FORMALE. – Also called rational or pectoral, it is a plate of metal, gold, or silver, set with jewels, about the size of a hand, worn on the chest, where the bishops’ cope is fastened and buckled in their own diocese.
Many authors derive it from the rational of the Jewish high priest, who wore on his chest an ornament called the rational, with twelve different precious stones representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Others, however, derive it from the Late Latin word firmaculum, a kind of clasp or buckle used to fasten garments. Nothing is prescribed regarding its form, so that goldsmiths may exercise their talent by adorning it with figures or symbols and interweaving enamels and precious stones. On present-day f., the practice has prevailed of representing the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove with outspread wings: a symbol of his assistance to the bishop in governing the diocese. Since the f. is, as stated, an exclusive ornament of bishops in their own dioceses, it is forbidden by the ceremonial of bishops to the assisting priest and to non-diocesan bishops. Only the suburbanicarian cardinal bishops have the privilege of wearing the f. everywhere, including Rome, whether they assist at a pontifical function celebrated by the supreme pontiff or solemnly celebrate the liturgical functions themselves. Their f., according to a very ancient usage, consists of a gilded-silver plate on which three knots and pinecones of pearls are set in a perpendicular line. The supreme pontiff also uses the f. The earliest record we have of that used by the Roman pontiffs as a liturgical ornament dates from Martin V, who had one made of gold, with raised figures and jewels of great value, by Lorenzo Chiberti. Among the other papal f., the one Benvenuto Cellini made on the orders of Clement VII is famous. It represented, as Cancellieri relates, the seated Eternal Father, above a background diamond of 136 grains supported by various little angels and cherubs, between two oriental sapphires of rare purity and two oriental balas rubies, with various jewels. Only a copy of it exists in the pontifical sacristy; the original was taken by Napoleon.
At present the pope has three different f.: one of pearls, which he uses when wearing the mitre of silver lamina, that is, at funerals and on the Sundays of Advent and Lent. (It should be noted that the pearl pinecones are arranged in a triangle.) The second, the ordinary one, which he uses at all functions except Vespers and pontifical Masses, that is, whenever the pope wears the mitre of gold lamina; and finally the precious one, which he uses at all the most solemn functions and at all Vespers and pontifical Masses, that is, whenever he puts on the precious mitre. These two have the same form: the oval plate represents the Holy Spirit in the form of a radiant dove, decorated with pearls and a garland of vine leaves with clusters of grapes, among which twelve precious stones are arranged in a circle; they differ from each other only in the richness and variety of the stones.
Finally, mention should be made of the f. placed on the cope of the statue of St Peter in the Vatican Basilica on the day of his feast: it is a gilded-silver plate bearing at its center a dove with outspread wings and rays, representing the Holy Spirit. Enrico Dante
FORME, STORIA delle (Formgeschichtliche Methode). – An exegetical movement that became established between 1919 and 1922, especially in Germany. In English it is called form-criticism; in Italian some use the periphrasis “method of the history of forms,” while others use “morphological method.” In a certain sense, this system is the application to the New Testament, particularly to the Synoptic Gospels, of the theory of “literary genres” (v. GENRES), formulated especially for the Old Testament. Its purpose is to establish the formation of the Gospel texts, conceived not as the product of particular writers or determinate literary sources, but of a slow, anonymous development.
With differing nuances, the advocates of the history of f. presuppose intense activity within the community before the various narratives thus elaborated were gathered into particular writings by editors (= Evangelists). At the origin there would have been the work of anonymous preachers or missionaries, who repeated, adapted, and completed the “sayings” (v. LOGIA) of Jesus, or who, for parenetic purposes, expanded upon detailed accounts of miracles. Considered from a literary point of view, these two genres are called “paradigms” and “novellas” by Dibelius, and “apophthegms” and “miracle stories” by Bultmann. A broader narrative embracing a period in Jesus’ life or an episode of primary importance is called a “legend,” in the primitive sense of the word, without any implicit judgment concerning its historical reliability.
In this system, the study of the milieu (Sitz im Leben) in which the various f. developed and were transmitted occupies a primary place. Whereas Dibelius proceeds from the reconstruction of the milieu to the delimitation of the literary genres or f. most congenial to it, Bultmann begins with an examination of the various f. discernible in the Gospels in order to discover in them the inner history of the primitive Christian communities. Only indirectly, in constructive criticism, do they attempt a more or less rationalistic explanation of the life of Jesus Christ and of Christian dogma. Their interest is directed above all toward a literary study of the brief narratives that would constitute the substratum of the Gospels.
The incontestable merit of this school is that it has drawn attention to the various forms of popular literature and to the importance of primitive oral catechesis. At times it offers advantageous solutions to individual literary difficulties. Finally, although it claims to explain the life of Jesus in a rationalistic manner, the method of the history of f. fully recognizes belief in the divinity of Christ in the apostolic age. Other principles, however, are less acceptable or certainly erroneous, such as the sharp distinction between literary f., which generally appear far more complex; the exceptional role assigned to the community not only in transmitting the narratives but also in formulating them; the attempt to break the Gospels down into fragments, even the smallest; and the possibility that such work could have been carried out in a short time by an amorphous crowd. This last postulate requires dating the Gospels later than the date affirmed by tradition and disregards the importance of certain dominant personalities. The continual comparison with pagan mythological literature and with apocryphal and rabbinic literature is also often based on secondary or highly debatable elements.
BIBLI. Among the advocates of the method of the history of f., it is sufficient to recall: K. S. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, Berlin 1919; M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangelismus, Tübingen 1919; 2nd ed. there 1935; R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen 1921; 2nd ed. there 1931; id., Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien, Giessen 1925; 2nd ed. there 1930; M. Alberts, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, Berlin 1921; G. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und der Christenthalt, Göttingen 1922; id., Neues Testament und historische Methode, Tübingen 1928.
Among the most noteworthy critics of the method are: E. Fischer, Die Formgeschichtliche Methode, Giessen 1924; O. Cullmann, Les récentes études sur la formation évangélique, in Revue d'histoire et philosophie religieuse, 5 (1925), pp. 450–77, 564–79; F. Fiebig, Radioinische Formgeschichte und Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, Lipsis 1926; E. Florit, La «storia delle f.» nei Vangeli in rapporto alla dottrina cattolica, in Biblica, 14 (1933), pp. 312–48; id., Il metodo della «storia delle f.» e la sua applicazione al racconto della Passione, Roma 1933; M. Braun, a. V. in DBs, III, cols. 312–17; A. Richardson, The Gospels in the making. An introduction to the recent criticism on the Synoptic Gospels, Londra 1938; P. Benoit, Réflexions sur la «Formgeschichtliche Methode», in Revue biblique, 53 (1948), pp. 481–512; F. Sava, Studio sul Vangelo. Un saggio sul metodo morfologico. Esposizione e critica del Paradigma di Martino Dibelius, Roma 1940. Angelo Penna