ON ST. ARIGIUS OR AREDIUS, CONFESSOR,
ARCHBISHOP OF LYONS IN GAUL.
After the year 611.
APOLOGETIC-HISTORICAL SYLLOGE.
Arigius or Aredius, Archbishop of Lyons in Gaul (St.)
BY J. P.
§ I. The various formation of the name; the accusations against the Saint, and also an apologetic defense on his behalf.
Before all things we would warn the reader not to confound this holy Prelate with another of the same name and contemporary, the bishop of Gap This Saint is not to be confounded with another. (of others there will be speech at the end of this Sylloge, as also more will be given below of this one), whose Life was long since illustrated in our Work at the day I of May from page 107; but the bishop of Lyons, reported by Ghini on the day XIII, as you have in the Passed Over at that day, page 753, was more rightly deferred there to this X of August, as will be concluded from those things which we shall afterward discuss concerning his public cult. But I do not object to various ways of forming this name; for whether it be written Arigius, Aregius, Aredius, or Aridius, I would have the same present-day Prelate understood: for it is well known that proper names either may be found otherwise in the first sources, or are varied by transcribers. But which here is the primitive and genuine one, I have nothing from which to determine: nor do I heed Ferrand (of whom mention will recur below) at page 31, who on occasion of his own Arigius observes this concerning ours: Him (he means our Prelate of Lyons) Severtius wrongly names Aridius, and errs with the erring Aimoin. But so tiny and uncertain a matter ought to cause us no trouble, when there are others, and those of far greater moment, which turn namely upon the gravest accusations against the Man's sanctity, as we shall see. First therefore let us set them forth sincerely and candidly; and then let us consider what may be answered to them, and what may be said on behalf of our Prelate.
[2] If the things which writers record of our Arigius are true, he must have been guilty of the gravest crimes. To the accusations For Fredegarius Scholasticus in the Chronicle, which Theodoric Ruinart published and subjoined to the History of the Franks of St. Gregory, bishop of Tours, chapter 24, from column 604, has this: In the VIII year of the reign of Theuderic (of Christ 603) a synod is gathered at Chalon: they depose Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, and, at the instigation of Aridius, bishop of Lyons, and of Brunhild, Domnolus was substituted in his place in the priestly office; but Desiderius is thrust into exile on a certain island. In that year the sun was darkened. And chapter 30: In the same year (the XII of the reign of Theuderic, as he had premised, of Christ 607) Theuderic sent Aridius, bishop of Lyons, Rocco, and Æpporinus the constable to Bettericus [*], king of Spain: that they might bring thence Ermenberga his daughter, to be joined in marriage to Theuderic: and there, oaths being given that she should never be degraded from the kingdom by Theuderic, they receive her, and present her to Theuderic at Chalon; whom he joyfully and carefully received. But in chapter 32: In that year Theuderic, using the counsel of the treacherous Aridius, bishop of Lyons, and at the persuasion of his grandmother Brunhild, ordered holy Desiderius, who had returned from exile, to be stoned.
[3] imputed to St. Aridius Aimoin, published at Paris in the year 1603, supports Fredegarius, who in book 3, chapter 89, page 144, narrates thus: A synod also gathered at Chalon deposed Desiderius, bishop of Vienne: and he being driven into exile by the faction of Brunhild and of Aridius (the prelate of Lyons, who had succeeded Secundinus), Dommilus was substituted in the priestly office. And chapter 92, page 146: Theodoric, deceived by the persuasions of Aridius, bishop of Lyons, and of his grandmother Brunhild, ordered holy Desiderius, prelate of Vienne, recalled from exile, to be stoned. The author of the Life of St. Romaricus, in our Labbe's New Library of Ms. books, volume 1, page 781, has handed down this to memory: There was at that time in the palace a bishop by name Aridius, who diligently served queen Brunhild with his eloquence, and the aforesaid man, prostrate at his feet, entreats that he might be able through his intervention to recover his goods with the queen. And he, wounded with anger, impiously struck the man's mouth with a kick of his foot, and immediately the man of God Romaricus, rising, went to the basilica of St. Martin, and, casting himself on the pavement, presently speaks with such a voice: O blessed Martin, I have commended myself to thee; where art thou? What doest thou? Bring help to a wretched man, that he be henceforth given over to none of thy patronages. And these things being said, returning to the city as though he had received an answer, he awaited the outcome of the matter. But when the next day dawned, it was published abroad that king Theodoric had been struck with the sentence of death; and thereafter Romaricus, summoned by the queen or by bishop Aridius, his patrimony being restored, is entreated that at least through him there might be given them a space for fleeing from the city of Metz. He, loving his enemies, did not deny them help, as time allowed. Here, reader, thou hast the crimes of which those authors accuse our St. Aridius. But let us now see what is answered to them by others in his favor, setting forth their various opinions, by which they endeavor either wholly to remove or to mitigate the accusations brought against the Saint.
[4] Let the first therefore be that of Le Cointe, who in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, volume 2, Le Cointe answers, at the year 607, number 15, frees Aridius plainly from every crime, and convicts of falsity the writers who sharpened their pens against him. To the two heads of accusation therefore which we produced above from Fredegarius, one of which turns upon Desiderius cast down from the see of Vienne, the other upon the stoning of that same Saint, Aridius, as was there said, having cooperated in both these crimes; to these two, I say, Le Cointe thus answers: Jonas and Ado are silent about both: for Jonas casts the whole crime upon queen Brunhild and king Theodoric, Ado upon Brunhild alone, neither upon bishop Aridius. We confess indeed that Aridius sat in the see of Lyons during the whole time in which Desiderius, prelate of Vienne, was in exile, but we do not think that he consented to the exile or to the death of that same Desiderius, on account of the Man's sanctity and his public cult in the diocese of Lyons, as he there subjoins. But we shall treat of these things in another place below. Meanwhile the Jonas just mentioned is that man who, as Le Cointe had premised in the same place, number 11, within three years from the death of St. Bertulf, abbot of Bobbio, whose death falls in the year of Christ 640, published the Lives of the holy Columbanus and Attala, and who in the Life of St. Columbanus speaks of the passion of St. Desiderius; as may be seen in Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictines, century 2, page 26, number 54. But Ado, bishop of Vienne, in his letters to the church of Vienne described this same martyrdom of St. Desiderius more copiously; as Le Cointe had said at number 13. From which the reader understands what writers are here treated of.
[5] Another argument which the praised author of the Annals takes up for the defense of St. Aridius that he is freed from every crime is placed in this, that the same Saint is confounded with the prelate of Gap of the same name. James Severtius, he says at number 15, confounded St. Arigius, bishop of Lyons, with blessed Arigius, bishop of Gap; to whom Gregory the Great frequently wrote letters. But that the one is to be distinguished from the other, the Gregorian letters themselves sufficiently teach. For Gregory addressed several to Arigius of Gap, when Ætherius sat at Lyons, who closed his life in the seventh year of king Theodoric, that is, in the year of Christ 602 by Fredegarius' reckoning, and preceded Secundinus, the predecessor of Arigius, in the pontificate of Lyons. The error into which Severtius has lately fallen, Fredegarius seems formerly to have committed, and we suspect there was no other cause why he thought so ill of St. Arigius, prelate of the men of Lyons. He had read very attentively the writings of Jonas, as will be most clearly established from those things which we shall say two years hence concerning blessed Columbanus. He had observed that in the Life of St. Attala a bishop Arigius is blamed, into whose discipline Attala had been delivered as a boy by his father; and since he knew no prelate of that name
except the one of Lyons, who held the pontificate at that time in which Desiderius, prelate of Vienne, lived in exile; he easily persuaded himself that that Arigius was an impious and wicked man, whose mind did not shrink from the exile and death of St. Desiderius.
[6] Then, having recited from the Life of blessed Attala these words of Jonas, freeing him. When Attala had been imbued with liberal letters by his noble father, he was commended by that same parent to Arigius, then bishop, but the boy, of good disposition, etc. Jonas spoke, as he immediately adds, of Arigius of Gap; nor did he carp at him with better right than Fredegarius at Arigius of Lyons: for neither is Arigius of Gap liable to blame because Attala, who was more delighted with the monastic than with the clerical life, leaving Gap and the school of Clerics, withdrew into the wilderness of Lérins; nor ought Arigius of Lyons to be held guilty because at the same time in which he held the pontificate of Lyons, Desiderius, bishop of Vienne, was driven into exile. But to the author of the Life of St. Romaricus, Le Cointe replies this in the same place, page 582: From the Chronicle of Fredegarius that sinister opinion about Arigius, bishop of Lyons, passed into the Life of St. Romaricus, which we expressed above in the words of that biographer. But this little fable (so Le Cointe there subjoins) is contradicted by the reckoning of the times: for Aridius, who received the pontificate of Lyons in the year of Christ 603, passed to the Lord on the IV of the Ides of August in the year of Christ 611, having sat eight years and six months; nor did he reach the year of Christ 612, in which king Theodobert was conquered by his brother Theodoric; much less the year of Christ 613, in which king Theodoric perished. But when, and how long, St. Arigius sat, we shall weigh in its own place, and therefore also whether there be anything, and how much of moment, in Le Cointe's reasoning which he draws from the time.
[7] Others have spoken for St. Aridius; Théophile Raynaud in the Hagiology of Lyons, page 31, the sanctity and also the public veneration of our Prelate being proved, says: Thus it was needful that the blessedness of this holy Prelate should be fortified against the bite of Fredegarius Scholasticus, who, assenting to a rumor spread abroad by calumny, makes St. Arigius .. guilty of the slaying of St. Desiderius, bishop of Vienne. And at page 32: I hold it as certain, he says, that the narration concerning St. Romaricus .. is drawn from false and calumnious rumors, and therefore is to be disapproved. Besides this, he goes on to clear the holy Prelate of the crime laid upon him, especially from this, that Fredegarius alone wrote it, whom Aimoin copied, so that consequently that whole narration rests on the credit of a single author only: which the manifold testimony to the sanctity of Arigius produced a little before sufficiently shakes, and persuades that it is a calumny cast upon the holy Prelate, and published in writing by Fredegarius .. from common rumor. Although, if that stain contracted by Arigius against St. Desiderius were plainly established (and the same is much more easily said of his harshness toward St. Romaricus), he could have washed it away with the lye of penitence, and departed upright of life and pure of crime.
[8] others, But now why should I pass over in silence two other authors, who are earlier in age than those just cited? Our Nicolaus Serarius, in volume 1 of the Opuscula, in which the historical ones are contained, in the Notes on chapter 3 of the Life of St. Romaricus, page 368, attempted so to evade the things which are said to have been committed by Aridius against him (the words are Raynaud's at the place cited) as to say that these fall upon Aridius of Lyons, less worthy of the name of bishop; but not upon another bishop of Lyons of the same name, exceedingly holy: of whom there is mention in Gregory of Tours, book 10, chapter 29, and in Venantius Fortunatus, book 5, epigram 20 (al. 22). But, 1. Serarius at the cited place does not say those things: for after he had written, But that Aridius was bishop of Lyons, who with .. Brunhild .. was the cause of the exile and death of blessed Desiderius, bishop of Vienne; then, he says, who was very different from that excellent one, of whom Gregory of Tours in book 10, chapter 29. See also Venantius, book 5, epigram 20. Now that man was not a bishop of Lyons, but an abbot of Limoges, inscribed in the Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict; as will be established from what is to be said afterward at number 31. 2. Serarius does not evade the accusation, but openly affirms and admits it. Severtius in the Historical Chronology of the archbishops of Lyons, page 132 of the edition published at Lyons in the year 1628, discourses very confusedly of the wickedness imputed to St. Aridius, when he writes this: Whence then such sanctity joined with wickedness? Surely it is an argument for this, that either, 1. he was badly deceived when he laid snares for the most holy Desiderius of Vienne, so that such a sin may seem worthy of excuse: or, 2. that narration of his crime is false: or, lastly, 3. that immediately, even to the end of his life, he voluntarily took upon himself and exacted the most bitter kind of penitence for the cruel spectacle perpetrated upon his brother.
[9] Pagi in the Critique on Baronius, volume 2, at the year 612, number 13 and following, weighing the present controversy, But Pagi makes him guilty, makes St. Aridius guilty of a double fault. And the three reasons of Severtius which we have just recited being set forth, The third, he says, seems to be preferred to the other two. For the anonymous writer who committed to letters the Life of St. Romaricus, abbot of Remiremont, which is found in Mabillon, Benedictine century 2, number 3, says, etc. See above, number 3. That crime was committed by Aridius (so Pagi proceeds at number 14) in the year 613, in which king Theodoric departed this life. But Aridius had time to expiate both faults with severer penalties; since before the year 624, in which, as Flodoard testifies in book 2 of the History, chapter 5, Thedericus, bishop of Lyons, was present at the Council of Reims, no other is found to have presided over that church. It is true indeed that the praised Severtius asserts that this is read in an ancient Ms. Martyrology of the collegiate church of Beaujeu at the IV of the Ides of August: "At Lyons, of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor; who ruled the church eight years, six months." Which Théophile Raynaud also affirms is likewise had in the Martyrology of Lyons on the same day. But Arigius, as is clear from what has just been said, was already governing the church of Lyons in the year 613. But Martyrologies of this kind were written long after the year of Christ one thousand, and so brief a pontificate was attributed to St. Aridius by conjecture by some unskilled person; besides that it is established by many examples that similar notes resting on no truth were not seldom added to the ancient Martyrologies.
[10] Le Cointe at the year 607, and Mabillon in the notes to the Life of St. Romaricus, but penitent. who chose the second way of defending the sanctity of Arigius, answer that these things are falsely fastened upon Aridius, and that the reckoning of the times contradicts this little fable; since he sat only eight years and six months. But we have already shown that Aridius' pontificate was far longer; and that the anonymous author who wrote the Life of St. Romaricus is ancient and weighty, and wrote also the Lives of SS. Amatus and Adelphus, abbots of Remiremont, Mabillon himself shows in the preliminary observations to the Life of St. Amatus. For he indicates his own age in the Life of Amatus, number V, when he testifies that he himself saw his cell and the beam increased by a miracle. In the Life of St. Romaricus he discloses at number IX, the last, that he lived as a contemporary of his disciples; and lastly he hints at number 11 that the Acts of Adelphus were written by him three years after his death, which happened in the year 670. Nor is anything read in those three Lives which is called into suspicion of falsity. As therefore it does not stand against the sanctity of Romaricus that some years after this he was seduced by the persuasions of Agrestius or Agrestinus the schismatic, as Jonas reports in the Life of St. Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, because he repented: so neither does the double fault committed by Aridius, because purged by penitence, stand against his sanctity. And as the fault of Romaricus ought not to be called into doubt, although it was passed over by the anonymous writer of his Life; by an equal and the same reasoning, neither is the fault of Aridius to be numbered among fables, because the anonymous writer and Ado, who narrated the martyrdom of St. Desiderius, have not even a word about Aridius. From which it appears how weak a negative argument is.
[11] The opinions of other authors In the Gallia Christiana of the newest Paris edition, volume 4, under St. Aridius the XXXIII prelate of Lyons, after the arguments had been set forth in the middle which will have him to have been guilty, and others which deny it; the following are subjoined: I know not whether a negative argument can avail anything against the express testimony of writers of the same time. Jonas reports the authors of the slaying of Desiderius, not the instigators; for that in no way pertained to his design; it was Jonas' concern to bring forward the vices of Brunhild; but not so those of the Prelate of Lyons. Fredegarius reports these things, and Aimoin, because they were writing a general history: whose task it was to disclose all, whether authors or instigators of so wicked a deed. Lastly, with what end would Fredegarius have defamed the name of Arigius with so great a crime? He had never anything to do with Arigius. He was deceived, says Le Cointe, and confounded Arigius of Gap with the one of Lyons. That he confounded them is false; and even if it were true, nothing is found in the one of Gap by which room may be supplied for so atrocious an accusation. From the testimony of the writer of the Life of St. Romaricus Le Cointe extricates himself no more happily. For what he reports, as done on the day before, and on the very day of the death of Theodoric, is openly false: for Aridius died in the year 611, that is a year and a half before Theodoric was taken from life.
[12] upon the Saint's case are set forth. Father Jacques Longueval, S.J., who lately published the History of the Gallican church, in volume 3, at the year 607, page 380, touching the present controversy in passing, records these things, which from the French run thus: The historian Fredegarius attributes the death of St. Desiderius to the evil counsels of Aredius of Lyons. But since Aredius is honored as a saint in his own church on the X of August, it is to be believed either that he expiated this fault, and certain others which are reproached to him, by penitence; or that Fredegarius was ill informed: which is the more probable, since the contemporary author of the Life of St. Desiderius says nothing at all of that fact. But as regards that which is imputed to Aredius concerning Romaricus; it seems, he says at the year 613, page 404, that the bishop of Lyons of this name is honored as a Saint in his own church. It is not necessary that one should not have committed faults in order to be reckoned in the number of the Saints; it suffices to have made amends, etc.
[13] Henschen illustrated the Life of St. Desiderius M., composed by a contemporary author, in volume V of May, at the day XXIII, from page 251; where, treating of his other Lives, and on the same occasion of Fredegarius, he long since excused Arigius from the crime which that author had fastened upon him. Fredegarius, he says, in the Chronicle describes the exile and martyrdom of St. Desiderius; but he did not have the Acts already indicated; and therefore he goes astray,
when he shortens his exile to two years, and makes St. Aridius, bishop of Lyons, guilty of the martyrdom; whom neither the Acts, nor Ado, nor other ancient writers mention. And yet the author of that ancient Life of St. Desiderius reports very distinctly the things which pertain both to his slaying and to the contrivers of it, writing this at the cited place, page 253, concerning Brunhild: Straightway, inflamed with excessive fury, with burning counsel she attempts to slay the servant of God; complaining that by his words the king's love toward her had grown cold. And so she orders continual ambushes to be prepared for the pontiff of God, even within the doors of the church, by three impious counts, namely Beffanus, and Gasisredus, and Beto, and she commanded that wherever he could be seized, he should immediately be slain. Then the holy man .. with swift course enters into the ranks of armed men crowded against him. When therefore his enemies, standing by, beheld him in the territory of Lyons beside the river whose name is the Saône, and wished to slay him .. then the holy man of God, his knee bent to the earth, and his prayer completed, offered his head without hesitation. Suddenly one of the satellites of the impious, hurling a great stone, dashed the shepherd's head, and presently with only one blow of the stone forced the holy man to fall to the ground. But when for a long space the soul pleasing to God would by no means leave its own seat, that faithless man, seizing a stake with both hands, broke the neck of so great a shepherd. Are not these things set forth vividly and expressly enough? Yet in them, why not a word about bishop Aridius, if he was the instigator, the guilty party, and the sharer of the crime? Why is that author so vivid in expressing the other circumstances; but, so to speak, dead concerning Aredius? And although that argument is what they call negative, it is not therefore without weight.
[14] But that we may put an end to these things which have hitherto been so copiously disputed on both sides, both against the Saint and for him, Our judgment we draw from the premises two conclusions; of which let one be this in his favor. 1. No one is to be held guilty of crimes, especially so grave, so long as he is not sufficiently proved to be such. 2. Since in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand; and since other authors speak out of the mouth of Fredegarius alone, other and older writers being silent; the cause of accusation does not seem sufficiently established against Aridius. 3. The accuser Fredegarius himself is accused of more than one error, above at number 5 by Le Cointe, and at number 13 by Henschen. 4. The sanctity of Aridius, from his public cult, proved by lawful arguments, as we shall see in the next paragraph, offers besides a presumption not to be despised for the Saint's innocence against his accuser. 5. By some he is accused, by others excused and defended. But since it is our part to favor and patronize the Saints so far as, saving the truth, we can; let it be permitted us, on account of those reasons which we have brought forward, to embrace the kindlier side in this case, and to enroll our name in the number of his defenders; until we be taught more certain things. And this is our first conclusion.
[15] The other is placed in this, that even if he were really guilty of the crimes which are imputed to him; yet he neither ought nor seems able to be excluded from the place which we here give him among the other Saints; because, whatever be the case with the accusations, he remains in certain possession of public veneration, and that for so many centuries before the decree of Pope Urban VIII. in this case. But, you will say, by what documents is it established in this case that he did an exemplary and remarkable penance proportioned to the gravity of his offenses? We answer: From what documents is it established that he did not do a penance of this kind? For he had time to do it, from what has been said above. And is it not prudently supposed that St. Aridius did it in his lifetime, on account of the public veneration with which antiquity followed him after death with the honors of the Saints?
Annotations* i.e. Wittericus
§ II. His cult; the Saint's predecessor in the episcopate; that the letters of St. Gregory the Great are to St. Aridius of Gap, not to ours; what of the letter of St. Columbanus; his zeal for sacred edifices.
From Raynaud, Théophile Raynaud, whom we cited above, heaps together things so various and so many for proving the public veneration of St. Aridius, that no room seems left for calling it in doubt, much less for denying it. Let us bring forward his words: In the double series of the prelates of Lyons in Demochares (book 2 on the Sacrifice of the Mass, chapter 27, folio 46) he is adorned with the title of Saint: and by that name he is invoked in the proper litanies of the church of Lyons, and is read as inscribed in the Calendar of Lyons at the IV of the Ides of August: on which day also the Martyrology of Lyons has these words: At Lyons, of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor, who ruled the aforesaid church eight years, six months: for he died in the fiftieth year of his age. Besides this, in a writing of the most just authority and credit, in which the sacred relics laid up in the ancient church of St. Just are enumerated, eight grave theologians being subscribed, namely four of the Order of Friars Preachers and four likewise of the Order of Friars Minor, employed for the unsealing of the sacred caskets by William of Valence, archbishop of Vienne, who at the request of the Canons was engaged in examining the sacred relics of that basilica; in that writing, I say, which was drawn up in the year of Christ 1288, among the other caskets of holy relics, there is reckoned that in which the sacred bones of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor of Lyons, were laid up, and the title of Saint is recorded as inscribed on the casket. Lastly, both from that time and for many centuries before, religious cult has been paid to the relics of St. Arigius in that basilica; and his memory is kept with an ecclesiastical Office on the day noted above everywhere in the diocese of Lyons; but in the aforesaid church it is celebrated with a semi-double rite. But some change must afterward have been made in the aforesaid diocese concerning the day of his cult; for Baillet, to be cited by us at the end of this Sylloge at number 29, relates that his cult was established through the whole diocese of Lyons, and that his feast is deferred to the twelfth of the month in places where his Office is semi-double.
[17] from a Ms. Calendar of Lyons, We have a Ms. prefaced with this title, A Calendar for the printing and likewise the reciting of the Breviary of Lyons according to the form of Trent, and Lives of the Saints, the author being, as appears from the approbation, Étienne Vernay, priest of Lyons; where the following is contained at the day X of August: On the same day, for the commemoration of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor. Arigius, whom others call Aridius, of patrician stock among the Gauls, was made archbishop of Lyons about the year of Christ six hundred and twenty, under Theodoric, king of Burgundy, and adorned the memory of his predecessor Chagnoald or Canoald with a worthy succession, for the eight years and six months in which he ruled that same church in all holiness, well proved to Gregory the Roman Pontiff, who called him the bishop of the Franks: whose words are these, in book 5 of the Letters: How great goodness in us, and how great gentleness, shines forth with a charity pleasing to Christ. And after some things which follow concerning his sanctity and public cult, and which we gave above from Raynaud, as also concerning the sacred places restored or built by him (of these there will be treatment afterward), this excellent Prelate is said to have died, being more than fifty years old, on the embassy which he discharged for Theodoric to Betricus, king of Spain, or even after it. Let these things at least avail for the confirmation of his public veneration: for the other things which he joins to this may be corrected from what is to be said in the course of our discussion. For the rest, Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology supports his public cult, and moreover follows him with these praises on this day:
[18] On the same day, at Lyons, the deposition of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor, who, having entered upon the steep path of virtue from his tender years, ascended through lofty degrees of merits to the ecclesiastical Orders; and by Saussay his public cult is established. and shone forth in them with so great a glory of religion and learning that, St. Chagnoald being taken up to the heavenly realms, being created archbishop of this kindly see, not without a breath from above, he adorned the memory of his predecessor with a worthy interchange of succession. For he governed the people entrusted to him with such virtue and integrity as to go before all excellent priests of the Lord in every grace of the virtues. Magnificent in the adorning of sacred places, he restored the basilica of St. Just, which had fallen through age: he built the church of the Holy Cross; he wrought wonderful things in procuring the honor of God and the salvation of his sheep. At length, illustrious with the marks of perfect sanctity, at the Lord's call he departed to the eternal reward. After these things, which we have hitherto disputed concerning the Saint's accusations, praises, and public veneration, there remain for us to discuss certain points which the learned reader may not undeservedly seek from us concerning him.
[19] In the first place therefore let it be spoken of St. Aridius' predecessor in the episcopate. His predecessor in the episcopate was not Chagnoald, The Calendar assigned above and Saussay set down Chagnoald, as also does Severtius at page 126; where for his own opinion he heaps together various and exceedingly many proofs; which to transcribe hither would be too long, and, our design being considered, which ought properly to turn here upon matters pertaining to St. Aridius, by no means necessary. To be brief therefore: Le Cointe, after he had at the year 607, number 15, produced the eulogy of our Saint from Saussay, which we just now gave, thus corrects him: But he wrongly makes Arigius the successor of Chagnoald: for Chagnoald was not metropolitan bishop of Lyons in the first province of Lyons; but bishop of Lugdunum Clavatum, or Laon, in the second Belgic province under the metropolitan of Reims, and Fredegarius (chapters 22, 24), after he had said that in the seventh year of king Theodoric Secundinus was substituted for Ætherius, bishop of Lyons, mentions Aridius, bishop of Lyons, at the eighth year of the same king Theodoric: so that there can be no room for doubting that Aridius succeeded Secundinus in the episcopate. James Severtius drew André Saussay into error, who besides confounded St. Arigius, bishop of Lyons, with blessed Arigius, bishop of Gap. That this must not be done, we gave warning at the very threshold of this our Commentary: but whether, by whom, and how it was done, we shall relate below. Meanwhile, to return to our purpose, we have found no Chagnoald in the Sainte-Marthes, in the whole series of the archbishops of Lyons; nor any in the newest edition of the Gallia Christiana; but in both places are marked Ætherius, Secundinus, Aridius, etc.
[20] But in the Sainte-Marthes' Gallia Christiana, volume 2, page 617, Chainoldus or Chagnoald is set among the bishops of Laon in the year 623, who, as is there affirmed, but Secundinus. died in 638 or 639. But how could St. Aridius then succeed Chagnoald, who had already died before Chagnoald, as will be said afterward? In Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictines, century 2, page 17, in the Life of St. Columbanus the abbot, these words are found: Chamnoald being bishop of Lugdunum Clavatum, who was both his minister and his disciple, we learned by the relation of, etc. And in the same place, in the Life of St. Eustasius, abbot of Luxeuil, page 118: Many of them (of those
whom he had instructed by his eloquence, is the discourse) afterward became prelates of churches, Chagnoald of Lugdunum Clavatum, etc. And yet it is of that Chagnoald that Severtius treats; it follows therefore that, since he must be struck from the roll of the bishops of Lyons and be reckoned among the bishops of Laon, he can by no means be the predecessor of St. Aridius, and for "of Lyons" in Severtius there must either be substituted "of Laon," or Lugdunum Clavatum must be understood.
[21] St. Gregory, Pope, writes to St. Aridius of Gap, Further, what is to be said of the confusion of Aridius of Lyons with the bishop of Gap of the same name, of which a little before Le Cointe accused Severtius? In the earlier edition of the Gallia Christiana, volume 3, column 1124, letters given by St. Gregory to St. Aridius or Aregius of Gap are cited; to whom, on the testimony of Le Cointe indicated above, Gregory the Great frequently wrote letters. And Le Cointe adds: That Arigius, bishop of Gap, is to be distinguished from Arigius, prelate of Lyons, the Gregorian letters themselves sufficiently teach: for Gregory addressed several to Arigius of Gap, when Ætherius sat at Lyons, who closed his life in the seventh year of king Theodoric, that is, in the year 602 by Fredegarius' reckoning, and preceded Secundinus, the predecessor of Arigius, in the pontificate of Lyons. In the aforesaid year of his death the newest edition of the Gallia Christiana agrees (but the earlier does not express it), volume 4, column 39. But in our work, volume I of May, at day 1, page 107, it is placed after the year 601; where his Acts are illustrated. To what purpose, then, concerning the letters of St. Gregory the Great to the praised holy Aridius?
[22] not to the one of Lyons. The first of them, from what is said in the same place, exists in book 7 of the Register, letter 111, written in the 2nd Indiction (which is among those letters of this book to which that Indiction is prefixed), and therefore in the year 599. That another letter besides of the same to the same is had in book 9, letter 51, written in the year 601, is there indicated at page 108; for the letters of that book are noted as written in the 4th Indiction, which corresponds to the year just marked. To which two there is besides added in the same place letter 62 of the same ninth book. To these accede the Roman journey of St. Arigius of Gap, and the close intimacy of that prelate with St. Gregory; concerning which, in the volume and at the day just cited, the writer of his Life treats at page 110, number 10, and also of the highest esteem of the latter toward him, who protested that he had never in those parts, from the borders of the Gauls, seen such a priest in every respect. Which being so, is not Severtius rightly accused, in that, while at page 131 he praises Aridius of Lyons from the Gregorian letters, he confounded him with the one of Gap of the same name? Is it not likewise clear from what has been said that Vernay above at number 17 has fallen into a confusion of this kind in those things which he records of St. Gregory concerning our Aridius, as he thinks? Do not, lastly, the letters of St. Gregory just cited themselves teach that in an equivocal name one must not here go astray; since the chronological marks of them do not exceed the year of Christ 601; whereas Aridius of Lyons only began to sit in the year 603, as we shall say in another place?
[23] Observe in passing that letter 111, of which we made mention in the first place, is inscribed to Aregius the bishop; Whether one of those letters was given to our Aridius. but the two others which we subjoined to it are directed to Aregius, bishop of Gaul; and that besides these there is another in book 5, letter 57, to Arigius the patrician of Gaul, under the 14th Indiction, coinciding with the year 596; which was given not to Aridius the bishop, but to a layman, as we conclude from that inscription. But if he was our Aridius, not then yet advanced to the see of Lyons, it may be said with Severtius at page 132 that he was first distinguished with the lay dignity of patrician; and with Vernay above at number 17, that from a patrician he was made archbishop of Lyons.
[24] Longueval, cited above, after he had treated at the year 602 of the letter of St. Columbanus given to St. Gregory, Pope, concerning the celebration of Easter, Whether likewise St. Columbanus adds at pages 372 and 373 that the same St. Columbanus wrote upon the same question to Arigius the bishop; and presently affirms that this was St. Arigius of Gap, or St. Aredius of Lyons, who is often called Arigius; and he there observes that the authority which the one of Lyons had at court and in the episcopate might persuade that that writing was rather directed to him; but that in that opinion it must be said that Secundinus, the successor of St. Ætherius, occupied that see only for some months. But this seems neither able to be said, nor that fact to be attached to the year 602, in which Longueval reports it, on account of the too brief narrowness of time interposed between Ætherius and Secundinus, according to what is contained in the newest edition of the Gallia Christiana, in the cited volume, column 39, in these words: He (St. Gregory the Great) wrote in the year 602, in the month of November, a letter in which he determines in what manner provision is to be made for a church when its bishop falls into an infirmity of the head and cannot discharge his office. In this year, before he had received these last letters of Gregory, nay even before the holy Pontiff had written them, Ætherius had died: and these words of Fredegarius are produced: In that year (namely the VII of Theodoric, which is of Christ 602, says Fredegarius in the Chronicle) Ætherius, bishop of Lyons, died. Aimoin copies Fredegarius, book 3, chapter 90. But he is openly deceived, who calls him archbishop of Langres, as also Bede, who writes in book 1 of the History that Ætherius was prelate of Arles.
[25] If therefore we say that Ætherius departed this life about the month of November, wrote to him. or, on account of the word "before," of which it has already been spoken, in the month of October of the year 602; then if St. Columbanus wrote, according to what has been said above, in the same year 602; lastly, if you grant to Secundinus, the successor of Ætherius, some months of the see; you will presently come to January of the year 603, and therefore, if in that or the next month you substitute Aridius for Secundinus, it follows that St. Columbanus did not write to St. Arigius of Lyons in the year 602, to which nevertheless Longueval binds that writing. It can therefore better be understood if you take the beginning of the year 602 from the Kalends of March (on which matter see Du Cange in the Glossary, at the word annus, volume 1, column 460 of the newest edition, and Mabillon, book 2 on Diplomatic, chapter 23, number 4; where from Gregory of Tours and others he concludes that in the VI and VII centuries the Gauls were wont to begin their years from March): for in that way of reckoning, the year 602 ran on until the month of March of the year 603 of the vulgar era; in which Pagi in the Critique at this year, number 6, mentions the letter of St. Columbanus given to St. Gregory on the celebration of Easter; adding however that in what year that letter was given to Gregory is undiscovered. Further, it was published among the Sacred Collectanea of Patrick Fleming the Irishman, of the Order of Friars Minor of the stricter Observance, at Louvain in the year 1667, page 157 and following. But of the letter of St. Columbanus to Arigius we have found nothing cited in Pagi. As therefore, to put an end to such trifles, it is unknown to us whether, and on what ancient authority, those things rest which we brought forward from Longueval concerning the letter of St. Columbanus given to Aridius; so also we do not see how, if it was truly written to him, it can conveniently enough be joined to him with the year 602 of the vulgar era.
[26] What he did for the sacred edifices. Of our Saint's zeal for sacred edifices these things are current: That the church of the Holy Cross, which is adjoining to the basilica of St. John, was built by him, and that the church of St. Just was restored by him, many affirm, as you have in the newest edition of the Gallia Christiana, in the cited volume, column 42. But in the earlier this had been said a little otherwise: Some will have it that he founded the church of the Holy Cross IN THE CITY, etc. You would almost say that this happened at Rome, which by antonomasia is commonly called the City. But Vernay, of whom we treated before, when he had affirmed that religious cult was paid to our Saint by the men of Lyons for many centuries before the year 1288, adds this: Among whom also, while living, he was magnificent in the restoration of the basilica of St. Just, fallen through age; and also in the building of the church of the Holy Cross, almost adjoining the cathedral church. Severtius, page 131, may also be consulted concerning these edifices. Saussay we gave at number 18. Ghini therefore, cited at number 1, is here singular, when for the sacred edifice of St. Just he sets down the monastery of St. Justina.
§ III. Whether the Saint died in Spain; the duration of his episcopate, and the year of his death, uncertain; various observations concerning other Aridii or Arigii.
It is not persuasive that he died in Spain; At what time and for what cause St. Aridius was sent into Spain to king Wittericus, we have above at number 2. But that, returning after that expedition into Gaul, he lived on for some years thereafter, will be established from the time of his episcopate; of which we shall speak in another place. What then does Severtius mean when he writes thus at page 132? It is reported that Aridius himself, the chief prelate, ended his last day in the Spains, on an uncertain day and year, however. For, 1. He brings forward no author. 2. If he would have this to have happened at the time of the expedition of which we have just spoken; since that happened in the year 607, according to what has been said (not about the year 610, as is noted in the Sainte-Marthes, volume 1, page 298), it follows that the time of his death could then be known approximately. But that Arigius returned thence to his own people seems to be gathered from those words which Fredegarius subjoins in the same place to this expedition of Arigius and the others — namely of bringing thence into Gaul Ermenberga, daughter of Wittericus king of Spain, for Theodoric's marriage — and they receive her (in Spain) and present her to Theuderic at Chalon (having certainly returned thence into Gaul). 3. If he thinks that on another journey of Arigius to the Spaniards he ended his life among them; we answer that we have hitherto not learned of that second journey from any suitable author. On this occasion we observe, as they say, through a lattice, that Claude Robert has slipped in the Gallia Christiana, page 79, where he treats of St. Ætherius, prelate of Lyons, because he ascribes that embassy to him.
[28] It remains for us to discourse of the time of his episcopate, nor how long concerning which it is chiefly asked how long it lasted. But since, through the lack of documents, it is not permitted to fit each of its years to its own chronological marks; from what was premised before at number 25 concerning the two predecessors of St. Arigius, Ætherius and Secundinus, let the year 603 be set down for the beginning of his episcopate; and indeed that he then presided as metropolitan over the Council of Chalon, we draw from Fredegarius cited above at number 2. But the Sainte-Marthes express neither the death of our bishop nor the duration of his episcopate
by any certain year, assigning as successor to Aridius St. Delphinus, who, as is added, ended his life by martyrdom about the year 612 or a little after, etc.; but the last edition of the Gallia Christiana strikes him out, and asserts that Theodoric, by others called Tetricus, succeeded Aridius, from three indices of the prelates of Lyons published by Chifflet; and that of him this one thing is at hand, that in the year 625 he was present at the Council of Reims; as may be seen there, volume 4, column 42; but how many years Theodoric survived that same synod is by no means clear; yet that he did not survive long. Whence it comes that from these premises no lawful conclusion can be hammered out by us to our purpose. Is there then nothing of help to be hoped for it from elsewhere?
[29] Severtius at page 131 affirms that in the ancient Ms. Martyrology of the collegiate church of Beaujeu, to say it again, presided over the see of Lyons this is read at the IV of the Ides of August: At Lyons, of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor, who ruled the church eight years, six months. Raynaud in the Hagiology, already so often mentioned, thus brings forward the same from the Martyrology of Lyons at the said day: At Lyons, of St. Arigius, bishop and confessor, who ruled the aforesaid church eight years, six months: for he died in the fiftieth year of his age. From these two testimonies Le Cointe at the year 611, number 15, says: St. Arigius or Aridius, bishop of Lyons, therefore died on the fourth of the Ides of August in this year: for he began to sit in the year of Christ 603, or in the eighth year of king Theodoric, as is gathered from the Chronicle of Fredegarius. With the cited Martyrologies of Beaujeu and of Lyons the Benedictine monks agree in the same year of death in their newest edition of the Gallia Christiana. Baillet, in his addition to the Saints of the day X of August, column 133, writes that the year of his death is unknown, and that it seems only to have happened after the year 713. He adds the reason, that Theodoric immediately succeeded him, and that by a notable error it happened that between the one and the other three bishops of Lyons were inserted, who were such only after the death of Theodoric, and two of whom by the diversity of their names deceived the compilers of the catalogues and diptychs. But that error (wherever that author may have read it) has most recently been removed, as we have seen; yet not even so is the difficulty removed: for there remains the argument of Pagi indicated above at number 9; namely from this, that before the year 624, in which, as Flodoard testifies in book 2 of the History, chapter 5, Thedericus, bishop of Lyons, was present at the Council of Reims, no other is found to have presided over that church, which we saw just now. Hence it comes that the duration of the episcopate here disputed seems bound to be drawn out into a longer space than eight years with six months, against those whom we cited above. To the Martyrologies alleged above for that reckoning we gave Pagi's answer at number 9. But since we have nothing at hand by which to determine the duration of the episcopate and of the life of St. Aridius; and since Pagi's reasons neither say nothing nor yet say everything; therefore we have marked the Saint above as after the year 611.
[30] nor in what year he ended his life. But these things concerning that most intricate controversy having thus far been set forth, let it be permitted us to subjoin the following notes. As the Benedictines who most recently published the Gallia Christiana note that Theodoric, the successor of St. Aridius, was present at the Council of Reims in the year 625, and a little after confess that it is by no means clear how many years he survived that synod; so we say, 1. that it is likewise not clear to us how long before that council Theodoric began to sit. 2. That nothing indeed about that matter was ascertained, much less clear, to the praised editors, since they left nothing of that kind written there concerning it. 3. That it appears to us in no way probable that from the year of Christ 611, in which according to them our Aridius ceased to live, so long a gap of thirteen years, in which the see of Lyons was vacant, intervened between him and Theodoric. 4. Since therefore it is obscure in what year Theodoric began to sit, it is likewise obscure when Aridius ceased. 5. It seems therefore best to be said, in our opinion at least, that since the year of St. Aridius' death, and therefore the end of his pontificate, lies in the greatest ignorance, it be said that he put an end to his pontificate and life after the year of Christ 611. 6. Lastly, whether, and on what credit, it rests that the Saint died being more than fifty years old, as was said above at number 17, or in the fiftieth year of his age, at number 29, is altogether hidden from us.
[31] Various observations concerning other Aridii or Arigii. That St. Aridius, prelate of Lyons, is not to be confounded with the prelate of Gap of the same name, we warned the reader at the beginning of this our Sylloge; and not in vain: for we have indicated in the course of it that the one was taken for the other. Nor indeed are other men of the same name to be taken for ours. Not Aredius, abbot of Limoges. St. Gregory, bishop of Tours, book 10, chapter 30, column 523 of Ruinart's edition, says: Aredius, in this year leaving the lands, at the Lord's call passed to heaven. He was an inhabitant of the city of Limoges. Consult also the same writer, book 2 On the miracles of St. Martin, column [ ]; likewise On the glory of the Martyrs, chapter 40, column 879, where he is called Aridius. To him is inscribed poem 22 of book 5 of Fortunatus, as Brouwer observes in his notes on it, page 152. His Life exists in Mabillon among the Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, century 1, page 349, to which the year of Christ 591 is appended as the year of his death. He therefore is ours neither in dignity nor in time. Four letters of St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, our John Ferrand of Le Puy published and illustrated with notes, printed at Chalon in the year 1661: of which the second is prefaced at page 7, Avitus the bishop to the most illustrious man Arigius. Then in the notes at page 31 the same Ferrand confesses that he does not know who that Arigius was. But neither is this one ours: for that Avitus died about the year 524, according to what was said in our work, volume I of February, at the day V of the same month, page 660, where his Acts were long since illustrated by Henschen. Add that that Arigius, as Ferrand rightly observes at page 32, is not said to have been called to the episcopal mitre; but was only inscribed MOST ILLUSTRIOUS MAN by the divine Avitus. This one is neither Arigius the patrician of Gaul (of whom above at number 23), nor is he our Arigius; because the time is repugnant.
[32] Saussay, at the day XVI of August, in his Supplement, sets it down thus: At Decize on the Loire in the district of Nevers, the birthday of St. Arigius the bishop, brother of St. Austregisilus, prelate of Bourges, with a eulogy: in which it is said that St. Gregory, Pope, often directed letters to him, instructed him, and praised him. But that Saussay in this place, as too frequently in others, affected to be a florid encomiast rather than an accurate historical combiner of facts and times, the following persuade. For in the Sainte-Marthes, volume 3, page 791, among the bishops of Nevers, the second prelate of that city is marked as Rusticus, who is said to have approved the Acts of the third synod of Orléans in the year 538; and he subscribes to it in Labbe, volume 5 of the Councils, column 304. To him is immediately subjoined Aregius or Aridius, who set his mark to the fifth synod of Orléans in the year 549 (in the cited Labbe, column 398), and to the second of Paris in 504; as you will there find in the Sainte-Marthes; but in Labbe at column 812. Of St. Austregisilus, archbishop of Bourges, we treated in volume V of May, at the day XX, page 228*; where his death is attached to the year 624; but his birth, from the marks there set down, seems to have happened in the year 551: namely at that time when, as has been said, Arigius had already been bishop of Nevers for two years: which, because the old age that follows thence is very unusual, being so long, and is destitute of witness and records, is not straightway to be admitted. Add that of that brotherhood I find no trace at all of mention in our work in the Life of St. Austregisilus, or in the Commentary which is prefixed to it. Of the letters directed by St. Gregory, Pope, to Arigius, see above; whom, whoever he finally was, I suspect to have been either confounded by Saussay with the one above, or taken for him without sufficient foundation. However these things may stand, certainly that Aridius in Saussay is not ours, unless you make him a hundred years old or perhaps still older.