Heortology: A History of the Christian Festivals

Part III The Material Upon Which the History of the Ecclesiastical Year Is Based

1. The Documentary Sources in General

The sources from which the history of the ecclesiastical year and the festivals of the saints is drawn are first of all official documents, namely service-books, decrees of councils, papal constitutions and bulls; in the second place come the information derived from ecclesiastical writers of various periods and countries which must be used and brought into connection with the official sources.

Among the liturgical books of the Church, the missals and breviaries hold the first place. In earlier times these were differently arranged and had different names from those which they bear at present. The collects and psalms in particular employed at the mass were not included in one volume as they are now, but were taken from a number of books. The essential prayers of the mass were contained in the so-called Sacramentarium, in which were also to be found the collects, prefaces, and, in certain cases, even the whole canon. The lections from Holy Scripture, the Epistles and Gospels, were collected together in the Lectionaries, either all together, or the Epistles and Gospels in separate volumes; another name for this kind of book was Comes. The psalms and other portions to be sung by the choir were contained in separate books, the Antiphonaries, Graduals, and Hymnaries, etc. It was only in the Middle Ages that for the sake of convenience all the different parts of the mass were contained together in one volume, called a missale plenarium, but the separate volumes still continued in use for certain occasions.

In the course of our investigations, we have often had to refer to the so-called sacramentaries, of which the three most ancient belonging to the Roman Church are also the most important. These are:—

1. Sacramentarium Leonianum. This is a collection of older formularies which had been already drawn up by an unknown author, some of which may well be the work of Leo the Great; the title, which gives rise to the opinion that Leo was the author of the book, is due to the first editor. The only existing codex is in Verona, and is unfortunately imperfect, being deficient in all that relates to Lent and Easter. Since it contains a prayer for Pope Simplicius († 483), Rome must be regarded as the place where it was drawn up, and where it was used, while the date when it took its present shape was the pontificate of Felix II. (483-492).

2. The Gelasianum, so called after Gelasius I. (492-496). This pope did actually compose some liturgical books, but the volumen sacramentorum, ascribed to him by Gennadius, cannot have been one of them, since it contains the four festivals of our Lady which were celebrated in Rome only after Gregory the Great. On the other hand it does not contain the stations for the Thursdays in Lent introduced by Gregory II. (715-731); consequently, it represents the liturgical usages of the seventh century, i.e. of the period after St Gregory the Great, and bears the name of Gelasius incorrectly. It consists of three books: (1) De Tempore, beginning with Christmas; (2) De Sanctis, beginning with the 1st January; and (3) masses for the ordinary Sundays, votive masses, and masses for the dead. The number of prefaces contained in the sacramentary amounts to over a hundred. The Stowe Missal, which is independent of the Gelasianum, gives the canon Gelasii Papæ. This book was drawn up in Rome and was intended for local usage, but we only possess the MSS., which were meant for the churches of France; the most ancient belongs to the end of the seventh century, and was written apparently for the Abbey of St Denys (Cod. Vat. Reg. Sueciæ, 316). The other existing codices only give an edition specially adapted from the original Roman book for use in the Frankish Empire; this is shown by the prayer, “Respice propitius ad Romanum sive Francorum imperium.”

3. The Gregorianum. This represents the Roman rite of the period of Pope Adrian I. (772-795) and Charlemagne. It is entirely a compilation of Roman origin belonging to the eighth century, destined originally for the use of the popes but afterwards adapted for general use. The canon stands at the head of the work, which commences with Christmas, but Advent comes at the end of the Proprium de Tempore. The Agnus Dei, added to the text of the mass by Pope Sergius I., is given here in its place, while it is absent from Gelasianum.739 The earliest mention of this work is in the collection of letters of the popes of the eighth century known as the Codex Carolinus, in a letter of Adrian I. to Charlemagne who received a copy of the work from Adrian between 784 and 791,740 from which date it was introduced into the Frankish Empire, copied, and circulated, and also added to. In his letter Adrian ascribes a personal share in the production of the work to his predecessor Gregory, relying, of course, on the tradition of his Church.741

4. This last-named book gradually supplanted the ancient liturgies and service-books of Gaul; of these we possess the Sacramentarium Gallicanum, along with its lectionary, the Missale Gothico-Gallicanum, and the Missale Francorum;742 the Mozarabic missal and breviary are also very important documents.

The ecclesiastical calendars and martyrologies come next under consideration. As regards the former, the service-books of which we have been speaking were on the whole drawn up in accordance with the local calendar and added both the movable and immovable feasts as best they could. In proportion as the number of feasts increased the calendars were regarded as independent catalogues of festivals, and are found both as separate documents, or bound up with the other liturgical books; in the latter case, they are usually placed at the beginning of the volume.

While the calendars give merely the names of the saints or the date of their feasts, the martyrologies or Synaxaria contain more detailed notices, giving the place, time, and circumstances of the saints’ death, rank, etc., according as the compiler had more or less material at his disposal; in many instances these notices have grown into considerable historical narratives, and on this account, the character of the different martyrologies varies greatly. As to their employment for historical purposes, the shorter the contents the higher the value and trustworthiness of a calendar. The martyrologies were usually compiled by private individuals, even when intended for ecclesiastical use, but the calendars shared in the official character of the liturgical books of which they formed part, since alterations could not be made in them without the knowledge and consent of the authorities of the church or corporation to which they belonged.743

Manuscript calendars belonging to earlier centuries exist in large numbers, for all missals and breviaries were provided with them. Their value for historical research depends upon their age, and also upon our knowledge of the locality for which they were drawn up, the best data for discovering this latter point being afforded by the names of local saints contained in the calendar itself. No calendar can be set aside as altogether useless, for in case of need all can throw light upon the history of at least their own locality. For this reason, and for others as well, an increasing amount of attention has been given to them in recent times, and a large number of them have been printed (see sect. 10 of this part). The days marked in the calendars are those of the saints’ deaths (vid. ante, p. 213); but the days on which their relics were translated to some particular church are also marked as festivals in the calendar of the church in question. When in different calendars different days are given to the same saint, the date in the calendar belonging to the church where he died is usually to be regarded as the day of his death; the others are days on which his relics were translated.744

Another class of documents consists of the ordos drawn up for divine service belonging to particular countries, dioceses, or the more important ecclesiastical foundations (ordines, ordinaria; in Greek, typica). These were not originally drawn up for the course of merely one year, like our present ordos, but contained the list of recurring festivals and fasts observed from year to year in some monastery or cathedral, along with detailed directions for the performance of divine service. The most important of these are the thirteen oldest ordos of the Roman Church, collected and published by Mabillon, but other dioceses and monasteries as well as the Church of Rome had similar ordos, some of which have been already printed,745 while others still await publication.746

2. The Earliest Christian Calendars

The worship of the saints, especially of the martyrs, asserted itself in various ways in the liturgy of the Church. Among the Latins, it appeared even in the liturgy of the mass, since special masses in honour of the saints were composed at an early date for the commemorations of the most celebrated saints. These were included in the sacramentaries, and, finally, as their number continued to increase, they were placed together in a separate division of the book (proprium sanctorum), instead of being distributed, as formerly, over the whole year. Among the Greeks, this was not possible, since they repeat the same mass daily, and employ only two or three mass formularies throughout the entire year.

In the second place, the cultus of the saints gained a footing in the Canonical Hours, the Psalter, both among Latins and Greeks. It was customary among the Latins as early as the sixth century to read a portion of the account of the martyrdom (passiones martyrum), as Aurelian of Arles tells us;747 this was the commencement of the existing lections of the breviary. Then collections of lives of the saints for the whole year were drawn up on the lines of the calendar, which came to be called martyrologies on account of the character of the larger part of their contents. In course of time, two kinds of martyrologies came into existence, those containing legends of greater length more suited for private reading, and those distinguished by the brevity of their notices intended for employment in the services of the Church. Even these have no immediate connection with the liturgy, although the names of the saints for the day were read at Prime, a custom which possibly the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle of 817 had in view in its sixty-ninth canon.748 These martyrologies developed out of the diptychs and calendars of particular churches, by way of compilation and expansion; like the calendars, they contain simply the names of the saints, but with the mention of the locality to which the saint belonged, and, in many cases, with an indication of the date at which he lived.

The martyrologies aimed at completeness in other directions. First, it was attempted to unite together the names of all the martyrs who had ever suffered throughout the whole Church, along with the day of their death, and secondly, an attempt was made, but only in later times, to fill up the calendar by allotting every day in the year to at least one saint. This latter attempt was made in the West only in the seventh and eighth centuries, and achieved considerable success. While the first efforts in this direction attained to only relative completeness, since they took into consideration only a part, and not the whole, of the universal Church, as the Arian and Carthaginian martyrologies had done, yet the tendency towards universality appears unmistakably at a later date, especially in the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum.

With regard to the Greek service-books, menology means the same thing as martyrology—a catalogue of saints arranged in the form of a calendar according to the days of the month, and merely giving the name of the saint against the particular day set apart by the Church in his honour. The lives of the saints arranged according to months and days are called Menæa or Meniæa, and the shorter abstracts from it are called Synaxaria.749

The list of calendars opens with two documents, the most ancient of their kind possessed by the Roman Church, i.e. the lists of popes and martyrs with the days of their death, which have often been referred to already—the Depositio Episcoporum from Lucius to Julius I., and the Depositio Martyrum, a catalogue of the martyrs of the city of Rome, extending only to 304, three martyrs not belonging to Rome being included in this list, Cyprian, Perpetua, and Felicitas. The connection of these two lists to one another is shown in their titles (item), and also by the fact that Sixtus, who is placed among the martyrs, is omitted from the list of popes. This latter list comprises the period from Lucius († 255) to Julius († 352) only; either the compiler had no material at hand for the earlier period, or he set it aside as not bearing upon the point he had in view. The list of martyrs contains the names of popes who were also martyrs, such as St Peter, St Clement, St Calixtus, St Pontianus, St Fabian, and St Sixtus; of martyrs, not bishops, we have here the most famous saints of the city of Rome, St Agnes and St Lawrence (but not St Cecilia), as well as many other quite obscure names. In reply to the inquiry what principle was followed in drawing up this list, Mommsen,750 relying on the title which connects the document with Carthage, replies that it contains “the names of those martyrs and bishops whose commemoration was celebrated annually in the Church.” Both these lists were first published by Ægidius Bucherius (Gilles Boucher), and form a portion of the work on the Calendar of Dionysius Philocalus (see above, p. 136 seqq.).

Next in order comes a Calendar of the North African Church belonging to the fifth century, and edited by Mabillon from a codex of the seventh century formerly belonging to the Monastery of Cluny. The original must have been completed after 505, for Bishop Eugenius of Carthage is mentioned in it. It contains St John the Baptist, some apostles and martyrs not belonging to North Africa, Sixtus, Gervasius and Protasius, Lawrence, Clement of Rome, Eulalia, Felix of Nola, Agnes, Agatha, Vincent, and the Machabees, who belong to the Churches of Rome and Spain. Unfortunately, the list is not quite perfect owing to the bad state of the MS.

The Calendar of Philocalus for the year 352 contains nothing definitely Christian.751 On the other hand, the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, Bishop of Sion, drawn up between 435 and 455, is interesting as showing a mixture of Christian and heathen entries. Destination, character, place, and time of the compilation can be learnt from the calendar itself; it was not drawn up for one particular year, at least there is nothing by which to determine the year, for Dominical letters, movable feasts, etc., are all wanting; among heathen festivals we have the Carmentalia, Lupercalia, Terminalia, Quinquatria, and Lavatio Cereris, all of which recall heathen religious customs. The Saturnalia are included on account of their popular, not on account of their religious significance, and appear as feriæ servorum on the 17th December, as well as feriæ ancillarum on the 7th July. In addition, there are many other popular commemorations, such as the 7th January, 13th September, etc., and a great number of natales of emperors. The number of ecclesiastical feasts is very small, being limited to Epiphany, the 25th and 27th of March as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christmas, and six saints’ days—Depositio Petri et Pauli on the 22nd February instead of the 29th June, Vincent, the Machabees, Lawrence, Hippolytus, and Stephen on their usual days. Besides these we have the natales of authors—Cicero and Virgil, and finally, the days are marked on which the Senate usually held sittings and games were given in the circus. In comparison with the Calendar of Philocalus, the number of such days is much reduced; in the former there are over a hundred, here only fifty-three. The meteorological entries are numerous. The calendar was evidently intended for the provinces of the western half of the empire, and takes into account both the ecclesiastical and civil requirements, although it deals with the former to a limited extent.

3. The Arian Calendar of the Fourth Century (About 370-380)

One of the most interesting documents in connection with our subject in virtue of its age, contents, and plan is the Arian martyrology, published by W. Wright in 1865.752 As is well known, the Arians were an active party who, until about 380, attempted with some success to gain the upper hand in the Church. As a means to this end, it was to their interest to invest their followers as much as possible with the appearance of sanctity, and the Arian historian Philostorgius devoted himself especially to this; he characterises as saints and workers of miracles Agapetus and a certain Theophilus who worked in India, and also Aëtius, Eunomius, and Leontius, the ringleaders of thorough-going Arianism.753 As a consequence of this the Arians encroached in various ways upon the domain of liturgy also. It goes without saying that they did not wish to figure as heretics, but as forming the true Church, and so they exhibited a corresponding activity in hagiology.

While, generally speaking, the local churches confined themselves each to its own diocese, and the principle of individualism continued to hold its own for a long time throughout the whole Church, the Arians early abandoned this method, and even while they did not completely adopt the principle of universality, yet they did so partially, their position as a minority among Christians giving them an impulse in this direction. Thus we find their martyrology embraces Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Mœsia, Illyria; in fact, the entire eastern half of the empire, and even Italy and North Africa are not passed over altogether.

We must first of all turn our attention to the external and historical side of the document. Wright found it in a Syrian MS., belonging to Nitria in Egypt, of the time of Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch (404-413), and written in the year 411.754 It consists of two different parts, of which the first is a martyrology drawn up in accordance with the calendar, and originally composed in Greek. Unfortunately, the section from the 1st to the 25th December is missing. This part is the original document, and was early translated into Syriac, although, as we shall see later, it is full of defects. The fact that, nevertheless, it was considered worthy of being translated, and that by an orthodox translator, shows that it was regarded as a remarkable piece of work. What impressed its contemporaries was its universal character, then quite a novelty. At the end, there is a somewhat mutilated appendix consisting of a list of Persian martyrs arranged, not by the date of their death, but according to their rank in the hierarchy, into three groups—bishops, priests, and deacons.

The second part, originally composed in Syriac, was an addition of the Syrian translator. Among the persons named in this part, it is noticeable that there are no Arians, nor even Nestorians, who, when expelled from the Roman Empire by Theodosius II. in 435, made themselves masters of the Persian Church. Of the sixteen bishops mentioned in the first section, at least eight are known to have been orthodox Persian martyrs, all belonging to the period before 400, e.g. Simon Bar-Sabai, Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon († 17th April 344), his successor, Schahdust († 346), and Sapor, Bishop of Beth Gormai.755 Miles (Milles), Simeon, Barbasimas, Joannes, Sapores, Gudiab, Sabinus, Abdos, Paul, and Ebedjesus are mentioned by Sozomen as Persian martyrs of the reign of Sapor I.756 This very primitive calendar contains only the names of martyrs to the exclusion of other persons who were even regarded as saints, such as Mares, the second bishop of Seleucia († 82).757 The compiler calls those whom he included in his calendar the Holy Martyrs who had been put to death in the East, while he regards those named in the first part as the Holy Confessors of the West, regarding the Roman Empire as the West in respect to Persia.

The first part, which concerns the West, differs from the second in many respects. It was drawn up by another hand, and was written originally in Greek. The latter is a document entirely historical in character, while the former is liturgical; the one belongs to Persia, the other to the Roman Empire, and probably to Nicomedia. It was then employed in Antioch, where it was enlarged, and finally, as it appears, was translated into Syriac at Edessa. It forms one of the most remarkable documents of ancient Christian literature.

That this Arian martyrology belonged to the Roman Empire, and especially to its eastern part, is proved by the calendar employed therein, i.e. the Julian, with the addition of the Chaldean names for the months, the days of the month being given simply without reference to calends and nones and ides. The author is well-informed with regard to the eastern half of the Roman Empire; he knows names and date of death of eight bishops of Antioch, the name Antioch occurs in all twenty-four times, Nicomedia is named thirty-two times, but the name of no bishop of Nicomedia is given, Alexandria is mentioned nineteen times, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem only twice.

The date of this work is fixed by the mention of the celebrated Bishop James of Nisibis on the 15th July. He was alive after 350, when the Persians besieged Nisibis, and flourished, according to the somewhat vague expression of the Chronicle of Samuel of Ani, in the 283rd Olympiad, i.e. 353-356.758 Thus the martyrology was written in the period between 370 and 400, and sometime about 380, when Arianism was the dominant religion in the eastern half of the empire.

The Arian character of the martyrology is shown by the fact that Arius himself is mentioned in it, while none of the adherents of the Nicene faith of that date are included, and the only orthodox bishop whose name appears is James of Nisibis. Since he was orthodox, and since Nisibis belonged to Persia, his name could not have been in the Greek original, which, besides being Arian, was limited to worthies belonging to the Roman Empire, but the insertion of his name is probably due to the orthodox Persian translator.

The compiler drew his information from the works of his predecessors, to which he made additions of his own. One of these sources he names, for he states with regard to the names of eleven personages, that they are taken from the “Number of the Ancient Confessors.” He also used an old list of martyrs, which he does not further describe. To judge by the character of the quotations from this document, it must have dealt with the same part of the Church as the new compilation. Antioch (four times), Synnada, Nicomedia, Pergamus, and Heracleia are named in it, while Alexandria is not mentioned. By the “Ancient Confessors” are to be understood the martyrs before Diocletian, and it is probable that they were taken from the lists of “Depositions” belonging to each city, just as the chronographer has preserved for us those of Rome.759

As regards the contents, they resemble those of similar documents of earlier and later date, and are fully described in the superscription, which states that it “contains the names of the Lords, i.e. the saints, confessors, and victors, and the days on which they received their crowns.” One would expect to find the place of their death mentioned as well, but many saints are given without any indication of the locality to which they belonged, perhaps on account of imperfect information on the part of the author. The date of death is on the whole correctly given, a remarkable instance to the contrary being the commemoration of SS. Peter and Paul, which is placed on the 28th December. This cannot throw doubt upon the date observed in Rome itself, for the Greeks were, as a rule, very imperfectly informed concerning ecclesiastical events in the Latin portion of the empire. The sources from which the compiler drew his information cannot have been very full, for there is no mention of the famous Western martyrs, Agnes and Lawrence, and, indeed, beyond the mention on the 1st Ab (August) of Aksitus, Bishop of Rome, by which Xystus II. is probably intended (the day of St Xystus’ death was the 6th and not the 1st August), and of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, correctly given on the 7th March, no Western saints are commemorated.760

Among the bishops of Alexandria there are two mentioned whose names do not occur in the official lists, Artemon on the 3rd September, and Hodion (Orion) on the 16th August. Similarly, among the bishops of Antioch, there are two not mentioned elsewhere, Amphimelus (4th March) and Philippus (27th March). Can these have been Arian prelates?

Besides St Peter and St Paul, the only two apostles commemorated are St John and St James, who held the most important place in the eastern half of the empire; they are placed together on the 27th December, on which day the latter especially was formerly commemorated. St Stephen, also called an apostle (schelico), appears on the day still consecrated to his memory (26th December).

The bishops, priests, and deacons appear with their proper titles; all the others have the designation, confessor (mandaya). This designation implies martyrdom, for in the first three centuries confessor means a martyr whose sufferings stop short of death. It is also worthy of notice that some who appear not to have been martyrs have to be content with a mere commemoration (dukrana = commemoratio), as, for example, St Xystus, James of Nisibis, Eusebius of Cæsarea, etc. The names, again, of others are merely mentioned without any addition or title.

Finally, there are still some peculiarities in this menology which ought to be mentioned. Some of these may be due to oversight, or to the ignorance of the compiler, others seem to be mistakes made in transcribing the document, and ought not to appear in documents of an official character. Thus Marcianus of Tomi appears twice (on the 5th and on the 10th June), Dius once as confessor and once as presbyter (11th and 12th June). Especially remarkable is the circumstance that three individuals, whose names occur in no other calendar, not even in the Menologium of Constantinople, are given three times, namely, Cosconius, Melanippus, and Zeno, sons of Theodota, once for Nicea on the 19th January, once for Asia on the 23rd February, and once for Nicomedia on the 2nd September. As slips of the pen, we may notice Hadriopolis for Hadrianopolis, Pedinthus for Perinthus, Tunjus (10th June) for Tomi, which is elsewhere spelt correctly, Sindus for Synnada, which once (30th June) has the addition, “in Phrygia,” and once (15th June) is without it. The proper names are frequently wrongly spelt, or so confused as to be unrecognisable.

Of the Church festivals, only Epiphany and Easter are marked. The MS. is, unfortunately, imperfect where we should expect to find the 25th of December. On the Friday after Easter the Commemoration of all the Confessors, i.e. Martyrs, is set down.

The relation of the Arian martyrology to Eusebius’ work on the Martyrs of Palestine deserves to be considered. One would expect to find this work often referred to, but it is not so, and the compiler seems to have had no knowledge of it. This is all the more remarkable since Eusebius always gives the dates of the death of the martyrs. The two works have, however, very few points of contact, but they confirm one another in the points where they do coincide. Both place the death of the priest Pamphilus and his eleven companions at Cæsarea on the 16th February; both mention the martyr Romanus at Antioch, Eusebius placing his death on the 17th November, the martyrology on the 18th—a trifling discrepancy which proves their independence of each other. Hermes the Exorcist, Domnion of Salona, James of Nisibis, etc., are given on the dates which they occupy in the calendars of other Churches.

The so-called martyrology of St Jerome has many names in common with this Arian martyrology. St Jerome often assigns to one place and day more martyrs than this Arian Calendar, as, for example, on the 25th March, Dulas, on the 4th, 18th, and 21st April, etc. Sometimes the Arian gives more names than St Jerome, e.g. on the 11th March, the 2nd May, etc., while in some places they are in perfect agreement, e.g. on the 13th March, Modestus and twenty-one companions—the Hieronymianum gives the names of the whole twenty-one, while here only the number is given—on the 16th April, Leonidas and eight companions in Corinth, etc. We cannot infer from this that the compiler of the Hieronymianum incorporated the work of his Arian predecessor in his own, but he certainly was acquainted with it, and made use either of it or of common sources.

The comparison of the Arian martyrology with that of St Jerome has further led to a curious discovery,761 i.e. that the entries from the 6th (or more correctly from the 8th) to the 30th June are indeed included in the martyrology of St Jerome, but have been bodily transferred to the corresponding dates in July.762 This latter month has only three entries, and it has been thought that the mistake is due to the Arian compiler or his transcribers, but it is just as likely that the change of date was made by the author of the Hieronymianum. How this fact is to be explained must be left to conjecture. Another important point bearing upon the connection between the two documents is the fact that the one mentions Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea on the 30th May, but the other in more detail on the 21st June, as follows: In Cæsarea Palæstinæ Dep. Eusebi Epi. Historiographi. Which is correct? Certainly the Syrian document, which also gives correctly the day of Arius’ death. The entry on the 6th June clearly exhibits the Arian character of the document: “In Alexandria, Arius Presbyter.” The fact that he is merely commemorated, proves that it is incorrect to suppose, as many do, that another Arius, a reputed, but otherwise unknown, martyr of Alexandria is intended. The martyrs in this document are treated to more than a mere commemoration (dukrana). Accordingly he did not regard this particular Arius as a martyr.

From the description which we have given of this highly important document, one is led to expect that it will throw fresh light on certain historical questions, and so, as a matter of fact, it does. For instance, we can fix the death of Arius by its assistance on the 6th June 336. Arius died on a Saturday shortly before sunset. On the following day he was to have been solemnly received into the Church.763 The only year which can be taken into consideration is 336, for in it the 6th June fell on a Saturday.764

The historian Eusebius died about the time when Athanasius returned to Alexandria from his first exile. This was shortly after Constantine’s death († 22nd May 337). Since Eusebius died soon after he had finished the life of Constantine, whom he did not long survive, his death is to be placed on the 30th May 338. This takes for granted that the Bishop of Palestine mentioned on the 30th May is identical with the historian, which can scarcely be called in doubt. Cæsarea was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Palestine, and this accounts for his title, Bishop of Palestine.765 His successor and heir and biographer was the energetic Acacius.

A more important fact is that the martyrdom of Bishop Babylas of Antioch can now be definitely established. We have in this document reliable evidence that he suffered on the 24th January, which corresponds with the evidence of Chrysostom, who stated that the Festival of SS. Juventinus and Maximin, which was kept on the 4th February, followed closely on that of St Babylas.766 Moreover, St Babylas was generally commemorated on the 24th January. According to Eusebius,767 Babylas died in prison under Decius, and, according to Jerome, in the first year of his reign. Decius reigned from October, or, according to other authorities, from August 249 to 27th July 251, and one of his first acts was to inaugurate the persecution against the Christians. Accordingly the death of Babylas must have happened on the 24th January 250. Since all authorities agree in stating that he had been bishop for thirteen years, we are now able to fix the year of the death of Zebinas, his predecessor, i.e. 237, and the day of the month is given as 13th January in the Arian martyrology. This document must be regarded as a thoroughly reliable source for the dates of the death of the Antiochene bishops in particular, and we can, therefore, place the death of Maximin, the seventh in the list of bishops, on the 4th February 191, and the death of Serapion on the 14th May 215.

It is scarcely necessary to observe that this calendar, although it is an Arian document, contains not merely the names of Arian worthies, but many which belong to Catholic antiquity. It is chiefly to this that it owes its importance for the history of the Church, and it is also due to this that it was capable of being combined with the catalogue of Persian saints, which is an essentially Catholic document. On the other hand, it is by no means a complete martyrology, and is in itself a liturgical, and not a historical, document intended by its unskilful compiler to serve party ends.

The Goths in Italy had also a menology of their own, of which a fragment was discovered by A. Mai. Unfortunately, it contains only the month of November. It is noteworthy that it mentions the Apostle Andrew, whose name does not occur in the similar martyrology of which we have just been speaking. The fragment, with this exception, contains Gothic names alone. St Clement and St Cecilia do not appear, which proves its freedom from Roman influence, and shows that it was essentially a national production.768

4. The So-Called Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Second Half of the Seventh Century)

Already in the time of St Gregory the Great there existed in Rome a complete and universal list containing merely the names of the martyrs and the place where they suffered, arranged according to the days of the year. Eulogius, the contemporary bishop of Alexandria, besought the pope to send him the complete collection of the acts of the martyrs drawn up by Eusebius in the time of Constantine. He believed these were to be found in Rome. He had doubtless in view the “Collection of Martyrs” (συλλογὴ τῶν μαρτυρίων) just mentioned. St Gregory replied that they had in Rome a collection of the names of all the martyrs in one volume, but no complete collection of their acts.769

The work of Eusebius here referred to was not forthcoming in Alexandria either, and was already regarded as lost, but the fact that such a work had once existed was not forgotten. A work of the same kind was also attributed to St Jerome, which is also no longer in existence. The senator Cassiodorus exhorts his monks to read diligently the histories of the martyrs (passiones martyrum) who have lived throughout the whole world, in order to stir themselves up to the practice of virtue. These they will find in the letter written by St Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus. These last words are somewhat obscure, for it would be impossible to deal with the acts of all the martyrs in one letter.770 However, so much is plain that Cassiodorus ascribed to St Jerome a work of this kind. Finally, it must be borne in mind that St Jerome had translated some of the historical writings of Eusebius. This may have given rise to the idea that he had also translated his collection of the martyrdoms. It is not impossible that he may have done so, although we have no evidence of the fact. Bede also speaks of a martyrology of St Jerome, but with some uncertainty, for he had never seen it himself, and thought St Jerome may have been only the translator and not the author of the work.771 In Bede’s day the so-called Hieronymianum was already in existence, as the researches of De Rossi and Duchesne have recently shown. That it was also known to Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus cannot be maintained, especially as the words of the latter are so obscure. It is, however, certain from his words that Cassiodorus believed Jerome to have been the author of a work of this kind. Further evidence for this is, unfortunately, lacking, though the thing is not impossible in itself. Abbot Hilduin, a writer of the ninth century, referred also to this point, and was of opinion that Constantine had collected all the acts of the martyrs from all parts of the empire, and had sent them to Eusebius at Cæsarea.772 This statement, however, is not of much importance, since it represents a view originating in the interpolated letter of St Jerome already referred to.

However this may be, there have existed since the eighth century numerous MSS. of a collection of the names of the martyrs of all times and countries belonging to the Roman Empire which went by the name of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, and to which was attached two reputed letters of St Jerome to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia, and to Heliodorus, Bishop of Altinum. The work corresponds to that mentioned by Cassiodorus.

Upon close examination, it is quite clear that the work, as we have it now, cannot have been composed by St Jerome. It includes the names of many persons who lived at a date subsequent to St Jerome, as, for example, to name one out of many, St Gregory the Great on the 12th March. In other respect the names do not extend beyond the seventh century, as appears upon an inspection of the earliest codices. In later recensions we naturally meet with the names of many persons who lived at a still later date.

As regards the date of composition, the personality of the compiler and kindred questions, we are face to face with an historical and literary problem resembling that of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine. Still some light has now been cast upon these difficulties, since we have at last a thoroughly critical text of the document, the investigations of De Rossi and Duchesne having determined which of the existing MSS. is the earliest.773

Among the MSS. belonging to the eighth century, is one written for the Monastery of Weissenburg in the diocese of Spires, now preserved in Wolfenbüttel, Codex Wisseniburgensis, 23. De Rossi believed it was written shortly before the death of Abbot Wando († 756) of Fontanelle in the diocese of Rouen, because his death has been added by a later hand on XV. Kal. Mai. It is certain that the codex was written before 772, because this date is referred to in it. Of about the same period is the Parisian Codex 10 837, belonging to Echternach. It is written in an Anglo-Saxon hand, and is perhaps somewhat later than the former, but is derived from an original MS. certainly older than the Weissenburg Codex. This view which is that of De Rossi gains support from the fact that the two festivals in honour of the Holy Cross are not contained in the codex, while they appear in the Weissenburg and all later codices. Both codices are full of errors of grammar and spelling. The codex from the monastery of Hilariacum originally belonging to Metz and now at Berne, is more correct and better written, but unfortunately only extends to the 21st November. The latest entries made in it by the first hand belong to the year 766 and refer to Bishop Chrodegang. The text dates from the time of Clotaire II. (584-628).

These three most ancient recensions do not differ from one another to any great extent, but the MSS. belonging to later times, when the work was often copied and used, show much greater divergencies, for alterations and additions were continually being made in it corresponding to the requirements of the local churches and monasteries where it was employed.

Since the two learned editors have succeeded in detecting the original matter common to the three recensions, we are in possession of the following result: the martyrology which formed the original source of all later texts as far as they are known to us was written in Auxerre between 592 and 600. The grounds for this conclusion are briefly as follows: the compiler is evidently well informed as to ecclesiastical and secular events in Gaul, in fact far better than with regard to any other country. In naming the cities of Gaul, he gives the provinces in which they are situated, and gives also many unusual details respecting the individuals named, as for example when he gives in the case of bishops, not only the day on which they died, but the date of their ordinations as well; the names are also always given correctly, while in other documents they are often frightfully distorted. A circumstance which especially points to Auxerre as the locality from which the martyrology originated is that this not very important city is mentioned thirty times while the neighbouring and much larger city of Lyons is named only twenty-six times. Moreover, all the bishops of Auxerre, with one solitary exception, are named, while there are many gaps in the lists of the bishops of Lyons and Autun. Thirdly, a litania is enjoined on the first of each month, and this custom was peculiar to the Church of Auxerre, having just been introduced at that time by Bishop Aunarius. Again, the day of the ordination of this not very famous Bishop Aunarius is marked (II. Kal. Aug.), but not as we might have expected the day of his death. The same holds good of Syagrius, Bishop of Autun; the date of his consecration (natale suscepti episcopatus) is given, but not the date of his death which happened in 599 or 600. The last Gallic bishop whose death is noticed is Avitus of Clermont († 592).

On account of these facts, Duchesne arrived at the conclusion that the so-called Martyrologium Hieronymianum originated at Auxerre between 592 and 600. This conclusion is not weakened by the fact that personages belonging to the seventh century are included,774 such as Desiderius of Vienne († 606-7), Columbanus († 615), Eustasius, Abbot of Luxeuil († 629), and Abbot Attala, the date of whose death is unknown. Desiderius, indeed, appears in the Berne and Weissenburg Codices, and the three others in that of Echternach, but they have been added by the transcribers, and both De Rossi and Duchesne are agreed that none of these codices represent the original text composed at Auxerre.

The editors go yet further, and show that the compiler was also very well informed concerning ecclesiastical matters in Italy, especially in Northern Italy and Milan; while he has comparatively little to say about Spain, Rhætia, Dalmatia, Pannonia, and nothing at all about Scotto-Irish saints. This postulates the existence of a yet older work, used by the compiler of Auxerre, which may have been identical with the work familiar to Cassiodorus.775 This document, however, has entirely disappeared without leaving behind it any other documents derived from it. If one follows the perspective thus opened out, the connecting links may finally come to light which connect this document with the work of Eusebius, referred to by Eulogius of Alexandria and in the two letters attributed to St Jerome.

However, we shall not follow these interesting suggestions further, but shall content ourselves with the fact that in the Hieronymianum, in the earliest form in which it has come down to us, we have a primitive martyrology,776 with additions and alterations made to it by a Frankish transcriber or compiler between 592-600. In its original form it contained only saints belonging to the Græco-Roman empire, and this accounts for the absence of the Irish saints and those of Mesopotamia. Thus at last the so-called Hieronymianum has been made serviceable for use in historical and liturgical investigations; the learned editors, in giving us as far as possible the original text, have given us for the first time a reliable edition of the document, and the Bollandists have rendered the work still more serviceable by the addition of a reliable alphabetical index, thus considerably lightening the labours of those who use this work. This is no common gain for liturgical study, since the Hieronymianum, obtained in the course of time, an increasingly prominent position, more prominent indeed at last than it deserved; moreover it has not been without its influence upon later martyrologies and calendars, and has had an appreciable effect even on the development of the Church’s cycle of festivals.

To know the number and condition of the Christians who had laid down their lives for the faith within the limits of the Roman empire would be of the highest interest now and always; to record the name, date, and locality of each with statistical accuracy would have been a work deserving the thanks of posterity. It might have been done immediately after the cessation of the Diocletian persecution, but only with the assistance of the secular authorities. Eulogius and the writer of the letters ascribed to St Jerome were on the right track in thinking that Eusebius had undertaken to furnish a work of this character with the assistance of the emperor; the latter informs us that Eusebius actually did so, and that the collection contained the names of from five to eight hundred martyrs for every day of the year, thus giving a total of between 182,500 and 292,000 martyrs.

Our Latin compiler indeed has not brought together so many names, and he states in the reputed letter of St Jerome that he only admitted those martyrs whose commemoration was celebrated with special solemnity (qui sunt in amplissima festivitate). However he has brought together in round numbers 6000 names—quite a respectable number when compared with the Menologium Basilianum, which belongs to a much later date, and it remains a question how it was possible for a Frankish scholar of the sixth century to get together so many names. Some of them certainly are distorted, others are repeated in a remarkable way, and others again have an unreal sound,777 but when all deductions have been made, there still remains so much that is historical and unexceptional that the whole work cannot be dismissed as devoid of all authority. With regard to the origin and value of this mass of names, one finds oneself confronted by a question which seems equally insoluble, whether the compiler was a native of Gaul, of North Italy, or of anywhere else. He certainly incorporated into his martyrology the older lists of martyrs existing at his day, many of which are known to us, and the two editors have displayed both industry and insight in making this clear in several cases; yet all these lists of martyrs taken together contain scarcely a thousand names. From what sources has the compiler obtained the rest? This is the question which still awaits an answer. On the other hand the compiler has given expression to an important principle to which is due his influence on the hagiology and liturgy of later ages. The Arian Calendar of which we have spoken, concerned itself with the eastern half alone of the empire, and is composed almost entirely of names belonging thereto, but the author of the Hieronymianum set to work on quite another principle; he had in view the entire Christian world, East and West, Africa and Gaul. His point of view is infinitely wider than that of his predecessors, and even of many of his successors, and he made use of the fruitful principle of universalism, rejecting all particularism in the ecclesiastical sphere.

While there had been calendars in the West containing the names of martyrs belonging to a particular diocese or country, the compiler of the Hieronymianum regarded the Church as a whole—as catholic. The meaning of this will be seen from a glance at the service-books, the sacramentaries especially. In the ninth century and later, the Roman sacramentaries, even those intended for use in other countries such as those of St Gall, Mainz, Cologne, and Essen, contain only Masses for the Roman saints, confining themselves to one or two local saints in the supplement. The principle of universality only very gradually affected the formularies of the Mass, and did not reach its full expression until the sixteenth century, but it came to the fore much earlier in the martyrologies, as early indeed as Ado, Usuardus, Notker, and Rabanus Maurus, chiefly owing to the influence of the Hieronymianum.

This document is not without peculiarities of its own. In all recensions of the text, the 25th March is given as the day of Christ’s death, and since James the Lord’s brother, here called also “The Just,” died at Easter, his death is placed also on the 25th March. In the Berne Codex the sacrifice of Isaac is commemorated on the same day. There is a goodly array of Old Testament names, e.g. Aggeus, Habacuc, Job, Joel, Aaron, Eliseus, etc. In the Berne Codex, the 28th September is given as the day of Noe’s going out of the ark, the 7th January as the day of the Exodus, and the 1st May as the commencement of our Lord’s preaching.

Now that the date of its composition has been fixed, the Hieronymianum is specially valuable for the information which it gives concerning Frankish hagiography and its gradual development. Whoever will devote himself in the future to investigating St Denys of Paris, St Ursula, etc., must pursue his studies in the various recensions and transcriptions of the Hieronymianum. It will well repay the trouble, if someone would investigate how many of the reputed martyrs of Lower Germany are named in this important document. It only knows of two martyrs at Cologne, Asclinius and Pamphilus, in addition to the Moorish martyrs whose numbers, however, vary greatly in the MSS.; their commander is named Gereon. No saints are given for Mainz. For Treves we have Valerius, Paulinus, Maximinus, and a Bishop Militius; Palmatius Thyrsus and his Innumerable Company had not yet been discovered or invented. For Bonn the connection in which Cassius, Florentius, and Mallusius stand to one another on the 10th October is worthy of notice. We find some African martyrs first of all on this day, and then, without indication of Bonn or any other locality, we have: “Et alibi Cassi, Eusebi, Florenti, Victoris, Agrippinæ, Mallusi cum alii trecentos xxx.” (sic). The later legends omit Eusebius, and put Mallusius instead, who was buried at Birten and discovered by Bishop Evergisil; the martyr Victor is said to have been also originally buried at Birten.778

With regard to the Roman martyrs and the succession of the popes, the Hieronymianum is not altogether independent of the Philocalian list, although it is fuller. The earliest pope mentioned in it is Cornelius, and the last St Leo I., while the Philocalian list begins with Lucius († 254), and ends with Boniface I. († 422). The Hieronymianum gives also the days of the consecration of some of them, e.g. Miltiades, Liberius, Innocent I., and Boniface I. On the other hand the earlier martyrs are omitted with the exception of Clement I.

The indications of place are dealt with on various principles. For the most part the city is naturally given where the martyrdom took place; occasionally only the province is given, as, for example, Achaia, Asia, Campania, Sardinia, and Sicily, this being especially the case in regard to the last-named island. Remarkable on account of its vagueness is the phrase in Africa which occurs more than a hundred times without the name of any town being given, but, nevertheless, in the case of many African martyrs the town is given.779 Often so many personal names follow one another that one suspects that some indications of place have dropped out, a conjecture to which one is all the more inclined as the indefinite expression et alibi is very often employed.

The martyrs themselves are only distinguished by their rank in the hierarchy, when they belonged to the sacred ministry, i.e. deacon, presbyter, bishop, but by far the larger number of personages are without any indication of place, date, etc. In many cases it is evident that the same person has been entered twice or oftener,780 and mutilations, disfigurements and alterations are very numerous, more especially in the later MSS. The transcribers allowed themselves considerable freedom, adding supplements and corrections, apart from the unintentional mistakes they made. A hint of a literary nature is given by the remark, “cujus” or “quorum acta habentur,” indicating the existence of the acts of such and such a martyr. Later transcribers were not satisfied with this, but, when the acts were forthcoming, added larger or shorter notices from them to the text.781 Had we the work as it came originally from the hands of the compiler of Auxerre, these imperfections would disappear to a considerable extent. A glance at any entry in the three recensions shows how freely the earliest transcribers dealt with the original text; in the new edition the three recensions are printed in parallel columns.782 All these remarks have an intimate bearing upon the question of the sources and origin of the work. With regard to sources, the Roman Depositio Martyrum has been incorporated bodily, and a great part of the Carthaginian Calendar as well, but the compiler must have had the Arian Martyrology in a better copy than that which has come down to us, or even in its original form; this is shown by the fact that frequently he has quite correctly enlarged some of its indefinite entries.783 His use of this martyrology is clear from his inserting Eusebius among the saints, in ignorance of his Arianism; he inserted the name in all simplicity, a mistake avoided by the Greek menologies, and the same may possibly have been the case with regard to Arius in the Weissenburg Codex.784

This employment of earlier sources coupled with the numerous correct entries in the Hieronymianum entirely excludes the view that the document is a fabrication. Indeed its composition can safely be said to have come about in the following manner:—in the two first centuries the persecutions were on the whole local, and the number of martyrs not very large, although the persecution at Lyons in 177 caused the death of more than forty martyrs, not counting confessors; a change took place in the third century, when persecutions were commanded by the emperors for the whole extent of the empire, and, under Diocletian, the martyrs were to be reckoned, if not by millions, at least by thousands. At the conclusion of the persecutions, it must have occurred to many to ask how many had lost their lives in this troublous period, and the idea of drawing up statistics of the martyrdoms must have sprung up. We have no evidence of anything of this sort actually having been done, but in the sixth century there was a widespread opinion that a work of this kind had been accomplished by Eusebius under Constantine, and the passages quoted from Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great show it was believed a list of the martyrs for the whole year existed in Italy or in Rome. If this work contained merely a list of names and dates, its interest must have been merely statistical and in no wise scientific, since little could be learnt from the names by themselves. In the seventh century, however, either in Auxerre or in North Italy, it seems to have been held in greater esteem; it found a transcriber and reviser, and finally was brought into connection with the liturgy owing to its being read at the choir-offices in monasteries and convents, and by this means, it won its way to a position of widespread importance, which, however, did not have an advantageous effect on the purity of the text.

With regard to the printed editions, there are several published by various scholars who relied upon late MSS. of little value. We may mention the editions of Fiorentini, Lucca 1668 (incomplete), of D’Achery in the Spicilegium, ii. 1 (Migne, xxx.), and of Galesinius, Milan, 1577. It used to be disputed which of these editions gave the earliest text, but they are all quite superseded now. There are also many abstracts of the Hieronymianum in mediæval handwriting, as, for example, the Martyrol. Gallicanum; Martène, Ampliss. Coll. VI., called after Chauvelin (Migne, Patr. Lat., xxx. 607); the Fuldense; Anal. Boll. XIII.; the Reichenau martyrology, etc., but they are of small scientific importance.

5. The Lectionary and Martyrology of Silos

Since the appointment of special Masses in honour of the saints is a distinguishing feature of the Latin rite, Western liturgical books are in themselves a source from which we can increase our knowledge of the saints’ festivals, the most important in this respect being the sacramentaries, but the other books used at the celebration of Mass, the collections of epistles and gospels especially, also throw light on the subject.

In addition to the books of this kind already named, the Lectionarius of Silos has, in recent times, attracted much attention in this connection.785 It is of the highest importance both for the history of the development of the ecclesiastical year and for the festivals of the saints, for as it belongs to the period preceding the Carolingian liturgical reform, it represents a very ancient rite of which, until its discovery, all trace had disappeared. This rite is not the same as the southern Spanish rite of the Province of Boetica from which the so-called Mozarabic rite is derived, but belongs to the ancient ecclesiastical province of Toledo. The codex in which it is contained was written before the year 1062, for a later event, i.e. the translation of St Isidore’s relics from Seville to Leon, is added by a later hand. This codex, originally belonging to the monastery of St Sebastian at Silos and now in the National library of Paris, contains two distinct documents, a lectionary giving the lections from scripture for the whole of the year, and a martyrology; the latter was compiled between 925 and 1000; but the lectionary much earlier. Its antiquity is proved: (1) By the limited numbers of saints’ days; (2) by the circumstance that the catechumenate is still in force; (3) that the Saturdays in Lent are not fast days, agreeing with the eastern custom; (4) the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost do not appear as forming part of the ecclesiastical year, and are not even numbered, but, as in the Gelasianum, there are added twenty-four Masses called “dominicæ quotidianæ”; (5) there are five Sundays in Advent; (6) with regard to saints’ days, Anastasius the Persian is not yet placed along with St Vincent on the 21st January, and the Apostle James is also omitted along with all reference to the Spanish legend connected with his name. From this it is plain that St James, at the time when this work was compiled enjoyed no special worship in Spain. On these grounds the first editor, G. Morin, regards the lectionary as certainly belonging to 650.

The book represents a rite hitherto entirely unknown but which can be no other than the ancient rite of Toledo, since in it the Annunciation is placed on the 18th December as is prescribed by the first canon of the tenth council of Toledo. It differs from the Mozarabic rite as to the number of Sundays in Advent, of which the latter reckons six, and also in the eight Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; another peculiarity is that the Innocents’ Day is omitted on the 27th December, but an “Allisio Infantium” is kept instead in the 8th January. None of the Roman and Byzantine feasts of our Lady are mentioned, and only one feast of the Holy Cross on the 3rd May, omitting the other on the 14th September; all Masses for saints’ days have two epistles.

The martyrology of Silos also is an important document on account of its original character, although it is some three centuries later than the lectionary. It is entitled, Martyrum Legium, and it is considerably richer in names of saints than the lectionary, and is quite independent of the Hieronymianum, though influenced in a slight degree by the Roman rite. The martyrs in the Moorish persecution, under, Abdurrhaman II., which lasted from 850 to 860, appear in large numbers. The historian of this persecution, the priest Eugenius of Toledo, who was put to death on 11th March 859, is entered, but placed on 1st June, the day of the translation of his relics; St Pelagius of Corduba, who suffered death on 26th June 925 under Abdurrhaman III. is also entered, and this date gives one limit in fixing the date of the work, the other limit being the year 1000. There are five additions by a later hand, i.e. on 12th March, Gregorii Papæ; on 1st May, Transitus Philippi Apostoli, without St James; on 28th April, Prudentii et Sociorum ejus; on 21st December, S. Thomæ Apostoli, and on 22nd December the Translatio corporis S. Isidori. Some personages are entered, who are not called saints, but only Domnus, four of whom belong to Toledo, two being bishops: Julian († 6th March 690) and Eugenius II. († 29th May 647); on 14th January, another Julian, and, on 13th March, Depositio Leandri. Half of the entire names belong to Spain, the other half to Rome and the East; of the Frankish martyrs, Denys of Paris, Afra of Augsburg, and Boniface of Mainz are commemorated. As regards the feasts of our Lady, besides the ancient Spanish feast on the 18th December, we have only the Assumption on 15th August. Litanies are appointed for 10th September, 7th November, and 15th December, besides a fast on 2nd January. The name of the Apostle St James is absent from the martyrology as well as from the lectionary. Bishop Torquatus and his companions are placed on 1st May, in both documents, but in the martyrology they are not described as disciples of the apostles, which is favourable to their historical existence. The Apostles Simon and Jude are on the 1st July instead of the 28th October, and there is also a Symon Apostolus on 19th October as well. Although traces of later influence appear in this martyrology, it has still preserved the independent character of the early Christian Calendars.

6. Egyptian (Coptic) Calendars and Synaxaria

The anglican archeologist, John Selden († 1634), has given us the earliest Egyptian calendars in his work on the Jewish Sanhedrin which was left unfinished when he died. In the third book of this work, Selden intended to deal with the rite for the dedication of Christian churches, although this lay beyond the immediate purpose of his investigations, and he thought that some Arabic Calendars in his possession might have some bearing on the question.786 Unfortunately, he gave no information concerning the MSS. from which these calendars were taken, and they seem, moreover, when discovered, to have been by no means in a good condition. Ludolf declared himself dissatisfied with these publications, and Wüstenfeld remarked: “The Arabic MSS. employed, must have been faulty, and were made still worse by the faulty reading and transcribing of the editor and the printing is so incorrect that some words would be almost, and others quite unintelligible, were there not other helps to their meaning at hand.”787 Still, in spite of these well-founded criticisms from specialists, Selden’s work cannot be over-looked. There seem also to have been gaps and undecipherable passages in the MS. itself.

There are three calendars edited by Selden: two short, and one long, the latter being of later date than the others. The two first have a supplement to each month, called ordo alter, both appear to have been originally drawn up for the use of monasteries, but are distinguished from one another in important points. We shall designate them by the letters A and B. A is at any rate of Egyptian origin and is monophysite in character, because the heresiarch Severus, who lived in the sixth century, twice appears in it, on 8th February and 29th September. Other peculiarities in the document are: 1. It has two feasts of the Holy Cross, on 6th March Inventio Crucis, by which doubtless the recovery of the Cross by Heraclius in 629 is meant, and festum crucis gloriosæ on 14th September. 2. The Nativity of our Lady is on 26th April. 3. The commemorations of the Mother of God in use in Egypt, are given on the 21st of the months January, March, May, July, and October: B omits these feasts. 4. A has the archangel Gabriel on the 18th December, but no festival of the Annunciation, while B places Evangelismus on the 25th March, and no feast on the 18th December pointing onwards to the impending Nativity of our Lord. 5. A has the four living creatures of the Apocalypse on the 4th November who appear also later on in Coptic calendars: B omits them. 6. In A the conquest of Egypt by the Mahometans is seven times mentioned, e.g. 26th May, 10th December, etc. 7. A does not mention St Ignatius of Antioch, but B places him on the 20th December. 8. B has the Emperor Theodosius on the 3rd March, St John Chrysostom on the 7th May and 13th November, also Ephrem Syrus on the 9th July, and Dioscorus of Alexandria on the 31st August.

From these entries we see that B is catholic and Syrian, and A monophysite and Egyptian. Both certainly belong to the same period. B was probably also used in Egypt, for the Patriarch Isaac I. of Alexandria is mentioned, who died on the 10th Athyr = 6th November 688 or 689.788 The Athanasius mentioned on the 6th September must have been Athanasius II. who became patriarch of Antioch in 629.789 These calendars and the following one as well are contained in the Arabic translation of Abulaibsan Achmed Calcasendi who has prefaced them with a list of Coptic festivals (see above p. 26). Had they come down to us in better condition, they would be of the utmost importance in the investigation of our subject, notwithstanding their heretical character. The third of the calendars published by Selden has fared little better; it certainly belongs to the same period as the others, although somewhat later in date. The latest person mentioned in it seems to be the Patriarch Isaac I., named already in A. It was thought that this was the second monophysite patriarch of that name who died in 954, but it is not so, for this personage is named on the 10th Athyr = 6th November, and the Coptic Synaxarium, translated by Wüstenfeld, which mentions him on the same day, expressly states that he was the immediate successor of John, surnamed Semnudæus from the place of his birth, Sebennytos, who died on the 9th Athyr 686, after having pointed him out as his successor. The predecessor of Isaac II., however, was Sophronius, and his successor was called Job. Accordingly Isaac I. must be intended here, and thus the calendar belongs to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.790

Its monophysite character is proved from the mention of the heresiarch Severus three times, i.e. on the 26th April (festum Severi), on the 4th September, and on the 1st December. It has no feast of St Peter and St Paul on the 29th June, but only a Planctus Pauli on the 18th March. The following points are worthy of notice:—25th March is the day of the Crucifixion, the 28th May is kept as the Inventio ossium S. Lucæ and the 6th March as the Manifestatio Crucis, where the later calendar adds, per Heraclium imperatorem. We have the beginnings of the Egyptian custom of commemorating the Mother of God on the 21st of each month, i.e. on the 21st Payni and the 21st Phaophi. The festum Dominæ on the 2nd August is certainly a feast of our Lady, but the festum Mirjam on the 22nd July is probably a festival of St Mary Magdalen. There are many things in this document the meaning of which can only be surmised.

A welcome addition to our knowledge of liturgical matters among the Copts exists in a calendar of the ninth century in the Vatican library; it is found along with a Coptic Evangeliarium in a codex written in 1328. The document is described and translated into Latin by A. Mai in the fourth volume of his Nova Collectio.791 The date is determined by the fact that the Patriarch Amba Zacharias, who is entered as a saint in the later Synaxarium on the 13th Athyr,792 does not appear in the calendar; he was patriarch, according to Le Quien from 1005 to 1032. The last Jacobite patriarchs mentioned are those who succeeded one another from Alexander to Michael (Chail). Michael was succeeded by John, after a vacancy of ten years, who ruled from 766-799.793 Accordingly this calendar belongs to the ninth century. A striking peculiarity in it is that the Manifestatio Crucis is on the 17th-19th September instead of the 14th as in all other calendars.

The circumstance that several saints, instead of having one commemoration, have several, may give rise to confusion. St Thecla appears no less than five times, twice with the title martyr (on the 25th February and the 10th September), once as apostola (on the 12th July), on the 6th May and 3rd December she has no title. Although there was a second St Thecla, still this would not altogether explain the entries. Then James the son of Zebedee is mentioned on the 28th and 30th of April, as well as James the Lord’s brother on the 12th July and 23rd October. St Michael the Archangel occurs eight times. Our Lady’s Nativity is celebrated on both the 26th April and the 7th September. No importance is to be attached to these repetitions; they are purely arbitrary, and are due to the desire to provide a name for every day in the calendar, and to fill up vacant places.794 This appears especially from the circumstance that on the 29th of every Egyptian month, corresponding to the 25th in the Julian Calendar, a commemoration of Christ’s Nativity is given, and on the 21st of each month a feast of our Lady (Commemoratio Dominæ S. Mariæ). The Death and Assumption of our Lady is placed on the 16th January. St Joseph the Carpenter has his commemoration on the 20th July. Fides, Spes, and Charitas appear as three martyrs under Hadrian on the 25th January; they are said to be daughters of a reported Sophia. No St Catherine appears either in this calendar or in the later Synaxarium but the heretic Severus († 539) is twice commemorated: on the 29th September (Adventus Severi Patrarchæ in Ægyptum) and on the 8th February, when he died.

Coptic calendars of a later date are still richer in names, but are full of legends and absurdities which show the steady decline of culture among the sect under Mahometan rule. This is especially the case with the Synaxarium or collection of legends compiled from ancient sources by Bishop Amba Michael of Atriba and Malidsch at the end of the fourteenth century.795 The basis of the collection is an older work of the same kind composed sometime about the year 1090 (see 3rd Athyr).796 Information concerning the saints who lived in monasteries was taken by Bishop Michael from a so-called “Guide,” used by both the Egyptian Copts and Melchites.797 A “Guide” of this kind had been written especially for Alexandria by Bishop Amba John of Kift. Michael refers in his work to the years 1382 and 1387 (see 7th Bermahat and 19th Bermuda), and so must have lived in the fourteenth century.

As the work contains much information drawn from the ecclesiastical histories of the Copts and Abyssinians, it has been translated and much used in spite of its faulty character. It affords many useful particulars concerning the traditions and feasts of the Egyptian Church, and on this account Stephen Assemani undertook to make an abstract of the whole work which is printed in the fourth volume of Mai’s Nova Collectio. F. Wüstenfeld made a translation of the first part containing the first half of the Egyptian year, from September to February; the second half, from March to August including the intercalary days, is unfortunately still untranslated.

7. The Menology of Constantinople (Eighth Century)

The Eastern Church possesses a calendar of Saints belonging to the eighth century, which occupies an intermediate position between a merely Eastern Calendar, and one that is universal. Its title runs, Calendar of the Gospels for Festivals (μηνολόγιον τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἑορταστικῶν), for it gives the passage from the Gospels to be read on each day; it contains a considerable number of saints belonging to the East, though the days are far from being all occupied. March and April have remarkably few feasts; this is owing to the ancient, but even then obsolete injunction of the Trullan Council that the feasts of no martyrs were to be kept in Lent.

Several circumstances prove that Constantinople was the locality where this document originated and was in use. Certain quarters of the city, as for example, Blachernæ and Chalcoprateia, are mentioned; the 11th May is mentioned as the day of the city’s foundation; so too is the earthquake which threw down the city walls on the 24th September 557. A large number of the patriarchs of Constantinople are included, twenty-nine in all, beginning with Metrophanes (4th June 305-325) and ending with Paul who was patriarch from September 686 to the 2nd September 693. The absence of the twenty-one reputed bishops from St Andrew to Metrophanes suggests the thought that when this document was drawn up this invention had not been accepted.

Morcelli maintains that the Paul the younger mentioned on the 2nd September is the Patriarch Paul II., under whom the Trullan Council was held in 692, but he would, however, exonerate him from participation in the schismatic council, since he opposed it at a later date; this, however, contradicts the accepted chronology. No patriarch, not even Germanus, and none of the many martyrs and confessors belonging to the time of the Iconoclastic controversy under Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus, are mentioned. From this one concludes that the menology was composed immediately after the cessation of the first Iconoclastic controversy, at a date when the judgment on the sanctity of these personages had not yet been concluded, or when people were unwilling to revive the painful recollections which their name evoked.

The martyrs, confessors, and doctors of the Eastern Church are there in long array, at least all the celebrated ones, not only those belonging to all four patriarchates, but also those belonging to other countries, such as Anastasius the Persian († 628, on the 22nd January). The popes and saints of the West are excluded with the exception of the three martyrs Lawrence, Gervasius, and Protasius.

The names of many Old Testament personages are included: Moses, Aaron, Elias, Jeremias, etc., also almost all the apostles and their immediate disciples, but for the most part they occur on different dates from those which they usually occupy in the Roman Calendar. For instance, St John the Evangelist is on the 8th May and the 26th September, St Barnabas on the 11th June, SS. Peter and Paul on the 29th June, St Titus on the 25th August, St Thomas on the 6th October, St Philip on the 14th November, St Andrew on the 30th November. SS. Joachim and Anna appear on the 9th September, the day after our Lady’s Nativity, the Archangel Michael on the 8th November, St Thecla (here entitled proto-martyr) on the 24th September, and the Holy Innocents on the 31st December. For the first time, Constantine and his mother Helena, appear as saints in the calendar; they are commemorated together on the 21st May, a day which falls before that on which Constantine actually died. Justinian and his consort Theodora are commemorated also, but do not appear with the title “saint”; they are placed on the 14th November, the day on which Justinian died, Theodora having preceded him on the 28th June 548. Justinian was called a prince of pious memory by the popes Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great.798

From these indications it appears that this martyrology was intended principally if not exclusively for the city and diocese of Constantinople. The safest conclusion to arrive at is to regard it as the martyrology of the patriarchate of Constantinople, since it steers a middle course, as it were, between particularism and universality: it is the most ancient of the Greek menologies known to us. Among the Greeks St John Damascene is regarded as the originator of calendars of this kind,799 corresponding to Ado in the Latin Church. The menology has been edited with an excellent commentary by Stephen A. Morcelli (Rome, 1788), having previously been published in Latin at Urbino (1727) from the Codex of Cardinal Albani.

8. The Menology of the Emperor Basil II., and the Syrian Lectionary of the Eleventh Century

This menology takes its name from Basil II. Porphyrogenitus (976-1025), and was given to the public for the first time in its entirety by Cardinal Albani at Urbino in 1727, from two codices each containing six months. It is distinguished from the menology which we have just described by having a saint on every day of the year, and most of the days have more than one; the saints are drawn from the whole extent of the Eastern Church, and the Western Church, especially Sicily and Rome, is more prominent than in the former document.

As regards Rome, there are a large number of popes given who are entirely absent from the other menology: Silvester, Leo, Agatho, Gregory I., Celestine, etc. With the exception of Gregory I. they are generally placed on different dates from those on which they are commemorated in the West, e.g. Silvester on the 2nd January, Leo on the 18th February, and Alexander on the 16th March, etc. It appears as if the sources which the compiler had at his disposal for the West were insufficient, since, for example, he gives St Perpetua, St Felicitas and companions once on the 2nd February, and again on the 14th March, with the addition, “in Rome”; from this it would appear that he thought the saints mentioned on the first date had belonged to some other locality. St Agnes is given on the 5th July.

Not so many patriarchs of Constantinople are given as one would have expected, and many, indeed, are omitted who are included in the menology of which we have spoken in the previous section, as, for example, Nectarius, Paul II., Gennadius, Thomas II., but on the other hand we find some who lived after the composition of the earlier document, especially Germanus, Tarasius, and Antonius II., surnamed Cauleas († 12th February 896).800

In other points the Basilianum resembles the former work, except that it is fuller in every respect. The most striking feature is the large number of saints belonging to religious orders contained in it, who for the most part are specially designated; even the patriarch of the Western monks, St Benedict, is not forgotten, and is given on his proper day. Names from the Old Testament occur frequently, and from the New Testament, we have almost all the disciples of the apostles whose names are given, and these are designated as “belonging to the Seventy.” The number of the days of apostles is considerable, though seldom coinciding with the days observed in the Western Church, except in the case of St Mark, St Barnabas, SS. Peter and Paul, and St Andrew. Both the St James are absent, and so are deprived of veneration within the region in which this document was followed,801 but there is a feast of all the apostles on the 30th June. St Anna appears on the 25th July; St John the Baptist on the 24th June and 29th August. It is to be noticed that the first four general councils have each a special day allotted to them, while in the Constantinopolitanum all are commemorated on the same day—16th July. It is strange to find not only earthquakes, included, but also defeats in the wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Bulgarians, but unfortunately there is nothing to indicate the localities where these events happened (see the 7th and 20th February, the 23rd March, the 24th May, etc.). This exceeds the limits observed in liturgical documents.

As the day of the foundation of Constantinople (the 11th May) is again included in this document, we must conclude that it belongs to this city. Since, too, Goths and Persians find a place in it, it is ahead of its predecessors in its attempts to achieve universality.802

While the admission of foreign names is to be welcomed as a step in advance, it may yet, on the other hand, be a source of confusion and give rise to mistakes later on. We find, namely, in this menology, that the names of foreign saints are not always given on the correct date, but are arbitrarily placed on other days than those to which they belonged. Later redactors, when they found the same name on different dates, may have thought that different persons were meant, and this may have been the cause of the repetition of the names of saints. This shows that in admitting names of new saints, and the correct day of whose death had not been transmitted, they acted according to their fancy. This was the case with regard to the majority of the Seventy Disciples, many of whom appear here for the first time. The same must have taken place also with feasts of our Lord, as when the Flight in Egypt is given on the 26th December, and so placed before the Circumcision and the Presentation. The admission of foreign names was left to chance or opinion. Thus, e.g. the Western saints Ambrose, Martin of Tours, and Hosius are admitted, but Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, etc., are passed over.

The impression made by the entire document is that the principles which were on the whole followed in its composition were not maintained with sufficient care, but yielded more than was right to opinion and caprice. In many cases, too, the necessary knowledge of history, and a sufficient supply of literary material seems to have been lacking.

A useful document, especially for saints’ days, is a lectionary of the orthodox Syrians contained in the codex xix. of the Vatican Library. It was written in the monastery of Mar Mussa at Antioch in 1030, and contains in the first section the lections for the ecclesiastical year, in the second, those for saints’ days, beginning with the 1st September as New Year’s Day. In it are given the martyrs of the Iconoclastic controversy, several orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicephorus († 2nd June 828) being the last; then come many names from the old Testament, and many feasts of apostles, the Catenæ Petri on the 16th January being one of them, four feasts of St John the Baptist, and six of our Lady. There are no Roman or Western saints with the exception of St Lawrence. This document has been published by Count F. Miniscalchi-Errizzo under the title Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum (2 vols. 4to, Verona, 1682).

In using documents of this kind for purposes of historical investigation, as for instance in order to determine the day on which a historical personage died, the appeal must always be to the local sources. In the case of saints belonging to the Western Church no importance must be attached to the fact that the Easterns may have transferred them to a different day, and vice versâ, as, for example, in the case of St Ignatius of Antioch. Where the day is given in some local source, otherwise deserving of credit, we can be then certain that it is correct. This must be done with regard to SS. Peter and Paul, for whom the local sources give invariably the 29th June, while foreign calendars give other dates, as we find is the case with Polemius, Silvius, and the Arian martyrology. The compilers of these calendars wished to celebrate the Princes of the Apostles, but, being ignorant of the actual day of their death, placed them on any day that seemed suitable. Finally, at a later date the correct date came to the knowledge of foreign churches, and found its way into their calendars.

9. The Kalendarium Marmoreum of Naples

In the ninth century, a time of great activity in matters relating to hagiography, the Church of Naples undertook a revision of its calendar, which exhibits noteworthy peculiarities.

First of all, nearly every day of the year is provided with the name of a saint, which indicates considerable care and study. This result was achieved by following the Eastern custom of admitting Old Testament personages, although not to the same extent. The grounds on which the selection was made cannot be discovered, for we have Abraham on the 9th October, Isaac on the 17th March, Eliseus on the 28th November, Daniel on the 17th December, Zacharias on the 13th May, while other important personages, such as Isaias, etc., are omitted. We are also reminded of eastern usage by the commemoration of the council of Ephesus on the 4th August, and other traces of eastern influence are noticeable in the admission of a few bishops of Constantinople, such as Metrophanes, and also of the names of Constantine (without Helena) on the 21st May, and Theodosius on the 10th November. With regard to Metrophanes, the compiler is guilty of a remarkable oversight; he has placed him once on the right day (the 4th June), without his title, and again on the 4th January with his title, “Patr. Const.” The confusion between the 4th of June and the 4th of January might easily escape a transcriber, and must have already existed in the source which the compiler used. In order not to omit any name the compiler preferred to enter the same name twice, once with, and once without, its proper title.

This reminds us that St Mark also occurs twice, on the 25th April and the 17th May. St Philip is united to St James on the 1st May (a trace of Roman influence), and is found again alone on the 14th November. St Silvester comes on the 31st December and a Depositio Silvestri P.P., on the 2nd January; a Jacobus Ap. and Mattheus on unusual dates, the 15th and 16th November, other Apostles are on more usual dates, e.g. St Jude is commemorated on the 21st May. St Bartholomew’s day (the 25th August) is given wrongly as Nat. Pass., being in reality the day of his translation. The names of Apostles and their disciples are very numerous.

With regard to the worship of the Holy Cross, both days occur (i.e. the 3rd May and 14th September), with the title now in use, although formerly, the feast of the 3rd May was alone observed in the West, and that of the 14th September in the East. The reason for this circumstance has been already given in this book. Bishops of Naples naturally appear frequently; e.g. Maro (15th June) belongs to the third century, others belong to the period from the sixth to the eighth century, such as Redux on the 27th March († 584), Agnellus on the 9th January († 691), Adeodatus on the 1st October († 671), Fortunatus on the 14th June († 600 circ.), Paulus the elder on the 3rd March († 760). The last to be named is probably Paul the younger on the 17th February († 820).803 Paul III. of Constantinople cannot be intended here, for his day is the 30th August. We may add that the feast of All Saints had not yet been admitted, a circumstance which throws light on the probable date when this calendar was drawn up. Special importance attaches to this calendar on account of its intermediate position between the calendars of the Eastern and Western Churches.

It was discovered in 1742 in S. Giovanni Maggiore and edited incorrectly, according to Mai, by Marinius, correctly by Mazzochius (Naples, 1744). The most recent edition is by A. Mai himself.804

10. Western Authorities From the Sixth to the Eighth Centuries

In the West the worship of the saints exerted a much stronger influence on the liturgy than in the East. The Roman and kindred rites provided special Masses for saints’ days, while in the East the worship of saints as far as it effected the liturgy continued to be limited to the canonical hours. At first the lections used at the Psalmody were drawn from the Holy Scriptures alone, but from the sixth century, passages from the passiones martyrum were admitted.805 In course of time, these became more numerous, and in this way the martyrologies obtained an ever increasing importance. As regards the Mass, in the earliest Gallican Masses published by Mone, we find one for the feast of St Germanus,806 and several in the Sacramentarium Leoninum, and for many centuries the Masses for saints’ days remained considerably less numerous than the Masses de tempore. Later on, however, they became so numerous that they were finally indicated in a special calendar bound up with the sacramentary, such as is now prefixed to the massal as one of its integral parts. Equally important with the sacramentaries in this connection are the service-books, containing the epistles and gospels, called lectionaries. We shall examine these first, and then those of the martyrologies specially bearing upon the subject we are investigating, and afterwards we shall utilise whatever we find in the sacramentaries in connection with saints’ days.

The lectionaries of Luxenil and Silos show very plainly that in the seventh century the worship of the saints had as yet very slightly affected the liturgy. The saints’ days are somewhat more numerous in the Leoninum and in the Missale Gothico-Gallicanum edited by Mabillon and belonging to the end of the same century.

In both the other Roman sacramentaries the increase of saints’ days is noticeable. The Gelasianum was originally drawn up especially for the city of Rome, but the recension in which it has come down to us was obviously compiled at the request of some other church; at any rate it contains a number of saints who do not belong to the city of Rome. For instance, on the 7th August we have the Confessor Donatus who belongs to Imola, on the 19th a martyr called Magnus who can only be assigned to Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and on the 27th a martyr Rufus belonging to Capua; the appearance of the legendary family of martyrs Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Ambacum or Habacuc is curious, and in addition to these, there is also a number of saints whose names one would search for in vain in the better and older recensions of the Gregorianum, e.g. Soter, Vitalis, Felicula, Juliana, Euphemia, Juvenal, Nereus and Achilleus, Cyrinus, Nabor, Nazarius, and Vitus. Of these many were certainly venerated in Rome, yet had hitherto received no recognition in the calendars attached to the service-books.

For the Gregorian Sacramentary, the edition most frequently employed is that of Menard printed in Migne. According to the introduction, it is taken from a codex S. Eligii and a somewhat later codex Rodradi, which, in Menard’s opinion, was written about 853, but even the earlier codex has additions belonging to a later period, e.g. Projectus (25th January)807 and Leo (28th June), as a comparison with the Mainz codex of St Alban shows. This codex (i.e. of St Eligius) according to the received opinion, was written between 834 and 847, and consists of three different parts, proceeding indeed from the same hand, but clearly distinguished from one another. The first part contains the Gregorianum (fol. 1-129) to which have been added as an appendix the Masses of St Alban, SS. Sergius and Bacchus, All Saints’, and St Augustine, which the transcriber did not find in the original. In the second part (Collectio ii., fol. 165-183) the expressions contestatio and ad complendum are used which show it to be of Frankish origin, and like the first part it contains the ecclesiastical year, beginning with Christmas. The third part (fol. 183-204) contains a few additions consisting of prayers and Masses for special occasions.

It is to be observed that the first part still has the obsolete feast of the 13th May, Dedicatio S. Mariæ ad Martyrs, and only the Natalis S. Cæsarii on the 1st November, the Mass for All Saints’ being placed at the end, and not in its proper place (fol. 131). This recalls the circumstance that Gregory IV. (827-844) transferred the feast of the 13th May to the 1st November. This change was also introduced into the Frankish empire in 835. The original document was then certainly written before 835, or indeed earlier, for the litania minor, introduced into the Roman rite by Leo III. about 801, is not given; nevertheless the three chief feasts of our Lady are already inserted in their proper places. In the following period until the fifteenth century only a limited number of new saints’ days were added to the Roman Missal. A missal written in 1374—Ordo Missalis secundum Consuetudinem Romanæ Curiæ—belonging to the Public Library of Munich, shows an increase of only twenty-five Masses for saints’ days over the Gregorianum after more than five hundred years.

Fronteau, chancellor of the University of Paris, published a lectionary which has important bearings on the study of liturgies; he took it from a codex written in gold characters belonging to the Church of St Geneviève in Paris.808 The editor correctly described it as appertaining to the city of Rome, because the Roman station churches are given, and the saints mentioned almost all belong to the city of Rome. The omission of the festival of St Petronilla (the 31st May) is of importance in fixing the date of this document, for Gregory III. was the first to add the Church of the Cœmeterium S. Petronillæ to the other station churches.809 Petronilla had already been regarded as a saint in the city of Rome, but her festival had not made its way into the liturgy because no statio was held in her Church or in her Cœmeterium. The Litania Minor on the three days before the Ascension, introduced into the Roman rite by Leo III., is also not to be found here. The editor, however, deduces that the Lectionary of St Geneviève is later than Gregory II. from the fact that the Thursdays in Lent are provided with an officium of their own, an addition introduced first by this pope.810

Accordingly this lectionary was composed under Gregory II., between 714 and 731, and it is of great importance for the liturgical student. Its manner of naming the Sundays after Pentecost deserves especially to be noticed, the feasts of our Lady of the 15th August and the 8th September do not fall on these days, but on the 14th August and the 9th September, and the beheading of St John the Baptist on the 30th August. The only Greek saint mentioned is Mennas and the only non-Italian, St Cyprian. The Cathedra Petri, Exaltatio Crucis (3rd May), and Joannes ante Portam Lat. (6th May), are not yet known, and on the 28th June, where Leo II. Papa et Confessor now stands, we have a Translatio corporis S. Leonis. Fronteau points out that this cannot refer to Leo II.811

11. The Martyrologies of Bede, Florus, Wandelbert, and Œngus812

Before the ninth century, the Frankish Church had produced no martyrology of its own, apart from the so-called Hieronymianum, but on the other hand the young Anglo-Saxon Church put out a work of this kind in the eighth century, its author being the learned historian of the Anglo-Saxon Church, the Venerable Bede. Whether he undertook the work spontaneously or at the desire of his superiors, whether it was intended merely for his own monastery, or for a wider circle are questions which cannot be answered, for there is no introduction to the work to inform us on these points. The work was used in the Frankish empire as is proved by the MSS. of it found there as well as by the later additions of Florus.

Bede composed his Martyrologium in 731, as he informs us at the conclusion of his history.813 It was his intention to give in addition to the days of the saints’ deaths, the nature of their deaths, and the names of the judges by whom they were condemned, for by this means the date of their deaths could be determined with certainty. The basis of his work was the existing Roman Calendar while he exceeded its limits in many directions. In the first place, he added to it the saints of England such as were then venerated; these were few in number, Alban, Cuthbert, Augustine, Mellitus, Etheltrud, Victor and Paulinus (10th October), Brigid, etc. Then a comparatively large number of names of Frankish saints were also introduced, e.g. Maximin of Treves (31st May), Clodoald (St Cloud), Remigius, Denys, Lambert († 17th September 709), the Theban legion, and a few others. Bede rises still further above the standpoint of national churches and particularism by admitting some names from the Old Testament, e.g. Ezechiel (10th April), Jeremias (1st May), Eliseus (14th June), Isaias (6th July), Samuel (20th August), etc.; the dates on which they are commemorated being taken for the most part from Greek menologies.

Bede collected material for his Martyrologium with great diligence, and enriched his subject matter with notes from his own reading, as is shown for instance by his reference to St Cyprian’s treatise De Lapsis in connection with the martyrs Castus and Æmilius (22nd May) who are named in it; other sources upon which he also drew were the Gesta Pontificum, the writings of Eusebius, St Gregory’s Dialogues, and especially a number of Passiones Martyrum. Bede’s work shows both diligence and originality, and an intelligent employment of the materials which came to hand. Yet, in spite of his diligence, he found material to fill up only a hundred and eighty days, and so the half of the year remains vacant; still his compilation is fuller than the Frankish calendars of the eighth century, and the notes attached to the names of each saint are remarkable for brevity and precision.

Although the value of Bede’s work is incontestable it was soon found insufficient; it was diligently copied, and used, but additions of all sorts were made to it as is proved by the large number of variations in the existing MSS. Perhaps it met with more acceptance abroad than at home, for the thirteenth canon of the second council of Cloveshove which met in 747, only twelve years after Bede’s death, enjoined the use of the Roman martyrology, without even mentioning Bede.

As regards its publication, the martyrology of Bede was printed for the first time in Cologne in 1616, but as in the text thus published, all the days of the year are provided with the names of saints, it is impossible that it represents the original text of Bede, for all old writers agree in stating that in it many days were left vacant. The Bollandist Henschen found first of all a fragment of the genuine Bede among the MSS. of Queen Christina of Sweden, and then, later on, the complete text at Dijon.814

Bede’s martyrology was newly worked over and considerably enlarged by a certain Florus; according to Wandelbert of Prüm,815 this was the subdeacon Florus of Lyons, who, later on, as deacon, wrote against Scotus Erigena in 852, and died in 860; he was a contemporary of Wandelbert’s. Against this must be set down the authority of Trithemius, who considers that this Florus was a Monk of the monastery of St Trudo in the diocese of Liège about 760. Although Trithemius gives no authority for this statement, still writers on the history of literature, especially Fabricius, are in complete agreement with him. Still which ever of the two is correct, one is inclined to ask how it came to pass that so striking an enlargement of the work—each day of the year being provided with the name of a saint—could have appeared so soon after Bede and before the appearance of the great martyrology of Ado.

Wandelbert of Prüm turned Bede’s martyrology into verse in the twenty-fifth year of the Emperor Lothaire I. (848); his version is of no importance for the history and development of this department of liturgical studies, yet it may be consulted for questions connected with local history.816

The martyrology of Œngus the Culdee, written in the ancient Irish (Celtic) language certainly belongs to the same period. Nothing further is known of the author except that he was a monk in the Monastery of Conenagh in the ninth century. The martyrology is written in rhymed verse, extends over the entire year, and contains for the most part the names of Irish saints.817 Certainly later is the similar work of Gorman, Abbot of Louth in Leinster. It was written in unrhymed verse between 1166 and 1174.818

12. The Martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, Rabanus Maurus, and Notker Balbulus

The most important document in this department of literature, and one which bears directly upon scientific investigations, is the martyrology of Ado, Bishop of Vienne. Ado was born in northern France about 800, and entered at an early age the Monastery of Ferrières in the diocese of Sens, from whence he was sent to the Monastery of Prüm where he lived for many years under Abbot Markward (829-853). In consequence of some misunderstandings he left Prüm and went to Rome, where he spent five years and then went to Ravenna. He returned to France later and lived for some time as a simple monk in a monastery in the neighbourhood of Lyons. After the death of Bishop Agilmar of Vienne († 7th July 860) he succeeded to the see and died on the 16th December 873.

He compiled the martyrology which bears his name in 858 before he became bishop,819 the basis of his work being a very ancient martyrology with which he had become acquainted in Ravenna. If his information can be trusted, a bishop of Ravenna, whose name he does not give, received this ancient document from a bishop of Rome who is also nameless. The rest of the material he collected himself, and in particular he made notes of any information concerning martyrs which had come in his way. Many of the sources at his disposal have since been lost, thus rendering his martyrology all the more important for us.

It consists of three parts: 1. A calendar containing the names of one or more saints for each day accompanied by notices naturally brief; in the printed edition it bears incorrectly the title, Vetus Martyrologium Romanum, given to it by its first editors, Jacob Mosander and Heribert Rosweyde;820 2. A Libellus de Festivitatibus SS. Apostolorum;821 3. The martyrology itself,822 consisting of extracts from the acts of the martyrs and other writings.

His preface contains matter which deserves attention.823 He had often been urged, he says, by holy men, by his superiors, and by Bishop Remigius of Lyons to complete the martyrology; since the martyrology of Bede, which Florus had enlarged, still leaves many days without saints, he had undertaken to fill up these gaps, and for this purpose he had made use of the MSS. describing the sufferings of the martyrs, from which he had made quotations for the benefit of the weaker brethren; the ancient martyrology which came originally from Rome, served him as a foundation upon which to build.

The frank avowal of his intention to fill in the spaces left vacant by his predecessors, might create a prejudice against the trustworthiness and excellence of his work, but a closer inspection will dispel this suspicion, and this would be still more the case had we the original form of the work before us; in the existing editions there are additions of a later date, such as the name Rictiovarus.

From the entries on the 20th April and the 17th November it is plain that the Cologne MS. of this martyrology edited by Rosweyde comes from Stablo, and it may have been that at Stablo the names of some Frankish saints were inserted into it. Ado went much further than Bede in admitting names from the Old Testament. Roseweyde’s conjecture that this calendar, the so-called “Little Ado,” is the Roman martyrology mentioned by Gregory I. in his letter to Eulogius, is devoid of proof and obviously mistaken, for in that document there were no Old Testament names. This “Little Ado” is not a martyrology at all, but a calendar, and displays none of the peculiarities which characterise the calendars of the city of Rome of that date; neither is it an independent work, but only an abstract made by Ado from his own larger work, and a summary of its contents. The preface prefixed to the two other parts is chiefly concerned with the martyrology, and not with this abstract, and it is only the circumstance that this abstract is found in MSS., with some later additions and altogether separate from the larger work, which led the first editor to regard it as a treatise by itself; it is merely the abstract used at Stablo and Malmedy, and not an original Roman work, though it is plain from Ado’s preface that the existing Roman calendar was employed in its composition.824

Two or three decades later, Usuardus composed his martyrology after Ado’s example, which he dedicated to Charles the Bald in 875. Usuardus was a monk of St Germain des Près, then outside the gates of Paris, but now surrounded by the city; his work is by no means so full as Ado’s, but is more polished in style, and more uniform in its treatment of the different entries, and on this account is more suited for use in choir. It was accordingly used throughout the entire West, and in all Benedictine monasteries,825 and even in Rome itself with the exception of the Vatican basilica. At the end of the fifteenth century it was so to speak, the universal martyrology of the Western Church, and indeed no other was known.826

The value of these works depends naturally upon the sources employed by the redactor, and also upon his personal qualities, as, for instance, whether he revelled in the miraculous or was inclined to be critical.

Two martyrologies by German authors must now be dealt with—those of Rabanus Maurus and Notker Balbulus.

The former when Archbishop of Mainz completed a martyrology which he had compiled from secondary sources; it is dedicated to Abbot Radleich of Seligenstadt, who died in 853-54, and whose epitaph was composed by Rabanus,827 but the composition of the martyrology must be dated a few years earlier, about 850, though the exact date cannot be discovered. As sources, he drew upon the Acts of the martyrs which he found ready to hand, and also the Hieronymianum, Bede, and Florus; the treatment of the material is very unequal, sometimes a long account being given, sometimes nothing more than the name; legends and historical errors are frequent.

The same is true of the martyrology of Notker Balbulus who was a monk at St Gall from 840 to 912, and composed his work under Pope Formosus (891-896). He knew and used the Hieronymianum, as, for example, for the 9th August, V. Id. Aug. First class sources were beyond his reach, a loss of which he was himself conscious.828

All these martyrologies of which we have spoken, were private compilations without anything of an official character about them. The existence of so many following upon the Hieronymianum shows that it did not satisfy liturgical requirements and was little used. On this account, martyrologies were drawn up at a later date containing full descriptions of the lives and sufferings of the saints for each day of the year, which would serve as edifying and entertaining reading for religious, priests and other pious persons. However even the best of them were no longer practicable in the sixteenth century, and Gregory XIII. conceived the purpose of putting out one better adapted for use in divine service. A further step was taken in 1580 when he commissioned the learned Cardinal Sirleto to compare the martyrology used in Rome with the oldest and best MSS. and to correct the errors which had crept into it in course of time.829 Sirleto associated ten other learned men with himself among whom were Cæsar Baronius and Aloysius Lilius, the astronomer. Baronius was the soul of the undertaking, and, after three years’ labour, the Martyrologium Romanum Gregorii XIII. was completed, and a papal brief of the 14th January 1584, prescribed the exclusive use of this work in choir at the canonical hours. Baronius based his labours on Usuardus, correcting and enlarging his martyrology by means of the materials then forthcoming; could he have used the materials discovered later, or those which we now possess, his work would naturally have been much better; many, too, of the earlier mistakes remain uncorrected. The editors were far from claiming freedom from errors for their work, and made improvements in later editions, beginning with that of 1586. It is not necessary to regard all the individuals named in the Roman martyrology as saints in the liturgical sense of the word, and their admission there, according to the expression of Benedict XIV. is in no wise equal to canonisation.830 Since the time of Baronius, the official martyrology has indeed remained untouched, but science has not been inactive during this long period; much has been explained and corrected, and, on the whole, it has come to be recognised as a principle which must be followed in investigating the histories of the saints of ancient times, that recourse is to be had to the earliest existing sources of information, and also, where the evidence is contradictory, local official sources, where they exist, are to have the preference.

13. Important Calendars From the Eighth to the Eleventh Centuries

While the martyrologies were for the most part the outcome of individual effort, the calendars, on the other hand, are entirely official in their origin. In times when annual calendars, like our present ordos, had not yet appeared, their place was taken by the official calendar, and every one had to make out his ordo for himself with its assistance. From many points of view they are more important for our purpose than the martyrologies.

As complete missals took the place of the sacramentaries they were usually provided with a table, like an index, which gave a list of the saints’ days contained in the missal; these so-called calendars have from then until now formed an integral part of written and printed missals, and even appear by themselves like abbreviated martyrologies. A remarkably large number of calendars of this kind have come down to us from the Middle Ages, and, since they are important for the history of local churches, they have recently been published, as, for example, by Martène-Durand, Misset and Weale, Grotefend, Ulysse Chevalier, Lechler, etc.831 For our purpose, the following deserve to be noticed:

1. A Roman calendar of the seventh century, discovered by Prof. de Ram, and printed in Binterim, Denkw. vii. 56-67. It begins with Christmas, March is called mensis primus, the station churches of Rome are given in Lent, on the 13th May there is the Dedicatio Mariæ ad Martyres, All Saints does not appear. The only litany is the so-called litania major; the Annunciation and the Cathedra Petri are omitted, in March a pascha annotina is inserted without date, St Athanasius is passed over on the 20th January; there are only faint traces of Advent. This calendar is very ancient and formed part of the codex of the gospels written under Louis the Pious; in the time of Lothaire I., it belonged to the Monastery of Münsterbilsen in the diocese of Liège.

2. A calendar belonging to Bologna. It is found in a codex of the Monastery of Leno, was discovered by Giovanni Mercati in the Ambrosiana, and published in the Révue Bénédictine, 1902 (353-355). It has the Ordinatio Episcopatus Jacobi Apost. on the 27th December, and, on the 17th May a natalis S. Marci Evang., found nowhere else.

3. The so-called calendar of Charlemagne forms, along with an Easter table, the beginning of an Evangeliarum written in 781 by command of the emperor and his consort by a scribe called Godescale.832 It is only deserving of notice from the number of names of Frankish saints inserted into a calendar originally Roman, e.g. Bishop Maximin of Treves (31st May), Boniface (5th June), Medard (8th June), Martialis (30th June) Kilian (1st August), Mauritius (22nd September), Remigius (1st October), etc. The Apostle Thomas is placed, strange to say, on the 3rd July, and St Petronilla on the 31st May.

4. A calendar is incorporated in a treatise De Computo, by an unknown author, written in 810 (published by Muratori, Analecta, iii. 108, and also in Migne, Patr. Lat., cxxix. 1274). It seems to come from the diocese of Sens on account of S. Columbæ Virg. on the 31st December; All Saints is omitted. This calendar is Roman with Frankish additions; for the date see chap. 153, Migne, cxxix., 1364.

5. The last four months of the year are unfortunately missing from the calendar of Alt-Corbie (Corbeiense) given by Martène-Durand, Thes. Nov. Anced., iii., 1591, Paris, 1717. The same is the case with a very old calendar of Tours.

6. Codex 83ᴵᴵ. of the cathedral library in Cologne contains an ancient calendar, fol. 72 B-76. This codex contains a large collection of annalistical writings and computation tables and was written under Archbishop Hildebold. The second treatise in the volume is Isidore’s chronicle which concludes with the words: “Seven hundred and eighty-nine years have passed since Christ’s Nativity”; further on, fol. 76 B, was inserted after the death of Charlemagne, and also of Hildebold (818). Thus the codex was written between 798 and 818, and belonged to the old cathedral of Cologne which was dedicated to St Peter. The calendar, however, does not belong to Cologne for the local saints are absent, but there is a number of names of Frankish saints, pointing to the north of France as the locality where it was drawn up; no explanation of the legend of St Ursula can be learnt from it. For a calendar of its early date, it is remarkably full of saints, while the Cologne Calendar, shortly to be referred, to has many vacant days. The codex has been described by Jaffé and Wattenbach, Ecclesiæ Metrop. Colon. codices manuscripti, Berlin, 1874, 29 et seqq.

7. The Gellonense comes from the Monastery of St Guillaume du Désert in the diocese of Lodève, and belongs to the beginning of the ninth century, and has been edited by D’Achery, Spicilegium, ii. 25 et seqq. It begins with Christmas and is preceded by a Breviarum Apostolorum in thirteen sections containing information concerning the apostles.

8. A Kalendarium Gothicum (ed. Lorenzana) of the seventh century (Migne, lxxxvi. 38 et seqq.). Besides this, there is the Mozarabic Sanctorale (ib. 1031 et seqq.) and a fragment of a Kalendarium Gothico-Hispanum (Migne, lxxxv. 1050 et seqq.).

Of later date, but still always useful for historical investigation are:—

9. Two Anglo-Saxon calendars of the tenth century belonging apparently to the diocese of Winchester (Migne, lxxii. 619 et seqq.).

10. Two from Corbie; in Martène and Durand (Thes. Nov. Anecd., iii. 1571-1594).

11. A calendar of Floriac and a martyrology of Auxerre (Migne, cxxxviii. 1186-1258).

12. A calendar of Mantua and two of Vallombrosa (Ib. 1258 et seqq.).

13. A calendar of Besançon of the eleventh century, which goes by the name of S. Protadii (Migne, lxxx. 411), and an old French calendar called after the name of its first owner Chauvellin (Migne, lxxii. 607).

For convenience we separate the most ancient calendars of German origin from the others, and consider them by themselves.

1. The oldest calendar of Mainz belongs to the first half of the ninth century, and was published from a codex in the Vatican by Jostes in the Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum (Schröder and Röthe) for 1896, 148-158. All Saints is absent, and the resurrection of Christ is entered on the 25th March.

2. A Kalendarium Verdinense, from the Monastery of Werden on the Ruhr, published by Bandini (Catal. Bibl. Lauretianæ Suppl., Migne, cxxxviii. 1203 et seqq.). It contained All Saints, and the Dedicatio S. Mariæ s. Turris Vincentii on the 13th May as well. Among the special saints of Cologne are given the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Gereon, the Moors, and the eleven thousand virgins, but without Ursula, and designated as simply virgins and not martyrs; it also contains the names of the two first bishops of Halberstadt, Thiatgrim († 840) and Hildegrim († 21st December 888), which indicates the date of its composition, and it has the name of the first abbot of Werden, Hetharicus, and the Dedicatio Eccl. Majoris. Unfortunately the months from April to July are missing.

3. The sacramentary in the cathedral library of Cologne (codex 88, fol. 3-9) contains a complete calendar for this cathedral. It is essentially the Roman Calendar of the ninth century, with the addition of the local saints of Cologne, the two Ewalds, Kunibert, Brictius, Quintinus, Severin, Gereon and his 318 companions, the 360 Moors, and the 11,000 virgins without Ursula, and designated simply as virgins. Other names deserving notice are: Briga (Brigida) 1st February, Arealis (?) 28th April, Marcus episcopus, Boniface the martyr, Medard, Lambert, and Mauricius with 6666 companions. The calendar belongs to the second half of the ninth century, and is proved to have belonged to the cathedral of Cologne begun by Hildebold and consecrated by Willibert in 873, by the fact that it gives the day of the consecration of the cathedral correctly (23rd September), and is described as belonging to the Church of St Peter, to whom the former cathedral was dedicated. The sacramentary, but not the calendar, has been printed by J. Pamelius in his “Liturgicon Ecclesiæ Latinæ,” tom. ii. (Col. Agr. 1571), but unfortunately with so many arbitrary alterations that it is quite useless as an edition of the text.

4. In the library at Düsseldorf there is a sacramentary, (codex D. I.) written in the lifetime of Bishop Altfrid of Hildesheim († 874), which contains (fol. 217-222) a calendar showing northern French influence. Only the 11,000 virgins are given of the local saints of Cologne, and here again Ursula is not named, and the virgins are not called martyrs. The book belonged to the Convent of Essen on the Ruhr founded by Altfrid. This MS. gives in fol. 64 A the order of the festivals observed within the jurisdiction of the monastery during the ninth century: “Istas præcipuas solemnitates in anno totus populus sabbatizare debet: In die Nat. Domini dies IV., in octabas Domini, in Teophania, in Purificatione Mariæ, in Pascha Domini dies IV., in Ascensione Domini, in Pentecoste dies IV., in Nat. S. Johannis, in Nat. Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, in Assumptione S. Mariæ, in Nat. S. Remedii [Remigii], in Missa Michahelis, in Solemnitate Omnium Sanctorum, in Nat. S. Martini, in Nat. S. Andreæ.”

Binterim published a Cologne calendar, apparently of the ninth century, under the title Kalendarium Ecclesiæ Germ. Coloniensis Sæculi Noni (Cologne, 1824), and Harless attributes it to the second half of the same century (Archiv. f. die Gesch. des Niederrheins, vi. 67). It is, however, much later, for it gives all the feasts of the apostles, and provides them with vigils, and all the days of the year are filled in with the names of saints. For these reasons I should date the calendar as belonging to the eleventh century at the earliest.

5. The Kalendarium Germanicum Pervetustum Sæc. X., printed by M. Fr. Beck (Aug. Vind., 1687). Gerbert (Mon. Lit. Alem. i. 455 A. I.) correctly regards it as coming from Alsace and probably from Strassburg, because it contains the saints venerated in that city, Arbogast (20th July), Florentius, Ottilia and Aurelia. The basis of this document is again the Roman Calendar, still many Frankish saints have been added, but Gereon alone of the saints of Cologne. The latest date given in it is the Dormitio S. Uodalrici (4th July). It has only one name from the Old Testament, that of the prophet Ezechiel.

6. A calendar of Freising, drawn up under Bishop Abraham, between 893 and 993. The 25th March is marked as Conceptio Domini. There is only one feast of St Peter’s Chair. The calendar has been printed by Lechler, “Mittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien in Bayern,” Freiburg, 1891.

7. The so-called Martyrologium Stabulense, the calendar of the Monastery of Stablo. The date of the original MS. can be deduced from the fact that on the vii. Idus Junii the coronation of King Henry II., which was performed by Archbishop Willigis at Mainz on the 7th June 1002, is entered by the first hand, while the ordination of Archbishop Tagino of Magdeburg in the 2nd February 1004, has been entered by a second hand. Archbishop Tagino’s death is not entered. The calendar has only Gereon with 319 companions of the local saints of Cologne. St Ulrich of Augsburg, although he died in 997, is entered by the second hand. The calendar has been published by Martène, Ampl. Coll., and by Zaccaria, Antiq. Med. Ævi (see Migne, cxxxviii. 1194).

8. Hontheim has published the five most ancient calendars of Treves in the Prodromus Historiæ Trevirensis, i. 378-405. According to him, only the first belongs to the tenth century, all the others being later. For a calendar of the tenth century, it is very full of names, many of them being from the old Testament—Ezechial, Daniel, etc.; it mentions neither the legend of the Innumerable Company of Martyrs at Treves on the 4th and 5th October, nor Palmatius, Thyrsus, etc.; neither does it contain All Souls, St Catherine, or St Peter’s Chair, but it has Gereon and his 318 companions. It is only in the fourth and fifth calendars which belong to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that Thyrsus, Palmatius, etc., appear.

When one considers the details presented by calendars, one is bound to acknowledge that the Roman Depositio Martyrum stands at the head of this long line of liturgical documents, and was the model after which they were composed. Like them, the Depositio Martyrum was drawn up according to months, and commenced with Christmas. Like them, it contained the official list of the martyrs who received ecclesiastical veneration in the local church of Rome in the fourth century. Were it not so, it would not have deserved to be incorporated in the Philocalian collection, the Hemerologium Valentini, since this comprised only official documents; had it not been official it would not have been worth transcribing.

Conclusion

All estates of men in the Church have had their share in the formation of the ecclesiastical year, for the growth of the Church’s festivals has continued without interruption from the beginning until now, and has extended over all the countries of Christendom. Having wended our way through the centuries and arrived at the conclusion of our work, it is a pleasure to render our tribute of thanks and praise to the men who have in the past made this sphere of study their own.

The few writers of the Middle Ages who treated the Church’s year and the festivals of the saints in a comprehensive manner were entirely occupied with contributing to the correct performance of ecclesiastical ceremonies, and with explaining why each ceremony must be done in one way and not in another. They not infrequently brought allegorical and symbolical considerations to bear on the question.

In more modern times, Cornelius Schulting, a native of Steenwijk in North Holland, and afterwards professor of theology at Cologne and canon of St Andrew’s († 1604) undertook a full exposition of the matter; his object was mainly practical, and his work can only be regarded as a first attempt. The keen controversialist, Jacobus Gretser S.J. († 1625), is more occupied with his polemic against the Calvinists than with lucid demonstration. More in harmony with modern requirements, is the French oratorian Louis Thomassin, a native of Aix in Provence, and a partisan of Port Royal, who died in 1695; he wrote a small compendium which may be used with profit at the present day.

The study of the ecclesiastical year was considerably advanced by the labours of Adrien Baillet, born in 1649, in the diocese of Beauvais († 1706), parish priest of a small country living at Baumont and librarian to M. de Lamoignon; he was entirely devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, and scarcely ever allowed himself any relaxation. He composed a great work worthy of ranking alongside the labours of Tillemont, to whom he is closely related in spirit. The course of his historical treatment of the subject is considerably obscured by the superabundance of biographical matter. Two valuable monographs were published by Prosper Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV.) when bishop of Bologna, which treat in a masterly manner of the feasts of our Lord and of our Lady respectively.

Finally, the learned priest of Bilk, near Düsseldorf, Fr. Ant. Binterim († 1855) dealt with this subject in one volume of his Denkwürdigkeiten. He treats in the first place of the observance of Sunday, then of the Sundays of the Church’s year in general, and finally of the movable and immovable feasts. Of these he naturally deals only with the most important, following the order of the calendar, by which arrangement Christmas comes last.

The author of this book commenced his researches by a comparative study of the martyrologies, calendars, annals, and works dealing with the computation of time, and then set to work upon the historical and liturgical material which he had before him from the point of vantage thus obtained. The fortunate circumstance that the most of the works required for this branch of study are contained in Migne’s collection, renders the labour of comparison possible, and frequently brings remarkable parallels to light.