Chapter IV: Part 4

To overcome this difficulty, the rock over and round the grave must be cut away, and room must thus be gained as was sufficient for the erection of a basilica or church, large or small, directly over the Crypt or Cubiculum, which contained the Martyr’s tomb. The damage done to such catacombs, thus cut away by the builders of these basilicas, was incalculable; thousands of early Christian graves must have been sacrificed for the preservation of the one grave specially selected for peculiar honour.

This, Lanciani tells us, is the origin of the greatest Sanctuaries of Christian Rome; such as the Churches of S. Paul on the Via Ostiensis, S. Sebastian on the Via Appia, S. Petronilla on the Via Ardeatina, S. Agnes on the Via Nomentana, S. Lorenzo on the Via Tiburtina; these and other sacred historical structures owe their existence to the martyr’s grave over which these churches were built, a grave which no human hand was allowed to touch or to transfer to another and more convenient place.

* * * * *

This was the genesis, the origin of the idea of the Crypt beneath the church. The desire to possess a Crypt in early mediæval times was widely spread. As a rule, though, as we shall presently explain, not always was the Crypt the resting-place of some noted martyr. In Gaul and on the banks of the Rhine these crypts were fairly general in the early Middle Ages: their retention, enlargement, and reconstruction was largely due to the sentiment and tradition of the very early age of Christianity.

In Gaul, in the Merovingian period, in the more important churches they seem to have been very usual; for instance, we still possess the Crypts of S. Avitus of Orleans (sixth century), the Crypt of Jouarre and parts of the Crypt of Vézelay, supposed to contain the remains of S. Mary Magdalene, S. Medard of Soissons; large portions of the vast Crypt of Chartres, the Crypt of the Cathedral of Auxerre, and certain parts of the Crypt of the famous Church of S. Benignus of Dijon, one of the largest existing. The underground Church of S. Seurin of Bordeaux dates, however, from the eleventh century, as does also the famous and vast Crypt of S. Eutropius of Saintes.

On the banks of the Rhine and in the Eastern districts of Gaul, dating from the eleventh century, and even somewhat earlier, we may cite as prominent examples the Crypts of Besançon and Strasburg, and the great underground Church of Spires.

In Anglo-Saxon England, we have the Crypts of Ripon and Hexham, both the work of Wilfred in the seventh century, a little later that of Wing in Buckinghamshire, and somewhat later still, Repton.

In the early Norman period we have in England the important Crypts of Winchester, Worcester, Rochester, Gloucester and Canterbury (in parts). The Oxford and York Minster Crypts were built as late as in the last part of the twelfth century.

But then they came to an end. The vogue of building Crypts ceased soon after the famous action of Suger, Abbot of S. Denys near Paris, who, in A.D. 1144, probably owing to the impossibility of providing for the vast crowds of pilgrims to the Shrines of S. Denys and his two companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherus in the Crypt of the abbey, brought up from the underground Church of S. Denys the remains of the three saints, and placed them near the high altar of the church above, where they could be more easily seen and visited by the pilgrim crowds.

The example of Abbot Suger seems to have been largely followed, notably at Canterbury, where the body of S. Thomas à Becket, a most popular object of pilgrimage, was removed from the under to the upper church in A.D. 1248.

This general removal of the remains of the saints and confessors from their original place beneath the church, to a position hard by the high altar of the main building above, seems to have taken away completely the traditional interest of the Crypt. It now was never constructed. In the planning of an abbey or of any considerable church the Crypt found no place; and thus the vogue which had prevailed for so many centuries passed away completely.

Singularly enough the great Cluniac Brotherhood of Benedictines, with its two thousand churches, scattered over the countries of the West, never seems to have adopted the Crypt as a part of any of their many homes of prayer. There is little doubt that the example of so mighty and influential a section of the Church of the twelfth century also contributed largely to the disuse of this most ancient and interesting feature, which for some ten centuries or more had occupied a place in the planning of so many of the more important abbeys and homes of prayer in the West.

To sum up, the Crypt was entirely a Latin and Western use; it was virtually unknown, and practically non-existent outside the broad area of Latin Christianity. The custom of the Eastern Church received it not. It belonged exclusively to the Western school of Romanesque architecture. It is interesting to remember that as the school of Romanesque building gave place to another and different school of architecture, the Crypt virtually disappeared. No purely Gothic Crypt can be quoted or referred to.

In the first place it was undoubtedly understood to be the resting-place of the remains of the famous saint or confessor after whom, in so many cases, the church built over the Crypt in question was named, and to whose honoured memory the church was dedicated. But it came to pass, when the vogue or fashion of constructing a Crypt or under-church became very general, that not unfrequently we find this under-church, sometimes of considerable size and importance, designed and planned _without_ the presence of any of these hallowed remains dating from far-back days. Such, for instance, was the vast Gloucester Crypt. No tradition exists in Gloucester of the remains of any saint or confessor ever having been laid to rest in the wide ambulatory or in the central division of that most venerable and solemn under-church which lies beneath the stately Cathedral of Gloucester.

THE CRYPT OF S. PETER ON THE VATICAN HILL

THE STORY OF A TOMB

There was one Crypt of remarkable sanctity--that of S. Peter at Rome. It was the favourite object of all Western pilgrimage from the last years of the first century--and it retained its far-reaching popularity for many centuries.

This Crypt which contains the remains of the great Apostle, with the “Memoria” of Anacletus immediately above it, may justly be considered to have set the vogue which prevailed in the planning of a Crypt in so many important churches of Western Christianity, from the fourth until the end of the twelfth century.

The immense and enduring estimation in which this Crypt of S. Peter at Rome was held for so many centuries, has determined the writer of these studies to describe it with some detail--and to tell its eventful and striking story at some length.

In the year of grace 70, Jerusalem and her glorious temple were burnt and destroyed by Titus and his Legions, who saw in Jerusalem, the sacred city and citadel not only of the rebel Jews, but also of the hated Christian sect. There is no doubt but that from the year of the great catastrophe Rome gradually became the acknowledged centre and metropolis of Christendom--it had no longer any recognised centre when Jerusalem was destroyed.

This position has been altered and the influence of Rome has been dimmed, and to a certain extent materially diminished by certain other centres of Christianity which have arisen. But she holds it to a certain extent still. _Constantinople_ the home of the widespread Eastern or Greek Christianity, and later _Moscow_ after the fall of Constantinople, were important religious centres. _London_ among the far-reaching Anglo-Saxon peoples may claim, with some reason, the lofty title of the Metropolis of the Christian world.

Yet after all these great religious centres have been reckoned with, Rome, though her old fame and influence has been sadly tarnished and dimmed, still ranks first. The Eastern or Greek Church, changeless in the midst of change, silently watches _her_ loved metropolis of Constantinople all spoiled and desecrated, in the hands of unbelievers. The Protestant Churches dear to the Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic peoples, reluctantly perhaps, sadly without doubt, in their hearts still think of Rome as the centre or metropolis of that living faith in the Crucified which has been adopted as the religion of the fairest and most powerful portion of the world.

* * * * *

S. Peter is regarded by Roman Catholic writers (as might have been expected) as the founder of the Roman congregation--many too among Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic scholars now accept this view. This conclusion undoubtedly is supported: (1) by the general testimony of early Christian writers mostly of the second century; (2) by the important traditional “Memories” of the presence and preaching of S. Peter in Rome. Some of these “Memories,” it is true, are purely traditional, others have clearly an historical foundation; but taken all together, they constitute an argument of no little weight. In the written testimonies, as well as in the “Memories” which hang round the figures of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome, who are generally joined together as founders of the great Church of the Metropolis of the Empire, it is notable that Peter, not Paul, ever is the principal figure; (3) the place which the two mighty Basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul have ever occupied in the minds and hearts not only of the dwellers in Rome, but also of all the innumerable pilgrims in all ages to the sacred shrines of Rome, seems accurately to measure the respective positions which the two great Apostles have ever held in the estimate of the Roman congregation.

The comparative neglect of S. Paul’s Basilica in Rome when measured with the undying reverence bestowed on the sister Basilica of S. Peter, is due, not to any want of reverence and regard for the great Apostle of the Gentiles, but solely because Rome itself and the innumerable pilgrims to the Queen City were conscious of the special debt of Rome to S. Peter, who was evidently in all ages regarded as the first and real founder of the mighty Church of the Capital.

This great and revered teacher S. Peter suffered martyrdom about the year 66-67. Somewhere about A.D. 69, when the violence of the terrible persecution of Nero, who perished A.D. 68, was dying away, the Christian worshippers in Rome prepared a tomb in the nearest available spot to the place of his martyrdom on the Vatican Hill. This tomb was a vaulted chamber almost entirely subterranean.

This sacred sepulchre was visited from very early days by ever large and increasing numbers of the faithful, not only belonging to the Roman congregations, but including pilgrims from all parts of the Roman world who wished to pray at the sacred tomb; these visitors were undeterred by any danger of arrest and death. Pilgrimage to the holy places of Jerusalem was impossible since a heathen temple had arisen on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. It was therefore to Rome, and especially to the tomb of S. Peter, that the early pilgrim devotees of Christendom chiefly turned.

But the original sepulchre or vault where the remains of S. Peter rested[26] provided but little space for pilgrims, and was not indeed very easy of access. So Anacletus, who followed Linus as Bishop of the Roman Church, A.D. 79-87, built a “Memoria” or upper chamber immediately above the tomb to serve as a little church or meeting-place for the ever-increasing numbers of pilgrim visitors. This “Memoria” of Anacletus was constructed by simply raising the walls of the tomb or crypt to a higher level, and was of the same shape as the vault itself; thus, as it were, providing a chamber for the pilgrim visitors on the floor immediately above the actual tomb.

This little upper chamber of the tomb, which was above ground, is the “Tropæum” spoken of by Caius the presbyter, when, in A.D. _circa_ 210, he writes as follows: “I can show you the trophies of the Apostles, for whether you go to the Vatican or on the Ostian Way you will meet with their ‘trophies’” (_i. e._ of SS. Peter and Paul who founded the Church in Rome).

But in addition to building the little upper chamber or “Memoria” of the tomb itself, Bishop Anacletus prepared places, or graves, in which he himself and a certain number of his successors might be buried round S. Peter.

In this sacred burying-place, in these graves prepared by Anacletus round the Apostle’s tomb, were the early second-century Bishops of Rome laid, close to the resting-place of S. Peter, and it is these graves which were laid open in the excavations of which we shall presently speak, in the year 1626.

* * * * *

There is no record of the exact date of the building of the Basilica of S. Peter, but there can be no doubt that it was really, as immemorial tradition has asserted, the work of Constantine the Great after he became absolute master of the Roman world.

We should put the date probably shortly _after_ A.D. 324, in which year the yet earlier Basilica of the Lateran was consecrated. The inscription which still runs along the west front of the Lateran Church--

“Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia, omnium urbis
et orbis ecclesiarum Mater et Caput”--

voices the ancient tradition that the consecration of the great Lateran Church preceded the building of S. Peter.

The venerable dedicatory inscription originally on the principal arch which spanned the nave of S. Peter recorded the name of its imperial builder:

“Quod duce Te Mundus Surrexit Ad Astra Triumphans
Hanc Constantinus Victor Tibi Condidit Aulam.”

The entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_, presently quoted, tells of the first Christian Emperor’s special work in the vault or crypt of the Apostle’s tomb.

It was over this sacred tomb and the little “Memoria” above it that Constantine erected the magnificent church known as Old S. Peter’s. Before the days of Constantine, the humble “Memoria” of Anacletus represented the church above the tomb. Under the first Christian Emperor, the little “Memoria of Anacletus” grew into the magnificent Basilica[27] renowned for centuries through the Western world.

But here we have only to do with the tomb and the immediate work above it in the “Memoria” of Anacletus. The entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_ gives us a precise account of what the Emperor Constantine did in the vault of the tomb.

“He hid away the stone coffin which contained the body after this manner: He enclosed the coffin altogether in bronze, and then built up (_i. e._ filled the vault) with masonry. After this manner he enclosed the body of the blessed Peter and hid it away.”

There is no doubt, however, that the Emperor, in enclosing the sarcophagus of the Apostle with solid masonry, left clear a little space actually above the coffin in the ceiling of the vault, for the same entry goes on to tell us that Constantine made a gold cross and placed it above the bronze covering of the coffin. This gold cross was seen gleaming through an opening as late as A.D. 1594. We know too that in the early Middle Ages, objects of devotion were occasionally lowered from the church above, through the ceiling, and these objects were revered as bonâ fide precious relics of the Apostle whose coffin they had touched.

* * * * *

Here the entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_ ends, and the particulars of any work which Constantine carried out in the “Memoria” of Anacletus, which had been built above the tomb, we can only learn from its present appearance and from detached notices which occur in later entries of the _Liber Pontificalis_ which tell us of the splendid gifts made to this “Memoria” by the Popes and others in the following centuries.

Directly above the “Memoria” it is clear that Constantine, when he built the great church, placed a heavy stone altar. This had to be supported by strengthening the comparatively slender walls of the “Memoria.” The vault of the tomb filled up, save directly above the sarcophagus, with solid masonry, provided a firm foundation, and the “Memoria,” which was now divided into two chambers, was made strong with additional masonry. The lower of the two chambers was completely filled up save for a small opening or passage which led directly down to the vault of the tomb.

The walls of the upper chamber of the “Memoria” were also strengthened with masonry sufficient to support the great altar placed immediately above it, but enough space was left to form the Confessionary, part of which still exists beneath the great altar.

Thus direct communication with the sacred vault of the tomb itself existed by means of the narrow opening or passage through the lower chamber above mentioned, by means of which handkerchiefs or similar objects could be let down so as to touch the sarcophagus in which lay the remains of the Apostle. This opening or passage was closed with two small gratings carefully locked. These gratings are generally known by the term “cataracts”--the one at the lower end, which was in fact the ceiling of the vault, which ceiling consisted of one or more marble slabs; the other on the top of the opening or passage, on the floor of the upper chamber of the “Memoria”--which became the well-known Confessionary.[28]

We possess in the writings of S. Gregory of Tours a vivid description of the manner in which pilgrims to Rome revered the sacred shrine in early times. The description in question was given to S. Gregory by his deacon Agiulphus who had made the pilgrimage. The account is given us by S. Gregory in his book called _In gloriâ Martyrum_, written about the year of grace 595. We append a translation of the words here of S. Gregory--

“S. Peter is buried in a church called from ancient times the Vatican.... His sepulchre, which is placed under the Altar, is exceedingly rarely entered. However, if any one desires to pray, the gates by which the place is fenced are opened, and he goes in above the sepulchre, and then, having opened a little window, puts his head within and makes request concerning his needs.

“Nor is the result delayed, if only the petition be a just one. For if he desires to carry away with him some blessed memorial, he throws within a little handkerchief that has been carefully weighed, and then watching and fasting, he prays most fervently that the Apostle may give an effectual answer to his devotion. Wonderful to say, if the faith of the man prevails, the handkerchief when it is raised from the tomb, is so filled with divine virtue that it weighs much more than it did before, and then he who has raised it knows that he has obtained the favour which he sought.

“Many also make golden keys to unlock the gates of the blessed sepulchre, and then they take away those which were used before, as a sacred treasure, and by these keys the infirmities of the afflicted are cured. For true faith can do all things.”

Mgr. Barnes in his work on S. Peter’s tomb gives a detailed explanation of the above report of Agiulphus to S. Gregory of Tours.

“The actual sepulchre, the subterranean chamber in which the sarcophagus (of S. Peter) was placed, was scarcely ever opened, and was not, even at that early date (late in the sixth century), accessible to ordinary worshippers. The most that they could hope for, was to visit the Confession under the Altar ... the pilgrim passes on, throws himself with his body prostrate within the recess, raises the little window or grating which closed the aperture in the floor, and so puts himself in communication, not indeed with the tomb itself, but with the space which intervened between the Confession and the vault, which space had once formed the lowest part of the old upper chamber or ‘Memoria’ of Anacletus.”

From the vault and the actual sepulchre he was still shut off by a second grating or cataract--which was unlocked for him.

Through these two gratings, when opened, the handkerchief or other object was lowered so as to touch the tomb, and this could be carried away as a precious relic.

* * * * *

By the early Popes and Bishops of Rome, and other illustrious persons, notably by Pelagius II, A.D. 579-590; S. Gregory, A.D. 590-604; Sergius, A.D. 687-701; S. Gregory III, A.D. 731-741; Paul I, A.D. 757-768; Hadrian I, A.D. 772-795; and S. Leo III--Hadrian’s successor--were magnificent and costly offerings bestowed upon the sacred shrine. These decorated with unexampled magnificence the Confession, the Altar and the canopy above.

In the reign of Paul I, King Pepin of France was also a munificent donor to this famous shrine.

These gifts consisted in gold and silver coverings for the canopy of the altar--in costly mosaics--in precious marble columns--in pavements of silver--in railings and gates of gold--in superb candelabra. Many of these costly gifts are chronicled with much care and detail in entries in the _Liber Pontificalis_.

A specially interesting entry in the _Liber Pontificalis_ tells us how Charlemagne, accompanied by Pope Hadrian, was permitted to enter the vault of the tomb--the only visit to the sepulchre itself that is recorded. The few words which tell of this, perhaps solitary, visit of the great Frankish sovereign and the Pope are memorable--

“Descendentes pariter ad Corpus beati Petri.”

* * * * *

In the time of Pope Sergius II, we read of another imperial visit to Rome. The Emperor Louis II, A.D. 845, was received with the same ceremonial respect as his great predecessor Charlemagne. He, too, prayed before the Confession, but there is no allusion to any visit to the body of S. Peter. The sacred vault indeed seems to have been, even in these far-back centuries, very rarely if ever entered. Charlemagne’s visit was probably never repeated.

Only two years after Louis II’s visit occurred the destructive raid of the Saracens. For several years these Mahommedan invaders, who had taken possession of Sicily, had ravaged the Italian coasts. They had plundered the great Monastery of Monte Cassino, and in A.D. 847 appeared before Rome. This raid was not unexpected, for some of the treasures seem hastily to have been removed to a more secure home within the walls of the city.

No attempt to move the great bronze-covered sarcophagus was evidently thought of, but the entrance to the vault was concealed by pouring down stones and rubble through the upper opening below the Confession, completely filling up the space between the two cataracts or gratings, which thus escaped the notice of the plundering invaders, who, however, carried off many of the treasures, the gifts of the Popes and other distinguished persons to which we have alluded above, which adorned the shrine.

The Saracens only stayed in the vicinity of S. Peter’s for some eight days, and then retreated. There is little doubt but that the “earthing up” the narrow passage which led to the sacred vault where the sarcophagus lay, the filling it up with the stones and rubbish which _still_ effectually blocks up all access to the tomb itself, must be dated from the period of this raid of the Saracens in A.D. 847.

Much was done by S. Leo IV, A.D. 847-855, and his successors in the Papacy, to restore the damage done and the havoc wrought by the Saracenic raiders; but the passage to the tomb itself was never again opened. Many beautiful and costly gifts were often made to the shrine, and especially to the Confession, by various Popes and illustrious visitors and pilgrims, among whom the Anglo-Saxon Ethelwolf, the father of Alfred, must be included. But in spite of these efforts and gifts the shrine never again reached anything like the glory and magnificence which it possessed before the terrible incursion of the Saracen invaders in A.D. 847.

For more than a thousand years there has been no access to the vault of the tomb; and no serious attempt, for various reasons, has ever been made to restore the original communication which once evidently existed between the floor of the Confession and the sacred chamber which held, and no doubt holds still, the bronze-covered sarcophagus of S. Peter.

We possess no accurate contemporary details of this disastrous Saracenic raid, as the manuscripts of the _Liber Pontificalis_ are deficient here.

* * * * *

A story of surpassing interest is told by Bonanni (_Templi Vaticani historia_), the authenticity of which is accepted by Marucchi, Lanciani, Barnes and other scholars and experts.

In the spring of A.D. 1594, when the works connected with the new S. Peter’s were going on, Giacomo della Porta, the architect in charge, reported to Pope Clement VIII that a portion of the ground in the vicinity of the tomb had given way, and through an aperture thus uncovered the interior of the chamber of the tomb could be seen.

The Pope, accompanied with three Cardinals, at once visited the spot, and with the aid of a lighted torch the sarcophagus was visible, with the great golden cross of Constantine lying upon it. Clement VIII, after viewing the strange sight, immediately ordered the aperture to be closed with cement in his presence. The names of the Cardinals, who were well known, were Bellarmine, Antoniano and Sfondriato.

* * * * *

The building of the new S. Peter’s was slowly drawing to its completion, when in A.D. 1607 Pope Paul V planned to bring the ancient Confession of S. Peter into sight. In the new planning of the church, this Confession was concealed in the Crypt, and any access to it was almost impossible.

Maderno, the artist and architect, designed and carried out the present arrangement of the great church, which provided for the worshippers an approach to the old Confession--the recess under the high altar. In these works of Maderno, the workmen employed came upon the forgotten cemetery of the Vatican, arranged in the first century by Bishop Anacletus. The “find” was one of extraordinary interest. Torrigio, a “beneficiato” of the basilica, was present when the discovery of this most ancient cemetery was made, and has left us an account of what he saw. Accompanying his description was a plan drawn by Benedetto Drei, the clerk of Maderno’s works.

Of the rare plan in question, a rough drawing has been preserved, and has been of the greatest use in elucidating the more detailed and accurate description of the sacred spot, which description was made a few years later, _circa_ A.D. 1626, when under Urban VIII (Cardinal Barberini), Pope from A.D. 1623-1644, it became necessary to strengthen the foundations of the new mighty bronze Baldachino of Bernini, and elaborate and careful work was undertaken in this sacred spot.

What was then discovered in the ancient cemetery of Anacletus has been told us by Ubaldi, a Canon of S. Peter’s. Ubaldi saw with his own eyes the wonderful things then discovered, and his account is of the greatest value to the historian of the very early days of Christianity in Rome. These precious memoranda of Ubaldi were deposited in the Vatican archives and were only found in quite late days by Palmieri, one of the keepers of these archives; the well-known scholar Armellini has since published them.

We will give a few specially interesting particulars from Ubaldi’s memoranda. The story of these excavations is as follows--

Pope Urban VIII was dissatisfied with the adornment of the high altar, which he deemed quite unworthy of the conspicuous position it occupied in the glorious new Church of S. Peter’s; and he entrusted the decoration to the architect Bernini of Florence. Bernini designed the great Baldachino or canopy of the altar which we see now.

It was an enormous and striking work. Its great size is imperfectly grasped by the ordinary visitor. The vastness of S. Peter’s, it has been well said, dwarfs everything that is in it. This massive Baldachino or canopy of the high altar is composed of bronze largely taken from the portico of the Pantheon originally built by Agrippa, the son-in-law of the Emperor Augustus. It is ninety-five feet in height, and is computed, with its pillars, to weigh nearly one hundred tons.

To carry this tremendous weight of metal, it was considered necessary to place the pedestals of the supporting columns upon a solid and firm foundation, but how to excavate such foundations in the immediate neighbourhood of the tomb of S. Peter, in the midst of the holy graves quite recently discovered surrounding the tomb in the ancient cemetery of Anacletus, for some time seriously perplexed the Pope and his counsellors, and they long hesitated before commencing the work. At last it was decided upon, but the excavations were ordered to be carried out with the utmost care and reverence considering the holy ground where they were to be made; a guard of priests and ministers of the Church was deputed to watch every grave as it was disturbed, and reverently to replace every body and all the dust and ashes which had to be removed. It was from the memoranda made on the spot by one of these watching priests, the Canon Ubaldi, that the striking story, some extracts of which we are about to give, is taken.

* * * * *

A few words descriptive of the spot where the excavations were made will be useful before we speak of the strange and wonderful “find” itself.

It must be remembered that the _actual_ vault of the tomb or crypt in which was the sarcophagus of S. Peter, embedded in the solid masonry of Constantine, lies deep in the ground beneath the locality of the excavations.

The “Memoria” of Anacletus was built originally above, on the walls of the vault of the tomb. Part of the “Memoria” must once have been _above ground_. Round this “Memoria” Anacletus arranged the little cemetery of the Vatican Hill. In this cemetery, as close as possible to the walls of the “Memoria” above the tomb, were the graves dug for the nine or ten first Bishops of Rome. In other graves in that sacred little God’s acre were coffins containing the remains of certain of the martyrs and confessors of the first and second centuries. It is these graves, in the ancient cemetery round the “Memoria” walls, which were disturbed in the course of the excavations, and whose sacred contents are described in the Memoranda of Ubaldi.

The vault itself or crypt of the Tomb of S. Peter which lay deep below the “Memoria,” was never interfered with.

* * * * *

In this work of excavation necessary for the foundations of the great Baldachino of Bernini, the workmen employed found themselves at once in the ancient cemetery of Anacletus.

Among the graves necessary to be touched, they found close to the wall of the “Memoria,” still _in situ_, coffins of marble made of single slabs of different sizes. Only one of these slabs seems to have borne an inscription, and that was the solitary word “LINUS.” This was most probably a portion of the coffin of the first Bishop who followed S. Peter--the “Linus” saluted by S. Paul in 2 Tim. iv, 21. These coffins placed close to the “Memoria” walls were no doubt belonging to the first Bishops of Rome.

Other coffins were found near, of terra-cotta, containing ashes and bones charred with fire. “It was evident,” writes Ubaldi, “that all the earth on these coffins was mixed with ashes and tinged with blood” (probably the blood of the first martyrs).

These are some among the sacred historical reliquiæ discovered in digging the first foundation.

* * * * *

In digging for the second foundation, a singularly interesting “find” is recorded. Ubaldi relates how a very large coffin, made of great slabs of marble, was uncovered. “Within the coffin were ashes, with many bones, all adhering together and half burned. These brought to mind the famous fire in the time of Nero, three years before S. Peter’s martyrdom, when the Christians, being falsely accused of causing the fire, ... afforded in the circus of the gardens of Nero, which were situated just here on the Vatican Hill, the first spectacle of martyrdom. Some were put to death in various cruel ways, while others were set on fire, and used as torches in the night.... These were buried close to the spot where they suffered martyrdom and gave the first occasion for the religious veneration of this holy spot.... We therefore revered these holy bones as being the first founders of the great Basilica, and having put back the coffin, allowed it to remain in the same place.”

The memorandum on the third foundation contains no detail of any very special interest.

On the fourth foundation, Ubaldi made the following note: “Almost at the level of the pavement, there was found a coffin made of fine and large slabs of marble.... This coffin was placed just as were the others which were found on the other side ... in such a manner that they were all directed towards the altar (of the ‘Memoria’ of Anacletus) like spokes towards the centre of a wheel. Hence it was evident, with much reason, that the place merited the name of ‘the Council of Martyrs.’” These bodies surrounded S. Peter.

Apparently we have here the remains of the first Bishops of Rome for whom Anacletus made special provision when he arranged this earliest of Christian cemeteries. Their names are _Linus_, the lid of whose coffin lies apart but still close to the Apostle’s vault or crypt, _Anacletus_, _Evarestus_, _Sixtus I_, _Telesphorus_, _Hyginus_, _Pius I_, _Eleutherius_ and _Victor_. Victor was laid here in A.D. 203. After him no Bishop of Rome was interred in the Cemetery of Anacletus--for by that date it was quite filled up, and the successors of Bishop Victor were, with rare exceptions, buried in a chamber appropriated to them in the Cemetery of S. Callistus in the great Catacomb so named on the Appian Way.

The other interments in the sacred Vatican Cemetery in the immediate neighbourhood of the Apostle’s tomb, noticed in the Ubaldi memoranda, were apparently the remains of martyrs of the first and second centuries of the Christian era; or, in a few cases, of distinguished Confessors of the Faith whose names and story are forgotten, but of whom Prudentius, the well-known Christian poet of the end of the fourth century, writes in his _Peristephanon_, i. 73--

“O vetustatis silentis obsoleta oblivio
Invidentur ista nobis, fama et ipsa extinguitur.”

On the whole we may sum up as our estimate of the Ubaldi memoranda, that it is without doubt an invaluable record of what lies beneath the High Altar and the Western or more sacred part of the great Mother Church of Christendom.

It is very remarkable that the practice of planning crypts only prevailed in important churches of _Western_ Christendom. An imitation of the Crypt of S. Peter at Rome was in these churches of the West constantly aimed at.

In the East, in the near as in the far-East, this “vogue” of planning crypts beneath the churches, _never_ was introduced; for the veneration of S. Peter in the Eastern divisions of Christianity never attained to the popularity we notice in the West. In the East, other Saints, especially S. Mary, the Virgin Mother of the Lord, were revered with a special reverence. This is very marked in Constantinople and in other important centres of Eastern Christianity.

THE CLOISTER

In a great monastic establishment such as Gloucester, the most important and interesting portion of the buildings surrounding the church, belonging to the religious community, was undoubtedly _the Cloister_.

The history of the origin and development of the Cloister is full of interest. In the years (fourth and fifth centuries) which immediately followed the ratification of the peace of the Church under Constantine the Great, in the more important churches, built often after the Basilican model, it was usual to arrange for a court or open space in front of the principal entrance.

This open court, which corresponded to the Roman atrium, was for the most part surrounded by a portico, or covered walk termed “triporticus” or “quadriporticus,” according as the portico consisted of three or four sides. This court was in the earlier days put to various uses. In it were often gathered the Catechumens, those not yet formally received into the congregation who worshipped within the church itself. Here also were wont to assemble penitents who for some grave offence had been excluded from the society of believers, but who sought readmission. Now and again it was used for the interment of the more distinguished Christians associated with the congregation worshipping in the adjoining Basilica. Hence came the name by which this outer court was sometimes known--“Paradisus”--whence was derived the mediæval term of “Parvis,” which in later times was often attached to the “square or place” lying under the shadow of the chief entrance to the church, as for instance in Paris, “The Parvis Nôtre Dame.”

In the centre or side of this court or atrium, usually was found a well. The Holy Water stoup always found near the entrance of Roman Catholic churches is a “memory” of this atrium well.

In the Cloister Garth, which with the Cloister itself was the immediate successor of this atrium, with rare exceptions, such a well is almost always to be found. To give an example, in the Gloucester Cloister Garth, which is carefully preserved, the old well is still in existence.

As time went on, the original purposes for which this fore-court or atrium was intended existed no longer. The conditions of the Christian society became largely modified, the Catechumen class in many cases almost entirely disappeared, Church discipline became relaxed, the number of penitents shut out from worship in the church became very small--only notorious sinners were excluded.

As a place, too, for public interments, save in rare instances, the portico was disused. In many cases, especially in cities, the large space in front of the church was urgently needed for houses, while on the other hand, new arrangements became necessary for the monastic life which grew up round the ancient churches and abbeys. The Canons and other persons connected with the service of cathedrals and the more important churches, required accommodation.

To meet these new requirements, the outer court--the Atrium or Portico--was removed from its original position in front of the church to a quieter and more secluded place at the side of the cathedral or abbey; and under the well-known mediæval name of Cloister, the “Claustrum,” or enclosed space, this old portico or atrium reappeared, and at once assumed an important, even an indispensable place, among the mediæval abbatial or cathedral buildings.

At first the “Cloister” was little more than a cluster or block of buildings, erected round an enclosed spot immediately under the great house of prayer--mostly buildings designed as the dwelling-place of the Canons and of the minor officials engaged in the services of the church.

The modern term “close” is derived directly from this usage. In very early times a school, where various kinds of learning, profane as well as sacred, existed in connection with the abbey or cathedral, found a home in this cluster of dwellings.

This in England was the case of York in the seventh and eighth centuries; in Canterbury in the days of Theodore and Hadrian; in Winchester in the time of Ethelwolf, in the latter part of the tenth century.

It was, however, in the Western Monasteries after the great revival inaugurated by the important religious House of the Benedictines of Cluny in the tenth century, that the “Cloister” of the Middle Ages attained to its supreme importance. It served many purposes. It was the heart of the community. It was the place where the dwellers in the religious House spent many hours of their quiet life in meditation, in literary work, in teaching. It was there that the novices were often instructed. In the Cloister, too, the copyists of manuscripts plied their various crafts, many simply copying the more ancient and often perishable MSS. in their beautiful and careful handwriting, and thus preserving accurate copies of what the world already possessed of books. How few of the old treasures of literature would have been handed down to the printing presses of the sixteenth century had not this useful work gone on in these quiet cloisters? Certain of the monks, too, were occupied in original research, and in composing and arranging monastic and historical records.

One general plan, with occasional modifications, seems usually to have been adopted in the great Cloisters of the Western Church on the Continent as in England. In the Cloisters were doors leading to the principal chambers and offices connected with the every-day life of a monastic community, such as the Refectory where the monks dined, the dormitory where they slept, during those few hours allotted to them for rest, the Chapter House where they met daily, and consulted together on the business public and private of their House, and on their varied Mission work outside. Other doors in the Cloister led to the Infirmary, where the sick and the aged monks received the tenderest care and attention; to the Abbot or Prior’s special lodgings, to smaller cloisters, sometimes termed a slype (the derivation of this word is unknown), leading into outer courts and separate buildings; such as the guest-chambers, kitchens and store rooms, into the Cemetery of the religious House, into the garden. Two large doors besides, as a rule, opened from the Cloister alleys directly into the church.

In the centre of the Cloister invariably was a small garden--the garth; sometimes simply turfed, sometimes bright with flowers and shaded with trees. In it as a rule the well above referred to was found. The windows of the Cloister walls were, in some cases, especially in the later Middle Ages, wholly or in part, glazed, sometimes with rich stained glass.

Very frequently, in the more wealthy monastic foundations, and also in the case of some cathedrals, the Cloister was richly adorned with sculpture, and in some instances ornamented with colour.

Occasionally costly marbles were used for the pillars and their capitals; indeed, no portion of the sacred building itself received greater attention than did many of these mediæval Cloisters.

As examples of specially beautiful and costly Cloister work, we would cite the well-known Cloisters of S. Paul, outside the walls of Rome, and S. John Lateran. In Sicily the vast and splendid Cloisters of Monreale are noteworthy. In France, the Cloister alleys of the Cathedral of Rouen, S. Trophimus of Arles, the Abbey of Moissac (Tarn-et-Garonne), the Abbey of Montmajeure (near Arles), Mont S. Michel (Normandy), the Cathedrals of Toul, Soissons, and many others, might be instanced. In England the beautiful cloisters of Westminster Abbey are well known. Norwich, too, possesses a notable example.

But the most famous by far in England are the Cloisters of Gloucester. In some respects they are the most beautiful in Northern Europe, none possessing a roof comparable in richness and in general effect; the glory of the fan-tracery of the Gloucester roof gives a special character to the whole of this admirably preserved and perfect Cloister.

So costly and elaborate indeed were the decorations often lavished on this most important part of the monastic buildings of the Middle Ages, that the wonderful display of art in the adornment of the Cloister now and again seems to have excited hostile criticism. As early as in the thirteenth century, we read in the curious poem of Rutebeuf, a writer who was welcome at the Court of S. Louis of France, a bitter note of disapprobation of the splendour and magnificence of these costly works of art which so frequently adorned the Cloisters of the monks in his day and time.

“These monks”--he writes--“who possessed nothing”--these men who “fors l’aumosne n’avoient rien”--yet adorned their austere home with--

“ymages li monstrent bien fètes
bien entaillies et portrêtes
mult orent cousté, ce li semble.”

Then after an elaborate description, the poet adds, that these things--

“ne font pas la religion
mes la bone composition.”

And yet in spite of the stern criticism of the austere poet of the Court of S. Louis, that precursor of our English Wyclif and of the Puritans of a yet later time, few will be found now, even among the sternest critics of mediæval religion, who would dare to find fault with the tender and graceful fancies with which the monastic orders adorned the scenes of their solitary life-work, a work which, according to their light, was wholly dedicated to God.

The Art world and its mighty teaching power would indeed be poorer if some of the men who built and adorned these fair homes of prayer and study, had not, among the many crafts which they cultivated with such untiring zeal and conspicuous success, devoted themselves especially to architecture and its many exquisite developments, outside as well as inside the walls of their church--architecture which in their skilful hands became in their day and time one of the most effective instruments of popular education.

* * * * *

In our days, too, we must never forget that few indeed would have been the remains of the great writers and teachers of Greece and Rome, had it not been for the patient industry of the monks working in their silent Cloister alleys.

It must be remembered that there was no printing press, no scribes save these monks, to hand down the priceless literary treasures of a bygone age. It was their patient industry alone which preserved for us the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and the precious words of men who had talked with the Apostles and the pupils of the Apostles, of teachers such as Clement and Irenæus, Origen and Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine and Jerome. Most of the writings of that long line of illustrious fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church of the first Christian centuries would have been lost irretrievably, had not generation after generation of monkish scholar-scribes toiled unweariedly in their still and often deadly cold Monastic Cloisters.

We who live in the restless evening (is it the evening?) of the world, enjoy the fruits of their labours, and gaze with pathetic interest on the comparatively few undisturbed remains of these once famous homes of learning where so much good and useful work was done. In the quiet beautiful Gloucester Cloister we possess one of these precious relics of that almost forgotten past, to which we owe so much--one of the most perfect that exists in England, perhaps in the whole of Northern Europe.

* * * * *

In such a Cloister as that of Gloucester, some idea can be gathered of the conditions under which the monk-scribes carried on their work of transcribing and editing--a work which, as we have shown, has been of such inestimable value to us. The Cloister architecture might have been, not unfrequently was, a marvel of grace and beauty, but it was utterly devoid of what in modern phraseology is termed “comfort.” There they ever toiled amidst the circumstances of an austere self-denying life. The cold in England and in other countries of Northern Europe, so rich in Monasteries of the first rank, was very severely felt in these cloister-carrels or recesses such as we see in Gloucester. They often wrote with straw heaped round their legs to protect them from the effects of the searching damp and cold, although in the later mediæval period glazing seems to have been somewhat largely introduced with the view of rendering more tolerable the condition of these toilers for God. In the books they transcribed and preserved for us, and adorned with such rare art and skill, we occasionally light upon silent pathetic testimonies to the hardships endured by these tireless scholar-scribes. Montalembert in his _Monks of the West_, (Vol. VI, Book XVIII, chap. iv), gives us some of these curious and interesting reflections of long-forgotten monk-scribes. We will quote two or three specimens of these Cloister notes.

“Nauta rudis pelagi ut saevis ereptus ab undis
In portum veniens, pectora laeta tenet;
Sic scriptor fessus, calamum sub calce laboris
Deponens, habeat pectora laeta quidem.”

This was found at the end of a Gospel Book of the eleventh century.

The Monk Louis of Wissobrun wrote at the end of the copy he had made of S. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel--

“Sedibus externis hic librum quem mode cernis
_Dum scripsit, friguit_, et quod cum lumine solis
Scribere non potuit, perfecit lumine noctis:
Sis Deus istorum merces condigna laborum.”

In a Latin MS. of the Carlovingian epoch, a scribe named Garimbert wrote at the end of his book--

“Sicut navigantibus dulcis est portus, ita scriptori novissimus versus.”

Cassiodorus thus quaintly but touchingly writes of the true aim of the vast work of transcription carried on by the dwellers in these still and silent cloisters--

“What a glorious labour is that which enables us to preach to men by the hands as well as by the voice, to use our fingers in place of our tongues, to place ourselves in relation with the rest of the world, _without breaking silence_, and to combat with pen and ink the lawless suggestions of the devil! for each word of Holy Scripture written by the scholar-monk is a wound given to Satan ... a reed shaped into a pen, as it glides over the page and traces the divine word there, repairs, as it were, the wrong done by that other reed with which, on the day of the Passion, the devil caused the head of the Lord to be struck.”

* * * * *

Durandus, Bishop of Mende, in his great work _Rationale Divinorum officiorum_, written in the latter years of the twelfth century, gives us in his customary picturesque language, the symbolical significance of the “Cloister”: “The diversity and variety of the dwellings and occupations connected with the Cloister, and the buildings and offices leading from it, are symbolical of the many mansions and various rewards provided for the Faithful, in the kingdom of the hereafter. ‘For in my Father’s house are many mansions.’”

In a deeper sense the same Durandus[29] adds--“The Cloister represents the state of contemplation of the soul, when it withdraws itself from the world, after it has done away with earthly thoughts and aspirations, and only meditates upon heavenly things.”

APPENDIX

TRACES OF GAMES PLAYED BY NOVICES AND BOYS IN THE CLOISTERS

It is only in the last thirty years that the curious reliques of games played in the Middle Ages by Novices and boys placed under the tuition and care of the Monks were observed by J. T. Micklethwaite, the late erudite architect of Westminster Abbey.

Several good examples of these game-boards occur in the Gloucester Cloister, especially in the Cloister Alley appropriated to the Novices.

The games in question generally were “Nine Men’s Morris” and varieties of the game of “Fox and Geese.”

Similar game-boards have been also found in the Benedictine Cloisters of Westminster Abbey, Canterbury, Norwich and Durham, and in the secular Cloisters of Chichester and of Salisbury.

These are generally found in what must have been the Novices’ quarters. In some instances, however, they exist in places where they were probably made by the _builders_ of the walls or stairs, to play on during their leisure time. Examples of these latter have been discovered in Scarborough Castle and in Norwich Castle. An admirable example has been quite recently found by the writer of these Notes, on the stair of the South-Eastern turret of the S. Transept, Gloucester Cathedral.

There is little doubt but that in these game-boards we have reliques of the mediæval games of the fourteenth century and even of a yet earlier date. If careful search is made in Cloisters which have not been destroyed or restored, it is probable that other interesting examples will come to light.

A careful and exhaustive paper by Mr. Micklethwaite on these mediæval games will be found in the _Archæological Journal_, xlix.

S. PETRONILLA’S ALTAR

THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL DETAIL EXISTING IN CONNECTION WITH THE GLOUCESTER ABBEY

The earliest detail connected with the Abbey of Gloucester that we possess is connected with this once famous but now well-nigh forgotten Saint. In the _Historia Monasterii S. Petri Gloucestriæ_, a very ancient collection of documents belonging to the great Benedictine House put together by Abbot Froucester, _circa_ A.D. 1381, we find an entry which relates how Kyneburg, the sister of King Osric, who built the first Gloucester Church, after ruling the Religious House founded by her brother for twenty-nine years, was buried BEFORE THE ALTAR OF S. PETRONILLA in the year of grace 710.

Another entry in the same _Historia_ tells us that Queen Eadburg, the widow of Wulphere, King of the Mercians, the second Abbess, A.D. 710 to A.D. 735, was buried by the side of Kyneburg _before S. Petronilla’s Altar_. King Osric himself, who built the first church and founded the religious House, and who died in A.D. 729, was also buried according to the same record “in ecclesia Sancti Petri coram altari sanctae Petronillae in aquilonari parte ejusdem Monasterii.”