Did Pope Gelasius create St Valentine’s Day as a replacement for the Lupercalia?

Something weird has begun to happen over the last couple of years.   Twitter is filling up with claims that “Christmas is really pagan”; the same for Easter (!), St Valentine’s Day – indeed for every single Christian holiday.  This is new, and started maybe in 2018, and now has become very commonplace.  The object is without a doubt to diminish the Christian significance of American holidays.  I get the impression that this may be part of the anti-Trump reaction.  It is clearly orchestrated, and obviously a nuisance.

This year I came across the claim that St Valentine’s Day is really the Lupercalia (!), and that Pope Gelasius I abolished the Lupercalia and created St Valentine’s Day instead.  One website calling itself “history.com” claims:

In the late 5th century A.D., Pope Gelasius I eliminated the pagan celebration of Lupercalia and declared February 14 a day to celebrate the martyrdom of Saint Valentine instead, although it’s highly unlikely he intended the day to commemorate love and passion.

And the same website on another page:

Lupercalia survived the initial rise of Christianity but was outlawed—as it was deemed “un-Christian”–at the end of the 5th century, when Pope Gelasius declared February 14 St. Valentine’s Day.

Google helpfully puts these pages at the very top of the search results if you look for information.  They seem to be drawing on an article which otherwise appears a bit further down, National Public Radio, The Dark Origins of Valentine’s Day, Feb. 13, 2011, which claims:

Later, Pope Gelasius I muddled things in the 5th century by combining St. Valentine’s Day with Lupercalia to expel the pagan rituals. But the festival was more of a theatrical interpretation of what it had once been. Lenski adds, “It was a little more of a drunken revel, but the Christians put clothes back on it. That didn’t stop it from being a day of fertility and love.”

Lenski is “Noel Lenski, a historian at the University of Colorado at Boulder”.  Of course he may well have been misrepresented by this journalist.  But is this true?  Did Gelasius establish St Valentine’s Day on February 14?

In a 1931 article,[1]William M. Green indicates that Cardinal Baronius must take some responsibility for all this.

… in almost all the discussions of the institution it is said that Pope Gelasius in 494 converted the pagan festival into the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin (=Candlemas). This conjecture of Cardinal Baronius[4] was based on the fact that Gelasius had suppressed the pagan festival, and that the quadragesima Epiphaniae (February 14), the earliest form of the Christian festival, so nearly coincided with its date, February 15. Usener and later writers on Christian ritual [5] have recognized Baronius’ mistake…

4. C. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici (Barri-Ducis; L. Guerin, 1864-83), IX, 603.
5. H. Usener, Weihnachtsfest (Bonn: Cohen, 1889), p. 318; T. Barnes, “Candlemas” in Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Scribner’s, 1908-190; L. Duchesne, Christian Worship5 (London: SPCK, 1923), p.271.

So the modern idea that the Lupercalia turned into St Valentine’s Day is itself a bastardisation of an older idea, that the Lupercalia turned into Candlemas.

We do know that Gelasius did abolish the Lupercalia.  In Letter 100, to Andromachus, in the Collectio Avellana he explicitly says so, and defends his action to his noble correspondent by attacking the remains of the Lupercalia as a degraded superstition.  (I was unaware until now that an edition of this exists in the Sources Chretiennes series, 65).[2]

Another article by Jack B. Oruch is more forthright:[3]

The idea that Valentine’s Day customs perpetuated those of the Roman Lupercalia has been accepted uncritically and repeated, in various forms, up to the present.22 Most of those who offer this now traditional explanation cite no sources or refer only to Butler or Douce. But John W. Hales, in the most substantial and reasonable article written about Valentine’s Day, correctly pointed out that the Lupercalia never involved the pairing of lovers or a lottery.23 As far as I can determine, the first suggestions of a lottery of lovers on Valentine’s Day occur in the fifteenth century in poems of Lydgate and Charles d’Orleans, discussed below; the only known attempt to suppress the practice and substitute the names of saints was that of St. Francis de Sales early in his career as bishop at Annecy (1603).24 Butler’s ideas were prompted, in all probability, by a confused knowledge of the date of this isolated event; a less charitable explanation would attribute his remarks to wishful or pious fantasy.

The most complex version of this story – one that links the Lupercalia, Valentine, and Chaucer – has recently been put forth by Alfred L. Kellogg and Robert C. Cox[4]… According to Kellogg and Cox, the process by which St. Valentine became a “fertility figure” was an indirect and accidental one. They report: “When, in 495, Pope Gelasius finally abolished the Lupercalia, his procedure followed the accepted pattern. He set in its place a Christian festival of comparable meaning and almost exact date – the Purification of the Virgin, or Candlemas, celebrated on February 14” (p. 112). Then, after the date of the observance of Candlemas was “transferred from February 14 to February 2” (to accord with the fixing of the date of Christ’s birth at December 25), Valentine in some unknown way inherited the associations of the Virgin Mary with purification and fertility. Unfortunately, the account thus far is based upon faulty assumptions and misunderstood data.

Informed scholarship offers nothing to support the claim that Gelasius I “baptized” the Lupercalia by supplanting it with the Feast of the Purification…. Other medieval writers [than Bede] gave different explanations of the origin of the Feast of the Purification, but not until the unfortunate conjectures of Cardinal Baronius in the sixteenth century was the particular pagan festival behind Candlemas. said to be the Lupercalia.29 While the church did supplant some pagan customs with Christian ones, in the present case the similarities between the Lupercalia and Candlemas appear to be fortuitous and negligible. To suggest a place for St. Valentine in a history already marked by so much speculation is pointless.

Which is pretty direct.  There’s simply no evidence, apparently, of any connection with St Valentine.

I’m not quite clear how we discover what the early evidence is for the celebration of a saint’s day.  It appears that we must look at early service books, and this is rather an area outside of my knowledge.

The so-called Gelasian Sacramentary does indeed have prayers in natali Valentini, Vitalis et Feliculae on xvi Kal. Martias, i.e. 14th February.  (How interesting to see natalis used to indicate an anniversary, rather than a  birthday!).[5]  This has reached us in a Vatican manuscript (Ms. reg. lat. 316), written around 750 at the nunnery of Chelles near Paris.  The original text was probably composed in Rome between 628-715.[6]

I do wonder how we could find out when the feast of St Valentine was first celebrated!

UPDATE: I have just heard from Dr Lenski, disclaiming any responsibility for the mangled comments attributed to him in that NPR article.

UPDATE (18 Feb 2022): I have finally worked out how to find out the earliest references to the feast of St Valentine, and written about it here.

  1. [1]William M. Green, “The Lupercalia in the Fifth Century”, Classical Philology 26 (1931), 60-69.  JSTOR.
  2. [2]Gélase Ier : Lettre contre les Lupercales et Dix-huit messes du Sacramentaire léonien. SC65, 1960.
  3. [3]Jack B. Oruch, “St. Valentine, Chaucer, and Spring in February”, Speculum 56 (1981). 534-65.  JSTOR.
  4. [4]25. “Chaucer’s St. Valentine: A Conjecture,” in Alfred L. Kellogg, Chaucer, Langland, Arthur: Essays in Middle English Literature (New Brunswick, N.J., 1972), p. 108.
  5. [5]H.A.Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary. Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, Oxford, 1894, p.167.  Archive.org.
  6. [6]Joseph M. Lynch, Christianizing Kinship, p.29. Google Books.

13 thoughts on “Did Pope Gelasius create St Valentine’s Day as a replacement for the Lupercalia?

  1. Re: everything being pagan, I think it is a coalition of old anti-Catholic stuff from religious groups that don’t like any Christian holy days or saints, more stuff from Muslims that really hate St. Valentine’s, stuff thought up by the neopagans of the old days of the Internet, and a lot of help from the militant atheists and people who dislike heterosexual fun.

    I expect there will be a focus on love on any day of the year where spring is just starting, the birds are nesting, and the early spring flowers are blooming. Most of the saints have done something sympathetic about love, so most saints’ days would be suitable. The need to get people married before Lent, or to get your feelings out before things got more reserved and frivolities inappropriate, probably helped make the various local feasts more popular.

    For example, in North Wales it is St. Dwynwen on January 25, and of course there was a holy well for baptism. And since there were fish in the well, of course people made up a game that the fish would tell you how your love would prosper. Blah blah blah.

    She was a vowed virgin who got raped, and hence went off somewhere really remote. On the principle that saints are good at preventing the bad stuff that happened to them, I guess that makes her a good saint to protect true love, but it is pretty rough stuff and not at all paganish.

    I don’t know how the love spoons got in there.

    Re: “In natali,” it was a pretty typical Christian expression for the death day of martyrs, I thought. Because you were born into eternal life. It comes into St. Polycarp’s story, although that was in Greek (genethlion).

    Otherwise it is stuff like “translatio” for moving your remains into a church somewhere.

    The only birthdays on the calendar that are actually baby births are for Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary. Oh, and there were early calendars that celebrated “the birthday of bishops”, which was actually the anniversary of their bishop’s consecration.

    There is a big old Catholic Encyclopedia article under “natal day.”

  2. There are a similar group of European love holidays in the autumn, like Halloween and St. Andrew’s Day and so on. Probably because it got too cold to see your sweetheart much, after that.

    St. Agnes’ Day was another holy virgin associated with love prayers and divination, of course, and that was in the dead of winter on Jan. 21. (Maybe one reason that Dwynwen got popular. Sort of a maiden’s prayer octave.)

    And there are summer love holidays too.

    Basically, lots of medieval people looking for an excuse to do romantic stuff, I would say.

  3. Re: marriage before Lent, there was an old story in the West of Ireland that if you were having trouble getting married before Lent, you should make a pilgrimage to Skellig Michael, previously Teach Donn, the house of a God of the dead.

    (St. Michael not being known as a love saint, but the Irish liked showing serious grit in their pilgrimages. And maybe the monks’ prayers helped.)

    Anyway, there was a 1700’s sarcastic song with new verses every year about which local men or women needed to go on pilgrimage to Skellig Michael, with a chorus “ho ro, I’m going to Skellig,” or the Garlic equivalent.

  4. Hmm. Thanks for the in natali – that I had not known.

    All sorts of things are possible, of course. I wish I knew more about the saints in general.

  5. The interesting linguistic question is why the religious usage of birthday terms for saints’ days, or for anniversaries of happenings, not translate into more Romance languages, or other European.languages, using similar terminology?

    In other words, why is it almost always “feast” or “day” or the like? Or in English, “mass/mas”?

    OTOH, Christmas is usually something like Noel or Natale or Nollaig, although Natividad is also in there. English used to have Nowell, of course.

    (And we already had the Yule discussion…..)

  6. Hey Roger, I’m not sure if you still monitor this (fantastic) post. I’ve been knee-deep in research on this same topic and wish I’d found you sooner, which would have saved me from a lot of rabbit trails. I have read three (i think all) of your St Valentine’s articles before writing this question.
    Wikipedia and several other sources state that the first Valentine’s Feast was established in 496–like many other Valentine “facts,” I can’t actually find any source data for this (it seems you didn’t either).
    It’s such a specific fact to quote, year and all!. I was hoping to track down that one last thing before finalizing some of my own data. There’s no citation for the statement.

    It’s in this link under the subheading “Identification.”
    thanks for your excellent work.

  7. That saying attributed to Gelasius, “whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God” – I wonder if that’s genuine? I can find no source.

    I don’t trust a word of that wiki article.

  8. The “saying” is from the Decretum Gelasianum 4. It doesn’t mention Valentine. The decretum itself is not authentic. I’ll blog about it. The translation has it in a different form:

    Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs who beam forth among their multiple and excruciating torments the amazing triumphs of their confessions. What catholic could doubt that they suffered those things and more in their struggles and did not bear all these things by their own strength but by the grace and help of God? But according to an ancient custom, by an unparalleled security measure in the church of Rome both those deeds whose authors’ names are totally unknown and are thought to be written by unbelievers or private persons, being unnecessary or less appropriate than the order of the matter was, are not read: like those of a certain Quiricius and Julitta, like those of George, and passions of others of this kind, compositions produced by the heretics. Therefore, these are not read in the holy church of Rome, as has been said, to prevent even a slight chance of derision from arising. However, for our part, we – together with the aforesaid church – reverence with all devotedness all the martyrs and their glorious struggles, **which are known better to God than to human beings**. Likewise we accept with all honour the lives of the Fathers, Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all the hermits, those at least which the most blessed Jerome wrote.48

Leave a Reply