ON ST. BARTHOLOMEW THE APOSTLE,
AT ALBANOPOLIS IN ARMENIA OR ALBANIA,
In the First Century.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The controversy is set forth, whether St. Bartholomew
is the same as Nathanael; it is proved by reasons drawn from the Sacred Letters
that Nathanael was an apostle.
Being about to illustrate the Acts of St. Bartholomew, obscure
indeed and doubtful, Since it is disputed whether St. Bartholomew is Nathanael, we have judged that we must
altogether discuss
the controversy, long since begun to be agitated among the learned, whether
St. Bartholomew is the same as
Nathanael, who in John 1 was led to Christ by Philip.
Various on this matter, and plainly opposed to one another,
are the opinions of the learned. The most eminent Baronius,
at the year of Christ 31, num. 28, writes thus:
Some have thought that Nathanael is the same as
Bartholomew, moved by certain slight conjectures:
with whom we by no means agree; but we more
safely adhere to Augustine, when he says that Nathanael
was for this reason not chosen by the Lord among the Apostles,
because he was a doctor of the law. I do not wonder that Baronius,
the matter not yet thoroughly discussed, judged that Augustine
was to be adhered to. Nevertheless the contrary opinion at nearly the same
time pleased Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, in his Concord. evang. chapter 7, and
Cornelius a Lapide on John chapter 1, and others most distinguished in the
praise of erudition.
[2] Bartholomew Gavantus, in the Dissertation published after the sacred rites,
endeavored to illustrate the matter further, and while some deny, others affirm, in published dissertations, as did John Roberti in a Dissertation printed at Douai
in the year of Christ 1610; in which by many
reasons they contend that Nathanael is no other
than St. Bartholomew the apostle. The most learned
Calmet, on Matthew chapter 10, having recalled the chief of these reasons,
pronounces thus: All
these reasons, which taken separately would not have great
force, being united among themselves form an argument
which it would be difficult to resist. But Baillet,
at the XXIV day of August, in Bartholomew,
affirms that this opinion of theirs rests upon nothing but a slender conjecture,
following in this Tillemont,
Monum. eccles. tom. 1, p. 642, who in note 1 on
Bartholomew says that this opinion has no
foundation. Nay, Ambrose Gardebosc, in his Ecclesiastical
History tom. 1, p. 120, calls it an error
of Rupert — a censure perhaps rather rash
than solid. I marvel that men so learned have not tried even with a word
to prove the alleged slightness of these
conjectures, since they were not ignorant
that others had other indications concerning these things. They rely indeed
upon the authority of St. Augustine, and, following him,
of St. Gregory, who deny that Nathanael was an apostle;
but others contend that those reasons
by which they demonstrate that the same man was an apostle are such
that they are to be preferred to the authority of these fathers in a historical matter.
This therefore is the knot, this is what must be examined.
[3] St. Augustine, such was the modesty of his mind,
will grant us, the matter is set forth for examination, as I hope, that indulgence which he himself
professes always to have used. Hear him in his epistle to
St. Jerome, tom. 4 of the Works of St. Jerome, of the last Paris
edition, part 2, col. 630: Others
(authors besides the canonical, of whom he had been speaking) I so read, that however much they excel
in sanctity and doctrine, I do not on that account think a thing true
because they themselves have so thought; but because they have been able to persuade me,
either through those canonical authors, or by probable reason,
of what is not abhorrent from the truth:
nor do I think, my brother, that you feel otherwise;
indeed, I say, I do not judge that you wish your books to be read
as those of the Prophets
or of the Apostles, concerning whose writings it is impious to doubt
that they are free from all error. These words, though uttered by Augustine
for every matter also, have place especially in a historical controversy,
in which it is easier and more frequent to fall into error.
Therefore, not against St. Augustine's will, we shall first try to prove
that Nathanael was one of the twelve Apostles;
and if we shall have established this, we shall not with difficulty
prove that he was no other than
St. Bartholomew. We shall bring forward the chief arguments
from the authors praised above, neglected indeed
by some, but by no means refuted, and we shall add
not a few for further proof.
[4] It is proved from his calling, In John chapter 1 it is described how Nathanael
was called to Christ: hence there is suggested to us a first argument,
and that a manifold one,
which the aforesaid John Roberti thus draws out: Of
the twelve Apostles, if you consult the four Evangelists,
you will not find the calling of all described,
but only of the more eminent. First deservedly
are reckoned that noble pair of brothers, Peter and
Andrew; and the other, James and John. There remain
Philip and Matthew, concerning whom it is agreed among
all that they were Apostles. Now see, if
we set aside the calling of Peter and Andrew, whether
the calling of any other is described with greater care and
accuracy than that of Nathanael by the beloved
Disciple; read, I say, the first chapter
of the Gospel according to John, beginning from
verse 45, and, excepting those whom I have named, consider
whether you find anything in the calling of the others
to be compared with it. Thus he. Let it be permitted me here to use a form
more dialectical. Of no one except the Apostles is the calling
read as described among the Evangelists, with the name
of him who was called added: but there is read
the calling of Nathanael described in that same place with his name,
and with many circumstances added; therefore we must needs
confess, either that Nathanael was an Apostle,
or that an altogether singular honor was paid
by the Evangelists to Nathanael, which last, from what is
to be said hereafter, is by no means likely.
[5] Note besides, if you please, the order kept by
the Evangelists in enumerating the Apostles; from the order of the Apostles,
you will find everywhere Peter, Andrew, James,
and John, who are read as called together by Christ
in Matthew 4, commemorated first: there follow
everywhere Philip and Bartholomew. What reason, I beseech you,
can be given, save that the narrative should not disjoin
those whom the calling had joined? As therefore Peter and Andrew
were called together, and James
and John — yet so that Peter was led in by Andrew —
so also Philip and Bartholomew seem to have been called together,
yet so that Bartholomew (in John, Nathanael) was led in by Philip.
Matthew next, whose
calling is read as described after six already numbered,
in Mark chapter 2 and Luke chapter
5, is everywhere commemorated after Bartholomew,
except that he himself, for modesty's sake as it seems, has set himself after Thomas
also. Tell me, pray, why is Bartholomew
set before Matthew, unless because he was called by Christ before
Matthew, after Philip?
For in commemorating the apostles the Evangelists seem to have kept nearly this order,
that those who had first
followed Christ they should number first,
where no reason persuaded them to invert this order.
These two reasons seem to prove not only that he was an apostle, but also
that he was Bartholomew, concerning which
more fully hereafter.
[6] Now let us proceed to another argument,
which Roberti forms thus from the likeness from the likeness with Peter, which is found in the calling
of Peter and of Nathanael: Another
reason is suggested to me by the Parallel which
the describer John made studiously and as it were of set purpose,
and set before the diligent reader in those two
pairs: on the one side Andrew and Peter; on the other Philip
and Nathanael. Look, pray, with me,
and see whether egg is liker to egg, or milk to milk, than these — John
chapter 1.
℣. 41. Andrew found his own brother
Simon.
℣. 45. Philip found Nathanael.
℣. 41. Andrew says to Simon: we have found the Messiah.
℣. 45. Philip says to Nathanael: We have found
Jesus.
℣. 42. Andrew led Simon to Jesus.
℣. 46. Philip to Nathanael: Come, and
see.
℣. 42. Jesus, looking upon Peter.
℣. 47. Jesus saw Nathanael.
℣. 42. Thou art Simon the son of Jona, thou shalt be called
Cephas.
℣. 47. Behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.
Then, a few things being interposed, he exhibits the confession of Peter and of Nathanael
as thus alike. Matthew 16, ℣. 16, Peter
to Christ: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 1, ℣. 49, Nathanael to Christ: Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. St. Augustine acknowledged
the likeness of the confession of both
in his tractate 7 on the Gospel of John: He (Nathanael) uttered such a voice —
Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King
of Israel — as Peter so long afterwards, when
the Lord says to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, etc.
But let us pursue the parallel. Thus Roberti continues:
You have the confession and profession of both,
conceived in almost the same words. Hear now
in turn Christ's answer and promise,
not indeed the same, but yet on both sides great.
Matthew 16, ℣. 17: Christ to Peter: Blessed
art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood
hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who
is in heaven. John 1, ℣. 50, 51: Greater things than these
shalt thou see: You shall see heaven opened, and
the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the son of man — the same says he to Nathanael.
[7] from the promise made to him, You have a most perfect likeness in the calling
of Peter and of Nathanael, in their confession, in the promises
made by the Lord to each, in the praise of each uttered by the truthful
mouth of Christ. That Nathanael also constantly
adhered to Christ will be plain, when we shall see him
with Peter and the other Apostles admitted to the last table of the Lord
after Christ's Resurrection.
From these things you will easily gather that Nathanael was admitted
to the familiar living-together of the Lord,
and therefore to the apostolate. But if you do not yet
acquiesce in these things, I will reason with you thus more closely. Greater
things did Christ promise to Nathanael than to any of
the disciples who was not an Apostle; therefore we must needs
believe that he too was an Apostle: especially
since many other things concur which persuade this.
Next, Christ promised to Nathanael together
with Philip the apostle: You shall see heaven opened,
and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the son of man. Or, as Origen against Celsus
book 1, and others will have it, while he speaks to Nathanael
and to Philip, he promised these things to all the apostles. Why
therefore should we exclude from the number of the apostles him to whom
we read that the same things were promised as to the apostles? Finally,
this promise is held by many to have been fulfilled in the garden
of Gethsemane: Where, says Gavantus, certainly none
assembled but the apostles — eight farther off, three nearer
to Christ the Lord.
[8] from the apparition in John 21, Another argument no less fruitful the same
John supplies in chapter 21, where he describes how
Christ appeared to his disciples at the sea
of Tiberias. Receive the words of the Evangelist: Afterward
Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the sea
of Tiberias. And he manifested himself thus: There were together
Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus,
and Nathanael, who was of Cana of Galilee,
and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.
Simon Peter says to them: I go a fishing. They say
to him: We also come with thee. Then he describes the fishing,
and the dinner prepared for the disciples by the Lord on
the seashore: at last the Evangelist subjoins,
℣. 14: This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested
to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.
These seven, among whom Nathanael is named third, all seem to have been apostles. For first,
John subjoins this apparition after two preceding ones, made
to the Apostles alone; and he uses in this
apparition the same name of disciples which he
had used in the preceding ones. Next, by the name of disciples
John designates none but Apostles,
as the often-praised Roberti observes,
or, where he designates others, he immediately adds something
from which it is plain that those whom he so names were not apostles.
Thus when in chapter 6, ℣. 61, 62, 67, he had said that certain
disciples murmured and went back,
presently at ℣. 68 he shows them to be other than the TWELVE. Likewise
in chapter 19, ℣. 38, he calls Joseph of Arimathea a disciple,
but adds secretly, for
fear of the Jews. Since therefore in this notable fishing
John names the disciples simply,
we ought assuredly to understand the Apostles: by this
argument also, that those who are recounted by name, besides
Nathanael, are most well known, and
even Apostles of great name. Gavantus takes an argument
from this, that this apparition
is called the third made to the disciples: for if any disciples whatever
be here understood, it would have to be called the fifth
or at least the fourth, since the Lord appeared also to those going to Emmaus;
but it is the third, if
the apostles alone are understood.
[9] It is pleasing here also to ask our adversaries a few questions,
before we set forth the chief argument from this passage.
from reasons drawn thence, Why, I beseech you, is Nathanael
here set before James and John, if he was not an apostle?
Next, whence such familiarity of Nathanael with
Peter and the other apostles as is here
insinuated: I go a fishing. We also come with thee?
For if he was hindered from the apostolate on account of skill in the law,
neither will he be numbered among the 72 disciples,
as will be proved hereafter at greater length. Chrysostom
writes on this passage: Since therefore they had nothing
which they might do, they betook themselves to fishing,
and they did this by night because they were afraid.
Tell me, pray, why has Nathanael nothing to do,
why is he afraid, if he was excluded from the
number of Christ's disciples because he was skilled in the law?
These things briefly: to which perhaps some answer
can be made, yet not such that it does not remain far
more likely that Nathanael was rather a fisherman,
or a practitioner of a like craft, than a doctor
of the law. Of which more, when we must reply to the authority
of St. Augustine. Now we hasten to another
argument.
[10] Never did Christ the Lord deal familiarly
after his Resurrection from Christ's familiar banquet, save with the Apostles alone;
but either under another appearance, or, when he had become known,
most briefly. Let us examine the apparitions one by one.
He appears to Magdalen, John 20. For some while
he plays with the woman who loved him, but unrecognized.
At last he manifests himself; but behold, having forbidden her
his touch, he sends her at once to the disciples.
This with Magdalen, with whom before his death
he had dealt so familiarly, who had sought him dead
with such zeal, and had found him alive again with such joy.
Matthew 28. 9: Jesus met the pious women.
Nor was there delay: Go, he says, tell
my brethren that they go into Galilee; there they shall see me.
Luke 24: the Lord joins himself to the disciples going
to Emmaus, but Their eyes
were held, that they should not know him: he questions them,
argues with them, rebukes them, instructs them, even reclines at table,
still unknown. At last Their eyes were opened,
and they knew him. What then?
And he vanished out of their sight. Do you see
how sparingly, how severely the Lord, now glorious, dealt
with all these? But not so with the Apostles
alone, whom he appointed Princes over all the earth,
and whom therefore it behooved both to console with kindly words
and to instruct in many things pertaining to the Church.
Luke 24: Jesus stood in the midst
of them, and says to them: It is I, fear not…
See my hands and feet, that it is I
myself: handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as you see me to have.
And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
Nay, he even took food with them, as may there be read.
Behold how kindly, how friendly, how familiarly
he deals; but when the Apostles alone were present.
John 20: again with the Apostles alone present,
most amicably he invites Thomas to faith. Put in, he says
to Thomas, thy finger hither, and see my hands,
and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side:
and be not faithless, but believing. What
can be said more friendly and familiar than these words? Blind
therefore let him be who does not see the immense difference
between the manner of acting which the Lord, now glorious,
held with the apostles, and that which
he used with the lesser disciples. But to what end, you will say,
are these things drawn out so at large? That it may be plainer than light
that this apparition of which we treat
was made to none other than the apostles. Let us now
look more closely at the apparition itself. John
21. 4: Jesus stood on the shore. ℣. 5: Jesus said to them:
Children, have you any meat? ℣.
6: Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and you shall find.
Presently ℣. 7, from the immense catch of fishes,
John to Peter: It is the Lord. ℣. 9: they saw
coals laid by the Lord, and a fish laid thereon,
and bread. ℣. 12: Jesus says to them: Come,
dine. ℣. 13: And Jesus comes, and takes
bread, and gives them, and fish in like manner. When indeed,
even before his death, did the Lord deal more familiarly with
his own than he here deals? He shows himself
to them, questions them about the catch of fishes, teaches them where
they shall catch, prepares dinner for them, ministers to them as they recline.
Who would believe that these things were done with others than
with the apostles, if he has rightly weighed how sparing
toward others, and how severe, the glorious Lord showed himself?
Show even one besides the apostles with whom the Lord dealt familiarly
after the resurrection; and I will confess
the argument feeble. But if you cannot produce one, confess
with me that it is by no means to be believed that this was granted
to Nathanael and the two others, that they should
recline at table with Christ so familiarly,
unless they had been apostles; when you remember that to Magdalen,
so great a lover of Christ, and before joined to him
by so great a bond, it was severely said:
Touch me not. Nor can it here be said
that this honor was paid to them on account of Peter and the three other apostles:
for this is in no way likely
from the fact that in the other two apparitions
there were none other than apostles. Besides:
either the Apostles after Christ's resurrection were often with
other disciples, or they were for the most part alone:
if the first, then Christ studiously
sought the occasion when they were alone, to deal familiarly
with them. If the latter, neither is it to be believed that here they were with
others; nor does it seem that the Lord would have come
precisely at that time when
others were present. To the Apostles alone, namely, the Lord had said,
John 6, ℣. 71: Have not I chosen you twelve?
These alone were to say, Acts 10: Who did eat and drink with him, after he rose
from the dead. These alone had heard: To you it is given
to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. This passage
suggests to me another argument, no less effective
than the preceding.
[11] from the fact that Peter was here constituted head of the Church, In this apparition, the dinner being finished,
Christ conferred upon Peter the primacy of the Church,
promised in Matthew 16, as the doctors and interpreters
everywhere teach. Hear Chrysostom, Homily 88, on
that word, Feed my sheep. If thou lovest me, he says,
undertake the presidency of the brethren. Toletus, in his Commentary
on this passage, has it thus: The dinner being ended, the Lord
commits to Peter the government of all his faithful,
and the care and rule of the whole Church:
and fulfills what he had promised before the passion,
Matthew 16: Upon this rock I will build
my Church, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
behold, now he delivers them, and chooses him among all the apostles
to be head of the whole Church. Now, whoever you are who contend
that others were here present than apostles,
show where Christ has treated of matters pertaining to the government
of the Church, save with the apostles alone.
Matthew 16: he promises the presidency to Peter.
Where were others than apostles? In the last supper before his
death, besides many other things, he instituted priests:
Do this in commemoration of me.
None was present save the Apostles. In the apparition,
John 20: As the Father hath sent me, I also send
you. When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them:
Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain,
they are retained. Here again the Apostles alone were present.
Here he creates Peter supreme Pontiff. Why should I think others
were present than the Apostles?
[12] Gavantus has here another argument,
and one truly not inept. [because with Matthias and Barsabas he was not proposed to fill the place of Judas.] If Nathanael was not of
the twelve apostles, why is he not even
named for the place of Judas along with Matthias and Barsabas? Assuredly he
would seem to be named in the first place, who had constantly adhered to Christ and the
Apostles, and was in every respect
to have been the cause: because, he says, he was already of the twelve.
§ II. Answer is made to the reasons of SS. Augustine and
Gregory, to whose authority the authority of other Fathers is opposed.
The reason of St. Augustine Now we must reply to the authority of St. Augustine:
for this alone has drawn various men to the contrary
opinion; this one thing they oppose to all our darts
as an impregnable wall.
Tractate 7 on the Gospel of John, after the passage praised
in which he wonderfully praises Nathanael, he writes thus: What then
do we, brethren? Ought this man to have been first among
the apostles? Not only is Nathanael not found first among
the apostles, but he is neither in the middle nor last among
the twelve — he to whom the Son of God bore so great
a testimony, saying: Behold a true
Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Is the cause sought?
So far as the Lord intimates, we find it PROBABLY.
For we ought to understand that Nathanael himself
was learned, and skilled in the law:
and therefore the Lord would not place him among the disciples;
because he chose the unlearned, that thereby he might confound
the world. This he then proves from the Apostle, 1 Cor.
1. Let us hear also how the great Father proves
that Nathanael was learned and skilled
in the law. He does this on Psalm 65 in these words: Whence
do we understand that he (Nathanael) was skilled
in the law? When he heard from one of those who
had spoken with the Lord, saying: We have found
the Messiah, which is interpreted Christ: he asked whence,
and it was said, From Nazareth: and he said: From
Nazareth can anything good be. Without doubt
he who understood that from Nazareth something
good could be, was skilled in the law, and had well
examined the Prophets. I know that there is in those words another pronunciation,
but it is not approved by the more prudent,
as though he seemed to have despaired, when,
hearing, he had said, From Nazareth can anything good
be? that is, Can there be? Pronouncing thus,
as though he despaired. But there follows there: Come and
see. These words, that is, Come and see, can follow either
pronunciation. If you say,
as though not believing, From Nazareth can anything good
be? the answer is: Come and see what thou dost not
believe. Again if you say affirming, From Nazareth
can anything good be; the answer is: Come and
see how true is the good which I announce from
Nazareth; and how rightly thou believest — come and make trial.
Hence, however, he is thought to have been learned in the law,
because he was not chosen among the disciples by
him who first chose the foolish things of the world, since the Lord bore
so great a testimony to him, saying: Behold
a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. You have
the sense of the holy Father, faithfully reported. Yet certain things
are to be noted. For I do not think that even those adversaries who
glory in St. Augustine follow him here in all things.
[14] it is examined, First, it is manifest that a mere conjecture is here given by St.
Augustine, when he asserts that Nathanael was skilled
in the law, and therefore not chosen.
He himself signifies this when he says: Probably
we find it. Again he hints the same when in the cited
Psalm he says: Hence, however, he is thought to have been learned in
the law, because he was not chosen, etc. As if he said:
whether it must be read: From Nazareth can anything
good be? interrogatively; or, From Nazareth can
anything good be, affirmatively: yet from this,
that he was not chosen an apostle, I conjecture that he was learned
in the law. In this manner therefore St. Augustine seems to have been
drawn into that opinion which he asserted in passing in a sermon to the people.
He found no one in the catalogue of the twelve apostles
by the name of Nathanael; hence he thought he was not of their number;
he sought a reason; and found none
more fitting than that he had been skilled in the law,
and therefore not chosen.
[15] and it is shown that St. Augustine Now let us hear the oft-praised John
Roberti: First, he says, the whole matter, and the manner
of writing shows that Augustine (which we would have said of
others also, for instance Gregory, if any of the ancients
agree with him) did not treat this matter of set purpose, so as to examine whether*
Nathanael was an apostle; that he did not doubt, did not suppose
that there were those who held that he was an apostle:
but, supposing, as we say in the schools, that he was not
an apostle, he brings the reason which thou hast heard.
It is not therefore fair to press his authority so much in that matter,
which he asserted only in passing.
Next, that not every opinion of Augustine's is of such a kind
that we ought to hold it for an oracle, he himself
is the best witness, and his books of retractations.
Nor would you rightly say that that must necessarily
be held by all (especially in a historical matter)
which Augustine asserted and did not retract. For,
not to depart from the argument in hand,
writing on that Psalm which I mentioned before, he will have
the words of Nathanael (thou hast the whole context
in Psalm 65 above), From Nazareth can
anything good be, set down assertively,
not with an interrogation: whereas commonly all will have it
that Nathanael asked a question in those words, and all the more corrected
codices add the mark of interrogation to them. Nor yet does anyone
fear the censure added there by Augustine: I know that there is
in his words, he says, another pronunciation
(namely with an interrogation) but it is not approved by
the more prudent.
[16] is here deserted in many things even by our adversaries themselves. It is helpful here to hear Toletus, who on account of
St. Augustine's authority is against us.
He notes thus, annotation 78 on John chapter 1, about this same
passage: Augustine, tract. 17, affirms that the preceding
sentence can be uttered in two ways.
One is by way of question. The other is by way of affirmation.
Augustine himself rather approves that it was spoken affirmatively,
as though Nathanael, agreeing with Philip, asserts that from
Nazareth Christ can come forth. But Cyril, book
2, chapter 15, and Chrysostom, Homily 19, read the sentence in the manner
of doubt and interrogation,
and that seems the legitimate exposition. Why therefore
does Toletus press Augustine's opinion so against us,
which he himself deserts in the same place? Nay,
he even destroys and refutes the foundation upon which Augustine
rests against Nathanael's apostolate,
in these words: If Augustine's reason proved universally,
neither would Paul seem to have been fit to be chosen; who
was far more learned than Nathanael.
[17] But let Roberti continue: What of this, that the reason
which Augustine brings can be weakened from divine Scripture itself? The reason of St. Augustine is refuted from Scripture, "No learned man," he says, "was chosen
first." And yet, O holy, O admirable
man, Saul assuredly was chosen. But what manner of man?
Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel,
taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers
(Acts 22, ℣. 3). What manner of man? Who had advanced
in Judaism above many of his equals
(Gal. 1, ℣. 14) … And yet, says the holy Doctor: "God hath chosen the weak things of the world." So it is,
we confess. But he did not cast away the powerful. Rightly and providently
the Apostle: Not many wise (1 Cor.
1, ℣. 26). He did not say, No wise men, since
he himself was wise. Nor would you say that the example of Saul
is less rightly adduced because he was not of the number
of the twelve Apostles: for the reason which the Apostle brings,
why the powerful and the learned were not chosen,
is this, 1 Cor. 1, ℣. 29: That no flesh should glory
in his sight. But this reason has no less
place in Paul than in
the other apostles. Nay, perhaps more: for Paul,
the vessel of election, says of himself: For I suppose that I have done nothing
less than the great Apostles, 2 Cor. 11,
℣. 5. Paul was rude in speech, but
not in knowledge, ibid. ℣. 6; he labored more abundantly than
they all, 1 Cor. 15, ℣. 10. So that from
Jerusalem round about even to Illyricum he filled up
the Gospel of Christ, Rom. 15, ℣. 19. The Lord therefore does not seem to have abstained universally
from choosing those in any way skilled in the Jewish law,
or students of sacred Scripture, but from choosing
philosophers or orators of great name, who
might have seemed to have drawn the world to the faith rather by their own doctrine
or eloquence than by the power of the cross of Christ.
This, so far as it seems to me,
is the Apostle's mind: which will appear more clearly from what is to be said.
[18] Roberti goes on further: Let us also, if it be permitted, inquire from the example of Philip, whence at length Augustine and
certain others will gather that Nathanael was so learned and
skilled? Is it from this, that he asks
whether from Nazareth anything good can be?
Or does he affirm it, according to Augustine's mind? But I would
have it told me, why this is a greater sign of skill in
Nathanael than that in Philip which
he says: "Him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the Prophets,
we have found, Jesus, the son of Joseph, of Nazareth"?
But if you say that from these words it is rightly argued
that Philip too was skilled in the Scriptures;
then it will be nothing wonderful that the learned Nathanael was
called to the apostolate, since Philip, no whit less learned, was called.
St. Chrysostom supports what has been said, Homily 20 on John, of the new
Paris edition, which we shall always cite, on the words
of Philip: Him of whom Moses wrote in the law and the Prophets
we have found, writing thus: Do you see how
watchful he was, and how frequently he meditated on the writings
of Moses? If Philip frequently meditated on the writings
of Moses, he was not unskilled in the law and the Scripture.
The close friendship also, which seems to have been
between Philip and Nathanael,
hints that both were addicted to nearly the same
studies. We think these things suffice to make it plain
that we must not here adhere to the authority of St. Augustine;
nor do we think that Augustine himself would have dissented from us in this part,
if it had been permitted him both to examine the matter at leisure
and to see the arguments afterwards discovered.
[19] But St. Gregory also dissents from us, in
Job book 33, Reply is made to St. Gregory. chapter 16, where he writes thus: Whence in
the Gospel the Lord praises Nathanael, and yet
does not number him in the lot of the preachers: because for
preaching such men ought to have come as
had nothing of their own praise. I venerate the authority
of a Father most holy and likewise most learned; but
I cannot approve the reason here brought,
especially since the most weighty authority of other
Fathers, presently to be produced, stands against it. What? Shall I deny that all who
were called to the apostolate were of praised life?
But Andrew certainly was a disciple of John the Baptist;
various writers think the same of Peter, Philip, James,
and John. There is therefore no reason why I should think
these men wicked. Nor is it lawful for me to suspect this of the others,
if you except one, Matthew
the publican; for everyone is to be presumed
honest until he be proved dishonest.
[20] From Chrysostom, But now, lest we should seem to depart from the opinion
of most learned Fathers without the authority of the ancients,
we shall produce Fathers greater in number,
and in the literal understanding of holy Scripture inferior neither to Augustine
nor to Gregory. St. Chrysostom
in various places insinuates that Nathanael is to be numbered among the apostles.
Receive a few. Homily 20 on
John he has thus: Having therefore taken his disciples, those namely first
called, he sets out to the hunting of the rest,
and draws in Philip and Nathanael.
He is treating of the calling of the Apostles, as most clearly
appears from what goes before and follows.
For he subjoins: But concerning this man (Nathanael)
it was not so wonderful … but it was wonderful
that Peter and James and Philip followed.
Besides, in this whole Homily and the preceding,
he speaks of the calling and instruction of Nathanael
no otherwise than of the calling of Peter,
and of the other apostles. In Homily 87 he insinuates that those seven
to whom Christ appeared at the sea of Tiberias
were apostles, when upon that passage of John 21,
Afterward he manifested himself to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias,
he comments thus: Do you see how he does not frequently
converse with them, nor as before?
For he appeared in the evening (to the Apostles, Thomas being absent)
and flew away. Then after eight days once
(to the same, Thomas being present) and again he flew away.
Afterward at the sea, and again with much fear.
Does he not most clearly signify that these seven are those
to whom the Lord had already twice appeared? And yet none
were those two but the Apostles: the mind of Chrysostom therefore
is that these seven, among whom was Nathanael,
were apostles. Again he insinuates it in Homily 88,
where, investigating the reason why Christ questioned Peter alone
about love, he writes these things:
And why, passing over the others, does he address him (Peter) concerning these things?
He was eminent among the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples,
and the head of that company. If he had not thought all
of them apostles, he would surely have said, Why, passing over James,
John, and Thomas. But the holy doctor thought them all
apostles, nor can anyone doubt of this
who has diligently gone through the Homilies cited by us. Chrysostom therefore,
easily the chief among the Greek Fathers in the literal
interpretation of Scripture, thinks with us that Nathanael
was an apostle.
[21] from Cyril of Alexandria, Nor does Cyril of Alexandria think otherwise,
likewise a most celebrated interpreter of sacred Scripture.
For first, upon the aforesaid apparition at
the sea of Tiberias, book 12 on John, he speaks thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ again bountifully grants his disciples
to enjoy the most longed-for sight of him,
and now a third time comes upon them, that he might implant a firm
and constant sense of faith toward himself. For
they who had beheld him not once, but now a third time,
how should they not, with all incredulity shaken off from their mind,
stand forth to others as preachers of the truth of pious doctrines?
You must charge Cyril, as also Chrysostom above, with
careless negligence, if they did not think
all to be apostles who say that the Lord appeared to them a third time,
since he had already appeared a third time to no more than three
of the seven. Cyril continues:
Peter therefore goes out to fish together with
the others: for they join themselves to him as companions: by these things also
our Savior Christ disposing and ordaining something useful.
For he said to them
somewhere, when he called them to the dignity of the apostolate:
(Matt. 4, ℣. 19) Come after me, and I will make
you to become fishers of men. To whom, I beseech you,
was this said, if not to the apostles? Nor indeed
should you here object that it is read as said only to Peter and Andrew.
For while Christ speaks to Peter
and Andrew, he says it of all the Apostles: just as
in John 1, ℣. 5, while he says to Nathanael
and Philip: You shall see heaven opened, and the angels
of God ascending and descending upon the Son
of man, he promises that to all the Apostles,
according to the mind of the same Cyril, and of others. At greater length
Cyril opens his mind in the same place, but,
these being passed over, I will add something else from book 9,
where he writes upon that passage of John 14, ℣. 7, From henceforth you shall know
him and you have seen him, which alone can suffice
to establish most certainly that Nathanael was
numbered by Cyril among the twelve Apostles.
He there proves, from Nathanael's confession in John
1, from the adoration of the disciples in Matthew 14, and from
Peter's testimony in Matthew 16, that Christ's divinity was not unknown
to the apostles; and thus he discourses:
That they (the apostles) also believed the Lord
truly to be the Son of God is in no way doubtful to those who think
rightly. Otherwise how did that Israelite Nathanael,
as soon as he had heard, "Before
Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw
thee," at once bring in the confession of faith, saying:
"Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel"?
Cyril assuredly beats the air, unless he thought
Nathanael an apostle, one of the twelve; for he proves
of Nathanael what was to be proved only of the Apostles.
For he is explaining a discourse of Christ
held at the last supper to the apostles alone, from
which a doubt arose whether they had known
Christ to be the Son of God. It must therefore be certain
and beyond doubt that to Cyril Nathanael is
an apostle.
[22] To these is added Origen, book 1 against Celsus,
num. 48 of the Paris edition, from Origen, where he writes thus: The Savior,
foretelling to his apostles that they too should behold the heavens
opened, says: Amen, amen I say to you,
you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
This promise was made to Nathanael, John 1,
℣. 51, and to Philip: but Origen says that this
was foretold to the apostles; because, namely, he holds it to have been promised to all,
although he was not ignorant that it was said to these two:
but he would not rightly think this promise
common to the Apostles, unless he judged that Nathanael,
to whom the Lord chiefly directed his discourse,
had been an apostle.
[23] St. Epiphanius, already cited by Roberti,
in Heresy 51, from Epiphanius, Juvencus, which is that of the Alogi, in Petavius' edition
tom. 1, p. 439 and following, in the same
manner narrates the calling of Peter, Andrew,
John, James, Philip, and Nathanael. At num.
17: At which time Peter was called by the work of Andrew:
then Philip, and through Philip Nathanael.
And yet those were called to the apostolic office.
To the same therefore, in Epiphanius' opinion, Nathanael
seems to have been called. Nay, at num. 15, treating of
those invited with Christ to the wedding, he so far from making him
inferior to the apostles that he names him before Philip.
Roberti adds a most ancient witness,
and that a Latin one, whereas the rest are nearly all Greek: Juvencus,
he says, a Presbyter, a Spaniard OF MOST NOBLE STOCK,
as St. Jerome says, makes Christ
speak thus with Nathanael (book 2 of the History of the
Gospel): Before even the words of Philip called thee,
the author of the spirit saw thee and chose thee for a COMPANION. What did he understand
by COMPANION, if not an apostle? for that the apostles, and they alone, were Christ's
companions and of his household, the whole Gospels
cry out. Juvencus seems to have wished to express that word
of Mark chapter 3, ℣. 14: He appointed that there should be twelve
with him. He therefore makes Nathanael one of the twelve
companions of Christ.
[24] from Rupert Let it be unlawful to pass over Rupert, abbot of Deutz,
who of all seems to have examined this question
most, and thought Nathanael not only an apostle,
but Bartholomew the apostle, answering also to Augustine
with his name unspoken: And who, he says, would not wish that
a lamp of such brightness should by no means lie hidden under a bushel,
but be set upon a candlestick, and give light to all
who are in the house of the Church?
Who, I ask, would not desire that so great a confessor of the Son
of God should be reckoned among the great apostles of Christ?
For what more did Peter confess, who
deserved not only the apostolate, but before the rest the keys
of the kingdom of heaven? To one asking this someone might perhaps
say: Peter was a fisherman; Nathanael was skilled
in the law. But it had been God's purpose
that through the weak and contemptible things of the world he should break the strong,
and through those things which were foolish should confound
the wise. Therefore, persisting in his purpose,
he rewarded the faith and confession of Peter the fisherman not only
with the apostolate, but also with the keys of the heavens.
But Nathanael's confession he did not reward
with the apostolic order; because he was skilled in the law,
he left him lower.
[25] Nathanael's apostolate is proved. When someone has said this, he will not thus altogether
satisfy the diligent reader, because, namely, the spirit
of knowledge, which is one of the seven spirits
of God, since it is an honorable gift of God, in no way
diminishes the truth or merit of faith. Nay,
learned sanctity excels holy rusticity
(the angel bearing witness) who says to Daniel: For
the learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that
instruct many unto justice, as stars for
perpetual eternities. Then, bringing forward the example of Paul,
he confirms that the learned were not rejected by Christ;
and at length he thinks that he was Bartholomew the Apostle.
Now, passing over the more recent writers — Cornelius a
Lapide, Jansenius bishop of Ghent, Benedict
Arias Montanus, and very many other doctors,
who are partly cited by Roberti, partly
wrote afterwards, in favor of Nathanael's apostolate — we shall bring forward the consent
as it were of the universal world.
§ III. The same apostolate is proved by the consent of almost the whole Christian world.
The Armenians, Chaldeans, and Syrians call him an Apostle The Armenians and Chaldeans, among whom we shall afterwards
prove that St. Bartholomew preached the Gospel and underwent
none other than Bartholomew
the Apostle: as may be seen in many places in
Joseph Simon Assemani, a Syrian Maronite, tom. 3, part 1, art. 2, of the Oriental
Library printed at Rome not long ago. In tom. 3,
part 2, p. 4, there is cited Marsus the son of Solomon
(whom in tom. 3, part 1, p. 554 he says flourished
in the year of Christ 1135), writing thus: Nathanael
Bartholomew, and Lebbaeus, etc. … imbued the East with the faith.
In the same place Ebedjesu, metropolitan of Soba in Armenia
(whom he much praises for erudition, and says died in the year 1318, tom.
3, part 1, p. 325), has this: Bartholomew
who is also Nathanael. On p. 5, Elias bishop
of Damascus (or made Metropolitan in the year 893,
in the same author, tom. 3, part 1, p. 513) writes
thus: Whom of the twelve apostles there followed
Nathanael, who is also Ebn-Tholmai; that is, the son
of Tholmai, or Bartholomew. In the same place Amrus
(he flourished in the year 1340, by the same witness, tom. 3, part.
1, p. 380): Nathanael who is also Bartholomew.
On the same page Assemani himself writes: The Chaldeans confound Nathanael
with Bartholomew.
[27] The same Assemani, tom. 3, part 1, p.
321, not to be despised in this question: notes these things concerning Solomon of Bassora, who as metropolitan governed the church of Bassora
in the year of Christ MCCXXII, as he says on p. 309: He makes Nathanael
the same as Bartholomew the Apostle: which
many other Syrians also affirm. But Solomon contradicts
himself, who two chapters before
had reckoned Nathanael among the 70 disciples.
But it can be answered that Solomon thought
there were two Nathanaels, one an Apostle,
and he Bartholomew, the other one of the seventy
disciples: which pleased Gavantus also
in the dissertation often praised. This opinion indeed
seems to have slight foundation, but
it is not likely that Solomon would have wished to contradict himself in nearly the same place.
These things say the Chaldean, Armenian, and many Syrian
authors — Nestorians indeed, and therefore, where faith is concerned,
unworthy of our belief; but in this controversy
not destitute of all authority, since they are both ancient
and learned, and were inhabitants of those provinces
which St. Bartholomew watered with his sweat
and blood: for from the tradition of their forefathers
they could have had these things. And now that this is the common opinion of the whole
nation is proved
from this, that in the two Synaxaria added by Assemani at the end of part
1 of tom. 3, from p. 645 of his Library,
no mention is made of Nathanael,
though you will find the saints commemorated in Scripture diligently
expressed there.
[28] The Ethiopians, on the witness of Roberti often cited, in
their Mass, as also the Abyssinians and Egyptians, or universal canon, when according to the ancient
rite of the Catholic Church they make mention of the Saints,
and ask their intercession, they place St. Nathanael among
the Apostles, name him an Apostle,
and set him before three others of the twelve.
Wicelius has this Mass. But the
Ethiopians seem to confound Nathanael with Simon
the Canaanite, as is gathered from this, that both
in this liturgy and in the sacred calendars of the Alexandrian Church —
namely of the Copts of Egypt, and of the Ethiopians
of the kingdom of the Abyssinians, which Job Ludolf
diligently excerpted from their
Menologies and Calendars, and published in print at Frankfurt in the year
of Christ 1691 — no mention is made of Simon the Canaanite
the Apostle; but in the calendars, on the X of July, there is placed
Nathanael the Canaanite.
[29] With the Ethiopians and Egyptians the Greeks agree,
who in their Menology at the day XXII of April
have thus: the Greeks, the Muscovites, On the same day, of St. Nathanael the Apostle,
who was Simon Zelotes; he was of Cana
of Galilee. And on the X day of May: Of St. Simon Zelotes the Apostle.
This Simon is called Nathanael. The Muscovites,
accustomed everywhere to follow the Greeks, by whom they were imbued
with the faith of Christ, place Simon the Apostle
in their Calendar on the same X day of May, in Possevinus'
Apparatus tom. 2, p. 367, as also
in the figured Ephemerides printed by Papebroch before
tom. 1 of May; but they add nothing about Nathanael,
for brevity's sake, as it appears,
content with one name. We have therefore, thinking with us in favor of Nathanael's
Apostolate, the Chaldeans,
Armenians, Syrians, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Greeks,
and Muscovites, that is, almost the whole Christian world,
although many of them are deceived in designating the person,
as we shall prove in the following §. It remains
that we should show that the Latin Church does not dissent
from these; which I now undertake.
[30] and the tacit sense of the Latin Church, That Nathanael is holy, and most worthy
to have a place in the Calendars of the Saints,
and that this is sufficiently established from the Gospel, our adversaries too,
I think, will confess. For Christ's
testimony does not deceive: Behold a true Israelite, in whom
there is no guile, John 1, ℣. 47. On which passage
St. Augustine writes these things, tract. 7: A great
testimony: this was said neither to Andrew, nor to Peter,
nor to Philip, which was said of
Nathanael: "Behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile."
And a little before: Hear what manner of man
he was; the Lord himself bears testimony. Great
is the Lord, known by the testimony of John: blessed
is Nathanael, known by the testimony of truth. Chrysostom
likewise praises Nathanael in many words, and
Cyril, and other fathers, whose words it would be long to set down here.
It can also be weighed of what sort and how great
are the things promised to him by Christ the Lord,
John 1, ℣. 51: Greater things than these shalt thou see … You shall see
heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of man. Add,
that he constantly followed the Lord, and was admitted with
the chief of the Apostles to the last dinner of Christ
now glorious. Tillemont himself confesses
that he constantly followed Christ: Because, he says,
his virtue was truly sincere and humble.
Whence therefore shall I say it comes that the name of Nathanael is unknown to all
the calendars of the Latins? Search through
the chief martyrologies: for instance the Hieronymian,
Bede's enlarged by Florus, the old Roman
published by Rosweyde, that of Ado, of Usuard, of Rabanus,
of Notker, the modern Roman, and others
compiled from these; everywhere there is deep
silence about Nathanael. What shall I say is the cause of this silence?
For neither the Church nor the martyrologists could be ignorant of the man's virtue
or merits; and besides,
as many as are somewhat more celebrated in Scripture
are found diligently inserted in the martyrologies.
Assuredly I find no other cause than
that the Martyrologists thought, and the governors of the Church thought,
that Nathanael was inserted in the sacred calendars under another name.
[31] which is expounded in favor of Nathanael's apostolate. If you deny this, you will accuse the whole Church of the greatest
folly and negligence, in that it has knowingly and
deliberately allowed a most holy man to be exiled from all the sacred calendars.
Nor would you say
that he is indeed inserted in the martyrologies, but under a name
unknown to us: and that therefore it does not follow that he was an Apostle.
For this is not likely. Which I thus
show. The martyrologists are wont to enroll the Saints in the sacred calendars
by the more celebrated and known name. But now
you will be able to show no name which is more
celebrated and known in the Scriptures and the Fathers
than is the name Nathanael, if you except only the
names of the Apostles. There is therefore no reason why
we should suspect that Nathanael was inserted in the sacred calendars under any other
name than that of some Apostle. It remains
therefore that we should judge that he has a place in the sacred calendars
under the name of a certain Apostle,
namely Bartholomew (as will be proved in the following §), because under this name
he is most known to the whole world, and is celebrated in the four
catalogues of the Apostles, Matt. 10, Mark
3, Luke 6, Acts 1. Receive that reasoning
in a form nearly dialectical. The Church could not
fail to insert in the calendars of the saints Nathanael, a man most praiseworthy.
But it did not inscribe the name:
therefore it judges that he is already inscribed under another name. And yet
it cannot judge that he is inscribed under a less known and celebrated
name; therefore it judges that he is inscribed
under the name of some Apostle, and so that he is an Apostle,
one of the twelve. This is my conjecture concerning the Church's
silence. If anyone can teach things more certain,
or more likely, I shall gladly embrace them.
[32] You have the consent of almost the whole world for
the Apostolate of Nathanael, [Either Nathanael is an apostle, or he must be separated even from the number of the 72.] partly declared in express words,
partly tacitly insinuated. But if
you do not acquiesce in these things, explain, I beseech you, whether you judge that he
is to be held in the number of the 72 disciples,
or rather to be wholly separated from the disciples of Christ.
If you separate him altogether, as St. Augustine's reason demands —
for you will hardly find why the Lord should have wished to choose the learned
for preaching among the seventy-two disciples,
but not among the apostles.
If, I say, Nathanael is to you not even among the seventy-two,
you will be opposed to the whole Church and to all the learned,
who, with sacred Scripture shining before them, have always numbered
Nathanael among the disciples of Christ. But if
you think he is to be held among the lesser
disciples, you destroy the reason
why you judge him excluded from the number of the apostles.
It is plain therefore that the chief foundation of our adversaries
is destroyed by itself, and utterly
falls.
[33] I do not choose to dissemble what may seem to stand against
the opinion just established. Peter de Natalibus is refuted, For Peter de Natalibus,
bishop of Equilio, in his Catalogue of the Saints
book 1, chapter 9, treating of Nathanael, affirms
that his body is preserved at the city of Treugren.
But he does not explain in what province that
city, unknown to all, is. An anonymous monk of Saint-Sulpice,
in the Patriarchium Bituricense, in
Labbe's Library of Mss. tom. 2, p. 5,
reads the city of Tongres, which is sufficiently ancient
and known in our Belgium. But the body of Nathanael is unknown to the people of Tongres,
nor is there any memory of Nathanael in their ancient
Calendar. And indeed I am altogether persuaded
that it was no better established to the bishop of Equilio where the body of Nathanael
rested than the people of Tongres know it.
For if it had been known in the bishop of Equilio's time where the body of a man
most holy was preserved, who would believe that the possessors of so great a treasure
would have been so negligent
that they neither took care to celebrate his feast, nor made known to the world
that the body of a most holy man was laid up with them?
But, you will say, by what reasoning then
could the bishop of Equilio have been led to write this? That
I profess I no more understand than
why he inserted many other things plainly fabulous into his Work,
except that he subjoins: These things brother Vincent —
of Beauvais, I suppose: in whom, however, I have long
sought these things in vain. Yet one might suspect that Nathanael
was confounded by the bishop of Equilio with some other saint;
as we shall see was done in
those things which I subjoin, and which the bishop of Equilio himself rejects.
[34] In the VI century the body of St. Ursinus,
or Ursicinus, Charles Saussay, first bishop of Bourges, was found by
of Tours writes in his book On the Glory of the Confessors, chapter
80. Certain writers feigned that this man was the same as Nathanael,
from whom it flowed
into certain martyrologies of Usuard enlarged by later hands,
as you will find in the auctaria of our Usuard
at the day IX of November, in which
that opinion is twice repeated. The same pleased Charles
Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology, p. 846.
The anonymous monk mentioned above refuted this opinion long ago
in the place cited. Tillemont,
who in tom. 4 of the Monuments, p. 477, and again
p. 726, treats of St. Ursinus, would not even report
it, much less refute it. Likewise the latest
editors of Gallia Christiana, tom. 2, col. 4,
where they discuss St. Ursinus, preferred to despise this fiction
rather than confute it. For indeed even
by the silence of St. Gregory of Tours alone the little fable is sufficiently refuted:
for whence did those later writers learn
that Ursinus is the Nathanael praised by Christ, who would not have known
even Ursinus himself, had he not here revealed
his body? For the praised bishop of Tours asserts that all memory of him
had been taken away up to the time when the body
was found by revelation. Since therefore he did not reveal
himself to have been Nathanael, but Ursinus,
first bishop of Bourges, the aforesaid opinion
must be numbered among invented fables.
[35] and certain Spanish fable-mongers. Certain fable-mongers also wished to drag Nathanael
into Spain, when into the supposititious
Chronicle of Flavius Lucius Dexter, at the year
105, they inserted these things: Nathanael, one of the 70
disciples of the Lord, rests in the city of Treuga,
near the Seventh-Twin Legion. By others he is said
to lie at the town of Trigundum near Brigantium
in Galicia, but now an ignoble place of towers.
Bivarius adds in his Commentary: There is hardly
a doubt that in the provinces of the Spains he applied himself instantly to preaching.
And no less confidently John Tamayo Salazar in the Spanish
Martyrology, at the day XXX of November, announces him at Treuga
in Spain: but when he adds
in the Acts, which he recites compiled from Dexter and the bishop of Equilio,
that his memory was utterly obliterated
either by the irruption of the Suevi or of the Alons,*
or by the destruction wrought by the Saracens, he takes from himself
all credit, if he otherwise deserved any. For indeed, if
his body, as he premises, once rested honorably buried
in Spain and venerated through many centuries,
how did the memory of so great a man so
fail that the Spaniards never afterwards
celebrated the feast day of their Apostle? I add no more:
for I should be injurious to the piety of the Spaniards toward the Saints
if I should think that they themselves had given credit to Tamayo
and others, seeing that they never took care
to restore the cultus of their Apostle, forsooth.
Annotata* Alans
§ IV. It is proved that St. Nathanael is no other than St. Bartholomew the Apostle.
It is shown that Nathanael was no other, Since it has been sufficiently proved by us, as we trust,
that St. Nathanael was an apostle,
one of the twelve, it will be of less labor
to demonstrate which of the twelve he chiefly was.
And first indeed concerning Peter, Andrew,
James the son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Thomas,
whom John commemorates in the same place with Nathanael,
no doubt can arise in anyone.
His calling shows Matthew sufficiently to be
different from Nathanael. But concerning Jude the son of James, or
Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite or Zelotes, and James
the son of Alpheus, some doubt indeed might arise,
but it is easily removed. For first, their forenames
are common among the Jews: James,
Jude, Simon. Nathanael would therefore have had a double
forename, which certainly is less usual. Next,
those three are everywhere placed among the last
in all the catalogues of the apostles, whereas Nathanael
with Philip was called by the Lord among the first to the apostolic
dignity. Jude besides
is named by John the Evangelist, chapter 14,
℣. 22; nor is there reason why we should suspect that the Evangelist
wished to name the same man now Nathanael, now Jude.
That James the son of Alpheus was a publican, and the brother
of Matthew the Apostle,
Henschen proved at length in tom. 1 of May, p.
19, which by no means suits our Nathanael.
Nor would I think that anyone has suspected of James
the son of Alpheus, or of Jude, that he was Nathanael.
[37] But of Simon the Greeks thought this, and inserted it
in their Menology, from the number of the apostles, with the others whom in the preceding §
we have given: moved, as we think, by this conjecture,
that he seems to have been of the same Cana
of Galilee as Nathanael. But in truth this conjecture
is most slight, nor is their authority — since
they are not very ancient — so great in designating Simon
as it is when they say that Nathanael
was an Apostle; for in this they have their Fathers
Chrysostom, Cyril, Epiphanius,
and the others cited by us in §2, as leaders; in
the former they seem merely to divine. Yet I confess that the arguments
which establish that Simon is distinct from Nathanael are not
so convincing as those
which demonstrate this of the other apostles. But those already given
ought to suffice; namely the forename of Simon,
which without probable reason ought not to be said
to have belonged to Nathanael; and the order kept by the Evangelists in recounting
the apostles; since it is in no way
likely that Nathanael, a man most praised by the testimony of Christ
the Lord, and called among the first to follow
Christ, should always have been recounted by them among
the last. These things will receive greater
light from what follows.
[38] One therefore remains, Bartholomew, whom
both Scripture, [than St. Bartholomew, by the authority of the Syrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Latins,] and reason, and the greater authority,
cry out to have been Nathanael. I shall take my beginning
from authority. The Chaldeans, Armenians, and many Syrians
from the ninth century of Christ have written that Nathanael is the same
as Bartholomew. And indeed who
does not see that they could know many things about Bartholomew
their apostle which were hidden from the Latins and
the Greeks? Their authority therefore in this controversy
far outweighs the authority of the Greeks.
Rupert, and the Latins who followed him, who called Nathanael
an Apostle, all agree upon Bartholomew.
But I do not here choose to weave
whom this opinion has pleased, let him consult
the dissertations of John Roberti and Bartholomew Gavantus praised before;
and besides these our John
Stephen Menochio, in his History written in Italian, part 3, chapter 55, p. 91 and 92.
[39] I add one of the Greeks, Nicetas the Paphlagonian,
who in his Oration on St. Bartholomew, to be given below
in Latin, not obscurely insinuates his mind. and by the authority of the Greek Nicetas the Paphlagonian.
For at num. 3 he mentions of the youth, virtues, and
learning of Bartholomew those things which sacred Scripture insinuates of Nathanael
in John 1, and which
the holy fathers, Augustine especially and Chrysostom,
hand down of Nathanael: then, as with pointing finger
toward the calling of Nathanael in John 1, where Christ
says of him, Behold a true Israelite, he describes Bartholomew's
calling in these words: Then also,
then, I say, he called this true Israelite,
Bartholomew. Next at num. 9, relating Bartholomew's
death, he most clearly alludes to the promise
made by Christ to Nathanael in John 1:
You shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
and descending. For he uses these words:
Hence indeed angels descending upon him from heaven
and ascending prepared for him a most august
ascent; and from above heaven was opened to him.
By which he seems sufficiently to declare his opinion concerning Bartholomew,
especially since in narrating the calling and death of Simon
and of the other apostles Nicetas has not these
allusions to the deeds of Nathanael, so that we can scarcely doubt
that he did it studiously, to signify that Bartholomew
and Nathanael were to him the same. Thus far
authority: now the same opinion must be confirmed by reasons
sought from Scripture.
[40] The same is shown by reasons, The first reason, which Rupert drew from Scripture,
is thus handed down by the oft-cited Roberti at num.
26: Matthew chapter 10, Mark chapter 3, Luke
chapter 6, while they diligently weave the catalogue of the twelve
Apostles, and studiously join together, as it were, those
who were called together, as Peter with Andrew,
James with John: always in the same place
they join Bartholomew with Philip.
Why this, unless because this pair also were called together?
And yet not together, unless Bartholomew is Nathanael.
The most eminent Toletus meets this reason,
in annotation LXXXI on John: What they say,
he says, that after Philip Bartholomew is described in the number
of the Apostles, from which they gather that he is Nathanael,
proves nothing; for in Acts 1
they are dissociated. But it is plain to one who looks, and Tostatus
noted on Matthew chapter 10, ℣. 3, that the order of calling
was neglected by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles:
for he both disjoins Peter from Andrew,
and John from James, and joins Thomas
with Philip; so that Luke seems here to have wished to recount first
those who had been joined to the Lord in greater
familiarity. For first even in this order
and chief is Peter. Second
John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved. Third
James, on Mount Tabor, in the garden of Gethsemane,
and on other occasions familiarly admitted with Peter
and John to the secrets of the Lord. From
these a not inept conjecture can be made concerning the rest.
For those who follow — Andrew, Philip, Thomas —
are commemorated by John with Jesus before the others.
But in the Gospels the order of calling
seems everywhere to be kept, as Tostatus observes
in the place cited, at least in this, that they are commemorated together
who had been called together by the Lord. By this
objection therefore the force of the argument is not broken.
[41] from sacred Scripture The second reason, likewise Rupert's, is
commemorated by Roberti in the same place in these words: Unless these
two names are of the same man, nowhere would you find
the calling of Bartholomew. He confesses that this argument
is not altogether conclusive. It receives greater force
from this, that of all who precede Bartholomew
in the catalogues of the Apostles given by the Evangelists,
as also of Matthew, who follows, the calling
is read as described, although the calling of the five last,
with the name at least added, is not
found written, as we have said. Another
reason is brought, that John never names Bartholomew;
while the other Evangelists are silent about Nathanael.
This, I confess, does not prove the matter; but,
with other arguments concurring, it makes it more likely,
and destroys the reason which might be objected for the contrary
opinion from the difference of name.
[42] Besides, a most effective argument, if
you suppose that Nathanael was an Apostle, which
we have already proved, is drawn from the names Nathanael
and Bartholomew. drawn thence. For Nathanael
is a proper name, or forename; Bartholomew
Numbers chapters 1, 2, 7, 10; and 1 Paralip. 2, 15, 24, 26;
2 Paralip. 17, 35; 1 Esdras chapter 10, in which places
the name Nathanael is found as a proper name. Which
interpreted, he says, signifies the gift of God.
The second is proved by the same: For Bartholomew
is the same as son of Tholmai, or Tholomai.
But it is certain that Tholmai is a man's name,
Numbers 13, Joshua 15, Judges 1, 1 Paralip. 3; likewise
Tholomai, 2 Kings 13; and perhaps, he says,
Nathanael's father was called Tholmai, or Tholomai.
Show, whoever you are who oppose us, even
one in the sacred letters whose forename is Bartholomew.
But the praised Toletus answers this argument
in the place cited: They say, he says, again
that Bartholomew is a common name; which
if it proved anything, neither Barnabas nor Barsabas
would be proper names. By a common name
Toletus seems to understand a surname;
for otherwise he would not be answering the argument.
I agree therefore with the most learned man, who so far from destroying our
argument here rather confirms it
the more. For he seems to admit that the argument
is conclusive, if Barnabas, Barsabas, and the like
are common names, or surnames. And yet
that this is so is manifest from the Scriptures. Hear
the cited Gavantus: The like surnames, he says,
thou hast among the Apostolic men. Bariona or
Barionna, son of John. Simon son of John, lovest thou
me? John 21. Barnabas, who was called
Joseph, Acts 4, was surnamed Barnabas, says
Luke. Barsabas, who is also Joseph, Acts 1. Bartimaeus,
son of Timaeus, Mark 10. What is plainer?
Elymas the magician also was surnamed Bariesu,
Acts 13. Therefore in like manner Bartholomew
was a surname. Hear the whole text concerning
Barnabas, Acts 4, ℣. 36: And Joseph, who was surnamed
Barnabas by the Apostles, which
is interpreted The son of consolation. Of Barsabas,
Acts 1: Joseph, who was called Barsabas.
It is plain therefore most clearly that the name of each was Joseph,
but that the names Barnabas and Barsabas were added
to the first name, which is manifest also of the rest
cited by Gavantus. There can therefore be no
doubt that the name Bartholomew too
was adjoined to a first name. And yet
those added names Barnabas and Barsabas
had so prevailed that the first was almost obliterated:
there is therefore no reason why we should wonder that this apostle
was named Bartholomew by three Evangelists.
Nor likewise ought it to seem wonderful
that he is called Nathanael by John, who called
none of the apostles by the surname alone.
[43] Lest I seem to have neglected anything at all which our adversaries
bring forward for themselves, Objections are solved I shall set down the rest
which the praised Toletus has: for he alone has gathered nearly all
the arguments that make war against our opinion,
and has endeavored to dissolve ours.
We proved in §1 that Nathanael was an Apostle
from Christ's apparition at the sea of Tiberias,
John 21. As though, says Toletus, he did not appear
also to other disciples, who were not Apostles.
So it is; he appeared to other disciples also. But to other
disciples he did not appear so familiarly, for other
disciples he did not prepare a dinner, before other
disciples he did not ordain matters pertaining to the government of the Church;
as we have proved, and have shown to have been done in this
apparition. Toletus continues:
These reasons have not strength to confirm a matter so weighty,
and against the common opinion.
But that our opinion is far the more common among the learned
is abundantly plain from all that has been said;
and Florentinius confirms it, in the Little Index of the
Apostles before his Martyrology, exercitation 4, on
Simon the Canaanite, p. 166, where, having recounted various
opinions about Nathanael, he subjoins these things: Very many
however agree upon Bartholomew: namely that he
was Nathanael.
[44] The Cardinal's Let us now hear the most eminent man's arguments against us.
More strength against their opinion, he says, has this,
that in the new Testament the catalogue of the apostles is set down four times,
Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1,
and nowhere is mention of Nathanael
made; and if he had been of two names, the Evangelists would have explained it,
as they did also in the case of Thomas,
and of Matthew: most of all John, who was last,
and narrated his history. Are they not arrows
of little children with which this most learned man here fights
against us? In no catalogues of the apostles
is Nathanael placed: therefore he is not an apostle.
What then? To pass over Barjona, Didymus, Lebbaeus,
names unknown in the catalogues of the apostles,
I thus turn the weapon back. In no
catalogues of the apostles is Levi commemorated:
therefore Levi is not an apostle, as a few have thought,
refuted by all others. You will answer that it is proved from elsewhere
that Levi is the same as Matthew. The same
we too answer, who have sufficiently proved
that Nathanael is the same as Bartholomew.
But if, he says, he had been of two names, the Evangelists
would have explained it, as they did also in the case of Thomas and
Matthew: most of all John, etc. Of Matthew
I find this nowhere explained: for in the catalogues of the apostles,
and in the calling in Matthew 9, he is constantly
called Matthew: but in the calling and the banquet
in Luke 5, Levi; in the calling in Mark 2 he is named Levi
son of Alpheus: nowhere is he commemorated with the name of Matthew and
Levi together, nor is he said to have been of two names.
What is said of Thomas is true;
but it is by no means observed by John in all cases.
For in the case of Jude, who in Matthew 10 and Mark 3 is called Thaddeus,
and in Luke 6 Jude the son of James, John passes this over
in chapter 14, ℣. 20, where he thus mentions him:
Judas says to him, he says, not the Iscariot.
Why therefore was it lawful for John to pass this over in the case of Jude,
and not lawful in the case of Nathanael? It was surely lawful
in both. For not all things are to be said everywhere,
or explained. It can be added, that it is nowhere
explained by John that upon himself and his brother
James the name Boanerges was imposed by Christ.
[45] Toletus'. Let us return to Toletus, who thus concludes
his disputation: But that he was not called to the Apostolate,
let us leave to the judgment of God.
Rightly, unless it were proved that he was called.
For no full reason of this matter can be given. Do you see
how he does not rest on St. Augustine's reason, drawn from
Nathanael's learning? We have already shown above
that it was refuted by him. Then he thus
proceeds: He received a benefit great enough, that
he was of the number of those who confessed Christ,
and deserved to receive the eternal reward of his confession,
and his name has been made glorious
and illustrious in the Church. Whence is his name
glorious in the Church, and illustrious, if he was
not an Apostle: since he is exiled from all the sacred calendars,
and destitute of all cultus? You have the arguments of the most learned
Toletus, and how weak they are everyone
may see. From which our opinion is not a little
strengthened, seeing that even by a most learned man it could not be
assailed with other reasons.
[46] I cannot but marvel at Baillet's critical judgment
in this controversy. Baillet is refuted. For at the day XXIV of August,
in St. Bartholomew, num. 1, he writes thus: That opinion
which holds Nathanael to be the same as
Bartholomew has no other foundation
than a certain weak conjecture. Before,
at the day XXII of April, in St. Nathanael, he had thus determined:
Their reasons (of those who say Nathanael
is Bartholomew) are specious without doubt:
but we should wish them convincing against the authority
of St. Augustine and St. Gregory the great;
or rather against the silence of Scripture. I do not ask
how aptly these cohere with one another: Quelque
foible conjecture, as he says, Raisons spécieuses. This
I ask, why he objects to us the silence of Scripture, who
is not ignorant that the reasons brought for this opinion, which without
doubt he confesses to be specious, are drawn from
sacred Scripture; although certain arguments
from the authority of the Fathers and of the Martyrologists
have been added. Of Nathanael, on the XXII of April,
he thus concludes: His name is not found in the martyrologies
of the Latins. Might not one here not ineptly
ask of Baillet, why he calls him a saint,
and commemorates him among the saints? For the reasons
by which his sanctity is proved are indeed specious;
but we want them convincing against
the silence of all the Martyrologists and of the whole Church.
For the Greeks cannot avail Baillet,
who, against his own opinion, make Nathanael the same
as Simon the Canaanite. Nor
are the reasons by which Baillet would prove Nathanael's sanctity
so convincing that, if anyone chose
to be malicious, he could not easily destroy them.
For it could be said that his beginnings indeed are commemorated in Scripture
as praiseworthy, but his end is passed over in silence. And yet,
as St. Jerome rightly says in the Epistle to Furia,
which is found in tom. 4 of the last Paris edition,
col. 556: In Christians it is not the beginnings
that are sought, but the end. Paul began ill: but ended
well. Judas' beginnings are praised, but his end
is condemned by betrayal. Behold, if we follow Baillet's critical judgment,
not only the apostolate but even the sanctity
of Nathanael is called into doubt. By what
authority therefore does Baillet call Nathanael a saint,
against the silence, as he thinks, of the Church?
Let him see to it. We, with sacred Scripture for our guide,
with the Fathers showing the way, with a very long train of doctors accompanying,
not only call him a saint;
but hold him to be both an apostle and Bartholomew.
§ V. The Saint's country and condition of life before his calling.
The Apostle's country, Cana of Galilee, The things which we shall discuss in the two following paragraphs
are for the most part read as related of our holy Apostle
under the name of Nathanael; if anyone
therefore does not assent to the opinion proved by us in what precedes,
let him take these things as said of Nathanael.
John manifestly declares to us the Apostle's country
in chapter 21, ℣. 2, in these words: Nathanael,
who was of Cana of Galilee. Adrichomius, in his Theater
of the Holy Land, in the tribe of Zabulon, p. 138, thus describes
it: Cana, otherwise Chana, is a city of Galilee,
which on that account in the Gospel history is called Cana
of Galilee, and, on the witness of Jerome, Cana the less,
to distinguish it from Cana the greater, which is
in the tribe of Aser. It is situated four miles from Ptolemais toward
the southeast, three from the city of Sephoris toward
the northwest, and two from the village of Rama toward
the North. On the north it has a high
and round mountain, on whose slope
it is built on one side. Further, toward the South,
it has a broad, fertile, and pleasant plain,
which is called the valley of Carmelon. From this city
were the Lord Simon the Apostle, and Nathanael, a true
Israelite approved by the testimony of the Savior.
Here our Lord at the wedding … made the beginning
of his miracles, turning water into wine.
Even in Jerome's time this Cana was a town.
Thus far Adrichomius.
[48] which is twofold, and which of these it is is not established; Quaresmius, in his Elucidation of the Holy Land
tom. 2, book 7, chapter 6, does not agree with Adrichomius
in all things: for Among the people of Nazareth, he says,
and other neighboring inhabitants, mention is made of a twofold
Cana of Galilee (excepting that greater one):
of one which is called simply Cana of Galilee, of another
which is called Sepher Cana. Cana of Galilee
is described as in the western region of Nazareth,
inclining a little to the north, on a hill above
the fair and spacious plain of Zabulon; distant
from Sephoris about six, from Nazareth about ten
miles: it is a tiny hamlet containing a very few
houses, no church, nor signs of a church,
as I observed with others: there are there no vineyards, nor
many trees, but a few olives. Sepher Cana
is four miles distant from Nazareth: in its
northern region, inclining to the East, it is situated
on a mountain; round about it has a spacious plain, where
are many trees: it contains many houses; and there
I have heard that there are churches … Perhaps in Christ's time
it was a small city, afterwards reduced to a village. Then
he inquires which is the Cana of Galilee in which the Lord
was present at the wedding, and made wine from water.
Nor does he determine the matter; although he is more inclined
toward Sepher Cana, because this is less
remote from Nazareth. Yet this seems to favor the Cana which is called
simply "of Galilee," that it is mentioned in the Gospel
under plainly the same
name. Whatever it be,
this seems certain, that the Cana which was Nathanael's country
is that in which the Lord changed water into
wine. Let these things said about the Apostle's country
suffice.
[49] his parents unknown: some relate that he was born of royal stock, St. Bartholomew's parents are unknown in the sacred
Letters, nor are they commemorated by authors worthy of credit.
There are, however, some who write that Bartholomew
sprang from noble, or even royal, stock.
In Cotelier's Works of the Holy Fathers
tom. 1, p. 272 of the edition of the year 1698, in the notes
on book 2, chapter 63 of the Apostolic Constitutions,
these words are brought forward from a supposititious epistle
on the death of St. Jerome: We confess that Christ chose twelve
Apostles: of all of whom
Bartholomew alone was noble by fleshly origin.
Peter de Natalibus, bishop of Equilio, in his Catalogue
of the saints book 7, chapter 103, has these things: Bartholomew
the Apostle was by nation a Syrian, and was the grandson
of the king of the Syrians on his father's side, and alone of all
the apostles was adorned with nobility according to the flesh;
whence also on his account alone there arose at the Lord's supper
a contention among the disciples, which of them
should seem to be the greater. For when Christ
had said to the apostles that one of them was to betray him,
the apostles suspected that that betrayer
wished to do this in order that he might desire to usurp for himself
the kingdom of Israel, which (read that) they hoped Christ would obtain
carnally. And
since there was none among them who might be thought to aspire
to such a dignity, except Bartholomew, on account of
his royal nobility; therefore they held him suspect of
such a betrayal, and made a question about
preeminence. These things Damascene says, he tells us; but
he does not indicate the place; nor did I think it worth the labor
to read through all the works of Damascene, in order to know
whether he really wrote these things. Yet I have sought
in St. Damascene's writings, and have found nothing of the sort.
I suspect therefore that they are drawn from works falsely ascribed
to Damascene. The bishop of Equilio subjoins: Whence in certain
churches the Gospel concerning the said contention made among the disciples
is read on this feast.
How inept these things are, and how alien from every appearance of truth,
everyone may perceive. Still more inept are the things
which follow there: But it is read in a certain
history, though apocryphal, that when there had come
to Bartholomew, the grandson of the king of Syria who lacked a son,
while he was still a young man, word of the doctrine and
miracles of Christ preaching in Judea,
he sent a messenger to him, saying that he would gladly make
himself his disciple, if Jesus would grant him one
favor. For he had heard that his disciples
went about poor in abject garb. If therefore
for the honor of his royal dignity he would grant him
to go clad in purple, he would follow him perpetually.
To whom Christ freely granted what he wished:
yet he told the messenger to say on his behalf
to Bartholomew, that he who refused to lay aside a material cloak
would yet for love of him lay aside
his natural garment; that is, the skin of his body.
And thus Christ received Bartholomew as his
Apostle: and he always retained the
use of purple. I have wished to write out these follies at length,
that hence it might be made manifest to the reader how
ill-cohering with itself is that whole little fable about Bartholomew's royal
stock. I should be inept if I wished laboriously to refute
these things. Yet I choose to touch upon a few.
[50] In the first place it is ineptly feigned that in Christ's time a King of the Syrians
was Bartholomew's grandfather, which, with other fables, since Syria
had long since been reduced into a province of the Romans.
Next, how could the Apostles suspect
that Bartholomew wished to betray the Lord
in order to seize for himself the kingdom of Israel against the power
of the Romans, when he was destitute of all forces
for that end? Either you must feign the apostles mad
for suspecting it, or that they themselves thought Bartholomew
out of his mind for attempting it.
Add that there were altogether other reasons for this contention,
which arose more than once among the Apostles,
assigned by the Fathers, which, because
they do not belong here, see in the commentators. The third thing
which I observe he confesses to be drawn from an apocryphal
history, and yet does not mark it with the necessary censure:
namely that Bartholomew, I say, was admitted
to the apostolate on this condition, that he should always go about clad in purple;
and that the use of purple was perpetually retained by
the Apostle. Who reads the Gospels who does not
easily perceive how contrary these things are to the poverty
and humility of Christ and the apostles,
how discordant from their manners; not to say
injurious to St. Bartholomew? The inventors of this
little fable therefore so far from honoring St. Bartholomew by that feigned nobility
that they rather disgrace him,
while they depict him to us as proud
and ambitious. But let us see what was the occasion
of this little fable.
[51] The learned are wont to assign no other cause
than a false interpretation of the name Bartholomew, arising from a false interpretation of the name, is refuted: and rightly. Let us hear the most eminent
Baronius in his notes on the Roman Martyrology,
where at the day XXV of August he learnedly sets forth this
fable and refutes it. Concerning Bartholomew,
he says, among some this opinion has prevailed, that
he was a Syrian by race, and drew his origin from king Ptolemy,
and was called Bartholomew, as it were
son of Ptolemy. But wrongly indeed: for
the Ptolemies reigned in Egypt, not in Syria:
besides, that all the apostles were Galileans, divine
Scripture teaches, which says in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter
1: Men of Galilee, etc.; and chapter 2: Behold, are not all
these that speak Galileans? etc. Moreover if we should call Bartholomew
here a Syrian by race, because
Galilee is in Palestine, and Palestine in Syria;
by the same reasoning we should have to say that the other apostles too
are Syrians… To these we add
also, that Bartholomew was not so called from Ptolemy;
but, as he was a Jew by race, he was so named from
Hebrew words, Bar Tholmai,
Son of Tholmai. Tholmai is a proper Hebrew
name, and is repeated in the divine Scriptures
(See the passages assigned in §4; for in Baronius
the numbers are disordered.) But that for Bartholmai
we should say Bartholomew ought not to seem
wonderful, since in the other Hebrew words
this same thing happens, that the same, rendered in Latin or
Greek, are not pronounced in the same way.
[52] the name of Bartholomew Syriac, I gladly agree with the most learned man. One thing
however I observe from St. Jerome, because it makes for
expounding the name of the Saint of whom we treat.
In the book On Hebrew Names, on Matthew, under
the letter B, the praised Father writes thus: Bartholomew,
Son of him that suspends the waters, or son
of him that suspends me. It is a Syrian name, not Hebrew.
And a little below, in Bariona: For Bar
in the Syrian tongue is son. And if it please you to attend to the places
cited, you will find Tholmai to be a name of the earlier inhabitants
of the land, not of the Hebrews. But from this
observation the force of the argument is not lessened; for
at that time the Syriac tongue was in use among the Jews,
and many had Syriac names, as may be seen in St. Jerome
in the book cited. Sufficiently therefore
is the fictitious nobility of the holy Apostle refuted, which,
being unknown to the Fathers Augustine, Chrysostom, and the other ancients,
and adorned with so many fables, is utterly
to be eliminated.
[53] That Bartholomew was a fisherman One argument of Baronius, because it leads to another
disputation, was passed over above; I here append it.
Theodoret, he says, in the preface on
the Truth of the Gospel, when he treats of the book on laws, affirms that Bartholomew,
like the rest, excepting none,
was a fisherman, and Metaphrastes also attests this:
(in the oration of a certain Joseph
to be given below) which is approved to me as truer:
for according to Paul, 1 Corinthians chapter
1, God hath chosen the ignoble things of the world, and the contemptible.
This sentence of the Apostle proves that Bartholomew was not
noble; it does not prove that he was a fisherman.
There favors this opinion indeed the fact that
Nathanael — to us Bartholomew — in John 21
fished with Peter and the others; but it can easily be answered
that this was done out of friendship and mutual familiarity,
with St. Chrysostom agreeing, Homily
87 on John: The other disciples, he says, followed,
because they were joined together for the rest,
and wished to see them fishing together, and to enjoy this leisure
peacefully. These arguments therefore are too weak
to establish that Bartholomew was a fisherman.
[54] is not sufficiently proved by those who assert it. But that he was not a fisherman seems to be gathered
from his country, Cana of Galilee, which was rather remote from the sea,
and from rivers at least of any note; so that
either there seem to have been no fishermen there, or
certainly very few, who perhaps fished in certain lakes.
Yet, lest Theodoret's authority
move anyone, let us adduce Theodoret's own words.
In the place cited by Baronius he has thus:
I thought I should be doing a work of great worth,
if I should compare with the most celebrated lawgivers among the Greeks
the leaders of the Christian religion,
our fishermen, I mean, our cobbler,
our publican. By the cobbler he doubtless
understands Paul; by the publican, Matthew.
Does he, because he calls the other leaders of the Christians fishermen,
contend that absolutely all the apostles, except those already
named, were fishermen? I should not easily
believe it. For in the very disputation of which
this is the preface, or book 9, which is on laws,
tom. 2, p. 623 of the Cologne edition, he makes several
publicans. But of the laws, he says, which our
fishermen, our publicans, and which the sewer
of tents brought. And after a few words: Yet the laws of the fishermen
and of our cobbler he could not
abolish. Nay, on Psalm 67, ℣. 7, he has thus:
Such was Matthew, such James the son of Alpheus, such
Zacchaeus, who were freed from the bonds of sin.
Why, I beseech you, does he say that James the son of Alpheus was freed
from the bonds of sin along with those publicans, unless
because he thought him too a publican, following St.
Chrysostom on Matthew chapter 10, ℣. 5? Hence I think it is clear
that Theodoret did not wish
here to teach that all the apostles were fishermen; for
now he makes several publicans, now he omits the publicans.
But because it was known that various of
the apostles were fishermen, therefore he used chiefly that
name; and had to keep silence about the crafts of the rest, as being
unknown. So much concerning Theodoret.
What is found in Metaphrastes from the panegyric
of Joseph is also of small moment. Receive the words,
reader: Let us see … how from
a fisher of fishes he became a fisher of men.
The author alludes to the words of Christ spoken to the Apostles,
Matthew 4, ℣. 19: Come after me, and I will make
you to become fishers of men. Hence perhaps, because
Bartholomew had been appointed by Christ a fisher
of men, that Joseph thought it likely
that he had before been a fisher of fishes, and set that forth
as probable; nor do I think
that it was known to that Joseph which was unknown to the more ancient fathers,
as we shall prove hereafter.
I do not therefore judge that St. Bartholomew was a fisherman.
[55] Cotelier, praised at num. 49, p. 272,
produces a Little Index of the Apostles, Was he a tiller of the soil? taken, as
he attests, from ancient Mss. of the Most Christian King,
nos. 1789, 1026; in which concerning St. Bartholomew
these things are found, translated from the Greek: Bartholomew,
whose father was Sosthenes, and mother Urinia,
a cultivator of pasture, or a sower of vegetables. In the Apostolic
Constitutions also, in the same author in the same place, it is said
of the apostles: Others were husbandmen. There can be added, for
whatever confirmation of these things, the Epistle
written by Damian, bishop of Pavia, as Labbe proves,
tom. 6 of the Councils, col. 577, under
the name of Mansuetus archbishop of Milan,
or of the Milanese synod of the year 679, to the emperor Constantine
Pogonatus, which, on the witness in the same place of
Paul the deacon, carried no slight weight
in the VI ecumenical synod, in which these things are read
in the cited Labbe, col. 603: For if you read again
(the rules of faith) most illustrious emperor, not with
dialecticians, not with rhetoricians, not with grammarians,
but with countrymen and fishermen did the Lord
take counsel, and to these he delivered the secrets of his
counsel, whom also he ordained princes, to whom
he granted the power of binding and loosing. Here it is sufficiently
openly insinuated that some of the apostles were husbandmen,
nor do I see to which of the apostles this would better
suit than to Bartholomew; for the little town of Cana,
which, as we have seen above from its description,
has a broad, fertile, and pleasant
plain, doubtless had many husbandmen among its
inhabitants; many who either tended gardens
or fed flocks.
[56] this uncertain. Bartholomew therefore could, as cultivator either of a garden
or of his father's field, lead a quiet life for himself
and for God. These things, I confess, would not displease, if
they rested on better testimonies. But that Little Index
seems to be the work of some petty Greek, and has certain things
openly false. What credit the Apostolic Constitutions
deserve, the learned know. But what
is said in that synodal epistle seems
drawn from these Constitutions, nor is the author of that epistle so ancient
that he ought to extort our assent
in this matter. Since indeed there stands against it
the silence of the ancient Fathers, and the authority
of Origen, who in book 1 against Celsus, num. 62
of the Paris edition, after commemorating the condition of Peter, Andrew, John,
James, and Matthew,
subjoins these things: But by what craft the rest,
before they became disciples of Jesus, procured themselves a living,
is not ascertained by us. I should therefore prefer
to confess with Origen that it is unknown to me
what was his condition of life before the Apostolate,
or what craft he exercised to procure himself a living,
than to give assent to these uncertain
traditions. Thus far of his condition of life; now
it must be investigated of what learning Nathanael Bartholomew was.
§ VI. His learning, calling, virtues, and certain other things.
[St. Augustine calls him not a doctor of the law, but skilled in the law, or learned] Some seem to have so understood St. Augustine in the places cited in §2
as though he had asserted that Nathanael
was a Doctor of the law. For Baronius,
at the year of Christ 31, num. 28, says that this reason was brought
by Augustine, why Nathanael was not chosen
among the apostles: Because he was a DOCTOR
of the law. Cornelius a Lapide, on John chapter 1,
assigns the same reason of Augustine's: Because Nathanael
seems to have been a DOCTOR of the law. But I
do not find this at all in St. Augustine. His words,
because they conduce at the same time to the present purpose, I shall report
faithfully. In Tractate 7 on John, col. 254,
he calls Nathanael learned, and skilled in the law.
A little below: He is called most learned in the law. On
Psalm 65, col. 480: Learned … in the law: after
in the law. Nowhere, in the places cited, does he affirm that he was a Doctor
of the law, or insinuate that he judged him to have been a doctor.
Chrysostom, Homily 20 on John,
likewise calls Nathanael learned, and of sacred
Scripture a diligent student. Col. 116: Because,
he says, Nathanael was skilled, and a zealous follower
of truth. In the same column below: Because he
was more versed in the prophetic writings than Philip.
Cyril agrees, on John chapter 1, ℣. 45,
in these words: For Philip knew that he (Nathanael) was most
studious, and greatly learned.
And likewise St. Gregory of Nyssa on the Canticles,
homily 15, saying: That he had been most accurately taught from the books of the
prophecies concerning the mystery of the Lord.
[58] he said, with other Fathers: who gathered this from Scripture in different ways. They gather this learning of the Apostle from this,
that Philip said to Nathanael, John 1:
Him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the Prophets,
we have found, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. And
Nathanael answered: From Nazareth can anything
good be? But they gather it in different ways.
Augustine indeed thinks that Nathanael assented
to Philip, and from that judges that his learning
and skill in the law follow. More rightly,
in my judgment, Chrysostom deduces the same from his doubt.
Hear him in the place cited: For he had heard
from the Scriptures that Christ was to arise from Bethlehem,
and from the village in which David had been.
That report therefore prevailed among the Jews, and the Prophet
had of old foretold in these words: "And thou Bethlehem
art by no means least among the princes of Juda;
for out of thee shall come forth a leader who shall rule my people
Israel." When therefore he had heard that he was
from Nazareth, he was troubled and doubted, because
he saw that Philip's words did not accord with the prophetic
prediction. There are those who gather St. Bartholomew's
learning from the Mystical Theology usually cited under the name
of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, where
in chapter 1 these things are found: Thus the divine Bartholomew
says: "Both that theology is much and least,
and that the Gospel is broad and great, and again
concise." But since from this the learning which he had before his calling
is not sufficiently proved, it suffices
me to have brought forward the testimonies of so many Fathers, and Scripture
itself, which insinuates that Nathanael was a diligent searcher of the law
and of the prophets.
[59] Someone will perhaps wonder at this learning in
Bartholomew was. But he ought to consider that the reading
of sacred Scripture was frequent among
the Jews. Acts 15, ℣. 21: For Moses of ancient
times hath in every city them that preach him
in the synagogues, where he is read every Sabbath.
And John 5, ℣. 39, Christ said
to the Jews: Search the Scriptures, for you think
in them to have life everlasting. And Nathanael did this the more
diligently as he was the more zealous for his own salvation
and the more loving of God. Cornelius a
Lapide, on John chapter 1, thinks that he also profited under the discipline
of St. John the Baptist, and was either his
disciple, or at least his hearer.
It can be answered, he says, that Nathanael was
a student of the law, not a doctor; just as was
Philip, discoursing with him about the coming of the Messiah from the law,
and Peter, and Andrew. For all these
seem to have been disciples or hearers of John the Baptist,
and to have been sent by him to Christ.
[60] St. Epiphanius favors this conjecture, in the Heresy
51 cited, num. 14, this is not improbable. where he thinks that the companion of Andrew,
who with him first came to Christ, and
was a disciple of John the Baptist, John 1, ℣. 37,
was Philip, or John, or James.
Epiphanius judges therefore that several disciples of John
the Baptist adhered to Christ. And it seems certain
that John the Baptist wished to send to Christ
whomever of his disciples he knew more fit for that.
This conjecture of Cornelius therefore does not seem to me
to be disapproved, but it is a conjecture, and so does not make the matter altogether
certain. For the rest, whether he was a disciple of John,
or only a hearer, or not even a hearer,
I judge that the study of the sacred Scriptures, and at least
to Nathanael; but that the study of profane
sciences, philosophy for instance, and eloquence,
and even a moderate skill in them, is utterly to be denied him;
for the Lord did not choose orators
or Philosophers; he did not cast away readers and hearers of sacred
Scripture. Now it must be set forth
how he gave himself over to the discipline of Christ.
[61] John clearly describes the calling of Nathanael,
chapter 1, from ℣. 45: Philip found
Nathanael, The Apostle's calling and virtues and says to him: Him of whom Moses wrote
in the law, and the prophets, we have found, Jesus the son
of Joseph of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: From
Nazareth can anything good be? Philip says to him:
Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming
to him, and says of him: Behold a true Israelite,
in whom there is no guile. Nathanael says to him:
Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him:
Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under
the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered him and said:
Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. Jesus
answered and said to him: Because I said to thee: I saw
thee under the fig tree, thou believest: greater things than these shalt thou see. And
he says to him: Amen, amen I say to you, you shall see
heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of man. Of these things
we have discoursed at length in what precedes, which will here be omitted;
yet certain things we shall subjoin from Chrysostom
for declaring the virtues of Nathanael.
Homily 20, on that word: From Nazareth can anything
good be? the holy Father thus proclaims his modesty
and prudence: But observe his
prudence and modesty in the very doubt.
For he did not at once say, Thou deceivest me, O Philip,
and liest. I do not believe, I will not go: from the Prophets
I have learned that Christ is to come from Bethlehem;
and thou sayest, from Nazareth. Therefore it is not he. But
he said nothing of the sort. But what? He himself goes to him,
and while he does not admit that he is from Nazareth,
he shows an accurate study of the Scriptures, and manners
not liable to deceit; but that
he does not reject him who announces these things exhibits a great longing
for Christ's coming. For he thought that Philip
might have erred about the place. Observe
likewise how moderately he denies him credit
and questions him. For he did not say: Galilee
brings forth nothing good. But how? "From Nazareth can
anything good be?" Hear also his other
virtues. His candor he thus subjoins: And therefore
Christ says: "Behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no
guile." So then an Israelite can be a liar: but
not this man, for his judgment has no
acceptance of persons, he speaks nothing for favor,
nothing for hatred. His constancy, after
and firm. For when Christ had said,
"Behold a true Israelite," he was not softened by praises,
not carried away by encomiums, but persists in inquiring
and exploring more accurately, and wishes to learn something
clear. The fervor of his confession the same Father below
delineates as with a pencil, writing these
words: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art
the King of Israel. Do you see, he says, a soul exulting with joy,
and embracing Jesus with words? Thou
art, he says, he who was awaited and desired. Do you see him
amazed, marveling, exulting, leaping
for delight? Thus far Chrysostom concerning
the excellent virtues of Nathanael. But whether he here
confessed the true God by these words, Thou
art the Son of God, which Chrysostom denies in homily 21,
while Cyril and certain others affirm it, I leave
to the interpreters of holy Scripture to examine. Toletus
may be seen on John chapter 1, ℣. 49, annotation
79.
[62] In what order among the Apostles was he called? It is here ambiguous in what order among the apostles
Nathanael was called by the Lord. If we consult John's
Gospel alone, he seems to have been called in the fourth place;
namely after Andrew, Peter,
and Philip. But the order kept by the Evangelists in recounting the apostles
insinuates that before
Philip and Nathanael, James
and John were called; and this St. Epiphanius holds in Heresy
51, num. 14. For after he had suspected
that that companion of Andrew whose name is passed over in silence
in John 1, ℣. 37, was Philip, he thus
corrects himself: Unless perhaps you prefer John, or James
the son of Zebedee. For those had to be called first:
then next Philip, in which order they are
numbered in the Gospels. And thus Nathanael would have been called in the sixth
place, in which place Bartholomew is set
in the catalogues of the apostles by the Evangelists. I shall state
which let each take as he pleases, since
it will make little for the praise of St. Bartholomew. I suspect
that that anonymous companion of Andrew is
John the Apostle himself, and that through him Christ became known
to his brother James, as he became known to Peter
through Andrew, and to Nathanael through Philip: but
that the Evangelist wrapped all these things in silence
for modesty's sake, as he passed over in silence the name Boanerges imposed
upon himself and his brother, and many other things
pertaining to his own praise. However it be, the calling
of Nathanael Bartholomew must be numbered either in the fourth
or in the sixth place.
[63] After the calling of Nathanael there are subjoined
by John in chapter 2 the wedding Was the name of Bartholomew given him at the wedding of Cana of Galilee? made in Cana of Galilee.
And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee:
and the Mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was called,
and his disciples, to the wedding. St. Epiphanius,
in the Heresy cited, num. 15, subjoins these things in these words:
Where, from the minute words and sentences carefully sifted on both sides, it is gathered
that Christ brought with him other
disciples, who had remained with him. Of which sort
perhaps Nathanael was, and Philip, and certain
others. Rightly, in my opinion at least: for
that Nathanael was present at this wedding with Jesus
both his recent calling and his native place
Cana, in which the wedding was celebrated, scarcely permit us to doubt.
Rupert suspects that Christ was invited
to this wedding on Nathanael's occasion, and that thence the name
of Bartholomew was given him. For thus he has it, on John
chapter 1, p. 36 of the Cologne edition: It is established
that Bartholomew is not a Hebrew but a Syrian
name, which in Latin is Son of him that suspends the waters.
But Nathanael is Hebrew, and is interpreted
Gift of God. Perhaps therefore this same Nathanael,
who was of Cana of Galilee, is Bartholomew,
which is interpreted Son of him that suspends the waters:
because on the third day, when the wedding was held in that village
of his, Cana of Galilee, the Lord, perhaps invited to the wedding
on his occasion, turning the waters into wine,
had suspended them to the admiration of all.
Gavantus illustrates Rupert's conjecture by an example
in the dissertation often cited: Just as,
he says, James and John were called Boanerges,
sons of thunder: although these were surnamed by Christ,
he by his fellow-citizens; because he was devoted
to Christ out of many inhabitants of that same place.
This conjecture of the holy man I do not disapprove as subtle and
ingenious, but I judge it uncertain,
since Nathanael could easily have had the name of Bartholomew
from his father. But that Nathanael was present at the wedding
I altogether think, and that on his occasion Jesus
was invited appears likely enough.
[64] After these things nothing about St. Bartholomew occurs
in the Gospels up to the death of Christ, Was he one of the two going to Emmaus? except
that with the other eleven apostles he is numbered in their catalogues
everywhere in the sixth place after Philip.
St. Epiphanius, Heresy 23, num. 6, p.
67, writes that the Savior, raised from the dead, appeared to Nathanael
and Cleophas on the way; namely to those going
to Emmaus, Luke 24. But other Fathers
do not agree with Epiphanius. Nor is there any foundation in
the Scriptures from which we may gather that it was Nathanael.
You may see Calmet on chapter
24 of Luke, ℣. 13. In the remaining apparitions, where
either the greatest part or all of the apostles were present,
Bartholomew too was present, nor does he ever
seem to have separated himself from the others. But these things have been sufficiently
discussed, nor need they here be explained at greater length.
§ VII. The Apostle's preaching in India.
Various provinces assigned to Bartholomew's preaching, So various are the provinces assigned to St. Bartholomew's preaching,
so obscurely are they indicated, distinguished by no mark of order
or of time,
that it is difficult to find whence I should take my beginning,
where I should end. For some write that India; others that Armenia,
Chaldea, Persia; others that various provinces
of Asia Minor were enlightened by his teaching.
And truly these things, as I judge; nor indeed
can it be doubted that he traversed various provinces of the world
preaching, and illuminated them with the light of faith,
as it is agreed that the other apostles did also;
but very obscurely, as I have said. Wherefore,
that at least by probable disputation some light
may shine forth, and some order appear: first
I shall bring forward the testimonies of authors, that it may be established in what
provinces he preached. Then I shall examine
where he probably sowed the seeds of faith earlier, and where later.
[66] among which India, India, of which we must first treat,
Christopher Cellarius describes to us in tom. 2 of the Ancient
Geography, book 3, chapter 23, p. 523, in these words:
India, ἡ
Ἰνδικὴ, a most ample region of the East,
is divided, according to its rivers, of which two are the greatest,
the Indus and the Ganges, into two great parts,
of which one is called India within the Ganges
… The other, India beyond the Ganges … He (Ptolemy) sets as the boundaries of India
within the Ganges, on the West,
the region of the Paropanisadae, Arachosia,
and Gedrosia: on the North, mount Imaus:
on the East, the river Ganges: on
the South, the Ocean. That which is beyond the river Ganges
is bounded on the West by that river: on the North
by Scythia and Serica: on the East by the region of the Sinae:
on the South by the Ocean. Whether in India,
as just described, the Apostle preached,
is debated among the learned. For many martyrologists,
and likewise many historians, designate India. There are,
however, those who will have India taken most broadly
and improperly. The Greek Menaea, on the XI of June, assert
that he preached to the Indians who are called Happy,
the Gospel according to Matthew having been delivered there. Freculph,
book 2, chapter 4, in the Library of the Fathers, cent. 9, part
1, p. 505 of the Cologne edition, writes these things: Bartholomew
the apostle … received Lycaonia as his lot
of preaching, and translated the Gospel according
to Matthew among the Indians into their tongue.
Likewise various Martyrologies establish the Indian preaching.
Fortunatus agrees, book 8,
chapter 4: Thence India bears Bartholomew triumphing.
And St. Anselm, homily 1, p. 158 of the edition
of the year 1721, writes that Bartholomew was destined
to India by Christ. And, to pass over others,
Eusebius, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History,
chapter 10, and St. Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers,
in Pantaenus, write that the Gospel
of St. Matthew was left among the Indians by St. Bartholomew,
and there found by Pantaenus. Wherefore
I judge it sufficiently certain that St. Bartholomew preached in
India, and there left St. Matthew's Gospel.
Nor do the learned today deny this;
but various men will have Arabia Felix understood by India,
which by the ancients also was named
India. This above the rest is contended, and by many arguments learnedly
attempted to be proved, by Assemani, often praised by us.
[67] In tom. 3, part 2, p. 568 and following,
he shows that the inhabitants of Arabia Felix, which some improperly understand, who afterwards became known
by the single word Homerites, were called both Ethiopians
and even Indians by the more ancient writers;
and that Arabia Felix itself was surnamed both India and
Ethiopia by some.
As also Pagi proves concerning African Ethiopia,
that it was called India by some, at the year
of Christ 327, from num. 9: nor on this matter will there be any controversy
between us. The praised Assemani,
p. 592, deduces from this further the following: From
the same Menology, and from those things which we have said above about the Ethiopians
and Indians, it becomes plain that the Homerites,
the peoples of Arabia Felix, were those Ethiopians
and Indians to whom Bartholomew, Matthew,
and Matthias announced the faith of Christ.
That Bartholomew announced the faith of Christ there
(for concerning Matthew and Matthias I do not here dispute)
is made likely enough to me from this, that he is said
to have preached to the Indians who are named Happy,
which will be confirmed below also from Nicetas the Paphlagonian.
Not equally approved to me is what after a few words
he subjoins in these words: Of the Ethiopians and Indians
of Arabia Felix is to be understood what Jerome …
writes, that Pantaenus the philosopher, having traveled to
the Indians, found the memory of Bartholomew's
preaching still green. For I shall show
that these things must be understood of the Indians inhabiting India
properly and commonly so called. Assemani
confirms his opinion from Philostorgius,
book 2, chapter 6. Whom, as an Arian
and an impostor, I gladly concede to him. But hear
what his own editor James Gothofredus notes on
this passage. In the Dissertation on chapter 6, book
2, p. 59, after he has proved that Philostorgius' narration
differs much from the narrations of other historians,
he concludes: Therefore this too
is a structure of Philostorgian κρὺψις and ψευδολογία; for which cause Photius at the entrance of this narration
calls him δυσσεβῆ. He also brings forward for his own
opinion Rufinus and Socrates, in which he has Pagi at least in part
agreeing, concerning whom
hereafter. For I shall first show that St. Bartholomew
preached in India, even properly so called,
and that the Gospel of Matthew left there was found by Pantaenus;
as Baronius writes at the year
of Christ 185.
[68] Eusebius, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 10, writes
thus: but it is proved that it was properly so called, by various Pantaenus … trained in the discipline of the philosophers
who were called Stoics, is handed down to have excelled among the first
at that same point of time.
Him, burning with the most ardent love toward sacred Scripture,
they report to have put so much zeal into propagating it,
that, ordained a herald of the Gospel to the nations
which inhabited the East,
he betook himself even to the regions of the Indians.
Now there were, I say, at that time
very many preachers of the word, and faithful messengers,
who, inflamed with a divine zeal for imitating the Apostles,
brought great helps both for building up the word
of God in the souls of men
and for increasing the same. Of whose
number was that Pantaenus, whom we have said to have gone on to the Jews
(read Indians, as it is in the Greek): where
(as is reported) he found the Gospel of Matthew
(which before his coming had been received there)
in the hands of certain men who in those places professed
Christ: to whom it is established that Bartholomew,
one of the apostles, preached, and left them
the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew
letters, and that this same was preserved to the time indicated. These words assuredly designate to us not Arabia
Felix, as Assemani will have it; not Nubia,
at the year 327, num. 22; but
eastern India; as Baronius rightly says
in the place cited above. For I do not see how
the inhabitants of Arabia or of Nubia can rightly be called
the nations which inhabited the East, since Nubia
is to the south of Alexandria and Egypt; Arabia
indeed to the East, but bordering: and we do not fittingly say
that nations neighboring upon us inhabit the East, when there remain
others far more remote from us toward
the East. And yet
Pantaenus is said to have been ordained
a herald of the Gospel to the nations which inhabited the East: therefore to the Indians
most remote toward the East, not to the Arabs,
not to the Nubians. Next, why is his divine zeal
for imitating the Apostles so greatly commended,
that he betook himself even to the region of the Indians,
unless some far-distant region is designated,
such as eastern India; not Arabia, not
Nubia, both near to Egypt, nay
bordering upon it, as our adversaries confess?
[69] arguments from Eusebius, Although these things seem abundantly to declare Eusebius'
mind, yet, because I have adversaries
most learned, I choose to demonstrate it further from his other writings.
Book 4 of the Life of Constantine,
chapter 50, he writes these things to our purpose: At nearly the same time there were present
legates from the eastern Indians, who brought gifts to the emperor:
among which were nearly all kinds of the most brilliant
and most precious gems, living creatures
also wholly differing in nature from ours:
all which they brought to the emperor,
to signify that his empire extended even to the farthest
shore of the Ocean, and that the princes of the Indians,
by gifts of pictures and statues, declared
that they acknowledged and professed him emperor and king of all
with supreme power. So it happened
that when he first came to the empire, in the beginning
the Britons, at almost the farthest shores of the setting sun, girt by the Ocean,
obeyed him, but now at last
the Indians, situated in the farthest parts of the East. That here Indians
properly so called are signified, our adversaries will confess, I think;
and it is most clearly plain from the gifts brought,
and from the added word eastern. Which is also declared
above in this manner: To the nations which inhabited
the East, to which is at once added: That he should betake himself even
to the region of the Indians. For without doubt
the eastern Indians and the Indians who inhabit
the East are the same. But let this suffice concerning Eusebius, whose
mind seems to me by no means doubtful.
[70] from Jerome, No less clearly does St. Jerome designate India properly
so called, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers,
chapter 36, writing thus in Pantaenus: Pantaenus,
a philosopher of the Stoic sect, according to a certain
old custom in Alexandria, where
from Mark the evangelist there have always been ecclesiastical doctors,
was of such prudence and erudition, both in
the divine Scriptures and in secular literature,
that, being asked also by the legates of that nation, he was sent into India
by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria;
where he found that Bartholomew, of the twelve
apostles, had preached the coming of the Lord Jesus, according
to the Gospel of Matthew, which, written in Hebrew
letters, he brought back with him on returning to Alexandria. Now I ask of my learned adversaries,
who laboriously sweat to show that by some men,
either ignorant or negligent of geography, Arabia
was confounded with India in name, and Ethiopia
confounded too; I ask, I say, whether they think
that Jerome, most skilled in all literature,
made no distinction between those regions, or whether they think
that Eusebius made no distinction? For so long
as they do not show that in Eusebius and Jerome
by the name of India is understood Arabia Felix
or Ethiopia, they accomplish nothing at all. For since
the common name of these provinces among geographers
is not India, they must show that by Eusebius
and Jerome they were called India, in order to establish
that by the Indian journey of Pantaenus described by Eusebius
and Jerome, an Arabian or Ethiopian journey
is to be understood. But I shall show
clearly that by Jerome the said regions
were distinguished from India. For in Epistle 50 to
Paulinus 2, which is found in tom. 4, part 2, from
col. 568 of the Paris edition, he thus describes the journey
of Apollonius the magician: Apollonius … entered
Persia, passed through the Caucasus, the Albanians,
Scythians, Massagetae, penetrated the most opulent kingdoms of India:
and at last, having crossed the very broad river Physon,
he came to the Brahmans … thence
through the Elamites, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Medes,
Assyrians, Parthians, Syrians, Phoenicians, Palestinian Arabs,
returning to Alexandria, he went on to Ethiopia,
that he might see the Gymnosophists and the most famous
table of the sun in the sand. Does not
Jerome most expressly separate the Arabs and Ethiopia from the most opulent
kingdoms of India — Jerome, about whose
mind this controversy is instituted? These things assuredly
seem to me sufficient, that St. Jerome's mind
may be established for us. Which nevertheless I make manifest also by another
argument.
[71] Jerome acknowledges the Brahmans in India properly so called,
who writes that Pantaenus was sent into India to the Brahmans, when he says: Having crossed the very broad river
Physon, he came to the Brahmans. And
in book 4 on Ezekiel, chapter 13, likewise, as above,
he assigns the Brahmans to India, the Gymnosophists to Ethiopia:
The Brahmans of the Indians, and the Gymnosophists of the Ethiopians.
Nor indeed will our adversaries seek the Brahmans
elsewhere, as I suppose. But Pantaenus,
according to Jerome's mind, taught the Brahmans. Hear
him in the Epistle to Magnus, which in the said
edition is the 83rd, col. 656 of the tome cited. Pantaenus,
he says, a philosopher of the Stoic sect, for the glory of his outstanding
erudition, was sent into India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria;
that he might preach Christ among
the Brahmans and the philosophers of that nation.
Does he not here signify that Pantaenus was sent thither
whither he had above said Apollonius had journeyed? Namely to
the Brahmans, philosophers of eastern India. No doubt therefore
seems to remain but that
St. Jerome meant that Pantaenus taught in eastern India,
and there found the Gospel of Matthew left by St. Bartholomew.
Even if I should concede to my adversaries Rufinus
and Socrates, whom they object, they would assuredly have nothing
which could be compared with the authority of Jerome and Eusebius.
But that not even these favor my adversaries,
I now undertake to show.
[72] Rufinus, book 10, chapter 9, writes these things: In
that division of the globe of lands, with whom Rufinus and Socrates which was made by lot among the apostles
for preaching the word of God:
when different provinces had fallen to different men, Parthia is said
to have been decreed by lot to Thomas, and Ethiopia to Matthew, and the hither India
adjoining it to Bartholomew.
Between which and Parthia, in the middle, but far more inland by a long
tract, lies farther India, inhabited by many and various
tongues and nations. Which, as being
far remote, no ploughshare of apostolic preaching
had cut. Which nevertheless in the time of Constantine
received the first seeds of faith from some such cause as this.
A certain philosopher Metrodorus, for the sake of inspecting
places and of exploring the world,
is said to have penetrated farther India. Invited by whose example,
a certain Meropius also, a Tyrian philosopher,
wished from a like cause to go to India. Socrates,
book 1, chapter 15, has nearly the same: When
the apostles had undertaken their journey to the nations by lot, Thomas
obtained Parthia …: Matthew Ethiopia:
Bartholomew received by lot India, which borders
upon this. But interior India,
which very many barbarous nations inhabit, with tongues
differing among themselves, was not before the times of Constantine
illuminated by the word of Christ and his religion.
But what cause impelled them to embrace the faith of Christ,
I now come to tell. A certain philosopher Meropius,
by race a Tyrian, was inflamed with the desire
of surveying the region of the Indians:
provoked to that matter, I believe, by the example of Metrodorus the philosopher,
who had before traversed the same region.
Assemani, in the place cited, will have Arabia Felix
and Ethiopia understood by hither India
and farther or interior India. Pagi,
num. 8, an Ethiopia nearer to Egypt
and a more remote one. But I contend that Gangetic India,
or India properly so called, distinguished into hither and farther,
is here too to be understood;
which I now show.
[73] agree. In the first place the name of India seems to designate no other
than that most celebrated one, divided into many provinces and kingdoms
on this side and beyond the Ganges.
For this alone is known by the proper name of India
among the geographers. Nor is the sense of these authors other,
who accurately distinguish India
from Ethiopia, when they write that this fell by lot to Matthew, that
to Bartholomew. But in that
they call it neighboring and adjacent to Ethiopia,
they show themselves less skilled in geography, yet they designate no other
than that part of India
which, situated on this side of the Ganges, first presents itself to those sailing from Ethiopia
into India. Secondly, Rufinus and Socrates acknowledge that farther India
to be the one which Metrodorus visited, and by his example Meropius.
But that Metrodorus visited no other India
than the one properly so called is established, and Pagi confesses it,
adding these things from Cedrenus at num. 16: A certain Metrodorus,
a Persian, under pretext of philosophizing,
betook himself into India to the Brahmans. Do you see
that he betook himself to the Brahmans? And yet the Brahmans
were found beyond the Ganges by Apollonius,
as is plain from Jerome cited above: Having crossed the very broad
river Physon (the Ganges) Apollonius came to
the Brahmans. Therefore by farther, or even by interior India, they describe to us
no other than India beyond the Ganges,
extended over a vast space of lands. Nor did Charles
of St. Paul think otherwise, in his Sacred Geography, p. 260,
where he asserts that the mere reading of Socrates is needed, that this
truth may be understood.
[74] Answer is made to Pagi's argument drawn from geography, Nevertheless Holstenius sets himself against it in his notes on
this passage of Charles, whom Pagi followed:
these men preferred to feign for themselves various errors in Socrates
rather than to retain the simple sense of his words by a convenient
interpretation, such as we have already given.
Receive Holstenius' words, reasoning thus:
Socrates received this whole narration from Rufinus,
but neither names the Ganges, so that this passage could be taken
of Indians situated within or beyond the Ganges.
This assuredly is frivolous, nor worthy of longer refutation.
For neither does Rufinus name the Nile,
nor Socrates; why therefore does Holstenius wish Ethiopia,
which is intersected by the Nile, to be designated rather? He subjoins another
argument from geography
in this manner: For since they call it interior India by reason
of the hither one, interior here would necessarily have to be taken for
exterior, or for India beyond the Ganges:
because India beyond (read within the Ganges,
so that the sense may be intelligible and true) the Ganges
is hither to us: and this is absurd, and
against every reckoning of true geography. And so,
since they here call hither India that
which adjoins Ethiopia, in which Bartholomew
preached the Gospel — which Ethiopia no one has doubted to be beneath
Egypt (because it touches the red sea
at Adulis, and the mouth of the Arabian gulf) —
by interior India no other can be understood except
interior Ethiopia, whose metropolis was
Auxumis, whither before no herald of Christ
had penetrated. These things Holstenius says very obscurely,
but the truth explained will easily dissipate the darkness spread abroad.
[75] I say therefore: hither India, to Rufinus and
Socrates, is India on this side of the Ganges, from which many inconveniences follow, that is, those Indian
provinces nearer to Egypt and Ethiopia,
which the geographers call India within the Ganges.
Farther, or interior, India is India situated beyond the Ganges:
which we commonly call India outside
the Ganges. The whole scruple of Holstenius therefore
consists in this, that the word interior India does not seem rightly
to be understood of India outside the Ganges. But,
since those authors sufficiently indicate that by Interior
India they understand the same as by farther,
I do not see how they sin
against right geography. For just as Holstenius himself calls
interior Ethiopia that part of Ethiopia
which within Ethiopia is more remote from us,
so Rufinus calls the part of India more remote from us now
interior India, now farther India.
But Pagi with Holstenius is deceived, in that
he will have Bartholomew to have preached not in true India,
but in Ethiopia, and that against the proper sense of Rufinus'
words, against the most open opinion of Jerome
and Eusebius. But attend how many things
plainly discordant follow from this.
First, the authors cry out that Ethiopia fell to Matthew, to Bartholomew
India. They place Matthew
in Ethiopia more remote from Egypt, Bartholomew
in the part of Ethiopia more neighboring
to Egypt. Secondly, they are compelled to do violence to words,
when they will have Ethiopia bordering upon Egypt to be called
India also, whereas all Pagi's proofs
establish only that the most remote part of Ethiopia,
or rather the regions situated above the Cataracts,
are called India by certain writers. Hear
his own words at num. 11: Wherefore it is manifest
that Lucian calls that region which is above the Cataracts
Ἴνδια. You see here that not the nearer
Ethiopia, but the region above the Cataracts, that is,
the Ethiopia more remote from Egypt, is called
India. The same only follows from Virgil's verse,
which he alleges, writing thus of the Nile: Even the river
flowing down from the colored Indians. Where you see,
he says, the peoples which the Nile washes called Indians.
Nay rather I see those peoples called Indians
among whom the Nile rises; I do not see all whom
the Nile washes called Indians, lest Pagi should at last wish
the Egyptians themselves too to be called Indians,
for the Nile washes these also.
[76] Thirdly Pagi errs, when he will have
Rufinus to have erred in writing of Metrodorus' journey, at num. 16. who wrongly reprehends Rufinus,
Besides, he says, he (Rufinus) is deceived in this, that
he writes that Metrodorus penetrated the India which he calls farther,
or modern Ethiopia.
For Metrodorus traversed not Ethiopia, or the India
hither in respect of us, but true India,
or farther India (as it had to be called by a man who wrote in
the Roman empire).
Receive the sense of the words: Rufinus,
he says, is deceived, in that he writes that Metrodorus penetrated the India
which he calls farther …
For Metrodorus … traversed true India, or farther India …
Rufinus writes that farther India was traversed:
Pagi says that farther India was traversed: how then is Rufinus
deceived? A man writing in the Roman empire
had to call it India: he called it India. But Pagi too
ought to have understood India, not Ethiopia; especially
since both Socrates cited above, and Theodoret,
Ecclesiastical History book 1, chapter 23, and Sozomen,
book 2, chapter 23, write the same history,
and everywhere name India, not Ethiopia.
Does he think all these Historians, writing in the Roman
empire, were so drowsy that,
when they wished to designate Ethiopia to us, they should name
India? I could add more things from this whole disputation of Pagi's,
from which it would be plain how
many errors he preferred to acknowledge in Rufinus
rather than to follow the proper sense of his words.
Let him read it who will, from num. 7: and he will understand
that Pagi fights in this place no less with Rufinus, from whom
he assails Baronius, than with Baronius
himself. But let us hear nevertheless the prudent
admonition of the learned man, which if he had himself followed,
he would not dissent from Baronius in this matter.
[77] and at last he himself deserted his own argument. I will not depart hence, he says, without having admonished
that Rufinus, little skilled in it, is to be understood not by the aid of true geography,
but by his own words,
compared with the ancients. The manner of understanding
Rufinus pleases me, but I had not thought
it would be proposed by one who had drawn his arguments from Rufinus'
geography: for whatever he laboriously
built up from Holstenius against our opinion,
he here destroys with one stroke of the pen. For,
this rule being laid down, I thus convict Pagi. Rufinus
assigns India to Bartholomew's preaching:
but India, if taken properly, according to the ancient
historians and geographers alike, signifies
the provinces situated on this side and beyond the Ganges:
nay, even according to Pagi himself at num. 16, where he calls these
provinces true India. Therefore Rufinus
must be understood of true or Gangetic India. What
led Pagi into these precipices, that, abandoning
the proper signification of the words, he should feign for himself the India
illuminated by St. Bartholomew's preaching in a tiny part of Ethiopia,
I do not perceive:
for neither is he sufficiently consistent with himself here, since at the year
of Christ 42, num. 2, he so extends the preaching of the Apostles
through the whole globe of lands that he does not except
even America: but here he will not have even the Auxumite
Ethiopians, not so remote from Egypt,
to have heard the word of God from the apostles.
These things have been discussed a little more fully, lest the authority
of such great men should stand in the way of truth. For the rest,
concerning Frumentius, on whose occasion they
slipped into this, I do not here dispute: there will be given a place
for disputing about him when his Acts come to be examined.
Now a few things must be answered to Assemani, who
encloses Bartholomew's Indian preaching within Homeritis, or Arabia
Felix. I confess that his
opinion seems to me less improbable
than Pagi's just refuted; yet not a few
inconveniences follow from it also.
[78] Assemani is refuted. For first, since Ethiopia was decreed
to Matthew, India to Bartholomew, he encloses both in one
Arabia. Hear his words: But Ethiopia,
whose Apostolate Matthew obtained by lot,
and the India of Bartholomew bordering upon it, that is,
Sabaea, as it is called, is not Abyssinia, as some
suppose: … but Arabia Petraea itself, on that
side where it rather adjoins the Happy or Sabaean Arabia. These things, I confess,
I cannot digest. What? Had the Apostles,
to whom it had been said by the Lord: Going into the whole
world, preach the Gospel to every
creature, Mark 16, marked out for themselves provinces so narrow
for preaching that to two men one
Arabia was assigned? By no means does that seem to me
likely. Next, violence is here too done to Rufinus' words,
who names India and Ethiopia;
not Arabia Felix and Petraea; which under these names
are read as designated by very few, and those not geographers;
whereas on the contrary eastern India
and African Ethiopia are among historians
and geographers of every kind most known and most celebrated
under their own names. Therefore I do not deny that St. Bartholomew
preached in Arabia,
but I think it sufficiently demonstrated above from Eusebius and Jerome
that he announced the word of God also in eastern India,
and so far from being weakened by Rufinus and
Socrates, that it has rather in many ways
been confirmed and established. I follow therefore
the opinion of Nicetas the Paphlagonian in the encomiastic Oration
to be given here hereafter, where he writes these things of our holy Apostle:
The most blessed Man went forth to the Arabs, whom they call Happy;
and not to them only,
but he was sent after this also to the Indians and the eastern Ethiopians,
as the word of God, as the light of knowledge, as
the doctrine and instruction of eternal life.
First therefore he taught the Arabs, and from Arabia
either by a land journey through Persia, or, which I rather
believe, by a short crossing of the Arabian Ocean, he set out
into India.
§ VIII. The Apostle's preaching in other provinces.
Bartholomew is said to have preached at Hierapolis with Philip From India I return to Asia Minor: for
that St. Bartholomew the apostle preached there also
is established from various authors. Henschen,
tom. 1 of May from p. 7, gave the Acts of St. Philip
the apostle, from which we have many things pertaining
to St. Bartholomew's Asiatic preaching.
These therefore I shall transfer hither, and, as I shall be able, confirm from elsewhere.
At num. 7, from the Menology written in the X century
by the authority of the emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus,
he produces a eulogy of Philip, which you will also
find in the Ughellian Anecdota after tom.
10 of Italia sacra, col. 293, from which I take these things:
Philip … under the emperor Trajan set out
for Hierapolis, with his seven daughters and Mariamne
his sister, and Bartholomew the apostle; where, disseminating
the word of Jesus Christ everywhere,
he drew away from the vanity of idols a multitude
of gentiles, who in that same place, together with Nicanora
the wife of the proconsul, a man foremost among his own,
were honoring a serpent with divine worship and honor.
Wherefore, when by the proconsul's order Bartholomew
and Philip were hanging from the wall with their feet aloft,
at Philip's prayer all the gentiles, with
the proconsul, with the viper, with its priests,
were swallowed up by a sudden gaping of the earth. But
all by a singular benefit of God, except the proconsul,
the author of the slaying of the Saints, and the viper,
emerged into the open air: and Bartholomew being loosed,
Philip was consumed by that torment.
[80] In the same place, num. 8, from a very ancient Greek Synaxarium
of the church of Constantinople, at the XIV of November,
there is given an epitome of the Life of St. Philip, and to have been fastened to a cross with him, from which I cull
the following for our purpose: Philip came to Hierapolis
(which then was called Ophioryme, as it were the serpent's
onset) with Mariamne
his sister, and Bartholomew the apostle. And he taught
the gospel of Christ, persuading the unbelievers
to depart from the error of idols: for they held a viper
in the place of God. But many
received the faith of Christ, among whom was Nicanora
the wife of the proconsul, who pursued them with great ignominy,
wishing greatly to avenge himself.
Wherefore, having taken him and pierced the heels of his feet,
he ordered him to be hung head downward from a beam, together
with the apostle Bartholomew, on whom the same punishment
was inflicted. When Philip, thus hung, poured forth prayers,
suddenly the earth opened and swallowed up all
the unbelievers who were in Hierapolis, together with the proconsul
and the viper and its priests. But
by Christ's mercy all, except the proconsul
and the viper, were set free, and presently they loosed
Bartholomew. But Philip restrained their
effort, and thus ended his life on the beam.
When Bartholomew and Mariamne had given his body
to burial, they departed into Lycaonia.
In the Greek Menaea, at the same day XIV
of November, some things are related in a different manner, which
I shall here add faithfully translated. It is there said that with
Philip and his sister Mariamne he went through the cities of Mysia and Lydia
preaching the gospel,
and endured many afflictions from the unbelievers,
being beaten with scourges and rods, shut up in prisons, assailed with stones,
with the same companions. There is then added
Nothing of the cultus of the serpent, nothing of the death of the proconsul
is there related. But the death of Philip and
Bartholomew's deliverance is commemorated in this manner:
But Philip, dragged through the street, then
with his ankles pierced, was raised upon a beam: and thus
praying he gave up his spirit to God. Straightway the earth, shaken
with a movement and giving forth a sound, was cleft: and
swallowed up many of the unbelievers. But the rest, seized
with terror, become suppliants to Bartholomew and Mariamne, still
hanging: and when these were loosed they embrace the true
faith. There follows the burial of St.
Philip: Stachys, whose house is mentioned as burnt
by the proconsul and the people, is said to have been made
bishop of Byzantium; whether this be true will be discussed
on the XXXI of October, on which day he is venerated. Lastly
Bartholomew is said to have set out with Mariamne into Lycaonia.
The same things, as to substance, are narrated
in the Acts of Philip which Henschen gave from Metaphrastes,
from p. 12, where at the end these things
are added: But Bartholomew and Mariamne,
having stayed there (at Hierapolis) a modest time,
when they had again more splendidly paid to that venerable body (of Philip)
the due rites of hymns and obsequies,
and had further confirmed those present
in the faith, returned to their own, preaching
everywhere the gospel of Christ.
[81] and, an earthquake having occurred, Nicetas the Paphlagonian, in the encomiastic Oration
on Philip, in Combefis' latest Auctarium of the Fathers,
from p. 383, narrates nearly the same things about the cultus of the viper
among the Laodiceans, about Philip's death,
about Bartholomew's hanging and taking down, to whom
he likewise joins Philip's sister, but names her Mary;
in certain things however he differs from the narration of the preceding writers:
for he relates that the viper was slain by Philip's prayers
before the punishment, and narrates that the apostles
were condemned to hanging not by the proconsul, but
by the chief men of the city, and mentions the earthquake
in this more likely manner: By an earthquake
the place is suddenly shaken, and that whole company, being shaken,
was sinking in a deep chasm — that company to which almost the whole city,
about to drag the men of Jesus through the theater, had gathered:
and one gaping of the earth was swallowing the whole
people together with the ground (that is, seemed about to swallow it.)
Now therefore, with a grave peril of their safety and life beating upon them,
they cried out upon Philip with his companions: and
again and again they promised that by that means they would depart from error,
and would believe in the true God.
But Philip and his companions appeased God with fervent
supplications; to them praying the Lord straightway
appeared, and presently propped up the earth, that it might not sink
and settle into the chasm; and finally by divine power,
let down like a ladder to the perishing, paved
a way to safety. This was the occasion of faith to the unbelievers.
Nicetas then subjoins the death of Philip, and
Bartholomew's deliverance, and the rest, as
they were narrated above. We have nearly the same things related
in the Oration on Bartholomew of Joseph, to be published below,
and in Nicephorus Callistus, book 2,
chapter 39, which here for brevity's sake I pass over.
[82] You expect, I suppose, reader, that I should declare what
in these narrations seems true, Philip being dead, he is said to have been set free. what fictitious.
I shall candidly speak what I think: he who shall not wish
to follow my judgment, for all I care, let him follow his own.
All these narrations (I except Nicetas)
seem to have much of Greek amplification
and fictitious ornament mixed in.
For when they bring the proconsul on the scene, and his
wife converted to the faith, when they write that the proconsul alone
with the viper was consumed by the gaping of the earth,
the Greeks seem to me to keep to their ancient way, that is, to adorn true
history with fictitious fables.
The reason is, both because these things were prudently passed over by Nicetas,
and because the proconsuls
of Asia did not reside at Hierapolis, nor were they for the most part
present at the punishments of the accused. But Nicetas'
narration does not depart from likelihood.
If that cultus of the viper displeases anyone, let him read in
the Epitome of Livy, decade 2, book 1, what Florus writes
about the snake in which they thought the divinity of Aesculapius
resided, brought over from Epidaurus to Rome,
and a temple erected to it there: nor did the Epidaurians
and Romans alone venerate serpents, but many
other nations also. And concerning the people of Hierapolis this can probably
be gathered from what Christopher Cellarius writes in his Notices
of the Ancient World, tom.
2, p. 93, of Hierapolis in Phrygia: But to what God
this city was chiefly devoted is uncertain:
the coins present various figures, of Apollo,
of Ephesian Diana, of Aesculapius, etc. They seem therefore
to have wished to venerate Aesculapius in the serpent, as the Romans
and Epidaurians did. That St. Bartholomew was therefore freed
from the hanging, as Nicetas writes, I think
likely, though I do not dare to assert it as absolutely
true. But that he preached in Asia Minor with Philip
as his companion, so many witnesses asserting it,
although they are not of the same credit, I think
altogether to be believed; and I do not doubt that he suffered many
and grievous things from the unbelievers.
[83] After Philip's death Bartholomew, matters at Hierapolis
being settled, He preaches in Lycaonia, is recorded to have set out into Lycaonia.
This is confirmed from the Oration on
the 12 Apostles, published among the spurious Works of Chrysostom,
tom. 8, p. 11, where these things are found: Bartholomew
instructed the Lycaonians in temperance.
This preaching of Bartholomew in Lycaonia is acknowledged by
Baronius at the year of Christ 44, num.
34, and Natalis Alexander at the first century
of Christ, chapter 8, num. 7; but each adds a geographical
error, when he calls the Lycaonians peoples of greater Armenia:
for Lycaonia is a province of Asia
Minor, contained between Pamphylia, (says the oft-praised
Cellarius, tom. 2, book 3, chapter 4, p.
120) Cappadocia, Pisidia, and Phrygia,
into which we have seen him set out from Phrygia, in which Hierapolis
is situated. For the rest, that he did not pass through Lycaonia hastily,
but for a long enough time delivered to the Lycaonians the lessons of faith
and morals, that author himself signifies by his very manner of speaking,
who says they were instructed in temperance.
But, leaving Asia Minor, let us now accompany the Apostle
into Armenia.
[84] Armenia Clement Galanus of Sorrento, missionary of the Holy
Apostolic See to the Armenians, wrote in the last
century a Reconciliation of the Armenian Church
with the Roman, in which, tom. 1, p. 4, he speaks thus:
Among the illustrious regions of all Asia, Armenia has rightly
been esteemed the most renowned on many accounts.
Which he also proves at length there. The above-praised
Cellarius describes its boundaries to us, tom.
2, book 3, chapter 11, p. 228, in this manner:
We set these as the boundaries of greater Armenia, according to Strabo
book XI, p. 363: on the South
is Taurus, by which it is divided from Mesopotamia: on
the East, Media both the great and Atropatia: on the North
that severed part of Caucasus which encompasses Albania
and southern Iberia both;
or Iberia itself, and Albania: on the West, lesser
Armenia, or the Paryadres mountains, and certain Pontic
peoples, and the Euphrates. So also Ptolemy,
book V, chapter XIII, except that on the West
he also names the Moschic mountains: on the East, the part
of the Caspian sea from the mouths of the Cyrus, especially that
which is about the mouths of the Araxes. For that part which
Ptolemy set as intercepted between the beds of both rivers, before
they discharge into the sea,
and thence runs out somewhat southward along the coast,
it is doubted to which it should be referred, since Strabo,
as we have seen, seems to have joined it to Albania under the name of
Caspiana, and Ptolemy to Armenia; which
also the Atropateni, whom it borders, might claim
for themselves.
[85] greater, Such a region therefore (says Galanus, p. 5),
namely greater Armenia, after
the glorious Ascension of Christ the Lord into heaven,
fell to Bartholomew for the preaching of the gospel of Christ,
as Baronius also affirms, at the year
of Christ 44, num. 34. St. Theodore the Studite,
whose sermon on Bartholomew we give below,
also attributes Armenia to the Apostle: But to him
he says, who is now praised with celebrated fame, the lot and
portion was the place of Armenia, which is from Evilath as far as
Gabaoth, and is distributed among many nations and cities.
What lands the holy Father meant to be designated by this phrase,
From Evilath as far as Gabaoth,
is most obscure. He seems to extend Armenia
and St. Bartholomew's preaching as far as India, as the Eastern limit.
For by the land of Evilath, or Hevilath, which in Genesis 2,
℣. 11, Phison, one of the rivers of paradise, is said to encircle,
almost all the ancients understand India
situated within the Ganges, just as by Phison they understood the Ganges:
whether rightly, I do not here dispute. You may see
either Calmet or a Lapide on chapter 2 of Genesis. By
Gabaoth he doubtless signifies the Western limit.
But which? This I neither find anywhere explained,
nor do I wish to divine without foundation.
Further, that Armenia was illuminated by the light of the gospel by Bartholomew
is confirmed by the Roman Martyrology and Breviary,
and very many other authors.
[86] and other provinces of greater Asia. The Armenian writers cited in Assemani,
tom. 3, part 2, not only hold St. Bartholomew's
Armenian preaching for ascertained,
but add also many provinces of Asia. I shall report one
out of many. On p. 5, Amrus praised before
speaks thus: Nathanael, who is also Bartholomew,
together with Thomas and Lebbaeus of the XII, and
with Addaeus, Maris, and Aghaeus of the seventy,
taught Nisibis (a city of Mesopotamia), Mesopotamia,
Mosul (Assyria, on Assemani's witness
above), Babylonia, Chaldea, Arabia,
the East, Nabathaea, Huzitis (these two
are provinces of Arabia) and Persia: then, having set out
into greater Armenia, he imbued its inhabitants with the Christian
religion, and there built a church;
finally he migrated to the Indians and the farther Chinese,
and his skin was flayed from him. Assemani
himself subjoins: What is said of the Indians and Chinese, I suspect
must be referred to Thomas, and attributed to Bartholomew
the apostle through the carelessness of a copyist, or Amrus'
drowsiness. I agree with the learned man in this,
that I do not think that after long labors in Armenia
he came farther into India, and was there crowned
with martyrdom. Yet he could, with the intention
of seeking India again, have gone to the more Eastern parts of Asia,
and, detained on the way by the fruit of his preaching —
for instance in Albania, where we shall say it is more probable that he was taken away by a glorious
death — have halted. For the rest,
that the Apostle in all these provinces as it were in passing
sowed for a while the seeds of faith is not disapproved by me;
that he stayed long in them I do not judge:
for the chief provinces illuminated by St. Bartholomew
with the light of faith seem to be India,
Asia Minor, and greater Armenia; and perhaps there can be added
Albania bordering upon Armenia, as will be plain
when we must treat of the Apostle's death. Nicetas in
the Oration often cited writes that the eastern Ethiopians also
were imbued with the faith by Bartholomew, although this
is passed over in Combefis' Latin version.
But I should think that not African Ethiopians
are to be understood, but the eastern Indians themselves. For the author
of the sermon on the twelve Apostles cited above
affirms the same of Thomas: Thomas whitens
the Ethiopians with baptism. Those peoples of India could
be called Ethiopians, either from the black color common
with the Ethiopians, or because, having set out from Ethiopia,
they placed their seats there. Hear the most learned
Petavius in his notes on St. Epiphanius, tom.
2, p. 371: Manifold, he says, among the ancients
was Ethiopia. One in Asia at the Indus,
or, as others will have it, the river Ganges. Another in
Africa, etc. Of this Ethiopia therefore, of these
Ethiopians, Nicetas is to be understood, who perhaps by
Ethiopians wished to signify nothing but men of black
color. But it is time that we inquire where,
and by what kind of death, the glorious Apostle attained
the reward of his labors.
§ IX. Where, on what occasion, and how
St. Bartholomew obtained the palm of martyrdom. The order of his preaching up to
his death probably assigned.
The Apostle died at Albanopolis, perhaps in Albania. Whence and by what kind of death Bartholomew
the apostle passed over to the heavens can be said only
by probable conjecture. As to the place,
many martyrologists assign India,
as Usuard, Ado, Florus enlarging Bede,
interior India; Florentinius at
the XXIV of August also has India, although
at the XIII of June he assigns Persia. Yet very many
authors write that Greater Armenia was ennobled by the Apostle's death,
to whom the Roman Martyrology and
Breviary are added: their words we shall give below on another
occasion. Not to be too long in recounting authors
one by one, I shall set down Tillemont's words,
whose conjecture pleases me: All the more recent
Greeks and Latins say with unanimous voice that he underwent
martyrdom in the city called Albana, or Albanopolis,
sometimes by corruption Urbanopolis,
which they place in great Armenia or Indian Armenia, as they
call it. I should think it is perhaps the city Albana in
Albania on the shore of the Caspian sea, which is neighboring
to Armenia. This conjecture, I say, pleases me:
both because I find no city in Armenia
of such a name, and because the authors so
disagree in assigning the province in which this city
was situated. For thus some reason for this disagreement
can be given: for they could say Armenia,
because it is neighboring to it; Persia,
because the very broad empire of the Persians, embracing nearly all
Asia, was most known and not
far distant from this city; India, because they generally called by this name
the more remote provinces unknown to them,
and it was established that the Apostle had preached in India.
Finally the Armenian doctors themselves
seem to favor this opinion. Amrus certainly,
cited above, writes that, a Church having been built in Armenia,
he set out into India; nor do others,
cited in the same place in Assemani, place his death in Armenia
itself. But the diligent investigator of Armenian
history, Galanus praised above, says: Besides,
it is clearly established that both
apostles (Bartholomew and Thaddeus)
underwent martyrdom about those regions (of Armenia),
which agrees excellently with this opinion, as is plain of itself.
These are the reasons why
with Tillemont I suspect that St. Bartholomew was crowned with martyrdom
at Albanopolis in Albania. If anyone
however should assign better things, I had rather here learn
than teach. But that Nicephorus Callistus,
book 2, chapter 10, writes that he suffered at Urbanopolis in Cilicia,
is singular; nor is his authority so great
that it ought to detain us.
[88] The occasion of the martyrdom is said to be The occasion of the death inflicted on the Apostle, and its
author, the Roman Breviary records in this manner
in the lessons of the XXIV of August: He (the Apostle) came
into greater Armenia: there he brought to the Christian faith
king Polymius and his wife, and besides twelve
cities.
Which thing stirred up against him a great envy of the priests
of that nation. For they so inflamed against the Apostle
Astyages, the brother of king Polymius,
that he cruelly ordered the skin to be flayed from Bartholomew
alive, and his head to be cut off, in which
martyrdom he rendered his soul to God. The martyrology of Galesinius
nearly agrees, at the ninth Kalends of September:
Then, having set out into lesser Armenia,
he joined to the Christian religion king Polemo, and his wife,
and besides twelve cities.
Moved by envy of this thing, the priests of the idols
so incited the brother of king Polemo against
the Apostle, that he ordered the skin to be cruelly flayed from Bartholomew
alive, then his head
to be cut off. Here lesser Armenia
seems by an error to have crept in for greater, and the name of the converted
petty king is somewhat changed, as is plain:
the rest plainly agrees. The Roman Martyrology,
which is in use today, only says:
When he had converted very many there to the faith: it is silent about Polymius,
his wife, and the twelve cities
converted to the faith. And indeed, wherewith to confirm these things
I have nothing, save the fabulous Acts of Pseudo-Abdias,
and others of the same bran drawn from them;
where these things are related more fully, and many
fictitious things are added, of which in their place.
[89] Galanus cited above, p. 6, inquires under
what king of Armenia these things happened. the conversion of king Polymius, For when he had said
that Bartholomew underwent martyrdom, after
… he converted to the faith a certain Polymius, a petty king of Armenia;
as commonly all
more recent writers, that is, who followed Abdias; so after a few words
he subjoins: But how, under Sanatrugh,
who is named king of the Armenians (at the time Bartholomew
was slain), these things could have happened, seems able to be called into
doubt; since we read that Bartholomew
was rather punished with death by the order of Astyages, brother of king Polymius.
Let us hear whether Galanus sufficiently removes this doubt.
Having enumerated two kings of Armenia from Christ's time,
he thus continues, p. 9: The third was Sanatrugh,
son of the sister of Abgar (whom he had said reigned in Christ's
time), by whose rule the holy apostles
Bartholomew and Thaddeus were slain in those regions,
the Armenians relate: from whom
however our historians by no means differ,
although they assert that Bartholomew, at the order of Astyages, brother
of king Polymius, was delivered to death by the idolatrous priests:
for Polymius and Astyages could have been
petty kings of certain Armenian provinces under the rule of Sanatrugh,
king of all Armenia. And indeed, that Astyages,
brother of king Polymius, was also a king, the Roman Martyrology
affirms: and further, that they were petty kings
of single provinces only,
we gather from Abdias the Babylonian, and other weighty
authors. Thus Galanus.
[90] But this answer so far from removing the doubt objected —
and its author Astyages the king, Polymius' brother, although apt enough, if it were established
that Bartholomew was put to death by Astyages — that the name
of the tyrant by whose rule the Apostle was slain
is more uncertain than before: for Galanus
thrusts upon us as a weighty author Abdias, who is a most inept
fable-monger, and others who perhaps
imprudently drew this from Abdias' impure fountain:
for I should think that no others are to be assigned than Abdias,
or the author who wrote the Passions of the Apostles,
and his followers, who have handed down to memory the name
of Astyages. But those who have nothing
in common with Abdias, and are authors certainly of better
note than Abdias, do not express that
tyrant's name. St. Theodore the Studite is silent about Astyages;
Nicetas the Paphlagonian is silent; silent
is the Joseph published by Metaphrastes; silent is Freculph,
published in the Library of the Fathers, cent. 9, part.
1, p. 505: finally very many others are silent, whom,
as also the Menologies and Menaea of the Greeks, I pass over.
The Armenians too know nothing of Astyages, and assert
that Sanatrugh was then king of Armenia. Besides,
I observe that nearly all these authors agree as to the place,
excepting those who do not name the place.
Why therefore do they express the place with wonderful consent,
but are silent about the author of the slaying? Doubtless because
the place had become known, the author lay hidden. What of this,
that some of them name others altogether than a king? Nicetas
writes that he was accused before the chief men of the city, and slain
by their order. Joseph names the governor
of the place as author of the slaying. Others by a general
name call them barbarians, or impious men.
[91] In so great a silence of the ancients about Astyages, of the more ancient
martyrologists I find only Florus and
Rabanus who name Astyages, so that
they seem to have transcribed these things either from Abdias himself, or from Abdias'
followers. which seems taken from Pseudo-Abdias, and is therefore uncertain. Abdias certainly was liberally
copied by Vincent of Beauvais in the Speculum, book 9,
chapter 83 and following, so that we cannot wonder
that the author of the slaying, even were he fictitious, was derived thence to other
authors. But from these, or from others
who followed Abdias, this seems to have crept into the Roman Martyrology
and Breviary, since the more ancient
authors of better note, as shown above,
do not have it. Hence to this whole occasion of the slaying
just narrated — to the whole history, I say,
about Polymius and his wife and the twelve cities,
and about the death inflicted by Astyages — each will attribute
as much credit as he shall have thought must be attributed
to the Roman Breviary and the said martyrologies;
whose authority though it is not to be despised,
I judge nevertheless that it is not so great in
these circumstances that we are bound to give firm assent to the said history.
But it is time that
we inquire by what death at last the glorious Champion
confirmed the confession and preaching of his faith,
for which it is certain enough that he fell.
[92] Some write that he was crucified, His death likewise, like the rest of the Apostle's affairs, is variously
related by various authors. Most of the Greeks write
that he was fastened to a cross; the Latins for the most part
have it that he was flayed; some add that he was also beheaded. Nicetas
the Paphlagonian: These things, I say, when the impious had heard,
astounded by the novelty of the speech, and indignant against
the crucified one, they straightway beat his herald
with rods and fasten him to a cross. As to the cross
Joseph agrees, in these words: He too was condemned
to the punishment of the cross. Nevertheless he adds
below a different manner, passed over by Nicetas:
He asked those executioners that he might be fixed
upon the cross with his head turned to the earth: and not be fastened
to the cross upright, as his master was:
thus even in his torments he preserved his reverence toward
his master. Nay, even fixed upon the cross,
he did not cease to speak with the brethren,
until he delivered that most holy soul to God.
In appearance at least (for there are those who wish to reconcile
all things) St. Theodore the Studite dissents from these,
himself also a Greek, writing these things at num. 4: After
he was flayed alive, he is struck with the axe. Freculph,
in the place cited above: At the last, at Albanum,
a city of greater Armenia, he is flayed alive by the barbarians,
and thus is laid in the earth. Most of the Latins,
as also Amrus the Armenian cited above,
agree with these; but the Greeks generally, with Nicetas
and Joseph, write that he was fastened to a cross. Which are the more right?
It is truly difficult and ambiguous to determine that.
[93] but others that he was flayed, Of these opinions, however, that of the Latins
and of the Studite, who say that he was flayed,
appears to me more likely than that of the Greeks, who say crucified,
both because it rests on greater authority, and because
reason seems rather to persuade it. For Theodore
the Studite, with the Latins and Armenians, who could be better
instructed about these things than the Greeks, outweigh the Greeks in
authority: add that there is a common tradition in
the Latin Church about the skin flayed from Bartholomew,
which certainly it did not have from Abdias,
since he keeps deep silence about this. I said that reason
also favors the Latins; for the punishment of the cross
could more easily be feigned by those ignorant of the manner of his death,
as being common enough in that time, or
confounded with the first raising upon a cross, which the same men write
happened at Hierapolis. Not so
easily could the flaying be feigned, a less common
punishment, though not unusual among the Eastern
peoples.
[94] But that both punishments were applied
in St. Bartholomew's case, certain moderns have endeavored
to show, others feign that both were done: in order to reconcile the authors just mentioned
with one another. Nor do I deny that a way of reconciling them
would not be altogether lacking, if those writers
who disagree among themselves were of such authority
that it were unlawful to depart from their words:
for either the skin could be flayed off upon the cross, or,
the skin being flayed off, the corpse could be raised upon a cross for ignominy,
which Lipsius, book 3 On the Cross, chapter 12, writes
was customary among the Orientals. But
since none of the disagreeing authors hints
that both punishments were applied, I cannot suspect
that this was really done, much less
affirm it. For the authority of the said writers is not so great
that, to reconcile them, it is necessary
to invent things so unusual, especially as
they themselves suggest no foundation for that opinion.
Therefore I judge it more probable that the Saint was stripped
of his skin: that he was raised upon a cross I do not reject
as certainly false, but hold it as less likely;
that both should be joined together I do not suppose.
[97] But what some authors add, that after
the skin was flayed off, what of these is more likely, is explained. the Saint's head was cut off,
in no way conflicts with the flaying, and therefore
can more easily be admitted, since it has as its author
St. Theodore the Studite. But deservedly is despised
what the bishop of Equilio adds to embellish this, book 7, chapter
103: And when, stripped of his skin, he had remained still
alive: and, flayed, preached the Lord:
and had converted many who merely beheld the miracle:
by the king's order he was beheaded on the
following day, namely the VIII Kalends of the aforesaid month
(September). On account of this some celebrate his feast
on the preceding day, keeping the memory of the martyrdom
of the flaying; some on the following day, keeping
the memory of the beheading. A subtle reason forsooth
he renders for this diversity, but one unknown, I suppose,
to those very men who wished these different days
to be sacred to St. Bartholomew. Now I shall describe by probable
conjecture the whole course of his preaching up to his death,
lest to anyone so many regions traversed by
the Apostle, as we have said above, should seem incredible.
[96] First in Judea with the other Apostles
holy Bartholomew preached; The order of the preaching: in Judea, in various provinces of Arabia, until the Apostles,
divided from one another, set out each into his own
provinces. Which division being made in the year, as we think,
the twelfth from Christ's Ascension, I judge that St. Bartholomew
set out into India, yet so
that in passing he imbued various regions with the faith of Christ;
for the Apostles did not so depart into far-distant regions
as altogether to neglect those through which they made their way.
Therefore on the journey undertaken to the Indies
I should think that those provinces of Arabia named above were illuminated with the faith —
Huzitis, Nabathaea,
Arabia Felix or Homeritis. For Huzitis,
or the land of Hus, though its situation be uncertain,
seems to present itself first to those going from Judea toward the East,
according to Calmet in his Biblical
Dictionary, where he sets forth his opinion thus,
at the word Hus: We judge that the certain situation of that
region must be placed in Idumaea, to the East
of the Jordan and of Galaaditis, not far
from Bozra, and from the region called by the old name
Ausitis. Hence he would have gone on into Nabathaea,
concerning whose inhabitants Cellarius, Fuller Geography,
tom. 2, book 3, chapter 14, says: A noble name
in Arabia also is that of the Nabataeans: which Jerome,
Quaest. on Genesis XXV, derives from Nabajoth, the firstborn
of Ishmael. "From Nabajoth," he says,
"the whole region, from the Euphrates as far as the red sea,
is called Nabatene to this day." Thus he comprehends
Desert Arabia with a great part of Petraea.
From this one comes to Homeritis, or Arabia
Felix, also called Sabaea;
in which it has been said the Apostle preached.
I know that the journey described by me is not the shortest into India,
nor does it lead straight from the West into the East,
but bends a little to the South.
But since these provinces are written to have been illuminated by the Apostle's
preaching, I do not see where I may more conveniently
place this than in the journey undertaken to the Indians;
for from Arabia Felix he could penetrate by an easy crossing by sea
into hither India. Through
these provinces of Arabia therefore, illuminated at least in passing,
perhaps also with a longer stay, he could come into India
within the Ganges, where now is the vast empire of the
great Mogul, where Bisnagar and other
kingdoms are.
[97] India, But for how long the holy Apostle cultivated that most ample
field of India is uncertain.
But that several years must be attributed to his Indian labors,
and that a Church was rightly constituted there,
seems to be gathered from this, that so long afterwards
Pantaenus found the memory of the Apostolic preaching flourishing,
and the Gospel of Matthew,
left there among the faithful, not translated into the language of the Indians,
as Freculph wrongly writes above,
but written out in Hebrew letters, as
Eusebius attests, and Jerome. For not
on departing does he seem to have been about to leave the Gospel there,
unless the Church had been rightly constituted, and
hope had shone forth of a further conversion of the Indians.
But that the seed of faith cast into the field of the Indians
did not grow up into a richer harvest after the Apostle's departure,
besides the judgments of God, which
it is not fitting to scrutinize, could have happened from the obstinacy of the nation,
or from the tyranny of its princes. Now we shall lead the Apostle
into Asia Minor, where some
place his first preaching. But Rufinus stands against them,
and others who write that India was decreed to Bartholomew:
and the time itself is repugnant to their opinion,
for Bartholomew is said to have preached in Asia Minor with Philip,
returned from Scythia, up to his death;
and after Philip's death to have set out from Phrygia into Lycaonia:
more conveniently therefore does the Indian preaching seem to be placed
first, lest we be compelled to say that Bartholomew
from the division of the Apostles up to Philip's
death always remained in Asia Minor, which
is less likely.
[98] Asia Minor, India therefore being left, through some more obscure
intermediate provinces Bartholomew seems to have returned
into Persia; thence he may have traversed Babylonia
and Assyria, neighboring provinces; and to have advanced into
Mesopotamia, which regions the Armenians likewise
attribute to Bartholomew: whence
he could come into the Holy Land, or into Asia Minor,
today Natolia. This journey is described by
conjecture: for he could afterwards
have traversed these provinces also. That in Asia Minor
he was joined to Philip, and with him ran through Mysia
and Lydia, and suffered many things in Phrygia;
and that, Philip having died on the cross at Hierapolis,
he set out into Lycaonia, has been narrated from Greek authors.
He seems then to have taught the Lycaonians a long time,
and to have gathered an excellent fruit of his labors
in that province. These things in Asia Minor,
Now we shall visit Bartholomew's last wrestling-ground, greater Armenia,
I say. This is therefore set by me as the last,
because in it, taken at least a little more broadly, not only,
to speak with the Apostle, did he fight the good fight, but
he also finished his course, having obtained the crown of justice
laid up for him by the just Judge.
[99] Having set out from Asia Minor into greater Armenia,
the Apostle greater Armenia. again found a most ample field
for his labors. It is likely that he preached there many years;
for, as Amrus the Armenian doctor writes,
cited at num. 86, he imbued its inhabitants with the
Christian religion, and there built a Church, which does not seem
to have been accomplished in a short time. From the parts situated toward the West
I should think he advanced little by little toward the East, until
he came to Albania bordering upon Armenia,
where we have said above that he probably died a glorious
death. In what year this happened is uncertain.
Labbe however, in the Chronological Compendium,
at the year of Christ 71, writes thus: Some
place in this year the martyrdom of St. Bartholomew the Apostle.
If the Apostle reached that year,
nay, even if he died ten years earlier,
he assuredly had time enough to traverse the provinces described
by us, and to illuminate each
with the Christian faith. Now I would have you admonished, reader,
that this order of preaching has not been assigned by me
that you should believe it necessarily so done,
but that you may perceive that it is not incredible that all
these provinces were visited by the Apostle and
imbued with the faith. For if those three provinces — India,
I mean, Asia Minor, and greater Armenia,
which by several witnesses are said to have been cultivated by Bartholomew,
too many for us prudently to be able to deny it — we confess
must be attributed to him: the very reckoning
of the journey demands that we should not deny him those also which the Armenian
authors add. As to the order
of the journey, I have wished to show rather what could conveniently
have been done than what was done;
except that I judge India was imbued with the faith by the Apostle before Asia Minor,
and Armenia after the rest.
§ X. Whether the Apostle wrote anything?
A Pseudo-gospel according to Bartholomew: some think he wrote certain things, The more ancient heretics feigned some Gospel
according to Bartholomew, of which
St. Jerome makes mention in the prologue of the Commentaries
upon Matthew, and which he there also refutes from
the four living creatures of Ezekiel 1, signifying the four
Evangelists. Pope Gelasius long ago rejected it
among the apocrypha, in Labbe, tom. 4 of the Councils,
col. [ ]. There have also been Catholics who
thought that certain things were written by St. Bartholomew,
because in the Mystical Theology commonly ascribed to St. Dionysius,
in this manner: Ὅυτω γοῦν ὁ θεῖος Βαρθολομαῖός φησι, καὶ πολλὴν τὴν θεολογίαν εἶναι καὶ ἐλαχίστην· καὶ τὸ Ἐυαγγέλιον πλατὺ καὶ μέγα, καὶ ἆυθις συντετμημένον.
Which our Corderius renders into Latin thus, Works of St. Dionysius tom. 2, p. 3: In this
way at all events the divine Bartholomew says that theology is both copious
and least, and
that the Gospel is ample and great, and again concise.
From which the praised Corderius thus gathers, §3, p. 10:
Whence it is gathered that St. Bartholomew
wrote also some Theological things, as it is likely also
that the other Apostles, being questioned by letter as occasion arose about divine
matters and questions,
answered concerning the same by at least a short writing,
and handed down the most sublime oracles which they had drawn
from God himself, which for some time,
as letters are wont, were preserved; and were communicated to Catholics,
but afterwards perished by the injuries of the times. The same St. Maximus had gathered before in his scholia on
St. Dionysius, in the cited
Corderius, p. 15, writing thus on the said passage: Σημείωσαι καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τὸ ἄπλαστον τοῦ εἶναι ταῦτα τὰ θεῖα συντάγματα τοῦ μεγάλου Διονυσίου. Πρὸς οἷς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προτέροις λόγοις τινῶν τῶν συνόντων τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις μνήμην χρήσεων ἐποιήσατο, νῦν παραπλησίως τοῦ θείου Βαρτολομαίου χρῆσιν ἄγει, ὡς δηλοῖ τὸ φησίν. Εἰ γὰρ ἀγράφως ἦν διδάξας, εἰρήκει ἄν Ἔφη.
These words of St. Maximus Corderius genuinely interprets
in this manner: Hence also note that these
divine Works are without fiction those of the great Dionysius.
For besides that in the earlier books he has cited the sayings of certain men
who had lived with the Apostles,
now similarly he adduces the sentence of the divine Bartholomew;
as the word HE SAYS declares. For if
he had handed it down without writing, he would surely have said HE WAS SAYING.
[101] among whom is St. Maximus, whose passage Combefis holds to be corrupt, Combefis, in the latest Auctarium part 1,
p. 496, thinks an error has crept into this passage of Maximus;
to be emended, as he says, from the very sequence,
and from Pachymeres. I shall not grudge to weigh the learned man's
reasons. Thus he undertakes to prove his opinion: Maximus proves that it is a genuine
work of the Areopagite, from the simplicity with which in the preceding
he cited authorities, χρήσεις, of certain men
who lived with the Apostles; and νῦν παραπλησίως
etc., as above. Here assuredly Combefis strays very far from Maximus'
mind, not having grasped the force of the Greek
words. For τὸ ἄπλαστον, which
he interprets simplicity, is not referred to the manner
of citing authorities, as Combefis refers it, but
to these being the Works of St. Dionysius. Hear the words: Σημείωσαι,
he says, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τὸ ἄπλαστον τοῦ εἶναι ταῦτα τὰ θεῖα συντάγματα, etc. Which you may thus barbarously render:
Note from this too the unfeigned (or the non-fiction)
of these divine Works being, etc. And which
Corderius elegantly expressed: Hence also note
that these divine Works are without fiction those of the great Dionysius.
Let us hear whether Combefis' other points are better.
Having produced the Greek words, he subjoins these things: Where
Corderius: "Now similarly he adduces the sentence of the divine Bartholomew,
as the word He says declares. For
if he had handed it down without writing, he would surely have said,
He said" (Corderius has He was saying). As though forsooth
Maximus means that Bartholomew wrote something,
and that he seems to gather this from Dionysius himself.
Nor otherwise Lancelot; and that Maximus, a most wise man, so thought,
or wished thence to gather it,
is most ridiculous. But it assuredly does not seem ridiculous to me
to understand even a most wise man
as his words sound.
Combefis however thinks another reading must be substituted,
because Pachymeres, whom he adduces,
understands these things of a certain unwritten tradition of Bartholomew,
and whom he calls the most faithful paraphrast not more of Dionysius
than of Maximus himself.
I do not see why he would have Pachymeres the interpreter of Maximus,
for to Maximus, whom he does not even
name in this place, Pachymeres is wholly
contrary: whence he is of no profit here for understanding Maximus'
mind. Receive now what
reading he substitutes. Thus therefore, he says, also Maximus:
"Χρῆσιν ἄγραφον ἄγει, ὡς δηλοῖ τὸ, φησίν· εἰ γὰρ ἐγγράφως ἦν διδάξας, εἰρήκει ἄν Ἔφη. He adduces an unwritten
sentence, as the word,
He says, declares: for if he had handed it down in writing,
he would surely have said, He said." That is indeed more subtle,
he says, than true. But it is not even subtly
substituted. The reason for his substitution he pursues yet more
ridiculously thus: Yet it has something
of moment for conjecture; as that what is by living voice
is signified as of the present, and a flying rumor;
but what is written, of the past, as though ratified,
because it is inserted in books and paper,
or tablets. I am deceived if these things will please the learned;
but they did not please even Combefis himself.
Therefore after a few words: Lest we should thus lightly judge
that Maximus was trifling (who brings in Maximus as lightly trifling except
Combefis?) for ἔφη … let him have written γράφει, in which he subtly hunts
Dionysius' mind. Namely, if he had cited a written sentence
of Bartholomew, he would have been about to say γράφει,
HE WRITES, as he is wont in such cases. Behold, reader, how many
corruptions are necessary in order that at last he may bring in Maximus
disputing ridiculously. For that neither
Dionysius nor Maximus himself kept this in their citations,
that when they cited a written sentence
they should always say γράφει, he writes,
is manifest to those who read their writings. For everywhere
they say φησίν, he says, even of a written sentence,
and more rarely γράφει, he writes. Would not therefore
Maximus ridiculously gather, from the word φησίν, he says, which is even more frequently
used when a written sentence is adduced,
that Bartholomew's sentence
is adduced as uttered by mouth, not written?
[102] Now, lest anyone think Maximus' inference
equally ridiculous but he is proved sound: if his words are kept
entire, and if, as the words sound, he wished
to gather that Bartholomew's written sentence
was cited by Dionysius, because it was cited by
τὸ he says, not he was saying or he said, I shall expound that inference
incongruous, nothing ridiculous, as Combefis thought.
Hear Maximus' words: Now, he says,
similarly he adduces the sentence of the divine Bartholomew:
as the word, He says, declares. For if without
writing he had handed it down, he would surely have said, He was saying.
Which I thus expound. He who cites someone's written
sentence, although he might use also the past tense,
rightly uses the present he says, since the written letter
remains; and the author in the present time still speaks
in his writings. But he who brings forward a sentence uttered by
mouth ought commonly to use the past
perfect or imperfect; for the author in the present
time does not say that sentence; but was saying it,
or said it, while he lived. This indeed is not
observed when we bring in a person as it were present
by prosopopoeia, nor when we describe the sayings or deeds
of that same person. It is observed however
for the most part, when for confirming our own statements
we adduce someone's celebrated sentence uttered by mouth.
Hear how in Acts 20, ℣. 35,
Because he himself SAID, "It is a more blessed thing to give
rather than to receive." Hear Jerome too on
chapter 6 to the Galatians, where he adduces a celebrated saying of John,
not written: The blessed John the Evangelist
… was wont to utter nothing else at each
assembly but this: "Little children, love one another."
Less rightly and less properly in
the former sentence would He says have been said; in the second,
He utters or he is wont to utter, as is plain from the sense.
He who desires more examples, let him read the apophthegms of the ancient
philosophers or of the Fathers, collected by
various men. Thus therefore Maximus too contends
that Dionysius would not have said He says, if he had cited a sentence
uttered by word of mouth, because at that
time when Dionysius was writing Bartholomew was not saying it:
but that he would have said He was saying, which
would have been more proper and genuine. You have, reader,
Maximus' inference, which certainly ought not to seem
ridiculous, since it argues from the custom of citing
commonly received: but whether it plainly settles
the matter must now be examined.
[103] whether St. Bartholomew wrote is uncertain. If it were altogether established that that Work on
Mystical Theology is by the great Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus'
argument would probably enough establish
that the words of Bartholomew adduced were drawn from some writing
of his own: but since concerning the author
of that Work there is the greatest controversy among the learned,
and many contend that the Work is by an author far
later, and endeavor to prove this from this very
authority of St. Bartholomew adduced, this whole reasoning of Maximus
rests on an uncertain foundation:
so that we cannot even certainly infer that this sentence
is to be attributed to St. Bartholomew as
some apophthegm, not written down by him,
but often wont to be repeated. I shall therefore say
briefly what I think of the whole matter. Those who make
St. Dionysius the Areopagite the author of the Mystical Theology
must necessarily admit that this is Bartholomew's
sentence, either drawn from his writings,
or as an apophthegm familiar to the Saint.
Of which sort of apophthegms many are found, both of the ancient philosophers
and of the ancient Fathers,
commended to the memory of posterity by the writings of various men.
But on the said supposition it seems to me more probable
that that sentence was produced from some writing
of the Apostle than handed down by him by word of mouth. For Dionysius' manner
of citing indicates this rather, as Maximus rightly gathers; nor
does it seem incredible that Bartholomew, like the other
Apostles, was consulted about divine matters, and
opened his mind either by a short writing or by a letter;
which writings could have perished by the injuries of time
and the persecutions of tyrants:
as a certain epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
seems to have perished, of which he himself makes mention in the first
to the Corinthians, chapter 5, ℣. 9. Although I think it not altogether
improbable that Dionysius should be understood
of a sentence of Bartholomew handed down by word of mouth, as
Pachymeres understands it in his paraphrase of Dionysius, in
the cited edition of Corderius, tom. 2, p. 22, since
that manner of citing celebrated sayings is not so universal
that it could not be neglected by Dionysius. These things
on the supposition that the Mystical Theology is St. Dionysius';
but since I do not wish here to mix myself in the celebrated question about the Writings
of St. Dionysius, I judge that nothing certain
must be determined about the whole matter. There are those who think
that the sentence about which the dispute is was taken from the Pseudo-gospel
according to Bartholomew,
which is likely, if some other than the great Areopagite
is the author of the Mystical Theology. For the rest,
in Labbe, tom. 1 of the Councils, col. 489, from
book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapters 19 and
20, there is a certain Constitution about a deaconess under the name
of Bartholomew. But since these Constitutions
were forged under Clement's name, I forbear
to treat of them at greater length. Now what and of what sort
are the Acts which are circulated about St. Bartholomew
must necessarily be discussed.
§ XI. The various writers of the Acts.
The Acts Baronius in the Roman Martyrology at the day
XXV of August records these things about St. Bartholomew's Acts:
But certain of his deeds are reported under the name of Abdias;
certain are found under an uncertain author in
the book which is entitled Passions of the apostles:
others like these are extant in ancient manuscript codices:
others, which Metaphrastes recites as written by Joseph:
Perionius too published others; in all
of which (according to the apostle's sentence) let the reader so prove all things,
that he may hold that which is good. Baronius rightly
admonishes that not all things which are read written about St. Bartholomew
are to be held for true,
but that each must be examined: but it will not be equally
easy for all who read those writings to separate
the true from the false: therefore according to our purpose
we shall examine a little more at length how much credit each of the authors
who wrote St. Bartholomew's deeds deserves,
so that the fables, which here occur many, may be eliminated.
Abdias, commonly called the Babylonian, is earlier in time than the rest,
as it seems, although
his age cannot be determined. But that he was
earlier than the rest I gather from this, that otherwise he would not
have passed over the Liparitan translation, most known in the age of the others.
Whence Oudin wrongly will have it that he lived in the X century, tom. 2 On Eccl. Writers, col.
420, by whose argument nothing is proved
that Abdias took anything from Usuard. Of him Sixtus
of Siena, book 2 of the Holy Library, p. 43, writes thus:
The Lives of the twelve Apostles: these, as
James archbishop of Genoa in his book
of Yearly Solemnities, and Peter bishop
of Equilio in book 9 of the Catalogue of Saints report,
Abdias, first bishop of Babylon,
ordained by the Apostles themselves, wrote in Hebrew; which Eutropius,
Abdias' disciple, translated from Hebrew into
Greek, and Julius Africanus into Latin: but
as I suppose, Julius wrote not in Latin, but in Greek.
Lately there came forth from Germany, under the title of this Abdias,
ten books on the History of the apostolic contest,
printed by Oporinus, which Pope Paul the fourth, as unworthy of credit,
rejected among the writings condemned by him. Thus Sixtus, when the impostures of Pseudo-Abdias
were not yet wholly detected.
[105] Bellarmine, On Ecclesiastical Writers,
in Abdias, p. 69 of the edition of the year 1613, says of the Lives
of the apostles of that same Pseudo-Abdias: Abdias' fabulous ones The Lives
of the apostles which are circulated under his name
are more like fables than a true narration.
Nor do modern critics pronounce better of Pseudo-Abdias.
Hear one out of all, Remi Ceillier, tom. 1 of the
General History of Sacred Authors, book 3, chapter 2, art. 3, p.
489: The Acts of the Apostles attributed to Abdias have been rejected
by common consent, as supposititious and full of
fables. The impostor who composed these Acts
puts himself forward as a bishop consecrated by the Apostles themselves, when
they were going into Persia. He says his Work was translated
into the Latin tongue by Julius Africanus,
and cites Hegesippus, a writer of the second century,
whom, if he had been of the first century, or of the time
of the Apostles, he could not have seen. Those Acts
are distributed into two books. Many manners of speaking are found there
which manifestly prove
that the Work was written from the beginning in Latin,
not in Hebrew, as the author desires to persuade us.
Rightly therefore did Tillemont say, tom. 1 of the Monuments,
p. 596, note 3 on James the Greater,
that what is found only in this author
is of no greater weight than if it were found nowhere.
I add, that by this very fact, that certain things are found in
Pseudo-Abdias, the same become suspect to me
if I find them in more recent authors,
since they seem to have flowed from this impure fountain.
[106] For this cause I had determined to abstain wholly from Abdias'
fictions; many more recent writers having followed them, they must therefore be published: but the matter being more maturely weighed
I changed my counsel. For I saw that of the more recent
biographers there is hardly one who has not mixed many things from Abdias'
fables into his own writings, and that therefore
these fables have now prevailed too much to be able
to be buried by silence alone: wherefore I thought that all these
fabulous Acts must be set before the eyes of readers,
that each may see that nothing of the sort is found in the more or less
sincere Acts of Bartholomew, to be subjoined after them.
Hence by the same labor it will be made manifest
what credit Peter bishop of Equilio deserves,
and James of Genoa, Perionius, and other authors,
in those things which they liberally copied from Abdias.
Thus far it has been said of all Pseudo-Abdias' writings.
Let us now hear also what especially certain learned men
have noted about St. Bartholomew's Acts.
Molanus, in the Martyrology of Usuard, at
the ninth Kalends of September, among other things notes these: But concerning his passion, which begins, Three Indias:
(this is the beginning of Bartholomew's Acts by Abdias)
Radulphus de Rivo wrote excellently nearly two hundred years ago:
The Passions of the saints
Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon, and Jude are read perilously
in the divine office; On the observance of the Canons, proposition 11.
[107] Hesselius' censure of these. After Molanus' Martyrology cited,
there is read printed the Censure of Histories of John Hesselius,
where in chapter 8 these things about Bartholomew's Acts
are found.
The Passion of saint Bartholomew, which begins:
Three Indias there are said to be among the historiographers,
I do not receive, although I know it is greatly esteemed
(at that time, namely). Not only because the demon
says of him that the Angels do not permit him
to be wearied or to hunger: and because it says that he is clothed in purple
and gems; which things are incredible,
because Christ converted the world not through one who
bore himself as a noble in his garments,
but through those who despised outward adornment. Nor
is the disciple greater than the Lord, who was wearied and
hungered. Nor do I reject the history only on account of the words of the devil, which
might be called lies; but
because the Apostle himself says in his own person that
from the beginning of the world none offered a vow of virginity
before Mary. (Whether this reason be solid enough I do not here
dispute: Hesselius endeavors to prove it by many arguments,
but no fewer could be replied. He who desires
this may see it in Papebroch's Responses,
part 2, article 15.) Likewise St.
Bartholomew says that as a hawk takes a bird,
so the devil snatched Christ, and set him among the wild beasts
in the desert, whereas Luke, Matthew,
and Mark expressly say that Christ was led by his own spirit
into the desert. And this History says that the Lord
said to the devil in the first temptation:
I will cast thee out of the dominion which by the casting down
of the first man thou hast usurped. Certainly if he had
said this, the devil would have known him to be the Son of God:
nor would he have tempted a second time, saying: If thou art the Son of God.
Then it says that the devil associated with himself another apostate
angel, who is called Mammoma: as though forsooth
the devil were not himself Mammon, or
as though he alone could not tempt enough. Then
it sets down a single temptation of the devil, in which it says that he
bore Christ to a high mountain and upon
the pinnacle of the temple, whereas Matthew and Luke expressly
distinguish the temptation made on the pinnacle of the temple
from that which was made on the high mountain. Thus
Hesselius. More I shall observe in the notes, where I shall also
assign whence Abdias seems to have borrowed many things.
[108] Encomiastic Orations on St. Bartholomew Besides the fables of Abdias we have concerning St. Bartholomew
three encomiastic Orations of Greek
authors; namely of St. Theodore the Studite, of a certain unknown Joseph,
and of Nicetas the Paphlagonian, of
which Tillemont treats, tom. 1 of the Monuments, p.
643, in the third note on Bartholomew. On p. 644 he thus
lowers their credit: Besides that the time
in which Joseph, St. Theodore, and Nicetas lived
does not attribute great authority to them,
we see that they destroy one another in the principal fact,
that is, in the Saint's death. Thus Tillemont,
too unfair toward the said authors, whom he seems to hold in nearly the same
place as Abdias. But indeed, even if
what they wrote about St. Bartholomew's death can scarcely
be reconciled, it does not follow that all erred,
but one of them. What he objects besides pertains to
the translation of the body, to be examined in the Saint's posthumous
glory. The same author, p. 643,
thinks that Joseph is more ancient than St. Theodore;
but I shall presently show that the contrary is more probable.
More ancient therefore among them, as greater in authority,
seems to be St. Theodore the Studite, of whom
Bellarmine speaks thus, On Ecclesiastical Writers, at the year
820.
[109] Saint Theodore the Studite, a man to be admired, and mighty in work and word … St. Theodore the Studite's, Renowned for miracles, he passed to heaven in the year of the Lord DCCCXXVI.
Further, that Theodore was most holy and
most learned is confessed among all; so that
there can be no suspicion that he wished to write
fables: and that he proceeded prudently is proved from this,
that he preferred to narrate few things, and those approved to himself,
rather than to write many and uncertain things. To me
therefore, whatever some critics may have thought, it is a scruple
not to give credit to such a man in those things
which he handed down to memory about the deeds of St. Bartholomew;
as I shall show also afterwards about the translations of the body.
[110] St. Theodore's Sermon was published long ago
by d'Achery, tom. 2 of the reprinted Spicilegium, p. 124 translated by St. Bertharius,
and following, as Anastasius the Librarian translated it.
We have the same from various
manuscript codices: first from codex 696 of the queen of Sweden,
then from an ancient manuscript Passionary of the Neapolitan
monastery of St. Mary of Monte Oliveto; a third
manuscript copy was sent from Capua to Bolland
by Fr. Silvester Acosta of Capua, rector of the church
of SS. Cosmas and Damian de Quadropanis.
Further, the latter two of these agree together most aptly
even as to their words; but from the Anastasian
translation they often dissent as to phrasing,
so that it cannot be doubted that they are of another
translator. And that translator in the third
is said to have been St. Bertharius, abbot of Cassino,
concerning whom Leo of Ostia in the Cassinese Chronicle, book 1,
chapter 33: This man, exceedingly lettered, composed several tracts
and sermons, and also verses in
praise of the Saints. Whose Anticimenon
on very many questions both of the old and of the new Testament
is here kept: also some books on
the art of grammar, etc. He was made abbot, as
is said in the notes there, in the year 856 or 857, at which
time also Anastasius the Librarian flourished.
[111] From this translation therefore of Bertharius I shall publish the Studite's
Oration, the manuscripts being collated among themselves. who added a second Translation of the body;
There is prefixed to the Oration a preface, which is also
found in d'Achery, but mutilated, which
seems to be of the same author. There is also subjoined to the Studite's Oration
the narration of the translation to Benevento,
which is read subjoined in d'Achery, whence I think it doubtful
whether the narration of that translation
is to be attributed to Anastasius or to Bertharius; nay rather
I judge it must be adjudged to Bertharius
rather than to Anastasius, both because Anastasius in his epistle
to Aio, bishop of Benevento, makes no mention of a narration
added by himself, and
because it seems to have been delivered on the feast of the translation itself, from
these words, partly omitted in d'Achery: By what
occasion thereafter, and in what order it was translated from that same
island to Benevento, WHENCE TODAY'S
*FESTIVITY IS CELEBRATED, MUST BE SET FORTH*
FORTHWITH. But Anastasius translated the Studite's Oration
that he might send it to the bishop of Benevento,
not that he might recite it before an assembly.
But Bertharius could declaim it to his own,
or at least deliver it to be read out at the feast of the translation.
Then finally because this narration
in two manuscripts is read joined to the Oration translated by
Bertharius: but whether d'Achery found it joined
with Anastasius' translation is uncertain
to me. These things, if the said History of the translation
is to be ascribed to one only: but since
the d'Achery edition and our Mss. disagree in various places,
especially in assigning the days on which the Saint is venerated, it can
be that each author subjoined this History
to his own translation.
[112] Joseph's, perhaps the Hymnographer's, There follows the sermon of the anonymous Joseph, which
Surius published in Latin from Metaphrastes, tom. 3, at
the day XXIV of August; and which I find noted by Allatius,
On the writings of the Simeons, p. 103, under this
title: Joseph's εγκώμιον εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Βαρθολομαῖον τὸν Ἀπόστολον.
Who that Joseph is is not established;
yet by probable conjecture I should think he was
St. Joseph the Hymnographer, who flourished not in the same century as St.
Theodore, but later than he;
and likewise, as he did, fought excellently against the Iconoclast
heretics. His Acts Papebroch published,
tom. 1 of April from p. 265, from which,
with the aforesaid Papebroch, I take this conjecture.
It is narrated there in the Life written by John the deacon
that Joseph was presented by someone with
relics of St. Bartholomew, built him a chapel,
was taught many things by him, and among the rest received the faculty
of composing sacred hymns. All which
prove that Bartholomew was a singular patron to Joseph.
Whence not ineptly the praised
Papebroch in the notes there, letter B, writes thus:
Concerning saint Bartholomew there is extant … an Oration of Joseph
τοῦ ταπεινοῦ καὶ ἐλαχίστου, the humble and least:
whom you may deservedly judge to be the Hymnographer. And on the XXV
of August, at the day of the translation, there is found a canon composed
to this acrostic:
Ὕμνοις γεραίρω τὸν καλόν μου προστάτην.
Where, because the poet calls Bartholomew Προστάτην, his president,
patron, protector,
and that in an acrostic, you may recognize Joseph as the author,
although the name is nowhere expressed.
Since therefore that Oration seems to have been written about the same time,
and the author everywhere shows a singular
love toward St. Bartholomew, I think it probable
that it must be attributed to this Joseph, who from composing hymns
was called the Hymnographer;
although another Joseph also flourished in the same century,
the brother of St. Theodore the Studite, and archbishop
of Thessalonica, whose Acts Pinius gave, tom.
III of July from p. 710, of whom also a certain epistle
is extant in Baronius at the year 808, num. 18,
and an Oration on the cross in Gretser, tom. 2, p.
1200. For the rest, whoever was the author of this Oration,
he seems to have known few things about St. Bartholomew,
and therefore to have written few: and what
he hands down about the Saint's death seems less probable.
What Baronius reprehends in him at the year
54, num. 3, about the cultus of the serpent among the people of Hierapolis,
has been examined in §8, and will be further discussed in the notes.
[113] and Nicetas the Paphlagonian's. I shall subjoin finally in the fourth place the encomiastic Oration of Nicetas the Paphlagonian, which
Combefis published in Greek and Latin in the latest Auctarium
of the Fathers, part 1 from p. 392, and illustrated
with notes. This agrees well enough with the preceding,
except that it narrates more and more distinctly the Saint's
deeds. If anything less probable appear, I shall observe it in the notes.
But I would have the reader admonished that hardly anything
occurs in these three Orations which
we have not treated in our commentary; yet I have wished
to exhibit them here, that all things pertaining to saint
Bartholomew, in any way worthy of credit, which I could find,
might be had joined together. I had further determined to exhibit the Oration
as the aforesaid Combefis rendered it into Latin, but while
I compare the Greek more accurately with the Latin,
I sometimes find the translator straying, and everywhere
so obscure that I judged the Oration would by no means please Latin
ears unless a new translation were prepared.
I therefore set my hand to the work,
and made the whole Latin from the Greek, as
the curious reader will find it below.
FABULOUS ACTS
By Pseudo-Abdias the Babylonian.
From a Ms. of St. Martin at Trier, collated with other Mss., and with printed exemplars.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
BHL Number: 1002
A. Pseudo-Abdias.
CHAPTER I.
At Bartholomew's coming into India Astaroth is made mute, Berith is consulted, demons are cast out, the mysteries of the faith are expounded to king Polymius.
Bartholomew's presence in India There are asserted by the historiographers to be three a Indias.
The first is India, which reaches to Ethiopia:
the second, which reaches to the Medes: the third, which makes
the end: for on one side it has the region of darkness, b
on the other side the ocean sea. Into this c
India therefore, coming, Bartholomew the apostle
entered a temple in which there was an idol by name
Astaroth, d and as a stranger began to remain there.
In this idol was such a demon as would say
that he cured the sick and the blind, but without doubt
that he gave light to those whom he himself injured. For they were without
the true God, whence it was necessary that they should be mocked by a false god:
for a false god mocks by this art
those who have not the true God: he makes for them
pains, infirmities, losses, dangers, and gives
responses, that they may sacrifice to him; and when they are not injured
by him, this seems to fools as though they were healed by
him: but he succors not by healing, as they believe,
but by ceasing to injure; and when he ceases to injure,
he is believed to have cured.
[2] Whence it came to pass that, while Saint Bartholomew the apostle
remained there, Astaroth gave no responses, the idol Astaroth is struck dumb,
and could succor none of those whom he had injured.
And when the temple was now full of the sick,
and to those daily sacrificing he gave no response
according to custom; the sick, brought from
far regions, lay there, and the priests
who were there sacrificed to that same idol. But
when in that temple, as has been said, the demon could
give no response, and they profited neither by sacrificing
nor by mangling themselves after their manner,
they went on to another city, where another demon
was venerated, whose name was Berith; e and
sacrificing there they began to inquire why their god
Astaroth gave them no responses.
[3] [and the demon in another idol, Berith, being asked the cause, says it is Bartholomew's coming,] But Berith answering says: Your god
is held so captive and bound, tightly fettered with fiery chains,
that he dares neither to sigh nor to speak,
from that hour in which the apostle Bartholomew
entered there. They say: And who is
this Bartholomew? The demon answered: He is the friend
of God almighty; therefore he came hither into this
province, that he may make void all the deities which the Indians
venerate.
[4] whom he makes known to them by signs, But the worshipers said to the idol Berith:
Tell us the signs of Bartholomew, that we may be able to find him
him, for among many thousands of men we
cannot recognize him. The demon answered: He has black hair
of the head, and curly: white flesh;
large eyes; even and straight nostrils; ears
covered by the hair of his head; a long beard, having
a few grey hairs; a moderate stature, which can be judged neither
tall nor short. He is clothed in a white colobium f
striped g with purple; he is clad in a white cloak,
having at each corner purple gems. h
It is twenty-six years since he put on those very garments
which he now wears: they are never
soiled, they never grow old; likewise
his sandals for XXVI years never grow old.
by night, he prays to God. k His voice is like a mighty trumpet.
[5] and he relates his privileges. Angels of God walk with him, who do not
permit him to be wearied, nor to hunger, nor to thirst, but
he ever perseveres with the same countenance and mind. At every
hour he remains cheerful and glad, he provides for all things,
he knows all things, he speaks and understands every tongue of all
nations. And behold, this that you have asked,
and the response which I give, he already knows.
For the angels of God serve him and announce it
to him; and when you shall have begun to seek him, if he wills, he will show
himself to you; if he does not will, you will not be able to find him.
l[6] Bartholomew being sought, and a demon cast out, he is found, But I beg you that, when you shall have found him,
you ask him on my behalf that he come not hither, and that those angels
who are with him do not do to me what they did
to my colleague Astaroth: and saying these things the demon
fell silent. But returning they began to go about
and to inquire into the faces and habit of all strangers,
and for two days they did not find him.
But it happened that a certain man full of a demon cried out
and said: Apostle of God Bartholomew,
thy prayers burn me. Then the Apostle said
to him: m Be dumb and go out of him; and straightway the man
was freed, who for many years had been
harassed by him.
[7] he is summoned by King Polymius, whose daughter also he frees from a demon: But Polymius, n king of that same city (al. province),
having a lunatic daughter,
it was announced to him about this demoniac: and he sent
and begged him, saying: My daughter is grievously vexed;
I ask that, as thou hast freed Speustius, who for many
years suffered, so thou wouldst free my daughter also.
And rising he went on to him: but when the Apostle saw
her bound with chains, because she attacked all with her bite,
and those whom she could hold she tore
and struck, so that none dared to approach
her; then the Apostle bade her be loosed. The attendants say
to him: And who dares to lay a hand on
her? The Apostle says to him: I already hold bound
the enemy who was in her: and do you still fear
her? Go and loose her, and lift her up,
and refresh her: and tomorrow bring her to
me. And going out they did as the Apostle bade,
and the demon could vex her no more.
[8] Then the king loaded o camels with gold, silver,
gems, to Polymius, his gifts being refused, he preaches Christ born and garments, and began to seek the Apostle,
and utterly did not find him: and all things
were carried back to his palace. But it happened,
when the night had passed and the dawn of the coming day began,
that the Apostle appeared alone with the king alone, the door
being shut, [p] in his chamber: and said to him: Why
hast thou sought me all day with gold and silver,
gems and garments? Those gifts are necessary to those
who seek earthly things: but I desire nothing earthly,
nothing carnal. Whence I would have thee know
that the Son of God deigned to be born through the womb of a Virgin
together with man, so that the man conceived in the Virgin's womb
had with him in those very secret places of the Virgin
God, who made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all things which are in them. He, born together with man
from the womb of the Virgin, began to have a beginning
that he might be man, who never had a beginning;
but he himself was always the beginning, and gave a beginning to all things,
whether visible or invisible creatures.
[9] But this Virgin, since she abhorred every
man, of a Virgin, was herself the first to vow to almighty God the vow
of keeping her virginity: and I said the first for this reason,
because from the time man was made at the beginning of the world,
none before her offered this vow to God.
She therefore first among women established this in
her heart, that she should say to God: Lord, I offer thee
my virginity: whereas she had learned this from no man
by word, nor, invited by example to imitation,
did she resolve to remain a virgin especially for the love
of God. To her suddenly, shut in
her chamber, Gabriel the angel of God appeared, shining like the sun:
and when she, struck with terror,
was afraid, the angel said to her: Fear not,
Mary; thou hast found grace before God: behold,
thou shalt conceive and bear a Son, and shalt call his name
Jesus. But she, laying aside fear, constantly said:
How shall this be? For I know not man:
that is, I have resolved this, that I shall not know him.
To whom the angel answered: For this the Holy
Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow
thee, and therefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the holy Son
of God.
[10] He therefore, when he had been born, allowed himself
to be tempted by that devil tempted by the devil, who had conquered the first man,
by persuading him to eat of the tree forbidden by the Lord.
He therefore permitted him to come to him,
and, as he had said to Adam, that is, to the first man,
through the woman: Eat, and he ate; and therefore
the first man, cast out of paradise and exiled in this
world, begot the whole race of men; so also
he would say to him: Tell these stones that they be made loaves,
and eat, that thou hunger not. To whom he answered: Not
in bread alone doth man live; but in every word
of God. This devil therefore, who by the man eating
had conquered, lost his victory by the one fasting
and despising him. For it was fitting that he
who had conquered the son of a virgin should be conquered by the Son of a Virgin.
[11] The king says to him: And how didst thou say that this
was the first Virgin the conqueror, of whom was born man
with God? The Apostle answered: I give God thanks
that thou hearest attentively. The first man therefore was called Adam;
he was made of earth: but the earth,
his mother, of which he was made, was a virgin;
because it was neither polluted with human blood, nor had it been opened
for the burial of any dead man.
It was fitting therefore, as I said, that he who had conquered the son of a virgin
should be conquered by the Son of a Virgin: and as
he therefore conquered, because he acted with crafty art that he should eat
against the prohibition, and be driven from paradise,
and, being driven out, man should have paradise closed: so
this Son of the Virgin acted, that he might permit the devil's art
to come to him. But his art was such, that
as a hawk snatches what bird it can, so
he should snatch the Son of man of the Virgin, and set him
among the wild beasts in the desert; and for forty days
he did not say to him: Eat: because he did not see him hungering:
for the devil himself had determined this in
his heart, that if after forty days had passed he had not hungered,
he would know for certain that he was true God.
But he was true God, nay and is; but he is so
believed true God that, remaining also true man,
he permitted himself to be understood only by
those who persevere with a pure heart and pious works. [q]
But this Satan, when he saw him hunger after forty
days, being made as it were secure
that he was not God, said to him: Why dost thou hunger?
Say that these stones be made loaves, and eat.
And the Lord to him: Hear, devil: if thou therefore
hast dominion over men because the father of all men,
Adam, obeying thy persuasion, despised the law of God
laid upon him: behold I, keeping God's law,
will not eat, that I may overcome thee.
I, a man, have come for this, that I may cast thee out of the
dominion which by the casting down of the first man
thou hast usurped for thyself. Then the devil saw himself shut out,
and associated with himself another apostate angel, who
is called Mammon: and produced immense
weights of gold and silver and gems, and all
the glory which is in this world: and said
to him: All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt adore me. He says
to him: Go back, Satan; for it is written:
The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.
There was also another temptation of pride, which he practiced on high
upon the pinnacle of the temple, that he who once
had conquered man, the son of a virgin earth, might be
thrice conquered by the man, the Son of the holy Virgin.
[12] the mission of the Apostles, And as he who has come off victor over a tyrant sends
his companions, that in all places where the tyrant
held possession they may set up the titles of their king, victor and
triumpher: so this man Christ Jesus,
who conquered, sent us into all provinces, that we may drive out
the ministers of the devil who dwell in the statues throughout the temples,
and take away the men who venerate them from
the power of him who has been conquered. Therefore
we do not receive gold and silver, but despise them,
as he himself despised them: because we desire to be rich there
where his rule alone reigns;
where neither languor nor sickness nor sadness nor
death are known to have any place; where there is perpetual felicity
and unending beatitude; and
joy without end, and everlasting delights: and
therefore, having entered your temple, I hold the demon who
in the idol gave responses, bound by the angels of him who
sent me. And if thou shalt be baptized
and permit thyself to be enlightened, I will make thee see
and know from how great an evil thou hast escaped.
[13] and he preaches the frauds of the demon. For as to all those who lie sick in the temple,
hear by what art the devil seemed to cure them —
he who conquered the first man, and, as I have
often already said, through that very victory seems to have most wicked power,
in some indeed greater, in
others less; in those who sin less, greater
in those who sin more. The devil therefore himself makes
men sick by his art, and persuades them to believe
in idols, that he may hold their souls in his power.
He ceases now to injure them, when they have said to a stone
or to any metal whatever: Thou art my God. But
because that same demon who was in that statue is held
conquered by me, he can give no response to those sacrificing
and adoring him. But if thou wilt prove
that it is so, I will bid him enter his statue,
and will make him confess this very thing, that he is bound
and cannot give responses. The king says to him:
Tomorrow at the first hour of the day the pontiffs will be ready
to sacrifice to him, and I will come thither, that I may see
this wonderful deed.
ANNOTATIONS.
a Wonderful
is this division of the Indias. Our Abdias seems to be no better a geographer
than a historiographer. For this assertion of three Indias so divided
you would no more find, I suppose, among the historiographers, than you would find
the rest of his fables written before him. This therefore, like
the rest, seems ineptly invented.
know the man's genius for inventing; he wished to bring on the scene idols destroyed by the Apostle, but the inept fable-monger did not attend that the idols of the Indians have other names, and those of the Phoenicians and Palestinians others. For the rest, the interpreters commonly think that Astarte was Venus. He who desires more of these things, let him go to Calmet's dissertation on the Gods of the Phoenicians, prefixed to his Commentary on the minor Prophets, from p. 47.
to describe a garment distinguished with purple, artfully interwoven with minute stripes,
which assuredly is more splendid than befits a poor disciple of Christ.
h Here
he plainly attaches a royal garment to the Apostle: for it belongs to kings to wear garments distinguished with purple
and gems, not to Apostles; but it is difficult for a liar
to invent things suited to each person.
did the Lord will his Apostles to be, to whom he offered his cup to be drunk, and whom he willed
to be imitators of himself in bearing labors and the discomforts of life;
he did not promise them such a service of angels whereby all
the discomforts of mortal life should be warded off from them; for this belongs to the blessed
reigning in heaven, not to Apostles warring on earth. All these things therefore let the prudent reader
cast away as trifles, as follies, as mere fictions of Abdias, in
whatever author after Abdias they may finally be found.
variously is this name expressed. But that Polymius, unknown to all the ancient
historians except Abdias and his followers, seems to have been born in
our Abdias' brain; nay, and taught in Scripture, for presently he brings him in
speaking in these words of Scripture: My daughter is grievously vexed, Matthew 15, ℣. 22. But the whole of this miracle has been transferred hither from various places of the Gospel, as the diligent reader will easily observe.
o Do you see,
reader, how he exhibits to us a monarch of India? He loads camels with gold, silver,
gems, garments. But so great a man, endowed with such wealth, could not free
the Apostle from death, by whom he is feigned to have been taught the faith; but
was content with the rest to give him to burial: which things assuredly do not cohere well enough
among themselves. Nor is the manner of offering these gifts less ineptly
invented. For what need was there that he should load camels? Could he not
call the Apostle to himself, and offer in his presence from his treasures as much as
pleased him? But he had read in 4 Kings 10 that the queen of Saba came to Solomon: With camels carrying spices, and gold exceeding without measure, and precious gems. So he wished Polymius too to send to Bartholomew.
p Now he exhibits Bartholomew entering with the door shut, as Christ entered to the Apostles, just as he had shortly before brought in Bartholomew sought in vain, as the Jews sought Jesus on the feast day.
q Many
of these temptations are omitted in the Basel edition, because, as
I suppose, they seemed little consonant with the Gospel. See Hesselius' Censure on
this temptation, § XI. But what the Apostle is here feigned to say, that Christ permitted himself to be understood only by those who persevere with a pure heart and pious works, is most absurd
and heretical: all the things also which follow are so inept that
we must say that this fable-monger indeed read the Scripture, which everywhere
appears, but by no means understood it.
CHAPTER II.
The idols broken, the temple consecrated, Polymius converted with his people, the death of the Apostle, etc.
The demon confesses himself bound, But it happened on the next day, at the first hour of the day,
while they were sacrificing, that the demon began to cry out:
Cease, wretches, to sacrifice to me, lest you suffer worse things
than I, who am bound with fiery chains
by the angels of Jesus Christ, whom the Jews crucified,
thinking that he could be held by death:
but he took captive death itself, which is our queen;
and bound our very prince, the husband
of death, with fiery bonds: and on the third day
he rose again, victor over death and the devil: and gave the sign
of his cross to his Apostles, and sent them through
all the parts of the world, of whom one is this man
who holds me bound. I beg you to ask him
on my behalf, that he let me go to another province.
[15] Then holy Bartholomew said: Confess,
most unclean demon, and opens his frauds, concerning all these who
here suffer sicknesses, who it is that injured them.
The demon answered: Our prince the devil, even
as he is bound, himself sends us to men,
that we may injure them. First indeed their flesh,
since over the souls of men we cannot
have power unless they shall have sacrificed: but
when they have sacrificed to us for the health of their body,
we cease to harm them, because we now begin to have power
over their souls. Now therefore by
this, that we cease from injuring them, we seem
to cure them, and are venerated as gods, whereas assuredly
we are demons, ministers of him whom Jesus the Son of the Virgin,
set upon the cross, bound. From the day therefore
on which his disciple the apostle Bartholomew came hither,
I am consumed, tightly bound with burning chains;
and therefore I speak, because he has commanded me: for
I should not have dared to speak in his presence, nor our prince
himself. The Apostle says to him: Why dost thou not save
all these who have come together to thee? The demon says
to him: When we injure bodies, unless
we have injured souls, a the bodies continue in their injury.
The Apostle says to him: And how do you injure
souls? The demon answered: When they have believed us
to be gods, and have sacrificed to us, God withdraws himself
from those who sacrifice, and we do not take away the wounds of the bodies,
but pass over to the soul.
[16] Then the Apostle says to the people: Behold
whom you thought a god to cure you. The Apostle preaches God to the people: Hear now
the true God our creator, who dwells in the heavens,
not in vain stones: and, if you wish that
I should pray for you, and that all these should receive health,
take down this idol and break it, and when you
have done this, I will consecrate this temple to the name of Christ;
then I will consecrate you all in this temple with the baptism of Christ.
[17] Then at the king's order all the peoples put
ropes the idols are overthrown; and pulleys, and could not overthrow
the image. Then the Apostle said to them: Loose its bonds;
and when they had loosed them all, he says to
the demon who was in it: If thou wilt that I should not
cause thee to be sent into the abyss, go out of this image,
and break it, and go into a desert land
where no bird flies, nor plowman plows, nor the voice
of man resounds. And he, going out at once, shattered
all kinds of idols, and not only the great
idol itself, but also the lesser ones, wherever they had been set one by one
for the ornament of the temple, he crumbled,
so that he destroyed all the painting. Then
all with one voice began to cry out: One God
almighty, whom Bartholomew preaches.
[18] and, the Apostle praying, an Angel appears cleansing the temple, Then Bartholomew, spreading his hands
to heaven, said: God of Abraham, and God of Isaac,
and God of Jacob, who for our redemption
didst send thy only-begotten Son, our Lord,
that he might redeem with his blood all of us who were servants
of sin, and make us sons to thee. Who art known
to be the true God from this, that thou art always the same,
and remainest unchangeable, one God the Father
with the Son, one also with the
Holy Spirit, truly threefold and truly one, one
Father unbegotten, one Son only-begotten, our Lord
Jesus Christ, one Holy Spirit,
the enlightener and leader of our souls, who
proceeds from the Father and is in the Father and in thy Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, who in his name
gave us this power, that we should heal the sick,
give light to the blind, cleanse the lepers,
loose the paralytics, put demons to flight,
and raise the dead: and he said to us:
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall ask my Father in my name,
he will give you. I ask therefore
in his name, that all this multitude may be saved,
that all may know that thou art the one God
in heaven and on earth and in the sea, who restorest salvation
through the same our Lord Jesus
Christ, who with thee and with the Holy Spirit lives
and reigns unto the ages of ages. And when all
had answered, Amen: b an angel of the Lord appeared,
shining like the sun, having wings, and flying around
the four corners of the temple, carved with his finger
on the squared stones the sign of the cross, and said:
Thus says the Lord who sent me: As all of you
are cleansed from your infirmity, so have I cleansed
this temple from all filth and from its inhabitant,
whom the Apostle of God bade go into a place
deserted by men: and he bade me first show him
to you, and, seeing him, do not be afraid;
but such a sign as I have carved on these stones,
such do you make with your finger upon your foreheads,
and all evils will flee from you.
[19] who also dismisses the demon after showing him to the people: Then he showed them a huge Egyptian,
blacker than soot, with a sharp face and a long beard;
hair down to his feet, eyes fiery like
heated iron, sending out sparks; from his mouth
and nostrils issued a sulfurous flame:
having thorny wings like a c screech-owl; he was bound
with his hands behind his back, tightly held with fiery chains. And the angel
of the Lord said to him: Since thou hast heard the voice of the Apostle,
and hast cleansed all kinds of pollutions from this
temple, according to the Apostle's promise
I will loose thee, that thou mayest go where there is no converse of men,
nor can be, and there be until the day
of judgment. And when he had loosed him, he, sending forth a most foul
howling of dreadful voice, flew away, and
nowhere appeared. But the angel of the Lord, all
beholding, flew up to heaven.
[20] King Polymius is converted with his people; Then the king together with his wife and two sons
and with all his army, and with all the people
that was saved, of his city and of the neighboring
cities which belonged to his kingdom,
believing was baptized, and, laying aside the diadem
of his head and the purple, began not d to leave the Apostle.
[21] these things being heard, king Astyages Meanwhile the pontiffs of all the temples, gathering themselves,
went off to king Astyages, e
his elder brother, and said: Thy brother
has been made a disciple of a magician, who claims our temples
for himself, and breaks our gods.
While they reported this weeping, behold, the pontiffs of other cities
also began weeping to report the same.
[22] Then king Astyages, indignant, sent a thousand
armed men with the pontiffs, orders Bartholomew to be seized: that wherever
they found the Apostle they should bring him bound
to him: and when they had done this, king Astyages
said to him: Art thou he who overturned my brother?
To whom the Apostle said: I did not overturn him, but
converted him. The king says to him: Art thou he who
made our Gods to be crumbled? The Apostle says to him: I gave
power to the demons who were in them, that
they themselves might shatter the vain idols in which they dwelt,
so that all men, leaving error, might believe
in the almighty God who dwells in the heavens. The king says
to him: As thou hast made my brother leave
his God, and believe in thy God; so
I too will make thee leave thy God, and believe in my
god, and sacrifice to him. The Apostle says to him:
I showed the God whom thy brother venerated
bound and fettered; and I made him
break his own image: if thou canst do
this to my God, thou wilt be able to provoke me to sacrifice:
but if thou canst do nothing to my God,
I will crumble all thy gods, and
do thou believe in my God. While he was saying this, it was announced
to the king that his god Baldat f had fallen and
had gone to pieces.
[23] Then the king rent g the purple garment with which
he was clad: and to be slain. and caused holy Bartholomew the apostle
to be beaten with cudgels, and when he had been beaten ordered him
to be beheaded.
[24] But h the innumerable peoples of twelve cities coming,
Polymius, having buried Bartholomew, is made bishop. who through him had believed
together with the king, took away his body with hymns and with
all glory, and built for him a basilica
of wonderful size, and in it placed
his body. But it happened on the thirtieth day of his burial
that king Astyages was seized by a demon;
he came to his tomb, and all the pontiffs,
full of demons, confessing his apostolate,
thus died. And there arose fear and trembling
upon all the unbelievers, and all believed
and were baptized by the presbyters whom
the apostle Bartholomew had ordained. And it happened
by revelation, with all the people and all the clergy acclaiming,
that king Polymius is ordained bishop,
and began to work signs in the name of the Apostle: and he was
in the episcopate XX years; and all things being completed
and well ordered and well established,
he passed to the Lord; to whom is honor and
glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
a Here
again many follies are omitted in the Basel edition: as though those who go to a demon to be cured by him
had not injured their souls enough.
Nor is he mindful of himself, as liars are wont: for before he said that the cause why the demon did not cure
them was Bartholomew's coming, now that they did not
sacrifice, whereas presently he brought in the priests sacrificing to the demon. But
the like I shall not observe hereafter, since all things are nearly equally inept.
b Amen. Forsooth
all suddenly knew the manner of praying and responding in the Church, who
had never heard even a word about Christ and the Church, or about his manner of praying:
how prettily are these things invented!
so called from its dreadful screech, and of evil omen; but not sufficiently
known. This whole description of the demon, like the rest of Abdias', is no less ridiculous and
inept than it is horrible.
d This
importunate piety of the king is here ineptly feigned: for the Apostle would not have permitted
that Polymius, so necessary in a converted kingdom, in which the Christian faith
might strike firm roots, should straightway abdicate his kingdom, and expose the Apostle
and all the newly converted to the caprice of the heathen, either
to be slaughtered or again perverted. Nor less ridiculously is the whole kingdom together
feigned converted — twelve cities, as he afterwards says, and an innumerable
people; whereas afterwards he writes that only a thousand men were sent, who wherever they found the Apostle, surely in Polymius' kingdom, should bring him bound to
Astyages. I know it can here be said that Polymius perhaps was viceroy for his brother
Astyages; but the manner of speaking does not sufficiently permit this; and
he had before attached greater riches to Polymius, when he said that he loaded camels with gold, silver,
gems, and precious garments, than would seem to befit a viceroy.
g That
custom of rending the garments in great grief was most usual among the Hebrews
and the neighboring Eastern peoples, as is ascertained from many places of Scripture.
It is read also in Virgil: Latinus goes with garment rent. The same
Herodotus, book 1, writes of the Lacedaemonians. Of the Indians this is not
ascertained by me. I should think it was transferred to the Indians by our fable-monger
from the custom of the Hebrews, most known in the Scriptures.
h This
forsooth Astyages would have allowed, that they should both bury the body with such
pomp and build so great a basilica for him? But he appends a fine catastrophe
for the whole fable. Astyages and all the pontiffs, seized by a demon,
come to the Apostle's tomb (other Mss. have temple), confess his apostolate,
all die, almost like Antiochus
Epiphanes, 2 Maccabees chapter 9. Then all the unbelievers are converted,
all are washed with baptism: Polymius is consecrated bishop. But by whom?
For no mention has been made of any bishop in India. He administers the episcopate
for twenty years. Of what city, I beseech you, or province? Which he ought not
to have been ignorant of or to have kept silent, who did not keep silent about the years of the episcopate. Things
being well established, he dies. Whence then did it come about that India so quickly returned to its idols?
That there is no memory of Polymius among other ancient Writers?
This forsooth our Abdias does not care about — most bold indeed in inventing, but
not sufficiently apt for setting forth his fictions in a likely manner. You have here, reader, the whole fabulous
Passion of St. Bartholomew, as it exists among us in various Mss., from which you will gather what
credit is deserved by the things which Perionius, Peter of Equilio, James of Genoa,
Ferrarius in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, and others have in common with these fabulous Acts:
for I cannot doubt that they flowed from this most impure fountain.
Certainly nothing of all these things is read in the three Orations
presently to be subjoined, nothing in any ancient and approved author: whence for refuting
those things which they drew from hence,
certain things being passed over which seemed too absurd, I judged it enough if I should assign this fountain from which they drew.
ENCOMIASTIC ORATION,
By St. Theodore the Studite,
From three very ancient Mss., collated with d'Achery's edition.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
BHL Number: 1005
By Theodore the Studite.
PREFACE OF THE TRANSLATOR, AS IT SEEMS.
Preface concerning St. Theodore the Studite. How the venerable body of blessed Bartholomew the apostle,
to be exalted with the solemn proclamation of all praises,
was, from Armenia, a province of the Indians, a
after the death of king and pontiff Polimius,
some years having slipped by, through the perfidy of the wicked
and unbelieving, nay rather by the nod of divine
disposition, wonderfully carried over to the island of Lipari,
has been disclosed by the truthful relation of a certain Theodore,
Which Theodore, namely, at the city of Constantinople,
was in the times of b Hadrian
and Leo, c Roman Pontiffs — a man exceedingly
wonderful, who, since he was strong not only in knowledge but also
in the powers of signs, was made abbot of the imperial
and distinguished monasteries, namely of Studium d and
of the Saccudians; e who, ever
persisting in communion with the apostolic See, repressed by the strength of his mind
the threats of heretics and the madness of emperors, even
when afflicted with torments,
and moreover, full of the grace of the holy Spirit, composed
several small works, among which he also published in the Greek
tongue a sermon on blessed Bartholomew, sufficiently useful,
which by the Greek word is called Encomion,
which in Latin is expressed Proclamation or praise,
which, faithfully translated for the knowledge of Latin-speakers, that
it may take away every scruple from the breasts of the wavering,
and repress the wicked tongues of the envious and detracting,
and instruct ignorance
of the unknowing, is consequently to be read: for his narration
has itself in this manner.
ANNOTATIONS.
a That Armenia
is not properly a province of the Indians those skilled in geography know: yet the translator
so called it, because all provinces far distant and little
known are called India by certain ancients. Further, Theodore's sermon narrates not
only the translation, but also embraces certain deeds of St. Bartholomew. Concerning Polymius see our remarks, §9.
c Leo. This
was the third, who succeeded Hadrian in the year 795, as the same Pagi writes at the said year,
num. 3. Hence it is gathered that Theodore already flourished in the eighth century
as it drew to its close; although he died only in the year 826, as Pagi proves in the same place, num. 17.
men distinguished by many praises. You may see the Life of St. Theodore the Studite, tom. 5
of Sirmond's Works, from p. 17, or in our work, tom. 1 of February, p. 538.
was built by St. Plato, whose Life was given in tom. 1 of April, from p.
364. Under St. Plato his uncle Theodore laid the first apprenticeship of the religious life; by the same he was set over Sacudion, and at last transferred to the presidency of Studium.
See the Life of Theodore cited, from p. 8, in Sirmond; and
the life of St. Plato assigned in our work. Now receive the Studite's Oration itself,
reader.
OrationSt. Bartholomew is to be praised: Greatest indeed is the contest, so to speak,
of the glory by which the praise of merits is woven,
but with greater devotion ought every martyr to be exalted,
in whose beatification all speech is not
sufficient. But indeed also to praise an Apostle irreproachably —
of how great industry, think you, will this be able to be even for distinguished
masters, seeing that the Holy Spirit
has exalted him to the contemplation of all with plaudits
and modulated voices? For of him
the sound went out into all the earth, that by the power of his words
he might set in order the ends of the world; it will surely be fitting that
his praise too be equally heard and perceived by the understanding.
And for these things who is fit? who sufficient?
who strong? Is it perhaps that because he is not the prince
of the Apostles a as Peter is, nor, as John,
beloved of Christ — Bartholomew, is he therefore to be proclaimed with fewer
discourses, and, as though he were not
of much proclaiming, to be extolled somewhat less? Dost thou hear that he is wholly a Disciple
of Christ, and dost thou not greatly fear
him who sent him? Dost thou grasp with thy sense a witness of the truth,
and dost thou not marvel at him who is worthily to be sung?
Nay, even if he was one of many, yet by no less praise
than that of the servants of God is he to be set forth.
[3] in what place he stands in the number of the Apostles: Is it that because he is the middle of the number twelve,
he shall obtain nothing further in praises? For the number twelve
is in itself like the harmony of a cithara,
giving from either side an equal sound like unto the divine
discourse. But indeed if you will consider, as in the yearly
circle, that the number of each
month is equally useful in all ways, and that one
has its difference from another by its own quantity
and quality; not at all will he who is praised appear to us slight,
but exceedingly sublime in the power of the spirit, having something
mystical of God's words in the very reckoning,
according to the art of arithmetic: for the number six alone
after the monad is perfect in its parts,
completing from these very parts its half,
which is three, and its third part it makes up
from two, while the sixth completes the monad.
Further, if we shall number also according to the Acts of the Apostles,
we shall set Bartholomew seventh;
and he himself will again be the beginning and summit
of the second group of six, so that hence we can argue
that he has a relation to Peter, since
from the first six he is reckoned the beginning at the end,
but from the second he is the summit of those
who are numbered after him.
[4] he is compared with Peter, where also the manner of his death. Note most diligently: Peter teaches the nations,
but Bartholomew consequently searches out like things.
Beautiful are the feet of Peter evangelizing good things,
but Bartholomew's likewise pleasant, speaking sublime things
of God. Peter works great prodigies,
but Bartholomew too works mighty miracles. Peter
is crucified head downward, but Bartholomew
on the other hand, sustaining punishments, after he was flayed
alive, is struck with the axe. As many things as Peter
does, so many does Bartholomew work; for as many mysteries as Peter
is strong to lay hold of, for so many is Bartholomew
sufficient to penetrate. Equally does he carry out
the reckoning of the divine word, equally does he found the Church,
with equal scale he had the other divine charisms also.
Come therefore appeased, be fruitful of the word, O Blessed one,
unloose my mute tongue, give me matter
for setting forth the proclamation of thy greatness,
not that thou thyself shouldst profit anything, having within
the fullness of beatitude, but that in some way there may be declared
the love toward thee divinely predestined,
and that I, thy most poor child, may enjoy thy fatherly prayers
in the praise of thy celebration. For he cannot
remain without a share of illumination
who has lifted up his eye's pupil to the splendor of the sun's ray. b
[5] Whither he was sent to preach: One therefore of the Apostles received here, another
elsewhere, a part of the world, for the preaching of the knowledge
of God; and all, dividing the whole among themselves,
were appointed preachers of Christ the king of kings.
For Thou shalt appoint them princes over all
the earth, the letter declared. But to him
who is now praised with celebrated fame, the lot and portion
was the place of Armenia, which is from Evilath c as far as
Gabaon, d distributed among many nations and cities.
He therefore, when he was sent, heard from the Lord
this pronounced mystically, as I suppose:
Go, disciple, to the preaching; go out to the battle,
be capable of dangers, take counsel for my creature,
for pity of whom I was made Man, and for
whom I chose the dishonor of death. I have consummated my Father's work,
made the first witness of the truth: do you
fulfill what is necessary, and what is lacking to my words
supply after my likeness.
Imitate thy Master, emulate thy Lord;
match sufferings with sufferings; for blood
set down blood, for flesh deliver flesh; suffer
what I endured, having suffered for thee; show in thyself
the manifest knowledge of my character; let thy arms
be kindness amid sweats, meekness
among revilers, patience among those who press thee,
that thou be made as a sheep in the midst of wolves, that as a lion e
thou be armed with fortitude. The Apostle did not refuse,
he did not say: How shall a lamb be able to put wolves f to flight,
one man ten thousand, a stranger the first citizens,
an exile the leaders, he who possesses one tunic
the manifold purple of kings? But as a faithful servant,
acquiescing in the Lord's precept, he goes on
rejoicing, bringing nothing with him but only Christ's
precious name for all his armor.
[6] And so, laying hold only of the precept by lot,
how great things he there wrought, what he accomplished in preaching: how great things he underwent and endured,
our discourse portrays: of which some things are established as done
according to the tradition of ancient relation,
but some as wrought according to the reckoning of the evangelical
doctrines. For if he is the light of the world, assuredly the things which
are of light he wrought in those who were not
enlightened: and if he stands as the salt of the earth,
it is manifest that, salting the irrational nations, he cleansed them:
and if he is named a worker,
consequently he perfected also a spiritual husbandry.
But what is said in common is also to be taken rationally
of individual persons.
Therefore see him, according to allegory, sometimes indeed
plowing the earth, not with oxen drawing
the iron, but furrowing rational fields with the plow of the tongue,
with the yoke, namely, of contemplation
and of action, and sowing nothing of flowing
and corruptible things, but laying up the word of faith in the depth
of the heart; sometimes planting
paradises and vineyards of the Lord; those, namely,
who by the reception of the word have already made increase toward better things,
and from their entering age have given manifold fruits
through each season; and sometimes
conferring medicinally the remedies of the passions applied to each.
And, to speak more universally,
giving light to the blind in their eyes, cleansing lepers,
driving out fevers, granting to the lame their step, and to the deaf
hearing, and by the incorruptible healings
of nature's own restraining the manifold kinds of the other
sicknesses; and certainly taking up the pastoral
manner, and perfecting the paths of God,
leading down, calling back, fighting,
driving off the beasts of heresy and the phalanxes of demons;
continually watering the imperfect
with the hand of doctrine, nourishing those growing in the age of Christ
with the milk of the word, plucking out the bloodying thorns,
cutting down the woods of impiety, setting about hedges of doctrine,
and easily providing whatever should be found lacking
of those things which are opportune for following.
But he himself is the builder and architect
of a building and fabric not made with hands,
namely of the temples of the Lord, which are constructed by spirit
and truth, and are perfected into a people
acceptable, a follower of good works.
[7] the fruit of his preaching, his labors, his death: Behold with me, O man, the cities and
dwellings which of old a people seduced by unbelief
possessed, setting a tower of wickedness in the knowledge of God,
and the ambushes of adversaries easily dismissed,
the fields flourishing, the vineyards sprouting in thickness,
the gardens giving forth odor, the sick,
every languor and every infirmity being driven off, restored
to their pristine health. Such are, so to speak,
the first spoils, and these the trophies of so great a contest:
and these the labors in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness,
in contumelies and reproaches, in prisons
and bonds, in persecutions and being carried off
from place to place, from city to city,
and from theater to theater, in torments
and stripes, at the last in slaying and
the sword. For which g they ought to have repaid
the Master, the savior and physician; for these things
they work atrocities, they revile, they detract, they strike down,
they torture, they scrape; what do they not say,
what do they not do, what do they not devise, what
do they not invent of those things which they believed would avail for a sharper affliction
and for the increase of his tribulation? O depraved cruelty! O
savage madness of persecutors! What wages
did they offer to their healer — they who received sight, who received
hearing, who had been built up by him, who had been instructed:
for honor dishonor, for blessing
cursing, for gifts punishments,
for a restful life they rendered a most bitter
death. For they report [h] of him that after
he underwent many and intolerable torments, he was flayed
by the impious in the manner of a bellows, i and afterwards
beheaded: and so at length his dead body
was laid within a chest by the faithful; to whom
both in life he was a patron, and after his death the great preacher of God
appeared.
[8] miracles after his death; his Body cast into the sea: For not even after he departed from this
world did he neglect his slayers, but as a good shepherd,
for as long a time as there was, in this life he was changing the lost
by miracles and his adversaries by prodigies. But their bestial
mind and inhuman heart — there was nothing which
could restrain it, nothing which could draw it back, until it should fall
into the depths of evils. What then thereafter
do they do? They rage against that sacred body,
they are frenzied against the chest that continually bestows
various healings: they spurn the remedy of the sick,
the hand that leads the bereaved, the giver of light to the blind,
the pilot of the shipwrecked, the life-giver of him stricken with death,
and the giver of eternal life through his preaching:
and this how? They cast this very chest
into the sea, as though so great an Apostle had bestowed on them no
benefits. For the vice of the envious
is of this kind, that by their own voluntary perdition they do not suffer
the salvation of others to come about either.
[9] But he who through David long before cried out:
"In the sea are thy ways, and it was miraculously borne to Lipari: and thy paths in many
waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known" — he here too
made the swelling sea passable to the chest; and Peter
the great is known to have walked on the sea when Christ called
to him, and the divine Bartholomew
likewise granted to the chest carrying his body the power
of walking against the waves. O notable miracle;
O magnificent work! For the chest was moved
with an impulse from the regions of Armenia, with four
chests of other martyrs, which likewise,
while they were working signs, had been cast with it into the sea.
And over so great a space of sea, with these four
walking and going before, and in a manner rendering obedience
to the Apostle, they came
into the farther parts of Sicily, to the island
which is called Lipari, being shown by revelation to the most holy
Agatho, who was bishop there. k
Who has heard such prodigies? Who has learned
so magnificent a work, a miracle within a miracle?
For Lipari, that is, growing fat, an island in a manner
bearing for itself the name of fatness, and this
perhaps crying out with ineffable voices: Come to l
me, poor little one, O most rich Treasure of the most holy
Spirit: come to me who am without honor,
O most precious pearl: come to me, a suppliant,
thou who art most iniquitously cast out by others: inhabit me,
and I shall be manifoldly inhabited; save me, and I shall be
populous; I shall have the use of thy name, m and shall resound everywhere.
I, sad and mournful, desire thy splendor; if
others have possessed the table of thy living words,
yet I long, like a little dog, to gather the crumbs
of thy relics.
[10] Besides this, the Apostle, leaving one of the martyrs here, another
there behind, the bodies of four Saints accompanying it: as it were certain ministers;
Papinus indeed he destined to the Sicilian city of [o] Mylae,
and to Messina [p] one Lucianus by name: but the remaining two
he directed to the land of Calabria, Gregory indeed
to the city [q] of Columna, and Acatius
to the city which is called Squillace, [r] so that
each should be a protector of the inhabitants in each city,
who even to this day shine by their suffrages.
He besides, as a King and
Lord, having obtained his own rest, went on
to the city to which he was invited, and was received
splendidly with many candles, perfumes,
and hymns, all who were there running to meet him
in exultation.
[11] But for the rest, the chest did not advance.
For some drew, [at first immovable, then moving, borne into the city: mount Vulcan prodigiously withdrawing.] some lamented,
some prayed, but it was
immovable. Yet joy took up sorrow again,
and when the people were in much bewilderment, it at last
obtained what it had found: for the Lord is near
to all who call upon him. With due honor therefore
that chest, taken up thence with the treasure
which it bore, was laid where his sacred temple
was straightway placed: that chief miracle also being wrought
at the consummation. Finally,
when the mountain which is called Vulcan [s] was almost
contiguous to the island, it was harmful to those who
dwelt round about: then it was moved by an invisible
withdrawal, as it were suspended seven stadia around the sea,
so that even to this day there appears to beholders
as it were a figure of the tract of fleeing fire.
[12] The Apostle's miracles and praise, Further, how many and how great things he thereafter wrought,
or works, doing wonders, toward those who,
bound by various languors and infirmities, flee
to him in faith, is neither ours to tell, on account of
the length of the treatise, nor ought it to seem incredible
to the hearer, since from one they have a pledge of belief —
the wondrous displays of the other deeds.
But hail, O Blessed of the blessed, thrice blessed Bartholomew;
hail, thou who art an imitator of God, namely of the good
master: hail, thou who art the splendor of divine light to holy
Church: hail, thou who art the well-sounding organ
of the spirit's melody: hail, thou who art the branch of Christ,
of much savor and sweet fruit, of the living and Fatherly
vine of cultivation: hail, servant worthy in merits of the Lord
of all things: hail, deservedly desirable friend
of the supercelestial Bridegroom: hail, thou who art
the wisdom of an overflowing and manifold draught, the light of the spiritual
paradise: hail, thou who art the fisherman of skillful catch
of rational fishes: hail, thou who art by divine
power the wounder of the devil, who wounds the world with his
brigandage: hail, artful orator of true wisdom:
hail, morning star of the knowledge of God appearing manifoldly
to the world. Rejoice, thou divinely illuminated
and fiery column of orthodoxy; rejoice, thou who
from the East to the West gloriously walkedst through the sea:
rejoice, sun of the globe of the earth, who hast illuminated all things;
rejoice, mouth of God's wisdom, having a fiery
tongue; rejoice, ever-flowing fountain of healings;
rejoice, terrible pursuer of demons;
rejoice, thou who art the manifoldly desirable comeliness
of Armenia: rejoice, thou who art the salutary
and manifoldly adorable boast of Lipari; rejoice,
thou who hast sanctified the sea with passable steps; rejoice,
thou who hast made the earth purple with the redness of thy most chaste
blood; rejoice, thou who hast filled the air with the odors of sweetness,
with the sacred breathings of thy divine
words; rejoice, thou who hast passed to the heavens,
and in the midst in the choir of thy divine array shinest
in the splendor of inaccessible glory, in the insatiable delight
of exultation.
[13] to whom the author commends himself and others. Thence mayest thou most kindly look upon us, thence bless
those who beatify thee, thence glorify those who sing thee,
thence make concordant the globe of the earth appeased;
let priests be clothed with justice in holiness, let kings
be armed with good works in orthodoxy against the barbarians;
let those holding the monastic life keep a manner of living
equal to that of angels, and without grief;
let husbands toward wives, and again wives
toward husbands, preserve the fitting law; protect
fathers with sons, masters with servants, prelates with
subjects, lenders with debtors, sellers
with buyers, with all the affection of thy benevolence
for the good of the commonwealth; and
defend with thy patronage all things which ought to be directed
according to God's good pleasure; and especially
the nurslings of adorned Lipari, its pastor too
and flock, which built thy sacred temple,
and him who, though briefly, behold, presumes
to praise thee.
ANNOTATIONS.
h In
d'Achery certain things are here added which I do not find in the Mss., not even in that
which agrees with him in nearly all things. They are as follows:
It is read also in his more ancient and more correct acts, that
he preached the word of life to Lycaonia. Thence, evangelizing India, at the last
in greater Armenia, which is of the same province, in Albanum, a city of that same Armenia, as far as that place: After many. Whence there arises for me a
doubt, whether these things are to be attributed to Theodore, or to the translator Anastasius, or rather
to some interpolator. For these things could have been noted in the margin by someone;
and thence afterwards have crept into the text,
which seems to me more likely; since without them the sense is more perfect: for
after he has related the ungrateful cruelty of the persecutors, he proves it by these words: For they report of him (al.
For it is reported) that after he underwent many and intolerable torments,
he was flayed by the impious in the manner of a bellows, and afterwards beheaded. But
for proving this cruelty the preaching in Lycaonia and India makes nothing.
Hence let the reader note that Armenia is not called a province of India by
Theodore, as certain learned men, following this interpolation, believed.
said above, so that the flaying of a living man must necessarily be understood in this
place too. But what manner of flaying is signified by this phrase is plainly uncertain
and obscure. Receive the conjectures. Follis signifies various things: an instrument for stirring up wind, a ball fit for play, a purse made of hide; sometimes it is taken for a sack, whence also follitus is said of one wrapped in hide. Did he then mean that the skin was flayed from Bartholomew as
so the skin was drawn away? Or perhaps in Greek it was φολὶς, which
signifies a scale; and he meant to say that the Saint was so stripped of his skin
as serpents are stripped of their scale? Or rather that the Apostle's body was inflated like a bellows
between flesh and skin, as slaughtered sheep are wont to be inflated, that the skin may be more easily drawn off?
is a manifest error, nor do I find it in any Ms. Further, who this
Agatho was will be said in the Posthumous Glory, where Lipari also is treated.
at the 28th day of that same month, p. 360, in which however he is perhaps not to be followed,
in that he thinks the body of St. Pappianus swam to Mylae from elsewhere, by a slip of memory
thinking that his name was not expressed by St. Theodore.
p To Messina, Lucianus; concerning whom the praised Gaetani: The memory of St. Lucianus among the people of Messina, extinguished chiefly by the disasters of the Saracens, has lately been restored. Our Francesco Carrera commemorates him together with St. Pappianus at the 28th of June, in the Sicilian Pantheon, p. 166.
q Columna. Columna Rhegia, or Rhegina, was a maritime city, as is had from Cellarius, tom. 1 of the Ancient Geography, p. 585, in the farthest part of the Bruttii, at the Mamertine strait, says Gaetani, over against the city of Messina, raised up like a little tower, between Scyllaeum and Rhegium Julium; and that
this is here designated does not seem to be doubted. But the memory and cultus of St.
Gregory, as also of Acacius, I suppose to have been abolished along with the city itself by the dominion of the Saracens in
those parts.
r Squillace, so the Ms., which I have chiefly followed: two other Mss. have Chale, another with d'Achery Cale: the Greek Menaea with the Paphlagonian Ἀσκάλους. Which
among so many readings is to be preferred is not altogether established: yet I think none of them
genuine, unless perhaps this one which I have followed. For in
Cluverius, tom. 2 of Ancient Italy, p. 1305, and Cellarius, tom. 1, p.
588, there is a maritime town in the Bruttii which of old was called Scylacium or Scylaceum, and before that Scylletium, and now is commonly called Squillaci, and is situated in the gulf of the same name. This town therefore I judge to be here designated, for Asculum, whether in Picenum or in Apulia, since both are inland, could not be designated.
s Concerning this mountain and the prodigy, consult the Posthumous Glory, chapter 1, §2.
TRANSLATION OF THE BODY TO BENEVENTO,
By, as it seems, St. Bertharius abbot of Cassino.
From two Mss.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
BHL Number: 1007
By Bertharius the abbot.
The bones of St. Bartholomew scattered at Lipari, These things concerning the praises of blessed Bartholomew, and the wonderful
coming of his body to Lipari,
Theodore, conspicuous for the fame of his sanctity and the dignity of his priesthood,
set forth in a trustworthy account. By what occasion thereafter,
and in what order, it was translated from that same
island to Benevento, whence today's festivity
is celebrated, must be set forth forthwith.
Since therefore in that same island of Lipari, up to
the year a eight hundred and thirty-eight from
the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the body of that same
blessed Bartholomew the apostle rested;
the Saracens coming upon it plundered
and depopulated the aforesaid island, and breaking
the sepulcher of blessed Bartholomew, scattered
his bones through various places.
[15] Presently, when they withdrew, the Apostle of God, appearing
in a vision to a certain Greek monk at whose command they were gathered,
who had been guardian of that church, said to him: Rise
and gather my bones which are scattered. To whom he
answered: Why ought we to gather thy bones, b
or to do thee any honor, since thou hast let us
and this people be destroyed by the pagans,
and hast not helped us? But he said: Through long
courses of years I have besought God for this people,
and God granted it to my prayers,
whence until now they have stood secure. But because
their evils have been multiplied, and their iniquity has grown
exceedingly, I could no longer obtain from the Lord
what I asked for it, and therefore it has perished. Do thou only rise
and gather my bones, and lay them up, as I
command thee. To whom that monk said: And how
shall I be able to find them, who know not where they are
scattered? The Apostle says to him: Go by night to gather
them, and where thou shalt see anything shining like
fire, take these up, for these are my bones. And he,
rising straightway, went on to the place, and found them,
as the Apostle had told him, and gathered them without doubt,
and hid them laid up in a vessel; and departed,
leaving his companion there.
[16] And when the ships of the Lombards went thither
in search of the Saracens, and translated to Benevento. having found there the aforesaid
monk and the body of the holy Apostle, they took them
and departed. But the Saracens, coming upon them,
surrounded that ship in which the holy
body of the Apostle was being carried, so that there was for it no hope
of escaping. Then suddenly there arose most dense
darkness around the ship of the Saracens, so that
they knew not whither they were going, and that ship was set free.
While they were still on the sea, one of
the sailors of that same ship, oppressed by a grave infirmity,
the Lord saved through the Apostle's prayer. And going out
upon land, they brought the holy body of the Apostle of God with all honor
to Benevento,
and laid it up in the altar, in the year from the incarnation
of the Lord eight hundred and thirty-nine, on the twenty-fifth
day of the month of October. Of whom the earlier
conveyance from the parts of the Indians to the island
of Lipari is celebrated [c] on the ninth Kalends of September,
but the festal celebration of his falling asleep
is kept on the fifteenth Kalends of July. And so
thrice in the year his most sacred festivity is celebrated.
Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning,
whom all honor and glory and all adoration
befits, with the omnipotent Father and the most holy
and life-giving Spirit, now and always unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
a So
do all our Mss. mark the time. Concerning the time, further, of this translation,
and its other circumstances, we shall dispute at length in chapter 1, §§4 and 5 of the Posthumous Glory, where we shall also give the miracles that followed it.
c Three
feasts, mentioned in this place, I judge were celebrated at Cassino, which
Marius de Vipera also attests is observed at Benevento, in his Catalogue of the Saints of the
Beneventan church: but he attests that at the 25th of August the day of his death, and on the 17th day of June the Liparitan
translation
is celebrated, at the said days: which does not agree with this our author. Nor does
the Relation of this translation in d'Achery, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, p. 126, accord with either, where it is thus read: Of whom the earlier
conveyance from the parts of the Indians to the island of Lipari is celebrated
on the thirteenth day of the month of June: but the festal celebration of his falling asleep
is kept … on the ninth Kalends of September. Concerning this diversity see in the Posthumous Glory, num. 2.
A SECOND ORATION
By Joseph, perhaps the Hymnographer.
From the edition of Surius.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
By Joseph.
St. Bartholomew is to be praised. The author of this discourse, and the cheerfulness of the feast day
bringing us spiritual delight,
is the blessed apostle Bartholomew: who, since
he is a divine Apostle, and is illuminated with the splendor of light
and the pure brightnesses of the holy Spirit as much
as cannot be explained in words, supplies light
to us also who celebrate his sacred and glorious
memory. Come therefore, praising him with divine
voices as much as we can,
let us delight in the divine narration of him,
and honor with praises a Man
higher than any honor. Let us praise an Apostle praised
by God himself. Let us proclaim him blessed who
is always blessed. Let us celebrate the glory of him
whom divine glory has exalted. Let us see what
he was before, and what he afterwards became: how
he who before was unlearned a and led a poor life,
was made wise in every respect, and
adorned with the riches of all good things: how
from earthly he became heavenly, from least
greatest, and from a fisher of fishes b was made a fisher
of men.
[2] His election to the Apostolate; And so, when God himself, made man, on account
of the bowels of his mercy bore our body,
and made a choice of disciples, he,
I say, who foreknew all things before they are begotten,
chose the most celebrated apostle Bartholomew,
and took him to himself as a true and faithful friend.
O the excellence of the divine calling! O the great
and singular felicity! O what a Master this man
found, who initiated him into the greatest mysteries
and made him wise! O that blessed soul,
held worthy to converse with God,
to take food with God and the omnipotent Lord,
and to be instructed by sacred doctrine
surpassing all speech and faculty!
[3] the excellent deeds done by him; But afterwards, when he had seen his Master fixed upon the cross,
and the same buried, and after his resurrection
ascending to the heavens, and
was endowed with the gift of the most holy Spirit equally with
the other Apostles, like some noble
soldier fortified on all sides with the strongest arms, he leapt forth
against the hostile war: and the enemies indeed
he struck most mightily, but to those who strove to come to life
itself he procured salvation.
He spread the nets of his discourse, and the nations themselves,
snatched from the deep, though captive, yet led
to life, he preserved: he overthrew the temples
of the idols and raised up churches of God; human
hearts turned to barrenness he renewed with the plow
of heavenly doctrine: and so cultivated them that, like
fertile fields, they could bear fruit: he kindled
the torch of miracles, and put to flight the mist of human
affections: into whatever parts
he passed, like some star proclaiming the sun
of justice, and sending forth an illustrious brightness,
he destroyed the darkness of deceit: and by his discourse indeed
he put demons to flight, and by his prayers cured incurable
diseases, making lepers clean,
restoring sight to the blind, making the lame
ready to run, and lastly strengthening the weaker hearts
and minds.
[4] There was together with Bartholomew that blessed
apostle Philip also, preaching at Hierapolis and elsewhere: with whom for a long time
he preached the divine Gospel. When these had come into the city
of Hierapolis, whose name before was
Ophioryme, [c] they endured many hardships and no slight
torments, since the men of that city were violent
and exceedingly inhuman:
inasmuch as they had been accustomed to venerate a viper, [d]
receiving a pestiferous and deadly venom as though it were some
fruit. They, when they had seen the divine apostles,
said that some new God was being announced by them,
and that they themselves were being turned away from the old cultus
and estranged from their fathers' traditions.
Wherefore, when they had laid hands on them, they condemned to the cross
the apostle Philip, a man of admirable
sanctity. But the divine Bartholomew,
like some plow-ox separated from his yoke-fellow,
groaned and lamented indeed,
but did not cease nevertheless to draw that sweet
furrow which was to bring rich fruits to God, the husbandman
of souls: nay rather, as
he had been accustomed, he went about hither and thither, disseminating the word
of faith, plucking out the depraved cockle,
and diligently declaring whatever was salutary to those
who received him. O those blessed feet,
made beautiful by evangelical steps, and advancing by a straight way
to the winning of infinite souls!
O that divine tongue, from which
flowed the salutary drink which freed many from the heat
of impiety! O the hands which stormed violent
enemies and snatched souls from the devil's
hands! O the divine and illustrious eyes,
through which the eyes of many were opened who had been
darkened by the shadows of perfidy!
[5] When therefore he was thus traversing those regions,
he came to a certain city, death on a cross. whose citizens, when he had freed them
from the superstition of idols, he too was condemned
by the governor of that place to the punishment of the cross. e
To which, while that Blessed one drew near, wholly suffused
with joy, he said: Hail, cross, through which
the human race has been affected with joy: hail, imitation
of that cross through which death dissolved death,
and endowed mortals themselves with immortality:
hail, cross, upon which, when Christ ascended, he made
earthly men heavenly: hail, cross, which
hast been made a vehicle for me departing hence, by which
I may be led to the heavens; which finally hast made me
an imitator of my Teacher. To thee I ascend,
nor do I delay: for now my time
is fulfilled. I have fought the good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith: the work which
Christ my master delivered to me, I have completed.
When he had said this, and had prayed to God, he asked
those executioners that, with his head turned to the earth,
he might be fixed upon the cross: and not be fastened upright
to the cross, as his Master was: thus
even in his torments he preserved his reverence toward
his Master. Nay, even fixed upon the cross,
he did not cease to speak with the brethren, until he delivered
that most holy soul to God. Whose ascent
the angels received with applause, the air was purged,
and the choir of the divine Apostles exulted.
[6] His Body cast into the sea, But when much time had passed,
the tyrants f of that region, practicing the depravity of life
and raving in the drunkenness of many gods,
when they saw that those coffers in which
the relics of the blessed apostle Bartholomew were laid up
put forth certain splendid and illustrious miracles,
and freed from diseases those who came thither,
took a depraved counsel worthy of their purpose.
Come, they say, let us sink this body
into the deep sea. But, O wretches, will you sink into the sea
the body of him who sank into the deep
that deep dragon, who opened the fountain of salutary
water, and abundantly imparted heavenly doctrines
to men? Come, they say, let us overwhelm him with the sea.
Will you overwhelm him who uncovered the truth
before overwhelmed, and exterminated the saltness
of unbelief? Come, they say, and pouring out our rash
fury, let us cast this body into the waves
of the sea, lest from it, as from some rational
river, salvation should flow down to those
who are pressed by the straits of diseases.
[7] borne by a miracle to Lipari, When they had said this, they set about what they had thought,
and together with the coffers of four other martyrs
cast the relics of blessed Bartholomew into the sea.
But those glorious martyrs, having the greatly renowned
apostle Bartholomew in the midst, two on
the right and two on the left,
conveyed him across the Pontus [g] without any tossing:
and when they had come to the Thracian Bosphorus into
the Propontis, they passed the straits of the Hellespont:
then, the Aegean and Ionian sea being crossed,
they landed at Sicily: and leaving Syracuse on
the left, and tending toward the West,
they came to the island of Lipari.
And so that most celebrated Apostle was brought to that island.
But those divine martyrs, when they had completed
what God had willed, returned
most swiftly to that way to which divine providence
had directed each one. And straightway
he who governed the church of the island of Lipari
learned by divine revelation that Christ's
Apostle had put in at the seashore.
[8] and there recognized by revelation and reverently received. The governor of that church was that Agatho
whose glory was far and wide celebrated among all.
When he therefore had hastened, and had seen the coffers driven
to the mainland, filled with amazement and joy,
with a loud voice he said: Well is it that
thou hast come hither, as a haven of salvation, to us who are tossed
by the perilous waves of the deep. Well is it that thou hast come,
divine river of the Paraclete Spirit, from which
the waters of truth gush forth, and much piety overflows.
In the sea are thy ways, and thy paths in many
waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known. Come,
and water our souls, restrain the seething
of our affections, and fill the opened doors of our hearts with the gifts
of thy graces. This the island of Lipari
asks of thee as a suppliant, which thou hast willed happily
to inhabit. This island, I say, addresses thee in these
words: Thou, who art illustrious with much light,
and truly a friend of that divine East, how
has it come about that one such and so great has sojourned in the West
of my poverty, moved from the parts of the East,
and shown to us through the gulfs of the sea?
I have been made rich, who before labored under poverty;
today I have obtained a great treasure: nor in any respect
am I inferior to that famed city of Rome
itself, which holds the blessed apostles Peter and Paul
as inhabitants: for I possess
Bartholomew as inhabitant. All islands,
congratulate me; all cities, wherever
you are, exult together with me. In you the bodies of many
saints have been laid: for me one
is enough for all.
[9] But, O most blessed Apostle, made equal
to the divine angels, The praises of the Apostle, who could praise thy illustrious deeds
according to their worth? Who could enumerate
the perils undertaken by thee for Christ? Which, when thou didst daily
undergo them, thou didst free mortals from sad perils.
Thou art truly that salt which seasoned those hearts
which had grown insipid and become tasteless:
and, purged with the saltness of understanding, thou didst purge away the rottenness
contracted from the superstition of many gods.
Thou art that rational river, gone forth from the divine
seat, washing away the torrent full of reeds,
but filling the furrows of the Church, drying up the streams
of depravity, and finally watering the face
of the earth itself. Thou art that most solid net which
caught the rational fishes swimming in the deep of error,
and offered them as a dish for that heavenly
table. Thou art that golden candlestick
in which the fire of the Paraclete Spirit, coming as
some torch, burned up the cockle of manifold vice,
and sent forth the splendor of divine knowledge.
Thou art the shining ray of the divine Sun, which,
running from the height of heaven to the utmost, and
lessening the darkness of error, and shining upon those who sat
in the shadow of death, that is, in deadly evils,
didst through the laver of regeneration make mortal men
sons of God. Thou art that precious
stone sent from that corner-stone, upon which
Christ himself built the Church, which at no
time whatever can be shaken or shattered.
Thou art that purest gold, and the most precious
gift of the heavenly God, the column of light, the foundation
of the Church, the lodging of the Holy Spirit, the herald
of great utterance, the eagle flying on high,
the sweetly singing nightingale, the heavenly cicada, [h] the angel
finally sojourning in a human body, the golden
column, the most shining star, the flowering paradise,
the ointment-box of the Holy Spirit, the physician of the sick,
the trumpet of divine grace, the most fruitful vine,
the fruit-bearing olive, the haven of the tossed, the patron
of sinners, the recreation of the weary, the refuge
of the oppressed, the fountain of miracles, the putting to flight
of demons, the glory of the Apostles, the citizen of the angels,
who wast loftier than the prophets, and partner
of the martyrs, and finally partaker of that glory which
is to be revealed, heir of everlasting goods,
light of the world, and (to say all in sum)
treasure of all goods.
[10] And so hail, Bartholomew, lightning of that great
thunder, whom at the end the author invokes. who didst appear in the wheel of this world,
and didst extinguish the madness and night of idols.
Hail, Bartholomew, that pen of the Holy Spirit
swiftly writing, who most beautifully didst write the law upon the tablets
of the heart: the law, I say,
not old, but exceedingly new. Hail, Bartholomew,
most sharp arrow of the mighty word, who
didst wound the hearts of enemies, didst strike the troops of demons
wandering through the air, and didst make whole
the souls of mortals wounded by vice. Hail, Bartholomew,
who didst level the temples of the idols to the ground,
and didst render men themselves temples of the living God.
Hail, sword of the Holy Spirit, who by the edge of the word
didst lead captive the troops of aliens, and all minds
to the obedience of Christ. Hail, well-tuned
cithara of the holy Paraclete Spirit, rational pipe,
instrument of Christ, who didst sing to us heavenly doctrines,
and didst confound the modulations
of depraved impiety. Hail, most beautiful heaven,
illustrious with divine splendors, in which that Sun of justice
rests, and leader of prayer, leaning upon whom thou didst overthrow
every deceit. I would indeed wish
to extol thee with praises, but I am confounded by the multitude
of things, and oppressed by the weakness of my speech: for
even those who most excel in the oratorical faculty
are too inferior to be able to praise thee: nor
is there anyone who could relate thy praises
according to their worth. By thy prayers therefore mayest thou make God himself
propitious to us, and be willing to calm the disturbance of sins
by which we are vexed; and mayest thou by thy prayers obtain for us all
who keep thy feast day pardon of our offenses
and participation in heavenly joy, in Christ Jesus
our Lord, to whom be glory with the Father and the Holy
Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
I should believe that the name was not the common one, but was imposed in mockery by
Christians on account of the mad cultus of the viper. Its etymology is rightly
expounded in the said Synaxarium as the Serpent's onset: for it is derived from ὄφις, serpent, and ὄρνυκαι, I am borne with an onset.
d This
cultus of the viper displeased Baronius, tom. 1 of the Annals, at the year 54, num. 3, because
forsooth Eusebius, On the Preparation of the Gospel, book 2, chapter 4, writes of other gods of the Phrygians.
But that argument, drawn from Eusebius' silence, does not seem sufficient
for us to deny credit to all the authors who assert this: especially since Eusebius in that place does not
enumerate all the gods of the Phrygians of set purpose, but mentions some only for refuting their ravings.
See therefore this cultus of the viper asserted by various writers in §8 of the preliminary
Commentary, and in some measure proved also by reasons.
f Note,
reader, that neither by this author nor by the Studite is it asserted that the body remained always in the place in which it was first buried, up to the
Liparitan translation: for they only mean that the body was cast into the sea,
and by that means borne to Lipari, and that after much time, and by the tyrants
of that region: concerning which consult what we shall probably discuss in
the Posthumous Glory, chapter 1, §§1 and 2.
g The
journey of the sacred body is here written as it could most conveniently have been made: whether it was so done
in fact, the author, I suppose, neither knew nor could deliver with certainty.
And the querulous cicadas will burst the copses with their song.
He uses this metaphor to express the Apostle's eloquence
and his perpetual zeal for preaching divine doctrines. The remaining doubts which
can here occur have been noted on the preceding
Oration.
A THIRD ORATION
By Nicetas the Paphlagonian,
Rendered into Latin from Combefis' Greek edition, J. S. translator.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
By Nicetas the Paphlagonian.
Kindled is my longing, but my talent is weak:
fervent my love, It is arduous to praise St. Bartholomew, but slender my speech: for the spirit
indeed is prompt, and hastens, and burns
to attend upon any of the Apostles with the due proclamation of praise;
but the mind grows weary, having no source
whence it may find thoughts worthy of the proposed subject;
nay, and speech totters, uncertain whether by speaking
it can attain the excellence of the things to be praised. And
indeed, when the mind beholds the excellence of the things to be said,
it lays a finger on its lips, and, as something most eloquent,
enjoins silence upon itself: but when
it is kindled by the fervor of the spirit, as by an inward fire,
as if forgetful of its own weakness, it can by no means
contain itself from being roused to the praise
imposed upon it. In what manner therefore
is this perplexing difficulty to be removed, if not by begging help for our discourse
from those very men who are to be praised?
For in other subjects indeed no aid comes
from them, unless the orator has come abundantly instructed of himself;
but in the sacred and holy sons of God
it appears otherwise. For the wisest mind must needs
be made destitute of counsel, and the most eloquent discourse
stick fast in perplexity, unless grace
be bountifully supplied by him who is praised.
[2] Since therefore the great Bartholomew has today,
on his yearly memorial, whose help the author implores. called us together to celebrate with praises
the brightness of his grace, and, setting before us
both the excellence of his sanctity and his various
prodigies, and also his sufferings and the cross
borne for love of the Crucified, has kindled our love
toward him; nay, and inflames us also
to proclaim his wonders; let us beg of him
the illumination of grace, and by sincere faith and fervent prayer
draw strength from his spirit: and in this
way, duly crowning that sacred head, reverend with the graces of Christ,
with praises as with flowers,
we shall in some measure, I suppose, be able to console
our longing; for by nothing does the divine
love of divine things obtain soothing and solace so much as by the praises
of those who are loved. Be present
therefore, O most Venerable and most Illustrious; be present to me,
assist me with thy spirit, as thou art a spirit most pure
and most holy, and the offspring and likeness
of the holy and divine Spirit: inspire my understanding, inspire
my speech; the understanding, that it may perceive the magnificence
of thy divine sanctity; the speech,
that it may avail to set forth thy wondrous excellence;
so that both, understanding, that is, and
speech, may become for us, who think upon and narrate thy wonders,
more holy and more illustrious: since
even the mere memory of thee bestows sanctity and illumination
no less upon us, who behold thy form shining, as in a mirror,
in spirit only,
than upon those who of old saw thee sojourning
on earth in thy sacred body.
[3] For indeed from infancy wholly consecrated to God,
and by the form of piety, by religious observance, by meditation on the law,
by the keeping of the commandments, he was prepared for a more perfect
knowledge of God. (For the Lord
knows how to sanctify his own from the womb, The Saint's boyhood, and his calling to the apostolate, to enter into them at once
from their first formation, to offer himself as their companion
in an invisible manner, and to direct
and lead them to himself.) But when Christ, the prince and consummator
of faith, appeared, and was traversing all Judea
and all Galilee, announcing the kingdom
of heaven; and, winning faith for the Gospel by wonderful words
and more wonderful works,
was gathering to himself the sheep of Israel which had perished;
then also, then, I say, he called this true
Israelite a Bartholomew. What then did he do?
Did he reject him who called? Or does he believe
indeed, but not follow? Or does he follow indeed,
but for a time? Or does he follow to the end,
but as one of the common crowd of the faithful? Was he
perhaps entered on the roll of the disciples, but of those
who were of the second order with the Master?
By no means. Nay rather, as soon as he saw
the good Shepherd, and knew him even to the innermost
parts of his mind, [b] he was likewise known by him, so
that he was both held worthy of the highest and first election,
and was added to the chief of the Apostles,
and with the others filled up the sacred and venerable
choir of twelve. Thereafter, the possession of all earthly things being renounced —
country, namely,
parents, kinsfolk, friends, and all things
which seem good to men and to be pursued with the greatest
zeal — and besides this, his own soul also being denied,
the admirable Man cast away every desire of the body,
every will of his own heart,
that he might become a partaker of Jesus' friendship
and of a more perfect knowledge. Thence, pursuing the appointed goal
and attaining it, as one who sincerely lived by the spirit,
walked and went about by the spirit, he was made God's
friend indeed and son by adoption, and by the gift of grace
brother of the Only-begotten. And indeed
how should he not be Christ's associate and tent-fellow,
and partaker with him of the same roof, table,
converse, way, and manner of life;
with whom all mysteries speakable and unspeakable,
with whom the works and words of God which the Father of lights
manifested to mortals, were shared?
[4] and his familiar living-together with Christ: Blessed therefore do I proclaim thine eyes, O Beholder of the Word
and sharer in the mysteries, and Theologian
Disciple, [c] that thou hast fully enjoyed the most delightful sight
of the form of Him who is Beautiful above the sons
of men, of inaccessible comeliness, of more than
heavenly beauty. Blessed do I proclaim thine ears,
that with words uttered by the mouth of God,
by sacred hearing, by Christ's converse, thou wast in no ordinary measure filled.
I embrace in spirit
thy most blessed lips and mouth: I kiss both thy cheeks
and thy tongue, as those which often kissed the supreme
Deity, being filled with his delights and imbued with
his sanctity. Blessed do I call thy taste, thy smell,
and thy touch: thy taste indeed, because thou wast partaker
of the same table with the Word, of the same salt;
and wast satisfied with the same feasts of sense
and of mind together with the Savior, more often than can be told:
thy smell, because with the purest ointments
and with the spiritual fragrance of the knowledge of the highest King of all
thou wast anointed: and thy touch,
because thou didst often chastely handle the body most pure
from every stain, and, ministering, as was fitting, with thine own hands
to Him who is dread to the Cherubim
and most reverend to the Seraphim, drawing near didst touch him,
and so with absolutely all thy senses didst contract
sanctity, while thou drewest near
to him who surpasses every sense, and enjoyedst his familiar
converse in the body. Yet more
do I praise thee and proclaim thee blessed, because thou didst not fail
in mind, didst not waver in soul in temptations,
didst not totter in thought: but didst remain
unmoved with the Master, didst sustain various reproaches,
didst show thyself partaker and consort of the condemned in condemnation,
of the sufferer in suffering,
of the grieving in grief. For in mind thou wast in a manner
crucified with the Crucified, dead with the dying,
buried in purpose of soul with the buried: whence
with him rising thou didst rise again and live again;
and by the covenant of the same Lord it was confirmed to thee
that in the kingdom of heaven thou shouldst be raised, in the regeneration,
to the same living-together with the princes, nay and to the same throne with them.
[5] Assuredly, just as thou wast with the first Apostles
and ascending into heaven, how great he became on receiving the Holy Spirit; and how much he suffered: so with the same
thou wast likewise filled with the life-giving gift
of the Holy Spirit. For, being first confirmed by the Lord's words
as a certain heaven endowed with mind and higher than the world;
cleansed in body by a manner of living befitting the saints,
signally illuminated in soul by holy representations,
by divine illustrations raised in mind above nature to a kind of
quasi-divinity, and as some throne of surpassing glory
and a resting-place of sanctity prepared in the inner man,
thou didst receive the Holy Spirit descending from heaven
in the form of fiery tongues. And he indeed, filling
thee wholly through and through, imparting to thee his divine
charisms beyond measure, resting in thee, established
in thee, formed for himself both a well-tuned instrument of his power,
and a mouth speaking God, and a tongue
sounding divine things: and moreover, leading and transferring thee
from nation to nation like a certain
sacred and precious vessel, he most eloquently
uttered through thee to all mortals the doctrine of the dispensation,
the saving incarnation of Jesus, I mean,
his resurrection and kingdom.
Who therefore could praise according to its merits the power of the Holy Spirit
flowing in thee like a fountain? Who could attain by speech
thy overflowing knowledge of theology?
Who the virtue and honor that followed from these?
Who could pursue with worthy eulogy the perfection hidden
in the secret bosom of thy mind? Who the sublimity of thy discourses?
Who the excellence of thy works?
Who the gentleness of thy manners, their sweetness, their likeness to Christ?
Who at last the inaccessible, reverend excellence of spirit,
shining with the likeness of God? And now, in what way
could anyone know how, having gone out from Jerusalem and Judea
to the nations, thou wast an Evangelist of divine peace? What seditions
and tossings thou didst suffer for the Gospel's sake in all places and cities?
Who could enumerate the circuits, journeys,
perils, labors, flights, blows, prisons,
scourgings, stonings, reproaches?
Who could recount the leadings-away before governors,
the accusations before magistrates, the calumnies
against the faithful's institution, [d] the revilings, vexations,
burnings, blows, scourges, tearings,
and manglings?
[6] Who could report how great and of what sort things he endured
as Philip's companion at Hierapolis — raised on a cross at Hierapolis; heavenly gifts; to wit, the first raising
upon a cross, [e] and every insult and onset of the unbelievers there,
all the torments, labors, and hardships?
But what mind could understand,
what speech unfold, the abundance of Christ's helps,
the abyss of heavenly illustrations, illuminations, and supports?
Further, the eminence of his contemplation,
the sublimity of his theology, the immense breadth
of Bartholomew's divine wisdom, who is fit
to investigate? For he who firmly has seated in his heart
the substantial wisdom of God itself, that infinite, perfect,
most divine wisdom, searches indeed all things by the Spirit,
even the deep things of God; but he himself is comprehended
by none of those who dwell on earth: and he himself indeed judges
all things, for he is spiritual; but he is judged
by no one, for he is moved by the spirit of Christ: and
who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct
him? [f]
[7] the provinces traversed, the churches instituted; But now who could set down in writing the magnificent portents
wrought by him, which, being performed by the finger of God,
drew those alien from the faith to conversion and to the knowledge
of God? For the most blessed Man went forth to the Arabs,
whom they call Happy;
and not to them only, but he was sent after this also to the Indians
and to the eastern Ethiopians, [g] as the word
of God, as the light of knowledge, as the doctrine and instruction
of eternal life, and eloquently announced Christ
in their very tongues. Besides this, putting to flight
every onset of demons against men;
healing every disease, every languor
in the name of Jesus; nay, and restoring life to not a few dead
by the power of the same name,
he daily joined to Christ innumerable believers,
taught the rudiments of the faith; cleansing these
with the laver of regeneration, and inflaming their hearts
with the Holy Spirit, [h] he consecrated the worthier among them,
endowed with greater grace, as bishops
and presbyters — a most admirable Prelate of sacred things:
and adorning them with all sacred rites,
and instructing them, according to their capacity, in the doctrine of the sacred
Letters and in the tradition of the mysteries, he raised up
churches unspotted for Christ in the provinces and cities
which he traversed. Of this kind
were Bartholomew's illustrious deeds; of this kind the exploits
of the great Herald of the Church; in this manner, having lived a long
time among the most savage nations,
not only did he borrow nothing of their savagery,
but he even sprinkled his own humanity upon them: not only did he contract
not the least stain at all of their error or malice
by his converse with them;
but rather by his surpassing kindness and imitation of God
he corrected the greatest part of their impiety and savagery,
not unlike the sun, which sends down its rays into
mire, and yet is not defiled, but rather
wastes away, exterminates, and lessens the stench.
[8] his last preaching in Armenia, After, his course being illustriously consummated and his faith
kept, he had converted innumerable men to the Lord
and had been to many a cause of salvation, he desired
at last to obtain an end worthy of his labors,
his body now failing with heavy old age, and desiring
with insatiable longing to depart to Christ
and to enjoy the rest of God. Nor indeed did the Lord neglect
the Just man's desire, nor, hearing it, did he grant less
than he asked. But as in
all things the most blessed Man was like to Christ, as
in all things he had ordered his life so worthily of Christ
that to those who rightly beheld him he both was another Christ
and offered himself as a rule of living, so it behooved an end
congruous to his whole life to follow. What
then was the occasion of his consummation? Let us see how
that too was worthy of Christ. The sacred Theologian was staying
in a certain city of greater Armenia
(they call it Urbanopolis), i
magnificently there after his manner
and divinely preaching God, and setting forth that all
gods and all demons were to be reckoned as nothing, but that Jesus alone
was to be worshiped; and he besought them to know him alone
as the true God, the perfect God,
alone holy, without beginning of time,
eternal, incomprehensible, eternal light
born of eternal light, or a splendor flowing forth
from God the Father, a light lacking beginning,
and equally with him lacking beginning,
who by an ineffable manner, which can neither be expressed
in words nor perceived by the mind, is the principle
of this very light. He, taking upon him whatever is of our nature,
and likewise with us made Man of the holy
and venerable Virgin, as the truth of our faith
teaches, and having conversed with us for the space of three years
both with discourses most worthy of God and with works
most surpassing, was then, by the dispensing of divine providence,
delivered to the cross and to death, but on the third day raised from death,
and, while we looked upon him, carried up to heaven,
and sat down at the right hand of God. He
will also come to judge the world justly, and to give to each
his wage according to his works.
By him we too, he said, have been sent, and we exhort and
beseech you, brethren: believe, and receive the saving
baptism in his name: nay, and, the gift of the Holy Spirit being received,
you will become heirs of eternal life and of the immortal
kingdom in Christ Jesus. Amen.
[9] While the most sacred Bartholomew was declaiming such things,
and far more than these, and more divine, with calm and gentle address
to the bystanders in their own idiom, his martyrdom consummated on a cross. and while some believed
and gave assent to the word of truth,
but others were exasperated and stirred up
with demoniac jealousy against him,
certain most wicked men suddenly seize
the most divine Old man, and, raising a clamor
against him, bring him before the chief men of the city.
But they, rashly examining this Leader
and hearing the doctrine asserted, namely
that God, being before the ages, was made man in
time, was crucified, on the third day raised from death,
taken up into heaven, and would come to judge
the living and the dead: these things, I say, when
the impious had heard, astounded by the novelty of the speech, and
indignant against the Crucified, straightway beat his
Herald with rods and fasten him to a cross,
crying out that it was just that the Priest of the Crucified
should undergo the punishment of the cross. But he
with eager mind approached the wood, and was fastened to it
with the greatest gladness he could. Hence indeed angels
descending upon him from heaven and ascending k
prepared for him a most august ascent; and from above
heaven was opened to him, and all
the hierarchies of the heavenly powers were preparing themselves
to receive and salute the most beloved Disciple of the Lord.
But he, when he had sent up beforehand thanksgiving joined with supplication,
like a most fragrant incense,
with confession to God the Father,
then, calmly and gladly loosed from the bonds of the flesh,
and joined and knit to the Spirit of God bearing him up
from earth to heaven,
wholly flies away from the body, and with glory passes
to the Lord: and, as a true Son, led with ineffable
exultation to the Father higher than the heavens,
he obtains an unspotted and long-lasting inheritance,
divine delights, and the highest and first
honor with Peter and Paul before the supreme King
of all.
[10] To thee therefore I turn myself, most precious
head before God and most holy. The praises of the Apostle, Hail, precious
stone, who, one of the twelve, art worthy of the corner
Stone, worthy of that most precious Pearl,
and most closely connected, knit, woven,
and built together with him into a dwelling-place of God
in the spirit.
Hail, most shining and notable star, most beautiful
and widely conspicuous, who, aptly fitted with those eleven,
art with them ordered and inserted
in the crown of glory plaited of stars, which
the heavenly Bridegroom, as the sacred Utterance has it,
set fitted upon the bride's head.
Hail, delight of the angels, soothing of the archangels,
fragrance of odor of the principalities,
splendor of the powers, glory of the dominations,
equal in throne with the thrones, comrade of the cherubim,
tent-fellow of the seraphim. Hail, ornament of the Apostles,
light of the martyrs, holiness and splendor
of all the Saints, a thing worthy of God,
called Bartholomew; who art truly Son suspending
the waters, l for that is what the name signifies.
Hail, because, imitating God also — as
the Son of God by his word suspends the airy waters
and lifts them from the earth, with which also, according to sacred
Scripture, he covers his upper chambers — so thou too didst by the Gospel
lift on high many waters, namely the souls of those creeping on the ground
who through thee believed in Christ;
of whom, suspending the more spiritual, torn away
from every earthly sense, and lifting them more perfectly
to God, with these same thou coverest the souls
of those faithful who, set in the second order,
are as it were upper chambers.
[11] to whom the author commends himself and his own. Hail, blessed Man, magnificent, admirable:
who didst teach that the saving Gospel is great and small,
ample and narrow: m great
indeed, because it surpasses the understanding of any mind
and of any nature endowed with reason; but small,
because, remitting much of his dignity, he who
is loftier than the heavens accommodated himself to the lowliness
and likeness of the earth-born. Or, great
for the majesty of the divinity, small for the utmost
slenderness of human nature; the new mixture n
and tempering of which constitutes the sum of the Gospel.
And now it is ample, because it contains in itself an ample
and immense height of understanding and wisdom
in hidden mysteries: narrow again, because it delivers
in compendium a brief and concise discourse about God. Rejoice and be glad,
most illustrious Son of God, most adorned with royal dignity;
because a throne has been prepared for thee in heaven with Christ
the King of glory, on which thou shalt also sit
with the elders of the Word, with the foremost followers
of Christ, to judge Israel, as the divine
promise of eternal Truth has it.
Hail, finally; but do thou also, visiting us with
more divine approaches, snatch us from all misery, storm,
grief of heart, and temptations: be to us
be before Christ a good reconciler,
who mayest lead us to him, our hope in no wise
frustrated with shame, and reconcile us to the supreme King
of all: to the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages.
Amen.
ANNOTATIONS.
at the beginning of the preliminary Commentary, which consult. That Combefis was deceived in this
passage the reader skilled in the Greek tongue will easily see, who shall have consulted his
translation: for it is not my purpose to assign his errors.
c In Greek θεηγόρε:
but θεηγόρος is expounded as Theologus
by Suidas and others commonly.
e Of
this raising upon a cross Nicetas likewise treats in his encomiastic Oration
on Philip, and we in the preliminary Commentary, §8, which the reader may
consult.
assigned somewhat differently in the Mystical Theology commonly ascribed to St. Dionysius,
or taught it otherwise, is disputed in §10 of the Commentary, which you may consult, reader.
n Care
must be taken lest here a Eutychian mixture of natures be understood, for this is alien
from the author's mind; but he understands the highest dignity in the one person of Christ, joined with
the deepest humility.
THE SAINT'S POSTHUMOUS GLORY
From his cultus, the various translations of the sacred body, miracles, relics, etc.
Bartholomew the Apostle, at Albanopolis in Armenia or Albania (St.)
BHL Number: 1009, 1010
BY J. S.
CHAPTER I.
Of the cultus, and of the twofold translation of the body.
§ I. The cultus: the sacred body borne to Anastasiopolis; then to the island of Lipari: the two translations reconciled.
The cultus of St. Bartholomew, most celebrated throughout the whole world,
is known in the sacred calendars of all nations,
yet on days and months most diverse. The Armenians
celebrate their Apostle on the XXV of February
and the VIII of December; as may be seen in two of their
Calendars, which Assemani published, tom. 3, part
2, of the Oriental Library, from p. 645. The feast of St. Bartholomew among various nations on various days The Copts
of Egypt and of Ethiopia, or of the kingdom of the Abyssinians,
in the Calendar which Job Ludolf published,
announce his memory at the XVIII of June
and the XX of November. In the Greek Typicon of Sabas Bartholomew
is joined with Barnabas on the XI of June, and
on the XXV of August the bringing of the relics is set,
to the island of Lipari, I suppose. This the Greeks plainly
follow in their metrical Ephemerides, and the Muscovites in
the figured ones, which Papebroch set before the eyes of readers
before tom. 1 of May; yet they add that the XI day of June
is that of his death, which the Typicon seems tacitly to insinuate:
but I could wish that more certainly proved.
Further, the Muscovites, contrary to the usage for the other apostles,
paint Bartholomew clad in an episcopal pallium;
but why they do this, Papebroch says in the same place
he cannot divine. The other Menologies and Menaea of the Greeks
nearly agree with these,
except that they weave longer eulogies, which will more aptly
be discussed elsewhere. Nor do the sacred calendars
of the Latins commemorate St. Bartholomew on the same day.
For the Hieronymian martyrologies, in
Florentinius, at the XIII of June announce him in these words:
In Persia, the birthday of St. Bartholomew the apostle.
But on the day XXIV of August, the place of his death being changed,
they thus celebrate his memory: In India,
of saint Bartholomew the apostle. And this XXIV day
of August most of the rest assign to his memory,
as Florus enlarging Bede, with a brief eulogy
added, which, whether you consider the place of death, or
the manner, or the author, wholly smacks of pseudo-Abdias.
Receive the words: In India, the birthday of Bartholomew
the apostle, who was beheaded in interior India
for Christ by order of king Astyages. More briefly Ado:
In India, of blessed Bartholomew the apostle.
[2] [and in various months it is celebrated, but the day of the martyrdom is uncertain.] Usuard on the same day praises the Apostle in these words:
The birthday of blessed Bartholomew the apostle,
who, preaching the Gospel of Christ in India,
completed his martyrdom by beheading. This Apostle's
most sacred body, translated first to the island
of Lipari, then to Benevento, is honored with the pious
veneration of the faithful. With these nearly agree
Rabanus, Wandelbert, and the other Latin martyrologists,
if you except the manner of death, and other things
which have been already discussed or will be disputed in their place.
Further, although in most Latin churches
the XXIV day of August is sacred to the memory of St. Bartholomew,
the Roman church nevertheless celebrates his festivity on the following day,
on which also his memory is read as assigned
in the Roman Martyrology in these
words: Of saint Bartholomew the apostle, who in India
preached the Gospel of Christ: thence, having set out into greater
Armenia, when he had there converted very many
to the faith, he was flayed alive by barbarians,
and by order of king Astyages completed his martyrdom by the beheading
of his head. His sacred body,
translated first to the island of Lipari, then to Benevento,
and lastly to Rome to the Tiberine island,
is there honored with the pious veneration of the faithful.
Certain less certain things in this eulogy have partly
already been examined, and will partly be examined
below. The reader sees, I suppose, on how various
days the memory of this Saint is celebrated: but which
of all those is the day of his death cannot
be determined. That the Apostle's feast is kept three times
with the greatest solemnity at Benevento, and in other places
of Italy, we have already noted at the Beneventan Translation,
letter c, and it will be said at num. 61: but
hence at least it is plain that with the day of martyrdom the twofold
translation is venerated; it is likewise established that the translation
to Benevento is celebrated on the XXV of October; but that the translation
to Lipari is kept in one place on the XXIV, in another on the XXV of August,
appears more probable, because on that day the bringing
of the relics is set; although Vipera, in the place cited,
dissents, along with the author of the Beneventan translation
adduced there. But not even so can we assign
days of the month of June his death is celebrated among various peoples,
nor is their authority so great that we can
safely acquiesce. For the rest, from what is to be said
it will be manifest that the Apostle is venerated with the greatest solemnity
at Rome, at Benevento, and at Lipari. These things about the cultus having been briefly
discussed, I pass to the very intricate questions
about the various translations of the sacred body.
[3] Tillemont, tom. 1 of the Monuments, p. 387, in
Bartholomew, writes these things about the translations of the sacred body:
The translation of the body to Lipari called into doubt by some, Theodore the Reader, who was writing
in the VI century, asserts that the emperor Anastasius, having built
about the year DVIII the town of Dara in Mesopotamia,
ordered the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle to be translated thither.
Procopius speaks of a church of
St. Bartholomew at Dara under Justinian. To others
we leave the reconciling of these things with what we see written
by Gregory of Tours, that in the same century they assert
that they have in the island of Lipari near Sicily the body of the same
Apostle, which had been translated thither, they said,
from the place where he had suffered: and there had been built
a magnificent temple dedicated to his name, where various
miracles were said to be done. If there was no fraud
on either side, an error must
have intervened, and the relics of some other St.
Bartholomew must have been taken for those which are
the Apostle's. The tradition of the church of Lipari seems
to have been received by common consent from the IX century both
by the Greeks and by the Latins. But this troublesome thing
happens, that the manner in which they assert they received
the body of St. Bartholomew is such that I should not dare
to report it, lest I offend all who
hate fables, and pursue them with greater hatred
in matters of religion than in others. Thus Tillemont,
timidly indeed, and, as it may seem,
modestly; yet in such a way that he both holds for fable-mongers
men beyond all exception, whether you consider their sanctity
or their erudition, and not only calls into doubt
but also openly enough impugns the common
tradition of the Latin and Greek Church about
the body of St. Bartholomew, so long venerated at Benevento;
so that, in Tillemont's judgment, the Romans
and the Beneventans have so long disputed about a body plainly
uncertain and perhaps supposititious.
Baillet, tom. 2 of the Lives of the Saints, adheres
to his Tillemont, a faithful Achates. But indeed, there was no reason why these learned men
should be so greatly moved, even if the things which Theodore the Reader wrote,
book 2 of the Collectanea, could not be reconciled with the body
of St. Bartholomew asserted at Lipari by St. Gregory
of Tours, even if they had assigned the same time to them:
for Theodore could be understood of certain relics,
or of some part of the body,
since he calls it τὸ λείψανον, which can no less rightly be expounded
of certain relics than of the whole body. But it is not necessary
to have recourse to this distinction: for I judge it true
that the body was laid up at Dara by Anastasius, and then
I shall show that it was translated also to Lipari, and
how these two are reconciled with one another in friendly connection
will be plain from what is to be said.
[4] Evagrius, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 37,
wrote these things about Dara, or Anastasiopolis, when it was founded:
This war being finished, Anastasius changed a certain place
of Mesopotamia, which is called Daras, situated on the farthest
bounds of the Roman empire, because it was under the emperor Anastasius and as it were
a boundary by which one commonwealth is distinguished from the other,
from a field into a city: and first
surrounded it with a most strong wall, then built in it various buildings,
and those excellent, such as churches
and other sacred edifices: royal porticoes, public baths,
and other things of the kind with which illustrious cities
are wont to be magnificently and excellently adorned. And some
report that that place was called Daras for this reason,
that Darius was there utterly conquered by Alexander king
of the Macedonians, son of Philip.
The same Procopius narrates, book 1 On the Persian War,
chapter 10, where he adds: It is distant from Nisibis a hundred stadia
less two, and from the boundary of either empire
about XXVIII; and others cited in Baronius and
Pagi at the year of Christ 507, at the end, who
also add that it was called Anastasiopolis from its founder
Anastasius. To these Nicephorus, book
16, chapter 37, adds the following: That city being founded, after
he had departed thence, Bartholomew the apostle standing by him
in sleep signified by an oracle that the protection of those walls
had been committed to him by God.
And Anastasius applied that vision to the purpose:
for he laid there the relics of him that had been found. The most eminent
Baronius, in the place just cited, wished to refute this
from Theodore the Reader, book 2, whom he cites in these
words: Anastasius founded Dara; and when
he had founded it, he saw in sleep Bartholomew the apostle
saying that he had overthrown the guardianship of the city,
because he had rejected his relics sent thither.
And so has the version of Theodore made by Wolfgang
Musculus; but Musculus, of heretical
faith, thus expressed Theodore's passage, endeavoring to suppress
the translation of St. Bartholomew's relics.
Hear Theodore's Greek words: Ἀναστάσιος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔκ͂τισε τὸ Δάρας, καὶ κτίσας, ὄναρ τεθέαται Βαρθολομαῖον λέγοντα τὸν ἀπόστολον, ὡς αὐτὸς τὴν φυλακὴν ἐπετράπη τῆς πόλεως· διὸ τὸ λείψανον αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ πέμψας ἀπέθετο.
Which Henri de Valois faithfully
interprets in this manner: Anastasius
the emperor built the city of Daras. And when
it was now built, he saw Bartholomew the apostle
in sleep, saying that he had undertaken the guardianship of the city.
Wherefore Anastasius sent Bartholomew's relics
thither, and ordered them to be laid up in that city. The most learned
Baronius therefore, deceived by Musculus' unfaithful version,
wrongly reprehends Nicephorus,
who here plainly agrees with Theodore the Reader. Upon the same
rock Florentinius struck, the matter being even
before his Martyrology, p. 158, he reports these things:
Theodore the Reader … is the author that the fortifications of Dara
restored by Anastasius fell down, because he had rejected
the relics of St. Bartholomew sent thither.
For not even in Musculus' version is this read.
[5] laid up at Anastasiopolis. That translation is narrated from Gregory of Tours In this manner the sacred body of Bartholomew was laid up at Anastasiopolis,
received either from the place
where it had first been buried, or whither it had afterwards
been translated; which is not established. This was likely done
in the year of Christ 507, the 17th of the emperor Anastasius,
in which Dara is recorded to have been founded by Baronius
and Pagi, or at least not long after. Justinian
the emperor afterwards built there a temple to the Apostle,
as Procopius relates, book 2 On the Buildings
of Justinian, chapter 2, who also there narrates
that the city was twice besieged in vain by the Persians, the Apostle,
as it seems, protecting his own. But neither was that protection
perpetual, nor did that sacred treasure
remain there until the end of that same century.
For St. Gregory, bishop of Tours, book 1
On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 33, writing before the end of this
century, attests that it was translated to Lipari, whose narration,
which Tillemont wished to set in collision with the things just narrated,
I shall now show is rather made more likely
by them. But let us hear
Gregory himself first, in the place cited of the Ruinart edition,
col. 757: That Bartholomew the apostle,
he says, suffered in India (others read Asia),
the History of his contest narrates. But after
spaces of many years from his passion, when
persecution had again come upon the Christians, and the gentiles
saw all the people running together to his sepulcher,
and continually offering him prayers
and incense, drawn by envy, they took away
his body, and, placing it in a leaden sarcophagus,
cast it into the sea, saying:
Thou shalt no longer seduce our people. But
the providence of God cooperating by the secret of its working,
the leaden sarcophagus, lifted up from that place by the waters
bearing it, was carried to an island
by name Lipari; and it was revealed to the Christians
that they should gather it up: and, being gathered up and
buried, they built over it a great temple.
In which, now invoked, he shows himself to profit the peoples
by many powers and benefits. Thus far
Gregory, narrating things done in his own time,
as is gathered first from this, that he says, in which now
invoked; for he insinuates that that temple had recently
been built, and that the temple was built at once,
when the body had been borne to Lipari, the Studite narrates.
Secondly, because in the proem of the books
on miracles, of which this is one, he premises that
he desires to disclose some things about miracles which have hitherto lain hidden;
if that miracle had hitherto lain hidden,
that is, if it had been written by no one, whence
did Gregory learn it, unless it was done in his own time?
For he cites no one, and without any
doubt, as a manifest matter, he reports it. Thirdly,
through the whole time of the emperor Justinian the sacred body
seems to have remained at Anastasiopolis, nor
can any reason be given why we should say it was carried off thence.
Fourthly, the translation is narrated to have been made
when Agatho governed the church of Lipari, who
was contemporary with St. Gregory, and bishop at the same
time as he. A fifth reason will be supplied
by the occasion on which that sacred pledge was likely removed
from Anastasiopolis and conveyed to Lipari,
which falls in the very age in which Gregory of Tours
flourished and wrote: but
this must be investigated at greater length.
[6] Baronius and Pagi, at the year of Christ
574, by an author more likely contemporary, the 10th of Justin the younger, narrate from various
authors how Anastasiopolis, or Daras,
was taken by the Persians, a war having arisen between the Romans
and the Persians, because these were persecuting the Christians,
and thence the Armenians had gone over to the Romans. The matter, so far as it pertains
to our purpose, I shall subjoin from Evagrius, with Henri de Valois as translator
and editor. He, in book 5, chapter 7, writes thus: The inhabitants
of greater Armenia, which now is called Persarmenia,
… having professed the Christian faith, when
they were grievously vexed by the Persians, especially in those matters
which pertained to their religion
(you have here that saying of Gregory above: When persecution
had again come upon the Christians) secretly sent legates
to Justin, asking that they might be subjected to the dominion of the Romans,
that they might freely, without any hindrance,
perform the ceremonies of divine worship.
Which legation, when Justin had admitted it
… the Armenians slew their own prefects, and all
joined themselves to the Roman empire. Hence
war between the Romans and the Persians. The Romans being sluggish,
the Persians run through the East as far as Antioch,
which things you will find described at greater length in Evagrius. In chapter 9 Chosroes, king of the Persians,
shuts up the Roman soldiers within the town of Daras.
In chapter 10, increased by the forces of his general, he storms the city by force,
which is there thus narrated: These things being done,
Adaarmanes came to Chosroes, who had not yet stormed
the city of Daras. Being therefore joined with his forces,
he brought the greatest weight to the affair
… In this way Chosroes in winter time
took that city by force. Now Chosroes had besieged that city
five months and more, no one defending it.
When therefore he had led all out of the city,
an immense multitude of men,
and had cruelly slaughtered some of them there,
but kept the rest alive, the city indeed,
as being conveniently situated, he fortified with a garrison placed in it;
but he himself returned into his own region. Here it cannot be doubted
that against the sacred body of St. Bartholomew, which he could easily hear
had been placed there for the fortification of the city, and piously
venerated by the Christians, that fierce man raged,
since it is also sufficiently known from elsewhere that the Persians
were wont to plunder the sacred pledges of the Christians and carry them off
with them.
[7] and it is proved to involve no repugnance, But one scruple here occurs, namely by what
means the Persians could have cast the Saint's body into the sea:
but this too I shall try to remove from Evagrius, that Gregory's narration
may not seem to depart from likelihood even in its
circumstances; for I do not here yet weigh the narrations of others
on this matter. We saw above from Evagrius that the Persians
roamed most freely as far as Antioch, which
they also attacked; from which we understand that Syria
lay open to their incursions as far as the Mediterranean
sea, no one resisting: and this liberty,
Anastasiopolis being taken, was assuredly so far from being
diminished that with greater forces they could now range abroad through all that winter
time. Why therefore in some like
excursion could they not have carried off with them the body of Bartholomew,
hateful to them, and sunk it in the Mediterranean sea, that it might never
thereafter lie open to the eyes of Christians? What was done
I do not say: what could have been done I inquire.
Next, the praised Evagrius, chapter 14, of Chosroes:
Who after the capture, he says, of the city of Daras,
straightway in summer time had burst into Armenia,
and thence was meditating to invade Caesarea, the metropolis
of Cappadocia and of the other cities there:
and he so greatly despised the empire of the Romans
that when the caesar had sent legates to him,
he by no means admitted them to his sight,
but bade them follow him as far as the city of Caesarea.
For there, he said, he would hear their legation.
[8] the chief objection being solved, How great a terror on every side through lesser
Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia
his coming brought, we learn from the Life of St. Eutychius,
Patriarch of Constantinople, written by Eustathius
by Henschen, tom. 1 of April from p. 548, in
which, chapter 7, these things are read: The incursion of the impious Persians
into our commonwealth, in which the new
Nabuchodonosor Chosroes came to Sebaste and
Melitene, all know. When therefore affairs had been brought into great
straits and peril,
nearly all the neighbors from Nicopolis, Neocaesarea,
Comana, Zela, and other bordering cities betook themselves
to Amasea (where Eutychius was living in exile),
as to a most fortified place,
trusting not so much in the garrison of the city as in the prayers
of the holy man: for all, both natives
and newcomers and settlers, who were for the greater part Iberians,
and the rest of the guests, had placed their hopes, under God, in him.
From these we gather that that whole tract of lesser Armenia and of Pontus,
as far as the Euxine Sea,
was then open to the hostile arms of the Persians.
Why in this expedition could not the sacred body, carried away from Anastasiopolis,
have been sunk in the Euxine Sea? For that it was cast into the Euxine
most authors relate, although Gregory's narration
does not require it. The tyrant could be incited to this
both because the Armenians had revolted for religion's sake,
and the war had been begun, and because
he was busy to despoil the Armenians in every way of their patron,
and the other Easterners, in whom he had doubtless understood
that they greatly trusted. But, you will say,
they were already despoiled of that treasure: what need then
was there to cast it into the sea? That, forsooth, they might lack it
forever, the power being cut off from himself and his posterity
of restoring the sacred body when at last peace was made.
Add that he feared nothing from the Romans,
occupied in levying soldiers in Europe,
and therefore could both roam freely and indulge his hatred
against the sacred things of the Christians. Nor may our adversaries here rightly
say that nothing of these things has been handed down
to memory by the historians: for at this we can by no means wonder,
that these deeds done by unbelievers lay hidden from the Christians.
It ought to be enough for us that it was written by
illustrious authors that the sacred body was cast into the waters,
and that indeed at that time when
persecution had again arisen against the Christians, which
rightly agrees with this time. But if you think it
less likely that this venerable treasure was cast
into the Euxine Sea, there are not wanting rivers in Cappadocia
which discharge themselves into the same sea: if you think the sacred body
was cast into one of these, and so carried
into the Euxine, the authors spoke less properly,
or, if you will absolutely have it so, erred in a slight
circumstance. Certainly that the venerable body
was treated with injury by the impious, and withdrawn from the eyes of Christians,
we cannot doubt:
why then should we not believe, on so many witnesses, that it was sunk in the water?
[9] It is now useful to call to our aid Tillemont himself, who called into doubt
as he confesses, by the Latins alike and the Greeks. and from Tillemont's own principles,
For if he had not departed from principles laid down
elsewhere, he does not seem likely to have doubted of this
tradition. For in his preface, tom. 1 of the Monuments, p. 15, he speaks thus:
We confess that in this whole work authority has been consulted
rather than reasoning. We have been convinced
by many examples that things which appear most
improbable are yet sometimes found true.
Which he confirms by the example of holy Scripture, from
which very many examples of this kind could be given. We see
likewise, he says, that things which at first seem
most contrary are yet most easily reconciled,
when their several circumstances are known…
Led by this principle, when we have seen things
asserted by ancient and excellent authors, whose
testimony the sons of the Catholic Church ought to revere,
we have not thought that they could be deserted,
at least unless we should see for this most weighty reasons.
And in the same tome, p. 631, note 13 on James
the Less: It is not infrequent in the truest histories
to find improbabilities of that kind. The reason
why this is wont to happen he assigns on p. 632. The manner
in which some narrate things often makes even the truest things
suspect and incredible, because they report
only certain facts separated from one another, omitting
those things which connect them and would show
their possibility or probability. These things
Tillemont says excellently, which he could himself have observed
have place above all in the translation of St. Bartholomew's body;
for the circumstances of the matter which would render it
altogether probable have been omitted,
not by the fault of the authors who reported it, but
because they could be less known.
[10] it is determined that it must be admitted as true. Why therefore did Tillemont call into doubt the Liparitan tradition,
received, as he confesses, by the Latins alike and the Greeks,
and resting on the testimony of the weightiest men? Why did he wish to set it
in collision with the translation made to Anastasiopolis?
Why did he contend that there was fraud or
error on one side or the other? Is that reason which he brings
so weighty? Namely that the body is said to have been translated in the same century
to Anastasiopolis, and to have been in the same century in the island
of Lipari; that here
fraud or error must be suspected? As if it could not have been translated
at the beginning of the century to Anastasiopolis,
and carried to Lipari when the century was nearly grown?
Not for one translation only, but for several, Tillemont could here
have found sufficient time.
But, he says, it is said to have been translated from the place where
the Apostle had suffered. This is not said by St.
Theodore the Studite, nor by Joseph, although they
speak more obscurely: certainly not by Gregory of Tours,
whose narration Tillemont insinuates to be contrary to the Anastasiopolitan
translation. But,
you will say, it is asserted by others who narrate the same. These therefore
he ought to have attacked, these to have convicted of error,
not to have set the matter itself and its first Writers in collision
with the first translation made to Anastasiopolis.
For certain later writers imprudently added it,
on whose authority the Liparitan translation does not rest.
The translation of the body to Lipari therefore, although,
on account of omitted circumstances, it was narrated in a less probable manner,
must remain certain and undoubted, since there stands for it
the consent of the Greeks and Latins, and among them
Gregory of Tours, a man holy and learned, and, what
is chief, a contemporary writer; St. Theodore the Studite,
erudition that the heterodox William Cave, most hostile to him
for his defense of the sacred images, was compelled to confess,
in his History of Ecclesiastical Writers, p. 359: He was a man learned
above the common lot of the lettered, and not moderately versed
in almost every kind of the sciences; Anastasius
the Librarian, a man learned and erudite in Greek and Latin;
Joseph, as it seems, the Hymnographer,
and others, of whom it would be long to weave
Now it must be examined whether its manner is as
fabulous as it seemed to Tillemont.
§ II. In what manner the body was transported to Lipari?
The manner of the translation by sea Seven islands lie between Italy and Sicily,
called Aeolian, because Aeolus is said to have reigned
in them, and Vulcanian from the fires which
they belch forth. Nearly the middle of these, and the chief, is Lipari,
which held a city of the same name, says
Cellarius, Ancient Geography tom. 1, book 2,
chapter 12, p. 652, and was of such power that
it had a fleet, and ruled over the other Aeolian islands.
That this was enriched with the body of St. Bartholomew we have already seen.
But whether it was done in this manner, as is commonly handed down,
miraculously, we here inquire. This manner
we have already given from Gregory of Tours
in the preceding §; from Joseph and Theodore the Studite
in their own Orations. Briefly it is contracted
to these things, in which the authors already given, and
to be given below, agree. The body, enclosed in a sarcophagus
and cast into the sea by the unbelievers, by the ruling
of divine providence was borne to Lipari,
and there known by revelation, and honorably laid up in a temple
that was built, and became renowned by many miracles.
This substance of the whole matter must first be examined,
then also the circumstances which are added by some
must be discussed. This history is wonderful,
if anyone, by the very fact that he reads wonderful things,
judges them false, he must often strike upon a rock, nor
does he seem sufficiently to acknowledge that God is
wonderful in his Saints. Yet we do not deny that the firmer
testimonies must be brought forward the more wonderful
and abhorrent from the appearance of truth are the things
narrated. Here therefore it must be weighed whether the testimonies
that are brought are such that by them we can
and ought to believe so great a matter.
[12] Honoré de Sainte-Marie, in his Animadversions
on the rules and use of criticism, tom. 1, asserted by witnesses beyond all exception, part 2,
diss. 6, art. 6, p. 230, lays down a most equitable rule
by which we may both know the truth of some history related,
and know that he who related it was not
its inventor; the part of which containing the acknowledging of the truth
of a history I shall set as the foundation of this
examination. Scarcely, he says, is there
a rule of criticism less capable of deceiving, to make us certain
of the truth of some history related by a certain writer
…, than if other authors,
with whom the first had no connection,
confirm what he asserts. Still less will this rule deceive,
if those authors either lived at the time
at which the thing must have been done, or were of sharp
wit and great erudition, whereby they could more easily
separate the true from the false. But this
translation of which we treat had such assertors.
For St. Gregory of Tours wrote in Latin in Gaul
that this was done in his own time, as we have proved;
St. Theodore the Studite, and others, who had never, as I suppose, seen
Gregory's history, described it in the ninth century in Greek in Greece;
others at Lipari, to be reported below; St. Bertharius
abbot of Cassino and Anastasius the Librarian thought it worthy
that they should render it from the Greek speech into Latin;
to pass over very many more recent writers
who judged the same worthy that they should insert it in their own
writings; not to speak of the consent of the Latin and Greek Church
in the ninth century in admitting the Liparitan tradition.
Add that none of the more ancient writers is found
who denied that the translation was accomplished in the manner explained above.
We have therefore witnesses beyond all exception:
Gregory of Tours, contemporary, learned, sincere;
Theodore the Studite, excellently erudite and
holy, who was never heard to be a lover of fables,
nor was suspected of too great credulity,
of whom one did not copy the other: we have
many learned men of nearly the same time,
and the consent of the Church adhering to them, and no one
who lived about those times dissenting. Credit
therefore we cannot deny to so many and so great witnesses,
unless they were writing things which we could convict of being openly
false.
[13] But such is not this translation, as I here briefly
show. nor such that it cannot be believed, For at the beginning of the VI century, under the rule
of Anastasius, the sacred body was laid up in the city of Dara;
and, that city being taken under Justin the younger, more than
sixty years having elapsed, it could in many ways be cast into the sea,
as we taught in the preceding §. Why
therefore could not divine providence bear it to Lipari
and there reveal it to the faithful?
What here, I beseech you, is absurd, what discordant? One
miracle is asserted, by which a chest of stone
or lead floated upon the waters; one revelation,
by which it was manifested to the people of Lipari. So
many like things are read in the Acts of the Saints, even the most
authentic, that I think examples must be forborne,
lest this disputation grow too much.
Yet satisfaction must be given to Tillemont,
lest his authority stand in the way of the truth.
[14] it must be admitted as true, Tillemont in no wise standing in the way, Tillemont did not dare to report this manner of the translation,
lest he should offend the haters of fables.
But St. Theodore the Studite, a man learned above the common
lot of the lettered, and not moderately versed in almost every kind
of the sciences, thought it worthy that he should celebrate it with encomia
and compare it with Peter's walking
upon the waters. Could Tillemont see
what in that manner of translation can seem fabulous,
and Theodore not see it? That assuredly does not seem to me likely.
For granted that Tillemont's erudition were equal,
age at least favors Theodore, who at the beginning of the ninth
century could better know what was done toward the end of the sixth
century in the island of Lipari,
since the body had not yet been removed thence, than
Tillemont could know it in the past century. Compared therefore
with the authority of St. Theodore alone,
Tillemont will be far inferior. What if I now
add Gregory of Tours, whom Tillemont himself,
tom. 4 of the Monuments, note 2 on Dionysius,
p. 708, follows for the time of the mission of St. Dionysius
and others, as an author better than the rest,
although he there writes of a matter three centuries at least
past: what, I say, if I add him,
as an author writing of matters of his own time? What
if the other authors reported, and the consent of all the Greeks
and Latins; for no one ever
handed down to memory that the Saint's body came to Lipari in another way;
yet by common consent from the ninth
century the Greeks and Latins admit the Liparitan tradition,
as Tillemont confesses.
[15] who is here not sufficiently like himself. If I add, I say, the authority of all these,
not only will Tillemont be far inferior,
but he will not even appear sufficiently like himself,
because elsewhere with great reverence toward the holy Fathers and ancient
authors he receives their testimonies,
even if various things be adduced which might stand
in the way; but here he so greatly spurns their authority
that he not only departs from them, but even asserts them to be writers of such great fables
that he himself does not dare to report them, lest he should offend all who
hate fables. Here certainly the learned man feared
where there was no fear; where he ought to have feared,
he did not fear. For the rest, what I more wonder at, after the words
cited, tom. 1, p. 388, straightway less
timid, he narrates the gathering-up of the Apostle's relics
made at Lipari by a Greek monk, relying on the single
testimony of Anastasius the Librarian; and yet
in that gathering-up both a divine revelation and a heavenly
light by which the bones were shown, and miracles,
are narrated to have been done, so that it can appear
no less wonderful than this translation of which
we dispute: if therefore here Anastasius' single testimony suffices,
why should not the testimony of the same Anastasius in the Liparitan
translation, joined with so many others, suffice for us? It ought assuredly
to have sufficed for Tillemont too, unless he had held suspect
even the presence itself of the body at Lipari,
relying on his own paralogism, that a body translated in the same century
to Anastasiopolis could not in the same century be at Lipari,
carried thither, as was said, from Albanopolis,
to which we gave satisfaction in the preceding §.
Now let us report the same translation from others,
that we may examine certain circumstances added by them.
[16] Rocco Pirro, in Sicilia sacra tom. 2,
p. 660, In another narration of this translation, and Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia sacra
tom. 1, col. 773 of the edition of the year 1717, both
in Agatho, according to them the first bishop of the people of Lipari
under the emperors Decius and Valerian,
produce an ancient manuscript, in
which they attest that they read the following, which I shall copy from Pirro,
nothing of any moment being changed in Ughelli: That the citizens and inhabitants of Albanopolis,
ungrateful for so many and so great benefits daily received from Bartholomew,
cast his body, enclosed in a stone chest,
into the deep of the sea;
presently divine vengeance raged against them, and the city
is laid waste by enemies: and the dwellers are subjected to servitude;
yet divine piety carried those same relics of Bartholomew
to the island of Lipari, to that very
place not far from that city; where even now under the waters
the stone chest is seen, as the people of Lipari, when I was there,
told me that they had received from a tradition led down
to these our times. Of the putting-in of the sacred body
our Agatho, warned by an angel, came to the place
and found the heavenly treasure; he falls upon his knees,
venerates the sacred relics,
and handled them with what honor he could: he understood,
namely, that this bulwark of his island was given him
by God, and bade it be carried in from the sea into the cathedral temple
on the shoulders of presbyters; but these things were done with so great
applause of the citizens and signs of the joy of those carrying it,
that Agatho, ascending the pulpit, delivered a discourse
to the people on the very day of the translation:
nearly in these words. Then an oration is subjoined in Pirro,
not such as Agatho delivered to the people,
but such as on a like occasion he could fittingly have delivered,
as the author himself hints, when he says: nearly in these
words; which therefore I have not thought must here
be copied.
[17] Each author holds that the translation was made
in the time of this Agatho, which is not rightly placed under Decius, and that under the rule
of Decius or Valerian, that is, in the third century; but
presently a most open anachronism is added. Hear
Pirro again, with whom as to the matter Ughelli agrees:
Then, he says, happened the translation of the sacred body of St. Bartholomew
the apostle; with which the city of Daras on the borders of Persia
had first been made illustrious, as
Theodore the Reader writes. In what way had Daras been made illustrious
by the sacred body first — Daras, which not until
the sixth century, under the emperor Anastasius, was enriched with this sacred
treasure, on the witness of the cited Theodore —
if it had already in the third century been translated to Lipari?
This error is too open to need a longer
refutation. Nicolò Coleti, on the passage of Ughelli
which he published, notes thus: I doubt whether in truth
in that age the island of Lipari had Agatho as bishop.
A certain Agatho, bishop of Lipari, is named
in the Oration on the body of St. Bartholomew
brought to that island, and Rocco Pirro will have him
to be the one whose Life is had in the Acts of SS.
Alphius, etc. (and of whom Ughelli here speaks:)
but I should more willingly believe that translation to have been in
the age of St. Gregory, in which the bishop of Lipari
was Agatho, than that it was made in that of Decius: and therefore I still
require a more certain testimony of the existence of another Agatho.
For such a one the people of Lipari would likely venerate
among their patrons, if they had had him.
Then he cites tom. 11 of May of our Work, p.
548; where Papebroch notes those things, who before
had shown that those Acts of SS. Alphius, Philadelphus,
and Cyrinus the martyrs, in which frequent mention
is made of that Agatho, are fabulous, and therefore in tom.
V of June, p. 248, placed that Agatho among the passed-over.
But it matters little for our purpose
whether there was then some Agatho bishop of Lipari
or not: it suffices that there was someone
toward the end of the sixth century, to whose times the translation
is to be referred, which Gregory of Tours
sufficiently indicates was made in his own time, and which
the capture of Daras by the Persians at that time persuades to have been accomplished.
[18] or that some said it was made under Constantine, Further, in what year the translation was made
is not clear. For neither is it established in what year Agatho
was made bishop of Lipari, but we have only
that he was removed from the episcopate by St. Gregory
about the year 592, as Ughelli, cited, col. 774, proves from Gregory's
epistles; nor can it be said
whether the Persians cast away the sacred body at once after the capture of Dara,
or somewhat later; nor likewise
how long it was in the sea. Yet the translation must be set
between the year 574, in which Daras was taken
according to Baronius and Pagi, and the year
592, in which Agatho was deposed from the episcopate.
The manuscript Florarium of the Saints ought not here to detain us,
in which the translation is said to have been made in the year
of Christ 331. For that author, who wrote only in the 15th century,
is too recent to be able to make us certain
about the time of that translation: especially
since no Agatho then seems to have been
bishop of Lipari, nor can this epoch
be reconciled with the laying-up of the body at Dara
made by Anastasius. These hallucinations of more recent writers
in assigning the time of the translation
seem to have furnished Tillemont a cause for impugning it;
but he ought to have observed that these things were not written
by the ancients, and therefore that the more recent are rather
to be corrected than the translation itself denied.
[19] certain things must be corrected. But now what is narrated about the body cast into the sea
by the people of Albanopolis is taken from popular tradition,
as also about their city
destroyed by enemies, and therefore is not to be admitted. For
these things were written neither by Gregory, nor by the Studite, nor
by Joseph, although these last two so
speak that, if the matter were altogether doubtful, they might
seem to insinuate this. But this error seems to have flowed thence,
that this alone was known by divine revelation,
that the body was immersed in the sea by unbelievers;
and, since they were ignorant of the first translation,
they thought it was cast away by those among whom
it had at first been buried: they could err less
about the body brought thither, which they themselves could
behold present, and therefore that error, even if
it had existed from the beginning, which does not appear, ought not to lessen
the credit to be given them as to the translation itself. Receive now also the Menaea
of the Greeks, as they were rendered into Latin by our Rader,
in which other circumstances of this translation are added.
[20] A fuller account from the Greek Menaea. At the day XXV of August they have thus: Opportunely
now it is permitted me also to exclaim, How admirable
is God in his Saints! since I have resolved to unfold
a rare and plainly formidable prodigy.
Saint Bartholomew the apostle in divers places
opened and preached the name of the Lord to mortals.
He was fastened to a cross in great Armenia,
a region of the East. Him the faithful, found at the end of his life,
laid in a stone chest. But since
that urn poured forth perennial fountains of healings,
the peoples ran together, and were freed by all
from the troubles of their diseases. When
the satellites of the devil saw this, they began to rage and
to be mad against that tomb. And so, the matter and the time
being explored, they cast this sarcophagus, which contained
the body of the holy Apostle, together with the chests of four other
martyrs, into the sea. But this
was all done that that whole tract of sea
through which the bodies passed, and all the places
through which divine grace had distributed the Saints,
might be consecrated and blessed. For when the holy
Apostle had crossed the great gulfs of Pontus, and the straits
of the Hellespont, and the channel, he came into the Aegean
and Adriatic sea, leaving the noble
and renowned great island of Sicily on the left. And he had
as companions the urns of the said martyrs,
which followed St. Bartholomew — Pappianus,
I mean, Lucianus, Gregory, and Acacius — and
they put in at the island of Lipari. How wonderful are thy works,
O Lord, and what speech would suffice to
unfold the praises of thy wonders? And the renowned
martyrs indeed left the great Apostle to rest as
an emperor in the place that pleased him,
and straightway sailed thither
where the divine lot willed each to pitch his tent.
Pappianus therefore was borne to the Sicilian city of Ancilla,
Lucianus to Messina, Gregory to Colimna, a town of Calabria,
Acacius to the city so called Ascalis.
[21] But the holy Apostle revealed himself to Agatho,
bishop of Lipari, the narration of the same translation, who at once ran to the place
where the chest had rested, and, having beheld
the vast and dread prodigy, astounded with amazement, said:
And whence, O Lipari, so great and
so vast a treasure? Truly thou hast been exceedingly magnified
and illustrated with singular glory; leap, exult,
receive with thy hands this sacred pledge and
cry out: Well and happily art thou here, O Apostle of the Lord.
The bishop, having spoken these and other things, when
he had proclaimed both the Apostle and the island blessed,
fell silent. But when the holy chest was to be carried to the illustrious place
in which also a divine temple to the glory of the most praised Apostle
was to be raised, many indeed set their hands
to draw the sacred coffer; but it did not obey,
nor could it be moved from the place, until Agatho, divinely taught,
brought up two young cows under a yoke,
which, without any trouble, drew the vast chest, bound with slender ropes,
whither the Apostle who was preserved in it
willed.
[22] Here things more wonderful than wonders followed, which to many
perhaps unaccustomed to heavenly prodigies will seem
incredible. which seems taken from Nicetas the Paphlagonian. There is a small island whose name is Vurcanos;
it has a fountain which day and night
perennially gushes. This island as it were alone felt the coming
of the Apostle: for when by its nearness it was harmful to Lipari,
straightway by a certain heavenly power it withdrew seven
stadia from Lipari, that tract being marked off as by some
river, showing and proclaiming the miracle even today.
O miracle of miracles!
O most prodigious prodigy! Where has anything like it
ever been known under the sun? But after
the bishop had raised an elegant and illustrious temple to the Apostle,
and in it laid the most precious treasure,
the sacred body, I mean, with the chest itself:
who could attain in speech how many
miracles have there daily been wrought? This whole narration
inserted in the Menaea seems to have as its author Nicetas
the Paphlagonian, for it is cited under his name by
various writers, and with his encomiastic Oration, whether you consider
the style or the Saint's death related in it,
it rightly agrees. Now certain things which are most
prodigious, or contrary in appearance, must be weighed.
[23] In nearly all the relations the chest in which
the sacred body was enclosed is said to have been of stone.
Gregory of Tours however calls the sarcophagus leaden, which Combefis also
attests is found in his codex of the Menaea, Whether the body was placed in a stone chest or a leaden one? in the Auctarium, note 2 on
this translation, p. 496, which he himself there
tries to reconcile in this manner: Was it not, as usage almost
has it, that in the stone chest there was a leaden urn,
and that the undutiful men cast both into the sea,
lest any memory of the Apostle, even by an empty tomb,
should remain among them, whereby the people's devotion toward him
might be cherished? This conjecture
I do not disapprove. The stone chest could also have been fortified
with lead, or covered, as someone thought.
Yet I do not deny that as to this circumstance an error
could easily have crept in upon Gregory of Tours; but this makes nothing
for the substance of the matter.
[24] Whether the island, Greater difficulty has that plainly stupendous prodigy
which is here narrated, and in the Studite,
about the island which here in Greek is called Βουρκάνος,
and by Anastasius is called Vulcanus in the Latin version
of the Studite; and it is commonly thought that the island is designated
which, situated between Sicily and Lipari,
is named by another name Hiera, because it is sacred to Vulcan,
concerning which Virgil, book 8 of the Aeneid:
An island by the Sicanian side and Aeolian
Lipare rises up, steep with smoking rocks:
the house of Vulcan, and the land Vulcanian by name.
The same is also called Thermissa by Strabo, and
the temple of Vulcan, as may be seen in Cellarius,
Notice of the Ancient World, tom. 1, p. 653. The island
further is said to have withdrawn seven stadia from
Lipari, to which its nearness was harmful on account of the continual eructations
of fires. This prodigy our Ottavio Gaetani
tries to render likely in his Animadversions on the Lives of the Saints,
tom. 1, p. 136: But that the island of Vulcanus,
almost contiguous to Lipari, at the putting-in of St. Bartholomew's
body withdrew seven stadia away,
understand to have been done by the benevolence of the most holy Apostle toward
the people of Lipari: namely that the island, driven farther off, might free them
from the perils of the fires which burst out from the nearby crater of Vulcanus
to the harm of the dwellers. Nor is it wonderful that that island was divinely removed,
which by a miracle of nature was not born together with the world,
but had suddenly emerged from the sea, in the consulship of Posthumius
Albinus and Fabius Labeo, as
Pliny (book 2, chapter 87), Eutropius, Paulus
Orosius, and Isidore record. Ado also has this, in the Chronicle
at the fifth age, after the year of the world 4588,
in these words: The island of Vulcanus, which before had not been,
suddenly arose in the sea. But these things certainly cannot be admitted
as true, since authors far
more ancient make mention of this island; but
perhaps these things must be understood of another island, as also
the very miracle of which we dispute, if it
truly happened.
[25] and which one Philip Cluverius, Ancient Sicily, book
2, chapter 14, p. 409, thus refutes Fazello, who had adduced the same
authors for Hiera, or the island of Vulcanus, as having been born from the sea:
A vast error,
or slip of memory. For nearly CC years
before the year 10L of the city of Rome (in which year, in the consulship
of Sp. Posthumius Albinus and Q. Fabius Labeo,
Fazello writes that the island was born) Thucydides makes mention
of it; as was seen above: and
about c years after him Aristotle. Then he cites
among other things these words from Orosius, book 4, chapter 20: In Sicily
then the island of Vulcanus, which before had not been,
suddenly brought forth in the sea to the wonder of all,
remains even until now. And those from Isidore, book 14,
chapter 6: The Aeolian islands of Sicily: … Of these certain ones
were not from the beginning: certain, afterwards brought forth by the sea,
remain until now. Pliny's words also being adduced,
he thus gathers: From those words of Orosius,
just written out, I gather that this island
emerged near Hiera or Vulcania: and there is
even today in this position a certain tiny island, by the common
term Volcanello, and, as the dialect of the inhabitants
varies, Bolcanello and Borcanello. Rightly does
Cluverius so judge, for neither do the authors cited
indicate more, nor can they be understood of Hiera itself,
which was memorable long before. But concerning this island
Fazello himself, cited by Cluverius in the same place,
thus speaks, Decade 1, book 1, chapter 1, page 3: The third
island, Vulcanellus, is parted from Vulcania by a very slender strait:
which itself also once belched forth fire.
The strait was passable down to my own age,
and a trusty anchorage for ships. Now it has been blocked
by an intervening mass of ashes and stones from the furnaces of Vulcania.
That this one therefore emerged from the deep is credible,
as many others emerged; which of Hiera
is openly false, at least for the time assigned by the authors.
[26] Now in like manner I show that this island is the one designated
by St. Theodore the Studite, moved from its place? and by the Menaea, when they say
that at the coming of the body of St. Bartholomew it withdrew,
and that Hiera cannot be understood. For by the
Menaea it is called νησίδιον, as if in Latin one should say
Insulula, a little island. But Hiera, if it be compared with Lipari,
will be so called quite unfitly, since it is among the chief of
the Aeolian islands. By the Studite, however, it is called a Mount, which
name can in no way fit Hiera. Add
that it is manifestly false that Hiera was ever
almost contiguous to Lipari, as they say that mountain was
which they assert withdrew. So that of Hiera
that miracle can in no way be understood,
which always seems to have been situated between Sicily and Lipari, in the place where it now
is. But concerning Vulcanello
that is uncertain; it could have been nearer to Lipari,
it could also have withdrawn, since the ancients
made no mention of it. Nor is this so great a prodigy
in a mountain, or tiny island, risen out of the deep,
that it cannot be believed, when men worthy of credit
assert it without any doubt, and as a thing
fully ascertained: nor yet by their testimony
is it rendered so certain that it cannot seem doubtful,
since in such matters even the learned can easily be deceived,
especially when they write those things which
they could not themselves set before their own eyes. This therefore,
since it has not been written by all, I judge is to be reckoned among the less
certain miracles of the Saint, not
to be cast away among the fables. For the authority upon which
this miracle rests is certain, and by no means to be despised;
but the difficulties which are moved against it
do not prove either that it could not have happened, or that
it did not happen.
[27] Of the remaining circumstances of this translation,
of the companions joined to the Saint, Was the chest made immovable? of the temple
built at Lipari, of the journey, and of certain modes
of speaking, oratorical, to be understood less strictly,
we have treated in the notes to the Orations of Theodore and
Joseph. One thing only I observe in this place in the narration
given above out of Pirro, where the body is said
to have been ordered by Bishop Agatho to be carried from the sea to the cathedral church
upon the shoulders of the presbyters;
whereas the Studite, as he is edited in tom. 2 of the Spicilegium,
page 125, writes thus: For the rest, when
they had come to the city, the chest did not go forward;
for certain men were dragging with all their might; but it
was immovable. And when the people were in
much bewilderment, joy at length took up
sadness again, because it obtained what it had asked of the Lord:
for the Lord is near to them that call upon him. Being taken up therefore
upon two chaste heifers, it was laid down
where his sacred temple was straightway placed.
It is added in the Menaea that the chest was unmoved,
until Agatho, divinely taught, brought up two young cows under
a yoke, which, without any trouble, drew the vast chest,
bound with slender ropes, whither the Apostle who was preserved
in it willed.
These things can less well be reconciled with one another,
and Gregory of Tours says nothing of this miracle, nothing Joseph;
so that this prodigy may seem doubtful,
especially since, the manuscripts of the Studite here
disagreeing, in the one which we have followed in the edition,
nothing is read of the cows being brought up.
[28] What is to be thought of the whole matter? There will perhaps be those who think that, on account of
these diversities, whatever they be, in certain circumstances,
the whole history of the translation is less
certain; with whom I by no means agree.
For since all agree exceedingly well about the body
conveyed to Lipari across the sea, they ought to have the greater
authority in this conveyance,
the less they agree about circumstances of lesser moment.
For from this we learn that the one
did not copy his own account from the other, as often is wont to happen
in like cases. I confess that great difficulties
are opposed to this translation, yet not such as can be compared
with the authority upon which the translation rests,
as I trust I have shown throughout this whole
disputation. Here therefore is to be followed the rule most
apt for judging rightly, which Honoratus
page 298, in these words: When it happens that a fact
is sufficiently attested by the testimony of some author
endowed with authority, who explains himself clearly
and not ambiguously; who is not contradicted
by other writers, and who cannot be convicted of error:
authority ought to prevail over conjectures. I am deceived,
unless all who will follow this rule of criticism
will admit as true the translation
of which we have treated.
§ III. The remaining matters pertaining to Lipari.
A temple built at Lipari, It will be useful here to describe from the authors the remaining things
which were done at Lipari in honor of the Apostle,
before we relate how the sacred
body was translated to Benevento. We saw
above from Theodore the Studite that a temple in honor
of the Apostle was straightway built, as soon as the sacred
relics were brought to Lipari. Now that temple
had already been built before the end of the sixth
century, when St. Gregory of Tours was writing,
from whom, book 1 On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 34, we
have these words: They built over him a great temple;
in which, being now invoked, he shows himself of profit to the peoples
by many powers and benefits.
As to the miracles, the Studite does not depart from Gregory of Tours in the place
cited: Moreover, he says, how many and how great things
he thereafter wondrously wrought; or what marvels he works
even to this day about those who, bound by divers
languors and infirmities, flee to him
in faith, it is neither necessary to say
because of the length of the treatise, nor incredible to the hearer.
You see that that perennial fountain of prodigies and
benefits, after two hundred years and more,
when the Studite wrote these things, had not yet dried up.
The Greek Menaea agree with both authors;
and various manuscripts.
[30] where very many miracles were wrought: But whether a relation of the miracles wrought at Lipari
was ever written, or whether it perished in the Saracen
incursion, or by the injury of time,
or whether it lies hid somewhere, is uncertain to me: to our hands
certainly it has not yet come. For the rest, that they were very many
and remarkable is manifest on every side.
For in the Antiphon also, which Marius
de Vipera drew from the Office of the old
Breviary of the church of Benevento, in the Catalogue of the Saints of that same
church, page 33, it is thus read: Armenia proclaims
thy glory, Lipari thy miracles, Benevento
thy praises, O most blessed Bartholomew, and the whole
creation thy grace. Since the Beneventans themselves attribute
the Apostle's miracles to Lipari rather than to Benevento,
although among them also very many were wrought
at the very coming of the body, we must needs say
that they were wrought at Lipari in a plainly enormous number.
Receive therefore what a certain manuscript of Lyons
has to this effect, which is said to have been written
from the account of a certain bishop who
had been present at the Beneventan translation, of whom more
hereafter: In this island, he says, which lies between
Sicily and Benevento with a narrow strait between,
when in a basilica of wondrous workmanship, which was resplendent, founded in his honor
by the faithful, the aforesaid Apostle of God was worshipped
with due veneration, and was declared by many
works of powers and benefits unto the glory of God
and the salvation of the Christian people through very many
courses of years. Let these things said about the remarkable
miracles of the Apostle wrought at Lipari
suffice, since we cannot give a narration
of them one by one.
[31] As holy Bartholomew was bountiful and beneficent
toward the people of Lipari, A new temple so they too doubtless
strove by pious worship to render the Apostle
well-disposed to them. But when afterwards the Saracens had got possession
of affairs in Lipari, and the relics of the Apostle had been
translated to Benevento, as we shall relate, the worship of the Saint
was indeed interrupted there, yet in such wise that, when
the Saracens were afterwards driven out by the Normans, it forthwith
revived. In what year this was done, I do not think it worth
the labor to investigate more painstakingly; the matter as done
is narrated by Rocco Pirro, tom. 2 of Sicilia sacra,
from page 664, and Ferdinando Ughelli, tom. 1 of the edition
cited, among the bishops of Lipari, from col. 775,
who write that not only was a temple built in honor of St. Bartholomew,
but a monastery also was erected,
and dedicated to the same Apostle.
[32] Hear Ughelli, col. 775: But although
from the year MLXXX, the Saracens being overcome, built for the Apostle by the Normans, Robert
and Roger the Normans had restored that island to the Christians,
where straightway a temple was raised by Roger
to St. Bartholomew, as Fazello witnesses (decad.
1, book 1, page 3) and by certain men professing the monastic life
a monastery was built, over which
Ambrose was set. The same monastery was sacred to St.
Bartholomew, as will appear below, and was excellently
endowed by the liberality of the same princes,
as follows in Ughelli: At that time
the count, by a charter which was confirmed
by Roger II, his son, in the year MCXXXIV, granted
Lipari, Vulcanus, Salina, Panaria, Strangulon,
Arcuri, and the islands of Feliculi. That these are all
Aeolian I do not doubt, although the names of some
are not a little corrupted. That they were so called at that time
in the tongue then vulgar among the Sicilians is likely.
But to what end these islands were granted to the monastery
we gather from Ughelli, who
says of them, col. 771: Among all the Aeolian islands this
one alone (Lipari) is inhabited today, fruitful by the nature of its soil,
renowned for a great yield of alum and for abundance
of domestic fruits. For the tilling of the fields, therefore,
and the gathering of the fruits, they seem to have been assigned
to the monastery of St. Bartholomew. Nor yet did the liberality of the counts
stop here. For thus Ughelli
goes on: Then by the same count Roger
many estates in Calabria were given to the same abbot
Ambrose, and to the monastery of Lipari, by a charter
of this year MLXXXVIII. Receive the charter itself,
as the praised Ughelli recites it.
[33] and the monastery dedicated to him, to which the Aeolian islands, Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, the help
of the Christians, the XXVI of the month of July, in the XI Indiction,
in the year from the beginning of the world 6596 (that is, by their own
reckoning.) After I came with my sons
out of France into Militum. (There seems to be
designated Miletus, the η being turned into a Latin i, which
city is indeed small even today in Further Calabria,
yet episcopal; commonly it is now called Melito;
there also we shall see below the bull of Urban II confirming
these things, given) I gave to abbot
Ambrose, for the monastery of St. Bartholomew of Lipari,
the terragia written below, for the health of my*
soul and the remission of all my sins,
which terragia are near the front of the castle of Militum,
bounded with the limits written below, which terragia
I give to thee, Lord Ambrose the abbot, that thou mayest have them,
and possess them in thy lordship, and that none
may in any way gainsay it. But if any one should wish
to gainsay our aforesaid privilege, and
our said benevolent donation in any way,
let him have the curse of the three hundred and eighteen holy
Fathers (of the council of Nicaea) anathema …
from them, and the curse of Judas Iscariot
unto eternity, and world without end. Thus far Roger.
The same largesses, says Ughelli in the same place, and the island
of Lipari itself, to the monastery
of Lipari, and all the goods given to it, Pope Urban II
confirmed by his own privilege. The bull of
Urban, because it not only confirms these donations,
but also teaches the Lipari translation,
and establishes the monastery under the special protection of the Apostolic
See, I have thought should be transcribed here in part from Pirro,
conceived in these words:
[34] the Pontiff confirming, were granted, Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God,
to his beloved brother Ambrose, abbot of Lipari, and to his
successors regularly to be substituted, in perpetuity.
Whereas all islands, according to the royal
institutions, are of public right; it is certainly established
that by the privilege of the religious emperor Constantine
all the Western islands were granted into the proper right of B. Peter
and his successors, especially
those which are had about the shore of Italy, of which
many, the sins of their inhabitants requiring it, being taken
by the Saracens, lost the glory of the Christian name:
among which Lipari, once distinguished by the body of B. Bartholomew
the apostle, is known to have been reduced to the likeness of a desert:
which, when many courses of years had rolled by,
after the power of the divine mercy had repressed
the forces of the Saracens, religious brethren, out of zeal for the divine
service, entering that same island, took care
to build monastic dwellings there; and
by their industry settled very many colonists
upon that same island. We therefore, upon whom, by the judgment
of the divine will, through the eminence of the apostolic See,
there presses the solicitude of all the churches,
although we acknowledge, in the registers of the holy Gregorian page,
that there was once a bishopric in that same island;
yet because the smallness of the place itself and the fewness of its
inhabitants do not now deserve the dignity of a bishop;
we nevertheless sanction, by the authority of the present page,
that a monastery be had there, and that it possess the whole
compass of the island. That monastery also,
over which thy fraternity, by the Lord's authorship, presides, consecrated
in the honor and name of B. Bartholomew,
we take up under special protection, to be cherished in the bosom
of the holy Roman and apostolic See.
The remaining parts of the bull, added in the customary way for confirming these things,
may be seen in Pirro, page 665, or
Ughelli, col. 776, which is at last thus concluded:
Given at Militum by the hands of John, cardinal deacon of the H. R. Ch.,
the III Nones of June, Ind. XIV, of the Lord's Incarnation
MXCI, but of the pontificate of the lord Pope Urban II the year IV.
[35] Many other things given to the same monastery of St. Bartholomew
thou wilt find, and other things. reader, in the authors cited,
as also the monastery of Patti joined to it,
and at length the episcopal dignity granted
to it: which things, as pertaining less to our purpose,
I pass over. But these things I wished to bring forward,
that it might be established that the worship of the apostle Bartholomew in that
island was resumed straightway after the Saracens were overcome,
which afterwards, I doubt not, always flourished there,
as even today it flourishes excellently.
Annotations* i. e. lands
CHAPTER II.
On the translation of the sacred body to Benevento, and the other things done on that occasion.
Prologue§ I. The occasion, time, and author of the translation.
The occasion of the translation was the devastation of Lipari, That the sacred body of St. Bartholomew was in the ninth century
carried over from Lipari to Benevento is
acknowledged: but concerning the circumstances of this translation
not a few difficulties occur, to be diligently
examined according to our purpose. Therefore, that
the whole matter may be more clearly known, we shall inquire first
on what occasion, secondly in what year, thirdly with whose
cooperation, the translation was made: fourthly and lastly
we shall subjoin the translation itself, with the miracles wrought
in it and thereafter following. The occasion of this
translation is recorded, by the highest consent of all,
to have been the irruption of the Saracens, by whom the sacred
bones of the Apostle were scattered. Abbot Bertharius, in
the Relation of that translation added to the Sermon of the Studite,
writes these things: The Saracens therefore coming upon them
plundered and laid waste the aforesaid island,
and breaking open the sepulchre of the Apostle scattered
his bones in divers directions. The Lyons manuscript
cited at num. 30 has thus: Very lately,
Sicily having been laid waste and overthrown by the Saracens, that same
island (Lipari) also was oppressed by the enemy's slaughter, and utterly
depopulated. And when they consigned both the bishop
of the place, and the clergy with the people and the monks, by a wretched
lot either to captivity or to the sword,
rushing also upon the monastery where the venerable body
of the Apostle was resting, they fall upon the monks,
plunder everything, and even the venerable bones of the Apostle themselves,
mingled with other bones, at the instigation of the devil's
zeal they scatter into the sea, namely lest anywhere
his relics might be found or recognized. I know not
whether this anonymous writer deserves credit in what he adds,
that the sacred bones were mingled with others and scattered
into the sea: for he adds also afterwards other circumstances
to the translation, which I find added
in no others.
[37] Another manuscript from the parchment Legendary
of the Vallicelliana, num. 1, and the scattering of the sacred bones: fol. 247, rightly
agrees with Bertharius, setting forth the occasion of the translation
in these words: While in the island of Lipari …
the body of B. Bartholomew the apostle was resting, the Saracens
coming upon them, they plundered and
depopulated the aforesaid island, and bursting open
the sepulchre of B. Bartholomew, they scattered his bones
in divers directions. I have besides a certain manuscript
from the manuscript Lectionary of the Medicean library
of St. Laurence, shelf 20, in which these things are narrated in exactly the same
way: receive the words: The Saracens invading Sicily
laid waste the island of Lipari, where
the body of St. Bartholomew was resting,
and breaking his sepulchre, scattered his bones.
Sigebert agrees, in the Chronicle at the year
of Christ 831, in these words: The Saracens,
overrunning Sicily, lay waste also the island of Lipari,
where the body of Bartholomew the apostle was resting …
Whose bones, but now scattered hither and thither by the Saracens,
and gathered by a certain monk, he himself revealing it,
are translated to Benevento. Tillemont also assents,
tom. 1 of the Monuments, page 388, in Bartholomew,
and other more recent writers, so that that matter,
resting on so many witnesses, ought by no means to seem doubtful.
Wherefore certain more recent writers must be corrected, who
have written that the body was translated lest it should come into the hands
of the Saracens, whereas the more ancient by common consent
have handed down to memory that it not only came into the hands of the Saracens,
but was also outraged by them.
This then was the occasion of the translation.
It could here be added how the sacred bones were gathered by a certain
monk; but that we shall relate below along with the translation
itself.
[38] the year was not 809, But in what year the sacred bones were translated
to Benevento is not so agreed among the authors.
Tillemont, in the place cited above, from Anastasius
the Librarian, as he is edited by d'Achery,
tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, of the edition of the year 1723, page
126; and Baillet, tom. 2, col. 369, in Bartholomew,
assign to the devastation of Lipari and to the
scattering of the sacred bones the year 808; to the translation
809: on the XXV of October of which year, they say, the sacred
bones were placed at Benevento under a certain altar.
The same year 808 is assigned in the brief Chronicle
of Rheims, which is extant in tom. 1 of the Labbean Library,
as Pagi, to be cited, also notes. But
these stray far from the truth, nor have they any other foundation
than the error of some copyist, as
will appear below.
[39] nor 831, nor 840; Sigebert in the Chronicle places that translation
in the year 831; in which year likewise it is set
in the manuscript of the Medicean library of St. Laurence
praised above; yet Pirro, often mentioned,
page 664, and Ughelli, likewise several times adduced,
col. 772, cite Sigebert for the year 832.
This chronology can seem not altogether improbable:
for the Saracens had already for some
years been overrunning Sicily, and the emperor Theophilus
was ruling the Greeks, under whose reign the translation is handed down
as having been made by the Menaea, or by Nicetas the Paphlagonian,
as Pagi and others cite this relation of the Menaea:
that it is not, however, to be followed will appear below.
Baronius, at the year 840, at the end, from Leo of Ostia
sets the same year 840, straying indeed less
from the truth, yet straying. With Baronius in
all things Ughelli agrees, tom. 8 of Italia sacra, in
Urso archbishop of Benevento, col. 40, although
elsewhere, as was just said, he does not disapprove Sigebert's
opinion. Pagi at length, at the year of Christ
840, num. 12, shows the true year of this translation
to be 839, which Bolland, tom. 2 of February,
page 820, and Labbe in the Chronological Epitome
had already assigned, and which we too shall confirm.
[40] but 839; That thou mayest understand the matter more clearly, reader, observe
that by Leo of Ostia the year of Christ 840 was not
expressed, but the third year of the ordination of Bassacius, abbot
of Cassino, from which others have thought this year of Christ
should be deduced. Now let us hear Pagi in the place cited:
In the Chronicle, he says, of Cassino
Leo of Ostia, book 1, chapter 25 and following, asserts
that Bassacius, abbot of Cassino, was ordained
in the year of Christ DCCCXXXVII, after Authpert, who died on the X
Kal. of March. Wherefore the third year of the prefecture
of Bassacius, in which the same Leo asserts that the body
of St. Bartholomew the apostle was translated from the island of Lipari to Benevento,
under Sicard duke of Benevento,
falls in the earlier year of Christ (839),
in which therefore that translation was accomplished according to that
chronographer. This argument is inescapable
for vindicating for our opinion the authority
of Leo of Ostia, especially since Bassacius
was ordained abbot in the month of March,
but the translation was made in the month of October. He then strives
to confirm this from Nicetas the Paphlagonian, whose
narration is inserted in the Menaea, from whom he brings forward
these words: A long series of years therefore having run out, in the last
times, in the days of the emperor Theophilus, the stronghold in which
the holy Apostle lay having been taken by the Agarenes on account of our many crimes,
and the whole island of Lipari remaining
desolate, the prince of the city of Benevento,
having learned of the Apostle's miracles, roused by a fervent
faith toward the Saint, having called together some sailors of the city
of Amalfi, and having promised to give as much
money as was fitting, bade them go and bear
that precious treasure to him, which also came to pass.
From these things we have that the translation was made while
Theophilus reigned, which agrees with the year 839; yet it does not
conflict with the year 840, nor with 831,
against which it would be adduced in vain, since in all
these years Theophilus reigned. Yet it conflicts
most powerfully with the year 809, since in that year
Theophilus was very far from the empire.
[41] Pagi then objects to himself the authority of Anastasius
the Librarian as edited by d'Achery, as is proved in whom,
as we said above, there is expressed for the irruption
of the Saracens the year 808, for the translation 809:
and thus he concludes: From these things it is plain that Nicetas
the Paphlagonian, Leo of Ostia, and Anastasius,
as to the time in which this translation was made,
agree among themselves; but that the copyist, in each cited place
of Anastasius, omitted the number XXX, which
the numbers VIII and IX manifestly suggest. Yet he confesses
that in the Chronicle of Rheims cited above that translation
is set at the year DCCCVIII: Wherefore, he says,
that error of the copyists is ancient; for I can scarcely
persuade myself that Anastasius slipped in this matter. Thus far Pagi, bringing forward a true conjecture indeed
about the omitted number XXX, yet assigning no sufficient
reason either for this conjecture, or why
those three authors, Leo of Ostia, Nicetas the Paphlagonian,
and Anastasius, should agree upon the year 839,
so that his reasoning may seem
neither clear nor solid. The whole matter therefore
I dispatch in few words.
[42] I have this narration of Anastasius the Librarian, or
rather of St. Bertharius, from manuscripts, as we proved in the preliminary
Commentary § XI, in two manuscripts.
The first we received at Naples, sent
by Fr. Antonio Beatillo of our Society, the XVIII of
September of the year 1638, taken from an ancient
manuscript Passionary of the Neapolitan monastery of St. Mary
of Monte Oliveto, as is noted in the margin. The other,
almost consumed by age, was sent
to Bolland in the year 1660 by Silvestro Acosta of Capua,
rector of the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian of
Quadropani. In these manuscripts the year in which
the sacred bones were scattered is said to have been that of Christ
838, that in which they were translated 839, and there is added: On the twenty-
fifth day of the month of October, on which they relate
that the sacred body was laid up in the altar: our
manuscripts therefore are corrupt, or else those are corrupt
which d'Achery followed. But that ours are corrupt,
which agree rightly with Leo of Ostia and Nicetas the Paphlagonian,
is by no means to be believed:
therefore we must needs say that the number XXX fell out
of d'Achery's manuscript. Hence therefore
the opinion which sets the year 809 has been sufficiently
refuted.
[43] and from other authors: Nor need much labor be spent in refuting
the opinion of Sigebert, who sets the year of Christ
831. For the authority of Leo of Ostia is repugnant to it,
and of St. Bertharius, contemporary with the deed, or,
if thou wilt, of Anastasius. Besides, we shall see that the translation
was made under Sicard, prince of Benevento:
but he obtained the principate only in the year
833, as Pagi and others write: therefore not in the 31st year
of that century, much less the 9th, but, as
the above-said authors assert, in the 39th, was the body of St. Bartholomew
translated to Benevento. Lastly,
this opinion is confirmed by Hugh, abbot of Flavigny,
in the Chronicle of Verdun, tom. 1 of the Labbean Library,
page 120, where he has these words: In the year of the Lord
DCCCXXXIX the body of holy Bartholomew was borne
to Benevento. So much about the time.
[44] the author of the translation Now it must be seen by whose piety chiefly
Benevento received this sacred treasure.
Marius de Vipera, in the Chronology of the bishops
of Benevento, page 52, in Urso the bishop,
thus writes to our purpose: Urso, elected
the XL bishop, under the same Pontiff Gregory IV.
Under which prelate, by the piety and diligence of prince Sicard,
the body of the most glorious apostle Bartholomew
was translated from the island of Lipari to Benevento, and
received by the Beneventans with a great array of glory,
and he was enrolled among their protectors
in the year of the L. MXXXIX, on the XXV day of October, and in the church
of the most blessed Virgin, which today is the metropolitan,
was honorably placed. Which day of the translation
is yearly kept with an octave, and a synod of litanies.
And after a little he subjoins these things: The church in
honor of the apostle Bartholomew, begun by prince Sicard,
our bishop Urso completed
and dedicated. So the archdeacon of Benevento,
attributing the praise of the translated body to prince Sicard,
although in honoring the Saint the bishop
was not wanting in his own part. Ughelli, tom. 8 of the edition
cited, col. 42, preferred to ascribe the chief praise of this
translation to the bishop, saying, By the piety and diligence
of Urso also the body of the most glorious apostle Bartholomew
was translated from the island of Lipari to Benevento. It is credible
that Sicard did it at the bishop's urging. As regards
the body's reception and the temple's dedication,
Ughelli agrees with Vipera. Leo of Ostia, cited above,
only says that it was done while prince Sicard was
still surviving.
[45] Sicard, prince of Benevento, But Erchempert attributes it to prince Sicard,
tom. 5 of the Writers on Italian Affairs, page
32, narrating these things: Meanwhile it came to pass that Sicard
the prince went about the islands of the Tyrrhenian sea
and all the places of Ausonia, and however many bodies
of Saints he could find, he bore them to Benevento
with due honor. And about the same time
he bade the body of B. Bartholomew the apostle be borne from the island
of Lipari to Benevento with great exultation.
Nor does Nicetas the Paphlagonian designate another, in
the newest Auctarium of the Greek Fathers of Combefis,
page 400, where he narrates the matter in this manner: A long
series of years therefore having run out, in the last times,
in the days of the emperor Theophilus, the stronghold in which
the holy Apostle lay having been taken by the Agarenes on account of our many crimes,
and the whole island of Lipari remaining
desolate, the prince of the city of Benevento,
having learned of the Apostle's miracles, roused by a fervent
faith toward the Saint, having called together some sailors of the city
of Amalfi, and having promised to give as much money
as was fitting, bade them go, and bear
that precious treasure to him; which also
came to pass. The prince of whom I was speaking therefore, at a long
distance away from the sea, having summoned the bishop of the place
and many others, both from the clergy and from the very numerous
people, (in Greek καὶ
τοῦ
πλείστου
λαοῦ, which has been wrongly
rendered, out of the common folk) went out to meet
the Apostle; and the sacred pledge, brought to Benevento,
he laid up in a venerable house (in Greek τόπῳ):
where also the great Apostle grew renowned, bestowing healings
upon all the townsfolk, unto the glory of our God,
who exceeds every reckoning of good.
Thus Nicetas, a writer of the same century.
[46] From what has been said therefore I gather, first, that the glory
of the sacred body translated to Benevento is to be
attributed to prince Sicard, the bishop in all likelihood urging it. nor yet altogether to be adjudged away
from Urso, or Urso as others call him, the bishop,
who seems to have concurred toward it by counsel and admonitions.
Secondly, that it was not by chance that the ships of the Lombards,
borne to Lipari, carried off the sacred pledge; but that
they had been sent by Sicard to do it. Thirdly, that it was done
after the Saracens had deserted Lipari, laid waste and pillaged
on every side. Fourthly,
hence it can be gathered — what by the authority of contemporary
writers is already sufficiently established — that the sacred body
was not carried away for fear of the Saracens approaching,
for neither would the people of Lipari have permitted it,
who were not subject to Sicard. Now at last how
the translation was made, and what miracles followed it,
must be subjoined.
§ II. The translation: the miracles that followed it.
St. Bartholomew appearing The whole history of this translation we have already given
after the Oration of St. Theodore the Studite:
yet lest to certain persons, who are wont to give credit to miracles
and visions with difficulty, it seem not sufficiently
established by the testimony of one, I shall add the testimonies
of certain others concerning it from various manuscripts.
In the manuscript Lectionary of the Medicean library,
cited before, I find the following: When therefore
the Saracens had scattered his bones, upon their withdrawing
the Apostle appeared to a certain monk, (this monk
is commonly called Theodore by more recent writers)
saying: Arise, gather my bones, which have been scattered.
To whom he said: On what ground ought we to gather thy bones,
or to show thee any honor,
since thou hast suffered us to be destroyed, nor hast bestowed help
upon us? These words I would have the reader take
less harshly: for they can seem, and
really are, little reverent toward the holy Apostle:
but the latter can be taken as a pious
complaint, proceeding however from excessive grief and
simplicity; much as those of Psalm 43 from ℣. 10:
But now thou hast cast us off, and put us to confusion: and thou wilt
not go forth, O God, in our hosts, and what follows
as far as ℣. 18. But the former by way
of one marvelling, not indeed of one unwilling to gather
the sacred bones: as in John 4, ℣. 9, the words of the Samaritan woman
to Christ: How is it that thou, being a Jew,
askest of me to drink, who am a Samaritan
woman? As if he said: How, O Apostle,
dost thou ask that honor be shown thee by us, whom
thou seemest to turn away from, having furnished us no help
against the infidels? So much about the complaint of that simple
monk, which has perhaps been written down by the authors more
harshly than it was spoken, although in almost the same way
it is had in the manuscripts of five different
authors.
[48] to a monk, bids him, Now let us hear what the Apostle answered:
To whom he, the author goes on: For a long
time the Lord spared this people for my merits,
but since their sins grew exceedingly strong
and cried even unto heaven, I could not now obtain pardon
for them. And when the monk
said, How could he find his bones among so many others,
he said: By night thou shalt go to gather them,
and those which thou seest shining like fire
thou shalt straightway lift up. And he, finding all as he had said,
lifted up the Apostle's bones, and going aboard a certain
ship, translated them to Benevento, which is the metropolis
of Apulia. By more recent writers
they are said to have been translated first to Salerno, thence soon to Benevento;
whence they took this is hidden from me. All the aforesaid
things are had confirmed in four manuscripts, drawn up partly by
contemporaries, partly from the testimony of contemporaries,
yet with other circumstances added in certain of them,
here passed over.
[49] to gather his scattered bones, But it is not pleasing to heap up, with the reader's weariness,
relations of the same matter plainly alike. Wherefore,
others being omitted, I shall subjoin the testimonies of only two
contemporary authors. The manuscript of the Lyons
authors, who testify that they learned all things
from the bishop of Narbonne, who was then
staying at Benevento, after relating the scattering of the sacred bones,
thus goes on: But by the most clement providence
of Almighty God, there were left there three, or
four, old monks, whom the barbarians had judged worthy,
on account of their age, either of pity or of contempt,
to whom, desolate and mourning, the blessed Apostle
deigned to show himself in a vision,
and cherishing them with kindly consolation, admonished them
that they should study carefully to seek out and to gather his bones
cast back upon the shore (for he had related that they were thrown into
the sea, concerning which in the preceding §). That the revelation
was made to one monk others write: yet that several
monks survived on the island is also had by
[50] which, gathered by the sign of their brightness, the Beneventans And when they asked of him, by what means
they could distinguish those from the other bones? Go,
he said, in the secret silence of night along the edges of the shore, and
wheresoever ye shall see a ray of light flashing like a star,
gather them confidently, and diligently lay them up
to be of profit to the faithful. They went therefore, and,
the bones being gathered by the token of the promised brightness, they again placed them
in the secret place beneath the altar with all joy
and diligence. Meanwhile, while they enjoy this consolation alone,
and were determining that nothing else was to be done by them, save to die
in the bosom of so great a Patron,
there was present, by the divine nod, a ship of the Beneventans,
which had been appointed for spying out the enemy's designs:
who, having landed, when they had found the whole island far and wide
depopulated and empty, a pious care goading them, they hasten
and go to the place of the Apostle's body,
which both frequent votive visitation and the Apostle's widely published
power had made most well known to them,
desiring, namely, if they should find it there,
as they had long since wished,
and had sought after with many prayers and even with gifts,
to translate the patronage of so glorious a pledge to their own
city.
[51] carry across the sea to Benevento, And having found those old men mourning, and
having consoled them with Christian piety, they earnestly demand that
they should show them the desired gift. And when they excused themselves,
and would not suffer that place to be deprived of so great a patronage,
those Beneventans, pressing them more severely,
with drawn swords threatened them with present destruction,
unless with the utmost speed they showed what they were asking.
Overcome by the crisis of extreme necessity, they lay open the divine
treasure, praying this above all,
that whithersoever it should be translated, it might be lawful for them
likewise to journey and to dwell there:
to which they, assenting most swiftly and most willingly,
and confirming it by oath, having seized the coffer of the revered
pledge, fearing the ambushes of the enemy, most speedily
depart. Of the violence offered to the monks other
authors have made no mention.
[52] But when, having gone aboard the ship, with a favoring breath of wind
they began to plow the deep, a miracle helping, straightway there followed
a ship of the enemy, and began most perilously
to draw near; but as they implored the Apostle's protection,
by the wondrous power of Almighty God,
presently that one state of the wind, which seemed to favor indifferently
both the faithful for fleeing and the faithless for pursuing,
divided against itself, and began to drive the former
with desirable speed toward the shore, but to drive the latter
backward with violent force, and, as they stood astounded,
to thrust them farther off. Others relate that darkness
arose, by which the sight of the enemy was hindered.
[53] And when now, the blessed Apostle serving them,
they had been borne to a certain place of safe shore, and by a repeated apparition of the Apostle:
and, resting there a little for the repair of their strength,
were taking sleep; behold again the most clement
Patron deigned to stand by the shipmaster; Depart
quickly, he said, for the ship of the enemies
draws near. (This apparition others omit.)
Being awakened, he hastens his departure, and happily
enters his native harbor with his companions. And so
the whole city of Benevento, rejoicing at so pious and joyful
a message, together with the pontiff and the peoples
eagerly received the heavenly Patron, and with most ready
and most devout faith, a temple of remarkable work
being built, they placed the sacred pledges there for their perpetual
safeguard.
[54] There was in those same days in those parts, an exile
through the unjust persecution of certain men, as the bishop related, then staying in those parts: a man exceedingly
faithful, and of venerable life, the bishop of Narbonne,
who, at the request of the prelate of the aforesaid city, dedicated the new
basilica of the Apostle to the Lord, laid up the blessed
relics, and after the custom celebrated the solemnities of Masses;
and moreover imparted portions of the pious pledges
to many places throughout the Gauls, out of the blessing
of Christ, especially to the city
of the Lyonnese, where already the memory of the venerable Apostle
is reverently honored in the venerable crypt of the martyrs;
from whom we, the least of all the faithful, have learned all these things
by sure report, which, for the edification
of readers, with the Lord's help, we have taken care to commit
to memory. This relation of the Lyonnese
indeed does not agree in all things with the other relations
of other authors: for it adds certain things omitted by others,
and narrates certain things in a somewhat different manner:
nor yet on that account does it seem absolutely to be
charged with falsity: since that bishop could have learned these things
either from the monks themselves, or from others who had been
at Lipari and had carried the sacred body to Benevento.
For the rest, since those variations which
I have noted in their places do not change the substance of the matter,
I leave the judgment about them to the reader's discretion.
[55] But the bishop of Narbonne, from whose
report these things were written, who he was is set forth. and who is here said to have dedicated
the church of St. Bartholomew, seems to have been
Bartholomew, first archbishop of Narbonne of this name,
who adhered to the party of Lothair
against Louis the Pious the emperor, his own father,
as the Sainte-Marthes, tom. 1 of Gallia Christiana,
page 369, and other French historians relate, and for that
cause fled into Italy; and because he was an enemy
also of Charles the Bald, son of Louis, under
his reign he was not restored to his bishopric,
as Le Cointe narrates in the Ecclesiastical Annals
of the Franks, at the year of Christ 844, num.
36. At Rome about the year 844 he sought to be restored
by the Pontiff, but in vain. He could therefore have been staying at Benevento
at that time, and have dedicated the temple at the command
of the bishop of Benevento, and at length have carried
some relics of the Saint, as is narrated, into
Gaul. Thou hast, reader, on whose credit those things rest
which in the relation of the Lyonnese are added
to the others, which therefore seems to differ from the others, because
it was written as that bishop had retained the whole
matter in memory.
[56] Another likewise narrates the sacred bones scattered, Lastly I subjoin the whole history with the miracles
that followed, most faithfully, as it seems, written
by a witness in many things an eyewitness, but less
learned in Latin, since he mingles in not a few solecisms.
We have it from the manuscript Legendary of the Vallicelliana,
num. 1, fol. 247; the same Lyonnese also had it,
received from Benevento, as they testify,
and subjoined it to their relation, the solecisms and barbarisms only
being somehow corrected, from which
correction I subjoin it here: Sicily being taken and laid waste,
the Saracens coming upon them plundered
and depopulated Lipari, the neighboring island;
and breaking open the sepulchre of St. Bartholomew,
they scattered his bones in divers directions. Then the same Apostle of God,
appearing in a vision to a certain
Greek monk, who had been the keeper of that church,
said to him: Arise, gather my bones, which have been scattered.
To whom he answered: Why ought we to gather thy bones,
or to do thee any honor;
since thou hast let us go, and this people,
to be destroyed by the pagans, and hast not helped us? But he
said: Through long courses of years I have prayed to God
for this people, and God granted to my prayers;
whence until now they have stood secure;
but because their evils have been multiplied, and
their iniquity has grown exceedingly, I could no longer obtain
from God what I asked for them, and therefore it has perished.
Do thou only arise, and gather my bones and lay them up,
as I bid thee. To whom that monk said: And how
shall I be able to find them, who know not where they have been
scattered? The Apostle says to him: Go by night to gather
them, and where thou seest any shining like
fire, lift these up, because these are my bones.
[57] and gathered at the Apostle's bidding, and carried to Benevento, And he, rising at once, went on to the place,
and found it as the Apostle had told him, and gathered
them without hesitation, and, laying them up in a vessel, hid them,
and went away, leaving his companion there. And when
ships of the Lombards were going thither to search out
the Saracens, they found the aforesaid monk there,
and took the body of the holy Apostle, and departed.
But the Saracens coming upon them surrounded
that ship, wherein the holy body of the Apostle was being
conveyed; so that there was no hope of escaping.
Then suddenly there arose a most dense darkness before
the ships of the Saracens, so that they knew not whither they were going,
and that ship was delivered. While they were still sailing
on the sea, God saved one of the sailors of that same ship
from a grievous infirmity. But going out
upon land, with great honor they led the holy body
of the Apostle of God to Benevento, and
laid it up in the altar in the year from the Incarnation
of the Lord eight hundred and thirty-ninth, on the twenty-
fifth day of the month of October.
[58] where a sweet odor, and many healed, But before it was laid up in the altar,
that God might take away the scruple of doubt from the heart of all,
very many miracles of healings were wrought
by the same Apostle; of which we relate a certain number for
the strengthening of the hearts of the hearers. For when
the body of the blessed apostle Bartholomew was still kept unburied
in the church of St. Laurence outside Benevento,
on the second day after it was brought,
suddenly there was made there an odor of exceeding
sweetness, and while that odor remained, there was healed
there a woman who was more sharply vexed by a demon.
And after the interval of one day, again a boy,
who for a long time had been grievously torn by spasm,
was healed there.
Then a certain clerk, who long had suffered a grievous pain
of the head, was there made
whole.
Thence also another clerk, one of whose eyes infirmity had for a long time
made wholly white,
through the prayer of the blessed apostle Bartholomew,
at once there received health, so that no spot
remained to him in that same eye: but he carried it away thence made
like to the other sound eye,
giving thanks to God.
[59] After these things again a great odor was made,
and while that same odor remained, the odor repeated, and healings; a certain youth,
who lay there because of his infirmity, since
he had long been lame, nor could go otherwise
than by being carried by other men's hands;
was suddenly made so whole that he rose and walked,
and had no token of his former
infirmity.
Again a certain man, whose one hip for a long time
had exceedingly pained him, coming before his body,
lay asking health of him, who
at midnight, being made whole by divine grace, departed.
Then a little boy sprung of noble stock,
who was mightily vexed by an unclean spirit, coming in the evening
lay there, and in the morning departed whole.
Moreover a certain woman also, coming thither with a great fever,
casting herself before the Apostle's body,
was asking the mercy of God, who by the intercession
of holy Bartholomew departed whole, giving thanks
to God.
Again a certain clerk, who was sharply wearied
by a pain of the hip, was there saved.
Another lame man also was brought to the body
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, who devoutly clericated himself before his body,*
and at once, being made whole, departed.
A certain presbyter for a whole year suffered a grievous
pain of the kidneys, who, coming devoutly,
cast himself down there in prayer, and rose up thence
whole.
In like manner it also befell another presbyter, of a long-standing pain
of the head.
There came also a certain youth with a great fever,
and a flux, and vomiting, now nigh to death,
and he clericated himself there, asking health
of the Apostle of God, who at once was made whole, and
departed strong.
A certain consecrated woman coming thither,
having bleared eyes, lay there some days,
and was saved.
Another consecrated woman, who was afflicted
with a great fever, and suffered a grievous ringing of the head
for a long time, and had one arm injured,
so that she could not bring that hand
to her mouth; lay before the Apostle's body,
and departed from all of these most sound, giving thanks
to God.
After these things a certain Greek, and a boy, coming with
fevers, lay there, and being made whole
departed.
Again a certain woman, long unseeing through pain
of the eyes, was brought thither, who, lying there some
while, departed enlightened and without pain.
A certain girl also, who for a long time
had been paralytic, and loosed in all her members,
was cast down before the body of the holy Apostle, to whom divine
grace, through the merit of the blessed apostle Bartholomew,
granted health so entire that not even a sign
of her former infirmity could be found in her: but
strong and glad she departed, leaping and praising God.
[60] oil miraculously refused; On a certain day there came a certain woman bearing
an earthen vessel full of oil, and there was heat, and
the oil in it was melted. She asked that some of it might be poured
into the lamp which burned beside the Apostle's body.
The ministers, taking the vessel, tilted it,
that they might pour from it into the lamp, and utterly
nothing came out of the vessel. They put their fingers into
the vessel, and felt that it was full of melted oil, and likewise
looking, they saw it full of melted
oil, and, tilting it over the lamp, nothing ran down
out of it. But a certain one of the ministers said: I think
it is not acceptable to the blessed Bartholomew that some of this oil
be poured into his lamp; let it be emptied into another
vessel. And being tilted into another vessel, with all
speed (as is the manner of melted oil) the vessel was emptied,
out of which before nothing could come
upon the lamp.
[61] the healed known to the author. For we could more truly tell the names also of those
in whom the aforesaid powers were divinely wrought;
and make known where they dwell;
so that, since all are alive, those who shall read this, inquiring,
may recognize that these things are true, and not only
these; but also many others which are not written here.
But because they who are at hand well know that they are
true, and know also those in whom they were
accomplished, let us not thrust weariness upon those to come by reckoning up
the names of men and places, but let them believe
the writings, and, believing, render praise and thanks to God and the Lord
Jesus Christ, who deigns to work great things
through his Saints unto our salvation,
who lives and reigns with God the Father in the unity
of the Holy Spirit through all ages of ages.
Amen.
Annotations* The Beneventan author. He devoted himself to the clerical estate
§ III. Things done at Benevento in the Saint's honor: or pertaining to him.
The worship of the Saint at Benevento: Marius de Vipera, in the Catalogue of the Saints
of the church of Benevento, relates that three times
in the year the festival of St. Bartholomew is celebrated there;
namely, on the XVII of June the translation
from India, as they call it, to the island of Lipari;
on the XXV of October the translation to Benevento; and on the XXV
of August, on which day the Roman Church also celebrates him.
But at the day XXV of August he wrote these things about his
solemnity: The birthday of which holy Apostle
the church of Benevento keeps with solemn pomp
with an octave, and a diocesan synod, and by the archbishop
with his chapter a chapel-service is held in
the worthy temple raised to that same Apostle, where
he celebrates not without a great concourse of people, and
for fifteen days solemn fairs are held at Benevento.
And on the octave day a chapel-service is held in the same place
by the canons and the clergy of the cathedral. Which
temple was magnificently begun by Sicard, the fifth prince of Benevento,
in the year of the Lord DCCCXXXIX,
and, he being taken out of the midst, it was most augustly completed by Urso,
bishop-elect of Benevento. And on this
same day it was consecrated with solemn rite by Arnald,
archbishop of Benevento, and into it the body
of the glorious Apostle (which in the famous basilica
of Mary the Mother of God, which today is the cathedral,
was kept) was translated in the year of salvation MCCCXXXVIII
by the leave of Pope Benedict XII, as by his bull
under the date at Avignon the fourth Ides of May of the same
aforesaid year, of his Pontificate the fourth year.
Whose sacred body also shines with many
miracles, and especially in delivering the possessed,
and is venerated with the greatest frequenting of the people. Thus far
Marius, relating nearly the same things as to the worship of the Saint
on the feast of the translation at the XXV of October.
But what he narrates about the temple of the Saint is neither clearly
set forth, nor does it seem true.
[63] For the temple dedicated by archbishop Arnald
which was the first church of St. Bartholomew? is not that which Sicard began
to build and bishop Urso completed, since Marius himself writes
that that one was dedicated by the same Urso and enriched
with the body of holy Bartholomew,
at num. 4 cited, not being here sufficiently consistent with himself.
But the temple begun by Sicard and completed
by Urso was not a separate building,
but a magnificent chapel raised to the holy Apostle in the cathedral
church itself, as the most eminent
Cardinal Orsini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIII,
rightly says in the bull on the relics of St. Bartholomew to be published below,
in these words: He began to set up a chapel in the cathedral
church (Sicard,) which, being forestalled by death,
he left unfinished, and Urso, then Pontiff of Benevento,
completed, and into it he translated the body
on the day XXV of October in the year DCCCXXXIX. That certain things were given to this
chapel by the empress Flora, wife of Lothair,
Francesco Capece Latro writes in the Italian history of the Neapolitan
kingdom, and at the same time confirms what we have said,
whose words, book 1, page 33,
I thus render into Latin: After these things Flora the empress, wife
of Lothair, entered Benevento with great magnificence,
and gave precious gifts to the chapel of St. Bartholomew,
magnificently built by Sicard,
the fifth prince of that city …, in which chapel nothing else
is beheld worthy of sight, and worthy for
the adornment and reverence of the Apostle's body resting there,
except the magnificence of the ancient building.
Falco in the Chronicle of Benevento, at the year 1137,
relates this history, and calls the empress Florida,
who, he says, hearing the solemnities of Masses there,
offered a certain pall upon the altar of B. Bartholomew,
and one pound of silver. In this
chapel therefore, in the cathedral church itself, the sacred
pledge was kept for nearly five hundred years,
namely down to the year 1338. Hence it ought not to seem
wonderful that that chapel, though magnificent
at the beginning, in the lapse of time became less worthy
[64] In the year of Christ 969 John XIII, a council
being held at Rome, The Archbishop of Benevento established in honor of the Apostle. promoted the bishop of Benevento, at that
time Landulf, to the dignity of archbishop, Since, he says in his bull, it is
a holy see, where the body of the blessed apostle Bartholomew
rests. Thou hast the bull in Ughelli,
tom. 8, from col. 61, and in Hardouin, in the Acts of the councils,
tom. 6, part 1, col. 679, with all
the subscriptions of the Cardinals and bishops.
Thus far we have related those things which were done
while the Saint's body was certainly at Benevento. Now
we shall relate certain things which happened after
the Romans contend that it was carried away thence, concerning
which controversy we shall treat below. It is not pleasing, however,
to pursue at greater length all the pilgrimages of princely men or women
to that place, nor the indulgences
granted to the chapel, lest this commentary grow
too much; yet certain of these things will have to be
related when we recount the controversy about the body just
mentioned. But, as what pertains more properly
to the Saint, a certain miracle, or
apparition, which is narrated by certain writers, is here to be inserted.
[65] The apparition of St. Bartholomew with others: Vipera, just mentioned, in the Chronology of the bishops
of Benevento, page 121, having related the disaster with which
the emperor Frederick II afflicted Benevento about
the year 1240, subjoins these things: And not for this
did the most wicked emperor quench his fury from the aforesaid,
nay he was made worse, so that some
years later he came to such madness against the city
of Benevento, that by his irrevocable decree
he ordered all the churches which were at Benevento
to be pulled down, and moreover the remnants of the citizens who
had escaped from the aforesaid destruction to be transferred to other places.
But by the succour of divine mercy, while
he was girding himself to consign the aforesaid to execution,
a miracle worthy of memory came to pass at Benevento.
A certain man of the Beneventans found in the square certain men, abbots
and shining, who seemed to speak to one another
and to treat of certain matters among themselves.
And when he, marvelling greatly, had asked who they
might be? One of them answered: This
is Bartholomew the apostle with the other Saints,
whose churches were had in this city, that they might inquire among
themselves and treat with what penalty
he was to be smitten who cast them out of their dwellings.
And among them it was confirmed by inviolable sentence,
that he should without delay go to the judgment of God,
there to answer at his judgment for all these things. But after
a little time the emperor was miserably slain by Manfred
his bastard son in the year of the Lord
MCCL. Thus Vipera, citing in the margin Claudio
de Rota and Jacobus de Voragine, who
narrate the same in the Acts of St. Bartholomew. But Ughelli,
col. 138: Concerning the miracle, he says, which
Vipera relates from Voragine in the Acts of St. Bartholomew
the apostle, I think there is no room for doubting.
[66] a new basilica of St. Bartholomew built, into which the body was brought, In the year of Christ 1338, a new church, and that proper
to St. Bartholomew, being built by the liberality of the Beneventans,
adjoining the cathedral temple,
the sacred body was translated into it, and honorably
laid up, by Arnald de Brusacco, of
the order of Minors, archbishop of Benevento,
Benedict XII, Roman Pontiff, consenting to it.
Their bulls Ughelli recites, col. 145,
and they will be given in the Bull of Cardinal Orsini to be subjoined
below. But about this temple, which was sufficiently
ample and magnificent, it is thus written in
sent hither from Benevento the XIX of June of the year 1699: By
the city, and also by the collected offerings of the clergy and the faithful,
an ample basilica, with three domes, or
hemispheres, and of these one turned in the likeness of the Roman
Pantheon, was constructed; at the head of the same
a most seemly chapel was adorned by archbishop Arnald,
not only adjoining, but
so joined to the cathedral church that there lay an approach into it through
a door; and from the cathedral to St. Bartholomew's
basilica, and from the basilica into the cathedral,
the priests about to offer the heavenly victim, clothed in sacred
vestments, might daily come, although three
other doors were had in the front of the temple, where also a lofty
portico rose. Further, that there was a huge
concourse of people to this temple, venerating St. Bartholomew,
will appear from various bulls of the Pontiffs to be cited in the course of this. Further, before
the translation was made, the sacred bones were recognized in the presence
of the bishops of the province, and the marble chest
in which the sacred body had thus far been enclosed
was set within another chest cast of bronze,
as will be more fully related below.
[67] In the year 1350 Stephen, archbishop of Benevento, with the consent of the chapter, says Ughelli,
col. 148, is erected into a collegiate church: the body more seemly placed, erected that church of St. Bartholomew
into a collegiate church, and its chaplains
into canons and a chapter; where he perpetually
established twelve clerks serving the divine praises.
The bull in which this deed is read Ughelli gives
in the same place. In the year 1672 the sacred bones were
again more seemly placed, as was added to the same Ughelli
by the editor Nicolò Coleti, in this manner: John
Baptist Foppa (archbishop,) in the famous temple of St.
Bartholomew the apostle and chief patron,
with his own money and that of others contributed, took care that a noble
confessio, after the likeness of that of the Vatican basilica, enriched with precious
marble, be built, and in
the elegant altar of that same confessio he laid up the sacred remains of the aforesaid
Apostle in the year MDCLXXII, being translated
namely out of the chapel in which they had been laid up
by Arnald. In this place the sacred remains stayed
down to the year 1688, in which, the city of Benevento being shaken
by an earthquake, it fell almost wholly in ruin
together with the temple of St. Bartholomew, whose chest
nevertheless was preserved whole among the ruins, and after seven
months was dug out of the rubble. This ruin,
from which not without a miracle it came out unharmed, Cardinal
Orsini himself relates, then prelate of the church of Benevento,
in the dedicatory letter before the dissertation
published for vindicating the body of St. Bartholomew to Benevento,
in this manner:
[68] Certainly it has been made known to all how great
an earthquake, within the memory of mortals, befell the basilica fallen by earthquake, the chest containing the body
on the V day of the month of June of the year MDCLXXXVIII, in which not
only some houses, or families, perished; but
this whole city, 1367 of its own being slain,
was overthrown in a moment. Nothing was exempt or unharmed.
The metropolitan church was in part shattered, in part
overturned, the archbishop's palace was utterly cast down.
But the basilica of the holy apostle Bartholomew, unharmed in
other shakings of this kind, and so often quit
of fear, burst asunder in a vast and violent ruin. In
so great a disaster of things, it was done by the Lord, and it is
marvellous in our eyes, that the chest in which
the most precious body of the most glorious apostle Bartholomew
is laid up — although the walls of the basilica, torn from their
seats, fell down upon it, broke the surrounding
marble columns, and left so great a heap of stones
thrown over it that before the seventh day of February of the following year
MDCLXXXIX it could not be drawn out — yet on that day
it was found utterly entire. As many as
were left ran together, that after the deluge of ruins they might behold
the chest, not set upon mountain ridges, but dug
out of the rubble, bedewed with tears springing forth
from gladness. Of what sort the chest is the praised
Cardinal describes, as follows:
[69] It is of Cyprian bronze, containing another
little marble chest, found entire: of what sort was this? somewhat pointed,
and carved with lily-flowers on its four sides,
of the height of one palm and three inches and
a half, but of the breadth of ten inches, bound with hempen
cords, in some part exceedingly
worn with age, each gathered up above after its
fashion, and above the knots there stand at the head
five seals impressed in Spanish wax, namely
three great and two small: and moreover two others
likewise small above the same, forming as it were a certain
cross, and round about three other great seals
with the effigy of the B. Virgin, and of him who had sealed
the little chest, the archbishop, on one of which
there appears as it were the effigy of an eagle, on the rest no
traces of the impression remain because of age.
Which things being seen, and entered in the public records, the outer
chest of Cyprian bronze, as we said before, was again
closed and sealed with our seal, and laid up
beneath the marble altar at the head of the fifth nave
of our metropolitan church, where it now stands.
[70] The basilica rebuilt, But when the chest of the sacred relics of the Apostle
had been dug from the rubble and laid down in the metropolitan
church, the most praised Cardinal bestowed most diligent
pains that the basilica of St. Bartholomew
might be restored as soon as possible. This he himself
narrates in the aforesaid letter, in these words: Yet we gave no sleep
to our eyes, nor slumber to our eyelids,
nor rest to our temples,
until we should find a place for our Patron,
a tabernacle for the Apostle of the Lord. And so, the foundation stone
being laid by us with the appointed rite on the day XIII
of March MDCXCII, God helping, and his most blessed
Apostle affording solace, that basilica,
at our own expense and that of the clergy and people, not only
begun, but also receiving increase
in height, you saw when you came together to this metropolitan church
for the aforesaid provincial council (celebrated in the year
1693 in the month of April),
and with that kindliness in which you excel, wherewith you commended it,
wherewith you urged us to its speedy consummation,
desiring as soon as possible to be present at the translation of the sacred relics. These things
Orsini wrote in the year 1694, on the XIX day of the month of March, when,
as he says, the Choir had been brought nearly to its summit,
the sacristies were finished, and the work rose day by day.
[71] and the body laid in it. Yet this building of the temple, magnificent as it was,
held the most eminent man occupied
down to the year 1698; when, the basilica being finished,
and all things prepared for the solemn translation,
he held a second provincial council,
in which the sacred bones, diligently recognized by sworn anatomists
and numbered, and then set in an urn
of porphyry, were with great veneration translated into the new temple, and there
placed in the chamber of the high altar by the Cardinal
archbishop. Which things, and others accomplished in this
council, as also most of the matters disputed in this §,
the Bull of the same most eminent Cardinal abundantly teaches,
sent into the light on the XV of May of the year 1698,
which it has seemed good to subjoin here entire. Now the title
of the bull is here prefixed: Bull of the elevation,
recognition, showing, replacing, translation,
and consignment of the sacred body of the most glorious
apostle St. Bartholomew in the new church
erected to him at Benevento, by decree of the sacred second provincial
council, in the year of the Lord MDCXCVIII,
in the month of May, the most eminent Cardinal Orsini,
archbishop metropolitan, presiding, with fourteen other
bishops of the province, and other lesser
ordinaries, and moreover the proctors of four absent
suffragan bishops,
and nine bishops from outside, honoring the aforesaid sacred
functions. But because the bull
is somewhat long, I have divided it into four parts, and have indicated
what is treated in each part by a brief title set at the head,
and by additions added in the margin:
behold therefore the bull itself.
PART I
Containing those things which were done down to the year MDCLXXXVIII.
He confesses the divine mercies; Brother Vincent Mary, of the order of Preachers,
by the mercy of God cardinal presbyter of the H. R. Ch. of the title of St. Sixtus,
Orsini, archbishop metropolitan of the holy church
of Benevento, with the assent and consent of the most reverend
Lords our fellow bishops,
who have come together into our holy provincial synod.
For a perpetual memorial of the matter. Blessed be
the Father of mercies, and the God of all
consolation, who has so consoled us in all
our tribulation, that we too might be able to console
those who have been in every distress, on account of this
our city, ten years since,
not only shaken and tossed by the storms of the moving earth,
but also reduced to ruin and dust;
for the same merciful and compassionate
Lord, according to the riches of his goodness,
has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor
rewarded us according to our iniquities, nay rather,
raising us up who were dashed down, has lifted all things that had fallen,
and has consoled us, afflicted with many hardships and calamities,
with manifold joy also, from the glory of his apostle
Bartholomew.
[73] For there is no one who does not know that by the earthquake
of the fifth day of the month of June of the year MDCLXXXVIII, that by the earthquake so great
a disaster befell this our city as neither
our elders remember, since nothing
remained entire, except the bell-tower
of the metropolitan church, on which, according to the proverb then arisen,
could be inscribed: Here was
Benevento. What a face of the city, what a sight of things then,
mournful and pitiable on every side; what
a slaying of MCCCLXVII citizens; what a destruction of nearly
all the buildings! The metropolitan church shaken in its five
naves, but its transverse nave
with the choir, the record-rooms, and the library, cast down
and laid low, the archbishop's palace utterly overthrown,
the basilica of St. Bartholomew the apostle, unshaken by other
earthquakes, overturned from its foundations, can neither be
recalled without a most bitter sense of grief,
nor certainly is it needful to recall it, since
there are not lacking those who beheld it with their own eyes and suffered it,
and we too, dug out of the rubble, though our eyes
were hurt by the lime-dust, both saw it, and with fatherly
compassion embraced the miseries of all.
[74] But in so great a calamity God, rich in his mercy,
granted a great matter of spiritual gladness, the sacred body of the Apostle unharmed:
to be proclaimed to all generations to come.
For he himself, who keeps the bones of his Saints,
so guarded the most sacred body of the most glorious apostle Bartholomew,
buried deep for about nine months
beneath the ruined walls of his basilica,
that in the very manner in which Arnald de Brusacco
of the order of Minors, our predecessor, had placed it,
we found it exactly so fitted and preserved.
[75] That this may be more clearly known, we judge that the matter
must be traced from farther back. that it was translated from Lipari to Benevento, Since indeed in the year after Christ's
birth DCCCXXXVIII, the island of Lipari being occupied
by the Saracens, among the other disasters, that above all
surpassed every cruelty, whereby wicked men, drawing out from the urn in which
they were laid up, scattered the bones of St. Bartholomew's
body: but Theodore
the monk, who had been the keeper of the sacred deposit,
admonished in sleep by the Apostle himself, gathered
the scattered bones, and by the fleet of the Samnites, which had come
to bring help too late, made for Salerno, and gave the heavenly treasure to Sicard
V, prince of the Samnites,
which he bore to Benevento, and for the seemly keeping of it
began to set up a chapel in the cathedral church,
which, being forestalled by death, he left unfinished,
and Urso, then pontiff of Benevento,
completed, and into it translated the body
on the day XXV of October in the year DCCCXXXIX, which day is yearly celebrated
with the public prayer of the diocesan clergy (which they call
the synod of litanies).
[76] Otto III, asking, receives the body of St. Paulinus. But when fame everywhere on earth reported that the most precious body of the Apostle
shone with many miracles at Benevento,
Otto III the emperor "in the year
from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousandth, came to Benevento"
(we use the words of Leo of Ostia, according to
the more accurate reading of Angelo de Nuce, archbishop
of Rossano) "and for the sake of the penance
which blessed Romuald had enjoined on him,
he went off to Mount Gargano. And returning
thereafter to Benevento, he asked of the citizens
the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle, who, daring
to deny him nothing then, having taken counsel with the archbishop
who then presided over that city,
craftily showed him, in place of the Apostle's body,
the body of B. Paulinus bishop of Nola, which was laid up
seemly enough at the bishop's house of that same city;
and having taken it away,
he withdrew, deceived by such a fraud. Which after
he learned, being exceedingly indignant, he laid up indeed
the body of the confessor which he had carried away, honorably enough,
at the island of Rome; but in the following
time he marched again against Benevento,
and besieged it on every side for many days: but
prevailing nothing against it, he returned to Rome.
Whence, scarcely beginning to return to his own,
he died at the town which is called
Paternum."
[77] A basilica proper to St. Bartholomew is raised, Since therefore the holy pontiff Paulinus, who gave himself
alive to the Vandals for a widow's son,
had also given himself, when he had paid the debt of mortality, for the most blessed
apostle Bartholomew to Otto III, lest Benevento
be widowed of so great a treasure,
our city, being quit of all fear, took care that a proper church
be raised for the laying up of the heavenly
treasure; into which Arnald
de Brusacco of the order of Minors, of blessed memory, our predecessor
as archbishop, being about to translate
the sacred body of the Apostle,
sought and obtained this faculty from Benedict PP. XII of happy memory,
having received Apostolic
letters of the tenor which follows:
[78] the Pontiff granting it by a bull "Benedict, bishop, servant of the servants
of God, to his venerable brother Arnald, archbishop
of Benevento, greeting and Apostolic benediction.
They who, having received from the Lord's hand the palm of supernal
benediction, stand fast in the perpetuity
of praise and glory, are to be feared with a devout
mind, and to be honored with all veneration, that they
may the more readily intercede for sinners with the divine clemency,
whose vision they enjoy,
the more devout they shall perceive men's minds
to praise the Lord in his Saints,
and the more apt for the exercise of good works.
Now the petition of thy fraternity lately laid before us
contained that thou, attentively
considering that the body of B. Bartholomew
the apostle, which of old is said to have been miraculously translated
to thy church of Benevento,
is kept in an unseemly and less fit place
adjoining that church, and therefore
desiring that it be placed in a seemly and honorable place,
kindled with zeal of devotion, in a certain
fair chapel likewise adjoining the aforesaid church,
which the citizens of Benevento, marked with the venerable name of that Apostle,
long since from ancient times
built in honor of the same
Apostle, hast caused at thine own charges a fit, devout,
and suitable place to be built,
and also prepared, where thou desirest to translate, and also to place,
with due reverence and fitting solemnity, the body of that
Apostle and the venerable relics of certain other Saints,
which likewise are kept in despised
and less seemly places,
unto the praise of the divine name, and the honor of that same Apostle
and of the whole heavenly Court, and the devotion
of the faithful, and the increase of the salvation
of their souls. Wherefore thou hast humbly besought us
that we would deign to grant leave for translating
to the said chapel the body of that same Apostle, and the aforementioned relics,
with due reverence and honor, and for placing them
in the said place prepared by thee in the aforesaid chapel,
as is aforesaid".
[79] "We therefore, commending thy devotion and purpose
in this behalf manifoldly in the Lord, that the body be translated into it, and bearing that confidence
in thy sincerity, that unto God's praise, and
the glory of the said Apostle and the reverence
and honor of the Saints, and the increase of devotion
and consolation of the catholic people, thou wilt take pains
to carry out the above-said, grant thee the leave
requested. And that Christ's faithful,
whom, as by the debt of the pastoral office it lies upon us,
we desire to render acceptable to the Most High,
may the more willingly be invited to the reverence of the same Apostle
and Saints, and the more frequently
and devoutly flow together to the said chapel to implore
there the divine mercy
for their sins, as unto a saving haven,
whereby they may feel themselves made fruitful with the abundance of a more excellent grace,
trusting in the mercy of Almighty God
and in the authority of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul,
to all truly penitent
and confessed who shall visit that chapel
on the feast of the aforesaid Apostle, we mercifully relax
yearly one year and forty days of the penances
enjoined upon them. Given
at Avignon the IV of May in the third year" (namely
of his pontificate).
[80] This faculty being received, Arnald, in a chest
of Cyprian bronze skillfully wrought, a bronze chest is prepared, in which the marble one may be enclosed, concerning which he says:
For the placing and laying up of that same precious body
in a certain casket procured and long
devised for a perpetual memorial cause: enclosed the ancient
marble chest, and before the enclosing
recognized the sacred body lying in it
in the presence of the bishops of the province of Benevento,
or as he himself says: The body etc., which on this present
day, under the testimony of the lord bishops of the province of Benevento,
and of public and other
innumerable persons, was found and shown,
we have translated with due reverence, and
laid up: as more fully from his bull written below,
of the tenor which follows:
[81] "Arnald, by divine mercy archbishop
of Benevento. The bull of archbishop Arnald To all Christ's faithful
who shall look upon the present letters, greeting in
him who is the true Salvation of all. The lofty King,
and wonderful in majesty, whose ineffable height
of prudence, by the censure of upright judgment, disposes both
heavenly things and earthly, although he magnifies all
his ministers and makes them possessors of heavenly
beatitude; yet those, that he may repay worthy things to the worthy,
he raises with more excellent marks
of dignities, and follows with a further recompense of rewards,
whom he acknowledges as worthier,
and whom a greater excellence of merits commends;
so also holy mother Church and her
faithful, following his holy footsteps, and led
by his praiseworthy example, although they cease not
to honor with anxious zeal all who are established in the heavenly
kingdoms, and to extol them with sounding proclamations,
yet the most glorious princes of the Christian faith,
the chosen athletes of God, the just judges of the world, the true
lights of the world — namely,
the Apostles of Christ the Redeemer, contained in the number of twelve,
who, living in the flesh, planted the aforesaid Church with their own
precious blood, raising it up
on high and directing it by most holy disciplines —
they have appointed to celebrate with special praises
and special honors, and have been accustomed,
as they are bound, to venerate more specially. In
whose fellowship and number the glorious Bartholomew
the apostle, whose most holy body
rests in this city of Benevento, by his own
requiring merits, by divine disposition was
gathered; and at length, after his most holy
and angelic life, and his passion to be recalled,
after the courses of a long time, in the miraculous translation
of his precious body from Lipari
to Benevento. Then at his joyful entrance
into that same city, the princes, prelates,
clergy, and people permitted also a fitting tabernacle
to be built for him, in which his body
might be laid up, and other spiritual and temporal
devout subjections and honors".
[82] he relates the basilica built, "And although, for receiving and worthily placing
so most precious a body, neither
we, nor the clergy, nor the people of that city
are, or have been, sufficient or worthy;
yet that same city took pains, with all its endeavors,
the divine clemency always helping, to raise under the name
of that same Apostle a basilica, or
tabernacle, in some sort, as appears, spacious
and beautiful. And because it set his glorious body
outside that tabernacle, after his aforesaid miraculous
translation, in a less seemly place;
yet now, as best it could,
it has been placed. We, carefully
and worthily considering, and surveying with due
meditation, unto the glory and honor of the divine name
and of that same Apostle, and as far as
was possible to us, in a more fitting
and chosen place of that same tabernacle a chapel, as far as
we knew how, for the placing and laying up of that same precious body
in a certain casket
procured and long devised for a perpetual memorial
cause, having first sought and obtained
leave for making a translation or removal of this kind
from the most holy Father in Christ
and Lord, the Lord Benedict by divine providence
PP. XII, who to those devoutly coming to that church
on such a translation, or on the feast
of the above-said Apostle, graciously granted one year and forty
days of indulgence in each several year
by his special letters".
[83] the body recognized, and translated, "But because it is fitting and just
that the body of so most holy an Apostle be laid up
and remain in a consecrated place, both that basilica
or tabernacle, and that same chapel
or place where the body of the same Apostle
ought to be laid up and to remain — which on this present
day, under the testimony of the lord bishops
of the province of Benevento, and of public
and other innumerable persons, was found
and shown, and which we have translated with due reverence
and laid up by the leave of the lord
supreme Pontiff above-said — we first, for the reverence and honor
of the said Apostle, commanded
and caused to be consecrated with due solemnity.
And that of so great a solemnity, namely of the translation
of the body of the same Apostle, and of the consecration
of that basilica, and besides the daily memory
of his feast, which the churches generally
and the faithful make of him, a memory be celebrated solemnly
and specially each year, and that devout
throngs of the faithful, both on the present day
and on the other days written below, may affectionately run together
to that same church and to the visiting of the body
of the same Apostle, and be inflamed
unto Christ's service;
[84] "We, willing that Christ's faithful should enjoy special gifts
for visiting so precious a body, the indulgences granted. and his chapel and church,
and be encouraged also in
time to come: trusting in the mercy of Almighty God,
and in the merits of the blessed apostles Peter
and Paul, and of Bartholomew, by that authority,
to all Christ's faithful truly penitent
and confessed, who at this consecration
of the church and chapel made by our
mandate, and with us present, and so many
venerable fathers the lord bishops of the province
of Benevento, and giving thereto their consent
and authority, and the indulgence
which they could grant, and who on that same day shall have taken care
devoutly to visit that same church and chapel: one year and forty days
for the consecration of that same church; and as much,
as best we can, for the consecration of that same chapel,
the said indulgence of one year
and forty days granted, as is said
above, by the apostolic See, out of reverence
for that same translation and feast, beyond the other
indulgences formerly granted by the apostolic See, or its legates,
or the prelates or pontiffs
of Benevento, we mercifully relax in the Lord from the penances
enjoined upon them;
and to all Christ's faithful truly penitent
and confessed, who in any year on
that same day and feast of B. Bartholomew the apostle,
and who on all the solemn festivities of the Lord
Jesus Christ, of the B. Virgin Mary his mother,
of all the blessed Apostles, and especially
of the said Apostle our patron, and on each
Sunday, Monday, and Friday of any
year in time to come, shall take care devoutly to visit the said church of B. Bartholomew
the apostle, or the chapel in which the venerable
body was this day translated,
beyond the other above-said indulgences,
both by the aforesaid lord supreme
Pontiff, by reason of the said translation
and of the feast of the same Apostle, and by us and
the other lord bishops of the province of Benevento,
as granted by law by reason of the said consecration
or consecrations, on any feast day
of the aforesaid we mercifully relax in the Lord forty days
of the penances enjoined
upon them. In testimony whereof, and for the certainty
of each particular, we have commanded our present letters patent
to be made thereupon, and to be fortified by the appending of our seal.
Given at Benevento the XXV day of the month
of August, VI Indiction, in the year of the L. MCCCXXXVIII,
of the pontificate of the aforesaid supreme Pontiff
the lord Benedict by divine providence PP.
XII the fourth year".
[85] Another translation in the year 1672. The sacred body therefore, in the little marble chest
which Arnald set within the greater bronze chest,
was laid up in a special chapel which was at the head
of the choir of the aforesaid basilica, and kept guarded
by an iron grating secured with three keys,
down to the year MDCLXXII: in which year, on the XI day of June,
archbishop Foppa of recent memory, our predecessor,
translated the aforesaid chest with the sacred body,
just as it stood, and laid it beneath the stem of the altar of the martyrium,
or confessio, which was beneath the high altar,
most elegantly built by that same archbishop,
as appears from the public Instrument
by the acts of the notary Giuseppe de Pompeio, on the day, month,
and year as above; and it remained there
down to the seventh day of February MDCLXXXIX.
PART II.
The temple of St. Bartholomew fallen by earthquake; the body translated to the
metropolitan church; a new basilica built; the restitution of the body decreed in
council.
The chest dug from the rubble of the fallen temple, Since indeed in the year MDCLXXXVIII, on the V day of June,
the ancient basilica being cast down by earthquake, as we said before,
the whole ruin lay upon the aforesaid confessio,
and grew into so great a heap of rubble
that until the seventh day of February
it could not be wholly cleared away; on which day, beyond
the hope of all, the chest appeared entire, and was drawn out,
all weeping together for gladness, and
hoping that, so great a sign of the covenant between
God and us remaining, the city would rise up anew,
and that a succour not unequal to its immense hardships
would come. On the VII day of February therefore MDCLXXXIX
the sacred deposit was lifted from the ruins, and
translated into the metropolitan church, by our special
mandate, in the presence of our vicar
general, our metropolitan chapter, the dignitaries
and canons of our collegiate church of St. Bartholomew,
and moreover the magistracy of the city, and very many
others of the order of nobles, and a people
almost innumerable.
[87] and here described, In whose presence there was recognized entire the chest
of the sacred deposit, of Cyprian bronze, of the length of three palms
and a half and one finger, of the breadth
of two palms less a quarter: of the height
of two palms and a half; and in form
oblong like a chest, pointed at the top,
and on the front part adorned with figures of the same metal,
namely the figure of the Saviour between two angels
bearing candlesticks in their hands, and below
the figure of St. Bartholomew between two kneeling
angels, having censers in their hands; and
on this part it was fortified with two iron locks, nor
could it be opened, because the keys were not to be found.
But on the back part it was adorned with three figures of bishops
mitred and clothed in pontifical vestments,
whose names could not then be
read: in like manner also two figures of bishops,
one on each of the sides: and above the chest
there were found two little statues, namely of the B.
Virgin Mary and of St. John, of the same Cyprian
metal; and moreover two flowers with apples, and
little statues of the same material.
[88] Which chest indeed, all the aforementioned being present,
is borne to the metropolitan church, by processional rite with the attendance
of the confraternities, of the city clergy, and of the collegiate bodies
of the Holy Spirit and of St. Bartholomew, and our metropolitan
chapter with lighted torches, and
a people almost innumerable, was led down into the metropolitan
church, and within a marble altar
appointed for this at the head of the fifth nave, on the right of that
church, but set on the left of one entering,
and properly that which looks toward the bell-
tower, it was enclosed by way of provision,
and not otherwise etc.; which altar was on every side
fortified with masonry, so that the aforesaid chest could by no means
be removed unless the altar were removed, as is more clearly read
in the public instrument drawn by the notary canon
Marzio Lizza on the said VII day of February MDCLXXXIX.
But since this lodging, so to speak, given to the sacred body,
had to be protracted longer than
we wished, we commanded that same marble altar
to be built in a nobler form;
for the sake of which it was necessary that the chest
itself be removed, and kept for some days in a seemly place;
wherefore on the first day of the month of August
MDCXCI, at the instance of the dignitaries and canons of the sacred basilica
of St. Bartholomew, in the presence of our vicar
general, of certain capitulars of the metropolitan church,
and of those same dignitaries and canons
of the aforesaid basilica, of the magistracy of the city, and of other
nobles, the stone table was removed which closed
the stem of the aforenamed altar, and four canons
of the sacred basilica of St. Bartholomew, clothed in canonical
insignia, drew out the chest, and at once set it upon
a table of walnut adorned with silk,
the above-said being present; and that
casket being immediately examined, it was found
that the two iron locks which fortified the chest,
and could not be opened without the keys, which were wanting,
had been parted from their place in which they stood
fixed: and the counsel of experts being at once employed,
the judgment was that the little nails
fastening those locks, corroded by the antiquity of time and
by rust, had given way because of the various movements of earth and
ruin, and moreover of the opening of the altar of the martyrium and of this
second altar, where the chest was kept in the place of a deposit.
[89] But since from such an event that chest of Cyprian bronze
remained no longer fortified, which being opened there is found in it a lesser marble one, it was commanded by our
vicar general that it be examined within;
which being opened, it was seen and found
that there stood in it another most ancient
little casket, or little marble chest, slightly pointed,
and round about, on all four
marble sides, carved with lilies. But the aforesaid
little chest was of the height of one palm and one
inch: of the length likewise of one palm and three inches
and a half: but of the breadth of ten
inches, bound with cords of small hempen thread
twisted together, in several parts consumed by the course
of time, and upon those same cords,
namely at the head, five seals in Spanish wax,
namely three great and two small, and moreover
two other small seals above the same in the fashion
of a cross, and round about three other great seals
with the effigy of the B. Virgin Mary, and of the archbishop
for the time with a small mitre, on one of which
it was observed that there was a certain eagle
impressed, but the rest could not be discerned
because of the antiquity of time.
[90] These things being done, the chest of Cyprian bronze was again
closed, closed again, and bound in three places, namely in the middle
and at the two ends, with three
silken ribbons of white, red, and black color, and
sealed over the knots with three small seals in Spanish
wax, namely in the middle with the seal of our vicar,
on the right side with the seal of our chapter, on the left
with that of the community; which chest, thus sealed, was at once laid up
in a certain walnut casket fortified with three
keys, namely one wherewith our vicar
closed it, and deposited it with our beloved son the prior of the collegiate church
of St. Bartholomew: a second, wherewith the librarian
of our metropolitan church closed it:
a third, wherewith the first of the city's consuls
likewise closed it. This casket therefore, thus fortified, was
fitted after the manner of an altar with candlesticks and lamps,
and set forth for public veneration in
the first chapel of the said fifth nave, guarded day and night
by the dignitaries and canons of the said
sacred basilica of St. Bartholomew, as more fully from
the public instrument drawn by the same notary canon
Lizza, the first day of August MDCXCI.
[91] it is replaced in the altar, fortified But on the ninth day of the same month of August,
when the aforesaid altar had been more elegantly built
at our charges, that same our vicar
general, in the presence of several of our metropolitan
chapter, and of the canons of St. Bartholomew,
having gone to the cathedral, commanded
the said walnut casket to be diligently examined, and
it was found well closed; then, being opened by the above-
mentioned who kept the keys, the chest of Cyprian bronze was seen
and found, as we said before,
sealed and fortified with its seals: which again,
for greater safekeeping, was fortified with iron wires, and those doubled,
in the middle and at the two ends,
upon which three knots were made of
that same iron, and upon each knot there was set
a leaden seal, videlicet in the middle our own seal,*
on the right side that of our chapter, and on
the left that of the community, and those three seals were fastened together
with tin, lest the chest should hereafter be any more*
opened; and so it was again laid up in
the altar newly built at the head of the fifth nave,
where it was before; and the table so fixed that it could in no way
be drawn off, as more fully from the public Instrument
drawn by the aforesaid notary canon Lizza,
on the said ninth day of the month of August MDCXCI.
[92] with the archbishop's seal. But while these things were being done, we were staying at Rome,
where, being made more certain of the aforesaid, we commanded
that what had been attempted concerning the seals, other than ours,
be removed; wherefore the most reverend F. lord
Pompeo Sarnelli, bishop of Bisceglie,
then our auditor general, having called and having present
the capitulars and the consuls of the city,
the table being removed, caused the other seals to be removed and effaced,
and in their place impressed ours likewise, and
the altar was again closed and well made fast, as
more fully from the instrument of the aforesaid notary Lizza under
the day IV of the month of September MDCXCI.
[93] A new basilica built, But when our city began to lift its head from the ruins,
among the other things desirable to our heart,
this we sought of God with intense affections,
that the church of the aforesaid Apostle might again be raised,
and, God granting, we laid the foundation stone with the appointed rite
on the day XIII of March MDCXCII. Meanwhile
we dedicated with solemn rite the metropolitan church restored and adorned,
in the same year on the day XXVI
of May, the birthday of St. Philip Neri, to whose prayers
we ascribe as a gift the very life we live; the archbishop's palace
also being raised from its foundations, we conveniently celebrated
a provincial council in the month
of April of the year MDCXCIII. And when the work of the new basilica
was carried on with all zeal and effort,
it was at length brought to that state — not indeed such as the majesty
of so great an Apostle, but such as our slenderness availed —
that the divine offices might be diligently attended to therein;
and therefore the restitution of the most sacred body of the Apostle,
deposited and kept in a place in the metropolitan church,
seemed no longer to be deferred.
[94] A second provincial council therefore being assembled,
our collegiate body of St. Bartholomew suppliantly
urged for the restitution, the canons of St. Bartholomew ask and to its petition
our metropolitan chapter and the magistracy of the city
adhered, a supplicatory petition being presented
in the first synodal congregation, held
on the II day of May of the current year. And it pleased the fathers
that, the cause being examined, it should be proceeded with; wherefore there were chosen
as ponent the most reverend father lord
Domenico Morelli, bishop of Lucera, and
as fiscal promotor the most reverend father
lord Michele Pitirro, bishop of Termoli,
as notary of the cause our beloved son the rev. lord
canon Paduano Sanctorio, who, observing what was to be observed,
should proceed and report. By these therefore
the ancient writings were called in, and
copies of the bulls of the supreme Pontiffs, and of other notaries, extracted;
a report of all things being at last made in the public synodal congregation
before all the fathers written below, of whom
only the most reverend father lord Emilio de Cavaleriis,
bishop-elect of Troia, was absent for reason of ill health;
the party being cited, on the X day
of May a decree was passed of the tenor which follows:
[95] "In the cause pending in the second sacred provincial
council between the much rev. lords the dignitaries the restitution of the body:
and canons of the collegiate church of St. Bartholomew
the apostle of this city, and the most reverend metropolitan
chapter, and the most illustrious magistracy
and community of the same city
adhering to them, plaintiffs on the one part; and the most illustrious
and most reverend lord bishop
of Termoli, fiscal promotor,
deputed in the present cause, on the other, concerning
and upon the restitution sought of the sacred body of St.
Bartholomew the apostle, carried away, by reason of deposit, from
the aforementioned sacred basilica of that same Saint, utterly fallen
by the earthquake of the year MDCLXXXVIII,
to the metropolitan church of the same city,
and laid up beneath the altar of St. Mary Major
within that same metropolitan church, and other matters,
"as appears from the acts, &c.
[96] "On the X day of the month of May MDCXCVIII in the public
synodal congregation, gathered in council held in the great hall
of the archbishop's palace, there being present in it the most holy
fathers, namely the most eminent and most reverend
father and lord in Christ, the lord
brother Vincent Mary, of the order of Preachers,
by divine mercy cardinal presbyter of the H. R. Ch. of the Title of St. Sixtus,
Orsini, archbishop metropolitan of the holy church
of Benevento, presiding, and the most illustrious
and most reverend lord bishops
of the province, that is: F. Celestino
de Labonia, bishop of Montemarano: F. Giuseppe
de Lazara, bishop of Alife: F. Francesco
Scanegata, bishop of Avellino, Frigento,
Acquaputrida or Mirabella, and
Quintodecimo: F. Angelo Ceraso, bishop of Bovino:
F. Francesco Antonio Punzi, bishop
of Ascoli and Ordona: F. Francesco Antonio
Jannone, bishop of Bojano and Sepino:
F. Giuseppe Catalano, bishop of Larino:
F. Domenico Morelli, bishop of Lucera,
Fiorentino, and Tortiboli: F. Michele Pitirro,
bishop of Termoli: F. Pompeo Sarnelli,
bishop of Bisceglie, admitted to a decisive vote,
and in place of the metropolitan chapter
abbot of the town of San Lupo of no diocese: F. Francesco
Protonobilissimo, bishop of Trevico: F.
Biagio Gammaro, bishop of Telese: F. Giacinto
de Calce, bishop of Ariano: F. D.
Vito Antonio Pastorale, abbot general of Montevergine:
the much rev. lord Agostino Fantetta, vicar
general of the town of Alberona of no diocese, these having a decisive
vote; and the proctors of
the absent bishops, that is, the much rev. lord
primicerius Giacomo Antonio de Antonellis, proctor
of F. Giacomo Circi, bishop of Sant'Agata
dei Goti and Sessola: the much rev. lord Antonio America,
archpriest of the town of Motta, proctor
of F. Domenico Surrentino, bishop of Volturara
and Montecorvino: the venerable presbyter
Nicola Scorza, proctor of F. Carlo Felice
Matta, bishop of San Severo, Civitate, and Dragonara:
the rev. lord Giacomo Antonio, canon
of Fiorentino, proctor of F. Filippo de Cordova,
bishop of Guardialfiera: and moreover the much
reverend synodal theologians, that is, the lord
Giovanni Giordano, apostolic protonotary, canon
of Avellino: the lord Michele Ramomondi,
apostolic protonotary, theologian of F. the bishop of Troia:
father Nicola Squillante of the congregation
of the Oratory: father Giovanni Battista Mongio, of the order
of St. Benedict, of the congregation of the Celestines, prior:
father master Fr. Giovanni Battista Spada
Orsino, ex-provincial of the order of Preachers:
F. master Fr. Giovanni Michele de Cavaleriis,
of the order of Preachers: father master
Fr. Pietro Antonio Caballo, of the order of Preachers:
father Fr. Sebastiano Jascone, of the order of Minors
of St. Francis of the Observance, ex-provincial
and jubilated lector: father master Fr.
Anselmo Sabbatino, ex-provincial of the order of Minor
Conventuals: father master Fr. Alberto
Annubba, ex-provincial of the order of Carmelites:
father Fr. Girolamo of St. Nicholas, ex-definitor
of the order of Discalced Carmelites: father"
Domenico Viva of the Society of Jesus.
[97] they decree that the body be recognized and restored. "The petition presented by the petitioners being seen, all the writings
called in and extracted according to the form of law being seen,
the admonition made upon
the dispatch of the cause being seen, F. Domenico
Morelli, bishop of Lucera, ponent of the cause, reporting:
F. Michele Pitirro, bishop of Termoli,
fiscal promotor, being heard, all things to be considered in law
and in fact being considered and searched out,
and the consultative and concordant votes
of the above-said rev. theologians being heard, the holy synod,
with full votes and with none at all dissenting,
decreed that the sacred body of St.
Bartholomew the apostle, carried away into the metropolitan church
by reason of deposit in the year of the Lord
MDCLXXXIX on the VII day of February, as appears from the public
instruments in the acts &c., be elevated from the altar
of St. Mary Major, beneath which it is laid up, be canonically
recognized, then be replaced in
a safer urn, and at length by appointed rite be restored to the sacred basilica
erected in honor of the same saint,
and that for the aforesaid effect all other things be done
according to the sacred canons, and the sacred rites and
ecclesiastical ceremonies prescribed in these matters, and
so &c., all &c. Thus I, Fr. Vincent Mary,
Cardinal archbishop metropolitan, with the consent
and assent of the most reverend lords
my fellow bishops, have pronounced and
definitively given sentence. P. Can. Sanctorio, chancellor of the archiepiscopal
curia, and deputed notary of the cause."
Annotations* i. e. videlicet
perhaps stanno* (tin)
PART III.
The opening of the chests: what was found with the bones: the bones recognized and numbered by sworn anatomists, and set in glass phials.
The archbishop with the others For the execution of which decree, on the XI of May, a Sunday,
together with the lord bishops named,
to whom was joined the most reverend lord Carlo
Cutillo, bishop of Minori, who had come to honor the functions
of the council, and moreover
the proctors of the four absent lord bishops,
the chapter of our metropolitan church, the collegiate body
of St. Bartholomew, and the theologians enumerated,
and likewise the lord governor and the magistracy,
together with the notaries of the council, of whom below, and
witnesses specially called, we went to the metropolitan
church, and properly to the altar under the title
of St. Mary Major, in which the body of St. Bartholomew
the apostle stood laid up as a deposit,
as appears from the public instruments already related,
drawn by the notary canon Lizza under the days VII
of February MDCLXXXIX, the first and the ninth of August
MDCXCI, and the IV of September of the same year; and before
that altar, together with the same lord bishops,
the dignitaries and canons, the lord Giovanni de
Effectibus, referendary of both signatures, the governor
and the magistracy, standing by in their places,
we recited the seven penitential psalms; which
being finished, with all the above-said we went in procession to the
sacristy, where we,
and the lord bishops of Bovino, of Termoli, and
of Bisceglie, being vested pontifically, returned by the same processional rite
to the aforementioned altar of St. Mary Major,
and the due prayers being paid,
the lord bishops of Lucera the ponent and of Termoli the fiscal promotor
assisting us,
the altar was examined by skilled workmen, and found
altogether entire.
[99] Which examination being finished, we, taking up
a chisel, opens the bronze chest, began the opening, and then
by our mandate the workmen continued it. The altar
being opened, and all things being found as they had been described
in the related Instruments, there appeared the bronze casket
containing the sacred deposit, which
four of our mansionarii drew out, from whose
hands we, and the lord bishops of Bovino,
of Termoli, and of Bisceglie, received it, and
set it upon a table prepared and adorned outside the rails.
Meanwhile the lord ponent and the fiscal
promotor examined that same casket,
and found all things exactly as in the instruments
down to the day IV of September MDCXCI.
All and each therefore being recognized,
the bronze chest was opened, and in it was found a veil
blackened by the antiquity of time, which was of cotton,
and woven at the edges with golden thread,
and which perhaps covered the little marble chest.
There was moreover in the same place a silver coin of round
form, in size equalling a Roman giulio,
with the image on one side of a king with a lily-headed sceptre
in his right hand, and an orb in his left, seated upon two
lions, and with the inscription Karolus
Dei gratia Hierusalem et Siciliæ
rex, and on the other side with the image of the holy cross adorned round about
with lilies, and the inscription: Honor Regis
judicium diligit.
[100] and the marble one; in which the sacred bones, Thence they came to the examination of the little marble
chest, and, finding it closed with its
cords and seals according to the description made in the related
instruments, closed just as it was,
we lifted it with our own hands, and set it upon a bier
adorned with silk, binding it
with ribbons set on that same bier for this purpose, the clergy
meanwhile singing psalms, and advancing in processional rite
with the lord bishops and the rest aforesaid;
we and the lord bishops of Bovino, of Termoli,
and of Bisceglie bore the bier upon our shoulders
to the sacristy, and here upon a table
adorned with cloths and silks we laid down that same little casket,
and unbound it: then, as we went to our
seat, the three lord bishops put off their pontifical
vestments. Then we, descending from our
seat and going to the aforesaid table,
the mitre being laid aside, began the hymn
Veni Creator Spiritus; which being finished,
with all the fathers looking on, and the others enumerated,
we lifted the lid of the little casket, and at once there were seen
the sacred bones of the body of St. Bartholomew, above
which lay a leaden plate, presently to be described.
[101] and the leaden plates inscribed with the Apostle's name: Then, as if in an ecstasy of mind for the gladness of the treasure
found, lifting up our voice, we exclaimed
rather than sang the hymn Te
Deum: and while the hymn was being sung, incense being put on
and blessed, we censed the sacred remains, whiter than snow
and brighter than milk itself, as
successively did all the bishops, the canons,
and the rest of the presbyters who were present. The hymn,
versicle, and prayer for thanksgiving being finished,
the mitre being taken up again, and sitting on a faldstool over against
those standing by, in the sight of all
we drew out the leaden plate, on which in Lombard
letters was carved: SCS BARTHOLOMEUS
APLS. Which being removed, we began to lift the sacred bones
one by one, and at once there appeared another
most ancient leaden plate, which we drew out,
and found corroded with age, and covered with its own scum
or rust; so that then it could by no means
be read; which, being afterwards polished, showed on it the same
letters as on the more recent plate,
but in a most ancient Latin character, in these words:
SCS BARTHOLoMEUS A: for at the extreme
part it seemed broken off, as indeed it was:
for lifting other bones, we found the broken particle,
containing the other letters: PST.
[102] the number of the bones, and the antiquity of the plates: Continuing therefore the lifting of the sacred bones,
reckoning great and small, we found them
up to the number DLXXXV, besides innumerable
fragments of bones, which because of their smallness
could not be numbered, and others reduced to dust:
all which, for the decreed recognition to be made,
we laid out upon papers fitted for it.
Meanwhile we commanded the plates that had been found to be examined by skilled
metalworkers, who said that the former and greater
was made four hundred years ago,
but the lesser far more ancient than seven hundred years,
from the wasting away of the lead itself. Observing moreover
the bronze casket, they reported that it too was wrought
four hundred years ago. Then the marble-workers,
skilled in the sculpture of marbles,
inspecting the stone chest, said
that it exceeded seven hundred years, as its sculpture
showed, and a certain crack opened in the bottom by age,
which does not go through. Then we bound by oath
the skilled anatomists, of whose skill we had been made certain,
and who were present at the numbering of the bones,
for the exact making of the recognition,
and earnestly admonished them.
[103] But since night was drawing on, and the time
was judged by no means fit for discerning the sacred relics
in detail; the bones shut up until the following day. meanwhile we blessed with the appointed rite the glass vessels
prepared for this effect,
and caused all the bones to be laid up in them,
wherewith nine vessels were filled. Which vessels, closed with their
lids, we ordered to be laid up in a little chest wrought
with silk, with its lock and key: which being fortified
by the key, this remained with the lord fiscal promotor,
and for greater safekeeping we sealed that same little casket,
bound with silken ribbons, with our own seal and
that of the same promotor, in the sight of all:
and that same casket, thus sealed, we placed in a safe cupboard
which is behind the altar of the said sacristy, where
the other relics are kept in their cases:
the key of this cupboard also being left with the lord
promotor, with the mind to continue the recognition
and to do the other things which concern the execution
of the decree passed on the X day of May. Which things
being done, we laid aside our pontifical vestments, and then
upon the faldstool prayed a little while with the fathers;
which prayer being ended, we courteously dismissed those same fathers,
and remained ourselves in the sacristy,
giving diligent attention to the sacred vigils with the brethren
of our order, which the other regulars also,
as we prescribed to them, discharged in succession:
as more fully from the public instrument, drawn by
the three apostolic notaries of the council, Paduano
canon Sanctorio, canon Lizza, and the clerk
Domenico Fontanella, on the XI day of the same month
of May.
[104] On the following day, which was the XII,
being about to continue the recognition begun, On the morrow the bones shown to the people, after vespers,
together with the aforesaid lord fathers of the province,
whose number those following, who
came for honor's sake, increased, namely Timoteo
Agnellini, archbishop of Mardin in
Mesopotamia, Nicola Antonio Tura, bishop
of Sarno, Alfonso Pacelli, bishop of Murano,
and the aforenamed Carlo Cutillo, bishop of Minori,
and together with the two lesser ordinaries
named, the four proctors of the absent bishops,
the synodal theologians, the governor,
and the magistracy, and moreover the notaries and
witnesses, we went to the sacristy, and when each
had betaken himself to his own place, it was suppliantly urged upon us,
in the name of the magistracy, that the roused
piety of the people being yielded to, the sacred remains,
though not yet closed and sealed in their vessels,
might be shown to that same people. This instance
we laid before the fathers, who, moved by the fervor
of the devout people, answered that it should be yielded to,
and it pleased them that for this day the requested showing
be made, but that the decreed continuation of the recognition,
since time did not suffice, be deferred
to the morrow. It was moreover ordained that
the aforesaid recognition, for providing for the identity of the relics in future,
should be made exactly, and that, according to the judgment of the skilled
anatomists, all the names of the bones which could be discerned
should be written down: the execution of which decree
the holy synod committed to us and to the lord
bishops the ponent and the promotor, with
the faculty of substituting other bishops in case of lawful impediment
or of occupation in some synodal action;
and moreover, these things being consigned to execution,
of closing and sealing the vessels in which the bones of the sacred body,
thus discerned and described, and the ashes to be set apart,
were to be laid up.
Wherefore, coming to the making of the requested showing with due
rite, we and three other most reverend lord bishops,
namely of Murano, of Bovino, and
of Bisceglie, took up our pontifical vestments,
and the little casket containing the nine phials of the relics
of the sacred body,
bound and sealed, being drawn out of the assigned cupboard
which is behind the altar of the sacristy, and recognized,
and by the lord promotor again opened
after the censing and the canticles, and after
the showing of the aforesaid vessels to the fathers, and
their replacing in it, we set it upon the accustomed bier with
its adornment, and we together with the three
aforesaid bishops put our shoulders beneath it,
and with processional rite and with singing bore it to the high altar,
and there, being opened again, we censed it;
and we ascended the pontifical pulpit with the two
bishops of Murano and of Bovino, leaving at
the altar those of Bisceglie and of Termoli; and,
a homily being made to the people, we showed to them the several phials
brought to us, the bishop of Bovino reading
the labels by which the phials were distinguished from one another:
the two leaden plates also,
found with the sacred body, we read
and showed.
[105] and a new urn blessed: Which things being paid, and the phials being replaced in their
casket with the appointed rite, the hymn
Te Deum being sung: the casket, closed and set upon that same bier,
in the order and manner in which we had come,
we carried back into the sacristy. Where, the casket being placed upon the accustomed
table, we at the altar consecrated the new
urn of porphyry, for the laying up of the most sacred body of Bartholomew,
with the prayers prescribed in the
Pontifical; then the casket,
replaced on the table, bound, and fortified with seals
in the presence of all, we replaced in the often-mentioned cupboard,
the key of this being consigned to the lord promotor.
At length, the sacred vestments being laid aside, and the fathers
courteously dismissed, we applied ourselves to the discharging of the nightly watches
over the Apostolic body, together with
the religious men appointed; as more fully
in the Instrument drawn up on the same XII day of May,
by the same notaries.
[106] the sworn anatomists But on the XIII day of the same month of May, about
the tenth hour, we, together with the most rev. lords
Domenico Morelli, bishop of Lucera, ponent,
Michele Pitirro, bishop of Termoli, promotor,
Alfonso Pacelli, bishop of Murano, and
Fr. Vincenzo de Magistris of our order of Preachers,
bishop of Cassano, having also employed and called
father Nicola Squillante of the congregation of the Oratory,
and father Domenico Viva of the Society of Jesus,
synodal theologians, and moreover the accustomed notaries
and witnesses, we went to the sacristy of our
metropolitan church, where there were present, being called, our beloved
sons Antonio Volpe and Angelo de Auria, doctors of arts
and of medicine, and witnesses skilled in anatomy,
approved and sworn; and, continuing
the execution of the decrees of our sacred provincial
council, they came to the act of the canonical
recognition, numbering, and anatomical specification
of the bones of the body of St. Bartholomew.
Wherefore, the often-mentioned cupboard behind the altar of the sacristy being opened
by the lord promotor, the little casket being drawn out
and its closure recognized, the accustomed
prayers being also recited, the men skilled in anatomy again
made oath in our hands to bear themselves faithfully
and to speak the truth: upon
the accustomed table therefore, out of the casket, the seals being broken
and it opened, there were drawn out the phials in which
the sacred pledges were laid up, and set out upon that same
table, and in the presence of us, the lord
bishops, and the theologians, notaries, and witnesses,
the aforesaid men skilled in anatomy laid out all the bones, drawn
from the phials, upon certain broad papers folded at the edges,
and, for due precaution lest
anything should slip away, raised.
[107] And then, with hand covered with veils, they separated
the bones, recognize the sacred bones: and specified them and their parts, when separated,
exactly by the proper names of each bone and
of each part of them, and, thus
separated and specified, replaced them in separate
phials; and many other fragments of bones, which
because of their smallness could neither be numbered nor specified,
were put in the chief phial,
even as the dusts of those same bones filled their own
phial. There were also found among
the sacred remains of the body some fish-bones,
small stones, and fragments of boards of fir,
whereby it was shown that the bones still remained as they had been gathered
in the island of Lipari: one phial therefore
received the fish-bones, another the small stones and the fragments
of boards. While these things were being done,
we and the lord bishops of Lucera and of Termoli
were called to the secret synodal congregation,
and, according to the faculty given of substituting,
we gave our place to the lord bishop of Murano,
but he of Lucera subrogated to himself the lord bishop
of Cassano; while he of Termoli,
the promotor, postponed the aforesaid congregation
to this his ministry.
[108] The synodal congregation being finished, we
and the lord bishop of Lucera, [find all the parts of the body, except the arms, the collarbones, and the breastbone:] with the lord bishop
of Troia, returned to the sacristy, and, standing by them as they still
made the recognition, we diligently observed the specification
and naming;
which being finished in our presence and that of the other aforenamed
bishops, the anatomists distinctly deposed upon the aforesaid specification
of the bones by their proper names, and their separation
into nine phials, asserting
moreover that, according to their judgment and skill,
they had recognized that in those same bones there were present the several
parts of the whole body, except the upper arms, or
arms, the collarbones, and the breastbone. The aforesaid specification of the sacred
bones by their proper names,
and the separation made into nine phials, is of this
sort:
[109] In the first vessel, of spherical figure, of the height
of four inches and a half inch, are set in nine phials: what is in the first three: of the diameter
of two inches and a half: A good part of the cranium.
Ten larger particles of that same cranium.
Seventeen lesser particles of that same cranium.
Seven other tiny particles of that same cranium.
Three larger parts of the bones of the organ of hearing,
called the incus, the orbicular, and the stapes. Two lesser
parts of the malleus. Seven teeth and a half,
that is, two molars, one canine, four
incisors entire, and one half. In the second
vessel, of spherical figure, of the height of five
inches, of the diameter of three inches. Two larger
parts of the vertebrae of the loins. Nine other
lesser particles of those same vertebrae. A part
of a vertebra of the neck. Nine particles of the shoulder-blade. In
the third vessel, of spherical figure, of the height of eight
inches, of diameter four. Seven parts of the heads
of the joints. Ten other particles of the same.
Twenty-seven particles of the innominate bone.
A great bone of the femur, more than half a palm. Three
other bones of the femur a little smaller. Nine parts of the femur
likewise great. Twenty lesser parts of the femur.
One hundred and sixty particles of the bones of the femur
and of the tibia. A great bone, the front of the tibia. Six other
parts of that same tibia likewise great. A particle of the calf,
and properly the head, which makes the outer malleolus
entire. A part of the elbow. Two good parts
of the radius. Another lesser part of the same radius. A particle
of the joint of the elbow. Ten heads of divers great
joints. Fifteen particles of joints.
Fourteen particles of the calf. Fifty-
five particles of the tibia. Eight particles
of the bone of the ulna. Four lesser particles of the same
bone. Three particles of the kneecap.
[110] what is in the six remaining: In the fourth vessel, of spherical figure, of the height
of five inches and a half, of the diameter
of three inches: Nine parts of the metacarpus, two
greater, the rest lesser. Eight entire bones
of the carpus. Twenty-three bones of the fingers of the hands, some
entire, some broken. Six entire bones of the tarsus, or foot.
Ten small bones of the metatarsus, partly entire,
partly broken. Seven entire joints of the great bones
of the toes. Eight lesser joints
of the toes entire, and four others smaller.
Twelve unnamed particles of the bones of the tarsus.
A bone of the scapula. Seven parts of divers ribs,
two greater, the rest lesser. Five
parts of ribs with portions of vertebrae.
Twelve other lesser particles of ribs.
Twenty other tiny particles of ribs. Twenty-
four other particles of indiscernible bone.
In the fifth vessel, of spherical figure, of the height of eight
inches and a half, of diameter four. Innumerable
and divers particles of bones, which
because of their smallness could not be specified. In the sixth
vessel, of spherical figure, of the height of five
inches, and of three of diameter: Ashes, or dusts
of bones. In the seventh vessel, of spherical figure,
of the height of four inches, but of diameter three:
A greater bone of the metacarpus, entire. In the eighth
vessel, of spherical figure, of the height of three inches,
of diameter two: Ten particles of fish-bones,
which were found mingled among those same sacred bones.
In the ninth vessel, of spherical figure, of the height
of five inches, and of three of diameter: Divers
fragments of stones and of wood, which likewise were found
mingled among the sacred bones.
[111] the phials sealed are laid up. The aforesaid specification, naming,
and replacing in the several vessels being finished,
continuing the execution of the decree as to the sealing
of the aforesaid vessels, in this manner,
in the sight of all, we sealed them. Each
glass vessel containing its own relics,
as we said before, was closed with its own lid, likewise of glass,
cotton being interposed, that the lid itself
might cling the more firmly: then there were passed
several silken ribbons of red color from the several
lids to the several mouths of the phials, through two glass
rings firmly adhering here and there both to the lids
and to the phials; which ribbons, thus
passed, were turned over the lids of each phial,
and firmly bound in two knots,
upon which, smeared by us with Spanish wax, our small
seal was impressed; and to each
phial likewise there was added a paper label containing the specification of the bones,
until like ones of parchment should be supplied.
Which sealing being finished, the phials thus
sealed were replaced in that same often-mentioned casket,
and closed by the lord fiscal promotor:
but that casket, bound and fortified with two seals, ours
and the aforesaid promotor's, was kept in the accustomed
cupboard by the key which the promotor
himself kept. As more fully in the instrument,
drawn by the aforesaid notaries of the council on the same XIII day
of the current May.
PART IV.
Things done in the second session of the synod: the body carried back and replaced in the new temple.
The second synodal session, But on the XIV day of the same month of May there was held
in our metropolitan church the second synodal session,
there being present with us the most reverend
lord bishops of the province already enumerated,
except F. Francesco Scanegata, who
for reason of ill health kept himself in the archbishop's palace,
and moreover nine other most reverend
lord bishops, who for honor's sake had come to the session,
namely Timoteo Agnellini, archbishop
of Mardin in Mesopotamia, Francesco
Vignola, bishop of Minervino, Nicola
Antonio Thura, bishop of Sarno, Alfonso Pacelli,
bishop of Murano, Giovanni Francesco de Laurentiis,
bishop of Venosa, Fr. Marcello de Cavaleriis
of the order of Preachers, bishop of Gravina, Fr.
Vincenzo de Magistris of the order of Preachers, bishop
of Cassano, Carlo Cutillo, monk of St. Benedict
of the congregation of Montevergine, bishop
of Minori, Giuseppe Schinosi, bishop of Caserta,
and moreover the two lesser ordinaries,
the proctors of the four absent bishops,
the theologians, and the others gathered in the council.
[113] And when in that session the secretary of the synod
had read from the pulpit the synodal decrees down to title
VI inclusive, in which the decrees of the translation were read, by our mandate he added
the reading and more solemn publication
of the decree upon the translation of the sacred body of St. Bartholomew,
passed in the public synodal congregation
held on the X day of the current month: which when the fathers
and the others described above heard, again
with a loud voice they said: Thanks be to God, who has deigned
to grant us that we should see and
handle with our hands the body of St. Bartholomew,
in that manner in which it had been announced to us by the sacred constitutions
and the public documents.
He read moreover the instrument of the elevation of the said sacred
body, drawn up on the XI day of the current month,
and moreover another of the showing of the sacred body when elevated,
made to the fathers and the people, together with the decree
passed by that same synod: namely that the bones be numbered,
recognized, specified, and described by
the anatomists, and sealed, under the drawing of the XII day of the same
month. He read at last, and published, the instrument
of the numbering, recognition, and specification
of the bones by their proper names, made by the anatomists,
and of the enclosing of that same sacred body
in glass vessels, and of the sealing of the same,
under the drawing of the XIII day of the same month.
[114] Which reading and publication being finished,
the lord ponent reported to the holy synod the synod commanding, that it was just
and fitting that the aforesaid sacred relics, thus
selected, and replaced in their vessels, and sealed,
should be shown both to the lord bishops who had lately come
to grace our sacred assembly out of their remarkable piety,
and to almost innumerable of Christ's
faithful, who from divers regions had flowed together to venerate
the sacred body of the Apostle, that
the religion of all might be satisfied; and when
all answered, It pleases: we commanded
the sacred body to be carried away out of the sacristy, which
the lord bishops the ponent and the promotor, accompanied by many
dignitaries and canons of our metropolitan church, executed,
the cupboard being recognized in their presence,
bearing in their arms the casket containing the sacred
Remains to the high altar in processional
rite and with canticles.
[115] the sacred bones again shown to the people, The doors of the church being meanwhile opened by our
mandate, the church was filled with an almost innumerable people.
Then we commanded the sealed casket to be unsealed
in the presence of the fathers and the rest;
and when we had ascended our pulpit,
those same lord bishops the ponent and the promotor brought the casket,
thus opened, to us into the pulpit;
and that this showing might be the better known, we commanded that
the secretary of the synod, from the other pulpit which stands over against it,
should read with a loud voice the catalogue of the relics recognized
and specified with their proper names, made by
the skilled anatomists:
and as he read it, we, drawing out of the casket the several phials
designated in the catalogue and named by him,
showed them to the people, sealed as they were;
who, bursting into tears for the gladness of their heart,
stretched out their faces and hands to heaven,
giving thanks to God for so great a gift, and commending themselves
to the patronage of the most blessed Apostle.
[116] and it was decreed that a bone of the metacarpus be kept outside the urn. Moved by which religion, we proposed to the fathers
whether it might please them that the entire bone of the metacarpus, enclosed in the seventh
vessel, be kept outside the urn in which the rest
were to be laid up, so that it might thereafter be shown
to the devout who flow together: and the fathers
with united minds said that it should be so done. Which things being finished,
we came down from the pulpit, carrying back the casket with
the little vessels of the relics to the high altar,
upon which, with all looking on, being closed after the custom
and sealed, it was borne by those same lord bishops
with the same rite in which they had come, with canticles, to the sacristy,
and replaced in the often-mentioned cupboard under
the promotor's key, with the mind to continue
the action, and to affix the parchment labels to the vessels,
and to replace the same in the urn of porphyry,
as we said before, already blessed. All
then returning from the sacristy to the sacred assembly,
the session was ended with the appointed rite, as
more fully in the instrument; drawn by the same notaries of the council
on the XIV day of May.
[117] The archbishop with his own On the same XIV day of the same month of May, before
vespers, we, together with the aforenamed twenty-three
most reverend lord bishops, with whom
we filled up the number of twenty-four,
and moreover with the two lesser ordinaries,
the proctors of the four absent bishops,
the theologians, the lord governor, and
the magistracy, the anatomists, the notaries of the council, and the witnesses,
we went to the sacristy of our metropolitan church for
the finishing of the canonical recognition of the sacred relics of the body
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, with
the affixing of the parchment labels to the glass vessels;
and there, the prayer being finished, each one
betook himself to his own place, and we in our
seat received our pontifical vestments, and the capitulars
put on their sacred vestments.
[118] shows the sacred relics enclosed in phials, We therefore, being vested pontifically, together with
the lord bishops the ponent and the promotor, went to the often-mentioned
cupboard of the sacristy; which,
being opened by the lord promotor, who in the morning had closed it,
we drew out the casket, closed and fortified with two seals,
and, having shown it to the fathers thus closed
and fortified, we placed it upon the altar of the sacristy;
and, the seals being broken, with all looking on,
we opened it, and drew out the glass vessels in which the body
of St. Bartholomew was laid up, canticles
and censing being employed after the custom; then
we commanded that on parchment labels the names of the relics
be summarily noted according to the judgment and skill of the anatomists,
and be firmly annexed to those same vessels for
a perpetual memorial. For the executing of this
the fathers deputed the lord bishops the ponent and
the promotor. Accordingly we with the fathers
and the canons went in processional rite to the choir
for the solemn vespers of the translation to be sung.
Meanwhile the aforesaid bishops the ponent and
the promotor deputed remained together with the notaries of the council and
the witnesses and the anatomists, in whose presence
our beloved son the R. lord canon Marzio Lizza,
one of the notaries, according to the tenor of the catalogue made by the anatomists
and already related, drew up the parchment
labels, and wrote on them the names of the relics, summarily
however, as we commanded,
and tenaciously glued each one to each glass vessel with gum which
they call Arabic.
[119] But the tenor of the labels is that which follows,
according to the order of the glass vessels, an inscription is set on each phial; which we so
exhibit that, the seventh being removed — as not to be replaced in the urn according
to the synodal decree — the rest following are subrogated
to this transferred number,
so that thereafter eight are numbered in the urn presently to be set out.
In the first vessel therefore the parchment label annexed
has this: Number 1. Bones
of the cranium, and of the organ of hearing, two molar teeth,
five incisors and a half, of St. Bartholomew
the apostle, here replaced on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII.
On the II vessel the label is thus inscribed: Number
II. Vertebrae and shoulder-blades of St. Bartholomew
the apostle, here replaced, on the XIII day of the month of May
MDCXCVIII. On the III vessel there stands this label thus inscribed:
Number III. Bones of the joints, of the femur,
of the tibia, of the calf, of the ulna, of the radius, of the kneecap, and
the innominate bone, of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here
replaced, on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. On the IV
vessel this label is read: Number IV. Bones
of the carpus, of the metacarpus, and of the fingers of the hands, of the tarsus,
of the metatarsus, of the toes, of the ribs, and other
indistinguishable ones, of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here
replaced, on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. On the V
the label contains this: Number V. Fragments
of the bones of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here replaced,
on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. On the VI vessel
the label thus inscribed: Number VI. The sacred dusts
of the bones of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here replaced,
on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. On the VII
vessel the label set on has thus: Number VII.
Fish-bones found mingled with the sacred remains
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here replaced,
on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. On the VIII vessel the label
is thus read: Number VIII. Particles of stones
and of wood found mingled with the sacred
remains of St. Bartholomew the apostle, here replaced,
on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII. But that which in
the catalogue was the seventh vessel, now the ninth, and
to be kept outside the urn according to the aforesaid decree of the fathers,
has also its own label
annexed of the tenor which follows: A great entire
bone of the metacarpus of St. Bartholomew, here replaced,
on the XIII day of the month of May MDCXCVIII.
[120] Vespers being finished, we, returning with the fathers to
the sacristy, the phials are enclosed in the urn of porphyry: replaced the eight vessels, sealed and
specified with their parchment labels, as we said before,
in the urn of porphyry already blessed,
fitting cotton among them, lest, one
pressing the other, they should be broken. But the seventh
vessel, now the ninth, in which is replaced
the great bone of the metacarpus, left outside the urn, sealed
and inscribed as it was, we ordered to be replaced in the often-mentioned
cupboard of the sacred relics of the sacristy,
the form of the often-repeated synodal decree being observed,
as the lord bishop promotor replaced it and
closed the cupboard, who handed over the key to the treasurer Mariella,
keeper of the sacred relics existing in this our metropolitan
church. But the urn of porphyry, containing the eight
aforesaid vessels, we censed, and then closed it with its own
lid, likewise of porphyry,
which is so joined to the vessel: an iron circle surrounds
the lip of the vessel, and from it to the lid three
rays likewise of iron are stretched, and are made fast
to the top of that same lid by winding iron nails, which they call
screws. Yet in this manner the urn was not now
closed, since the craftsman had not yet finished
the three leaden plates, now likewise to be replaced in it for a perpetual
memorial of this present sacred action;
yet he promised to exhibit them altogether finished on
the morrow before vespers.
But the tenor of the inscription to be carved on the three plates,
dictated on this day, is that which follows.
[121] the inscription to be carved on three bronze plates: "In the year of the Lord MDCXCVIII, the XI of May, a Sunday,
I, Fr. Vincent Mary of the order
of Preachers, by divine mercy of the title of St. Sixtus of the H. R. Ch.
Cardinal Presbyter Orsini, archbishop of this holy
metropolitan church, in my second
provincial synod, by the mandate of that same synod,
in the presence of the Fathers elevated and recognized
this body of St. Bartholomew the apostle,
which was in a stone urn, in which I found two
leaden plates, one most ancient and
broken at its extreme part, with these words: ✠ SCS.
BARTHOLoMEUS APST., the other likewise ancient,
expressing the former thus: ✠ SCS.
BARTHOLOMEUS APLS.: and that same body
I replaced in VIII glass vessels; and those same vessels on the XIV day
of May I placed in this urn of porphyry,
in the presence of the most holy and most reverend bishops of the province,
namely Fr. Celestino Labonia
of the order of Hermits of St. Augustine, bishop of Montemarano;
Giuseppe Lazara of the Clerks Minor,
bishop of Alife; Francesco Scanegata,
bishop of Avellino and Frigento; Angelo
Ceraso, bishop of Bovino; Francesco Antonio
Punii, bishop of Ascoli and Ordona;
Francesco Antonio Giannone, bishop of Bojano;
Giuseppe Catalano, bishop of Larino; Domenico
Morelli, bishop of Lucera; Michele
Pitirro, bishop of Termoli; Pompeo Sarnelli,
bishop of Bisceglie, admitted to a decisive vote,
and in place of the metropolitan chapter abbot
of the town of San Lupo of no diocese; Francesco Protonobilissimo,
bishop of Trevico; Biagio Gambaro,
bishop of Telese; Emilio Giacomo de
Cavaleriis, bishop-elect of Troia; Giacinto
de Calce, clerk regular, bishop of Ariano,
ordinaries: F. Vito Antonio Pastorale
of the order of St. Benedict of the congregation of Montevergine,
abbot general of no diocese; Agostino Fantetta,
vicar of Alberona of no diocese. The aforesaid sacred
functions being honored by Timoteo Agnellini,
archbishop of Mardin in Mesopotamia;
Francesco Vignola, bishop of Minervino; Nicola
Antonio Thura, bishop of Sarno; Alfonso
Pacelli, bishop of Murano; Giovanni Francesco
de Laurentiis, bishop of Venosa; Fr.
Marcello de Cavaleriis of the order of Preachers, bishop
of Gravina; Fr. Vincenzo de Magistris of the order
of Preachers, bishop of Cassano; D. Carlo Cutillo,
monk of St. Benedict of the congregation of Montevergine,
bishop of Minori; Giuseppe Schinosi,
bishop of Caserta".
[122] Since therefore, as we said before, the craftsman had not yet finished
the carving of the aforesaid inscription,
the urn of porphyry was meanwhile bound with a silken ribbon
of red color, both about the lip the urn, sealed, is borne to the high altar: and
above the lid, and sealed with three of our seals
impressed in Spanish wax melted
upon that same ribbon: then, with psalms and canticles,
the urn thus sealed was set upon a bier
excellently wrought for this, with silken flowerets, distributed as it were
in little beds, wondrously adorned on every side;
which, in processional rite, the chapter vested
going before, and the fathers, we and the lord bishops
of Montemarano, of Murano, and of Bovino,
likewise vested pontifically, bore to the high altar
of our metropolitan church, the lord governor
and the magistracy following with lighted torches.
There we showed the urn to the people,
and set it forth for public adoration with censing
and prayers. At length, in the order in which
we had come, returning to the sacristy, there
we laid aside the sacred vestments, and, a brief prayer being paid before
the altar of the sacristy, we courteously dismissed the fathers,
and we ourselves returned to the choir, about to make a beginning
of the sacred watches over the sacred body of the Apostle;
and we found the people, from the aforesaid our
withdrawal, chanting the Psalter of the B. Virgin Mary, or
rosary. Meanwhile they turned the night
into day, the whole city being lit up with innumerable lights,
the bell-towers giving forth frequent
festive peals, and the people flowing together in troops
to the sacred vigils. But the aforesaid action
is had more fully in the instrument, drawn by the three notaries of the council
related above, on the XIV day of the current
May, after vespers.
[123] At length on the XV day of the same month, we, together
with the most reverend lord bishops of the province, vespers being sung, and the nine others who had come to honor the sacred
functions, whose names we have related,
and who with us filled up the number of twenty-four
pontiffs, and moreover with
the two lesser ordinaries, the proctors of the four absent
suffragan bishops,
the theologians and synodal decretalists, the lord
governor and the magistracy, and the three notaries
of the council, and the witnesses drawn in and specially
called, we went to our metropolitan church,
and there sang solemn vespers with solemn rite:
and, the first psalm being begun, a beginning was given
to the solemn procession, because of the great
number of the forty-four confraternities, and of the clergy, from almost
the whole archdiocese.
Vespers being finished, all the fathers put on their pontifical vestments,
the rest such vestments as befitted them,
the canons being already vested for the assistance
rendered at the vespers sung by us. All
being thus vested, we intoned beforehand the antiphon: With joy
shall ye go forth; and incense being put into the thuribles,
we censed the urn at the altar.
[124] Meanwhile the urn containing the body of the holy Apostle
being recognized, with the fathers looking on, three plates are set in the opened urn, and being found
made fast with the same seals with which on the day before it had been
fortified, by our mandate, with all looking on,
the seals being broken, it was again opened,
and in it, for a perpetual monument of this new translation,
we first replaced the three new leaden plates,
now finished, with the inscription which we have
related above. Now these three
plates are joined at the extreme part with silken ribbons
of red color, passed through holes, which ribbons hang
from the two sides, and upon them there are impressed in
Spanish wax nineteen seals out of the twenty-
three bishops present, namely
those of Montemarano, Alife, Avellino, Bovino,
Ascoli, Bojano, Larino, Lucera,
Termoli, Bisceglie, Telese, Troia,
Ariano, Minervino, Sarno, Murano,
Venosa, Gravina, and Minori; but those of the remaining
four bishops and of the two
lesser ordinaries were not impressed,
because they had not brought their seals with them from their residences.
[125] the archbishop's bull, and other things, But in the middle of the aforesaid lower part of the plates,
thus joined, there is passed
a silken cord of red and white color, from which
hangs our accustomed archiepiscopal leaden
bull, having on one side impressed the images
of the heads of the B. Virgin Mary on the right, and of St. Bartholomew
the apostle on the left, with a cross between,
and above the head of St. Mary there are the letters: S.
M., that is: S. Maria: and above the head of St. Bartholomew
there stand the letters: S. B.: that is: S. Bartholomæus:
below the images there is read, carved, the year
MDCXCVIII. On the other side of that same leaden
bull there is the inscription: Fr. Vinc. Maria, of the Order
of Preachers, Card. Orsini, Archbishop of Benevento. Moreover
in the same urn we replaced a silver medal,
having on one side the images of the heads of B.
Mary and of St. Bartholomew, as we related
of the leaden one; the other has our image adorned with mitre
and pallium, with the same inscription
around the rim: Fr. Vinc. Maria, of the Order of Preachers,
Card. Orsini, Archbishop of Benevento.
[126] as also two ancient plates: Thereupon in the same urn we enclosed the two leaden
plates found with that same sacred body in the marble casket,
and described and copied in the first instrument of the elevation
of the said sacred body, drawn up under the day XI
of the current month:
of which plates the lesser, broken at the extremity,
with the separated particle, we wrapped
in a parchment label subscribed by our hand
of the following tenor: "A most ancient leaden plate
was recognized by experts juridically examined
to exceed seven hundred years, the XIV of May
A. D. MDCXCVIII. Fr. Vinc. Maria, Card. archbishop."
Which things being thus replaced, new cotton being fitted in,
lest the things which were within the urn should press one another,
in the presence of all the fathers, and with them looking on,
the lid was set upon the urn, and
about the lip of that same urn an iron circle was set,
from which circle three iron rays are stretched
to the top of the lid, that, clinging about it
by a shorter iron circle, they may be made fast, although
now they were not wholly made fast; for an act of this kind
was to be performed after the procession of this translation
in the basilica of St. Bartholomew,
at the actual consignment of the aforesaid sacred urn,
and its placing in the chamber beneath the high altar
of that same basilica.
[127] a supplication being appointed, the urn Meanwhile the often-mentioned urn was firmly bound
with a silken ribbon, and afterwards set upon the noble bier
already described; which bier indeed,
with the sacred urn, until the solemn procession came to the sacred
basilica, ever lay upon our shoulders
a sweet burden; which also the three other pontiffs,
who carried the bier with us, would have done,
had they not yielded their turns to others also, both for honor's
and for piety's sake. But as regards the procession,
the method printed for its ordering, lest we be here longer than is just,
is exhibited in the acts
of this sacred council. But when the procession
came to the sacred basilica, the term appointed for it,
at its entrance, the hymn
Te Deum being sung, the sacred roofs resounded:
the urn therefore being laid down with the appointed rites, it was set forth
upon the high altar, of divers and precious marble,
also in the chamber for the urn to be laid up there,
namely within and without most elegantly wrought at our
charges — if not according to the dignity of so great an Apostle,
yet according to our slenderness.
[128] After therefore we had rendered both the censing and
the due prayers, borne to the temple of St. Bartholomew; we solemnly blessed the people,
the plenary indulgence granted by the most holy lord
Pope Innocent XII being published by our archdeacon
to those visiting today
this new basilica of the holy Apostle. Thereupon
we, sitting on a faldstool upon the altar, received the offering
of torches from the magistracy, other nobles,
and some of the country clergy for the service
of this sacred altar, in reverence of the most holy
Apostle. Which being done, the sacred urn,
by our mandate, was firmly locked, the shorter iron circle
being set to the top of the lid,
which was closed with a winding iron nail, which the common folk
call a screw, the head of which nail was cut off:
and to that shorter circle were brought back
the three iron rays stretched from the greater circle of the urn, wherewith
the lip is surrounded, and were fixed to that same shorter
circle with three like nails,
the heads of which nails were likewise cut off: and
upon the aforesaid four traces of the cuttings, Spanish wax
being poured in, we impressed our four small
seals. The said urn therefore being thus locked, fortified, and sealed
in the presence of the fathers, we courteously dismissed those same fathers
because of the lateness of the hour, who
withdrew in processional rite with the rest of the clergy to the sacristy
of our metropolitan church for the laying aside of the sacred
vestments.
[129] But we, with the lord bishops the ponent
and the promotor, and there sealed, and laid down in the chamber of the high altar. the canons of this sacred basilica,
the ministers and chaplains, and moreover the magistracy,
remained for the consigning of that same urn, thus sealed, to the dignitaries
and canons of our collegiate church of St. Bartholomew;
as we did, placing with our own
hands, the said lord bishops assisting,
the sacred urn in the chamber of the high altar. Now this
urn is, as we have often said, of porphyry marble,
most studiously wrought, of the height
of two palms, of the breadth, taken about its circuit,
of four palms and a half, of the value of more than a thousand
ducats, equalling by its most elegant work the preciousness
of the marble. The urn therefore being placed in the chamber of the said
altar, that same chamber was fortified
with an iron grating drawn in a circle, and skillfully composed on the outside
of brass, the choir meanwhile resounding
with the singing of psalms. And when we had sat in our
pontifical seat in the midst of the choir,
the lord bishops and the canons of the sacred basilica sitting together in
that same choir, we spoke words of exhortation to those same canons,
that they should answer to so great gifts
with worthy service; commanding
them that, in memory of this sacred translation,
within two months they should take care to set up an inscription carved
in marble, containing the words written on the three plates enclosed
in the urn of porphyry;
and that meanwhile, for the thanksgiving due to God,
for eight continuous days they should daily discharge the whole
Davidic Psalter, divided into three different hours.
The sermon at length being finished, we prayed before the altar, and in procession,
with the lord bishops of Lucera and
of Termoli, and the canons of the said sacred basilica,
we went to the sacristy of the same, where,
the sacred vestments being laid aside, we set an end
to this action.
[130] Which things being thus finished, for a perpetual memorial of the matter,
we have decreed that this our page — of the petition, the decree,
the elevation, the recognition, the showing,
the replacing, the translation, the restitution, the consignment —
is to be dispatched under lead with our seal
we have commanded. The conclusion exhorts to the praise of God. It remains that, for so signal
a benefit, we all with all humility bless
and glorify him to whom belongs all
blessing and glory for ages of ages.
Let us confess to the Lord in all his wonders,
and let all flesh acknowledge that his mercies have not failed
in our days; who,
though, our sins requiring it, he visited
us with the rod of his indignation, yet did not shut up
his mercies in anger: for we have been gladdened
for the days wherein he humbled us, for the years
wherein we saw evils, while in our afflictions
he fortifies us with the protection of his most glorious apostle Bartholomew,
most worthy of all praise, and protects
and defends us by the suffrages of his merits
and intercessions. Let us at length ask of him with assiduous prayers
that, so great an Apostle interceding, turning his face
away from our sins, he may have mercy
upon us, and look upon us, and send his fear
upon the nations which have not known him,
that they may acknowledge that there is no other God but our
God. Given at Benevento in our second provincial
synod in the year of the Lord one thousand six hundred
and ninety-eight, on the XV day of the month of May,
Indiction VI, of our Beneventan Pontificate the XIII year,
but of our ordination the XXIV.
[131] A light seen from the sacred bones: Thus far the Bull of the Most Eminent. He who desires more
of these things may consult the Ephemerides of Fr.
Domenico Viva of our Society, who was present at the affair,
and narrated each particular exactly in the Italian tongue.
He will learn from them especially with how great piety of all,
and above the rest of the most holy prelate Orsini,
with how great a concourse of people of every condition,
the whole matter was accomplished, which for brevity's sake I pass over.
Two things, however, chiefly conducing to the Saint's glory,
it is not lawful to pass over. On page 33
he narrates that a certain most illustrious bishop of singular
esteem and virtue testified to him
that he saw, when the little marble chest was first
opened … a huge splendor issuing from
the shining bones. And so certainly, he says,
did he assert that it was not a hallucination of the eyes,
that he would have declared it juridically with an oath
to the Saint's glory, had not modesty held him back,
forbidding me even to make his name
known. In memory of this prodigy Viva
added these little verses:
What new torch shines to the eyes, the sacred remains display.
Dost thou then think heaven can deceive with phantoms?
If any doubts remain: the kindly light drives out the shadows,
let the mind hereafter lay down doubt, and let love burn.
[132] the wheel of a carriage passes three times Another miracle he narrates on page 41, to which
he prefixes a little about the weather changed from rainy to fair
while the supplication was proceeding, in this manner:
Hell had no means whereby to disturb so well
ordered a supplication: nay rather, whereas the weather
both before and after was continually rainy,
on that day the sun, now an exile, came, that it might be a dutiful spectator
of so great a triumph. The demon strove in another way
to make the day mournful; for indeed, in a great press of people
about the temple of the Dominican fathers, where
there was a great stage with a hanging altar, the son
of Antonio Todisco, John by name, a little child scarcely of one lustrum,
slips down upon the ground, and across one of his legs
there is driven the lesser wheel of a carriage laden with many
persons. Shouts are raised to heaven against
the driver; he, to set the matter right, more vehemently
restrains the horses with the reins, so that, drawing back swiftly,
they drove the wheel again over that tender leg:
and when, being roused again, they went forward,
a third time also it passes over it. There grew
the shouts and lamentations of the parents, who thought
that they should find the little child already crushed.
[133] But the Saint, willing to show his powerful patronage
and his dominion even over hell, the boy's leg unhurt. was
a defence to him: for the child, being lifted up, was found
altogether unharmed, only a slight bruise appearing
in the place which the wheel had touched,
for a testimony of heavenly grace, all then crying out:
A miracle! a miracle of the holy Apostle!
who had then been invoked by many. Concerning
which a juridical inquiry has already been set on foot: and
all testified, both seculars and the much reverend
Dominican fathers, made eyewitnesses,
and the physicians and surgeons who observed the bruised leg,
that this could not naturally
have come to pass, nor without an evident miracle: which
heaven willed, that it might authentically show by this prodigy, as
by a characteristic sign, that these are truly
the bones of that Saint who, for the love of his Lord,
suffered himself to be stripped of his skin. Thus Viva, who in memory
of the miracle added this distich:
Thrice the driven wheel presses the boy's foot; nor does it wear the bones,
but the skin, that it may prove the bones of the flayed Saint.
CHAPTER III.
Was the body of St. Bartholomew translated to Rome?
§ I. The worship at Rome: the controversy between the Romans and the Beneventans about the sacred body.
The worship at Rome: a long-lasting controversy about the body, That St. Bartholomew is honored at Rome with great veneration
Carlo Bartolomeo Piazza testifies
in the Sacred Hemerology of Christian Rome at
the day XXV of August, where he writes that his feast is celebrated with great
solemnity, and a concourse of people, for eight days,
in the church dedicated to the Saint on the Insula
Lycaonia, or St. Bartholomew's. Of this church
Fioravante Martinelli, in Roma sacra, page
77 and following, after mentioning two other churches of St. Bartholomew,
writes these things: The high altar is upheld
by four columns of serpentine. In the same place a basin
of porphyry, upon which is set a most beautiful white marble
slab. Within, the notable body of St. Bartholomew
the apostle. Paul IV, when the said
body of the holy Apostle had been found among the ruins of his temple,
fallen because of a flood in the year MDLVII,
took care that it should be carried with great and solemn pomp and supplications
into the temple of St. Peter: which afterwards Pius IV commanded to be restored,
as I saw in the instrument of consignment of the day XXVII
of July MDLX in the archive of the Vatican basilica. It enjoys
also (that same church) the sacred body of St. Paulinus,
bishop of Nola … Formerly it was collegiate,
as appears from a sepulchral stone in the church of St.
James in Settimiano. It is a Cardinal's title under
the care of the friars Minor of the Observance. These authors
assert the sacred body of St. Bartholomew for Rome no less
indubitably than the Beneventans
attribute it to Benevento. Hence there has flourished a long-lasting
controversy, perhaps never to be ended,
between the Romans and the Beneventans, as to which of them possesses
the sacred body of St. Bartholomew. Very many things
have been written on both sides, very many arguments produced.
An excellent dissertation on this matter for the Beneventans
was published in the year 1636 by Annibale Mascambruno,
bishop of Castellammare: another, more prolix than the preceding,
was brought to light in the year 1694 by the most eminent
Cardinal Orsini, which Basilio Janelli
rendered into Italian somewhat enlarged
in the year 1695. Nor in the Ephemerides which
Domenico Viva of our Society wrote on the translation of the body already related
did he neglect the Beneventans'
cause.
[135] and not yet decided for the Beneventans, By these learned dissertations, and above all by
the recognition itself of the relics, which is
the greatest of all arguments for the Beneventans, the possession of the sacred
body might to some seem abundantly
vindicated to Benevento; nor did Pompeo Sarnelli, bishop
of Bisceglie, undeservedly sing the victory
in this epigram prefixed to Janelli's dissertation:
A struggle keeps the Romans and Benevento apart for a hundred
years: but at last the zealous side yields.
Bartholomew goes to Benevento: the struggle has revived
through so many ages; let Rome now yield her hands.
But this ought not to seem so to us, the other party being unheard,
nor did it so seem to Emmanuel Caetano
Sousa, who, tom. 2 On the Spanish Expedition
of St. James the Greater, page 1229, says that Sarnelli
undeservedly sang the victory. Because, he says, for
Rome and the Insula Lycaonia there came forth Francesco
Dini's Historico-critical Dissertation on the translation
and placing of the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle
at Rome in the Insula Lycaonia, or a vindication of the Roman
Breviary against the dissertations of bishop Mascambruno,
of Marius Vipera, capitular vicar of Benevento,
and of others most recent, and against the decrees
passed in the council of Benevento in the presence of the most eminent
and most reverend Vincent Mary Cardinal
Orsini, archbishop, which was printed
at Venice from the press of Domenico Lovisa in the year MDCCI
(nay, 1700) in quarto. And so far is it from being the case that Rome
yielded her hands, as Sarnelli hoped, that rather
Clement XI, Supreme Pontiff, imposed silence
upon that same Cardinal Orsini, and upon others denying
that the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle exists
at Rome. Whence there remained safe and sound the authority
of the Roman Breviary asserting it; and, what is more
and most worthy of observation, that same Cardinal
Orsini, being raised to the supreme Pontificate
and taking the name of Benedict XIII, ordered no change
to be made in the Roman Breviary — he who,
though he held the Pontificate down to the sixth year,
and was a Pontiff exceedingly solicitous for ecclesiastical affairs,
and sparing no labor in those things
which pertain to sacred rites and ecclesiastical
discipline. Thus far the praised Sousa.
[136] upon whom, however, Clement XI does not seem to have imposed silence, But what he writes, that silence was imposed by Clement
XI upon Cardinal Orsini, can scarcely, or
not even scarcely, obtain credit with me.
For first, he mentions neither the words of the Pontiff
nor the time at which the silence was said to have been imposed. Secondly,
Cardinal Orsini from the year 1698, in which
all the things we have related were finished, seems already to have kept silence
and to have stirred nothing further; why then
should Pope Clement, created toward the end of the year 1700 on the XXIII day
of the month of November, impose silence upon one who was silent?
Thirdly, our elders, wont to note such matters most diligently,
have left me nothing about that silence,
although I have found other matters even of less
moment diligently noted, especially
concerning this controversy, about which Papebroch
had determined to say something in the Life of St. Paulinus; as
he said in tom. IV of June, printed in the year 1707,
page 233, but nothing about this silence. Fourthly, the most illustrious
Francesco Maria de Aste, archbishop
of Otranto, in the Disquisitions on the Roman Martyrology
dedicated to Clement XI, and
printed at Benevento in the year 1716, page 389, relates this
controversy, bringing forward the arguments of both parties;
who, if silence had been imposed,
ought to have known it and to have mentioned it; but not even a word
about the silence is read there; nay rather
he inclines to the side of the Beneventans, and
says that the Roman Martyrology could be so corrected,
if it were written: The bringing back of the holy relics of blessed
Bartholomew the apostle, with these added: Which at Benevento
and at Rome in the Tiber island are honored by the pious devotion
of the faithful.
[137] There is added that the aforesaid Sousa has inserted certain other things
into his Work, as Sousa asserts, being less accurate in writing. which are manifestly false.
I bring forward one example, that both the reader may understand
that what I say is true, and that I may wipe away, as far as I can,
the stain cast upon a most upright man.
Tom. 1 of the Spanish Expedition cited,
page 878, he thus writes about our Papebroch: But
Papebroch ought not to move us, who in
Spain is of no authority, since by the supreme tribunals
of the holy Inquisition there have been prohibited
those things which he wrote in the Acts of the Saints, not only
in our Lusitania, but in all Spain.
Thus Sousa in the year 1727: the rest which he adds
I pass over, as not necessary for our purpose.
But the Works of Papebroch were never condemned in Lusitania:
next, he could not be ignorant
that the censure against Papebroch's Works passed in Spain in the year
1695 had, by a most equitable judgment
been relaxed in the year 1715 by the same general
Inquisition, by a decree published on this matter, which may be seen
in tom. VII of June, page 34. With what
equity then, or with what truth, does he write in the year 1727 that the Works
of Papebroch on the Acts of the Saints are prohibited in Spain
and Lusitania? Hence therefore, the reasons
alleged above concurring, I do not judge that credit is to be given
to the silence asserted by Sousa.
[138] Following therefore the example of the most illustrious de
Aste, The state of the controversy I shall weigh the arguments alleged on this side by the Beneventans
and on that by the Romans, and if I find anything favoring the one
or the other party, I shall faithfully add it without any partisan
zeal. But, that the force of the arguments may be the better
known, it must be clearly explained wherein
the controversy lies. It is acknowledged on both sides that the body
of St. Bartholomew was at Benevento down to nearly the end
of the tenth century. That it remained there
the Beneventans contend, resting on arguments neither few
nor light: that it was carried off and translated to Rome
to the Insula Lycaonia or Tiberina,
the Romans affirm, and commonly the German writers,
resting likewise on many reasons and
authorities. Yet about the author and time of this
translation there is no agreement among these: for some
attribute it to the emperor Otto II, which also
pleased Baronius in the Roman Martyrology at the XXV of August,
and so it was formerly read in the Breviary:
others make Otto III the author of this translation,
as the Roman Breviary has it even today,
which the most eminent Baronius also asserted at the year
of Christ 1000, num. 8, charging the authors of the former opinion
with error. Francesco Dini,
the keenest champion of the Romans, at first attributed
the matter to Otto II; but lest he should be compelled to subtract a great number
from the three hundred authors which he boasts,
in the course of his work he draws over to his own side all who
stood for Otto III, and even some
who favor the Beneventans no less than
the Romans. Now it must be seen how each party
sets forth its own opinion.
[139] set forth: The Beneventans say that Otto III sought
the body of St. Bartholomew; and since they dared deny him
nothing, their forefathers used a stratagem, lest they lose the sacred
treasure, and substituted for the body
of St. Bartholomew the body of St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola:
which being afterwards discovered, Otto
returned to Benevento with an army and besieged the city;
but was compelled to withdraw with the matter unaccomplished.
This foundation of the Beneventans is from Leo
of Ostia, to be cited below. But certain Romans,
who attribute the translation to Otto III, do not deny the substitution
of the body of St. Paulinus; but
they add that Otto, having returned, got possession of Benevento,
and translated the body of St. Bartholomew also.
Some of them altogether deny the alleged
fraud. But those who will have Otto II to be the author
of the translation narrate the matter thus: Otto,
they say, having suffered a defeat, because he was deserted in the battle
by the Romans and the Beneventans, since he dared not
take vengeance upon the Romans, exercised his anger upon
the Beneventans; for, attacking them unprepared and fearing nothing
of the sort, he took the city, despoiled it,
burned it, and translated to Rome the relics of St. Bartholomew
carried off from Benevento, where also a little
afterwards he died of disease.
[140] how the truth is here to be searched out. Now, that the weight of the parties may be the better
assessed, it must be noted that the truth of this history is not to be
investigated by the number of historians either affirming or denying
the translation,
but that it must first be considered how great credit he
possesses who first either asserted or denied
the translation: and not this only, but chiefly
whence he drew what he committed to writing, whether
he could not even in good faith have written things that were false,
being deceived by popular report. For since neither
party brings forward writers contemporary with the deed,
the assertions of both parties took their origin
from the report and tradition of the people: it must therefore be weighed
which tradition appears the more likely,
and which is propped by the better reasons. Therefore
for examining the weight of this controversy I shall not
adduce all the authors who have written about it;
but I shall weigh how much the chief foundations of each party
are worth, and what difficulties they suffer,
with the single zeal, so far as I can, of illustrating
the truth.
§ II. The chief foundation of the Beneventans; or the relation of Leo of Ostia examined, assailed, and defended.
The relation of Leo of Ostia: The Beneventans place in the front
of the line, as their Achilles, the authority of Leo
Marsicanus, Cardinal and bishop of Ostia, who
in the Chronicle of Cassino, book 2, chapter 24, as most lately
edited among the Writers on Italian Affairs,
tom. 4, page 354, thus writes: In the third year of this
abbot (namely John), which is the
thousandth from the Incarnation of the Lord, the above-said
emperor came to Benevento, and for the sake of the penance
which blessed Romuald had enjoined upon him, went off
to Mount Gargano. And returning thereafter
to Benevento, he asked of them the body of holy
Bartholomew the apostle. Who, daring to deny him
nothing then, craftily showed him, in place of the Apostle's body,
the body of blessed Paulinus, bishop of Nola, which was laid up
seemly enough at the bishop's house of that same city;
and having taken it away he withdrew,
deceived by such a fraud. Which after he learned,
being exceedingly indignant, he laid up indeed the body of the confessor,
which he had carried away, honorably enough at the island
of Rome: but in the following time, he marched
again against Benevento, and besieged it
on every side for many days: but prevailing nothing against it,
he returned to Rome. Whence, scarcely beginning to return
to his own, he died at the town
which is called Paternum. Thus far he of Ostia.
[142] That Leo's authority in this history is to be
greatly esteemed the Beneventans contend for these reasons: and his authority established:
because he is the first and the most ancient of all
who committed this history to writing: because
he is a writer of sincere faith, and the most upright of his time,
as Baronius calls him: because it is likely
that more secret documents of this deed existed in the Cassinese
archives while he of Ostia was writing: because
Matteo Laureto judged that nothing in this relation should be changed.
After which the Dissertation of Orsini thus goes on: The narration of Leo of Ostia
is confirmed by the immemorial institution of the feast of St. Bartholomew
at Cava, wont to be celebrated yearly
at Benevento on the IV day of September, which flowed from nowhere
else than from the Cava in which the body of the B.
Apostle lay hid, lest the pious fraud of the citizens, whereby Otto
III had been deceived, should be uncovered. Which place,
down to the year MDCLXXXVIII, in which by the force of the earthquake
it was overthrown together with the whole basilica, was held in the highest
veneration by all. This first argument of the Beneventans
is to be weighed more diligently than the rest,
that it may appear upon what foundation they
defend their opinion. I shall therefore first bring forward
what Francesco Dini has answered to this,
although he seems to handle the matter, both here and throughout
his whole Dissertation, with a greater apparatus of words than
weight of reasons.
[143] Dini therefore, in the Historico-critical Dissertation
on the translation of the body of St. Bartholomew,
page 31, thus answers the argument: The inept response of Francesco Dini, Leo departed
this life about the year MCXVI: therefore he brought forth his history
CXXX years after the aforesaid translation,
if this be attributed to Otto II according to the truer
and most approved opinion, so that he can be reckoned neither contemporary
nor certainly the first, since at
that age Otto was among the living, declared bishop in the year MCXXXVIII,
as Vossius witnesses, who
heaps up many things about the credit and authority of Otto
of Freising. But indeed at the very threshold of his answer
Dini offends most grievously, and perhaps the learned will
not ineptly gather hence that he will concede nothing to his adversaries,
whether it be true or
false. For what is this reasoning: Leo died
in the year 1116, that is, 22 years before Otto was
created bishop; therefore Leo did not write before Otto?
Yet this is Dini's very reasoning;
even if we should grant it to be true that Leo did not die before the year
1116, about which, although it is
uncertain, it is not pleasing to wrangle. For it is more manifest
than that it either ought or can be prudently denied
that Leo of Ostia is an older writer than Otto of Freising,
who died in the year 1159 by Bellarmine's judgment, De Script.,
page 342, or in 1158, according to Labbe's Chron. at
that year. The first writer
of this history therefore is Leo of Ostia,
but not a contemporary; who yet did not
write 130 years after the deed, as Dini wrongly
asserts, since he drew up his Chronicle
before his death.
[144] Next Dini heaps up many things against Leo
of Ostia that are little equitable, and his unfair answer against him of Ostia: many by which he strives to show
that these things were foisted upon Leo of Ostia, nor
does he fear to lay the charge — of adulation, shall I say, or of imposture —
upon a prelate of most upright fame; on page 33
thus writing: Therefore Leo, offered from boyhood at Cassino,
deceived by the common talk of the inhabitants, in order to flatter the chief
people, lest he should confess the province bereft of so great a gift,
set about denying the translation. I could wish Dini had written
more modestly about Leo of Ostia,
of whom the bibliographers commonly think not ill.
But that it may not be needful to heap up the testimonies
of many, hear one for all, Muratori,
who most lately reprinted his Works among
the Writers of Italy, tom. 4, in the Preface to the Chronicle
of Cassino, page 153, speaking of him: As
for the Chronicle of the monastery of Cassino,
of which we now give a new edition, by the reckoning of all
the learned the Work must be greatly esteemed,
both because it embraces the affairs of that most renowned
monastery from the Life of holy Benedict its founder,
… and also because Leo, a man of great gravity
and authority, in composing it used at once
the archive of Cassino and other monuments of venerable
antiquity. By these things I think Leo's authority
sufficiently vindicated against the gibes of Francesco
Dini, which otherwise are little probable.
For why should Leo have wished to flatter the Beneventans
rather than the Romans, who before he drew up his Chronicle
was engaged in the service of the Roman Pontiff,
as he himself testifies in the Prologue,
page 244, and could hope for more from the Romans
than from the Beneventans? Nothing stronger are
the things which Dini subjoined about the interpolation and mutilation of the Cassinese
Chronicle, to prove that these things were afterwards added
to him of Ostia. For, although the Chronicle
has been so often reprinted, and adjusted to the fidelity of manuscript codices,
never has this history been passed over,
never, I think, has it been doubted by any
editor that these things were truly Leo's. As for what at last
Dini says, that he of Ostia is deserted in these matters by all,
it will appear false from what is to be said, since many indeed
oppose him, but not a few agree. The rest
of Dini's sayings against him of Ostia I pass over, because
he brings forward nothing further whereby to extricate himself; and
I pass on to certain other arguments against Leo's authority,
which were proposed with the single zeal of investigating
the truth.
[145] other arguments against this narration. The Most Eminent Cardinal Orsini had sent
his Dissertation to our elders,
exhorting them also that, if they had any doubt about that controversy,
they should freely bring it out. Janning did
so, first about certain things which pertained
to the temple of St. Bartholomew; to which the most eminent one so
answered that Janning confessed every doubt about that
point removed from him.
But, another letter being sent, he proposed difficulties
more pressing, concerning the authority,
or rather the relation, of Leo of Ostia, about which
we are treating. But all his reasons tend nearly to this,
that he may show it more likely that the Beneventans
were deceived by their own men, who, lest they should incur
the indignation and hatred of the Beneventan citizens,
could spread abroad among the common folk the report of this fraud,
than that the emperor was deceived,
whom they could not have deceived without grave peril.
These arguments therefore, proposed by way of doubts
to the most eminent Orsini, and preserved in our
archives, I shall here exhibit to the learned reader
in Janning's own words. And I shall faithfully subjoin the answer
sent from Benevento, so that how much is to be attributed
to the relation of him of Ostia may be left
to the reader's judgment. The letter of Janning, sent from Rome, where
he was then himself staying, the VII of November 1699,
runs thus:
MOST EMINENT PRINCE, MOST REVEREND LORD.
from Janning's letter to Orsini; Since not long ago, rather at the command of your
Lordship than of my own accord, I ventured to set forth
somewhat of a doubt about the translation
of the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle; which
was presently satisfied abundantly by your Lordship:
there recurs again and again to my mind something else,
which then also I touched in passing; and which hitherto keeps me
anxious; what I might or ought to answer,
if some Roman citizen, tenacious of the opinion and
tradition of his city, as happens, should go on to deny
that the body of St. Bartholomew now survives,
or was at Benevento after the thousandth year of Christ;
maintaining, out of his love for his fatherland, that that body
was truly translated in the year one thousand
by the emperor Otto III to Rome, and is there
even today in veneration. To prove it he will allege
the very tradition of the city of Rome, which he thinks
convincing.
[147] I can indeed here set against it the contrary tradition
of the Beneventans; the Beneventan tradition, and also
add, from Leo of Ostia, that the tradition of the Romans
rests on a false principle. Namely, that the citizens
of Benevento craftily deceived the aforesaid emperor
when he asked for the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle;
and that in place of the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle
they handed over to him the body of St. Paulinus the bishop.
[148] But what I should set against it I hardly know, if
that same Roman should contend from which he of Ostia wrote, that the tradition of the Beneventans
rests upon a false principle rather than
the tradition of the Romans: and that Leo of Ostia,
writing from such a tradition of the Beneventans,
adds nothing of authority or of greater credit to the tradition.
[149] For the principle, that Roman will say,
on which the Beneventan tradition rests, resting on a fraud: namely that the body of holy
Bartholomew remained at Benevento, is only the report
and the alleged unfaithfulness of those who, handing over the relics
to the emperor, are said to have deceived him.
For it could not be known from any other source that the emperor was
deceived than from those very men who deceived him:
since no one else could have known it. But the principle
on which the Roman tradition rests is
the authority of the emperor, who is certainly known,
while at Benevento, to have asked for the body of St. Bartholomew;
and the fidelity of upright men (for such they must be
believed, unless they be proved to have been bad) who, consenting,
or at least seeming to consent, to the emperor's petition,
handed over to him the relics — namely those which they had been asked
for by him, and which no good man can suspect
to have been others.
[150] Likewise what should I set against the Roman, if he go on
further to ask of me: the deceiving of the emperor perilous, in what way the citizens of Benevento,
who then dared deny nothing to the emperor,
as he of Ostia says, would have dared to deceive
him? Was not that deception a work full
of perilous hazard? Was it not injurious
to the imperial majesty? Could it not easily
have burst out? What if it did burst out? Would it not have drawn with it
the public ruin of the citizens and of the city, to be inflicted
by an emperor young, warlike, armed, and
provoked?
[151] What should I set against it, if he then ask: how
the emperor could have been deceived, difficult, to whom present
and looking on the relics were handed over in the bishop's house itself,
as he of Ostia himself testifies? Did the citizens of Benevento
keep the venerable body of the holy Apostle, and a pledge dear to them,
in so obscure a place and so negligently
that it could not be recognized; or
that it was not commonly known, even by the emperor who was asking
for it, and by his courtiers, a shrewd kind of men,
where it was kept laid up, and honored by a faithful
people?
[152] by whom was it accomplished? If he should ask, thirdly, which citizens of Benevento,
of what Order or rank, how many or
how few, deceived the emperor, or were privy
to the deception to be done?
[153] can they be excused of many sins? If he should ask, fourthly, in what way those deceivers
can be excused of rashness, unfaithfulness, impiety,
and sacrilege? Of rashness indeed,
whereby, deceiving the emperor, they exposed themselves
and their city to the peril of ruin? Of unfaithfulness,
whereby they did not give what by signs they promised and
showed themselves about to give to the emperor?
And of impiety and sacrilege, in that,
alienating the body of St. Paulinus under the name of St. Bartholomew,
they deprive him of all that worship
and veneration wherewith he would thereafter have been honored by the faithful
in his own body: and they do just as much
as if they were to remove the body of that same St. Paulinus from the world,
his memory being blotted out among
men?
[154] is the archbishop to be excused? If he should ask, fifthly, by what reason the archbishop
of Benevento can be freed from blame, by whose knowledge and
counsel, if we believe him of Ostia, the emperor was
deceived?
[155] Are the deceivers to be believed? If he should ask, sixthly, how prudently
the citizens could believe the deceivers of the emperor; who,
saying that they had deceived the emperor, themselves confessed
and announced to the citizens that they were deceivers?
But how prudently are known deceivers
believed?
[156] Was it not rather If he should ask, seventhly, whether those who deceived —
as is alleged — the Roman emperor, and that
in sacred matters, and with the present peril of the vengeance about to come
from him upon their own head and
upon the whole city: whether they would have made it a scruple
to deceive their own citizens, from whom on that account they had nothing
to fear; nay, could even hope for reward,
praise, and applause, if they deceived them,
persuading them that the body of St. Bartholomew had not been given
to the emperor, which had been given: but if
they did not deceive them, they had to fear for themselves,
on account of the body of St. Bartholomew carried off, at least
the indignation of the citizens, if not something graver
from an inconsiderate and headlong crowd?
[157] the people deceived, If he should ask, eighthly, whether it was not far easier
to persuade the people — absent at the time when the relics were handed over,
and ignorant of what sort those handed over were —
that the body of holy Bartholomew had not been given to the emperor,
than not to hand over to the emperor, present with his own men
and inspecting everything, that body
which he had asked for and alone desired?
[158] than the emperor, If he should ask, ninthly, how the Beneventans
can persuade themselves that the emperor was deceived,
and not themselves, since the alleged deceivers, at least then,
when they handed over the relics to the emperor,
were still reckoned true and faithful: but
when they told their fellow citizens that they had deceived the emperor,
it was then plain that they were dishonest and
unfaithful?
[159] which is the lesser crime? If he should ask, tenthly: whether the citizens of Benevento
ought not rather to think and believe
that they were deceived by those deceivers, than they desire
to believe, and to have it believed, that the emperor was deceived by them:
especially since the deceiving of citizens in the present
case is a lesser crime on various heads
than is the deceiving of an emperor?
[160] If he should ask, eleventhly, whether it was worth the labor
for the Beneventans, What would have been more useful and more glorious for Benevento. through so many hazards and evil arts,
to lose, with the conscience of upright men,
the body of a most holy and most renowned bishop,
that another, of a holy Apostle, might be retained? If
he should ask, at last, twelfthly, what is more glorious for the city
of Benevento: that it, as beneficent and
well deserving of the emperor Otto III and of the city
of Rome, should lack the body of St. Bartholomew;
or that it should contend that it retained it by fraud?
[161] The answer sent from Benevento on the XI day of June
1700, The answer sent from Benevento: entitled thus: An answer to
the solid and learned objections of the much Rev. Father
Conrad Janning of the Soc. of Jesus against the Beneventans'
tradition upon the existence of the body
of St. Bartholomew the apostle at Benevento, runs thus.
[162] Before an answer be given to the doubts,
so ingeniously proposed, the tradition of the Beneventans proved two points must be established,
upon which their fitting solution depends. The first
is this, that the tradition of the Beneventans
stands far apart from the tradition of the Romans. For to the first
there concur many consequences and almost
inextricable arguments, which render it credible:
but otherwise for the second. It suffices
to run through the Dissertation published in print, that
this may be held for certain. First, for the Beneventan
tradition there is brought forward the bull of Leo IX of the year MLIII,
and another of Stephen likewise IX of the year MLVII,
asserting that in the holy church of Benevento the most precious
body of the most blessed Bartholomew rests.
This likewise is had in the bulls of Clement VI of the year
MCCCXLVII, of Boniface IX of MCD, and of other Roman
Pontiffs. And these compelled abbot Ughelli,
tom. VIII, col. cx of Italia sacra, then printing
at Rome, and formerly following the opposite
opinion, to declare himself fully vanquished.
Secondly, there is had the authority of Leo, Card.
of Ostia, who wrote in the same century in which Otto
III the emperor translated the sacred body
held by the Beneventans. And Cardinal Baronius, although
he opposes these things, yet proclaims him of Ostia a writer
of sincere faith, the most upright of his time.
Laureto, who exactly sifted several deeds
of that century, related also by the aforesaid author,
although he had sought a knot in a bulrush, nevertheless
noted absolutely nothing in this matter. Nay, archbishop
de Nuce, who with his whole heart assailed Laureto's
work, dared not oppose him in this. Thirdly,
there is had the History of Eadmer, to be read in that
Dissertation. Fourthly, the attestation of king Ladislaus
of the year MCDXIV. Fifthly, the Martyrologies of Usuard,
of Wandelbert, the Florentine, and the Beneventan
are brought into the midst.
[163] But indeed above the rest its own provincial council
obtains weight, by various arguments and recognitions, celebrated in the year MCCCXXXVIII,
in which Fr. Arnald de
Brusacco the archbishop, by the faculty of Benedict XII, Supreme
Pontiff, translated to the ancient and truly august
basilica — overthrown in the year MDCLXXXVIII by reason of the earthquake —
the body of the most glorious Apostle,
first recognized and laid up in a bronze urn,
and lately, in the year MDCXCVIII, opened.
And if light be added by the two leaden plates found in the urn,
and by the little stalks of fish-bones and the pebbles
found with the sacred bones; and then also if
it be weighed that among these remains there were not found
the arms of that same Saint, since it is ascertained
that one is honored at Carpineto, given as a gift
by Bernard, son of Leodunus count of Penne, in the year
CMLXII; but the other at Canterbury, given as a gift to Emma,
queen of the English, by Alphanus III our
archbishop about the year MXVII. And then also,
if account be taken of the variety of the letters or characters
in which the Apostle's name was written,
namely in Latin letters on the ancient plate set there
when the urn came hither from the island of Lipari, and
in Lombard letters on the other, when the said archbishop
de Brusacco, in the cited council of the year MCCCXXXVIII,
recognized the sacred body — no greater proof
seems to be desired for having, in the end, a moral evidence of the matter
so far diligently searched out.
[164] rather than that of the Romans, But on the other side, for the Roman tradition
there is brought forward only the authority of Otto of Freising,
who departed this life in the year MCLVIII,
and who wrote: "The Romans hand down
that they have the body of St. Bartholomew": nor did he assert
that it was had at Rome.
[165] whose chief foundations are refuted. From which it is clearly discerned what difference
lies between the authority of him of Ostia,
who in the same century consigned the tradition of the Beneventans
to writing, and that of him of Freising, who
in the following century wrote down the sayings of the Romans in those
words: "The Romans hand down," with an evident
error in the thing, in the person, and in the time. But
what is to be said about Robert de Monte? He displayed the office and
form of a poet rather than of a historian.
For he relates a certain flood of the Tiber
in the year MCLVII, the memory of which no single man
has commended to posterity. He writes moreover
that the body of the holy Apostle was found entire,
except the skin, which remained at Benevento.
And how could the body be found entire,
if so many relics of the body were held distributed
in various parts of the world? Who ever asserted
that the Apostle's skin existed at Benevento? Hither only the bones
were translated, which the monk Theodore
had gathered, not without a miracle, in the island of Lipari,
where they had been scattered by the Saracens in the psamathon, or
sand. Besides, the authority of the emperor Frederick I
is had. But how utterly this is of no worth
or moment, it clearly appears from the cited Dissertation
that it contains more faults than words. But what carries greater weight
is brought forward from the Roman Breviary and Martyrology.
Yet in both this was added
at the close of the past century, according to the Roman
belief, taken from the above-said conjectures.
Let what is said upon this in that same Dissertation be read,
and the weakness of the foundation will plainly appear;
and the first point will remain established, namely,
that far more solid and valid are the arguments of credibility
which fight in favor of the Beneventan tradition.
[166] The fraud was lawful for the Beneventans; The second point to be determined is this,
namely that the Beneventans could lawfully, their
archbishop's counsel being added, draw over that fraud
in exactly the same way in which most lawfully,
in the case where under force a ring set with a huge
carbuncle must be produced, the carbuncle is turned into an amethyst,
and the diamond into glass, so that he who
longs to snatch the ring may be deceived. And certainly the fraud
could happen without lying, unfaithfulness,
sacrilege, rashness, or injustice, and
without any virtue at all being wounded;
nay, with praiseworthy shrewdness and skill, so that likewise
the deceived man would grieve that he alone deserved the fraud, not indeed
the deceiver, who skilfully discharged his part.
[167] and without lying and sacrilege; Indeed, first, lying was banished from the fraud,
since equivocal and ambiguous words
could lawfully be employed. No unfaithfulness was shown to the emperor,
but rather the magistracy and the archbishop
showed fidelity to the citizens, since
they were by no means bound to the emperor, nor had any promise
gone before. To the citizens they were bound to show themselves faithful
with all their strength, by guarding so great a treasure:
and by this wholly lawful fraud they guarded it excellently.
There was no sacrilege, because
they set forth the true body for worship; nor did they take away the due
worship owed to the body of St. Paulinus the pontiff,
in handing it over for the body of the holy Apostle;
because they purposed to uncover the fraud after the emperor's
departure, as they did, first fortifying the city,
that they might escape the wrath and the forces
of the deceived emperor. And that the matter so stood,
is excellently drawn from him of Ostia cited, book 2, chapter 24,
writing immediately after the deed, in these words:
"Which after (the emperor) learned,
being exceedingly indignant, he laid up indeed the body of the confessor,
which he had carried away, honorably enough at the island
of Rome". Therefore the Beneventans did not
retain the Apostle's body that they might keep it always hidden,
but that they might set it forth for public veneration
after the emperor's departure, and the peril of losing it
being removed; and so, at the time when it was lawful to disclose
that they had retained the Apostle's body, then also
they might disclose that they had exhibited the body of St. Paulinus; and accordingly
might make the whole world more certain of that place where the body of that
same holy confessor ought to be honored.
[168] Far off was rashness, since they handed it over in such a way
of rashness and injustice. that the uncovering of the fraud should be difficult: and
when at length at some time it was uncovered, being fortified they might elude
Caesar's wrath, as really happened immediately,
when, the fraud being uncovered, the emperor, indignant,
and about to avenge the injury done him: "In the following
time (these are the words of the aforepraised him of Ostia,*
in the place above) he marched again against Benevento,*
and besieged it on every side for many days: but
prevailing nothing against it, he returned to Rome".
At length they escaped the mark of injustice,
and any other stain wherewith the citizens might be spotted,
or the fraud rendered unworthy of praise. And if we all
with one mouth extol and clothe Judith with exquisite praises,
because by her fraud,
though perilous, she brought so great a benefit to her people;
why shall we strip the Beneventan magistracy of its due praises,
when by so keen-sighted a fraud
it preserved for Benevento no fabulous palladium?
The two foregoing points therefore being established,
the solution of the twelve doubts proposed
seems easy.
[169] And so as to the first, where it is said: "The principle
on which the Beneventan tradition rests, Answer
namely that the body of St. Bartholomew remained at Benevento, is
only the report and the alleged unfaithfulness of those
who, handing over the relics to the emperor, are said to have deceived
him. For it could not be known from any other source
that the emperor was deceived than from
those very men who deceived him: since no one else
could have known it. But the principle on which
the Roman tradition rests is the authority of the emperor,
who is certainly known, while at Benevento, to have asked
for the body of St. Bartholomew; and the fidelity of upright
men (for such they must be believed,
unless they be proved to have been bad) who, consenting,
or at least seeming to consent, to the emperor's petition,
handed over to him the relics — namely those which they had been asked
for by him, and which no good man can suspect
to have been others".
[170] It is answered that it is true that both the Beneventan
and the Roman defend themselves by their own traditions, to the first but that they do not contend
with an even scale; since the motives of credibility which fight in favor
of the Beneventan tradition surpass those which war
for the Roman tradition. In exactly the same way
in which the Catholic, the schismatic, the Turk,
and the Hebrew build up their faith upon the Word of God
written and handed down. Yet other are the motives
of credibility which fortify the Catholic, and other those which fortify
the rest; and therefore the Catholic alone is not deceived.
It is true that he of Ostia, writing the tradition of the Beneventans,
adds directly no weight
to that which is to be believed; since we ought only to believe
the magistracy asserting that it committed a pious fraud.
But just as the motives of credibility of our
faith add directly no weight to that
which is to be believed — since only God speaking
is to be believed — yet they render it credible to evidence
that God has spoken: so the relation of him of Ostia
renders credible that fraud which the magistracy
willed to be attested as committed by itself.
[171] doubt: The Beneventan tradition is strengthened by the bulls of so many
Pontiffs near to those times, and
perhaps living at that very time: it is attended by him of Ostia,
an author not only most approved, but Italian
and contemporary: through the whole Catholic world
it has been sung in so many Martyrologies: likewise it has been recognized
by men of the highest esteem, whether for sanctity
or for dignity, who either at Benevento religiously visited
the sacred body of Bartholomew, or took care to have relics;
and, what is the chief point,
by the eyewitness testimony of two provincial councils
its truth has been seen and approved, so much so
that it cannot prudently be doubted. On the contrary, the Roman
tradition rests upon the assertion of a writer not contemporary,
but foreign, and therefore ignorant of Italian affairs:
upon the sole edict of an excommunicated emperor, and
of an incompetent judge: upon the apocryphal Acts of the Lateran
council, and upon what was scarcely and with difficulty inserted
into the Roman Breviary after six centuries,
and with so many changes employed. The Beneventan tradition
has hitherto gone forward always one and the same by the king's highway,
and at present goes forward. But the Roman
has wrapped itself in an inexplicable labyrinth of contradictions,
since the Romans, asserting that the body of St.
Paulinus rests at Rome, tacitly confess the substitution
of one body for another, since there is had no
memory of a translation of the body of St. Paulinus
to Rome — which without doubt was resting at Benevento,
translated by Sicard V the Prince. Nor
can this be affirmed except by means of the substitution
related by the Beneventans. Let it not therefore be said:
The principle on which the Beneventan tradition rests
is only the report and the unfaithfulness of the deceivers: for
it is answered that it rests upon this report, hedged about
with so many signs of credibility, which render it undeniable,
while the Roman rests only upon the report
of the emperor, and is destitute of solid motives of credibility.
We add that credit is given to the Beneventan tradition
not only on this head, that the authors of the innocent fraud
deposed it; but also because, when the emperor had scarcely
departed, opening the web of the fraud, they showed by clear signs
that there had remained at Benevento the Apostle's body, exactly the same
which was worshipped before; otherwise the emperor
would not have conceived wrath, nor in the following year
would he have returned to Benevento to avenge the injury. On the contrary,
the Roman tradition deserves no credit, because, although
from the beginning the emperor deposed that he had received the body
of the holy Apostle: he afterwards declaring himself mocked by the Beneventans,
in that they had handed over to him the body of St. Paulinus
for the body of the Apostle, and the Romans believing
that in Otto's person they had the body of St.
Paulinus, it is clearly inferred (a few words, and those
not necessary, I have here omitted) that their tradition
must be held adulterate and depraved.
Let it at length be observed that the author of the Roman tradition
is the deceived emperor, and a witness of a deed done by another:
while the authors of the Beneventan tradition are
the very principals themselves, who deposed the deed done by them;
and the archbishop, to whom canon law
affords the faculty of attesting and of rendering sacred relics
authentic, and prudent Beneventan men,
who in this deed showed themselves most pious
and most prudent: most pious, in that by an innocent
craft they preserved the body of their holy Patron: most prudent,
because, in appearance humoring Caesar's will and coaxing him
with words, they by no means gave themselves up to his wrath;
they steeped Caesar in poison by their deeds, and*
preserved the citizens — then powerless, being unarmed
for the defence of their own protection — unharmed: and since
they stood in peril either of falling into Caesar's wrath,
if they denied the body; or of losing a great treasure,
if they truly handed it over, Scylla and
Charybdis being overcome, by a middle way they held the wished-for
harbor.
[172] To the Second question: "In what way
could the citizens of Benevento, to the second, who then dared deny nothing
to the emperor, as he of Ostia says, have dared
to deceive him? Was not that deception
a work full of perilous hazard? Was it not
injurious to the imperial majesty? Could it not easily
burst out? What if it did burst out?
Would it not have drawn with it the public ruin of the citizens
and of the city, to be inflicted by an emperor young,
warlike, armed, and provoked?"
We answer that they therefore deceived him because they were not
able then to oppose him, as is the accustomed way
with one who brings force to bear. It is true
that the fraud lay under the peril that it might be uncovered:
but the peril was very remote, since
every prudent and skilful precaution had been employed
for keeping the secret. And when the fraud was to be uncovered,
the city would first have been excellently walled,
so that it might mock the angry emperor,
as it did mock him. And so it was an effect of prudence
to elude an unjust force by a lawful fraud, since then
there was no more present remedy. Nay, it was a trophy of great
fortitude and magnanimity
not to shrink back for fear of some very remote peril.
Let it be added that the Beneventans as a whole dared deny nothing
to the emperor openly and with unveiled face;
yet from perpetrating the fraud no consideration removed
either the archbishop or a few prudent men;
for from all peril they were made safe by
the integrity of the few who were privy to the matter, and
by the inviolable secrecy which the accomplices in the affair promised.
And so the Beneventans taken collectively
dared not deny: taken distributively they dissented
and did deny. Hence it is drawn out that it was possible to accomplish
the substitution of one sacred body in place of another
without any failure of faith pledged; nor materially,
even if the Beneventans had promised the body of the holy Apostle;
since it was by no means necessary that
the very same men who had promised should be those who employed the fraud;
since these two acts could be performed by different persons.
But even if materially a failure of faith had intervened,
formally it did not intervene, as has been said,
since the promise, as extorted by fear, was liable
to no obligation. Nor do the Histories relate that the emperor
asked an oath of the Beneventans
that he should not be deceived by them; and so that,
for reverence of the invoked Godhead, they had contracted an obligation
of keeping faith. Nay, the very greatness of him who asked,
who, relying on his own power and majesty,
thought that nothing could or ought to be denied him,
renders it likely that he employed no extraordinary
precautions, nor took care for any
oath.
[173] how could the emperor have been deceived? It is added: "How could the emperor
have been deceived, to whom present and looking on the relics
were handed over in the bishop's house itself, as he of Ostia testifies?
Did the citizens of Benevento keep the venerable body of the holy
Apostle, and a pledge dear to them, in so obscure a place
and so negligently, that it could not be recognized,
or that it was not commonly known even
by the emperor who was asking for it, and by his courtiers,
a shrewd kind of men, where it was kept laid up,
and honored by a faithful people?"
First it is answered that he of Ostia by no means says
that the relics were given to the emperor in the bishop's house, but only:
"Craftily, in place of the Apostle's body, they showed him
the body of B. Paulinus, which was laid up seemly enough
at the bishop's house of that same city," and that, having taken it away, he withdrew,
deceived by such a fraud. Besides, what so easy
as to hand over in a closed urn the body of one
Saint for another? For the end of mocking Caesar
and his courtiers, the agreement of the magistracy
was enough and more than enough, which in a matter of so great moment
bound itself most faithfully to secrecy. The manner employed in this
deed is inferred from this, that in the aforesaid
Dissertation it is said that there flourishes at Benevento a most ancient tradition
of celebrating on the day before the Nones of September
the feast of St. Bartholomew in the cave where the Apostle's
body was shut up, lest the pious fraud should be uncovered by the emperor.
And this sacred place was honored by the Beneventan
people within the basilica of the holy Apostle, overthrown in the year MDCLXXXVIII.
It is held for easy
that the magistracy laid up the sacred body in this cave,
and in the place where it was worshipped before,
by the counsel and consent of the archbishop, by night in that same
place and vessel or reliquary replaced the body of St. Paulinus,
employing such a manner that
no one caught scent of the fraud: and that after the emperor's
departure not only the archbishop and the magistracy
showed the Beneventans what they had wisely
accomplished, but by due and indubitable signs
showed the emperor deceived. Nor is it credible
that the archbishop and the magistracy could have deceived
the citizens by saying that they had deceived the emperor,
without having deceived the emperor. They could
indeed without stain of blame mock the emperor,
who wanted by force to make a treasure not his own his own;
but they could not without blame deceive the citizens
by denying to them the handing over of the sacred body made to the emperor.
Therefore only that is credible which
tradition brings, namely that the emperor was deceived,
not the citizens; and this chiefly because the emperor
could not know the fraud; whereas the citizens could
with no trouble know whether they had been deceived,
weighing the circumstances and all those things which could have made them
safe as to the truth.
[174] to the third, To the third question: "Which citizens
of Benevento, of what order or rank, how
many or how few, deceived the emperor, or
were privy to the deception to be done?" It is answered
that it must first be supposed, as is wont to happen in matters
of this kind, namely that a few
of the magistracy, the archbishop only being consulted,
were privy to the deception. Nor is it likely
that all the citizens were versed in the fraud, because the fraud
could very hardly have been hidden and covered. It must therefore be said
that those only were privy who governed the city,
and to whom the emperor's petition
was directed. For these, who were of approved faith,
of great probity and prudence, would certainly
have covered the secret so far as it was lawful
to cover it; and thence there could be had suitable witnesses,
and in a fitting number, before the archbishop,
when after Caesar's departure the substitution
of the body of St. Paulinus for the body of St. Bartholomew was to be divulged.
Nor could the other Beneventans envy
those few of the magistracy, as men who had given consent
(as was then believed) to the emperor's
petition; since it was ascertained that they could not
then by force withstand the emperor present.
[175] To the fourth question: "In what way can
those deceivers be excused of rashness, to the fourth unfaithfulness,
impiety, and sacrilege? Of rashness
indeed, whereby, deceiving the emperor,
they exposed themselves and their city to the peril
of ruin? Of unfaithfulness, whereby they did not give what by signs
they promised and showed themselves about to give
to the emperor? And of impiety
and sacrilege; in that, alienating the body of St. Paulinus
under the name of St. Bartholomew,
they deprive him of all that worship and veneration
wherewith he would thereafter have been honored by the faithful
in his own body: and they do just as much as if
they were to remove the body of that same St. Paulinus from the world,
his memory being blotted out among men."
A sufficient answer was given in the 2nd point premised,
when we said before that this could be accomplished, not
only without blame, but even with great
praise. To show by signs and to exhibit the body of St. Bartholomew,
and not to hand it over, in no way withstands fidelity;
since no promise is presupposed; and
where there is no promise, there is no unfaithfulness. And although
there had been one, yet, because it was not fully free,
but extorted through grave fear, it was not
binding. But if by unfaithfulness there be meant
a certain insincerity, neither does this hold good in
this case; since dissimulations are not
enemies to sincerity, when they are ordered to a good end.
We know that the Redeemer himself, speaking with the disciples
going to Emmaus, feigned that he would go further;
not because he wished to go (as a certain learned interpreter adds)
but because he wished to hear: "Stay with us,
Lord."
[176] But that they escaped the mark of rashness
is clear from what was premised above, doubt since they prudently
judged that the matter would be hidden until the emperor
had returned to his own. For afterwards, the city being fortified,
they held Caesar's power as nothing. Nor
does this need great proof. For from the ancient
histories it is had that the citizens of Benevento made little of
the Caesars, when it so pleased them. In the year MXLVI, when
the emperor Henry II had come to Benevento,
the Beneventans (these are the words of Lupus Protospatharius) to
his injury cut off the nostrils of his horse. In the year
MXLVII, the same Henry, coming to Benevento
(relates Leo of Ostia in his Chronography),
when the citizens would not receive him, both
for his own and for his father's injury, caused the whole city
to be excommunicated by Pope Clement II, who was then
with him. Otto III caused Alix, or Ajax,
deacon of that same church, to be created archbishop of Benevento
by Silvester II, Supreme Pontiff, and the Beneventans
would not receive him. The same Otto created Ademerius
prince of Benevento, Laidolf being cast down, and the citizens
refused, and in his place Landulf II
was subrogated.
[177] Besides, it is to be considered that the city
of Benevento in the year one thousand did not number
eight thousand souls, answer: as at present it numbers, or
eighteen thousand, as in the year MDCLVI, in which
the plague befell; but it was filled with a very great population,
and although it did not display that greatness and power
which it carried at the time when it was
either the famous metropolis of the Samnites, as some report,
or at least among the first cities of Samnium, a city
second to none, and which in the space of one century declared war on the Romans
and forced them, being conquered, to pass beneath the Caudine
Forks; or when with the royal court of the most serene
Lombard princes it presided over a most ample
principate; nevertheless it was a city great
in situation, powerful in strength, illustrious in deeds,
walled about, laden with people, so rich in nobility
that in the year MCII it sent a hundred noble envoys
to Urban II, Supreme Pontiff, on public
affairs; from which the greatness of that city
may easily be conjectured (these are the words of the archdeacon
of our church, Marius de Vipera, in
the Chronology of the prelates of Benevento, who
took them likewise from our chronicler Falco.) And so
that fraud prepared for Caesar by the Beneventans ought not
to be reckoned either rashness or presumption. Besides
which, since Benevento boasts a mingling of blood
from four renowned nations, namely
the Greek, the Samnite, the Roman, and the Lombard,
it boasted craft as a noble right of patronage from the Greeks.
The famous boar given as a gift to Diomedes king of Aetolia
and our first founder, or restorer (as Procopius witnesses, On the Gothic
War, book 1, page 38), by Meleager, son of Oeneus king of Calydon,
and which Benevento displays as its ensign or
device, had poured into the Beneventans a concord of mind
and a joined union, fortitude
and constancy, rightly and deservedly to be set against
the majesty of Caesar. As for what is added, namely that,
the body of St. Paulinus being alienated under the name of St. Bartholomew,
St. Paulinus would have been deprived of all that
worship and veneration wherewith he would thereafter
have been honored by the faithful in his own body, it has already been
answered that, since after the emperor's departure
the fraud was to be uncovered, it was then, as it was
from the aforecited narration of him of Ostia, sufficiently published
to the whole world that at Rome incense was to be offered to St.
Paulinus, at Benevento to St. Bartholomew: therefore the body of St. Paulinus
was not by the Beneventans removed out of the world,
nor was the venerable memory of St. Bartholomew blotted out among men.
[178] to the fifth, To the fifth question: "By what reason can
the archbishop of Benevento be freed from blame,
by whose knowledge and counsel the emperor was
deceived?" Satisfaction has already been made, when we said
that so great, and never sufficiently praised, a prelate bore himself
in a praiseworthy manner.
[179] to the sixth, To the sixth question: "How prudently
could the citizens believe the deceivers of the emperor,
who, saying that they had deceived the emperor,
themselves confessed and announced to the citizens that they
were deceivers? But how prudently are known deceivers
believed?" In the answer to the 2nd
question it was clearly said: Most prudently;
both because, in declaring that they had mocked the emperor,
they did not thereby render themselves unworthy of credit, since
they could deceive the emperor without the defect of an evil fraud;
but they could not deceive the citizens without that defect.
And also because from the circumstances
and from the signs they were able to search out, perceive, and learn,
whether they themselves were being deceived by the magistracy,
which asserted that it had deceived the emperor. We add
that the argument would then have force, if the archbishop
and a few citizens, the rest of the citizens resisting,
had complied with the emperor. But if the petition
was presented to the citizens, and these, not daring openly to deny
Caesar, unwillingly granted the sacred body,
for what cause could the archbishop
tell a tale, lest he provoke the citizens? And let it be observed
of what sort and of how great merit this archbishop was.
Let it suffice to say that he was Alphanus II,
a man of such merit that from Gregory V in the year CMXCVIII,
besides the confirmation of the privileges of his church,
he deserved to obtain this privilege for his nephew, then a clerk:
"We grant moreover
to Alphanus, your nephew, a clerk, that whole
archbishopric, to be had after thy decease."
[180] To the seventh question: "Whether those who deceived,
as is alleged, to the seventh, the Roman emperor,
and that in sacred matters, and with the present peril
of the vengeance about to come from him
upon their own head and upon the whole city: whether they
would have made it a scruple to deceive their own citizens, from
whom they had nothing on that account to fear; nay,
could even hope for reward, praise, and applause,
if they deceived them, persuading
them that the body of St. Bartholomew had not been given
to the emperor, which had been given: but if they did
not deceive them, they had to fear for themselves, on account of
the body of St. Bartholomew carried off, at least the indignation
of the citizens, if not something graver
from an inconsiderate and headlong crowd?" It is answered
that the magistracy indeed, and much
more the archbishop, would have reckoned it a very great scruple
to deceive the citizens, and to assert that they had by fraud retained
the Apostle's body, if they had already granted it. This
certainly would have been an impious and sacrilegious lie,
as is plain to one considering it. Nor could so great an impiety be presumed
of so great a magistracy, and much less
of so great a prelate. Besides which, they could defend themselves
from the citizens' indignation by bringing forward their inability
to resist the emperor's forces; and if they had had cause,
it was not so easy a business
to deceive them, because of the many signs which they could investigate.
[181] To the eighth question: "Whether it was not far
easier to persuade the people — absent at the time
when the relics were handed over, to the eighth, and ignorant
of what sort those handed over were — that the body of St. Bartholomew
had not been handed over to the emperor: than not to hand over
to the emperor, present with his own men and inspecting everything,
that body which he had asked for
and alone desired?" It is answered
negatively, as we have shown. For the emperor could easily
be deceived, who, being a foreigner, could not
discern whether the body given was of one
Saint or of another, since besides he dreamed of no
fraud: but the citizens, who, hearing of the fraud
offered to the emperor, could themselves also suspect
that they had been deceived, were able duly and diligently
to know and weigh all the signs, that the truth
might appear; and it was easy for the whole people
to perceive the fitting signs, since their own affair was in question,
and they were most knowing in their own affairs.
[182] To the ninth question: "How
can the Beneventans persuade themselves that the emperor
was deceived, to the ninth, and not themselves, since the alleged
deceivers, at least then, when they handed over the relics
to the emperor, were still reckoned true
and faithful: but when they told their fellow citizens
that they had deceived the emperor, it was then plain
that they were dishonest and unfaithful?" It is answered
by what was established in the first point, that the shrewdness
used in deceiving the emperor was employed
with exquisite praise, and without unfaithfulness and
blame; for which cause the Beneventans could not thereupon
be in suspense of mind and hesitate as to whether they had been deceived
by such men. And if they had suspected it,
they could have sought out signs, that they might have been able
to put off and lay aside all hesitation.
[183] To the tenth question: "Whether the citizens of Benevento
ought not rather to think to the tenth, and believe
that they were deceived by those deceivers,
than they desire to believe, and to have it believed, that the emperor
was deceived by them, especially since the deceiving
of the citizens in the present case is a lesser crime
on various heads than is the deceiving of the emperor?"
It is answered that it has been proved abundantly
that the emperor could more easily and without
any blame be deceived, whose unjust force could not then be
resisted. But that the citizens were deceived
they cannot think; besides that they generally
greatly desired that the body of the holy Apostle should be honored at Benevento,
they will have credit given to the archbishop and
to the magistracy publishing the pious fraud, and confirming it
by so many evident signs of probability.
While on the contrary it was in no way necessary that these be stained
with such a lie together with sacrilege, since they knew that they could not
then withstand the emperor's power:
nor on any cause is a sacrilege of this kind to be presumed
of that archbishop and
of that magistracy. On the contrary, it was needful to follow every
course not unlawful, lest so great a Guardian be lost.
We have it ascertained from Camillo
Tutini, in the Life of St. Januarius, our fellow citizen and
bishop, and the most present patron of the whole kingdom,
that when Cardinal Oliviero Carafa, commendatary of the famous monastery
of Montevergine, at the earnest
prayers of Ferdinand I of Aragon, king of Naples, long since presented to him,
had obtained from Alexander
VI, Supreme Pontiff, a certain brief directed
to Alessandro Carafa, archbishop of Naples,
and brother of the aforesaid Cardinal Oliviero, with
the faculty of translating the body of that same St. Januarius
from the aforesaid monastery to Naples; and when the said
Alessandro, prelate of Naples, had betaken himself to the aforesaid
monastery in the year MCDXCVII, and,
the brief being exhibited, had asked for the body, the monks refused
to hand it over; and so it was needful, with five hundred soldiers
had from Frederick then reigning, to besiege the Mountain,
and not only the monastery. Hence by
force and fear, the Apostolic brief being obeyed,\ the sacred body*
was handed over by the monks. But the shrewd
and prudent archbishop, fearing lest there should befall him
what had befallen Otto with the Beneventans,
employed the following diligences. First, an oath
being taken upon the sacred synaxis, he bound the several monks
to affirm that this was truly and really
the body of St. Januarius our prelate. Then,
that all hesitation might be driven away, he took care that the several bones
be measured, namely the right arm
with the left, the right hand with the left, and so
successively the remaining members, since all in the body
are of the same proportion and measure.
Which seems the more difficult and incredible: the deed
of the Beneventans, or to hear that among monks
there are found men who refuse to exhibit a body
to a Cardinal Commendatary supported by an Apostolic brief,
and who oppose the will of a king in whose
kingdom they lived? This the eyes of a mole, not to say
of an eagle, discern. Matteo Villani writes,
chapter 16, book 3, cited by Ferdinando de Marra,
duke of Guardia, discoursing of the noble family of
Baucio, that count Francesco de Baucio, lord of Teano,
for the memory of the alliance which had passed between
the Florentines and the new count his kinsman,
took care that there be granted to the envoy of the Florentines
in the year MCCCXII the arm of St. Reparata,
which was kept in the convent of nuns at Teano;
and that, being borne with solemn pomp to Florence
and laid up in the chief temple on the XXII day
of June of the same year, and held in special worship,
four years afterwards, when the Florentines wished to adorn it
with gold and silver, it was detected by them
that, by the craft of the abbess of Teano, in place of the true
arm, an arm made of plaster had been handed over.
And the Histories abound plentifully with frauds of this kind.
[184] To the eleventh question: "Whether it was worth
the labor for the Beneventans, to the eleventh, through so many hazards
and evil arts, to lose, with the conscience
of upright men, the body of a most holy and most renowned
bishop, that another, of a holy Apostle,
might be retained?" It is answered that, although
it would have been more praiseworthy (which however we grant, and
do not concede) to retain the body of St. Paulinus,
it cannot on that account be said that they afterwards perpetrated a grave sacrilege,
when they told the people that they had retained
the body of the holy Apostle. But it is openly denied
that the body of St. Paulinus would have been better than
that of so great an Apostle and most excellent Patron,
even in view of those hazards,
and to retain it by that fraud and craft — not indeed by evil
arts, since these were altogether far from the deed.
For the rest, we could excuse our Beneventans
on this head, that, being enriched with innumerable bodies of Saints
in the churches of the city, and especially
in the metropolitan church itself, yet,
when they could have substituted other Saints,
they put St. Paulinus in the place, trusting that he who
alive in Africa gave himself as a captive in the place of a widow's son,
would not, being dead, disdain that his own body should be exhibited
to Otto at Benevento in place of the body of St. Bartholomew.
But that it is better and more delightful
for Benevento to possess the body of the holy Apostle than
that of St. Paulinus, since it could not retain both,
there is none to gainsay. That, further, the perils
and hesitations add no weight, is ascertained
by a wise consideration, that
the peril of the fraud's being uncovered was most remote,
since they could fear no betrayal or treachery from the archbishop
and from those of the magistracy who alone were privy to the matter,
and whose common advantage was in question.
The peril of provoking Caesar's wrath,
when he should be made more certain of the pious fraud, is held of no
worth: for indeed the city, afterwards diligently
fortified, undoubtedly eluded Caesar's forces, as
is had from the aforepraised him of Ostia there: "But in the following
time &c." The subsequent hesitations —
whether the magistracy asserting the fraud was to be believed,
and whether the Apostle's body had truly remained at Benevento —
the magistracy did not at that time foresee,
since it prudently believed that they would depart from men's eyes
and sight, the due signs
and tokens being exhibited. And even if they had been foreknown, it was better
to retain for themselves the body of the holy Apostle, trusting in his
patronage, namely that he would make the truth shine forth,
lest his relics be defrauded of due
honor and worship. Unless we would rather say that God
long permitted these hesitations, that more and more
the love and piety of the Beneventans and of the Romans
toward the Apostle might be kindled. Yet after
so many and so great hesitations it pleased that all things
should turn to a good light, when in the last provincial
council, held in the year MDCXCVIII, the sacred
remains so shone forth that it can no longer
be doubted whether they are the true and proper ones of St. Bartholomew.
And it is undoubtedly established from the circumstances
related in the Acts of the council, and in the Ephemerides of father Viva
of the Soc. of Jesus, and from the miracles by which
God willed the faith of the Beneventans to be made firm;
since that light cannot be called natural
which was seen to flash from the sacred relics
while the urn was being opened; and beyond nature's powers happened
the preservation of the boy over whose leg thrice the wheel of a four-horse carriage
passed harmlessly at the time of the translation
of the sacred relics to the new basilica.
And here again it must be weighed
that the tradition of the Romans, that with the body of St. Paulinus
they had also that of St. Bartholomew, perhaps
could arise from the emperor's silence, who was unwilling openly
to declare himself deceived. The tradition of the Beneventans
was to be founded upon the positive assertion of the archbishop
and of the magistracy, who had deceived the emperor,
which they were bound to prove by clear signs;
wherefore this our tradition, not
that of our adversaries, obtains the greatest weight. Nay,
even if the emperor had deposed that he had not been deceived,
he would not on that account be more worthy of credit than the Beneventans,
who asserted the fraud. For the emperor
could not be privy to the deed done by the Beneventans
while they exhibited the sacred body, and these knew their own
deed exceedingly well.
[185] to the twelfth: To the twelfth and last question:
"What is more glorious for the city of Benevento: that it,
as beneficent and well deserving of the emperor
Otto III and of the city of Rome, should lack the body
of St. Bartholomew; or that it should contend that it
retained it by fraud?" It is answered, first,
that this is a merely speculative doubt,
and does absolutely nothing to hinder or to help our case.
Secondly, what light of glory would accrue to Benevento
if it were said that under force it gave up the body of its great Guardian,
which the citizens could have retained, though
exposed to the greatest and nearest perils?
Thirdly, if they had given it with a willing mind, for prodigality
and small esteem of the Saint the Beneventans would have been
and would be held worthy of every
ignominy. What glory therefore would they have gained,
if they had given it under force? To assert that they retained it by
fraud is nothing else than to confess that at that time,
being unfortified, they could not resist. But to desert
the worship of so glorious a Patron at Benevento,
and to be willing to yield and assent to the Roman tradition,
so weakly founded, would be an unspeakable irreverence,
and would smack of an enormous disgrace; since
one would yield to what is false, and known to be false. These things we have given,
that we might answer the doubts according to our small measure.
For the rest, he who subtly and ingeniously bound them
as with a double knot will be able to loose
and unfold them.
[186] the same fraud used elsewhere. Thus far the Beneventans' answer to Janning's doubts,
which is certainly learned and ingenious:
but whether it altogether exhausts every difficulty,
I do not interpose my judgment. I think, however,
that those difficulties would be more easily solved if the Beneventans
should admit that some relics of St. Bartholomew
were handed over together with the body of St. Paulinus,
as the learned reader will easily observe. Further,
what is narrated by him of Ostia to have been done at Benevento
about the body of St. Bartholomew, is read as done
at Cambrai about the sacred bodies of SS. Gaugericus and Autbert,
sought by the emperor Otto I, for
which others were substituted by Fulbert, bishop of Cambrai.
See these things narrated at greater length in tom.
II of August, in the Acts of St. Gaugericus, page 667: yet
he who illustrated those Acts, my predecessor
Bosch, adds that in all likelihood certain relics of the bodies sought
were joined to them, namely that
the inconveniences mentioned above might be avoided.
For the rest, the reader will find the authority of him of Ostia
more fully defended against Dini's objections
in the recent History of the Abbey of Cassino of Erasmo
Gattola, tom. 1, page 906 and following. Now what
further the Beneventans allege for themselves is to be examined,
although some of these things have already been touched in the aforesaid
answer.
Annotationsi. e. fefellerunt* (they deceived)
i. e. cum parerent* (when they obeyed)
§ III. The remaining arguments of the Beneventans, and Dini's answers to them, are set forth.
The testimony of Eadmer the Englishman; The second argument, by which the Beneventans
prove their tradition, is taken from
Eadmer, an English writer; who in his History,
as also in the Life of St. Anselm, in our tom. III of April,
page 917, narrates that by the archbishop of Benevento
an arm of St. Bartholomew was carried into England
and given to queen Emma in the year 1017;
which history we shall vindicate against Dini's objections,
and relate more fully, when we shall have to treat
of the relics dispersed through various provinces.
Now it is said that that Arm was kept in that same church
apart from the rest of the body. Hence
they infer that the rest of the body also was then kept in the same
church. Dini denies this consequence, page 46,
and contends that these things were said because the body was kept elsewhere,
namely in the City … but some venerable bone
was in that church. It could perhaps be more conveniently answered
that Eadmer, when he wrote these things about the body,
followed the tradition of the Beneventans, and therefore
adds no weight to this tradition,
although he thought that the body also had been kept
at Benevento; which may also be replied to all the remaining
arguments of the Beneventans; but whether
solidly enough, I do not dispute.
[188] They draw a third argument from this,
that Suger, abbot of the monastery of St. Denis,
in the year 1122, the body visited by abbot Suger and the empress Florida; among other places of religious veneration
of the Saints, went to Benevento, that he might venerate
St. Bartholomew, as he himself testifies in the Life
of Louis the Fat, says Orsini. A like argument
is subjoined about the empress Florida, wife of Lothair,
who likewise visited the temple of St. Bartholomew
at Benevento, and honored it with gifts in the year
1137, as the Chronicle of Benevento of Falco relates at that year,
tom. 5 of the Writers on Italian
Affairs, page 123. Of Suger, Dini answers,
page 47 and following: Yet neither Suger nor
any other professed that he adored the body, but
that he visited the churches and places of St. Bartholomew. Then,
We too can moreover adduce innumerable
great men, who, going to Rome and flowing together to
the basilica of this Apostle, venerate both the church
and at the same time the sacred body. But
the Beneventans will not believe that these can be produced by Dini for
the XI or XII century, unless he adduce them by name,
since it sufficiently appears from his whole Dissertation
that his vague expressions are not to be greatly
esteemed. His first answer the Beneventans had already
forestalled in the Supplicatory petition for
the restitution of the body offered to the provincial synod, §
3, in these words: It must needs be said that
that abbot held for true that this sacred body
was not at Rome, because he would have visited it there, but was
here at Benevento, whither he came to visit it. For
he who could venerate that body at Rome, why should he go to Benevento
to visit the church only?
Of the empress Florida Dini answers almost the same,
and adds that nowhere is it expressed that Suger
and Florida visited the body itself. But although
this is not said in express words, it seems sufficiently to follow
from what has been said. And these therefore, we must needs say,
assented to the tradition of the Beneventans.
[189] the testimony of St. Antoninus; A fourth argument they seek from the authority
of Jacobus de Voragine, bishop of Genoa, and
of St. Antoninus, who, in part 1 of his History, tit. 6, chapter
12, has only this to the purpose: It is commonly
held that his body is had at Benevento; although
the Romans too assert that they have it. Whence only
is proved which opinion was then the more common,
which at all events the archbishop of Florence could easily know
and sincerely write. In vain therefore does Dini here
try to depress the authority of St. Antoninus. As regards him of Genoa,
he favors the Beneventans, chiefly on account of the apparition
of St. Bartholomew at Benevento related by him,
and mentioned by us above at number
65.
[190] St. Bridget's pilgrimage to Benevento; The Beneventans also bring forward St. Bridget,
who, as is narrated in book 2 of the Italian Life, chapter 21,
visited the relics of St. Bartholomew at Benevento.
Dini indeed answers that nowhere is it said that she venerated
the Saint's body, but this seems sufficiently
to be drawn from what has been said, especially since she is written
to have visited many churches at Rome in chapter 2 of that same book,
and no mention is made of St. Bartholomew.
[191] Ughelli's opinion; The testimonies of more recent authors I pass over,
except one opinion of Ughelli, which
ought to have the greater weight, the more mature the examination
which the author premised before bringing it forth, tom.
8 of Italia sacra, col. 73 of the new edition, thus writing:
But what my opinion is about this, I long
hesitated to disclose; but when I lighted upon a certain
original diploma of Leo IX, to be transcribed in its place,
I could not contain myself from
publishing it — that the body of this most glorious
Apostle is still kept at Benevento; since indeed
that translation, whether it was made from Benevento to Rome
in the year CMLXXXIII, as Baronius asserts (in
the notes to the Martyrology) or in the year M, as others
will have it (and Baronius himself in the Annals at that
year), yet those words of Leo IX move me more,
in which he asserts that the aforesaid body was kept,
while he himself was living, in the greater church of Benevento,
than any testimony of Sigebert
or of Otto of Freising, especially since from the asserted translation
to the pontificate of the aforesaid Leo
IX scarcely fifty years ran between. Of the bull
of Leo we shall treat below. What Dini here answers
is chiefly aimed against the bull, and is to be discussed in its own
place.
[192] Martyrologies proving almost nothing; The Beneventans then fight with arguments
adduced from various Martyrologies, which seem to me
to make little to the point. For Usuard
and Wandelbert, whom they adduce, they confess to have lived before
the alleged translation; these therefore
are to be dismissed from the battle as useless soldiers.
But what they say, that Molanus noted nothing at their
place, proves nothing, save that Molanus was unwilling to mix himself in this
controversy. Ado, whom they put in the third place, they will have to be
archbishop of Trier, and to have lived after the time of the disputed
translation: but, since very many think otherwise,
this ought to have been proved by them. The manuscript Martyrology
of the monastery of Pulsano (if it was drawn up after
this doubtful translation — though this is not established from the fact
that it mentions the death of B.
John, abbot of Pulsano, who died in the year 1139,
since such things are wont to be added to manuscript Martyrologies)
proves only that this tradition existed at Benevento,
which is sufficiently confirmed from elsewhere.
Nothing further do the Beneventan and Florentine Martyrologies prove,
which they subjoin. These things therefore
I let pass for brevity's sake.
[193] Various bulls of the Pontiffs also the most eminent
Orsini produces in §3 of his Dissertation, the bull of Leo IX;
by which he strives to assert the possession of the sacred body for Benevento.
In the first place is adduced the Bull of Leo
IX, which Ughelli cited recites, col. 78, in
which, after many privileges granted to the church of Benevento,
it is subjoined: Where the most precious body
of the most blessed Bartholomew the apostle rests.
And lower down: Enriched with the most precious bodies of Saints,
namely of Bartholomew the apostle, and
of Januarius the martyr &c. The bull is read as given in the year
of the L. of Leo the ninth Pope V, Indict. VI, that is, in the year
of Christ 1053. With many things Dini tries to render this bull suspect
of forgery. First, because
it is said to be given at Benevento: but that is no reason,
since the Pontiff in that year had set out for Benevento after the unhappy
battle of his soldiers with the Normans; why then
could he not grant that bull at Benevento? But he says: Leo
of Ostia makes no mention of the bulls of Leo or of Stephen:
nor Desiderius, abbot of Cassino, in the Dialogues: And Falco, who often treats
of St. Bartholomew, would by no means have omitted all these things,
if they had been true. He adds the silence of Arnald,
of Donatus in the Hymns, and of the following Pontiffs
who spoke of St. Bartholomew. To these he adds
certain words of Papebroch about the negative argument,
but adulterated and mutilated. I shall therefore give
Papebroch's own words from the Responses, art. 3,
§15, from num. 154, where he has thus: Thou hast here all the Carmelite
writers of his age, who were silent
about that bull: who would not have omitted it, if they had known it:
and who would have known it, if it had existed. Then he subjoins: The force
of a negative argument is indeed not everywhere the same;
but according to different circumstances, in some cases pregnant
and valid, in others of straw and null. But then
the force of that argument is the greater, when the authors
could and ought to have mentioned the matter which they passed over in silence;
which I do not see to have place here.
For why ought Leo of Ostia, why ought abbot Desiderius,
to have mentioned a bull given to the Beneventans?
Why could the rest cited in Dini, who
lived long afterwards, not have been ignorant of that bull?
And if they knew it, why
could they not pass it over in silence? Since, besides the cited
words about the body of St. Bartholomew, in the said
bull nothing is contained but privileges granted
to the church of Benevento, which, so long as they were not called
into doubt, made it unnecessary to mention that bull.
[194] But that bull is mentioned also by Stephen
IX, and that of Stephen IX confirming it, in the year 1058, confirming it entire, and recalling
the same things about the body of St. Bartholomew kept at Benevento,
as the Beneventans will have it, and Ughelli,
often praised, col. 80, who discourses in this way for the Beneventans:
This same Pontiff (Stephen)
asserts that at Benevento there rest the bodies
of blessed Bartholomew, of Januarius, and of Barbatus,
which I say for corroboration; for since this
Pontiff was abbot of Cassino, and very near at hand,
nay, lived in the time of the emperor Otto,
the translation of the body of holy Bartholomew from Benevento to Rome
could well have been known to him, if it had truly
been made by that same Otto. This argument is surely
so strong that Dini needed both to render this Bull suspect
and to contend that it was forged;
but the negative arguments which he has thus far
adduced are not solid enough for this.
Let us hear what he brings forward further: Nay,
he says, the falsity of this bull is argued from this, that it is said
to have been passed at Rome on the Ides of July, as Mascambruno says:
Vipera asserts that it was given in the City on the XII day of July in the year MLIV, Indict.
V. But these things do not fight
against the bull, since nowhere in it is it read that it was given
at Rome, or at Benevento; but it only shows
that the opinion of those is false who thought the bull given at Rome in the year
1054. Which error
Ughelli corrected, who thinks it more probably given
at Benevento. But this diversity of opinions
arose from this, that in the bull the place where it was given is not
expressed, as happens also in others
of the same Leo. Nor ought it to stand in the way
of the bull's being held legitimate, that certain things
are had at the beginning which by Dini's opinion
could have been more rightly said: for since the beginning, as
Ughelli testifies, was plainly corroded, what is less
rightly set there must be imputed to the first editors of the bull,
not to the bull's author. Nor again
does it make to the point that in the bull there are certain
barbarous words; for this rather argues that the bull was given
at that time when the barbarism of the Latin tongue
widely prevailed, than that it was afterwards feigned.
Nor thirdly, that certain things have been read in different ways by
different editors, which happens very often in the sacred
Letters themselves.
[195] which Dini strives to show to be forged, Lastly, to show the bull forged,
Dini adduces certain things from Mabillon On Diplomatics,
but cited no more faithfully than
what he often produces from Papebroch; for when with the utmost labor
I had turned over the places cited by him, and many other things in Mabillon,
I found only certain traces of the words cited
by him, as had happened to me before in seeking out the places cited
from Papebroch. Book 2, chapter 14, On Diplomatics,
he brings Mabillon in speaking thus: "Not only
are bulls, because they are corroded, or marked by some erasure,
ineffectual to deserve credit,
but also if the leaden signets be lacking,
which Stephen III and
Hadrian I began to use". Dini subjoins: Relating how,
when in certain bulls the leaden signets were wanting,
they turned out suspect. Of these, I say,
I find only certain traces in Mabillon:
for in the cited chapter, num. 7, he has this: But when
the use of leaden (bulls) began is controverted
among the learned. Polydore Vergil refers it
to the times of Stephen III and Hadrian I.
Then he relates the opinions of others, and leaves the matter
uncertain. Mabillon therefore does not say that
Stephen III and Hadrian I began to use leaden bulls.
Then at num. 14 he relates from Innocent III
nine ways in which bulls can be falsified.
Where this species of falsifying is recounted: The fifth,
when in bullated letters, once returned, something is changed
by a thin erasure. Thirdly, at num. 7, he relates
certain privileges of the church of Canterbury called
into doubt, because in them the leaden bulls were wanting.
These traces of the things which Dini cites
I have found in Mabillon, which differ not a little
from the words cited by Dini, nor do they make anything
to the point.
[196] but this he does not prove, But that I should think they are had elsewhere in Mabillon,
is made unlikely both because he is wont to cite Papebroch with the same fidelity,
and because Mabillon's phrasing is much
more elegant than are the words cited, and lastly
because these traces are found in the place cited.
Let us see whether what he next cites is more faithful.
He thus goes on: And I mark the words, Bene
valete, transcribed in the bull of the forged Leo,
whereas Leo IX, as that same most versed Fr. Mabillon says,
"always has in his bulls" Perpetuam
in Domino salutem. And there is cited in
the margin book 6, the first corollary. I have diligently
sifted this corollary. On page 622, under the letter
e, he brings forward various clauses of various Pontiffs,
and among other things says this: In that Bullary
(of Cluny) therefore many pontifical diplomas are found
before Leo IX with the title IN PERPETUUM.
Then, various clauses being related, he goes on:
*Silvester II,* SALUTEM ET APOSTOLICAM
BENEDICTIONEM, which formula Leo IX and others
thereafter display, or another, IN PERPETUUM;
except that Leo once has, PERPETUAM
IN DOMINO SALUTEM. Note, reader: Once said
Mabillon; Always Dini cites from Mabillon.
Mabillon goes on in this manner: The salutation
expressed at the end in these words, BENE VALETE, entire
(as we said in its place, namely book 2, chapter 14,
num. 10) is read in bulls before Leo IX,
who reduced these words into a monogram. Leo IX therefore
did not omit that Bene valete, but expressed it in another
way than the preceding Pontiffs,
who wrote it in entire words, while Leo indeed
contracted it into a monogram, as Mabillon exhibits
on page 445. Add that the same Mabillon on the cited page
622 under the letter c has: Then
it is difficult to determine which formulas the more ancient Pontiffs
preferred, since in their published letters the inscriptions are commonly
either wholly cut away or diminished. Besides, in those which
have been left us entire, not constant formulas
are employed, but they are various for different Pontiffs,
nay, for the most part for different rescripts,
(it is helpful to note, as the sense has it at the beginning.)
[197] I do not see therefore what stands against this Leonine bull —
but this does not prove it; which I would have said likewise of Stephen's bull —
that it may not be held legitimate, except
only the silence of the more ancient, which is a weak
argument, since so many bulls have been produced
by the learned out of registries and archives
about which the ancients were silent, and which for that cause
are held no less legitimate. Labbe, tom.
9 of the Councils, col. [ ], brings forward a bull of that same
Pontiff Leo IX to Sicenolphus, abbot
of St. Sophia of Benevento, given in the year 1052.
Let the curious reader compare the two, and he will find them
sufficiently conformable to one another, as I think, especially in
the subscription, which in Labbe is plainly the same
as that which Ughelli published, only the year
being changed. Let whoever pleases sift Mabillon's rules,
and he will find nothing, I think,
which manifests forgery. These things had to be treated more at length
than I had determined, lest
anyone should think the chief foundation of the Beneventan tradition
overthrown by Dini, whose blunders,
which are indeed frequent, where the sum of the matter is not concerned
I willingly pass over for brevity's sake,
but in the chief arguments I did not think they should be passed over.
He then objects that the praised bulls
were passed for another end, and therefore in this controversy
of light authority. Perhaps he would here say something
if the aforesaid Pontiffs had lived many centuries afterwards;
but since they obtained the pontificate only about half a century,
or a little more, after the disputed translation,
they do not seem likely to have been ignorant of it, if it had been made,
nor likely to have asserted the sacred body for Benevento.
[198] The Beneventans allege moreover the bull
of Benedict XII, the bull of Benedict XII, by which in the year 1337 he grants the faculty
of translating the sacred body into the new basilica
in these words: Wherefore thou hast humbly besought us
that we would deign to grant leave for translating to the said chapel the body
of that same Apostle; we therefore, commending thy devotion and purpose
in this behalf manifoldly in the Lord,
and bearing that confidence in thy sincerity,
that unto God's praise and the glory of the said
Apostle and the reverence and honor of the Saints,
and the increase of devotion and consolation of the catholic people,
thou wilt take pains to carry out the above-said, we grant thee the leave
requested. The Pontiff adds also indulgences
to those visiting the aforesaid church,
as may be seen in Ughelli, col. 145, where he recites
the Pontiff's whole bull. Hence, say
the Beneventans in the Dissertation often cited, Arnald
(archbishop of Benevento at that time),
the consecration of that basilica being accomplished, gave a most brilliant
testimony of the existence of the sacred relics;
for, the bishops of Samnium being summoned,
he says that he drew them out and showed them before the translation,
in a most ample diploma. The diploma itself,
in which these things are related at length, thou mayest see in
Ughelli from col. 145.
[199] which in vain he drags into another sense, The often-mentioned Francesco Dini
dared not deny this bull. Yet he seeks a knot
in a bulrush on account of certain things asserted in the Pontiff's bull,
which he strives to drag into another sense
than that in which they were said. For after he had cited
these words of the Pontiff: We therefore, commending thy devotion
and purpose manifoldly in the Lord
(others have considering) and bearing that
confidence in thy sincerity; he stops,
thinking it less safe for himself to add what follows; and
he subjoins: These last words of the diploma clearly
prove that nothing is certainly asserted by the supreme Pontiff,
but that he rather assents to the supplicatory petition,
and acquiesces in the prelate's sincerity: as if
the Pontiff had believed on account of Arnald's sincerity
that the Apostle's body rested at Benevento. But that this is not
the Pontiff's mind is plain from the text cited
above, from which take this true sense: And
bearing that confidence in thy sincerity, that
unto God's praise &c. … thou wilt take pains to carry out the above-said.
And so the Pontiff trusts, from Arnald's sincerity,
that all things will be performed unto the glory of God and of the Saints;
but concerning the body kept at Benevento he does not
say that he acquiesces in the prelate's sincerity.
[200] and which Dini would have favor himself; Dini then answers to the argument
that Benedict, a French Pontiff, was less informed
about the permanence of the body at Rome.
Thirdly, from Benedict's bull he draws an argument for himself against the Beneventans,
because the body is said
to have been then kept in an unseemly place, and thus
he reasons, page 76: That same bull is to me an argument
for proving the translation of the sacred body
a fiction, since from it is drawn out
that the body remained in despised and unseemly places,
so that thou mayest gather thence that no report propped by the truth
and integrity of the matter was handed down by dignitaries and grave
men, nor any tradition consigned to posterity
… about the actual permanence of the sacred body, since
the urn of it was held slighted in a despised place
by the Beneventans, although to these the relics of the Apostle
their patron would have been most precious, if they had existed,
and always to be placed in a more seemly place. I know not
whether the imprudent Dini does not here aim at the throat of the Roman
tradition, of which afterwards: the Beneventans
certainly he does not strike. For because the place, or chapel,
of St. Bartholomew had grown mean by the injury of time,
by which all most precious things are little by little consumed,
diligent care was employed that a new basilica, and that
which that sacred treasure might be more seemly placed:
whence it can by no means be inferred that the sacred body was
in oblivion among the Beneventans. Nor from
those things which the said author subjoins, namely that many
Pontiffs were at Benevento, and made no mention of this sacred
body. For neither can the silence of some
do any harm, where so many speak. What further
he adds, as making less to the point, I pass over.
[201] The Beneventans add the bull of Clement
VI of the year 1347, various bulls of the Pontiffs, which Janelli recites, page 102;
and of Boniface IX of the year 1400, which the same gives
on page 104: in which it is asserted that the body of St. Bartholomew
rests in his basilica at Benevento,
and indulgences are granted to those visiting the said basilica
in the manner prescribed in the bulls. I find
no answer given to these, save that the body is said to rest there
where there is but a tiny particle of the body.
There follows in the praised Janelli,
page 106, a bull of Urban V of the year 1363; and
on page 108 another of the same Pontiff given in the same year;
on page 110 a bull of Pius II of the year 1459, in which
it is asserted that the body of B. Bartholomew rests at Benevento,
says the praised Dissertation of Orsini. It is added,
however, in these bulls, as is asserted, is said.
Wherefore the most eminent Orsini confesses that the Beneventan tradition
is not proved by these bulls as by the immediate
authority of the Roman Pontiff,
as he asserts it is proved by the foregoing bulls.
But he shrewdly observes that, if these Pontiffs had judged
the tradition of the church of Benevento false, they would not have lent ears
to it. Which he confirms
by the example of Clement IV, Who, he says, in a like
matter wrote thus in the year 1268 to the most serene Isabella,
sister of St. Louis the ninth, king of the Gauls:
If perchance thou thinkest the head of B. Paul the apostle is with thee,
lay aside that conviction lest thou be deceived, lest
thou lay a scandal upon thy mother the Roman Church,
which would not with an even mind
tolerate a deception of this kind.
[202] Lastly they add the bulls of the Roman
Pontiffs bulls by which the use of the pallium is granted, by which there is granted to the archbishops of Benevento
the use of the pallium on the day of the translation of St. Bartholomew.
For instance that of Sergius IV of the year 1011, published
in Janelli, page 112; that of Anastasius IV of the year
1153, in the same, page 116; and that of Hadrian IV
in the same place, page 120: from which they draw this argument.
The pallium is not wont to be granted except on the more solemn
feasts; but the feast of the translation of St.
Bartholomew would not be solemn, if the body had been carried off
from there; therefore it must altogether be said that the Apostle's body
at that time still rested in the church of Benevento. To the granting
of the pallium Dini answers that the use of the pallium was granted according to ancient
custom, because the feast of the translation … was celebrated
with a solemn supplication. Which answer seems to me sufficiently
probable, if the other arguments of the Beneventans
could be equally answered; especially if it be said
that certain relics remained at Benevento after the carrying off
of the body.
[203] He then adds, to all the Pontifical bulls together:
For fostering the devotion of a suppliant people, what Dini answers to all the bulls.
among whom some particle of the body remained,
they did not disdain to call it the body (as it was proposed
in the petitions). Which answer perhaps
can be more probably thrown back by the Beneventans against nearly all
the arguments of the Roman tradition, to be set forth in the following §.
He then says that the Pope is not a contemporary witness,
nor firmly asserts a matter after discussion.
To which he adds certain shreds of Papebroch, as
he says, in the Responses cited above, art. 3, num.
109. But in Papebroch, at that place at least,
I find only the first part, num. 108, where
he says, That prudent men also sometimes err in matters of fact
is notorious. But since the praised author willingly
cites Papebroch, though generally in an alien sense,
how great credit, in Papebroch's judgment, is to be attributed
to Pontifical bulls, I here subjoin from
the same art. 3 of the Responses, §2, num. 16, where
he has this: To the bulls, briefs, constitutions,
and decrees of the supreme Pontiffs &c., even issued outside
the case and matter of faith or of saving morals,
all Catholics owe the greatest deference, credit,
and observance, at least within the line
of human authority. He therefore does not satisfy
the authority of a bull who says that the Pontiff
is not a contemporary witness, especially if for the
contrary opinion he adduce no contemporary witnesses,
as Francesco Dini did not adduce them. Yet Papebroch
does not hold that any diplomas whatever of the Roman Pontiff
are to be reckoned wholly immune even from every error
of fact: but, as he has at num.
110, They are always presumed to contain nothing but the truth,
unless the opposite be proved, or a prudent suspicion be brought forward
on no light foundation. Thus far about the Pontifical
bulls, which add no light weight to the Beneventan tradition.
[204] The bulls of the archbishops of Benevento, and the letter of king Ladislaus, The Beneventans then adduce certain bulls
of their own prelates, by which they confirm the presence of the body
of St. Bartholomew to their city. Namely
that of Romano Capoferro, archbishop of Benevento,
given in the year 1273, and published in Ughelli cited,
col. 136, in which these things about St. Bartholomew
are read: Who willed that his most sacred body
be preserved in the aforesaid city (of Benevento).
Then a certain authentic instrument
of the year 1346, in which these things are said of William, then archbishop:
Desiring … that in
the chapel in which that most sacred body rests,
divine worship be continually observed. This instrument
they say is kept in the library of Benevento,
num. 500. Thirdly, a letter of Ladislaus,
king of Naples, written in the year 1414 on the VI day of February
to the archbishop of Benevento and the chapter of that same
church, by which he asks relics of St.
Bartholomew for Carlo Malatesta, from which
I take these words: Since the magnificent Carlo
Malatesta, our chief and dearest friend, bearing
toward St. Bartholomew the apostle a great affection of singular
devotion, desires to have something of his relics:
and since that holy body itself of that glorious
Apostle is kept in that same church of Benevento &c. The whole letter
Janelli gives, page 124.
[205] the letter of archbishop Donatus, To these they add the letter of archbishop Donatus,
written in the same year on the XVI day of February to the canons
of the church of Benevento upon this matter,
in which he narrates how he excused himself to the king. But from this
letter certain things, because they pertain more nearly to St. Bartholomew,
I have judged should be here written out somewhat
more fully: We, he says, reverently,
as was fitting, gave a reasonable answer, alleging
the due excuses, how it was not
possible for us to fulfil the wishes of his majesty
without grave scandal; and relating how
the body of B. Bartholomew had been laid up and
translated, where today it lies, with the greatest solemnity
and by Apostolic authority, without whose leave
we could not touch either the whole or a part of that
most glorious body; nor would the citizens permit
or consent; since they reckon that they have no treasure
nor protector, save the succour of that most glorious Apostle;
and because it is shut up with three indissoluble bonds,
keys, and iron bars, from the time
of the laying up, or translation, of the aforesaid glorious
body; and how at another time, before the laying up
of that body, it was attempted secretly to snatch a certain
particle of the relics of the above-said body, and,
by the judgment of God and of the body of the aforetasted Apostle,
so great a tempest of the air came on that in no way
was he able, who had snatched that part of the relics,*
to cross a certain bridge of the river running
near the walls of the city of Benevento; who, recognizing
that by a miracle of that Apostle the whole storm
of the air had come on, being led by conscience, publicly disclosed
his guilt, and that particle
which he had taken away, as quickly as he could, most devoutly restored.
The whole letter Janelli exhibits, page 126.
To the two first testimonies Dini answers that the saying
of these archbishops is easily exploded,
since they are not contemporaries. Which method is surely an easy one
for solving any arguments whatever. He adds also certain other
things no firmer, which for brevity's sake
I pass over.
[206] But against the letters especially of archbishop Donatus
he objects difficulties not altogether to be despised. against which certain difficulties are objected,
For first he contends, from Vipera, that Donatus
the archbishop died in the year 1412:
which Vipera asserts in the Chronology of the archbishops
of Benevento, page 141, and proves
as follows: In the year MCDXII, on the VIII day of April, Indict.
V, archbishop Donatus fell asleep in
the Lord, … as from the library of Benevento in
the obituary codex, marked num. CXLVIII, and from
the following inscription of his tomb (it is understood:)
Here lie buried the bones of the excellent prelate
Donatus, mine. Alas, I shall mourn thee, Samnium, for an age!
A lofty house among the houses of the kingdom, the Aquinas house, bore
him, but better did the marks of his character beget him.*
Why do I mourn, O mortal race? Why this frail creature of clay?
Since the eternal mind, the better part, rejoices in the air;
And if the course of the years please thee, tell it in verses:
A thousand and four hundred, and ten to be joined with two;
Among which years the Fifth Indiction is marked.
[207] The verses I have given from Ughelli, col. 161, who
in the same place tries to refute Vipera, to which answer is made from Ughelli; but not without
some error: But, he says, an error is detected
in these verses, to which XIV years must be added,
which will make the year MCDXXVI, on which
falls the fifth Indiction. But Ughelli is deceived,
for the fifth Indiction falls on the year 1412
and 1427: but the fourth on 1426, as whoever knows
how to number the Indictions will find, or
whoever will consult the chronographers. Yet Ughelli's arguments
seem to prove that Donatus survived longer
than to the year 1412, as
Vipera sets it. Perhaps down to 1427, in which was
the fifth Indiction, and in which also his successor, as
Ughelli will have it, was elected on the XVI Kalends of July. But Ughelli's
arguments are these: that from the diploma
of Martin V in the election of Paul it clearly appears
that Donatus of Aquino had as his immediate successor
Paul Capranica, elected, as he will have it, in the year 1427.
I could wish Ughelli had given the bull, that the reader
might be better able to judge of the matter. Besides, he had earlier
brought forward, col. 160, a certain bull of Donatus given in the year
1418, after which he asserts that other monuments of him
are found; then from the obituary book
of the registry of Benevento, marked num. 148, page 6,
he recites this: In the year of the Lord MCDXXVI of the fifth Indiction,
on this XII day of April, was buried in the greater church
the lord Donatus of Aquino, archbishop
of Benevento, and he died at Gripta Mainarda
(a town of the diocese of Benevento, as he says, col. 160)
on the VIII day of the said month, and he sat in his see for years
XLI. From all these things I conclude that concerning the death of Donatus
Ughelli is rather to be adhered to than Vipera,
although the year 1427, which concurs with the fifth Indiction,
seems to be preferred to the year 1426. Nor
can I assent to Dini, page 85, insulting Ughelli in these words
on account of the epitaph cited above:
I defer more to an ancient marble monument of the place
and to the authority of the library, than
to ten Ughellian writings. I cannot, I say,
assent to these; for what he boasts about the library
is common to both, since each cited
the obituary codex marked num. 148.
But that single epitaph is not of so great weight
as are all the other arguments of Ughelli together,
to which must be added this very letter of Donatus
which is in question: especially since it is not established at what
time the epitaph was carved on the marble, although
I would not deny it to be ancient.
[208] objections against the letter of Ladislaus resolved. But whatever be the truer of these things, it makes nothing
against the truth of the letter of king Ladislaus, asking for the relics
of St. Bartholomew; since the letter was merely
inscribed to the archbishop of Benevento,
whether that were Donatus or any other whatsoever,
as may be seen in Vipera, page 142,
and Ughelli, col. 159. But Dini objects against Ladislaus's
letter that the Beneventans would not have denied
the sacred relics to a king asking courteously;
Among whom, he says, there flourished a mindful fear that, when Ladislaus
was interdicted with a detestable anathema, the city had suffered the greatest
inconveniences, as Vipera relates (page 141, saying that this happened in the year 1409.)
Since the members, he says a little before, of this Apostle
are found spread about everywhere, and even sent to private
men. But I find relics of St. Bartholomew indeed sent to various persons
before the translation made in the year
1337; not so after that time.
Lastly, the letter is rendered suspect to Dini because
and Carlo Malatesta, which seems to him the less
likely, because Ladislaus a little before had chosen the marquis
of Este, as he says, to assail the Romagna, … in which province
Carlo and Andrea Malatesta, lords of Rimini,
held sway. But he does not prove that there was war between Malatesta
and Ladislaus; and perhaps by this
favor the latter wished to draw the former over to his own side.
I do not see therefore why the letter cannot be admitted as true,
although this monument of the 15th century
is more effectual for showing how greatly princely
men held St. Bartholomew in honor,
than for proving the Beneventan tradition:
yet this too, resting upon more ancient monuments,
is hence also in some measure confirmed.
[209] Arguments drawn from the recent visitation of the body, Lastly the Beneventans prove that the sacred body
of Bartholomew rests in their city from those things
which we have narrated as done there in the past century.
First, from this, that when the temple fell the bronze chest containing the sacred
body was found entire.
From the plates found in the chest, indicating that it is
the body of St. Bartholomew; from the light seen to flash from the sacred
bones, and from the miracle wrought at the translation,
as we have related; from the fish-bones and pebbles
found with the sacred bones; whence they gather
that these are the same bones which were scattered at Lipari and afterwards
gathered. Lastly, from the judgment of the whole provincial
synod, which judged that the body kept at Benevento
is the body of St. Bartholomew, the proofs and
signs which we have related being seen, and honored it as such.
What the defender of the Roman tradition answers to these
is of no great moment. First:
These, he says, great men do not afford credit to ancient facts.
Yet the most weighty judgment of these men
is greatly to be esteemed. Then he brings in the suspicion
that the plates were feigned by someone of old,
after the body had been translated to Rome,
the hide perhaps being left at Benevento. But the antiquaries judged
one of them to be far more ancient
than seven hundred years.
[210] Thirdly he contends that that huge number of bones
cannot fit the one body of the Apostle: from which Dini in vain strives to detract credit.
And it has bred wonder, he says, that thou
hast offered to us far off almost huge heaps
of bones, contained in a little chest of one palm, as is said,
and described in such magnificent words.
What is objected about the little chest of one palm
must be explained from the bull of the most eminent Orsini,
in which the size of that little chest is thus described:
But the aforesaid little chest was of the height of one palm
and one inch: of the length likewise of one palm
and three inches and a half: but of the breadth
of ten inches. That all the bones which are described in the bull
were in it, Dini ought rather to have believed
men most worthy of credit, than, by exaggerating the smallness of the little chest
and the size of the bones,
to call a matter into suspicion as if incredible.
I know not whether the aforementioned dissertator sufficiently weighed
how little credit he deserves among prudent men
who carps at everything and detracts credit from all.
What therefore he further brings forward, to bring in
doubt about the relics found in the chest, I do not mention:
for the things which were done by the most holy prelate
Orsini and the bishops gathered in a provincial synod
will be made doubtful by no cavils
among prudent appraisers of matters.
[211] Thus far I have striven faithfully to set forth the arguments
on which the tradition of the Beneventans about the body of St.
Bartholomew chiefly rests, To the arguments related above we subjoin a testimony and to remove what seemed
not rightly objected to them:
but I would have the reader understand that not all the answers of Francesco
Dini have been produced by me, but only those
which either had some difficulty, or at least
could seem to contain a difficulty; whoever desires the rest
may consult him. Now a few things,
offered to me unsought while I was engaged in searching out
the Saint's Acts, I have thought should be added to these.
In the Manuscript Library of Labbe, tom. 1,
certain fragments of Bernard Gui are recounted,
among which on page 638 I find this to our purpose:
Lord Aubert rests in the church
or monastery of Benevento, where there are canons
regular, at whose tomb many suffering from fever
are often cured. He, when he was a master
at Paris and a canon of Limoges,
at length desiring to be free for God alone, with the leave
and assent of the chapter of Limoges, in a certain farm
of the parish of Salagnac, by name Segundelas,
built a church in honor of St. Mary Magdalene:
but afterwards he was translated by Jordan, bishop of Limoges,
to a farm which was called Segundeletas:
to which place, the relics of B. Bartholomew being translated
from Benevento, a city of Italy,
whither at that time the body of the blessed Apostle
had been brought from the island of Lipari, the lord Apostolus
(this seems a fault, and should be read bishop,
or Aubert) founded a church in his honor,
and ordered the place thenceforth to be called Benevento …
Now certain great men of the land brought those relics,
who had visited the thresholds of the holy Apostle,
and by a divine course on the same day, and at the very hour
at which the bishop was preaching,
offered them to the bishop. Therefore he said, Let this place
… be called Benevento.
[212] Tom. 2 of Gallia Christiana, col. 619, it is thus
written about the abbey of Benevento: from the History of the monastery built in the year 1028, Benevento, sacred
to holy Bartholomew, of the order of St. Augustine,
is begun in the year MXXVIII in the place of Secondelas,
two leagues from the city of Limoges, at the charges
of Robert, canon of Limoges. At that time Jordan presided
over the church of Limoges, as may be seen
in the author cited, col. 515, by whom
Aubert is said above to have been translated to the second place;
so that all things sufficiently agree, except that
the ancient name of the place is called by Bernard Gui
Segundeletas, but by the author of Gallia Christiana
Secondelas, which difference cannot stand against the truth
of the matter itself. From these things therefore we have
that these relics were sent from Benevento about the year
1028, and that at that time the body of St. Bartholomew
was there. Some scruple indeed there can be
here, because it is said: Whither at that time the body
of the blessed Apostle had been brought from Lipari; but both the age
of bishop Jordan and the building of the church sufficiently
show that this was said improperly, for
Where the body then was, brought before from Lipari.
For the rest, whether this History can help the cause of the Beneventans
little or much for asserting to them
the body of Bartholomew after the year one thousand,
I leave to the readers' judgment, content
to have related the matter itself.
[213] and an argument from the letter of Clement IV, Edmond Martène, tom. 2 of the Thesaurus anecdotorum,
col. 306, recites a letter of Clement
IV, written, as he notes, in the year 1266 to Charles
of Anjou, king of Sicily, by which he rebukes him
for the excesses committed by his army
in the city of Benevento, and among other things
writes this: For since, without doubt by the aid
of blessed Bartholomew, who is the patron of that same city
(of Benevento), thou hadst incredibly triumphed over his and thy enemies
(Manfred, whom near Benevento in the same
year he had conquered):
his church surely ought to have been adorned with royal gifts.
First, Bartholomew alone is called the patron
of Benevento; to his favor alone is ascribed
the victory; his church the Pontiff says should have been
adorned; which why the Pontiff should have said can scarcely
be understood, unless he judged that the body of St. Bartholomew
rested there.
[214] likewise a testimony from the testament of Louis of Anjou; The same author, tom. 1 of the cited Work, from col.
1594, published the testament of Louis of Anjou,
likewise king of Sicily, made, as he notes, in the year 1383:
in which, in the French tongue, these things are read,
Col. [ ]: In like manner we will that an anniversary be founded
and Masses for the dead, as above,
at Benevento in the church where rests the blessed
body … of holy Bartholomew. To these I add no more.
Yet for the reader's convenience, that he may the better understand
on what testimonies the Beneventan tradition rests,
I here briefly exhibit them all in order of time.
[215] all the arguments exhibited summarily. In the year 1028 the monastery of Benevento was
founded and dedicated to St. Bartholomew, his relics
being received from Benevento. In the year 1053 the bull
of Leo IX, asserting the body to Benevento. In the year 1057
the bull of Stephen IX confirming it. About the end of the same
century the testimony of Leo of Ostia. At almost the same
time wrote Eadmer the Englishman, adduced above
also. Five monuments therefore
in the eleventh century confirm the Beneventan tradition.
In the twelfth century I find two monuments,
namely the pilgrimage of abbot Suger
to Benevento to St. Bartholomew in the year 1122,
as the Dissertation of Orsini has it; and the gifts offered by the empress
Florida to that same Saint at Benevento in the year
1137. In the thirteenth century Clement IV probably favors it
in the year 1266: Romano Capoferro, archbishop
of Benevento, altogether supports it
in the year 1273; likewise Jacobus, bishop of Genoa,
favors it in 1298, especially since he relates the apparition
narrated by us in chapter 2, §3, num. 64.
In the XIV century Benedict XII in the year 1337; in the same year
Arnald the archbishop with the bishops of Samnium;
in the year 1346 William the archbishop; in the year
1348 Clement VI confirm the same tradition:
which Urban V likewise favors in the year 1362; and St.
Bridget in the year 1372: the same affirms Louis,
king of Sicily, in the year 1383. In the XV century, in the year 1400
Boniface IX; in the year 1414 king Ladislaus and
archbishop Donatus support the tradition.
St. Antoninus brings forward the more common opinion,
having died in the year 1459: Pius II favors the tradition
in the year 1459: to which they add — whom I, with
many more recent, have passed over — in the year 1474 Angelo
Cato; Roberto Caracciolo of Lecce,
bishop of Aquino, who died in the year 1495;
Zanobi Acciaioli, librarian of the
Vatican, in the year 1515; Mascambruno and Ughelli.
Thou hast, reader, a continuous chain of witnesses
fighting for the Beneventan tradition,
drawn down in an unbroken series from the first century after the disputed
translation to our own times.
Now it must also be faithfully related on what foundations
the tradition of the Romans rests.
Annotationsit seems that non* should be added
i. e. stemmata*
§ IV. Arguments for the Roman tradition, chiefly those which attribute the translation to Otto II.
The arguments of the Romans: Francesco Dini, about to vindicate the body of St. Bartholomew
to the Romans, thus on page 6 sets about
proposing his arguments: That Otto II translated
the sacred body of the Apostle from Benevento, besides
the most ancient monuments, I have three hundred authors,
read indeed with curiosity and faithfully marked;
yet lest this work, to be published by the command of certain
purpled princes, should grow too large, I have here adduced
the more probable ones, some of their words being wholly omitted, or
indicated by a brief epilogue, lest
I should breed nausea in my readers; yet the names of all of whom
I have judged should not be passed over in another
(if the matter so require) more vehement rejoinder,
that I may bring forth more brilliantly into the midst this truth,
most plain to the writers of the whole world,
vindicated from the abusive evasions of my adversaries. Magnificent
words indeed, if deeds correspond to sayings.
But lest the less learned reader, and one wont to attend
more to words than to solid reasons,
be led into deception by this author's perpetual
boasting, I have judged it necessary now and then modestly
to blunt that Thrasonic vanity.
Which yet ought not to hinder the Romans' cause:
for that can stand propped upon solid
foundations, even if its defender has striven to exaggerate
it too much.
[217] The first, he says in the same place, foundation of this matter
is the unshaken tradition of the Romans, a tradition common to both parties, approved
by the Church in the Martyrologies and Breviaries,
confirmed by the authors of all centuries, most amply to be cited,
and verified to the eye by the signs of the matter.
This foundation is common to both parties;
let us hear by what reasons and authorities it is confirmed.
[218] And I., he says, there is adduced the testimony
of Otto, bishop of Freising, and, writing from among the Germans,
one who was among the living before the XI century was ended.
Otto did not write in the eleventh century, the testimony of Otto of Freising, as the words
may be understood, yet he could have been among the living
toward the end of that century. But Otto's words,
book 6 of the Chronicle, chapter 25, are these: The Romans hand down
of him (Otto II) that, Benevento being taken,
he carried off thence the bones of blessed Bartholomew the apostle,
and placed them at Rome in the Lycaonian island, in a tomb
of porphyry, and thought to carry them away into his own land
through the Tiber and the sea in the aforesaid sarcophagus:
but, he being in a short time taken from life,
the precious treasure remained there. Otto's
credit he commends on page 7 in these words: Otto,
most praised for integrity, as Trithemius witnesses, related
the tradition of the Romans from those who were able to receive it
from contemporaries. The Beneventans answer this authority with many
things, of which I shall relate those
which seem more solid. Orsini in his Dissertation,
art. 2, thus speaks: I answer, first,
that Otto of Freising does not assert the translation of St. Bartholomew
as certain; but as obscure,
and vaunted by a doubtful tradition of the Romans.
This is plain from this, that he says, The Romans hand down;
and that he did not write of that expedition of Otto against
the Beneventans, but only lightly touched it on this
occasion. To which, however, it may be replied
that many other deeds of Otto II were passed over by this
author, of whom he related only very few.
[219] which the Beneventans charge with error, Besides, they charge this relation of Otto with error
(if however it is to be called Otto's, since he only
relates what the Romans then said, in which
I do not think he was himself deceived), and they thus reason:
There is an error in the event, since he says that Otto
II, Benevento being taken, carried off thence the bones of B. Bartholomew,
which is most false; for Otto
II never brought arms against Benevento. They prove this
first by an argument indeed negative,
but in this place sufficiently effectual: namely from the silence
of Hermann Contractus, who wrote in the year MLIV; …
of Lambert of Hersfeld, who carried down the History of German affairs
to the year MLXXVII, in which he was living; of Marianus Scotus,
who published his Chronicle down to the year MLXXXIII,
three years before his own death: all of whom, most accurately describing
the affairs of Otto II from the beginning of his reign
down to his last day, left no memory of a Beneventan war
or of an Apostolic translation.
Nay … Lupus Protospatharius, who published a most accurate
Chronicle of the deeds done in the kingdom of Naples
from the year DCCCLX to the year MCXI,
in which he himself flourished, where most diligently
and of set purpose he narrates the irruptions of foreign nations
into the kingdom of Naples, the battles, the disasters inflicted
and received: yet has absolutely nothing about that expedition of Otto
II against the Beneventans, or the city overthrown
and burned. What is here said
about the city overthrown and burned him of Freising does not have,
but Blondus, relating the same
history, to be cited afterwards; as also what about
the flight of the Beneventans the author will presently refute,
thus going on: Nor Sigebert, who at the year
CMLXXX relates that Otto II was routed in a naval battle, and
delivered partly by swimming, partly by a boat coming to his aid:
he hints indeed that the Romans on this occasion
turned their backs: but that the Beneventans either
came in for a share of the cowardice, or were on that account taken
and destroyed by the emperor, he does not signify even by a word.
Nay, even Baronius himself records nothing of this kind
about Otto II in the Annals.
[220] Nor does Pagi, wont to supply what Baronius omits,
nor the authors cited by him at the year
983, although they relate Otto's unhappy battle in Calabria,
and they weaken it by various reasons; have anything about all these matters.
But authors so near in time to the deed,
if it was done, do not seem likely to have been ignorant
of that Beneventan expedition, nor, if
they had known it, likely to have omitted it. And so it seems
we must judge that him of Freising knew absolutely nothing
about this expedition against the Beneventans and the translation of the relics,
except what certain Romans vaunted
about these things from uncertain report; and that for that cause he wrote,
The Romans hand down; and not, He translated the bones,
he took Benevento; which not even he himself seems to have believed,
although he wrote that it was believed at Rome by some.
But this inference I have preferred to draw from the argument proposed,
rather than to believe of Otto of Freising what the Beneventans say,
That he peddled that expedition against the Beneventans,
that he might overlay with some show of truth his fable
about the translated relics of Bartholomew.
We shall bring forward more difficulties against Otto's relation
when we have set forth the mind of those
whom the Romans bring forward as reserves to him of Freising.
[221] Thus therefore Francesco Dini goes on, page 7:
the testimony of Godfrey of Viterbo, Of which (tradition of the Romans) then
Godfrey of Viterbo is a witness; whose words he cites
from book 5 of the Chronicle, chapter 25: The Romans hand down
that this Otto II, Benevento being taken,
carried off the bones of St. Bartholomew: and he commends
his authority in these words: He was of the sacred
registries to Conrad III and Frederick the first, and in
a peregrination of L years sifted all the libraries.
For which he cites Vossius, book 2, chapter 54,
who attributes 40 years to his peregrination, not
50. I shall add what him of Viterbo further has to our
purpose. In part 17 of the Chronicle, in Otto
II, where also the preceding matter must be sought; thus after the cited
words he goes on: And that he placed them at Rome in the island of the Tiber,
which is called Lycaonia, in the church which
is now called St. Bartholomew's, in a basin of porphyry,
and afterwards had thought to lead those same
relics with that same sarcophagus, through the Tiber
into the sea, and through the sea into his own Francia:
but, he being forestalled by death, the relics
so remained at Rome.
[222] There is added, says Dini, Martin the Pole,
archbishop, of Martin the Pole, and of others, whose words are these at
the year 979, in Otto II: At length, gathering an army,
he besieged Benevento: which being taken, he brought thence the bones
of blessed Bartholomew (as is said).
The rest which follows agrees with the relation of the preceding.
Nor does the dissertator pass over even this man unpraised,
for he cites Oudin
in the Supplement on ecclesiastical writers, and brings him in speaking in these
words: That the codex of Martin,
which is worn by the hands of the lettered, deserves undoubted
credit &c. I am deceived, if the reader will find even a shadow
of these words in the aforementioned Work of Oudin:
nay, he acknowledges on page 550 that Martin's Chronicle
swarms with fables, but such as, it is now established,
were foisted in by heretics, says he, then Catholic,
but afterwards turned apostate. And so
hear Bellarmine also, On Writers, at the year
1250: Martin was, he says, a simple man, and
obtrudes little tales for histories. So much about Martin
the Pole, who yet does not follow from what has been said to have erred
in this history. For many more recent writers also
assent to this relation, as the Beneventans confess in these words: From these
drew, in the XIV and
XV century, Flavio Biondo, Pietro de' Natali, Giacomo
Filippo of Bergamo, Giovanni Battista
Egnazio, Carlo Sigonio, Johann Nauclerus,
and a good many other more recent writers. Hear Blondus,
cited by them: When the Romans and Beneventans,
fleeing from the line of battle, had not only declined
the fight but had deserted their standards, and because,
being destitute of the safeguard of his troops, he dared not
take vengeance upon the Romans as deserters of the standards,
he exercised his anger upon the Beneventans, and, attacking the Beneventans
unprepared and fearing nothing of the sort, he took the city,
despoiled it, burned it, and on that occasion
they report that the relics of B. Bartholomew the apostle, carried off,
were placed at Rome in the island first called Jove's,
and afterwards Lycaonia: that Otto,
Benevento being destroyed, returned to the city of Rome,
and there died, and was buried in the basilica of Peter the apostle,
Ptolemy and William are the authorities.
The words of the rest, who relate the matter as done in the manner
just said, I do not recount; for the Beneventans confess
that their number is huge.
[223] the Beneventans answer as to the number of authors, These therefore answer from Baronius at the year
1125, num. 12: We are not wont to estimate the truth of a history
by the number of historians: but
by how great credit the first teller of any assertion possesses:
for that the rest follow the first author,
and cling to his footsteps, we find set in custom
by very frequent usage. Then they contend that
more credit is to be given to him of Ostia than to him of Freising; because the former
is more ancient and nearer to the deed: but that they call
the credit of him of Freising slight, I think will not be approved
by all.
[224] and they set against it Leo of Ostia, more ancient than the rest, Then they strive to overturn the narration of him of Freising
by the contrary relation of Leo of Ostia,
book 2, chapter 9, who writes this: In the year of the Lord
nine hundred and eighty-three (Otto II), again
gathering a great army, went down into Calabria to fight
with the Saracens: but, by divine permission being overcome
by them, he himself with not many could scarcely
escape. In which battle also prince Landulf
(of Benevento and Capua, as Vipera has it, page 74), son of prince
Pandulf, with his brother Atenulf, and many
others, died. But the emperor, returning to Capua,
confirmed the principate to Aloara, widow of prince Pandulf,
and to her son Landenulf.
But he himself, for the regathering of his soldiery and the restoring
of the contest, returning to Rome, at that same time died
. From these things they thus reason in the Dissertation
often praised, art. 2, page 13: He of Ostia,
the most ancient among the writers who are adduced,
must be reckoned the more truthful and the more excellent; but
he pronounces not even a word (as neither do many
others cited above) about Benevento taken, despoiled,
burned. And so it must be reckoned in the place of a fable,
what Otto of Freising and his fellows said only out of their own
brain. I would rather say, What
they drew from the uncertain report of the Romans.
[225] from whom they take certain arguments; Then he thus goes on: Nay, from those words
of Cardinal Leo of Ostia three arguments are sought against fabulists
of that kind. First, because, Otto's
army being so routed that he himself with some few could scarcely
escape, fleeing by swimming …
he could not thereafter have those forces wherewith to storm Benevento,
then a most fortified city. To this it can somehow be answered
that he attacked them unprepared, after he had repaired his army.
Secondly, they say, because it is incredible
that Otto repaid the Beneventans with sword and flames
for the slaying of Landulf their prince.
Thirdly, because, confirming the Beneventan principate
to the widow Aloara and to her son Landenulf,
Otto showed a mind grateful rather than hostile toward the Beneventans.
Lastly, that the Beneventans did not withdraw themselves
from the line of battle, as others write,
they thus try to prove from the slaying of Landulf their prince
and of his brother: For that the Beneventans followed
the standards of their own princes is beyond doubt: whence it comes
that without them they could not desert the battle;
but the princes fell fighting strenuously:
therefore it is not true that the Beneventans failed.
Thus they conclude probably enough; yet if anyone should think
the relation which they assail sufficiently established from elsewhere,
these things will be overturned with easy work,
if he should say that not rarely princes, deserted by their own
soldiers, have fallen in the line of battle, and that this
seems to have happened here; whence also Otto showed himself most equitable
toward the prince's wife and son, but offended
with the Beneventans. These things, I say, could be said,
if the narration of him of Freising and of his followers
stood upon sure credit: but not a few
difficulties in their relation, besides what has already been said,
occur to me, which I have judged should be candidly proposed
to the reader who is a lover of truth.
[226] For first, this siege of Benevento is written to have been made
after the disaster received in Calabria at once from the Greeks
and the Saracens. other difficulties against the narration of him of Freising But at that time
the emperor ought rather to have fortified himself against the enemy
than to avenge himself on friends who had done their duty ill,
which, the enemy being repressed, could more conveniently have been done
afterwards; those therefore seem to us to describe
an imprudent emperor who write that at that time he attacked
Benevento. Next, the city of Benevento being laid waste,
he is said to have carried the body of St. Bartholomew to Rome:
but they will have it that the Romans were in the same
fault with the Beneventans: the Romans therefore do not
seem likely to have admitted into the city an emperor
whom they had heard raging against the Beneventans, nor could they expect
better things from him, being partakers of the same fault. Thirdly,
they narrate that the sacred body was translated to Rome with this
intention, that it might be borne through the Tiber and the sea into Germany;
nor do they consider how inconvenient
exposed. Must not Gaul and Spain
have been sailed round? Must not the Strait
of Hercules have been passed? Must not the mouths of the Rhine then have been entered,
and the sacred burden carried upstream from Holland into Germany?
But how many perils in that journey,
the Saracens holding sway in Spain and Africa? How immense
the labor in going up against the stream? Lastly,
how many things in this whole journey not to be believed?
But if the emperor altogether desired to carry this sacred
treasure into Germany, he could have done it far more safely
and conveniently by a land journey.
But I should think that, after so great an ignominy and disaster
received from the enemy, the emperor at that time was intent
rather upon counsels of war
than thinking by what means he might carry the sacred pledges of the Saints
into Germany. These things therefore seem to me
neither likely nor sufficiently fittingly devised.
[227] There remains also another difficulty, which appears
to me of such a kind difficulties proposed. that we cannot prudently adjudge the translation
of the sacred body to Rome to Otto II.
The body, as they assert, was laid up in
the church of St. Adalbert, which afterwards in the course of time
began to be called St. Bartholomew's. But St. Adalbert,
surviving long after this year,
could not have a temple at Rome in which the body of St.
Bartholomew might be laid up. It does not therefore seem to have been
translated by Otto II, nor placed at Rome
in the Lycaonian island in a tomb of porphyry,
as him of Freising narrates, and the authors who followed him.
I think Baronius saw this difficulty,
and chiefly for that cause changed his former
opinion, tom. 10 of the Annals, at the year
of Christ 1000, num. 8, where he says that those are refuted
of manifest error who attribute the translation to Otto II,
and contends by various arguments that it must be attributed to Otto III,
which we shall relate in their place.
Francesco Dini indeed brings forward something on another
occasion which could also be taken for solving this difficulty:
namely that the translation was made
by Otto II, but the laying up in the said
church by Otto III: but he will not be able to bring forward one out of the three hundred
authors whom he boasts
who asserted this, unless perhaps more recent writers who
have tried to remove this difficulty. Nay, on the contrary,
the authors cited — him of Freising, him of Viterbo, the Pole,
and others — affirm in express words that the body
remained in that place where it had been placed by Otto II.
From what has been said I gather that the translation, if
it was made, is to be adjudged rather to Otto III with Baronius
than to Otto II. For which opinion
what arguments, and of what sort, fight, must now be related.
§ V. Arguments of the same tradition, which for the most part attribute the translation to Otto III; with certain added which attribute it to Otto II.
The inscription of the Tiber church For the translation made by Otto III there is brought forward,
first, the inscription of the Tiber church, where
the sacred body is said to rest, set up in the time
of Pope Paschal II, in the year of the Lord's incarnation
MCXIII, in the seventh Indiction, in the month of April,
on the fourth day. But that the inscription was made
by the Pontiff himself, Baronius says at the year
1000, num. 8, in these words: He who restored that same
church, Paschal II, after a hundred and thirteen
years, took care that these verses should be inscribed on the lintel of the greater gate
of that same church, which today
also are thus read:
Otto the third of those pious kings translated
the bodies, wherewith this house, thus enwreathed, flourishes.
If thou seekest to know what pledges this house bears:
believe them to be the bodies of Paulinus and of Bartholomew.
To these Francesco Dini, not sufficiently mindful that he
had before, propped by three hundred authors, attributed the translation
to Otto II, page 9: There is laid open, he says,
antiquity and the truth of the matter, both by the setting down of a fixed day
and month, and by the style of the verses, utterly
barbarous; and credit is increased, because the two last
verses were set down on marble sufficiently ancient in Lombard
letters on the lintel of that same church,
and still remain, the more ancient inscription,
the porch being renewed, and that same church often, having been
carelessly lost.
[229] assailed by Orsini with many reasons, Many things against the antiquity of this inscription
the Beneventans object, which I shall here relate in their own words.
The most eminent Orsini says, art.
3: I answer that the aforementioned restoration is fictitious,
as is also the inscription which is read …
This is proved by the silence of all, as many as have written,
both of the more ancient and of the more recent historians:
for if the matter had so stood,
neither would the emperor Frederick have been silent about it in his letters (if however,
as Baronius supposes, they are true) in the year MCLXVII. Nor would Godfrey of Viterbo, nor
Martin the Pole, later than the alleged restoration,
nor Egnazio, nor Platina, nor Sigonio,
nor Nauclerus, nor other more recent writers, have asserted the translation
made by Otto II, nor would Baronius
himself, in the notes to the Martyrology on the day XXV of August
(if he had then judged these things true) have fallen into so
splendid a contradiction, (that is, he would not have attributed
the translation to Otto II, which afterwards he tacitly
retracts.) Besides, if by the judgment of Paschal II
in the year MCXIII a decree had been made about the body of St. Bartholomew:
why did abbot Suger of St. Denis
in the year MCXXII, that is, nine years afterwards, leaving Rome,
hasten to Benevento to honor the Apostle's
relics? Why did the diplomas of so many following Pontiffs
… confirm that the Apostle's body rests at Benevento?
For shall we blurt out rather that they were ignorant
of the decree of Paschal II, and of that public inscription? God forbid. Nevertheless,
it is established that those who have pursued the affairs of Paschal II
employed every diligence as regards the consecrations of churches,
restorations, and the findings and translations of relics;
as may be seen in Platina
and Ciacconio; but neither did they write anything
about this restoration. Oldoino lately related it
in his Additions to Ciacconio: but whence
or from what monument he dug it out, he did not inform us. He then argues
that the Indiction in that year was the sixth, whereas the seventh is
written.
[230] No one, as I think, will deny that the things proposed
against that inscription, and liable to other difficulties; insofar as the body of St. Bartholomew
is said to be kept there,
are arguments not to be despised; although they are only
negative, so far as they assail the restoration of the church made by Paschal,
and to that extent less
strong. But what, besides what has already been said, makes the credit
of that inscription less certain, I shall disclose to the learned
reader. These verses seem to me
not to have been set there at one and the same time: for I do not
perceive why to the first hexameter they should have subjoined
hexameter, if these had been alike
carved upon the lintel. Add
that the first two little verses make a complete sense, as also the two
last. Which seems to be confirmed by this, that
Francesco Dini relates that the last two little verses
remained, the rest being removed. If therefore there is room for
conjecture, the first verses, which have nothing
contrary to the Beneventan tradition,
could have been set up in the time of Paschal II, but the later ones
added afterwards. However that be, this seems to me manifest
enough, that the inscription was not set up
by the Pontiff himself, since this would not have been
passed over in the inscription itself, and the year of his
Pontificate would have been added. I shall subjoin below another
argument also, which seems to me to contain against all
the foundations of the Romans no light
difficulty. But other arguments of the Roman tradition
must first be related.
[231] Francesco Dini subjoins to this inscription
certain very ancient verses, certain ancient verses, Which, he says
on page 9, before the restoration of the church and of the chapel of that same
Apostle, were read in the chapel of St.
Bartholomew, and which I found copied out in a certain writing
of a character of nearly two centuries,
in which these things about St. Bartholomew:
India flays Bartholomew, the island holds him.
That these verses were written in the year 1180 seems
to be sufficiently proved from the first, if all things have been faithfully cited
by Dini; but the verses themselves hang together among themselves
almost like a sick man's dreams, so that they seem
to have been composed by a man utterly unlearned and no less
inept: wherefore these verses make nothing greatly
to the point. I pass on therefore to
the authority of the emperor Frederick the first.
[232] the constitution of the emperor Frederick I, In the year 1167 Frederick I is said to have published a constitution
for settling the doubt of which we are treating.
The whole of this Cardinal Orsini relates in his Dissertation,
but so many things in it
he shows so many errors and historical slips that Francesco
Dini preferred merely to name it
rather than to exhibit it to the readers' eyes; answering, page
114: That Frederick was not a historian nor an annalist,
and asserted nothing of these things except
upon the credit of the great man of Freising. From which answer, and
from the very words of the constitution, the reader easily gathers
that, whether the constitution is to be attributed to Frederick or to be
adjudged away from him, by it nothing is added to the authority
of Otto of Freising, whom it follows: We, he says,
for searching out the truth of this matter, and removing
from the hearts of men all doubtfulness,
have turned over the annals of our predecessors, the catholic
emperors, and in the sixth book of those Annals (namely of Otto of Freising,
whom in book 6, chapter 25, we cited above) we have found
how the emperor Otto II carried the venerable body
of the most holy apostle Bartholomew from Benevento to Rome,
and most gloriously placed it in the Lycaonian island, and in a tomb
of porphyry. And
after a little he narrates the matter as him of Freising narrated it;
whose relation the emperor seems to have wished to follow,
that he might sear the Beneventans with grief;
which the praised Orsini observes in these words: But if
thou seek the cause in Frederick for writing letters of this kind,
a recent hatred against the Beneventans
will occur; for in that same year MCLXVII they had honorably received
Alexander III, Supreme Pontiff,
after the wicked emperor, zealous for the pseudo-pope,
began to contrive every kind of crime against the apostolic
See and its Pontiff,
as the anonymous of Cassino, and Romuald
of Florence in Baronius, num. V at the year
MCLXVII, report.
[233] The synodal Acts of Alexander III hinted at by Baronius, but never produced, Baronius at the year 1000, num. 6, hints
that this controversy was treated of by Alexander
III in a certain council: for after mentioning
the letters of the emperor Frederick, There are added, he says,
to these the synodal Acts under Alexander III, of
which we must speak in their place below. But the most learned man
did not perform what he promised; so
that he seems to have found nothing in these Acts which
pertained to this controversy, or, if he found anything,
not to have approved it. The most eminent Orsini,
art. 6, after he has shown that nothing was produced from these Acts
which belongs here, and that Baronius,
who accurately described the Acts of both councils celebrated by Alexander
III, did not even mention
Bartholomew, thus concludes: Since therefore
he (Baronius) did not bring forward (the synodal Acts)
that plainly demonstrates that they are certainly
still wanting; nor were such things ever devised in those councils.
[234] a certain paper relating the consecration of the church Yet Francesco Dini brings forward, pages 12
and 13, not indeed synodal Acts, but a certain
ancient tablet of the church of St. Bartholomew,
from which, because it was blotted out by age, he says a new
tablet was made, of which he recites certain
records: but, as they appear to me, so
ruinous that I would not write them out here, unless I conjectured
that from them perhaps Baronius thought that this matter
was treated of in the Lateran council under Alexander
III. Thus, further, the first record of that tablet has it
in Dini cited:
In the name of God, Amen.
In the year of the Lord MCLXXIX, in the XII Indiction, in the month of March,
Pope Alexander III celebrated a synod at Rome
in the basilica of the greater church, the Lateran. All
the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors,
and an infinite multitude of clerks, who from divers
parts of the world were gathered in this famous city in the aforesaid
synod, came to the church
of St. Bartholomew, and there, reverently celebrating the office of Mass
over the Apostle's body, solemnly offered sacrifice
to God, and consecrated the said church
of blessed Bartholomew the apostle,
and set there a very great indulgence. But after the preaching
publicly made by him to the people from the pulpit,
he ordered that in the confessio the name of the apostle Bartholomew
should be earnestly named by the great celebrating deacon,
the Cardinal of St. Mary in Portico;
and the supreme Pontiff himself in the absolution honorably named
the name of the aforementioned Apostle,
and after the celebration of the Mass granted a station in each several year
on the feast of St. Paulinus.
[235] Against this record thus Orsini:
How much it (the paper) is to be esteemed, of St. Bartholomew, and containing other less likely matters, let it stand by the judgment of those
who have saluted the sacred rites only from the vestibule;
since it invents that Mass was first celebrated by the Pontiff,
and afterwards the church dedicated. Let the studious reader
observe how many things are here feigned to have been done
at one time: the Pontiff solemnly celebrates, dedicates the church,
grants an indulgence, preaches a sermon, then, the Mass being celebrated,
appoints a station in each several year on the feast of St. Paulinus;
let these things be likely to those who think
they could be done as quickly as they are feigned; to me they are
not likely.
[236] There follows on page 13 this shred, in no way better
than the preceding: certain like shreds unworthy of credit. Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants
of God, confirmed all the indulgences granted
by his predecessors, and also the supreme Pontiff himself
granted a great indulgence to those coming
to the church of St. Bartholomew the apostle,
truly penitent and confessed, because he saw and
kissed the body of SS. Bartholomew the apostle
and Paulinus the confessor. After which another is added
in the name of Celestine III, and yet another of Anacletus
II the antipope, not unlike this; which if anyone rightly
weighs, he will find that they were written by an unskilled
man. These, or like records, I suspect Baronius
saw, but thought them unworthy of credit;
although hence he might have hoped that he would find the synodal
Acts themselves and the diplomas of the Pontiffs.
But if they took such negligent care to preserve the bulls
of their privileges, they do not deserve
that the reader should give credit to such shreds.
The aforesaid Dissertator then subjoins on page 14,
from the same bundle, as he says, these words:
From a manuscript codex of the Lives of the Saints, which is had in
the library of the congregation of the Oratory, the body of St. Paulinus
seems to be joined to St. Bartholomew
in the island, in the church of St. Adalbert, which now
is called St. Bartholomew's, by the merits of which three Saints
very many benefits are there bestowed.
How faithfully these things are cited is not clear to me,
but that they make not much to the point the reader will easily understand.
[237] It is not lawful in this place to dissemble a difficulty
which the Beneventans can set against all the arguments.
Other difficulties against the Roman tradition: Baronius at the year 1000,
num. 5, thus writes: In this same year the emperor Otto,
returning to Rome from Poland, whither for piety's sake
… he had journeyed
to visit the sacred pledges of St. Adalbert
the martyr (crowned with martyrdom in the year 997,
as the same at that year, and Pagi, have it),
brought with him the sacred relics of that same
martyr, for which, that they might be placed there,
he took care that a church should be raised in the Tiber island.
That these sacred pledges were the Hand of the martyr, he relates in the same place
from an appendix to his Life. At num. 6 he says:
But Otto, that he might adorn the church he had begun at Rome
with as many sacred relics of the Saints as he could,
took counsel that he would lead the body
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, resting at Benevento, thence
to Rome. And at num. 8: But it came to pass
that, upon the bringing in of the body of St. Bartholomew into
the church begun under the title of St. Adalbert the martyr,
it passed over into the name and worship of that same
Apostle, and the memory of Adalbert in this way was
little by little blotted out in oblivion. This relation of the most eminent
man, if the thing was done at all, seems to me the best
of all. But it is not without difficulties;
one of which the praised author touches and tries to solve,
num. 9, in this manner:
[238] that the church of St. Bartholomew was built in a lesser form, But if thou ask, he says, why the body of so great an Apostle
was not laid up in some one of the most ample basilicas,
but in a church in no way
to be compared with the patriarchal basilicas: several causes
can be brought forward, either because, as most say,
Otto, being about to carry it into Germany, willed to place it there
only for a time: or because the church which
he began to build, seeking, as thou hast heard,
to ennoble it with as many relics as possible, and
to render it most renowned by the Apostolic pledge, he would,
if he had lived, have built in a far more august form.
By the first of these answers Baronius does not solve the difficulty for himself,
for he himself neither believed nor wrote
that Otto III carried off the sacred bones from Benevento with the intention
of translating them into Germany, but
that he might enrich with them the church of St. Adalbert. Others
indeed wrote this of Otto II, but none
of the ancients, whom I have seen, of Otto III. The second
answer of Baronius seems to me less
probable: for since Otto brought many bodies of Saints,
as Baronius himself narrates, into that church,
the church seems to have been brought to its summit while he was still
alive; nor do I see why he should first have wished to build it
in a lesser form, but afterwards to build it more august;
unless perhaps Baronius meant certain ornaments
to be added to the church, which it is likely he wished to do,
but this does not dissolve the difficulty
about the lesser form of the church.
[239] and that it was at first dedicated to St. Adalbert, not to Bartholomew. But another difficulty remains here. For in the year
one thousand the church of St. Adalbert is said to have been begun,
in the same year the venerable body of St. Bartholomew
to have been translated and placed in the said church.
Now I do not understand why Otto should have willed
the body of St. Bartholomew to be brought there, and meanwhile should have willed
the church to be built for one, and dedicated to another,
whose body he had not brought there, but some part of the body,
namely a hand, or, as others call it,
an arm. Did the emperor then so honor the Apostle
as to carry off his body from the Beneventans
even against their utmost will? And did he again so
despise him as to will that he should lie hid under the shadow of a martyr
for whom he was building a church? If he made so much
of Bartholomew, why did he not order the church to be dedicated in his name?
If so little, why did he not leave
their Patron to the Beneventans? This difficulty
occurs to me in this deed, which I myself
cannot remove from myself, unless I would suspect
that not the body itself, but some relics of St. Bartholomew,
were brought into the church of St. Adalbert,
which afterwards, as fame grew, as happens,
began to be called the body. I know indeed that subtleties of this kind
are not to be greatly esteemed where the historical truth
is sufficiently proved from elsewhere; but
the Beneventans contend that this translation is not sufficiently
proved. Now we must pass to another argument,
which Baronius seems to have greatly esteemed.
[240] This most eminent author at the year cited,
num. 7, wrote the following: The testimony of Robert of Mont, Further, necessity compelled
that after much time those same sacred relics of the Apostle
should be uncovered, which Robert,
who added an Appendix to Sigebert,
… thus relates. Receive the words of Robert of Mont
from the Appendix at the year 1157: About this
time, he says, a not small flood of the Tiber having taken place,
at Rome, in a certain island of that same river,
in an ancient little church, there was found in a certain
sarcophagus the body of blessed Bartholomew the apostle,
wholly entire, except the hide, which remained
at Benevento, when the emperor Otto, that same city being taken,
translated the body of the aforesaid Apostle
to Rome, as the bronze tablets show,
written in Greek and Latin letters, which were found
in the Apostle's body. There was found also
in that same church the body of Paulinus, bishop of Nola.
Thus Robert, not expressing whether to Otto
II or to the third the translation is to be ascribed. Strongly,
as is their wont, and sharply, the Beneventans assail this
relation of Robert, art. 4, whose
reasons I shall reduce to a compendium.
[241] First they deny that this flood of the Tiber ever
took place, the answers of the Beneventans to this, because it is read as written by none.
But Dini replies, page 107, that the flood could
have been lesser than those which
have been written of. Secondly they charge with falsity
what he says, that the whole body was found entire, since
the sacred bones were scattered by the Saracens in the island of Lipari:
But if, they say, thou shouldst prefer to call it entire,
because none of the bones was lacking, neither so
wilt thou extricate thyself from falsity: for there was lacking the arm
which Landulf, archbishop of Benevento,
had given to Bernard, son of Leodunus, count of Penne, in the year CMLXII.
This gift of the arm,
and the translation of other relics into Gaul,
made before this disputed translation to Rome,
we shall prove in its place. Yet Dini subtly tries
to extricate himself here, page 107, explaining
that Wholly entire as: That is, untouched by the flood,
and not scattered, … without any
loss of its former state. But whether the reader, free from partisan zeal,
will so understand Robert's passage, I
vehemently doubt. The remaining rejoinders of Dini,
as often as they seem to me useless,
I shall for brevity's sake pass over. The third, they say,
mark of falsity is that he says the hide remained at Benevento.
Where, I pray thee, Robert, didst thou read about the hide
in the Lipari translation? Thine own Sigebert
noted only bones scattered through the fields.
To the plates which Robert relates were found with the body,
they say: That the Beneventans … set them there
to catch credit from Otto in a pious fraud we do not doubt.
Lastly they convict him
of having written that Paulinus's body also was found.
But Dini contends that this too was translated by Otto III,
although I know of none of the ancients,
except Robert, who has it. So much, in general, from the most eminent
Orsini.
[242] But certain other things also in this relation of Robert
seem to me little likely, other difficulties in that testimony. which I shall in a few words
set forth to the learned reader. This passage I think
must be understood as Baronius above understood it,
so that he means that the relics were unknown, and then
at last uncovered, which is sufficiently clear from these words:
In an ancient little church there was found in a certain sarcophagus
the body of B. Bartholomew. Either therefore the Romans had never
known where the sacred body had been
laid up, or, if they had known it, it had afterwards
slipped from them. But neither is likely or
credible. The first I make manifest in this manner.
The translation is narrated as made from Benevento after the taking
of the city; therefore with a great noise, so that the Romans
could not have been ignorant of it; nor indeed
were they ignorant, if it was made; for from the tradition of the Romans
him of Freising had already written it, and had assigned the place
where the body was said to be laid up:
with what show of truth then would Robert write that the body
first became known to the Romans in the year 1157?
It remains therefore that he meant that the body, consigned
to oblivion, was on this occasion found again.
But who would believe that so great a treasure, received with so great
contention, was so negligently guarded?
I certainly cannot bring my mind to think this. Next, why did him of Viterbo,
why did the emperor Frederick, writing about these
times the things which have already been recited,
bring forward none of these matters? To be done with it in a word,
either this proof of the Romans must be abandoned, or
all those that have already been alleged must be struck out; for neither
do I see how this relation of Robert can rightly be reconciled with the passages
produced from others. So much for
Robert.
[243] The Roman Breviary and Martyrology; There fights also for the Roman tradition
the authority of the Roman Breviary and Martyrology, in
which, as they are read even today, it is said that the sacred
body of Bartholomew was translated to Rome to the Tiber
island; but this does not seem to have been
inserted into the Breviary and Martyrology without a mature
examination by learned men: therefore it does not seem
that we should recede from so great an authority. What
the most eminent Orsini answers to this argument
I shall set forth mostly in his own words, certain things
however being passed over for brevity's sake.
[244] to which Orsini replies that they are not immune from all error, I answer, first, he says, art. 7, that the Roman Breviary
is indeed of the greatest authority in those things
which of themselves pertain to ecclesiastical worship:
yet of lesser weight in private facts or deeds,
which in the Life of the Saints are related incidentally, so that
no effectual argument can thence be sought,
especially where more ancient monuments
are opposed. For neither does the Church
itself, which uses them, judge whatsoever things are inserted in her breviaries
to be of unshaken and infallible truth,
since many times, for various periods,
upon various occasions, she has changed and corrected them;
as he proves in the same place. And then to the Martyrology
he thus replies: I answer that the same judgment must be passed
about the Roman Martyrology as about the Breviary,
since if there be any things in the one which make trouble for the learned,
they are poured over into the other.
That very many of this kind still stand in it,
men most skilled in historical matters agree … Nor
does ecclesiastical use stand in the way, as though the Martyrologies
which the Roman Church uses must be reckoned pure from absolutely all spots,
since their authors always suffer somewhat of the human. All these things
he strives to establish by certain examples, some of which
however are even now controverted among the learned. This is the first
answer of the most eminent man.
[245] and often changed in this history, Besides, I answer, secondly, he says,
that the Roman Breviary is most inconstant in the translation of St. Bartholomew,
and therefore that its authority presses the less,
as clearly appears from its threefold
alteration. I. Because the Roman Breviaries
of the year MCDLVIII, by the authority of Pius II,
*of MCDLXXXII, MDXLV, MDLII, MDLVII, MDLXI,*
MDLXIV relate not even by a shadow that the sacred bones of Bartholomew
were carried off to Rome and replaced in the Tiber island.
2. The Breviary of the year MDLXVIII, approved by the authority of Pius V, turned aside
from the old reading, and the translation was added, in
these words: "His body … at last carried to Rome
by the emperor Otto II, Gregory V
being Supreme Pontiff, was placed in the island of the Tiber
in a church dedicated to God in his name."
… 3. In the newest Breviary
of Clement VIII, published in the year MDCII, what was said about Gregory
V was struck out, and, the name of Otto II
being repudiated, Otto III was substituted as author of the translation …
Hence in so many editions of the Breviary a threefold alteration is observed, in
the thing, in the person, in the epoch: to which then, out of so many,
so various, so recent assertions, swarming with such manifest
faults — namely of epoch and of person — should we rather
incline our mind? And at the end,
to the authority of the Martyrology: I answer,
he says, secondly, that in the Martyrology the translation from Benevento to Rome
was first added in the year MDLXXXIV under Pope Gregory XIII; and therefore
it cannot be adduced against the Beneventans, since in
history one stands by length of time.
[246] Francesco Dini, who calls his dissertation
125, contends that in the modern Breviary nothing is had
contrary to the older one of Pius II, in which to Otto
II the translation is attributed, and in this manner punctuates the words
of the modern Breviary: His body at Albanus
… was buried: which afterwards to the island of Lipari:
thence to Benevento was translated: at last
to Rome: (here he will have a punctuation set,
which nowhere, I think, did he find, nor does the sense
admit) carried by the emperor Otto the third,
in the island of the Tiber, in a church dedicated to God
in his name, it was placed. But those who are not altogether
blind will easily observe that this is a mere
cavil, and that the opinion of Francesco Dini
cannot be reconciled with the modern Breviary: nor did he
himself fail to see this; for straightway he adds these
words: Or the (Breviary) would proceed according to the
not sufficiently digested opinion of Baronius in the Annals;
which on page 126 he calls the first opinion of Baronius:
yet it is established that this is Baronius's opinion
last committed to writing, the former being at least tacitly
retracted; Baronius therefore agrees with the Breviary,
not Dini.
[247] Emmanuel Caetano Sousa, in his recent
Work On the Spanish Expedition of St. James the apostle,
tom. 2, most gravely rebukes those Sousa's arguments for the Roman Breviary, who from
the Breviary's authority recede so much as a finger's breadth,
and calls them peevish critics. Further,
he strives to show the Breviary's authority greatest,
from page 1157, From five causes of the Breviary itself,
namely from the material cause, from the formal cause,
from the final cause, from the efficient cause, and
lastly from the exemplary cause. Let us hear how
he argues from the formal cause of the Breviary. Page
1159: The lesson, he says, of the Breviary, in so far as it is history,
must consist of truth, for otherwise it would be
a fable, not history, whose first law is (as
Cicero witnesses, book 2 On the Orator) that it dare say nothing
false. Therefore the Church in the lessons of the Breviary sets before us
true histories, and does not obtrude feigned
fables. Therefore the Church judges those things to be true
which she has ordered to be placed in the lessons of the Breviary. With what
prudence then, or by what right, could anyone struggle against the judgment
of the Church? Next, the lesson of the Breviary,
as it is a lesson, contains matter to be preached and
to be believed, and which the Church herself orders to be preached and
believed, as I shall presently show. But what Catholic
does not shudder to say that the Church commands
that a lie be preached, orders that
a lie be believed? … From which at last he infers:
Therefore whatsoever has been left in the Breviary
has been retained as true; and accordingly, that any history stands
in the Breviary is a most certain sign
that it has been judged true by the Church.
[248] which he himself elsewhere destroys, If this conclusion has been lawfully drawn,
the most eminent Orsini is deservedly to be rebuked,
who did not acquiesce in the Breviary in this controversy.
But in a few words at least the most praised man must be vindicated
from imprudence, and undeservedly is he to be numbered among peevish
critics: nor will this be difficult,
since Sousa himself affords sufficient matter for it,
namely building with one hand, and with the other
destroying what he has built. Let the learned man say, I beseech him,
if he thinks these things truly said of the Breviary corrected
by the command of Urban VIII, whether the same are not to be said
of the earlier Roman Breviary? The lesson of the Breviary
contains matter to be preached and to be believed:
But what Catholic does not shudder
to say that the Church commands that a lie be preached,
orders that a lie be believed? If these things,
I say, he thinks true of the modern Breviary, why
he should not think the same true of the Breviary in use two hundred
years ago, I do not understand; for neither
at this time does the Church propose the things inserted in the Breviary
more as to be believed than she proposed them two hundred
years ago. How then did the praised author
not shudder all over, when about the Roman Breviary in use about two hundred
years ago he wrote the following on page
1174 from Giuseppe Silos: But that Breviary which
was then in use at Rome was full of all manner of errors and faults.
The homilies of authors of memory condemned
by the Church: uncertain histories of no credit everywhere, in that
Breviary, namely, were read. I pass over the rest, which,
exaggerating the corruptions of that Breviary, the aforementioned
author wrote, being too vehement on either
side. This, however, I observe, that all his arguments,
which have been drawn from the final, formal, material,
exemplary, and even the efficient cause,
are here destroyed by him: since all can be fitted
to the older Breviary no less than to the modern,
if they are true. For an example take what
he writes on page 1162, the argument being drawn from the final cause,
in this manner: God is not honored by lies, but
offended: therefore the book by which God is honored lacks
all lying: but God is honored, not offended, by the breviary of Urban (add
and by the older ones too);
therefore in the breviary of Urban (why not in the older ones too?)
all things are true, and no lie
is found.
[249] do not prove it immune from all error, These arguments therefore, and the others of Emmanuel
Sousa, which it would be long and superfluous
to bring forward in full — since they have already been refuted, after
I had written these things, by a most learned Spanish author,
Diego del Corro, in the Theologico-critical Dissertation
which he published at Seville in the year 1739
on the value of the argument sought from the Roman Breviary —
these arguments, I say, do not prove that the modern
Breviary is so immune from all error
that in it no slight mistake, or some history
less probable, can be found:
for certain things could have been inserted when they seemed
more probable, which, other monuments being afterwards dug out,
have been found less probable: as
the learned commonly acknowledge even today, and Baronius
also acknowledged. Which I think is enough to vindicate the opinion
of the most eminent Orsini from rashness.
Nor will it hence follow that credit can be taken away
from all the histories of the Breviary, as Sousa contends on page 1166.
For who would take away credit from all the writings of St. Augustine,
because he acknowledges some one, or
even several, historical mistakes in that greatest doctor? But,
this author being left aside, how much the authority of the Roman Breviary
is worth in facts of this kind
the most eminent Cardinal Prospero Lambertini learnedly sets forth and proves
in his most learned Work On the Beatification and Canonization
of the servants of God, tom. 4, part 2, chapter 13, num. 5,
where, avoiding the extreme on either side, he thus speaks: But
inasmuch as one must go forward by the middle way, which is safer,
it seems indeed that it can be asserted with a sure foot
that no small weight of authority accrues to historical facts
which have been related and
approved in the Roman Breviary … Yet in such wise
that it cannot be reckoned forbidden, with due modesty
and not without a grave foundation, to set forth the difficulties which occur
in historical facts,
and to submit them to the judgment of the apostolic See,
that it may weigh their subsistence on the hypothesis
that a hand be again applied to the correction of the Roman
Breviary. Which he then shows by many examples.
[250] Besides the arguments already mentioned, Francesco Dini
brings forward the opinions of more recent authors: the bull of Sixtus V asserting the Body to the Romans,
but these I have judged should be passed over by me, since
their authority is to be esteemed as much as the reasons
which they allege; but they allege nothing beyond
what has already been said that is of any weight. One
authority therefore I shall here add, that of Sixtus V, Supreme
Pontiff, about whom on page 20 the aforementioned author
gives this: But very much for verifying
the things we have said conduces the bull of Sixtus V, communicated to me
by the Fathers of the island. He recites the bull, as
follows: Sixtus PP. V. For a perpetual memorial of the matter.
Whereas our beloved son Antonio, cardinal presbyter of the H. R. Ch.
of the title of St. Bartholomew in the island,
called of Santa Severina, has newly built the high altar
in the church of that same title of St. Bartholomew,
which in past years had fallen and been broken
together with a part of the church by a great flood of the Tiber,
after the restoration of that same church,
and has adorned it, built in a more seemly form,
and has in mind to consecrate it on the next Lord's day,
which will be the XVIII of this month, with the solemn
custom and rite of the said H. R. Ch.,
and to replace in it the bodies and relics of that same St. Bartholomew
the apostle, and of other Saints &c. There follow then the indulgences
granted by the Pontiff to those visiting the said church;
and the bull is set down as given, On the XV day of August MDLXXXV,
in the first year of our Pontificate. Dini adds:
But this bull, published of his own motion and with certain
knowledge of the matter, most plain with so many eulogies, is a huge
testimony of this truth. But I find nothing in the bull
about the Pontiff's own motion and certain knowledge.
For the rest, how great the authenticity of this bull is,
and how faithfully it has been recited, is not clear
to me.
[251] The author often already mentioned subjoins to this bull,
from the same book, as he says, certain records of the Cardinal of Santa Severina: of the archive of the Fathers of St.
Bartholomew, a certain transcript from the Diary
of Santorio, Cardinal of Santa Severina, and another Memorial
of the same, in which the relics replaced beneath the high altar
by that same Cardinal are read. But
in the transcript of the Diary these things are added: On account of
which I so labored and sweated that, from the heavy weight
of the bier, the flesh of my left side remained wounded,
the pain of which through the whole course of my life was borne by me,
a medicament being applied, and an iron plaster.
Which words make that writing suspect to me;
for neither is it credible that from a heavy weight
the flesh of the side was wounded, or could not
be healed, if it had been hurt. Next, in the same writing
these words are read: The bodies of St. Bartholomew
the apostle, of the holy martyrs Adalbert &c. But it is certain
that the body of St. Adalbert is not there entire. These writings of the Cardinal
therefore I have thought should be omitted, which
will perhaps render even the bull of Sixtus itself, drawn from the same store,
less certain among prudent men.
[252] all the monuments given in compendium: These are the chief arguments on which the tradition
of the Roman citizens rests, of which
I could find none that is not later by a whole century and
more than this doubtful translation. Receive
them all briefly. In the twelfth century the first witness cited
for the Roman tradition is Otto of Freising,
whom in the same century Godfrey of Viterbo supports.
The Romans add, in the year 1113, the Tiber
inscription; the constitution of the emperor Frederick
in the year 1167; the synodal Acts of Alexander III
in the year 1179; but these instruments the Beneventans
most keenly attack. In the XIII century for
the Romans testify Robert of Mont and Martin
the Pole. In later centuries very many authors are added,
among whom Flavio Biondo, Giacomo
Filippo of Bergamo, Giovanni Battista
Egnazio, Carlo Sigonio, Johann Nauclerus,
and the most eminent Baronius with the Roman Breviary
and Martyrology, and also the bull of Sixtus V,
if it be genuine. Lastly, authors of lesser note in a huge
number; although they do not agree among themselves
in assigning the author of the translation, as we have noted.
[253] what is to be thought of the whole matter. Now if we compare the monuments of both parties
with one another: the Beneventans will prevail in the antiquity
and authority of their witnesses, the Romans in number:
many things in the Beneventan tradition, especially
if one must stand by the relation of Leo of Ostia, thou wilt find
which breed difficulty; and even more
in the Roman, whether with Baronius thou give credit to Robert of Mont,
or with Francesco Dini adhere to Otto
of Freising. From which I am altogether persuaded
that in both places there are relics of the Apostle,
and that a translation of some was made: which
whether they make up a greater or a lesser part of the body,
it is not mine to determine. The most illustrious
Francesco Maria de Aste, in the Disquisitions on
the Roman Martyrology, at the VIII Kalends of September,
page 392, the arguments of both parties being related,
thus concludes: Since acts of this continued worship
appear as much for Benevento as for
Rome, in both places that sacred body, until
it shall be otherwise decreed by the supreme censors, must be held
in that veneration in which it has hitherto
been held, as the most eminent Fathers of the Holy Roman
Church have several times decreed. And after a little: Let it be honored
at Rome and at Benevento; and to whom the case is to be settled,
let the prudent reader see, for whose knowledge
these things have been indicated. I add the words of Papebroch, tom. 4
of June, at the Acts of St. Paulinus, page 233: If the sacred
congregation of rites, the examination of the cause being undertaken,
should order the sacred caskets of both places to be opened, and what
each contains to be faithfully reported; perhaps it would be found
that in both places there is a great part of the same body.
Certainly if Otto sought Benevento again for that cause,
and besieged the city, as he of Ostia writes; it is not
likely that, the siege being given up, he returned altogether
empty; nor yet that the Beneventans, compelled by that terror,
gave up the whole; but rather that, having shared so
dear a pledge with the emperor, and keeping with themselves
the old chest with some of the chief bones,
and the inscriptions, such as they were, preserved; the other
part was laid up at Rome as an entire body,
as is commonly wont to happen in such cases.
CHAPTER IV.
On the relics scattered everywhere, and the miracles done in various places.
§ I. Relics carried into various Provinces; where also certain miracles done by the Apostle's patronage.
Relics of St. Bartholomew given in the East to St. Joseph the Hymnographer, As St. Bartholomew, while alive, visited many provinces of the world
and enlightened them with the light of the faith,
so we have seen that after death he honored various cities and provinces
with his sacred body: it remains that we relate,
so far indeed as by diligent investigation we have been able
to attain, which cities above the rest, which
kingdoms, have been enriched with the sacred pledges of the glorious Apostle.
And first indeed I altogether judge that certain relics
of this Apostle were scattered through the East
before his sacred body was carried to Lipari, or at any rate
to Benevento.
An example I find in the Life of St. Joseph the Hymnographer
in our tom. 1 of April, page 274, from
which I cull these things: Further, dwelling now for some time
in the borders of Thessaly, (Joseph) is by chance presented
by a certain divine man, of incomparable knowledge,
with the most sacred relics of the great apostle Bartholomew.
He therefore determined to build a temple for him,
who daily wrought many miracles; whom in sleep
he many times saw opening heavenly mysteries to him,
and explaining the difficulties of the sacred page.
But when at one time he burned with a huge desire
of adorning the holy Apostle with verses,
yet he restrained himself, fearing lest perhaps it might turn out
less acceptable and pleasing to him from himself; and, after the manner
of Moses, macerating his flesh for forty days, that
he might receive the tables of divine songs; and, the gates
of his senses being shut, and his mind gathered into itself
from all wandering, he piously and reverently embraces
the body of the holy Apostle.
[255] Nor did his labor disappoint the man:
for on the day before that day to whom the Apostle, appearing, confers the faculty on which the memory of St. Bartholomew
is celebrated, he sees a man wrapped about in a linen garment,
of the kind they commonly use in Palestine,
holding the sacred doors of the temple, and calling Joseph
to him. He, striking the veil of the sacred table
(in Greek ἀράχνιον; I take it for the Veil, says
Papebroch in the notes, wherewith … the altar and all the furniture
of the altar is wont to be covered outside the times of the divine office),
takes up the codex of the holy Gospel,
and, laying it upon his breast: May the hand
of the all-powerful God, he says, bless thee; may seas
of heavenly wisdom flow into thy tongue; may thy heart
become the seat of the Holy Spirit, and may thy songs
charm the whole round of the earth: so that whoever
enjoys them, taken with the sweetness both of the words
and of the matter, may be able to call them spiritual sirens. These things
being said, the vision vanished; but the words, buried and sown
in the deepest furrows of his heart,
afterwards bore an abundant harvest. And this was the incitement
of the divine charism, these the gifts of riches,
this incomparable benefit. And so, as soon as he set his hand
to writing verses, it was wonderful how much
he charmed the ears with the sweetness of the sound, and struck and moved
men's minds with the winning force of his sentences.
[256] of composing sacred hymns, a plainly remarkable one. The same author pursues at length the wonderful
facility and elegance of St. Joseph in composing hymns,
which may be read in the place cited in the Acts:
for that he was altogether outstanding in that art
is easily gathered from this, that he was named Hymnographer
by way of excellence. Yet Papebroch notes at
this place that in the Clermont Synaxarium
there is had τοῦ
Ἀνδρέου, as if all these things
were to be referred to St. Andrew; yet in the margin of that same
Synaxarium it is noted: In other Synaxaria there is read
a relic of St. Bartholomew; and that it should rather so be read
he proves also from this, that nothing about St.
Andrew is read to have been written by the Hymnographer,
but that he more probably wrote certain things about St. Bartholomew,
as we noted in the preliminary Commentary.
Further, the same miracle is more briefly narrated from the Clermont Synaxarium
in the tom. cited, page 267, in these
words: He had found, while he was still in the borders
of Thessalonica, a relic of the holy apostle Bartholomew.
Taking this therefore, he built a chapel under his name;
and began with much solicitude
to turn over in his mind how he might adorn his festival
by composing sacred canticles, praying with tears
and sobs that he might deserve to be made master of this his desire.
And indeed he was made master of it.
For by night he beheld a certain reverend man at the epistle side, who
seemed to take up the Gospel from the sacred table, and, laying it
upon Joseph's breast, to impart to him his own
blessing. And from that time he had the grace
of composing hymns and a faculty
so ready that some thought
he did not bring forth the sacred melodies out of himself, but
pronounced them as received elsewhere and committed to memory,
and furnished them to those who asked. And so he illuminated
the whole Church with his hymns, and began
to be celebrated in the mouth of all, and to be held
lovable by all, not only by the unlearned, but even by princes
and by the emperors themselves. Thus far about the plainly remarkable
benefit bestowed by St. Bartholomew upon his worshipper.
For the rest, that more miracles of that kind
were done in the East, and that sacred relics of the Apostle
were scattered in other places, I do not doubt.
[257] Relics at Lyons, where one who rashly entered the crypt of the martyrs, In chapter 2, §2 of this Commentary I narrated
from the Lyons manuscript that relics of the Apostle were carried
into Gaul by a certain bishop,
whom I said was probably Bartholomew,
first archbishop of Narbonne of that name,
which I have reserved to be elucidated in this place.
Now it is said in the same place: He imparted portions of the pious pledges
to many places throughout the Gauls out of the blessing
of Christ, especially to the city of the Lyonnese,
where already the memory of the venerable Apostle
is reverently honored in the venerable crypt of the martyrs.
This crypt of the martyrs Francis Chifflet illustrates with many things
in our Work, tom.
1 of June, at the Life of St. Claudius, where on page 678 he has these things
pertaining to St. Bartholomew: A certain pious
and very powerful soldier, Bartholomew by name,
most devoted to the worship of sacred relics,
when he had already traversed many provinces, both that
he might see religious places, and also that he might procure for himself
whatever relics of the Saints he could obtain;
having at length obtained the lower part of the head of his patron Bartholomew
the apostle, which they call the jaw,
came to Lyons: where, having learned
that in the time of Septimius Severus, under bishop
Irenaeus, many thousands of Christians had suffered martyrdom
and had by their blood turned the Arar into the Saône, whose bodies,
being cast into a very deep cave, St. Patiens had covered with two temples
under one roof: having gone to the place, and seen
the cave still lying open, which was surrounded by a rim after the fashion
of a well, moved by a pious rashness,
he let himself down within. But then, being struck with sudden
blindness, and made by that mishap the more clear-sighted, he understood
that that huge army of martyrs was by divine
counsel reserved for the eternal triumphs of glory;
and that for that cause it must be so shut up that it should not lie open
even to the sight of mortals.
[258] He bound himself therefore by a vow that, if by God's benefit
he should recover his sight, [and struck with blindness, a vow being made, recovers his sight, and raises an altar to the Apostle.] he would take pains that a covering
should be brought over the sacred well, upon which,
an altar being raised, he would deliver his relics of the apostle Bartholomew
to be enclosed, to be honored thereafter by offices and sacrifices
founded by him: which also he fulfilled.
For which cause the college of the cathedral church
of Lyons has been wont, in each several year on the feast of St. Bartholomew,
to assemble in the crypt of St. Irenaeus for
Mass and vespers, to be sung with solemn rite. After these things about the altar of St. Bartholomew
he thus speaks: Thereafter, down to the devastation of the new heretics
(he means the Calvinists), in the crypt of St. Irenaeus there were six altars … The sixth of St.
Bartholomew, which in the midst of the crypt's choir
lay upon the covering of the sacred cave. Concerning the time
of the raising of this altar under the name of St. Bartholomew,
I seemed to myself to have found something in the bull
of Pope Innocent IV, given at Lyons on the XV Kalends
of December, in the third year of his pontificate, and so
in the year of Christ MCCXLV; by which he granted forty days of indulgences
to all truly penitent
and confessed who on the feast days of St. Bartholomew and
of St. Irenaeus should religiously visit that church of St. Irenaeus.
For not long before, the well of the martyrs seems to have been
covered, and, a pavement being laid over it, an altar set upon it:
since it is likely
that at the first exposition of the relics of St. Bartholomew
veneration was procured for them by this indult of the Pontiff.
So much about the Saint's relics
carried to Lyons, and the miracle done there.
[259] From the manuscript Chronicle of the abbey of St. James
at Liège, relics sent to Liège; carried down to the year 1194, by the author Lambert
the Little, certain things have been transmitted to us about relics
of the Saints sent thither, in which Stephen IX,
or as others say X, is said to have transmitted to Theodwin, bishop
of Liège, … two arms of the holy apostles
James son of Alphaeus and Bartholomew; which relics
Godfrey, brother of that same Pope, receiving in the castle
of Bouillon, carried the same to the aforesaid
bishop in the castle of Huy: which the bishop, reverently
receiving, led them by ship to our church
(of the aforesaid abbey), and there before the clergy
and people of the city celebrating Mass … then handed over
to the church of St. Bartholomew the arm
of the holy Apostle. Concerning the church of St. Bartholomew at Liège
our Bartholomew Fisen writes in the History of Liège,
book 7, page 260, at the year 1015: On the third
day after (the feast of Simon and Jude) they likewise dedicated
the house of St. Bartholomew; which the noble man
Godescalc of Morialmé, provost of St. Lambert's,
had built outside the city's boundary, and had assigned
revenues for maintaining twelve canons.
The praised Fisen at the year 1056, page 304, mentions
relics of St. Bartholomew transmitted from
Spain with relics of St. James the Greater. Foullon
likewise in the History of Liège at the same
year, tom. 1, page 238, mentions these relics,
both those then received from Spain, and those transmitted from
Italy by Stephen, Supreme Pontiff,
although he does not name St. Bartholomew:
but the manuscript cited above narrates that relics were sent
from Spain and from Italy, and hints that in both
there was something of St. Bartholomew.
However it be, it is sufficiently proved to me that relics of St. Bartholomew,
whether from Italy, as we have narrated, or
from Spain, as others rather hint — namely a particle
of the arm — were sent to Liège about the middle
of the eleventh century.
[260] [where a fire was checked from the Apostle's college and from the house of a woman devoted to him.] To these I subjoin a miracle related by the aforementioned
Fisen, book 10 of the History, page 376, at the year
of the Lord 1142, in these words: By a horrible …
fire the best part of the city was burned up … A prodigy
surely worthy of memory befell amid these things.
The house of a certain matron, although of wood,
remained from this fire wholly unhurt. All things
near by were burning, nor did stone houses endure the fire,
not even the adjoining temple of St. George:
a single house, ill-timbered and rotten, the harmless fires
licked, by whose heat even stones would have been dissolved. Well known was the woman's
probity. Nor was it doubted that, as a reward of virtue,
the prodigies of the first ages were renewed;
by which the Chaldean furnace consumed the wicked standing by,
but did not touch the three guiltless boys cast into it.
That St. Bartholomew was a protection to this pious matron
some believed, whom with a certain proper
zeal she honored; and to whom she had lately consecrated some notable
ornament of his basilica. And
indeed the wondrous power of the B. Apostle flashed forth in that great
calamity. To the shops of his college the fire had come
like some horrible tempest:
suddenly it halted, just as a rushing torrent
at the barrier of a lofty mountain. From time to time globes of flame were raised,
as though disdaining to be held back;
and strove to invade the building: and slipped back
into themselves, and went off in smoke. That was the power
of the holy Apostle covering his own. So much for Liège.
[261] [The monastery of St. Bartholomew of Carpineto being built, his arm is brought in;] Ughelli in tom. 6 of Italia sacra inserted
the Chronicle of the monastery of St. Bartholomew of Carpineto,
from which I shall here relate the translation of relics of that same
Apostle. At col. [ ] of the old edition
the said Chronicle narrates that the bishop of Benevento,
being consulted by his kinsman Bernard, count of Penne,
which were more acceptable to God, to visit the Lord's
Sepulchre or to build a monastery,
preferred the building of a monastery, and
added this: I will give thee of the eyes of the Lord,
that is, of the relics of the Apostles, who were
the eyes of the Lord. Return therefore and build a monastery in honor
of the glorious apostle Bartholomew,
which I will afterwards enrich with thy sacred relics.
The aforementioned count, the monastery of Carpineto being built and excellently endowed,
in the province of Picenum,
in the territory of Penne, at the foot of the Apennine mountain,
as is there related, returned to the bishop,
at that time Landulf, as Ughelli has it,
tom. 8, among the bishops of Benevento, at the year
962, in which he notes that these things happened, and asked for the promised
relics: Who (Col. [ ]), when
he knew that the seed of his saving counsel had brought forth an abundant harvest,
… seeing that he had gained him
in the Lord, glad and rejoicing in the same, gave
him the right arm from the elbow to the shoulder
of the most glorious apostle Bartholomew, which at that
time when, by God's disposing, the body of the nourishing
Apostle was translated from Lipari to Benevento,
Sicard the fifth, son of prince Sico, being prince,
for the strengthening of the faith of those who saw, that the Apostle's body
might rest there, was placed upon the altar in a silver
casket. Then he … enriched with the precious
treasure, with great exultation returned
to his own. And afterwards, the bishops being called together —
of Penne, of Teramo, of Chieti, of Valva, and
of Marsi — he caused that most sacred arm
to be consecrated in the high altar of this church, and that same
whole church to be solemnly dedicated, in the year
of the Lord's Incarnation nine hundred and sixty-
second, on the VI Kalends of September.
[262] The Apostle himself deigned to confirm the presence of his relics
in the monastery of Carpineto, as the Apostle himself reveals to an unbeliever: as is related in book 4 of the said Chronicle,
Col. [ ], in the following words: On a certain day, when
a certain monk, by name Berard of Carapelle,
said that he in no way gave the assent of faith
that the arm of the blessed apostle Bartholomew was
laid up in this monastery; on the following night,
while he had given himself to sleep, and before the altar of the blessed
Bartholomew he stood in a vision, he saw the Apostle
himself standing before that same altar, and holding his right
shoulder in his hands,
and saying: Dost thou not believe that my arm
is in this monastery? Henceforth know, and
thereafter doubt not at all, that here properly
is my shoulder, laid up in this my altar.
From so great a vision therefore the aforesaid monk,
seized with dread, awoke, and told the abbot
and the other brethren what he had seen; and I
myself afterwards heard him relating these same things.
[263] We narrated above the pious liberality of the woman of Liège
remarkably repaid by the Apostle: those who dared to melt down the furniture of his altar are punished.
but here we shall see an audacious crime against the furniture
consecrated to that same Apostle not dismissed
unpunished. The matter the aforementioned chronographer narrates,
book 3, Col. [ ]. The abbot of the said monastery,
that he might preserve for his nephew a certain castle
which was to be sold to a noble man of another family,
had ordered the silver furniture of the altar of St. Bartholomew
to be melted down. The silver table of the altar being brought
into the midst, when none dared
break it, a monk bolder than the rest,
by name John son of Bonushomo, … broke the silver cross
of the Saviour with a hard hammer; which
excess of presumption a most evident miracle afterwards
followed, because the leg of that most audacious monk
wholly festered and rotted, and so
he perished of a horrid languor … But as time
went on the same abbot fell sick unto death; then
he caused his kinsman his nephew to come to him, and
with sobbing, drawing long sighs, with tears
he said: Alas, alas, hard torments of the nether world are prepared
for me, in that I am a new flayer of the apostle
Bartholomew, and have flayed him more sharply than
the ancient executioners did, for thy sake, sweetest nephew.
But, due restitution of the loss being sought and
obtained, it is right to hope that this abbot died more happily
than he presaged. Hence they may learn
to whom the treasures of churches are entrusted
how great is the peril of laying sacrilegious hands upon things
dedicated to God and to the Saints.
[264] It is pleasant to add to these another benefit
of St. Bartholomew, Marinus, count of Comacchio, slipping from the hands of the enemy, and a temple raised to him in thanksgiving.
Ughelli relates it among the bishops
of Ferrara, tom. 2 of Italia sacra, col. 557 and
following, from whom I here exhibit the matter contracted into fewer words.
Marinus, count of Comacchio, being attacked in war by the Venetians
and besieged at Comacchio, After he had performed
renowned deeds of war, being unequal to sustaining the massed multitude
of the enemy, cast himself into the waters,
and by swimming reached certain fishermen's skiffs.
Being recognized by his own men and most lovingly received,
he was brought to Ferrara, where already Lada
the countess his mother was mourning him as dead.
And when he approached the city on the day sacred to St. Bartholomew,
in the same year DCCCLIV, he poured himself into the sweetest
embraces of his mother, who came to meet him, in that same place
where now is beheld the church of the monastery of St. Bartholomew,
distant one mile from Ferrara. There stood there
at that time a lowly and narrow little church,
which Sabinus, a Ferrarese noble of the stock of the Givali,
conspicuous for sanctity, inhabited, and thither
he had withdrawn himself from the commerce of men, that he might the more freely
pour out his soul toward heaven, and give his labor to divine
things. Lada therefore, after receiving the embraces of her most beloved
son, and thanks being given to the Godhead and to St. Bartholomew,
decreed to raise there a monastery and temple,
by the authority of bishop Viator (of Ferrara),
and began most swiftly to bring the design
into work, when on the eighth day
of September, a great crowd of people being gathered round,
after she had gone to Sabinus, close by the channel,
of which traces have hitherto stood, she laid the first
stone.
[265] with her mother builds a temple to St. Bartholomew. But, dying not long after, she could not finish
the work; yet she had ordered, as Ughelli thinks,
before her death, that near the church doors, on the great
base of a marble column, the monument subjoined should be
carved; which was set up after her death the reader will easily
see.
Snatching Marinus, about to perish by Venetian war,
Neptune restored him unharmed to his mother.
Here, where to the great nursling of the Word-born Deliverer
stands a temple — he who, his skin cast off, holds the stars.
Latta the parent received her fugitive offspring in her embrace,
whom a faithful keel bore when the shallows had been reached.
The day sacred to that Hero had dawned; therefore
a temple here, and a sacred house, were bidden to rise.
From the Virgin's childbearing heaven has rolled out eight ages,
and a fourth harvest, added to ten lustres, has gone by.
A wife worthy of a princely man, but worthier of the stars,
and among the Este brides a rare glory.
Fortune had given thee, Latta, the dominion of fish-rich
Comacchio; a brighter virtue gave thee the stars.
In the same place another marble monument was beheld,
says Ughelli, … which follows:
TO GOD BEST AND GREATEST.
Latta, countess of Comacchio, wife of Otto the first of Este,
on account of the safety of her dearest son Marinus,
which she had earnestly begged of God and obtained,
while he was closely besieged by the Venetian army,
when on the very day which is sacred to St. Bartholomew the apostle
she had met her son — carried off secretly by skiff through the ditch
and channel — on the bank in this same place
where this temple is, whether out of a grateful
mind, or also as bound by a vow, ordered a temple
to be laid out in this place, and a monastery, in honor of St.
Bartholomew the apostle, and to be raised,
in the year of human salvation DCCCLIV.
He who desires more about the temple and monastery mentioned
may consult Ughelli in the place cited.
§ II. An arm carried into England: relics honored in various places.
The arm of St. Bartholomew Eadmer, a monk of Canterbury of the order of St.
Benedict, on the occasion of the council of Bari, at which
he himself was present with St. Anselm, narrates the translation
of an arm of St. Bartholomew into England, as
he had heard it, as a boy, first from the elders of Canterbury,
and then in the council from the archbishop
of Benevento. This history, as being less
convenient for the tradition which he had undertaken to defend,
Francesco Dini strives with many things to render suspect and
to overturn, in the Dissertation
often adduced: whose authority,
as of one often denying the most certain things, although I think it
not greatly to be esteemed, I shall nevertheless briefly show
that his objections have been hurled against this translation with greater
effort than strength. Receive first, reader,
the fact. The aforesaid author gives it,
book 2 of the History of Recent Events, reprinted also after the edition of Anselm
of the year 1721, page 54 in the same place, in this manner: At the time, they say (the elders of Canterbury,
who told the matter to Eadmer), when
that Lady, as queen (he had before named Emma)
was held great and very powerful in the kingdom
of the English, the pontiff of the church of Benevento came
into England, whom, as he himself reported, an immense
famine, by sure presages about to afflict all Apulia,
had led thither: desiring in some way, if he could not
for the whole province, at least for his own citizens, to ward off so great
an evil. He, entering upon his journey, had taken with him the arm of St.
Bartholomew the apostle, promising himself with sure hope
that through it he would gain much. For that same
arm, for the procuring of aids in necessities of this kind,
was kept in that same church of Benevento
apart from the rest of the body …
[267] The pontiff therefore, coming to England, went to the queen
herself, carried into England, and, having obtained speech of her, made known what
he had brought, and for what cause he had gone
to parts of the world so remote. But she, bent to mercy
by the man's charitable labor, bestowed on him
abundantly of her own, and exhorted him to return to his native land,
and moreover to succour those for whom
he dreaded the impending peril of famine. But he, understanding
that what he had did not suffice him for his business,
asked those whom he had learned to be more familiar in the court
with that same lady, whether it might be a care to the queen
to transfer into her own right, a price being given, the bone
which he had brought. Why many words? The lady's mind
about the matter is investigated, and is found
most ready; if only the bishop would make her certain
that that bone had really been the aforenamed Apostle's,
and in such wise that she herself might testify that,
all ambiguity being removed, she was satisfied. To which
he said: In what way? Upon the Body
of the Lord, she said, and upon the relics of the Saints which
I shall set before him, let him make oath that the relics of which
there is question are truly of the body of blessed Bartholomew,
and let him do it with all equivocation and
sophism removed. This, said the bishop, I promise
that I will do with confidence.
[268] Coming therefore to Canterbury with that arm,
and given to the church of Canterbury: he was fittingly received, as the king and queen had directed
concerning him. She therefore standing by, and a vast train
of monks and clerks encompassing her,
among whom also the above-mentioned
men, from whom we received these things, testified that they were
present, and a numerous multitude of either sex
and age flocking together and hearing for this cause,
swearing upon the altar and the body of Christ
and moreover the relics of the Saints … he affirmed that that
bone of which there was talk had been proper to blessed Bartholomew
the apostle, and that in that his assertion
there was nothing at all of sophism or equivocation.
Which being done, the memorable
lady bestowed upon the prelate very many pounds of silver,
and, having obtained the bone, granted it to the church of Christ
of Canterbury by solemn donation on the part of king Cnut
and of herself. For in those days this was the custom of the English,
to set the patronages of the Saints before all things
of the world. For the pontiff of that same see, by name Agelnoth,
among the other things which he gave the man,
gave him a very precious cope adorned on every part
with gold embroidery, which might be both for the adornment of that church
and, for the church of Canterbury in times to come,
for a testimony and proof of so great a matter.
I therefore, when, as I said, being present at the council,
I saw the Beneventan prelate adorned with a cope surpassing the rest,
and knew it very well from those things which
I had once heard, being not a little gladdened,
showed both the cope and the words told to me as a boy about it
to father Anselm. Presently, the council being celebrated,
when I went to that same Beneventan, and among other
conversations of mutual affection began to speak of that same cope,
and asked, as though not knowing, whence he had it;
he set forth the sum of the matter, and declared that his church
had obtained it from the church of Canterbury in the order
in which I have described. Being made more certain of which matter, I thought
it would be pleasing to some to insert this very thing
in this little work, although in doing this I was not unaware
that I was going beyond the proposed path of my narration.
Thus far the author, in whose words a candid
simplicity and sincere good faith shine forth.
[269] certain things objected against this fact Yet Francesco Dini, page 44, thus
speaks: The narration of this man is held most suspect,
which the same Eadmer professes to have been added outside
the order of times and the path of his own lessons,
because he thought it would be pleasing to some,
namely to those who, being exiles from the purer worship of the catholic
faith, set about branding Italian prelates with simony,
which plainly on this hypothesis would be most open. This objection is
twofold, and each part unwarlike. For Eadmer related
this fact in another place and time because he never wrote the history
of the time in which the thing was done, so
that he could not insert it in its own place. What he here says
about simony he proves at greater length, but with useless labor:
for we do not deny that, if Eadmer's words be taken
in strictness, the sale was simoniacal;
but he does not prove, nor can it easily be proved,
that a sale properly so called must be understood,
or the author's words, in which he says, He asked
whether the queen would wish to transfer into her own right, a price being given,
the bone which he had brought, as they sound
to the letter, must be so taken. Yet I would not
wrangle here, since it makes little to the point whether a contract
materially, as they say, simoniacal
really intervened, or whether the author so set forth the matter
that it may seem to have intervened, since neither
is to be wondered at, given the simplicity and ignorance
of that time. Hear Mabillon, On Diplomatics,
book 6, coroll. 1, page 623: Concerning a simoniacal
contract, he says, there were also, according to the time, various
opinions and various discipline. There was
a time when it was lawful to traffic in the relics of the Saints
with impunity. Why then should we not use in this place St.
Augustine's saying, book 22, chapter 47, Against Faustus:
When it was the custom, it was not a crime; not
because trafficking in relics is not of itself base and forbidden
by the law of nature, but because in good faith
men at that time thought that it was not
unlawful for them; just as they knew that their redemption
from unbelievers had always been lawful.
[270] are resolved. But what Francesco Dini says, that
that history was feigned by the English to brand Italian bishops
with the mark of simony, is not even likely.
Weigh these words inserted in the relation:
This was the custom of the English, to set the patronages of the Saints
before all things of the world; consider how great
honor the author narrated that relics were held in.
Would the English — alas, how changed from those men! —
have feigned these things? Would they have inflicted on themselves a deadly wound
that they might but lightly graze their adversaries?
Other arguments surely are needed, that this
may be made probable. By these reasons therefore it is not proved
that these narrations are to be exploded as old wives' tales, as
the author says, who is readier at exploding than
subtler at reasoning. What he further objects
has no force; for in vain does he seek a contradiction
in the time at which the thing is said to have been done,
since Eadmer assigns no time: that the matter happened about
the year 1020 Alford writes,
at that same year, tom. 3 of the Annals of the English Church,
num. 20 and following. Nor is it more effectual,
what he says, that in various places two or three arms
of the Apostle are kept, to which I shall presently add more still;
for neither are entire arms everywhere to be understood,
but some bone of an arm is after the custom
called an arm, so that it ought not to seem wonderful
if even ten arms of some Saint be assigned.
Next, the arms assigned elsewhere rest upon a less
solid foundation — if thou except the one kept at Carpineto —
than this one which is in question:
all which things being diligently weighed, there does not utterly vanish
the old wives' fable of Eadmer, as Dini wrongly concludes,
but the relation of a faithful and excellent author,
Dini's cavils being disregarded, seems altogether
to be admitted as true.
[271] Thus far we have treated of the relics whose
translation we have found handed down to memory in various
authors. The sacred remains of the Apostle Now we shall add very many
scattered in very many places, whose translation
is hidden from us; which nevertheless various authors assign to various cities
and churches. I dare not hope, I confess,
that I shall not pass over many, nor to assert
that all which I shall recount are so certainly St. Bartholomew's
that no doubt can arise about certain of them;
this one thing I affirm, that nothing of the faithful's
piety or merit will be lost, if perchance one has honored
the sacred pledges of another Saint for relics of St. Bartholomew,
as has often been shown in this Work.
Briefly therefore I shall follow the traces of things,
taking my beginning from Italy.
[272] Mabillon in the Italian Journey, page 86,
writes this: in Italy, On Saturday, the feast day of holy Bartholomew,
we visited his church, situated in the Lycaonian island
(which is now called St. Bartholomew's),
where the Apostle's body is kept beneath the high altar, and
the cauldron in which his skin was received.
On that very day the names of those who have not satisfied
the paschal communion are wont yearly to be written on a tablet
and exposed in the porch of that same church,
that they may be held for excommunicate by name.
That the Apostle's skin is kept at Rome writes
also Piazza at the XXV of August, saying that this is had
from tradition. The same assigns relics of the Saint in
the temple of St. Bartholomew of the Bergamasks, and of St.
Bartholomew of the Tanners: likewise in the temples of the Holy
Apostles, of St. Eusebius, of St. Laurence outside
the walls, of St. Mary of the angels, of Holy Cross in Jerusalem,
of St. Sabina, of St. Praxedes, and of St. Pudentiana.
Leo of Ostia in the Chronicle of Cassino, book
3, chapter 3, says that relics of St. Bartholomew are kept
at Cassino, and in chapter 34 writes this: When,
the Lord co-operating, he had accomplished these things as he had wished
(abbot Desiderius), he caused the basilica of blessed Bartholomew
the apostle, with the whole convent of the brethren,
to be solemnly dedicated on the third Nones of January by John, formerly
a monk of this monastery, afterwards bishop of Sora.
In whose altar he laid up in a silver casket a not small part
of the Apostolic body. So much for Cassino. Mascambruno in the Dissertation
on the body of St. Bartholomew, page 27,
writes: Paolo Regio is also an authority that the head of that same
Apostle is honored at Naples in the monastery
of the nuns of St. Mary Lady Queen; a part of the head
I should believe. Laurentius Beyerlinck in the Theatre
of human life, at the word Relics, page 303, says that relics
of St. Bartholomew are had at Naples in
the church of St. Mary of Wisdom: and on page 304 in
St. Catherine of Siena. Ughelli, tom. 7, page
243 of the first edition, says that the church of the nuns
of the Most Holy Trinity of Amalfi is adorned
with the Arm of holy Bartholomew the apostle. In the manuscript
Roman Journey of Henschen and Papebroch, accurately written out by
Papebroch himself, page 271, it is said that a great part of the skin
of St. Bartholomew is kept
in the monastery of the Franciscans near Assisi,
called Rivotorto. The same Papebroch in the Return,
likewise manuscript, page 224, thus relates a foot of St. Bartholomew
shown to him at Genoa among the Barnabite fathers,
besides other relics of the Saints: A foot
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, entire, dried in flesh and skin,
fortified with gold of ancient work, and enclosed in crystal
and in a little box adorned with ivory figures exceedingly
ancient; from the worship of which the place has its name, but its surname
of the Armenians, because the first
monks there were perhaps Armenians. That they were Armenians
and Basilians Hippolyte Helyot teaches in the French History of religious
orders, tom. 1,
pages 243 and following. Those first monks therefore could
have received this foot of the Apostle in Armenia, already before
the translation of the body into Europe.
Masini in Bologna perlustrata, at the XXIV
of August, page 428 of the edition of the year 1666, assigns relics
of St. Bartholomew to the parish church of the priory
of that same Apostle of the Theatine fathers:
he says likewise that notable relics are kept in the church of St.
John on the mount, as also a tooth of the same Saint
in the church of St. Mary the Deliveress; and that there are
likewise relics in the confraternity of the seven joys
of the blessed Virgin. Bucelinus in the Benedictine Sacrary
at the IX Kalends of September, page 22, about the sacred
relics of the Apostle has this among other things: A not small
part of the skin in St. Blaise de Cataldo at Venice. Lastly,
in tom. III of July of our Work, in the Passed-over at
the day XII, relics of St. Bartholomew are said to have been carried
to the temple of the Society of Jesus at Genoa. Thus far
about the Apostle's relics in Italy.
[273] in Gaul, where a prodigy at Grande-Sauve, Nor in few places are these found in
Gaul; some we have already assigned, receive the others
briefly. Guillaume Marlot in the History of the metropolis
of Rheims, tom. 2, book 1, page 27, among
the sacred remains with which the treasury of the monastery
of St. Thierry near Rheims is adorned, numbers
relics of St. Bartholomew the apostle, titular
and first patron of the church; on whose yearly
festival there is a very great concourse of people from the city of Rheims and
from the neighboring villages to Mont-Hor,
to gain plenary indulgences. The same author,
book 2, chapter 21, page 240, says that in the collegiate church of St.
Symphorian at Rheims there is kept A part
of the body of St. Bartholomew the apostle. Concerning relics
likewise of St. Bartholomew at Grande-Sauve, a monastery
of the order of St. Benedict in the diocese of Bordeaux,
I read the following written from that same monastery
to Papebroch in the year 1669: The second is, that as long as
some of the relics of St. Bartholomew the apostle
were enclosed in the leaden cock set upon the top of the bell-tower
(and there they had been placed
from ancient times), that monastery never
suffered any harm from lightning; but after they were taken
away thence by someone repairing the roofs
(which happened about forty
years ago), it has suffered not a little, of which
the chief is that one of our monks,
and he the subprior, while on the XXVI day of February of the year
MDCLXVII he was at prayer in the choir at evening hours,
was burned by it through the middle part of his body,
and ended his life on the following day: (add that the same
craftsman was shortly cut off by a wretched end) whence also
it came to pass that the reverend father lord Gabriel
Bellordeau, at that time, and even now
prior of this monastery, put other relics into that same
cock in the aforesaid year MDCLXVII, and
from that time we have remained unharmed by lightning down to
the present. The third is, that about the feast
of holy Bartholomew there flies to that same bell-tower an almost infinite
multitude of winged ants,
and there they all die: and this happens in each several
year: but when this prodigy began is unknown:
for old men at the grave's edge assert that it was done
in their forefathers' times. Thus
the Gallican Martyrology at the XXIV of August, page
544, about the sacred remains of holy Bartholomew writes
this: Whose precious head at Toulouse in the treasury
of the basilica of St. Saturninus … is kept with that
religious care which is fitting: but the other arm, to which
the hand adheres, in the Gercy monastery of nuns,
of the order of holy Benedict, in the bishopric of Paris,
excellently laid up and still wholly entire
(the skin only being drawn off), is shown to pious worshippers
who today flow thither in great numbers.
About this arm Bucelinus in the Benedictine Sacrary,
which he subjoined to his Menology, page 22,
agrees with Saussay. Which things, as also what follows, I have no mind
to discuss more curiously. Thus far in
Gaul.
[274] Hence I pass on to neighboring Belgium,
with the brevity I have begun, in Belgium about to indicate the Saint's relics
kept there in many places. Saussay, just adduced,
thus goes on: Further, the other arm of this glorious
Apostle is kept, still clothed with flesh and
bones, at Béthune in the collegiate church of that same name,
laid up in a silver shrine,
excellently adorned for the worship of so precious a pledge.
Arnold Raissius in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium, page 83,
enumerating the relics of that same church,
preceded Saussay in these words: An arm
of St. Bartholomew, plainly clothed with flesh and bones,
I being an eyewitness … This arm is kept
shut up in a silver case excellently adorned
for it. Henschen also, in the Passed-over
at the XV of June, or tom. II of the said month,
page 1011, mentions the translation of this arm
in this manner: The translation of an arm of St. Bartholomew
at Béthune is indicated in the manuscript additions of the Charterhouse
of Tournai on this day. Someone will perhaps think
that these things cannot be reconciled with so many arms mentioned before;
especially because these arms are said
to be clothed with flesh. In which, however, there is nothing
of repugnancy: for if we suppose these two arms to be entire
from the hand to the elbow, the remaining arms
which have been mentioned can consist of the remaining bones
from the elbow to the shoulder.
The praised Raissius ascribes relics of that same Apostle,
page 41, to the collegiate church of St. Amatus
at Douai: page 216, to the Flines monastery of virgins
of the Cistercian order, situated a mile and a half from Douai;
page 294, to the Marchiennes monastery of St. Benedict
on the river Scarpe, nearly three miles
from Douai; as also to Quercu-cinctum, commonly
Quercin, distant one mile from the same town.
But at Maricolles, a monastery of the same order in Hainaut,
he says, page 297, that there is kept somewhat of a joint
of the foot of holy Bartholomew the apostle. Of the church of St.
Peter at Lille, page 425, he gives this: There is beheld also
in this noble collegiate church a not slight fragment
of the skin of St. Bartholomew the apostle, which John Bawet,
canon of that place, adorned with silver and gave,
who once spent great pains at Béthune
in drawing forth and setting in order the arm of that same
Apostle, while he was living there among the canons.
But on page 279 he assigns an arm, an entire joint
of the foot, and an entire bone of the body,
to the abbey of Lobbes of the order of St. Benedict in
Hainaut.
[275] in very many places, from Raissius, The same, page 219, numbers a part of the skull of St. Bartholomew
the apostle among the relics with which
the monastery of Floreffe of St. Norbert on the Sambre
is ennobled, situated two miles from Namur.
Page 387, he pronounces that relics of that same Apostle are had
at Oignies on the Sambre in the monastery of holy Nicholas
of the order of canons regular of St.
Augustine. By the same witness, page 429, the monastery
of Phanopina of the same order most seemly keeps a noble
portion of the arm-bone of St. Bartholomew the apostle
in a silver arm excellently wrought;
and, page 451, the Charterhouse of Rutila
on the bank of the Meuse one joint of the fingers. The author
often mentioned testifies moreover, page 396,
that in the Oratory of the court of Brussels there are shut up in a silver arm
relics of the arm of St. Bartholomew the apostle;
but page 222, that in the Vorst monastery of virgins of the order of St.
Benedict near Brussels there are had
sacred ashes of the same; page 463, that bones are kept
at Bruges in the collegiate church of St. Saviour.
Whose relics at last, page 402, he assigns to Park,
an abbey of the Premonstratensian order, near Louvain;
page 329, to the collegiate church of B. Mary
at Tongres; and page 260, twice, to Utrecht. Raissius
assigns many, but not all, of the relics of St. Bartholomew
in Belgium. Wherefore what has come to my
knowledge I shall subjoin from elsewhere.
[276] others in the same place, Andreas Bouwens wrote a Servatian Treasury,
in which he sets forth the relics which
the very ancient collegiate church of St. Servatius at Maastricht
venerates. Among these, page 18, he thus enumerates the relics
of St. Bartholomew: Of the shoulder-blade,
of a finger, of bones. There stands also another collegiate church
at Maastricht sacred to the B. Virgin Mary, which possesses
and keeps a brief of Pope Innocent VIII,
given in the year MCDLXXXVII, of his Pontificate the IV, on the XIX day
of December, to the Dean and chapter of that same
church, by which he permits that particle of the cranium to be enclosed
in a silver head and to be exposed to public veneration.
Of this brief I have a copy written out
and transmitted to me by the R. Fr. Peter
Dolmans of our Society, who adds
the following: I too saw on the VIII of March (of the year 1738)
a particle of the Cranium of St. Bartholomew, enclosed in a head
of cast silver: and although the part
which appears is notable enough, yet they say that the whole
cannot be seen. He testifies that he likewise saw the part of the shoulder-blade and of the bones
kept in St. Servatius's.
The relics kept in both these collegiate churches of Maastricht
Beyerlinck also mentions in the Theatre of human life at the word Relics,
but less accurately. François Diericx,
abbot of the monastery of St. Saviour of the Cistercian order
at Antwerp, in the year 1674 published a treatise on the relics
exposed to public veneration in the church of his abbey,
among which, page 262, he numbers Two bones
of St. Bartholomew the apostle, about whose approbation
and donation to his church he disputes at length,
whom the reader may consult. In the catalogue of relics
of our professed house at Antwerp, in which
I write these things, there are numbered two parts of the chin of St.
Bartholomew the apostle. That a fragment of the skin of that same
Apostle is kept at Maaseik is read in a Flemish manuscript
booklet, by the author Fr. Arnold Hertsworm,
prior of Holy Cross at Venlo.
§ III. Relics in Germany and Spain.
Sacred remains at Cologne, From Belgium we make our step to the nearest provinces of Germany,
formerly reckoned with Belgium,
thence to go on to those farther off. Cologne,
most ennobled with many relics of the Saints, comes first
here to be mentioned above the other cities.
Aegidius Gelenius, On the sacred and civil Greatness
of Colonia Agrippina, assigns very many relics of St. Bartholomew
here and there; page 275, in the college
of St. Severinus of the skin of St. Bartholomew; page
298, in the collegiate church of the Holy Apostles,
A double tooth of St. Bartholomew the apostle;
page 326, in the treasury of the basilica of the B. V. M. in the Capitol
he numbers An Arm of St. Bartholomew; page
372, in the Holy Physicians Pantaleon &c., a part
of the Arm with relics; page 456, two little bones
in the Charterhouse there; page 492, in the church of the Augustinian
Fathers: A jawbone, he says, of St. Bartholomew
the apostle, likewise a particle of one of his fingers;
page 510, in the treasury of the college of the Society
of Jesus, A jawbone and five particles, of which
one is of the size of a finger, the others of the size
of a common sea-shell, the rest tiny;
page 549, in the monastery of SS. Bartholomew and
Aper, which is of virgins of the Cistercian order,
an arm of St. Bartholomew the apostle, enclosed in the form of a silver
arm, and a finger of the same Apostle
enclosed in silver; page 584, a little bone in
the monastery of St. Vincent; page 646, in the college
of Steinfeld of the Premonstratensian order, a mandible
of St. Bartholomew the apostle is mentioned by the same author:
who also mentions relics of the same Apostle
on pages 238, 264, 266, 268, 274,
289, 292, 409, 412, 442, 445, 463,
560, to which he does not add of what part of the body
they are had, whom the curious reader may consult:
further, some of these I likewise find noted
in Beyerlinck assigned before, at the word Relics.
[278] The reverend lord Johann Waxweiler,
pastor in Altpseidt of the diocese of Trier, transmitted in the year 1673 a testimony
of this kind: and in many other places of Germany, I testify
that in my parish church there has been kept from time
immemorial a notable relic of St. Bartholomew,
enclosed in silk with an ancient inscription,
which hitherto remained enclosed in the ciborium without other special worship;
but I, for the greater veneration of that same Saint,
have taken care that it be set in a little casket lined within and without
with silk, and wrought with elegant work and with the needle. Beyerlinck in the Work mentioned,
under the word Relics, page 283, writes about
the temple of St. Stephen at Mainz this among other things: In the same place
one of the knives with which St. Bartholomew was flayed
is shown; but on page 285, in
Andechs, a monastery of Benedictines in Bavaria,
he says that a particle of the body is kept. Bucelinus
in the Benedictine Sacrary, page 22: An arm,
he says, and some bones at Andechs. There was once
as the reader will learn from the letter
of Erchanbert, bishop of Freising, which Bernard Pez published,
tom. 6 of the Anecdota, col.
76; whether on occasion of certain relics
carried thither is uncertain to me; but that
that report was false is sufficiently established. Papebroch
in the Roman Journey already mentioned, page
45, among things worth mentioning seen at Frankfurt has this:
In the greater temple we had seen the forehead of St.
Bartholomew. Thomas Johannes Pessina of Czechorod
in the Metropolis of Prague, page 516, writes
that in the said metropolitan church, sacred to St. Vitus, the following
relics are kept: Of St. Bartholomew the apostle, he says,
the upper part of the head, and a part of the mandible:
likewise separately in a gilt silver box a tooth:
and three other bones large enough: one of the leg or
of the arm among the Karlstein relics, all which
Charles IV obtained in the monastery of St. Gebhard at Constance:
so the martyrology of the church of Prague relates.
The Karlstein relics are those which, long kept in
the royal castle of Karlstein, Ferdinand III ordered to be transferred
to the metropolitan church of Prague:
in whose printed catalogue the three bones here mentioned
are likewise named.
[279] where also a prodigy; Bucelinus in the place assigned, besides those already mentioned,
commemorates other relics of St. Bartholomew in this manner:
His sacred head at Augia Dives, a monastery of the order of St. Benedict on an island
of the Rhine, near Constance of Germany, commonly Reichenau.
A right large bone, says the same, is kept in St.
Trudpert's: the monastery is situated in the district
of Breisgau, and in the diocese of Constance, as I gather
from Mabillon, tom. 3 of the Benedictine Annals,
page 317. The lower mandible of St. Bartholomew
the apostle entire at Murbach, a monastery of the same order in Alsace:
A joint of a bone and another notable portion
at Weingarten, a monastery of the diocese of Constance.
So much from Bucelinus pertaining to Germany.
To which I annex from Caesarius of Heisterbach,
book 8, chapter 60, a miracle wrought upon a tooth of holy Bartholomew,
which he relates in this manner: On
the mount of St. Saviour near Aachen
there lately died a certain anchoress,
who among her relics had also a tooth
of holy Bartholomew the apostle. When the priest who celebrated Masses for her
knew this, and had asked for it,
and she had not consented, he threatened to withdraw
unless she gave him at least half of it:
but she, loving that tooth, and not wishing to be without
a priest, consented that it should be divided, though most unwillingly.
A wondrous thing; for as soon as the priest put a small knife
to the tooth, as if the Saint suffered anew,
blood burst from it drop by drop: which
being seen, the priest was terrified, and left the tooth entire
to the anchoress. But I saw that same tooth in the past
year among the nuns at Burtscheid,
Aachen. Among the relics of Aachen also
there is numbered somewhat of the hairs of St. Bartholomew.
So much about the relics in Germany.
[280] the same in Spain, Let us at length visit Spain, to gather
there also certain things about the venerable relics of St. Bartholomew.
Bucelinus, several times already adduced, in the place assigned
gives this: Some bones with a fragment
of the skin at St. Dominic of Silos, a monastery of virgins at Toledo:
A rib in the abbey of the Lady Virgin of Nájera,
which Mabillon mentions, tom. 3 of the Benedictine Annals,
page 379. The Escorial monastery of St. Laurence
of the Hieronymites is also adorned with precious
remains of our Apostle, from whose
manuscript Lipsanology Pien, staying there in the year 1722,
wrote out in Spanish what I here render into Latin:
An arm-bone of St. Bartholomew the apostle without the joint,
a sixth of a cubit broad, with an inscription
written on parchment in an ancient character. There is joined to it
an authentic instrument of Laurence,
bishop of Cyrene, suffragan of Cologne, signed in the year
1597, the XXIV of November, in which he testifies
that those relics, received from the monastery of St. Denis at Möllenbeck
on the Weser, heresy prevailing there,
were, an examination being instituted, found most true and
holy, and for such … always reverently
held. Therefore, he says, greatly praising the zeal
of those who vindicate holy relics of this kind,
by episcopal authority, by the tenor of these presents,
we grant leave to that same R. Fr. Delgado
(the Catholic king's procurator in those parts)
of transferring the said most sacred safeguards, for the enlargement
of divine worship, to the well-mentioned Catholic
majesty, and of exalting them there. In this
manner the said relics were carried into Spain, and are there held
in due honor and veneration.
Besides, these are numbered in the said Lipsanology:
A fragment of the skin, four fingers and a half broad:
an entire rib, wide a fourth part of a cubit and
more. That notable relics of St. Bartholomew
are kept in the cathedral church of Lugo Gil
González Dávila writes, Ecclesiastical Theatre, tom. 3,
page 173.
[281] Here I stay my step, reader, having gone farther
than I had determined: how the things said about the relics are to be understood: although I do not doubt
that other sacred remains of that same holy Apostle
are found still elsewhere: but to recount absolutely all
is not within human diligence, nor
does our purpose require it. If anyone perchance wonders
that so many relics of one Saint are had almost everywhere,
and especially that so many arms
have been enumerated, let him weigh with himself that in these
of the head, not so very large, is named an arm
or a head, which happens also in the other parts.
He who rightly considers these things will easily perceive
that the sacred remains which we have recounted can be reconciled both among
themselves and also with the Beneventan tradition —
with the relics, I mean, enumerated in the bull of Orsini
cited in chapter 2, §3 — which
to a less attentive reader would seem to conflict with one another.
For the rest, it ought not to move us that Jesujabus,
bishop of Nisibis in the XIII century, writes in Assemani,
tom. 3, part 1, page 306, that the body
of Nathanael or Bartholomew the apostle is had in
Armenia: for that Nestorian boasts that many other things
also are had among his Orientals — for instance paradise,
and in it Enoch and Elijah, and the souls
of SS. Peter and Paul — and he asserts these things with such
confidence as if he had dealt familiarly with the aforesaid Saints
in paradise: which, as they are false and ridiculous,
so they show that that heretic is worthy rather of contempt
than of a longer refutation.
[282] the singular excellence of St. Bartholomew. The monasteries and churches sacred to St. Bartholomew
throughout the whole world I do not enumerate, since they are more
than can briefly be commemorated. This, however,
to the glory of the holy Apostle, to whom I have consecrated the firstfruits of this
my labor, I observe: that in all things
he was great and utterly outstanding: for even before
he was called to follow the Lord he was most praised,
by the witness of the eternal Truth that cannot be deceived;
and in the Apostolic office he was supreme, as innumerable provinces
of almost the whole of Asia, enlightened by his
preachings, testify; and in enduring death
he was most brave, since in it he seems to have borne torments
almost unheard of; and after death, in his sacred
body, no less to be marvelled at than sought after
by the prayers of all; so that, although many deeds of this
Apostle are obscure and unknown, the greatness
and excellence of his glory is certain and undoubted.