Modesta

ON ST. MODESTA, VIRGIN AND ABBESS AT TRIER,

AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

Modesta, abbess of Trier (S.)

BY A. P.

§ I. Over which monastery St. Modesta presided as abbess.

[1] St. Modesta, who is praised That the blessed Modesta lived at Trier after the middle of the seventh century and was there adorned with the dignity of abbess we learn from the Little Book of the Miracles of St. Gertrude of Nivelles, which little book it is established was written not long after the death of this saint. But as certain as these things are, so doubtful and wrapped in darkness seem the other things which have been handed down to memory concerning the deeds of St. Modesta. For at once a huge disagreement is detected, both of the ancient monuments and also of the more recent authors who have written of her either on purpose or in passing. For some keep calling her the daughter of King Dagobert, others the niece of St. Modoald, bishop of Trier, others the sister of St. Willibrord. Nor do they agree any more in designating the monastery over which she presided: some, to be sure, contend that it was the monastery of Habend, some that of Saint-Symphorian at Trier, most that of Oeren at Trier; among which last, however, there is this dissension, that they make Modesta either merely prioress of this nunnery or abbess, but some the first, that is, before St. Irmina, others the second, that is, after St. Irmina, others even the third. There are besides those who, to extricate themselves from these difficulties, distinguish two Modestas or two Irminas. In short, almost as many opinions are put forward as there have been learned men who wrote of our saint. This being so, we do not for our part take so much upon ourselves as to believe that amid that dissension or obscurity of the ancient writers the history of St. Modesta can be brought to clarity. But our purpose is this, to search out what weight, what authority there is in so many opinions and conjectures, which have been put forward especially by the more recent writers, and, when certain things can scarcely be established, to strive to define what can be called probable, and what even more probable.

[2] in an ancient little book But since the first and firmest foundation of what we know or are about to discuss concerning St. Modesta is laid in the already praised Little Book of the Virtues or Miracles which is subjoined to the original Life of St. Gertrude, we must recall a few things about the author of this little book. That the writer of the original Life itself was contemporary with St. Gertrude, and indeed a cleric belonging to the household of the monastery of Nivelles, both his whole writing most plainly declares and it was commonly held by all. The first to deny it was H.-E. Bonnell, who, led by other opinions with which he was preoccupied, concerning the Virtues of St. Gertrude, was induced to think that the author of the Life and Virtues, whether by design or imprudently, but certainly falsely, had passed himself off as a contemporary of the saint, and had put his hand to the writing only in the eleventh century H. E. Bonnel, Die Anfänge des karolingischen Hauses, pp. 68 and 151–2.. But this was said with little success; for the distinguished I. Friedrich has clearly shown, above all from intrinsic indications, how groundless Bonnell's suspicion was Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. II, pp. 341 and 667–70.; which suspicion is rendered altogether void especially by that decisive point, namely that, besides some manuscripts written in the ninth and tenth centuries, a certain copy written in the eighth century has preserved that Life and the Virtues for us, namely the Montpellier manuscript of the school of medicine marked H. 55. Most recently, however, a man who has deserved splendidly of Merovingian hagiography, Bruno Krusch, although as regards the substance of the matter he entirely agrees with Friedrich, has nevertheless proved excellently that the writer of the Life and of the Virtues was not the same: the Life, namely, was composed neither before the year 670 nor much after; the Virtues were written about the year 700 B. Krusch in MG., Script. rer. merov. vol. II, pp. 448–9.. Further, the authority of the writer of the Virtues remains great, if not the greatest.

[3] she lived at Trier in the seventh century This, then, is what that narrator, near in age, relates concerning St. Modesta, which we are not reluctant to report here in full from Krusch's excellent edition: There was, he says Ibid., pp. 465–6, no. 2., a certain abbess in a monastery of Trier whose name was Modesta, and she had been consecrated to God from her very infancy, and in like manner she seemed to be bound intimately to St. Gertrude in divine friendship. Although they were placed far apart and far separated from one another in body, with many miles and stretches of land lying between, so that they could not see one another with the gaze of their eyes, yet in spirit and in the love of the heart they were always present, because they bore an equal warfare of service and served the Lord equally in sincerity of heart without guile. After a long space of time, however, there happened this which I wish to recall to your memory by narrating it, that one day, when the aforesaid handmaid of God Modesta, being in her monastery, had entered her church for the sake of prayer, she was prostrating herself in prayer before the altar of the blessed Mary ever virgin. And when, the prayer finished, she had risen and was looking around her on every side, suddenly she looked and saw St. Gertrude standing at the right side of the altar, in the same dress and in the same appearance in which she had been fashioned. And she said to her: "Sister Modesta, hold this vision as certain, and know without any doubt that today, at this same hour, I have been released from the dwelling of this flesh. I am Gertrude, whom you have loved much". And with these words she was taken away from the eyes of the beholder. Then she was silently pondering within herself why so great a vision should have occurred. And on that same day she told no one a single word about that vision. But when the next day had come, the bishop of the city of Metz, named Chlodulf, came to the monastery of the aforesaid handmaid of God Modesta. Then among other conversations the virgin of God asked the bishop about St. Gertrude, in what dress or order or appearance she had been. And he at once related in order the stature of her body and the appearance of her comeliness. Then the blessed Modesta understood from the signs which she had heard from the bishop that what she had seen before was true, and she said to him: "This I now confess to you, which I was concealing before, that it was revealed to me yesterday at about the sixth hour that she had passed from this light on that very day and at the same hour." And afterwards she disclosed the whole matter in order to the bishop. But the aforesaid bishop Chlodulf, noting down that very day and hour, also found that the order of the matter had happened just as the above-said abbess had previously indicated.

[4] and she discharged the office of abbess So much he. Which, further, that monastery of Trier was over which Modesta was set is related a little more distinctly by a certain other Life of St. Gertrude, or reworking of the earlier Life, which reworking we read in some manuscripts written even at the end of the eleventh century and in the twelfth Ibid., pp. 465–6, no. 2.. For thus it says: There was a certain nun placed at Trier, named Modesta, who presided over the flock of nuns of the monastery of Trier …, and a little later: This blessed virgin, therefore, on the very day of the falling asleep of the blessed Gertrude, having entered the basilica of her monastery, in the monastery of the B. V. Mary; which was consecrated in honour of the blessed Mary ever virgin, .. [So often was the Life of St. Gertrude reworked together with the little book of the Virtues that anyone who wished to distinguish and review the several editions of these made in the Middle Ages in the many manuscripts which survive would have to spend a great deal of labour altogether. But I fear that slight fruit would answer to so great a labour. Further, let it suffice here to mention only four editions: 1° That original work, of which we treated in no. 2, written partly by a contemporary author, partly by one near in age; after many others, the distinguished B. Krusch has most recently edited it, place cited, pp. 453–71 (the letter A designates this recension).

— 2° A certain ancient reworking, not more recent than the ninth century; but it does not include the Virtues, and so does not pertain to our subject; it is edited in Krusch, place cited, pp. 453–64; cf. p. 450 (he calls this B). — 3° Another reworking consisting of three books, a certain passage of which we shall bring forward below at no. 5. Krusch reviews three copies of it, place cited, p. 451; to those very many others may be added, none of which have we found older than the twelfth century; nor does Krusch think the work was made much before that time (place cited, p. 450), who designates this edition by the letter C. It was edited by G. van Ryckel in the book soon to be cited. — 4° That of which we treat in this no. 4, and which is unedited. It is read in the Vatican MS. Reg. Suec. 497, fols. 64vo–70, of the eleventh century (cf. Pertz's Archiv, vol. XII, p. 284); in the Brussels MS. 9119, fols. 96–8, of the twelfth century, etc., etc. This does indeed seem to be older than Life C; but since that one has already been marked with a letter by which it is distinguished, we shall cite this fourth one below, marking it with the letter D. We intend to put forward some things about it later in our Analecta.]. By these words, if not openly, yet to some extent, the monastery of Oeren is indicated; for Oeren was a monastery at Trier originally dedicated to the holy Mother of God; which a celebrated tradition at Trier, from at least the twelfth century, relates was established in the palace of Dagobert which is called Orreum, a church having been built in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary Gesta Treverorum, chap. 24 (MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160, line 6).. That name of Horreum certain spurious letters of Leo III Jaffé-Ewald, Reg. Rom. Pont., no. 2540., which almost all who wrote afterwards followed in this matter, ascribe to the royal granaries in which the monastery had been founded. Certainly it had been built upon ancient and noble ruins, which Wiltheim testified were still standing in their mass in his own time Cf. Friedrich, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. II, p. 218.; and since it was washed by the river, it could certainly once have provided a suitable place for public granaries. It is called, moreover, not only Horreum or the monastery of B. Mary at Horreum, but also by a singular name the abbey of St. Mary the Virgin, which is surnamed Horrea [The spurious diploma of Dagobert in Pertz, MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, p. 151; Libellus de rebus Treverensibus in MG., Scr. vol. XIV, p. 105, line 8.], the monastery of St. Mary, the possession of St. Mary [Libellus de reb. Trev., nos. 14, 15 (ibid., p. 104); Act. SS., Oct. vol. II, p. 377, d.], etc. Further, that Modesta presided over this nunnery is hinted, as it seems, by that reviser D of the Virtues of St. Gertrude, from whom we recited a few things, since he speaks of the church of the blessed Mary, which it is credible gave its name, as was the custom, to the monastery.

[5] which is the same as the monastery of Oeren But the monastery of Oeren itself is designated more clearly by recension C of the Virtues of Gertrude, which the age of the manuscripts testifies was written at the beginning of the twelfth century at the latest See above, p. 300, note 5.. For its author now says openly: There was, he says, in the city of Trier a certain nun who presided over the monastery of the blessed Mother of God Mary [In Ryckel, Vitae S. Gertrudis … historicae narrationes tres (Louvain, 1632), p. 147.]. All the other ancient writers who have spoken of St. Modesta agree, and indeed even pronounce the name of Horreum: thus among the people of Trier in the middle of the eleventh century the author of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus MG., Scr. vol. XIV, pp. 104–5., in the twelfth century the author Ibid., vol. VIII, p. 160, line 8., the interpolators Ibid., lines 19, 28. and the continuators First continuation, chap. 15 (ibid., p. 188). of the Gesta Treverorum; thus in the fourteenth century the author of the Gesta Boemundi Ibid., vol. XXIV, p. 372.; thus that forger who fabricated the letters of Pope Leo III in favour of the nunnery of Oeren Cf. above, p. 300, note 7.. Keeping to their footsteps, a good many historians of more recent age have without hesitation judged that Modesta was set over the monastery of Oeren. Whether this has been rightly established must be inquired into briefly. For against it have spoken our Smet Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 185, no. 27 ff. and more recently the distinguished Friedrich Op. cit., vol. II, p. 218.; who note that in recension A of the Virtues of St. Gertrude there is indeed talk of some monastery of Trier, but one not distinctly designated; further, that it is not at all proved that no nunnery existed at Trier at that time apart from Oeren; indeed, that the monastery of Saint-Symphorian, founded by St. Modoald, had then certainly already been built See Friedrich, place cited.. Smet besides points out Place cited, end of no. 28. that the fact that edition C of the Virtues of St. Gertrude asserts that monastery to have been dedicated to Blessed Mary, and therefore, since no other distinguished by this same title seems to have existed at Trier at that time Cf. Mabillon, Annales O. S. B., Book XVI, no. 66 (vol. I, p. 534)., hints that it was the one of Oeren, contributes nothing to the matter, since we do not know whether from a genuine source or by some light conjecture the reviser C interpolated into the narrative what the original recension A was silent about, namely that Modesta presided over a monastery which was sacred to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[6] the common tradition testifies We for our part willingly let go the argument drawn from this edition C of the Life of St. Gertrude, if it alone is regarded. But its statement is confirmed by the author of the Gesta Treverorum, who wrote at the beginning of the twelfth century: The same pontiff, therefore, he says (namely Modoald), built a church in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary in the palace of Dagobert which is called Orreum; where he also instituted a congregation of virgins, whose mothers were Irmina and Modesta, daughters of Dagobert MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160.. But the one who wrote this does not seem to have known any Life of St. Gertrude, since he made no mention of her even in this place, where it was natural to recall that holy virgin. Otherwise indeed those two who before the middle of the twelfth century enlarged these Gesta with interpolations; for these note that St. Modesta was a contemporary of the blessed virgin Gertrude; the tradition at Trier in the eleventh century. otherwise also the author of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus, who, although he copied the first edition of the Virtues of Gertrude, nevertheless called Modesta abbess of Oeren Ibid., vol. XIV, p. 105.. It is therefore permissible to conclude that at least in the middle of the eleventh century this was the common tradition at Trier, which the author of edition C of the Life of Gertrude also followed.

[7] But it is proved by no reason Yet that Modesta was abbess of Oeren is sharply denied, besides Smet and Friedrich, by Henschenius [De tribus Dagobertis … diatriba … (1655), p. 116; Act. SS., March vol. II, p. 597, annots. a and b, and vol. III, p. XXI, no. 30.] and Le Cointe [Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, under the year 659, no. 2 (vol. III, p. 467); under the year 726, nos. 8–11 (vol. IV, pp. 745–6).], in such a way, however, that they assert she presided over the monastery of the Holy Mount or Mount Romaric, namely that which St. Romaric had founded in the county of Habend [This opinion was followed by the modern authors of the Martyrology of Paris (1727) and of Évreux (1753) on the 4th day of November.]; and therefore in the text of the Virtues of St. Gertrude recited above they forbid the reading: There was in a monastery of Trier …; but would rather correct it thus: There was in the monastery of Habend. This rather bold emendation they strive to build up by two arguments: first, that Trier was not a monastery but a city comprising several monasteries; as if indeed the biographer of St. Gertrude had wished to signify by these words anything other than that what he was about to narrate happened "in a certain monastery of Trier". Second, that the reckoning of the times is against it, since St. Irmina, who was the first abbess of Oeren, lived a long time after Modesta at Trier had beheld Gertrude appearing to her; but this very thing was what had to be proved, namely that Irmina was the first set over the nunnery of Oeren; which we shall show in the following paragraph is at least very doubtful.

[8] that monastery was the monastery of Habend Further, not only are those two arguments with which Henschenius and Le Cointe fight of no strength, but there are also no ancient monuments at all which favour their opinion. Why, however, they preferred to designate the monastery of Habend rather than any other, the reason was certainly this, that in the second and third recensions of the Gesta Treverorum it is related that St. Modesta was a nursling of the monastery of Mount Romaric MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160.; by which name In French Remiremont. the monastery founded by St. Romaric in the Vosges was afterwards called, which had originally been called the Holy Mount or Habend. It is to be noticed, however, that the same interpolators of the Gesta who say that St. Modesta lived in the nunnery of Habend not only do not make her abbess of Habend, but indeed themselves relate that she was afterwards abbess of Oeren. Add that it is a difficult business, as Mabillon has shown [Act. SS. O. S. B., saec. II, p. 468, annot. m.; Annales O. S. B., Book XVI, no. 66 (vol. I, p. 534).], to find any place for Modesta in the series of the prelates of Habend.

[9] or that of Saint-Symphorian at Trier; Nor did those use a happier conjecture who were of the opinion that St. Modesta was set over the monastery of Saint-Symphorian at Trier, namely Papebroch Act. SS., April vol. II, propylaeum antiquarium p. v, no. 21., Smet Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 185, no. 28., Wion Lignum Vitae, part II, p. 361., Arthur du Monstier Gynecaeum, on the 4th day of November.; these indeed — whether rightly or wrongly will have to be examined later — distinguish two Modestas; but they assert that the one to whom St. Gertrude appeared was abbess of Saint-Symphorian. To devise this they were led by the same reason by which we said Henschenius and Le Cointe were moved See above, no. 7., namely in order to disentangle the intricate chronology of Irmina, abbess of Oeren. We have already said that this merely negative reason is of no weight; and the authors just cited bring forward no more positive arguments than Henschenius and Le Cointe brought. For they rely on no ancient text; nor can they win probability for their opinion from the fact that the nunnery of Saint-Symphorian was founded by

St. Modoald, whom some relate to have been the maternal uncle of St. Modesta. For even if this kinship is true, it must again be noted that all the ancient authors who assert it [The third recension of the Gesta Treverorum (MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160); the spurious bull of Leo III.] likewise call St. Modesta abbess of the monastery of Oeren; and that this very monastery too was founded by St. Modoald is a tradition not to be despised, which we shall weigh diligently in the following paragraph.

[10] on the contrary not improbable is To comprehend in a few words, then, what has been discussed so far, we have, as testifying that St. Modesta was abbess of Oeren, both the edition of the Life of St. Gertrude made, as it seems, in the eleventh century, and documents of Trier composed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These writings, since they were made a long time after the death of our saint and are not free from errors in relating other matters, are certainly not such that relying on them we may establish with certainty that St. Modesta really presided over Oeren; but because there are no ancient monuments which relate that she acted as abbess in some other monastery, the tradition of Trier explained above. we consider this opinion, common for so long a time and received today by most historians, seriously probable. But in order that this probable opinion may be confirmed to some extent, it must now be investigated in what way the prelacy of St. Modesta at Oeren can be reconciled with the age and deeds of the often-mentioned St. Irmina. On which matter learned men often disputed in the past, and it will have to be disputed on purpose when at some time the Life of St. Irmina comes to be illustrated in these Acts on the 24th day of December. But we must here touch beforehand on a few of those things, because this matter above all moved not a few authors to strike Modesta, as we pointed out above, out of the catalogue of the abbesses of Oeren, and induced others to contend that she presided over this monastery either first, or second, or third.

§ II. Who was the founder of the monastery of Oeren, and who the first abbess.

[11] Of this monastery of Oeren, Two narratives chiefly occur in the ancient authors concerning the beginnings of the nunnery of Oeren; for they make its founder either St. Modoald, archbishop of Trier, or St. Irmina, whom the same assert to have been the daughter of King Dagobert; there are also those who, going by a kind of middle way, busy themselves to arrange the matter so as to say that Modoald indeed built the monastery, but in favour of Irmina. It is wonderful how great controversies of more recent writers, how great a disagreement, arose from this; that Irmina, namely, some have imagined to be the daughter of Dagobert I, others of Dagobert II, some even of Dagobert III; others denied her royal birth; nor was there lacking one who pronounced that, as others two Modestas, so also two Irminas were to be distinguished, as is customary in these intricate cases. To review in order the lengthy disputations, conjectures and interpretations of all these is a long task, and not proper to this place; therefore, setting out first the several ancient monuments which make for each principal opinion, we shall submit to examination as briefly as we can the weightier arguments which have been drawn from them by more recent writers, and weigh the conjectures abundantly proposed by the same, so that at last, the inquiry having been made, we may attain what can safely and probably be believed in an obscure matter.

[12] which was founded by St. Modoald Modoald is named founder of Oeren by the Gesta Treverorum in these words: Then Modoald undertook the episcopate in the times of Dagobert. Which Dagobert, namely, conferred very many benefits on the church of Trier and on the blessed Modoald. For the same pontiff built a church in honour of the Virgin Mary in the palace of Dagobert which is called Orreum; where he also instituted a congregation of virgins, whose mothers were Irmina and Modesta, daughters of Dagobert MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160.. In support, besides the Gesta Boemundi, in which at this place the Gesta Treverorum are copied Ibid., vol. XXIV, p. 469., is the spurious diploma of Dagobert I which is feigned to have been given in the year 634 in favour of the church of St. Peter of Trier Ibid., Diplom. imp. vol. I, pp. 150–2.: in it, namely, it is decreed that, among very many other things, there is and shall be under the power of this church the monastery of St. Mary, which the same aforesaid pontiff Modoald built from the foundations in the territory of St. Peter, which is called Horrea; which things are read asserted in almost as many words in the spurious diplomas of King Pippin of the year 760 Böhmer-Mühlbacher, Reg. imp., no. 90 (vol. I, pp. 40–1). and of Charlemagne of the year 774 Ibid., no. 164 (p. 69)., and in the authentic diploma of King Zwentibold of the year 895 Ibid., no. 1907 (p. 712).. In support also to some extent is the likewise spurious bull of Pope Leo III, which had been fabricated at least by the twelfth century, since it was copied by the third reviser of the Gesta Treverorum MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160.; in this more seems now to be taught about the foundation of the monastery; for Pseudo-Leo says: The monastery of Oeren, restored by St. Modoald, archbishop of Trier, with the help of the blessed Modesta, his sister's daughter, … to and in Beyer. the office of divine worship after the death of the blessed Irmina, who first undertook to advance this place … endowed [H. Beyer, Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der … mittelrheinischen Territorien, vol. I (1860), p. 236.]. But although the first foundation of the monastery is here ascribed to St. Irmina, it is nevertheless clearly declared that Modoald contributed his labour to establishing it. The Life of Modoald is indeed silent about this foundation Act. SS., May vol. III, p. 51 ff., which Stephen, abbot of Saint-Jacques of Liège, wrote almost six hundred years after his death; but he himself professes that in narrating it he did not always have safe authors; and in very truth his little work is of slight weight See ibid., p. 50, preliminary commentary no. 2; p. 52, no. 4..

[13] relate it to have been founded, What, further, is to be gathered so far from these testimonies of the monuments? One thing, I think, namely that there was a tradition at Trier, at least from the ninth century, that Modoald was the founder of the monastery of Oeren. From the ninth century, I say: for not only do we have that cited diploma of Zwentibold given in the year 895, a transcript copy of which, written in the ninth century itself, has come down to us Cf. Böhmer-Mühlbacher, place cited., but from the same it also becomes manifest that some of the spurious letters which we cited, of Dagobert, Pippin and Charlemagne, had already been fabricated earlier; for thus Zwentibold: The venerable man Radbod, archbishop of the holy church of Trier, presented to our sight the precepts of our predecessors, namely the kings of the Franks, in which there is found inserted, among other things, the monastery of St. Mary, which the lord Modoald, the magnificent prelate of the same city, had built from the foundation in the territory of St. Peter, called Orrea… Beyer, op. cit., vol. I, p. 203.. That Zwentibold in this place refers to certain authentic letters of the Merovingian kings which have now perished, as Hauck thinks Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I, p. 277, note 1., I could hardly believe; for to one who compares the texts attentively it is almost manifest that the very spurious diplomas which have come down to us were read by Zwentibold. Whence, to point this out in passing, it becomes clear how far from the truth is what Prümers strives to prove Albero von Montreuil (1874), p. 69., namely that these spurious wares were fabricated and first put on sale under Adalbero, archbishop of Trier, in the twelfth century. But to return to our purpose, it must be noted that it was indeed in the forger's interest, in order the more effectively to exaggerate the rights of the church of St. Peter over the monastery of Oeren, to devise that that monastery was founded by some ancient archbishop of Trier; but since, where he treats of other monasteries or goods whose possession too he intends to claim for the greater church of Trier, he records nothing of the kind, although there would have been equal reason for recording or feigning it, we are led to believe rather that in this place he reported the tradition which was flourishing in the ninth century. Before we receive this tradition even as only probable, the testimonies that are produced on the contrary side must be weighed.

[14] the first abbess Irmina, then, is presented as foundress of Oeren by documents not so very many, and certainly less ancient than those which we recited in no. 10; which besides, as we shall soon see, are not only not of better stamp, but are also disfigured by more and worse errors. The first is a spurious diploma of King Dagobert I, fabricated namely in the eleventh century, which is feigned to have been issued in the year 646 in favour of the monastery of Oeren; of which monastery it speaks thus: Dagobert, by the preordaining providence of God king… at the request of our beloved consort Queen Nanthild, to the monastery in the valley of Trier built in honour of the holy Mother of God by Irmina, our daughter, and adorned with a gathering of nuns, we have handed over… from the goods of our property MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, pp. 169–70.. In agreement is the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus, which was written in the middle of the eleventh century, at the end of no. 12: King Dagobert, therefore,… received three daughters from a most noble queen named Nanthild, Regentrude, Irmina, Adela; of whom… Irmina… built a monastery in the city of Trier in honour of the holy Mother of God, where, as abbess of the sisters whom she had gathered there, she finished her life in holy resolve Ibid., Scr. vol. XIV, p. 104.. Things similar to these are recited, though in fewer words, by the spurious bull of Leo III, which was cited in no. 12, while they are exaggerated at length by the monk Thiofrid († 1110) in the Life of St. Irmina which he composed, and which, entirely unchanged, the monk Theoderic almost a whole century later set before Book II of his Chronicle of Echternach Ibid., vol. XXIII, p. 48 ff.; that in writing this Life a certain older Life was used, though not of so great value, was the opinion of the distinguished L. Weiland Ibid., p. 18, middle., which for my part I strongly doubt. For I seem to myself to have plainly shown that everything Thiofrid relates in this little work was taken from other monuments, and those known ones [De fontibus Vitae S. Irminae, in Anal. Boll., vol. VIII (1889), pp. 285–6. But what Theoderic has concerning Irmina in Book I of his chronicle (place cited, p. 44, no. 23) reproduces almost word for word the text of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus recited above.]; and among these monuments occur two of those which we cited above, namely the apocryphal diploma of Dagobert and the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus. Whence it comes about that it is fitting to disregard the testimony of this Life altogether.

[15] was not St. Irmina. Having heard the testimonies on either side, as many as antiquity has transmitted to us, it will not be out of place to relate in a few words what judgment more recent investigators of historical questions have passed on these matters. There were indeed some, but those certainly not many, who gave full credence to the texts gathered in no. 14,

and therefore pronounced that Irmina was the daughter of King Dagobert I and foundress of the nunnery of Oeren; to whom accordingly St. Modesta would have succeeded in the government. So John Mauburnus of Brussels († 1503) in his Venatorium of the saints of the order of canons regular [See the Brussels manuscripts of the Royal Library no. 11973, fol. 215; nos. 11815–6, fols. 180–1. The same work, still unedited, is read also in the Paris manuscripts of the Bibl. nat. lat. 14662, 15044, etc.], who, to settle the dispute, says that Oeren was founded by St. Modoald in favour of St. Irmina; so Trithemius [De viris illustribus ordinis S. Benedicti, Book III, chap. 138; Compendium libri I Annalium, at the 52nd king.], who nonetheless notes that Irmina died in the year 710; so certain others, whom Henschenius reviews Diatriba de tribus Dagobertis, pp. 120, 121, 125, 184, etc.; so Kolb Series episcoporum Mogunt., Trevir. et Colon., pp. 94–5., who also relates that St. Modoald built this monastery in favour of St. Irmina; so that excellent man our predecessor John Bolland in the historical commentary on St. Modesta which he wrote at the request of Pierre François Chifflet, and of which at least three autograph copies have come down to us [They are preserved in the Brussels manuscript of the Royal Library, no. 8932, fols. 138–40, 145–6, and 151–3. See there, fols. 136 and 143, the two letters given at Dole on the 20th day of May and the 12th day of August 1642, in which Chifflet both asks that Bolland write this commentary for him and gives thanks for it written and received.]. Bolland conjectures, however Ibid., no. 4 of the commentary., for the sake of relieving the difficulties, either that Irmina, foundress of Oeren, from a desire for submission or quiet or for some other reason, substituted Modesta for herself in the burden of government, or that the same Irmina, as being of a very tender age and unfit for government when her father was building the monastery for her, was entrusted to Modesta, so that she might grow up under her discipline [Bolland proposes other conjectures, but even less happy ones, in the place cited.]. With all these authors Brouwer agrees Annales Trevirenses, Book VII, no. 49 (vol. I, p. 350). and with him Masen Ibid., annot. XIII (vol. I, pp. 606–15)., who defends his opinion more lengthily and vehemently against Valois and Henschenius. And indeed, that Irmina, if she was sprung from some King Dagobert, should be called the daughter of Dagobert I rather than of Dagobert III, all the ancient authors whose words we recited in no. 14 require, since they assert that she was born of Queen Nanthild, wife of Dagobert I; in confirmation of which can also be adduced all those documents which testify that Oeren was founded by St. Modoald See above, no. 12.; since Modoald (he sat from about 627 to about 639) was a contemporary of Dagobert I (reigned 622–638), and not of Dagobert III (reigned 674–678).

[16] But to prevent Irmina being named the daughter of Dagobert I, considerations of the gravest weight have been brought forward by learned men, Those err, namely, who imagine her the daughter of Dagobert I so that almost all the more recent writers have withdrawn from that opinion, except indeed Masen, who, however much he strove to defend it in many words, was nevertheless able to convince no one. The first consideration is that nowhere in ancient and authentic documents is Dagobert I read to have begotten daughters. Who, then, will believe monuments either spurious or at least much more recent, especially since it is known how much both forgers and the writers of a more recent age delighted in assigning to the founders, rulers and patrons of their churches some most noble origin from illustrious stocks? The second is that since Dagobert married Nanthild only in the year 629–630, after repudiating Gomatrude [Cf. Chron. Fredegarii, Book IV, chap. 58 (ed. Krusch in MG., Scr. rer. merov., vol. II, p. 150).], and died in the year 639 [Cf. Krusch, Zur Chronologie der Merowingischen Könige in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. XXII, p. 465.], it could certainly not have come about that Irmina, then scarcely nine years old, had already lost a bridegroom and obtained a monastery from her father. These things, with not a few other arguments, may be seen set out at greater length in the authors whom we shall cite in the following number. It must indeed be admitted that not all the things which they add on top are of the same strength; which in any case is not wonderful, since on both sides the fighting has often been with very fragile weapons, I mean documents either supposititious or written at a fairly recent age. Yet this remains unshaken, that Irmina was by no means the daughter of Dagobert I.

[17] or feign her the daughter of King Dagobert II, Nor do those seem to have won authority for their opinion more happily who have called Irmina the daughter of Dagobert II, like our Henschenius [In the already cited Diatriba de tribus Dagobertis, Book II, chap. 10 ff. (p. 107 ff.).] and after him many very learned men, Papebroch Act. SS., April vol. II, propylaeum antiquarium nos. 5–21 (pp. II–V)., Le Cointe [Ann. eccles. Franc., under the year 678, no. XX (vol. III, p. 793); under the year 726, no. VII ff. (vol. IV, p. 744 ff.).], Hontheim Hist. archiep. Trevir., vol. II, p. 87., Denis de Sainte-Marthe Gallia christiana, vol. XIII, col. 611 ff., Smet Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 184 ff., and more recently Wyttenbach Gesta Trevir., vol. I, p. 67 ff., Rettberg Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I, p. 476., Marx Geschichte des Erzstifts Trier, II Abth., I Bd., p. 461 ff., Friedrich Kirchengesch. Deutschl., vol. II, p. 219., and others. To establish this they put forward chiefly two reasons: the one that, as we declared above, the time both of Dagobert's marriage with Nanthild and of his death does not allow that Irmina was given to a husband while her father was living; the other that, if you will have Irmina begotten of Dagobert I, it follows that, when she gave certain possessions to St. Willibrord and the monastery of Echternach [Cf. MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, p. 173 ff. Of these charters there will soon be talk again.], she was of an age advanced beyond the usual; which, though not impossible, would yet seem less fitting Cf. Papebroch, place cited, nos. 7, 8.. This argument Henschenius exaggerates in other words Place cited, p. 112., namely that it is established from the Echternach charters that Irmina lived in the times of St. Willibrord, bishop of Utrecht, of SS. Basinus and Liutwin of Trier, of Pippin of Herstal, mayor of the palace, and of kings younger than Dagobert II. Further, when authors of this kind come closer to the question proper to this place, some, for example Hontheim, assert that Irmina succeeded Modesta in the government of the monastery of Oeren; which the reckoning of the times certainly easily allows; others with Henschenius, from the preconceived opinion that Irmina was the first abbess of Oeren, whom other sources, and those trustworthy, prove to have died not before about the year 706, are compelled to deny that Modesta was set over Oeren, as being one who already in the year 659, as abbess, saw St. Gertrude appearing to her.

[18] But all these, — I would say it saving the reverence due to such men, — seem to have laid their foundation in water. For who does not see that their arguments tend to show effectively indeed that Irmina was not begotten by Dagobert I, but in no way determine that the same was the daughter of Dagobert II or of any Dagobert at all? Until, then, they prove, — which they did indeed attempt, but with little success [They rely, namely, solely on the spurious diploma of Dagobert and the Life of Irmina or other little works of this kind, whose authors used this very diploma.] — that Irmina was the daughter of some Dagobert, they will achieve absolutely nothing. It is pleasing besides to note that no ancient author at all, not even obscurely, relates that Irmina was begotten by Dagobert II; indeed, that absolutely all the monuments which were brought forward in no. 14, even those which record the benefits conferred by St. Irmina on Bl. Willibrord, openly designate Dagobert I, since they say that Irmina was born of Nanthild. Nor will you find an escape if with Le Cointe you both change at your own fancy the notes of the time at which the diploma of Dagobert which we cited is said to have been given, and put back the name of Mechtild in place of the name of Nanthild Ann. eccles. Franc., under the year 678, no. XX (vol. III, p. 794).; for besides the fact that these things are too arbitrary, I do not know where this Mechtild, wife of Dagobert II, was invented, whom Bruschius makes a duchess of the Saxons [Magni operis de omnibus Germaniae episcopatibus epitomes (1549), fol. 55vo; cf. Eckhart, Comment. de rebus Franciae orientalis, Book XV, no. IV (vol. I, p. 258); Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 185, no. 27.]. For as Henschenius himself admits Diatriba, pp. 111–2., there is no ancient author who presents the name of that wife of Dagobert II who would have been the mother of Irmina.

[19] or those who devise two Irminas. Finally, that we may omit none of the opinions proposed, it suffices to have mentioned the unhappy and gratuitous conjecture of Bosschaerts [W. Bosschaerts, Διατρίβαι de primis veteris Frisiae apostolis (1650), dissert. 50, pp. 341–50.], who distinguishes two Irminas, the one daughter of Dagobert I and foundress of Oeren, the other daughter of Dagobert III, namely she who was beneficent to St. Willibrord. This last Dagobert Bosschaerts calls "the second", namely because the genuine Dagobert II had not yet then been restored to history by Henschenius; but that the third is understood by Bosschaerts is manifest from his own context. Now Irmina had already given a charter in favour of Willibrord in the 4th year of Childebert III MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, p. 173., father of Dagobert III, which Childebert began to reign as a young man Cf. Henschenius, Diatriba, p. 154.. Who then will bear his being called the grandfather of Irmina?

[20] Irmina, further, by no Dagobert Rejecting, further, the opinions that have been related so far, this seems the safer way of relieving all the difficulties, if we establish that Irmina was by no means the daughter of Dagobert, neither the first nor the second, to whom in any case no sufficiently ancient and authentic documents ascribe daughters. For absolutely silent about this kinship are all the documents concerning St. Irmina, whatever they are, to which we can give full credence, I mean above all those five charters given by Irmina herself in favour of the monastery of Echternach between the years 698 and 704 MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, pp. 173–7.; which were rejected among the spurious ones too lightly and altogether undeservedly by Karl Pertz, as was shown by a man

most eminent in this field, Th. Sickel [In his critique of Pertz's edition of the diplomas (Berlin, 1873), p. 64 ff. Cf. Böhmer-Mühlbacher, Reg. imper. I, no. 14 (vol. I, p. 7); A. Görz, Mittelrheinische Regesten, vol. I, p. 48 ff.]; and it is certainly altogether worthy of note that Theoderic of Echternach, who alone has preserved these documents for us, after he had more than once in his Chronicle called Irmina the daughter of Dagobert, nevertheless copied those charters so faithfully that nowhere in them did he interpolate any mention of that royal origin. Now in these Irmina by no means says that she was born of Dagobert, but only that she was a cousin of Erminitrude, daughter of Pantinus MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, p. 175, line 27.; who are in any case entirely unknown [A certain conjecture proposed by Martène does not seem sufficiently founded (Amplissima collectio, vol. I, fol. 11, note a); Hontheim seems to follow him, Hist. dipl. Trevir., vol. I, p. 93, note b.]. Nor does Pippin proclaim Irmina a royal virgin where, in the diploma given to the people of Echternach in the year 706, he speaks of her MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, p. 93, lines 45–6.; which passage Pertz had also wrongly supposed to have been interpolated into the diploma by some forger See Sickel, op. cit., pp. 65–6..

[21] was begotten, Further, that the genuine Irmina was an abbess the text of the cited diplomas openly declares, and that she was abbess at Trier almost openly; but that she presided over Oeren is nowhere said there; yet this is expressly asserted by Thiofrid of Echternach both in the Life of St. Irmina MG., Scr. vol. XXIII, p. 49, nos. 4 and 6. and in the Life of St. Willibrord reworked by him [Ibid., p. 49, note 61. Thiofrid relates, namely, that Oeren was that monastery of girls whose inmates St. Willibrord freed from an assailing plague, as Alcuin testifies in the Life of Willibrord, chap. 21; in which Life indeed the name of that monastery is passed over in silence (Jaffé, Bibl. rer. germ., vol. VI, p. 54). It is certainly likely that this or some other benefit of the kind is recalled by Irmina where in her first charter she addresses Willibrord thus: your love toward me or my monastery. For I cannot agree with Hauck (Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I, p. 278, note 1), who would have my monastery understood of Echternach.]; and with him agree the other monuments of Trier which were brought forward above No. 14.; which, although they are not so ancient and are by no means free of blemishes, we are nevertheless not reluctant to follow in this matter, because this tradition of Trier neither contradicts any other document, nor would it be easy to explain how, if it were false, it was constantly preserved without the inmates of the other monasteries objecting. But since there had been preserved at Oeren the memory of a certain Irmina who, abounding in riches, had once presided over the monastery and had perhaps greatly enriched it from her goods, it easily came about that about the eleventh century [It is probable, namely, that this was done at the time when a certain forger fabricated the diploma of Dagobert I for Oeren (MG., Dipl. imp. vol. I, pp. 169–70), in order to claim certain possessions for the monastery.] she was called the daughter of a king and the foundress of the monastery, just as other daughters of Merovingian kings were fabricated, namely Adula, foundress and abbess of Pfalzel and supposititious sister of Irmina, and indeed our Modesta too, who in the Gesta Treverorum, which Masen denied Annales Trevirenses, annot. XIII (vol. I, p. 607)., is called the daughter of Dagobert See this passage copied above at the beginning of no. 12..

[22] just as Modesta herself was not, As to Modesta, no one, I think, will be of faith robust enough to believe it; as to Adula, we have no mind to dispute at present She will have to be treated in these Acts on the 24th day of December.; whom in any case the authentic documents compared with one another make the daughter of Dagobert in no way more certainly than Irmina On her see Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I, p. 277, note 5.. And yet how willingly the people of Trier received and spread this tradition about Irmina, the old authors whom we have alleged are witnesses; much more willingly still the more recent writers adhered to it, although there were not lacking those who held it suspect and therefore either proposed it somewhat timidly or even attacked it; so Mabillon in his Annals Ann. O. S. B., Book XVI, no. 66 (vol. I, p. 534)., who however afterwards in the splendid work De re diplomatica, when he spoke of Oeren in passing, imprudently called not only Irmina but also Modesta royal virgins [Book IV, chap. 145 (2nd ed., p. 331). The excellent man does not seem to have held a settled opinion on this matter. For in Act. SS. O. S. B., saec. III, part I, treating of Irmina in the "index of those passed over", he says: She was, as they think, the daughter of Dagobert III; but in the same volume, p. 532, no. 2, he asserts that SS. Adela and Irmina were daughters of Dagobert II.]; so Calmet Hist. de Lorraine, Book X, no. 52 (vol. I, col. 456)., but above all Valois Rerum Francicarum vol. III, p. 134., and some among the more recent writers as well.

[23] who seems Having banished, then, that royal birth of Irmina among the fables, it will now be easier to explain to some extent the beginnings of the monastery of Oeren and the series of its first abbesses. We said above that it is sufficiently probable that that monastery was founded by St. Modoald; which opinion can also be confirmed by this reason, that the very authors who ascribe the foundation of Oeren to Irmina nonetheless relate that it was erected in the time of Dagobert I, with whom St. Modoald was intimate. Further, its building would have been begun between the years 627 and 639, by which limits Modoald's episcopate seems able to be defined to some extent Cf. Friedrich, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. II, pp. 196–7..

to have been the first abbess of Oeren That Modesta was established as the first abbess there is also probable; which opinion is favoured also by this, that when in the year 659 the lately dead Gertrude appeared to Modesta, it is established that Modesta was already of a fairly advanced age; for the near-contemporary writer of the Virtues of St. Gertrude hints that the friendship which existed between those two holy nuns was long-lasting [See above, no. 3: There was a certain abbess… After a long space of time, however, there happened this which I wish to recall to your memory by narrating it.]. Besides, this is quite worthy of note, how few ancient authors have asserted in express words that Irmina acted as abbess before Modesta: I find only the third reviser of the Gesta Treverorum MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160, line 28., whom the author of the Gesta Boemundi copies Ibid., vol. XXIV, p. 469.. The second recension of the Gesta Treverorum Ibid., vol. VIII, p. 160, line 19. places Irmina after Modesta; the first does not explicitly give the order of succession See above, beginning of no. 12.; while I should believe that the author of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus was at a loss in this matter, since he speaks of Modesta without indicating any time: In this (Oeren) monastery Modesta was at one time abbess… MG., Scr. vol. XIV, p. 105..

[24] and to have had Irmina as successor. In the end, then, I willingly agree with the second reviser of the Gesta Treverorum when he asserts that Irmina succeeded Modesta in the government; for that some other abbess should be interposed between Modesta and Irmina, neither do the ancient authors suggest in the least, nor does the reckoning of the times require it. Suppose even, if you will, that Modesta died in the very year 659 in which she had seen Gertrude appearing to her, and that Irmina took up the government: the same Irmina could in the year 704, perhaps at seventy years of age, help Willibrord with gifts. Having tried to set these things out, so far as could be done in an obscure matter, before we put an end to this question we again and willingly point out that we have sought only the probable, or rather the more probable; that nothing more certain could be proposed has been prevented, for many others as for us, both by the huge scarcity of monuments of Trier older than the eleventh century and by the ill-starred audacity of those forgers who obscured the beginnings and earlier times of a most noble city, while they had believed that they would illustrate them by their deceits. Equally, indeed even more, uncertain is the series of the following abbesses of Oeren. Most authors, however, name as the third Anastasia, about whom our successors will have to inquire at some time on the 9th day of December. I think it is to be ascribed to imprudence that the most learned man Hontheim, after he had related elsewhere, following Eckhart, that Modesta, the first abbess, was succeeded first by Irmina, then by Anastasia Hist. dipl. Trev., vol. I, p. 87, note., afterwards in another work, without bringing forward any reason for the change, listed Irmina as first abbess, Anastasia second, and Modesta finally third Prodromus hist. Trev., vol. I, p. 367.. Hontheim was followed in this last opinion by the author of the proper lesson on SS. Severa, Anastasia and Glodesindis, which was long read on the 20th day of July in the church of Trier See the Officia propria ecclesiae Trevirensis, ed. of the years 1706, 1849….

[25] But it is foolishly feigned In the last place come to be mentioned two rather wonderful opinions; which we have put off to this point, namely after the inquiry is finished, because they rest on no monuments or proofs, but are mere conjectures, to set out which will now be to refute them. The one is Masen's, who, led by the difficulty of the matter and by the desire to reconcile with one another all the documents, even the spurious ones which were being thrust upon him, was at last brought to pronounce that the nunnery of Oeren was founded by Irmina and restored by St. Modoald, that Modesta merely restored the monastery of Oeren, adding this: "Modoald is to be thought to have accomplished this not by himself, but through Modesta, piously instituted by him at one time, and St. Willibrord, who at the time when Modesta presided was in the service of the church of Trier. Nor indeed had Masen written thus a little before, Modoald by himself set his niece Modesta over the monastery, but through his successors" Annales Trevirenses, annot. XIII, no. 12 (vol. I, p. 610).. How useless it was to devise these things, intricate, entangled and not at all consonant with the whole chronology, is clear from what has been said above. The same I would say of the other opinion,

by which it is established that there were two Modestas [A. Wion, Lignum Vitae, part II, pp. 333 and 361; Arthur du Monstier, Sacrum Gynecaeum, pp. 392 and 439–40; Bucelin, Menologium Benedictinum, pp. 692–3 and 756; Papebroch in Act. SS., April vol. II, propylaeum antiquarium p. v, no. 21; Smet in Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, p. 185, no. 28; A. J. L(iehs), Leben und Thaten der Heiligen deren Andenken im Bisthum Trier gefeiert wird, Fortsetzung (1861), pp. 283–6 and 292–4. Cf. Le Cointe, Annales eccl. Franc., under the year 724, no. XI (vol. IV, p. 746).]: of whom the former, brought from the monastery of Habend to Trier, would have ruled the monastery of Oeren under St. Irmina as prioress, or that there were two Modestas. and, buried at Oeren, is now venerated as a saint; the same perhaps also acted as abbess after St. Irmina and departed this life on the 6th day of October. But the second, and she, as is likely, the niece of St. Modoald, would have held the prelacy in the monastery of Saint-Symphorian, which it is established was founded by St. Modoald, and there have beheld St. Gertrude appearing to her; she would have died on the 4th day of November. That these things were cleverly indeed, but vainly, devised, the things we have discussed in this paragraph sufficiently show. But as for the discrepancy which is from time to time detected in designating the day of Modesta's death, and which is pressed to build up the existence of two Modestas, we shall show below No. 35. that it takes its origin from a mere error of Trithemius, from a mere slip, I say, of the pen.

§ III. Of the kinship of St. Modesta; of her beginnings in the monastic life; of the episcopate of St. Chlodulf at Trier.

[26] Of the kinsfolk of St. Modesta The principal and more difficult questions having been dispatched, it remains for us to sift in a few words the other things which have been put forward by the ancient writers or by the more recent concerning our saint. We have seen that Modesta is called in the first recension of the Gesta Treverorum the daughter of Dagobert I; which assertion, put forward by an author removed by more than five centuries from the time of the saint, is not only unworthy of anyone's dwelling longer in examining it, but is also manifestly false, as we have said Since Dagobert I had no daughters; see above, p. 304, no. 16, some things are related here and there. That Modesta was born of a sister of Modoald, however, is related by the spurious bull of Leo III, to which the third reviser of the Gesta Treverorum adhered. This kinship I would neither dare to affirm, nor do I wish to deny. Almost all the more recent historians do affirm it; which opinion seems to some to be favoured to some extent both by the fact that Modoald, as is probable, founded the monastery of Oeren, and by the fact that the same holy bishop is said to have been the maternal uncle of St. Gertrude; but he is said to be so in his Life composed by Stephen, abbot of Saint-Jacques of Liège († 1112) Act. SS., May vol. III, p. 52, no. 4., which is of slight credit; and in the same Life, moreover, only two sisters of Modoald are named, Itta and Severa, of whom certainly neither was the mother of Modesta.

[27] or not certain enough Concerning all these things, therefore, to speak with Henschenius Ibid., p. 54, annot. b., whether and how far they can be believed amid the silence of the older writers, let the reader judge. But altogether to be rejected is what the second reviser of the Gesta Treverorum relates, very cautiously indeed: (Modesta) is thought by some to have been the sister of the blessed Willibrord MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 160, line 20.. St. Willibrord, namely, was two years old and was living in Northumbria when in the year 659 St. Gertrude appeared to Modesta at Trier. But one is ashamed to refute trifles of this kind; or plainly false. and yet that fable was received and peddled by not a few more recent writers; indeed there were those who without hesitation proclaimed Modesta at once the niece of Modoald and the sister of Willibrord For example Bruschius, Chronologia monasteriorum Germaniae, p. 272.. To be rejected also is what John Mauburnus says In the place cited above, p. 303, note 9, that Modesta was the niece of St. Gertrude; only a cousin of hers will she be called by those who think St. Modoald was the brother both of St. Itta and of the mother of St. Modesta. So much concerning the kinsfolk of our saint. Concerning her monastic life too some things are commonly related which must be called to the scales.

[28] Uncertain also It is read, namely, in the second and third recensions of the Gesta Treverorum, that St. Modesta, before she presided over Oeren, was a nursling of the monastery of Mount Romaric or Habend; indeed Henschenius would have it that the same acted as abbess of Habend See above, no. 7.. Let it be granted that she was a nun there, although we rightly demand safer and more ancient testimonies; but I cannot agree with those who on so slight a document boldly build up many things: namely, that Modesta received the veil from SS. Amatus and Romaric; that the same so excelled among her companions that she was soon judged worthy to be sent out to lead a colony of her institute to Oeren at Trier, etc. and partly trifling are the things that are told.. [So the proper Lessons on St. Modesta written by P. F. Chifflet (the autograph copy is preserved in the Brussels manuscript 8982, fol. 142) and committed to print in the year 1657 in the Officia propria of the distinguished church of St. Peter of Remiremont, pp. 111–4; Guinot, Étude sur l'abbaye de Remiremont (1859), p. 28.]. Now from this reported migration of St. Modesta from the monastery of Habend to Oeren some have tried to gather certain further things: namely, since the monastery of Remiremont is believed to have been set under the rule of St. Columbanus, they drew from this an argument to show that devoted to the same rule were both the nuns of Oeren, as an offshoot of the nunnery of Habend, and also those of Nivelles, namely because the author of the Virtues of St. Gertrude relates that she bore an equal warfare of service with St. Modesta See above, no. 3.. But I fear that these things are founded on a void or on sand. of her conversation in the monastery of Habend. Nor certainly did John Mauburnus rely on a firmer foundation See above, p. 303, note 9. when he pronounced that the rule of canonesses was introduced from the beginning in the monastery of Oeren; whom, after all, does he not make a canon or a canoness regular? To stir up an empty controversy about the first rule that was observed at Oeren, when monuments are lacking, does not please us; it will not, however, be beside the point at least to mention in passing that the words of the Virtues of St. Gertrude just cited were copied almost to the letter from the rule of St. Benedict [Chap. 2: aequalem servitutis militiam baiulamus we bear an equal warfare of service.]; whence someone may conjecture that already in the seventh century itself, at the end of which the author of the Virtues was writing, the Benedictine rule was observed both in the monastery of Nivelles and in that of Oeren. Anyone who desires to know the other fortunes of the monastery will find them set out in the local historians [See for example Marx, Geschichte des Erzstiftes Trier, Abth. II, Pd. I, pp. 464–7.].

[29] Bishop Chlodulf, Those who have treated of St. Modesta or of the beginnings of the monastery of Oeren used also to inquire who that bishop had been to whom Modesta is stated to have disclosed her vision. This counsellor of our saint the first recension of the Life and Virtues of St. Gertrude, as it was read, at least until the most recent times, in all the editions, called the bishop of the city, named Chlodulf [G. van Ryckel, Vitae S. Gertrudis narrationes tres (1632), p. 21 and Historia S. Gertrudis (1637), p. 14; Henschenius in Act. SS., March vol. II (1688), p. 597, no. 10; Mabillon, Act. SS. O. S. B., saec. II (1669), p. 468, chap. 2; Smet in Act. SS. Belg., vol. III (1785), p. 156, no. 10.]; which passage the author of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus presents thus: who spoke with St. Modesta at Trier, the bishop of the city, named Ludolf; but the other Life of Gertrude, which we said is unedited, or recension D: the bishop of that city, Chlodulf by name, and recension C: the bishop of the same city, Clodulf, and it adds that he came to Modesta at the invitation of the needs of the monastery and for the advantage of the place. Surius, however, presenting the original recension "with the style changed", had written without hesitation the bishop of Trier, Clodulf. On this matter, therefore, no slight controversy arose; which, although it now seems altogether settled, namely since the cited distinguished B. Krusch recently at last prepared for the first time what they call a critical edition of the most ancient Life of St. Gertrude, yet we think it will be neither useless nor unpleasant if we recall in a few words the three opinions or conjectures that were formerly proposed concerning that St. Chlodulf.

[30] An end, I was saying, has now been put to the long-lasting dispute, and that by a single little word: for it is established that the genuine text of the Virtues of St. Gertrude, which everywhere before in the printed books was defective, is to be read thus: the bishop of the city of Metz, named Chlodulf, came to the monastery of the aforesaid handmaid of God Modesta Krusch in MG., place cited, p. 465, no. 2.. Now there is nothing strange in the fact that a certain bishop of Metz, when he was at some time staying at Trier for some reason, visited the monastery of Oeren. For the authentic text recited above relates nothing more; but what is said in recension C of the Virtues of Gertrude, the prelate of Metz; that Chlodulf came to the nunnery of Oeren in order to arrange or settle certain matters there, this is entirely absent from recension A, while the reviser D, although he changes something, nevertheless asserts only that Chlodulf betook himself to Oeren for the sake of visiting Modesta. Further, just as what the original author A relates is certainly likely, so those will acquiesce even more easily in his narrative who suppose that Modesta was the niece of St. Modoald, and he the maternal uncle of St. Gertrude; for St. Chlodulf was joined by some tie to this holy family, as being one to whose brother Ansegisel St. Begga was married, the sister of St. Gertrude herself and therefore, as they say, the niece of Modoald. This Chlodulf, surely, was one who could declare to our saint the dress or appearance of St. Gertrude, whom Modesta, as is established from the almost contemporary narrative See above, no. 3: they could not see one another with the gaze of their eyes., had never seen.

[31] whom to have presided also over the church of Trier These things, however, easy as they are to grasp, do not seem to have been understood by most of the ancient authors who wrote afterwards: for some, like the revisers C and D of the Virtues of Gertrude, hint quite expressly that Chlodulf was bishop of Trier; others, speaking even more openly, relate that he was bishop of Trier in such a way that, besides the see of Metz, he at some time also the church of Trier

obtained to govern. That this should come into their minds was, I believe, at least in great part brought about by the fact that a certain copyist, when he was transcribing the original text A of the Virtues of St. Gertrude and could not easily grasp how a bishop of Metz had gone to visit a monastery of Trier, took it upon himself to omit the word of Metz, as being, he thought, false. A thing truly wonderful: not only do all the editions before Krusch's lack this word, as we have said, but there seems also to be no manuscript, if we except only the most ancient, namely that of Montpellier, in which it is read. For it is certainly omitted in all the ancient copies which I have been able to find [I know not by what chance it came about that in noting the various readings our friend Krusch was entirely silent about this omission. He used, namely, besides the Montpellier manuscript, also the manuscripts St. Gall 566, Paris lat. 11748, Munich lat. 4618; in none of which is the word Mettensis read written. I conjecture that something fell out at this place in the hands of the typesetters. For the only variant reading x which Krusch notes at the word Mettensis (place cited, p. 465, line 47) is altogether irrelevant, and it is manifestly to be referred solely to the word narravit (ibid., line 52); for there in manuscript A. 1 (= Montpellier) the little word ei has in fact been added, which has by no means been added after the word Mettensis.], I mean in the St. Gall manuscript no. 566, which was written in the ninth/tenth century, in the Paris manuscripts of the Bibl. nat., lat. 11748 (tenth century), 5318 and 16732 (twelfth century), in the Munich manuscripts lat. 4618 and 18854 (eleventh century), in the Brussels manuscript ser. II, no. 984 (eleventh century), and also in the manuscript which the author of the Libellus de rebus Treverensibus was reading in the eleventh century See MG., Scr. vol. XIV, p. 105, lines 20 and 30..

[32] We must not wonder, further, if even in more recent times not a few historians have inquired, at times in rather long disputations, whether, when and how that Chlodulf had been bishop of Trier. many have wrongly imagined, Some, namely, understood that in this place St. Chlodulf, bishop of Metz, was indeed designated, but one who, whether keeping or leaving the see of Metz, had been made archbishop of Trier; which opinion was certainly favoured to some extent by the texts of the Virtues of St. Gertrude as we have copied them above from the three recensions A, C, D No. 29.; in complete harmony were the Life of St. Basinus composed at the end of the eleventh century Act. SS., March vol. I, p. 318, no. 13., the second and third recension of the Gesta Treverorum MG., Scr. vol. VIII, p. 161, line 50. and the Gesta Boemundi Ibid., vol. XXIV, p. 469, line 37.; but against it tell both the recent age of these documents, and the shameful chronological errors that are detected in them [Thus they call Chlodulf, who had certainly died in the year 693, the successor of Liutwin, who died about the year 713!], and the fact that in the catalogues of the bishops of Trier which survive no Chlodulf appears, and other arguments which the many who have inquired into this matter bring forward here and there. But however that may be, and even if Chlodulf at some time possessed the see of Trier, which in any case we by no means concede, it would still not be proved that he possessed it at the time when Gertrude appeared to St. Modesta. She died, we have said, in the year 659; there are those who have championed the year 664, wrongly indeed; be it so: but it cannot be asserted that Numerianus, who ruled the church of Trier from about the year 640, had already died then. For it is far from having been demonstrated that the privilege of Numerianus edited by Mabillon Ann. O. S. B., vol. I, p. 696. and afterwards by many, which was given about the year 666, is to be banished among the spurious documents [The authenticity of this privilege, denied by many men, even excellent ones, such as Th. Sickel, was recently defended, after certain others, by the distinguished Charles Pfister, Les légendes de saint Dié et de saint Hidulfe in Annales de l'Est, vol. III, pp. 379–95. Nor did the undertaking turn out unhappily, although we admit that not every doubt has been removed. See what I wrote in the Université catholique, vol. IV, pp. 287–8.].

[33] while others not Chlodulf, By the same privilege, if indeed it is authentic, the second opinion can be refuted, namely of those who assert that the bishop to whom Modesta disclosed her vision was not Chlodulf, but a certain Hildulf, archbishop, as they will have it, of Trier So Calmet, Hist. de Lorraine, vol. I, col. 417.. For let it be granted, as certain learned men try to prove [Calmet, place cited; Friedrich, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. II, pp. 197 and 204–8.], while the rest vehemently oppose it [Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I, pp. 467–8; F. X. Kraus, Die ältern Bischofskataloge von Trier in Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande, vol. XXXVIII (1865), p. 42; C. Pfister, place cited, pp. 400–5. Cf. however pp. 405, 407, 587, in which places Pfister calls Hildulf a chorbishop of Trier, but one who lived about the beginning of the eighth century.], that a place is to be given to Hildulf in the series of the bishops of Trier, which place he by no means holds in the most ancient catalogues; yet he would have to be put back at least after the year 666, namely after Numerianus [In the more recent catalogues, which alone list Hildulf, he has been inserted only after Milo, that is, namely in the middle of the eighth century. Cf. MG., Scr. vol. XIII, p. 300], but Hildulf, bishop of Trier some years, further, after St. Gertrude had appeared to Modesta; unless you will acquiesce in the certainly very light conjecture of Friedrich Op. cit., p. 208., who thinks that the author of the Virtues of St. Gertrude, having learned that Modesta prolonged her life until the prelacy of Hildulf, without hesitation interposed this Hildulf into his narrative even in reporting things which had happened before that prelacy.

[34] had visited St. Modesta But even if it had been shown both that Hildulf was archbishop of Trier and that he was so about the year 659, this second opinion would by no means stand: for the near-contemporary author of the Virtues of Gertrude in the most ancient Montpellier manuscript designates in as many words not Hildulf of Trier but Chlodulf of Metz. This genuine reading of this passage has made certain and unshaken the third opinion, they falsely supposed. which, even before that text was known, had commended itself to Bolland In the commentary on St. Modesta, no. 9; see above p. 303, no. 15., Henschenius Diatriba de tribus Dagobertis, Book II, chap. 12 (pp. 116–7)., Papebroch Act. SS., April vol. II, propylaeum antiquarium p. v, no. 21., Mabillon [Act. SS. O. S. B., saec. II, p. 468, annot. m.; Annales O. S. B., Book XIV, no. 59 (vol. I, p. 447).], Smet Act. SS. Belgii, vol. III, pp. 185–6. and others: namely, that Modesta conversed about the death of St. Gertrude with St. Chlodulf of Metz, who for whatever reason was present at Trier. Nor, as we have seen, is it hard to explain how it came about that so much darkness for so long clouded so simple a truth. What was to be thought of the whole matter had been splendidly scented out more than two hundred years ago by a man of keen nose, Daniel Papebroch, whose words we are not reluctant to report: "Truly", he says in the place cited, "just as easily as that Crodulf could have been at Trier at that time on certain business of his own, so easily could either the writer of Nivelles in Belgium have slipped, by thinking that he who was a bishop, and to whom these things were being told at Trier, was bishop of the city of Trier itself; or the transcriber of the Life written by him, by omitting the word of Metz, about which he doubted whether it had not been written by error for of Trier." That it was the transcriber, at any rate, and not the writer of Nivelles who erred is now certain.

[35] Modesta died In what year Modesta died we are entirely ignorant; one thing we know, that in the year 659 she was already of a fairly mature age See above, p. 305, no. 23.. But where certain more recent writers keep saying that she died in the year 680 or 710 or in some other intermediate year, after the middle of the seventh century these are mere conjectures, which they introduced only in order to take account of that Irmina, abbess of Oeren and supposititious daughter of Dagobert. The day of her death, if you follow the older martyrologies and calendars, is to be assigned to the day before the nones of November; which is expressly asserted in a manuscript of the Gesta Treverorum written in the fourteenth century In Wyttenbach, Gesta Trev., vol. I, p. 68, annot. c.. Some more recent writers, however, indicate the 6th day of October [Hier. Dungersheim, De laudibus sanctae Scholasticae (Leipzig, 1515), chap. v; cf. Act. SS., February vol. II, p. 411, no. 30; Du Saussay in the Martyrologium Gallicanum, on the 6th day of October; Denis de Sainte-Marthe, Gallia christiana, vol. XIII, col. 613.]; indeed there are those, as we have said See above, p. 304, no. 18., who misuse that diversity in designating the heavenly birthday of Modesta to feign two Modestas, and indeed, as they say, on the 4th day of November. of whom the one died on the 4th day of November, the other on the 6th day of October. Yet all these are later than Trithemius and seem to have been led into error by him. For Trithemius, who names only one Modesta, reports that she is venerated on the day before the nones of October De viris illustribus O. S. B., Book III, chap. 143.; but, as Bolland says to the point Comment. hist. de S. Modesta, no. 2., he seems to have meant to write "the day before the nones of November", not "of October"; which others nevertheless rashly followed. There underlies it, therefore, a mere slip of the pen, and to Chifflet asking: Why, pray, is St. Modesta venerated on those two days? In the letters of which above, p. 303, note 13. the answer must be that Modesta is not venerated at all on the 6th day of October.

§ IV. Of the ecclesiastical cult of St. Modesta.

[36] Ecclesiastical honours The most ancient cult of St. Modesta is proved by two litanies of Trier written in the tenth century; one of which [The part of them which pertains to the church of Trier was edited by the distinguished F. X. Kraus in Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande, vols. L–LI (1871), p. 215. Cf. Hontheim, Prodromus, vol. I, pp. 367, 379.] is read at the end of the psalter of St. Maximin of Trier, which manuscript we keep in our library, the other [Edited by Fr. Althan, De calendariis (1753), pp. 305–20. The name of Modesta is read on p. 318.] is found in the celebrated Cividale manuscript which "the Psalter of Gertrude"

they are accustomed to call [On it see Laur. a Turre, De duobus psalteriis Foroiuliensibus in A. Fr. Gori, Symbolae litterariae, vol. IX (1752), p. 179 ff.; Althan, place cited, p. 86 ff., and Pertz's Archiv, vol. XII, p. 679.]: in both, namely, St. Modesta is listed among the holy virgins [Our saint appears also in the litanies written in the eleventh/twelfth century in a certain psalter of Hastière (Lechner, Mittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien, 1891, p. 225. Cf. above p. 296, note 3).]. The same antiquity of the cult paid to our saint may be gathered from the fact that when in the year 952 the crypts of the monastery of St. Maximin of Trier were dedicated, in the lower crypt … there was placed an altar in honour of the holy virgins, at least from the tenth century in which are relics of St. Felicitas, of the body of St. Agnes, of St. Cecilia, of St. Lucy, of St. Walgisga, of St. Modesta, etc… Cf. Bibl. de l'École des Chartes, vol. XLV (1884), pp. 579–80.. And in the church of St. Simeon of Trier, after Archbishop Egilbert had restored it in the year 1097 after a fire and collapse [Beyer, Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der mittelrh. Territ., vol. I, p. 447; cf. Sauerland, in the place soon to be cited, note 1.], on the fifth day before the kalends of February the left altar was dedicated in honour of St. Gertrude, virgin, of Reparata, virgin,… of Modesta, virgin, of Irmina, virgin, of Agnes, martyr, and of all the saints Sauerland, Trierer Geschichtsquellen des XI. Jahrhunderts (1889), p. 37.

[37] St. Modesta obtained Concerning the growth and continuance of this cult, however, we lack at present suitable documents for setting out anything distinct and complete in all its parts. We shall therefore be content, which in any case will be enough for the importance of the matter, to gather together here what has met us here and there on that subject. We have found St. Modesta inscribed, namely, on this 4th day of November in the liturgical books 1) of Trier, especially in the diocese of Trier; namely in the manuscript martyrology of Oeren, as Bolland testifies No. 2 of the historical commentary on St. Modesta.; in our above-mentioned psalter, formerly of St. Maximin, fol. 6vo, where, although Hontheim omitted to indicate it Prodromus, vol. I, p. 378., the name of Modesta was added by a hand of the eleventh–twelfth century; in a small psalter of the eleventh century Ibid., p. 392.; in a certain missal of the twelfth century Vienna MS., Imperial Library 1836, formerly theol. no. 403.; in the martyrology of the abbey of St. Martin of Trier of the tenth century, in which, however, this name was added only by a later hand Martyrologium Trevirense in Anal. Boll., vol. II, p. 30.; in the weekly book of the church of St. Simeon of the thirteenth century Hontheim, Prodromus, vol. I, p. 406.; in the missals printed in the years 1480 and 1547 [Cf. H. Grotefend, Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters, vol. II (1892), p. 191.]; 2) of Utrecht, namely of the lower Trajectum, that is, in the missal which we keep in our library, and which was written in the fifteenth century; in other missals printed in the years 1497, 1507, 1514 and 1540 and in breviaries printed in the years 1508 and 1512, etc... Cf. Grotefend, op. cit., p. 196.; 3) of Poland, namely in a manuscript breviary of the fifteenth century Vienna MS., Imperial Library 1842, formerly theol. 422.; 4) of Remiremont, namely in the Officia propria of the distinguished church of St. Peter of Remiremont, printed at Dijon in the year 1657 [But in ancient times St. Modesta was not venerated in the monastery of Remiremont. At least the liturgical books of Remiremont which we have handled are silent about her, namely the missals of the eleventh century (Paris MS., Bibl. nat. lat. 823) and of the fifteenth century (ibid., lat. 14283), the breviary of the sixteenth century (ibid., lat. nouv. acquis. 1545), the martyrology of the fourteenth century (ibid., nouv. acquis. 349) and the processional of the fifteenth century (Brussels MS., Royal Library ser. II, no. 265, namely in the longer litanies which are read at fols. 83–4, and which present a fairly long series of holy virgins; cf. also the shorter litanies at fols. 45 and 88).].

[38] in which she is still venerated. I pass over the more recent books, such as the interpolated editions of Usuard and other works of that kind, very many of which could be cited; of which I shall name only the Roman martyrology, in which on this same day is read: At Trier, of St. Modesta, virgin. On the following day, however, Modesta is reported [On other days too, namely the 19th of March, the 12th of August and the 6th of October, certain more recent writers commemorate Modesta, who have no authority in this matter. See Act. SS., March vol. III, p. 4a; August vol. II, p. 699e; October vol. III, p. 260c; cf. also above p. 308, no. 35.] by the Chambéry manuscript of the interpolated martyrology of Usuard, by Maurolico and, if Hontheim is to be believed Prodromus, vol. I, p. 367., by calendars of Trier of the fifteenth century and following. Whether he said this truly, I am in some doubt; certainly the Lectionary of certain saints of the office of Trier, which was printed in the year 1645, presents this in the calendar on the 4th day of November: At Trier, of St. Modesta, virgin of Trier. But as for what the same Hontheim says Ibid.: "(Modesta) in the fifth lesson of the modern breviary on the 20th day of July is said (wrongly, as I think) to have passed to her bridegroom", I would not believe that to be entirely true either. For in the propers and calendars of Trier of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which I have been able to inspect, Modesta is indeed no longer named on the 4th day of November, but a commemoration is made of her on the twentieth day of July together with the holy abbesses Severa, Anastasia and Glodesindis; but the author of the fifth lesson by no means assigns this day as Modesta's day of death, but, following the error of Trithemius, asserts that she "passed to heaven on the day before the nones of October" So at least the proper offices published in the years 1706, 1849.. Most recently, finally, the Proper of the offices of the diocese of Trier, which, reformed by order of the most reverend bishop Michael Felix Korum and approved by the Apostolic See, was printed in the year 1888, is entirely silent about Modesta on the 20th day of July, but indicates her feast to be celebrated on the 5th day of November under the semidouble rite; it teaches, however, in the fourth lesson that the saint died on the day before the nones of November.

[39] Of the relics of St. Modesta. To the posthumous glory of our saint there pertains this too, that her tomb in the time of Hontheim was visited with veneration in a separate chapel of the abbey of St. Irmina at Oeren Hontheim, Prodromus, place cited.. That church, however, was pulled down about the year 1770 and a new one built [J. Hansen in Treviris oder Trierisches Archiv für Vaterlandskunde, vol. II (1841), pp. 256 and 266. Cf. A. J. L(iehs), Leben und Thaten... Fortsetzung, p. 293, where however it is wrongly written that the thing was done in the year 1760.], in which there exists neither a chapel nor any altar sacred to St. Modesta. The ancient abbey of Oeren, moreover, "suppressed under the French regime by the consular law of the ninth day of June 1802 [So a certain narrative entitled De monasterio sanctimonialium virginum in Horreo, ed. by J. Hansen in Treviris, vol. II, p. 266. There, p. 265, the relics of St. Modesta are listed among the "more valued relics of this church".]" has now been made a poorhouse [This was established by a decree of the 9th day of October of the year 1804. Cf. J. Hansen in Treviris, vol. I (1840), p. 184.], in which no further trace is to be detected of the cult paid to our saint. The inhabitants relate that the relics of the holy virgin were long ago translated into the church of St. Matthias, in which they are now deposited among the very many bones of saints which are piously kept there.

[40] Of her Life. Finally, it is pleasing to point out that, although the lists of manuscripts seem at times to teach it, no Life of St. Modesta was written in ancient times, at least none that has come down to us. For what is entitled the Life of St. Modesta in manuscripts, for example the Brussels manuscript of the Royal Library 8932 [Fols. 147–9. Cf. Pertz's Archiv, vol. VIII, p. 522. At the head of this transcript Bolland had noted: I received it, as I think, from Trier.], the Paris manuscript of the Bibl. nat. lat. 5593, the Zwettl manuscript 15 Cf. Pertz's Archiv, vol. VIII, p. 724., the Munich manuscript lat. 27127 Cf. Catal. codd. lat. bibl. reg. Monacensis, vol. II, part IV (1881), p. 246., presents nothing other than either the whole text or at least a fairly large part of the Life and Virtues of St. Gertrude [The Brussels, Paris and Munich manuscripts we have inspected ourselves; on the Zwettl one see Xenia Bernardina, part II, vol. I (1891), p. 308. On the Paris one cf. already our Catal. codd. hag. bibl. nat. Paris., vol. II, p. 495, 4°.].