Maximus of Aquila

ON ST. MAXIMUS OF AQUILA, DEACON AND MARTYR,

IN THE YEAR 250 OR 251.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Maximus, deacon and martyr, at Aquila among the Vestini. (S.)

BHL Number: 5836, 5847

B. B.

§ I. On the Cities of Avia and Aquila. The Passion of St. Maximus. His Acts.

On the city which in the Acts of St. Maximus is called Habiensis. We make our beginning with a topographical inquiry. "Maximus, Levite of Christ" (the words are those of the manuscript life, which you will find edited below), "was born of noble stock, from the city of Habia, which is situated in the province which among the ancients was itself also called Habiensis; but now it is called Forum Conae. But although the city or province lost that former name, yet the plain which is beside that city is called Habie, through which also flows the river named Habellicus." "Avia," says Ferrari Catalogus Sanctorum Italiae, 19th of October., "or Haviac among the Vestini, which is also Forum Conae, lies altogether near Aquila; the plain in which Abie was is still so called by the inhabitants, through which the river Abellinus runs down." But, unless I am greatly mistaken, Ferrari drew his note from no other source than the praised Life of St. Maximus. This is certain, that neither in the Thesaurus of the Antiquities of Italy, nor in Muratori's Antiquities of Italy of the middle age, nor in the Ancient Geography of Cellarius, is anything found by which these things, the city of Avia excepted, are sufficiently or even to some extent illustrated.

[2] A fuller elucidation of certain places mentioned in the Acts. Mention of the city of Avia indeed occurs in them; but they are silent about the province of Habia, about Forum Conae, as also about the plain of Habie and the river Havellicus flowing past it. In a recent Geographical Dictionary written in Italian, there is noted first, "Aquila: Province of the kingdom of Naples, known today under the name of Further Abruzzo"; then follows: "Aquila, anciently Avella or Avia, a conspicuous city in the kingdom of Naples," etc. [Nuovo Dizionario Geografico Universale ... di una società di dotti, Venice, 1826. At the word Aquila.]. Since, however, it is commonly held that the city of Aquila rose from the ruins of the city of Avia (how far this is true we shall investigate below), it could not absurdly be said that the writer of the acts of St. Maximus proclaims of the city and province of Habia what in the praised Dictionary are reported of the city and province of Aquila. Nor is it at all necessary to admit that a province of Habia once existed in the public records; it would suffice for our purpose that it was so called commonly. For not seldom a region is named among the people after its chief city, without, however, having a title of this kind by reason of public administration. As regards Forum Conae, the plain of Habie and the Habellicus, although nothing occurs about them among the ancients, it is nevertheless likely

that these names prevailed among the people. Otherwise how would the writer of the acts of St. Maximus have invented them, a writer whom everything persuades to have spent his life in that very region? In particular, the Avellicus or Habellicus will be a little stream of the river Aternus, which, to the left of Aquila, runs from north to south, bending towards the east, as may be seen on geographical maps.

[3] On the city of Avia according to Cellarius. For the rest, little concerning the ancient city of Avia has come down to us. Cellarius has the following Geographia Antiqua, book II, chapter IX, section II., where he treats of the Vestini, Marrucini, Paeligni and Marsi: "The Vestini," he says, "who, beginning from the sources of the Vomanus, Matrinus and Aternus, dwelt on the banks of those rivers as far as the sea. Ptolemy assigns to them the towns of Pinna, Avia, Angulum; he adds Amiternum, which however we shall afterwards show to belong to the Sabines. Pliny adds the Peltuinates and Aufinates." And below, treating of each in particular: "Avia, Ptolemy's Ἀούια, the Table's (the Peutinger) Aveia, XX miles from Alba, which seems to Cluver to be that of the Fucine. It was near the city of Aquila, which shines out from the Roman Martyrology on the 13th day before the Kalends of November: 'In the city of Avia near Aquila among the Vestini, the birthday of blessed Maximus, Levite and Martyr.'" Thus Cellarius. Although in the cited Italian Dictionary it is hinted that the city which was once called Avia or Avella is the present Aquila, it is nevertheless much more likely, not to say certain, that this is a new city of more recent origin, founded not in the same place, but not far from ancient Avia.

[4] Avia, a city different from Furconium. Let us hear the Right Reverend Giuseppe Coppola, formerly bishop of Aquila, afterwards translated to the see of Castrum Maris (Castellammare, or Castello a Mare, in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies). He published, in the middle of the eighteenth century, a splendid study of St. Maximus [Dissertazione sopra gli atti di S. Massimo Levita e Martire, principal protettore della citta dell' Aquila; e sopra el diploma dell' Imperadore Ottone il Grande, che appartiene allo stesso Sancto: col la Relazione della Translazione delle sue sacre Reliquie della Cattedrale della distrutta citta di Forcone in quella dell' Aqnila. Di Giuseppe Coppola, della congregazione dell' Oratorio. Vescovo della medesima citta. In Napoli MDCCXLIX. (Dissertation on the acts of St. Maximus, Levite and Martyr, principal protector of the city of Aquila; and on the diploma of the Emperor Otto the Great, which pertains to the same Saint: with the Account of the Translation of his sacred Relics from the Cathedral of the destroyed city of Forcone to that of Aquila. By Giuseppe Coppola, of the congregation of the Oratory, Bishop of the same city. At Naples, 1749.)], of which frequent mention will recur in these acts. "Several writers," he says Ibid., pp. 5 and 6. (among whom at the foot of the page he cites Martinière, Baudrand, Cluver, etc.), "have confused Avia and Furconium, thinking them to be one and the same city. Which is certainly false, as becomes plain from the ruins of both cities, still to be seen today and standing apart from each other by an interval of almost three miles; in the middle of which interval rises a mountain of no despicable height, so that even from this it strikes the eye that those ancient vestiges are not the remains of one and the same city. The same is established from the old codices of the Acts of St. Eusanius" (on whom the Right Reverend Coppola published another dissertation) "and of the glorious virgin St. Justa, in which mention is had of both cities; of Furconium in the Martyrdom of St. Justa; of Avia in the Acts of St. Eusanius, which relate that King Priscus resided there. St. Eusanius, moreover, suffered in the three hundredth year of Christ, on the eighth day of July, namely fourteen years after St. Justa had been crowned with Martyrdom" Ibid.. St. Eusanius and his companion martyrs have been treated by us at the 9th day of July, but their Acts are called suspect Acta Sanctorum, volume II of July, p. 692.; St. Justa, however, Sollerius treated at the 1st day of August; he holds her cult sufficiently certain, and adds: "And would that arguments were available with equal good fortune for protecting and vindicating the authority of the Legend" Ibid., volume I of August, p. 39, nos. 7 and 8.. From which it follows that the argument drawn by the Right Reverend Coppola from their acts is perhaps not so very valid; but the other, from the ruins, which he himself, as bishop of Aquila, could see with his own eyes, stands. Then from a certain passage of Titus Livy he concludes that the beginnings of the city of Avia do not reach to the year 460 from the founding of Rome, and he adds: "From the remains of the walls, and from the village which, adjacent to the place called Terra di Fossa, still today bears the ancient though somewhat corrupted name, namely Avea, it is discerned that the city was situated on a pleasant plain, watered by the waters of the river Aternus, which cut through the middle of it; adorned and girt about with suburbs spread out towards the north, as appears from the ruins, aqueducts and tombs. Nor is there doubt that it was a distinguished city, inasmuch as it gave its name to the Province" (compare what was said at no. 2). "Finally, one may conjecture that it was destroyed in the sixth century, by the Lombards or by some other unknown slaughter, since from the third century its name is no longer found in any writer; a royal palace, however, is mentioned, which survived far longer, and of which the vestiges are still seen. In this city, then, the holy Martyr Maximus announced and confessed the faith, nay he is held to have been a native of it." Thus far the Right Reverend Coppola Dissertazione, p. 6.. And again elsewhere, treating of the diploma of Otto the Great, which he says was given at the Palace of Avia (of which more fully below), he adds that the vestiges of this Palace are still seen today in that very place where ancient Avia was; which ruins indeed are commonly called by the inhabitants the King's Palace Ibid., p. 27..

[5] The Origin of the City of Aquila. There exists in the Thesaurus of the Antiquities of Italy Volume IX, part I, towards the beginning. a study by Enrico Bacco and Cesare d'Engenio, under the title, Descriptio d'Abruzzo ultra, decimae regni Neapolitani provinciae (Description of Further Abruzzo, the tenth province of the kingdom of Naples), at the end of which is found A Brief dissertation on the Origin of the city of Aquila. From which we have thought fit to set down certain things here. "Illustrious," they say, "and very famous is the city of Aquila, not only on account of the excellent deeds of its citizens and the magnificence of its buildings, but also on account of its origin, which it has from five towns of the Samnites now destroyed, of which the chief was Amiternum. Since in the times of the emperor Frederick II" (the thirteenth century) "the citizens of Amiternum and Forcona were dispersed through the mountains of the Abruzzo, the emperor ordered them to be gathered together and to found a city in a place suitable for the defence of the kingdom, in that part which is called Aquila, as Summonte and Caraffa testify. And Pontano indeed, in the last book of the Neapolitan War, notes that not far from the Aternus there was a small village or estate called Aquila from its spring" (this could perhaps not absurdly be interpreted of Avia or, as Coppola has it, Avea, and the river Habellicus), "by which name the new part of the city still rejoices. Salvatore Massonio, in the dialogue On the Origin of Aquila, writes that Aquila was built in a place called Aquila, between Forcone and Amiternum, and that hence" (as the same adds) "the aforesaid emperor, both in honour of the empire and (as we said above) because it had been built in that place which was called Aquila, wished it to be called Aquila, as the same things are also read in the Privilege" (see this Privilege or diploma in Muratori Antiquitates Italiae medii aevi, volume VI, column 511 and following.) "of the said foundation, the original of which is preserved in the Archive of Aquila, on parchment, beginning: 'We reigning happily and triumphing gloriously,' etc. The same Privilege is brought forward in the Letters of Pietro delle Vigne, Campanian judge of the Court and secretary to the same emperor; although Mazzella says (but not without error) that the citizens of Forcona, joined with those of Amiternum, of Abia and of Duronia, went as a palatinate through the lands of the Lombards and, under the leadership of a certain Aquilus or Aquila of Amiternum, built a city which they called Aquila from the name of their leader, afterwards enlarged and adorned by Frederick II." Let us note here in passing that in the preceding it is constantly held that Aquila was founded and established between Amiternum and Forcone, without mention being made of Avia; whereas it might equally rightly be said to have been founded between Avia and Forcone: and hence is confirmed what Coppola wrote, that from the IIIrd century the name of Avia no longer occurs in the writers. Compare no. 4.

[6] Certain tenets of Ughelli are challenged. Ughelli made Mazzella's opinion his own and, after his manner, amplifies it at greater length Italia Sacra, volume I, column 373. Second edition, Venice, 1717.. He adds: "At what time these things happened you will scarcely find brought to reckoning by any writer" Ibid., column 373.. And below: "Since meanwhile it is not doubtful that it (Aquila) was founded by the peoples of Amiternum and Furconium before the thousandth (year), and was thereafter increased by the fame of its people and by wealth" Ibid., column 373.. But at the foot of the page the Venetian editor of the Italia Sacra subjoins from Lucenzi: "The beginning of the city of Aquila is recited by the Anonymous On the Deeds of the Emperor Frederick, an old copy of which our Ughelli transcribed in volume IX of the Italia Sacra, where it is had that Aquila first emerged in the year of the Lord 1252, with the favour of King Conrad, in hatred of the Barons of that district" (district or tract); "but immediately, growing proud of its strength, it was destroyed as a rebel in the year 1258; yet we do not believe it was so reduced to nothing that a bishop could not still reside there, since in the previous year the episcopal See had been translated to it, and it continued with continued succession." But, says Ughelli Ibid.: "This is established, that mention is made of Aquila already from the times of Nicholas II, that is 1060, when that Pontiff bestowed the duchy of Apulia on Robert Guiscard by a pact made at Aquila. Whence Collenuccio in the History of the Kingdom of Naples, Ranzano and others can easily be refuted when they assert that at the command of Frederick II the peoples of Benevento, Cassino and Sora, whose towns Frederick had destroyed, founded the city of Aquila, and wished it to be called by that name in honour of the Empire, whose ensign is the Eagle."

[7] To this the Right Reverend Coppola replies Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 8.: granted that the instrument of that Pact is genuine, which Ciurci in his manuscript History of Aquila recites from a transcript which he says is preserved in the Archive of Casanova, nothing can be inferred from it, since it is established from the very diploma of Frederick that there existed between Furconium and Amiternum a hamlet or estate called Aquila, and that the city built by order of the same Frederick borrowed its name, partly at least, from it. "Lately, by provident consideration" (the words are Frederick's), "we have provided that in the place which is called Aquila, between Forcone and Amiternum, out of the surrounding Castles and also Lands, which, as it were scattered into members, however strong in the brightness of their faith, could neither resist the efforts of our rebels nor come to one another's aid with mutual help, a city of one body should be built, which from the name of the place itself, and from the auspices of our victorious standards, Aquile

we have decreed to be entitled by the name of Aquila" [See the Diploma of Frederick, Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 512. Milan edition, 1742.]. And here Coppola aptly infers Place cited.: if a city had already existed there, why should it be ordered to be built?

[8] After a few words interposed, Frederick proceeds thus in the praised diploma: "In order, therefore, that so noble a work of our hands may rejoice to be distinguished by the special grace of our munificence, we have determined that the city itself is to be bounded by the boundaries written below, namely from Cornu Putridum through all of Amiternum: making public, for the site and district of that city and for the work of its community, all the adjacent hills which are called Aquila, and all the Lands lying around," etc. On these words Antonio Antinori observes: "It is plain that by the name of Aquila are here designated the Hills of the Village of the same name, and therefore Frederick adds to the district all the Lands lying around ... the woods and groves of the lands. Afterwards all these were called by the name of Aquila" Note 5 on the Diploma of Frederick.. Further, Antinori has no doubt at all concerning the authenticity of the aforesaid diploma (although, as we shall see later, he is not very indulgent in this matter), which he says is preserved in valid copies in the Archives of Aquila Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 511.; and he adds: "Pietro delle Vigne, Frederick's secretary, died in the year 1249, whence it is gathered that this diploma was given either in the previous year or before, but not in the year 1250, as is commonly believed." Finally, Ughelli perhaps drew his assertion about Aquila having been founded before the thousandth year from Chacón; and if so, he did not rightly interpret his words: "The Pontiff (Nicholas II), receiving Robert Guiscard and the Normans into the favour and communion of the Apostolic See, created Robert, now made tributary to the church, Duke of Campania, Calabria and Apulia, and Count of Sicily. These things were done in the year of Christ 1060, in that place where Aquila is now founded, between Amiternum and Forcone" [Lives and deeds of the Roman Pontiffs and Cardinals of the H. R. C., the work of Alfonso Chacón, with the notes of Oldoini S.J., Rome, 1677, volume I, column 826.]. From the last words it is clearly made out, in the judgment of Chacón, that the city of Aquila did not yet exist at that time; nothing, however, prevents these things from being said to have been done at the village of the same name. From all these things it sufficiently appears that Ughelli slipped more than once.

[9] On Aquila, a Village of the town of Pila. In the same sense mention of Aquila occurs in a little parchment of the year 1195, the beginning of which is: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the year from his Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five" (read one thousand one hundred and ninety-five. It is an error of the copyist, as Antinori [Historiae Aquilanae, chapter I. In Muratori, Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 497.] and Papebroch Volume II of June, p. 608, in the life of St. Placidus the hermit. show), "in the XIIIth Indiction, on the first day before the Nones of October, the church of blessed Mary of Aquila was dedicated by Odorisius, venerable bishop of Forcone, with two altars, one below, the other above." Antinori notes In the place cited above. that the church, formerly parochial, of St. Mary of Aquila is now that of the nuns of St. Clare of Aquila within the walls of the city; then he adds: "Aquila was then, namely, a village of the town of Pila, as Boezio Rainaldi excellently teaches, stanza 88." For Antinori ("an excellent young man," says Muratori As above, in the Notice on the Histories of the city of Aquila, p. 485, "and a learned writer, himself also a citizen of Aquila, known to me for some years and much esteemed") published and illustrated with notes very many things pertaining to the city of Aquila, and among others the Poem of Boezio Rainaldi, commonly called Buccio di Ranallo, which consists of one thousand two hundred and fifty-four stanzas (each stanza has four Italian little verses) on the affairs of Aquila from the year 1252 to the year 1362; and it is found, as Antinori illustrated it, in Muratori's Antiquitates Italiae Medii Aevi Volume VI, columns 533–704.. Finally, it will help to have noted that in the geographical Tables commonly called the Carta generale del Regno di Napoli (General Map of the Kingdom of Naples), by the author Rizzi Zannoni (an excellent work comprised in thirty-one sheets or maps [It exists at Brussels in the Library of Philippe Van der Maelen, whose Geographical Institute is known everywhere in the world.]), there is placed to the west of Aquila, but outside the walls, a village by the name of Pila, almost on the bank of the river Aternus.

[10] The present state of the city of Aquila And so much on the origin and antiquity of the city of Aquila. Its present state is described in the above-praised geographical Dictionary Nuovo Dizionario Geografico universale, at the word Aquila. in these words: "Aquila, a beautiful and conspicuous city of the kingdom of Naples, capital of the province of Further Abruzzo II, also capital of a district... It is situated on a hill, at the foot of which flows the Aternus or Pescara. An episcopal see immediately subject to the holy See. Besides the cathedral, it numbers twenty-five parish churches, and several convents of regulars; a Lyceum also, founded by Ferdinand IV, a Seminary... It has 13615 inhabitants. The city is said to have been founded or enlarged by the emperor Frederick II from the ruins of the ancient cities of Amiternum and Furconium." This is certain, that the episcopal see of the latter city was translated by Pope Alexander IV to Aquila, namely in the year 1257. According to Balbi, Aquila numbers about eight thousand inhabitants, and flourishes in trade among the other cities of the kingdom of Naples Abrégé de Géographie, by Adrien Balbi, volume I, p. 409. Brussels edition, 1840.. Coppola says Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 7. that it is adorned with magnificent buildings and splendid churches, rich beyond measure in precious relics, girt by a wall on every side. "And although," he proceeds, "shaken more than once by dreadful earthquakes, and almost destroyed, it is nevertheless seen today so splendidly restored in great part that it can truly be called: MORE BEAUTIFUL FROM ITS DEATH." Moreover, Aquila has suffered many disasters from its very origin: for, says the same Coppola Ibid., p. 8., "when Conrad, son of Frederick, had died, Manfred, who had succeeded him, being opposed to the Pope, ordered Aquila to be burned and levelled to the ground in the year 1259; but Manfred having been conquered by Charles I, king of the French, it was rebuilt in the year 1265, and girt with a wall in the year 1316." Now let us come to the Acts of St. Maximus.

[11] A compendium of the Passion of St. Maximus from Ferrari. Ferrari, in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, makes mention of St. Maximus on this 19th day of October; his words, as presenting a not inelegant compendium of the acts, we set down here: "Maximus, Levite of Avia (it was a city of the Vestini near Aquila), when he was preaching the faith of Christ the Lord under the Emperor Decius, being ordered to be arrested, presented himself of his own accord to the guards. Being led to the governor, and questioned about his stock and religion, he answered that he was of free-born stock, a Christian by religion, and a Levite by office. Being asked, moreover, why he did not worship the immortal Gods, 'Because,' he said, 'I know that your Gods are vain and deaf images, not Gods.' After many words on both sides, the governor promised Maximus his daughter in marriage if he would obey the commands of the emperors. This choice being refused, when he could be moved from the constancy of the faith neither by any promises nor by threats, he was hung on the rack and tortured for a very long time, giving thanks to Christ that he was held worthy to suffer for His name. And when the governor said, 'Sacrifice to our Gods, that you may gain yourself,' the martyr answered: 'I shall gain my soul if I do not sacrifice to demons.' At which answer the governor, blazing with anger, ordered him to be beaten with clubs, and urged him to sacrifice to Diana. To whom Maximus said: 'Why do you still speak superfluous words? I do not sacrifice to your Diana; but I offer myself as a sacrifice to my living and true God.' Then the tyrant, burning with greater anger, commanded Maximus to be led to the place which was called the circle, and thence to be cast headlong from on high. When therefore Maximus had prayed for a little while and had pronounced these words, 'Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit,' he was thrown down from the height and completed the glorious contest of martyrdom on the 14th day before the Kalends of November. His body was buried by night by the Christians. From the office of the Church of Aquila, approved at Rome in the year 1603."

[12] Mention in the Martyrologies. On this same 19th day of October the feast of St. Maximus is celebrated in the church of Aquila with a more solemn rite and with a proper office and hymn. Usuard also makes mention of him (with whom the Roman Martyrology agrees almost word for word), but on the following day, in these words: "In the province of Avia, the birthday of blessed Maximus, levite and martyr, who from desire of suffering showed himself openly to the persecutors who were seeking him, and after the constancy of his answers, hung on the rack and tortured, then beaten with clubs, and at last overwhelmed, fell." Here, however, our Sollerius observes Acta Sanctorum, Martyrology of Usuard, at the 20th day of October, Observation.: "Of this our Maximus of Avia none of the ancient Martyrologists makes mention, except Usuard alone, from whence he received him I cannot divine at all, unless we suspect that the passion of that Martyr, or some brief acts, came into his hands, such as Pietro de' Natali nearly published in book IX, chapter 85. Others exist in manuscript with us, and indeed various ones (of which below), in some of which a manifest confusion among Maximuses appears, about which see Tillemont disputing, volume III, pages 710 and 711." Thus Sollerius.

[13] Two other Saints of the same name: The Maximuses, namely, to whom he alludes, besides today's, are two: one is celebrated by us on the 30th of April Acta Sanctorum, volume III of April, p. 732., the other on the 29th of May Ibid., volume VII of May, p. 14.. The Acts of the former Fr. Henschen illustrated, in the Preliminary Commentary to which very many Martyrologies are cited which make mention of the holy Martyr on various days, "in Asia" or "in the city of Asia." The Acts themselves, however (which you will also find the same in Ruinart Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta, p. 156. Amsterdam edition, 1713., and which seem to Baronius, in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology, to be proconsular At the 30th day of April, letter f.), are nothing else than an abbreviation of the acts which we today publish for the first time. The chief difference is that in ours the Governor is anonymous, while in Henschen and Ruinart it is no longer a question of a Governor but of a Proconsul, who is called Optimus by name; the questions and answers, however, scarcely differ in either, except that in those many things are omitted which are had in ours. It must be noted moreover that Henschen commemorates At the 30th day of April, p. 733. another St. Maximus on the same day from the Greek Menaea, who Ruinart As above, no. 4. says is called by some Maximinus or Maximianus. But he does not concern us here. On the 29th day of May another St. Maximus, martyr, is treated, and indeed one who also suffered "in Asia": but there Papebroch interprets this word of Assisi,

which is a city of Liburnia, destroyed now a long time since; then he says that the body of St. Maximus was translated thence to Aemonia, a city of Istria, and a little after to Cittanova, built over the ruins of Aemonia; and finally to Venice, into the church of St. Gratian. On that day no acts are set down by us, which, says Papebroch As above, p. 14, no. 2., we have already given at the 30th day of April.

[14] [Those three Saints do not seem to be different, but one and the same, celebrated in different places and on different days.] It is evident that between the two aforesaid martyrs and ours there obtains not only identity of name, but besides a great likeness in other respects. In the first place, the acts edited first by Henschen and then by Ruinart scarcely differ, as we have said, from ours, except that they are contracted into a compendium. Next, in both, Henschen namely and Papebroch, is read "in Asia," "in the city of Asia," which, if the strokes of the letters be regarded, scarcely differs from Avia or Abia. Moreover, on the witness of Ruinart, in a manuscript codex of the Monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés are had acts of St. Maximus, levite and martyr, altogether like the acts of St. Maximus which we bring forward, except for certain interpolations in the answers. And this Maximus at the end of the Acts is said to have suffered in the province of Ambiens on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November Ruinart, place cited, in the Admonition, no. 2.. Which indeed fits our holy Martyr exactly. There exists also among the documents formerly collected by our predecessors, which are preserved today in the royal Library of Brussels, a copy from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour, which is noted under St. Maximus at the 20th day of October (who is ours), and is entitled The Martyrdom of St. Maximus the Levite. And in it are repeated word for word the acts brought forward by Henschen and Ruinart. Only some lines are lacking at the end, in which in Ruinart St. Maximus is said to have suffered under the emperor Decius and the proconsul Optimus, on the second day before the Ides of May. Wherefore we think it not improbable (which Tillemont already suspected, in the place cited by Sollerius) that those three Saints are one and the same, celebrated in different places and on different days. It is also more likely to us that the passion of the two former was taken from the acts of St. Maximus of Aquila or Avia.

[15] [In vain does the Right Reverend Coppola strive to prove that they are different, and their acts different;] The Right Reverend Coppola, however, strives at length to prove Dissertazione di S. Massimo, pp. 10–16. the diversity of the aforesaid acts, which he contends shines out, nay is demonstrated, from the place of the Passion, from the condition and office of the champions, likewise from the kind of Passion and its circumstances, finally from the time at which it happened. And as to the place, "all to a man," he says, "who have written of our St. Maximus affirm that he suffered in the city of Avia" Ibid., p. 12., while as regards the others the authors in this respect differ wonderfully among themselves. But we account this note of no great moment, since nothing prevents those three Saints being one and the same, but venerated in various places, the more so because Avia, Asia, Asisia scarcely differ from one another if you regard the strokes or letters. "The condition and the Office are different. Ours answers: 'I am of free-born stock, I hold the order of Levite.' St. Maximus of Asia: 'Born free, but a servant of Christ.' Then, when the Proconsul asks, 'What office do you hold?' he replies: 'I am a man of the common people, living by my own business.' Both are called free-born: beware, however," says Coppola Ibid., p. 13., "of concluding from this that both were born of noble stock: for although the word ingenuus sometimes sounds the same as noble, in its proper sense it signifies nothing else than a man of free condition, or one who is not a slave, as may be seen in the Glossary of Du Cange. That our Maximus was noble, however, appears from the whole text of the acts, and also from this, that the Governor promises him his daughter in marriage if he will send Christ his dismissal; which he certainly would not have promised if he had been of plebeian extraction. Hence also in the ancient parchment Breviary which is preserved in the archive of the cathedral of Aquila it is expressly had: 'Maximus, Levite of Christ, was sprung from noble stock.' The condition, therefore, is different; the office is different." And so indeed the praised prelate. These things, however, since they turn on a very few words, are not of such weight as to compel, or even to lead, to a complete diversity of the acts. Corruptions of this kind frequently occur in documents of most certainly the same origin, as anyone will readily concede who is not altogether a stranger in this matter.

[16] since the one set was merely contracted from the other. "The very torments" (so Coppola proceeds Ibid., pp. 13 and 14.), "however altogether similar they may appear, are yet different, if attentively weighed, whether as to order or sequence, or as to very many circumstances." Yet he notes scarcely anything else in particular, except that St. Maximus of Asia is read to have been first beaten with rods and then stretched on the rack: while Ours, before he is tortured, refuses the Governor's daughter offered to him in marriage, wherefore he is thrown on the rack: this, therefore, was the first torment of our holy Martyr, while the first of the other's were the rods. "And while he was being tortured on the rack, he gives thanks to Jesus Christ, who deigned to join him to his holy Martyrs, which is not read of the other Maximus. Then he is beaten with clubs, but with fire added: 'But if not,' says the Governor to the holy Levite, 'with fire placed beneath, I will have you most severely beaten with clubs.'" These things are certainly slight, nor will they induce anyone to conclude from them that the acts are different. For the rest, let the learned reader run through even cursorily the Passion of St. Maximus, as it is subjoined to this Commentary of ours, and let him read at the same time the acts of the other St. Maximus, either in our work Volume III of April, p. 732. or at the foot of our acts, where, that the comparison may more easily be made, we subjoin them from Ruinart; and, unless I am greatly deceived, he will not remain doubtful that both are of the same origin, and that the one set was contracted from the other, as we said at no. 15. Ours indeed is read to have fallen after being cast headlong from on high, while the other was overwhelmed with stones; but Coppola himself, led to this by the announcement of Usuard (which see above, no. 12), concedes that St. Maximus the levite, after he had been cast headlong, was overwhelmed with stones Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 15.. Finally, from the fact that all agree in assigning the day of the Passion of our holy Levite, but disagree in fixing the day of the other's Passion, nothing can be deduced, since the day indicated by the Martyrologists is for the most part either the feast or that of a translation, nay even in the same churches the days of feasts have been changed for manifold causes. What of the fact that St. Maximus the levite too occurs on the twentieth day of October in the Usuardine and Roman Martyrologies, while in the acts he is read to have suffered on the XIXth day of the same month, on which also he is venerated at Aquila; nay, that at Aquila he has been celebrated at different times on four different days? In no way, therefore, as it seems to us at least, does Coppola prove a diversity of the acts and accordingly of the Saints; nay rather, so slight are the arguments on which he relies that we judge the contrary opinion, which is ours, to be rather confirmed by them.

[17] On two copies of the acts of a certain St. Maximus; These things being cleared up, we step forward to a more accurate examination of our acts. And first indeed we have two manuscript copies which present a rather prolix life, or rather passion, of St. Maximus. They are of the same origin, since they scarcely differ from each other except as regards certain words either omitted or added. One was copied from the collection of Fr. Antonio Caracciolo; the other from the manuscript parchment Legendary of the Vallicella, which was also collated with the Lombardic manuscript of St. Severinus. Both refer the martyrdom to the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian; and in one indeed it is said to have taken place on the third day before the Kalends of November; in the other, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of the same month. In both the governor is called by the name Fabianus or Favianus; but in the former he is read to have been sent to Cumae, whence also the following title or inscription: The Passion of St. Maximus, Levite of the Church of Cumae and Martyr of Jesus Christ; in the latter no name of a city is indicated; hence also the shorter title: The Passion of St. Maximus the Levite. For the rest, both narratives depart entirely from the acts which up to now have been praised or presented either by us or by Ruinart and others; if, however, you except the Proem, which does not so disagree with our acts, and is as follows.

[18] the proem of which is recited; "The emperors Diocletian and Maximian, then, finding the time of their tyranny in which they might boil over against the Christians, set over all the dignities of the state those satellites who might equal them not only in savagery but also in the inventions of new tortures. Alas, for shame! Such a thought did not deceive them. For when a certain Antonius, a man of all cunning, had been made by them prefect of the City, he hardened himself with such inhumanity that around houses, around springs, and, to speak briefly, around every place where the merchandise of any trade (could be), he erected images, so that all who had come (should come) there should not buy or sell anything unless they had first sacrificed. And this they did not only in the city of Romulus, but most bloody men were also sent through the whole world, to compel every kind of men to be stained with so great a sacrilege. For this reason, therefore, there was sent (to Cumae too) a certain man by the name of Favianus (Fabianus), a most obstinate enemy of the Christian name. When he had arrived and had ordered the throne of his madness to be prepared, he at once had the whole people summoned by the voice of a herald. Presently they flocked together as to a new governor; he ascended the tribunal and, silence having been made, began thus: 'Let all the people hear, let every assembly hear, let small and great together hear what (power) of giving life and putting to death the most invincible emperors have bestowed on me. Only so, that whoever' (read: him who) 'shall have scorned to sacrifice we should kill with various punishments; but him who shall have willingly obeyed their decrees I should enrich with great riches and exalt with great honours. Let each one therefore come forward and offer incense, lest he be compelled against his will to perform what he refuses of his own accord,'" etc.

[19] from which it is established that our Maximus is far different from that other. We have added these things here somewhat more fully, both that it may be seen what the manner and character or nature of those acts is, and chiefly that it may appear that nothing is had in common between that Maximus and ours except the likeness of name and office (in both cases a Levite is in question). Rightly, therefore, did Sollerius write in the place cited: "Others exist in manuscript with us, and indeed various ones, in some of which a manifest confusion among Maximuses appears."

[20] Those Acts are spurious. Finally, that those acts are spurious, nay fictitious, is suggested by the wonders with which they abound from beginning to end; let an example be the little boy of three months who delivers a long and learned oration on the religion of Christ,

and whom the wicked governor, taking precaution lest the people should turn to sedition, most foully killed, twisting the tender boy limb by limb. Nor would that little boy alone have to be added as a new martyr, but also eighteen soldiers, who, converted to the faith by St. Maximus, were at once condemned by the governor to capital sentence. Moreover, the questions and answers savour very much of a rhetorician, nay of a most verbose declaimer, but by no means of a martyr of Christ meek and humble of heart. However that may be, if some new light should unexpectedly arise, these things will have to be treated again at the third day before the Kalends of November. Meanwhile this is certain, that in those acts a holy Martyr is in question who is wholly different from ours.

[21] The Passion of St. Maximus from the manuscripts of the church of Aquila, We have another Passion of St. Maximus, likewise in manuscript, which our predecessors received at Naples from Fr. Antonio Beatillo in the year 1638. It is taken from the manuscripts of the church of Aquila, or, as is noted on its very front: Life from the ancient manuscript Breviary which is preserved in the Bishop's residence of the same city. Nor does it seem doubtful to us that this is the life to which Baronius alludes in the Roman Martyrology at the 20th day of October, where he says: "The acts of his Martyrdom and the manuscript history of the Translation we received from the church of Aquila. There also are many things about the coming of the Emperor Otto the Great to the tomb of St. Maximus, and about relics taken thence and translated into Germany." For all these things are found in our Copy. "We could wish," says Tillemont [Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, volume III, p. 334. Paris, 1701.], "that Baronius had made public the acts which he had in hand. For from the things which Ferrari reports of St. Maximus, those acts seem by no means to be despised; provided, however, they do not bring forward each and every thing that Pietro de' Natali has. The feast of this Saint is noted on the 19th or also the 20th day of October."

[22] published today by us for the first time. It is granted to us today to satisfy the wishes of Tillemont, by committing to print those very acts from which Ferrari's compendium, which we gave above at no. 11, was manifestly put together. As regards Pietro de' Natali, someone might perhaps believe that he treats of our holy Martyr at considerable length; but on the contrary, he has only these few things [Catalogus Sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis voluminibus collectus, edited by Pietro de' Natali, Vicenza, the year 1493, book IX, chapter LXXXV.]: "Maximus, Martyr and Levite, a holy man, suffered in the time of Decius Caesar in the province of Ambiens. He, although he was a plebeian, from desire of suffering showed himself openly to the persecutors who were seeking him. And, arrested by the Governor, after the constancy of his answers, while he confessed Christ, he was hung on the rack and tortured for a long time. And when the Governor promised him his exceedingly beautiful daughter Caesaria as wife, if he would consent to sacrifice to the Gods, and he asserted that he had the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, as his bride, and altogether refused to sacrifice, he was beaten for a very long time with clubs, then ordered to be led to prison. And while he was being led, he gave up his spirit on the 13th day before the Kalends of November." What he would have suppressed in these Tillemont does not define. Let it suffice to have noted in what respects the cited words of Pietro differ from the acts of Aquila. Him whom he calls plebeian the acts proclaim free-born: nor in these, as in Pietro, does Maximus assert that he has the Virgin Mary as his bride (which we suspect was chiefly censured by Tillemont), but "I have," he says, "an immortal bride," namely holy Church, which certainly will offend the ear of no one, even the most delicate. Finally, according to Pietro, the holy Martyr gave up his spirit while he was being led to prison; according to the acts, he consummated his contest cast headlong from on high. In short, we have found nothing in those acts which you could call a mark of intrinsic falsity. Not, however, that we so approve each and every thing that is brought forward in them as to wish to defend their complete authenticity. But, such as they are, we judge them worthy to be inserted in our work.

[23] The Office of St. Maximus taken from our acts. From the acts was composed (this strikes the eye of anyone reading even cursorily) the office of St. Maximus, Martyr, patron of the church of Aquila, for the said church of Aquila and its whole diocese. A copy of it published at Rome in the year 1604 exists with us. The Lessons of the second Nocturn (they contain a very accurate compendium of the acts) and several Antiphons, as also the Hymn at Vespers, are proper. For the rest, I have found nothing worthy of special mention either in that Hymn or in the Prayer. In our copy the following are read at the end: "This Office of St. Maximus, Martyr, Patron of the Church of Aquila, long since seen, emended and approved in the sacred Congregation of Rites from the year 1587, in the time of Pope Sixtus V of happy memory, before the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Alfonso Cardinal Gesualdo of good memory. That it may be freely and lawfully recited in the church of Aquila and its whole diocese under the double rite, and also be printed for greater convenience, the same sacred Congregation of Rites judged and declared, and granted licence, on the 29th day of November 1603. It was signed: Pth., Bishop of Ostia, Cardinal of Como." The feast is appointed to be celebrated on the XIXth day of October. And this was the chief reason for us why we have treated of St. Maximus on this day, although his memory recurs on the following day in the Roman Martyrology.

[24] The feast celebrated on various days at Aquila. It must be noted, however, that that feast was formerly celebrated at Aquila on other days as well. For we learn from the Poem of Boezio Rainaldi [Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 684 and the two following and following; namely from Stanza 1121 to 1135.] that, since in the preceding years many had been excommunicated because they had worked on the 20th day of October, sacred to St. Maximus, the bishop in the year 1360 transferred the feast of St. Maximus to the 10th day of May, and a little after to the 10th day of June, led chiefly by this reason, that in the month of October, on account of the vintage, the due concourse of the people could scarcely be had. Which is confirmed from the manuscript Chronica Compendiata (so Coppola, but it had already then been published [It is found in the Antiquitates Italiae, the same volume VI, columns 875–880, under this title: Cronica dal principio de la Edificatione della Citta de l'Aquila, extracta da piu Scriptori (Chronicle from the beginning of the Building of the City of Aquila, extracted from several Writers).]), which may be seen at Aquila in the Library of Giacinto Benedetti, Baron of Scoppito, where it is had: "In the year 1360, Paul the bishop had the feast of St. Maximus, Martyr, transferred." The reason why the feast was fixed to the tenth day of June is given as this, that it was the common opinion that on this day took place that notable miracle under Otto the Great (of which we shall treat at length below, § II), as is also recorded in an ancient manuscript of the Archive of the cathedral church of Aquila. To this day also, by the concession or Privilege of Queen Joanna, the Fair was transferred; which, however, whether because in the course of time it had begun to be neglected, or because it seemed more convenient that it be held in the month of May, was carried back thither by the Privilege of King Alfonso in the year 1456, namely to the feast day of St. Bernardine, whose sacred remains are venerated in this city Coppola, Dissertazione di S. Massimo, pp. 82–84.. Nor will anyone wonder at such things who has weighed how solemnly the day of St. Maximus was kept. In the Synodal constitutions of Bishop Berardus or Bernard Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume IV, column 954 and following, which Antinori supposes Ibid., note 53. to have been drawn up after the year 1395, it is had thus at no. 1: "In the first place, although our kindly Mother the Church does not cease to honour with solicitous zeal and to extol with sonorous praises all who are established in the heavenly Kingdoms, We, however, desiring to exalt with worthy praises the most glorious Martyrs, the chief and most worthy Advocates of the people of Aquila before the Lord, namely Maximus and George, under whose names the Church of Aquila is founded, by the present constitution establish and ordain that, both in the Church of Aquila and in all others of the city and diocese of the same, the Festivals of those Blessed Martyrs, our Patrons, be solemnly celebrated each year under the double office with a whole Octave, as is prescribed to all for the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul; and that on each of the days on which commemoration is made of the said Apostles, commemoration be made also of our said Patrons. Those not observing it shall know that they will incur the indignation of the said Saints and our own." The feast, therefore, was celebrated first on the 20th of October; then on the 10th of May; a little after on the 10th of June; finally it is now celebrated on the 19th of October; but when it was fixed to this last day I have not altogether ascertained. This is certain, that in the year 1413, or rather 1414 (when the Translation of the Relics of St. Maximus to the city of Aquila falls, as we shall see below at the end of § II), this obtained, as plainly appears from certain manuscript Notes of Giacomo de' Donadei; for there it is read: "On the 18th day of October, at the first vespers of the Feast of St. Maximus," etc.

[25] St. Maximus suffered under Decius, in the year 250 or 251. At what time blessed Maximus suffered is determined from the years in which Decius held the empire. "The Easterners," says our Giovanni Battista Riccioli [Chronologiae reformatae et ad certas conclusiones redactae, volume I, p. 48. Bologna edition, 1669.], "not bearing the avarice of Priscus, made Jotapianus emperor, and the Moesians and Pannonians Marinus; against whom Philip the Elder sent Decius" (reluctant indeed, as is had in Tillemont Histoire des Empereurs, Philippe, article VI.); "but the Pannonians win him over to themselves, and compel him to be emperor, and with him come in hostile array against Philip, who was making for that place; wherefore Philip, having lost his army, was slain at Verona, and his twelve-year-old son was killed at Rome in the month of May." That these things happened in the year of Christ 249 is admitted by all; but the dispute is, in which months. "Pearson thinks," says Pagi [In the critique at the year 248, no. X. Annals of Baronius, volume II, p. 568. Lucca edition.], "so far as conjecture can be drawn from his letters, that at the beginning of the month of May in the year CCXLIX Marinus assumed the empire in Pannonia; that at the end of July Decius, Marinus having been removed, assumed the purple; that in the month of August the Elder Philip was killed at Verona, and a little after the Younger at Rome; and finally that in the month of September Decius proclaimed himself emperor. But in the following year we shall see" (they are Pagi's words) "that already about the month of July Decius was reigning and the Philips had been killed." And in fact, at the following year, namely 249, no. 4, Pagi has thus Ibidem, volume II, p. 570.: "As to the month in which both" (the Philips, father and son, emperors) "were killed, it is to be elicited from book VIII of the Justinian Code, title XXXV, where Law I, On revoking donations, is inscribed: 'The Emperor Philip Augustus to Casminus'; but subscribed: 'On the 15th day before the Kalends of July, Aemilianus and

Aquilinus being Consuls.' Moreover, in the same Code there exists a rescript, book IV, title XVI, with this inscription: 'The Emperor Decius Augustus to Telemachus,' with the subscription: 'Posted on the 14th day before the Kalends of November, Aemilianus and Aquilinus being Consuls.' From which Laws it becomes most certain not only that Philip perished under the consuls of this year (249), and that Decius began to reign under the same; but also that on the 15th day before the Kalends of July, or the seventeenth day of the month of June, Philip was still alive. If to these months you add what we shall bring forward at the death of Decius, it will be clear that Philip was slain about the month of July, and could not have prolonged his life up to the month of August, as Pearson would have it in the Annales Cyprianici." And this indeed is how Pagi has it. But in the Lucca edition of Baronius's Annals As above., namely in Note 2, it is added: "A certain law of Philip in the Justinian Code, book VI, title XXXVI, compels us to record the end of Philip somewhat later; which, since it was given on the Ides (that is, the 15th) of October, Aemilianus and Peregrinus (corruptly for Aquilinus) being consuls, sufficiently demonstrates that Philip prolonged his Reign up to that day. Nor is any inconvenience drawn from this chronological arrangement; for room remains for three begun years to be assigned to the Decian Reign, which ended in the year 251 before the sixth day before the Kalends of November, which Pagi excellently proves at the year 251, 30." Hence Tillemont [Histoire des Empereurs, Philippe, article VII, volume III, p. 122. Brussels, 1732.] says it is certain that Philip perished in the year 249, and indeed before the 19th day of October (by what reckoning he fixes precisely this day, since the law mentioned above was given on the 15th, let him see to it), but after the 17th of June, nay after the 15th of August, if we are to stand by the Dates of the laws. At the end, therefore, of this year 249, or at the beginning of the following 250, the deadly edict of Decius against the Christians went forth, as Pearson has it in the Annales Cyprianici, whom Pagi also follows, and it is founded on the Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, reported by Eusebius [Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XLI, volume I, p. 304 and following. According to Reading's edition of Valesius, Cambridge, 1720.]. "But immediately," he says, "the change of that reign, which had been most kindly towards us, was announced to us: and a most grievous terror of threats was held over us. And now the edict of the Emperor was at hand, almost that very one which was foretold by our Lord, presenting what was horrible and terrible, so that even the elect themselves, if it were possible, would suffer scandal. All certainly were wonderfully terrified" Ibid., p. 305.. Further, Decius reigned two years; at the beginning of the third, having set out from Rome, where he still was on the twentieth of October, against the Scythians who had crossed the Tanais, he perished with his son at Abritus Pagi at the year 251, no. XXIX. Annals of Baronius, volume II, p. 631. at the end of November or the beginning of December. From these things it follows that the Passion of St. Maximus is to be referred to the year 250 or 251; and the day, if we stand by the acts, to the 19th of October. Compare Coppola Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 9..

§ II. On the Relics of St. Maximus. Their Finding or Visitation under Otto the Great; his Diploma. The Translation of the Relics.

The relics of St. Maximus first laid up at Furconium; "Aquila," says Ughelli Italia Sacra, volume I, column 374., "while it still lacked its own pastor, was subject to the bishop of Furconium. To which afterwards both the diocese of Amiternum and the Furconian diocese of St. Maximus passed into possession, and the prelate declared to be set over both they called the bishop of Aquila, who, having shaken off the bridle of the former prelates, at this time venerates and reveres the one holy Apostolic See alone. The Cathedral is dedicated to SS. Maximus and George, illustrious martyrs. Moreover, the bodies of the Saints which were translated from the ancient cities of Furconium and Amiternum rest there honourably." That the bishopric of Furconium is very ancient is established from the catalogue in Ughelli, where the first bishop, by name Florus, is referred to the year 680; it is also a matter most well known among the learned that the Furconian see was commonly called that of St. Maximus. "The bishops of Furconium, or of Turonium, were formerly called Bishops of St. Maximus, the body of which Martyr and Patron was venerated in the greater church. Now that jurisdiction belongs to the bishop of Aquila." So Muratori on the Chronicon of Farfa, in which, when the see or prelates of Furconium are treated, they are for the most part named after St. Maximus. See the Rerum Italicarum scriptores Volume 1, second part, column 457..

[27] and brought thence to Aquila. From these things it is made out that the sacred remains of the holy Martyr were laid up at Furconium from time immemorial and preserved there up to the translation of that See to the city of Aquila by the authority of Pope Alexander IV, by the Bull given on the 10th day before the Kalends of March, Indiction XV, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1257, in the IIIrd year of his Pontificate. Which see in Ughelli Italia Sacra, volume I, column 380..

[28] On the finding of the Body of St. Maximus. Here, however, is the place to treat of a fact celebrated in the annals of Furconium and even of Aquila, of which also there is discourse in a manuscript with us under the title, The Finding of St. Maximus. To this also is referred the diploma of the emperor Otto, which, says Antinori, is preserved on parchment written in Lombardic letters in the archive of the Cathedral of Aquila, and transcribed again in another parchment codex, with this preface, taken from the older Legend of St. Maximus, now lost. This preface we give from Antinori [Historiae Aquilanae, chapter I. In Muratori, Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 489 and following. Milan edition, 1742.], both because it is very much to our purpose, and because our manuscript copy, formerly sent from Aquila, is in certain places more or less either obscure or corrupt; finally because Antinori, on the witness of Muratori, as we said above, is a diligent writer and learned above others in the affairs of the city of his birth. The things, however, which occur in our copy either added or different we shall diligently note in brackets inserted into Antinori's text. The preface (which should rather be called a history) is as follows.

[29] [The history of the aforesaid Finding from the Archive of the church of Aquila, collated with Antinori.] "How and when, through the church of Furconium, under one chapter of the most glorious Levite and Martyr our Patron, the cathedral was erected and endowed appears in his legend, in which, among other things, it is read thus." These words indeed are lacking in our copy; but in their place the following are read: "After the blessed and glorious triumph of the Passion of B. Maximus the martyr, almighty God deigned to show (perhaps: to work) and demonstrate many miracles at his tomb by his merits. But for what reason the aforesaid miracles were not transmitted to posterity we hold uncertain (perhaps: unascertained). For we believe that either through the negligence of those in charge, or through the discord (perhaps: of those praying) (sloth?) of sinners, our sins requiring it, they have been covered over with silence for us; but there is one thing which we hold ratified and ascertained, that so great were," etc., as follows from Antinori.

[30] The emperor Otto the Great meets Pope John "We hold it certain that so great and so illustrious were the miracles" (those three words are lacking with us) "which God deigned in those times to work through B. Maximus his martyr; which" (better in our copy, "that") "the report of the miracles struck the ears of the emperor Otto the Great and most ardently stirred his mind to visit his tomb. At that time, then, the aforesaid glorious" (this word is lacking with us) "emperor Otto the Great" (these two words are lacking) "had decided to come to Rome for imperial business: but having heard of the miracles which Almighty God was daily working in Italy through his blessed martyr" (both these words are lacking with us) "Maximus, with the imperial array of archbishops, bishops" (this word is lacking), "princes, marquises and counts, as is the custom of emperors, he set out on his journey from the parts beyond the mountains, and" (these three words are wanting) "came in haste to Rome. At that time, then, the venerable Pope John was governing the Roman church" (see); "who, when he had heard of the emperor's coming, as was fitting, kindly received so glorious a prince, and made him sit with him within the Lateran palace; and when they were thus" (with us: together) "seated, the same venerable Pope" (John) "began skilfully to inquire of the aforesaid emperor the cause of his journey. To whom the devout emperor humbly and devoutly narrated the cause of his journey and his devotion. 'I have heard,' he said, 'most Blessed' (Most Holy) 'Father, many marvels concerning blessed St. Maximus, martyr, whose body lies in the province of Furconium, which God has done through him; and therefore I, Otto the Great, Emperor, have come, so that, if the Lord permit, I desire to transfer some part of that most holy Body to my fatherland.'" (In our Copy: "that, if God permit, I may be able to transfer some part of that most holy body to my fatherland.")

[31] They go together to the tomb. "Having heard this, the Venerable Pope John kindly assented to his devotion and petition, and together with the emperor himself and a great retinue they went with one mind to that place, namely where the most sacred body of B. Maximus was laid up. Coming then to the aforesaid tomb, together with the Pope himself they prostrated themselves before the sacred sepulchre, asking the clemency of the supreme creator that he, because he is Almighty" (our Copy: "who can do all things"), "would deign to grant them to take away something of so most sacred" (most holy, with us) "a Martyr. And a certain man, approaching with a hammer to break the aforesaid sepulchre, at once his arm grew numb, and the whole place trembled. Then the venerable Pope John, together with the emperor himself and with all who stood by them, withdrew from that place very fearful and sad.

[32] A wonderful vision "There was there, moreover, a certain religious bishop by the name of Cesso, a man of great holiness; for when he had given himself to sleep in the coming night" (for when he had given himself to sleep there at night, with us), "an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a vision, saying to him: 'Go and tell the emperor that unless he does what I am about to tell you, he will in no way be able to carry anything of this holy body away with him. Let him enrich, namely'" (more clearly with us: "you shall tell him, namely, that the Apostolic one (namely the Pope) who is with him should constitute the church in which the sacred body rests a bishopric and ordain a bishop there") "'now the church in which the sacred body now rests, and let the Apostolic one who is with him constitute that church a bishopric and ordain a bishop there, and so in such a manner he will be able to carry something of the Martyr's body away with him.' Bishop Cesso, waking, narrated the vision he had seen to the emperor. 'I saw,' he said, 'O emperor, an angel of the Lord'" (there is added with us: "in a vision") "'saying to me: Announce this' (these things) 'to the emperor, which I am about to tell you, and tell him that' (because) 'those things which

you shall have narrated to him are true, and whoever shall not believe this' (these things) 'shall be accursed and anathematized for ever; and all who shall believe these things and shall give help and counsel' (with us: counsel and help) 'there, shall be blessed by almighty God and by B. Mary ever Virgin, and by all the orders of angels, and together' (the four preceding words are not read with us) 'by all the saints.'" Hearing this, the emperor went to the Apostolic one, and, having called together all the archbishops and bishops and princes" (with us: all the archbishops and princes) "who were with him, he narrated to all" (all things) "what he had heard from the above-mentioned bishop. Then all, lifting their hands to the stars, glorified God, who does not defraud his servants of their holy desire.

[33] The Pontiff returns with the emperor to the tomb, "Then the religious and pious Pope John, together with the great bishop Cesso and with all the other archbishops and bishops, and also the great emperor Otto with all the princes, approaching the tomb of B. Maximus the martyr most devoutly with Litanies, prostrated themselves before it, praying the clemency of almighty God and the kindness of the B. Martyr" (the word Martyr is lacking in our Copy) "Maximus, that the glorious God" (God is lacking with us) "would not defraud their desire of its holy purpose. The Apostolic one, rising from prayer together with the emperor and with all the other archbishops and bishops and princes, vowed vows to God and to B. Maximus that (they) would do in all things and through all things as the angel of the Lord had commanded" (ordained) "them through the aforesaid bishop. The emperor, vehemently kindled with the desire of his heart, led by zeal for God, placed the testimony of the Gospel upon the sepulchre of B. Maximus, and swore with his own hand that, if God should permit him to transfer something of that most sacred body to his fatherland, he would (here) confirm by his sacred precept a most illustrious and most rich bishopric of this kind, and none the less beyond" (there is added with us: indeed) "the mountains would build a far richer bishopric to the honour of God and of B. Maximus the martyr.

[34] The sepulchre is opened. "All these things being done, the craftsmen of that art approached with fear and trembling, and opened the sacred sepulchre without damage. So great a sweet" (of sweetness) "odour indeed issued from his sacred bones that all felt themselves filled through and through with all" (the word all is lacking) "sweetness" (refreshed). "And the devout emperor, giving thanks to almighty God, claimed for himself a particle" (namely an Arm, as Coppola has it Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 58.) "of the sacred body of B. Maximus the Martyr, and placed it in a most worthy place" (little coffer) "to carry it away. And having called together his faithful who dwelt in the province of Furconium, by their counsel he most largely enriched and magnified the church, and constituted it a bishopric, and assigned it to God and to B. Peter the Apostle under the protection of the Roman church by the hands of the Apostolic one, and most devoutly strengthened it by his most sacred" (most holy) "Precept sealed with his own seal. And the venerable Pope John, receiving the aforesaid bishopric under the protection of the Roman Church, none the less confirmed by his own privilege all the things which the aforesaid emperor had granted and determined to the bishopric of Furconium. Moreover, being asked by the emperor and by his princes, with all the archbishops and bishops who were with him, he blessed all who strive to help the aforesaid bishopric (and) desire to defend it; but those" (however) "who wish with malignant mind to diminish or molest the aforesaid bishopric, unless they make worthy satisfaction, he cursed and excommunicated, and terribly associated them for ever with Judas the traitor and with all who crucified Our Lord Jesus Christ, who said to the Lord God: Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.

[35] Conclusion. "But if anyone desires to know what and how great things the glorious and devout" (the two latter words are absent with us) "emperor Otto the Great" (this word again is lacking with us) "granted to the church of Furconium, or subjected under its dominion, or by what places he determined the boundaries of the bishopric, let him read his Privilege, which is laid up in the same church." After these words, in our copy, a Comma being placed after the words "is laid up," is added: "and, Christ being propitious, he will be able to know more fully. All these things, then, being ordered and arranged, the emperor Otto the Great took to the road" (perhaps: the journey), "rejoicing and exulting for so great a gift conferred on him by God. Pope John, then, arranged the church of Furconium" (otherwise: of Furconium) "for divine worship to the honour of God and of B. Maximus the martyr, and so, Christ leading, returned to the Lateran palace." But in the copy which Antinori used, after the words praised above, "is laid up," the Diploma of Otto is transcribed (of which we shall treat below); and then is added Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume IV, column 491.: "The Privilege of Pope John of holy memory, who was with the said glorious emperor for erecting the cathedral church of Furconium, is not now found, except only under the writings of that Privilege at the end of the Legend of our most glorious Patron Maximus, levite and martyr" (these words certainly make no sense) "in which it is read thus." Here, however, is recited not any Privilege of Pope John, but a Brief of Pope Alexander II to Rainerius in the year 1028. At the end is added: "Pope John, then, for divine worship," etc., as in our copy. And from these things it sufficiently appears that Antinori's copy was written by an unskilled person; nor accordingly is too much to be attributed to the words by which the erection of the see of Furconium is ascribed to Otto the Great: which is altogether false, unless those words be interpreted of an erection less properly so called. Which indeed it was necessary to note here for what is presently to be subjoined. Finally (that we may pass over none of the things which pertain to this matter), Coppola testifies that he had in hand a manuscript composed towards the end of the XVIth century by Giovanni Giuseppe Alferi of Aquila, from which he inserted the following into his Dissertation on St. Maximus Dissertazione di S. Massimo, pp. 80 and 81.: "And the venerable Pope John, receiving the aforesaid bishopric under the protection of the Roman Church, none the less confirmed by his own privilege all the things which the aforesaid emperor had granted and determined to the bishopric of Furconium," etc., as above at the preceding number, except that it concludes a little otherwise: "we will that they be terribly associated for ever." — We have collated the text of Antinori with our copy so diligently chiefly for this reason, that that writer, whom we shall have to oppose of set purpose hereafter, relies far too much on his text in order to charge this whole narrative with falsity. For the rest, Antinori (as will plainly be seen when in paragraph II of this Commentary we dispute on the genuineness of the Ottonian diploma), carried away in this whole question by a certain youthful ardour, too easily indulged the prevailing temper of his age, and put forward many things not sufficiently thought out, not to say too rashly, or attacked them too arrogantly, as will already be plain from what is presently to be subjoined.

[36] Objections of Antinori against the aforesaid narrative; Antinori, namely, censures the whole aforesaid narrative with this epiphonema: "Beautiful are the things which are here narrated about the cause of Otto's coming: would they were equally well founded; the miraculous things are now to be omitted, as also those about the Finding of the sacred body. One thing only is to be observed, namely, that the bishopric of Furconium is narrated to have been founded in the time of Otto, nay by him, whereas the acts of the Councils of the years 680 and 861, above others, manifestly demonstrate that it was founded and existing ages before." And these things being supposed (for he does not prove them), he confidently pronounces this to be a patent fiction.

[37] which he judges to be in general unfounded; As regards the first point, namely that the whole narrative is unfounded: it is true indeed that the codex from which it was drawn is not so very old, which Antinori indeed refers to the XIVth century, but which the Right Reverend Coppola thinks belongs to the beginning of the XVth century, led by these reasons. "It must be known," he says Ibid., p. 56., "that in that very archive of the cathedral church of Aquila in which the Original of the Ottonian Diploma has been preserved for so many centuries, there is also found another codex, which began to be written on parchment in the time of Giacomo de' Donadei of Rodiano Compare Ughelli, Italia Sacra, volume I, column 390. (Donadei di Roio), as is made out from these words at the beginning of the codex: 'By order of the Reverend Father Lord James, Bishop.'" He, moreover, had been intruded into the see of Aquila on the 31st of August in the year 1391 by the antipope Benedict XIII; but a little after, having left the see and been reconciled to Boniface IX, he was made bishop of Aquila by the same Pontiff on the 24th of January in the year 1401, and died in the year 1431 Coppola, place cited, and p. 72. Likewise Ughelli, place cited.. If, then, the praised codex was written under the episcopate of James, it will belong to the beginning of the XVth century; if in the time of the intrusion, to the end of the XIVth century, as Antinori would have it. And in order to vindicate the genuineness of the often-mentioned narrative, Coppola invokes Ibid., pp. 59 and 60. tradition, from which that anonymous writer certainly drew his assertions, and especially the Ottonian Diploma, in which these things are had among others: "For these miracles which the Lord has deigned to show on your account, blessed Maximus, and for your holy Body, from which," etc. Further, as we shall see below, Coppola defends the authenticity of the aforesaid Diploma as for hearth and home against Antinori, who expressly pronounces it spurious.

[38] but without sufficient reason. In confirmation Coppola adduces the whole Dissertation of Muratori, which he wrongly calls the 68th (for it is the 58th [De Christianorum veneratione erga Sanctos post declinationem Romani imperii, Dissertatio quinquagesima octava. Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume V, columns 1–60. Milan edition, 1741]), and cites these words: "There was, then, in those iron ages an incredible eagerness for sacred Relics," etc. "But above others the bishops, and chiefly those of Germany, into whose region the religion of Christ, brought in later, had given no Martyrs, were accustomed to vie, each to adorn his fatherland and churches with precious spoils of this kind. For which purpose they used the authority of princes, prayers, money, violence and other arts" Ibid., column 8.. And immediately Muratori adds: "Theodoric, bishop of Metz, once made himself famous on this account, to omit the rest. He was joined by close kinship to Otto the Great, Augustus, being his cousin, and dear to him among few, and served with him in the Italian expedition for three years, as Sigebert writes at the year DCCCLXIX" (it is an error; read DCCCCLXIX, nay according to Pertz DCCCCLXX Monumenta Germaniae, Scriptores, volume VI, p. 251.. The words of Sigebert in the place cited are: "Deodoric, bishop of the people of Metz, bound to the emperor more than the others by blood, affection and familiarity, while he was serving under him for three years in the Italian expedition, many bodies and pledges of the saints from various places of Italy IN WHATEVER WAY HE COULD" (which three words, says Muratori, are to be attentively noticed

As above.) "collected. First, from the Marsi, St. Elpidius the confessor, whose companion Eutychius the emperor himself had already carried off; from the people of Amiternum, Eutyches the martyr with the relics of Maro and Victorinus, his companions; from Foligno, Felician, bishop and martyr; from Perugia, Asclepiodotus the martyr; from Spoleto, Serena the martyr with Gregory the martyr of Spoleto; from Cordunum (Cerdonia?) the pledges of Vincent, martyr and levite, carried formerly from Spain to Capua by two monks, and from Capua thither; from Mevania, another Vincent, bishop and martyr; from Vicenza, Leontius, bishop and martyr; from Florence, Minias the martyr; from the city of Todi, Fortunatus, bishop and confessor; from Corfinium, Lucy of Syracuse, virgin and martyr (whose body other cities claim for themselves Muratori, ibid., column 9.), translated thither formerly from Syracuse by Faroald, duke of the Spoletans; from the Sabines, parts of the bodies of Protus and Hyacinth, martyrs. All these, with a part of the chain of St. Peter the Apostle, with hairs of the same, and with blood of St. Stephen the protomartyr, and a part of the gridiron of St. Lawrence the martyr given him by Pope John, with many other pledges of the Saints, the prelate Deodoric in this year (970) transferred into Gaul, and placed in the church of St. Vincent the martyr built by himself on the island of the city." So Sigebert in the Chronicle. From all these things Coppola infers that the aforesaid narrative of the Visitation, or, as our copy has it, of the Finding of St. Maximus, is not so universally absurd or ridiculous as Antinori insinuates in his stinging (as he himself seems to have thought) epiphonema. For the rest, granted that certain circumstances may be called into doubt, will the fact itself on that account be doubtful or supposititious? No prudent man would surely say so, especially if the genuineness of the Ottonian diploma be admitted, which, as we shall dispute a little below, Antinori attacks not very happily.

[39] [Whether the things said about the founding of the see of Furconium are fictitious.] As regards that patent fiction detected by the same man, we have already noted above, towards the end of no. 35, that from the often-mentioned narrative, as it is had in our copy, it is in no way made out that the church of Furconium was erected by Otto; and if the word "for erecting" is found in Antinori's copy, it matters little, since it is sufficiently established that that was written by an unskilled person. And even if it were not so, the words "to found," "to erect" would have to be interpreted in a wider sense from the Diploma itself (to which the Narrative is in the manner of a Preface), which constantly supposes that the see of Furconium existed, as Coppola pursues more fully Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 60.. It must be noted moreover that Cesso is indeed called bishop, but his see is not designated: "There was there, moreover, a certain religious Bishop by the name of Cesso, a man of great holiness," etc. Nor is it said in what follows either that that Cesso was promoted to the see of Furconium; and yet he is numbered by Ughelli and Coppola among the prelates of that church. Moreover, the Angel said in the vision: "Let the emperor enrich the church" (we have noted the variant reading) "in which the sacred body of B. Maximus now rests, and let the Apostolic one who is with him constitute that church a bishopric and ordain a Bishop." From these words might one not suppose that, according to the mind of the Narrative, Cesso had long since been bishop of Furconium, but that on this occasion his chair was transferred into the church in which St. Maximus rested, which Otto also enriched? So he could here too truly be called the Founder. Add that the aforesaid see was thereafter called: the church of St. Maximus of Furconium. To say candidly what I think: the fiction detected by Antinori is a mere cavil. What of the fact that he himself, while he accuses another of fiction, seems in the same place to make himself guilty of the same crime? For in very truth in Labbe Concilia, volume VI, column 696. Paris, 1671., in the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople against the Monothelites, where the acts in the Roman council under Pope Agatho in the year 680 are recounted, there is found among the subscriptions: "I, Florus, the least, bishop of the church of Furconium, have likewise subscribed to this suggestion, which we have unanimously composed on behalf of our apostolic faith." And again, in the Roman synod of the year 853 under Leo IV, sentence was pronounced against Anastasius, priest of St. Marcellus, already lately excommunicated; to the sentence bishops to the number of LXVII subscribed, among whom John, Bishop of Furconium Labbe, ibid., volume VIII, columns 122 and 123.. Why then does Antinori invoke the acts of the Councils of the years 680 and 861? In which latter year indeed I find one and another synod celebrated at Rome L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 195.; but in them no bishop of Furconium is read to have subscribed; nay, in both there are no subscriptions, as may be seen in Labbe Ibid., volume VIII, column 736 and columns 738 and 739., who refers the one to the year 861, the other to the year 862. For the rest, whence Antinori's slip arose Coppola shows in the Catalogue of Bishops, which see if you please Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 62 and following..

[40] The Diploma of Otto the Great, Now we step forward to the often-mentioned Diploma of Otto the Great, on the credit or genuineness of which almost the whole truth of the acts of St. Maximus rests. Since, then, Antinori has written: "He who does not see that that Diploma is false sees nothing; and merely to read it is to refute it" [History of Aquila, chapter I. In Muratori, Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 489.]. And these very words, put forward so confidently by a learned, yet young, author, gave the handle to Coppola's Dissertation on St. Maximus, as is not obscurely made out from its Preface. He thought it his duty, namely, as prelate of the church of Aquila, to vindicate the glory of the Patron of his diocese with what weight of reasons he could: for if the Diploma of Otto be supposititious, the body of the holy Martyr, which would afterwards have been translated to Aquila, will also be supposititious.

[41] preserved from time immemorial in the archive of the church of Aquila, Since, moreover, it was held by constant tradition that the original of that Diploma was preserved in the archive of the church of Aquila, the Right Reverend Coppola wished before all else to see it with his own eyes and diligently inspect it. It will help to subjoin the instrument drawn up on this occasion, which we render into Latin from the Italian, and which is found at the end of Coppola's writing. It is of the following tenor: "We the undersigned Notaries attest how on the day written below, at the request of the Archdeacon, the most reverend Lord Don Francesco Carli, for the time being Vicar General of this city of Aquila, and of the most reverend Lord Canon Dean Don Pietro Alfieri, we went to the Sacristy of the cathedral of this city, in which, in our presence, the same most reverend Vicar and Canon Dean opened with two distinct keys the archive of the most reverend Chapter of this Cathedral of Aquila, and from a Casket (Cassettina) took out an old parchment document, folded, much worn and torn (molto logora e rotta), which being unfolded, it was seen that there was in it the Diploma of the Emperor Otto, written in ancient character; beneath which are the signs of the Cross with the names of the emperor, of bishop Cesso, of three others who confirm the donation, of three Marquises as witnesses, and finally of the Judge and notary who wrote it; and among (across) those names is seen the Monogram of the emperor Otto, which is clearly distinguished as being very (ben) large, and is recognized to be formed with the same colour of ink with which the Diploma itself was written. And the same most reverend Canons said that they were taking such Diploma from their archive in order to show it to the Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (Coppola), who declared that it was his purpose to write a Dissertation on the acts of St. Maximus, Levite and Martyr, and chief Protector of this city, as also on this Diploma of the emperor Otto, because they redound to the honour and glory of the same Saint. And this is what we can testify for the truth of the fact... In faith whereof, etc. Aquila, 4th of June 1749." The following are subjoined in Latin: "And in faith of the permitted (premised) things, I, Domenico Antonio Zampetti of Staffolo, living at Aquila, Notary by Apostolic and Royal authority, being requested, enrolled in the Archive of the Roman Curia, have made and signed the present by authority. ✠ place of the sign. In faith of the things written overleaf, etc. I, Domenico Antonio Rietelli of Aquila, public Notary by Apostolic and Royal authority, and enrolled also in the Archive of the Roman Curia, testify that I have made the present and have fortified it with my own sign which I use. ✠ place of the sign."

[42] There is also had another similar Instrument of the same Date, subscribed by the chapter, in which they testify that all the writings of the aforesaid Archive have been preserved perpetually FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL under a double key, one with the Archdeacon, the other with the Dean of the Chapter; nor have those keys within the memory of men ever been entrusted to anyone else; and when they have had to be inspected, whether to take anything out of them or to put those writings in order in the Archive, this has always been done in the presence of Canons deputed for this. "Since, then, at present our Most Illustrious Lord Bishop has wished to see the original Diploma of the Emperor Otto, which pertains to our chief Protector St. Maximus, both the Lord Canons who have with them those two different keys came to take it out; and for greater caution they brought with them two public Notaries, to attest of what form and in what state the Diploma was when it was taken out of the Archive, before they handed it to the said Most Illustrious Lord Bishop, who, having read it, will restore it to be put back in the same Archive." There follow the subscriptions of twelve Canons. How diligently the Prelate inspected and accurately examined it will be established from its text (annotated and collated with the Ughellian text Italia Sacra, volume I, column 375 and following.), which we subjoin here entire, as it is had in the often-praised Dissertation P. 19 and following.

[43] it is here recited in full. "In the name of the Lord God In Ughelli this word God is lacking. and Saviour Jesus Christ. In the year from the incarnation of the Lord 956. I, Otto, Emperor Augustus by the ordaining of divine clemency Ughelli: by the clemency of divine ordination., in the sixteenth year of my Empire, in the month of June, in the eleventh Indiction, have ordered this precept to be made for the honour and restoration of blessed Maximus the Martyr. Therefore Otto, by the grace of God Emperor, defender of the Italic Kingdom, has established me Ughelli: me, Otto, by the grace of God Emperor, defender of the Italic Kingdom., held at the Palace of Asia Ughelli: held.. With sound mind and of my own spontaneous good will, and for these miracles which the Lord has deigned to show on your account, blessed Maximus, and for your sacred body, of which I humbly ask that you consent to our carrying away a little with us Ughelli: to carry together for us., for which I have made an oath to you, to give four times more, than Ughelli: Than you. you have here, in our parts, namely Ughelli: Namely. beyond the Mountains, and to do for you what

the Archangel Michael Ughelli: the Holy Angel Michael. commanded us through the Bishop; in which matter Ughelli: Wherefore. I hand over, grant and give to your Bishopric the whole county of Furconium, the boundary of which is this. On the Northern side it begins from the place which is called Rotilianus (today Rutigliano) together with the whole of Guastum (today Guasto), where there are a thousand Ughelli: let there be a thousand. thousand little measures of land, and it turns back to the Western side through the middle of the place of Popletum (today Coppito), and so passes through Triculiolum Ughelli: Tsiculiolium. (today called Tricagliolo) and through the middle of Forule Ughelli: Foruli. (today it is called Civita Tomassa), where there are a thousand little measures of land, which hold as far as Saint Silvester (today it is a ruined Castle overhanging Civita Tomassa); then it passes through Vilianum (today Vigliano, a ruined place) as far as Saint Stephen (today Rocca S. Stefano), with ten thousand little measures of land, as far as the mountain above Petra Cornuta (today the summit of the mountain overhanging S. Stefano); then it passes through the southern side by the mountain Subclivianus Ughelli: Succlinianus. (today perhaps the place or estate called Poggio S. Maria) and through Saltus Felix (today Campofelice, touching the Monte di Lucoli), which with all its possession belongs to the same Bishopric, and with this boundary goes out as far as Robor (today Rovere), and so turns back to the eastern quarter, passing the city of Ansedona (Ansidonia, today destroyed), and goes on through the mountain Bletinius Ughelli: Blesimus. as far as Barizanum (today Barisciano), two thousand little measures of land, which stretch as far as the place which is called Vadus, and so returns to the first boundary. I the Emperor order that within these boundaries no other bishop nor count shall have dominion, but only the Bishop of St. Maximus; moreover there lie between Ughelli: there lie within. other pieces of land of Adselicum Ughelli: Asteticum. (today Assergi), which stretch as far as above Paganica, and as far as the above-said Vadus, and as far as above Picentia (today Picenze), in which boundary there are a thousand little measures of land; and within this same boundary lies Ughelli: lies within. the Church of Saint Euphemia with five hundred little measures of land; there also is the Church of Saint Justin, and of Saint Mary of Paganica, with three hundred little measures of land, together with another piece of land where the body of Blessed Justa rests, on that mountain In Ughelli these words are lacking: on that mountain. and on that hill (poiu, sic), and below that mountain is the half of it, which two lands extend Ughelli: proceed. on two sides as far as the water, with two hundred little measures of land, together with the hill Ughelli: poggio. itself which is above it; all which shall be the Church of St. Maximus's. Likewise I grant to the same bishopric three thousand little measures of land, which begin at that place where the body of St. Eusanius rests and extend Ughelli: extends. as far as the place which is called Vallis (today Valle di Ocre) and as far as that place which is called Serra Ughelli: Sara., and extend Ughelli: extends. as far as above the Church of Saint Savinus. And further I hand over to the already-said Church three pieces of land lying in the county of the Marsi, of which one is at Marentinum (today Marano, not far from Magliano), which contains in itself three hundred little measures, whose boundary on two sides is the land of Elpicus, and on the other two sides is the territory of Saint Savinus (not far from the lake of Celano, where today is had the place called Santa Sabina); the second piece lies in the place where Saint Marcellus is built, which likewise contains in itself a hundred little measures, and the fishing within the water of the Fucinus Ughelli: Fucinius., a thousand thousand destri, and in length as far as Paternum (still today Paterno) there are ten thousand destri, whose boundary is on three sides the land of Apicus and of his partners, and on the fourth side the land of other men; but concerning the water also I command that whoever shall fish Pescaverit. there shall always render one of thirty fish to the aforesaid bishopric. The third piece of land lies in the place Felimine, which contains in itself four hundred little measures, whose boundaries are thus contained. On one side is the Fucinus with its fishing, in which whoever shall fish shall render as has been said above, and on another side is the land of Luidinus Ughelli: Luidinis., and on the third side is the road, and on the other side the land of other men. Moreover I hand over to the above-said Church, in the County of Aprutium, in the place which is called Saint Flavian, a port, which shall render a hundred weights of gold and silver together, and also of iron and salt; which port contains within itself five thousand little measures of land and water together within the sea. Likewise in the city of Aternum I give seven thousand little measures of land with the fifth part of that port, and with the fifth of that city, and with the fifth part of the tribute of that city, and also five hundred little measures in the land which is called Colomente Ughelli: Collemonte., whose boundary is thus: on two sides is the land of Tosanus Ughelli: Tofonus. and on the other two sides the land of other men. I give further the whole Castle of Roge (today Rojo), except the land of Atto Ughelli: Asto. and of Guenisius Ughelli: Guinisius. and of other lesser men; the boundary of which Castle Ughelli: of which Castle the boundary. with its estate holds as far as Mozanum (today Nazzano, near Rojo), beside the land of Atto, and as far as Saint Mary of Tophanis Ughelli: Japhanis. of Silva Plana, and as far as Lardizanum, and passes thence through the middle of the castle, from the aforesaid castle of Colomentum Ughelli: Collomonte. with the whole Wood of Casamaine, and turns back as far as the Furca of the already-said Roge (Forca di Rojo above Nazzano, today called Vallone di Forca), and as far as Pila, and passes through that plain of Popletum as far as Mozanum; within these boundaries there are Ughelli: Sinit a thousand thousand little measures of land, all which the aforesaid Bishopric possesses; and moreover I give that land which lies through the middle of Bagnum Ughelli: Banium. as far as the River, and as far as Acilles In Ughelli the words "and as far as Acilles" are lacking. and as far as the land of Castillone Ughelli: Castillione. (today the ruined lordship of the place of Tornimparte), and passes through Cucurazzum, having with it the whole hill of Paido Ughelli: Pudo., and so returns to the river; and within these boundaries no one has an inheritance except only Atto and Guesto and Guinisius Ughelli: Asto, Buesto., who are the heirs of this land, and together with me have endowed this Church with those lands which are contained within these bounds which we have just stated; the boundaries of which lands which they put in as dowry are these: the first piece of land lies in that place which is called Solagnum, which contains in itself five hundred little Measures, whose boundary is the whole of that meadow of the marsh (today the meadows between Civita Tomassa and Scoppito are so called), holding Ughelli: stretching. as far as the little plain Ughelli: Canates. and as far as the head of the road which turns back into Castellione Ughelli: Castilionem., and so goes through those boundaries of the Wood as far as Volubrum (today a place belonging to Scoppito, situated on Monte Calvo) and turns back into Fontozuli (today Fonte dell' Orzo, not far from Volubrum) with the whole of that hill of Solagnum as far as Muri, and as far as the foot of the above-said meadow. The second piece of land lies where the Church of St. Justin is built, which is by measure a hundred little measures. The third piece of land lies where it is called Casale (today Villetta di Scoppito), which contains in itself In Ughelli "in" is lacking. twelve little measures, whose boundary on one side is the water of the lake and on the two other sides the land of the same Atto. The fourth piece of land lies where it is called Fonte Maina Ughelli: Fontemayna., which contains eight hundred little measures, whose boundary on one side is the road which passes to Ponticellum (today a place not far from Civita Tomassa) by the Via Salaria, and by the foot of Monteclum Ughelli: of Ticulum and if., and so turns back as far as Muri. The fifth piece of land lies in the same place at Forcella, which contains in itself In Ughelli "in itself" is lacking. a thousand little measures, whose boundary begins at the foot of Ronca and passes as far as the Via Salaria, and on the other side goes by that road of Forcella as far as the river, and from the foot of that river extends as far as the road of the limit, and coming by the same road of the limit, going through the middle of the city of Cona and through the middle of the lake, the other half of which is Atto's Ughelli: Asto's., and so turns back to the Via Salaria. For these lands which we have just described, I, Otto the Emperor, gave to those three men, Atto and Guesto and Guinisius Ughelli: Asto., two thousand pounds as the price, and whatever more they might be worth, to be given, together with me they gave to Blessed Maximus, for the redemption of their souls, all this which is written above. I, Otto the Emperor, to your Church, B. Maximus, for the redemption of my soul, and also for this, that you may permit a little of your Body to be carried away with me In Ughelli "with me" is lacking., give, grant, confirm, and I will that it remain firmly for ever In Ughelli there is present: I will.; and whoever shall wish to defraud from this, or by any evil device to diminish or withdraw, by selling, exchanging, giving, or making a loan Ughelli: a grant in use. to anyone, unless for the utility and honour of the same Church, on the part of God Almighty, and of B. Mary ever Virgin, of the BB. Apostles Peter and Paul, and of B. Maximus the Martyr, and of all the saints, and our own together with all who abide with us, let them have the curse for ever, and let them be associated with Judas, who betrayed Christ, and with Annas and Caiaphas, who crucified the Lord. And moreover let what they have done be vain and useless, and whoever shall have acquired, or by any evil device held, otherwise than as is written above, let him be bound legally to pay composition as a most wicked presumer who breaks the imperial precept. Whence, for the stability of this matter, I, Otto the Emperor, ordered Boniface the Notary to write In Ughelli "to write" is lacking. this charter, signed by my hand and by the hand of Bishop Cesso, and praised and confirmed by all standing there, namely Bishops, Dukes,

and Princes, Marquises, Counts, and the People, and by the witnesses subscribed, that it may happily remain for ever.

✠ Sign of the hand of Otto the Emperor, who asked that this charter be written, and impressed the sign of the Holy Cross.

✠ Sign of the great Ughelli: of the hand. Bishop Cesso, to whom the Angel manifested this charter, and who, asked by the emperor, impressed the sign of the Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Atto Ughelli: Asto., who consented to and confirmed this charter, and made the sign of the Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Guesto Ughelli: Buesto., who likewise consented to and confirmed this charter, and impressed the sign of the Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Guinisius, who consented to and confirmed this charter, and impressed the sign of the Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Hugo Ughelli: Ruydis. the Marquis, who, asked by the Emperor to be a witness, impressed Ughelli: made. the sign of the Holy Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Albert the Marquis, asked by the Emperor to be a witness, he made the sign of the Cross.

✠ Sign of the hand of Robert the Marquis, who, asked by the Emperor to be a witness, made the sign of the Cross.

I, Boniface, judge and Notary, being asked, have completed and finished all."

And this is that Diploma of which Antinori expressly pronounces: "He who does not see that it is false sees nothing; and merely to read it is to refute it." Let us see, then, with what and how valid arguments he establishes this assertion of his, put forward so much too confidently.

[44] The first objection of Antinori "The Diploma begins," he says, "with an invocation not at all used in the others of that age, and especially by Otto; then immediately is written: In the year of the Lord 956, of the Empire of Otto the XVIth, in the month of June, Indiction XI. The place is lacking, and the day" Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 491.. But, as those most skilled in Diplomatic matters admit, there are many laws and charters most certainly authentic whose Dates are not accurate. One may find very many, genuine in every part, which bear either no Date or an imperfect one: say of the day or month, the year being omitted, etc. That a right judgment may be passed on any instrument whatever, not the Date alone is to be attended to; but all the characters together must be weighed, both the extrinsic, as are the parchment, the ink, the letter-forms, and the extrinsic, as invocations, subscriptions, style, context. "Not from one single characteristic," says Mabillon, "but from all together, must one pronounce on old charters" Nouveau traité de diplomatique, volume VI, no. 336.. As regards the formula of Invocation here censured by Antinori, the writers of the praised work establish this general rule: a singular formula, nay one altogether unusual for the time at which it appears, will by no means render a diploma suspect, provided it is found repeated several times in the course of the next following century Ibid., p. 383.. And already Otto II, son of Otto the Great, uses among others this formula of Invocation: "In the name of the eternal God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," or also, "In the name of God and of our eternal Saviour Jesus Christ." Nay rather, according to our Papebroch in the Propylaeum Antiquarium [Part I, on discerning Diplomas, no. 29. Acta Sanctorum, volume II of April, p. VII.], Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, seems to have been the first who began to write: "In the name of God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"; the Emperor Lothair VII and Louis the Younger, following Louis their father and grandfather, used the same or wrote: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal God." And in very truth there is had in Muratori a precept of Louis the Pious Augustus of the year 822, which begins thus: "In the name of the Lord God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume I, column 771.; and again Ibid., column 831 and following. is recited a charter of Guaiferius, prince of Salerno, of the year 1118, which begins: "In the name of the Lord, the eternal God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." And in this charter is included in full a little charter of Louis the Pious of the year 874, beginning thus: "In the name of the Lord God the Saviour Jesus Christ." What of the fact that in the same Muratori Ibid., volume III, column 183 and following. is recited a charter of Otto the Great himself of the year 963, beginning with these words: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal King"? From these things the difficulty raised by Antinori certainly vanishes, which you would more truly call an inept cavil. Nor with better reason does he censure that immediately after the Invocation is written "in the year of the Lord 956." But this same thing is observed almost in many other Instruments of the same epoch. So in the Donation made to the Monastery of St. Saviour of Pavia by the widowed empress Adelaide in the year 999, these words are read at the beginning Ibid., volume II, column 171 and following.: "In the name of the Lord God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Otto the Third, by the grace of God Emperor Augustus, in the third year of his Empire, God being propitious," etc. Which certainly differ little from our Diploma. More of this kind could be adduced. "But," adds Antinori, "the place is lacking, and the day." But he himself a little below seems to have acknowledged that the diploma was given at the Palace of Asia; which indeed Coppola affirms, adhering to the text, but saying that in place of Asia one should read Avia. As regards the Day, it very frequently happens that this is wanting in Instruments of the best note. Certainly in the Catalogue (which Muratori recites Ibid., volume VI, column 75 and following.) of the Charters of the Archive of the Holy Roman Church, drawn up in the year MCCCLXVI, there are had many, both of Henry, father of Otto, and of Otto himself, and of other following emperors, in which there is wanting not only the day but also the month, or even any date at all See Ibid., column 79.. Nor on that account has it come into anyone's mind to accuse them of falsity.

[45] the second "The Chronological characters are most false" (so Antinori proceeds): "for the Indiction of the year 956 was not XI but XIV. In the same year Otto was not yet emperor, for he was crowned as such in the year 962. Or if by the name of Empire you understand the Kingdom, it was then the XXth year of his Reign." But on account of a slight confusion of the Indiction no one will easily repudiate any charter whatever. Erroneous Dates and anachronisms are found in instruments whose genuineness otherwise cannot be called into doubt. Such is the Charter granted by Guarinus, bishop of Amiens, to the monastery of St. Salvius at Montreuil. For in the Authentic Original is read: "Done in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCXLI, Indiction II, happily," whereas Indiction IV fits that year Nouveau traité de diplomatique, volume V, p. 552. Nor is what Coppola acutely notes to be passed over in this place. Namely, Christopher Clavius (whom the praised prelate wrongly calls Claudius), in the Ecclesiastical Computation delivered by the joints of the fingers and by tables, established this rule: "We shall easily find the Indiction by the precepts of Arithmetic if we add 3 to the years of the Lord and divide the collected number by fifteen: for the number remaining from that division will be the Indiction sought, or if nothing is left over, the Indiction sought will be fifteen." An example is added. "As if the indiction be sought in the year 1589, 3 being added and the resulting number 1592 being divided by 15, the number 2 remains for the Indiction of the year 1589." If therefore we too add 3 to the year of our Diploma, 956, we shall have the number 959, which divided by 15 will give the remainder 14; but if the addition of the number 3 be neglected, and 956 be divided by 15, the remaining number will be 11, which is the Indiction noted in the Diploma Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 36.. For the rest, there are very many genuine and authentic Charters in which errors of this kind are noted, whether from the hallucination of notaries or from false chronological principles Nouveau traité de diplomatique, volume VI, pp. 336 and 337.. Why not admit that this happened here too? Two diplomas of Otto the Great are also cited, one of the year 952, the other of the year 961; in both occur the words Emperor Augustus. Nor on that account do the writers of the praised Work accuse those charters of falsity; they conclude this one thing, that Otto called himself emperor already from that time; although it is established that he was not crowned by the Pope until the XIIIth of February in the year 962 Ibid., volume V, p. 737.. Very often, in assigning the year of the Empire or Reign, Charters seem to agree neither among themselves nor with historical facts Ibid., p. 707.; nor on that account are they at once to be accused of falsity; otherwise innumerable ones, which are pronounced genuine by all, would have to be rejected. It must be noted, therefore, with Muratori, Mabillon and others, that the beginning of the Empire or Reign is taken either from the year in which the emperors or kings, while their father was living, were taken up to the empire (which commonly goes under the name of Inauguration); or from the year in which, their parents having died, they began to reign alone; or in which they were crowned (the emperors of Germany received a threefold crown in three different places La Barre.); or in which they took another with them to the empire; or in which they obtained other kingdoms in the course of time Coppola, Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 33.. Of all these the most frequent examples occur. "I come," says Mabillon De re diplomatica, book II, chapter XXVI, no. XII, p. 194. Paris edition, 1709., "to Charlemagne, of whom three epochs are read in old monuments. The first, of the Frankish kingdom; the second, of the kingdom of the Lombards, or of Italy; the third, of the Empire. These three epochs he joined together and distinguished in diplomas from the year DCCCI, in which he was proclaimed Emperor on the preceding Nativity of the Lord; the first two he used before entering on the empire." Mabillon notes similar things in the same place about the successors of Charlemagne. The same occurs in the Diplomas of Otto the Great, as Coppola unfolds at length Dissertazione di S. Massimo, pp. 34 and 35.. Let us add from the Diplomatic Dictionary [Dictionnaire raisonné de Diplomatique, by Dom de Vaines, Benedictine religious of the Congregation of St. Maur, Paris, 1774. Compare L'Art de vérifier les dates, passim.]: "The Dates of reigns are subject to innumerable variations. Very often they seem to agree neither among themselves nor with historical monuments; whence Half-Antiquaries (Demi-Antiquaires) have been induced to reject very many quite genuine Instruments whose dates did not seem accurate to them."

[46] the third "Finally, in the year 956," adds Antinori, "Otto was not staying in Italy, but in Germany, seized by plague. Witich. de lib. Saxon. lib. XXV." Widukind, here cited, was a monk of Corvey, and wrote three books on the Deeds of the Saxons, in which Henry the Fowler and his son Otto the Great are treated. The other things written by Widukind have perished. "There survive," says Pertz Monumenta Germaniae, volume III, p. 409., "three books of Saxon deeds, in which the author described both the origin of the people and the things done by Henry and Otto." And hence it already strikes the eye how absurd is Antinori's citation of this kind: "Witich. de lib. Saxon. lib. XXV." Baronius, as we shall presently say, has:

De Rebus Saxonicis, book III. But Widukind at the year 956 Ibid., p. 461, no. 57. makes no mention of a plague raging through Germany, nor of Otto lying sick of a disease; but he does at the year 958, where these words are read: "At that time the Emperor himself also began to fall ill, but through the merits of the Saints, to whom he constantly offers faithful service, and above all by the patronage of the renowned Martyr Vitus, to whom he opened his mouth, he recovers from the infirmity, and is restored to the world, like a most shining sun after darkness, to all beauty and delight" Ibid., p. 462, no. 62.. Baronius Annales, volume XVI, p. 43 (Antinori cites the Critica of Pagi, who has not even a word on this matter) refers the illness of the emperor, from Widukind, to the year 956. With the Pertzian year agrees, on the witness of Meibom [Rerum Germanicarum, volume I, p. 700. Helmstedt edition, 1688. In the Notes to book III of Widukind.], Hermann the Lame. Whence the year assumed by Antinori becomes at least very doubtful. And if it were even admitted, it would not yet follow that Otto, since he was so promptly restored to health, could not have come into Italy in the said year. On Book III of Widukind. The Saxon Annalist at the year 956 makes mention indeed of a Plague, but does not say that Otto was seized by it; nay, he not obscurely insinuates the contrary. His words are: "The King (Otto), living in peace and leisure, held a royal assembly at Cologne with a very great gathering of his faithful. At that time a grievous pestilence was raging through all parts of the kingdom, which carried off an innumerable multitude of the people everywhere. Of which Robert, Archbishop of Trier, and Hadamar, abbot of Fulda, died" Pertz, volume VI, p. 614.. Sigonius [Complete works, volume II, De regno Italiae, book VI, columns 419 and 420. Milan edition, 1732.] makes mention neither of the plague nor of Otto's illness. Finally Muratori Annali d'Italia, volume V, p. 385 and following, at Munich, 1762., in the Annals of Italy at this same year 956, makes mention of the plague, from the Saxon Annalist; but about the illness of the emperor he is silent. "In this year," he says, "Germany was devastated by a horrible plague. Nevertheless King Otto ... thought of repressing the insolence of King Berengar. Wherefore he sent Ludolf, his son, into Italy with an army," etc. And from these things again it is made out what credit our Critic deserves. Compare Coppola Dissertazione, pp. 37–41..

[47] the fourth Antinori then adds: "What of the form of the Diploma? The form is in the manner of an Instrument between private persons; it begins with an Imperial phrase, it ends with a pontifical one, with threats of censures. The Monogram is lacking, and the style speaks of subsequent centuries." As to the Form, Muratori observes [Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume I, column 666, in Dissertation II, On Notaries.] that no region or city is numbered for which some Formulary was not available and used by the pupils of the Notarial Art, whom in the same place he sharply censures for unskilfulness and ignorance. If, then, the form in the manner of an Instrument between private persons did in fact occur (which, however, no one would so easily say), what would follow from that? The more so because with Otto three other private men, namely Atto, Guesto and Guinisius, concur in the donation made to St. Maximus, as Coppola aptly notes As above, p. 41.. Next, especially in the tenth century the use of imprecations in the diplomas of princes and kings became more common. So in the diploma of Charles the Simple for the restoration of the Abbey of Compiègne, in the year 917, these words are read at the end: "But if anyone shall presume to violate these statutes, and the things which our grandfather established and to which Pope John of the Holy Roman See consented in a privilege, and shall attempt to violate them, he excommunicated and cursed him; let him have his portion with Judas the Betrayer of the Lord, and let him be anathema maranatha, and, excluded from the fellowship of the faithful, let him remain to be burned perpetually in the infernal punishments" Mabillon, De Re Diplomatica, p. 561.. And again in the Precept of King Rodulf (commonly Raoul) of the year 933: "But if anyone shall wish to oppose this Precept, or to infringe it, let him be excluded from the thresholds of the Saints, and like Dathan and Abiron let Tartarus receive him alive, and with Judas the betrayer of the Lord let him endure eternal torments" Ibid., p. 567.. Similar things may be seen in Muratori's Antiquitates Medii aevi [Volume V, column 399; and ibid., columns 401 and 402; likewise volume VI, columns 208 and 209.]. So far, then, from showing a diploma of this kind to be spurious, they would rather prove it genuine. Nor does the absence of the Monogram by itself make Antinori's case. Among those skilled in diplomatics it is held as a kind of Axiom that Original Titles are not to be judged fictitious because Monograms are lacking which are announced, or seem to be announced, in the text Nouveau traité de Diplomatique, volume VI, p. 403.. Much less, accordingly, if they are not even announced. What indeed of the fact that the Monogram is by no means lacking, as is authentically established from the Instrument recited above at no. 39? It is known, finally, how weak generally is the argument which is drawn from style, unless this so departs from the century to which the diploma is referred that the difference strikes everyone's eyes almost at first sight; which certainly does not obtain in the instrument about which we are here disputing. Antinori himself censures nothing else in particular except these words: "at the Palace of Asia," "Defender." But whatever may be the case with them, does its credit on that account collapse entirely? "I do not agree with those," says Hahn, "who, when one or another word is found in a diploma which does not smell of the genius of its century, at once by dictatorial authority hold the whole privilege for false and supposititious, and made by cowled men, although other indications of a supposititious birth are not added."

[48] the fifth "The Emperor," Antinori proceeds, "gives to the bishopric the whole county of Furconium" (thus far rightly, but not so in what follows) "even in temporals: for he says, 'let no other bishop nor count have dominion, but only the bishop of St. Maximus': but the bishop never possessed it." And here it will not be laborious to show that our critic goes astray no less than in the foregoing. And first indeed let us note with Muratori [Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume I, column 268, in the sixth Dissertation, On the Marquises of Italy.]: "The Lombards having been expelled and the Italic kingdom occupied by the Franks, for the government of each City a Prefect was chosen with the title of Count, to whom above others it belonged to administer justice to each one in the courts." In another place, however, the same Muratori expressly pronounces Ibid., volume V, column 967.: "It is most commonly known that in the old Charters of Emperors and Kings counts and other Ministers of the State were forbidden to exercise their jurisdiction over the Lands and Men of the clergy of both kinds." And a little after Ibid., columns 969 and 970.: "Yet it is not to be passed over that in Diplomas those serving God, nay even their servants and tenants, are very often exempted from the jurisdiction of counts and other Ministers of the State; yet that they were not in fact immune from the Judgment of the Royal Envoys, and of the Kings and Augusti themselves. Since I have published so many Charters witnessing to this custom in this very work, and the matter seems in no way to need confirming, I shall show this one thing, that a custom of this kind lasted long." From these things it sufficiently shines out what Antinori's animadversion is worth. For the rest, whoever wishes to see more on this matter, let him go to Coppola Dissertazione di S. Massimo, pp. 47–50..

[49] the sixth "But," adds Antinori, "even if it be admitted that the bishop also possessed the County of Furconium (for in fact he possessed only three fiefs), he would have possessed it before Otto, for it is plain from what has been said that in the year 866 bishop John was assessed by Louis for his subjects." He has no other surety for his assertion except the anonymous author of the Little History of the Deeds of the Lombards, which is found in Muratori Rerum Italicarum scriptores, volume II, p. 264.. Antinori affirms from it Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 488. that the bishop (John) in the year 866 was assessed by the Emperor Louis in the expedition against the Saracens for the fiefs and subjects of his Church, and he adds: "his subscription was: Johann. ep. Furconiae." In very truth, the Anonymous, no. V As above, p. 264, at the end., writes: "But the Lombards, while they were suffering excessive dangers for their deeds, being greatly afflicted on this account and compelled by necessity, direct envoys to Francia and implore the clemency of the glorious Emperor Louis Augustus, that, coming with his own people, he would rescue them altogether from the Saracens as quickly as possible. He, coming, left this decree to his fatherland," which is then recited. But in that Decree or constitution there is nothing which establishes Antinori's assertion, whence one may conclude that it was not read by him, at least not in Muratori, to whom nevertheless he appeals. Louis, namely, there establishes at the beginning who among the several households ought to give their names for military service; then he ordains who are to preside in various places for the guard: "From the river Po as far as the Trebbia let Lotselmus be Envoy. Between the Po and the Tuinus, Ernulf. Between the Ticino and the Adda, Erimbert... Peter and Arthemius, bishops, with the Envoys of the Bishops and Counts joined with them, at Pisa, Lucca, Pistoia and Luni... In the ministry of Wito, Rimmo and John, bishop of Forcona. In the ministry of Berengar, Hiselmund," etc. And no other mention is made of John, nor does any trace of a subscription appear. Nay, admitting Antinori's citation, might one not say with Coppola Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 51.: it is established indeed from it that those fiefs belonged to that church in the IXth century; but who would affirm, especially in so great an iniquity of the times, that they were not taken away afterwards and restored by Otto in the Xth century?

[50] the seventh Finally Antinori objects: "The boundaries of the whole County of Furconium are asserted in the Diploma: through the city of Anzedona (not a correct chorography) as far as Barizanum, when they stretched beyond"; and he cites Boezio Rainaldi, who composed his poem in the XIVth and XVth centuries; but from the fact that the boundaries of the region were such in the centuries just mentioned, does it follow that they were not otherwise in the Xth century? Let the same judgment be passed on the last difficulty raised by Antinori: "Things are given among the Marsi and at the Port of St. Flavian: but in the exact Indexes of all the immovable property of the Bishopric drawn up in the XIVth century there is no mention of them." Compare Coppola Ibid., pp. 51–55., who learnedly unfolds and vindicates each and every donation made in the diploma of Otto. And in particular he invokes many later Instruments by which the donations of Otto are not a little confirmed: by name, the Privilege of Pope Alexander III, in the year 1128; likewise the Bull of Clement III, in the year 1188, and another of Innocent III, in the year 1204; the Diploma of Roger, in the year 1147; finally the Diploma of King Frederick, in the year 1209. All which are read transcribed entire at the end of the Dissertation,

as they are preserved in the codex of a certain anonymous person in the archive of the cathedral of Aquila.

[51] What the authenticity of the Ottonian diploma is. From these things let the learned reader judge of Antinori's pronouncement: "He who does not see that it is false sees nothing; and merely to read it is to refute it." This is certain, that scarcely anything of his animadversions stands. Whence someone might not undeservedly retort: He who does not see that they are false sees nothing in Diplomatics; and merely to read them is to refute them. Antinori, namely, is to be numbered among those whose habit it is, for almost any defect or blemish, to charge instruments with falsity and supposition, whatever they may be. Against which preposterous manner of judging all who have ever written learnedly and studiously on Diplomatics rise up sharply, and not without the best reason [Nouveau traité de Diplomatique, part VIII, chapter III, where the rules by which true diplomas are discerned from false are treated of set purpose, volume VI, pp. 320–338.]. We certainly do not think that the aforesaid diploma of Otto is easily to be rejected, in which no marks, either intrinsic or extrinsic, by which it might be rendered false or suspect, have up to now been demonstrated sufficiently manifest and suitable. Hence Ughelli also inserted it in his work without an asterisk. Coppola, indeed, undertook to vindicate it in every part, and that with full success, if credit be given to Giacomo Martorelli, a man not a little versed in Greek letters and archaeological matters Biographie universelle, in the Supplement.. He, then, deputed to revise Coppola's Dissertation, publicly and not inelegantly testified these things among others: "The Pontiff of Aquila, while he is especially zealous for the health of the flock entrusted to him, has with the greatest labour traced out and drawn together the ancient honour and glories of his Church, and today demands that they be commended to the use of public light and in elegant type, which is most gladly to be granted him. Further, since in his little book on behalf of the Acts of St. Maximus, Martyr, Prince Patron of the city of Aquila, and on behalf of the γνησιότητι of the Ottonian Diploma, he has gathered together all the most learned things, the Church of Aquila owes him much, whose genuine history of its Saints and the as it were poured-out munificence of its Emperors, both accused of νοθείας by a most learned man, he has defended safe and sound according to the exact canons of the Diplomatic discipline" See Dissertazione di S. Massimo, after the Preface.. To which we too subscribe, wishing however that the origin of the Diploma could be set in a clearer light from the circumstances of things and times, and, as they say, be positively proved. For here darkness seems to remain, not sufficiently dispelled, nor perhaps ever to be dispelled. Which for the rest is most well known to the learned to be the case in very many Instruments.

[52] Coppola's writing commended by Benedict XIV. Let one thing be permitted to be added in commendation of the Right Reverend Coppola, whose little book has been of so much help to us. Benedict XIV, to whom the learned Prelate had offered both his Dissertations, one on St. Maximus, the other on St. Eusanius [Relazione dello scoprimento (inventione) del corpo e degli atti antichi del glorioso sacerdote e martire S. Eusanio, exposta alla publica luce da Giuseppe Coppola, della congregazione del Oratorio, Vescovo dell' Aquila e regio consigliere. In Roma DDCCXLVIIII. (Account of the discovery (finding) of the body and of the ancient acts of the glorious priest and martyr St. Eusanius, set forth to public light by Giuseppe Coppola, of the congregation of the Oratory, Bishop of Aquila and royal counsellor. At Rome, DDCCXLVIIII.) St. Eusanius is treated in our Work, at the 9th of July. Compare our Preliminary Commentary, no. 4.], replied by a Brief on the IIIrd day of January MDCCCL, in which among other things is read: "With great pleasure, therefore, we have received both little books, adorned by Your Fraternity with great praise of piety, wisdom and learning: the one containing the Acts of St. Maximus, Martyr and Levite, and the translation of his Sacred Remains from the ancient and overthrown city of Furconium to the Cathedral Church of Aquila, over which you laudably presided; the other comprising the discovery and finding of the Body of St. Eusanius, Priest and Martyr, whose Acts you are busy vindicating with manifold learning, and which also you wished to inscribe to our name. Wherefore we render you well-deserved praises, and, professing our Pontifical mind bound to Your Fraternity for the singular duty of your respect towards us, we greatly wish you to be persuaded that most pleasant to us will be the occasions by which we may make our charity attested to you by deeds themselves. Go on, then, venerable Brother, in that Cathedral Church of Castellammare also, to which we have lately transferred you, to bestow your Pastoral cares with greater zeal, both in promoting the things which are of God ... and in diligently adorning the things which regard the ancient glories of the same Church" Dissertazione di S. Eusanio, at the beginning, where the Brief is set down..

[53] The relics of St. Maximus translated to Aquila, It remains that we speak of the translation of the Relics of St. Maximus from the ancient and collapsed Cathedral of Furconium to the city of Aquila. Ughelli Italia Sacra, volume I, columns 379 and 380., treating of Berardo da Padula, says: "This is that Berardus who last governed the Church of Furconium, which Alexander IV transferred to Aquila, and he was the first Bishop of Aquila, as is clearly seen from the following diploma of Alexander," which is recited in the same place, and is of the year 1257, on the tenth day before the Kalends of January, that is, the twenty-third day of December. But much later, namely in the month of May of the year 1413, the body or Relics of St. Maximus were brought to Aquila, as is clear from a certain writing preserved in the Episcopal Archive of the aforesaid city. Coppola notes Dissertazione, p. 84. that the original of that writing still existed in the age of Baronius; this, however, the most celebrated Cardinal does not plainly declare; he says only: "The Acts of his (St. Maximus's) martyrdom and the manuscript history of the Translation we received from the Church of Aquila: there also are many things about the Coming of the Emperor Otto the Great to the Sepulchre of St. Maximus, and about relics taken thence and translated into Germany" At the 20th day of October, a., from which words it is not altogether made out that the archetype of the history of the Translation survived in the time of Baronius, which however is not inconsistent: but whatever may be the case, Coppola testifies that there no longer exists anything but a transcript or copy of that history, since the greater part of the ancient manuscripts of the Archive perished in the fires and earthquakes with which the city of Aquila was afflicted. Now the transcript mentioned runs thus.

[54] in the year 1413, as is had from the archive of Aquila. "On the 27th day of May 1413, on which was the Pasch of Pentecost, we had the Relics of the most glorious Martyr our Patron, St. Maximus, Levite and Martyr, carried from the Church of Forcona to the Church of Aquila, and together the Relics of Blessed Rainerius, formerly Bishop of the said Church of Forcona, that through their merits the Church and city of Aquila might be raised to greater devotion. The Relics of St. Rainerius were carried back to Civita S. Maximi, to the Church of St. Maximus" Coppola, as above, p. 85..

[55] A difficulty from the false designation of the day of Pentecost. But here three things are to be noted; one indeed in passing, from Du Cange Glossarium, at the word Pascha.: "Durandus observes," he says, "that any great feast is called Pascha in certain provinces. Certainly it is established that today the Italians and Spaniards call all the greater festivals Paschata." Which still more or less obtains among those peoples in our age also. The second, and again in passing, that the city of Bagno was afterwards called the City of St. Maximus, as Antinori testifies [Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 685, Note 213 on Boezio Rainaldi.]; of which Alexander III already has, in a Brief of the year 1178: "The greater Church of St. Maximus with the estate which is called Civitas" Ibid., column 495.. The third, which is of greater moment, that the Pasch, or day of Pentecost, did not fall in the year 1413 on the 27th day of May, but rather on the eleventh day of June, since in the said year the Pasch of the Resurrection was celebrated on the 23rd of April [L'Art de vérifier les dates, in the Chronological Table, and in the Calendar, p. 136.]. But in the following year, namely 1414, Easter is noted at the 8th day of April, and accordingly the Pasch of Pentecost did then in fact coincide with the 27th day of May Ibid., Calendar, p. 100.. Hence, by supposing an error of the copyist, especially since a transcript and not the Archetype is in question, the difficulty would be settled. Another manuscript of Giacomo de' Donadei stands in the way (presently to be recited), from which again it is had that the translation was made in the year 1413. A second error, then, similar to the first, would have to be admitted. Moreover, in the history of Aquila in Muratori Antiquitates Italiae Medii aevi, volume VI, column 487 to the end of the volume., neither in the two years mentioned nor in any other does mention of that translation occur; although things of much slighter moment are written either in the Chronicle of Niccolò di Borbona on the affairs of Aquila from the year 1363 to the year 1424 [Ibid., columns 853–876. Especially column 853, where the years intended by us are recounted.], or in the Chronicle from the beginning of the founding of Aquila Ibid., columns 875–880; or, what you would wonder at more, in the Catalogue of the Pontiffs of Aquila from the year 1254 up to the year 1472, which, says Antinori, "written by two anonymous authors in the XIVth and XVth centuries, is now first brought to light from the autograph manuscript of the Cathedral Church of Aquila" [Ibid., columns 929–962. Especially columns 935 and 936, where the episcopate of Giacomo de' Donadei is treated.], to which Ughelli also must be added Italia sacra, volume I, column 390.. Nevertheless I should think that no one will easily be led to hold the history of the Translation, as we transcribe it from Coppola, false or suspect: for on every side, whether you regard the style or the circumstances of the things, for the most part quite minute, it breathes genuineness

[56] The people of Bagno attempt to carry off the Sacred Relics. "On the 2nd day of June" (so the Record of the Translation proceeds) "Lord Pietro Macedonio of Naples, Captain of Aquila, and the Chamberlain, and the five of the Guilds of the City of Aquila, at the complaint of the men of Balneum (Bagno), who have no right nor is it their concern, had the Relics of Saints Maximus and Maximus" (the father, as is plain from what follows, of the former) "and Rainerius" (perhaps redundant and crept in through a defect of the copyist, since above the relics of St. Rainerius are said to have been carried back to Civita S. Maximi, unless the discourse be of certain lesser or separate Relics) "carried out, and took them away from the confession of the church of Aquila. Finally there remained the Relics of St. Maximus, levite and martyr, and the Relics of St. Maximus, Father of St. Maximus. On the 11th day of the said month the aforesaid Captain, the Chamberlain of Aquila, and the Abbot of Collimento, and Lord Giacomo of Furfona, coming in person with many others of Balneum, had the said relics carried back to the church of St. Maximus of Civita S. Maximi, and from the hour at which they departed the people of Balneum had the bells of St. Mark and of St. Mary of Balneum rung" (these things indicate that the people of Balneum were not so united to Civita S. Maximi as to be confused with its inhabitants: whence also it was said a little before, "who have no right nor

is it their concern") "until the evening hour, not out of reverence for the relics, but for boasting, and as it were mocking the bishop and chapter of the church of Aquila. And going towards Civita S. Maximi, passing before the church of St. Mary of Collemaggio, they had the great bell of that church rung, and in the ringing the cicogna was broken (the wooden beam from which the bell was hung See Du Cange, Glossarium, at the word ciconica or ciconium.), in which is the rope which is pulled in ringing. And as they departed with a canopy over the said relics and with lighted candles, behold, a strong wind cast the said canopy to the ground and extinguished the candles. Coming to the said church of St. Maximus, they put back the aforesaid relics and took up the relics of St. Maximus, and part of the relics of St. Maximus, father of the said St. Maximus, and so returned with the relics; and at once, in the twinkling of an eye, the clerics and laymen of the city were gathered together, and with the bishop went out in procession to meet the said relics as far as the said church, and with great joy, devotion and reverence they were carried to the church of Aquila, and placed in a sacred place under the high altar of the said church, etc. To the praise of God, etc. I, Giacomo de' Donadei, bishop of Aquila, wrote this Record," etc. He, since he sat lawfully from the year 1401 to the year 1431, was a witness, nay an agent, of the things which he committed to memory. Moreover, in the manuscript codex in which the same bishop was accustomed to note what worthy of record happened each day, after the narrative of the aforesaid things, the following come.

[57] The deposition of the Relics. "On the 18th day of the Month of October, at the first Vespers of the feast of St. Maximus, there were laid up with great solemnity the relics of the glorious levite and martyr Maximus, and of Maximus, father of the same Saint, and some of the relics of the Saints written below: of St. Andrew the Apostle, St. Thomas the Apostle, St. Bartholomew the Apostle, St. George the martyr, St. Sebastian the martyr, SS. Victorinus, Germanus and Severus, St. Martin, bishop and confessor; of the hair shirt of St. Peter Celestine; of St. Agatha, Virgin; of the stone of the sepulchre of St. Catherine; of St. Cecilia; of the garments of St. Clare; and it was done by me, in the presence of the whole chapter of the church of Aquila, and of all the prelates of the churches of the city of Aquila, and of a great number of laymen; and the Notary Marino di Pizzulo and the Judge Antonio of S. Vittorino were requested for this. In the year 1414 I gave on good account, for the cemetery in the church, and for the altar, or stone, and for the building of the chapel of the cemetery, to Domenico Agnelli of Rodio, twenty-two and a half ducats, and for a painted cloth for the altar of the Sacristy, in which are the relics of St. Maximus, three pounds and twelve soldi."

[58] What those relics were, A persuasion, on the witness of Coppola Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 86., has clung perpetually and firmly in the minds of all, that the relics of St. Maximus remained laid up under the ancient altar of the confession, in one of those Cathedrals which were so destroyed by earthquakes that it cannot even be accurately determined in what precise place they were situated. For innumerable writers relate this; and among others Dr. Francesco Vivio of Aquila, in his book whose title is Selva delle communi opinioni (Forest of common opinions), where at opinion 203, no. 25, p. 178, he has these words: "Nor is it doubted that the body of St. Maximus the martyr is present in the subterranean cathedral church." What the word "body" means here is explained in a manuscript codex of a certain Anonymous, where the following notice of those relics is given, as also of the manner in which they were laid away, and it is treated as a thing subject to the eyes of all in his time in the cathedral of Aquila. "Finally," he says, "there rest the relics of the glorious martyr St. Maximus which have survived hither: namely the chief bone of the arm and one rib, with the crystal which he wore hanging from his neck when he was cast headlong from the tower (the Acts have 'rock'), to receive the crown of martyrdom."

[59] of which scarcely anything survives today. At the time when Coppola was writing these things (namely in the middle of the century just past) nothing, so far as was known, survived of the relics of St. Maximus, as is clearly made out from a Notice of the prelate himself, placed at the end of his writing: "When this our dissertation was already almost entirely submitted to the press, the archdeacon Don Carli, my vicar general at Aquila, wrote back to me in this manner: 'I send Your Most Illustrious Lordship the news that I have found a relic of St. Maximus, martyr and levite, which consists of a little (picciola) part of a bone, extracted from authentic places by Cardinal Paolucci, formerly vicar of the City; which I found in a box full of relics of Saints which had been submitted to me that I might separate and authenticate them. I cannot say with how great joy I was filled thereby. On Tuesday next I shall write that a most beautiful reliquary be made for me at Rome,' etc. And I too render great praises to God, that, while the end was being put to printing my slight labours, as also while my departure from the see of Aquila and transfer to the church of Castellammare was already at hand, I obtained this grace from the Saint, which I never ceased to ask of him and most ardently to seek." Thus far Coppola.

LIFE OF ST. MAXIMUS, LEVITE AND MARTYR, PATRICIAN OF THE CITY OF AQUILA.

Copied from the manuscript Breviary which is preserved in the Bishop's residence of the same city.

Maximus, deacon and martyr, at Aquila among the Vestini. (S.)

BHL Number: 5834

FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS OF AQUILA.

The birth and life of St. Maximus. Maximus, Levite of Christ ^a, was born of noble stock, from the city of Habia, which is situated in the province which among the ancients was itself also called Habiensis, but now is called Forum Conae; but although the city or province lost that former name, yet the plain which is beside that city is called Habie, through which also flows the river named Habellius ^b. In the aforesaid city, then, when blessed Maximus had been raised to the levitical office and was bearing the care of the people of Christ, in the time of the persecution of the emperor Decius, from desire of suffering he showed himself openly when the persecutors were pressing upon him, and after the constancy of his answer, hung on the rack and tortured, at last, (overwhelmed) from on high, he consummated martyrdom; his birthday is celebrated on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of November ^c.

[2] [The emperor Decius sends governors through the provinces to search out the Christians.] In the time, then, of Decius, the most impious emperor, a savage persecution arose ^d against the Christians. For Decius, the most wicked emperor, busying himself to repress and overcome the Christians and to blot out the name of Christ utterly from the earth, sent through all the provinces subject to his empire vigorous and wise governors endowed with every cunning, so that, wherever they should find any confessing Christ, or (patronizing) them, they should make them, abandoning our God, offer sacrifices to his gods and adore them reverently; or should kill them, wasted by various punishments; declaring indeed that those who should busy themselves to fulfil this he would enlarge with imperial gifts and magnificent honours. But those who, given to sloth, should study to accomplish it only half-heartedly, he would reduce, deprived of their own dignities, under royal tribute to perpetual condemnation. These things, then, being thus pre-ordained, the governors, having received the letters, hasten speedily to the province assigned to them, to fulfil the decrees of Caesar with willing mind.

[3] The governor calls together the people of Habia before him, The most wicked governor ^e, then, to whom the province of Habia had been assigned for judging, when he had entered the aforesaid city, ordered a tribunal to be prepared for him in the middle of the city. And when he had sat on the throne prepared for him, he orders all the people of the aforesaid city, from the least to the greatest, to be presented to his sight. Who presently ^f ... standing before the governor in full, the imperial letters having first been read, he began with his own mouth to bring forth such things to them from his most abominable breast.

[4] to whom he announces the edicts of the emperor. "Let all the people hear and know that I have been sent by the emperor to this city for this purpose, that I may exalt and magnify the worshippers of the sublime Gods, but may busy myself to kill the most abominable Christ-worshippers, whomsoever I shall be able to find, tortured with various punishments. Accordingly I warn (you) and by imperial edict command that none of you, joined by any kinship or affinity or friendship, shall dare to hide or cover any Christ-worshipper; otherwise he will incur the wrath of the sublime Gods, and will also experience the most bitter imperial vengeance." The idolaters, then, having heard these things, returning joyfully to their homes, proclaimed the royal edict through the whole city with glad hearts; the Christ-worshippers, astonished, waited to see what the kindness of the Lord would determine to do with them.

[5] St. Maximus the Levite, offering himself of his own accord to the officers, At that time there was in the aforesaid city of Habia a certain man devoted to God, a most perfect levite, by name Maximus, bearing the care of the people of the Christian religion (religious people), who, constantly applying himself to preaching, confirmed them in the faith of Christ. Which was at once made known to the governor's ears by the unbelievers. He presently, having sent officers, ordered him to be searched out and held, and swiftly presented to his sight. But the servant of God Maximus, when he had learned that the most wicked governor had sent his guards to search for him, not terrified by fear of suffering, but kindled with the love of Christ by the desire of suffering, showed himself openly to the guards who were seeking him, saying: "Whom you were seeking, behold, I am here." They presently, seizing him, presented him to the most wicked governor sitting on the tribunal in the middle of the public city.

[6] he is set before the governor and questioned. When the most wicked governor had looked upon him, he first began to question him with a moderate inquiry, saying: "Tell me, who are you, or by what name are you called?" And the servant of God said to him: "I am a servant of my Lord Jesus Christ; by my own name I am called Maximus." The governor said to him: "Of what stock are you?" St. Maximus answered: "I am of free-born ^g stock, as the whole origin of our parents extends." The governor said: "Why then, according to your nobility, do you not adore the immortal Gods, whom the Roman emperor reverently adores?" St. Maximus answered: "Because I know that your Gods are vain and deaf images, demons, and not Gods." The governor said: "Maximus, what office do you discharge?" St. Maximus answered: "I hold the levitical order, and, bearing the care of the Christian people, I exercise this business only."

[7] He openly declares himself a Christian The governor said: "Then you are a Christian?" St. Maximus answered: "Although a sinner, yet I am a Christian, and I do not cease constantly to preach, praise and venerate the holy name of Christ." The governor said: "Have you learned the decrees of the most invincible emperor, which he has lately decreed?" St. Maximus said: "What are they?" The governor said: "That all Christians abandon Christ the Lord, and recognize their false (vain) superstition, and reverently adore our most holy Gods, to whom all things are subject, and follow no other God; but whoever shall be found a despiser of his command shall perish, worn down by various and most bitter punishments." St. Maximus, levite of Christ, constantly answered: "I have recognized a wicked thing in this sentence of your emperor; and therefore I have shown myself openly to you, that through the loss of this temporal (perhaps: bodily) life, and (the enduring) of punishments,

I may merit to receive the recompense of eternal life."

[8] The governor offers him his daughter in marriage. The governor said: "Maximus, acquiesce in my most useful counsel and adore our most omnipotent Gods, and sacrifice to them, by whom you will be able to be honoured, and receive as your bride my daughter Caesaria, exceedingly fair and beautiful, with her maidens." St. Maximus answered: "I indeed by no means acquiesce in your counsel, and I do not adore your gods of gold and stone, nor do I sacrifice to them, because they are demons and not Gods; but I sacrifice to the one and true Lord, who will destroy you and your father the devil; your daughter also, with her maidens, shall not enter in with me; for I have an immortal bride, namely holy Church ^h." But the governor, still listening patiently, said to him: "Maximus, sacrifice to the omnipotent Gods, and enjoy the friendship of our emperor." Maximus answered: "I have already told you, I do not sacrifice except to my God alone, living and true, to whom I rejoice that I have daily sacrificed myself as a living victim, the Holy Spirit helping me; but your friendship I do not covet, for this reason, that you strive to separate me from the love of my eternal king."

[9] The threats of the Governor The governor said: "Maximus, sacrifice to our most reverend Gods, and save your soul; otherwise, by the safety of the emperor, I will make your body wither with torments." St. Maximus answered: "This is what I have always wished; for this reason indeed I manifested myself openly, that at length, lacking this miserable and temporal life, I may merit to receive that perpetual life." To whom again the governor, speaking out, said: "Who will help you, wretch, that you may be able to escape the torments prepared for you?" St. Maximus answered: "I have no other helper except him whom I confess." The governor said: "Whom do you confess?" St. Maximus, levite of Christ, answered: "I confess my God, the one and true Lord Jesus Christ."

[10] The holy Martyr is hung on the rack. Then the governor, indignant, ordered him to be hung on the rack and tortured for a very long time. But St. Maximus, levite of Christ, hung on the rack, said while he was being tortured: "Glory to thee, Lord Jesus Christ, who hast deigned to number me in the number of those who have suffered for thee." The governor said to him: "Now here come to your senses from your madness, Maximus, and sacrifice to our Gods, that you may gain your soul; but if you scorn to do it, with fire placed beneath, I will have you most severely beaten with clubs." St. Maximus answered: "I shall gain my soul if I do not sacrifice to demons, and if I sacrifice as you sacrifice, I lose it: for neither fire nor your clubs give me pain, because there abides in me the grace of Christ, whom I confess with pure mind, who will save me for ever, and will make me a partaker of all his Saints, who in this struggle have overcome your madnesses, and have left to us an example of virtue." The governor said: "Maximus, what God do you confess by your laws?" St. Maximus answered: "Him of whom the prophet said: 'Confess to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever'; and again: 'Deliver not to the beasts the souls that confess to thee' ⁱ."

[11] He is beaten with clubs. But the governor, having heard these things, moved with vehement anger, ordered him to be beaten with clubs. And while he was being beaten he said to him: "Maximus, sacrifice to the Gods, that you may be freed from these torments." St. Maximus, levite of Christ, answered: "These are not torments which are inflicted for the love of the Lord, but they are eternal victories. Wherefore, if I should depart from the precepts in which I have been instructed from the Gospel of my Lord, then true and perpetual torments would be prepared for me." The governor said to him: "Wretch, give your assent to me; and approaching, sacrifice to the great Goddess Diana [k], before your body is destroyed." St. Maximus answered: "Why do you still speak superfluous words, enemy of the most high Lord! For I will never lend you my assent, and to Diana your Goddess I neither have sacrificed nor do sacrifice; but I offer myself as a sacrifice to my living and true God in an odour of sweetness."

[12] [By order of the Governor he is led outside the city and cast headlong from on high.] But the most wicked governor, hearing this, blazing with more abundant anger, immediately ordered his ministers to lead him to a place of the same city which is called the Circle ^l, and so to cast him headlong from on high thence. And the ministers of crime, at once seizing Maximus the athlete of Christ, dragged him to the place before named, eager to carry out the orders of the most cruel governor. But St. Maximus, when he had been brought to the aforesaid place, asked leave to pray of those who were leading him, and obtained it; and when he had prayed, he gave thanks to God almighty, and to Jesus Christ his son, and to the Holy Spirit, who deigned to number him among his holy Martyrs, and said: "Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit"; and saying this, being at once cast headlong from on high by the ministers, he gave up his spirit.

[13] He is buried by the Christians. But the Christians ^m, marking the place, took his body by night and buried him. Maximus the athlete of Christ suffered on the 14th day before the Kalends ⁿ of November, under Decius the most impious emperor, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, who lives and reigns with God the Father [o] in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God through all ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

There are not lacking those to whom our acts have seemed suspect because mention of Diana is made in them. For it is known, they say, that she was worshipped in a special manner at Ephesus, which is a city of Asia. Hence they conclude that not only our St. Maximus, but also other Martyrs of the same name, suffered there. But it is certainly not inconsistent that one and the same Goddess should have had a cult in different places, as among us it frequently happens that the same Saints are venerated in regions very far distant from one another. And as regards Diana, it suffices to have turned over Pausanias even cursorily for it to strike the eye how many shrines and groves she had throughout almost the whole Roman world. Certainly the player of the Roman lyre insinuates that there were almost as many as there were streamlets:

To grave beginnings, and to such as promise great things, One or another purple patch, to shine far and wide, Is commonly sewn on: when the grove and altar of Diana, And the winding of water hastening through pleasant fields, Or the river Rhine, or the rainy bow is described Horace, On the Art of Poetry, verses 14–18.

But what is greater, it is established, on the witness of Coppola Dissertazione di S. Massimo, p. 14., from ancient tradition, that the Wood which overhung the city of Avia (where now is seen the convent of the Reformed Fathers of S. Angiolo) was dedicated to Diana and was therefore called the grove of Diana. Whence it will seem strange to no one that the governor exhorted our holy Martyr to sacrifice to the Divinity of his homeland.

o. These

formula, with the words a little changed here and there, occurs frequently in the most ancient acts of the Martyrs. So the passion of St. Felicity and her seven Sons concludes thus: "They were made friends of Christ: who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns for ages of ages, amen." Ruinart notes [Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta, Admonition on the Passion of SS. Felicity, etc., no. 1, p. 25.] that there is no doubt that the acts of St. Felicity are the same as the more correct Deeds which Gregory the Great praises in homily 3 on the Gospels.

LESSONS ON ST. MAXIMUS

From the Proper of Aquila.

Maximus, deacon and martyr, at Aquila among the Vestini. (S.)

Lesson IV. Maximus the levite, when he was preaching the faith of Christ in Avia, formerly a city of the Vestini, near which the city of Aquila was afterwards founded, was ordered to be arrested for that reason in the persecution of Decius. He, not terrified by fear of suffering, but kindled by the love of Christ, showed himself openly to the guards who were seeking him. Wherefore, being arrested, he is led to the governor, by whom, being asked about his stock and religion, he answered: "I am of free-born stock, as the whole origin of my parents shows; but, imbued with the Christian religion, I discharge the office of the levitical order." To whom the governor said: "Why, according to your nobility, do you not adore the immortal Gods, whom the Roman emperor venerates?" "Because," he said, "I know that your Gods are vain and deaf images, not Gods."

Lesson V. And when they had said many things on both sides, at last the governor pledged that he would give him his daughter in marriage if he were willing to obey the commands of the emperors. And when he had freely rejected this choice, and could be moved from the purpose of the Christian faith neither by any promises nor by threats, the governor, indignant, orders him to be hung on the rack and tortured for a very long time. And the Saint, while he was being tortured, said: "I give thee thanks, Lord Jesus Christ, who hast deigned to number me in the number of the Saints who have suffered for thee." To whom the governor said: "Maximus, sacrifice to our Gods, that you may gain yourself; but if not, with fire placed beneath I will have you most severely beaten with clubs." And the martyr said: "I shall gain my soul if I do not sacrifice to Demons, because there abides in me the grace of Christ, which I confess with pure mind, who will save me for ever."

Lesson VI. Vehemently moved by that answer, the governor orders him to be beaten with clubs, and urges him to sacrifice to Diana. To whom the martyr said: "Why do you still seek superfluous words, enemy of the most high God? For I will not sacrifice to Diana your Goddess, but I offer myself as a sacrifice to my living and true God in an odour of sweetness." At this, the tyrant, burning still more with anger, ordered him to be led to the place which was called the Circle, and thence to be cast headlong from on high. And when blessed Maximus had prayed for a little while in that place, he gave thanks to God, who deigned to make him a partaker of the Lord's chalice with the holy Martyrs, and with those words, "Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit," cast headlong from on high, he completed a glorious martyrdom for Christ on the 14th day before the Kalends of November. And the Christians, marking the place, took his body by night and buried it.

NOTICE.

For the reasons set out at no. 16 of the Preliminary Commentary, we have thought it necessary to subjoin here the acts of St. Maximus who is reported to have suffered in the province of Asia. He has been treated by us at the 30th day of April.

ACTS OF ST. MAXIMUS, MARTYR

From Ruinart.

Maximus, deacon and martyr, at Aquila among the Vestini. (S.)

BHL Number: 5829

Maximus is arrested The emperor Decius, wishing to oppress or overcome the law of the Christians, established decrees through the whole world, that all Christians, departing from the living and true God, should sacrifice to demons: but those who would not should be subjected to punishments. At that time the servant of God Maximus, a holy man, of his own accord showed himself openly. He was a plebeian, attending to his own business. Being arrested, then, he was brought before Optimus the proconsul in Asia. The Proconsul said to him: "What are you called?" He answered: "I am called Maximus." The Proconsul said: "Of what condition are you?" Maximus said: "Born free, but a servant of Christ." The Proconsul said: "What office do you hold?" Maximus answered: "I am a man of the common people, living by my own business." The Proconsul said: "Are you a Christian?" Maximus answered: "Although a sinner, yet I am a Christian." The Proconsul said: "Have you not learned the decrees of the most invincible Princes which have lately arrived?" Maximus answered: "What are they?" The Proconsul said: "That all Christians, abandoning their superfluous superstition, should recognize the true Prince, to whom all things are subject, and adore his Gods." Maximus answered: "I have learned of the wicked sentence put forth by the king of this world, and therefore I have shown myself openly." The Proconsul said: "Sacrifice then to the Gods." Maximus answered: "I do not sacrifice except to God alone, to whom I rejoice that I have sacrificed myself from my earliest age." The Proconsul said: "Sacrifice, that you may be saved; but if you will not, I will make you fail under various torments." Maximus answered: "This is what I have always wished; for this reason indeed I manifested myself, that at length, lacking a miserable and temporal life, I might receive the eternal."

[2] Beaten with clubs, he is hung on the rack. Then the Proconsul ordered him to be beaten with clubs. And while he was saying to him, "Sacrifice, Maximus, that you may be free from these torments," Maximus answered: "These are not torments which are inflicted for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, but anointings. For if I should depart from the precepts of my Lord, in which I have been instructed from his Gospel, true and perpetual torments will await me." Then the Proconsul ordered him to be hung on the rack. And while he was being tortured, he said to him: "Now come to your senses, wretch, from your folly, and sacrifice, that you may gain your soul." Maximus answered: "I shall gain my soul if I do not sacrifice; but if I sacrifice, I lose it. For neither clubs, nor hooks, nor fire give me any pain to feel, because there abides in me the grace of Christ, which will save me for ever, through the prayers of all the Saints, who, striving in this struggle, have overcome your madnesses, and have left us examples of virtues." Then the proconsul gave sentence against him, saying: "Him who would not lend his assent to the sacred laws, so as to sacrifice to the great Goddess Diana, the divine clemency has commanded to be overwhelmed with stones, for the fear of the other Christians." And so the athlete of Christ was seized by the ministers of the devil, giving thanks to God and the Father through Jesus Christ his son, who judged him worthy to overcome the devil by striving; and, being led outside the walls and struck with stones, he gave up his spirit.

[3] He is overwhelmed with stones. The servant of God Maximus suffered in the province of Asia on the second day before the Ides of May, under Decius the emperor and Optimus the proconsul, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, to whom be glory for ages of ages. Amen.