[298] The date 386 depends upon the order of the sermons referred to. Usener, who places them at unnecessary wide intervals, gives 388, Clinton 387, Combefis, Montfaucon, and Tillemont 386. The period from February to December is ample for the above sermons.
[299] Chrysost., Hom. in Nativ. I. Chr.; Montfaucon, ii. 352; Migne, Patr. Gr., x. 2, 351.
[300] Τὸ ταχέως οὔτω πανταχοῦ περιαγγελθῆναι. Ταχέως does not contradict ἄνωθεν, for Chrysostom distinguishes between the knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth and its solemn celebration. The former had been known for ages in Rome, but the celebration of the festival, on the contrary, had spread rapidly in all directions, and this rapid diffusion of the festival shows in its turn that the 25th December is really the day of Christ’s birth.
[301] Cod. Justin., 3, 12, 6.
[302] Cod. Theod., 2, 8, 27. Cf. the law of the year 425, ib., 15, 5, 5.
[303] Combefis, Hist. Hær. Monoth., 304: Ἐξ ἐκείνου δὲ ἔλαβεν ἀρχὴ ἡ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησία τὴν ἡμὲραν τῶν γενεθλίων τοῦ σωτῆρος. Combefis was the first to discuss the question, and his disquisition is excellent, though now forgotten. Cf. Migne, viii. 964-968. Combefis has also collected all the material for the history of Christmas in his Bibl. Patrum Conc., 300 et seq.
[304] Combefis (Hist. Hær. Monoth., 302 and 314, A. 4) considered it suspicious.
[305] Roncalli, Chronica Vetustiora, Introd., xxix.
[306] Bucherius, in its Latinized form.
[307] Jos. Strzygowski, Die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354, with 30 plates, Berlin, 1888, published for the Archeological Institute. The rest is to be found in Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores Antiquissimi, t. ix., vol. i., fasc. i., Berol., 1891. The Natales Cæsarum and the Calendar are printed in the Corp. Inscr. Lat.