It is not the purpose of this little volume to provide devotional aids
for performing the exercise of the Way of the Cross, neither is it meant
to be a manual of information for those who are interested in the
minutiæ of ecclesiastical legislation on the subject. Of such books
there is already an abundant supply,[155] and the aim of this essay is
to throw light upon certain historical questions which have hitherto
failed to attract particular attention. But before taking leave of the
whole subject it seems desirable to say a few words about the
developments of the devotion during the last two centuries, and it is
impossible to do this without touching at least briefly upon the obscure
and delicate question of the indulgences of the holy places.
If in making the Way of the Cross Catholics have come in modern times to
follow one almost uniform system throughout the world, the cause of the
uniformity is not far to seek. Even apart from the strong appeal which
our present arrangement of fourteen Stations seems to have made to the
devotional sense of the faithful, the question of indulgences must
undoubtedly have had much to say to the rapid disappearance of all rival
methods. According to the terms of the concessions made by various popes
at the instance of Friars Minor of the Observance during the last two
hundred years the grant of indulgences is, practically speaking, limited
to that form of the exercise which we use to-day, the form which was
gradually adopted in the West by the sons of St Francis, and which has
been placed by the Holy See under their special charge and direction.
That the Franciscan Order may justly claim to hold a quite exceptional
position with regard to this devotion no one will be tempted to dispute.
Ever since the thirteenth century these devoted religious have been the
official custodians of the holy places. They have borne the heat and
burden of the day during periods of great hardship, danger and
humiliation. They have remained faithful at their posts, never faltering
in their work of love, and no tongue can tell the countless services
they have rendered to successive generations of pilgrims who, thronging
from all parts of the world to this barbarous and hostile land, have
found themselves almost entirely dependent upon their good offices.
But while in this way the great work of the veneration and maintenance
of the holy places owes almost everything to the sons of St Francis, it
would not seem that down to the close of the seventeenth century we can
connect them with any definite system of honouring the Way of the Cross
in western lands. In Antwerp, as we have already seen (p. 69), they
favoured an arrangement of seven stations; at Jerusalem itself they
counted eight; on the Sacro Monte di Varallo Blessed Bernardino Caimi,
O.F.M., arranged for the erection of more than a score of chapels
leading up to Calvary.[156] Hence, although before the days of that
great apostolic preacher St Leonard of Port Maurice, the Way of the
Cross had become a practice of devotion which was almost distinctive of
the Franciscan missionaries in Italy and was much relied upon by them,
the scheme of Stations was not of their own creation. There can be no
doubt that, consciously or unconsciously, they had merely borrowed the
arrangement set out by Adrichomius and invented by Pascha, adapting the
exercise for popular use by the recitation of a few simple prayers at
each halting place and by the singing of hymns as the congregation moved
from one to another. It is only with the closing years of the
seventeenth century that we begin to meet with a certain number of papal
briefs directly connecting the Franciscans of the Observance with the
exercise of the Way of the Cross. These were granted at the instance of
the General of the Order, and they were the prelude of an important
movement which was soon to follow. It would take us a great deal too far
to attempt to enter into the exact provisions of these early papal
documents. The question all turned upon the possibility of communicating
to those who took part in the exercise of the Stations in Europe or
elsewhere the extraordinarily rich indulgences which were believed to
attach to the veneration of the actual halting places in the _Via
Dolorosa_ in Jerusalem. It is sufficient to say that this communication
of privileges was first accepted in principle by Popes Innocent XI and
XII, and that after being limited at first to those who were under the
jurisdiction of the Franciscan General, either as members of the Order
or as tertiaries, etc., it was gradually extended to those who visited
the sets of Stations erected in Franciscan churches, and finally was
placed within the reach of all the faithful who complied with certain
conditions in any church, providing that the fourteen Stations had been
canonically erected there by some priest duly empowered, either as
himself a member of the Order of Friars Minor[157] or as the appointed
delegate of their Father General.
Curiously enough it had been boldly asserted, as far back as the close
of the fifteenth century, that those who travelled to Jerusalem in
spirit only, might gain all the indulgences offered to the pilgrims who
venerated the holy places by their bodily presence. There was certainly
at that time no papal authority for any such belief, but the statement
is clearly made upon the title page of the little book of Heer Bethlem
mentioned above (see p. 79, note),[158] and is developed in the
following passage of Bethlem’s Introduction:
[Illustration: _TITLE PAGE (reduced) OF THE FRENCH EDITION OF PASCHA’S
“GHEESTELYCK PELGRIMAGIE”._ This book includes the mention of the usual
indulgences to be gained at the Holy Places (see the facsimile, p. 78)
though it does not, like Bethlem’s little manual, proclaim them on its
title-page.]
“This is the indulgence of the holy city of Calvary, which indulgence
everyone can gain who follows the painful and heavy way of the
cross-bearing of the naked, bleeding JESUS, and thinks with pity on the
bitter Passion in his inmost heart. This is not so to be understood as
if those only gained it who are in Jerusalem or who travel there, but
all persons in what place soever they are, if in their inmost heart they
turn to GOD and meditate with attention and compassion on those holy
places where this took place—as much as humanly they can—may gain this
indulgence from the mercy of GOD as often as they themselves wish, and
also as entirely as if they were in the city of Jerusalem and visited
bodily all these holy places. Still those who travel thither with great
labour and expense will, without doubt, be heard by our dear LORD
according to the greatness of their labours and their devotions. But
those who cannot come there bodily, and who with the powers of their
soul meditate on those holy places and salute them with compassion,
after the manner hereafter described, to such as these the indulgence of
the holy city of Jerusalem and of Calvary shall be as fully granted as
if they had been present there in person; because the holy popes have
given us this out of the worthy merits of the bleeding, crucified JESUS
CHRIST, our dear LORD, by His holy Wounds and precious Blood poured out,
in the same way as the indulgence of Rome is given us to be gained in
all churches. Thus those pastors give us power to lessen penalties and
remit guilt. This [indulgence] is found true and has been proved, and
all Christian men should constantly gain it, that their cold hearts may
be inflamed by the hot Blood of JESUS CHRIST as He suffered His bitter
Passion so willingly for us.”[159]
Of the fact that the indulgences of the holy places have now been
validly communicated, and are available for those who piously make the
Way of the Cross in any church in which it has been properly erected,
there can be no doubt whatever. What is not quite so clear is the
precise nature of the spiritual treasures which have been thus placed
within the reach of all the faithful. From the fourteenth century
onwards the numberless accounts which have been preserved to us of the
pilgrimage to the Holy Land make particular mention of the large
indulgences which were there to be gained upon the simple condition of
praying at each of the various shrines to which they were attached. It
would even seem that at an early date compendious lists of these holy
places, both in Jerusalem and throughout Palestine, naming each shrine
and the indulgence attached to it, were in regular use and passed from
hand to hand. We have, moreover, much evidence to show that the pilgrims
made a practice of copying out these lists and bringing them back with
them to Europe, where they too often served the writer, instead of notes
of a more personal and trustworthy character, to draw up an account of
his visit to the holy places after his return. The items mentioned in
this list and the character of the indulgences attached to them often
vary considerably; though in saying that the indulgences vary, I do not
mean that, as so often happened with devotional shrines in the West,
fantastic figures and terms of years were quoted at haphazard. Only two
types of indulgence commonly appear—the plenary, which was usually
called an indulgence _a pœna et culpa_ (remission of penalty and
guilt),[160] and the partial, which was always in these cases an
indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines (or lents). The reader
is informed in many of these relations that where a cross is marked (☩)
a plenary indulgence is to be understood; where some other symbol is
used or nothing is said, an indulgence of seven years should be assumed.
At the same time, if we compare the narratives of different pilgrims, we
find a great many discrepancies. The shrine which according to one
witness enjoys a plenary indulgence, according to another is only to be
credited with an indulgence of seven years, and in the opinion of yet a
third is not indulgenced at all.[161] The general impression derived
from these varying statements is not very favourable either to the
authenticity of the grants or to the seriousness of the effort to keep
an accurate record of them.
There is, however, one point upon which we find that the writers who
mention the matter at all, were, practically speaking, unanimous. They
maintained that the indulgences attached to the holy places were of the
most venerable antiquity. It was Pope St Silvester, they asserted, who
granted them at the prayer of the Emperor Constantine and his mother St
Helen. Thus, to take an example almost at random, Ogier d’Anglure, in
1395, distinctly asserts[162] that the said indulgences were granted at
the prayer of St Helen and of “Saint” Constantine her son. Or to quote
the still more formal assertion of Nompar de Caumont in 1419:
“CI ENSUIVENT les pérégrinations, endulgences et pardonances de peine et
de coulpe de toute la terre sainte, que je, NOPER, SEIGNEUR DE CAUMONT,
DE CHASTEAU NUEF, DE CHASTEAU CULLIER ET DE BERBEGUIÈRES, ay ensuités
par la grace Nostre Seigneur; lesquelles endulgences furent concedées de
saint Silvestre, papa, à la requeste de l’empereur Constantin et de
sainte Hellene, sa mere, et furent escriptes en la cipté de Jherusalem
le xiiie jour du mois de juillet, l’an mil ccccxix.” Which is to say, in
modern English:
“Here follow the pilgrimages, indulgences and pardons from penalty and
guilt, of all the Holy Land, the which I, Noper, Lord of Caumont of
Chasteau Nuef, of Chasteau Cullier and of Berbeguières, have duly
accomplished by the grace of our LORD. And the said indulgences were
granted by St Silvester, Pope, at the request of the Emperor Constantine
and of St Helen his mother, and they were written down [by me] in the
City of Jerusalem the thirteenth day of the month of July in the year
one thousand four hundred and nineteen.”[163]
No doubt it may very reasonably be objected that these are statements
made by irresponsible private pilgrims, laymen who would naturally in
those days have accepted without questioning any pious legend that was
current among their contemporaries. But, if this be so, we can only
attach the more importance to the deliberate utterances of the official
custodians of the holy places. Now among these a certain Brother
Francesco Suriano holds an exceptional position. He was twice over
guardian of Mount Sion (i.e., Superior of all the Franciscan communities
in Palestine) and Commissary Apostolic, and he was evidently a man of
scholarly tastes, who gave himself to research, as research was
understood in those days. Now, in his book, which he calls distinctly
“Indulgentie de Terra Sancta,” he says, with all the deliberation of a
man who has taken some pains to investigate the point, that all the
indulgences of the Holy Land, with the exception of three, were granted
by St Silvester. The other three indulgences, which he specifies, had
been granted only a few years before by Pope Sixtus IV,[164] and the
document containing them was still preserved in their archives at
Jerusalem. But the Bull of Pope Silvester, adds Fra Suriano with much
_naïveté_—he had evidently hunted for it—is not any longer to be found
there. Moreover, in another revision of his work, Suriano himself
propounds the objection that the institution of plenary indulgences was
more recent than the time of St Silvester, for the Portiuncula
indulgence of St Francis had been, he declares, the earliest example of
such a concession. To this difficulty he finds nothing better to say
than that Pope Silvester no doubt granted the indulgences in the form
which was customary in his own day. The matter, I may add, is discussed
with the same seriousness by Quaresmius, in the most careful and
authoritative of all the books ever produced by the Franciscan
custodians of the holy places. Quaresmius unhesitatingly accepts the
tradition referred to, and is at pains to refute the objections which
had been made against the possibility of St Silvester having granted
such indulgences as early as A.D. 335.
Now, the modern reader will not require to be told that the supposition
of St Silvester having granted indulgences in the time of Constantine is
absolutely inadmissible and impossible. If no better authority than that
of St Silvester can be found for these indulgences, they are
unquestionably spurious. Moreover, so far as regards the middle ages, it
is hard to understand why no record should be found at Mount Sion if the
grants had really been made by any later pope. By the end of the
fifteenth century, for example, it was generally stated that there was
an indulgence at the house of Veronica. But the numerous early pilgrims,
while mentioning other sites, say nothing of this one. Veronica’s house
had only been known for one hundred years at most, and if any indulgence
had been attached to it, the grant must have been made in quite recent
times. Yet, when Suriano wrote in 1485, no documents were preserved and
no memory existed of any such separate concession for Veronica’s house.
What is more, we find that in the numerous extant narratives of
pilgrimages earlier than about 1345 there is not the least mention of
_any_ indulgence attaching to the holy places.[165] Such detailed
accounts as those of Wilbrand de Oldenburg (1212), Burchard (1283),
Ricoldus (1294), Philippus Brusserius (_c._ 1287), Simon FitzSimon
(1322), Marino Sanuto (1321), or Lodulf Sudheim (1348) may be searched
in vain for the slightest trace of any belief to that effect.[166] It is
hard to resist the conviction that the whole complexus of these vague,
fluctuating and indefinite indulgences was apocryphal.
Now this, of course, is rather a startling conclusion, for it would
follow from it that the pilgrims who at the cost of infinite hardship,
danger and expense made their way over sea and land to pay honour to the
scenes of our LORD’S earthly life were deceived and disappointed in
their hope of generous recompense from the spiritual treasury of the
Church. Perhaps we may reasonably hold that in the case of an error so
widespread and so inculpable “the Church supplied,” and that the well
meaning pilgrims were not defrauded of their expectations. But the
element of doubt must in any case remain.
With regard to the indulgences of the holy places at a later period, and
with regard consequently to the indulgences now communicated to those
who make the Stations, matters stand upon a somewhat different footing.
It seems to have occurred to Brother Boniface of Ragusa, who was the
guardian of Mount Sion in the middle of the sixteenth century, that a
grant of indulgences attributed to Pope Silvester was not perhaps the
safest form of title-deed upon which these privileges of the Church
could be based, and he accordingly applied to Pope Pius IV for a
confirmation. This was granted in a Bull dated July 17, 1561, a copy of
which in Quaresmius’s time was preserved at Jerusalem among the archives
of the Franciscan Custodians of the Holy Places. The Bull of
confirmation is in many respects a most remarkable document. It does not
specify the indulgences which were to be confirmed, but it states that
they were said to have first been conceded by Pope St Silvester and that
they were enumerated upon a certain “tabella” in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre at Jerusalem. When Quaresmius wrote, not much more than fifty
years later, he, though himself the successor of Brother Boniface in the
office of guardian of Mount Sion, was quite in the dark as to what this
“tabella” might be. He knew of nothing of the sort preserved in the Holy
Sepulchre Church, but he conjectures that the Bull must refer to a copy
of that widely circulated list of the shrines and their indulgences to
which we have made reference above. That Pius IV should have confirmed a
list of indulgences which professed to emanate from St Silvester but
were quite indeterminate in their nature does not seem a very
satisfactory proceeding. Neither is the case improved by the clause in
the Bull to the effect that the indulgences “are conceded anew in the
same manner and form in which they were originally granted.” At the same
time the terms of the document leave no doubt that Pius IV intended to
remedy all defects and to make a new grant in case the former concession
was invalid. How far this Bull of confirmation can be treated as of
undoubted force and authority I must leave to more learned theologians
to determine. Without in the least questioning the genuineness of the
instrument itself, it seems to me to offer certain weak points to an
opponent who might be disposed to argue that the Bull was void, owing to
the irregular form in which it had been drafted.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the document is the manifest
intention of the framer to tie the hands of succeeding pontiffs. Apart
from the ordinary _non obstantibus_ clauses familiar in such concessions
and the equally familiar formula that the privilege conceded is to
“endure for ever,” the Pope seems distinctly to contemplate the case of
some subsequent enactment which might revoke his grant. “We declare
these present letters,” he says, “to be in no wise included under any
dispositions to a contrary effect which may emanate on occasion from us
and from the Roman Pontiffs our successors, but seeing the remoteness of
these holy places and their sanctity, we declare these present letters
to be always excepted from any such dispositions, and as often as they
shall be issued so often shall these letters of ours be restored to
their primitive and most vigorous state ... and shall be granted and be
held to be granted anew.” Let us hasten to admit that the text of the
Bull by no means reads so simply and straightforwardly as I have
rendered it. There are several intervening clauses which I have omitted,
and of one of these I can make no sense whatever. The tenses also as
printed by Quaresmius are quite untranslatable. But, in spite of this
the general meaning seems plainly to be what I have stated. All things
considered, it is probable that we ought to lay stress upon the words
_attenta locorum distantia et religione_, and to conclude that this
portion of the document is intended to protect the holy places from any
ill-considered general clause in some future papal constitution revoking
such concessions. It was no doubt meant that the indulgences attached to
the holy places should remain in force until there had been time to
represent the matter, and to obtain a final decision upon this special
point direct from the Holy See. Whether such provision for the automatic
reviviscence of privileges, in case a subsequent pontiff should attempt
to abrogate them, was _ultra vires concedentis_, and whether a
concession _ultra vires_ invalidates the whole document in which it is
contained, I leave for canonists to determine.
It should also perhaps be noticed here that when Clement XII, in 1731,
issued his instructions for making the Way of the Cross in public, the
following regulation was included among the rest:
“No announcement should be made either from the pulpit or otherwise, and
still less by any written placard set up in the chapels or attached to
the Stations, to publish in definite numbers the amount of the
indulgences which may be gained by performing the Stations. It has often
been discovered that either by inadvertence or by error, or by confusion
between one devotion and another, the true character of the indulgences
has been wrongly represented. Consequently it will be sufficient to say
that whoever meditates on the Passion of our LORD during these holy
exercises, by the concession of the sovereign Pontiffs, will gain the
same indulgences as if he had personally visited the Stations of the
Cross in Jerusalem.”
In his treatise on the Way of the Cross, St Leonard of Port Maurice, at
whose instance this instruction of Clement XII had been issued, declares
that the regulation just quoted had been made for very wise reasons; for
the catalogues which contained authentic details of these indulgences of
Jerusalem had been destroyed by fire in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
in the time of St Pius V (1566-1572). Be it said in passing that there
seems to be no record of any such fire. Quaresmius, who was the superior
of the Franciscans in Jerusalem a little more than fifty years
afterwards and who was anxious to explain the disappearance of the
_tabulæ_, makes no mention of a conflagration in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. On the contrary we know that the building remained intact
from the middle ages to the great fire of 1808. Again it is remarkable
that Suriano (_c._ 1495), who was equally guardian of Mount Sion, makes
no mention of any “authentic” catalogue of indulgences, although he has
every reason to touch upon the subject in the various redactions of his
“Indulgentie de Terra Santa.” Supposing, with Quaresmius and Ferraris,
that the lost _tabulæ_ were simply a copy of one of the old medieval
lists of which we have spoken, we may note that for Quaresmius, who had
such a list before him, the Stations of the Cross from the Prætorium to
the Holy Sepulchre apparently included six plenary and five partial
indulgences. The guide books at the present day indicate six plenary and
eight partial indulgences. But the variations in the estimates of the
indulgences attaching to the _Via Crucis_ had best be studied in the
tabular statement of the data given by various authorities both before
and after the Bull of Pius IV, which will be found in the Appendix. In
any case these indulgences are extremely moderate when compared with
those alleged to belong to the Stations at Rome.
We have already said that the greatest development of the Way of the
Cross as a popular devotion dates back to the time of St Leonard of Port
Maurice, O.F.M. (he died in 1751), being due partly to the immense zeal
with which he propagated this practice of piety, partly to the favour
which he enjoyed with Popes Clement XII and Benedict XIV. It was the
latter Pontiff who, in 1750, erected the Stations of the Cross in the
Coliseum, the great ruined amphitheatre of ancient Rome, and there the
exercise used to be conducted processionally every Friday afternoon down
to the time of the Italian occupation. Under the influence mainly of the
Franciscan Fathers of the Observance, the devotion of the Stations
spread rapidly from Italy throughout Europe, in the same form,
practically speaking, in which it is familiar to us at the present day.
In England it does not appear to have become at all generally known
before about 1845, and we may probably attribute its introduction to the
devotional revival which took place among English Catholics about that
date, under the influence of such men as Dr Gentili, Father Ignatius
Spencer and other representatives of a more ultramontane tradition. None
the less a booklet upon the Way of the Cross, which was published in
Rome in 1834 and was indulgenced by Pope Gregory XVI for private
recitation with the same indulgences as if the exercise were performed
in a church, was translated into English and issued about 1835 from the
Propaganda Press. It seems to have been intended for use in all
English-speaking countries, and I have seen a copy printed at Sydney,
Australia, in 1840.
Of the conditions regulating the practice of the Stations of the Cross
at the present day I may be content to say only a very few words. All
the larger modern treatises on indulgences, for example those of
Beringer and Mocchegiani, afford the fullest information upon every
question that is likely to arise. For the proper performance of the
exercise and the gaining of the indulgences it is in the first place
necessary that the Stations should be properly erected. This involves
the obtaining of the permission of the bishop and the parish priest, and
the blessing of the Stations on the spot, according to a specially
appointed form, by a Franciscan or some other priest duly empowered for
the purpose. The sculptures or pictures need not be blessed, but the
crosses which are fastened to them must. These crosses are bound to be
of wood, and it is to them that the blessing attaches. In other words,
the pictures or sculptures may be replaced as long as the crosses
remain. The Stations must be fourteen in number, and should be separated
the one from the other by some little interval, while the subjects
depicted upon them are not optional, but must be those mentioned in the
papal constitutions. Lest any scruple or popular deception should arise
from some flaw in the observance of these conditions in the past, the
Holy See has several times issued decrees declaring all the sets of
Stations, which up to a certain date had been exposed in churches for
the veneration of the faithful, validly erected and duly indulgenced,
thus supplying for any accidental defect.[167]
With regard to the exercise itself three things only are required: first
meditation on the Passion of CHRIST; secondly, the moving from station
to station; thirdly, that the whole fourteen stations should be visited
continuously, that is to say, without any notable interruption.
Supposing the state of grace on the part of the person performing the
exercise, the indulgences may be fully gained by the devout observance
of these three conditions. Moreover, according to the more probable
opinion they may be gained _toties quoties_, i.e., as many times in the
day as the exercise is repeated. No recitation of a specified number of
“Our Fathers” or “Hail Marys” is prescribed as of obligation; neither is
it necessary to meditate upon the subject of each successive station as
it is visited in order. Meditation on the Passion in general is
sufficient. With regard to the moving from place to place recent decrees
have approved the practice of the congregation remaining in their seats
when the exercise is being publicly made in a crowded church. Some
little external indication that the procession is being mentally
followed, as the priest and acolytes pass from one station to another,
is all that is recommended.
In practice it is customary when the exercise is performed in public to
follow the prayers now to be found in almost every prayerbook. The
officially approved “Manual of Prayers for Congregational Use” embodies
a concise form of the devotion translated from the Italian of St
Alphonsus Liguori. In passing from station to station a strophe of the
_Stabat Mater_ is usually sung.
Finally, it should be noticed that for the benefit of invalids,
prisoners and others who are unable to obtain access to the stations in
a public church, Fathers of the Franciscan Order have power to
communicate the stational indulgence to crucifixes for private use. To
gain the indulgence it is only necessary to hold the crucifix in the
hand and to say twenty Our Fathers, Hail Marys and Glorias with
contrition and devotion. For those who are too ill to make this physical
effort the conditions may be rendered less onerous.
Footnote 155:
I may refer in particular to the long essay or series of essays upon
the Way of the Cross to be found in the eighth volume of the collected
works of Mgr Barbier de Montault, pp. 14-271.
Footnote 156:
At present there seem to be some forty-four chapels in all.
Footnote 157:
These powers were originally committed to the Franciscan Observantines
alone. They have been subsequently extended to the Recollect and
Capuchin branches of the Order.
Footnote 158:
As to Bethlem’s book, see further in Appendix A. The great popularity
of this little treatise both in France and the Netherlands must have
made the idea of the communication of indulgences very familiar. It is
for this reason perhaps that the indulgences are also inserted in
Pascha’s “Spiritual Pilgrimage.” See facsimile at page 88 above.
Footnote 159:
The indulgences specified by Bethlem are more ample than those found
in the ordinary lists, and include, for instance, one of thirty-three
thousand years attached to the House of Veronica.
Footnote 160:
I may perhaps be allowed to refer the reader to what I have written on
this subject in the “Dublin Review,” January, 1900, and in “The Holy
Year of Jubilee” (Sands and Co.), pp. 324-349.
Footnote 161:
For example, the place where our LORD met His blessed Mother is stated
by Fabri (1483) and Suriano (1495) to possess a plenary indulgence. By
N. de Martoni (1394), by Wey (1465), and by Quaresmius (1625) only a
partial indulgence of seven years is mentioned. Others like Sigoli
(1384) omit it altogether. Again, Suriano, Martoni and Wey assign a
seven years’ indulgence to the stone which marked the last Fall.
Sigoli and Fabri speak of a plenary; Quaresmius omits it. See the
tabular statement in the Appendix.
Footnote 162:
Ogier d’Anglure, ed. Bonnardot, p. 13.
Footnote 163:
“Voyage d’Oultremer de Nompar de Caumont,” ed. La Grange, p. 59; Cf.
Röhricht, “Bibliotheca,” p. 101.
Footnote 164:
This was a grant of a plenary indulgence for the chapel of St Helen in
the church of the Holy Sepulchre, for that of St Thomas on Mount Sion,
and that of St Mary Magdalen at Bethany.
Footnote 165:
Niccolò da Poggibonsi (1346) is the earliest pilgrim I know who gives
a detailed account of the indulgences of the holy places.
Footnote 166:
This is the more noteworthy when we find pilgrims to Rome at a much
earlier date than this making the most elaborate calculations of the
indulgences they gained. See, e.g., Giraldus Cambrensis in his
“Speculum Ecclesiæ” (_c._ 1200).
Footnote 167:
The last decree of this kind seems to have been issued in 1896.
Appendix A—Heer Bethlem’s “Overwegingen”
A clue which I have only been able to follow up since the foregoing
pages were in type leads to the conclusion that in some of its aspects
the practice of making spiritual pilgrimages to the Holy Land is rather
older than I had supposed. The substance of the little book of Heer
Bethlem referred to on pp. 77-79, must undoubtedly have been compiled in
the fifteenth century. Besides the British Museum Manuscript (Ad. 24937)
another MS. copy of the same tractate exists at Göttingen (MS. Theol.
295, i)[168] and a fragment of the same is contained in MS. 406 of the
Pauline Library at Münster.[169] Now as in each case the manuscripts are
described by competent authority as belonging to the fifteenth century,
it would be unreasonable to doubt that Heer Bethlem’s little work must
be somewhat older than say the year 1490. On the other hand, as Pope
Sixtus IV is mentioned, it must be more recent than the year 1471. The
proper title seems to be “Overwegingen op het Lijden des Heeren voor
degenen, die in den Geest de heilige Plaatsen willen bezoeken”
(Considerations upon the Passion of our Lord for those who wish to visit
the Holy Places in spirit). Although the considerations began as far
back as the Last Supper, it is strictly a book of the Stations of the
Cross; the distances from place to place are given, the indulgences
announced and special prayers assigned. Here we find for the first time
the reception of the cross mentioned as a separate station, and here
also a fall is distinctly alluded to in connexion with the Judicial
Gate. These points at least have seemingly been borrowed by Pascha from
Bethlem’s little book. The book was printed in 1518, 1520, 1536 and
1561. It has also been transcribed and reprinted in modern times in the
“Bijdragen voor de Geschiedendis van het Bisdom van Haarlem,” by C. J.
Gonnet, vol. XI, p. 324.
This Appendix was itself in type when at the very last moment I have
found it possible to push the enquiry a stage further. The little tract
ascribed to Heer Bethlem must undoubtedly have had a wide circulation.
Tiny as it is, and in consequence exceptionally liable to be thrown
aside and destroyed, we have already accounted for four Dutch editions.
And now it appears that it must have been popular in France as well, for
I have discovered two printed French translations in the library of the
British Museum.[170] The first may be dated conjecturally 1550, and was
published by Jacques Kerver at Paris with this title: “Devote Meditation
sur la Mort et Passion de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ et de place en
place ou nostre Sauveur a souffert pour nous, avec les oraisons a ce
proprices. Et disent quelques uns qu’autant de fois qu’on les dict
devotement, on gaigne tous les pardons aussi pleinement comme si on
visitoit corporellement toutes les sainctes places en Hierusalem.” In
this version a good deal of matter—mostly French verse—has been
interpolated. The second translation keeps closer to the original. It
seems to have been printed about 1570 by Guillaume Merlin at Paris. The
title runs thus: “Sensuyt une devote meditation sur la Mort et Passion
de nostre Sauveur et Redempteur Jesus Christ, avec les mesures mises de
place en place ou nostre Seigneur a souffert pour nous.”
Among the introductory remarks we read: “Item un honorable homme
d’eglise, nommé Sire Barthelemy, qui a demouré long temps en la terre de
promission en la cité de Hierusalem a descript ce livre devot. Et il a
mesuré bien etroictement et descript toutes les places sainctes ou
nostre benoist sauveur et redempteur a souffert pour nous.” The author,
therefore, according to this translator, was called Bartholomew. Whether
“Bethlem” was a legitimate form of this name, or whether it was due to
some error, I am not sufficiently acquainted with Flemish to determine.
But there seems in any case reason to suppose that _Bethlem_ was not the
original form. About the year 1475 a tiny volume was printed at “Aesii”
(i.e., Jesi in the Marches of Ancona), which professed to give the
indulgences of the Holy Land and which were written by a certain
BARTHOLOMEW, Canon of Pola in Istria. Now I believe, from various minor
indications too long to detail, that this Bartholomew is no other than
our Bethlem. From a copy of this rare little treatise preserved in the
Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris we learn that the title begins: “Queste
sono le perdonanzze de terra sancta in ierusalem, lequelle scrise prete
bartolome, chanonicho de puole, el quale ando a vixitare lo sancto
sepulchro,” etc. The printer was Frederick de Comitibus. See Pellechet,
“Catalogue des Incunables,” vol. I.
Footnote 168:
See “Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate,”
Göttingen, vol. II, p. 477.
Footnote 169:
See J. Ständer, “Chirographorum Catalogus,” p. 92.
Footnote 170:
I do not think it would be extravagant to suppose that for one edition
which has survived of such a book, five or six have left no trace of
their existence.
Appendix B.—TABLE _of_ INDULGENCES
Name I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV
N. da Poggibonsi + _ _ _ _ _ _ +1 + _ _ ☦ ☦2 ☦
(1346)
James of Verona(3) + _ _ _ + + _ _ ☦ _ _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(c. 1375)
Simone Sigoli (1384) + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ☦4 +5 _ ☦ ☦ ☦
N. de Martoni (1394) _ _ _ + _ _ _ +6 + + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
d’ Anglure (1395) + _ _ + + _ _ +8 _ _ ☦ ☦ _ ☦
Nompar de Caumont ☦ _ _ + +9 _ _ _ + + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1418)
Georg Pfintzing ☦ _ _ + +9 _ _ _ + _ _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1436)
Wey (1458) ☦ _ _ + + + _ + + + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
Bethlem (? 1475) ☦ + ☦ ☦ + + ☦ _ _ + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
Voyage de la Sainte _ _ _ + +9 _ _ _ + _ _ ☦ ☦ ☦
Cité (1480)
Felix Fabri (1483) ☦ _ _ ☦ ☦ + _ + ☦12 + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
Francesco Suriano ☦ _ _ ☦ + + _ _ + + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1490)
Claes van Dusen(13) ☦ _ _ + + ☦ _ + _ + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1495)
Philip van Hagen + _ ☦ + + + _ + _ + _ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1523)
Quaresmius (1624) ☦ _ _ + + + _ _ _ + ☦ ☦ ☦ ☦
Pietr’ Antonio ☦ _ _ + + + _ _ _ _ ☦ ☦ ☦ ☦
(1700)
Antonio do ☦ _ + + + + + + + ☦ ☦ ☦ ☦ ☦
Sacramento (1748)
Liévin (1876) ☦ ☦ + + + + + + + + ☦ ☦ ☦ ☦
Name E.H. Phar. Dives J.G.
N. da Poggibonsi _ + _ _
(1346)
James of Verona (c. _ + + _
1375)
Simone Sigoli (1384) _ + _ _
N. de Martoni (1394) _ _ _ +7
d’ Anglure (1395) _ _ _ _
Nompar de Caumont +10 _ + _
(1418)
Georg Pfintzing _ + _ _
(1436)
Wey (1458) ☦11 _ _ ☦
Bethlem (? 1475) + _ _ _
Voyage de la Sainte ☦ _ _ +
Cité (1480)
Felix Fabri (1483) + + + _
Francesco Suriano + ☦ + _
(1490)
Claes van Dusen(13) + + + _
(1495)
Philip van Hagen _ + + _
(1523)
Quaresmius (1624) ☦ + _ +
Pietr’ Antonio ☦ _ _ +
(1700)
Antonio do ☦ ☦ _ _
Sacramento (1748)
Liévin (1876) ☦ _ _ _
I—Pilate. II—Cross. III—First Fall. IV—Mary. V—Simon. VI—Veronica.
VII—Second Fall. VIII—Women. IX—Third Fall. X—Stripping. XI—Nailing.
XII—Crucifixion. XIII—Pieta. XIV—Sepulchre. E.H.—Ecce Homo Arch.
Phar.—Pharisee. Dives—Dives. J.G.—Judicial Gate.
+: Plenary Indulgence.
☦: Indulgence of Seven Years and Seven Lents.
_Notes to Appendix B—Table of Indulgences_
1. Poggibonsi supposes the meetings with Mary, the women of Jerusalem
and Simon to have all taken place at same spot.
2. I take the indulgences attached to the Stone of Unction as the
equivalent of an indulgence for the thirteenth station.
3. These indulgences are marked in the _Proœmium_ to James of Verona’s
journey. This is almost certainly a later interpolation. The journey
itself took place in 1335.
4. “Where Simon came to help Him,” says Sigoli. He means where Simon
ceased to help Him.
5. I take the place of the casting of lots as the equivalent of the
stripping.
6. He says “the three Marys,” but he means the women.
7. This might perhaps be counted as an indulgence for the seventh
station.
8. Here CHRIST took the cross from Simon again.
9. Nompar and others suppose that CHRIST met Simon and the women at the
same spot.
10. The two stones on which CHRIST rested.
11. Wey mentions, “porta civitatis per quam JESUS fuit ductus ad
mortem”; it is not clear whether he refers to the Judicial Gate or
the _Ecce Homo_ Arch.
12. This assigning a plenary indulgence to the stone in the courtyard is
no accidental oversight, but the statement is twice repeated at
length.
13. Claes van Dusen made eleven successive pilgrimages to Jerusalem in
eleven successive years.
Appendix C—Relative Antiquity of the Various Stations
In “La Palestine, Guide Historique,” by the Assumptionist Professors of
Notre Dame de Sion a list is given of the Stations with the dates of
their earliest appearance in the narratives of pilgrims to the Holy
Land. As my conclusions differ in many respects from those there
enunciated, a few notes may be added upon this subject.
I. The Prætorium seems perhaps to be first quite unmistakably assigned
to the site which has now become traditional by Riccoldo (1296), and
this, as I judge, for the thoroughly sound and scientific reason that
the Prætorium must have lain within the city wall, and consequently
could not have been situated on Mount Sion. They accordingly located it
where there were signs of the existence of a paved courtyard
(_lithostrotos_) near the _Ecce Homo_ Arch.
II. The receiving of the cross is first indicated as a special object of
devotion by Bethlem, _c._ 1475. See above, p. 78.
III. The idea of the first of a series of falls, as distinct from the
fall at the corner where the station of Simon of Cyrene used to be
indicated, is also clearly traceable to Bethlem. He and other
contemporaries suppose that this first fall took place upon the steps of
the Scala Santa outside Pilate’s Prætorium.
IV and V. The meetings with our Lady and with Simon of Cyrene seem first
to be plainly commemorated in Riccoldo 1296.
VI. Veronica’s house first appears amongst the holy places of Jerusalem
in the Proœmium of James of Verona. This pilgrimage was made in 1335,
but the Proœmium must be a later addition. It is, however, in any case
older than 1420.
VII. A fall at the gate of the city is very clearly indicated in the
preface to Burchard, 1283. Possibly it was from this source that Bethlem
(? 1475) came to speak of “a heavy fall” at the Judicial Gate.
VIII. The meeting with the women of Jerusalem is mentioned by most
pilgrims of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, though they
consider that it is closely associated with the coming of Simon of
Cyrene. Our LORD spoke to the women as soon as He was relieved of the
weight of the cross and was in consequence able to raise His head.
IX. Verona (1335) and Poggibonsi (1346) speak of the stone in the
courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, upon which our SAVIOUR
fell, or, as other accounts say, rested for a while when climbing the
steep of Calvary.
X, XI, XII. These stations are made prominent as separate incidents by
Pascha (?_c._ 1539). The stripping appears among the seven Falls before
1500. See pp. 65, 72 and 73.
XIII and XIV. It can by no means be said, as in “La Palestine, Guide
Historique,” that the thirteenth and fourteenth stations were only added
to the Way of the Cross in the eighteenth century at the earliest. Both
these episodes are separately commemorated and illustrated by pictures
in the “Geystlich Strass,” 1521. See illustration above at p. 154.
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the psalms in which they are
referenced.