Heortology

A. Easter, and the Sacred Seasons connected with Easter

1. Easter, its Name and History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Connection of the Christian Festival with the Jewish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us apply all this to the point in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Liturgical Celebration of Holy Week and Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palm Sunday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maundy Thursday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Friday

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

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

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

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

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