ON ST. PROTASIUS, CALLED BISHOP OF AVENCHES OR LAUSANNE,
MIDDLE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY?
CommentaryProtasius, called bishop of Avenches or Lausanne. (S.)
BY A. P.
[1] Protasius, regarded as a saint at least from the ninth century, Although Protasius In the vernacular Protais, Prex, Preuts. had long since been adorned with the name of saint, and at least in the year 886 a church of blessed Prothasius or of St. Prothasius had been built in the district of Lausanne [Compare F. de Gingins, Cartulaire du chapitre de Notre-Dame de Lausanne rédigé par le prévôt Conon d'Estavayer (Lausanne, 1851 = Mémoires et Documents publiés par la Société d'histoire de la Suisse Romande, vol. VI), pp. 275–77.], and it is not rarely named in charters of the tenth century Compare ibid., pp. 278–280. and of the beginning of the thirteenth Compare ibid., pp. 257–74., yet that the feast of that holy prelate first began to be celebrated at Lausanne in the year 1234 is taught by an excellent witness, Cono of Estavayer, provost of the church of Lausanne from the year 1202 to about 1242, in the cartulary of that church See below, no. 4., which he undertook to compile in the year 1235, in the form in which it has reached us. For keeping the feast there was appointed 6 November, on which day too the memory of the holy bishop is now kept in the diocese of Lausanne under the rite of double minor; on the same day he is reviewed in a few martyrologies published in recent times, for instance in the martyrology of Chastelain of the year 1709, in the Parisian martyrology of the year 1727, and in that of Évreux of the year 1752.
[2] in a document of the tenth century Of that Protasius no one among the historians makes mention before the anonymous writer of Lausanne, who added a few things to an exemplar of the Annals of Flavigny [There were edited intermingled the “Annales Flaviniacenses et Lausonenses” in MG., Scr. vol. III, pp. 150–52; but afterwards, on careful inspection of the codex, Ph. Jaffé accurately distinguished different hands, at least seven of Flavigny, two of Lausanne, and he edited the Annals of Flavigny and the Annals of Lausanne separately in Th. Mommsen, Die Chronik des Cassiodorus, in Abhandlungen der Kön. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, vol. VIII (= Phil.-Hist. Classe, III), pp. 684–89.] in the year 968 or a little later Compare Jaffé, in the work cited, pp. 682–83.. Thus he at the years 501, 507 and 532 Jaffé, in the work cited, p. 685.:
he is said to have lived in the time of King Clovis I; 501. Felix, whom they call Gramnelenus, and his wife Ermendrudis built a monastery in the place of Balma in honour of the holy Mother of God Mary, in the 14th year of King Clovis, Protasius, bishop of Avenches or Lausanne, approving.
517. King Clovis died.
532. In the 15th year of King Clothar and in the time of Chelmegiselus, bishop of Avenches or Lausanne, Ermendrudis built the monastery of Balma.
If these things are worthy of belief, the matter seems to be understood thus, that Gramnelenus with his wife Ermendrudis indeed began to found the monastery while King Clovis I and Bishop Protasius were among the living, but afterwards, Clovis, Protasius and Gramnelenus himself having died, Ermendrudis, now a widow, completed the work [Some have doubted, however, whether in the two places the discourse is of the same monastery of Balma (M. Besson, in Revue historique Vaudoise, vol. XII, 1904, p. 192). Even if this is rightly doubted, it makes no difference to us, since we have transcribed what is noted in the Annals at the years 517 and 532 only in order to show that the annalist intended to speak of Clovis I.]. But learned men have already noted that the dates so clearly designated in the Annals do not agree with the truth [To be named before others is Fr. Martin Schmitt, Études sur l'histoire du diocèse de Lausanne, in Mémorial de Fribourg, vol. I (1854), pp. 244–47; the same, Mémoires historiques sur le diocèse de Lausanne, vol. I (Fribourg, 1858 = Mémorial de Fribourg, vol. V), pp. 211–17. See also E. F. Gelpke, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz, vol. I (Bern, 1856), pp. 145–47; vol. II (1861), pp. 150–51; M. Besson, Recherches sur les origines des évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, Sion (Fribourg, 1906), p. 164.], by the argument, if nothing else, that Clovis I never held the rule of Burgundy; but in fact either under Clovis II further, that the annalist's words are to be understood or rather corrected as if said of the 14th year of Clovis II, that is, of the year 652, and of the 15th year of Clothar III, that is, of the year 673; with which it excellently agrees that that Felix Gramnelenus, by whom the monastery in the place of Balma was built, seems to be the same as Duke Chramnelenus of Roman stock, who, we know, lived in Transjuran Burgundy in the time of Clovis II Compare the Chronicle called Fredegar's, book IV, cc. 78 and 90. and founded a monastery in the forest of the Jura Compare the Life of Columban by Jonas, book I, c. 14.; and finally that Protasius presided over the church of Avenches or Lausanne not in the sixth century, but about the middle of the seventh.
[3] he presided over the church of Lausanne, And these things are indeed shrewdly explained, nor does it seem improbable that he who at the end of the tenth century inserted certain matters concerning Lausanne into the Annals of Flavigny had some monument in hand, for instance a diploma or charter, in which it was reported that a monastery was founded by Duke Chramnelenus and his wife in the place of Balma in the 14th year of King Clovis, Bishop Protasius approving; and it could certainly have happened that what he read as written concerning King Clovis, namely the second of this name, he incautiously took as of the most celebrated Clovis I. Nevertheless it is clear that these things are only like the truth, not certainly true. or he is the same as Protasius, bishop of Sion, under Clovis II himself. Nor should it be passed over in silence that in the very time of Clovis II and in this part of his kingdom there lived a certain Protasius, a bishop, not of Lausanne indeed, but of Sion [He subscribed the Council of Chalon in the year 639–654 (MG., Leg. sect. III, vol. I, p. 213, line 18); at which Arricus, bishop of the church of Lausanne, was also present (ibid., line 27).]; and since it is not certainly established where that monastery in the place of Balma was situated Compare M. Besson, in the place cited, p. 192., nor is there any reason to persuade us that the bishop of Lausanne rather than of Sion consented to its construction, it could after all have happened that for some reason or other that Protasius of Sion approved the design of Chramnelenus, and that the annalist of Lausanne by an easy slip believed or fancied that Bishop Protasius, whom he had perhaps found named in the diploma with no designation of see added, was the bishop of his own country, that is, “of Avenches or Lausanne” [By these words it is hinted that in the tenth century there was preserved at Lausanne the memory of that time when the bishops of the diocese which was by then called of Lausanne resided at Avenches. Whether and when Avenches had bishops has been disputed more than once. See what the distinguished Marius Besson has recently written on this matter, Episcopus ecclesiae Aventicae, in Archives de la Société d'histoire du canton de Fribourg, vol. VIII, 2 (1904), pp. 139–54; the same, Recherches sur les origines …, pp. 146–62.]. And I should wish this to be held as a mere conjecture; which, while it does not seem improbable and therefore had to be set out, yet I should not call more probable than the other conjecture, by which the matter is explained thus, that the writer of the Annals, using an excellent document, rightly noted that the monastery in the place of Balma was founded by Chramnelenus with Protasius, bishop of Lausanne, approving, and erred only in designating the king of the Franks, that is, Clovis the first for the second; to which other conjecture some weight certainly accrues from the fact that already in the ninth century, and thus almost a whole century before the annalist's time, a church sacred to St. Protasius had been founded in the diocese of Lausanne. So much, for an obscure matter.
[4] The other things that are reported of him Much less certain, and indeed to be reckoned among fictitious fables, are the other things that we have found told of St. Protasius. After the annalist of Lausanne, only Cono the provost makes mention of him, in the cartulary already adduced. When he had found nothing written about St. Protasius apart from the annotations of the annalist, which he found “in the book of Blessed Mary of Lausanne” and copied from it, the good man subjoined what was told by certain elders, and which savour very much of popular report. Here are his words [Ed. F. de Gingins, Cartulaire …, pp. 27–29; G. Waitz, in MG., Scr. vol. XXIV, p. 794.]:
For he found — so Cono about himself — thus written in a certain book of Blessed Mary of Lausanne: From the anonymous writer of Lausanne. Felix, whom they call Granvelensis, and his wife Ermendrudis built a monastery in the place of Balma in honour of the holy Mother of God Mary, in the XIII year of King Clovis, Prothasius, bishop of Avenches or Lausanne, approving, in the year of the Lord DI. King Clovis died in the year of the Lord DXVII, Pope Agapitus residing at Rome. Yet nothing else written concerning the said
blessed Prothasius could he find. Yet he heard from many old priests worthy of belief that the same blessed Prothasius came from Venesia and that his life could still be found written there [That this Life was sought both at Venice and in the Breton city of Vannes, yet not found, M. Schmitt notes, Mémoires historiques, vol. I, p. 216.]. And when he had sat for some time in the bishopric of Lausanne, he went into the Iura That is, on Mount Iura or the Jura range., which is above the township called Bieri Bière, cant. de Vaud, distr. d'Aubonne., to cut timber for rebuilding the church of Lausanne, and there he closed his last day, and he was brought on a branch from the mountain down to the plain, to the place called Birula Berolles, cant. de Vaud, distr. d'Aubonne., because there was made for him a certain small bieri, which in Latin is called feretrum; on which he was carried as far as the township called Bieri, because there was made for him there a larger bier, which in the vernacular is called bieri, and therefore that township is called Bieri; and from there he was carried to the township which is now called Saint Prothasius [Saint-Prex, cant. de Vaud, distr. de Morges. We know that already before the end of the ninth century a church of Blessed Protasius existed there from a charter edited in Cono's cartulary. Compare above, p. 251, annot. 2.], which was then called Basuges, and he was placed in the church which was dedicated in honour of Blessed Mary; and when those who carried him wished to carry him from there to Lausanne, they could not move him from there; and they buried him there in the church before the chancel in the nave, and there was made over him a certain altar in his honour; and his feast is the VIII Ides of November; which however was not celebrated at Lausanne until the year from the incarnation of the Lord M.CC.XXXIIII. Then Lord Boniface the bishop and the chapter decided that the 〈memory〉 of the aforesaid blessed Prothasius, confessor, should be made, and that it should be celebrated with IX lessons at Lausanne on the VIII Ides of November.
[5] merit no credence. Lest we seem to lay a foundation in water, we think that we should refrain from examining these things which Cono collected about St. Protasius, as they were commonly reported in the thirteenth century. For the rest, what was then said about the township of Bieri and also about the township of Saint-Prex is wholly redolent of etymological legend. And as for what Cono heard from certain people asserting that St. Protasius came from Venesia, that little satisfied those who came after, since some made St. Protasius an Italian, born in the most noble city of Venice, others a Gaul or Breton, as having come from the city of the Veneti in Lesser Britain, others a Swiss, since they noted that de Venesia is the same as de Aventico: for the people of Avenches were once called Venetici Compare M. Schmitt, Mémoires historiques, vol. I, pp. 215–16; compare p. 158.. These are doubtful conjectures on a document of doubtful trustworthiness.
[6] His ecclesiastical cult. Much better, as we have already said, is what Cono has reported about the feast of St. Protasius first instituted in his time, who in two other places also brought forward the same things on the same matter [In the cartulary (ed. F. de Gingins, in the work cited, p. 273) and in the annotations which the same Cono collected (ed. in MG., Scr. vol. XXIV, p. 790, lines 37–39).]. But although from the year 1234 the saint's memory was publicly celebrated, yet you might say that honour was not given to his relics before the fifteenth century; at least we read In the Breviary of Lausanne of the year 1787, at 6 Nov., in the fifth lesson. that “the sacred remains of St. Protasius, exhumed in the year 1400, were displayed for public veneration in the place of burial, to which the name of the holy prelate had long since been given.” Besides, his name is preserved both by the tenth deanery of the diocese of Lausanne Ibid. and by a little chapel consecrated in his name in the year 1603 at Bellofons, in the parish called Vaulruz, otherwise Thalbach Compare Schmitt, in the work cited, p. 217..