Chapter XXI: Part 21

Some, whose sentiment appears most plausible to Toinard
and Calmet, distinguish the sister of Lazarus and
Magdalen; for this latter attended Christ the last
year of his life, and seems to have followed him from
Galilee to Jerusalem, when he came up to the Passover,
(see Mat. xxvii. 56, 57, Mark xv. 40, 41, Luke xxiii.
49,) at which time the sister of Lazarus was with her
brother and Martha at Bethania, (John xi. 1.) Moreover,
these two women seem distinctly characterized, the
one being called Magdalen, and being ranked among the
women that followed Jesus from Galilee, the other being
everywhere called the sister of Lazarus; and though
she might have possessed an estate at Magdalum in
Galilee, and have come originally from that country,
this constant distinction of epithets naturally leads
us to imagine them different persons; but St. Irenæus,
Origen, St. Chrysostom, &c., nowhere distinguish the
penitent and Magdalen: and St. Luke having mentioned
the conversion of the sinful woman (at Naim) in the
next chapter, subjoins, that certain women who had been
delivered by him from evil spirits and infirmities,
followed him; and among these he names Mary Magdalen,
out of whom he had cast seven devils; whence it may
seem reasonable to conclude that the penitent and
Magdalen are the same person.

This disputation, however, seems one of those
debateable questions which are without end, nothing
appearing demonstrative from the sacred text, or from
the authority of the ancients. In the Roman Breviary
the Penitent is honored on this day under the name of
Mary Magdalen, and for our edification the history of
all these examples of virtue is placed in one point of
view, as if they belonged to one person, conformably
to the sentiment of St. Gregory and others; but the
offices are distinct in the Breviaries of Paris,
Orleans, Vienne, Cluni, and some others.

[246] Job xx. 11.

[247] “Quâ spe? quâ fiduciâ? quâ confidentiâ? Quâ spe? illâ
quâ Pater est. Ego perdidi quod erat filii: ille quod
Patris est non amisit. Apud patrem non intercedit
extraneus: intus est in Patris pectore qui intervenit
et exorat, affectus. Urgentur Patris viscera iterum
genitura per veniam,” &c. St. Peter Chrysolog. Serm. II.

[248] The ancient Jews did not sit down on carpets spread
on the floor to eat, as the Arabs, Turks, and other
inhabitants of the countries about Palestine do at
this day. Their tables were raised above the ground.
Exod. xxv. 24, Jud. l. 7, Mat. xv. 27, Luke xvi. 21.
Neither Hebrews, Greeks, nor Romans used napkins or
table-cloths. Their ancient custom was to sit at table,
as we do now. Prov. xxiii. 1. But after Solomon’s time
the Jews leaned or lay down on couches round the table.
Amos, (iv. 7.) Toby, (xi. 3.) and Ezekiel (xxiii. 41.)
speak of eating on beds or couches; but this custom
was not general. It was become very frequent in our
Saviour’s time, who ate in this manner not only on
the present occasion, but also when Magdalen anointed
his feet, Mat. xxvi. 7, and at his last supper,
John xiii. 23, so that it seems to have then been the
ordinary custom of that country. The Jews seem to have
learned it from the Persians, Esth. i. 6, vii. 8. They
took two meals a day from the times of the primitive
patriarchs; but never ate before noon, Eccles. x. 16,
Isa. v. 11, Acts ii. 15. And their dinner was usually
rather a small refreshment than a meal; on fast-days
the Jews never ate or drank till evening. See Calmet,
Dissert. sur le Manger des Hebreux. Fleury, Mœurs des
Israelites et Mœurs des Chrétiens. Also Alnay, sur la
Vie Privée des Romains.

[249] S. Aug. Serm. 99, c. 6, ed. Ben. olim 23, ex. 50.

[250] Ferrarius, Daniel, Sanson, Calmet, and Monsieur Robert
agree in placing the castle of Magdalum near the Lake
of Genesareth, called the sea of Galilee.

[251] Luke viii. 2

[252] Some take Mary Magdalen to be the sister of Martha and
Lazarus, of whom mention is made in the life of St.
Martha. When Jesus, six days before his passion,
supped in the house of Simon surnamed the Leper, whilst
Martha waited on him, and Lazarus sat at table, Mary
anointed his feet and head with precious ointment which
she had brought in an alabaster box. The Greeks and
Romans practised the same custom of using sweet scented
ointments at banquets. Judas Iscariot murmured at this
action out of covetousness, pretending the price of the
ointment had better been given to the poor; but Jesus
commended Mary’s devotion, said that her action would
be a subject of admiration and edification wherever his
gospel should be preached, and declared that she had by
it advanced the ceremony of embalming his body for his
burial. Though Christ has substituted the poor in his
stead, to be succored by us in them; yet he is well
pleased when charity consecrates some part of our
riches to his external worship, to whom we owe all that
we possess. But nothing can be more odious than for
ministers of the altar, with Judas, to cover avarice
under a cloak of zeal. See John xii. 1, 2, 3, Mat.
xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3.

[253] Mark xvi. 2, Luke xxiv. 1, John xx. 1.

[254] St. Leo Serm. 2, de Ascens.

[255] John xx. Calmet, Vie de. J. C, ch. 37.

[256] Mat. xxvii. 9, Luke xxiv. 10.

[257] Certain Greeks, writers who lived in the seventh or
later ages, tell us, that after the ascension of our
Lord, St. Mary Magdalen accompanied the Blessed Virgin
and St. John to Ephesus, and died and was buried in
that city. This is affirmed by Modestus, patriarch of
Jerusalem in 920,[258] and by St. Gregory of Tours.
St. Willibald, in the account of his pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, says, that her tomb was shown him at Ephesus.
Simeon Logotheta mentions that the emperor Leo the
Wise caused her relics to be translated from Ephesus to
Constantinople, and laid in the church of St. Lazarus,
about the year 890. But these modern Greeks might
perhaps confound Mary the sister of the Blessed Virgin,
or the sister of Lazarus, or some other Mary among
those that are mentioned in the gospel with Mary
Magdalen. The relics shown in the monastery at Vezelay
in Burgundy, ten leagues from Auxerre in the diocess
of Autun, may be a portion of the body of St. Mary
Magdalen, or of some other Mary mentioned in the
gospel. This famous ancient monastery of Vezelay was
secularized in 1537; and the church, which is longer
than that of our Lady at Paris, is now served only by
ten canons.

[258] Hom. in Marias Unguenta ferentes.

[259] See Nat. Alex., sæc. 1, and Solier the Bollandist,
Julij, t. 5, who confirms the tradition of the
inhabitants of Provence, p. 213, § 14, and rejects
that of Vezelay in Burgundy, whither some pretend
that her body was translated out of Provence, ib.
§ 11, 12, 13, p. 207.

[260] These are the fruit of his pious meditations in the
chapel of the Magdalen, the favorite retired place of
his devotions, in which an excellent marble statue of
this great man on his knees, is erected in the church
of his Carmelite nuns at Paris. See his Works, p. 369
to p. 405.

[261] Serm. 128.

[262] Mab. Iter. Italic. p. 41.

[263] Famæ negociator, et vitæ. Tertul. Apol. c. 46.

[264] Philosophus gloriæ animal, et popularis auræ vile
mancipium. S. Hieron. ep. ad Julian.

[265] Lactant. l. de Origine Erroris, § 3.

[266] B. 6, ep. 1.

[267] Spicileg. t. 5, p. 579.

[268] Exod. xxxii. 10.

[269] Sanctorum precibus stat mundus. Ruffin. Præf. in Vitas
Patrum.

[270] Some derive the pedigree and names of the Muscovites
from Mosoch, the son of Japhet, who, with his brothers
Magog, Thubal, and Gomer, and their children peopled
the northern kingdoms. (Ezech. xxxviii. 6, &c.) These
are reputed the patriarchs of the Cappadocians, Tartars,
Scythians, Sarmatians, &c. See Bochart, Phaleg. l. 3,
c. 12, and Calmot. It seems not to be doubted, that
the Moschi, mentioned by Strabo and Mela, and situated
between Colchis and Armenia, near the Moschici Montes,
were the descendants of Mosoch. As the Scythians from
the coasts of the Euxine and Caspian seas afterward
penetrated more northwards in Asia and Europe, and as
the Cimmerii, who were the sons of Gomer, afterward
settled about the Bosphorus and Mœotis, so some
authors pretend that the Moschi passed into Europe,
and settled near them on the borders of the Scythians
and Sarmatians. But the Muscovites evidently take their
name from the city of Moscow, built about the year 1149,
so called from a monastery named Moskoi (from Mus or
Musik, men, _q. d._ the Seat of Men), not from the
river Moscow, which was anciently called Smorodina.
(See J. S. Bayei, Orig. Russiæ, t. 8, Acad. Petrop.
p. 390.) For the name of Muscovites was not given to
this tribe of Russians before the beginning of the
fourteenth century. It was assumed on the following
occasion: In 1319, Gedimidius, great duke of Lithuania,
having vanquished the Russian duke of Kiow, the
archbishop Peter removed his see to Moscow, and from
that town these Russians began then to be called
Muscovites; for the duke John, son of Daniel, soon
followed the archbishop, and transferred thither
the seat of his principality from Uladimiria: though
the archbishop of Kiow continued to take the title
of Metropolitan of all Russia. See Herbersteinus
(Chorographia Principatus Ducis Moscoviæ; also, in
Rerum Muscovitarum Commentar.) and more accurately
Ignatius Kulczynski, in Latin Kulcinius, a Basilian
monk at Rome. (Specimen Ecclesiæ Ruthenicæ, printed at
Rome in 1733, also Catalog. archiepisc. Kioviensium;
and Series Chronol. Magn. Russiæ seu Moscoviæ Ducum.)
Hence the name of Muscovites first occurs in
Chalcocondylus and other Greek historians about
that time. We are informed by these authors, and by
Herbersteinius, that these Russians were tributary to
the Tartar king of Agora in Asia from 1125 to 1506. But
since they shook off that yoke they have subdued the
Russians of Novogorod and other places in Europe, and
have extended their dominions almost to the extremity
of Asia in Great Tartary. See Bayer, Diss. de Russorum
primâ expedit. Constantinopolitana, t. 6, Comm. Acad.
Petrop. et Orig. Russiæ, ib. t. 8. Also Jos. Assemani,
De Kalend. Univ. t. 1, par. 2, c. 4, p. 275.

The name, Russi or Rossi, seems not to be older than
the ninth century. Cedrenus and Zonarus speak of them
as a Scythian nation inhabiting the northern side of
Mount Taurus, a southern region of Asiatic Scythia, now
Great Tartary. They are a nation entirely distinct from
the Roxolani, the ancient Sarmatians near the Tanais,
though these Russians afterward became masters of
that country, and took their name either from that
of Roxolani abridged, or from Rosseia, which in their
language signifies an assemblage of people. Constantine
Porphyrogenetta tells us, that the language of the
Russians and Sclavonians was quite different; and the
monk Nestor, in the close of the eleventh century,
the most ancient historian of Russia, in his chronicle
assures us, that the Russians and Sclavonians are
two different nations; but the great affinity of the
present Russian language with the Sclavonian shows that
the Russians, mixing with the Sclavonians, learned in a
great measure their language.

It is well known that, anciently, the southern parts
of Muscovy were inhabited by Goths, whom the Huns
or ancient Tartars from Asia, expelled in the fourth
century. Also that the northern part was peopled by
Scythians, whom the Muscovites still call by the same
name Tscudi, _i. e._ Scythians, and the lake Peipus,
Tschudzhoi. We learn from Constantine Porphyrogenetta
(l. De administ. Imper. c. 9,) that the name of Russia
was given in the tenth century to the country of
which Kiow was the capital, and which comprised also
Czernigov, Novogorod, &c. Snorro Sturleson (Hist. regn.
Septentr. t. 1, p. 6) says these people called their
ancient capital, situated towards the gulf of Finland,
Aldeiguborg or Old-Town, in opposition to which
Novogorod or New-Town, took its name. The Waregians,
invited by the Russians to defend them against the
Khosares, who lived near the Black or the Euxine Sea,
crossing the Baltic, settled among the Russians, it
is uncertain in what age. See T. S. Bayer de Varegis,
t. 4, Comment. Acad. Scient. Petrop. p. 275. Er.
Jul. Biæner, Sched. Hist. Geogr. de Varegis heroibus
Scandinianis et primis Russiæ Dynasts at Stockholm,
1743. Arvid. Mulleris De Varegia, 1731. Algol. Scarinus
de Originibus priscæ gentis Varegorum, 1743.

We know not in what age the Sclavonians obtained
settlements in the northern parts of Russia. They are
first named in Procopius and Jornandes, were part of
the Venedi, and with them from Sarmatia travelled into
Germany; where they settled for some time on the coast
of the Baltic, afterward in the centre of Germany
near Thuringia, and in Beheim or Bohemia, where they
long ruled and left their language. In the reign of
Justinian they crossed the Danube, and conquered part
of Pannonia and Illyricum, where a small territory,
fifty German miles long, of which Peter-waradin is
the most considerable place, between the Danube, the
Drave, and the Save, is still called Sclavonia: it was
conquered by the kings of Hungary, and is still subject
to the house of Austria. The Slavi fell everywhere
into so miserable a servitude, that from them are
derived the names of Slavery and Slaves. The Sclavonian
language is used in the divine office in Illyricum, &c.
according to the Latin rite; in Muscovy, &c. according
to the Greek rite. (See on SS. Cyril and Methodius,
22 Dec.) The Muscovites have no Russian Bibles; but
with very little study can understand the Sclavonian,
says Brusching.

In the year 892, Rurik, Simeus, and Tyuwor, three
brothers from the Warengi on the other side of the
Baltic, came by invitation into Russia, and ruled the
Sclavonians and Russians united into one nation. Rurik
survived his brothers, and became sole sovereign. The
Runic inscriptions in the northern Antiquities are not
of an older date.

Rurik fixed his seat near the lake Ladoga. His son
Igor transferred his court from Novogorod to Kiow.
His widow Olga received the faith, and was baptized at
Constantinople. Their son Suatoslas died an idolater;
but his son Wladimir the Great married Anne, a Grecian
princess, received baptism, and was imitated by his
subjects. He built the city which from him is called
Wladimiria, which under his grandson, Andrew Bogolikski,
became the ducal residence. Wladimir I. is honored
in the Muscovite Calendar. Kiow still has its dukes.
Jaroslas, son of Wladimir, was succeeded there by
his son Wsevolod I. in 1078, in whose reign Ephrem,
metropolitan of Kiow, established in Russia, pursuant
to the bull of Urban II. the feast of the translation
of the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari, on the 9th of
May, never known in the Greek church; which shows their
obedience to the pope, and their connection with the
Latin church. The Greeks also were then Catholics.
George duke of Russia at Wladimiria recovered Kiow,
and in 1156 built the city of Moscow. Jaroslas II.
succeeded his brother George II. in the great dukedom
of Russia in 1238, and resided in Wladimiria. In his
reign in 1244, the Russians were reunited to the see
of Rome, part having been a little before drawn into
the Greek schism. His son Alexander, in his father’s
life-time prince of Novogorod, with his brother Feodor
or Theodor, gained great victories over the Tartars,
who had long oppressed the Russians, and succeeded to
the great dukedom in 1246. He is surnamed Newski or of
Newa, from a great victory which he gained in 1241 on
the banks of the Newa, over the Poles and the Teutonic
knights in Livonia. Those knights, who by victories
over the idolaters had made themselves masters of
Livonia, had their own high master at Riga, who
soon made himself independent of the grand-master
of the same order in Prussia. This order, which was
dismembered from the Knights Hospitallers, or of
Jerusalem (afterward of Rhodes and Malta), to defend
the Christians in Germany against the inroads of the
barbarous northern infidel nations, long produced many
incomparably great heroes, and models of all virtues.
But enriched by great conquests, their successors,
by pride, luxury, and continual intestine wars, gave
occasion to several scandals. At length, Albert,
marquis of Brandenburg, grand-master in Prussia, turned
Lutheran, and received from the king of Poland the
investiture of ducal Prussia. The knights expelled
by him retired to Mariandhal in Franconia, and there
chose a new grand-master. He is chosen by the twelve
provincial commanders. William of Furstenburg,
Heer-meister of Livonia, also declared himself a
Lutheran, and in 1559 resigned his dignity to his
coadjutor Gotthard Kettler. He also being a Lutheran,
ceded part of Livonia to the Danes, and the chief part
to the Poles, receiving from the latter the investiture
of Courland and Samogitia as secular dukedoms; Livonia
fell under the power of Charles XI. of Sweden, but was
added to the empire of Muscovy by Peter the Great.

To return to the grand duke Alexander Newski, he
received an embassy from the pope in 1262, the contents
of which are not recorded. He died crowned with glory
at Gorodes near Nischui-Novogorod in 1262, on the 30th
of April, on which day his festival is kept in Muscovy,
and he is honored as one of the principal saints of the
country. The tczar Peter the Great built, in his honor,
a magnificent convent of Basilian monks on the banks
of the Newa in Livonia, not far from his new city of
Petersburg, the archbishop of which city resides in it.
The empress Catharine instituted, in 1725, the second
Order of Knighthood in Russia under his name. Their
daughter the empress Elizabeth caused his bones to
be put in a rich shrine covered with thick plates of
silver, placed at the foot of a magnificent mausoleum
in this monastery. The Muscovites relate wonderful
things of his eminent virtues, and miracles wrought
at his tomb. Pope Benedict XIV. proves that, upon due
authority, all this may be admitted even of one who had
died in a material schism, or with inculpable ignorance.
But this prince lived and died in communion with the
see of Rome, though he has never been placed in the
Calendars of the Catholic Church.

Daniel, fourth son of Alexander, left by his father
duke of Moscow, after the death of an uncle and three
brothers became Grand Duke; and from his reign in 1304,
Moscow became the ducal residence, till Peter I. gave a
share in that honor to his new city of St. Petersburg.

In the reign of Basil or Vasili II. in 1415, Photius,
metropolitan of Russia, residing at Kiow, having
espoused the Greek schism, was deposed by the council
of Novogrodek, under the protection of Alexander
Vithold, grandduke of Lithuania. Retiring into Great
Russia he there exceedingly promoted the schism.
Gregory, who succeeded him at Kiow, assisted at the
council of Constance. Iwan or John IV. is the first
who took the title of Tczar in 1552. This word in
the Russian language signifies king. In the Russian
Chronicles that title is given to the Greek emperors.
In their Bibles it is used for king, both in the
Russian and Sclavonian language.

In Feodor or Theodore ended, in 1598, the race of Rurik.
After two others who had been chief ministers and two
false Demetriuses, in 1613, Michael, of the family of
Romanow, allied to that of the preceding tczars was
chosen great duke. The third of this family was Peter
the Great, founder of the Russian empire.

[271] Possev. L. De Rebus Moscoviticis.

[272] Præf. ad Ephemer. Græco-Moschas, n. 11, p. 3.

[273] Dissert. de Russorum Conversione et Fide apud Acta
Sanctor. t. 41, seu vol. 2, Septembris.

[274] Constantine Porphyrogenetta succeeded Leo the Wise in
the empire in 911; in 919 he associated in the throne
his Drungar or admiral Romanus Lecapenus, whose
daughter Helena he had married. Romanus reigned in the
year 944; from which time his covetous daughter Helena
had a great share in governing the empire. Constantine
was buried in his studies, and dying in 959, fifty-four
years old, left the empire to his impious son Romanus
II., who is said to have poisoned him, and who died
in 963, leaving the empire to Nicephorus Phocas, his
valiant general, who had often defeated the Russians
and Saracens. His daughter Anne was married to Wladimir,
duke of Russia. Constantine Porphyrogenetta (l. de Cœm.
Aulæ Byzant. l. 2, c. 15) relates, that on Wednesday,
the 9th of September, 946, Olga, princess of Russia,
was received with great pomp at Constantinople by
Constantine (himself) and Romanus, emperors; and
describes her different receptions at their court,
the banquets which they prepared for her, the presents
in money which they made to her uncle of thirty
miliaretia (each of which contained two ceratia, each
ceratium twelve folles, of which five hundred made a
pound of silver), eight to her priest Gregory and to
each of her friends, to herself five hundred miliaretia
in a gold dish studded with diamonds and precious
stones. At each other entertainment like presents were
distributed. The dessert of sweetmeats was served on a
little gold table, in dishes made of or studded with
precious stones.

[275] See the Annals of the Russians in Hebersteinius, in
Rerum Muscovit. Comment. and Jos. Assemani, in Calend.
Univ. t. 2, p. 265, and t. 3.

[276] Syn. Zamosciania, tit. de Jejun. et Fest. p. 121. Jos.
Assemani, de Calend. Univ. t. 4, p. 65, t. 6, p. 497.

[277] The United Russians, who, renouncing the schism,
embraced the communion of the Roman Church, are chiefly
subject to Poland, and ever since Clement VIII. have a
metropolitan of Kiow (since Kiow was conquered by the
Muscovites these have established there their schism
with a metropolitan of their communion), an archbishop
of Plosco, and bishops of Kelma, Presmilia, Liceoria,
and Leopold, with several convents of Basilian monks,
who all follow the Greek rites; though several Russians
in the Polish dominions still adhere to the Greek
schism. See Urban Cerri’s (secretary to the Propaganda)
Relation, p. 56, and Mamachi, Orig. et Antiquit. Christ.
l. 2, c. 17, t. 2, p. 180. Papebroke, Not. in Ephemer.
Græc. Mosch. t. 1, Maij Bollandiani, p. 54, &c.

The metropolitan of Moscow was declared patriarch of
all the Russian schismatics by Jeremy, patriarch of
Constantinople in 1588, and was acknowledged in that
character by the other Oriental patriarchs. But the
czar Peter I. having learned from the experience of
above a hundred years that the patriarchs made use
of their great influence and authority in matters of
state, after that dignity had been vacant nineteen
years, caused it to be abolished, and an archbishop of
Moscow to be chosen in 1719. For the government of the
church of Muscovy, and receiving appeals, he appointed
a council of eleven bishops and other clergymen, the
president of which the czar nominates. See John Von
Strahlenburg (Historical and Geographical Description
of Russia and Siberia, an. 1738) and Le Quien. (Oriens
Christianus, t. 1, p. 1296.) Some Catholics enjoy the
exercise of their religion in several parts of Muscovy.
Kulcinius observes that many saints have flourished
in this nation since it has been engaged in schism.
Possevinus and Papebroke take notice that the Greeks
since their schism have been reunited to the Latin
church fourteen times. The latter of these learned
authors also remarks, that even when the archbishops
were most turbulent schismatics, no one will say that
all the people were involved in the same guilt; even
ignorance might excuse many, as Baronius answered,
with regard to monks who lived under a schismatical
abbot (ad an. 1036). As for Polish Russia, F. Kulesza,
a learned Polish Jesuit, in a book entitled, Fides
Orthodoxa, printed at Vilna, assures us, that all the
archbishops of Kiow have been Catholics, except two,
Photius and Jonas II., till in 1686 it was given up to
the Muscovites. By the intrigues of this Photius, in
the middle of the fifteenth century, the Greek schism
was propagated through all Muscovy.

[278] See Jos. Assemani in Calend. t. 6, p. 480, on the 15th
of July, et t. 4, p. 34, to 52.

[279] See Jos. Assemani in Calend. p. 471, t. 6, ad 10 Julij.

[280] Id. ad 5 Julij, p. 462, et t. 1, p. 21, 29.

[281] Ardmore (so called from its situation on an eminence)
stands on the sea-coast, not far from the mouth of the
river now called Broad-water or Black-water. The see
was united to that of Lismore after the arrival of the
English in Ireland; and this again to Waterford. See
St. Carthag’s life, 14 May.

[282] Mat. iv. 22.

[283] Luke v. 11.

[284] Luke ix.

[285] Julij, t. 6, p. 69. See on the same the learned F.
Flores, in his España Sagrada, t. 3, c. 3, de la
Predicacion de San Jago in España, p. 39, and his
answers to F. Mamachi, the Roman Dominican, prefixed
to his sixth tome. The mission of St. James in Spain
is defended at large by the learned Jesuit F. Farlat,
Illyrici Sacri Prolegom. part 3, t. 1, p. 252. See also
Card. d’Aguirre, t. 1, Conc. Hisp. p. 140, upon the
words of St. Jerom in Isaiæ c. 34, p. 279, t. 3.

[286] Diss. de Divisione Apost. ante t. 4, Julij, et in vita
S. Jacobi, t. 6, p. 71.

[287] Agrippa the Elder was a worldly man, addicted to
pleasures, yet attached to the Jewish religion. Of
this he gave a remarkable proof when the emperor
Caligula ordered a statue of Jupiter to be set up in
the temple of Jerusalem. The Jews opposed the attempt
with tears and remonstrances, and throwing themselves
prostrate on the ground at the feet of the Roman
governor, protested they were ready rather to suffer
death. But the murderers of the Son of God were
unworthy to die in so good a cause. Agrippa exposed
himself to the danger of losing the tyrant’s favor,
and by a strong letter, which he wrote to him on that
occasion, obtained that the order should be superseded
at that time. When that emperor was attempting to renew
it his death delivered the Jews from the danger.

[288] Eus. Hist. l. 2, c. 9.

[289] Agrippa was the first prince that persecuted the Church.
After having put to death St. James, he imprisoned St.
Peter, but God delivered him out of the persecutor’s
hands. Nor was it long before this king felt the
effects of divine vengeance. After the feast of the
passover he returned to Cæsarea to exhibit there public
games in honor of Claudius Cæsar, and was attended
thither with a numerous train of the must considerable
persons, both of his own and of the neighboring nations.
He appeared early on the second morning of the shows
at the theatre, in a costly robe of silver tissue,
artfully wrought, and so bright that the sunbeams which
darted upon it were reflected with such an uncommon
lustre, as to dazzle the eyes of the spectators who
beheld him with a kind of divine respect. He addressed
himself in an elegant speech, to the deputies of the
Tyrians and Sidonians, who were come to beg his pardon
for some offence for which they had been some time in
disgrace with him. Whilst he spoke, the ambassadors and
some court sycophants gave a great shout, crying out
that it was the voice of a god and not of a man. The
king, too sensible of the people’s praise, and elated
with pride, seemed to forget himself, and to approve,
instead of checking the impious flattery. But at that
instant the angel of the Lord smote him with a dreadful
disease, and he felt himself seized with a violent pain
in his bowels. Perceiving his distemper to be mortal,
he rejected the flattery of his sycophants, telling
them that he whom they called immortal was dying. Yet
still full of false ideas of human grandeur, though
he saw death inevitable, he comforted himself with
the remembrance of the splendor in which he had lived.
So true it is that a man dies such as he lives. After
lingering five days in exquisite torments, under which
no remedy gave him any ease, being eaten up by worms,
he expired in all the miseries that can be expressed or
imagined. This account is given us by Josephus (Antiq.
l. 19, c. 7), and by St. Luke (Acts xii. 23). He died
in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and the seventh of
his reign. The most learned Mr. Stukely in his medallic
history of Carausius, t. 2, c. 1, p. 72, will have it
that Agrippa was smitten four days after he celebrated
the Roman festival, in which the people made vows for
the emperor’s health and safety, marked in the ancient
Roman Calendar which he has published on the 4th of
January. It was, indeed, the festival of the emperor
Claudius, but after the passover, which happened that
year on the 10th of April, the equinoctial new moon
falling on the 28th of March. Herod Agrippa left a son
of his own name, who was then at Rome with Claudius,
only seventeen years old. The emperor would willingly
have given him his father’s dominions; but his freemen
and counsellors represented to him that an extensive
kingdom was too great a burden for so young a prince to
bear. Whereupon Judæa was again reduced into the form
of a Roman province, and Cuspius Fadus appointed the
first prefect or governor.

[290] See on the Translation of the body of St. James to
Compostella, F. Flores, the learned and inquisitive
Austin friar, rector of the royal college at Alcala,
in his curious work entitled España Sagrada (of which
the first volume was printed in 1747), t. 3, App.
p. 50 and 56.

[291]

“Christophore, infixum quòd cum usque in corde gerebas,
Pictores Christum dant tibi ferre humeris,” &c.

_Vida_, Hym. 26, t. 2, p. 150.

[292] Procop. de Ædif. Justin. l. 1, c. 2.

[293] Julij, t. 6, p. 250.

[294] 2 Tim ii. 5. 1 Tim. v. 4.

[295] Plutarch l. de Educand. liberis.

[296] Hist. Episc. Antisiodor. See Messieurs De Ste. Marthe,
in Gallia Christiana.

[297] Prosp. in Chron. et l. contra Collat. c. 21.

[298] Bede Hist l. 1, c. 17, Constant. in vita S. Germani.

[299] Vita S. Genevevæ.

[300] Hist. Episcop. Antisiod.

[301] Bede, Hist. l. 1, c. 1. Gildas ep. p. 17, 18.
Constantius in vitâ S. Germani. Carte, p. 184, 185.

[302] Antiq. Brit. c. 11, p. 179, 180. Carte, t. 1, p. 288.

[303] Carte, p. 184, 186, thinks the Alleluiah victory
gained over the Picts and the Saxons, and the other
transactions of St. Germanus in Wales, happened in his
second mission. For SS. Dubricius and Iltutus, whom he
ordained bishops, lived beyond the year 512, according
to some until 527 or even 540. Sir Henry Spelman and
Wilkins (Conc. Brit. t. 1, p. 1), on this account place
the synod of Verulam held by St. Germanus against the
Pelagians in 446.

[304] Bede, Hist. l. 1, c. 21. Bollandus and Henschenius in
vitâ S. Theliau ad 9 Februarij, &c.

[305] Stillingfleet, Orig. Britan. p. 349.

[306] Or. 3, de Imag.

[307] Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, 2.

[308] 4 Kings xx. 7. See Syn. Critic. and Mead, De Morbis
Biblicis, c. 5.

[309] Serm. 22, in Ps. 118.

[310] Regul. fus. explic.

[311] Ep. 345, ol. 321, p. 316, et in Cant.

[312] See Estius in Eccli. xxxviii.

[313] Ephes. v. 29, Aug. ep. 130, ol. 121, ad Probam.

[314] 2 Paral. xv. 12.

[315] Paulin. Nat. 9, or Carm. 24.

[316] Horat. l. 1, od. 3.

[317] _Pueri._ See Diss. de SS. 7, Dormient. c. 18, p. 65,
et c. 6, p. 11. The Menology of the emperor Basil,
printed at Rome in 1727, &c.

[318] Spon, Voyage d’Italie et du Levant, t. 1, l. 3, p. 327.

[319] St. Paulin. Carm. 24, and ep. 12. On the relics of St.
Nazarius at Milan, see the life of St. Charles Borromeo,
by Guissiano, in the new Latin edition, l. 5, c. 9.
p. 435, and the notes of Oltrocci, ibid.

[320] S. Bas. hom. de S. Gordio.

[321] S. Epiph. Hær. 54. Eus. l. 5, c. 28. Conc. t. 1.
Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. l. 2, c. 5.

[322] Eus. l. 5, c. 17. St. Hier. ep. 54, ad Marcel. Tert.
l. de Fugâ, de Pudic., &c.

[323] Tert. l. adv. Praxeam.

[324] S. Epiph. Hær. 46. S. Iren. l. 1, c. 31. Clem. Alex.
Strom. l. 3, p. 465.

[325] Tatian’s Oration against the Greeks is extant. In it he
displays much profane erudition, showing that Moses was
older than the Gentile philosophers, who borrowed the
sciences from the patriarchs. He wrote this piece after
the death of Saint Justin, but before his separation
from the Church: for in it he proves one God the
Creator of all things, and seems to approve the state
of matrimony. It wants method; but the style is elegant
enough, though exuberant, and not very elaborate. This
piece is often published at the end of the works of St.
Justin. We have an accurate separate edition, printed
at Oxford in 1700, with notes and dissertations, by
the care of Mr. William Worth, archdeacon of Worcester.
P. Travasa in his learned history of heresiarchs,
demonstrates against Massuet, &c., that Tatian’s
Oration against the Gentiles is not orthodox; and that
in it the author teaches that the human soul is of its
own nature mortal. See Travasa Storia Critica delle
vite degli eresiarchi, t. 2, at Venice, 1760.

[326] Ἀκοενωνησίαν ἑπέϛειλεν.

[327] Monti, Cler. Reg. S. Pauli, S. Th. Prof. Mediolani,
Dissertationes Theologico-historicæ tres, quarum prima
propugnat gratiam per se efficacem; Secunda agit de
Canonibus vulgò apostolicis; Tertia versatur super
dissidio de opportuno Paschatis celebrandi tempore.
Papiæ, 1760.

[328] Mem. Eccles. t. 3, p. 112.

[329] From this example, it is manifest, that the African
bishops referred greater causes, at least those of
faith to the holy see, and in them always allowed
appeals to it; though at that time they carried on a
contest with the popes Innocent, Zosimus, and Celestine,
against appeals being made in lesser causes of personal
facts, which it is often difficult to carry on in
remote courts, and which, if too easy and frequent,
are a bar to the speedy execution of justice. Yet such
appeals or revisions of causes are sometimes necessary
to hinder crying injustices and oppressions. Whence
the regulation of the manner of restraining appeals in
smaller ecclesiastical causes is a point of discipline;
but the general council of Sardica, which was an
appendix of the council of Nice, declared, that appeals
must be allowed from the whole world to the bishops of
Rome; and in this discipline the Africans soon after
acquiesced.

[330] St. Aug. Serm. 131, n. 10.

[331] _Dole_ in the old British language signifies a low
fruitful plain.

[332] Tours, which was the metropolis of the province of
Armorica under the Romans, enjoyed, from the time of
St. Martin, the metropolitical jurisdiction over Mans,
Angers, and the nine bishoprics of Brittany. Sampson
the elder, bishop of York, being expelled by the Saxons,
came into Armorica, and founded the see of Dole, in
which he exercised a metropolitical jurisdiction, which
king Howel or Rioval obliged him to assert, because
these Britons were an independent people, separate from
the Gauls. Sampson’s two successors, St. Turiave and
St. Sampson, enjoyed the same. The contest between
Tours and Dole was not finished till Innocent III.
In 1199, declared Dole and all the other bishoprics
of Brittany subject to the archbishop of Tours. See
D. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, p. 17, &c.

[333] Luke x. 38.

[334] Ibid.

[335] Cant. ii.

[336] 3, p. 9, 40, a. l. ad 2 et 3. Item 2, 2dæ. q. 182,
art. 1 et 2, in corp.

[337] L. de Perfect. Religios.

[338] Mat. xxvi.; John xii.

[339] Unicum mihi negotium est; aliud non curo quam ne
curem. Tert. l. de Pallio, c. 5.

[340] See the Chronicle of Norway by Snorro Sturleson, first
magistrate in the republic of Iceland in 1240.

[341] _Scot_ and _lot_ are originally Swedish or Teutonic
words, signifying tax. Romescot is a tax for Rome, and
Scot-Konung, the king’s tax. See baron Holberg, and
Mess. Scondia illustrata, t. 1.

[342] Aringhi Roma Subterranea, l. 1, c. 25.

[343] Noris, Diss. 3, de Epochis Syro-Macedonum.

[344] Apol. c. 21.

[345] Plato in Phædo.

[346] Act. ii.

[347] Act. xvi. 26.

[348] Constantine Cajetan, a Benedictin of the Congregation
of Mount Cassino, pretends this book to have been first
written by Gracias Cisneros or Swan, a Benedictin abbot
of Montserrat. But the work of that pious and learned
abbot is a very different piece, as is evident to every
one that will compare the two books, and as Pinius
demonstrates. That of Cisneros is indeed full of
unction and spiritual knowledge; but compiled in
a scholastic method, and runs into superfluous
subdivisions. The meditations of St. Ignatius are
altogether new, and written upon a different plan.
He appoints, for the foundation of these exercises, a
moving meditation on the end for which we are created,
that we fully convince ourselves that nothing is
otherwise to be valued, sought, or enjoyed, than
as it conduces to the honor and service of God. The
meditations on the fall of the angels and of man, on
the future punishments of sin, and on the last things,
show us the general effects of sin. To point out the
particular disorders of our passions, and to purge our
hearts of them, he represents to us the two standards
of Christ and the devil, and all men ranging themselves
under the one or the other, that we may be moved
ardently to make our choice with the generous souls
that follow Christ. Then he proposes what this
resolution requires, and how we are to express in
ourselves the perfect image of our Saviour, by the
three degrees of humility, by meditating on the
mysteries of Christ’s life, and by choosing a state
of life, and regulating our employments in it. By
meditating on Christ’s sufferings, he will have us
learn the heroic virtues of meekness and charity, &c.,
he taught us by them to fortify our souls against
contradictions; and by those on his glorious mysteries,
and on the happiness of divine love, he teaches us to
unite our hearts closely to God. See Bartoli, l. 1, &c.

[349] Exerc. Spir. Max. 2, 3.

[350] Ego vobis Romæ propitius ero. See F. Bouhours, b. 3.

[351] There is another religious Order, very famous in Italy,
established for the education of youth, called the
Regular Clergy of the _Schola Pia_. The founder was
F. Joseph Cazalana, a nobleman of Arragon. He took
priestly orders in 1582, and, going to Rome, devoted
himself with great fervor to the heroic practice of all
good works, especially to the catechising and teaching
of children. To propagate this design, he instituted a
congregation of priests, approved by Paul V. in 1617,
and declared a religious Order with ample privileges,
by Gregory XV. in 1621. These religious men bind
themselves by a fourth vow, to labor in instructing
children, especially the poor. The holy founder died in
1648, on the 25th of August.

[352] He appointed no other habit than that used by the
clergy in his time, the more decently and courteously
to converse with all ranks of people, and because he
instituted an order only of regular clerks. He would
not have his religious to keep choir, because he
destined their time to evangelical functions. He
ordered all, before they are admitted, to employ a
month for a general confession and a spiritual exercise.
After this, two years in a novitiate; then to take the
simple vows of scholars, binding themselves to poverty,
chastity, and obedience, which vows make them strictly
religious men; for by them a person in this Order
irrevocably consecrates himself to God on his side,
though the Order does not bind itself absolutely to
him, and the general has power to dismiss him; by
which discharge he is freed from all obligation to the
Society, his first vows being made under this condition.
These simple vows are only made in the presence of
domestics. The professed Jesuits make these same vows
again (commonly after all their studies) but publicly,
and without the former condition; so that these second
are solemn vows, absolutely binding on both sides:
wherefore a professed Jesuit can be no more dismissed by
his Order, so as to be discharged from his obligations
by which he is tied to it. In these last is added a
fourth vow of undertaking any missions, whether among
the faithful or infidels, if enjoined them by the pope.
There is a class of Jesuits who take the other vows,
without this last relating to the missions; and these
are called spiritual coadjutors. So this Order consists
of four sorts of persons; scholars or Jesuits of the
first vows; professed Jesuits or of the last or four
vows; spiritual coadjutors, and temporal coadjutors.

No particular bodily mortifications are prescribed by
the rule of the Society; but two most perfect practices
of interior mortification are rigorously enjoined, on
account of which Suarez (t. 3, de Relig.) who treats at
length of the obligations of their Order, calls it the
most rigorous of religious Orders; the first is, the
rule of Manifestation, by which every one is bound to
discover his interior inclinations to his superior; the
second is, that every Jesuit renounces his right to his
own reputation with his superior, giving leave to every
brother to inform immediately his superior of all his
faults he knows, without observing the law of private
correction first, which is a precept of fraternal
charity, unless where a person has given up his right.

The general nominates the provincial and rectors;
but he has five assistants nominated by the general
congregation, who prepare all matters to his hands,
each for the province of his assistency; and these have
authority to call a general congregation to depose the
general if he should evidently transgress the rules of
the Society. Every provincial is obliged to write to
the general once every month, and once in three years
transmit to him an account of all the Jesuits in his
province. The perfect form of government which is
established, the wisdom, the unction, the zeal, and the
consummate knowledge of men, which appear throughout
all these constitutions, will be a perpetual manifest
monument of the saint’s admirable penetration, judgment,
and piety. He wrote his constitutions in Spanish, but
they were done into Latin by his secretary, father
John Polancus. It is peculiar to the Society, that the
religious, after their first vows, retain some time
the dominion or property of their patrimony, without
the administration (for this later condition is now
essential to a religious vow of poverty), till they
make their renunciation.

St. Ignatius forbade the fathers of his Society to
undertake the direction of nunneries on the following
occasion. In 1545, Isabel Rozella, a noble Spanish
widow, and two others, with the approbation of pope
Paul III. put themselves under St. Ignatius’s direction,
to live according to his rule; but he soon repented
and procured from his Holiness, in 1547, the abovesaid
prohibition, saying, that such a task took up all that
time which he desired to dedicate to a more general
good in serving many. When certain women in Flanders
and Piedmont afterward assembled in houses under vows
and this rule, and called themselves Jesuitesses, their
institute was abolished by Urban VIII. in 1631, the
end and exercises of this society not suiting that sex.

[353] See his edifying life by Raderus and Sacchini.

[354] Bouhours, l. 4. Orlandin. Hist. Soc. l. 7, c. 25.

[355] The value of this treasure is enhanced by the elegant
dress by which it is set off in the French translation
of the abbé Regnier des Marais, three volumes in 4to.
four in 8vo. and six in 12mo. The devout abbé Tricalet
gave a good abridgment of this excellent work, printed
in 1760. The translation of Rodrigues made by the
gentlemen of Port-Royal is faulty in several places,
particularly, Tr. 1, c. 10.

[356] Orland. Hist. Soc. l. 16.

[357] Extant to Bartoli, l. 4, p. 372.

[358] L. 4, n. 29, 355.

[359] Bayle makes exceptions to the miracles of St. Ignatius
because Ribadeneira, in the first life of this saint,
which he wrote in 1572, inquires why his sanctity was
not equally attested by wonderful miracles as that of
the founders of some other Orders. “Quamobrem illius
sanctitas minus est testata miraculis,” &c. But in this
very edition, in the last chapter, p. 209, he writes:
“Mihi tantum abest ut ad vitam Ignatii illustrandam
miracula deesse videantur, ut multa eaque præstantissima
judicem in mediâ luce versari.” He then recapitulates
some facts which he had before related, and which he
esteems miraculous, as a rapture in which the saint
continued for eight days; so many wonderful, heavenly
illuminations and revelations; the restoration of
F. Simon, who lay dangerously sick, to his health,
pursuant to his prediction; the wonderful deliverance
of a demoniac; the cures of several sick persons; the
foretelling many particular things to private persons,
&c. The author republished this life in 1587, with some
additions. He afterwards wrote a Latin abstract of this
first life, in which he inserted many miracles. This
he calls “Alteram breviorem vitam, sed multis ac novas
miraculis auctam.” In this he tells us, that he had
before been more cautious in relating miracles, because
they had not yet been examined and approved; but that
he chose some which were esteemed miraculous, not in
the opinion of the common people, but in the judgment
of prudent persons. See this remark also in the Spanish
abstract of this life, published in 1604; and in the
Latin abstract reprinted at Ipres in 1612. In his
Spanish life of St. Ignatius, among his lives of saints,
printed in 1604, he writes thus: “Though, when I first
printed his life in 1572, I knew of some miracles of
the holy father, I did not look upon them to be so
verified (averiguados) as to think that I ought to
publish them, which afterward, by the authentical
informations taken for his canonization, were proved
true by credible witnesses; and the Lord, who is
pleased to exalt him, and make him glorious on earth,
works daily such miracles on his account as oblige me
to relate part of them here, taken from the original
juridical informations which several bishops have made,
and from the depositions made upon oath by the persons
on whom the miracles were wrought,” &c. Ribad. Spanish
lives, p. 1124. Moreover, Ribadeneira mentions in his
first and second edition of this life, prophecies,
revelations, visions, and the like miraculous favors,
and he expressly distinguishes these from the gift of
miracles, by which he means miraculous cures and the
like, though the former may be justly placed in the
general class of miracles. If the works of Ribadeneira
on this subject be all carefully perused, it will be
easy to discern the scrupulous accuracy of the author
in this point; and the candid reader will be convinced
how much some have misrepresented his testimony. Nor
was he allowed to publish miracles before they had been
approved, as the Council of Trent severely ordained.
(Sess. 25, de Inv. Sanct.) See on it Julius Nigronius
(Disp. Hist. de SS. Ignatio et Cajetano, n. 57) and
Pinius the Bollandist in his confutation of this
slander.

In the relation made in the secret consistory before
Gregory XV. of miracles which had been examined and
approved by the cardinal à Monte and other commissaries,
are mentioned the supernatural light shining on his
face at prayer, upon the testimony of St. Philip Neri
and F. Oliver Manerius. That St. Ignatius, by his
blessing and prayer, cured one Bastida of the falling
sickness, and the hand of a cook miserably burnt;
delivered Pontanus from most violent temptations with
which he had been grievously molested for two years,
&c.: but the miracles which are chiefly attended to
in a canonization, are those which have been performed
after the person’s death. Of such, many manifest ones
were approved, first by the Auditors of the Rota, and
afterward by the Congregation of Rites. Among these
are mentioned the following: Isabel Rabelles, a nun of
Barcelona, sixty-seven years old, in 1601, had broken
her thigh-bone; and being attended by a physician and
surgeon during forty days, and under grievous pains and
a violent fever, was expected to die that night, and
given over as to all natural remedies; when by applying
a relic of St. Ignatius, and saying the Lord’s Prayer
and Hail Mary, with an invocation of this saint, the
swelling of the thigh and leg went down, she found
herself able to stir both, and without any pain; and
calling for her clothes she got up, walked perfectly,
and with ease, and felt no more of her complaint,
not even at new moons or in the dampest seasons. Anne
Barozellona, at Valladolid, almost sixty years old, was
cured of a desperate palsy by invoking St. Ignatius,
with a vow to perform a novena. A widow who had
lost her sight in both her eyes, recovered it by
recommending herself to the prayers of Saint Ignatius,
and touching her eyes with a relic, &c. F. Jos. Juvency
(Hist. Soc. Jesu, l. 15, part 5, § 9) has selected and
related many like miracles of St. Ignatius. F. Daniel
Bartoli, in his life of this saint, has given a history
of a hundred such miracles (l. 5). See also the great
collection made by F. Pinius, the continuation of
Bollandus.

Though cardinal Pole thought circumstances did not
allow him to make any settlement for Jesuits in England,
as the author of the Monastic History of Ireland and
others take notice, that great and holy man highly
esteemed St. Ignatius and his Institute. See a letter
of Saint Ignatius to cardinal Pole dated at Rome, 24th
of January, 1555, and that cardinal’s answer to him
from Richmond, 8th of May; and another from London,
15th of December the same year; also his letter of
condolence to F. Lainez upon the death of St. Ignatius,
dated at London, 15th of November, 1556, published
among the letters of cardinal Pole collected by cardinal
Querini at Brescia, t. 5, p. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.

[360] The Jesuats of St. Jerom were at first all lay brothers,
and practised pharmacy; but, in 1606, obtained leave
of Paul V. to study and take holy orders. The houses
of the friars being reduced, they were suppressed by
Clement IX. in 1668; but some nunneries of this Order
still subsist in Italy. See the life of this saint,
and those of other illustrious persons of this Order,
written by Moriggia, a pious general of the same, who
died in 1604. Also the Bollandists and Helyot.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

The following corrections have been made in the text:

Day: 1, section: Table of Contents
- ‘Rumbold’ replaced with ‘Rumold’
(St. Rumold, Bishop and Martyr)

Day: 1, section: SS. JULIUS AND AARON
- ‘Caerlton’ replaced with ‘Caerleon’
(at Caerleon in the year 1200,)

Day: 1, section: SS. JULIUS AND AARON
- ‘Canbrensis’ replaced with ‘Cambrensis’
(Giraldus Cambrensis,)

Day: 3, section: SAINT GUNTHIERN
- ‘Guereck’ replaced with ‘Guerech’
(Guerech I., count of Vannes,)

Day: 4, section: SAINT ODO
- ‘Ethelwulf’ replaced with ‘Ethelwolf’
(who in the reign of king Ethelwolf)

Day: 4, section: ST. SISOES
- ‘Scete’ replaced with ‘Sceté’
(retired to the desert of Sceté,)

Day: 6, section: ST. MONINNA
- ‘Calgan’ replaced with ‘Colgan’
(See Colgan ad 6 Jul.)

Day: 9, section: ST. VERONICA
- ‘sead’ replaced with ‘send’
(begging Him to send me more torments.)

Day: 16, section: ST. EUSTATHIUS
- ‘Ceilier’ replaced with ‘Ceillier’
(Ceillier, t. 4,)

Day: 17, section: ST. LEO IV.
- ‘355’ replaced with ‘855’
(September in the same year, 855,)

Day: 18, section: ST. FREDERIC
- ‘Lewis’ replaced with ‘Louis’
(her marriage with Louis)

Day: 19, section: ST. SYMMACHUS
- ‘intsance’ replaced with ‘instance’
(never had been an instance of )

Day: 22, section: SAINT JOSEPH OF PALESTINE
- ‘month’ replaced with ‘mouth’
(from his own mouth the particulars )

Day: 25, section: SAINTS THEA AND VALENTINA
- ‘Firmillian’ replaced with ‘Firmilian’
(Firmilian, the successor of Urbanus)

Footnote 55
- ‘Ushur’ replaced with ‘Usher’
(Usher, p. 418.)

Footnote 56
- ‘Kilmrures’ replaced with ‘Kilmaures’
(from whom Kilmaures is named,)

Footnote 90
- ‘Arringhi’ replaced with ‘Aringhi’
(produced by Aringhi, Diss. 2, l. 3, c.)

Footnote 102
- ‘suffiicient’ replaced with ‘sufficient’
(seems of sufficient authority)

Footnote 103
- Footnote anchor missing in text.

Footnote 104
- ‘Villote’ replaced with ‘Villotte’
(and F. James Villotte,)

Footnote 139
- Omitted footnote symbol inserted in text.

Footnote 161
- ‘Charlemage’ replaced with ‘Charlemagne’
(Charlemagne marched into Italy,)

Footnote 171
- ‘supposititions’ replaced with ‘suppositions’
(are generally esteemed suppositions.)

Footnote 270
- ‘Russicœ’ replaced with ‘Russiæ’
(Orig. Russiæ, t. 8,)

Footnote 346
- Omitted footnote symbol inserted in text.