the Recuerdos de un Viaje a Santiago de Galicia (Madrid, 1880), to which we have so frequently referred. A copy of this work, which contains the attestations of three Professors of Pharmacy and of Medicine in the University of Compostella as to the condition and character of the bones found, together with some information furnished by Monseigneur Sans y Fores, Archbishop of Valladolid, was transmitted to Rome. The question was put before the Congregation of Sacred Rites on the 20th of May, 1884; but the decision was then adjourned for clearer evidence on some points. To obtain this, R. P. D. Monseigneur Caprera, Promoter of the Faith, went to Compostella, and summoned there before him the Archbishop of Valladolid, R. P. F. Fita, and Señor FernandezGuerra. Monseigneur Caprera had examined, and brought with him the report on the relic of the skull of St. James, given by the Archbishop Diego Gelmirez to St. Adon, Archbishop of Pistoja, in the twelfth century. A comparison of this skull, which bears marks showing that it belonged to a decapitated head, with the relics still at Compostella, brought conviction to Monseigneur and his assessors;1 and it was through his report

1882), and he has also recovered both words and music of the Pilgrim's Hymn of Northern France of the twelfth century; and it has again been sung this year and last in the Cathedral of Compostella on the Feast of the Apostle. The same Codex contains one of the earliest forms of the great Carolingian legend. There is discussion as to the exact date of the MS. between MM. Dozy, Delisle, and P. Fita, but it seems to represent a text of Sæc. XII.

1 It is difficult to reconcile this with the previous scientific examination of the bones at Compostella, and which recog

that on the 19th of July the Congregation of Sacred Rites answered affirmatively to the question whether these were really the bones of the Apostle and his disciples. In the words of the decree, "Tum Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi Patres Cardinales, tum Prælati Officiales, re mature discussa et perpensa responderunt: Affirmative, seu sententiam esse confirmandam."

The facts are simply these. In January, 1879, on occasion of repairs and restoration in the Cathedral of Compostella, the Cardinal-Archbishop caused careful search to be made under the high altar for the relics of St. James and his two disciples. The crypt and substruction made by Gelmirez in the twelfth century, succeeding the earlier of Sæc. IX., were found; but they had evidently been disturbed, and the chambers were partly filled with earth.1 This confirmed a dim tradition among the chapter that the relics had been removed and concealed at the time of Drake's attack. On further search being made under the pavement of the apse behind the high altar (i. e. in the tras-sagrario), in the centre was found a stone niche or chest formed of rough slabs, and measuring thirty-nine inches in length, by thirteen inches broad, and twelve deep,2 containing human bones, but so confused and broken that not a single bone remained whole or complete. Those which


nized there parts of three heads already; cf. Recuerdos, p. 110. We have, however, before us the printed testimony


See, for plans and illustrations, Recuerdos, pp. 70, 71. 2 See a sketch of it, Recuerdos, p. 82.

3 "En ella han hallado huesos humanos, colocados sin órden

admitted of classification were declared to belong to three skeletons, two of which were of men of between the second and third period of human life, the other belonged to the third period; the date of these skeletons it was impossible to determine, but by comparison with other skulls of known antiquity they seemed to be many centuries old; "consequently, as far as their antiquity is concerned, the belief does not appear to be rash that the said bones may have belonged to the bodies of the Holy Apostle, and of his two disciples."1 Such was the conclusion of the scientific commission.

Now what does this add to the previous evidence? Taking for granted that these are the bones hidden in the time of Drake (of which there is no proof, only probability), and that these were the bones interred in the sepulchral crypt by Gelmirez in Sæc. XII., and that these were those said to be found in the substructions of a ruined heathen temple in the time of Theodomir, Bishop of Iria, in the eighth century, I do not say what proof, but what reasonable evidence is there that these were the bones of St. James the Greater, and of two otherwise wholly unknown men, his so-called disciples, Athanasius and Theodore, the very form of whose names shows that they cannot be of apostolic times? I do not throw the slightest doubt on the good faith of the professors at Compostella, or of the Archbishop of Valladolid, or

y mezclados con alguna tierra, desprovistos de cartilagos y partes blandas, y tan deteriorados y frágiles, que no existia un solo hueso entero ni completo."--Report of the Examiners, Recuerdos, p. 109.


Recuerdos, p. III.


of R. P. Fita and S. Fernandez-Guerra; the competency of these two last two last in archæological questions none who know their work will deny ;but is the difficulty removed which evidently struck Mariana, nearly three centuries ago, when he wrote, "The reasons which persuaded them that that was the sepulchre, and that the body of the Apostle are not related; but there is no doubt that so great a thing was not received without sufficient proofs "?1 As we have seen, he declares that there is no anterior notice of this sepulchre, and none has been brought forward since his time. That, in a district crowded with remains of antiquity, sarcophagi and skeletons were found on this spot in the time of Alfonso the Chaste seems not improbable, though the evidence for it will seem to some hardly sufficient for conviction; but that these bodies found in a heathen temple were Christian and not heathen, still less that they were those of the Apostle and his unknown disciples, is utterly without proof. Seven centuries had elapsed since the martyrdom of the Apostle. There is no anterior mention or tradition of such a burial to be found; and there thus appears, as far as is stated,

1 Mariana, lib. vii. c. 10, p. 303, "Las razones con que se persuadieron ser aquel sepulcro y aquel cuerpo el del sagrado Apostol, no se refieren; pero no hay duda sino que cosa tan grande no se recibió sin pruebas bastantes." Mgr. Duchesne remarks on this: "Aucun renseignement n'est donné sur les circonstances du fait, sur les signes auxquels on a reconnu l'identité du corps saint, sur les motifs qui ont determiné les recherches. Le corps de saint Jacques a été 'révélé'; voila tout ce que nous trouvons dans ces vieilles chartes et dans celles qui leur font suite jusqu'à la fin du IX® ́ Siècle."-P. 20 and cf. p. 34.


no more reason for affixing such names to these bodies than there would be for affixing them to any skeletons found in heathen ruins by an archæologist at the present day. The hypothesis of De Tillemont and of Gams, which cuts out the landing at Iria from the legend, seems wholly untenable, both on other grounds, and because if so integral a part is rejected, what evidence can there be for the rest?

We may perhaps be pardoned for putting the questions, What claim have the statements in the Breviary, and what claim has the present decree, on the belief of Roman Catholics? In a dispute with the Carmelites in the middle of the last century as to their succession from the prophet Elias, Antonio Beltran, Procurador-General of the Province of Toledo, of the Company of the Jesuits, lays it down: "The Inquisition deserves no rebuke, because on such grounds it maintains the contrary to that which the Breviary proposes to us in some of its lections, because not everything that is in it is of Faith (porque no todo lo que en el esta es de Fé)." And, among other examples, he says, "In the same way it is permitted to dispute some points about St. Dionysius, Patron of Paris, of the coming of Santiago to Spain, and others similar." 1

The late Marquis of Bute, in his article on the Breviary in Chambers's Encyclopædia (1888), says: "A notion sometimes obtains among Protestants that Roman Catholics are obliged to believe these biographies. This is wholly baseless. No such idea 1 Printed Memorial to Ferdinand VI., penes me, p. 9.

« VorigeDoorgaan »