Sigebert

ON ST. SIGEBERT, KING OF THE AUSTRASIAN FRANKS, AT METZ IN BELGICA I

A.D. 663

Preliminary Commentary.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (St.)

BHL Number: 7711

By G. H.

[1] Hitherto in arranging the dates at which the Saints of the Gauls and Germanies lived, especially under the Merovingian Kings of the Franks, the reason for this longer commentary. we have generally followed the chronology of Aegidius Bucherius, Jacques Sirmond, and Denis Petau: which, as more accurate than others, is also retained by Christopher Brower in the Annals of Trier, Aubert Le Mire in the Belgian Chronicle, Andre du Chesne in the writers of Frankish history edited by him, Scaevola and Louis de Sainte-Marthe in the third edition of their genealogical history of the Kings of France, and others more illustrious in historical knowledge and learning at this time. And for us certainly it was neither necessary nor altogether fitting that we should examine every calculation of dates before we brought any Life to light. We have not neglected, however, any clear markers of time that presented themselves: but we have endeavored in the best faith to bring those very markers, as far as was lawful, back into accord with their chronological framework. But since we have noticed that they must remove or correct not ^a few markers from the writings of the ancients, in order to establish the calculation of dates they have set for themselves -- and yet cannot always achieve this -- we have thought it better, if, having diligently weighed the ancient writers of Gallic affairs, we should establish the years of rule of all the Kings who held the Frankish empire from its beginning, whether entire or divided in two, three, or even four parts, confirmed by reliable markers, and accommodated to the now-received Era which prevailed toward the end of that first dynasty. What we hope to have achieved in this matter, we give here in ^a brief treatise on the Life of St. Sigebert, King of the Franks, the first of any sprung from the royal Merovingian stock to be treated by us: in which we would otherwise be compelled to depart greatly from the chronology of others, which, without examination of the dates of the preceding and succeeding Kings, had appeared to learned men as not yet freed from all errors. We shall more often establish the same chronology this month in the Lives of SS. Vedast, Amandus, Ansbert, and others. We set forth first the origin of the nation, forged from the confederation of several peoples to defend their liberty; then we explain the seat and boundaries of the Austrasian kingdom, from which the reckoning of the entire chronology will henceforth be more easily unraveled.

Section I. The Origin, Seats, and Migrations of the Franks. The First Ancestors of St. Sigebert.

By G. H.

[2] The Germans nearer to the Ocean sea, and the Belgians neighboring them, having either shaken off the yoke of the Romans or certainly never admitted it, the Franks took their name from vindicating liberty, are described by Cornelius Tacitus, ^a most skilled writer of these regions under the Emperor Trajan, around the beginning of the second century from Christ's birth, as supremely eager for liberty: in whose book 4 of the Histories, chapter 17, Civilis and Brinio, leaders of the Batavians and Canninefates, having won ^a victory over the Romans, celebrated with great fame throughout the Gauls and Germanies as champions of liberty, pressed upon their neighbors that liberty naturally given even to dumb animals, offering both Roman spoils and honored military service. Indeed, Tacitus teaches in his book On the Customs of the Germans, chapter 37, that the liberty of the Germans was fiercer than the Parthian kingdom against the Romans. For, as he reports in chapter 37 of the said book 4 of the Histories, fair-sounding names of liberty were put forward by these same Germans: so that we should not wonder that from that time many peoples there, conspiring in spirit and arms against the Roman Republic, took for themselves the name of Franks from liberty: for Franck in the Belgic and Frankish tongue means free. Their strength thereafter so gradually increased that in the third century of Christ these Franks, powerful enemies of the Romans in the 3rd century of Christ, enemies of the Roman Empire, were compared to the Goths, Sarmatians, Persians or Parthians. For the Emperor Gallienus, according to Trebellius Pollio, in order to mock the Roman people, triumphed with ^a splendid pretense over the Goths, Sarmatians, Franks, and Persians, as over the most formidable enemies now subdued. But when Marcus Aurelius Probus was elected Emperor, the Roman people, according to Flavius Vopiscus, acclaimed with ^a solemn vow that he was Francicus, Gothicus, Sarmaticus, Parthicus, on account of the forces of those nations somewhat repressed by him. Now Pollio and Vopiscus are the first authors in whose history the name of the Franks is found expressly stated.

[3] Nazarius, contemporary with these, in his Panegyric delivered to Constantine the Great, calls in section 17 the Franks fierce beyond all others, whose power, when it boiled over for wars, carried beyond the very Ocean by the tide of their fury, held even the coasts of Spain under hostile arms: which Aurelius Victor, ^a notable writer under Constantius and Julian, records as having occurred under the reign of Gallienus. they infest the Mediterranean Sea, For then, as he writes in his book On the Caesars, the nations of the Franks, having plundered Gaul, possessed Spain, having devastated and nearly sacked the town of Tarragona: and some, having obtained ships in time, crossed over even to Africa. The writers closest after Aurelius, St. Jerome in his Chronicle of Eusebius, Orosius the Spaniard in book 7 of his Histories, and Eutropius in book 9 of the Abridgement of Roman History, testify that Tarragona was taken by the Germans, and indeed by the more remote ones whom we have called Franks, under Gallienus: again, according to Zosimus the Count (who reached the times of Theodosius the Younger) in book 1 of his History, certain Franks, equipped with ^a great number of ships, under the Emperor Probus threw all of Greece into confusion: landing in Sicily, they plundered Syracuse: and having devastated the shores of Africa, they themselves suffered no loss (which the author marvels at) and returned home. Eumenius had already described the same exploit of the Franks in ^a Panegyric addressed to Constantius Caesar, father of Constantine the Great, chapter 18. Finally, according to the above-mentioned Eutropius in book 9, the same Franks and Saxons infested the sea along the tract of Belgica and Armorica: and the Ocean near Belgica and Armorica: relying on whose assistance Carausius (to whom the command of the Roman fleet on the shore of Boulogne had been given), having assumed the purple, seized Boulogne for himself and invaded Britain; and he refused to give up its rule for several years.

[4] From these maritime incursions of the Franks, carefully traced, it is established that the name of the Franks was then used most broadly among the Romans, and that it especially comprehended all those peoples who below Boulogne and the shore of Boulogne of the Morini inhabited the regions near the Ocean, both Gallic and Germanic: they reside in modern Flanders, namely the ancient Menapii in modern Flanders, who from there formerly, together with the neighboring Morini, supported the Veneti, ^a people of Armorica, by sea against Julius Caesar, as he himself testifies in book 3 of the Gallic War: Aurelius Victor writes that the aforementioned Carausius was ^a citizen of theirs: then the Ambivariti and Canninefates at the Scheldt river and the Meuse, Zealand, Holland, whom we shall elsewhere vindicate as peoples of Zealand and the neighboring parts of Flanders, Brabant, and Holland, attributed to Gallic jurisdictions, against Cluverius and other modern scholars. But (to pass over that dispute here) the said maritime regions are excluded from the Roman Empire in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antoninus and the Peutinger Tables; in which the boundary of the Empire is drawn from the shore of Boulogne through Therouanne, Wervicq, Tournai, Bavay, Gembloux, and Tongres: and thence along the bank of the Meuse to the Waal and the mouths of the Rhine among the Batavians, which had at one time been subject to the Romans. In addition, in the provinces excluded from this boundary the use of the Teutonic language is preserved to our own times, while those which lie within the prescribed boundary toward the south retain the modern Gallic language, corrupted from the ancient Latin of the Romans. Finally, when Boulogne had been wrested from the usurper Carausius, the said Frankish region, which is entirely marshy and saturated with water, through which the Scheldt winds in oblique channels, at the Scheldt and which the Rhine embraces at its fork, was proclaimed by Eumenius in his Panegyric addressed to Constantius, chapter 8, as vindicated and purged by the campaigns of Constantius Caesar. and Rhine, in Batavia. For many thousands of Franks who had invaded Batavia and other lands on this side of the Rhine were killed, driven out, captured, and carried away, as the author of Panegyric V addressed to Maximian and Constantine, section 4, declares concerning this campaign of Constantius. So too, earlier in Vopiscus, Franks laid low in their own marshes are adduced as witnesses to the valor of the Emperor Probus, whether those marshes be located on this side of the Rhine or among the Frisians and other Transrhenane peoples.

[5] But the Saxons not only in maritime Germany but also in Belgica and further Gaul occupied the shores more convenient for themselves, the name there transferred to the Saxons, with the name of the Franks thereby nearly displaced. The Emperor Julian in Oration 1, in praise of Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, places both beyond the Rhine and the western sea. St. Jerome in his Life of St. Hilarion, October 21, indicates ^a distinct location: the Franks dwell beyond the Rhine. "Among the Saxons," he says, "and the Alemanni there exists ^a nation not so much broad as strong, called by the historians Germany, but now Francia." Julian, according to Ammianus Marcellinus in book 20, crossed the Rhine and invaded the region of these Franks, where they are called Attuarii, whom we believe to be the same as the Ansivarii mentioned by Tacitus in book 13 of the Annals, chapter 55, the Attuarii, or Chamavi, among the ancient Sicambri, and to have occupied those same fields which had belonged to the Chamavi Tribantes and afterward to the Usipii: indeed, according to Julius Caesar, to the Sicambri, by whom he reports in book 4 of the Gallic War, section 16, that the Usipetes and Tencteri were received within their borders. In those seats, therefore, the Chamavi dwelling there are called Franks in the Peutinger Itinerary Table, and in it one reads in larger letters "Francia," above the river Rhine in the same seat of the ancient Sicambri.

[6] Ammianus Marcellinus in book 17 considers the Salian Franks the first of all Franks; in Zosimus the Count, book 3, "the nation of the Salians, and the Salians, ^a portion of the Franks," who, as the same author says, having been expelled from their own seats by the Saxons, settled in the island of Batavia. Hence the Salians must be placed between the Batavians and the Saxons (who from modern Westphalia extended beyond the Ems, Weser, and Elbe, having also gained maritime dominion among the Frisians and on the coast of Belgica and Armorica), either mixed with or contiguous to the remaining Franks. Their trace remains at the Sala, or IJssel river, at the IJssel river. from which the province of Transisulania in modern Belgium is named; of which ^a certain small district Salland, as if "land of the Salians," and the town of Oldenzaal, as if "seat of the ancient Salians," retain the name, situated on the border of the Westphalian Saxons.

[7] This first seat of the Franks, both Salian and others, the Saxons prevailing, was afterward in its chief part occupied by the Saxons, their empire having been extended to the Rhine: from whom thereafter the Franks are shown to have been separated by the Lippe river in the Chronicle of Fredegar, chapter 109. The Franks themselves, however, having lost their territories from the IJssel to the Lippe, the Chamavian Franks from the Lippe river, seized from the Alemanni territories no smaller, so that the region which formerly extended beyond the right bank of the Main to the Hessians and the Lahn river, when these were pushed back to the Neckar river, yielded to the Franks, and from its new possessors, the name of the Alemanni being discarded, it was called Francia, and at length Franconia. A great part of this, if not the whole, the Emperor Louis the Pious in his Precept concerning the division of his kingdom among his sons seems to have called Ripuaria, to the Neckar they dwelt, called Ripuarians, and to have added to it the Cisrhenane part where from Cologne toward the Ardennes and the Moselle lies the route: where, in the division of the kingdom of Lothar in the year 870 between Charles the Bald and his brother Louis, King of Germany, five counties in the Ripuarian territory are read. having obtained the Cisrhenane part, This part of Gaul near the Rhine, which the Franks had formerly occupied to possess, is said to have been recovered by the arms of Count Aetius in the consulship of Felix and Taurus, the year 428, in the published Chronicle of Prosper: but in the other Chronicle of Prosper edited by Pithou, the same Franks were received in peace, with lands along the Rhine assigned to them. In the Ripuarian Law, of which we shall treat below, title 36, section 4, neighbors are described: the royal seat established at Cologne: "If any Ripuarian shall have killed ^a foreign Aleman, or Frisian, or Bavarian, or Saxon," etc. Then the later kings of these Franks on the Rhine had their royal seat at Cologne Agrippina (which Einhard called the metropolis of Ripuaria in his history of the translation of the relics of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, June 11), the kingdom joined to that of Clovis I. of whom the last, Sigebert the Lame, was killed in the forest of Buchonia near the Main river, and then his son Childeric also; Clovis I (by whose treachery both had perished) annexed that kingdom to his own territories: as Gregory of Tours relates in book 2 of the History of the Franks, chapter 40.

[8] Meanwhile, the Salians, the first of all Franks, whom we have shown were expelled from their first seat on the IJssel and migrated to Batavia, the Salian Franks migrate to Batavia, thence by the Quadi, Chauci, were again expelled under the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, by certain Saxons whom Zosimus calls "a division of the Saxons called Quadi." Some would prefer to read "Chauci," ^a well-known nation between the Ems and the Weser on the Ocean. Perhaps Procopius in book 4 of the Gothic War called the same people "Ouaroi" or "Ouarnoi," that is, the Varni or Varini, separated from the Franks (as he says) only by the river Rhine: or Varni, expelled, whom Childebert, King of the Austrasians and Burgundians, according to Fredegar chapter 15, conquered when they rebelled in the year of Christ 595 and slaughtered them so that few of them remained. But the Salians, expelled from their second seat in Batavia, having perceived the kindness of Julian Caesar toward them, partly crossed over from the island with their King onto Roman soil; onto Roman soil; partly fled to the frontier: all, having become suppliants of Caesar, of their own accord entrusted themselves and their property to his protection. So writes Zosimus. Ammianus adds in book 17 that these Salians had dared to establish their dwellings with too much boldness on Roman soil in ^a place called Toxandria. Their embassy, near Toxandria and Tongres, having come to Tongres where Julian was, met him, thinking the Emperor would still be found in winter quarters, offering peace on the condition that no one should disturb or molest them while they remained quiet, as if in their own territory: and he received them surrendering with their possessions and children. Julian himself confirms this surrender of the Salians in his letter to the Athenians, and Libanius indicates it in his funeral oration: where it is said that he gave fields to those requesting them and used the barbarians as auxiliaries against other barbarians.

[9] Now the place conceded to the Salians on Roman soil extended chiefly from interior Brabant and the confines of the counties of Hainaut and Namur, between the Demer and Sambre rivers, between the Demer and Sambre rivers, through the Carbonarian forest, at least in the following period. There, not far from Tongres and near Toxandria, or Tessenderloo, on the Demer, very many traces of the Salians survive, as Godefroid Wendelin ingeniously observed on the Salic Law, chapters 11 and 15. Of this sort are the three districts, famous for the Salic Law enacted there: Salheim, which means "dwelling of the Salians," Bodersheim, and Windershouen: traces still remaining there, then near Diest, the Salic village of Selck; and the Salic meadows, Seelbemde, and also the fields between the towns of Herk and Halen, called Vranckriick, that is, "kingdom of the Franks." Indeed, whereas Gregory of Tours in book 2, chapter 9, assigns the castle of Dispargum, the royal seat established at Dispargum, that is, Diest, and Aimoin in book 1, chapter 4, the castellum of Dispargum, to the seat of the Frankish Kings; we were among the first to conjecture that this is the town of Diest, whose second castle is still called Disburg:

which, when communicated by letter, Jean-Jacques Chifflet, ^a most distinguished man, so approved that he published it in his new Luminaria to the reprinted Vindications of the Hispanics, and indeed first; as Wendelin shows and explains at greater length in chapter 14. Trithemius, in his work On the Origin of the Franks and in the Compendium of the Annals, calls it the castle of Dispartum; and places it not far from the river Meuse, near the Toringi, or Tongres, in the region of the Tongres, whom we believe are called "Toringi barbari" in Procopius, book 1 of the Gothic affairs, who obtained these seats by permission of Augustus Caesar -- ^a people wholly unknown to Julius Caesar. Aegidius, commenting on Hariger's account of the Acts of the Bishops of Tongres and Maastricht, chapter 13, calls Tongres the metropolis of the Thuringians. The passage of Gregory of Tours accords perfectly with this sense, placing Dispargum on the border of the Thuringians, or, as Badius printed in 1512, neighbors of the Romans. the Tongres, to the north. To the south, however, the Romans are said to have dwelt as far as the Loire river: in which territory the List of Dignities of the Empire, then written, attributes to the Romans the Laeti Lagenses near Tongres in Germania II, the Laeti Acti of Epusum or Jodoigne in Belgica I, the Laeti Nervii of Famars in Belgica II, etc.

[10] In this Salian Francia, at Dispargum, Prosper reports in the Chronicle edited by Pithou, Frankish Kings: Priam in 381, in the fourth year after the death of the Emperor Valens, the year of Christ 381, as far back as he could ascertain, that Priam reigned; who by his name gave occasion to the fables tracing the origin of the Franks from the Trojans. Wherefore, with Priam passed over together with these fictions, Pharamond is placed first in the list of Kings, Pharamond in 417, Clodio in 428, whose reign Prosper begins six years before the death of the Emperor Honorius, which corresponds to the year of Christ 417. Eleven years later Clodio is said to have reigned, in the fifth year after the death of the same Honorius, the year of Christ 428. Then in the twenty-fifth year from the death of Honorius (for from that point Prosper begins the Empire of Theodosius the Younger), the year of Christ 448, Merovech reigns in Francia; Merovech, ancestor of St. Sigebert, in 448. from whom all the Kings of the first Frankish dynasty, descended from him, were called Merovingians. Whether these succeeded their parents in the kingdom as if by hereditary right, or not, is uncertain.

[11] Meanwhile we believe that the peoples neighboring these Franks toward the Ocean -- the Menapii, I say, and the Brabantines (whom Baldric in book 3 of the Chronicle of Cambrai, chapter 61, calls Brachatenses, and the List of the Empire perhaps calls Brachati) -- since they are never recorded as having been subjugated, coalesced into one nation and maintained the friendship established by ^a common treaty with the Romans: until King Clodio, called Clogio by Gregory of Tours, intending to extend the boundaries of his kingdom, having sent scouts beyond the Carbonarian forest, and having surveyed everything, followed them to the city of Cambrai, Cambrai occupied, and having crushed the Romans, seized the city: in which, after he had resided ^a short time, he occupied other places as far as the Somme river. So writes Gregory, without any mention of any intervening city or river offering delay or obstacle; nor is any such found in those authors who fabricated the Franks' migration from ^a Sicambria built near the Maeotian marshes to the remotest parts of the Rhine: but these insist that together with Cambrai, Tournai too was taken. Rorico the monk, in book 1 of the Deeds of the Franks, reports that Clodio chose Amiens on the Somme river as his royal seat, and the Somme river. and that his successors Merovech and Childeric maintained it: the more ancient writers are silent on this.

the western sea. Julian the Emperor in Oration 1, in praise of Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, places them there. St. Jerome in the Life of St. Hilarion, October 21, indicates ^a distinct location: the Franks dwell beyond the Rhine. "Among the Saxons," he says, "and the Alemanni there exists ^a nation not so much broad as strong, called by the historians Germany, but now Francia." The region of these Franks was invaded by Julian, crossing the Rhine, according to Ammianus Marcellinus in book 20, where they are called Attuarii, whom we believe to be the Ansivarii mentioned by Tacitus in book 13 of the Annals, chapter 55, the Attuarii, or Chamavi, among the ancient Sicambri, and to have occupied those same fields which had belonged to the Chamavi Tribantes and afterward to the Usipii: indeed, according to Julius Caesar, to the Sicambri, by whom he reports in book 4 of the Gallic War, section 16, that the Usipetes and Tencteri were received within their borders. In those seats, therefore, the Chamavi dwelling there are called Franks in the Peutinger Itinerary Table, and in it one reads in larger letters "Francia," above the river Rhine in the same seat of the ancient Sicambri.

[6] Ammianus Marcellinus in book 17 considers the Salian Franks the first of all Franks; in Zosimus the Count, book 3, "the nation of the Salians, and the Salians, ^a portion of the Franks," who, as the same author says, having been expelled from their own seats by the Saxons, settled in the island of Batavia. Hence the Salians must be placed between the Batavians and the Saxons (who extended from modern Westphalia beyond the Ems, Weser, and Elbe, having also gained maritime dominion among the Frisians and on the coast of Belgica and Armorica), either mixed with or contiguous to the remaining Franks. Their trace remains at the Sala, or IJssel river, at the IJssel river. from which the province of Transisulania in modern Belgium is named; of which ^a certain small district Salland, as if "land of the Salians," and the town of Oldenzaal, as if "seat of the ancient Salians," retain the name, situated on the border of the Westphalian Saxons.

[7] This first seat of the Franks, both Salian and others, the Saxons prevailing, was afterward in its chief part occupied by the Saxons, their empire being extended to the Rhine: from whom the Franks are thereafter shown to have been separated by the Lippe river in the Chronicle of Fredegar, chapter 109. The Franks themselves, having lost their territories from the IJssel to the Lippe, the Chamavian Franks from the Lippe river, seized no smaller territories from the Alemanni, so that the region which formerly extended beyond the right bank of the Main to the Hessians and the Lahn river, when these were pushed back to the Neckar river, yielded to the Franks, and from its new possessors, the name of the Alemanni being discarded, it was called Francia, and at length Franconia. A great part of this, if not the whole, the Emperor Louis the Pious in his Precept concerning the division of his kingdom among his sons seems to have called the Ripuarian territories, to the Neckar they dwelt, called Ripuarians, and to have added to it the Cisrhenane part where from Cologne toward the Ardennes and the Moselle lies the route: where, in the division of the kingdom of Lothar in the year 870 between Charles the Bald and his brother Louis, King of Germany, five counties in the Ripuarian territory are read. having obtained the Cisrhenane part, This part of Gaul near the Rhine, which the Franks had formerly occupied, is said to have been recovered by the arms of Count Aetius in the consulship of Felix and Taurus, the year 428, in the published Chronicle of Prosper: but in the other Chronicle of Prosper edited by Pithou, the same Franks were received in peace, with lands along the Rhine assigned to them. In the Ripuarian Law, of which we shall treat below, title 36, section 4, neighbors are described: the royal seat established at Cologne: "If any Ripuarian shall have killed ^a foreign Aleman, or Frisian, or Bavarian, or Saxon," etc. The later kings of these Franks on the Rhine then had their royal seat at Cologne Agrippina (which Einhard called the metropolis of Ripuaria in his history of the translation of the relics of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, June 11), the kingdom joined to that of Clovis I. of whom the last, Sigebert the Lame, was killed in the forest of Buchonia near the Main river, and then his son Childeric too; Clovis I (by whose treachery both had perished) annexed that kingdom to his own territories: as Gregory of Tours relates in book 2 of the History of the Franks, chapter 40.

[8] Meanwhile, the Salians, the first of all Franks, whom we have shown were expelled from their first seat on the IJssel and migrated to Batavia, the Salian Franks migrate to Batavia, thence by the Quadi, Chauci, were again expelled under the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, by certain Saxons whom Zosimus calls "a division of the Saxons called Quadi." Some would prefer to read "Chauci," ^a well-known nation between the Ems and the Weser on the Ocean. Perhaps Procopius in book 4 of the Gothic War called the same people "Ouaroi" or "Ouarnoi," that is, the Varni or Varini, separated from the Franks (as he says) only by the river Rhine: or Varni, expelled, whom Childebert, King of the Austrasians and Burgundians, according to Fredegar chapter 15, conquered when they rebelled in the year of Christ 595 and slaughtered them so that few of them remained. But the Salians, expelled from their second seat in Batavia, having perceived the kindness of Julian Caesar toward them, partly crossed over from the island with their King onto Roman soil; onto Roman soil; partly fled to the frontier: all, having become suppliants of Caesar, of their own accord entrusted themselves and their property to his protection. So writes Zosimus. Ammianus adds in book 17 that these Salians had dared to establish their dwellings with too great boldness on Roman soil in ^a place called Toxandria. Their embassy, near Toxandria and Tongres, having come to Tongres where Julian was, met him, thinking the Emperor would still be found in winter quarters, offering peace on the condition that no one should disturb or molest them while they remained quiet, as if in their own territory: and he received them as they surrendered with their possessions and children. Julian himself confirms this surrender of the Salians in his letter to the Athenians, and Libanius indicates it in his funeral oration: where it is said that he gave fields to those requesting them and used the barbarians as auxiliaries against other barbarians.

[9] Now the place conceded to the Salians on Roman soil extended chiefly from interior Brabant and the confines of the counties of Hainaut and Namur, between the Demer and Sambre rivers, between the Demer and Sambre rivers, through the Carbonarian forest, at least in the following period. There, not far from Tongres and near Toxandria, or Tessenderloo, on the Demer, very many traces of the Salians survive, as Godefroid Wendelin ingeniously observed in his commentary on the Salic Law, chapters 11 and 15. Of this sort are the three districts, famous for the Salic Law enacted there: Salheim, which means "dwelling of the Salians," Bodersheim, and Windershouen: traces still remaining there, then near Diest, the Salic village of Selck; and the Salic meadows, Seelbemde, and also the fields between the towns of Herk and Halen, called Vranckriick, that is, "kingdom of the Franks." Indeed, whereas Gregory of Tours in book 2, chapter 9, assigns the castle of Dispargum, the royal seat established at Dispargum, that is, Diest, and Aimoin in book 1, chapter 4, the castellum of Dispargum, to the seat of the Frankish Kings; we were among the first to conjecture that this is the town of Diest, whose second castle is still called Disburg:

which, when communicated by letter, Jean-Jacques Chifflet, ^a most distinguished man, so approved that he published it in his new Luminaria to the reprinted Vindications of the Hispanics, and indeed first; as Wendelin shows and explains at greater length in chapter 14. Trithemius, in his work On the Origin of the Franks and in the Compendium of the Annals, calls it the castle of Dispartum; and places it not far from the river Meuse, near the Toringi, or Tongres, in the region of the Tongres, whom we believe are called "Toringi barbari" in Procopius, book 1 of the Gothic affairs, who obtained these seats by permission of Augustus Caesar -- ^a people wholly unknown to Julius Caesar. Aegidius, commenting on Hariger's account of the Acts of the Bishops of Tongres and Maastricht, chapter 13, calls Tongres the metropolis of the Thuringians. The passage of Gregory of Tours accords perfectly with this sense, placing Dispargum on the border of the Thuringians, or, as Badius printed in 1512, neighbors of the Romans. the Tongres, to the north. To the south, however, the Romans are said to have dwelt as far as the Loire river: in which territory the List of Dignities of the Empire, then written, attributes to the Romans the Laeti Lagenses near Tongres in Germania II, the Laeti Acti of Epusum or Jodoigne in Belgica I, the Laeti Nervii of Famars in Belgica II, etc.

[10] In this Salian Francia, at Dispargum, Prosper reports in the Chronicle edited by Pithou, Frankish Kings: Priam in 381, in the fourth year after the death of the Emperor Valens, the year of Christ 381, as far back as he could ascertain, that Priam reigned; who by his name gave occasion to the fables tracing the origin of the Franks from the Trojans. Wherefore, with Priam passed over together with these fictions, Pharamond is placed first in the list of Kings, Pharamond in 417, Clodio in 428, whose reign Prosper begins six years before the death of the Emperor Honorius, which corresponds to the year of Christ 417. Eleven years later Clodio is said to have reigned, in the fifth year after the death of the same Honorius, the year of Christ 428. Then in the twenty-fifth year from the death of Honorius (for from that point Prosper begins the Empire of Theodosius the Younger), the year of Christ 448, Merovech reigns in Francia; Merovech, ancestor of St. Sigebert, in 448. from whom all the Kings of the first Frankish dynasty were called Merovingians. Whether these succeeded their parents in the kingdom as if by hereditary right, or not, is uncertain.

[11] Meanwhile we believe that the peoples neighboring these Franks toward the Ocean -- the Menapii, I say, and the Brabantines (whom Baldric in book 3 of the Chronicle of Cambrai, chapter 61, calls Brachatenses, and the List of the Empire perhaps calls Brachati) -- since they are never recorded as having been subjugated, coalesced into one nation and maintained the friendship established by ^a common treaty with the Romans: until King Clodio, called Clogio by Gregory of Tours, intending to extend the boundaries of his kingdom, having sent scouts beyond the Carbonarian forest, and having surveyed everything, followed them to the city of Cambrai, Cambrai occupied, and having crushed the Romans, seized the city: in which, after he had resided ^a short time, he occupied other places as far as the Somme river. So writes Gregory, without any mention of any intervening city or river offering delay or obstacle; nor is any such found in those authors who fabricated the Franks' migration from ^a Sicambria built near the Maeotian marshes to the remotest parts of the Rhine: but these insist that together with Cambrai, Tournai too was taken. Rorico the monk, in book 1 of the Deeds of the Franks, reports that Clodio chose Amiens on the Somme river as his royal seat, and the Somme river. and that his successors Merovech and Childeric maintained it: the more ancient writers are silent on this.

[12] We are also deprived of the Chronicle of Prosper, which we used before, as it ends in the fifth year of the Emperor Marcian, the year of Christ 455, in which Petronius Maximus is recorded as having seized the Empire after the murder of Valentinian III on the 16th day before the Kalends of April, and was himself soon killed on the day before the Ides of June: in which year, or in the one following the empire and murder of Maximus, we place the death of Merovech with Sigebert, Childeric, great-great-great-grandfather, in 456, and the succession of his son King Childeric: whose first year, by the calculation already made, must begin with the year of Christ 456. When Childeric, the great-great-great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, had administered the kingdom of the Franks through the course of twenty-four years, according to Aimoin, book 1, chapter 12, and Clovis I, great-great-grandfather of Sigebert, in 480. and died toward the end of the year 479, his son Clovis I, the great-great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, succeeded him, whose first year we reckon as the year of Christ 480, in which manner the fifth year of his reign coincides with the year 484, the tenth with 489, and the fifteenth with 494: in which years Syagrius, who was governing on behalf of the Romans at Soissons, was defeated and killed; the Thuringians, or Tongrians, were subjugated to his authority; and at last the Alemanni were subdued, having invoked the God of his wife St. Clotilde. The remaining chronology will be demonstrated below.

Section II. The Origin of the Austrasians and Neustrians. The Territories of St. Sigebert in the Belgic and Germanic Provinces.

[13] The Frankish kingdom variously divided When Clovis I died, the entire kingdom of the Franks, spread far and wide under his auspices, was divided among his four sons: whether this was done with equal balance according to the view of Gregory of Tours, we shall inquire below. Of these sons, Theoderic the elder had his royal seat at Metz. Clodomer at Orleans, Childebert at Paris, and Clothar at Soissons, who, surviving his brothers, and indeed also Theoderic's son Theodebert and grandson Theodebald, held the kingdom of the Franks alone. After his death in turn, his four sons, having received Francia distributed into as many parts, possessed it: and, because no proper names had hitherto been given to these kingdoms, each was called after its King the parts initially named from the Kings, or royal seat. or royal seat. Lot gave, says Gregory of Tours in book 4, chapter 22, to Charibert the kingdom of Childebert, with his seat at Paris; to Guntram the kingdom of Clodomer, with his seat at Orleans; to Chilperic the kingdom of his father Clothar, with his seat at Soissons; and to Sigebert the kingdom of Theoderic, with his seat at Metz. When Sigebert then died, his son Childebert succeeded him, under whom Gregory of Tours completed his history, and who calls this Metz kingdom in book 5, chapter 5, the kingdom of Sigebert: but its inhabitants he calls Austrasians in the same book 5, chapters 14 and 19: whether this name was indicated by any earlier writer, we do not know. We consider it an invention of later scholars who, following Georges Alberic in chapter 1 of the Life of St. Sigebert published in French, without the authority of the ancients wish this name to have been bestowed under the Romans by Austrasus, ^a Prefect established over these regions.

[14] When Charibert died, the remaining kingdoms began to be called by their own names: then Burgundy, the kingdom of St. Guntram, of whom we shall treat on March 28, was generally called Burgundy, because the kingdom of the Burgundians, previously occupied by his predecessors, was simultaneously subject to his rule. Others, having obtained their name from geographical position, were called the Eastern or Western kingdom of the Franks, Oosterrijck, and Westerrijck. which in the Teutonic language was expressed as Ooster-rijck and Wester-rijck. So the kingdoms of the Goths were held by the Ostrogoths and Westrogoths, or Visigoths: the Saxons were divided into Ostphalians and Westphalians, or Osterlings and Westerlings; and the borders of the Frisians, in the Life of St. Boniface on June 5, are called Ostar and Wester by St. Willibald. A certain Engilscalc in the Annals of Fulda for the year 893 was made Margrave in the East by the Emperor Arnulf, where afterward Margraves, and later Archdukes, held dominion over Austria, Austria on the Danube, commonly called Oosten-rijck. What we also called Franconia on the Main, the Alemanni having been expelled, is called in the Life of St. Boniface and of Charlemagne Francia Orientalis, another on the Main river. and in the Martyrologies of Bede and Raban for July 8 it is called Austria. So the famous old Wester-rijck on the Saar river, Westerrijck on the Saar river. the most westerly of all the provinces in which the use of the German language flourishes: of which the trace still remains in the Duchy of Zweibrucken, the County of Bitche situated there on the borders of Alsace, and other neighboring places. But because that region was attributed to the Austrasian kingdom among the Franks, as will presently appear; men otherwise not inconsiderably learned have not aptly translated Wester-rijck into Latin as Austrasia, ^a word which means Oosten-rijck.

[15] In respect of this or ^a similar Wester-richia, Western Francia in the above-mentioned division was called New Westria, and thence contracted to Neustria. hence Neustria, as if New Westria, among the Franks, So the Annals of Metz for the year 688 testify that the western Franks were called by their people Neustrians, and the eastern Franks Osterliude. Luyden, Liuden, or Leuden in the Teutonic language means "people." Hence the Annals of the Franks from Loisel for the year 798 call the peoples beyond the Elbe Nordliudi, whom Einhard in the same place calls Normans: and Fredegar in chapter 56 reports that Dagobert ordered all the Leudes whom he ruled in Auster to advance with an army. He sent envoys to Burgundy and Auster (read Wester or Neuster) so that they should choose their own government. and Auster, Just as in the German language "clooster" is formed, which is "claustrum" in Latin; so what we said above, Ooster-rijck, is Auster and Auster-regnum. Fredegar in chapter 38 said "totum Auster," and in chapter 40 "universam Auster," with varying gender and case. But the authors of the Lives of St. Leodegar, October 2, and St. Bathild the Queen, January 26, name "the regions of Auster" and "the King of Auster," Austria, all of whom wrote in the seventh century. Austria was then used by the Continuator of Fredegar under King Pepin, or Austrasia, the monk of St. Denis in the Deeds of Dagobert, and Aimoin, although several centuries later. Finally, Austrasia was used by certain later learned men. So Notger in the Life of St. Remacle, September 3, says that the sons of Clovis II reigned: Clothar in the West, Childeric in Austrasia. In the Deeds of the Franks, chapter 41, the Austrasians are called the upper Franks, and in chapter 27 the upper Franks in Auster. To these Austrasians under the name of Franks, the Neustrians are opposed by the author of the Life of St. Audoen, August 24, and by Ursinus in the Life of St. Leodegar, and another in the Life of St. Desiderius, Bishop of Cahors, November 15, all weighty and contemporary writers. A more recent author of the history of the conversion of St. Hubert the Bishop, November 3, reports that he betook himself from Francia of the Sequani into Austria.

[16] Various boundaries of these territories were prescribed under different Kings. In the Chronicle of Tours from the Abbey of Marmoutier, preserved in Hotman, book 1 of the Ancient Law of the Kingdom of Gaul, chapter 4, the territory of each strictly defined, Neustria is whatever lies between Paris and Orleans, between the Loire and the lower Seine to the Ocean: which is the most western part of Francia. Opposite to this, the Champagne of Belgica II, Belgica I and Germania I, the most eastern part of the said Francia, was called Austria or Austrasia par excellence. But in the division of the territories of St. Sigebert and Clovis, brothers under their father Dagobert, the whole of Gaul beyond Burgundy is said to have been comprehended under the name of Austria and Neustria or Neptricum, as reported by Fredegar in chapter 76 in these words: more broadly understood, "When in the twelfth year of the reign of Dagobert, Clovis had been born of Queen Nanthild, by the counsel and admonition of the Neustrians, he thought fit to confirm his son by ^a pact with Sigebert: alt. the Magnates and all the Magnates of Austrasia, the Bishops and other Leudes of Sigebert, placing their hands upon it, moreover confirmed by oaths: that Neptricum and Burgundy, in established order, should pertain to the kingdom of Clovis after Dagobert's departure. Auster, however, being likewise in established order equal in population and extent of territory, in the division of the kingdoms of St. Sigebert and his brother Clovis. should pertain to and look to the kingdom of Sigebert in its entirety: and whatever had belonged of old to the kingdom of the Austrasians, this Sigebert should receive under his authority to rule, and have to govern in perpetuity; except the Duchy of Dentelin, which had been unjustly taken from the Austrasians, should again be joined to the Neustrians and subjected to the rule of Clovis. But the Austrasians, compelled by the terror of Dagobert, seemed to confirm these pacts whether they wished to or not: which is certain to have been maintained afterward in the times of Sigebert and Clovis." So writes Fredegar, whom the Dionysian Monk copied in his work on Dagobert, chapter 32, and Aimoin in book 4, chapter 27: the latter in his own phrasing, the former preserving nearly the words of Fredegar, who however, being of Neustrian origin, and not knowing how to designate the Leudes -- the third member gathered from the people -- substituted Dukes in their place, although he had previously expressed Magnates, under which title these are included.

[17] Now let us survey the individual places subject to St. Sigebert among the Austrasians: under the Austrasians, which have been confused with Lotharingia by Georges Alberic in chapters 1 and 2 of the Life of St. Sigebert, by Jodocus Coccius in his Dagobert chapter 3, and by Aubert Le Mire in his work On the Genealogies of the Princes of Belgium, chapter 1, and others. And first, what has been passed over in silence by them, it is certain that the Champagne which was formerly counted as part of Belgica II always pertained to the Austrasians. In it is seen the metropolis of the Remi, in Belgica II whose Archbishop Aegidius, the people of Reims, according to Gregory of Tours in book 10, chapter 19, was punished with exile for conspiracy against his King Childebert, Romulf son of Duke Lupus of Champagne being substituted in his place: and Ermenfredus, ^a fugitive from Neustria and the kingdom of Clovis, according to Fredegar, settled at Reims in the basilica of St. Remigius under St. Sigebert. the people of Chalons, At Chalons-sur-Marne, an episcopal city, Theoderic dictated laws to the Ripuarian Franks, Alemanni, and Bavarians: and at the request of Childebert, Bishop Bertondus, or Bertrandus, granted ^a privilege to Abbot Synavius of Montier-en-Der, recorded in the Compendium of Troyes by Nicolas Camuzat. Attelanus, or Attola, Bishop of Laon, the people of Laon, is considered below in ^a diploma of St. Sigebert to be his intimate counselor. In his diocese on the Aisne, or Oise river, are the towns of Fere, Ribemont, and Guise, scarcely ^a day's journey from Cambrai. the people of Cambrai, When both clergy and people petitioned King Childebert of the Austrasians to ordain St. Gaugericus as their Bishop, the King immediately wished their prayers to be fulfilled, sending letters to Bishop Aegidius of Reims; as is related in his Life on August 11. Likewise subject there to the Austrasians with the Bishop of Cambrai were the Nervii and their dependents, the Nervii, etc. the people of Hainaut and ancient Brabant. We shall treat of Brabant on February 21 in the Life of St. Pepin, who was Duke in those parts under Dagobert and St. Sigebert. Moreover, just as the Aisne was the boundary of the Austrasians in Champagne, as far as the Oise and the Scheldt river, so the Scheldt, rising not far from its source, continued the same boundary and separated the people of Artois, Morini, and Menapii (whom we now call Flemings) from the Austrasians, and removed them: there between the Scheldt and the Scarpe lies the territory of Austerbantia, as if named "the boundary of the Austrasians," of which Austerbantia and the Scarpe river we treat on February 2 and 6 in the Lives of SS. Adalbald the Duke and Amandus the Bishop, where it is implied that the monastery of Elnone was subject to St. Sigebert.

[18] The whole of Belgica I can be called the proper territory of the Austrasians, on account of the city of the Mediomatrici, the royal seat, of which we shall treat below. There, moreover, are the dioceses of Verdun and Toul, all in Belgica I, whose Bishops Gislocardus and Theofredus, or Teufredus, are listed in ^a diploma of St. Sigebert granted to the monasteries of Malmedy and Stavelot. Finally, the metropolis of this Belgica I is Augusta Treverorum (Trier), in which Chrodoald was killed by the order of Dagobert, when Dagobert was ruling the Austrasians alone, as Fredegar testifies in chapter 52. Contiguous to Belgica I on the eastern side is Germania I, Germania I, whose metropolis is Mainz, whose people of Mainz, Fredegar writes in chapter 87, were not faithful to St. Sigebert in the Thuringian battle. The Archbishop of Reims whom we mentioned was condemned to exile under Childebert and conveyed to the city of Strasbourg, which they call Strateburgum, as the same Gregory of Tours cited above writes. Whether St. Arbogast, Bishop of this see, is rightly said to have restored St. Sigebert to life, will be inquired into below. There are furthermore the diocese of Speyer among the Nemetes, and Worms among the Vangiones, of whose renewed splendor we treat on February 6 in the Life of St. Amandus. and Germania II, In Germania II the metropolis was the city of Cologne Agrippina, attributed by Gregory of Tours in book 6, chapter 24, to Sigebert I, King of the Austrasians. We shall say below that St. Cunibert, Archbishop of this city, administered the kingdom of the Austrasians during the youth of St. Sigebert, together with other magnates. Subject to it was the diocese of Maastricht, whose holy Bishops Amandus, Remacle, and Theodard, who sat there during the reign of St. Sigebert, will be mentioned more often below and again on February 6.

[19] Other regions beyond the Rhine were subject to the said Austrasian Kings; distributed among four principal peoples, to each of whom we shall show below that these Kings prescribed their own laws. beyond the Rhine, the ancient Franks, The first of these, subjugated by Clovis I, are the Transrhenane Franks, whom we have previously placed with St. Jerome between the rivers Lippe and Neckar, or between the Saxons and Alemanni, at this time distinguished by roughly these provinces: Mark, Berg, Waldeck, Hesse, Westerwald, Wetterau, and Franconia: which the Annals of Fulda for the year 719 ascribe to the ancient Austrasians: where it is said that St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, by his preaching converted many peoples, namely Thuringians, Hessians, and foreign peoples, the Thuringians, and Austrasians, to the true faith. The Thuringians are

on the Unstrut river, which, having irrigated that region, flows into the Elbe at Naumburg, and were slain by Theoderic I and subjected to the kingdom of the Austrasians. The same Thuringia, because of assistance given to the Saxons on the Weser river, was devastated by Clothar I, who had obtained Austrasia after the death of Theodebald, as Gregory of Tours reports in book 4, chapter 10, and the Continuator of the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes. A Duke named Radulf was placed over this Thuringia by Dagobert, and having confirmed ^a friendship with the Wends, he rebelled against St. Sigebert, having fortified ^a castle on ^a mountain above the Unstrut river, as Fredegar reports in chapter 87 and below in the Life from Gembloux: against whom Count Aenowalus of Sigion, probably the prefect of the province near the Sieg river, where the towns of Siegen and Siegburg are still seen, rendered excellent service to St. Sigebert.

[20] The Alemanni, The Alemanni, the third people beyond the Rhine, according to Gregory of Tours in book 2, chapter 30, submitted to the authority of Clovis when they saw their King slain. Having obtained this victory, Clovis received the Christian faith, as will be said below on February 5 and 6 in the Lives of SS. Avitus and Vedast. Those Alemanni who then dwelt beyond the Danube toward the Alps, tributaries of Theoderic the Ostrogoth King, were released by the Goths some years later in order to win the favor and goodwill of the Franks, and were brought under the power of Theodebert I, and then his son Theodebald ruled them with the remaining peoples: as Agathias relates at length in book 1 of the affairs of the Emperor Justinian. This Alemannic region then subject to the Austrasians comprises roughly these provinces of that period: the Duchy of Wurttemberg, the Margraviate of Baden, Breisgau, both Swabias, the upper part of which is still called Alemannia, extending from the Lech river to Lake Constance or Bregenz. There must be added the territories lying between the previously mentioned Germania I and this lake: the bishopric formerly of Raurica, now Basel, and the former city of Vindonissa at the confluence of the Aar and the Reuss, which then flow into the Rhine. Gramatius, Bishop of this Church of Vindonissa, called by some Chromatius, subscribed to the Councils of Orleans III and IV, and also, which we here particularly note, to that of Clermont under Theodebert I, King of the Austrasians, acknowledged by all the Bishops there assembled as the supreme Lord of their sees. Maximinus was substituted for Gramatius and transferred the See from Vindonissa to Constance under Clothar I, who had obtained the monarchy of all Gaul. The diocese of Constance, which is exceedingly large, contains ^a great portion of Alemannia. These Alemanni, therefore, joined with the Burgundians beyond the Jura, attacked the district of Avenches and Lausanne in ^a warlike incursion under Theodebert II, and overcame them: provoked by which injuries, his brother Theoderic II, King of the Burgundians, undertook ^a war and defeated him in ^a bloody battle. These things are read in Fredegar, chapters 37 and 38. We treat the origin of the Alemanni in the Life of St. Vedast on February 6, chapter 1.

[21] Neighboring the Alemanni are the Bavarians, whom the laws prescribed for them by Theoderic I claim for the Austrasians: the Bavarians, whether, however, they were subjugated by arms, or rather, in order to be protected safely against the incursions of the Slavs, Huns, and other barbarians, voluntarily submitted to the Austrasians, is uncertain given the silence of the ancient writers. Dagobert, according to Fredegar chapter 58, governed the royal administration in Auster with such prosperity that even the nations situated around the frontier of the Avars and Slavs eagerly sought him out. And St. Amandus, having crossed the Danube, preached the Gospel of Christ to the Slavs. At that time the Alemanni and Bavarians had not yet begun to rebel against the Austrasians: which we believe happened under Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace, after the death of St. Sigebert. So much for the Austrasian kingdom established in the Germanic and Belgic provinces.

Section III. The Territories of St. Sigebert in Interior Gaul.

[22] In interior Gaul In the rest of Gaul, the southern peoples of Aquitaine I -- the Arverni, Albigensians, and Ruteni -- were defeated, after King Alaric of the Goths had been slain, by an army sent by Theoderic I at the command of his father Clovis, as Gregory of Tours relates in book 2 of the History, chapter 37. Theoderic joined these territories, together with other provinces in interior Gaul, to his kingdom of the Mediomatrici. This is first confirmed for the Arverni by Gregory in book 3, chapters 9, 21, 23, and 25, and book 4, chapters 6, 7, and 9, the Arverni, in which passages it is indicated that the Arverni continuously obeyed the authority of Theoderic, Theodebert, and Theodebald. Then, by the order of Theoderic, St. Quintianus, whose feast is the 13th of November, was appointed Bishop of the Arverni, as the same Gregory teaches in his work On the Life of the Fathers, chapter 4. A Council was held among these Arverni by the sole subjects of Theodebert. After the death of Clothar I, in the second division of the monarchy, the same Arverni pertained to Sigebert I according to the same Gregory in book 4, chapters 30, 33, 37, and 41, and to his son Childebert in book 5, chapter 34, book 6, chapter 26, book 10, chapters 7 and 8, and many other places. Finally, what most closely concerns us here, St. Bonitus, whose Life we gave on January 15, born from the city of the Arverni, served in the court of St. Sigebert as Chief Cupbearer, then, having received the ring from the hand of the King, as Referendary, or, as others call it, Chancellor; and was at last appointed Bishop of the Arverni. That after the death of St. Sigebert, Childeric ruled as King over the Arverni together with the Austrasians, we learn from the Life of St. Praeiectus, Bishop of the Arverni, on January 25.

[23] The Albigensians The case of the Albigensians and Ruteni is the same as that of the Arverni, and Gregory of Tours relates in book 8, chapter 45, that King Guntram restored their city, which had been taken from the Austrasians, to his nephew Childebert. The Bishop of the Albigensians during the reign of St. Sigebert was Constantius, who on his return from the court wrote ^a letter to St. Desiderius of Cahors, with this opening: "Know, my Lord, that we have returned safely from the Palace by your prayers, and that the King is now at Mainz," etc. It is found among the letters of Desiderius, number 77. The Bishops of the Ruteni and the Gabali, SS. Dalmatius and Hilary, attended the Council of Clermont under Theodebert mentioned above; the former is venerated on November 13, the Ruteni, the Gabali, the latter on October 25. Gregory, so often cited, writes in book 10, chapter 8, that another synod of Bishops was held under Childebert on the border of the Arvernian, Gabalitan, and Rutenian territories. And in book 6, chapter 38, he reports that with the aid of Queen Brunhild, Innocentius was elected Bishop of the Ruteni from the rank of Count of the Gabali. Verus, whose two letters to St. Desiderius of Cahors survive as numbers 78 and 81 among his letters, was Bishop of these during the time of St. Sigebert. But that the Gabali were subject to the Austrasian kingdom is further confirmed both by the countship of that territory conceded by Sigebert I to Palladius according to Gregory in book 4, chapter 32, and by the fact that Abbot Lupentius was summoned thence by Brunhild in book 6, chapter 37. His son Childebert, King of the Austrasians, in book 8, chapter 18, appointed Nicetius as Duke in the cities of the Arverni, Ruteni, and Uzes. The people of Uzes, Now Uzes is ^a neighboring episcopal city there, formerly assigned to Gallia Narbonensis. Among its celebrated Bishops are SS. Firminus and Ferreolus, of whom the former is considered the brother of Senator Ansbert and of Bishop Aigulf of Metz; the latter the son of the same Ansbert and Blithild, and paternal uncle of St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz. There, under Childeric, the successor of St. Sigebert, Bishop Mummolus presided, ^a most bitter adversary of St. Amandus, when the latter was building the monastery of Nant, of which we shall treat on February 6, not far away, by the authority of Childeric.

[24] The people of Arisitum, There is likewise in that area the village of Arisitum among the Ruteni, bordering the Province of Narbonne, bestowed by the gift of Sigebert I upon the Church of St. Stephen at Metz: which donation was confirmed by their precepts by Clothar II, Dagobert, and then St. Sigebert. In that village of Arisitum, Bishop Aigulf of Metz established his brother Deotarius as Bishop: after whom his nephew Domnus Modericus was ordained Bishop by the ordination of the Bishop of Metz: as is reported in these words in the ancient Genealogy of St. Arnulf published by Dominici. We treated of SS. Modericus and Ferreolus, brothers of Ansbert, on January 15, in the Life of St. Tarsitia the Virgin, their sister. Gregory in book 5, chapter 5, mentions the village of Arisitum, and in book 9, chapters 9 and 12, he attributes to the kingdom of Childebert the Castrum Vabrense and the village of Vabrense, the people of Vabres, situated in the upper March of the Ruteni, which was erected into ^a bishopric in the fourteenth century, in whose diocese is the monastery of Nant,

which we said was built there by St. Amandus by the authority of King Childeric.

[25] The Cadurci, ^a still-celebrated people of Aquitaine, are shown to have been subject to the Austrasian kingdom in the time of St. Sigebert, together with the neighboring cities already mentioned, the Cadurci, both by the Acts of St. Desiderius, then Bishop there, to be given on his feast day November 15, and by his letters published by du Chesne, from which we shall relate below among the Analecta those which he wrote to his King St. Sigebert and those which he received from him with royal instructions. At what time these Cadurci were joined to the Austrasians is not equally certain. Aimoin in book 1 of the History of the Franks, chapter 22, and Valois following him in book 6 of Frankish Affairs, report that they were subjugated together with the Arverni and neighboring Ruteni by Theoderic I and added to the Austrasian kingdom. Meanwhile, no Bishop from there attended the Council of Clermont composed of Bishops subject to Theodebert I: they did attend five Councils of Orleans, but with Bishops congregated from all the kingdoms. It is certain that King Chilperic of Soissons at one time held the city of Cahors, perhaps assigned to the kingdom of Soissons after the death of Charibert, King of Paris. Here, then, Chilperic gave Cahors together with other cities as ^a dowry or morgengabe -- that is, ^a morning gift (as Gregory speaks in book 9, chapter 20, consonant with the Teutonic language) -- to his wife Galswintha: and when she died, her sister Brunhild, then married to Sigebert I, King of the Austrasians, received the city of Cahors with its territories and entire people as her own property. Hence the same Cadurci are afterward attributed by the author of the Life of St. Maximus the Martyr, related on January 2, to Brunhild, then ^a widow. We gather from the Second Council of Macon, to which Pappolus of Cahors subscribed, that the uncle Guntram at one time interrupted the peaceful possession of his nephew Childebert by seizing this city from him: but it seems to have been restored before the year 588, when by ^a treaty of alliance Guntram handed over to his nephew Childebert several cities from the kingdom of Paris belonging to Charibert.

[26] On the Rhone is seen the city of the Albenses, Viviers, once joined to the Burgundians, whose kingdom Clodomer, King of Orleans, was coveting, perhaps also the Albenses so the Austrasians occupied this city neighboring them. Hence Venantius subscribed to the Council of Epaone under the Burgundians, and, transferred to the Austrasians, to that of Clermont. Nor did any of their Bishops attend any Council held under Guntram, which seems to be ^a sign that they continuously remained under the Austrasians. and the Velauni. By this argument perhaps Velay, whose chief city is Le Puy, formerly Anicium, would be said to have been subject to the Austrasians, especially since Gregory of Tours in book 4, chapter 41, and book 6, chapter 9, connects the territory of Velay with the Arverni. What are the provinces of these? Under the dominion of the Austrasians, therefore, these provinces were joined together, as they are called at this time: lower and upper Auvergne, with Limagne lying between them, upper and lower Quercy, the County of Rouergue and its lower and upper Marche, the district of Orange, the tract of Albi, upper and lower Gevaudan, and the diocese of Uzes taken from Narbonensis I, and also, as we think more probable, Velay with the tract of Viviers.

[27] After the region between the Rhone and the Alps, formerly called the Province of the Romans, was promised by Theodahad, King of the Goths, and given by his successor Vitiges around the year 535 to the Frankish Kings -- Childebert of Paris, Theodebert I of the Austrasians, the province of Marseilles under the Austrasians: and Clothar I of Soissons -- as Procopius relates in book 1 of the Gothic War, there accrued to the Austrasian kingdom, besides the part of Alemannia described above, the city of Marseilles and some of its province. Certainly after the death of Clothar I, Hecca, one of the chief men of the Palace of Sigebert I, was sent to arrange the province of Marseilles, as is stated in the Life of St. Consortia the Virgin, November 16, and according to Gregory in book 4, chapter 38, in the kingdom of King Sigebert, when the Rector of the Province of Marseilles, Jovinus, was removed from office, Albinus was substituted in his place: and in chapter 41, Duke Lupus by the command of King Sigebert approached the city of Marseilles. After the death of Sigebert, his son Childebert had very many difficulties with his uncle Guntram over Marseilles, related in book 6, chapter 12. When these were settled, according to the same Gregory in book 8, chapter 49, Nicetius the Arvernian was appointed by Childebert in the twelfth year of his reign, the year of Christ 587, as Rector of the Province of Marseilles and the remaining cities which in those parts pertained to him. St. Bonitus, whom we reported was the Referendary of St. Sigebert, is said in his Life, number 4, under the latter's successor Childeric, to have been made Judge in the Prefecture of Marseilles of the first Province, which then belonged to the Austrasians: but how extensive that Prefecture was, we do not read. Gregory indeed reports that Avignon, or the city of Avennicus, was under Sigebert I and his son Childebert, and that under this King's grant Fronimius received the pontifical authority of the city of Vence. Let the reader consult chapter 30 of book 4, chapters 24 and 26 of book 6, and chapter 24 of book 9. However, we gather that these cities did not remain permanently with the Austrasians, since Bishop Aurelianus of Vence attended the Council of Chalon under Clovis II, and during his reign St. Agricolus became Bishop of Avignon, as is stated in his Life in Vincent Barralis' Chronicle of Lerins, to be given on September 2, the day of his feast. When, according to Fredegar chapter 53, Clothar II restored to his son Dagobert, after the completion of his marriage with Gamadrud, the consolidated kingdom of the Austrasians, he retained under his own authority parts of Provence and other territories on this side of the Loire, as we shall say below, which Dagobert granted to his son Sigebert: but what exactly these parts of Provence were is not added.

[28] Other cities for ^a time subject to the Austrasians, The Austrasians often obtained other cities through the death of brothers whose territories they occupied. So when Clodomer, King of Orleans, died, the territories of Bourges, Limoges, and Langres passed to the Austrasians, whose Bishops attended the Council of Clermont, then subject to Theodebert I. Again after the second division of the kingdoms, when Charibert, King of Paris, died, some cities fell to Sigebert I, which Gregory lists in book 9, chapter 20, when he was present at the pact of alliance between Guntram and Childebert made in the thirteenth year of the latter, the year of Christ 588. These peoples were the Turones, Pictones, Abrincatui, Meldenses, Silvanectenses, Consorani, Vico-Iulienses, and Lapurdenses. afterward returned to the Neustrians: These either reverted to the kingdom of Paris under Clovis II, or were at that time held by the subjugated Gascons. Nor was there among the magnates appointed over both kingdoms any controversy about the territories hitherto mentioned. Dispute arose only about the Duchy of Dentelin, transferred from the kingdom of Soissons to the Austrasians. as also the Duchy of Dentelin. How this happened Fredegar narrates in his Chronicle, chapter 20, and Aimoin from him in book 3, chapter 88. "Clothar," he says of the second of this name, "overwhelmed by ^a defeat received, willing or not, confirmed by ^a pact that Theodebert II, King of the Austrasians, should receive the entire Duchy of Dentelin from the Signe and the Oise (Aimoin says between the Seine and the Oise) to the Ocean sea. Only twelve districts between the Oise and the Signe and the coast of the Ocean remained to Clothar." That the region there was divided into many districts we read in the Precept of the Emperor Louis the Pious concerning the division of his kingdom among his sons, in which twenty-eight districts are assigned on the right bank of the Seine.

[29] This Duchy of Dentelin, therefore, because it was claimed to have been unjustly joined to the Austrasian kingdom, was returned to the Neustrians and ceded to Clovis II. Clovis II held the kingdoms of Paris, Soissons, and Orleans, And the sole exception of this Duchy confirms the rule for distinguishing the boundaries of both kingdoms, that of St. Sigebert and that of his brother Clovis II. To the latter, then, fell the kingdoms of Paris, Soissons, and Orleans of the three brothers from the death of Clovis I, and again after the death of Clothar I. From these, as we have said, the single kingdom of the Neustrians was at that time formed. Burgundy, joined to the kingdom of Orleans, was obtained from the death of Guntram by Childebert, King of the Austrasians, but when he died, one of his sons, Theoderic II, became King of the Burgundians, while the other, Theodebert II, held only the Austrasian kingdom. and Burgundy. Perhaps for this reason Coccius and Le Mire, mentioned above, believed Burgundy to have been subsequently joined to the Austrasians. In the city of Chalon of this kingdom, at the summons of Clovis II, ^a Synod was held, to which several Bishops from Burgundy subscribed and over which Candericus of Lyon and Landalenus of Vienne presided.

Section IV. The Equality of the Divided Kingdoms between St. Sigebert and His Brother Clovis. The Laws Prescribed for Their Subjects.

[30] Baronius, at the year 658, number 3, thought St. Sigebert alone had miraculously bridled his untamed desire for dominion, St. Sigebert had an equal kingdom: since, being himself the elder, he took for himself the smaller part of the paternal kingdom and ceded the greater to his younger brother Clovis. But Fredegar, ^a contemporary author, judged otherwise in the words quoted above, that the kingdom of Sigebert was equal in population and extent of territory to that of his brother Clovis. On the other hand, Valois in book 7 of his Frankish Affairs holds that Gregory of Tours in book 3, chapter 1, falsely reported that the paternal kingdom of Clovis I was divided equally and in good faith among the brothers; but that either those charged with making the division were corrupted by money from Theoderic, how it was divided equally among the sons of Clovis I. or the brothers, being very young and inexperienced in affairs, were deceived by some other trick and fraud. But given the perpetual silence of all writers about this deception, whence does Valois derive his suspicion against Theoderic? Why is he silent about Childebert, King of Paris, to whom alone far more territories fell than to both Clodomer, King of Orleans, and Clothar of Soissons together? In the Chronicle of Moissac it is said the kingdom was divided in equal order. Why should not Clovis the father have voluntarily given to his elder son, ^a military man, the provinces contiguous to the boundaries of the kingdom, to be defended against the incursions of many enemies, so that the younger brothers, inexperienced in affairs, might safely possess the interior of the kingdom under his protection? Thus Theoderic by the prerogative of his father's grant received the peoples of the Belgic and Germanic frontier regions, either exposed to Frisians, Saxons, and other enemies, or not yet accustomed to the Frankish yoke, especially beyond the Rhine. Moreover, he obtained the Aquitanian territories subjugated by him, continuously exposed to Gothic attacks. For Procopius in book 1 of the Gothic War reports that the Franks had previously been driven from the siege of Carcassonne. Jordanes adds that thirty thousand Franks were slain: and Cassiodorus in his Chronicle records that Theoderic, King of the Ostrogoths, won this victory over them, in the consulship of Celer and Venantius, the year of Christ 508, the second year before the death of Clovis. Finally, in the quadripartite division of the interior kingdom, he was allotted the Champagne of Belgica II, Belgica I, Germania I, and the neighboring territories described above.

[31] So much for the widely dispersed kingdom of St. Sigebert and its administration under various laws. The Salic Law Of these, the most ancient is considered the Salic, first enacted in that place and time when the Latin language was familiar to the Salian Franks: ^a trace of which still appears near the Sambre river and in neighboring Brabant, composed near the Demer, where the inhabitants, although of Germanic origin, speak in the Frankish language corrupted from Latin. Nor far from there the three villages of Selheim, Bodersheim, and Windershouen, in which the law is said to have been enacted under Pharamond when he was King there, still survive today, as we said above. It survives in its most genuine form from the most ancient manuscript codex of the monastery of Fulda, published by Basilius Johann Herold: in other editions it appears augmented and interpolated with various titles, divisions, and ^a new prologue. observed from the Loire to the Rhine Clovis, after receiving baptism, prescribed it, more holily amended, to his subjects from the Loire river (that is, excluding the Aquitanians, who were still subject to Alaric, King of the Goths, and the Lingones and remaining Burgundians living under their own King) to the Rhine, that is, excluding the Frisians, Saxons, and Ripuarians, then not yet subject to Clovis. by both Austrasians and Neustrians. That the Franks there, both Austrasian and Neustrian, or even divided into more kingdoms and otherwise distributed among the descendants of the Emperor Louis the Pious, observed this law is accurately proved by Chifflet in his Vindications of the Hispanics and his opponent Dominici in the Assertor Gallicus, both in chapter 5; the former arguing for the Austrasians and the heirs of the kingdom of Lothar, the latter defending the rights of the Neustrians and western Francia.

[32] At that time the Roman laws flourished, once published by Theodosius the Younger in the fifteenth year after the death of Honorius, the Roman Law of Theodosius, that is the year of Christ 438, according to the Pithoean Chronicle of Prosper, and in the twenty-second year of King Alaric published for his subjects in Aquitaine and Gallia Narbonensis, permitted to the Aquitanians, therefore called Romans. by his Chancellor Anianus at Aire-sur-l'Adour in Novempopulania. After Alaric was defeated the following year, these Roman laws of Theodosius were permitted by Clovis and the other Franks to the Aquitanians, who were therefore often surnamed "Romans." Agathias in book 1 of the affairs of Justinian reports that the Franks for the most part used Roman institutions and the same laws, which we do not doubt were used elsewhere when the Salic Law was deficient. St. Desiderius, Bishop of Cahors, November 15, studied the investigation of these Roman laws in his youth under Theodebert II; St. Praeiectus, Bishop of the Arverni, January 25, invokes the Roman law: and his successor after St. Avitus his brother, St. Bonitus, is said in his Life on January 15 to have been born at Clermont of ^a Roman senatorial family, and educated in the laws of Theodosius: for the same reason Ansbert, the son-in-law of Clothar I, Victorius of Aquitaine, St. Eligius, and others are called Romans: which same Romans, between the Loire and the city of Bourges, are said to have been crushed by Carloman and Pepin in the Chronicle of Fredegar after chapter 110.

[33] For the Germanic peoples, Theoderic I, laws given by Theoderic I to the Ripuarian Franks, Alemanni, and Bavarians, when he was at Chalons, ordered the law of the Ripuarian Franks, the Alemanni, and the Bavarians to be written down, for each nation that was under his authority, according to its own custom. And whatever Theoderic could not amend on account of the most ancient custom of the pagans, Childebert, son of Sigebert I, Clothar II, and Dagobert, Kings of the Austrasians, afterward completed: as the Prologue prefixed to the Bavarian law indicates. Charlemagne in ^a diploma given to the people of Aachen, preserved in Le Mire's Codex of Donations, chapter 11, mentions the laws given to the Ripuarian and Salic Franks, and of both Francias, Eastern and Western, just as we have assigned each its own law. Among the ancient laws there survives another with this title: "Law of the Angli and Werini, that is, of the Thuringians." The ancient Thuringians, or Deuringi, on the Baltic Sea are joined to the Angli and Varini perhaps also to the Thuringians. (where the town of Rostock lies on the Warnow river) by Tacitus in his work On the Customs of the Germans, chapter 40, where they are corruptly called Reudingi. The seat fixed by them on the Unstrut and Saale rivers (the Varini having afterward gone to the Batavians according to Procopius as we said above, and the Angli dwelling among the Saxons) was called Thuringia, for which either ^a law was prescribed by Theoderic I after he conquered it, or permitted with the errors of the pagans corrected. The daughters of this Theoderic were married to princes of the Varni, one of whom had previously been betrothed to ^a King of the Angli, as Procopius relates in book 4 of the Gothic affairs.

Section V. Metz, the Royal Seat of the Austrasians. The Birth and Veneration of St. Sigebert.

[34] The Mediomatrici, called by Ptolemy Mediomatrices, an ancient people of Gallia Belgica, inhabited ^a broad region between the Rhine and the Meuse rivers, Divodurum, city of the Mediomatrici, also irrigated by the Moselle flowing through it. The capital of this people was once Divodurum, or Diviodurum: when this name was afterward forgotten, it was called the "city of the Mediomatrici" in the ancient List of the Provinces and Cities of Gaul; by Ammianus Marcellinus in book 15 simply "Mediomatrici"; in the manner, that is, in which Tongres, Trier, Amiens, Reims, Paris, Langres, Sens, and other names, which once designated ^a people, now designate cities. But because the name of the Mediomatrici was too long, an abbreviated form was made from the first syllables, and it began to be called Metis, or Metz, as if "Medis," which others write Mettis and Metae. It still survives as an ample, opulent, and strong city, fortified by position and construction, past which the Seille river flows and joins the Moselle at its walls. When the kingdom of Clovis was divided, Theoderic established his royal seat there, the royal seat of the Austrasians, and it was maintained by his son Theodebert and grandson Theodebald: surviving them, Clothar I, brother of Theoderic and great-great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, obtained the entire Frankish monarchy.

[35] In the partition of the kingdom of Clothar I, Baronius in the year 565, section 6, and Petau in book 7 of his Rationarium Temporum, chapter 6, hold that Sigebert I had his royal seat at Reims, also of Sigebert I, perhaps misled by ^a corrupt edition of Gregory of Tours. But in him, in volume 1 of the Writers of the History of the Franks edited by du Chesne from five ancient manuscript codices, one reads in book 4, chapter 2: "To Sigebert lot gave the kingdom of Theoderic, with his seat at Metz": which Fredegar in his Abridged History, chapter 55, copied word for word, and Aimoin clearly explains in book 3, chapter 1: "To Sigebert," he says, "fell Mediomatricum, which is also Mettis, formerly subject to the rule of his uncle Theoderic." of Childebert, That Childebert, who succeeded his father Sigebert, had his royal seat at Strasbourg is the opinion of Coccius in his Dagobert, chapter 3, and Le Mire in his work On the Genealogies of the Princes of Belgium, chapter 1: or that he often resided there is the report of Wassenberg in book 2 of the Antiquities of Gallia Belgica under Hermenfredus, the twelfth Bishop of Verdun. But since Theodebert, after the death of his father Childebert, obtained Austrasia with his seat at Metz, according to Fredegar in chapter 16 of his Chronicle, and indeed (as Aimoin adds in book 3, chapter 84) where the former Kings had established it, we believe that Childebert, like the other Kings, dwelt at Metz. He could, however, have occasionally stayed at Strasbourg, ^a city subject to him.

[36] When Theodebert was killed, his brother Theoderic II, shortly after assuming the kingdom, died at Metz of dysentery, and left as his heir Sigebert II, whom Clothar II, son of Chilperic and grandfather of St. Sigebert, while he was not yet King, captured in war and killed, thus obtaining once again the entire Frankish monarchy; he afterward associated his son Dagobert in the kingship and placed him over the Austrasians. After the death of his father and his brother Charibert, Dagobert ruled alone, and then appointed St. Sigebert, who is reckoned the third of that name, as King of the Austrasians. Christopher Brower, in book 7 of the Annals of Trier, reports that he stayed at Aachen, and of St. Sigebert, on account of ^a diploma there granted to St. Modoald, Archbishop of Trier, which we shall show below to be greatly interpolated. Aegidius Gelenius in his Fasti of Cologne reports that he is said to have had his royal residence at Andernach in the district of the Cologne-Lotharingian territory. The same Gelenius in book 1 of his work On the Greatness of Cologne Agrippina, section 7, contends that Cologne Agrippina was the capital and metropolis of the Austrasian kingdom under all the Kings from Theoderic I to St. Sigebert: and, "Lest you doubt," he adds, "about the dignity and prerogative of the metropolis in Austrasia, note that Dagobert's son Sigebert and the administration of the kingdom were in the power and hand of St. Cunibert, Bishop of the Ubii." So he writes: but Fredegar in his Chronicle, chapter 55, prescribes these arrangements in such ^a way as to concede that Cunibert, Bishop of the city of Cologne, and Duke Adalgisil of the Palace were appointed to govern the kingdom; yet he asserts that King Sigebert had his seat in the city of Metz, to which Cunibert frequently traveled from Cologne and stayed for ^a long time. Furthermore, King Dagobert directed that ^a copy of his testament, subscribed by both his sons St. Sigebert and Clovis, should be deposited at Metz, at the royal city, that is, not at Cologne, not at Andernach, not at Aachen, or any other illustrious Austrasian place. On this testament, Aimoin should be read in book 4, chapter 30. The same royal residence of St. Sigebert in the city of Metz is stated in the Life of St. Hadelin written by Notger on February 3, there also buried: and below in his own Acts, in which he is also said to have been buried in the monastery of St. Martin on the Moselle, which he built.

[37] The same Acts assign the day of his death to the Kalends of February, on which date his name was inscribed in the Additions to Usuard by the Carthusians of Cologne and by Molanus. his name in the sacred Calendars, The former say: "At Metz, of Sigebert the Confessor." The latter: "In the city of Metz, of Sigebert the King and Confessor, who among other virtues built twenty monasteries." The same Molanus treats more at length of the same in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium under this title: "On St. Sigebert the Confessor, King of Austrasia"; then: "In the city of Metz, the deposition of St. Sigebert the King, Confessor of Christ," etc. The epitome of his Life that follows continuously calls him ^a Saint. Peter Galesinius in his Martyrology says: "At Metz, of St. Sigebert the King and Confessor, who was illustrious both for many other offices of admirable piety and especially for this, that he built twenty monasteries." The same is celebrated by Le Mire in the Belgian Fasti, Gelenius in the Fasti of Cologne, Canisius in the German Martyrology, Ghimus in the Birthdays of the Holy Canons, Ferrarius in the General Catalogue of Saints, and various writers in Additions to the Roman Martyrology in Belgian and French. Saussay in his Gallican Martyrology places him on the following day, or the 4th before the Nones of February, with this eulogy: "At Metz, of St. Sigebert, King of Austrasia and Confessor, who was ^a zealous promoter of the worship of God, built twenty monasteries, and bestowed lavish alms on churches and the poor: for which merits and other outstanding works of piety, he obtained the heavenly kingdom in place of the earthly. His body, deposited in the church of St. Martin which he himself founded, shone with miracles immediately from the time of burial, and after five hundred years was found, not without the admiration of all who beheld it, uncorrupted." So writes Saussay.

[38] We shall treat below of the monasteries built by him. After the said Metz monastery of St. Martin, the most prominent are the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy among the Ardennes, in whose churches altars are seen dedicated to St. Sigebert, altars dedicated to him: whom images, both painted and sculpted, represent crowned in the royal manner and adorned with ^a mantle interwoven with lilies, holding two churches in his hands: he is venerated there on these Kalends of February with ^a special rite and the ringing of the largest bells. translation of the body, The feast of the Translation of his body, which took place around the year of Christ 1063, is commemorated on the day before the Kalends of July by Molanus in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium, by the Carthusians of Cologne in the Additions to Usuard, and by Canisius in the German Martyrology: "At Metz, the Translation of St. Sigebert the Confessor, of whom the account was given on February 1." his name in the Litanies. The ancient cult is confirmed both by the history of the miracles formerly performed at his tomb and, as is related therein, by his name inserted in the sacred Litanies. Baronius at the year 658, number 3, proposes Sigebert for imitation as ^a most praiseworthy prince, most devoted to equity and most observant of religion; who, making good use of peace, when he was at rest from foreign and civil wars, devoted himself entirely to building monasteries and other works of piety. We shall treat separately, after his Life is given, of the church dedicated to him at Nancy and the sacred relics translated to it.

Section VI. The Written Life. A Judgment on Fredegar, the Deeds of the Frankish Kings, and Other Historians.

[39] Sigebert, monk of Gembloux, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 172, or the last, says that while stationed at Metz in his youth in the church of St. Vincent for the instruction of boys, he wrote the Life of King Sigebert, the Life of St. Sigebert written by Sigebert of Gembloux, founder of the church and Abbey of St. Martin outside the city of Metz. That he taught at Metz during the time of Abbot Maschelin, or Tietmar, of Gembloux, and long associated with Fulcuin, Abbot of the monastery of St. Vincent, and after ^a long time scarcely obtained permission to return to the monastery of Gembloux, is testified by his disciple in his book On the Deeds of the Abbots of Gembloux, preserved in Le Mire's Preface to the Chronicle of the same Sigebert. The said Abbot Maschelin, who in this Chronicle is called Mysac, was elected when his predecessor Olbert died in 1048, and survived until the year 1072, when Tietmar was substituted for him. We believe that the Life of St. Sigebert which Sigebert of Gembloux repeatedly states he wrote in his youth is the same which Andre du Chesne published, (published by Andre du Chesne) though in ^a mutilated form, from ^a manuscript codex of the library of Alexandre Petau, Senator of Paris, in volume 1 of the Writers of Frankish History; and which the manuscript codex of the library of the monastery of Stavelot preserves complete, both beginning with this exordium: "Since you inquire about the Life of Sigebert, King of the Franks, and what we have read about him, whether concerning the ordering of the kingdom in the histories or concerning the propagation of holy religion in the deeds of the Saints, I shall set forth what has been collected from these sources in brief. And since we know there were three Kings of the Franks of this name, I shall trace back the antiquity of his lineage more deeply, so that it may become clearer to you

who was the first King Sigebert, who the second, and who this one about whom we now treat, the third, and so that it may become plain to all whence the Frankish nation derived its name and origin, and whence and when it invaded the Gauls, which it has held for now nearly six hundred years, and still holding them, rules powerfully and prosperously." So it reads there. Now these six hundred years, if counted from the conqueror of the Gauls, Clovis I, whose reign we proved above began in the year 480, to the appointment of Tietmar of Gembloux in the year 1072, will appear "nearly" complete, as stated.

[40] The same Life of St. Sigebert, with the superfluous matter about the origin of the Franks afterward refined and expanded, and the first and second King Sigebert removed, was shaped into the perfection in which we give it below, either by another author, perhaps the author of the second part on the miracles, of which we shall soon speak, or by the same Sigebert afterward, who, having brought his Chronicle down to the year 1112, is reported by his disciple in the aforesaid book On the Deeds of the Abbots of Gembloux to have died on the 3rd before the Nones of October of the same year, worn out by advanced old age, while Abbot Liethard was still alive, who died on the 2nd before the Nones of February of the following year 1113, as Anselm of Gembloux teaches in his Addition to the Chronicle of Sigebert. Moreover, the proper deeds of St. Sigebert and his father Dagobert are read transferred from the earlier Life into the second in the same verbal context; with some additions interposed from other sources, which the author judged worthy of being inserted among the earlier material. But if Sigebert had polished and embellished ^a work previously published by another, he certainly would not have been silent about this when enumerating his own works. For, just as he there confesses that he merely improved the Lives of SS. Machutus and Theodard in ^a more urbane style, so he would have indicated that he expanded the Life of King Sigebert composed by another: which he now professes only to have written. Moreover, the same Sigebert, both in the earlier Life and in the Proem of his Chronicle, traces the fabulous origin of the Franks through the Trojans, the Antenoridae, and the Sicambri, in the same words, and assigns as their Kings Priam, Marcomir, Pharamond, and Clodio, concerning whom, as well as the first and second Sigebert and the other Merovingian Kings, we discuss more reliable matters.

[41] We therefore give ^a single Life already published before under the name of Sigebert of Gembloux by Jacob Mosander in the appendix to Surius, given here or volume 7 of the Approved Histories of the Saints, and afterward inserted in due order at the Kalends of February in the third Surian edition. Molanus had the same from ^a manuscript codex copied from the library of the monastery of Malmedy; which Chapeauville also testifies survives there, in volume 1 of the Deeds of the Bishops of Tongres and Maastricht, annotation 3 to chapter 44 of Abbot Hariger. Molanus in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium on this February 1 says: "Sigebert of Gembloux wrote ^a booklet on the life and genealogy of this St. Sigebert the King, with ^a history of miracles, who was the third of that name. Then he wrote another booklet on the miracles which in his time occurred at Metz at the tomb of the glorious Confessor." So writes Molanus, after whom the same history of miracles is attributed to Sigebert by Baronius at the year 657, number 46, Le Mire in the Belgian Fasti, Chapeauville on chapter 50 of Hariger, and many others. In the editions of Surius these miracles are said to have been written by the same Sigebert but contracted into an abridgment, which we give in their original style, complete, from the manuscript codex of the library of the monastery of Stavelot, copied by Dom Benedict del Rive, ^a priest of that monastery, and transmitted to us by the Very Reverend Dom Jacques Lansiual, Prior of the same monastery.

[42] We have distributed these into two parts, each of which, composed by ^a different author, is concluded with its own epilogue. The occasion for writing the first part was given partly by the same Sigebert, when the body of St. Sigebert, found incorrupt after five centuries, was translated in the year 1063 by ^a heavenly admonition and shone with new miracles, which are believed to have been written not long afterward by Sigebert of Gembloux together with the Acts of the holy King. Certainly the author in his prologue states that he writes nothing foreign or untested, but those things which are either proved to have occurred in recent times, or which he learned from trustworthy persons who at that time also testified that they had been present at these marvels. Some verses are interspersed with poetic grace, which the same Sigebert testifies he also did in the Life of Bishop Theoderic, founder of the church and abbey of St. Vincent, and he did not omit citing verses of Virgil about Antenor in the earlier Life of St. Sigebert: partly written afterward. from which style the author of the second part of the miracles, quite different, inserts no poetic verses at all, and, being nearly ^a full century younger than the Gembloux author, after the incorrupt body of St. Sigebert was again found around the year 1170 or even later, asserts that he saw these and many other miracles which occurred in his times. We have suggested above that the Life of St. Sigebert which we give may have been more polished and refined by this same author. The same Life, abridged in their own style, was published by Zacharias Lippeloos and Francis Haraeus, and translated into French by Dublet and others, of whom Lippeloos omitted the year of death here observed, Haraeus corrected it to his own calculation, and Dublet, ^a more faithful translator, transcribed it untouched.

[43] Among the histories and other deeds of the Saints, from which the Gembloux author declares in his preface that he compiled and set forth the Life of St. Sigebert, Fredegar, ^a contemporary of St. Sigebert, wrote his Chronicle, the Chronicle of Fredegar the Scholar stands out, ^a contemporary author who affirms in his prologue that he wrote the acts of the Kings and the wars they waged, which he came to know by reading, hearing, and even seeing. In this Chronicle are described the birth of St. Sigebert, the kingdom of the Austrasians conferred upon him, the pact between the Austrasians and Neustrians concerning the division of the kingdom between the brothers, the treasure received from the death of his father Dagobert, and the war waged with the Thuringians in his early youth. up to chapter 90, These are the more accurate because Fredegar lived at that time, his Chronicle not being extended beyond chapter 90: the rest that is subsequently attached was written by more than one author and not at the same time. To this continuation of Fredegar's Chronicle by command of Count Childebrand under King Pepin, (after ^a gap poorly filled) we are moved by many considerations. First, what belongs to Fredegar alone is exhibited only in the most ancient codex of Jacques Sirmond of the Society of Jesus, written in uncial letters, as Andre du Chesne states in his preface to this Chronicle. Second, in the same Chronicle printed in the Wichelian Corpus of Frankish history in 1613, only those chapter headings are listed after the preface which we believe were written by Fredegar alone. Third, Aimoin, although he had resolved in his preface to carry his history of the Franks down to the time when Pepin, father of Charlemagne, began to reign, nevertheless ends it with the Chronicle of Fredegar as limited by us, perhaps judging that he lacked more reliable historians to follow.

[44] Fourth, the style and manner of writing of Fredegar very much distinguishes and separates him from the Continuators; continued in ^a different style, he, as he states in the prologue, following Gregory of Tours, arranges events by the years of the Kings; they, omitting those years, connect very disparate things with such phrases as "therefore," "also," "in these days," "at the same time," etc. He interposes events performed by the Emperors, Lombards, Spaniards, and others far from Gaul; they narrate only what was accomplished by the Kings of the Franks. Finally, where Fredegar ends at the said chapter 90, there is ^a gap in the deeds of St. Sigebert, his brother Clovis II, and the latter's sons Clothar III and Childeric, (after ^a gap miserably filled) without any mention of the rest of the life and death of St. Sigebert, his son Dagobert tonsured as ^a cleric, and Childebert intruded and expelled: then the reigns of others are briefly touched upon, not without many grave errors, which we correct in their proper places below. This gap was filled from the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks and other less solid histories, by the command of Childebrand and Nibelung. to continue the Chronicle written by the command of Count Childebrand under King Pepin, which, beginning from chapter 95 with the death of Childeric and the reign of Theoderic, accurately sets forth the history of the succeeding Kings: and then was extended by the authority of Nibelung, son of the said Childebrand, to the year of Christ 768.

[45] The author of the Deeds of the Frankish Kings, Next after Fredegar the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, first published by Marquard Freher, then inserted by Andre du Chesne in volume 1 of the Writers of Frankish History, would be most important, if they merited the credit commonly given them. The Continuator of Aimoin inserts these Deeds of the Kings, transcribed from chapter 43, in book 4. Baronius at the year 692, section 52, thinks this author should be preferred above others, since he is known to have written the events of his own time: for when he treats of Theoderic, son of Dagobert II, being raised to the kingship, he says of him in chapter 52: "Who now continues in the kingdom in his sixth year," thereby demonstrating the year in which he wrote. So writes Baronius. That sixth year of Theoderic II corresponds to the year of Christ 725, from which

the same history of Aimoin was continued in an unbroken method down to the year of Christ 1165, as though the same author had lived for nearly five centuries. We believe the same was done earlier with these Deeds of the Frankish Kings: which anyone will judge to have been collected with great carelessness from various sources, who compares them with other contemporary writers or more attentively rereads the few passages collated by us below. Their compiler, whatever period he lived in, must be considered more ancient than Aimoin and Sigebert. It has been possible so far to see only one manuscript codex, but ^a very ancient one, easily five hundred years old, which belonged to Melchior Goldast, ^a man learned among the Lutherans in Germany. In this same manuscript codex there survives the Chronicle of Fredegar, or rather only the 90 chapters which we have called the genuine product of Fredegar himself, with the solemn clause "Explicit" added at the end: which same word is also read after the bare titles indicated at the beginning, ^a sure sign that nothing more written by that author is required.

[46] There survives in volume 1 of the History of the Franks by an anonymous monk of St. Denis the Deeds of Lord Dagobert, King of the Franks, carried down to the death of his son Clovis; the monk of St. Denis on the Deeds of Dagobert, du Chesne calls the author ^a contemporary, whom Pierre de Marca in book 1 of the History of Bearn, chapter 26, section 1, thinks wrote under Clovis II. But many things are found in these Deeds that indicate this author was several centuries younger. Let these few words from chapter 43 suffice: "Now," he says, "turning my pen to describe the death of Dagobert himself, I shall briefly narrate what he did while placed in that infirmity, and one miracle that I found in ^a certain most ancient document, which, as was reported, Blessed Audoen had written, and which befell the said King after his death."

[47] Aimoin in book 4, chapter 17, cites these Deeds of Dagobert as if written by several persons. "The deeds of this Dagobert," he says, "although they are found set forth separately by several writers, nevertheless, lest his deeds remain unknown to those who do not possess the aforesaid writing, we have thought fit to summarize them." Hence one may conjecture that the author was more ancient than Aimoin. But the chief authority of his history is borrowed from Fredegar, from whom he copies most of it. Less secure trust is everywhere to be placed in the rest of his writings. Aimoin himself, who follows these authors, flourished around the year of Christ 1000, Aimoin of Fleury. and as ^a monk of Fleury inscribed his history to St. Abbo his Abbot, and concludes it with the translation of the relics of St. Benedict from Monte Cassino to his own monastery of Fleury.

Section VII. The Years of the Frankish Kings Reckoned from the Age of St. Martin. The Year of Death of Theodosius the Great and of St. Ambrose.

[48] Baronius warns at the year 351, number 22, that great harm to Frankish affairs would result if ^a chronographic error should occur in the age of St. Martin, from whose death dates were formerly reckoned. So reckoned St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours, one of the successors of St. Martin, who most accurately described the dates of this holy Bishop and of the other Bishops of Tours. Following Gregory, Fredegar, Aimoin, and other ancient chronologists arranged the dates of the Kings from the death of St. Martin: just as below in the Acts of St. Sigebert, number 17, Sigebert of Gembloux marks his death from the passing of St. Martin, as with ^a more reliable marker. But now, since Gregory of Tours asserts that St. Martin departed to Christ in the eighty-first year of his age and the twenty-sixth of his episcopate, these years must first be investigated. Now Gregory himself writes in book 1 of his History, chapter 34, that St. Martin was born at Sabaria, ^a city of Pannonia, when peace was restored to the churches after the death of Diocletian, in the eleventh year of the reign of Constantine. St. Martin born in 316, That year is reckoned as 316 of the common era, in which, under the consuls Sabinus and Rufinus, Diocletian died on the 3rd before the Nones of December, as Hydatius reports in his Consular Fasti. Sulpicius Severus, the disciple of St. Martin, confirms this year in Dialogue 2, chapters 7 and 8, and in his Life, chapter 23, where St. Martin at the age of seventy met the Emperor Maximus in the presence of the Consul Euodius, who held that office in the year 386, between which and 316, exactly seventy years are contained. St. Martin had as predecessors in the episcopate SS. Gatianus, or Gratianus, and Lidorius, after SS. Gratianus and Lidorius. according to Gregory in book 10, chapter 31, of whom the former, sent from Rome in the first year of the Emperor Decius, the year of Christ 250, and having resided fifty years in the city of Tours, died in peace on December 18, in the year 300, and the episcopate was vacant for thirty-seven years, with which is completed the year 337, in which, when Constantine the Great died on the very day of Pentecost, his three sons assumed the Empire. he is ordained Bishop of Tours in 371. In the first year of Constans, Lidorius was ordained and sat twenty-three years, from the year 338 to the year 371, in which, as Gregory there asserts, in the eighth year of the reign of Valentinian, St. Martin was ordained Bishop, and indeed on the 4th before the Nones of July: which day the same Gregory assigns to this ordination in book 2, chapter 14.

[49] With these established, we pass to the death of St. Martin, whose year the same Gregory renders notable with several markers, and in book 1 of his History, chapter 45, he indicates the following: "In the second year of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius," he says, "St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, full of virtues and sanctity, bestowing many benefits on the sick, in the eighty-first year of his age and the twenty-sixth of his episcopate, departing from this world at the village of Candes in his diocese, happily migrated to Christ. He passed away in the middle of the night, which was held to be Sunday, in the consulship of Atticus and Caesarius." So writes Gregory, all of which fits the year 397, he dies in 397, in the consulship of Atticus and Caesarius. for first, the consuls in that year were Atticus and Caesarius, cited again by Gregory in book 1 of the Miracles of St. Martin, chapter 3: and we conclude all the more certainly that these were transcribed from the ancient records of the Church of Tours, because in his entire history and other books he mentions no other consuls, and cited these, contrary to his custom, twice. Next, the years of age and of the episcopate administered agree, which however Gregory, in his usual manner, as will appear below, fitted to Julian years and begins from the next following January. of age 81, Therefore St. Martin dies in the eighty-first year of his age, as the same Gregory confirms in book 1 of the Miracles, chapter 3. This, counted from the year 316 completed or the beginning of the next year 317, extends to the year 397. of episcopate 26, He also dies in the twenty-sixth year of his episcopate, which in the same manner extends from the year 371 completed or the following year 372 begun to the year 397. Gregory observes these things where he follows and computes the Chronological year, as he reports at the end of the History: but he says he employs another mode of reckoning in his treatise on the Bishops of Tours appended at the end of the History, where besides some days, of which we shall soon treat, he assigns twenty-six years and four months of his episcopate. From these the years from 371 to 397 are gathered, and the months from the 4th before the Nones of July to the 4th before the Nones of November.

[50] Another marker indicated above is that he is said to have departed in the second year of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius. But this marker is not without difficulty, Theodosius the Great is made Emperor on January 19, 379, to be explained from the years of the reign of Theodosius the Great, their father. Hydatius says in his Consular Fasti about his accession: "In the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, Theodosius was elevated as Augustus by the Augustus Gratian on the 14th day before the Kalends of February, in the city of Sirmium." That year is 379 of the common era. Rufinus, who was then flourishing, concludes his Ecclesiastical History with the death of Theodosius thus: "Theodosius himself, having most prosperously governed the Roman Empire for seventeen years, departed to ^a better life, did he rule 17 years? to receive the rewards of his merits together with the most pious Princes." Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicle expressed the same seventeen years of his reign in these words: "Theodosius the Great died at Milan. He reigned seventeen years. His body was brought to Constantinople and buried in the same year." Orosius in book 7, chapters 34 and 36, counted these seventeen years of reign from the year of the City 1132 to the year 1149: "when Arcadius Augustus, whose son Theodosius," he says, "now rules the East, and his brother Honorius, on whom the Republic now rests, in the 42nd place began to hold the Empire in common, with only their seats divided: and Arcadius lived twelve years after the death of his father, and dying, handed over the supreme power of the Empire to his very young son." These seventeen years of reign, begun on the 19th of January in the year 379 of the common era, must necessarily be extended to the end of the year 395 or the beginning of the next. Following these authors, Gregory of Tours sets the year 396 as the first year of the reign of the sons Arcadius and Honorius, in the second year of whom, as we have already noted, the death of St. Martin is reported by him in the consulship of Atticus and Caesarius. Socrates reports quite different things about the years of the reign of Theodosius the Great and of his son Arcadius, and indeed in book 5, chapter 25, he has this: he dies at Milan in 395. "Theodosius departed this life in the consulship of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seventeenth of January. It was the first year of the two hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad. The Emperor Theodosius lived sixty years; he reigned sixteen years, but not yet complete, short by two days," whereas in chapter 2 of the same book 5 he asserts that on January 19 Theodosius was declared Emperor at Sirmium by Gratian in the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, just as the same things were said above from the Fasti of Hydatius.

[51] Our Johannes Grothaus, most skilled in ancient history and chronology, noted that the same consuls assigned to the beginning and end of the reign should be retained, and that nevertheless, in agreement with the ancient authors indicated above -- namely Rufinus, Marcellinus, Orosius, and others -- seventeen years should be assigned to the reign of Theodosius, should ^a year be interposed? with ^a year inserted before the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, hitherto neglected by most authors to the great detriment of historical truth: which year, however, the Proconsular Acts of Africa, cited by St. Augustine in book 3 against Cresconius, chapter 56, clearly indicate in these words: "After the consulship of the Lords Arcadius III and Honorius again, Augusti, on the sixth before the Nones of March, at Carthage, in the office of the Praetorium, Ticianus said," etc. Which Augustine himself confirms in his own words in book 4 against Cresconius, chapter 39, thus: "The date of the Council of Bagae is the consulship of the Augusti Arcadius III and Honorius again, the eighth before the Kalends of May, and the date of the adjournment is from then to the eighth before the Kalends of January. But this petition of Ticianus was made AFTER that consulship, on the sixth before the Nones of March." The Legates of the Council of Bagae, celebrated the previous year, were petitioning that the Maximianists be expelled from their churches. In this year, because the Empire was disturbed by the war of Eugenius and the absent Emperor Theodosius could not arrange civil offices, the same consuls continued, and it was written in the public Acts "after the consulship of Arcadius III and Honorius II." In the same way, the fifteenth year of the reign of Constantius is inscribed "after the consulship of Sergius and Nigrianus," and the ninth year of the reign of Gratian "after the consulship of Gratian Augustus III and Equitius." This was done more frequently in later times and for several consecutive years. Our Grothaus endeavors to prove this year after the consulship of Arcadius III and Honorius II with many arguments, were the earlier 400 years accelerated? and establishes it as the year 394, from which he orders the Era of Christ differently for nearly four centuries before, and does not fix the Epoch of the years of Christ which we observe to our own times at the consulship of C. Caesar and L. Aemilius Paullus, as we have hitherto done with Decker, Petau, and Bucherius, but begins from other later consuls: which it suffices to have noted in this place, so that it may not seem surprising if ^a great discrepancy appears among authors in the years in which Theodosius the Great and his sons reigned.

[52] After sixteen or rather seventeen years of reign, Theodosius died on the 17th of January in the consulship of Olybrius and Probinus, the year 395 (for from then to these times our Grothaus agrees with us that the years flow correctly). Arcadius Augustus confirms this, when on the 3rd before the Ides of March, in the consulship of Olybrius and Paulinus, in the Theodosian Code, to Rufinus the Praetorian Prefect, Law 25 on Heretics, he wrote the following rescript: "Renewing also by our own decree all the penalties and all the punishments which were established against the obstinate spirits of the heretics by the enactments of our father of divine memory, we decree..." By these words it is established that his father Theodosius had already died by that time. the body of Theodosius brought to Constantinople That the body remained at Milan for forty days from his death, and was thence conveyed through many intervening regions and across seas to Constantinople, is indicated by St. Ambrose in his oration on Theodosius. That the body was deposited with an honorific funeral on the 8th of November at Constantinople by his son Arcadius is reported by Socrates in book 6, chapter 1, but he indicates his own consulship, as if the deposition had occurred in the year 396, not in the preceding year, as Marcellinus and others report.

[53] From the years and death of Theodosius the Great, we must pass to the year of death of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, before St. Ambrose died in 398. because the Lord deigned to show St. Ambrose, while he was celebrating the Lord's Day at Milan, that St. Martin had departed from the body, as Gregory of Tours relates in book 1 of the Miracles, chapter 5, and following him the author of the Life of St. Severus, Bishop of Ravenna, above page 87, number 22. Now St. Ambrose, according to Paulinus the Priest in his Life, which he wrote at the urging of St. Augustine, survived the death of Theodosius by about three years. Marcellinus, the best interpreter of Paulinus, reports in his Chronicle that in the eleventh Indiction, in the consulship of Honorius IV and Eutychianus, after Anastasius had been ordained Bishop of the Roman Church before the 14th of March, Ambrose migrated to Christ. That year is 398 of Christ, which the previously mentioned Gregory confirms. The rest will be more fully established in its proper place.

[54] Finally, he passed away in the middle of the night St. Martin dies on ^a Sunday, which was held to be Sunday, or, as is read in book 1 of the Miracles, chapter 3, on Sunday, at that hour of the night when the morning hymns had been completed. Later writers have joined this day with the translation of the body and the burial, which Gregory in book 2 of the History, chapter 14, better distinguished. Having judged ^a church to be built in honor of St. Martin, he adds: "The feast of this basilica excels with ^a threefold distinction, that is, the dedication of the church, the translation of the body of the Saint, and the ordination of his episcopate. The ordination you should observe on the 4th before the Nones of July, and know that his deposition is the 3rd before the Ides of November." So writes Gregory, assigning to the same feast the day of the translation and deposition, on which the body was translated from the village of Candes and deposited in the tomb prepared for it at Tours.

[55] The Sunday immediately preceding November 11, on which St. Martin departed to Christ, in the year 397 fell on November 8. A dispute soon arose between the people of Poitiers and of Tours, and the next day, November 9, the day after Sunday, was consumed by it. While the Poitevins slept the following night, November 8. the Tourangeaux removed the body and on November 10 carried it away through the Vienne and the Loire to their city, and on November 11, with about two thousand monks converging (as is read in the letter of Severus to Bessula), they deposited it with solemn ceremony. he is buried and venerated on November 11. This day, on account of the happy outcome of the dispute and as ^a quasi-victory won over the Poitevins, was renewed annually with publicly built bonfires and was held as the day of death. With these established, beyond the twenty-six years and four months reported, Martin governed the episcopate for seven days, from the 4th before the Nones of November to the 6th before the Ides, which Malebrancq in volume 1 of his work On the Morini, Chronological Treatise 2, chapter 2, shows should be read by others as seven days. Others read ten or seventeen, most read twenty-seven. Hence Malebrancq pushes back the death to November 29, then ^a Sunday. But the body would have been translated to the burial place at Tours the following year, which in no way agrees with the said histories.

[56] Setting aside this authority of Gregory, the word of Severus, Dialogue 3, chapter 15, is taken up. There St. Martin, rebuked by an Angel, attended no more synods, although he lived sixteen more years. after the Synod of Trier he lived not 16 years That synod was held at Trier under the consul Euodius, the year 386, when Martin was seventy years old; and if he lived sixteen years afterward, he extended his life to the year 402, as Baronius holds, but then November 11 fell on ^a Tuesday, and the years of age and episcopate are contradicted.

[57] How little Severus is to be trusted, Baronius teaches at the year 351, number 18, corrupted by the fault of copyists, asserting that Severus is shamefully self-contradictory. That the Life of St. Martin was corrupted by the fault of copyists, that things utterly unworthy are present in it, that Severus himself does not seem to have committed such contradictions to writing, and that he would have blundered so disgracefully especially in those matters about which he could easily have been convicted of falsehood by many persons then living. Then in numbers 15 and 20 he notes errors that crept into Severus regarding the years of St. Martin: that he is written to have been compelled to serve in the military at the age of fifteen, whereas he was then in his seventeenth year. And in number 22 he says absurd and truly monstrous errors crept into Severus

regarding the numbers of years, since Martin is said to have served in the military two years before baptism and two years after baptism, whereas it is clear he served twenty years before baptism and completed four after. instead of 11. Why should he not likewise add that the incompetent copyist fabricated sixteen years of life from the meeting with Maximus, when he had found only eleven? This was the genuine reading of Severus when Gregory of Tours was writing his History, in which, book 10, chapter 31, he says he read the three books written by Sulpicius Severus about the Life of Martin, and there, as if strengthened by this authority, reports that Martin died in the eighty-first year of age and sat in the episcopate twenty-six years, four months, etc.; and elsewhere confirms the last year, which Severus did not reach, with the most ample markers of the second year of the reign of Honorius and Arcadius, the consulship of Atticus and Caesarius, and the revelation made to St. Ambrose while still living. Indeed, for both Severus and Gregory, Martin was seventy at exactly the same time, ^a word less subject to the error of correctors.

[58] The contradictions that Baronius brings forth regarding the age of St. Martin may be read at the year 375, numbers 2 and 3, and at the year 402, number 49: where in number 50 he further holds that Martin lived to that year, because the ancient Frankish writers, who were accustomed to count years from the death of St. Martin, can be shown to support this opinion: this Epoch is established in the Frankish Kings up to 714. whom we therefore carefully trace through nearly four centuries from the years of St. Martin to the times of Charles Martel, until in the year 714 we shall at last agree with Baronius. Scaliger contends in book 6 of his Emendation of Times that Martin died in the year 395. But Petau in book 11 of the Doctrine of Times, chapter 25, Bucherius on the Chronology of the Merovingian Kings of the Franks, Decker in volume 1 of his Theological Dissertations on the Nativity of Christ, book 3, last disputation, question 5, and others, assign the year 400 to his death: whose arguments are refuted by what has been said, and will be more fully refuted in their proper place.

Section VIII. The Chronology Established in the Successors of St. Martin and the Kings of the Franks Down to the Death of Clothar I, Great-Great-Grandfather of St. Sigebert.

[59] The successors of St. Martin, from whose times the established chronology is confirmed, St. Martin is succeeded by SS. Brictius are reported by Gregory in book 10, chapter 31.

Of these, St. Brictius was ordained in the second year of Arcadius and Honorius, when they reigned together. And all the years of his episcopate were forty-seven, having died in the year 444, whose feast Usuard, Bede, and others assign to November 13. Eustochius, After him, St. Eustochius sat seventeen years until the year 461, and is venerated on September 19. In that same year St. Perpetuus became Bishop and attended and subscribed to the First Council of Tours, under the consul Severinus, ^a most distinguished man, on the 14th day before the Kalends Perpetuus, of December. Gregory in book 1 of the Miracles of St. Martin, chapter 6, asserts that Blessed Perpetuus obtained the chair of the see of Tours in the sixty-fourth year after the passing of the glorious Lord Martin. This period terminates from the year 397 to 461, an excellent confirmation of our thesis. St. Perpetuus sat thirty years, at least to the year 490, and is venerated on April 8. He was succeeded by St. Volusianus, Volusianus, who about the seventh year of his episcopate, the year of Christ 496, was carried off by the Goths toward Spain, because he seemed to favor Clovis, as we stated on his feast day, January 18. Verus, ordained in his place, sat eleven years and eight days, Verus, Licinius. until the year 507, when Licinius succeeded.

[60] Leo the Deacon, sent by this Verus, subscribed to the Council of Agde, on the 3rd before the Ides of September, under the consul Messala, ^a most distinguished man, in the twenty-second year of the reign of Alaric, the Goths defeated in 507 the year of Christ 506. In the following year 507, while Licinius was Bishop of Tours, Alaric, according to Isidore in the Chronicle of the Goths, in the twenty-third year of his reign, the seventeenth of the Emperor Anastasius, of the Spanish Era 545, provoked by the Franks under King Clovis, was killed in battle in the region of the city of Poitiers. That the year inclined into late summer is implied in Gregory, book 2, chapter 37, since both the Vienne river had swollen from floods, and Clovis spent the winter at Bordeaux. Thence in the following year 508, Clovis Consul and Augustus, 508 next after the Gothic victory, Clovis returned to Tours, received the codicils of the consulship from the Emperor Anastasius, and from that day on which he accordingly triumphed there, he was called Consul and Augustus. So writes Gregory in chapter 38. The King himself, as Sigebert adds in his Chronicle (who writes that Alaric was killed in 509), sent to Rome ^a golden crown with gems for St. Peter, he sends ^a crown to Rome, which is commonly called "Regnum." Hincmar also, in the Life of St. Remigius, joins together the Gothic victory, the reception of the codicils of the consulship, and the sending of this crown to Rome: but both err in thinking that Hormisdas was then Pope of the Roman Church, whom Sigebert writes was created ^a full year before the Gothic victory, by an error then long established, also copied by Baldric in book 1 of the Chronicle of Cambrai, chapter 6. under Pope Symmachus, The reigning Supreme Pontiff was St. Symmachus, who died in the year 514, on the 14th before the Kalends of August, and was succeeded by Hormisdas, created on the 7th before the Kalends of August, formerly ^a Deacon of the Roman Church; not Hormisdas. who read to the Fathers at the Fourth Roman Synod, commonly called the "Palmaris," in the year 502, as Notary of the sacred archive of the Roman Church, whose name was substituted in place of that of Symmachus on account of letters of the latter subscribed by him, by the fault of copyists. Relying principally on this foundation, Baronius asserts at the year 514, number 21, and at the year 402, number 50, that he pushed back the death of Clovis to the pontificate of Hormisdas, and for this reason he fixes the death of St. Martin at that same year: and consequently defers the chronology of the sons and other successors of Clovis by three or four years, even beyond the very times of St. Sigebert, as will be clear from what follows.

[61] "Now Clovis, having departed" (these are the words of Gregory in the same chapter 38) "from Tours, came to Paris, having killed various Kings, and there established the seat of his kingdom." Thence, after King Sigebert the Lame and his son Cloderic had been killed by his treachery, he went to Cologne and received the kingdom of the Ripuarian Franks. Having then killed Chararic, Ragnachar, and other Kings, he established his kingdom throughout all the Gauls. And when these things had been accomplished, Gregory adds in chapter 43 that Clovis died at Paris. But in what year must be carefully investigated, since the passage is entangled with errors. First, from the passing of St. Martin to the passing of Clovis, one hundred and twelve years are reckoned. he dies in the 112th year after the death of St. Martin, These years are reported again in book 4, chapter 46, and are described by Fredegar in the Abridged History of the Franks, chapters 29 and 73, and by Aimoin in book 1 of the History of the Franks, chapter 25, in the Chronicle of Moissac, and many others. But we have demonstrated above that St. Martin died in the year 397, in the month of November: from which, year of Christ 509, November 27 if the one hundred and twelve years required in the said passages are interposed, the year 509 will be found, that same month of November completing these 112 years: and that Clovis departed this life on November 27 of that month is implied by the anniversary prayers for him customarily recited until now in the church of St. Genevieve, where he was buried. Second, according to the same Gregory in book 2, chapter 43, Fredegar in chapter 29, and Aimoin in book 1, chapter 25, of reign 30, all the days of the reign of Clovis were thirty years: from the end of the year of Christ 479, around which, having deduced the dates of the preceding Kings, we have established the beginning of his reign, to be ended with this year 509: although in the silence of the ancients an accurate reckoning of months cannot be made. Third, that the year of Christ 510 should be reckoned as the first year of the reign of the sons of Clovis, we shall prove below from their epoch.

[62] But there are also required in the same Gregory, in the said chapter 43 of book 2, the fifth year after the battle of Vouille and the eleventh year of the episcopate of Licinius. The former indicates the year of Christ 512, the latter 517. The same Licinius is said in book 2, chapter 39, to have been ordained the eighth Bishop after St. Martin when Eustochius, Bishop of Tours, passed away, whereas he was the seventh Bishop from St. Martin, succeeding not St. Eustochius, who had long since died, but Verus. All are enumerated in this order by Gregory at the end of book 10: Martin, Brictius, in what year of the episcopate of Licinius, Eustochius, Perpetuus, Volusianus, Verus, and Licinius. From their dates, set forth above, we show that Verus subscribed through his Deacon to the Council of Agde in 506. But since the same Gregory adds that in the time of Licinius the Gothic war took place, and that King Clovis returned victorious to Tours, we gather that he was ordained

around the beginning of the year 507, so that the slaying of the Goths occurred in the first year of his episcopate and the death of Clovis in the third, not the eleventh. in what year after the defeat of Alaric Thus also the first year from the Gothic victory, by Gregory's Chronological reckoning, corresponds to the year of Christ 508, the second to 509, the fifth to 512, and the seventh to 514, chosen by Baronius.

[63] Another difficulty is raised by the First Council of Orleans, held under Clovis, which Baronius and Binius assign to the year 506, notable for the Gothic victory. and in what year after the First Council of Orleans Sigebert waits for the second year from that victory, which by our reckoning is 509: which for us is the thirtieth and last year of the reign of Clovis, the same thirtieth year that Sirmond assigns to this Council, but he requires the year of Christ 511, because he found it noted as held under the consul Felix. not held under the consul Felix. Similarly, to the Second Council of Orleans is ascribed the tenth year of the Emperor Justinian, which Sirmond rejects as intruded by those who, following the Chronicle of Sigebert, believed Clovis survived until the year 514: which it is more certain was done by the same persons with the consulship of Felix, though no manuscript codices are named, as Sirmond most carefully observes elsewhere. This consulship of Felix is absent from all other codices of the Councils that we have so far had the opportunity to see. We certainly saw those collected by Jacques Merlin and printed at Paris in 1524. Those published at Cologne by Pierre Crabbe of the Order of Friars Minor in 1538 and again in ^a more complete edition in 1551, and once more by the industry of Laurence Surius in 1567. Others published at Venice in 1585 under the auspices of Sixtus V. Finally those collected by Severinus Binius and first printed in 1606, then revised and augmented with various readings on this Synod from Fronto du Duc and with ^a new order of the Bishops who subscribed, reprinted at Cologne in 1618 and Paris in 1636. Nor is this surprising. For Clovis had received the honor of the perpetual consulship from the Emperor Anastasius. We show below that it was not customary to append to the statutes, privileges, and diplomas of the Franks the years of Emperors, Roman Consuls, or Indictions. So also at that time Procopius observes in book 3 of the Gothic War that the Franks stamped gold coins from Gallic mines not with the image of the Roman Emperor, as other nations did following the Persians, but with their own; and from him Petau in part 1 of the Rationarium Temporum, book 7, chapter 6, and Sirmond, citing his Greek words, in his notes on letter 78 of Alcimus Avitus, of whom we treat below on February 5.

[64] When Clovis therefore died on November 27 of the year of Christ 509, [of the sons and descendants of Clovis I, the Kings die: Clodomer of Orleans in 524,] his sons divided the kingdom and succeeded him: to whose years ^a distinguished light is shed by Marius, ^a sixth-century Bishop of Avenches, or Lausanne, among the Burgundians, in his Chronicle. According to him, in the consulship of Justin II and Opilio, Indiction 2, the year of Christ 524, Clodomer, King of Orleans, was killed by Godemar, King of the Burgundians, of whom we shall treat on May 1 and September 7 in the Lives of SS. Sigismund the King killed by him and Clodoald his son. The next of the brother-Kings to die was Theoderic I, according to the Moissac Chronologist and Fredegar in chapter 40 of the Abridged History in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, Theoderic I of the Austrasians in 533, and Aimoin in book 2, chapter 14, "when he had already held the kingdom twenty-four years": which years they would have read in Gregory, where twenty-three are already expressed in book 3, chapter 23. The year of Christ understood is 533, and it confirms the chronology established at the death of Clovis. Theodebert I in 548, After Theoderic, his son Theodebert was substituted, and together with his uncles Childebert and Clothar obtained Burgundy the following year, 534, under the consul Paulinus Junior, Indiction 12, according to Marius, and having put to flight King Godemar, divided his kingdom. In the seventh year after the consulship of Basilius, Indiction 11, the year of Christ 548, according to the same Marius, when Theodebert died, Theodebald in 555, his son Theodebald sat in his kingdom, whose death the same Marius reports in the fourteenth year after the consulship of Basilius, the year of Christ 555, Indiction 3, and that his uncle's uncle Clothar obtained his kingdom. The third son of Clovis, Childebert, King of Paris, Childebert of Paris in 558, in the same Chronicle of Marius, departed in Indiction 6, in the seventeenth year after the consulship of Basilius, the year of Christ 558, whose diploma for the basilica of St. Vincent the Martyr, which today is called St. Germain in the suburb of Paris, given in the forty-eighth year of his reign on December 6, proves that the first year of his reign must be referred at least to 510. That diploma is inserted in Aimoin, book 2, chapter 20, in the Paris edition illustrated by Jacques de Breul. Finally, Clothar I, the great-great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, according to the same Marius, Clothar I, great-great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, in 561, died and his kingdom was divided by his sons in Indiction 9, in the twentieth year after the consulship of Basilius. That year was the year of Christ 561, also counted by Fredegar as the first of the reign of his sons, which Gregory defers to the following year 562, as will clearly be apparent from what follows. That the last two years of Clothar were conflated into one in Gregory by the fault of copyists, both the reckoning of the deduced dates requires and the words of Gregory in book 4, chapter 21, show: "King Clothar," he says, "in the fifty-first year of his reign sought the shrine of Blessed Martin with many gifts," etc. And then he continues: "Having returned, in the fifty-first (rather, fifty-second) year of his reign he was seized by ^a fever, and at last breathed his last." So Gregory, who was never accustomed to repeat the same years: and thus the entire chronology is splendidly established.

Section IX. The Age of the Frankish Kings from the Sons of Clothar I to the Death of Dagobert. The Birth and Kingdom of St. Sigebert.

[65] Of the four sons of Clothar I, who ruled after his kingdom was again divided, the first according to Gregory in book 4, chapter 26, [the Kings die: Charibert of Paris around 570, Sigebert I of the Austrasians in 575.] to die was Charibert, King of Paris, but the author does not add in what year of his reign: Sigebert in his Chronicle assigns the tenth, which for us is 570. The second brother, Sigebert I, King of the Austrasians, according to the same Gregory in book 4, chapter 46, was assassinated and died in the fourteenth year of his reign, the year of Christ 575: and his son Childebert in book 5, chapter 1, with scarcely one lustrum of age completed, began to reign on Christmas Day. From which feast, because the Burgundians and others began their year, according to Marius, when Sigebert was treacherously killed, Childebert receives the kingdom in Indiction 9, the tenth year of the consulship of the younger Justin Augustus, the year of Christ 576, which is the first of Childebert, and the fifteenth full year of his uncles Guntram and Chilperic in Gregory. the chronology established of the years of the Kings among themselves, Hence in book 6, chapter 26, their seventeenth year is matched with his third; and in chapter 18, his fourth with their eighteenth. Indeed, in book 6, chapter 14, the month of January of the seventh year of Childebert falls in the twenty-first of his uncles, and in book 9, the 4th before the Kalends of December is the twelfth year of Childebert and the twenty-sixth of Guntram.

[66] Agreement with the years of Christ is confirmed, first, by book 6, chapter 15: and with the years of Christ from the days of the week, Sunday, the day before the Kalends of February, in the eighth year of Childebert, the year of Christ 583, solar cycle 4, Dominical letter C. Second, from book 10, chapters 10 and 22 compared: Wednesday, the 18th before the Kalends of the fifth month, that is July, in the fifteenth year of Childebert and the twenty-ninth of Guntram, the year of Christ 590, solar cycle 11, Dominical letter A, on which an earthquake occurred. Third, in book 10, chapter 1, when Pope Pelagius died, St. Gregory was elected in the fifteenth year of Childebert, the year of Christ 590: and the fifth year of the same Gregory, at the end of the History, is the nineteenth of Childebert, the year of Christ 594. Fourth, St. Radegund the Queen (as Baudoniva, who attended her deathbed, writes in her Life) died on Wednesday morning on the Ides of August: Gregory adds, who presided over her burial, in book 8, chapter 43, and book 9, chapter 2, that it was then the twelfth year of King Childebert, the sixth month and the thirteenth day of the month: which require the year of Christ 587, solar cycle 8, Dominical letter E. Fifth, in the same Gregory, book 5, chapter 17, in the second year of Childebert, the year of Christ 577, solar cycle 26, Dominical letter C, by the Paschal cycle, at Tours and many cities of the Gauls, Easter was celebrated, according to the canon of Victorius, on the 14th before the Kalends of May, the sixteenth Moon, the eighteenth lunar cycle: but among the Spaniards, according to the canon of the ancient Latins, on the 12th before the Kalends of April, the very day of the Equinox, the seventeenth Moon. But among the Italians, according to the Alexandrian lunar cycle, Easter that year was on the 7th before the Kalends of May, the twenty-first Moon: concurring that year on Sunday with March 21, April 18, and April 25. Sixth, in book 10, chapter 23, in the fifteenth year of Childebert and the twenty-ninth of Guntram, the year of Christ 590, the people of Tours celebrated Easter on the twenty-second, others on the fifteenth Moon; the former on the 7th before the Kalends, the latter on the 4th before the Nones of April: which days

in solar cycle 11, Dominical letter A, fell on Sundays. by eclipses of the Moon and Sun. Seventh, in book 6, chapter 21, in the seventh year of Childebert, the twenty-first of Chilperic and Guntram, the year of Christ 582, the Moon suffered an eclipse: and in book 10, chapter 23, in the fifteenth year of Childebert, the twenty-ninth of Guntram, the year of Christ 590, the Sun suffered an eclipse in the eighth month, that is October. That both occurred in the said years is demonstrated by accurate calculation by Petau in his Doctrine of Times, book 8, and book 11, chapter 48.

[67] Fredegar, which I have not observed noted by others until now, the discrepancy of one year between Gregory of Tours and Fredegar anticipates by one year the assigned reckoning of Gregory of Tours, since what Gregory separates the first year of the reigns of Guntram, Chilperic, and their brothers from the last year of their father Clothar and makes two, Fredegar joins and makes one -- both the last of Clothar and the first of the son-Kings: so that whoever wishes to adapt Fredegar's reckoning for these Kings to the computation of Gregory must subtract ^a year from Fredegar: which is demonstrated by the following examples, as the years of Guntram and Chilperic according to each reckoning are matched with the years of Childebert, at the beginning of whose reign, which commenced at Christmas at the start of the year, Chilperic dead in 584 both agree. Hence both Gregory and Fredegar report that Chilperic, the great-grandfather of St. Sigebert, was killed in the ninth year of Childebert, which is the year of Christ 584: but Gregory in book 6, chapter 46, which must be compared with the preceding chapters, states that the said ninth year of Childebert corresponds to the twenty-third year of Chilperic and Guntram, which Fredegar writes as twenty-four in chapters 1 and 3 of his Chronicle, and establishes the same as the first year of Clothar II, his son Clothar II succeeds, grandfather of St. Sigebert: grandfather of St. Sigebert, who then succeeded his father Chilperic. In the following year, the year of Christ 585, the twenty-fifth of Guntram according to Fredegar, Mummolus was killed by his command, whose slaying Gregory reports in book 7, chapter 39, in the tenth year of Childebert and the twenty-fourth of Guntram: which year he then still counts in book 8. Thus what is called on Gregory's authority, book 10, chapter 10, the fifteenth of Childebert and the twenty-ninth of Guntram, and chapter 24 the sixteenth of Childebert and the thirtieth of Guntram, are in Fredegar the thirtieth and thirty-first of Guntram: in whose chapter 13, in the thirty-second year of Guntram, the sun was so diminished from morning until midday that scarcely ^a third part of it appeared. This solar eclipse occurred on March 19 of the year 592, which by Gregory's reckoning would be the sixteenth year of Childebert and the thirty-first of Guntram.

[68] the Kings die: St. Guntram of the Burgundians in 593, In the year next after this solar eclipse, according to Fredegar chapter 14, Guntram died in the thirty-third year of his reign, the year of Christ 593, on the 5th before the Kalends of April, the day thereafter consecrated to his veneration: which thirty-third year of his reign is also reported by the Chronicle of Moissac in volume 3 of the writers of Frankish history. But because that thirty-third year was incorrectly reckoned according to the calculation of Gregory of Tours, Bucherius, Le Mire, Malebrancq, and especially Petau referred his death to the following year 594: Petau in his Rationarium Temporum, on account of the said solar eclipse, holds in part 1, book 7, chapter 11, that he died in the year of Christ 593 or 594; but in part 2, book 4, chapter 16, he reports that he died either in the year 593 or 595, though by neither reckoning in the thirty-third year of his reign, but by the former in the thirty-second year beginning, and by the latter in the thirty-fourth. All of which falls apart from what has been said, and even more so the opinion of Sigebert and Baronius, of whom the former asserts he died in 597, the latter in 598.

[69] The same year of Christ 593 was, according to Fredegar, both the last of King St. Guntram and the first of Childebert in the kingdom assumed from him, Childebert of the Austrasians and Burgundians in 596, under whom in chapter 16, in the fourth year of this kingdom, the year of Christ 596, when Childebert died, Theodebert succeeded in Austrasia, and Theoderic in Burgundy, whose first year of reign Fredegar establishes as the year of Christ 596, in which indeed, by ^a letter written in the fourteenth Indiction, Pope St. Gregory commended St. Augustine on his way to England to these same Kings. It is letter 58 of book 5 of the Register, of which, written in that July, Baronius takes note both at the year 596, number 10, and at the year 598, number 13, where, having reported the death of Guntram, he adds: "When they say (Fredegar, Aimoin, and other most ancient writers) that Guntram left his kingdom to Childebert, I do not see how this could have been, since, taking into account the years of Guntram, Childebert himself must have departed this life before him, in the year of the Lord 596, as we have shown from the letters of Pope St. Gregory," etc. So Baronius. But according to our Chronotaxis, everything is clear and transparent.

[70] Then in the seventh year of the reigns of Theoderic and Theodebert, according to Fredegar chapter 23, Phocas assumed the Empire after murdering Maurice. That year by our reckoning is 602, in which, with Dominical letter G, on November 27, Theodebert II of the Austrasians in 612. the third day of the week, the Alexandrian Chronicle reports that Maurice was beheaded. Finally, in the seventeenth year of both reigns, the year of Christ 612, Theodebert was defeated in battle by his brother, and lost first his kingdom, then his life. Theoderic in the eighteenth year of his reign, the year of Christ 613, chapter 39, died at Metz of dysentery, and when his sons Sigebert II and others, together with their grandmother Brunhild, were killed, Clothar II, Theoderic II and Sigebert II in 613. in the thirtieth year of his paternal reign, according to Fredegar chapter 43, seized the kingdom in Burgundy and Austrasia, and his first year is reckoned with the said year 613. In the fortieth year of the reign of this Clothar, the fourteenth of the Emperor Heraclius, the year of Christ 623, the Appendix to the Chronicle of Marius ends: [Clothar II becomes sole ruler, gives the Austrasian kingdom to Dagobert, father of St. Sigebert, in 621 or 622,] and with great consistency of the established reckoning, Clothar is said to be now leading his life in prosperous and pious government, by ^a writer then still living.

[71] Meanwhile, Clothar established his son Dagobert as King over the Austrasians, retaining for himself what the Ardennes and the Vosges excluded toward Neustria and Burgundy. So writes Fredegar in chapter 47. That year is said to have been the thirty-eighth of the reign of Clothar according to du Chesne and in the Goldast manuscript codex, and corresponds to the year of Christ 621; others, following the Sirmond manuscript codex, give the following year. Nicolas Zillesius in part 3 of his Defense of the Abbey of St. Maximin, page 9, published ^a diploma of Dagobert given at Mainz on the day before the Nones of April, in the twelfth year of his reign, which the Chancellor Henry authenticated in place of Archibald Recolf. This twelfth year of the reign, according to the Era begun among the Austrasians, is the year of Christ 632 or the next. This, then, is the first beginning of Dagobert's reign, administered by the counsel of St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz. To Dagobert in the forty-second year of his reign, the year of Christ 625, after the completion of his marriage with Gamadrud, Clothar restored the consolidated kingdom of the Austrasians, retaining thenceforth under his own authority only what lay, according to Fredegar chapter 53, on this side of the Loire or in the parts of Provence; the Champagne of Belgica and other neighboring places described above being conceded. But the principal beginning of his reign began in the seventh year of his reign, the year of Christ 628, when his father Clothar died in the forty-fifth year of his paternal reign, he dies in 628: the sixteenth of the Austrasians and Burgundians, and Dagobert succeeded him, having assumed the greatest part of the kingdoms, though he conceded to his brother Charibert the district of Toulouse, Quercy, Agen, Perigord, and Saintonge, or what is excluded from those toward the Pyrenean mountains.

[72] All these things are read in Fredegar chapters 42, 55, 56, and 58, the monk of St. Denis in the Deeds of Dagobert chapter 15, and Aimoin book 4, chapter 16: hence the years of Dagobert's reign are counted who among the Burgundians and Neustrians (for Fredegar lived with the former, the monk of St. Denis and Aimoin with the latter), from this year 628, neglecting the previously completed rule among the Austrasians, pursue his reign arranged in its proper dates: whose imprudence Petau in part 2 of his Rationarium Temporum, book 4, chapter 17, incorrectly argues confused the beginnings of Dagobert. For Fredegar most distinctly sets forth from chapter 47 to 55, by Fredegar, what both Clothar and Dagobert, admitted as consort in the kingdom, accomplished: from which he most exactly separates, from chapter 55 to 79, what Dagobert did after the death of Clothar. the monk of St. Denis, The monk of St. Denis does the same in the Deeds of Dagobert, relating his government with his father from chapter 12 to 15, then describing his deeds from the death of his father to chapter 43. Aimoin follows both, who in book 4, chapter 8, reports the partnership in the kingdom of Dagobert with his father, by Aimoin. and after the latter's death continues the deeds of Dagobert from chapter 16.

[73] Before the birth of St. Sigebert, the said authors report that St. Arnulf, having left the episcopate of Metz and the courtly education of Dagobert, sought the wilderness: which happened in the third year of Dagobert's reign, the year of Christ 630 or the next, as we show accurately elsewhere. Indeed, after the departure of Blessed Arnulf, Dagobert, according to Fredegar chapter 58 and others, St. Arnulf departs to the wilderness in 631: still using the counsel of Pepin, Mayor of the Palace, and of Cunibert, Bishop of the city of Cologne, governed the nations subject to him with great prosperity and love of justice: until, having repudiated Queen Gamadrud,

he took Nanthild from ^a ministerial position as his wife, and, forgetful of all justice, became excessively given to luxury. Then in the eighth year of his reign, the year of Christ 635, St. Sigebert is born in 635, Dagobert, while touring Austrasia in royal state, took to his bed ^a certain girl named Ragnetrude, by whom in that year he had ^a son named Sigebert. So write Fredegar chapter 59, the monk of St. Denis chapter 24, and Aimoin book 4, chapter 20. The baptism of St. Sigebert conferred by St. Amandus the Bishop confirms this. For, having accurately arranged his chronology on February 6, we show that Amandus, having left the solitary life which he had led for fifteen years among the people of Bourges, went to Rome in the year of Christ 627: thence, having returned to the Gauls and been consecrated Bishop, he preached the word of God to the pagans, purchased boys from overseas to be educated in the Christian faith: and having completed another journey to Rome and obtained letters of Dagobert through St. Aicharius, Bishop of Tournai, he went to Ghent, was abandoned by his companions, procured food with his own hands, raised ^a dead man at Tournai: began to build various churches and monasteries, set out beyond the Danube to convert the Slavs: returned to the court, was sent into exile in Gascony for having rebuked the incontinence of King Dagobert, and there instructed St. Rictrude: he is baptized by St. Amandus: finally returned to Francia with King Charibert of Aquitaine, and at Orleans baptized St. Sigebert, who was received from the holy font by Charibert. All of which would have had to be accomplished within two years, if St. Sigebert had been born in the eighth year of Dagobert begun among the Austrasians, the year of Christ 629: which no one who considers the journeys alone will readily concede. Distributing each event on February 6 into its proper years, we demonstrate that St. Sigebert was born in the year of Christ 635 and was baptized by St. Amandus. Baronius, slower than usual, refers his birth to the year 639.

[74] Charibert the King dies in 636: But when Charibert and his son Chilperic died, Dagobert in the ninth year of his reign, the year of Christ 636, reduced his entire kingdom together with Gascony, which he had subjugated, to his own authority, having obtained the complete Frankish monarchy: so write Fredegar chapter 67, the monk of St. Denis chapter 25, and Aimoin book 4, chapter 23, with splendid agreement throughout. Dagobert, then in the eleventh year of his reign, St. Sigebert is made King of the Austrasians in 638: the year of Christ 638, elevated his son Sigebert to the kingdom of Austrasia and permitted him to have his seat in the city of Metz, as the same authors report: Fredegar chapter 75, the monk of St. Denis chapter 32, and Aimoin chapter 26, in whose immediately following chapters, when Clovis was born in the twelfth year of Dagobert, the year of Christ 639, the entire kingdom of the Austrasians, described above in sections II and III, was subjected to the lordship of St. Sigebert. In the fourteenth year of Dagobert, the year of Christ 641, war was waged against the Gascons, and in the fifteenth year the clemency of Dagobert spared their lives, as Fredegar chapter 78, the monk of St. Denis chapters 36 and 42, and Aimoin book 6, chapters 38 and 41, report. These same authors then add in the immediately following chapters that Dagobert began to suffer from dysentery at the villa of Epinay on the river Seine, and was thence carried to the basilica of St. Denis by his attendants, toward the end of the sixteenth year of his reign, near the end of the year of Christ 643. For when the kingdoms of Neustria and Burgundy had been given to his son Clovis, and Clovis and Queen Nanthild had been commended to the Mayor of the Palace, Aega, Dagobert dies in 644, January 19, as the disease grew worse, he was taken from human affairs on the 14th before the Kalends of February, as the monk of St. Denis in chapter 43 and Aimoin in chapter 43 of the Deeds of Dagobert report. The year 644 had then begun, which is counted as the first of Clovis II.

[75] The anonymous fabulist in the Chronicle entitled the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks transfers all the luxury and incontinence from Dagobert to his son Clovis, errors in the Deeds of the Frankish Kings, the husband of St. Bathild; makes St. Sigebert and Clovis brothers born of the same mother Nanthild; says that Dagobert died at the villa of Epinay, and that he reigned thirty-four years, and indeed, as he had previously implied, as sole monarch in all three kingdoms. Let chapters 42, 43, and 44 be read. But even if we grant that here the years of Dagobert are counted from the beginning of the Austrasian kingdom, we are nevertheless compelled to defer his death to the year of Christ 655. Ivo of Chartres, Ivo of Chartres writes the years of his reign as forty-four, so that he necessarily lived until the year 665 or 672. Trithemius in his History of the Kings of the Franks chose the former year 665. In ^a historical fragment, prefixed by Christoph Vistitz to the Chronicle of Albert of Strasbourg and reprinted among the Frankish writers with the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, one reads: the Strasbourg Chronicle. "In the year of the Lord 674, King Dagobert died, and his two sons were placed on the throne." Regino refers the death of the same Dagobert to the time of the Emperor Justinian II, called Rhinotmetus, who succeeded his father Constantine in the year 685. It is therefore not surprising if many years are torn from the reigns of later kings, so that at last in Charles Martel, Pepin, and Regino. and Charlemagne the proper reckoning of years may be restored.

Section X. The Years of the Reigns of Clovis II and St. Sigebert, Brothers, and of the Intruded Childebert.

[76] That the reign of Clovis II began in the year of Christ 644 is most solidly confirmed by St. Audoen, formerly the Referendary of King Dagobert. Audoen, intending to indicate -- which he could know best -- [in the third year of Clovis, the year of Christ 646, the Bishops SS. Eligius and Audoen are consecrated:] the year and day on which he himself had been consecrated Bishop of Rouen and St. Eligius Bishop of Noyon, reports in the Life of the latter, which he himself published, that both of them earned the Apostolic blessing at the time when throughout the Gauls the Rogations were celebrated by all the people. "Then," he says, "coming together in the city of Rouen on the fourteenth day of the third month, in the third year of Clovis, the still-youthful King, on the Sunday before the Litanies, among the crowds of people, among the ranks of clergy, among the choirs of singers, we were consecrated as Bishops freely by Bishops together -- I for Rouen, he for Noyon." So writes Audoen. The year indicated by him is the third of Clovis, the year of Christ 646, in which, with solar cycle 11, Dominical letter A, lunar cycle 1, Easter was celebrated on the eighteenth Moon, the 9th of April, and the feast of Christ's Ascension on May 18, which was preceded by Rogation Sunday, or the Sunday before the Litanies, on May 14.

[77] The youthful King Clovis was then only seven years old; in that year his Mayor of the Palace, the Mayors of the Palace succeed: Erchenoald, Aega having died, became Erchenoald. St. Sigebert had also lost his Mayor of the Palace, St. Pepin, whose Life we treat on February 21. His son Grimoald succeeded him, the brother of SS. Begga and Gertrude: in whose time St. Sigebert, Grimoald. in the eighth year of his reign, as ^a youth took part in the Thuringian war, weeping at the slaughter of his men, as Fredegar describes at length in chapter 87, and he soon ends his Chronicle at chapter 90, in whose Continuator, as we warned above, there is ^a great gap in the events down to the times of Theoderic, poorly filled. In it we read in chapter 92, which is also found in the fabulous Deeds of the Frankish Kings, chapter 45, that Erchenoald, Prefect of the Royal Palace, survived after the death of Clovis II, and when he died, the Franks, wavering in uncertainty, after predetermined counsel, established Ebroin in the care and dignity of this honor. But some years before King Clovis, Erchenoald suddenly breathed his last, whose unhappy death, predicted by St. Eligius, St. Audoen describes in the latter's Life. His successor Radobert subscribed as Mayor of the Palace to ^a Precept of Clovis concerning the liberty of the monastery of St. Denis, on the 10th before the Kalends of July, in the sixteenth year of his reign, the year of Christ 659, Radobert, on whose death shortly after, or removal according to the said vacillation, Ebroin was substituted, by whom, as Mayor of the Palace, and King Clovis, the murderers of St. Aigulf, Abbot of Lerins, Ebroin, were punished, as the ancient Acts of the latter in Vincent Barralis' Chronology of Lerins teach, to be given on September 3, the day of his feast. That the same Ebroin was Prefect of the Palace at the death of Clovis and the beginning of the reign of Clothar III is shown by the contemporary author in the Life of St. Bathild the Queen in the words soon to be presented.

[78] In the eighteenth year of the reign of Clovis, the year of Christ 661, Clovis reigns 18 years, Leodebodus, Abbot of St. Aignan and founder of the monastery of Fleury, concluded the course of his praiseworthy life with ^a holy end, as ancient documents report, published with his testament by Charles Saussay in book 4 of the Annals of the Church of Orleans, chapter 1, number 14. A longer life is required by the monk of St. Denis, who, having narrated the death of Clovis, concludes the Deeds of Dagobert. After reporting ^a diploma given to the monks of St. Denis on June 22 in the sixteenth year of the reign, he finally writes in chapter 52, the last,

that the King, handling the relics of St. Denis with insufficient reverence, fell into madness: but how much time elapsed after the diploma was given before this madness was contracted, he does not say. After this he adds that, so the King might recover his senses, certain estates were given to that place, and the relics were covered with gold and gems in wondrous workmanship. But recovering his senses only in part, not fully, after two years he ended his life together with his reign. In the filled-out Chronicle of Fredegar, chapter 92, Clovis, having gone mad in the last years of his life, died without life, he dies in the year of Christ 662, having reigned eighteen years, which being fully completed, he reached the twenty-fourth year of his life, and did not die before the year of Christ 662, which we prove below from the Acts of St. Wandregisil to be counted as the first of the reign of Clothar his son. That this son and two brothers were very young at the death of Clovis is testified by St. Audoen in the Life of St. Eligius.

[79] St. Sigebert survives Clovis That St. Sigebert was still alive at that time is indicated by the contemporary author in the Life of St. Bathild the Queen, January 26, when he reports that Childeric, the second son, was raised to be King of the Austrasians after the death of his father Clovis. His words are these: "By the will of God, King Clovis, her husband, departed from the body, and the offspring of sons having been left with their mother, his son Clothar immediately received the kingdom of the Franks. Then indeed, with the most excellent Princes -- Chrodobert, Bishop of Paris, and Lord Audoen, and Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace, together with the remaining elders and very many others -- and with the kingdom of the Franks standing in peace. Then recently (whose most recent memory is thereby implied) the Austrasians too, in peaceful order, *by the arrangement of Lady Bathild, by the counsel of the Elders, received her son Childeric as King of Austrasia." In the filled-out Chronicle of Fredegar, chapter 93, after the account of the reign of Clothar, it is added: "Theoderic (erroneously; correct to Childeric), his brother, was raised to the kingdom in Austrasia by the Franks, under Duke Wulfoald." With the error removed in chapter 94, Childeric together with Wulfoald is summoned to Neustria. These matters concerning Childeric, the successor of St. Sigebert, will be established below; in agreement with which the Acts of St. Sigebert report he dies in 663; that he died on the Kalends of February in the year of the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and sixty-two, as they reckoned in the time of Sigebert of Gembloux: which for us, beginning the year from January, is the following year 663, as has been demonstrated many times. We believe this year to be most certain and to have been found from ancient records, perhaps even sepulchral, both in the royal palace and in the monastery of St. Martin at Metz, which Sigebert, then ^a young man, destined to fulfill the office of ^a faithful historian, transcribed untouched, not daring of his own judgment (as he did in his Chronicle, carried away by ^a perverted calculation of years) to depart from public records.

* another Life reading "arranging."

[80] Moreover, the established time of his death is required both by the episcopate of St. Remacle and by the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, built and endowed by him. [that time is required by the episcopate of St. Remacle, the studies of St. Trudo,] And first, building upon the foundation laid on February 6 for the Life of St. Amandus, and confirmed on February 3 for the Life of St. Hadelin, St. Remacle administered the episcopate of Maastricht, which he assumed around the year of Christ 650, for ten years: these are expressed in the manuscript Chronicle of the monastery of St. Trudo, and are required by the Acts of St. Trudo, November 23, written by Theoderic, Abbot of the monastery of St. Trudo: in which St. Trudo, sent by the then-Bishop Remacle to Metz to the Bishop St. Clodulf there, bequeathed all his goods by ^a rare example to the Church of St. Stephen. Then, fired with zeal for acquiring wisdom, having advanced from Grammar through the remaining liberal arts to Philosophy, in the sixth year of the episcopate of St. Remacle he took up the study of Sacred Scripture, in which, having attained the desired progress, he was admitted to the Clergy, and promoted through the ecclesiastical grades, was ordained Priest, then sent back to St. Remacle in the tenth year of his episcopate, and in his diocese preached the word of God. These years of the episcopate are indicated in the Chronicle of St. Trudo, chapters 6 and 8: the rest is described more fully in the Acts of St. Trudo. In the same sixth year of the episcopate of St. Remacle, the year of Christ 655 according to the said Chronicle, chapter 7, the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy began to be built, and three years later were dedicated by St. Remacle while still Bishop, who around the year 660, having left the episcopate, lived in them for ^a long time afterward, and for the said monasteries the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy built and endowed; procured in the immediately following years two diplomas to be given below, by which St. Sigebert endowed both monasteries with royal munificence: in these, the venerable man Remacle is said, under the auspices of Christ, to preside as Abbot, so that from this alone we may rightly conclude that the year of death of St. Sigebert indicated in the Acts is necessarily required. Moreover, St. Sigebert, when in the second diploma he revokes donations made by himself before he had reached his lawful age, and considers valid only those which he granted from the fourteenth year of his reign, implies that he had then attained ^a somewhat advanced age.

[81] Baronius says he was born in 639 and died on the Kalends of February of the year 657, the age of his successor Childeric, when St. Sigebert had entered the eighteenth year of his age and Clovis, three years younger, the fifteenth. Bucherius in his commentary on the Deeds of the Bishops of Tongres, Le Mire in his Belgian Chronicle, Fisen in his History of the Church of Liege, Malebrancq on the Morini, and others fall into ^a similar error, for whom St. Sigebert was born in 636 and died in 654, when the former had reached the eighteenth and Clovis the fifteenth year of age: at which time the latter could not have had as ^a second-born son Childeric, who would be raised to King of the Austrasians, and is nowhere indicated as an infant or merely newborn. But with St. Sigebert dying according to our calculation in the twenty-eighth year of his age, his own sons could have been heirs of the kingdom, whom the ancient authors in the Life of St. Remacle, September 3, and St. Bonitus, January 15, attribute to him. and of Dagobert II, son of St. Sigebert Indeed Dagobert, whose name alone and deeds survive, could have reached eight or ten years of age: whom we prove below in the Analecta to the Life of St. Sigebert to have been tonsured as ^a cleric by the faction of Grimoald the Mayor of the Palace, and deported to Scotland or Ireland, but then, after some years of exile, to have returned and even been restored to his father's kingdom of Austrasia. Setting these aside here, we carry the established Chronology through the years of Clothar III and his brothers Childeric and Theoderic, nephews of St. Sigebert.

[82] After Dagobert was sent away, Childebert, the son of Grimoald, was substituted, from whom St. Nivard, Archbishop of Reims, obtained immunity from tolls and other taxes for his Church, Childebert intruded, as Flodoard in book 2 of the History of Reims, chapter 7, and the author of the Life of St. Nivard, on the Kalends of September, teach. To this Childebert in the very brief Chronicle of the Kings of Austrasia in volume 1 of the Writers of Frankish History, page 781, seven years are attributed in these words: "Childebert the adopted, son of Grimoald, seven years." He was, however, rather an adopted King raised to the kingdom by some magnates and partisans of Grimoald, than adopted by King Sigebert, of which no trace survives among contemporary writers. But whatever the case regarding that adoption, in no way did Childebert reign seven years, nor are the years of other Kings accurately observed in that Chronicle. he is expelled in 664, We leave him one full year or ^a year and ^a half with the Chronicle of Sigebert, and begin the reign of Childeric in the course of the year 664, when Clothar had already reigned for two years in Neustria.

* another Life reading "arranging."

Section XI. The Years of Clothar III and Childeric, Nephews of St. Sigebert through His Brother.

[83] When Clovis II died in 662, Clothar III reigns more than 4 years, Clothar his eldest son immediately received the kingdom under the guardianship of his mother St. Bathild, as the most ancient author reports in her Life. All the later writers of the chronology and history of the Franks assign only four years to his reign: against whom the most clear and weighty authority of ancient and contemporary witnesses prevails. And first, ^a royal diploma, or, as it is called there, Precept, granted to the monastery of Corbie concerning the immunity of this monastery from all tolls, presents the fifth year of his rule. It is read in full in volume 1 of the Councils of Gaul, copied from the Verdun codex by our Jacques Sirmond. the years of the reign are observed, Its closing clause reads thus: "That this precept may be held more firmly and preserved through the ages, we and our most excellent mother, Lady Balthild, the most great Queen, have determined to confirm it below with our seals. The sign of the glorious King Clothar, the sign of the most excellent Queen Balthild.

Given on the 23rd day of the month of December, in the fifth year of our reign." That is the year of Christ 666.

[84] Other diplomas express the sixth year of his reign; one of these was drawn up by St. Audomar, Bishop of Therouanne, five, by which he gave the basilica of St. Mary of Sithiu to Abbot St. Bertin, on the 18th of May, in the sixth year of the reign of Lord King Clothar. It is given in full by Jacques Malebrancq in his Notes on book 4 concerning the Morini, chapter 3. Jean Ypres mentions the same in his Bertinian Chronicle, chapter 1, part 10, under the title six, "On the Foundation of the Church of St. Mary": where under the title "On the Exchange of Certain Lands between SS. Bertin and Mommolenus, then Bishop of Noyon," another diploma is cited, with this beginning: "Since the Lord has placed us on the throne of our Fathers," etc., and this closing clause: "Done on the day of the Kalends of February, in the sixth year of our reign." Ypres, since only four years were commonly attributed to the reign of Clothar by others, adds that these two privileges were given in the sixth year of the reign of Clothar: "for the royal seal neither deceives nor is deceived." In which he clearly implies that he inspected the original diplomas and the royal seal in person and examined them carefully.

[85] Others assign ^a seventh year to his reign. So Bertefrid, Bishop of Amiens, in volume 1 of the Councils of Gaul, grants to the monastery of Corbie ^a privilege of liberty subscribed by many Bishops, on the 8th before the Ides of September, in the seventh year of the reign of King Clothar. And St. Wandregisil, seven, Abbot of Fontenelle, in the fifteenth year of his administration, approached Clothar in the seventh year of his reign and received ^a privilege of royal confirmation for the grounds of his monastery by ^a most generous grant, as the author of his Life, inscribed to his successor St. Lambert, then Archbishop of Lyon, promoted to that dignity after the Kalends of November 684, on which date his predecessor St. Genesius departed this life, testifies in these words: whom meeting among the Angels, the Acts of St. Bathild the Queen testify that her soul was raised to heaven, and together require that St. Bathild survived St. Genesius. We shall treat more fully of SS. Wandregisil, Lambert, and Genesius on February 9 in the Life of St. Ansbert, third Abbot of Fontenelle, and we shall accurately establish their years of administration, which must be frequently interposed here.

[86] The years of Clothar established so far are splendidly advanced by Ursinus in the Life of St. Leodegar, Bishop of Autun, which, at the command of Ansoald, Bishop of Poitiers, and at the urging of Abbot Audolph of St. Maixent -- both of whom had obtained their rank while St. Leodegar was still living -- he himself composed with the most learned judgment. Surius published that Life with ^a somewhat polished style, as he notes in his preface, on October 2, and from him Andre du Chesne in volume 1 of the History of the Franks. We, having obtained the same in its original style from four manuscript codices of the best reliability, bring here ^a few passages for comparison. He writes thus: "When ^a certain Father from the monastery situated in honor of Blessed Maxentius had died, by the command of Bishop Dido of Poitiers, his uncle, the same Leodegar undertook its governance, which he administered vigorously for nearly six years and enlarged it with great resources. But since he had prepared himself suitably in the manner of his Bishop, and was held as distinguished above all, the fragrance of his sweetness advanced so far as to be detected even at the King's palace. For at that same time the young Clothar, with his mother Bathild, was King, governing the kingdom of the Franks; who, having recognized his prudence, desiring to have him with them at the royal court, asked the Bishop to allow him, with his permission, to be at the palace. Immediately carrying out the orders, adorned with great resources and the flowers of wisdom, complying with their wish, the Bishop sent him to the palace: whom the King and Queen, seeing him, received with honor. In ^a few days he displayed such sweet words and goodness to such an extent that the King together with the Queen and most Bishops and magnates received him in love above all. And because they saw him worthy of receiving the honor, by the consent of all, especially the Franks, they proclaimed him fit for the pontifical honor. Him, thus elected, they all made Bishop of Autun, which is the city of the Aedui. When he had governed it vigorously for ten years, at that same time ten. King Clothar, who had made him Bishop, died." So writes Ursinus from four excellent manuscript codices, as we said, with supreme agreement on the ten years assigned, which Surius expressed thus: "When he had vigorously performed this office for ten years, King Clothar, who had promoted him, departed from life": the King having been established already long before these ten years of his episcopate, when St. Leodegar was still Abbot of St. Maixent, more: and afterward spent time at the royal court after being summoned. This is indicated by the fragrance of his good name reaching from Aquitaine to the royal palace. This also requires his accomplished manner of living at the court, by which he, summoned from Aquitaine, had so won over the hearts of the Frankish magnates.

[87] St. Bathild the mother, who together with King Clothar had summoned St. Leodegar to the court, likewise contributed ^a privilege during the administration of the kingdom in the seventh year of his reign, which we noted above was granted by Bishop Bertefrid to the monastery of Corbie. Certainly, as is read in her Life, the chief men and magnates of the Franks kept deferring her entry into the monastic life at ^a monastery, because the palace was governed by her wisdom, and for her holy manner of life she was loved by all.

For, as the manuscript Acts of St. Bertila the Abbess, to be given on November 4, report, the King reaches his lawful age, she had built the convent of Chelles for women, so that when her son Lord Clothar had reached his lawful age and was able to govern the kingdom committed to him by himself, then she, having left the royal care, would enter the aforesaid monastery under the religious rule. This she accomplished when her son Clothar was adult, adult, with the consent of his magnates, and she secluded herself in the aforesaid monastery under the obedience of Abbess Bertila. Now, St. Sigebert the King acknowledges in the second diploma given to Stavelot and Malmedy that he had reached his lawful age in the fourteenth year of his reign, when he was then sixteen years old: so that at ^a similar age Clothar, as an adult, with his mother having departed for the monastery, seems to have administered the kingdom alone; and having then assumed greater license in living, accepted ^a bed-companion, whether in illicit concubinage or rather in lawful marriage. For after his death and that of his brother Childeric, Ebroin and his partisans took ^a certain small boy, he is believed to have fathered ^a son, whom they fabricated to be the son of Clothar: they raised him to the kingship in the regions of Austrasia. On this account they hostilely assembled ^a great many people, because it seemed plausible to all. For when by devastating the country they subjugated it, they even issued precepts to judges in the name of their King, whom they had falsely set up. "How many, therefore, through this crafty fiction believed Clovis to be the son of Clothar?" etc., as is more fully related in the Life of St. Leodegar inscribed to Ermenarius, his successor in the episcopate of Autun, and published in volume 1 of the Writers of Frankish History.

[88] This adult age of Clothar is splendidly established in the Acts of St. Wandregisil, in which it is reported that he began the monastery of Fontenelle on the day of the Kalends of March, in the eleventh year of King Clovis, the seventh of Pope St. Martin, the year of Christ 654, and from that time completed nineteen years, four months, and twenty-one days -- which months and days intervene from the Kalends of March to July 22 or the 11th before the Kalends of August, on which he was stripped of this mortal life. That year is necessarily 673, which was the twelfth of the reign of Clothar, as the manuscript Acts present, to the full confirmation of our Chronology. In the same Acts, Clothar, having attained the summit of the kingdom after his father Clovis, he reigns altogether 14 years, ruled the people of the Western Franks for fourteen years. Likewise, in the account of what St. Wandregisil had predicted to St. Bathild, it is added: "Clothar, the eldest, in the fourteenth year of his reign, was suddenly deprived of human fellowship. Childeric was rashly killed by assassins and taken from this present life.

The third, Theoderic, surviving his mother, assumed the reins of government." The author wrote this during his reign. These fourteen years of the reign of Clothar, begun in the year of Christ 662, we end with the year 675, so that at the beginning of the following year 676, first Theoderic, then, after he was deposed, Childeric succeeded him: both having attained adult age, Childeric also joined in marriage having taken Bilichild as his wife. Theoderic succeeds in 676 For ^a diploma given by Childeric to Stavelot and Malmedy in the eighth year of his reign, the year of Christ 672, was subscribed both by his wife Bilichild and by Imnechildis, the widow of St. Sigebert, as will be proved below, while he himself, as the latter's successor, was ruling the Austrasians; in the twelfth year of his reign, the year of Christ 676, he also obtained the rule of Neustria, which is demonstrated as follows.

[89] Baldric in book 1 of the Chronicle of Cambrai, chapter 27, presents the diploma of ^a donation made by St. Humbert the Abbot to the monastery of Maroilles on the Helpe river in Hainaut, related somewhat more correctly by Le Mire in the Codex of Pious Donations, chapter 5: in the 12th year of Childeric among the Austrasians: which we have transcribed from the autograph, secured with the seal of Humbert himself, with this beginning: "In the twelfth year of the reign of our Lord Childeric the glorious King, I, Humbert, in the name of God," etc. In Baldric and Le Mire the 15th before the Kalends of April is interposed, on which day it could have been given, as Baldric could have known from another source. That this twelfth year of the reign corresponds to 676 is confirmed in the closing clause of the diploma by the appended attestation of suitable witnesses, namely Lord Bishop Vindicianus and Fulbert, the brother of Humbert. For (as Colvenerius proves from documents communicated to him by Claude Despretz, in his notes on chapter 19 of Baldric) when St. Autbert, Bishop of Cambrai, died on December 13 of the year 675, Vindicianus, or Vindicianus, succeeded him in the assigned year 676, in the times of King Theoderic, who after his brother Clothar assumed the supreme power, with many of the Frankish magnates resisting, chiefly on account of Ebroin, who as Mayor of the Royal Palace was very troublesome to them, as the same Baldric reports in chapter 20, where he adds the expulsion of both Theoderic and Ebroin. Now Ebroin was (as Ursinus notes in the Life of St. Leodegar) hateful to the Franks, because they feared that the yoke of the burden which they had endured through him under King Clothar would be imposed again; especially after ^a multitude of nobles hastening to meet the new King had been forced by Ebroin's order to accept ^a refusal of their journey: as we have from the other Life of Leodegar. Wherefore the magnates, having formed ^a conspiracy, Theoderic expelled, Childeric reigns, persecuted Theoderic together with Ebroin, because he had not been solemnly elevated in their presence, as is the custom: finally captured and violently abused, they enclosed him in monastic habit in ^a monastery, and substituted his brother Childeric in the kingdom, as the manuscript Acts of St. Amatus, Bishop of Sens, to be given on September 13, report. Behold the reign of Theoderic, albeit defined by ^a brief period: during which St. Vindicianus, made Bishop in 676, subscribed to the donation of St. Humbert on March 18, in the twelfth year of the reign of Childeric.

[90] Childeric, then confirmed in the kingdom of Neustria, elevated Bishop St. Leodegar above his entire house and made him Mayor of the Palace in all things, as Ursinus continues in his Life: who adds that for almost three years the King governed prosperously under his direction; but that afterward ^a spark of envy, fanned by the breath of rivals, gradually inflamed the royal mind against St. Leodegar, who at Easter in the year of Christ 679, to escape the King's wrath, withdrew to Luxeuil. Nor did the King long survive, being less pleasing to the Palace magnates, he is killed in 679. killed by ^a certain Bodilo and other impious assassins, together with the pregnant Queen, and buried with his daughter at Rouen in the basilica of St. Peter by St. Audoen, as we gather from the Lives of SS. Audoen, Leodegar, Lambert, and Wandregisil. Chilperic was the son of King Childeric, and perhaps also Theoderic, both of whom afterward became Kings under Charles Martel: these, under their grandmother St. Bathild, lay hidden in the monastery of Chelles after the murder of their father, and obtained the most secure guardianship and protection from her, who survived to the year 685, and after her death from St. Bertila, Abbess of the same monastery,

and other holy women. By their counsel, so that every occasion for envy and contention with their uncle King Theoderic and his children and descendants might be cut off, Chilperic seems to have been tonsured as ^a cleric and to have assumed the name Daniel. Theoderic also, because he was raised in the monastery of Chelles, was surnamed "Calensis." A more convenient occasion for discussing the succession and deeds of these Kings will arise elsewhere. Let us return to Clovis II and his children.

[91] Portraits Finally, let the portraits of the Kings of France be examined, which were engraved by Jacques de Bie, the Royal Engraver, from sepulchral monuments and other royal treasures, and are judged to represent their true persons. Of these, of Clovis II Clovis II, father of three Kings, and Clothar III, the firstborn, are seen with full faces and referring to ^a somewhat adult age, but beardless. of Clothar III, But the other two sons appear hirsute with their own beards: Childeric with an almost youthful face, of Childeric, Theoderic, and Clovis III. Theoderic with ^a face aged and contracted by wrinkles. His son Clovis III succeeds, ^a handsome-faced adolescent, who, having been substituted as ^a child for his father, reigned only four years, of which we shall soon treat, and we shall especially establish the fixed Chronology from the reign of Theoderic.

[92] It was necessary to set forth these things accurately, because almost all the Chronicles, Annals, and Histories of the Franks confuse the aforementioned periods and insist that Clothar reigned only four years: according to others, Clothar and Childeric die as boys, dying as ^a boy. Their opinion is more clearly refuted regarding Childeric, whom they necessarily acknowledge as ^a year younger than his firstborn brother Clothar: and yet they do not allow him to have survived beyond three years: and yet they admit that he lived in marriage with ^a wife taken in wedlock and fathered children: and married. which Clothar at eight years of age could have done just as well as Childeric at ten. The Fabulist in the Deeds of the Frankish Kings led the way in this, compelled, because he had attributed thirty-four years to the reign of Dagobert, to recover the eighteen lost years: he accordingly took two from his son Clovis and ten from his grandson Clothar. These Deeds were copied by the one who filled the gap in Fredegar, and Sigebert of Gembloux assigns these four years of reign to Clothar from the year of Christ 662 to the year 666, and then, singular in his own opinion, attributes the following thirteen years to Childeric in the kingdom of Neustria, down to the year of Christ 679: which has been sufficiently refuted above.

Section XII. The Kingdom of Dagobert, Son of St. Sigebert, and of Theoderic, Nephew of St. Sigebert through His Brother, then of Clovis III and Childebert, Brothers, Sons of Theoderic: and of Dagobert III, Son of Childebert.

[93] Denis Petau in part 2 of his Rationarium Temporum, book 4, chapter 17, holds that the dates of Clothar and Childeric should be confirmed from the beginning of Theoderic's reign. The kingdom of Theoderic recovered in 679, And although we believe the dates of their reign to be established by such solid foundations in the preceding section that the beginning of Theoderic's reign can be built upon them, nevertheless new and most evident arguments will not be lacking by which we may confirm the Chronology we have begun. And first, the Acts of St. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, clearly prove that Theoderic recovered his kingdom in the year 679, and that Ebroin was his Mayor of the Palace. Wilfrid, as Bede testifies in book 4, chapter 12, was expelled from his episcopate in the year 678: in which St. Wilfrid suffered treachery from King Theoderic and Ebroin. after whose departure, Ethelred, King of the Mercians, waged war against Egfrid, King of the Northumbrians, by whom Wilfrid had been ejected from his episcopal See. A fierce battle was therefore joined near the river Trent, in which Alfwin, brother of King Egfrid, was killed. "And it happened," says William of Malmesbury in his work On the Deeds of the English Bishops, book 3, "that ^a year later, on the very day on which Wilfrid had suffered his prejudicial sentence at York, the corpse of the royal youth was brought into the city, proclaiming ^a long period of mourning." Thus Ethelred, having achieved his triumph and recovered the integrity of his kingdom, expelled Bishop Winfrid, who had succeeded Cedda at Lichfield, because he had been of Egfrid's party. Winfrid, having by chance been driven to the Gallic shore, fell in with King Theoderic and Ebroin, Duke of the Franks: to whom it had been sent word from Britain that they should capture and despoil Bishop Wilfrid. They, misled by the similarity of names, after killing his companions and seizing his goods, let him go. But Wilfrid, lest he fall into the hands of King Theoderic and Ebroin, in the same year

679 sailed to Frisia to King Aldgisl. When Ebroin tried by letters to induce this king to kill or expel the man of God, promising an immense amount of gold, he was unsuccessful. Having spent the winter there, in the year 680 Wilfrid came to Dagobert, son of St. Sigebert, King of the Transrhenane Franks. and in 680 visits King Dagobert, son of St. Sigebert, Not forgetful that he had formerly received Wilfrid, expelled by the faction of magnates and coming to him from Ireland, given him hospitality and, supplied with horses and companions, sent him back to his country, Dagobert received him kindly and pressed him with many entreaties to grace his province with his continued presence, accepting the bishopric of Strasbourg. But Wilfrid set out for Rome, where by Pope Agatho and attended the Roman Synod under St. Agatho. (these are the words of Bede, book 5, chapter 20) he was found worthy of the episcopate, and, summoned to ^a synod of one hundred and twenty-five Bishops against those who dogmatized one will and one operation in the Lord and Savior, he sat among the Bishops and with them subscribed the letter sent from this Synod to the Emperor Constantine, Heraclius, and Tiberius Augustus: which is cited in the fourth session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, begun at Constantinople in the same year 680, in the month of November. But let us return to Theoderic, who from this evidence is established as King in the year 679: whose epoch of his resumed reign is to be begun from the same year 679, at least in its course: for, having been reconciled with Ebroin later, he seems to have been solemnly elevated to kingship by the magnates.

[94] When Theoderic was therefore established as King after the murder of his brother Childeric, the Austrasians by the faction of Ebroin raised Clovis, believed to be the son of Clothar III, to be King, asserting on oath that Theoderic was dead. St. Leodegar captured in 679. Then St. Leodegar, because he refused to pledge faith to this Clovis, was captured by the command of Ebroin, and having had his eyes torn out, was carried away, and for some time tormented with starvation, and afterward detained in the house of Waymer, ^a certain Duke of Champagne, who had been sent from the borders of Austrasia with Dido, another counselor of Ebroin, to perpetrate this crime. Meanwhile Ebroin, having rejected that suborned Clovis, was restored to the favor of King Theoderic and received again the dignity of Mayor of the Palace in the year 679. But when Dagobert, son of St. Sigebert, was elevated to the kingdom of Austrasia the following year, 680, Waymer then fled from St. Leodegar to Ebroin in Neustria, and promoted to ^a bishopric through the latter's fraud, afterward fell into his displeasure, and beaten with many scourges and most disgracefully condemned, as befits ^a traitor, was hanged by ^a noose. But St. Leodegar they had brought to ^a certain monastery, in which Ursinus reports in his Life that he lay hidden for about two years, he is killed in 684. namely until the year 682, when by the command of Ebroin he was presented to the King, assailed with reproaches and insults, his tongue also cut out, and handed over to St. Waning, in whose monastery at Fecamp he resided for nearly two years in the praises of God, until the year 684. At which time, when summoned to ^a Council held by the Bishops in ^a royal villa, he was not permitted to enter, but examined separately by the King in ^a show trial, and by the sentence of the King and Ebroin was beheaded on the second of October, as the twofold history of his life accurately reports, the one dedicated to Bishop Ermenarius of Autun, his successor, the other by the author Ursinus inscribed to Ansoald, Bishop of Poitiers, substituted in the place of his uncle Dido.

[95] Then in the year 687, when Duke Wulfoald, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, died, Pepin of Herstal, father of Charles Martel, received this dignity in the month of June and held it, as the Annals of Metz report, for twenty-seven years and six months, dying in the year 714 in the month of December. That King Dagobert did not long survive, we gather from the history annexed to the Chronicle of Fredegar, in which, in chapter 97, after relating the dominion of Martin and Pepin following the death of Wulfoald, when Wulfoald dies in 687, Pepin succeeds, it is added: "When the Kings died, or departed, and the Princes were committed against one another, Ebroin, Martin, and Pepin were aroused to war against King Theoderic ... Martin and Pepin, defeated with their allies, turned to flight, and Ebroin, pursuing them, devastated ^a great part of that region. Then Duke Martin was killed by Ebroin against the faith given." Ebroin is killed: But Ebroin, insolently puffed up by that victory, while he oppressed the Franks too cruelly, was stabbed by ^a certain Hermenfrid, either toward the end of that same year or certainly at the beginning of the next, ^a period of three years having elapsed after the slaying of St. Leodegar, as is read in both Lives of the latter. Then after the death of Ebroin, the body of St. Leodegar was carried to Poitiers the body of St. Leodegar transferred in March 688. St. Audoen dies in 689. and deposited in the nearby monastery of St. Maixent in the middle of March in the year 688.

[96] Ebroin was succeeded by Warado, or Waratto, as Mayor of the Palace, and soon, hostages having been given, peace was established between him and Pepin. But when Warado was supplanted by his son Gislemar, civil war broke out anew, with very many noble men of Duke Pepin treacherously killed at the castle of Namur (as some interpret Manucum). These events we believe took place in the said year 688. Not long after, Gislemar, often warned in vain by St. Audoen, Bishop of Rouen, paid for his obstinacy with death, and his father Warado recovered the prefecture of the palace: for the purpose of establishing concord between him and Pepin, St. Audoen traveled to Cologne, and having stabilized the peace, returned to the King and Warado, and died ^a nonagenarian at the royal villa of Clichy near Paris, having governed the Church of Rouen for forty-three years, three months, and ten days, from the 14th of May of the year 646 to the 24th of August of the year 689, so that nothing more precise seems possible. In the Acts, the year of the Incarnation of Christ 677 is added, inserted from ^a less correct reckoning assumed by the people of Rouen five or six hundred years ago. In the Chronicle of Sigebert, interpolated and continued by Robert de Monte, the following is read at the year 634: "On the death of St. Romanus, St. Audoen was ordained the 22nd Archbishop of Rouen." This error of twelve years, begun there and rejected above, seemed necessarily to be continued in his death, with the truth not being investigated, and has had various followers until now.

[97] St. Audoen was succeeded by St. Ansbert, from being the third Abbot of Fontenelle to Archbishop of Rouen, for whose Life on February 9 we arrange the dates of St. Wandregisil, founder and first Abbot of Fontenelle, and show that after his death on July 22 of the year 673, the second Abbot, St. Lambert, was substituted for him, whose administration is excellently supported by the year of King Theoderic. the 3rd year of Theoderic, the year of Christ 681, in October, For Aigradus, ^a contemporary author, in the manuscript Life of St. Condedus the Abbot, to be given on October 21, writes that the island of Belcinac on the river Seine was given to him by King Theoderic through ^a privilege of his authority to possess in perpetuity: to which Condedus also ^a wealthy and noble man named Schiward gave certain small possessions as ^a perpetual gift, on the 6th before the Ides of October, in the third year of the aforesaid King Theoderic, which was the ninth year of Lambert. Therefore the year of Christ 681, in which, at least in the said month of October, both the third year of Theoderic and the ninth of Lambert coincide: after which, when Lambert was ordained Archbishop of Lyon toward the end of the year 684 (for his predecessor St. Genesius had departed this life on the Kalends of November), St. Ansbert was given as the third Abbot to the monastery of Fontenelle, in whose second year, the seventh of King Theoderic, the 7th year of Theoderic, the year of Christ 685 or 686, the aforesaid Acts of St. Condedus report that various goods of the island of Belcinac were bestowed on the same monastery by the aforementioned Schiward, though without indicating the month of the donation, so that it could have been made either toward the end of the year 685 or certainly in the following year 686, of which ^a great part is to be referred to the said seventh year of King Theoderic, as we said above, and we confirm below, especially in the year of his death.

[98] the 7th year of Theoderic, the year of Christ 686, in May. In the same seventh year of the reign of Theoderic, on the 8th before the Ides of May, ^a privilege of Pope John V was given, by which the property of the Church of Arras is confirmed to Bishop St. Vindicianus, in Baldric, book 1 of the Chronicle of Cambrai, chapter 25. Pope John was elected on July 22 of the year 684 and died the following year on August 2, so that this privilege, given on the 8th before the Ides of May and in the seventh year of Theoderic, splendidly confirms our calculation.

[99] The see of St. Ansbert (whom we said succeeded St. Audoen, who died on August 24 of the year 689) is made famous by the synod of Rouen held by him, and indeed in the thirteenth year of the glorious King Theoderic, the 13th year of Theoderic, the year of Christ 691 or 692 as the printed and manuscript Acts of Rouen and Fontenelle express, which are most to be trusted. That year is the year of Christ 691, or certainly the next, 692. The month in which the synod was held is missing. Then in the year 693, on the very feast of the Ascension of Christ, St. Ansbert translated the body of St. Audoen to ^a more prominent place: and afterward, driven into exile, he died at the monastery of Hautmont in Hainaut on February 9 of the year 695. Others commonly refer this synod to the year

682, when, with SS. Genesius and Audoen, Archbishops, the former of Lyon, the latter of Rouen, still living, St. Ansbert was living as ^a private person under Abbot Lambert of Fontenelle. Sirmond in volume 1 of the Councils also judged this Synod of Rouen to have been held in the said year 682, and indeed in the sixteenth year of Theoderic, which he added from ^a manuscript codex of St. Michel-au-Peril. But that he did not reign so many years we shall shortly prove. Relying on this argument, very many have written that Theoderic began to reign in the year 667: which has been abundantly refuted. With the year of Christ an Indiction 10 had been intruded, which it also suffices to have noted.

[100] With these interposed, I return to the year 689, in which we have shown that St. Audoen died on August 24: after whose death is reported, it is added in the History written by command of Childebrand, chapter 99, Theoderic reigns 14 years, dies in 693 that at that same time Warado the Mayor of the Palace died: whose death is also referred in the Annals of Metz to the same year. Bertharius succeeded Warado, over whom and King Theoderic, Pepin won the victory of Tertry in Vermandois in the year 690, as the same Annals of Metz report. They fix the death of King Theoderic at the year 693, when he had reigned three years after being defeated by Pepin. According to the History written by command of Childebrand, chapter 101, Theoderic reigned fourteen years, from the summer of the year 679 to the year 693. Then the following is added: Clovis reigns more than 4 years, until the year 698 "They elected his young son Clovis to the kingdom. Not many years later, the aforesaid King Clovis fell ill and died. He reigned four years." The Annals of Metz report that when he had completed the fourth year in the kingdom, he ended his innocent life. In the very brief Chronicle of the Codex Tilianus in du Chesne, volume 1 of the History of the Franks, page 781, "Clovis reigned four years, died in the fifth," from the year 693 in its course to about the beginning of the year 698, which is the first year of King Childebert, with great approval of the Chronology established so far. In the epitaph of Theoderic, which is read inscribed on the upper border of the mausoleum in the monastery of St. Vaast, the year of his death is assigned as 694, which we have also indicated elsewhere. But since the time when that epitaph was composed is unknown, we prefer to retain the preceding year with the authors already cited. Others object to ^a certain document which was in the possession of Bongars, but it has been accurately refuted by us elsewhere and is here omitted.

[101] That Childebert reigned thirteen years is read in the History written by command of Childebrand, Childebert reigns 13 years, dies in 711 in the briefly compiled Chronicles of the Frankish Kings, page 798 of volume 1 of du Chesne, and Ado follows in his Chronicle. These thirteen years we count from the year 698 to 711, in which Childebert departed this life, as the Annals of Metz and other brief Annals in volume 2 of du Chesne, pages 3 and 6, report, and the hitherto disagreeing authors -- Bucherius, Petau, and others -- concur. At what age Childebert died, we have not yet read. Clovis III was made King as ^a small child and died as ^a boy. Under this King, his younger brother Childebert reigned only thirteen years, but having taken ^a wife and left ^a son, Dagobert III, Dagobert III succeeds. whom some call ^a boy-King and others ^a youth, and whom all generally call the younger Dagobert. The Annals of Metz and the History written by command of Childebrand report that he reigned five years. In the very brief Chronicle of volume 1 of du Chesne, page 781, it is read that he reigned four years and died in the fifth. The year of death 715 is assigned in the Annals of Fulda and other brief Annals in volume 2 of du Chesne, and is confirmed in the manuscript Chronicle of Fontenelle, where "King Dagobert the younger granted to Abbot Benignus the fourth part of the forest of Arlaune in the fifth year of his reign. . . This donation, or confirmation, was issued by the aforesaid King Dagobert in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 715, Indiction 13, on the 5th before the Ides of June, dead in 715 on Sunday. In the same year King Dagobert himself died." So it reads there: and the markers agree, with solar cycle 24 and Dominical letter F coinciding with the said year. Moreover, when Pepin of Herstal, whom we said above died after administering the prefecture for twenty-seven years in the year 714, his grandson Theobald, the son of Grimoald born of his legitimate wife Plectrude, succeeded at first. But Charles Martel, born of the concubine Alpais, remained under his stepmother's custody until the year 715, when, having been freed, he was taken up by the Austrasians alone, since Ragenfrid was already Mayor of the Palace under Dagobert III.

[102] When Dagobert III died in his youthful age, and still, as seems more likely to us, unmarried and perhaps below the age of puberty, Chilperic, son of Childeric, succeeds the Franks elected ^a certain Daniel, formerly ^a cleric, whose hair on his head was growing out, and named him Chilperic. So the History written by command of Childebrand, chapter 106, and the remaining authors concur. The monk of Angouleme in his Life of Charlemagne writes that this Chilperic was the brother of the younger Dagobert, and that his kinsman Theoderic was his successor. But the inverted order should perhaps be amended thus: Chilperic should be called ^a kinsman of King Dagobert, and Theoderic the brother of Chilperic, who is surnamed "Calensis" because he is reported to have been raised in the monastery of Chelles, perhaps under St. Bathild, whom Chilperic acknowledges as his grandmother, as well as Childeric as his father, in ^a diploma signed for Corbie; but he calls Dagobert III his cousin in another diploma given to the monks of St. Maur on the Loire. Now the brothers were Childeric, father of Chilperic, and Theoderic, grandfather of Dagobert the Younger: hence, given the ignorance of that rude age, they were called cousins, and by the monk of Angouleme kinsmen, as we have noted should be read. King Chilperic was defeated on Sunday in Lent, the 12th before the Kalends of April, in the year 717 by Charles Martel at Vinchy in the district of Cambrai, and again in 719 together with Duke Eudo of Aquitaine in the territory of Soissons, from whom Charles took the surrendered King Chilperic and brought him to Noyon in the year 720: where, shortly after his death, he established Theoderic on the royal throne, and in 720 Theoderic, perhaps his brother, who reigned seventeen years, from the year 720 to 737, in which we prove elsewhere that he died. After Theoderic's death, Charles Martel ruled for the rest of his life without any other King until the year 741, when he departed this life at Paris in the month of October, and after an interregnum and was buried in the monastery of St. Denis: the fable concocted about his damnation we refute on February 20 in the Life of St. Eucherius, Bishop of Orleans.

[103] From the division of Charles's principate, his sons Carloman and Pepin administered the kingdom for some time, even without any King. There survives ^a diploma of Pepin, by which the immunities of the Church of Macon are confirmed with this closing clause: "The sign of Pepin, Mayor of the Palace. I, Rodalgus, wrote at his command. Done on the Kalends of January, in the second year of the principate of the same Pepin, in the city of Metz, in the Royal Palace." Childeric in 743 That was the year 743, near the beginning of which we gather that Childeric, the last King, was raised to the throne, from the Council of Soissons then held: to which Pepin thus prefaces: "In the name of God and the Trinity. In the year 744 from the Incarnation of Christ, on the 6th before the Nones of March, and the fourteenth Moon, in the second year of Childeric, King of the Franks, I, Pepin, Duke and Prince of the Franks." That this Childeric was the son of King Theoderic is reported by the Genealogy of the Frankish Kings in du Chesne, volume 1, page 793, and the manuscript Chronicle of Fontenelle: in which he is said to have been deposed in the year 750, tonsured, tonsured as ^a monk in 750 and thrust into the monastery of St. Audomar, which is called Sithiu. "His son, named Theoderic, was made ^a cleric in this monastery of Fontenelle the following year and placed there." So it reads there. Ypres in his manuscript Bertinian Chronicle reports that King Childeric the monk died in the year 754, at the time of the second coronation of Pepin. This second coronation of Pepin was performed by Pope Stephen, who had traveled to Francia. the kingdom transferred to Pepin. But by the authority of Zacharias, Pepin had been crowned by St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, in the year 750, when Childeric was deposed. Which year we prove exactly elsewhere.

Section XIII. The Years of Christ, of the Pontiffs, Emperors, Consuls, and Indictions Subsequently Intruded by Later Generations.

[104] What could be objected against the Chronology given so far on account of certain neglected years of Christ, the Emperors, Pontiffs, Roman Consuls, or Indictions, we have deliberately reserved for this place, intending to show that where others establish for themselves the firmest support, from that very source ^a principal foundation of errors must sometimes be extracted. And first,

it is certain and undoubted among the learned that in the first five centuries there was no custom of enumerating individual years from the Incarnation or Nativity of Christ: the years of Christ not observed before the 6th century. Dionysius surnamed Exiguus, who flourished in the sixth century of Christ under the Emperor Justinian, is reported to have been the author of this practice; whose epoch, however, we have said elsewhere was somewhat different from today's reckoning. Hence the years of Christ are better absent from certain manuscript codices of the Chronicles of Eusebius, Jerome, Prosper, and other ancients, which, added in the margin by later hands, are read differently in Scaliger, differently in Pontac, Le Mire, and others. And Hydatius, while continuing their Chronicle, warns that lest the years of the Olympiads be disturbed, he writes the same year as both the last of Theodosius the Great and the first of his sons Arcadius and Honorius: he is silent about the years of Christ, which he would equally have disturbed. Furthermore, Eusebius, Jerome, Prosper, Marcellinus Comes, and others would have established the epoch of Christ from the baptism and preaching of Christ, or from his passion or resurrection; as their Chronicles demonstrate: which epoch, confused with the years from the Nativity of Christ in Victor of Tunnuna at the end of the Chronicle and in the Continuator of Fredegar chapter 109, clearly indicates that the custom of counting years from Christ's incarnation or nativity had not yet prevailed at that time.

[105] Bucherius, in his Treatise on the Chronology of the Frankish Kings, section 1, observes that recourse cannot be had to the reckoning from Christ's birth, among the Franks the years of Christ began to be used in the 8th century, since it was not used in the ancient histories before about the year 750 of Christ. But from that time onward, under King Pepin and his son Charlemagne, the method of reckoning from the incarnation or birth of Christ gradually so prevailed that the Chronicles themselves were soon composed according to such years of Christ. Andre du Chesne presents many such Annals in volume 2 of the History of the Franks, which end at the year of Christ variously 790, 800, with others adding 6, 8, or 13 years of that century; in which times their authors also seem to have lived. These, however, lest they stray too far, began their Annals from the last years of Pepin of Herstal and his son Charles Martel: around whose times ^a greater consensus of all authors is therefore found. The monk of St. Denis in the Deeds of Dagobert, and Aimoin in his History of the ancient Franks, although they lived long after the reckoning from Christ's birth was already in common use, nevertheless, to avoid every occasion for error, employed only those chronological markers which they knew had been used by the most ancient and contemporary writers.

[106] Regino, Abbot of Prum, who flourished at the beginning of the tenth century, only in his second book of the Chronicle traces the times and deeds of the Princes through the years of the Lord's Incarnation from the death of Charles Martel; but in the first book, with the years of Christ omitted, he notes at the end of the first book that he will nevertheless show in summary at what time, in what place, and what was done under each Prince. intruded into book 1 of Regino, But another person, thinking it unseemly that those years of Christ were absent from the first book, intruded them in such disorder that ^a gap of nearly an entire century is found to have been admitted. For toward the end of the first book, after proposing the year of the Lord's Incarnation 655, the following is added: "Charles the Prince in the tenth year of his reign fought with the Bavarians, in the fifteenth he battled against Lantfrid, in the sixteenth he crushed Duke Eudo of Aquitaine, in the seventeenth he defeated the Saracens," etc. But the second book immediately begins with the death of the same Charles Martel in these words: "In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 741, Charles, son of Pepin, Mayor of the Palace and most warlike Duke of the Franks, died." Behold ^a gap of eighty and more years in the same Charles, which, being exceedingly absurd, we do not think could be the work of Regino himself. Wherefore, with the years of the Lord's Incarnation deleted throughout the entire first book, we believe the individual paragraphs should begin with the Emperors, in this fashion: "Maurice reigned twenty years. Phocas reigned eight years. Heraclius reigned twenty-six years," etc., with the time indicated through the succession of Emperors, he subjoined what he believed was accomplished in various places at that time, though not always without errors. Thus we noted above that the death of King Dagobert I was deferred by him to the reign of Justinian Rhinotmetus, begun in the year 685: yet the year of the Lord's Incarnation 612, prefixed by later hands to this reign, introduced the greatest confusion of all things. That those years of Christ were added some centuries ago is indicated by ancient manuscript codices in which they are also read.

[107] The author of the Chronicle of Ghent, Theoderic Abbot of St. Trudo, Philip Abbot of Bonne-Esperance, and other historians who flourished in Belgium in the twelfth century of Christ do not differ much from this chronology. Thus in the Chronicle of Ghent the year of the Lord's Incarnation 610 is joined with the fourteenth year of King Dagobert. And Philip the Abbot and others write that St. Amandus, who in the second year of King Theoderic, the year of Christ 681, in the month of April composed his testament, died in the year of Christ 661. But that the ancient marker of Kings Dagobert and Theoderic should be preserved there, with the years of Christ expunged, we shall teach on February 6, the feast day of St. Amandus. The Life of St. Vedast, treated by us on the same February 6, and various Acts of Saints. presents forty years of his episcopate, is silent about the year of his death, which the same Life in the Breviary of Arras, distributed into Matins readings, gives as the year of Christ 570. The same year 570 is reported by Sigebert in his Chronicle, Baronius in his Notes on the Roman Martyrology, and other illustrious writers; yet it is certain from what will be said on February 6 that St. Vedast died around the year 540. In exactly the same way we shall show on February 9, in the Life of St. Ansbert, that the years of Christ intruded into the Acts of SS. Wandregisil, Audoen, and Ansbert must be expunged. For those Acts were written by contemporary authors, when the custom of ascribing years of Christ had not yet been adopted among the Franks.

[108] Less difficulty appears in the years of the Roman Pontiffs that are appended, since that custom too cannot easily be proved to have been used by the more ancient writers, and enormous errors vindicate the contemporary authors from ^a similar confusion. Years of the Pontiffs, Thus Pope St. Martin, who succeeded Theodore after the latter's death in 647, is everywhere joined with King Dagobert, who died in 644: indeed, the Chronicle of Ghent places the fourteenth year of Dagobert and the fifth of Pope Martin in the year of Christ 610. Some so disturb the markers of Emperors and Roman Consuls and Indictions, of Emperors, Consuls, Indictions, more commonly used and familiar to the ancient chronographers, as though they had been applied at every place and time. Gregory of Tours, while in book 1 and the beginning of book 2 of his History he describes those times in which the Roman Emperors still held power in Gaul, distributes the events arranged according to the epoch of those same Emperors through their proper times; also adducing the Roman Consuls, which he had found more accurately observed down to the year of the death of St. Martin. But thereafter, after the Roman Empire was eliminated from the Gauls and the kingdom of the Franks was there established, formerly not used by the Franks. the more ancient writers of Francia observed only the years of their own Kings -- Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Fortunatus, Audoen, Ursinus, and other contemporary writers of the Lives of the Saints, and following them the monk of St. Denis in the Deeds of Dagobert and the aforementioned Aimoin.

[109] But when the Frankish Kings were raised to be Roman Emperors, the Franks, along with the title of Emperors, also adopted the use of Indictions, to which the Romans had been accustomed, which the diplomas of Louis the Pious and the succeeding Emperors commonly exhibit. supplied by later generations, Posterity therefore, seeing that the histories of their ancestors written in those times lacked these markers of Emperors and Indictions, as if ^a singular ornament, themselves supplied by their own reckoning what was absent from the older histories. Trithemius, as if the years of the ancient Kings could be most securely confirmed by the appended Indictions, adapted them to his own reckoning. not without errors. Thus in his History of the Franks, Dagobert I departed this life in the year of Christ 665, Indiction 8, and Clovis II in 681, Indiction 9, an error of about twenty years having been committed: which in his Compendium of book 1 of the Annals, somewhat corrected, Dagobert is said to have died in 645, Indiction 3, Clovis II in 662, Indiction 5, and so on for others. The same Clovis in the Chronicle of Moissac, after the death of Dagobert, assumed his father's kingdom in the year of the Incarnation of Christ 641, Indiction 4: and died, and his son Clothar reigned for him, in the year of the Incarnation of Christ 658, Indiction 2. All of which, although they seem to be rendered most certain by the Indictions, we have refuted above.

[110] A more tangled problem is presented by the Ecclesiastical Councils held under the first Frankish Kings, whether correctly appended to the Councils held under the first Frankish Kings. on account of some mention of Indictions, Emperors, and even Roman Consuls: in ordering which, Sirmond labored much in his notes on volume 1 of the Councils of Gaul, Petau in book 11 of his Doctrine of Times, chapter 48, and others. We candidly confess that the variety of these markers is very suspect, and that they seem to us to have been more often intruded by later hands. The consulship of Felix, first appended by Sirmond to the First Council of Orleans without any certain manuscript codex being cited, we rejected above. The Second Council of Orleans is read as held in the twenty-second year of King Childebert of Paris, therefore the year of Christ 531, and the tenth year of the Emperor Justinian: which marker of the Emperor we expunge with Sirmond, judging it intruded by those who, following the Chronicle of Sigebert, had deferred the death of Clovis to the year 514. To the Third Council of Orleans is commonly ascribed the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year of the same Childebert, in which year of Christ 535 or the next we judge it was held: others require the twentieth year of the King, on account of the consulship of Paulinus Junior added in other codices, to which accordingly Baronius, contrary to the evidence of the Fasti, ascribed ^a second consulship at the year 540. In the Lyon manuscript codex as preserved by Sirmond, with the King omitted, the fourth year after the consulship of Paulinus Junior is added, Indiction 11, in which however Sirmond writes there is ^a manifest error: which must be said of both the consulship and the Indiction. Regarding the Fourth Council of Orleans, since the year of King Childebert is omitted, nothing certain can be established; whether from the single Pithou manuscript codex Indiction 4, under the consul Basilius, ^a most distinguished man, is correctly read, could be discussed from the subscriptions of the Bishops. The Fifth Council of Orleans is read as held on the 5th before the Kalends of November, in the thirty-eighth year of Childebert, which is the year of Christ 547. Scaliger in book 6 of his Emendation of Times adds that it was held around the times of Pope Pelagius I, in Indiction 13, in the twelfth year after the consulship of Paulinus. These do not cohere: Pelagius was elected to the pontificate in the year of Christ 555; but the year 546 is the twelfth after the consulship of Paulinus. Petau considers Indiction 11 should be substituted, which better agrees with the consulship of Paulinus and the pontificate of Pelagius. The Fifth Council of Arles was held in the forty-third year of Childebert, to which Sirmond corrects the added Indiction 3, substituting 2, to make the year 554, which was held in 552. The Second Council of Lyon was celebrated in the sixth year of King Guntram, therefore the year of Christ 566, not in Indiction 3, which is commonly read, but 14. In the same year of Christ, the Second Council of Tours reports only the sixth year of King Charibert. The Fourth Council of Paris has subscribed the 3rd before the Nones of September of the twelfth year of Chilperic, with Indiction 6, which had begun from the Kalends of September in the year of Christ 572. The First Council of Macon was celebrated on the Kalends of November, in the twenty-first year of Guntram, Indiction 15, which correspond to the year of Christ 581. The Second Council of Valence is referred to the twenty-fourth year of Guntram, Indiction 2, the 10th before the Kalends of June. That year is 584. In all of which we have followed the Era of Fredegar. Sirmond corrected the year of Guntram from 23, and earlier from 20, to accommodate it to the reckoning of Gregory of Tours.

LIFE

BY SIGEBERT,

monk of Gembloux.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (St.)

BHL Number: 7712a

By Sigebert of Gembloux,

CHAPTER I.

The Ancestors of St. Sigebert. His Birth.

[1] In the year of the Lord's Incarnation five hundred and eighty-six, Clothar the Second, son of King Chilperic and Fredegund, began to reign in Francia as quite ^a young boy. When he had come to the age of understanding, he began to cultivate honesty of character. Whence, exalted by God, he advanced to such ^a point that he merited to receive alone the monarchy of the Frankish kingdom. In the thirty-ninth year of his reign he associated his son Dagobert in the partnership of the kingdom: and lest the license of royal power and the intemperance of youthful age should cause him to stray from the path of rectitude, he placed at his side men distinguished for their power and sanctity, Dagobert is associated in the kingdom by his father: namely St. Arnulf, who had been Bishop of Metz from being Mayor of the Palace, and Pepin, Mayor of the Palace, at that time preeminent among all courtiers in power and prudence. Under the guidance of these tutors, Dagobert extended the kingdom of the Franks more widely, and labored most earnestly to subdue the Saxons, who were harassing the borders of his kingdom with frequent raids. he subdues the Saxons: With the help of his father Clothar, he so defeated them that he both killed their King Berthoald and slaughtered with the sword all Saxons who exceeded the measure of his sword.

[2] King Dagobert, having begun with such good principles, he changes his life for the worse: after the death of his father began gradually to fall away from the resolve of equity, and from the counsels of Prince Pepin, and of Cunibert, Archbishop of Cologne, whom the same Pepin, after the death of St. Arnulf, had chosen as ^a friend of one mind with him and an intimate in his counsels. For although King Dagobert was an outstanding warrior, ^a pious lover of God's priests and churches, ^a generous reliever of Christ's poor, and an executor of many good arts; yet he labored excessively under the disease of carnal incontinence, whence he had both contracted ^a foul mark of infamy upon the fame of his name, and (what was more serious) had kindled the wrath of the King of Kings against himself. For he was repudiating his Queens one after another on fabricated pretexts, and was also introducing the loves of concubines alongside his betrothed. And although he was so given to carnal commerce, he had no hope of propagating posterity, since no son was born from any of so many wives.

[3] The King therefore grieved exceedingly, he lacks children: because he felt he had incurred the offense of God: especially since he knew that from the royal line of his fathers none survived except himself and his brother Charibert: which Charibert, on account of his excessive simplicity, was less fit for the governance of the kingdom. But although despairing of the prosperity of offspring, yet not despairing of God's mercy, he besought Him from the depths of his heart he prays to God for them: that by His will ^a son might be given to him who would be substituted for him in the governance of the kingdom. The just and merciful Lord, who is drawn to anger by the errors of men, is also brought back to mercy by the prayers of the humble. For King Dagobert, while he was touring Austrasia in the ninth year of his reign, joined to himself in marriage with the honor of royal ceremony ^a certain girl named Ragnetrude, praiseworthy for the beauty of her countenance he obtains ^a son. and not ignoble by birth among the Austrasians: who, by the will of God, bore him ^a son in that same year.

CHAPTER II.

Baptism. Education.

[4] The King, gladdened by this news, began to turn over in his mind to which of the holy men he should rather entrust this boy, who was to regenerate him by sacred baptism. There were at that time in the kingdom of the Franks many men praiseworthy before God and men for their sanctity and virtues. Among whom St. Amandus of Elnone shone more gloriously: who, ^a native of Aquitaine, followed Christ, having left all things, and comforted the labors of his voluntary pilgrimage with the earnestness of Divine preaching, and by his cultivation the most abundant harvest throughout Francia was gathered into the granaries of Christ. St. Amandus is summoned Messengers were dispatched in various directions to seek him, at the edict of the impatient King. This Amandus had long since -- because he alone of all the priests had not feared to rebuke the King for his capital crimes -- been expelled from his kingdom with insult by his command, and was preaching the word of God to the pagans in the more remote places of Francia. At length he was found and admonished to come to the King with all speed. Remembering the precept of the Apostle that every soul should be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13:1 he came to the King, who was staying at the villa of Clichy. When the King saw the most blessed Amandus, he was filled with great joy, and prostrating himself at his feet, besought him to deign to grant pardon for so great ^a crime as he had perpetrated against him. But Amandus, he initially refuses to baptize him, being most mild, quickly raised him from the ground and most mercifully pardoned him. Then the King said to the Saint: "I repent that I acted foolishly against you. I pray therefore that you remember not the injury I inflicted on you, and not disdain to grant the prayer I ask of you. God has given me ^a son, not for any merits of mine, and I pray that you deign to wash him in sacred baptism and accept him as your spiritual son." The man of the Lord vehemently refused, knowing it to be written that one who serves God should not entangle himself in secular affairs: 2 Tim. 2:4 and that one who is quiet and withdrawn should not frequent the royal palaces; and he withdrew from the presence of the King. Again the King sent to him illustrious men, then serving in lay dress at the palace -- through the intercession of SS. Audoen and Eligius he assents. namely Audoen, afterward Bishop of Rouen, and Eligius, afterward Bishop of Noyon. These humbly asked the man of God to give his assent to the prayers of the King and deign to wash his son in the sacred font, and to agree as quickly as possible to nurture him and instruct him in the Divine law; saying that if the man of the Lord did not refuse this, through this familiarity he would more willingly have the freedom to preach in his kingdom, or wherever he might choose, and that through this grace they professed he could win over many nations. At length, wearied by the entreaties of both, he promised he would do it.

[5] When the King heard that the holy man had assented to his prayers, he ordered the boy to be brought: and he himself hastened to Orleans, where his brother Charibert met him for this very purpose, to receive his son from the sacred font. There the boy was brought, who was reported to be no more than forty days old. he baptizes him, who responds Amen The holy man, receiving him to be initiated in the sacred mysteries, with solemn benediction made him ^a catechumen. And when the benediction was finished and none of the bystanders had responded "Amen," God opened the mouth of the infant, and in the hearing of all he responded in ^a clear voice, "Amen." Immediately regenerating him in sacred baptism, he named him Sigebert, and he himself together with Charibert, the King's brother, received him from the sacred font. At this the King, together with his entire army, rejoiced with great joy, and thenceforth held the holy man in ^a place of great veneration, and not long after enthroned him in the see of the Church of Maastricht. O wondrous grace of God! O praiseworthy power! Who would not cry out in His praise? Who would not exult in the riches of His goodness? He who once sanctified the Prophet Jeremiah in his mother's womb, by whose spirit the more-than-Prophet John exulted with his mother, and not yet born, foreseeing the King about to be born, greeted Him with rejoicing; He also now poured into the newborn child through the mouth of the holy Bishop the charism of spiritual blessing, and showed by the miracle of the same child that he would be ^a vessel of election: whom as soon as the stain of original sin was washed away, He drenched with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Truly blessed in all things, through whom the name of the Lord is still blessed in the Church, and shall be blessed forever.

[6] Glory scarcely, or never, escapes envy. Pepin, Mayor of the Palace, who bore himself cautiously and prudently in all affairs of the kingdom and the palace, good in counsel, terrible in strength, praiseworthy in every way for the cultivation of justice and the resolve of faith -- the more he surpassed all in glory, the greater envy of almost all the Austrasians he had kindled against himself, with his rivals watching for an opportunity to remove him from the King's side: either to sever him from the King's heart, or to have him punished with death. But he, skilled in moderating his spirit, was not willing to be overcome by evil, but overcame evil with good. he is nurtured by St. Pepin. For to free himself and the whole kingdom from the scandal of discord, having taken the King's son Sigebert to nurture, he yielded to the faction of the envious and hastened to Charibert, the King's brother, who was staying in Aquitaine. Not long after, when the little cloud of this tempest had passed, the more joyful breeze of serenity returned through concord.

CHAPTER III.

The Kingdom of the Austrasians. The Death of Dagobert.

[7] A certain Samo, ^a Frank by birth, ^a merchant by trade, having betaken himself to the nation of the Wends, and having been promoted by them to be their King through his courage and industry, when ^a quarrel arose between himself and King Dagobert, often crossing the boundary of his kingdom, he is constituted King of the Austrasians. devastated Thuringia and the other Frankish districts neighboring him most fiercely. For this reason King Dagobert, in the eleventh year of his reign, went to Metz, and there ordered an assembly of magnates and Bishops to be present, and by their counsel and consent elevated his son Sigebert to the kingdom of the Austrasians and permitted him to have the royal seat at the city of Metz: he also handed over ^a sufficient portion of treasures, and authorized all this by royal edict and the attestation of the magnates. The guardianship of the King, for whose boyhood he feared, he entrusted to Archbishop Cunibert of Cologne and Duke Adalgisil:

but the care of the Austrasian kingdom and the oversight of all affairs he imposed on Prince Pepin. From that day the insolence of the Wends was repressed, as the strength of the Austrasians met them bravely and successfully, and repressed their incursions by frequent battles.

[8] After ^a year, ^a son was born to King Dagobert who was named Clovis. his brother Clovis is born: Again assembling all the magnates of Austrasia and Neustria in ^a general convention, he again ordained the division of the kingdom between his two sons in their presence, with their assent and counsel, and confirmed it by pacts and oaths mutually given and received, so that with ^a definite boundary of each kingdom determined, Sigebert should reign over Austrasia, and Clovis should govern Neustria. he is appointed King of Neustria: That part of Francia which looks toward the south and east they called Austrasia: that which faces north and west they called Neustria. King Dagobert, having so justly and prudently arranged both kingdoms, lest at any time in any way either the brothers should disagree with each other in paternal hatred or the kingdom, divided against itself, should be desolated by the scandal of civil war, died in the seventeenth year of his reign, Dagobert dies. and was buried at Paris in the basilica of St. Denis, leaving the kingdom at peace with foreign nations and in no way diminished from its boundaries.

[9] After his death, the two Kings and brothers, Sigebert and Clovis, each conducted himself prudently in his own kingdom, and they prevailed powerfully among their subjects, showing themselves appeasing to the obedient, Sigebert claims his share of the royal treasury. terrible to those who opposed them. And although in all things ^a God-pleasing concord flourished between them, nevertheless for one matter discord almost crept in. For when King Sigebert was demanding his due share of the paternal treasury, the magnates who were on the side of Clovis endeavored to oppose him. But Prince Pepin and Archbishop Cunibert, insisting strongly and reasonably, by their power extracted from the unwilling magnates of Neustria, with justice mediating, that they should come by agreement to the villa of Compiegne, and there the King's treasury should be divided by equal balance, and each should be given his share appropriately. They came there: the treasury was divided equally, and the due share was presented at Metz to King Sigebert.

CHAPTER IV.

The Death of St. Pepin. Grimoald as Mayor of the Palace. The Thuringian War.

[10] The following year brought the greatest grief to King Sigebert and his kingdom, St. Pepin, Mayor of the Palace, dies, when Pepin, Mayor of the Palace, was taken from this light, who had nurtured Sigebert himself as ^a father from boyhood, and had supported the weakness of his childhood and adolescence with the arm of his powerful assistance. This man, useful to the kingdom in every way, preeminent above all in birth, power, prudence, and courage, made his son Grimoald the heir of his affairs: he also left behind him, to the praise and glory of his family, two daughters, Gertrude and Begga. Of whom Gertrude, preferring to be wed to Christ rather than to ^a carnal spouse, devoted to the purpose of holy religion in the monastery of Nivelles, founded by her mother, does not yet cease to bear spiritual offspring for God. Her sister Begga, married to Ansegisel, the son of St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, head of the royal family: restored through her progeny the glory of royal dignity, which had utterly perished through the unheard-of sloth of the Kings of the Franks. For she bore Pepin, Pepin bore Charles, who was surnamed Tudites, that is, Martel (the Hammer): Charles bore King Pepin: Pepin bore Charles, surnamed the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans: who advanced to such ^a height of honor and power that no King of the Franks, either before or after him, could be compared to him. Since we have digressed somewhat, let us quickly return to where we departed.

[11] his son Grimoald succeeds. Grimoald, established as Mayor of the Palace in place of his father Pepin, ruled powerfully in the court of King Sigebert, and at home and on campaign defended it manfully. All things were thought to be secure, and with the behavior of the neighboring nations kept in check, nothing was feared. Yet envy, the stepmother of good things, found ^a way to sow the tares of discord in the very vitals of the kingdom. Otto, the son of Uro, ^a man of the household, who had been Sigebert's guardian from adolescence, was driven by the zeal of envy against Grimoald the Mayor of the Palace, and having drawn some of the magnates to himself, was creeping toward the hope of seizing his principate.

[12] Radulf also, Duke of Thuringia, ^a warlike man, puffed up by prosperous successes, he attacks the Thuringians with varying fortune. having defeated the Wends in frequent engagements, acted more insolently against Sigebert his lord and King, and despising his youth, brought great trouble upon the kingdom: and he advanced to such madness that, having caught the army of Sigebert in an ambush, he presumed to make no small slaughter of the Franks. This misfortune brought the King the greatest grief, he being then in the ninth year of his reign and the twelfth of his age. But because courage and industry grew in him with age, he did not desist from the pursuit of his enemies until he had subdued their pride and brought back the Thuringians, who had rebelled at the instigation of Radulf, he subdues them. vanquished and confounded under the yoke of his lordship: Otto also, who, looking askance at the power of Grimoald, was striving to draw it to himself, was slaughtered by the faction of Grimoald through Leuthari, Duke of the Alemanni, to his advantage, and thus Grimoald was strengthened in his principate.

CHAPTER V.

Monasteries Endowed. Alms. Death. Burial.

[13] Deep peace and quiet prevailed within all the territories of the Austrasians, with both foreign and domestic adversaries pacified on every side, the virtue of God advancing the virtue of King Sigebert, whom He had shown would be pleasing to Him from the first beginnings of his age. For He who gave Solomon in his tender age wisdom, riches, and power, gave also to this man wisdom, riches, and power. Luke 11:31 Indeed, if I dare use the words of the Lord, endowed with singular wisdom and sanctity, I shall confidently say, "Behold, more than Solomon is here." For Solomon lost the wisdom which he received at night and in ^a dream by transgressing the worship of God; he turned the riches and power which he possessed above all to the ruin of his soul, and by sinning deserved that they should be diminished in his posterity. But this, our peaceful Solomon, converted whatever wisdom, whatever possessions, whatever power he had to the profit of his soul, and by doing well merited that it should be spiritually multiplied in his posterity. For it usually happens in kingdoms at peace that through idleness and sloth, with morals corrupted, men abuse the security of peace. This man, on the contrary, rejoicing in the duration of temporal peace, labored to go forth to meet the aerial hosts: and about to wrestle against the spiritual powers of wickedness in the heavenly places, he sought to hire spiritual armies who would fight alongside him.

[14] he builds 12 monasteries and endows them with revenues; For he built twelve monasteries in various parts of his kingdom and supplied them from his own revenues with royal liberality what was necessary, so that those living there under the rule of the Apostolic life, while they reaped their carnal things, might sow for themselves their spiritual things. Among these, the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy, situated in the forest of the Ardennes, stand out in our vicinity: which the same King, with the cooperation of Grimoald his Mayor of the Palace, having built, entrusted to St. Remacle, Bishop of Tongres, to organize. generous toward St. Remacle. For he relied especially on the counsel of Remacle and of Cunibert, Bishop of Cologne, and was animated to do such things by the example of holy men. And that we may learn many things from one, let us gather from these two how great was the liberality of the pious King in enriching holy places. Hearing that in the places assigned to St. Remacle the practice of holy religion was flourishing, especially since the same Bishop, having cast off the episcopal burden, had devoted himself there to ^a stricter life, he gave him from the very forest twelve leagues in width and as many in length: in which space no one should contradict him or his successors; and they confirmed this by testament with imperial attestation.

[15] King Sigebert, truly worthy of the name of King, because he knew how to rule himself well, took the greatest care to distribute earthly goods to the least of Christ's, so that he might at last attain the Supreme Good, which clearly consists in nothing but eternal blessedness. For he had learned that earthly happiness is always curtailed in some respect, lest it arrive at the perfection of the good. For although riches, honors, power, and glory flowed to him abundantly with royal magnificence, yet he grieved that much was wanting to his happiness, because he lacked the sweet affection of children. he adopts Grimoald's son as his heir: And therefore he pressed more freely on building monasteries for the edification of souls, and distributed his goods to Christ more liberally: because apart from Christ, to whom these would accrue, there was no legitimate heir for him. Since he had found Grimoald the Mayor of the Palace faithful, obedient, and cooperative to himself in all things, he designated his son Childebert as heir of the Austrasian kingdom: yet with this proviso, should he happen to die without children. The King, being ignorant of the future, did what then seemed fitting to him given the circumstances of the time: but afterward he fathered ^a son, whom he named Dagobert after his own father: when ^a son is born to him he rescinds it: and having annulled the former testament, he entrusted this son to be nurtured by Grimoald the Mayor of the Palace, so that by his power the child might be safely elevated to the Austrasian kingdom against all opposition.

[16] Such was the life of King Sigebert, which among men both temporal power magnified and ^a justice pleasing to God in all things commended: before God, however, ^a dove-like simplicity made it acceptable; though he also possessed serpentine cunning. Since Wisdom says through the mouth of Solomon, "Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth ^a most pure vessel; he redeems his sins with alms: take away iniquity from the face of the King, and his throne shall be established in justice" Prov. 25:4-5; the King, in whose hand are the hearts of Kings, removed from His servant Sigebert, who through purity of life and the beauty of wisdom shone like silver, the dross of sins in this present age, and made for Himself ^a most pure vessel of mercy. And since God says to us, "Give alms, and behold, all things are clean to you"; who would disbelieve that God washed away the sins of this King -- clinging to him like dust from earthly contagion and the occupations of the kingdom -- through so many alms which were expended to the praise and glory of the name of Christ by him, and are still daily expended in so many monasteries built by him? He assuredly took away iniquity from the face of the King, so that his throne might be established in justice: that since he, living justly by faith, had set at naught the pride of an earthly kingdom, crowned with the crown of justice and adorned with the palm of victory, he might reign together with Christ in the heavens.

[17] The King, therefore, terrible in the sight of all the Kings of the earth, who takes away the spirit of Princes, he dies, lest the malice of the world should change the understanding of His soldier, snatched him by bitter death from this present wicked age in the flower of youthful years, and conferred on him in the heavenly court the glory of true dignity. He died on the Kalends of February, he is buried at Metz. in about the thirty-first year of his age, the twenty-eighth of his reign, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and sixty-two, in the two hundred and sixty-third year from the passing of St. Martin. And he who had left remarkable memorials of himself in many places, chose to be buried in the city of Metz, which had been the seat of his kingdom, in the basilica which he had built with royal liberality to the glory and praise of God in honor of St. Martin the glorious Confessor.

ON THE DEEDS OF ST. SIGEBERT THE KING

Analecta from Various Authors.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (St.)

By G. H.

Section I. St. Sigebert's Wife Imnechildis, His Son Dagobert King of the Austrasians: His Granddaughter St. Irmina, His Great-Grandson St. Gregory of Utrecht, and Others Descended from St. Sigebert.

[1] The wife of St. Sigebert was Imnechildis, by some called Emnechildis, Eumechildis, and Chinechildis, from whom Dagobert and perhaps more children were born. St. Sigebert's wife Imnechildis When St. Sigebert died, Dagobert, then eight or ten years old, to whom the kingdom was due by hereditary right, was expelled by the faction of the magnates, after Dagobert his son is sent to Scotland by the magnates, and especially of Grimoald the Mayor of the Palace, and tonsured as ^a cleric, by the counsel of Dido, Bishop of Poitiers, was directed to Scotland, or the island of Ireland, and in his place Childebert, son of Grimoald, was intruded into the kingdom of the Austrasians: ^a false rumor had been spread that he had been adopted by St. Sigebert as heir to the kingdom, and that Dagobert was dead, as we prove elsewhere from the ancient authors. Imnechildis, the wife of St. Sigebert, after her son was carried off to Ireland, seems to have fled to Paris, to implore aid against the usurper of the kingdom. she rules the Austrasians with King Childeric. For when Childeric had been expelled, she together with the young Childeric ruled the Austrasians, and in the second year of his reign both King Childeric and Queen Imnechildis granted the monastery of Barisis in the territory of Laon to St. Amandus. By the counsel of the same Queen Imnechildis, Childeric is also reported to have founded ^a monastery in upper Alsace in the valley of St. Gregory.

[2] At that time St. Wilfrid was living in England, consecrated Bishop in 664 and placed over all of Northumbria around the year 669. He received Dagobert, coming to him from Ireland, as his guest, and supplied with horses and companions, sent him back to his country: Dagobert on his return is made King in Alsace, and for whom his mother Imnechildis procured ^a part of the kingdom in more remote places, and fostered peace and concord between both Kings. Having been established as King, Dagobert kindly received St. Wilfrid when he came to him, and wearied him with many prayers to grace his province with his continued presence, accepting the bishopric of Strasbourg. in Transrhenane territories, We deduce these things elsewhere from the Acts of St. Wilfrid. We gather from Brusch in his work on the Bishops of Strasbourg under St. Arbogast that this Dagobert's wife was Mechtild, Duchess of the Saxons. Indeed, Matthew Merian in his Topography of the Archdiocese of Mainz, treating of Heiligenstadt, the chief city of the Eichsfeld, reports from manuscript Chronicles that Dagobert, expelled from his kingdom, lived with his wife among the Thuringians, and they say that place owes its beginnings to Dagobert. What is also read in the additions to Lambert of Schafnaburg published by Pistorius, page 264, concerning ^a monastery built at Erfurt, seems to be referred to the same Dagobert, and the period of Kygibert or Richbert, Bishop of Mainz, confirms this, but for the year 707 the year 677 or one close to it should be substituted. This Dagobert was called King of the Germans, of the Germanic Franks, and of the Transrhenane Franks, and besides the territories situated beyond the Rhine, he also held Alsace with the city of Strasbourg. In this Alsace he assigned his Palace of Kirchheim and other places to the monastery of Haslach, when St. Florentius, afterward Bishop of Strasbourg, had restored sight and speech to his daughter. he had ^a son resuscitated by St. Arbogast, Various gifts were also made by Dagobert to the Church of Strasbourg and to the monasteries of Schuttern and Saarburg, when his son had been restored to life by St. Arbogast, Bishop of Strasbourg. This son of Dagobert seems to have been born in the royal castle of Senburg, or Isenburg, and reborn at the sacred font of baptism, called Sigebert after the name of his grandfather. Hence, with the periods not being distinguished, St. Sigebert himself is erroneously reported to have been resuscitated from the dead by Brusch and Guilliman in their work on the Bishops of Strasbourg under St. Arbogast, and by Coccius in his preliminary chapter 15 on Dagobert. and mistakenly taken for his grandfather St. Sigebert. But with the resuscitation omitted, he is said to have been killed by ^a boar during ^a hunt on the island of Noethe in the Rhine by Jean Isaac Pontanus in book 2 of his History of Guelders: and extinguished by poison through Grimoald by Le Mire in the Belgian Fasti on February 21 in the eulogy of Blessed Duke Pepin. The Sainte-Marthes also raise the suspicion of poison in volume 1 of the Genealogical History of the Kings of France, book 5, chapter 8. All of which falls apart when the distinction of times and persons is made. The rest we confirm elsewhere from the Acts of SS. Arbogast and Florentius, Bishops of Strasbourg.

[3] Imnechildis, the wife of St. Sigebert and mother of this Dagobert, was staying with King Childeric, even after the latter had taken Bilichild as his wife. Imnechildis wields authority in the Austrasian kingdom These three confirm the donations made by St. Sigebert to the monks of Stavelot and Malmedy. The diploma itself, to be given below, begins thus: "Childeric, King of the Franks, Emnechildis and Bilechild, Queens by the grace of God, to the illustrious men Duke Gundoin and Odo, Domestic." And this is its closing clause: "That this precept of ours, written on parchment, may endure firm and inviolable, we have decreed to confirm it below with our own hand. The sign of the glorious Lord Childeric the King. The sign of Emnechildis the Queen. The sign of Bilichild, Queen by the grace of God. The sign of Duke Gundoin. [672] Given on the sixth day of the month of September, in the eighth year of the reign of Lord King Childeric. At Maastricht, happily." That year is 672. Then in the year 676, when Clothar III, King of Neustria and Burgundy, died, Childeric succeeded him and at the same time retained the kingdom of the Austrasians; in which it is implied that Queen Imnechildis lived with some continuing authority, in the Life of St. Praeiectus, Bishop of the Arverni, January 25, edited from ^a manuscript of Utrecht, where in number 11 one reads thus: "When the man of God Praeiectus, summoned to court by Count Hector, recognized that he was hard pressed on all sides, compelled by necessity, he responded that he held the affairs of the Church commended to the authority of Queen Imnechildis. And when they learned of this assertion, the matter remained unfinished. The blessed Praeiectus therefore finally set forth the labor of his work and how he had come under guarantee to appear." and 679 The King, however, and Queen Bilichild (so the name is expressed in the other Life), struck with fear, publicly sought pardon from the said Bishop. These events occurred in the year 679, during the solemn vigils of Easter. Childeric did not long survive, killed by impious assassins together with his pregnant Queen, and buried at Rouen in the basilica of St. Peter.

[4] When Childeric was killed, Theoderic was recalled to the kingdom by the Neustrians and Burgundians: but by the Austrasians ^a certain Clovis, believed to be the son of Clothar III, was made King; but when he was then rejected, Dagobert becomes King of the Austrasians, the legitimate heir of the kingdom, Dagobert, the son of St. Sigebert, having been summoned by the magnates, seems to have accepted his father's kingdom, of which he had already long possessed some part, as something freely offered rather than to have subdued it by arms and force of war. This was the kindling of ^a new war between the Austrasians and Neustrians. We deduce this war elsewhere from the Life of St. Salaberga the Abbess, written by ^a contemporary author.

[5] he ratifies the donations of his father St. Sigebert: Among the more illustrious monasteries built by St. Sigebert, we shall soon say that Stavelot and Malmedy stand out: to which Dagobert, now established as King among the Austrasians, confirmed the donation made by his father. The diploma begins thus: "Dagobert, King of the Franks, an illustrious man. We trust that this accrues to the stability of the kingdom in the name of God, if we resolve to confirm in the name of God the acts of the Lord and our father, the former King Sigebert, by our own decrees. And therefore the venerable Godwin, Abbot of the monastery of Stavelot and Malmedy, has suggested to the clemency of our kingdom that the Lord and our father King Sigebert had granted by his precept..." We give the complete diploma elsewhere and confirm it by other imperial charters and the constitution of Pope St. Leo IX. he promotes the conversion of the Frisians: St. Boniface the Archbishop reports in ^a letter sent on this matter to Pope Stephen, published among his letters in Serarius, number 97, that the conversion of the Frisians to the faith was entrusted by King Dagobert to the Bishop of Cologne: which we give elsewhere and prove should be understood of Dagobert, son of St. Sigebert.

[6] Besides the son resuscitated from death by the prayers of St. Arbogast, Dagobert had many daughters: among whom the chief is St. Irmina the Virgin, the first Abbess of the monastery of Horreum at Trier, his daughters: St. Irmina the Abbess, also inscribed in the Calendar of the Roman Martyrology on December 24. She was buried in the monastery of Weissenburg, endowed by the munificence of her father Dagobert: by whom we show elsewhere that many monasteries were founded or endowed. Another daughter of Dagobert and granddaughter of St. Sigebert is Adela, Adela, after her husband's death, becomes an Abbess, who after the death of her husband, inflamed by the example of her sister Irmina, likewise assuming the monastic habit, led ^a most holy life and presided as Abbess over the monastery of Pfalzel built on the bank of the Moselle river, and wrote her Church as the heir of her goods, with ^a testament signed on the Kalends of April in the twelfth year of King Theoderic, namely the last, the year of Christ 731. In this testament mention is made of her sister Regentrude, Regentrude, Rathild: who being passed over, others establish Rathild, or Rothild, as ^a third daughter of Dagobert, and hold that she was married to Luderic Bucan, the founder of the castle of Lille in French Flanders. But we have not yet found this proved by ancient documents. This is certain: Adela's grandson St. Gregory of Utrecht: Alberic, the said Adela's son, begot several children, among whom St. Gregory, the inseparable companion of St. Boniface until his death, afterward presided over the See of Utrecht as ^a Priest acting as Bishop: whose Life was written by St. Ludger, his disciple. is St. Alberic ^a great-great-grandson? Whether St. Alberic, afterward Bishop of Utrecht, descended from some brother of St. Gregory, and was thus called after the name of his grandfather, we investigate elsewhere. St. Gregory is venerated on August 25 and St. Alberic on November 14. Who is St. Dagobert the Martyr? Whether the St. Dagobert the Martyr venerated by the people of Stenay in Lorraine was King of the Franks and son of St. Sigebert, we do not yet dare to determine in our judgment.

Section II. Letters Written to St. Sigebert, and His Responses. Ecclesiastical Immunity Defended.

[7] Of the letters which St. Sigebert received from others, two of St. Desiderius, Bishop of Cahors, survive, to whom the King sent back as many. St. Desiderius the Bishop. The first is the fiftieth letter of St. Desiderius to Kings and Bishops, in which he impresses upon St. Sigebert the presence of God and the remembrance of the last things. The second letter of the same is number 51, to which St. Sigebert responded, and is as follows.

[8] "To the most glorious and most pious Lord, the most excellent King Sigebert of the holy Church everywhere, Desiderius, servant of the servants of God, and by His grace Bishop of the city of Cahors.

"Since you have deigned to console me with ^a letter out of pious solicitude, my mind is insufficient to render due thanks. he asks for familiar affection, For which reason I have thought it necessary to request with ^a particular petition that you command me to be cherished with that singular favor by which the Lord your father's grace of familiarity was held toward my very small and insignificant person. I wished indeed to obey in such ^a way that I should not return to the city until, if it could happen, I had seen the illustrious Highness of your summit. But since this was difficult, I therefore now presume to commend the bearer of the present letter, and to be informed about the state of the kingdom. through whom, paying the duties of greeting with due honor to your summit, I ask that you deign to make me informed about the well-being of your Excellency, by granting his petitions."

[9] The first letter of St. Sigebert to St. Desiderius is number 71, by which the preceding is answered.

"To the holy and most worthy of the Apostolic See, to be preferred by titles of honor, Lord and Father in Christ, Pope Desiderius, King Sigebert.

"Having received the letter of your Highness, brought by the venerable Abbot Bettor, the King writes back together with your holy tokens, know that I received it with the utmost joy. As for what you wrote, that we should inform you how prosperously the Divine mercy permitted us to live, know that by the intercession of your prayer, we prosperously continue so far, by the grace of Christ. And the nations of the fatherland granted to us by God obey us in peaceful order: even the barbarian nations live together most peacefully with us. As for your commissions, which you enjoined upon us, with Christ's help we have brought them to such effect as was your injunction. Therefore with most devoted greeting we ask and commends himself to his prayers: that you deign to beseech the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf, where you continually pour forth assiduous prayers: that by His granting clemency He may command us both to live peacefully here and to attain to eternal life."

[10] The second letter of the same Sigebert to the same Desiderius is number 79.

"To the Lord, holy and Apostolic Father in Christ, Desiderius, King Sygibert.

"When from the report of many and our faithful men we have learned that, as if summoned by the same our Father Bishop Vulfoleudus, you are to meet at ^a synodal council on the Kalends of September he forbids ^a Council of Bishops without his consent. in our kingdom -- we know not in what place -- together with the rest of the Brothers and your Co-provincials. Although we desire to preserve the statutes of the Canons and ecclesiastical rules, just as our parents preserved them in the name of God; yet since it was not previously brought to our notice, it has seemed good to us together with our magnates that no synodal council be held in our kingdom without our knowledge: nor that any assembly of Priests, of those who are known to pertain to our authority, be held on the said Kalends of September. But afterward, at an opportune time, if it is first announced to us whether the assembly has been decreed for the ecclesiastical state, or for the utility of the kingdom, or indeed for any reasonable purpose, we do not refuse. But, as we said, provided that it first be brought to our cognizance. Therefore we have taken care to send the present letter to your Holiness, by which we ask that you deign to pray for us, and that you should by no means attend this assembly until you know our will. And that you may believe this more certainly, we have subscribed this notice below with our own hand. King Sygibert subscribed." The aforesaid Vulfoleudus was Archbishop of Bourges, suspected because he was in the territory of his brother Clovis, under whom he subscribed to the Council of Chalon and to the privilege of liberty granted to the monastery of St. Denis by Landericus, Bishop of Paris, in the fifteenth year of Clovis: in this document he is written Vulfolenus, in the Council Vulfoledus, also Vulfolendus and Vulfeodus in Claude Robert; he succeeded St. Sulpicius Pius, whose Life we treated on January 17. Moreover, ^a privilege of King Dagobert in ^a similar barbarous diction survives in Le Mire, book 2 of the Belgian Diplomas, chapter 1.

[11] Pope St. Martin, in his letter to St. Amandus, Bishop of Maastricht, inserts the following concerning this King.

Pope St. Martin asks him to send Bishops to Rome. "Most wisely admonish and beseech Sigebert, our most excellent son, King of the Franks, for the remedy of his Christianity, to send to us from the body of our most beloved brothers, Bishops, who should fulfill the legation of the Apostolic See, by the concession of Divine favor; and to bring without doubt, with these synodal letters of yours, to our most clement Prince what has been accomplished in our Council: so that, having been made ^a participant in our labors, he may be able to obtain ^a cumulation of reward, and may find as the Protector of his kingdom Him whose cause he is known to champion. For we have recognized that this was also urged upon him in his own letter." Philip the Abbot reports the complete letter in the Acts of St. Amandus on February 6, where more will be said about the Acts of the Roman Synod that were being sent to the Bishops of Gaul.

[12] [At the request of St. Modoald, the King is believed to have defended the Church of Trier,] Christophorus Brouwer, book 7 of the Annals of Trier, relates that the Church of Trier is said to have suffered harm in the year of Christ 652 from ^a certain Hatto, ^a man of obscure name; for they say that he, attended by ^a band of desperadoes, invading the cells of the blessed Maximinus and Eucherius in hostile fashion, did not scruple to usurp those places for himself contrary to right and equity. Moved by this injury, St. Modoald, Bishop of Trier, went to Aachen, where Sigebert was then residing, and laid before the King his complaints about the injury inflicted upon himself and his Church: and he obtained ^a public diploma by which the ancient possessions were restored to the Church by ^a new privilege in the manner of the ancestors. Brouwer adds the diploma, but mutilated, transcribed from the book of the Genealogies of the Dukes of Lorraine and Bar, in the first part of which Francois de Rosieres brings it forth in full from the archives of the cells here named, as follows:

[13] In the name of the Lord, Amen. Sigisbert, by the favor of Divine grace King of the Franks. and by ^a diploma given Since we await the adoption of the sons of God, to which one attains through peace, let us maintain peace among ourselves and toward all. For blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Matt. 5:9 Where indeed the loss of mutual contention is incurred, there resides the discord of peace, which fosters and increases the gracious tranquility of Churches. Therefore let the notice of all our faithful, present and future, know how concerning the cells of the blessed Hilary, which is now called the cell of St. Maximinus, and of the blessed Eucherius, which is now called the cell of St. Matthias, built on the estate of St. Peter of the city of Trier, which the Lord our father Dagobert, most Christian King, following the customs of his predecessors, had transferred to the Church of St. Peter of the city of Trier by right of royal power, and had confirmed with perpetual stability; Modoald, venerable Archbishop of that Church, proclaimed himself in our general Palace with plaintive petitions, lamenting that they had been usurped by wicked marauders, whose leader is ^a certain man named Hatto, against his own will and that of his faithful, and violently torn from the aforesaid Church. he restrained the violence of the marauder Hatto: But we, reviewing in full order all the treachery of the aforesaid Hatto and his men, their cunning now having been detected, recognized that his complaint was true. Considering therefore and fearing lest perhaps, God forbid, we should cause detriment to our soul from the alms of our father and of our predecessors the Kings, for preserving the munificence of their piety, we have restored those cells, with the counsel and judgment of our Bishops, Dukes, and Counts, and especially of our beloved kinsman Lord Martin, son of Clodulph, son of Arnulph, Duke of Mosellan Austrasia and Moselland, whom by the present precept we appoint as Advocate, Rector, and Protector of the aforesaid Church of blessed Peter, and of the Brothers and the aforesaid cells, to the said Church of Trier. And that this present document of our restoration may obtain inviolable stability through succeeding times, in the name of God, we have confirmed it below with our own hand together with Duke Martin, and Cunibert, Archbishop of Cologne, and Remaclus, Bishop of Maastricht, and have ordered it to be distinguished with the impressions of our seals. Given at Aachen, on the Ides of May, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 653. Sigisbert, King of the Franks cross. Cunibert, Archbishop of Cologne cross. Remaclus, Bishop of Maastricht cross. Martin, Duke of Mosellan Austrasia and Moselland cross.

[14] Thus far the diploma, published under the name of St. Sigebert by Francois de Rosieres, Zyllesius, and Chanterellus report that diploma to be suspect, which Nicolaus Zyllesius in his book in defense of the Imperial Abbey of St. Maximinus asserts was fabricated together with many others produced by Rosieres in the same place, and denies that the original of it can be shown. He relates that Rosieres himself, convicted of manifest crimes, confessed before Henry III, King of the French, on 26 April 1583 that he had fraudulently and maliciously devised very many things, with an edict appended concerning this confession of his. and Chanterellus; Ludovicus Chanterellus Faber placed this before his Genealogical Considerations of the House of Lorraine. But Zyllesius wrongly, part 2, chapter 1, section 3, paragraph 1, rejects this diploma on the ground that Sigebert, who ruled Austrasia alone, is called King of the Franks -- he was so called above by Pope Martin, with whom the diplomas soon to be given agree: that St. Remaclus, Bishop of Maastricht, subscribed, in whose place he wrongly believed Theodardus had then succeeded: that Indictions are lacking, which were not customarily appended: that no mention is made elsewhere of the marauder Hatto, but no single person has written all things. The same Zyllesius denies, section 1, paragraph 1, that the monastery of St. Maximinus was on the estate, land, or territory of St. Peter, and section 2, paragraph 5, that the name "cell of St. Hilary" can be applied to that monastery; and he adds that St. Maximinus died in the year 351, or the following, fifteen years before St. Hilary, and was buried in the church dedicated to St. John, which soon, on account of the very many miracles performed at his sepulchre, began to be called by the name of St. Maximinus. We showed on January 13 in the Life of St. Hilary, section 4, that St. Hilary died in the year 357. We shall treat of St. Maximinus on May 29.

[15] the year and place in the subscription are objectionable, Furthermore the year of Christ 653 is objectionable, which, though it could have been the date, has been inscribed contrary to the custom of those times: the city of Aachen, where the Kings of the Austrasians had no palace: the Duchy of Mosellan Austrasia and Moselland, the basis for devising which Rosieres established in book 3, historia, chapters 48, 49, and 50, in this diploma of Sigebert and other attached diplomas: and he places as Dukes the saints Arnulph the title Duke of Mosellan Austrasia and Moselland, and his son Clodulph, Bishops of Metz, and Martin, whom he again makes the son of the said Clodulph: not without many errors. For in diplomas 1 and 2, given by Dagobert in the year 623, there subscribe Arnulph, Duke of Mosellan Austrasia, and Atto, Bishop of Metz; yet in that year Arnulph was Bishop, and when he departed for the wilderness in the year 631, St. Goeticus succeeded him, who was also surnamed Abbo, here corruptly Atto. Again in diploma 3 of Dagobert, Clodulph subscribes in the year 622, as if Arnulph his father had succeeded him; but granted, let the year 642 be read on account of the year 644 inscribed on the following diploma -- how is it proved that he, born of the ancient and noble stock of the Franks and Trojans, begot children Martin, Basinus, Pippin, Arnold, Gonza, Itta, Gertrude? It is better established that he lived celibate, imitating the holiness of his father Arnulph. From his brother Anchises was born Pippin of Herstal, together with whom Martin was made Mayor of the Palace among the Austrasians in the year 687, and not long afterward was killed by the treachery of Ebroin. This Martin may as Duke have governed the people along the Moselle and the right bank of the Meuse for the Kings of the Austrasians, whose domains are listed under the name of the Counties of Moslensis and Masau in the division of the kingdom of Lothar, made in the year 870. Hence posterity may have fashioned the Duchy of Mosellan Austrasia and Moselland: just as St. Pippin, in the 1st and 2nd diploma mentioned, is called Duke of Brabant and Hesbaye, who governed the people between the Carbonarian forest, the left bank of the Meuse, and the borders of the Frisians, as we shall say on February 21 in his Life. Finally, the seals appended to the given diploma are objectionable, and the appended seals. both those of the Bishops and of Duke Martin, which we omit to relate here, and that of St. Sigebert himself, which displayed ^a golden shield filled with engraved lilies: the origin of which the de Sainte-Marthe brothers, book 1, chapter 9 of the genealogical history of the Franks, prefer to derive from Louis the Fat, or from Odo, Count of Paris turned King, rather than from Clovis I or other earlier Kings. Things similar to these, but to be ascribed to fables rather than history, are read about St. Sigebert in volume 2 of the Annals of Hainaut, book 10, published in the French language from the books of Jacques de Guise, which we omit here.

Section III. Monasteries Built and Endowed.

[16] The author reports in the Acts of St. Sigebert that twelve monasteries were built: which Gelenius attributes to the Ardennes alone. In general, Molanus in his supplement to Usuard, Galesinius, and Saussay, whose words we gave above, wish twenty to have been built together with Gelenius. Of the monasteries built by St. Sigebert, Brouwer writes of them in his unpublished Metropolis as follows: In the year 651, Sigebert, King of the Austrasians, at Metz in his royal court, flourished with an outstanding innocence of life and ^a remarkable liberality toward every kind of religious, having built and constructed in various places twenty monasteries of no ordinary grandeur, and augmented them with perpetual revenues, among which were Malmedy and Stavelot within the borders of the Ardennes, and St. Martin's in the suburb of Metz. Thus Brouwer; but the remaining monasteries neither he nor others name. Concerning the one at Metz, built and destroyed, we shall treat below. In the Life of St. Amandus on February 6, we shall report that among the Austrasians, while King St. Sigebert presided over them, many monasteries were built in the Belgian and Germanic provinces, which we omit to list here. Before Stavelot and Malmedy, there is the monastery of Casecongudun, another was erected at Casecongudun, in the Duchy of Luxembourg on the stream Sesmarus, or Sesomirus, commonly called Sesmoy or Semoy, between the towns of Chiny and Bouillon: of which in later centuries there was ^a Priory in the village of Cougnon. We shall treat of it more fully on February 3 in the Life of St. Hadelin. Here we give the diploma of St. Sigebert communicated to us by the most courteous man Jean-Antoine Gournesius, Priest of the Congregation of the Oratory, in the territory of Luxembourg: from which it is established that St. Remaclus was appointed Abbot when he was not yet Bishop of Maastricht, while Bishop Godo of Metz was still alive (others call him Dodo or Godeo), whom St. Clodulph, son of St. Arnulph, succeeded; to which Bishop Remaclus sent St. Trudo in the first year of his episcopate. Hence Bouchet is most effectively refuted, who in part 1, chapter 6 of the Origins of the Royal Family of the Franks counts the time of Godo's episcopate from the year 659 to 667, and judges that St. Clodulph, appointed in his place, lived until the year 707. These matters will be set forth more fully on June 8. The river Alsnia, which is named in the diploma besides the Sesomirus, rises above Luxembourg, washes the city, and mixed with the Attert, discharges its water into the Sure, and at length flows into the Moselle. The forest of Vriacuise may have extended to the village of Vres below Bouillon, or rather Viracuise should be read, and then it would refer to the neighboring river Vire. With these things set forth beforehand, the diploma will be more easily understood, which reads as follows:

[17] the diploma of St. Sigebert concerning it. Sigibert, King of the Franks. We believe it pertains to the increase of merit if you do not hesitate to offer with ^a devout mind bountiful gifts to the most high God Almighty. For royal power is seen to strengthen its own worship when it does not hesitate of its own will to bestow benefits upon the servants of God. And therefore, for the devotion of our soul, with the counsel of the magnificent Apostolic men Gunibert and Godo, and of the illustrious men Grimoald, Bobo, and Adalgisil, we wish to construct ^a regular monastery in honor of our patron saints Peter, Paul, John, and the other Martyrs, in our land, in the forest of the Ardennes, in ^a place called Caseconguidinus, which the river Sesomirus appears to encircle, and from the gift of our liberality, according to the tradition of the Fathers, ^a cenobium; and there, with Christ as our guide, we appoint Remaclus as Abbot, that they may dwell there according to the rule and precepts of the ancient Fathers: yet so that from that fortress, and the bank of the river in ^a straight line three leagues, from our forest of Vriacuise, together with that royal marsh which is called Arnulf's, with Probardus, Babo, and their subordinates, who are seen to serve there, we grant on this present day for their possession. Likewise from its own fortress, from the other royal forest, another three leagues, and in ^a straight line again three other leagues, as well as another new one on the river called Alsnia, where that squared stone is. All these things we are seen to have granted to the use of those servants of God with our immunity, that they may have, possess, and bequeath to their spiritual posterity: so that rather they may more attentively pour forth unceasing prayers to the merciful Lord for the atonement of sins. And that this precept may remain firm and inviolate, we have decreed to confirm it below with the subscriptions of our hand.

[18] Notger, Bishop of Liege, in the Life of St. Remaclus, Bishop of Maastricht, on September 3, mentions another Life written by an older and nearly contemporary author, about which he writes the following in the Prologue addressed to Abbot Werensridus: You have presented ^a booklet concerning the Life of our -- and equally your -- special patron, namely Lord Remaclus, complaining that through the carelessness of your predecessors it had been composed more briefly than the matter demanded, given the magnitude of his deeds: and at the same time you appeared, I will not say to beseech, but rather to exhort, that I should not only copy it, but should commission it to be polished somewhat more elegantly. In this earlier booklet, then, or Life of St. Remaclus, concerning the monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy that were built, one reads as follows: It came to pass, by God's favor, that the pious Princes of the kingdom of the Franks, King Sigibert Stavelot and Malmedy founded: and Duke Grimoald, by God's will and the counsel of their magnates, ordered that monasteries be constructed within the forest, situated in the district called the Ardennes, named Stavelot or Malmedy, in which religious monks should dwell and spiritually serve Christ there; and for the welfare of the whole kingdom, and the safety of the King and his sons, or of those exercising the governance of the kingdom, should beseech the Almighty Lord. Then they began to build more diligently, and, as is usual in such ^a work, Divine power followed, and the undertakings were swiftly accomplished with prosperous success. And when the time came for the churches, adorned with new material, to be dedicated, the aforesaid King sent for blessed Bishop Remaclus, because one of them, namely Stavelot, pertained to his diocese; while the other, namely Malmedy, because it looked to the metropolitan, with the consent of Chunibert, who was Metropolitan of Cologne, he summoned him that, as befitted his ministry, he should dedicate them. Which the most holy man immediately obeying, carried out with great diligence the work enjoined upon him, which had already long been undertaken under his direction: for since he was close to the King and the chief men of the palace on account of his very great holiness, and beloved by them, committed to St. Remaclus, nothing of importance was done without his counsel. Whence it came about, since he was so dear to them, that when the solemnities of the Masses had been performed, the aforesaid Mayor of the Palace Grimoald delivered to him the aforesaid places, that all things should be ordered under his authority, and the institutes of monastic life should be observed there. But not much time later he at length obtained from the King that, leaving ^a successor after him in the Pontifical See, as he had long desired, he might go to this place in the wilderness, and there, removed from men, devote himself to God alone... Remaining therefore with ever-watchful care, without any reproach, in monastic practices, he converted the minds of many noble men, that they might become imitators of that life of which his teaching was perfect: for what he taught by mouth, he first took care to fulfill by deed. Whence it came about that, as religion grew, the income of the same church also grew, for the use of the servants of God serving there. For the aforesaid most pious Princes, hearing of this manner of religious worship, summoning the blessed man, delivered to him from that same forest twelve leagues in length, and likewise in breadth, in which space no one should oppose his authority or that of his successors, that they might serve God in peace. They also confirmed by testament with Imperial seals that this should remain stable for all time: stabilized by diplomas: which the most holy Father received willingly and held reverently. But not much later he endeavored to reduce that same space, so that it might be without hindrance for his followers, and the Rulers of the place might be able to preserve what appears to endure unshaken to our own time. Thus far the text. The monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy are distant from Liege about eight hourly leagues, going eastward toward Trier. We treated of Stavelot in the Life of St. Poppo the Abbot on January 25. The construction of both began around the year of Christ 655, which was the sixth year of the episcopate of St. Remaclus: the diplomas, however, were granted toward the end of the life of the same King Sigebert. Notger presents part of these in the Life of St. Remaclus. We give two complete ones from the Stavelot archive, the first of which reads as follows:

[19] the first diploma of St. Sigebert concerning them: Sigibert, King of the Franks. Let your generosity know how, for the devotion of our soul, for the benefit of the servants of God, with the Lord's help, in our forest called the Ardennes, in places of vast solitude in which throngs of wild beasts abound, desiring to provide, that by their merits we might deserve to obtain the abundance of eternal reward, where the relics of our patron saints Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, Martin, and other Saints are known to be venerated, we have granted them permission to construct monasteries there according to the rule of cenobitic life and the tradition of the Fathers, named Stavelot or Malmedy: where, with Christ as guide, the venerable Bishop Remaclus is known to preside: and let it be known that we have bestowed upon them such ^a benefit, that the family of God there, and the guardians of the church, ought to lead the contemplative life in peaceful order, according to the divine admonition: "Whoever has left home, father, or mother, or fields, etc., shall receive ^a hundredfold, and shall possess eternal life." Matt. 19:29 Wherefore, with the consent of our faithful, namely Lord Cunibert, Archbishop of Cologne, and also the Bishops Attelanus, Theodefridus, and Gislocardus, and the illustrious men Grimoald, Folcardus, Bobo, Adegrisilus, and also Bobo, as well as the Domestics Flodulph, Ansigisus, Berselanus, and Garipert, we have granted to the aforesaid Father, in order to avert dangers to the souls of the inhabitants and to avoid the company of women, that in ^a circle going round, and in the territories of both monasteries, spaces should be measured to the right in jumps of no more than twelve miles, so that without the intrusion of the populace or secular tumult, they might devote themselves to God alone. In all else, however, our edict has proclaimed that at no time during their life should any person dare to break into that forest, or build dwellings or houses, except only those servants of God who are seen to cultivate these small huts over time, by our permission. And that this precept concerning the family of God itself, and the posterity of those to whom we have granted these small gifts for the sake of Divine regard, may obtain fuller force, we have decreed to confirm it below with the subscriptions of our hand. Thus far the first diploma. The Bishops mentioned in it are Attelanus, also called Attola or Attila, Bishop of Laon; Theodefridus, also called Teufredus, Bishop of Toul; and Gislocardus, also called Gisloaldus, Bishop of Verdun. The second diploma given by St. Sigebert to these monasteries reads as follows:

[20] Sigibert, King of the Franks, an illustrious man, etc. Therefore the holy and venerable monasteries, the second diploma of St. Sigebert: named Stavelot or Malmedy, where the venerable man Bishop Remaclus, as Abbot under Christ's guidance, is seen to preside, which the illustrious man Grimoald, Mayor of the Palace, built by his own labor in honor of the Mother of God Mary, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of St. John the Baptist, and of St. Martin, and of the other Saints, in the vast solitude of the wilderness of the Ardennes; inasmuch as we granted the places themselves from our forest by our precept for the building of those monasteries, which monasteries, although by the grace of Christ they have been enriched, yet appear to have somewhat little of worldly substance. Therefore admonished by Divine inspiration, we have decreed to look after and console those monasteries to some degree from our treasury. The toll, therefore, which at the port of Vetraria on the rivers Tannuco and Ittaque, and at the port called Sellis, and also at Vogatium on the river Loire, which our Judges or Agents were accustomed to receive into our treasury at those ports -- both what river transport brought in, and everywhere the commerce of merchants in tolls, or whatever riparian dues from the ports named above -- together with the men who dwell at those ports, or guard those ports, or are seen to oversee them, for the stability of our kingdom, to our monasteries named above and the monks residing there, we grant by the bounty of our gift. Wherefore we have ordered the present precept to be promulgated from this, that neither you, nor your juniors or successors, nor anyone, should ever presume to be contrary to what pertains to the part of those monasteries from this grant, but rather we permit those tolls from the ports named above, whatever our treasury could hope for therefrom, to be possessed for the luminaries of the aforesaid basilicas and the sustenance of the monks who there fulfill the regular course at the daily hours, so that they may prosper in increase at all times. And if perchance any persons have transferred those aforesaid ports on account of their own lands, in order more easily to divert that toll which should have come to our treasury, we order that ships should run to those ports where they had been accustomed to go in the times of the preceding Kings, our parents, and that tolls should not be exacted elsewhere, neither by you nor by your juniors or successors. Which is done so that, if in earlier years, while we appeared to be still of tender age, anyone received anything from the instruments of this cession, no effect should be given to it, but it should remain void and null. Since it is known to have been agreed upon moreover with many of our faithful, that when, with the Lord's help, we arrived in the kingdom at the lawful age, the cessions which our Serenity had at any time granted from the original treasury should henceforth, that is, from the fourteenth year of our reign, be stable in the name of God. This authority also, that it may endure valid in all things, inviolate in our own and future times, we have confirmed with the subscriptions of our hand. Thus far the second diploma. What places on the Loire and in Aquitaine the Kings of the Austrasians possessed, we indicated above. Childeric the King, successor of St. Sigebert, confirmed these, whose diploma we also append to these.

[21] the third diploma, of King Childeric. Childeric, King of the Franks, Eumechildis and Bilechildis, Queens by the grace of God, to the illustrious men Duke Gundoin and Domestic Odo. We believe without doubt that it pertains to the eternal reward, if we bring to effect the petitions of Priests, or of any devout persons, who ask what is just. Therefore Lord and our Father Bishop Remaclus has petitioned the Clemency of our kingdom on behalf of his monasteries of Stavelot and Malmedy: which our uncle of blessed memory, Sigibert, former King, built by his own labor. Whence he showed us ^a precept of that same Prince of governance to be read again concerning their greater extent: From the royal forest itself on both sides of those monasteries, both in length and in breadth, twelve thousand rightward jumps; which moreover for the sake of total firmness is thus inserted in that same precept: that by the counsel of the Bishops of that time, namely Hunibert, Memorianus, and Bishop Gisloaldus, together with the illustrious men Grimoald, Fulcoald, Adregisilus, and Bobo as Dukes, and Clodulph, Angelisinus, and Garepert as Domestics, the matter was thus transacted; which we have most truthfully ascertained, that those servants of God to whom the grant was given should reside in those places without the intrusion of the populace. Wherefore the Bishop Abbot himself together with those monks petitioned us for the confirmation and affirmation of our authority. Which petition we, for the sake of God, were by no means able to deny them. On this condition, however, did those servants of God petition: that toward our estates, namely Ambleve, Charancho, and Lethernach, from those measurements of twelve thousand rightward jumps, we should subtract six thousand, for the stability of the work, which indeed was accomplished in this manner by our ordinance. Whence we have ordered, on this account, for our Lord and Father Bishop Theodardus, and the illustrious man Domestic Hodo, together with our foresters and the eternal one with his peers, to measure and designate those places by named localities; whose names are: From the Monastery of Malmedy as far as Dry-field; from Dry-field by the Mansueric road as far as Warcinna crossing; from that Warcinna as far as where Stagnebach rises: thence along that Stagnebach as far as the Ambleve; thence along the Ambleve toward the water through that forest, from Wulfebert as far as Rarobacca where it rises. Thence Diddilo's brook rises; thence along that brook as far as the Resta, and from the Resta through that forest which separates Helminus's oak grove and Andaste's farm. Through that middle forest as far as Joyful-meadow; from Joyful-meadow along that Alsena, which is near the monastery. Thence along that Alsena as far as where it enters the Glane; thence crossing the Glane as far as the White Spring. From that White Spring into the Ambleve. The sum: Siggino, Aviaco, where the layman Gare had ^a marsh. Thence along that Ambleve, where the Dulnosus enters it; thence along the Dulnosus as far as the Meadows. Thence through the middle forest from those Meadows as far as the Transverican road; thence along that road as far as Dry-field. That they may hold and possess all this wholly and entirely, with the grace of God and our own, with the immunity of his name for all times; that without the opposition of any Foresters or any person whatsoever, that family of God may be permitted to reside in peaceful order: and to serve the Lord day and night for our life and the stability of the kingdom of the Franks. That this our precept, written on parchment, may persevere firm and inviolable, we have decreed to confirm it below with our own hand. The sign of the glorious Lord Childeric the King. The sign of Queen Eumechildis. The sign of Queen Bilichildis.

The one among the Bishops called Memorianus is called Attelanus in the other diploma: the ones among the Domestics called Clodulphus and Angesilinus are above Flodulphus and Ansegisus. Duke Adregisilus, above Adegrisilus, was ^a different person, who appears to be Duke of the Palace Adalgisilus in Fredegar, and Adelgisus in the Life. Concerning Eumechildis, wife of St. Sigebert, we treated above.

*another reading: mystery.

*another reading: jurisdiction, perhaps authority.

HISTORY OF THE TRANSLATION AND MIRACLES OF ST. SIGEBERT, by the monk Sigebert; From ^a manuscript of the monastery of Stavelot.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (Saint)

BHL Number: 7713

By the monk Sigebert, from manuscript.

PROLOGUE.

[1] We think it will seem incongruous to none of the wise if the miracles of the Saints, which the Lord deigns to work through them, are committed to memory by the authority of writings, for the instruction of the faithful both present and future. For, as we have learned from the words of the Angel speaking to Tobias, "it is good to conceal the secret of the king, but to reveal and confess the works of God is in every way magnificent." Tobit 12:7 Wherefore we too have thought it worthy to commit to pages, however humble, those distinguished signs of miracles which the same Lord of all, the rewarder of the good, has deigned to work in our times through the merits of the most glorious and most religious King Sigebert; although we are unlearned and by no means fit for this task. If, however, anyone should wish to inquire more diligently who this Sigebert was, of whom we desire to speak, or at what time he reigned, let him turn to the book about his life and read it attentively, because he will be able manifestly to find and learn with what excellence of holiness and religious devotion this venerable man was endowed, whom God illustrates on earth with manifest signs. But from those things which we write, no one should in any way doubt or distrust, for the Lord has deigned to promise His faithful, saying: "He who believes in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater things than these shall he do." John 14:12 And we do not attempt presumptuously to devise alien or inexperienced matters, The author writes things worthy of trust, done in his own time. but those things which either are proved to have been done in recent times, or which we have learned from faithful and trustworthy persons, who even now attest that they were present at those same marvels -- these we have taken care to transmit by writing in truthful report to the memory of posterity. Otherwise, unless we believed ourselves to be altogether fortified by the attestation of truth, we would judge it better to remain completely silent about such things than to incur the charge of falsehood by speaking fictions. But let us now come, with what brevity we can, to the order of the narrative.

To unfold the promised things by the turning of my pen.

The Vulgate reading: "It is good to hide the secret of ^a king: but honorable to reveal and confess the works of God."

These intricate words should perhaps be unraveled in this or ^a similar way, so that one reads: "let him hasten to the book, that is, the one I wrote about his life."

CHAPTER I. Translation of the Body of St. Sigebert.

[2] St. Sigebert's body had been buried in the monastery of St. Martin, Indeed in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1063, while the body of this venerable man Sigebert lay buried in the monastery of St. Martin, which he himself, among other exercises of good works, had built from the foundations in the vicinity of Metz on the bank of the river Moselle, and on account of the antiquity the *presbytery, which had been constructed over the crypt in which he lay, was daily threatening to collapse: and for that reason the Divine Office was performed by the monks dwelling there with the greatest fear; the Saint himself appeared in ^a manifest vision to ^a certain man named Wylant, appearing in ^a vision to ^a certain man, dwelling in the suburb of the aforesaid city, and known to nearly all the citizens. When he, stupefied, marveled at the sight of so great ^a man, on account of the magnitude of the unusual splendor, and could in no way presume to say anything to him, the Saint with ^a gentle address exhorts him not to fear: but to hasten without delay to fulfill whatever he should command him. And when that man declared himself most ready to obey in all things that he should deign to command, the holy man said to him: Do you know who it is that you see standing before you, or who enjoins such things, or to whom you promise to obey? He indeed immediately responding to this said: These things I know not; I wish to learn through you. Then the venerable man, as if instructing him, began to question him with such words of inquiry: Have you not, he said, at some time learned, or not heard from anyone, who was that founder who built the cenobium of St. Martin, which is seen situated nearby, or who strove to enrich it with temporal goods, as is seen at present? The man said that he had indeed heard this long ago from many people, but that it had then completely slipped from his memory, as if he were out of his mind. At this, the holy Sigebert bids him wake up and retain the words of the speaker in ^a capable mind: I, he said, am Sigebert, once King, who built the aforesaid monastery, gathered there ^a company of monks serving God, and ordered my own little body to be buried in that same place. But now since, as is seen, the dangerous ruin of that structure is imminent, hasten with all the speed you can he warns that it must be transferred elsewhere. to announce to the Brothers of that congregation that if they wish God and St. Martin to be well-disposed toward them, they should take care to remove the coffin of my body from where it now rests and to place it in the safest location: lest the collapse of the structure be able to harm my remains. After the faithful messenger hastened to report the command of this matter to the aforesaid Brothers, they, rightly trusting in the most true holiness of their beloved Patron, most devoutly resolved to carry out what had been commanded.

[3] When the body had been translated with wondrous speed, Then after they arrived at the point of properly completing what they had begun, as soon as they lifted and removed the sarcophagus bearing the remains of the sacred body from its former place, they conveyed it with such swiftness to the place of the prepared resting-place that they would have believed, not without reason, that it was being carried not by men but by Angels. Therefore when the coffin of the venerable man, so often remembered and so often to be remembered, had been placed with heavenly aid, all with one mind and spiritual jubilation gave the greatest praises to God, gloriously wondrous in His Saints. That all these things were accomplished according to the Divine will, very many subsequent signs of miracles through the same Saint in that place attest: from which, as we promised above, for the benefit of posterity, we have thought it worthy to record in writing ^a few,

To the praise of the Lord, who holds the heights of heaven, Who wills to make His Saints renowned through miracles: By whose power they were able to live justly.

Therefore after the devout monks had honorably placed the sepulchre of the venerable body, as was fitting, in ^a place decently prepared; not much time having passed, the earlier buildings collapse, with no one harmed. those buildings of the same monastery that were about to fall did collapse; but, through the protecting merits both of the most blessed Martin and of this Saint of whom we speak, Sigebert, even though many were seen to be present, they were unable to harm anyone. Lest anyone, however, think that this was brought about by chance, and not rather by the power of the Saints; the remaining miracles that follow will be able to remove every occasion of doubt from the hearts of unbelievers.

[4] But what miracle is known to have occurred in the near time, whereby the Almighty Lord deigned to gladden the minds of His faithful, it does not seem fitting to pass over in silence. on the night preceding the translation Indeed on that very night, to which the following day -- on which the aforesaid Brothers had resolved to carry out what they desired -- was imminent; when all had given their limbs to rest after the daytime Office, but some of them to whom the guardianship of the place had been assigned were resting in the oratory; behold, at about midnight they saw so great ^a sweetness of sound fill the entire monastery that, nearly rendered lifeless with excessive fear, they fled this way and that, and could scarcely announce to others what they had seen and heard. music is heard, After ^a little time, having entered with the greatest fear, they heard the song of ^a most sweet sound, and, as it seemed to them, as if formed by bees, ^a most pleasant melody, as if very many swarms of bees were buzzing together. After this miracle came to the knowledge of people, whoever wise or believing heard it, signified by faithful and truthful interpretation, understanding fully, that it was ^a visitation of the Saints rejoicing together about what they foresaw ought to be done concerning their companion. a good omen. Which also to us, though insignificant and altogether unskilled, seems supported by truth, upon considered reasoning: that the bee is known to live without any detriment to anything, and is seen by its innocent labors to furnish the comfort of necessary brightness to both divine and human offices. Moreover in very many passages of Sacred Scripture, the appearance of bees is shown to signify the increase of virtue and wisdom, as is read of Ambrose and of certain others who later became wise and holy men; that while they lay in their cradles, bees descending from above flew around their faces, and afterward took flight into the air.

The Stavelot manuscript reads "presbyterium." What is called the presbyterium in churches of the Benedictine order is indicated in the ancient Ordinary of the black monks of the Bursfeld Congregation. For there, in book 1 on the Divine offices, chapter 31, one reads as follows: Presbyterium On the evening of the day preceding Ash Wednesday, the crosses and images should be covered, and ^a curtain hung before the presbyterium. And chapter 38, on the Saturday before Easter: When this is done, the Deacon immediately, vested in ^a finer Dalmatic, in the same place, namely before the steps of the presbyterium, should bless the candle. And chapter 43: Therefore after the Priest and ministers, prepared for the conventual Mass in the manner and order described above, have ascended into the presbyterium, coming before the altar they reverently bow. Indeed below in number 5, the tomb of St. Sigebert is placed near the principal altar of St. Martin. The presbyterium is therefore the forward part of the choir, in which the altar is enclosed.

The reading should apparently be "perpetrated."

CHAPTER II. Punishment of Those Disparaging His Sanctity. The Body Found Incorrupt.

[5] Returning briefly, then, to the earlier matters from which we digressed, let us take up what we omitted, and here provide some example by which, for the simple and for those who in no way doubt the benefits of God bestowed upon this most holy man, as upon others, an increase of faith, hope, and charity may be granted; but upon the incredulous and the hard of heart, the fear of the scourge of His vengeance may be struck. Indeed when the body of the venerable King Sigebert was still resting in peace in the former place where it had been translated at the beginning, and by the faithful Brothers, who rightly considered the fullness of his sanctity, the honor due to him and the reverence of service was rendered, so that in the Litanies or the Offices of Divine service the memory of his name was celebrated; ^a certain Brother, whom we ourselves have seen, called Hugo by name, His name erased from the Litanies, -- to be compared in like deed (which is impious to say) to the nations of the Jews seeking signs, the fools who said in their heart, "There is no God," and "We have not seen our signs, there is no longer ^a prophet, and he will no longer know us; let us make all the feast days of God to cease from the earth" -- this man presumed without fear to erase the name of this Saint from the book of the Litanies, in which it was daily recited by the others. Ps. 52:1 and 73:9 After this crime was perpetrated, it happened not many days later that, since ^a solemn day seemed imminent, in the evening he was obliged to carry incense through the sacred altars in the customary manner (for he held the priestly office): about to offer incense, and when he had offered it upon the principal altar, which we said was built in honor of St. Martin, and wished to approach the tomb of this holy man according to custom; he is rendered immovable by rigidity, so suddenly did his entire body seem to stiffen with such great infirmity that he could in no way move his foot even ^a little from the place where he stood. Then all together, both he and the rest of the Brothers, recognizing his guilt, did penance before the Saint of God: and they besought with humble prayers that he might deign to pardon the fault that had been foolishly committed against him. Then, when the book was brought, after he had devoutly rewritten with his own hand the holy name that he had previously incautiously erased, and that same night rendered the accustomed service at the matutinal offices without any obstacle of hindrance to the Saint, his name rewritten, he is healed, as he wished, thus was that proverb of Solomon manifestly fulfilled in him: "When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wiser"; for he himself, corrected from his unbelief, was ashamed, and remained reformed: and the rest strove to become more devout in their service to the Saint; and he who of his own will refused to believe what was just, was thus taught by the Saint to live cautiously. Prov. 19:25 This miracle, passed over by us above, we have endeavored to take up again for this reason: that through it each faithful person may be able to understand that he accomplished very many things in ancient times, which through the carelessness or negligence of writers happened to perish completely from the memory of men.

[6] When therefore the sarcophagus of the sacred body had been translated and placed in ^a location, as we said, decently prepared, namely beside the altar of the most blessed Martin, at the right side of the altar, so that the Almighty Lord might show His faithful how great ^a grace of dignity this Saint possessed, living glorified in His sight, His body is found incorrupt. certain Brothers, devout in sacred studies and kindled by the fire of that love which our Lord Jesus Christ sent upon the earth and wished to be vehemently kindled; and concerning which it is said elsewhere: "The love of God is never idle: for it works great things if it exists, but if it should refuse to work, it is not love"; Luke 12:49; St. Gregory, homily 30 on the Gospels -- with confidence they opened the sacred tomb, and behold, they beheld the holy body resting, as if sleeping, not as though dead, whole and without any blemish. At this sight, praising, they blessed the Lord Almighty, who did not give His Holy One to see corruption: which, although it is understood to have been said specifically of our Lord Jesus Christ, is nevertheless proved to have been fulfilled in very many of the Saints, as also in this one. After they had merited to see such joyful mysteries of Divine grace, filled at once with wonder and joy, all alike exultant returned to their own quarters,

Joyful in the devotion and love of their honored Father, Believing that he holds the heights of heaven.

[7] In those same days there was in that same monastery ^a certain young monk, and -- let it be said with the peace of all -- of exceedingly frivolous and dissolute morals, and, as we frequently see happen with such persons, readier for jesting than for understanding and speaking spiritual things. One day, when he was asked by some secular men what he thought of the things that had recently been done, or what good St. Sigebert was working among them, either in revelations or in miracles? A contemner of the Saint He replied to this (since, as the Apostle says, "the natural man does not perceive the things which are of the Spirit of the Lord: but the spiritual man investigates all things, even the secrets of the belly") not without mockery, that the same holy man lay in his tomb just like ^a dead man, with open mouth and bared teeth, and that he was entirely ignorant whether he had ever worked any miracle. 1 Cor. 2:14 After he finished saying such things, he is punished with madness, the wretch at almost the same hour, as if deprived of his senses, began to throw himself on the ground, on the rocks, rolling this way and that, and to leap with great cries, and again to roll about throwing himself on the ground. When this continued for ^a long time, at last he was barely lifted up by the Brothers who were compassionate of his suffering, and brought before the holy sepulchre, having confessed his fault, he is healed: and after he truly confessed his guilt to the Saint and to the Brothers themselves, and began to do penance with devotion, he was immediately restored to his former health,

Recognizing that the words of the Lord stand true: For he who despises you, seeks equally to despise me.

CHAPTER III. Healings Bestowed. The Chains of ^a Penitent Burst, by the Aid of St. Sigebert.

[8] A certain Brother from the same cenobium was so intolerably afflicted with ^a prolonged disease called the fig-disease, by touching the covering of the tomb that for many days he would refuse the nourishment of food or drink, and at certain moments would even approach nearly to death. When he had been wearied, wasting away with so great ^a pain for ^a long time, one day, touched by salutary counsel, a sick man is healed, and, as we believe, inspired by the Patron himself, he approached his tomb, and having poured forth ^a prayer, from the pall with which the sacred bones were covered he faithfully touched his chest, stomach, and other limbs, and immediately afterward all pain and infirmity so completely departed from him that he never afterward perceived it to have power over him.

Whence to God he hastened to render ^a jubilant vow, Who by the Saint's merits had given him the gifts of health.

[9] About the same days ^a certain woman from the estate called Caselles was held by ^a severe infirmity. For in her throat an ulcer had grown, which is called the sacred fire: and it increased daily by growing so much that her life was despaired of by many, another healed of sacred fire. especially since the remedies of many physicians, frequently applied to her, seemed to accomplish nothing of ^a cure. She then, brought by her parents to the oft-mentioned cenobium, after she believingly touched with the cloth from the holy sepulchre the place where the damage of the disease had settled, immediately, with the sickness driven away, obtained the benefit of health. Then, well and joyful, she returned to her own home, she who before had come to the sacred tomb sad and sick,

Praising the Most High Lord for so great ^a gift, Who wished to adorn His Saint through such things.

[10] In the year from the Lord's Incarnation 1068, there was ^a certain man, A penitent fratricide, putting on iron chains, who on account of the enormity of his crime, namely the killing of his brother, bound with iron chains, was accustomed frequently to go around to very many shrines of Saints, where he had learned their miracles to be flourishing, in order that, through their intercession, Almighty God might deign to bestow upon him the customary clemency of His mercy. In the course of these salutary journeys, he came at length to Paris, to the place where the precious athlete of the Lord, St. Denis, rests venerably with his companions. When he had persisted there for some time in fasting and prayers, devoutly awaiting the mercy of the Lord, through the patronage of the Saints' merits, he was freed from the chain on one arm. freed on one arm by St. Denis. But while he was praying even more insistently and devoutly to the Lord and His Martyrs for the liberation of the other, since, as the Apostle says, "To each of the Saints grace has been given according to the measure of the gift of Christ," by Divine command made known to him in ^a dream through blessed Denis, he was admonished to go to these parts appearing to him, he is sent to St. Sigebert: and to seek the monastery built in honor of St. Martin; because there, with the Lord granting it, through the merits of St. Sigebert resting in that same place, he would most certainly receive the health he desired. Eph. 4:7 But while he was lamenting his ignorance of the way and the region, he learned from him who was speaking and commanding such things certain indications of the entire journey and of the region itself: namely the name of the city of Metz, the greatness of its towers and walls, the beauty of the many monasteries within and outside the city, and the other character of the places lying in the vicinity of the monastery.

He is taught the steep terrain and the courses of the waters.

What more? Having undertaken the journey, therefore, with such great consolation and such prosperity did he arrive at the designated cenobium that he rightly believed he had been admonished about these things by Divine compassion. And when he had arrived there, as he had desired, and for some time, humbly imploring the aid of the Saints and especially of that Saint who had been named to him, was awaiting the Divine clemency; one day, as evening approached, the guardian of the place ordered him to go outside the church, because he wished, on account of the various fears of the coming night, to lock the doors of the monastery. he prays, But he, adjuring with great cries, began to entreat him to allow him to remain that night at least before the doors of the oratory, because he believed that the mercy divinely promised to him could be experienced in the near future. he is freed by chains divinely burst, When the Brother, overcome at last by compassion, granted this, he, trusting in God's mercy, was devoting himself all the more earnestly to constant prayers, the more nearly he felt the aid of St. Sigebert to be at hand; when suddenly, while he was prostrate in prayer, with such swiftness the iron was broken on his arm into two parts and sprang apart, that one part struck the doors of the monastery with such ^a crash that its sound was heard much further away, and the other part was flung far in another direction.

O gracious God, You who grant such things to Your Saint, At his entreaty and prayer we beseech You, Loose the most harsh chains of our sins.

Both parts of that iron, therefore, as testimony of the deed and in veneration of the Saint, were hung before the sacred altar of the oratory by the devout monks, then hung before the altar. praising God for the so manifest glorification of their most beloved Father with exalted voices and enlarged hearts. The man, however, who had been made whole, having promised an annual tribute to his Liberator and having received permission from the Brothers, because he had planned this in his mind, set out on the journey to Jerusalem, to give thanks to God for the indulgence of his prayers received; with this condition of the deed, namely that, if the Lord should allow him to return thence, he would most willingly strive to serve this place and the Saint through whom he had recovered his health for the whole time of his life.

[11] These few things, then, we have related out of many, the least out of great, Epilogue of the first part. truly believing that he can accomplish very many things both in past and in future times, who in ^a few days, that is, in the course of only seven years, is known to have performed so many. Let us therefore, Brothers, implore with most humble and frequent prayers this worker of such great good deeds to become our intercessor with God, so that just as through his merits in this time healings of the weak have been bestowed by the Savior upon bodies, so through his intercession may the salvation of souls come to us in the future. Amen.

The fig-disease is taken for an ulcer resembling ^a fig; Celsus treats of it in book 6, chapter 3.

Perhaps "jubilant" should be read.

The sacred fire seems to have been written: we treated of it on January 17, section 1, in the miracles of St. Anthony.

So Surius. In the Stavelot manuscript 1048, which arose from the Roman numeral with the characters clumsily transposed.

Concerning similar iron chains customarily imposed on penitents, we treated on January 28 in the first and second translation of St. John the Abbot of Reome, chapter 2, letter ^a. Peter Rouverius also discusses that custom at length in his Note 7 on the History of Reome.

So we have conjectured it ought to read. The manuscript had only "fre."

He is venerated on October 9.

HISTORY OF THE SECOND TRANSLATION, By an Anonymous Author, from Manuscript.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (Saint)

BHL Number: 7714

By an anonymous author, from manuscript.

CHAPTER I. Second Elevation of the Relics. Contumacy Punished.

[1] With Almighty God governing and directing all things, who glorifies His Saints in every place of His dominion, wishing to make known the merits of His holy King Sigebert to many, it happened that certain citizens of the city of Metz, moved by the scruple of their own deliberation, were in doubt whether the body of the most holy Sigebert was held in its monument or not. The body is again found incorrupt. Therefore in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1170, the Abbots and Clergy assembling together, with ^a copious multitude of the faithful, in the church where the holy body lay, having offered ^a prayer, removing the stone placed on top, they found the most holy clay of his body as intact as if he were lying there asleep. Those present, seeing such great marvels of God, and that the holy body which had lain in the sepulchre for nearly 572 years was thus incorrupt, thus preserved by the Almighty, rejoiced with great joy, praising and glorifying God, who is always wondrous in His Saints. The venerable Abbot, Letandus by name, who at that time presided over the same cenobium, and the Brothers of that church which King Sigebert himself, the most holy, had once built in honor of St. Martin, in ^a silver shrine and in which he had commanded himself to be buried, and which he had endowed with temporal goods, wishing to pay him greater honor, constructed with much pomp ^a silver shrine in which they might enclose his most holy body. Now there was in that cenobium ^a certain Brother named Hugo, Provost of the monastery, ^a man of good testimony and praiseworthy life, who was very devout toward the Saint, and loved him with all his heart, and with the greatest devotion constantly frequented his holy sepulchre. Therefore on ^a certain night the man of God, Sigebert, appearing to him in ^a vision, said to him: Come, lie with me. When he, trembling, said that the sepulchre could not suffice for both, the Saint said: Come without fear, for it will suffice for both. after an apparition made by St. Sigebert, He indeed thought he was seeing ^a vision, and, terrified with fear, upon waking narrated to us the vision he had seen. While he was still hesitating about such ^a vision, the blessed Sigebert again appeared to him saying: Offer me your hand, that I may kiss it. But he, not daring to extend it to so great ^a man making such ^a request, terrified by fear, at dawn hastened quickly to the tomb of the Saint and began to kiss his right hand with much devotion and compunction of heart. When these things had been accomplished, the venerable Abbot Letandus, having summoned ^a company of religious Abbots, began to discuss the translation of the Saint: it is enclosed, how and on what day the most holy body should be elevated and shown to the people, and enclosed in ^a silver mausoleum.

[2] There was ^a certain matron in the suburb of St. Julian, situated near Metz, indeed generous in wealth but not sufficiently endowed with virtues: who on ^a certain day, while she sat among the citizens and neighbors, heard some persons narrating the miracles which the Lord was working through the venerable man, our aforesaid Patron, and glorifying God in His Saints. Contumacious against the Saint But she, upon hearing, not only refused to believe; she even did not shrink from uttering certain disgraceful and insulting words provoking the wrath of God. Rom. 12:19 But He who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," did not delay in striking this madness of hers. she is punished with ^a twisted mouth, Indeed, as the words burst from her mouth, that same blasphemous mouth was twisted all the way to the ears, and with such ^a gaping presented ^a pitiable spectacle to all who saw it. She, coming to her senses and weeping for her offense, earnestly asked her parents and friends to be carried to the church of blessed Martin, situated near the walls of the said city, she is healed by kissing the relics, where the body of the aforesaid King and Confessor, honorably buried, rests. Arriving there and rolling herself on the pavement, she begs the Guardian of that place that she might merit to kiss the relics of the aforesaid Confessor. And while this was happening, it seemed to her that the holy Confessor placed his hand upon her and restored her mouth to its former health. Therefore, by the agency of Him from whom all good things proceed, returning to her own home, just as she had brought grief and lamentation to her friends and kindred by her infirmity, so she brought back immense joy by her recovered health.

An error has crept in here or in the previously mentioned number. If to the year 663 in which St. Sigebert died are added 507 years, there will emerge the said year 1170, ^a correction that appears easier to us. If, however, 572 are added, the year 1235 should be substituted above. From the dates of Abbot Letandus, if these can ever be ascertained, this error can be corrected.

The church of St. Julian is still noted on geographical maps in the suburb that faces east.

CHAPTER II. A Demoniac and Deranged Persons Healed. Captives Freed.

[3] It also happened in the same suburb of blessed Julian at Metz that ^a certain young man, at the evening hour, when the sun had already set and night had stained the world with its darkness, while guarding vineyards heavy with already ripe grapes, saw very many near him -- whom we do not doubt were ministers of Satan -- fighting among themselves with burning torches. He indeed, relying on the boldness of temerity, approached them in order to see what it might be. But the devil, ever envious of our salvation, inflicting as much as he could of his malignity upon him, so shook him with such great terror that, out of his mind, he fell to the ground as though dead. possessed by ^a demon and raving His kinsmen and friends, wondering at his delay, went to the vineyards, knowing that he had gone there: and when they found him and raised him from the ground, they found him not only out of his mind, but also so possessed by the devil that, raging as if with ^a kind of canine madness, he sought to seize those standing around with his teeth: and they, holding him, bound him with straps, wishing to carry him away. But the young man, strong not by the force of his former strength, but by the working of the devil by whom he was wholly held in possession, broke the ropes with which he had been bound, and with open mouth rushed upon those who were holding him. Then, seizing him again, they bound him much more tightly, so that he could not move his head or feet in any way: and placing him on ^a litter, they carried him through many churches of the city of Metz: and though they shed tears with prayers over the sepulchres of the Saints, he was not restored to health, as it pleased the Divine Majesty. Then the parents and friends, remembering the innumerable miracles which the Lord frequently worked through the merits of His most holy Confessor Sigebert, carried him to his sepulchre, and setting him down, bound, before the sepulchre, they implored the clemency of the Savior: that He might deign to free him through the merits of His most holy Confessor. When they had persevered there for several days in prayers, he is freed at the sepulchre of St. Sigebert: the young man was restored to health: and opening his eyes and looking at those standing around, he said: Unbind me: for by the merits of the most holy Confessor Sigebert I have been cured. And they, made most joyful, unbound him, giving praise to God and to His most blessed Confessor. Then the young man asked that the sacred mysteries of the Mass be celebrated for him: and he humbly and devoutly offered his oblation at the Lord's table as ^a suppliant. When the Divine Office was finished, he received the Body of the Lord most devoutly, so that the presence of the Savior might be there where the power of the tempter had lurked. He indeed, in memory of his liberation, bound himself to the most blessed Confessor Sigebert by an annual tribute of four coins: neglecting to offer the vowed coins, he is again possessed, which for two years he paid quite properly at the appointed times; but in the third year, being negligent, he did not pay what he had vowed. He was immediately seized by the unexpected illness by which he had formerly been held, placed under the power of Satan. His parents, holding him, had recourse to his former physician: and carrying him with them, they began to entreat the goodness of the Savior under the name of Sigebert, the most pious Confessor. O ineffable clemency of Divine goodness, which never despises the just prayers of those who beseech You! For the young man was immediately restored to health and rose, again freed. praising God for the benefit of His Confessor, and returned home with joy: nor was he henceforth found negligent in the payment of his tribute which he had previously vowed: but he faithfully paid it annually until the day of his death, not unmindful of the benefits of God and of His most holy Confessor.

[4] While the sanctity of St. Sigebert was flourishing with these and similar miracles, many sick people flocked to his sepulchre and were healed through his merits. It happened, moreover, that two men of our own time, one of whom was called Constantius and the other Jozelinus, having become deranged in mind, Two deranged and sick men lacked both the soundness of reason and of body. These, brought to the sepulchre of St. Sigebert, merited to experience his compassion, and received complete health both of mind and body. Returning home with joy, they magnified God and the goodness of His Confessor, through whom they had received the aid of their former health. Indeed every year, mindful of their faithful physician, they are healed at his sepulchre: they came devoutly to the church of St. Martin, where his sepulchre is, and honored the Confessor of Christ with an annual tribute. These and many other miracles we have seen, which were done in our times: of which, with the help of the Saint of God, we shall take care to record one here.

[5] At ^a certain time, plunderers and brigands suddenly and unexpectedly broke into our territory: hastily running through the houses of the rich and the poor alike, they despoiled them: for they did not presume to make ^a prolonged stay. from among the brigands Coming, however, into the valley of Gorze, they inflicted many losses upon the inhabitants there, which would be tedious for us to recount. The report of this enormity, flying far and wide through the surrounding cities and towns, struck the ears of the people of Metz, who, having gathered ^a very large multitude of armed men, went forth from the city and pursued the aforesaid brigands. who were cut down And engaging them in battle, they defeated them, the greatest part of whom perished there by arms, while ^a part was led away captive; some, however, escaping here and there by flight. two captives After ^a little while, one of those brigands, who had been held for ^a long time in the dungeon of ^a prison with his sole accomplice in crime, recalled during the distress of that captivity that the Lord our God had performed very many miracles through the merits of St. Sigebert His Confessor: for this brigand indeed, Rudolph by name, had been ^a native of our territory, and had therefore frequently heard of the signs and miracles of the blessed Confessor. O what great faith he placed in his goodness, having invoked St. Sigebert, he who, already condemned by his own deserts, dared to call upon him for liberation, saying to his accomplice: Agree with my counsel, and let us both alike prostrate ourselves in prayer, imploring the clemency of the most holy Sigebert, whose body rests in the church of St. Martin outside the walls of the city of Metz, that, not attending to the magnitude of our crimes, he may come to our aid through his merits -- he who aided the thief already judged to the penalties of death. Then both, prostrate in prayer, merited to obtain without delay what they had faithfully requested. O inestimable goodness of the Savior, who accommodates the ears of His mercy even to the petitions of sinners! But as soon as they completed their prayer, they merited to experience his aid, whom they had held in mindful remembrance. they are freed from their chains of their own accord: For the iron chains and fetters by which they were bound began to loosen, so that, free from every iron yoke, they rose up, and thus liberated they escaped, carrying with them the fetters and iron chains, so that no scruple of doubt might remain in those to whom this great miracle would become known through their account. Coming therefore to the church where the body of St. Sigebert rests, with the iron chains by which they had been bound, they gave thanks to Almighty God and to His most blessed Confessor, narrating to us who were standing by how the merciful and compassionate Lord had dealt with them through the memory of St. Sigebert His Confessor.

[6] There also occurred another miracle similar to this, for ^a certain knight from Maissieres, captured by his enemies, had been consigned to the horror of ^a prison. When he was held fast in iron chains, he recalled in his mind the benefits of the Savior which the Lord was bestowing upon all, both captives and the sick, who faithfully invoked Him under the name of St. Sigebert. likewise another knight, Immediately prostrating himself in prayer, he began to entreat the holy Confessor to have mercy on him in this crisis of his necessity, whose aid very many had experienced when they implored it with ^a devout heart. Straightway, with the iron chains loosened, he escaped free, and came to the church where the body of St. Sigebert rests: O what great praises he rendered to the Savior and likewise to His Confessor, in whose service he encouraged us to persevere, praising Him who lives and reigns for ever and ever, Amen.

The valley or land of Gorze, or the Gorzian territory, named from the illustrious monastery of Gorze, lies along the left bank of the Moselle flowing between Metz and Pont-a-Mousson. We shall treat of it on March 6 in the Life of St. Godegrand, Bishop of Metz, founder of that Abbey.

CONCERNING THE THIRD AND FOURTH TRANSLATIONS of the Body of St. Sigebert.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (Saint)

[1] Among the other monasteries that we showed above to have been built by St. Sigebert, pre-eminent above the rest is the one dedicated to St. Martin, mentioned in number 2 of the History of Miracles, The Abbey of St. Martin built from the foundations in the vicinity of Metz on the bank of the river Moselle. Mention of it is made in the division of the kingdom of Lothar between his uncles, carried out in the year of Christ 870, when Charles the Bald, King of the Western Franks, ceded to his brother Louis, King of Germany, the city of Metz together with the Abbey of St. Peter and St. Martin. Afterward, torn from the jurisdiction of the city, this Abbey of St. Martin was under the patronage of the Dukes of Lorraine; destroyed, which abbey, at length destroyed, its territory, an exchange of properties having been made, was joined to the territory of Metz, which to this day, persisting in nearly the ancient formula of law, authors observe is commonly called the ban of St. Martin. Concerning the Translation of the relics of St. Sigebert made when that Abbey was destroyed, Saussay treats in the Gallic Martyrology on the fourth day before the Nones of February: "The body of St. Sigebert was thence (from the church of St. Martin) translated to Metz on account of the inrushing storms of war, the body of St. Sigebert conveyed to Nancy, afterward conveyed to Nancy, the capital of the Duchy of Lorraine, and there at last it rests in the primatial basilica, which not long ago Charles III, Prince of Lorraine, founded." Thus Saussay. Miraeus also, in the Belgian and Burgundian Fasti, writes on these Kalends of February that the foundations of this basilica of Nancy were laid in the year 1603 by Charles III the Duke, in the new basilica and his son Charles, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church: and that the body rests there enclosed in ^a silver casket: and that the Abbey of St. Martin was finally suppressed by Pope Clement VIII; and its estates assigned as an endowment to this new college at Nancy, which had been destroyed during the ravaging wars of the year 1552. Jodocus Coccius adds in his Preliminary Dagobert, chapter 12, that the body of St. Sigebert, around that year 1552, was translated to the city of Nancy with incredible and truly princely pomp, and is there venerated with greater devotion, it is venerated. ^a temple being dedicated to him, whose memorial the inhabitants celebrate on the feast sacred to the Kalends of February with special veneration.

[2] Concerning that siege of Metz, the writers of the history of those times treat passim, and especially Francois de Belcaire, Bishop of Metz, in book 26 of his Commentaries on French Affairs. What is most pertinent here, The history of the translation. says the same Coccius, there is at hand ^a book on the life of St. Sigebert, elegantly written in the vernacular language by the distinguished George Alberic, secretary to the Most Serene Dukes of Lorraine. Hence we give in Latin the history of the translation of the relics of St. Sigebert, which can be reckoned the third and fourth. He who in this history of Alberic is called Duke Charles III is called by Chifflet in his Masculine Lorraine, chapters 5 and 8, Charles II, who died in the year 1608, and was then succeeded by Henry, his eldest son, who, dying without male offspring, was succeeded in the year 1624 by his brother Francis, Count of Vaudemont, who then gave the Duchy of Lorraine and Bar to Charles III, his eldest son and the present Duke, from whose brother Nicolaus Francis were born Ferdinand Philip and Charles Nicolas. As to the fact that the same Alberic wishes this most serene family of Dukes to be descended from the stock of St. Sigebert, let others debate that.

HISTORY OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH TRANSLATION, Written in French by George Alberic.

Sigebert, King of the Austrasian Franks, at Metz in Gaul (Saint)

From the French of George Alberic.

[1] It is manifest to this very day that the Duke of Lorraine possesses the right of lay patronage over the convent of St. Peter of the Ladies within the precincts of the city of Metz, and that the Abbess of that place is sent into beneficial possession of the estates by him, and declares herself to be in his future faith and patronage: for that convent was formerly founded by ^a Prince of the royal House of Lorraine. And what more pertains to my purpose, The Abbey of St. Martin at Metz under the patronage of the Dukes of Lorraine, the district, the ban, and the abbey of St. Martin, in the suburb of Metz, from whose church the body of St. Sigebert the King was brought to us, were subject to the jurisdiction of the same Duke, under the title of patronage: and the church and abbey itself depended on the Duke's patronage, until about the year 1604, when the Great Charles III, Duke of glorious and long-desired memory, transacted with the city of Metz concerning various possessions. It would not be out of place here, in keeping with my purpose, to compose ^a fuller encomium of that most noble city. For if there is anywhere in the world ^a city that can rightly call itself the mother of Saints, to this one assuredly that honor is owed: to say nothing of other ornaments -- its antiquity, fortification, splendor, and dignity; all of which perhaps I shall treat at another time in ^a separate commentary. But the Translation of St. Sigebert, whom that city once had as King, now summons me elsewhere.

[2] That city was besieged in the year 1552 by Charles V (than whom as Emperor Germany has scarcely ever chosen ^a more outstanding one): but it was defended with singular care, prudence, and fortitude by Francis of Lorraine, Duke of Guise, Vicar General of the King of France. He, lest he leave the enemy any convenience of buildings and rooftops, or any place safe from the city's artillery, was compelled to demolish the suburbs and the churches built around the city from the most ancient times, on account of the city's siege, destroyed together with other monasteries: namely those of St. Arnulph, St. Clement, St. Peter of the Fields, St. Julian, and St. Martin: and since in those churches very many bodies of Saints were preserved, the same Duke had them carried forth, ^a solemn procession having been instituted, in which he himself took part with many men of rank and ^a most numerous nobility, bareheaded, carrying ^a torch in hand: they were deposited in the church of the Dominicans at Metz, until each should have its own church built, as one can now see has been done. the more illustrious tombs having been carried into the city, Translated on the same day and in the same solemnity of the procession were the tombs in which, in the church of St. Arnulph, had been interred Hildegard, wife of Charlemagne, Emperor and King of France and Austrasia; Louis the Pious, son of the same Charles and Hildegard, likewise King and Emperor; Hildegard and also Aleidis, sisters of the same Louis; also two sisters of Charles, Rotaidis and Aleidis; Drogo, Bishop of Metz, brother of the same Louis; Vitro, Governor of Lorraine, parent of St. Glotsindis, and others.

[3] As for the body of St. Sigebert the King, it had been entombed in the church of the abbey of St. Martin, which he himself had once built on his own estate, and in which he had chosen ^a tomb for himself. But because, the body of St. Sigebert conveyed to Nancy, as was written above, the same ban, village, and abbey were still of Lorraine's jurisdiction, his sacred remains were left to its right and consigned into the hands of the Duke of Lorraine, descended from the stock of that same Saint, and heir to ^a not inconsiderable portion of his domains: and therefore carried to Nancy, to the church of the Priory of St. Mary, which depended on that ancient abbey of St. Martin.

[4] The more bitter this removal of the holy body was to the city of Metz and the whole region of the Mediomatrici, by whose grace they had received many benefits divinely bestowed, the more the citizens of Nancy received it with piety, reverence, and greater eagerness, magnificently received and adopted the Saint himself as their own special Patron with God for their city thenceforth. Nor did their hope deceive them: for, frequently loaded with great benefits by God, they rightly attribute them to the favor of the holy King. Wherefore from that time, ^a singular veneration has customarily been shown to that sacred body at appointed times. For it has been proved by frequent experience it shines with miracles: that rains are drawn from heaven and stopped by his patronage, when his aid is sought through public processions where necessity demands, and his Relics are piously and solemnly carried about: to say nothing of the innumerable cures of diseases that have occurred and occur daily there, when the majesty of the Godhead is placated through him for wretched mortals.

[5] The multitude of people continually flocking to Nancy to venerate the Relics furnishes no obscure testimony of the antiquity of that holy ceremony and devotion, and of the very many benefits which, by the grace of the holy King, God has bestowed at various times and places. Nor is it of small moment that for so many centuries now the abbey of St. Martin, founded by St. Sigebert, deposited in the primatial basilica, has been conferred as ^a benefice by the Most Serene Duke of Lorraine; ^a manifest proof that he is the heir of the stock and dominion of the most holy King. After the distinguished primatial basilica was erected at Nancy, and both the abbey of St. Martin and the aforesaid Priory of St. Mary were annexed to it, the sacred body was translated into the same primatial basilica, so that it might be an ornament to it, befitting its grandeur; and might itself receive from the dignity of the place in which it was preserved an ornament fitting for it.

[6] For since in the times of the ancient Dukes and Kings of Lorraine the cities of Toul, Verdun, and Metz obeyed them, hence the entire people of Lorraine still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishops who governed those three cities: nor could it be obtained from the Supreme Pontiff that he should change the rights and boundaries of those most ancient dioceses. But in order that provision might be made both for the dignity of Lorraine in general and especially of the city of Nancy, by instituting ^a basilica and sacred authority within it erected by Duke Charles, with the approval of Clement VIII, that would correspond to the grandeur of both; moved by the request of Duke Charles III and his son Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, Pope Clement VIII granted them ^a Primate instead of ^a Bishop, making the power to erect ^a primatial church at Nancy, the capital of Lorraine: to which he then conferred four dignities, as they are called -- Primate, Dean, Cantor, and Scholastic -- with thirteen Canons attached, eight Vicars, and the rest of the sacred ministers' office, as is customary in the principal Cathedral Churches. And in order that the same Pontiff might comply with the piety, most acceptable to him, of those Princes, he attributed and annexed to the sustenance of that Primatial Church these churches and revenues: endowed with the revenues of the Abbey of St. Martin, of the Benedictine order, in the suburb of Metz, formerly founded by St. Sigebert, from which his body was, as we said, translated to Nancy: and since the possessions of that cenobium were most ample, having been attributed to our Primatial Church, the same most holy King can rightly be considered and called the primary founder of this Primatial church. and others, Annexed to it furthermore, by Pontifical authority, are the revenues of the abbatial table of Clairlieu, which is ^a cenobium of the Cistercian institute, ^a league distant from Nancy: three prebends (as they call them) of the Canons of the distinguished Church of St. Deodat: the Church of Dieu-le-Ward, commonly called Custodia Dei, which consisted of two dignities, namely the Dean and the Treasurer, and six canonries: the Priories of St. Nicolas de Port, Varangeville, Salon, St. Dagobert of Stenay, and St. Gorgon: and these churches are for the most part founded by the Dukes of Lorraine. Their revenues, together with those which Duke Charles added from his own treasury, amply suffice for the sustenance of the said Dignities, Canons, Vicars, cantors, Choirmaster, and other ministers; and for the maintenance of repairs. The Primate's table is, however, separate from the revenues of the college and the Church.

[7] The same Pontiff then exempted this distinguished Church, and its Primate, Dean, Cantor, Scholastic, Canons, Chaplains, and exempted from episcopal jurisdiction: and other officials and ministers, and all its benefices, possessions, estates, jurisdiction, and other goods, both common and private, from all jurisdiction, correction, subjection, visitation, dominion, authority, and power of the Bishops of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, as well as of other Ordinaries, Metropolitans, and any Judges whatsoever, present and future, both spiritual and temporal, in perpetuity; and subjected it solely to the power and authority of the Holy Apostolic See, and to the protection of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul: as is evident from his Bull given on the day before the Ides of March in the year 1602.

[8] Only the foundations of this magnificent basilica have so far been laid, and it has not been raised higher from the ground, after the foundations of the new basilica were laid. but with such ^a splendid design that posterity, which will behold the completed work, will admire the genius of the architects: for the form of each part has been separately delineated and fashioned after the appearance of the most outstanding works of all Europe. In the meantime, in ^a church of makeshift construction, the Divine offices are performed quite magnificently, worthy of the solemnity of any Cathedral Church.

[9] Here the bier of St. Sigebert is seen, skillfully made of ebony, covered with silver figures polished with enamel, resting on ^a flat base, At the bier of St. Sigebert sustained by very tall marble columns, with gilded silver herms added: above hangs ^a canopy, on which various miracles of the same Saint are elegantly depicted. All of which was procured by the munificence of Antoine de Lenoncourt, the second Primate. a pilgrimage is made on the feast of the Ascension of Christ. Hither, especially on the feast of the Ascension of Christ, an innumerable multitude of people flocks, who, according to ^a rite handed down from their ancestors, there religiously worship God, and offer to Him the merits and good deeds of the holy King, with the pious confidence that through them they may conciliate the Divine clemency for themselves, and obtain help and solace in adversity: and very many confess, when they depart hence, that they have enjoyed the fruit of their devotion and the experience of Divine goodness.

[10] The area of that church was dedicated to the honor of the Virgin Mother of God, on the Ides of September in the year 1603 with ^a solemn benediction, by the same Antoine de Lenoncourt, then Dean and Vicar General of the Cardinal of Lorraine, Inscription on the foundation stone. the first Primate: and the first stone was placed in the foundations, on which this was inscribed: CHARLES III, DUKE OF LORRAINE AND BAR, AND CHARLES HIS SON, CARDINAL AND LEGATE A LATERE OF THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE, BISHOP OF METZ AND STRASBOURG, HAVE VOWED, LAID, AND ENDOWED THIS TEMPLE TO GOD ALMIGHTY AND THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD MARY, IN THE YEAR OF HUMAN SALVATION 1603, ON THE 18TH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF OCTOBER. CLEMENT VIII, SUPREME PONTIFF.