Rufus

ON ST. RUFUS, BISHOP OF METZ,

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH CENTURY?

Rufus, bishop of Metz. (S.)

BY A. P.

[1] That Rufus, a bishop Although scarcely anything of the history of St. Rufus has been handed down to memory, in this at least both the Deeds and the catalogues of the bishops of Metz agree, that they call him the ninth bishop of this see and assign him Sambatius as predecessor and Adelphus as successor. The first, as it seems, to mention him is the poem on the bishops of the city of Metz, which some think was composed by Paul the Deacon E. Dümmler, in MG., Poetae latini vol. I (1880), p. 29, others deny it O. Holder-Egger, in MG., Scriptores vol. XIII (1881), p. 303, and which was certainly composed between the years 769 – 791, probably about the year 776. In which Rufus is praised in one verse, and indeed with a praise, as was generally done with the other bishops, taken from the name itself more wittily than truly:

Post hos, Ruffe, venis flammis rubicundus amoris After these, Rufus, you come, ruddy with the flames of love Ibid., p. 304, l. 24.

the ninth of Metz, Nor did Paul the Deacon himself know much more, who committed to writing nothing about the life of St. Rufus and a few things about his cult, in the Deeds of the bishops MG., Scriptores vol. II, p. 262, l. 8 – 20: But Rufus and Adolfus, who are ninth and tenth in number, are to be believed without doubt to have shone with great merits in life, since they shone even after death with such a miracle. Their bodies, then, when they had been buried in the basilica of Blessed Felix the martyr, as the account has run down to us, there was a certain religious man, solicitous for the care of his soul, who at night-time, in order to commend himself to the Lord with private prayers, was accustomed with unceasing zeal to go round all the oratories which were situated outside the walls of the same city. He, then, when he had come to the aforesaid basilica of Blessed Felix the martyr, and yet the possibility of entering had not been granted him, went outside beside the wall to that part where the bodies of the aforesaid priests rested, and there prostrated himself in prayer with the whole intention of his mind. And when, after pouring out his prayers, he had risen from prayer, and in honour of those saints opposite whose sepulchres he had prayed pronounced the little verse of the psalm, that is, The saints shall exult in glory, at once he heard from within the voice of one adding: they shall rejoice in their beds.

[2] that he departed this life on the 7th day of November, These are the writers of Metz of the eighth century. A little after, that is, before the middle of the ninth century, we find it handed down

the day of our saint's death: Rufus, on the seventh before the Ides of November [MG., Scriptores vol. XIII, p. 305, l. 18. Cf. L. Delisle, Mémoires sur d'anciens sacramentaires (Paris, 1886), pp. 100 – 101], in that splendid sacramentary of Metz in which, besides the Verses on the bishops cited above, there is read also a list of the days on which the individual bishops died. With which agrees the contemporary writer Rabanus, in his Martyrology: On the same day (the seventh before the Ides of November), the birthday of St. Rufus, bishop and confessor of the city of Metz, who was translated from the aforesaid city, bishop Drogo consenting, into the territory of Worms, to the villa which is called Oterenheim Now Odernheim, not far from Alzey (Alzey, Rheinhessen), in the times of the emperor Lothar and king Louis; where too his holiness shone with many powers [P. L., vol. CX, col. 1178; cf. E. Dümmler, in Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte, vol. XXV (1885), p. 199. This passage was inserted in the interpolated edition of the martyrology of Bede (cf. P. L., vol. XCIV, col. 1097); whence it came about that it was brought forward as Bede's by Baronius in the annotation to the Roman Martyrology on the 7th day of November]. That this translation was made between the years 840 – 854 is clearly shown by the times of the emperor Lothar (20 June 840 – † 29 September 855) and of bishop Drogo († 8 December 855), compared with the time of the martyrology which Rabanus wrote for Ratleic, abbot of Seligenstadt († 14 June 854).

[3] not in the third century And before the end of the ninth century the people of Metz had defined, by conjecture or otherwise, how long Rufus had held the episcopal see. For so the catalogue of bishops made at the end of the ninth century: Rufus, bishop, sat 28 years, died on the seventh before the Ides of November [MG., Scriptores vol. XIII, p. 305, l. 45. The other catalogues are not earlier than the twelfth century and offer only the name of Rufus (ibid., p. 306, l. 50)]. It remained that it should be set out more distinctly at what time he had lived; which was done in the middle of the twelfth century by the author of the Deeds of the bishops of Metz, who affirmed in ch. 9: Ninth after Sambatius, Rufus was bishop of the people of Metz, who sat 29 years in the episcopate, from the time of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, Macrinus, Aurelius Antoninus, Aurelius Alexander (= 193 – 234), in the times of the apostolic men Callixtus, Urban and Zephyrinus (= 199 – 230); and he was buried in the church of Saint Clement [These things do not contradict Paul the Deacon (above, no. 1). For the monastery which had formerly been called that of Saint Felix was afterwards customarily named that of Saint Clement]. And the same writer mentions the translation to Odernheim, but slipped in this, that he invented that not Rufus but his predecessor Sambatius was translated thither Gesta, ch. 8 (MG., Scriptores vol. X, p. 536, l. 5/6). This error was corrected in the twelfth/thirteenth century by the author of the Chronicle of Saint Clement of Metz, who, using both the Deeds and the catalogue of bishops, defined the time of St. Rufus otherwise, and certainly not better MG., Scriptores vol. XXIV, p. 493, l. 57 – 59: Rufus was the ninth bishop of the people of Metz, who sat 29 years in the episcopate; he died on the seventh before the Ides of November under pope Callixtus (= 217 – 222), Maximinus reigning, in the third year of his reign (= 237), and he was buried in the church of Saint Clement and afterwards translated to Otreneym. And the Universal Chronicle of Metz, which was composed about the year 1250, records Ibid., p. 502, l. 38 at the year 203 (otherwise 204) Rufus (otherwise St. Rufus), who it teaches sat 28 years (otherwise 29, and there is added or 38).

[4] but at the beginning of the fifth century The people of Metz, then, at one time agreed at least in this, that they thought Rufus lived at the beginning of the third century. Them only those will follow who believe that Clement, the first bishop, was sent into Gaul by St. Peter. But those who give no credit to these "apostolic" legends and have found that the beginning of the founding of the church of Metz was made at a much more recent time, have tried to define the time of St. Rufus by this route: that Victor, who is listed fifth in the catalogue of bishops, subscribed in the year 346 to the council of Cologne (Victor of the Mediomatrici), and is the same as the Gallic bishop Victor who in the year 344 adhered to the decrees of the council of Sardica; that Auctor, who is thirteenth in the catalogue, lived in the year 451, at which time the Huns laid waste Gaul; and further, that Rufus, the ninth bishop, is to be placed at the beginning of the fifth century. Some, however, have judged this computation unsound on every side: that the Acts of the council of Cologne are apocryphal; that a bishop Victor, Gallic indeed, adhered to the council of Sardica, whose see, however, is not indicated, and hence it could indeed be that he was the bishop of Metz, but nothing more certain is to be asserted; and finally that fabulous things not well cohering among themselves have been handed down about Auctor [Cf. for example A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, vol. I3 (1904), p. 32; V. Chatelain, in Revue historique de Metz, vol. I (1904), pp. 222 – 24]. To which it can be opposed that, although the Acts of the council of Cologne are apocryphal, the subscriptions of the bishops nevertheless seem worthy of credit [After very many recently went off into various opinions about these Acts, this at length was the opinion of the distinguished L. Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, vol. I2 (1907), pp. 361 – 65; which seems to rest on excellent arguments]; that greater force thence accrues to the conjecture which assigns the see of Metz to the Gallic bishop Victor; that of Auctor, though some things unworthy of credit have been handed down, it is nevertheless by no means improbable that he lived in the middle of the fifth century [Let Hauck himself be read, at the place cited: "doch mag es richtig sein, dass er (Auctor) in die Hünnenzeit fällt" "yet it may be right that he (Auctor) falls in the time of the Huns"]. These things weighed, the prudent judge of matters will decide that that computation is effected not indeed by certain, but yet by probable reasons.

[5] We should have advanced little, however, if what some have said were true, that this whole thing rests on a weak foundation, that is, that in general the series of the bishops of Metz has not been rightly handed down. For the catalogues which survive and which agree excellently among themselves, although that austere judge L. Duchesne In the volume cited, p. 4 esteemed them of good mark, the distinguished A. Hauck [In the volume cited, p. 32, note 4: "Man sieht schon aus diesen Zahlen, dass die Liste unmöglich ist." "One sees already from these numbers that the list is impossible." Cf. also Chatelain, in the volume cited, p. 224, who affirms that this is "la loi naturelle des successions épiscopales" "the natural law of episcopal successions", that to the individual bishops 18 – 20 years of pontificate are assigned. If, then, the ten successors of Auctor sat from the year 451 to the year 535, about 8 years are to be attributed to each; but "ce chiffre inférieur est contraire à toutes les vraisemblances" "this lower figure is contrary to all likelihood"] judges are to be rejected for this very reason, that they assign the fifth place to Victor, the thirteenth to Auctor, the twenty-third to that Hesperius who was present at the council of Auvergne in the year 535, and whom Hauck, following Le Cointe Annales ecclesiastici Francorum, vol. I (1655), p. 115, affirms to be the first bishop of Metz of whose time it is certainly established. Now in this series:

5. Victor (year 344 – 346?)

13. Auctor (year 451?)

23. Hesperius year 535

this, if I understand anything, displeased the learned man: that for a whole century (344 – 451) only eight bishops, but for about eighty years (after 451 – before 535) ten, should fill out the time with their rule. But that the span of human life, in bishops too, is various and changeable, and that consequently the series of the bishops of Metz which has been handed down is shown by the reasons alleged to be not only not impossible but not even unlikely, nor even surprising, can be demonstrated without any trouble, other things being omitted, even from a few examples. For, not to depart from Metz, we extract these from that part of the series of bishops which is subject to no doubt:

43. Robert year 883 – † 916

48. Adalbero 11 year 985 – † 1005

that is: 6 bishops, 123 years;

56. Stephen year 1120 – † 1163

61. Conrad year 1213 – † 1224

that is: 6 bishops, 105 years;

63. Philip year 1261 – 1264

72. Louis year 1325 – 1327

that is, 9 bishops, 67 years.

Lest, however, we seem to have regarded later times only, let us go to that church of Tours, about whose bishops we are best informed:

2. Litorius year 337/338

6. Briccius † about the year 444

that is, 5 bishops, more than 105 years;

9. Volusianus year 491

21. Euphronius † year 573

that is, 13 bishops, 83 years. Which I should think will be enough to establish how cautiously the historian must act in those things which are called either unlikely or even impossible. Nothing, therefore, seems to stand in the way of our holding, not indeed as certain, but at least as probable, that Rufus was the ninth bishop of Metz, and lived either at the end of the fourth century or at the beginning of the fifth.

[6] it seems probable. But the other things, though few, which we brought forward above as handed down about him, must be called much less probable [What the Life of St. Adelphus, his successor (BHL 76), hands down about our Rufus, although it is thought to have been written in the middle of the ninth century, is so fabulous that it is hardly to be mentioned in passing. Its writer imagined that Adelphus, his studies completed, was committed to his maternal uncle Rufus, most holy bishop of the church of Metz, but also subregulus or rector of the palace and counsellor of the king, to be exercised in the good acts both of secular and of ecclesiastical affairs (see Acta Sanctorum, August vol. VI, p. 507, number 2, and cf. the annotations, p. 508). Nor do I think one should dwell longer on the conjecture of Gams (Series episcoporum, p. 292), who wrote this of Rufus: "forsan idem qui c. 386 in historia Priscillianistarum memoratur" ["perhaps the same who about 386 is mentioned in the history of the Priscillianists"]. As far as I myself conjecture, there came into Gams' mind the bishops Rufus and Magnus, who in the year 385 at Trier pleaded with the emperor Maximus that the case of Priscillian be entrusted to the prefect Evodius (Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle, II, 50, 7). And the same Gams pointed out elsewhere that these are known by their names only (Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, vol. II, 1, p. 377)], except the translation, which the wholly contemporary writer Rabanus mentions, and perhaps also the day of death. For that the memory of the days on which the bishops died, especially those who were venerated as saints with a special feast, was faithfully preserved in their own cathedral church is both easily understood and has been noted in not a few places. And we have seen that already from the middle of the ninth century, or even a little before, the people of Metz testified that Rufus departed this life on the 7th day of November Cf. above, nos. 2, 3; with whom agree both Rabanus (the birthday of St. Rufus) and the martyrologies of Echternach, of Remiremont, of Toul of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries Cf. H. Quentin, Les martyrologes historiques (Paris, 1908), p. 243, and some interpolated copies of Usuard (the deposition of St. Rufus) Ed. of Sollerius, p. 658, from which the saint's name passed into the Roman Martyrology. From this faith of antiquity indeed the church of Metz has recently departed, which, although it recalls the saint's feast on this 7th day of November, yet in the proper lesson of the liturgical office, copying du Saussay Martyrologium Gallicanum, pp. 273 – 74, at the 11th day of May, has handed down that Rufus died on the 27th day of August, and was translated to Odernheim on the 7th of November Officia propria dioecesis Metensis (Metz, 1859), p. 29. Which I should not believe to have been rightly said. For on the 27th day of August only the Lübeck and Cologne editions of the martyrology of Usuard of the year 1490 and that of Greven of the year 1515 Cf. the edition of Sollerius, pp. 404 – 5 announce Rufus of Metz, for no other reason, as it seems, than that on the same day that Rufus, martyr of Capua, was named by Usuard himself; but that the people of Metz once chose for venerating their saint the day on which his body had been taken from them

and translated to Odernheim, is neither likely, and is contrary to the catalogue of bishops, and appears improbable even from this, that in the very village of Odernheim that translation was once recalled on the 7th day of October Cf. Gallia christiana, vol. XIII (1785), col. 683. But why in the ancient martyrology of the church of Metz, which Meurisse brought forward, our Rufus too was announced on the 11th day of May with St. Agatumbrus the bishop — whose feast day this is Cf. Acta Sanctorum, May vol. II, p. 632 — I am not able to explain Cf. a similar matter in Acta Sanctorum, October vol. IV, p. 1009, no. 7.

[7] The letter to Nicetius of Trier was written by another Rufus. Following du Saussay too, the man who wrote the cited lesson on St. Rufus erred again when he said that the great spirit of St. Rufus "shines out even now in the letter which he wrote to his metropolitan." This letter was given by Rufus, bishop of Turin, to Nicetius, bishop of Trier, about the year 550 Cf. MG., Epistolae vol. III, pp. 133 – 34. After it had once been held by some, and by Calmet himself, as written by our Rufus [Histoire de Lorraine, new ed., vol. I (1746), pp. XX – XXI; Bibliothèque Lorraine (1751), cols. 853 – 54], it has long since been restored to its writer [Cf. for example Bouquet, Recueil des historiens de France, vol. IV, p. 75; Dom Jean François and Dom Nicolas Tabouillot, Histoire de Metz, vol. I (1769), p. 224; Gallia christiana, vol. XIII, cols. 683 – 84].