Projectus

ON ST. PROJECTUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

AT FORUM CORNELII OR IMOLA IN ITALY.

In the V century

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Projectus, Bishop and Confessor, at Forum Cornelii or Imola in Italy (S.)

BY J. P.

§ I. Few things known of the Saint's true deeds; a sermon in praise of him and of his predecessor delivered by S. Peter Chrysologus, who consecrated him bishop.

[ ] Forum Cornelii, formerly also called Forum Sullæ, The Saint known to few writers, now Imola, an ancient and episcopal city situated in the Æmilian region of Italy between Bologna and Faenza, festively commemorates on the XXIII day of September S. Projectus, its own citizen, the second bishop and protector known to it, consecrated by S. Peter Chrysologus and celebrated with an illustrious eulogy; but — what may make you wonder — inscribed in no Martyrologies, except the poetical one of Nicolaus Braut, bishop of Sarsina, published at Venice in 1630, where he is honored with a double distich on this very day. Filippo Ferrari in the General Catalogue of Saints who are not inscribed in the Roman mentions him also today in these words: At Forum Cornelii, S. Projectus the bishop. He treats of him at greater length in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, and cites below the records of that church. Ughelli also, tome 2 of the Italia sacra, in the Bishops of Imola, column 623 of the new edition, citing Ferrari and others, relates several things about S. Projectus, which I do not here transcribe, because most of them will come to be recited and examined in the course of this work. Braut's verses too will be given in a more convenient place.

[2] Antonio Maria Manzoni, Doctor of both Laws and canon of the cathedral church of Imola, his more illustrious Acts lost, published the Saint's Acts at length and laboriously in print in this our century in a twofold Work, to one of which, brought to light at Imola in 1703, he prefixed this title: The Tomb of the holy Projectus and Maurelius, citizens, bishops and protectors of the city of Cornelii; to the other, printed at Faenza in 1719, this: A History of the Bishops of Cornelii or Imola. In both, however, he confesses that his more illustrious deeds have perished; nay, in the former Work he complains that he noticed, while he was searching the records of his own cathedral church, that in the Acts of S. Projectus many things were partly mutilated, partly falsely attributed to him. By Acts, unless I am mistaken, he designates those which Ferrari and Ughelli have; for besides these he cites no one who has at least committed a series of Acts to the press, and he himself produces scarcely anything pertaining to the Saint's Life which they have not exhibited to him in summary.

[3] But two things related by Ferrari Manzoni carps at beyond the rest and disapproves, and, what survive, namely the punishment of those who had mocked those abstaining from flesh on the day of Easter, and the miraculous healing of Marinus the abbot, to be set forth more fully below. The first he disapproves because it is read in only one manuscript codex, from which Ferrari took it, because no tradition of it flourishes, and because the narrative does not seem probable to him; the other, because he contends it is manifest that it was taken from the Acts of S. Projectus or Præjectus, bishop of Clermont in Aquitaine, a province of Gaul, and attributed to S. Projectus of Imola. That candor is certainly praiseworthy in a learned man discoursing about the deeds pertaining to the Saint of his own church. The Life of S. Præjectus, bishop of Clermont, crowned with martyrdom about the year 670, which Surius published, polished with his own style and mutilated, and from which Vincent of Beauvais and several others described his deeds and martyrdom, was drawn up by an anonymous contemporary of the Saint, his companion and an eyewitness, as has been said among us in tome 2 of January at the XXV day, where it was given more fully and more perfectly from three old manuscripts.

[4] for the greater part But while I ran through it, even as it is published in Surius, whom Manzoni cites, I could not but doubt whether he read it entire or attentively enough. For if he had done this, he ought, in accordance with his own candor, to have disapproved, or at the least held suspect, not that one fact alone as borrowed from it, but nearly all the things which are related about the particular deeds in the life of S. Projectus of Imola, and are not attested by S. Peter Chrysologus or by any other ancient and trustworthy author. For most are either found the same in the Life of S. Præjectus, or are so akin to them that the prudent reader must at once suspect that the history of his deeds, other instruments failing, partly grew together out of parts of this Life, partly was arranged after its pattern. And lest the people of Imola take this ill, as said by me gratuitously, I shall prove it in the course of this work by adduced examples. Let us hear therefore what Ferrari, Ughelli and Manzoni hand down about our Saint.

[5] falsely attributed to him. Of the names of his parents, and of the year of his birth, they made no mention; in this they agree, that his mother, being with child, seemed in sleep to bear a boy carrying a lily in his hand; by which vision, according to Manzoni, was foresignified the future purity and integrity of her Son. Of these things Braut sings thus:

In sleep his mother saw Projectus come forth through her side, holding spring lilies in his hand.

But even on the very threshold a most vehement suspicion arises whether that vision was not concocted in imitation of that which the contemporary biographer of S. Præjectus of Clermont narrates, both among us in tome 2 of January, page 633, and in Surius, On the Lives of the Saints, tome 1, page 418, from which, because it is cited by Manzoni, I transcribe the words: For while he was still borne in his mother's womb, a vision of this kind was presented to his mother. For she seemed to herself to see an infant coming forth through her side, washed with a baptism of water like reddening blood. And this vision, as is added, was a sign of his future martyrdom.

[6] Enrolled in the clergy, he succeeds in the archdeaconry Projectus therefore, being born and educated, was handed over to Cornelius, bishop of Imola, to be imbued with ecclesiastical learning, with whom, as Ferrari writes, he began to shine with every kind of virtue, and, as S. Peter Chrysologus speaks of him in general, he continued to be an inhabitant of the house of God … from the very cradle ascending the grades and offices of the ecclesiastical warfare. Hence Manzoni says that he was first enrolled among the deacons, and then, when the same Peter Chrysologus was taken up to the see of Ravenna, was substituted for him in the archdeaconry of Cornelii or Imola. The first is confirmed by Agnellus, an author of the ninth century, in the Liber Pontificalis or Lives of the Pontiffs of Ravenna, published and illustrated by Benedetto Bacchini, part 1, page 330, saying thus of S. Peter Chrysologus: He together with Projectus was by the blessed Cornelius of the church of Imola consecrated, both in one hour, deacons. But afterward by divine Providence both held an episcopal throne; Peter that of the church of Ravenna; Projectus was kept for that of Imola.

[7] S. Peter Chrysologus, according to the same Agnellus and to all others commonly, was prodigiously advanced to the see of Ravenna by S. Sixtus III the Pontiff, to S. Peter Chrysologus, elected bishop of Ravenna; that is, between the years 432 and 440. Girolamo Rossi in the History of the Affairs of Ravenna, with a good many others, determines the year 433. Benedetto Bacchini, just praised, in the Observations, page 335, judges that it must be deferred to the year 439 or 440, the last of Pope Sixtus. But Tillemont, tome 15 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 185, thinks this was done long before the year 431, and repeats the same on page 865, where he calls false the history of the prodigious election of S. Chrysologus by S. Sixtus, and calls into doubt or denies several things brought forward by others. His grounds may be examined at the 2nd day of December, appointed for the cult of S. Peter Chrysologus. We meanwhile fix S. Projectus's episcopal consecration broadly before the year 450, on the credit of Agnellus, who to the words just recited subjoins:

After he (Peter Chrysologus) was ordained pontiff, afterward by him that other (Projectus) was consecrated bishop of the church of Cornelii, in the times of Galla Placidia Augusta, as we have found written. For Placidia, the mother of the emperor Valentinian the third, is handed down to have died in the same year 450 on the XXVII day of November, nay and according to most writers S. Chrysologus in the same year: but about this too Tillemont doubts, in the tome cited, page 193, saying that there is nothing by which it may be proved that Chrysologus did not live until 457, as neither anything whence it may be shown that he survived 449.

[8] Manzoni in the Tomb, page 15, writes that Projectus took up the government of the church of Cornelii about the year 446, he is elected bishop of Imola, and sets forth the manner of the election thus in the History, page 17: After the above-praised holy Cornelius they relate that a certain man was raised to this see of bishops, whose name likewise is unknown. He lived in this dignity of prelate no longer than the space of twenty-five days, and when another had then been substituted, he, refusing this election, exhorted the clergy and people that they should take Projectus the archdeacon, though reluctant, to the episcopate. Ferrari implies that the immediate successor of Cornelius was an intruder in these words: But since he who had invaded the see had lived no longer than XXV days, another etc. And hence I am the more confirmed in the opinion previously conceived, namely that the manner of the election set forth by both is altogether supposititious, or rather was transferred into the records of Imola, whence they drew it, from the Acts of S. Præjectus, bishop of Clermont, with a few changes. Whether I so think rightly or otherwise, let the reader judge from the words of this biographer, which I transfer hither: Felix therefore being dead, when the greatest part of the clergy and people desired to have Præjectus as prelate, the archdeacon of the aforesaid city, Gairoaldus by name, at the instigation of greed, despising the clergy and using the counsel of laymen, usurped the episcopate of the city of Clermont by a bribe. But when the course of forty days had rolled by, he obtained the passage of death. Therefore when the city of Clermont

was destitute of the comfort of a prelate, and wished to raise Genesius, a renowned man and one preferred by senatorial dignity, to the throne of the pontifical chair, that powerful and wise man, not incautiously seeking the grade of honor, confesses before all that he is unworthy of this office: nay rather he harangues the citizens to ask of the king Præjectus for the see of the pastor etc. So he among us, and, with the style changed, in Surius.

[9] he is consecrated and praised by the same Chrysologus. I return to Manzoni, who, a few things being interposed, thus proceeds on page 18: And so by the concordant votes of the electors he was consecrated bishop of Cornelii by that same holy fellow-citizen and metropolitan of his, Peter Chrysologus. This is made most certain by the eulogy mentioned at number 1, or sermon 165, a very short one, which the same Chrysologus delivered on the very day of the consecration, and which I here subjoin from tome 7 of the Library of the Fathers. I profess indeed that I owe veneration and most faithful service to all churches, but I am compelled more particularly to serve the church of Cornelii by love of its very name. For Cornelius of most blessed memory, illustrious in life, shining everywhere with all the titles of the virtues, known to all by the greatness of his works, was a father to me; he himself begot me through the Gospel, he, the pious, most piously nourished me, he, the holy, instituted me in holy service, he, the pontiff, offered and consecrated me at the sacred altars: and therefore the name of Cornelius is to me illustrious, to be honored, wonderful. The love of the like name therefore compels me to meet with longing the longings of the church of Cornelii, and to consecrate the venerable man Projectus as pontiff for those who love him. I have said Projectus, but not abjectus, according to that saying: "Upon thee was I cast forth from the womb: from my mother's belly thou art my God." And truly this Projectus, cast forth from the womb of a human mother, remained continually in the womb of the divine Mother: who, knowing nothing of his own house, continued to be an inhabitant of the house of God: but how, brethren, from the very cradle he ascended the grades and offices of the ecclesiastical warfare, since it is long for me to tell, as the Lord says, "He is of age, let him speak for himself," through our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with the Holy Spirit world without end. Amen.

[10] The opinion of Tillemont, holding that Cornelius, Peter Chrysologus, on the testimony of Agnellus, was born in the territory of Cornelii, and nourished and taught by Cornelius the prelate of that see. To the same opinion, as confirmed by the sermon recited, more recent writers have adhered. Here again Tillemont dissents, and contends even from the sermon itself that Cornelius, praised by Chrysologus, was not bishop of Cornelii. Thus he preludes in the cited tome 15, page 185: More recent writers make him (Cornelius) bishop of Imola, which does not seem able to be held. Then in the same place, page 865, in the Notes, about to prove his own opinion, he reasons in this manner: S. Chrysologus was about to consecrate Projectus bishop of Imola, of Cornelius, to whom he himself was so greatly bound; but he says that that church is loved by him not because he had himself been a part of it and a deacon, but only because it had the same name as the bishop from whom he had received baptism. Hence I judge it must be said that Cornelius, the foster-father of S. Peter, was bishop in some other city rather than at Imola.

[11] likewise praised by Chrysologus, The discussion of this opinion could also be deferred to the 2nd day of December, because it regards S. Chrysologus more nearly than S. Projectus. For if the other opinion prevails, it consequently cannot be held that S. Chrysologus was by birth of Imola or Cornelii, which both the people of Ravenna and those of Imola have hitherto handed down, and with them foreigners commonly all, whose strongest argument, besides constant tradition and the testimony of Agnellus, is the sermon of Chrysologus professing that he was begotten by Cornelius through the Gospel, that is, regenerated by holy baptism, nourished, instructed, consecrated at the sacred altars, or promoted to holy Orders. For thence they contend it manifestly follows that he was born in the city of Imola, since no one is baptized outside his own country, and it is provided by the decrees of councils that no one should be promoted to holy Orders except by the bishop of his own birthplace. That same argument indeed Tillemont will turn against them, and will say: Chrysologus was baptized in his own country, he had to be ordained by the bishop of his own birthplace; but Cornelius, by whom he was baptized and ordained, was not bishop of Imola, therefore neither was he himself of Imola by birth.

[12] Yet indirectly Tillemont's reasoning pertains to our Saint too: was not bishop of Imola, is discussed for if from it it can be concluded that Cornelius, Chrysologus's foster-father and bishop, did not sit at Imola, there falls what Manzoni hands down, namely that Chrysologus and Projectus were imbued with ecclesiastical learning by that same bishop Cornelius, and that the latter was substituted for the former in the archdeaconry of Imola; there falls likewise what Agnellus testifies, that both received the Order of the diaconate in the same hour from the same Cornelius. And so let us weigh its force and strength in a few words. The first reason from which the consequence against the episcopate of Cornelius at Imola is deduced is taken from this, that Chrysologus does not call Projectus the successor of Cornelius: to which I answer that this was by no means necessary, nay rather superfluous, especially for Chrysologus, who aimed at brevity; since both the people of Ravenna and those of Cornelii, before whom he was speaking, knew it abundantly. The second reason is that Chrysologus does not say that the church of Imola or Cornelii is loved by him because he had been a part of it and a deacon, but only because it had the same name as his own bishop and foster-father. I confess he does not express another cause of loving, but neither does he expressly exclude another; nay, so far as I conjecture, he implies that the church of Imola is loved by him for the same cause for which he loved Cornelius, namely on account of baptism etc.

[13] Certainly it does not appear probable to me that the holy doctor, and is disapproved. unless he had supposed other causes of loving, and those sufficiently known to his hearers, would have used so meagre a mode of arguing: I venerate indeed all churches, but love compels me to serve that of Cornelii more particularly; because my bishop and foster-father had the name Cornelius; and only for that reason, as Tillemont understands it. I had rather believe that Chrysologus, other titles being supposed and suppressed, derived his love for the city of Cornelii, his own country, from the identity of the name with Cornelius, that thence he might seize an occasion of saying something in praise of the lately deceased bishop of Cornelii and of his successor Projectus. For what would it have concerned the clergy and people present to hear the praises of Cornelius, with whom they had no connection? Besides, if he was not of Imola, of what city then was he bishop? You will say that many bishops occur in ancient records whose see is unknown. I do not deny it; but this man was such that his memory and the knowledge of his see could not so easily be blotted out; a man, namely, on the testimony of Chrysologus, shining everywhere with all the titles of the virtues, known to all by the greatness of his works. Wherefore, until more solid arguments be brought forward, we shall adhere to the common tradition of the churches of Ravenna and Imola, to the writers of both, and to others after Agnellus, whom, if Tillemont saw him, he ought not to have reckoned among the more recent: and hence we further conclude that Projectus, trained by the same Cornelius, was known to S. Peter Chrysologus from a tender age and probably familiar with him; which opinion Chrysologus himself not obscurely confirms in his sermon, when he signifies that Projectus's manner of life from his very infancy was well known to him.

§ II. His remaining deeds either uncertain or falsely ascribed to him.

[ ] The Saint does not seem to have been present at the council of Ephesus. Among the legates of the Roman Church directed by Pope Celestine I to the council of Ephesus there occurs, in more than one place in the Acts of that council in Labbe, tome 3, Projectus a bishop, but it is nowhere expressed of what church. The most eminent Baronius suspects that he is our Saint of Imola, and the same seems to Ferrari in his Annotation at the XXIII day of September. Baronius has thus, tome 5 of the Annals, page 573: As concerns Projectus the bishop, this indeed is ascertained by us, that in these times there flourished Projectus bishop of Forum Cornelii, of whom Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, who also flourished in these times, makes honorable mention etc. Then he recites some things from his sermon, and thus concludes: So that we may easily suppose that this is that Projectus whom the discharge of so great a legation adorned. But Manzoni disapproves the opinion in the Tomb, page 26, as one which cannot be reconciled with the most common opinion of Baronius himself, of Ferrari, and of almost all others, by which it is held that S. Chrysologus was divinely elected prelate of the people of Ravenna by Pope Sixtus III, the successor of Celestine, and according to which therefore in the year 431, when the council of Ephesus was celebrated, Chrysologus himself was not bishop, much less our Projectus, whom no one will deny to have been consecrated by Chrysologus. Therefore Projectus the legate at Ephesus can by no means be confounded with ours, unless it be shown that Chrysologus presided over the church of Ravenna before the Pontificate of Sixtus III. But the discussion of this question, as I have implied above, belongs to his Acts, to be illustrated in the month of December. Let us meanwhile proceed to the remaining deeds of S. Projectus.

[15] he is believed to have been present at the Roman council in the year 449, Having undertaken the episcopal office, a strenuous emulator of Cornelius his predecessor, he presided most holily over the sheep committed to his care, and substituted for himself in the archdeaconry S. Donatus, another disciple of the same Cornelius in the studies of sacred Letters and in the exercises of the virtues, as Manzoni sets forth more fully both in the Tomb, page 17 and following, and in the History, page 19. Of S. Donatus we have briefly treated among us in tome 2 of August, on which day he too is venerated with a double Office as one of the protectors of the city of Imola, as we learn from the list of the Saints of that church and city which is prefixed to the proper Office of S. Peter Chrysologus, printed at Bologna in the year 1618. Besides this Manzoni records nothing in particular about S. Projectus down to the year 449, in which he writes that he came together with S. Chrysologus to the synod gathered against the Eutychians by S. Leo the Pope, but only from conjecture, unless I am mistaken. For, having asserted this absolutely in the Tomb, page 20, he afterward thus restricted it in the History, page 22: To which Projectus himself is firmly believed to have come with Chrysologus. But the conjecture is made most likely by Valentinian III, emperor of the West, in his letters to Theodosius II, emperor of the East, where he testifies that that synod was from various provinces, and by Galla Placidia in hers to the same, a multitude of bishops … whom from innumerable cities of Italy … Leo the Pontiff gathered.

[16] To these things Manzoni next subjoins the death of S. Chrysologus, which according to him happened in the year 450, at Imola in his own country, as by the opinion of very many appears certain. in the following year to have buried Chrysologus, who died at Imola, The history, so far as it pertains hither, I transcribe from the Tomb of the praised author, page 20 and following. In the following year CDL that most keen champion of Catholic truth, Chrysologus, … being forewarned from heaven of the time of his death, on the day before the Kalends of December, having left Ravenna, on the next day sought again his own country, and was received by Projectus with the utmost veneration; where on the following morning, Mass having been performed at the altar of S. Cassian, … within the older cathedral, where he had drawn in his sanctity, about the noon hour, between

the arms of Projectus most holily and happily died… The body of Chrysologus, in the same church within a marble chest beside the relics of his own sacred protector Cassian the martyr, as he himself had demanded, the holy bishop Projectus laid up, and enclosed within a squared stone of whitish material about six fingers wide, with the name inscribed in larger letters, Petrus. The same things but a little more fully he sets forth in the History from page 22, where he subjoins on page 26 that three years after another dear pledge and ornament of his church was taken from our Saint, namely S. Donatus the archdeacon mentioned above, whose sacred relics and those of S. Chrysologus have hitherto been preserved in the cathedral of Imola, as is noted in the list of Saints cited at number 15.

[17] The same Manzoni in both Works says that the fame of Projectus's sanctity and prudence grew so widely [and to have been employed by Pope Simplicius in the cause of the bishop of Ravenna.] that the esteem of him with the supreme Pontiffs was exceedingly great. And to prove this he alleges an epistle of Pope Simplicius, in which he sharply rebukes John, prelate of Ravenna, because he had ordained a certain Gregory, though reluctant, bishop of Modena, and threatens that he would have used a severer censure against him, had he not been drawn back by those reasons which Projectus the bishop, being present, brought forward. It is not indeed expressed in the epistle of what city he was bishop; but that he was of Imola Manzoni contends from this, that no other Projectus flourished at that time, especially in the province of Ravenna. Ughelli too judged him of Imola, and to the same opinion Girolamo Rossi inclined, book 3 of the History of Ravenna, page 122, nor have I hitherto seen anyone who has denied it. The epistle of Simplicius is extant entire in Labbe, tome 4 of the Councils, column [ ], and is noted as written on the III Kalends of June, Severinus, a most illustrious man, being consul. Hence Rossi, Baronius and others referred it to the year 482. See, however, what our Elders observed about the year in which the epistle was given, page 729 of tome 1 of January, where the Acts of the said John, bishop of Ravenna, were illustrated, and tome 1 of March, page 134, where S. Simplicius the Pope was treated of.

[18] I said in the preceding §, number 2, that Manzoni confesses that the more illustrious deeds of S. Projectus have perished, Many things which are narrated about the Saint and that many of those which survive from them are partly mutilated, partly falsely attributed to him; I praised his candor; but I added that more, nay nearly all the things which are not attested by S. Chrysologus or by another ancient and trustworthy author, ought to have been disapproved by him, and I brought forward two which at the least ought to have been suspect; namely the vision of his mother when with child, at number 5, and the manner of his election to the episcopate related at number 8. Now I finish the rest, those things being premised which he himself carps at. Ferrari, whom Ughelli followed, hands down these things about the Saint at the XXIII day of September: He, setting out for Rome, visits Marinus the abbot, a most holy man, grievously sick, and heals him by prayer. This fact, though variously related, Manzoni brands with this censure in the History, page 29 and following. It is acknowledged that those too gravely erred who wrote that Projectus, bishop of Cornelii, being summoned by the king of the Franks, set out for the Gauls, and there freed Marinus, an abbot illustrious for sanctity, from the disease with which he was afflicted, and at last, having suffered many things from wicked men, returned to his own country. All these things, as they were incongruously taken from the Acts of holy Projectus, bishop of Clermont in Aquitaine, so were they ineptly attributed to Projectus of Cornelii. The matter is plain from Laurentius Surius, who narrates the deeds of Projectus of Clermont and of Marinus. The Acts of S. Præjectus of Clermont, written by a contemporary author, have been given among us in tome 2 of January, as I have already noted. Let us hear the other.

[19] are narrated, The same Ferrari in the same place relates thus: When on the day of the Lord's Resurrection he was reclining at table with many others, and three others of that multitude who abstained from the eating of flesh were being mocked, Projectus rebuked them, saying that they ought not to mock but to venerate those men: and when they did not cease from mocking, suddenly, together with the upper floor on which they were, they fell down, Projectus and those three excepted. This fact Manzoni narrates without censure in the History, page 27, as left in writing by Filippo Sassi of Imola, and published by Ferrari. But in the Annotations to the Tomb, page 177, he had assailed the same in the following words. The narration of this fact is read only in the manuscript codex from which Ferrari copied it. Of this the other historians say nothing — Savino, Gamberini, nor Luchino, nor Ughelli — nor does any tradition flourish. But whether it be probable that a holy Bishop should on the day of Easter, abstaining himself from flesh, have wished to recline at table with a multitude, since not all fed at one table, and to make a display of abstinence, let the reader judge. We have judged the narration apocryphal.

[20] taken from the Acts of S. Præjectus of Clermont If credit is to be given to contemporary writers, the thing is in itself most true, but done by Projectus or Præjectus of Clermont, not yet a bishop, and falsely attributed to Projectus of Imola. Hence it is plain with what right I said above that I could not but doubt whether Manzoni read the Life of S. Præjectus either entire or attentively enough, since the same thing is there narrated both among us and in Surius, and in a manner so little different that the theft at once strikes the eyes. Here are the words from Surius, tome 1, page 418: The Paschal solemnity was already being kept, and Præjectus hastens to Clermont to the bishop: but on a certain day he had prepared a banquet in an upper part of the house, at which there were also present many laymen and nobles invited by him: of whom three were unwilling to eat flesh. And because the life of the good is always grievous to depraved minds, the worldly men began to mock them, and to cast reproaches and insults at them. Meanwhile they are admonished by the holy man to cease harassing and carping in unworthy ways at those whom they ought rather to venerate. But when they did not correct themselves at all, suddenly the floor with the mockers fell down, and Præjectus alone was left at the table with those penitent men.

[21] and falsely attributed to him. Nor is this the end; Ferrari produces a third miracle from the Records of Imola, by which the money of our Saint is said to have been divinely increased, and Manzoni adduces the same in testimony of his liberality toward the needy; but that this is no less evidently a theft than the preceding, anyone will confess who judges it worth while to compare the words of the biographer of S. Præjectus of Clermont in Surius, just praised, with the words of Ferrari. The last thing which Manzoni has about our Saint is common to him with SS. Cassian the martyr and Peter Chrysologus, and is thus related in the History, page 28. In times exceedingly calamitous the holy Fellow-citizen ruled the church of Cornelii about thirty-seven years, while formidable armies under their kings Attila and Odoacer — Huns, Heruli, and other barbarous nations — invaded Italy, by whose irruption the territory of Cornelii was laid waste, and the city itself too would have utterly fallen, had not by the prayers of Projectus and likewise by the admirable guardianship of the holy patrons, the enemy being at once put to flight, the siege been raised: for that holy Cassian and Peter Chrysologus were seen striking fear into the barbarians, ancient records testify to us. The Acts of S. Cassian the martyr have been illustrated at the XIII day of August; but no mention is made of this apparition, nor is any made of it in the things which I have hitherto read about S. Chrysologus; and how little the records of Imola are to be trusted is plain from what has been said above, and therefore that apparition is at the least doubtful to me.

[22] At last, having holily discharged the pastoral office, thus Manzoni just praised closes the deeds of our Saint, His death and burial heaped with many merits and shining with miracles, he passed to the Lord about the year four hundred and eighty-three (for the aforesaid epistle of Pope Simplicius is read as given on the third Kalends of June, Severinus being Consul, that is, in the year four hundred and eighty-two), and the aforesaid holy John, archbishop of Ravenna, performed his obsequies. His sacred body, at that time honorably laid up in the older cathedral, with which within the sarcophagus a stone also was buried bearing the name Projectus, now rests in the new cathedral. Of the epistle of Pope Simplicius, from which the author gathers the year of the Saint's death, we have treated above; but what he adds about the obsequies performed for the Saint by S. John of Ravenna he probably drew from Girolamo Rossi, who on page 122 of the History of Ravenna says that this is thought.

§ III. The relics of SS. Projectus and Maurelius concealed and translated at various times, chapels and altars erected to them.

[ ] The sacred relics are hidden in the year 903, Of the relics of SS. Projectus and Maurelius, likewise a bishop of Imola, of whom we have treated among us in tome 2 of May at the VI day, and of their various translations the often mentioned Manzoni treats at length in the Tomb from page 101, but produces nothing about them before the year 903, to which he attaches the first of those translations, as follows: Italy being afflicted by the irruptions of the Huns, and they overrunning it in the year CMIII especially so cruelly that, not abstaining even from temples, they consumed all things with fires, the people of Imola, fearing that the calamities which they heard had been brought upon others threatened their cathedral also, in order that they might keep unharmed the bodies of the holy Protectors, which were laid up less safely, with the consent of Peter the bishop claimed them for themselves into their own keeping, and so concealed them in subterranean places that these were known to few. So he on page 103, and, as he warns in the Annotations, page 185, from the chroniclers with one accord. But he in some measure changed his opinion in the History, page 49, where he attached the translation indeed to the same year, but under John I as bishop. Probably in the Chronicles — for whose irrefragable authority, however, I should not dare to vouch — he had read before that the translation was made with the consent of the bishop, and in elucidating the passage he added the name of Peter; because Ughelli, following Rossi, judged that Peter flourished at that time; but that Peter, who is read to have subscribed to a Roman council in the year 861, must have died long before the year 903, as Manzoni afterward acknowledged in the said History, page 47.

[24] and again in 1032; The second translation or concealment of the relics, for which he appeals to the same Chronicles, he writes in the Tomb, page 104, happened about a hundred and thirty years afterward, in these words: Paul afterward obtaining the church of Imola, the sacred relics of the holy Maurelius and Projectus were uncovered, which, laid in stone coffers, the people of Imola, dreading repeated incursions of enemies, again hid according to their zeal in the year MXXXII. In the course of time the descendants of those who, with the assent of the bishops, had concealed the sacred relics arrogated to themselves some right and lordship over them, and, against the will of the successor bishops and of the canons, kept them. This is plain from an authentic instrument which, drawn up on parchment in the year 1155 and preserved in the very ancient archive of the canons, Manzoni cites in the Tomb, page 105 and following, and recites for the greater part in the History, page 96. For in it, among the conditions by which the controversies between the citizens and the bishop were composed,

and the canons, the first laid down is that the people of Imola should restore to the bishop and canons the bodies of the Saints whenever these should wish.

[25] restored to the bishop in the year 1174 they are recognized, That condition was fulfilled, on Manzoni's testimony, in the year 1174. And the occasion was given by the schism of the emperor Frederick Barbarossa; for since the inhabitants of the city of Imola followed his party, and on the contrary Henry the bishop, the canons and the rest who dwelt in the castle or town of S. Cassian, bordering on the city, adhered to Pope Alexander III, the overthrow of that castle was decreed by the Fredericians. Now the pledges of the Saints were kept here; hence Henry the bishop, the words are Manzoni's in the Tomb, page 113, whom among countless afflictions of mind and hardships of body no greater solicitude tormented than lest on this occasion the bodies of the holy Protectors should suffer any detriment, insisted that they be restored to himself and to the canons, according to what had been agreed with his predecessor B. Rodulphus, and, they being delivered, in the same year MCLXXIV he recognized them: among which he placed the bones of S. Maurelius together with the relics of S. Projectus in one small chest: as also the body of holy Peter Chrysologus etc. And both the bishop and the canons took care that all should be safely kept and guarded; until in the year MCLXXXVIII they were transferred into the city, and into the cathedral, which had been begun to be built the year before.

[26] and joined to the relics of S. Maurelius, Then the praised author goes on to discourse at length about the origin of the ancient cathedral, formerly existing in the castle of S. Cassian, and about other matters not pertaining hither, until at last in the year 1186 the said castle was almost leveled with the ground, and, affairs being pacified, within the city of Cornelii itself in the next following year the new cathedral began to be built, into which Henry the bishop in the year 1188 transferred the bodies of the Saints together with other relics. The same things Manzoni repeats in the History and confirms by various documents. Again the sacred relics were changed in place, although within the same cathedral, at the beginning of the 13th century, as the same author shows in the Tomb, page 67, and in the History, page 31, from an autograph instrument, of which this is the tenor. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. In the year of the Lord one thousand two hundred and eight, in the eleventh Indiction, in the time of Pope Innocent, no emperor existing in the Roman empire, on the sixth day entering the month of May.

[27] In the presence of all the clergy of the city of Imola and of the people there present, the lord Maynardinus, bishop of the church of Imola, to the honor of God and of the most blessed Cassian the martyr placed the bodies of the holy Maurelius, bishop and martyr, and of Projectus, bishop and confessor, in the church of S. Cassian in the upper altar, they are set in the new cathedral upon an altar consecrated to them; and consecrated the altar of the aforesaid Saints; and the aforesaid lord bishop, trusting in the merits of the blessed Cassian and of the aforesaid Saints, remitted and granted to all truly penitent who every year out of devotion shall come to the said altar and to the keeping of the feast of the said Saints, fifty days of criminal sins, and a fourth part of venial. And there were present at all the aforesaid Albert, Clarius, Christian, Aldrevandus, and Guido, priests of the said church, and Gibertinus and Rodulphus, canons, the presbyter John, and the presbyter Ubaldus, and the presbyter Donus Dei, and master Artusius, who made the altar, with other masters, and many other clerics, and laymen, and women. I, Alfredolus, by the grace of God notary of Imola, was present at all these things, and, at the lord bishop's command, wrote them. In the same year, in the month of June, as is the opinion of very many, Philip the son of Henry VI was slain, who had long contended with Otto duke of Saxony for the empire. Hence the translation is said to have been made no emperor existing in the Roman empire; for only in the year 1209 did Innocent crown Otto emperor.

[28] The sacred relics rested in the assigned altar until the year 1464, in the years 1464 in which, as Manzoni writes in the Tomb, page 134, by the bishop Antonio Castellano della Volta of Bologna and by the canons, on the IV day of July leave having been given to Francesco de Merlo that it might be lawful for him to build a new chapel and altar in the cathedral in the name of the holy Maurelius and Projectus, in the following month of November on the XXIII day, the tomb being moved but not opened, and no recognition of the relics being made, the aforesaid bishop replaced those bodies in the chapel then newly built, where now an altar decorated with three titles — of the Assumption of the B. V., of SS. Michael and Anthony of Padua — is seen raised: and he assigned the twenty-third day of September for the celebration of the yearly festival of holy Projectus. So the records of the notary Luca de Monte relate. The same author notes a little below that then first the festival of the Saints was divided in two, which hitherto by the order of the above-mentioned bishop Maynardinus had been celebrated on one and the same day, the VI of May. But this day was kept for Maurelius alone, and for him as protector of the church a double Office is prescribed in the list of Saints cited at number 15: where with the same rite an Office of our Saint is prescribed at the XXIII day of September.

[29] In the year 1616 a change of the sacred bones was again made, and 1616 the bodies are likewise translated, when Rodolfo Paleotti, prelate of the people of Imola, on the eighth Ides of February, so Manzoni in the Tomb, page 137, removed from the altar built by Francesco de Merlo the brick tomb closed on every side, in which was kept the stone chest containing the sacred bones of SS. Maurelius and Projectus, several workmen being employed to bring down the heavy weight laboriously, and, no inspection of the relics being made, set it within the adjoining chapel, which long before had been erected in honor of S. Antony the abbot, upon the altar situated there, and, as the author signifies above, lately adorned, to the left of the altar of S. Cassian. It must be noted why in each account of the two later translations Manzoni carefully added that no inspection of the holy relics was then made, and that the case was not opened. The cause he himself discloses on page 139.

[30] For the notaries of the bishops in the instruments of the years 1464 and 1616 had made no mention of the relics of S. Maurelius; Hence, he says, the error prevailed that the body of S. Projectus alone was believed to have been translated by both bishops in the aforesaid years, which some judged to be separated from one another inasmuch as the altars from which those bishops drew out the tomb borrowed their common appellation from his name only; for this often happens, that an altar, chapel or church is dedicated to God in the name of several Saints, and yet is designated from one of them… And thence it came about that, on the sixth day of February recurring every year, the church of Imola has hitherto kept the anniversary memory in the divine offices of that last translation, as made by bishop Paleotti of the body of S. Projectus only — a memory indeed mutilated and not to be tolerated in future times: for if the body of each Saint always appears to have been translated, why should not anniversary honors be paid to each?

[31] but wrongly: That opinion, however, or error about the body of S. Projectus alone having been translated did not obtain among all. Certainly in the year 1660, on the XVII day of November, when Henschen and Papebroch surveyed the cathedral church of Imola, some and probably very many believed that the bodies of both Saints were even then joined together: this I gather from the words of Papebroch, by which in his manuscript book about his Roman journey he sets forth in a few words the form of that cathedral at that time: On the XVII of November, the Masses being finished about dawn, we were conducted by Father Cremona to survey in passing the more celebrated places of the city. To the cathedral church of holy Cassian a new frontispiece had been added by the bishop, who also built for himself a new palace opposite the church. The structure of the interior church is otherwise old, but neat, carried on eight arches, to which nearly as many chapels correspond beneath the sides, and in one of them indeed, more adorned than the rest, the body of S. Donatus was said to rest under the altar, upon which the head of S. Cosmas is becomingly placed. To the choir one ascended by XVI steps, beneath which is a crypt, to be approached by somewhat fewer steps, and in it three altars: the middle one covered the body of S. Cassian; upon the other two, in large gilded and gracefully sculptured cases, on this side the body of S. Peter Chrysologus, on that the bodies of SS. Maurelius and Projectus stood exposed to public veneration.

[32] in the year 1702 the reliquary is juridically opened Further, according to that popular opinion the sacred relics of S. Maurelius must have lain hidden beneath the high altar of the same church; but that this was erroneous was ascertained in the year 1680, when, as Manzoni writes in the History, page 397, that same high altar was pulled down and a new one built, and no coffer appeared there. At length the truth shone forth in the year 1702, when by the piety of Matteo Bartolacci, a priest, a noble chapel was built for laying up the remains of the Saints in the subterranean crypt of the cathedral church, and on that occasion, before they should be enclosed in new chests wrought of white marble and adorned with figures carved by a skilled hand, they came to a juridical and solemn inspection of them. The matter, at which he himself was present as an eyewitness, Manzoni, a canon of that church, thus narrates on page 143 of the Tomb, published in print in the next following year. That a place might be opened for the building of the aforesaid new chapel, and that the wall of the church might be pulled down for it, on the twelfth Kalends of April of the past year MDCCII, the chapter of the cathedral being present, before the eminent man abbot Giuseppe Guerra, vicar general of the most vigilant prelate of this church Filippo Antonio Gualterio, Apostolic nuncio with the king of the Gauls (afterward Cardinal of the H. R. C.) (later bishop of Alatri), the coffer was searched for in which the common people kept saying that the body of S. Projectus only was laid up, which, above the altar, enclosed in the wall of the church, was found at first wholly of brick: which being pulled down, there then appeared a stone chest covered with a lid, rude, of our native friable material, and easily tending to decay; which, smelling exceedingly of antiquity, showed itself to be the same within which eight hundred years ago (from the year 903, in which the first translation happened) in those calamitous times the diligent piety of the citizens and canons, but above all the care of the bishops, had in whatever way it could hidden the body of S. Projectus, to which afterward Henry in the year MCLXXIV added the other, of S. Maurelius.

[33] That chest was four-cornered, whose length extended to sixteen inches of our measure, reliquary; its breadth to ten, as also its depth to about seven, and, being removed and secured with seals, it was laid beneath the high altar until the building of the chapel should be finished. Meanwhile it was determined that a juridical recognition of those relics must go before, for which the twentieth day of November of the same year was appointed, and when it came, the most pious bishop's assent going before, that same vicar general of his, at the first hour of the night in the upper presbytery of the cathedral, the chapter standing about, several wax torches burning, came to the aforesaid recognition. Therefore before them the little chest was opened, and first there presented itself a wooden box, wholly consumed by decay, whose whole upper part was dissolved into fragments, and the iron lock with its bolt had fallen down almost eaten away and cut asunder by contracted rust.

[34] Thence appeared bones partly whole, partly

broken up, the inscription of each Saint is found; whose heap seemed so piled up that at first sight it indicated that not one but two bodies had anciently been laid up there; and there was found a four-cornered brick tablet of a reddish color, whose length extends to two inches and a half, its breadth likewise to one, its depth does not reach one, on which this one word is read, in roughly cut letters, Projectus. He here subjoins a figure of the tablet, exhibiting the name of our Prelate in a contracted word: and he conjectures from the rudeness of the characters that it was added to the body when the Saint was first buried. Hence he proceeds to a description of a leaden plate, likewise four-cornered, found in the same chest, and removing all doubt about the body of S. Maurelius being enclosed there. Its figure likewise he produces engraved, and declares the inscription in these words: Here rests the body of S. Maurelius the bishop, placed by Henry the bishop MCLXX… But he warns that the fourth corner of the plate is wanting through the injury of time, and that thus the numeral characters IV have been cut off, by which the year of the above-mentioned translation, one thousand one hundred and seventy-fourth, is completed. But he subjoins several things also to prove that the title of martyr, omitted in the recited inscription, in no way stands against the truth of the martyrdom of that same S. Maurelius, which, if it shall seem good, may be employed in the Supplement of our Work at the VI day of May; and at last he returns on page 164 to the narrative from which he had digressed.

[35] The sacred bones therefore then began to be handled, the sacred bones are inspected. and among the rest two were found whole, and injured in no part, and of equal dimension, which most excellent physicians, most skilled in anatomical matters, called for this purpose, that they might pass judgment on the quality of those bones, affirmed on oath "to be two different vertebræ, terminating at the end of the spinal marrow, constituting what is commonly called the Os Sacrum; as also that two others were present, making the end of the occiput and the beginning of the spinal marrow; and therefore indicating two human bodies," they testified. Therefore, all giving thanks to God Best and Greatest, it was pronounced by a decree passed that "the recognition had been duly and canonically made, and that it was fully established that in the aforesaid stone chest were found the bodies of SS. Projectus and Maurelius"; which together were laid up in a new leaden coffer, lined within with silk woven with flowers of different colors, the aforesaid tablet and plate being enclosed with them: then, a lid being placed over and the coffer secured with seals bearing the family arms of the house of Gualterio impressed in lead, and set meanwhile beneath the high altar, it was decreed that those sacred bodies should in due time be borne with solemn rite into the new marble chest, yet on the day before be exposed to public veneration.

[36] with great delight and piety of the bystanders, And so, all hesitation about the existence of both bodies being driven away, there was no one who was not suffused with the utmost gladness: and the piety of all toward the holy Guardians then so prevailed that each of those who were present eagerly demanded to be given some little fragment of the wooden box, decayed though it was, which for five hundred and twenty-eight years had preserved those sacred bones, and devoutly carried away what he had sought . This too seems not to be passed over in silence, that, when water had been sanctified by the immersion of some of the aforesaid relics, and had been distributed to many who asked it, not a few sick persons asserted that by drinking it they had been wonderfully relieved of the diseases by which they were afflicted.*

[37] and with remarkable pomp in the year 1703 are borne The chapel being at length finished, and the other things arranged for the festive translation of those relics, the sacred remains were exposed on the XIII Kalends of June in the cathedral, adorned with splendid array, for the adoration of the citizens and of strangers flocking together from the neighboring places. And at nightfall it was provided that at that time too nothing should be wanting for the more effectual stirring of the people's gladness. The eyes and ears of all were charmed either by the braziers and flames crackling about the cathedral church, or by the torch-lights kindled on every side, or by the little fires flying in troops through the open air from sulphurous powder, or by trumpets and likewise drums, with the ringing of bells also mingled, resounding on all sides.

[38] into the new chapel, and are enclosed in a chest likewise of marble. But on the following day, on which a most eloquent discourse in praise of the aforesaid Saints was delivered by a most eloquent orator, after the evening hours, made illustrious by musical harmonies, a solemn procession of both clergies, the confraternities going before according to custom, was made through the streets and crossways of the city, hangings and tapestries in token of gladness and veneration hanging everywhere from the walls of the buildings, and in it the biers were conducted by dignitaries and canons, and the sacred pledges were borne on lowered shoulders, which a poured-forth multitude of the exulting people of every age and rank followed. Finally toward evening, the same people standing by, they were most becomingly placed within the new marble chest in this year MDCCIII. So Manzoni, signifying at the end of the book that he himself was present with the rest of the canons at the last inspection and replacing of the sacred relics.

read acquisitum*