Mark

ON ST. MARK, POPE AND CONFESSOR, AT ROME,

IN THE YEAR 336.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Mark, pope, confessor, at Rome. (S.)

BY C. S.

§ I. The memory of the Saint in the old and more recent sacred Calendars, his cult and churches: the time and duration of his see.

Among the Passed-over Saints of yesterday I recorded, from the older Lucca Hieronymian Martyrology, The memory of this Saint on this day in many old which Francesco Florentinius published and illustrated, and from some others, the deposition of St. Mark the bishop, that is, the Roman Pontiff, referring the reader to the present day, on which he is read and venerated in very many more, ancient as well as classic and more recent; nay, he is repeated even in the same Lucca apograph. Take some of these, according to our custom. Among the Hieronymian apographs the very ancient one of Echternach announces him on this day thus: At Rome, the deposition of St. Mark, bishop. That of Murbach, in Martène and Durand, volume 3 of the New Treasury of Anecdotes, thus: Nones. The Birthday of St. Mark, Pope: the fragment of the very old one of Tours: On the Nones, of Mark, Pope: that of Lyre: On the Nones, of St. Mark, Pope. Nor did the author of the Little Roman, or ancient Martyrology, published by our Rosweyde, pass him over, who likewise says on this day: At Rome, of Mark, Pope.

[2] Bede agrees in his likewise more correct Martyrology, edited in our Work before volume 2 of the month of March, and more recent Martyrologies he is announced at Rome saying on the same day: On the Nones, the Birthday of St. Mark, Pope. The author of the Roman Calendar, which was written before the middle of the 8th century and which Jean Fronteau made public in print, also agrees. Here are the words: In the month of October, on the 7th day. The Birthday of St. Mark. Bede, who had placed St. Linus after Mark on the same day in that place, seems to have lighted the way for Wandelbert, when he likewise sang on this day, not metrically enough:

Linus and Mark, pontiffs, hold the Nones.

Ado, ascribing the time of his see, used a guide not rightly instructed, saying: At Rome, on the Appian Way, the Birthday of St. Mark, Pope and confessor, who sat in the episcopate two years, nine months, twenty days. He was buried in the cemetery of Balbina, on the Ardeatine Way, which he himself made by his own effort. Notker somewhat augmented and changed Ado's text in this way: At Rome, on the Appian Way, the Birthday of St. Mark, bishop and confessor, who, sitting in the episcopate two years, nine months, thirty days, ordained that the bishop of Ostia, who consecrates the Bishops (the Roman Pontiffs), should use the pallium.

[3] More briefly, but more correctly, Usuard has: At Rome, on the Appian Way, on the Ardeatine or Appian Way, which comes to the same thing. the Deposition of blessed Mark, Pope: likewise the Roman, which we use even today: At Rome, on the Ardeatine Way, the Deposition of St. Mark, Pope and confessor. Before we proceed to other matters, it will help to subjoin here the observation of Paolo Aringhi, volume 1 of Subterranean Rome, book 3, chapter 17, lest the martyrologists seem to disagree with one another, while some consign the memory of St. Mark to the Appian Way and others to the Ardeatine: for all indicate the same cemetery of St. Balbina (which also obtained the name of St. Mark). Further, it should seem nothing strange to the reader (says the praised Aringhi) if this same cemetery of Blessed Mark, or of St. Balbina, is frequently read in writers to have been situated sometimes on the Appian Way, and sometimes on the Ardeatine; namely for this reason, that this cemetery, placed between the two roads, extended equally to both. Whoever wishes to know more of this cemetery may consult Aringhi there.

[4] St. Damasus inscribed his sepulchre with verses. But what pertains to my purpose is the epitaph which he recites there from Baronius, inscribed by St. Damasus, Pope, on the sepulchre of St. Mark there. The praised Cardinal, having taken it from the Ancient Inscriptions of Jan Gruter, in the Appendix, page 1173, number 12, recorded it in volume 12 of the Ecclesiastical Annals among the Things to be added and amended, at the year of Christ 336, prefacing these few words: There exists an epitaph of the same St. Mark composed by Pope Damasus, which, lately brought to light, we have taken care to render here for you, vindicated in some fashion from the injury of time.

THE LIFE OF MARK WAS SUCH AS WE ALL KNOW

WHO BY THE MOUTH OF GOD COULD DESPISE THE WORLD

THE PEOPLE PRAYED THAT ALL MIGHT LEARN

THE HONOUR OF A GREAT LIFE, THE CONTEMPT OF HAVING

VIRTUE HELD THE INNERMOST RECESSES OF THE HEART

THEE, GUARDIAN OF CHRIST, PERFECT FRIEND

AND DAMASUS, WHEN HE RENDERS HONOUR TO THE TOMB

HERE IS MARK, PARTNER OF MARK IN LIFE, FAITH, NAME AND MERITS.

This inscription, which exists in the same way in Gruter, but certainly very corruptly, commends the pontifical virtues of the Saint, and proclaims that he was like St. Mark the Evangelist, as in name, so also in contempt of worldly things, and in faith and merits.

[5] His Office in the ancient and present Roman Rituals. The ancient cult of the same holy Pontiff and confessor, besides the agreement of the martyrologists already set forth, is proved also by the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory the Great, edited by Hugues Ménard, which has a Mass of him on this very seventh day of October, and by the Roman Calendar of Fronteau praised above, in which likewise the Gospel to be recited in his Mass is prescribed from Matthew. And in the present Roman Breviaries and Missals too the same holy Pontiff is honoured on this day with an Office and a Mass of simple rite, and in the Mass indeed with nearly the same Prayers as in the Gregorian Sacramentary, except the Secret, which in the latter is as follows: Let Thy blessing, O Lord, descend abundantly, which, at the intercession of St. Mark, Thy confessor and Pontiff, may render our gifts acceptable to Thee, and may make for us the Sacrament of redemption. Through our Lord etc. And this indeed in the universal Roman Church: for at Rome he is venerated with double rite in the Vatican and Lateran basilicas, and still more solemnly in the churches of his name, of which we shall now say something.

[6] Old (says Cardinal Baronius in the Annotations on his Roman Martyrology for this day) is the title of St. Mark at Rome, ancient churches of the same and a cemetery within and outside Rome of which there is mention in the first Roman council under Symmachus; namely because among others Abundius, priest of the title of St. Mark, is read to have subscribed this synod, held in the year 499, as may be seen in Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, column 1316. Of another church again of the same name (so the Cardinal continues there), situated outside the City, which Pope Gregory III restored, mention is made in the Book of the Roman Pontiffs, in Pope Nicholas, where the cemetery of St. Mark is also written of. In Nicholas I, in Anastasius the Librarian, from the recension of Francesco Bianchini, volume 1 of the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, page 408, there is read only: The overflowing Tiber entered through the portico which is placed before the church of St. Mark: of St. Gregory III, in the same place, page 179, these things had been set down before: Likewise the basilica of blessed Mark, situated outside the walls of this city of Rome, on the Appian Way, its ruined roof he restored anew.

[7] Further, of Benedict III, in the same place, page 402, is read: on the Ardeatine Way. But the cemetery of blessed Mark, confessor and Pontiff, which is placed outside the Appian gate, who, it being placed already in ruins (omitting the word who, read: Placed already in ruins), restored all things. Finally Baronius adds: Pope Hadrian, in his Letter to Charlemagne concerning Images, says this: "From then" (from the times of St. Silvester I and of the Emperor Constantine the Great) "up to now, the holy churches of the holy Pontiffs, namely of Silvester, Mark and Julius, of wonderful size, are painted among us, as much in mosaic as in the other histories, adorned with sacred images." This Letter of Pope Hadrian I exists in Labbe, volume 7 of the Councils, in whose column 955,

the text adduced at letter B is read. For the rest, it is probable that the churches of St. Mark mentioned received their name from him, not only as venerated there, but also as their founder: but of this matter below.

[8] As regards the order in which St. Mark sat in the Roman Chair, He sat between SS. Silvester and Julius with great agreement St. Optatus of Milevis, book 2 against Parmenian, Rufinus in his Ecclesiastical History, book 10, chapter 22, St. Augustine, volume 2 of his Works by the Benedictines of St. Maur, Letter 53, column 120, St. Jerome in his Chronicle, and Sozomen, book 2, chapter 19 of his Ecclesiastical History in Christopherson's version, place him between SS. Silvester and Julius. The ancient Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs also agree, of which the chief, printed by our Henschen before volume 1 of April, defines accurately the time of his see between the two praised Pontiffs thus: Mark, 8 months, 20 days. He was in the times of Constantine, Nepotianus and Facundus being consuls, from the 15th day before the Kalends of February until the day of the Nones of October, the above-written being consuls. These without doubt designate the common year of Christ 336, for in that year, Constantine the Great still reigning, Nepotianus and Facundus held the consulship.

[9] These things agree excellently with the reckonings of the same Catalogue for Mark's predecessor Silvester and his successor Julius, in the year 336, from the 18th of January until the 7th of October, according to which Silvester died on the last day of December of the year 335, and Julius was ordained on the 6th day of February of the year 337, so that St. Mark could neither have been initiated into the Pontificate before the year 336, nor have died long after the end of the same year. Nay, the remaining reckonings prove that both the beginning and the end of his see are to be placed in no other than that same year. For the 15th day before the Kalends of February, on which St. Mark is said to have begun to sit, sacred to the Roman Chair of St. Peter, was in the year 336 a Sunday, which was anciently customarily observed in the ordinations of the supreme Pontiffs; and on the day of the Nones of October, until which he is read in the same place to have sat, his anniversary memory was both formerly celebrated and is now also observed in the Church, as has already been shown. Finally, from the assigned day of ordination to the day of death are counted eight months and twenty days, as will easily appear to one who computes it. Wherefore Henschen before volume 1 of April, Papebroch in the Propylaeum of May, and Antoine Pagi in his Critique of Baronius deservedly held these reckonings as certain.

[10] not more nor less than 8 months, 20 days But Baronius himself, who in the Annals at the year 336, number 61, retaining the year of ordination and death, had by error fixed the ordination on the fourteenth day of February and the death on the sixth of October, and had therefore determined that he lived in the Pontificate eight months less eight days, afterwards at the end of volume 10, among the Things to be added and amended, page 949, advised that the year indeed of the Pontificate's beginning and of its ending by death should be retained, but that for the fourteenth day of February the sixteenth of January should be put back; and for the sixth day of October the seventh of the same month substituted; and finally that nine months less nine days should be assigned to the see of St. Mark. But this most learned Cardinal so judged there from his Book of the Roman Pontiffs, which he had praised at the year 336, number 1, whose reckonings he himself acknowledged in the same place to be partly faulty.

[11] much less 2 years, 8 months, 20 days, For in that book (as the same illustrious Annalist witnesses) St. Mark succeeded St. Silvester I, Nepotianus and Facundus being consuls … and sat two years, eight months, and twenty-one days. Two years of see are likewise ascribed to him by the author of the Catalogue edited in second place by Henschen, by Anastasius the Librarian, and by others, whose error in this respect Baronius acknowledged at the cited year 336, number 61, both because St. Jerome in his Chronicle assigns Mark only Eight months in the Pontificate, and Sozomen, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 19, a brief time; and because this same book of the Roman Pontiffs indicates, by the consuls ascribed, that St. Julius succeeded Mark in the year 337, as I too observed above from the Henschen Catalogue; nor is it necessary to prove it here with more. Besides, in the year 336 neither the 14th nor the 16th day was a Sunday, which was already anciently appointed for the ordinations of the supreme Pontiffs. Why then should we believe this book of the Roman Pontiffs, which wrongly prolongs the duration of St. Mark's see certainly beyond a year, and assigns another day of ordination than custom bore, in the number of days rather than the author of the Henschen Catalogue, who is accurate in the other things here too?

[12] nor yet only 7 months, 24 days. Faulty also are to be reckoned the reckonings in the apograph of the primary Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs which Cuspinian used in his Commentary on the Consuls of Cassiodorus. For in this, the same consuls Nepotianus and Facundus being retained, and the eight months and twenty days of the Pontificate, which the Henschen apograph also has, he is nevertheless said to have sat from the 15th day of February until the 9th day of October; whence, besides that a different day of death is assigned here than that on which he was venerated even anciently and is venerated today, it would altogether follow, contrary to what was set down before in the same list, that only seven months with twenty-four days are to be assigned to his Pontificate. But, to be sure, for the 15th of February there should be substituted the 15th before the Kalends of February, and for until the 9th day of October should be read until the day of the Nones of October, and so all things will agree rightly. From what has been said, correct at the same time the martyrologists related above, Ado and Notker, who assign St. Mark more than two years in the Pontificate.

[13] There remains the difficulty concerning the day of his deposition or burial, Elsewhere he is read to have been buried on the day before the Nones of October; from which one might doubt concerning the day of his death. The second Catalogue exhibited by Henschen, the first being silent, has this: He was buried in the cemetery of Balbina, on the Ardeatine Way, on the day before the Nones of October. Anastasius the Librarian agrees, and on the same day his memory is observed in the older Hieronymian apograph of Lucca in Florentinius, and in others related by him in the same place. But if he was buried on the day before the Nones of October, he must have died before the Nones of October. Papebroch in the Propylaeum of May, since he deservedly judged that there should be no departure at all from the first and most ancient Henschen Catalogue, which, as we have seen, the Martyrologies, ancient and more recent alike, also support for the day of St. Mark's death, was of opinion that a certain elevation of the sacred body itself is indicated, made in the cemetery in which it had before been buried, on the day before his recurring birthday: and this being granted, the whole objected difficulty vanishes.

[14] Florentinius, entering upon a far different way in the Annotations on his older Lucca Martyrology at the 6th day of October, [but from this it may by no means be suspected that two Roman Pontiffs of this name] doubted, from that double announcement of St. Mark, first on the day before the Nones and soon on the Nones themselves, whether two of the same name had not sat among the Roman Pontiffs; and he believed that this doubt of his could be confirmed from Peter de Natalibus, in his Catalogue of Saints, book 9, chapters 23 and 24 (in my copy 33 and following), who in fact records two of this name among them, distinguished by times and deeds. The one of these, whom he calls the first of the same name, he writes was a Roman by country, born of his father Probus, the successor of St. Felix I, and after completing eight years, two months, ten days in the Pontificate, died on the Nones of October; the only one (as he adds) out of so great a number of Pontiffs who were from Blessed Peter the Apostle up to Pope Silvester who escaped martyrdom.

[15] The other, of whom we treat today, he says was likewise a Roman, born of his father Priscus, existed. he calls him Mark II, makes him the successor of St. Silvester I, and says that, having died after a Pontificate of two years, eight months and twenty days, he was buried on the Nones of October in the cemetery of St. Babila, that is, of St. Balbina, on the Ardeatine Way. So, with a few more words, in the praised bishop of Equilium, whose authority is certainly by no means such that from it anyone could even slightly suspect that there once existed some St. Mark, successor of St. Felix I in the Pontificate, plainly unknown to all the ancient Catalogues of Roman Pontiffs as well as to the Chronicles and the other writers, who could much less have been unknown if he had governed the Church into the ninth year. What more? I do not doubt at all that, that former Mark being numbered among fabulous things, the Mark whose deposition is read inscribed as a memory in the aforesaid Martyrologies on the day before the Ides of this month is no other than today's, and accordingly that this deposition is either to be understood, with Papebroch, of some elevation of his body, or rather has crept into some old Hieronymian apograph through the carelessness of some copyist, prid. Non. for in Non., and from there, as was easy, has passed over also into others.

§ II. His Lives, by no means ancient and therefore not to be edited; a few deeds of his known from elsewhere.

None of the Lives which we have Baronius in the Annotations on his Roman Martyrology says today: We have a Life (of St. Mark) divided into Lessons, which was customarily read in some churches. We too have an apograph of his Life from a Manuscript codex of the archive of the Vatican basilica, marked with the letter A. 7., divided into nine Lessons, whose beginning is: Mark, a Roman by race, whose father was called Priscus. That its author is some hundreds of years younger than St. Mark he himself makes manifest in the ninth Lesson, where he narrates that two energumens were freed in the church of the same Saint in ancient time,.. while Gregory the fourth had taken up the same church in the time of his priesthood, and, as it was often about to fall through excessive age, first cast it out from its foundations, and with new buildings brought the whole to better adornment. Gregory IV sat five hundred years after St. Mark, and so long before the writer of this Life that he said that what he narrates was done in Gregory's time happened in ancient time. He is therefore not a fit witness to create belief in the things he relates of St. Mark, unless (which he nowhere does) he proves that some sound and far older monument lighted his way.

[17] is ancient enough, and to their authors We have besides other apographs of the same Life, some fuller than others, of which one is from a Manuscript Lectionary of the Laurentian Library of Florence, pluteus 20, another from pluteus 27, and finally another from codex 6074 of the Vatican library, collated with one transcribed by the most renowned Lucas Holstenius from a codex of the monastery of Farfa. The author of this Life, likewise anonymous, professes at the very beginning of his Prologue that he wrote it at the request of John, Cardinal of the H. R. C., of the title of the same Mark. For he begins thus: Frequently have you, John, Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, namely of the title

of St. Mark, Pope, you compel me with your words to disclose his acts, which I have rather often refused more from the uncertainty of my inertness than from sloth. Yet he does not acknowledge himself the author of this Life, but only the collector of those things which he could find thence (as he speaks) in the sacred libraries. But this one too is more recent than that he could win authority for himself from his age, if the annotation of the praised Holstenius on his Farfa transcript is correct, which, as Papebroch witnesses at the end of the apograph, runs thus: John, Cardinal of the title of St. Mark (to whom this Life is inscribed), lived in the time of Pope Nicholas II, whose name is subscribed to the Constitution of the same Nicholas concerning the form of electing the Roman Pontiff, in the most ancient Register of the monastery of Farfa, in whose old codex this Life existed. This anonymous writer, then, would have lived in the 11th century, after the middle of which Nicholas II was created Pontiff.

[18] Further, to the aforesaid anonymous writers, or the older of them, [a certain Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, and Anastasius, could have lighted the way.] the Catalogue of the supreme Pontiffs edited in second place by Henschen and composed before the middle of the 6th century, and Anastasius the Librarian, who wrote after the middle of the 9th century, could have lighted the way, whose statements, that is, these partly adopted, adding from elsewhere the fable of the Letter of St. Athanasius and the Catholic bishops of Egypt to St. Mark, of which a little more below. It is better, therefore, to record here the elogium of St. Mark from that second Catalogue, which probably lighted the way for Anastasius also; and then to subjoin what was added by Anastasius, and likewise what by those later writers. Thus, then, is read in the praised second Catalogue in Henschen: Mark, a Roman by nation, of his father Priscus, sat two years. He was in the times of Constantine, Nepotianus and Secundus being consuls, from the day of the Kalends of February until the day of the Kalends of October. He ordained that the bishop of Ostia, who consecrates the Bishop of the City, should use the pallium, or * that the Bishop of the City of Rome should be consecrated by the same. He made two ordinations in December, fifteen priests, six deacons, seventeen bishops for various places. He was buried in the cemetery of Balbina, on the Ardeatine Way, on the day before the Nones of October.

[19] In the apographs of the Life mentioned above, from the Vatican library, [Before his Pontificate he is said to have been a deacon, but whether he is the very one] likewise from the archive of the Vatican basilica, and the Farfa one of Holstenius, St. Mark is said to have been a deacon when he was raised to the Pontificate by the clergy and people of Rome on the recommendation of his predecessor, St. Silvester, who was accustomed to say that he knew none more worthy of that Chair than Mark, the Roman deacon. This indeed may be true, but it cannot be made certain from the assertion of these anonymous writers. The learned also doubt much whether our Mark is the very one to whom, after St. Miltiades or Melchiades, Pope, is read inscribed the Letter of Constantine the Great on the cause of the Donatists against Caecilian, bishop of Carthage in Africa, to be judged in a council at Rome, the inscription of which Letter in Eusebius, book 10 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 5, both in the edition of Christopherson and in that of Henri de Valois, is as follows: Κωνσταντῖνος Σεβαστὸς Μιλτιάδῃ Ἐπισκόπῳ Ῥωμαίων καὶ Μάρκῳ: that is, Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, Bishop of the city of Rome, and to Mark.

[20] Cardinal Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 313, [to whom, after Pope Melchiades, a letter of Constantine the Great exists inscribed,] number XXIII, strongly suspected that that place was corrupt, χαὶΜάρχῳ being put there for ἱεραρχῷ, and that accordingly it should perhaps be read: Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, Roman bishop, Hierarch. He alleges this reason for so suspecting, that Optatus of Milevis, writing in book 1 against Parmenian, names no Mark among the bishops who, summoned by the emperor, took part in that Roman synod, for the sake of which matter he nevertheless wrote this letter. But Henri de Valois in his Annotations on the History of Eusebius, page 195, column 2, letter c., rejected this suspicion of Baronius far away, pleading that, since Constantine had already called Melchiades in that place Ἐπισκόπον Ῥωμαίων, he would have added ἱεράρχην in vain, namely after he had already expressed the title and dignity of Melchiades by the former customary word. He contends therefore that Mark is to be retained, and that he was the very one of whom we treat, the successor of the same St. Melchiades, after St. Silvester, in the Chair of St. Peter.

[21] It is disputed among the learned. The opinion of Valois, as a very probable conjecture, pleased Pagi in his Critique of Baronius, especially (he says) since the author of the Synodicon (see Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column 1403) relates that this synod was convoked at Rome by the same Pope Miltiades and Mark, joining Mark to Miltiades, just as he had noticed that both are named jointly in the Letter of Constantine. To Tillemont, volume 6 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, Note 7 on the Donatists, the same opinion was displeasing, because it was difficult for him to believe that the judgment of bishops was committed to that Mark if he was then only a priest, nay, that it was by no means to be believed if he was only a deacon. Hence the opinion of Blondel smiles more on him in the same place (although he acknowledges that this too, contrary to what Blondel judged, is by no means certain), who pronounces that for Mark should be read Merocles, bishop of Milan; who, Tillemont observes in the same place, certainly took part in that Roman synod, and is named by St. Optatus of Milevis first after the three bishops of the Gauls who were present at the same synod, and who could have been very well known to Constantine, who was staying at Milan in the same year 313, and could have seemed fit to discharge that office excellently.

[22] whose alleged reasons The matter is assuredly placed in doubt. To change the word Mark in Eusebius and in the author of the synodical booklet into hierarch with Baronius, or into Merocles with Blondel, is to loose the knot with a wedge. In both cases there is a great alteration of the word; and if the dignity of hierarch added to the title of Bishop of the city of Rome ought to seem superfluous, it ought also to appear strange if Constantine, adding Merocles to Miltiades, bishop of the city of Rome, distinguished him, the prelate of so notable a church, by no title of his dignity or see; which is much less to be wondered at if he joined to him Mark, a priest or deacon of the same St. Miltiades. Moreover, like Merocles, so also Mark, whether a Roman priest or deacon, could have been well enough known to Constantine for his learning, integrity of life and other virtues, that he, being less skilled in Ecclesiastical law, judged him worthy to settle, with the bishops, the dispute of the African prelates.

[23] prove neither side. Finally, if Mark, joined with Miltiades in the inscription of the letter, was only a priest or deacon, the reason is manifest why Optatus of Milevis recorded no Mark among the bishops of that synod; perhaps also he judged it would be superfluous here if he added to the nineteen bishops whom he named there Mark, a man of a lower Order. Further, since no sufficiently urgent reason is brought forward that compels us to substitute Hierarch or Merocles for Mark in the letter of Constantine, nothing hinders that Mark from being believed to be today's, inasmuch as he certainly flourished under Miltiades, and was distinguished, as in virtues and learning, so also with such an age, and perhaps such a dignity in the clergy, that he could have seemed to Constantine fit for that office. All difficulty would cease if it could be believed that Mark was the vicar of Miltiades; such as Francesco Bianchini, in the Annotations on Anastasius the Librarian, thought he was of Silvester for some time. Now let us pursue the examination of the second Catalogue begun above.

[24] That he was created Pontiff in the year 336, Constantine the Great reigning and Nepotianus and Facundus, not Secundus, being consuls, Certainly he could not have made two ordinations in the month of December; and that in the same year, after a see of eight months and twenty days, he died, has been proved above, so that accordingly two years (to which Anastasius and our apographs mentioned above also add some months) cannot be assigned to his Pontificate, nor can two ordinations made by him in the month of December be admitted, since he sat in no month of December. Francesco Bianchini in his Notes on the same place of Anastasius believed that these ordinations are indeed indicated as made by St. Mark, yet not in his Pontificate, but while, being already a bishop under St. Silvester his predecessor, he was acting in his stead, namely in that two-year period which Anastasius attributes to Mark's Pontificate but which perhaps should have been ascribed to his vicariate. But this is to divine gratuitously.

[25] Francesco Pagi, volume 1 of the Breviary of the deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, but whether he made one at another time, as Francesco Pagi judged? under St. Mark, page 83, acknowledging with us that he sat only eight months and twenty days, namely from the 18th day of January of the year 336, on which he was consecrated, until the 7th of October of the same year, on which he died, assigns him a single ordination in these words: After he had created by a single ordination five priests, and six deacons, and seven bishops for various places, he died on the 7th of October of the same year, as the Chronicle of Damasus witnesses, after a see of eight months and twenty days. Whence Pagi drew these things he does not declare; yet he is not to be believed to have fused into one the two ordinations asserted in the second Catalogue and by Anastasius, since in those the Catalogue numbers fifteen priests, Anastasius twenty-five, Pagi only five; the Catalogue … seventeen bishops, Anastasius twenty-seven; Pagi only seven consecrated by him. More rightly, I judge, our Papebroch in the Propylaeum of May was silent concerning the ordinations made by him.

[26] Concerning the use of the pallium granted by Mark to the bishop of Ostia, Anastasius in Bianchini's edition, which I use, agrees; [St. Mark is believed to have been the first of all to grant the use of the pallium to the bishop of Ostia,] but in the often-mentioned apographs of the Life of St. Mark not only the use of the pallium, but also the right of consecrating the supreme Pontiff, is asserted to have been conferred on him by the same, in words which I subjoin: He ordained that the bishop of Ostia should consecrate the Bishops of the city of Rome, and that the same should use the pallium. In a similar way Baronius had read, when at the year 336, number 62, he says: Of the same Mark these things are read in the same book of the Roman Pontiffs: "He ordained that the bishop of Ostia, who consecrates the Bishops of the City, should then use the pallium, and that the Bishop of the City should be consecrated by the same." But afterwards he takes up those words thus: But as to what is said to have been instituted by Mark, that the bishop of Ostia should consecrate the Roman Pontiff, the usage of that thing seems to have been older: for Pope Dionysius is held to have been consecrated by Maximian, bishop of Ostia; St. Augustine also makes mention of such a most ancient rite, dealing against the Donatists; namely, as he rightly noted in the margin, in the Summary of the conference with the Donatists, conference of the 3rd day, chapter 16.

[27] Whatever may be the case concerning the consecration of St. Dionysius, Pope, because he consecrates the supreme Pontiffs. into which inquiry may be made on the 26th day of December, on which he is venerated, St. Augustine, praised in that place, related not obscurely that it was a most ancient custom of the Roman Church that its bishop, the supreme Pontiff, should be consecrated by the bishop of Ostia; so that its beginning from St. Mark

is by no means to be traced back to his constitution; but neither is it so traced, as we have seen, in the second Henschen Catalogue, nor in Anastasius; nay, these insinuate that ancient custom in these words, Who consecrates the Bishop of the City; and on that account they indicate that it was granted by Mark to the bishop of Ostia that he should use the pallium, which was by no means then customarily permitted to other bishops, and moreover that the future prelates of Ostia should be consecrated by the Roman Pontiffs. But as regards the pallium (Baronius subjoins here), we by no means deny that the bishop of Ostia was presented with it by Mark. Here, moreover, for the first time mention is made in the Deeds of the Roman Pontiffs of the pallium, the token of the highest honour and of the fullness of power. Further, although the pallium is perhaps older than Mark, yet I have read nothing hitherto adduced by anyone which persuades that the bishops of Ostia received its use originally from any other than St. Mark.

[28] Two churches, one on the Ardeatine Way, which does not survive, While I was setting forth the cult of this holy Pontiff in the former §, I made mention of two churches which are distinguished by his name: namely, one is within the city of Rome; the other on the Ardeatine Way, or, as it pleases others, the Appian: our apographs together with Anastasius acknowledge Mark as the founder of both. I copy out the words of Anastasius: He made two basilicas, one on the Ardeatine Way, where he rests, and another in the City of Rome beside Pallacinae. Concerning both consult what has been said here in §1; concerning the former, situated formerly outside the City, I add these things from Paolo Aringhi in Subterranean Rome, volume 1, page 480: But of this church no trace at all now exists, so far as we know, unless someone perhaps wishes to assert that those ruined walls which lie open, between the Appian and Ardeatine way, to those going from the church of St. Sebastian to the basilica of St. Paul, survive as traces of the same, now destroyed; which indeed must be pronounced not altogether absurd to be conjectured by those who are accustomed to pass judgment on ancient matters fittingly and wisely.

[29] another in the City itself, which with an ancient Cardinalitial title The other, situated in the City itself, St. Mark is said in our apograph from the archive of the Vatican basilica to have founded in honour of the blessed Evangelist Mark. The author of Ancient and New Rome, edited in the year 1750, agrees, observing in volume 1, page 521, that the same church, although it is dedicated to St. Mark the Evangelist, nevertheless has its title also from its founder, St. Mark, Roman Pontiff. As regards the old name of the place where that church is situated, Baronius, at the place cited, for beside Pallacinae reads: beside the Palatinae: but Hauteserre, in his Notes on the same text of Anastasius, says: The common reading is to be defended: Baronius reads Palatinas wrongly. Palacenae was the name of a sewer of the City, which is beside the monastery of St. Lawrence the martyr; which he then proves by adducing what Anastasius says elsewhere, and from St. Gregory the Great. This holy Pontiff, in the Register, book 3, letter 37 of the newest edition of the Benedictines of St. Maur, among the legacies left by testament by John, a Roman priest, for founding a certain monastery, expressly mentions a shop in this City, which is situated beside Palacenae. So much for the old site of the church.

[30] and exists even today most richly adorned, For the rest, it survives even today, and likewise retains the name of St. Mark and the Cardinalitial title with which we saw above that it was already distinguished in the year 499, situated beside the palace of the most serene republic of Venice, in which its ambassadors dwell. Both the supreme Pontiffs kept it in good repair and adorned it, and most of all in this our century the Most Eminent Cardinal Angelo Maria Quirini, who, after he had long held its title, also retained it in commendam. A description of this church, whose notable adornment I too have admired in person, you have in the praised Ancient and New Rome, in the volume and place assigned above, where you will also read of other notable men who deserved excellently of the same church.

[31] If anyone now asks of me whether I think both churches are to be attributed to St. Mark, Pontiff, as their founder, he seems to have founded: but I do not know what to make of the donations I will answer that the things I produced in § I prove their antiquity so rightly that from this nothing hinders him from being able to be judged their founder. But since I have shown that, in place of the space of two years and about nine months which Anastasius the Librarian and some other ancients assign to Mark's Pontificate, not even nine whole months are to be granted, it appears more probable to me that Mark founded them partly before, partly in his Pontificate itself.

[32] Further, I have by no means ascertained on what monument the praised Anastasius relied when he spoke of the endowment of the churches of St. Mark: which Constantine the Great is said to have made to them. At his (Mark's) suggestion Constantine Augustus offered to the basilica which (Mark) established as a cemetery on the Ardeatine Way the estate of Rosae with all its field land, yielding 40 solidi. In the basilica in the city of Rome he offered these: a silver paten, weighing 30 pounds; two silver amae, weighing 20 pounds; one silver scyphus, weighing ten pounds; three silver ministerial chalices, weighing two pounds each; a silver crown, weighing ten pounds: the estate of Antonianum on the Claudian Way, yielding 30 solidi; the estate of Vacanae on the Appian Way, yielding 40 solidi and two tremisses; the estate of Orrea on the Ardeatine Way, yielding 55 solidi and one tremissis.

[33] Our often-mentioned Apographs of the Life recite besides a Letter, [The Letter of St. Athanasius, and Mark's decree concerning the Nicene Creed, are fictitious.] as given by St. Athanasius of Alexandria and other Catholic bishops of Egypt to St. Mark, Roman Pontiff, for restoring the canons of the council of Nicaea burned by the Arians, and his reply to it. But that these are nothing but pure and simple fictions the learned acknowledge, and our Papebroch proved it in volume 1 of May, on St. Athanasius, number 158, to which, lest I do what has been done, I may be permitted to refer the reader. There are also those who say that St. Mark, among other Ecclesiastical decrees, determined that the Nicene Creed of the faith should be sung in Masses; but how little probable this too is you will learn from Baronius in the Annals at the year 325, number 178 and the following, who proves that in the age of the same St. Mark the Apostles' Creed, not the Nicene, was customarily said by the Roman Church in the Mass.

* Anast. and

§ III. The finding of the holy Pontiff's body and its threefold translation, the last of which was to Rome: the credibility and age of the history of all of these is weighed.

[The Romans claim the body of the Saint for themselves before the rest: Histories of the translations,] That the body of St. Mark was buried soon after his death in the cemetery of St. Balbina on the Ardeatine Way there is no one who denies; but whither it finally came, all are not of the same mind, some, and these the more, ascribing it to the church of the title of the same holy Pontiff in the City of Rome, others to that of St. Lawrence at Florence in Tuscany, others to the monastery of the Holy Saviour on Monte Amiata near Chiusi, likewise in Tuscany; others finally to the metropolitan church of Aquileia. Let us begin from Rome. Aringhi, already praised elsewhere, after he had treated of the burial of St. Mark in the aforesaid cemetery of St. Balbina, subjoined: But the venerable body of Mark was kept in this cemetery of Blessed Balbina up to the times of Gregory VII: for then, having been found there by chance by the diggers, it came about that it was transferred elsewhere; and at last, deposited in the church which was built by the same Blessed Mark under his title within the walls of the City not far from the Capitoline hill, it is venerated with the veneration of the faithful up to this day.

[35] praised by Aringhi, and by Piazza But the history of this finding and translation to be recalled is recited in very prolix words in the Vatican Manuscript Codex number 1196, which, lest we bring tedium upon the reader, we deliberately omit to record here. By these words Aringhi indicates not obscurely that in the Vatican codex which he saw it is read that the body of St. Mark was indeed found under St. Gregory VII in the cemetery of St. Balbina, yet not brought soon by the same Pontiff, nor within the city of Rome, but first transferred elsewhere, and only afterwards to Rome; how these things came about he passed over for brevity's sake. Things partly foreign to these are narrated by Carlo Bartolomeo Piazza, part 2 of the Sacred Roman Hemerology, page 338, under St. Mark on this day, saying what I have here made Latin from the Italian: His feast is celebrated solemnly in his aforesaid collegiate church (within the City), in which his body rests, translated to it by St. Gregory VII, as is clearly had from a certain Vatican codex, which we have mentioned at length in volume 2 of our Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the title of the same Saint.

[36] probably consulted carelessly, Perhaps Francesco Orlendi followed Piazza here, when, in part 3 of the Sacred and Profane World, book 3, chapter 4, number 18, treating of the City church of St. Mark, he says thus: And there rests the body of the same St. Mark, Pope, translated here from the cemetery of St. Balbina. Further, since the Hierarchy praised by Piazza does not exist in our Museum, I do not know what marks of that Vatican codex he gave in it, and accordingly whether that codex is to be judged the same as or different from that which Aringhi read. Yet I strongly suspect that the same or a very similar one is indicated by both, and I fear that Piazza, not having read the History of the translation through entire because it was rather prolix, determined too hastily that the sacred body of which we treat was translated into the City by the same Pope St. Gregory under whom it is read in it to have been found. Why I so think, the learned reader will easily understand from what is soon to be said.

[37] we have an apograph: its author, from the clergy of the church of St. Mark Of the History praised by Aringhi, unless I am greatly mistaken, I have an apograph, which is noted as copied from the Vatican Library, Anon. Codex, f. 176; and it is in conformity with Aringhi's brief narration, for in it it is narrated at length that the body of St. Mark was found under St. Gregory VII in the cemetery of St. Balbina, and was translated elsewhere (namely first to the castle of St. Silvester, then to the town or castle of Julianum), and thence at last to Rome, and deposited in the church which under the title of the same Blessed Mark … was built by the same …. It is also a rather prolix history, chiefly because it has a compendium of the Life of St. Mark, or an elogium, prefixed, and at the end also certain miracles added. The Anonymous author of the History nowhere expressed either his condition or the time at which he wrote. Yet as regards his condition, it may deservedly be suspected that he was one of the clergy of the church of St. Mark, who wished to instruct posterity by what means the body of this holy Pontiff at length came from the Ardeatine Way to the City church of his title: for whom shall we rather think undertook this part than some one of the ministers of the same church, to whom, namely, before the rest

it mattered that these things should be published in writing?

[38] But as regards the time of writing, it seems to me altogether that the author of the same History wrote not long contemporary with the last translation, after the sacred body was brought into that same church, which he relates was done under Eugene III, supreme Pontiff, in the year 1145. So I gather, first, from his different manner of speaking concerning the three supreme Pontiffs, to whose several times he refers the several translations. About to narrate the finding of the body and its first translation into the Roman Campagna, he writes that it remained for long times in the cemetery of St. Balbina, namely up to the times of Pope Gregory the seventh, under whom, he subjoins, it was found. Proceeding to the second translation, made under Pope Paschal II to the castle of Julianum, he begins anew thus: In the times, therefore, of Pope Paschal of holy memory etc. But when about to relate the third, which is also the last, translation, under Eugene III, insinuating nothing of his death, or of a time different from that in which he was writing, he says: But in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and forty-five there arose in the City a violent disturbance… And as the persecution increased, Eugene, who after the death of Pope Lucius was elected Roman Pontiff,… left the City etc.

[39] Nor do other things disagree, so that he may seem a contemporary writer: and he seems to have been a sincere writer. for he rightly sets out the route by which the bearers of the sacred body proceeded from Julianum to Rome, and through the City itself to the church of St. Mark; and of the miracles which he narrates as done in that same church, none, unless perhaps the last, goes beyond the sixth day from the arrival of the sacred body, which he accurately noted was also a Sunday. Finally, among the things he narrates there are indeed a few singular events, yet not such as surpass belief, or by their strangeness smell of the fabulist. I could wish, however, that he had set out certain things more accurately, namely that he had given more certain knowledge of the noble matron by whom he says the first translation was procured, and of the places to which the two former, and especially the first, were made. But as regards the places, these were, to be sure, very well known in common at that time, and it is nothing strange if, through their obscurity, the injury of the times and the lapse of six centuries, they are less explored by us, who are moreover far distant. Two circumstances besides occur in him, from which one may suspect that he wrote some years after the last translation; but of these below.

[40] The History, as I have said, comprises a threefold translation, [The body, found under St. Gregory VII, is translated to the castle of St. Silvester, to the grief of] concerning each of which I thought certain things should be set down here beforehand, lest the Annotations on the History itself become too prolix. The occasion of the first translation is said there to have been given by the finding of the sacred body under St. Gregory VII; which body the diggers, having found it by chance in the cemetery of St. Balbina with an inscription that proved it to be that of St. Mark, Pope, offered for sale to the clerics of the title of the same Saint; and as these refused to buy it, because they thought that the body of the same St. Mark lay hidden in their own church, they sold it to others, whom a certain noble matron had sent to Rome from her castle of St. Silvester in the Roman Campagna to procure for herself relics of the Saints. Hence she, greatly exulting, built a sacred house not far from the same castle, and laid up in it the body she had obtained, the aforesaid clerics of the City church, taught their error too late, protesting in vain. And since St. Gregory VII held the supreme Pontificate from the year 1073 until 1085, it is clear as to the time at which these things are to be said to have happened.

[41] the clerics of St. Mark's in the City, who had thought that it was But perhaps someone will ask by what probable reason the said clerics could have thought that the body of St. Mark lay hidden, laid up in their City church, since none of the ancients assigned its first burial anywhere else than in the cemetery of St. Balbina, and none said that it was translated thence into the City before the times of St. Gregory VII. I answer that this error could have arisen little by little from the long lapse of centuries, the turbulent times, the translations of many sacred bodies from the cemeteries into the City, from the neglect of the cemetery of St. Balbina and of the cult of St. Mark himself in it, and finally from the very desire of possessing the sacred body. For the eighth century was already then running from its first burial in that cemetery; the Romans had suffered many things around the City from the arms of barbarians and other enemies, from fear of whom both other Pontiffs, and by name in the 8th century St. Paul I, and in the 9th century St. Paschal, likewise the First, had brought the bodies of the Saints from the cemeteries into the City.

[42] in their own keeping: who the lady of that castle was, That the cemetery of St. Balbina too lay neglected toward the end of the 11th century, of which we treat, and therefore also the cult of St. Mark in it, is proved by what our Anonymous narrates of the diggers seeking treasures hidden in it: perhaps also the church which St. Mark had built in it had by then been thrown down, of which Aringhi, related above, affirms that no traces survive. These things being granted (since it customarily happens that men easily believe what they wretchedly desire), the said clerics could without difficulty have persuaded themselves that the body of their holy patron Mark had at some time been translated from the cemetery of St. Balbina, as others from other cemeteries, to their City church, in which the memory of the same holy Pontiff had always flourished, and at that time too still continued celebrated. Of the Matron who caused that first translation to be made the Anonymous gives only this notice: Now there was at that time in the castle of St. Silvester in the Campagna the wife of a certain Theobald, a most illustrious knight, a most noble woman, Teutonic by race, who out of regard for religion burned with an exceeding desire to be able to have relics of the Saints in her land (that is, in the aforesaid castle of St. Silvester). She was therefore the lady of the same castle; nor do we know more of her.

[43] and where it was situated. That the Roman Campagna is designated by Campania is clear from what follows in the Anonymous. And that there was at that time in the same Campagna some castle or town of St. Silvester will be established below from the Life of Pope Paschal II: but the site of that castle, our Anonymous being silent, I cannot assign more nearly, except that from what is to be said it seems to have been not far from Julianum, a town of the diocese of Velletri, situated a few miles from the city of Velletri itself. And that the castle of St. Silvester of which we treat does not occur as a place in geographical maps, this may be the cause, that, as the same Anonymous witnesses, under Pope Paschal II, that is, at the end of the 11th century or the beginning of the following, it was destroyed in punishment for rebellion. These things I judged should be set down beforehand concerning the first translation of the sacred body, intending to observe the rest in the Annotations on that history. Let us proceed to the second.

[44] We have from the same Anonymous that this sacred pledge remained at the castle of St. Silvester until the Pontificate of Paschal II, That castle being destroyed by the Pontifical forces, the same body is carried in whose time, the lords of the same castle rebelling against him, the castle itself is said there to have been taken and destroyed by the Pontifical forces; and the sacred body, which certain Romans serving in the Pontifical camp had planned to carry off secretly to Rome, to have been carried away by the inhabitants of the town of Julianum and deposited in their church of St. Vitus. That Paschal II defended the dominion of the Roman Church by arms against the antipope Guibert and his followers is established from the Life of the same Pontiff by a contemporary author, Peter (others say Pandulf) of Pisa, edited by our Papebroch in the Propylaeum of May, Attempt, page 202 *: among the schismatic followers of Guibert the inhabitants of the castle of St. Silvester may have borne arms, and paid the penalty with the destruction of their place, as the Anonymous narrates.

[45] In favour of this also are the things which the praised biographer of Paschal II has in the same place, page 206 *, in these words: to the castle of Julianum in the time of Paschal II; The Lord Pope, having celebrated the council which he had assembled in the parts of Apulia, returning into the Campagna, brought Pillum and Pillanum on the coast, and the town of St. Silvester, into his subjection, namely by arms, as Baronius indicates at the year 1117, in which these things happened. Wherefore the second translation of the body of St. Mark would have to be fixed to this year, if it were established that in the Anonymous the speech is of the same storming of the same castle as in the biographer of Paschal; which indeed I cannot affirm. However that may be, since St. Gregory VII, under whom this sacred pledge is said to have been first found and translated to the castle of St. Silvester in the Campagna, held the supreme Pontificate from the year 1075 until 1085, and Paschal II sat from the year 1099 until 1118, it is to be concluded that it was honoured in the church of the said castle of St. Silvester not for 44 whole years, nay perhaps for far fewer, when under Paschal II it was carried off from there by the men of Julianum.

[46] Not longer was the possession of the same by the men of Julianum, and thence under Eugene III to Rome. Two circumstances of this translation, from whom our Anonymous relates in the same place that it was carried off by the seditious Romans and at length brought to Rome under Eugene III, who discharged the Pontificate from the year 1145 until 1153. He refers the occasion of this third and last translation to the capture by the Romans of the castle of Julianum, whose inhabitants were fighting against them for their lord, the praised Pontiff. He sets out the matter at some length as it happened: but in relating these things he mixes in one or two circumstances preceding the translation, from which the credibility or the age of the writer might be called into doubt. For he narrates that Eugene III, elected Pontiff in the year 1145, fearing the violence of the seditious Romans, fled secretly to the monastery of Farfa, situated in the province of Sabina, and there was consecrated by the Cardinals and bishops who had accompanied or followed him. And all these things are certain and undoubted from the Ecclesiastical Annals and contemporary writers.

[47] He subjoins that Eugene set out from the monastery of Farfa to Narni; preceding the translation itself, and while he was staying at Narni, the counts,… who were round about the City, fearing the anger, indignation and strength of the Romans, and having always before their eyes the ruin of the city of Tivoli, lest they similarly fall under the power of the Romans, took refuge with him and swore fealty. After this (so he proceeds), at the command of the Lord Pope himself, they began to fight by whatever means they could against the senate (which the Romans had created against the Pontiff's will) and the Roman people: whence the senate and Roman people, more moved by anger,… having gathered a copious multitude of horse and foot,… invaded the castle of Julianum, took it, and burned it with fire. If the Anonymous had put Viterbo for Narni, he would have in agreement with him other contemporary writers, who lead Eugene from the monastery of Farfa not to Narni but to Viterbo, where they say that he both celebrated Easter in that year 1145 and stayed for eight months.

[48] which produce a certain difficulty, Perhaps, however, Eugene first to Narni,

than to Viterbo, betook himself; since Otto of Freising, likewise a contemporary author, writes of him in book 7, chapter 31 of his Chronicle: Thence (from the monastery of Farfa), after his consecration, avoiding the fury of the Roman people, he betook himself to fortified places, and afterwards, coming to Viterbo, he made a stay there for some time. But let us suppose that the Anonymous wrote Narni for Viterbo through a lapse of memory or carelessness; this error can befall even a contemporary. He makes more trouble for himself when he says above that the counts who took refuge with Eugene had before their eyes the ruin of the city of Tivoli; for it is difficult to say what ruin of this city he records. Otto of Freising in his Chronicle, book 7, chapter 27, relates these things to this purpose of Innocent II, whom, after Celestine II and Lucius II, Eugene III succeeded in the Pontificate: The Roman Pontiff Innocent, who had already for a long time excommunicated the men of Tivoli (rebelling against him) and had pressed them in other ways, compelled them, reduced to straits, to surrender, receiving hostages and an oath being interposed.

[49] from other contemporary writers But the Roman people, wishing that he should compel them through the hostages and the oath to the harshest conditions, that is, that, their walls being broken down, they should all leave the province, while the most noble and most generous priest would not assent to so unreasonable and inhuman a petition, stir up sedition, and in that very impulse, meeting on the Capitol, desiring to renew the ancient dignity of the City, they establish the order of senators, which had perished for many courses of time, and renew war again with the men of Tivoli. The cause of so great savagery was that in the former year, while they were staying with their Pontiff (the same Innocent) at the siege of the aforesaid city, the citizens having come out and joined battle with them, they were shamefully turned to flight with the loss of many spoils; therefore they assert that they can be appeased up to today by no agreement except that which we have mentioned. So Otto of Freising; whence it is established that the ruin of Tivoli was indeed keenly demanded by the Romans, but by no means granted by Pope Innocent II.

[50] are weighed, and it is shown Further, whatever may have been the success of the arms of the Romans against the men of Tivoli at that time, which I have read related by no one, the city of Tivoli still stood girt with its walls under Eugene III, from whom the riotous Romans again demanded that these be destroyed, as may be seen in Muratori in the Annals of Italy at the year 1146. Nay, they even obtained it, if credence is to be had in the Anonymous of Monte Cassino, a contemporary writer, in his Chronicle, from which Muratori in the same place recites and rejects the following: Restoring peace with the Romans, (Pope Eugene III) ordered the walls of the city of Tivoli to be destroyed. These same things Pagi admits in his Critique of Cardinal Baronius at the cited year 1146, and he thinks that these words of Ceccano, or of whoever at last was the author of the Chronicle of Fossanova, at the same year, also pertain here: The Romans came against Tivoli, and beheaded many of them. On the other hand, this destruction of the walls of Tivoli appeared incredible to the praised Muratori, and whether the reasons set out by him in the same place are strong enough to convict a contemporary writer of falsehood I do not inquire here, because the ruin of the walls of the said city, if it first happened in the year 1146, certainly could not have been before the eyes of the counts of the Campagna in the year 1145.

[51] Wherefore our Anonymous is to be said either to have recalled only a ruin of the city of Tivoli, that these could have been written by a contemporary author, not indeed carried into execution, but attempted by the Romans and boldly demanded; or by the word ruin to have indicated some other disaster inflicted on the men of Tivoli by the Romans. If the first, every difficulty ceases, even in the opinion of Muratori. And indeed the counts of the Campagna without any doubt had these machinations of the Romans against the men of Tivoli well explored, and could fear the like for themselves unless they each joined their forces to the Pontifical side. If the second, perhaps that siege of the men of Tivoli is indicated by which Innocent II compelled them, long rebelling, reduced to straits, to surrender, receiving hostages and an oath being interposed, as we said from Otto of Freising at number 48. This storming of the men of Tivoli could in some manner, though less accurate, be called the ruin of their city by the Anonymous, because Innocent subdued them, long rebels against the Apostolic See, fined them with deserved penalties, and so without doubt restrained them, that they might not in future be able to shake off the yoke of the supreme Pontiff as they had long done.

[52] Let it suffice to have set down these things beforehand concerning the credibility and age of the writer of the history of the Translations: in other respects also sincere. this only I observe besides, that he deserves the greater credence in relating the two former translations, the less it was in his interest to feign them in order to assert the possession of the body of St. Mark for the church of the same Saint's title within the City. For if fiction was needed to assert this, it was not necessary to seek these windings, but he could have accomplished it by devising a single translation of the same sacred pledge from the cemetery of St. Balbina into the City. For the rest, that it has remained in the same church of St. Mark from the Pontificate of Eugene III until these our times is said by the writers praised above, who ascribe its possession to the same church without doubting. But before I recite the history of the translations itself, three claims are to be examined, which I mentioned above, and which cannot be reconciled with this history.

§ IV. What seems to be thought concerning the body of St. Mark which the Florentines think was given to them by SS. Damasus and Ambrose.

Francesco da Castiglione, in a Sermon, Our Papebroch, in the Chronico-historical Attempt on the Catalogue of the Pontiffs, Propylaeum of May, page 50 *, under St. Mark has this: But thence (from the cemetery of St. Balbina on the Ardeatine Way, as he had set down before) he was translated to Florence, to the church of St. Lawrence. That he wrote this he was without doubt moved by the authority of Francesco da Castiglione, priest and canon of the same Laurentian church, whose Sermon, delivered after the middle of the 15th century, Papebroch himself had copied with his own hand from the Florentine codex of the convent of St. Mark of the Order of Preachers. Consult, if you please, Papebroch on the 2nd day of May, in the preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, written by the same Francesco da Castiglione, who had been a member of that archbishop's household for eight years. This title is prefixed to our praised apograph: Sermon of Francesco da Castiglione, priest, to the canons and college of St. Lawrence of Florence, on the life of Blessed Mark, Pope, and on the praises of the church of St. Lawrence. Then is subjoined whence the Sermon was taken, namely: From the Library of St. Mark, Ms., fol. 114.

[54] delivered after the middle of the 15th century, testifies The Little Work itself, divided into Lessons, as the title already recited itself teaches, celebrates a brief compendium of the life of St. Mark and the praises of the same church of St. Lawrence, from which, just as Papebroch prudently omitted to copy that compendium, already received from elsewhere, so I too will recite nothing but those things which properly pertain to our present purpose. He begins thus: It is written, dearest brethren: "The bodies of the Saints are buried in peace, and their names shall live for ever and ever": since it is ascertained by us that the holy and venerable body of Blessed Mark, Pope, is laid up and buried in peace in this our church, renewed at so great expense, and in the high altar of the same church, it is fitting that what is fresh to us from the nearness of the times, and celebrated before our eyes, should be transmitted to posterity through memory and the monuments of history, that the minds of the faithful, admonished by the certainty of the matter and by most true testimonies, may be stirred with pious love and holy devotion toward the bodies of the venerable Saints.

[55] that in the Laurentian church at Florence were found But first a few things which pertain to the life of Blessed Mark, Pope, himself, as I have found them in a certain ancient booklet in which some of his deeds and praises are written, are to be touched briefly; then the things which have been done in our times, and whence they took their beginning and authority; under whose leadership and at what expense they were celebrated, are to be transmitted to posterity and to the future age for the perpetual memory of the matter. What followed here concerning the deeds and praises of St. Mark Papebroch rightly, as I have said, omitted, with this note added: The five following Lessons contain, only with the style changed, the things which we already have from the older Legendaries (of which I too have already made mention above) of the same church. Praiseworthy indeed was this purpose of Francesco da Castiglione, and if his predecessors had once equally proposed it to themselves, we would now be permitted to determine something more certain on this subject one way or the other. Let us hear Francesco, then, as he proceeds in Papebroch's apograph.

[56] This, then, so noble, so venerable body of St. Mark, Pope, in the year 1444 the bodies of SS. Mark, Pope, Amatus and Concordia, you remember, brethren, how it was laid up in our times in the high altar of this our church, together with the holy bodies of Amatus, abbot, and Concordia, martyr. These glorious bodies were indeed found in the altar which was on the Southern side beside the high altar, before the old church was demolished. And this was done in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MCCCCXLIV, on the 3rd day before the Ides of November, when the altar which is called St. Concordia's had been demolished for the renewal of the church. These bodies of the Blessed were in a wooden casket of two cubits with a written document which testified the names of the Saints themselves, in which also some garments, although consumed by age, and three skulls were seen, and some bones longer than the rest, which, first *, some judged to have been of Blessed Mark himself; because he is recorded to have been a noble man and of tall stature.

[57] And these three glorious bodies Blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, which were believed to have been given by St. Ambrose to St. Zenobius, is said to have received from Blessed Damasus, Pope, as a singular gift, and to have given them to Blessed Zenobius, bishop of Florence, whom he embraced with a singular affection of charity. Nay, Blessed Ambrose himself is said, together with Zenobius the bishop, to have laid up the same three bodies in this church, and to have dedicated the altar with his own hands; from which also this church was called by the ancient name Ambrosian; of which matter too we have the greatest testimony in the Life of Blessed Ambrose, which Paulinus, bishop of Nola, a most holy man, wrote in an elegant style. This is also testified to us by the very Prayer and suffrages which we chant daily in the church, in which, after their three names, the name of Blessed Ambrose himself is also not passed over in silence. Many other things besides are commonly told which attest the friendship of Ambrose with Zenobius, and some adduce certain signs of the episcopal see which is said to have been here then, all of which, lest I become too long, or seem to be an asserter of uncertain things, I omit.

[58] Here he makes mention of various relics of other Saints likewise found then in the same church, and were at length laid back in the same place in the year 1461, and at length proceeds thus: I return thither whence I began, that what has been ascertained by us to posterity

may be transmitted. For you are all witnesses of this matter: for you both saw the relics, and were present when our most reverend Father the archbishop Orlando, distinguished for probity of life and learning in law, who had succeeded that most holy archbishop, brother Antoninus, came for the dedication of this altar, which was celebrated on the 5th day before the Nones of August *, in the year MCCLXI, on a Sunday, after a solemn procession, a numerous people and the clergy of the cathedral church standing by; and you were present while the blessed bodies, namely of SS. Mark, Amatus the abbot, and Concordia the martyr, were laid up in the same altar.

[59] You remember also in what manner the Most High willed on the same day to renew the ancient signs in testimony of His Saints: not without a miracle or heavenly favour. for on the same day one of our townspeople, Nicholas by name, son of Martin, having a little son, Federico by name, already near the gates of death, of whose life, as the father himself afterwards attested to me, he thought it was already all over, and he had at the same time called the other sons that they might look upon their brother for the last time; when the procession * passed beside his dwelling with these relics, following the holy bodies into the church, he made a vow with great faith for his son, and returning home not long after, he found his child recovering, and after the third day received back unharmed him whom he had already assigned to death: for which, as he had vowed, he set upon this very altar a waxen image in the likeness of a boy, which, placed there, all the people beheld for very many days, and the notable miracle became manifestly known among all the common folk.

[60] Epilogue of the same writer: For which cause it befits us, dearest brethren, to venerate with a great affection of piety these holy bodies, and this very church, adorned with the relics of so many Saints; it befits us not to make little of, or despise, the protection of the glorious martyr Lawrence, under whose name the church is dedicated, and of whose relics we do not doubt that there are some with us. After this, again touching briefly both the aforesaid and other ornaments of the same church, by which he thinks that Giovanni de' Medici, and his son Giovanni, Gonfalonieri, as they call them, or standard-bearers, of the Florentines, were moved to build the same church from the foundations more august, he bids them hope well that Piero, son of Cosimo, and Piero's children would complete no less magnificently the work so splendidly begun and advanced, and at length concludes in these words: Let us be of good heart, then, brethren, and preserve our dignity both of the place and of the persons, and relying on the protection first of the blessed martyr Lawrence, then of the holy Pontiff himself Mark, Pope, and of Amatus the abbot, and Concordia the martyr, and also of the holy bishop Zenobius, and of Ambrose the excellent doctor, let us confidently by their patronage be borne with desire to His heavenly kingdom, to that blessed life in which all the elect rejoice together and praise Him who is blessed for ages of ages. Amen.

[61] who also agree concerning the possession of the Florentines. Thus far the praised Francesco da Castiglione, a little after the year 1464, in which Cosimo I de' Medici died and his son Piero succeeded him. Not only our Papebroch, but also Francesco Orlendi, Sacred and Profane World, part 2, book 3, chapter 38, and Ferdinando Leopoldo del Migliore, praised by him in the same place, affirmed the translation of the body of St. Mark, Pope, from Rome to Florence, and the two latter also ascribed it without doubting to SS. Damasus, Ambrose and Zenobius on the authority of the same Francesco da Castiglione; although the first of them, Orlendi, in the words recited above at number 36, said that the body of the same holy Pontiff rests in his church at Rome, translated thither from the cemetery of St. Balbina (as he believed in that place). Nevertheless, on account of the things which I produced in the preceding §, I am compelled to doubt strongly concerning the possession of the Florentines. For if the body of St. Mark was found under St. Gregory VII, that is, toward the end of the 11th century, on the Ardeatine Way, in the cemetery of St. Balbina, in which it is established that it was buried in the year 336, St. Damasus could not, between the years 366 and 384, when he sat, have given it to St. Ambrose, and he to Zenobius, and Zenobius have deposited it in the Laurentian church at Florence.

[62] Whether one of these bodies is that of St. Mark, Pope, we inquire: Let us weigh, then, the force of the reasons by which Francesco da Castiglione, the first of all whom we at least know, did not hesitate after the middle of the 15th century to assert the possession of this sacred pledge for the often-mentioned church of Florence. The first, and that the chief, argument he draws from the bodies of SS. Mark, Amatus the abbot and Concordia the martyr found in the same church in the year 1444 with a written document testifying that they were those of these Saints. The fact I cannot deny when an honest man affirms it; but I would rather that he had recited the very document, as he calls it, that it might be established whether the dignity of the supreme Pontificate was read ascribed in it to this Mark, or was first attributed by Francesco da Castiglione in the said sermon according to his own sense or that of others. But certainly by whom, or at what time, those sacred bodies were deposited there was not read in the same document, as that writer sufficiently manifests by his silence, who for that reason subjoins a second argument, from a report of I know not what antiquity.

[63] It is said, namely, he says, that Pope St. Damasus gave those three bodies to St. Ambrose, a report which credits the same to SS. Damasus, Ambrose and Zenobius, bishop of Milan, and he to St. Zenobius, prelate of Florence, and that by these they were brought into the Laurentian church, and the church itself dedicated, and the altar placed in it consecrated; whence also the same church obtained the name of Ambrosian. That he may prop up this report the more, he adds: Of which matter also we have the greatest testimony in the Life of Blessed Ambrose, which Paulinus, bishop of Nola, wrote in an elegant style. That Paulinus, the biographer of St. Ambrose, was not the holy bishop of Nola of the same name has long been beyond all controversy: but that he was a cleric of the same St. Ambrose he himself teaches in the praised Life, which exists in the Appendix to the Works of that holy doctor of the Church edited at Paris in the year 1690 by the study and labour of the Benedictines. From this Life it is established that St. Ambrose dedicated some church at Florence, and deposited relics of the Saints in it, not, however, of SS. Mark, Amatus and Concordia, but of SS. Vitalis and Agricola.

[64] Here are the words of Paulinus placed there at number 29: In the same city (Florence) he established a basilica, it is propped by no probable reason, in which he deposited relics of the martyrs Vitalis and Agricola, whose bodies he had raised in the city of Bologna. In the same place below, at number 50, he also called the same basilica Ambrosian, without doubt on account of the said dedication. St. Ambrose himself also, in the Exhortation to virginity which he delivered on that occasion in the aforesaid Florentine church, volume 2 of his Works, from column 272, expressly mentions the relics of SS. Vitalis and Agricola deposited there; but neither here nor elsewhere does either of them have anything similar concerning the bodies or relics of SS. Mark, Amatus and Concordia; though these were by no means to have been passed over, on account of the donor, Pope St. Damasus, and that of St. Mark moreover on account of the supreme Pontificate held by him. The things, therefore, which Francesco da Castiglione adduced concerning St. Ambrose from his Life do much indeed to commend the Laurentian church, if they are to be understood of it. But for the possession of the sacred body about which we inquire they prove nothing; and, as I have observed, the silence of the same holy doctor and of his biographer is anything but favourable to it.

[65] Let the studious reader also weigh how probable it seems to him [nor is it made sufficiently probable from elsewhere; nay, from the silence of the writers] that Damasus gave away the body of a supreme Pontiff whose cult was then flourishing both in his cemetery of St. Balbina near Rome and in the City church of his title; whose sepulchre the same Damasus, as we said above, for that reason adorned with verses, and whom, not yet thirty years having elapsed after his death, he had succeeded in the supreme Pontificate. Damasus had other bodies of Saints to give away than that of St. Mark, a Pontiff of his own See, whose memory was then still fresh among the Romans and could not but be very dear. I turned also to the Acts of St. Zenobius, bishop of Florence, in case perhaps something was said in them on the same subject. Three Lives of this holy prelate were given by our Papebroch on the 25th day of May, on which he is venerated: in first place an ancient one, but moderately interpolated in the 15th century by St. Antoninus, also prelate of the Florentines; in second place the same ancient one adorned, before Antoninus, yet after the 13th century, by Blasius, a monk and priest; and finally in third place one written in the 11th century by Lawrence, archbishop of Amalfi, as he had heard it related. But neither in these, nor in the Commentary of the praised Papebroch preliminary to them, is there any memory of that matter.

[66] it may be gathered that it is not older than the 15th century, What, pray, is more readily to be suspected from this than that in the 11th and 14th centuries, up into the 15th, in the 59th year of which St. Antoninus died, that deposition of the three sacred bodies through SS. Ambrose and Zenobius was unknown at Florence, and did not begin to be spread abroad before the year 1444, in which the same sacred pledges were found, as Francesco da Castiglione witnesses, and began (I say) at the persuasion of this reason alone, that, since it was not known whence they had been brought there, they seemed able to be credited to none more probably than to St. Ambrose, who had dedicated that church, and to his friends SS. Damasus and Zenobius? Nay more, if this opinion was born soon after the finding of the bodies, it may probably be gathered that it seemed by no means firm to St. Antoninus, from the silence of the same holy prelate already observed, and from the time at which he completed his Summa, in the fifth part of which (which is the Historical) the aforesaid Life of St. Zenobius exists. For the same Francesco da Castiglione, who testifies that the bodies of SS. Mark, Amatus and Concordia were found in the year 1444, says in the praised Life of St. Antoninus, volume 1 of May, page 322, number 29, when about to narrate the death of this Saint: He had also not long before put the finishing hand to the huge and great volume which he called the Summa.

[67] nor approved even then by St. Antoninus. And St. Antoninus died in the year 1459, fifteen years after the finding of the three bodies, so that he could not have been ignorant of that opinion if it was spread abroad soon after the same finding; but if he was not ignorant of it, what more powerful cause of his silence on that matter in the Life of Zenobius shall we think there was than that this new opinion appeared by no means firm to him? The same St. Antoninus treats of St. Mark, Pope, in the praised Historical part of the Summa, title 9, chapter 2, where he records him among the Roman Pontiffs who sat while Constantine the Great reigned. He treated of them indeed only briefly, but since with an equal, concerning the finding of the body of the same St. Mark at Florence,

which had happened in his own time, deep silence, how probably this can be reconciled with the same finding being believed by him I likewise leave to the reader to consider: for the memory of so recent a fact could easily have been indicated by a single little word.

[68] It is not established whose are the two bodies found with it. If anyone further asks who this Amatus the abbot is, and what Concordia the martyr, whose bodies are to be believed to have been found in the same place together with the body of St. Mark, and deposited by SS. Damasus, Ambrose and Zenobius; I am compelled to answer, as regards the first, that it is set out by no one whom I know; and that to me indeed no holy abbot of that name of the 4th century, or even earlier, is known, whose body could in the same 5th century have been given by St. Damasus, or deposited by Ambrose or Zenobius in the Laurentian church of Florence. That Concordia Filippo Ferrari, in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, says is the Roman martyr, the nurse of St. Hippolytus, who suffered under Valerian with him and nineteen other Anonymous ones. These have been treated by us on the 13th day of August, and in the same place, in § IV, some places are recorded (not, however, Florence) to which the bodies or relics of SS. Hippolytus and Concordia are ascribed. But this is not the place to discuss these things, while we are inquiring about St. Mark, Pope, alone.

[69] From things all so uncertain the donation of the body of St. Mark, Pope, made to the Florentines through SS. Damasus, For these causes it is not proved to me that the body of St. Mark Ambrose and Zenobius cannot be proved to me; and yet I have not hitherto found anyone who names another bestower of the same holy pledge. A recent inscription of the often-mentioned church in Orlendi, Sacred and Profane World, part 2, volume 2, page 1264, after its dedication through St. Ambrose noted at the year 392, proceeds thus: When it had collapsed through age, the Senate and People of Florence restored it and brought it back to its former splendour; Nicholas II, declared Supreme Pontiff from being bishop of Florence, having gathered an assembly of prelates, dedicated it with his own hands on the 13th day before the Kalends of February ⅭⅠƆLIX, nor did he dismiss it without an endowment, etc. Hence someone might suspect that what Francesco da Castiglione attributed to SS. Damasus and Ambrose and Zenobius is perhaps the gift of this Pontiff Nicholas; so, I say, someone might suspect, did not the reckoning of the times stand in the way. For to Nicholas II, who died in the year 1061, succeeded Alexander II, and to him, having likewise died in the year 1073, St. Gregory VII, in whose sitting the author of the Roman Translation, which we shall give, testifies that the body of St. Mark, Pope, was found with its inscription in the cemetery of St. Balbina on the Ardeatine Way.

[70] But, you will say, in the Laurentian church of Florence too a written document was found together with the body, kept at Florence, which testified that it was that of St. Mark. I confess it; I do not wish to deny it when Francesco da Castiglione asserts it; but even supposing that the Pontifical dignity was ascribed to Mark in both places (which I can neither assert nor deny), the case would not be equal in both places; since the Florentines, from what has thus far been argued, do not bring forward even a sufficiently probable conjecture concerning the time and the author of the body received; whereas from the most ancient and the other Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs and the Martyrologies it is established that the body of St. Mark, Pope, was truly first buried in the often-mentioned cemetery of St. Balbina on the Ardeatine Way (from which the Romans assert that they received it after its twofold translation in the Campagna); and no one before Francesco da Castiglione, who did not write before the year 1461, is read to have said that it was ever translated from the said cemetery to Florence, or removed from the same before the times of St. Gregory VII.

[71] As to what he further added by way of argument concerning the names of SS. Mark, is that of Mark the Pope, of whom, however, there are perhaps some relics there. Amatus, Concordia and Ambrose being customarily recited by the clergy of the Laurentian church in the daily suffrages, if this custom is older than the finding of the same three former bodies, it will indeed make it probable that already before that finding it was believed by the Florentines that the body of St. Mark was kept in that church; yet it will not prove that it is that of St. Mark the Pope, the possession of which in his City church, and the manner of the possession begun from the middle of the 12th century, the Romans will set against them on a more certain ground than the Florentines. Perhaps, however, that custom of invoking St. Mark in the daily suffrages flourished among the Florentines on account of notable relics of the same holy Pontiff, which Francesco da Castiglione rather liberally called the body. If it be so, I will not oppose it, provided they are believed to have received them long after the times of SS. Damasus, Ambrose and Zenobius.

* Perhaps of which, first?

* Read: on the 4th day before the Nones of August.

* ejus is superfluous.

§ V. Two other places in which the body of St. Mark, Pope, is said to rest.

The same sacred body is also said, but not proved, Ughelli in the Sacred Italy also attributes the body of the same St. Mark, Pope, to two other places, which I mentioned above. The first he indicates in volume 3 of the enlarged Venetian edition, among the Bishops of Chiusi, namely the monastery of the Holy Saviour on Monte Amiata, which Agostino Lubin writes in the Abbeys of Italy was founded about the year 743 by Ratchis, king of the Lombards, in the diocese and territory of the city of Chiusi in old Tuscany, and was first of the Benedictine Order, but from the 13th century already handed over to the Cistercians. However that may be (for it is not to the point to examine these things here), the praised Ughelli at column 624 recites a Manuscript, in which, after other things, one may read thus to our purpose: And after the consecration of the church (solemnly performed in the year 1036, as was set down before in the same place) the lord abbot Roland with the brethren acquired the body of St. Mark, Pope.

[73] to be in the monastery of Monte Amiata in Tuscany. These things, and no more on our subject, has the monument of Monte Amiata praised there, and since it does not declare of what age it is, or at what time this Roland presided over the same monastery (for at the time of the said dedication of the church Winizo is read in the same place to have presided), these things alone cannot move me to believe that the body of St. Mark, Pope, is kept or was kept in that monastery; whether they will have it brought there a little after the consecration of the same church, and therefore before the Pontificate of St. Gregory VII, or afterwards: because the things seem more certain which I discussed in § III concerning the body of the same St. Mark, found on the Ardeatine Way while St. Gregory VII sat, and, after its twofold translation in the Roman Campagna, namely to the castle of St. Silvester and thence to the castle or town of Julianum, brought at last to the city of Rome while Eugene III sat, and deposited in the church of his title; from which I have not hitherto found that it was ever afterwards carried away. Let us proceed, then, to the other place indicated by Ughelli.

[74] To assert its possession for the church of Aquileia This is the metropolitan church of Aquileia in Friuli, a province of Italy, to which, that he may assert this treasure for it, the praised author, in volume 5 of the enlarged Sacred Italy, column 50 and the following, brings forward an old (as he says) monument, which is noted in the margin to exist at the Southern door of the same metropolitan church. It will help to have recited it entire from Ughelli. It runs thus, carved in stone: MXXXI. Indiction XIV. The 3rd day before the Ides of July. I, Poppo, patriarch of this church of Aquileia, together with two Roman bishops, Cardinals, and XII co-bishops, the Lord Pope John XIX presiding and Conrad being emperor Augustus, consecrated this temple in honour of St. Mary, Mother of God, and of the Holy Martyrs Hermagoras and Fortunatus; on account of the solemnity of which the same Roman supreme Pontiff of Apostolic grace granted an indulgence of a hundred years and a hundred days every year to all who, truly penitent and confessed, visit the said church of Aquileia for the sake of devotion, and on the feast of the said martyrs Hermagoras and Fortunatus and through their octaves on each day of XVIII years and as many quarantines.

[75] Likewise the said Cardinals, by Apostolic authority, out of reverence for St. Quirinus, martyr, an inscription cut in the wall there is praised, but this is more recent, whose body they brought from the City and laid up on the right side in the small altar beside the high altar, and out of reverence for Blessed Mark, Pope and confessor, whose body also they brought from the City and placed on the left in the small altar beside the high altar, granted an indulgence of X years and X quarantines, both on the above-said solemnities and also on their feasts. Thus far the monument from Ughelli's recension; which these more liberal grants of indulgences, by no means customary in the Church of God in the 11th century, forbid us to believe was engraved in the age of Poppo. For a similar cause our Papebroch, in the Paralipomena to the Attempt on the Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, Dissertation XXIX, number 9, held a certain Farfa form of Indulgences suspect, and Giovanni Francesco de Rubeis, agreeing with Papebroch's judgment, in the Monuments of the church of Aquileia, column 517, pronounces thus of this very Aquileian one: I have no doubt at all that the inscription was set up in a later age; and the aforesaid number of years of indulgence could perhaps have been taken from the confirmatory extension of some much later Pontiff, as the same Papebroch notes at the place cited, where he calls a similar Farfa form of indulgence to examination.

[76] Nor yet does the defined epoch of the dedication to God of the Aquileian temple waver, and perhaps composed from a more liberal interpretation which I think was expressed from the genuine charter of the Donation to be reviewed in the following number. In it we read these words: "I, Popo … built this church, and, He" (namely God, as he had set down before) "helping, I consecrated it, together with several bishops, in honour of the Holy Mother of God and perpetual Virgin Mary, and of the Holy martyrs Hermagoras and Fortunatus." The charter was drawn up "In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXXXI. Indiction XIV. On the third day before the Ides of July, the Lord John the Apostolic residing in the City of Rome, and Conrad Augustus reigning in the 5th year of his empire, and in the XIIth year of the Pontificate of the same Lord Popo." The fifteenth year is read in Ughelli through the fault of the printer: but the autograph charter counts the XIIth YEAR. Thus far from the praised Giovanni Francesco de Rubeis, whose opinion concerning the epoch of the dedication of the metropolitan church of Aquileia, taken from this charter of Popo in composing the above-said inscription, appears to me most probable.

[77] Let us see, then, whether this composer of the inscription, of another authentic charter, just as he rightly took the year of the said dedication from the autograph charter of Popo (as de Rubeis witnesses), so also learned the possession of the body of St. Mark from the same. In it, as it exists entire in Ughelli, after the word I consecrated recited above, Popo proceeded thus: In which, from divers places, and especially from the Roman Church, I gathered with the highest and most ardent zeal very many relics of the Saints, and placed them most studiously. These things Popo says there, and no more on this subject

did he add; keeping deep silence concerning the body of St. Mark as well. As, then, someone, perhaps a full three centuries younger than that dedication of the temple, composed the aforesaid inscription, and in it unskilfully recorded Indulgences far more ample than the Ecclesiastical discipline of the 11th century bore, so the same man could, not much more ineptly, have thought for some slight cause that the body of St. Mark was among the sacred relics which Popo, in the authentic instrument, mentioned in general as received from Rome and placed by him in the said church.

[78] and it is suspect on other grounds as well. This suspicion is increased by the same author of the inscription, when he says in it that the body of St. Quirinus the martyr also was brought there from Rome in the same year 1031 and for the same cause, and deposited there. I know of two Roman martyrs of this name, of whom one, who suffered under Claudius, is venerated on the 25th day of March, the other, crowned under Hadrian, is honoured on the 30th day of the same month. Of both it has been treated by us on the same days in volume III of March; but it was proved there that the body of the former of these (also called Cyrinus elsewhere) was translated in the 8th century, St. Zachary, supreme Pontiff, granting it, to the monastery of Tegernsee in Bavaria; and that of the other in the year 1050, St. Leo IX, likewise Pontiff, granting it, to Neuss in the archbishopric of Cologne; so that accordingly (unless the inscription indicates another Quirinus, a Roman martyr, than these two) its author cannot from this too but be suspect to me, when he affirmed that the body of St. Quirinus the martyr, no otherwise than the body of St. Mark, Pope, was translated from Rome to Aquileia in the year 1031. For which causes that inscription does not appear to me a fit instrument for persuading that the body of the same St. Mark already rested at Aquileia before the Pontificate of St. Gregory VII, in whose sitting the History of the Roman Translation, praised above and to be subjoined here, narrates far more probably that it was found in the cemetery of St. Balbina on the Ardeatine Way, where it is established that it was first buried.

HISTORY OF THE TRANSLATIONS,

By an Anonymous Author, probably contemporary,

From the Vatican Library, Anon. Codex, f. 176.

Mark, pope, confessor, at Rome. (S.) BHL Number: 5296

By an anonymous author.

PROLOGUE.

A Compendium of the Life and virtues of the holy Pontiff.

Mark, deacon of the Roman Church, Being about to write the Translation ^a of the most sacred body of the blessed and venerable Mark, Pope, I have decided first to touch briefly on a few of the things which he did in his Pontificate, that both the order of the narration may become more fitting, and the hearts of the hearers may more easily be stirred to works of mercy by the example of so great a Father. The most blessed Mark, then, the athlete of Christ and defender of the Catholic faith, under Blessed Sylvester, his master and predecessor, in the Office of the diaconate strove to serve as a soldier not of the world but of God, desiring nothing earthly, nothing carnal, but with the whole intention of his mind always intent upon eternal and gentle * joys without end, he carried his cross after the Lord. For he had read in the Gospel the Lord saying: "Whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple ^b." Fearing, therefore, and much dreading lest he should be held an unworthy disciple of so great a Master, he despised the world, that he might follow Christ freely, saying with the Apostle: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world ^c."

[2] And because, according to the testimony of the blessed Apostle James, whoever will be a friend of the world for his virtues he is substituted for St. Silvester in the Pontificate, is made an enemy of God ^d, he despised the world with its delights, following the Lord with the cross, crucifying his flesh with its vices and concupiscences: for he was always intent on fasts and prayers, clothed at all times in a hair-shirt. For these, then, and other innumerable works of holiness, he became dear and lovable not only to God but also to men, and most of all to his master, Blessed Silvester, then Roman Pontiff, by whom he was loved so much that Blessed Silvester very often asserted with living and open voice that he alone among the rest would be one held worthy of the Pontifical chair ^e. Blessed Silvester having died, then, and having been committed, as was fitting, to honourable burial, the clergy and people of Rome, with harmonious vow and equal will, elected Mark the deacon Pontiff; who, although he resisted much and protested himself unworthy, was nevertheless raised to the Pontifical chair according to custom ^f. But what manner of man, and how great, he showed himself in the Pontificate, of how great holiness, and how great humility, gentleness and kindness he was toward all, human tongue does not bring it about * to narrate.

[3] For he was not, like most, lifted up into pride on account of the honour conferred on him, he shines with humility and mercy, founds two churches, and dies. but, mindful of the Lord saying: "He who exalts himself shall be humbled; and he who humbles himself shall be exalted ^g," he appeared of greater humility than when he was in the Order of the diaconate. Finally, since in honour of the twelve Apostles he had twelve poor men at his table daily, he himself in his own person served them; nor did he taste anything at all of bodily food unless he first perceived that they were refreshed, showing himself truly a disciple and imitator of Him who said: "I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister ^h." And in the silence of night, when men give themselves to sleep, he placed them each in softer beds, but he himself rested upon the bare earth ⁱ, clothed next to his flesh only with a hair-shirt. He took care of the affairs of the widows and orphans and poor living at Rome as his own, and had their names written down by him, and from his own means supplied necessaries as each had need. He made two basilicas, one on the Ardeatine Way, in which he rested ^k, the other in the city of Rome beside the Palatinae ^l; but when the almighty Lord, the scorner of the envious, willed that he should now rest from labour and receive the eternal reward of his labours in heaven, after many and unspeakable signs which the Lord wrought through him, he was withdrawn from this light, and rendered his spirit to God, from whom he had received it, having completed two years, nine months in his Episcopate, and twenty days ^m.

ANNOTATIONS.

b. Luke 14, verse 27.

* mansura lasting.

* Perhaps sufficit suffices?

CHAPTER I.

The finding of the sacred body in the cemetery of St. Balbina, on the Ardeatine Way; its first translation to the Castle of St. Silvester, and the second to the Castle of Julianum.

The body of St. Mark found in the cemetery of St. Balbina, He was buried on the Ardeatine Way in the cemetery of Balbina ^a, where, when he had remained for long times, namely up to the times of Pope Gregory the seventh ^b, it came about that certain men entered the cemetery in which the body of St. Mark was, and while they were diligently searching whether they could find anywhere either relics of the Saints or anything else from which they might make gain, they unexpectedly found the venerable body; and when they knew from the inscription which they found on the sepulchre that it was truly the body of Blessed Mark, they rejoiced greatly, because they had found such a treasure, from which they did not doubt that they could obtain both temporal and eternal riches.

[5] a digger announces it to the clergy of St. Mark's, and, repulsed by them, One of them, then, Benedict by name, hastening and rejoicing greatly, ran to the title of St. Mark, which Blessed Mark himself had built in the City in the times of the emperor Constantine, and cautiously meeting the archpriest of that title ^c and all the canons, he zealously asked where they believed the body of Blessed Mark to be. Having heard this, the archpriest and clerics said that they undoubtedly had it in the same church. To whom he said: Beyond doubt you are deceived, nor is it as you hope: for we lately found it; and if you are willing to give to us at your fair discretion, we will give you the entire body with its own inscription ^d. But they, making little of the words of the aforenamed Benedict, would not lend belief to his assertions.

[6] Now there was at that time in the Campagna, in the castle of St. Silvester ^e, the wife of a certain Theobald ^f, a most illustrious knight, with his companions he sells it to an illustrious matron in the Campagna, a most noble woman, Teutonic by race, who out of regard for religion burned with an exceeding desire to be able to have relics of the Saints in her land; and while she was sedulously considering how she might fulfil her desire, at length, using wise counsel, she sent some of her faithful men to Rome, who should give their effort chiefly to this, that they might bring her relics of some Saint, a price being paid ^g. Coming, then, to Rome, carrying out their lady's commands, they met the aforesaid diggers; and when, being asked by them, they had made known the cause of their journey, the diggers said: If it is as you say, behold, you have found what you were seeking: and they add: We have the body of St. Mark, Pope, which, if you will pay us a just price for it, we will without doubt hand over to you.

[7] But why should we linger on many words? The money being given, by whom it is worthily laid up in a church built for him, they carried the most precious body to their lady in the Campagna; and she, rejoicing greatly, received it with the greatest devotion, giving thanks to God, who does not forsake those who hope in Him, and deigns to hear the petitions of His faithful: and forthwith she ordered a church to be built in honour of St. Mark not far from the Castle of St. Silvester ^h; and when it was finished, and the bishop ⁱ in whose parish it was had been summoned, she laid up the most holy body with the greatest glory in a most beautiful tomb in the same church. And when this had come to the ears of the archpriest and clerics of the title of St. Mark, grieving with unspeakable sorrow and accusing themselves ^k of negligence, having taken counsel together, they took care to hasten into the Campagna to the said woman who had bought the holy body, and from her, as a subject

treasure of theirs, began to demand the body of Blessed Mark, now with pious admonitions, now with most grievous threats, setting against her the authority of the Pope and the power of the Romans.

[8] The religious woman, struck unexpectedly by their words, answered: the Roman clerics of St. Mark's protesting in vain. I wonder that prudent and wise clerics demand from me, as though guilty of theft, the body of Blessed Mark, which I neither stole nor ordered to be stolen. I confess (she said) I found a treasure, which I most willingly acquired from my own wealth, and, having acquired it, laid it up with due veneration in a safe place: now neither blandishments will withdraw it, nor threats take it away, nor the violence of any powerful man snatch it. But if either the majesty of the Pope or the greatness of the Romans should at any time wish to compel me to give back what I hold dearer than life, I would rather choose exile for myself in the Western parts ^l than be willing to lack this in any way for a single day. Having received so unwelcome an answer, the clerics who had gone, made sadder, returned to the City, and with those who had remained, and with all the parishioners, began to be more anxious to recover the lost treasure.

[9] In the times, therefore, of Pope Paschal ^m of holy memory, [In the time of Paschal II, the castle of St. Silvester being destroyed, the inhabitants of the castle of St. Julianum] the sons of that woman of whom we made mention above, who had bought the sacred body, their mother being already long dead, took up arms against the Lord Pope; whence, being often admonished, since they would by no means cease from their folly, the Lord Pope, indignant, led an army against them both from the City and from the whole Campagna to repress and tame their pride, and, the Lord helping, took the Castle of St. Silvester and destroyed it ⁿ. And there were in that army certain of the parishioners of St. Mark, though few, who attempted to take his holy body from there and bring it back to their own church; but, prevented by the multitude, they could by no means accomplish what they had purposed. This being learned, the clerics and laymen who inhabited the castle of Julianum ^o, greatly fearing lest the Romans, going again to the same parts on a similar occasion, should take the holy body and carry it off with them, came together to the said church, which, both by the death of its foundress and by the destruction of the castle, was as it were abandoned, and from there translated the wonderful body with the greatest honour to the castle of Julianum.

[10] having carried off the body of St. Mark, laid it up in the church of St. Vitus. And there arose a contention among the people of the castle as to where the body ought to be laid up, some judging that it should never [p] be laid up within the castle, others in the mother church of St. Vitus, which is called At the Pine. At length, after the contentions and wranglings of many words, and the most grievous clashing of arms as well, by the counsel of the elder and more powerful men the venerable body was laid up in the aforesaid church of St. Vitus by the hands of the bishop of Velletri [q] in an excellent shell; and in the very consecration of the altar, the clerics together with the laymen consulting, the bishop of great holiness [r], in honour of the most blessed Mark, whose most sacred body he handled with his hand and most devoutly consecrated, established and confirmed in perpetuity that very church of Blessed Vitus as the second see after that of Velletri, namely because he had laid up there the body of the supreme and universal Pontiff.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Should it be read: For?

q. In Ughelli, volume 1 of the Sacred Italy, column 46, in the Catalogue of the bishops of Velletri before the union of this church with that of Ostia, made by Eugene III in the year 1150, Leo is placed last, as appointed in the year 1105; but others think that this Leo was bishop of Vercelli, nor does that Catalogue seem complete, so that I cannot say whether this one or another is indicated by the Anonymous.

r. Who is this bishop of great holiness? The same as the one of Velletri above, or another?

CHAPTER II.

The translation of the sacred body from the castle of Julianum to the church of his name at Rome: certain miracles obtained there soon after.

By the Romans rioting against Eugene III But in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and forty-five there arose in the City a violent disturbance, so that the clergy acted against the people, and the people against the clergy, universally ^a: and as the persecution increased, Eugene, who after the death of Pope Lucius was [b] elected Roman Pontiff, having taken counsel with the bishops and Cardinals, left the City and went out to the monastery of Farfa, and there, the Holy Spirit co-operating, he was solemnly consecrated by the hands of the bishop of Sabina and of other bishops; and because it was not safe for him to remain there against the onset of the Romans, he withdrew with the bishops and Cardinals to Narni ^c. And the counts who were round about the City, fearing the anger, indignation and strength of the Romans, and having always before their eyes the ruin of the city of Tivoli ^d, lest they similarly fall under the power of the Romans, made common refuge to the Pope, and there in the accustomed manner swore fealty to him.

[12] After this, at the command of the lord Pope himself, the counts began to fight against the senate and Roman people the castle of Julianum being taken and burned, certain of them by whatever means they could ^e: whence the senate and Roman people, more moved by anger and more grievously indignant, having gathered a copious multitude of horse and foot, went out in strength to storm them, invaded the castle of Julianum, took it, and burned it with fire. Then the parishioners of St. Mark who were there, recalling to memory how the body of Blessed Mark had been carried from the City ^f to the castle of St. Silvester, and thence to Julianum, and laid up there, began to be anxious with excessive desire as to how they might take it and carry it to Rome to their title; but not knowing where it was laid up, they began to inquire anxiously of the men who had come from the neighbouring castles, as if to pray and to offer gifts out of devotion, where the glorious body had been laid up.

[13] [They secretly take the body of the Saint from the altar, and while carrying it toward Rome] It came about, therefore, by divine providence, that the clerics who had been privy to the translations made indicated gladly * both the place and the altar under which the body was laid up in a marble shell. This being known, entering the church secretly, the doors being shut, with a zeal pious, as it seemed to them, the altar being broken down, they took the body from the shell, and, bound in a linen cloth, carried it to their common lodging. And at the time at which the relics were being taken from the church, though the sky was very serene, suddenly, the air thickening into clouds, such grievous lightnings and thunders arose that the whole army feared as though of imminent death, and cried out terribly that if anything had been committed it should be amended without delay. But those who had secretly carried off the body, fearing lest perhaps the army should learn of the carrying off of the body, chose two of their number, to whom they had committed the most precious treasure to be carried to Rome, who, leaving the army secretly ^g, hastened to return to the City with the greatest joy. And before they had reached Julianum, they had sent messengers ahead to John, the venerable archpriest of St. Mark's, that ^h he should direct thither without delay two of the clerics, whom he wished.

[14] they hand it over to clerics summoned from the City who come to meet them, Having heard this, the archpriest and clerics at first indeed wondered, astonished, what this might be, that they were called with such haste; for they had not indicated the cause of the journey to the messengers. Then, having deliberated in counsel, they hastily sent two clerics, namely a priest and a deacon, and with them a certain layman, honest and faithful enough; and those who were sent met them near Velletri ⁱ as they were returning and carrying the sacred body; and when they had greeted one another, and, being asked, had made known why they were going on, the bearers of the sacred body said: Do not labour further in going on; for, behold, we are carrying that for which you came when summoned: and they showed them the most precious body; and when they saw it, filled with unspeakable joy, stretching their palms to the stars, and pouring forth very many tears from their great gladness, they returned innumerable thanks to Christ the King of kings for the gift bestowed on them, and with trembling and the greatest reverence received the treasure offered, and securing it with seals impressed, they returned that day as far as Albano ^k, and passing the night there in watching, they guarded with great diligence what they had received.

[15] while these carry it into the City, the secret being divinely revealed, And in the same night they conferred much among themselves whether it ought to be carried openly or in secret: and when morning came, rising, and carrying the holy relics secretly, they came to the gate of the city which, on account of the Lateran church beside which it is situated, is called St. John's ^l, and there *, having deliberated in counsel, they asked the layman who had gone with them to hasten to the church of St. Mark, and inquire the wishes of the archpriest and of the other brethren living in it as to how they judged the holy body should be carried; and they said: We will follow you with slow step as far as the church of St. Quiricus ^m, and there we will await you. The layman therefore went on in haste, and as had been told him, having received

the archpriest and clerics aside, when he had begun to disclose the outcome of the matter, the women who had come together to hear Mass, as though admonished by a divine oracle, no one telling them, but (I believe) the Holy Spirit revealing it, began to say to one another: Behold, the body of St. Mark is coming; and going to the bells, as they knew how, they rang them.

[16] Then the clerics, seeing what was happening, and in a manner understanding from these things the will of the Saint, [hindered by the multitude of those who come to meet them, they are compelled to set it down in the church of St. Mary:] determined to carry the venerable body with due honour to their church. And those who were carrying the relics came to St. Quiricus, and standing there a little while, heard the bells ringing, and suddenly saw also boys coming to meet them and praising the Lord for the arrival of the holy body. Seeing, therefore, that what they themselves had hidden God had made manifest, they came to the church of St. Mary in the field of Careleo ⁿ, and because, for the multitude of men and women coming to meet them, they could not advance further, they entered the said church of St. Mary and set down the wonderful body upon the altar: for when it was spread abroad through the City that his body was being carried to the church of St. Mark, there arose thither a very great and glorious concourse of clerics and laymen, and of women too.

[17] And from the said church of St. Mary, with a great procession of clerics and due exultation, the body was carried with the greatest labour to its own house and its own church on the Ides of May, whence on the Ides of May it is solemnly translated to its own church. which is the fifteenth day of the same month: for so great was the multitude of those running together of both sexes and every age that the bearers of the holy body often fell among the feet of those pressing upon them, and could scarcely rise, helped by those accompanying them. Rejoicing, then, and exulting, the City received its Pontiff, the house recognized its Maker, the church its own Builder, his own household its Patron and lord. And God, who from heaven makes wonderful the Saints dead to the world, deigned to show many signs and wonders through Blessed Mark at the arrival of his body.

[18] For on the very day of his arrival a certain girl, At his reliquary a girl recovers the lost use of her arm, who seemed not more than twelve years old, whose arm had so stiffened from infirmity that the hand of that arm, unless supported by the other hand, could never be bent, nor in any way brought to the mouth, came to the sacred body, and in hope of recovering health, praying the Lord for her health with what prayer she could, she placed the dead arm under the shrine in which the relics of the sacred body were contained; and when she had remained so for the space of about one hour, the arm, which up to that time had remained without the use of life, began in a manner to revive, and was suddenly restored to its former health, so that, forgetting all infirmity, it seemed never to have suffered anything. The girl, then, who for long times had been afflicted with grievous infirmity, restored to health in a moment through the merits of the most blessed Mark, praising and blessing her Deliverer very much with tears poured forth, returned home sound.

[19] And in the region which is called Trivium ^o, near the church of Blessed Nicholas in Arcione [p], a boy recovers the use of his hands and feet a certain man, Letulus by name, had a son weak in hands and feet from boyhood, and always so bent forward that he could in no way rise from the ground by himself. This boy his father, returning from the army, having heard the report of his holiness and of the wonders which were done through him, carried with full devotion to the church of St. Mark with candles and offerings, confident of his health; to whose [q] integrity of faith the almighty and merciful God, who is wonderful in His Saints, and in His compassion hears the prayers of the humble, through the intercession of Blessed Mark granted such health to the boy that, all weakness being driven away, the boy returned home on his own feet, and held and handled with his hands whatever he would, and following his father's footsteps, he who had been bent forward went whither he would, free and upright.

[20] a girl is freed from a swelling and torment of the throat. And on the following night the father, lest he should seem ungrateful for the benefits, and that he might make plain to the rest what he himself had experienced of the powers of the Saint in his son, brought back the son whom he had received sound to the church of St. Mark with a statue of wax, which should hang before the body of Blessed Mark in memory of the son's deliverance; and there through the whole night, together with the rest who were keeping vigil, showing to all the boy sound and unharmed, running about hither and thither through the church, he praised the great works of the divine Saviour, and all who were in the church blessed with a loud voice the Lord, who through His servant, the most blessed Mark, deigned to work such and so great a miracle. A certain girl too from the parts beyond the mountains, who suffered a swelling of the throat [r] and intolerable pain, and could be freed by no aids of physicians, came at the same time to the church of Blessed Mark, and touching the coffer in which the most blessed body was, with tears poured forth and prayers multiplied, before all the multitude which had devoutly come together, she vomited a great worm, and at once, the swelling and pain of the throat being laid aside, she was freed, to the glory and honour of the most blessed Mark.

[21] A lame girl recovers the use of one foot, then, returning, of the other as well, Among the multitude of the sick, too, a certain girl from the region of Parione [s], lame in both feet, was then carried to the same church, who, as she lay before the body of Blessed Mark beneath the shrine above which the body was, stretching out one foot, felt the greatest pain in the sinews which had been contracted, and after the pain obtained health. One foot, then, being sound and the other lame, she who had come to the church through others returned home by herself.

The neighbours, then, men and women, seeing what had been done for her, rendered due praises to God and to Blessed Mark; admonishing with an affection of piety, and urgently compelling, the girl herself to return to the church to be healed of the other foot by Blessed Mark. For she, fearing to suffer similar pain in having the other foot healed, refused to return to the church. But at length, compelled thither, she returned, and through the faith of others no less than her own she recovered health in the other foot, not without a great miracle. For when on the Sunday, which was the sixth from that on which the most sacred body was brought [t], very many had come together from divers parts, scarcely a few believed the miracle which had been done for her in the other foot.

[22] with great wonder of those present For there were among them very many who, following the doubt of Blessed Thomas rather than the faith of the centurion, said: Unless we see it with our eyes, we by no means believe; but if she receives health in the other foot, we shall be able by no means to doubt what you assert concerning this one. For it was so distorted that it could scarcely be discerned that it was a foot. While, then, the clerics of the same church were celebrating Vespers solemnly according to custom, behold, suddenly the girl who had come to be healed filled the whole church with terrible cries. For she said that she was gripped by an excessive and intolerable pain, from the moment that the sinews, formerly contracted, began to be stretched out. But what shall I say? All who were in the church, struck by such cries, running in rivalry, and asking why she cried out, and learning it, poured forth tearful prayers for her to the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, and cried out that they were guilty of their incredulity. The girl, then, healed immediately after the pain, rejoicing and exulting, professing herself the handmaid of God and of Blessed Mark, returned home with a straight step.

[23] A certain poor man, Ardeatine [u] by race, lame for long times in his right arm [x], and fruit. hearing the wonders which God was working through Blessed Mark, himself also came in haste to the church; but on account of the multitude of the thronging people he approached the coffer in which the body was truly *, and touching the coffer itself with his lame arm, the prayers of the bystanders being poured forth, he suddenly recovered health. With pious simplicity, then, falling down humbly before the altar of the Most Blessed one himself, he offered himself to the church, and committed himself, faithful with due devotion, for as long as he should live.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. The praised Panciroli says that that church is properly called de Archimoniis, from the family whose ground was once in that place, and in Italian de gli Archimonii, corruptly de gl'Arcioni, and that it is also called S. Nicolo a capo case; and he likewise records it in the region of Trevi.

q. Perhaps it should be read here: On account of whose etc., or another little word is missing.

r. That is, of the Gullet, or Throat.

s. Commonly Rione di Parione, which is the twelfth region of the city of Rome.

t. In the year 1145 the 20th day of May was a Sunday, and from the 15th day of the same month, on which the body of St. Mark had been placed in this its church, it was the 6th day, if it is counted from the 15th inclusively, as it should be.

u. Ardea is a castle of the Pontifical dominion in the Roman Campagna.

x. That is, disabled.

* Perhaps latenter secretly?

* Perhaps ibique and there?

* Perhaps ægre with difficulty?