The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-05-12

the year 400, and probably It is only a trans
lation from Flavius Josephus.
On the whole 1t seems as if the attribution
of the vision to st. Peter were a usurpa-
ton Of the Acta PAUL., as although the
episode is attributed TO st. Peter in st.
Ambrose's account, it is told in a narrative
Of the passion Of both Apostles. The
records OF the great Apostles we're 50 inter-
woven, and their memories too, That the
ascription to st. Peter of an incident IN St.
Paul's life is far from surprising. ,.
The Acts on which Origen relied were put
In circulation at some not precisely known
date. between the years 100 and ITO. So
were the Acts Of Peter. 0rigen only equals
In time the compilation OF these narratives.
The scriptural origin for the story makes
the Pauline version impossible, while the
Acts of Peter put the start OF its doou-
mented history at a point 400 years after the
death of st. Peter, as IL this Apostles name.
and not st. Paul's. occurred In the text or
Origen.
OF st. Ambrose. st. Gregory, and the Acts
OF SITS. Processus and Martinianus. The
story is also in the spurious Acts. OF the
Passion of st. Peter, processing. to be from
the pen OF his successor, st, Linus, which
we're perhaps rhSIso 0nGs genuine v Sa 6HS wsTs cor
The story given by st. Ambrose serves, 70
perpetuate the irrelevant matter OF the
precise time when st. Peter fed from Rome.
The account given by st: Gregory, is alto
gether favorable to st. Peter no re-
proach is implied TO the Apostle Tor Tor
saking Rome.
The respect with which the legend was
received during the post-Apostoio n
Papistio periods, supports the explanation
drawn from Sacred Writ, and the story,
seems to have been passed down as II II
been devised at a very early date. AS re-
CARDS the medieval subsequent trans
mission OF the story, q search through the
works dealing with the subject fails to re-
veal that Il is older than the sixteenth CEN
tury.
There is a book OF the indulgences
attached 10 the churches OF Rome dating
from 1911 which mentions 1t. The site is
very much better remembered than the
shrine, and this bore other names, one OF
which, SancJa Maria de Palmis-St. Mary OF
the Palms-connected it with the trophies
Of Christian martyrs at the gate OF the city
Besides the chapel or shrine generally
known as Domino Quo Vadis,' there lie
a small round shrine bearing, the name Of
Cardinal Pole. Comparing the. literature
Of these two shrines one is inclined TO be.
lieve that the English chapel, as the round
building is called, may be on the site in
Dictated by the primitive Evolutionary story
and not that now identified as such.
Such a suspicion Is abetted by an en-
craving OF about the year 1900 reproduced
In the aActa Sanctorum. 1t is described as
the picture OF Sancta Maria de Plants, or
Of the footprints. .
The larger Shrine is circular, with a domed
roof and a circular window over the en-
trance. In short, II resembles the chapel
ascribed to Cardinal Pole, and not the other.
OF course, the other was restored later
in the sixteenth century, and more than
once. The surviving circular chapel ia
supposed TO have been built by Cardinal
Pole, because the other was threatened with
ruin. This explanation Is inconclusive as
the best way TO ave an historic edifoe on
a memorial site is obviously not to erect
another on a different spot.
In the archives OF the English corpora
ton Of Rome there are documents which
refer to this particular site OF the Quo
Vadis and which elucidate the account
current about the circular shrine to the
southeast Of the larger square chapel. The
first and most important OF these docu-
ments is a legal sentence copied into the
register OF the English College. which be-
came the heir OF the time honoTed national
corporation.
The sentence is dated September 9, 1876.
and refers so a vindication Of property
OF the chapel situated on the Via Appia,
which is called Domino quo vadls, formerly
built q Instrumentation the Iaundas