Amatus

ON ST. AMATUS, BISHOP,

AT NUSCO IN THE KINGDOM OF NAPLES,

In the year MCXCIII.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Amatus, bishop, at Nusco in the kingdom of Naples (St.)

BHL Number: 0360, 0361

BY J. S.

§ I. The Saint's ancient cult, especially in the church of Nusco and in the Order of the Hermits of Monte Vergine.

The beginning of the Order of Monte Vergine in the kingdom of Naples Papebroch describes at length in volume V of June from page 134, The martyrologists announce the Saint's memory: where to this end he composed an Appendix to the Acts of St. William, who founded the aforesaid Order in the twelfth century under the Rule of St. Benedict. The aforesaid Order celebrates the festival of St. Amatus, bishop of Nusco, on this day, as of one of its own Alumni. But the church of Nusco keeps the feast day of its Bishop on the XXX of September. The Roman Martyrology, which in this matter we everywhere follow, announces the Saint together with the Order of Monte Vergine on the XXXI of August in these few words: At Nusco, of St. Amatus, bishop. Agreeing on this day are Ferrarius in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, where he gives a compendium of the Life; and Wion in the Lignum Vitae, who celebrates him in this manner: At Nusco, of St. Amatus, bishop, of the Order of the monks of Monte Vergine, famous for holiness. Others also assent to these. But at the beginning of this century the Saint's monastic life was grievously assailed, and on that occasion other controversies arose, of which we shall treat below.

[2] The Saint's cult seems to have begun about thirty years after his death. a very ancient cult: the cathedral church sacred to him as patron: For in the Life to be published it is said at number 17: His successor Lord Roger … built a magnificent church (as it is now seen), and consecrated it when built in honor of St. Amatus (which is said to have been done in the year 1223), and today St. Amatus (that is, the church of St. Amatus) is the title of the bishopric. Ughelli, volume 1 of the Italia Sacra, column 532, after briefly describing the city of Nusco, has this concerning the cathedral church: The cathedral church is dedicated to that same St. Amatus, patron of the city, and is sufficiently furnished with the things necessary for divine worship. There are numbered twelve canons of slender means, of whom four are eminent in dignity: the archdeacon, second after the bishop; the archpriest, who has the cure of souls; two primicerii, greater and lesser; and other priests and clerics who perform the divine Office. Then at column 534: The sacred remains of Amatus lie in the cathedral. The translation of his body is celebrated on the XXVIII of May.

[3] Felice Renda, who composed the Life of the Saint to be published below, [the ancient Office of the Saint published by Renda, of which various things are noted,] published together with the Life an Office, which seems to be ancient and comprises many deeds of the Saint, so that some suspicion arises in me that the biographer, when he composed the Life, drew most of it from that Office. Nevertheless he nowhere explains at what time it was composed, or by whom. Francesco Noja, of whose Critical Discourses we shall treat a little later, in his preface, page XII, asserts that Renda in his little book only printed the hymns, responsories, and the rest from the Office of the Saint, which was formerly in use in the church of Nusco, and was copied from the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte. These words of this critic I do not sufficiently understand. For if the hymns and responsories of that Office were read in the church of Nusco as they were published by Renda, then the people of Nusco formerly acknowledged the monastic profession of St. Amatus, which Noja assails with such great effort that all he discussed is referred to this controversy. Mention of the Office of the church of Nusco is made also by Paolo Regio in the Life of St. Amatus, which he wrote in Italian among the Lives of the Saints of the kingdom of Naples: for at page 417 he has this concerning the Life of St. Amatus: Which I have gathered from the proper Office which is recited in the church of Nusco, and from the Life written in Latin by Fr. Dom Felice Renda. Sandulli, in the Apology in which he refuted the Critical Discourses of Noja, page 238, understands these things of the ancient Office of the people of Nusco, which he thinks different from the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte; but he nowhere shows of what antiquity the Office published by Renda is, and does not inquire whether the same was in use among the people of Nusco.

[4] and which appears older than the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte: Now I suspect that Francesco Noja, when he says that the hymns and other things from the Office of the church of Nusco were reprinted by Renda, meant to suggest that this was not done without interpolation, just as he says that the lessons of that same Octavarium were copied into the Life composed by Renda, but in such a way that he mingled many fables with them. But although the silence of the monks of Monte Vergine about the antiquity of their Office causes me some doubt, I nevertheless strongly suspect that that Office is older than the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte himself, so that I should prefer to judge that Francesco de Ponte took the hymns and other parts of his Office, with certain changes, from this Office, rather than that the author of this Office borrowed his own from the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte. Two reasons cast this suspicion upon me. The first is drawn from the form of the Office, because this seems to show antiquity, and because the Office is composed by the same method as the ancient Office of St. William, which probably had as its author one of the monks of Monte Vergine. The other is taken from the hymn of Vespers, part of which the aforesaid Sandulli gave at page 240. In the Office of Monte Vergine it is thus: He continually afflicted his flesh with manifold toil, humbly following the way of his father William too. The same is in de Ponte, except for the last words, of his father William, in place of which is found, and of his father Stephen. Rightly is William called both the father of St. Amatus and a model of penance. Neither befits St. Stephen. Who then would not suspect that that phrase, and of his father Stephen, is an interpolation made without judgment by an unlearned man? However that may be, what is read of the Saint's deeds and virtues in that Office I shall here subjoin. But since it teems with errors, I shall correct the clear ones, and for the doubtful ones offer a conjecture.

[5] The hymn at first Vespers is this:

O Christ, serene glory, power supreme, the hymn at first Vespers, Life full of delight, eternal light, Receive our vows, which surely are known to thee, O kindly Founder.

We open our lips unto the honor of them, With sounding voice — the glory of the Saints — Who bore thee, and through thee received The joys of the palm.

In whose number Amatus shines red, When the number of the good was increased, inspired from heaven: On whose feast be thou to us, O Christ, A lover of peace.

He, when a draught of water by the Lord's power Was changed * into wine of excellent savor, While it is a-building, the dwelling of the kindly Virgin bears witness.

A lame man, bound a year in his gait, Heavenly power loosed at Amatus's word. Twice over to the divine work Does he here give service.

One was bound in prison as with a fetter: He, having confessed, came bound From the hall of his foes. This did Amatus, Patron of Nusco.

The organs of speech were closed to a certain man; He came to the Saint, and for such a cause: But holy Amatus restored the words Which he had asked.

Two divine temples to the Mother of the Savior He builds by the help of the Creator, Near Lacenum, and beside the pleasant River Calore.

Signs more wonderful than those foretold, By deeds and by words, and greater than these, The Saint assuredly wrought openly Before the world.

Praise be to the Trinity, solemn glory Be to the one Godhead, everlasting, etc.

Nothing further occurs in the Vespers which it is needful to transcribe.

[6] At Matins, in which the same hymn is repeated, certain responsories, there are various pieces in which the Saint is praised and invoked in general terms. But omitting these, I subjoin certain particular ones. After the first lesson this responsory follows: Among the other commandments of divine Scripture, that saying of David was written upon his mind with a divine pen: He has scattered abroad, he has given to the poor. The second is expressed in these words: There sprouted in him the honey-sweet root of charity, whereby in compassion for the poor he abounded with all the bowels of mercy. The flowers of his virtues he brought forth by humility into the fruits of works. The third: A hearer of the Gospel reading not in vain, having put his hand to the plough, he ever took heed not to look back; but he directed his eyes forward in God's husbandry; nor, straying anywhere, did he hasten otherwise than on the straight road. The fourth: His boyhood having been passed holily and worthily of God, he turned the way of his youth with greater perseverance to his Author, applying himself to constant vigils, wholly given to the worship of God.

[7] In the second nocturn this is the first Antiphon: After he came to the grade of the priesthood, his religious devotion grew immensely. other antiphons and responsories, The second: The flower of innocence, which he had put forth in his tender age, he brought forth into the fruit of good work. The third: Being made archpriest by the immense desire of the people, he received the government of souls. The fourth: Having laid down the office of archpriest, he was clothed with the habit of holy religion. The fifth: That he might be clothed with the monastic habit,

he flew with his companion John to the most holy William. The sixth: Having submitted to the monastic yoke, he burned in divine converse. The first responsory: Holy father, magnify the place of your native land; whereby Nuscia your city shall by your humility be in glory: let it through you be famous, shining with pontifical dignity. In the third this is said: He builds a great monastery, Fontigliano, at the foot of Mount Lacinius, to the glory of the Virgin. The fourth is this: O Shepherd praiseworthy in all things! who, living with monks, wast wholly taken up with the love of God and of thy neighbor; ready to die for God, thou layest down thy life.*

[8] other responsories and antiphons, The first responsory of the third nocturn: This man from his youth deserved in part to heal the sick; and the Lord gave him great renown, to enlighten the blind and to put demons to flight, etc. The second: He is a watered fountain of piety, whence the oil of mercy unceasingly distills: who, a fruitful olive of the heavenly King, pours forth oil for the nourishment of light and of peace. O matter beyond all reckoning! O sign to be declared to all nations! He flees the care of souls … he flees to a monastery, that he may wholly dedicate himself to God, and he is chosen bishop. The third: Amatus the bishop lived in ecclesiastical care; and serving the people, he was intent upon God: outwardly acting for the people, but inwardly intent upon God. For Lauds there are the following antiphons. The first: From his tender years, by holy governance of mind, the Confessor of Christ restrained the fires of the flesh. The second: From boyhood holy Amatus despised the world, looking down on the lowest things, seeking only the things above. The third: And now applying himself to divine prayers, now to praises, he compelled his limbs ever to serve the spirit. The fourth: At the Saint's bidding the pale water straightway changed its color, and bestowed pure and sweet wine. The fifth: O Servant of Christ, to be honored with the whole heart: whose help he feels who devoutly asks it .

[9] the hymn at Lauds, This hymn is appointed to be sung at Lauds:

The illustrious feast of Amatus the bishop We worthily keep; to the holy Trinity We rise to pay our vows in all Devotion.

He, pleasing to God, shone forth honorably, Blessed in heart, as his deeds bear witness: With pure mind he abode in true Love of the poor.

On the present feast of the holy Confessor We are intent; joys in tuneful Song * we give; to thee we sing for joy In our petition.

Let us all venerate holy Amatus; Enriched in heaven, let us proclaim him with praise For his miracles, for the uprightness of his ways: Let his fame be spread.

A certain lame man could not walk at all, And the wretch went and came again: Amatus the bishop restored the step That was bound with fetters.

A lighted lamp, hung on high, By chance, while the people looked on, Fell down in the wind: it stands upon the pavement Unbroken.

A cleric of the choir was held by a wasting sickness; Longing to die, he unceasingly mourned: Soon by the merits of Amatus he is restored To health.

A certain man, led away and bound by his enemies, Bore stripes, punishments, and torments. It is well known that by Amatus he was freed From the harsh prison, etc.

[10] At second Vespers the following hymn is set down:

Here is the noble Amatus, and at second Vespers. And the feast of the court of heaven; Like a delightful rose He is offered to the King of glory.

Amatus shone in faith, Free from the cloud of his forebears; He strove to serve God Under the monastic Rule.

He continually afflicted his flesh With manifold toil, Humbly following the way Of his father William too.

Amatus the humble bishop Dedicates himself wholly to Christ; Teachable in the Law of God, He preaches by words and by examples.

Amatus the flourishing bishop, And a sanctuary of the virtues, Never felt the contagion Of any mortal sin, etc.

Lastly, this is the antiphon at the Magnificat: O most holy Amatus, who, being given over to the rule of the Order, didst free a boy from death, and didst restore a paralytic and a blind man to their former health, entreat for us the Lord Jesus Christ.

\* That is, changed into wine.

\ Perhaps submissus*.

\ Perhaps partem*.

\ Perhaps illam*.

\ Perhaps versibus*.

§ II. By whom the Acts of St. Amatus were written, and what controversies arose therefrom.

The first Life of the Saint is the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte, We have no Life of St. Amatus composed by a contemporary or nearly contemporary writer. But that which is held to be the more ancient is said to have been composed in the year 1461, that is, more than two centuries and a half after the Saint's death, and was printed in the year 1543. The second was published only in the year 1581. These two Lives of St. Amatus differ in various chapters, and each has its own followers. The former Life was written by Francesco de Ponte, priest of the church of Nusco, and he so arranged it that it might serve the said church on the festival and Octave of the Saint for the lessons of the divine Office. For which cause it is not seldom called the Octavarium. That this Octavarium was formerly in use in the church of Nusco Francesco Noja asserts, but others doubt of that use. This composition Ferdinando Ughelli and the said Noja followed, of whom presently more.

[12] The writer of the other Life is Felice Renda, monk and Prior of the monastery of Monte Vergine, Another Life was written by Felice Renda, a pious and learned man, who wrote also the Life of his holy Father William and not a few other things. To him Carlo Tapia, marquis of Belmonte, gives a notable eulogy in his treatise On Monastic Matters, which the most illustrious Sandulli recites from him in the Apology often to be mentioned, page 197, in this manner: The congregation of Monte Vergine flourishes with many learned men, among whom, as I have said, shines Dom Felice Renda, who, besides the virtues related and others, has written many things, some of which have already come to light, some are in the press, and others at length we shall hope to be delivered to us. He has written also fifteen books upon the Creed, in which he has most learnedly explained all things which pertain to our faith; two books on mystical Theology; four books upon the Summa of St. Thomas; an Enchiridion of theological terms; a Breviloquium of the generation of natural things; a book of Sermons to the Fathers in enclosure; a Life of St. William and of other Saints of his Order; a Sermon on the festival of St. Benedict; and several Rules concerning the government of the spirit.

[13] whom others have followed. A little before he had praised him in these words: While I was writing this, there was lecturing on two subjects, namely theology and philosophy, the most learned and most religious Dom Felice Renda, whom among the other religious of this congregation I have known to excel in theological, philosophical, and canon-law learning, and in the knowledge of spiritual things. These things I have thought fit to recite, that thereby what has been hurled against this writer with too unfair a pen may afterwards be the more easily refuted. The Life of the same Saint was afterwards written in Italian by Tommaso Costo of the Order of Monte Vergine, from documents collected by Vincenzo Verace, and by Paolo Regio, bishop of Vico Equense, in his Work on the Saints of the kingdom of Naples. Their Italian compositions agree with the Latin little Work of Felice Renda, with whom the other writers also who have treated of St. Amatus everywhere agree.

[14] Francesco Noja's Critical Discourses upon the Life of St. Amatus, Francesco Noja, archpriest of Cusano, in the year 1707 published a little Work written in the Italian tongue, to which he prefixed this title: Critical Discourses upon the History of the Life of St. Amatus, priest and first bishop of the city of Nusco. That Work was placed in the Index of prohibited books by a decree of the sacred Congregation of the XV of January in the year 1714; and the same was afterwards diligently refuted. This writer inquired curiously into the deeds of St. Amatus, and thought that nothing was to be admitted which was not found in the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte, or in the testament of St. Amatus, which we shall examine below. Hence he rashly rejects as fabulous many things which were narrated by Felice Renda concerning the Saint's deeds. Moreover, in various places he mingles many things hurled with a rather bitter pen against the Order of Monte Vergine, nor does he everywhere seem to proceed with sufficiently good faith. These are perhaps the chief causes of the prohibition of the Work; which also persuade us not to embrace his statements rashly and without examination. As regards the deeds of St. Amatus, Ferdinando Ughelli seems to have gone before Noja, in volume 7 of the Italia Sacra, column 534 of the new edition, where, having recited the testament of St. Amatus, he subjoins this: From which indubitable record it clearly appears how portentously many things seem to have been narrated by those who lately wrote his Life and published it after Francesco de Ponte, who lived a hundred and twenty years before them. He wrote the Life of Amatus in a rude style indeed, yet published it according to the reckoning of truth: which formerly was read, together with the hymns and responsories, in the church of Nusco on the feast day of that same holy patron. Thus Ughelli. But what Ughelli said in a few words, Noja endeavored to prove at greater length.

[15] against which Paolino Sandulli wrote an Apology. Against the aforesaid Work of Noja an Italian Apology was written by the most illustrious lord Paolino Sandulli, of the Order of Monte Vergine, bishop of Castoria. This was published at Naples after the author's death in the year 1733. The most illustrious Sandulli endeavored to refute all the arguments by which Noja had tried to reject many things in the little Work of Felice Renda, and had hurled many things against the Order of Monte Vergine. Not all the controversies of those writers pertain to our purpose, but only those which touch more nearly upon the Life of St. Amatus. Hence, passing over the rest, I shall discuss these alone; nor shall I do it with that prolixity of words or of opinions which the aforesaid writers used, but I shall try to use such brevity as neither to breed weariness in the reader, nor yet to pass over those things which I shall judge useful for the greater elucidation of the matter. Receive in few words all the controversies which are handled between them concerning St. Amatus.

[16] The chief is whether St. Amatus before his episcopate was enrolled in the Order of Monte Vergine, The points controverted between Noja and Sandulli, which Noja confidently denies, but Sandulli, with all others of his Order, affirms. To this is reduced the controversy about the age of the Saint, whom Noja contends to have lived in the eleventh century and to have been the first bishop of the church of Nusco, before the Order of Monte Vergine was founded, which owes its origin to the twelfth century; but Sandulli with his own strives to prove that the Saint flourished in the twelfth century, and succeeded another in the bishopric of Nusco. Thirdly, Renda relates that the monastery of Fontigliano was founded by Amatus before his episcopate: this Noja impugns, Sandulli defends. Fourthly, Renda attributes to St. Amatus nobility of family, which Noja endeavors to take from him, Sandulli to assert. Fifthly, Renda affirms that the Saint was afflicted with a grave wound in the head, and that a trace of the wound was left in the skull of the deceased: this Noja will have to be contrary to the laws of anatomy; but Sandulli shows that it is not contrary to them.

[17] But prior to these is the discussion about the documents from which each strives to prove his own case. and their dispute about the authority of the documents. Noja adduces a certain writing as the original testament of St. Amatus, which he asserts is preserved among the relics of the church of Nusco: Sandulli denies that that writing is the authentic testament of the Saint, and denies that it was ever preserved among the relics. That the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte alone is to be followed, and is far to be preferred to the Life written by Renda, Noja has altogether persuaded himself: but Sandulli labors to establish by many arguments that Renda ought to be of no less authority than the aforesaid de Ponte. You have, studious reader, a compendium

of the controversies which I set about setting forth, taking my beginning from the discussion of the testament, which indeed would greatly favor Noja, and would decide most of the controversies, if it seemed sufficiently authentic.

§ III. Examination of the writing which is circulated under the name of the testament of St. Amatus.

[18] The writing which some call the testament of St. Amatus: Noja recites the testament at page 58 in this manner: In the name of the eternal God and of our Savior Jesus Christ. In the year one thousand and ninety-three from his Incarnation, in the times of our Lord Roger the glorious duke, in the month of September, and the third Indiction. I, Amatus, by the grace of the Apostolic See bishop of Nusco, what I have approved: who, while I lay upon my bed detained by a grievous infirmity, and with Ursus the viscount standing before me, and other unlettered men who came to visit me, declare myself, since — thanks be to God — if the divine mercy shall meet me, and I am about to depart from life to life; and therefore I have taken thought for the almighty mercy, lest a sudden death come upon me and I should leave the cause of my life unjudged: first indeed, for the mercy of Christ our Savior, and for the remedy and salvation of my soul, and of my father and mother likewise, I adjudge and hand over to the church of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which we have built for ourselves and our kinsfolk and associates within the aforesaid city, and which I have endowed out of my own goods with all things immovable and movable which I have prepared for the part of the aforesaid church, wherever it shall thereafter be found to have been, within or without the aforesaid city … and with silken cloths and linen, and homesteads, and houses, and gardens, and vineyards and caves, grafted lands, chestnut groves, and other furnishing: all these I have adjudged to the aforesaid church and handed over, to do therewith all things for the said church which the rectors themselves and the associates of that same church shall wish for its providing or governing, and for the confirming to the aforesaid church of all that is said above. I, Amatus, by the grace of God the first bishop of the aforesaid city, by the grace of God, to you formerly priests, and godivi etc., that Amatus of the church and of Romuald, that Alfetus and Munitus, who gave many good things, and thereupon appointed a surety, and prayers upon prayers; and this also we add, and by all means establish, that if any person, great or small, shall attempt to act against these things which are written above, or shall wish to break them, let him be accursed by God the Father, who made heaven and earth, and by his only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, and let him have his portion with Judas the betrayer of our Lord Jesus Christ, and be condemned for ever; and thus to thee, Amatus of God, I have ordered this note to be written.

✠ The sign of the hand set down of the aforesaid Ursus the viscount.

✠ I, John, priest.

✠ I, Peter, priest, have subscribed.

[19] and which Noja says is preserved in a silver arm among the relics. You have here, reader, that writing, which Noja says he has as a well solid and firm foundation, upon which, he says, this work stands built. He had said before that he would not speak of its indubitable credit, since he judged that by no means necessary, because it contains nothing whereby it could be rendered suspect. He adds that he had considered it line by line and subjected it to criticism, but had always found it such that it cannot be called into controversy. Ughelli also, already adduced, calls it an indubitable record. He says that this autograph testament, written on parchment, is preserved in the reliquary case of the cathedral church of Nusco, enclosed in a silver arm among other relics, where he asserts it was found by him in the visitation of that church, and ordered to be copied by Francesco Antonio Moncelli, notary of Nusco. This, however, does not agree with the statements of Ughelli, who in volume 7, column 533, says of the same testament: The original of which is preserved with the utmost reverence in the archive of the bishopric of Nusco. But Sandulli gave credit neither to the testament nor to Noja's magnificent assertions, as we shall see. Noja's observations it does not please me to bring in here: for they are useless for establishing the credit of the testament.

[20] That writing so foreign to the laws of Grammar and of testaments, Let us hear, then, some of the things which Sandulli deservedly opposed to this writing: for it does not please me to adduce them all, lest this discussion grow too large, nor do I judge it necessary. It is not, he says, our intention to waste time and labor and to note in detail the manifest errors with which that writing teems, even against the first rules of the lowest schools. Nor shall we say with how great a contempt of the known and common laws there are enunciated in it immovable goods without their boundaries, lands circumscribed by no limits, movable goods not enumerated. Let the reader only turn his eyes, and he will marvel not merely at solecisms or barbarisms, but that no laws or customs of Testaments — which ought to be clear — are observed in this writing. What mortal, I do not say a bishop, but any man of sound mind, would in a testament so enumerate his goods as they are enumerated in this writing? I hand over to the church of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which we have built for ourselves and our kinsfolk and associates within the aforesaid city, and which I have endowed out of my own goods with all things immovable and movable … and with silken cloths and linen, and homesteads, and houses, and gardens, and vineyards, and caves, grafted lands, chestnut groves, and other furnishing, etc.

[21] I do not enumerate more, because all are equally faulty and foreign to the laws of a testament. so that it cannot be believed to have been composed as a testament by a bishop: For which cause I strongly agree with Sandulli, who subjoins this in Italian: Truly, who could ever believe that a testament so ill framed would be committed to writing in any city, and that in the name of a Bishop, who, as he is worthy of veneration for the uprightness of his character, so is not to be charged with ignorance of letters? Who would believe a Bishop's testament to be a writing not fitted to its purpose, without art to temper it, without laws to order it, without arrangement to distinguish it? This, I confess, appears to me neither probable nor credible. For, although we confess that the study of letters flourished little in the eleventh century, we shall nevertheless not be able to believe that a writing of this kind was composed by a Bishop as a testament, unless the weightiest authority compelled us. But no authority of this kind is brought forward; on the contrary, many arguments are brought by Sandulli which raise a strong suspicion that the writing is spurious and plainly fictitious. Out of many I shall give a few in brief.

[22] No ancient writer mentions the testament of St. Amatus: [Francesco de Ponte and all the ancients knew nothing of a testament of St. Amatus:] not even Francesco de Ponte, priest of Nusco, who wrote the Life of the Saint in the fifteenth century, has a word about that testament, of which he could scarcely be ignorant, and which he ought to have recorded, if at that time it had been preserved in the church of Nusco among the sacred relics, as Noja will have it. De Ponte narrates that the church of St. Stephen the protomartyr was founded by the Saint, in whose favor that testament is said to have been drawn up: yet of it not a word. Then, as Sandulli rightly observes, when the aforesaid writer narrates the death of St. Amatus, he does not touch on the infirmity related in the testament, and reports the year of his death as though somewhat doubting, in these words: The time of the falling asleep of St. Amatus is reckoned at the year MXCIII. But if de Ponte had seen that testament, he would no doubt have said something of the illness, and would have declared the year of his death more surely, and would have confirmed it by the authority of the testament itself. These things the most illustrious writer sets forth somewhat more fully, and he adds certain other things to show that the testament could not have been unknown to Francesco de Ponte, if it had been preserved from time immemorial among the relics of the church of Nusco.

[23] Sandulli also observes various things in the testament to show that it is spurious. First, that title which is set down in the testament, it contains many things by which it may be called spurious: by the grace of the Apostolic See bishop of Nusco, does not suit the eleventh century in which it is said to have been drawn up, as is gathered from Mabillon, book 2 On Diplomatic, chapter 2, number 10. Secondly, he notes the inconsistency, since the Saint's title is presently expressed in another way, namely in these words: I, Amatus, by the grace of God the first bishop of this city. Thirdly, he observes that the testament is subscribed neither by the bishop's chancellor nor by a public notary. Fourthly, he remarks that with Ursus the viscount there are read two priests subscribing, who certainly could not subscribe their names unless they were present. And yet of the persons present it speaks thus: With Ursus the viscount standing before me, and other unlettered men who came to visit me. Are the priests perhaps also to be understood among the unlettered men? That indeed is not probable, as he shows at length. To these arguments may be added the fault of the Indiction, which Noja himself saw and endeavored by long reasoning to remove, but in vain. In the year 1093 the first Indiction was running, and in the month of September the second was begun by the Greeks, not the third. But Noja, after he had discussed much about the difference in beginning the Indictions, at last on page 18 ridiculously concludes that in the month of September of the year 1093 the third Indiction, which is noted in the writing, was begun among the Greeks.

[24] Sandulli asked the people of Nusco to show the writing, The aforesaid Sandulli relates finally with what diligence he acted in order that it might be permitted to look upon the testament itself, which the people of Nusco call an autograph, so that he might attentively consider the parchment on which it is said to be written, and the form of the letters. For thus he could have known whether the characters and the parchment itself agreed with the eleventh century. For this cause he set out for Nusco, and both with the most illustrious bishop Giacinto Dragonetti and with the chapter of Nusco he urgently insisted that this testament should be shown to him. But other papers indeed were shown, which were kept in the episcopal palace; but the bishop of Nusco himself could not obtain from the chapter that the canons who guarded it should show the testament, and they answered that they had decreed by common consent not to furnish arms to an adversary. This answer indeed, which Sandulli reports at page 265, is not that of men confident in their own cause. Other solicitations to the same end were made through the marquis of Navarette, but in vain.

[25] [the authority of the sacred Congregation being interposed, and then that of Cardinal Orsini; but in vain:] Sandulli did not rest here, but through the procurator general of his Order he had recourse to the sacred Congregation, whose jurisdiction is over bishops and religious, that the most eminent Cardinals might order the testament to be shown, with certain other parchments adduced by Noja. To this end the sacred Congregation wrote to the bishop of Nusco, whose reply, given on the XX of April in the year 1716, is read in Sandulli at page 268. It pleases me to render here into Latin some of his Italian words, that what has been said may be confirmed, and that the care of the people of Nusco in hiding that writing may be the more apparent: I set forth, he says, humbly to your Eminences that it (the testament), of most ancient character, on parchment, from time immemorial

has always been preserved by this chapter among the other relics in a silver reliquary, in which also the arm of the Saint is enclosed: this was often observed by me, and the archpriest Mongelluzzi kept its keys. But when the Critical Discourses upon the Life of St. Amatus were being published, on that occasion Dom Paolino Sandulli of the Congregation of Monte Vergine urged with entreaties that he might examine the said testament. Anxiety arising thence no less in this chapter than in the whole people, the aforesaid archpriest, its guardian, fearing, as is told me, lest he, in defending his own cause, should oppose certain untrue things to it, removed it from the reliquary, and, as is believed, kept it hidden with himself. He afterwards died, and the place is unknown in which he hid it. Thus he, adding that the testament was being sought, and would be sent to the sacred Congregation if it were found. The same answer was afterwards given to the most eminent Cardinal Orsini (afterwards raised to the supreme Pontificate under the name of Benedict XIII), whose authority the monks of Monte Vergine had implored, as Sandulli subjoins, who deservedly holds these evasions suspect, and turns them forcibly against the authority of that writing.

[26] Notwithstanding so great caution on the part of the people of Nusco, the excellent diligence of Sandulli brought it about yet from the testimony of others he sufficiently shows it to be apocryphal, that we can easily understand why the people of Nusco wished that writing to be so greatly concealed. At page 273 he brings forward the Italian testimony of Alfonso Muscetta, from which we shall be able abundantly to learn that that writing is of no value, and therefore is deservedly to be neglected by us. I shall faithfully render the Italian words into Latin: I, the undersigned Apostolic protonotary, master of sacred theology and priest of Naples, testify, even upon oath as often as shall be needful, that when in the present year MDCCXIX I was (at Bagnoli) preaching through Lent in the collegiate church of Bagnoli in the diocese of Nusco in the Ulterior Principate, and often discussed with the doctor Master Fabrizio Tisci that which is called the testament of St. Amatus and is alleged by Master Francesco Noja in his book entitled Critical Discourses upon the Life of St. Amatus, that Fabrizio said that he had freely had it in his own house for many years, and that it is of Lombard character. Further I testify that, questioning on this matter Master Savino Cella, canon of the said collegiate church, he too asserted to me that he had seen it gnawed by mice in some part, and had had it in his power a long time under the government of the most illustrious lord (Fulgenzio) Arminio; and that the mice's gnawing is precisely in the years of the thousand, which a stranger scribe was ordered to repair. And this is plainly discerned, because it is out of the line, and the ninety-third year is written over above the thousandth. Thus further I testify that I have heard from many other priests that the said testament is inept and apocryphal, and that therefore the canons of Nusco have for some time until now determined among themselves to show it to no one. He adds that he gives that testimony by order of the most illustrious lord Nicola Rota, canon and vicar of the metropolitan church at Naples. He subscribes at last: At Naples, the XIII of September of the year MDCCXIX, I, Alfonso Muscetta, testify as above. There is added the testimony of Domenico Antonio Avellone, notary of Naples, who testifies that these things were written and subscribed by Alfonso Muscetta with his own hand. And from these things Sandulli concludes, and rightly, that for no other cause is that writing so greatly hidden than because it is empty and apocryphal.

[27] The same author throughout chapter 17 proves at length that that writing was not preserved among the sacred relics of the church of Nusco, and that it was not preserved from time immemorial among the relics of Nusco: as Noja had asserted. But it is not necessary to transfer all his arguments here; I shall select a few of them, from which this will abundantly appear. From the testimony of Alfonso Muscetta just given, Savino Cella the canon had that writing with himself for a long time under the government of Fulgenzio Arminio, that is, before the year 1680, in which Arminio left the bishopric. Fabrizio Tisci also had it in his house, by the same testimony. But Ughelli, already adduced at number 19, says that it is preserved in the archive of the bishopric of Nusco, and this was written to Ughelli by the bishop of Nusco himself, Michele Resta, when he transmitted to him a copy of that writing. Receive the words of the aforesaid prelate, which Sandulli recites in Italian at page 280 from his letter to Ughelli: The testament of St. Amatus is preserved in our archive; you will have an authentic copy of it enclosed herewith, etc. Sandulli brings forward more to this purpose; but what has been brought forward seems to me to suffice. For if that writing before the year 1639, in which the most illustrious Resta passed from the bishopric of Nusco to that of Ascoli in Apulia, was kept in the archive of Nusco; if under the episcopate of Arminio, before the year 1680, it was in the hands of the canon Cella; if afterwards it was in the house of Fabrizio Tisci — then what Noja writes about the testament preserved among the sacred relics from time immemorial is empty.

[28] St. Amatus probably made no testament: Not only does Sandulli strive to establish that that writing, of which the ancients made no mention, is not the testament of St. Amatus, but he also shows by a probable reason that in all likelihood no testament was ever made by the Saint. To this end he adduces not only the silence of Francesco de Ponte, which we have already mentioned, but also his very words, which do not seem to agree well enough with the testament. For the aforesaid de Ponte has this on day 1, lesson 6: And to conclude many things in few, he had made all his possessions a kind of commonwealth of the poor … He had nothing of his own; for since he had bestowed all upon the poor, the divine bounty supplied him abundantly with what was needful. If he had nothing of his own, if he had bestowed all upon the poor, is it at all probable that there suit St. Amatus the words of Possidius uttered concerning St. Augustine in this volume, page 440: He made no testament, because the Poor Man of God had nothing whereof to make one? Noja indeed at page 60 strives to persuade us that greater glory is attributed to our Saint if we say that he lived in the midst of riches with such a mind as not to cleave to them, but to bestow them bountifully upon the poor. But this opinion of his may perhaps be approved by those who consider only certain petty human reasonings with their natural wit; but it will by no means please those Christians who hear Christ himself in Matthew 19 saying with truthful mouth: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

[29] from all which it is concluded that that testament is spurious. From all that has been said hitherto let it be permitted to conclude with the most illustrious Sandulli that that writing, which Ughelli and Noja have recited under the name of the testament of St. Amatus, is such that a prudent man neither can nor ought to give it credit. Hence I shall henceforth neglect it as a record of no credit, which was probably forged of old by some impostor, and afterwards held by others too credulous for the Saint's testament, and as such at last brought to light without sufficient examination. It pleases me to subjoin the words of the most learned Muratori, who in the Antiquities of Italy, volume 3, column 5, discourses thus to our purpose: And so it must first be laid down that there was formerly in Europe no century, no kingdom using letters, which could boast itself free from impostors. Nay, not even the last centuries, nor our own age, has been without this abominable kind of men. To bring forward examples would be both superfluous to the learned and irksome to certain of the unlearned. But it was formerly far more convenient and easy for forgers to hammer out their adulterine offspring and boldly pour them forth in public, because the ignorance of letters, and especially the inexperience of the critical art, under which almost all men of those centuries labored, gave hope that the imposture would never be detected. Charters absurd, and breathing falsehood on every side, could be forged: these that good people received with the same deference and equal credulity as the most firmly established and authentic records. These things that man, most versed in the Italian records of the Middle Ages, sets forth at greater length; but from what has been brought forward the reader will easily see that we say nothing unusual when we say that that testament was forged by an impostor under the name of St. Amatus.

§ IV. Whether the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte concerning St. Amatus ought to be preferred to the Life of the same written by Renda.

[Noja contends that for the deeds of St. Amatus the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte alone is to be followed,] Francesco Noja in the preface of his little Work, page 7, says that he followed as the sole guide of his composition Francesco de Ponte, whom in many places he wonderfully praises, and contends that he is to be preferred to Renda, although he confesses at page 9 that he has seen no writer, except Ughelli, who in reporting the deeds of St. Amatus had Francesco de Ponte before his eyes, whereas Renda has had many followers. At page 14 he affirms that Francesco de Ponte recorded so few things of the Saint that the particular facts which he reports could be included in four lines; but he acknowledges at page 15 that Renda narrated more, and comparing the two writers with one another he says that he has found that, where Francesco de Ponte wrote few things about what the Saint did, Renda wrote many about those things which he did not do. Such is everywhere the mind of that Dissertator, rejecting almost everything which he does not find in the testament rejected above, or in the little Work of Francesco de Ponte. Hence it must be examined whether the authority of Francesco de Ponte is truly to be reckoned of as much worth as Noja would have it, and whether from his silence alone the facts related by Renda are to be rejected.

[31] Let us hear Noja's reasons, moved by which he contends that Francesco de Ponte alone is to be followed. his first reason, from the age of the writer, very frivolous, He first of all, he says, is the most ancient of all whom we have; and although his antiquity does not reach as far as two centuries and a half (he wrote nearly 246 years before Noja), nevertheless in comparison with the others he is certainly the most ancient. This first reason is neither of any value nor set forth clearly enough. If we believe Noja, St. Amatus died in the year 1093, and Francesco de Ponte wrote in the year 1461; and so, according to his own assertions, this Life was composed 368 years after the Saint's death. In the opinion of others the Saint died a whole century later; and so de Ponte wrote 268 years after the Saint. This distance of the writer from the Saint's death Noja ought to have measured according to his own opinion, and so to have confessed that Francesco de Ponte is three centuries and more than half of a fourth later than the Saint. Now, reader, consider how frivolous this reason is. For whether de Ponte wrote 268 or 368 years after the Saint's death, it is certain and manifest that the deeds of illustrious men are not preserved uncorrupted through so great a space of time in the memory of men alone, and therefore that Francesco de Ponte could write nothing certain of St. Amatus

except from more ancient records. And so, even though he is a hundred and twenty years older than Felice Renda, this cannot procure him greater authority; but the only question to be inquired into is which of them had the better ancient records, without which neither could write anything rightly about St. Amatus.

[32] The second reason Noja expresses thus: Moreover he wrote at that time in which those things could be known at Nusco which we do not know, both through the traditions of that people, the second, about traditions and an older writing, is no better, which were not yet defiled with the fables scattered by him who wrote afterwards; and because there could then be there some more ancient writing, of which today we have no knowledge, as also of many others, with which the episcopal archive of Nusco was formerly full, and which since the time of Francesco de Ponte has so often been plundered and burned along with the rest of the city. Noja says nothing here for his Francesco de Ponte which his adversaries could not say for their Renda, and perhaps with better foundation. If the traditions concerning St. Amatus were not defiled with fables when Francesco de Ponte wrote; if he had written the truth, as Noja will have it — the monks of Monte Vergine can equally say that those traditions were not defiled with fables when Renda composed the Life of St. Amatus. For there is much greater danger that traditions of the deeds of some Saint be sprinkled with fables before his Life has been written than there is after the Life has actually been composed. But, as I have already warned, the distance between the death of St. Amatus and the writers of his Life is too great for it to have been rightly narrated from traditions alone. What he adds about a more ancient writing and about the archive of Nusco, the monks of Monte Vergine can again equally or more rightly bring forward for their Renda. Nay, Sandulli in chapter 14 endeavors to show that the archive of Monte Vergine is far to be preferred to that of Nusco. But it is not necessary to dwell longer on these matters, as will presently appear.

[33] the third, from the usage of the church of Nusco, plainly feeble: Receive, then, the third reason, which he subjoins in these words: Besides, his book was consecrated by the use of the church of Nusco in the divine Offices, as has been said; nor is it credible that the more ancient bishops would have permitted a book to be read in choir which had not been approved by the men of that time as conformable to their traditions. This reason is weak in itself: for otherwise all things would have to be admitted as true which are read today, or were at some time read, in any Offices whatsoever of particular churches. Then that use of that Octavarium Noja indeed confidently asserts, but does not prove. But Sandulli at page 239 does not admit that assertion, but attacks it. Finally, the monks of Monte Vergine will be able to say just as much of the Office of their Order, which Renda published: for in that Office almost everything is asserted which gave occasion to the controversies, and it is only in the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte that they are passed over.

[34] [from these it is wrongly inferred that no more was known about the Saint than is found in the Octavarium.] Noja concludes that reasoning of his in this manner: Finally, from the fact that that book was held in such esteem in those times, we understand that nothing was then known of those things which more recent writers have afterwards published about that Saint. In the first place, I do not see that that book was held in great esteem, which seems rather to have been despised by the people of Nusco themselves, since they did not take care to have it printed until at last after eighty-two years. Certainly it was neglected by other writers, since they preferred to follow Renda's little Work. Then, if it really had been in esteem, I do not see how just the inference is: for we read every year many Offices of Saints in which not all the deeds are reported which we have known and thoroughly ascertained about those same Saints from other sources. Secondly, if the people of Nusco then knew no more about their Saint because Francesco de Ponte had found no more, why could not a diligent unearther of ancient records have found certain other things, and written them faithfully? Hence I can by no means assent to what the same Noja has at page 14, where, after saying that very few particular facts were related by Francesco de Ponte, he thus infers: So that from him I could rather gather what the Saint did not do than what he did. For the fewer things that writer reported, the less force can his silence have for rejecting those things which have been narrated by others.

[35] And so from these reasons of Noja it is not established that Francesco de Ponte deserves greater credit than Felice Renda. What Noja objects against Renda's little Work, Let us see whether this is more to be gathered from what the same dissertator brought forward against Renda at page 12: From what fountain, he says, he ever drew those things which he there reports, I cannot say; nor would I dare to affirm that he is the author of the trifles and fables which he writes, since I would rather believe that some other impostor composed them before him. Nevertheless he is the first who published them in print; for the most ancient writer who is alleged by his fellows is that very man. But, whatever be the case in this matter, he not only knew the Work of Francesco de Ponte, but even copied it, using everywhere his very words, so that, had he not mingled his own fables with it, and adulterated his opinions also in many parts, it might be said of those two Legends that they are but one. Nay, that same Renda in his little book printed the hymns, responsories, and the rest from the Office of the Saint, which was formerly in use … in the church of Nusco, and was copied from the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte. So he, either not wounding Renda, or striking Francesco de Ponte with the same wound.

[36] For if Noja did not know whence Renda drew his matter, the same objections may be made against the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte: neither did he know it of Francesco de Ponte. If Renda first narrates certain deeds, so did Francesco de Ponte. These things, then, ought to harm either neither of them or both. But now, if in many things Renda followed Francesco de Ponte so faithfully as to wish to use his very words, it seems probable that the other things also which he reports were faithfully taken from other records. If he forsook the opinion of Francesco de Ponte on certain heads, he probably did so because he could not reconcile it with his other records. As to his saying that he published trifles and fables, we shall discuss this at each of the points which he attacks. Moreover, it is not permitted to conceal that various things present themselves to me which cast some doubt whether the little Work of Francesco de Ponte has come down to our times pure and without interpolation or excision. I could pass judgment on that matter more rightly and safely if it had been permitted me to see the little Work itself; but although I have spared neither labor nor expense to obtain it, and had hoped in truth to obtain it by the good offices of a friend at Naples, it has not hitherto come into my hands. Wherefore receive briefly the reasons for doubting the fidelity of the edition made in the year 1543.

[37] First, at the end of this Life, on the testimony of Noja in his preface, page 10, of this also we do not know whether it was faithfully published, for reasons the following is read: The lord Jancola de Janvilla, count of Sant'Angelo and lord of the city of Nusco, to the praise, glory, and devotion of blessed Amatus the confessor, caused this Work to be written by me, master Francesco de Ponte, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred and sixty-one, of the eighth Indiction. Printed at Naples in the year of the Lord MDXLIII. But these words do not seem to have been written by Francesco de Ponte. For Sandulli, to whom for brevity's sake I refer the reader, in chapter 12 contends that the house of Janvilla was deprived of the county of Sant'Angelo and of the lordship of Nusco from the year 1413, and that those lordships in the year 1461 were in the family of the Caraccioli. Moreover, in the year 1461 the eighth Indiction was not running, but the ninth. Nor do I sufficiently understand why Francesco de Ponte should call himself dominus rather than priest, and why those words printed … in the year MDXLIII are so cited as if they too were de Ponte's own. In what manner, then, could Francesco de Ponte write the preceding words in the year 1461?

[38] various, which are here enumerated, Secondly, Noja at page 13 of his preface writes this in Italian: The Legend which is today better known is that which Renda wrote, the memory of the book of Francesco de Ponte being almost abolished, which is so rare that in the whole diocese of Nusco not even one copy could be found: of this lack I do not believe the sole cause to be that it was not printed again; but I judge that the diligence of some person intervened who took pains to gather up its copies in order to abolish it, as has not seldom happened where a book has appeared which did not please. These things indeed Noja hurls obliquely against the monks of Monte Vergine; but even so he renders the book dear to himself suspect. For if that book was faithfully published in the year 1543, if it was held in great esteem and used in the divine Offices, how were the bishops and all the canons of Nusco so negligent as to suffer the book about the Life of their Patron to be almost entirely abolished, especially since Renda wrote in the same century, whose little Work all followed in emulation? And so it is more probable that the people of Nusco themselves abolished the book, or withdrew it from other men's eyes, either because it was not approved as it had been published, or because they were unwilling to furnish arms to their adversaries, as happened in the case of that writing which they call the testament.

[39] and which raise a suspicion of corruption. Thirdly, Sandulli in the Apology, chapter 15, observes that in the whole little Work of Francesco de Ponte nothing is narrated of St. Amatus from about his thirtieth year to his seventy-first, in which he is said by Noja to have been made bishop. So great a space of his Life left empty is not free from the suspicion of excision, especially because that is the very time into which, according to others, his monastic life falls. This suspicion will not be altogether removed if anyone says that the writer did this for lack of records. For Francesco de Ponte narrates various things about the Saint's youth, of which he does not seem to have been able to know more than about his manhood. Fourthly, we have already at number 4 adduced part of the hymn from second Vespers, as it is read in the little Work of Francesco de Ponte and as the same is read in the Office of Monte Vergine. It is the same hymn, but corrupted in one or the other place by the change of a single word; nor does it seem to be doubted that it is corrupted in the Office which the little Work of Francesco de Ponte exhibits. But it may be doubted whether Francesco de Ponte himself changed the hymn, or his editor. The suspicion of corruption born of these things is increased because below we shall see a certain charter of the church of Nusco actually

to have been corrupted. The little Work of Francesco de Ponte, therefore, has not fit authority for disproving from it the deeds related by Renda, although for the rest we confess that all of them cannot be held as beyond doubt, on account of the writer's age being too far removed from the Saint. Hence we shall mark in the annotations upon that Work certain things which seem more doubtful.

§ V. Whether the Saint flourished in the eleventh century or the twelfth.

[Renda says the Saint lived in the twelfth century, and was made bishop under Adrian IV:] Renda and all the writers who have followed him include the whole life of St. Amatus within the twelfth century, and fix his death at the year 1193. But Noja with Ughelli (to whom lately Francesco Orlendi adhered in the Orbis Sacer et Profanus, part 2, book 4, chapter XI) contends that the Saint flourished in the eleventh century and died in the year 1093. This controversy Noja treated with great effort in discourse 1, because the rest depend upon it. For if he could prove that the Saint lived in the eleventh century, all that is read in Renda about his monastic life must necessarily fall, since the Order of Monte Vergine was not founded before the twelfth century. His chief arguments are the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte and the so-called testament of St. Amatus; for in both he is said to have died in the year 1093. But these records have already been sifted and rejected as of suspect credit, so that there is no need to reply to them further. He adds, however, other arguments also, which must be sifted in this place. But it is to be noted that the beginning of St. Amatus's episcopate is placed by Renda under Pope Adrian IV, who sat from the year 1154 nearly ended until the Kalends of September of the year 1159. For Noja endeavors to show that other bishops sat at Nusco between the Pontificate of Adrian IV and the year 1193.

[41] Noja's arguments are drawn from the catalogue of the bishops of Nusco, the first reason of Noja, who disputes against these, is empty, which Ughelli wove in volume 7 from column 533. He objects first Roger II, of whom Ughelli has only this at column 536: Roger II is said to have lived under Celestine III. They say moreover (Renda and de Ponte) that he raised the body of St. Amatus into a nobler coffin in the new cathedral church adorned by him, and consecrated it in his honor. Now Celestine obtained the pontificate in the year 1191, and laid it down with his life in the year 1198. Whether Roger II really sat under Celestine is uncertain. But let us suppose it to be so; what Noja can claim from this against the assigned year of St. Amatus's death I truly do not see. For if St. Amatus died in the year 1193, as Renda says, the Saint died under Celestine, and under Celestine Roger II could succeed him, either at once or after another intervening. Empty things therefore does Noja boast at page 3, and says nothing to the purpose when he contends that Roger's episcopate is contrary to the time of St. Amatus's episcopate.

[42] No better is what Noja observes in the same place about the church dedicated by Roger to St. Amatus, the second false, in that he wrongly asserts that it ought to have been done within the sixth or seventh year from the Saint's death. That this church was really consecrated to the Saint by Roger, Renda writes, but in the year of the Lord MCCXXIII, Honorius III being supreme Pontiff of the holy See, that is, thirty years after the Saint's death. Against this epoch Noja objects the next bishop Luke, whom he confidently asserts to have been bishop in the year 1200, as he says he will prove in the Catalogue of the bishops of Nusco. But there he brings forward no proof except the words of Ughelli. Let us hear, then, what Ughelli has in the place cited: Luke, he says, who enclosed the remains of St. Amatus in silver cases. But in what year he lived we do not know, nor have we his Acts. Yet he was bishop of Nusco after the year MCC of our salvation. After him several bishops are missing. Ughelli does not know the year in which Luke lived, and knows only that he was bishop after the year 1200. Meanwhile Noja concludes from Ughelli that he was bishop in the year 1200, which Ughelli openly denies. Who could patiently endure a man who has undertaken to correct the errors of others reasoning in this manner? Renda at number 18 speaks thus of Bishop Luke: Many years afterwards having passed, Lord Luke, successor as bishop of the city of Nusco, wishing to place the body of the aforesaid Saint magnificently in silver vessels, ordered it to be transferred from the place where it was to its own building or chapel. From these words that translation seems to be placed about or after the middle of the thirteenth century; nor does any reason occur why Luke could not then have been bishop, who perhaps about the year 1230 or even 1240 had succeeded Roger. Nay, I do not see why he could not have been bishop until the year 1285, in which James of the Order of Minors was raised to the bishopric of Nusco, so that it appears uncertain whether several bishops are missing after Luke, as Ughelli says are missing.

[43] the third reason, resting on two documents, Greater difficulty would there be in what Noja objects at page 5 concerning Bishop William, if the documents seemed sufficiently authentic which are brought forward in Ughelli to confirm the time at which they will have it that William presided over the church of Nusco. Receive what Ughelli has about William at columns 534 and 535: William flourished in the year MCLXIV, in which the abbot of Fontigliano is juridically bound to pay the census due to the church of Nusco and to William himself the bishop, from a document of the archive of the church of Nusco … He was present at the donation of Roger de Medonia bestowed upon the monastery of St. Salvator of Goleto, whose charter is dated in the year 1167. If these were firm enough, it would have to be admitted by necessary consequence that the holy bishop was not created under Adrian IV; but he could have been made bishop after William about the year 1170, so that on this account he would still not have to be sent back to the eleventh century. But let us discuss how solid are the foundations on which the assigned time of William's episcopate rests.

[44] but the first document is of manifest corruption, The first document, in which mention is made of William bishop of Nusco, is published in the reprinted Work of Ughelli, volume 7, column 534, and is marked with this epoch: In the year from the Incarnation of the same Lord one thousand one hundred and sixty-four, and in the reign of our most happy Lord William, magnificent king of Sicily, of the duchy of Apulia, and of the principate of Capua, in the month of August, the twelfth Indiction. Sandulli in the Apology, chapter 18, vehemently exclaims against this charter, which he testifies that he has seen and which he contends is corrupted. He says that he read it in this manner: In the year from the Incarnation one thousand one hundred … tieth and fourth, etc. Then he subjoins: There is no need here of great study for anyone to comprehend that, three letters being deleted, they formerly attempted to intrude SIXTIETH for NINETIETH. And it is clearly perceived that, the syllable NON being not too much erased, they then wrote only an X (which perhaps they thought would suffice), but so ill formed and so ineptly fitted that, while it was being formed, the first stroke of the unfortunate letter was filled in with different ink, so that they judged it better to leave it cut and truncated than to complete it with a more open fraud and the risk of a greater misfortune. He adds also the very form of the middle letter, and discloses his suspicion in these words: Since the truth has been adulterated with corruptions of this kind, who does not see that this was done for no other end than that other bishops might be introduced in precisely those years in which that church was governed by our Saint? Thus he against the aforesaid document, and no more. Nevertheless it also appears strange that it is not said under what Pontiff the matter was transacted, nor in what year of the reigning William, although mention is made of his reign. Moreover the year 1194, which Sandulli asserts stood in the charter in place of 1164, agrees also with the twelfth Indiction, and with the reign of William III king of Sicily, just as 1164 suits the reign of William I. And so, according to Sandulli's statements, the bishop William, of whom mention is made in the aforesaid document, must have succeeded St. Amatus in the see of Nusco, and have had as successor Roger II, of whom we have already treated.

[45] From the second document, which Sandulli likewise impugns, the other Sandulli charges with forgery, Ughelli adduced only these words: In the name of the Lord, the eternal God, and of the Savior Jesus Christ, in the year from his Incarnation MCLXVII. I, Roger de Medonia, by the grace of God and of the king count of Acerra and lord of Nusco, in the presence of Lord William bishop of Nusco, of Count Matthew de Petro, and of Berard of Benevento, of Lotard of Apice, of John Frederick, of John the judge Comp., etc. And I grant one piece of land, etc., to the monastery of St. Salvator of Goleto, and the power of cutting wood for burning, etc. Ughelli does not indicate whence he received this. Hence Sandulli reasons thus at page 295: Let Noja, or Ughelli, kindly tell us: where did they ever read such a document? From what archive did they receive it? Among what writings will it be found, perhaps recorded in registers? A vast misfortune of that donation, that it has no place which they can assign to it! And indeed where at length could the memory of it be had, unless in the monastery of Goleto itself, in whose favor it is said to have been made? And yet among its writings, all of which we have diligently examined, not the least trace of it is found. Then who does not see how far that document departs from the right rule? Not a word in it about the king under whom the stipulation is made; the land which is granted is not assigned, its quantity is not limited, its boundaries are not described. What land, then, is given? But it is better to say that the thing was neatly invented in order to substitute William there, so that St. Amatus might be drawn away from those times. Thus far Sandulli.

[46] These two documents, therefore, do not appear sufficiently authentic to prove from them alone [so that from these nothing certain can be gathered, much less can it be inferred that the Saint lived in the eleventh century:] that William presided over the church of Nusco in the year 1164 or 1167. And even if this were true, Noja would wrongly infer from it, at page 6, that St. Amatus must be removed from the whole twelfth century; since he himself, against Ughelli, who fixes the beginning of the episcopate about the year 1048, shows at page 187 that the beginning of St. Amatus's episcopate must be placed later, and indeed after the year 1071, and yet does not therefore wish to remove the Saint from the eleventh century. For if, in Noja's opinion, the time of the episcopate can be so contracted as to be wholly comprised between the years 1071 and 1093, why in the opinion of others could it not be wholly comprised between the years 1167 and 1193? These things I wished briefly to observe, that I might show that Noja can establish nothing from the documents alleged for the chief controversy, even if we should suppose them to be authentic in the highest degree.

[47] Another argument Noja took from the words of Ughelli about Guido, bishop of Nusco, about the beginning of the twelfth century. the fourth proves nothing. Guido, says Ughelli at column

534, may have succeeded Amatus. Mention of him occurs in the year MCIV, in which he blessed as abbot of St. Mary of Fontigliano the monk Pesticus of that same monastery. The document of the blessing exists in the archive of the bishopric in memory of the matter. Hence Noja at page 8 reasons nearly thus: By the admission of Renda and Verace, St. Amatus built the church and monastery of St. Mary of Fontigliano and filled it with monks. And so St. Amatus was bishop before Guido, and therefore in the eleventh century. Thus Noja there at greater length. But the man, inconsistent with himself through an excessive lust for carping, himself destroyed at page 217 and following what he here built up, where he teaches that the monastery of Fontigliano existed long before St. Amatus, and was not first built by him but restored, enriched, and increased in the number of monks, carping at Renda for calling the Saint the founder of that monastery. Of the restoration of this monastery we shall dispute below; but here I only observe that Noja's argument is of no weight, since the monastery could easily still have had an abbot at the beginning of the eleventh century, and have been deserted about the middle of that same century, and restored by St. Amatus.

§ VI. Whether St. Amatus was the first bishop of Nusco.

Noja contends that St. Amatus was the first bishop of Nusco, Noja in discourse 6 from page 176 strives to prove that St. Amatus was the first bishop of the church of Nusco. His adversaries deny this, because Renda clearly says that he was elected when the bishop of Nusco had died. The arguments which Noja brings forward are drawn partly from the spurious testament, in which he is called the first Bishop, partly from the suspect little Work of Francesco de Ponte, in which the same seems to be said, although Sandulli endeavors to draw the texts adduced to another meaning. To the testament I judge that nothing further need be replied. Let us hear, then, what he alleges from Francesco de Ponte. On day 1 of the Octavarium, lesson 9, he cites these words of the people of Nusco, who were exhorting the Saint to accept the episcopal dignity: And this city shall through you be henceforth famous and renowned, and endowed with pontifical dignity. Sandulli at page 305 asserts that he read in the Octavarium, most richly endowed with pontifical dignity; and he explains it as though the people of Nusco had meant to say: Our city shall be famous, renowned, and most richly endowed with the episcopal dignity of so illustrious a Citizen of hers. Then Noja alleges another passage of the Octavarium on day 3, lesson 1, where he testifies that this is read: The venerable men (the lord of Nusco and the archbishop of Salerno), confirming by their authority the petition of the people, granted to the city of Nusco, in the grace from above, a pontifical see, which it had never had before. In the same way Sandulli explains this at page 307, namely that the episcopal dignity was granted to a Citizen of the city of Nusco, with which no one of that city had hitherto been adorned.

[49] which others more probably deny, for various reasons: Renda at number 9 affirms that St. Amatus was made bishop at the time when the bishop of Nusco departed this life, and that this came about by the entreaty of the citizens with William king of Sicily, that he should commend him to the supreme Pontiff. Several reasons move me to judge that St. Amatus was not the first bishop of the people of Nusco. First, because we are certain that Renda's little Work, which was published in the author's lifetime, is not corrupted; whereas the little Work of Francesco de Ponte is suspect of interpolation. Secondly, because many things which Renda narrates about St. Amatus cannot stand if he was the first bishop of Nusco in the eleventh century; but it is not probable that a man upright and learned, such as Renda was, invented so many things about the Saint whose life he briefly composed. Thirdly, Renda can in no way be drawn to another sense; but the Octavarium of Francesco de Ponte is expounded in another sense by Sandulli. And indeed, although that explanation may at first sight seem improper and forced, there are not wanting reasons which make it sufficiently probable, especially because Francesco de Ponte not seldom speaks improperly, and nowhere names our Saint the first bishop of the city of Nusco; and finally because what he narrates about the Saint's election appears plainly ridiculous if it is to be understood of the erection of a new bishopric.

[50] Hear, then, how Noja himself expounds the election from Francesco de Ponte. At page 178 he relates the Saint's election is thus narrated by Noja himself, that the episcopal dignity was frequently offered to St. Amatus by the people of Nusco, and adduces these words from the Octavarium, day 1, lesson 8: Although never in the territory of Nusco was one found so worthy of the pontifical mitre, yet whereas others with great eagerness abusively thrust and force themselves in, he, entreated for many years, refused to enter. Hence on a certain day (as Noja has it at page 179 from lesson 9) all with one accord and unanimous voice proclaim: Holy father, magnify the place of your birth and dwelling. How long will you suffer Nusco, the town committed to your protection, to be both lowly and without glory? If you would only give your consent and will, the favor of the archbishop and the assent of the lord of the land will not be lacking, and this city shall through you be henceforth famous and renowned, and endowed with pontifical dignity. This said the people and clergy, if we believe Noja, in a city in which there had never been any bishop.

[51] Moved by these words also, St. Amatus, as the same Noja will have it at page 180, [so that the people would have erected the bishopric, if he had been the first bishop:] answered thus in de Ponte: If it is the will of God, I do not refuse the labor; let the will of God and yours be done. This answer being heard, the people of Nusco lift their hands and voice to the stars, and cry out: Blessed be the Creator and governor of all, who does not forsake those who hope in him. Noja subjoins that some of the chief men were sent to the lord of the land to obtain his consent, and others to the archbishop of Salerno to ask the confirmation of the election. And both having been obtained, they sent the Saint to Salerno to be consecrated by the archbishop; and thence brought him back ordained to Nusco with joy. Having narrated this, Noja again subjoins: Behold in what way our Saint was elected to the bishopric. The people elected him, the prince consented, the archbishop of Salerno confirmed him. In his opinion, therefore, the people erected the bishopric, the prince thereafter consenting and the archbishop confirming. Nay, he affirms that he safely believes the matter was thus accomplished, not only because Francesco de Ponte so narrated it, but also because in that way, and no other, it had to be done, according to the usage and discipline of that time and the privileges of the church of Salerno. Let us hear, then, how Noja proves this usage, this discipline, these privileges of the church of Salerno in erecting new bishoprics.

[52] He shows first, at pages 181 and following, that elections of bishops were formerly made by the clergy and people, of which we do not doubt. But he ought to have proved that erections of bishoprics were made in the eleventh century by the clergy and people, with only the consent of the prince and the confirmation of the archbishop supervening: [elections of bishops were formerly made by clergy and people, not erections of bishoprics:] for that the bishopric of Nusco was not only so erected but had also so to be erected, and not otherwise, he plainly enough suggests when he describes the election of St. Amatus. The privileges of the church of Salerno which he brings forward establish only that it was granted to the archbishops of Salerno to ordain bishops to all the bishoprics of their province; they do not equally prove that it was permitted to them to erect new bishoprics by their own authority. St. Alphanus indeed erected the bishopric of Sarno, but by the Apostolic authority of the supreme Pontiff, not by his own. Hear Ughelli, volume 7, column 571: Risus was appointed the first bishop of Sarno by the authority of Pope Alexander II, in the year MLXVI, by Alphanus the first archbishop of Salerno, the autograph record of which institution, written in Lombard letters on parchment, exists in the archive of that same church. Thus Ughelli, whose judgment Noja is wont to esteem most highly, understood the letters of St. Alphanus which he recites. The words of Alphanus himself at the end of the letters suggest this, where he says: Wherefore by Apostolic authority we command and enjoin upon you, etc. By what Apostolic authority, I ask, if not that of the Roman Pontiff?

[53] [it was granted to the archbishops of Salerno to ordain bishops as their suffragans,] But let us hear the privileges of the archbishops of Salerno, by virtue of which Noja contends that new bishoprics were erected by them. Most of the letters of the Pontiffs in which they are contained Ughelli publishes in volume 7 in the Catalogue of the said archbishops, namely of John XV, Sergius IV, Clement II, Leo IX, and Alexander II. In the first three there is nothing which pertains to our matter, except that the bishop of Salerno is to consecrate the bishops who are his suffragans, who are enumerated. Receive the words of Clement II bearing on this: And moreover we give license and power of ordaining and consecrating bishops in these places subject to you, that is, the bishopric of Paestum with its parishes and appurtenances, etc. … And let not our successors have power thenceforth to consecrate bishops in all the aforesaid bishoprics which we have granted to you by Apostolic authority, in the manner in which it has been granted to you. From these I certainly cannot hammer out the faculty of erecting new bishoprics.

[54] More obscure are the words of Leo IX in his letters of the year 1051 to Archbishop John, in Ughelli, column 380: and to ordain bishops in fitting places of his province: We confirm to you also that same archbishopric of Salerno entire, with the parishes adjacent to it. And moreover we give license and power of ordaining and consecrating in these places subject to you, that is, the bishopric of Paestum with its parishes and appurtenances, and Nola, and Conza with their parishes and appurtenances, and also Malvito and Cosenza, and likewise the bishopric of Bisignano, and the bishopric of Acerenza with all their parishes and appurtenances. And it shall also be lawful for you to ordain bishops over fitting places according to the rule of the holy Fathers, within the whole compass of the archbishopric of Salerno; and let not our successors have power in all the aforesaid bishoprics which we have granted to you by Apostolic authority to consecrate bishops thenceforth for ever, in the manner in which it has been granted to you. These words, And it shall also be lawful for you to ordain bishops over fitting places, Noja at page 185 understands of erecting new bishoprics; as also the words of Alexander II in his letters of the year 1067 to Alphanus, which run thus in Ughelli, column 382: We confirm to your fraternity that it be lawful for you to ordain bishops within the province described, in fitting places according to the statutes of the sacred canons. Sandulli also assents to this opinion at page 309, and adds that that faculty was ordinary and lasted until the twelfth century; and he strives to prove that it avails nothing for Noja's case.

[55] Nevertheless I strongly doubt whether the faculty of erecting new sees was so granted to the archbishops of Salerno that they could erect them without further approbation and consent of the supreme Pontiff. [but this does not seem to be understood of new bishoprics to be erected by their own authority,] Hear the reasons of my doubt. Thomassin, in the Work On the Ancient and New Discipline of the Church, part 1, book 1, chapters 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58, treats at length of the erection of new bishoprics,

and shows that the authority of the supreme Pontiff was everywhere required, especially after the year one thousand, so that it is not probable that the Pontiffs in the eleventh century took that authority from themselves throughout the whole province of Salerno. But if the words of the Pontiffs adduced are to be understood of new bishoprics, if it was as lawful for the archbishops of Salerno to erect new bishoprics as it was lawful to consecrate bishops to the sees which were their suffragans, as Noja contends, then Leo IX took from himself and from his successors the power of erecting bishoprics in the province of Salerno, just as he took from himself the license of consecrating the suffragans of the church of Salerno: for the Pontiff clearly takes from his successors what he grants to the archbishop of Salerno. And so, if he granted equal power of consecrating and of erecting, he took both equally from himself, which is neither probable nor consistent with the events of that time, as I shall show.

[56] Among the suffragan sees of the metropolis of Salerno were Conza or Compsa, as is also shown from three sees raised to metropolitan dignity, Acerenza, and Cosenza, enumerated above by Leo IX. And those three sees were raised to metropolitan dignity about the pontificate of Leo IX, and each received its own suffragans. Of Compsa Ughelli speaks thus, volume 6, column 798: But from which of the Roman Pontiffs Compsa received the metropolitan dignity is unknown to me. I should believe, however, that it received it either from Alexander II or from his successor Gregory VII; for in the year MLI, under Leo IX, the bishop of Compsa was a suffragan of the archbishop of Salerno, as is clear from the privilege of Leo (which we gave above); under Gregory VII lived Leo archbishop of Compsa; so that it was made an archbishopric between Leo IX and Gregory VII. The same author, volume 7, columns 6 and 7, described at length the promotion of Acerenza, and thinks its archbishop was created either by Leo IX himself or by one of his successors; and at column 25 he shows that mention is made of Gerald, the first archbishop of Acerenza, in the year 1063. The same author again, volume 9, column 184, records this of Cosenza: That the bishop of Cosenza was at one time subject to the archbishop of Salerno, Gaspar Musca writes in his book on the Bishops of Salerno, in his account of Alphanus the first, which we have also from the bulls of John XV in the year CMXLIV , and of Sergius IV in the year MXII (nay, and of Leo IX), which we gave among the archbishops of Salerno. But in what year, and by what Roman Pontiff, the see of Cosenza was constituted archiepiscopal, is not established; we have it, however, that before the year MLVI it was adorned with a dignity of this kind, since in that year Peter, archbishop of Cosenza, departed.* Thus he there. But at column 191 he says that Peter was made the first archbishop by Leo IX. Which seems scarcely doubtful, since he must have been made archbishop after the year 1051, in which he is reckoned among the suffragans of Salerno, and is said to have died in the year 1056.

[57] and many bishoprics erected within them about the same time Moreover, when these metropolitan sees were erected, some new bishoprics were no doubt established, as can be sufficiently gathered from the sees which were made subject to the archbishop of Compsa. Ughelli enumerates them in volume 7 from column 829, and shows none older than the metropolitan dignity of Compsa. Of the five suffragans of the archbishop of Acerenza, those of Anglona and Tricarico seem then to have been first established, while the other three are read to have had no bishop for two hundred years and more, so that they seem then to have been raised from their ashes, as may be seen in the aforesaid Ughelli, volume 7. Since these things happened about the times of Leo IX and Alexander II, I cannot so understand their privileges as to judge that they permitted to the archbishop of Salerno every power of erecting new bishoprics in his province. Nay, I suspect that by the faculty of ordaining bishops over fitting places there is designated only the faculty of ordaining also those bishops who, with the approval of the supreme Pontiff, should be established in fitting places within the province of Salerno.

[58] in the province of Salerno by the supreme Pontiffs. What makes me the less able to understand it otherwise are the three metropolitan sees and the several sees erected in the province of Salerno, and that assuredly by none other than the Roman Pontiff, who assigned their suffragans to the metropolitans. That diminution of the province of Salerno Urban II in some measure repaired in his letters of the year 1099 to Alphanus II, in which these words are inserted, column 394: Instructed also by the terms of the ancient privileges of your church, we grant to you henceforth and to your successors, of the liberality of the Apostolic See, to hold the primacy over the churches of Conza and Acerenza and their suffragans. Yet those remained metropolitan, but had to acknowledge the primacy of Salerno, as is there set forth at greater length. All this persuades us that a power of erecting bishoprics was not granted to the prelates of Salerno so absolute that they should order all things by their own authority.

[59] Even granting the privilege of Salerno, Noja's account is incredible. But even if there were no doubt on that matter, not even so would it be probable that everything was done as it is related by Noja from Francesco de Ponte, since all things had to be done according to the rule of the holy Fathers, or according to the statutes of the sacred canons. But it is not agreeable to the canons that a clergy and people who never had a bishop should elect someone to a bishopric, and for him seek only the consent of the prince and the confirmation of the archbishop, as Noja narrates was here done, and contends had to be done. Whence had the people of Nusco received the authority of electing a bishop before the bishopric was erected? How could the Saint himself give his consent to so disorderly an election, and say, Let the will of God and yours be done, if the bishopric had not been erected beforehand, whose institution did not depend on the will of the people? How could the people have so sure a hope of the archbishop's consent, if the limits of the future diocese had not been described, the revenues not assigned to the bishop, and other things not ordered which ought to precede the institution of a new bishopric? Indeed, if we believe that all was done as it is narrated by Noja, the people of Nusco themselves erected the bishopric, the prince thereafter consenting and the archbishop confirming, which is certainly ridiculous. I could indeed suppose that all things were lawfully ordered by the archbishop of Salerno before the people of Nusco elected, and that these were omitted by Francesco de Ponte; but there stands against it again that he says the Saint was for many years asked in vain by the people of Nusco to accept the bishopric. For thus the archbishop must have ordered all things many years before this election, nor is it probable that the people of Nusco, who no doubt desired a bishop, would have wished to be without a bishop for many years, waiting for St. Amatus's consent. Nor would the archbishop himself, if he had determined to erect the bishopric, have waited many years for the consent of one man. In whatever way, therefore, I consider the matter, the account of Francesco de Ponte does not appear probable, if he meant to say that the Saint was the first bishop of Nusco: and so I rather assent to Renda, who affirms that he was elected in the place of another who had died.

\ Perhaps numquam*.

\* Rather, 993.

§ VII. The Saint's birth and Life up to his asserted entrance into the monastery are discussed; his monastic life is left in doubt.

The Saint's native place is Nusco, which is described, Having now treated the chief controversies about the Saint's life, we shall pursue the rest in chronological order, and dispatch them more briefly. Renda begins the Life of St. Amatus thus: Amatus, sprung of a noble family of the city of Nusco. All agree as to the Saint's native place, which Orlendi describes thus in part 2 of the Orbis Sacer et Profanus, book 4, chapter XI, number 15: Nusco is a small city of the province of the Ulterior Principate (in the kingdom of Naples), situated at the foot of the Apennine range, between the rivers Calore and Sabato, which flow together lower down near the village of Taburnus. It is distant from Benevento 17 miles to the southeast, toward Conza, adjoining Sant'Angelo dei Lombardi and Vico. No mention of it occurs among the ancients, and therefore its origin, though it lies hid, cannot be very ancient … This city was distinguished with the title of a bishopric in the year MXLVIII.* These things are taken from Ughelli. But there is not lacking an error in what is said about the bishopric erected there in the year 1048; since Leo IX in the often-mentioned bull of the year 1051 enumerates the bishoprics then subject to the archbishop of Salerno, and makes no mention of Nusco. I should believe, however, that its see was erected before the end of the eleventh century, both because many other bishoprics were erected at that time in the province of Salerno, and because mention of Guido bishop of Nusco exists from the year 1104, as Ughelli testifies, volume 7, column 534.

[61] The Saint's noble stock Ughelli admitted without scruple. where he is said to have been born of noble stock: Noja assails that nobility, But that nobility Francesco Noja assails in discourse 2, and instead of nobility of stock attributes ample riches to the Saint. He brings forward two reasons of no great weight, namely the silence of Francesco de Ponte and the obscurity of the town of Nusco, in which Noja will not have it believed that noble men dwelt. First, the silence of Francesco de Ponte does not press strongly, since he lived so long after the Saint that he could easily be ignorant whether he was born of noble stock or of ignoble. The other reason, which Noja sets out at length, is plainly frivolous, since daily experience teaches that it sometimes happens that noble men live in obscurer towns, either because they prefer to be among the first in an obscure place rather than to yield to many in famous cities, or because they can there more easily maintain their family, or for six hundred other causes. Besides, Noja himself in his preface, page 48, where he describes Nusco, affirms that it appears from the ruins that that city was formerly better than it is at this time. Certainly it does not seem to have been so ignoble, when it was first distinguished with episcopal dignity, that it could number no noble among its citizens.

[62] which indeed seems little certain: Nevertheless, neither is Renda's authority here so great that we should believe the nobility of St. Amatus to be beyond doubt, since we know that noble birth is sometimes attributed to Saints from slight conjecture and with almost no foundation. Tommaso Costo, who published the Life of the Saint in Italian from records collected by Vincenzo Verace, not only ascribes noble stock to St. Amatus, but also designates it, asserting that he was born of the stock of Forma, which by a corrupted word is in that place called Formari. Noja assails this assertion at length, nor does Sandulli fight strenuously for it, who defends the nobility of St. Amatus in chapter 23 rather by rejecting his adversary's arguments than by adducing arguments by which the Saint's nobility may be established. It wearies me to linger longer on a matter which is plainly uncertain, and which, as regards the stock assigned, I judge little probable.

[63] [the time of his birth: the revelation to his pregnant mother uncertain: his pious boyhood and youth:] If Renda's chronology does not err, the Saint was born in the year 1104 or 1105: for he says that he died in the year 1193, at the age of 89. Ughelli extends the Saint's age to the ninety-sixth year, but brings forward no reasons, so that

it is better to acquiesce in Renda. He asserts at number 1 that the name of Amatus was revealed to his mother while pregnant. That revelation Noja assails at length in discourse 3, and we require a greater authority than Renda's before we hold revelations of this kind as certain. Of the Saint's boyhood and youth Francesco de Ponte records various things in Noja, discourse 3, which I shall subjoin from him, since the author's little Work itself is not at hand: From the very days of his first age, he says, he entered upon the path of simplicity and holiness and chastity … Growing more frequent in reading and prayer, he became daily more acceptable to God and men and more lovable … And so, by God's favor, it came about that with the increase of his body he advanced from day to day in the increase of prudence and of all virtues. Noja celebrates his studies also, but adduces nothing from Francesco de Ponte, who brings forth this concerning the fame of his holiness: The odor of so great holiness rose also to the neighboring cities and towns; for indeed the Lord magnified his Saint in the sight of princes, so that his name, wherever it was heard, was held by all in great veneration.

[64] it is not probable that the Saint at fourteen years of age renounced everything: Renda at number 2 affirms that the Saint, when he was fourteen years old, was bereft of his parents, and distributed his whole patrimony to the poor, that, being enrolled among the clergy, he might live on the goods of the church. This the aforesaid Noja deservedly holds suspect, and contends both that the time of his parents' death is uncertain, and that what is said about the patrimony distributed to the poor is plainly fictitious. Indeed, what he adduces from Francesco de Ponte about the Saint's liberality toward the poor rather suggests that he still retained temporal goods while he was a priest and archpriest. Receive the words: And it came to pass that, while he meditated day and night in the Law of God, among the other commandments of divine Scripture he pondered that saying of David written upon his mind with a divine pen: He has scattered abroad, he has given to the poor, heeding that especially, contemplating it with the constant gaze of the inner light. From this passage Noja judges that Renda was led into that opinion, and this appears to me very probable. But if he gathered it thence, Renda gathered it ill. For the words do not suggest a renunciation of goods, and are to be understood only of liberality to the poor, of which again Francesco de Ponte, after relating the Saint's priesthood, has this, on Noja's testimony: And out of his own means he relieved their want; … and to conclude many things in few, he had made all his possessions a kind of commonwealth of the poor. He still had, therefore, his means and possessions when he was already a priest, and had not stripped himself of them at fourteen years of age.

[65] In what year of his age the Saint was ordained priest Noja contends that the Saint was not ordained priest before the age of thirty, the writers of the Life do not express. Noja in discourse 3 endeavors to show from the sacred canons and the custom of the eleventh century that he was not ordained before the thirtieth year of his age, so as thus to refute Renda, who at number 4 asserts that the Saint in the twenty-seventh year of his age laid down the archpresbyterate and embraced the monastic life: for if this was done at that age, he must have been consecrated priest at about 25 or 26 years old. He adduces for his purpose from the Council of Toulouse of the year 1056 the second canon, but mutilated, perhaps because the latter words did not favor him. The canon in Labbe, volume 9 of the Councils, column [ ], is thus: Likewise it was resolved to confirm, as it is written, that a bishop, or an abbot who is a priest, be not ordained before thirty years, nor a deacon before twenty-five: unless, being adorned with zeal for holiness or with wisdom, they be promoted by the provision of the bishop together with the clergy. And let that same ordination not take place except at the times appointed according to the canons; otherwise indeed let the ordination be void. The dissertator adduced the former words, but those, Unless, being adorned with zeal for holiness, etc., he cautiously passed over.

[66] It pleases me now to ask whether St. Amatus was not adorned with zeal for holiness, but he cannot establish this from the canons: and therefore whether the bishop could not promote him without scruple of sinning against the canons. Thus St. Malachy, on the testimony of St. Bernard in the Life, chapter 3, was ordained priest in the same century at about twenty-five years of age. Thus other Saints also were ordained before the prescribed time, as may be seen in Thomassin, part 1, book 2, chapters 68 and 70, of St. Remigius and St. Hugh, bishop of Lincoln. It may be added that that usage of ordaining priests before the thirtieth year of age so prevailed in the twelfth century that it passed into law, and Alexander III in the Third Lateran Council of the year 1179 required for the priesthood only twenty-five years of age, as may be seen in the aforesaid Thomassin, chapter 70, number 3. And so all that Noja has adduced does not prove that St. Amatus was not consecrated at about the age of 25 or 26, nor do they convict Renda's assertion of error. Yet I would not embrace Renda's whole chronological scheme as a thing beyond doubt, but I should think it ought to be followed until surer documents are brought forward.

[67] At the same time perhaps, or at any rate not long after he was ordained priest, being made priest and archpriest, he undertakes the care of souls, the Saint was also made archpriest and undertook the care of souls. The virtues then practiced Francesco de Ponte celebrates in Noja, discourse 3, in these words: But after he was promoted to the grade of priest, his religious devotion grew immensely, and he, like a tree that is planted beside the running waters, brought forth in the ripeness of time the flower of innocence which he had put forth in his tender age into the fruit of good work … For, being made archpriest by the immense desire of the people, he undertook the art of arts, that is, the care and government of souls. Then Noja subjoins certain things in his own words about the care of souls, but these from de Ponte: If anyone by the devil's suggestion had gone astray into a trackless place, the kindly Servant of God soothed him with sweet and, as it were, angelic speech … and so the pious Shepherd brought back the sheep that had perished and had strayed to the fellowship of the Lord's flock; and while with all the intention of his mind he panted after every good, he strove for this above all, how he might win souls to God, how he might render the sheep committed to him in full number to the eternal Shepherd.* Noja adds his care of reconciling those at variance, relieving the oppressed, aiding widows and orphans, and finally his immense mercy toward the needy and all the wretched. These things, moreover, he continued until his episcopate, if we believe Noja; but if we prefer to give credit to Renda and his followers, he laid down the care of souls in order to hide himself more safely in the monastic life. Of this controversy we must now treat briefly, since the chief arguments of Noja have already been discussed and disproved, and few remain to be examined.

[68] [Noja, disputing against St. Amatus's monastic profession, brings forward nothing solid,] Noja then divides into three parts his discourse 4, at the beginning of which he says he will refute the monastic life of St. Amatus, and attempts to show hardly anything except that two Saints, both by the name of John, both of Nusco, whom the monks of Monte Vergine attribute to their Order, were not of that Order, and that certain monasteries likewise ascribed to the aforesaid Order were always of another institute. He contends also that the ancient Life of St. William, founder of the Order of Monte Vergine, which Papebroch gave in volume V of June from page 114, is a spurious offspring and of no credit. Sandulli answered all this in the Apology throughout the first ten chapters, and answered in such a way that at least nothing can be concluded from Noja's whole disputation against the monastic life of St. Amatus. Wherefore it does not please me to follow those wordy and rash rather than solid digressions of Noja, both because they pertain to other Saints and because they have been abundantly refuted for our purpose. Hence, passing over the disputation about those matters of which no mention is made in the Life of St. Amatus, I shall weigh only the arguments pertaining to St. Amatus, and shall treat briefly in the annotations of the persons recorded in the Saint's Life.

[69] [and only the silence of the ancients raises a difficulty, which Sandulli does not sufficiently remove.] Noja in discourse 4, part 3, page 143, objects the silence of the ancients, and notes in particular that in the ancient Life of St. William no mention is made of St. Amatus, nor any in the ancient Breviary of Monte Vergine. I have found no answer to this argument in Sandulli's Apology: nor does it seem altogether to be despised, especially since the writers of the Order of Monte Vergine affirm that the author of that Life is John of Nusco, whom Renda says came to St. William with St. Amatus, and whom Sandulli in chapter 4 contends was afterwards made bishop of Montemarano. I confess that this silence somehow holds me in suspense, and renders me the more doubtful about the monastic profession of St. Amatus in proportion as I have sought the more diligently, both in the Apology of the most diligent Sandulli and in all the records and writings recent and ancient in which I hoped to find something whereby the Saint's monastic life might be solidly established. The Office of St. Amatus indeed, which Renda published, asserts a monastic life for the Saint, but no one teaches how ancient that Office is, and so we too are ignorant how much authority we ought to attribute to it. Since therefore I find neither arguments solid enough in Noja to establish that he was not a monk, nor records ancient enough by which I might firmly build up the Saint's monastic life and affirm it as beyond doubt and ascertained, I would not indeed assail the possession of the Order of Monte Vergine, but neither would I dare to deny that I have not documents by which I might remove all doubt. These things being observed, I shall discuss the deeds which Renda attributes to the Saint while he was a monk.

\* Ughelli, twenty.

\ Perhaps erraticam*.

§ VIII. What the Saint is said to have done while he was a monk is examined.

The monastery of Fontigliano, Since Renda asserts that St. Amatus gave himself to the monastic life in the twenty-seventh year of his age, this by his reckoning must have happened about the year of Christ 1131. But the first thing which is said to have been done by him in the monastic life is the building or restoration of the monastery of Fontigliano, whose epoch is fixed after the death of St. William, who died, as is commonly believed, in the year 1142. Of this matter Renda writes at number 5 in this manner: But in the years following, when St. William gloriously departed from the life of this world, passing to the Lord — that is, when he had departed — St. Amatus, going to the foot of Mount Lacinius, to the place called by its own name Fontigliano, erected a church in honor of the most holy Virgin (as it now stands in being), and with the diocesan's leave built and enlarged a great monastery of many monks, where a multitude of men flocking together kindly gave him not a few goods and estates for the merits of his holiness. The same is affirmed in the ancient Office of Monte Vergine, cited at number 6.

[71] Three things in this account are to be corrected, in the judgment of

Noja, discourse 7, which was deserted, page 217 and following: the first in the time, since he will have the matter accomplished while the Saint was bishop; the second, that Renda seems to say that that monastery was then first erected, whereas it is older; the third, that he suggests that it was given to the monks of Monte Vergine, whereas from the beginning it belonged to the Benedictines. To prove the first two he adduces from Francesco de Ponte, day 5, lesson 4, these words: And there was at the foot of Mount Lacinius, in the place which is called Fontigliano, a certain monastery in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary, long since deserted, which he, grieving that it was exposed to devastation and ruin, asked the Lord of the land to give to him. And having happily obtained and received it, he repaired it with great solicitude; and honorably furnished it with ecclesiastical ornaments and all utensils fit for the office of God; in like manner he enriched it with estates and immovable goods, and also with herds of animals: and he established there an assembly of monks who should continually devote themselves to the service of God and the honor of the holy Mother of God.*

[72] From these things Noja reasons thus. Francesco de Ponte narrated these matters long after relating the Saint's episcopal dignity, and among the deeds of the time of his episcopate. They did not happen, therefore, while he was a monk. more probably before his episcopate, Sandulli answered at pages 327 and 328 that Renda's authority is to be preferred where they disagree; but that they do not even disagree in this place, since Francesco de Ponte did not preserve the order of events, but narrated each thing as it presented itself, because he was not writing a history of his life but only a eulogy of the Saint to be recited in the sacred offices. Certainly the writer narrated several foundations together and drew them into an epitome toward the end of the Saint's life; nor is it credible that all the foundations were accomplished at nearly the same time. To this answer, which otherwise seems to suffice, I add another. Francesco de Ponte, as his little Work has been published, did not narrate the Saint's monastic profession, and so could not refer the foundation of the said monastery to the time of his monastic life. The same doubt therefore occurs here which we suggested about the Saint's monastic profession itself, namely whether it was here wrongly omitted by Francesco de Ponte or cut out from his little Work, or whether it was wrongly asserted by others on ill-founded conjectures. Moreover, if we look at the foundation itself, as it is reported by both writers, it is more probable that it had a monk for its author than the bishop of a modest diocese. For the huge expenses of that foundation are suggested, since besides the building of the structures we read that there were given ornaments for the church, furniture for the monastery, estates, and herds of animals, so that the bishop of Nusco alone could not bear these expenses, especially one who was at the same time father of the poor and intent on building other churches. We must therefore believe that other benefactors also concurred in that foundation, as Renda asserts, and that they did not give their goods and estates to the bishop that he might hand them over to the monks — which is not usually done — but to the monks themselves, or to St. Amatus their superior, as the matter is explained by Renda.

[73] he restores it: That that monastery was deserted, as de Ponte affirms, Sandulli grants at page 326. But he does not therefore admit an error in Renda, and contends that he is speaking of a monastery restored rather than built, since he says, as it now stands in being, and then and enlarged. I confess that Renda's words could also be understood of a monastery built in a place where there had been none before; but since they need not necessarily be so taken, we shall interpret them in the better sense, namely of the restoration of a deserted monastery, since both parties say that it was only restored; and this seems certain enough, since Guido bishop of Nusco consecrated an abbot there in the year 1104, as was said before. Nevertheless that restoration was such that it differs little from a first foundation, and therefore Renda's error was slight if he perhaps meant to suggest the foundation of a new monastery. Moreover, that St. Amatus was abbot of this monastery Renda says, but Noja contends that the monastery was never ascribed to the Order of Monte Vergine.

[74] which he no doubt gave to his own monks, if he himself was a monk: To prove this the aforesaid writer brings forward three arguments, which render the matter doubtful, though they do not suffice to adjudge this monastery entirely away from the Order of Monte Vergine. First, Ughelli, volume 7, column 537, when he relates that the monastery of Fontigliano was united to the episcopal table by Pius II, calls it an abbey of black monks, and in the bull of the Pontiff itself, published in the reprinted Work of Ughelli, it is called the monastery of St. Mary of Fondigliano of the diocese of Nusco, of the Order of St. Benedict. The authority of Ughelli cannot here be of great weight, since he seems from Benedictines to have formed black monks, that is, monks of the Cassinese congregation. The monastery was certainly of the Benedictine Order; but the monks of Monte Vergine, although clothed in a white habit, were also of the Order of St. Benedict. Secondly, Noja asserts that the monks of that monastery are still to be seen there painted in a black habit. Sandulli answers at page 331 that those images are not painted but sculptured, and that it has come about through a fault of the stone that the habit is as black as the face: Statues of the same form are found in another ancient monastery of St. Mary the Long near Fontigliano, he says, nor can it therefore be said that in its own time it was not inhabited by the monks of Monte Vergine. Authentic writings give full credit to this matter, and it is confirmed in this very church by a most ancient effigy of our Lady, which has on the right side father St. William and on the left the bishop St. Amatus. Thirdly, Noja objects that the monks of Monte Vergine cannot show even by the slightest argument that Fontigliano was ever inhabited by monks of their Order. But thus also no document sufficiently fit is brought forward by which it can be established that monks of another congregation dwelt there. And so the same doubt is here which we said we have about the Saint's monastic profession itself: for if he was a monk of Monte Vergine, he no doubt gave the monastery to his own.

[75] Having related the building of this monastery, Renda narrates that speech was restored by St. Amatus to a dumb man, he restores speech to a dumb man, as is reported: and that when he begged entrance into the Order the name of William was given him, and that at last he succeeded the Saint himself in the office of abbot. Noja attacks that fact at page 154, because that dumb man is called a boy, so that it is by no means probable that after a few years he succeeded the Saint himself in the government of the monastery. Sandulli answers at page 332 that Renda does not say of that boy that he immediately succeeded; and says that he was indeed the Saint's successor, but after one or more intervening. The same Noja at pages 150 and 151 objects, both against this fact and against certain others, the silence of Francesco de Ponte. But, as I have already suggested before, one may rather doubt whether the Saint's deeds in the monastic life have not been deliberately cut out from the little Work of Francesco de Ponte than suspect that they were wrongly forged by Renda. But objections of this lighter kind it will suffice to weigh briefly in the annotations, that we may here discuss some of greater weight.

[76] The oft-praised Renda at number 7 narrates a wonderful fact, the blow on the Saint's head, whose circumstances are not probable; which Noja in discourse 5 refutes at length, and which Sandulli in chapter 22 endeavors with no less effort to defend. I set forth the matter in few words. The Saint, to flee applause, had determined to return from the monastery of Fontigliano to Monte Vergine. By night he is warned by an angel to stay. But, clinging to his purpose, he sets out on the journey, and falls in with certain hunters, who so strike him with iron javelins that they pierced the bone of his head, that is, his skull: As I have seen with these eyes, and as can be seen by others at present, he says. Namely because the hole still appears in the Saint's skull, which is preserved in the cathedral church of Nusco. The Saint, being wounded, returns to his monastery and is healed. Meanwhile his assailant, seized and condemned to death, invokes the help of the living Saint and pours out prayers, and prodigiously, at his appearing, being freed from his chains and from prison, embraced the monastic life. I readily confess that all the circumstances of this fact are not approved by me. For I should not easily believe that the holy Man, when he had been commanded by an angel to remain in his place, would depart on the very next day. The deliverance of his assailant also is related in a manner more wonderful than credible, especially since no weightier authority compels us to believe such things. Nevertheless I do not see why the Saint could not have been afflicted with the wound related, and the place of the wound appear in his skull.

[77] Noja at page 157 and following confesses that that blow upon the Saint is so firmly believed everywhere by all that he fears he may be laughed at by many if he undertakes to refute that fact. Noja denies that a hole from a blow can appear after death, Yet he not only openly denies the fact, but also contends that what is said about the place of the wound left in the skull is repugnant to the laws of anatomy. His reasoning, which is too prolix, I set forth in few words. From the constitution of the head he shows that a wound is most dangerous when by a blow the skull is pierced in some part; yet he confesses that it is not seldom healed by the art of a skilled surgeon. These things are admitted on both sides. But now, says Noja, such a wound cannot be healed unless the opening of the skull be closed, so that a man cannot live unless the broken parts of the skull be joined again and made solid. From this principle he reasons further thus. But St. Amatus lived very many years after he is said to have been thus struck on the head, and therefore before his death that opening of the skull must have been altogether closed and made solid. There cannot therefore appear after death a hole in the skull, since it must already in life have been solidly closed: For, he says, if the hole could not remain in him while he lived, how should it have survived to him after death? He presently adds a second reason, which comes to this. When two broken bones are made solid again, a callus, or a certain rough surface, is left in the place of the wound. But no callus of this kind appears in the skull of St. Amatus. These things Noja sets forth more fully, laughing generously — shall I say, or ungenerously? — at those who can believe that the hole which is seen in the Saint's skull was left by a blow received in his lifetime.

[78] [but, since the bones of a fractured skull are made solid only by a callus drawn over them,] To these things Sandulli answers in chapter 22, and so dissolves the reasonings adduced that no scruple can remain but that a hole received in the skull during life can also appear after death. From the many things adduced by him I shall select a few. Galen, book 3 of the Art of Medicine, affirms that fractured bones cannot be healed by first intention, but are in some way healable by second. Galen's words his interpreter Luca Tozzi expounds, volume 5, chapter 8, folio 157, in this manner: And the sense is that a broken bone cannot be restored to its former state by a medium of the same kind, as severed flesh is united, which is joined by a fleshy medium of the same nature

is restored. Galen adds, however, in the text, that broken bones can grow together in children by first intention, since at that age they are soft. For it is for no other reason that in adults bones cannot be glued together by first intention, save that with the advance of years they become harder: whence they cannot admit into their own substance the gluing of a soft nourishment … But since bones are glued together by a callus, which is a different and unlike medium, they are therefore said to be incurable by first intention, although they can be healed by second intention. Wherefore, as Galen notes, broken bones united by a callus are bound together on the surface, as it were by a band drawn around them, but in the depth are by no means glued.

[79] and the callus is corrupted after death, the hole will then appear again. Sandulli adduces other authorities also, but the words recited suffice for me. For that callus, by which alone broken bones are glued together, is not so hard as not to be corrupted after a man's death, just as flesh is corrupted and dissolved. But when the callus is corrupted by which the pierced skull had before been made solid, the hole received in life, and afterwards healed, will necessarily appear again, just as the holes in the place of the eyes appear, and many other things, after the flesh of the corpse has gone into dust. Thus in substance Sandulli, subjoining at page 345 the following, by which at the same time an answer is made to Noja's second argument: If the little prudent archpriest had considered these things, he would have thought neither that the fact was fabulous nor that it was repugnant to the laws of the bodily frame. Or at any rate he could have inspected the venerable head of the Saint; for without doubt he would have observed that protuberance which grew out and is still seen at the edge of the scar; and thence by a more prudent reasoning he would have concluded: Truly, then, the Saint was struck in life, since that swelling could not have grown after death, when that part was not animate. By these things we think the fact itself abundantly vindicated; but all the circumstances, and especially the Saint's disobedience, from which the occasion of the blow is said to have arisen, do not appear equally probable.

\ Read conventum*.

§ IX. Discussion of what Renda narrates about the occasion, manner, and time in which the Saint was made bishop: certain deeds during his episcopate.

Briefly touched on by Renda, and attacked by Noja I set forth Renda's mind in few words. At numbers 8 and 9 he reports this. When St. Amatus had been healed of his wound, in the year 1156, Manuel Comnenus reigning in the East, William I holding the kingdom of the two Sicilies, and Adrian IV being supreme Pontiff, the emperor Manuel was seeking to recover Apulia, and King William was endeavoring to retain it. Then William marched on Benevento to besiege that city, and as he was passing near Nusco someone, trusting in the merits of St. Amatus, foretold him victory over the people of Benevento. For which cause, when he was victorious, he sent many relics to the monastery of Monte Vergine, and, at the request of the people of Nusco, commended St. Amatus to the Pontiff for the bishopric, and finally erected a monastery for the Order of Monte Vergine in Sicily. This narration of Renda's Noja did not rightly set forth at page 166: for nowhere does Renda assert that Benevento was occupied by the emperor Manuel, as Noja represents him asserting. Hence it makes nothing against Renda that he affirms at page 169 that William did not wage the war about Benevento against the emperor Manuel but against the Pontiff. For this indeed is true; but the contrary is not said by Renda.

[81] But what Noja further will have, that there was nowhere a war between Manuel and William, the war of William king of Sicily against the Greek emperor, is plainly false. For various writers of those times report that war, and all affirm that the emperor Manuel sent no contemptible aid to the princes confederate against William, but that the Greeks and the rebel princes were overcome near Brindisi by William, whereby it came about that he recovered the provinces he had lost. Hear Romuald, bishop of Salerno, very near in time and place to the events, since he already held his bishopric when these things happened. He therefore, in volume 7 of the Writers of Italy, where he had narrated the discord of Adrian IV with William and the rebellion of many nobles in Apulia and Sicily, continues thus at column 197: The Pope … having gathered an army, entered the Terra di Lavoro with Robert prince of Capua and Andrew de Rupecanina, and took it by force, and was received with honor by the people of Benevento. Meanwhile Manuel, emperor of Constantinople, having found an opportunity to avenge upon the son the injuries done him by King Roger, sends Palaeologus, a certain nobleman, with much money to Count Robert and the barons of Apulia, that they might therewith retain soldiers and make war upon King William. He sent also Comnenus, Sebastus, and other powerful men with his fleet, who coming took Brindisi, except the castle, into which the king's soldiers withdrew. And Bari and the other maritime cities adhered to the Greeks and to Count Robert. And so it came about that partly by Robert prince of Capua and partly by Count Robert the whole land was occupied, except Naples, Amalfi, Salerno, Troia, and Melfi, and certain other cities and fortified castles.

[82] is set forth at greater length, as also William's victory Which being known, King William, as best he could, gathered an army by sea and land, and came by a direct route to Brindisi; where he found Sebastus and Comnenus and the other Greek magnates assembled with a great army and fleet, who were vigorously assailing the castle of Brindisi and the king's people. And Count Robert, learning of the king's coming, left Brindisi and betook himself to Benevento. But King William powerfully besieged Brindisi by sea and land, and, manfully assailing it by sea and land, conquered it by the edge of the sword, took the Greek nobles and their fleet, much money, and several of the barons of Apulia who had been rebels against him, of whom he caused many to be hanged and blinded. Which done, he came to Bari and took it; and, because the people of Bari had destroyed the king's castle, the king in anger overthrew the city from its foundations. Thence returning along the coast of Apulia, he took all the maritime cities, and recovered without war the whole land which he had lost. And he himself came by a direct road to Benevento, whither his enemies and rebels had fled for the help of the lord Pope. But Robert prince of the Capuans, while through fear of the king he wished to flee away and was already crossing the river Garigliano, Richard de Aquila, count of Fondi, … took him and delivered him to the king's officers … And the king sent the aforesaid prince to Sicily to be imprisoned. Count Robert, Andrew de Rupecanina, and the rest of his enemies who had fled to the lord Pope at Benevento he permitted, at that same Pope's entreaties, to go out of the kingdom free and unharmed with their goods. And he himself, many messengers passing to and fro and the heads of peace being arranged on both sides, was reconciled with the Pope.

[83] not only over the emperor, From these things, which are narrated by many other writers, it is certain, first, that there was a war between Manuel and William in Apulia, and that it was afterwards continued in Manuel's own dominion. For a little after, the same writer has this: Not long after he (King William) prepared a great fleet, and sent it with Stephen the admiral into Romania. Who, coming to Egripos, found there a very great fleet of the emperor Manuel prepared; with which he manfully contended, and overcame it, took many of the Greeks, burned the fleet, plundered Egripos and the neighboring cities, and so returned victorious into Sicily. And the emperor, learning that many of his men had been taken by the king of Sicily, and that he could not contend with him on equal terms, sending frequent messengers, was reconciled with the king, and treaties of peace were sworn on both sides. It is certain, secondly, that William returned victorious from the Beneventan expedition, even though he did not take Benevento by arms. This Noja rashly denies at page 170, and thence infers that the victory was not foretold, nor the bodies of the Saints translated.

[84] For the principality of Capua and almost the whole Terra di Lavoro had been occupied by the enemy: but also over the people of Benevento, or over the princes who had fled thither. all of which William recovered. Robert count of Sorrento (as he is called by others, who above is called prince of the Capuans, because he had claimed the principality of Capua for himself) was in chains, and many other nobles; Robert count of Loritello, who is here called Count Robert, and Count Andrew de Rupecanina, who had invaded a great part of the kingdom, are dismissed from the kingdom as suppliants, and that at the entreaties of the Pontiff: The Pope invested him (William) by one banner with the kingdom of Sicily, by another with the duchy of Apulia, by a third with the principality of Capua … And the king expelled several of his enemies from the kingdom, and put certain of them in prison, on the testimony of the aforesaid Romuald. Finally he recovered the whole kingdom, which he had almost wholly lost before. Undeservedly, then, does Noja deny William a victory over the people of Benevento, since his enemies could no longer protect Benevento; and Romuald rightly writes of him: And he, having obtained so great a victory, returned with the admiral into Sicily. This is confirmed by Hugo Falcandus in the Sicilian History, published in the same volume, who at column 269 expresses William's full victory briefly thus: And the king, the Greeks being overcome and Count Robert put to flight, pursuing the rest of his enemies, when all fled before his face, quelled the tumult of all Apulia and of the Terra di Lavoro; and at last, all things having been prosperously accomplished, crossing the Strait, he returned to Palermo.

[85] But since William did not occupy Benevento, [Many bodies were translated from Benevento to Monte Vergine; but it is uncertain by whom,] what is said about the sacred bodies transmitted by him to Monte Vergine does not seem equally certain. Among those sacred remains was the body of St. Januarius, which was afterwards carried from Monte Vergine to Naples. Antonio Caracciolo, On the Sacred Monuments of the Church of Naples, chapter 20, section 14, enumerates various opinions about the time and author of the translation of these bodies, of which he speaks thus: That the bones of St. Januarius (and of the others) were translated to this sacred Mount is certain; at what time and on what occasion is uncertain. The first opinion which he reports, as also the second, really attributes the translation to William, and so agrees with Renda. The third opinion is that the body was carried thither by the Neapolitans when Benevento was seized by Charles of Anjou after the defeat of Manfred in the year 1266. Caracciolo himself finally prefers a fourth opinion, and suspects that the bodies were carried thither by the people of Benevento themselves, when the emperor Frederick II was raging against the city of Benevento.

[86] Now thus far I do not see why we should depart from Renda's opinion: it is not proved that this was not done by William, as Renda has it. for Sandulli at page 324 brings forward from the archive of Monte Vergine part of a document of the year 1225, in which it is said of the monastery of Monte Vergine: Where many bodies of Saints rest. If these words, as is probable, are said of the same bodies, they were already long in Monte Vergine before Frederick II, or

Charles laid waste Benevento. Finally, the Pontiff himself could have given some bodies of Saints to William, in order by these sacred gifts to render the powerful king friendly to himself and favorable to the Roman church, especially since William himself gave no small gifts to the Pontiff. I confess, however, that by these reasons the matter is not made altogether certain, and I refer the examination of it to the Acts of St. Januarius, to whom these things pertain more closely.

[87] The Saint is elected bishop, Of the promotion of St. Amatus to the bishopric Renda writes thus: And the king, returning to Salerno at the time when the bishop of Nusco departed this life, is entreated by the citizens of Nusco that by his favor St. Amatus might be elected to the office of the bishopric by Adrian IV, supreme Pontiff of the holy See. The Pontiff, assenting to the king's entreaties, appointed the aforesaid Saint to the episcopal government of his own city. This manner of electing, and of asking the king's consent, was suited to the time. For among the conditions of peace which William had made with Pope Adrian, this was laid down concerning the election of bishops, in Baronius at the year 1156, number 5: Concerning elections let it be thus. Let the clerics agree upon a fit person, and let them keep that matter secret among themselves until they announce that person to our excellency; and after the person has been designated to our highness, if that person be not of the traitors or enemies of us or of our heirs, or shall not be odious to our magnificence, or there be not any other cause in him for which we ought not to assent, we shall grant our assent. Noja attacked this narration of Renda's with many arguments, but his arguments have already been weighed; nor do we find why we should charge Renda with falsehood, nor have we from elsewhere fit records by which we might further confirm his assertions.

[88] [and, consecrated by the archbishop of Salerno, is honorably received by his own people:] That the Saint was ordained by the archbishop of Salerno and received with great joy by his own people, all agree. Francesco de Ponte, in Noja at page 177, thus expresses the words of the rejoicing people: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited us, has made his countenance to shine upon us, and has had mercy on us; he has sent to his lowly ones an Angel of peace, a minister of sound counsel; he has mercifully bestowed on his faithful a saving defense, a father of his country and a chief ruler of our city … Until now we were as sheep going astray, but now, by God's favor, we have been turned to the Shepherd of our souls.* Renda, having related the entrance of the consecrated Saint into the city, reports two miracles: one about the primicerius of the church of Nusco freed from prison, the other about a lunatic girl restored to health. The first Francesco de Ponte narrates after the death of St. Amatus, the other he omits altogether. But, as I have already warned, there is no reason why we should believe him rather than Renda.

[89] [he builds a cathedral church in honor of St. Stephen, governs his flock watchfully,] After St. Amatus had entered upon the government of his bishopric, he turned his mind to building a new church in which he might place his see. Francesco de Ponte, here agreeing with Renda, writes of that matter thus in Noja, page 195: He hired stonecutters and fit craftsmen to build a church, which, when finished and completed, he happily consecrated in honor of blessed Stephen the protomartyr, and established in that same basilica the see of his bishopric. The love and vigilance of the pious Shepherd for his flock the same writer celebrates in Noja, pages 204 and 206, in these words: Ready to die for God, and to lay down his life if it were needful for his people, ever sleepless, ever unhindered by any sloth, he as a chief watchman kept the necessary watches against the enemy of the human race … Never in his time did that ancient plotter boast that he had taken anything belonging to St. Amatus's charge from the Lord's flock. But the more grieved thereat, and the readier for evil, he laid snares, hid nooses, dug headlong pits; he kindled hatreds, stirred up quarrels, and treacherously impressed with all his might upon the hearts of men theft, adultery, anger, cupidity, envy, and the other seeds of his iniquity; while against him the Glorious one of God set the shield of fasting, the breastplate of patience, the helmet of humility, the lance of fortitude, and the sword of justice. In a word, as he has it at page 210: He ministered to the people the cups of sound exhortation and of saving discipline.

[90] The Saint also shone with the glory of miracles. Of these Renda narrates many singly, and is renowned for miracles. which are partly omitted by Francesco de Ponte, partly related after the Saint's death. But that not a few happened also in the Saint's lifetime the same writer sufficiently suggests, having this in Noja, page 216: There flocked to him from remote places and near, men enduring divers kinds of infirmity: the deaf, the dumb, the paralytic, the lame, sufferers from heart disease, the feverish; and, oppressed with whatsoever pains, they went away cured by the holy Man's help, intercession, and laying on of hands, and returning whole to their homes glorified the Lord and the merits of his holy confessor Amatus, and magnified praises of this kind. One miracle passed over by Renda Francesco de Ponte narrates, in Noja, page 220, in these words: And while he was causing the church which is called St. Mary the New to be built, and because of a lack of wine water was set before the workmen at their meal, as was done at the beginning of the signs of Jesus Christ, the water was wondrously turned into wine.* Of this foundation, as of certain others, we shall presently treat in the following §. But those things which Noja objected against certain miracles related by Renda we shall examine in the annotations to the Life.

\* That is, war.

\* That is, a fleet.

\ Perhaps nostrarum*.

\ Perhaps Dominum*.

§ X. Certain foundations of churches: the Saint's death, and the circumstances of his death.

The building of three sacred places: Besides the restoration of the monastery of Fontigliano and the building of the cathedral church, Renda at numbers 13 and 14 reports three other sacred places erected by the Saint, namely a little church or chapel of St. Leo, a monastery formerly called of St. Mary the New, and a church dedicated to St. Laurence. These foundations Noja nowhere denied, because he found them likewise asserted in the Octavarium. Of the latter two Francesco de Ponte has this, in Sandulli, page 242: He founded also another church of Bl. Laurence. Again he built another basilica, which is named St. Mary the Long, beside the river Calore. This is the same which is called St. Mary the New by de Ponte himself in the passage cited at number 90. These churches, which were built by the Saint not at once but at intervals, seem to have been already destroyed when Renda was writing his little Work, since he does not speak of them as still whole and standing, but mentions only the traces of the monastery of St. Mary the Long.

[92] Francesco de Ponte, after the words just cited, without any mention of illness, [the Saint's death; the year of his death, in which Renda's opinion is to be preferred:] subjoins the Saint's death in this manner: The time, then, of the falling asleep of St. Amatus, confessor and bishop, is reckoned at the year of our Lord's Incarnation MXCIII, in the month of September, on the last day of that month. Sandulli observes that these words are not rightly connected with the preceding, and thence the suspicion of interpolation or corruption of the little Work is increased. This corruption of the epoch of his death could very easily have been made, since the author, as he has been published, never named any time, nor any person with whom St. Amatus lived or with whom he did anything, so that without danger of contradiction the epoch of his death, even if none had been indicated by the author, could be invented by the editors as pleased them, or as they gathered it from the spurious testament of the Saint, if that was already then in their hands. This reason chiefly moves me to judge that Renda's epoch is to be preferred; for he both names not a few persons and distinguishes the facts, after a fashion, in their own order and their own times; and he does this so well that, although the account is sometimes not without difficulty, and he has perhaps not seldom erred in the circumstances, yet he cannot be convicted of manifest error, much less of imposture. Hence we assent to Renda until surer documents are brought forward; as Mabillon also did, in volume 6 of the Benedictine Annals, praising Amatus with this brief eulogy: Amatus, born at Nusco, built a monastery at the foot of Mount Laceno; and being made by Adrian IV bishop of the city of Nusco, he built another monastery under the title of blessed Mary the New. He died on the day before the Kalends of September in the year MCXCIII, renowned for miracles before and after his death.

[93] his age, and the years of his episcopate: Renda attributes to St. Amatus eighty-nine years of age, and about thirty-seven years of episcopate, since he says he was made bishop in the year of Christ 1156. Ughelli, following I know not what documents — certainly not those which he praises and prefers to the rest — has this concerning all these matters: But when Amatus had instructed the clergy and people committed to him unto salvation for the space of five and forty years, renowned for miracles he rested in peace in the year MXCIII, on the last day of August, in the XCVI year of his age, having made his testament on the fourth day before his death, … in which … he names the XLV years of his prelacy. As many words, so many errors here, almost. For there is not a word in the spurious testament, as it was afterwards published by Ughelli himself, about forty-five years of episcopate. Then, since the testament is dated in the month of September, if it was drawn up on the fourth day before his death, by what consequence is it asserted by Ughelli that the Saint died on the last day of August? We indeed think that he died on that day, because he is honored on the same day; but Ughelli could not say this if he wished to write consistently. Whence he received the years of his age, which are probably marked no more rightly, and why he asserts that the testament was made on the fourth day before his death, he neither expresses nor can I divine. For the rest, it does not seem doubtful that the Saint died in decrepit age, since all assert it, and all the images exhibit him as such, on the testimony of Noja, page 233.

[94] his body raised, and a chapel built for the Saint in the cathedral, A twofold translation of the body is recorded in the Acts. The first is said to have been made by Roger II, who from abbot of St. Salvator of Goleto succeeded St. Amatus in the bishopric of Nusco. Renda ascribes to this translation the year 1223; but Francesco de Ponte, designating no time, has only this: But when the venerable bishop Roger, his successor of blessed memory, was building a basilica in the same place where the sacred body of the aforesaid Saint rested, and wished to enlarge it, it happened that the wall of the church was raised through that place where his tomb was situated. When the body had been removed thence, the whole place was filled with so great a fragrance of odor, etc. These words, when … he was building a basilica and wished to enlarge it, I understand of the restoration of the cathedral church, since the Saint no doubt lay buried in it, as Renda affirms at number 16. Where therefore he says of Roger he first built a basilica, understand: he restored and enlarged the cathedral church. But what he then says, as though he were speaking of another church, he built a magnificent church, I judge is to be understood of the chapel, since not

think that a church distinct from the Cathedral was then built for St. Amatus, but a chapel joined to the cathedral in his honor. Renda's words indeed seem to suggest more, and perhaps he meant to signify more. Yet I shall scarcely believe that anything further was then done, unless surer records should be added, since nowhere is it said that the Saint's body was translated from one church to another, nor is it probable that the cathedral church was ever any other than the present one; and finally because, on Renda's own testimony, the body of St. Amatus was placed with the arm of St. Stephen, and assuredly in no other church than that which had long been sacred to St. Stephen, and which either then or by degrees began to be called the church of St. Amatus.

[95] That these things were done in the year 1223 Renda asserts, and not without certain documents, and this is said to have happened in the year 1223: as we must believe, although after his manner he does not assign them. But Noja at page 237 asserts that he knows that Roger II, by whom he confesses these things were accomplished, died before the year 1200, in which Luke succeeded Roger. Yet Noja knew nothing, as we observed at number 42, except from Ughelli, who confesses that he does not know at what time Luke was made bishop, and who seems to have found neither Roger II nor Luke recorded anywhere except in the Acts of St. Amatus. Ridiculous, therefore, is that boasted knowledge of Noja, and Renda's epoch is to be followed until someone adduces surer things. For even if it were certain that Roger was made bishop immediately after the death of St. Amatus in that very year 1193 — which cannot be affirmed for certain — there would be no reason why he could not survive in the year 1223 and translate the body of St. Amatus to a more seemly place. Hence vain also is what Noja objects from these things at page 4 against the year of the Saint's death. He wishes there to prove that it follows from the year of death asserted by Renda and from the dedication of the church made by Roger that this must have happened within six or seven years of the Saint's death, and this he says is incredible. But these dreams he feigned for himself, or wished to obtrude upon his readers, from the false epoch of Roger's death, since the translation is said to have happened a full thirty years after the Saint's death. Better may one argue against Noja from this same elevation of the body in this manner. There seems to have been no public veneration of the Saint before this elevation of the body. But it seems incredible that a Saint who shone with so great a fame of holiness and with so many miracles, both in his life and after his death, should have been for a whole century without lawful veneration, at a time when many were honored a few years after their death: it is therefore more probable that the Saint did not die in the year 1093, but in 1193.

[96] The second translation, in which the head and arms were separated from the rest of the body, the second translation, in which the head and arms were separated from the body. is said to have happened many years after through Luke the bishop, his successor. Francesco de Ponte in the Office of the translation writes the following of it: For in the time of the lord Luke, his venerable successor, the sacred body of the aforesaid St. Amatus was moved from the place where it rested, the solemnity of which removal is celebrated on the fifth of the Kalends of June. Renda agrees as to the day assigned, which is the XXVIII of May. At what time Luke sat Ughelli does not know; and it is uncertain whether he succeeded immediately after Roger II. Yet it seems certain that he presided over the church of Nusco in the thirteenth century, and before the year 1285, in which James was taken from the Order of Minors to the bishopric. We may therefore conjecture that this translation was accomplished about or after the middle of the thirteenth century. Moreover, that the relics then separated from the rest of the body are still preserved in a silver arm and head, Noja testifies at page 241, where he adds that every year on the day of this translation the people of Nusco offer their sheep to the Saint, and that therefore each of the shepherds comes to the cathedral church to offer his gifts there.

§ XI. Certain miracles wrought after his death and related by Francesco de Ponte: a brief observation on the Life to be published.

[A wondrous fragrance of odor at the first elevation of the body, and a lame man healed:] Noja after his discourses published at page 244 certain of the miracles of St. Amatus, as Francesco de Ponte wrote them in his Octavarium on day 6. These I shall here set before the eyes of the readers, and shall briefly observe which agree with Renda's account and which differ from it. He begins thus from the first elevation of the body: But when the venerable bishop Roger, his successor of blessed memory, was building a basilica in the same place where the sacred body of the aforesaid Saint rested, and wished to enlarge it, it happened that the wall of the church was raised through that place where his tomb was situated. When the body had been removed thence, the whole place was filled with so great a fragrance of odor as surpassed all spices; and in the same hour a certain lame man coming thither was restored to his former health by the power of God and by the intercession of this glorious Saint, who, giving thanks to God with all the people standing there, took pains for two years to serve in that church in honor of St. Amatus. The same has Renda at number 17 about the sweet odor of the body and the lame man then healed. Other matters I have already set forth above at number 94.

[98] the primicerius freed from prison, There is another miracle also. When a certain primicerius of that bishop, who had been wont with his whole mind devoutly to serve the Saint, was being held captive in prison in a certain neighboring castle, invoking through the night the help of God and the aid of that Saint, at once part of the prison, as though it had been done only by a man's hand, broke out into the other side, and that same Saint, taking him by the hand, freed him from the cruel keeping of the prison.* Renda at number 10, narrating this miracle, says that it happened in the Saint's lifetime, when he had been consecrated bishop and had entered Nusco.

[99] speech obtained for a dumb man, But not long after, when a certain boy, oppressed by a phantom shade, had lost the organ of his mouth, and, being out of his senses, was without speech, coming to his most sacred body and watching there through the night, he at once deserved to speak, and by the grace of the divine gift and by the merit of this excellent Saint recovered the organ of his mouth which he had lost. Renda has nothing about a dumb man healed after the Saint's death. But he narrates at number 5 that a dumb boy was granted speech by the Saint while he was abbot of Fontigliano. I strongly suspect that it is the same miracle, and that it was rather wrought in the Saint's lifetime than after his death, since I do not see why Renda should have wished to change the time; whereas by others the time of the miracle could have been changed so that the Saint's monastic profession might nowhere appear.

[100] And it came to pass that a certain sick man, who by the devil's oppression had lost his gait walking restored to a lame man: and had become wholly lame, was carried on a pallet by his kinsfolk to his sacred tomb; who, without any delay drawn out, while he commended himself to his patronage, deserved to be freed from that contraction, and returned home with joy on his own feet. This miracle I do not find in Renda; but in the Office the same is placed before the two following, as is done here. See the hymn given at number 9.

[101] But at a certain time, on the yearly solemnity of the most blessed Amatus, a lamp that fell is not broken, nor extinguished, nor emptied: while the sacristan of the church was preparing the lamps before his tomb, it happened that one lamp full of oil, which hung by a rope from the upper roof of the church, by chance fell from a great height to the ground: by the power of this most holy man Amatus, it was neither broken nor was the oil in any degree spilled. Renda at number 15 reports that this miracle happened at the Saint's very funeral. It may be doubted which of them assigned the time more rightly; but this is of small moment, provided the fact be established.

[102] But a certain cleric, whose house was not far from that church, vigor restored to a paralytic cleric, when, his sins requiring it, he was so oppressed by a straitening of the body that, like a trunk and a log, his body was rigid and immovable, and remained a long time in such misery, so that his soul was set at the last, and his kinsfolk rejoiced rather at his death than at his life, when he was brought to the place of his most sacred body, and there kept watch in prayer through the space of one night, the merit of this most holy man Amatus freed him and gave him health. Renda at number 13 narrates the same miracle, but attributes it to the Saint while living.

[103] On a certain day, therefore, when enemies unexpectedly seized the whole front of the city walls, a prisoner wondrously freed, and led many of our citizens away bound and captive, it happened that among them they took a certain man of good and praiseworthy repute, who had been an especial worshiper in the service of the aforenamed most holy man Amatus: who, when he was being led captive by them, and when those enemies had come to their camp, they, binding his feet and hands behind his back and hanging him up, set as it were upon the rack for the torment of his body, laid an immense stone upon his shoulders for the greater torture of his body. But while he called upon the patronage of the glorious Confessor, he granted him such constancy that he felt nothing of his martyrdom, and those torments in no way crushed him; and it came to pass that when those enemies who were afflicting him took him down from the torture and reclined to take food, a great fire being kindled in the house where they stayed, they caused him to be kept bound by their servants. And while in the silence of the night they gave their bodies to rest, and the captive himself remained without intermission in prayer, suddenly there appeared to him a vision white and exceedingly glorious, which, snatching him from his bonds, extinguished the brightness of the fire on that side where the enemy remained in darkness, and on the other side, where it furnished him a way of escape by unbarring the wall, poured forth a serene light with much fragrance of odor. For there is no doubt among us that that vision which appeared to him was the Saint whom he had served and whom he earnestly prayed to: who, taking him by the joints of his hand, led him out from the midst of the enemies, while they slept in the gloom of night, and, loosed from his bonds, restored him safe and unharmed to his own home. The same miracle Renda narrates at number 16, but less correctly, as I shall observe there. But as to what is said above, and had been an especial worshiper in the service of the aforenamed most holy man Amatus*, this can rightly be understood, as it is taken by Renda, that he held the Saint in great veneration while living. Noja at page 239 will have it understood of the Saint honored after his death.

[104] and likewise another: And it happened that a certain one of our people, being led into captivity in a time of hostility, when he was held in chains by the enemy, with heart and mouth continually

invoked the mercy of God and the aid of the said Saint: who, when he was grievously bound with tight iron fetters, and at the first hour of the night invoked God and St. Amatus without intermission to his aid, suddenly those iron bonds fell wholly away from his feet, as though they had been unloosed by the very hand of men. And, as if admonished by a divine spirit, going out from the prison, the Lord prepared for him a light in the thick darkness, so that amid the dim hazards, by which his enemies and guards had been overtaken, they had no means of seeking him, while to him, with the light going before, a free occasion of escape lay open; and he, under the safe guidance provided for him by the Lord, returned to his own home, and for sure knowledge of the aforesaid matter brought with him those very irons with which he had been bound, which to the present day hang before the tomb where his sacred relics are placed, as a memorial for the future.* See also Renda at number 16, where he reports the same with some difference.

[105] speech restored to a dumb woman. And there was among us a certain woman who, when after her wonted manner she was entering the more retired part of her house, the ancient enemy, who ever strives to hinder the steps of men, cast her to the ground, and, bringing no small terror upon her, took away her voice; and her mouth, when she tried to speak or to laugh, seemed to be drawn back to the farthest parts of her ears. This woman, then, being led by divine counsel, went to the tomb of the aforesaid Saint, and in that same venerable place causing a solemn Mass to be celebrated to the honor of God and in memory of him, having kissed the arm of his body, and moreover drinking of the water which his sacred relics had touched, and the body of that woman being sprinkled therewith, she at once deserved to speak rightly, and recovered entire the former function of health of her body. It may be doubted whether this miracle is the same as that which Renda narrates at number 14 concerning a woman of Acerno, so tormented by a demon that she could not speak. There is indeed a great difference in the two accounts, but not so great as to make it necessary to affirm that the miracles are different.

[106] The translation of the sacred body, and the separation of the head and arms: What we have hitherto given was published from the Octavarium; but now we shall give certain other things from the Office of the translation, which is said to have the same author, and this title in Noja, page 247: At the translation of St. Amatus, bishop and confessor, of which the Office is made on the XXVIII day of the month of May. All things are said as on the other feast except the lessons and prayers. The translation, of which we treated at number 96, is narrated with its miracles in this manner: For in the time of the lord Luke, his venerable successor, the sacred body of the aforesaid St. Amatus was moved from the place where it rested, the solemnity of which removal is celebrated on the fifth of the Kalends of June. And when his body was being moved from the chest in which it had been laid into the basilica, he so shone forth in miracles as the rays of the sun now shine again in the brightness of a gleaming beam. It happened that his tooth and a vertebra remained in that same chest, out of which there came forth so great a fragrance of odor as surpassed all kinds of spices without distinction; and until these were found and placed in the basilica, that chest could not be locked again by anyone. And when they had been found and laid up, it was in an instant so closed as though it were being locked by the hands of countless craftsmen.* These things Renda also narrates at number 18.

[107] But on the third day after the removal of his most precious body the most kindly power of God willed to show itself more loftily in his name. a paralytic healed For when a certain man of Turella, Dominic by name, lay paralytic in bed, for twenty days lacking tongue, sense, and voluntary motion, and labored at the last as though set in a trance, thinking upon the patronage of this glorious Saint, blessed Amatus suddenly appeared to him clothed in a white garment, who, freeing him from the aforesaid sickness, brought him back to the state of his former health. And he, rising swiftly, cried out saying: Great is the power of the Lord, and coequal his majesty; for by the intercession of the most glorious confessor of God, Amatus, unworthy though I am, I have been restored to my former health. The same we have below in the Life at number 19.

[108] But on the eighth day after his removal there was another miracle to a certain man, sight restored to a blind man, into whose eye a very large splinter had entered, from whose entrance he had for two months wholly lost his sight. It pleased the divine majesty that his mother should vow to go with him to the tomb of blessed Amatus and to bring a waxen device. After the making known of the vow, straightway her son is known to have recovered the sight which he had lost. Renda has this miracle at number 19, whom consult.

[109] At that time indeed a certain woman of Capo di Selice, an inhabitant of that place, a woman's broken arm healed, while she was going about certain pressing business, fell, the enemy of the faith hindering her; and by this fall she suffered so severe a fracture of the arm that she could be helped by almost no aid of surgeons. At last she sought the threshold of the most glorious Confessor, and beside the tomb in which at that time his most precious body was buried she watched through the night assiduously with prayers so most devoutly that, when her companions hastened that she might return to her own home, leaving all she would not remove herself from the place where she was, having an incomparable devotion toward the Saint. At last, about noon, in the sight of all who stood by, her arm was made sound there at the exaltation of the aforesaid Confessor. This miracle is found nowhere in Renda. The phrase at the beginning is faulty or dislocated, nor can it easily be restored. But it is understood well enough that the woman's arm was broken and healed.

[110] There was in the bishop's church, on the upper side, a certain place a boy unharmed under the ruin of a falling door. which was called the arm of St. Stephen — the place is also so named to the honor and glory of that same glorious protomartyr Stephen — where an altar is built, and there is a doorway straight opposite it, in which was a wooden door, huge and tall enough, whose hinge, because of its thickness, weight, and mass, is joined at either threshold with an iron band; and there is a descent by divers stone steps large enough into the church in going to the altar. That place was in the cathedral church, formerly sacred to St. Stephen, as Renda has it at number 20. Moreover the faulty phrase may perhaps be restored if, for the words which was called the arm, etc., there be substituted where was (or was kept) the arm, etc., so that the same thing be not said twice. De Ponte subjoins: On a certain day, on the birthday of the Confessor, while the solemnities of the Masses were being performed, and all the people of the city ran together for this, and moreover a wondrous crowd of both sexes had hastened from divers cities, and a certain woman was sitting and lingering assiduously on the aforesaid steps, carrying in her arms a little son two years old, when the Gospel had been read and the creed begun and finished, suddenly the air resounds round about with a rush of wind, and by the blast of a strong wind the aforesaid door, giving way, fell with a great crash. And the woman, hearing the crash, let go her son and took to flight, boiling with grief, and began to cry out, all hearing her: My son is dead! At whose cry (for she had marvelously torn her hair and her face) all the people ran up, and with many striving they raised the aforesaid door with great effort, beneath which they beheld the little boy unhurt, unwounded, not weeping, nor having any hurt in his person, but holding the door with his right arm as though it were held up by a multitude of strong men; and all rejoiced together in the Lord Jesus Christ, who through his servant St. Amatus deigned to show so great and such a miracle. In Renda this miracle likewise is put in the last place, and it is added that the woman invoked for her boy the help of St. Amatus, from which it is plain why this benefit is attributed to this Saint. Renda also disagrees as to the day of the miracle: for he asserts that it happened on the festival of the translation of the relics, which is celebrated on the XXVIII of May.

[111] An observation on the Life to be published. Now from those things which we have observed to be reported otherwise by Renda than they had before been narrated by Francesco de Ponte, we gather that Renda must have had for his writing not only the little Works of Francesco de Ponte but other documents also. For it would be wicked to suspect that so many things were forged by a pious man in order thereby the more easily to ascribe St. Amatus to his Order. Nay rather, he disagrees with the earlier writer in many things which can in no way conduce to the aforesaid end, so that the aforesaid suspicion could not fall upon Renda even if his uprightness were not established. Hence I easily persuade myself that Renda wished to write nothing but what was true, or at least probable, and that he so narrated the deeds of St. Amatus from various documents as he judged that they had probably happened. Nevertheless it may be doubted whether he used sufficient criticism, whether he did not indulge too much in uncertain conjectures, and thence relate doubtful things as certain and certain false things as true. It may likewise be doubted whether from conjectures once formed he did not proceed to further conjectures, and easily believe many things to have been done because he desired that they had been done. I would not therefore dare to attribute to the Life presently to be published that authority which contemporary or nearly contemporary writers deserve; nor even that which writers have who are far later than the deeds they narrate, but who by exact criticism and diligence try to supply what is wanting to their age; since no such criticism or diligence appears in Renda's little Work. For the rest, since that Life, as it was published in the year 1581, is defiled with countless errors and faulty phrases — whether because the author himself was not sufficiently skilled in Latin, or because the corrector of the press labored either under supine negligence or under ignorance of the Latin tongue — I shall restore certain things from the other edition of the year 1643, correct certain things myself, and shall note others, whose correction is not clear, either in the margin or in the annotations.

\ Perhaps presbyter*.

\ Read effudit*.

\* That is, the iron fetters.

\* That is, was transferred.

\ Perhaps solis* is to be added.

\* That is, that the bolt be closed again.

\ clausa*

LIFE

by Felice Renda

From two editions collated with one another

Amatus, bishop, at Nusco in the kingdom of Naples (St.)

BY FELICE RENDA.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's native place, birth, youth, clerical and monastic life.

The Saint's noble stock, his name received from an angel, his holy boyhood: Amatus, sprung of a noble family of the city of Nusco ^a, was given by his parents to the study of letters, lest he should grow soiled with the dust of the world; but loving the shining lights of the eternal Majesty, and following night and day from his tender years the footsteps of the Saints, a lover of chastity, he entered upon the way of holiness in good works. He was to be of so great a love toward God that his mother while pregnant, when about to bear a son, received in a dream from an angel the name of Amatus ^b. And Amatus, beloved by God and men both in name and in deed, cleaving to the study of letters and of ecclesiastical learning,

was so intent upon reading and prayer that he became more and more acceptable and lovable to his master and to men; and what he learned by his master's teaching, and knew by the keenness of his wit, he kept in memory, pondering it in his heart.

[2] But heeding diligently the saying of David, and contemplating it with the constant gaze of the inner light, having distributed his goods to the poor, he becomes a cleric, He has scattered abroad, he has given to the poor, that he might come to the rest of the glory to come, when he was fourteen years old, being bereft of his parents and succeeding by hereditary right to their patrimony, he bestowed all his means upon the poor ^c; and, clothed in the clerical habit, living on the goods of the Church, he was assiduously intent upon the ecclesiastical service. But in him the honey-sweet charity sprouted, whereby in compassion for the poor he abounded with all the bowels of mercy; and, his boyhood and infancy having been passed holily and worthily of God, he turned the way of his youth with greater perseverance to his Author. Applying himself to constant vigils, wholly given to the worship of God and to the service of the Saints, he burned with such fervor that, shining with an approved life, the odor of the Man's so great holiness came to the neighboring cities and towns, so that his name, wherever it had been heard, was held by all in no small veneration; and so it came to pass, by God's favor, that with the increase of his body he advanced daily in virtues; and, no vain hearer of the Gospel saying, If any man put his hand to the plough and look back, he is not fit for the kingdom of God, taking heed not to look back, but directing the eyes of mind and body forward in God's husbandry, he hastened by a straight road to the Lord.

[3] But after the Confessor of Christ came to the grade of the priesthood ^d, then a priest and archpriest: various virtues. so great holy religion grew in him that by the consent of the people, and with the great desire of the bishop of the city, he was made archpriest ^e. And having received the government of souls, obeying the Lord's precepts and walking the path of equity, he honored with brotherly affection the noble among the noble, the rich in their wealth, so long as they contrived no injury, and out of their means relieved the want of the poor. But those who by the devil's suggestion were at enmity, the kindly Servant of God, making peace, soothed with sweet and, as it were, angelic address; and aiding those in labor, succoring the oppressed at law, giving counsel to widows and orphans, showing hospitality to pilgrims, he bestowed on some the gift of alms, on others of counsel, on others — since with all the intention of his mind he panted after every good — the gift of service; consoling the afflicted, that as a pious Shepherd he might the more quickly bring back to the Lord's flock the sheep which seemed to be perishing in its wandering; ever intent on prayer, he prayed God assiduously how he might render the flock committed to him to the eternal Shepherd.

[4] He enters the religious Order of Monte Vergine with his companion John: But considering that the care of souls is a heavy burden, and often turning over in his mind to give himself wholly to the service of God, he wished to bring forth the flower of purity which he had put forth in his tender age into the fruit of good perfection in the season of maturity. For as soon as St. Amatus learned of the holiness of the most holy William ^f and of the growing fame of his miracles, in the XXVII year of his age ^g, forsaking the office of the archpresbyterate, he flew all the more swiftly to the monastery of St. Salvator ^h of the aforesaid most holy founder of a religious Order, which was two miles distant from his native place, that he might be clothed with the habit of his holy Order. On a certain day, joined with John ⁱ, a fellow citizen, a simple layman, he betook himself to the presence of the most holy father William, saying: Holy father, behold, we have left all things, and with suppliant voice we entreat that you receive us to the rule of your Order. To whom the confessor of Christ said: Brethren, it is better not to promise than to fail in what is promised; and not to begin than to leave off what is begun. But they: If you deign to receive us, hoping in the Lord we desire to advance in what we have begun. And he, embracing them sweetly with cheerful countenance, as was his manner, made them submit to the monastic yoke, and chose St. Amatus for his companion.

[5] he founds the monastery of Fontigliano, gives speech to a dumb man, But in the years following, when St. William gloriously departed from the life of this world, passing to the Lord, St. Amatus, going to the foot of Mount Lacinius, to the place called by its own name Fontigliano ^k, erected a church in honor of the most holy Virgin (as it now stands in being), and with the diocesan's leave built and enlarged a great monastery of many monks, where a multitude of men flocking together kindly gave him not a few goods and estates for the merits of his holiness. Among whom came a dumb boy, whom St. Amatus questioned, and bade him answer his question. And the dumb man, answering with a loud voice, said: I give thanks to my God, who through his servant Amatus, father of this monastery, has bestowed speech upon me; and casting himself at the feet of the Confessor of Christ, he humbly asked the habit of his Order. And being clothed by the hands of the holy Man, the name of Lord William ^l was given him by the same, as * mindful of his most holy first father; who, after St. Amatus was called by God to the government of the bishopric, succeeded him in the office of abbot of the aforesaid monastery of St. Mary of Fontigliano.

[6] gives walking to a lame man, The fame of this miracle growing through the neighboring regions, when a few days had passed, a certain man of Montella ^m, who had lost the power of walking, was carried on a pallet by his people to the monastery, into the presence of the holy Father, they asking with suppliant voice that he would restore health to the lame man. Hearing which, the Confessor of Christ, without any delay drawn out, in the church, together with the brethren, with bended knees and hands raised to heaven, prayed earnestly that he who on earth gave speech to the dumb and walking to the lame would grant this to his faithful for his own glory. And when the prayer was made, going to the lame man's pallet, he cheerfully commanded him to go on his own feet to the high altar , that he might give thanks to Christ for his health. Which the Brethren beholding, their fervor in God's service grew , and that of others; and, being made more lovable to all, so great was the concourse of men and women to the Man of God that, imitating his Master and wishing to flee the breath of popular favor, he determined to depart thence, taking his way to Monte Vergine.

[7] But on the following night an angel ⁿ of the Lord appeared, saying that he should serve the Lord there and in his native land until the last day of his life. [The Saint on his journey receives a grievous wound, whose traces still appear in his skull.] On the following morning, desiring to carry out what he had first purposed, taking his way through the mountains, in the valley of the town of Serpico ^o he fell in with hunters of the aforesaid castle. Who, falsely accusing him and setting upon him, so struck him with iron javelins that they pierced with a blow the bone of his head (as I have seen with these eyes, and as can be seen by others at present). But the Servant of God, thinking upon the angel's command, and recognizing that he had been disobedient, returned at once to his monastery. Wounded thus, he is kindly received by his fathers and is healed. Nor had he been made whole [p] when the hunter, fleeing on account of that wound, fell into the hands of the court, and, being afflicted with great torments, briefly narrated his crime to the prelate of Cassano [r]; whom the prelate, since he had struck the Servant of God, condemns to death. But bound with chains in prison, greatly repenting of his crime, he turned to St. Amatus, and commending himself much to him, in the twilight of the night he beheld the Man of God like a shining light, and adoring him as a Saint of God, seeing himself at once freed from his bonds and from prison, on the following morning he publicly proclaimed that he had been loosed by St. Amatus, and makes the miracle known. Hearing which, the prelate [s] sent him to the monastery, delivered into his service; and there, so long as he lived, he humbly and devoutly obeyed the commands of God and of St. Amatus.

ANNOTATIONS.

above Benevento, on the right side of the river Calore, where it bends toward the mountains and hills, where also it is marked on the geographical maps between Nusco and Salerno. Noja in discourse 5 objects against this, as against the preceding miracle, the silence of Francesco de Ponte. But that silence proves little, since he narrated the miracles of the Saint's lifetime only in general terms.

p. What I complained of before, that the phrasing of this Life does not hang together, I find almost everywhere. These words, therefore, which make no sense, understand thus: He had not yet been made whole when it happened that the hunter fell into the hands of the court, that is, into the hands of the praetor of Cassano, who is designated by the word præsul.

r. Cassano is a town near the river Calore a little below Montella. It has no bishop of its own, so that the word præsul cannot be understood of a bishop, but it is subject to the bishop of Nusco.

s. If he had been freed from prison, how did he still remain in the judge's power? It can indeed be said that, trusting in the miracle and in the Saint's help, he was unwilling to flee. But circumstances of this kind are not easily believed unless they rest upon greater authority. Moreover, we do not deny the blow itself upon the Saint, as may be seen in the Commentary, numbers 77, 78, and 79, where we refuted the ill-founded objections of Noja; but we suspect that Renda, perhaps from slight conjectures, embellished the chief fact with circumstances by no means true.

\ Elsewhere, electus*.

\ That is, Qui*.

\ That is, assistens*.

\ Add ovile*.

\ Add erat*.

\ Add incederet*.

\ That is, made to grow*.

CHAPTER II.

The occasion on which the saint was elected bishop, and the election itself: his deeds in the episcopate and his pious death.

The Saint becomes known to William king of Sicily, by whose help But in the year of the Lord MCLVI, and the LII of his own age, the Confessor of Christ being healed of his wound, while Manuel was emperor of Greece ^a, Adrian IV of the holy See, and William, son of King Roger, the magnificent venerator of the most holy Father ^b, was the second king of Sicily; when the aforesaid emperor laid claim to the government of Apulia, and King William was defending his father's patrimony, wishing to take Benevento, he passed with no small army from the parts of Salerno ^c through the regions of the city of Nusco, and led with him bound certain men to fight with him. Who, turning to the clemency of the holy man Amatus, and by his merits being released , one of them foretells victory over Benevento to the king ^d. To whom the king: What certainty have you of this? And he: Behold, I with my companions, trusting in Amatus, the Servant of God and disciple of your father's beloved most holy William, foretell that you shall be victor. To whom the king: Tell me all the past that you know of these Saints. And when they had recounted not a few illustrious ^e things about the first father's service with his own parent, the king spoke to them thus: If it shall please God, I will make the church of Monte Vergine a partaker of my victory. And after a few months, triumphing over Benevento ^f, he devoutly sent thither a great number of the bodies of Saints and of relics, which are still found in Monte Vergine ^g.

[9] And the king, returning to Salerno at the time when the bishop of Nusco departed this life, he is elected bishop: is entreated by the citizens of Nusco that by his favor St. Amatus might be elected to the office of the bishopric by Adrian IV, supreme Pontiff of the holy See. The Pontiff, assenting to the king's entreaties, appointed the aforesaid Saint to the episcopal government of his own city ^h. And the king, not unmindful at Messina ⁱ in the kingdom of Sicily of his triumph of victory, caused a great monastery (today called St. Leonard's) to be built there to the praise of the most holy Virgin. But in St. Amatus such was his wondrous assiduity in compassionating those oppressed with any trouble whatever, that the common love of all clung to him the more ardently the more attentively it saw him watch for their help. And while he was in the aforesaid monastery, it is announced ^k to him by his fellow citizens: You are he who unwearied must keep the nightly watches over the flock of Christ; and now that for many years you have refused, when asked, to receive the government of souls, you cannot escape receiving it at the command of the Pontiff of the holy See. And all with one accord proclaim: Holy father, magnify always, to the glory of God and the salvation of souls, the place of your birth by that presence with which you render all your own lovable *, and magnify our desire by your consent. To whom the Saint: I have ever been ready to obey God and the supreme Pontiff of the holy Apostolic See. Judging myself unworthy of this burden, I have often refused; now I prefer to obey God and the Vicar of Christ.

[10] [being consecrated at Salerno, he appoints an abbot in his place: he is honorably received at Nusco: two miracles:] And setting out, accompanied by his fellow citizens, to the archbishop of Salerno to be consecrated, he was wondrously consecrated by him, with vast joy of his native land, bishop of Nusco; and, adorned with such dignity, hastening first to the monastery which he had built with his own hands, and being cheerfully received by the monks, he admonished them in sweet discourse most strictly to the observance of the cenobitic rule, and chose for them as successor an abbot of great holiness, Lord William ^l by name. Afterwards he took possession of the episcopal church of the city of Nusco, his native place. Whom all speedily extolled to the skies, lifting up voice with hands in praise of God, saying: Blessed be he who created and rules all things, who has given us holy Amatus for our government. And while the Confessor of Christ was being adorned with the episcopal chair, a great concourse of peoples coming to him from all sides *, a primicerius ^m, who was held in a certain neighboring castle, invoking by night the help of God and the aid of that holy Bishop that he might be present with the rest, at once part of the prison, as though it had been done by craft, broke through into the other side. Being freed from prison, in the morning he publicly declared before all that this had befallen him. And in the multitude a certain lunatic girl ⁿ standing by, perceiving that she had been freed from her disease by the merits of the holy Prelate, cast herself at the Saint's feet and gave thanks to God.

[11] the building of the cathedral church: the Saint's virtues and pious works: The holy bishop Amatus, dwelling quietly in his own habitation, hired sculptors and craftsmen to build a new church under the title of Stephen the protomartyr ^o; and when the basilica was built he consecrated it in honor of St. Stephen, establishing his see there. Watchfully devoting himself to psalms, hymns, readings, and assiduous prayers, that, though he dwelt in body upon earth, he might in the Lord's service converse in spirit in heaven with his priests and clerics; and though he was nourished in the world, he did not waver toward worldly enticements, nor looked to the vanities and false madnesses of the age; but living he lived in Christ, inwardly with God, outwardly acting most justly with the people. And on feast days he unceasingly exhorted the people in the love of God and the charity of their neighbor, in the divine sayings and in holy works; by whose holy prayers the people of Nusco were continually delivered from the whirlwind of their enemies. So great perfection did the Servant of God attain that he was occupied in no sloth. The ancient enemy, through the mouth of a certain possessed man, when he was being cast out by the aforesaid Saint, crying out said: It grieves me exceedingly that I have taken no one belonging to St. Amatus's charge from the Lord's flock; and the more grieved , the readier I was to lay snares, kindle hatreds, stir up quarrels, and craftily suggest theft, adultery, anger, and the other divers vices, I am driven off by this holy Man's shield of fasting, breastplate of patience, lance of fortitude, sword of justice [p]; but even more am I continually expelled from his sheep by his profound humility.

[12] various sick persons healed: For with such arms of the divine warfare the illustrious Soldier of Christ assailed the devil's tyranny, and, consuming the devil's temptations, kept the flock of Christ unharmed, presuming nothing on his own confidence but hoping in God's help; and, not desisting diligently from his holy purpose, while he fled the sight of men, he entreated God for the flock committed to him in the corners of the church and in other hiding-places. Nor could he by any means be overcome, with whom the eternal power abode; nor could he be assailed, whom an angelic host accompanied. Not many months having passed, men from far and near enduring many infirmities — the deaf *, the dumb, the lame, the paralytic, the feverish — coming into the Saint's presence, he healed in the name of Christ, prayer having first been made to God; and they, returning whole, glorified with their voices the Lord Jesus Christ, who at the prayers of his beloved Servant restored health, in his Saints.

[13] The holy Bishop, hearing the popular report, that he might flee it, [the chapel of St. Leo built, and the monastery of St. Mary the New: a cleric healed:] built on the slope of the mountain on which the city stood a little church in honor of St. Leo [q], to which very often fleeing as to a hermit's oratory, he avoided the praise of men. And while he was there, the ancient serpent, envying lest by this the Saint should profit the more, preparing various imaginings and hidden snares [r], at the last oppressed him with scourges. But the Saint, like a strong athlete, overcame in the name of Christ. Often visiting the monastery [s] built by him almost two miles distant, he admonished the monks as his own sons. The Servant of God being watchful in these works, and seeing the concourse of men to receive his habit, builds another monastery to the glory of the Virgin, under the title of St. Mary the New (today called St. Mary the Long, from the length of the monastery, as its traces show) [t]. And when some years had passed, a certain cleric, whose lodging was not far distant from the episcopal church, was so oppressed *, his sins requiring it, with a straitening of the body, that his body became immovable as a stone. Continuing long in such misery, as though his soul were breathing out from his breast, so that his kinsfolk held him for dead rather than living, being brought by his people into the presence of the holy Prelate, he spoke thus: Holy father, if by the grace of God you have healed many of divers sicknesses, deign to heal me also, your cleric. To whom the Prelate: God heals; I embrace the healed. And when the prayer was made, he bids the cleric come from his pallet to the service of the church. And he, obeying, is made whole, and being whole served the church.

[14] Afterwards the holy Amatus of God built another church in veneration of St. Laurence [u]; the church of St. Laurence built: two miracles: the Saint's death. and at the solemnities of its consecration a woman was freed from paralysis. Likewise another woman of the city of Acerno [x], so tormented by a demon that she could not speak, was cast at the Saint's feet; the devil broke out with a loud voice: Amatus, hated by us, why do you drive us out of this man and send us to hell? And the Saint: Not I, but he who cast you out of heaven, drives you out of the man. But when he had become an old man, and was serving God in his cathedral church, continually in vigils and prayers

intent, he came to the last day of his life: he ordered himself to be brought to the church, and, adorned with the pontifical diadem, wished to celebrate the Sacrifice; and this being done, in prayer he commended his spirit [y] to God, in the LXXXIX year of his age, in the year MCXCIII of the Incarnation, Celestine III being supreme Pontiff.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. In the Commentary, number 89, I recited similar words from Francesco de Ponte, but they were not there put forth as though spoken by a demon. Noja observes that likeness of words and the difference of the narration at page 205, and suspects not undeservedly that Renda attributed to the demon the words which Francesco de Ponte had devised for commending the Saint's vigilance. Hence the very expulsion of the demon may be held suspect.

q. Of this chapel of St. Leo, as also of the monastery of St. Mary the New and the church of St. Laurence presently to be mentioned, we said a few things in the Commentary, number 91.

r. These things also, on the testimony of Noja, page 217, Francesco de Ponte has, who nevertheless, he says, does not say that the Saint was afflicted with trouble and blows by the demon.

s. He designates Fontigliano, of which we treated before.

t. In the margin is noted, In the year MCLXIV, Alexander III being supreme Pontiff.

u. Again in the margin, In the year of the Lord MCLXXI.

x. Acernum, commonly Acierno, is an inland city of Campania Felix, in the province of the Citerior Principate, says Ughelli, volume 7, column 446, where he describes this modest city more fully, and weaves a catalogue of the bishops who presided over it under the archbishop of Salerno. For this miracle consult the Commentary, number 105, where perhaps the same is narrated in a different manner.

y. In the second edition of this Life the day of his death is added thus: On the last day of August. Moreover the author does not here say clearly that the Saint died in the church itself, but only affirms that, being sick, he was carried to the church that he might offer the most holy sacrifice of the Mass; nor does he add whether he was afterwards carried home. Noja, however, at page 226 so expounds the passage as though it were said that he died in the church itself, which I think uncertain. He likewise carps at Renda as though he said that he died without a preceding illness, which again he does not openly say; but he passes over the illness, as Francesco de Ponte also passed it over. Thirdly he finds fault that he is said to have been led to the church adorned with the pontifical diadem, since bishops are not wont to use pontifical vestments at daily Sacrifices. But he could have been carried to the church adorned with the episcopal diadem, and then have performed the Mass without it. These things may be said if one is unwilling to admit the various things asserted by Renda about the Saint which are beyond the custom of the dying. Yet it must be confessed that Renda so speaks as though he meant to say that the Saint celebrated Mass in pontifical array (in which case he could not have been gravely ill), and immediately after the Mass died while still praying in the church itself. But as the author's mind is in some measure uncertain, so far more uncertain are those things which by the obvious sense he seems to affirm.

\ Add cum esset*.

\ Perhaps innitendo*.

\ Read S. Amati*.

\ indefessum*

\ amantes*

\ concursu adveniente*

\ Add esset*.

\ Add sum*.

\ surdos*, etc.

\ premebatur*

CHAPTER III.

Various miracles, and a twofold translation of the body.

Two miracles wrought at the Saint's funeral: When the holy Pontiff had passed from this world to the heavenly kingdoms, there was at his funeral a concourse of the peoples, and especially of the fathers of his Order. It happened, in the presence of all, that one of the lamps which were before the corpse, full of oil and lighted, falling from a great height upon the pavement of the church, by the presence of the holy body was neither broken, nor was its light extinguished nor the oil spilled ^a. And beholding this, all glorified God in his Saints. But amid the funeral rites, a certain man oppressed by a demon ^b so far that, with eyes twisted and become black in color, he vomited foam, being led bound by his people to the doors of the church, said: He bids me be cast out, now dead, who while living often cast me out from himself and from his sheep. And while he wrought these and many miracles, the body was kept wondrously laid up in the cathedral church.

[16] But the front of the city of Nusco is unexpectedly seized by enemies, so that many of the citizens were led away captive. a captive freed through the Saint, and another likewise: One of whom, an intimate of the holy Prelate, when he came to the enemies' camp, being bound hand and foot behind his back and hung up on the rack in torments, was tortured with an immense stone on his shoulders for the greater affliction of his body. And while he suffered so great affliction, he showed constancy through the merits of the holy Bishop, and commending himself to him it came to pass that the enemies who afflicted him were struck with a grievous bodily sickness ^c, while he who hung was tortured with no pain; and being held by them, he says that this came about by the prayers of his friend St. Amatus. And they, at once taking him down, still bound, he was held by their servants; and in the twilight of the night, as he commended himself to the Saint of God, there came with much fragrance of odor a white vision, shining like a serene light, and led him free from the place, through the midst of the enemy, loosed from his bonds and whole. Very early at dawn all the enemy, hearing this, sent him away ^d to his own country. The deliverance of that prisoner coming to the ears of a certain captive who was in prison for his crimes, he, repenting of his misdeeds, commended himself to the holy Prelate. Being given to sleep by night, with his fetters loosed he found himself lying at the Saint's sepulcher ^e; and being freed, to the glory of St. Amatus he fixed the fetters * in the wall, as is seen at present. These and many miracles were wrought while the body was laid with great veneration in a certain little house.

[17] the body raised, and a chapel built for the Saint. But his successor Lord Roger ^f, who at the time of his death was abbot of the same Order in the monastery of St. Salvator of Goleto, being made bishop of the aforesaid city by the holy Apostolic See, built a basilica in the same place where the sacred body of blessed memory lay; and when the wall was being raised through the place where the tomb * was, and the body had been removed thence, he perceived so great a fragrance of odor as surpassed all spices; and there a lame man by the merits of the holy bishop Amatus, by God's power, came away whole ^g. Which his successor Lord Roger seeing, he built a magnificent church (as it is now seen), and consecrated it when built in honor of St. Amatus (and today St. Amatus is the title of the bishopric), and for the seal of the chapter of the clergy he set the figure of the aforesaid Saint, with two sheep beside his feet on either side, as the sheep of the true Shepherd. And the body, with the arm of Stephen the protomartyr, he established in its own altar beneath the pavement, in the year of the Lord MCCXXIII, Honorius III being supreme Pontiff of the holy See.

[18] The translation of the body, the head and arms being separated: Many ^h years afterwards having passed, Lord Luke, successor as bishop of the city of Nusco, wishing to place the body of the aforesaid Saint magnificently in silver vessels, ordered it to be transferred from the place where it was to its own building or chapel. And he himself, in the presence of the people and clergy, when miraculously gleaming rays came from the chest in which it was laid, all who shone ⁱ perceived a fragrance of odor. And since a vertebra with the teeth remained * there, he could never lock the chest. Astonished, when he perceived within also the aforesaid part of the head, it at once locked as before. All being made glad, when the bishop brought in procession the head and arms, separated from the body, to the chapel (where today they are venerated with the highest honor in silver vessels), he could not remove the body from the little shrine. And that he wondrously placed in the aforesaid chest (as it is preserved at present).

[19] Three days after, a certain Dominic

by name, of the land of Torella ^k, while he lay paralytic in bed a paralytic and a blind man healed: and for nearly twenty days lacked tongue and voluntary motion, and was pondering the merits of St. Amatus, whom he suppliantly entreated, the Saint appeared to him by night clothed in a white garment, and brings him back from sickness to his former health; and he, rising whole from his bed in the morning, publicly proclaimed the miracle. And on the eighth day after the translation, a certain man of the town of Morra ^l, lacking the light of sight, is led by his people to the Saint's tomb, and prayed continually, and so praying recovered the sight which he had lost.

[20] In the following year, when the solemn day of the translation * of the relics was being celebrated with pontifical rites, there was a huge wooden door at the upper part of the cathedral church, a boy unharmed under the ruin of a door. and while a woman was sitting near it assiduously, holding beside her a little son, it happened that, when by a gust of wind the door fell upon the boy, the mother in her affliction cried out: O holy Amatus, help! and men, removing the door not without labor, found the boy unharmed ^m. These and many other miracles the Saint wrought in the name of Christ. And blessed be God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who pours out his grace upon his faithful through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns unto ages of ages. Amen. The Translation of St. Amatus is celebrated on the fifth of the Kalends of June.

ANNOTATIONS.

\ deposuerunt*

\ compedes*

\ tumulus*

\ relicta*

\ translationis*