which was kept and marked in the calendar, it must be observed that this day was sometimes called the martyr’s birthday, natalis, natalitium, and sometimes also dies depositionis. Owing to the burial taking place on the day of death, as was the custom among the ancients, dies obitus and dies depositionis could be used as synonymous terms.[465]

Among the Romans burial followed as soon as the death was certified. Nearly every one belonged to a burial society, which undertook the preparations for the funeral. In addition to these, there were only the preparations in the house to be thought of, and these—the washing and clothing of the corpse—could be quickly performed. Hence the burial could take place in a very short time. The Jews also buried their dead immediately after death, as the story of Ananias and Saphira shows.

The Christians of the first centuries followed out all the customs relating to burial usual in their time and country, excluding only those which were specifically heathen and idolatrous. That they buried their dead with the same expedition as the heathen is clear from an incident related by Tertullian.[466] The burial of a woman who seemed to be dead was for some reason delayed. While she lay ready for burial and the priests were reciting the prayers, she raised up both her hands, and, when the prayer for peace was concluded, laid them down again in their former position. It was only in the fourth century that it began to be the custom to delay burial to the third or fourth day after death,[467] but the earlier practice continued still to exist for a considerable period.[468]

As it was already the custom to inter those who died a natural death on the day of their decease, so there was no reason why the burial of the martyrs should be delayed, and thus with them the dies obitus and the dies depositionis were one and the same. Consequently the ancient dates in question, even when given as that of the burial, are always to be understood as referring to the day of the martyr’s death, and, when they form part of the traditions of the community to which the martyr belonged, they are to be received as absolutely reliable.

In the case of the martyrs, the rule of venerating them on the day of their death admitted of no exception, although it might be set aside in the case of those saints who were not martyrs, for certain reasons and in particular instances. Thus, for example, the day of St Chrysostom’s death, the 14th September, was already occupied in the fourth century by the festival of the Invention of the Holy Cross. St Basil died on the 1st January, and St Ambrose on the 4th April, which fell within the Pascal season. During Lent, no festivals of martyrs were to be celebrated on week-days, according to the fifty-first Canon of Laodicea, but only on Saturdays and Sundays at most. But this prohibition was by no means general.

Besides the lists of the depositiones, the service-books, the sacramentaries or missals, helped to preserve the memory of the martyrs.

In the earliest service-books of the Roman and also of a few other churches, the Masses in honour of the martyrs were not classed by themselves apart, but were incorporated with the others, and not separated from the course of the ecclesiastical year, or, to use a modern expression, the Proprium de Sanctis and the Proprium de Tempore were still fused together. Only in the Gelasianum are the Natalitia sanctorum separated from the ecclesiastical year and collected together in the second volume. Still later were the catalogues of the saints formed into independent works, the so-called martyrologies. In the East these began to appear at an early date. In this a return was made to the older arrangement, except that now it was not the martyrs of the local churches alone which were taken into consideration, but those of the Church Universal.

It is just this insertion of the saints’ days in the course of the Church’s year which proves that the names of the martyrs and the days of the commemoration were subject to the control of authority; that is to say, the compilations in question have all the weight attaching to public official documents and to reliable sources of information, and, for this reason, they may be used as material in historical works. Valuable information can be gained from a judicious employment of these compositions.

The restriction of festivals to those commemorating saints of a specific locality disappeared only slowly, and at a late date in the West. It disappeared still later, and only to a limited extent, among the Easterns, who showed a tendency to fill up their calendars with other things rather than with the feasts of foreign martyrs and saints, as, for example, the commemorations of Councils, Old Testament personages, and even the four beasts of the Apocalypse were pressed into the service. In the West the entrance of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons into the Roman Church gave the first impulse to an extension of the martyrologies and calendars in the direction of universalism or universal Catholicity. Both these nations, having no Christian antiquity of their own, adopted along with the ritual of the Roman Church her calendar of saints as well. Soon, however, they added to this the names of their own particular saints, and so prepared the way for more universal ideas; while, on the contrary, the Roman Church did not include in her calendar the saints and martyrs of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons. Only at the revision of the service-books in the sixteenth century did she so far yield as to act in some degree upon the principle of Catholicity in this matter. The subsequent increase and development of the festivals of the saints in the Calendar of the Catholic Church had a disturbing effect upon the ecclesiastical year and daily office. Ordinary Sundays have lost their position and have given place to the commemoration of saints, and green vestments only rarely make their appearance. The first step towards the general observance of the cultus of particular saints throughout the Church, and the admission of other than merely local saints to a place in the devotions of each community, may have been effected by the Litanies which came into use in France. The oldest form of a Litany of the Saints is contained in the prayer-book of Charles the Bald.[469]

The saintly personages of the Old Testament have really the same right to veneration as those of the New, being justified through faith in the future Messias, many of them were martyrs, and all attained to the Beatific Vision after our Lord’s resurrection. They are on this account called blessed by St Paul in Heb. xi. 4-39. The synagogue paid no worship to saints, but honoured the memory of the prophets so far as to erect monuments over their graves (St Matt. xxiii. 29). Accordingly there was nothing to prevent the same cultus being paid to them as to the saints of the New Testament, yet nevertheless it remained exceptional. Eastern calendars contain the names of many Old Testament worthies, Western calendars only a few, and the Roman Church commemorates none with the exception of the Machabees. But even the Eastern Churches have appointed no days in their honour, and so this part of the worship of the saints lies without the scope of this work.[470]

In saying that in antiquity the worship of the martyrs was confined to the localities to which they belonged, it must be borne in mind that this rule admitted of two exceptions from the first. St John the Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-martyr, were honoured throughout the whole Christian Church from the beginning; their commemoration was universally celebrated, and even the former was regarded as a martyr in the ecclesiastical sense of the word.

The Baptist had at once been designated by his father in a moment of prophetic inspiration as a prophet and the Forerunner of the Lord, and later on he received from our Lord Himself the recognition of his remarkable sanctity (St Matt. xi. 11). Accordingly it causes no surprise to find proof of his worship and his festivals at a very early date. The latter already appear in the sermons of St Augustine as solemnitates, and as fixed on definite dates. Indeed, in course of time a regular little cycle of festivals of the Baptist came into existence. The date of his birth, for instance, was fixed by that of our Lord, as falling six months before Christmas; nine months earlier came the date of his conception,[471] and, in addition to these, the day of his death was celebrated on the 29th August, under the title of Passio or Decollatio.

The festival of St John’s birth does not appear indeed in the Calendars of Philocalus and Polemius Silvius, although it is found in the most ancient calendar of the African Church, and in the list of festivals drawn up by Perpetuus of Tours. Among the sermons of St Peter Chrysologus and Maximus of Turin there are also to be found many allusions to it. It was numbered, by the Council of Agde in 506, among the chief feasts on which all the faithful must attend divine service in their parish churches and not in private oratories.[472] In the Middle Ages servile work was proscribed on it,[473] and until our own times it continued universally to rank as a high festival, but at the present time it is kept as such in only a few countries, as we have observed on page 35.

The festival of the Baptist’s conception was celebrated, especially in the East, and appears in the Calendars of Calcasendi and of the Syrians, also in the Neapolitan Calendars, and in that of Silos as well as in the Mozarabic Calendar, in the Calendar of Bede, in the Greek calendars, and in both menologies, i.e. that of Constantinople and that of Basil. Its introduction[474] at an early date is due to the circumstance that St John’s conception was announced by the angel, and also to the supposition, which appears as early as St Augustine, that by the meeting of his mother with Mary he was already purified from original sin before his birth.

The 29th August was kept as the commemoration of his death at an early date, both in Africa and in the East. The collection of St Augustine’s sermons contains two sermons for this festival (307 and 308), and it has its place among the festivals in the list of Perpetuus. The same date is given in the Coptic Calendar in Selden, in the Syrian, Neapolitan, and Mozarabic. As regards Rome, it had not yet made its way into the Leonine sacramentary, though it is found in the Gelasianum.

In addition, a so-called synaxis of St John the Baptist is marked in the two Greek menologies. This is an instance of a peculiar custom among the Greeks, according to which, after certain chief feasts of our Lord and our Lady, there is held a second festival, or synaxis, on the following day, in honour of the personages who had taken part in the event commemorated by the feast. Thus with the feast of the 2nd February is coupled that of St Simeon, with that of the Nativity of our Lady, the feast of Joachim and Anna, and here, after Epiphany, the day of Christ’s baptism, we have the feast of St John the Baptist, on the 7th January.[475]

The cultus of St John the Baptist received a great extension throughout the whole Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, owing to the discovery of his relics. The records of the Church contain much information concerning both the discovery and the translation of these relics, though they give rise to insoluble difficulties.

In the first place one must bear in mind how the disciples of St John, on hearing of the death of their teacher in the fortress of Machærus,[476] came and took his body and buried it (St Matt. xiv. 12; St Mark vi. 29). The head doubtless remained at first in the keeping of Herodias, who had accepted it as a present. According to a creditable tradition, Samaria was the place of St John’s burial, as it was outside the limits of Herod’s tetrarchy, and under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor. The remains reposed there until the persecution of Julian in 362, when the pagan rabble violated the tomb and burnt the remains. A portion of them, however, was saved by monks and carried to Alexandria, where Athanasius deposited them provisionally in a church. Later on they were placed in the church erected by the Patriarch Theophilus in honour of the Baptist in the ruins of the destroyed Serapeum. The dedication of this church followed on the 27th May 385 or 386.[477] Tillemont was inclined to regard the 29th August as the day of the translation, which in this case as in others came to be regarded as the ecclesiastical commemoration of the event. Against this, however, is the fact that the more ancient Coptic Calendars know nothing of the 29th August as a feast of the Baptist.[478]

With regard to the saint’s head, there are two different accounts in existence. According to one account, given by Sozomen (7, 21), it is said to have been found in Jerusalem in the possession of monks belonging to the sect of the Macedonians, who carried it to Cilicia, when they were driven out from that city. When the Emperor Valens heard of this, he despatched an official to convey the relic to Constantinople. As they approached Chalcedon, the mules which drew the vehicle in which the messenger travelled with the relic refused to proceed any further, and all efforts to continue the route were unavailing—a circumstance frequently repeated in later legends. Valens and his court regarded this as miraculous and did not venture to bring the relic near the city. Accordingly it remained in a village near Chalcedon in charge of adherents of the Macedonian sect, until the reign of Theodosius, who brought it to Hebdomon, a suburb of Constantinople, where he had a church erected in honour of the Baptist.

The Paschal Chronicle makes mention of this translation in 391, as well as of another under the date 453, without throwing any light on the connection of the one with the other. This second translation, of which Rufinus also speaks (“Hist. Eccl.” 2, 28), is said to have come about in the following manner.

The head is reported to have been brought from Machærus to Jerusalem and there buried. In the time of Constantine it was taken to Emesa and hidden away in a cave. Why this was necessary at that particular period is not stated. Here it was discovered by a priest called Marcellus, the superior of a monastery in those parts. He composed a long and detailed account of the discovery, containing also a history of the previous vicissitudes of the relic.[479] The discovery was made in consequence of many dreams, and a fiery star is said to have guided Marcellus to the spot where the sacred treasure rested in an urn, deeply buried in the earth. Marcellus informed Bishop Uranius of Emesa of his discovery, and the bishop solemnly removed the relic on the 24th February, 452. It was first of all placed in the cathedral, and then soon afterwards in a chapel expressly built to receive it, to which it was conveyed on the 26th September of the same year. Here it rested under the Mohammedan dominion, and in 760 a large church was even built to replace the chapel. We have here a threefold translation of the head of St John the Baptist. It is asserted that a part of it is preserved at Amiens which was brought thither from Constantinople in the thirteenth century. Two of the three days commemorating these translations are marked in the Greek menologies, the 24th February and the 26th September.[480] The story of these translations throws no light upon the choice of 29th August for the beheading of the saint.

From a liturgical point of view, the birth of the Baptist was kept with special distinction at Rome in earlier times. In the Leonine sacramentary it is already provided with a vigil. Other saints’ days indeed were similarly provided, but the vigil of St John was to be kept as a fast, and, moreover, in addition to the two formularies for the Mass of his feast, there are two more specially intended for use in the Baptistery of St John. As early as the fifth century in Rome, three Masses seem to have been celebrated on St John’s Day as on Christmas, one on the vigil after Vespers, one during the night, and the third on the morning of the 24th June—this last being celebrated in the Baptistery. In the Gelasianum we find only two Masses, one for the vigil, and one for the day itself, but in the Gregorianum we find three again to be said at special times, as in the Leoninum.[481] Accordingly, Menard observes that Alcuin[482] also speaks of three Masses on St John’s Day commemorating the three great triumphs—as he calls them—which the Baptist had celebrated in preparing the way for our Lord, in baptizing Him, and in having been a Nazarite from his mother’s womb. The ordo of the Canon Benedict of St Peter’s, belonging to the year 1143, makes no mention of three Masses, though it speaks of two offices.[483] When the Council of Seligenstadt in 1022 (cap. 1) prescribed abstinence for the fourteen days before St John, it was acting without precedent, and was influenced by the desire to make the festival of the forerunner as like to Christmas as possible.

As at Rome, so too in Latin North Africa, the Nativity of the Baptist must have been celebrated with special honour, for we possess no fewer than seven sermons of St Augustine on it, and he distinctly speaks of it as a festival which had come down from his predecessors.[484]

The Proto-martyr St Stephen. The cultus of this saint received also a great impulse from the discovery of his relics at Kaphar-Gamala.[485] This took place on the 5th December, in consequence of a revelation said to have been made to a priest of Jerusalem called Lucianus, in presence of John Bishop of Jerusalem, and of a Spanish priest from Braga, named Avitus, who was then stopping in Jerusalem. Lucianus wrote an account of the event in the form of a letter to all the churches,[486] which Avitus translated into Latin.[487] Whereupon the worship of the first martyr spread, one might say, in every direction. Pilgrims seeking relief from their sufferings visited his churches and chapels, numerous answers to prayer and miracles of healing followed, of which the sermons of St Augustine and his work on the “City of God” afford evidence.[488] Pope Simplicius († 483) erected a basilica in St Stephen’s honour at Rome. The festival of the discovery of his relics was fixed for the 3rd August.

Upon their discovery the relics were first taken to Jerusalem, but portions of them were bestowed upon other places, as, for example, a hand to the city of Constantinople, or rather to the Emperor Theodosius II.,[489] and smaller relics elsewhere. In the year 439 the Empress Eudocia brought the remaining relics to Constantinople and had them placed in the basilica of St Lawrence.[490] Over the tomb a chapel was erected, well known to pilgrims of the sixth century as the grave of St Stephen.[491] St Augustine, in the passages already quoted, speaks of churches erected in St Stephen’s honour in many places.

The worship of St Stephen, however, does not date merely from this period, but was much older, and may even be said to be as old as the Church herself, since St Paul gave him the title of “Martyr of Christ” (Acts xxii. 20). Many churches and chapels were dedicated to him in Constantinople, of which the oldest was built by or under Constantine, if Codinus is rightly informed.[492]

Apart from this, his name is to be found already in the earliest liturgical sources, e.g. the Arian martyrology, belonging to about 360, and in all Calendars ancient and modern excepting the Coptic Calendars, published by Selden and Calcasendi. A remarkable variation is observable with respect to the date, for the most ancient Calendars and also the Roman give it invariably as the 26th December, while the Eastern Calendars give it sometimes on the 27th, e.g. the two menologies of Constantinople and the Syrian lectionary. It cannot now be ascertained whether one of these days was the day of his martyrdom or not; it is not impossible, but it must be observed that the Coptic Calendar given in Mai notices only a discovery of his relics on the 27th December, with which agrees a later tradition of the Egyptian Church.[493] Accordingly the 26th or 27th December may have been observed as only the day of a translation of St Stephen’s relics.

The unique position occupied by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the scheme of salvation called for a corresponding recognition from the Church in the development of her festal system. As a matter of fact the Church has amply discharged this duty, inasmuch as not only the events in our Lady’s life recorded in Scripture have been made the occasion of festivals, but others also not mentioned therein. A considerable period, however, elapsed before this work was accomplished. This circumstance has been explained by reference to the fact that the Church, while paganism was still in power, refrained from publicly honouring the parents of our Lord after the flesh, on account of the myths and genealogies current about the gods. More weight may be given to the circumstance that the facts relating to the life of Jesus and the redemption He accomplished had first to be commemorated by fixed festivals before an extension of the Calendar in other directions could be thought of. Then again, in the early ages, it was felt to be an imperative duty to duly honour the commemorations of the numerous martyrs, and the custom of appointing days for the commemoration of saints not martyrs only came into existence later.

The cultus paid to the Mother of God by the Church existed long before the institution of her feasts, for Constantine is said to have built three churches in her honour in his new capital. According to recent investigations, a Church dedicated to her, Maria Antiqua,[494] is said to have existed in Rome before the erection of the Liberian basilica, generally reckoned as the oldest Church of our Lady in the Eternal City. It is certain that Ephesus had a noteworthy Church of our Lady in 431, in which the third Ecumenical Council held its meetings.

As regards festivals, all the churches of the ancient patriarchates observe many of them, especially the oriental Greeks and the Roman Catholic; the latter, without question, observes the largest number. But the ancient Church of Egypt also distinguished itself by its zeal for the worship of our Lady, and in the Coptic Calendars we find a commemoratio Dominæ Virginis Mariæ on the 21st (corresponding to the 15th in the Julian Calendar) of each month.[495] Formerly every Saturday was generally dedicated to her. The first certain instance of the observance of a festival in honour of the Mother of God, which has so far come to light, is found in the panegyric on St Theodosius, preached by Theodore about the year 500. In this it is stated that a commemoration of the holy Mother of God (θεοτόκου μνήμη) was celebrated annually in the Palestinian monasteries, attended by a concourse of all the monks. Unfortunately neither the date of this festival nor its name is given, although there is good reason for thinking that it was the feast of the 15th August, which had been regarded as the day of our Lady’s death from the earliest times.[496] In Spain, in the time of Bishop Ildephonsus of Toledo († 667), a festival of the Mother of God was also solemnly observed. This prelate made penitential processions (litaniæ) in the three preceding days, and composed a special mass for the feast. Here again the particular name of the feast is unfortunately not given. Still it can only have been the feast of the 15th August.[497]

The number of feasts of our Lady observed at the present time in the Catholic Church is, as we have said, considerable, among them being some which affect the public life of the community and some whose observance is confined to the four walls of the Church. They can also be classified as greater and lesser, or, according to the date of their institution, as earlier or later. Among the greater feasts are the Conception, Birth, Annunciation and Assumption of our Blessed Lady, and Candlemas; among the lesser are the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple, her Espousals, the Visitation, and now the Feast of the Holy Rosary.

It is not, however, possible to speak, as many liturgists do, of a Marian ecclesiastical year. For the dates of our Lady’s feasts, viewed in their chronological order, overlap the limits of the year, and being subject to the same principles which regulate saints’ days, fall invariably on fixed days in the Calendar, and so cannot be said to form an integral part of the ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless they form in themselves a cycle of festivals, as is also the case in a lesser degree with regard to St John the Baptist. Two of them, however, have been brought into connection, at least externally, with the ecclesiastical year, i.e. the Annunciation, whose date depends upon Christmas, and the Visitation, whose date is regulated by the births of Christ and St John the Baptist. The former interrupts the course of the Church’s year, and falls within a cycle of feasts with which it has no inner connection. The Conception of our Blessed Lady, the latest in date of her great feasts, depends naturally upon the date of her birth. Finally, nothing can be said touching the grounds which led to the choice of these dates, for no historical evidence for the first institution of these festivals has come down to us. They have been appointed and sanctioned by custom.

We shall first deal with the great festivals of our Lady, the observance of which affected public life. From these we omit Candlemas, originally regarded rather as a festival of our Lord. Three others—the Nativity, Annunciation, and Assumption—can be considered together as far as their institution is concerned, inasmuch as they made their appearance in history at the same period—that is to say, in the seventh century. The reliable evidence for their introduction in Rome is confined to the following; in the later MSS. of the Gregorianum appears a notice which confines the work of Gregory the Great to the first part of the sacramentary. This is the important preface “Hucusque.”[498] In this it is stated the entire preceding part of the book is due to Gregory I., with the exception of what concerns the Nativity and Assumption of our Lady, and a few other matters. From this it follows that the sacramentary used in the time of Gregory I. did not contain these two festivals of the Mother of God.

They had been already introduced, however, by the end of the seventh century. This is clear from the fact that they appear in the Gelesianum, and, secondly, from a statement in the life of Sergius I. (687-701),[499] to the effect that this pope directed that on the Annunciation, Nativity, and Assumption of our Lady, and in the festival which the Greeks call Hypapante, a procession (litania) should go from St Adrian’s to St Mary Major’s. These festivals were at that time already observed in Rome, when Sergius ordered these processions as adjuncts to existing festivals. This comprises all the reliable evidence at our disposal regarding these feasts of our Lady.[500]

All that we can with certainty deduct therefrom is that these three principal feasts of our Lady were introduced in the Roman Church only in the course of the seventh century. The sermons belonging to the same period also support this conclusion. The rich collections of sermons of St Augustine, St Leo the Great, Peter Chrysologus,[501] Fulgentius, and Maximus of Turin, contain no sermons for feasts of the Mother of God. All the chief, and also the majority of the lesser, feasts of our Lady had their origin rather in the East, and only at a comparatively late date made their way into the West. This also explains why none of them have been incorporated, as most of them might easily have been, into the ecclesiastical year. Their adoption by Rome resulted from the political dependence of Italy on Byzantium and from the intimate relations existing between the Apostolic See and the Imperial Court.

(1) THE NATIVITY OF OUR LADY

The spread of this feast seems to have been retarded, for it does not appear in many Calendars which contain the Assumption, i.e. in the Gotho-Gallican, in that of Luxeuil, in the Toledan Calendar of the tenth century, and in the Mozarabic; that it is not to be found in older Calendars goes without saying. On the other hand, it appears along with the Assumption in the Gelasianum and in the Frankish Calendars drawn up under Roman influence in the Carolingian period, the earliest being those of Reims and Bede. It cannot be said to have been generally celebrated in the eighth and ninth centuries, although in many places it makes its appearance much earlier. Some writers have maintained that, on the whole, Fulbert of Chartres († 1028) was the first to introduce it.[502] But this is certainly wrong. Nevertheless he probably exerted himself to spread the observance of the feast in the northern parts of France, since we have two sermons of his preached on the feast, the oldest genuine Latin sermons on this festival, as it seems. In Greek there are two sermons of Andrew of Crete dealing also with the festival.[503] Evidence is wanting to show why the 8th September was chosen for the Nativity of our Lady.

(2) THE ANNUNCIATION

The official title of this feast is now Annuntiatio B. Mariæ Virginis, but formerly other titles were used, i.e. Annuntiatio Angeli ad B.V.M., Annuntiatio Domini,[504] Annuntiatio Christi, or even Conceptio Christi, etc., showing that it was regarded more as a festival of our Lord than of our Lady. That it owes its existence entirely to Christmas, and depends upon the date (25th December) assigned to the birth of Christ, requires no proof. But the reference to Mary is so striking that it could not fail to be regarded as essentially one of her feasts.

It is well known that the custom of the ancient Church was not to celebrate the festivals of martyrs and other saints during Lent, which rule the Spanish Church followed even with regard to this feast. But in Constantinople an exception was made in its favour, which was expressly approved by the fifty-second canon of the Trullan Council. The feast is absent from the ancient Gallican Missal and the Lectionary of Luxeuil, but in Rome, according to the evidence afforded by the Gelasianum and Gregorianum, the feast was observed on the same date as in the East.

The feast of our Lady in Advent (S. Mariæ), noted, without further specification, in the Lectionary of Silos dating from about 650, can be no other than the Annunciation. Soon afterwards, however, the tenth Council of Toledo (656) took occasion to remark upon the difference of date. External influences (traducti homines) had been the cause. The Council decided in favour of the date hitherto observed in Spain, and ordained in its first canon that the feast should be celebrated throughout Spain eight days before Christmas—on the 18th December.

But in the East the other date was already so widely observed that it was even employed as a fixed indication of time, as, for example, when the Alexandrian Paschal Chronicle states in 624 that Heraclius and his forces started for the East on the day of Mary’s Annunciation.[505] This, along with other indications, shows that in the East the festival had been earlier adopted and was widely spread. A circumstance of special importance is that the schismatic Armenians, whose ecclesiastical year in other respects is very primitive in character, observe this feast. They keep it, however, on the 7th April. This is due to the fact that they have not adopted Christmas, and still celebrate the birth of Christ in the ancient manner on the 6th January. Counting back nine months from this date one arrives at the 7th April. The Armenians certainly celebrated this festival before their separation from the Church. It was known and loved in the East as early as the fifth century, as the sermons of Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople († 446), and of Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna († 450), prove.[506]

Both methods of dating the festival existed side by side for a long period. The majority was in favour of the 25th March, but the other date was not without supporters, especially in Upper Italy, for according to the Milanese rite the Annuntiatio falls in Advent, and, indeed, on the fourth Sunday. In southern France the difference in date gave rise to sundry differences and disputes which terminated in a victory for the Roman usage. Certain Spanish monks, who came to Cluny under Abbot Odilo, desired to celebrate the festival after their own fashion, which was at first allowed them. In the eleventh century several Councils occupied themselves with the question, and decided, obviously out of regard for Rome, for the 25th March.[507]

A further consideration of the question shows that an agreement was arrived at by both parties. The Spaniards, in their Missale Mixtum, celebrated the feast twice—on the 18th December and the 25th March—with the same Mass,[508] and in Rome, in eighteenth century,[509] the feast of the Expectatio Partus B.M.V., was placed on the 18th December, the Gospel for the Mass being that of the Annunciation.

The sermons of Proclus already referred to give rise to an important observation. This preacher in other passages of his works enumerates the festivals celebrated in his time and in his diocese, among which, strange to say, the Annunciation does not appear.[510] Since there are not only two sermons of his composed for this feast, but the day itself is clearly marked out as a festival, this contradiction can only be explained by the fact that in the fifth century the Annunciation was kept simply as a festival inside the Church, but had not yet won its way to public recognition.

If the conception of the ecclesiastical year taken in Section I. of this chapter be assumed as correct, the Annunciation is most suitably observed in Advent, where it was correctly placed in the ancient Spanish liturgy. But owing to the fact that the Eastern Church did not sufficiently carry out the idea which underlay the ecclesiastical year, the feasts of our Lady were not incorporated therein, but were treated as ordinary saints’ days by being tied down to fixed dates. And so it comes to pass that with us the Annunciation, instead of coming in Advent, falls in Lent, and from time to time even in Holy Week, where it is singularly out of place. In North America, when this feast falls on one of the three last days of Holy Week or in Easter Week, it is now transferred, which on the whole may be regarded as a desirable arrangement.

(3) THE DEATH AND ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY

In all probability this is the earliest of our Lady’s feasts. From the beginning, there was a general sentiment in the Church which led to the days on which the martyrs suffered being kept as solemn commemorations. The same thing took place at a later date with regard to the other classes of saints—confessors, virgins, etc.—and so Christian sentiment was soon directed towards the question of our Blessed Lady’s death. It is highly probable, if not certain, that the feast of our Lady, mentioned above as having been celebrated by the monks in Palestine, was that which we are now considering. Both in the East and in Rome the 15th August was kept as the day of our Lady’s death, while we find another date observed in Gaul.

As regards the references to the decease of the Holy Virgin found in patristic literature, we find Epiphanius alluding to it, but in such general terms as to show he knew nothing about it for certain.[511] Then we have a letter of the so-called Areopagite Dionysius containing the essential points of the tradition for the death and burial of the Holy Virgin, which we find later on in St John Damascene. The date of this letter depends upon the view taken of the author and date of the pseudo-Dionysian writings. The garden of Gethsemani is named as the place of burial.[512] The same tradition appears in the apocryphal Apocalypse on the “transitus” of Mary, where the year of her death is given as the third after our Lord’s resurrection,[513] while other authorities give it as the twelfth.

The chief authority, however, for the event is St John Damascene. Relying on the history of an otherwise unknown Euthymius, he describes the circumstances in detail. According to this informant, Pulcheria, wife of the Emperor Marcian (450-457), had erected a Church in honour of the Holy Virgin in the suburb of Constantinople called Blachernæ, to which she wished to translate the earthly remains of our Lady. With this end in view, she addressed herself to Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem during the sitting of the Council of Chalcedon, but he informed the Emperor and Empress that the body of the Mother of God was not to be found in Jerusalem. She had indeed been buried there in the Garden of Gethsemani in the presence of all the Apostles; Thomas alone was absent, and only arrived on the third day after the burial; in order that he too might venerate the body of the Mother of God, the tomb was opened, but nothing was found save the linen grave-clothes, which gave forth a fragrant perfume. Whereupon the Apostles concluded that our Lord had taken up into heaven the body which had borne Him. In his panegyric on the Holy Virgin, Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem († 634), states that already in the seventh century there was a special festival in Jerusalem to celebrate her decease (κοίμησις). In addition, we have sermons dealing with this event by Andrew of Crete († 720 circ.) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople († 733).[514] The bodily assumption of Mary into heaven was already known in the West in the sixth century, and is alluded to in Gregory of Tours.[515]

The Emperor Maurice is said to have appointed the festival of our Lady’s death (κοίμησις τῆς παναγίου καί θεομητέρος), and fixed it on the 15th August. Although this information is given by an historian of a much later date,[516] it must not be altogether set aside. Maurice may well have given official recognition to the festival, and by so doing settled the question of the day on which it was to be kept. The festival itself was, however, much older, for not only the heretical sects, which separated from the Church in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites and Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their separation, but most ancient national Churches, such as the Armenian and Ethiopian, have it in their Calendars. Accordingly the 15th August must have already been generally regarded in the Church as the day of our Lady’s death before the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, although not mentioned by historians of that time.

We have unfortunately no information concerning the introduction of this festival in Rome. All we know is that it was celebrated there along with our Lady’s Nativity and Annunciation under Sergius I., at the end of the seventh century. About 847 Leo IV. ordained that it should be celebrated with a vigil and octave in the basilica of St Lawrence without the Walls. In the Gothico-Gallican missal of the seventh or eighth century, edited by Mabillon,[517] the festival is placed on the 18th January,[518] and not on the 15th August, as is also the case in the Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century. This circumstance points to the conclusion that, independently of Byzantine influence, it was observed already at an earlier date in other parts of the Church as well, and came into existence spontaneously, so to speak.

It is also noteworthy that the feast appears already with the title Assumptio in the canons of Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, composed sometime about the year 630.[519] In the canons ascribed to St Boniface some amount of vacillation is observable. By the thirty-sixth canon of the Council of Mainz, in 813, it is appointed as a feast for the whole Frankish Empire, while the earlier Council of 809 had decided nothing concerning its adoption.

Among the Latins the festival did not at first bear the name Assumptio, but was called Domitio or Pausatio, corresponding to the Greek title. This name left the particular object of the feast uncertain—whether it commemorated merely the decease or the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. It was probably due to this that in the ninth century doubts as to the latter were here and there expressed.[520]

Unlike both Easterns and Westerns, the Copts have placed the death and bodily resurrection of the Mother of God on the 16th January (21st Tybi). We find it so in the Synaxarium of the ninth century in Mai, and in that of Michael of Atriba; while the older Calendar of saints belonging to the seventh century given by Seldenius has a “Planctus Dominæ Mariæ” on this day, which may well mean the same thing.[521]

In not a few German and Sclavonic dioceses a blessing of the fruits of the field takes place on the 15th August. This is of ancient Germanic origin, but has been adopted into the Roman ritual. It seems to have arisen from some popular custom connected with harvest.[522]

The two dogmatic definitions formulated during the pontificate of Pius IX. had this in common that they came as a surprise to many, although they only set at rest questions which had been ventilated for centuries. This is especially the case with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for the discussion of the question had been prolonged during a thousand years. Bound up with the discussion was the contention whether the festival in question ought or ought not to be celebrated; and these two things, the theoretical treatment of the doctrine, and the fortunes of the festival, were most intimately connected with one another, and found at one and the same moment their final solution. Indeed, the festival has a longer history than the doctrinal controversy. For the observation that Church festivals required a long time from their inception—which is for the most part to be looked for in monasteries—until they obtained general approbation and acceptance from the ecclesiastical authorities, applies to many festivals; but none has had so long and changeful a history as the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. It has now, for the last fifty years, been celebrated as a festival of obligation throughout the Catholic Church, and has even been adopted in those countries which formerly set themselves most strongly against the increase of ecclesiastical holy days.

Our object is to give a comprehensive and detailed history of the vicissitudes of this festival, while leaving aside the history of the doctrine. Naturally they cannot be kept entirely distinct, still the latter shall only be touched upon in so far as is necessary for the elucidation of the history of the feast.[523] Passaglia and his collaborator Clemens Schrader, S.J., in their well known work, “De Immaculato Deiparæ Conceptu” (Rome, 1854 and 1855, 3 vols. 4to.), have given us a rich and noteworthy collection of materials for this purpose. We must do justice to the immense learning expended upon this work both in its dogmatic and historical sections, but the historical explanations can no longer be regarded as satisfactory. On the one hand, subsequent investigations have brought fresh facts to light which give a new turn to the history; and, on the other, Passaglia was deficient in the critical faculty, and merely in order to marshal as many proofs as possible, he made use of several which cannot stand close investigation, and must be set aside if the whole question is not to be misrepresented.

For the correct understanding and examination of the sources of evidence, it must first be observed that anciently both among the Greeks and the Latins the term conceptio (σύλληψις) was taken in the active sense, while we are accustomed to take it in the passive sense. Conceptio Mariæ Virg. signified then the conception of Christ by Mary, while the (passive) conception of Mary was called the Conceptio S. Annæ.

Thus it follows that the festival of “the Conception of Mary” and the festival of “the Immaculate Conception” are not the same thing. Originally only a festum Conceptionis B.M.V. was celebrated, and only in course of centuries has a festum Immaculatæ Conceptionis been evolved therefrom. This must not be regarded as a mere question of terms which might be employed interchangeably. Passaglia has not sufficiently emphasised this distinction, and consequently his presentation of the facts creates the impression that there was already in the fifth century a festival of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is altogether erroneous. The simple statement of the facts will make this clear, and show that in the course of centuries the feast originally celebrated as the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was changed into a feast of the Immaculate Conception. This change came about in proportion as the matter was made clearer by dogmatic discussion, and as the doctrine of Mary’s exemption from original sin gained adherents in the schools. Even when this doctrine had found general acceptance in the West, and had authoritatively received the support both of conciliar decrees and of papal dogmatic decisions, the ancient title of the feast still remained in use for a long time. If we consult the service-books printed before 1854, we find in them indeed on the 8th December the festum conceptionis, but the word immaculata is nowhere found in the office for the feast. An orderly representation of the historical facts concerned will show how this was brought about.

Evidence shows that the feast of our Lady’s Conception arose in the Eastern Church, and had gained civil recognition in the Byzantine Empire at a time, when in the West, ecclesiastical circles were still debating whether or not its celebration ought to be permitted. In a constitution entitled, “Concerning the days of the year which are whole holidays and half holidays,” the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1166 recognised it as a public festival on which servile work was forbidden. Now it is a known fact that the civil authorities are slow to give recognition to ecclesiastical festivals, and accordingly festivals have often been celebrated by the Church for a long period before they received the recognition of the State. So it was in this case. The Calendar of the Church of Constantinople in which the feast of the 9th December is marked as the “festival of the Conception of St Anne, the mother of the Theotocos,” is a century and a half older than this constitution. It bears the name of the Emperor Basil, meaning the second of this name surnamed Porphyriogenitus (976-1025), and, accordingly, it follows that even then the festival had received some lesser degree of recognition from the State.[524]

Concerning the date of the introduction of this feast, we have detailed information in a sermon of John of Eubœa, who lived in the middle of the eighth century. He was first a monk and then Bishop of the island, and was contemporary with St John Damascene, whom he occasionally visited. John declares that there are ten points in the life of the Holy Virgin which must be commemorated, and these he enumerates in the tenth section of his sermon. The most of them are at the same time feasts of our Lord, the only ones entirely relating to our Lady being her Nativity, Annunciation, and Assumption. With regard to the feast of our Lady’s Conception, John hesitates. First of all, in the passage referred to above, he enumerates it among the feasts, but at the end of his sermon he states that it is not acknowledged by all,[525] but he speaks highly in its favour, and considers in conclusion that it ought to be celebrated. From this it is plain that in his time the feast was not yet generally accepted, and that he exerted himself to spread it. If Passaglia, who quotes this sermon as evidence for the feast, had noticed this passage, he would have learnt that in the eighth century the festival had not yet become generally popular in purely ecclesiastical circles, such as among the specially devout and the religious, and he would have avoided the mistake of throwing back the inception of the feast to the fifth century in reliance on an interpolated and much later Typicum S. Sabæ.[526] John mentions the 9th December as the day of the feast. The contents of this sermon of his are in other respects of no importance.

George of Nicomedia, who lived about a century later, is the second Greek preacher of whom we possess a sermon for this festival.[527] It bears the title, “Concerning the Conception of St Anne,” and was delivered upon a festal occasion (πανήγυρις), and the day is already distinctly called a feast (ἑορτή). George considered it no longer necessary to merely commend the acceptance of the feast, but regarded its adoption as a matter of course. He reveals, however, the comparatively late date of its institution, by saying that the day was not to be kept “as one only recently added to the Calendar, but as one adopted on the best grounds, since it naturally belonged to the course of the year and is prescribed by the nature of things. In doing so we become partakers of the joy it promises.”

As far as the East is concerned these two witnesses are sufficient, especially as they throw light on the date of the institution of the feast. As in other cases, so here the origin of the feast is doubtless to be sought in religious communities. They were the first to think of honouring this act of redemption. It was certainly the monks, to whom is due the development of the Church’s psalmody, who in their canonical hours celebrated Mary’s Conception, and appointed a special day for this purpose, the 9th December, which was always kept as such in the Greek menologies. In course of time the feast issued forth from the limits of the monasteries, and from the inner circles of the devout, and attained publicity. Preachers glorified it. It met with a sympathetic reception in ever widening circles, until it gradually attained the rank, if not of a feast of obligation, at any rate, of a simple feast of devotion, and, finally, it obtained both ecclesiastical and civil authorisation.

The Byzantine Empire comprised during the whole of the period of which we have been speaking, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. In the eighth century Byzantium was no longer able to retain its hold over the duchy of Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna; at a still later date it lost Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, especially when the Normans settled in those parts. It retained its hold over the city of Naples longest of all; it was only in 1127 that Naples was taken by Roger II., who had himself crowned king of the Two Sicilies in 1130.

The constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 mentioned above was never promulgated in Naples, and had no force there, but the connection with Byzantium had lasted sufficiently long for the feast of Mary’s Conception to obtain an entrance into Naples. That it actually did make its way there is proved by the Calendar of the Neapolitan Church of the ninth century, engraved on marble, and showing traces of Byzantine influence, which was discovered in 1742 in the Church of San Giovanni Maggiore. Apart from the historical facts which we have mentioned, the name and date of the feast—Conceptio S. Annæ, and the ninth December—show a Byzantine origin. And so in respect of the history of this feast, Naples, along with Lower Italy and Sicily, must be classed with the Eastern half of the Catholic Church as celebrating a feast, of which at Rome no one had as yet thought.

From all this it follows that the feast of Mary’s Conception was known in the Byzantine Empire as early as the beginning of the eighth century, although under a different name from that which it now bears. Was the feast, in its essential idea, the same as ours? This question the reader may answer for himself. There is much doubtless in favour of an affirmative answer. Greek writers refer to our Lady in the highest conceivable terms, as can be amply proved from the lections of the office for the 8th December now in use. They exalt her not merely above all men, but absolutely above every creature. Moreover, the feast of the Conception has a meaning only when the conception is regarded as sinless, just as the Greeks celebrate a commemoration of the conception of St John the Baptist solely On the ground that John was sanctified in his mother’s womb. In all other cases, it is not the birthday of the saints which is kept, but the day of their death. All this tells in favour of the affirmative. But on the other hand, the fathers of the Eastern Church have never either used or even discovered the specific terms to designate the Immaculate Conception, nor have they ever proposed the question if our Lady was free from original sin.

It is indeed very difficult to maintain the former view in the face of the fact that the Greeks, at the present day, do not regard their feast of Mary’s Conception as implying this meaning, but among them it is a feast of little importance. Their Breviary contains the following notice of the feast: “God sent His angel to the pious couple Joachim and Anna, and announced to them that the barren would give birth, and so to prepare the way for the conception of the Virgin. Thus the holy Virgin Mary was conceived in consequence of an announcement, but by means of man and from his seed. For our Lord Jesus Christ alone was born in an ineffable manner of the holy Virgin Mary without the co-operation of man and his seed.”

This announcement by an angel is based on an apocryphal legend, which appears in Byzantine sermons on our Lady, belonging to the eighth and ninth centuries. Joachim, according to Jewish custom, desired to present an offering in the Temple, but was driven back and insulted by members of the tribe of Reuben because he was childless. This caused him so much pain that instead of returning to his home, he sadly betook himself into solitude. Anna, in her anxiety, prayed earnestly to God, and was informed by an angel she should give birth to a daughter richly endowed with gifts of grace. This legend derived from the Proto-evangelium of James, and propagated chiefly in the sermons of John of Eubœa and of Peter Siculus, was also known in the West, and figures largely in works of art; as, for example, in the beautiful picture in the cathedral at Augsburg, by Hans Holbein the Elder.

The Greek Breviary, however, shows that there was current among the people a still stranger idea, which it strongly opposes, i.e. that Mary was born on the seventh month after her conception, and so was what is called a seven months’ child. The reason why it is worth while to allude here to this will be plain later on. We may merely point out how all this shows the unimportant character of the festival among the Greeks.

It was otherwise in the West.[528] Here the festival in question makes its appearance on the scene just as its development in the East came to an end. To the tentative attempts at the introduction of this festival in monasteries, and among the inner circles of the devout, there followed its acceptance by several dioceses, not however without opposition. The theoretical discussion over the warrant and significance of the festival accompanied the early instances of its official introduction. These discussions lasted through centuries, and were only brought to a conclusion in our own times.

In attempting to trace out its introduction in detail, it must be borne in mind that we are treating of what was in the first instance a festival of the Conception only, not of the Immaculate Conception; that it was not a public holy day of obligation, but only a religious commemoration confined to the four walls of the churches; and, finally, that when it was adopted by some religious order or celebrated in some monastery, it does not follow that it was at the same time adopted by the diocese or country wherein such a monastery was situated.

Clear and detailed evidence for its introduction comes to us first of all from England. The individuals who more or less exerted themselves in this connection were a certain Elsinus or Helsinus, a monk of St Augustine’s, Canterbury, and later Abbot of Ramsay in the diocese of Winchester (1080-1087), St Anselm of Canterbury and his nephew of the same name, Osbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, Warinus, Dean of Worcester, Abbot Hugh of Reading, and finally, the historian Eadmer.[529] Further particulars concerning these persons will be found in the appendix.[530]

We begin with the history of Elsinus, or Helsinus. He is not an imaginary personage, but one whose story is historically true. He was monk at St Augustine’s, and then Abbot of Ramsay under William the Conqueror. A legend, current in the middle ages in various forms as either a sermon or a letter of Anselm the Elder, states that he was sent by William with presents to the King of Denmark, in order to discover if he contemplated an invasion of England. Having fulfilled his embassy, he was overtaken on his return voyage by so severe a storm that the ship seemed about to be dashed in pieces. As all were invoking our Blessed Lady in this moment of peril, a form arrayed in episcopal vestments appeared, which was supposed to be St Nicholas, the patron of sailors. He addressed Elsinus by name, and promised him he would be saved, if he in his turn promised to celebrate the feast of our Lady’s Conception annually on the 8th December, and to exhort others to celebrate it also. Elsinus promised, and all were saved.[531]

This legendary narrative was adopted formerly for the lections in the Breviary,[532] but more recently it has been altogether discredited. The learned Maurist Gerberon, editor of St Anselm’s works, in particular has objected to this narrative on the grounds that after the battle of Hastings in 1066, William returned to Normandy, and the landing of the Danes followed immediately. Gerberon has overlooked the fact that since Elsinus undertook this journey as Abbot, not as a simple monk—which in itself would have been highly improbable—it must be placed between 1080 and 1087, not in 1066. However, although the story be a legend, yet this much is true, that Elsinus did introduce the feast of the 8th December into his monastery.[533]

That Anselm the Younger introduced it into his monastery at Bury St Edmonds is proved by two letters, dating from 1128-29, of Osbert de Clare, a zealous defender of the doctrine. He laments that two bishops, Roger of Salisbury and Bernard of St Davids, have opposed the introduction of the feast. They had even held a Synod, and forbidden the feast as an absurd novelty. This fact, and also the circumstance that Osbert himself in a sermon on the 8th December made no mention of the Immaculate Conception of Mary from fear of the opponents, as he himself says, show how strong the opposition to both feast and doctrine must have been among the Anglo-Saxon secular clergy of that period.[534]

From what has been said it can be regarded as historically certain that the feast of Mary’s Conception was observed in many Benedictine monasteries in England, about the year 1128—in Ramsay, Bury St Edmonds, Reading, Worcester and Westminster.[535]

Possibly also in some others, but in no case was the feast celebrated outside the walls of the monasteries.[536] It must have encountered opposition, for important personages, both ecclesiastical and secular, looked upon it with disfavour, and it was still very far from gaining the support of the secular clergy, of bishops and synods. Indeed one synod of the period forbade the feast altogether. Its adoption followed only in the fourteenth century. When we bear in mind the ecclesiastical and civil circumstances of the times, we are astonished to find how such a novelty—for so the feast is called in the writings already quoted—could have made its way to England first of all. For, in the eleventh century, that country was torn by internal strife, and invaded by foreign foes; while the national clergy, according to the statement of a contemporary English historian, were sunk in simony and worldliness.[537] That is scarcely the atmosphere suitable for the inception of a feast so intimately connected with the inner religious life of the community. For this some impulse from without was required. Such an impulse came indirectly from the East through intercourse with Normandy, whence so many learned and zealous monks and clergy came to England after the conquest. The political, or rather dynastic, connection of the country with Normandy dates not only from the battle of Hastings in 1066, but goes back to the times of King Edward the Confessor, whose wife Emma was a Norman princess.

The official introduction of the feast of our Lady’s Conception in England only commenced in the thirteenth century, and only spread slowly. The provincial Synod of Oxford in 1222, Canon VIII., refused to recognise it as a feast of obligation, although it established its private observance. The diocesan Synod of Worcester does not mention it in its list of festivals. On the other hand it was celebrated at St Albans in 1228,[538] and the diocesan Synod of Exeter in 1287 formally adopted it by a decree which naturally affected that diocese alone.

In Normandy the feast, whose celebration found in England precarious toleration in the retirement of the cloister, was already introduced by the secular clergy without encountering any opposition. This is stated by Osbert himself when he remarks in his letter to Anselm how, on the other side of the channel, the feast had been solemnly kept by some bishops.[539] If these words do not apply to Normandy, we should like to know of some other country on the Continent where the feast was then observed. It is certain that it was kept at Rouen under Bishop Rotricus (1165-1183), and placed on a level with the feast of the Annunciation.[540] Owing to the law that, in the province of Rouen, consisting of six dioceses, the daughter churches must follow in their ritual and Breviary the use of the metropolitan Church, this feast would soon be celebrated all over Normandy.[541] When the Corporation of Norman students at the Paris University chose it as their particular festival, it was not a mere fancy on their part, but must have had its origin in the ecclesiastical observances of their home. Still less must this fact have been the cause why the feast in the middle ages went by the name of the “Norman’s feast” (festum nationis Normannicæ). This name can only have come into existence because the feast had been zealously celebrated in Normandy for a long time, by all the people, before it was kept in any other country of the West. Henry of Ghent, a member of the Sorbonne, distinctly declares this to have been the case.[542] The Normans, however, could not have been the originators of the feast. Doubtless they got their knowledge of it in Lower Italy, where it had been observed for a long time, after they had begun to settle there. Those who are unwilling to adopt so rationalistic an explanation of the matter, draw attention to the fact that the two Anselms, the earliest known propagators of the feast in England, were not uninfluenced by other Eastern forms of showing honour to our Blessed Lady. This is shown not only by Anselm’s hymns on the Mother of God, in which the refrain, Ave sponsa insponsata, has been adopted from the so-called hymnus acathistus, but also by an entry in an Irish Calendar (upon which too much stress has recently been laid), in which Mary’s conception is put down on the 3rd May, in accordance with the ridiculous Greek legend,[543] that Mary was born seven months after her conception. Granting that this entry really belongs to the ninth century, it is only evidence of monastic learning, but affords no proof for the existence of the feast in Ireland. It only shows that the writer knew of the Greek fable in question, and made use of it for his Calendar.

It may be asked if the feast made its appearance in the West first of all in Normandy, and in England, which since 1066 had been politically united with Normandy, or had been observed earlier elsewhere? Could we believe Passaglia, it had been celebrated already in Spain in the seventh century.[544] If so, it is impossible to think it could have disappeared later on without leaving a trace behind. The genuine Mozarabic liturgy does not contain it, and in the oldest Spanish Calendars, e.g. that of Toledo of the tenth century, published by Morinus, it does not appear. The Jesuit Leslæus, who wrote the introduction to the Mozarabic liturgy, admits candidly that the feast came into Spain through France.[545] The two reasons which Passaglia gives for his opinion are worthless. He relies upon a spurious life of St Isidore of Seville, which contains later interpolations, while the genuine life written by Ildefons makes no mention of it, and upon a passage in the laws of the West Goths. But this latter passage has to be taken as referring to the Conception of Christ by Mary in accordance with the terminology then in use. When the same author wishes to make his readers believe that the feast existed in Cremona already in the tenth century,[546] it has to be borne in mind that Bishop Sicardus of Cremona,[547] in the thirteenth century, strongly opposed its introduction there.

It may be regarded as certain that the feast of our Lady’s conception was introduced into the Benedictine monasteries of England by the two Anselms at the end of the eleventh century. We must not, however, regard England as especially the home of the feast in the Latin Church, for both St Anselm and his nephew had received their training in Normandy, which was their second home. From thence they passed in later middle life to England, for William liked to fill the chief spiritual posts in England with foreigners.

When the author of the tract De Conceptione B.M.V. laments that the feast met with much opposition both from clergy and laity, his complaints were well grounded, for the names of a number of famous men are known to us at the present day as having strongly opposed both the feast and the doctrine which underlay it. For the most part they were men of importance. We can name Roger of St Albans, Bishop of Salisbury, and Bernard, Bishop of St Davids († 1147). The former was minister and adviser of King Henry II., the latter chaplain to Queen Matilda. In France the most famous opponent of the feast was St Bernard, the celebrated preacher Maurice de Sully († 1196), Bishop of Paris, and Peter of Celle, Abbot of Moutier-la-Celle, from 1181 Bishop of Chartres.[548] It is especially remarkable that the greatest liturgists of the middle ages, Beleth, Sicardus of Cremona, and Durandus of Mende, all opposed the feast.[549] In Germany, the monk Potho of Prüm may be named, although his views are obscure.

The conduct of St Bernard must be more closely examined. The opportunity of expressing his views was furnished by the circumstance that the Canons of Lyons commenced, about 1140, to celebrate the feast of our Lady’s conception, without having obtained the authority of the Holy See for this “novelty.” According to the then existing state of canon law, the bishops had the right of arranging by themselves the festivals to be celebrated within their respective dioceses. But St Bernard in his letter to the Canons makes no mention of the bishop. This is explained by the fact that the letter was written at a time when the Church of Lyons was without any recognised head, and when St Bernard was exerting himself with the Pope to obtain the confirmation of Fulco, the bishop elect.[550] It may well have been that in this matter the canons acted despotically. St Bernard, however, does not bring this charge formally against them in his letter, but lays all the stress upon objections to the inner significance of the feast. It was customary, he says,[551] to celebrate the day of our Lady’s birth, because she, like Jeremias and John the Baptist, had been sanctified before birth (fuit ante sancta quam nata). Mary could not be holy before she existed, but her existence began at her conception and that was not free from concupiscence. If her conception was to be regarded as holy, one must logically hold that her parents were already holy also. Christ our Lord was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and consequently His conception was holy and a feast of the Church (Annuntiatio). Before taking any steps in the matter, St Bernard concludes, the Apostolic See ought to have been consulted, to whose authority he commits the matter. The Roman Church, to which he appealed, was, however, in no hurry. More than three hundred years had to pass before she in any degree broke through her reserve on this question.

The effect of this letter is not known, but there is no doubt that during the twelfth century the feast made steady progress in France. Unfortunately we possess only a few data to illustrate its development, for the investigation into the ecclesiastical history of special localities requires to be more extensively taken in hand. In Rouen, the capital of Normandy, it was certainly observed at that period, as we have already seen. Next, its observance is prescribed by the statutes of Le Mans, in the Province of Tours, in 1247.[552] In Rheims it appears between 1261-1271. A more important fact is that the General Chapter of the Franciscans, held at Pisa in 1263, decreed that the feast should be celebrated throughout the entire order.[553] Although it did not attain to the rank of a feast of obligation for clergy and people, yet it became known throughout the world, and especially at the papal Court at Avignon, where Franciscan influence was strong. Finally the standpoint of the thirteenth century with regard to this feast is best summed up in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “Although the Roman Church does not celebrate it, she allows other Churches to do so,”[554] and in those of St Bonaventure who justifies the keeping of a festival on the day of our Lady’s conception.[555] Accordingly the number of dioceses and provinces within which it was celebrated was constantly on the increase; for the fourteenth century we have Canterbury 1328; Treves between 1338 and 1343;[556] Paderborn 1343; Münster 1350;[557] Utrecht 1350; Brixen 1399, while other diocesan synods, e.g. Prague in 1355, did not yet adopt it. When it is asserted that the feast had been introduced at Liège under Bishop Albero II. († 1145), it must be urged on the other side that the list of feasts drawn up by the diocesan synod of Liège in 1287 makes no mention of it.[558] The synod of Cologne of 1308 does not mention it either, although it is contained in the Cologne Calendar of the same century. For Mainz we have the fact that this feast is employed for dating a decree of the year 1318.[559] In the province of Canterbury, the feast obtained official recognition only in 1328, i.e. two hundred and nineteen years after the death of those who had first exerted themselves in its favour.[560]

As far as Canon law and the liturgy are concerned, the feast of the Conceptio B.M.V. remained in the fourteenth century as incomplete as it had been in the twelfth and thirteenth. Generally speaking, however, each bishop had then the right of appointing the festivals for his own diocese, but this right was always restricted to the appointment of those festivals already recognised and permitted by the Church universal which he desired should be observed within his own diocese—as, for example, whether St Mary Magdalene should be kept as a holiday or not. But in this case it was not a question of a feast already recognised by ecclesiastical authority, and its opponents could always object with reason: Non est authenticum.

Important if not decisive steps were at length taken by ecclesiastical authorities in the fifteenth century. In the meantime, the doctrine, which had been defined and formulated by Duns Scotus was so widely accepted, except among the Dominicans, and enjoyed so much popularity among the people, who violently took sides on the question, that it was possible for the Council of Basel (which began by being ecumenical, but became schismatical after its quarrel with the pope), to state in its thirty-sixth session, on the 17th September 1439, in answer to the petition of the theological faculty of Paris, that the doctrine that Mary by a special gift of grace had never been subject to original sin was “pious and agreeable to the worship of the Church, the Catholic Faith, and the teaching of Holy Scripture.” The Council forbade the contrary doctrine to be taught. At the same time it renewed the decree in regard to the feast of “her Holy conception, which was kept on the 8th December both by the Roman Church and by others.”[561] Granting that the Council was ecumenical, all circumstances connected with the feast, with regard to both doctrine and ritual, were now formally settled. This decree was not without effect, as soon appeared from the fact that in the Mainz Breviary of 1507 the lections for the second nocturn of the feast are drawn from it. It also certainly influenced the further spread of the feast, as soon appeared from its being expressly authorized and received by a provincial synod at Avignon, held under the presidency of a papal legate in 1457.[562]

Although the fathers of the Council of Basel were of opinion that the feast was celebrated by the Roman Church on the 8th December, this was only partially correct. The fact is that at Avignon, with the full knowledge of the Papal Court, it had been already celebrated without meeting with any opposition from the authorities. So, too, in Rome it had been celebrated by religious in the churches of their monasteries. It can well have been that Alvarus Pelagius († 1340), as we are informed, preached on this day in Rome; this, however, does not prove that the diocese of Rome, or the Papal Court, had adopted the feast at that date, for that, it would have been necessary to include the day in question in the Calendar and treat it as a festival in the Missal and Breviary. And so it would appear that it was kept as a purely ecclesiastical holy day, and not as yet as a public official holiday with rest from servile work. Nevertheless there were those at Basel who maintained it was a festival of the Roman Church.

The Franciscan order, as has been already said, added our Lady’s conception to the number of the feasts observed by themselves. They celebrated it everywhere where they had a church of their own, and also in Avignon and Rome during the residence of the popes. Other orders followed their example—namely, the Benedictines, Cistercians, Carmelites, all of which had houses in Rome,[563] and so, since there were many churches belonging to these orders in Rome, it might well seem as if the Roman Church herself kept the festival, all the more since the popes knew of it and tolerated the practice. In Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), a Franciscan ascended the Papal throne, and he it was who finally took the decisive step in the direction of recognition instead of toleration. On the 27th February 1477[564] he published the Constitution “Cum præ excelsa,” in which he granted indulgences on the feast. In particular he granted to all those who on this day recited the office composed by the Papal notary, Leonardo Nogaroli of Verona, and assisted at Mass and the canonical hours, the same indulgences which his predecessors granted for Corpus Christi. In this way the feast was adopted into the diocese of Rome, and made its way into the Calendar, Breviary and Missal, but only as a purely ecclesiastical feast. It must also be observed that no advance was made in the doctrine concerned, for the pope in his decree speaks of a Conceptio immaculatæ, or, as he expresses himself in another place, prælibatæ virginis, not of an immaculata conceptio.

This was not the only official act of Sixtus IV. in favour of the feast. In 1479 he built a chapel in old St Peter’s, which he dedicated and endowed in honour of our Lady’s conception and in honour of the Franciscan saints, Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. In 1483, however, he was compelled to forbid, by a special constitution, the supporters and opponents of the doctrine of Mary’s exemption from original sin to call each other heretics. This proves that the strife between the two parties had then waxed warm. Even in Germany there were bitter contentions concerning the point in question in Frankfurt, Marburg, Heidelberg, and at Bern in Switzerland.

By the decree of Sixtus IV., in 1477, the office for the feast was finally prescribed for the diocese of Rome as a duplex, but not for other dioceses; these were free as before to adopt it or not. Clement VIII. raised it to a duplex majus. Clement IX., added an octave, and Clement XI., by a decree of 6th December 1708, prescribed it for the whole Church.[565] It had already been observed in Spain as a regular holy day of obligation, for Philip IV. petitioned Innocent X. for it and the pope had granted his request in a constitution of 10th November 1644.[566] It was only in 1854 that it became, through the zeal of Pius IX., a holy day of obligation for the whole Catholic world.

The steps in regard to this feast taken by Rome were, as we have seen, separated from one another by considerable periods of time. With regard to the significance of the feast, however, in spite of the declaration of the Council of Trent, a policy of delay and laissez-faire was maintained. The feast remained a simple festum conceptionis, and the idea of the immaculata conceptio did not receive outward expression, except that Paul V. permitted the recitation on all free Saturdays of an officium conceptionis B.M.V., in which the invitatorium is, “Immaculatam conceptionem Mariæ virginis celebremus.”

Pius IX. had a new office drawn up which he prescribed for use on the 25th September 1863, in which the idea contained in the invitatorium is expressed beyond all doubt. Hymns expressing the same idea were inserted, and the bull “Ineffabilis” was drawn upon for some of the lections, while for others the preference was given to the homilies of the later Greek writers. The pope’s letter elevating the feast to the rank of a holy day of obligation for all Christendom received an enthusiastic reception everywhere. The rank of the feast was not increased. It was only by Leo XIII. that it was placed on an equality with the three chief festivals of the year.

In tracing out the long process of development by which this feast passed from Byzantium by Lower Italy to Normandy and England, and from thence throughout the entire West, our attention has been drawn especially to the conduct of the Roman See. Passaglia endeavours by every means to magnify the part it played, and to date its intervention as far back as possible. Still he is finally obliged to own that the Roman Church was not the first to pay a special cultus to the Mother of God as conceived without original sin. But, he adds, she has done everything during the space of five hundred years[567] for the glorification of this feast and for the spread of the doctrine which forms its basis. It is difficult to see what is gained by magnifying the part of the Roman See at the cost of historical truth. Others regard with satisfaction the fact that Rome in no way pressed matters forwards. In a question so much debated, Rome could not have adopted a better course than to wait until the conviction of all Christendom, in so far as it was interested in the question, had arrived at maturity. The Immaculate Conception had been the dominant doctrine for a long period, and wanted nothing but the formal approbation of the teaching church.

While the number of lesser feasts of our Lady according to the existing Roman rite is very considerable, yet only a few of them come much before the public, and the history of the most of them affords no points of general interest. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the following:—

1. The Feast of the Name of Mary owes its origin to the devotion of the faithful, and was first authorised by the Apostolic See for the diocese of Cuença, in Spain, in 1513. It was abolished by Pius V., but re-established by Sixtus V., and finally prescribed by Innocent XI. to be observed by the whole Church on the Sunday after the Nativity of our Lady. This was done in 1683, on the occasion of the deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.[568]

Maria, or Miriam, is the Greek form of Miryam, a name over the etymology of which many opinions were held in antiquity. Eusebius explains it to mean “illuminatrix una vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris vel stella maris.”[569] St Peter Chrysologus and St John Damascene derive it from the Syrian mar (feminine martha), lady, which appears also in the Roman breviary along with the other explanation, “stella maris.” In the Middle Ages this was the usual, and even yet is the favourite, explanation. O. Bardenhewer maintains that the only derivation permissible is from ‎‏מָרָא‎‏, fat or stout, in the sense of the imposing or stately one. Those to whom Bardenhewer’s derivation does not commend itself will be glad to hear that Professor Macke has had the happy thought to refer back to the first bearer of the name, Miryam, the sister of Moses, and to derive the names of both brother and sister from the Egyptian. In Egyptian it would be: Meri jom, which would be equivalent to Friend of Water, or Bride of the Sea, and so approaches more to the meaning of Stella Maris.

2. The Presentation of our Lady in the Temple[570] (Præsentatio B.M.V., 21st November). The story that Mary at the age of three years was brought by her parents to the temple in fulfilment of their vow, there to be educated, appears only in apocryphal writings,[571] but it fell in so completely with the ideas of religious, both in ancient and modern times in East and West, that it was not long before it asserted its influence on the cycle of our Lady’s Feasts. The commemoration appears officially for the first time in the constitution of Manuel Comnenus, published in 1166, as a fully recognised festival on which the law courts did not sit. The date is the same as at the present day.[572] The feast was introduced into the West by a French nobleman, Philip de Maizières, who spent some time at the Court of Gregory XI. at Avignon in 1371 as representative of the King of Cyprus. He represented the manner in which the day was celebrated in the East in such a way as to move Gregory to ordain it as one of the festivals of the Papal Court. It soon made its way in other places also—in Navarre in 1374, in Treves in 1381, in Metz in 1420, in Cologne and elsewhere. In Rome it was introduced by Sixtus IV., and an office for it was added to the Roman breviary without its recitation being imposed (inter festa ad libitum and pro quibusdam locis). It was only Sixtus V. who, in 1585, ordained it for the whole Church after it had been for a time suppressed by Pius V. The original office was altered under Clement VIII. Although the feast at first was regarded as unimportant, it attained in Prussia to the rank of a feast in foro, and this in an unexpected way, in 1893. It falls in Prussia on the third Wednesday in November, and occupies a position midway between the movable and immovable feasts.

3. The Visitation (Visitatio B.M.V.) was formerly included among the lesser feasts of our Lady, although the most prominent and popular of them. At the present day it has a higher rank (duplex II. cl.), and, in certain localities, it has an octave. It used to be kept as an entire holiday. It is not only grounded upon Scripture, but the event it commemorates is one of the most important related in the New Testament, both on account of the sanctification of St John the Baptist in his mother’s womb, and because of its being the occasion on which the Magnificat was first uttered. Nevertheless this feast does not exist among the Greeks, but, on the 2nd July, they celebrate the translation of the Holy Virgin’s garment in the church of the suburb of Constantinople called Blachernæ, which took place under the Emperor Leo I. in 469.[573]

The earliest traces of the feast are found in the thirteenth century. They appear in different localities at about the same date, which may be due to the fact that the newly founded order of the Franciscans had adopted the feast and promoted its celebration. It appears among the Franciscans as early as 1263, and received official recognition during the great schism from Urban VI., and Boniface IX. in 1389. After the schism was healed, the Council of Basel was compelled in its forty-third session, on 1st July 1441, to issue a decree authorising the feast, and granting indulgences to those who assisted at divine service on the day. They felt obliged to adopt this measure, the feast not having been adopted within the obedience of the anti-pope.

There is nothing to show why the 2nd July was chosen for this feast, and one must needs have recourse to surmise. There seem to be indications that it is connected with the date of the Annunciation on the one hand, and, on the other, with the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the octave of which it immediately follows. It was regarded as probable that Mary had chosen the time of Elizabeth’s confinement for her visit, and had remained some time with her afterwards.[574] Perhaps, however, the real reason was that the Greek Church had already for some time kept this festival of our Lady on the 2nd July. The feast was, moreover, kept on different days in different countries. In Paris, for example, it was kept on the 27th June; Archbishop John II. of Prague, who introduced it into his province in 1385, placed it on the 28th April. Its proper place, if the main idea of the ecclesiastical year were carried out, would be in Advent.

4. The Feast of the Holy Rosary (Sollemnitas SS. Rosarii B.M.V.). Towards the end of the twelfth century we find it had become usual to use the angelic salutation (St Luke i. 28), along with the salutation of Elizabeth (St Luke i. 41), as a prayer. This prayer was authorised and imposed by many councils. We have evidence to this effect from a synod of Paris under Bishop Odo de Sully (1196-1208),[575] and, in the period immediately following, from the synods of Orleans, Durham (1217), Treves (1237), and elsewhere.[576] The new prayer was joined to the “Our Father” in such a way that ten “Hail Marys” were recited after one “Our Father” fifteen times, each prayer being counted on a string of beads. The originator of this form of prayer, called the Rosary, is generally, but without foundation, considered to have been St Dominic. The custom of using a string of beads on which to count a stated number of prayers had already been in existence for a long time, and only became general when the custom grew up of reciting one hundred and fifty “Hail Marys” to correspond to the number of the psalms. This was called the “Mary Psalter,” the Rosary, or the “Psalter of the Laity.”[577] When this form of prayer took shape is not exactly known, but it has quite recently been maintained that St Dominic did not originate it, as is often affirmed. His biographer and other contemporaries do not ascribe the invention of the rosary to him. It is only at the end of the fifteenth century that a Dominican, Alanus de Rupe (de la Roche), produced this story,[578] which unfortunately has found its way into the breviary. A notable improvement was made in this devotion in the fifteenth century, by adding after the name Jesus in each Hail Mary the mention of some event in the lives of Jesus and Mary bearing on the work of salvation, beginning with the message of the angel and concluding with the descent of the Holy Ghost and the Assumption. Among these, the five points taken from the Passion of Christ—the so-called “sorrowful Mysteries”—form the centre, and thus the entire rosary now falls into three parts, each complete in itself.[579]

By this means the devotion gained a more definite meaning. The mere recitation of the prayers is closely connected with meditation, and each mystery has more or less reference to some feast of our Lord or of our Lady, and so is brought into relation with the different liturgical seasons. It can thus to a certain extent be connected with the whole cycle of festivals of which indeed it was a sort of summary.

In its completed form the Rosary became the favourite devotion of all, high and low, clerical and lay, and a special confraternity, favoured by the popes and endowed with indulgences, was formed for its spread and encouragement.[580] The Rosary was a source of innumerable graces not only to individual believers, but even Christendom as a whole had recourse to its assistance in times of general distress and danger, especially when pressed by the Turks. Remarkable answers to prayer, among which was numbered the victory of Lepanto (7th October 1571), first moved Pius V. to institute a feast in thanksgiving. Gregory XIII. gave stability to this feast by ordering in 1573 that in every church possessing a chapel, or at least an altar of the Rosary, it should be celebrated as “the Feast of the Holy Rosary” on the first Sunday in October. Clement X. granted the feast to the whole of Spain without this proviso. Clement XI. extended the feast to all Christendom in consequence of the victory gained at Peterwardein by Prince Eugene on the 5th August 1716.[581]

A commemoration much beloved by the people, is that of the Seven Dolors of Our Blessed Lady, which cannot be regarded as a festival in the usual sense of the term. It takes place on the Friday after Passion Sunday. Its introduction was prepared by the ascetic literature of the twelfth century, in which also its roots are to be sought. The pious monk Eadmer in his treatise “On the Excellencies of the Virgin Mary” chapter v. (see App. x., page 446) deals with the share taken by Our Lady in the sufferings of her Son. The writing of an unknown author (De Passione Christi et Doloribus et Planctibus Matris Ejus, Migne, Patr. Lat., clii.), attributed to St Bernard, while full of deep piety, is yet rather effeminate and sentimental. The third treatise belonging to this subject is composed by Amadeus, a disciple of St Bernard, Abbot and afterwards Bishop of Lausanne († 1159), whose fifth homily is entitled De Mentis Dolore et Martyrio B.M.V. (Migne, Patr. Lat., clxxxviii., 1325-1331). He deals with Our Lady’s share in her Son’s sufferings in a merely general way and in outline. At a later date, the matter was treated in more detail and with additions, so that the Seven Dolors of Our Lady were the result. In this form, the matter was taken up by the Servites, whose order came into existence in 1240, and to whom Innocent IX. in 1688 granted a second feast of the same name to be celebrated out of Lent on the third Sunday in September.

During the first centuries of the Church’s existence it was only the martyrs who, as we have said, enjoyed religious veneration. It was probably owing to this custom that no cultus was paid even to those personages who had been closely related to our Lord during His earthly life. St Joseph, our Lord’s foster-father, is a striking instance of this law. Although mentioned as a “just” man in Holy Scripture, and the object of occasional eulogies in patristic literature, he received universal public veneration only at a late date. While we possess much information concerning the tombs of the Apostles, and while even the graves of the Old Testament prophets have frequently had attention drawn to them, tradition has nothing to report concerning the death, burial, and relics of St Joseph.

The earliest traces of a direct cultus appears in one of the Coptic calendars[583] published by Seldenius. In this “Joseph the Carpenter” is entered on the 20th July, as also in the somewhat later Synaxarium in Mai,[584] which at latest may belong to the ninth century. The date, 20th July, had no influence upon other churches. The menology of Constantinople does not contain St Joseph’s name, and even the Basilianum only mentions him by the way on the 25th December, in the form of a commemoration. After the Nativity of our Lord, the Magi are first mentioned, and then St Joseph as spouse and protector of the Holy Virgin (ὁ μνήστωρ καὶ φύλαξ τῆς παρθένου). He has no special day of his own.

In the West, an Antiochene martyr called Joseph, otherwise unknown, appears in the so-called martyrology of St Jerome on the 20th March.[585] This cannot refer to the foster-father of Christ on account of the mention of Antioch and the absence of any indication of the saint’s condition, although this transformation has taken place in some martyrologies. With the unmistakeable title of foster-father of our Lord (nutritor Domini), St Joseph appears first in the martyrologies of the tenth century, as in one belonging to Fulda[586] and in others. As these are of private origin, and of merely local importance, it cannot be said that the cultus of St Joseph had therefore become universal. Throughout the whole Middle Ages it remained rather a private devotion, although numerous traces of the esteem in which St Joseph was held, and even of external veneration paid to him by individuals are to be found.[587]

It was through the private devotion of many important or holy members of the Church that the public cultus of St Joseph came into existence. Among these may be named St Bernard, St Gertrude, St Brigid of Sweden, and St Vincent Ferrer. Among the most enthusiastic and influential in this respect was the Chancellor John Gerson, following the lead of his master Peter d’Ailly, and, at a later date, the Abbot Trithemius. In 1400, Gerson composed an office in honour of the Espousals of Joseph with Mary, and urged the Council of Constance to take steps for the spread of the devotion. The way had been already prepared by the Franciscans, especially St Bernardine of Siena, and Bernardine de Bustis, who showed great zeal for the worship of St Joseph.[588]

These attempts resulted in the approval given to the cultus by Sixtus IV.,[589] who inserted St Joseph’s day in the Roman Breviary as a feast with one lection (festum simplex). Under Clement XI. it was changed into a feast with nine lections. Accordingly, at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries, the 19th March began to be kept as St Joseph’s day in the Missals and Breviaries of many religious orders, i.e., the Carmelites, Hermits of St Augustine, Premonstratensians, Dominicans, Knights of St John; these were followed by the Benedictines and Jesuits, while the service-books of the Carthusians, Camaldules, Cistercians and Cluniacs of the same period remained without it.[590]

Owing to the fact that later on, several royal personages such as the Emperors Ferdinand III. and Leopold I. of the House of Habsburg, and King Charles II. of Spain, were devoted to the cultus of St Joseph, Gregory XV. raised his festival to the rank of a festival of obligation in 1621. Benedict XIII. inserted his name into the Litany of the Saints, and Pius IX., on the 8th December 1870, conferred upon him the office of Patron of the Universal Church.

Among the Greeks, the parents of Our Lady enjoyed a religious cultus from a comparatively early date, although all that was known of them was derived from the apocryphal Proto-evangelium of James. Joachim and Anne already had their own commemoration on the 9th September in the menology of Constantinople, and Justinian I. is said to have built a church in honour of St Anne in Constantinople.[591] Their names are mentioned by Epiphanius[592] and appear in the oldest Neapolitan Calendar on the 9th September, a circumstance which shows Byzantine influence, for among the Syrians their festival is kept on the 25th July.

In the West, however, their legend was received with considerable reserve, and although Pope Leo III. had their pictures placed in the church of Maria ad Præsepe, no trace of any liturgical commemoration appears in calendars before the Middle Ages. It is no proof that any special cultus was paid to them, that we find them occasionally mentioned in writings and spoken of as saints. It was only in 1378 that Urban VI. authorised the worship of St Anne for the English at their own request. Sixtus IV. especially approved of it,[593] and Gregory XIII., in 1584, appointed the 26th July for her feast. In the fifteenth century she was venerated with special devotion in Germany, the town of Annaberg being named after her.

As regards Joachim, Julius II. is said to have approved of his being commemorated with a special office on the 22nd March. Gregory XII. introduced a new and improved office, and fixed the commemoration for the Sunday within the octave of the Assumption. Leo XIII. raised it to the rank of a feast of the second class.[594]

Baillet has some remarks concerning Our Lady’s parents which are worthy of notice. He thinks that Mary at the time of her espousals to Joseph was an orphan; consequently, since her parents died before the death of the Redeemer, they were considered as belonging to the Old Testament, and were not made the object of a cultus. Whether they were actually named Joachim and Anne is doubtful,[595] for Anna in Hebrew means “Grace,” and Joachim, “Preparation of God.” It is possible that owing to ignorance of their real names, these appellations were chosen for them. The names appear in Epiphanius only at the end of the fourth century.

The cultus of the apostles followed the same lines of development as that of other saints. At first it was merely local, but although the tendency to observe the festivals of the apostles throughout the whole Church was stronger than in the case of other saints, still their festivals did not attain earlier to universal observance than those of ordinary saints, that is to say, at the period of the compilation of universal martyrologies, though there were, of course, some exceptions.

The earliest calendars of particular churches have, on the average, only a few feasts of apostles, usually only one or two. It was only in course of time that the longing for completeness appeared, which in the tenth century was carried to such a pitch by the Greeks that they set down in their calendars not merely every personage who had received honourable mention in the New Testament, but even the Seventy Disciples, although there was but slender authority for their names.

From the first a difference was made between the apostles who had lived and worked within the existing boundaries of the Roman Empire, and those who had ended their lives in barbarian countries. In the far East, there was a second world-power similar to the Roman power in the West, i.e., the empire of the Parthians, or that earlier Persian Empire of the Achæmenides, which in its turn, again, had risen from the ruins of the ancient empires of Babylon and Assyria. The Jews had obviously numerous relations from old time with this Eastern Empire in consequence of their historical connection with it. After the return from exile, many Jews had remained there, and probably many others returned thither at a later time. In fine, the circumstances attending on the first Whitsunday show that many Jews were scattered throughout those provinces. The Eastern Empire consisted of a number of vassal states, which recognised a supreme sovereign, the King of Kings, but, in other respects, remained independent and sovereign, as for example, Armenia, whose inhabitants were moreover closely allied by blood with the Persians.

The Jews, as Semites, had naturally more sympathy with these Easterns, once their ancient grievances had been forgotten, than they had with the Greeks and Romans who, at the beginning of the Christian era, were their oppressors. This explains why some of the apostles, some for life and others only temporarily, betook themselves thither, and spent their lives there in mission work and even ended their days in those parts. This is also the reason why we have so little reliable information concerning their life and work, and why the days of their deaths were not celebrated for so long a period in the West. The apostles who devoted themselves to the Eastern Empire were probably Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Simon Zelotes, and Jude. Thaddeus also laboured there for a time in Mesopotamia and Osrhoëne. No traces remain of the labours of Matthias who is said to have preached to the Ethiopians, and of whose life, a writer of the ninth century, Autpert, Abbot of Monte Cassino, confesses nothing is known.[596]

Several of the apostles have been commemorated from the first in the calendars, and always on the same day, while others, on the contrary, appear on different days in different parts of the Church, a circumstance which seems confusing to the historical investigator, but which can easily be explained when one has correctly grasped the principles which operate in liturgical matters. With regard to those who have everywhere been commemorated from the first on the same day, one can usually be certain that they died as martyrs in the Churches in question.

Although the only correct view is to maintain that the commemorations of the apostles were treated in the same way as the days devoted to the memory of the martyrs, and that their names appeared in the calendars on the day of their death (dies natales), still this is true of only a few indeed of their commemorations in the calendars actually in use. For the majority of the apostles died in barbarian countries with no one on the spot to collect information, and only much later a few floating pieces of information concerning them were collected from popular tradition. Another difficulty may have arisen from the different systems of chronology in use, and so even when the day of an apostle’s death was set down it was probably not understood by the Greeks and Romans, and so was forgotten. For these and other reasons it came to pass that, later on, when the commemoration of a certain apostle had to be fixed in the calendar, the date of the invention or translation of his relics was generally chosen, or finally the date was fixed simply by chance.

As absolutely trustworthy, I can, therefore, regard only the day of the death of St Peter, St Paul, and St Andrew, perhaps also the day of the death of St Mark and St Luke, since they ended their days in civilized countries, at a period when the hierarchy of the Church had already been established in those parts. With regard to St John, the question is open to doubt, first, because he did not die a martyr’s death, and secondly, because he did not preside as bishop over a particular congregation. Had he done so, the list of bishops for that particular city would have been careful to inform us of the fact.

Although the cultus of each apostle was originally local, yet there are early traces that the cultus became universal. Thus already in the fifth century a day within the octave of St Peter and St Paul seems to have been dedicated to the cultus of all the apostles in common. We find in the so-called Sacramentary of Leo I. the following prayer: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui nos omnium apostolorum merita sub una tribuisti celebritate venerari, etc. The same prayer appears also in the Gelasianum, where it is found in lib. 2, No. 33.[597]

A mediæval liturgist, Beleth, gave expression to the view that the separate apostles had no special festivals in the primitive Church, but that all together were commemorated on the 1st May,[598] and that finally only St Philip and St James continued to be commemorated on this day. The facts, however, as far as we have been able to learn, do not bear out the opinion of this writer which he inferred from the greater calendars, but the festivals of each of the apostles came into existence one by one, from the ninth century onwards, until they reached their full number. The council of Erfurt in 932 raised all feasts of apostles to the rank of holy days of obligation for Germany. Pope Boniface VIII. in 1293 made them all duplicia.

Even before the meeting of the Nicene Council, Constantine had built a church in honour of all the apostles[599] in Constantinople, in which he was afterwards buried.[600] It was rebuilt under Justinian and re-dedicated on the 29th June 550, the feast of St Peter and St Paul.[601] This church had considerable influence upon the cultus of the apostles inasmuch as under Constantius attempts were made to provide it with their relics, obviously with the intention of resembling Rome as closely as possible. The relics of St Timothy were first translated thither from Ephesus on 1st July 356, which caused a great increase of devotion to this saint. He had lost his life in a popular uprising in Ephesus under Nerva on 22nd January 97, of which his successor, Polycrates, has given us an account.[602] The church became possessed of a still greater treasure in the following year when the relics of St Andrew and St Luke were placed in it.

As we should expect from what has been said above, there exists historical material for the feasts of only a certain number of the apostles, while others, as, for example, the feasts of St Matthew, St Matthias, St Bartholomew, and St Thomas, are of no further interest than to mark the translation of their relics.

In conclusion it may be useful to draw attention to the actual increase of the festivals of the apostles in the calendars. The Leoninum has only two, the 29th June and the 30th November. The lectionary of Luxeuil in the seventh century has the same number, i.e., the 22nd February and the 29th June, that of Silos, about 650, has four (22nd February, 29th June, 30th November, 27th December), and, in addition, the feast of St Peter’s Chains. The calendar of St Geneviève (between 714-731) has the same number, omitting St Peter’s Chains. From this point the number of feasts of the Apostles increases rapidly; the calendar of Charlemagne of 781 has eight already, and subsequent calendars contain ten or more. A singular peculiarity appears in the calendar of Polemius Silvius (see below) where we find only one feast of apostles, the 22nd February, “Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli.” The ancient Neapolitan calendar brings the number up to sixteen days, giving two commemorations to some apostles and including the disciples Thaddeus and Barnabas.

(1) ST PETER AND ST PAUL

The 29th June, the commemoration of the martyrdom of the two chief apostles, is the only feast of apostles that is still observed as a public holiday. It can be regarded under two aspects as a universal and as a local festival. It is important as a local festival, because, since a constant tradition maintained that St Peter and St Paul were put to death in Rome under Nero on the same day, it is only natural that this day should be kept in Rome as the dies natalis ss. apostolorum, in the customary manner from the first, and so was never forgotten. But even in other localities, apart from Roman influence and tradition, we find efforts made in antiquity to devote a day to the commemoration of these same two apostles. This is proved by the fact that in the Arian martyrology in use in the East, it had already a place, on the 28th December, after St Stephen and the apostles St James and St John. This is by no means an isolated phenomenon, for in the Armenian calendar it has a corresponding place, i.e., on the 27th December, while in the Nestorian calendar it appears on the second Friday after Epiphany.[603] In Cappadocia, or at least in Nyssa, we find the Christmas season again considered to be the suitable time for a collective feast of the apostles, for the commemoration of the apostles Peter, James, John and Paul follows the Feast of St Stephen.[604] Even in the upper valley of the Rhone, it was felt necessary to observe the day of the death of the two chief apostles, for the calendar of Polemius Silvius, which belongs to this region, contains the entry: depositio ss. Petri et Pauli, but on the 22nd February, the day on which in other parts of Gaul the Feast of St Peter’s Chair was celebrated. That this calendar gives no feast of any sort on the 29th June, shows that in his choice of the day, Polemius was quite independent of the Roman tradition. The considerations which weighed with him in so doing will be explained further on.

In other parts of Italy, the true day of the apostle’s death was well known, and observed, as for example, at Milan in the time of St Ambrose.[605] Among the sermons of Maximus of Turin, belonging to the fifth century, we find no fewer than ten[606] for this feast. The sermons of St Augustine, among which are five for this festival, show that in North Africa the day was kept as a holy day; he speaks of it as a dies festus and a sollemnitas.[607] Moreover St Augustine belongs to the number of those Fathers who expressly state that although both apostles died on the same day of the month, they died in different years,[608] a fact which the historical and biblical science of the day persistently overlooks, which naturally must cause serious misgivings as to the reliability of the principles on which its chronology is constructed.

Among the numerous sermons of St Peter Chrysologus there are none for this day. As regards St Chrysostom, while we have seven sermons of his in honour of the apostle Paul, we have only one “on Peter and the Prophet Elias” conjointly, in which St Peter is only briefly mentioned in the introduction and treated as of secondary importance. There is nothing to show that it was preached on the 29th June.[609] The fact that neither of these saints preached on this day, is an indication of the practice followed at Ravenna and Antioch.

With regard to Rome, the local tradition, which regarded the 29th June as the day on which both apostles were put to death, was committed to writing by the chronographer of 354, and all later chronographers. A western tradition, supported by many of the great Fathers of the Church, adds further that, though both apostles died on the same day of the month, they died in different years. This idea appears in St Augustine, in the Leoninum, Arator, Gregory of Tours, and in three Greek writers, but scholars have so far ignored it. It is further evident from the Depositio Martyrum that the day of their death was specially chosen for a translation of their relics which took place in 258. The special festivities observed in Rome are described for us by Prudentius from what he had seen himself when he visited the city about 405. According to him the whole city was in commotion: the faithful visited the tombs of the apostles and in the two churches erected in their honour, pontifical mass was celebrated.[610] This is in complete agreement with the tradition according to which devotion to the martyrs was closely connected with the spot where they suffered and with the date on which they suffered, and the chief commemoration consisted in the offering up of the Holy Sacrifice over their tombs. Owing to the distance which separated the two churches of the apostles from one another, it was most fatiguing to celebrate mass at both places, and so in course of time the festival was divided into two parts, and the Mass in honour of St Paul took place on the 30th June. An examination of the earliest Roman missals shows that in the Leoninum there is a number of masses for this day, all commemorating the two apostles together, but, in the Gelasianum, on the contrary, there is only one mass for the two apostles conjointly (III. Kal. Jul. in Natali SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli), and, in addition, one for each of them separately. It may be that the division of the feast was then customary, but the 29th June continued to be called Natalis SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli. As early as the fifth century the feast was kept at Rome with a vigil and octave.[611]

At an early date, the 29th June, which had hitherto been celebrated chiefly in the West, i.e., in Rome and the surrounding districts, began to be observed as a universal festival of the whole Church, inasmuch as it began to be celebrated in Constantinople. The Roman Senator Festus, who had been sent on matters of state to the new Emperor Anastasius, in 491, moved the emperor, according to Theodorus Lector, to celebrate this feast solemnly in Constantinople.[612] Although the feast may have been kept already in Constantinople before this time, it now began to be celebrated with greater pomp. The day must certainly have been known in Constantinople before this date, but can hardly have been kept as a festival.

After this the 29th June appears in all Calendars and martyrologies as the commemoration of the two chief apostles. In the West we find it first in the Calendar of Perpetuus of Tours. The Carthaginian Calendar is unfortunately defective, but that the day was kept there cannot be doubted on account of the evidence given by St Augustine’s sermons. It is also found in the later oriental Calendars, with the exception of a few belonging to Egypt.[613]

While this feast, like the festivals of all martyrs, was originally local, and was celebrated only in Rome and in the churches dependent upon Rome, the esteem in which the Roman Church and the apostles were held early gained for it the character of a universal feast.

(2) THE FEAST OF ST PETER’S CHAINS

The Roman breviary bases the foundation for this feast upon the following legend. Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II.[614] since 421, was presented with a chain at Jerusalem which was believed to have been that with which St Peter was bound while imprisoned, as recorded in Acts, chap. xii. She brought this chain to Rome, where another chain was already preserved in the Church of St Peter on the Esquiline.[615] This is said to have been the chain with which St Peter was confined during his Roman imprisonment. Both chains appeared to be of the same workmanship, and united themselves together of their own accord. Whereupon the church was rebuilt at the Empress’s expense, and received the name of Eudoxiæ ad Vincula. There is no trustworthy proof for the presentation of the second chain by Eudocia, although there is evidence that in Rome the faithful prided themselves on possessing a chain of St Peter before this supposed gift of the Empress.[616] Under Benedict XIV. it was proposed to suppress the lections in the breviary containing these legends.

The feast of St Peter’s chain is not in the Gelasianum, and appears only in Calendars of the eighth century, as, for example, in that of Bede, but not yet as a feast of obligation. The decree of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus raised it to this rank in 1166. The spread of the feast was undoubtedly facilitated by the circumstance that in 969 a courtier of the Emperor Otho I. was healed in Rome by touching the chain.[617] That the commemoration was fixed for the 1st August does not imply that this was the day on which the apostle was set free from imprisonment; but in this, as in other cases, the date of the Church’s dedication caused this day to be chosen.

(3) THE CONVERSION OF ST PAUL

The Conversion of St Paul was kept as a holiday of obligation in several dioceses of France and Germany, and especially in England. It is uncertain where and when it first became so. It is not in the Gelasianum nor in the older editions of the Gregorianum, but appears in the later texts of more recent editions, as a later addition, for it is still frequently lacking in later MSS. and Calendars.[618] Nevertheless it appears in Ado and Usuardus. The 25th January seems originally to have had another signification; for in the recent critical edition of the Hieronymianum of De Rossi and Duchesne, the two oldest recensions give on this day a translation of the relics of St Paul, which is said to have taken place in Rome (Romæ, Translatio B. Pauli Apostoli). The most recent of the ancient codices, that of Metz, now in Bern, belonging to the tenth century, has a translation and conversion of St Paul on the 25th January. The idea of the conversion soon replaced that of the translation, and fixed the character of the feast. As such it spread, and soon attained to universal acceptance. The translation which the feast originally commemorated is believed by De Waal to have taken place in the time of Constantine, when the basilica of St Paul was erected[619] (Translatio et Conversio S. Pauli in Damaso, the words conversio and in Damaso being added by a later hand).

(4) ST ANDREW AND ST LUKE THE EVANGELIST

We can deal with the festivals of these two saints together, for in the year 357, on the 3rd March, their relics were solemnly translated at the same time to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople.[620] Until this date the tomb of St Andrew was in Patras, where he had suffered death. The previous burial place of St Luke is not specified, but it may have been either in Patras or somewhere in the neighbourhood. The possession of St Andrew’s relics was of great importance to Constantinople, because he was regarded as the apostolic founder of the Christian community there, and the catalogue of bishops, which, historically speaking, only begins with Metrophanes (315-325), has been carried back to him, inasmuch as it was maintained he had ordained Stachys as first bishop of the See. More certain, from an historical point of view, is his martyrdom at Patras, of which we have a trustworthy account.[621] Besides this, there is a well-known encyclical letter to the priests and deacons of Achaia, which in all essential points agrees with the account of the martyrdom, although in some other respects it is open to criticism.[622] The so-called martyrology of Jerome on 5th February commemorates St Andrew’s ordination as Bishop of Patras.

The date for St Luke’s death never varied and seems to be correct. Both dates, the 18th October and the 30th November, appear in the oldest Neapolitan Calendar, which contains no other festival of an apostle except St James the Less (27th December). From the fact that the relics of St Andrew and St Luke happened to be translated at the same time, many ancient and modern writers drew the hasty conclusion that St Luke had also died in Patras and been buried there. A document which, though certainly late, can yet be traced back to Philostorgius,[623] gives the true place of his death and burial as Thebes, which Paulinus of Nola confirms. His relics may well have been translated thence at the same time as those of St Andrew were brought from Patras. They were carried to Constantinople at the command of the Emperor Constantius by the official Artemius, who had also brought the relics of St Timothy to the capital.

(5) ST JAMES THE GREAT

James, the son of Zebedee and brother of St John the Evangelist, was a native of Galilee. His labours, after the Crucifixion, were not of long duration, for in the year 42 or 43 he was beheaded at the instigation of King Herod Agrippa I., who had enjoyed indeed the dignity of king of Judea since 37, but only during the last years of his reign did his power extend over Jerusalem. According to the usual custom he came to Jerusalem for the Passover, and then, in order to gain favour with the Jews, he had St James seized and made away with shortly before the feast; and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also, in order to make away with him too, after the feast. This happened not long before the death of Herod himself, which is narrated in the same chapter of the Acts (Acts xii. 1-4 and 23).

The day of St James’s death was shortly before Easter, or, as we should say, in Holy Week, and, in accordance with this circumstance, the Copts keep his commemoration on the 12th April,[624] and the Syrian lectionary of Antioch on the 30th of the same month. Although these do not exactly represent the actual day of his death, they are not far off from it. The observance of the actual day was, moreover, interfered with by the circumstance that it came at a season when the thought of our Lord’s passion prevented the celebration of a martyr’s feast. In the menologies he is mentioned only in the Basilianum on the 9th October.

The bodily remains of St James, as well as those of St James the Less, were still in Jerusalem in the sixth century.[625] In the ninth century we find them in Spain, at Compostela, where they were an object of great veneration, as we learn from Notker Balbulus.[626] They must have been taken there some time between the seventh and ninth centuries. An account of the translation, such as we possess in other instances, is not extant; there is no information in any author to show when or by whom the translation was carried out. The translation itself can well be historically true, although the opinion that St James preached the gospel in Spain is only a legend.[627] One is led to think that the relics were secretly carried off by Christians from Jerusalem from fear of the Arabs, and finally found a second resting-place in Spain.

The Roman breviary and martyrology place his feast on the 25th July, which is marked as the day of a translation of his relics, without giving any further particulars. The Gelasianum does not mention St James, and he appears in liturgical books only at the end of the eighth century. His name is entirely absent from the older liturgical books of the ancient Spanish Church, an inexplicable circumstance had he been the apostle of Spain. The veneration for him begins to show itself in Spain only from the ninth century. In Western Calendars he appears in that ascribed to Charlemagne of 781, published by Piper, and also in the later MSS. of the Gregorianum, but not in the sacramentary of Mainz dating from 840. The entries in the different recensions of the Hieronymianum are noteworthy. The Weissenburg codex on the 25th July has simply a martyr James, with no other specification except Portus Romanus as an indication of place; the Echternach codex describes this martyr as apostolus and frater Joannis Evang.,[628] and adds Hierosolym; the codex of Bern has briefly Passio S. Jacobi. It is not evident on what grounds the two later recensions have made James, the martyr of Portus Romanus, into the apostle. The Neapolitanum does not mention an apostle James on the 25th July, although it does on the 15th November,[629] and, along with Philip, on 1st May. Although he is found in Bede, he is absent from the Calendar of St Geneviève, dating from 731-741.

(6) ST PHILIP AND ST JAMES THE LESS

It is well known that in early days lists were drawn up containing the names of those bishops at least who had presided over the chief sees, along with the duration of their episcopates. Since some apostles had acted as bishop in certain cities for a length of time, while others—as, for example, St Paul—never settled down for long in one place, the former, in addition to their martyrdom, had a yet further claim to be commemorated. This is the case with St Peter, St James the Less, and St Mark.

St James the Less, son of Alpheus or Clopas, immediately after Christ’s death was entrusted with the office of Bishop of Jerusalem by the other apostles, which he held for thirty years.[630] His death was caused by the High Priest Ananias II., who availed himself of the interregnum that intervened between the death of Porcius Festus and the arrival of the new procurator Albinus. Gessius Florus succeeded Albinus in A.D. 64. St James’s death, according to St Jerome’s precise statement, fell in the seventh year of Nero. According to St Jerome’s way of reckoning, which agrees with the official method, Nero reigned fourteen years and a half, and his seventh year corresponds with the sixtieth of the Christian era.[631]

St James was commemorated in the East on the 27th December. This is his date in the Arian martyrology, which is followed by the very ancient Carthaginian Calendar. Although the latter incorrectly adds that he was killed by Herod, it is evident that St James the Less is intended, for all the Eastern documentary sources place the commemoration of St James the Less in the Christmas season. They differ as to the day, some commemorating him on the 26th, some on the 28th, the Neapolitan and Mozarabic Calendars on the 29th, and the Syrian lectionary has his name both on the 28th December and on the 23rd October.

In accordance with these ancient witnesses we would willingly place his death on the 27th December, but there are strong reasons against this. First, in these documents he is coupled for the most part with St John the Evangelist, and it is unlikely that both of them died on the same day. Secondly, in the most ancient document of all, the Arian martyrology, immediately after St James and St John, on the 28th December, come St Peter and St Paul, who suffered death on a different date altogether; the compiler simply placed the chief personages connected with our Lord on the days after Christmas. Thirdly, the church built by Helena on the Mount of Olives, in which St James and St John received special veneration, was dedicated on the 27th December.[632] Here again, as in so many other cases, the date of the church’s consecration became the date of the festival of the saint specially connected with it. Of course it may be thought that the church was consecrated on the day of the saint’s death, but for this there is, at any rate, no proof concerning this particular church. And so we must give up the 27th December as the real day of St James’s death. It may have been the day of his appointment to the episcopate.[633]

That this is so is further confirmed by the accounts written by pilgrims, in which it is stated that St James was buried in the church on the Mount of Olives, and that he had owned a house in Jerusalem and a burial place, in which he had buried Zachary and Simeon.[634] It is true that later Latin authorities expressly give his dies natalis, i.e. the actual day of his death, on the 27th December,[635] but their evidence is not conclusive. In marked distinction from the Eastern tradition, the Hieronymianum gives his death on the 25th March: “Hierosolyma passio Jacobi Justi,” or, as in the Bern codex, “fratris Domini.” This date coincides strikingly with the statement of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 2, 23, 11), that the death of St James happened during the season of Easter.

The Constantinopolitan authorities, like the Roman, take an independent line. The most ancient among the former do not mention St James the Less, but the Basilianum names him on the 23rd October and the 30th April, both times with the title then only given to martyrs (ἄθλησις). We shall have occasion to refer elsewhere to the arbitrary and singular character of this work.

With regard to the Roman service-books and those derived from them, they agree, beginning with the Gelasianum, in placing St James along with St Philip on the 1st May. This is owing to the fact that in the sixth century a church was erected in honour of these two apostles in Rome, which is known at the present day as the Basilica of the Apostles. Pope Pelagius I. (556-561) commenced the erection of the church, which was completed by his successor John III.[636] It was dedicated on the 1st May, and so it came to pass that the commemoration of these two apostles is celebrated in the Roman rite on this day. Later on, the 1st May came incorrectly to be considered their dies natalis.

The commemoration of St Philip in the menology of Basil, and in the Neapolitanum, is on the 14th November. A monastery of St Philip existed in Constantinople as early as 511.

(7) ST JOHN

As regards St John the Apostle and Evangelist, we have seen his commemoration was joined with that of St James the Less, on the 27th December, although this was not the date of their deaths. In course of time St John gradually eclipsed St James and gained possession of this day for himself alone; yet in the Hieronymianum and in the Gothico-Gallic missal, ascribed by Mabillon to the eighth century, St John and St James are still commemorated together (Natalis Jacobi et Joannis). In the Gelasianum, and also in later Roman and Frankish martyrologies, and in Bede, St John alone is commemorated, as at the present day.

St John died and was buried in Ephesus. When his grave was opened, probably under Constantine, who built a church in his honour in the part of Constantinople called Hebdomon, no remains of his body were found in it, but only powder, which was called manna. The intention evidently was to provide this church in Constantinople with relics of its titular saint. It is not surprising that the idea became prevalent among the Greeks that St John, like our Blessed Lady, had been taken up bodily into heaven. This opening of his grave must have taken place on the 8th May, for the menology of Constantinople makes mention on this day of the manna mentioned above.[637] The 26th September seems to have been regarded as the day of his death, for the same authority mentions the “Departure” of the apostle (μετάστασις τοῦ ἁγίου Ιοάννου τοῦ θεολόγου)[638] on this date. So, too, does the Calendar of Naples under the name of his Assumption (Adsumptio Joannis Evangelistæ). Among the Jacobites of Antioch also the 26th September was kept as the day of his departure (decessus Joannis Evang. ex mundo).[639] Where there is so much divergence, nothing certain can be determined. Most probably Morcelli is correct in supposing that the 26th September was the day on which St John died in Ephesus, and that on the 27th December some church or chapel, or, at least, an altar, was dedicated to his honour.[640]

The 6th May appears already as a festival of St John the Evangelist in the Gothico-Gallic missal, without any further specification, but simply with the rubric: Missa S. Joannis Apostoli et Evangelistæ. The Roman festival on this day, “Joannis ante Portam Latinam,” was introduced on the ground of Tertullian’s statement.[641] The oldest recensions of the Hieronymianum do not mention it, nor yet the recension of Metz belonging to the ninth century.

(8) ST SIMON AND ST JUDE (THADDEUS)

The apostles Simon and Jude, like St Philip and St James, are constantly commemorated together in Western Calendars, but in their case there is an inner reason for this arrangement. According to a tradition, which appears in the pseudo-Abdias, the two apostles spent thirteen years together in Persia labouring for the spread of Christianity, and there suffered death at the same time in the city of Suanir.[642] The day of their death is here given as the 1st July, which is also given in some Western martyrologies—such as those of Naples and Toledo, which plainly derive their information from this source.

In the Roman Calendar, and in those dependent upon them, the two apostles are indeed constantly commemorated together, but on the 28th October. No reason has been discovered for the choice of this date. It does not seem to have been due either to the Hieronymianum or to Bede. The former has “In Suana, a city of Persia, the birthday of the apostles Simon and Jude”[643] (Cod. Epternac.). As far as Roman sacramentaries are concerned, St Simon and St Jude appear only in the later recensions of the Gregorianum.

The menology of Constantinople does not contain St Simon, but it has Thaddeus on the 20th August. The Basilianum has an apostle Simon on the 29th April who is called Jude, and on the 10th May the apostle Simon Zelotes, and, further, an apostle Jude on the 22nd May and 19th June. All this is obscure and arbitrary. The fact that these apostles are not joined together, but have each their separate day, agrees with the Eastern service-books. The lectionary of the Syrians of the eleventh century has St Simon on the 10th May, Jude on the 16th May. The Coptic Calendar in Seldenius has Jude Thaddeus on the 20th May.

A remarkable proof of the obscurity hanging over the apostles is found in the circumstance that in some calendars which commemorate them together on the same day other saints of the same name are found in addition. Thus in the Neapolitanum there is a Jude on the 26th May and a “passio S. Simonis Ap.” on the 10th September, as well as the commemoration of them both together on the 1st July. In the Parisian lectionary of St Geneviève, in the Calendar of Charlemagne, and in the Gelasianum, there is no mention of St Simon and St Jude.

(9) ST MARK THE EVANGELIST

According to a constant and universal tradition, he was the first Bishop of Alexandria, and his name appears first in all lists of the bishops of that See. However, as far as calendars and martyrologies go, his name does not appear in those of the West until the ninth century, nor in the Constantinopolitanum until the same period. Unfortunately the most ancient Coptic Calendar in Mai is imperfect for the month of April. It is only in the Synaxarium of the ninth century, published by Mai, that he appears. His name appears in all later Coptic Calendars, in the Neapolitanum, which mentions him a second time on the 17th May, and in the Basilianum. There is not much to be said in support of the 25th April as the day of St Mark’s death. Moreover, the Hieronymianum gives the 23rd September as the date of his death, but the Paschal Chronicle puts it down on the 1st Phormathi, i.e. the 26th March.[644] St Jerome in his chronicle gives the year of his death as the eighth of Nero.

That the processional litanies take place on St Mark’s day is a mere accident, as is proved by the circumstance that in the oldest Latin Calendars—as, for example, in that of Fronteau, and in the Mainz edition of the Gregorianum—the Litania major alone is put down on the 25th April without any mention of St Mark.

(10) THE FEASTS OF ST PETER’S CHAIR
(18th January and 22nd February)

The historical investigation of these two feasts necessitates the consideration of two questions which must be discussed separately—first, their name and significance, and, secondly, the dates on which they are celebrated.

Cathedra, when used in its literal sense by the oldest ecclesiastical writers, means the bishop’s seat in the apse of the church behind the altar, upon which he sat, when not otherwise engaged, during the performance of divine service. Figuratively, the cathedra is the symbol of episcopal authority in general and of the bishop’s teaching authority in particular, just as the throne is the symbol of royal authority. Cathedra Petri, then, signifies especially the teaching authority of St Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, or, in other words, the Primacy. This can easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, and the evidence for it has often been set forth in writings and treatises dealing specially with this question, and so it need not be repeated here.[645] That the feast was intended to celebrate the bestowal of the Primacy on St Peter is clear from the oldest liturgies, and will become sufficiently evident in the course of our remarks.[646]

But how came it to pass that the Feast of St Peter’s Chair—we are considering at present only the more ancient of the two commemorations—was fixed for the 22nd February? This question can only be answered by a critical investigation into the history of the feast. The two feasts present entirely different peculiarities. The second half of February among the heathen Romans was marked by popular festivities partly religious and partly secular in character; on the 13th February commenced the great festival of the dead, Parentalia, and lasted eight days, the concluding day being called Feralia. During this time no marriages were celebrated, the temples remained closed, and the magistrates laid aside the external insignia of their office. Upon the commemoration of the departed followed immediately, on the 22nd February, the festival of surviving relatives—the Chari—named in consequence Charistia or Cara Cognatio. This celebration had no recognised place among the functions of the official worship of the State, and no public festivities presided over by the colleges of priests were provided for it.[647] Nevertheless, it was a very popular feast, and stuck its roots deeper into the life of the people than any of the official festivals. All ranks joined in celebrating it; the portraits of the ancestors of each family were adorned with garlands, a sacrificial meal was presented to the household gods, incense was burnt, and a pig was offered in sacrifice; where quarrels had broken out in a family, harmony was again restored, and the religious ceremonies were performed amid the rejoicings of all; the deeds of famous members of the family were recited, and the day concluded with a banquet, which lasted until a late hour.[648] In addition to this, the Charistia was also a festival in the schools; the walls were hung with garlands, and presents were given to the teachers.[649]

Such a festival must have been highly popular. It seems to have been observed everywhere wherever Latin was spoken, in Africa as well as in Gaul. In Gaul the feasting customary on this occasion continued to take place long after it had been given up elsewhere.

These banquets are censured in two sermons, attributed to St Augustine, but not by him, though they are ancient, and date from about the sixth century. From these we see that the Feralia and the Charistia are no longer separate; the preacher speaks only of the meals and gifts which were offered on behalf of the departed.[650] These continued on into Christian times, and in Gaul took place on the 22nd February, although this was not the correct day for the Feralia.[651] It seems, then, that in many places the memory of both living and dead relatives was celebrated on one and the same day, and this was always the 22nd February. About 1198 an Englishman, who lived in the North of France, informed Beleth[652] of the feastings which took place on this day.

Accordingly it cannot be mere accident, when we find a Christian feast very early fixed for this day. Gregory the Great recognised that people must not be all at once deprived of the old customs; he ordered that in England, at the dedication of churches and on the feasts of the martyrs, the newly converted Christians might retain some of the heathen customs which had been usual on similar occasions.[653] Instances in which this principle was put into practice are, for example, the processional litanies and the customs observed at the New Year. It is clear that the appointment of a Christian feast on the Charistia is another instance of the tendency to deprive the heathen festivals of their harmful character.

That this held good of the feast in question, and that a determined attempt was made to give it a Christian character, is shown by the fact that in other countries a different feast was appointed for this day. Polemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, in the upper valley of the Rhone, composed a calendar for the year 448, the most ancient Christian calendar in existence, which he dedicated to Bishop Eucherius of Lyons.[654] In this document the heathen festivals are omitted, everything especially heathen has been removed, and only historical and meteorological notices remain; it contains some saints’ days, although very few in number. On the 22nd February we find the entry, Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli, along with a note on the Charistia, which shows that the intention of the writer was to supplant the heathen feast of the Cara Cognatio. Again, it is noteworthy that an event was chosen for this purpose which was commemorated in Rome, i.e. the burial of the two chief apostles. The 29th June was not then kept as a festival of the apostles in the upper valley of the Rhone, which belonged at that time to Gaul, and probably was not kept either in the whole province to which Sion (Sedunum) belonged.[655]

The idea of Polemius Silvius in making the 22nd February into a commemoration of St Peter and St Paul found no imitators, but the custom of celebrating instead the Cathedra Petri on this day became general in the Gallican liturgies. The significance of this feast is expressed in the words of the collect for the day: “God who on this day hast given Blessed Peter to be head after Thee to the Church” (Deus qui hodierna die B. Petrum post te dedisti caput ecclesiæ); i.e. the occasion of the feast was not the foundation or organisation of one particular church, either Rome or Antioch, but the appointment of St Peter to be head of the whole Church in general, or, in other words, the bestowal of the Primacy upon him, or his ordination as bishop (natale episcopatus), as others prefer to have it.[656] In this connection it must be borne in mind that, in antiquity, it was already the custom to celebrate the anniversary of the bishop’s consecration, and that special masses exist in the old sacramentaries, and among the sermons of St Leo the Great there are some for such occasions.

From the fourth to the ninth century, we find this feast of the 22nd February (Cathedra Petri), without further specification, in the greater number of calendars and martyrologies, especially in those of Gaul. As the latest which give only one feast of this name, we may mention the martyrology of Wandlebert, the Calendar of Corbie of 826 in d’Achery,[657] and also the Gothic Calendar. Nevertheless, there are some Frankish calendars which contain no feast of this name, as, for example, that of St Geneviève, published by Fronteau, and the Calendar of Charlemagne. It is not in the Neapolitanum, nor in certain lectionaries of the same period, such as the Comes Albini, the lectionary of Spires, and, finally, the Roman sacramentaries.[658] It is remarkable that neither the Gelasianum nor the Gregorianum have a feast of St Peter’s Chair, yet it is certain that the feast was known in Rome in the fourth century, for the chronographer, referred to on page 295n., in his Depositio Martyrum sets down: “VIII. Kal. Martias, Natale Petri de Cathedra.”

A remarkable alteration now took place, doubtless caused by another view being taken of the meaning of the feast. When the words Cathedra Petri were no longer taken as referring to the bestowal of the Primacy or the episcopal and teaching office in general, but as referring to some definite episcopal See, then the question was asked, Is Antioch meant or Rome? For although the official lists reckon Evodius, and not St Peter, as first bishop of Antioch, still there were writers of antiquity, such as Origen, who represent St Peter’s residence in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) as his Antiochene episcopate. This view led to the division of the feast into a Roman and an Antiochene Feast of St Peter’s Chair; for reasons which are unknown, the 18th January was chosen for the former, while the latter continued to be celebrated on the 22nd February.

The martyrology of the Venerable Bede marks the date at which this division of the feast came into existence. In the original recension, given by the Bollandists, the feast of the 18th January does not appear, but the feast of the 22nd February has the note attached, “At Antioch.” It is possible that Bede considered the feast commemorated the commencement of a particular episcopate, and since, according to his idea, the Antiochene episcopate of St Peter preceded his Roman, and Antioch must have been the first See occupied by the apostle, he added the words, “At Antioch, where the disciples were first named Christians.”

The separation is complete in Ado and Usuardus, and appears in the oldest editions of the Hieronymianum, and, in defect of further information, the compiler of this document may be regarded as the originator of the separation.[659] There thus arose a threefold practice—either both feasts were kept, or neither, or that of the 22nd February; the last was the case in only a few dioceses. The Cologne Calendar of the fourteenth century had only one feast, but the more ancient calendar belonging to the ninth century had both.[660]

This diversity of usage, resulting from the independence of each diocese in the adoption of festivals, was put an end to by Pope Paul IV. at the advice of Cardinal Sirleto, when, on the 6th January 1558, he ordered that both feasts should be observed throughout the entire Catholic world.[661] At the consultations concerning the reform of the Breviary in 1742, it was considered that the two feasts should once more be joined into one, but this, however, was not done, which,[662] from a historical point of view, is to be regretted, for neither Eusebius nor the official lists of bishops know anything of an Antiochene episcopate of St Peter. The pseudo-Clementines make use of St Peter’s activity in the See of Antioch for their own ends,[663] and to them must be traced back the statements of Origen, Jerome, and others, for in antiquity, as well as in the Middle Ages, they enjoyed more consideration, and were more widely read, than at the present day. In the ninth century it was regarded as an inviolable principle of canon law—as we know from the case of Pope Formosus—that a bishop must not be translated from one See to another. How could this principle have been maintained in the face of so striking an instance of translation?

The Feast of St Peter’s Chair was unknown to the Greeks and Easterns in antiquity, but the modern Uniats have naturally adopted it.

The saints which have occupied us until now were all prominent figures throughout Christendom, and stood in close relation to the Redeemer and His work; in consequence, their festivals were kept as feasts of obligation in the Middle Ages, at a period when it seemed almost impossible to do too much towards the development of the cycle of feasts; a large number kept this rank until recent times. Other saints of less importance enjoyed the same distinction through their being the patrons of particular countries, dioceses, or localities; it would take too long to deal with such here; besides, their festivals are not of historical importance. Still, among festivals of this sort there are some which formerly were kept as feasts of obligation; of these several are deserving of notice, since they attained a rank above that of a mere local festival, either because of some special circumstance, or because the life of the particular saint in some way or other caught the popular fancy.

(1) ST MARY MAGDALEN

This is especially the case with regard to St Mary Magdalen, whose feast, not indeed in Rome, but throughout the South of France, and even elsewhere, as in Cologne, was kept as a feast of obligation in the Middle Ages.

According to the general opinion, Mary, the sinner of Magdala, who took her name from that place, either because she was born there, or because it was the scene of her excesses, was the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethania; she was the same person who humbly bathed the feet of our Blessed Lord with her tears and anointed them with ointment. According to another opinion, prevalent in the Greek Church, there were three Marys connected with our Lord—Mary, the sister of Lazarus; Mary of Magdala, on the Lake of Gennesaret; and the sometime sinner mentioned in St Luke vii. 37. This latter opinion distinguishes Mary Magdalen from Mary, the sister of Lazarus. The Latin tradition, on the other hand, from Tertullian downwards, regards them as identical; the sister of Lazarus having lived a life of sin at Magdala, came, after her repentance, to live with her brother and sister at Bethania, but was still popularly known as Mary Magdalen. She was also the same person, mentioned by the other two synoptists (St Mark xvi. 9; St Luke viii. 2), who was possessed by seven devils.[664] Both opinions received support from the words of the gospels; but the Roman liturgy has adopted the latter, and even the lections drawn up for St Martha’s Feast are influenced by it. This office of St Martha is only of late introduction in the Liturgy.

In addition, we must take into account the adventures of the Magdalen and her family after our Lord’s death, or rather the adventures ascribed to her. Our information is scanty; the pseudo-Clementines state that Lazarus followed St Peter in his missionary journeys in Syria;[665] other documents mention Cyprus as the scene of his labours and death. Absolutely no information concerning the further doings of his sisters has come down to us from antiquity; however, Western mediæval documents dating from the thirteenth century are remarkably rich in details; in these it is admitted, indeed, that he was Bishop of Cyprus, although this would have been incompatible with the actions here ascribed to him. This information is contained in a voluminous work which has been audaciously ascribed to Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda, although it is difficult to see how he, in his retired monastery, surrounded by forests, could have gained possession of such information.[666] The greater part of this work, chapters i.-xxxv., is devoted to a description of the life of St Mary Magdalen and her family, which follows and elaborates the biblical narrative; but it contains several additions to the facts mentioned in the New Testament; especially there is a great deal said about Marcella, as the housekeeper of the family at Bethania is said to have been called, who later on played an important part in the legend. The second part begins with the thirteenth year after Christ’s Ascension, when St James the Great had been beheaded and St Peter was in prison. Then, according to the story, Herod Agrippa drove the faithful from Palestine, and twenty-four of the disciples of Jesus, with Maximinus at their head, were sent by the apostles as missionaries to Spain and Gaul. St Mary Magdalen joined them, and Martha and Lazarus followed her example, the latter being at the time Bishop of Cyprus; they embarked unmolested, and were carried by the south-east wind to the shores of Southern Gaul, where Maximinus became Bishop of Aix in Provence. The other disciples distributed themselves over the other provinces, of which there were seventeen in Gaul and seven in Spain—twenty-four in all, just the number of the disciples. As a matter of fact, Spain and Gaul did comprise this number of provinces, not however in the time of Christ, but in the fifth century, as the Notitia Dignitatum shows. This betrays the late origin of the legend. St Mary Magdalen is said to have lived at Aix with Bishop Maximinus, and to have often preached there to the faithful. According to other accounts, she is said to have passed thirty years in a life of solitude and penance in the cave of the Ste Baume, near Marseilles, while Lazarus is said to have been Bishop of Marseilles, where he died a martyr.

More trustworthy, though not so interesting, is the information which we find in Greek sources concerning Lazarus and his sisters. From these we learn no more than that the Emperor Leo VI. in 887 built a church in his honour in Constantinople, and in 899 a monastery;[667] thither the relics of Lazarus, but not those of his sisters, were translated from Citium in Cyprus, where they had hitherto reposed. The menology of Basil and the calendars of the Copts and Syrians show that St Mary Magdalen was honoured in the Greek Church on the 22nd July. The resurrection of Lazarus was specially commemorated in the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus on the second Saturday before Easter.[668]

In the West the earliest traces of the cultus of St Mary Magdalen are found in Bede, and then in the martyrologies of Rabanus, Ado, and Usuardus, always on the 22nd July, and with the designation, “Natale.” The Hieronymianum does not mention Lazarus and St Mary Magdalen, but the name of Martha occurs five times; however, the sister of Lazarus cannot be intended, for the days (29th July and 17th October) are not those on which she is commemorated. Although the first-named martyrologies contains the mention of St Mary Magdalen, it knows nothing of her voyage to the South of France. Usuardus, indeed, puts Lazarus and Martha together on the 17th December, but merely says that a church was erected in their honour at Bethania. As far as the service-books are concerned, the name of St Mary Magdalen appears for the first time in a missal of Verona of the tenth century, and then in some missals of the eleventh century, but the missals of the Roman rite (secundum consuetudinem Rom. curiæ) mentions her only in the thirteenth century; it is the same with regard to St Martha.[669] Even to the present time Lazarus has not obtained a place in the Roman Breviary, but his commemoration is sanctioned for certain localities on the 17th December. The lections for his office contain no account of his life.

The attitude of the Roman Breviary is significant as indicating the change of views. The lections for St Mary Magdalen are simply taken from a homily of St Gregory, and contain no references to her life, while those of the much later office of St Martha (29th July) contain the more recent form of the legend with the later additions. They know nothing, however, of the pseudo-Rabanus, according to whom St Mary and her companions were forcibly placed by the Jews on board a boat without rudder or sail, and yet, notwithstanding, reached Marseilles in safety.

With regard to St Mary Magdalen in particular, the tradition must not be overlooked which states that she was originally buried in Ephesus; this is maintained by Gregory of Tours at the end of the sixth century, and then, at the beginning of the seventh century, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem states that St Mary joined St John at Ephesus after the death of our Lady, and there suffered martyrdom; the third witness is Bishop Willibald of Eichstätt, who visited her grave in Ephesus.[670] In 887, as we have said, Leo VI., the Philosopher, placed her relics in the Church of St Lazarus, which he had built in Constantinople, but the writers who mention this fact do not imply that her relics were translated from Cyprus, as some modern writers arbitrarily assert, on account of the mention of St Lazarus’ relics being brought from that island on the same occasion.[671] However this may be, the tradition says nothing about St Mary Magdalen being the sister of Lazarus; in fact, she is described by Glycas as a daughter of Simon the Leper. This tradition furnishes fresh grounds for the belief that the account of the translation of St Mary’s relics refers to a truly historical event.[672]

The investigation of scholars have brought to light the following facts as throwing light upon the Provencial legend: (1) An early sarcophagus at Marseilles, belonging to a certain Lazarus, Bishop of Aix (407-417), who was thought to be the Lazarus mentioned in the New Testament; (2) the existence of reputed relics of St Mary Magdalene in the Monastery of Vezelay in the diocese of Autun. The earliest official mention of Lazarus is in a decree of Pope Benedict IX. of the year 1040[673]; this pope consecrated the Church of St Victor at Marseilles, and from this date the legend developed rapidly. Its complicated history has been clearly set forth in the investigations of L. Duchesne and J. Rietsch; the latter shows that it is probable the Emperor Leo VI. presented the relics of St Lazarus to the widowed Empress Richardis on her visit to Constantinople during her travels in the East; she probably gave them to the Convent of Andlau in Alsace, over which she presided.

Among the numerous works on this subject we may mention: M. Faillon, Monuments Inédites sur l’Apostolat de Sainte Marie Madeleine en Provence (a collection of all documents genuine and otherwise bearing on the question), Paris, 1848. Lacordaire, Vie de Sainte Marie Madeleine, Paris, 1860, popularised the legend, and made it a point of national honour to defend it. L. Clarus (Volk), Geschichte des Lebens, der Reliquien und des Kultus der heiligen Geschwister Magdalena, etc. Regensburg, 1852, is uncritical, but pleasantly written. L. Duchesne, Sainte Marie Madeleine, Toulouse, 1892. J. Rietsch (Die Nachevangelische Geschichte der Bethanischen Geschwister, etc., Strassburg, 1902) has probably settled the question of the relics by his careful investigations.

(2) ST CECILIA

A parish church was dedicated to St Cecilia in Rome as early as 499, to which two priests were attached, and a cemetery was named after her fellow-sufferers, Tiburtius and Valerian, in the sixth century. No further information respecting her cultus has come down to us from antiquity, and in the literature of the patristic period, with the exception of Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth century, her name is not mentioned. Her cultus was apparently limited to Rome, although she had a chapel or church in Ravenna,[674] as the poet just mentioned states.

A change took place when Pope Paschal I. in 821 discovered the saint’s body, in consequence, as he said, of a vision; until then it was believed that the Lombards had carried it away with them. Paschal had the body taken from the cemetery of SS. Sixtus and Prætextatus, where he found it, and brought to her church in Rome, where it still remains. Immediately after her death, according to the statement in her Passio, her body must have been placed in the papal crypt.[675] Her name was then inserted in the martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, and Rabanus Maurus, and placed under the 22nd November, which is certainly the day of the translation of her relics, for the Hieronymianum in its oldest recension gives the 16th September as the day of her death (Natalis). St Cecilia appears in Bede and in the Frankish calendars of the eighth century composed under Roman influence, but in the most ancient calendar of Carthage, one looks for her name in vain.[676] After the miraculous discovery of her relics and their translation, on account of the interest taken in such matters in the ninth century, her fame spread throughout the whole Christian world; and churches were dedicated to her, even in the recently converted North Germany.

From the point of view we are considering, sufficient has been said about St Cecilia, still we cannot omit the opportunity of making some remarks on the date and circumstances of her martyrdom. We have a full account of it in the Passio S. Cæciliæ, which, according to Fachmäuner, was drawn up at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. This document states that Cecilia was condemned to death and executed by a prefect of Rome called Turcius Almachius; a Roman bishop (papa urbanus) placed her body in the papal crypt, and dedicated her house as a church; this pope had already been a confessor for the Faith on two occasions before the death of St Cecilia. These statements cause great difficulty, since Pope Urban I. (223-230), who can alone be meant here, lived during the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, who was very well disposed towards the Christians, and during whose reign they were free from persecution. It is exceedingly improbable that a high official could have persecuted them in Rome, under the eyes of the emperor, in the way described in the Passio. It is impossible that Pope Urban I. could have twice been a confessor at this time, and no evidence of such a thing exists; moreover, we have no evidence for the existence of a prefect of Rome called Turcius in that period, but we do find persons of this name in official positions in the time of Constantine and later. All this, taken along with the circumstance that it was a time of much unsettlement in Rome, agrees well with the fourth century, when the emperor was seldom in the capital, but does not suit the reign of Alexander Severus.

The fact that St Cecilia appears neither in the ancient Roman Calendar, the Depositio Episcoporum, nor in the chronographer of 354, points to the conclusion that she must belong to the reign of Julian. All the indications of time agree with this date; the only thing against it is the name of the contemporary pope—Urban; this may be an error, but how the name found its way into the Passio can be explained on various grounds; either the original text did not contain the pope’s name, which was introduced by mistake at a later date by some redactor of the original document, or, if the words “papa urbanus” were in the original document, they are to be taken in the sense of “Bishop of the city of Rome.”[677] This falls in with the pontificate of Liberius all the better, since, in the years 355-365, he was opposed by an anti-pope, Felix, who had a small following, and spent his time mostly outside Rome, where also he died.

The circumstance that the pope, whatever his name may have been, had been twice a confessor for the Faith also suits Liberius, who had been banished under the Arian Constantius to Berœa (355-357). After the Councils of Seleucia and Rimini in 359, Constantius even desired his death, because he refused to subscribe to the Arian Creed, and he was obliged to remain in hiding for two years in the catacombs until the death of the tyrant (November 361).[678]

The opinion that the martyrdom of St Cecilia took place under Alexander Severus has hitherto received the most support, and the difficulties have been explained on the supposition that it happened while the emperor was absent from the capital; this, however, is arbitrary, and does not really remove the other difficulties. There is no need to dwell upon the dates which have been assigned in more recent times. With regard to the more ancient dates, Ado, Usuardus, and De Rossi place the martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, plainly on account of the use of the plural by the prefect when he said (c. 24) “the emperors” had commanded that the Christians should be punished by death, but this general command was repeated during all the persecutions from Nero to Diocletian. Less wide of the mark is the most ancient attempt of all to fix the date, i.e., made by the first compiler of the Liber Pontificalis, for although not remarkable for historical knowledge, he places the death of Cecilia under Diocletian.

The family of the Turcii did not belong to Rome, but came from Samnium, where one of the name in the third century is mentioned as a proprietor of brick works in Aufidena.[679] Various members of the family quickly made their way to high offices in the State,[680] and in the summer of 363 a Turcius Apronianus was prefect of Rome, where he distinguished himself as a persecutor of the Christians. His wife, however, was a sister of the elder Melania, St Jerome’s pupil, through whose influence the whole family was baptised in 397. As a Christian Turcius Apronianus enjoyed the friendship of St Paulinus of Nola and the priest Rufinus.[681] His descendants flourished all through the fifth century, at the end of which a Turcius Asterius Secundus was consul. All this, taken in conjunction with the influential position of the family, easily accounts for the absence, in ecclesiastical literature of a subsequent period, of references to St Cecilia, at whose death a Turcius had played such an evil part. Otherwise it would be incredible that the preacher and poets of that date should have passed over a story which presented so many points of interest.[682] Nothing more is known of Turcius Almachius than what is related in the passion of St Cecilia. He must have been prefect from the end of 361 to the autumn of 362.

When all has been said, we must admit that the account of St Cecilia’s martyrdom, as it has come down to us, gives rise to serious difficulties from whatever point of view we regard it. Tillemont and Baillet were inclined to regard it as lacking all authority. The only way to give full force to all the facts of the case is to place it in the period to which it really belongs, i.e. to the reign of Julian the Apostate.

(3) ST CATHERINE

The Festival of St Catherine, though only of late introduction, quickly spread throughout the whole of Western Christendom; not only did Faculties of Theology select her as their patroness, but her day (25th November) was widely adopted for annual fairs, and her name was frequently given to children of both noble and lowly families. The original form of her name was Æcaterina (Αἰκατερίνα), the modern Russian Jekaterina; its derivation from the Greek katharos cannot, therefore, be maintained. Catherine is said to have been a noble virgin of Alexandria, who, according to the legend, expostulated with the tyrant Maxentius on account of his cruelty during the Diocletian persecution, and was, in consequence, seized by him and forced to hold a disputation with fifty philosophers. Not only did St Catherine hold her own against the philosophers, but even won them over to Christianity; whereupon the empress, who had heard of her wisdom, visited her in prison, escorted by two hundred soldiers. The soldiers, however, along with their captain, were converted also, and condemned to death in a body by the emperor. The martyr herself was next tortured, milk, instead of blood, flowing from her wounds, and then put to death by the sword. So far the legend as given by Metaphrastes; the carrying of her body by angels to Mount Sinai is a later addition.

It does not require much exercise of the critical faculty to realise the improbabilities of this story, and at the present day critics are all but unanimous[683] in rejecting it; and so we need only concern ourselves with it here in so far as it has given rise to the Feast of St Catherine. In this connection we observe that not only the ancient Church as a whole knew nothing of St Catherine, but, what is still more to the point, neither the Syrian nor Egyptian Calendars published by Selden and Mai make any mention of this remarkable martyr. Among the Greeks, the Menologium Basilianum is the first to mention her, while in the Latin Church she does not appear until the fourteenth century. Durandus, although he treats of all the important saints’ days, does not name St Catherine, neither does the Liber Ordinarius of Siena concluded in 1263. In the numerous Italian missals consulted by Ebner, St Catherine is usually found only in the supplements which date from the fourteenth century. In the body of the missal, she appears only in the missal of Trani, belonging to the end of the thirteenth century. It is not difficult to fix the period at which the legend met with general acceptance, for St Catherine is absent from the menology of Constantinople, but is commemorated as a martyr of the second class in that of Basil. To this period belongs three Latin poems found among the works of Alfanus,[684] Abbot of Monte Cassino, and later Archbishop of Salerno (1058-1085). Alfanus, whom St Peter Damian calls a lover of truth, but who is proved to have been very credulous by a story which he tells of some unnamed Byzantine monarch,[685] appears to have been the first to make the legend known in the West. The origin of the story is lost in obscurity, and, as in the case of the legend of St Lazarus, we have hitherto been unable to discover reliable data on which to base any conclusion. The story of St Catherine may well be one of those popular tales, drawn up in a historical form, which were circulated in the Middle Ages, and occupied the place of poetic fiction. Its excision at any early date from the service-books is much to be desired in the interests of the respect due to them.

The Festival of All Saints has no intimate connection with the ecclesiastical year, but is of the nature of an addition from without, and, like the saints’ days, is fixed for a special date. In the earliest ages the Church paid an external cultus to the martyrs alone, among whom she included, at an early date, St John the Baptist, but it was only in the course of centuries that other saints, not martyrs, attained to this distinction. The cultus of simple confessors, however, formed at first quite the exception, and only became general along with the introduction of canonisations. Thus in the early ages there was no Festival of All Saints, but only a commemoration of all the martyrs, the intention being that no martyr might be left unhonoured. Their number had been increased to such an extent by the Diocletian persecution, that it was no longer possible to celebrate a special commemoration of each one separately, and so many martyrs had to be passed over; thus a commemoration of all the martyrs was instituted as a matter of course.

As far as we know at present, we first meet with this commemoration in the Church of Antioch, which, on the first Sunday after Pentecost, kept a commemoration of all the holy martyrs. We have some sermons of St John Chrysostom preached on this day.[686] In course of time the feast became general throughout the East, and an All Saints’ Sunday finds a place in the Eastern calendars, while the Uniats have accepted the Roman date for the feast.

In the West the festival passed through the following phases. The Emperor Phocas († 4th October 610), as master of Rome and lord of Central Italy, gave the Pantheon to Boniface IV. at the pope’s request. The building had been erected by Agrippa in honour of Augustus in 27 B.C. The learned are not agreed as to whether it was originally a temple or a bath (Laconicum sudatio), but it had certainly statues of the gods in the niches which adorn its interior; however, in the seventh century it no longer served its original purpose, and its maintenance was a source of expense to the imperial treasury. The pope had the building cleansed and made into a church, which he dedicated to our Lady and all the martyrs;[687] the day of the dedication was the 13th May (609 or 610), which thus came to be observed in Rome as a commemoration of all the holy martyrs.

A second stage in the early development of the feast was reached in the next century, when Gregory III. (731-741) dedicated an oratory in St Peter’s to “the Redeemer, His holy Mother, all the Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and all the just and perfect who are at rest throughout the whole world.” In this oratory the monks were to celebrate vigils and say mass in honour of the saints.[688] Here we have the same idea manifested which underlies the Festival of All Saints. A Roman basilica had been already dedicated in honour of all the apostles, and the day of its dedication, the 1st May, probably served as a commemoration of all the apostles. The Church of “S. Maria ad Martyres,” the Pantheon, was, moreover, thoroughly restored by Gregory III.[689]

The third and decisive stage in the progress was reached under Gregory IV. (827-844). A mediæval, but, in this case, well-informed writer states that a great number of pilgrims went annually to Rome for the Feast of all the Martyrs (13th May), and that, since the supply of provisions in Rome in spring was insufficient for the support of both pilgrims and inhabitants, Gregory IV. changed the feast from the 13th May to the 1st November.[690] Frankish writers of the same period inform us that this pope exhorted Louis the Pious to introduce the festival into France, and that Louis, with the consent of all the bishops of Gaul and Germany, accordingly ordered it to be observed throughout his empire in 835.[691]

Many writers on this account give this as the year in which the festival was instituted, and attribute its origin to Louis the Pious, but in this they are mistaken. Sixtus IV. (1471-1484) provided All Saints’ with an octave.[692]

The pious duty of prayer for the departed (2 Machabees xii. 46) finds expression in private and public devotions. The public prayers usually take place on stated days, i.e. the day of the death, the seventh and thirtieth days after death, and the anniversary; the observance of these devotions is left in the hands of the relatives and friends of the deceased. The religious Orders began at an early date to observe these pious customs with regard to their own departed members.[693] Besides this, for the last thousand years a particular day in the year has been set apart for the commemoration of all the departed in general; this was the 2nd November, or, if the 2nd fell on a Sunday, the 3rd. The impulse which led to its introduction into the ritual of the Church came from Cluny, for in 998 the Abbot Odilo issued an ordinance to this effect (the so-called Statutum S. Odilonis pro Defunctis)[694] to all the monasteries of his congregation. In this it was directed that in all monasteries of the Order on the 1st November, after vespers, the bell should be tolled and the office of the dead recited, and on the next day all the priests of the congregation were to say mass for the repose of the faithful departed.

This example found imitators without there being any legislation on the point. Other Orders speedily took it up, such as the Benedictines and Carthusians, etc.;[695] but it was longer before the secular clergy adopted this practice in each diocese. The date of its introduction varies greatly in different countries; it will be sufficient for us to give a few dates for which we have certain information, which have a special interest for us.

The first diocese to adopt All Souls’ Day seems to have been Liège, where it was introduced by Bishop Notker († 1008).[696] It appears in the martyrology of Besançon, called after Bishop Protadius, and compiled between 1053 and 1066; it is mentioned in the fourteenth of the Roman Ordos, which belongs to the thirteenth century; it is not found in the Cologne Calendar of the same century, nor in the more ancient one published by Binterim; it is also absent from a calendar put out in 1382.[697]

We have more detailed information respecting the Church of Milan. Bishop Otricus (1120-1125) had already introduced the observance of All Souls’ Day, but placed it on the day following the dedication of the cathedral, i.e. the 15th October. This arrangement continued to the time of St Charles Borromeo, who in 1582 adopted the Roman, or rather the original date.[698] In the Greek and Russian Churches the commemoration of the departed is kept on the Saturday before the Sunday “Apoecros,” which corresponds to our Septuagesima Sunday. The Armenians keep it on Easter Monday.

The existence of higher and purely spiritual beings formed part of the religious belief of the Jews; they are mentioned in countless passages of the Old Testament, but no worship was paid directly to them by the Synagogue. In the Christian Church the cultus of the angels, especially of St Michael, can be traced back to remote antiquity. In more recent times special days have been set apart in honour of the other two angels named in the Holy Scriptures, and also of the Guardian Angels; St Gabriel is honoured on the 18th March, St Raphael on the 24th October.

The first Christian emperor built a church in honour of St Michael on the headland called Hestiæ on the Bosphorus. It was built on the spot called Anaplus, distant from Constantinople seventy stadia by land and thirty-five by water. The place afterwards took the name of Michaelion, after the church. On the opposite headland on the Asiatic shore Justinian also erected a church of St Michael. Nicephorus makes Constantine the founder of both churches, but Theophanes speaks only of one built by him.[699] According to Du Cange, there is said to have been no fewer than fifteen churches and chapels of St Michael in Constantinople and the neighbourhood in the Middle Ages. Other towns also erected, at an early date, churches dedicated to St Michael, as, for example, Ravenna in 545. St Michael enjoyed special veneration at the same period at Chonæ in Phrygia,[700] an ancient and celebrated place of pilgrimage, and the chief centre in the Byzantine Empire of the cultus of the angels.

Chonæ, the present Khonas on the Lycus, situated on a tributary of the Mæander in the ecclesiastical province of Laodicea, is the name given since the ninth century to the ancient Colossæ, to the Christian community of which city St Paul addressed one of his epistles, wherein he already speaks of the worship of angels. Even in the time of the apostles there existed a half-Jewish, half-Gnostic sect which disturbed the peace of the local church by teaching that Christ was inferior to the angels, who must be worshipped and invoked in preference to Him; St Paul (Colossians ii. 18) rejects this teaching as heretical, nevertheless, it did not die out, for in the fourth century the Council of Laodicea was compelled to censure this false worship of the angels in its thirty-fifth canon.[701] This was not a prohibition of the cultus of the angels in general, for at the same period St Ambrose and St Hilary in other parts of the Church exhorted the faithful to invoke them.[702] The true worship of the angels existed also in Colossæ, for Metaphrastes tells us that an apparition of the Archangel Michael himself took place there, in honour of which Manual Comnenus later on prescribed that the Festival of the Apparition of St Michael should be kept as a festival of the second class on the 6th September (Apparitio S. Michælis in Chonis).

The first church dedicated to the Archangel in Rome, or rather in its neighbourhood, seems to have enjoyed great veneration. The oldest Roman sacramentary, which goes by the name of Leo the Great, gives no less than five masses for the anniversary of its dedication; in three of them St Michael is mentioned by name in the prayers or prefaces. From the fact that in the other masses the angels in general are spoken of without special mention of St Michael, we must not conclude, as many liturgical writers have done, that they deal with the cultus of the angels in general. The church was situated, according to subsequent information, on the Via Salaria at the sixth milestone from Rome; but beyond this nothing further is known about it. These masses for the day of the Consecration of the Basilica of the Holy Angel in the Via Salaria[703] are placed on the 30th September in the Leonianum. As regards later Roman sacramentaries, the prayers for a mass in honour of St Michael are given in the Gelasianum on the 29th September. The Gregorianum gives on the same day the dedication of the basilica of St Michael without the addition “in via Salaria.”[704] It is probable that another church of St Michael is meant here whose dedication took place on the 29th and not the 30th September. The day of this church’s dedication has continued to our own time to be kept as the Festival of St Michael the Archangel.

In the city itself there was also a church erected in honour of St Michael, the date and founder of which are both unknown. Among the ecclesiastical buildings of Pope Symmachus (498-514) in the city of Rome, the Liber Pontificalis says that he enlarged and beautified the basilica of St Michael.[705] A church of St Michael was also built by a pope of the name of Boniface near the Circus Flaminius,[706] and, in the ninth century, the Church of St Michael in Sassia was also erected.

The Churches of the West accepted the Roman date, the 29th September, for the Feast of St Michael,[707] and in the Middle Ages it ranked as a holy day of obligation, especially in England, where King Ethelred in 1014 provided it should be observed with a vigil and a preparatory fast of three days.[708] In Germany the Council of Mainz (813) in its thirty-sixth canon established it as a festival; and the imperial banner, to be carried in battle, bore the figure of St Michael. In France the feast was established by the sixty-first canon of the diocesan Synod of Tours in 858. In Constantinople the feast was observed on the 8th November; it is marked in the menology as the Synaxis of the Archangel Michael, while in the Basilianum the same day is called only a Synaxis of the Archangel. In the later Coptic Calendar of Calcasendi, St Michael occurs no less than six times (7th April, 6th June, 5th August, 9th September, 8th November, and 8th December). In the Syrian lectionary he is set down in the 6th September.

In the course of the sixth century a second Festival of St Michael began to be celebrated in the West, in consequence of an apparition near Sipontum on Monte Gargano which took place on the 8th May; the year, unfortunately, is not known, but the Bollandists place it in the interval between 520 and 530. Since Monte Gargano, like Chonæ in the East, became a famous Western place of pilgrimage, this local festival gradually came to be observed in other places in the West. The calendars and martyrologies frequently confuse it with the feast of the 29th September, as, for example, the two oldest recensions of the Hieronymianum, those of Metz and Weissenburg; and similar mistakes occur in other calendars.[709]

Gabriel and Raphael have no special commemoration either in the Hieronymianum or in other ancient martyrologies and calendars of the Latin Church, neither do they appear in the Greek menologies; it is only in the tenth and eleventh centuries that in a few instances we find them commemorated on special days.[710] Although Gabriel appears in the most ancient Coptic Calendar, it is doubtful whether the day chosen for his commemoration, the 18th December, is not in the first instance a commemoration of the Annunciation, and only secondarily and accidently a feast of the Archangel. In the same way, his name appears in the Syrian lectionary on the 26th March, the day after our Lady’s Annunciation.

A special festival in honour of the Guardian Angels was first celebrated in the sixteenth century in Spain on the 1st March,[711] and afterwards in France on the first free day after Michaelmas. Pope Paul V. permitted the whole Church to celebrate the Feast of the Guardian Angels (27th September 1608), and, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand II., prescribed its observance throughout the imperial dominions. Clement IX. in 1667 placed the feast on the first Sunday in September, and provided it with an octave. Clement X. in 1670 made it a festum duplex of general obligation, and gave it a fixed place in the calendar on the 2nd October; the older date, however, still remains in Germany and in a part of Switzerland.[712] Leo XIII. raised it to a duplex majus.

The discovery of the true cross is ascribed to St Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. Helena was born about 246 at Drepanum in Bithynia, of humble origin, having served as maid in an inn (stabularia) where Constantine Chlorus made her acquaintance about 273. From their union sprang the future Emperor Constantine, born on 27th February 274 at Naïssus, now Nisch in Servia. When Constantine Chlorus was raised to the rank of Cæsar on 1st March 292, he, like his colleague, had to separate from his wife (whether Helena or another is disputed), in order to form a more influential alliance, with Theodora, daughter of Maximianus Hercules, by whom he had three sons.

But in 306, when Constantine after his father’s death became the emperor’s colleague and Cæsar, he raised his mother to a position of honour and brought her to the court. When, in 311, he professed Christianity, Helena also followed his example, and at the age of sixty-four or sixty-five became a Christian. The misfortunes of her son’s family life disturbed her last years, and she was especially grieved at the death of her grandson Crispus, whom Constantine caused to be murdered in 326, at the instigation of his stepmother Fausta.[713] As a pious Christian she found consolation in the performance of good works, to which she devoted herself. She died in 326, and her body was buried at Rome in the Via Lavicana, but two years later it was taken to Constantinople.[714] In her honour Constantine changed the name of her birthplace to Helenopolis, and bestowed upon her the title of Augusta; on medals she is called Flavia Julia Helena.

She obtained great honour after her death, and in Jerusalem especially her memory was held in veneration by the religious virgins of the locality;[715] St Ambrose calls her a woman of good and holy memory; St Paulinus of Nola had a high idea of her worth, and speaks of her as deserving all veneration, and Theodoret, although imperfectly informed as to the facts of her life, praises her exuberantly.[716] As to her admission among the ranks of the saints, this was effected only at a late date, and in a few instances. We find her name, indeed, in the eighth century in the menology of Constantinople set down along with that of her son on the day of his death (21st May). This shows that the author of the menology was ignorant of the day of her death, and also that no cultus was paid to her immediately after her decease; still, to both the term saint is applied in this document. No trace of her cultus appears in the West before the ninth century. The most ancient MSS. of the Hieronymianum do not contain her name; she is not to be found either in Bede or Ado; Usuardus has placed her in his martyrology under the 18th August,[717] and from him her commemoration passed into the Roman martyrology on the same day, but in the other liturgical books she has no place.[718] When we find “S Helena” in a graffito or in an itinerary, this cannot be regarded as a fact of much importance.[719]

Soon after he became sole emperor, Constantine decided to erect a church over the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. According to Eusebius,[720] the heathen had filled up the place with rubbish, raised the level of the ground, and built a temple to Venus on the site. This was now destroyed, the rubbish removed, and deep under the surface the cave of the Holy Sepulchre was discovered.[721] The emperor’s letter to Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem concerning the building of the church is given in full by Eusebius. The erection of the building was undertaken at once, and Eusebius has given us a full description of it.[722] At this point Eusebius begins to speak of Helena, and relates how she came to the East and visited the holy places, and on this occasion she gave rich presents to the churches which her son had built both in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.[723] Whereupon Eusebius relates the death of Helena, but of her discovery of the Holy Cross he says not one word; it is only in his Commentary on the Psalms (lxxxvii. 11; cviii. 29) that certain mysterious expressions are found which may refer to it.[724] This silence is all the more remarkable since Jerusalem belonged to the ecclesiastical province of Cæsarea, and Eusebius must in any case have known of the event.

Later historians and writers, beginning with Socrates and Sozomen,[725] have a great deal to say upon the subject. According to them, the cross of our Lord, and those also of the two thieves, along with the title written by Pilate, were all found deep under the surface of the ground; but the cross on which our Lord suffered could not be distinguished from the other two. Bishop Macarius solved the difficulty by obtaining a miracle from God, in answer to his prayers; the three crosses were laid, one after another, upon a sick woman, in the belief that she must be cured when touched by our Lord’s cross. And so it happened, as the third cross touched her body, she recovered. This healing of a sick person has become in later writers, as, for example, in Paulinus of Nola,[726] a resurrection from the dead, showing in this, as in other cases, the development of the legend. In addition, the nails of the cross were also found, and these, along with half of the cross, were sent by Helena to her son in Constantinople; the other half was preserved in Jerusalem in a silver shrine in a chapel specially built for its reception.

Socrates, from whom these details are taken, places these events after his account of the Nicene Council; many writers place them in the year after the Council, but this is incorrect, since in that year Helena died; the Alexandrine Chronicle alone, which in such matters is very reliable, gives the day and the year for these events, i.e. 14th September 320.[727] Other authorities give a yet earlier date; indeed, a Syrian legend relates that a certain Protonika had discovered the Holy Cross during the reign of Tiberius.[728]

The day of the discovery of the Holy Cross was kept annually at Jerusalem with great ceremony, all the more as the consecration of the church was kept on the same day. The two principal churches in Jerusalem, the one on Golgotha, which bore the title of Martyrium and Ad Crucem, and the other, also built by Constantine, and called the Anastasis, were both consecrated on the same date, i.e. the 14th September.[729] Already in the fourth century numbers of pilgrims came to Jerusalem to celebrate this festival; they came from distant countries, from Mesopotamia and Egypt, and among them several bishops were to be found. The Gallic pilgrim, of whom we have so often spoken, was present at this festival, and has left an interesting description of it, and a later pilgrim, the penitent Mary of Egypt, was converted on the occasion of the festival. We have already related how the Holy Cross was exposed for the veneration of the faithful every year in Jerusalem on Good Friday.

The 14th September was at first only a local festival at Jerusalem and in those other towns which possessed portions of the Holy Cross, such as Constantinople and Apamea; it spread afterwards to other places, and soon became universal in the East. It is called in the East the Exaltation of the Cross (ὕψωσις τοῦ τιμίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυραῦ, or τῶν ἁγίων ξύλων), from which is taken its Western name, Exaltatio Crucis, but the pilgrim Theodosius, who visited the Holy Land about 530, employs the correct term, the Finding of the Cross (inventio crucis).[730] According to the menology of Constantinople, the festival was preceded by a preparation of four days (10th to 13th September). On the three last days of Holy Week the court and all the high officials took part in the public worship of the Holy Cross, as we learn from a writer[731] of the seventh century. The Coptic calendars usually prolong the celebration during three days.

In the seventh century the relic of the Holy Cross was connected with an event of great importance. Chosroes II., King of Persia, began to make war against the Eastern Empire at the time when Heraclius ascended the throne; he captured the cities of Apamea and Edessa, and defeated the Greeks in several engagements; in June 614 his general Salbarus took Jerusalem with great slaughter. He laid waste the churches, and carried off to Persia, with the rest of the booty, the portion of the Holy Cross which was preserved there. The course of the war still remained unfavourable to the Greeks until Heraclius, having made peace with the Bulgarians, himself led the full strength of his army against the Persians in 621. The fortune of war changed, and the Greeks reconquered their lost territory, being aided in this by internal discord among the Persians. Chosroes was deposed and murdered in 628; his successor, Siroes, hastened to make peace with the Greeks, and restored to them the wood of the Holy Cross. At the end of the year Heraclius returned as victor to his capital, and at the beginning of the following year he set out for Syria, taking the Holy Cross with him. He brought it himself from Tiberias to Jerusalem,[732] where he handed it over to the Patriarch Zacharias on the 3rd May, if the traditional date be correct. Tradition further adds that, arrayed in his royal robes, he essayed to carry it upon his shoulders, but at the foot of the hill of Calvary he found himself unable to proceed further until, upon the advice of Zacharias, he laid aside his royal apparel. No festival in commemoration of the event was introduced in the East, although it was in the West.[733]

With regard to the spread of these two festivals throughout the Church, we must call attention to a remarkable fact; the day of the discovery of the Holy Cross by Helena (14th September) naturally existed as a festival from the first in Jerusalem, from whence it soon spread throughout the entire eastern half of the Church, but in the West, although the discovery of the cross was already well known in the fourth century, the festival in honour of the event was not adopted, at least not at once.

It was just the opposite with regard to the recovery of the cross by Heraclius; the grief at the news of its loss was equalled by the joy which the whole Christian world felt at its recovery. While in the East people remained content with the already existing feast, in the West the day of the recovery of the cross was kept as a solemn commemoration, and was placed in the calendars and martyrologies at an early date; we find it mentioned by the name “Day of the Holy Cross” (dies sanctæ crucis) in the lectionary of Silos, which belongs to about 650—probably the earliest mention of the festival. The ancient Gallic liturgies published by Mabillon, both the lectionary and sacramentary, contain the Festival of the Holy Cross in spring, but call it “The Finding of the Cross” (Inventio Sanctæ Crucis).[734] None of these service-books mention the feast of the 14th September. The Gregorianum has both feasts, so has the Gelasianum, at all events in Thomasi’s edition, but the second is a later addition.[735]

The way in which the Martyrologium Hieronymianum treats these feasts is worthy of notice. The Weissenburg Codex, written about 750, has both days; the Echternach Codex, which represents the oldest form of the text, has neither, and the Bern Codex, the latest of the three recensions, has only one, i.e. the 3rd May, which, in common with all Latin authorities, it calls the Finding of the Cross.[736] The authentic text of Bede has only the 3rd May, so too has the sacramentary of Padua, belonging to the first half of the ninth century.[737]

These notices might easily be increased, but they are sufficient to show how that in the West, when it was known that the Holy Cross had been recovered from the Saracens, the feast of the 3rd May was, in the seventh century, immediately introduced, but the feast of the 14th September only became known in the eighth century, and won its way to acceptance slowly and partially. In many churches it was received quite late, as for example in Milan in 1035.[738]

PART III THE MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR IS BASED — 1. The Documentary Sources in General — 2. The Earliest Christian Calendars — 3. The Arian Calendar of the Fourth Century ( About 370-380 ) — 4. The so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum ( Second Half of the Seventh Century ) — 5. The Lectionary and Martyrology of Silos — 6. Egyptian (Coptic) Calendars and Synaxaria — 7. The Menology of Constantinople (Eighth Century) — 8. The Menology of the Emperor Basil II., and the Syrian Lectionary of the Eleventh Century — 9. The Kalendarium Marmoreum of Naples — 10. Western Authorities from the Sixth to the Eighth Centuries — 11. The Martyrologies of Bede, Florus, Wandelbert, and Œngus [812] — 12. The Martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, Rabanus Maurus, and Notker Balbulus — 13. Important Calendars from the Eighth to the Eleventh Centuries — CONCLUSION

The sources from which the history of the ecclesiastical year and the festivals of the saints is drawn are first of all official documents, namely service-books, decrees of councils, papal constitutions and bulls; in the second place come the information derived from ecclesiastical writers of various periods and countries which must be used and brought into connection with the official sources.

Among the liturgical books of the Church, the missals and breviaries hold the first place. In earlier times these were differently arranged and had different names from those which they bear at present. The collects and psalms in particular employed at the mass were not included in one volume as they are now, but were taken from a number of books. The essential prayers of the mass were contained in the so-called Sacramentarium, in which were also to be found the collects, prefaces, and, in certain cases, even the whole canon. The lections from Holy Scripture, the Epistles and Gospels, were collected together in the Lectionaries, either all together, or the Epistles and Gospels in separate volumes; another name for this kind of book was Comes. The psalms and other portions to be sung by the choir were contained in separate books, the Antiphonaries, Graduals, and Hymnaries, etc. It was only in the Middle Ages that for the sake of convenience all the different parts of the mass were contained together in one volume, called a missale plenarium, but the separate volumes still continued in use for certain occasions.

In the course of our investigations, we have often had to refer to the so-called sacramentaries, of which the three most ancient belonging to the Roman Church are also the most important. These are:—

1. Sacramentarium Leonianum. This is a collection of older formularies which had been already drawn up by an unknown author, some of which may well be the work of Leo the Great; the title, which gives rise to the opinion that Leo was the author of the book, is due to the first editor. The only existing codex is in Verona, and is unfortunately imperfect, being deficient in all that relates to Lent and Easter. Since it contains a prayer for Pope Simplicius († 483), Rome must be regarded as the place where it was drawn up, and where it was used, while the date when it took its present shape was the pontificate of Felix II. (483-492).

2. The Gelasianum, so called after Gelasius I. (492-496). This pope did actually compose some liturgical books, but the volumen sacramentorum, ascribed to him by Gennadius, cannot have been one of them, since it contains the four festivals of our Lady which were celebrated in Rome only after Gregory the Great. On the other hand it does not contain the stations for the Thursdays in Lent introduced by Gregory II. (715-731); consequently, it represents the liturgical usages of the seventh century, i.e. of the period after St Gregory the Great, and bears the name of Gelasius incorrectly. It consists of three books: (1) De Tempore, beginning with Christmas; (2) De Sanctis, beginning with the 1st January; and (3) masses for the ordinary Sundays, votive masses, and masses for the dead. The number of prefaces contained in the sacramentary amounts to over a hundred. The Stowe Missal, which is independent of the Gelasianum, gives the canon Gelasii Papæ. This book was drawn up in Rome and was intended for local usage, but we only possess the MSS., which were meant for the churches of France; the most ancient belongs to the end of the seventh century, and was written apparently for the Abbey of St Denys (Cod. Vat. Reg. Sueciæ, 316). The other existing codices only give an edition specially adapted from the original Roman book for use in the Frankish Empire; this is shown by the prayer, “Respice propitius ad Romanum sive Francorum imperium.”

3. The Gregorianum. This represents the Roman rite of the period of Pope Adrian I. (772-795) and Charlemagne. It is entirely a compilation of Roman origin belonging to the eighth century, destined originally for the use of the popes but afterwards adapted for general use. The canon stands at the head of the work, which commences with Christmas, but Advent comes at the end of the Proprium de Tempore. The Agnus Dei, added to the text of the mass by Pope Sergius I., is given here in its place, while it is absent from Gelasianum.[739] The earliest mention of this work is in the collection of letters of the popes of the eighth century known as the Codex Carolinus, in a letter of Adrian I. to Charlemagne who received a copy of the work from Adrian between 784 and 791,[740] from which date it was introduced into the Frankish Empire, copied, and circulated, and also added to. In his letter Adrian ascribes a personal share in the production of the work to his predecessor Gregory, relying, of course, on the tradition of his Church.[741]

4. This last-named book gradually supplanted the ancient liturgies and service-books of Gaul; of these we possess the Sacramentarium Gallicanum, along with its lectionary, the Missale Gothico-Gallicanum, and the Missale Francorum;[742] the Mozarabic missal and breviary are also very important documents.

The ecclesiastical calendars and martyrologies come next under consideration. As regards the former, the service-books of which we have been speaking were on the whole drawn up in accordance with the local calendar and added both the movable and immovable feasts as best they could. In proportion as the number of feasts increased the calendars were regarded as independent catalogues of festivals, and are found both as separate documents, or bound up with the other liturgical books; in the latter case, they are usually placed at the beginning of the volume.

While the calendars give merely the names of the saints or the date of their feasts, the martyrologies or Synaxaria contain more detailed notices, giving the place, time, and circumstances of the saints’ death, rank, etc., according as the compiler had more or less material at his disposal; in many instances these notices have grown into considerable historical narratives, and on this account, the character of the different martyrologies varies greatly. As to their employment for historical purposes, the shorter the contents the higher the value and trustworthiness of a calendar. The martyrologies were usually compiled by private individuals, even when intended for ecclesiastical use, but the calendars shared in the official character of the liturgical books of which they formed part, since alterations could not be made in them without the knowledge and consent of the authorities of the church or corporation to which they belonged.[743]

Manuscript calendars belonging to earlier centuries exist in large numbers, for all missals and breviaries were provided with them. Their value for historical research depends upon their age, and also upon our knowledge of the locality for which they were drawn up, the best data for discovering this latter point being afforded by the names of local saints contained in the calendar itself. No calendar can be set aside as altogether useless, for in case of need all can throw light upon the history of at least their own locality. For this reason, and for others as well, an increasing amount of attention has been given to them in recent times, and a large number of them have been printed (see sect. 10 of this part). The days marked in the calendars are those of the saints’ deaths (vid. ante, p. 213); but the days on which their relics were translated to some particular church are also marked as festivals in the calendar of the church in question. When in different calendars different days are given to the same saint, the date in the calendar belonging to the church where he died is usually to be regarded as the day of his death; the others are days on which his relics were translated.[744]

Another class of documents consists of the ordos drawn up for divine service belonging to particular countries, dioceses, or the more important ecclesiastical foundations (ordines, ordinaria; in Greek, typica). These were not originally drawn up for the course of merely one year, like our present ordos, but contained the list of recurring festivals and fasts observed from year to year in some monastery or cathedral, along with detailed directions for the performance of divine service. The most important of these are the thirteen oldest ordos of the Roman Church, collected and published by Mabillon, but other dioceses and monasteries as well as the Church of Rome had similar ordos, some of which have been already printed,[745] while others still await publication.[746]

The worship of the saints, especially of the martyrs, asserted itself in various ways in the liturgy of the Church. Among the Latins, it appeared even in the liturgy of the mass, since special masses in honour of the saints were composed at an early date for the commemorations of the most celebrated saints. These were included in the sacramentaries, and, finally, as their number continued to increase, they were placed together in a separate division of the book (proprium sanctorum), instead of being distributed, as formerly, over the whole year. Among the Greeks, this was not possible, since they repeat the same mass daily, and employ only two or three mass formularies throughout the entire year.

In the second place, the cultus of the saints gained a footing in the Canonical Hours, the Psalter, both among Latins and Greeks. It was customary among the Latins as early as the sixth century to read a portion of the account of the martyrdom (passiones martyrum), as Aurelian of Arles tells us;[747] this was the commencement of the existing lections of the breviary. Then collections of lives of the saints for the whole year were drawn up on the lines of the calendar, which came to be called martyrologies on account of the character of the larger part of their contents. In course of time, two kinds of martyrologies came into existence, those containing legends of greater length more suited for private reading, and those distinguished by the brevity of their notices intended for employment in the services of the Church. Even these have no immediate connection with the liturgy, although the names of the saints for the day were read at Prime, a custom which possibly the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle of 817 had in view in its sixty-ninth canon.[748] These martyrologies developed out of the diptychs and calendars of particular churches, by way of compilation and expansion; like the calendars, they contain simply the names of the saints, but with the mention of the locality to which the saint belonged, and, in many cases, with an indication of the date at which he lived.

The martyrologies aimed at completeness in other directions. First, it was attempted to unite together the names of all the martyrs who had ever suffered throughout the whole Church, along with the day of their death, and secondly, an attempt was made, but only in later times, to fill up the calendar by allotting every day in the year to at least one saint. This latter attempt was made in the West only in the seventh and eighth centuries, and achieved considerable success. While the first efforts in this direction attained to only relative completeness, since they took into consideration only a part, and not the whole, of the universal Church, as the Arian and Carthaginian martyrologies had done, yet the tendency towards universality appears unmistakably at a later date, especially in the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum.

With regard to the Greek service-books, menology means the same thing as martyrology—a catalogue of saints arranged in the form of a calendar according to the days of the month, and merely giving the name of the saint against the particular day set apart by the Church in his honour. The lives of the saints arranged according to months and days are called Menæa or Meniæa, and the shorter abstracts from it are called Synaxaria.[749]

The list of calendars opens with two documents, the most ancient of their kind possessed by the Roman Church, i.e. the lists of popes and martyrs with the days of their death, which have often been referred to already—the Depositio Episcoporum from Lucius to Julius I., and the Depositio Martyrum, a catalogue of the martyrs of the city of Rome, extending only to 304, three martyrs not belonging to Rome being included in this list, Cyprian, Perpetua, and Felicitas. The connection of these two lists to one another is shown in their titles (item), and also by the fact that Sixtus, who is placed among the martyrs, is omitted from the list of popes. This latter list comprises the period from Lucius († 255) to Julius († 352) only; either the compiler had no material at hand for the earlier period, or he set it aside as not bearing upon the point he had in view. The list of martyrs contains the names of popes who were also martyrs, such as St Peter, St Clement, St Calixtus, St Pontianus, St Fabian, and St Sixtus; of martyrs, not bishops, we have here the most famous saints of the city of Rome, St Agnes and St Lawrence (but not St Cecilia), as well as many other quite obscure names. In reply to the inquiry what principle was followed in drawing up this list, Mommsen,[750] relying on the title which connects the document with Carthage, replies that it contains “the names of those martyrs and bishops whose commemoration was celebrated annually in the Church.” Both these lists were first published by Ægidius Bucherius (Gilles Boucher), and form a portion of the work on the Calendar of Dionysius Philocalus (see above, p. 136 seqq.).

Next in order comes a Calendar of the North African Church belonging to the fifth century, and edited by Mabillon from a codex of the seventh century formerly belonging to the Monastery of Cluny. The original must have been completed after 505, for Bishop Eugenius of Carthage is mentioned in it. It contains St John the Baptist, some apostles and martyrs not belonging to North Africa, Sixtus, Gervasius and Protasius, Lawrence, Clement of Rome, Eulalia, Felix of Nola, Agnes, Agatha, Vincent, and the Machabees, who belong to the Churches of Rome and Spain. Unfortunately, the list is not quite perfect owing to the bad state of the MS.

The Calendar of Philocalus for the year 352 contains nothing definitely Christian.[751] On the other hand, the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, drawn up between 435 and 455, is interesting as showing a mixture of Christian and heathen entries. Destination, character, place, and time of the compilation can be learnt from the calendar itself; it was not drawn up for one particular year, at least there is nothing by which to determine the year, for Dominical letters, movable feasts, etc., are all wanting; among heathen festivals we have the Carmentalia, Lupercalia, Terminalia, Quinquatria, and Lavatio Cereris, all of which recall heathen religious customs. The Saturnalia are included on account of their popular, not on account of their religious significance, and appear as feriæ servorum on the 17th December, as well as feriæ ancillarum on the 7th July. In addition, there are many other popular commemorations, such as the 7th January, 13th September, etc., and a great number of natales of emperors. The number of ecclesiastical feasts is very small, being limited to Epiphany, the 25th and 27th of March as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christmas, and six saints’ days—Depositio Petri et Pauli on the 22nd February instead of the 29th June, Vincent, the Machabees, Lawrence, Hippolytus, and Stephen on their usual days. Besides these we have the natales of authors—Cicero and Virgil, and finally, the days are marked on which the Senate usually held sittings and games were given in the circus. In comparison with the Calendar of Philocalus, the number of such days is much reduced; in the former there are over a hundred, here only fifty-three. The meteorological entries are numerous. The calendar was evidently intended for the provinces of the western half of the empire, and takes into account both the ecclesiastical and civil requirements, although it deals with the former to a limited extent.

One of the most interesting documents in connection with our subject in virtue of its age, contents, and plan is the Arian martyrology, published by W. Wright in 1865.[752] As is well known, the Arians were an active party who, until about 380, attempted with some success to gain the upper hand in the Church. As a means to this end, it was to their interest to invest their followers as much as possible with the appearance of sanctity, and the Arian historian Philostorgius devoted himself especially to this; he characterises as saints and workers of miracles Agapetus and a certain Theophilus who worked in India, and also Aëtius, Eunomius, and Leontius, the ringleaders of thorough-going Arianism.[753] As a consequence of this the Arians encroached in various ways upon the domain of liturgy also. It goes without saying that they did not wish to figure as heretics, but as forming the true Church, and so they exhibited a corresponding activity in hagiology.

While, generally speaking, the local churches confined themselves each to its own diocese, and the principle of individualism continued to hold its own for a long time throughout the whole Church, the Arians early abandoned this method, and even while they did not completely adopt the principle of universality, yet they did so partially, their position as a minority among Christians giving them an impulse in this direction. Thus we find their martyrology embraces Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Mœsia, Illyria; in fact, the entire eastern half of the empire, and even Italy and North Africa are not passed over altogether.

We must first of all turn our attention to the external and historical side of the document. Wright found it in a Syrian MS., belonging to Nitria in Egypt, of the time of Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch (404-413), and written in the year 411.[754] It consists of two different parts, of which the first is a martyrology drawn up in accordance with the calendar, and originally composed in Greek. Unfortunately, the section from the 1st to the 25th December is missing. This part is the original document, and was early translated into Syriac, although, as we shall see later, it is full of defects. The fact that, nevertheless, it was considered worthy of being translated, and that by an orthodox translator, shows that it was regarded as a remarkable piece of work. What impressed its contemporaries was its universal character, then quite a novelty. At the end, there is a somewhat mutilated appendix consisting of a list of Persian martyrs arranged, not by the date of their death, but according to their rank in the hierarchy, into three groups—bishops, priests, and deacons.

The second part, originally composed in Syriac, was an addition of the Syrian translator. Among the persons named in this part, it is noticeable that there are no Arians, nor even Nestorians, who, when expelled from the Roman Empire by Theodosius II. in 435, made themselves masters of the Persian Church. Of the sixteen bishops mentioned in the first section, at least eight are known to have been orthodox Persian martyrs, all belonging to the period before 400, e.g. Simon Bar-Sabai, Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon († 17th April 344), his successor, Schahdust († 346), and Sapor, Bishop of Beth Gormai.[755] Miles (Milles), Simeon, Barbasimas, Joannes, Sapores, Gudiab, Sabinus, Abdos, Paul, and Ebedjesus are mentioned by Sozomen as Persian martyrs of the reign of Sapor I.[756] This very primitive calendar contains only the names of martyrs to the exclusion of other persons who were even regarded as saints, such as Mares, the second bishop of Seleucia († 82).[757] The compiler calls those whom he included in his calendar the Holy Martyrs who had been put to death in the East, while he regards those named in the first part as the Holy Confessors of the West, regarding the Roman Empire as the West in respect to Persia.

The first part, which concerns the West, differs from the second in many respects. It was drawn up by another hand, and was written originally in Greek. The latter is a document entirely historical in character, while the former is liturgical; the one belongs to Persia, the other to the Roman Empire, and probably to Nicomedia. It was then employed in Antioch, where it was enlarged, and finally, as it appears, was translated into Syriac at Edessa. It forms one of the most remarkable documents of ancient Christian literature.

That this Arian martyrology belonged to the Roman Empire, and especially to its eastern part, is proved by the calendar employed therein, i.e. the Julian, with the addition of the Chaldean names for the months, the days of the month being given simply without reference to calends and nones and ides. The author is well-informed with regard to the eastern half of the Roman Empire; he knows names and date of death of eight bishops of Antioch, the name Antioch occurs in all twenty-four times, Nicomedia is named thirty-two times, but the name of no bishop of Nicomedia is given, Alexandria is mentioned nineteen times, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem only twice.

The date of this work is fixed by the mention of the celebrated Bishop James of Nisibis on the 15th July. He was alive after 350, when the Persians besieged Nisibis, and flourished, according to the somewhat vague expression of the Chronicle of Samuel of Ani, in the 283rd Olympiad, i.e. 353-356.[758] Thus the martyrology was written in the period between 370 and 400, and sometime about 380, when Arianism was the dominant religion in the eastern half of the empire.

The Arian character of the martyrology is shown by the fact that Arius himself is mentioned in it, while none of the adherents of the Nicene faith of that date are included, and the only orthodox bishop whose name appears is James of Nisibis. Since he was orthodox, and since Nisibis belonged to Persia, his name could not have been in the Greek original, which, besides being Arian, was limited to worthies belonging to the Roman Empire, but the insertion of his name is probably due to the orthodox Persian translator.

The compiler drew his information from the works of his predecessors, to which he made additions of his own. One of these sources he names, for he states with regard to the names of eleven personages, that they are taken from the “Number of the Ancient Confessors.” He also used an old list of martyrs, which he does not further describe. To judge by the character of the quotations from this document, it must have dealt with the same part of the Church as the new compilation. Antioch (four times), Synnada, Nicomedia, Pergamus, and Heracleia are named in it, while Alexandria is not mentioned. By the “Ancient Confessors” are to be understood the martyrs before Diocletian, and it is probable that they were taken from the lists of “Depositions” belonging to each city, just as the chronographer has preserved for us those of Rome.[759]

As regards the contents, they resemble those of similar documents of earlier and later date, and are fully described in the superscription, which states that it “contains the names of the Lords, i.e. the saints, confessors, and victors, and the days on which they received their crowns.” One would expect to find the place of their death mentioned as well, but many saints are given without any indication of the locality to which they belonged, perhaps on account of imperfect information on the part of the author. The date of death is on the whole correctly given, a remarkable instance to the contrary being the commemoration of SS. Peter and Paul, which is placed on the 28th December. This cannot throw doubt upon the date observed in Rome itself, for the Greeks were, as a rule, very imperfectly informed concerning ecclesiastical events in the Latin portion of the empire. The sources from which the compiler drew his information cannot have been very full, for there is no mention of the famous Western martyrs, Agnes and Lawrence, and, indeed, beyond the mention on the 1st Ab (August) of Aksitus, Bishop of Rome, by which Xystus II. is probably intended (the day of St Xystus’ death was the 6th and not the 1st August), and of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, correctly given on the 7th March, no Western saints are commemorated.[760]

Among the bishops of Alexandria there are two mentioned whose names do not occur in the official lists, Artemon on the 3rd September, and Hodion (Orion) on the 16th August. Similarly, among the bishops of Antioch, there are two not mentioned elsewhere, Amphimelus (4th March) and Philippus (27th March). Can these have been Arian prelates?

Besides St Peter and St Paul, the only two apostles commemorated are St John and St James, who held the most important place in the eastern half of the empire; they are placed together on the 27th December, on which day the latter especially was formerly commemorated. St Stephen, also called an apostle (schelico), appears on the day still consecrated to his memory (26th December).

The bishops, priests, and deacons appear with their proper titles; all the others have the designation, confessor (mandaya). This designation implies martyrdom, for in the first three centuries confessor means a martyr whose sufferings stop short of death. It is also worthy of notice that some who appear not to have been martyrs have to be content with a mere commemoration (dukrana = commemoratio), as, for example, St Xystus, James of Nisibis, Eusebius of Cæsarea, etc. The names, again, of others are merely mentioned without any addition or title.

Finally, there are still some peculiarities in this menology which ought to be mentioned. Some of these may be due to oversight, or to the ignorance of the compiler, others seem to be mistakes made in transcribing the document, and ought not to appear in documents of an official character. Thus Marcianus of Tomi appears twice (on the 5th and on the 10th June), Dius once as confessor and once as presbyter (11th and 12th June). Especially remarkable is the circumstance that three individuals, whose names occur in no other calendar, not even in the Menologium of Constantinople, are given three times, namely, Cosconius, Melanippus, and Zeno, sons of Theodota, once for Nicea on the 19th January, once for Asia on the 23rd February, and once for Nicomedia on the 2nd September. As slips of the pen, we may notice Hadriopolis for Hadrianopolis, Pedinthus for Perinthus, Tunjus (10th June) for Tomi, which is elsewhere spelt correctly, Sindus for Synnada, which once (30th June) has the addition, “in Phrygia,” and once (15th June) is without it. The proper names are frequently wrongly spelt, or so confused as to be unrecognisable.

Of the Church festivals, only Epiphany and Easter are marked. The MS. is, unfortunately, imperfect where we should expect to find the 25th of December. On the Friday after Easter the Commemoration of all the Confessors, i.e. Martyrs, is set down.

The relation of the Arian martyrology to Eusebius’ work on the Martyrs of Palestine deserves to be considered. One would expect to find this work often referred to, but it is not so, and the compiler seems to have had no knowledge of it. This is all the more remarkable since Eusebius always gives the dates of the death of the martyrs. The two works have, however, very few points of contact, but they confirm one another in the points where they do coincide. Both place the death of the priest Pamphilus and his eleven companions at Cæsarea on the 16th February; both mention the martyr Romanus at Antioch, Eusebius placing his death on the 17th November, the martyrology on the 18th—a trifling discrepancy which proves their independence of each other. Hermes the Exorcist, Domnion of Salona, James of Nisibis, etc., are given on the dates which they occupy in the calendars of other Churches.

The so-called martyrology of St Jerome has many names in common with this Arian martyrology. St Jerome often assigns to one place and day more martyrs than this Arian Calendar, as, for example, on the 25th March, Dulas, on the 4th, 18th, and 21st April, etc. Sometimes the Arian gives more names than St Jerome, e.g. on the 11th March, the 2nd May, etc., while in some places they are in perfect agreement, e.g. on the 13th March, Modestus and twenty-one companions—the Hieronymianum gives the names of the whole twenty-one, while here only the number is given—on the 16th April, Leonidas and eight companions in Corinth, etc. We cannot infer from this that the compiler of the Hieronymianum incorporated the work of his Arian predecessor in his own, but he certainly was acquainted with it, and made use either of it or of common sources.

The comparison of the Arian martyrology with that of St Jerome has further led to a curious discovery,[761] i.e. that the entries from the 6th (or more correctly from the 8th) to the 30th June are indeed included in the martyrology of St Jerome, but have been bodily transferred to the corresponding dates in July.[762] This latter month has only three entries, and it has been thought that the mistake is due to the Arian compiler or his transcribers, but it is just as likely that the change of date was made by the author of the Hieronymianum. How this fact is to be explained must be left to conjecture. Another important point bearing upon the connection between the two documents is the fact that the one mentions Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea on the 30th May, but the other in more detail on the 21st June, as follows: In Cæsarea Palæstinæ Dep. Eusebi Epi. Historiographi. Which is correct? Certainly the Syrian document, which also gives correctly the day of Arius’ death. The entry on the 6th June clearly exhibits the Arian character of the document: “In Alexandria, Arius Presbyter.” The fact that he is merely commemorated, proves that it is incorrect to suppose, as many do, that another Arius, a reputed, but otherwise unknown, martyr of Alexandria is intended. The martyrs in this document are treated to more than a mere commemoration (dukrana). Accordingly he did not regard this particular Arius as a martyr.

From the description which we have given of this highly important document, one is led to expect that it will throw fresh light on certain historical questions, and so, as a matter of fact, it does. For instance, we can fix the death of Arius by its assistance on the 6th June 336. Arius died on a Saturday shortly before sunset. On the following day he was to have been solemnly received into the Church.[763] The only year which can be taken into consideration is 336, for in it the 6th June fell on a Saturday.[764]

The historian Eusebius died about the time when Athanasius returned to Alexandria from his first exile. This was shortly after Constantine’s death († 22nd May 337). Since Eusebius died soon after he had finished the life of Constantine, whom he did not long survive, his death is to be placed on the 30th May 338. This takes for granted that the Bishop of Palestine mentioned on the 30th May is identical with the historian, which can scarcely be called in doubt. Cæsarea was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Palestine, and this accounts for his title, Bishop of Palestine.[765] His successor and heir and biographer was the energetic Acacius.

A more important fact is that the martyrdom of Bishop Babylas of Antioch can now be definitely established. We have in this document reliable evidence that he suffered on the 24th January, which corresponds with the evidence of Chrysostom, who stated that the Festival of SS. Juventinus and Maximin, which was kept on the 4th February, followed closely on that of St Babylas.[766] Moreover, St Babylas was generally commemorated on the 24th January. According to Eusebius,[767] Babylas died in prison under Decius, and, according to Jerome, in the first year of his reign. Decius reigned from October, or, according to other authorities, from August 249 to 27th July 251, and one of his first acts was to inaugurate the persecution against the Christians. Accordingly the death of Babylas must have happened on the 24th January 250. Since all authorities agree in stating that he had been bishop for thirteen years, we are now able to fix the year of the death of Zebinas, his predecessor, i.e. 237, and the day of the month is given as 13th January in the Arian martyrology. This document must be regarded as a thoroughly reliable source for the dates of the death of the Antiochene bishops in particular, and we can, therefore, place the death of Maximin, the seventh in the list of bishops, on the 4th February 191, and the death of Serapion on the 14th May 215.

It is scarcely necessary to observe that this calendar, although it is an Arian document, contains not merely the names of Arian worthies, but many which belong to Catholic antiquity. It is chiefly to this that it owes its importance for the history of the Church, and it is also due to this that it was capable of being combined with the catalogue of Persian saints, which is an essentially Catholic document. On the other hand, it is by no means a complete martyrology, and is in itself a liturgical, and not a historical, document intended by its unskilful compiler to serve party ends.

The Goths in Italy had also a menology of their own, of which a fragment was discovered by A. Mai. Unfortunately, it contains only the month of November. It is noteworthy that it mentions the Apostle Andrew, whose name does not occur in the similar martyrology of which we have just been speaking. The fragment, with this exception, contains Gothic names alone. St Clement and St Cecilia do not appear, which proves its freedom from Roman influence, and shows that it was essentially a national production.[768]

Already in the time of St Gregory the Great there existed in Rome a complete and universal list containing merely the names of the martyrs and the place where they suffered, arranged according to the days of the year. Eulogius, the contemporary bishop of Alexandria, besought the pope to send him the complete collection of the acts of the martyrs drawn up by Eusebius in the time of Constantine. He believed these were to be found in Rome. He had doubtless in view the “Collection of Martyrs” (συλλογὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων) just mentioned. St Gregory replied that they had in Rome a collection of the names of all the martyrs in one volume, but no complete collection of their acts.[769]

The work of Eusebius here referred to was not forthcoming in Alexandria either, and was already regarded as lost, but the fact that such a work had once existed was not forgotten. A work of the same kind was also attributed to St Jerome, which is also no longer in existence. The senator Cassiodorus exhorts his monks to read diligently the histories of the martyrs (passiones martyrum) who have lived throughout the whole world, in order to stir themselves up to the practice of virtue. These they will find in the letter written by St Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus. These last words are somewhat obscure, for it would be impossible to deal with the acts of all the martyrs in one letter.[770] However, so much is plain that Cassiodorus ascribed to St Jerome a work of this kind. Finally, it must be borne in mind that St Jerome had translated some of the historical writings of Eusebius. This may have given rise to the idea that he had also translated his collection of the martyrdoms. It is not impossible that he may have done so, although we have no evidence of the fact. Bede also speaks of a martyrology of St Jerome, but with some uncertainty, for he had never seen it himself, and thought St Jerome may have been only the translator and not the author of the work.[771] In Bede’s day the so-called Hieronymianum was already in existence, as the researches of De Rossi and Duchesne have recently shown. That it was also known to Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus cannot be maintained, especially as the words of the latter are so obscure. It is, however, certain from his words that Cassiodorus believed Jerome to have been the author of a work of this kind. Further evidence for this is, unfortunately, lacking, though the thing is not impossible in itself. Abbot Hilduin, a writer of the ninth century, referred also to this point, and was of opinion that Constantine had collected all the acts of the martyrs from all parts of the empire, and had sent them to Eusebius at Cæsarea.[772] This statement, however, is not of much importance, since it represents a view originating in the interpolated letter of St Jerome already referred to.

However this may be, there have existed since the eighth century numerous MSS. of a collection of the names of the martyrs of all times and countries belonging to the Roman Empire which went by the name of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, and to which was attached two reputed letters of St Jerome to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia, and to Heliodorus, Bishop of Altinum. The work corresponds to that mentioned by Cassiodorus.

Upon close examination, it is quite clear that the work, as we have it now, cannot have been composed by St Jerome. It includes the names of many persons who lived at a date subsequent to St Jerome, as, for example, to name one out of many, St Gregory the Great on the 12th March. In other respect the names do not extend beyond the seventh century, as appears upon an inspection of the earliest codices. In later recensions we naturally meet with the names of many persons who lived at a still later date.

As regards the date of composition, the personality of the compiler and kindred questions, we are face to face with an historical and literary problem resembling that of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine. Still some light has now been cast upon these difficulties, since we have at last a thoroughly critical text of the document, the investigations of De Rossi and Duchesne having determined which of the existing MSS. is the earliest.[773]

Among the MSS. belonging to the eighth century, is one written for the Monastery of Weissenburg in the diocese of Spires, now preserved in Wolfenbüttel, Codex Wisseniburgensis, 23. De Rossi believed it was written shortly before the death of Abbot Wando († 756) of Fontanelle in the diocese of Rouen, because his death has been added by a later hand on XV. Kal. Mai. It is certain that the codex was written before 772, because this date is referred to in it. Of about the same period is the Parisian Codex 10 837, belonging to Echternach. It is written in an Anglo-Saxon hand, and is perhaps somewhat later than the former, but is derived from an original MS. certainly older than the Weissenburg Codex. This view which is that of De Rossi gains support from the fact that the two festivals in honour of the Holy Cross are not contained in the codex, while they appear in the Weissenburg and all later codices. Both codices are full of errors of grammar and spelling. The codex from the monastery of Hilariacum originally belonging to Metz and now at Berne, is more correct and better written, but unfortunately only extends to the 21st November. The latest entries made in it by the first hand belong to the year 766 and refer to Bishop Chrodegang. The text dates from the time of Clotaire II. (584-628).

These three most ancient recensions do not differ from one another to any great extent, but the MSS. belonging to later times, when the work was often copied and used, show much greater divergencies, for alterations and additions were continually being made in it corresponding to the requirements of the local churches and monasteries where it was employed.

Since the two learned editors have succeeded in detecting the original matter common to the three recensions, we are in possession of the following result: the martyrology which formed the original source of all later texts as far as they are known to us was written in Auxerre between 592 and 600. The grounds for this conclusion are briefly as follows: the compiler is evidently well informed as to ecclesiastical and secular events in Gaul, in fact far better than with regard to any other country. In naming the cities of Gaul, he gives the provinces in which they are situated, and gives also many unusual details respecting the individuals named, as for example when he gives in the case of bishops, not only the day on which they died, but the date of their ordinations as well; the names are also always given correctly, while in other documents they are often frightfully distorted. A circumstance which especially points to Auxerre as the locality from which the martyrology originated is that this not very important city is mentioned thirty times while the neighbouring and much larger city of Lyons is named only twenty-six times. Moreover, all the bishops of Auxerre, with one solitary exception, are named, while there are many gaps in the lists of the bishops of Lyons and Autun. Thirdly, a litania is enjoined on the first of each month, and this custom was peculiar to the Church of Auxerre, having just been introduced at that time by Bishop Aunarius. Again, the day of the ordination of this not very famous Bishop Aunarius is marked (II. Kal. Aug.), but not as we might have expected the day of his death. The same holds good of Syagrius, Bishop of Autun; the date of his consecration (natale suscepti episcopatus) is given, but not the date of his death which happened in 599 or 600. The last Gallic bishop whose death is noticed is Avitus of Clermont († 592).

On account of these facts, Duchesne arrived at the conclusion that the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum originated at Auxerre between 592 and 600. This conclusion is not weakened by the fact that personages belonging to the seventh century are included,[774] such as Desiderius of Vienne († 606-7), Columbanus († 615), Eustasius, Abbot of Luxeuil († 629), and Abbot Attala, the date of whose death is unknown. Desiderius, indeed, appears in the Berne and Weissenburg Codices, and the three others in that of Echternach, but they have been added by the transcribers, and both De Rossi and Duchesne are agreed that none of these codices represent the original text composed at Auxerre.

The editors go yet further, and show that the compiler was also very well informed concerning ecclesiastical matters in Italy, especially in Northern Italy and Milan; while he has comparatively little to say about Spain, Rhætia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, and nothing at all about Scotto-Irish saints. This postulates the existence of a yet older work, used by the compiler of Auxerre, which may have been identical with the work familiar to Cassiodorus.[775] This document, however, has entirely disappeared without leaving behind it any other documents derived from it. If one follows the perspective thus opened out, the connecting links may finally come to light which connect this document with the work of Eusebius, referred to by Eulogius of Alexandria and in the two letters attributed to St Jerome.

However, we shall not follow these interesting suggestions further, but shall content ourselves with the fact that in the Hieronymianum, in the earliest form in which it has come down to us, we have a primitive martyrology,[776] with additions and alterations made to it by a Frankish transcriber or compiler between 592-600. In its original form it contained only saints belonging to the Græco-Roman empire, and this accounts for the absence of the Irish saints and those of Mesopotamia. Thus at last the so-called Hieronymianum has been made serviceable for use in historical and liturgical investigations; the learned editors, in giving us as far as possible the original text, have given us for the first time a reliable edition of the document, and the Bollandists have rendered the work still more serviceable by the addition of a reliable alphabetical index, thus considerably lightening the labours of those who use this work. This is no common gain for liturgical study, since the Hieronymianum, obtained in the course of time, an increasingly prominent position, more prominent indeed at last than it deserved; moreover it has not been without its influence upon later martyrologies and calendars, and has had an appreciable effect even on the development of the Church’s cycle of festivals.

To know the number and condition of the Christians who had laid down their lives for the faith within the limits of the Roman empire would be of the highest interest now and always; to record the name, date, and locality of each with statistical accuracy would have been a work deserving the thanks of posterity. It might have been done immediately after the cessation of the Diocletian persecution, but only with the assistance of the secular authorities. Eulogius and the writer of the letters ascribed to St Jerome were on the right track in thinking that Eusebius had undertaken to furnish a work of this character with the assistance of the emperor; the latter informs us that Eusebius actually did so, and that the collection contained the names of from five to eight hundred martyrs for every day of the year, thus giving a total of between 182,500 and 292,000 martyrs.

Our Latin compiler indeed has not brought together so many names, and he states in the reputed letter of St Jerome that he only admitted those martyrs whose commemoration was celebrated with special solemnity (qui sunt in amplissima festivitate). However he has brought together in round numbers 6000 names—quite a respectable number when compared with the Menologium Basilianum, which belongs to a much later date, and it remains a question how it was possible for a Frankish scholar of the sixth century to get together so many names. Some of them certainly are distorted, others are repeated in a remarkable way, and others again have an unreal sound,[777] but when all deductions have been made, there still remains so much that is historical and unexceptional that the whole work cannot be dismissed as devoid of all authority. With regard to the origin and value of this mass of names, one finds oneself confronted by a question which seems equally insoluble, whether the compiler was a native of Gaul, of North Italy, or of anywhere else. He certainly incorporated into his martyrology the older lists of martyrs existing at his day, many of which are known to us, and the two editors have displayed both industry and insight in making this clear in several cases; yet all these lists of martyrs taken together contain scarcely a thousand names. From what sources has the compiler obtained the rest? This is the question which still awaits an answer. On the other hand the compiler has given expression to an important principle to which is due his influence on the hagiology and liturgy of later ages. The Arian Calendar of which we have spoken, concerned itself with the eastern half alone of the empire, and is composed almost entirely of names belonging thereto, but the author of the Hieronymianum set to work on quite another principle; he had in view the entire Christian world, East and West, Africa and Gaul. His point of view is infinitely wider than that of his predecessors, and even of many of his successors, and he made use of the fruitful principle of universalism, rejecting all particularism in the ecclesiastical sphere.

While there had been calendars in the West containing the names of martyrs belonging to a particular diocese or country, the compiler of the Hieronymianum regarded the Church as a whole—as catholic. The meaning of this will be seen from a glance at the service-books, the sacramentaries especially. In the ninth century and later, the Roman sacramentaries, even those intended for use in other countries such as those of St Gall, Mainz, Cologne, and Essen, contain only Masses for the Roman saints, confining themselves to one or two local saints in the supplement. The principle of universality only very gradually affected the formularies of the Mass, and did not reach its full expression until the sixteenth century, but it came to the fore much earlier in the martyrologies, as early indeed as Ado, Usuardus, Notker, and Rabanus Maurus, chiefly owing to the influence of the Hieronymianum.

This document is not without peculiarities of its own. In all recensions of the text, the 25th March is given as the day of Christ’s death, and since James the Lord’s brother, here called also “The Just,” died at Easter, his death is placed also on the 25th March. In the Berne Codex the sacrifice of Isaac is commemorated on the same day. There is a goodly array of Old Testament names, e.g. Aggeus, Habacuc, Job, Joel, Aaron, Eliseus, etc. In the Berne Codex, the 28th September is given as the day of Noe’s going out of the ark, the 7th January as the day of the Exodus, and the 1st May as the commencement of our Lord’s preaching.

Now that the date of its composition has been fixed, the Hieronymianum is specially valuable for the information which it gives concerning Frankish hagiography and its gradual development. Whoever will devote himself in the future to investigating St Denys of Paris, St Ursula, etc., must pursue his studies in the various recensions and transcriptions of the Hieronymianum. It will well repay the trouble, if someone would investigate how many of the reputed martyrs of Lower Germany are named in this important document. It only knows of two martyrs at Cologne, Asclinius and Pamphilus, in addition to the Moorish martyrs whose numbers, however, vary greatly in the MSS.; their commander is named Gereon. No saints are given for Mainz. For Treves we have Valerius, Paulinus, Maximinus, and a Bishop Militius; Palmatius Thyrsus and his Innumerable Company had not yet been discovered or invented. For Bonn the connection in which Cassius, Florentius, and Mallusius stand to one another on the 10th October is worthy of notice. We find some African martyrs first of all on this day, and then, without indication of Bonn or any other locality, we have: “Et alibi Cassi, Eusebi, Florenti, Victoris, Agrippinæ, Mallusi cum alii trecentos xxx.” (sic). The later legends omit Eusebius, and put Mallusius instead, who was buried at Birten and discovered by Bishop Evergisil; the martyr Victor is said to have been also originally buried at Birten.[778]

With regard to the Roman martyrs and the succession of the popes, the Hieronymianum is not altogether independent of the Philocalian list, although it is fuller. The earliest pope mentioned in it is Cornelius, and the last St Leo I., while the Philocalian list begins with Lucius († 254), and ends with Boniface I. († 422). The Hieronymianum gives also the days of the consecration of some of them, e.g. Miltiades, Liberius, Innocent I., and Boniface I. On the other hand the earlier martyrs are omitted with the exception of Clement I.

The indications of place are dealt with on various principles. For the most part the city is naturally given where the martyrdom took place; occasionally only the province is given, as, for example, Achaia, Asia, Campania, Sardinia, and Sicily, this being especially the case in regard to the last-named island. Remarkable on account of its vagueness is the phrase in Africa which occurs more than a hundred times without the name of any town being given, but, nevertheless, in the case of many African martyrs the town is given.[779] Often so many personal names follow one another that one suspects that some indications of place have dropped out, a conjecture to which one is all the more inclined as the indefinite expression et alibi is very often employed.

The martyrs themselves are only distinguished by their rank in the hierarchy, when they belonged to the sacred ministry, i.e. deacon, presbyter, bishop, but by far the larger number of personages are without any indication of place, date, etc. In many cases it is evident that the same person has been entered twice or oftener,[780] and mutilations, disfigurements and alterations are very numerous, more especially in the later MSS. The transcribers allowed themselves considerable freedom, adding supplements and corrections, apart from the unintentional mistakes they made. A hint of a literary nature is given by the remark, “cujus” or “quorum acta habentur,” indicating the existence of the acts of such and such a martyr. Later transcribers were not satisfied with this, but, when the acts were forthcoming, added larger or shorter notices from them to the text.[781] Had we the work as it came originally from the hands of the compiler of Auxerre, these imperfections would disappear to a considerable extent. A glance at any entry in the three recensions shows how freely the earliest transcribers dealt with the original text; in the new edition the three recensions are printed in parallel columns.[782] All these remarks have an intimate bearing upon the question of the sources and origin of the work. With regard to sources, the Roman Depositio Martyrum has been incorporated bodily, and a great part of the Carthaginian Calendar as well, but the compiler must have had the Arian Martyrology in a better copy than that which has come down to us, or even in its original form; this is shown by the fact that frequently he has quite correctly enlarged some of its indefinite entries.[783] His use of this martyrology is clear from his inserting Eusebius among the saints, in ignorance of his Arianism; he inserted the name in all simplicity, a mistake avoided by the Greek menologies, and the same may possibly have been the case with regard to Arius in the Weissenburg Codex.[784]

This employment of earlier sources coupled with the numerous correct entries in the Hieronymianum entirely excludes the view that the document is a fabrication. Indeed its composition can safely be said to have come about in the following manner:—in the two first centuries the persecutions were on the whole local, and the number of martyrs not very large, although the persecution at Lyons in 177 caused the death of more than forty martyrs, not counting confessors; a change took place in the third century, when persecutions were commanded by the emperors for the whole extent of the empire, and, under Diocletian, the martyrs were to be reckoned, if not by millions, at least by thousands. At the conclusion of the persecutions, it must have occurred to many to ask how many had lost their lives in this troublous period, and the idea of drawing up statistics of the martyrdoms must have sprung up. We have no evidence of anything of this sort actually having been done, but in the sixth century there was a widespread opinion that a work of this kind had been accomplished by Eusebius under Constantine, and the passages quoted from Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great show it was believed a list of the martyrs for the whole year existed in Italy or in Rome. If this work contained merely a list of names and dates, its interest must have been merely statistical and in no wise scientific, since little could be learnt from the names by themselves. In the seventh century, however, either in Auxerre or in North Italy, it seems to have been held in greater esteem; it found a transcriber and reviser, and finally was brought into connection with the liturgy owing to its being read at the choir-offices in monasteries and convents, and by this means, it won its way to a position of widespread importance, which, however, did not have an advantageous effect on the purity of the text.

With regard to the printed editions, there are several published by various scholars who relied upon late MSS. of little value. We may mention the editions of Fiorentini, Lucca 1668 (incomplete), of D’Achery in the Spicilegium, ii. 1 (Migne, xxx.), and of Galesinius, Milan, 1577. It used to be disputed which of these editions gave the earliest text, but they are all quite superseded now. There are also many abstracts of the Hieronymianum in mediæval handwriting, as, for example, the Martyrol. Gallicanum; Martène, Ampliss. Coll. VI., called after Chauvelin (Migne, Patr. Lat., xxx. 607); the Fuldense; Anal. Boll. XIII.; the Reichenau martyrology, etc., but they are of small scientific importance.

Since the appointment of special Masses in honour of the saints is a distinguishing feature of the Latin rite, Western liturgical books are in themselves a source from which we can increase our knowledge of the saints’ festivals, the most important in this respect being the sacramentaries, but the other books used at the celebration of Mass, the collections of epistles and gospels especially, also throw light on the subject.

In addition to the books of this kind already named, the Lectionarius of Silos has, in recent times, attracted much attention in this connection.[785] It is of the highest importance both for the history of the development of the ecclesiastical year and for the festivals of the saints, for as it belongs to the period preceding the Carolingian liturgical reform, it represents a very ancient rite of which, until its discovery, all trace had disappeared. This rite is not the same as the southern Spanish rite of the Province of Boetica from which the so-called Mozarabic rite is derived, but belongs to the ancient ecclesiastical province of Toledo. The codex in which it is contained was written before the year 1062, for a later event, i.e. the translation of St Isidore’s relics from Seville to Leon, is added by a later hand. This codex, originally belonging to the monastery of St Sebastian at Silos and now in the National library of Paris, contains two distinct documents, a lectionary giving the lections from scripture for the whole of the year, and a martyrology; the latter was compiled between 925 and 1000; but the lectionary much earlier. Its antiquity is proved: (1) By the limited numbers of saints’ days; (2) by the circumstance that the catechumenate is still in force; (3) that the Saturdays in Lent are not fast days, agreeing with the eastern custom; (4) the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost do not appear as forming part of the ecclesiastical year, and are not even numbered, but, as in the Gelasianum, there are added twenty-four Masses called “dominicæ quotidianæ”; (5) there are five Sundays in Advent; (6) with regard to saints’ days, Anastasius the Persian is not yet placed along with St Vincent on the 21st January, and the Apostle James is also omitted along with all reference to the Spanish legend connected with his name. From this it is plain that St James, at the time when this work was compiled enjoyed no special worship in Spain. On these grounds the first editor, G. Morin, regards the lectionary as certainly belonging to 650.

The book represents a rite hitherto entirely unknown but which can be no other than the ancient rite of Toledo, since in it the Annunciation is placed on the 18th December as is prescribed by the first canon of the tenth council of Toledo. It differs from the Mozarabic rite as to the number of Sundays in Advent, of which the latter reckons six, and also in the eight Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; another peculiarity is that the Innocents’ Day is omitted on the 27th December, but an “Allisio Infantium” is kept instead in the 8th January. None of the Roman and Byzantine feasts of our Lady are mentioned, and only one feast of the Holy Cross on the 3rd May, omitting the other on the 14th September; all Masses for saints’ days have two epistles.

The martyrology of Silos also is an important document on account of its original character, although it is some three centuries later than the lectionary. It is entitled, Martyrum Legium, and it is considerably richer in names of saints than the lectionary, and is quite independent of the Hieronymianum, though influenced in a slight degree by the Roman rite. The martyrs in the Moorish persecution, under, Abdurrhaman II., which lasted from 850 to 860, appear in large numbers. The historian of this persecution, the priest Eugenius of Toledo, who was put to death on 11th March 859, is entered, but placed on 1st June, the day of the translation of his relics; St Pelagius of Corduba, who suffered death on 26th June 925 under Abdurrhaman III. is also entered, and this date gives one limit in fixing the date of the work, the other limit being the year 1000. There are five additions by a later hand, i.e. on 12th March, Gregorii Papæ; on 1st May, Transitus Philippi Apostoli, without St James; on 28th April, Prudentii et Sociorum ejus; on 21st December, S. Thomæ Apostoli, and on 22nd December the Translatio corporis S. Isidori. Some personages are entered, who are not called saints, but only Domnus, four of whom belong to Toledo, two being bishops: Julian († 6th March 690) and Eugenius II. († 29th May 647); on 14th January, another Julian, and, on 13th March, Depositio Leandri. Half of the entire names belong to Spain, the other half to Rome and the East; of the Frankish martyrs, Denys of Paris, Afra of Augsburg, and Boniface of Mainz are commemorated. As regards the feasts of our Lady, besides the ancient Spanish feast on the 18th December, we have only the Assumption on 15th August. Litanies are appointed for 10th September, 7th November, and 15th December, besides a fast on 2nd January. The name of the Apostle St James is absent from the martyrology as well as from the lectionary. Bishop Torquatus and his companions are placed on 1st May, in both documents, but in the martyrology they are not described as disciples of the apostles, which is favourable to their historical existence. The Apostles Simon and Jude are on the 1st July instead of the 28th October, and there is also a Symon Apostolus on 19th October as well. Although traces of later influence appear in this martyrology, it has still preserved the independent character of the early Christian Calendars.

The anglican archeologist, John Selden († 1634), has given us the earliest Egyptian calendars in his work on the Jewish Sanhedrin which was left unfinished when he died. In the third book of this work, Selden intended to deal with the rite for the dedication of Christian churches, although this lay beyond the immediate purpose of his investigations, and he thought that some Arabic Calendars in his possession might have some bearing on the question.[786] Unfortunately, he gave no information concerning the MSS. from which these calendars were taken, and they seem, moreover, when discovered, to have been by no means in a good condition. Ludolf declared himself dissatisfied with these publications, and Wüstenfeld remarked: “The Arabic MSS. employed, must have been faulty, and were made still worse by the faulty reading and transcribing of the editor and the printing is so incorrect that some words would be almost, and others quite unintelligible, were there not other helps to their meaning at hand.”[787] Still, in spite of these well-founded criticisms from specialists, Selden’s work cannot be over-looked. There seem also to have been gaps and undecipherable passages in the MS. itself.

There are three calendars edited by Selden: two short, and one long, the latter being of later date than the others. The two first have a supplement to each month, called ordo alter, both appear to have been originally drawn up for the use of monasteries, but are distinguished from one another in important points. We shall designate them by the letters A and B. A is at any rate of Egyptian origin and is monophysite in character, because the heresiarch Severus, who lived in the sixth century, twice appears in it, on 8th February and 29th September. Other peculiarities in the document are: 1. It has two feasts of the Holy Cross, on 6th March Inventio Crucis, by which doubtless the recovery of the Cross by Heraclius in 629 is meant, and festum crucis gloriosæ on 14th September. 2. The Nativity of our Lady is on 26th April. 3. The commemorations of the Mother of God in use in Egypt, are given on the 21st of the months January, March, May, July, and October: B omits these feasts. 4. A has the archangel Gabriel on the 18th December, but no festival of the Annunciation, while B places Evangelismus on the 25th March, and no feast on the 18th December pointing onwards to the impending Nativity of our Lord. 5. A has the four living creatures of the Apocalypse on the 4th November who appear also later on in Coptic calendars: B omits them. 6. In A the conquest of Egypt by the Mahometans is seven times mentioned, e.g. 26th May, 10th December, etc. 7. A does not mention St Ignatius of Antioch, but B places him on the 20th December. 8. B has the Emperor Theodosius on the 3rd March, St John Chrysostom on the 7th May and 13th November, also Ephrem Syrus on the 9th July, and Dioscorus of Alexandria on the 31st August.

From these entries we see that B is catholic and Syrian, and A monophysite and Egyptian. Both certainly belong to the same period. B was probably also used in Egypt, for the Patriarch Isaac I. of Alexandria is mentioned, who died on the 10th Athyr = 6th November 688 or 689.[788] The Athanasius mentioned on the 6th September must have been Athanasius II. who became patriarch of Antioch in 629.[789] These calendars and the following one as well are contained in the Arabic translation of Abulaibsan Achmed Calcasendi who has prefaced them with a list of Coptic festivals (see above p. 26). Had they come down to us in better condition, they would be of the utmost importance in the investigation of our subject, notwithstanding their heretical character. The third of the calendars published by Selden has fared little better; it certainly belongs to the same period as the others, although somewhat later in date. The latest person mentioned in it seems to be the Patriarch Isaac I., named already in A. It was thought that this was the second monophysite patriarch of that name who died in 954, but it is not so, for this personage is named on the 10th Athyr = 6th November, and the Coptic Synaxarium, translated by Wüstenfeld, which mentions him on the same day, expressly states that he was the immediate successor of John, surnamed Semnudæus from the place of his birth, Sebennytos, who died on the 9th Athyr 686, after having pointed him out as his successor. The predecessor of Isaac II., however, was Sophronius, and his successor was called Job. Accordingly Isaac I. must be intended here, and thus the calendar belongs to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.[790]

Its monophysite character is proved from the mention of the heresiarch Severus three times, i.e. on the 26th April (festum Severi), on the 4th September, and on the 1st December. It has no feast of St Peter and St Paul on the 29th June, but only a Planctus Pauli on the 18th March. The following points are worthy of notice:—25th March is the day of the Crucifixion, the 28th May is kept as the Inventio ossium S. Lucæ and the 6th March as the Manifestatio Crucis, where the later calendar adds, per Heraclium imperatorem. We have the beginnings of the Egyptian custom of commemorating the Mother of God on the 21st of each month, i.e. on the 21st Payni and the 21st Phaophi. The festum Dominæ on the 2nd August is certainly a feast of our Lady, but the festum Mirjam on the 22nd July is probably a festival of St Mary Magdalen. There are many things in this document the meaning of which can only be surmised.

A welcome addition to our knowledge of liturgical matters among the Copts exists in a calendar of the ninth century in the Vatican library; it is found along with a Coptic Evangeliarium in a codex written in 1328. The document is described and translated into Latin by A. Mai in the fourth volume of his Nova Collectio.[791] The date is determined by the fact that the Patriarch Amba Zacharias, who is entered as a saint in the later Synaxarium on the 13th Athyr,[792] does not appear in the calendar; he was patriarch, according to Le Quien from 1005 to 1032. The last Jacobite patriarchs mentioned are those who succeeded one another from Alexander to Michael (Chail). Michael was succeeded by John, after a vacancy of ten years, who ruled from 766-799.[793] Accordingly this calendar belongs to the ninth century. A striking peculiarity in it is that the Manifestatio Crucis is on the 17th-19th September instead of the 14th as in all other calendars.

The circumstance that several saints, instead of having one commemoration, have several, may give rise to confusion. St Thecla appears no less than five times, twice with the title martyr (on the 25th February and the 10th September), once as apostola (on the 12th July), on the 6th May and 3rd December she has no title. Although there was a second St Thecla, still this would not altogether explain the entries. Then James the son of Zebedee is mentioned on the 28th and 30th of April, as well as James the Lord’s brother on the 12th July and 23rd October. St Michael the Archangel occurs eight times. Our Lady’s Nativity is celebrated on both the 26th April and the 7th September. No importance is to be attached to these repetitions; they are purely arbitrary, and are due to the desire to provide a name for every day in the calendar, and to fill up vacant places.[794] This appears especially from the circumstance that on the 29th of every Egyptian month, corresponding to the 25th in the Julian Calendar, a commemoration of Christ’s Nativity is given, and on the 21st of each month a feast of our Lady (Commemoratio Dominæ S. Mariæ). The Death and Assumption of our Lady is placed on the 16th January. St Joseph the Carpenter has his commemoration on the 20th July. Fides, Spes, and Charitas appear as three martyrs under Hadrian on the 25th January; they are said to be daughters of a reported Sophia. No St Catherine appears either in this calendar or in the later Synaxarium but the heretic Severus († 539) is twice commemorated: on the 29th September (Adventus Severi Patrarchæ in Ægyptum) and on the 8th February, when he died.

Coptic calendars of a later date are still richer in names, but are full of legends and absurdities which show the steady decline of culture among the sect under Mahometan rule. This is especially the case with the Synaxarium or collection of legends compiled from ancient sources by Bishop Amba Michael of Atriba and Malidsch at the end of the fourteenth century.[795] The basis of the collection is an older work of the same kind composed sometime about the year 1090 (see 3rd Athyr).[796] Information concerning the saints who lived in monasteries was taken by Bishop Michael from a so-called “Guide,” used by both the Egyptian Copts and Melchites.[797] A “Guide” of this kind had been written especially for Alexandria by Bishop Amba John of Kift. Michael refers in his work to the years 1382 and 1387 (see 7th Bermahat and 19th Bermuda), and so must have lived in the fourteenth century.

As the work contains much information drawn from the ecclesiastical histories of the Copts and Abyssinians, it has been translated and much used in spite of its faulty character. It affords many useful particulars concerning the traditions and feasts of the Egyptian Church, and on this account Stephen Assemani undertook to make an abstract of the whole work which is printed in the fourth volume of Mai’s Nova Collectio. F. Wüstenfeld made a translation of the first part containing the first half of the Egyptian year, from September to February; the second half, from March to August including the intercalary days, is unfortunately still untranslated.

The Eastern Church possesses a calendar of Saints belonging to the eighth century, which occupies an intermediate position between a merely Eastern Calendar, and one that is universal. Its title runs, Calendar of the Gospels for Festivals (μηνολόγιον τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἑορταστικῶν), for it gives the passage from the Gospels to be read on each day; it contains a considerable number of saints belonging to the East, though the days are far from being all occupied. March and April have remarkably few feasts; this is owing to the ancient, but even then obsolete injunction of the Trullan Council that the feasts of no martyrs were to be kept in Lent.

Several circumstances prove that Constantinople was the locality where this document originated and was in use. Certain quarters of the city, as for example, Blachernæ and Chalcoprateia, are mentioned; the 11th May is mentioned as the day of the city’s foundation; so too is the earthquake which threw down the city walls on the 24th September 557. A large number of the patriarchs of Constantinople are included, twenty-nine in all, beginning with Metrophanes (4th June 305-325) and ending with Paul who was patriarch from September 686 to the 2nd September 693. The absence of the twenty-one reputed bishops from St Andrew to Metrophanes suggests the thought that when this document was drawn up this invention had not been accepted.

Morcelli maintains that the Paul the younger mentioned on the 2nd September is the Patriarch Paul II., under whom the Trullan Council was held in 692, but he would, however, exonerate him from participation in the schismatic council, since he opposed it at a later date; this, however, contradicts the accepted chronology. No patriarch, not even Germanus, and none of the many martyrs and confessors belonging to the time of the Iconoclastic controversy under Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus, are mentioned. From this one concludes that the menology was composed immediately after the cessation of the first Iconoclastic controversy, at a date when the judgment on the sanctity of these personages had not yet been concluded, or when people were unwilling to revive the painful recollections which their name evoked.

The martyrs, confessors, and doctors of the Eastern Church are there in long array, at least all the celebrated ones, not only those belonging to all four patriarchates, but also those belonging to other countries, such as Anastasius the Persian († 628, on the 22nd January). The popes and saints of the West are excluded with the exception of the three martyrs Lawrence, Gervasius, and Protasius.

The names of many Old Testament personages are included: Moses, Aaron, Elias, Jeremias, etc., also almost all the apostles and their immediate disciples, but for the most part they occur on different dates from those which they usually occupy in the Roman Calendar. For instance, St John the Evangelist is on the 8th May and the 26th September, St Barnabas on the 11th June, SS. Peter and Paul on the 29th June, St Titus on the 25th August, St Thomas on the 6th October, St Philip on the 14th November, St Andrew on the 30th November. SS. Joachim and Anna appear on the 9th September, the day after our Lady’s Nativity, the Archangel Michael on the 8th November, St Thecla (here entitled proto-martyr) on the 24th September, and the Holy Innocents on the 31st December. For the first time, Constantine and his mother Helena, appear as saints in the calendar; they are commemorated together on the 21st May, a day which falls before that on which Constantine actually died. Justinian and his consort Theodora are commemorated also, but do not appear with the title “saint”; they are placed on the 14th November, the day on which Justinian died, Theodora having preceded him on the 28th June 548. Justinian was called a prince of pious memory by the popes Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great.[798]

From these indications it appears that this martyrology was intended principally if not exclusively for the city and diocese of Constantinople. The safest conclusion to arrive at is to regard it as the martyrology of the patriarchate of Constantinople, since it steers a middle course, as it were, between particularism and universality: it is the most ancient of the Greek menologies known to us. Among the Greeks St John Damascene is regarded as the originator of calendars of this kind,[799] corresponding to Ado in the Latin Church. The menology has been edited with an excellent commentary by Stephen A. Morcelli (Rome, 1788), having previously been published in Latin at Urbino (1727) from the Codex of Cardinal Albani.

This menology takes its name from Basil II. Porphyrogenitus (976-1025), and was given to the public for the first time in its entirety by Cardinal Albani at Urbino in 1727, from two codices each containing six months. It is distinguished from the menology which we have just described by having a saint on every day of the year, and most of the days have more than one; the saints are drawn from the whole extent of the Eastern Church, and the Western Church, especially Sicily and Rome, is more prominent than in the former document.

As regards Rome, there are a large number of popes given who are entirely absent from the other menology: Silvester, Leo, Agatho, Gregory I., Celestine, etc. With the exception of Gregory I. they are generally placed on different dates from those on which they are commemorated in the West, e.g. Silvester on the 2nd January, Leo on the 18th February, and Alexander on the 16th March, etc. It appears as if the sources which the compiler had at his disposal for the West were insufficient, since, for example, he gives St Perpetua, St Felicitas and companions once on the 2nd February, and again on the 14th March, with the addition, “in Rome”; from this it would appear that he thought the saints mentioned on the first date had belonged to some other locality. St Agnes is given on the 5th July.

Not so many patriarchs of Constantinople are given as one would have expected, and many, indeed, are omitted who are included in the menology of which we have spoken in the previous section, as, for example, Nectarius, Paul II., Gennadius, Thomas II., but on the other hand we find some who lived after the composition of the earlier document, especially Germanus, Tarasius, and Antonius II., surnamed Cauleas († 12th February 896).[800]

In other points the Basilianum resembles the former work, except that it is fuller in every respect. The most striking feature is the large number of saints belonging to religious orders contained in it, who for the most part are specially designated; even the patriarch of the Western monks, St Benedict, is not forgotten, and is given on his proper day. Names from the Old Testament occur frequently, and from the New Testament, we have almost all the disciples of the apostles whose names are given, and these are designated as “belonging to the Seventy.” The number of the days of apostles is considerable, though seldom coinciding with the days observed in the Western Church, except in the case of St Mark, St Barnabas, SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. Both the St James are absent, and so are deprived of veneration within the region in which this document was followed,[801] but there is a feast of all the apostles on the 30th June. St Anna appears on the 25th July; St John the Baptist on the 24th June and 29th August. It is to be noticed that the first four general councils have each a special day allotted to them, while in the Constantinopolitanum all are commemorated on the same day—16th July. It is strange to find not only earthquakes, included, but also defeats in the wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Bulgarians, but unfortunately there is nothing to indicate the localities where these events happened (see the 7th and 20th February, the 23rd March, the 24th May, etc.). This exceeds the limits observed in liturgical documents.

As the day of the foundation of Constantinople (the 11th May) is again included in this document, we must conclude that it belongs to this city. Since, too, Goths and Persians find a place in it, it is ahead of its predecessors in its attempts to achieve universality.[802]

While the admission of foreign names is to be welcomed as a step in advance, it may yet, on the other hand, be a source of confusion and give rise to mistakes later on. We find, namely, in this menology, that the names of foreign saints are not always given on the correct date, but are arbitrarily placed on other days than those to which they belonged. Later redactors, when they found the same name on different dates, may have thought that different persons were meant, and this may have been the cause of the repetition of the names of saints. This shows that in admitting names of new saints, and the correct day of whose death had not been transmitted, they acted according to their fancy. This was the case with regard to the majority of the Seventy Disciples, many of whom appear here for the first time. The same must have taken place also with feasts of our Lord, as when the Flight in Egypt is given on the 26th December, and so placed before the Circumcision and the Presentation. The admission of foreign names was left to chance or opinion. Thus, e.g. the Western saints Ambrose, Martin of Tours, and Hosius are admitted, but Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, etc., are passed over.

The impression made by the entire document is that the principles which were on the whole followed in its composition were not maintained with sufficient care, but yielded more than was right to opinion and caprice. In many cases, too, the necessary knowledge of history, and a sufficient supply of literary material seems to have been lacking.

A useful document, especially for saints’ days, is a lectionary of the orthodox Syrians contained in the codex xix. of the Vatican Library. It was written in the monastery of Mar Mussa at Antioch in 1030, and contains in the first section the lections for the ecclesiastical year, in the second, those for saints’ days, beginning with the 1st September as New Year’s Day. In it are given the martyrs of the Iconoclastic controversy, several orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicephorus († 2nd June 828) being the last; then come many names from the old Testament, and many feasts of apostles, the Catenæ Petri on the 16th January being one of them, four feasts of St John the Baptist, and six of our Lady. There are no Roman or Western saints with the exception of St Lawrence. This document has been published by Count F. Miniscalchi-Errizzo under the title Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum (2 vols. 4to, Verona, 1682).

In using documents of this kind for purposes of historical investigation, as for instance in order to determine the day on which a historical personage died, the appeal must always be to the local sources. In the case of saints belonging to the Western Church no importance must be attached to the fact that the Easterns may have transferred them to a different day, and vice versâ, as, for example, in the case of St Ignatius of Antioch. Where the day is given in some local source, otherwise deserving of credit, we can be then certain that it is correct. This must be done with regard to SS. Peter and Paul, for whom the local sources give invariably the 29th June, while foreign calendars give other dates, as we find is the case with Polemius, Silvius, and the Arian martyrology. The compilers of these calendars wished to celebrate the Princes of the Apostles, but, being ignorant of the actual day of their death, placed them on any day that seemed suitable. Finally, at a later date the correct date came to the knowledge of foreign churches, and found its way into their calendars.

In the ninth century, a time of great activity in matters relating to hagiography, the Church of Naples undertook a revision of its calendar, which exhibits noteworthy peculiarities.

First of all, nearly every day of the year is provided with the name of a saint, which indicates considerable care and study. This result was achieved by following the Eastern custom of admitting Old Testament personages, although not to the same extent. The grounds on which the selection was made cannot be discovered, for we have Abraham on the 9th October, Isaac on the 17th March, Eliseus on the 28th November, Daniel on the 17th December, Zacharias on the 13th May, while other important personages, such as Isaias, etc., are omitted. We are also reminded of eastern usage by the commemoration of the council of Ephesus on the 4th August, and other traces of eastern influence are noticeable in the admission of a few bishops of Constantinople, such as Metrophanes, and also of the names of Constantine (without Helena) on the 21st May, and Theodosius on the 10th November. With regard to Metrophanes, the compiler is guilty of a remarkable oversight; he has placed him once on the right day (the 4th June), without his title, and again on the 4th January with his title, “Patr. Const.” The confusion between the 4th of June and the 4th of January might easily escape a transcriber, and must have already existed in the source which the compiler used. In order not to omit any name the compiler preferred to enter the same name twice, once with, and once without, its proper title.

This reminds us that St Mark also occurs twice, on the 25th April and the 17th May. St Philip is united to St James on the 1st May (a trace of Roman influence), and is found again alone on the 14th November. St Silvester comes on the 31st December and a Depositio Silvestri P.P., on the 2nd January; a Jacobus Ap. and Mattheus on unusual dates, the 15th and 16th November, other Apostles are on more usual dates, e.g. St Jude is commemorated on the 21st May. St Bartholomew’s day (the 25th August) is given wrongly as Nat. Pass., being in reality the day of his translation. The names of Apostles and their disciples are very numerous.

With regard to the worship of the Holy Cross, both days occur (i.e. the 3rd May and 14th September), with the title now in use, although formerly, the feast of the 3rd May was alone observed in the West, and that of the 14th September in the East. The reason for this circumstance has been already given in this book. Bishops of Naples naturally appear frequently; e.g. Maro (15th June) belongs to the third century, others belong to the period from the sixth to the eighth century, such as Redux on the 27th March († 584), Agnellus on the 9th January († 691), Adeodatus on the 1st October († 671), Fortunatus on the 14th June († 600 circ.), Paulus the elder on the 3rd March († 760). The last to be named is probably Paul the younger on the 17th February († 820).[803] Paul III. of Constantinople cannot be intended here, for his day is the 30th August. We may add that the feast of All Saints had not yet been admitted, a circumstance which throws light on the probable date when this calendar was drawn up. Special importance attaches to this calendar on account of its intermediate position between the calendars of the Eastern and Western Churches.

It was discovered in 1742 in S. Giovanni Maggiore and edited incorrectly, according to Mai, by Marinius, correctly by Mazzochius (Naples, 1744). The most recent edition is by A. Mai himself.[804]

In the West the worship of the saints exerted a much stronger influence on the liturgy than in the East. The Roman and kindred rites provided special Masses for saints’ days, while in the East the worship of saints as far as it effected the liturgy continued to be limited to the canonical hours. At first the lections used at the Psalmody were drawn from the Holy Scriptures alone, but from the sixth century, passages from the passiones martyrum were admitted.[805] In course of time, these became more numerous, and in this way the martyrologies obtained an ever increasing importance. As regards the Mass, in the earliest Gallican Masses published by Mone, we find one for the feast of St Germanus,[806] and several in the Sacramentarium Leoninum, and for many centuries the Masses for saints’ days remained considerably less numerous than the Masses de tempore. Later on, however, they became so numerous that they were finally indicated in a special calendar bound up with the sacramentary, such as is now prefixed to the massal as one of its integral parts. Equally important with the sacramentaries in this connection are the service-books, containing the epistles and gospels, called lectionaries. We shall examine these first, and then those of the martyrologies specially bearing upon the subject we are investigating, and afterwards we shall utilise whatever we find in the sacramentaries in connection with saints’ days.

The lectionaries of Luxenil and Silos show very plainly that in the seventh century the worship of the saints had as yet very slightly affected the liturgy. The saints’ days are somewhat more numerous in the Leoninum and in the Missale Gothico-Gallicanum edited by Mabillon and belonging to the end of the same century.

In both the other Roman sacramentaries the increase of saints’ days is noticeable. The Gelasianum was originally drawn up especially for the city of Rome, but the recension in which it has come down to us was obviously compiled at the request of some other church; at any rate it contains a number of saints who do not belong to the city of Rome. For instance, on the 7th August we have the Confessor Donatus who belongs to Imola, on the 19th a martyr called Magnus who can only be assigned to Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and on the 27th a martyr Rufus belonging to Capua; the appearance of the legendary family of martyrs Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Ambacum or Habacuc is curious, and in addition to these, there is also a number of saints whose names one would search for in vain in the better and older recensions of the Gregorianum, e.g. Soter, Vitalis, Felicula, Juliana, Euphemia, Juvenal, Nereus and Achilleus, Cyrinus, Nabor, Nazarius, and Vitus. Of these many were certainly venerated in Rome, yet had hitherto received no recognition in the calendars attached to the service-books.

For the Gregorian Sacramentary, the edition most frequently employed is that of Menard printed in Migne. According to the introduction, it is taken from a codex S. Eligii and a somewhat later codex Rodradi, which, in Menard’s opinion, was written about 853, but even the earlier codex has additions belonging to a later period, e.g. Projectus (25th January)[807] and Leo (28th June), as a comparison with the Mainz codex of St Alban shows. This codex (i.e. of St Eligius) according to the received opinion, was written between 834 and 847, and consists of three different parts, proceeding indeed from the same hand, but clearly distinguished from one another. The first part contains the Gregorianum (fol. 1-129) to which have been added as an appendix the Masses of St Alban, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, All Saints’, and St Augustine, which the transcriber did not find in the original. In the second part (Collectio ii., fol. 165-183) the expressions contestatio and ad complendum are used which show it to be of Frankish origin, and like the first part it contains the ecclesiastical year, beginning with Christmas. The third part (fol. 183-204) contains a few additions consisting of prayers and Masses for special occasions.

It is to be observed that the first part still has the obsolete feast of the 13th May, Dedicatio S. Mariæ ad Martyrs, and only the Natalis S. Cæsarii on the 1st November, the Mass for All Saints’ being placed at the end, and not in its proper place (fol. 131). This recalls the circumstance that Gregory IV. (827-844) transferred the feast of the 13th May to the 1st November. This change was also introduced into the Frankish empire in 835. The original document was then certainly written before 835, or indeed earlier, for the litania minor, introduced into the Roman rite by Leo III. about 801, is not given; nevertheless the three chief feasts of our Lady are already inserted in their proper places. In the following period until the fifteenth century only a limited number of new saints’ days were added to the Roman Missal. A missal written in 1374—Ordo Missalis secundum Consuetudinem Romanæ Curiæ—belonging to the Public Library of Munich, shows an increase of only twenty-five Masses for saints’ days over the Gregorianum after more than five hundred years.

Fronteau, chancellor of the University of Paris, published a lectionary which has important bearings on the study of liturgies; he took it from a codex written in gold characters belonging to the Church of St Geneviève in Paris.[808] The editor correctly described it as appertaining to the city of Rome, because the Roman station churches are given, and the saints mentioned almost all belong to the city of Rome. The omission of the festival of St Petronilla (the 31st May) is of importance in fixing the date of this document, for Gregory III. was the first to add the Church of the Cœmeterium S. Petronillæ to the other station churches.[809] Petronilla had already been regarded as a saint in the city of Rome, but her festival had not made its way into the liturgy because no statio was held in her Church or in her Cœmeterium. The Litania Minor on the three days before the Ascension, introduced into the Roman rite by Leo III., is also not to be found here. The editor, however, deduces that the Lectionary of St Geneviève is later than Gregory II. from the fact that the Thursdays in Lent are provided with an officium of their own, an addition introduced first by this pope.[810]

Accordingly this lectionary was composed under Gregory II., between 714 and 731, and it is of great importance for the liturgical student. Its manner of naming the Sundays after Pentecost deserves especially to be noticed, the feasts of our Lady of the 15th August and the 8th September do not fall on these days, but on the 14th August and the 9th September, and the beheading of St John the Baptist on the 30th August. The only Greek saint mentioned is Mennas and the only non-Italian, St Cyprian. The Cathedra Petri, Exaltatio Crucis (3rd May), and Joannes ante Portam Lat. (6th May), are not yet known, and on the 28th June, where Leo II. Papa et Confessor now stands, we have a Translatio corporis S. Leonis. Fronteau points out that this cannot refer to Leo II.[811]

Before the ninth century, the Frankish Church had produced no martyrology of its own, apart from the so-called Hieronymianum, but on the other hand the young Anglo-Saxon Church put out a work of this kind in the eighth century, its author being the learned historian of the Anglo-Saxon Church, the Venerable Bede. Whether he undertook the work spontaneously or at the desire of his superiors, whether it was intended merely for his own monastery, or for a wider circle are questions which cannot be answered, for there is no introduction to the work to inform us on these points. The work was used in the Frankish empire as is proved by the MSS. of it found there as well as by the later additions of Florus.

Bede composed his Martyrologium in 731, as he informs us at the conclusion of his history.[813] It was his intention to give in addition to the days of the saints’ deaths, the nature of their deaths, and the names of the judges by whom they were condemned, for by this means the date of their deaths could be determined with certainty. The basis of his work was the existing Roman Calendar while he exceeded its limits in many directions. In the first place, he added to it the saints of England such as were then venerated; these were few in number, Alban, Cuthbert, Augustine, Mellitus, Etheltrud, Victor and Paulinus (10th October), Brigid, etc. Then a comparatively large number of names of Frankish saints were also introduced, e.g. Maximin of Treves (31st May), Clodoald (St Cloud), Remigius, Denys, Lambert († 17th September 709), the Theban legion, and a few others. Bede rises still further above the standpoint of national churches and particularism by admitting some names from the Old Testament, e.g. Ezechiel (10th April), Jeremias (1st May), Eliseus (14th June), Isaias (6th July), Samuel (20th August), etc.; the dates on which they are commemorated being taken for the most part from Greek menologies.

Bede collected material for his Martyrologium with great diligence, and enriched his subject matter with notes from his own reading, as is shown for instance by his reference to St Cyprian’s treatise De Lapsis in connection with the martyrs Castus and Æmilius (22nd May) who are named in it; other sources upon which he also drew were the Gesta Pontificum, the writings of Eusebius, St Gregory’s Dialogues, and especially a number of Passiones Martyrum. Bede’s work shows both diligence and originality, and an intelligent employment of the materials which came to hand. Yet, in spite of his diligence, he found material to fill up only a hundred and eighty days, and so the half of the year remains vacant; still his compilation is fuller than the Frankish calendars of the eighth century, and the notes attached to the names of each saint are remarkable for brevity and precision.

Although the value of Bede’s work is incontestable it was soon found insufficient; it was diligently copied, and used, but additions of all sorts were made to it as is proved by the large number of variations in the existing MSS. Perhaps it met with more acceptance abroad than at home, for the thirteenth canon of the second council of Cloveshove which met in 747, only twelve years after Bede’s death, enjoined the use of the Roman martyrology, without even mentioning Bede.

As regards its publication, the martyrology of Bede was printed for the first time in Cologne in 1616, but as in the text thus published, all the days of the year are provided with the names of saints, it is impossible that it represents the original text of Bede, for all old writers agree in stating that in it many days were left vacant. The Bollandist Henschen found first of all a fragment of the genuine Bede among the MSS. of Queen Christina of Sweden, and then, later on, the complete text at Dijon.[814]

Bede’s martyrology was newly worked over and considerably enlarged by a certain Florus; according to Wandelbert of Prüm,[815] this was the subdeacon Florus of Lyons, who, later on, as deacon, wrote against Scotus Erigena in 852, and died in 860; he was a contemporary of Wandelbert’s. Against this must be set down the authority of Trithemius, who considers that this Florus was a Monk of the monastery of St Trudo in the diocese of Liège about 760. Although Trithemius gives no authority for this statement, still writers on the history of literature, especially Fabricius, are in complete agreement with him. Still which ever of the two is correct, one is inclined to ask how it came to pass that so striking an enlargement of the work—each day of the year being provided with the name of a saint—could have appeared so soon after Bede and before the appearance of the great martyrology of Ado.

Wandelbert of Prüm turned Bede’s martyrology into verse in the twenty-fifth year of the Emperor Lothaire I. (848); his version is of no importance for the history and development of this department of liturgical studies, yet it may be consulted for questions connected with local history.[816]

The martyrology of Œngus the Culdee, written in the ancient Irish (Celtic) language certainly belongs to the same period. Nothing further is known of the author except that he was a monk in the Monastery of Conenagh in the ninth century. The martyrology is written in rhymed verse, extends over the entire year, and contains for the most part the names of Irish saints.[817] Certainly later is the similar work of Gorman, Abbot of Louth in Leinster. It was written in unrhymed verse between 1166 and 1174.[818]

The most important document in this department of literature, and one which bears directly upon scientific investigations, is the martyrology of Ado, Bishop of Vienne. Ado was born in northern France about 800, and entered at an early age the Monastery of Ferrières in the diocese of Sens, from whence he was sent to the Monastery of Prüm where he lived for many years under Abbot Markward (829-853). In consequence of some misunderstandings he left Prüm and went to Rome, where he spent five years and then went to Ravenna. He returned to France later and lived for some time as a simple monk in a monastery in the neighbourhood of Lyons. After the death of Bishop Agilmar of Vienne († 7th July 860) he succeeded to the see and died on the 16th December 873.

He compiled the martyrology which bears his name in 858 before he became bishop,[819] the basis of his work being a very ancient martyrology with which he had become acquainted in Ravenna. If his information can be trusted, a bishop of Ravenna, whose name he does not give, received this ancient document from a bishop of Rome who is also nameless. The rest of the material he collected himself, and in particular he made notes of any information concerning martyrs which had come in his way. Many of the sources at his disposal have since been lost, thus rendering his martyrology all the more important for us.

It consists of three parts: 1. A calendar containing the names of one or more saints for each day accompanied by notices naturally brief; in the printed edition it bears incorrectly the title, Vetus Martyrologium Romanum, given to it by its first editors, Jacob Mosander and Heribert Rosweyde;[820] 2. A Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apostolorum;[821] 3. The martyrology itself,[822] consisting of extracts from the acts of the martyrs and other writings.

His preface contains matter which deserves attention.[823] He had often been urged, he says, by holy men, by his superiors, and by Bishop Remigius of Lyons to complete the martyrology; since the martyrology of Bede, which Florus had enlarged, still leaves many days without saints, he had undertaken to fill up these gaps, and for this purpose he had made use of the MSS. describing the sufferings of the martyrs, from which he had made quotations for the benefit of the weaker brethren; the ancient martyrology which came originally from Rome, served him as a foundation upon which to build.

The frank avowal of his intention to fill in the spaces left vacant by his predecessors, might create a prejudice against the trustworthiness and excellence of his work, but a closer inspection will dispel this suspicion, and this would be still more the case had we the original form of the work before us; in the existing editions there are additions of a later date, such as the name Rictiovarus.

From the entries on the 20th April and the 17th November it is plain that the Cologne MS. of this martyrology edited by Rosweyde comes from Stablo, and it may have been that at Stablo the names of some Frankish saints were inserted into it. Ado went much further than Bede in admitting names from the Old Testament. Roseweyde’s conjecture that this calendar, the so-called “Little Ado,” is the Roman martyrology mentioned by Gregory I. in his letter to Eulogius, is devoid of proof and obviously mistaken, for in that document there were no Old Testament names. This “Little Ado” is not a martyrology at all, but a calendar, and displays none of the peculiarities which characterise the calendars of the city of Rome of that date; neither is it an independent work, but only an abstract made by Ado from his own larger work, and a summary of its contents. The preface prefixed to the two other parts is chiefly concerned with the martyrology, and not with this abstract, and it is only the circumstance that this abstract is found in MSS., with some later additions and altogether separate from the larger work, which led the first editor to regard it as a treatise by itself; it is merely the abstract used at Stablo and Malmedy, and not an original Roman work, though it is plain from Ado’s preface that the existing Roman calendar was employed in its composition.[824]

Two or three decades later, Usuardus composed his martyrology after Ado’s example, which he dedicated to Charles the Bald in 875. Usuardus was a monk of St Germain des Près, then outside the gates of Paris, but now surrounded by the city; his work is by no means so full as Ado’s, but is more polished in style, and more uniform in its treatment of the different entries, and on this account is more suited for use in choir. It was accordingly used throughout the entire West, and in all Benedictine monasteries,[825] and even in Rome itself with the exception of the Vatican basilica. At the end of the fifteenth century it was so to speak, the universal martyrology of the Western Church, and indeed no other was known.[826]

The value of these works depends naturally upon the sources employed by the redactor, and also upon his personal qualities, as, for instance, whether he revelled in the miraculous or was inclined to be critical.

Two martyrologies by German authors must now be dealt with—those of Rabanus Maurus and Notker Balbulus.

The former when Archbishop of Mainz completed a martyrology which he had compiled from secondary sources; it is dedicated to Abbot Radleich of Seligenstadt, who died in 853-54, and whose epitaph was composed by Rabanus,[827] but the composition of the martyrology must be dated a few years earlier, about 850, though the exact date cannot be discovered. As sources, he drew upon the Acts of the martyrs which he found ready to hand, and also the Hieronymianum, Bede, and Florus; the treatment of the material is very unequal, sometimes a long account being given, sometimes nothing more than the name; legends and historical errors are frequent.

The same is true of the martyrology of Notker Balbulus who was a monk at St Gall from 840 to 912, and composed his work under Pope Formosus (891-896). He knew and used the Hieronymianum, as, for example, for the 9th August, V. Id. Aug. First class sources were beyond his reach, a loss of which he was himself conscious.[828]

All these martyrologies of which we have spoken, were private compilations without anything of an official character about them. The existence of so many following upon the Hieronymianum shows that it did not satisfy liturgical requirements and was little used. On this account, martyrologies were drawn up at a later date containing full descriptions of the lives and sufferings of the saints for each day of the year, which would serve as edifying and entertaining reading for religious, priests and other pious persons. However even the best of them were no longer practicable in the sixteenth century, and Gregory XIII. conceived the purpose of putting out one better adapted for use in divine service. A further step was taken in 1580 when he commissioned the learned Cardinal Sirleto to compare the martyrology used in Rome with the oldest and best MSS. and to correct the errors which had crept into it in course of time.[829] Sirleto associated ten other learned men with himself among whom were Cæsar Baronius and Aloysius Lilius, the astronomer. Baronius was the soul of the undertaking, and, after three years’ labour, the Martyrologium Romanum Gregorii XIII. was completed, and a papal brief of the 14th January 1584, prescribed the exclusive use of this work in choir at the canonical hours. Baronius based his labours on Usuardus, correcting and enlarging his martyrology by means of the materials then forthcoming; could he have used the materials discovered later, or those which we now possess, his work would naturally have been much better; many, too, of the earlier mistakes remain uncorrected. The editors were far from claiming freedom from errors for their work, and made improvements in later editions, beginning with that of 1586. It is not necessary to regard all the individuals named in the Roman martyrology as saints in the liturgical sense of the word, and their admission there, according to the expression of Benedict XIV. is in no wise equal to canonisation.[830] Since the time of Baronius, the official martyrology has indeed remained untouched, but science has not been inactive during this long period; much has been explained and corrected, and, on the whole, it has come to be recognised as a principle which must be followed in investigating the histories of the saints of ancient times, that recourse is to be had to the earliest existing sources of information, and also, where the evidence is contradictory, local official sources, where they exist, are to have the preference.

While the martyrologies were for the most part the outcome of individual effort, the calendars, on the other hand, are entirely official in their origin. In times when annual calendars, like our present ordos, had not yet appeared, their place was taken by the official calendar, and every one had to make out his ordo for himself with its assistance. From many points of view they are more important for our purpose than the martyrologies.

As complete missals took the place of the sacramentaries they were usually provided with a table, like an index, which gave a list of the saints’ days contained in the missal; these so-called calendars have from then until now formed an integral part of written and printed missals, and even appear by themselves like abbreviated martyrologies. A remarkably large number of calendars of this kind have come down to us from the Middle Ages, and, since they are important for the history of local churches, they have recently been published, as, for example, by Martène-Durand, Misset and Weale, Grotefend, Ulysse Chevalier, Lechler, etc.[831] For our purpose, the following deserve to be noticed:

1. A Roman calendar of the seventh century, discovered by Prof. de Ram, and printed in Binterim, Denkw. vii. 56-67. It begins with Christmas, March is called mensis primus, the station churches of Rome are given in Lent, on the 13th May there is the Dedicatio Mariæ ad Martyres, All Saints does not appear. The only litany is the so-called litania major; the Annunciation and the Cathedra Petri are omitted, in March a pascha annotina is inserted without date, St Athanasius is passed over on the 20th January; there are only faint traces of Advent. This calendar is very ancient and formed part of the codex of the gospels written under Louis the Pious; in the time of Lothaire I., it belonged to the Monastery of Münsterbilsen in the diocese of Liège.

2. A calendar belonging to Bologna. It is found in a codex of the Monastery of Leno, was discovered by Giovanni Mercati in the Ambrosiana, and published in the Révue Bénédictine, 1902 (353-355). It has the Ordinatio Episcopatus Jacobi Apost. on the 27th December, and, on the 17th May a natalis S. Marci Evang., found nowhere else.

3. The so-called calendar of Charlemagne forms, along with an Easter table, the beginning of an Evangeliarum written in 781 by command of the emperor and his consort by a scribe called Godescale.[832] It is only deserving of notice from the number of names of Frankish saints inserted into a calendar originally Roman, e.g. Bishop Maximin of Treves (31st May), Boniface (5th June), Medard (8th June), Martialis (30th June) Kilian (1st August), Mauritius (22nd September), Remigius (1st October), etc. The Apostle Thomas is placed, strange to say, on the 3rd July, and St Petronilla on the 31st May.

4. A calendar is incorporated in a treatise De Computo, by an unknown author, written in 810 (published by Muratori, Analecta, iii. 108, and also in Migne, Patr. Lat., cxxix. 1274). It seems to come from the diocese of Sens on account of S. Columbæ Virg. on the 31st December; All Saints is omitted. This calendar is Roman with Frankish additions; for the date see chap. 153, Migne, cxxix., 1364.

5. The last four months of the year are unfortunately missing from the calendar of Alt-Corbie (Corbeiense) given by Martène-Durand, Thes. Nov. Anced., iii., 1591, Paris, 1717. The same is the case with a very old calendar of Tours.

6. Codex 83ᴵᴵ. of the cathedral library in Cologne contains an ancient calendar, fol. 72 B-76. This codex contains a large collection of annalistical writings and computation tables and was written under Archbishop Hildebold. The second treatise in the volume is Isidore’s chronicle which concludes with the words: “Seven hundred and eighty-nine years have passed since Christ’s Nativity”; further on, fol. 76 B, was inserted after the death of Charlemagne, and also of Hildebold (818). Thus the codex was written between 798 and 818, and belonged to the old cathedral of Cologne which was dedicated to St Peter. The calendar, however, does not belong to Cologne for the local saints are absent, but there is a number of names of Frankish saints, pointing to the north of France as the locality where it was drawn up; no explanation of the legend of St Ursula can be learnt from it. For a calendar of its early date, it is remarkably full of saints, while the Cologne Calendar, shortly to be referred, to has many vacant days. The codex has been described by Jaffé and Wattenbach, Ecclesiæ Metrop. Colon. codices manuscripti, Berlin, 1874, 29 et seqq.

7. The Gellonense comes from the Monastery of St Guillaume du Désert in the diocese of Lodève, and belongs to the beginning of the ninth century, and has been edited by D’Achery, Spicilegium, ii. 25 et seqq. It begins with Christmas and is preceded by a Breviarum Apostolorum in thirteen sections containing information concerning the apostles.

8. A Kalendarium Gothicum (ed. Lorenzana) of the seventh century (Migne, lxxxvi. 38 et seqq.). Besides this, there is the Mozarabic Sanctorale (ib. 1031 et seqq.) and a fragment of a Kalendarium Gothico-Hispanum (Migne, lxxxv. 1050 et seqq.).

Of later date, but still always useful for historical investigation are:—

9. Two Anglo-Saxon calendars of the tenth century belonging apparently to the diocese of Winchester (Migne, lxxii. 619 et seqq.).

10. Two from Corbie; in Martène and Durand (Thes. Nov. Anecd., iii. 1571-1594).

11. A calendar of Floriac and a martyrology of Auxerre (Migne, cxxxviii. 1186-1258).

12. A calendar of Mantua and two of Vallombrosa (Ib. 1258 et seqq.).

13. A calendar of Besançon of the eleventh century, which goes by the name of S. Protadii (Migne, lxxx. 411), and an old French calendar called after the name of its first owner Chauvellin (Migne, lxxii. 607).

For convenience we separate the most ancient calendars of German origin from the others, and consider them by themselves.

1. The oldest calendar of Mainz belongs to the first half of the ninth century, and was published from a codex in the Vatican by Jostes in the Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum (Schröder and Röthe) for 1896, 148-158. All Saints is absent, and the resurrection of Christ is entered on the 25th March.

2. A Kalendarium Verdinense, from the Monastery of Werden on the Ruhr, published by Bandini (Catal. Bibl. Lauretianæ Suppl., Migne, cxxxviii. 1203 et seqq.). It contained All Saints, and the Dedicatio S. Mariæ s. Turris Vincentii on the 13th May as well. Among the special saints of Cologne are given the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Gereon, the Moors, and the eleven thousand virgins, but without Ursula, and designated as simply virgins and not martyrs; it also contains the names of the two first bishops of Halberstadt, Thiatgrim († 840) and Hildegrim († 21st December 888), which indicates the date of its composition, and it has the name of the first abbot of Werden, Hetharicus, and the Dedicatio Eccl. Majoris. Unfortunately the months from April to July are missing.

3. The sacramentary in the cathedral library of Cologne (codex 88, fol. 3-9) contains a complete calendar for this cathedral. It is essentially the Roman Calendar of the ninth century, with the addition of the local saints of Cologne, the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Brictius, Quintinus, Severin, Gereon and his 318 companions, the 360 Moors, and the 11,000 virgins without Ursula, and designated simply as virgins. Other names deserving notice are: Briga (Brigida) 1st February, Arealis (?) 28th April, Marcus episcopus, Boniface the martyr, Medard, Lambert, and Mauricius with 6666 companions. The calendar belongs to the second half of the ninth century, and is proved to have belonged to the cathedral of Cologne begun by Hildebold and consecrated by Willibert in 873, by the fact that it gives the day of the consecration of the cathedral correctly (23rd September), and is described as belonging to the Church of St Peter, to whom the former cathedral was dedicated. The sacramentary, but not the calendar, has been printed by J. Pamelius in his “Liturgicon Ecclesiæ Latinæ,” tom. ii. (Col. Agr. 1571), but unfortunately with so many arbitrary alterations that it is quite useless as an edition of the text.

4. In the library at Düsseldorf there is a sacramentary, (codex D. I.) written in the lifetime of Bishop Altfrid of Hildesheim († 874), which contains (fol. 217-222) a calendar showing northern French influence. Only the 11,000 virgins are given of the local saints of Cologne, and here again Ursula is not named, and the virgins are not called martyrs. The book belonged to the Convent of Essen on the Ruhr founded by Altfrid. This MS. gives in fol. 64 A the order of the festivals observed within the jurisdiction of the monastery during the ninth century: “Istas præcipuas solemnitates in anno totus populus sabbatizare debet: In die Nat. Domini dies IV., in octabas Domini, in Teophania, in Purificatione Mariæ, in Pascha Domini dies IV., in Ascensione Domini, in Pentecoste dies IV., in Nat. S. Johannis, in Nat. Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, in Assumptione S. Mariæ, in Nat. S. Remedii [Remigii], in Missa Michahelis, in Solemnitate Omnium Sanctorum, in Nat. S. Martini, in Nat. S. Andreæ.”

Binterim published a Cologne calendar, apparently of the ninth century, under the title Kalendarium Ecclesiæ Germ. Coloniensis Sæculi Noni (Cologne, 1824), and Harless attributes it to the second half of the same century (Archiv. f. die Gesch. des Niederrheins, vi. 67). It is, however, much later, for it gives all the feasts of the apostles, and provides them with vigils, and all the days of the year are filled in with the names of saints. For these reasons I should date the calendar as belonging to the eleventh century at the earliest.

5. The Kalendarium Germanicum Pervetustum Sæc. X., printed by M. Fr. Beck (Aug. Vind., 1687). Gerbert (Mon. Lit. Alem. i. 455 A. I.) correctly regards it as coming from Alsace and probably from Strassburg, because it contains the saints venerated in that city, Arbogast (20th July), Florentius, Ottilia and Aurelia. The basis of this document is again the Roman Calendar, still many Frankish saints have been added, but Gereon alone of the saints of Cologne. The latest date given in it is the Dormitio S. Uodalrici (4th July). It has only one name from the Old Testament, that of the prophet Ezechiel.

6. A calendar of Freising, drawn up under Bishop Abraham, between 893 and 993. The 25th March is marked as Conceptio Domini. There is only one feast of St Peter’s Chair. The calendar has been printed by Lechler, “Mittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien in Bayern,” Freiburg, 1891.

7. The so-called Martyrologium Stabulense, the calendar of the Monastery of Stablo. The date of the original MS. can be deduced from the fact that on the vii. Idus Junii the coronation of King Henry II., which was performed by Archbishop Willigis at Mainz on the 7th June 1002, is entered by the first hand, while the ordination of Archbishop Tagino of Magdeburg in the 2nd February 1004, has been entered by a second hand. Archbishop Tagino’s death is not entered. The calendar has only Gereon with 319 companions of the local saints of Cologne. St Ulrich of Augsburg, although he died in 997, is entered by the second hand. The calendar has been published by Martène, Ampl. Coll., and by Zaccaria, Antiq. Med. Ævi (see Migne, cxxxviii. 1194).

8. Hontheim has published the five most ancient calendars of Treves in the Prodromus Historiæ Trevirensis, i. 378-405. According to him, only the first belongs to the tenth century, all the others being later. For a calendar of the tenth century, it is very full of names, many of them being from the old Testament—Ezechial, Daniel, etc.; it mentions neither the legend of the Innumerable Company of Martyrs at Treves on the 4th and 5th October, nor Palmatius, Thyrsus, etc.; neither does it contain All Souls, St Catherine, or St Peter’s Chair, but it has Gereon and his 318 companions. It is only in the fourth and fifth calendars which belong to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that Thyrsus, Palmatius, etc., appear.

When one considers the details presented by calendars, one is bound to acknowledge that the Roman Depositio Martyrum stands at the head of this long line of liturgical documents, and was the model after which they were composed. Like them, the Depositio Martyrum was drawn up according to months, and commenced with Christmas. Like them, it contained the official list of the martyrs who received ecclesiastical veneration in the local church of Rome in the fourth century. Were it not so, it would not have deserved to be incorporated in the Philocalian collection, the Hemerologium Valentini, since this comprised only official documents; had it not been official it would not have been worth transcribing.

All estates of men in the Church have had their share in the formation of the ecclesiastical year, for the growth of the Church’s festivals has continued without interruption from the beginning until now, and has extended over all the countries of Christendom. Having wended our way through the centuries and arrived at the conclusion of our work, it is a pleasure to render our tribute of thanks and praise to the men who have in the past made this sphere of study their own.

The few writers of the Middle Ages who treated the Church’s year and the festivals of the saints in a comprehensive manner were entirely occupied with contributing to the correct performance of ecclesiastical ceremonies, and with explaining why each ceremony must be done in one way and not in another. They not infrequently brought allegorical and symbolical considerations to bear on the question.

In more modern times, Cornelius Schulting, a native of Steenwijk in North Holland, and afterwards professor of theology at Cologne and canon of St Andrew’s († 1604) undertook a full exposition of the matter; his object was mainly practical, and his work can only be regarded as a first attempt. The keen controversialist, Jacobus Gretser S.J. († 1625), is more occupied with his polemic against the Calvinists than with lucid demonstration. More in harmony with modern requirements, is the French oratorian Louis Thomassin, a native of Aix in Provence, and a partisan of Port Royal, who died in 1695; he wrote a small compendium which may be used with profit at the present day.

The study of the ecclesiastical year was considerably advanced by the labours of Adrien Baillet, born in 1649, in the diocese of Beauvais († 1706), parish priest of a small country living at Baumont and librarian to M. de Lamoignon; he was entirely devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, and scarcely ever allowed himself any relaxation. He composed a great work worthy of ranking alongside the labours of Tillemont, to whom he is closely related in spirit. The course of his historical treatment of the subject is considerably obscured by the superabundance of biographical matter. Two valuable monographs were published by Prosper Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV.) when bishop of Bologna, which treat in a masterly manner of the feasts of our Lord and of our Lady respectively.

Finally, the learned priest of Bilk, near Düsseldorf, Fr. Ant. Binterim († 1855) dealt with this subject in one volume of his Denkwürdigkeiten. He treats in the first place of the observance of Sunday, then of the Sundays of the Church’s year in general, and finally of the movable and immovable feasts. Of these he naturally deals only with the most important, following the order of the calendar, by which arrangement Christmas comes last.

The author of this book commenced his researches by a comparative study of the martyrologies, calendars, annals, and works dealing with the computation of time, and then set to work upon the historical and liturgical material which he had before him from the point of vantage thus obtained. The fortunate circumstance that the most of the works required for this branch of study are contained in Migne’s collection, renders the labour of comparison possible, and frequently brings remarkable parallels to light.

APPENDIX — I — (p. 16 ) — II — (p. 24 ) — (p. 25 ) — (p. 26 ) — III — (p. 35 ) The Festivals of Obligation as observed in Different Countries — IV — (p. 71 ) — V — (p. 79 ) The Word Mass as a Name for the Sacrifice of the Altar — VI — (p. 142 ) On the Date for Christmas in Hippolytus — VII — (p. 158 ) Christmas in England during the Commonwealth — VIII — (p. 173 ) Excursus on the Three Holy Kings — IX — (p. 182 ) The Greek Ecclesiastical Year — X — (p. 248 ) English Writers and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception — XI — (pp. 243 , 347 ) Excursus on the so-called Typica

According to the existing Roman Calendar, feasts are classed as follows:—

Duplicia primæ classis. Nativitas Domini, Epiphania, Annunciatio, Pascha cum tribus antecedentibus et duobus sequentibus diebus, Ascensio Domini, Pentecoste cum duobus sequentibus diebus, festum Corporis Christi, festum SS. Cordis Jesu, festum S. Joseph sponsi B.M.V., Nativitas Joannis Bapt., festum SS. App. Petri et Pauli, Assumptio B.M.V., festum Immaculatæ Conceptionis B.M.V., festum Omnium Sanctorum, Dedicatio propriæ ecclesiæ, Patronus vel titulus ecclesiæ.

Duplicia secundæ classis. Circumcisio Domini, festum SS. Nominis Jesu, festum SS. Trinitatis, festum Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. J. Chr., Inventio Crucis, Purificatio, Visitatio, Nativitas B.M.V., Sollemnitas S. Rosarii, Dedicatio Michælis Arch., festum Patrocinii S. Joseph sponsi B.M.V., Natales Apostolorum et festa Evangelistarum, festum S. Stephani, Protomartyris, SS. Innocentium, S. Laurentii, S. Annæ matris B.M.V., S. Joachim patris B.M.V.

Duplicia majora. Transfiguratio Domini, Exaltatio S. Crucis, festa VII. dolorum B.M.V., Commemoratio B.M.V. de monte Carmelo, festa Ad Nives, S. Nominis, de Mercede, et Præsentatio, B.M.V., Apparitio S. Michælis Arch., festum SS. Angelorum Custodum, Decollatio S. Joannis Bapt., Cathedra Petri utraque, S. Petri ad vincula, Conversio S. Pauli Ap., Commemoratio S. Pauli Ap., festum S. Joannis ante Portam Latinam, S. Barnabæ Ap., S. Benedicti Abb., S. Dominici Conf., S. Francisci Assis. Conf., festum Patronorum non principalium.

(A) A marked increase appears in the statute of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury († 1089). He divides the festivals into three classes. In the first class he reckons five, the three chief festivals of the Christian year, the Assumption, and the feast of the local patron; in the second, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Gregory, the Annunciation, Low Sunday, St Alphege, the Ascension, St Augustine of Canterbury, the Octave of Pentecost, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Translation of the Relics of St Benedict, the Nativity of our Lady, St Michael, All Saints, St Andrew, and the Dedication of the Church; the festivals belonging to the third class were St Vincent, the Conversion of St Paul, SS. Philip and James, the Exaltation of the Cross (3rd May), St James (29th July), St Peter’s Chains, St Lawrence, the Octave of the Assumption, St Bartholomew, St Augustine of Hippo, the Beheading of St John the Baptist, the Invention of the Cross, St Matthew, SS. Simon and Jude, St Martin, and St Thomas.

Lanfranc issued this decree as archbishop, still it was only to hold good for the Benedictine monasteries and the Cathedral.[833]

(B) The festivals of obligation for the archdiocese of Cologne were regulated according to the months by the provincial synod of 1308. January: the Circumcision, Epiphany, St Agnes, the Conversion of St Paul. February: Candlemas, St Peter’s Chair, St Matthias. March: the Annunciation. April: Easter and St George. May: SS. Philip and James, the Invention of the Cross. June: the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul. July: St Mary Magdalen, St James, St Pantaleon. August: St Peter’s Chains, St Lawrence, the Assumption, St Bartholomew, the Beheading of St John the Baptist. September: the Nativity of our Lady, the Exaltation of the Cross, St Matthew, St Michael. October: St Gereon, the Eleven Thousand Virgins, St Severin, SS. Simon and Jude. November: All Saints, St Martin, St Cunibert, St Cecilia, St Catherine, St Andrew. December: St Nicholas, St Thomas, Christmas, St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents. In all, forty-two days.[834] The feasts of Easter and Pentecost extended over three days; the Ascension is omitted. In the city of Cologne were celebrated in addition: the Arrival of the relics of the Three Holy Kings on the 23rd July, the Dedication of the Cathedral, SS. Cosmas and Damian, the Dedication and Patronal feast of each parish church, and, finally, the feast of Corpus Christi was enjoined in addition.

The Synod of 1549 under Adolf III. gives the following list: All Sundays, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas—two days each, the third day in choro only—Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, the Holy Trinity, Corpus Christi, these being feasts of our Lord. The feasts of our Lady are: the Purification, the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Assumption, the Nativity, the Presentation, and the Conception. Saints’ days are as follows: all the Apostles, St John the Baptist, St Mary Magdalen, St Lawrence, St Michael, All Saints, St Martin, and the Dedication of the Church; there are also six other saints’ days which were optional for places where they were customary. The feast of the Patron Saint is passed over, and thus a decrease of fifteen festivals is brought about.[835]

(C) The statute of Archbishop Baldwin of Treves, published in 1338, contains fewer festivals, i.e. Christmas, Easter with the three following days and Pentecost with two, Corpus Christi, Circumcision, and Epiphany. Our Lady’s feasts were: the Nativity, Annunciation, Purification, and Assumption; a few years later her Conception was added. Then came the festivals of the twelve apostles, St Michael (8th May), the Invention of the Cross, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, St Lawrence, St Martin, St Mary Magdalen, St Catherine, All Saints’, the Holy Innocents, the Dedication of the Church and the feast of the Patron Saint.

Rome. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, one day each; Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph (19th March), the Annunciation, Ascension, St Philip Neri (26th May), Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immac. Conc., St John the Evangelist (27th December). The civil law of the Italian Kingdom recognises the following days as legal holidays: the Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the feasts of Our Lady on the 15th August, 8th September, and 8th December, Christmas and the patron saint of the city and diocese.

France. In accordance with the concordat of Napoleon four feasts were celebrated: Christmas, Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints. All other festivals when they fell on a week day were transferred to the following Sunday. Even in Belgium and in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, in the part of Limburg belonging to Holland, and in the bailiwick of Meisenheim in the diocese of Treves, this scanty provision of feasts holds good.

Austria. The Cis- and-Transleithan countries observe the same holy days. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. The feasts of the patron saints were transferred by Joseph II. to the following Sunday, but in each of the Crown-lands the local patron is commemorated on his proper day, i.e. in Austria above and below the Enns, the feast of St Leopold: in Upper Austria, St Florian: in Moravia, SS. Cyril and Methodius: in Galicia, St Stanislaus and St Michael: in Silesia, St Hedwig: in Bohemia, St Wenceslaus and St John Nepomuk: in Styria, Carinthia, Camiola, the provinces of the Litoral, Salzburg, Tyrol and Vorarlberg, St Joseph: in Sclavonia, St John the Baptist: in Hungary, St Stephen the Confessor: in Croatia, St Elias: in Transilvania, St Ladislaus: in Salzburg, St Rupert: in Dalmatia, St Jerome: in Goritz, St Hermagoras and St Fortunatus.

In the eight old provinces of Prussia, the festivals recognised by the state are: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, two days each; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, the (Protestant) day of penitence and prayer, the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception. In the archdiocese of Posen, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the Assumption as well as St Stanislaus are observed, and in Gnesen, St George as patron of the diocese. The new provinces have had also to adopt the Protestant day of penitence.

Hanover, the dioceses of Hildesheim and Osnabrück. Besides the days observed in Prussia, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the Nativity and Assumption of Our Lady, St Michael, and the local patrons St Bernward and St Martin.

For the countries of the Northern Mission in the diocese of Osnabrück, the following are omitted from the list just given: Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and all the feasts of Our Lady, thus leaving only Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each with two days; the Circumcision, the Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, All Saints. This applies to Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, both the Mecklenburgs and Denmark.

Bavaria. The following festivals are observed: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, the Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Each diocese of Bavaria celebrates its own particular patron as well.

The Palatinate, diocese of Spires. Here the effects of the French dominion are still observable, and the only festivals of obligation observed are: the Circumcision, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Assumption, All Saints. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are kept each for two days.

The Kingdom of Saxony. The festivals of obligation are: the Circumcision, the Epiphany and Annunciation, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Nativity of Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception, All Saints; Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each for two days.

In the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine there are different regulations in each diocese.

Würtemburg, diocese of Rottenburg. The Circumcision, the Epiphany, Candlemas, the Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption and Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception; Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, each for two days.

Baden, archdiocese of Freiburg. The five chief feasts of Our Lady are kept on the day itself; so too is the feast of St Joseph, and the other festivals are the same as in Würtemburg, with the exception of the 24th June.

Hesse-Nassau: the dioceses of Fulda and Limburg. Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, each for two days; the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, All Saints; the Prussian day of penitence is observed in November, and in Limburg, the patron saint on his own day.

Hesse-Darmstadt: diocese of Mainz. The same regulations as in the Palatinate.

Alsace-Lorraine. The four French holy days. An edict of 10th October 1887 adds to these Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Whit Monday, as general holidays in the legal sense, and as holidays and days of rest in the sense of the Code de procédure civile.

In Holland, in the archdiocese of Utrecht, and in the diocese of Harlem, the following rank as full holy days on which no work is to be done: the day following the three chief feasts of the year, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Annunciation, and the Assumption. It is of obligation to hear mass only on Candlemas, the Nativity of Our Lady, and the Immaculate Conception. In the dioceses of Breda and Bois-le-Duc, these three festivals are days of full obligation.

For England, Pope Pius VI. appointed the following holy days on the 9th March 1777: Easter and Pentecost, each two days: Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Annunciation, the Assumption, SS. Peter and Paul, All Saints, and the feast of the patron saint. At the present time are observed, Easter, Pentecost and Christmas, one day each, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, and All Saints. St Andrew’s day is added for Scotland, and St Patrick’s day and the Annunciation for Ireland. The Immaculate Conception is a purely ecclesiastical festival.

Switzerland affords an interesting study owing to the great varieties existing within so small a space. The diocese of Basel-Soleure: Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Corpus Christi, the Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception. In the canton of Lucerne, St Joseph’s day and the Annunciation are celebrated, the latter also in the canton of Zug. The three chief festivals are kept for day only. The diocese of Coire, comprising the cantons of Grisons, Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden, Zurich, Glarus, and the principality of Liechtenstein: the three chief festivals, each two days, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas and St Joseph. The last two days do not rank as holy days in the canton of Zurich, nor does the Annunciation in the cantons of Zurich and Schwyz. The Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and SS. Peter and Paul are not kept in either of these two cantons, but the Assumption and All Saints are kept everywhere. The Nativity of Our Lady is not kept in Zurich and Schwyz, but the Immaculate Conception is kept everywhere except in the canton of Zurich. The following patron saints are kept, St Fridolin (6th March) in the canton of Glarus, Nicholas von der Flu (21st March) in Unterwalden, St Martin with an octave in Schwyz and Uri, St Lucius (3rd Dec.) in Coire. St Gall, comprising the cantons of St Gall and Appenzell, keeps the Epiphany, Candlemas, Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception; the three chief feasts, each for two days, and St Gall’s day (16th Oct.) as patron of the diocese. In the diocese of Geneva-Lausanne, consisting of the four French cantons: the Circumcision, the Epiphany (with the exception of the cantons of Geneva and Vaud), Candlemas, the Annunciation (with the exception of Vaud and Neuchâtel), the Ascension, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception (with the exception of Geneva, Vaud, and Neuchâtel). The three chief feasts are kept for one day each. This is also the case in the canton of Valais, diocese of Sion, but the following days are also kept in this canton: the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption and Nativity of Our Lady and her Immaculate Conception, and St Maurice as Patron Saint (22nd Sept.).

Russian Poland. The three chief feasts, each for two days, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception, St Stanislaus as patron. This last named day is not observed in the schools and law-courts on account of its nationalistic character.

Spain. The Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception, Christmas. The three chief festivals are kept for only one day each.

Portugal. The three chief festivals for one day each. The Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, St Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, the Sacred Heart, St Antony of Padua (13th June), SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, All Saints, the Immaculate Conception. Before the last reduction, the Nativity of Our Lady, and from mid-day on Maundy Thursday to mid-day on Good Friday were also holy days of obligation. Lisbon keeps the feast of St Vincent (22nd January) as patron of the city.

The United States observe only six festivals which may fall on week-days; all the others are transferred to the Sunday. These are Christmas, the Circumcision, Ascension, Assumption, All Saints, and the Immaculate Conception. The three chief festivals are kept for one day only. Since the number of festivals varied originally in the different states, an attempt was made after uniformity, and the council of Baltimore in 1852 desired to retain only four festivals as in France. Rome, however, was not satisfied with this, and, in 1866, the six festivals mentioned above were adopted. The provincial synod of Cincinnati in 1861 agreed to adopt the Epiphany, Annunciation, and Corpus Christi as well.

Brazil. The three chief festivals, each for one day. The Circumcision, Epiphany, Candlemas, Annunciation, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Nativity of St John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity of Our Lady, All Saints and the Immaculate Conception.

Russia. Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, Transfiguration, Candlemas, Annunciation, our Lady’s Presentation and Assumption, and the Exaltation of the Cross (14th Sept). All these are, of course, kept according to the Julian calendar. To these are added the following feasts peculiar to Russia: the three feasts of the Jordan so-called, i.e. the Blessing of the Water, and the thirteen so-called Gala-feasts, i.e. the commemoration of the reigning dynasty (see Kirchenlexikon, X., 2nd ed. 1399). The schismatics in Austria-Hungary keep their festivals according to the Julian calendar, so that where the population is mixed, each feast is as a rule kept twice.

For many centuries the liturgical vestments were exclusively white, like the ordinary dress of classic times. The writers of the Carolingian period in their desire to find parallels between the enactments of the Old and New Testaments, were the first to remember that different colours were used in the vestments of the Jewish high priest. In addition to the white under garment which he wore in common with the simple priests, he wore an upper garment of blue, and a particoloured shoulder-garment, the ephod, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, interwoven with gold thread. The repeated references to these vestments gradually led to the adoption of coloured vestments for the mass.[836]

Their introduction was at first tentative. Neither Rupert of Deutz, Honorius of Autun, Beleth, nor Hugh of St Victor mention the liturgical colours in their writings, or, if they do, only with reference to the Old Testament; Sicard of Cremona, a contemporary of Innocent III., clearly alludes to them, although he only mentions two—white and red.[837]

Innocent III. was the first to speak of all the liturgical colours, and to regulate their use in the Roman Church, but always with reference to the regulations of the Old Testament. According to him, white was to be used on the feasts of Confessors, Virgins, and Angels, and on Christmas, Epiphany, Candlemas, Maundy Thursday, and the Ascension; it was used as a matter of course on all other days where it was not otherwise specified, since until then white had been the universal liturgical colour. Red vestments were to be worn on feasts of Apostles and Martyrs. On feasts of the Holy Cross a choice between white and red was allowed. Red was to be used on Pentecost in memory of the fiery tongues, and on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul. On the Conversion of St Paul and on the feast of St Peter’s Chair, white was to be used. White was the colour for the Nativity of St John the Baptist, red for his Beheading. On All Saints many used red vestments, but the Roman Church used white, because it is said in the Apocalypse that the saints stand before the Lamb in white garments, with palms in their hands.

Black vestments are to be worn on days of penitence and abstinence, and also on the Commemorations of the dead. They were also worn during Advent and Lent, except, of course, on festivals falling within those seasons. With regard to the Holy Innocents some decided in favour of black, some in favour of red, but the Roman pontiff decided for violet. For ferias and ordinary days the colour was green. One might, in addition, wear scarlet for red, violet for black, and yellow for green.

In Durandus († 1296) we find the same rule, in parts verbally identical with the above. The only point to notice in regard to what he says is that he says black vestments are to be worn on Rogation days, violet seems to have the preference over black for Advent and Lent, and the use of the former colour is represented as peculiar to the Roman Church.[838]

There is accordingly nothing strange in the circumstance that in the more ancient rituals, only vestes solleminores in general are prescribed for Maunday Thursday, without reference to colour. The Roman use,[839] from the beginning, was to use white on this day, and this superseded the customs observed elsewhere.[840]

The term mass does not owe its position to theology, but became established in the course of centuries by popular usage. The most ancient writers of the church speak frequently, and with all the precision desirable of the holy sacrifice of the altar, but they speak of it by other names which fully indicate its essential character, such as oblatio and sacrificium, or even sacramenta and collecta. These two last names have a more general significance; collecta is the late Latin abbreviation for collectio, and means an assembly of men for some given purpose, in this case for divine service. Colligere appears in the same sense in the Latin translation of Irenæus and in Tertullian; the substantive is found in Jerome and other ancient authors; a survival of this primitive usage appears in the name collecta given to the first prayer of the Mass.[841] It owes its name of collecta to the fact that according to the most ancient ritual it formed the commencement of the Mass. In the service-books, collecta was merely a name which served to distinguish the prayers of the Mass from those which preceded or followed. According to the Roman rite, the Mass began with the prayer of the priest at the altar as soon as the invitatorium sung by the choir was finished, the psalm Judica me, the Confiteor, the Kyrie and Gloria being later additions. Thus the name collecta became attached to this opening prayer, and is so given to it in most mediæval and Roman missals, until the reform under Pius V., when it was replaced by the name oratio now in use. At the same time the name postcommunio replaced the older title ad complendum. Whenever we find in prayer-books and explanations of the Mass, that the prayer was called the Collect because the priest “collected” the petitions of the faithful, we can only regard such an interpretation as silly and unhistorical; the same could be said equally well of all, or, at any rate, of most of the prayers of the Mass.

The term sacramentum or sacramenta served also not unfrequently as a name for the Mass,[842] and so gave rise to the name sacramentarium, generally given to the missal in ancient times. In addition to these names, oblatio and sacrificio were especially employed as having the advantage of adequately expressing the essential character of the rite. The former was the particular favourite of Tertullian, the founder of Latin ecclesiastical terminology, and afterwards of St Cyprian, but it may be said to belong to all writers and to all periods.[843] St Augustine, who had already propounded a formal theory of the sacrifice of the Mass, shows a preference for sacrificium.[844]

When we turn to the word missa, we must not treat it as a participle, even in the Ite missa est, for there is nothing with which the feminine participle can agree, and so it must be a substantive. In order to explain the meaning of this substantive, and to show how it acquired its position as the technical term for the most sacred act of the Church’s worship, requires an excursus dealing with the matter from the point of view of etymology, patrology, and liturology. As regards the etymology of the word, attempts have been made from time to time to derive missa from the Hebrew, (‎‏מסּה‎‏ Deut., xvi. 10), in the belief the name must be as old as the thing it signifies, an attempt abandoned as absurd at the present day.[845] A better idea was that of the mediæval liturgists who explained the word as equivalent to transmissio in the sense of the offering up and presentation of the oblation before God. But fortunately there is one man, thoroughly conversant at first hand with primitive usages and terminology, who has left us an explanation of the word and of the origin of its application to the sacrifice of the altar. Bishop Avitus, of Vienne († 518), flourished at the period between the ages of antiquity and the mediæval period, and is, therefore, a reliable witness in this matter. He was asked by his sovereign, King Gundobad of Burgundy, what was the meaning of the word missa, and replied that missam facere was the same as dimittere, and was used by the Romans at both audiences in the royal palace and sittings of the law courts to intimate to the assembly that the audience or session was at an end and that they were free to depart; it was used in the same way in the churches. Avitus[846] himself uses missa simply for divine service.

It is clear that the explanation given by Avitus is correct. For since the conclusion of every session and assembly must be officially announced with words such as, “The session is at an end,” so in church, where a still greater number of men meet together, it is necessary to make known to them the conclusion of divine service. Such was the custom of the ancient Romans at their sacrifices and religious ceremonies, and the Christians naturally did the same. Tertullian speaks already of a dimissio plebis,[847] and we find the same thing in the Greek liturgies, although the formulæ vary in some respects from that in use among the Latins.[848]

It was not, however, the Mass which was first called by this name, but the other services of the ancient Church—the Psalmody, or, in other words, the Canonical Hours. From the striking account given by the so-called Silvia,[849] we can see how important these services were and what a prominent position they occupied in the worship of the Church. “Every day, in the early morning, the doors of the church were opened, and all the monks and nuns, as well as many of the laity, assembled, and until sunrise, sing hymns and psalms, in alternate choirs, along with the antiphons and prayers. About sunrise they begin to say the ‘matutinas ymnos.’ The bishop arrives with the clergy and sings the prayer within the chancel. Then he comes forth and blesses the people one by one. Et sic fit missa,” i.e. so the service ends, which comprised Nocturns, Lauds, and Prime, as they would now be called. The same ceremonies were observed at the Little Hours which followed later. Vespers were performed with more ceremony; at the conclusion the deacon directed the faithful to bow their heads in order to receive the bishop’s blessing. Again the pilgrim ends her description with the words, “Et sic fit missa.”

We must notice that the Psalmody took place daily in this way, while the Mass, especially in the East, was not celebrated daily; in Lent, for example, it was celebrated on Saturdays and Sundays only. At each hour there took place a dismissal, missa, and thus it was brought about that this word came to be used as a name for each of the canonical hours. The name was far-fetched and unsuitable, but popular usage does not form its nomenclature upon scientific principles, but from what most strikes the popular fancy. Thus the pilgrim, who expresses herself in popular language, speaks of missa vigiliarum, for Mattins, and missa lucernaris for Vespers. The word missa in itself means dismissal and nothing more. Once, in her naïve manner, she explains what sort of dismissal she means; it is dismissal out of the church (“missa de ecclesia,” c. 37, § 3, line 20). Which of the various dismissals out of the church is intended in a given case is shown by an additional phrase, as in the cases given above, when it is not clear from the context. Of course it may mean the dismissal which took place at the Mass, but not the sacrifice of the Mass itself. How far missa is from being in the pilgrim’s diary the technical term for Mass—which is all we are concerned with here—is sufficiently clear from the circumstance that wherever she lets slip the word missa for Mass, she at once hastens to add that the missa of which she speaks is the oblatio.[850] When she wishes to express herself with precision, she always calls the Mass oblatio, and in a few cases sacramentum (singular or plural). Of course missa, as a general term, may have been used as a name for the Mass, since there are one or more dismissals therein; had it not been so, missa could never have become the name par excellence for the Mass.

The same terminology is found at a somewhat later date in Cassian, to whom we are especially indebted for our intimate knowledge of monastic observances. An important part of these observances were the daily hours of prayer, the canonical hours, and we naturally expect to find the technical terms for them in Cassian’s writings. And so, indeed, we find the names formed with the help of the word missa, as in Silvia’s diary; Mattins and Lauds are called missa nocturna or missa vigiliarum,[851] while the Mass, on the other hand, is called oblatio or sacrificium.

From these passages it appears that missa in its strict sense means “dismissal,” and is a general term capable of receiving a particular significance by the addition of vigiliarum, etc. The same thing appears in Pope Innocent I. (Epist. 17, c. 12; Migne, xx. 535), where he speaks of the priests belonging to the party of Bonosus, and asks if they have celebrated Mass, which he calls sacramenta conficere, if they have given Holy Communion (si populis tribuit), and if they have performed the customary dismissals (si missas complevit). Apart from the fact that in the same passage two different terms cannot well stand for the same thing, the use of the plural shows that it is not the Mass which is meant but the other missæ, the hours, the performance of which concerned both the bishop and the priests. There is no doubt as to which term Leo I. used for the Mass, for oblatio and sacrificium occur several times in his writings. When in one passage we find the word missa as well, this can only mean the dismissal, the conclusion of divine service.[852] Thus even in the fifth century missa by itself always meant merely dismissal, never Mass; for Mass, the terms sacrificium and oblatio were employed.

This was the correct use of the terms in question during that period. But since, as we have said, the ceremonial dismissals (missæ) at the end of divine service gave rise to the name, and since dismissals of this kind occurred in the Mass,[853] once at the end and once after the sermon at the dismissal of the Catechumens, it is not remarkable that missa came into use as a name for the Mass, and came to be regarded as its special name in proportion as the canonical hours became less services for the laity than of obligation for clergy and religious. There was however an intermediate period before missa became solely and exclusively the popular name for the Mass. This transitional state of affairs extended over the whole of the sixth century, and appears in the writings of St Benedict and St Gregory the Great, who both employ missa without distinction as a name for the Mass and for the canonical hours.[854] The same thing appears in Gregory of Tours and in other writers. The last appearance of missa as a name for both kinds of divine service without distinction appears to be a passage in the life of St Ludgerus by Altfrid.[855]

The terminology employed by the official organs of the Church is naturally of weight in this matter. When the authorities of the Church made use of a term so little expressive of the nature of the thing as missa, which had already taken the popular fancy, it was inevitable that it should become the only recognised name for the Mass; and this is just what happened. On glancing through the canons of the ancient Councils of the West, we find all the terms with which we are already familiar—oblatio by the Council of Arles in 314 (Canons 5 and 19), and sacrificium by the Councils of Carthage (that of 390, Canon 8; that of 397, Canon 14), etc. We also find the term missæ applied to the particular parts of the Psalmody,[856] and to the other services composed of Psalmody and Mass together.[857] As a term clearly and unmistakably applied to the Mass by itself, missa appears for the first time in the fourth Synod of Arles in 524 (Canon 4), and then in sundry other Gallic synods of the sixth century.

On the other hand it must be stated once for all that missa in the sense of Mass is not to be found in the fourth century. The one solitary instance which for a long time seemed to countenance such a view is in a letter of St Ambrose,[858] in which he tells his sister of the attempts made by the Arians on Palm Sunday 385 to gain possession of the principal church of Milan. Ambrose was performing divine service, the homily was concluded, and he was just on the point of dismissing the catechumens, when the alarming news arrived that the Arians has seized a basilica situated outside the walls; he did not allow himself to be upset by the news, but remained where he was, dismissed the catechumens, and commenced the Mass, during which he received further information concerning the tumult. The question turns upon the words, “Ego tamen mansi in munere, missam facere cœpi. Dum offero,” etc. Hitherto missa has here been always taken in the sense of Mass, but it has really the sense of dismissal. For on Palm Sunday in Milan, the so-called traditio symboli to the more advanced class of catechumens was performed with much ceremony, something like a first Communion with us; on this day a twofold dismissal of the catechumens was necessary, the first of the lower class of catechumens, because they must not yet learn the creed which was now to be recited by the more advanced, and then followed the dismissal of the more advanced catechumens, the competentes, because these, as being still unbaptised, could not yet assist at the Mass.

Against this interpretation it has been urged[859] that missa must mean Mass, because, the act of dismissal being so short, Ambrose could scarcely have said, “Missam facere cœpi,” had he meant only the dismissal of the catechumens. How long an act must continue in order that its beginning, middle, and ending may be observable depends upon circumstances, but the dismissal of the competentes was sometimes far from brief. The Apostolic Constitutions, for instance, give a formula for this act, and the prayers used cover three printed pages (Constit. Apost., 8, 5, § 6 to 6, § 4). At the dismissal of the candidates for baptism, three prayers were recited (ib. 8, 7, § 2, to c. 7, § 1), one by the deacon, one by the catechumens, and one by the bishop, who then gave his blessing. Then followed an address by the bishop, of which we have two examples, in the 215th and 216th of the sermons of St Augustine. The act lasted long enough to have a beginning, middle, and ending.

From what has been said, we conclude, missa appears in the fourth century as a technical name for the various parts of divine service, especially for the canonical hours. During the sixth and seventh centuries it became a technical term for the Mass, and gradually usurped the place of other names for the Mass. These, however, survived in isolated instances until the ninth century, but disappeared entirely in the Middle Ages.

Considering the uncertainty as to the day of our Lord’s birth shown by Clement of Alexandria, and the reserve which Irenæus and Tertullian maintain on the same point, it is surprising to find the most precise data given for its determination by a writer very little posterior to those just mentioned. In the commentary of Hippolytus on Dan. iv. 23 (in Bratke’s ed., 19), we read in the text discovered in 1885; “The first Advent of our Lord in the flesh, when He was born in Bethlehem, happened on the eighth day before the calends of January, on a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of Augustus, in the year 5500, reckoning from Adam. He suffered in His thirty-third year, on the eighth day before the calends of April (25th March), on a Friday, in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, when Rufus and Rubellius were consuls.”[860]

Not merely the astonishing minuteness of the data, but also the circumstance that this passage is to be found in a shorter form in a fragment, long well known to scholars, preserved in the Chigi Library in Rome, coupled with the fact that ancient ecclesiastical writers quote from it the year of world alone,[861] must give rise to doubts concerning the longer form of the passage in itself, as well as concerning the separate data of which it is composed.

If we turn our attention first to these separate data, we find the names of the consuls wrongly given; their names are Fufius and Rubellius, not Rufus and Rubellius. Mistakes in the names of consuls are certainly not rare in Eastern writers, but in the case of a man like Hippolytus, who lived in Rome, such a mistake is very astonishing, since he could easily have found out the right names. Next, according to the authentic Hippolytus, our Lord’s life lasted only thirty-one years, and not thirty-three; this appears from the passage in the so-called Liber Generationis representing in a Latin translation part of the “Chronicle” which, according to the inscription on his statue, Hippolytus had composed.[862] Again, the eighteenth year of Tiberius is also wrong. The forty-second year of Augustus and the two week-days may be correct (see Comm. Dan., 4, 9; in Bratke 8), for the latter appear also in the same connection in the inscription on the statue. Wednesday found acceptance as the day of Christ’s birth owing to the Messias being called in Malachy iv. 2, “the Sun of Justice,” from which it was inferred that He must have been born on the same day of the week as that on which the visible sun had been created (Gen. i. 19).

But, moreover, the days of the week have been interpolated into the text, since they do not fit in with the sequence of thought but rather disturb it. The aim of Hippolytus was here to calm the Christians agitated by the persecution of Severus; many went so far as to think that the last day was close at hand, and Hippolytus opposed himself to this alarm by declaring God had created the world in six days, with God a thousand years are as one day (Ps. lxxxix. 4), and thus the world would last six thousand years. Until the birth of Christ only five thousand five hundred years had passed, and so the end of the world was not to be expected yet. In such a train of thought, what place is there for days of the week and consulates? The late origin of the passage is also betrayed by the parallel grouping of the data given, for elaborate attempts of this kind were popular in the Middle Ages, but not in primitive times. Accordingly only the year 5500 of the world, and perhaps also the forty-second year of Augustus, belong to the original form of the passage in Hippolytus, all the rest having being added by a later hand.[863]

Christmas was abolished in England in the seventeenth century during the reign of the Puritans, and its prohibition was strictly enforced. In 1644, after the overthrow of the monarchy, when the Puritans came into power, an Act of Parliament forbade all observance of Christmas, for it was held that Christmas was not originally a Christian festival at all, but was of heathen origin. Parliament directed that the 25th December, “which had hitherto been commonly called Christmas Day,” was to be kept as a fast. This law remained in force for sixteen years, and during this period the enactment was repeated and made still more stringent. No church dare be opened, no service of any kind held; the law expressly enacted that on Christmas Day everyone was to go on as usual with his work, and every merchant who shut his shop on this day was brought before the judge and punished. Markets were held on this day which had hitherto been held on other days, merely to make it impossible to keep the day as a festival. Plum-pudding and mince pies were branded as heathenish inventions. The soldiers were charged to break into houses in order to see that no one had food in his home such as used to be eaten at Christmas and when anything of this kind was discovered, the soldiers were to seize it and the people were punished into the bargain. There were naturally some who refused to abstain from the celebration of Christmas in obedience to these directions of the Parliament; many ministers performed service in their churches and several of them were taken before the judge and punished. In different places disturbances broke out, especially owing to the orders of Parliament that markets were to be held on Christmas Day while they were forbidden on other days of the week. In Canterbury, for instance, there was a general riot; the whole town was divided into two parties—those who observed Christmas and their opponents, and the festival of peace ended in a general row; many houses of the town were totally destroyed and some set on fire. Charles II. made it his aim to revoke as quickly as possible the laws passed during the Commonwealth, and so before long Christmas was once more observed as before. The Nonconformists, however, long held by their determination not to celebrate Christmas, and they kept a sharp look-out that at least their ministers should eat no Christmas pudding or mince pies; they called Yuletide Fooltide. In Scotland, Christmas is still regarded as something heathenish; the Presbyterians will have nothing whatever to do with its celebration, and throughout the country no special notice is of it as a religious feast. [This, of course, only refers to the Protestants of Scotland. Trans.]

Epiphany is a feast of our Lord and not the feast of the Three Holy Kings, although it is popularly called so, and, in the liturgy for the day, they are referred to. In a small number of dioceses, and only at a late date, they have been the object of a cultus, but in the calendars and menologies of the principal Churches they find no place; ancient ecclesiastical literature and tradition has also nothing to relate of them. Only in the twelfth century did they emerge from oblivion when the imperial chancellor, Rainald von Dassel, afterwards Archbishop of Cologne, translated their reputed relics to Cologne, 23rd July 1164, having received them as a gift from Frederick Barbarossa after the destruction of Milan. Until this time they had rested in the little Church of St Eustorgius at Milan, to which they are said to have been brought from Constantinople. The life of St Eustorgius, Bishop of Milan, 315-331, relates how this happened:—there lived in Constantinople a pious man called Eustorgius, a Greek by birth, and a favourite and adviser of the emperor. (The name of the emperor is passed over in silence by the author.) He sent Eustorgius as ambassador—the purpose of the embassy is not disclosed—to the province of Liguria, of which the capital is called Milan—which, however, is a mistake. Eustorgius won the affections of the Milanese to such a degree that they desired to have him as their bishop; after long resistance he consented, and went to the emperor in order to obtain his approval. The emperor rejoiced over the love which his ambassador had inspired, as Gratian had rejoiced over the appointment of St Ambrose, ratified the election, and forthwith remitted all taxes to the Milanese (!). Eustorgius was unwilling to return empty-handed and begged for some relics from the emperor with which to enrich his bishopric. The emperor allowed him to take whatever he liked, and he chose the relics of the Three Holy Kings, which had been sent from the East by Helena. A church was now built in Milan in which the relics were laid, where they attracted a great concourse of pilgrims and devotees.

The author regrets that he is not in a position to give us further information concerning the doings of Bishop Eustorgius, but he merely tells us that he died on the 18th October and was succeeded by Dionysius. This is incorrect for Protasius came first. The author of this document must have lived in Milan, for he gives some correct dates in the ecclesiastical history of Milan; nevertheless, gross blunders against historical truth and other indications show that we are dealing with a thoroughgoing fabrication of the eleventh century based upon events in the life of St Ambrose. The names Gaspar, Melchior, Baltassar make their first appearance here. A still more naïve account is given in a sermon belonging to the end of the twelfth century, Eustorgius being made a contemporary of the Emperor Comnenus; this is printed in Floss.

Contemporaries who had the opportunity of seeing the relics, state that the remains were embalmed and incorrupt; to judge from the face and hair, one of the bodies was that of a boy of about fifteen years; they were in an excellent state of preservation considering their age. The story of their translation to Milan is obviously a romance and the search for their bodies by Helena is formed upon the recognised model according to which Helena steps in to effect what cannot be otherwise explained. And so there is no doubt that we are face to face with a remarkably successful fabrication, such as were, unfortunately, by no means rare in the Middle Ages. In Cologne, the Three Holy Kings—all three of them—were at once set down as martyrs, although it is difficult to see how they would have suffered, granting them to have been kings. The Carmelite John of Hildesheim composed a popular Vita Trium Regum, composed in a simple style, which was widely read. See Usener, ii. 7-10, and the instructive treatise of H. J. Floss, “Dreikönigenbuch,” Cologne, 1864. The Vita Eustorgii is only to be found in Mombritius, Sanctuarium, i. 166.

The Greek ecclesiastical year begins not with Advent but with Easter, or rather with the season preparatory to Easter, i.e. according to our phraseology, with Septuagesima Sunday.[864]

The remaining four Sundays of the Greek ecclesiastical year serve to fill up the inequality due to Easter falling earlier or later, in the same manner as in the Latin rite. One, two, or all four of them, as occasion requires, are inserted after Epiphany. They are the Sundays (1) κυριακὴ μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, the first after Epiphany, which is pressed into use when Easter falls in March; (2) the twelfth Sunday after St Luke; (3) the fifteenth after St Luke (the two Sundays in the Christmas season are reckoned as the thirteenth and fourteenth after St Luke since their gospels are taken from that evangelist); (4) the seventeenth Sunday after St Matthew. All four are required when Easter falls on the 22-25 April. In this way the gaps between the end of the old ecclesiastical year and the beginning of the new are filled up.

As far as the immovable feasts are concerned, the Greeks divide all feasts, both movable and immovable, into four classes. The first and highest class contains: Christmas, Epiphany (6th January), Candlemas (2nd February, ὑπαπάντη τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν), the Annunciation (ὁ εύαγγελισμός), Easter, Palm Sunday, the Ascension, Pentecost, the Transfiguration, the Assumption (ἡ κοίμησις, 15th August), our Lady’s Nativity (8th September), the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14th September), and the Presentatio B.M.V. (21st November).

Somewhat lower in rank are the Circumcisio, Nativitas S. Joannis Bapt. (24th June), SS. Peter and Paul (29th June), and the Decollatio S. Joannis Bapt. (29th August). It is not necessary here to enumerate the remaining feasts.

The well known Doctor of the Church, Anselm, was born of a German stock, as his name implies, at Aosta in 1036. In 1053 he entered the Benedictine order at Bec in Normandy where Lanfranc was at that time abbot. In 1078 he was himself elected abbot of the monastery, and in this capacity was brought into relation with William the Conqueror and William Rufus. During an illness of the latter, he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of 1093 and his appointment was confirmed by the king. Serious misunderstandings soon arose between them on the questions of investiture and Church property, and Anselm was obliged to go to Rome, where he remained until the king’s death. Further misunderstandings, moreover, soon arose between him and William’s successor, Henry I., which detained him in France, until an agreement was arrived at in 1106, by which he was enabled to return to England and to his bishopric. He died there on the 21st April 1109.

His nephew, Anselm the younger, came from Lombardy, and as a youth had entered the monastery of St Michael at Chiusa, and received his theological training from the Benedictines of Canterbury.[866] After his uncle’s death, he was for a short time abbot of St Saba in Rome. In 1115 he was chosen by the pope to bring the pallium to the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury, Radulf. As legate, he strongly maintained the rights of the pope in the election of bishops, and consequently fell under King Henry’s displeasure, and had to retire to France until a reconciliation had been effected between the King and Pope Calixtus II. He was then elected abbot of Bury St Edmond’s and confirmed as such in 1121. Here he remained until his death on the 11th January 1148. The attempt of a section of the chapter of St Paul’s in 1136 to make him bishop led to no result, but rather caused him much annoyance.

The Anglo-saxon, Eadmer or Edmer, was a disciple and faithful attendant of the older Anselm. Born in Kent, he entered the monastery at Canterbury and accompanied Anselm in his banishment to Rome. After Anselm’s death, he lived in retirement from which he emerged for a short time in 1120 to be Bishop of St Andrews in Scotland. But after a year he resigned and returned to his monastery, where he died after 1124. He wrote a history of England, a number of lives of English saints, and some theological treatises, two of which were in praise of the Mother of God (De Excellentia Virg. Mariæ and De Quatuor Virtutibus Mariæ). It has been recently conclusively proved that he is also the author of a treatise on our Lady’s conception (De Conceptione S. Mariæ), hitherto generally attributed to one or other of the two Anselms.[867] In his work on the Excellences of our Lady, in which her share in the work and sufferings of Christ is brought into prominence, Eadmer adopts a neutral position with regard to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and admits the possibility that she was purified from original sin only at the Annunciation. In the last-named composition, however, which advocates the introduction of the festival, he endeavours to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and defends it warmly, and not unskilfully, against many objections, having, as he says, upon more mature consideration of the matter, recognised its correctness. The circumstance that this is the first treatise which aims especially and avowedly at defending this opinion, endows it with a special interest.

The term Typicum is used first of all by Greek liturgists and rubricists to denote those short parts of the liturgy which are composed of verses from the psalms in connection both with the Canonical Hours and with the Mass, there is nothing exactly corresponding in the Western rite. (Leo Allatius, De Libris Eccl. Græc., 14, 15. Daniel, Thes. Lit., iv. 313, 319). Typicum is also used as a technical term, in the Eastern Church especially during the Byzantine period, in the sense of statute, regulation, etc. It was applied chiefly to two kinds of documents. First, it designated the catalogues of the possessions of ecclesiastical establishments and corporations, especially in so far as they were based upon testamentary donations, along with the duties entailed by them upon the clergy. Typica of this kind were called (κτητορικά), and correspond to the chartularies and “traditiones” of Western monasteries and bishoprics. Secondly, typicum was a term of a liturgical character, and as such must be considered here. Typica, in this sense, were the lists of the feasts recurring in the course of the year, of liturgical observances, fasts, etc., such as were to be observed in one of the larger churches or monasteries, along with detailed descriptions of each; they correspond to the consuetudines of Western monasteries and cathedrals.

Typica of this last kind exist in large numbers, although only a few of them have been published, and these not in editions useful for critical purposes. The best known and most important are: (1) the Typicum S. Sabæ; (2) that belonging to the monastery of the Studium at Constantinople; and (3) that formerly belonging to the famous Monastery of St Auxentius in Bithynia, now Ka-ish-dagh, dating from the time of Michael Paleologus († 1268).

The typicum of St Sabas is sometimes valuable as a source of liturgical information, and for its references to the festivals of the Church, but it is only to be used with the greatest caution. It derives its name not so much from St Sabas himself as from the monastery called after him near Jerusalem. Leo Allatius gives the following account of its origin from a dialogue of Simeon of Thessalonica; St Sabas drew up an order for the canonical hours and divine service to be observed in his monastery; this “diatyposis” was destroyed owing to the ravages of the Saracens, but was re-established by the patriarch Sophronius from memory, and retouched by St John Damascene; later on it was altered yet again to meet the requirements of the time. In the sixteenth century it was printed for practical purposes, as, for example, in Venice in 1545. In this form the typicum contains the order for divine service throughout the year for monasteries following the rule of St Sabas, rubricks for the canonical hours, the fasts and festivals, with information as to the liturgy to be used, the gospels and epistles, the menology, instructions on the canonical hours, etc., also rules of life and statutes for the monks and selected passages from the Greek Fathers. It received its present form apparently from John Grammaticus in Constantinople in the twelfth century, and cannot, of course, be regarded as a work of St Sabas. This cannot be appealed to for evidence concerning ecclesiastical customs in use before the twelfth century.

In the Eastern Church typica are issued from time to time, somewhat corresponding to our directories.

With regard to the literature on this point, it is well to mention: Theodoras Toscanus, Ad Typica Græcorum Animadversiones, Romæ, 1864. Pitra in Spicil. Solem., iv. 466 seqq. Ehrhard, Röm. Quartalschr., 1893. Krumbacher, Byzant. Zeitschr., ii. 348; iii. 167 seqq. Waldemar Nissen, Die Diataxis des Michael von Attalia von 1077, Jena, 1894. Meyer in the Theol. Literaturztg. of Shürer and Harnack, 1894, 588 seq., and 1896, No. 10. Gedeon, Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Παλαιολὸγου τυπικόν, etc., Constantinople, 1895.

FOOTNOTES