Hermes of Rome

ON ST. HERMES OF ROME, MARTYR

AT ROME

IN THE YEAR CXVI.

HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

ON ST. HERMES OF ROME, MARTYR

BY J. S.

§ I. Judgment concerning the antiquity and credit of the Acts

of St. Alexander, from which the deeds of St. Hermes are to be sought: and their defense

against Tillemont and others.

Since the deeds of St. Hermes, that most illustrious martyr, are to be sought from the Acts of St. Alexander, Roman Pontiff, [The deeds of St. Hermes are related in the Acts of St. Alexander, concerning whose credit there is dispute,] and since the learned have judged variously concerning those Acts, it must before all things be inquired what is to be determined concerning the antiquity and credit of those Acts. Baronius, at the year 132, number 1, calls the Acts of St. Alexander faulty through excessive antiquity. Henschen, who published them in volume 1 of May from page 371, thought them altogether genuine, and endeavored to defend them as such in the preliminary Commentary, relying upon the authority of the ancient martyrologists, to whom these same Acts had been acceptable, since they drew their eulogies from them. Others, finally, would have it that the Acts in question are not only faulty but mendacious, and that all the things related in them are false and fabricated. The leader of this band was John Pearson, a heterodox Englishman, in his Chronology of the earlier bishops of Rome, page 227; whom Tillemont followed in his Monuments of ecclesiastical history, volume 2, pages 590 and 591, and finally Baillet in the Lives of the Saints, volume 2, columns 7 and 8. But Schelstrate again stood for the credit of the Acts in his Antiquity of the Church, dissertation 3, chapter 2. To him Bianchini acceded in his notes upon Anastasius the Librarian, in the life of Alexander. Concerning the age of the Acts the aforesaid writers disagree no less: for Henschen suspected that they were written in the third century, before the persecution of Decius; others contend that they were not struck off before the seventh century. First of all, therefore, I shall investigate in what century the Acts appear to have been composed, since from this it will also become clear how much credit is owed to them.

[2] Although the time at which these Acts were written cannot be exactly shown, Those Acts appear to have been written I nevertheless judge that they were not written after the fourth century, that is, after the peace restored to the Church by Constantine. That they were not written later is persuaded, in the first place, by the style itself, which is sufficiently Latin and simple, and far purer than would suit the seventh century. Next, the antiquity of these Acts is suggested by the author's silence concerning the cult of St. Hermes: for that cult was most ancient and widely propagated, as we shall see below. Nay rather, from the different manner in which at number 14 the burial of St. Quirinus and of St. Hermes is reported, an argument for the antiquity of the Acts is supplied far better than that which Pearson wrested from the same passage against Henschen. The Christians, say the Acts, buried the body of Quirinus on the Appian Way, in the cemetery of Prætextatus. Hence Pearson reasons thus at page 228: But the author of the Acts could not write this before the death of Prætextatus. Now he suffered not before the Diocletianic persecution, but in that very persecution, under Maximian. Yet from this it certainly cannot be deduced that they were written in the seventh century, or after the times of Constantine. Nay rather, Pearson ought to have proved that the name was given to the cemetery from this Prætextatus, in order to establish anything against Henschen's conjecture. Aringhi in his Subterranean Rome, book 3, chapter 16, disputes at length concerning the cemetery of Prætextatus; but he leaves it uncertain from whom it was named. Hear his words at number 4: Since therefore the cemetery of which mention is made was built by a distinguished man of the same name, or at any rate for this cause, that some martyr who was called chiefly by this name was buried in that place, thence it obtained the title of Prætextatus, as we may be permitted to conjecture. Therefore Pearson's argument does not prove that these Acts could not have been written before the persecution of Decius; much less that they are not earlier than the seventh century.

[3] Now let us hear how the burial of St. Hermes is reported in the same place: at the beginning of the fourth century, or sooner: His sister Theodora gathered up the body, and buried it on the Old Salarian Way, not far from the city of Rome, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September. Why did the author here keep silence concerning the cemetery, which in the case of Quirinus he expressed? For that place on the Old Salarian Way, where St. Hermes was buried, was already in the fourth century called the cemetery of Basilla. This is taught by the Calendar composed in the fourth century, which Bucher published in his Commentary on the Paschal Canon from page 267. For thus it is there read: On the fifth of the Kalends (of September), of Hermes, in the cemetery of Basilla, on the Old Salarian Way. Then: On the third of the Ides (of September), of Protus and Hyacinth, in the cemetery of Basilla. And below: On the tenth of the Kalends of October, of Basilla, on the Old Salarian Way, in the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth. To Basilla, I think, the name of the cemetery is not added, because it took its name from her very self. Since therefore in the fourth century the place of St. Hermes' burial was known under the name of the cemetery of Basilla, would not the author seem likely to have indicated this, if he had written after the name of Basilla had been given to the cemetery — just as he had done a little before in reporting the burial of St. Quirinus? Hence therefore we gather, by a conjecture at least probable, that he did not write after the middle of the fourth century, and perhaps much sooner, namely at the time designated by Henschen from conjecture.

[4] nor does the title of count of both services stand against this antiquity, Nevertheless, against so great an antiquity of these Acts Pearson brought forward another argument, which pleased Tillemont also: The Acts, he says, name Aurelian COUNT OF BOTH SERVICES; but whoever he was, he could not be described by that title before such a title was invented, that is, before the great change in the form of the Roman commonwealth was made by Constantine, after whom at length mention of the countship of military affairs is often made. But neither Pearson nor Tillemont has proved that military counts were first instituted by Constantine. Therefore they could not soundly infer that these did not exist before Constantine. Equally unknown to certain persons were the domestic counts of the first and second rank; yet that these existed long before the times of Constantine, Valois shows in his Annotations upon Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine, book 4, chapter 1, from ancient inscriptions, from which he thus concludes: Whence it is gathered that this COUNTSHIP, a dignity of the first and second order, was not first instituted by Constantine, as Cujas judged in his notes upon the Code of Justinian; but was in use long before the times of Constantine. The same thing Salmasius shows at length in his notes upon Spartianus, page 47, and upon Trebellius Pollio, page 307.

[5] nor the title of count of both services, Garcías Loaisa, in his Collection of the councils of Spain, page 456, explaining the eighth Council of Toledo, speaks otherwise concerning the origin of the counts. Receive his words: "Count," as Spartianus is the authority in his life of Hadrian, took its rise thence. For when Hadrian had transferred the senate into his own court, having received the chief men among the senators into the company of his friends, ... thence he began to have a kind of domestic senate about him: which, because he took delight in almost continual journeyings, began to be called the comitatus of the Cæsar; and the friends themselves, comites, counts: whose counsels and aid he used in war and in peace. In nearly the same manner Salmasius speaks concerning the beginning of the counts in his notes upon Spartianus, page 47. But it will be useful to confirm these things from the ancient authors themselves. Spartianus in his life of Hadrian, page 4, has it thus: He enrolled all the best men of the senate into the fellowship of the imperial majesty. That these were called the counts of the emperor, we gather from the words of the same writer at page 9, where he wrote thus concerning Hadrian: When he sat in judgment, he had in council not only his friends or COUNTS alone, but jurisconsults and others. Here surely no others ought to be understood by "counts" than those whom Hadrian had enrolled into his own fellowship. Further, these counts not only were present with the emperor for the exercise of judgments, but accompanied him also on military expeditions. Hear Julius Capitolinus in his life of Verus, page 37: To the Euphrates, however (in the Parthian war), at the urging of his counts (who were with him in Syria), the emperor Lucius Verus set out with success. The same man, as is presently added at page 18, when the war was finished ... gave kingdoms to kings, but provinces to his counts to be governed. Truly I do not see why those who were set over provinces, and accordingly had to wage wars, could not be called counts of military affairs, or of both services. There is therefore no cause why these words could not have been in use before the times of Constantine, or even of Decius, since Lucius Verus preceded Decius by more than eighty years. Moreover the origin of the counts can be traced yet higher: for Bianchini, praised above, shows from an ancient inscription that already under the emperor Claudius Titus Plautius Silvanus was called a count. But these things suffice us for dissolving the adversaries' argument, which, if it be legitimate, would prove only that the Acts are not older than Constantine.

[6] Tillemont is also displeased by this phrase, judging in the sacred stead, nor do the other arguments of the adversaries stand in the way. which he would have to have been unusual in the time of Trajan, and for long afterwards. But this scruple is empty, nor indeed was that phrase afterwards more usual. If therefore I should reason thus: "That phrase is not found after Decius, so far as I know; the Acts therefore were written before Decius" — the inference drawn from so slight a reason would not, I think, be pleasing. No more can Tillemont's quibble please, since countless phrases are found among the Latin authors which you would find in one place only. No firmer is the objection which both of them raise from St. Gregory; namely, that he did not find at Rome the Acts of the martyrs except a certain few collected in the volume of a single codex; from which they strive to infer that these were composed after the times of St. Gregory. For indeed, even if

Gregory found few Acts of the martyrs at Rome, it does not thence follow that the Acts of St. Alexander were not among them; much less that they had not been composed at that time. For even today we can say that few Acts of the martyrs are extant, if they be compared with the vast number of the martyrs. Next, neither were all the things that then existed at Rome; nor were all those which were kept there known to Gregory, since in the same letter 29 of book 8, where he has these words, he affirms that he is still seeking those which Eulogius of Alexandria had asked for, and that he will send them if they can be found. From what has been said, therefore, I conclude that there is nothing to hinder these Acts from having been able to be written while the persecutions were still in force, and even before the times of Decius, as Henschen suspected; although for the rest I judge it more probable that they were written about the times of Constantine, from more ancient monuments, or perhaps from tradition, inasmuch as the more ancient Acts of these martyrs had perished in the persecution of Diocletian, and had not yet fallen from the memory of the faithful.

[7] These things concerning the age of the Acts having been disputed, it remains for us to examine In the Acts certain things are exaggerated beyond the truth, how great their authority ought to be. Further, since I have diligently weighed, in zeal for investigating the truth, the reasons brought forward on both sides for the genuineness of the Acts and against their credit, I judge that Henschen attributed to those Acts somewhat more authority than they deserve, but that his adversaries Pearson and Tillemont have turned aside further from the way, when they contended that no credit at all is to be attributed to those Acts, and that nothing true, nothing genuine occurs in them. The first is easily proved from the age of the author and from the style of the Acts: for since the author wrote in the third or fourth century concerning matters that happened in the second century, not far advanced, and mingled with the Acts frequent dialogues, which he does not seem to have found written down, it is altogether gathered from this that he indulged his own talent somewhat, that he might adorn this little composition. The same is proved from certain things which are too much exaggerated, and amplified beyond the truth, such as we shall presently see. Hence in these Acts not all the circumstances are to be held for certain or true, as happens in most profane historians, who, led by love or by hatred, have too much exaggerated the deeds of princes or of others. But just as for that cause we do not abrogate all credit from historiographers of this kind, when they relate facts to which nothing can be opposed from elsewhere, so neither do I think that all credit is to be withdrawn from these and other Acts of this kind, because some exaggerations or errors are found in them. But now let us see what so greatly displeased Pearson and Tillemont, that, not reverencing the authority of Bede, Ado, Rabanus, and Notker — whom they confess to have drawn their eulogies from these Acts — they wished altogether to persuade us that nothing from these Acts is to be inserted into history.

[8] as is shown: but they ought not on that account to lack all authority: There are found in the Acts, at number 1, the following: Now the divine grace had conferred upon him the true affection of the whole people; so that he both converted the greatest part of the senators to the Lord, and also baptized Hermes the prefect of the city, together with his wife and sister and sons, along with one thousand five hundred and fifty of his own servants, and their wives and sons also, all of whom he first caused to be made freeborn on the holy day of Easter, and so to be baptized. Here Pearson exclaims: Is not this so openly false that he who asserts it could not deserve credit in other matters? Tillemont indeed says that the greatest part of the senators had not been converted even in the year 395, and shows that the author contradicted himself, when at number 2 he wrote: that the whole senate was subservient to Aurelian, sent to persecute the Christians. I answer that the author used excessive exaggeration in both places. Perhaps from ancient monuments, or from tradition, he had learned that various senators were converted by St. Alexander: presently, the matter being amplified beyond measure, he fashioned "the greatest part." Perhaps he had received that one thousand two hundred and fifty men were baptized with St. Hermes, and among them a number of servants who were presented with liberty; hence by an improbable conjecture he could invent that so many servants of St. Hermes were presented with liberty and cleansed by the sacred laver. Willingly therefore do I admit that these things are exaggerated beyond the truth, and are not to be inserted into history in the same words: but truly, if on that account all credit must be withdrawn from the author, it will be necessary also to cast away the ancient historiographers who handed down to memory the affairs of the Greeks and Romans; for there is none among them, I think, who has not frequently so extolled various matters beyond the truth, and even beyond the likeness of truth.

[9] [Tillemont, contradicting himself, admits a persecution of Trajan such as the Acts describe,] The aforesaid writers also vehemently carp at what is said of Trajan at number 2: He sent Aurelian, count of both services, from Seleucia of Isauria for the slaying of all the Christians. Tillemont exaggerates the clemency of Trajan to such a degree that he says that a man is little skilled in Roman history who could believe that Trajan sent orders that all the Christians should be killed at Rome. Weigh with me, reader, whether Tillemont has not here fallen into the same fault which we just now allowed in the author of these Acts; whether, I say, by an excessive exaggeration of Trajan's clemency he has not fallen into contradiction. Certainly, in treating of the persecution of Trajan in the same volume, article 2, page 169, he is so far from extolling the clemency of that emperor, that he refutes Eusebius, who had attributed the persecution arisen under Trajan to popular commotions, and adds these words in French: Trajan, whose mildness history so greatly extols, nevertheless contributed much to the cruelty then exercised against them. He accounted it to his glory to be more religious than other princes, and to safeguard the vigor of the Roman laws. Puffed up by the victories which he had won over the Dacians, … he judged that he could not better establish his empire than by compelling all the Christians to embrace the worship of the demons, to whom he set down as owed the victories and triumphs which he owed to the true God alone. He pursues many more things in the same place to the same effect. But truly I do not see by what connection these things can be rightly combined with those which he brought forward in order to attack the Acts of St. Alexander.

[10] Nay, in another place also he has written things contrary to this same censure. and the same is asserted in the Acts of St. Ignatius, which he approves: In the Acts of St. Ignatius, in Ruinart, page 8, these things are read concerning Trajan: He compelled all those who were worshipers of God either to sacrifice or to die. These words signify even more than those quoted above from the Acts of Alexander, since they refer to absolutely all Christians. Nevertheless Tillemont adduced these same words in the text just now recited; and he makes so much of the Acts of St. Ignatius, whence they are taken, that in article 2 concerning Ignatius, page 195, he says: We cannot venerate these Acts too much; and in note 4 upon Ignatius, page 578, he affirms that nothing occurs in them which does not agree excellently with Eusebius, with St. Chrysostom, and with the history of Trajan. Hence I can conclude nothing else than that Tillemont, while he was treating of the persecution of Trajan and of St. Ignatius, acknowledged that all Christians — at least those who had been denounced to the judges and were unwilling to sacrifice — were destined to death by Trajan; and that afterwards, while he was attacking the Acts of St. Alexander, being unmindful of what he had written before, he rashly adopted Pearson's objection, already abundantly refuted by his own earlier words. Further, that not even the least scruple may here remain, I observe that it is not said in the Acts that all Christians were to be investigated by the count Aurelian, but that all who had been denounced were to be killed; just as Trajan had before written back to Pliny the Younger. Finally, if the Acts really asserted that Trajan toward the end of his life wished to persecute the Christians more than he had done before, he would have done nothing but what is agreed to have been done by Diocletian.

[11] It is also a scruple to Tillemont that Aurelian is said to have been sent from Seleucia of Isauria: first, certain other petty objections are refuted: because Trajan died at Selinus, not at Seleucia; next, because he believes that Seleucia was then reckoned to Cilicia, not to Isauria. This scruple Eusebius will sufficiently shake off, who in the Chronicle has it thus concerning the death of Trajan: Trajan perished of disease at Selinus, or, as we have found written elsewhere, he was carried off at Seleucia of Isauria by a flux of the belly. If Eusebius ascribes Seleucia to Isauria, why was it not lawful for the author of these Acts to do the same? — who, had he said that Trajan died at Seleucia, would have had as the companion of his error one more ancient than Eusebius; but he did not even assert this. Further, Pagi in his Critica at the year 67, number 15, casts in another scruple hence, namely that Trajan does not seem to have been then at Seleucia, whence he is said to have sent Aurelian. But it would be enough if Aurelian, who is said to have been sent thence to Rome, was there, or was accustomed to reside there. But Schelstrate at page 157 shows from Dio, book 68, that Trajan was at Seleucia in the year 115, and judges that in that same year Aurelian was sent to Rome, who arrived there in the year 116. Hear in what manner he arranged the matter: Before the winter of the year CXV, therefore, Trajan came to Seleucia, and thence, upon the report of the conversion of Hermes and his household, sent to Rome Aurelian, count of both services, who reached the city in the year CXVI, and on the V of the Kalends of September commanded Hermes, prefect of the city, to be beheaded; but in the following year, CXVII, on the fifth of the Nones of May, he ordered St. Alexander to be pierced with very frequent prickings; in which same year Trajan perished by the divine will. These conjectures, born of the matter itself, are pleasing, and by them the credit of the Acts is strengthened. As to what Tillemont further objects here, that it was not the office of a prefect of the soldiery to persecute Christians, it is frivolous; since the emperors themselves also did this from time to time, and many governors of provinces became notorious for slaughters of Christians. Equally empty is his saying that this Aurelian is unknown to writers: for there is no doubt that there were far more prefects among the Romans at that time than those of whom notice has come down to us.

[12] objections taken from the age of Alexander and Eventius In the Acts, at number 17, Aurelian is asserted to have said to Alexander: Consider, that you are of the age of thirty years. But from this it can no more be inferred that Alexander was at that time only thirty years old, than it can be inferred that Christ was nearly fifty years old when the Jews said to him, John 8, verse 57: Thou art not yet fifty years old; as Henschen had sufficiently observed. Nevertheless Pearson here vehemently exclaims against the Acts, and attributes to them the words of the tyrant in bad faith. He might indeed with the same faith affirm that in the Psalms God is denied, because it is read there: The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God. These things therefore admit of no difficulty, since the tyrant could judge from Alexander's countenance that he was much younger than he really was, and could also of set purpose disparage his age. But what Eventius himself says concerning himself at number 18: When ... I was twenty years old, I was ordained a priest, is not without some difficulty. Nevertheless, although this age seems incredible to Pearson even in the Apostolic times themselves, and Tillemont thinks the knot indissoluble, I do not see why the Acts must on this account be rejected. For in the first place, whether an error crept in by the fault of the transcribers, or the author himself was mistaken in the time at which Eventius was ordained a priest, this will not stand in the way,

to prevent the Acts from being able to be held genuine.

[13] these do not hinder the credit of the Acts: Nevertheless it ought not to seem so marvelous that some holy man is said to have been ordained a priest while he was in his twentieth year, that we should believe it certainly false. Nor do the Apostolic times increase this difficulty, but rather diminish it. We know that St. John was chosen an apostle by Christ the Lord while he was a youth. We know that Timothy was ordained bishop by the Apostle at an age little mature. Certainly many years after the ordination the Apostle writes to him: Let no man despise thy youth. Nay rather, if we believe Chrysostom in his preface to the first Epistle to Timothy, Paul, when he circumcised him, delivered to him the whole ministry, adding below this reason: For Timothy was endowed with such virtue that his youth was no hindrance at all. Tillemont has similar things concerning St. John, in the article on John, that is, volume 1, page 331, where he believes him called to the apostolate in the twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth year of his age. If therefore virtue and gravity of manners could supply in John and in Timothy, called to greater things, what was lacking to their age, why could this not happen in the case of St. Eventius? Especially since at that time the harvest was great, but the laborers few; and the age at which it behooved a man to receive sacred orders had perhaps not yet been determined. This difficulty, therefore, is not so great as to render the Acts suspect.

[14] it is not proved that Hermes was not prefect of the city: Tillemont objects besides certain things which look more closely to St. Hermes, whom he can scarcely believe to have been prefect of the city. According to the Acts, as he reasons, Hermes was still prefect of the city one year before the death of Trajan. Nevertheless, when Trajan was dying, the prefect of the city was Bæbius Macer, and, as it appears, not for a few months only, says Tillemont, since he was believed powerful enough to contend for the empire with Hadrian. Thus he reasons, because in Spartianus, page 3, Tatianus is said to have advised Hadrian by letters that both Bæbius Macer, prefect of the city, should be killed if he resisted his rule, and Laberius Maximus, who as suspected of aiming at the empire was in exile on an island, and Frugi Crassus. How empty this argument is against the prefecture of St. Hermes, understand from Tillemont himself. In volume 2 of the Emperors, page 229, in the article on Hadrian, article 5, citing these words, he observes that Bæbius Macer was consul in the year 101, that is to say, suffect consul. Was Bæbius, then, who had been consul so many years before, unable to be an object of fear unless he had held a long prefecture of the city, since exiles too were feared? Then he casts in some scruple because the name Hermes is Greek, rare, he says, among those who discharged the first offices of the empire. But Trajan was reigning, a Spaniard by origin; why then could not men of Greek origin discharge the offices of the empire? Next, Bianchini in his notes on St. Pius shows from various inscriptions that the name of Hermes was then common enough in the city. There is therefore no reason why we should deny that he was prefect of the city.

[15] He assails more vehemently number 3 of the Acts, because there the prefecture of the city is promised to be continued to the captive Hermes answer is made to other scruples, and it is shown if he should be willing to sacrifice to the idols: for he affirms that he cannot believe this. But I am altogether persuaded that Tillemont would readily have believed it, if he had undertaken to defend these Acts, not to attack them. Certainly in volume 5 of the Monuments, note 1 upon St. Theodotus, whose Acts he there defends, page 661, he was able to believe that the priesthood of Apollo and other very great things were promised to Theodotus by the tyrants, adding that they were accustomed to promise more than they performed, once the faith of the Christians had been shaken. Now if they could promise these things to a man who kept an inn, as may be seen in the Acts of St. Theodotus in volume IV of May from page 149, and if Tillemont could believe this, why did he refuse to believe that it was promised to a most illustrious man that the prefecture which he had formerly held should be continued to him? To me indeed this seems more credible than that; nor will it appear otherwise to one who rightly considers the matter.

[16] It displeased Tillemont in number 2 of the Acts that the pontiffs of the temples are said to have approached Aurelian, when he had come to Rome, that Tillemont elsewhere did not reject Acts on account of similar difficulties. in order to accuse the Christians: which he contends was not necessary, since Aurelian had been sent to kill the Christians. Again an empty scruple. For who will wonder that those idolaters, who seem to have carried the matter to the emperor, presently came to Aurelian, in order to inflame him the more and to inform him more fully concerning everything? Finally it is pleasing to add to this disputation the words of Tillemont which he has in volume 5, page 660, note 1 upon St. Theodotus: There are few monuments, he says, however authentic they may be, in which difficulties are not found — and sometimes such as give much trouble — which you may not easily remove. Wherefore it is not to be wondered at if such occur also in the Acts of St. Theodotus, nay, even of Alexander. I add that the difficulties to which he there endeavors to reply seem to me no less than those which we have just now handled. Nevertheless Tillemont undertook to defend those Acts, nor judged that they should be rejected; so that I do not sufficiently perceive with what consistency he so greatly hated these, as to endure to take nothing at all from those Acts, and to deny the martyrdom itself of St. Alexander in various places.

[17] But upon what reason does Tillemont rely in denying the martyrdom of Alexander? The martyrdom of St. Alexander denied without reason: Irenæus, he says, in book 3 against the Heresies, chapter 3, enumerating the Pontiffs down to Eleutherius, makes mention of the martyrdom of none, Telesphorus excepted: it can therefore hardly be believed that any of them after Peter was a martyr except Telesphorus. Indeed this reason is so futile, and so unworthy of a learned man, that I should believe it had fallen from Tillemont inadvertently, did he not repeat the same in various places, and employ it also for attacking other Acts of martyrs. For Irenæus in that place commemorates most briefly the succession of the first Pontiffs, just as in chapter 1 he had briefly enumerated, along with Peter and Paul, the four Evangelists. Then, as in chapter 3 he is silent about the martyrdom of Alexander, so in chapter 1 he makes no mention of the martyrdom of Peter or of Paul, although he touches upon their death, and does not even record the decease of Alexander. Receive his words uttered in chapter 1 concerning the death of Peter and Paul: But after their departure, Mark, etc. Concerning Alexander, however, his predecessors, and his successor, he has it thus: But to this Clement succeeds Evaristus, and to Evaristus Alexander, and thereafter Sixtus was appointed sixth from the Apostles. Who would infer from this that none among the first Pontiffs was a martyr except Telesphorus, because mention is made of the martyrdom of Telesphorus alone? Who, I say, would deduce this thence, who could not in the same manner infer that not even Peter or Paul were martyrs? Nay rather, by the same consequence, that is, by none at all, he will be able to contend that none of the four Evangelists had met death before Irenæus wrote these things, because forsooth the death of Peter and Paul is commemorated, while that of the Evangelists is passed over.

[18] how much credit is to be attributed to his Acts. You see hence, studious reader, that Tillemont was zealous to withdraw all credit from the Acts of St. Alexander to such a degree that he did not admit even the martyrdom of St. Alexander, and wished all things pertaining to St. Hermes and to the other martyrs, which are recorded in these same Acts, to be held as of no credit whatever. This leader Baillet followed intrepidly, on the III of May in the article on Alexander, and in that on Hermes on the XXVIII of August. Nor were there wanting others who yielded their hands to the specious reasonings of Tillemont. Not even our own Sollier, in the Martyrology of Usuard, in the Observations on the III of May, departed sufficiently from Tillemont, in whose objections against Henschen he acquiesced. Hence I myself at the beginning hesitated in doubt; and had not the gravity of the matter impelled me to shake out Tillemont's arguments with unwearied labor — lest the Acts of various martyrs, which are sought from this one monument, should be wholly cast away — I should easily have adhered to the judgment already passed against the Acts. But when, in examining the several objections, I had detected their emptiness, I changed my mind; and judged that the Acts should be defended: not indeed as primitive and altogether genuine, and certain as to all circumstances, but certainly as probable, and credible in the chief facts, nay in all those to which more certain monuments are not repugnant.

§ II. The eulogy from Ado; a most ancient cult; a cemetery with a church, and other places dedicated to his name.

The eulogy, in which a few things are corrected, Whatever is related in the Acts of St. Alexander concerning St. Hermes, Ado has woven faithfully enough into the eulogy which he recites concerning St. Hermes on the XXVIII of August. In it, for "the emperor Aurelian" substitute "Aurelian the count, under the emperor Trajan," as he himself calls Aurelian on the III of May in the article on Alexander. And judge the number of servants who are said to have been converted with Hermes to be faulty or too much exaggerated. At Rome, he says, the birthday of the most blessed martyr Hermes. This most illustrious man, when he was prefect of the city of Rome, blessed Alexander, Pontiff and martyr, baptized together with his wife and sons and his sister Theodora, and along with him likewise one thousand two hundred and fifty of his servants, and their wives and sons also, freeborn status having first been granted to them. And not long after, being thrust into prison by the emperor Aurelian, blessed Alexander also being placed in custody, he is committed to the tribune Quirinus. Who said to blessed Hermes: "What reason is there, illustrious man, that you, who judge in the sacred stead, should not only wish to be reduced to this indignity, but should also bear with equanimity to be despoiled of the honor of the prefecture and thrust into chains like a private person?" St. Hermes says: "I have not lost the prefecture, but have exchanged it. For an earthly dignity is taken away from the earth and changed; but the heavenly dignity subsists in eternal sublimity." Quirinus says to him: "I marvel that you, a prudent man, have come to such folly as to believe that you will have anything beyond this life, after the ashes of the human body are so reduced to nothing that not even the bones themselves subsist." To whom blessed Hermes: "I too, years ago, used to deride that life, and used to say that this fleshly life was the profitable one."

[20] And Quirinus: "Make me also prove it, that if it is so it is recited as you have believed, I too may believe." Blessed Hermes said: "St. Alexander, who is held in chains, taught me these things." Hearing this, Quirinus began to curse Alexander, and said to Hermes: "I asked you, saying, Make me prove that you have believed justly; and you have named to me a man who is a magician, whom I hold in chains and shut up in the depths of the prison. If therefore what you say is true, I will go to him myself, and will triple his chains and his guards; if he shall be able at the hour of supping to come to you, I will believe what he has taught." He went, tripled the chains, set guards. At the first beginning of night, therefore, there came a boy, who seemed to be no more than five years old, bearing a burning torch in the prison, and bending his knees he prayed with blessed Alexander, saying the Lord's Prayer; and taking his hand he led him out through the window,

and brought him to blessed Hermes in the house of Quirinus. When Quirinus saw this deed, he was terrified. To whom, after other things, blessed Hermes said: "Behold, you see us together, whom you had consigned to guards.

[21] The cause why I have believed St. Alexander is this. from the Martyrology Having an only son laid low in an exceeding sickness, who was still going to his letter-studies, and when he had been led by me and by his mother into the Capitol, and we had sacrificed to the gods and had given rewards to the pontiffs, he died. Then his nurse began to rebuke me, saying: "If you had led him to the threshold of St. Peter, and had believed in Christ, you would have your son safe." To whom I answered: "Since you yourself have been made blind, and have not been cured, how shall he render my son safe?" "If," she said, "five years ago I had believed in Christ, my eyes would have been restored to me." To whom I said: "Go, and believe: and if Alexander shall open your eyes, I will believe that he will also restore my son to me." The blind woman went off to him, and behold she returned to me whole; and laying my dead son upon her shoulders she ran, and cast him before the feet of blessed Alexander. But he, prayer having been made, raised him up. I immediately cast myself at his feet, and asked to be made a Christian.

[22] And I bestowed upon him his mother's patrimony; I added also somewhat of my own. of St. Ado. But the rest I either laid out upon the poor, or gave to my servants, who together with me were made Christians. When blessed Hermes had done these things and things like them with regard to Quirinus, Quirinus believed with all his household, and was baptized. Aurelian, hearing all these things, at the last pronounced sentence, that blessed Hermes should be punished with the sword. Who, being beheaded, was gathered up by his blessed sister Theodora, and was buried on the Old Salarian Way, not far from the city of Rome, on the fifth day, in the month of September. Thus far Ado. But at the end, for the fifth day of September we must read the fifth of the Kalends of September, as it stands in the Acts, and as Ado without doubt wrote, since he announces his memory on that day.

[23] It is more probable that the Saint suffered in the year 116. Further, it appears doubtful whether Hermes suffered under Trajan, or rather under Hadrian, eighteen days after the death of Trajan. For, as writers now agree, Trajan died about the X of August in the year 117, at Selinus, afterwards Trajanopolis, in Cilicia. Hence Hermes could suffer in the same year on the XXVIII of the same month, before the death of Trajan was known at Rome. Ado, with whom certain others agree, affirms that Pope Alexander, whom Hermes preceded, suffered under Trajan. But Usuard on the III of May places the martyrdom of Alexander under the rule of Hadrian; and the Roman Martyrology, with others, adheres to him. This disagreement arose from the Acts of St. Alexander being understood in different senses. For those Acts have it thus at number 2: Whence by the will of God Trajan died in the same year. If he died in the same year in which he stirred up this persecution, it is necessary that St. Hermes suffered in the year 117, Hadrian being already emperor. But if Trajan died in the same year in which Alexander was crowned with his companions on the III of May — as the author probably wished to insinuate, since he nowhere speaks of Hadrian — then St. Hermes suffered in the year 116, Trajan still reigning. And this appears to me the more probable, because Aurelian the count seems to have executed everything by the mandate of Trajan, and thus it is more rightly understood in what manner he was sent to Rome from Seleucia. These matters despatched, I proceed to show the most ancient cult of Hermes.

[24] The Saint's most ancient cult, from the cemetery, Already at number 3 we have shown that the memory of St. Hermes is celebrated in the most ancient Calendar published by Bucher. That was written about the middle of the fourth century, and announces only those Saints whose festivities were held in the cemeteries under the earth, as Papebroch observed in volume 2 of June, page 464. Further, the cemetery of Basilla, in which the festivity of St. Hermes is there recorded, took its name from Hermes himself, as also from Protus and Hyacinth; as Aringhi proves in Subterranean Rome, book 4, chapter 34, where he describes at length that cemetery of SS. Hermes, Basilla, Protus and Hyacinth, with the adjoining basilica. The aforesaid Papebroch judges that the name of St. Hermes was first given to the place; that afterwards the names of Protus and Hyacinth were added; and that at last, from the body of Basilla deposited there, it was more frequently called the cemetery of Basilla. The same writer suspects that the church was built in honor of those martyrs in the time of Constantine. Anastasius the Librarian, in the life of Pelagius II, says: He made the cemetery of blessed Hermes the martyr. But this perhaps ought to be understood of a restoration, since the cemetery is more ancient, certainly under the name of Basilla.

[25] and the adjoining church sacred to him, Hadrian I, according to the same Anastasius in his life of Hadrian, renewed the basilica of the cemetery of the holy martyrs Hermes, Protus and Hyacinth, and the basilica (of Basilla) of wonderful size. That we must read of Basilla, not the basilica, Aringhi judges and proves in Subterranean Rome, volume 2, page 234. The same writer at page 320 teaches, from an ancient inscription that has been found, that this cemetery with its subterranean church still exists in a villa of the Society of Jesus. He adds at page 321: Peter Mallius also mentions the same in express and open words; for, enumerating the several cemeteries of the City which are situated outside the Pincian gate, he has these words: "The cemetery of St. Hermes and Basilla is outside the Pincian gate, where there is the church of St. Hermes the martyr." Which is plainly confirmed by a certain marble fragment of a peristyle, as it is still discerned in the very threshold of the aforementioned house: whereby, when after the death of Bosio men had been in the habit of coming thither to draw the ground-plan of the cemetery, in searching out and surveying fragments of this kind with studious eyes, it happened that I read the very name of St. Hermes, written indeed in these characters … HERME… And that this peristyle was once set before the door of that same church of St. Hermes, after the manner of a title, probable conjectures readily persuade us.

[26] But that we may survey the church itself: this indeed is of a sufficiently ample circuit; which is described, as it now stands: namely, about XC palms in length, XXX and a half in breadth, L in height. It presents besides a sufficiently ample apse, which the very sight teaches to have been of old skilfully adorned and set in order with paintings. That here at first stood the venerable images of Christ the Lord and Savior and of the blessed angels, the elder Fathers of the same Society affirm. But since the church is situated in a subterranean place, it receives light let down from on high through a certain aperture presenting a square shape, which is seen fitted above the apse. In the lowest parts of its walls, however, which adhere to the pavement, not a few approaches to the cemetery, though covered over with earth, are detected by those who search. When therefore one of these had been unbarred, an entrance to the cemetery presently lay open before us, yet so depressed and narrow that, with the body let down and stretched flat, it was necessary to creep for some while along the ground, until one came, not without immense discomfort and labor, to the paths further on.

[27] Further, that St. Hermes enjoys a cult very ancient in other places also ancient veneration at Antium and at Palermo, we gather with probability from various sources. Anastasius the Librarian, in the life of Boniface I, makes mention of a certain church then at Antium sacred to this Saint. Eulalius, he says, the antipope, dwelt in the city of Antium at St. Hermes. But since the city was long ago overthrown, that church without doubt underwent the same fate. There was also at Palermo in Sicily a monastery of St. Hermes, founded, as it seems, toward the end of the sixth century by St. Gregory the Great. Of it Gregory himself makes mention in book 6, letter 42 (elsewhere 41), in these words: Urbicus, abbot of the monastery of St. Hermas, which is situated at Palermo, has earnestly requested of us, together with his congregation, that a priest be ordained in the same monastery, who ought to celebrate the sacred solemnities of the Masses. To this request Gregory there assents. Now they judge that this monastery was founded by Gregory, because in book 5, letter 6 (formerly book 4, letter 4) he says: Urbicus, the provost of my monastery — which is to be understood of the same, since he writes to the bishop of Palermo. Rocco Pirri, in his Notices of the Sicilian churches, volume 1, page 63, proves that that monastery was famous, and subjoins the following: This monastery at length King Roger either repaired when it had fallen down, or built when it had been ruined, and dedicated it to St. John; and thence it came about that even now that monastery is called St. John of the Hermits: for the word "of St. Hermes," corrupted, passed into the word "of the Hermits"; although some, deceived by the greater similarity of the word, have believed that it was a convent of hermit men, and that thence that appellation arose. I should believe that the neighboring temple of St. Mercurius belonged to this monastery, for Hermes in Latin is Mercurius. So he. But we confess that it is not altogether certain that these things regard our Hermes, since the name Hermes and Hermas is common to several; yet there is none among them whose name is so illustrious.

[28] in Gaul, where it is restored through St. Cæsarius, divinely admonished: In Gaul also certain indications of the ancient cult of St. Hermes occur. On the XXVII of August, in the article on St. Cæsarius, at number 53, I recited the letter of Messianus the priest, in which he testifies that the Lord, with SS. Peter, Paul, Augustine, and Hermes himself, appeared to St. Cæsarius, and rebuked him in these words: Do penance, because you have negligently consigned to oblivion, amid the sacred mysteries of the Masses, the memory of the martyr Hermes, whom you have in your presence, whose feast is this day venerated and honored by the faithful. And Cæsarius, by the testimony of the same ear-witness, said in the morning to his own people after the customary exhortation: Woe to me, wretched, because for three years I have unhappily consigned to oblivion the memory of the martyr Hermes, … whose memory shall not be forsaken forever. Messianus adds: After these things he returned with the necessary equipment to the place (of the vision), where he built a church in honor of blessed Hermes the martyr, which by perpetual right he assigned to the see of Arles. These things were done before the middle of the sixth century, in which Cæsarius flourished; and they without doubt regard our Hermes, since he alone is honored on the XXVIII of August, on which the vision was offered.

[29] the Saint's name in the most ancient Fasti. From these things it is no wonder that the memory of the Saint is announced in any of the most ancient Fasti; such as are, besides the Bucherian already mentioned, the Calendar published by Fronto, the Martyrologies bearing the name of St. Jerome, the old Roman Martyrology, the Sacramentary of Pope Gelasius brought to light by Tommasi — in all of which he is found at the XXVIII of August. There is added the Sacramentary of Gregory in Ménard, in which he has a special preface. Finally, that I may not be longer by enumerating each, that Hermes, that most illustrious martyr, was celebrated with a most ancient and perennial cult, is shown by the ancient Calendars in Fiorentini, and by all our Martyrologies, in which (if you except Rabanus, in whom he is transposed) he obtains the first place, as our Sollier observes in his Usuard at the XXVIII of August. I therefore pass over

the remaining Martyrologies, and proceed to illustrate the various translations of the body.

§ III. The various translations of the sacred body, and relics scattered in various places.

The Saint's body raised by Gregory IV: The sacred body of St. Hermes was raised from the cemetery already mentioned in the ninth century, and translated to the church of St. Mark by Gregory IV, supreme Pontiff, who rebuilt from the foundations the church of St. Mark the Roman Pontiff, of which he had been Cardinal, as Anastasius the Librarian testifies in the life of Gregory IV. Anastasius indeed makes no mention of the body of St. Hermes having been translated thither, but Einhard, then abbot of Seligenstadt, in the History of the translation of SS. Marcellinus and Peter, in our volume 1 of June, page 204, says that this was done by Gregory IV at the same time at which he was building the church of St. Mark — not the Evangelist, as he wrote by an error, but the Roman Pontiff. Nay rather Aringhi, book 4, chapter 34, having related this translation, adds: Further, the body of Hermes the martyr is still kept with fitting honor in the church of St. Mark, into which it had been translated. But this is not likely: first, because neither does Piazza in his Sacred Hemerology, even though he elsewhere assigns relics in various churches, make mention of the body being still kept there; nor can we combine this with the translation of the body to be related below. Nay rather Panciroli, in his Treasures of the City, or in the index of relics subjoined at the end, ingenuously confesses that he does not know where the body of St. Hermes is.

[31] Further, Einhard, just now praised, relates in what manner he received a part of the relics of St. Hermes at Mulinheim, at what time certain relics were carried to Seligenstadt, or Seligenstadt, as the place in Franconia on the Main was afterwards called, commonly Selingstat. It happened therefore by chance, he says, that at the time at which he was about to open the sepulcher of the most blessed Hermes, and was about to take up his sacred body thence, one of our men, who in that same year had come to Rome for the sake of supplication, as is the custom for penitents, was present with the other pilgrims among the multitude gathered at the basilica of the Martyr. He, having diligently inspected the business that was being transacted, conceived — though with a simple heart, yet not without cause — the hope of obtaining relics of the said Martyr; and going to the deacon Deusdona, of whom we have made frequent mention in the first book, he earnestly begged that he would receive from the guardians of the place however small a portion of these, and would furnish it to himself to be brought to me. He, immediately assenting to his prayers, promises that he will do this without delay; and, a price having been given to the guardians, he received relics not only of St. Hermes, but also of the holy Protus and Hyacinth, whose bodies had been laid in the same basilica. And these indeed he took care to send by a certain member of his household, whose surname was Sabbatinus, and at the same time by our man, who persuaded him to do this; but what he was able to obtain of the body of blessed Hermes, he himself, coming to us, brought as a mighty gift.

[32] Not long after these things, on the very feast day of St. Hermes, a notable miracle occurred, and ennobled by a miracle: which Einhard relates in the same place. A certain woman of Cologne, miserably contracted and deprived of the use of her limbs, had come thither on account of the fame of the miracles of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, and had been divinely bidden to await the coming of a Physician, who without doubt would heal her… When meanwhile, he says, about the middle of the month of August, the deacon Deusdona, of whom we have made frequent mention in the first book of this Work, coming from Rome, brought to us one joint of a finger of blessed Hermes the martyr as a great gift. Which, receiving it, we placed, laid up in a little casket, in the upper part of the basilica, above the very western entrance of the church. But the woman, who, as I have said, had come thither admonished by a divine vision, and, two months having now passed, saw that none of the promised help had come to her, thinking herself deluded by an empty dream, began to meditate a return to her own country. And she arranged with the merchants who were to bring her back, that on the next Lord's Day — which was to fall on the fifth day of the Kalends of September, together with the anniversary solemnity of St. Hermes — she should board their ship, about to return into her own region. And now, the night being at hand which without doubt was to precede the day appointed for the departure, when we, according to custom, the nocturnal office being completed, had gone out to rest; while the rest were going out, that woman, wishing to enter, sat down upon the very threshold; and there, before them all, being oppressed by a kind of stupor, she kept silence for a little while; and then, some blood breaking forth from all the nails of her feet, having returned to herself, she stretched out her hand to the bystanders, and, raised upon her feet, began to walk to the sepulcher of the martyrs. When she had come thither, she prostrated herself in prayer before the altar, and lay there so long, until the hymn — which the multitude, at once exulting and marveling, was most devoutly singing in praise of God — was completed. And when it was finished, she rose up whole, but was unwilling to return any further to her own country. Deservedly therefore is that miracle ascribed to blessed Hermes, on whose birthday and beneath whose relics it is agreed to have been wrought. That these things were done in the year 830 is gathered from the Lord's Day upon which the feast of St. Hermes, that is, the XXVIII of August, fell: for this happened in the year 830, in which the Dominical letter was B. Baronius therefore, relating these things at the year 829, number 1, erred by one year.

[33] the body to Inde near Aix-la-Chapelle, Sigebert in his Chronicle at the year 851 relates the translation of the body in these words: The relics of the holy martyr Hermes are sent into Gaul by the emperor Lothair, and are honorably laid up at the monastery of Inde. The same Alberic has in his Chronicle in nearly the same words, but under the preceding year. But greater credit belongs to Sigebert, as the more ancient, whom also Baronius follows at the same year, and Molanus, Miræus, and others to be cited afterwards. Our Elders, in the Passed Over at that day, judge that the body arrived there on the X of January, because both in the printed and in the manuscript Martyrology of Ado there is noted at the X of January, The arrival of the holy martyr Hermes. Molanus, in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium, at the XXVIII of August has it thus: I have observed it noted in a certain ancient Martyrology, on the fourth of the Ides of January, the arrival of St. Hermes the martyr at Inde. Whether this is to be understood of the first or of the second arrival, I do not know. But it does not seem to be doubted that the passage is to be understood of the first arrival: for, if these are Ado's own words, the matter is certain, since Ado died before the body of St. Hermes was carried to Inde a second time. Next, if anyone should think these things afterwards added to Ado — which by what reason it can be said, I do not see — not even so would the passage be rightly understood of the second arrival; since then the body was only deposited for fear of the Northmen, that it might afterwards be restored. Certainly Rosweyde, in his Notations on this passage of the Martyrology of Ado, understands the first translation, and explains the place to which the relics were then translated in this manner: Inde is a place next to Aix-la-Chapelle, where is the monastery of St. Cornelius, into which these relics were first brought. Further, the monastery of Inde, or of St. Cornelius, is of the Order of St. Benedict, and is commonly called Cornelis-munster.

[34] and thence translated to Renaix, Rosweyde adds: Thence they were conveyed to Rothnacum, which is a town of Brabant (nay, of Flanders now, as we shall see) in the year DCCCLX, on the VI of July, as it stands in the Martyrology of that church itself: "On the same day, the translation of the body of St. Hermes the martyr at Rothnacum." Hence, when the Danes were laying Belgium waste, under the emperor Otto, they were carried back again to Inde. Afterwards, matters being pacified, they returned to the people of Rothnacum. So he briefly, which things I shall set forth somewhat more at large. Aubert Miræus, in the Belgian and Burgundian Fasti, page 494, has it thus: In the year DCCCLX, on the VI day of July, the body of St. Hermes was translated from Inde to Rothnacum, to the basilica of canons founded by St. Amandus, bishop of Maestricht, by the emperor Louis, son of the already named emperor Lothair. The same, somewhat more briefly, Meyer has in the Annals of Flanders at the same year. Lothair had already determined to carry the sacred body thither; but, he being forestalled by death, the son fulfilled the father's will. Hear Molanus in the place assigned before: The body of him (St. Hermes) the emperor Lothair brought from Rome, and for a time placed it at Aix-la-Chapelle in the monastery of St. Cornelius of the village of Inde, preparing another honorable place: who, the work being unfinished, was made a monk at Prüm, and a little after died. But his son Louis, wishing to fulfil his father's will, caused it to be carried away to the monastery of canons of Rothnake in the year eight hundred and sixty. And he is held the secondary founder of that place, for the primary one had been before this St. Amandus. With these things agree various monuments, partly printed and partly manuscript, transmitted to us from Rothnacum, which Molanus followed.

[35] He subjoins on what occasion the body was again carried to Inde, again carried to Inde and to Cologne for fear of the Danes, and brought back to Rothnacum. Miræus affirms that this was done about the year 940, adding that it was translated as far as Cologne for fear of the Danes. Much more ancient than these, inasmuch as he flourished at the beginning of the eleventh century, Baldericus, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, narrates the whole matter in the Chronicle of Cambrai, published by Colvenerius, book 1, chapter 75, in this manner: The Danes also raging no less about that province, and, as is plain to those who read the histories themselves, burning the holy houses of God, blessed Hermes, martyr of Christ, whom Pope Alexander baptized at Rome, is first carried away from the town of Rotnasce in Brabant, that is to say from the monastery which blessed Amandus built, to the monastery of the town of Ende, which is situated next to Aix-la-Chapelle; but afterwards, being translated as far as Cologne, he tarried there no little time. Whence, after the courses of some years had intervened, a great dispute arose between the two clergies, that is, between those of Rotnasce and those of Ende. For, the Danes having been removed, and the affairs of God's holy Church restored to prosperity, the men of Rotnasce endeavor to bring back their own Patron; but the men of Ende, unanimously resisting, contend to retain him, as being forsooth a precious treasure.

[36] This altercation therefore proceeded between them for some time. afterwards restored to the people of Renaix. But the men of Rotnasce, forestalled by a sounder counsel, approached the lord Pontiff Fulbert as suppliants, and, pressing upon him the course of their lamentation, earnestly implored that, since he had been translated from his parish, he would there also strive with all labor that the holy Martyr, wrested away by violent men, should be brought back. The bishop therefore, foreseeing their cause to be a fitting one, labored in every way, until he compelled the remains of the blessed Martyr to be brought back to their proper place. In recompense therefore for so great a benefit the aforesaid brethren freely bestowed upon the holy mother church of the men of Cambrai the town which is called Neuvehova by the inhabitants. That town Neuvehova, commonly Niewen-hove, is marked in the maps of Flanders not far from Ninove and Grammont, on the border of Hainaut and Brabant.

[37] But Rothnacum, where the sacred body still rests to this day, The Saint's church famous for votive pilgrimages: and which by others is called Rotornacum and Rothnasce, and by the Flemings Ronse, is situated between Oudenarde and Tournai, but nearer to Oudenarde, from which it is two leagues distant. It was formerly a town under the jurisdiction of Brabant; but in the year 1280, being sold to Guy, count of Flanders, it passed to Flanders: similarly, at the erection of the bishoprics of Belgium in the sixteenth century, it passed from the diocese of Cambrai to that of Mechlin. Sanderus describes it at greater length in

Flanders Illustrated, volume 2, pages 535 and 536, which the studious reader will be able to consult. Concerning the church of our Saint he records thus: Now this church of St. Hermes at Rotornacum was first founded by St. Amandus, and afterwards endowed by Louis, son of the emperor Lothair, and by other princes, and enlarged with possessions; and it has to this day, under the title of a collegiate church, canons constituted under one provost. These canons, besides the birthday of the Saint, which the whole territory of Ronse honors on the XXVIII of August, celebrate the translation on the VI of July, according to Molanus, who concerning the place adds the following to our purpose: Now the place is most famous, because many pilgrims in ill health come to the memorial of St. Hermes, and frequently depart restored and whole. Miræus in the Fasti praised above, page 496: In the year MCCCXCII Charles VI, king of France, being sick, sent his own statue, made of wax, as a gift to Ronse to St. Hermes, and recovered his health; as Meyer narrates in his Annals. Meyer, however, adds a restriction at the said year, using these words: And the king recovered his health; although through frequent turns and intervals he remained frenzied, and labored to such a degree that he recognized no one.

[38] a twofold transfer of the body into new shrines: The remaining transfers of the sacred body the aforesaid Miræus records. At page 495 he has it thus: In the year MLXXXIX the relics of St. Hermes were placed in a new silver shrine by Gerard IV, bishop of Cambrai, these verses being added:

The Pope, the boy, the nurse: he prays, is given life, she brings; She sees these things, he lives, Hermes is astonished, is renewed at the font. The torch joins Hermes to the Pope, and Quirinus to Christ; The penalty inflicted on the guilty saves, and the chain heals. This one drags, that one slays; Hermes lives, an Angel stands by: The part comforted is rendered to God, the other to the earth.

By these verses, rude according to the barbarism of the age, the life and martyrdom of Hermes is briefly expressed. The testimony of this translation was placed in the shrine, and was found in the year 1526, written in these words: In the year from the incarnation of the Lord one thousand and eighty-nine, in the twelfth Indiction, on the V of the Kalends of November, there were translated into this vessel the relics of the glorious martyr Hermes, by the lord Gerard II, bishop of Cambrai, in the third year of his episcopate, in the presence and with the testimony of the lords Oiguardus the abbot, and lord Siger, abbot of Blandinium, and Peter the archdeacon, and Tibaldus, provost of Ronse, and Tibaldus the dean, and the lord Theodoric of Oudenarde, and … the advocate; there being present also no small multitude of honorable persons, clerics and laymen. Concerning Gerard II, bishop of Cambrai, there is treatment in the reprinted Gallia Christiana, volume 3, column 21 and following. But that the beginning of his episcopate is there assigned to the year 1076 does not agree with the third year here reported, but with the thirteenth year, so that probably for third we must read thirteenth. For the testimony could scarcely be read on account of its age, as the men of Ronse attest, who transmitted it to us in manuscript. Finally, as Miræus subjoins at page 496, in the year MCXXVI Robert Croy, bishop of Cambrai (concerning whom see in Gallia Christiana, column 52) ordered the relics of St. Hermes to be transferred, by Godfrey, abbot of Eename, out of the old shrine, in which the written testimonial of bishop Gerard was found (as we have just now recited), into a new one.

[39] [a procession accustomed to be made yearly, in which the Saint's body is carried around.] Further, the men of Ronse every year, on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity, carry around the body of their Patron in supplication. The chief magistrates, in the name of the whole people, on the Friday before the aforesaid feast, request that the body be granted to them for the procession to be instituted after the accustomed manner; and, an oath having been given by them that they will faithfully restore the body, the canons assent according to custom, as has been written to us from Ronse. The procession, moreover, is thus described in the Ordinal of Ronse: The high Mass being finished, a solemn procession is arranged with silken copes, with the shrine of St. Hermes the martyr, and it goes out through the western door of the church; at the exit of the cemetery the lord of the town with his people receives the shrine, under the aforesaid security, to be carried about the town, as has been said above, and the procession returns to the church through the northern door of the cloister. Nearly the same things are then read in this manner: This day, at the request [] of the people of Ronse, the provost, dean, and chapter grant, good security having been had beforehand, that the shrine of the most illustrious martyr Hermes our patron be carried about the town, for the defense of the fatherland. After Vespers, at the return of the shrine of the most illustrious martyr Hermes, our whole choir goes out processionally to meet the shrine, and receives it by two canons, clothed in silken copes, carrying it solemnly to the church, with the song of the gladness of his triumph:* O Martyr of Christ. Thus far concerning the body, or at any rate the chief part of the body. Now we shall investigate certain smaller parts of it.

[40] Piazza in his Sacred Hemerology of the city of Rome at the XXVIII of August has it thus: relics preserved in various places. The feast (of St. Hermes) is celebrated at St. Mary Major, where one of his arms is exposed; and in the church of St. Alexius, where there is a good part of his head; another part is in St. Clement's, and in St. Anne's at the rope-makers'. Bucelinus in the Benedictine Sacrarium at the XXVIII of August: A notable portion, he says, of his relics (Hermes') is in the monastery of Hersfeld. Gelenius in The Greatness of Cologne, pages 263 and 266, reckons relics of St. Hermes among the treasure of the church of St. Gereon at Cologne. Raissius in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium, page 314, writes that there is kept in the cathedral church of Tournai an entire rib of the glorious and illustrious martyr Hermes; and at page 161 he assigns a small bone of St. Hermes the martyr to the English college at Saint-Omer. The same writer at page 45 numbers relics of St. Hermes among the sacred remains of the collegiate church of St. Amatus at Douai. Papebroch in his manuscript Roman Journey, page 295, narrates that at Aix-la-Chapelle, in the collegiate church of St. Albert, all the relics were shown to him, among which, he says, the head of St. Hermes the martyr. Masini in Bologna Surveyed, part 1, page 433, asserts that the head of St. Hermes the martyr was given to the Servites of Bologna in the year 1663 by Pope Alexander; but, since he adds that it was received from the cemetery of St. Cyriaca, where our St. Hermes was not buried, this must be understood of another; nor are there wanting very many martyrs of the same name, as may be seen in our Work in various places. Finally Thomas Pessina of Czechorod, in his Diary of the relics of the metropolitan church of Prague, at the XXVIII of August has these things: An arm of St. Hermes, Martyr, which Charles (IV, the emperor) obtained at Aix-la-Chapelle at St. Adalbert's in the year MCCCLVII. Likewise a part of the head, and two small fragments, each of them larger than a finger.

that is, petition*.