_S. CÆCILIA_
In 1876, when I was writing the November volume of my “Lives of the
Saints,” and had to deal with the Acts of S. Cæcilia, I saw at once that
they were eminently untrustworthy—they were, in fact, a religious
romance, very similar to others of the like nature; and my mistrust was
deepened when I found that the name of Cæcilia did not appear in either
the Roman Kalendar of the fourth century, nor in the Carthagenian of the
fifth.
The Acts were in Greek, and it was not till the time of Pope Gelasius
(496) that her name appeared at all prominently; then he introduced it
into his Sacramentary.
The Acts as we have them cannot be older than the fifth century, and
contain gross anachronisms. They make her suffer when Urban was Pope,
under an apocryphal prefect, Turcius Almachius; but the date of Pope
Urban was in the reign of Alexander Severus, who did not persecute the
Church at all—who, in fact, favoured the Christians.
But although there is so much to make one suspicious as to the very
existence of S. Cæcilia, a good many facts have been brought to light
which are sufficient to show that it was the stupidity of the composer
of the apocryphal Acts which has thrown such doubt over the Virgin
Martyr.
If we eliminate what is obviously due to the romantic imagination of the
author of the Acts in the fifth century, the story reduces itself to
this.
Cæcilia was a maiden of noble family, and her parents were of senatorial
rank. From her earliest youth she was brought up as a Christian, but
that her father was one is doubtful, as he destined his daughter to
become the wife of an honourable young patrician named Valerian, who
was, however, a pagan.
Cæcilia would not hear of the marriage on this account; and Valerian,
who loved her dearly, by her advice went to Urban the Pope, who was
living in concealment in the Catacomb in the Appian Way, to learn
something about the Faith. Valerian took with him his brother,
Tiburtius; they were both convinced, were baptised, and, as they
confessed Christ, suffered martyrdom; and the officer who arrested them,
named Maximus, also believed and underwent the same fate. All three were
laid in the Catacomb of Prætextatus.
Cæcilia, in the meantime, had remained unmolested in her father’s house
in Rome.
The Prefect resolved to have her put to death privately, as she belonged
to an illustrious family, perhaps also in consideration for her father,
still a heathen.
He gave orders that the underground passages for heating the winter
apartments should be piled with wood, and an intense fire made, and that
the room in which Cæcilia was should be closed, so that she should die
of suffocation. This was done, but she survived the attempt. This is by
no means unlikely. The walls were heated by pipes through which the hot
air passed, and there was a thick pavement of concrete and mosaic
between the fires and the room. Everything depended on the chamber being
shut up, and there being no air admitted; but it is precisely this
latter requisite that could not be assured. In her own house, where the
slaves were warmly attached to her, nothing would be easier than to
withdraw the cover of the opening in the ceiling, by means of which
ventilation was secured. By some means or other air was admitted, and
although, doubtless, Cæcilia suffered discomfort from the great heat,
yet she was not suffocated.
The chamber was the _Calidarium_, or hot-air bath attached to the
palace, and in the church of S. Cæcilia in Trastevere a portion of this
is still visible.
As the attempt had failed, the Prefect sent an executioner to kill her
with the sword.
Her beauty, youth, and grace, so affected the man that, although he
smote thrice at her throat, he did not kill her. It was against the law
to strike more than thrice, so he left her prostrate on the mosaic floor
bathed in her blood.
No sooner was the executioner gone than from all sides poured in her
relatives, the slaves, and the faithful to see her, and to receive the
last sigh of the Martyr. They found her lying on the marble pavement,
half conscious only, and they dipped their kerchiefs in her blood, and
endeavoured to staunch the wounds in her throat.
She lingered two days and nights in the same condition, and without
moving, hanging between life and death; and then—so say the Acts—Pope
Urban arrived, braving the risk, from his hiding-place, to say farewell
to his dear daughter in the Faith. Thereupon she turned to him,
commended to him the care of the poor, entreated her father to surrender
his house to the Church, and expired. In the Acts she addresses the Pope
as “Your Beatitude,” an expression used in the fifth century, and
certainly not in the third.
She died, as she had lain, her face to the ground, her hands and arms
declining on the right, as she rested on that side.
The same night her body was enclosed in a cypress chest, and was
conveyed to the cemetery of S. Callixtus, where Urban laid it in a
chamber “near that in which reposed his brother prelates and martyrs.”
So far the legend. Now let us see whether it is possible to reconcile it
with history.
In the first place, it is to be observed that the whole of the
difficulty lies with Urban being Pope. If we suppose that in the
original Acts the name was simply “Urban the Bishop,” and that the
remodeller of the Acts took the liberty of transforming him into Pope
Urban, the difficulty vanishes at once. He may have been some regionary
bishop in hiding. He may not have been a bishop at all, but a priest;
and the writer, ignorant of history, and knowing only of the Urbans as
Popes, may have given rise to all this difficulty by transforming him
into a Pope.
Now, in the Acts, the Prefect does not speak of the Emperor, but of
“Domini nostri invictissimi principes” (our Lords the unconquered
Princes). The Emperor, therefore, cannot have been Alexander. Now, Ado
the martyrologist, in or about 850, must have referred to other Acts
than those we possess, for he enters S. Cæcilia as having suffered under
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus—that is to say, in 177. This explains the
Prefect referring to the orders of the Princes.
If we take this as the date, and Urban as being a priest or bishop of
the time, the anachronisms are at an end.
That the Acts should have been in Greek is no proof that they were not
drawn up in Rome, for Greek was the language of the Church there, and
indeed the majority of the most ancient inscriptions in the Catacombs
are in that language.
So much for the main difficulties. Now let us see what positive
evidences we have to substantiate the story.
The excavation of the Cemetery of S. Callixtus, which was begun in 1854,
and was carried on with great care by De Rossi, led to the clearing out
of a crypt in which the early Bishops of Rome had been laid. The bodies
had been removed when Paschal I. conveyed so many of those of the saints
and martyrs into Rome, on account of the ruin into which the Catacombs
had fallen, but their epitaphs remained, all of the third century, and
in Greek; among these, that of Urbanus, 230; and it was perhaps
precisely this fact which led the recomposer of the Acts to confound the
Urban of S. Cæcilia’s time with the Pope. The first Pope known to have
been laid there was Zephyrinus, in 218. Here also was found an
inscription set up by Damasus I., recording how that the bodies of
bishops and priests, virgins and confessors lay in that place.
Now by a narrow, irregular opening in the rock, entrance is obtained to
a further chamber, about twenty feet square, lighted by a _luminare_ in
the top, or an opening to the upper air cut in the tufa. This, there can
be no manner of doubt, is the crypt in which reposed the body of S.
Cæcilia.
In the Acts it was said to adjoin that in which were laid the Bishops of
Rome; though, as these bishops were of later date than Cæcilia, if we
take her death to have been in 177, their crypt must have been dug out
or employed for the purpose of receiving their bodies at a later period.
Again, it is an interesting fact, that here a number of the tombstones
that have been discovered bear the Cæcilian name, showing that this
cemetery must have belonged to that _gens_ or clan. Not only so, but one
is inscribed with that of Septimus Prætextatus Cæcilianus, a servant of
God during thirty years. It will be remembered that Prætextatus was the
name of the brother of Valerian, who was betrothed to Cæcilia, and it
leads one to suspect that the families of Valerian and of Cæcilia were
akin.
The chapel or crypt contains frescoes. In the _luminare_ is painted a
female figure with the hands raised in prayer. Beneath this a cross with
a lamb on each side. Below are three male figures with the names
Sebastianus, Curinus (Quirinus), and Polycamus. Sebastian is doubtless
the martyr of that name whose basilica is not far off. Quirinus, who has
the _corona_ of a priest, is the bishop and martyr of Siscia, whose body
was brought in 420 to Rome. Of Polycamus nothing is known, save that his
relics were translated in the ninth century to S. Prassede.
Against the wall lower down is a seventh-century representation of S.
Cæcilia, richly clothed with necklace and bracelets; below a head of
Christ of Byzantine type, and a representation of S. Urban. But these
paintings, which are late, have been applied over earlier decoration;
behind the figure of S. Cæcilia is mosaic, and that of Christ is painted
on the old porphyry panelling. There are in this crypt recesses for the
reception of bodies, and near the entrance an arched place low enough to
receive a sarcophagus; and there are traces as though the face had at
one time been walled up.
The walls are covered with _graffiti_, or scribbles made by pilgrims. An
inscription also remains, to state that this was the sepulchre of S.
Cæcilia the Martyr, but this inscription is not earlier than the ninth
or tenth century.
In 817 Paschal I. was Pope, and in the following year he removed
enormous numbers of the remains of martyrs from the Catacombs into the
churches of Rome, because the condition into which these subterranean
cemeteries were falling was one of ruin. They had been exposed to the
depredations of the Lombards, and then to decay. Some had fallen in, and
were choked.
Precisely this Catacomb had been plundered by the Lombard king, Astulf,
and it was not known whether he had carried off the body of S. Cæcilia
or not. All those of the former popes Paschal removed.
In 844, however, Paschal pretended that he had seen S. Cæcilia in a
dream, who had informed him that she still lay in her crypt in the
Catacomb of S. Callixtus. No reliance can be placed on the word of a man
so unprincipled as Paschal. At this very time two men of the highest
rank, who were supporters of Louis the Pious, the Emperor, had been
seized, dragged to the Lateran Palace, their eyes plucked out, and then
beheaded. The Pope was openly accused of this barbarous act. The Emperor
sent envoys to examine into it, but Paschal threw all sorts of
difficulties in their way. He refused to produce the murderers; he
asserted that they were guilty of no crime in killing these unfortunate
men, and he secured the assassins by investing them with a half-sacred
character as servants of the Church of S. Peter. Himself he exculpated
from all participation in the deed by a solemn, expurgatorial oath. Such
was the man who pretended to visions of the saints. His dream was an
afterthought. In the clearing out of the crypt of S. Cæcilia, the wall
that had closed the grave was broken through, and the cypress chest was
disclosed. Whereupon Paschal promptly declared he had dreamt that so it
would be found. The body was found in the coffin, incorrupt, and at its
feet were napkins rolled together and stained with blood.
This discovery, which seems wholly improbable, is yet not impossible. If
the _arcosolium_ had been hermetically sealed up, the body need not have
fallen to dust; and, as a fact, De Rossi did discover, along with
Marchi, in 1853, a body in the Via Appia, without the smallest trace of
alteration and decay in the bones.[1]
Paschal himself relates that he lined the chest with fringed silk, and
covered the body with a silk veil. It was then enclosed in a sarcophagus
of white marble, and laid under the high altar of the Church of S.
Cæcilia in Trastevere.
This church has been made out of the old house of S. Cæcilia, and to
this day, notwithstanding rebuildings, it bears traces of its origin.
Nearly eight hundred years after this translation, Sfondrati, cardinal
of S. Cæcilia, being about to carry on material alterations in the
basilica, came on the sarcophagus lying in a vault under the altar. It
was not alone—another was with it.
In the presence of witnesses one of these was opened. It contained a
coffin or chest of cypress wood. The Cardinal himself removed the cover.
First was seen the costly lining and the silken veil, with which nearly
eight centuries before Paschal had covered the body. It was faded, but
not decayed, and through the almost transparent texture could be seen
the glimmer of the gold of the garments in which the martyr was clad.
After a pause of a few minutes, the Cardinal lifted the veil, and
revealed the form of the maiden martyr lying in the same position in
which she had died on the floor of her father’s hall. Neither Urban nor
Paschal had ventured to alter that. She lay there, clothed in a garment
woven with gold thread, on which were the stains of blood; and at her
feet were the rolls of linen mentioned by Paschal, as found with the
body. She was lying on her right side, the arms sunk from the body, her
face turned to the ground; the knees slightly bent and drawn together.
The attitude was that of one in a deep sleep. On the throat were the
marks of the wounds dealt by the clumsy executioner.
Thus she had lain, preserved from decay through thirteen centuries.
When this discovery was made, Pope Clement VIII. was lying ill at
Frascati, but he empowered Cardinal Baronius and Bosio, the explorer of
the Catacombs, to examine into the matter; and both of these have left
an account of the condition in which the body was found. For five weeks
all Rome streamed to the church to see the body; and it was not until S.
Cæcilia’s Day that it was again sealed up in its coffin and marble
sarcophagus.
Cardinal Sfondrati gave a commission to the sculptor Maderna to
reproduce the figure of the Virgin Martyr in marble in the attitude in
which found, and beneath this is the inscription:—“So I show to you in
marble the representation of the most holy Virgin Cæcilia, in the same
position in which I myself saw her incorrupt lying in her sepulchre.”
A woodcut was published at the time of the discovery figuring it, but
this is now extremely scarce.
In the second sarcophagus were found the bones of three men; two, of the
same age and size, had evidently died by decapitation. The third had its
skull broken, and the abundant hair was clotted with blood, as though
the martyr had been beaten to death and his skull fractured with the
_plumbatæ_ or leaded scourges.
The Acts of S. Cæcilia expressly say that this was the manner of death
of Maximus. The other two bodies were doubtless those of Valerian and
Tiburtius.
Of the statue by Maderna, Sir Charles Bell says: “The body lies on its
side, the limbs a little drawn up; the hands are delicate and fine—they
are not locked, but crossed at the wrists; the arms are stretched out.
The drapery is beautifully modelled, and modestly covers the limbs....
It is the statue of a lady, perfect in form, and affecting from the
resemblance to reality in the drapery of the white marble, and the
unspotted appearance of the statue altogether. It lies as no living body
could lie, and yet correctly, as the dead when left to expire—I mean in
the gravitation of the limbs.”
S. Cæcilia is associated with music: she is regarded as the patroness of
the organ. This is entirely due to the highly imaginative Acts of the
Fifth and Sixth Century.
“Orpheus could lead the savage race;
And trees uprooted left their place,
Sequacious of the lyre:
But bright Cæcilia rais’d the wonder higher:
When to her organ vocal breath was given,
An angel heard, and straight appear’d,
Mistaking earth for heaven.”
So sang Dryden. Chaucer has given the Legend of S. Cæcilia as the Second
Nun’s Tale in the Canterbury Pilgrimage.
There is a marvellous collection of ancient statues in Rome, in the
Torlonia Gallery. It was made by the late Prince Torlonia. Unhappily, he
kept three sculptors in constant employ over these ancient statues,
touching them up, adding, mending, altering. It is a vast collection,
and now the Torlonia family desire to sell it; but no one will buy, for
no one can trust any single statue therein; no one knows what is ancient
and what is new. The finest old works are of no value, because of the
patching and correcting to which they have been subjected.
It is the same with the Acts of the Martyrs: they have been tinkered at
and “improved” in the fifth and sixth centuries, and even later, no
doubt with the best intention, but with the result that they have—or
many of them have—lost credit altogether.
What a buyer of statuary from the Torlonia Gallery would insist on
doing, would be to drag the statues out into the sunshine and go over
them with a microscope and see where a piece of marble had been added,
or where a new face had been put on old work. Then he would be able to
form a judgment as to the value of the statue or bust. And this is
precisely the treatment to which the legends of the martyrs have to be
subjected. But this treatment tells sometimes in their favour.
Narratives that at first sight seem conspicuously false or manufactured,
will under the critical microscope reveal the sutures, and show what is
old and genuine, and what is adventitious and worthless.
[Illustration: S. AGNES.]