ON ST. FAUSTINUS OR FAUSTUS, MARTYR,
AT MILAN IN INSUBRIA.
Second century.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
The Saint's cult, the time of his martyrdom, and his Acts are examined.
Faustinus or Faustus, Martyr, at Milan (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR G. C.
This Saint, whom more recent historians commonly call the son of Philip, and whom, on what foundation I know not, they surname Oldanus from his father or family, The ancient Martyrologists assign this Saint to Milan, is commemorated on this day by the ancient Martyrologists: for the Hieronymian Martyrology, which Francesco Maria Fiorentini published, with the other transcripts of the same Martyrology agreeing, announces him on the seventh of the Ides of August thus briefly: At Milan, the birthday of St. Faustinus. But the old Roman Martyrology, published by our Rosweyde, calls him Faustus, and attributes to him on the same day the glorious title of martyr in this manner: At Milan, of Faustus, martyr. Usuard, however, indicates the time of the martyrdom approximately in these words: At Milan, of Faustinus, martyred in the time of Aurelius Commodus. Ado and Notker have announcements similar to this one, to which the present-day Roman Martyrology adds the Saint's military profession thus: At Milan, of St. Faustus, soldier, who under Aurelius Commodus, after many contests, obtained the palm of martyrdom. I confess indeed that Baronius here, in marking the time of the martyrdom, followed the footsteps of Usuard and the others; but how does that cohere with the Ecclesiastical Annals of the same most Eminent writer, in which at the year of Christ 182 he laboriously proves that under the rule of Commodus no persecution was stirred up against the Christians?
[2] where nevertheless no commemoration is made of him, Meanwhile from these things it is abundantly clear that the ancient and immemorial cult of that Faustinus or Faustus is by no means to be doubted. Wherefore I greatly marvel that the annual memory of this Saint is not celebrated by the church of Milan, as I understand from Pietro Paolo Bosca, who in his notes to the Milanese Martyrology on this day writes thus: The body of St. Faustus lies in the church of the nuns of St. Apollinaris at Milan; and his Life was very recently published by the Milanese press by Antonio Coherez, of the Minors of the Observance. Likewise Galesinius makes mention of St. Faustus in his Martyrology, who cites the Roman Martyrology, the manuscript Annals of Hermann, and the monuments of the Milanese church; also Ferrarius in his Catalogues, Ambrogio Borrono in his Life, and others. Nevertheless the church of Milan, just as it makes none of the holy martyrs Robustianus, Ambrose, and Guinifortus, does not make even a commemoration of St. Faustus, which many citizens and liturgists bear ill. It is indeed remarkable that in the Offices or sacred Calendars of the church of Milan no mention is made of that Saint, since his legitimate cult is established.
[3] Besides, I marvel that the knowledge concerning this Saint, which is wont to be diminished by time, and Galesinius wrongly doubled him, should have grown after many centuries had elapsed, so that more recent Martyrologists and historians relate, from whatever tradition, various circumstances of his Acts which the ancient writers seem to have been ignorant of. Let Galesinius be an example, who in his Martyrology at the seventh day of August has these things: At Milan, of St. Faustus. He, the son of blessed Philip, baptized by bishop Caius, at the time when a great Christian persecution blazed up, harassed by the enemies of the faith, retarded by no assault of theirs, nor indeed overcome, having built a basilica which was called the Faustinian, and his life conformed to the precepts of the Gospel, at length in the persecution of the emperor Commodus rested holily in the Lord. Nay more, Galesinius on the fifteenth of February represents to us the same Faustus, as though a different person, under another form thus: At Milan, of St. Faustus, who, under the emperor Marcus Aurelius, fighting for Christ Jesus, gave a distinguished testimony of faith and of Christian virtue.
[4] Ferrarius in his General Catalogue of the Saints also makes mention of that St. Faustus on the fifteenth day of February; as Ferrarius and other more recent writers noted, but in the same place in his notes he rightly warns that this St. Faustus is the same as he who is reported in the Roman Martyrology at the seventh day of August. Hence Pietro Paolo Bosca suspects that on the one day the finding or the translation, and on the other the martyrdom, of the same Saint is commemorated, as he indicates in his notes to the praised Milanese Martyrology at the fifteenth day of February in these words: Ferrarius makes mention of St. Faustus in his Catalogue of Saints who are not in the Roman Martyrology, using the testimony of Galesinius. The Roman Martyrology indeed records the martyrdom of another Faustus on the seventh day of the Ides of August, whom we shall mention below. But of this Faustus I have never read anything, save in Ferrarius, a sensible and otherwise diligent writer; unless perhaps this day be that of the finding or translation of that Faustus who on the seventh of the Ides of August, under the rule of Aurelius Commodus, underwent martyrdom for Christ. But that he is the same, Ferrarius testifies; and accordingly we venerate his birthday in the month of August; today we commemorate the finding or translation made by Enrico Settala, archbishop of Milan (he presided over the Milanese church from the year of Christ 1211 until the year 1230 or 1231, as Ughelli testifies in the most recent Venetian edition of Italia Sacra, volume 4, column 178), from the cemetery of Caius, commonly the church of St. Francis, to the sacred edifice of the divine Apollinaris — whether he be called Faustus or Faustinus, as others prefer, concerning whom see below at the seventh day of August.
[5] Even though Ferrarius not undeservedly reproves Galesinius, who also dispute among themselves about the time of the martyrdom, in that he made two out of one St. Faustus of Milan, and seems, against the ancient testimonies of the Martyrologists, to enroll St. Faustus the martyr in the number of the Confessors, nevertheless concerning the other circumstances of the Acts he agrees with him, since in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, at the seventh day of August, he wove a brief eulogy of that Saint thus: Faustus, a Milanese soldier, son of blessed Philip, baptized by St. Caius, bishop of Milan, suffered many things at Milan for the confession of the faith, at the time when the persecution of the heathen was pressing the Christians most heavily. He, having built a church which from himself was called the Faustinian, and of which St. Ambrose makes mention, was seized by the enemies of the faith, harassed, and variously tempted so that he might be recalled to the worship of idols, and at last after many contests obtained the palm of martyrdom under M. Aurelius Commodus on the seventh of the Ides of August. But in the same place in his Annotation he observes, with the most eminent Baronius, that Commodus, although he was most cruel, nevertheless brought no trouble upon the Christians.
[6] Perhaps induced by this argument of that most eminent writer, Ambrogio Borrono, who in the year 1622 published in Italian the fuller Acts of St. Faustus, places his martyrdom under the emperor Hadrian. But neither of these chronologies of the martyrdom pleases Giovanni Pietro Puricelli, who also in his Monuments of the Ambrosian Basilica, number 81 or page 147 and following, attacks both from the very principles of those authors thus: For the rest, Ambrogio Borrono in that Life of St. Faustus, which he published written in Italian at Milan in the year one thousand six hundred and twenty-two, asserts that he was crowned with martyrdom in the year of the Lord one hundred and twenty-one under the emperor Hadrian. Wherefore even by this discord among them that suspicion of ours is somewhat confirmed. The error, then, which I suspect, I likewise suspect to have arisen from this, that writers confounded this Milanese soldier Faustus (not to say two, as Galesinius seemed to have indicated) with Fausta, the daughter of Philip Oldanus, from whom that basilica and church would have received the name of Fausta, and out of them forged a single Faustus, later than she by so many years — chiefly indeed according to the opinion of Galesinius and likewise of Ferrarius concerning the time at which the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius fell: for these, in their opinion, fell under the Neronian persecution; whereas otherwise Nero himself is handed down to have died in the seventieth year of Christ. Since therefore Philip thereafter buried the bodies of those Martyrs together with his own son, it follows that both Portius and Fausta (or, as they name her, Faustus), his children, preceded that Faustus by many years; even though he had undergone martyrdom under the emperor Hadrian, as it seemed to Borrono, in the year of the Lord one hundred and twenty-one. But thus far enough of conjectures on this matter, until a clearer light shine upon us on one side or the other.
[7] and they hand down certain circumstances of the Acts, Galvano della Fiamma, who at the close of the thirteenth century entered the Order of Preachers, and some of whose writings were recently first printed at Milan among the writers of Italian affairs, volume XI, from column 537, in his Manipulus florum, chapter 31 or in the same place column 559, places the martyrdom of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius under the rule of Nero, and in the same chapter relates that Philip, an illustrious citizen of Milan, with his sons Faustus and Portius, received holy baptism about that time from Caius, the third bishop of the city of Milan. Then in chapter 32 he places those two sons of Philip in the court of the emperor Trajan in these words: Now there were in the court of the emperor Trajan two sons of the above-mentioned noble Philip, namely Faustus and Portius. Faustus built the Faustian church, that is, of St. Vitalis; Portius the Portian, that is, of St. Victor ad Corpus; in which blessed Castricianus established shining choirs of clerics, sounding forth the Davidic hymns. This author supposes, with others, that the emperor Trajan had a palace in the city of Milan, and dwelt in it for some time.
[8] which Tristano Calco nevertheless But Tristano Calco, in book 1 of his Milanese History, page 17 and following, refutes this opinion thus: Merula writes absolutely that Trajan Caesar not only came frequently to Milan, but even built a palace in that part of the city which still keeps the name of Palace. In which I judge him to have slipped through love of praises for the city, to whose glory he was too much inclined; because neither is that read in any suitable writer of the Latins, so far as I have seen, nor does he himself mention it in the Life of the emperor which he made Latin out of the Greek Dio. Nor do I hold as certain what Blondus said more rashly than with any judgment, that the Roman emperors, so long as
as their occupations allowed, dwelt at Milan — Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and thereafter others; concerning which, what I myself think, the matter itself will teach in its own places.
[9] But as regards the naming of the Faustinian church, and Giovanni Pietro Puricelli which Galvano della Fiamma, Donato Bossi, Tristano Calco, Giuseppe Ripamonti, and other Milanese writers commonly think to be so called, from the tradition of their fellow-citizens, from Faustus the son of Philip, that is attacked by Giovanni Pietro Puricelli with various arguments: for besides other things which he alleges from the form and site of the place against that tradition, in the praised Monuments of the Ambrosian Basilica, number 80, he opposes the following to this opinion: For the rest, concerning that church of Fausta another thing still recurs to my mind; in which, if I do not assert it positively, I nevertheless suspect that those writers whom I named a little before, and many others, have strayed from the truth. They assert with one accord that the Faustinian basilica was named from one of the sons of Philip Oldanus, whose name was Faustus. Wherefore they never name it the basilica of Fausta, but always either of Faustus, or Fausta, or Faustinian. But what if Philip had had a son named Portius and a daughter named Fausta? Could it then be said that Philip had two children, from whom the Portian and the Faustinian received their names? Who would deny this? Since indeed the word "sons" in its compass embraces daughters also; and if a woman and a man together happen to be named in the plural, the masculine gender, as the nobler, prevails over the feminine; and both woman and man are comprehended under the plural masculine gender, as is most commonly received among the very rudiments of Grammar.
[10] Although therefore some authors have at times handed down that those two basilicas of Milan received their proper names from two children of Philip, with arguments not to be despised it does not thereupon at once follow that they judged both his children to have been males, and that, as the Portian was named from Portius, so from Faustus was named the Fausta, or Faustina, or Faustinian. But would those men also say that the church of Fausta was named from Faustus? In what sense, with what face? Whoever therefore precisely and constantly says this very thing on the opposite side will without doubt be judged to interpret and to declare that that appellation is derived not from Faustus, but from Fausta, the daughter, that is, of Philip. And indeed in our music-hall it is most manifestly read inscribed, "the church of Fausta": and moreover the holy doctor Ambrose is nowhere read to have named it otherwise than the basilica of Fausta, namely in the fifty-third letter to his sister Marcellina, just as Cardinal Baronius also writes from his own pen in the Life of the same. Neither therefore did St. Ambrose (I will say), nor those forefathers of ours, by whose prescription there was inscribed in the music-hall for that Faustinian basilica "the church of Fausta"; nor likewise there Baronius, and all others who followed them in this matter, judge that it was so named from Faustus, but rather from Fausta, a daughter and a woman.
[11] called into doubt; What of this too, that Philip himself also seems openly enough to have indicated that he had a single male child, in that little document which St. Ambrose found at the head of the holy martyrs Protasius and Gervasius? For in it Philip had left written thus at the beginning: I, Philip, the servant of Christ, buried within my house the bodies of the Saints, which I carried off with my son, and buried. And again at the end: I, Philip, the servant of Christ, carried off with my son by stealth in the night the holy bodies. But if it be supposed that Philip had only one male child, what could be more fitting than this manner of speaking? But if two be supposed to have been his, by the labor of either of whom he could have used for an office of piety of this kind, since otherwise the use is not of both, but of one only — why was it not consonant with reason that he should not speak thus indiscriminately and absolutely, but should either expressly name the one whom he had used as helper, or tacitly indicate him in some way before the other; or at least should say, "with one of my sons," or something similar? This last reasoning would press our opponents more, if that document of Philip were genuine; but in the Acts of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius, §3, at the nineteenth day of June, in volume III of that month from page 820, we have already warned that that instrument is spurious. For the rest, Pietro Paolo Bosca in his notes to his Milanese Martyrology at the seventh day of August does not shrink from this opinion of Puricelli.
[12] and whom we are compelled to leave in disagreement. I do not wish here laboriously to discuss the opinion of Placido Puccinelli, who in his Zodiac of the Milanese Church, part 1, page 88, confidently relates that St. Faustus, the son of Philip, built a basilica with the connivance of the emperor Nerva, in which afterward, through envy, the fabric not yet finished, he was tumultuously slain by the enemies of the faith, and buried by Castricianus, the fourth bishop of the Milanese, who according to his own reckoning, after a long governance of the Milanese church, migrated to the heavenly ones in the year of Christ 140: for from what has been thus far related it is abundantly plain that the more recent Milanese historians do not agree among themselves about the stock, the time of the martyrdom, and the other deeds of St. Faustus, and that certain of them openly contradict Usuard and the other ancient Martyrologists, who placed the martyrdom of today's St. Faustus under the emperor Commodus. And although at that time no persecution of the Christians was publicly proclaimed, nevertheless that Saint could at that time have been killed for the faith by some prefect, or in some tumult of the heathen. Further, it is not for us to compose these disagreements, since we lack the ancient documents by which we might settle this dispute. From what has been said it also follows that Ambrogio Borrono composed the fuller Life of St. Faustus in Italian at his own discretion, or from popular tradition. We meanwhile acknowledge today at Milan St. Faustus the martyr; but at the same time we confess that we are ignorant of his stock and his other Acts, until more certain and more ancient testimonies of them be brought forward.