No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
I find in the Towneley Processus Crucis evidence never before pointed out, so far as I know, that the cross there described conforms to that represented in the writings of several of the early Fathers of the Church when they speak of the cross as having a fifth extremity, a sedile or seat projecting from the middle of the long vertical beam.
1 The Towneley Plays re-edited by George England with side notes and introduction by Alfred W. Pollard, EETS Ex. Ser. 71 (London, 1897) 23, 89–94. Italics mine.Google Scholar
2 Ibid. 23, 95–100. Italics mine.Google Scholar
3 Towneley 23, 101–112. Italics mine.Google Scholar
4 See Mantcchi, O., art. ‘Archaeology of the Cross,’ Cath. Encyclop. 4, 520.Google Scholar
5 Matthew 24, 37.Google Scholar
6 Compare Luke 23, 38; John 19, 19.Google Scholar
7 A mast of a ship; a person with outstreched arms; Moses praying (Exod. 17); the Vexillum; the pascal lamb roasted on a spear, etc. Thus Justin, Apol. 1, 55; Tertullian, , Ad nation. 1, 12; compare also Tertullian, , Apolog. 12, where the inner structures of models for images of gods, trophies, and war banners are likened to crosses; compare Pseudo-Hieron. Comm. in Marc. c. 15, where the bird flying in the air and man or fish swimming in water are added to these comparisons. Also the words of Paul: ‘You may be able to comprehend with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length and height, and depth’ (Eph. 3, 18). Significant interpretations of the cross by Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. I in Resurr. Dom.), Ambrose (Serm. 56), and Augustine (Comm. in Ps. 103; Tractat. 118 in Joann. etc.) belong here.Google Scholar
8 Adversus haereses 2, 24: PG 7, 794–5.Google Scholar
9 Ad nationes 1, 12: PL 1, 577–9; CSEL 20, 1 (1890) 81–3 (Reifferscheid-Wissowa). The statement in context is as follows: ‘Crucis qualitas, signum est de ligno; etiam de materia (et eandem materiam Reiff.) colitis penes vos cum effigie; quamquam sicut vestrum humana figura est, ita et nostrum sua (om. PL) propria. Viderint nunc liniamenta, dum una sit qualitas; viderit forma, dum ipsum sit Dei corpus. Quod si de hoc differentia intercedit, quanto distinguitur a crucis stipite Pallas Attica et Ceres Pharia, quae sine forma rudi palo et solo staticulo ligni informis repraesentatur? Pars crucis, et quidem majus (maior Reiff.), est omne robur, quod de recta (derecta Reiff.) statione defigitur. Sed nobis tota crux imputatur cum antemna scilicet sua et cum illo sedilis excessu. Hoc quidem vos incusabiliores, MISCELLANY qui mutilum et truncum dicastis lignum quod alii plenum et structum consecraverunt. Enimvero de reliquo integra est religio vobis integrae crucis, sicut ostendam. Ignoratis autem etiam originem istam deis vestris de isto patibulo provenisse. Nam omne simulacrum seu ligno seu lapide desculpitur, seu aere defunditur, seu quacunque alia locupletiore materia producitur, plasticae manus praecedant necesse est; plasta autem lignum crucis in primo statuit, quoniam ipsi quoque corpori nostro tacita et secreta linea crucis situs est. Quod caput emicat, quod spina dirigitur, quod humerorum obliquatio … (excedit suppl. Reiff.). Si statueris hominem manibus expansis, imaginem crucis feceris. Huic igitur exordio, et velut statumini argilla desuper intexta paulatim membra complet, et corpus struit, et habitum, quem placuit argillae, intus cruci ingerit; inde circino et plumbeis modulis praeparatio simulacri in marmor, in lutum, vel aes, vel quod cunque placuit deum fieri, transmigratur. A cruce argilla, ab argilla deus: quodammodo transit crux in deum per argillam. Crucem igitur consecratis a qua incipitur consecratus. Exempli gratis dictum erit, nempe de olivae nucleo et nuce persici et grano piperis sub terra temperato arbor exsurgit in ramos, in comam, in speciem sui generis. Eam si transferas, vel de brachiis ejus in aliam subolem (subole Reiff.) utaris, cui deputabitur quod de traduce provenit? non illi grano aut nuci aut nucleo? Nam cum tertius gradus secundo ascribitur, aeque primo secundus, sic tertius redigitur (redigetur Reiff.) ad primum transmissus per secundum. Nec diutius super isto argumentandum est, quando naturali praescriptione omne omnino genus censum ad orignem refert, quantoque genus censetur origine (om. PL), tanto origo convenitur in genere. Si (sic Reiff.) igitur in genere deorum crucum (crucem Reiff.) originem colitis, hic erit nucleus et granum primordiale, ex quibus apud vos simulacrorum silvae propagantur. Ad manifesta jam. Victorias ut numina, et quidem augustiora quanto laetiora veneramini. Con … one quid (constructione quo conj. Reiff.) melius extollant cruces erunt intestina quodammodo tropaeorum. Itaque in Victoriis et cruces colit castrensis religio, signa adorat, signa dejerat, signa ipsi Jovi praefert. Sed ille imaginum suggestus et totius auri cultus monilia crucum sunt. Sic etiam in cantabris atque vexillis, quae non minore sanctitate militia custodit, siphara illa vestes crucum sunt. Erubescitis, opinor, incultas et nudas cruces colere.’ Google Scholar
10 PL 1, 578.Google Scholar
11 Dialogus cum Tryphone 91: PG 6, 691 and 694.Google Scholar
12 Enarr. in Ps. 103 : PL 27, 1348.Google Scholar
13 See Zöckler, , Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh 1875) 430–431.Google Scholar