ON ST. JULIAN OF LODI, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT LAUS POMPEIA IN INSUBRIA,
ABOUT THE YEAR, AS APPEARS, 324.
The time at which he seems approximately to have sat and died, the translation of his relics, his ecclesiastical cult.
Julian, bp. conf., at Laus Pompeia in Insubria (S.)
BY C. B.
Among the bishops who sat at Laus Pompeia, commonly Lodi, both the old, overthrown by the Milanese about the year 1158, Julian, whom we could not but insert today into our Work, and the new, built not long after by the emperor Frederick Barbarossa three miles from the former, that is, from the village named Lodevecchio into which this was changed (see the account of that episcopal city in Insubria, already given by us in tome 2 of January, page 221), there were several plainly remarkable for uprightness of manners as well as holiness of life. Three of these, namely Bassianus, Titian and Albert, of whom the first is venerated by the people of Lodi on the 19th of January, the second on the 4th of May, and the third finally on the 4th day of July, we have therefore already brought into our Work at those days: so that even for that reason we could not but grant a place in it likewise to Julian, bishop of Lodi, here proposed, who, no differently from those three, is venerated at Lodi, on this twelfth day of October, on which, from what is to be said below, this is done there. No written Life of this our Saint exists, at least none known to me; but although it is so, and I am in no way going to teach singly all that he did, I nevertheless undertake to set before the reader's eyes here, as in one view, all that I have been able to fish out from anywhere concerning either the time of his see, or the translation of his relics, or his ecclesiastical cult, or finally his memory in the sacred Fasti.
[2] Having diligently searched a great many martyrologists or hagiologists who enumerate several heavenly ones daily in the sacred Fasti composed by them and published by the benefit of print, he is indicated by Ferrari to have sat at Lodi immediately before St. Bassianus; I found Julian commemorated today by only two of them, namely Ferrari and Châtelain. And Ferrari indeed, by whom this is done both in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy and in the other, general one, indicates in both, as appears, that Julian presided over the church of Lodi nineteen years before St. Bassianus, and indeed with no one at all in between him and the latter; and hence it came about that Châtelain, who, following Ferrari, also celebrates Julian today in his universal Martyrology, as I have already intimated, noted in the margin that he died about the year 380. For since, as Ughelli teaches, tome IV of the Italia Sacra, col. 894, Bassianus was created bishop of Lodi in the year 378, and Châtelain no doubt had this perceived, from this and at the same time from the fact that he saw Julian set by Ferrari as the immediate predecessor of Bassianus in the see of Lodi, that martyrologist brought himself to think that he was taken from the living about the year 380. But did Julian truly occupy the see of Lodi immediately before St. Bassianus?
[3] but two others, namely Genebrard, from the roll of the prelates of Lodi, Between him and Bassianus, who it is agreed among all was later than Julian, Dionysius and Genebrard are placed in the middle in the Tables of the church of Lodi, as Ughelli teaches in the bishops of Lodi, tome IV of the Italia Sacra, col. 893. Ughelli himself, in the place cited, intimates that Genebrard is to be struck out of those tables, that is, the Catalogue of the bishops of Lodi, affirming that he was bishop not of Lodi but of Laon in Gaul, who is mentioned by Sigebert, Flodoard and Hincmar, and also on the Nones of September in the Additions to Usuard by Molanus, and in the Catalogue of the Prelates of Laon by Claude Robert, and further was living in the year 500; but, says Francesco Zaccaria on page 89 of his emended Series of the Bishops of Lodi, published in Milanese type in the year 1763, In vain did Ughelli try to snatch this holy Prelate (namely Genebrard) from the people of Lodi, because in the year 500 some Genebrard sat in the church of Laon. The interval of a hundred and thirty years which lies between the two ought to have warned him that the Genebrard of Lodi was one, the Genebrard of Laon another. So he, and indeed not ineptly; and even if we granted for the moment that the one of Laon sat in the same 4th century in which Genebrard of Lodi sat, nothing could nevertheless be concluded from this which would prove that Genebrard was to be deleted from the roll of the bishops of Lodi.
[4] contrary to what Ughelli thought, is not to be struck out, and Dionysius, For why could not two different churches have had two different bishops of the same name at one and the same time? Moreover, of the bishop of Laon mentioned by the writers praised above, and by name by Molanus on the Nones of September, that is, the fifth day of this month, it has already been treated by us at that day, and he is constantly named, both by the martyrologists and by Molanus himself and by all the other writers alleged there, not Genebrard but Genebaud or certainly Genebald. Genebrard, therefore, is rightly numbered among the bishops of Lodi, nor is there any reason why we should, with Ughelli, charge with error either the Tables of the church of Lodi praised above, in which this is done, or the Lodi Martyrology cited by Zaccaria on page 89 of the composition mentioned above, in which, at the 15th day before the Kalends of January, Genebrard is announced and asserted to have had Bassianus as his successor in the see of Lodi. But what is to be said of Dionysius, who, placed immediately before Genebrard in the said Tables of the church of Lodi, is placed in the same, no differently from him, in the middle between Julian and Bassianus, as I have already warned? Truly neither is he, as appears, to be struck out of the Catalogue of the bishops of Lodi, even if it were granted for the moment that no ancient document of entire credit, distinct from those Tables, is found in which he is mentioned; for from this it would follow that Dionysius indeed could be claimed for the people of Lodi from no other source than the same Tables, but not likewise that no bishop named Dionysius existed who sat at Lodi in the middle between Julian and Bassianus. But is there not in fact found also some document of this kind?
[5] In the newest edition of the Works of St. Athanasius, which came out at Paris in the year 1698 by the care of the Benedictine monks of the Congregation of St. Maur, by Athanasius, in whose text, by Le Quien here assigned tome 1, part 1, from page 225 to page 319, is exhibited the Apology of that holy archbishop of Alexandria to the emperor Constantius, written in the year 356, in which, among the bishops who he reveals in num. 3 were present with him when, summoned to Milan in the year 346 by his brother Constans Augustus, he was conversing with him there and treating of an ecumenical synod to be convoked at Sardica, there occurs Διονύσιος ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι ἐπίσκοπος, in Latin, as the praised Benedictine monks interpret it, Dionysius, bishop of Leïs; and there Dionysius, of Laus, or, as
this city is better and more commonly called, of Laus Pompeia in Insubria, the bishop, is designated, Baronius indicates in the margin of the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 346, who, using an older edition of Athanasius, read not Leidis but Leidae; and Martinière in his great Geographical Dictionary at the word Leida, and Zaccaria in his composition still praised above, page 87 and following, support him. Nor can Le Quien move me to believe that this is wrongly done by them, who, in the place cited, Oriens Christianus, tome 2, col. 195 and following, contends that Athanasius designates not a Dionysius who was bishop of Laus Pompeia in Italy, but of Elis in Achaia, and that in him ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι was written corruptly for ὁ ἐν Ηλίδι by an error of the copyists. For he gives neither sufficiently proved; nor, even if we granted for the moment that a Dionysius who was bishop of Elis in Achaia is designated by Athanasius in the place cited above, will it have to be said for that reason that in him ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι was certainly written for ὁ ἐν Ηλίδι by the fault of the copyists.
[6] For this city of Achaia, which is not rarely called Ηλὶς, the error of the copyist is also sometimes named in Greek Ηλεία, as Le Quien himself admits; and since, therefore, after the manner of the Ionians, who frequently change α into η and the diphthong ει into ηΐ, a diaeresis being applied, it may not ineptly be called also Ηληΐη, and, a new word being formed from it, Ηλήἳς by others, in exactly the same way as Ληία, in Latin praeda (booty), is called by the Ionians ληἳη, and, a new word being formed from it, Ληἳς by others; everyone will say that in Athanasius, if a Dionysius who was bishop of Elis in Achaia is truly designated by him in the place cited, ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι was written there by the error of a copyist not for ὁ ἐν Ηλίδι, but either for ὁ ἐν Ηλίδι or for ὁ ἐν Ηληΐδι. But truly, that the copyists erred, even in the one or the other of these two ways, in writing the name of the city of which the Dionysius mentioned by Athanasius was bishop, is by no means certain. For since it appears likely that the Dionysius who was present with Athanasius when he was conversing at Milan with Constans Augustus was bishop rather of a city situated not far from that metropolis of Insubria than of one far removed from it, why should we not also believe that in Athanasius, in the place cited, ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι was written by the error of the copyists rather for ὀ ἐν Λάυδι than either for ἐν Ηλίδι or for ὁ ἐν Ηληῒδι, and that Dionysius therefore was an Italian bishop, as were also most of the others mentioned there by Athanasius?
[7] lies, is by no means certain, What if we should say also that in writing the name of the city of which the Dionysius mentioned by Athanasius was bishop the copyists did not err, and that therefore that city which in Latin is called Laus Pompeia was distinguished by the Greeks with the appellation Ληΐδος? So indeed, I think, we shall not be putting forward anything greatly at odds with the truth. The characters indeed with which Laus is written in Latin differ not a little from the characters with which Λέἳς is written in Greek; but the proper names both of cities and of regions and of their inhabitants are not always written in Greek with the same characters as in Latin. So, to give the matter proved even by one example, which may stand for many, drawn from the inhabitants of the very region in which Laus is situated, those who in Latin are called Insubres or Inubri are named by Polybius, book XI, chap. XVII, Ἴσομβρες in Greek, this name being written somewhat differently. Although, therefore, Ληΐς in Greek is not written with the same characters as Laus in Latin, it is nevertheless not a consequence from this that that city of Insubria was not called by this name by the Greeks. Nor does this follow either from the fact that no ancient writer is found by whom it is certain that Laus was distinguished in Greek by the appellation Ληΐδις; for this, since likewise no one is found who teaches either by what, or whether by another name than Ληΐδις, Laus was called by the ancient Greeks, ought not to prevent it from being believed, on account of the things already alleged above, that it was in fact so called by them, and especially by Athanasius, and that he therefore, in the place cited above, by the words Διονύσιος ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι ἐπίσκοπος designated Dionysius, bishop of Laus Pompeia in Italy.
[8] in the apology to Constantius, as here, together But, someone will perhaps now say, it appears very like the truth that all the bishops in whose company Athanasius, as he himself relates in the place cited above, treated at Milan in the year 346 with Constans Augustus about convoking an ecumenical synod, were afterwards present at that synod at Sardica in the year 347; but among the bishops who are read in Labbe and other editors of the Councils as subscribed to the same synod, there appears indeed a Dionysius from Achaia, of Elida, or rather of Elis, but not likewise a Dionysius of Lodi. I admit, it is so; but that it is not a consequence from this that he was not present at the council or synod of Sardica, and therefore is not designated by Athanasius in the place cited above, will become clear from what is now to be said. That holy bishop of Alexandria, in the part of his Works cited above, page 168 and following, enumerates by name 284 bishops, of whom some both were present at the synod of Sardica and subscribed, while others, although they had not been present at it, afterwards approved its decrees with their subscriptions, no differently from the former; and that certainly not fewer than ninety bishops were present at the council of Sardica becomes evident from the annotation subjoined there to the words of Athanasius by the Benedictines praised above; and since therefore it is certain that, besides about sixty bishops who are found subscribed to the council of Sardica in Labbe and other editors of the Councils, several others still were present at it, it certainly by no means follows from the fact that he is not found subscribed to that council that Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, was not present at the said council and therefore is not designated by Athanasius in the Apology to Constantius.
[9] Nor is there reason for anyone to reply that Dionysius of Lodi is not even enumerated among the 284 bishops enumerated by Athanasius in the place just cited; and another, and a third likewise, for among these appears one named Dionysius, who, since he is mentioned without the church over which he presided being expressed, cannot be asserted for certain not to have presided over that of Lodi. Moreover, although in the place just cited Athanasius supplies a truly huge number of the bishops who confirmed the decrees of the synod of Sardica with their subscriptions, yet that in this some prelates also who were present at the same synod are omitted, the Benedictine monks more than once already praised clearly show in the Annotation mentioned above; wherefore, even if we granted for the moment that the Dionysius who alone of the 284 bishops whom Athanasius in the place just cited relates to have subscribed to the council of Sardica is distinguished there by him with that name was not the bishop of the same name of the church of Lodi, it could not nevertheless be inferred from this that he was not present at that council, and therefore is not mentioned by Athanasius in the Apology to Constantius. But here yet another difficulty now occurs. For Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, whom we judge to be designated by Athanasius in the place cited above, either retained the see of Lodi, when he had been raised to it, until death, or passed from it, as the people of Lodi contend, to that of Milan.
[10] But if he passed to the see of Milan, and therefore is one and the same with St. Dionysius, which make to the contrary, the difficulties bishop of Milan, it must be that, contrary to what we think, he is different from the Dionysius designated by Athanasius. For Dionysius, bishop of Milan, already brought into our Work at the 25th day of May, on which he is venerated, occupied the see of Milan before the year 355, as may be seen there, nay indeed already from the year 352, as Sassi teaches in the History of the prelates of Milan, tome 1, page 60; and since the Dionysius whom Athanasius, in his Apology to Constantius, written in the year 356, as I showed above, reveals to have been present with him at Milan in the year 346, is called by him in it Διονύσιος, ὁ ἐν Ληΐδι ἐπίσκοπος, Dionysius bishop of Leis, or, from what has been said, of Lodi, and certainly there, if he had already been translated from the see of Lodi to that of Milan from the year 352, he would have been called by Athanasius not simply Dionysius of Lodi, but Dionysius, then of Lodi, but now bishop of Milan; from this truly everyone who has weighed the matter even in passing will conclude that Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, if he was translated from the see of Lodi to that of Milan and is therefore one and the same with Dionysius, bishop of Milan, is to be judged different from the Dionysius designated by Athanasius.
[11] But if the same Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, having been removed, we judge, mentioned between Bassianus and Julian whom we indeed think to be designated by Athanasius in the Apology to Constantius, occupied the see of Lodi, to which, from what has been said, he had already been promoted in the year 346, until death, and therefore, if not beyond, certainly until the year 356, in which he is mentioned there by Athanasius as still living, it does not seem that it would have come about that he should be venerated as a Saint by the people of Lodi, as is done. For since, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari, bishops, excepted, who in the year 355 in the council of Milan could not be induced by the Arians and Constantius Augustus to fail in their duty, almost all the other bishops of Italy, yielding to their threats and promises, then subscribed to the unjust condemnation of Athanasius, it is certainly very greatly to be feared that Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, who is nowhere praised either by Athanasius or by other writers for his constancy in the faith, likewise did this, a most shameful brand being burned upon his name. I would believe, therefore, that the Dionysius who is venerated by the people of Lodi on that very day, the 25th of May, is none other than the very Dionysius, bishop of Milan, who is venerated on that day by the Milanese, and that he is wrongly confused by them with the bishop of the same name whom they had set over themselves, that is, over their church, at about the same time in which he flourished.
[12] [sat, and that he, as follows from this, probably did not die only about the year 380,] Meanwhile you will not ineptly argue from this that in very truth, since otherwise they would not seem likely to have done so, there presided over them at Lodi, at about the same time in which Dionysius, bishop of Milan, sat at Milan, a bishop named Dionysius. Now then, since these things are so, and therefore not only Genebrard but also Dionysius, mentioned by Athanasius in the place cited above, who, from what has been said, was raised to the see of Lodi already from the year 346, nay indeed, as will come out probable from what is to be said below, somewhat earlier still, seems to have sat between Bassianus and Julian, it follows that the latter probably died, not only about the year 380, as Châtelain, from what has already been said, will have it, but before the year 346, and indeed by a space not altogether slight before it. But
being about presently to determine a little more nearly, as best I can, the time both at which this happened and at which Julian ascended the chair of Lodi, I here first inquire whether he sat third, or first or second, among the prelates of Lodi. That Julian is numbered in the third place among these in the ancient monuments of the church of Lodi, Ughelli writes in the place cited above. But Ferrari, not sufficiently consistent with himself in his two Catalogues of the Saints, affirms that it is related in one of them, namely the General, that Julian was the fourth, but in the other, which embraces only the Heavenly ones of Italy, the third among the bishops of Lodi.
[13] and whom not the third, Meanwhile neither that hagiologist nor Ughelli enumerates by name any bishop who sat at Lodi before Julian; and although Zaccaria, in Dissertation 2, chap. 1, of the composition more than once already praised, does so, discussing some things about the ancient bishops of Lodi, of whom one was called Malusius, the other James, he nevertheless adds nothing from which it may come out sufficiently probable that, I will not say the first of them, whom everyone would hiss off as certainly fictitious, but even the second himself ever sat at Lodi. Moreover, having premised that he is not one who judges that all whom the people of Lodi call bishops before Bassianus were truly distinguished with the episcopal character, and that he can easily be brought to believe that in the first and second century of the Christian era no bishops of their own sat at Lodi, finally, having premised only a few things more which make it doubtful whether there then existed at Lodi so great a number of the faithful that a bishop of its own was required to rule it, he subjoins: For my part I would willingly assign St. Julian as the first bishop to the church of Lodi. For the fury of the Diocletianic persecution, which raged at Lodi in dire manner, could so strike the minds of the Christians that they seemed to need a bishop of their own, who should gather the scattered and make them eager and inflame them for undergoing new contests, if it pleased God. Thus he, who, although he thus reveals not obscurely that he is inclined to the opinion which would set Julian as the first bishop of the church of Lodi, nevertheless afterwards on page 34, in the series of the bishops of Lodi, places before Julian an Anonymous one who, with more than a thousand four hundred people of Lodi, was cast into the fire and burned for the faith in the most foul persecution of Diocletian and Maximian; but Ferrari, who at the 24th day of July in both his Catalogues brings forward that numerous class of Martyrs from Acts communicated to him, as he says, by the church of Lodi, numbers no bishop of Lodi with them, and our predecessors rejected them at the said day of July among those Passed Over, and judged that it was not easily to be admitted on the sole authority of Ferrari that citizens of Lodi in so great a number were slain for the faith in the Diocletianic persecution; and indeed not undeservedly: for the praised Acts from which they were received by Ferrari, or, if you prefer, the compendium of them which he supplies in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, deserve no credit at all, as everyone who has weighed it attentively will recognize without difficulty.
[14] But although the things I have just discussed on this matter are, as I have said, so, but rather numbered first among the bishops of the church of Lodi, and therefore I think that neither an Anonymous bishop of Lodi who sat before Julian, nor so great a number of people of Lodi as Ferrari assigns, who fell for the faith together with him in the Diocletianic persecution, are to be admitted, yet that not a few were put to martyrdom at Lodi in it comes out in some way probable from the fact that, as Zaccaria teaches in the place just cited, in a little marble chest, which was found in the high altar of the church of St. Peter of Lodi Vecchio, several relics of Martyrs are still preserved today, and an ancient tradition, from which one must not rashly depart, carries that these suffered under Diocletian; and since it is so, it appears likely that they were not a little struck by the dire fury with which the Diocletianic persecution raged against the people of Lodi, and since therefore it could easily have come about that those who had probably hitherto obeyed the bishop of Milan were, immediately after it, given a singular and proper bishop, whom they seemed to need in order to be raised up, truly the opinion proposed above from Zaccaria, which sets Julian, created bishop of Lodi after the most foul persecution of Diocletian about the year 305 or 306, as I shall presently show, as the first among all their prelates, by no means displeases me. Nor can the ancient monuments of the church of Lodi, in which, as I have already shown from Ughelli, Julian is numbered only third among the bishops of Lodi, bring it about that I should be otherwise disposed in mind. For besides the fact that the time at which they were approximately written is defined neither by Ughelli nor, as far as I know, by anyone else, and so it may deservedly be doubted whether they are of sufficient antiquity to create belief in any way, the bishops who are said to have sat at Lodi before Julian, so far as credit stands for those monuments, are certainly either fictitious or cannot be proved to have been distinguished with the episcopal character.
[15] promoted to govern it about the year, as it is right to believe, 305, But what are we now to say about the time at which Julian was promoted to the see of Lodi? That it happened after the most foul persecution of Diocletian, about the year of the Lord 305, Ughelli affirms in the place cited above. Nor is there reason why he should be judged certainly to stray from the truth here. He adds nothing indeed by which to give his assertion as proved; but likewise nothing occurs from elsewhere which persuades even in any way that it is undoubtedly foreign to the truth; and since it is to be thought not made up at pleasure, but drawn by Ughelli either from older documents or at least from a tradition not rashly to be rejected, it appears consonant with reason that, as long as nothing solid has been adduced which makes to the contrary, the Saint should be believed in fact to have been promoted to the see of Lodi about the year 305. Nevertheless, since in Italy, in which Laus Pompeia is situated, the Diocletianic persecution came to an end only in the year 306, as it is easy to gather from the things I adduced above at St. Hedistius, num. 4, and since the election of Julian as prelate of Lodi did not take place, as Ughelli relates, until it had ended, this seems to be attached rather to the year 306 or 307 than to 305. Nor does Ughelli himself stand in the way of this. For when he writes that Julian was elected prelate of Lodi about the year of the Lord 305, these words of his easily allow a latitude of two years, as everyone will admit, and so can rightly be extended to the year 306, nay even to 307.
[16] it can safely, as appears, be believed that he died about the year 324, Further, the same Ughelli, having first assigned the time about which Julian was raised to the see of Lodi, presently also teaches us how long he occupied it, writing thus of the Saint in the place just cited again: He presided holily and piously (over the church of Lodi) for 18 years, eight months, 19 days, and died when he was in his eighty-second year; by which words he most expressly determines not only for how many years, but also for how many months and days the Saint administered the church of Lodi; and since in so doing he leaves scarcely any room for doubting that he received the number of each of these, as he gives it, from a far older monument lighting his way, in which it was expressed, he certainly has wherewith to induce not a few to agree with him in that matter; and although Ferrari, who, making no mention at all of months and days, assigns only the number of years which Julian sat at Lodi, takes the last of these, which the words of Ughelli just recited reveal to have been incomplete, as complete, he nevertheless writes that the Saint presided over the church of Lodi for not more than nineteen years. Wherefore, since that hagiologist, who cites for himself a very ancient epitaph of Julian in which this is read, agrees here almost exactly with Ughelli, and nothing persuades us to deny credit to these two writers in that matter, it can safely, as appears, be believed that Julian presided over the church of Lodi for about nineteen years. Now then, since about nineteen years, computed from the year about 306 (for here it is fitting to determine in some way also the time of the Saint's death), in which, as it is right to believe from what has been said, Julian began to sit at Lodi, after which, having spent them there in the episcopate, he can safely be believed, as appears from what has been said, to have died, lead down to about the year 324, it follows that it can likewise safely be believed that about this last year he exchanged this mortal life for the immortal.
[17] And that this was then done is not certain but, and at Lodi Vecchio, where he was buried, as everyone will determine from what has already been said, only probable; on the other hand, to speak now of the Saint's burial, that he was buried at Lodi Vecchio appears sufficiently certain; for although Ferrari and Ughelli, who affirm that the Saint was laid there, and indeed in the church of St. Peter, prove their assertion by no ancient monument, yet that it is consonant with the truth may seem undoubted even from the fact that it appears on no head at all either credible or likely that the Saint was buried elsewhere than where he had been bishop. Moreover, since the translation by which, from what is to be said below, he was afterwards carried to new Lodi was most probably performed from the place where he had been buried, from this it is certainly not a little confirmed that the Saint was buried at Lodi Vecchio; for that he was translated from there to new Lodi is taught not only by both Ferrari and Ughelli, but also, in Zaccaria, page 209 of the composition praised above, by the Lodi Martyrology, a manuscript of the 16th century which he often used, at the 4th day before the Nones of July, supplying at the same time also wherefrom you may gather the time about which this was done, in these following words: At Lodi, of St. Albert de Quadrelli, bishop of our city and lesser principal patron, notable for piety towards the poor and for the grace of miracles, who together with St. Galdinus, archbishop of Milan, laboured exceedingly against the schismatics in the time of Alexander III, Supreme Pontiff, and with the same, many bodies and relics of Saints having been found in the ruined city, translated the body of St. Julian to the new city. So indicating most clearly indeed that the body of St. Julian was found in the ruined city, that is, Lodi Vecchio, which, as we saw above, was destroyed in the year 1158, and translated from there to new Lodi.
[18] But when was this done? St. Albert, surnamed de Quadrelli, translated to new Lodi between the year 1167 and the year 1174, by whom we are taught by the praised martyrologist of the church of Lodi that the body of our Saint was found at Lodi Vecchio and translated from there to new Lodi, stands brought into our Work at the 4th day of July, on which he is venerated at Lodi, and since, as we taught there from Acerbus Morena, a contemporary author, he was promoted to the see of Lodi in the year 1168, it must be that he performed the translation by which he carried the body of Julian from Lodi Vecchio to the New within the space of time intercepted between the year 1167 and the year next following his death. When, therefore,
that being held as established, we must inquire here into the year to which the death of St. Albert is to be attached. Our predecessors, treating of that Saint at the 4th day of July, as I have already indicated, bound it to the said year 1179, with Ughelli, who writes in tome IV of the Italia Sacra, col. 918, that St. Albert was present at the Lateran council which Alexander III celebrated in the year 1179, and that on the 4th day of July of the same year, when he had returned from there to the church entrusted to him, he departed from the living; but it was not St. Albert, but his next successor in the see of Lodi, Alberic, who was present at that Lateran council and subscribed, as it is permitted to see in Hardouin, Councils, tome VI, part 2, col. 2058. Moreover Zaccaria, in the composition already cited above often, page 211 and following, brings forward an authentic instrument, made in the year 1174, which it exhibits at the end, which creates belief that in this very year a sentence was passed at Milan against the monks in favour of the lord Alberic, by the grace of God bishop of Lodi, and therefore that he was already sitting at Lodi from the same year 1174; and since this is so, certainly the letters by which Alexander III in the year 1177 ratified the translation of the new city of Lodi from the old site were granted in the times of Alberic, and not, as Ughelli says, of St. Albert; and since therefore the latter departed from the living not only in the year 1179, as Ughelli supposed from what has been said, but, as Zaccaria determines for the reasons just alleged and others which he adds, in the year 1173, the translation by which he carried the body of St. Julian from Lodi Vecchio to the New undoubtedly took place in that space of time which intervened between the year 1167 and the year 1174.
[19] there he has been venerated already from a very long time. But did a cult proper to the Saints begin to be paid to Julian at Lodi also at the same time? I find no ancient and credible monument from which it may be established that this was already then done there; but that Julian was at least held for a Saint by the people of Lodi from time immemorial, that is, more than a hundred years before the year 1633, in which Urban VIII forbade that venerable Servants of God who had not been venerated for so great a space of time before that year should thenceforth be venerated, and was honoured as such by them with public cult proper to the Saints, appears undoubted. Certainly Ferrari, teaching in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, which came out in the year 1613, that his festal day is celebrated there every year on the 12th day of October, entirely persuades me that he was honoured with ecclesiastical cult at Lodi in the seventeenth century, nay even long before; and Ughelli likewise does the very same, numbering Julian, in the Work more than once already cited, which is noted as printed in the year 1652, among the Saints who it is beyond all controversy enjoyed ecclesiastical cult at Lodi for a hundred, nay even more than two hundred, years before the age of Urban VIII. Moreover Lodovico Taverna, bishop of Lodi from the year 1579 to the year 1616, as Ughelli teaches, tome 4 of the Work just cited again, col. 985 and following, placed the body of St. Julian, enclosed in a silver chest, in the greater underground altar of the cathedral church of Lodi, as the Lodi Martyrology today expressly notes, in Zaccaria, page 85 of the composition very often already cited, which he would most probably not have done unless he had perceived that Julian had already from a very long time been held for a Saint and venerated as such by the people of Lodi.
[20] and further is venerated still today. The Lodi Martyrology, doing today what I have said, has thus in Zaccaria in the place cited: At Lodi, of St. Julian, bishop of the same city and confessor, renowned for holiness, whose body, enclosed in a silver chest, Lodovico Taverna, bishop of Lodi, placed in the greater underground altar of our cathedral; and from these words of it it is permitted also to gather that Julian is still today honoured at Lodi with the cult customarily paid to the Saints. For since they report that his body was placed by Lodovico Taverna under the greater underground altar of the cathedral church of Lodi, and it is in no way to be doubted that that sacred pledge is still preserved there, without doubt the divine Clemency is still now customarily implored through the merits of St. Julian, no differently than through the merits of the other Saints whose relics rest either under or in that altar, by the priest, when he ascends it to perform the Sacred rites, the prayer being used which is conceived in these words: We pray thee, O Lord, by the merits of thy Saints whose relics are here, and of all the Saints, that thou wouldst deign to pardon all my sins; and to implore the divine Clemency through the merits of the Saints is to venerate them with some cult proper to the Heavenly ones. Nor do I think it is to be doubted that still today, as Ferrari, from what has been said, reveals to have been done in his age, the festal day of Julian is kept at Lodi every year on the 12th day of October.