> From: Vivario [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Luciana Cuppo Csaki
Thank you so much for all this information!
> When the feast of St. John the Baptist was first celebrated or
> established: I don't know, but we can infer from the preface to
> Chronicon Paschale (PG 92 col. 87-89) that by 630 A.D. the feast was not
> only celebrated, but object os some controversy, linked to those about the
> celebration of Easter (Victor of Aquitaine, or "Roman" celebration vs.
> Dionysius Exiguus, or "Greek" observance). The author of Chronicon remarks
> that some people, while agreeing with the Chruch in the observance of
> Easter, verum quo ad alias festivitates quae in ea
> {=Ecclesia] celebrantur plurimum aberrant". One of these other feasts is
> St. John: "praeterea in nativitate sancti Ioannis precursoris et
> Baptistae, quam recte Dei Ecclesia xxiv mensis iuxta Romanos iunii
> celebrat." The feast is, then, a "Roman". i.e. western observance.
>
I wonder, then, if this was a controversial issue in Ireland, one of
the unnamed "other issues" supposedly addressed at Whitby. Certainly the
timeframe fits.
> This is confirmed by a tract in the ms Ambr. H 150 inf., published, but
> not integrally, in PL 129, a sort of encyclopedia on computus. The
> compiler(s) draws from various sources and, writing in 809-810 with
> older texts at hand, strives to mantain a balanced approach among
> followers of Victorius, Dionysius, the Irish Easter observance, etc. For
> him, it seems, all this is history.
>
It may not have been so much a past issue for the Irish church as a
whole in 809/10, but the Ce/li De/, to whom the author of the Martyrology of
O/engus belonged, was a pro-Roman reform group. In putting John at 24 June,
O/engus may have been making a statement or taking a stand. His starting the
calendar in January--not December 1 as he would for the ecclesiastical
calendar or November 1 for the traditonal Irish calendar--may be
significant, too. In his prologue, O/engus makes it clear that he is
rejoicing in the triumph of the Church over paganism; he may also have been
trying to present a Roman version of that triumph.
> He mentions St. John the Baptists
> several times, indeed in connection with the solstice: see PL 129 col.
> 1297, 1291, 1369. In the calendar (PL 129.1340) the day viii kal. iulii
> (24th of June) has the notation: S. Johan. Baptistae. Solstitium.
> PL 129.1291: Solstitia duo sunt. Primum hyemale viii kal. jan., quod sol
> stat, et crescunt dies, et est ipsa die in Bethleem Nativitatis Domini
> nostri Iesu Christi secundum carnem. Alterum aestivale viii kal. iul.,
> quod sol stat, et crescunt noctes, et est ipsa die in provincia
> Palestinae civitate natale sancti Iohannis Baptistae, et in Epheso
> sancti Iohannis evangelistae [could this be an Irish touch? Ambr. H 150
> inf. comes from Bobbio].
>
That's an interesting suggestion. I'll see what I can find to follow
up on that.
> PL 129.1369: the author says that he found his information about the
> birth of St. John the Baptist on June 24 "in commentariis Victorini"
> (Victor of Aquitaine): "Iohannes Baptista nascitur viii kal. iul. et
> circumciditur kal. iul. [this was news to me, but it's perfectly
> logical]. Ad Mariam vero locutus est Angelus viii kal. apr. sexto iam
> conceptionis mense Elisabeth habere dicens."
> --Pl 129.1297 gives the theological context for the association of
> solstices/aequinoces/main feasts of Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist.
> The assimilation Jesus - sun was commonplace in late antiquity. MGH
> SSRMerov. has a photo from the Bamberg codex Mscr. Patr. 61 f. 79 with
> Jesus and Mary portrayed with the attributes of the sun (radiate crown)
> and the moon (crescent). The context, need I say, is astronomical.
>
Very, very interesting. Thank you very much.
Francine
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|