Among the numerous sermons of St Peter Chrysologus there are none for this day. As regards St Chrysostom, while we have seven sermons of his in honour of the apostle Paul, we have only one “on Peter and the Prophet Elias” conjointly, in which St Peter is only briefly mentioned in the introduction and treated as of secondary importance. There is nothing to show that it was preached on the 29th June.[609] The fact that neither of these saints preached on this day, is an indication of the practice followed at Ravenna and Antioch.
With regard to Rome, the local tradition, which regarded the 29th June as the day on which both apostles were put to death, was committed to writing by the chronographer of 354, and all later chronographers. A western tradition, supported by many of the great Fathers of the Church, adds further that, though both apostles died on the same day of the month, they died in different years. This idea appears in St Augustine, in the Leoninum, Arator, Gregory of Tours, and in three Greek writers, but scholars have so far ignored it. It is further evident from the Depositio Martyrum that the day of their death was specially chosen for a translation of their relics which took place in 258. The special festivities observed in Rome are described for us by Prudentius from what he had seen himself when he visited the city about 405. According to him the whole city was in commotion: the faithful visited the tombs of the apostles and in the two churches erected in their honour, pontifical mass was celebrated.[610] This is in complete agreement with the tradition according to which devotion to the martyrs was closely connected with the spot where they suffered and with the date on which they suffered, and the chief commemoration consisted in the offering up of the Holy Sacrifice over their tombs. Owing to the distance which separated the two churches of the apostles from one another, it was most fatiguing to celebrate mass at both places, and so in course of time the festival was divided into two parts, and the Mass in honour of St Paul took place on the 30th June. An examination of the earliest Roman missals shows that in the Leoninum there is a number of masses for this day, all commemorating the two apostles together, but, in the Gelasianum, on the contrary, there is only one mass for the two apostles conjointly (III. Kal. Jul. in Natali SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli), and, in addition, one for each of them separately. It may be that the division of the feast was then customary, but the 29th June continued to be called Natalis SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli. As early as the fifth century the feast was kept at Rome with a vigil and octave.[611]
At an early date, the 29th June, which had hitherto been celebrated chiefly in the West, i.e., in Rome and the surrounding districts, began to be observed as a universal festival of the whole Church, inasmuch as it began to be celebrated in Constantinople. The Roman Senator Festus, who had been sent on matters of state to the new Emperor Anastasius, in 491, moved the emperor, according to Theodorus Lector, to celebrate this feast solemnly in Constantinople.[612] Although the feast may have been kept already in Constantinople before this time, it now began to be celebrated with greater pomp. The day must certainly have been known in Constantinople before this date, but can hardly have been kept as a festival.
After this the 29th June appears in all Calendars and martyrologies as the commemoration of the two chief apostles. In the West we find it first in the Calendar of Perpetuus of Tours. The Carthaginian Calendar is unfortunately defective, but that the day was kept there cannot be doubted on account of the evidence given by St Augustine’s sermons. It is also found in the later oriental Calendars, with the exception of a few belonging to Egypt.[613]
While this feast, like the festivals of all martyrs, was originally local, and was celebrated only in Rome and in the churches dependent upon Rome, the esteem in which the Roman Church and the apostles were held early gained for it the character of a universal feast.
The Roman breviary bases the foundation for this feast upon the following legend. Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II.[614] since 421, was presented with a chain at Jerusalem which was believed to have been that with which St Peter was bound while imprisoned, as recorded in Acts, chap. xii. She brought this chain to Rome, where another chain was already preserved in the Church of St Peter on the Esquiline.[615] This is said to have been the chain with which St Peter was confined during his Roman imprisonment. Both chains appeared to be of the same workmanship, and united themselves together of their own accord. Whereupon the church was rebuilt at the Empress’s expense, and received the name of Eudoxiæ ad Vincula. There is no trustworthy proof for the presentation of the second chain by Eudocia, although there is evidence that in Rome the faithful prided themselves on possessing a chain of St Peter before this supposed gift of the Empress.[616] Under Benedict XIV. it was proposed to suppress the lections in the breviary containing these legends.
The feast of St Peter’s chain is not in the Gelasianum, and appears only in Calendars of the eighth century, as, for example, in that of Bede, but not yet as a feast of obligation. The decree of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus raised it to this rank in 1166. The spread of the feast was undoubtedly facilitated by the circumstance that in 969 a courtier of the Emperor Otho I. was healed in Rome by touching the chain.[617] That the commemoration was fixed for the 1st August does not imply that this was the day on which the apostle was set free from imprisonment; but in this, as in other cases, the date of the Church’s dedication caused this day to be chosen.
The Conversion of St Paul was kept as a holiday of obligation in several dioceses of France and Germany, and especially in England. It is uncertain where and when it first became so. It is not in the Gelasianum nor in the older editions of the Gregorianum, but appears in the later texts of more recent editions, as a later addition, for it is still frequently lacking in later MSS. and Calendars.[618] Nevertheless it appears in Ado and Usuardus. The 25th January seems originally to have had another signification; for in the recent critical edition of the Hieronymianum of De Rossi and Duchesne, the two oldest recensions give on this day a translation of the relics of St Paul, which is said to have taken place in Rome (Romæ, Translatio B. Pauli Apostoli). The most recent of the ancient codices, that of Metz, now in Bern, belonging to the tenth century, has a translation and conversion of St Paul on the 25th January. The idea of the conversion soon replaced that of the translation, and fixed the character of the feast. As such it spread, and soon attained to universal acceptance. The translation which the feast originally commemorated is believed by De Waal to have taken place in the time of Constantine, when the basilica of St Paul was erected[619] (Translatio et Conversio S. Pauli in Damaso, the words conversio and in Damaso being added by a later hand).
We can deal with the festivals of these two saints together, for in the year 357, on the 3rd March, their relics were solemnly translated at the same time to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople.[620] Until this date the tomb of St Andrew was in Patras, where he had suffered death. The previous burial place of St Luke is not specified, but it may have been either in Patras or somewhere in the neighbourhood. The possession of St Andrew’s relics was of great importance to Constantinople, because he was regarded as the apostolic founder of the Christian community there, and the catalogue of bishops, which, historically speaking, only begins with Metrophanes (315-325), has been carried back to him, inasmuch as it was maintained he had ordained Stachys as first bishop of the See. More certain, from an historical point of view, is his martyrdom at Patras, of which we have a trustworthy account.[621] Besides this, there is a well-known encyclical letter to the priests and deacons of Achaia, which in all essential points agrees with the account of the martyrdom, although in some other respects it is open to criticism.[622] The so-called martyrology of Jerome on 5th February commemorates St Andrew’s ordination as Bishop of Patras.
The date for St Luke’s death never varied and seems to be correct. Both dates, the 18th October and the 30th November, appear in the oldest Neapolitan Calendar, which contains no other festival of an apostle except St James the Less (27th December). From the fact that the relics of St Andrew and St Luke happened to be translated at the same time, many ancient and modern writers drew the hasty conclusion that St Luke had also died in Patras and been buried there. A document which, though certainly late, can yet be traced back to Philostorgius,[623] gives the true place of his death and burial as Thebes, which Paulinus of Nola confirms. His relics may well have been translated thence at the same time as those of St Andrew were brought from Patras. They were carried to Constantinople at the command of the Emperor Constantius by the official Artemius, who had also brought the relics of St Timothy to the capital.
James, the son of Zebedee and brother of St John the Evangelist, was a native of Galilee. His labours, after the Crucifixion, were not of long duration, for in the year 42 or 43 he was beheaded at the instigation of King Herod Agrippa I., who had enjoyed indeed the dignity of king of Judea since 37, but only during the last years of his reign did his power extend over Jerusalem. According to the usual custom he came to Jerusalem for the Passover, and then, in order to gain favour with the Jews, he had St James seized and made away with shortly before the feast; and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also, in order to make away with him too, after the feast. This happened not long before the death of Herod himself, which is narrated in the same chapter of the Acts (Acts xii. 1-4 and 23).
The day of St James’s death was shortly before Easter, or, as we should say, in Holy Week, and, in accordance with this circumstance, the Copts keep his commemoration on the 12th April,[624] and the Syrian lectionary of Antioch on the 30th of the same month. Although these do not exactly represent the actual day of his death, they are not far off from it. The observance of the actual day was, moreover, interfered with by the circumstance that it came at a season when the thought of our Lord’s passion prevented the celebration of a martyr’s feast. In the menologies he is mentioned only in the Basilianum on the 9th October.
The bodily remains of St James, as well as those of St James the Less, were still in Jerusalem in the sixth century.[625] In the ninth century we find them in Spain, at Compostela, where they were an object of great veneration, as we learn from Notker Balbulus.[626] They must have been taken there some time between the seventh and ninth centuries. An account of the translation, such as we possess in other instances, is not extant; there is no information in any author to show when or by whom the translation was carried out. The translation itself can well be historically true, although the opinion that St James preached the gospel in Spain is only a legend.[627] One is led to think that the relics were secretly carried off by Christians from Jerusalem from fear of the Arabs, and finally found a second resting-place in Spain.
The Roman breviary and martyrology place his feast on the 25th July, which is marked as the day of a translation of his relics, without giving any further particulars. The Gelasianum does not mention St James, and he appears in liturgical books only at the end of the eighth century. His name is entirely absent from the older liturgical books of the ancient Spanish Church, an inexplicable circumstance had he been the apostle of Spain. The veneration for him begins to show itself in Spain only from the ninth century. In Western Calendars he appears in that ascribed to Charlemagne of 781, published by Piper, and also in the later MSS. of the Gregorianum, but not in the sacramentary of Mainz dating from 840. The entries in the different recensions of the Hieronymianum are noteworthy. The Weissenburg codex on the 25th July has simply a martyr James, with no other specification except Portus Romanus as an indication of place; the Echternach codex describes this martyr as apostolus and frater Joannis Evang.,[628] and adds Hierosolym; the codex of Bern has briefly Passio S. Jacobi. It is not evident on what grounds the two later recensions have made James, the martyr of Portus Romanus, into the apostle. The Neapolitanum does not mention an apostle James on the 25th July, although it does on the 15th November,[629] and, along with Philip, on 1st May. Although he is found in Bede, he is absent from the Calendar of St Geneviève, dating from 731-741.
It is well known that in early days lists were drawn up containing the names of those bishops at least who had presided over the chief sees, along with the duration of their episcopates. Since some apostles had acted as bishop in certain cities for a length of time, while others—as, for example, St Paul—never settled down for long in one place, the former, in addition to their martyrdom, had a yet further claim to be commemorated. This is the case with St Peter, St James the Less, and St Mark.
St James the Less, son of Alpheus or Clopas, immediately after Christ’s death was entrusted with the office of Bishop of Jerusalem by the other apostles, which he held for thirty years.[630] His death was caused by the High Priest Ananias II., who availed himself of the interregnum that intervened between the death of Porcius Festus and the arrival of the new procurator Albinus. Gessius Florus succeeded Albinus in A.D. 64. St James’s death, according to St Jerome’s precise statement, fell in the seventh year of Nero. According to St Jerome’s way of reckoning, which agrees with the official method, Nero reigned fourteen years and a half, and his seventh year corresponds with the sixtieth of the Christian era.[631]
St James was commemorated in the East on the 27th December. This is his date in the Arian martyrology, which is followed by the very ancient Carthaginian Calendar. Although the latter incorrectly adds that he was killed by Herod, it is evident that St James the Less is intended, for all the Eastern documentary sources place the commemoration of St James the Less in the Christmas season. They differ as to the day, some commemorating him on the 26th, some on the 28th, the Neapolitan and Mozarabic Calendars on the 29th, and the Syrian lectionary has his name both on the 28th December and on the 23rd October.
In accordance with these ancient witnesses we would willingly place his death on the 27th December, but there are strong reasons against this. First, in these documents he is coupled for the most part with St John the Evangelist, and it is unlikely that both of them died on the same day. Secondly, in the most ancient document of all, the Arian martyrology, immediately after St James and St John, on the 28th December, come St Peter and St Paul, who suffered death on a different date altogether; the compiler simply placed the chief personages connected with our Lord on the days after Christmas. Thirdly, the church built by Helena on the Mount of Olives, in which St James and St John received special veneration, was dedicated on the 27th December.[632] Here again, as in so many other cases, the date of the church’s consecration became the date of the festival of the saint specially connected with it. Of course it may be thought that the church was consecrated on the day of the saint’s death, but for this there is, at any rate, no proof concerning this particular church. And so we must give up the 27th December as the real day of St James’s death. It may have been the day of his appointment to the episcopate.[633]
That this is so is further confirmed by the accounts written by pilgrims, in which it is stated that St James was buried in the church on the Mount of Olives, and that he had owned a house in Jerusalem and a burial place, in which he had buried Zachary and Simeon.[634] It is true that later Latin authorities expressly give his dies natalis, i.e. the actual day of his death, on the 27th December,[635] but their evidence is not conclusive. In marked distinction from the Eastern tradition, the Hieronymianum gives his death on the 25th March: “Hierosolyma passio Jacobi Justi,” or, as in the Bern codex, “fratris Domini.” This date coincides strikingly with the statement of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 2, 23, 11), that the death of St James happened during the season of Easter.
The Constantinopolitan authorities, like the Roman, take an independent line. The most ancient among the former do not mention St James the Less, but the Basilianum names him on the 23rd October and the 30th April, both times with the title then only given to martyrs (ἄθλησις). We shall have occasion to refer elsewhere to the arbitrary and singular character of this work.
With regard to the Roman service-books and those derived from them, they agree, beginning with the Gelasianum, in placing St James along with St Philip on the 1st May. This is owing to the fact that in the sixth century a church was erected in honour of these two apostles in Rome, which is known at the present day as the Basilica of the Apostles. Pope Pelagius I. (556-561) commenced the erection of the church, which was completed by his successor John III.[636] It was dedicated on the 1st May, and so it came to pass that the commemoration of these two apostles is celebrated in the Roman rite on this day. Later on, the 1st May came incorrectly to be considered their dies natalis.
The commemoration of St Philip in the menology of Basil, and in the Neapolitanum, is on the 14th November. A monastery of St Philip existed in Constantinople as early as 511.
As regards St John the Apostle and Evangelist, we have seen his commemoration was joined with that of St James the Less, on the 27th December, although this was not the date of their deaths. In course of time St John gradually eclipsed St James and gained possession of this day for himself alone; yet in the Hieronymianum and in the Gothico-Gallic missal, ascribed by Mabillon to the eighth century, St John and St James are still commemorated together (Natalis Jacobi et Joannis). In the Gelasianum, and also in later Roman and Frankish martyrologies, and in Bede, St John alone is commemorated, as at the present day.
St John died and was buried in Ephesus. When his grave was opened, probably under Constantine, who built a church in his honour in the part of Constantinople called Hebdomon, no remains of his body were found in it, but only powder, which was called manna. The intention evidently was to provide this church in Constantinople with relics of its titular saint. It is not surprising that the idea became prevalent among the Greeks that St John, like our Blessed Lady, had been taken up bodily into heaven. This opening of his grave must have taken place on the 8th May, for the menology of Constantinople makes mention on this day of the manna mentioned above.[637] The 26th September seems to have been regarded as the day of his death, for the same authority mentions the “Departure” of the apostle (μετάστασις τοῦ ἁγίου Ιοάννου τοῦ θεολόγου)[638] on this date. So, too, does the Calendar of Naples under the name of his Assumption (Adsumptio Joannis Evangelistæ). Among the Jacobites of Antioch also the 26th September was kept as the day of his departure (decessus Joannis Evang. ex mundo).[639] Where there is so much divergence, nothing certain can be determined. Most probably Morcelli is correct in supposing that the 26th September was the day on which St John died in Ephesus, and that on the 27th December some church or chapel, or, at least, an altar, was dedicated to his honour.[640]
The 6th May appears already as a festival of St John the Evangelist in the Gothico-Gallic missal, without any further specification, but simply with the rubric: Missa S. Joannis Apostoli et Evangelistæ. The Roman festival on this day, “Joannis ante Portam Latinam,” was introduced on the ground of Tertullian’s statement.[641] The oldest recensions of the Hieronymianum do not mention it, nor yet the recension of Metz belonging to the ninth century.
The apostles Simon and Jude, like St Philip and St James, are constantly commemorated together in Western Calendars, but in their case there is an inner reason for this arrangement. According to a tradition, which appears in the pseudo-Abdias, the two apostles spent thirteen years together in Persia labouring for the spread of Christianity, and there suffered death at the same time in the city of Suanir.[642] The day of their death is here given as the 1st July, which is also given in some Western martyrologies—such as those of Naples and Toledo, which plainly derive their information from this source.
In the Roman Calendar, and in those dependent upon them, the two apostles are indeed constantly commemorated together, but on the 28th October. No reason has been discovered for the choice of this date. It does not seem to have been due either to the Hieronymianum or to Bede. The former has “In Suana, a city of Persia, the birthday of the apostles Simon and Jude”[643] (Cod. Epternac.). As far as Roman sacramentaries are concerned, St Simon and St Jude appear only in the later recensions of the Gregorianum.
The menology of Constantinople does not contain St Simon, but it has Thaddeus on the 20th August. The Basilianum has an apostle Simon on the 29th April who is called Jude, and on the 10th May the apostle Simon Zelotes, and, further, an apostle Jude on the 22nd May and 19th June. All this is obscure and arbitrary. The fact that these apostles are not joined together, but have each their separate day, agrees with the Eastern service-books. The lectionary of the Syrians of the eleventh century has St Simon on the 10th May, Jude on the 16th May. The Coptic Calendar in Seldenius has Jude Thaddeus on the 20th May.
A remarkable proof of the obscurity hanging over the apostles is found in the circumstance that in some calendars which commemorate them together on the same day other saints of the same name are found in addition. Thus in the Neapolitanum there is a Jude on the 26th May and a “passio S. Simonis Ap.” on the 10th September, as well as the commemoration of them both together on the 1st July. In the Parisian lectionary of St Geneviève, in the Calendar of Charlemagne, and in the Gelasianum, there is no mention of St Simon and St Jude.
According to a constant and universal tradition, he was the first Bishop of Alexandria, and his name appears first in all lists of the bishops of that See. However, as far as calendars and martyrologies go, his name does not appear in those of the West until the ninth century, nor in the Constantinopolitanum until the same period. Unfortunately the most ancient Coptic Calendar in Mai is imperfect for the month of April. It is only in the Synaxarium of the ninth century, published by Mai, that he appears. His name appears in all later Coptic Calendars, in the Neapolitanum, which mentions him a second time on the 17th May, and in the Basilianum. There is not much to be said in support of the 25th April as the day of St Mark’s death. Moreover, the Hieronymianum gives the 23rd September as the date of his death, but the Paschal Chronicle puts it down on the 1st Phormathi, i.e. the 26th March.[644] St Jerome in his chronicle gives the year of his death as the eighth of Nero.
That the processional litanies take place on St Mark’s day is a mere accident, as is proved by the circumstance that in the oldest Latin Calendars—as, for example, in that of Fronteau, and in the Mainz edition of the Gregorianum—the Litania major alone is put down on the 25th April without any mention of St Mark.
The historical investigation of these two feasts necessitates the consideration of two questions which must be discussed separately—first, their name and significance, and, secondly, the dates on which they are celebrated.
Cathedra, when used in its literal sense by the oldest ecclesiastical writers, means the bishop’s seat in the apse of the church behind the altar, upon which he sat, when not otherwise engaged, during the performance of divine service. Figuratively, the cathedra is the symbol of episcopal authority in general and of the bishop’s teaching authority in particular, just as the throne is the symbol of royal authority. Cathedra Petri, then, signifies especially the teaching authority of St Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, or, in other words, the Primacy. This can easily be proved from the writings of the Fathers, and the evidence for it has often been set forth in writings and treatises dealing specially with this question, and so it need not be repeated here.[645] That the feast was intended to celebrate the bestowal of the Primacy on St Peter is clear from the oldest liturgies, and will become sufficiently evident in the course of our remarks.[646]
But how came it to pass that the Feast of St Peter’s Chair—we are considering at present only the more ancient of the two commemorations—was fixed for the 22nd February? This question can only be answered by a critical investigation into the history of the feast. The two feasts present entirely different peculiarities. The second half of February among the heathen Romans was marked by popular festivities partly religious and partly secular in character; on the 13th February commenced the great festival of the dead, Parentalia, and lasted eight days, the concluding day being called Feralia. During this time no marriages were celebrated, the temples remained closed, and the magistrates laid aside the external insignia of their office. Upon the commemoration of the departed followed immediately, on the 22nd February, the festival of surviving relatives—the Chari—named in consequence Charistia or Cara Cognatio. This celebration had no recognised place among the functions of the official worship of the State, and no public festivities presided over by the colleges of priests were provided for it.[647] Nevertheless, it was a very popular feast, and stuck its roots deeper into the life of the people than any of the official festivals. All ranks joined in celebrating it; the portraits of the ancestors of each family were adorned with garlands, a sacrificial meal was presented to the household gods, incense was burnt, and a pig was offered in sacrifice; where quarrels had broken out in a family, harmony was again restored, and the religious ceremonies were performed amid the rejoicings of all; the deeds of famous members of the family were recited, and the day concluded with a banquet, which lasted until a late hour.[648] In addition to this, the Charistia was also a festival in the schools; the walls were hung with garlands, and presents were given to the teachers.[649]
Such a festival must have been highly popular. It seems to have been observed everywhere wherever Latin was spoken, in Africa as well as in Gaul. In Gaul the feasting customary on this occasion continued to take place long after it had been given up elsewhere.
These banquets are censured in two sermons, attributed to St Augustine, but not by him, though they are ancient, and date from about the sixth century. From these we see that the Feralia and the Charistia are no longer separate; the preacher speaks only of the meals and gifts which were offered on behalf of the departed.[650] These continued on into Christian times, and in Gaul took place on the 22nd February, although this was not the correct day for the Feralia.[651] It seems, then, that in many places the memory of both living and dead relatives was celebrated on one and the same day, and this was always the 22nd February. About 1198 an Englishman, who lived in the North of France, informed Beleth[652] of the feastings which took place on this day.
Accordingly it cannot be mere accident, when we find a Christian feast very early fixed for this day. Gregory the Great recognised that people must not be all at once deprived of the old customs; he ordered that in England, at the dedication of churches and on the feasts of the martyrs, the newly converted Christians might retain some of the heathen customs which had been usual on similar occasions.[653] Instances in which this principle was put into practice are, for example, the processional litanies and the customs observed at the New Year. It is clear that the appointment of a Christian feast on the Charistia is another instance of the tendency to deprive the heathen festivals of their harmful character.
That this held good of the feast in question, and that a determined attempt was made to give it a Christian character, is shown by the fact that in other countries a different feast was appointed for this day. Polemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, in the upper valley of the Rhone, composed a calendar for the year 448, the most ancient Christian calendar in existence, which he dedicated to Bishop Eucherius of Lyons.[654] In this document the heathen festivals are omitted, everything especially heathen has been removed, and only historical and meteorological notices remain; it contains some saints’ days, although very few in number. On the 22nd February we find the entry, Depositio SS. Petri et Pauli, along with a note on the Charistia, which shows that the intention of the writer was to supplant the heathen feast of the Cara Cognatio. Again, it is noteworthy that an event was chosen for this purpose which was commemorated in Rome, i.e. the burial of the two chief apostles. The 29th June was not then kept as a festival of the apostles in the upper valley of the Rhone, which belonged at that time to Gaul, and probably was not kept either in the whole province to which Sion (Sedunum) belonged.[655]
The idea of Polemius Silvius in making the 22nd February into a commemoration of St Peter and St Paul found no imitators, but the custom of celebrating instead the Cathedra Petri on this day became general in the Gallican liturgies. The significance of this feast is expressed in the words of the collect for the day: “God who on this day hast given Blessed Peter to be head after Thee to the Church” (Deus qui hodierna die B. Petrum post te dedisti caput ecclesiæ); i.e. the occasion of the feast was not the foundation or organisation of one particular church, either Rome or Antioch, but the appointment of St Peter to be head of the whole Church in general, or, in other words, the bestowal of the Primacy upon him, or his ordination as bishop (natale episcopatus), as others prefer to have it.[656] In this connection it must be borne in mind that, in antiquity, it was already the custom to celebrate the anniversary of the bishop’s consecration, and that special masses exist in the old sacramentaries, and among the sermons of St Leo the Great there are some for such occasions.
From the fourth to the ninth century, we find this feast of the 22nd February (Cathedra Petri), without further specification, in the greater number of calendars and martyrologies, especially in those of Gaul. As the latest which give only one feast of this name, we may mention the martyrology of Wandlebert, the Calendar of Corbie of 826 in d’Achery,[657] and also the Gothic Calendar. Nevertheless, there are some Frankish calendars which contain no feast of this name, as, for example, that of St Geneviève, published by Fronteau, and the Calendar of Charlemagne. It is not in the Neapolitanum, nor in certain lectionaries of the same period, such as the Comes Albini, the lectionary of Spires, and, finally, the Roman sacramentaries.[658] It is remarkable that neither the Gelasianum nor the Gregorianum have a feast of St Peter’s Chair, yet it is certain that the feast was known in Rome in the fourth century, for the chronographer, referred to on page 295n., in his Depositio Martyrum sets down: “VIII. Kal. Martias, Natale Petri de Cathedra.”
A remarkable alteration now took place, doubtless caused by another view being taken of the meaning of the feast. When the words Cathedra Petri were no longer taken as referring to the bestowal of the Primacy or the episcopal and teaching office in general, but as referring to some definite episcopal See, then the question was asked, Is Antioch meant or Rome? For although the official lists reckon Evodius, and not St Peter, as first bishop of Antioch, still there were writers of antiquity, such as Origen, who represent St Peter’s residence in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) as his Antiochene episcopate. This view led to the division of the feast into a Roman and an Antiochene Feast of St Peter’s Chair; for reasons which are unknown, the 18th January was chosen for the former, while the latter continued to be celebrated on the 22nd February.
The martyrology of the Venerable Bede marks the date at which this division of the feast came into existence. In the original recension, given by the Bollandists, the feast of the 18th January does not appear, but the feast of the 22nd February has the note attached, “At Antioch.” It is possible that Bede considered the feast commemorated the commencement of a particular episcopate, and since, according to his idea, the Antiochene episcopate of St Peter preceded his Roman, and Antioch must have been the first See occupied by the apostle, he added the words, “At Antioch, where the disciples were first named Christians.”
The separation is complete in Ado and Usuardus, and appears in the oldest editions of the Hieronymianum, and, in defect of further information, the compiler of this document may be regarded as the originator of the separation.[659] There thus arose a threefold practice—either both feasts were kept, or neither, or that of the 22nd February; the last was the case in only a few dioceses. The Cologne Calendar of the fourteenth century had only one feast, but the more ancient calendar belonging to the ninth century had both.[660]
This diversity of usage, resulting from the independence of each diocese in the adoption of festivals, was put an end to by Pope Paul IV. at the advice of Cardinal Sirleto, when, on the 6th January 1558, he ordered that both feasts should be observed throughout the entire Catholic world.[661] At the consultations concerning the reform of the Breviary in 1742, it was considered that the two feasts should once more be joined into one, but this, however, was not done, which,[662] from a historical point of view, is to be regretted, for neither Eusebius nor the official lists of bishops know anything of an Antiochene episcopate of St Peter. The pseudo-Clementines make use of St Peter’s activity in the See of Antioch for their own ends,[663] and to them must be traced back the statements of Origen, Jerome, and others, for in antiquity, as well as in the Middle Ages, they enjoyed more consideration, and were more widely read, than at the present day. In the ninth century it was regarded as an inviolable principle of canon law—as we know from the case of Pope Formosus—that a bishop must not be translated from one See to another. How could this principle have been maintained in the face of so striking an instance of translation?
The Feast of St Peter’s Chair was unknown to the Greeks and Easterns in antiquity, but the modern Uniats have naturally adopted it.
The saints which have occupied us until now were all prominent figures throughout Christendom, and stood in close relation to the Redeemer and His work; in consequence, their festivals were kept as feasts of obligation in the Middle Ages, at a period when it seemed almost impossible to do too much towards the development of the cycle of feasts; a large number kept this rank until recent times. Other saints of less importance enjoyed the same distinction through their being the patrons of particular countries, dioceses, or localities; it would take too long to deal with such here; besides, their festivals are not of historical importance. Still, among festivals of this sort there are some which formerly were kept as feasts of obligation; of these several are deserving of notice, since they attained a rank above that of a mere local festival, either because of some special circumstance, or because the life of the particular saint in some way or other caught the popular fancy.
This is especially the case with regard to St Mary Magdalen, whose feast, not indeed in Rome, but throughout the South of France, and even elsewhere, as in Cologne, was kept as a feast of obligation in the Middle Ages.
According to the general opinion, Mary, the sinner of Magdala, who took her name from that place, either because she was born there, or because it was the scene of her excesses, was the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethania; she was the same person who humbly bathed the feet of our Blessed Lord with her tears and anointed them with ointment. According to another opinion, prevalent in the Greek Church, there were three Marys connected with our Lord—Mary, the sister of Lazarus; Mary of Magdala, on the Lake of Gennesaret; and the sometime sinner mentioned in St Luke vii. 37. This latter opinion distinguishes Mary Magdalen from Mary, the sister of Lazarus. The Latin tradition, on the other hand, from Tertullian downwards, regards them as identical; the sister of Lazarus having lived a life of sin at Magdala, came, after her repentance, to live with her brother and sister at Bethania, but was still popularly known as Mary Magdalen. She was also the same person, mentioned by the other two synoptists (St Mark xvi. 9; St Luke viii. 2), who was possessed by seven devils.[664] Both opinions received support from the words of the gospels; but the Roman liturgy has adopted the latter, and even the lections drawn up for St Martha’s Feast are influenced by it. This office of St Martha is only of late introduction in the Liturgy.
In addition, we must take into account the adventures of the Magdalen and her family after our Lord’s death, or rather the adventures ascribed to her. Our information is scanty; the pseudo-Clementines state that Lazarus followed St Peter in his missionary journeys in Syria;[665] other documents mention Cyprus as the scene of his labours and death. Absolutely no information concerning the further doings of his sisters has come down to us from antiquity; however, Western mediæval documents dating from the thirteenth century are remarkably rich in details; in these it is admitted, indeed, that he was Bishop of Cyprus, although this would have been incompatible with the actions here ascribed to him. This information is contained in a voluminous work which has been audaciously ascribed to Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda, although it is difficult to see how he, in his retired monastery, surrounded by forests, could have gained possession of such information.[666] The greater part of this work, chapters i.-xxxv., is devoted to a description of the life of St Mary Magdalen and her family, which follows and elaborates the biblical narrative; but it contains several additions to the facts mentioned in the New Testament; especially there is a great deal said about Marcella, as the housekeeper of the family at Bethania is said to have been called, who later on played an important part in the legend. The second part begins with the thirteenth year after Christ’s Ascension, when St James the Great had been beheaded and St Peter was in prison. Then, according to the story, Herod Agrippa drove the faithful from Palestine, and twenty-four of the disciples of Jesus, with Maximinus at their head, were sent by the apostles as missionaries to Spain and Gaul. St Mary Magdalen joined them, and Martha and Lazarus followed her example, the latter being at the time Bishop of Cyprus; they embarked unmolested, and were carried by the south-east wind to the shores of Southern Gaul, where Maximinus became Bishop of Aix in Provence. The other disciples distributed themselves over the other provinces, of which there were seventeen in Gaul and seven in Spain—twenty-four in all, just the number of the disciples. As a matter of fact, Spain and Gaul did comprise this number of provinces, not however in the time of Christ, but in the fifth century, as the Notitia Dignitatum shows. This betrays the late origin of the legend. St Mary Magdalen is said to have lived at Aix with Bishop Maximinus, and to have often preached there to the faithful. According to other accounts, she is said to have passed thirty years in a life of solitude and penance in the cave of the Ste Baume, near Marseilles, while Lazarus is said to have been Bishop of Marseilles, where he died a martyr.
More trustworthy, though not so interesting, is the information which we find in Greek sources concerning Lazarus and his sisters. From these we learn no more than that the Emperor Leo VI. in 887 built a church in his honour in Constantinople, and in 899 a monastery;[667] thither the relics of Lazarus, but not those of his sisters, were translated from Citium in Cyprus, where they had hitherto reposed. The menology of Basil and the calendars of the Copts and Syrians show that St Mary Magdalen was honoured in the Greek Church on the 22nd July. The resurrection of Lazarus was specially commemorated in the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus on the second Saturday before Easter.[668]
In the West the earliest traces of the cultus of St Mary Magdalen are found in Bede, and then in the martyrologies of Rabanus, Ado, and Usuardus, always on the 22nd July, and with the designation, “Natale.” The Hieronymianum does not mention Lazarus and St Mary Magdalen, but the name of Martha occurs five times; however, the sister of Lazarus cannot be intended, for the days (29th July and 17th October) are not those on which she is commemorated. Although the first-named martyrologies contains the mention of St Mary Magdalen, it knows nothing of her voyage to the South of France. Usuardus, indeed, puts Lazarus and Martha together on the 17th December, but merely says that a church was erected in their honour at Bethania. As far as the service-books are concerned, the name of St Mary Magdalen appears for the first time in a missal of Verona of the tenth century, and then in some missals of the eleventh century, but the missals of the Roman rite (secundum consuetudinem Rom. curiæ) mentions her only in the thirteenth century; it is the same with regard to St Martha.[669] Even to the present time Lazarus has not obtained a place in the Roman Breviary, but his commemoration is sanctioned for certain localities on the 17th December. The lections for his office contain no account of his life.
The attitude of the Roman Breviary is significant as indicating the change of views. The lections for St Mary Magdalen are simply taken from a homily of St Gregory, and contain no references to her life, while those of the much later office of St Martha (29th July) contain the more recent form of the legend with the later additions. They know nothing, however, of the pseudo-Rabanus, according to whom St Mary and her companions were forcibly placed by the Jews on board a boat without rudder or sail, and yet, notwithstanding, reached Marseilles in safety.
With regard to St Mary Magdalen in particular, the tradition must not be overlooked which states that she was originally buried in Ephesus; this is maintained by Gregory of Tours at the end of the sixth century, and then, at the beginning of the seventh century, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem states that St Mary joined St John at Ephesus after the death of our Lady, and there suffered martyrdom; the third witness is Bishop Willibald of Eichstätt, who visited her grave in Ephesus.[670] In 887, as we have said, Leo VI., the Philosopher, placed her relics in the Church of St Lazarus, which he had built in Constantinople, but the writers who mention this fact do not imply that her relics were translated from Cyprus, as some modern writers arbitrarily assert, on account of the mention of St Lazarus’ relics being brought from that island on the same occasion.[671] However this may be, the tradition says nothing about St Mary Magdalen being the sister of Lazarus; in fact, she is described by Glycas as a daughter of Simon the Leper. This tradition furnishes fresh grounds for the belief that the account of the translation of St Mary’s relics refers to a truly historical event.[672]
The investigation of scholars have brought to light the following facts as throwing light upon the Provencial legend: (1) An early sarcophagus at Marseilles, belonging to a certain Lazarus, Bishop of Aix (407-417), who was thought to be the Lazarus mentioned in the New Testament; (2) the existence of reputed relics of St Mary Magdalene in the Monastery of Vezelay in the diocese of Autun. The earliest official mention of Lazarus is in a decree of Pope Benedict IX. of the year 1040[673]; this pope consecrated the Church of St Victor at Marseilles, and from this date the legend developed rapidly. Its complicated history has been clearly set forth in the investigations of L. Duchesne and J. Rietsch; the latter shows that it is probable the Emperor Leo VI. presented the relics of St Lazarus to the widowed Empress Richardis on her visit to Constantinople during her travels in the East; she probably gave them to the Convent of Andlau in Alsace, over which she presided.
Among the numerous works on this subject we may mention: M. Faillon, Monuments Inédites sur l’Apostolat de Sainte Marie Madeleine en Provence (a collection of all documents genuine and otherwise bearing on the question), Paris, 1848. Lacordaire, Vie de Sainte Marie Madeleine, Paris, 1860, popularised the legend, and made it a point of national honour to defend it. L. Clarus (Volk), Geschichte des Lebens, der Reliquien und des Kultus der heiligen Geschwister Magdalena, etc. Regensburg, 1852, is uncritical, but pleasantly written. L. Duchesne, Sainte Marie Madeleine, Toulouse, 1892. J. Rietsch (Die Nachevangelische Geschichte der Bethanischen Geschwister, etc., Strassburg, 1902) has probably settled the question of the relics by his careful investigations.
A parish church was dedicated to St Cecilia in Rome as early as 499, to which two priests were attached, and a cemetery was named after her fellow-sufferers, Tiburtius and Valerian, in the sixth century. No further information respecting her cultus has come down to us from antiquity, and in the literature of the patristic period, with the exception of Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth century, her name is not mentioned. Her cultus was apparently limited to Rome, although she had a chapel or church in Ravenna,[674] as the poet just mentioned states.
A change took place when Pope Paschal I. in 821 discovered the saint’s body, in consequence, as he said, of a vision; until then it was believed that the Lombards had carried it away with them. Paschal had the body taken from the cemetery of SS. Sixtus and Prætextatus, where he found it, and brought to her church in Rome, where it still remains. Immediately after her death, according to the statement in her Passio, her body must have been placed in the papal crypt.[675] Her name was then inserted in the martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, and Rabanus Maurus, and placed under the 22nd November, which is certainly the day of the translation of her relics, for the Hieronymianum in its oldest recension gives the 16th September as the day of her death (Natalis). St Cecilia appears in Bede and in the Frankish calendars of the eighth century composed under Roman influence, but in the most ancient calendar of Carthage, one looks for her name in vain.[676] After the miraculous discovery of her relics and their translation, on account of the interest taken in such matters in the ninth century, her fame spread throughout the whole Christian world; and churches were dedicated to her, even in the recently converted North Germany.
From the point of view we are considering, sufficient has been said about St Cecilia, still we cannot omit the opportunity of making some remarks on the date and circumstances of her martyrdom. We have a full account of it in the Passio S. Cæciliæ, which, according to Fachmäuner, was drawn up at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. This document states that Cecilia was condemned to death and executed by a prefect of Rome called Turcius Almachius; a Roman bishop (papa urbanus) placed her body in the papal crypt, and dedicated her house as a church; this pope had already been a confessor for the Faith on two occasions before the death of St Cecilia. These statements cause great difficulty, since Pope Urban I. (223-230), who can alone be meant here, lived during the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, who was very well disposed towards the Christians, and during whose reign they were free from persecution. It is exceedingly improbable that a high official could have persecuted them in Rome, under the eyes of the emperor, in the way described in the Passio. It is impossible that Pope Urban I. could have twice been a confessor at this time, and no evidence of such a thing exists; moreover, we have no evidence for the existence of a prefect of Rome called Turcius in that period, but we do find persons of this name in official positions in the time of Constantine and later. All this, taken along with the circumstance that it was a time of much unsettlement in Rome, agrees well with the fourth century, when the emperor was seldom in the capital, but does not suit the reign of Alexander Severus.
The fact that St Cecilia appears neither in the ancient Roman Calendar, the Depositio Episcoporum, nor in the chronographer of 354, points to the conclusion that she must belong to the reign of Julian. All the indications of time agree with this date; the only thing against it is the name of the contemporary pope—Urban; this may be an error, but how the name found its way into the Passio can be explained on various grounds; either the original text did not contain the pope’s name, which was introduced by mistake at a later date by some redactor of the original document, or, if the words “papa urbanus” were in the original document, they are to be taken in the sense of “Bishop of the city of Rome.”[677] This falls in with the pontificate of Liberius all the better, since, in the years 355-365, he was opposed by an anti-pope, Felix, who had a small following, and spent his time mostly outside Rome, where also he died.
The circumstance that the pope, whatever his name may have been, had been twice a confessor for the Faith also suits Liberius, who had been banished under the Arian Constantius to Berœa (355-357). After the Councils of Seleucia and Rimini in 359, Constantius even desired his death, because he refused to subscribe to the Arian Creed, and he was obliged to remain in hiding for two years in the catacombs until the death of the tyrant (November 361).[678]
The opinion that the martyrdom of St Cecilia took place under Alexander Severus has hitherto received the most support, and the difficulties have been explained on the supposition that it happened while the emperor was absent from the capital; this, however, is arbitrary, and does not really remove the other difficulties. There is no need to dwell upon the dates which have been assigned in more recent times. With regard to the more ancient dates, Ado, Usuardus, and De Rossi place the martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, plainly on account of the use of the plural by the prefect when he said (c. 24) “the emperors” had commanded that the Christians should be punished by death, but this general command was repeated during all the persecutions from Nero to Diocletian. Less wide of the mark is the most ancient attempt of all to fix the date, i.e., made by the first compiler of the Liber Pontificalis, for although not remarkable for historical knowledge, he places the death of Cecilia under Diocletian.
The family of the Turcii did not belong to Rome, but came from Samnium, where one of the name in the third century is mentioned as a proprietor of brick works in Aufidena.[679] Various members of the family quickly made their way to high offices in the State,[680] and in the summer of 363 a Turcius Apronianus was prefect of Rome, where he distinguished himself as a persecutor of the Christians. His wife, however, was a sister of the elder Melania, St Jerome’s pupil, through whose influence the whole family was baptised in 397. As a Christian Turcius Apronianus enjoyed the friendship of St Paulinus of Nola and the priest Rufinus.[681] His descendants flourished all through the fifth century, at the end of which a Turcius Asterius Secundus was consul. All this, taken in conjunction with the influential position of the family, easily accounts for the absence, in ecclesiastical literature of a subsequent period, of references to St Cecilia, at whose death a Turcius had played such an evil part. Otherwise it would be incredible that the preacher and poets of that date should have passed over a story which presented so many points of interest.[682] Nothing more is known of Turcius Almachius than what is related in the passion of St Cecilia. He must have been prefect from the end of 361 to the autumn of 362.
When all has been said, we must admit that the account of St Cecilia’s martyrdom, as it has come down to us, gives rise to serious difficulties from whatever point of view we regard it. Tillemont and Baillet were inclined to regard it as lacking all authority. The only way to give full force to all the facts of the case is to place it in the period to which it really belongs, i.e. to the reign of Julian the Apostate.
The Festival of St Catherine, though only of late introduction, quickly spread throughout the whole of Western Christendom; not only did Faculties of Theology select her as their patroness, but her day (25th November) was widely adopted for annual fairs, and her name was frequently given to children of both noble and lowly families. The original form of her name was Æcaterina (Αἰκατερίνα), the modern Russian Jekaterina; its derivation from the Greek katharos cannot, therefore, be maintained. Catherine is said to have been a noble virgin of Alexandria, who, according to the legend, expostulated with the tyrant Maxentius on account of his cruelty during the Diocletian persecution, and was, in consequence, seized by him and forced to hold a disputation with fifty philosophers. Not only did St Catherine hold her own against the philosophers, but even won them over to Christianity; whereupon the empress, who had heard of her wisdom, visited her in prison, escorted by two hundred soldiers. The soldiers, however, along with their captain, were converted also, and condemned to death in a body by the emperor. The martyr herself was next tortured, milk, instead of blood, flowing from her wounds, and then put to death by the sword. So far the legend as given by Metaphrastes; the carrying of her body by angels to Mount Sinai is a later addition.
It does not require much exercise of the critical faculty to realise the improbabilities of this story, and at the present day critics are all but unanimous[683] in rejecting it; and so we need only concern ourselves with it here in so far as it has given rise to the Feast of St Catherine. In this connection we observe that not only the ancient Church as a whole knew nothing of St Catherine, but, what is still more to the point, neither the Syrian nor Egyptian Calendars published by Selden and Mai make any mention of this remarkable martyr. Among the Greeks, the Menologium Basilianum is the first to mention her, while in the Latin Church she does not appear until the fourteenth century. Durandus, although he treats of all the important saints’ days, does not name St Catherine, neither does the Liber Ordinarius of Siena concluded in 1263. In the numerous Italian missals consulted by Ebner, St Catherine is usually found only in the supplements which date from the fourteenth century. In the body of the missal, she appears only in the missal of Trani, belonging to the end of the thirteenth century. It is not difficult to fix the period at which the legend met with general acceptance, for St Catherine is absent from the menology of Constantinople, but is commemorated as a martyr of the second class in that of Basil. To this period belongs three Latin poems found among the works of Alfanus,[684] Abbot of Monte Cassino, and later Archbishop of Salerno (1058-1085). Alfanus, whom St Peter Damian calls a lover of truth, but who is proved to have been very credulous by a story which he tells of some unnamed Byzantine monarch,[685] appears to have been the first to make the legend known in the West. The origin of the story is lost in obscurity, and, as in the case of the legend of St Lazarus, we have hitherto been unable to discover reliable data on which to base any conclusion. The story of St Catherine may well be one of those popular tales, drawn up in a historical form, which were circulated in the Middle Ages, and occupied the place of poetic fiction. Its excision at any early date from the service-books is much to be desired in the interests of the respect due to them.
The Festival of All Saints has no intimate connection with the ecclesiastical year, but is of the nature of an addition from without, and, like the saints’ days, is fixed for a special date. In the earliest ages the Church paid an external cultus to the martyrs alone, among whom she included, at an early date, St John the Baptist, but it was only in the course of centuries that other saints, not martyrs, attained to this distinction. The cultus of simple confessors, however, formed at first quite the exception, and only became general along with the introduction of canonisations. Thus in the early ages there was no Festival of All Saints, but only a commemoration of all the martyrs, the intention being that no martyr might be left unhonoured. Their number had been increased to such an extent by the Diocletian persecution, that it was no longer possible to celebrate a special commemoration of each one separately, and so many martyrs had to be passed over; thus a commemoration of all the martyrs was instituted as a matter of course.
As far as we know at present, we first meet with this commemoration in the Church of Antioch, which, on the first Sunday after Pentecost, kept a commemoration of all the holy martyrs. We have some sermons of St John Chrysostom preached on this day.[686] In course of time the feast became general throughout the East, and an All Saints’ Sunday finds a place in the Eastern calendars, while the Uniats have accepted the Roman date for the feast.
In the West the festival passed through the following phases. The Emperor Phocas († 4th October 610), as master of Rome and lord of Central Italy, gave the Pantheon to Boniface IV. at the pope’s request. The building had been erected by Agrippa in honour of Augustus in 27 B.C. The learned are not agreed as to whether it was originally a temple or a bath (Laconicum sudatio), but it had certainly statues of the gods in the niches which adorn its interior; however, in the seventh century it no longer served its original purpose, and its maintenance was a source of expense to the imperial treasury. The pope had the building cleansed and made into a church, which he dedicated to our Lady and all the martyrs;[687] the day of the dedication was the 13th May (609 or 610), which thus came to be observed in Rome as a commemoration of all the holy martyrs.
A second stage in the early development of the feast was reached in the next century, when Gregory III. (731-741) dedicated an oratory in St Peter’s to “the Redeemer, His holy Mother, all the Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and all the just and perfect who are at rest throughout the whole world.” In this oratory the monks were to celebrate vigils and say mass in honour of the saints.[688] Here we have the same idea manifested which underlies the Festival of All Saints. A Roman basilica had been already dedicated in honour of all the apostles, and the day of its dedication, the 1st May, probably served as a commemoration of all the apostles. The Church of “S. Maria ad Martyres,” the Pantheon, was, moreover, thoroughly restored by Gregory III.[689]