Assumption

ASSUNZIONE. - This term is commonly used to express the privilege according to which the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was glorified in body and soul in heaven. Theologians still discuss whether such a term extends or not
ASSUERO - Queen Vashti repudiated by A. - School of Botticelli. Florence, Uffizi Gallery.

also extends to the death and anticipated resurrection of the Virgin.

The ordinary magisterium of the Church, which finds its expression in the teaching of the Pontiffs and bishops, in the celebration of the liturgical feast, with morally unanimous consent (cf. G. Henrich - R. G. De Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione corporea B. V. S. Sedem delatae, 2 vols., Roma 1942), holds that the bodily Assumption of Mary Most Holy into heaven is a truth revealed by God and therefore contained in the deposit of divine revelation, handed down in Scripture and Tradition.

I. ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1. In the first four centuries. - Given this unanimous teaching of the Church, theologians have dedicated themselves to investigating how such a truth is contained in the deposit of revelation. All agree in admitting that this truth is not contained in an explicit manner in Holy Scripture, since there is no biblical passage in which it is openly taught. All likewise agree in conceding that the question of an explicit tradition tracing back to apostolic times has not yet been sufficiently resolved for the first four centuries of the Church. A positive solution, however, even in the current state of theological studies, is not only not considered impossible, but also presents a certain solidity of argumentation. From the end of the 5th century onward, explicit testimonies are not lacking. There remain the first four centuries. Now, if one admits with Capelle (La fête de l'A. dans l'histoire liturgique, in Ephém. Theol. Lov., 3 [1926], pp. 35-45) the testimony of the heretic Lucius from the mid-2nd century (an echo of the teaching of the apostle St. John, who died toward the end of the 1st century); if one bears in mind that Pseudo-Melito, perhaps at the beginning of the 4th century, attests to the fact of the Assumption; that Timothy of Jerusalem and St. Epiphanius (of the 4th century), in a sufficiently clear manner, attest to the same thing; that the Syriac booklet Obsequia B. Virginis, from the second half of the 5th century (cf. W. Wright, Contributions to the apocryphal Literature of New Testament, London 1865, pp. 11-16, 42-51, 55-65) asserts that the soul of Mary, after death, "was reunited to the body," one can find, with a certain foundation, a kind of guiding thread to prove, century by century, down to the Apostles, the explicit tradition concerning the bodily Assumption of the Most Holy Virgin into heaven. Even in the apocrypha there would be "a common core" that goes back to the apostolic age, and, more precisely, to St. John. It is known, moreover, that certain myths and legends of antiquity present "a historical core," such as, for example, the Babylonian myth or legend of the flood, etc. There is nothing strange or unlikely, therefore, in looking for a "historical core" even in the apocrypha, that is, in the legends concerning the Assumption. Indeed, such a historical core can reasonably be assumed in order to explain the favor that these apocrypha enjoyed among the faithful of those times and also among some Fathers. It does not seem, therefore, to be summarily dismissed, as devoid of any foundation, an explicit tradition on the bodily Assumption of Mary. But even if the explicit tradition is dismissed, the implicit tradition remains standing. Recently the Jesuit O. Faller, in a small work on the silence of the first centuries concerning the Assumption (De priorum saeculorum silentio circa Assumptionem B.M.V., Anal. Greg., sect. A, n. 5, Rome 1946) has proved this thesis with scientific rigor, which is not diminished by the critique of the Analecta Bollandiana, 64 [1946], pp. 320-22, where the question is considered solely from the historical point of view. Examining in a particular way the thought of Damascene and of the Fathers contemporary with him, in order to verify upon which dogmatic principles they base themselves to justify the privilege of the Assumption, he demonstrates how even in the first centuries (at the time of the supposed silence) those same dogmatic principles are explicitly found. It follows therefore that such a truth, in those centuries, was implicit in the aforesaid principles explicitly admitted; without wishing to assert with this that the authors of those first centuries had subjective knowledge and consciousness of the truth of the bodily Assumption objectively contained therein.

The dogmatic principles then upon which Damascene and his contemporaries base the privilege of the bodily Assumption of Mary are five: a) Principle of restoration (Eve-Mary): in Mary, contrasted with the first woman, Eve, the one through whom all die as a consequence of sin, there occurs the liberation from death which reduces the body to dust; b) Principle of the divine motherhood full of mystery; c) Principle of miraculous virginity, understood in a most extensive sense, to the point of making Mary fully incorrupt and not subject to remaining in the power of death; d) Principle of unity between the Mother and the Son; e) Principle of honor rendered by the Son to the Mother.

Now, from the 4th century onward, all these principles are explicitly enunciated. Fr. Faller cites, for the 2nd century, St. Justin (d. ca. 165) and St. Irenaeus (d. ca. 202); for the 3rd century Tertullian (d. after 220), Origen (d. in 253-54), St. Gregory the Wonderworker (d. ca. 270); for the 4th St. Epiphanius (d. in 403), St. Ambrose (d. in 397), St. Jerome (d. in 420), St. Augustine (d. in 430), etc. (cf. the texts in Faller, op. cit., pp. 93-127). In the first four centuries, therefore, the truth of the bodily Assumption is undoubtedly taught in an implicit manner.

2. From the 5th century to the 10th century. - Toward the middle of the 5th century there begins to appear, in Syria, the feast of the "Memory of the Blessed" (Mary) as the feast of the death and bodily Assumption of Mary. This is attested by the Syrian fragment of the Transitus published by Wright and taken from a manuscript codex of the end of the 5th century (Contributions to the apocryphal Literature of the New Testament..., London 1865, pp. 42-51). Toward the middle of that century, therefore, there was in Syria a full faith concerning the bodily Assumption. If one then admits, as seems must be admitted, the liturgical nature of the discourse De transitu Dei Genitricis Mariae (ed. A. Baumstark, in Oriens christianus, 5 [1905], p. 88 ff.) of Jacob of Sarug, one has a new confirmation of the existence of such a feast in Syria toward the middle of the 5th century. Toward the end of the 6th century, Emperor Maurice (582-602),

according to the testimony of Nicephorus Callistus (d. 1335), is said to have imposed by special edict the date of August 15 (Hist. eccl., XVII, 28: PG 147, 202).

The Coptic Church also, from the time of Patriarch Theodosius (d. 567), admitted the glorious resurrection of Mary, which was said to have taken place 206 days after her burial. The aforementioned patriarch of Alexandria composed a long account of the death of Mary (cf. Rev. de l'Or. Chrét., 1933-34, pp. 272-304), and fixed the feast of her death on the 21st of Tobi (= January 6), distinct from that of her glorious resurrection (on the 16th of Mesore = August 9). The same must be said of the Ethiopian or Abyssinian Church, a vassal, until these recent years, of the Coptic Church.

In the second half of the 6th century, St. Gregory of Tours (d. 594) testifies in France to the bodily Assumption of the Virgin (cf. MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, I, p. 489). His account is sober and probably reflects the historical core of the apocrypha. Toward the end of the 7th century and the beginning of the 8th century, one finds among the holy Fathers a certain and explicit faith concerning the bodily Assumption. It suffices to name St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634), Hippolytus of Thebes (7th-8th cent.), St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 783), St. Andrew of Crete (d. 740), St. John Damascene (d. 749), St. Cosmas of Maiuma, called the Melodist (d. ca. 743), St. Theophanes Graptos, bishop of Nicaea (d. 845), Pseudo-Athanasius (7th-8th cent.), etc.

In the West, Pope Sergius I (687-701) established that the feast of the Dormition, like those of the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Purification, should begin with a solemn procession (cf. Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, I, p. 376). From Rome the feast of the Dormition spread to England and France, taking the title of Assumpto Sanctae Mariae. The introduction of the feast of the Dormition into France under the new title of the Assumption began to raise the question of the anticipated resurrection of Mary's body. Two currents immediately emerged: one openly favorable and the other rather agnostic, tormented by doubt. No one, however, with the exception of some Spaniards from Asturias (cf. PL 96, 1231-40), dared to deny the eminent privilege. Not a few, nevertheless, refused to admit it as certain, accepting it only as a more probable opinion, subject to caution. Despite this, everyone readily accepted the opinion that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from the corruption of the tomb, clearly expressed by the well-known liturgical texts of the Gregorian-Hadrian Sacramentary: "nec tamen mortis nexibus deprimi potuit". The famous Epist. ad Paulam et Eustochium of pseudo-Jerome (PL 30, 122-42) holds first place in this doubtful attitude. St. Bede the Venerable (d. 735), pseudo-Ildephonse of Toledo (PL 96, 239-69), pseudo-Alcuin (cf. Rev. Bénéd. 9 [1892], p. 496), pseudo-Augustine in Serm. 208 (PL 39, 2129-34), and the Martyrologies of Ado and Usuard held the same view.

However, there was no lack of writers in that same era who were fully convinced of the bodily glorification of Mary, as pseudo-Jerome himself attests (PL 30, 123). Among these, special mention is deserved by the author of the Liber de A. beatae Mariae Virginis, circulated under the name of St. Augustine (PL 40, 1142-48). In it the author (probably Paschasius Radbertus), reacting against the agnosticism of some of his contemporaries regarding the bodily Assumption, provided a very profound theological treatment—the first of its kind—on the subject. Notker, a monk of St. Gall (840-912), echoed pseudo-Augustine.

3. From the 10th to the 13th Century. — In the Byzantine Church (both Greek proper and Russian), the moral unanimity admitting the bodily Assumption of Mary continued, as in the previous period (cf. M. Gordillo, L'A. corporale della S.ma Vergine madre di Dio nei teologi bizantini: sec. X-XV, in Marianum, 9 [1947], pp. 64-90). The Assumption soon became the greatest of the Marian feasts. Around the 10th century it began to have an Octave.

In the Latin Church, on the other hand, the influence of pseudo-Jerome and pseudo-Augustine (considered authentic until the 16th century) divided theologians into two more or less equal camps until about the middle of the 13th century, at which point the camp of pseudo-Augustine, continually expanding, ended up prevailing, thanks especially to the great Scholastic Doctors St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, etc. From that time onward, the bodily Assumption began to be commonly held as certain (cf. C. Piana, B. Virginis Mariae A. apud scriptores saeculi XIII, in Collectanea Bibliothecae Mediae Aevi. Textus et Disquisitiones, Fasc. 4, Šibenik-Rome 1942).

4. From the 13th Century to the Present. — In the Greek Church, the morally unanimous consensus on the Assumption continues. Between the twilight of the 13th century and the dawn of the 14th, by virtue of a decree of Emperor Andronicus II (1282-1328), the entire month of August was consecrated to the mystery of the Dormition and the Assumption. It is the "Marian month" of the Byzantines (cf. V. Grumel, Le mois de Marie des Byzantins, in Échos d'Orient, 31 [1932], pp. 257-69).

In the Latin Church, the doctrine of the Assumption, directly attacked by some Protestants, was strenuously defended by Catholic apologists. It was therefore commonly held as a certain doctrine, with only some divergence concerning the degree of certainty. Generally, however, the denial of it was classified as temeraria. As regards the liturgical aspect, it must be noted that the reform of the liturgical books promoted by St. Pius V served to orient the feast of August 15th ever more toward its proper and true object: the glorification in body and soul of the Mother of God.

Around the middle of the 17th century, the Holy See began to be petitioned for the dogmatic definition of the bodily Assumption. The first to present such a request was the Servite Father Cesario Shguanin (1692-1769), in a supplication directed to

Clement XIII, as appears from a document in the General Archive of the Order of Servants of Mary. Almost a century passed before new petitions were made. In 1849 Card. Sterk, Archbishop of Malines, and Bp. Sánchez, Bishop of Osma in Spain, replying to the encyclical in which Pius IX asked the opinion of the episcopate on the definibility of the Immaculate Conception, also expressed the desire for the definition of the A. These remained isolated votes, however. Some twenty-five years later, in 1863, Queen Isabella of Spain, urged by Bl. Antonio M. Claret, begged Pius IX to "publish as a dogma" also the mystery of the A. From then on, a veritable movement in favor of the definition arose, a movement that continued to grow, prompting many studies on the definibility of the singular privilege. Pius XII, taking into account the requests of 113 cardinals, 2,523 patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, 82,000 priests and religious, and over eight million the faithful, on May 1, 1946 sent a letter to all bishops asking their opinion on the definibility of the A.

1. Biblical texts. - The first biblical text is the so-called Protoevangelium (Gen. 3, 15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she (in the Hebrew text: 'the seed') shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel". We have here a prophecy, the first one, made by God immediately after our ruin, concerning the Redemption. The "seed of the woman" is undoubtedly the Redeemer, considered not only personally, but insofar as he represents all sinful humanity, recapitulated in him as in the new Adam. Consequently, the "woman" spoken of therein is the Blessed Virgin Mary, understood not only individually, but insofar as she too figures, in her own way as the new Eve, all sinful humanity. This is the obvious meaning of the text, confirmed by the interpretation of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

This being established, our text foreannounces human redemption under the figure of a struggle ("I will put enmities") culminating in a total victory of the seed over the demonic serpent ("shall crush thy head"), and with a partial victory of the demonic serpent over the "seed" (the bite to the heel). This full victory of the Redeemer over the serpent, according to St. Paul, consists in destroying, through death, the empire of the devil: the Son of God became man "that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil" (Hebr. 2, 14). But in order that the Redeemer might fully conquer death and him who held dominion over it, that is, the devil, through his death, it was indispensable that his death should not be definitive, but for a short time, followed immediately by the resurrection. Now, the "Woman", mother of the "seed", as appears from the Genesis text, is intimately and indissolubly associated with the battle, with the full victory of her seed over the devil, and with the partial defeat (the bite of the demonic serpent on the heel, that is, the real death of the Redeemer on the cross and the mystical death, by means of the sword of sorrow, of the Coredemptrix at the foot of the cross). Two blocks clash: that of the vanquished (the serpent and its seed) and that of the victors (the Woman and her seed). The enmities (that is, the struggle), the total victory (that is, the crushing of the head of the demonic serpent), and the partial defeat (the bite to the heel) were therefore common to the Woman and her seed; just as the enmities (that is, the struggle), the total defeat (that is, the crushing of the head), and the partial victory (that is, the bite to the heel) were common to the demonic serpent and its seed. Consequently, just as for the Redeemer, so also for the Coredemptrix, death was soon followed by the resurrection, conqueror of death. From this analysis of the Genesis text, illuminated by other biblical texts and by testimonies of Fathers and Doctors, it may be legitimately concluded that the bodily A. of the Blessed Virgin Mary is implicitly announced, with equivalent terms, in the Protoevangelium and is therefore contained therein in a formal and implicit manner. Rightly, therefore, 113 Fathers of the Vatican Council subscribed to a postulatum for the definition of the A., in which the eminent privilege was proven with such an argument (cf. G. Hentrich-R. G. De Moos, op. cit., I, p. 97 sqq.).

Other proofs drawn from the Old Testament (from symbols, types, etc.) do not seem to be able to provide a scriptural argument.

In the New Testament, the bodily A. is usually seen to be implicitly contained in four places: in the angel's greeting (Lk. 1, 28), in the texts where St. Paul teaches the precedence of Christ in the resurrection (I Cor. 15, 23) or the connection between sin and death (Rom. 5, 12 etc.), and in the woman of the Apoc. (12, 1-2).

The first argument is deduced from the angel's greeting: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women" (Lk. 1, 28). The Blessed Virgin is greeted as "full of grace" par excellence, as if that were her name, without time limit, immune therefore, from the very first instant of her existence, from any fault, and consequently exempt from the dominion of death which, according to Scripture and tradition, in the present state is purely the punishment for sin. The Immaculate One must therefore also have been the Assumpta. The Blessed Virgin, in the second place, is greeted as she in whom the Lord is present in a special way: "the Lord is with thee"; present not as in others (e.g., as in Moses, when the mission to liberate the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt was entrusted to him) but especially in order to give birth to God in a manner worthy of Him, that is, virginally (as the angel subsequently explained), triumphing over concupiscence, which was a guarantee of immunity from the corruption of the tomb and of the resurrection of the body. The Blessed Virgin, finally, is greeted as "blessed among women" in a most singular way. This "singular blessing", a consequence of the "fullness of grace" and of the "special presence of the Lord in her", is opposed to the classic divine curse: "You shall return to dust" (Gen. 3, 16-19). It is therefore a "blessing" that is in radical antithesis to the curse hurled by God in the earthly paradise and that is equivalent to a threefold blessing, expressed by the triple greeting, namely: blessing of "fullness of grace" in contrast to the intrinsic curse of sin; blessing of virginal fruitfulness in contrast to the curse of sorrows in childbirth; blessing of anticipated resurrection in contrast to the curse of the corruption of the tomb. The angel's greeting, therefore, in its threefold blessing, echoes the Protoevangelium in the triple victory of Mary, together with Christ, over sin, by means of the Immaculate Conception, over concupiscence, by means of the virginal maternity, and over death, by means of the bodily A.

A second biblical argument taken from the New Testament in favor of the A. is deduced from I Cor. 15, 20-23, where it is said: "Now indeed Christ has risen from the dead, the firstfruits of those who fall asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also comes the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive, each in his own rank: Christ, as the firstfruits, and then those who belong to Christ, at his coming." St. Paul here, speaking of those who rise, distinguishes two different categories: that of the firstfruits (Christ) and that of the remainder of the harvest (all the others, who will rise at the end of the world). Now, if Christ—according to St. Paul—belongs to the firstfruits of those who rise because He is the principle of life (in opposition to Adam, who was the principle of death), the same can be said of Mary, since she too was the principle of life (in opposition to Eve, who was the principle of death, according to that saying of Eccli. 25, 23: "By the woman everyone dies").

Like Christ, therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary also had to rise again in anticipation.

The third scriptural proof is taken from several Pauline texts considered globally, which on the one hand establish the grounds for the Christian's resurrection (I Cor. 15, 20-23) and on the other present death as a consequence of sin (Rom. 4, 25; 5, 12-21; 6, 23; 8, 19-23; I Cor. 15, 3; 15, 56). In the light of these texts and of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, not a few reason as follows: the postponement of the final glorification, even corporeal, of the children of God until the Parousia is presented by St. Paul as a painful trial which, in the light of his doctrine concerning the connection between sin and death, must be explained as a penalty for moral guilt, both personal and original. But the Most Blessed Virgin was immune from any guilt, both original and actual: hence she must also have been immune from the penalty of the delayed resurrection until the day of the Parousia. The A. of the Virgin is therefore implicit in the Pauline theory.

A final scriptural argument is drawn from Rev. 12, 1-2: "And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." The prophet then proceeds to describe the war of the infernal Dragon against the mysterious Woman, a war that unfolds in three phases: 1st phase (vv. 4-5): the dragon attempts to devour the woman's son who has just been brought to light, but he is caught up to God and to His throne; 2nd phase (vv. 6; 14-15): the dragon, frustrated, turns his fury against the woman, who, mysteriously sustained by God, flies into the desert, to the place prepared for her by God, thus definitively escaping the diabolical hostilities; 3rd phase (v. 17): the dragon, seeing his assaults against the woman rendered vain, turns his wrath "against the rest of her offspring," that is, "against those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus." It is permissible to note in this text the parallelism of the Apocalypse (the last inspired book) with Genesis (the first) or Protoevangelium. If the Son spoken of is the Messiah (as appears from the evident allusion to Ps. 2), the woman can be none other than His mother, Our Lady, that is, the mother of the whole Christ, both physical and mystical. As the mother of the physical Christ, she is in heaven physically, in body and soul, according to what is affirmed in the first verse; as the mother of the mystical Christ, however, she is mystically on earth, prey to the mysterious pains of childbirth and the hostilities of the demon. Such is the interpretation given by Pius X in the encyclical Ad diem illum. One might perhaps object that the heaven in which the mysterious woman is described (in V. 1) is not heaven properly so called (Paradise), but the starry heavens. It can be replied, however, that, by virtue of the context, it is a question of heaven properly so called. The Apostle, in fact, in the last verse of the preceding chapter (a verse that logically belongs to the following chapter) sees the heavenly regions open up (11, 19). Furthermore: the setting that surrounds the woman is entirely composed of astronomical elements—evident proof that this is not the starry sky, but heaven properly so called.

Not all and every biblical argument has the same value; to give them the value they deserve, it is convenient to view them as a whole, always taking Catholic tradition into account (v. the rich study by L. G. da Fonseca, L'A. di Maria nella S. Scrittura, Roma 1948).

2. The multiple fittingness

The principal and also the most effective among the various theological reasons adduced in favor of corporeal A. seems to be the one drawn from the threefold bond that the Most Blessed Virgin has with Christ: physical, moral, and dynamic, that is, soteriological. If it is true that the Incarnate Word, by virtue of the moral or affective bond, freely assumed with regard to His mother all those moral obligations that children have toward their own mother, it follows that He would not have fulfilled, at least in an exemplary way, those freely assumed duties, and particularly that of honoring His mother, had He not immediately made her body partaker of the soul's glory. If it is true that the Most Blessed Virgin, by virtue of the dynamic or soteriological bond, was associated with Christ, the new Adam, as the new Eve, in the work of Redemption, it follows that she must necessarily be drawn into the very wake of Christ. Now, the resurrection and ascension of Christ are reckoned, according to St. Paul's doctrine, among the mysteries that wrought our salvation. The same must therefore be said of Mary. In the present order of Providence, death is either a penalty for sin or a reparation for the same. In Christ and in Mary it was not and could not be a penalty for sin: it was therefore in reparation for the same. But to repair sin, only death avails, not remaining in death. The Co-redemptrix, therefore, like the Redeemer, had to rise immediately and, as the reward for the reparation of sin, receive the fullness of glory.

Upon this threefold bond are based the other mariological principles that likewise claim, in their own way, the same singular privilege, namely: the principle of singularity, the principle of eminence, and the principle of analogy or likeness to Christ.

According to the principle of singularity, the Most Blessed Virgin constitutes an order, a world unto herself, with laws all her own—that is, as St. Albert the Great expresses it, "she is not one among all, but she is one above all" (Mariale, qq. 70-80) in every order. The Virgin, says St. Thomas of Villanova, "sola per se facit chorum," forms a choir by herself (In Praesent. B.M.V.). She is therefore singular in everything with respect to others, not only in the first instant of her earthly existence, by being redeemed before all others by way of preservative redemption, but also in the last instant of her earthly existence, rising gloriously before all others.

According to the principle of eminence, what was granted by God to others must be granted with even greater reason to the Most Blessed Virgin. Now, to some of His faithful servants God has granted the gift of bodily incorruption. He had to do the same, indeed far more, for His Most Blessed Mother, granting to her body not only incorruption but also anticipated glorification.

According to the principle of analogy or likeness to Christ, the Most Blessed Virgin was always and in everything similar to her Son, insofar as her nature and condition allowed. The mysteries of Mary's life harmonized wonderfully with the mysteries of Christ's life. Therefore, the mystery of Christ's anticipated resurrection had to correspond to the mystery of Mary's anticipated resurrection; the glorious Ascension of Christ had to correspond to the glorious A. of Mary. Two destinies so wonderfully united from the beginning and throughout the course of their earthly existence could not be abruptly divided at the end of the same.

All these reasons, drawn from Scripture, tradition, and theological fittingness, taken together, acquire such force as to render the corporeal A. of Mary definable.

III. ICONOGRAPHY

The narrative of the death, Assumption, and coronation of the Virgin, as handed down to us by ancient legends, is not found depicted before the 12th century except on textiles, ivories, and miniatures. These generally trace back to Byzantine or Byzantinizing representations of the dormitio, introducing into the lower register the customary depiction of the group of the apostles gathered around the deathbed together with Jesus; beside them is the figure of an angel carrying the soul to heaven (ivories in the Cluny museum, 12th century, and Darmstadt). Prior to these images symbolizing the assumption of the soul in the form of a child, there were others that showed the adult Virgin as an orant among angels with outspread wings (textile of Sens, 7th century; panel of Tuotilo, 9th century, in the monastery of S. Gallo). While such scenes required the clarification of an inscription, around the year 1000 the illuminators of the abbey of Reichenau found a new solution to the difficult theme: in their works, angels support a medallion with the bust of Mary, which was later replaced by the mandorla enclosing her full figure. This type of "Mary in glory" was adopted both by the fourteenth-century Sienese school of painting and by very many fifteenth-century artists (Masolino, Pinturicchio, and Perugino), until Tiziano, with his celebrated 1518 painting (Venezia, Frari), abandoned the old iconographic scheme, boldly transforming the Assumption into a true ascension, with the figure of the Madonna freely suspended in space between earth and heaven, attended by angels above the empty tomb. This iconographic type was adopted by nearly all subsequent artists, from Rubens down to Tiepolo. IV. THE A. IN THE LITURGY. — a) In the East. — As certain as the Eastern origin of the feast of the A. is, its timing and locality remain equally uncertain. The hypothesis that it derives from the feast of the Marian church, called Kathisma, situated between Gerusalemme and Betlemme, celebrated on Aug. 15, as appears from an Armenian lectionary of ca. 460, is now abandoned, because it concerns the dedication of this church. Likewise, a kind of transfer of the primitive Marian feast, common to almost all Eastern rites, placed either after Christmas or after Epiphany, seems unlikely. The celebration of a Marian feast in Gerusalemme on Aug. 15, linked to a church built, as it seems, by Eudossia (ca. 450) in Gethsemani, is attested by a geographical lectionary of the 8th cent., which reflects customs of Gerusalemme around the end of the 7th cent. This feast, however, as others demonstrate

texts, concerned Maria in her capacity as Mother of God. However, in the 6th century it was believed that this latter church was the site of the burial of Our Lady, and it is probable that the apocryphal narratives concerning the death of Maria contributed to transforming the Jerusalem celebration of Aug. 15 into a feast of the death of Our Lady. This is today the most widely accepted hypothesis. It seems that Emperor Maurizio (582-602) ordered that the feast of the κομμωσις, dormitio, of Maria, be celebrated throughout the empire; indeed, from that time onward it became very popular. The Byzantines precede the feast with a 15-day fast, dating back to the time of Teodoro Studita (826); among the Armenians, after Mass, at the foot of the altar, the celebrant blesses several clusters of grapes, which are then distributed to those present.

b) In the West. - The feast of the A. spread to the West through various channels. In Spagna and Gallia a Marian feast, initially generic, but later celebrated as the A. of Maria into heaven, appears at the end of the 6th century (Gregorio di Tours mentions it in De gloria martyrum, c. 9), and was fixed on Jan. 18. However, in Roma, Gregorio Magno (d. in 604) did not yet know of any specific Marian feast. Around that time, a generic feast of Maria as divine Mother arose «in octabas Domini», that is, on Jan. 1. Only under Sergio I (d. in 701) is there evidence of four Marian feasts in Roma; indeed, by a constitutum of his, he decreed that the feasts of the Purification, Annunciation, A. (called Dormitio), and Nativity be celebrated with a solemn procession from S. Adriano in the Forum to S. Maria Maggiore. It is therefore certain that these feasts were introduced in Roma during the 7th century. Scholars have suggested various Greek Popes, including Teodoro I; nevertheless, it may be observed that the introduction of these Marian feasts by papal decree should have left some trace in the Liber Pont. A slow infiltration seems more likely, probably through the Eastern monks who emigrated en masse from the East in the early decades of that century because of the Persian and Arab invasions. The feast of the A. quickly took first place among the other Marian feasts. The oldest liturgical texts contemplate the bodily death of Maria, her bodily A., and her glorification in heaven. By the end of the 8th century, the feast of the A. already had a vigil; Leone IV added an octave to II. During the Middle Ages, various popular customs accompanied this feast, especially in the north, such as the blessing of herbs and the first fruits of the harvest.

its original character, which was genuinely sacred and broadly popular. Since its recurrence falls at the height of summer, and during a period of pause between the principal agricultural labors, the events harmonized with the seasonal conditions: it is the most propitious time for large pilgrimages, which are still very common, especially in France.

In various localities, such as, for example, in Sicily, expressions of popular worship began on the first of August, initiating on that day the fortnight of the Madonna: in Palermo, children walked through the most populous streets carrying « barette » with the statue of the mid-August Madonna and stopped in front of houses to sing a short stanza in honor of the Assumption and to ask for some coins to cover the expenses of the feast. Being the fruit season, it was a sign of devotion, during the fortnight, to abstain from all fruit, or at least from certain qualities of it; in return, on the feast day it was customary to make copious gifts of baskets filled with the finest fruit. Still in Sicily, one of the most characteristic and tenaciously preserved customs in Messina is the procession on horseback of the giant and the giantess; this procession also takes place in Mistretta (Messina), but for the feast of the Madonna on September 8; these are curious survivals, which find parallels even outside of Italy, and are perhaps to be recognized as echoes and reflections of very ancient customs.

The Assumption is celebrated with particular solemnity and picturesque forms of popular worship in other regions of Italy as well, such as in Abruzzo, where the feast is also called « della Madonna della Libera », and gives rise especially to illuminations and fireworks; in the Marches, where, in Fermo, the famous procession on horseback of the Assumption takes place; in Liguria, and in particular in Genoa, which had it as a day of obligation since the year 856; indeed, in the 17th century the consecration of the city to Mary was, by decree of the Senate, transferred from the day of the Annunciation to that of the Assumption, thus bringing about a greater spread of the cult and festive manifestations throughout the territory of the republic. Genoa dedicated to her the magnificent basilica due to the art of Galeazzo Alessi, which stands on the hill of Carignano. Finally, in Sassari and Nulvi, in Sardinia, the famous « candelieri » appear in the procession of August 15: very tall papier-mâché structures, with an internal reed skeleton, which together have the shape of palms. For further details V. CANDELIERE. Also worthy of mention is the Inchinata of Tivoli, so called because at a certain point in the procession the statue of the Virgin met that of the Son and three times the two images bowed beneath green triumphal arches.

Almost everywhere, in many manifestations of ferragosto, characteristic elements of the feast of the Assumption are still recognizable. We therefore also refer to that entry. - See PLS. XIX-XX.