Crane.] 74 {Mareh 16, 
author in the prologue to the serm. de sanctis, suys: ‘ Dividendo eundem 
sermonem in tres partes. Pria pars erit de dignitate et privilegiis istius 
sancti vel istorum sanctorum et sanctarum. Secunda pars principalis erit 
pro informatione hominum simplicium et specialiter ad emendationem suae 
vitae. Tercia pars erit de miraculis istius sancti aut illorum sanctorum 
vel sanctarum.’’ The division of the sermo de tempore is also usually three- 
fold, the evemplum coming last. The following brief analysis of one of 
Herolt’s sermons may not be unacceptable. Sermo avi, De innocentibus. 
“‘ Mittens Herodes occidit omnes pueros qui erant in Bethleem et in omnibus 
finibus ejus, Matt. ii. Ex quo hodie peragitur festum illorum puerorum 
innocentium qui ab iniquo Herode interfecti sint, tune in presenti sermone 
tria sunt dicenda. Primo quod aliqui parentes suos pueros spiritualiter 
occidunt sicut Herodes corporaliter occidet. Secundo de solemnitate pre- 
sentis festi. Tercio exemplum.’’ ‘There are six classes of parents who 
kill their children: those who kill the child yet unborn, those who love 
their children too much (‘‘ Qui amat filium vel filiam super me non est me 
dignus,’’ Matt. x), those who teach them evil, as dancing, wearing their 
rich clothes, painting their faces and curling their hair, those who do not 
punish their children when they err, those who set their children a bad 
example, and thus kill them spiritually, and finally those who amass 
wealth unjustly in order to enrich their offspring. Secondly, the feast of 
the Innocents is to be observed solemnly for three reasons: first, on ac- 
count of the time, they were the first martyrs, secondly, on account of 
their number, thirdly, on account of the place. Thirdly, mark an example 
of those who do not correct their children when they err. We read of a 
certain father who was accustomed to visit taverns and games, and take 
his little son with him. When the son grew up he was so used to taverns 
and games that he could not be kept away from them, and after he had 
spent his own money, he began to steal, first from his father, then from his 
neighbors. His father did not punish him severely, but gently reproved 
him. This admonition, however, had no effect, and when he grew to be 
a man, he was caught once and again in theft, but twice was saved from 
the gallows by a fine. The third time he was detected he was sentenced 
to death, and led to the gibbet. There he begged that his father might be 
brought to him, He came weeping, and the son asked him to kiss him, 
and forgive him the wrong he had done him. When the father did as he 
was asked, his son bit off his nose. The son was censured because twice 
his father had saved him from death by paying a fine, and would gladly 
have freed him a’ third time had he been able, The son, however, an- 
swered: ‘I have acted well and justly because he is the cause of my 
death, for from my youth up he permitted me to live according to my own 
will, neither corrected me at any time for the excesses I committed,’ ’’* 
At the end of the Ixxxiv, sermon de tempore (De gaudits coelt) occurs the 
following beautiful and well-known exemplum which Mr. Longfellow’s 
readers will recognize as the story of Monk Felix in the Golden Legend, 
*For parallels si 
been already me 
xe Pauli, 19. This story occurs in Etienne de Bourbon, and has 
tioned. 
—o 
