ON ST. DEUSDEDIT, ROMAN PONTIFF,
IN THE YEAR 618
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY
Deusdedit, pope (S.)
BY C. D. S.
[1] Few monuments of St. Deusdedit survive Baronius complains Annales at the year 617, no. I "that the deeds of so great a pontiff have been left so obscure through the lack of writers, deeds which must indeed have been distinguished, since the Church of God venerated him of old as a saint and received him with that title among the saints and has constantly venerated him with a yearly commemoration." But no indication of ecclesiastical cult paid of old to that pontiff is either brought forward by Baronius himself or to be found anywhere. Certainly, as Antoine Pagi says Critica in Annales, year 617, no. II, "the name of St. Deodatus is not read in the Roman martyrology of Galesinius nor in older ones; but Baronius, on account of his outstanding virtues, inscribed it on the 8th day of November in the Roman martyrology emended by him with apostolic authority."
[2] in the Liber pontificalis and in the epitaph. We have a twofold document of the highest authority on the life of Deusdedit: namely, the one an abridgement of his life in the Liber pontificalis [Recently edited most accurately by the distinguished Louis Duchesne (Le Liber pontificalis, texte, introduction et commentaire. Paris, 1886), and again by Th. Mommsen (MG., Gesta Rom. Pont. vol. I)], the other an epitaph placed in his memory by Honorius I, Roman Pontiff, his second successor (in the years 625 – 638) [Edited by I. B. De Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae, vol. II (1888), p. 127]. That the abridgement of the life was written by an author contemporary with the same pontiff Honorius the distinguished L. Duchesne gathers both from the fact that certain singular formulas of speech are found in the Lives of the ten pontiffs who sat from the year 536 to the year 625 Liber pontificalis, Introduction, chap. VI, no. 27 (vol. I, p. CCXXXII), and because it mentions the sedition of the Ravennates, which took place a little after the beginning of the seventh century [Cf. L.-M. Hartmann, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Byzantinischen Verwaltung in Italien (1889), p. 13], as commonly known and therefore as recent Liber pontificalis, p. 319, note 2. These indications certainly establish the matter very probably.
[3] The writings attributed to him are spurious. Besides, the old collectors of canons bring forward two letters inscribed with the name of Deusdedit Jaffé-Loewenfeld, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, nos. 2003, 2004, and likewise a decree on the election of the Roman Pontiff Ibid., Suppl., no. 2004 a (vol. II, p. 739). But learned men long ago pronounced that these were falsely ascribed to the pontiff [Ibid., at the places cited. Cf. F. Pagi, Breviarium hist. RR. PP., vol. I (1730), p. 297; Mansi, Concilia, vol. X, pp. 536 – 38 (Migne, P. L., vol. LXXXI, pp. 361 – 62)].
[4] The principal question to be treated here by us turns on the time at which Deusdedit held the see. He seems to have died in the year 618. We know from Bede Historia ecclesiastica, book II, c. 7 (ed. Plummer, vol. I, p. 94) that Boniface V, who presided over the church after Deusdedit, was sitting in the year of the Lord's incarnation 619. But, as is rightly noted in Haddan and Stubbs Councils relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. III, p. 71, it is not clear enough from the text of Bede whether by the year 619 it is to be understood that Boniface V was raised to the pontifical see, or that in that year his letter reached Mellitus and Justus, bishops of the English. If the former is judged the truer, since Deusdedit sat three years and twenty-three days See below the abridgement of the life from the Liber pontificalis, or, according to one of the twenty-five or thirty codices in all which represent the Liber pontificalis, (besides three years) ten days; according to four [The fourth, written in the eighth century, see cited in Duchesne, Liber pontificalis, vol. I, p. 29], twenty days Which reading seems to be preferred to the others. Cf. below, annotation 17; according to three, twenty-four days; and since, according to certain older codices, he was laid to rest on the 8th day of November, it must now be concluded from these with sufficient security that the beginning of his pontificate is to be tied to the middle of the month of October of the year 615 [Which is confirmed also by the fact that after the death of Deusdedit, as is read at the end of the abridgement of his Life, the episcopate was vacant one month, sixteen days, and accordingly Boniface V was made pontiff about the feast of the Lord's Nativity, and so the year 619, whose first day, according to the style of Bede, fell on this feast, is to be counted the first year of his pontificate]. To this opinion the most excellent recent critics have adhered [Jaffé-Loewenfeld, Reg. RR. PP., vol. I, p. 222; Duchesne, work cited, vol. I, p. CCLXII; Mommsen, at the volume cited, p. LX. All of whom indicated the certain day as the 19th of October; whence they are to be judged to have computed the time of Deusdedit's pontificate as three years, twenty days. Cf. Duchesne, at the volume cited, p. CCLVI, note 4]. Yet, from various conjectures concerning errors or faults admitted, as they think, by the copyists, Alfonso Chacón Vitae S. R. E. Cardinalium (1677), vol. I, p. 431 set the limits of the same pontificate at the years 613 and 616, Baronius Annales ecclesiastici, at these years and Garnier Liber diurnus at the years 614 and 617, Papebroch Conatus chronico-hist … in Acta Sanctorum, Propylaeum Maii, p. *95 at the years 617 and 619.
[5] Baronius asserted that Deusdedit was created Roman Pontiff from subdeacon, Before his pontificate he was a presbyter, namely from a certain corrupt copy of the Liber pontificalis which he had in his hands, and in which, in place of the reading ex patre Stephano subdiacono at the beginning of the Life of Deusdedit, was read: filius Stephani, ex subdiacono. But that none of the old codices of the Liber pontificalis is infected with an error of this grave kind is shown by the most accurate recent editions of the work Cf. above, annotation 3, and that opinion is most effectively refuted by the epitaph placed by Honorius I, Roman Pontiff, in memory of his predecessor, in which indeed the latter is proclaimed Line 13 to have completed four tens of years as presbyter before, an old man Ibid., line 14, he took up the government of the Church.
[6] Less improbably, then, Chacón At the place cited above, annotation 18, whom Papebroch followed At the place cited above, annotation 21, perhaps of SS. John and Paul. says that Deusdedit before his pontificate was presbyter of Saints John and Paul. Yet I do not know whether he had any other argument for this opinion than that a certain presbyter of that name and titulus is read to have subscribed the decree of Gregory the Great issued at the Roman synod on the 5th day of July of the year 595 [Letters of Pope Gregory I, ed. Ewald and Hartmann among the MG., Epistolae vol. I, p. 367], and is named again in a diploma of the same pontiff given on the 5th day of October of the year 600 Ibid., vol. II, p. 275. But another Deusdedit too, presbyter of the titulus of Saint Praxedes, subscribed the synod of the year 595, and in the letters of Gregory the Great two or three others of the same name are read, namely Deusdedit the deacon and afterwards bishop of Milan MG., Epistolae vol. II, pp. 266, 274, 361, 396, Deusdedit the notary Ibid., p. 438, and Deusdedit, son-in-law of Felix of Orticillum in Campania Ibid., vol. I, p. 163; so that it must be judged that this name was not so unusual at that time.
The rest, which concerns the deeds of the holy pontiff, we shall try to elucidate in the annotations to his Life.
[7] Nor is there reason for us to treat of the posthumous glory of Deusdedit. For, as we said at the beginning of this Commentary, Baronius first brought him into the calendars of the saints. no indication whatever of ecclesiastical cult paid to him is found before Baronius. Baronius indeed asserts that his memory was illustrious for the fame of a certain miracle. For, recalling that plague of elephantiasis by which Italy was desolated under the pontiff Deusdedit: "And then it happened," he says Annales, year 615, no. VIII, "that, while the most holy pontiff Deusdedit himself was providing for the afflicted City and in person visiting the sick, moved with compassion, he kissed one of them, in whom he contemplated Christ …, and by a divine miracle rendered him clean of that disease. This is testified by most ancient ecclesiastical monuments, from which on his heavenly birthday, when his yearly commemoration is accustomed to be made in the Church, a miracle of this kind is sung." But those most ancient monuments are not indicated more distinctly by Baronius and, unless I am mistaken, are reduced to the Roman Martyrology edited by him, into which he inserted this elogium of the pontiff Deusdedit on the 8th day of November: At Rome, of St. Deusdedit, pope, who was of such merit that he healed a leper of leprosy by a kiss.
SUMMARY OF THE LIFE OF ST. DEUSDEDIT
From the Liber pontificalis. — Cf. Preliminary Commentary, no. 2.
Deusdedit, pope (S.)
FROM THE LIBER PONTIFICALIS
Deusdedit, a Roman by nation, of his father Stephen the subdeacon Cf. Preliminary Commentary, no. 5, sat three years, twenty-three days Cf. Preliminary Commentary, no. 4. He loved the clergy much and recalled the clergy to their former places [He loved the clergy … recalled. On these words the distinguished L. Duchesne notes: "Il faut voir ici le souvenir d'une réaction contre un système suivi antérieurement (revocavit), sans doute sous Boniface IV, qui, étant un fidèle disciple de saint Grégoire, aura montré aux moines plus de bienveillance que n'en comportait l'opinion du clergé" [One must see here the memory of a reaction against a system followed earlier (revocavit), doubtless under Boniface IV, who, being a faithful disciple of St. Gregory, will have shown the monks more benevolence than the opinion of the clergy allowed] (Lib. pont., vol. I, p. 319, note 1). Already of Sabinian (Roman Pontiff in the years 604 – 606), of whom is read in the abridgement of his Life: He filled the church with clergy, the same most learned man had said: "Cependant on ne mentionne pas d'ordination. C'est sans doute que Sabinien rendit au clergé des postes que saint Grégoire avait confiés aux moines" [Yet no ordination is mentioned. It is doubtless that Sabinian gave back to the clergy posts which St. Gregory had entrusted to the monks] (ibid., p. 315, note 6). I would certainly not dare to call these conjectures improbable, but neither sufficiently certain]. At the same time Eleutherius the patrician and chamberlain came to Ravenna, and killed all who had been mixed up in the slaying of John the exarch and of the judges of the commonwealth [At the same time … mixed up. These things about the sedition raised at Ravenna, in which John the exarch was killed, we know only from this passage of the Liber pontificalis. Cf. Hartmann, at the place cited above, p. 832, annotation 6]. He came to Rome and was received excellently by the most holy pope Deusdedit. He, going out from Rome, came to Naples, which was held by John of Conza, the usurper
Intarta, for antarta, that is, rebel. See Du Cange, under Antartes. Fighting against him [According to another class of codices Contra quem. Cf. Mommsen, MG., at the volume cited, p. 166], Eleutherius the patrician entered Naples and killed the usurper Otherwise eumdem tyrannum, simul cum eo alios multos et sic. Ibid.. He returned to Ravenna, and, the roga having been given [The roga is "an honorary donative which used to be paid out by the emperors to the nobles and magistrates and even to the people, or to the clergy by the supreme pontiffs." Du Cange, under the word] to the soldiers, peace was made Otherwise magna is added. Mommsen, at the place cited in Italy [He, going out … in all Italy. From this passage and from the Life of Boniface V Paul the Deacon took what is read in the Historia Langobardorum, book IV, c. 34 (MG., Scriptores rerum langobardicarum, p. 128). On Eleutherius see more in the Copenhagen continuator of the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine (MG., Auctores antiquissimi vol. IX, p. 339, nos. 21 – 23)]. He established a second Mass among the clergy [He established … among the clergy. On these words Vittorio Baldini noted (cited in Migne, P. L., vol. CXXVIII, p. 687): "Of those who have composed treatises on liturgical matters there is no one who does not worry this passage of Anastasius, when the discussion falls on the repetition of Mass in the same church. Cardinal Bona, in his golden treatise on liturgical matters, book I, c. 14, no. 14, after he had tried to prove from Leo the Great, in the letter to Dioscorus of Alexandria ordering the sacrifice to be repeated when the multitude of the faithful is so great that the basilica cannot receive all at once, that from that time the custom flourished at Rome of offering the sacrifice several times on the same day, objects to himself the aforesaid text, saying: 'Of the holy pontiff Deusdedit the author of the Pontifical writes thus: He established a second Mass among the clergy. On which words Peter of Orvieto says in his scholia: Because then perhaps, after the manner of the Greeks, only one Mass was sung in the church, which edified more according to the ancients.' And he at once adds: 'But from the testimony of Leo brought forward it is plain that the custom of repeating the sacrifice was introduced into the Roman church long before.' Yet, with the leave of the most eminent writer, if anyone wishes to defend the interpretation of the Orvietan, namely that until the times of blessed Deusdedit the rite of celebrating only one Mass in each church prevailed, he will easily lift the authority of the said letter of Leo, by explaining that Leo ordered the sacrifice to be repeated only in the case of a new crowd filling the basilica, in those places in which only one basilica existed, and by the same presbyter; but that it was then first established by blessed Deusdedit that among the clergy, after the solemn Mass, another, private one should be held by another of the clergy, whether a new crowd gathered in the basilica or not, whether there was one basilica or several. Then certainly the rite seems first to have been introduced in the Latin Church that several Masses should be celebrated in the same church and several altars set up for celebrating them. For that there was one altar in each basilica in the first centuries of the Church is beyond controversy, and that only one Mass was celebrated upon it; both of which the Greek Church retains." Thus far Baldini. But the distinguished L. Duchesne (Lib. pont., vol. I, p. 320, note 5): "Les commentateurs ne semblent s'être occupés de ce passage que pour montrer ou déclarer qu'ils n'y entendent rien. Je ne saurais, de mon côté, présenter qu'une conjecture: c'est qu'il s'agit peut-être ici d'un second office imposé aux clercs, un office du soir, appelé improprement missa. Du reste, ce terme de missa paraît avoir ce sens dans le canon 30 du concile d'Agde (506). Il me semble découvrir une allusion à ce règlement dans le cinquième distique de l'épitaphe ci-dessus" [The commentators seem to have concerned themselves with this passage only to show or declare that they understand nothing in it. For my part I can offer only a conjecture: that perhaps it is a question here of a second office imposed on the clergy, an evening office, improperly called missa. Moreover, this term missa appears to have this sense in canon 30 of the council of Agde (506). I seem to discover an allusion to this regulation in the fifth couplet of the epitaph above] (cf. below, the Epitaph placed by Honorius, line 10)]. At the same time a greater earthquake took place in the month of August [Otherwise on the eighth day before the Ides of August, Mommsen, at the place cited], in the sixth indiction. After these things there followed a disaster among the people, a stroke of scabs [Those who thought this stroke of scabs was the disease commonly called elephantiasis], so that no one could recognize his own dead [At the same time … recognize. Paul the Deacon also copied these things, Historia Langobardorum, book IV, c. 45 (MG., at the volume cited, p. 135), but wrongly referring them to the times of King Rothari]. When he died, he was buried at blessed Peter the apostle [Otherwise on the sixth day before the Ides of November is added. Mommsen, at the place cited]. He left for his funeral to all the clergy one whole roga [He left … whole. On this passage the distinguished L. Duchesne notes (at the volume cited, p. 320, note 8): "Voici la première fois que le L. P. parle des libéralités funéraires des papes. Elles seront souvent enregistrées dans les notices pontificales de ce siècle. Obsequiae a ici le sens du mot francais obsèques; la distribution était faite sans doute à la fin de l'enterrement sous forme de sportula. Quant au terme de roga, employé habituellement pour désigner la solde militaire, il a évidemment ici le sens de traitement fixe. Le clergé romain recevait, sur les revenus des patrimoines, une somme déterminée, suivant l'ordre et la fonction. Déjà dans la première moitié du VIe siècle il est question de solemnes erogationes touchées par les clercs (voir le Praeceptum Felicis IV, cité plus haut, p. 282). Nous ne sommes pas bien renseignés sur la facon dont cet usage se combinait avec l'ancienne règle de partager entre les clercs le quart des revenus de l'église." [This is the first time that the L. P. speaks of the funeral liberalities of the popes. They will often be recorded in the pontifical notices of this century. Obsequiae has here the sense of the French word obsèques; the distribution was doubtless made at the end of the burial in the form of a sportula. As for the term roga, habitually used to designate military pay, it evidently has here the sense of a fixed stipend. The Roman clergy received, from the revenues of the patrimonies, a determined sum, according to order and function. Already in the first half of the sixth century there is question of solemnes erogationes received by the clergy (see the Praeceptum Felicis IV, cited above, p. 282). We are not well informed about the way in which this usage combined with the ancient rule of dividing among the clergy a quarter of the revenues of the church.]]. He held three ordinations, fourteen presbyters, five deacons, twenty-nine bishops for various places [On the authority of indications of this kind concerning the ordinations made by the Roman pontiffs, cf. the distinguished L. Duchesne, Lib. pont., vol. I, introduction, p. CLIV, no. 85]. And the episcopate was vacant one month, sixteen days [That one year must be put before these numbers Ant. Pagi already warned (Critica in Annales, at the year 617, no. III), and the distinguished L. Duchesne confirmed it, writing this (at the volume cited, p. CCLVI): "La durée du pontificat de Boniface V, 5 ans et 10 mois, additionnée avec les deux vacances avant et après ce pape, donne juste six ans moins un jour et nous conduit au commencement de novembre 624. Or il est sûr, par les documents de la correspondance pontificale, que Boniface V siégeait encore en 625 et qu'Honorius lui succéda vers la fin de cette année. Il y a donc erreur d'un an, soit dans les chiffres de vacance entre Deusdedit et Boniface V, soit dans les chiffres de siège attribués à Boniface V. La première hypothèse est la seule admissible, en raison d'abord de la différence d'autorité des deux chiffres, ensuite parce que la vie de Boniface V place avant son ordination la révolte de l'exarque Éleuthère, et nous fournit ainsi l'explication d'une vacance plus longue que de coutume. Nous admettrons donc 1 an, 1 mois et 15 jours de vacance apres Deusdedit." [The duration of the pontificate of Boniface V, 5 years and 10 months, added to the two vacancies before and after this pope, gives exactly six years less a day and brings us to the beginning of November 624. Now it is certain, from the documents of the pontifical correspondence, that Boniface V was still sitting in 625 and that Honorius succeeded him towards the end of that year. There is therefore an error of one year, either in the figures of the vacancy between Deusdedit and Boniface V, or in the figures of tenure attributed to Boniface V. The first hypothesis is the only admissible one, first by reason of the difference in authority of the two figures, then because the life of Boniface V places the revolt of the exarch Eleutherius before his ordination, and thus furnishes us the explanation of a vacancy longer than usual. We shall therefore admit 1 year, 1 month and 15 days of vacancy after Deusdedit.]]. He was laid to rest on the 8th day of the month of November [He was laid to rest … November. This sentence is lacking in most codices; it is read, however, in seven codices, of which one is of the eighth century and two are of the ninth century].
THE EPITAPH OF ST. DEUSDEDIT PLACED BY HONORIUS I
From the edition of I. B. de Rossi. — See Preliminary Commentary, no. 2.
Deusdedit, pope (S.)
Why have the rights of the inscribed tomb long lain idle, and no groaning of the people resounded? It was sloth, not fault, whoever you are who ask; for grief shut in is wont to tear the more. Lay open, grief, your groaning, and rest in blessed merits, so that it may please us to recount the deeds of the highest father. This man from his rising was nourished in the fold of Peter, but deserved to be present as shepherd of the holy flock. Pure was the faith of the man, founded on kindly vows, keeping vigil for Christ in hymn-sounding chants. A wise simplicity, a lively skill, simple, he was strong with a serpent's simplicity. And when as presbyter he had completed four tens of years, yet late in old age his mind was kindly. The apostolic summit [On these words cf. F. Lanzoni, Culmen apostolicum, in (1908), pp. 733 – 39. Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche, vol. IV] he cultivated for almost three years, bearing the perfect number thrice and four times. This gift of an epitaph in marble, for your ample merits, Honorius, your successor, built for you.