CHAPTER II

THE SAINTS’ DAYS

1. _The origins of the Cultus of the Saints and the Grounds on which it

Rests_

The ecclesiastical year recalls to the memory of the faithful all that

God has done for the salvation of mankind, especially through the

mysteries of the new Covenant, _i.e._ the life and passion of Jesus

Christ, and she re-enacts them, as it were, before their eyes within

the compass of each recurring year. To this the Sundays and festivals,

especially those from Advent to Pentecost, are devoted. They form

an organic whole, constituted in accordance with one definite idea,

consisting of the three great festivals Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost,

each in itself the centre of a special season. The foundations and heart

of the whole festal system of the Church were given by a higher Hand, and

only the development—the much less important part of the whole—is to be

attributed to the thoughts and contrivances of men.

It now remains for us to consider the second division of the Christian

festival system—the Saints’ Days. These are distinguished from the feasts

of our Lord both by their institution and by their treatment, their

distribution throughout the year, their development and their diffusion

throughout Christendom.[447]

From the foundation of the Church, there has been no controversy over

the holiness and worshipfulness of those who laid down their life for

the Christian faith. The New Testament itself did not omit to hand on

to posterity the memory of those whose death fell within the apostolic

period, such as the Holy Innocents, St James the Great, and before all

others the first martyr St Stephen. The seer of the Apocalypse saw the

martyrs of Jesus beneath the altar of God, Who did not forget them (Apoc.

xvii. 6; vi. 9-11).

Neither did the Church forget them. From its foundation each Christian

congregation was at pains to preserve the memory of the martyrs belonging

to it. Thus, for example, Pionius and his companions celebrated the

“true day” of St Polycarp’s death (_natale genuinum_) at Smyrna in

250, during which festival they were themselves seized and condemned

to death.[448] Among the larger congregations, where the number of

martyrs rapidly increased, special means were taken at an early date to

preserve their memory. This was necessary in large communities if the

memory of these heroes of the Faith was not to pass away. It is true

that for the Church of Rome alone, do we possess definite information

as to her mode of proceeding in this respect, but there is no room for

doubt that smaller communities followed on the same lines, and for some

indeed we have clear evidence that they did so. In many instances, the

reverence which continued to be paid to the tomb of such an individual

was sufficient to keep his memory alive. Those who suffered a shameful

death as law-breakers in the opinion of the civil power nevertheless

received honourable burial. According to Roman ideas earthly Justice was

satisfied by the death of the guilty person, the body was given to the

relations and friends to be duly buried.[449] Only when there was risk of

a tumult was this permission withheld, which happened very rarely in the

Roman Empire before the reign of Diocletian—or, where it was a question

of high treason.

Not only the relations and friends were careful to preserve the memory

of the martyrs, but, as we have already said, the congregation to which

they had belonged. While the former erected chapels over the tombs of the

martyrs, and preserved the information relating to them, the community on

its part marked down in its registers their names and the days on which

they suffered. In large communities the Bishops took steps for drawing up

authoritative reports concerning the martyrs belonging to their flocks.

According to the _Liber Pontificalis_, Clement I. is said to have divided

Rome into seven regions, with a Christian notary appointed over each

whose business it was carefully to investigate matters of this nature

belonging to his region.[450] The size of the city of Rome rendered this

necessary. Augustus had divided Rome for civil purposes into fourteen

regions, but Clement, for the purpose he had in view, formed one region

out of every two. Pope Fabian again adopted similar measures, and

enjoined upon the seven sub-deacons the duty of seeing that the seven

notaries made a complete collection of the acts of the martyrs. He thus

doubled the number of persons employed in this matter, and placed the

subdeacons over the notaries.[451] His predecessor Anteros (235-236)

collected the _gesta martyrum_, and carefully preserved the Acts of

the martyrs, as we learn from a somewhat obscure notice in the _Liber

Pontificalis_.[452] This is again referred to in the same work, where

it is stated that Pope Caius appointed the regions of the city to the

deacons during the Diocletian persecution.

St Cyprian adopted the same plan at Carthage during the persecutions

under Decius and Valerian. He ordered the priests and deacons of Carthage

not only to interest themselves in every way on behalf of the faith of

those in prison, but also to take thought for the bodies of those who

died in bonds, even when they died without having undergone torture,

and also to keep a record of the name and date of death of each one, in

order that his memory might be celebrated along with the memorials of

the martyrs.[453] The order to take down the date could be easily obeyed

everywhere, since in every city, Calendars engraved on marble tablets

were set up for public use.[454]

We have an authoritative document of this kind in the detailed account

given by the communities of Lyons and Vienne, of the martyrdoms which

took place there under Marcus Aurelius. Owing to its having been sent to

Asia Minor, Eusebius was able to utilise it and incorporate the chief

parts of it into his history of the Church.

The same thing happened more or less everywhere; the names of the martyrs

belonging to the community were entered in the Calendars of the Church,

and their memory was celebrated annually on the anniversary of their

death. These were the so-called _martyres recogniti_, _i.e._ those who

were recognised as martyrs by the community. Each large community,

especially the patriarchal Churches, thus possessed their calendar of

saints, which became more and more full of names in process of time.

Authentic fragments of such calendars are contained in the Roman

_Depositio Martyrum_, which, along with the _Depositio Episcoporum_, was

compiled not later than the episcopate of Liberius (352-354). Fuller,

because less ancient, is the Calendar of Carthage, dating from the end of

the fifth century or from the beginning of the sixth, printed by Mabillon

in his _Analecta Vetera_,[455] and of which he treats in iii. 398, of

this work.

In the third century, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocæsarea in

Pontus, was no less zealous than St Cyprian in collecting information

concerning the martyrs. He travelled throughout the whole district,

inspiring the people everywhere with zeal for the celebration of the

memory of those who had suffered for the faith.[456] And thus in all the

greater cities, catalogues of the local martyrs were compiled, as Sozomen

testifies for two neighbouring towns, Gaza and Constantia. Each of these

two towns, he says, had their own bishop and clergy, and also their own

festivals of martyrs and catalogues of the priests who had presided over

them.[457]

At a much later date, Maximus of Turin gives us some interesting

evidence concerning these attempts of the different communities: “As

we must celebrate the general commemoration of all the holy martyrs,

so, my brethren, ought we to celebrate with special devotion the feasts

of those who shed their blood in our own locality. For while all the

saints, wherever they may be, assist us all, yet those who suffered for

us intercede for us in a special manner. For the martyr suffers not for

himself alone, but also for his fellow-citizens. By his sufferings, he

obtains for himself a reward in heaven, and gives a good example to his

fellow-citizens. He gains rest for himself and salvation for them.”[458]

The official cultus of the saints was at first confined to the martyrs.

The earliest example of the public worship of saints, not martyrs, dates

from the time of Pope Symmachus, under whom, about A.D. 500, a church was

built and dedicated to Pope Silvester and Martin of Tours, in Rome, the

_basilica Silvestri et Martini_.[459]

Our information concerning the martyrs is derived from three

sources[460]:—

1. The _Acta_, _i.e._ the report of the trial taken down by the notary

of the proconsul or procurator (_notarius_, _commentariensis_, and

_exceptor_), containing the accusation, the examination, the depositions

of the witnesses, the description of the tortures employed and the

judgment given. Even in the time of Cicero the evidence of the witnesses

was taken down in writing, and during the Empire full reports of both

civil and criminal actions were taken and preserved. A proclamation of

the Emperor Severus in 194, enjoins that these _acta_ be preserved, and

be produced when required for ascertaining the truth. Copies were given

for payment to people interested or concerned in the trial. Some of

these reports of the trials of the martyrs have come down to us in their

original form, and afford the most valuable materials which we possess

for the history of early Christian times. The best known are the _Acta

Proconsularia S. Cypriani_, along with the acts of Pionius, Maximilian,

and Marcellus, etc.

2. _Passiones_, _i.e._ an account of the imprisonment, trial, and

execution of the martyrs drawn up by Christian eye-witnesses at the time

or immediately afterwards. They are worthy of all credit, for among the

Romans legal proceedings took place as a rule in public. It was only

under the later emperors that this publicity was so far curtailed that

the proceedings were conducted in the basilicas or buildings set apart

for that purpose. The earliest and best-known examples of these Passions

are the letter of the church of Lyons to the churches of Asia Minor, the

_Passio S. Perpetuæ et Felicitatis_, the _Martyrium Polycarpi_, etc.

3. Legends, _i.e._ narratives based upon documents of the nature

described above, and worked up by later writers, either for the purpose

of edification or from the point of view of a historian. This class of

writings is very large, beginning with the account of the martyrdom of

St Ignatius. The writings, however, differ endlessly as to their value,

according to the knowledge and authority possessed by the writers,

and according to their nearness to the date of the events described.

There were many martyrs whose sufferings were recorded in no _acta_ or

_passiones_, but were imprinted upon the memory of men, and became part

of the traditions handed down in the community, until they were finally

committed to writing. The later this took place, the worse for the

authenticity. For it was then that anachronisms, alterations in titles,

changes in the persons, and other similar historical errors could more

easily creep into the narrative, as we know, in fact, they have done in

many instances. The historical sense was unfortunately lacking to the

Franks and Byzantines, as well as all idea of sound criticism.

A false kind of patriotism and national pride often goes along with

credulity, so that we find here and there in literature of this kind

even downright fabrications. After the introduction of printing, by

which literature became more widely diffused and comparative criticism

was rendered possible, it at once became evident among Catholics that

error was mixed with truth, and that a sifting of the one from the other

was necessary, and, in many cases, quite possible. In this province of

criticism, those who have most distinguished themselves for judgment

and insight are Launoi, Henschen, the Bollandists, Tillemont, Baillet,

Ruinart, and in more modern times, Franchi di Cavalieri and others who

have avoided extremes in either direction.

The matter from these writings incorporated in the service books

possesses the same historical value as the source from which it is drawn.

For, as Bäumer justly remarks, “it was not the intention of the Church,

or of the compilers and authors of the service books, to claim historical

authority for their statements. And so the Popes themselves have directed

many emendations to be made in the legends in the Breviary, although

many others still remain to be effected.”[461] The legends, by their

incorporation into the Breviary, gain no higher degree of credibility

than that which the person who incorporated them is able to confer upon

them from a purely natural standpoint. This must be emphasised and

maintained, for since the time of Bishop Aurelian of Arles,[462] the

reading of the histories of the martyrs made its way more and more into

the psalmody in the West, and became an essential part of the Breviary.

The honour of having cultivated for the first time the province of

hagiography as a whole and not merely in a few particulars, belongs,

as far as we know, to the historian Eusebius. Before he completed his

history of the Church, he planned a collection of the Acts of the Martyrs

(συλλοωὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων), which he quotes in his history (v. 1, 6).

Unfortunately this compilation has been lost, although it was probably

used by Gregory of Tours.[463] He gives further information in his work

on the martyrs of Palestine which took place in his own lifetime during

the Diocletian persecution, between 303 and 310. This book seems to have

been composed after the completion of his History of the Church.[464] Had

we similar writings of the same period relating to other provinces of

the Church, we should be better informed concerning those extraordinary

events.

The method adopted was plainly that each local community worked for

itself alone without troubling itself about what happened elsewhere.

The worship of the martyrs was also at first limited to particular

localities. Certainly there was no lack of interest in what took place

in other districts, as is shown by the letter from the churches of

Lyons and Vienne to the Christians of Asia Minor, but liturgical and

ecclesiastical worship was paid to the martyrs of the place alone. For

example, the Calendar of the Roman Church contained those martyrs alone

who belonged to the Roman community; in the same way the Alexandrian

Calendar contained only those belonging to Egypt, the Antiochene Calendar

only those of Syria, and so on. This state of things continued until the

ninth century. A striking proof of this is the fact that Ignatius of

Antioch, although he suffered death in Rome, finds no place in either

the _Gelasianum_ or the _Gregorianum_, while at Antioch he was venerated

as a saint from the beginning. A remarkable exception is the veneration

which St Perpetua, St Felicitas, and St Cyprian enjoyed in Rome. In this

case the relationship between the mother and the daughter church must

be taken into account, for Christianity had spread to Carthage from

Rome. From what has been said, it follows that information concerning

the manner of a martyr’s death and the exact day on which he suffered,

derived from local sources, is trustworthy in the highest degree, but it

is forthcoming in a few cases only.

As it was the day of the martyr’s death which was kept and marked in the

calendar, it must be observed that this day was sometimes called the

martyr’s birthday, _natalis_, _natalitium_, and sometimes also _dies

depositionis_. Owing to the burial taking place on the day of death, as

was the custom among the ancients, _dies obitus_ and _dies depositionis_

could be used as synonymous terms.[465]

Among the Romans burial followed as soon as the death was certified.

Nearly every one belonged to a burial society, which undertook the

preparations for the funeral. In addition to these, there were only the

preparations in the house to be thought of, and these—the washing and

clothing of the corpse—could be quickly performed. Hence the burial

could take place in a very short time. The Jews also buried their dead

immediately after death, as the story of Ananias and Saphira shows.

The Christians of the first centuries followed out all the customs

relating to burial usual in their time and country, excluding only those

which were specifically heathen and idolatrous. That they buried their

dead with the same expedition as the heathen is clear from an incident

related by Tertullian.[466] The burial of a woman who seemed to be dead

was for some reason delayed. While she lay ready for burial and the

priests were reciting the prayers, she raised up both her hands, and,

when the prayer for peace was concluded, laid them down again in their

former position. It was only in the fourth century that it began to be

the custom to delay burial to the third or fourth day after death,[467]

but the earlier practice continued still to exist for a considerable

period.[468]

As it was already the custom to inter those who died a natural death

on the day of their decease, so there was no reason why the burial of

the martyrs should be delayed, and thus with them the _dies obitus_ and

the _dies depositionis_ were one and the same. Consequently the ancient

dates in question, even when given as that of the burial, are always to

be understood as referring to the day of the martyr’s death, and, when

they form part of the traditions of the community to which the martyr

belonged, they are to be received as absolutely reliable.

In the case of the martyrs, the rule of venerating them on the day of

their death admitted of no exception, although it might be set aside in

the case of those saints who were not martyrs, for certain reasons and

in particular instances. Thus, for example, the day of St Chrysostom’s

death, the 14th September, was already occupied in the fourth century

by the festival of the Invention of the Holy Cross. St Basil died on

the 1st January, and St Ambrose on the 4th April, which fell within the

Pascal season. During Lent, no festivals of martyrs were to be celebrated

on week-days, according to the fifty-first Canon of Laodicea, but only

on Saturdays and Sundays at most. But this prohibition was by no means

general.

Besides the lists of the _depositiones_, the service-books, the

sacramentaries or missals, helped to preserve the memory of the martyrs.

In the earliest service-books of the Roman and also of a few other

churches, the Masses in honour of the martyrs were not classed by

themselves apart, but were incorporated with the others, and not

separated from the course of the ecclesiastical year, or, to use a modern

expression, the _Proprium de Sanctis_ and the _Proprium de Tempore_

were still fused together. Only in the _Gelasianum_ are the _Natalitia

sanctorum_ separated from the ecclesiastical year and collected together

in the second volume. Still later were the catalogues of the saints

formed into independent works, the so-called martyrologies. In the East

these began to appear at an early date. In this a return was made to the

older arrangement, except that now it was not the martyrs of the local

churches alone which were taken into consideration, but those of the

Church Universal.

It is just this insertion of the saints’ days in the course of the

Church’s year which proves that the names of the martyrs and the days

of the commemoration were subject to the control of authority; that

is to say, the compilations in question have all the weight attaching

to public official documents and to reliable sources of information,

and, for this reason, they may be used as material in historical works.

Valuable information can be gained from a judicious employment of these

compositions.

The restriction of festivals to those commemorating saints of a specific

locality disappeared only slowly, and at a late date in the West.

It disappeared still later, and only to a limited extent, among the

Easterns, who showed a tendency to fill up their calendars with other

things rather than with the feasts of foreign martyrs and saints, as, for

example, the commemorations of Councils, Old Testament personages, and

even the four beasts of the Apocalypse were pressed into the service.

In the West the entrance of the Franks and Anglo-Saxons into the Roman

Church gave the first impulse to an extension of the martyrologies and

calendars in the direction of universalism or universal Catholicity. Both

these nations, having no Christian antiquity of their own, adopted along

with the ritual of the Roman Church her calendar of saints as well. Soon,

however, they added to this the names of their own particular saints, and

so prepared the way for more universal ideas; while, on the contrary, the

Roman Church did not include in her calendar the saints and martyrs of

the Franks and Anglo-Saxons. Only at the revision of the service-books

in the sixteenth century did she so far yield as to act in some degree

upon the principle of Catholicity in this matter. The subsequent increase

and development of the festivals of the saints in the Calendar of the

Catholic Church had a disturbing effect upon the ecclesiastical year and

daily office. Ordinary Sundays have lost their position and have given

place to the commemoration of saints, and green vestments only rarely

make their appearance. The first step towards the general observance of

the cultus of particular saints throughout the Church, and the admission

of other than merely local saints to a place in the devotions of each

community, may have been effected by the Litanies which came into use in

France. The oldest form of a Litany of the Saints is contained in the

prayer-book of Charles the Bald.[469]

The saintly personages of the Old Testament have really the same right

to veneration as those of the New, being justified through faith in

the future Messias, many of them were martyrs, and all attained to the

Beatific Vision after our Lord’s resurrection. They are on this account

called blessed by St Paul in Heb. xi. 4-39. The synagogue paid no worship

to saints, but honoured the memory of the prophets so far as to erect

monuments over their graves (St Matt. xxiii. 29). Accordingly there was

nothing to prevent the same cultus being paid to them as to the saints

of the New Testament, yet nevertheless it remained exceptional. Eastern

calendars contain the names of many Old Testament worthies, Western

calendars only a few, and the Roman Church commemorates none with the

exception of the Machabees. But even the Eastern Churches have appointed

no days in their honour, and so this part of the worship of the saints

lies without the scope of this work.[470]

2. _The Festivals of St John the Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-Martyr_

In saying that in antiquity the worship of the martyrs was confined

to the localities to which they belonged, it must be borne in mind

that this rule admitted of two exceptions from the first. St John the

Baptist and St Stephen the Proto-martyr, were honoured throughout the

whole Christian Church from the beginning; their commemoration was

universally celebrated, and even the former was regarded as a martyr in

the ecclesiastical sense of the word.

The Baptist had at once been designated by his father in a moment of

prophetic inspiration as a prophet and the Forerunner of the Lord,

and later on he received from our Lord Himself the recognition of his

remarkable sanctity (St Matt. xi. 11). Accordingly it causes no surprise

to find proof of his worship and his festivals at a very early date. The

latter already appear in the sermons of St Augustine as _solemnitates_,

and as fixed on definite dates. Indeed, in course of time a regular

little cycle of festivals of the Baptist came into existence. The date

of his birth, for instance, was fixed by that of our Lord, as falling

six months before Christmas; nine months earlier came the date of

his conception,[471] and, in addition to these, the day of his death

was celebrated on the 29th August, under the title of _Passio_ or

_Decollatio_.

The festival of St John’s birth does not appear indeed in the Calendars

of Philocalus and Polemius Silvius, although it is found in the most

ancient calendar of the African Church, and in the list of festivals

drawn up by Perpetuus of Tours. Among the sermons of St Peter Chrysologus

and Maximus of Turin there are also to be found many allusions to it.

It was numbered, by the Council of Agde in 506, among the chief feasts

on which all the faithful must attend divine service in their parish

churches and not in private oratories.[472] In the Middle Ages servile

work was proscribed on it,[473] and until our own times it continued

universally to rank as a high festival, but at the present time it is

kept as such in only a few countries, as we have observed on page 35.

The festival of the Baptist’s conception was celebrated, especially in

the East, and appears in the Calendars of Calcasendi and of the Syrians,

also in the Neapolitan Calendars, and in that of Silos as well as in the

Mozarabic Calendar, in the Calendar of Bede, in the Greek calendars, and

in both menologies, _i.e._ that of Constantinople and that of Basil.

Its introduction[474] at an early date is due to the circumstance

that St John’s conception was announced by the angel, and also to the

supposition, which appears as early as St Augustine, that by the meeting

of his mother with Mary he was already purified from original sin before

his birth.

The 29th August was kept as the commemoration of his death at an early

date, both in Africa and in the East. The collection of St Augustine’s

sermons contains two sermons for this festival (307 and 308), and it has

its place among the festivals in the list of Perpetuus. The same date is

given in the Coptic Calendar in Selden, in the Syrian, Neapolitan, and

Mozarabic. As regards Rome, it had not yet made its way into the Leonine

sacramentary, though it is found in the _Gelasianum_.

In addition, a so-called _synaxis_ of St John the Baptist is marked in

the two Greek menologies. This is an instance of a peculiar custom among

the Greeks, according to which, after certain chief feasts of our Lord

and our Lady, there is held a second festival, or _synaxis_, on the

following day, in honour of the personages who had taken part in the

event commemorated by the feast. Thus with the feast of the 2nd February

is coupled that of St Simeon, with that of the Nativity of our Lady,

the feast of Joachim and Anna, and here, after Epiphany, the day of

Christ’s baptism, we have the feast of St John the Baptist, on the 7th

January.[475]

The cultus of St John the Baptist received a great extension throughout

the whole Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, owing to the

discovery of his relics. The records of the Church contain much

information concerning both the discovery and the translation of these

relics, though they give rise to insoluble difficulties.

In the first place one must bear in mind how the disciples of St John, on

hearing of the death of their teacher in the fortress of Machærus,[476]

came and took his body and buried it (St Matt. xiv. 12; St Mark vi.

29). The head doubtless remained at first in the keeping of Herodias,

who had accepted it as a present. According to a creditable tradition,

Samaria was the place of St John’s burial, as it was outside the limits

of Herod’s tetrarchy, and under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor.

The remains reposed there until the persecution of Julian in 362, when

the pagan rabble violated the tomb and burnt the remains. A portion

of them, however, was saved by monks and carried to Alexandria, where

Athanasius deposited them provisionally in a church. Later on they were

placed in the church erected by the Patriarch Theophilus in honour of the

Baptist in the ruins of the destroyed Serapeum. The dedication of this

church followed on the 27th May 385 or 386.[477] Tillemont was inclined

to regard the 29th August as the day of the translation, which in this

case as in others came to be regarded as the ecclesiastical commemoration

of the event. Against this, however, is the fact that the more ancient

Coptic Calendars know nothing of the 29th August as a feast of the

Baptist.[478]

With regard to the saint’s head, there are two different accounts in

existence. According to one account, given by Sozomen (7, 21), it is said

to have been found in Jerusalem in the possession of monks belonging

to the sect of the Macedonians, who carried it to Cilicia, when they

were driven out from that city. When the Emperor Valens heard of this,

he despatched an official to convey the relic to Constantinople. As

they approached Chalcedon, the mules which drew the vehicle in which

the messenger travelled with the relic refused to proceed any further,

and all efforts to continue the route were unavailing—a circumstance

frequently repeated in later legends. Valens and his court regarded

this as miraculous and did not venture to bring the relic near the

city. Accordingly it remained in a village near Chalcedon in charge of

adherents of the Macedonian sect, until the reign of Theodosius, who

brought it to Hebdomon, a suburb of Constantinople, where he had a

church erected in honour of the Baptist.

The Paschal Chronicle makes mention of this translation in 391, as well

as of another under the date 453, without throwing any light on the

connection of the one with the other. This second translation, of which

Rufinus also speaks (“Hist. Eccl.” 2, 28), is said to have come about in

the following manner.

The head is reported to have been brought from Machærus to Jerusalem

and there buried. In the time of Constantine it was taken to Emesa and

hidden away in a cave. Why this was necessary at that particular period

is not stated. Here it was discovered by a priest called Marcellus, the

superior of a monastery in those parts. He composed a long and detailed

account of the discovery, containing also a history of the previous

vicissitudes of the relic.[479] The discovery was made in consequence

of many dreams, and a fiery star is said to have guided Marcellus to

the spot where the sacred treasure rested in an urn, deeply buried in

the earth. Marcellus informed Bishop Uranius of Emesa of his discovery,

and the bishop solemnly removed the relic on the 24th February, 452. It

was first of all placed in the cathedral, and then soon afterwards in a

chapel expressly built to receive it, to which it was conveyed on the

26th September of the same year. Here it rested under the Mohammedan

dominion, and in 760 a large church was even built to replace the

chapel. We have here a threefold translation of the head of St John the

Baptist. It is asserted that a part of it is preserved at Amiens which

was brought thither from Constantinople in the thirteenth century. Two of

the three days commemorating these translations are marked in the Greek

menologies, the 24th February and the 26th September.[480] The story of

these translations throws no light upon the choice of 29th August for the

beheading of the saint.

From a liturgical point of view, the birth of the Baptist was kept with

special distinction at Rome in earlier times. In the Leonine sacramentary

it is already provided with a vigil. Other saints’ days indeed were

similarly provided, but the vigil of St John was to be kept as a fast,

and, moreover, in addition to the two formularies for the Mass of his

feast, there are two more specially intended for use in the Baptistery of

St John. As early as the fifth century in Rome, three Masses seem to have

been celebrated on St John’s Day as on Christmas, one on the vigil after

Vespers, one during the night, and the third on the morning of the 24th

June—this last being celebrated in the Baptistery. In the _Gelasianum_

we find only two Masses, one for the vigil, and one for the day itself,

but in the _Gregorianum_ we find three again to be said at special times,

as in the _Leoninum_.[481] Accordingly, Menard observes that Alcuin[482]

also speaks of three Masses on St John’s Day commemorating the three

great triumphs—as he calls them—which the Baptist had celebrated in

preparing the way for our Lord, in baptizing Him, and in having been a

Nazarite from his mother’s womb. The ordo of the Canon Benedict of St

Peter’s, belonging to the year 1143, makes no mention of three Masses,

though it speaks of two offices.[483] When the Council of Seligenstadt in

1022 (cap. 1) prescribed abstinence for the fourteen days before St John,

it was acting without precedent, and was influenced by the desire to make

the festival of the forerunner as like to Christmas as possible.

As at Rome, so too in Latin North Africa, the Nativity of the Baptist

must have been celebrated with special honour, for we possess no fewer

than seven sermons of St Augustine on it, and he distinctly speaks of it

as a festival which had come down from his predecessors.[484]

THE PROTO-MARTYR ST STEPHEN. The cultus of this saint received also a

great impulse from the discovery of his relics at Kaphar-Gamala.[485]

This took place on the 5th December, in consequence of a revelation said

to have been made to a priest of Jerusalem called Lucianus, in presence

of John Bishop of Jerusalem, and of a Spanish priest from Braga, named

Avitus, who was then stopping in Jerusalem. Lucianus wrote an account of

the event in the form of a letter to all the churches,[486] which Avitus

translated into Latin.[487] Whereupon the worship of the first martyr

spread, one might say, in every direction. Pilgrims seeking relief from

their sufferings visited his churches and chapels, numerous answers to

prayer and miracles of healing followed, of which the sermons of St

Augustine and his work on the “City of God” afford evidence.[488] Pope

Simplicius († 483) erected a basilica in St Stephen’s honour at Rome. The

festival of the discovery of his relics was fixed for the 3rd August.

Upon their discovery the relics were first taken to Jerusalem, but

portions of them were bestowed upon other places, as, for example, a

hand to the city of Constantinople, or rather to the Emperor Theodosius

II.,[489] and smaller relics elsewhere. In the year 439 the Empress

Eudocia brought the remaining relics to Constantinople and had them

placed in the basilica of St Lawrence.[490] Over the tomb a chapel was

erected, well known to pilgrims of the sixth century as the grave of St

Stephen.[491] St Augustine, in the passages already quoted, speaks of

churches erected in St Stephen’s honour in many places.

The worship of St Stephen, however, does not date merely from this

period, but was much older, and may even be said to be as old as the

Church herself, since St Paul gave him the title of “Martyr of Christ”

(Acts xxii. 20). Many churches and chapels were dedicated to him in

Constantinople, of which the oldest was built by or under Constantine, if

Codinus is rightly informed.[492]

Apart from this, his name is to be found already in the earliest

liturgical sources, _e.g._ the Arian martyrology, belonging to about 360,

and in all Calendars ancient and modern excepting the Coptic Calendars,

published by Selden and Calcasendi. A remarkable variation is observable

with respect to the date, for the most ancient Calendars and also

the Roman give it invariably as the 26th December, while the Eastern

Calendars give it sometimes on the 27th, _e.g._ the two menologies of

Constantinople and the Syrian lectionary. It cannot now be ascertained

whether one of these days was the day of his martyrdom or not; it is not

impossible, but it must be observed that the Coptic Calendar given in

Mai notices only a discovery of his relics on the 27th December, with

which agrees a later tradition of the Egyptian Church.[493] Accordingly

the 26th or 27th December may have been observed as only the day of a

translation of St Stephen’s relics.

3. _Festivals of our Blessed Lady in General_

The unique position occupied by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the scheme

of salvation called for a corresponding recognition from the Church in

the development of her festal system. As a matter of fact the Church has

amply discharged this duty, inasmuch as not only the events in our Lady’s

life recorded in Scripture have been made the occasion of festivals,

but others also not mentioned therein. A considerable period, however,

elapsed before this work was accomplished. This circumstance has been

explained by reference to the fact that the Church, while paganism was

still in power, refrained from publicly honouring the parents of our

Lord after the flesh, on account of the myths and genealogies current

about the gods. More weight may be given to the circumstance that the

facts relating to the life of Jesus and the redemption He accomplished

had first to be commemorated by fixed festivals before an extension of

the Calendar in other directions could be thought of. Then again, in

the early ages, it was felt to be an imperative duty to duly honour the

commemorations of the numerous martyrs, and the custom of appointing days

for the commemoration of saints not martyrs only came into existence

later.

The cultus paid to the Mother of God by the Church existed long before

the institution of her feasts, for Constantine is said to have built

three churches in her honour in his new capital. According to recent

investigations, a Church dedicated to her, Maria Antiqua,[494] is said

to have existed in Rome before the erection of the Liberian basilica,

generally reckoned as the oldest Church of our Lady in the Eternal City.

It is certain that Ephesus had a noteworthy Church of our Lady in 431, in

which the third Ecumenical Council held its meetings.

As regards festivals, all the churches of the ancient patriarchates

observe many of them, especially the oriental Greeks and the Roman

Catholic; the latter, without question, observes the largest number.

But the ancient Church of Egypt also distinguished itself by its zeal

for the worship of our Lady, and in the Coptic Calendars we find a

_commemoratio Dominæ Virginis Mariæ_ on the 21st (corresponding to the

15th in the Julian Calendar) of each month.[495] Formerly every Saturday

was generally dedicated to her. The first certain instance of the

observance of a festival in honour of the Mother of God, which has so

far come to light, is found in the panegyric on St Theodosius, preached

by Theodore about the year 500. In this it is stated that a commemoration

of the holy Mother of God (θεοτόκου μνήμη) was celebrated annually in

the Palestinian monasteries, attended by a concourse of all the monks.

Unfortunately neither the date of this festival nor its name is given,

although there is good reason for thinking that it was the feast of the

15th August, which had been regarded as the day of our Lady’s death from

the earliest times.[496] In Spain, in the time of Bishop Ildephonsus

of Toledo († 667), a festival of the Mother of God was also solemnly

observed. This prelate made penitential processions (_litaniæ_) in the

three preceding days, and composed a special mass for the feast. Here

again the particular name of the feast is unfortunately not given. Still

it can only have been the feast of the 15th August.[497]

The number of feasts of our Lady observed at the present time in the

Catholic Church is, as we have said, considerable, among them being some

which affect the public life of the community and some whose observance

is confined to the four walls of the Church. They can also be classified

as greater and lesser, or, according to the date of their institution,

as earlier or later. Among the greater feasts are the Conception, Birth,

Annunciation and Assumption of our Blessed Lady, and Candlemas; among the

lesser are the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple, her Espousals, the

Visitation, and now the Feast of the Holy Rosary.

It is not, however, possible to speak, as many liturgists do, of a

Marian ecclesiastical year. For the dates of our Lady’s feasts, viewed

in their chronological order, overlap the limits of the year, and

being subject to the same principles which regulate saints’ days, fall

invariably on fixed days in the Calendar, and so cannot be said to form

an integral part of the ecclesiastical year. Nevertheless they form in

themselves a cycle of festivals, as is also the case in a lesser degree

with regard to St John the Baptist. Two of them, however, have been

brought into connection, at least externally, with the ecclesiastical

year, _i.e._ the Annunciation, whose date depends upon Christmas, and the

Visitation, whose date is regulated by the births of Christ and St John

the Baptist. The former interrupts the course of the Church’s year, and

falls within a cycle of feasts with which it has no inner connection. The

Conception of our Blessed Lady, the latest in date of her great feasts,

depends naturally upon the date of her birth. Finally, nothing can be

said touching the grounds which led to the choice of these dates, for no

historical evidence for the first institution of these festivals has come

down to us. They have been appointed and sanctioned by custom.

We shall first deal with the great festivals of our Lady, the observance

of which affected public life. From these we omit Candlemas, originally

regarded rather as a festival of our Lord. Three others—the Nativity,

Annunciation, and Assumption—can be considered together as far as their

institution is concerned, inasmuch as they made their appearance in

history at the same period—that is to say, in the seventh century. The

reliable evidence for their introduction in Rome is confined to the

following; in the later MSS. of the _Gregorianum_ appears a notice

which confines the work of Gregory the Great to the first part of the

sacramentary. This is the important preface “Hucusque.”[498] In this it

is stated the entire preceding part of the book is due to Gregory I.,

with the exception of what concerns the Nativity and Assumption of our

Lady, and a few other matters. From this it follows that the sacramentary

used in the time of Gregory I. did not contain these two festivals of the

Mother of God.

They had been already introduced, however, by the end of the seventh

century. This is clear from the fact that they appear in the

_Gelesianum_, and, secondly, from a statement in the life of Sergius

I. (687-701),[499] to the effect that this pope directed that on the

Annunciation, Nativity, and Assumption of our Lady, and in the festival

which the Greeks call _Hypapante_, a procession (_litania_) should go

from St Adrian’s to St Mary Major’s. These festivals were at that time

already observed in Rome, when Sergius ordered these processions as

adjuncts to existing festivals. This comprises all the reliable evidence

at our disposal regarding these feasts of our Lady.[500]

All that we can with certainty deduct therefrom is that these three

principal feasts of our Lady were introduced in the Roman Church only

in the course of the seventh century. The sermons belonging to the same

period also support this conclusion. The rich collections of sermons of

St Augustine, St Leo the Great, Peter Chrysologus,[501] Fulgentius, and

Maximus of Turin, contain no sermons for feasts of the Mother of God.

All the chief, and also the majority of the lesser, feasts of our Lady

had their origin rather in the East, and only at a comparatively late

date made their way into the West. This also explains why none of them

have been incorporated, as most of them might easily have been, into the

ecclesiastical year. Their adoption by Rome resulted from the political

dependence of Italy on Byzantium and from the intimate relations existing

between the Apostolic See and the Imperial Court.

4. _The Three Ancient Festivals of our Blessed Lady—the Nativity, the

Annunciation, the Assumption_

(1) THE NATIVITY OF OUR LADY

The spread of this feast seems to have been retarded, for it does not

appear in many Calendars which contain the Assumption, _i.e._ in the

Gotho-Gallican, in that of Luxeuil, in the Toledan Calendar of the tenth

century, and in the Mozarabic; that it is not to be found in older

Calendars goes without saying. On the other hand, it appears along with

the Assumption in the _Gelasianum_ and in the Frankish Calendars drawn up

under Roman influence in the Carolingian period, the earliest being those

of Reims and Bede. It cannot be said to have been generally celebrated

in the eighth and ninth centuries, although in many places it makes its

appearance much earlier. Some writers have maintained that, on the

whole, Fulbert of Chartres († 1028) was the first to introduce it.[502]

But this is certainly wrong. Nevertheless he probably exerted himself to

spread the observance of the feast in the northern parts of France, since

we have two sermons of his preached on the feast, the oldest genuine

Latin sermons on this festival, as it seems. In Greek there are two

sermons of Andrew of Crete dealing also with the festival.[503] Evidence

is wanting to show why the 8th September was chosen for the Nativity of

our Lady.

(2) THE ANNUNCIATION

The official title of this feast is now _Annuntiatio B. Mariæ Virginis_,

but formerly other titles were used, _i.e._ _Annuntiatio Angeli ad

B.V.M._, _Annuntiatio Domini_,[504] _Annuntiatio Christi_, or even

_Conceptio Christi_, etc., showing that it was regarded more as a

festival of our Lord than of our Lady. That it owes its existence

entirely to Christmas, and depends upon the date (25th December) assigned

to the birth of Christ, requires no proof. But the reference to Mary is

so striking that it could not fail to be regarded as essentially one of

her feasts.

It is well known that the custom of the ancient Church was not to

celebrate the festivals of martyrs and other saints during Lent, which

rule the Spanish Church followed even with regard to this feast. But in

Constantinople an exception was made in its favour, which was expressly

approved by the fifty-second canon of the Trullan Council. The feast is

absent from the ancient Gallican Missal and the Lectionary of Luxeuil,

but in Rome, according to the evidence afforded by the _Gelasianum_ and

_Gregorianum_, the feast was observed on the same date as in the East.

The feast of our Lady in Advent (S. Mariæ), noted, without further

specification, in the Lectionary of Silos dating from about 650, can

be no other than the Annunciation. Soon afterwards, however, the tenth

Council of Toledo (656) took occasion to remark upon the difference

of date. External influences (_traducti homines_) had been the cause.

The Council decided in favour of the date hitherto observed in Spain,

and ordained in its first canon that the feast should be celebrated

throughout Spain eight days before Christmas—on the 18th December.

But in the East the other date was already so widely observed that it

was even employed as a fixed indication of time, as, for example, when

the Alexandrian Paschal Chronicle states in 624 that Heraclius and his

forces started for the East on the day of Mary’s Annunciation.[505] This,

along with other indications, shows that in the East the festival had

been earlier adopted and was widely spread. A circumstance of special

importance is that the schismatic Armenians, whose ecclesiastical year

in other respects is very primitive in character, observe this feast.

They keep it, however, on the 7th April. This is due to the fact that

they have not adopted Christmas, and still celebrate the birth of Christ

in the ancient manner on the 6th January. Counting back nine months

from this date one arrives at the 7th April. The Armenians certainly

celebrated this festival before their separation from the Church. It was

known and loved in the East as early as the fifth century, as the sermons

of Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople († 446), and of Peter Chrysologus

of Ravenna († 450), prove.[506]

Both methods of dating the festival existed side by side for a long

period. The majority was in favour of the 25th March, but the other date

was not without supporters, especially in Upper Italy, for according to

the Milanese rite the _Annuntiatio_ falls in Advent, and, indeed, on the

fourth Sunday. In southern France the difference in date gave rise to

sundry differences and disputes which terminated in a victory for the

Roman usage. Certain Spanish monks, who came to Cluny under Abbot Odilo,

desired to celebrate the festival after their own fashion, which was at

first allowed them. In the eleventh century several Councils occupied

themselves with the question, and decided, obviously out of regard for

Rome, for the 25th March.[507]

A further consideration of the question shows that an agreement was

arrived at by both parties. The Spaniards, in their _Missale Mixtum_,

celebrated the feast twice—on the 18th December and the 25th March—with

the same Mass,[508] and in Rome, in eighteenth century,[509] the feast

of the _Expectatio Partus B.M.V._, was placed on the 18th December, the

Gospel for the Mass being that of the Annunciation.

The sermons of Proclus already referred to give rise to an important

observation. This preacher in other passages of his works enumerates the

festivals celebrated in his time and in his diocese, among which, strange

to say, the Annunciation does not appear.[510] Since there are not only

two sermons of his composed for this feast, but the day itself is clearly

marked out as a festival, this contradiction can only be explained by

the fact that in the fifth century the Annunciation was kept simply as

a festival inside the Church, but had not yet won its way to public

recognition.

If the conception of the ecclesiastical year taken in Section I. of this

chapter be assumed as correct, the Annunciation is most suitably observed

in Advent, where it was correctly placed in the ancient Spanish liturgy.

But owing to the fact that the Eastern Church did not sufficiently carry

out the idea which underlay the ecclesiastical year, the feasts of our

Lady were not incorporated therein, but were treated as ordinary saints’

days by being tied down to fixed dates. And so it comes to pass that with

us the Annunciation, instead of coming in Advent, falls in Lent, and from

time to time even in Holy Week, where it is singularly out of place. In

North America, when this feast falls on one of the three last days of

Holy Week or in Easter Week, it is now transferred, which on the whole

may be regarded as a desirable arrangement.

(3) THE DEATH AND ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY

In all probability this is the earliest of our Lady’s feasts. From the

beginning, there was a general sentiment in the Church which led to the

days on which the martyrs suffered being kept as solemn commemorations.

The same thing took place at a later date with regard to the other

classes of saints—confessors, virgins, etc.—and so Christian sentiment

was soon directed towards the question of our Blessed Lady’s death. It is

highly probable, if not certain, that the feast of our Lady, mentioned

above as having been celebrated by the monks in Palestine, was that which

we are now considering. Both in the East and in Rome the 15th August was

kept as the day of our Lady’s death, while we find another date observed

in Gaul.

As regards the references to the decease of the Holy Virgin found in

patristic literature, we find Epiphanius alluding to it, but in such

general terms as to show he knew nothing about it for certain.[511]

Then we have a letter of the so-called Areopagite Dionysius containing

the essential points of the tradition for the death and burial of the

Holy Virgin, which we find later on in St John Damascene. The date of

this letter depends upon the view taken of the author and date of the

pseudo-Dionysian writings. The garden of Gethsemani is named as the place

of burial.[512] The same tradition appears in the apocryphal Apocalypse

on the “_transitus_” of Mary, where the year of her death is given as

the third after our Lord’s resurrection,[513] while other authorities

give it as the twelfth.

The chief authority, however, for the event is St John Damascene. Relying

on the history of an otherwise unknown Euthymius, he describes the

circumstances in detail. According to this informant, Pulcheria, wife

of the Emperor Marcian (450-457), had erected a Church in honour of the

Holy Virgin in the suburb of Constantinople called Blachernæ, to which

she wished to translate the earthly remains of our Lady. With this end

in view, she addressed herself to Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem during

the sitting of the Council of Chalcedon, but he informed the Emperor

and Empress that the body of the Mother of God was not to be found in

Jerusalem. She had indeed been buried there in the Garden of Gethsemani

in the presence of all the Apostles; Thomas alone was absent, and only

arrived on the third day after the burial; in order that he too might

venerate the body of the Mother of God, the tomb was opened, but nothing

was found save the linen grave-clothes, which gave forth a fragrant

perfume. Whereupon the Apostles concluded that our Lord had taken up into

heaven the body which had borne Him. In his panegyric on the Holy Virgin,

Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem († 634), states that already in the

seventh century there was a special festival in Jerusalem to celebrate

her decease (κοίμησις). In addition, we have sermons dealing with this

event by Andrew of Crete († 720 _circ._) and Germanus, Patriarch of

Constantinople († 733).[514] The bodily assumption of Mary into heaven

was already known in the West in the sixth century, and is alluded to in

Gregory of Tours.[515]

The Emperor Maurice is said to have appointed the festival of our Lady’s

death (κοίμησις τῆς παναγίου καί θεομητέρος), and fixed it on the 15th

August. Although this information is given by an historian of a much

later date,[516] it must not be altogether set aside. Maurice may well

have given official recognition to the festival, and by so doing settled

the question of the day on which it was to be kept. The festival itself

was, however, much older, for not only the heretical sects, which

separated from the Church in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites

and Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their separation,

but most ancient national Churches, such as the Armenian and Ethiopian,

have it in their Calendars. Accordingly the 15th August must have already

been generally regarded in the Church as the day of our Lady’s death

before the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, although not mentioned by

historians of that time.

We have unfortunately no information concerning the introduction of this

festival in Rome. All we know is that it was celebrated there along with

our Lady’s Nativity and Annunciation under Sergius I., at the end of the

seventh century. About 847 Leo IV. ordained that it should be celebrated

with a vigil and octave in the basilica of St Lawrence without the Walls.

In the Gothico-Gallican missal of the seventh or eighth century, edited

by Mabillon,[517] the festival is placed on the 18th January,[518] and

not on the 15th August, as is also the case in the Lectionary of Luxeuil

of the seventh century. This circumstance points to the conclusion

that, independently of Byzantine influence, it was observed already at

an earlier date in other parts of the Church as well, and came into

existence spontaneously, so to speak.

It is also noteworthy that the feast appears already with the title

_Assumptio_ in the canons of Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, composed

sometime about the year 630.[519] In the canons ascribed to St Boniface

some amount of vacillation is observable. By the thirty-sixth canon of

the Council of Mainz, in 813, it is appointed as a feast for the whole

Frankish Empire, while the earlier Council of 809 had decided nothing

concerning its adoption.

Among the Latins the festival did not at first bear the name _Assumptio_,

but was called _Domitio_ or _Pausatio_, corresponding to the Greek title.

This name left the particular object of the feast uncertain—whether it

commemorated merely the decease or the bodily assumption of Mary into

heaven. It was probably due to this that in the ninth century doubts as

to the latter were here and there expressed.[520]

Unlike both Easterns and Westerns, the Copts have placed the death and

bodily resurrection of the Mother of God on the 16th January (21st Tybi).

We find it so in the _Synaxarium_ of the ninth century in Mai, and in

that of Michael of Atriba; while the older Calendar of saints belonging

to the seventh century given by Seldenius has a “_Planctus Dominæ Mariæ_”

on this day, which may well mean the same thing.[521]

In not a few German and Sclavonic dioceses a blessing of the fruits of

the field takes place on the 15th August. This is of ancient Germanic

origin, but has been adopted into the Roman ritual. It seems to have

arisen from some popular custom connected with harvest.[522]

5. _Institution and Spread of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception_

The two dogmatic definitions formulated during the pontificate of

Pius IX. had this in common that they came as a surprise to many,

although they only set at rest questions which had been ventilated for

centuries. This is especially the case with regard to the doctrine

of the Immaculate Conception, for the discussion of the question had

been prolonged during a thousand years. Bound up with the discussion

was the contention whether the festival in question ought or ought not

to be celebrated; and these two things, the theoretical treatment of

the doctrine, and the fortunes of the festival, were most intimately

connected with one another, and found at one and the same moment their

final solution. Indeed, the festival has a longer history than the

doctrinal controversy. For the observation that Church festivals required

a long time from their inception—which is for the most part to be looked

for in monasteries—until they obtained general approbation and acceptance

from the ecclesiastical authorities, applies to many festivals; but none

has had so long and changeful a history as the festival of the Immaculate

Conception of the Mother of God. It has now, for the last fifty years,

been celebrated as a festival of obligation throughout the Catholic

Church, and has even been adopted in those countries which formerly set

themselves most strongly against the increase of ecclesiastical holy days.

Our object is to give a comprehensive and detailed history of the

vicissitudes of this festival, while leaving aside the history of

the doctrine. Naturally they cannot be kept entirely distinct, still

the latter shall only be touched upon in so far as is necessary for

the elucidation of the history of the feast.[523] Passaglia and his

collaborator Clemens Schrader, S.J., in their well known work, “_De

Immaculato Deiparæ Conceptu_” (Rome, 1854 and 1855, 3 vols. 4to.), have

given us a rich and noteworthy collection of materials for this purpose.

We must do justice to the immense learning expended upon this work both

in its dogmatic and historical sections, but the historical explanations

can no longer be regarded as satisfactory. On the one hand, subsequent

investigations have brought fresh facts to light which give a new turn to

the history; and, on the other, Passaglia was deficient in the critical

faculty, and merely in order to marshal as many proofs as possible, he

made use of several which cannot stand close investigation, and must be

set aside if the whole question is not to be misrepresented.

For the correct understanding and examination of the sources of evidence,

it must first be observed that anciently both among the Greeks and the

Latins the term _conceptio_ (σύλληψις) was taken in the active sense,

while we are accustomed to take it in the passive sense. _Conceptio

Mariæ Virg._ signified then the conception of Christ by Mary, while the

(passive) conception of Mary was called the _Conceptio S. Annæ_.

Thus it follows that the festival of “the Conception of Mary” and

the festival of “the Immaculate Conception” are not the same thing.

Originally only a _festum Conceptionis B.M.V._ was celebrated, and only

in course of centuries has a _festum Immaculatæ Conceptionis_ been

evolved therefrom. This must not be regarded as a mere question of terms

which might be employed interchangeably. Passaglia has not sufficiently

emphasised this distinction, and consequently his presentation of the

facts creates the impression that there was already in the fifth century

a festival of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is altogether

erroneous. The simple statement of the facts will make this clear, and

show that in the course of centuries the feast originally celebrated

as the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was changed into a feast

of the Immaculate Conception. This change came about in proportion

as the matter was made clearer by dogmatic discussion, and as the

doctrine of Mary’s exemption from original sin gained adherents in the

schools. Even when this doctrine had found general acceptance in the

West, and had authoritatively received the support both of conciliar

decrees and of papal dogmatic decisions, the ancient title of the feast

still remained in use for a long time. If we consult the service-books

printed before 1854, we find in them indeed on the 8th December the

_festum conceptionis_, but the word _immaculata_ is nowhere found in the

office for the feast. An orderly representation of the historical facts

concerned will show how this was brought about.

Evidence shows that the feast of our Lady’s Conception arose in the

Eastern Church, and had gained civil recognition in the Byzantine Empire

at a time, when in the West, ecclesiastical circles were still debating

whether or not its celebration ought to be permitted. In a constitution

entitled, “Concerning the days of the year which are whole holidays

and half holidays,” the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1166 recognised it

as a public festival on which servile work was forbidden. Now it is a

known fact that the civil authorities are slow to give recognition to

ecclesiastical festivals, and accordingly festivals have often been

celebrated by the Church for a long period before they received the

recognition of the State. So it was in this case. The Calendar of the

Church of Constantinople in which the feast of the 9th December is

marked as the “festival of the Conception of St Anne, the mother of the

Theotocos,” is a century and a half older than this constitution. It

bears the name of the Emperor Basil, meaning the second of this name

surnamed Porphyriogenitus (976-1025), and, accordingly, it follows that

even then the festival had received some lesser degree of recognition

from the State.[524]

Concerning the date of the introduction of this feast, we have detailed

information in a sermon of John of Eubœa, who lived in the middle of the

eighth century. He was first a monk and then Bishop of the island, and

was contemporary with St John Damascene, whom he occasionally visited.

John declares that there are ten points in the life of the Holy Virgin

which must be commemorated, and these he enumerates in the tenth section

of his sermon. The most of them are at the same time feasts of our

Lord, the only ones entirely relating to our Lady being her Nativity,

Annunciation, and Assumption. With regard to the feast of our Lady’s

Conception, John hesitates. First of all, in the passage referred to

above, he enumerates it among the feasts, but at the end of his sermon he

states that it is not acknowledged by all,[525] but he speaks highly in

its favour, and considers in conclusion that it ought to be celebrated.

From this it is plain that in his time the feast was not yet generally

accepted, and that he exerted himself to spread it. If Passaglia, who

quotes this sermon as evidence for the feast, had noticed this passage,

he would have learnt that in the eighth century the festival had not yet

become generally popular in purely ecclesiastical circles, such as among

the specially devout and the religious, and he would have avoided the

mistake of throwing back the inception of the feast to the fifth century

in reliance on an interpolated and much later _Typicum S. Sabæ_.[526]

John mentions the 9th December as the day of the feast. The contents of

this sermon of his are in other respects of no importance.

George of Nicomedia, who lived about a century later, is the second Greek

preacher of whom we possess a sermon for this festival.[527] It bears

the title, “Concerning the Conception of St Anne,” and was delivered

upon a festal occasion (πανήγυρις), and the day is already distinctly

called a feast (ἑορτή). George considered it no longer necessary to

merely commend the acceptance of the feast, but regarded its adoption as

a matter of course. He reveals, however, the comparatively late date of

its institution, by saying that the day was not to be kept “as one only

recently added to the Calendar, but as one adopted on the best grounds,

since it naturally belonged to the course of the year and is prescribed

by the nature of things. In doing so we become partakers of the joy it

promises.”

As far as the East is concerned these two witnesses are sufficient,

especially as they throw light on the date of the institution of the

feast. As in other cases, so here the origin of the feast is doubtless

to be sought in religious communities. They were the first to think of

honouring this act of redemption. It was certainly the monks, to whom

is due the development of the Church’s psalmody, who in their canonical

hours celebrated Mary’s Conception, and appointed a special day for this

purpose, the 9th December, which was always kept as such in the Greek

menologies. In course of time the feast issued forth from the limits of

the monasteries, and from the inner circles of the devout, and attained

publicity. Preachers glorified it. It met with a sympathetic reception in

ever widening circles, until it gradually attained the rank, if not of

a feast of obligation, at any rate, of a simple feast of devotion, and,

finally, it obtained both ecclesiastical and civil authorisation.

The Byzantine Empire comprised during the whole of the period of which

we have been speaking, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. In the eighth

century Byzantium was no longer able to retain its hold over the duchy of

Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna; at a still later date it lost Apulia,

Calabria and Sicily, especially when the Normans settled in those parts.

It retained its hold over the city of Naples longest of all; it was only

in 1127 that Naples was taken by Roger II., who had himself crowned king

of the Two Sicilies in 1130.

The constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 mentioned above was never

promulgated in Naples, and had no force there, but the connection with

Byzantium had lasted sufficiently long for the feast of Mary’s Conception

to obtain an entrance into Naples. That it actually did make its way

there is proved by the Calendar of the Neapolitan Church of the ninth

century, engraved on marble, and showing traces of Byzantine influence,

which was discovered in 1742 in the Church of San Giovanni Maggiore.

Apart from the historical facts which we have mentioned, the name and

date of the feast—_Conceptio S. Annæ_, and the ninth December—show a

Byzantine origin. And so in respect of the history of this feast, Naples,

along with Lower Italy and Sicily, must be classed with the Eastern half

of the Catholic Church as celebrating a feast, of which at Rome no one

had as yet thought.

From all this it follows that the feast of Mary’s Conception was known

in the Byzantine Empire as early as the beginning of the eighth century,

although under a different name from that which it now bears. Was the

feast, in its essential idea, the same as ours? This question the

reader may answer for himself. There is much doubtless in favour of

an affirmative answer. Greek writers refer to our Lady in the highest

conceivable terms, as can be amply proved from the lections of the office

for the 8th December now in use. They exalt her not merely above all

men, but absolutely above every creature. Moreover, the feast of the

Conception has a meaning only when the conception is regarded as sinless,

just as the Greeks celebrate a commemoration of the conception of St

John the Baptist solely On the ground that John was sanctified in his

mother’s womb. In all other cases, it is not the birthday of the saints

which is kept, but the day of their death. All this tells in favour of

the affirmative. But on the other hand, the fathers of the Eastern Church

have never either used or even discovered the specific terms to designate

the Immaculate Conception, nor have they ever proposed the question if

our Lady was free from original sin.

It is indeed very difficult to maintain the former view in the face of

the fact that the Greeks, at the present day, do not regard their feast

of Mary’s Conception as implying this meaning, but among them it is a

feast of little importance. Their Breviary contains the following notice

of the feast: “God sent His angel to the pious couple Joachim and Anna,

and announced to them that the barren would give birth, and so to prepare

the way for the conception of the Virgin. Thus the holy Virgin Mary was

conceived in consequence of an announcement, but by means of man and from

his seed. For our Lord Jesus Christ alone was born in an ineffable manner

of the holy Virgin Mary without the co-operation of man and his seed.”

This announcement by an angel is based on an apocryphal legend, which

appears in Byzantine sermons on our Lady, belonging to the eighth and

ninth centuries. Joachim, according to Jewish custom, desired to present

an offering in the Temple, but was driven back and insulted by members

of the tribe of Reuben because he was childless. This caused him so much

pain that instead of returning to his home, he sadly betook himself into

solitude. Anna, in her anxiety, prayed earnestly to God, and was informed

by an angel she should give birth to a daughter richly endowed with gifts

of grace. This legend derived from the _Proto-evangelium_ of James, and

propagated chiefly in the sermons of John of Eubœa and of Peter Siculus,

was also known in the West, and figures largely in works of art; as, for

example, in the beautiful picture in the cathedral at Augsburg, by Hans

Holbein the Elder.

The Greek Breviary, however, shows that there was current among the

people a still stranger idea, which it strongly opposes, _i.e._ that Mary

was born on the seventh month after her conception, and so was what is

called a seven months’ child. The reason why it is worth while to allude

here to this will be plain later on. We may merely point out how all this

shows the unimportant character of the festival among the Greeks.

It was otherwise in the West.[528] Here the festival in question makes

its appearance on the scene just as its development in the East came to

an end. To the tentative attempts at the introduction of this festival in

monasteries, and among the inner circles of the devout, there followed

its acceptance by several dioceses, not however without opposition.

The theoretical discussion over the warrant and significance of the

festival accompanied the early instances of its official introduction.

These discussions lasted through centuries, and were only brought to a

conclusion in our own times.

In attempting to trace out its introduction in detail, it must be borne

in mind that we are treating of what was in the first instance a festival

of the Conception only, not of the Immaculate Conception; that it was

not a public holy day of obligation, but only a religious commemoration

confined to the four walls of the churches; and, finally, that when it

was adopted by some religious order or celebrated in some monastery, it

does not follow that it was at the same time adopted by the diocese or

country wherein such a monastery was situated.

Clear and detailed evidence for its introduction comes to us first of all

from England. The individuals who more or less exerted themselves in this

connection were a certain Elsinus or Helsinus, a monk of St Augustine’s,

Canterbury, and later Abbot of Ramsay in the diocese of Winchester

(1080-1087), St Anselm of Canterbury and his nephew of the same name,

Osbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, Warinus, Dean of Worcester,

Abbot Hugh of Reading, and finally, the historian Eadmer.[529] Further

particulars concerning these persons will be found in the appendix.[530]

We begin with the history of Elsinus, or Helsinus. He is not an imaginary

personage, but one whose story is historically true. He was monk at St

Augustine’s, and then Abbot of Ramsay under William the Conqueror. A

legend, current in the middle ages in various forms as either a sermon

or a letter of Anselm the Elder, states that he was sent by William with

presents to the King of Denmark, in order to discover if he contemplated

an invasion of England. Having fulfilled his embassy, he was overtaken on

his return voyage by so severe a storm that the ship seemed about to be

dashed in pieces. As all were invoking our Blessed Lady in this moment

of peril, a form arrayed in episcopal vestments appeared, which was

supposed to be St Nicholas, the patron of sailors. He addressed Elsinus

by name, and promised him he would be saved, if he in his turn promised

to celebrate the feast of our Lady’s Conception annually on the 8th

December, and to exhort others to celebrate it also. Elsinus promised,

and all were saved.[531]

This legendary narrative was adopted formerly for the lections in the

Breviary,[532] but more recently it has been altogether discredited. The

learned Maurist Gerberon, editor of St Anselm’s works, in particular

has objected to this narrative on the grounds that after the battle of

Hastings in 1066, William returned to Normandy, and the landing of the

Danes followed immediately. Gerberon has overlooked the fact that since

Elsinus undertook this journey as Abbot, not as a simple monk—which in

itself would have been highly improbable—it must be placed between 1080

and 1087, not in 1066. However, although the story be a legend, yet this

much is true, that Elsinus did introduce the feast of the 8th December

into his monastery.[533]

That Anselm the Younger introduced it into his monastery at Bury St

Edmonds is proved by two letters, dating from 1128-29, of Osbert

de Clare, a zealous defender of the doctrine. He laments that two

bishops, Roger of Salisbury and Bernard of St Davids, have opposed the

introduction of the feast. They had even held a Synod, and forbidden the

feast as an absurd novelty. This fact, and also the circumstance that

Osbert himself in a sermon on the 8th December made no mention of the

Immaculate Conception of Mary from fear of the opponents, as he himself

says, show how strong the opposition to both feast and doctrine must have

been among the Anglo-Saxon secular clergy of that period.[534]

From what has been said it can be regarded as historically certain

that the feast of Mary’s Conception was observed in many Benedictine

monasteries in England, about the year 1128—in Ramsay, Bury St Edmonds,

Reading, Worcester and Westminster.[535]

Possibly also in some others, but in no case was the feast celebrated

outside the walls of the monasteries.[536] It must have encountered

opposition, for important personages, both ecclesiastical and secular,

looked upon it with disfavour, and it was still very far from gaining

the support of the secular clergy, of bishops and synods. Indeed one

synod of the period forbade the feast altogether. Its adoption followed

only in the fourteenth century. When we bear in mind the ecclesiastical

and civil circumstances of the times, we are astonished to find how such

a novelty—for so the feast is called in the writings already quoted—could

have made its way to England first of all. For, in the eleventh century,

that country was torn by internal strife, and invaded by foreign foes;

while the national clergy, according to the statement of a contemporary

English historian, were sunk in simony and worldliness.[537] That

is scarcely the atmosphere suitable for the inception of a feast so

intimately connected with the inner religious life of the community.

For this some impulse from without was required. Such an impulse came

indirectly from the East through intercourse with Normandy, whence so

many learned and zealous monks and clergy came to England after the

conquest. The political, or rather dynastic, connection of the country

with Normandy dates not only from the battle of Hastings in 1066, but

goes back to the times of King Edward the Confessor, whose wife Emma was

a Norman princess.

The official introduction of the feast of our Lady’s Conception in

England only commenced in the thirteenth century, and only spread

slowly. The provincial Synod of Oxford in 1222, Canon VIII., refused

to recognise it as a feast of obligation, although it established its

private observance. The diocesan Synod of Worcester does not mention

it in its list of festivals. On the other hand it was celebrated at St

Albans in 1228,[538] and the diocesan Synod of Exeter in 1287 formally

adopted it by a decree which naturally affected that diocese alone.

In Normandy the feast, whose celebration found in England precarious

toleration in the retirement of the cloister, was already introduced

by the secular clergy without encountering any opposition. This is

stated by Osbert himself when he remarks in his letter to Anselm how,

on the other side of the channel, the feast had been solemnly kept by

some bishops.[539] If these words do not apply to Normandy, we should

like to know of some other country on the Continent where the feast was

then observed. It is certain that it was kept at Rouen under Bishop

Rotricus (1165-1183), and placed on a level with the feast of the

Annunciation.[540] Owing to the law that, in the province of Rouen,

consisting of six dioceses, the daughter churches must follow in their

ritual and Breviary the use of the metropolitan Church, this feast would

soon be celebrated all over Normandy.[541] When the Corporation of

Norman students at the Paris University chose it as their particular

festival, it was not a mere fancy on their part, but must have had its

origin in the ecclesiastical observances of their home. Still less must

this fact have been the cause why the feast in the middle ages went

by the name of the “Norman’s feast” (_festum nationis Normannicæ_).

This name can only have come into existence because the feast had been

zealously celebrated in Normandy for a long time, by all the people,

before it was kept in any other country of the West. Henry of Ghent,

a member of the Sorbonne, distinctly declares this to have been the

case.[542] The Normans, however, could not have been the originators

of the feast. Doubtless they got their knowledge of it in Lower Italy,

where it had been observed for a long time, after they had begun to

settle there. Those who are unwilling to adopt so rationalistic an

explanation of the matter, draw attention to the fact that the two

Anselms, the earliest known propagators of the feast in England, were

not uninfluenced by other Eastern forms of showing honour to our Blessed

Lady. This is shown not only by Anselm’s hymns on the Mother of God, in

which the refrain, _Ave sponsa insponsata_, has been adopted from the

so-called _hymnus acathistus_, but also by an entry in an Irish Calendar

(upon which too much stress has recently been laid), in which Mary’s

conception is put down on the 3rd May, in accordance with the ridiculous

Greek legend,[543] that Mary was born seven months after her conception.

Granting that this entry really belongs to the ninth century, it is only

evidence of monastic learning, but affords no proof for the existence of

the feast in Ireland. It only shows that the writer knew of the Greek

fable in question, and made use of it for his Calendar.

It may be asked if the feast made its appearance in the West first of

all in Normandy, and in England, which since 1066 had been politically

united with Normandy, or had been observed earlier elsewhere? Could we

believe Passaglia, it had been celebrated already in Spain in the seventh

century.[544] If so, it is impossible to think it could have disappeared

later on without leaving a trace behind. The genuine Mozarabic liturgy

does not contain it, and in the oldest Spanish Calendars, _e.g._ that of

Toledo of the tenth century, published by Morinus, it does not appear.

The Jesuit Leslæus, who wrote the introduction to the Mozarabic liturgy,

admits candidly that the feast came into Spain through France.[545] The

two reasons which Passaglia gives for his opinion are worthless. He

relies upon a spurious life of St Isidore of Seville, which contains

later interpolations, while the genuine life written by Ildefons makes

no mention of it, and upon a passage in the laws of the West Goths. But

this latter passage has to be taken as referring to the Conception of

Christ by Mary in accordance with the terminology then in use. When the

same author wishes to make his readers believe that the feast existed in

Cremona already in the tenth century,[546] it has to be borne in mind

that Bishop Sicardus of Cremona,[547] in the thirteenth century, strongly

opposed its introduction there.

It may be regarded as certain that the feast of our Lady’s conception

was introduced into the Benedictine monasteries of England by the two

Anselms at the end of the eleventh century. We must not, however, regard

England as especially the home of the feast in the Latin Church, for both

St Anselm and his nephew had received their training in Normandy, which

was their second home. From thence they passed in later middle life to

England, for William liked to fill the chief spiritual posts in England

with foreigners.

When the author of the tract _De Conceptione B.M.V._ laments that

the feast met with much opposition both from clergy and laity, his

complaints were well grounded, for the names of a number of famous men

are known to us at the present day as having strongly opposed both

the feast and the doctrine which underlay it. For the most part they

were men of importance. We can name Roger of St Albans, Bishop of

Salisbury, and Bernard, Bishop of St Davids († 1147). The former was

minister and adviser of King Henry II., the latter chaplain to Queen

Matilda. In France the most famous opponent of the feast was St Bernard,

the celebrated preacher Maurice de Sully († 1196), Bishop of Paris,

and Peter of Celle, Abbot of Moutier-la-Celle, from 1181 Bishop of

Chartres.[548] It is especially remarkable that the greatest liturgists

of the middle ages, Beleth, Sicardus of Cremona, and Durandus of Mende,

all opposed the feast.[549] In Germany, the monk Potho of Prüm may be

named, although his views are obscure.

The conduct of St Bernard must be more closely examined. The opportunity

of expressing his views was furnished by the circumstance that the

Canons of Lyons commenced, about 1140, to celebrate the feast of our

Lady’s conception, without having obtained the authority of the Holy See

for this “novelty.” According to the then existing state of canon law,

the bishops had the right of arranging by themselves the festivals to

be celebrated within their respective dioceses. But St Bernard in his

letter to the Canons makes no mention of the bishop. This is explained

by the fact that the letter was written at a time when the Church of

Lyons was without any recognised head, and when St Bernard was exerting

himself with the Pope to obtain the confirmation of Fulco, the bishop

elect.[550] It may well have been that in this matter the canons acted

despotically. St Bernard, however, does not bring this charge formally

against them in his letter, but lays all the stress upon objections to

the inner significance of the feast. It was customary, he says,[551] to

celebrate the day of our Lady’s birth, because she, like Jeremias and

John the Baptist, had been sanctified before birth (fuit ante sancta

quam nata). Mary could not be holy before she existed, but her existence

began at her conception and that was not free from concupiscence. If her

conception was to be regarded as holy, one must logically hold that her

parents were already holy also. Christ our Lord was conceived by the

Holy Ghost, and consequently His conception was holy and a feast of the

Church (Annuntiatio). Before taking any steps in the matter, St Bernard

concludes, the Apostolic See ought to have been consulted, to whose

authority he commits the matter. The Roman Church, to which he appealed,

was, however, in no hurry. More than three hundred years had to pass

before she in any degree broke through her reserve on this question.

The effect of this letter is not known, but there is no doubt that

during the twelfth century the feast made steady progress in France.

Unfortunately we possess only a few data to illustrate its development,

for the investigation into the ecclesiastical history of special

localities requires to be more extensively taken in hand. In Rouen, the

capital of Normandy, it was certainly observed at that period, as we

have already seen. Next, its observance is prescribed by the statutes of

Le Mans, in the Province of Tours, in 1247.[552] In Rheims it appears

between 1261-1271. A more important fact is that the General Chapter of

the Franciscans, held at Pisa in 1263, decreed that the feast should be

celebrated throughout the entire order.[553] Although it did not attain

to the rank of a feast of obligation for clergy and people, yet it

became known throughout the world, and especially at the papal Court at

Avignon, where Franciscan influence was strong. Finally the standpoint

of the thirteenth century with regard to this feast is best summed up

in the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “Although the Roman Church does not

celebrate it, she allows other Churches to do so,”[554] and in those of

St Bonaventure who justifies the keeping of a festival on the day of our

Lady’s conception.[555] Accordingly the number of dioceses and provinces

within which it was celebrated was constantly on the increase; for the

fourteenth century we have Canterbury 1328; Treves between 1338 and

1343;[556] Paderborn 1343; Münster 1350;[557] Utrecht 1350; Brixen 1399,

while other diocesan synods, _e.g._ Prague in 1355, did not yet adopt it.

When it is asserted that the feast had been introduced at Liège under

Bishop Albero II. († 1145), it must be urged on the other side that the

list of feasts drawn up by the diocesan synod of Liège in 1287 makes no

mention of it.[558] The synod of Cologne of 1308 does not mention it

either, although it is contained in the Cologne Calendar of the same

century. For Mainz we have the fact that this feast is employed for

dating a decree of the year 1318.[559] In the province of Canterbury, the

feast obtained official recognition only in 1328, _i.e._ two hundred and

nineteen years after the death of those who had first exerted themselves

in its favour.[560]

As far as Canon law and the liturgy are concerned, the feast of the

_Conceptio B.M.V._ remained in the fourteenth century as incomplete as

it had been in the twelfth and thirteenth. Generally speaking, however,

each bishop had then the right of appointing the festivals for his own

diocese, but this right was always restricted to the appointment of

those festivals already recognised and permitted by the Church universal

which he desired should be observed within his own diocese—as, for

example, whether St Mary Magdalene should be kept as a holiday or not.

But in this case it was not a question of a feast already recognised by

ecclesiastical authority, and its opponents could always object with

reason: _Non est authenticum_.

Important if not decisive steps were at length taken by ecclesiastical

authorities in the fifteenth century. In the meantime, the doctrine,

which had been defined and formulated by Duns Scotus was so widely

accepted, except among the Dominicans, and enjoyed so much popularity

among the people, who violently took sides on the question, that it was

possible for the Council of Basel (which began by being ecumenical,

but became schismatical after its quarrel with the pope), to state in

its thirty-sixth session, on the 17th September 1439, in answer to the

petition of the theological faculty of Paris, that the doctrine that Mary

by a special gift of grace had never been subject to original sin was

“pious and agreeable to the worship of the Church, the Catholic Faith,

and the teaching of Holy Scripture.” The Council forbade the contrary

doctrine to be taught. At the same time it renewed the decree in regard

to the feast of “her Holy conception, which was kept on the 8th December

both by the Roman Church and by others.”[561] Granting that the Council

was ecumenical, all circumstances connected with the feast, with regard

to both doctrine and ritual, were now formally settled. This decree was

not without effect, as soon appeared from the fact that in the Mainz

Breviary of 1507 the lections for the second nocturn of the feast are

drawn from it. It also certainly influenced the further spread of the

feast, as soon appeared from its being expressly authorized and received

by a provincial synod at Avignon, held under the presidency of a papal

legate in 1457.[562]

Although the fathers of the Council of Basel were of opinion that the

feast was celebrated by the Roman Church on the 8th December, this was

only partially correct. The fact is that at Avignon, with the full

knowledge of the Papal Court, it had been already celebrated without

meeting with any opposition from the authorities. So, too, in Rome it had

been celebrated by religious in the churches of their monasteries. It

can well have been that Alvarus Pelagius († 1340), as we are informed,

preached on this day in Rome; this, however, does not prove that the

diocese of Rome, or the Papal Court, had adopted the feast at that date,

for that, it would have been necessary to include the day in question in

the Calendar and treat it as a festival in the Missal and Breviary. And

so it would appear that it was kept as a purely ecclesiastical holy day,

and not as yet as a public official holiday with rest from servile work.

Nevertheless there were those at Basel who maintained it was a festival

of the Roman Church.

The Franciscan order, as has been already said, added our Lady’s

conception to the number of the feasts observed by themselves. They

celebrated it everywhere where they had a church of their own, and also

in Avignon and Rome during the residence of the popes. Other orders

followed their example—namely, the Benedictines, Cistercians, Carmelites,

all of which had houses in Rome,[563] and so, since there were many

churches belonging to these orders in Rome, it might well seem as if the

Roman Church herself kept the festival, all the more since the popes

knew of it and tolerated the practice. In Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), a

Franciscan ascended the Papal throne, and he it was who finally took the

decisive step in the direction of recognition instead of toleration.

On the 27th February 1477[564] he published the Constitution “_Cum præ

excelsa_,” in which he granted indulgences on the feast. In particular

he granted to all those who on this day recited the office composed by

the Papal notary, Leonardo Nogaroli of Verona, and assisted at Mass and

the canonical hours, the same indulgences which his predecessors granted

for Corpus Christi. In this way the feast was adopted into the diocese

of Rome, and made its way into the Calendar, Breviary and Missal, but

only as a purely ecclesiastical feast. It must also be observed that no

advance was made in the doctrine concerned, for the pope in his decree

speaks of a _Conceptio immaculatæ_, or, as he expresses himself in

another place, _prælibatæ virginis_, not of an _immaculata conceptio_.

This was not the only official act of Sixtus IV. in favour of the

feast. In 1479 he built a chapel in old St Peter’s, which he dedicated

and endowed in honour of our Lady’s conception and in honour of the

Franciscan saints, Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. In 1483,

however, he was compelled to forbid, by a special constitution, the

supporters and opponents of the doctrine of Mary’s exemption from

original sin to call each other heretics. This proves that the strife

between the two parties had then waxed warm. Even in Germany there

were bitter contentions concerning the point in question in Frankfurt,

Marburg, Heidelberg, and at Bern in Switzerland.

By the decree of Sixtus IV., in 1477, the office for the feast was

finally prescribed for the diocese of Rome as a _duplex_, but not for

other dioceses; these were free as before to adopt it or not. Clement

VIII. raised it to a _duplex majus_. Clement IX., added an octave, and

Clement XI., by a decree of 6th December 1708, prescribed it for the

whole Church.[565] It had already been observed in Spain as a regular

holy day of obligation, for Philip IV. petitioned Innocent X. for it

and the pope had granted his request in a constitution of 10th November

1644.[566] It was only in 1854 that it became, through the zeal of Pius

IX., a holy day of obligation for the whole Catholic world.

The steps in regard to this feast taken by Rome were, as we have seen,

separated from one another by considerable periods of time. With regard

to the significance of the feast, however, in spite of the declaration

of the Council of Trent, a policy of delay and _laissez-faire_ was

maintained. The feast remained a simple _festum conceptionis_, and the

idea of the _immaculata conceptio_ did not receive outward expression,

except that Paul V. permitted the recitation on all free Saturdays of

an _officium conceptionis B.M.V._, in which the _invitatorium_ is,

“Immaculatam conceptionem Mariæ virginis celebremus.”

Pius IX. had a new office drawn up which he prescribed for use on the

25th September 1863, in which the idea contained in the _invitatorium_ is

expressed beyond all doubt. Hymns expressing the same idea were inserted,

and the bull “Ineffabilis” was drawn upon for some of the lections, while

for others the preference was given to the homilies of the later Greek

writers. The pope’s letter elevating the feast to the rank of a holy day

of obligation for all Christendom received an enthusiastic reception

everywhere. The rank of the feast was not increased. It was only by Leo

XIII. that it was placed on an equality with the three chief festivals of

the year.

In tracing out the long process of development by which this feast passed

from Byzantium by Lower Italy to Normandy and England, and from thence

throughout the entire West, our attention has been drawn especially to

the conduct of the Roman See. Passaglia endeavours by every means to

magnify the part it played, and to date its intervention as far back as

possible. Still he is finally obliged to own that the Roman Church was

not the first to pay a special cultus to the Mother of God as conceived

without original sin. But, he adds, she has done everything during the

space of five hundred years[567] for the glorification of this feast and

for the spread of the doctrine which forms its basis. It is difficult to

see what is gained by magnifying the part of the Roman See at the cost

of historical truth. Others regard with satisfaction the fact that Rome

in no way pressed matters forwards. In a question so much debated, Rome

could not have adopted a better course than to wait until the conviction

of all Christendom, in so far as it was interested in the question, had

arrived at maturity. The Immaculate Conception had been the dominant

doctrine for a long period, and wanted nothing but the formal approbation

of the teaching church.

6. _The Lesser Feasts of Our Lady_

While the number of lesser feasts of our Lady according to the existing

Roman rite is very considerable, yet only a few of them come much before

the public, and the history of the most of them affords no points of

general interest. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the following:—

1. The Feast of the Name of Mary owes its origin to the devotion of

the faithful, and was first authorised by the Apostolic See for the

diocese of Cuença, in Spain, in 1513. It was abolished by Pius V., but

re-established by Sixtus V., and finally prescribed by Innocent XI. to

be observed by the whole Church on the Sunday after the Nativity of our

Lady. This was done in 1683, on the occasion of the deliverance of Vienna

from the Turks.[568]

Maria, or Miriam, is the Greek form of Miryam, a name over the etymology

of which many opinions were held in antiquity. Eusebius explains it

to mean “illuminatrix una vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris vel

stella maris.”[569] St Peter Chrysologus and St John Damascene derive

it from the Syrian _mar_ (feminine _martha_), lady, which appears

also in the Roman breviary along with the other explanation, “stella

maris.” In the Middle Ages this was the usual, and even yet is the

favourite, explanation. O. Bardenhewer maintains that the only derivation

permissible is from ‎‏מָרָא‎‏, fat or stout, in the sense of the imposing

or stately one. Those to whom Bardenhewer’s derivation does not commend

itself will be glad to hear that Professor Macke has had the happy

thought to refer back to the first bearer of the name, Miryam, the sister

of Moses, and to derive the names of both brother and sister from the

Egyptian. In Egyptian it would be: _Meri jom_, which would be equivalent

to Friend of Water, or Bride of the Sea, and so approaches more to the

meaning of _Stella Maris_.

2. The Presentation of our Lady in the Temple[570] (Præsentatio B.M.V.,

21st November). The story that Mary at the age of three years was brought

by her parents to the temple in fulfilment of their vow, there to be

educated, appears only in apocryphal writings,[571] but it fell in so

completely with the ideas of religious, both in ancient and modern times

in East and West, that it was not long before it asserted its influence

on the cycle of our Lady’s Feasts. The commemoration appears officially

for the first time in the constitution of Manuel Comnenus, published in

1166, as a fully recognised festival on which the law courts did not sit.

The date is the same as at the present day.[572] The feast was introduced

into the West by a French nobleman, Philip de Maizières, who spent some

time at the Court of Gregory XI. at Avignon in 1371 as representative

of the King of Cyprus. He represented the manner in which the day was

celebrated in the East in such a way as to move Gregory to ordain it as

one of the festivals of the Papal Court. It soon made its way in other

places also—in Navarre in 1374, in Treves in 1381, in Metz in 1420, in

Cologne and elsewhere. In Rome it was introduced by Sixtus IV., and an

office for it was added to the Roman breviary without its recitation

being imposed (_inter festa ad libitum_ and _pro quibusdam locis_). It

was only Sixtus V. who, in 1585, ordained it for the whole Church after

it had been for a time suppressed by Pius V. The original office was

altered under Clement VIII. Although the feast at first was regarded as

unimportant, it attained in Prussia to the rank of a feast _in foro_,

and this in an unexpected way, in 1893. It falls in Prussia on the third

Wednesday in November, and occupies a position midway between the movable

and immovable feasts.

3. The Visitation (_Visitatio B.M.V._) was formerly included among

the lesser feasts of our Lady, although the most prominent and popular

of them. At the present day it has a higher rank (_duplex II. cl._),

and, in certain localities, it has an octave. It used to be kept as

an entire holiday. It is not only grounded upon Scripture, but the

event it commemorates is one of the most important related in the New

Testament, both on account of the sanctification of St John the Baptist

in his mother’s womb, and because of its being the occasion on which the

Magnificat was first uttered. Nevertheless this feast does not exist

among the Greeks, but, on the 2nd July, they celebrate the translation of

the Holy Virgin’s garment in the church of the suburb of Constantinople

called Blachernæ, which took place under the Emperor Leo I. in 469.[573]

The earliest traces of the feast are found in the thirteenth century.

They appear in different localities at about the same date, which may

be due to the fact that the newly founded order of the Franciscans had

adopted the feast and promoted its celebration. It appears among the

Franciscans as early as 1263, and received official recognition during

the great schism from Urban VI., and Boniface IX. in 1389. After the

schism was healed, the Council of Basel was compelled in its forty-third

session, on 1st July 1441, to issue a decree authorising the feast, and

granting indulgences to those who assisted at divine service on the

day. They felt obliged to adopt this measure, the feast not having been

adopted within the obedience of the anti-pope.

There is nothing to show why the 2nd July was chosen for this feast, and

one must needs have recourse to surmise. There seem to be indications

that it is connected with the date of the Annunciation on the one hand,

and, on the other, with the Nativity of St John the Baptist, the octave

of which it immediately follows. It was regarded as probable that Mary

had chosen the time of Elizabeth’s confinement for her visit, and had

remained some time with her afterwards.[574] Perhaps, however, the real

reason was that the Greek Church had already for some time kept this

festival of our Lady on the 2nd July. The feast was, moreover, kept on

different days in different countries. In Paris, for example, it was kept

on the 27th June; Archbishop John II. of Prague, who introduced it into

his province in 1385, placed it on the 28th April. Its proper place, if

the main idea of the ecclesiastical year were carried out, would be in

Advent.

4. The Feast of the Holy Rosary (_Sollemnitas SS. Rosarii B.M.V._).

Towards the end of the twelfth century we find it had become usual to

use the angelic salutation (St Luke i. 28), along with the salutation

of Elizabeth (St Luke i. 41), as a prayer. This prayer was authorised

and imposed by many councils. We have evidence to this effect from a

synod of Paris under Bishop Odo de Sully (1196-1208),[575] and, in the

period immediately following, from the synods of Orleans, Durham (1217),

Treves (1237), and elsewhere.[576] The new prayer was joined to the “Our

Father” in such a way that ten “Hail Marys” were recited after one “Our

Father” fifteen times, each prayer being counted on a string of beads.

The originator of this form of prayer, called the Rosary, is generally,

but without foundation, considered to have been St Dominic. The custom

of using a string of beads on which to count a stated number of prayers

had already been in existence for a long time, and only became general

when the custom grew up of reciting one hundred and fifty “Hail Marys”

to correspond to the number of the psalms. This was called the “Mary

Psalter,” the Rosary, or the “Psalter of the Laity.”[577] When this form

of prayer took shape is not exactly known, but it has quite recently been

maintained that St Dominic did not originate it, as is often affirmed.

His biographer and other contemporaries do not ascribe the invention of

the rosary to him. It is only at the end of the fifteenth century that a

Dominican, Alanus de Rupe (de la Roche), produced this story,[578] which

unfortunately has found its way into the breviary. A notable improvement

was made in this devotion in the fifteenth century, by adding after the

name Jesus in each Hail Mary the mention of some event in the lives of

Jesus and Mary bearing on the work of salvation, beginning with the

message of the angel and concluding with the descent of the Holy Ghost

and the Assumption. Among these, the five points taken from the Passion

of Christ—the so-called “sorrowful Mysteries”—form the centre, and

thus the entire rosary now falls into three parts, each complete in

itself.[579]

By this means the devotion gained a more definite meaning. The mere

recitation of the prayers is closely connected with meditation, and

each mystery has more or less reference to some feast of our Lord or of

our Lady, and so is brought into relation with the different liturgical

seasons. It can thus to a certain extent be connected with the whole

cycle of festivals of which indeed it was a sort of summary.

In its completed form the Rosary became the favourite devotion of all,

high and low, clerical and lay, and a special confraternity, favoured

by the popes and endowed with indulgences, was formed for its spread

and encouragement.[580] The Rosary was a source of innumerable graces

not only to individual believers, but even Christendom as a whole had

recourse to its assistance in times of general distress and danger,

especially when pressed by the Turks. Remarkable answers to prayer,

among which was numbered the victory of Lepanto (7th October 1571),

first moved Pius V. to institute a feast in thanksgiving. Gregory XIII.

gave stability to this feast by ordering in 1573 that in every church

possessing a chapel, or at least an altar of the Rosary, it should be

celebrated as “the Feast of the Holy Rosary” on the first Sunday in

October. Clement X. granted the feast to the whole of Spain without this

proviso. Clement XI. extended the feast to all Christendom in consequence

of the victory gained at Peterwardein by Prince Eugene on the 5th August

1716.[581]