Chapter I: The Church’s Year (4)

But if, it is objected, the date of Christ’s birth is also given in the _Depositio Martyrum_, let us examine this document more closely. As the title indicates, it contains only the days of the death and burial of Roman martyrs and other martyrs venerated in Rome in the earliest ages, _e.g._ Cyprian, Perpetua, Felicitas. To these there are added two exceptions: VIII. Kal. Jan. (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem) and VIII. Kal. Mart. (the feast of St Peter’s Chair). Neither of these belong in any sense to a _Depositio Martyrum_, and on this account, De Rossi wished to change the title of the document to _Feriale Ecclesiæ Romanæ_. But in this he was mistaken. The MSS. have the title _Depositio Martyrum_ alone, and to change it would be arbitrary. The two days mentioned above, the 25th December and the 22nd February, must rather be struck out as later additions which do not belong to the document.

That such entries do not appear in the Calendar is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that soon afterwards succeeding emperors forbade the games of the circus and energetically suppressed heathen customs. When this had been done, the Calendar would no longer be of any practical use, and so it would not be worth while to make alterations in it. The other chronological pieces, however, had a permanent value, and it naturally occurred to those who used them later on to adapt them to the altered circumstances of the time.

We must now examine more minutely the notice of Christ’s birth given us in this document. It runs as follows: _I p. Chr. Cæsare et Paulo sat. XIII. Hoc cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII. Kal. Jan. de ven. luna XV._[308] Which means, Christ was born during the consulship of C. Cæsar Augustus and L. Æmilius Paulus (754 U.C.), on the 25th December, which was a Friday, on the fifteenth day of the new moon.

This notice gives rise to several questions. First of all the Epact is not correct, as according to our tables it ought to be 11.[309] But this need not detain us, as two or three peculiarities of this kind are to be met with in this list of the consuls. The error concerning the day of the week is more important. To expose this error we need only give the dominical letters for the years in question:—

751 U.C., Dom. let. F = 25th Dec., Wednesday.
752 U.C., ” E = ” Thursday.
753 U.C., ” DG = ” Saturday.
754 U.C., ” B = ” Sunday.

The compiler of this chronology might have set down the birth of Christ in either 754 or 753 U.C. 754 is a possible year, although the 25th December 753 is more probable, yet in either case the day of the week would be wrong. In 752, the 25th December fell on Thursday, but since 753 was a leap year, the dominical letter advances two places, and Friday is passed over. At the same time, there has been a fairly constant tradition that the 25th of December fell on a Wednesday in the year of Christ’s birth. In any case, the notice that the 25th December fell, in this year, on a Friday is based on a mistaken reckoning. This notice, then, does not represent a tradition, but is merely the result of a calculation which unfortunately is incorrect. Consequently the whole interpolation is undeserving of credit. We now pass on to a second point.

While all writers before 354 fix the year of Christ’s birth by the year of the Emperor’s reign, here, for the first time, it is fixed by the year of the consuls. This is a marked departure from the original usage. The forty-first or forty-second year of Augustus correctly converted into a consular year would have run: _Augusto XIII. et Silvano conss._ or _Lentulo et Messalino_, which would also be the year 751 or 752 U.C., according as the year of the emperor is taken as “_effektiv_” or not, _i.e._ according as one places Christ’s birth in the first or second half of the year.[310]

Moreover, when the chronographer dates the year of Christ’s birth in the consulship of “Cæsar and Paulus” (754 U.C.), he anticipates the Dionysian era some two hundred years before Dionysius, and, further, when, in accordance with a very ancient tradition, he places the year of Christ’s death in the consulship of the “_duo gemini_” (29 A.D.), he thus only allows twenty-eight and a quarter years for Christ’s earthly life, while St Luke (iii. 23) speaks of Him as having wellnigh thirty full years. Whoever he may have been who inserted this notice under the consulship of Cæsar and Paulus in the chronology, he certainly made a mistake. He also stands alone in placing Christ’s birth in the year 754 U.C., for the writers and annalists who wrote at a later date, such as Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Prosper, Hydatius, and even Cassiodorus, give other dates.

The anonymous compiler of this chronology differs also, both as to contents and form, from those who preceded him. While Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the pseudo-Cyprian, etc., fix the year of Christ’s birth by a year of the emperor, _i.e._ the forty-first or forty-second of Augustus, it is given in this document in the form of a consular year, and while the former give 751-752 U.C. as the year, the latter gives 754. All this creates great difficulty in accepting the evidence of the compiler.[311]

We must now deal with the day of the month given in the chronology, the 25th December, which, strictly speaking, alone is of importance in connection with the end we have in view, although it cannot well be separated from the previous question as to the year. It has recently been thought that Hippolytus afforded some very early evidence on this point, owing to a passage in his commentary on Daniel bearing upon the subject. However, this hope has proved deceptive,[312] since the passage in Hippolytus proves to be the addition of a much later hand; we are thus left with the chronology of 354 as the earliest evidence for placing the birth of Christ on the 25th December.

The result of our investigation of this compilation, made up of historical, chronological, and other materials, proves that the compiler, in collecting his materials in 354, added to the lists of consuls, which naturally he did not draw up himself, the notice that Christ was born under these particular consuls on the 25th December, because it was at that time the generally accepted date. It could only be widely accepted, when the festival of Christ’s birth had already been celebrated on this day, not recently but during a considerable period. It is very improbable that it had just been introduced by any one person in particular, such as the Bishop of Rome, for the first years of the reign of Liberius were very troubled and ill suited for the introduction of so important an innovation. Moreover, history shows that a thing like this cannot be done all at once by a stroke of the pen, or at the will of an individual, even though he be the Bishop of Rome, but is rather the outcome of a long period of preparation.

The compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in Rome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced there, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December. This statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage in Hippolytus is an interpolation, the _Depositio Martyrum_ and the _Depositio Episcoporum_ have been worked over by the hand of the same compiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without prejudice to their original contents.

Nevertheless attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other grounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and even in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt, without falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They reckoned as follows:—when the angel announced to Zachary his son’s birth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing the service of the Temple.[313] At the dedication of the Temple under Solomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned in 1 Paral. xxiv. 7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession throughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for a week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being the eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were re-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before, so soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[314] According to the assertion of Josephus,[315] this arrangement survived to his own time, and was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian era.

Since the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been calculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year of the Lord’s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season. This was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the destruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the restoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by the fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular performance of divine service was interrupted.[316] In the time of the Machabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three years. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses might be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or, at the re-establishment of worship, that course might undertake duty whose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or, finally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these cases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but which of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is not told us.

Even if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid foundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year, leaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to be accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during the week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at once. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again in autumn, St Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the year the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during the Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on duty as well.

We are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of Jerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[317] for again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared. If we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved. Even if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on account of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question whether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they ceased on the 8th Gorpiæos, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or on the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[318] It is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really the day of Our Lord’s birth.[319]

It follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the Redeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that even when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times when Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not wanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is the case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious writings of St Jerome: “Whether our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized to-day, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in the world, and according to the different traditions different views are maintained.”[320] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St Jerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to the gilded temples of Rome (_aurata capitolia_).

What then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning the true day of Christ’s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to answer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest writers in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to see that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain, and that those who were interested in the question did not agree among themselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second century. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian month Pachon (_i.e._ 20th May) as the day of our Lord’s birth. The Basilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (_i.e._ 10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings. The majority celebrated Christ’s birth on the 11th Tybi (_i.e._ 6th January).[321]

In a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St Cyprian, which deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The anonymous writer of this treatise (_De Pascha Computus_), which was composed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the true day of Christ’s birth,[322] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus sets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct interpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th December, and St Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of this opinion.[323]

The four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates. Their authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim in writing was to give information concerning our Lord’s life, and, even if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of fixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning time. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of winter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered it necessary that the inhabitants of Judæa should be enrolled each in his own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the census was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as the late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical tradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest times it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which commemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.

These are the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the 25th December as the actual date of the Nativity, and they must be taken into account by any one who desires to form a judgment for himself on this matter. The other questions relating to the same point are more easily disposed of.

Whether the accepted date is correct or not, we find it definitely set down by the chronographer of 354, who directly states that Christ was born on the 25th December (_natus est octavo Kalendas Januarias_), while it follows indirectly from his words that this day was solemnly observed as the day of His nativity. The Calendar ends with the year 354, and accordingly Christmas was observed then in the same way as at present. The year 354 brings us within the pontificate of Liberius, and it is just in his pontificate that we find further authentic evidence concerning the feast.

During his pontificate Liberius gave the veil to Marcellina, an elder sister of St Ambrose. This took place on the day of our Lord’s birth (_Natalis Salvatoris_), and on this occasion Liberius delivered a sermon preserved for us by Ambrose in his _De Virginitate_. In this work he recalls to his sister’s memory what the Pope had said: “When thou sealedst thy vow of virginity in St Peter’s by changing thy habit on the birth-day of the Redeemer—on what more fitting day could it have taken place than that on which the Virgin (Mary) brought forth her child—and in the presence of many of God’s hand-maidens who strove for thy companionship, he (Liberius) said, ‘Thou hast desired excellent espousals, my daughter. Thou seest what a crowd of people have come together to celebrate the birth-day of thy Bridegroom, and that no one goes away from hence unnourished. He it is who, when invited to the marriage, changed water into wine. He will vouchsafe the true secrets of virginity to thee, who until now hast been subject to the beggarly elements of nature. He it is who, with five loaves and two fishes, satisfied four thousand men in the wilderness.[324] He could have satisfied more had more been there. Finally, He has invited still more to thine espousals, not to give them barley-bread, but a Body from heaven.’”[325]

Liberius here represents taking the vows of religion under the familiar figure of a marriage. The marriage feast always forms part of every marriage, and accordingly it was the duty of the Bridegroom whom Marcellina had chosen to provide one. He had changed water into wine and fed thousands with a few loaves, but now He feeds a still greater number with His mystical Body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the thought running through the Pope’s address.

St Ambrose does not inform us of the year in which the ceremony took place at which Liberius spoke the above words. Liberius had been elected bishop of Rome (17th May 352) in troublous times under the Emperor Constantius, a strong Arian. As he refused to communicate with the Eusebius and protected St Athanasius, he was banished to Berœa at the end of 355, where he was compelled to remain until 357. The Archdeacon Felix, relying on the Emperor’s support, allowed himself to be consecrated bishop in his stead, but found no following in Rome. On this account, Constantius consented to the recall of the lawful bishop, and Liberius resided in Rome for the remainder of his pontificate, and died there in 366.

It is more probable that Marcellina’s clothing with the religious habit took place during the latter part of this pontificate. For according to the received opinion, St Ambrose was born about the year 340,[326] and thus in 353 he would have been only thirteen years old, and although his sister was older, yet in 353 she would not have been twenty-five, the canonical age for taking the veil.[327] Still it is not impossible that the ceremony and the address of Liberius took place between 352 and 354, and at any rate this much is certain that it took place on the 25th December and not on the Epiphany (6th January), according to the view formerly held.[328] There is no evidence that the Epiphany was observed in Rome, as it had been in the East, as the day of Christ’s birth, and Liberius in this address does not say that the commemoration of the miracles of the loaves and of the changing water into wine was being celebrated precisely on the day of Marcellina’s taking the veil, _i.e._ on the day of the Saviour’s birth (_Natalis Salvatoris_). These things were alluded to only because of their connection with the train of thought followed by Liberius in his address.

Nothing can be gathered from the words of Liberius as to when Christmas was first observed in Rome on the 25th December. In any case, it did not come into existence suddenly, but would require time, and, like other festivals, a considerable period would have to elapse before it became general and gained official recognition. Contemporary evidence on this point is wanting; one ancient witness, unfortunately not altogether reliable, speaks of Julius I. and not Liberius as the originator of Christmas.

We must now conclude by giving the view we have arrived at. In Rome a distinctive custom had arisen of celebrating Christ’s nativity on the 25th December, while in other quarters it was celebrated on the 6th January. How this was brought about must remain a matter for conjecture. It has been thought that in some places heathen festivals of various kinds were kept in the month of December; in particular, the Kikellia[329] was kept at Alexandria on the 25th December, in Bostra and Pella, a festival of local observance,[330] and in Rome, the Saturnalia began on the 17th December and lasted until the 23rd.[331] It is only natural that the winter solstice should give rise to a festival, and find its place marked in the Calendar of Feasts. Indeed, in the Roman Calendar of much later date—that of Philocalus—the 25th December is marked as the birth-day of the unconquerable Sun-God (_Natalis Solis Invicti_).

Since on the 21st December the sun reaches its lowest point, and then begins once more to rise higher in the heavens, man, in his simplicity, marked the day on which this change in the sun became perceptible as the new birth or birth-day of the sun, the invincible Sun-God. What was more natural for the Christians of that age than to connect this obvious natural event with the thought of the nativity of Him who is the Light of the World! Even if the Holy Scriptures had not suggested this idea, it must have presented itself to the Christian mind. The comparison of Christ with the sun, and of His work with the victory of light over darkness, frequently appears in the writings of the Fathers. St Cyprian[332] spoke of Christ as the true sun (_sol verus_). St Ambrose[333] says precisely, “He is our new sun” (_Hic sol novus noster_). Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeno of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc.[334]

Every child knows that Simeon addressed the new-born Messias as “a light to the revelation of the Gentiles,” and, since the Messias is also called by the Prophets the light in the darkness and the Sun of Justice, it is easy to see how such expressions passed into the Church’s liturgy for this festival.[335] It was natural for the Romans to set down the birth-day of this new Sun on the day marked of old time in their Calendar as a _Natalis Solis_, and observed as a festival by all the heathen inhabitants of Rome.[336] The choice of the day cannot be due to the desire to supplant the heathen festival, for it was not a festival of any special importance. But the similarity between the natural fact (the solstice) and the revolution in the spiritual sphere (Christ’s nativity), was sufficient to suggest the idea. It was not necessary to wait for the time of Constantine in order to hit upon this idea.

We must now return once more to the usages of the Church of Jerusalem and the festival observed there. The 6th January, indeed, was called in Jerusalem Epiphany, nevertheless the nativity of Christ formed an especially prominent feature of the commemoration.

A detailed description of the function is given in Silvia’s diary. Unfortunately the beginning is missing,[337] and the account opens with the return of the great procession which took place annually from Jerusalem to Bethlehem the evening before the feast. The next morning, the procession returned to Jerusalem and proceeded to the Church of the Anastasis, which was richly decorated. The monks remained all night in the church at Bethlehem, which, all through the octave, remained in festal array.[338] A procession to Bethlehem, on the Epiphany would have no meaning, if the baptism of Christ was the only event commemorated at that feast, for this, of course, took place in the Jordan. In Jerusalem, as in the other Eastern Churches, no special Christmas festival had been as yet instituted, still at the commencement of the fifth century there were some who regarded the Epiphany as the day of Christ’s nativity in the flesh, although, as St Jerome says,[339] the Son of God did not reveal Himself in flesh but rather concealed Himself. Indeed, if we are to believe Cosmas Indicopleustes, who lived in the middle of the sixth century, the nativity of Christ was commemorated at Jerusalem, and there only on the Epiphany—“a superstitious fancy,” as he calls it.[340]

On the other hand, it has been stated that Bishop Juvenal (425-458), who obtained for the Church of Jerusalem patriarchal rank, introduced the feast of Christ’s birth.[341]

Perhaps it was specially difficult to establish this festival in Jerusalem on the 25th December because another festival was already observed there on that day—the commemoration of David and the Apostle St James.[342] Their commemoration, along with that of St Joseph, is kept both by the Greek Church and the Church of Jerusalem on the Sunday before Christmas.[343]

A document already referred to, dating from the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century, affords an interesting proof of the manner in which these matters which we have placed before the reader were regarded at a later date. John, Bishop of Nicæa, who flourished about the year 900, endeavoured to induce the Armenians to adopt the 25th December as the day of Christ’s birth, and set down in an elaborate treatise the reasons he thought calculated to influence them. This composition is especially interesting because in it the introduction of Christmas is ascribed to a particular individual, none other than Pope Julius I. (337-352). Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) is said to have corresponded with him on this question. Even if, from point of view of dates, this were not impossible, the letter of Cyril would in itself give rise to suspicion.[344] For Cyril would have been more likely to introduce or establish the feast on another day, while it is historically certain it was not yet observed in Jerusalem in 385.

In this pretended letter, Cyril alleges as a reason for transferring the feast to a different day from the Epiphany, that it is impossible for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to keep both feasts on the same day with befitting solemnity. Bethlehem lies three miles west, and the Jordan fifteen miles east of Jerusalem. It is stated in this letter that a procession went to both places on the same day, and so it was impossible for the clergy to accompany both. The often quoted diary of the Gallic Pilgrim[345] shows us that the procession to Bethlehem actually took place, but she is silent about a procession to the Jordan. This is first mentioned by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century.[346] It only was possible when the Nativity had been transferred to another day. The writer of the letter has antedated a later practice and certainly was not Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem.

The manner in which this letter brings forth evidence in favour of choosing the 25th December for the Nativity of Christ is also interesting. Titus, says the supposed Cyril in this letter to Pope Julius, had carried off all the books of the Jews to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem. There they still remain, and Julius might make a search to see if the true birth-day of Christ cannot be discovered.[347] Julius then discovered from the writings of Josephus that Zachary had seen the vision of the angel in the Temple in the seventh month, on the Day of Atonement, which on that occasion had fallen on the 23rd September. On that day his son, St John the Baptist, was conceived, who was born on the 24th June following, but Christ, according to St Luke i. 36, was born six months later, on the 25th December.

As regards the liturgical celebration of the feast, the oldest sermons on the _Nativitas Domini_ which have come down to us, are those of Zeno of Verona († 380).[348] They are purely moral exhortations, and throw no light upon the date of the feast. He has no sermon for the Epiphany, and it may be inferred he did not observe it or that it was identified with the Nativity.

The representation of the crib on a side-altar or some other conspicuous place in the church is a special feature of the Christmas festival at the present day. This remains in the church until Epiphany, or even to the 2nd February. The Christmas crib dates back to St Francis of Assisi, who, with the permission of the Pope, set up in 1223 for the first time a representation of the child Jesus in the manger.

It is also the custom to celebrate three Masses, of which the first, according to the ancient use, commenced at midnight. As the words of the Mass show, this first Mass commemorates the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, the second commemorates His Incarnation and birth into this world, the third His birth through grace, in the hearts of sinners. The Gelasian sacramentary mentions the _trina celebratio_. The custom is one which reaches back to early Christian times. Gregory the Great mentions it in _Hom. viii._ in _Evang._ The Leonine sacramentary contains nine different formularies for Christmas, but the other western rites, including the Mozarabic, have only one Mass for the feast. The Menology of Basil Porphyrogenitus gives the flight of Mary into Egypt on the 26th December, and St Stephen only on the following day.

Since the 25th December was only chosen for reasons of a more or less accidental and external character, so too the days which immediately follow—St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents—have no real connection with Christmas, although they are of very ancient institution. The 26th December was already a special festival in the fourth century, as appears from the sermons of St Augustine (_Sermo_ 314, c. 1), though he knows nothing of the two following days. The 220th sermon, which celebrates the Holy Innocents, is spurious.[349] They appear, however, in the African Calendar of the sixth century. On the Innocents’ Day in the Middle Ages the schoolboys used to elect a bishop who was nothing more than their leader, and the ceremony was quite harmless. For this ceremony, as well as for the crib and other popular customs still practised, the reader is referred to Heuser’s elaborate articles in the _Kirchenlexikon_, iv²., 1395-1436.

The introduction of Christmas and its appointment on the 25th December brought about the establishment of three other festivals: 1. the feast of the _Circumcisio Domini_, eight days after the Nativity, according to St Luke ii. 21, (_postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer, vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus_). 2. The Annunciation on the 25th March, which is also the day of Christ’s conception, and so is placed nine months before the 25th December. The historical evidence for this day is on a par with that for Christmas. 3. The Nativity of St John the Baptist, on the 24th June. Another consequence was that the festival of the _Occursus Domini_ (ὑπαπάτη), _i.e._ the meeting of our Lord with Simeon in the Temple, on Candlemas Day, which was observed in Jerusalem before the introduction of Christmas, had to be transferred to another day. According to the regulations of the Jewish Law in Lev. xii. 6, the period of uncleanness after birth lasted forty days. And according to St Luke ii. 22, Mary submitted to the Law in this respect. So long as our Lord’s birth was commemorated at Epiphany on the 6th January, the 15th February was the fortieth day after the Nativity, and so, as a matter of fact, the festival of the _Occursus Domini_ was celebrated in Jerusalem on this day in 385.[350] But when the Nativity came to be celebrated on the 25th December, the other festival had to be placed thirteen days earlier, on the 2nd February, as it is at the present time.[351]

2. _Advent and the Sundays until Septuagesima_

Christmas, like Easter, besides its Vigil and Octave, has also a considerable period of preparation. This, naturally, could only come into existence after the institution of the festival, and indeed a certain time had to elapse before it was organised. Since Christmas itself was first observed in the middle of the fourth century, it is not remarkable that the earliest clear reference to Advent, from an official source, dates from the end of the sixth century.

Some sort of preparatory season to Christmas, however, existed before this. As in the case of Easter, this preparatory season was marked by a fast commencing on St Martin’s Day (11th November), and lasting until Christmas. All Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were fasted as in Lent. Such was the preparation observed in Gaul since the appointment of the festival by Bishop Perpetuus of Tours († 491). The same observance existed in other parts of Gaul, for the first Council of Maçon (581) prescribes exactly the same order, and also that from St Martin’s Day to Christmas the Mass shall be the same as during Lent—the first sign of the liturgy for Advent. In the province of Tours there was a similar enactment, although affecting the monks alone, ordering them to fast through the whole of December.[352] The Roman Church did not observe the fast, although she treated Advent as a liturgical portion of the Church’s year and incorporated it therein.

Although the Greek Church has not marked the preparation for Christmas in her liturgy, still she has observed the fast since the eighth century. This begins on St Philip’s day (the 14th November), and continues for six weeks until Christmas. According to the Mozarabic and Milanese rites, this is the length of Advent. The Copts observe an Advent fast beginning on the 19th Athyr (15th November).[353]

Once the observance of Advent had been established in Rome, it spread throughout the entire West. In Spain we find it extended over five Sundays according to the Lectionary of Silos, dating from about 650. It took longer to make its way in France, although the way had already been prepared for it by Perpetuus of Tours. The service-books of the seventh century, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, and the so-called _Missale Gothico-Gallicanum_, edited by Mabillon, commence with the _Vigilia Natalis Domini_, without Advent. In Rome, the institution of Advent cannot be traced further back than to the sixth century, for the sermons of St Augustine and Leo I. make no mention of it. Unmistakable evidence for its observance is found for the first time in the homilies of Gregory the Great.[354]

The want of uniformity in the duration of Advent in different parts of the Church is due to the fact that local Churches, conformably to the ancient discipline, acted independently of each other. Thus, in Rome Advent lasted only four weeks, as we gather from the Gregorian sacramentary, which provides three Sundays in December with collects _de adventu Domini_, and a _dominica vacans_; in the Appendix, however, five Sundays are reckoned before Christmas.[355] The first traces of Advent are to be sought for in the lectionaries, as, for instance, in that drawn up by Bishop Victor of Capua (546-547), and used by St Boniface.[356] This contains four Epistles for the Sundays before Christmas (de Adventu). The Gelasian sacramentary has five Sundays in Advent, but it has obviously been revised for the use of the Frankish Churches. All service-books containing only four Sundays in Advent belong to the Roman rite.

In course of time the divergence between the Roman and Frankish uses became noticeable and gave rise to confusion. Amalarius remarks: In all missals and lectionaries there are five Sundays in Advent, but in the Antiphoner there are only three offices and a _Dominica vacans_, and the Gregorian missal has only four Sundays in Advent. In support of five Sundays, it was urged that from the beginning of the world until the Christian era five of the seven ages of the world had passed. Even in the tenth century, opinions were expressed in favour of five weeks. It was urged that, according to the other practice, if Christmas fell on a Monday, Advent strictly speaking lasted only three weeks. Abbo of Fleury († 1004) is witness to the existence of a twofold practice in a later period.[357] In the eighth century, an Advent of four weeks was observed in France wherever Roman influence extended. Berno of Reichenau in his writings on Advent is only occupied with the question how to deal with the vigil of Christmas when the 25th December falls on a Monday. The Micrologus does not mention an Advent season of five weeks, nor does Beleth.[358] A deviation from this custom appears in the Milanese and Mozarabic rites which prescribe a duration of six weeks for Advent, thus bringing it into conformity in this respect with Lent.

At first Advent was regarded merely as a time for penance and mortification in the same way as Lent. On this account, it was widely observed as a time of fasting, although the Church had nowhere so ordered it. Later on, again, Advent was regarded as a type or memorial of the Old Testament or the time before Christ. However, the view that the four weeks of Advent typify the four thousand years from Adam to Christ, impressive as it is, finds no support from the Liturgy. On the contrary, the lections from Genesis in the Breviary begin in Septuagesima, while during Advent the lections are taken from the Prophet Isaias.

As far as the lections from Scripture are concerned, the Gospel for the second Sunday in Advent recounts our Lord’s Messianic labours, while His birth is only commemorated some two or three weeks later. The Gospel for the first Sunday speaks of the end of the world, not, as one would expect, of its creation. The mediæval lectionaries, moreover, replace St Luke xxi. 25 _et seqq._ on this Sunday with the Gospel _Cum appropinquasset Jerusalem_, etc. (St Matthew xxi. 1 _et seqq._),[359] and the preceding Sunday is sometimes called _Dominica in præparatione Adventus_, or _Dominica Quinta ante Natalem Domini_, in which we see a remnant of the more ancient reckoning. The collects of the Mass express the hope of the Messias and the longing for His appearance.

We must also consider Christmas in connection with the festivals which follow in the course of the year, such as the Circumcision of our Lord, which, of course, falls on the eighth day after Christmas, the _Octava Domini_, the Epiphany, and Candlemas Day. Thus quite naturally, as it were, a cycle of festivals has grown up round Christmas Day.

We may also mention the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas with its Gospel giving the account of the meeting of Jesus and His parents with Simeon and Anna. The Gospel for the Sunday after New Year’s Day records the flight into Egypt. The Sundays after Epiphany form connecting links between Christmas and Easter, varying from two to six, according as Easter falls earlier or later. Only the two first Sundays have any distinctive character, the first commemorating the visit of our Lord to the Temple at the age of twelve years, and the second His first miracle at Cana of Galilee.[360] The remaining Sundays, along with Septuagesima and Sexagesima, do not commemorate any historical event in their lections from Scripture; Quinquagesima and the Sundays in Lent direct our attention to the approaching Passion. In the case of the Sundays three to six after Epiphany, this is intentional, since they are liable to be transferred from their proper place to the end of the year when necessary.

The Sunday in the Octave of Christmas, or, as it was formerly called, the Sunday after Christmas, has as its Gospel St Luke ii. 33-40, which gives the account of Simeon’s prophecy. Chronologically speaking, this passage comes before its time, for, in St Luke’s Gospel, it comes after the passage chosen as the Gospel for Candlemas (St Luke ii. 22-32), of which it forms the continuation. In the last verse (ii. 39), mention is made of the return from Jerusalem or Bethlehem to Nazareth. The events, however, which follow in the course of the Church’s year—the circumcision and the arrival of the Wise Men—must have happened before the return to Galilee.

3. _The Octave of Christmas. The Circumcision. The New Year_

Since Easter, after the example given by the Synagogue, was from the first observed with an octave, and, since Epiphany had its octave already in the eighth century, it was inevitable that Christmas should be provided with one also. Accordingly, the eighth day after Christmas bears the name _Octava Domini_ (In Octavas Domini) in the Gelasian[361] and Gregorian sacramentaries, whence it may be inferred that it was not yet regarded as an independent festival and passed unnoticed if it fell on a week-day.

On the other hand, it was partially observed as a popular holiday, at least it gave occasion in many places for popular rejoicings,[362] being the day on which the Roman Calendar began a new year. In Ravenna it was marked by dancing and masquerades, against which Peter Chrysologus inveighed in his 155th Sermon. Since he forbids Christians to put in even an appearance at these entertainments, they must have been of an objectionable nature. It was the same in Gaul even in the sixth century and later. The second Council of Tours, and the Councils of Auxerre and Rouen (650) were compelled to forbid these rejoicings. With a view to counteracting their influence, the bishops exhorted the faithful to attend divine service on this day, and appointed somewhat earlier penitential processions (_litaniæ_) to be privately performed in atonement for the sins committed at this season.[363] In Spain, the eleventh canon of the fourth Council of Toledo commanded a strict fast and abstinence for the same object, and the Allelujah was omitted from the psalmody. In 650, a law of the Kings Recceswinth and Erwig made the Kalends of January a festival of obligation.[364] In Rome, in the eighth century, the people spent the nights dancing in the streets to the scandal of pilgrims from the north, as Boniface informed Pope Zacharias. These abuses lingered longest in France though divested of their heathen character. Late on in the Middle Ages, we find a remnant of them in the so-called Feast of Fools, at which ecclesiastical customs were travestied by the election of a Bishop of Fools and by all sorts of misconduct in the churches. Things became so bad that the papal legate, Cardinal Peter, felt compelled to order Odo, Bishop of Paris, to pronounce excommunication on all who took part in such proceedings. The bishop prohibited the abuse in the strongest manner in 1199, but in spite of repeated ecclesiastical censures, it continued on into the fifteenth century, as appears from a report of the theological faculty of Paris in 1444.[365]

The 1st January appears as an ecclesiastical festival at Rome for the first time at the beginning of the ninth century, where it is called from the first _Circumcisio Domini_, the name which it bears among the Greeks, Syrians, and Copts.

We have already observed that in the Gregorian sacramentary the 1st January is simply called _Octava Domini_. The same is also the case in the Calendar of St Geneviève, edited by Fronteau, which was written between 714 and 731.[366] In the _Homiliarium_ of Charlemagne compiled by Paul the Deacon between 786 and 797, the day is still called _in octavas Domini_, i.e. _Calendas Januarias_.[367] The change of name must have been effected shortly after this. Although among the sermons of Zeno of Verona,[368] there is one on the circumcision of our Lord, this only proves that he treated of this subject in his discourse, and affords no evidence for the existence of the festival. In the Calendar of Charlemagne, edited by Piper, dating from between 731 and 781, the name _Circumcisio_ occurs, so too in the list of Festivals of Sonnatius. On the other hand, the Gregorian sacramentary written, under Archbishop Otgar, about 840 for the monastery of St Alban near Mainz, has only _Octava Domini_.

The idea and date of this festival are derived from St Luke ii. 21, since eight days after birth our Lord was circumcised and received His human name, which, according to Jewish usage, was given at the same time. Later on, a special feast in honour of the Holy Name was instituted and appointed for the second Sunday after Epiphany. Its celebration was permitted to the Franciscans by Clement VII. in 1530, but the cultus of the Holy Name is due in a great measure to the influence of St Bernardine of Siena. On 20th December 1721, Innocent XIII. appointed this feast to be observed by the whole Church.

The Liturgy makes no reference to the commencement of the civil year, although in the lectionary of Silos this day is called _Caput Anni_.

4. _The Epiphany_

As the name Epiphany implies, the origin and early celebration of this festival is to be sought in the East. Among the Syrians, it is called _denho_, or “Going forth,” in the sense of “_oriens ex alto_” (St Luke i. 78). Among the Greeks, it goes by the name of τά ἐπιφάνια or ἡ ἐπιφάνιος sc. ἡμέρα, and θεοφάνεια. For the most part, the Latins employed the Greek name, or an equivalent, such as _Festivitas Declarationis_, used by Leo the Great, _manifestatio_, by Fulgentius, or _apparitio_ by others.[369] The root, from which the Greek ἐπιφαίνω is derived, was employed to describe the dawn, and the adjective ἐπιφανής was applied to the appearances of the gods bringing help to men.

These names sufficiently disclose the idea commemorated by the feast—the commemoration of the appearance of the Son of God on earth in general, with special reference to those occasions in His life on which His divine sonship was revealed in some distinctive manner. Prominent among those occasions were His Nativity, the worship of the three wise men from the East, the baptism in Jordan with its accompanying theophany, and the miracles through which He manifested His divine power, especially the first miracle at the marriage in Cana. Accordingly people spoke of divine manifestations, in the plural, for the name _dies epiphaniarum sive manifestationum_ was known to the heathen.[370]

The feast was kept on the 6th January. The first indication that this day was marked in some special way in the Christian Calendar is given by Clement of Alexandria, who says that some of the orthodox in his day regarded it as the birth-day of Christ, while the Basilidians observed the 10th January.[371] This of course does not prove that the 6th January was observed at that time in Alexandria as a festival. Origen omits it from the list of festivals he gives in _C. Cels._, 8, 22. It appears, however, among the writings of Hippolytus, in an earnest exhortation which he addressed to a candidate for baptism shortly before the day of the “Divine Manifestations” (εἰς τὰ ἅγια ἐπιφάνεια), when baptism was to be received. He starts with the baptism of Jesus, and then treats of the effects of baptism, and of worthy preparation for its reception.[372] A much later writer, who is however not to be quite disregarded, Bishop John of Nicæa in the ninth century, traces back the institution of the festival to disciples of St John.

Epiphany commemorates several events in the life of Jesus by which He manifested His divinity. One of these is His baptism by St John in Jordan,[373] for, according to the scriptural narrative, at the time of His baptism a voice from heaven was heard proclaiming Jesus to be the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost visibly appeared in bodily shape as a dove. The baptism in Jordan is the special event commemorated by Epiphany among the Easterns, _e.g._, in the oldest Coptic Calendar Epiphany is called _Dies Baptismi Sanctificati_, and in a later one _Immersio Domini_.[374] The earliest existing sermon on the day—the homily of Hippolytus—treats exclusively of the baptism of Jesus. Chrysostom, in addition to the baptism, speaks of our Lord’s second coming in Judgment as an event commemorated by the festival. On account of its connection with the baptism, this festival has among the Greeks the secondary title of “Feast of Lights,” (ἑορτὴ τῶν φώτων);[375] and in Ireland, contrary to the ancient custom of the Church, solemn baptism was administered on this day.[376]

The second event commemorated on the 6th January is the visit of the three Wise Men who, by their gifts, recognised Christ as God and Man and Redeemer, and worshipped Him as the long expected King of the Jews. The Wise Men found the divine Child still in Bethlehem, though no longer in the stable, as artists usually represent the scene, but in a roofed house[377] where His parents were temporarily lodged. The evangelists give no indication how long after the Nativity this took place.

The visit of the Magi appears as the sole event commemorated by Epiphany in the six sermons of Augustine delivered on the feast (Sermons 199-204). Fulgentius in his four sermons on Epiphany treats only of this event and of the slaughter of the innocents.

The Mass in the Gelasian sacramentary refers in the collects and preface only to these mysteries, and not to the two others, and the Gospel[378] relates the visit of the Magi.

The third event commemorated is the first miracle performed at the marriage in Cana, by which our Lord manifested His divine power. This threefold commemoration is still recognised in the present Roman liturgy, and finds expression in the antiphon to the _Benedictus_, which runs: “On this day the Church is joined to her celestial Bridegroom, because Christ washed away her sins in Jordan, the Magi hasten with gifts to the royal espousals and the guests are gladdened with water changed into wine.”

Polemius Silvius notices the three events in his Calendar on this day. Paulinus of Nola[379] expressly mentions them. They are especially dwelt upon and distinguished in a sermon of Sedatus, Bishop of Béziers, in the sixth century.[380] Maximus of Turin was acquainted with the threefold commemoration, but doubts if they all actually happened on the same day, the 6th January.

Later on, in mediæval times, there was a tendency to include under the Epiphany other manifestations of Christ’s divine power, such as the miracle of the loaves, and the resurrection of Lazarus.[381]

There is hardly any trace in the West of Epiphany as the festival of our Lord’s birth,[382] and even in the East this significance of the feast was forgotten after the institution of Christmas. Lingering traces of the earlier conception which had not quite died out in the East, may perhaps have been the occasion of a polemic from St Jerome,[383] when he declared that the Epiphany had never been regarded as a festival of Christ’s nativity.

By the introduction of Christmas, Epiphany naturally lost its character as the day of Christ’s birth, even in those parts of the Church where it had originally been regarded as such. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Chrysostom, as introducer of Christmas, felt compelled to explain to his hearers more particularly the difference between the feasts. Christ, he says, did not appear at His birth openly and to all, but only to a few persons, and so little was His divinity manifested thereby that St John the Baptist was able to say: “There hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not.” From the moment of His baptism, His divinity was evident to all, and consequently the festival instituted in honour of the baptism of Jesus bears the name of Epiphany. Moreover, there is yet another and a fuller appearance of the Lord which will take place at the end of the world. Hence the necessity, according to St Chrysostom, of celebrating in addition to the Epiphany a special festival in honour of Christ’s birth.[384]

Epiphany first appears with an octave in the Calendars of the eighth century. In the Gregorian sacramentary it is without an octave, but has a vigil. In the Calendar of Fronteau the festival is kept up for three days.

One of the special observances connected with the feast was the publication on the 6th January of the annual pastoral letter of the Patriarchs of Alexandria—the _epistola festalis_—announcing the date of Easter for the current year. In 541, the fourth Council of Orleans (can. 1) ordered the same thing for the West, also the Councils of Auxerre in 578 and 585 (can. 2). In the Middle Ages the dates of the other movable feasts were added to the date of Easter (Pontif. Rom.), as is still done in some places, as for example, Turin, at the present day.

The festival was kept with special solemnity at Jerusalem, as we learn from the description of it given by the Gallic Pilgrim. Unfortunately, the beginning with the special account of the feast is missing, but there is no doubt that the foregoing paragraph described the Epiphany, for the succeeding festival is spoken of as _quadragesima de Epiphania_ (c. 26).