Speus

ON S. SPEUS, CONFESSOR.

Speus, Confessor, at Aachen in Belgian Gaul (S.)

From various sources.

[1] We append Speus (some might think he should more correctly be called Spes) to Charlemagne — not because his age, condition, deeds, The relics of S. Speus, feast day, or Translation are known to us, but because he once rested at Aachen, where Charles is held in particular veneration; At Aachen for this reason both Molanus in the Feast Days of the Saints of Belgium and we give him on 28 January together with Charles. The same Molanus testifies, however, that at Aachen no memorial of him survives, except that in a list of relics it is found written thus: "Dust of the relics of S. Speus, Bishop and Martyr."

[2] Lambert of Schafnaburg calls him a Confessor, not a Martyr or Bishop; in his own time, that is in the year 1072, At Hartesburg he testifies that relics were transported to Hartesburg by Henry IV, and two years later, when Hartesburg was destroyed, they were taken by a certain Abbot from the neighborhood to his own monastery. Hartesburg, or Hartzburgum, called by some Hercinoburgum, is a town two miles distant from Goslar, near the very borders of the diocese of Hildesheim. It was built or fortified by Henry after the death of Henry III, as were many other places which the same author lists, to oppress the Saxons and other neighboring peoples rather than to keep them in loyalty. On it, Otto of Freising, On the Deeds of the Emperor Frederick, book 1, chapter 4: "A certain castle, called Harzburg, founded by the Emperor for the assault upon that same nation, at the entrance of the province, in a most fortified place."

[3] Here, therefore, the relics of S. Speus were brought in the year 1072; thus Lambert: "The King, having set out for Aachen, received S. Speus the Confessor, Carried away in the year 1072. and the arm of the righteous Simeon, who is mentioned in the Gospel, and the head of Anastasius the monk and Martyr, and relics of other Saints there, and transferred them to Hartesburg." We shall treat of S. Simeon the Just on 8 October; we treated of S. Anastasius the Martyr on 22 January. These relics appear to have been brought to Aachen by Charlemagne, who amassed there a truly immense and admirable treasury of sacred relics. There still remain there, and every seventh year are publicly displayed with a celebrated concourse of peoples, distinguished remains of the Saints; but many were carried away to other places by Kings and Emperors, as Beka shows by this and other examples in chapter 9.

[4] Because nothing about S. Speus is known from any other source, we think he can be reckoned among those whose relics Charles brought to Aachen from Italy. And there will perhaps be someone who suspects that Speus, or Spes, is the Bishop of Spoleto whose feast falls on 23 November, although the solemnity is deferred to 29 November, as Ferrarius attests; or else that Abbot of Nursia of whom S. Gregory speaks in book 4, Dialogues, chapter 10, and the Martyrologies on 28 March.

[5] The occasion on which those relics were carried away from Hartesburg is narrated by the same Schafnaburg author in the year 1073. "At that time," he says, "those who were in Hartesburg performed many notable feats of military daring. On account of the insolence of the garrison, For they frequently burst forth, making raids in the neighboring regions and inflicting no small slaughter of men, and before the Saxons could assemble in numbers to repel the violence, they had retreated into the castle. They were especially destructive to the people of Goslar on account of their proximity. For they killed very many of them, and plundered their goods, which were found outside the town, by frequent raids, and prevented merchants of foreign nations from bringing their customary wares there by the fear of losing their lives."

[6] This military insolence therefore brought it about that, although the Saxons had been reconciled with the Emperor, the castle was nevertheless destroyed in the year 1074 by a new conspiracy of what was almost the rustic populace. The same author relates the event thus: "Moreover the common people of Saxony, especially those who inhabited the small villages adjacent to the castle of Hartesburg, had been vehemently offended that any relics had been preserved at Hartesburg; By the neighboring Saxons nor did they think that anything had been accomplished by so great labors while the castle stood intact and unharmed — the castle which had been the origin and source of all the disasters they had suffered, and which had reduced the once most prosperous villages of the surrounding region to a scene of horror and vast desolation. They said the King had paid no regard to divine worship, but had sought under the pretext of religion a cover for his cruelty, so that after a short time, when this anger of the Saxons had cooled, he might renew the war and have a place where he could safely receive his soldiers again for the overthrow of Saxony; and that he would then press upon the vanquished all the more fiercely, the more savage he now departed because of the Saxons' successful outcome. Spreading these words back and forth with intemperate clamor, they inflamed themselves to great ferocity. Therefore on the third day after the King had departed, When Hartesburg was destroyed, without the knowledge or advice of the Princes, having formed a mob, they burst into Hartesburg; they cast down from the foundations what remained of the walls; they scattered the stones far and wide; they did the same to the other buildings, which the indulgence of the Princes had preserved intact; they burned the church, which had been most elegantly constructed of wood in the haste of accelerating the work; they destroyed the treasures; they broke the altars to pieces. Finally, lest any occasion for rebuilding the castle should remain for the King, they dug up his son and brother, whom he had buried there to gratify the local people; and they did everything they could so that, the hill having been leveled, it could no longer afford any opportunity for conducting a war thereafter. The relics of the Saints, which had been torn out of the broken altars, and the exhumed bodies of the dead, an Abbot from a neighboring monastery, arriving opportunely, Transferred elsewhere. snatched from the raging mob and conveyed with honor into his own monastery."

ON B. RICHOARD, or RICHARD, ABBOT OF VAUCELLES IN BELGIUM.

Twelfth Century.

Richoard or Richard, Abbot of Vaucelles in Belgium (B.)

From various sources.

[1] At Vaucelles, or Vallis-cella, of the Cistercian order, in the territory of Cambrai on the river Scheldt, near the town of Crevecœur, an illustrious monastery is to be seen. Its first Abbots — Radulph, Richoard, The feast day of B. Richoard. and Nicholas — were conspicuous for the holiness of their lives. Of these, Radulph is inscribed in the Cistercian Menology and other records on 30 and 31 December; Nicholas on 30 May and 6 December. The feast of Richoard, who is also called Richard and Riquard, is on this 28 January; the translation of him and the other two Abbots is assigned to 30 May, although it actually occurred on the day before, that is, 29 May, as will be said below.

[2] Among the books of our Professed House at Antwerp there is a MS. Chronicle of Eusebius, Prosper, Sigebert, and others, which once belonged to Abraham Ortelius, and before that to the Abbey of Vaucelles, or at any rate was augmented by some monk of Vaucelles. In this Chronicle the origins of that monastery are thus recorded under the year of Christ 1131: The foundation of the monastery of Vaucelles in the year 1131. "In this year the monastery of S. Mary of the Church of Vaucelles was begun." And under the following year 1132: "In this year a community of monks came with their Abbot, named Radulph, from Clairvaux to this place which is called Vaucelles, on the first day of the Kalends of August, on which day the feast of S. Peter in Chains is celebrated. This Radulph, the first Abbot of this monastery, born in England, was an example to all in his life, character, and fervor of religious observance. These monks were brought by S. Bernard of blessed memory, the first Abbot of the monastery of Clairvaux." There survives a letter, number 186, of the same Bernard, in which he asks Simon, the son of the Castellan of Cambrai, to confirm the donation of Ligecourt, granted by his father for the use of this monastery.

[3] Under the year 1149, the following is recorded in the same Chronicle: "In this year the church of S. Mary of the monastery of Vaucelles was consecrated by Samson, Archbishop of Reims, on the seventh day before the Kalends of June, on the fifth day of the week of Pentecost. The dedication of the church in the year 1149. Easter fell that year on 3 April, Pentecost on 22 May, the Dominical letter being B. Therefore Claudius Robert writes incorrectly in his Gallia Christiana that this church of Vaucelles was dedicated by Samson in the year 1151, in which year the seventh day before the Kalends of June fell on a Saturday. The temple that now stands there is by far the most beautiful, and among the other monasteries of this order in Belgium is the most spacious; and it surpasses even the cathedral church of Cambrai in length, as writes the eyewitness Aubert Miraeus in his Cistercian Chronicle.

[4] Under the year 1151, the MS. Chronicle continues thus: "The Lord Radulph, the first Abbot of this monastery, B. Richoard becomes Abbot in the year 1151. after completing nineteen years from the time he came to this place, and five months, on the third day before the Kalends of January, freed from the bonds of earthly corruption, departed from the world. He was succeeded by a venerable man named Riquard, himself also taken from Clairvaux, mature in character, outstanding in discretion, cheerful in countenance, affable in conversation, handsome in stature, temperate in all things." To this eulogy the Reverend Lord Nicholas Daussy, Prior of Vaucelles, adds in letters written to us on this matter, from an ancient MS. Codex which Raisse calls the MS. Chronicle: "and praiseworthy in all respects." Henriquez, in book 2 of his Fasciculus of the Saints of the Cistercian Order, amplifies these things more fully in his manner: "He was held by all," he says, "to be most proven in wonderful moderation of mind, piety, and regular observance." And soon after: "Since therefore, on account of his eminent virtues and singular piety, he was dear to all and acquired a wonderful reputation for holiness, he spread the name of his congregation throughout the surrounding regions. And he himself, full of good works, departed from this life." Thus Henriquez, citing the Cistercian Chronicle and the Appendix to Sigebert of Miraeus, in which places he presents some things from our MS. Chronicle. Raisse transcribes the same from Henriquez.

[5] In the MS. codex of Nicholas Daussy, whose author testifies that he lived with Radulph for seventeen years, the following is found concerning the succession of the first Abbots and the growth of the monastery: S. Bernard marveling at the growth of the monastery. "Radulph left behind one hundred and seven professed monks and three Novices, and one hundred and thirty Conversi, whom he had under his governance." Hence our Father S. Bernard, when after his death he had brought his successor Richard, a man of sweet memory, and had seen so distinguished a community of monks and Conversi, exhilarated in mind, broke forth into these words, saying: "Blessed be God! Some time ago indeed at the beginning I brought a small number of men to this place; but now, seeing that you have grown from that little flock into so great a multitude, I rejoice and exult, and give thanks to almighty God," etc. Further below, the same author says he did not discover of what nation he was. Raisse and Henriquez in the Menology write that he was English; but on what authority?

[6] In the MS. Chronicle the following is added at the end, outside the order of the Chronicle: His relics and those of two other Abbots honorably translated. "In the year of the Incarnate Word 1179, in the time of Pope Alexander, in the reign of the Emperor Frederick, in the month of May, on the fourth day before the Kalends of June, on a Tuesday, the bones of the Abbots of this place were raised from the Chapter house, where they had been placed from the beginning — namely, of the Lord Radulph, the first Abbot of this monastery, and of the Lord Riquard, the second, and of the Lord Nicholas, who had succeeded in the third place but had resigned the abbey on account of excessive bodily infirmity — and they were placed by the Lord Alelm, who had taken up the office of governance in the fifth place, with fitting honor within the wall of the new church, which is between the door of the same church and the book-cupboard, on the northern side, in places honorably prepared, with all the ministers vested in white, and with a copious assembly of both Conversi and monks, and a multitude of very many secular persons present, in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns for ever and ever, Amen." And in another hand: "This aforesaid translation of the Abbots was made after the Council which was celebrated that same year at Rome under Pope Alexander III, and in the second year in which peace was restored to the Church, which for twenty years under the aforesaid Pope had been greatly vexed by the attacks of evil men in schism."

[7] These things are in that MS., which, abridged and published by Miraeus in his Cistercian Chronicle, In the year 1179, on 29 May, not 30. are sprinkled with a double error. First, because he says the translation was made on the third day before the Kalends of June, whereas the fourth before the Kalends is expressly read, which in that year fell on a Tuesday since the Dominical letter was G. The same error from Miraeus was transcribed by Henriquez in the Fasciculus and Menology, and by Raisse and Menard, who assign it to 30 May. The other error of Miraeus is that he read the translation as having been made "through the Council," when "after the Council" is what is written. That Council was held on 5 March 1179, as William of Tyre, book 21, On the Holy War, chapter 26, Roger, and others attest. Peace was restored to the Church in the year 1177. The discord between the Emperor Frederick and Pope Adrian IV had begun in the year 1157. These observations concern the genuine reading of this Chronicle. Henriquez, citing Miraeus, interprets these things in the Fasciculus as follows: "After whose death, he began to shine with so many signs of sanctity that, a diligent inquiry having been made on this matter, the Lateran Council, celebrated at Rome under Pope Alexander III, ordered his body to be elevated and proposed for the veneration and worship of the people. This was indeed solemnly done in the year of the Lord 1179, on the third day before the Kalends of June." Henriquez says similar things on this 28 January and 30 May. Raisse follows him on the former day, and Menard on the latter; by all of whom he is honored with the title of Blessed.

[8] Concerning this translation, the above-cited Prior Nicholas wrote to us as follows: "It is certain that their bodies were translated from the old monastery to the new one, and were honorably deposited in the greater cloister near the steps of the church; which place indeed still exists and is visible; in which place there was once hung a certain tablet, a witness of their translation, which tablet enumerated the Bishops, Abbots, Nobles, and people present at this solemnity. But when King Philip II of Spain, about to invade Saint-Quentin, passed through our area, amid other ruins and miseries this tablet perished. This much, however, still remains to us: The place where they are deposited is still held in veneration. that when Religious or the whole community together pass through the place in which their relics are preserved, they humbly and devoutly bow, which reverence indeed has flowed down from our Fathers to us. And indeed such a translation appears to have been instituted for a certain veneration, nor, as was the discipline of that time, rashly undertaken without the authority of the Roman Pontiff."