"Helena was visited that emperors might be redeemed." ~ The ancient sources on Saint Helena's discovery of the True Cross

Early 9th century illustration from northern Italy of Saint Helena discovering the True Cross.

The feast day of Saint Helena, the mother of Constantine, is commemorated by Catholics on August 18. Aside from her role as matriarch of the Constantinian dynasty, Helena is most remembered today for her finding of the True Cross of Jesus Christ. This discovery took place during Helena's celebrated pilgrimage to the Holy Land near the end of her life, during which time she undertook the task of uncovering the sites associated with Christ's life and passion and the building of commemorative shrines.

Eusebius Pamphilus, Helena's contemporary and bishop of Caesarea Maritima, records many of Helena's deeds during this trek. Curiously, he does not mention her discovery of the True Cross. For this, we must seek another early source, and one even more illustrious than the historian Eusebius: Saint Ambrose of Milan. 

In his eulogy on the death of Theodosius the Great, a man whom he had once barred from the Sacred Liturgy due to his very public sins, Ambrose provides a lovely interlude commemorating Helena. He uses her discovery of the True Cross, along with the nails of the crucifixion, to relay a moral lesson on the difference between the Christian Roman Emperors who are restrained in their actions by the tenets of Christianity, and the pagan emperors who were encumbered by no such restraints:

Blessed was Constantine with such a mother!...The mother, solicitous for her son to whom the sovereignty of the Roman world had fallen, hastened to Jerusalem and explored the scene of the Lord's Passion....

Helena, then, came and began to visit the holy places. The Spirit inspired her to search for the wood of the Cross, She drew near to Golgotha and said: "Behold the place of combat: where is thy victory? I seek the banner of salvation and I do not find it. Shall I," she said, "be among kings, and the cross of the Lord lie in the dust? Shall I be covered by golden ornaments, and the triumph of Christ by ruins? Is this still hidden, and is the palm of eternal life hidden? How can I believe that I have been redeemed if the redemption itself is not seen?"...

And so she opened the ground and cleared away the dust. She found three fork-shaped gibbets thrown together, covered by debris and hidden by the Enemy. But the triumph of Christ could not be wiped out. She hesitated in her uncertainty. She hesitated, as a woman, but the Holy Spirit inspired her to investigate carefully, because two robbers had been crucified with the Lord. Therefore, she sought the middlebeam, but it could have happened that the debris had mixed the crosses one with another and that chance had interchanged them. She went back to the text of the Gospel and found that on the middle gibbet a title had been displayed, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.' Hence, a sequence of sound reasoning was established and the Cross of salvation was revealed by its title. This is what Pilate answered to the Jews who petitioned him: "What I have written, I have written," that is: "I have not written these things to please you, but that future ages may know them. I have not written for you, but for posterity," saying, as it were: "Let Helena have something to read whereby she may recognize the cross of the Lord."

She discovered, then, the title. She adored the King, not the wood, indeed, because this is an error of the Gentiles and a vanity of the wicked. But she adored Him who hung on the tree, whose name was inscribed in the title...

She sought the nails with which the Lord was crucified, and found them. From one nail she ordered a bridle to be made, from the other she wove a diadem. She turned the one to an ornamental, the other to a devotional, use. Mary was visited to liberate Eve; Helena was visited that emperors might be redeemed. So she sent to her son Constantine a diadem adorned with jewels which were interwoven with the iron of the Cross and enclosed the more precious jewel of divine redemption. She sent the bridle, also. Constantine used both, and transmitted his faith to later kings. And so the beginning of the faith of the emperors is the holy relic which is upon the bridle. From that came the faith whereby persecution ended and devotion to God took its place....

But I ask: Why was the holy relic upon the bridle if not to curb the insolence of emperors, to check the wantonness of tyrants, who as horses neigh after lust that they may be allowed to commit adultery unpunished? What infamies do we not find in the Neros, the Caligulas, and the rest, for whom there was nothing holy upon the bridle? 

What else, then, did Helena accomplish by her desire to guide the reins than to seem to say to all emperors through the Holy Spirit: "Do not become like the horse and mule," and with the bridle and bit to restrain the jaws of those who did not realize that they were kings to rule those subject to them? For power easily led them into vice, and like cattle they defiled themselves in promiscuous lust. They knew not God. The Cross of the Lord restrained them and recalled them from their fall into wickedness. [Fathers of the Church, Vol. 22, Funeral Orations, pp 325-331]

Ambrose's eulogy for Theodosius was written about 70 years after the death of Helena.

Additional details on the discovery of the True Cross are provided by (among others) Hermias Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History, which was written approximately 120 years after the death of Helena: 

...The emperor [Constantine] rejoiced exceedingly at the restoration of unity of opinion in the Catholic Church [following the Council of Nicaea], and desirous of expressing in behalf of himself, his children, and the empire, the gratitude towards God which the unanimity of the bishops inspired, he directed that a house of prayer should be erected to God at Jerusalem near the place called Calvary. 

Click for more info.

At the same time his mother Helena repaired to the city for the purpose of offering up prayer, and of visiting the sacred places. Her zeal for Christianity made her anxious to find the wood which had formed the adorable cross. But it was no easy matter to discover either this relic or the Lord's sepulcher, for the Greeks, who in former times had persecuted the Church, and who, at the first promulgation of Christianity, had had recourse to every artifice to exterminate it, had concealed that spot under much heaped up earth, and elevated what before was quite depressed, as it looks now, and the more effectually to conceal them, had enclosed the entire place of the resurrection and Mount Calvary within a wall, and had, moreover, ornamented the whole locality, and paved it with stone. They also erected a temple to Venus, and set up a little image, so that those who repaired there to worship Christ would appear to bow the knee to Venus, and that thus the true cause of offering worship in that place would, in course of time, be forgotten. And that as Christians would not dare fearlessly to frequent the place or to point it out to others, the temple and statue would come to be regarded as exclusively appertaining to the Greeks. 

At length, however, the place was discovered, and the fraud about it so zealously maintained was detected. Some say that the facts were first disclosed by a Hebrew who dwelt in the East, and who derived his information from some documents which had come to him by paternal inheritance. But it seems more accordant with truth to suppose that God revealed the fact by means of signs and dreams, for I do not think that human information is requisite when God thinks it best to make manifest the same. 

When by command of the emperor the place was excavated deeply, the cave whence our Lord arose from the dead was discovered. And at no great distance, three crosses were found and another separate piece of wood, on which were inscribed in white letters in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin, the following words: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." These words, as the sacred book of the Gospels relates, were placed by command of Pilate, governor of Judæa, over the head of Christ. There yet, however, remained a difficulty in distinguishing the Divine cross from the others. For the inscription had been wrenched from it and thrown aside, and the cross itself had been cast aside with the others, without any distinction, when the bodies of the crucified were taken down. For according to history, the soldiers found Jesus dead upon the cross, and they took him down, and gave him up to be buried, while, in order to accelerate the death of the two thieves, who were crucified on either hand, they broke their legs, and then took down the crosses, and flung them out of the way. It was no concern of theirs to deposit the crosses in their first order, for it was growing late, and as the men were dead, they did not think it worth while to remain to attend to the crosses. 

A more Divine information than could be furnished by man was therefore necessary in order to distinguish the Divine cross from the others, and this revelation was given in the following manner: There was a certain lady of rank in Jerusalem who was afflicted with a most grievous and incurable disease. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, accompanied by the mother of the emperor and her attendants, repaired to her bedside. After engaging in prayer, Macarius signified by signs to the spectators that the Divine cross would be the one which, on being brought in contact with the invalid, should remove the disease. He approached her in turn with each of the crosses, but when two of the crosses were laid on her, it seemed but folly and mockery to her for she was at the gates of death. When, however, the third cross was in like manner brought to her, she suddenly opened her eyes, regained her strength, and immediately sprang from her bed, well. It is said that a dead person was, in the same way, restored to life. 

The venerated wood having been thus identified, the greater portion of it was deposited in a silver case, in which it is still preserved in Jerusalem: but the empress sent part of it to her son Constantine, together with the nails by which the body of Christ had been fastened....

The above incidents we have related precisely as they were delivered to us by men of great accuracy, by whom the information was derived by succession from father to son; and others have recorded the same events in writing for the benefit of posterity. [Sozomen: Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 1]

Regular readers of this blog know that Helena is among my favorite saints. Here are a couple other posts about her:

• Helena's role in Constantine's execution of Crispus and Fausta
• Review of Saint Helena and the True Cross by Louis de Wohl

"Faithfully compile the acts of the martyrs, omitting nothing." ~ The duty of the Popes to preserve the history of the Church

Images of Popes Clement I, Anteros, Fabian, and Damasus I, all holding codices indicating their legacies
of defending the doctrines and preserving the history of the Church.

Immediately prior to a Papal Conclave seems like the absolute best time to break out the Liber Pontificalis – that fascinating, frustrating, and enigmatic work of Late Antiquity that purports to provide a brief biographical sketch of each of the first 65 Popes of Rome.

This is perhaps the fourth or fifth time I have read the Liber cover to cover, not including the dozens of times I’ve referenced individual accounts for research purposes, posts, comments, etc. Admittedly, the text is littered with errors: some obvious, others requiring a PhD in Patristics to spot. Thankfully, the version I most commonly use includes copious footnotes by early 20th century classicist, Louise Ropes Loomis, who herself draws heavily from such hoary authorities as Mommsen and Duchesne. 

Click for more info.

If you decide to embark upon reading the Liber, it is well to keep in mind that the work in its earliest iteration was likely assembled in the 6th century, and based on earlier sources which the anonymous compiler may have known only imperfectly. As a result, the earliest entries tend to be the most disappointing in terms of details and accuracy. Those sketches closer to the compiler’s own day are much more satisfying, replete with curious anecdotes and details found nowhere else in the historical record.  

There are a few clear themes that run throughout the entire work. These are as follows:

• The Popes as martyrs and confessors—and the rare exceptions which prove the rule.
• The Popes as defenders of doctrine.
• The Popes as builders and restorers of the physical edifices of the Church.
• The Popes as guardians of the relics and monuments of the great saints and martyrs.
• The Popes as stewards of the Church's wealth, derived from princes and generous donors.
• The Popes as recorders and transmitters of the history of the Church.

It is that last bullet that I’d like to focus on a bit here. 

As a historical aggregator himself, the compiler of the Liber Pontificalis gives due honor to those who came before him who preserved the records of the ancient Church. He tells us that the fourth Pope, Saint Clement, who lived in the 1st century AD, “created seven districts and assigned them to notaries of the church that they might make diligent, careful and searching inquiry, each in his own district, regarding the acts of the martyrs.” Whether Clement actually did this, or whether the compiler is ascribing this act to a great ancient saint like Clement to ennoble his own profession is a matter of scholarly debate. In any event, the compiler of the Liber is the only one to record this aspect of Clement's biography.

Anecdotes recorded in the later sketches are more likely to be accurate. In the record of the practically un-remembered Pope Anteros who perished after an abbreviated reign of 40 days in AD 236—likely as a martyr—only one deed worthy of note is recorded by the author of the Liber Pontificalis:

“He collected carefully from the notaries the acts of the martyrs and of the readers and deposited them in the church, for the sake of one Maximinus, a priest, who had been crowned with martyrdom.”

The successor of Anteros, Pope Fabianus, who reigned until AD 250, continued the work begun by his short-lived immediate predecessor. The Liber says that he “created seven subdeacons to be associated with the seven notaries, that they might faithfully compile the acts of the martyrs, omitting nothing.”

Fragmentary grave marker of Pope Anteros in the Cemetery of Callixtos.

Unfortunately, from AD 249 through AD 311, there occurred three Roman Empire-wide persecutions of Christians under the emperors Decius (AD 249-251), Valerian (AD 258-260) and the Tetrarchy of Diocletian (AD 304-311). The aforementioned Pope St. Fabianus was among the first victims of the Decian persecution. Certainly during the last of these in the early 4th century, a systematic search was made for Christian literary works which, when found, would be consigned to the flames. I have previously written posts concerning the evidence for such efforts by the persecutors here, here, and here. It may be presumed that many, if not all of the acts of the Martyrs collected by Clement, Anteros, and Fabianus were destroyed during this time.

Seated statue believed to
be a representation of
Saint Hippolytus of Rome. 

The destroyers were very thorough in their work. Case in point are the Acts of Saint Hippolytus who lived a very impactful life in the early 3rd century AD. He was a theologian, a bishop, possibly an anti-Pope, and likely a Novatian heretic who was reconciled with the Church prior to his martyrdom. Saint Jerome lists him among the "illustrious men," while admitting that he has not been able to learn the name of the city of which Hippolytus had been bishop. 

It wasn't until Damasus was made Pope about AD 366, that a far-reaching project of recovery was begun to restore the glorious history of the early martyrs that had been lost during the persecutions. To that end, according to the Liber, Damasus "searched out many bodies of the saints and found them and marked them with verses.” Many of these poetic epitaphs have come down to us from antiquity, and I have posted about them previously. But in some cases, even such a zealous researcher as Pope Damasus was at a loss. Regarding the aforementioned Hippolytus, Damasus admits his ignorance in this touchingly honest epitaph:

"Hippolytus, it is said, once a venerable bishop,

At the time when a schism arose in the city of Rome,

Yet it is not certain what he did or from where,

Whether a martyr, an exile, or reconciled,

Damasus placed this, uncertain but with love for the faith."

[From Damasi epigrammata. Translated into English by Grok3]

So as we pray for the Holy Spirit to bless the Conclave and provide the Church with a saintly Pope, let us beg the intercession of those early Pontiffs who worked to preserve the historical records of the ancient Church and the glorious Acts of the Martyrs:

Papa Clemens, ora pro nobis!
Papa Anteros, ora pro nobis!
Papa Fabiane, ora pro nobis!
Papa Damase, ora pro nobis!
Sancte Hippolyte, ora pro nobis!

What Happened on Holy Saturday? ~ The ancient sources on Christ's Harrowing of Hell

Fresco of Christ's Descent into Hell from the lower Basilica of San Clemente in Rome, 9th Century AD.
In this detail, Christ takes Adam by the hand to lead him out of the underworld.

Wednesday of Holy Week is sometimes referred to as Spy Wednesday, a reference to the betrayal of Our Lord by the traitor Judas Iscariot.

Every Christian knows that on Holy Thursday, we remember the Last Supper, and that Good Friday is the day on which the Lord was crucified and died.

Holy Saturday, however, is different. For most Christians, it is a peaceful time – a day of reflection separating the drama and sorrow of the Passion from the joy of Easter Sunday. On Holy Saturday, there is seemingly not much going on. For the modern Church, it is a quiet time of watching and waiting.

But the traditional teachings of the ancient Church tell a much different story. Something tremendous on a cosmic scale happened on Easter Saturday: Christ’s descent into Hell.

Often called the Harrowing of Hell in English, or the Anastasis in Greek, we find this mysterious event recorded without elaboration in the Apostles’ Creed:

“He descended into Hell.”

It is rumored that Mel Gibson’s follow-up to The Passion of the Christ will attempt to bring this event to the big screen as part of the larger story of the resurrection of Christ. How he will do that is anyone’s guess. But you can bet it will be epic. And probably gruesome.

The harrowing of Hell is mentioned obliquely in Sacred Scripture, most specifically in First Epistle of St. Peter, where the Apostle says:

"Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." [1 Peter 3:18-20]

This mysterious passage from the Gospel of Matthew is similarly used to support the Harrowing of Hell:

"And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose,  And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many." [Matthew 27:52-53]

Saint Paul also mentions Christ's descent into the underworld in his Letter to the Ephesians:

"But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.  Wherefore He saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men.  Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things." [Ephesians 4:7-10]

Though Christ’s descent into Hell is not described in detail in Sacred Scripture, the event was most certainly an article of faith for the ancient Church. One of the earliest references may be found in an ancient homily for Holy Saturday, sometimes attributed to St. Melito of Sardis, a bishop in Asia Minor who wrote in the late 2nd century AD, within 150 years of Christ's death and resurrection. The following passage from this homily is taken from the Vatican website. The sentences in bold are included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (635):

"What is happening? Today there is a great silence over the earth, a great silence, and stillness, a great silence because the King sleeps; the earth was in terror and was still, because God slept in the flesh and raised up those who were sleeping from the ages. God has died in the flesh, and the underworld has trembled.

Truly he goes to seek out our first parent like a lost sheep; he wishes to visit those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. He goes to free the prisoner Adam and his fellow-prisoner Eve from their pains, he who is God, and Adam's son.

The Lord goes in to them holding his victorious weapon, his cross. When Adam, the first created man, sees him, he strikes his breast in terror and calls out to all: 'My Lord be with you all.' And Christ in reply says to Adam: ‘And with your spirit.’ And grasping his hand he raises him up, saying: ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.

‘I am your God, who for your sake became your son, who for you and your descendants now speak and command with authority those in prison: Come forth, and those in darkness: Have light, and those who sleep: Rise.

‘I command you: Awake, sleeper, I have not made you to be held a prisoner in the underworld. Arise from the dead; I am the life of the dead. Arise, O man, work of my hands, arise, you who were fashioned in my image. Rise, let us go hence; for you in me and I in you, together we are one undivided person.’" [Ancient homily sometimes attributed to St. Melito of Sardis]

12th century mosaic of the harrowing of Hell from St. Mark's Basilica in Venice.  

Numerous other ancient Church Fathers commented on Christ’s sojourn into hell. Writing at about the same time as St. Melito, St. Clement of Alexandria speculated on the reason for the descent, saying:

“Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in Hades…. So I think it is demonstrated that the God being good, and the Lord powerful, they save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere….What then? Did not the same dispensation obtain in Hades, so that even there, all the souls, on hearing the proclamation, might either exhibit repentance, or confess that their punishment was just, because they believed not?... If, then, He preached the Gospel to those in the flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable that He did not for the same cause preach the Gospel to those who had departed this life before His advent?” [The Stromata of St. Clement of Alexandria, Book VI, Chapter 6]

Also active in the mid-to-late 2nd Century AD was Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote clearly concerning this belief on Christ's descent into Hell:

"It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Now all those believed in Him who had hope towards Him, that is, those who proclaimed His advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us, which sins we should not lay to their charge, if we would not despise the grace of God. For as these men did not impute unto us (the Gentiles) our transgressions, which we wrought before Christ was manifested among us, so also it is not right that we should lay blame upon those who sinned before Christ's coming." [St. Irenaeaus, Against All Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 27:2].

The context of this passage in Irenaeus's work, Against All Heresies, is complex and well worth reading in its entirety. 

A more descriptive and fanciful account is rendered in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which is thought to have been written in the Third or Fourth century AD and appended to the equally apocryphal Acts of Pilate about the Fifth or Sixth century AD. Here is a sample:

"...The Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succor of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins. 

When Hell and death and their wicked ministers saw that, they were stricken with fear, they and their cruel officers, at the sight of the brightness of so great light in their own realm, seeing Christ of a sudden in their abode, and they cried out, saying: 'We are overcome by thee. Who art thou that art sent by the Lord for our confusion? Who art thou that without all damage of corruption, and with the signs of thy majesty unblemished, dost in wrath condemn our power?...' 

Then did the King of glory in his majesty trample upon death, and laid hold on Satan the prince and delivered him unto the power of Hell, and drew Adam to him unto his own brightness....

And the Lord stretched forth his hand and made the sign of the cross over Adam and over all his saints, and he took the right hand of Adam and went up out of Hell, and all the saints followed him. Then did holy David cry aloud and say: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand hath wrought salvation for him and his holy arm. The Lord hath made known his saving health, before the face of all nations hath he revealed his righteousness.'

And the whole multitude of the saints answered, saying: 'Such honor have all his saints. Amen, Alleluia.' [Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, Part II]

Of course, the discussion of Christ's descent into Hell spawned a multitude of theological and eschatological questions, among them: Who were "the saints" who arose following the resurrection mentioned in the Gospel of Saint Matthew? Who were "the spirits that were in prison" mentioned by Saint Peter? Did our Lord actually enter the Hell of the Damned? Or did He visit that mysterious theological construct known as "The Limbo of the Fathers"?

Those questions are beyond the scope of this humble blog, but I will close with Dante Alighieri's view on the matter, as put into the mouth of the poet Virgil, a denizen of the Limbo of the Just, who according to Dante's metaphysical world, was a novice in that shadowy realm when Christ's harrowing occurred, Virgil having died about 20 years prior to the birth of Christ:

"Tell me, my Master, tell me, thou my Lord,"
     Began I, with desire of being certain
     Of that Faith which o'ercometh every error,
"Came any one by his own merit hence,
     Or by another's, who was blessed thereafter?"
     And he, who understood my covert speech,
Replied: "I was a novice in this state,
     When I saw hither come a Mighty One,
     With sign of victory incoronate.
Hence he drew forth the shade of the First Parent,
     And that of his son Abel, and of Noah,
     Of Moses the lawgiver, and the obedient
Abraham, patriarch, and David, king,
     Israel with his father and his children,
     And Rachel, for whose sake he did so much,
And others many, and he made them blessed;
     And thou must know, that earlier than these
     Never were any human spirits saved."
[The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, Inferno, Canto IV]  

“It is better to be Herod’s hog than his heir.” ~ Did Herod's Massacre of the Innocents actually happen?

Detail from The Massacre of the Innocents by Léon Cogniet, 1824.

Three days after the feast of the Nativity of Jesus, the Catholic Church traditionally commemorates the massacre of the Holy Innocents – the children of Bethlehem slain by King Herod following the birth of Christ.

This event is recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew in connection with the arrival of the Magi – the Wise Men from the East – who had followed a star to Jerusalem, and had sought out the newborn king of the Jews. According to Matthew’s account, King Herod requested that the Magi return to him after finding the child, ostensibly so that Herod could join in worshipping the newborn King.

But the Magi were suspicious of Herod’s true motives. Matthew’s Gospel gives the account of what happened next:

“And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country…. Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.  Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying:  ‘A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.’” [Matthew 2:12, 16-18]

Matthew is alone among the evangelists in recording this event. There is also no non-Christian Roman, Greek, or Jewish historian who reports on it directly. As a result, the massacre has fallen under the skepticism of the modern era which views all early Christian sources as highly suspect. Indeed, there exists a tendency in some circles to consider any events recorded in Christian sources which are not corroborated by contemporary non-Christian sources as little more than hagiographic fantasies, interpolations or outright fabrications. Meanwhile non-Christian sources are not treated with anything like that kind of rigor.

As readers to this blog know, I tend to give early Christian writers the benefit of the doubt, and will even give late antique and early medieval writers latitude when they are discussing earlier events, as many of them are relating information from more ancient sources that were subsequently lost.

In the case of Herod's massacre of the children of Bethlehem, I see no reason why Matthew’s account shouldn’t be taken at face value. It is cited by Christian authors as early as Saint Justin Martyr, who mentions Matthew’s account in the mid-second century AD in his Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 78). It’s worth noting that Trypho was a Jew and Justin was a convert to Christianity from paganism. While Trypho disputes much of what Justin says, it is not recorded that he disputed the historicity of Justin’s mention of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents.

A similar case may be found in Origen’s work, Against Celsus. Celsus was a pagan philosopher who wrote an anti-Christian polemic in the mid-to-late 2nd century AD entitled The True Word. Most of what we know about this work is contained in Origen’s response which was written in the mid-3rd century, and in which he quotes freely from The True Word. As a rhetorical device, Celsus puts some of his arguments into the mouth of a fictional Jew, and it seems fairly clear that Celsus had learned a considerable amount about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity from Jewish associates. Even so, Celsus retained a Hellenistic antipathy toward the Jews as he frequently held their practices up to scorn. We find a passage in Against Celsus, which discusses the massacre of the innocents, saying specifically that Celsus's fictional Jew did not believe that Herod had conspired against the infant Christ, nor that an angel had warned Joseph in a dream to flee into Egypt. (Against Celsus, Book 1: Chapter 61). Later in that same paragraph, however, Celsus assumes that this event did occur. He has his Jewish mouthpiece say to Jesus: 

“But if [the massacre of the innocents] was done in order that you might not reign in [Herod's] stead when you had grown to man's estate, why, after you did reach that estate, do you not become a king?” 

Of course, part of the reason Celsus must doubt that the massacre of the innocents took place is because he has his own thoroughly blasphemous alternate version of the infancy of Christ, the details of which “are frequently identical with those of the Talmud.” (Celsus ~ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906) 

Finally, we have perhaps the most interesting and obscure of all the ancient references to the massacre of the innocents. It is provided by the pagan writer Macrobius in the early 400s AD. This late Roman author penned a book of various anecdotes compiled on the occasion of the Saturnalia. In one passage, Macrobius provides a litany of jokes and clever sayings, including the following: “On being informed that among the boys under two years of age whom Herod had ordered to be slain in Syria, Herod’s own son had also been slain, Augustus said: “It is better to be Herod’s hog than his son.” This quip probably raises more questions than it answers. At the very least, Macrobius seems to have his facts scrambled given that Herod's son, Antipater, was an adult when he was put to death around the time of Christ's birth. What the quote does reveal is that even a late antique pagan like Macrobius was aware of the massacre of the innocents, an event that was most likely an accepted part of conventional knowledge among the Roman educated classes.

A point often mentioned to nullify the massacre is that the event is nowhere mentioned by the great Jewish historian of the 1st century AD, Flavius Josephus. As useful as he is in recording in detail the reign of Herod, it can not be expected that Josephus provides every detail. It has been pointed out by more than one scholar that Bethlehem was a small town with a likely population of less than 2,000 at the time of Christ's birth. The number of boys under age two was probably fairly small—perhaps 40-50 at the most. Considering the scale of some of the atrocities committed by Herod that Josephus does record, is it surprising that the butchery of 40-50 infants might pass unnoticed? A list of Herod's enormities may be found in the excellent article by Richard T. France, "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentem, Vol. 21, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 98-120

Ciarán Hinds (right) accurately portrayed a paranoid and malevolent
Herod the Great in The Nativity Story (2006).

I tend to agree with the conclusion offered by Dr. France in the above mentioned article: 

"The historical evidence, such as it is, suggests that the incident is not in itself improbable, but very much in keeping with what we know of Herod's reign. Among the more striking atrocities of that period, it was a relatively minor incident, which has understandably not left any clearly independent mark in the very selective records of Herod's reign." 

Rather than being so quick to dismiss scriptural narratives as fabrications, we should at least apply to them the same credibility thresholds that we apply to other ancient sources. 

Who was Veronica? Tracking down one of the most beloved figures from Christ's Passion

Christ heals the woman with a flow of blood as depicted in the
Catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter in Rome, 4th century AD.

One of the more enigmatic figures from early Christian history is Saint Veronica—the woman known to Catholics from the Sixth Station of the Cross, who is said to have wiped the face of Jesus while He carried His cross on the road to Calvary. There is a memorable and beautifully presented sequence of scenes featuring Veronica in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. But nowhere is the woman or the incident described mentioned in Sacred Scripture. 

To learn about Veronica, we must turn to extra-biblical sources. The first mention of a woman named Veronica associated with Our Lord may be found in an apocryphal work known alternately as the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of Nicodemus. The scholarly consensus is that this work does not come from Apostolic times, but was written during the Patristic period sometime after the middle of the 4th century AD. Even so, it is considered a suitably ancient work and it likely includes traditions held by the community of the very early Church. The work records the names of several otherwise unnamed minor personages mentioned in the Gospels, such as the centurion at the crucifixion (Longinus) and the two thieves crucified along with Jesus (Dismas and Gesmas). Also named is the woman whom Jesus healed of a hemorrhage of blood in Matthew 9:20-22:

There was found there also a woman named Veronica [or Bernice], and she said: Twelve years I was in an issue of blood, and I only touched the edge of his garment, and directly I was cured. [Acts of Pilate, Chapter 7]

This is important because it connects Veronica with another, more reliable ancient source: The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. In this work, we find the following fascinating passage:

Since I have mentioned this city [Caesarea Philippi] I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Savior deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Savior to her remain there.

For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.

Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers. [Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Book VI, Chapter 18]

Recall that Eusebius was writing in the early 4th century AD. There is so much packed into the above passage that it will probably require a post of its own at some point.

The Chronicle of John Malalas (written in the late 6th century), elaborates on this episode, relating that Veronica petitioned Herod (probably Phillip the Tetrarch also known as Herod Phillip II) for permission to raise a statue to Jesus. Incredibly, Herod not only agreed but ordered her to set up a larger statue than she had first proposed:

King Herod, hearing this prayer of hers, was surprised at the marvel. And fearing the mysterious healing, he said: “this healing, O woman, is worth a larger statue. Go then and set up whatever statue you wish, praising with zeal him who had healed you.” And straightway Veronica, who was formerly bleeding, set up in the midst of her city Paneas a bronze statue to the Lord our God Jesus Christ, of hammered bronze mixed with a small portion of gold and silver. That image stands to this day in the city of Paneas, having been carried many years ago from the place where it had stood in the midst of the town to a holy church. I found in that city of Paneas a memorandum about it by a certain Bassus, a former Jew become a Christian, with the life of all the former reigning kings in the territory of Judaea. [Chronicle of John Malalas, 10.239]

Malalas's notice here is important for two reasons. First, he connects Veronica's name with the woman healed of a flow of blood in the late 6th century, demonstrating that he was familiar with the Acts of Pilate or another ancient source with the same information. Second, he's writing in the Greek east, not the Latin west where Veronica's name and role would become more legendary in the Middle Ages.

While it is not impossible that this Veronica also wiped the face of Our Lord during his passion, I was unable to locate any early records corroborating this event. The earliest sources mentioning it seem to be from the high Middle Ages. It is interesting to note, however, that the name of Veronica is associated with one of the earliest recorded images of Christ, apparently commissioned by a saintly woman who saw Our Lord in the flesh.

As for the mysterious artifact known as the Veil of Veronica, that will have to be the subject of a future post.

The Sudden Collapse of Greco-Roman Paganism and Rise of Christianity during the 4th century AD ~ Some Stark Clues Courtesy of Julian the Apostate

Fresco of Jesus approaching the tomb of Lazarus, from the Catacombs
of the Via Latina in Rome, 4th century AD.

In the years following the victory of Constantine the Great over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in AD 312, something unprecedented in human history happened. A religion embraced by a small, despised, unwarlike minority cult became the dominant faith of the mighty Roman Empire. How this happened has been the subject of endless scholarly debate ever after. Did the ascendant Christians impose their faith on the multitude of pagans by brute force? Did examples of miraculous events or prophecies play a role? Or did the Christian emperors simply make it so advantageous to become a Christian, as a matter of law, that the vast majority of pagans knuckled under? 

None of these solutions by itself is satisfying. Nor does the combination of all of the above provide a complete answer for why the bulk of the Empire’s population began embracing a religious creed which had been suspected, oppressed, and brutally persecuted for three centuries before. Indeed, the pagan emperors had attempted to make it advantageous to abjure Christianity. They also claimed that the pagan divinities had granted oracles saying that the gods would smile upon the Empire if those who rejected them were extirpated. And finally, pagan emperors used brute force to compel Christians to abjure. But none of these strategies proved effective in crushing Christianity.

So why, then, did Roman paganism collapse in the 4th century AD, and why did so many Roman pagans eventually flock to Christianity? 

Some evidence may be gleaned from the surviving writings of Christian apologists who had been pagan intellectuals such as Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others. The common rationale offered by these converts is that the pagan world had become so morally corrupt that they could no longer abide a hypocritical philosophy that praised virtue and glory but practiced the most debased vices and brutally killed poor souls in horrible ways for the most trifling of crimes.

More evidence may be found, ironically, in the works of Julian the Apostate. The reader will recall that Julian was a sign of contradiction in his day – a Christian apostate and revert to Classical paganism who became Roman emperor and attempted to undo forty years of Christian ascendancy within the Empire. Julian himself was an enigma, as we have seen in previous posts. He specifically spared the Christians the harshest forms of persecution, not out of compassion but because he had learned from history that such tactics didn’t work to suppress Christianity. In his own words, he says: 

A gold solidus of Julian as Caesar under
Constantius II (ca. AD 355-360), lacking at
this time his trademark philosopher's beard.

I affirm by the gods that I do not wish the Galilaeans [that is, Christians] to be either put to death or unjustly beaten, or to suffer any other injury; but nevertheless I do assert absolutely that the god-fearing must be preferred to them. For through the folly of the Galilaeans almost everything has been overturned, whereas through the grace of the gods are we all preserved. Wherefore we ought to honor the gods and the god-fearing, both men and cities. [Julian's letter to Atarbius, AD 362]

Considering he was a Christian himself (indeed, he was the nephew of Constantine the Great) who reverted to paganism, Julian is able to offer some unique insights into what the average Roman found so attractive in Christianity, and why paganism seemed so moribund by comparison. In his letter to Arascius, pagan high-priest of Galatia, written in AD 362, Julian offers advice on how to revive pagan practices, while inadvertently revealing some of the weaknesses inherent in paganism and the contrasting strengths of Christianity:

The Hellenic religion [that is, paganism] does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. May Adrasteia [a pagan goddess] pardon my words, for indeed no one, a little while ago, would have ventured even to pray for a change of such a sort or so complete within so short a time. Why, then, do we think that this is enough, why do we not observe that it is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism?”

By “atheism”, Julian here is referring to Christianity, whose adherents he collectively scorns as "Galilaeans." Interestingly, he faults paganism for lacking the virtues that were taught to him as being a key facet of Christian life. He goes on to chide the high-priest, suggesting that his brother pagans should adopt Christian-like piety, honor the gods with the same type of zeal, engage in ascetical practices, and refrain from dishonorable trades: 

I believe that we ought really and truly to practice every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practice them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception. Either shame or persuade them into righteousness or else remove them from their priestly office, if they do not, together with their wives, children and servants, attend the worship of the gods but allow their servants or sons or wives to show impiety towards the gods and honor atheism more than piety. In the second place, admonish them that no priest may enter a theater or drink in a tavern or control any craft or trade that is base and not respectable. Honor those who obey you, but those who disobey, expel from office. 

Finally, we see Julian revealing one of the aspects of Christianity that average Romans must have found very compelling—charity to the poor. The Christian zeal for the care of widows, orphans and the impoverished must have contrasted very favorably with standard pagan practices. Here we see Julian enjoining the high-priest to adopt more Christian attitudes, even providing a subsidy from the Imperial fisc: 

In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. I have but now made a plan by which you may be well provided for this; for I have given directions that 30,000 modii of corn shall be assigned every year for the whole of Galatia, and 60,000 pints 3 of wine. I order that one-fifth of this be used for the poor who serve the priests, and the remainder be distributed by us to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort, and the Hellenic villages to offer their first fruits to the gods; and accustom those who love the Hellenic religion to these good works by teaching them that this was our practice of old….Let us not, by allowing others to outdo us in good works, disgrace by such remissness, or rather, utterly abandon, the reverence due to the gods.” [The above three quotes are all taken from Julian's Letter to Arascius, High-Priest of Galatia].

In another work, the satirical essay entitled Misopogon or “Beard-hater”, Julian strikes a similar note. In chastising the pagan citizens of Antioch for their neglect of the sacrifices, Julian compares the public parsimony of the leading pagan men when it comes to the rites of the gods, to the liberality of their wives who shower their goods on the Christian churches for the care of the poor:

Yet every one of you delights to spend money privately on dinners and feasts; and I know very well that many of you squandered very large sums of money on dinners during the May festival. Nevertheless, on your own behalf and on behalf of the city's welfare not one of the citizens offers a private sacrifice, nor does the city offer a public sacrifice, but only this priest! Yet I think that it would have been more just for him to go home carrying portions from the multitude of beasts offered by you to the god. For the duty assigned by the gods to priests is to do them honor by their nobility of character and by the practice of virtue, and also to perform to them the service that is due;  but it befits the city, I think, to offer both private and public sacrifice. But as it is, every one of you allows his wife to carry everything out of his house to the Galilaeans, and when your wives feed the poor at your expense they inspire a great admiration for godlessness in those who are in need of such bounty - and of such sort are, I think, the great majority of mankind, - while as for yourselves you think that you are doing nothing out of the way when in the first place you are careless of the honors due to the gods, and not one of those in need goes near the temples - for there is nothing there, I think, to feed them with - and yet when any one of you gives a birthday feast he provides a dinner and a breakfast without stint and welcomes his friends to a costly table; when, however, the annual festival arrived no one furnished olive oil for a lamp for the god, or a libation, or a beast for sacrifice, or incense.” [Julian's Misopogon]

In another fragmentary letter to a pagan priest, Julian again hammers home his point, urging his correspondent very strongly not only to adopt charity as a regular practice, but also offering advice on the appointment of priests. Julian exhorts that only men of the highest character who possess a genuine sympathy for their fellow man be appointed as priests of the gods. This indicates, perhaps, that this was often not the case and that the character of the pagan priests likely compared very unfavorably to the priests of the “miserable Galilaeans.” Note also that Julian shows himself to be something of a pagan moralist, calling out the damage that filthy pantomime performances had done to Roman society — to the point that he would have them banned if he could:

No priest must anywhere be present at the licentious theatrical shows of the present day, nor introduce one into his own house; for that is altogether unfitting. Indeed if it were possible to banish such shows absolutely from the theaters so as to restore to Dionysus those theatres pure as of old, I should certainly have endeavored with all my heart to bring this about; but as it is, since I thought that this is impossible, and that even if it should prove to be possible it would not on other accounts be expedient, I forebore entirely from this ambition. But I do demand that priests should withdraw themselves from the licentiousness of the theaters and leave them to the crowd. Therefore let no priest enter a theater or have an actor or a chariot-driver for his friend; and let no dancer or mime even approach his door. And as for the sacred games, I permit anyone who will to attend those only in which women are forbidden not only to compete but even to be spectators. With regard to the hunting shows with dogs which are performed in the cities inside the theaters, need I say that not only priests but even the sons of priests must keep away from them?

… I say that the most upright men in every city, by preference those who show most love for the gods, and next those who show most love for their fellow men, must be appointed, whether they be poor or rich. And in this matter let there be no distinction whatever whether they are unknown or well known. For the man who by reason of his gentleness has not won notice ought not to be barred by reason of his want of fame. Even though he be poor and a man of the people, if he possess within himself these two things, love for God and love for his fellow men, let him be appointed priest. And a proof of his love for God is his inducing his own people to show reverence to the gods; a proof of his love for his fellows is his sharing cheerfully, even from a small store, with those in need, and his giving willingly thereof, and trying to do good to as many men as he is able.

We must pay especial attention to this point, and by this means effect a cure. For when it came about that the poor were neglected and overlooked by the priests, then I think the impious Galilaeans observed this fact and devoted themselves to philanthropy. And they have gained ascendancy in the worst of their deeds through the credit they win for such practices. [Fragment of Julian's letter to a priest]

In sum, we see in these passages Julian’s attempt to transplant living Christian practices into the expiring corpse of paganism in a futile effort at revivification. We should be thankful that Julian’s unique contributions to our understanding of the movement of the mid-4th century Zeitgeist have been preserved in such a remarkable way, largely through the offices of a few Church Fathers who included his writings within their own. Hermias Sozomen, for example, recorded Julian's Letter to Arascius above in his 5th century Ecclesiastical History, saying further: 

Click for more info.

On reflecting that one main support of the Christian religion was the life and behavior of its professors, he [Julian] determined to introduce into the pagan temples the order and discipline of Christianity, to institute various orders and degrees of ministry, to appoint teachers and readers to give instruction in pagan doctrines and exhortations, and to command that prayers should be offered on certain days at stated hours. He moreover resolved to found monasteries for the accommodation of men and women who desired to live in philosophical retirement, as likewise hospitals for the relief of strangers and of the poor and for other philanthropical purposes. He wished to introduce among the pagans the Christian system of penance for voluntary and involuntary transgressions; but the point of ecclesiastical discipline which he chiefly admired, and desired to establish among the pagans, was the custom among the bishops to give letters of recommendation to those who traveled to foreign lands, wherein they commended them to the hospitality and kindness of other bishops, in all places, and under all contingencies. In this way did Julian strive to ingraft the customs of Christianity upon paganism. [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 16].

Much more could be written on this topic, but this post has already become more verbose than I had intended.

December 2 ~ Saint Bibiana, 4th century martyr during the reign of Julian the Apostate.

Saint Bibiana refuses to sacrifice to the pagan gods, by Pietro da Cortona, AD 1626.
This fresco is from the Church of St. Bibiana in Rome.

On December 2, Christians commemorate Saint Bibiana, a Roman martyr of the 4th century AD. Unfortunately, the facts about Bibiana's martyrdom are few as the surviving account of her passion is considered unreliable, recorded as it was centuries after her death. We know for sure that Bibiana was an early martyr as a shrine was built for her in Rome which exists to this day. Sadly, the present-day Church of St. Bibiana sits adjacent to the Termini train station in a shabby section of Rome, complete with graffiti, even on the exterior walls of the Church itself. 

We know that the original church was built by Pope Saint Simplicius in the late 5th century as there is a notice in the Liber Pontificalis for his reign which states:

"He dedicated…another basilica of the blessed martyr Bibiana within the city of Rome beside the Licinian palace where her body rests." [Loomis, Liber Pontificalis, p. 105]

Alban Butler in his Lives of the Saints, attempted to disentangle the factual bits of the martyrdom account of St. Bibiana from the fictional interpolations of later ages. His account may be read in full here: December 2: Saint Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr

Street-side view of the church of St. Bibiana in Rome as it looks today.
It has been rebuilt and renovated extensively over the centuries so that little
of the original church erected by Pope Simplicius remains. 

In summary, Bibiana's family (father Flavianus, mother Dafrosa, and sister Demetria) were devout Christians and ran afoul of the prefect of Rome who was apparently a pagan. Flavianus, a man of some stature, was stripped of his rank, tortured and banished. He would die of his injuries a short time thereafter. Dafrosa was imprisoned in her house and later beheaded outside Rome. Demetria and Bibiana survived for some months and it seems that the prefect attempted to compel them to sacrifice to the pagan divinities. The women suffered starvation and torture when they would not accede to his demands. Demetria apparently expired while standing before the tribunal. Bibiana remained steadfast in her confession and were thereupon scourged to death.

In his account, Butler says that the prefect of Rome at the time was a man named Apronianus who was appointed to his position by the emperor Julian the Apostate. Apronianus is mentioned several times in the Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, a contemporary historian of Julian who was favorable to him. In Book XXVI, Chapter 3 of this work, Marcellinus gives us a fascinating account of the goings on at Rome during Apronianus's tenure:

While the changing lots of the fates were unfolding these events in the Orient, Apronianus, prefect of the eternal city, a just and strict official, among urgent cares with which that office is often burdened, made it his first main effort that the sorcerers, who at that time were becoming few in number, should be arrested, and that those who, after having been put to the question, were clearly convicted of having harmed anybody, after naming their accomplices, should be punished with death. And that thus through the danger to a few, the remainder, if any were still in concealment, might be driven away through dread of a similar fate. In this work he is said to have shown special activity for the following reason, namely, that after his appointment by authority of Julian, when he was still living in Syria, he had lost one eye on the way, and suspecting that he had been attacked by wicked arts, with justifiable but extraordinary resentment he tracked out these and other crimes with great energy. 

In this he seemed cruel to some because more than once during the races in the amphitheater, while throngs of people were crowding in, he investigated the greatest crimes. Finally, after many punishments of this kind, a charioteer called Hilarinus was convicted on his own confession of having entrusted his son, who had barely reached the age of puberty, to a mixer of poisons to be instructed in certain secret practices forbidden by law, in order to use his help at home without other witnesses. And he was condemned to death. But since the executioner was lax in guarding him, the man suddenly escaped and took refuge in a chapel of the Christian sect. However, he was at once dragged from there and beheaded. But efforts were still made to check these and similar offenses, and none, or at any rate very few, who were engaged in such abominations defied the public diligence. 

But later, long-continued impunity nourished these monstrous offences, and lawlessness went so far that a certain senator followed the example of Hilarinus, and was convicted of having apprenticed a slave of his almost by a written contract to a teacher of evil practices to be initiated into criminal secrets. But he bought escape from the death penalty, as current gossip asserted, for a large sum of money. And this very man, after being freed in the manner alleged, although he ought to be ashamed of his life and his offense, has made no effort to get rid of the stain on his character, but as if among many wicked men he alone was free from any fault, mounts a caparisoned horse and rides over the pavements, and even now is followed by great bands of slaves, by a new kind of distinction aiming to draw special attention to himself. Just as we hear of Duillius of old, that after that glorious sea-fight, he assumed the privilege, when he returned home after a dinner, of having a flute-player play soft music before him.

However, under this Apronianus there was such a constant abundance of all the necessary articles of food, that there never arose even the slightest murmur about a scarcity of victuals — a thing which constantly happens in Rome. [Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History, Book XXVI, Chapter 3].

It is especially interesting to note that the condemned charioteer, Hilarinus, sought refuge in a Christian church, and also that he was dragged out by the magistrates of Apronianus who, apparently, had little respect for said churches as places of sanctuary. This may also indicate that Apronianus was using the accusation of sorcery—a crime that even Roman pagans had condemned for centuries—as a way to incriminate Christians. It should be remembered that Julian had specifically enjoined his officers not to persecute Christians directly in the style of Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian, but to act against them with more subtlety. 

The Synthesis of a Loveable Ascetic and a Grave-faced Administrator ~ Pope Saint Gregory the Great and his venerable parents

Pope St. Gregory the Great flanked by his parents, Gordianus and St. Silvia.

Today, September 3, is the feast of Pope Saint Gregory the Great on the modern calendar. This great pope who is simultaneously considered the last Father of the ancient Church and the first of the medieval Church, has featured frequently on this blog (see his rebuke of the bishops of Dalmatia and his ponderings on Purgatory, in particular). I had not previously looked into Gregory’s early life, however, and falling as it does in the mid-6th century which is right in my wheel-house, I figured I would do a little research. 

It seems that the earliest Vita of Gregory was written by John the Deacon in the 9th century, at least 200 years after his death. An English translation of this multi-volume work is apparently not available, so I resorted to an early 20th century work that draws heavily from John’s Vita, namely, Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought by F. Holmes Dudden which may be found in full at Archive.org. 

Flipping through this work, I immediately discovered the image above of Gregory on the frontispiece flanked by his parents, Gordianus and Silvia. This 17th century engraving was originally published as part of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Baronius. It is drawn from two ancient paintings of Gregory's parents that he caused to be set up in Monastery of Saint Andrew in Rome which was founded on the site of his hereditary estate on the Caelian hill. The site of this monastery is today occupied by the Church of San Gregorio Magno al Celio. 

Dudden provides the sparse information that we have about Gregory’s parents:

Gregory’s father bore the Imperial name of Gordianus. He is styled “Regionarius,” but what his office was is far from clear…Of Gordianus and his work we know practically nothing. We gather from the “Lives” that he was wealthy, the owner of large estates in Sicily, and of a stately mansion on the Caelian Hill in Rome…Of Gregory’s mother, Silvia, we have again but scanty information. Like her husband, she appears to have been of good family, and in later life she became famous for ascetic piety. After the death of Gordianus she embraced a life of seclusion and went into retreat at a place called Cella Nova, close by the great door of the Basilica of St. Paul. Here, in after ages, stood an oratory dedicated to the blessed Silvia; and the patrician lady herself is still commemorated as a saint on the third of November.

Dudden then remarks on the aforementioned portraits as they were described by John the Deacon: 

Through a fortunate circumstance we are able to form a tolerable notion of the outward appearance of the Regionary and his wife, for Gregory had the pair painted in the atrium of St Andrew's Monastery, and three hundred years later the portraits were inspected by John the Deacon, whose interesting description of them is still extant. In the first painting the Apostle Peter was represented sitting, with his right hand clasping the hand of Gordianus, who was standing near. The Regionary was clad in a chestnut-colored planeta or chasuble, over a dalmatic, and wore shoes. He was a tall man, with a long face, light eyes, a short beard, bushy hair, and a grave expression of countenance. 

The second picture showed Silvia seated, robed in white — a lady of full height, with a round, fair face, wrinkled with age, yet still bearing traces of great beauty. Her eyes were large and blue, with delicate eyebrows, her lips were well-formed, her expression cheerful. With two fingers of her right hand she was in the act of making the sign of the cross. In her left was a Psalter, on the open page of which was inscribed with the verse, “Let my soul live, and it shall praise Thee; and let Thy judgments help me.”  

Full image of St. Gregory and his
parents from Dudden's frontispiece.
Click to enlarge. 

John's description leaves us with a pleasant impression of Gregory's parents, and the word-sketch of the aged mother has a special charm. But the whole account is valuable inasmuch as it helps us to understand some of the characteristics of Gregory's mind and character. For it cannot be doubted that Gregory inherited certain traits from each of the parents whose portraits he had painted in St Andrew's. Some physical resemblances to each are noticed by John. And it is not to be questioned that many also of Gregory's moral and intellectual peculiarities may be accounted for by means of the principle of heredity. From his mother he doubtless derived his almost feminine tenderness and power of sympathy, his innate bent toward asceticism, his religious mysticism, his self-sacrificing, self-effacing disposition. From his father, no less certainly, he inherited his administrative capacity, his legal acumen, his unswerving love of justice, and that inexorable severity towards hardened offenders which caused him to be feared, in some degree, even by those who loved him best. Thus the nature of the parents is reproduced in the offspring, and in the transactions of Gregory’s life we are again and again reminded, now of the grave-faced man of business and administrator of the Region, now of the loveable, ascetic woman who crosses herself as she ponders over the psalter.

Of Gregory’s sole sibling, Dudden says the following:

Gordianus and Silvia had two sons; one they called Gregory—the watchful…while of the other we have no record. That he existed is proved by two passages in Pope Gregory’s correspondence. But we know nothing about him, not even his name.

It seems that the mansion of Gordianus still exists beneath the foundations of San Gregorio Magno al Celio, and Dudden offers the following tantalizing glimpse into this portal to the ancient Church:

In the present day, the palace of Gordianus is no longer visible. Centuries have raised the level of the soil, and the church and monastery of San Gregoria, which occupy the site, are entirely modern. In 1890, however, a search of the cellars of the monastery revealed the fact that deep beneath the modern buildings the old house still exists in a marvelous state of preservation, and might easily be excavated without impairing the stability of the church above. Unfortunately, the projected excavation has not been carried out.

Based on a brief web search, no later excavations were undertaken and the marvelously preserved boyhood home of Saint Gregory the Great remains to be discovered by future generations. 

Some excerpts from Gregory the Great’s writings as they appear on this blog may be found below: 

• Saint Maurus Walks on Water ~ As told by Pope Saint Gregory the Great 
• The Curious Tale of Florentius and the Bear ~ early 6th Century Italy 
• "The blessed pope John, worn by illness, gave up the ghost and died in prison" ~ Pope Saint John I, a political martyr of the 6th century AD  
• When Saint Benedict met Totila, King of the Goths 
• "The fire marvelous strangely turned back" ~ Saint Marcellinus of Ancona 
• "Now, leave if you can" ~ Saint Scholastica and her brother, Saint Benedict 
• "Cut off a thong of his skin" ~ The martyrdom of Saint Herculanus AD 549

"With great haste and tears, he fell down before Zephyrinus" ~ August 26, feast of Pope Saint Zephyrinus

Natalius falls at the feet of Pope St. Zephyrinus, seeking forgiveness.

August 26 is the feast of Pope Saint Zephyrinus on the traditional Catholic calendar. Following is the entry for Zephyrinus that appears in the Liber Pontificalis: 

Zephyrinus, by nationality a Roman, son of Habundius, occupied the see 18 years, 3 months and 10 days [or 8 years, 7 months and 10 days]. 

He was bishop in the time of Antoninus and Severus, from the consulship of Saturninus and Gallicanus (AD 198) to the year when Presens and Stricatus were consuls (AD 217). 

Click for more info.

He decreed that in the presence of all the clergy and the faithful laity every cleric, deacon or priest, should be ordained. He also made a regulation for the church, that there should be vessels of glass before the priests in the church and servitors to hold them while the bishop was celebrating mass and priests standing about him. Thus mass should be celebrated and the clergy should assist in all the ceremony, except in that which belongs only to the bishop. From the consecration of the bishop's hand the priest should receive the consecrated wafer to distribute to the people. He held 4 ordinations in the month of December, 14 priests, 7 deacons, 13 bishops in divers places. He also was buried in his own cemetery near the cemetery of Callistus on the Via Appia, August 25. [Liber Pontificalis, page 19]

Another anecdote regarding Pope Zephyrinus may be found in the Eccelsiastical History of Eusebius. This story regards a man named Natalius who was persuaded by heretics to accept a bishopric for the sum of 150 denarii per month. Eusebius explains:

When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion. [Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 28]

It is also recorded by Eusebius that while Zephyrinus was Pope, Origin—the great theologian of Alexandria—visited Rome, "desiring, as he himself somewhere says, to see the most ancient Church of Rome."

There is some confusion as to whether Zephyrinus died a martyr under Caracalla or not. This obscurity has led to a general suppression of his cult in modern times and his feast was moved to December 20 after 1969, as this date is considered to be more reliable as the anniversary of his death.