Leodegar and Gerinus

ON SS. LEODEGAR AND GERINUS, BISHOP AND COUNT, BROTHERS AND MARTYRS, IN GAUL,

IN GAUL.

IN THE YEARS 676 AND 678.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Leodegar, bishop, brother, M., in Gaul. (S.)

Gerinus, count, brother, M., in Gaul. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. The memory of St. Gerinus in the sacred Fasti, his ecclesiastical cult, and whether the title of Count befits him.

A like pair of most illustrious brothers, who in Gaul, some nineteen years before, for almost the same cause, and probably by the same author, Ebroin, St. Gerinus, brother of St. Leodegar were afflicted with an impious and cruel death, we brought forward in the preceding month at the 28th day: St. Annemund, bishop of Lyon, and Dalfinus, prefect of the same city of Lyon. The latter, however, we did not distinguish with the title of Saint, nor should we have treated of him had not the deeds and martyrdom of St. Annemund required it, since we have neither read him inscribed in the sacred Fasti nor honoured anywhere with a special cult. But Gerinus the count, who is found written variously by various writers, namely by some Guerinus, Gairinus and Garinus; and by others Girinus, Gaerinus and Gairoenus, and even Warinus or Varinus, requires something more here; for not only are his deeds similarly bound up with the deeds of his brother St. Leodegar, but his name also has been inscribed as that of a holy Martyr in many sacred Fasti and in the present-day Roman Martyrology itself, and his special cult sufficiently confirmed in more than one place; which things, since they are not so fully known to all our readers, for it is far from being the case that St. Gerinus the count is as celebrated throughout the church as St. Leodegar the bishop, we undertake first to set out and to prove.

[2] We take our beginning from the Auctaria of the Usuardine Martyrology published by our Sollerius. There, from the Antwerp codex, the great Antwerp codex, the Ughelli codex and the very ancient great Lübeck edition, this announcement is given at the 2nd day of October: in augmented Usuard and various other On the same day, of St. Gerinus, martyr, brother of blessed Leodegar; to which words is added from the Brussels codex: Whom Ebroin killed, overwhelmed with stones. From the Hagenau codex: On the same day, of Gerinus, brother of St. Leodegar, martyr, whom the same Ebroin ordered to be bound to a stake and overwhelmed with stones. From the Lübeck-Cologne edition: Likewise of St. Garinus, martyr, brother of the aforesaid blessed bishop Leodegar. From Greven's edition: Likewise of St. Gerinus, martyr, brother of blessed Leodegar, bishop, whom the vile apostate Ebroin, brought back from exile, ordered to be overwhelmed with stones. Finally from the editions of Belinus and Molanus, but in the same words as from the Antwerp codices. To the Usuardine auctaria I join one announcement which Domenico Giorgi subjoins to the text of Rosweyde's Ado from his more ancient Vatican codex, and which will be of use again presently when there is talk of the special cult of St. Gerinus: and it is this: At the fortress of Vergy, of St. Girinus, martyr, brother of St. Leodegar, bishop.

[3] The martyrdom of St. Gerinus was also celebrated at the same day by the author of our manuscript Florarium in these words; he is inscribed in the sacred Fasti at the 2nd of October, Likewise of St. Gerinus, martyr, brother of blessed Leodegar, who, taken by Ebroin, is afterwards overwhelmed with stones. The author of the German Martyrology: Likewise of the holy martyr Gerinus, who, brother of the holy bishop Leodegar just mentioned, was called back from exile by the aforesaid infamous apostate Ebroin, and overwhelmed with stones without any fault. Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology, after a lengthy elogium of St. Leodegar, in which he also sets out the martyrdom of Gerinus: On the same day is the heavenly birthday of the aforesaid St. Gairinus, brother of St. Leodegar, celebrated; whose death, precious in the sight of God on account of innocence, has been reckoned by the Church as a martyrdom, and by this title his memory, inscribed in ancient tables, is honoured with sacred anniversaries. Pietro de' Natali also wove a long elogium of both Saints, book 9, chapter 13, under this title: Of the saints Leodegar, bishop, and Gerinus, martyr, and with this clause: The Passion of these Martyrs is kept on the sixth day before the Nones of October. I pass over Galesini, Maurolico and other more recent ones who recall the memory of St. Gerinus, martyr, in their Fasti, and finally I subjoin the announcement of the present-day Roman Martyrology: Likewise of St. Gerinus, martyr, brother of the same blessed Leodegar, who was overwhelmed with stones in the same place. But this, which it is fitting to note here, is not exact enough in assigning the place of the martyrdom.

[4] For since it follows immediately the announcement by which St. Leodegar is asserted to have been slain in the territory of Arras, although, as the place, so also it implies by its last member that St. Gerinus was overwhelmed with stones in the same territory of Arras, which is either foreign to the truth or certainly very doubtful; for St. Gerinus, as will become plain from the Acts to be published, was overwhelmed with stones in that place to which he had been summoned by Ebroin, mayor of the palace, to be presented with his brother Leodegar to Theuderic, king of the Franks; and it is exceedingly probable that this was no other than the city of Paris or some one of the estates not far distant from it, in which the kings of the Franks were frequently wont to stay, and where then too Theuderic, unless perhaps he was at Paris, was probably staying. Certainly nothing occurs from which it appears that Theuderic was then in the territory of Arras, whether for holding an assembly or for another cause. Chastelain without doubt noticed these things; and hence, in the Additions and Corrections to his Universal Martyrology, he set down the martyrdom of St. Gerinus near Paris, which previously, in the Supplement to the same, he had referred to the territory of Arras after the example of Baronius's Roman Martyrology. But I prefer to place the arena of St. Gerinus, in a more general manner of speaking, in Gaul, for this reason, that, since it is not altogether certain that Theuderic was at Paris or in the vicinity of this city at the time when Gerinus was slain, it is also not altogether certain whether St. Gerinus was crowned with martyrdom near Paris or in another part of Gaul.

[5] the day of the martyrdom is uncertain, Further, as the place, so also the day of the martyrdom of St. Gerinus is uncertain: it is established indeed from the Acts to be published in the first place that St. Leodegar, some space of time after the killing of Gerinus, which, as we shall see afterwards, took place in the year 676, was carried off to the monastery of Fécamp, and stayed in it for nearly two years before he was crowned with martyrdom, which, as we shall likewise see afterwards, is to be referred to the 2nd of October of the year 678; wherefore the martyrdom of St. Gerinus too will have to be referred to the 2nd of October of the year 676, in which he suffered, if that interval of time which intervenes between his killing and Leodegar's arrival at the monastery of Fécamp, together with the nearly two years during which the latter stayed there, makes up perfectly two whole years, with not even a day lacking or in excess; but since this is uncertain, and can be proved by no reasoning, I also hold it for uncertain whether St. Gerinus was slain on the 2nd day of October of the year 676 or on another, and that although his name is scarcely found inscribed in the sacred Fasti at another day; for it is now commonly known that the Passions, Translations, Elevations and the like of the Saints are announced in the Martyrologies not always on the days on which they happened, but often on others assumed at discretion, so that the martyrdom of St. Gerinus is not to be referred to the 25th of August either, even though, as Chifflet witnesses in the Dissertation on the years of Dagobert, chapter 16, it is read in ancient parchments: The Stoning of blessed Gayrenus is on the eighth day before the Kalends of September. This nevertheless seems to have moved Chastelain to set down the stoning of St. Gerinus at the 25th of August in the Additions and Corrections of his Universal Martyrology, although he had already before referred it to the 2nd of October, which day was chosen for celebrating the memory of St. Gerinus by the martyrologists who first inscribed him in their Fasti after the age of Usuard perhaps for no other reason than that St. Leodegar was already marked on it in the Martyrologies of Ado and Usuard, and they thought it fitting that those two Brothers, who had been unjustly slain by the same Ebroin for the same cause, should also be commemorated on the same day. I proceed now to prove the cult, such as it is, of St. Gerinus.

[6] and he has a cult Baillet at the 2nd of October, from whom the Author of the Lives of the Saints of Autun published in French in the year 1713, and Saussay in the words recited in no. 3, do not dissent, affirms generally indeed that St. Gerinus is publicly honoured by the Church, but assigns no place in particular in which he enjoys ecclesiastical cult. Dom Michel Germain, monk of the Congregation of St. Maur, does so in the History of the convent of St. Mary of Soissons written by him in the year 1675: for in it, where on page 294 he has narrated the death inflicted on Gerinus by Ebroin, he presently subjoins: He (Gerinus) is honoured as a martyr in the church of St. Mary (of Soissons), which possesses his relics. Denis de Sainte-Marthe, in tome 2 of the augmented Gallia Christiana, column 369, treats of Ebreuil, a monastery of the Order of St. Benedict in the diocese of Clermont, which is commonly called the monastery of St. Leodegar, in such a way as sufficiently to indicate that St. Gerinus is also held in the highest honour there; for he says that the sacred pledges of St. Leodegar, together with the relics of St. Gerinus, brother of the same St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, are preserved there in the principal altar, and so are numbered among the sacred relics of the Saints. To these two Benedictine writers is added Fr. Pierre-François Chifflet, priest of our Society, who instructed our Predecessors concerning the cult which St. Gerinus enjoys in the monastery of St. Viventius of Vergy, of the territory of the Aedui or of Autun, situated at the foot of the mount of Vergy, by submitting the following notice: In the monastery of St. Viventius of Vergy, in one casket with the relics of St. Renobert, bishop of Bayeux, and of St. Zeno, his deacon, are preserved certain bones of St. Guerinus, martyr, with this inscription: “Blessed Guerinus, whose sacred bones are here, was brother of blessed Leodegar, martyr. Him, in the time of king Theuderic, Ebroin, who was then mayor of the palace, out of envy, at the devil's instigation, ordered to be killed with stones. When this had been done, by certain nobles

and religious men he was buried on the mount of Vergy beside the walls of the fortress” which then, namely, if indeed it had already been built, was placed on the summit of that mount. “By whose prayers we ask with devout mind to be helped by God; and may we have him, whom on earth we venerate as a patron for the honour of martyrdom, as a loving advocate in the heavens with our Father, who lives and reigns through all ages of ages. Amen.”

[7] The cited Chifflet then adds: In the church of St. Viventius, at the junction of the four corners of the church towards that part which faces the summit of the mount of Vergy, ecclesiastical in divers places, there is the mausoleum of St. Guerinus, marked by a flat monument without inscription, above which, supported by two columns, a stone formed in the shape of a cross rises to a height of about three feet, under which the pilgrims who visit the said church pass, devoutly genuflecting. From all which it is certain that St. Gerinus, if not in more places of Gaul, at least in the three already mentioned, long had an ecclesiastical cult, and most probably still has it today, so that Chastelain without doubt strays from the truth when in the Supplement of his Universal Martyrology he notes in the margin at the announcement of St. Gerinus that that holy Martyr never had a cult either in the place of martyrdom or anywhere else; but this martyrologist perhaps only means that St. Gerinus is not found ever to have been honoured anywhere by the recitation of an ecclesiastical Office composed in his honour, or by the solemnity of an annual festivity, which neither have I ascertained, having also searched the Breviaries in which I suspected that an Office of St. Leodegar, and together with it of his brother Gerinus, had perhaps been inserted; I think, however, that in the same three places mentioned, in the ecclesiastical Office which is recited on the 2nd of October, at least a commemoration of St. Gerinus is prescribed, as also in the monastery of Saint-Maixent, some of whose monks contend that particles of the body of St. Gerinus, equally with that of St. Leodegar, still exist in their keeping, and have venerated Gerinus as a holy martyr from time immemorial; whether the monasteries cited in no. 6 have also done this, let us now investigate.

[8] Chifflet, cited in no. 6, subjoined or premised nothing to the notice sent by him which would commend the antiquity either of the inscription which the bones of St. Gerinus bear, or of the mausoleum which was erected in the church of St. Viventius of Vergy in honour of the same holy Martyr, whose very great antiquity in the monasteries of Vergy so that from Chifflet's notice we have only that St. Gerinus was honoured with ecclesiastical cult in the monastery of Vergy in the preceding century, in which it was transmitted to our Predecessors; but that the cult of St. Gerinus among the monks of Vergy is much more ancient can meanwhile be proved in some measure from the announcement of St. Gerinus subjoined by Domenico Giorgi to the text of Rosweyde's Ado from his more ancient Vatican codex, which we adduced in no. 2, and in which St. Gerinus is probably announced at the fortress of Vergy for this reason, that at the time when that more ancient Vatican codex of Domenico Giorgi was being written St. Gerinus already enjoyed ecclesiastical cult in the monastery of Vergy, unless perhaps someone would have it that in the said Vatican codex St. Gerinus is announced at the fortress of Vergy only for this reason, that his sacred body lay buried for some time on the mount of Vergy not far from the fortress of the same name. That would certainly be most probable if that same Vatican codex had been written before the end of the ninth century, towards which, or even later, the monastery of Vergy was only founded; for thus no other probable reason would be available why St. Gerinus should be announced in it at the fortress of Vergy; but that Vatican codex, which Domenico Giorgi himself does not refer to a certain age, does not seem to be of such antiquity. Certainly the announcement of St. Gerinus which is inserted in it does not belong to Rosweyde's text of Ado, and whether it belongs to the genuine Ado can be doubted even from this, that it is very doubtful whether the fortress of Vergy already existed in the age of Ado. Add that the inscription inserted in no. 6 in Chifflet's notice, since its antiquity is not established, does not make undoubted the burial of St. Gerinus on the mount of Vergy beside the walls of the fortress, and so it is doubtful whether it is for that reason that St. Gerinus is announced at the fortress of Vergy in Giorgi's Vatican codex.

[9] and of Soissons, which is certain at Ebreuil, from the relics, However that may be, since already from the tenth century the greater part of the body of St. Gerinus, as we shall see afterwards, existed in the monastery of Ebreuil, and this was reckoned among the sacred relics of the Saints, it at least does not appear doubtful that St. Gerinus had an ecclesiastical cult in the same monastery from a very long time ago; wherefore it also becomes probable that the same holy Martyr enjoyed the same honour in the monasteries of Vergy and Soissons not one century ago only, since it also comes out probable, as will presently appear, that the sacred relics of St. Gerinus have existed in them for many centuries already. But before I treat this matter at greater length, it is necessary that I here discuss something now about the relics of St. Gerinus, being about to treat below in particular of those of St. Leodegar, so that what has been asserted thus far may stand more firmly. For the cited lord Germain, in the Work cited in no. 6, page 398, asserts that it is affirmed by the monks of Ebreuil in Auvergne that the bodies of SS. Leodegar and Gerinus exist in their church, except the head and one arm of St. Gerinus, given to the monks of Meymac in the diocese of Limoges; but this does not agree rightly enough with what has already been said of the relics of the same holy Martyr existing elsewhere too.

[10] no part of which exists in the monastery of Meymac, I say, therefore, first of all, that it is not proved that the head and one arm of St. Gerinus were ever granted to the monks of Meymac, and that Dom Germain here probably went astray in what he affirms is generally contended by the monks of Ebreuil for this reason, that, when he had read in Mabillon, Century 2 of the Benedictines, page 706, that the monks of Saint-Maixent in the diocese of Poitiers had let go to the monks of Ebreuil the greater part of the relics of St. Leodegar with the body of St. Gerinus, his brother, except the head and hands, which Bernard Gui, bishop of Lodève, in the Treatise on the Saints of the Limousin, no. 40, affirms are venerated with pious devotion at the monastery of Meymac of the Order of St. Benedict, he did not attend sufficiently to those words except the head and hands, in place of which he also substituted except the head and arm, and so, without consulting Bernard Gui himself, he judged that these were to be referred to St. Gerinus, which Mabillon's manner of speaking, as being ambiguous, did not prevent; certainly in the Treatise cited, which the studious reader will find in the New Library published by Philippe Labbe, priest of our Society, tome 1, at page 629, Bernard Gui affirms that the head and hands not of St. Gerinus but of St. Leodegar are honoured with pious devotion in the monastery at Meymac. Here are his words: Of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun and martyr, whom Ebroin, mayor of the royal palace, beheaded and deprived of his eyes, the HANDS and HEAD are venerated with pious devotion in the monastery at Meymac; and since with these he records nothing of St. Gerinus, and yet probably, on account of the affinity of the subject matter, would have recorded it if some relics of his had also existed in the monastery of Meymac with the relics of St. Leodegar, I am persuaded that neither the head nor an arm nor another member of St. Gerinus is possessed by the monks of Meymac, unless perhaps, which is unknown to me, they obtained those sacred remains after the age of the often-cited Bernard Gui.

[11] But although neither the head nor the hands or arm of St. Gerinus exist among the monks of Meymac, immemorial in them, as, there is nevertheless no reason why anyone should therefore think that the entire body of the same holy Martyr, with head, hands and all the other members, is possessed by the monks of Ebreuil. For from what was said in no. 6 it is clear that some relics of St. Gerinus exist in the monasteries of Vergy and Soissons; indeed it is also most probable that already many centuries ago some part of the relics of St. Gerinus was sought and obtained both by the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons, among whom St. Sigrada, of whom we treated at the 4th of August, mother of SS. Leodegar and Gerinus, after her husband's death, her sons being already in the flower of mature age, had embraced the religious life, and by the monks of Vergy, in whose vicinity St. Gerinus, as Chifflet's notice adduced in no. 6 shows, had been buried by noble and religious men; but whence, and at what determined time, is hidden from me by the dearth of old monuments, so that this place can admit only conjectures; and lest anyone should perhaps hold these, which it will not be beside the point to make here, as little apt, some things, which will afterwards be set out more fully for the greater part, are to be noted here beforehand in a few words, for the clearer understanding of what has already been said and is further to be said.

[12] St. Leodegar, unjustly slain by order of Ebroin, mayor of the palace, a few things being premised, became illustrious immediately after his death with so many and such great miracles that their fame, whatever Ebroin strove against it, was spread far and wide through all the provinces of the Franks, and, Ebroin afterwards having been slain, was carried to the court of king Theuderic. Hence it came about that thought was given to translating the sacred body of the most renowned Martyr to a more honoured place, and it was in fact not long after, by order of Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers, as soon as that sacred treasure, which Ermenarius of Autun and Vindicianus of Arras, bishops, were likewise striving to claim for their churches, fell to him by the drawing of lots, translated by abbot Audulf to the monastery of Saint-Maixent situated in the diocese of Poitiers, very many miracles being performed on the journey, and afterwards entombed in a newly built church, in which it rested until about the middle of the ninth century. But then the monks of Saint-Maixent, fleeing hither and thither for fear of the Normans, who were raging with sword and fire through various provinces of Gaul and through the very soil of Poitou, carried those sacred remains first into Armorica or Lesser Brittany, then to Auvergne, afterwards to Auxerre, and finally, a monastery having been built in honour of Leodegar at Ebreuil in Auvergne, left there the greater part of them, and of the body of his brother Gerinus; so that hence it is clear that the body of St. Gerinus, or at least the greater part of it, existed among the monks of Saint-Maixent in the ninth century, as they had most probably been presented with that sacred treasure already from the seventh century, at the time when they were building a new church in honour of St. Leodegar, whose body they had received, to this end, that they might bury with the highest honour the bodies of those two illustrious brothers, namely Leodegar and Gerinus, who had been unjustly slain by Ebroin's command for the same cause, in that same church also, to be newly built; and thus St. Gerinus, whose body (see no. 6) had been interred less honourably on the mount of Vergy, and perhaps, from fear of Ebroin, in a manner secretly, would acquire a tomb visible to all and worthy of a most illustrious Martyr on the soil of Poitou, in which this honour, as being, while he lived, count of Poitiers, by right

of his own he seemed to reclaim.

[13] it is conjectured, becomes at least probable from the possession. These things having been noted beforehand, someone will think, not ineptly, as I think, that it is conjectured that the Nuns of St. Mary of Soissons, very much roused both by the fame spread far and wide, by which they heard SS. Leodegar and his brother Gerinus everywhere proclaimed by all as glorious martyrs of Christ, and by the innumerable miracles which had happened on the journey while the body of the former was being translated to the soil of Poitou, most urgently asked of the monks of Saint-Maixent, impatient of longer delay, that the sacred bodies of those holy Brothers, whose mother Sigrada had led the religious life among them, and perhaps was even then leading it, should be in part communicated to them, already at the time when they had first been brought to the monastery of St. Maxentius and had not yet been carried into the new church, and obtained what they asked. And as regards now the relics of St. Gerinus existing in the monastery of Vergy, no one either, as I think, will hold it an inept conjecture that the monks of Vergy, towards the end of the ninth century or the beginning of the following, vehemently desirous of enriching their monastery, which was then first founded, with sacred remains of Saints, as was customary for monks building churches, especially set their mind on acquiring at least some bones of the body of St. Gerinus, which they had learned, either on the faith of old monuments or certainly from popular tradition, had once lain interred on the mount of their monastery, and to this end pressed very much upon the monks of Saint-Maixent, who were then in exile from their native land, whence they had carried away with them the bodies of St. Gerinus and other Saints, not so far from the monastery of Vergy, namely in the district of Auxerre or in the vicinity, for fear of the Normans, and were made to obtain their wish from them. It has pleased me to bring forward these uncertain things, since I have not been able to ascertain anything more certain about the manner and time in which the relics of St. Gerinus came to the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons and to the monks of Vergy; and if that could in any way be ascertained, it would be a most certain argument of the immemorial cult of St. Gerinus in both those monasteries; but now, since it cannot be ascertained, this cult comes out at least probable from what has been said, indeed I hold it as most probable, since even apart from what has already been said it seems not to be doubted that the monks and nuns just mentioned possessed relics of St. Gerinus from a very long time ago.

[14] However, I have more than once distinguished St. Gerinus with the title of Count at the head of this Commentary and in this very §; Whether the title of Count befits St. Gerinus but whether this truly belongs to St. Gerinus I was made to doubt by the contemporary biographers of SS. Leodegar and Gerinus, of whom there will be sufficiently full treatment below, and who nowhere call St. Gerinus count. To them were added Le Cointe in the Annals, Pagi in the Critica, and many others, who, when they name St. Gerinus, always abstain from the title of Count. That doubt, nevertheless, was in some measure removed for me by some more recent as well as older writers, who, when they treat of St. Gerinus, distinguish him with the title of count: the more recent are Denis de Sainte-Marthe, tome 2 of the augmented Gallia Christiana, columns 1152 and 1153, Longueval, tome 4 of the History of the Gallican church, page 113, Chastelain in the Supplement to his universal Martyrology, and many others whom it is not necessary to review here; and of the older, two chiefly occur, namely the uncertain writer of the historical Fragment prefixed by Wurstisen to the Chronicle of Albert of Strasbourg and reprinted by Duchesne in tome 1 of the writers of France, page 782, and the anonymous author of the History of the monastery of Novientum inserted by Martène in tome 3 of the Anecdota, which two writers, although they flourished at least four centuries after the age of St. Gerinus, could nevertheless, which the historian of Novientum seems to Martène in the preliminary admonition actually to have done, use the compositions of older writers in putting their Work together, and learn certainly from them the title of count of Poitiers, which the former, in Duchesne, cited, page 783, and the latter, in Martène, tome cited, column 1129, attributes to St. Gerinus.

[15] To these two last writers can be added Henri-Louis Chasteigner de la Rocheposay, befits him, and what it signifies here. bishop of Poitiers, who flourished in the first fifty years of the past century, and who, in tome 2 of Labbe's New Library of Manuscripts, page 730, in the notes to the Litanies of Poitou composed by him, calls Gerinus, brother of St. Leodegar, count of the Pictones; and the anonymous author who, in the Life of St. Babolenus, abbot of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, which he consigned to writing, and which Duchesne then inserted in tome 1 of the Writers of the History of the Franks from page 658, asserts that there exists a letter by which all things which had been said or written before concerning the monastery of Fossés are confirmed, and which Clothar, son of Clovis, at the prayers of his mother Baldechild, in the first year of his reign, conferred on the holy father Babolenus, in the presence of Gerinus the count; this assertion of the cited anonymous writer Le Cointe and Mabillon, although they review and pluck at his errors with the most rigid criticism, the latter in Century 2 of the Benedictines, the former in tome 3 of the Annals, do not hold as erroneous or fictitious, so that it does not appear why it should be held suspect of falsity, and therefore it does not a little serve to vindicate more certainly the title of count to St. Gerinus, if by Gerinus the count, in whose presence the said letter is asserted to have been conferred, St. Gerinus, brother of St. Leodegar, is to be understood. And that I altogether think for this reason, that, when Clothar, son of Clovis and of Baldechild or Bathild, was reigning in Francia in his first year, which coincides with the year of Christ 656, St. Gerinus, as having been crowned with martyrdom in the year 676, as we shall see below, most probably flourished, and the historians of the Franks mention no other count named Gerinus who could have been among the living at that time, and therefore it seems scarcely to be doubted that the anonymous biographer of St. Babolenus indicates St. Gerinus, and that the latter was truly count, that is, judge or prefect, of the city of Poitiers and the adjacent territory; for the prefects of the greater cities and provinces were in that age wont to be called their counts, as may be seen in Du Cange in the Glossary of Middle and Low Latinity at the words comes and comites, and can be demonstrated by various examples of ancient charters.

§ II. The memory of St. Leodegar in the older and more recent sacred Fasti, various Lives, and from them two to be published.

St. Leodegar, who in almost all St. Leodegar is inscribed in so many sacred Fasti, both older and more recent, that he yields the palm in this matter only to very few Saints. Among the older ones who have set down St. Leodegar in their Fasti, which we distinguish by the name of the classical Martyrologies, the first place is held by Florus, if indeed he is the true Florus, published by our Predecessors before tome 2 of March; he announces St. Leodegar at the 2nd of October in this manner: In Gaul the passion of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, who by order of Ebroin (who, formerly a monk, was then mayor of the palace) is deprived of his eyes and tongue, but is not taken away by hunger; and afterwards, butchered * by great want, at last, receiving the sword, he is punished with the loss of his head. To Florus are added Wandalbert and Rabanus, of whom the former sings of St. Leodegar alone today thus:

Presently Leodegar adorns the sixth day of the Nones, Whom, mighty through sedition, the leader and the people slew.

The latter, however, at this day does indeed refer a St. Leodegar, bishop, but distinguishes him with the title of Confessor, and altogether distinguishes him from Leutgar or Leodegar, bishop of Autun, whose passion he celebrates a little more fully on the following day; in which matter he seems to go vehemently astray.

[17] in the Classical Martyrologies, Next to these two martyrologists are Ado, Usuard and Notker: Ado announces Leodegar in these words: At Arras *, in the estate of Sarcing, the passion of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, whom Ebroin, mayor of the royal palace, slew after he had been afflicted with various injuries and divers punishments for the truth. Whose sacred body, translated into the diocese of the Pictavi, was honourably interred in the monastery of blessed Maxentius. Usuard transferred this whole announcement of Ado into his Martyrology except its last member, concerning the translation of the Saint, and some words placed at the beginning by which he is ascribed to the estate or village of Sarcing in the territory of Arras, and for which he rightly substituted these, in the territory of Adartum; for since St. Leodegar did not suffer in the estate or village of Sarcing, but did suffer in the territory of Arras, which, as Valois witnesses in the Notitia of the Gauls, is here called Adartense by Usuard, his passion is less rightly marked in the estate or village of Sarcing, where he was only buried, and rightly in the territory of Adartum or of Arras, where is situated the forest today called of St. Leodegar, in which the Saint, as we shall see afterwards, consummated his martyrdom or passion. Notker, who also inscribed St. Leodegar at this day in his Martyrology, following the example of Ado, less rightly places the passion of our Saint in the estate of Syrricinium, and besides wrongly copied in Atratis in place of in Atrebatis.

[18] Besides the classical Martyrologies already mentioned there remain yet three others, the most ancient of all, in the very Hieronymian codices namely the Hieronymian, the old or little Roman, and that which our Predecessors prefixed to tome 2 of March under the name of Bede. The two latter indeed most certainly do not mention St. Leodegar; but as regards the first, our Sollerius in his Usuard also doubts whether St. Leodegar belongs to the Hieronymian codices or the Martyrology of that name; but, to confess the truth, I do not sufficiently follow the cause of doubting on this matter which he had; for Sollerius did not understand by Hieronymian codices the simple and bare Hieronymian codices, purged of all additions later at least than the age of Gregory the Great, since it is altogether certain that Leodegar does not belong to Hieronymian codices of this kind, as one who, as will be plain from what is to be said, did not see the light until after Gregory the Great, who died about the beginning of the seventh century; Sollerius therefore understood the Hieronymian codices variously augmented or contracted after the age of the same Gregory the Great; but although in the greater codex of this kind of Antwerp or Echternach, written about the beginning of the eighth century, Leodegar does not appear, he does appear, although in a distinct character, so that he is held only for a Hieronymian auctarium of a later age, in the greater codex of Lucca in Florentinius, as also in d'Achery, tome 4 of the Spicilegium, in the greater Corbie codex and in many contracted Hieronymian codices, namely, to review a few out of many, in those of Auxerre, Murbach and Tours inserted by Martène in tome 3 of the Anecdota, indeed in the very shorter Corbie codex in the same Martène, tome cited, concerning which, however, Sollerius himself pronounces in his Preface to Usuard, page IX, no. 31, that it appears that all the things that occur in it were taken from some Hieronymian codex; so that it ought not to be strange that I do not sufficiently follow the reason for doubting which Sollerius here had, and that St. Leodegar most probably belongs also to the Hieronymian codices, whether augmented or contracted; from which it follows that all the classical martyrologists, if you except Bede and the author of the little Roman, St.

Leodegar commemorate in the sacred Fasti composed by them.

[19] Nor with less consensus do the writers of a later age celebrate St. Leodegar in their Martyrologies or sacred Fasti. and in the sacred Fasti of a later age he is commemorated today, In the Franco-Gallic Hagiologium which Labbe published he is announced in exactly the same words as in Usuard. In the Calendar of Corbie in Martène, of about 800 years, these things are marked in the month of October: VI, of the Nones. At Arras … the passion of St. Leodegar: in the Martyrology of the German church, which came out at Augsburg in the year 1687, written seven hundred years before: VI of the Nones. Of St. Laudegar, bishop and martyr: in the Calendar which Martène, in whom it is extant, affirms was dug out of a manuscript of Lyre elegantly written 600 years before: VI of the Nones, of St. Leodegar: in the manuscript Calendar of Utrecht, which is noted as written in the year 1374: VI of the Nones, of Leodegar, bishop and martyr: and in the Roman Calendar of Génébrard of the 16th century: 2. Of Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui, m. Finally in the Martyrology of Fulda and in many Calendars published by Domenico Giorgi, as also in almost all the sacred Fasti of the past and present century, St. Leodegar is commemorated, and that in some with a rather lengthy elogium, in reviewing which it is not necessary to waste time here, since they supply nothing singular which does not shine out more clearly from the Acts to be published, of whose credibility and authority it is now fitting to treat before all else; I therefore pass over, with the other more recent ones, part of whom I have already named in no. 3, also Bucelin, Ménard and other hagiologists of the Order of St. Benedict, who likewise inscribe St. Leodegar in the catalogue of their Saints (whether rightly, will be discussed below), and I add here also only the announcement of the present-day Roman, which agrees almost word for word with the Usuardine, except that it names the territory in which St. Leodegar underwent martyrdom not Adartense but, by a word now better known, that of Arras. Here it is: In the territory of Arras the passion of blessed Leodegar, bishop of Autun, whom Ebroin, mayor of the royal palace of Theuderic, slew after he had been afflicted with various injuries and divers punishments for the truth.

[20] three lives are extant, and among these two more ancient; Three principal Lives of St. Leodegar, in each of which the martyrdom of St. Gerinus, brother of the same holy Prelate, is also inserted, are in circulation, written by three different authors; the two more ancient, which will be of use to us especially in this Commentary, and of which an anonymous author wrote one and Ursinus the other, André Duchesne first published in tome 1 of the History of the Franks, the former indeed from a manuscript codex of Jacques Sirmond, the latter, as deservedly seemed to our Predecessors, from an interpolation of almost Surian kind; Mabillon then, in Century 2 of the Benedictines, saw to the reprinting of both those compositions, the first again checked against Duchesne's copy, the other emended in some places against the manuscript codices of the monasteries of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and Saint-Corneille of Compiègne. Bouquet repeated this edition of Mabillon in tome 2 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, and followed its author exactly in all things.

[21] one of these was written by an anonymous contemporary author, The anonymous author, whose Work is printed in the first place in the already cited Duchesne, Mabillon and Bouquet, was beyond all doubt contemporary with St. Leodegar; for since he inscribed his composition to Ermenarius, the immediate successor in the see of Autun of Leodegar, crowned with martyrdom in the year 678, as we shall prove below, to whom before the year 692, as becomes plain from tome 2 of the augmented Gallia Christiana in the catalogue of the bishops of Autun, another had already succeeded in the same see, it follows that he composed it before the said year 692; indeed it appears to me scarcely doubtful that he took down the deeds of St. Leodegar with his pen only one, or at the most two, years after the translation of the Saint from the place of martyrdom to the monastery of St. Maxentius, made, as we shall prove afterwards, in the year 681, before which, since he records it, he without doubt did not write. For since, as he confesses in the Prologue, he undertook that composition at the command of Ermenarius, bishop of Autun, at the request of his spiritual brethren, and, as he says in no. 61, with Ermenana, abbess of Cahors, urging him impatiently among the rest, and since they most probably not long after the said translation, roused by the recent fame and memory of the very many miracles which had happened in it, most urgently demanded of our anonymous author that the deeds of the holy Martyr be consigned to writing, it is not probable to me that he wove delays of a year or more before he complied with the wish of Ermenarius his bishop, of the abbess Ermenana, and of his spiritual brethren; so that I readily accede to the opinion of the writers of the Literary History of France, who in tome 3, page 629, disapprove of the composition of our anonymous author being put off by certain more recent writers as far as the year 687.

[22] But I cannot embrace the opinions of the same writers in the same way not, however, as certain also, however when they indicate that our anonymous author, in which matter they had Mabillon lighting the way for them, was a monk of Autun, and indeed of St. Symphorian. For although he reveals himself a monk both in no. 42, when he calls Winebert, otherwise Winobert, abbot, one of his brethren, and elsewhere too, and indeed of Autun, that is, from the city or diocese of Autun, when in the prologue he indicates that he sets his hand to the Work at the command of Ermenarius, bishop of Autun, he nevertheless suggests nothing from which he must certainly be reckoned among the monks of St. Symphorian of Autun. Further, Mabillon, in the Preliminary Observations to the Life of St. Leodegar, asserts that our anonymous author was also an eyewitness in many things, and thinks this is proved both from these words of the very anonymous author to be published, no. 35: Which he who could hear or see believed to be true, by which, as he affirms, he sufficiently intimates that he heard from the mouth of Ebroin that Leodegar, as he had just narrated, was to be consumed by the want of hunger; and from these words of the same anonymous author published by him, chapter 13, towards the end: His (Leodegar's) lips began, against nature, to grow again more quickly, likewise together with the tongue, and I also saw words flow from his mouth beyond the usual. But besides the fact that nothing is available from which it becomes in any way probable that our anonymous author was present with Ebroin, so that from him he could hear that Leodegar was to be consumed by the want of hunger, the words cited in the first place immediately follow Ebroin's unjust sentence against Leodegar, and presently, nothing else interposed, have these subjoined to them: But He who fed Elijah by a raven in the wilderness *, did not desert His Servant there either; so that they probably signify, not that those who had heard it from Ebroin believed Leodegar would be consumed by the want of hunger, but perhaps nothing else than that those who could hear or see how cruelly Leodegar was tortured by the want of hunger (for no one could have perceived by sight the savage command of Ebroin uttered by mouth alone) believed that the holy Prelate would in fact perish by the want of hunger.

[23] Perhaps also they imply nothing else than that those Mabillon contends that he proves it, who could see or hear that the tomb had been built in which Leodegar was said to have been buried believed this to be true; for with those words the anonymous author, who is at times very obscure, had immediately premised these: He (Ebroin) orders him (Leodegar) to be thrust away into the secret places of the woods, and ordered a lying fable to be contrived about his death, as though slain in the waters, and also a tomb of his burial to be set up *, until the want of long hunger should consume him; which perhaps have this sense: Ebroin orders Leodegar to be thrust away into the hidden places of the woods until the want of hunger should consume him, and a lying fable to be contrived about his death, as of one slain in the waters, and a tomb to be set up in which he should be said to have been buried. In whichever way the words which he who could hear etc. are taken, Mabillon can certainly elicit nothing from them for his opinion, and otherwise will never elicit it even for this reason, that no reason can be adduced why our anonymous author should deservedly seem to that author, in the Century of the Benedictines cited, page 689, in the Annotations, to designate himself by the same words in the manner in which St. John in the Gospel, chapter 14, designates himself by these: And he who saw has borne witness. As regards now these words, began more quickly etc., adduced above in the second place, the word vidi I saw, from which also the cited Mabillon attributes to the anonymous author the name of eyewitness, is read only in him, in Duchesne, and in our manuscript, which is noted as transcribed from the manuscript of St. Salvator of Utrecht; in all the others it is absent; and nothing is available from which anyone may define with certainty whether Mabillon's reading is to be admitted as genuine, or rather rejected as spurious. Certainly, whether the word vidi is present or absent, no inconvenience arises: for if it is present, it does not harm the sense, and if it is absent, it is not required for the sense to come out full; nevertheless someone could perhaps suspect even from this that that word is redundant, and that the reading in which it is absent is genuine.

[24] an eyewitness in many things; However that may be, the reasons brought forward by Mabillon, as is clear from what has been said, are certainly not such as to vindicate with certainty to our anonymous author the title of eyewitness; but very many things, especially of those which Leodegar, already created bishop, either did or suffered at Autun, he sets forth with such accuracy and with such circumstances, and affirms so assertively, that I am persuaded that he either saw these at least with his own eyes, or certainly heard them from eyewitnesses worthy of all credit, and that the more firmly because this author, having narrated the tearing out of the eyes which Leodegar suffered from his enemies, presently subjoins: For there are as witnesses many illustrious men who were present; from which words, since he says in the present tense for there are as witnesses many illustrious men, he seems to intimate clearly enough that those illustrious men were still surviving among the living when he wrote, and that he had learned from them the tearing out of the eyes most patiently endured by Leodegar, and the circumstances accompanying it at which they had been present.

[25] the other Ursinus, a writer likewise contemporary; Ursinus, who wrote the other Life of St. Leodegar, and whom the writers of the Literary History of France, tome 3, pages 631 and 654, suspect to have been prior or perhaps even abbot of the monastery of Ligugé near Poitiers, was in turn contemporary with Leodegar; for he, as he indicates in the Prologue, composed the Life of our Saint at the command of Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers, and at the most urgent prayers of Audulf, abbot of the monastery of St. Maxentius, of whom the former, as our anonymous author and Ursinus write, was the author of translating the body of St. Leodegar to the soil of Poitou, and the latter translated it about the year 681. Wherefore from the things we have discussed in no. 21 concerning the anonymous author, everyone will without difficulty gather that the cited Ursinus, as we assert, was contemporary with Leodegar, so that it is not necessary to set up the same or a similar reasoning here again. The composition of this author, as also that of the said anonymous author, comprises two parts; the first sets forth the Life or Passion of the Saint, the latter narrates the translation to the district of Poitou and the miracles wrought in it and at the Saint's tomb. These are altogether the same

as those which are related by the anonymous author, and that indeed in almost the same words, which nevertheless ought to seem strange to no one; for this without any doubt came about from this, that each of these biographers here transcribed only that composition in which abbot Audulf, just cited, as is understood from no. 61 of the anonymous author, comprised with the highest fidelity the miracles accompanying the translation of St. Leodegar, which he had seen with his own eyes, and which Ursinus had without doubt obtained from Audulf himself when he was writing the deeds of the Saint at his request; while the former, as he openly intimates in no. 61, had received it either from Audulf himself too, or certainly by the sending of Ermenana, abbess of Cahors.

[26] As regards the first part of the compositions which Ursinus and the anonymous author prepared, neither probably lighted the way for the other; and although in this the anonymous author narrates some things one way, Ursinus another; some things too, which as to substance are altogether the same, they likewise set forth in almost the same words. Hence it comes about that a twofold question arises here; the first, whether Ursinus lighted the way for the anonymous author, or rather the latter for Ursinus; the other, whether the authority of the anonymous author or of Ursinus ought to be held weightier in the things in which they disagree. I take my beginning from the former. Ursinus, equally with the anonymous author, as has already been said, most probably had before his eyes the said composition of abbot Audulf, and from it inserted into his Work the miracles wrought in the translation of the Saint; the former nevertheless nowhere intimates this even by a word, while the latter declares it most openly in no. 61, so that it is probable to me that he would also have advised the reader if he had had the composition of Ursinus before his eyes and had employed it to weave his Work; wherefore, since he does not do so, it is scarcely doubtful to me that he committed the deeds of St. Leodegar to writing without the help of Ursinus's composition. But, you will say, did the anonymous author then undoubtedly light the way for Ursinus? Valois indeed, tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, book 21, page 266, affirms without hesitation that the latter, not at all named, is sometimes transcribed word for word by Ursinus; but the writers of the Literary History of France, tome 3, page 630, only suspect this very thing, and think that it is by no means to be held as undoubted, since they also intimate in the place cited that the Work of Ursinus perhaps saw the light before that of the anonymous author. Wherefore their opinion comes nearer to mine than that of Valois; for I think that that frequent agreement of Ursinus with the anonymous author in the things he narrates, even to the words, does not arise from this, that the one often transcribes the other, but from this, that the composition of abbot Audulf, already cited more than once, which lighted the way for both those writers, and which they transcribed, with some change made or not made now and then at their discretion, comprised, at least in part, not only the miracles wrought in the translation of St. Leodegar, but also, among some other things, the atrocious injuries and most savage torments by which St. Leodegar was killed by Ebroin and his followers; for besides the fact that that frequent agreement of the anonymous author with Ursinus, even to the words, begins, as will be plain to one who considers it, only there where the Ebroinian persecution against Leodegar begins to be narrated, in the last two numbers of the Life some things are related which certainly do not at all belong to the class of the miracles which happened in the Saint's translation, and which nevertheless it appears to me probable enough that Audulf himself, who was abbot in the monastery of St. Maxentius, also inserted into his composition or account, from the church built in the same place in honour of the holy Martyr and the other circumstances which are narrated in the two numbers cited.

[27] There remains now the other question to be discussed; namely to whose authority, whether the anonymous author's or Ursinus's, more is to be attributed in the things in which they disagree. Valois, in tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, where on page 262 he asserted that he had followed without hesitation the authority and credibility of the anonymous author, Ursinus is generally put after the anonymous author by some; on page 266 pronounces thus of Ursinus: Ursinus … as often as he disagrees with the writer (namely the anonymous author) of the Life of Leodegar, whom, not at all named, he sometimes transcribes word for word, for the most part follows uncertain accounts, and himself confesses that he is ignorant of some things concerning Blessed Leodegar, namely when, as Valois most probably means, he says in the Prologue: But if I have passed over anything of his (Leodegar's) virtues, I did not do so studiously, but rather passed it over, omitting it through ignorance. With Valois, in so far as he prefers the anonymous author to Ursinus, Le Cointe and Pagi agree; the latter indeed when he writes thus in the Critica, tome 3, at the year of Christ 668, no. 10: He (Ursinus) sometimes disagrees, sometimes agrees even to the words with the anonymous author, who seems deservedly to be preferred by Adrien de Valois; and the former, when in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 670, no. 3, having taunted Ursinus for passing over in silence the first principality of Theuderic III, king of the Franks, in Neustria and Burgundy immediately after the death of Clothar III, which was of a few months, he subjoins these things: There are also certain other things to be corrected in Ursinus, who will never be of such authority with sound judges as the anonymous author praised above; so that it appears that those three writers prefer the anonymous author to Ursinus generally in all things, and that indeed by a very long way.

[28] the latter, however, in the affairs of Poitiers; the former in those of Autun But I do not think the anonymous author is to be preferred to Ursinus so generally everywhere; for here must be distinguished the things which St. Leodegar did while at Poitiers and not yet created bishop, from those which, already raised to the episcopate, he chiefly did or suffered at Autun. In the account of the latter the authority of the anonymous author, as will become plain from what is to be said, ought to be held weightier, but in the narrative of the former, in which the abbatial charge in the monastery of St. Maxentius, of the diocese of Poitiers, committed to St. Leodegar by Dido, his maternal uncle, bishop of the people of Poitiers, and his summoning to the court by St. Bathild the queen and her son Clothar III, and some other things which the anonymous author omits, are most accurately narrated, Ursinus, who attaches notes of time to the things he relates more frequently than the anonymous author, and indeed rightly too, beyond all doubt deserves the highest credibility and authority, both from this, that he himself, as is clear from what was said in no. 25, was of the diocese of Poitiers, and therefore most probably learned the things done by Leodegar in it, as he intimates in the Prologue, at least from the faithful account of many who had been present at them (for he does not seem to have been an eyewitness of them himself), and from this, that he dedicated the Life of St. Leodegar, composed by him at the request of abbot Audulf, to bishop Ansoald, which two men, since the one was the immediate successor of St. Leodegar in the abbatial charge of St. Maxentius, the other of Dido in the see of Poitiers, and this last was joined to Leodegar by kinship, as is drawn out of no. 58 of the anonymous author, could have had well examined the affairs of this holy Prelate at Poitiers, or those which he did at Poitiers before his episcopate, and could have instructed Ursinus about them, if at any time he had strayed from the truth in them.

[29] partly on account of Ermenarius, to whom he inscribed his Work In the Life of St. Emmeram, bishop and martyr, published by us at the 22nd day of September, in no. 32 of the Preliminary Commentary, it is said indefinitely that Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers, could have had the affairs of St. Leodegar well examined; that is certainly not doubtful to me; but the sound and exact knowledge of the affairs of St. Leodegar which this prelate had in act and in fact I think is to be extended not to the affairs of Autun, but almost solely to those of Poitiers, which nevertheless could also have helped towards the knowledge of the decade to which Ursinus limits Leodegar's episcopate at Autun before the death of Clothar III; for since in the narrative of the things which Leodegar, already bishop, chiefly did or suffered at Autun, Ursinus sometimes conflicts with the anonymous author, it follows that one or the other now and then strayed from the truth; further, since the anonymous author inscribed his Work to Ermenarius, who, because, from abbot of the monastery of St. Symphorian of Autun, he was the immediate successor of St. Leodegar in the episcopate, could likewise have had well examined the affairs of his immediate Predecessor done in the same episcopate, and could have admonished the anonymous author about them if at any time he had strayed from the truth in them, it further follows that one or the other bishop, namely Ansoald of Poitiers, to whom Ursinus inscribed his composition, or Ermenarius of Autun, to whom the anonymous author inscribed his, did not have the affairs of Leodegar done at Autun well examined, or was unwilling to admonish the writer of the composition inscribed to him when he deviated from the truth. Wherefore, since this last appears less probable, it remains that either Ansoald or Ermenarius did not have the Saint's affairs at Autun well examined; and this must be said of Ansoald; for it cannot be said of Ermenarius for this reason, that he most probably either saw with his own eyes, or heard from eyewitnesses, whatever Leodegar did at Autun, which I now clearly show in this manner.

[30] The things which Leodegar either did or suffered at Autun either followed or preceded inscribed, partly of itself deserves the weightier credit. the exile with which he was punished by king Childeric; those which followed the exile are set forth by the anonymous author from no. 28 to 34, as also by Ursinus, although a little differently, in nos. XI, 12 and 13; these things Ermenarius, if he did not see them, most probably took pains to learn from eyewitnesses, and in fact learned them, since they utterly cast down Leodegar, to whose episcopate he immediately succeeded, and most wretchedly afflicted Autun, the troubles of which city ought to have touched Ermenarius not a little, since king Childeric, as is understood from the anonymous author, no. 19, banishing Leodegar, had commended it to him at the people's request: those which preceded the exile are related partly by the anonymous author and Ursinus, partly by the anonymous author alone. That Ermenarius either saw with his own eyes, or heard from eyewitnesses, the former, which are narrated by Ursinus equally with the anonymous author, and which happened when Childeric was at Autun, whither he had been invited by Leodegar, to celebrate the Paschal solemnity, is probable to me from this, that he was then, as the anonymous author teaches in no. 19, discharging the office of abbot in the monastery of St. Symphorian of Autun, and without doubt was not absent from it when the Paschal festivity was at hand and the king present; the latter, which are narrated by the anonymous author alone, and which chiefly regard the church enriched by St. Leodegar with various ornaments, the sacred relics of St. Symphorian the martyr honourably translated, and the walls of the city restored, Ermenarius without doubt, being then already abbot of the monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, saw done by Leodegar, his immediate predecessor, or most certainly learned from witnesses worthy of credit that they had been done by him; so that it is now clear that Ermenarius either saw with his own eyes, or heard from eyewitnesses, all that Leodegar did or suffered at Autun, and therefore had them well examined, or certainly better than Ansoald, who was staying at Poitiers far from Leodegar. Wherefore, since the anonymous biographer of St. Leodegar inscribed his composition to Ermenarius, who could have admonished him, and probably would have admonished him, wherever in the Saint's affairs at Autun he had deviated from the truth,

and was besides himself a monk either at Autun or certainly in the diocese of the same name, he undoubtedly deserves weightier credit than Ursinus, who lived far from there in the diocese of Poitiers, when they disagree with each other in narrating the things which St. Leodegar did at Autun.

[31] a third, less ancient, was written by another anonymous author, The third of the principal Lives of St. Leodegar, which exists with us in manuscript, was written by another anonymous author; he divides it into two books, and right at the beginning reveals himself a monk, when he indicates in the Prologue that he writes at the command of a certain father or abbot whom he cannot but obey; and indeed a monk of Murbach, when he names the monks to whom he writes now dearest Brothers, now venerable Fathers, and at the beginning of book 2 intimates that these were Alemanni, who said that the head of the holy Martyr was in their keeping; and this, among the Alemannic monks, as we shall see below, the monks of Murbach contend, so that it does not appear doubtful that these are here designated. He seems to have written only one century, or a little later, after Leodegar; for he intimates that it was very well known in his age that many illustrious men or princes who then held dominion in the kingdom of the Franks were parents or blood-relations of St. Leodegar. He divides his Work, as I have already indicated, into two books; in the latter, which is entitled Of the miracles of St. Leodegar, he has this: Omitting therefore the wearisome multiplicity, we shall say a few things of those miracles which we have read were done in the parts of Aquitaine, where the body of the holy Martyr is venerated with the highest veneration. We shall say a few things also of those which we saw while we were staying in Gaul; for Gaul rejoices, illumined by the venerable eyes of the holy Martyr; afterwards we have to narrate those things which we learned by seeing in the borders of Alemannia, where you, holy Fathers, venerate with worthy praises the glorious head of the renowned Soldier.

[32] which supplies scarcely anything besides Ursinus, He therefore promises three heads of miracles, namely the Aquitanian, the Gallic and the Alemannic; but our copy, which is noted as taken from the manuscript of the monastery of La Charité, having narrated only the Aquitanian ones, leaves its reader destitute, with which fault the Legendary of Feuillants cited by Mabillon, Century 2 of the Benedictines, page 679, also laboured, and those are altogether the same as are narrated by Ursinus and the anonymous author of whom above. In the former book he exhibits only the Life written by Ursinus, but interpolates it variously; for he carefully omits all those things by which Ursinus can in any way seem either to compare Leodegar with Ebroin or to make him equal; it greatly offended, namely, as he says, the father or abbot at whose command he writes, that that ancient writer of the same Passion (of St. Leodegar) (Ursinus namely, for he does not seem to have had another before his eyes) had not hesitated unjustly and without the tempering of discretion to make Blessed Leodegar and his wicked persecutor Hebroin equal in many places. Besides, he now and then inserts into the text of Ursinus conversations fabricated by himself at his discretion, and apart from these, and a few things at the beginning of books 1 and 2, he has almost nothing singular which is not read in Ursinus.

[33] Wherefore, since not even in book 2, as we have already intimated, does he supply a fuller knowledge of the Miracles of St. Leodegar than Ursinus or our older anonymous author, and therefore, this and two other shorter Lives being omitted, we do not judge that this author should be published in print, as neither did Mabillon judge that he should be published; nevertheless, on account especially of the things which he has at the beginning of books 1 and 2, we shall now and then cite him in this Preliminary Commentary, and that chiefly where there will be discussion of the illustrious lineage of the holy Martyr and of his celebrated cult. Further, besides the three Lives of St. Leodegar already mentioned, there exist with us besides two others; one namely inscribed in the manuscript History of the Saints of Namur, the other transmitted here from Toulouse in the year 1643 by Fr. Pierre Poussines, priest of our Society, from the manuscript of Moissac, with some other shorter Lives of Saints: but each hands down in summary almost only those things which are set forth more fully by the anonymous authors and Ursinus of whom above, so that it would not have been worth the trouble to print either. Mabillon, in the Analecta, page 20 of the more recent edition, also assigns a metrical Life of St. Leodegar written in a codex of Saint-Gall eight hundred years before: The Life, he says, of St. Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui, exists in a codex of Saint-Gall written eight hundred years ago in metre in two books, of which one comprises the Life, the other the Miracles. The Prologue begins thus:

Many songs shine, completed with flourishing zeal.

But I have not been able to find that metrical Life either in our printed volumes or in the manuscript codices and copies, however much diligence was applied, and I doubt whether, if found, it would have contributed much to illustrating the Acts of St. Leodegar; for perhaps it is only the very composition of the older anonymous author or of Ursinus rendered into verse.

[34] Only the two older Lives of St. Leodegar, therefore, of which one was written by the anonymous author, we shall publish only the two older ones. the other by Ursinus, we shall subjoin to this Preliminary Commentary; the former indeed from the codex marked PMS. 16, which we have collated with the manuscript Copy which is noted as collated with the manuscript of Cornelius Duyn, as also with the editions of Duchesne and Mabillon, with the manuscript of Brogne, that of St. Salvator of Utrecht, and the other of Brogne, from which, collated also with the two penultimate manuscripts and the two editions just named, we have transcribed for the most part the death of St. Leodegar and the circumstances immediately preceding and following it, because they were absent from the codex and the first manuscript copy; the latter, that we may discharge the promise given by our Predecessors in tome 1 of February, page 222, no. 86, from four most excellent manuscripts, namely from the codex which is marked Q Ms. 5, and which seems to have been written in the thirteenth century, from another codex of equal antiquity marked P Ms. 159, and two manuscript copies, of which one is noted as excerpted from the manuscript of St. Maximin at Trier, collated with the manuscripts of the church of Saint-Omer, of Bonnefontaine and of the monastery of Marchiennes, the other from the manuscript of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon and the codex of Remiremont collated with each other. Those four manuscripts we have collated among themselves, and besides with Mabillon's edition, which first came out in the year 1669, and with the manuscript of Deutz, which we acquired only in the year 1748, and which therefore, as also Mabillon's edition, could not light the way for our Predecessors when they published tome 1 of February in the year 1658. Moreover, we shall elucidate each of the Lives already mentioned with due Annotations where this has not been sufficiently done in the Commentary, and we shall insert in them now and then variant readings which have not already been noted before in the margin of the Life to be published, and which nevertheless are more notable.

* cruciatus tortured

* that is, in the district of Arras,

* others eremo wilderness

* others necati of one slain

* others confingi to be contrived

* others constitui to be set up

§ III. The illustrious Lineage of the Saints is set out.

Although from the biographers of St. Leodegar his lineage is not rightly known, The glorious and illustrious Leodegar was nobly sprung from earthly nobility, says the contemporary anonymous author, whose words and those of others pertaining to the excellence of his race are also to be applied to Gerinus, his own brother, as there is no need for me to advise. Blessed Leodegar was sprung from a lofty and most noble stock of the Franks, says Ursinus, and each, suppressing the names of his forebears, presently indicates that Dido, bishop of Poitiers, was his maternal uncle. Other ancient writers everywhere testify this same thing when they begin a discussion of Dido; but since they add nothing besides concerning the stock of Dido himself, we shall dispense with their testimonies, as not conducing to the present purpose. The third biographer of St. Leodegar, whom we shall henceforth mostly distinguish by the title of the Anonymous of Murbach, discourses thus towards the beginning of book 1: For him (Leodegar) most illustrious parents of no mean power among the princes of the Franks begot: of whose nobility, since many of the same lineage still rule in the glorious kingdom of Francia, there has been no need to say more here. For in them, if anyone desires, he can learn by experience with how noble a birth the blessed Man of whom we speak shone forth. All these things excite a lofty thought of the most illustrious family of the Saints, but only a general and indefinite one; since not even the latter writer signifies by a word in what parts of the kingdom of the Franks, by what titles, or by what authority they were ruling while he himself was writing, or by what way they drew their origin from the stock of the Saints. Nevertheless this latter anonymous writer will serve somewhat to confirm the near blood-relationship of Bereswinda, wife of Eticho, duke of Alsace, with Saints Gerinus and Leodegar, when I have brought forward the assertions of some concerning it.

[36] [yet from this Bereswinda, wife of duke Eticho, since some make her the maternal aunt] Bereswinda, or otherwise Berehsinda, Berschinda, Bersinda, Berswinda, Bruswinda, who, as I have already intimated, was joined in marriage with duke Adalric, whom some call Atticus, more call Eticho, was the maternal aunt of our Saints, if the anonymous author of the eleventh century noted accurately in the Life of St. Odile, virgin, abbess of Hohenburg in Alsace, part 2 of Century 3 of the Benedictines, page 488; for there he has this: In the times of the emperor Hilderic there was a certain illustrious duke named Adalric, who was also called by another name Edichin, taking the name of his race from most noble parents, sprung from the territory of the Gauls… To his bed therefore a venerable wife was joined, sprung from most noble ancestors, named Berehsinda, as we have learned from the assertion of very many, crowned with kinship to St. Leodegar, sister of the most blessed Sigranda, mother of the most holy Leodegar himself. That the name of the mother of our Saints was Sigranda, or rather Sigrada, is established from the letter of consolation which St. Leodegar addressed to her after the death of Gerinus, his brother and another son of hers, and which he begins thus: To the lady and most holy mother Sigrada, who, formerly through kinship of the flesh, now through the union of the spirit, hast been made a true mother… Leodegar, servant of the servants of Jesus Christ our Saviour. That the name of the wife of duke Eticho was Bruswinda is also testified by the author of the older Life of St. Odile, from whose codex, mutilated in almost every part, Jérôme Vignier brought forward some fragments among the proofs to the genealogical Tables of the houses of Alsace, Lorraine and Austria, page 63. I transcribe the words bearing on this. When therefore duke Eticho and Bruswinda his wife, after a pious manner of life, had reached long years, at length, the Lord so willing, both with a great impulse of piety, with their most blessed daughter Odile, earnestly demanded with the highest ardour to end their life.

[37] Bereswinda is likewise so named by the uncertain author of the historical Fragment already cited in no. 14, of Leodegar, others make him her maternal uncle, prefixed by Wurstisen to the Chronicle of Albert of Strasbourg and reprinted by Duchesne in tome 1 of the Writers of France, page 783, and by the other anonymous author, likewise already cited in no. 14, in the History of the monastery of Novientum in Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota, column 1129: but these make another tie of blood between our Saints and Bereswinda; namely they make them maternal uncles both of her and of Bilihild, who was the wife of king Childeric II. The words of the former

are these: For Leudesius, when he was Mayor of the palace, had married a wife of the lineage of the holy king Sigismund, and begot of her Athicus or Adalric, who, while his father was still surviving and Hilderic reigning, had married a wife named Berswinda, daughter of the sister of St. Leodegar, namely the sister of the queen. For this cause of consanguinity he obtained from the aforesaid king the dukedom of Germany. The latter author agrees almost word for word, but inserts these things: Athicus … married Berswinda, daughter of the sister of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, and of Garinus, count of Poitiers, namely the sister of the queen. The cited Vignier subscribes to this opinion, page 2, and adds that Bereswinda is wrongly called by some the Sister of St. Leodegar; he most probably meant to say the sister of the mother of St. Leodegar.

[38] Nevertheless, the learned now all everywhere go on calling her the sister of St. Leodegar's mother, [seems to have been, and this becomes more probable from this, that those of whom the anonymous author] by name Mabillon in the Preliminary Observations to the Life of St. Odile, and tome 1 of the Annals, page 489; Georg Eccard in the Origins of the most serene and most powerful Habsburg-Austrian family, column 12; Johann Hermann Schmincke in the Historico-genealogical Dissertation which the cited Eccard added to his proofs, column 249 and following; whom alone I name, because they disapprove of the opinion admitted by Vignier and attack it with arguments. These arguments may be seen in them; for whether Bereswinda was the maternal aunt of the Saints, or the same Saints were the maternal uncles of Bereswinda, it will remain true that there was a near blood-relationship between them and her, and consequently also, the proportion being kept, between our Saints and all the children, grandchildren and descendants of Bereswinda by duke Eticho, from whom and through whom the more learned genealogists derive the origins of the most serene houses of Habsburg-Austria and of Lorraine.

[39] Further, that a near blood-relationship intervened between Bereswinda and our saints Leodegar and Gerinus of Murbach speaks, were blood-relations of Leodegar, and he probably can also, as I have already indicated above, be not a little confirmed, or rather rendered more probable, from our later anonymous author; for he, as is clear from what was said in no. 31, was most probably a monk of Murbach; wherefore, when he signified that those of whom he speaks in the words adduced in no. 35, and who in his time were ruling in the glorious kingdom of Francia, were of the illustrious lineage of St. Leodegar, he most probably had regard to the descendants of duke Eticho, and especially to Eberhard, grandson of the same duke Eticho and of Bereswinda, as we shall presently see, through their son Adalbert; and consequently this Eberhard, who, as we shall prove when treating of the special cult of St. Leodegar, founded the monastery of Murbach, was most probably of the illustrious lineage of St. Leodegar; whence it becomes more probable that Bereswinda, his grandmother, as is asserted by many, was joined with the same holy Prelate by the bond of blood.

[40] had regard to the descendants of duke Eticho, and especially to Eberhard, That we have said the Anonymous of Murbach had regard to the descendants of Eticho or Adalric, and so also to Eberhard, his grandson, did not first appear so to us; Mabillon namely went before, in the Preliminary Observations to the Life of St. Odile, where he takes up the text of the cited Anonymous of Murbach thus: By which words that author seems to designate the descendants of Adalric (or Eticho), who are recorded to have administered Alsace, a part of the Austrasian kingdom. For although at that time the Neustrians were properly called by the name of Franks; yet the kingdom of the Franks also contained Austrasia, which was called Eastern Francia and the Eastern kingdom. Nor perhaps for any other cause did Eberhard, son (as they say) of Adalric himself, duke of Swabia, count of Alsace, see to the dedication of the monastery of Murbach in honour of St. Leodegar, his kinsman assuredly. So he; but he wrongly calls Eberhard son of Adalric or Eticho; for he was not the son of Eticho and Bereswinda, but, as has already been named by us, their grandson through their son Adalbert.

[41] not the son but the grandson, through his son, of the same Eticho and Bereswinda Eberhard himself professes this most clearly in the Charter for the endowment of the monastery of Murbach in Mabillon, tome 2 of the Annals, page 701, saying: Therefore I, in the name of God, Eberhard, son of Adalbert, formerly duke, although the vilest servant of Christ, since it is not unknown how some years ago, together with an assembly of pontiffs and priests, and my brother duke Leutfred, and my wife Emeltrude … I built a monastery. The same is affirmed no less clearly both by the same Eberhard and by Leutfrid or Liutfrid his brother, in the Charter of donation made to the monastery of Honau in the same Mabillon, page 696, where they speak thus: We, Liutfrid and Eberhard, thinking of our souls and of the pardon of eternal retribution, it has therefore pleased our mind that of the island itself which is called Hohenaug, and which the Rhine surrounds, we should give to the monastery itself, of our part, as much as our father duke Adalbert left us when dying. And that this Adalbert was the son of Eticho and Bereswinda, and brother of St. Odile, is likewise established from the Fragment of the Life of St. Odile written by a contemporary, in which, a little after the words recited in no. 36, these follow: But scarcely some months had passed when the venerable prince Eticho sweetly breathed out his soul, blessed Odile consoling and strengthening him. And the lady Bruswinda likewise expired on the ninth day after her husband, and without any illness, when she was in the chapel of blessed John. Meanwhile there came to the funeral of their parents duke Eticho (the second) and likewise duke Adalbert, the most glorious progeny of Eticho and Bruswinda.

[42] to Adalbert, to whom, besides these sons Eberhard and Liutfrid, In the same Fragment of the Life, further, some sons of Eticho the second and of Adalbert are also enumerated; Frequently, says the author, they came (Eticho the second and Adalbert) to receive words of life from their blessed sister (Odile), and not in vain; for after some years she so subjected the aforesaid dukes to the Lord that not only did they spend their goods on founding monasteries, but her nephews too, both those of Eticho, whose sons were the bishop of Strasbourg of the same name and count Alberic, and the children of Adalbert, namely Eberhard and Luitfrid, and also those of Hugo, who had died before his parents (Eticho I and Bereswinda), endowed monasteries largely, and built them, and almost all, both males and females, casting away the pride of the world, gave themselves over to the service of God: among whom Eberhard, son of count Alberic, namely grandson of Eticho II, and another from Eberhard son of Adalbert.

[43] Moreover, that this Adalbert had, besides the sons Eberhard and Liutfrid, there were besides three daughters. three daughters, Eugenia, Attala and Gundelinda, has been proved in tome V of September at the 16th day, on which Eugenia, who succeeded her aunt St. Odile as abbess in the convent of Hohenburg in Alsace, is venerated as a Saint. Attala too was a virgin consecrated to God, and indeed presided as first abbess over the monastery of Strasbourg which was built by her father Adalbert in honour of St. Stephen; and she too obtained a cult, as will be proved at the 3rd day of December. Gundelinda is likewise mostly distinguished with the titles of virgin, Abbess and Saint, but, as we said under St. Eugenia, it is not known whether a festive commemoration of her is celebrated on any determined day. Of St. Odile, their aunt, we shall have to treat at the 13th day of December. And the consanguinity of this holy virgin, and therefore of all those hitherto named, and of the other descendants of duke Eticho and Bereswinda, with SS. Leodegar and Gerinus is confirmed by an ancient stone which exists on the mount of St. Odile, and on which three effigies are carved, namely of duke Eticho, of St. Odile his daughter, and of St. Leodegar, as may be seen in the adjoined figure, engraved on copper by the hand of our Engraver after the exemplar of Mabillon, who judged that monument, as being some six hundred years old, worthy of the graver, and inserted it into the Benedictine Annals, tome 1, page 489.

§ IV. When St. Leodegar was born, in what year of his age he was ordained deacon, and whether before obtaining the episcopate he was a monk.

St. Leodegar, about the year, as is conjectured, As our biographers supply nothing from which we may draw out the birthplace of our Saints, so also nothing from which we may learn which of the two was the elder by birth, Leodegar or Gerinus. The time of birth of St. Leodegar (for the dearth of documents compels us thenceforward to treat of him alone until the time of the martyrdom) the learned conjecture from the things which are read in the biographers concerning his education committed to Dido his maternal uncle, bishop of the people of Poitiers. Of that education the older anonymous author has only this: And when he had been vigorously brought up by Dido, his maternal uncle, bishop of the city of Poitiers, who beyond his kinsmen was filled with a remarkable abundance of prudence and of the resources of riches, and had been polished to the full in all things by the file of discipline in divers studies in which the powerful of the world are wont to engage, he was elected in the same city to the burden of the archdiaconate. Ursinus has these things somewhat more explicitly: From the infancy of his earliest age he was handed over by his parents to Lothar, king of the Franks, and by the same king, not long after, he was given to Dido, prelate of the city of Poitiers, his maternal uncle, namely to be imbued with the studies of letters: whom the same prelate handed over to a certain priest of God, a most prudent man, to be instructed, who taught him with great care for very many years, and, having taught him, returned him to the pontiff… When he was about twenty years old, he was elected to the office of the diaconate and consecrated by the pontiff himself. Then, not long after, made archdeacon, etc.

[45] born in 616, in about the year of his age That by Lothar, king of the Franks, is here designated Clothar, the second of that name, has already been shown in tome VI of September, page 459 and following, under St. Emmeram, bishop and martyr, and will be plain from what is to be said below. And this Clothar reigned until the year 628, in which he died; and therefore before the said year Dido, the maternal uncle of St. Leodegar, held the chair of Poitiers. But in the year 625 that chair was still held by John, the first of that name, who, as Flodoard witnesses, book 2 of the History of Reims, chapter 5, was present as bishop of the people of Poitiers at the first council of Reims, which was more probably celebrated in the said year 625; and hence it follows again that the education of St. Leodegar was committed by king Clothar to Dido between the years 625 and 628. I add no more, because these and other things have been laboriously proved in the cited tome of September, where the see of Poitiers, which some had attributed to St. Emmeram, was adjudged not to be his. Finally, since St. Leodegar is said to have been handed over from the infancy of his earliest * age to king Clothar, and not long after to bishop Dido, it is thence probably conjectured that he was about ten years old when he came to this maternal uncle of his, and his birth is fixed about the year 616, and according to this epoch the rest of his deeds are ordered.

[46] 20, was ordained deacon. Le Cointe thinks otherwise, Thus the more recent learned who determine the time of the diaconate conferred on the Saint by Dido mostly mark it about the year 636, because, on the authority

of Ursinus: When he was about twenty years old, he was elected to the office of the diaconate and consecrated by the pontiff himself (Dido). I said mostly, since Le Cointe, although he fixed his birth about 616, nevertheless put off his diaconate to the year 645, because, since the words of Ursinus are reported thus in Duchesne: Under twenty years he was elected to the office of the diaconate and consecrated by the pontiff himself, he interpreted them in such a way that the Saint was advanced to the Order of the diaconate when he had stayed with his maternal uncle for about twenty years. He confesses, however, that these words can also be understood of the years of his age, saying: If the interpretation which we have used displeases you, and you think that the twenty years under which Leodegar received the diaconate are to be referred to his age, and not to the stay which he made with his maternal uncle, the bishop of Poitiers, so that you would have the office of the diaconate conferred on a youth who had not reached the twentieth year of his age, ascribe to the year of Christ six hundred and thirty-five the things to be narrated about the diaconate of Leodegar, which we have put off until this year.

[46] but he does not sufficiently prove his opinion from the text of Ursinus, Then, alleging presently the reasons why he judges that one should stand by his former interpretation, he proceeds: But first notice that arguments are not lacking by which we can validly confirm our opinion. The first is sought from synodal decrees; for they forbade a deacon to be ordained before the age of twenty-five years, nor do we easily persuade ourselves that bishop Dido transgressed them in favour of his nephew Leodegar. The second is taken from the manifold learning in which Leodegar, as the contemporary authors of the Life write, excelled the rest when he was made deacon; for an age which is less than twenty does not seem capable of so many sciences. The third argument Le Cointe seeks from the words of Fortunatus in the Life of St. Germanus, bishop of Paris, which also admit a twofold interpretation, and which he himself had proved in tome 1 of the Annals of the Franks were to be interpreted in his same sense, against most of the moderns, who had transferred the said words to the age of St. Germanus. But that third argument could obtain some force only if it were established that the text of the Life of St. Leodegar brought forward by Le Cointe from Duchesne's edition is the genuine text of Ursinus.

[47] That it is not, we are persuaded, first indeed, because, as we have indicated, which he adduces, since it is not genuine; the Writers of Gallia Duchesne's edition differs so frequently and notably in other things from Mabillon's edition and from all our copies of Ursinus that no doubt remains that its style was afterwards changed after the manner of the Surian edition. Secondly, because, although in Mabillon's edition and in our Copies a variant reading also frequently occurs, which almost always happens when the same Work is transcribed by many, in this place nevertheless there is no variation or transposition of words, and everywhere is read: When he was about twenty years old, except in the Dijon Copy, where it is read thus: And he was twenty years old. Indeed Surius himself, with whose edition Duchesne's edition everywhere so agrees that Mabillon, whom our Predecessors do not oppose, did not hesitate to say that the Work of Ursinus was published by Duchesne from the Surian interpolation; Surius himself, I say, transposed the words of Ursinus in this manner: He (Dido) ordained him (Leodegar) deacon at about twenty years of age. Hence you may conjecture that the codex from which Surius published Ursinus, with the style changed, agreed with our copies. Thirdly, because this is today the common opinion of the learned: for if you except the Benedictine writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, I know no one who has contended that Duchesne's reading should be followed here, or has followed Le Cointe's opinion, since Mabillon's edition saw the light. All, where they record the time of the diaconate received by St. Leodegar, note the twentieth or about the twentieth year of his age.

[48] The Benedictine writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, whom I was just excepting, Christiana agree with Le Cointe, in tome IV, column 349, under St. Leodegar, recite in a distinct type these words: Under twenty years he was elected to the office of the diaconate and consecrated. Then, no long time having elapsed, made archdeacon, set over all the churches of the diocese, which are manifestly taken from Duchesne's edition. Then, making no mention of Mabillon's edition, they say: Here arises the difficulty whether the twenty years under which Leodegar was raised to the diaconate ought to be referred to his age, or to the stay which he made with bishop Dido. Mabillon refers them to his age when he says: Within the twentieth year of his age etc.; but Le Cointe to the stay, and that indeed with the greatest probability. Namely on account of the three arguments reported above from Le Cointe's Annals, which they subjoin, with this clause however: Although it is not difficult to answer all these (Le Cointe's arguments), nor does the contrary opinion lack its probability. But here the cited writers went astray when they believed that the words of Duchesne's edition, under twenty years, were referred by Mabillon to the Saint's age. For Mabillon, in tome 1 of the Annals, page 439, where he wrote these things of St. Leodegar: Whom Dido, bishop of the Pictavi, his maternal uncle, ordained deacon under the twentieth year of his age, did not expound the words of Duchesne's edition just cited; but these of the genuine Ursinus in his edition, Century two of the Benedictines, page 699: When he was about twenty years old etc., which, unlike those, do not admit a twofold sense, nor can be referred to the stay, and against which therefore Le Cointe's third argument has no strength.

[49] to whose arguments sought from the synodal statutes, If they had observed this, I do not doubt that, abandoning Duchesne's reading and Le Cointe's interpretation, they would have subscribed with us to Mabillon's opinion, and would have answered Le Cointe's first two arguments, if anyone wished to use them against the genuine text of Ursinus, which they would have judged less difficult, since it admits only one sense. We certainly in that case would answer that it was indeed forbidden by the canons that anyone should be ordained deacon before the twentieth year of his age; but that it is also established by more than one example that dispensation was sometimes granted for just causes. St. Theodore of Sykeon, whose Acts, written by a disciple, we gave in tome III of April at the 22nd day, was ordained deacon and presbyter in the eighteenth year of his age. And when bishop Theodosius was accused on that account, he answered that he was not ignorant that the canons did not permit this, … but just as Paul himself appointed Timothy, a young man in age, bishop, I too (he said) in the name of the Lord have appointed this man presbyter on account of his uprightness, for God signified to me that he was worthy of this office. Behold an example and a cause of dispensation. We have another example in the holy and venerable Bede, who in the Epitome or chronological Recapitulation of the Ecclesiastical History of the English nation testifies of himself: In the nineteenth year of my life I received the diaconate … through the ministry of the most reverend bishop John, at the command of my abbot. A third example is afforded by this very tome of ours at the 1st day of October in St. Remigius, who also, though reluctant, was consecrated bishop in the twenty-second year of his age, although the canons required the thirtieth.

[50] and from the manifold learning of our Saint, The second argument, by which Le Cointe judged the opposite opinion to be confirmed, contains the very cause or reason on account of which in the examples already related the relaxation of the canons was made, namely the piety, sanctity of life, learning and prudence in which Theodore, Bede and Remigius went before others; and the more and the more certainly these endowments are proved to have shone forth in St. Leodegar, the less will bishop Dido become suspect of rashness, of non-observance of the sacred canons, or of excessive love for his sister's Son. But an age which is less than twenty does not seem capable of so many sciences. I answer that it is true that so many sciences are not commonly found in men of this sort of age; but that it should seem to me incapable is prevented by the examples, many too, of men great at that age, of whom it could be said, as St. Jerome in the letter to Pammachius said of Origen: A great Man from infancy, and as St. Augustine said of his son Adeodatus, book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 6: We also joined to ourselves the boy Adeodatus … he was about fifteen years old, and in talent he surpassed many grave and learned men.

[51] when he was made deacon, is answered. Besides, let us grant for a moment that examples are lacking. What is that manifold learning in which St. Leodegar, as the contemporary authors of the Life write, excelled the rest when he was made deacon, and of which that age seemed to Le Cointe incapable? The older anonymous author does not speak by name of the diaconate of St. Leodegar, much less express at what age or with what learning he then was. Ursinus says that the holy Boy was handed over by his maternal uncle the bishop to a certain priest to be instructed, and when he had been taught, was received back and kept under the custody of discipline; then, adding nothing in particular about his learning, he records the reception of the diaconate in the words cited above. I confess, Ursinus presently adds: Then, not long after, he was made archdeacon, and then praises his manifold learning; but it does not follow thence that he was furnished with all that learning when he was made deacon. The words not long after, or, as Le Cointe reads, no long time having elapsed, at least posit some space in which he could perfect the sciences possessed before the diaconate and acquire new ones before he became archdeacon. The Author of the Lives of the Saints of Autun published in French in the year 1713, and Baillet at the 2nd day of October, mark the diaconate in the year 636 and the archdiaconate in 643, so that according to them the words not long after extend to seven years. But perhaps Ursinus chiefly wished to intimate by them that, since the Saint was of so happy a disposition, of such gravity of manners and clearness of intellect that in the twentieth year of his age he was worthy of the grade of the diaconate, so also afterwards in a short time, or a shorter time than others commonly need, he obtained the sciences and learning and the other endowments required for the archdiaconate, and so on account of his excellence was promoted to this dignity much sooner than others.

[52] Wherefore, although I readily assent to those who, from a most probable conjecture, establish the Saint's birth in about the year 616, St. Leodegar was abbot of St. Maxentius; whence and the reception of the diaconate in the year 636, I do not find sufficient foundation to tie the beginning of the archdiaconate to a determined year. The French writers just cited, on a better foundation, say that the Saint was set over the monastery of St. Maxentius of Poitiers about the year 651; of which prelacy Ursinus, after he has set out how piously and vigorously he discharged the office of the archdiaconate for some years, relates these things: Then, when a certain father of the monastery which is situated in honour of blessed Maxentius had died, at the command of the pontiff he undertook to rule it: which he ruled vigorously for about six years, and enriched it with great wealth. Of these, as of many other things which Ursinus relates before the Saint's episcopate, the older anonymous author makes no mention; nevertheless they become certain enough from the History of the translation, in which it is said that there went out to meet the body of St. Leodegar

a great crowd of monks from the monastery of St. Maxentius, in which he had formerly been appointed abbot, and a little after: in which he had been made father of the monks. Hence the Benedictine writers number Leodegar among the Saints of their Order.

[53] And so indeed Bucelin in the Menologium, as if he had professed the monastic life before they ascribe him to their Order; but whether rightly, he was elected. For where he has said, with Ursinus, that Leodegar had been destined by Dido as his successor in the see of Poitiers, Bucelin proceeds thus: But, reserved for another chair, out of disgust with earthly things he forsook the world, and, devoting himself to the monastic life in the monastery of St. Maxentius, shone with such progress in virtues that, the abbot of that place having died, he himself was elected successor with the greatest rejoicing of all. These things indeed I am not able to elicit from any text of the contemporaries. Mabillon proceeded more cautiously, content to have said that the Saint, when from archdeacon he had been made abbot, put on the monk. And he thinks this is proved by this reasoning in the Preliminary Observations to the Lives: St. Leodegar was father of monks and a monk: for before the principate of Charles Martel no abbots were set over monks except monks; not clerics indeed, whom Gregory the Great more than once in his letters excludes from the government of monks. If, however, anyone from being a cleric was ordained prelate of monks, he, taking the monastic habit, professed the Order. Notable on this matter is a passage of Venantius Fortunatus concerning St. Germanus, who, before he was bishop of the Parisians, had been created from a presbyter of the church of Autun abbot of the monastery of St. Symphorian, and on that account had put on the monk. For HAVING OBTAINED THE GRADE OF PASTORAL CHARGE, namely of the church of Paris, HE CONTINUED A MONK FOR THE REST. Think the same of Leodegar, when from archdeacon of Poitiers he was made abbot of the monastery of St. Maxentius. Hence, when already bishop, he had a zeal for restoring the Rule of the holy father Benedict in some monasteries which in his time were declining to laxer ways: which the synod of Autun, held with him presiding, manifestly declares. So Mabillon.

[54] from the things which Thomassin, from the council But Louis Thomassin, On the old and new discipline of the Church, part 2, book 3, is of the altogether opposite opinion, and discourses as if he intended to destroy each of the members of Mabillon's reasoning. In chapter 10 he treats at length of commendams at Rome and in Italy in the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries; then he begins the following chapter with these words: All the commendams of the Roman Church and of Italy having been constituted after that manner, no one will now wonder that in Gaul too the bishops commended monasteries to their clerics and cathedral canons to be governed in hardly any other way than rural parishes or any simple benefices. The third council of Orléans makes this plain, where also that unshaken doctrine is established, that a commendatory abbot cannot pluck from the ecclesiastical revenues for his own uses anything but as much as he needs for necessary sustenance: whether the bishop strips him of his canonry at the same time as he confers the abbey on him, which seems more desirable to the council, or allows him to enjoy some part of the revenues of the canonry by way of a pension. I shall presently bring forth the canon, in which I advise beforehand that these three things are contained: 1. that abbeys were given by the bishops, just like parishes and any other benefices, to the clerics of their church. 2. That as soon as they were promoted to an abbey, they could, and therefore also should, be stripped of benefice and stipend. 3. That no other temporal emoluments could flow to them from their abbeys than that they should be decently sustained, as far from superfluity as from want.

[55] of Orléans III, and Then Thomassin recites the canon itself: But concerning those persons of clerics who, from the office of the church of the city, undertake monasteries, parishes or basilicas situated in any places whatever, that is, whether in the territories or in the cities themselves, to be set in order, let it be in the power of the bishop whether he wishes them to have anything or nothing from what they previously had from the ecclesiastical office, because the resources of the monastery, parish or basilica undertaken ought to suffice each one in full measure. The third council of Orléans was celebrated before the middle of the sixth century; the principate of Charles Martel belongs to the eighth century. Therefore by the recitation and declaration of that canon Thomassin abundantly shows on how light a foundation rests the first general assertion of Mabillon's reasoning: Before the principate of Charles Martel no abbots were set over monks except monks. Since that canon was manifestly constituted for the direction of clerics to whose government monasteries had been committed in the same way as those of clerics to whose government basilicas were committed. What Mabillon adds, that such clerics took the monastic habit and professed the Order when they were ordained prelates, seems again to be asserted too generally. For from the example produced of St. Germanus, afterwards bishop of Paris, it follows indeed that this was sometimes done, but it is not proved that it ought to have been done as often as a cleric undertook a monastery to be set in order, as the canon says, or undertook it to be ruled at the command of the pontiff (bishop), as Ursinus writes.

[56] Certainly I, for my part, can hammer that out of no word of the canon: he adduces from elsewhere, besides, St. Gregory the Great himself, as Thomassin proves in chapter 10, commended abbeys or committed them to be governed to bishops. Are these too to be said to have presently taken the monastic habit and professed the Order? What Mabillon asserts of St. Gregory is nevertheless true: but even thence it is gathered that that was done then which Mabillon denies was done before the principate of Charles Martel. The holy Pontiff namely wished to remove the abuses which had arisen in some places from the government of monasteries committed to clerics. Thomassin alleges two chief abuses of this kind from Gregory's letters in the said chapter 10. The first was that those clerics, together with the government of the monastery, retained another benefice or another church, in which they were bound to reside and continually to minister at the altar, so that they could not carry on the spiritual charge of the monastery which they had undertaken, and thus religious discipline in the monastery was ruined. The other abuse was that now and then the clerics who had undertaken the charge of spiritual government, out of cupidity, also laid hold of the temporal government, and so the temporal goods of the monasteries were squandered.

[57] To these abuses, of which I find no example in Gaul under those times, it seems to be doubted, although meanwhile the fathers of Orléans had closed the way, especially when they wished that business, as we have sufficiently drawn out from the canon, to be submitted to the vigilance of the bishops, who for certain causes would commit churches or monasteries to clerics of proved virtue and knowledge to be governed either for life or for a time, and if any inconvenience arose, would rescind it by interposing their authority. That our Saint was set over the abbey of St. Maxentius by bishop Dido only for a time may be conjectured from this, that, as Ursinus witnesses, the bishop had destined him as his successor in the episcopate, and this could seem another argument against the monastic profession of the same Saint. Further, I have dwelt somewhat longer on these things so that the studious reader, considering Thomassin's reasons, may discern whether Mabillon's general assertions so settle the matter that it is not permitted to doubt of St. Leodegar's monkhood.

[58] However it is, whether he was or was not a monk, it is nevertheless certain Leodegar ruled the abbey of St. Maxentius profitably. that his prefecture brought very much benefit and fruit to the monastery of St. Maxentius, as much in temporal as in spiritual matters, as Thomassin rightly observes from Ursinus in chapter XI; where he also declares his mind on the question just discussed clearly enough. Leodegar himself before, he says, when he was holding the archdiaconate of Poitiers, had been set by his bishop over the monastery of St. Maxentius, to take care of it, in which office he acquitted himself most vigorously. Here he adduces the text of Ursinus from Le Cointe's edition: At the command of the pontiff he undertook to rule that monastery; which, governing for about six years, he enriched both with buildings and with wealth. Then Thomassin proceeds: Of this kind were then the genuine commendatory abbots; so far from letting the churches fall down, they themselves raised more magnificent ones; so far from longing to be enriched with their goods, they zealously strove to enrich their monasteries. Only six years, indeed, did Leodegar rule that abbey commended to him; but even this is most wonderful. For by the virtues which he had there unfolded with illustrious proofs, being now very well known to the royal court, he was sought by king Clothar, granted by his bishop, and at length elected bishop of Autun. He therefore withdrew from the church commended to him, from the time when he was called to the administration of another, and so far from using the favour in which he flourished with the king to retain the abbey with the episcopate, as soon as he entered the court he left the abbey commended to him.

* others primævæ earliest

§ V. The Saint is summoned to the court, and then is created bishop. The testament which he is said to have made is examined.

Leodegar, summoned to the court, there, St. Leodegar had vigorously ruled the abbey of St. Maxentius at Poitiers for about six years when, as Ursinus witnesses, he was called to the court by king Clothar III and his mother Bathild, administrator of the kingdom. And Clothar the third, on the death of his father Clovis II, was made king as a boy of about five years in the year of Christ 656, and died in the year 670, the fourteenth of his reign, which chronology is that of Henschenius in the preliminary Exegesis to tome III of April, of Pagi in tome 3 of the Critica, and is today the most received among the learned. And according to this chronology St. Leodegar was called to the court between the years 656 and 661. We prove this from the testimony of Ursinus, who says in no. 5 that king Clothar died when St. Leodegar had been vigorously governing the see of Autun for ten years; or, as others read from Duchesne's edition, when he had vigorously discharged that office for ten years: therefore Leodegar undertook the episcopate in the year 660 or 661. But how long he had then stayed at the court is uncertain. If one must stand by the narrative of our older anonymous author, he stayed in it scarcely or not even scarcely, and was advanced from the archdiaconate of Poitiers to the see of Autun without an intermediate interval of time.

[60] which our anonymous author passes over in silence, for some time For that author, as soon as he has set out how bravely and wisely the Saint conducted himself in the office of the archdiaconate, proceeds thus without interposing a word: Meanwhile a cause of necessity pressed, that they should have to ordain him bishop in the city of Autun. For lately a contention had arisen between two men about the same see, and it had been fought out to the shedding of blood. And when one had fallen there to his death, and the other had been given over to thrusting into exile for the crime he had committed, then queen Bathild, who with her son Lothar was ruling the palace of the Franks, inspired, as we believe, by divine counsel, directed this vigorous Man to the said city to be bishop there, so that the church, which for almost two years now had remained as it were widowed in the tossing of the world, might be protected by his government and fortitude, and be defended from those by whom it was being assailed. But since this author, as in no. 28

I have already indicated, passed over in silence some deeds of the Saint before his episcopate, which Ursinus, equally contemporary, noted more diligently, we judge, as other writers too have everywhere done when setting out the Life of St. Leodegar in ordered series, that one must adhere to Ursinus in the things which pertain to the deeds of the Saint before his episcopate, and for that reason we also subjoin his account.

[61] There was at the same time (when the Saint was ruling the abbey of St. Maxentius) the younger Lothar, king, with his mother Bathild, ruling the kingdom of the Franks, he stays, and then, created bishop at Autun, who, having recognised his prudence, desiring to have him in the royal court, asked the pontiff (bishop Dido) to give him his leave to dwell with them in the palace. He, at once fulfilling their commands, obeying their will, strove to send the Man, enriched with great possessions and adorned with the flowers of wisdom. Seeing him, the king and queen received him honourably, and in a few days he showed his sweet words to such a degree that the king and the queen together, and most of the pontiffs too, received him in love above all, and because they saw him worthy to receive honour, with the consent of all the chief men of the Franks they proclaimed him fit for the pontifical honour; and all, having elected him for this, made him pontiff at Autun, which is a city of the Aedui, etc. This manner of narrating manifestly indicates that the Saint was by no means called from the city of Poitiers in order to be given presently as bishop to the people of Autun, but in order to live at court, most probably to instruct the king and to help with his counsel the queen mother, administrator of the kingdom. It is also credible that this holy woman would not have permitted such a Man to be removed from herself and her son unless she had been taught by longer experience that he alone before the rest was capable of, and plainly necessary for, calming and rooting out the disturbances that had arisen in the church of Autun.

[62] The matter turned out as it was right to hope: he presently calms the disturbances that had arisen in that city. the Saint presently suppressed all the tumults, and by his prudence brought new splendour to the long-torn church, as the anonymous author declares at greater length, being here, as writing to Ermenarius, bishop of Autun, more accurate than Ursinus, who, since he wrote to Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers, is likewise more diligent in noting the deeds of the Saint which he did at Poitiers. And most of the deeds of the Saint which the same anonymous author narrates, as pertaining to the first ten years of the episcopate, are not such as to need long commentary: wherefore, dismissing these, we shall observe here some things concerning his testament which is circulated, and which is noted as made in the seventh year of the episcopate, and concerning the synod which very many of the learned think was celebrated by him within the said first ten years of the episcopate.

[63] We premise the testament, as it was published by Étienne Pérard among the historical monuments of Burgundy, page 3, The testament which is signed with his name, then we shall review the many and foul errors on account of which it is everywhere rejected by all as spurious: In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord, God and Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, six hundred and fifty-three, in the tenth Indiction, Theuderic, son of the glorious king Clothar, reigning, and Leodegisus, son of Erchinoald, being Mayor of the palace: I, Leodegar, though unworthy bishop of the Aedui, in the seventh year of my episcopate, considering the various changes of things, and also the inevitable end of death, and the formidable hour of judgment and of the strictness of the Judge, to be trembled at by all, and at the same time, for these things of this kind, recurring to that discipline which enjoins: Give and it shall be given to you, and make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, that they may receive you in the heavens: and recalling that saying of Wisdom which admonishes, The ransom of a man's soul is his riches, and as water extinguishes fire, so alms extinguishes sin: for the love of the Godhead, for the remission of sins, also for the pious remembrance of the lord Clothar and of queen Valdechild, and also for the state of king Theuderic and of the kingdom and of all his nobles, especially for those who have been helpers and fellow-labourers to us in acquiring the things to be mentioned, I give, hand over, transfer, and appoint as heir, of my goods, the church of blessed Nazarius, the title of my prelacy.

[64] and which exhibits various pious donations made by the Saint, That is, of the estate of Marigny, which lies upon the river Stantia, which the already-mentioned queen delegated to me from her own property into my own, and granted me to have by the royal instrument of a charter: no less of the estate of Tilly, which belongs to me by maternal right from grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and is upon the river Saône, and also of Olgea; and of the estate of Cananæ, which I acquired from Bodilo and Sigrada, devoted to God, whose land is situated both below the fortress of Dijon and round about. Which estates, with their chattels, slaves of both sexes, vineyards, meadows, waters, pools, courses, recourses, woods, pastures of greater or lesser cattle, from our own estate into the estate of our matricula, which we have built * the door of the church of St. Nazarius, with all their appurtenances, we delegate, separate, transfer, on this condition, that both from the provost, the rector of the same matricula, and from his successors, whom the pontiffs our successors shall ordain, forty brethren shall receive daily rations and stipends at all times, that they may more freely pray for the safety of the kingdom and of the princes and of the whole world of the Lord.

[65] Pérard holds as spurious; and this, But if any of our heirs, greater or lesser, or the man of any person, shall presume to violate this our common alms and the charter of this instrument, let him know that, as guilty of treason, he is to be punished before the mayor of the palace either with his head or with a hundred pounds of gold. And we wish our successor bishops so to observe these things, as we too have conferred many things on their part, and as they shall consider these things worthy before God. But if hereafter anyone's obstinacy shall raise itself up against these things, let him know that he is also excommunicated by the authority of the fifty-four fellow-bishops who have been gathered at Christiacum by our princes, in whose presence, or by whose counsel, we have celebrated this donation to the church of the matricula which is ours, and by our own, although at the last, and by the invocation of the holy Trinity, by the power of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, to be damned eternally with Judas, the betrayer of the Lord, who had the purse and who stole the goods of the Lord and of the poor, with Dathan and Abiram, whom the earth swallowed alive, overthrown by an unaccustomed and desperate death to the terror of all the living, unless he comes to his senses with worthy satisfaction, to be punished for ever. Amen, Amen. Done publicly at Christiacum in the third year of the reign of king Theuderic. I, bishop Leodegar, subscribe to this donation made under anathema, and confirm it with my own hand.

[66] The cited editor of the testament, Pérard, presently subjoining his criticism to it, on account of the manifold errors, of which he proposes one or two, by the chief marks of spuriousness which are assigned here, judges the whole spurious, and made after the Saint's time from tradition and from knowledge received from elsewhere of the many benefits which the holy Bishop had conferred on his cathedral. The brothers Sainte-Marthe, in tome 1 of Gallia Christiana, say that the common charter of the testament is corrupt in very many things, and likewise produce specimens. Le Cointe, at the year 666, enumerates more specimens of errors; he adds, however, that among the chronological notes of the testament that one is especially to be held in esteem which is taken from the episcopate of St. Leodegar, and designates the year of Christ six hundred and sixty-six, the seventh of Leodegar himself, the eleventh of king Clothar; and that, this being posited, the fragments of the testament which he recites in the same place can easily be emended. Mabillon, Century 2 of the Benedictines, page 707, pronounces thus: As regards the writings of St. Leodegar, a certain testament of his is circulated, which is deservedly not approved by learned men: then, as though it were not worth the trouble to dispute more about it, he refers the reader to the writers of Gallia already mentioned. But afterwards the same man made more of the testament in the Preface to the second part of Century 3, no. 33, and in the Annals at the year 674, as I shall show when I have reviewed the chief errors, or indications of spuriousness or corruption.

[67] First, then, the manner of counting years from the Incarnation of Christ had not yet been wont to be used in public instruments in the age of St. Leodegar. Le Cointe, cutting away, in vain emends, Secondly, the marked year six hundred and fifty-three cannot be combined with the other chronological notes. Not with the reign of Theuderic, who had scarcely been born in it, nor with the mayoralty of the palace of Leodegisus or Leudesius, who obtained that prefecture only while the same Theuderic was reigning, nor finally with the episcopate of St. Leodegar, who was promoted to it only in the year 660 or 661. Besides, these last chronological notes cannot be combined with one another either; for in the seventh year, indeed, according to what was said before, the tenth, of the episcopate of St. Leodegar, Clothar III was reigning, whom Childeric succeeded, and, the latter having been slain, at length Theuderic. Thirdly, Clothar was not the father of this Theuderic but his brother; and the father of both, as also of Childeric, was Clovis II, the mother St. Bathild the queen, who in the testament is called Valdechild. I pass over other things which Le Cointe observes on that testament. These will suffice for the reader to notice that it is most probable, as the same Le Cointe and Pérard conjecture, that the instrument was fabricated a long time after the death of our Saint.

[68] And the manner which Le Cointe uses for the emendation of the testament the marks being cut away, in vain Le Cointe tries to emend, is this: he cuts away its entire opening, in which most and the chief errors are contained, and substitutes this for it: In the name of God and of the Saviour our Lord Jesus Christ: then he proceeds: I, Leodegar, though unworthy bishop of the Aedui, in the seventh year of my episcopate etc., as far as these words: Also for the pious remembrance of the lord Clothar and of queen Valdechild, and also for the state of king Theuderic, for which he substitutes these: Also for the pious remembrance of the lord Clovis and of queen Valdechild, and also for the state of king Clothar. Then he changes nothing until the penultimate period: Done publicly at Christiacum in the third year of the reign of Theuderic, in place of which he puts this: Done publicly, king Clothar reigning, the year of the reign namely being omitted, because the third of Clothar did not cohere either with the seventh of Leodegar's episcopate. I confess that thus the chronological and historical notes are both combined and brought back to the year 666 or 667. But what utility comes from that? In the same manner, by changing words and chronological characters at discretion, instruments however corrupt could be emended. Yet they will not thereby receive any greater authority or strength for establishing those things which cannot be proved from elsewhere. For example, let someone deny that fifty-four bishops were present at the donation made by St. Leodegar; if you bring forward this instrument, he will say that it is corrupt in this part too, as in many others. The same will happen if anyone denies that the donation was made in the seventh year of the episcopate, as Mabillon denied in the Annals at the year 674, where he believed that the donation was made while Theuderic was reigning, in the third year of whose reign Leodegar was passing, he says, about the sixteenth or seventeenth year of his prelacy.

[69] in vain to prove genuine in substance What this author's first opinion of the testament was, the words recited above from the Preliminary Observations to the Lives of our Saint sufficiently indicate. The same man speaks thus in the Preface to part 2 of Century 3 of the Benedictines, no. 33: The Synod usually called that of Autun … seems to have been a national council (as they call it), namely that concerning which there is talk in the common testament of Leodegar, of fifty-four fellow-bishops gathered at Christiacum together with Leodegar in the third year of king Theuderic. For although that testament has been interpolated in its chronological notes, and perhaps in some proper names by the error of copyists, it ought not, however, to be rejected altogether: especially since there is mention both of the aforesaid testament and of the donations made in it in the letter of Pope John the eighth, which Pérard published in the Monuments of Burgundy after the same testament. Mabillon, resuming the same matter in the place of the Annals just cited, discourses thus: In the printed editions the chronological characters are faulty, although the very substance of the testament is legitimate, and is established from other undoubted instruments. He alleges two instruments of this kind, the one of Jonas, bishop of Autun in the ninth century, in Pérard, page 147, the other of Pope John VIII in the same, page 4 and following. In the former, bishop Jonas grants an estate to the canons of the Aedui, so that … they may be more devoted in the warfare of Christ, and may continually implore the divine mercy not only for the princes, as St. Leodegar instituted, but for the rulers of the whole church and the universal flock.

[70] from two ancient instruments By these Mabillon thinks are denoted the things which are read in the testament: Also for the pious remembrance of Clothar and of queen Valdechild, and also for the state of king Theuderic and of the kingdom, and of all his nobles, especially for those who have been helpers and fellow-labourers to us in acquiring the things to be mentioned, I give etc. In the second instrument, Pope John VIII, in a letter to Adalgar, bishop of Autun, writes thus: For it is established that the estate of Tilly was once by right of property that of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, and was conferred by that saint on Nazarius, by whose name the bishopric itself is honoured. Afterwards, when it had been retained for a long time by wicked men, and as it were reduced into their property, our beloved son Charles, the most clement emperor, a subtle examination having been held concerning it, when he had lawfully learned that it had belonged to the right of the church of Autun, and had clearly learned that it had been first possessed by it and afterwards invaded by violent men: restored it by a precept of his authority to the bishop himself, and recalled it to the right of that church, to which namely St. Leodegar, named above, had formerly conferred it; and therefore, because your fraternity has asked of us that we should confirm the already-mentioned estate to the church of Autun, according to the imperial precept, by the liberality and privilege of Apostolic authority, inclined etc., we confirm etc. These things certainly agree altogether with those which the testament has: I hand over, transfer, and appoint as heir the church of blessed Nazarius, the title of my prelacy, of my goods, that is … of the estate of Tilly, which belongs to me by maternal right from grandfathers and great-grandfathers and is upon the river Saône.

[71] Hence Mabillon, dismissing further proof, again infers: Mabillon attempts. Therefore there is no doubt at all of the validity of that testament, although the chronological characters, as I have already said, are faulty. Pérard did not doubt, nor do we doubt, that most of the donations related in the oft-mentioned testament were truly made by St. Leodegar. We are persuaded of this both by the authority of the instruments alleged by Mabillon which we have produced and by the testimony of the contemporary anonymous author in the Life, no. 4, where among the other pious works of the Saint he expressly names the matricula, instituted by him, which is situated at the door of the church (of St. Nazarius). For this is certainly the same matricula to which the Saint is said in the testament to have granted Tilly and three other estates. The words are these: Which estates … from our own estate into the estate of our matricula, which we have built [at] the door of the church of St. Nazarius … we delegate etc.; of these, I say, we do not doubt; but we ask whether the Saint made those donations through that very testament, or whether the first instrument of the donations is that which has been transmitted to us, so corrupt, under the name of testament, and whether it is valid and authentic to that extent. Pérard denies it, nor does Mabillon sufficiently prove it. The latter indeed asserts that there is mention both of the aforesaid testament and of the donations made in it in the letter of Pope John the eighth. But I read of one donation of the estate of Tilly made by St. Leodegar to the church of St. Nazarius; I find no mention of a testament, or of an instrument of donation or donations, in the letter. Therefore it is more probable to us, as Pérard first judged, that the testament was put together by a man who had before his eyes various ancient documents, such as are the letters of Pope John, of bishop Jonas, and the Life written by the anonymous author, but who, unskilled in history and chronology, fell into so many and such great errors.

* others visus seemed

* others add and the nobles

* add ad [at]

§ VI. Some canons of the synod celebrated by St. Leodegar: to what year it is to be fixed, and whether it was national.

The synod celebrated by Leodegar, some of whose Sirmond, in tome 1 of the Councils of Gaul, page 506, promulgated some canons of the synod celebrated by our Saint with this preliminary admonition: In a most ancient collection of canons from the library of the church of Angers, under title XLIV, which is on monks and monasteries, some canons from this synod are produced, all of which pertain to monastic discipline, and they are inscribed: Canons of Autun of St. Leodegar, bishop; nor, however, are all transcribed in that place, but, some being passed over, only these which follow. After this, repeating the inscription already given, he reviews, in the order in which he found them, the canons which we too judge should be reported here, as a precious monument of antiquity and an evident testimony of the solicitude of St. Leodegar for restoring and strengthening discipline, monastic discipline too, in his diocese.

[73] canons pertaining to monastic discipline, This is the first title of monastic discipline, that abbots or monks should not have private property, and that monks should receive the accustomed food and clothing from the abbot.

V. That none of them dare to have co-fathers.

VI. That they be not found wandering in the cities. But if for the sake of the utility of the monastery, let them be sent with letters of their abbot written to the archdeacon of the city.

VIII. That they be obedient to their abbot and provost.

X. That no one presume to have familiarities with strange women; and he who shall be found to do so, let him be corrected more severely. That it be in no way lawful for women to enter a monastery of monks.

We establish and decree that no one presume to retain the monk of another without the permission of his abbot: but when he shall have been found wandering, let him be recalled to his own cell, there to be restrained according to the deserts of his faults.

XV. But concerning abbots or monks it is fitting so to observe, that whatever the canonical Order or the Rule of St. Benedict teaches, they ought both to fulfil and to keep in all things. For if all these things have been lawfully preserved among abbots or monasteries, both the number of the monks, God being propitious, will be increased, and the whole world, through their assiduous prayers, will be free of the contagions of evils. Let all monks be altogether obedient, let them be strong in the comeliness of frugality, fervent in the work of God, instant in prayer, persevering in charity: lest through negligence or disobedience they become food for the enemy who goes about roaring and seeking whom he may devour. Let them have one heart and one soul. Let no one call anything his own, but let all things be common to them. Let them labour in common, let them be altogether receivers of hospitality. But whoever shall attempt by any transgression to annul these things dictated by us at God's command for the Regular confirmation of monks, if he is an abbot, let the power of communion be suspended for him for one year; if a provost, for two years; if a monk, let him either be beaten with rods or be suspended from communion and Mass and the love-feast for three years. For it is just that the creeping seeds of vices should be cut back with the sickle of justice, lest, while they are nourished by a pretence of continence, they so grow into a forest that they cannot be cut down even with axes.

[74] and two others from Sirmond, The same editor Sirmond, having recited these, advises again: Besides, there seems to be referred to the synod of Autun of St. Leodegar a canon which in another collection of canons from the library of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon, and in others, is cited, and is called the first canon of Autun, in these words:

Canons of Autun. Era I.

“If any presbyter, deacon, subdeacon or cleric shall not recite irreproachably the Creed which the Apostles, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, handed down, and the faith of St. Athanasius the prelate, let him be condemned by the bishop.” Then in the Notes to the same tome, page 620, he observes: In the codex of Bonneval, and likewise in those of Angers, Dijon and others, which exhibit lists of bishops, how many in number were in each synod and published canons, in the last place these things are read: “Consent of the lord Leodegar, bishop of Autun. I, Leodegar, as it were an unworthy sinner, bishop, with the consent of my brethren we have promised, and it has pleased that it be observed perpetually.” Which subscription can be seen to pertain to this council of ours.

[75] Labbe and Cossart inserted the same canons, with Sirmond's Observations, in the general Collection of Councils, tome 6, column 535: by Labbe and Cossart, but they themselves also produce another canon in the same place, column 1887: To the canons published above, page 535, they say, Pierre de la Lande, a distinguished man, adds another from a collection of canons which is in the de Thou library; which, since it is there called XIV, it is thereby established that there were formerly more than now exist, and that not all pertained to monastic discipline. And that they were dictated by St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, is plain from two indexes of this collection, of which the former contains the chapters of the Greek and Latin canons, at the end of which are these words: “canons of Autun of St. Leodegar, bishop”; and the latter index has thus: “the bishops who dictated these canons”, whose names are lacking. And at the foot of this is read: “Consent and confirmation of the lord Leodegar, bishop of Autun.”

Canon of Autun XIV.

“But let seculars who shall not have communicated at the Nativity of the Lord, Easter and Pentecost not dwell among Catholics. Let no presbyter, stuffed with food or drunk with wine, presume to handle the Sacrifices or to celebrate Masses: but if anyone shall have presumed, let him lose his honour. It is not fitting for women to approach the altar.”

[76] It appears certain enough from the numbers prefixed that some canons of this synod have perished; the others being lost, are recited, by various men in various years nevertheless it can be doubted whether the two found in other collections pertain to the same synod; because the clause of the Angers collection: But whoever shall attempt by any transgression to annul these things dictated by us at God's command for the regular confirmation of monks etc., seems to intimate that all the canons pertained to monastic discipline; as in fact all those which survive in the Angers collection do pertain to it. But the matter thus

could be conceived, that first canons were composed for every state of the faithful, and then those taken from them which pertained solely to monastic discipline were distributed to the several monasteries of the diocese. Hence it came about that these rather than others have survived until now. This indeed is indicated in some manner in the first canon of the Angers collection: This is the first title of monastic discipline. See meanwhile what was said about the canon recited in no. 74 in tome 1 of May, page 758.

[77] This synod of Autun, further, the writers refer to different years, each at his own discretion. it is fixed; wrongly by Sirmond to the 4th year of Theuderic, Sirmond set it about the year of Christ 670, the 4th of king Theuderic. But these do not cohere. For Theuderic did not reign before the death of Clothar III, which we, with Henschenius, Pagi and others, have tied to the year 670; Le Cointe with others ties it to 669. Besides, Theuderic, on Clothar's death, was indeed substituted as king through Ebroin, but a few months after was cast down from the throne and ordered by his brother Childeric, who had obtained the monarchy, to reside in the monastery of Saint-Denis; until at length, Childeric too having been taken from the living, he began to reign in the year 673 according to the chronology now more received; the fourth year of Theuderic, therefore, would properly have to be joined with the year of Christ 676 or 677, at which time it is not probable to us that a synod could have been celebrated by St. Leodegar, as we shall presently declare. Ruinart, in the Apology for the mission of St. Maurus, which you have in the first Appendix to tome 1 of Mabillon's Benedictine Annals, page 636, and the writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 350 and following, fix the synod in the year 661: Le Cointe, tome 3 of the Annals, page 547, in the year 663; Mabillon in the Preface to the second Benedictine Century, no. 18, about 665; others about 666.

[78] by Le Cointe, without sufficiently solid Of the cited authors Le Cointe alone alleges a foundation for his opinion, and he takes it from the title which is prefixed to the canon of the Dijon collection: Canons of Autun, era I. By era I Sirmond and others had understood the first canon, but he himself repudiates this acceptation of the word, and, Era, he says, is perhaps used improperly in the council of Autun to denote the years of bishop Leodegar, and that title… is divided in vain into two parts, since it seems to signify nothing else than that the canons of Autun were established in Era I, or in the first year of bishop Leodegar. Although this interpretation could please, and would very greatly commend St. Leodegar for his zeal and vigilance in administering the diocese, in that he did not suffer even the first year of his pontificate to slip by without the convocation of a synod, we rather suspect that an error has crept into the era, and that the canons of Autun were sanctioned not in era I, but in era 701… We therefore think the synod of Autun was celebrated in the seven hundred and first era, that is, in this year of Christ six hundred and sixty-three.

[79] foundation, in the year of Christ 663, Let everyone have his liberty of opining or suspecting: we have been taught by experience that errors of this kind have very frequently crept into ancient monuments; but that such an error lies hidden here, so that era I has been put through carelessness for era 701, is not urged by Le Cointe's argument taken from the Preface of the council of Arles, in which it is indeed said that this council was celebrated in era 851, that is, in the year of Christ 813. For since, as Le Cointe himself affirms, the word era is found only twice in the whole collection of the ancient councils of Gaul; so much the less ought it to seem strange that a writer of Arles of the ninth century used that word to designate years in the manner of the Spaniards, while a writer of Autun of the seventh century used it to indicate the section of chapters, or to distinguish canons, titles or articles, as Du Cange proves by many examples in the Glossary at the word Æra was done by writers of the middle age. The other opinion, by which era I would indicate the first year of the episcopate of St. Leodegar, and from which perhaps Ruinart marked the synod in the year of Christ 661, could indeed please; but since I do not find such a manner of computing confirmed by examples, I prefer Sirmond's interpretation, according to which the word era contributes nothing to forming the epoch of the synod.

[80] by Mabillon in 665, and then, his opinion changed, in the third year Mabillon, who in the Preface to Century 2 had fixed the synod in the year 665 and had brought no reason for his opinion, afterwards abandoned this too, and thought he had found the epoch from the testament of St. Leodegar examined above. That we may follow his mind sufficiently, we must repeat what we recited before from the Preface to part 2 of Century III: The Synod usually called that of Autun … seems to have been a national council (as they call it), namely that concerning which there is talk in the common testament of Leodegar, of fifty-four fellow-bishops gathered at Christiacum together with Leodegar in the third year of king Theuderic. For although that testament has been interpolated in its chronological notes, and perhaps in some proper names by the error of copyists, it ought not, however, to be rejected altogether: especially since there is mention both of the aforesaid testament and of the donations made in it in the letter of Pope John the eighth, which Pérard published in the Burgundian Monuments after the same testament. And certainly the epoch of that synod in Sirmond, who assigned the fourth year of Theuderic, agrees with this place: for the third year of a reign is easily combined with the fourth under the different reckoning by which some begin to count the reign of each king from the very death of his predecessor, others from the following year. So he.

[81] And why he attempted to combine the chronological note prefixed to the synod in Sirmond with the note of the testament of king Theuderic, of Christ is clear enough. Namely, that he might prove that the synod was celebrated at the same time as the testament was made, that is, in the third or fourth year of king Theuderic. He establishes this absolutely in the Preface to Century IV, no. 106, where, having brought forward some words of the same synod and explained them for the subject matter, he says: Further, this synod consisted of fifty-four bishops gathered at Christiacum, as I observed from Leodegar's testament in the second Preface of the third Century; this synod therefore was not merely diocesan; but almost national… Therefore in the third or fourth year of king Theuderic the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the decrees of the canons, is enjoined on monks, not that it be admitted for the first time, but that it be PRESERVED AND FULFILLED, which last words he takes from canon XV of the said synod. Now it must be seen whether this epoch of the synod can be reconciled with the history and chronology of the other things done.

[82] In the year 673 Theuderic, third son of Clovis, 675 or 676, which epoch his brother Childeric having been extinguished, takes the government. These are the very words of Mabillon in the brief Chronology of the Affairs of the Franks prefixed to the second Benedictine Century, and it is the opinion of Pagi and others now more common. Therefore the third year of king Theuderic was the year of Christ 675 or 676, Mabillon's own manner of computing being preserved, from De re Diplomatica, book 6, page 469 and following, where he produces two diplomas of Theuderic, given in the month of September in the 5th year of his reign, which he ties to the year 678, and a third given on the second day before the Kalends of July, in the 7th year of our reign, which Mabillon fixes to the year 680. But it is not probable that St. Leodegar was free to celebrate a synod in the third year of Theuderic, of Christ 675 or 676; since, as Mabillon again confesses with others commonly, he was crowned with martyrdom in the year 678; after he had been detained in captivity and afflicted with various punishments for at least four years, as will become evident from what is to be said, and as we show here only in passing.

[83] King Childeric having died, Leodegar left Luxeuil, where we shall see he was in exile, cannot be combined with the things done at that time. and with the assent of the new king Theuderic, whose party he followed, returned to Autun. Ebroin, opposing Theuderic and hostile to Leodegar, directed a huge crowd of soldiers with leaders to Autun to take the holy Bishop. The city having been besieged for some time, the Saint of his own accord presented himself to the enemies, was deprived of his eyes, and was led into Champagne: where first he was left in a forest to perish of hunger, then handed over to custody in a monastery, in which he lay hidden for about two years, as Ursinus writes. Meanwhile Ebroin is reconciled to king Theuderic, and accuses Leodegar and his brother Gerinus of the killing of Childeric. Both are called to the court; Gerinus is overwhelmed with stones; Leodegar, atrociously mutilated, is committed for longer tortures to the custody of Waning, who leads him to the monastery of Fécamp, founded by himself, in the province of Normandy, where, when the Saint had stayed in the praises of God for nearly two years, so our anonymous author says, he heard that many of his enemies, God permitting, had been punished by Ebroin himself. But then the Saint himself too, called again to the court, received the sentence of death, and was handed over, to be killed secretly, to a certain Chrodobert, in whose house, when the Saint had stayed for some time and had converted both him and his wife and many others to a better life, he was at length killed, Ebroin urging it.

[84] it cannot. That that synod These things, which will be explained more laboriously in the course of what follows, suffice for the studious reader presently to notice that it is by no means probable that St. Leodegar could have celebrated a synod in the last four years of his life, of which certainly one was the third of king Theuderic, since during all that interval of time he lived outside his diocese and was detained in captivity. Further, hence we learn indeed at what time of the episcopate of St. Leodegar the synod was most probably not celebrated; but since we also find no solid foundation for acceding to one rather than another of the opinions mentioned before, we proceed to another question; namely whether the said synod was national, or provincial, or diocesan. Most have judged it only diocesan. Mabillon judges it was national or almost national, with this view, unless I am mistaken, that he might conclude thence that the Rule of St. Benedict was commended and prescribed to monks in the seventh century both by St. Leodegar and by almost all the bishops of the whole of Francia, as one may deservedly gather from his words brought forward above.

[85] was national, Mabillon's arguments, to which He proposes the arguments for his opinion in the Preface to Century IV, no. 106. Because this synod consisted of fifty-four bishops gathered at Christiacum: because in those times almost all synods in which canons were established were at least provincial: because the statutes of the synod of Autun are reckoned among the canons of the Gallican church: because they were established for the whole of Gaul, as canon six proves: That monks be not found in the cities. But it will be answered to the first that the testament, in the sense set out above, is spurious or so corrupt that it is unfit to create belief concerning so great a number of assembled bishops. Grant, however, that the testament reports the truth in this place too: how will it be proved that canons were then established by those bishops, and these in particular, of which there is

question? Indeed, the inscriptions which Sirmond testifies are prefixed to the canons in the old collections bid us believe that these canons were established neither by those bishops nor in that place. In the Angers collection the inscription is this: Canons of Autun of St. Leodegar, bishop: in the Dijon one this: Canons of Autun. For why are they called of Autun, and not rather of Christiacum? where, if the testament is to be believed, the bishops had been gathered, and where according to Mabillon the synod was held and the canons established? Why are they called canons of St. Leodegar, and not rather of the bishops of Gaul?

[86] To the second and third argument of Mabillon it will be answered is answered, that these things are asserted gratuitously, and that the contrary is urged from the synod of Auxerre, which St. Aunarius the bishop held about the year 578 with seven abbots, thirty-four presbyters and three deacons, and which no one will deny was diocesan. In it, however, canons were established to the number of forty-five, and these, like those of Autun, were reviewed by Sirmond in tome 1 of the Councils of Gaul. To the fourth argument, finally, it will be answered, first, that the words of the canon: That monks be not found in the cities, can be taken of the cities of the diocese, until it is proved that there was then only one city in it. Meanwhile it will be helpful to know what the writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 324, relate concerning its present-day extent: Besides Autun it contains very many other towns under it; namely Moulins, Bourbon-Lancy, Semur, Beaune, Flavigny, Saulieu, Avallon, Arnay-le-Duc etc. Seven hundred parishes, colleges of canons, very many monasteries of men and women of every kind, more than fifteen abbeys etc. Secondly, it will be answered that the words of the canon are read thus: That they be not found wandering in the cities; and can be so understood: The monks of our diocese are forbidden to wander in cities situated either within or outside the diocese.

[87] What we have observed concerning the inscriptions of the canons, and which is the strongest argument of those opposing Mabillon, do not prove. he himself also noticed in the Preface to Century IV, and says that the canons were called of Autun by the ancients: Because they were established in the diocese of that city, and called canons of St. Leodegar: Because the holy bishop was their author. But both are more easily said than proved. For if you ask, What place is Christiacum, where the synod was held; he will reply, in tome 1 of the Annals, page 519: I would not easily say, unless one should read Chrisciacus, which was a royal estate in Ponthieu. But thus he tacitly suffers his first assertion to be overturned: for if one should read Chrisciacus, the canons were not established in the diocese of Autun; since the district of Ponthieu is part of Picardy, and Chrisiacus, otherwise Crisciacum and Creciacum, commonly Crécy, is a place of the diocese of Amiens. To Mabillon's other assertion I, for my part, shall reply that the canons were called St. Leodegar's because that one bishop was present at, and presided over, a synod gathered and celebrated at Autun, in the principal city of his diocese. But of these things enough now. I return to the series of events interrupted for a while, or to the deeds of our Saint from the year 670, the tenth or eleventh of his episcopate.

§ VII. It is examined whether, on the death of Clothar III, Leodegar stood for Childeric against Theuderic, and whether the latter was younger by birth than the former.

On the death of Clothar III, Neustria and Burgundy A huge disturbance of the kingdoms followed upon the death of king Clothar the third. His mother St. Bathild, having long since abdicated the government of Burgundy and Neustria, had withdrawn into the monastery of Chelles; he himself had left no children to succeed; there survived two brothers, Childeric and Theuderic, of whom the former was reigning in Austrasia, the latter was living in the court of his dead brother, in which the supreme power of affairs was, and had been from the withdrawal of queen Bathild, in the hands of Ebroin, mayor of the palace; but by abusing it he had made most of the princes of the kingdom most hostile to himself. Let our anonymous biographer be heard. For the said Ebroin, he says, was so kindled with the torch of cupidity, and given to the love of money, that only those had a just cause before him who had brought more money. And since some for the sake of fear, others for the redeeming of justice, had filled him with an immense sum of gold and silver, the minds of certain men, touched with grief on account of this despoiling, had already been stirred against him; because he not only practised the commerce of rapacity, but also for a light offence shed the innocent blood of many nobles. St. Leodegar the bishop, therefore, he held in suspicion for this reason, that he could not overcome him in speech, nor did he pay him the homage of flattery as the rest did, and he had known him always to remain intrepid against all his threats. He had then issued a tyrannical edict that no one from the parts of Burgundy should presume to approach the palace unless he had received his mandate. Then from former fear all were suspicious that he was planning, to heap up his wickedness, either to condemn certain men with the loss of their heads, or to inflict losses of their goods.

[89] are disturbed by Ebroin's cause. Things were in this state when the news of the death of Clothar was brought to our Saint. Then the same Pontiff …, so says Ursinus, went on with swift course to the palace, and began to treat with his fellow-soldiers about a king. Hearing that Hilderic, king of the Austrasians, in his youth was disposing the kingdom excellently according to the age of his time, a certain part of the Franks elected him, wishing to have him as king. For Ebroin, who had been mayor of the palace under king Lothar, desired to substitute his brother Theuderic for his brother in the kingdom. But Ebroin himself was then hated among the Franks, and because they feared the yoke of this weight which they had borne through him under king Lothar, abandoning his counsel, they raised Hilderic over the whole kingdom. This author has comprised many things in few words; and first indeed he sufficiently confirms the things which the anonymous author relates more fully concerning Ebroin's unjust rule of government under the dead king, and at the same time declares the cause why the chief men of the Franks chose Childeric rather than Theuderic as king of Neustria and Burgundy. But the anonymous author declares these things too with more and different circumstances on this side and that. He, keeping deep silence about the haste of St. Leodegar to the court on hearing of Clothar's death, and about the deliberation on appointing a king, says: Meanwhile king Lothar, called by the Lord, departed from this light. But when Hebroin ought, the chief men being called together, to have solemnly raised to the kingdom, as the custom is, his own brother, named Theoderic, swollen with the spirit of pride, he would not thereafter call them together. Therefore they began to fear the more, because the king, whom he ought publicly to have raised to the glory of the fatherland, while he kept him behind himself *, he could boldly inflict evil in his name on whomever he had wished it. And when the multitude of nobles who were hastening to meet the new king had received, at Hebroin's command, the refusal of the journey, having entered into common counsel, abandoning him, all seek Hilderic, his younger brother, who had received the kingdom in Austrasia by lot, and make him king of Neustria and Burgundy.

[90] If these things were narrated as the truth of history required, and if the author used words taken in their proper and obvious sense, The right of Theuderic to the inheritance of Clothar is declared; they seem to intimate that the inheritance of Clothar was due to Theuderic, and that Ebroin at first sinned only in this, that he alone with his party placed him on the throne, without calling together according to custom the chief men of the kingdoms, who should be present at that solemn act for the greater splendour of the nation, and should perform the other things which they had been accustomed to perform, both all in general, and each in particular according to his order and grade. Certainly that multitude of nobles which hastened to salute the new king seems to have recognised that right of Theuderic, after he had been set up even thus, without the ancient ceremonies being observed; so that you would say the Burgundians and Neustrians had not thought of setting up Childeric as king for themselves, except when, from the second and more shameful repulse, they looked more deeply into the mind of Ebroin, and judged that they had not been called together by him for this reason, and for this reason had been repulsed from the court when they came of their own accord, that he alone with his party might possess the king, and in his name establish and direct all things at his own discretion, depress the opposing or suspected, and raise up those who assented and were like himself.

[91] Again the same author indicates some right of Theuderic a little after the words cited, but on what was it founded? Theuderic where he says that certain men who seemed to be the chief in the kingdom … with the daring of rashness ordered the hair of THEIR LORD (Theuderic, now a captive) to be cut off. Finally the anonymous author presently introduces Theuderic himself speaking thus, as if he had no doubt of his right. For, being shorn and asked by Childeric what he wished to be done with him … he professed that he awaited only this, a swift judgment from God, because he had been unjustly cast out of the kingdom. The author adds: And the God of heaven, whom he professed to have as his judge, afterwards happily permitted him to reign. But on what foundation shall we say that that right of Theuderic rested? On the supreme will of the dying Clothar, by which, whether from a special affection of love towards his brother Theuderic, or at the instigation of Ebroin, who directed everything, he had designated him as his successor? To assert this, nothing occurs but conjecture. On the custom practised by the sons of the Merovingian kings, by which, as may be seen in Gregory of Tours and Fredegar Scholasticus, they had more than once divided equally among themselves the inheritance left by deceased parents or kinsmen? The right of Theuderic rests no more firmly on this custom than on conjecture: for it is very doubtful whether it still obtained in Theuderic's age; indeed it rather appears to have been abrogated, a contrary usage having been introduced first under Dagobert I, and then under Clothar III, the elder brother of the Theuderic of whom we here treat, of whom the one (see Fredegar, chapters 56 and 57) had not divided the paternal inheritance equally with his younger brother Charibert, and the other (see Le Cointe in the Annals of the Franks at the year 655, no. 9) with his brothers Childeric and Theuderic. On the age, finally, in which Theuderic was prior to Childeric? Almost all the more recent writers are against this, when they call Theuderic the younger of the sons of Clovis, or Childeric his second-born son.

[92] Nevertheless Fr. Pierre-François Chifflet, priest of our Society, Chifflet thinks he was older by birth than Childeric, who treated the present matter professedly in the Dissertation on the years of Dagobert, chapter 15, not only judged from the words of the anonymous author recited above that the kingdom of Clothar was by right due to Theuderic, but also contended that Theuderic was older by birth than Childeric, chiefly from these words: Abandoning him (Theuderic), all seek Hilderic, his younger brother. Le Cointe also noticed that something lies hidden in this text by no means favouring his own and the more common opinion of others: therefore, using a different punctuation, he reads: Hilderic the Younger, his brother; and The YOUNGER, he says, he (the anonymous author) meant to refer not to the brother, but to Childeric, so that he might distinguish this Childeric, surnamed the Younger, from the elder Childeric, father of Clovis the first.

For since he was committing to writing the affairs of his own time, he could not have been ignorant that Childeric was older by birth than his brother Theuderic. But not undeservedly Chifflet: Which I should wish to be confirmed by the authority of some ancient writer. For first of all it is contrary to the custom of the writers who flourished under the first stock of kings, that of two kings of the same name they should call the Younger one who was separated from the former by so great an interval as this Childeric from Childeric, the parent of Clovis the Great, who was the great-great-grandfather of his grandfather Dagobert… To me certainly there is no doubt that this author, an observer of these times, thought Childeric younger than his brother Theuderic, and that the Frankish nobles themselves thought the same with him (if indeed he narrates truly). To these Chifflet subjoins the things by which the same anonymous author intimates the right of Theuderic to the succession of Clothar.

[93] against whom, from historical deeds, No one will deny, I think, that Chifflet's reading is more obvious, or less far-fetched, than Le Cointe's; indeed whoever thinks that either Mabillon's edition or the new one prepared by Martin Bouquet, tome 2 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, is to be followed will not be able not to confess that it is altogether conformable to the mind of the author: for in both it is read thus: They seek Hilderic, his younger brother. Hence Chifflet not undeservedly wished that the testimony of an ancient writer should be brought forward, by whose authority the opinion of those asserting that Theuderic was younger in age than Childeric might be confirmed. I, for my part, studiously consulted old writings and monuments from which I thought this could be drawn out; and in fact I found various texts from which, setting aside the authority of our anonymous author, they have most probably judged so, yet none so clear and evident that it cannot be explained according to the sense of our anonymous author alleged by Chifflet. Texts of this kind are in many Deeds, Histories and Chronicles of the kings of the Franks in the cited Bouquet, tomes two and three, where the sons of Clovis and Bathild are enumerated, and Theuderic is named only in the third place. So it is done in tome 2, page 569, where in the Deeds of the kings of the Franks we read: By Bathild his queen he had three sons, Clothar, Childeric and Theuderic.

[94] from Chronicles and other In the same order they are enumerated in the first part of the Continuation of Fredegar, page 449, in the brief Chronicles of the kings of the Franks, page 664, in the Chronicle of Ado, page 669; in the historical Fragment, page 692, in the Lineage of the kings of the Franks, page 697, and in the little book on the Mayors of the palace, page 699; but the editor himself in the Preface says that the anonymous author who wrote the Deeds of the kings of the Franks in the eighth century devises so many fables that he merits no credit, and calls the author of the first part of the Continuation of Fredegar a pitiable patcher-together from the Deeds of the kings of the Franks and the History of Dagobert. And the remaining little Works alleged are either likewise sprinkled with fables, or composed by men who, too far removed from the things to be narrated, transcribed those older ones. This Bouquet observes of Ado by name, saying: What he narrates about the kings of the Franks of the first stock, he draws from the Deeds of the kings of the Franks. I do not bring forward other little Works which Bouquet inserted in the third tome, and in which the enumeration of the sons of Clovis is made in the same order: since the editor says of them generally in the preliminary Notice to them: I long hesitated whether I should print the following writers. For besides that they have nothing which they have not excerpted from the more ancient authors whom we have given, they are too recent to create belief in the things which were done under the first stock of the kings of the Franks.

[95] Among them he places the author of the second Life of St. Wandregisil, abbot, from little Works nothing certain is proved, published by Mabillon, Century 2 of the Benedictines, and by us in tome V of July at the 22nd day, without doubt because, although this author wrote in the seventh century, his Work was nevertheless interpolated in the ninth century, as Mabillon advises, and especially in those things which pertain to chronology, as has been proved with us by examples. In this Life of St. Wandregisil, further, the sons of Clovis and Bathild are twice reviewed in the same order as in the preceding, and in the second place, with us in the tome cited, page 279, as follows: For St. Wandregisil intimated to queen Bathild, widow of king Hlodoveus, the deaths and successions of her three ruling sons, of whom Hlothar, who was the elder by birth, in the fourteenth year of his reign, suddenly lost human fellowship. Then Hilderic, rashly slain by plotters, was taken from the present life. The third, Theoderic, too, surviving his mother, took up the helm of the kingdom: and so it is manifest that it came about according to the prophecy of the man of God. Better testimonies than these for the common opinion I have not found. It must now be seen whether they are such as Chifflet required. He will deny it, not only because they are taken from writers who are not to be compared with our anonymous author either in age or in authority, but most of all because there is none among them which cannot easily be explained according to the sense of the same anonymous author, by saying that the enumeration of the sons of Clovis was made by the said writers, or rather by one earlier of them, from whom the others received it, not in the order in which they were born, but only in that in which they obtained the monarchy. This very thing the one cited in the last place in some manner intimates, when he says that the deaths and successions of her sons had been foretold to queen Bathild by St. Wandregisil, among whom Theuderic, third in the order of succession, took up the helm of the kingdom, surviving his mother among the living.

[96] But indeed, someone will say: even if it could perhaps be said nor in particular from the genealogical, that by most of the said writers, or rather by one earlier of them, from whom the rest received it, the sons of Clovis are enumerated not in the order of birth, but only of succession to the monarchy, it could not yet be said that this is likewise done either by the author of the Lineage of the kings of the Franks, which Martin Bouquet brings forward in tome 2 of the writers of Gallic Affairs, page 697, or by the author of the Genealogy of the same kings from Merovech to king Pippin, which Duchesne published from an old manuscript codex of the library of the king of Britain, tome 1 of the Writers of the History of the Franks, page 794. For since both the said authors weave the Genealogy of the kings of the Franks of the first stock; and it is customary, nay incumbent, for genealogists to review the names of the princes whose genealogical series they describe in the order of birth, it is not to be asserted without reason that one or the other of the cited genealogists perhaps departed from the usual, nay due, custom of genealogists, and so did not preserve the order of birth in reviewing the sons of Clovis. I do not, indeed, deny that it is altogether customary for genealogists, and even deservedly required of them as a duty, that in weaving genealogies they should chiefly follow the order of birth; but persons of two kinds occur to be considered in a genealogical series; some, of whom one does not draw its origin from the other, as are the children of the same father and mother; others on the contrary, of whom one draws its origin from the other, and whose generation the genealogist sets out either ascending from the descendants to the progenitors or descending from these to those: in reviewing the latter, not likewise the former, it is necessary that the order of birth be preserved by the genealogist.

[97] from which, one formed, and Wherefore from the duty which is incumbent on a genealogist it does not even follow that the cited genealogists strove to enumerate the sons of Clovis in the order of birth, much less that they actually enumerated them so: and certainly that the former genealogist, in the Genealogy which he wove, was little solicitous about the order of birth in reviewing the sons of Clovis is clearly established even from this, that, when in the said Lineage of the kings of the Franks he records two sons of the elder Dagobert, namely Clovis and Sigebert, he puts Clovis, about whose sons we are here disputing, before Sigebert, whom nevertheless no one will go about to deny was older by birth than Clovis who has understood from Le Cointe in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year of Christ 634, no. 2, and from other writers, that Sigebert, when Clovis was born, had already been reigning for a second year in Austrasia.

[98] the other objection is easily solved, Further, even if it were most openly established (which, however, is by no means established) that the genealogists adduced from Bouquet and Duchesne applied every care in reviewing the sons of Clovis to name each in the order of birth; how can they be proved either to have actually attained this end of theirs, or rather to have been able certainly to attain it? Certainly, since Duchesne's genealogist reveals his age by no indication at all, it can deservedly be doubted whether so great a distance of time did not intervene between him and the sons of Clovis that he could know nothing certain about them, and therefore, however he may have wished, could not consign it to writing either. And as regards Bouquet's, if this author, as seems to Bouquet, is the same as the author of the Chronicle of Saint-Médard of Soissons, who flourished in the thirteenth century, he is too remote (which Bouquet observes above of other writers too) from the times of Clovis and his sons to be able to create undoubted belief in the things he writes of them. Nor is there reason for you to object that writers contemporary with Clovis and his sons, who have now perished, perhaps lighted the way for the often-cited genealogists, and that from them the order of birth to be assigned to Childeric and Theuderic could have become known; for since this is very uncertain, it likewise remains uncertain whether they enumerated the sons of Clovis in the order of birth, or rather whether they could certainly have enumerated them so.

[99] and therefore Chifflet's opinion, at least somewhat confirmed We have, therefore, nothing thus far by which Chifflet's opinion is certainly overthrown; indeed on the contrary it could be not a little confirmed if the Chronicle of Saint-Denis, which, written in the old French idiom, Bouquet published in tome 3 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, retained its credibility intact. For in book 5, chapter 23, it most openly intimates that Childeric was younger than Theuderic, in this manner: Cils rois Clothaires morut, quant il ot quatre anz regné. Lors couronnerent li François le mainé (otherwise, as Bouquet notes in the margin, mainsné) qui avoit non Theodoric; Childeric le tiers envoyerent en Austrasie. To which words, regard being had to the context, outside of which tiers and mainé or mainsné (see the Trévoux dictionary at the word puisné) have a wider signification than I would here allow, I judge this Latin sense should be fitted: This king Clothar died when he had reigned four years. Then the Franks crowned the second-born, who was named Theuderic; Childeric, the third-born, they sent into Austrasia. What clearer can be had for determining without doubt the order in which Theuderic and Childeric were born? But these things, a more liberal interpretation being applied, have perhaps only been drawn from the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, whose uncertain author in chapter 45, offering absolutely no indication from which it could be gathered that Theuderic was older by birth than Childeric, sets up the narrative in this manner: In these days king Clothar, a boy, died, and he reigned four years. And Theuderic his brother was raised king of the Franks. Childeric therefore, his other brother, went on to take up the kingdom in Austria together with duke Wulfoald: where neither is Theuderic named second-born, nor Childeric third-born. There is added that, as is established from Bouquet's preliminary Notice, the cited Chronicle of Saint-Denis

in French was not written before the thirteenth century; and the Latin, from which that one was composed by translation, since it had Aimoin lighting its way, was not written before the eleventh century, and therefore not before four centuries had elapsed after the seventh century, in which Childeric and Theuderic flourished.

[100] These things being weighed, I do not think that undoubted credit is to be given to the Chronicle of Saint-Denis in the present matter, as it is held probable, but not as certain but neither is all credit to be denied: for although Bouquet notes in the margin that the chapter of the cited Chronicle cited above was taken from chapters 44 and 45 of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, yet that it was woven also from some other more ancient writers, from whom something more certain could be known, easily becomes manifest from an inspection of the same chapter and a comparison made with the chapters from the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks assigned by Bouquet. Wherefore, since from the order in which the sons of Clovis are enumerated by most authors it cannot certainly be known, as we have seen, whether Childeric was younger than Theuderic, or on the contrary the latter than the former; and the French Chronicle of Saint-Denis, with which our anonymous author, taken in the obvious and less far-fetched sense, agrees, openly declares that Childeric was younger than Theuderic; I, moved by the authority, such as it is, of the cited Chronicle, but most of all by the manifest words of our anonymous author alleged in no. 89, whose credibility nothing compels us to hold suspect, judge Chifflet's opinion at least probable; that I nevertheless do not admit it as certain, or as more probable than the opposite, is caused both by the exposition applied by Le Cointe in no. 91 to the cited words of our anonymous author, and chiefly by the not small difficulty which occurs in it. For if Childeric was younger than Theuderic, by what reason did it come about that St. Bathild, mother of Childeric and Theuderic, appointing a king to rule the Austrasians alone, preferred Childeric to Theuderic? Lately, says the contemporary anonymous author in the Life of St. Bathild published by Bolland at the 26th of January and by others, the Austrasians too, the lady Bathild ordering it in peaceful order, by the counsel indeed of the elders, received Childeric her son as king of Austrasia: while the Burgundians and Franks (namely under Clothar, the elder son of Bathild) were made united.

[101] I have turned over a good many writers, both ancient and more recent, on account of a difficulty, which only by conjectures among whom I thought a wedge fit for loosening this difficult knot might perhaps be found, and I have found nothing but a foundation for making one or another not improbable conjecture. Louis du Four, in the Annals of the Franks which Bouquet added at the end of tome 3 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, at the year of Christ 660, pronounces thus of the Austrasians: The Austrasians always wished to have kings residing among them, and submitted with reluctance to princes dwelling in Neustria. With this author agree Pagi in the Critica and Le Cointe in the Annals of the Franks, when the latter at the year 660, nos. 1 and 2, and the former at the same year, no. 6, write that, the Austrasians being in tumult and demanding that a king be given them who should rule Austrasia alone, Childeric was set over them by queen Bathild, that she might calm the tumult. Further, that the Austrasians, at least from the time of Dagobert I, were so disposed in mind, as the cited du Four writes, seems able not ineptly to be deduced from Fredegar; for he, in chapter 58, depicts the kingdom of Austrasia under Dagobert I residing among the Austrasians as most happy; but on the contrary in chapters 68, 74 and 75, under the same Dagobert, the seat of the kingdom having been transferred to the Neustrians, as most unhappy, as being miserably devastated by frequent incursions of the Wends, a most savage nation, and even exposed to the hatred and sinister suspicions of Dagobert himself: besides, the same Fredegar, as seemed to Le Cointe at the year 633, intimates in chapter 85 that Dagobert I kept with him in Neustria, as long as he lived, the chief nobles of the Austrasians who had followed him into Neustria, lest they should attempt revolution in Austrasia.

[102] from the temper of the Austrasians Wherefore it becomes very probable from Fredegar, nay in a manner certain, that the Austrasians ascribed the wretched state of their affairs, and the mind of the king, to whom they had formerly been dear, estranged from them, to the wicked counsels of the Neustrians, and therefore at least from that time were averse to a king who resided in Neustria. It can therefore not undeservedly be conjectured that the Austrasians demanded of queen Bathild not only a king who should rule Austrasia alone (as the cited Pagi and Le Cointe say), but also, to this end, that her youngest son be given them, and that he was given by Bathild, that she might calm the tumult. For since they were, as we have seen, altogether averse to a king who had the seat of the kingdom in Neustria, it is probable that they sought that one of the sons of Bathild be set over them as king concerning whom there was less to fear that at some time, the kingdom of the Neustrians perhaps devolving to him through the death of his elder brother Clothar, he would transfer the seat of the kingdom from Austrasia into Neustria, as they remembered Dagobert I had done, with huge detriment to the whole kingdom; and that was less to be feared from the youngest than from the second-born son of Bathild, to whom by right of inheritance the kingdom of Neustria would belong if at any time Clothar should depart from the living without a son, whose life, as being then scarcely ten years old, was still exposed to the greatest dangers, as is usual with boys of that age.

[103] and the demands of queen Himnechild are in some measure satisfied; Further, material for making a not dissimilar conjecture is suggested by Pagi in the Critica, who, after he has clearly shown at the year 661, no. 4, that queen Himnechild, widow of St. Sigebert, king of Austrasia, and mother of Dagobert II, then an exile in Ireland, subscribed together with the same Childeric to the donation of Barisis made by Childeric, king of Austrasia, to St. Amand, finally in no. 5 concludes in this manner: From the precept of donation of Childeric for the monastery of Barisis) issued this year (661), we learn a notable secret, namely that Himnechild, widow of the holy king Sigebert and mother of the exile Dagobert and of Bilihild, set out into Austrasia with her nephew Childeric, when he was set over this kingdom, to exercise his guardianship; that Childeric promised that he would take Bilihild as wife when she was marriageable; and that Himnechild, content with that marriage, cared little about recalling her son Dagobert from Ireland. Then, some things interposed, he proves in no. 6 from the same instrument of donation that the guardianship of Childeric reigning in Austrasia was in the hands of Himnechild; and a little before this proof he had premised: For from it (the precept of Childeric concerning the place of Barisis) it becomes manifest that Himnechild preferred her daughter Bilihild to her younger son Dagobert, and, provided that she became the bride of king Childeric and the administration of the kingdom were granted to herself, cast away the care of her exiled son. Of these and other things which Pagi deduces from the cited precept of Childeric and from Himnechild's subscription to it, only the guardianship of Childeric entrusted to Himnechild is certain; the rest, although they are not of undoubted credit, are nevertheless most probable: wherefore from them you may not undeservedly conjecture that Himnechild not only consented with a very ready will with Bathild about setting over the Austrasians a king from the sons of Clovis whose guardianship she was to exercise, but also strove with all zeal that the youngest son of Clovis should be preferred to the elder: for since most probably, as follows from what has been said, queen Himnechild sought that the administration of the kingdom of Austrasia be granted to her; and knew that it would remain with her only for the time in which the royal ward who was to be committed to her guardianship could not govern the kingdom by himself on account of his weak age, most probably too the woman, greedy of ruling, sought with the greatest care that he be given as king to the Austrasians under whom she reckoned the supreme direction of Austrasian affairs would remain with her longer.

[104] Therefore, even if Childeric is admitted to be younger than Theuderic, nor would opponents defend the right of Theuderic otherwise, a not inept reason can be rendered on account of which Bathild, Theuderic being passed over, set Childeric as king over the kingdom of the Austrasians. But if you reply that this is only a conjecture, what, I ask, better than a conjecture would you bring forward, if Theuderic is set down as younger than Childeric, to assert for Theuderic his right to the inheritance of his brother Clothar? And that there was a right in Theuderic to the inheritance of Clothar the various circumstances adduced from our anonymous author in nos. 89, 90 and 91 manifestly teach. Nor is there reason for you to deny credit to those circumstances because Ursinus nowhere touches them by even a word; for although Ursinus snatches from our anonymous author the palm of accuracy in the narrative of the things which preceded the Saint's episcopate; yet he most certainly yields it to him (see the reason in no. 62) in reviewing those things which were done when Leodegar was already bishop. For, as we have indicated before, he is recognised to have passed over not a few things which happened after Leodegar's promotion to the chair of Autun, and which are most diligently reviewed by our anonymous author, so that it ought not to seem strange if he does not touch by even a word the circumstances related by our anonymous author which either intimate or presuppose the right of Theuderic to the inheritance of Clothar. But on the death of Clothar III the Neustrians, having summoned Childeric from Austrasia, created him king, Theuderic being deposed and Ebroin, who had set him up as king, banished; wherefore the said right of Theuderic could deservedly be called into doubt if, as Valois, book 21 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 262, and some others assert, St. Leodegar was the chief author of summoning Childeric from Austrasia against Theuderic, lest he should see his enemy Ebroin as Mayor of the palace: for it is not to be thought that the holy Prelate, carried away by private hatred against Ebroin, would have so greatly opposed Theuderic if he had held it for certain that justice stood on his side.

[105] which is not overthrown by the deeds But by what reason, finally, can it be sufficiently proved that St. Leodegar was the chief author of summoning Childeric from Austrasia? From the favour which he enjoyed with Childeric when the latter was already reigning peacefully in Neustria and Burgundy? St. Lantbert, abbot of Fontenelle and afterwards bishop of Lyon, likewise prevailed with Childeric, when the latter already held Neustria and Burgundy in peaceful possession, with the highest favour and the highest goodwill. But did Lantbert for that reason either become the author of summoning Childeric from Austrasia, or oppose Theuderic? The contrary is clear from the Fragment of the Life of the same St. Lantbert inserted in our Acta at the 14th of April; for its author in no. 3 sets out Lantbert's favour with Childeric in these words: After the aforesaid young king Clothar had ended his life, and had left his brothers Childeric and Theuderic surviving, and a strong contention had arisen between them for the summit of the kingdom; some favouring the party of Hilderic, others inclining to Theuderic; this venerable man (Lantbert) made himself so cautious that he inclined to neither party, until one part of the people overcame the rival part. For when Hilderic was raised on the seat of the kingdom, he was held in such honour by him that whatever he asked of him he obtained without the obstacle of any difficulty. From which it is plain that St. Lantbert, with Childeric, already monarch of the Franks, with the highest favour

enjoyed, although he had not previously adhered to him against Theuderic. Wherefore, although St. Leodegar likewise prevailed very much in favour with Childeric when he had already obtained the monarchy, it does not follow that that holy Man had previously stood on the side of Childeric against Theuderic. Certainly our anonymous author in no. XI assigns a far different cause of this favour: St. Leodegar, he says, because he (Childeric) had known him to be conspicuous before all with the light of wisdom, he kept with him constantly in the palace.

[106] of St. Leodegar; for he, although this one to Theuderic But, you will say, Leodegar, as soon as he heard of the death of Clothar, hastened to the court and entered into deliberation with the nobles of the kingdom about appointing a king. What of it? Is it required for the truth of this circumstance that Leodegar opposed Theuderic? But let it be so: Ursinus alone reports it, who does not seem to have known accurately the things not done by Leodegar at Poitiers: our anonymous author does indeed mention the counsel entered into by the multitude of nobles about summoning Childeric from Austrasia; but besides that he by no means intimates that Leodegar was a participant in it, he affirms that this conspiracy of the nobles against Theuderic and Ebroin broke out not immediately after the death of Clothar, but only some time after, namely when Ebroin had already by his own authority set up Theuderic as king of Neustria and Burgundy, and had forbidden the court to the nobles hastening to salute the new King. Ursinus therefore narrates, anticipating the time, the deliberation of the nobles about appointing a King; and that Leodegar was present at it he does not create certain belief, even from this, that in that very place in which he asserts that the Saint deliberated about appointing a king, he makes Childeric, in the words cited in no. 89, the immediate successor of Clothar, before whom, however, Theuderic held the kingdoms of Neustria and Burgundy for at least a few months, as Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 669, no. XI, manifestly proves from the anonymous author of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, from the Continuator of Fredegar and from the Chronicle of Sigebert, and as is today acknowledged by all. These things being considered, therefore, nothing occurs by which it becomes certain that Leodegar, either immediately after the death of Clothar, or after the court had been shamefully forbidden by Ebroin to himself and the other nobles, was the chief author of summoning Childeric from Austrasia. It cannot, however, be doubted that the Saint, in order to avert greater evils, at least at the time when he saw that matters could no longer be changed, went over to the side of Childeric and then saluted him as king of Neustria and Burgundy, hastening to the court from his bishopric, into which, when the nobles were conspiring against Theuderic, he had probably withdrawn.

[107] Further, that Leodegar did not oppose Theuderic he had favourable, when restored to the kingdom, can be argued from this, that Theuderic, when he had now recovered the kingdom after Childeric's death, seems not only not to have reckoned Leodegar among his enemies, but also to have followed him with royal favour: and this can be proved by more than one reason. Our often-cited anonymous author speaks of the followers of Ebroin, Theuderic being now restored to the kingdom, in this manner: For they (the followers of Ebroin) grieved that they had been cast down deservedly, when they saw the whole people faithfully inclining after Theuderic, and him now confirmed in the kingdom, and the servant of God Leodegar (returned from the exile of Luxeuil) residing with his favour in his city (Autun): from which last words you may not undeservedly gather that Leodegar was held by Theuderic, when he had recovered the kingdom, not in the place of an enemy but rather of a friend, as being one who by his grace or favour was then residing in his city (the episcopal city of Autun), and on that account (see our anonymous author, no. 25) was exposed to the envy of Ebroin's adherents. Besides, the Continuator of Fredegar, opportunely for our matter, records these things in chapter 95: Duke Wulfoald slipped away by flight and escaped, and returned into Austrasia. But the Franks set up Leudesius, son of Erchinoald, a noble, in the dignity of mayor of the palace, by the counsel of blessed Leodegar and his companions. With this Continuator agree the Annals of Metz, the Chronicle of Moissac, and the anonymous author of the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, chapter 45. From whose assertions it is also rightly deduced on that account that Leodegar was held by Theuderic, restored to the kingdom, not in the place of an enemy but rather of a friend. For it appears scarcely probable that the Franks, over whom Theuderic, as is gathered from our anonymous author and Ursinus, was already ruling, would have raised anyone to the dignity of mayor of the palace by the counsel of Leodegar, if Theuderic had reckoned him among his enemies, much less Leudesius, whose son Adalric touched St. Leodegar by very near kinship, if only the two anonymous writers cited in no. 37 deserve any credit.

[108] Our anonymous author nevertheless speaks thus of Leodegar's enemies: had opposed, from Ursinus, Meanwhile the envious moved the enemy (Ebroin) from the opposite side, and first against him (Leodegar), with whom they thought king Childeric had acted. Ursinus reports this a little differently, but more clearly: In these days, therefore, he says, when the man of God Leodegar … was residing in his city of the Aedui, Ebroin, remembering all the evils which he thought he had done against him with king Hilderic, then, having joined to himself the most wicked companions of his enemies, began to consult how he could destroy the same Pontiff. Whence perhaps someone may argue that Ebroin at least and his followers were persuaded that Leodegar had been the chief author of summoning Childeric from Austrasia, of throwing Theuderic down from the throne, and so of removing Ebroin from the mayoralty of the palace. But indeed, grant that Ebroin and his followers were in some way persuaded of it, does it therefore follow that what Ebroin and those adhering to him persuaded themselves was conformable to the truth? Certainly, even if Leodegar had laboured least of all for summoning Childeric from Austrasia and deposing Theuderic, it could nevertheless easily have come about that Ebroin believed him the author of all the evils which had befallen him, driven by the wicked suggestions of the malevolent and preoccupied with sinister prejudices against the Saint, whom already at that time, when Clothar III was still among the living, he had considered, as our anonymous author reports in no. 6, the sole contemner of his commands and almost an enemy, through the false reports of calumniators: so that it has not hitherto been proved for certain that Leodegar after the death of Clothar the third stood on the side of Childeric, or was the author of summoning him from Austrasia.

[109] from the Anonymous of Murbach and others But, you will say, this is openly understood, first indeed from the Chronicle of Centula or of Saint-Riquier, whose author, Hariulf the monk, in d'Achery, tome 4 of the Spicilegium, page 449, writes thus: But Clothar having died, Childeric his brother was raised over the whole kingdom, Leodegar, bishop of the people of Autun, bringing this very thing about, who at that time was held distinguished among the magnates of the kingdom for industry of mind and merit of life: then from the Chronicle of Verdun, whose author Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, in Labbe, tome 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 103, has this: He (Clothar III) having died, a contention was agitated among the princes about the kingdom. Ebroin, mayor of the palace, favoured Theuderic; St. Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui, and the rest who had a sounder mind, favoured Childeric: and finally also from the Anonymous of Murbach, biographer of St. Leodegar, who in book 1, having narrated the death of Clothar III, presently subjoins: Which thing indeed brought to the rest only grief and desolation; but to the holy Pontiff (Leodegar) care, and a solicitude of greater weight. For with him remained the plan and counsel of restoration: to whom the bishops and chief men of all Francia, coming together, began to deliberate whom they should set over the ruling of the sceptre. For there were two youths, sons of the elder Clothar (rather of Clovis II) … of whom the upright deliberation of the whole assembly judged that Childeric, whom the probity of his life and manners commended more, should be set over the kingdom and his brother's sceptre: for to him, while still almost a boy, the kingdom and dominion of the Austrasians had been commended. And since, although a young lad, he had ruled it justly and irreproachably, it pleased the holy Prelate and all the chief men better that they should elect him. Only the irrational craftiness of Ebroin desired to dissent from every just election: and a little after, some things interposed, he adds these: By the will of the all-foreseeing God and the approved authority of the venerable princes who acted with the holy Prelate, Childeric, crowned with the diadem of the kingdom, was made king of the Franks with great exultation.

[110] by two writers I confess that from these three writers mentioned it is most openly understood that Leodegar stood with Childeric against Theuderic: but since Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, and Hariulf the monk, of whom the latter wrote the Chronicle of Centula, the former that of Verdun, flourished not earlier than the eleventh century, they are too remote from the age of St. Leodegar to be able to create certain and undoubted belief in the things they write of him. And as regards the Anonymous of Murbach, from whom perhaps the chroniclers of Centula and Verdun drew; he indeed was somewhat nearer to the age of St. Leodegar; but since he was nevertheless one or perhaps even two centuries removed from it, he cannot be of such authority as Ursinus, whom he merely interpolated, and who was contemporary with Leodegar; wherefore, when he narrates things which were done in the time of our Saint, he does not deserve certain belief if Ursinus does not also narrate the same, because, since he had this one alone lighting his way, he does not seem to have written except from the more liberal interpretation which he applied at his discretion to the words of the cited Ursinus. This certainly has place when, in the words recited in the preceding number, he openly intimates that Leodegar stood on the side of Childeric against Theuderic; for the words of Ursinus placed in nos. 5 and 6, which he interpolated in that place, do not necessarily imply this. Here they are: Then (Clothar III having died) the same Pontiff (Leodegar), hearing these things, went on with swift course to the palace, and began to treat with his fellow-soldiers * about a king. Hearing that Hilderic, king of the Austrasians, in his youth was disposing the kingdom excellently according to the age of his time, a certain part of the Franks elected him, wishing to have him as king. For Ebroin, who had been mayor of the palace under king Lothar, desired to substitute his brother Theuderic for his brother in the kingdom. But Ebroin himself was then hated among the Franks, and because they feared the yoke of this weight which they had borne through him under king Lothar, abandoning his counsel, they raised Hilderic over the whole kingdom: for the truth of which it does not seem to be required that Leodegar adhered to Childeric against Theuderic immediately after the death of Clothar.

[111] But if you contend the opposite, I answer that that adherence of Leodegar to Childeric cannot be made certain or undoubted by the very authority of Ursinus, is not sufficiently proved. as I have already sufficiently intimated in no. 106. However, let these things be disputed so that the studious reader may discern whether Valois, Le Cointe and other more recent writers rest on a sufficiently solid foundation to affirm without hesitation that Theuderic was younger than Childeric, and that Leodegar was the chief author of summoning the latter from Austrasia. I meanwhile would not dare to affirm or deny either for certain, since I do not have convincing reasons to do so, as is clear enough and more than enough from what has already been said: I think, however, that Leodegar favoured either neither of the two princes, namely Theuderic and Childeric, or certainly that one with whom the right to the inheritance of Clothar III

of the deceased belonged, as he judged, whether that right was founded meanwhile on the age by which the one preceded the other, or on the last will of the dying Clothar, or on any other cause whatever, into which, since it is easy perhaps to reach it by conjecture but not likewise to prove it, I do not think inquiry should be made. It is certain meanwhile that Ebroin ought in part to have credited to Leodegar that, when Childeric, Theuderic having been thrust into the monastery of Saint-Denis, obtained the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy, he was punished not with the penalty of death but only of exile. Certain bishops then interceding, says our anonymous author in no. 9, and especially by the intervention of the prelate Leodegar, they do not kill him (Ebroin), but he is directed into exile to the monastery of Luxeuil.

* others while he could keep him

* others with his like

§ VIII. Whether St. Leodegar was mayor of the palace of Childeric II, or only his counsellor, and in what year, and about what month, the latter began and ceased to reign in Austrasia and then in Neustria and Burgundy.

[St. Leodegar is very dear to Childeric II, to whom nevertheless mayor of the palace] Theuderic having been banished to the monastery of Saint-Denis, and Ebroin thrust into that of Luxeuil, peace and tranquillity returned to the three kingdoms of the Franks, and it was preserved as long as Childeric acquiesced in the counsels of St. Leodegar, whom, as our anonymous author says, because he had known him to be conspicuous before all with the light of wisdom, he had kept constantly with him in the palace. Ursinus declares this more openly: But king Hilderic, he says, confirmed in the kingdom, … raised the pontiff Leodegar over all his house and appointed him Mayor of the palace in all things. Who, having received the helm of this kingdom, brought back much to its former state whatever most stood in the way of the laws of the ancient kings and of great nobles praiseworthy in life. And so far did he restore all the kingdoms of the Franks in every respect that all congratulated themselves on having Hilderic as their king and Leodegar as ruler of the palace. So he: in this, however, he is now reproved by all the learned everywhere, that he calls Leodegar Mayor of the palace and Ruler of the palace, a dignity which they rightly contend the holy Prelate neither had nor could have had.

[113] is proved not to have been by a twofold argument The first argument is that the dignity of the mayoralty of the palace was lay; the second, that Wulfoald, who had previously been mayor of the palace to Childeric in Austrasia, afterwards also held the same magistracy in Neustria and Burgundy under the same monarch. This last they prove both from the ancient writers of the Franks, who relate that Wulfoald, mayor of the palace, came from Austrasia with Childeric to take up the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy, and especially from our older anonymous author, who keeps deep silence about St. Leodegar's mayoralty of the palace and prefecture of the palace, and expressly calls Wulfoald Mayor of the palace in no. 14. For there, recording the machinations by which envious men tried to make St. Leodegar hateful to king Childeric, he says: They join to their occasion the Mayor of the palace, named Wulfoald, and contrive a lying fable about Leodegar and Hector. To these deserves to be added the Fragment of the Life of St. Lantbert, bishop, whose author Mabillon, the first editor, thinks lived while Louis the Pious was ruling.

[114] and thirdly from the Life of St. Lantbert, whose chronological notes, For in it Leodegar, Gerinus and Wulfoald appear with others, and the last indeed distinguished with the title of Mayor of the palace. Here are the words: Finally (Childeric), at the petition of his queen Bilihild and of the venerable bishops, that is, of Leodegar the bishop of good memory, who afterwards was made a most glorious martyr, of Nivo also, bishop, and Emonius, and of illustrious men, whose names are these: Fucoald, Amalric, Wulfoald, Mayor of the royal palace, Bavo, Wanning, Adalbert, Gerinus, the renowned brother of the aforesaid bishop Leodegar, bestowed on the aforesaid venerable father (Lantbert, then abbot of the monastery of Fontenelle) two fiscs etc. And this royal bounty was issued at Arlaudum, the Jocundum palace, in the eleventh year of the aforesaid king in Austrasia, which had been the first in Neustria; further, in the fifth year of the same most illustrious ruler of the monastery, from the time when he obtained the place of rule after the most happy departure of the great father and most renowned priest of Christ, Wandregisil. These things that author without doubt drew from the instrument of donation itself, since he presently subjoins: For very many bounties of the same king of divers possessions issued to that most reverend father are extant until now.

[115] Certainly the chronological characters both agree exceedingly well among themselves and denote the year of Christ 671; the time being determined at which Austrasia, and then and if this is so, it is not a little confirmed that the recited words of the cited Fragment were drawn from the very instrument of donation, and therefore it will be worth the trouble to show before all else that this is actually so, and so to disclose the time from which St. Lantbert began to govern Fontenelle, and Childeric the kingdom of Austrasia and then of Neustria and Burgundy; indeed, since, as will become plain from what is to be said, the remaining deeds of our Saint can easily be ordered chronologically if it is known not only at what time the same Childeric began to reign in Neustria and Burgundy, but also at what time he ceased to reign or died in those kingdoms, it is pleasing by the same labour to inquire more laboriously into this too for the sake of elucidation, although meanwhile I should wish nowhere to depart from the chronology now more received, since it has not hitherto been possible to find a better. I take my beginning from the time of the Austrasian reign begun by Childeric. He began that reign in the year 660; for, as was proved in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Wandregisil published at the 22nd of July, no. 25, Clovis II departed from the living in the year of Christ 656 when it was almost advanced to its end (for he survived at least until the second week of November); and from his death Clothar III ruled for four years not only Neustria and Burgundy but also Austrasia, as is rightly deduced by Pagi in the Critica of Baronius at the year 656, nos. 16 and 20, from the author of the Deeds of the Franks and the Continuator of Fredegar, and immediately after these, namely, as will be plain from what is to be said, not yet entirely elapsed, Childeric II, Neustria and Burgundy being left to Clothar, obtained the Austrasian kingdom, and therefore began to reign in Austrasia in the year of Christ 660, but not before the 26th of July, as we shall show below in no. 124. Therefore from the four incomplete years in which alone Clothar III reigned in Austrasia after the death of Clovis II, we have deduced the year in which Childeric II obtained that same kingdom: now from the fourteen years chiefly, also incomplete, in which, as we shall prove, Clothar III reigned in Neustria, let us determine in like manner the year in which Childeric II obtained that same kingdom.

[116] The contemporary anonymous author of the second Life of St. Wandregisil at the 22nd of July in our Acta, no. 15, expressly asserts: after the death of Clothar III, which by Pagi Of whom (the sons of Clovis II) Hlothar, who was also the elder by birth, obtained the summit of the kingdom, and ruled the people of the Western Franks (the Neustrians) fourteen years; and again in no. 25 of the same Life he writes thus: Of whom (the sons of Clovis II) Hlothar, who was the elder by birth, in the fourteenth year of his reign, suddenly lost human fellowship. It is clear therefore that Clothar III reigned in Neustria fourteen years, at least incomplete. Further, the same Clothar, as is rightly gathered from what was proved by Pagi at the year 656, nos. 17 and 18, began to rule the Western Franks or Neustrians in the year 656 when advanced beyond the second week of November; wherefore, if from that year the said fourteen incomplete years in which he reigned in Neustria are reckoned, the fourteenth year, a little begun, brings us to the year 670, in which therefore, and not later, since he would thus have reigned more than fourteen years, he departed from the living. But, you will say, in what month did that death happen? Certainly not before June, if the chronological notes are genuine of the old diploma which Drausius, bishop of Soissons, granted in favour of the monastery of girls built outside the walls of Soissons by Ebroin, mayor of the palace, and Leutrude his wife, and which is extant in Melchior Regnault among the proofs of the History of Soissons; for it is subscribed in this manner: Done at Augusta Suessionum under date of the sixth day before the Kalends of July, in the fourteenth year of the reign of our lord Clothar, the most glorious king; wherefore, if the chronological characters marked here are genuine, Clothar did not die in the year 670 before the 26th of June, since otherwise the fourteenth year of his reign, as begun after the second week of November of the year 669, the sixth day before the Kalends of July, or the 26th of June, could not be ascribed in the cited diploma. But Michel Germain, in the Proofs to the History of the royal abbey of St. Mary near Soissons, says that, having surveyed and once and again searched the archives of the same abbey, he found the very instrument of the diploma of Drausius, and that it is noted as made not in the 14th year of Clothar but in the 10th, so that the chronological characters of the cited diploma, as it was published by Melchior Regnault, are at least to be held doubtful, and therefore, contrary to what Pagi thought in the Critica at the year 668, no. 6, they do little or nothing for placing the death of Clothar not before the 26th of June of the year 670.

[117] towards the end in the year 670, The same Pagi, in the same Work at the year 669, nos. 6 and 7, defers the death of Clothar still longer, which, as I shall presently show, can neither be admitted nor stand with other things asserted by that author, when I have utterly crushed the argument by which he strives to establish his opinion. He contends, therefore, in the place cited, to prove that Clothar III, king of the Franks, was still surviving among the living on the 29th day of the month of September of the year 670, and only fulfilled his mortality towards the end of the same year of Christ. To this end he sets up a long reasoning, to which he subjoins by way of a finishing touch: Which things had to be narrated at length, so that the errors which have grown up may at length be removed. The errors which he here records without doubt regard Le Cointe, Valois and others who do not tie the death of Clothar to the year of Christ 670, concerning whom he had pronounced thus at the year 668, no. 7: Le Cointe couples the death of Clothar with the year 669, Adrien de Valois with the year 668, and others with other years of Christ; but besides the privilege cited, given by Drausius, bishop of Soissons, we shall demonstrate in the following year, by an argument deduced from Bede, that he was still alive in the year 670 (namely inclining to its end). All indeed seem to have erred who did not tie the death of Clothar to the year of Christ 670, or certainly to 669 almost finished; but that Clothar was still alive in the year of Christ 670, when it was now almost ending, Pagi does not prove by the argument taken from Bede, which is reduced almost to this form. It is clearly demonstrated from Bede that Ebroin in the year 670, when it was already much advanced, nay, from William Thorne in the Chronicle published by Selden, when the month of September of the same year was going out, still held the mayoralty of the palace in Neustria; therefore Clothar III, king of the Gauls, under whom Ebroin, mayor of the palace,

was, was still alive in the year 670 when it was already much advanced, nay when the month of September was going out, and only fulfilled his mortality towards the end of the same year. I confess it is clear from Bede and William Thorne that Ebroin still held the mayoralty of the palace in the year 670 when it was already much advanced; but I do not see by what reasoning Pagi, from the mayoralty of the palace of Ebroin prolonged so far, even to the month of September of the year 670 going out, so undoubtingly defers the death of Clothar to the end of the same year of Christ: for since, as is established from the Continuator of Fredegar, chapters 93 and 94, and from the author of the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, chapter 45, but especially from the words of our anonymous author transcribed in no. 89, immediately after the death of Clothar III Theuderic held the kingdom of Neustria for at least some months, and under him Ebroin administered everything at his own discretion during all that time, why could the latter not still have held the mayoralty of the palace under Theuderic when the month of September of the year 670 was going out, even if Clothar III had perhaps already departed from the living two or three months or even more before? And so Pagi's argument for deferring the death of Clothar to the end of the year 670 loses all force, which nevertheless I wonder that he held for convincing.

[118] I show now that the death of Clothar cannot be deferred so long, considering what he admits, it is wrongly deferred, the other things standing which the cited Pagi either affirms or admits. For, as that writer confesses in the Critica at the year 668, nos. 8 and 9, Theuderic after the death of Clothar reigned for some months in Neustria before Childeric; wherefore, if Clothar died only when the year 670 had almost advanced to its end, it follows that Childeric began to reign in Neustria only in the year 671, perhaps in the month of March or April or even later; and since the cited Pagi in the same Work at the year 673 contends that in the year 673 before the 10th day of October, nay before the 15th of the month of September, Theuderic was restored to the kingdom, and therefore Childeric had already then been taken from the living, it follows that the latter reigned in Neustria only two years with five or six months, which is the interval of time that flows between the month of March or April of the year 671 and September of the year 673. But that the reign of Childeric in Neustria was longer Pagi himself affirms in the Critica at the year 674, no. XI: Childeric reigned, he says, in Austrasia fourteen years, as is read in the very brief Chronicle published by Duchesne, which is continued from Clothar II to the death of king Pippin: but in Neustria and Burgundy almost four years, as is plain from the Fragment of the Acts of St. Waning, monk, in the second Benedictine Century, where it is read: Childeric, holding it not fully four years, departed from life: which the Acts of St. Ragnebert, martyr, slain by Ebroin, show were incomplete.

[119] It is clear therefore, the other things standing which Pagi either affirms or admits, and otherwise too that the death of Clothar III cannot be deferred to the end of the year 670; and this is also not permitted by the end and duration of the reign of Childeric in Neustria and Burgundy. For, as the Fragment of the Life of St. Waning just cited by Pagi indicates, Childeric reigned in Neustria and Burgundy almost four years, and therefore, if Clothar III died only towards the end of the year 670, and Childeric obtained Neustria and Burgundy only in the following year, he would not have ceased to reign in those kingdoms earlier than in the year 675 or 674: but the reign of Childeric in Neustria and Burgundy received its end sooner: this is marked in the chronology everywhere admitted by Mabillon, Le Cointe, Pagi and other more recent writers, and can be proved by various arguments, which, although they are not such that they can in no way be dissolved, are nevertheless most weighty; Pagi brings forward two in the Critica at the year of Christ 673, nos. XI and 12; I transfer the chief one here. It is sought partly from the chronological notes which occur in a certain placitum of Theuderic III concerning Chramlinus, bishop of Embrun, deposed in a synod, and which, since they are noted in the very autograph of the placitum, which Mabillon exhibits engraved on copper in book 6 of De re Diplomatica, page 469, cannot so easily be called falsified or corrupted; partly from the year to which the aforesaid placitum is to be referred. The argument comes to about this: the diploma or placitum of Theuderic III given concerning bishop Chramlinus is noted in mid-September, the 5th year of our reign, and besides, when Theuderic had summoned to himself the bishops of Neustria and Burgundy alone, and therefore it was given when that king ruled Neustria and Burgundy alone, or before Dagobert II, king of Austrasia, had departed from the living; for when the latter had died, Theuderic also obtained the kingdom of Austrasia.

[120] cannot be deferred so long, Further, Dagobert II (see Pagi in the Work cited at the year 678, nos. 12 and 13) departed from the living in the year of Christ 678 before the 25th day of the month of March, and therefore the aforesaid diploma cannot be referred to the middle of September of the year 678, since then Theuderic reigned also in Austrasia; it is therefore to be referred to the middle of September of the year 677, from which time the four complete years, reckoned in retrograde order, during which Theuderic is intimated in the said diploma, when he issued it, to have held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy, bring us to the middle of September of the year 673, before which time consequently Theuderic began to reign in Neustria and Burgundy, and therefore Childeric, his immediate predecessor, ceased to reign or departed from the living. To this argument of Pagi it is pleasing to add the following. It is sought from the time at which Theuderic III died, and in which he held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy. Here it is: Theuderic III, king of the Franks, died in the year 691, as Pagi at the year 688, nos. 3 and 4, clearly shows; and he held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy nineteen years, as Erchanbert in the Breviary of the Kings of the Franks and of the mayors of the palace, the Author of the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, older than Erchanbert, chapter 49, and Ado in the Chronicle affirm. Wherefore, since up to the year 691, in which, as has been said, Theuderic died, the nineteen years, even only incomplete, in which we have shown that he reigned in Neustria and Burgundy cannot be found if Theuderic began to reign in Neustria later than the year 673, it follows that he began to reign in Neustria earlier than the year 674, and therefore that Childeric, his immediate predecessor, also ceased to reign; whence it further follows that many inconveniences occur if the death of Clothar III is deferred to the end of the year 670.

[121] to govern Neustria Wherefore, since for Clothar III that year, nay also that month, of death must be chosen with which the truth of history and the chronological notes occurring in it best agree, I think it can not ineptly be established that Clothar III died in the year 669 towards the end of December, and that, his successor Theuderic having been cast down from the throne after a space of about nine months, Childeric II began to reign in Neustria about the beginning of October of the year 670. Indeed this not only can conveniently be established, but must necessarily be, if, as Sigebert of Gembloux relates in the Chronography, Theuderic, brother of Clothar, the deceased king of the Franks, raised to the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy by Ebroin, mayor of the palace, was repudiated by the Franks in the following year on account of the insolence of the same Ebroin, and his brother Childeric, who was reigning in Austrasia, was summoned by all to reign. For if Childeric began to reign in Neustria not in the same year in which Clothar ended his life, but only in the following, as Sigebert writes, it follows that Childeric, if Clothar died in the year 670, began to reign in Neustria only in the year 671, which, since according to what has already been said it cannot be admitted, it is necessary to place the death of Clothar in the year 669, probably, however, towards the end of December of that year, certainly not earlier than after the second week of November, since Clothar began to reign only after this in the year 656, and nevertheless reigned fourteen years, at least incomplete. I would not meanwhile wish to disapprove of the opinion now more received, according to which the death of Clothar III is tied to the year 670 a little begun; for in it likewise no inconvenience occurs, if you except that it does not sufficiently agree with Sigebert, but this is not to be made much of, since Sigebert's chronography is not always and everywhere exact.

[122] The year, nay also the month, of death being thus assigned to Clothar, Childeric began, and ceased. and the beginning of Childeric's reign in Neustria fixed to the beginning of October of the year 670, the difficulties which can be opposed can easily be met, as will become plain from what is to be disputed, and first of all those into which we have seen Pagi run, who defers the death of Clothar III to the year 670 almost elapsed. But, you will say, even if Childeric is established to have begun the kingdom of Neustria already from the beginning of October of the year 670, the four years, even only incomplete, in which, from the cited Fragment of the Life of St. Waning, Childeric reigned in Neustria, cannot yet be found, since only about three years intervene between the beginning of October of the year 670 and the 15th of September of the year 673, before which day, as has been said in no. 120, Childeric II was slain. I confess the matter stands plainly so if you begin to reckon the years of Childeric reigning in Neustria from the beginning of October of the year 670: but the author of the cited Fragment, when he asserts that Childeric reigned not fully four years in Neustria, begins the computation of the years of Childeric reigning in Neustria immediately from the death of Clothar, and therefore from December of the year 669, from which time, which we have established as the time of Clothar's death, until September of the year 673, before which, half of it elapsed, Childeric ended his life, more than three years flow, yet not fully four. This becomes most probable from this, that the author of the cited Fragment, making no mention of Theuderic after the death of Clothar, mentions Childeric alone, as the immediate successor to the kingdom of Neustria, in this manner: King Clothar therefore having died, Childeric took up the kingdom of the Franks (the Neustrians). And I think this was done by him because he did not consider Theuderic to be held as king, as having been raised to the kingdom by Ebroin almost alone, the usual ceremonies omitted, and admitted as king by none, or certainly by very few, of the chief men with the religion of an oath interposed. So Ursinus, perhaps for the same cause, as Valois intimates in tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 263, did not acknowledge, or, to say something more certain, passed over, the principate of Theuderic in Neustria and Burgundy immediately after the death of Clothar. But if this answer displeases, see whether it is better to say that in the cited Fragment of the Life of St. Waning the years are read erroneously

not fully four, namely by the error of the amanuenses, who, when with a less attentive eye they saw in the autograph which they had in hand the years written not fully IM, the latter unit almost meeting the middle one at the bottom, as you see expressed here, copied the years not fully IV.

[123] and St. Lantbert began to rule Fontenelle, One or the other must certainly be admitted, since from what has been said it is altogether certain that Childeric reigned in Neustria scarcely three complete years, as having been taken off by a violent death in the year 673 before the middle of September, and having begun to govern that kingdom only in the year 670, and indeed not before the beginning of October, nor earlier; for Pagi, at the year 669, nos. 6 and 7, has at least achieved by the argument drawn from Bede that it can deservedly be doubted no longer that Ebroin was still mayor of the palace in Neustria in the year 670 towards the end of the month of September; and he would without doubt not have held that magistracy at that time if Childeric had already held the principate in Neustria from then on. Further, as regards now the Fontenelle government of St. Lantbert, the beginning of which I take from the 26th of the month of July of the year 667; this same year, month and day are likewise assigned to St. Lantbert beginning to rule Fontenelle by Henschenius at the 14th of April in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Lantbert, and in the preliminary Exegesis to tome III of April, by Le Cointe in the Annals, and by Pagi in the Critica. And they are shown to do rightly from the election of St. Lantbert as abbot of Fontenelle made four days after the death of St. Wandregisil, which you will find clearly proved in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of the same Saint in our Acta at the 22nd of July to have taken place in the year 667 on the 22nd of July, so that nothing more need be added here by which the year, the month and the very day from which St. Lantbert began to rule Fontenelle may be more certainly determined.

[124] are proved not to be erroneous, However, from what has thus far been said it is now easily drawn out that all the chronological characters in the Fragment of the Life of St. Lantbert recited in no. 114 agree exceedingly well among themselves, and denote the year of Christ 671. For since Lantbert began the Fontenelle government in the year 667 from the 26th of July, and Childeric began to reign in Neustria in the year 670 about the beginning of October, it follows that the fifth year of St. Lantbert ruling Fontenelle began to flow in the year 671 after the 26th of July; and that in the same year before the beginning of October the first year of Childeric reigning in Neustria was still flowing; wherefore this first year of Childeric, with the greater part of it elapsed, agrees with the fifth year of the government of St. Lantbert, one or two months of it already begun, and both denote the year of Christ 671, and that indeed advanced to the month of August or September; in like manner, since Childeric began to reign in Austrasia in the year 660, it follows that the eleventh year of his Austrasian reign coincides, in at least some part of it, with the year of Christ 671; this eleventh year of Childeric, however, can by no means fit the fifth year of the government of St. Lantbert, as having begun only on the 26th of July of the year 671, if Childeric began to reign in Austrasia in the year 660 before the 26th of July; for thus by the 26th of July of the year 671 he would already have passed not the eleventh but the twelfth year of his Austrasian reign: wherefore, since nevertheless the eleventh year of Childeric's reign in Austrasia is set together with the fifth year of St. Lantbert's Fontenelle government in the Fragment of the Life of the same Saint mentioned, and this is not convicted of falsity on that point, it must with every right be established that Childeric began the kingdom of Austrasia in the year 660, but not until after the 26th of July, as I indicated in no. 115, probably in the month of August or at the beginning of September, since he died in the year 673 before the middle of this month (see no. 120), and nevertheless held that kingdom fourteen years, namely incomplete.

[125] Since therefore, as is clear from what has already been said, the chronological characters and, since therefore the Life of St. Lantbert is credible, of which there is question here denote the year of Christ 670, and agree exceedingly well among themselves, and so, as I have already indicated, it is not a little confirmed hence that the words recited in no. 114 from the Fragment of the Life of St. Lantbert were drawn from the very instrument of the donation of which there is talk in the same place, it is no longer to be doubted that in the said year 670 Wulfoald, not Leodegar, was mayor of the palace of Childeric, king of the Franks, since in the cited Fragment of the Life, which on account of what has been said deserves entire credit, not the latter but the former is distinguished with that title. Further, the same Wulfoald also held that magistracy about Easter of the year 673, when our Saint was driven into exile by Childeric. For our anonymous author indicates in no. 14 that then certain envious men, who were stirring up that prince against the holy Prelate, drew Wulfoald to their side, and distinguishes him with the name of mayor of the palace, so that without doubt he was then, as also in the intermediate time between Easter of the year 673 and the year 670, mayor of the palace or ruler of the palace of Childeric, and therefore Leodegar was never distinguished with that dignity. But, you will say, in what office, then, did the holy Man serve at court? It does not appear doubtful that Childeric held him in the place of a counsellor, and deferred very much to his counsels, especially at the beginning.

[126] This is clear even from this, that our anonymous author asserts Leodegar was not mayor of the palace of Childeric, but only counsellor. that certain malevolent persons attributed to the wicked counsels of Leodegar whatever the king had done by just or unjust judgment: For this cause, he says (of Leodegar's stay in the palace), the envy of the wicked grew anew, and again seeking beginnings of accusations against him, so that whatever the king did, or gave by just or unjust judgment, they charged * as his (Leodegar's) doing. There is added that Ursinus, in the words cited in no. 112, intimates that at the beginning of Childeric's monarchy our Saint, namely by his counsel and impulse, abolished customs repugnant to the laws and recalled the kingdom to its former and better state, who perhaps also called Leodegar mayor of the palace of Childeric and ruler of the palace, not because he was ignorant that he was not mayor of the palace, but because he judged that the holy Prelate was in some manner in place of a mayor of the palace to prince Childeric, as one by whose counsel and authority, as was wont to be done by mayors of the palace, the gravest affairs of the monarchy had been administered under Childeric, as he had received from certain reports. In a similar manner Valois, tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 265, interprets the mayoralty of the palace attributed to Leodegar by Ursinus, and Le Cointe, Pagi and other more recent writers assent to him, so that it appears by no means doubtful that our Saint was at least of Childeric's counsel.

* criminarentur they should charge

§ IX. The Saint falls from the favour of Childeric, and is driven by him into exile. Various circumstances accompanying each of these events.

Although Leodegar counsels Childeric soundly, The three kingdoms of the Franks having been recalled by Childeric to their former state, a most joyful face of affairs shone forth everywhere, and this was everywhere deservedly credited by all partly to the counsels of Leodegar. But Childeric did not continue to obey the holy Prelate always when he counselled soundly: for since he was a youth no less light by nature than by age, he very easily rescinded, and ordered to be altogether void, those things which he had first sanctioned by the counsel of more prudent men, and so of Leodegar too, for the common utility of the kingdoms subject to him, being afterwards driven by the wicked suggestions of the malevolent. This becomes plain from our anonymous author, who, having related the most just edict which that prince had made at the beginning of his monarchy at the request of the nobles, presently subjoins: But after he had gladly granted them (the magnates, Childeric) what they asked *, depraved by the counsel of fools and almost pagans, as he was a youth overtaken by levity, he suddenly countermanded what he had confirmed through the counsels of the wise. Opportunely too for our matter, in the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, chapter 45, with which chapter 95 of the Continuation of Fredegar agrees, these things are read of Childeric, now monarch: Childeric himself, too light, did everything incautiously, until the greatest hatred and scandal grew up between them, oppressing the Franks greatly. From all which it is openly understood that very many things were wrongly done by Childeric, and so that he often did not lend his ears to Leodegar, whose counsels, says our anonymous author, if he had obeyed, he would have walked in the divine commandments.

[128] yet his misdeeds are imputed to him. He rebukes the king. But although the holy Prelate by no means had Childeric listening to him in very many things, yet, since he was constantly at the royal court, he fell into this calamity, that whatever things were wrongly done by the prince, certain envious persons, who wished the holy Man to be expelled from the royal court, kept saying were to be cast upon him alone as the author of all of them, and in fact persuaded very many of this very thing. Wherefore Leodegar, when he well knew that this sinister opinion of him was growing stronger and stronger daily, intending to provide no less for the public good, which suffered much from the dissolute morals of Childeric, than for his own reputation, wished to show that the royal misdeeds were undeservedly imputed to him, and therefore began to reprove Childeric for having so suddenly changed the ancestral customs which he had ordered to be turned to the better, and for having joined to himself in marriage the daughter of his maternal uncle. The anonymous author sets out these things thus in no. 12: But the Man of the Lord (Leodegar), when he knew that the envy of the devil was growing hot again against him, then, according to the Apostle taking up the breastplate of faith and the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, entered into single combat against the ancient enemy, and because priestly integrity knows not how to fear the threats of a king, he began to reprove Hilderic for having so suddenly changed the ancestral customs which he had ordered to be preserved, and at the same time he is said to have said that the queen whom he had as wife was the daughter of his maternal uncle, and that unless he corrected these crimes with the other unlawful wickednesses by amendment, he should know that divine vengeance was surely suddenly impending over him. And at first indeed the king not only did not receive the holy Man more harshly as he gave these warnings, but at first, says the anonymous author, he began to listen gladly.

[129] But this moderation of Childeric did not long persist: and hence by the impulse of the malevolent he falls from his favour for there were in the royal court very wicked men, who, fearing evil for themselves from Leodegar if he had had the prince listening to his admonitions, therefore applied themselves with all their strength to render the holy Prelate, on whatever occasion offered, suspect and hateful to the king: by whose persuasion and impulse Childeric afterwards bore most grievously, contrary to what he had first done, the liberty of Leodegar in admonishing truly, and began to seek an occasion of destroying him. Hear again the anonymous author relating these things thus in no. 13: But (Childeric), forestalled by the counsels of his henchmen, when he ought to have fitted his words to amendment, began to seek occasions for his (Leodegar's) death, those persuading this who desired to overturn justice and favoured the undisciplined youthful works of the king, and also those who had drawn from him that his decree had been broken. For all these, and those like them, living in the pleasures of the world, feared the Man of God, and desired his works to be destroyed, since they knew that he walked inflexibly along the path of justice. Ursinus relates these things a little differently, he at any rate than the anonymous author

our author is to be preferred, because he expressly signifies, which is not done by the latter, for how long a time Leodegar prevailed with Childeric in authority and friendship. Here therefore are his words too: When therefore, he says in no. 7, these things (the affairs of the kingdom, by Leodegar) had been carried on with great credit for almost three years, then the adversary, whose custom it is out of envy of his condition to destroy good things, began to instigate with the evil of envy the companions whom the same Pontiff had chosen to have with him as partners of the government, and to sow tares of discord between him and the king.

[130] The almost three years in which these words of Ursinus intimate that Leodegar prevailed very much with Childeric, about Easter of the year 673; even if this epoch before the malevolent had stirred the latter up against the former, end in the year of Christ 673, probably only one or two months begun. For since, as is clear from what was said above, Childeric reigned in Neustria and Burgundy only almost three years, it follows that the almost three years, after which the envious stirred the king against our Saint, end in the year 673, as having only begun in the year 670 about the beginning of October, and therefore that the exile of Luxeuil, with which our anonymous author equally with Ursinus indicate that Leodegar was punished by the king at Easter after the machinations of the envious against him, fits into the year of Christ 673 already advanced to Easter, which in that year fell on the 10th of April. Besides, since to the said unjust machinations of the envious against our Saint, before he was banished to Luxeuil, no less than the space of one or two months can be granted, it follows that the almost three years, after which Childeric at the impulse of the malevolent began to turn from Leodegar, end in the year of Christ 673, probably one, or at the most two, months only begun, and indeed neither later nor earlier; not later on account of what has just been said, not earlier because thus the almost three years could not rightly be found in which we have seen our Saint stood in the most ardent friendship of Childeric. And thus has been determined the time both at which Leodegar began to become hateful to Childeric, and at which, driven into exile, he fell utterly from his friendship.

[131] cannot be combined with the chronological notes which Further, on account of the letter of donation of St. Bercharius, which is brought forward by Camuzat in the Promptuary of the antiquities of the diocese of Troyes in the Notes to the History of the same Saint, and is fortified with this subscription: Done in the city of Reims on the 3rd day before the Kalends of September, in the presence of the lord and glorious king Childeric, in the 4th year of his reign. Sign of Nivard, archbishop, of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, of St. Mummolenus, bishop of Noyon, of St. Hermarus, abbot, of St. Hilduin, abbot, of St. Bercharius, abbot, who ordered this charter of donation to be made: someone could deservedly call into doubt our opinion, by which the exile of St. Leodegar at Luxeuil is fixed to the 10th of April of the year 673. For either in the cited charter the years of the reign of Childeric reigning also in Neustria (for I think these are designated there) begin to be computed from the death of Clothar III, which we have tied to the year 669 advanced to December, or from the beginning of October of the year 670, in which he actually entered upon that kingdom; if the first, the fourth year of Childeric marked on the 3rd day before the Kalends of September denotes the year of Christ 673; if the second, the fourth year of Childeric noted on the 3rd day before the Kalends of September fits into the year of Christ 674; wherefore it would be necessary, if the chronological notes of the subscription adduced are genuine, to place the exile of Leodegar at Luxeuil later than at Easter of the year 673, since otherwise the holy Prelate could not have subscribed his name, as he did, to the cited charter made on the 3rd day before the Kalends of September of the year either 673 or 674, as having already been banished to Luxeuil before. But both on account of what is to be said below, and on account of the almost three years in which Ursinus intimates that Leodegar was dear to Childeric, I am altogether persuaded that an error has crept into the aforesaid subscription of the Charter in the manner which I set out in no. 122, and that in the 3rd year of his reign is to be read for in the 4th year of his reign. This certainly being posited, if the years in which Childeric reigned in Neustria are reckoned immediately from the death of Clothar, as I think is done here, the third year of this king noted on the 3rd day before the Kalends of September agrees with the year of Christ 672, in which the cited charter could undoubtedly have been signed by Leodegar.

[132] occur in the letter of donation of St. Bercharius. Nor is there reason for you to say that the chronological characters by which Ursinus defines the friendship of Childeric with Leodegar are rather to be called erroneous, and that one should read almost IV years for almost III years, perhaps written there by the error of the amanuenses because in the autograph they were copying the Roman numeral V was somewhat eaten away in its lower part. For besides that the years in which Leodegar was in the friendship of Childeric are expressed in Roman numerals in no copy of Ursinus, if in them one had to read in this author almost IV years for almost III years, it would follow that Leodegar was banished by Childeric to Luxeuil only in the year 674 about Easter, from which it would further follow that that prince, as having been taken from the living only after Leodegar was driven into exile, ceased to live only in the year 674. But this cannot be admitted on account of the chronology now more received and on account of the strong arguments by which it is established in nos. 119 and 120. But you will perhaps go on to contend, on account of the often-cited charter of donation, that the death of Childeric did not take place before the year 674. Pagi indeed thought this could deservedly be contended if the chronological characters of the Bercharian charter were referred to Childeric as already monarch, and therefore, that he might defend his opinion of tying the beginning and end of the monarchy of the same prince to the years 670 and 673, he maintained, in tome 3 of the Annals, page 41 and following, that they are to be referred not to him as already monarch, but as king in Austrasia alone; whether rightly or wrongly, there is no leisure to investigate more laboriously. Certainly he has Mabillon, tome 1 of the Annals, page 509, Le Cointe at the year 672, no. 2, and our Predecessors in the Life of St. Nivard opposing him. But however it is, since the Roman numerals which occur in old charters are now commonly known to be often erroneous through the fault of the copyists, and yet by them are expressed the years in which the very often cited charter of donation is subscribed, there is no reason why I should be moved by its authority to join either the death of Childeric or the exile of Leodegar at Luxeuil with another year of Christ than with 673, already assigned before.

[133] And these things for determining the time at which our Saint was banished to Luxeuil Leodegar invites Childeric to Autun I have discussed somewhat prematurely, because the time was now to be determined at which Leodegar began to become hateful to Childeric, and this, being namely closely joined with the time at which he was driven into exile, offered likewise the opportunity of determining the latter. It is pleasing now to set out those circumstances which besides preceded the exile of our Saint, and which finally rendered the holy Prelate suspect of treason also, and altogether hateful, to the king, to whom he was already not a little hateful. Valois, book 21 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 268, observes these things: It was then the custom for the Kings of the Franks mostly in the public estates, which were also called royal, sometimes also in cities, to celebrate Easter pleasantly and religiously with much gladness and with a great concourse of nobles of both Orders and of ministerials. And those among the bishops who excelled in nobility and wealth, or who could do most in favour, were accustomed to ask of the prince, in the place of the greatest benefit, that he would deign to celebrate the feast day with them, and each ambitiously desired his city and church to be honoured by the presence of the king. Thus we have received that Chilperic was invited by Ragnemod, priest of Lutetia of the Parisians, thus Childebert the younger, son of Sigebert, by Sigebert, prelate of Mainz. This custom Leodegar, although he probably already knew the king was hostile to him, wished to observe, and therefore earnestly asked Childeric, perhaps to test how much of his love towards himself had diminished, to betake himself to Autun of the Aedui for the sake of celebrating the most sacred day of the Lord's Resurrection, of which city, since he himself was bishop, he was already thinking of going there for the sake of the same feast, lest he should fail in his episcopal office.

[134] He (Leodegar), says the anonymous author in no. 14, invites him to celebrate Easter, and the cause of Hector, had asked the oft-mentioned Hilderic to come to the church of his city at the Paschal solemnity; which Ursinus relates thus: In these days, therefore, the most celebrated Paschal day was already imminent: then, when the Pontiff (Leodegar) demanded that the king (Childeric) should order that most holy day to be celebrated in his city of Autun, he by no means refused, but strives to fulfil the wish of the petitioner; and in fact the prince, whether because, as Mabillon rightly observes in the Annals, he was not yet plainly hostile to the Priest, or because he dissembled the hatred he had conceived, went to Autun to celebrate the feast day, and that, as the things to be narrated will disclose, some days before the Paschal solemnity. There before the king had already come Hector, patrician of Marseille, and had been received into hospitality by Leodegar, as the anonymous author testifies in his Life. There was present, he says in the number just cited, then in those days a certain noble man, called by name Hector, who then ruled the patriciate of Marseille with the fasces, and who, as he was born of a distinguished stock, so was endowed beyond the rest with nobility of race and worldly prudence. For he had come to king Hilderic for a certain cause, and hoped to obtain what he asked through the intercession of the Man of God, and the Saint of God had received him in his city for the sake of hospitality, until, as he had asked, he should commend him to the king by his intercessions: for he had asked the oft-mentioned Hilderic to come to the church of his city at the Paschal solemnity.

[135] which is set out, he undertakes to protect; hence the Saint, who therefore also That certain cause on account of which the anonymous author asserts that Hector, whom Ursinus does not even mention, came to king Childeric was this: Claudia, a woman of Auvergne, whose daughter Hector had carried off and joined to his bed, had conferred certain estates on the church of Clermont, and hence he demanded that the said estates, which, when Claudia afterwards died, had been, as he contended, unjustly assigned to the church of Clermont, be restored to him; and when St. Praejectus, bishop of the Arverni, refused to do this, undertaking to compel him to it by royal authority, he betook himself to king Childeric, whom he had heard would celebrate Easter at Autun, and craftily drew Leodegar, probably already his friend before, to his side, which the latter, circumvented by frauds, thought most just. All these things are understood from the earlier Life of St. Praejectus published by Bolland at the 25th of January, whose contemporary anonymous author, having narrated in no. 10 the pious munificence and death of the said Claudia, proceeds thus: There was a certain infamous man, named Hector, who had obtained the honour of the patriciate at Marseille, who had carried off the daughter of the aforesaid Claudia and joined her to himself in wickedness, and afterwards, having entered upon the wretchedness of concubines *, came to prince Hilderic, who at that time governed both kingdoms (namely Austrasia and Neustria joined with Burgundy) which he had taken up, another having been associated with him in the wickedness, named Leodegar, he came to the king, which afterwards was the tinder of scandal in bringing about the martyrdom of the same. He accuses the Pontiff

(St. Praejectus) of claiming for himself the estates of the aforesaid woman Claudia, and sets out his causes to the king: and he obtained from the prince that he should direct envoys from his side, who should summon him through sureties and cause him to be presented in the king's court. This Hector is certainly depicted here in black colours, whom, on the contrary, the anonymous biographer of Leodegar praises highly in the words recited in no. 134.

[136] is treated less honourably by the biographer of St. Praejectus, But if nevertheless the patrician of Marseille, as it seems not to be doubted, in fact carried off the daughter of the said Claudia and joined her to himself in marriage against her mother's will, and then on that account reclaimed the goods justly given to the church, I think our anonymous biographer of Leodegar exceeds measure in the praises of the same patrician, and I assent to the author of the earlier Life of St. Praejectus, who delineates Hector foully. But at the same time I disapprove of his harsher method of speaking, when he intimates in these words that Leodegar favoured the patrician of Marseille against St. Praejectus: He (Hector) came to prince Childeric … another having been associated with him in the wickedness, named Leodegar. I think meanwhile that this writer, although he spoke harshly, only means that Hector came to prince Childeric, having associated with himself, or drawn to his side, Leodegar, from whom he had covered with the veil of justice the wickedness which he was committing in bringing an unjust suit against St. Praejectus. I persuade myself of this even from this, that the same biographer also attributes to Leodegar the name of Saint, and commends him very much from his glorious end: Very impiously slain, he says, (Leodegar) obtained the palm of martyrdom, and now is powerful in sacred miracles; so that perhaps he only turns it into a fault in the holy Prelate that he suffered himself to be circumvented by Hector. And who does not see that this could very easily have been done by a crafty and fraudulent man, with no fault at all of our Saint?

[137] Further, Le Cointe, whom Pagi then followed, he is loaded with new calumnies, and weight is added to these in the ecclesiastical Annals at the year 673, no. 2, seems to mean that by the more ardent zeal with which Leodegar defended the cause of Hector it came about that very many courtiers, thinking otherwise of the patrician of Marseille, having conceived envy and hatred against our Saint, contrived his final ruin, or at least his expulsion from the court. Hence indeed some could have been stirred against Leodegar, especially if, which however I do not think, he exceeded measure in defending his friend, who perhaps had not before been ill-disposed towards him. But men of that kind whom we mentioned in no. 129 undoubtedly did not need that goad; I would not, however, deny that these snatched from the hospitality and patronage shown by him to Hector a handle for accusing the holy Prelate and loading him with new calumnies, so that they might at length tear him altogether from the king's side. For our anonymous author indicates this not obscurely in no. 14. This, he says, (of Hector being lodged with Leodegar) the envious found as an occasion through which they might fulfil the wickedness which they had lately poured into the king's heart. To this end, says the anonymous author again in the same place, they contrive a lying and envious fable about Leodegar and Hector, as though they had been joined together for this purpose, to overturn the royal dominion and usurp the rights of power for themselves; and to make this invention more undoubted to the king, they join (these are the anonymous author's words too) to their occasion * the Mayor of the palace, named Wulfoald, that is, they draw him to their side, and cause Leodegar, the king being already of his own accord sufficiently moved, to be accused by him also. Which indeed I do not think was difficult for them; for this opportune occasion of throwing Leodegar out of the court does not seem to have displeased Wulfoald, who probably feared lest he should at length fall from the mayoralty of the royal palace, and that dignity, namely by the agency of Leodegar, if he, persevering longer in the court, should recover the king's friendship, should be conferred on Leudesius, who perhaps was aspiring to that magistracy which his father Erchinoald had once held, and who had a son named Adalric, between whom and Leodegar, as I also said in no. 107, the tie of very near kinship perhaps existed.

[138] Moreover, to the calumniators of Leodegar was also added a certain man at Autun in the monastery of blessed Symphorian the martyr, by Marcolinus, a pseudo-monk, he is put in danger of his life by the king. shut in in body, not in mind, named Marcolinus, under pretext of religion most desirous of praise and honour; he boldly affirmed that our Saint was truly plotting revolution with Hector, with a wickedness the more criminal because it was veiled with the appearance of piety, and because the king was known to be most inclined to give credit to his words, as one who held the hypocrite for a prophet of God, and who otherwise heard not unwillingly the crime of conspiracy with Hector objected to Leodegar proclaimed as true, since he was seeking a cause, at least in appearance just, of destroying the holy Prelate, to whom by the arts of the envious he was already most hostile. It is right to gather these things from our anonymous author, who, having premised the notion of the said Marcolinus which I have just given as to substance, subjoins: This man therefore the oft-mentioned king (Childeric), ignorant, held as it were a prophet of God in all things, because he flattered him before all, favouring his will concerning the accusations of the Man of God (Leodegar). You have now the seeds sown by the malevolent, from which the indignation of Childeric against Leodegar, having arisen, at length grew into deadly hatred. And it became so great that the same Childeric, who, as we said in no. 134, had come to Autun some days before Easter, would have killed Leodegar with his own hand on the holy Friday itself, had he not been restrained by the counsel of certain more prudent magnates. Our anonymous author testifies this, who, to prove that flight was not taken by Leodegar from fear of death, subjoins these things: Nor let anyone think that he (Leodegar) feared martyrdom so much: for when previously it had been announced to him through a certain monk named Bertharius * on the Lord's Supper of his death, on the following day, of the Lord's passion, he went to the king's palace, and, thrusting himself forward of his own accord, wished to offer his blood to Christ on that day on which Christ had shed His blood for the salvation of the world. For the king too on the same day wished to strike him with his own hand: but out of reverence for God he was prevented by the counsel of certain wise chief men.

[139] Ursinus is silent on these things, who in one assertion here can, Of all these things, which preceded the solemn Vigils of Easter at Autun after the arrival of Childeric, Ursinus does not make mention by even a word. He does indeed narrate that Leodegar was warned of the death to be inflicted on him. But this circumstance, which our anonymous author refers to the Lord's Supper or holy Thursday, he ties to the Vigils of Easter or the night immediately preceding Easter, so that it is necessary that one or the other errs here, unless perhaps our Saint was warned twice of the slaughter impending over him, once on holy Thursday by a certain monk, as the anonymous author says, named Bercharius, once in the middle of the night between holy Saturday and the Sunday of the Resurrection by a certain other, whom Ursinus, the name omitted, calls the instigator of evil. This can not ineptly be maintained. For our anonymous author, where in no. 15 he has narrated that Childeric on the night preceding Easter went to the principal church to terrify Leodegar performing the sacred rites there, adds: When he had already terrified him, threatening through messengers with the stroke of the sword, namely Leodegar, so that he perhaps means that from the messengers who were the inciters of the royal hatred against the Saint, threatening the utmost in the king's name, Leodegar understood again on holy Saturday that death was impending over him, who had already understood this very thing on holy Thursday from the monk named Bercharius. By this way certainly our anonymous author is reconciled with Ursinus.

[140] in another cannot, But whether Ursinus did not confuse the things done in the Vigils of Easter with those done on holy Thursday can perhaps be doubted, both on account of what has already been said before, and chiefly because in that very place in which he records that our Saint was warned of the slaughter impending over him he conflicts besides with our anonymous author in another circumstance, in which nevertheless one must side with the latter against Ursinus, as I shall presently show, when I have recited the words of each biographer with the necessary elucidation added. Those of Ursinus are these: And when they (Childeric and Leodegar), the day (namely of the feast of Easter) now approaching, were going together, as the custom is, on Saturday in the Vigils of Easter to celebrate the solemnities of Masses, and both had hidden the evil seed-bed of hatred, then the instigator of both evils, approaching, said to the same Pontiff: Watch yourself, he said, Pontiff, for know that when the celebration of the Masses is finished you are to be killed by the king: since the wicked seed which was long ago sown against you by your enemies, as it were in his heart, it has been decreed to consummate this night. Hearing this, the Pontiff put it off by dissembling, and showed himself joyful, and, not reckoning it of great moment, appeared bright of countenance, and most honourably consummated the solemnities of the Masses which he had begun. But when he and the king had received holy communion, the king, going to the palace, went away to dine. Which certainly most clearly indicate that Childeric received holy Communion with Leodegar in the Paschal Vigils, and that not only in the same city but in the same church, so that Mabillon does not seem to be listened to, who in the Annotations to the earlier Life of our Saint affirms that the cited words of Ursinus about holy Communion received by the king with Leodegar can perhaps be understood of its being received only in the same city.

[141] And he asserts this without doubt with this view, that he may bring Ursinus in some manner into concord with our anonymous author, to be reconciled with our anonymous author, who openly reveals that Childeric did not receive holy Communion with Leodegar in the same church on the night preceding Easter, when, having narrated the malice of Marcolinus, the pseudo-monk, of which in no. 138, he presently subjoins these things: On that night therefore on which the holy Vigils of Easter are celebrated in the city, the king, as being now suspicious, would not come there (where Leodegar was keeping the Paschal Vigils); but, with a few then supporters of the aforesaid hypocrite (Marcolinus), seeking counsel, now eager with a malign mind against the Servant of God (Leodegar), he did not fear to receive there (with Marcolinus in the monastery of St. Symphorian) an untimely Paschal Sacrifice. But afterwards, when, now shamefully drunk with wine, while others fasting awaited the holy solemnities, he had entered the church (namely the principal one, in which Leodegar was performing the sacred rites), crying out he sought Leodegar by name, to turn him as it were to flight, when he had already terrified him, threatening through messengers with the stroke of the sword. And when, crying out for him often, he had learned that he was in the baptistery, entering there too, he was stupefied at the brightness of so great a light, or the odour of the chrism, which were being employed there in the sanctification of those being baptized. But when he himself answered his cry, Here I am: not recognising him at all, he passed through, and sat down in the house of the church, where it had been prepared. And the other bishops, who had celebrated the Vigils with the Man of God, returned to their lodgings: but he, when he had performed the sacred Office, went intrepidly to the angry king, and asked him with gentle words why he had not come earlier to the Vigils, or persisted, filled with anger, in the solemnities of so sacred a night. The Vigils to which Childeric is here narrated not to have come, and which certain bishops are narrated to have celebrated with Leodegar,

are taken not for the whole night between Easter and holy Saturday, but for the ecclesiastical Office, or the nocturnal prayers then wont to be discharged on that night. For since our Saint is said, the bishops having returned to their lodgings after the Vigils, to have asked the king why he had not come earlier to the Vigils, or persisted, filled with anger, in the solemnities of so sacred a night, and these words intimate that, when the holy Prelate so addressed the king, the night preceding Easter had not yet elapsed, how could the cause of his anger be asked of the king by Leodegar, the bishops having already returned to their lodgings after the Vigils, if these are taken for the whole night between Easter and holy Saturday?

[142] This being noted, it is now easy to understand how our anonymous author, by the words given, in fact means to whom nevertheless, from the Life of St. Praejectus, that Childeric on the night preceding Easter did not celebrate the Paschal Vigils with Leodegar; although meanwhile he indicates that he then came to the church in which the Saint was occupied with the sacred Vigils, and sat down in the house of the church where it had been prepared. And as regards the holy Paschal Communion, that our anonymous author likewise means that it was not received by Childeric with Leodegar in the same church the bare words of this author already recited show enough and more than enough. Further, in this matter I think one must assent to our anonymous author against Ursinus for this reason, that the Life of St. Praejectus already cited before favours him, in which Leodegar and Hector are said to have taken flight by night, after it became known to Hector that Praejectus was supported by the protection of Wulfoald, mayor of the palace, and had been asked by the bishops gathered at Autun to offer to God the sacrifice of the Mass on the night immediately preceding Easter for the state of the king and the peace of the church. And when now, says the contemporary anonymous author of that Life, the sun had traversed the southern region and was sinking to its setting, and the hour, as is the custom, was already seen to be at hand, so that it was lawful to celebrate the solemn Vigils of Easter, by royal permission or that of the elders, the pontiffs or priests who had been gathered together in the city of the Aedui on account of the royal power earnestly demand, nay entreat, the blessed man Praejectus with suppliant voice that in the same Vigil of the sacred night he himself should offer the Sacrifice to God for the state of the king and the peace of the church. And when Hector had learned these things of so great a veneration, and especially because he was vexed at the confidence of Wulfoald, the senior of the palace, in the dead of night, with St. Leodegar, ill-punished *, both take flight.

[143] is shown to be sided with, So he; which, although it does not openly signify that St. Praejectus, bishop of the Arverni, celebrated the solemnities of the most blessed night at the sacred Vigils of Easter in the presence of the king, nevertheless narrates those things from which this very thing may not undeservedly be deduced either altogether or almost, since it is most probable that St. Praejectus assented to the said petition of the bishops, and that he was asked by them to celebrate solemnly the sacrifice of the Mass at the sacred Vigils of Easter, the king being present. For if he had only been asked by the bishops to offer the sacrifice of the Mass to God privately for the state of the king and the peace of the church, the cited author of the Life of the same Saint would by no means have intimated, as he does, that a great veneration was shown to that holy Prelate by that petition of the bishops. However that may be, the recited words of the Life of St. Praejectus had so much weight with Mabillon that he judged that by them it is most certainly signified that St. Praejectus celebrated the sacred rites at the Paschal Vigils in the presence of the king. For in the Notes to the earlier Life of St. Leodegar, holding as asserted what only follows from other things, he observes thus: St. Praejectus, bishop of the Arverni, is said in his own Acts to have celebrated the sacred rites in the presence of the king, namely in the Life cited by us; for there are no other Acts of St. Praejectus from which this may be known with certainty, or rather drawn out by reasoning. With Mabillon, meanwhile, Le Cointe does not agree, but neither does he altogether disagree, in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks. For there, at the year 673, no. 4, he asserts that the Life of St. Praejectus does not indeed altogether oppose Ursinus here, but at least favours our anonymous biographer of St. Leodegar, with whom therefore he also thinks one must side, and so hold, as we too hold for the same cause, that Childeric neither was present in the same church at the sacred rites of the Paschal Vigils nor received holy Communion with Leodegar before the latter took flight on the night preceding Easter, of which, that we may now treat, the series of things pertaining to our Saint requires.

[144] Leodegar by night flight Ursinus, where he has narrated that the king, having received holy Communion, withdrew to the palace, namely the episcopal one, writes these things: But the Pontiff (Leodegar), when he had fully completed his office, and had taken wine with his people, as is the way of human frailty, fearing the animosity of the king, began to treat with his people what he ought to do in this conflict. And then, a few things interposed: Then, leaving the king and the loftiness of all powers, reckoning for nothing what he had in the world, on the same night (namely on which the Paschal Vigils were being kept) going forth with a few, he began to go where he might become a poor man of Christ. With Ursinus agrees the anonymous biographer of St. Praejectus, by whom, in the last words recited in no. 142, Hector is asserted to have taken flight in the dead of night, namely preceding Easter, with Leodegar. Our anonymous author likewise relates that Leodegar committed himself to flight: and although he does not openly declare that this was done by him by night, yet he sufficiently indicates it by the very manner of narrating. For where he has related that Leodegar, the night preceding Easter (see him in no. 16) not yet having elapsed, went to Childeric, and understood from him that he was for a certain cause suspect to him, presently indicating that the counsel of flight was entered upon by the Saint, he subjoins thus: Therefore, he says, the man of the Lord Leodegar, seeing that it was fixed in his (Childeric's) mind that, his henchmen persuading, he would render him slain together with Hector, as he had decreed, or that Hector in the strait, as they feared, would undergo contempt against the king, fearing not for his own death but drawn by concern for the safety of those who had come to him for the sake of protection, chose rather to lie hid for the time by flight than to give occasion that through his martyrdom the church should be bloodied or plundered during the solemnities of the Resurrection of Christ.

[145] By which words besides two reasons are intimated why Leodegar, who by no means dreaded death, he takes for just causes, took the counsel of fleeing: the one, lest those whom he had undertaken to protect should be in danger of their lives; the other, lest the church should be profaned either by slaughter or otherwise on the holy day of the Lord's Resurrection. To these two reasons Ursinus adds a third, namely lest, if the king stained his hands with the blood of a priest on the most holy day of Easter, the people, stirred to sedition by the savagery of their king, the commonwealth should suffer harm. Thinking, he says, and praying to the Lord, he found counsel that it was better for him to leave everything and follow Christ than to give place to the king, and to defile the hands of the king with the blood of a priest on the feast of so great a day; lest perchance it become a reproach of the Franks, and through him, one man, there should be dissension in the whole people. This reason indeed differs somewhat from the two former, but by those three taken together, and others like them, Leodegar could have been moved to take flight, so that Ursinus therefore does not here conflict with our anonymous author.

[146] In like manner those two biographers are not to be said to conflict with each other and drawn back from it when, in reviewing the things which followed immediately upon the flight of our Saint, one of them indicates that it was obtained from the king by the prayers of Leodegar himself, drawn back from flight, the other by the counsel of the magnates and bishops, that the holy Prelate, no heavier punishment being inflicted, should be banished to Luxeuil. For the king could have been bent both by the counsel of the chief men and by the humble prayers of Leodegar to determine milder things against him. Ursinus indeed sets out the matter thus: The king, hearing this, was greatly saddened, and, grieving, sent a certain one of his faithful men with a great army after him, and, following him through that whole night, he found him at dawn , and according to the king's command brought him back with him: the Pontiff himself (Leodegar) also entreating that it might be permitted him, leaving the world, to be free for God in the monastery of Luxeuil, he asked with humble prayer to be directed there: whom he did not delay to go there at once. And the anonymous author in this manner: Therefore, when Leodegar the servant of God had then been detained by certain men, they suddenly announce the fact to Hilderic. He believed he would have the greatest favour of the king who was able to seize Leodegar. Then, by the counsel of the chief men or of the bishops, he is ordered to be led to the monastery of Luxeuil, until they should consult in common what to do about a Man of so great a name.

[147] he is driven into exile. It seemed good to transcribe these two texts here, because from the collation of one with the other it is clear in what besides Ursinus differs from our anonymous author; the latter namely signifies by the last member of his period that the punishment of exile against Leodegar, as soon as he was brought back from flight, was not decreed by a final judgment in perpetuity, but only for a time, namely until something more certain, and perhaps also harsher, should be determined concerning him, counsel having been entered upon by the king with the nobles of the kingdom; which things Ursinus wraps in deep silence. And the king indeed entered upon counsel with the nobles of the kingdom, but not before Leodegar was already in exile at Luxeuil. For our anonymous author, relating that certain bishops who were then with the king assented to Leodegar being condemned to perpetual exile to this end, that they might for the present render him free from the anger of the king, from which they feared worse things for our Saint, adds besides this reason why they sought Leodegar free from the king's anger even with the penalty of perpetual exile enjoined: For the oft-mentioned king (Childeric), enticed by the counsel of the wicked, had ordered him (Leodegar) to be brought from Luxeuil, that, deposed with mockery at the will of the accusers, they might render him slain as they wished; which words intimate that Leodegar, when the king entered upon counsel about him with the nobles of the kingdom, was already in exile at Luxeuil; wherefore, since I am to treat of this alone in the following §, I also remit further discussion of it to the same §, lest I disturb the order of events.

* others concessit granted

* others concubinatus miseriam the wretchedness of concubinage

* others accusatione accusation

* others Bercharium Bercharius

* others gestans bearing

* others baptizatorum of the baptized

* multatus punished

* diluculo at dawn

* others dirigere to direct

§ X. The Saint is in exile at Luxeuil about four months, and is then led out thence to be killed, but, on hearing of the death of king Childeric, is preserved unharmed.

Leodegar, as he arrived at Luxeuil, with Ebroin Leodegar, now an exile both from the court and from the church of Autun, his bride, having entered Luxeuil, found there, as is understood from his biographers, Ebroin tonsured and clothed in the monastic habit: Who (says Ursinus, designating Leodegar), hastening, arriving at the monastery (of Luxeuil), found Ebroin there already a cleric, and saying that he had sinned somewhat against him, asking pardon of one another, they stood in concord; but since Ursinus also signifies by these words

that Leodegar confessed he had sinned somewhat against Ebroin and asked pardon of him, in place of these the Anonymous of Murbach, who interpolated Ursinus, substituted these things: When he (Leodegar) at length arrived there (at Luxeuil), he found there Hebroin lying hidden merely under the monkish habit, whom the Man full of piety cherished there too with brotherly love. This author namely judged that it could not be related or believed without injury to St. Leodegar that he acknowledged himself guilty of some offence against Ebroin, and he wished, as I have already indicated in no. 32, with all zeal to beware lest he should in any way seem to compare or make equal the holy Prelate to his wicked, as he says, persecutor Ebroin. Perhaps Surius also looked to this when he set out the cited words of Ursinus in his own style thus: He found Ebroin already a cleric, and asked him that, if he had sinned in anything against him, they should ask pardon of each other, and be joined by concord of minds with each other. But those words of Ursinus, as the learned reader will perhaps judge with me, admit an interpretation of this kind only with great difficulty, nor do I see what great sin is admitted if it be held as true that Leodegar said he was guilty of some offence against Ebroin. For the most holy Man, although he was guilty of no offence against Ebroin, could nevertheless, from a humble estimation of himself, think himself guilty, and confess it to Ebroin.

[149] Wherefore that confession of Leodegar asserted by Ursinus ought by no means to be held as certainly false, he strives to return into favour, and to virtue, but neither as certainly true, since it is neither recorded by our older anonymous author nor can be proved from elsewhere. It is more certain that Ebroin, as soon as Leodegar came to Luxeuil, entered into a concord with him, if not sincere, at least feigned. For besides our older anonymous author, who indicates that matter in these words, In those days therefore (when Leodegar was banished to Luxeuil) Hebroin was still residing as an exile at Luxeuil, tonsured in the monastic habit, maintaining a feigned concord, as if, since both (Leodegar and Ebroin) had received one, but unequal, sentence of exile, they led a life of concord; Ursinus too, in the words recited in the preceding number, not obscurely mentions the concord entered into by Ebroin with Leodegar; and although he by no means indicates that it was only feigned on Ebroin's part, as the words just adduced from the anonymous author intimate that it was, this nevertheless appears certain enough from the supreme hatred with which, as we shall see below both from our anonymous author and from Ursinus, Ebroin burned against Leodegar as soon as he had gone out of Luxeuil after the death of Childeric II, king of the Franks. However that may be, it does not indeed appear to be doubted that Leodegar, in his coming to the monastery of Luxeuil, extended his right hand to Ebroin with the greatest candour of mind, and led a most holy life among the monks; of this nevertheless, or of the virtues and pious exercises cultivated by our holy Martyr when he was in exile at Luxeuil, our older anonymous author records absolutely nothing; while Ursinus, reviewing no virtue of the holy Exile in particular, relates only those things by which he seems to make Leodegar equal to Ebroin, or the latter to the former, as the Anonymous of Murbach complains in his Prologue, and which therefore this author thought should be rendered a little differently. I subjoin the words of each biographer: those of the Murbach author are these: For although the father of the same monastery (of Luxeuil), knowing the mind of Hebroin, separated him for the time from the private dwelling of the Man of God (Leodegar), yet the Elect of God did not cease to love him with the same affection, and as a brother in the paternity of Christ: those of Ursinus these: Nevertheless, separated by the abbot * (Leodegar and Ebroin), for some space of time, both doing penance, they strove to dwell vigorously among the companies of the monks, as though perpetual monks; in which certainly Leodegar and Ebroin are treated with absolutely no difference.

[150] not, however, undoubtedly, as Le Cointe seems to mean, Le Cointe, in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 673, no. 7, affirms without hesitation that abbot Windologus ruled the monastery of Luxeuil when St. Leodegar came to it as an exile in the year 673; and this writer did so for this reason, that he judged that St. Walbert or Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, the immediate predecessor of Windologus in the office of abbot of Luxeuil, succeeded St. Faro in the see of Meaux in the year 672; but in this matter he went vehemently astray; for neither Walbert, the brother of St. Faro, nor Walbert, abbot of Luxeuil, whom he wrongly confused with the former Walbert, brother of St. Faro, succeeded St. Faro in the see of Meaux. This becomes plain from the things which are brought forward in tome 1 of May in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Waldebert, abbot, by our Henschenius, into whose opinion on this matter Pagi in the Critica and the Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 8, among the bishops of Meaux, afterwards went with hands and feet. Besides, St. Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, succeeded St. Eustasius in the government of the monastery of Luxeuil either in the year 625, as our Henschenius will have it with the Sainte-Marthe Brothers, or in the year 627, as Pagi contends; and in the Life of the same St. Waldebert, abbot, which Adso, abbot of Montier-en-Der, wrote, and which the cited Henschenius published in the tome cited from a very old codex of the monastery of Saint-Bertin, in no. 8 the same St. Waldebert is said to have ruled the monastery of Luxeuil forty years.

[151] under abbot Windologus, Here are the words: When for the space of forty years the glorious confessor of the Lord Waldebert had increased with goods and with the number of those serving God the place delegated to him (the monastery of Luxeuil), excellently ordered in every kind of virtue, adorned with many powers of miracles, he passed to the Lord on the sixth day before the Nones of May, that is, the 2nd of May, namely of the year 665 or 667, since the forty years reckoned from the year 625 or 627, during which Waldebert, as is understood from the cited words of Adso, presided as abbot over the monks of Luxeuil, bring us to one or the other year. Therefore in the year 672 St. Waldebert, abbot of Luxeuil, did not succeed St. Faro in the see of Meaux, as having already been dead some years; and he had Windologus as his immediate successor in the government of Luxeuil not in the year 672, as Le Cointe also affirms in the place cited, but in the year 665 or 667. Wherefore, since from the year 665 or 667 until the year 673, in which Leodegar was in exile at Luxeuil, only six or eight years are counted, it could indeed easily have come about that in the year 673 Windologus, still surviving among the living, was abbot of Luxeuil; but this cannot deservedly be affirmed without hesitation, as Le Cointe did, since in the series of the Abbots of Luxeuil, which the Sainte-Marthe Brothers inserted in tome 4 of Gallia Christiana as communicated to them by Pierre-François Chifflet, priest of our Society, only the name of Windologus is expressed, without any note of time, or other sign or circumstance, from which it could be gathered in what year another was substituted in the office of abbot on the death of Windologus, or for what space of time the latter ruled the monastery of Luxeuil. Now let us return to the words of Ursinus last brought forward, from which we have digressed.

[152] he applies himself; he escapes the danger of his life, chiefly I should certainly believe that Leodegar strove to dwell vigorously among the companies of the monks, as the cited Ursinus says, as though a perpetual monk; indeed it is most probable to me that our holy Exile, had he not been restored shortly to his episcopal see when the face of affairs was changed by the death of Childeric, would not unwillingly have lived long among the monks and have performed their ascetic exercises, as St. Lambert, bishop of Maastricht, likewise driven from his see by Ebroin, did in the monastery of Stavelot, as his Life published by us at the 17th of September testifies. But his enemies do not seem to have been going to leave this intact to our Saint. For they, not content with his exile, pressed the king with all zeal to punish the holy Prelate with capital punishment, and already Childeric, before anything certain was determined concerning Leodegar by the common counsel of the nobles, to whom the decision of the matter had first been remitted, driven by the wicked suggestions of the malevolent, had ordered him to be brought to the court, to be ignominiously cast down from his bishopric at the discretion of the calumniators and handed over to death. But that savage and unjust sentence seems to have been changed by Childeric into the milder one of perpetual exile, counsel having been held with the nobles of the kingdom. Hear our older anonymous author about these things. Meanwhile, he says in no. 18, when those who seemed to be the first of the palace, gathered together by Hilderic *, to determine what judgment they should decree concerning the holy Priest of God, answered with harmonious voice this: that, if he granted him life, he should order him to remain at Luxeuil under perpetual exile, confirming at once the judgment under this decree: some bishops or priests consenting for this reason, that they might for the present render him free from the king's anger. For the oft-mentioned king (Childeric), enticed by the counsel of the wicked, had ordered him to be brought from Luxeuil, that, deposed with mockery at the will of the accusers, they might render him slain as they wished, as Herod once had arranged to do to Peter for the Jews.

[153] You have hence, therefore, the counsel entered into by the king with the nobles of the kingdom, Ermenarius, abbot, exerting himself, he escapes, and then and the unjust and savage sentence pronounced by him against Leodegar before this, but you do not yet have its change into a milder one. This is understood from the things which our anonymous author subjoins immediately to the words just recited concerning Ermenarius, then abbot of the monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun. And they are these: There was present … the venerable man, abbot of the basilica of St. Symphorian, named Hermenarius, to whom after the departure of the Man of God (Leodegar) the king, at the petitions of the people, had commended the city of Autun; and when with immense prayers he often rolled himself at the king's feet, that he would permit him to remain at Luxeuil, lest he should order him to be brought to the expectation of the cruel, whom the devil had kindled into fury against him: at length on account of prayers of this kind he was then saved from being killed. From all which it at length seems deservedly to be gathered that the punishment of death, which the king by the counsel of the wicked had first decreed against our Saint, was changed by him into the milder one of perpetual exile, the nobles of the kingdom, when he was deliberating with them concerning the punishment to be inflicted on Leodegar, unanimously urging it, and especially Ermenarius, abbot of the monastery of St. Symphorian, exerting himself, who was present with the nobles conferring counsel with the king, and who perhaps frequented the court of king Childeric with the view of interceding for Leodegar, although for that reason certain persons disparaged him, falsely, as our anonymous author says, supposing that he frequented the king's dwelling for this reason, that he might be first of the accusers, so that it might be the more easily permitted him to hold another's bishopric, namely that of Autun, which the king, when he banished Leodegar, had commended to him at the people's petition. But the same anonymous author of ours, to remove this stain of ignominy from the illustrious man to whom he dedicates his composition, subjoins these things: It was far otherwise, because the carnal eye does not see spiritual love. For his (Ermenarius's) works afterwards stood as witnesses. Because as long as he (Leodegar) survived in the present life, he showed devoted charity to his necessities, in what he wished.

[154] it came to this, that he was ordered to be led out of Luxeuil; This was manifest most of all when Ebroin, already restored to the dignity of mayor of the palace, gave our Saint, most cruelly wounded, to Waning to be kept

had handed over. For then Ermenarius, as our anonymous author testifies in no. 42, coming secretly to Leodegar for fear of Ebroin, strove diligently to care for his wounds, and with what skill he could to refresh him with drink and food, and to clothe him with a better garment which he had, so that he then succoured Leodegar's necessities with truly Christian charity, and it is to be thought that he frequented the court of king Childeric not with a mind of harming but of favouring Leodegar. But however he probably strove to keep the holy Prelate immune from heavier punishment, and to this end, with prayers repeated more than once, rolled himself at the feet of Childeric, it does not seem, nevertheless, that nothing harsher than exile would again have been decreed by Childeric against our holy Exile, the effect too finally following, if he had long survived among the living. For our anonymous author in no. 20, having narrated the killing of Childeric, presently subjoins: And before this (the killing of Childeric) had happened, when two certain dukes, to whom it had been commanded (by Childeric) that St. Leodegar be brought from Luxeuil, had so far delayed, one of their servants had conspired that, if he saw the Servant of God outside Luxeuil, he would kill him with the stroke of a sword. Childeric therefore, as is understood from the words recited, before he was slain, had already again given in command to two dukes, that is, prefects of provinces or cities, that they should draw Leodegar out of Luxeuil, probably to be handed over to death at the discretion of those who held him hateful; thus namely Childeric, with more than youthful levity, changed the sentence of death which he had first pronounced against our Saint into the milder one of exile by the intervention of the nobles, and especially of Ermenarius, and presently again, at the impulse of the malevolent, this into the harsher one of death.

[155] but again, although thence before Childeric's But those two dukes, or prefects of provinces or cities, to whom it had been enjoined by the king to lead Leodegar out of Luxeuil, did not obey at once on receiving the command; and they seem to have woven delays until they should find someone who would take upon himself the burden of killing Leodegar as soon as he had gone out of Luxeuil, which the precept of Childeric perhaps required. Certainly in the words last cited from our anonymous author in the preceding number one of their servants or attendants is said to have conspired to the killing of Leodegar, when they had so far delayed, that is, if only I rightly follow the sense of our anonymous author, somewhat obscure here, when the two said dukes or prefects had put off drawing our Saint out of Luxeuil so far, or so long, until they should have found someone who would take on the part of killing Leodegar. Further, although the two dukes, who it is probable had also received the command to see that Leodegar was killed, did not hasten to obey Childeric, they nevertheless seem to have drawn our Saint out of Luxeuil before the killing of the same Childeric. This is drawn out of our anonymous author, when in no. 20 he indicates that that servant who had determined to kill Leodegar saw him outside Luxeuil, and was wonderfully hindered from putting his purpose into execution. For when , he says, it came to this (that the said servant saw Leodegar outside Luxeuil), such an intolerable fear flooded his heart that he confessed with public voice not only that he had said it, but also why he had thought such grave things against the Servant of God (Leodegar) , and, trembling, rolled at his feet, he begs * that this wickedness be forgiven him by him. For since these words intimate that Leodegar, having gone out of Luxeuil, would have been killed by the oft-mentioned servant, had not the latter, his mind at once wonderfully changed, abandoned his purpose; and this, as it will be easy to gather from what is to be said, he would not have dared after the killing of Childeric was known, it follows that our Saint was outside Luxeuil at least a little before this, most probably led out thence by the oft-mentioned dukes by order of the king.

[156] This very thing is understood more clearly besides from the same anonymous author of ours, after about four months of exile, before the killing, when he writes thus in no. 22: In these days (when affairs in Gaul had been disturbed after the death of Childeric) the Man of the Lord (Leodegar) was detained for his safety by the dukes mentioned (namely those who had received the command to lead Leodegar out of Luxeuil), by whom he had already been led out of Luxeuil. For since by these words he openly reveals that Leodegar was led out of Luxeuil by the aforesaid dukes, and it is not credible that they did this when Childeric, whom they did not willingly obey in that matter, had already departed from the living, it follows that, the testimony of our anonymous author standing, St. Leodegar was led out of Luxeuil before the death of Childeric. Ursinus indeed opposes the anonymous author here, when he writes in this manner in no. 10: Hearing these things (the death of Childeric and the succession of Theuderic to the kingdom), the friends of both (namely of Leodegar and Ebroin), desiring to see their faces, fulfilling their wishes with great favour, strive to bring them back to their own homes. For going from both sides to the aforesaid monastery (of Luxeuil), they urged them to come forth and to return to their homes. They, burning much with anguish, yet, the friendship of love entreating, because they had been very greatly wearied by the far * spaces of lands, consenting, acquiesced in those entreating. By which words certainly he clearly intimates that Leodegar did not go out of Luxeuil except when Childeric had already been slain. But since the things which pertain to the exile of St. Leodegar at Luxeuil, and first of all that of which there is question here, happened for the greater part in the kingdom of Burgundy, in which Luxeuil was situated, and indeed not very far from the diocese of Autun, in which, as we have shown above, our anonymous author professed as a monk, I think one must here assent to him rather than to Ursinus, who lived far from Luxeuil in the diocese of Poitiers near the city of the same name.

[157] Hence it now further follows that Leodegar was in exile at Luxeuil only for a space of about four months. he is led out, is preserved unharmed. For, as we have shown in the preceding §, he was banished there a little before the middle of April of the year 673; and the killing of Childeric, which the going out of Leodegar from the monastery of Luxeuil at least somewhat preceded, took place in the same year 673 before the middle of September. Of this epoch of the death of Childeric there has indeed been full treatment in the eighth §, yet it will be helpful to have noted something about it here besides. The divine vengeance, says our anonymous author in no. 20, did not long delay to give its judgment on Hilderic. For his dissolute conduct had grown burdensome to all the chief men of the palace. Then one of them, bearing this more grievously than the rest, while he (the king) was hunting securely in a forest, struck him with a mortal wound. On account of the circumstance of the hunt, while carrying on which Childeric is here said to have been slain, Le Cointe in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 673, no. 9, writes thus: He (the anonymous biographer of Leodegar, in the words just cited) intimates the Autumn season, which is most apt for hunting, and was most frequently wont to be passed by the kings of the Franks in that exercise. Adrien de Valois, book 21 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 279, has these things: The kings of the Franks mostly built near their forests, or even in the midst of the forests, ample and elaborate residences, which were commonly called palaces, and thither they were accustomed to withdraw in Spring and Autumn for the sake of hunting with their wives and children. By that custom perhaps Childeric had withdrawn with a few into the forest of Lauconia, ignorant of the conspiracy of the chief men against him, or at least feigning ignorance. On this occasion, as he sets out at greater length, Childeric with his wife Bilihild is killed by the conspirators, so that the Autumn season, regard being had to this writer, seems likewise to be assigned to the killing of king Childeric, since according to him he was slain in Spring or Autumn, and yet it undoubtedly did not happen in Spring, as anyone will easily gather from what has been said before. But since it has been shown in the eighth § that Theuderic III, the immediate successor of Childeric, was already reigning in Neustria and Burgundy in the year 673 before the middle of September, the death of Childeric cannot be deferred to the Autumn season of the same year 673; if namely by the Autumn season you understand that season of the year which takes its beginning some days after the middle of September. Besides, the exercise of hunting, on the occasion of which our anonymous author affirms he was slain, by no means compels deferring the death of Childeric so long. For nothing prevents Childeric from being believed to have hunted towards the end of August or the beginning of September.

[158] he is preserved unharmed. Further, the death of king Childeric was undoubtedly then the salvation of Leodegar. For although the two dukes who by order of Childeric had drawn the holy Prelate from the monastery of Luxeuil to be killed seem likely to have brought about his death neither easily nor quickly, and that one of their servants who had undertaken to do it before the Saint was led out of Luxeuil also refused to kill him; it nevertheless seems certain to me that Childeric, induced by his malevolent flatterers, if he had lived longer, would have commanded the killing of Leodegar with more urgent precepts, and would at length have brought it about that he was in fact killed. But indeed, Childeric having been slain, it came about that the two dukes, who, having been ordered to, had led our Saint out of Luxeuil to be killed, most humanely kept him with them, God bestowing on His Servant a supernal grace by which he might win their love to himself, and, their minds changed, preserved him with veneration, and stood ready to protect him against his enemies. Hear our anonymous author on this matter adding these things to the words cited in no. 156: For then there (in the place where, led out of Luxeuil, he was being kept) the supernal grace had granted to its Servant (Leodegar) a venerable dignity, so that in those places both the aforesaid dukes and their wives, and at the same time the servants and the whole households and the common people, had so conspired in love of him that, if necessity threatened, they would not hesitate to offer themselves for him.

* others by order, however, of the abbot,

* others add fuissent had been

* others preces prayers

* others ministravit ministered

* others autem [but]

* others cogitasset he had thought,

* others deprecaretur he begged

* others longinquis distant

§ XI. Leodegar, after the slaughter of Childeric, is protected by the chief men of Burgundy, goes with them to Theuderic, and, the latter being now solemnly set up as king, returns to his episcopal see. Ebroin, having gone out of Luxeuil, rises against Theuderic and stirs up various disturbances.

Affairs in Francia being disturbed by the death of Childeric, The death of Childeric disturbed the state of affairs in Francia further. For on hearing of it, most of those who had been driven into exile by his command, either on account of their zeal for Theuderic or Ebroin, or on account of crimes committed, returned home without any fear, and ravaged Neustria and Burgundy with great fury, while meanwhile those who, with forces joined, ought to have suppressed marauders of this kind assailed one another with mutual hatreds and arms. Let our anonymous biographer be heard. Therefore, he says in no. 21, when the death of Hilderic had been suddenly announced, then those who by his command had been condemned to exile, as in the Spring season after winter venomous serpents are wont to come out of their caverns, returned without fear *: by whose raging fury there arose a great disturbance of the fatherland, so that the coming of antichrist was manifestly believed to be imminent. But those who ought to have been rulers of the regions rose against certain others, and those who ought to have maintained the treaties of peace began to assail one another with hatreds. The cause

of these motions he brings forward thus: Because, he says, the king was not then established at the summit, what seemed right to each one in his own will, this he did without fear of discipline. But, you will say, did not Theuderic then at once succeed in the place of his slain brother Childeric? I answer that the computation of the years in which Theuderic reigned is indeed begun immediately from the death of Childeric, yet on account of the words of our anonymous author last cited he does not seem to have begun to reign before at least one or two months had elapsed from the death of Childeric. For although it was perhaps in Theuderic's power to take up the reins of the kingdom immediately after the death of Childeric, I do not think he did this very thing, except after first exploring the will of the nobles of the kingdom towards himself. For if he had ascended the throne without consulting them, and hence perhaps with them unwilling, they could easily have deposed him again with disgrace from the royal dignity, as they had done before, when he had been set up as king by Ebroin without their being called together according to custom. Wherefore Theuderic probably allowed one or two months, the time he could need for exploring the dispositions of the nobles, to elapse from the death of Childeric before he conducted himself as king, and perhaps too, as long as he had not yet been placed on the throne by the chief men of the kingdoms called together with the accustomed ceremonies, he abstained from all use of the royal name and power, the enemies of public peace meanwhile making tumult without any fear of laws and punishments, because thus there was no one to restrain their audacity.

[160] the nobles of Burgundy resolve to protect Leodegar; There were among these disturbers of quiet some who ascribed their exile, and whatever they had suffered from Childeric for their crimes, to Leodegar alone, because he had been the counsellor of that prince: These, says our anonymous author in the place cited, who returned from exile with malevolent mind, whatever they had endured for their crime , they charge that they had suffered these things through the factions of Leodegar. But this by no means escaped the two dukes who, as was said in the preceding §, were keeping our Saint with them with veneration and had resolved to protect him. Wherefore, since they feared lest those criminals, in that disturbance of affairs, should seize the occasion of avenging on Leodegar the injuries which they supposed had been inflicted on them by him, not sufficiently trusting their own forces alone, they commended the holy Prelate to other chief men of Burgundy, perhaps counts and dukes, who, joining themselves to the two dukes already often mentioned, decreed with unanimous consent that, if, while the disturbances of the kingdoms lasted, before they had set up Theuderic as king by common counsel, anyone should try to harm Leodegar, they would be his help and protection. Hear again our anonymous author on this matter: And when, he says in no. 22, they (the two dukes), keeping the Servant of God (Leodegar) with them, had announced to other powers remaining round about them that they had recognised the divine grace upon the servant of God Leodegar, these had already joined themselves to their help with religious love of Christianity, and, conspiring among themselves, they confirmed that, while the undisciplined disturbance of this dominion had arisen, if, before they had likewise raised Theuderic to the kingdom, anyone should perhaps wish to harm St. Leodegar, he should be protected by their help. This patronage of Leodegar thus undertaken by those dukes most probably did not lack fruit; certainly I do not find that his enemies then dared to attack our Saint by force.

[161] but when he goes with them to Theuderic, That these nevertheless had this most in their wishes presently became plain, when Ebroin likewise had gone out of Luxeuil. For him, whom they heard to be suddenly surrounded by a retinue of friends and servants, they at once joyfully approach, and demand help and counsel, that they may take vengeance on Leodegar, whom they depict as a most hostile enemy of Ebroin himself. Our anonymous author narrates that matter thus: For in these days, he says in no. 23 (when the commotions in Francia were not yet ceasing), Hebroin too went out of Luxeuil, like Julian, who held the feigned life of the monks. For when he was suddenly surrounded by a retinue both of friends and of servants, the aforesaid exiles, seeking to * his service, set up as head the evil which they had fabricated in their accusation, so that by his help or counsel, if they could prevail against the Man of God (Leodegar), they might unanimously take vengeance. It was without doubt not difficult for those criminals to obtain what they asked from Ebroin, who had hitherto only feigned reconciliation with Leodegar, and had remitted nothing of the hatred conceived against him. But an opportunity for exercising vengeance on the Man of God was to be awaited; Ebroin probably thought this would be found if with his companions he joined himself to the bishops, dukes and other chief men of Burgundy hastening with Leodegar to Theuderic to place him on the throne according to custom. Ebroin therefore mingles himself with his people in their company, pretending that he too was hastening to Theuderic to swear fealty to him and always thereafter to keep it. For Hebroin himself, proceeds our anonymous author, raised his venomous head, as a viper restoring its venoms, pretending that he was then faithful to Theuderic, and for this reason was hastening to him with his companions as quickly as possible. Ebroin was suspect neither to the chief men of Burgundy nor to Leodegar, which he ought to have credited to the clerical garment which he had not yet put off, and did not seem ever about to put off.

[162] Meanwhile in a short time the inveterate hatred of the most crafty man against Leodegar broke out. [he is put in danger by Ebroin, who had joined himself as companion, and, the danger] For while he was making the journey together with Leodegar and the other bishops and chief men of Burgundy, and was scarcely one day's journey from Autun, through which they had to pass, having no regard for the friendship which he had promised our Saint, incited, I believe, to the outrage also by the exiles mentioned above, he attempted to seize him. But among the bishops and nobles of Burgundy who were hastening to Theuderic was Genesius, bishop of Lyon. He partly by his counsels restrained Ebroin, partly by a strong band of armed men which he had with him so terrified him that he desisted from the undertaking, and, returning to his accustomed arts and pretence of friendship, went on with the others as far as Autun. For when (the words again are our anonymous author's) the Man of the Lord (Leodegar) with the companions written above (the chief men of Burgundy) was hastening by the same journey as Ebroin, it came about, when there was not even the space of one day's journey before they reached the city of Autun, his supporters urging him, that Hebroin, unmindful of the friendship long since promised, wished to seize him there, had he not been prevented by the counsels of Genesius, bishop of the metropolis of Lyon, or terrified by the strong band which were present with him: and again pretending a feigned friendship, in a mingled column they came together into the city, namely of Autun.

[163] Then it could be seen with what mind the people of Autun were towards their bishop Leodegar. [being driven off, he is received honourably at Autun, and when afterwards the journey] For his return from exile filled people of every age, sex and order with the highest joy. The church (of Autun) rejoices, says our anonymous author in no. 24, at the restored presence of its Shepherd (Leodegar), the streets are adorned with green boughs, the deacons make ready the tapers, the whole city rejoices at the coming of its Pontiff after the storm of persecution. Ursinus writes thus on this matter: Ebroin namely came together with the pontiff Leodegar into his city of Autun. Hearing this, the whole city was roused to joy. The citizens, going out to meet them, received them with great triumph, rejoicing that they had received back the Father, the governor whom they had formerly lamented having lost: and having received him, they placed him in his former seat, that he might enjoy gladness with them. And thus indeed both our older biographers here agree not badly with each other, but they do not equally agree between themselves in assigning the time at which they write that Ebroin, after he had been prevented from his wicked counsel against Leodegar, withdrew by flight from him. For Ursinus, having narrated the honourable reception of Leodegar among the people of Autun on the day on which he first returned to them from exile, subjoins these things: Blessed Leodegar desired on the morrow to send Ebroin to his home enriched with great honours and gifts. But the same Ebroin did not suffer his people to rest a little; but in flight * by night departed from the city itself, namely of Autun; while the anonymous author has these: But on the next day, setting out thence (from the city of Autun) together (Leodegar with the chief men of Burgundy), that they might come united to meet Theuderic. Meanwhile, while these on the journey begun were coming to the king, from the very journey, almost now midway, Hebroin the tyrant, deserting their company, passing through to his own people, casts off his clerical state, returns to his woman, as a dog to its vomit, after the sacred veil. By which words the former writer refers the flight of Ebroin to the night next after Leodegar's return to the city of Autun, the latter to the day following that night, so that without doubt they by no means agree between themselves here.

[164] he resumes, Ebroin secretly takes flight But since the question is about a matter done in the diocese of Autun, for the reason which I have already brought forward more than once, I think one must here side with our anonymous author. Nor is it very strange if Ursinus refers the flight of Ebroin to the night, and not to the second day from Leodegar's return to Autun, when the latter with the chief men of Burgundy set forward his journey from that city to Theuderic. For this writer does not seem to have known of Leodegar's journey to Theuderic; wherefore, since he nevertheless knew that Ebroin had secretly fled from Leodegar, he could easily have thought that that flight was made by night. Further, Ebroin perhaps departed secretly and silently from Leodegar and the other bishops and nobles of Burgundy for this reason, that, since he had offended very many by his recent plots against our Saint, he feared not a little lest he should be seized by them and, Theuderic consenting, thrust back into a monastery, and so lose all hope of recovering the mayoralty of the palace, which, however, as the event showed, he wished to recover by every means, and which he had perhaps already resolved to regain by arms for this reason, that he saw no other way remaining to him of arriving at it. Doubtless, says Valois, book 22 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 297, the crafty man (Ebroin) understood that he was hateful to Theuderic, to whom by his heavy domination he had been the cause of his deposition, and hateful to most of the bishops and chief men, who, since they had earlier seen to his being tonsured and banished to a monastery, would now hold him for a cleric, and would on no condition restore to him the prefecture once taken away, and would choose anyone else rather than him as mayor of the royal palace. Ebroin therefore, knowing his affairs to be in this state, withdrew secretly from the nobles of Burgundy, and with the men of his party began openly to show himself an enemy to Theuderic. He (Ebroin), says our anonymous author in no. 24, took up secular arms and revealed himself an open adversary even against his earthly lord (Theuderic).

[165] into Austrasia, and there Wulfoald, while meanwhile And in order that, which is at least most probable, he might carry off by force and arms the lost dignity of the mayoralty of the royal palace, which he did not hope to recover by the favourable will of king Theuderic and the nobles, he associated with himself as friends the Austrasians, the words are those of Ursinus, no. XI, whom he had formerly had as adversaries. Valois, book

22 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 299, writes that Ebroin then also returned into favour with Wulfoald, who, when he had been tonsured and banished to Luxeuil, had succeeded him in the prefecture of the palace of Neustria and Burgundy, and had now after the slaughter of Childeric gone back to Austrasia. And this writer does so without doubt for this reason, that in the words just adduced from Ursinus Ebroin is said to have associated with himself as friends the Austrasians whom he had formerly had as adversaries; and Wulfoald, an Austrasian man, had formerly been Ebroin's adversary. Ebroin, he says, was attempting by every means to recover the prefecture of the palace. That he might the more easily attain this, he returned into favour with Wulfoald, an Austrasian man, by whom chiefly he seemed to have been deprived of the prefecture, and who had gone back to Austrasia after the slaughter of Childeric, and made friends to himself of the other nobles of the Austrasians whom he had formerly had as adversaries, and took them to himself as allies for war. But since nothing compels taking the words of Ursinus in a universal sense, so that they signify that Ebroin entered into alliance and friendship with absolutely all the Austrasians whom he had formerly had as adversaries, it cannot on their account be affirmed for certain that Ebroin returned into favour with Wulfoald, and contracted an alliance for war with the other nobles of Austrasia whom he had formerly had as adversaries.

[166] It appears probable to me, however, that Wulfoald did not prevent while meanwhile king Theuderic was saluted by Leodegar and the other chief men, some Austrasians from joining themselves to Ebroin, as soon as he had come as a fugitive from Burgundy into Austrasia, with whose help he might break into Neustria and Burgundy and make war on Theuderic. For Leodegar and the chief men of Burgundy, from whose company, as they were going to Theuderic, Ebroin had secretly withdrawn and fled into Austrasia, had already come to Theuderic, and together with the nobles of Neustria had set him up as king of Neustria and Burgundy with the accustomed ceremonies, no one, as it seems, dissenting. They had also elected, with the greatest concord, as it appears, Leudesius, a noble man, son of Erchinoald, who had ruled the palace under Clovis, the father of Theuderic, as mayor of the royal palace, our Saint also urging it. The first is understood from nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 of our anonymous biographer; the last the anonymous writer of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, chapter 45, openly teaches in these words: But the Franks (Childeric having been slain) elect Leudesius, son of Erchinoald, a noble, as mayor of the palace. And there were from Burgundy in this counsel blessed Leudegar, bishop of Autun, and Gerinus his brother, consenting.

[167] With this anonymous writer the Continuator of Fredegar agrees, writing thus in chapter 95: perhaps not opposing, But the Franks (Childeric having been slain) set up Leudesius, son of Erchinoald, a noble, in the dignity of mayor of the palace by the counsel of blessed Leudegar and his companions. Since therefore Theuderic now seemed to be reigning somehow peacefully in Neustria and Burgundy, Wulfoald could fear lest, if those two kingdoms should at some time enjoy perfect peace, Theuderic should at length set his mind also on occupying Austrasia, part of his brother's inheritance, likewise; and if he had occupied it, Wulfoald would without doubt also have fallen from the government of the Austrasian kingdom which he was still holding. Wherefore, since it undoubtedly mattered very much to Wulfoald that affairs in Neustria and Burgundy should be disturbed, he probably did not wish to prevent some Austrasians from joining themselves to Ebroin, by whom he foresaw that by their help the torch of civil war would be kindled in Neustria and Burgundy. But Ebroin, as we shall presently show, put forward a supposititious son of Clothar III, and set him up as king in the parts of Austrasia. Wherefore, if he perhaps did this as soon as he had arrived as a fugitive in Austrasia, he most probably also had Wulfoald opposing him already then. For since the latter, having lost the mayoralty of the palace in Neustria and Burgundy, undoubtedly sought that at least the government of Austrasia should remain with him, it could not but displease him exceedingly that a son of Clothar III should be put forward by Ebroin and set up as king in the parts of Austrasia, from whom, placed under the power of Ebroin, he had likewise to fear the loss of the government of that kingdom.

[168] he draws many Austrasians to his side, However Wulfoald was disposed towards Ebroin meanwhile, the latter does not seem, regard being had to the order of narration which our anonymous author keeps, to have put forward a son of Clothar III immediately upon his arrival in Austrasia, but only afterwards. But although he did not do this then, he nevertheless drew not a few Austrasians to his side in a short time, partly induced, as is credible, by the hope of plunder, partly by the desire of avenging the death of Childeric, whom they are understood from no. 6 of Ursinus to have loved, and would most probably have drawn more in the lapse of time. But, as he was a cunning man, although perhaps he did not yet have a regular army, he thought that speed, by which matters in war are mostly accomplished successfully, should be used here, and that by it Theuderic could be overwhelmed. The latter had then probably, only one or two months, the space of time which Ebroin had spent on gathering forces, in a solemn assembly of the nobles of Neustria and Burgundy celebrated about two months after the death of Childeric, recovered the kingdom lost before, and was residing secure and fearing nothing in an estate of the kingdom of Neustria called Nogent. This security of the king was an apt occasion for Ebroin to carry on his affairs successfully. He therefore breaks unexpectedly into Neustria, and that probably towards the end of the year 673, or, which agrees better with what has already been said and with the Chronicle of Sigebert, about the beginning of the following, compels king Theuderic, Leudesius his mayor of the palace and the other chief men to flee, pursues the fleeing, intercepts the royal treasury, permits the churches of the places through which he leads his forces to be despoiled, or at least does not prevent it, and kills Leudesius when he had come into his power. For at the estate of Nogent (the words are those of our anonymous biographer), the kingdom now recovered, Theuderic was then residing securely; when with a sudden onset Hebroin had come there with the Austrasians. For who could fully enumerate what plundering there then was of the royal treasure or of the church's ministry, which the devout Catholic princes of former times had conferred on the Lord's sanctuary for the love of Christianity? They say that his (Theuderic's) Mayor of the palace too was slain .

[169] he makes an unexpected irruption into Neustria, The Continuator of Fredegar, with whom the anonymous author of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, chapter 45, almost agrees, sets out these same things with some other circumstances besides, a little more fully and clearly, in chapter 96, in this manner: Ebroin, he says, … having called to his help allies, very many persons, with a great retinue of armies, going out from the monastery of Luxeuil returns into Francia, coming as far as the river Oise ; he killed the sleeping guards at Sainte-Maxence, and crossing the river Oise killed those of his lurkers whom he found there. Leudesius, Mayor of the palace, together with the king's treasures, slipped away by flight and escaped, and escaping from the estate of Baizieux fled away, and Ebroin arriving there seized the treasures which he found there. Going out thence, coming to the estate of Crécy in Ponthieu, he craftily promises good faith to Leudesius, deceived him by pretence, an agreement being made, that, a sworn compact being made, he should depart in peace. But Ebroin, acting deceitfully, as he was wont, preparing snares for his co-father, killed Leudesius himself. Thus far he, and indeed, as it appears, rightly enough, if you except a few things which I leave to others to discuss; but presently he wrongly subjoins that Theuderic was then restored to the kingdom by Ebroin; in which matter he without doubt strays from the truth. For he conflicts with Ursinus and our anonymous author, of whom the latter in no. 25 intimates that the restoration of Theuderic to the kingdom was made before Ebroin's irruption into Neustria, and the former in no. 10 before his going out of the monastery of Luxeuil, so that according to each of these writers Theuderic was not restored to the kingdom by Ebroin at all. And there is no one who does not think one must stand rather by the assertions of Ursinus and our anonymous author than by those of the Continuator of Fredegar, who among the Writers of Frankish Affairs in Bouquet, tome 2, is called a pitiable patcher-together of fables which he drew from the anonymous author of the Deeds of the kings of the Franks. The assertion of which we are treating, however, he could not have drawn from that anonymous author. For he does not relate that Theuderic was restored to the kingdom by Ebroin at Crécy, but only received, together with the Mayoralty of the royal palace or prefecture of the palace, when he had already killed Leudesius, the mayor of the palace. After these things, he says, coming to Crécy (Ebroin) received the king, and ordered Leudesius, faith being given, to come to him under guile. Which done, he killed Leudesius, and himself shrewdly received the principate. Which words certainly do not indicate that Theuderic was restored to the kingdom by Ebroin; and yet even so they perhaps do not yet agree sufficiently with the exact truth.

[170] For they intimate that Ebroin in the said expedition captured Theuderic at Crécy, and after this, as it appears, and not long after the killing inflicted in the same place on Leudesius, mayor of the palace, recovered the principate or prefecture of the palace, which things do not sufficiently agree with our anonymous author, to whom weightier credit is due. For he does not write that Theuderic was captured there by Ebroin; and he intimates that some other things preceded that recovery of the principate or prefecture of the palace by Ebroin. And first of all, regard being had to him, Ebroin seems not to have been able to capture Theuderic in the said expedition before he was restored to the mayoralty of the royal palace, and so to have been disappointed in the hope of then recovering his former dignity from the captured king. But since he nevertheless sought in whatever way at last to become mayor of the royal palace again, he seems further to have striven to increase his forces by every means against Theuderic, and for that reason to have returned into Austrasia from Neustria, in which matters had by no means turned out for him according to his wish. It appears that these things can be gathered, not indeed from the bare words of our anonymous author, but from the order which he keeps in narrating things. For where he has briefly set out the expedition of which there has been treatment in the two preceding numbers, and its chief cause, he presently narrates that Ebroin and his followers put forward a supposititious son of Clothar III, whom they named Clovis, and set him up as king in the parts of Austrasia against Theuderic.

[171] Here are the words: And because, the devil persuading, who had stripped them (Ebroin and his followers) of faith, he substitutes a son of Clothar III, since, now blinded, they did not find a counsel of truth by which they might destroy the Saint of God (Leodegar), they turn aside to greater ruin through an invention of falsehood, by which they brought great evil into the kingdom and the slaughter of depopulation in the persecution of many. Finally they took a certain little boy, and fabricated that he was the son of Clothar, raising him to the kingdom with them in the parts of Austrasia. For the truth of these things it is required that Ebroin, when he did what they relate he did, was in Austrasia, and therefore had then returned into that kingdom from Neustria, if, as the order of narration requires, he had broken into the latter before, that he might gather more numerous forces, as is probable, against Theuderic, whom he had not been able to capture in his former expedition, and by them compel him to restore the mayoralty of the palace to him. There are also certain other things which the same anonymous author of ours not only intimates but openly reveals preceded the restoration of Ebroin to the mayoralty of the royal palace. Among these, besides the supposititious son of Clothar III, of whom I have already made mention, is chiefly numbered the proclamation made far and wide by the Ebroinians, by which

they falsely proclaimed that Theuderic had already died. There are added the edicts and decrees given in the name of their pseudo-king Clovis by the same Ebroinians to the judges, or prefects of cities and provinces, by which whoever was unwilling to obey was compelled either to provide for himself by flight and, having lost his office, to lie hidden, or did not escape the hands and swords of the persecutors.

[172] and stirs up many disturbances. Let our anonymous author himself be heard, who indeed writes thus in no. 26: For which reason (namely the creation of the pseudo-king, whom they said was the son of Clothar III) they (the Ebroinians) gathered the people much in hostile manner, because it seemed probable that he was the genuine son of Clothar III. For when, laying waste the fatherland, they were subjugating all, they gave precepts to the judges even in the name of their king whom they had falsely made. Then whoever was unwilling willingly to acquiesce in them either lost the rights of his power, or, if he did not depart by flight and hiding, perished by slaying with the sword. And in no. 32 he has these things opportunely for the present matter: All (the Ebroinians) asserted with an oath that Theuderic was dead. Many, deceived by these inventions and artifices, went over to the Ebroinians, believing that Theuderic was dead, and that Clovis was born of Clothar, to whom therefore the right to his father's kingdoms belonged. For how many (says our anonymous author in no. 26) through this fiction of craftiness believed that Theuderic was then dead and that Hlodoveus was the son of Hlothar? Many too who could not be deceived were compelled by force and threats to swear to the words of the pseudo-king Clovis, until at length, the latter being abandoned, Ebroin recovered the mayoralty of the palace in Neustria and Burgundy with Theuderic. But since before this recovery some things were also done which pertain more nearly to our Saint, the order of events requires that we now treat of these before that.

* others add quidam certain

* others on account of their crimes,

* others who were keeping

* others ad is lacking

* others quæ which

* others aderat was present,

* others fugaciter fleeing

* others venit came

* others his Mayor of the palace also having been slain.

* others Isaram

* others better from Bacivum

§ XII. Leodegar is besieged at Autun, seized, deprived of his eyes, and suffers many other things by order of Ebroin.

Ebroin, about destroying Leodegar, Ebroin, the multitude of his followers having already been greatly increased by those arts which we disclosed in the preceding §, set his mind not only on attempting again by arms the recovery of the mayoralty of the royal palace, but also on seizing and harassing Leodegar. The latter was residing securely at Autun in his episcopal see by the favour of Theuderic, now restored to the kingdom, and was giving his attention to settling the affairs of his diocese, fearing nothing from the Ebroinians. But some among these were continually stirring Ebroin up against Leodegar. They were probably those turbulent exiles mentioned above who, on hearing of the killing of Childeric, had returned from exile. In those days, says our anonymous author in no. 27, these things having been thus done (namely those of which there has been treatment in the preceding §), and unrolled one by one, after Hilderic was slain, after the bishops or patricians with the chief men had returned from the Neustrian kingdom or the presence of Theuderic into the parts of Burgundy, and, he being now confirmed in the kingdom, were residing securely at home, meanwhile the envious moved the enemy, namely Ebroin, from the opposite side, and first to act against him (Leodegar), as they thought he had acted with king Hilderic . Ebroin indeed did not need the goads of those instigators to devise something more unjust against Leodegar, being of his own accord, as the event taught, more than too inclined to all the more atrocious counsels against the holy Prelate.

[174] He therefore, partly at the impulse of some of his followers, enters into counsel with his people, and sends against him partly of his own motion, takes into counsel friends and familiars not unlike himself, to learn from them by what means especially he might destroy our Saint. Two of these counsellors of this kind take upon themselves of their own accord the charge of seizing and harassing Leodegar, and, having received an army from Ebroin, rejoicing at this, hasten to Autun. Then, proceeds our anonymous author in the same number, having joined to himself as counsellors the most wicked companions of the enemies, namely of Leodegar, he (Ebroin) began to consult how he could destroy the same Pontiff (Leodegar). For of these counsellors two, namely, Deddo (he intimates in no. 26 that he was bishop of Chalon, who had been deposed from his bishopric for crimes) and Waimir (him he entitles in no. 34 duke of Champagne) by name, having become the head of the malice, said that they could snatch him (Leodegar) out of the city (of Autun, where he was then living) and take vengeance on him, by which the malice of Hebroin ought to be sated. For Hebroin, rejoicing at their (Diddo's and Waimir's) answer, gave a very copious army, who hastened to the city, namely Autun.

[175] In the preceding § I intimated not obscurely, on account of the order in which things are narrated by our anonymous author, an army, when indeed he had already into Neustria that the unexpected irruption of Ebroin of which I treated there happened before he substituted a son of Clothar III, called Clovis by the Ebroinians. But now there will perhaps be someone who contends that the order in which things are narrated by our anonymous author is not conformable to the order in which they were done, and that that irruption of Ebroin did not even happen before the expedition of Diddo and Waimir against Leodegar here begun to be recorded, which nevertheless is certainly later than the substitution of the pseudo-Clovis. For it is indicated here (see the words recited in the two preceding numbers) that the bishops of Burgundy and other chief men, Theuderic being now confirmed in the kingdom, were residing securely at home when Ebroin with his people deliberated about destroying Leodegar, and shortly after Diddo and Waimir undertook the expedition against him of which there is question here; but how could the chief men of Burgundy then reside securely at home if Ebroin had already before made the oft-mentioned irruption? I answer: Ebroin had broken unexpectedly into Neustria alone: this is clear from the places which the Continuator of Fredegar, cited in no. 169, writes Ebroin then invaded, and which, none excepted, belonged in the age of our Saint to the kingdom of Neustria, as then comprised between the Meuse and the Loire, between which two rivers, as one consulting Valois in the Notitia of the Gauls or some other geographers will easily discover, all those places too were situated, so that it is plain that Ebroin then broke into Neustria alone. And since this is so, why could the chief men of Burgundy not live securely and quietly at home, although meanwhile affairs in parts of Neustria somewhat remote from Burgundy had been disturbed by the hostile irruption of Ebroin made unexpectedly into them, especially since this does not seem to have lasted long?

[176] had broken in, yet not yet Therefore from the security of the chief men of Burgundy, when the expedition of Diddo and Waimir against Leodegar was already impending, it cannot be proved either that this was not later than the very often mentioned irruption of Ebroin into Neustria, or that the order in which things are narrated by our anonymous author is not conformable to the order in which they were done. Wherefore, just as in the preceding § I intimated, on account of the order in which things are narrated by our anonymous author, that Ebroin broke into Neustria before he put forward a supposititious son of Clothar III, so here for the same cause I establish that Ebroin's irruption into Neustria was earlier than the expedition of Diddo and Waimir against Leodegar. But someone will perhaps inquire: by how much time did the former precede the latter? Ebroin, as we have shown in no. 168, probably broke into Neustria at the beginning of the year 674, from which, since he had not been able to capture king Theuderic, not very long after, as it appears, perhaps in the month of March or February of the same year, he returned into Austrasia, and there, before the expedition of Diddo and Waimir, put forward a supposititious son of Clothar III, fabricated that Theuderic had already died, drew very many to his side by these inventions, and enrolled a huge army. Besides, he gave edicts in the name of the pseudo-king set up by him to the prefects of the provinces and cities of the kingdom (namely of Neustria, as seems to be gathered from nos. 25 and 26 of our anonymous author), and wretchedly afflicted those who were unwilling to obey those edicts. Wherefore, since for doing all those things a space of about four or five months seems to have been needed, it is probable to me that about five or six months intervened between the irruption of Ebroin into Neustria first begun to be made and the expedition of Diddo and Waimir against Leodegar in Burgundy, so that therefore the latter seems to have taken place about the summer of the year 674.

[177] whatever Ursinus writes, Ursinus nevertheless writes these things in no. 12: Made Mayor of the palace (Ebroin) began to think of vengeance on his enemies, who had not wished to have him as sub-king. Who, like a lion roaring among the other wild beasts, his roaring resounded through the lands of the Franks. And all who had formerly thought evil against him, terrified, those who had remained from his slaughter , pursued flight; to which, when he has added that then the man of God Leodegar … was residing with his people * in his city of the Aedui, he presently narrates, in almost the very words which we have already recited from our anonymous author in nos. 173 and 174, that Ebroin, mindful of all the evils which he thought Leodegar had done against him with king Childeric, entered into counsel with his people about destroying the holy Prelate, and that Diddo and Waimir, who had offered themselves of their own accord for seizing and harassing our Saint, undertook an expedition against him, an army being supplied by Ebroin, so that he openly signifies that this did not happen except when Ebroin had already been made mayor of the palace. Wherefore if, as is perhaps true, Ebroin did not recover the mayoralty of the palace before the year 675, it will follow that the expedition of Diddo and Waimir is wrongly fixed by us to the year 674. But our anonymous author does not narrate the restoration of Ebroin to the mayoralty of the palace except after the expedition of Diddo and Waimir, or the siege of the city of Autun, the seizing of Leodegar in it, and its circumstances. Besides, in no. 32 he relates that Diddo, while he was besieging Autun, demanded of Leodegar that he swear to the words of the pseudo-king Clovis; and he intimates in no. 37 that Ebroin, when he recovered the prefecture of the palace, defected from the pseudo-king Clovis whom he had set up, so that Diddo in the siege of Autun would undoubtedly not have demanded the aforesaid oath of Leodegar if Ebroin had already been restored to the prefecture of the palace.

[178] Therefore our anonymous author openly teaches that Ebroin was not restored to the mayoralty of the palace had recovered the mayoralty of the palace. except after the expedition of Diddo and Waimir, or the siege of Autun, and that not only by the order of narration but also by the circumstances which he relates. Wherefore, since the siege of Autun, as will be plain to one who considers it, undoubtedly in fact preceded the recovery of the mayoralty of the palace by Ebroin, if the circumstance is true of the oath to the words of Clovis demanded of Leodegar by Diddo in that siege; and since that demanding of the oath pertains to the affairs of our Saint at Autun, or to those which he either did or suffered at Autun, for the reason which I have already brought forward more than once, I assent here to our anonymous author, and hold as undoubted that Ebroin did not recover the dignity of mayor of the palace with Theuderic except after the expedition of Diddo and Waimir against Leodegar had been completed,

although meanwhile Ursinus writes the contrary, who also in the circumstances which accompanied the siege of Autun differs not a little from our anonymous author. But the discussion will return to these below. The series of events requires that I now set out the things which our Saint did at Autun on hearing of the counsel of his enemies. Ursinus wraps these in silence, and immediately, having narrated the hastening of Diddo and Waimir towards Autun, subjoins these things: And surrounding it (the city of Autun) with the same army, namely that which they had received from Ebroin, they (Diddo and Waimir) laid waste around the circuit of the walls.

[179] But our anonymous author writes that St. Leodegar, having learned the purpose of the Ebroinians, Leodegar, having heard the counsel of his enemies, said and did many things by which the unconquered fortitude of his mind, his generous contempt of earthly things, his extraordinary charity towards the poor, his veneration of sacred things and very many other virtues shone forth wonderfully. But the Man of the Lord Leodegar, he says, when he was residing in his city (namely Autun) for the restoring of his people, when he perceived the onset of the enemies directed against himself, did not suffer that he should any longer direct his steps in flight, but intrepid awaited the judgment of the Lord concerning himself. Meanwhile some of his household and clerics pressed our Saint to carry away with him his treasures and wealth as soon as possible, and by timely flight to provide equally for himself and for the city. But the most holy and likewise most valiant Man disapproved of the timid counsel, and preferred, rather than follow it, to spend his treasures on pious uses. For when (our anonymous author proceeds) both his household and the clerics or faithful pressed upon him (Leodegar) to carry off the treasures which he himself had brought together and to depart, so that the enemies, hearing this, might desist from the destruction of the city or the persecution of him, he, by no means acquiescing in these, but at once calling them together in the treasury , assigning all things that he had added there, went on with such words: All these things which you see, brethren, as long as the grace of God willed me to have the favour of earthly men, I have faithfully brought together here for the common adornment, as I could. But now perhaps earthly men are angry with me for this reason, because the Lord deigns to call us to the grace of heaven. For to what end should I carry away from here these things which I do not take with me into heaven? Therefore, if it pleases you, I choose the counsel that these should rather be given to the uses of the poor than that I should wander hither and thither through the world with a shameful load.

[180] he distributes his treasures to the needy and to churches, and many Our Saint had said these things; without delay he ordered silver dishes and very many other vessels to be brought out of the treasury, and these, broken into small pieces by silversmiths who had been summoned, to be distributed to the poor and to the monasteries of both sexes, situated both in the district of Autun and within the city, those things meanwhile which were fit for ecclesiastical uses being given to the church. Our anonymous author in no. 29 sets out the matter at length thus: And at once, he says, he (Leodegar) ordered the keeper to bring out the silver dishes with very many other vessels, and silversmiths to be present with hammers, who should break everything into small pieces, which he ordered to be paid out to the poor through the dispensing of the faithful: and those of them which had been fit for ecclesiastical uses he added to the ministry of the church. The monasteries indeed, as well of men as of virgins, within the city or territory, he comforted with the same silver, and the poverty of many. What widow was there then, or orphanhood , or all poverty in common, which was present there, that had not had comfort from his largess? To these he subjoins certain excellent admonitions given by our holy Prelate to the people of Autun, which I do not transcribe here, and then narrates that he, in their company, a three-day fast having been proclaimed, went round the walls of the city with the sign of the Cross and the relics of the Saints, and, prostrate on the ground again and again, begged the Lord with tears that, if he himself was now destined to suffer every grievous thing, and perhaps death itself, from his enemies, He would at least permit no one of the flock committed to him to be led away into servitude.

[181] he performs most praiseworthy works; Our anonymous author has this on the matter in no. 30: Admonishing * therefore (Leodegar) the whole people of that city (Autun), with a three-day fast, going round the circuit of the walls with the sign of the Cross and the relics of the Saints, clinging to the earth also at each approach of the gates, he prayed the Lord with tears that, if He was calling him to passion, He would not permit the people entrusted to him to be taken captive: and so it was granted that it came to pass. These works of Leodegar were certainly most praiseworthy and plainly worthy of a holy Prelate. But since he probably thought he would be killed by his enemies, he judged that something else was besides to be done, by which he might prepare himself the better and more surely for undergoing death piously and holily. When therefore, from fear of the numerous hostile army coming, the inhabitants had betaken themselves from every side into Autun and had shut the gates of the city, our Saint commands that all come together into the church, and asks of those coming together that, if he had rebuked any of them too sharply or perhaps hurt them by a word, they would grant pardon and remission to their Bishop. Therefore (our anonymous author proceeds in no. 30), when for fear of the enemies the peoples had betaken themselves eagerly from every side into the city, and had blocked the passages of the gates with strong bolting, and above all had set the ramparts in order, the Man of the Lord ordered all to enter the church, asking indulgence of all for himself, that, if he had rebuked any of them, as is wont to happen, out of zeal for rectitude, or hurt him by a word, they would give him indulgence. For the Man of God knew, entering on the way of passion, that martyrdom does not profit where the heart has not first been cleansed, envy being wiped away, or illumined by the lamp of charity. There was no one there then possessing so iron a breast that, even if he had been grievously hurt, he did not devoutly forgive all malice of heart.

[182] And these are the things which, as our anonymous author writes, but Autun being besieged, less for his own than Leodegar did excellently immediately before the siege of Autun. And they are so worthy of note that, although they do not need much commentary, I have nevertheless judged that they should be inserted in this Commentary, and it comes to one to wonder why they are not recorded by Ursinus even in general. I proceed now to the siege of Autun already begun to be recorded, in the circumstances of which, as I have already indicated, our anonymous author again differs not a little from Ursinus. For the latter, as if Leodegar, nothing of any value having been done beforehand, had presented himself of his own accord to his enemies as soon as they had begun the siege of the city, presently, when he has narrated that it was begun by the Ebroinians, subjoins these things in no. 13: For the Man of God (Leodegar), foreseeing these things (the enemies' efforts against the walls of the city), kindled with great zeal for the people committed to him, following the example of the Lord, preferring to lay down his life for his sheep, and desiring to gain them *, rather than to seek only his own temporal safety, then ordered all the clergy of the city to be gathered, and with relics, crosses and choirs of psalm-singers went out to meet his enemies with the praises of God, and of his own accord offered himself to the palm of martyrdom; if the will of the smiter had not been lacking. But our anonymous author, besides not mentioning the procession with relics of the Saints, crosses and the whole clergy of Autun instituted by St. Leodegar when he presented himself of his own accord to his enemies, affirms in nos. 31, 32 and 33 that between this deed of our Saint and the beginning of the siege the following things, which Ursinus omitted, intervened.

[183] These I transcribe here from the anonymous author, partly bare, partly reduced into summary, anxious for the safety of the citizens, Meroald, elucidation added where there is need. Not long after the things which we have already seen Leodegar did on hearing the counsel of his enemies, the army of the Ebroinians appears in sight of Autun, surrounds the city with a siege, and on the very day on which this happened there is fighting bravely until evening between the townsmen and the Ebroinians; and while the Ebroinians nevertheless, howling day and night like dogs (for shouts were then most usual in war), press no less sluggishly upon Autun, and, having laid waste everything outside the walls, attack the townsmen, our Saint notices that the besieged are in danger. He therefore restrains those fighting from the wall and towers, and declares himself ready to satisfy the will of the enemies and to calm their fury by the spontaneous surrender of himself, since they were besieging the city on account of him alone; that it pleased him, nevertheless, that before he went out of the city to surrender himself to the enemies one of the brethren should be sent to inquire of the enemies why they were besieging the city. Meroald is chosen to undertake that embassy. He was an abbot, according to our anonymous author; but of what monastery he does not declare. There are in our age only two abbeys of men at Autun and in its vicinity, of which one is distinguished by the name of St. Symphorian, the other by that of St. Martin. Hence it most probably came about that the writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 449, wrote these things: It is not sufficiently established of what place Abbo was abbot, whether of St. Martin's or rather of St. Symphorian's; which must also be said of Meroald the abbot, whom St. Leodegar, when about to be deprived of his eyes, sent to Dido, Ebroin's henchman, to ask that he would take as much money as he wished and depart; by which they intimate that it is doubtful to them of which of the two places Meroald was abbot while the Ebroinians were besieging Autun, whether of St. Martin's or of St. Symphorian's.

[184] who seems to have been abbot not of St. Symphorian's or St. Martin's, But to me this is not very doubtful. For it appears most probable that the Meroald of whom we treat was not then abbot of St. Symphorian's, but Ermenarius was. For although the latter, when Leodegar was banished by king Childeric to Luxeuil, had, as we saw before, the city of Autun commended to him, he nevertheless seems not yet to have been created bishop from abbot at that time, but, as we shall see afterwards, perhaps only then when Ebroin had already recovered the mayoralty of the palace. This appears from our anonymous author, who distinguishes Ermenarius by the appellation of abbot alone when he narrates that he brought it about by his prayers with Childeric that Leodegar should not be led out of Luxeuil, where he was already in exile with Ebroin, to be more grievously punished, so that Ermenarius seems to have been abbot of St. Symphorian's in that short space of time in which only, as is clear from what has been said before, Childeric survived among the living after the exile of St. Leodegar, and most probably was so also when the Ebroinians were besieging Autun. Nor, however, should you infer hence that Meroald was abbot of St. Martin's. That would indeed follow from what has just been said if, as the cited Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana seem to have thought, Meroald was certainly abbot either of St. Symphorian's or of St. Martin's. But in the age of our Saint there seems to have been another monastery of men at Autun besides those two already mentioned.

[185] but seems to have been abbot either of St. Martin's or of St. Andochius's, For the same Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, in the tome cited, column 483, write thus: That there was formerly a monastery (of St. Andochius, as they note in the margin) of men and at the same time a hostel, founded by bishop Syagrius, Brunhild providing the land, in the very city of Autun, is sufficiently intimated by the privilege of Gregory the Great granted to Senator, abbot, namely of the same monastery of St. Andochius. Syagrius held the episcopal see of Autun

from about the year 560 until about the year 600; Brunhild flourished in the last fifty years of the sixth century and the beginning of the following; she, with him as author and helper, built various monasteries in the city of the Aedui about the year 589. The same Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana again teach this from the letters of Gregory the Great, in the tome cited, column 345, and add that among those pious works of Brunhild is reckoned the hostel of the city of Autun, or the monastery of St. Andochius, which consequently was founded as the sixth century was growing old. And although it was afterwards converted into a monastery of girls, this nevertheless does not seem to have been done before the eighth century, so that in the age of our Saint, when the Ebroinians were besieging Autun, it was probably still inhabited by men, over whom, since Meroald could then have presided as abbot, it seems to be doubted, not indeed, as I have just said, whether he was abbot of St. Symphorian's or of St. Martin's, but whether of St. Martin's or rather of St. Andochius's. I return now to the matter begun.

[186] he sends out to the enemies, and, matters not being able to be settled, Meroald the abbot, most probably either of St. Andochius's or of St. Martin's, going out of the city, came to Diddo, asks that he take as much money as he wished and depart from the siege without injury to anyone, and says, If these deeds of ours have committed crimes (the words are those of our anonymous author) I ask that you meanwhile remember the Gospel saying, where the Lord said: “If you do not forgive men their sins, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your sins.” And that: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged:” and at the same time imploring * that he would restrain the enemy, and receive the ransom which he wished. But Diddo, not at all moved by the prayers of Meroald, answers that he will not withdraw from the assault on the city before he has seized Leodegar, unless the latter perhaps were willing to promise fealty to king Clovis. But, our anonymous author subjoins: For this was a pretended occasion, since all (the Ebroinians) asserted with an oath that Theuderic was dead. By which words he perhaps means to intimate that Diddo promised the lifting of the siege on the condition of fealty to be promised by Leodegar to the pseudo-king Clovis only in pretence, that he might hold out to the Ebroinians, who all affirmed with an oath that king Theuderic was already dead, an occasion or cause at least in appearance just for punishing the holy Prelate, whom he foresaw would not depart from the fealty sworn to king Theuderic, as he in fact did not depart. For, not at all terrified at receiving Diddo's threatening answer, he openly professed and protested that as long as he lived he would keep the fealty given to Theuderic, and would rather die than be faithless. But the Ebroinians, on hearing this constancy of Leodegar in fealty to Theuderic, at once from every side strive with every kind of missile, with fire too, to make a way for themselves and break into the city. And the enemies, says our anonymous author, on hearing these answers, namely by which Leodegar refused to promise fealty to the pseudo-king Clovis, pressed on hastily from every side with the casting of missiles and with fire to break into the wall of the city.

[187] Here end the things which our anonymous author narrates happened in the siege of Autun he surrenders himself of his own accord to the Ebroinians, before Leodegar girded himself to make the spontaneous surrender of himself to the Ebroinians, and which Ursinus suppressed in silence. But those things which accompanied that spontaneous surrender or immediately followed it these two biographers treat alike; yet here again they disagree somewhat with each other. For where the anonymous author in no. 32 has narrated that the Ebroinians, on hearing the constancy of Leodegar in fealty to Theuderic, made an onset with every kind of missile on the walls of Autun, he proceeds thus in no. 33: But he (Leodegar), bidding farewell to all the brethren, communicating with them in the participation of bread and wine, and confirming their doubtful hearts, commending to them, like Christ, the memory of his passion, went intrepid to the approaches of the gates, and, the bars being opened, offered himself of his own accord for his enemies *. And the adversaries received him as an innocent sheep, like wolves, for prey. But Ursinus, where he has narrated that Leodegar, the whole clergy of the city accompanying him in the manner of suppliants, which I have already indicated is not recorded by our anonymous author, went out to meet his enemies, presently after the words adduced in no. 182, being silent that Leodegar, about to surrender himself of his own accord to his enemies, went intrepidly to the gates of the city and, these being opened, surrendered himself, subjoins these things: For they (the Ebroinians) who had come to punish him (Leodegar) seized him without reverence for the relics: and he is said to have cried out and said: I give thanks to almighty God the Redeemer, who has deigned to glorify me today. And going on they led him outside the city; which last words intimate that Leodegar was in the city, namely of Autun, when the Ebroinians seized him; while our anonymous author seems to signify by the words just recited from him that Leodegar, who according to no. 31 of the same anonymous author had resolved to go out of Autun, was not seized by the Ebroinians except when he had already gone out of that city.

[188] But if nevertheless anyone contends that Leodegar perhaps, when he had gone to the gates of the city to surrender himself to the enemies, who, his eyes first having been torn out, surrendered himself of his own accord at them, when they had been opened, to the Ebroinians presently entering before he could go out; that indeed cannot be said to conflict undoubtedly with the anonymous author, and thus the latter and Ursinus can be brought back into concord as regards the place in which our Saint was then captured by the Ebroinians; but they will not yet for that reason be altogether in concord with each other here, since they do not narrate all the same circumstances. But, which is chief, they at least agree with each other in narrating the kind of punishment with which the Ebroinians afflicted Leodegar when already captured. For both relate that the eyes of the holy Prelate were torn out by those savage men. But, Ursinus adds, this was done, which certainly appears undoubted to me, by command of Ebroin; and our anonymous author makes no mention of Ebroin's command; but he affirms, on the testimony of many illustrious men who were present, that Leodegar, not at all terrified by the punishment to be inflicted, would not have his hands bound, and while his eyes were being torn out with iron, not only did not groan but also sang the praises of God and psalms, which is passed over by Ursinus, so that here again our biographers, although they agree in the sum of the thing they narrate, nevertheless differ in the circumstances. But, which is of greater moment, they supply nothing either from which the day or month may be drawn out on which our Saint was deprived of his eyes. Since nevertheless the siege of Autun, which does not seem to have lasted long, happened about the summer of the year 674, as I have already shown in no. 176, the tearing out of Leodegar's eyes too, or excaecatio (let it be lawful here to use this word, although not Latin, for brevity's sake), which immediately followed it, happened about the summer of the same year 674; but just as I have not been able to determine either the month or the day on which the aforesaid siege was begun or finished, so too I am unable to determine for certain either the day or the month on which our Saint was deprived of his eyes.

[189] his eyes, on an uncertain month and day, Chifflet indeed says, in the Dissertation on the years of king Dagobert, chapter 16, that Leodegar was blinded, his eyes being dug out, on the eighth day before the Kalends of September, because, he says, it is read in ancient parchments: The Blinding also of the most glorious martyr Leodegar, and the stoning of blessed Gayrenus, is on the eighth day before the Kalends of September. Besides, in an old Martyrology, says Mabillon, tome 1 of the Annals, page 518, of the monastery of Münster in Alsace, there is recorded on the eighth day before the Kalends of September the blinding of St. Leodegar; and on the same day St. Garinus his brother, who, pierced through with an innumerable multitude of missiles, and his intestines wound round a stake, ended his life by a horrible martyrdom. Another Martyrology, of Moyenmoutier, marks the same day, in which mention is made precisely of Garinus and Leodegar, so that the blinding of our Saint, if one must stand by the ancient Parchments cited by Chifflet and Mabillon's Martyrologies, happened on the 25th of August. But the Passion of martyrs is often announced in ecclesiastical monuments on other days than those on which it took place. And indeed that this perhaps has place here can be argued from this, that on the same 25th day of August the blinding of St. Leodegar is announced together with the stoning of St. Gerinus his brother, which took place not even in the same year as the former, but two years after, so that it may be suspected hence that perhaps neither the blinding of Leodegar nor the stoning of Gerinus is inscribed in the Parchments cited by Chifflet and Mabillon's Martyrologies on the day on which it happened. For although the blinding of St. Leodegar could have happened on the 25th of August of the year 674, and the stoning of Gerinus two years after on the same day of August, this nevertheless appears to me scarcely probable, because thus the space of time which intervened between the blinding of our Saint and the stoning of Gerinus would have to make up two whole years, with not even a day lacking or in excess; and it does not seem probable that two years of this kind intervened exactly between the latter and the former. It cannot therefore be determined with certainty either from the Martyrologies adduced by Mabillon or from the Parchments adduced by Chifflet on what day or in what month the blinding of St. Leodegar happened, which I have already intimated in no. 5 as regards the stoning of St. Gerinus, and which I think is confirmed by what has here been said.

[190] Further, Ursinus narrates in no. 13 that our Saint, they hand him over into the custody of Waimir; when he had already been deprived of his eyes, was handed over to guards; the anonymous author also narrates this very thing in no. 34, so that here there is excellent agreement between those two biographers of ours, if you except that the former does not declare who or what sort those guards were to whom Leodegar was handed over; but the latter does declare it, when he writes thus in the number just cited: When the enemies were rejoicing, they divided the spoils, and handed over the Man of God (Leodegar) into custody to the Waimir written above, whom a little before he names duke of Champagne, and so also to the forces over which he presided. Besides, Ursinus writes that Leodegar was carried off by the Ebroinians into a certain monastery; the anonymous author too seems to intimate this sufficiently when he relates in no. 39 that our Saint was summoned, by order of king Theuderic and of Ebroin, now restored to the mayoralty of the royal palace, from the monastery in which he was kept hidden. Wherefore here again no discrepancy, or rather dissension, occurs between our biographers. Something else must be said as regards some things which happened before it came about that St. Leodegar was carried off into a certain monastery. For Ursinus passes over in silence very many things most accurately noted by our anonymous author which preceded that event, and which either pertain properly to Leodegar or are connected with things pertaining to him, such as are those which the people of Autun then suffered from the Ebroinians. It has seemed good to insert these as well as those in this Commentary. I take my beginning from the things which regard the people of Autun.

[191] The Ebroinians having gained possession of Autun too, with Leodegar, he carries the Saint off with him into Champagne, Diddo and Waimir hand over that city into the dominion, or rather as prey, to Bobo, who had been cast down from the episcopal see of Valence; he, received somehow in Leodegar's place by the citizens compelled by force, presently, under pretext of redeeming the city from plundering by the soldiers, orders to be brought out from the sacred treasury of the church silver which amounted to five thousand solidi, and this, together with the money

which he had been able to extort from the citizens, he hands over to the Ebroinians, who joyfully divide those spoils among themselves; and although hence much was taken away from the wealth of the church and from the fortunes of the townsmen, it nevertheless came about that no one of the city was led away into captivity, which our Saint, as we have shown from the anonymous author in no. 180, had earnestly asked of the Lord before he surrendered himself to the Ebroinians. Our anonymous author intimates all these things, although somewhat obscurely, in no. 34, where he also adds that, the things which I have already set out having been done, Waimir, into whose custody Leodegar had been handed over, returned with the forces subject to him to his native land, that is, since he was then duke of Champagne, most probably into Champagne, whither too, as it will be easy to gather from what is to be said, he carried off with him Leodegar committed to his custody, so that Mabillon, book 16 of the Benedictine Annals, pages 518 and 531, seems not ineptly to place in the same province the monastery in which our Saint was shut up by Waimir, after he had suffered by order of Ebroin the things which I now subjoin, and so I return to the things which pertain more nearly to Leodegar.

[192] [he thrusts him into a forest, afterwards receives him into his house, and at length] Ebroin, on hearing of the seizing of Leodegar, orders him, says our anonymous author in no. 35, to be thrust away into the secret places of the woods, and ordered a lying fable to be contrived about his death, as though slain in the waters, and also a tomb of his burial to be set up *, until the want of long hunger should consume him. Which words, as I have already indicated in no. 22, I think are most probably to be taken so as to signify that Ebroin ordered Leodegar to be thrust away into the hidden places of the woods until the want of hunger should consume him, and a lying fable to be contrived about his death, as of one slain in the waters, and a tomb to be set up in which he should be proclaimed to have been buried. The man, as most savage as most crafty, namely wished by fictions of this kind to hide his savagery from the people, and nevertheless to kill the holy Prelate by a most savage kind of death, namely by hunger. But here the Lord seems to have been present to His Servant in a certain special manner. For, as our anonymous author testifies in no. 36, when the holy Martyr of God had already endured long hunger and yet had not failed, Waimir, reflecting that human nature in him could not so endure otherwise unless the grace of Christ sustained him, orders him to be brought into his house. There the holy Prelate in a short time so changed and softened Waimir by familiar conversations and admonitions that he handed over to him, to be used at his discretion, the silver of the church which he had received a little before for the redemption of the city of Autun. And Leodegar sent this back to Autun to be distributed to the needy by abbot Betto, who also faithfully fulfilled the Saint's will. All these things our anonymous author in no. 36 teaches openly enough, so that there is need of no elucidation here; he suggests nothing, however, from which it may become known of what monastery Betto was abbot; and I have not been able to ascertain this from elsewhere, so that the matter is plainly in obscurity.

[193] shuts him up in a monastery in the year 674, perhaps in the month of September, However, to these things now narrated there immediately succeeded the shutting up of our Saint in a certain monastery, which I mentioned in nos. 190 and 191. But, you will say, how long a time after the siege of Autun, which we referred above to the summer of the year 674, did this take place? I answer: neither from our anonymous author nor from elsewhere does anything occur from which it is right to gather for what space of time Leodegar lived after the aforesaid siege either in the house of Waimir or in the forest into which he had been thrust by order of Ebroin, and therefore it is uncertain not only on what day but also in what month he was shut up in the monastery; it seems, however, not to be doubted that this happened in the year 674, since Waimir probably neither left Leodegar in the forest beyond one or two weeks, nor, now softened, treated him kindly at his home beyond one or two months, lest perhaps he should offend Ebroin, so that perhaps the said shutting up can not ineptly be referred to September of the year 674. It was meanwhile, according to Ursinus, later than Ebroin's restoration to the mayoralty of the palace; for he makes the latter earlier than the siege of Autun, in which matter indeed we have shown in no. 178 that he is not to be sided with; but the reason which drove us to do so there cannot bring it about here that Ebroin's restoration to the mayoralty of the palace is certainly also denied to be earlier than the shutting up of our Saint in the monastery. For although Ebroin still adhered, at the time when Diddo and Waimir were besieging Autun, to the pseudo-king Clovis set up by him, he could have defected from him a little after, and, returning into favour with Theuderic, have been restored to the mayoralty of the palace even before Leodegar was shut up in the monastery. I think, nevertheless, that Ebroin's restoration to the mayoralty of the palace is narrated prematurely by Ursinus, not only by reason of the siege of Autun, but also by reason of the shutting up of Leodegar in the monastery, and I hold this almost as undoubted if Ebroin recovered the mayoralty of the palace later than in the year 674, since from what has already been said the shutting up of our Saint in the monastery does not seem able to be deferred beyond this year.

* others agere is lacking

* others with whom king Hilderic

* others Diddo

* others Waimerus

* that is, probably, those who had been able to escape his hands,

* others add in into

* others add restaurandam to restore

* others thesauros treasures

* others huc hither

* others tollam I shall take

* others dare to give

* others quæ which

* others orphana orphan

* others commovens stirring

* others easque and them

* others remisoritis

* others cælestis is lacking

* others deprocans

* others for his citizens, enemies.

* others necati of one slain

* others confingi to be contrived

* others constitui to be set up

§ XIII. Ebroin, restored to the mayoralty of the palace, has St. Gerinus killed, and hands over Leodegar, dreadfully mutilated, into the custody of Waning, by whom the Saint is afterwards led to Fécamp.

Ebroin, restored to the mayoralty of the palace, and in Ebroin, reconciled to king Theuderic by the faction of certain men, and restored to the prefecture of the palace, some being unwilling, others consenting, began to rage everywhere against all, and first indeed, by an edict presently promulgated, decreed that no one should have an action at law by reason of the things which he had suffered against right and justice while the war was raging. Such an edict was certainly suited to preventing many lawsuits which would otherwise have arisen, but it had been issued by Ebroin for no other end than that he himself should not be compelled to restore the things which he had unjustly taken away from many through his ministers. Our anonymous author asserts this in no. 37, where, and also in the two following numbers, he excellently depicts Ebroin's savagery. Valois, book 22 of the Affairs of the Franks, pages 306 and 307, partly interpreting our anonymous author, partly gathering some things bearing on it from Ursinus and from elsewhere, sets this out more clearly in this manner: The same man (Ebroin), nevertheless mindful of the insult received, began vehemently to persecute the Frankish chief men who had not wished to have him as sub-king, and had tonsured him and banished him to a monastery, and raged with no less envy and malignity than pride and cruelty against all who had been against him. If anything could be objected to any of them, if anyone could be caught in any fault, he was presently either killed by the sword, or despoiled of his fortunes and forced to flee to foreign nations. And he so conducted himself that he seemed to act by right, not to seek occasions of avenging his injuries and seize those offered, and to punish the guilty, not to destroy his enemies.

[195] For the most part he attacked Frankish nobles hateful to him in the name and with the force of the king, raging everywhere against the Franks and brought the goods of the condemned into the fisc, to turn them presently into his own prey. Guilty of treason was he who had not been able to bear his ravaging: and when he had partly killed, partly compelled to flee, men illustrious in birth, wealth and honours, he substituted in their place vile and needy men, to be despised either for softness of mind or dullness of intellect, who would not dare to resist his cruel and impious commands. Those whose kinsmen he had oppressed he feared lest they in turn should oppress him, and harassed them as suspect and malevolent, lest he should at some time have rivals of his dignity. Monasteries of noble women too are said to have been then destroyed, and the chief nuns, venerable in age and piety, whom even barbarians would have spared when captured, cruelly driven into exile by Ebroin, hostile to each for various causes. Many nobles of the Franks who had offended Ebroin by some deed, when they understood from the end of others how great a danger hung over their necks, scarcely escaped his hands by flight, and part, crossing the Loire, fled to the Aquitanians, then rebels, having shaken off the yoke of Frankish rule; part into Austrasia. Very many were punished with exile and never afterwards returned home; very many were shut up in prisons and despoiled of their goods. Thus Ebroin raged without any distinction against all whom he thought had opposed him, or from whom he had in any way to fear; always, however, under pretext of punishing some crime, whether true or false. For the chief men whom he hated he did not dare to persecute openly in the king's name without a cause at least in appearance just, says the anonymous author in no. 39.

[196] he summons Leodegar and Gerinus to the court Further, since Ebroin, many of his countrymen having now been driven into exile and many killed, did not yet think an end should be made of raging, he pretends that he wishes to avenge the death of Childeric. It was certainly most just that all those should be punished with the most cruel kind of death who had stretched out their impious hands against king Childeric, and who had wickedly killed him together with the pregnant queen Bilihild. But Ebroin was aiming at something else; he wished namely, under pretext of avenging the killing inflicted on Childeric, to arraign as guilty of that killing some men hateful to him who still survived, and to whom it seemed more difficult to impute another crime with some appearance of truth. Among these were Leodegar and Gerinus; the former, as we saw above, had been driven into exile by Childeric, and therefore Ebroin probably thought it would easily come about that he would be believed to have been privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric; the latter was his brother, and therefore Ebroin thought it would easily come about that he would be believed to have conspired with others in the killing of Childeric on account of the injury inflicted by him on his brother Leodegar. By this reasoning therefore the most crafty man, judging that his name would be sufficiently provided for, although he was raging unjustly against Leodegar and Gerinus, summons that most noble pair of Brothers to the court by the command of king Theuderic and his own. Leodegar was still staying in the monastery in which he had been shut up for about two years. Gerinus was living in those parts to which, far from the court for fear of Ebroin, he had either withdrawn of his own accord with many other nobles of the Franks, or had been banished by Ebroin. Both, having received the command, obeyed. All these things are intimated partly by our anonymous author in nos. 38 and 39, partly by Ursinus in no. 14. And the things which followed when Leodegar appeared with Gerinus in the sight of Theuderic those same writers, namely Ursinus in nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17, and the anonymous author in nos. 39, 40 and 41, set out at length, and that (the reason

see in no. 26) in almost the same words.

[197] [in the year 676; he orders the latter to be killed; the former, dreadfully mutilated, to Waning] Mabillon, in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 531, has comprised the more lengthy account of these things in summary in this manner: When they (Leodegar and Gerinus) had come into the sight of the prince (Theuderic), afflicted by Ebroin with many insults and reproaches, they said that they indeed suffered these things deservedly, as having often sinned against God: but that he was wretched, who was throwing the whole nation of the Franks into confusion by his tyranny, despoiling some of their fortunes, proscribing others and sending them into exile, finally contriving to take away the life of others: all which things would at some time be the cause of certain ruin to him. Hearing these things, Ebroin, blazing up, ordered the one to be separated from the other: and Gairinus indeed to be led away and, bound to a stake, overwhelmed with stones; but Leodegar, that he might drive him to despair by a slow punishment, the soles of his feet lacerated, his tongue cut out, and his lips mutilated, to be handed over to Waning, fearing lest, if he finished him off at once, as the holy Man desired, all would hold him as a martyr. So he at the year 676, in which these things also in fact took place. For, as we have shown in no. 193, Leodegar was shut up in a certain monastery in the year 674, in which, as Ursinus witnesses in no. 13, he lay hidden for about two years; and, as our anonymous author witnesses in no. 39, he was still lying hidden in the monastery in which he had been shut up when he was summoned to the court with his brother Gerinus by order of Ebroin and king Theuderic, so that when this was done no more than a space of about two years had flowed by after his shutting up in the monastery, made in the year 674, and he consequently suffered in the year 676, with his brother Gerinus, the things which we have just set out. And thus indeed it becomes known in what year St. Gerinus was crowned with martyrdom; but the day or month, as I have already shown in nos. 5 and 189, cannot be determined with certainty, so that it is superfluous to inquire into either here, and it is better to proceed to other things.

[198] Ursinus, and Mabillon following him, cited in the preceding number, he hands over into custody, in whose house say only in general that Leodegar and Gerinus, when they appeared in the sight of Theuderic and Ebroin, were afflicted with insults and reproaches. But I think that Ebroin then in particular imputed to our Saints, and reproached them, that they had been privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric. For our anonymous author narrates in no. 39 that Leodegar was summoned with his brother Gerinus at the time when Ebroin was pretending to avenge the death of Hilderic, whence it seems not undeservedly to be able to be gathered that the aforesaid crime was objected against and reproached to the Saints by Ebroin when they were brought into the sight of Theuderic. There is added that our anonymous author in no. 46 expressly narrates that that same crime was objected against St. Leodegar when, two years after the death of his brother Gerinus, he was brought by order of Ebroin to a council of bishops. Where, he says, when he (Leodegar) had been led into the midst (of the council of bishops), they sought a word from him, that he should confess himself to have been an accomplice * in the death of Hilderic. The discussion will return to this council of bishops when the things which preceded it and pertain to St. Leodegar have been treated. Ursinus, having narrated the things of which we have exhibited a summary from Mabillon in no. 197, presently subjoins that Leodegar was led to the monastery of Fécamp by Waning, to whom he had been given into custody.

[199] But before this was done, Waning kept Leodegar for some time at his home, he is visited by Winobert and Ermenarius, where there happened the things which our anonymous author relates in nos. 41, 42 and 43, and which Mabillon, on the page just cited and the following, proceeds to condense thus: Winobert the abbot, pitying the punishments of so great a Prelate (Leodegar), with difficulty obtained from Waning and the guards that he be allowed to go to him and care for him. Entering, he found the holy Man lying on straw, and covered with an old piece of tent-cloth, and scarcely palpitating with a thin breath, so that he seemed about to expire shortly. But, wonderful thing! him whom, his tongue cut out and his lips cut off, he believed dumb, he found nonetheless speaking distinctly amid spittings of blood. Therefore he who had come to see to Leodegar's funeral began to think about caring for his wounds, and at once announced the matter to Ermenarius, bishop of the Aedui after Leodegar, whom Waning with difficulty, for fear of the tyrant, admitted to the Man of God. For all, says the contemporary author, feared Ebremerd, that is, Ebroin, like an angry lion. Both therefore, namely Ermenarius and Winobert, putting aside all fear, care for the wounds of the mutilated man as best they can, refresh his body with food and drink, and clothe him with a better garment. Three persons are named here besides Leodegar and Ebroin, namely Waning, Ermenarius and Winobert; it will not be beside the point to have noted something about each. It is pleasing to begin with Winobert.

[200] of whom the former was then abbot either of the city, The writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 449, place him among the abbots of St. Martin of Autun, no suitable reason for their deed being adduced, of which they also seem to have been destitute. For in the place cited they write only these things of Winobert the abbot: Winobert, abbot (of St. Martin of Autun), flourished in the time of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, whose Life an anonymous monk wrote who was leading the religious life under abbot Winobert, and indeed, as Mabillon thinks, in the monastery of St. Martin: from which it is clear that these are founded only on this, that, as they think, our older anonymous author, who wrote the Life of St. Leodegar, led the religious life under abbot Winobert, and that, as they affirm is thought by Mabillon, in the monastery of St. Martin at Autun. But whence did those authors learn either that it is thought by Mabillon that our anonymous author was a monk in the monastery of St. Martin at Autun, or that he led the religious life under abbot Winobert? The latter indeed I have been able to ascertain neither from any words of our anonymous author himself nor from elsewhere; and as regards the former, Mabillon, in Century 2 of the Benedictines, in the Preliminary Observations to the Life of St. Leodegar, asserts that our anonymous author was a monk of Autun, not of St. Martin's but of St. Symphorian's. And this assertion of his, as I found after diligent examination, he nowhere retracts, so that the cited writers probably went astray here, and lacked a suitable reason for ascribing abbot Winobert to the catalogue of the abbots of St. Martin's.

[201] or seems to have been of the diocese of Autun, Further, although it cannot, as it appears, be determined with certainty of what monastery Winobert was abbot, it is nevertheless probable to me that he was abbot of some monastery which was situated either in the city or in the diocese of Autun, both from this, that he seems to have been exceedingly well known to our anonymous author, a monk of Autun, who in no. 42 calls him one of his brethren, and from this, that he himself, as it appears, knew well Ermenarius, abbot of St. Symphorian's of Autun, Leodegar's successor in the see. For since, as the anonymous author testifies in no. 42, he had found our Saint in Waning's house lying on straw, and nevertheless, his tongue cut out and his lips cut off, speaking distinctly, he at once reported the matter to Ermenarius, and with him cared as best he could for the wounds of our Saint; which care, applied with the highest charity to the holy Prelate by Winobert, can also be an argument that he was abbot in the city or diocese of Autun, over which Leodegar had presided as bishop before, and over which, as it appears, Ermenarius was now presiding.

[202] and the latter seems already to have succeeded Leodegar in the episcopal see. For our anonymous author in no. 42 distinguishes him with the title of bishop when he writes thus of Winobert the abbot, who had visited Leodegar when first committed to the custody of Waning: And with hastened step (Winobert the abbot) announces the fact to Hermenarius the bishop, namely about Leodegar, whom, his tongue cut out and his lips cut off, he had heard speaking distinctly; Ermenarius was therefore already, when the Saint was first handed over into custody to Waning, bishop of Autun. But from what time had he been substituted for Leodegar? It does not seem to have been done while Childeric was still surviving among the living. For although our anonymous author narrates in no. 19 that Childeric, when he banished Leodegar to Luxeuil, commended the city of Autun to Ermenarius, abbot of St. Symphorian's, at the petition of the people, he nevertheless does not call him bishop there. Besides, our Saint, returning to Autun after the death of Childeric, was received by the whole people and clergy, as we have already seen, with a certain appearance of triumph, and placed in his former see, no one at all opposing, so that Ermenarius, who was very much in the affections of the people, seems not then yet, and therefore not while Childeric was living either, to have been substituted in the see for the Saint. Le Cointe, in the ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 674, no. XI, pronounces thus: Observe besides that Ermenarius, abbot of the basilica of St. Symphorian, was substituted by the Ebroinians as bishop among the Aedui in place of the exiled Leodegar, as will be clearly plain from the things which we shall relate two years hence from the Life of Leodegar himself written by the anonymous author; and two years hence, namely at the year 676, no. 1, having transcribed the things which our anonymous author relates in no. 42, he subjoins these things: From that text (nay chiefly from the words which I have just recited here from our anonymous author) it is plain that that is true which was observed by us two years before, that Hermenarius the abbot was substituted by Ebroin as bishop among the Aedui in place of the exiled Leodegar.

[203] Certainly one must here assent to Le Cointe if, which appears probable from what has just been said, Ermenarius, already succeeded in the episcopal see. while Childeric was living, was not yet bishop of Autun, and was nevertheless established in that dignity when he received the aforesaid news about Leodegar from Winobert, as the anonymous author seems to indicate clearly enough when in no. 42 (see the words recited in the preceding number) he distinguishes Ermenarius with the title of bishop. But there Ermenarius is perhaps only called bishop by our anonymous author by anticipation, namely not because he was bishop of Autun at the time when he received the news about Leodegar from Winobert, but because he was afterwards promoted to that sacred office: and if this is true, it is altogether doubtful about what time Ermenarius was substituted for Leodegar in the see, and the writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana must be said to do rightly when, in tome 4, column 356, having reviewed the things which are available about Ermenarius from our anonymous author, they say it is uncertain when Ermenarius began his episcopate. Nevertheless I here prefer Le Cointe's opinion, in which the words of the anonymous author recited in the preceding number are taken in a more natural and obvious sense; and according to this, as will be plain to one who considers what has been said before, Ermenarius would have been substituted for Leodegar in the see about the year 675 or 676. Nor should you here object that Bobo, as the anonymous author intimates in no. 34, was intruded by the Ebroinians into the chair of Autun when that city was subdued about the summer of the year 674. For Bobo could shortly after, as happened to many others, have fallen from the friendship of Ebroin, now reconciled to Theuderic, and been despoiled by him of the bishopric unjustly acquired, and Ermenarius substituted in his place. But enough of this now; it remains that we now say some things about Waning.

[204] Waning at first treats the Saint rather harshly, and then, He founded the monastery of Fécamp, commonly Fescam, which, situated between Dieppe and Le Havre, is distant from the city of Rouen about forty miles, as Rodulfus Glaber writes, book 4 of the History, chapter 4. Of Waning our Predecessors treated under the title of Saint at the 9th of January, and brought into the light not his entire Life but only various Fragments which it was possible to acquire. To these Fragments Mabillon, in Century 2 of the Benedictines, added another from a certain copy of the monastery of Fécamp; and although he there also attributes to Waning the title of Saint, he nevertheless rightly denies, which does not oppose our Predecessors either, that he is inscribed in the older sacred Fasti. The name of Waning, he says in the Preliminary Observations, page 972, does not exist in the ancient Martyrologies, nor in the Acts of SS. Wandregisil and Leodegar is he proclaimed a Saint, but an illustrious Man; and he is praised for having dealt rather gently with St. Leodegar. So this author here; but what he says about Leodegar having been treated rather gently by Waning, understand in a sound sense. For although Waning dealt rather gently with our Saint committed to his custody, and is therefore praised by the anonymous author in no. 43, he did not keep this manner until he had heard Leodegar, by a stupendous prodigy, speaking distinctly without a tongue, and had concluded hence that the holy Prelate was undeservedly harassed by Ebroin with an unjust persecution. Certain things related by our anonymous author in nos. 41 and 42 make this especially manifest, by which Waning, before he had known of the miracle just mentioned, seems to have been rather harsher than gentler towards St. Leodegar; and hence without doubt it is that the same Mabillon, in tome 1 of the Annals, where in the words recited in no. 199 he has related that Winobert and Ermenarius cared as best they could for the wounds of our wretchedly mutilated Saint, refreshed his body with food and drink, and clothed him with a better garment, immediately subjoins: Which it is strange was then neglected by Waning, a man otherwise pious. But doubtless the edicts of the cruel tyrant so required. Although why show himself the minister of such a fury? So Mabillon, and perhaps more severe here than is just towards Waning.

[205] his mind changed, he leads him to Fécamp, where he, his cut-out tongue For the pious Man, deceived by the frauds and wiles of Ebroin, who proclaimed that Leodegar had been privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric, could have thought the holy Prelate truly guilty of that crime, and so have treated him more harshly not out of any human respect but with a view to justice alone. However that may be, certainly as soon as he knew our Saint to be innocent of the crime objected, he saw to it that he was treated much more humanely, as will presently become plain from what is to be said. Now I return to the series of events interrupted for a while. Mabillon, in the place just cited, proceeds with it thus: Meanwhile, while the holy Prelate (Leodegar) is being kept in the house of Waning, his lips and tongue began to grow again, and words to flow from his mouth in the usual manner. Bent at length by this miracle, Waning did not hesitate to deal more gently with him, and, recognising a Martyr of God, led Leodegar into the monastery of Fécamp, which he himself had built and had committed to the abbess Childemarca to rule, and saw to it that he was kept in custody there, but nevertheless treated more humanely. These things are drawn almost solely from our anonymous author. For Ursinus records absolutely nothing of Leodegar having been treated rather gently by Waning; and just as he passed over in silence the detention of our Saint in the house of Waning before he was led to Fécamp, so likewise he omitted what the anonymous author in no. 42 hands down to memory about speech beginning to return to him there together with his lips and tongue growing again. Further, Ursinus also does not indicate that Leodegar's lips and tongue had fully grown again when he had already been led to Fécamp, but only says that his cut tongue received back its accustomed office. Our anonymous author indicates this, although somewhat obscurely; for where he has narrated in no. 43 that Leodegar was led by Waning to the monastery of Fécamp, he not only says that his cut tongue then received back its accustomed office, but, a few things interposed, adds: Where (in the monastery of Fécamp), when within a small space he (Leodegar) had received back the office of mouth, face or tongue, because he himself had now been offered to the Lord , he was zealous to offer the daily sacrifice. By which words he most probably means to signify that his lips and tongue grew again fully in Leodegar in the monastery of Fécamp; for he had premised in no. 42 that they had already begun to grow again in the Saint when he had not yet been brought to Fécamp.

[206] Further, there pertain to the present purpose the things which are read in no. 7 in the Fragment of the Life of St. Waning, [he perfectly recovers the use of the tongue which had already begun to grow again,] which our Predecessors published in the second place at the 9th of February. And they are these: At that time (the monastery of Fécamp having now been built) the blessed and glorious martyr Leodegar is led to Fécamp, whom the savage and abominable apostate Ebroin had unjustly expelled from the see of his bishopric, had despoiled of the abundance of many goods, and, his tongue being mercilessly cut out, had deprived of the office of all speech. But when the glorious Martyr and Bishop entered the sacred house of the Most High and Omnipotent, and heard the angelic voices of the Virgins singing psalms, he found again the office of the tongue that had been taken away. By which words, regard being had to the more obvious sense and the context, it seems to be intimated that Leodegar first recovered the use of speaking, which he had lost when his tongue was cut out, at the time when, having been led to the monastery of Fécamp, he heard the nuns there singing psalms in the sacred house; which agrees sufficiently with Ursinus, since he asserts only that Leodegar's cut tongue received back its accustomed office in the monastery of Fécamp; but not likewise with our anonymous author. For he narrates, as we have already seen, that speech had begun to return to Leodegar after the cutting out of his tongue even before he was led to Fécamp. But Ursinus, as well as the author of the cited Fragment of the Life of St. Waning, perhaps only means that Leodegar's cut-out tongue first grew again perfectly, and its full use returned, when he came to Fécamp. However that may be, I think one must stand by the narrative which our anonymous author sets up in nos. 42 and 43. For since the things which he there reveals Ermenarius, bishop of Autun after Leodegar, to whom he inscribed his Work, and Winobert, an abbot, as we have already seen is probable, in the diocese of Autun, perceived with their own eyes and ears, he probably understood them from those very men by faithful account, being himself also a monk of Autun, or even saw them with his own eyes, if Mabillon's reading is genuine, of which there has been treatment in nos. 22 and 23 of this Preliminary Commentary.

[207] Moreover Leodegar, now led to Fécamp, he embraces an austere kind of life, and of a mind embraces a very austere kind of life, spends whole days and nights in the divine praises, devotes himself wholly to works of penance, scarcely goes out of the church except to grant a little food and rest to his tired body. Both our anonymous author and Ursinus intimate these things; the latter indeed in no. 17, the former in 43. Both use almost the same words. Those of Ursinus are these: For (Leodegar, in the monastery of Fécamp) stood watching day and night in the worship of God, so that he scarcely ever went out of the church even a little for the necessities of the body, or could take any sleep and taking of food. Besides, the holy Man did not leave useless there the use of the tongue which he had divinely recovered. For he not only often mingled sweet conversations with the sacred virgins of the monastery of Fécamp, but also by his pious and learned discourses brought it about that many others, marvelling how great the clemency of God was working in His Saint, whose cut-out tongue had prodigiously grown again, turned from wicked works to the Lord and brought forth worthy fruits of penance. Ursinus again intimates these things. For in the number just cited he writes thus: He (Leodegar, now led to Fécamp) showed a great seed of his doctrine among the people: so that when he came among the virgins (the nuns), his sweet discourses, as is said, so shone that whoever had heard marvelled how great the clemency of God was working, and, turned from wicked works, swiftly sought the fruits of penance. So he, with whom here indeed the anonymous author again agrees almost word for word, but subjoins that Leodegar besides was zealous in the monastery of Fécamp to offer to God the daily sacrifice of the Mass, which Ursinus wraps in deep silence.

[208] he gives an excellent specimen of a mind well disposed towards his enemies. In like manner this writer also wraps in silence what the same anonymous author likewise reports in no. 44, and what clearly shows that Leodegar was of extraordinary charity even towards his enemies, and practised in work and in fact the love of them which he earnestly commends in words in the letter to his mother to be recited in no. 221. The matter stands thus. The Saint had now spent almost two years in the monastery of Fécamp under the custody of Waning, when by the manifest power of God it came about that those whom he had had as enemies, condemned for the crime of treason, were partly punished with the penalty of death, partly compelled to flee to foreign regions. The holy Prelate heard of this. Then indeed he was so far from being carried away by any desire of vengeance and rejoicing at their wretched fall, that on the contrary he grieved not a little that those who had been punished with death had died without previous fruits of penance. Hear the anonymous author himself: When for almost two years, he says in no. 44, he (Leodegar) had remained there (in the monastery of Fécamp) in the praises of God, when they announced to him that they had been slain, or others, for the cause of infidelity, put to flight in other regions; he * weeping grievously did not rejoice at the vengeance, but groaned that the fall of death had overtaken them without penance. Thus was Leodegar disposed towards his enemies, while meanwhile Ebroin, not content with the past punishments of the holy Exile, was thinking of harassing him again and at last also of handing him over to death, as the § next following will disclose.

* others conscium privy

* Mabillon: of lips, of throat

* others Domino is absent

* others take refreshment

* others the band of virgins

* others whom he

§ XIV. St. Leodegar writes a letter to St. Sigrada his mother, the epoch of which is here inquired into.

Philippe Labbe, priest of our Society, in tome I of the New Library of Manuscript books, pages 777 and 778, first of all made public St. Leodegar either after, as the common opinion holds, the distinguished letter of St. Leodegar to St. Sigrada his mother, which Mabillon afterwards saw to the reprinting of from the manuscript codex of Saint-Maixent at the end of the Acts of our Saint, and which I find has also most recently been inserted in the Appendix of tome 4 of the augmented Gallia Christiana. I shall reprint it here anew from a manuscript copy which is noted as taken from the ancient Parchments of the most distinguished man, the lord Philibert de la Mare, royal counsellor at Dijon, and which Fr. Pierre Chifflet, himself also a priest of our Society, transmitted to our Predecessors. The said letter, as well in our copy as in the edition of Mabillon and of Labbe, bears this title: Here begins the consolatory Letter which St. Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui, after the death of his brother Guayrenus *, after the loss of his eyes and the cutting of his lips, addressed to his mother at Soissons in the monastery of girls. Hence without doubt it came about

that Mabillon, Le Cointe and all the other learned until now have without hesitation judged that it is later than the death of St. Gerinus. But since it is not established concerning the age of the ancient Manuscripts from which the recited title was brought both into our copy and into the edition of Labbe and of Mabillon, perhaps it came only from a writer of a later age, who, being too far removed from the century of our Saint, thought without a sufficiently solid foundation that his letter to his mother was written after the death of Gerinus, and therefore it seems that it can be doubted whether it was truly written then, since this, as it appears, can be concluded for certain from absolutely no place of the letter itself.

[210] For in it, long as it is, not even the name of Gerinus appears anywhere. or before, as also Besides, it suggests absolutely nothing which in any way intimates, or necessarily requires, that the death of Gerinus had already happened when it was written. Le Cointe in the Annals at the year 676, no. 2, recites these words from it: O happy death, which bestows life; happy loss of things, which will restore everlasting riches; happy sadness, which brings the joy of the angels! At present you have proved how much the most clement Lord Jesus Christ has had mercy on you, who has granted you to have spiritual devotion and the keeping of holy discipline and contempt of the world, and has snatched the pledges of your womb from the tribulation of this world and from the error of the present life, and has given the hope of eternal life to those whom you could have mourned as dead if you had left them surviving in the world, concerning whom sadness is not to be had, but manifold thanksgiving is to be rendered to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ; by which he says it is pronounced by Leodegar that the killing of his brother Gerinus ought to be a cause not of sadness but of gladness, so that he would have these words to treat of the death of Gerinus. There are not, I confess, other words in the whole letter more strong by which this might be contended, or, to say it better, there are no others by which it can deservedly be contended. But it appears probable enough that Leodegar there treats not of the death which Gerinus had undergone by Ebroin's order, but of the death which Sigrada herself, having taken up the state of religious life, had undergone in that manner in which, according to the acceptation introduced by men, all those are said to be dead or to die who, having renounced the things of the world, have withdrawn or withdraw into a monastery and have consecrated or consecrate themselves wholly to God in it. This is proved from the words which the Saint puts immediately before, and with which he congratulates his mother on the world left and the state of religious life taken up. See them below in no. 218, and compare them with those immediately following in no. 219: O happy death etc., which have already been recited.

[211] And as to what Le Cointe says, that by these words too Leodegar pronounces that the killing of Gerinus ought to be a cause not of sadness but of gladness, it appears probable that the death of his brother Gerinus that, as it appears to me, the holy Prelate does not pronounce by them. For the words by which he would chiefly pronounce it are these: He (God) has snatched the pledges of your womb from the tribulation of this world and from the error of the present life, and has given the hope of eternal life to those whom you could have mourned as dead if you had left them surviving in the world, concerning whom sadness is not to be had, but manifold thanksgiving is to be rendered to God etc., by which Leodegar, since he uses the plural number, designates both himself and his brother Gerinus. Wherefore, just as by them he does not pronounce of his own death, so neither of the death of his brother Gerinus, what Le Cointe contends. But, you will say, those words cited by Le Cointe at least intimate that Gerinus, when they were written, was not surviving in the world, or that he was then dead. What then? They intimate this very thing also of Leodegar: was he perhaps not among the living when he wrote them? Those words ought therefore to be taken according to the sense given in the preceding number, so that they intimate that not only Leodegar, when he wrote these things to his mother, but also his brother Gerinus was in some monastery, and that with the purpose of living there perpetually after the manner of monks. For unless they are so taken, Leodegar could not, but if they are so taken, he could pronounce them of himself with truth; and he, as it will be easy to gather from what has already been said and is further to be said, was probably then residing in that monastery in which he was shut up by Waimir, as we have seen, after the exile of Luxeuil; and Gerinus either in the same or in another, into which he had either withdrawn of his own accord from fear of Ebroin, having cast off the prefecture of the district and city of Poitiers, or had been thrust by the Ebroinians. Now everyone, I think, will easily understand from what has been said in this and the preceding number that there is absolutely no place, as I asserted above, in Leodegar's letter from which it can be concluded for certain that it was written after the death of Gerinus, and therefore, since this is not certain from the title which it bears either, that it can deservedly be doubted whether it was truly written then, or rather whether it is not to be said that it was written before the death of Gerinus, which the words I have just recited from it, understood according to the sense given, openly require, and which therefore seems probable enough to me.

[212] and therefore in an uncertain year, But if meanwhile the common opinion is held as true, by which it is established as later than the death of Gerinus, another doubt then occurs, namely whether it was written before or after Leodegar had been led by Waning to Fécamp. The Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 353, seem to affirm without hesitation that it was written after the death of Gerinus, before Leodegar had been led to Fécamp. But on that hypothesis the contrary may perhaps have been the case; for it does not seem to have been free for our Saint after the death of Gerinus to write to his mother before he began to be treated more gently by Waning; and when this happened, he was perhaps at once led to the monastery of Fécamp, so that he perhaps also wrote there the letter of which we treat, and therefore it cannot, except undeservedly, be affirmed without hesitation that it was written before Leodegar had been led to Fécamp. But it matters little whether that writing was prepared then or afterwards. For in either case, as may be gathered from the preceding §, it will have to be referred to the year 676, if namely, as I have already indicated, the common opinion about its epoch is true; but if this is not true, but the opposite, by which the letter is established as earlier than the death of Gerinus, and which I asserted at the end of the preceding number is probable enough to me, it will have to be referred either to the same year 676 or to one or the other of the two preceding, as it is right to infer from the time at which Leodegar, as we saw above, was shut up by Waimir in a certain monastery, and from the almost two whole years in which according to Ursinus he lay hidden in it before he suffered from Ebroin the things which we related in the preceding §.

[213] But someone will now perhaps inquire: Can the said writing of Leodegar, on the hypothesis his mother having been made a nun at Soissons that it was composed before the killing of Gerinus, perhaps not be referred either to the six years in which the Saint presided as abbot over the monastery of St. Maxentius, or to the time at which he was in exile at Luxeuil? I answer that the first undoubtedly cannot be. For when St. Leodegar wrote the letter already so very often mentioned to Sigrada his mother, she, as is clear from the words of the same letter to be given below in no. 223, was leading the religious life under the discipline of Itheria or Aetheria, abbess, and so was then living at Soissons in the monastery of girls named after the immaculate Virgin Mary. For that Abbess, named Itheria or Aetheria, since another of the same name, as it appears, did not flourish then, was beyond all doubt that very Etheria who, as is understood from the Fragment of the Life of St. Drausius in Duchesne, tome I of the Writers, was the first abbess of the aforesaid monastery of girls. Wherefore, since that monastery, as the Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, tome IX, column 442, and others relate, began to be founded only about the year 660, and the six years in which St. Leodegar governed the monastery of St. Maxentius run from about the year 651 (see no. 52) until the year 657 or 658, it follows that Sigrada, while Leodegar ruled the abbey of Saint-Maixent, did not lead the religious life under the discipline of the abbess Itheria in the convent of St. Mary at Soissons, and therefore that that letter, of whose epoch we are here disputing, was not then written to her by her holy Son.

[214] And as regards now the second, namely whether that writing cannot be referred to the time and having suffered various persecutions, at which the Saint was in exile at Luxeuil, I answer that it is at least probable that this cannot be done either. For Leodegar, about the beginning of it, writes these things to his mother, already, as we have seen, a nun: I give thanks to my God … for your faith and patience in all your persecutions and tribulations which you have endured; and therefore he wrote when she had suffered many grave persecutions, and when after them she had already embraced the religious life; and it does not seem probable that these things happened either before or when the Saint was already in exile at Luxeuil; not the first, because, since Leodegar was at that time powerful with the highest authority, no one would have dared to persecute his mother then; not the second, because nothing is available from which it could in any way be proved. They happened therefore when Ebroin after the death of Childeric harassed Leodegar in every way. This becomes probable from this, that he then persecuted not only the holy Prelate but also his brother St. Gerinus, so that it becomes credible that the most cruel man, carried away by private hatred against Leodegar, did not abstain from persecuting his mother too. There is added that, as the author of the Life of St. Drausius cited above testifies, the monastery of girls in which she led the religious life at Soissons was founded by Ebroin and his wife Leutrude, and therefore the suspicion can arise that Sigrada, although afterwards she willingly entered into religious vows, was nevertheless at first shut up against her will in the aforesaid monastery by Ebroin, after he had returned with Leodegar from the exile of Luxeuil, so that the persecutions after which our Saint wrote the letter here in question to his mother probably happened after the exile of Luxeuil, and so this too, on the hypothesis made in the preceding number, cannot be referred to the time at which Leodegar was in exile at Luxeuil.

[215] [by the letter, concerning which the judgments of the learned are brought forward,] Moreover, if that writing of our Saint, of whose time enough has now been disputed, was truly composed before Gerinus was killed by Ebroin's order, in place of the title recited in no. 209 which it bears, this following ought to be substituted: The consolatory Letter

which St. Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui, after he had lost his eyes and been shut up in a certain monastery, addressed to his mother at Soissons in the monastery of girls, so that no mention of the death of Gerinus is had in it. I come now to the judgment which some of the learned have passed on that illustrious monument of Leodegar, his consolatory letter, I say, to his mother. They all, as I have already indicated, proceed in the preconceived opinion that it was written after the death of Gerinus, and since I have accordingly held this as true for the while in this Preliminary Commentary, I judged that it should not be treated of here before this had been narrated. Mabillon therefore, in tome I of the Benedictine Annals, page 532, pronounces thus: In that letter (Leodegar's consolatory letter to his mother) there shines forth an example of wonderful charity, in that the holy Man has not even a word about the savagery of Ebroin, nay nor about the punishments inflicted on him by him; but only exhorts his mother to bear adversities patiently, first of all the death of Gairinus, to the love of enemies, and to fulfil faithfully the purpose of the religious life. With Mabillon agree the Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana, who in tome IV, column 354, speak thus: He (Leodegar) had already … written a consolatory letter to his mother, made a nun in the convent of Soissons, worthy of the first ages of the Church, of a martyr and apostle. To these I add further the Writers of the Literary History of France, who in tome III, page 621, praise our Saint's letter most highly. Their words, rendered from the French into Latin, are these: Deservedly (the letter of St. Leodegar to his mother) bears the title of a consolatory letter. Nothing is more apt than this manner of speaking to penetrate into the heart and to suffuse it with an altogether holy unction. It can be held as the outpouring of a heart thoroughly kindled with charity, and drunk, so to speak, with the undoubted truths of Scripture, of which properly it is wholly woven. The whole style is fiery, and truly in all things worthy of a holy martyr. Although there is no other art in it than that which is born of charity, it can nevertheless be said to be written with care. St. Leodegar in it insists in particular on proving that pardon is to be given to enemies, fearing lest Sigrada, although she professed piety, should suffer herself to be carried away by some motion of the mind against the killers and persecutors of her sons. If the Saint so spoke to the people, the loss of the homilies which he made to it in the decade of his peaceful and tranquil episcopate is deservedly deplored. So they: and how deservedly they speak thus the letter itself will show, which I now subjoin.

[216] he consoles her, showing that the calamities of the world are brief, Here it is: To the lady and most holy mother Sigrada, who, formerly through kinship of the flesh, now through the union of the spirit, hast been made a true mother, and that has been fulfilled which the holy Truth says: “For whoever shall do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, he is my brother, sister and mother.” Leodegar, servant of the servants of Jesus Christ our Saviour, grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God, who has not taken away His mercy from me, but has given joy and gladness to my hearing, for your faith and patience in all your persecutions and tribulations which you have endured, as an example of the just Judge God, that you may be held worthy of the kingdom of God, in which our Lord Jesus Christ chose you before the foundation of the world; and He has given you not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for Him; if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of charity, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels of mercy in Him, you have fulfilled the joy of the Saints. All sadness has been turned into gladness, because it was in no way fitting to be sad; as the most blessed Peter says: “Now for a little, if need be, you are made sorrowful in divers temptations, that the trial of your faith may be much more precious than gold, which is tried by fire.”

[217] So also blessed Paul testifies, saying: “For that which is at present momentary and to bring forth eternal joy. Afterwards he exhorts her and light of our tribulation works for us above measure, exceedingly, an eternal weight of glory” etc. And elsewhere: “Call to mind the former days, in which, being illuminated, you endured a great fight of sufferings. On the one hand indeed made a spectacle by reproaches and tribulations; and on the other become companions of those who were so used. For you both had compassion on those in bonds, and took joyfully the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an abiding substance.” And that the confirmation and the reward may remain for ever, he added, saying: “Do not therefore lose your confidence, which has a great reward. For patience is necessary for you, that, doing His will, you may receive the promise. For yet a very little while, and He who is to come will come, and my just one lives by faith. But if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul. But we are not of those who withdraw unto perdition, but sons unto the saving of the soul.” A little differently in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 10.

[218] O Lady, how great joy you ought to have in the Lord! first indeed, that she rejoice in the Lord that she herself, having left Neither can the tongue utter it, nor the page contain it. You have forsaken what was to be forsaken, you have obtained what your soul desired. The Lord has heard your prayer, and has seen your tears, which, many things having been gone through, you shed in His sight, and what seemed a little to hinder you from laying hold of eternal beatitude He has cut away from you, so that, released from the bond of kinsfolk and free from every fetter of this world, you may be free for and live to the Lord, and taste how sweet Christ is. He is our God, He is our king, He is our redeemer; He is the way and the truth and the life in the knowledge of God the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; He is to be served for ever, of whom the Psalmist says: “What shall I render to the Lord for all the things that He has rendered to me?” Signifying what is to be rendered, he immediately added: “I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord.”

[219] O happy death, which bestows life! Happy loss of things, the world, and her children tread the way of salvation; which will restore everlasting riches! Happy sadness, which brings the joy of the angels! At present you have proved how much the most clement Lord Jesus Christ has had mercy on you, who has granted you to have spiritual devotion and the keeping of holy discipline and contempt of the world, and has snatched the pledges of your womb from the tribulation of this world and from the error of the present life, and has given the hope of eternal life to those whom you could have mourned as dead if you had left them surviving in the world; concerning whom sadness is not to be had, but manifold thanksgiving is to be rendered to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ. Behold, the darkness has been taken away which obscured the pupil of the soul; behold, the bewitchment and care of the present life has been cast off: now the naked man has no wrestling * where his hand may cling, having taken up the light yoke, carrying the cross of Christ.

[220] then, that she continue to be strong in patience, Following therefore the Lord, His mercy going before, let us go forward intrepid to the contest: for He is faithful; He will give us the victory, because He Himself will fight for us, and will crush Satan under our feet swiftly. Behold, to what God calls His soldiers to the contest, for whom after the victory He has crowns prepared, and clothes them with such arms as their enemies do not have, that is, the shield of faith, the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet, the hope of salvation, by which they may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the most wicked one, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, praying at all times in the spirit with all prayer and supplication, and watching in it. Our King wishes to find in His soldiers nothing of the old arms, nor of the old garment, but wishes to prove them renewed for battle: and if there should be anything (which God forbid) of old custom, however small it may seem, it generates the greatest detriment, especially if there should be anything of hatred against enemies in the heart, which may God turn away from the mind of faithful Christians.

[221] that after the example of Christ she love her enemies, For what virtue can be more perfect than that by loving enemies one merits to be made a Son of God, and by forgiving debts merits to be absolved from the bond of his own offences? the Lord saying: “If anyone ministers to me, let him follow me, and where I am, there also shall my minister be.” What way the Lord taught us to follow, hear Him saying when He was going to the cross: “Lord Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” If the Author of eternal life, who took flesh from the Virgin without stain of sin, prayed for His enemies, how much more ought we, who are full of sins, to love our enemies and to pray for them, that by imitating the Lord and following Him we may merit to have a part in His kingdom with the Saints? And if there are some whom perversity of life separates from us in communion, yet in that for which they were created they are not to be hated, but rather to be loved on account of the precepts of God. For this is to be most carefully guarded against, that those whom the divine loving-kindness has freed from the care of temporal things should in no way return either in body or in mind: and if there are any things which are owed by lawful right, being with all haste sold or given, or even dispensed to the poor , let the mind grow warm towards the treasure of the heavenly kingdom and eternal beatitude. Obeying this example, Mary, who sat at the feet of the Lord, heard His word: but Martha was busy about much serving, who stood and said: Lord, is it no care to thee that my sister leaves me alone to serve? tell her therefore that she help me; and the Lord answering said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things; but one thing is necessary; Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.

[222] With the heat of so great a love Mary panted inwardly that she was free even from the bodily service of the Lord, and contemplated only the power of His Deity, in so far as the Lord granted it to her. Therefore it is fitting that nor return to the care of worldly things, whoever has merited to rise to this contemplation be hindered by no obstacles; but, free day and night for psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, and keeping the obedience of the holy rule, let him await the coming Lord with his lamp lit: and when He shall come and knock, let it be opened to Him at once. Nothing is better than the fear of God, and nothing sweeter than to breathe in His commandments.

[223] O good lady, what the loving Lord has prepared for you enumerating what in their place she has acquired in the monastery, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor can it ascend into the heart of man. How the Lord has rewarded you in the present life, hear and listen. For the service

of menservants He has given you all the holy brethren, who daily pray for you: for the service of maidservants He has given you holy sisters, whose fellowship you enjoy: for the labour of the present life, quiet in the congregation of the monastery; for the loss of goods, the holy divine Scripture, and holy meditation and assiduous prayer; for the loss of kinsfolk * you have the venerable and holy lady Itheria the abbess: she is to you a mother, she is to you a sister, she is to you a daughter. Do you therefore render her the like, because, as I am sure in Christ Jesus, you have one heart and one soul.

[224] Therefore I trust that you have received all these things, because, not by my merits, he ends the letter with a brief word about himself. but by the sole mercy of Christ, through your prayer and sanctity, all things have been conferred on me by Christ. A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the first; but for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me the most clement Jesus might show forth His patience for the consolation of all sinners and the hope of pardon. Because earthly substance is less had with us, we have sent to you from the treasures of the holy Scriptures; and when you have read and heard, give thanks to the Lord through everlasting ages. Amen. Thus far the letter of Leodegar, concerning which this can be added besides to the encomia already recited; that, since it is almost wholly woven from the truths of Scripture by the Saint already deprived of his eyes, it serves as an argument that that is true which Ursinus affirms in no. 3 about the learning of St. Leodegar in the sacred Scriptures. In the sacred Scriptures, he says, and in the doctrines of the laws, and at the same time in canonical ones, he excelled almost all the inhabitants of the parish , that is, the diocese, which he had undertaken to rule. Now let us proceed to other deeds of the Saint.

* Mabillon: Gaireni

* perhaps luctans wrestling

* rather when He hung on the cross

* perhaps to be added: while they shall have been

* that is, of blood-relations

* others præ before

* others in the parish

§ XV. Leodegar is summoned to the court from the monastery of Fécamp, that he may be deprived of the priestly honour in the synod convoked by Theuderic: of what kind this was, and whether in it the Saint was questioned about the death of Childeric and cast down from his grade.

Leodegar, both on account of the prodigious recovery of his tongue, which had been cut out, and on account of the extraordinary sanctity of life Theuderic, at Ebroin's persuasion, a synod by which he was an object of admiration not only to the inhabitants of the monastery of Fécamp but also to its neighbours and many others, was everywhere proclaimed and honoured by the people as a Saint: When after so many scourgings, says our anonymous author in no. 44, the faithful peoples showed him venerable service, as befitted a martyr; because a lamp cannot be hidden under a bushel, the Almighty manifestly declared it to all. Further, since, as is probable, the excellent fame of the holy Man grew stronger and stronger daily and was spread far and wide, Ebroin was not, I think, among the last to whose ears it came. But he probably bore most grievously that favourable estimation of the Saint growing widespread; for he undoubtedly held it, and not undeservedly, for an open condemnation of all the things which he himself had unjustly done or falsely pronounced against Leodegar, and therefore, as appears probable, partly to provide for his name, partly to satisfy his inveterate hatred against the holy Prelate, he resolved to attack him again, as we have seen he had already done before, as one privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric, and then under pretext of this crime, having treated him ignominiously, at length also to take him out of the way, which he had long since decreed to do. Besides, since besides Leodegar some other bishops survived whom he likewise held hateful, he wished, as it will be right to gather from what is to be said, to punish these too, either with death or with other penalties, at one and the same time.

[226] convokes in the year 678; But, says Valois, tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 311, since he knew that only bishops were accustomed to judge bishops, lest he should seem to wish to do injury to anyone, he persuaded Theuderic to proclaim a council of prelates at a certain place and day. So he; but Ebroin, crafty as he was, perhaps also wished by this means to decline the odium of the deed, as being imputable, as he thought, not to himself but to the bishops, if he himself inflicted punishment on none of their order except when a synod had been convoked, and it either assenting or at least not opposing. However that may be, Theuderic convoked a council or synod, and that in the year 678. For where the anonymous author in no. 44 has narrated that it was announced to Leodegar about the ruin of his enemies after he had remained almost two years in the monastery of Fécamp, he presently subjoins: At the same time the glorious man king Theoderic and the same Hebroin convoked a synod, and coming to a certain royal estate, caused a great crowd of bishops to be present. Wherefore, according to the anonymous author's testimony, that synod of which there is talk here was celebrated almost two years after Leodegar's coming to the monastery of Fécamp, and so in the year 678, since Leodegar, as has been shown above, came to the monastery of Fécamp in the year 676, and the almost two years during which he remained there, added to the year 676, bring us to the year 678. Ursinus in no. 18 likewise mentions the synod convoked by Theuderic and Ebroin, and that in exactly the same words as the anonymous author, but he omits the things immediately preceding in the latter, and suggests nothing else from which you may define with certainty the epoch of that synod; but since this has already been defined with sufficient certainty from the anonymous author alone, I proceed to something else.

[227] it is probable that this is the same It can now be asked here whether that synod mentioned by the anonymous author is the same as the synod in which Chramlinus, bishop of Embrun, was deposed from his see, as the diploma indicates which Mabillon reviews in the sixth book of De re Diplomatica, pages 469 and 470, and which Theuderic III, king of the Franks, issued in the fifth year of his reign, in mid-September, concerning the aforesaid Chramlinus. The opinion which makes the synod of the anonymous author the same as the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed can be held as probable for this reason, that it is not certainly established that the epochs of those two synods are different, and meanwhile the four chief characters by which the anonymous author distinguishes his synod are also attributed in the aforesaid diploma of Theuderic to the synod in which Chramlinus was cast down from his grade. For those four chief characters by which the anonymous author distinguishes the synod mentioned by him consist solely in this, that many bishops were present at the synod, that certain of them were punished, that it was convoked by Theuderic, and that it was celebrated in a certain royal estate; and those very characters are also assigned by Theuderic in the cited diploma to the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed. That this may become manifest, I transcribe here the words bearing on it both of the anonymous author and of the diploma. Those of the anonymous author, nos. 44 and 45, are these: At the same time the glorious man king Theoderic and the same Ebroin CONVOKED A SYNOD, and COMING TO A CERTAIN ROYAL ESTATE, CAUSED A GREAT CROWD OF BISHOPS TO BE PRESENT; and there among the rest Deddo (who with Waimir expelled the holy man Leodegar from his bishopric and handed him over to punishment), condemned by the synod itself, received the punishment of the skull on his head, expelled and separated from the holy congregation; then condemned to exile, and death following, he digested by the punishment of his head whatever of pain he had exercised on the holy Man. And other bishops, having then by the king through Hebroin IN THE SAME SYNOD RECEIVED A LIKE PUNISHMENT, WERE DEPORTED INTO PERPETUAL EXILE.

[228] And the diploma has these things at the beginning: Theuderic, king of the Franks, to the illustrious men with the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed; Audobert and Roccon, our patricians, and to all dukes or counts, or public agents. When we had ordered the bishops of our kingdoms, as well from Neustria as from Burgundy, to come for the state of the Church or the confirmation of peace to our palace, the estate of Marlacum; and some of those who had been found in our fealty HAD BEEN JUDGED BY THEIR CANONS; among them was present Chramlinus, son of the late Miecius, who held the bishopric in the city of Embrun; it was found that he had received that bishopric by his own presumption, or through a false charter, or through the audacity of rebellion *, but not by our ordination; also that, not as their canons contain, the bishops were not present to bless him solemnly. Whence, Genesius, Chadune, Blidramnus, Landobert and Terniscus, who appear to be metropolitans, and very many other bishops judging him, he was torn of his vestments in our presence, and cast out of the aforesaid bishopric. Such is the beginning of the diploma given by Theuderic, in which certainly, by the words which are expressed here in letters of larger form, he attributes also to the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed those very four characters reviewed above by which the anonymous author, by the words which are likewise expressed in larger letters in his text recited in the preceding number, distinguishes the synod mentioned by him, and therefore it is probable that the latter is not different from the former.

[229] But, you will say, if the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed yet this is not made certain is the same as the synod of the anonymous author, it follows that, since the latter, as is clear from what has already been said, was celebrated in the year 678, the former is to be referred to the same year 678; and therefore that the diploma of Theuderic concerning Chramlinus, in which that same synod is mentioned, is also to be referred to that year; whence it further follows that the chief argument of Pagi, proposed in nos. 119 and 120 for tying the death of Childeric II, king of the Franks, to the year 673, collapses entirely, since it does not prove that epoch of the death of Childeric unless the diploma or placitum of Theuderic concerning Chramlinus is established as issued in the year 677. For if it is to be fixed to the year 678, the five incomplete years, reckoned from that year in retrograde order, during which Theuderic is intimated, in the subscription of the already often-mentioned diploma, to have held the kingdom of Neustria and Burgundy when he issued it, do not necessarily bring us to the year 673, in which consequently Pagi's argument, on the hypothesis made, will by no means prove that Theuderic began to reign in Neustria and Burgundy, and therefore will not prove either that Childeric, Theuderic's immediate predecessor, ceased to reign or departed from the living in that year. I confess that the aforesaid argument of Pagi would collapse entirely if it were certain that the synod mentioned by the anonymous author is the same as the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed, and therefore that the latter was celebrated in the year 678. But this is not certain, but only probable, as I asserted in the preceding number, and therefore Pagi's argument retains its force, and by it it is at least probable that Childeric II, king of the Franks, died immediately before the year 674, or in the year 673, although meanwhile, as I also indicated in no. 119, it is not such that it can in no way be dissolved. Further, let the studious reader notice here that not a little

depends on whether it is certain, or only probable, that the diploma of Theuderic concerning Chramlinus was made in the year 678. For if it was certainly made in the year 678, it follows that Dagobert II, king of Austrasia, was still surviving among the living in that year after the 25th of March, since it was given while this prince was living, and that in mid-September, as is noted in the subscription: Given in mid-September, the 5th year of our reign, at Marlacum, in the name of God, happily.

[230] either from Sigebert, or from this, that otherwise two synods But if Dagobert II was still surviving among the living in the year 678 after the 25th of March, the opinion of Pagi is altogether overthrown, which in chronology is of no small moment, by which he ties the death of Dagobert II to the year 678 not yet advanced to the 25th of March, and on the contrary the chronology of the affairs pertaining to Dagobert II is not a little confirmed, according to which his death is deferred to the year 680 by our Henschenius in the Preliminary Exegesis to tome 3 of April, and by many others today; and therefore there will perhaps be someone who, that some weight may accrue to that chronology such as it is, contends that it is not probable that the synod of our anonymous author is different from the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed. First indeed, because Sigebert of Gembloux in the Chronicle mentions only one synod convoked by Theuderic III, king of the Franks, by the counsel of Ebroin; and then, because it appears scarcely probable that at a time not much different, namely in the years 677 and 678, two different synods were celebrated, in both of which various bishops were cast down from their grade. As regards the first, I answer that Sigebert of Gembloux hands down only an epitome of the things done in the age of Theuderic, and therefore wraps many things in silence, so that it ought not to seem strange that he mentioned only one synod then convoked, even though perhaps two were meanwhile celebrated. Add that this writer, as having died in the year 1113, began to flourish about four centuries after Theuderic, and therefore it could easily have come about that he had knowledge of only one synod convoked by that king, although meanwhile the latter perhaps convoked two different ones. And as regards the second, namely that it appears scarcely probable that two different synods, at a time also not much different, were celebrated, and that in both of them various bishops were cast down from their grade, I answer that this can perhaps appear scarcely probable if the character of Ebroin is not attended to, not likewise if it is attended to. For he is known to have raged against bishops more than once, carried away by a certain headlong anger, and therefore it is not improbable that he more than once also caused an assembly or synod of several prelates to be celebrated, and that within a short space of time, so that by them, circumvented by fraud and guile, he might speedily cause to be punished various priests of the first note whom he held hateful not all at once, but by turns.

[231] Certainly this did not seem improbable to Mabillon; similar ones were celebrated in a short time, for although in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 541, he affirms that the episcopal dignity was taken from Leodegar in the same synod in which Chramlinus and certain other bishops were judged according to the canons, as the diploma of Theuderic intimates, he nevertheless distinguishes it, and therefore this one too, from the synod mentioned by the anonymous author, in which likewise certain bishops were judged and variously punished. For in the latter, as the same anonymous author testifies, Diddo, formerly bishop of Chalon, was shamefully degraded; and the cited Mabillon asserts in the same tome, on the page preceding the one just cited, that he underwent that ignominy not in the same synod as Leodegar but in another. Here are his words: There were present in the palace, he says, very many bishops according to custom, who were commanded to come together into one and pass sentence on the cause of Leodegar. The holy Man, brought forward into the midst, after he had foretold to the king privately many things to come, was reduced to the ranks as guilty: his priestly tunic being torn from the head, which was the rite of degrading bishops, as Gregory of Tours relates was done in the cause of Praetextatus of Rouen. In another manner Dido the pseudo-bishop, a little before Leodegar, likewise in another synod of bishops, had been expelled from the holy congregation, his head being entirely shaved bald, so that in it the badge of the priestly crown was altogether shaved off. Which punishment bishop Fructuosus decrees in the first rule for a monk guilty of an unspeakable crime. From which it is certainly manifestly understood that Mabillon distinguishes the synod mentioned by the anonymous author from the synod in which, as he thinks, the priestly dignity was taken from Leodegar and Chramlinus, and therefore that he would have two different synods, in both of which various bishops were deposed, to have been celebrated, and that, as the words just recited intimate, within a short space of time, so that consequently this did not seem improbable to that author, and therefore ought not to seem so to us either, since no convincing reason compels to it, nay rather a not inept one can impel to the contrary.

[232] For the two synods, the one mentioned by king Theuderic in the diploma concerning Chramlinus, since at that time general assemblies of the kingdom were frequent in Francia, the other by our anonymous author, were perhaps assemblies or general conventions of the kingdom, to which not only bishops but also the chief men, convoked by the king, were wont to flow together. And assemblies or conventions of this kind were formerly frequently celebrated by the Franks. This is clear from the council of Soissons of the year 744, which was also an assembly of this kind. For in its second canon (see Sirmond, tome 1 of the ancient Councils of Gaul, page 544) it is decreed thus: With the consent of the bishops, or priests, or servants of God, and by the counsel of my chief men, we have decreed that we ought to renew the synod every year, so that the Christian people may be able to come to the salvation of souls. Thomassin also brings forward this canon in part 2, book 3, chapter 47 of On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, and presently subjoins: These assemblies, which were frequently held while the lineage of Clovis reigned, though not every year; when it was going to ruin and falling, they began to be held every year; under the stock of Charles the Great they began to be gathered twice every year, after the manner of assemblies of the kingdom, the clergy and the order of nobles coming together in them. If therefore these assemblies were wont to be held twice every year under Charles the Great, and once under Pippin, and were also frequent while the lineage of Clovis reigned, it certainly ought not to seem improbable that two assemblies of this kind, separated from each other by the space of only a year, were held under Theuderic III, king of the Franks, sprung from the lineage of Clovis, especially if Ebroin judged it to his advantage, as we have already intimated he probably judged, that he might destroy by the opportunity of those councils or assemblies the bishops whom he had either always held hateful, or who, having been formerly his friends, or certainly not opposed to him, had in the lapse of time become hateful one after another, and so meanwhile provide somehow for his reputation.

[233] and these were probably assemblies of this kind, And indeed that the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed was a general assembly of the kingdom seems able to be gathered from the very diploma of Theuderic concerning Chramlinus, already often mentioned, which treats of that synod. For in it Theuderic says: When we had ordered the bishops of our kingdoms, as well from Neustria as from Burgundy, to come for the state of the Church or the confirmation of peace to our palace, the estate of Marlacum. From which words it is clear that the synod of which there is question was celebrated for the confirmation of peace, namely sanctioned between Theuderic III and Dagobert II. Wherefore, since the confirmation of peace touched the chief men of the kingdom no less than the bishops, it is probable that not only the latter but also the former were present at it, so that it was probably a general assembly of the kingdom. Besides, Theuderic in the aforesaid diploma also speaks thus: Therefore it has pleased us, together with the counsel of the above-written pontiffs and of our nobles, that, since according to the canons he (Chramlinus) had been degraded in the synodal council itself, if we should deal with his own property, he ought not to lose it, for the sake of reward. By which words it seems to be intimated that together with the bishops the chief men or nobles of the kingdom were also present at the synod of which there is question, so that therefore it seems on this head too to have been a general assembly of the kingdom. And as regards the synod mentioned by Ursinus and the anonymous author, that this too was a general assembly of the kingdom will come out at least probable, as I think, from what is to be said below. Nor is there reason for you to say that the assembly of bishops of which the anonymous author in the Life of our Saint, and Theuderic in the very often mentioned diploma, treat is called by the latter a synodal council, by the former a synod, and that these nomenclatures do not befit assemblies or general conventions of the kingdom. For I find that assemblies or general conventions of the kingdom are named in ancient monuments indiscriminately now synods, or synodal assemblies, now synodal councils or even counsels.

[234] which in ancient monuments, I show the matter thus. The first council of Les Estinnes, as Thomassin rightly asserts in On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, tome 2, book 3, chapter 47, no. 2, is most certainly to be reckoned among the assemblies or general conventions, and yet in the very Preface which it bears in Sirmond, tome 1 of the ancient Councils of Gaul, page 537, it is called a synod and a council by Carloman, duke and prince of the Franks, who convoked it, as is understood from the same Preface, in the year 742. Likewise in the year 743 another synod was again celebrated at Les Estinnes. Its first canon, in the cited Sirmond, Work and tome cited, page 540, begins thus: But now in this synodal assembly, which was gathered on the Kalends of March in the place which is called Les Estinnes, all the venerable priests of God, and the counts and prefects, consenting, confirmed the decrees of the former synod, and promised that they would fulfil and observe them. That synod, therefore, as is clear from the words of the canon recited, was composed not only of bishops but also of the chief men of the kingdom, and therefore was a general assembly of the kingdom, and is nevertheless called a synodal assembly. In the Annals of Saint-Bertin in Duchesne, tome 3 of the Writers of the Franks, I find general or public assemblies of the kingdom distinguished with the name of synod also in many places, and first of all at the years 767 and 773. For in the former place these things are had: There (in Aquitaine) he (king Pippin) held a synod with all the Franks in the accustomed manner in the field. And in the latter these: Then king Charles (namely the Great) held a synod generally with the Franks at the city of Geneva, and there dividing the army, he himself went on through Mont Cenis. From all which it becomes plain that general assemblies of the kingdom in ancient Monuments also receive the appellation of synod or another akin.

[235] But if you object that both councils of Les Estinnes and the Annals of the Franks of Saint-Bertin are monuments

later than the seventh century, of the seventh century too and therefore that, although in them assemblies or general conventions come under the name of synod or synodal council, it does not follow that this is likewise done in monuments either earlier than the seventh century or of the seventh century itself only. I answer that this indeed does not certainly follow thence, but it at least becomes probable. And that it may become certain, or at least much more probable, it is pleasing here to call in aid also the edict concerning the fifth synod of Paris issued by Clothar II, king of the Franks, in the seventh century. Sirmond reviews it in tome 1 of the Ancient Councils of Gaul, page 474 and the two following, where towards the end Clothar speaks thus: But whoever shall presume to violate this deliberation, that is, the constitution which we have instituted with the pontiffs, or with such great men, the chief men, or our faithful, in the synodal council, let him be judged with capital sentence, so that others ought not to perpetrate similar things. By which words, since the constitution of which Clothar speaks is recorded as instituted not only with the bishops but also with the chief men, you see that there is without doubt designated a constitution issued in an assembly of the kingdom or general convention of bishops and chief men, and that this is called by Clothar a synodal council. Besides, this title is prefixed to the aforesaid edict: Edict or constitution of the renowned prince king Chlotachar over all the people in the assembly of bishops gathered in synod at Paris, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November, in the 31st year of the rule of the above-written king. By which words a distinction seems to be made between an assembly of bishops and a synod, and so by synod is probably understood an assembly not only of bishops but also of chief men. Wherefore, unless perhaps, which however does not appear, the aforesaid title was added to Clothar's constitution by a writer of a later century, it becomes plain that in a monument of the seventh century a general assembly of the kingdom also comes under the name of synod, so that general assemblies of the kingdom were probably called indiscriminately synodal councils and synods in the seventh century too.

[236] are called synods. Leodegar to the court Further, the cited Thomassin, in the tome and book of the same Work cited, also intimates the cause on account of which those general assemblies came under the name of synods too, or of synodal councils. These general assemblies, he says before the beginning of chapter 47, were each divided again into two assemblies, in one of which the bishops and nobles treated, at the king's command, of the affairs of the kingdom, in the other the bishops alone dealt with spiritual causes. Then, some things premised, he writes thus in the chapter cited: Of these two assemblies into which the general assemblies were divided, the former was called a placitum, the latter a synod; and since they were held in the same place and time, and consisted of the same bishops, most historians distinguished them less, both names and assemblies being promiscuously mixed. By which words it is intimated that those two assemblies into which the general assemblies were divided come in the historians indiscriminately or promiscuously now under the name of placitum, now of synod or even of synodal council, and that because both were held in the same place, that is, as I think, in the same city or palace, and time, that is, as it appears, in the same month or year, and consisted of the same bishops. These things which have here been said from Thomassin concerning the division of each general assembly into two others, and concerning their nomenclature, will presently serve to unravel a not small difficulty, as will become plain from what is to be said, and therefore had to be treated more fully. However, since it is clear enough and more than enough from what has already been said that assemblies or general conventions of the kingdom come under the name of synods or synodal councils in the historians and in ancient monuments, and it is not improbable that two assemblies of this kind, at a time not much different, namely in the years 677 and 678, were celebrated by king Theuderic by the counsel of Ebroin, it follows that it is likewise not improbable that the synod of the anonymous author and the synod which Theuderic mentions in the diploma concerning Chramlinus were celebrated at a time not much different, the one namely in the year 677, the other in the year 678, so that therefore there is nothing from which it becomes certain that the synod of the anonymous author is not different from the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed.

[237] is summoned, to be deposed in the said synod; but whether at this However that may be, it is certain meanwhile, which bears more nearly on this, that Leodegar was summoned again to the court at the impulse of Ebroin, and there, when the synod mentioned by the anonymous author and Ursinus was being celebrated, was ignominiously treated. The first the anonymous author openly teaches in these words: For the man of God Leodegar, he says in no. 45, was still staying in the same (namely Fécamp) monastery of nuns in which he had been placed for keeping. Therefore, for fashioning the crown of the blessed Martyr, there survived one crafty artificer of those, Hebroin the tyrant, who should fill up the things which were still wanting to the glory of his passion. For thus the envious ancient serpent, bearing it ill that he had been expelled from that same place (probably Fécamp) by his prayers, began again to goad Hebroin; and he (namely Ebroin) ordered him (Leodegar) to be brought back to the palace, that in the council of bishops he might tear his vestment, so that on this account it should be forbidden him that he presume any longer to offer the Sacrifice. For then, says Valois, tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 313, the offering of the Sacrifice was forbidden by his colleagues to a bishop whose tunic had been torn; to which our Saint, as we have shown before, gave himself daily in the monastery of Fécamp. Ursinus does not openly reveal that Leodegar was summoned to the court when the synod convoked by Theuderic was being celebrated; but he declares this very thing sufficiently when he says in no. 19 that the holy Prelate was called to the synod which had come together by Theuderic's order at a certain royal estate; whither Theuderic himself and Ebroin had betaken themselves, so that the court was undoubtedly then there, and it becomes certain both from Ursinus and from the anonymous author that Leodegar was summoned to the court when the synod which these record was being celebrated. But here a huge difficulty occurs. It arises from the words of our anonymous author just recited, and from those which he subjoins to them in no. 46, no other word interposed.

[238] Here they are: Where, he says, when he (Leodegar) had been led into the midst, was he present? The difficulty about it arising from our anonymous author, they sought a word from him, that he should confess himself to have been an accomplice in the death of Hilderic. Knowing therefore that through a diabolical invention a conflict was again impending over him, as he did not excuse himself from human offence, so he professed that he had been in no way privy to this crime, but that God rather than men knew this. Then too they summoned him to the same synod; they do not, however, confirm that he was within the council, but the king and Hebroin are said to have held a conference with him apart, in which he is said to have foretold to them many things to come, which is convincingly shown to have come to pass. And when, demanding long, they had been able to elicit nothing else from him, they tore his tunic from the head, and the impious tyrant Hebroin ordered him to be handed over to a certain man, Rodobert , who was then count of the palace, and his present life to be taken away by the stroke of the sword. Thus far the anonymous author, whose words certainly create no small difficulty. For since this writer, towards the end of the words which I recited from him in the preceding number, says that Leodegar was brought back to the palace by Ebroin's order, that in the council of bishops he might tear his vestment, so that on this account it should be forbidden him that he presume any longer to offer the Sacrifice, and immediately subjoins, where, when he (namely Leodegar) had been led into the midst, they sought a word from him, that he should confess himself to have been an accomplice * in the death of Hilderic, he seems to intimate that Leodegar was in the council or synod when they sought a word from him that he should confess himself to have been an accomplice in the death of Hilderic, that is, when they asked of him whether he had been privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric. Further, since the same anonymous author, where he has asserted that Leodegar denied that he was guilty of that crime, presently subjoins: Then too they summoned him (Leodegar) to the same synod, he seems to intimate that the holy Prelate, while he underwent the aforesaid interrogation, was not in the council or synod, and therefore, since it cannot be that Leodegar was then both in and not in the council or synod, this writer seems to conflict with himself, and it is difficult to say how he ought certainly to be expounded or understood.

[239] Sirmond, who reviews that synod from the anonymous author in tome 1 of the Ancient Councils of Gaul, page 510, which Sirmond seems to have striven to avoid, noticed this difficulty, and hence probably brought into his Work the text in which the anonymous author sets out Leodegar's coming to the court and the circumstances accompanying it not entire but only in part, the reader, however, being advised. For this writer, after the words in which the anonymous author narrates that Leodegar was brought back to the palace by Ebroin's order, that in the council of bishops he might tear his vestment, so that on this account it should be forbidden him that he presume any longer to offer the Sacrifice, placed immediately the following: Then therefore they summoned him (Leodegar) to the same synod; before which, however, these things are read in the anonymous author: Where, when he had been led, they sought a word from him etc. And everyone sees that the whole difficulty vanishes when these words are cut away from the text of the anonymous author, so that they seem to have been cut away by Sirmond solely with the view of avoiding it, and so he noticed it, but either could not solve it or certainly did not endeavour to do so. Further, although the cited Sirmond truncated the text of our anonymous author little aptly in the manner already set out, he nevertheless writes nothing in the place cited which is not conformable to the exact truth. For he says only, as regards the present purpose, that it is taught by the anonymous author that Leodegar, although he had been summoned to the synod that he might be condemned by the synod, nevertheless did not enter the synod, but was heard apart by the king and assigned to death; which conflicts neither with our anonymous author nor with Ursinus, as will become more plain from what is to be said, when I have brought forward more things about the difficulty already begun to be treated.

[240] nor Valois and Mabillon to have solved it happily enough, Valois and Mabillon also noticed this, and therefore, as it appears, tried also to solve it somehow; the latter indeed in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 540, the former in tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 313. To this end, in the places cited, they interpreted the words of the anonymous author by which it seems to be intimated that Leodegar, when he was questioned about the killing of Childeric, was present at the council or synod convoked by Theuderic, in such a way that they signify that the holy Prelate, when he was first brought back to the court, appeared not in the midst of the council of bishops but in the midst of the palace, where the council had been gathered, and was there questioned by Ebroin and Theuderic about the killing of Childeric. But this latter circumstance Ursinus does not mention by even a word; and as regards the anonymous author, he does indeed say that Theuderic and Ebroin questioned Leodegar about the killing of Childeric, nay

and urged him to confess that he had been privy to that killing, but he does not assert that this happened as soon as the Saint was brought back to the palace or court. There is added that the words of the anonymous author do not easily, as it appears, admit the interpretation of Valois and Mabillon, by which, as I said, it seems to be intimated that Leodegar, when, first brought back to the court, he was questioned about the killing of Childeric, was present at the council or synod proclaimed by Theuderic. Those words, that the matter may become clearer, I repeat here again. He (Ebroin) ordered him (Leodegar) to be brought back to the palace, that in the council of bishops he might tear his vestment, so that on this account it should be forbidden him that he presume any longer to offer the Sacrifice. Where, when he had been led into the midst, they sought a word from him, that he should confess himself to have been an accomplice * in the death of Hilderic. Which words certainly, as it appears to me at least, taken in the obvious sense, cannot be so expounded as to signify that Leodegar, when he was first brought back to the court, was questioned about the killing of Childeric by Ebroin and the king. For the plural perfect inquisierunt they sought in the obvious sense seems to be referred to the bishops, and therefore by the words recited it is signified that these made the aforesaid interrogation, and that in the midst of the council, so that the words of the anonymous author, just repeated here again, do not easily admit the interpretation of Valois and Mabillon, and these therefore, by the way which they take, do not solve happily enough the difficulty proposed in no. 238. I show now by what reasoning, as it appears to me at least, this can be solved more certainly, or how these two assertions, in appearance conflicting, can be combined with each other: Leodegar was, and Leodegar was not, in the council or synod when, first brought back to the court, he was questioned about the killing inflicted on Childeric.

[241] Here must be recalled to memory the things which we have already discussed in this § concerning the assemblies or general conventions of the kingdom formerly held, is easily solved from this, that that synod, as it appears probable, and their nomenclature; first namely that those assemblies were each wont to be divided into two others, of which one was of bishops only, or in which bishops alone dealt with purely spiritual matters or others belonging by custom to their forum, the other of bishops and at the same time of chief men, or in which bishops together with nobles treated, at the king's command, of the affairs of the kingdom; and then that all those assemblies, general as well as the others into which they were divided, came in the ancient writers indiscriminately under the name of synod and of synodal council or counsel. These things being noted beforehand, the things in appearance conflicting which the anonymous author intimates in nos. 45 and 46 can be combined with each other without any trouble. For when he there intimates that Leodegar was and was not in the council or synod when he was being questioned about the killing of Childeric, he must be understood of a twofold assembly or session of the same synod, so that the synod of which he treats was a general assembly of the kingdom, divided into the two other assemblies or sessions just designated, at one of which, namely of bishops, the holy Prelate was present, and at the other, namely of bishops and at the same time chief men, he was not present. This is clear from the anonymous author himself, when in no. 45 he calls the synod or council at which, as we have shown in no. 238, he intimates that our Saint was present, with an addition, the council of bishops; while the synod or council at which, as we have also shown there, he intimates that the same Saint of ours was not present he calls simply, without addition, a synod, so that this writer distinguishes the synod mentioned by him into two different assemblies or sessions, of which he names one the council of bishops, the other simply the synod, and this consequently was a general assembly of the kingdom. This very thing too seems able to be gathered from the same anonymous author when he writes thus in no. 44: At the same time the glorious man king Theoderic and the same Hebroin convoked a synod, and coming to a certain royal estate, caused a great crowd of bishops to be present. For by these words he distinguishes, as it appears, between the convocation of the synod and that of the bishops, and therefore seems to signify that an assembly not only of bishops but also of the chief men of the kingdom was convoked to a certain royal estate by the order of Theuderic and Ebroin. The Writers of the augmented Gallia Christiana do not seem averse from this opinion. For in tome 4, column 354, they have these things: The king and Ebroin order him (Leodegar) to be presented at the palace, where then (in the year 678) an assembly of magnates and bishops was being held.

[242] But there will perhaps be someone who objects that the synod at which our anonymous author intimates that Leodegar, was a general assembly of the kingdom. when he was being questioned about the killing of Childeric, was not present, is called the same synod, and that therefore by it is designated by him the council of bishops at which he had intimated a little before that the holy Prelate was present when he was being questioned about the killing of Childeric, so that by the way set out in the preceding number the things which that biographer intimates about Leodegar's presence and non-presence in the council or synod when he was being questioned about the killing of Childeric cannot be combined with each other. I confess the matter stands so if the anonymous author, by the same synod to which he writes that Leodegar was summoned when he had denied the crime objected to him, must necessarily understand the council of bishops which he had mentioned a little before. But by what reasoning, finally, can this be proved with sufficient certainty? Why could he not, by that synod which he calls the same by reason of the synod mentioned by him before, understand the synod whose convocation and some circumstances he records before? Certainly the anonymous author calls the assembly of bishops at which he intimates Leodegar was present a council, and therefore, when a little after he writes that the holy Prelate was summoned to the same synod, he does not by these words, the same synod, understand, as it appears to me at least, the assembly of bishops which a little before he named a council, but the assembly which a little above he called not a council but a synod, and which I think was a general assembly of the kingdom. However that may be, if the words of the anonymous author repeated again in no. 240 are taken in the more obvious sense, so that they signify that Leodegar, when about the beginning of his coming to the palace he was being questioned about the killing of Childeric, was in the council or synod, certainly no other reason besides that already set out is available by which the things in appearance conflicting which the anonymous author then writes may be reconciled with each other; which, however, must necessarily be done, since this writer is deservedly held as a weighty author by all the learned everywhere, deservedly a weighty author by all the learned everywhere, and it is therefore not to be thought that he was so little consistent with himself that in words immediately following one another he committed two conflicting things to writing. Let the studious reader now discern what he wishes to establish here; I meanwhile proceed to the remaining things which befell Leodegar at the court to which he had been summoned.

[243] the Saint; his [tunic being torn not in the synod,] There is no doubt that the holy Prelate was there cast down from his grade, his tunic being torn. For so the anonymous author testifies in no. 46. But just as it had to be examined just now whether Leodegar was in the synod mentioned by the anonymous author when he was questioned about the killing of Childeric, so here, which is less difficult, it must now be examined whether the holy Prelate was in the same synod when his tunic was torn. Mabillon, when in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 540, he treats the present matter, embraces the affirmative opinion. There were present in the palace, he says in the place cited (when Leodegar had come there), very many bishops according to custom, who were commanded to come together into one and pass sentence on the cause of Leodegar. The holy Man, brought forward into the midst, after he had foretold to the king privately many things to come, was reduced to the ranks as guilty, his priestly tunic being torn from the head. By which words he certainly openly indicates that Leodegar was cast down from his grade in the council or synod of bishops, his tunic being torn. And lest it should perhaps be doubted whether he certainly intimates this by the words recited, he says besides in the tome cited, page 541, that the priestly dignity was taken from Leodegar in the synod of bishops, which he makes the same as the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed. But that most manifestly conflicts with both the anonymous author and Ursinus. For the anonymous author, in the words already recited in no. 238, expressly affirms that Leodegar was not in the synod when his priestly tunic was torn. And as regards Ursinus, he, making no mention of the tunic torn from Leodegar, likewise expressly affirms that the holy Prelate was not at all in the council or synod to which he had been summoned, so that Mabillon undoubtedly opposes Ursinus and the anonymous author, and therefore wrongly affirms that Leodegar was reduced to the ranks, or cast down from his grade, in the council or synod of bishops, his priestly tunic being torn.

[244] But, you will say, if not in the synod or council, where then, and by whom, was Leodegar, but apart, by certain bishops, the tunic, his tunic being torn, deprived of the episcopal dignity? The first, as I have already indicated, we are taught by the anonymous author in no. 46; for there it is said by him that Leodegar, when his tunic was torn, was not in the synod or council, but held converse apart with the king and Ebroin, and foretold to them many things to come, which afterwards came to pass, so that therefore according to that writer the holy Prelate was then, although not in the same chamber as the synod, nevertheless in the same royal estate to which Theuderic had summoned to himself the bishops and the chief men of the kingdom, and Leodegar himself too. And as regards the second, namely by whom Leodegar, his tunic being torn, was deprived of the episcopal dignity, Valois, tome 3 of the Affairs of the Franks, page 314, thinks it was done by the bishops to gratify Ebroin, which certainly, as it appears to me at least, is probable. For it belonged to bishops to cast down a bishop from his grade, if at any time a just and grave reason required it. And the bishops who tore the tunic of our Saint were probably such as Ebroin knew beforehand would, either from fear or from zeal to please and flatter the princes, condemn their Colleague, although innocent, and whom therefore he perhaps summoned to a place separated from the session of the synod, that he might there see to the tunic being torn from Leodegar by them, which he grieved had not been done before in the council of bishops to which the Saint had been presented, and which he hoped much less would be done by the full synod, because in it there were probably not only some bishops but also chief men, who had seen through the innocence and sanctity of life of Leodegar, and who would therefore leave no stone unturned to prevent the shameful and unjust deposition of the holy Prelate.

[245] That Ebroin used such an art to degrade St. Leodegar he is handed over to Chrodobert, to be afterwards killed. it is right to suspect, both from this, that, contrary to custom, the Saint was deprived of the episcopal dignity not in the synod itself but in a private retreat, and from this, that Ebroin was a man of crafty and deceitful disposition, and besides burned with the highest hatred against Leodegar,

of satisfying which he let slip no occasion and no manner, and of which he then too gave no obscure specimen. For when, as we have already seen, Leodegar was then holding converse apart, that is, in a place different from the session of the synod, with king Theuderic and Ebroin, and foretelling to them many things to come, Ebroin, not bearing the holy Prelate speaking freely, inveighed against him with this brief but harsh speech, as Ursinus testifies in no. 19: The loftiness of words … persuades you much in speaking, you suppose you are a martyr, therefore you show yourself so rash. You still puff yourself up much; in vain you desire to have such a reward: for as you have merited, so you will receive martyrdom. By which words Ebroin certainly then gave a new proof of his hatred against Leodegar. The same biographer then subjoins, a few things of lesser moment interposed, that Ebroin handed over Leodegar into custody to a certain man, Chrodobert. The anonymous author, somewhat different here again from Ursinus, says that the king (see the words recited in no. 238) and Ebroin, before this was done, long and much pressed Leodegar with various interrogations to confess that he had been privy to the killing inflicted on Childeric; and when they had been able to elicit nothing else from the holy Prelate besides the answer by which he had protested his innocence in the council of bishops, he was at last, his tunic being torn, handed over by Ebroin's order to a certain Chrodobert or Rodobert, not to be kept but to be killed. Chrodobert, however, when Leodegar was handed over to him, seems to have had in command only that he should kill the Saint not at once, but only then when he should receive a second precept to do it. For the command to kill Leodegar came at length from the court at the time when the holy Prelate was already living in the house of the same Chrodobert, as the anonymous author himself testifies. For in no. 47 he writes thus: And when the said man (Chrodobert) had led him (Leodegar) into his own house, he so received the heavenly blessing at his coming that, when all dwelling there knew this manifestly, confessing their own sins they forsook them, and vied in fleeing to the medicines of penance; and then in no. 48, a few things interposed, he says: At length came the day of the reward, on which there was now to be an end of his (Leodegar's) persecution. Then from the palace the sentence of the decree is sent , that Leodegar ought not to live longer.

* others exsolvit paid off

* others doli of guile

* that is, Mabillon notes in the margin rebellionis of rebellion

* others conscium privy

* others add dixit said

* others Hebroinus is lacking

* others Chrodobert and Robert

* others Hebroinus is lacking

* others tradi to be handed over

* others conscium privy

* others conscium privy

* others relinquerent is lacking

* others mandata commands

§ XVI. The Saint is killed by Ebroin's order in the year 678, and is committed to the earth at Sarcing in Artois.

Leodegar is treated kindly by Chrodobert, and when now Leodegar, already cast down from his grade, and yet never more worthy of the episcopate, was by no means grieved at his lot, but on the contrary rejoiced not a little, because he saw that it would come about that he would shortly end all the vexations and punishments which he had suffered by Ebroin's order by a happy death at last. The Martyr of God rejoiced … (says the anonymous author at the end of no. 46) in all patience, because he perceived that the crown of martyrdom due to him, the Lord rewarding, was drawing near. The Saint had namely probably understood from Ebroin and Theuderic, or also from others, that it would shortly come about that he would be taken out of the way. Yet that would not have been shortly if it had been left to Chrodobert, to whom he had been given into custody. For he, as the anonymous author testifies in no. 48, converted to the Lord by the discourses of Leodegar, had already, when the command to kill the Saint was brought from the court a little after, put on such a feeling of piety that he could not endure even to be a spectator of the killing to be inflicted on the holy Prelate. Besides, the same Chrodobert treated Leodegar kindly, as it appears, as soon as he had received him into his custody, which we have already seen Waimir and Waning did less promptly. For when by the command of Theuderic and Ebroin he was leading the Saint to his house, and saw him wearied from the journey, he ordered drink to be given him for refreshment and the quenching of his thirst. The anonymous author in no. 47 and Ursinus in no. 20 testify this in almost the same words. It happened namely to Leodegar that to whomever he was handed over by Ebroin to be kept and harassed, to them on the contrary he was an object of care and veneration. For with this grace, says the anonymous author in no. 48, God had made His Servant illustrious, that wherever he had been handed over as an exile, that wickedness * might be inflicted on him, on the contrary all showed him serviceable reverence. This most certainly had place as soon as Leodegar had been given into custody to Chrodobert.

[247] For then the Lord, that He might render Chrodobert and his servants more kindly towards Leodegar, to his house, a miracle having been done on the way, deigned to honour His Servant with a manifest and signal miracle. Chrodobert, as I have already shown, had ordered drink to be given to Leodegar; but before the servant to whom this had been enjoined came to the Saint, behold, a huge light, descending from heaven in the manner of a circle, shone above his head. By this prodigy, whoever had seen it, made as it were beside themselves, at first stood fixed in amazement, and then, coming to themselves, held Leodegar for a true servant of God, and, bent by his discourses, afterwards turned themselves to God, so that therefore it then came about by supernal grace, or divine kindness, that the holy Prelate was dear and venerable to those to whom he had been given by Ebroin to be harassed. Ursinus in no. 20 and the anonymous author in no. 47 again set out the matter with so harmonious an account that they agree with each other almost even to the words: and from what source this so great agreement of theirs in some places has its origin I have shown in no. 26 of this Preliminary Commentary. I transcribe the words of Ursinus here. Having received him (Leodegar), he says, when (Chrodobert) was leading him to his house, seeing him wearied from the journey and from infirmity, he ordered drink to be given him to refresh him. Before the cupbearer stood by him, a great light, as though in the circle of a wheel, descending from heaven, shone above his head. Then all who saw this sign, trembling, said: What is it, Lord, that appears above your head, as it were a most splendid light sent from heaven in the manner of a circle? for nothing like it has ever been seen by us. He at once adored on the ground, saying: I render thanks to Thee, almighty God, consoler of all, who hast deigned to show such a miracle above Thy Servant. Then all who saw, placed as it were in an ecstasy of mind, at length indeed recovering themselves, glorifying almighty God together, turned one to another and said: Truly this Man is a servant of God; and they promised that they would strive towards God with all their powers *. So Ursinus, as regards the present purpose.

[248] And as regards the promise which he adds that those who had seen the miracle already mentioned made of their conversion to the Lord, led, he converts many to God, it certainly was not vain and without effect. For he presently subjoins that thereafter in fact very many who were of the household of Chrodobert were converted by the discourses of Leodegar to the true worship of God, so that therefore most probably among those converted were those who had accompanied their lord when he was leading the Saint from the court to his house, and who were therefore eyewitnesses of the heavenly light then prodigiously illuminating Leodegar. And not only these, but also Chrodobert's wife and almost all his blood-relations, with very many others, were brought back to better fruit by the work of the same Leodegar. Then, Ursinus proceeds in no. 20, thereafter by his (Leodegar's) preachings almost all the kinsfolk , the wife and households of his (Chrodobert's) house were converted to the worship of God: and through this, hearing his (Leodegar's) fame, they ran together to him from round about the place to hear the word of salvation. And he did not cease to instruct all by his preaching how they might be able to come to the kingdom of heaven. All those conversions the Saint worked when he had already been led to the house of Chrodobert. Ursinus seems to intimate this clearly enough by the words recited, and the anonymous author teaches it openly as regards the conversion of Chrodobert's household: And when, he says at the end of no. 47, the said man (Chrodobert) had led him (Leodegar) into his own house, he so received the heavenly blessing at his coming that, when all dwelling there knew this manifestly, confessing their own sins they forsook them, and vied in fleeing to the medicines of penance. And although the anonymous author by these words only narrates that the household of Chrodobert were converted to a better life by Leodegar when he had already been led to his house, I do not doubt, however, that then, as Ursinus intimates, many others too were converted, and more would have been converted if the cruelty of Ebroin had allowed the holy Prelate to live longer.

[249] a command having been brought from the court, But, as Ursinus testifies in no. 21, no long time having elapsed after Leodegar had been handed over into the custody of Chrodobert, the command to slay the holy Prelate is brought from the court. And since Ebroin feared lest any honour should be paid to him when slain, as to a martyr, he strove to render the place in which the Saint should be laid after death unknown to men for ever. To this end it was then ordered besides that the body of Leodegar, when he had been killed, should be thrown into a well sought out beforehand in a more secret place of the forest, and the mouth of the well carefully stopped up with earth and stones. The impious Hebroin, says the anonymous author in no. 48, fearing lest the honour of martyrdom should be paid to him (Leodegar, when slain) by faithful Christians, orders a well to be sought out among * the thickets of the woods, and his slain body to be sunk there, so that, the mouth of the well being stopped up with earth or stones, his tomb might be unknown to men. Thus namely Ebroin, carried away by insane hatred, wished not only to snatch life from our Saint, but also besides all veneration of the people after his death, as being that by which he thought his injustice and cruelty exercised against the most holy Man would be tacitly reproached to him. Of this art by which Ebroin, when he ordered Leodegar to be killed, strove to provide for his name, Ursinus does not make mention by even a word, and he differs here besides from the anonymous author in another circumstance of graver moment. For he says that Ebroin, about to inflict death on the Saint, sent four very swift horsemen, and that they, having led Leodegar out of the house of Chrodobert, cut him down; whereas on the contrary the anonymous author affirms that Chrodobert, when the precept to kill Leodegar was brought, delegated the ministry of the killing to be inflicted on the Saint to four of his servants, since he himself, already somewhat converted to better things, could not endure to see the cruel spectacle, so that here both biographers not only disagree with each other but also seem to conflict.

[250] he is killed But with which must one agree? Although I cannot declare this for certain, I should nevertheless prefer to agree with the anonymous author. For although the discussion here is about a thing done in the territory of Arras, far distant both from the diocese of Autun and from that of Poitiers, and therefore in it not only Ursinus but also the anonymous author could easily have strayed from the truth, this one nevertheless seems,

since he clothes his narrative with more circumstances than the other, to have had a more accurate knowledge of the things that accompanied the martyrdom of Leodegar, and so to deserve the greater credence. See also what we have taught concerning Ursinus in no. 106 of this Preliminary Commentary. Further, of those several circumstances with which the anonymous author clothes his narrative, besides the one already mentioned concerning the well, which Ebroin had ordered to be sought out so that the body of the slain Leodegar might be thrown into it, two are chief in number. The first is that the wife of Chrodobert, when the mandate for killing Leodegar was brought, grieved vehemently that it had been enjoined upon her husband to see to the killing of his holy Guest; but that Leodegar consoled her, and promised that his death would by no means turn out to her harm, but to her good, provided she took care that his body was committed to burial; the other is that the four servants, to whom the ministry of the slaying of Leodegar had been delegated by Chrodobert, did not find, when they were leading the Saint to be killed, the well sought out beforehand, into which they had resolved to throw the body of the slain man according to the mandate of Ebroin. For the rest, after the anonymous author has narrated this last circumstance, the remainder of his narrative concerning the death of Leodegar agrees exceedingly well with that of Ursinus. Here it is, reduced to a summary. Leodegar, led through various unknown places into the middle of the forest, himself admonished the four men mentioned, by whom he was to be killed, that what they had under orders they should put into execution. Then three of them, prostrating themselves at the feet of Leodegar, begged pardon and indulgence; but the fourth, with sword drawn, stood ready to kill the Saint. He, having prayed well for all who had harassed him and for his slayers, having given thanks to God that he had come to this last day, having implored the mercy of Christ, offered his neck, which that man cut off who, as I have just said, stood ready to do it.

[251] The forest in which St. Leodegar was killed in a forest even today is even today, says Mabillon in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 541, distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar, in the pagus of Arras. The same is affirmed, together with several other more recent authors, by Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 678, no. 3. By the pagus or territory of Arras here must be understood not the present government or castellany of Arras, but that tract of lands which formerly, as Malbrancq teaches in book 2 of De Morinis, chapter 57, embraced the Austrebates, Ostrebates and Adarctenses, and therefore, besides the present government of Arras, several other regions, and also part of Picardy. For, as we shall teach below, the place in which the wife of Chrodobert, as will be said shortly, saw to the burial of the body of the slain St. Leodegar is distant about two hour-leagues from the present government or territory of Arras; and it does not appear likely that the forest in which Leodegar was killed was so great a distance from the place in which he was buried immediately after his death; and therefore by the pagus of Arras, in which the forest is situated which the Saint had for his arena, there must not be understood the castellany of Arras, but that more extensive tract of lands which I have already designated, and which, for the sake of brevity and at the same time of distinction, I shall henceforth name the ancient territory of Arras. Further, there is no doubt that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries there existed in the ancient territory of Arras a forest distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar; for Baldric, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, in book 1 of the Chronicle of Cambrai and Arras, chapter 20 towards the end, writes thus: Having (Leodegar) conveyed into the territory of Arras, he (Ebroin) caused him to be beheaded in the place which is called the Forest of St. Leodegar. And this writer flourished at the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth, and was moreover of a noble family of Artois, so that he seems to have known exceedingly well what he wrote here, and cannot deservedly be held suspect of error.

[252] Yet all the geographical maps of the past as well as of the present century, called after St. Leodegar, at least those which I have to hand, distinguish no forest whatever by the name of St. Leodegar in those regions which can be attributed to the ancient territory of Arras, and therefore it will perhaps seem doubtful to someone whether Mabillon and the other authors speak the truth when they affirm that a forest even today is distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar in the pagus of Arras. As far as I am concerned, I think that what Mabillon says is the fact, whatever may be argued from the geographical maps. For geographers often do not distinguish forests each by its own name in the geographical maps which they draw up, especially if these have a village of the same name adjoining them. Thus, on the testimony of Martinière in his Geographical Dictionary, in the Beauce, a tract of France, there exists a forest distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar with a village of the same name, and nevertheless Blaeu and Jansson, in the geographical maps of the Beauce drawn up by them, do not distinguish it by the name of Leodegar, content to have named only the village of the same name adjacent to the forest. I observe that the very same thing is often done elsewhere too by these and other geographers, and therefore from the fact that the geographical maps distinguish no forest whatever situated in the ancient territory of Arras by the name of St. Leodegar, it does not follow that in that same territory there is in reality no forest distinguished even today by the name of Leodegar. But, you will say, in what quarter of the ancient territory or pagus of Arras, then, is that forest situated which is distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar? I answer: towards the head of the river Quantia, in French la Canche, is situated a village called St. Leodegar, and, as I find noted in the more recent geographical map of Northern Picardy and Artois made by Guillaume de L'Isle, member of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Paris, a forest of no mean size lies not far from it. This I think Leodegar had for the arena of his martyrdom, and that on that account it is distinguished by his name even today. And I think this for this reason, that, as I shall show below, St. Leodegar was buried in the village just mentioned, and it appears likely that the place in which he was buried was not far distant from the place or forest in which he had been killed. Nothing else is available hitherto by which I might determine more certainly the site of the forest in which Leodegar was killed. I come now to the circumstances that immediately followed the Saint's death.

[253] and he is buried These, together with those in no. 22, Ursinus, with whom the anonymous author again agrees almost word for word, sets forth in this manner: While he (Leodegar) was saying these things, the striker, stretching out his sword, cut off his head, and his body is said to have remained standing upright for about the space of one hour. But when the swordsman saw that he did not yet fall, he struck him with his foot, so that even thus he might fall to the ground the more quickly. But not long afterwards his striker, seized by demons and bereft of his mind, struck by the vengeance of God, threw himself into the fire, and there ended his life. Thus, namely, did the Lord soon avenge the injury of His Servant now slain, who, while he lived, had endured unavenged so many reproaches and so many vexations from Ebroin, and that without any fault of his own, which I think not even Valesius denies when, in tome 3 of the Frankish Affairs, having narrated the death of Leodegar and the translation of his sacred remains, he writes thus on page 317: Which Prelate (Leodegar) would seem to have been more fortunate, and would have escaped a bloody death, if he had taken care only of his own church, and had not mixed himself in the commonwealth. For although this expression is somewhat rather crude, and seems in some way to insinuate that Leodegar at least gave occasion to the dire torments which he suffered from Ebroin, nevertheless Valesius himself soon afterwards, in order to exempt the Saint from blame, adds that he could not but involve himself in the commonwealth, which indeed appears beyond doubt. For Leodegar, as it at least seems to me, did not involve himself in the business of the commonwealth except when the evident advantage of the Church and the reckoning of his office demanded it; and since for that reason he was from time to time compelled to resist the wicked counsels of Ebroin, he stirred up against himself the implacable hatred of a man who could not bear to be resisted by anyone, sinister suspicions, and the most savage persecutions, so that Leodegar suffered all the extremest torments, and at last death itself, not through any desert of his own but through the sole malice of Ebroin. But let these things suffice that have been said for exempting our Saint from blame: I pursue my undertaking. The wife of Chrodobert, to whom, as we have taught, the Saint had promised that his death would turn out to her good if she herself buried his body, by no means failed in her duty here. For she saw to it that the sacred remains of the holy Martyr, when he had not long been killed, were committed to burial in the oratory of the villa which had the name of Sarcingum or Sarcinium. Ursinus, after the words just recited, with nothing else put before it, narrates the matter thus: Then (his impious slayer having been divinely punished not long after the death of Leodegar), at the command of the wife of this man Chrodobert, he was carried away by the servants (of Chrodobert) with great weeping of those lamenting into a certain villa, Sarcingum by name; by the decree of this woman (the wife of Chrodobert) the blessed Martyr was buried in a very small oratory with the garments in which he had been slaughtered.

[254] The villa in whose oratory Leodegar is here said to have been buried in a village of the territory of Arras is most probably to be taken not for a rustic farm but, as often elsewhere among the writers of the middle age, for a village. This was without doubt situated in the diocese of Arras, then united with the diocese of Cambrai. This becomes plain from the dispute that arose concerning the body of St. Leodegar after the death of Ebroin between Vindicianus, bishop of the church of Arras, Ansoald of that of Poitiers, and Ermenarius of that of Autun. For in it Vindicianus, bishop of Arras, attempted to claim the sacred body of Leodegar for his church on this ground, that it lay buried in his diocese. The anonymous author testifies to this in the Translation of our Saint written by Audulf the abbot. Then, he says in no. 58, Vindicianus, prelate of Arras, in whose diocese he (Leodegar) had been killed, is said to have answered: By no means shall it be done as you (Ansoald and Ermenarius), holy pontiffs, have spoken; but let the faculty be granted to me of having the body of this Blessed man , since it is an honour to this place, in which he deigns to rest. From which words it is also understood that the forest in which the Saint was killed was likewise situated in the diocese of Arras. But, you will say, which is that village of the diocese of Arras in whose oratory the body of the slain Leodegar was buried? In those parts which can be reckoned to the ancient territory of Arras there are two villages distinguished by the name of Leodegar to which the burial of the holy Prelate is ascribed. Of these the one is situated at the sources of the river Alteia in Picardy, the other towards the head of the Quantia in Artois; in the former Mabillon, in the Second Benedictine Century in the Annotations, page 705, but in the latter Baillet, in tome 3 of the Lives, column 28 in the margin, indicates that Leodegar was buried.

[255] But with this latter author, not with the former, as far as I think, situated towards the head of the Quantia, one must here agree. For the village in which Leodegar was buried was, in the age of the Baldric praised above, when he was writing his Chronicle, situated on the borders of the bishoprics of Cambrai and of the Morini. Leodegar, says this writer in the work, book and chapter cited in no. 251, was buried

in the villa which is called Sercin, which is on the border of the bishopric of Cambrai and of the Morini; and therefore he was not buried in the village of St. Leodegar situated at the sources of the Alteia; for this could not in the age of Baldric be said to be situated on the border of the bishopric of Cambrai and of the Morini, which I show thus. In the age of Baldric the bishopric of Cambrai was united with that of Arras up to the year 1094; while that of the Morini embraced the present dioceses of Ypres, Saint-Omer and Boulogne; but it is certain that the village of St. Leodegar at the sources of the Alteia in Picardy is situated neither on the borders of the bishopric of Cambrai and of Ypres or Saint-Omer or Boulogne, nor on the borders of the present bishopric of Arras and of Ypres or Saint-Omer; and therefore in the age of Baldric this undoubtedly could not be said to be situated on the border of the bishopric of Cambrai and of the Morini, unless perhaps it can now be said to be situated on the borders of the present diocese of Arras and of Boulogne. But not even this can be said. For the diocese of Boulogne, as the geographical map of the ecclesiastical province of Rheims prefixed to tome X of the enlarged Gallia Christiana shows, is separated from that of Arras by a line drawn almost straight from the head of the Quantia towards Gravelines; and there is no tract in the diocese of Boulogne from which the village of St. Leodegar at the sources of the Alteia is less distant than from the tract adjacent to the head of the Quantia, and nevertheless it is distant from this about three hour-leagues, and therefore it cannot be said to be situated on the borders of the diocese of Arras and of Boulogne. Hence further it follows that the village in whose oratory the body of the slain Leodegar was buried is not the village called St. Leodegar at the sources of the Alteia, but the village of the same name situated towards the head of the Quantia, which, according to the geographical map of Guillaume de L'Isle praised in no. 252, is distant about two hour-leagues, as I gave notice before that I would teach, from the castellany or present government of Arras towards the West, and almost as many from Dulencum, in French Doulens, a town of Picardy, towards the North, and lies very near to the diocese of Boulogne. But let these things suffice that have been said concerning the place in which the body of the slain Leodegar was interred: inquiry must now be made into the year, and the very day, on which the Saint was killed. I make my beginning from the day of his death.

[256] on the 2nd day of October indeed, In the Life of the Saint written by Ursinus, which we are going to publish in the second place, it is added immediately after the words recited in no. 253 that what is narrated beforehand was done on the fifth day of the Nones of October. So, namely, it is expressed in our manuscript codex which is marked Q.Ms. 5. But in our other codex, likewise a manuscript, which is marked P.Ms. 159, in the edition of Duchesne, in that of Mabillon, and in all our manuscript apographs, is read: On the sixth day of the Nones of October. In addition, Surius and the anonymous author of Murbach, who interpolated Ursinus, place the death of Leodegar on the sixth of the Nones of October, whence it follows that the Ursinian apographs which both those writers used were conformable to the edition of Duchesne and that of Mabillon and to our manuscript apographs. Wherefore, since so many apographs in which is written on the sixth day of the Nones of October must undoubtedly outweigh one manuscript codex of ours in which is had on the fifth day of the Nones of October, I think that the Ursinian text in which is read on the sixth day of the Nones of October must be held as genuine, and so that Leodegar was killed on the sixth of the Nones, that is, on the 2nd of October. The Life of our Saint written by the anonymous author is indeed ended in Mabillon with the following clause: The martyrdom of St. Leodegar was consummated on the fifth of the Nones of October, etc., whence someone perhaps might contend that the text of Ursinus which we have already said must be held as such is not genuine, and so that Leodegar was killed not on the 2nd but on the III of October. But that clause is absent from all our manuscripts, except from the manuscript which is noted as taken from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour. If, however, you wish that the aforesaid clause belongs to the genuine text of the anonymous author, I shall not indeed vehemently oppose it, but I say that in our praised Utrecht manuscript apograph it refers the martyrdom of Leodegar not to the fifth but to the sixth of the Nones of October.

[257] not on the third; I pronounce the same also concerning the clause with which the apograph of the anonymous author was terminated that Valesius employed in tome 3 of the Frankish Affairs for illustrating Frankish affairs. For there this author, on page 315, assigns the death of Leodegar from the relation of the anonymous author to the VI of the Nones, or the second day of October, so that this clause of the anonymous author in Mabillon, as far as regards the day to which it fixes the martyrdom of Leodegar, is perhaps not genuine, and therefore it cannot be concluded from it either that the text of Ursinus which we put forward as genuine is not genuine, or that Leodegar was killed not on the second but on the third day of October. Nor is there reason for you to object that the Saint is inscribed at the III day of October in the Calendar compiled towards the beginning of the ninth century and in the Martyrology of Gellone of equal antiquity, both extant in d'Achery, tome 2 of the Spicilegium of the more recent edition. For Saints are often, as I have warned elsewhere already in this Commentary, inscribed in Calendars and Martyrologies at other days than those on which they died. For the rest, since in Ursinus, after the burial of Leodegar has been narrated, there immediately follows in our manuscript apographs: And this is believed to have been done on the sixth day of the Nones of October: someone will perhaps doubt whether those words do not refer to the burial of the Saint alone, and therefore whether he was not killed earlier than the 2nd day of October. But those words are subjoined in one continuous run not only to the narration of the burial but also to the narration of the death of Leodegar, and therefore they seem to be referred to the latter equally as to the former. And that there is no reason why it should be doubted whether the Saint was not killed earlier than the 2nd day of October seems to be made plain even from this, that his death is referred to an earlier day by no writer whatever, whether ancient or more recent. There are added two manuscript apographs of the older anonymous author, namely that which, as I have said, Valesius used, and our Utrecht one praised in the preceding number, in both of which the martyrdom of Leodegar, as I have already indicated, is most plainly referred to the second day of October. Add also the anonymous author of Murbach, who expressly affirms that Leodegar was killed on the 2nd day of October. Here are his words: He (Leodegar) rendered up his soul to the adored Trinity for safekeeping on the sixth of the Nones of October. And so the day on which Leodegar was killed has now been defined; it remains that we define the year also.

[258] but in the year 678, which, however, from Sigebert Ursinus in nos. 21 and 22 indicates that Leodegar was ordered to be killed not long after the synod which Theodoric, as I taught in the preceding §, convoked in the year 678, and that he was in fact then killed; whence it seems rightly to follow that the Saint's death must be fixed to the year 678. For if this is deferred to the year 679, it will follow, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, that Leodegar was slain more than one year after the synod of the year 678. But so great a space of time between the Saint's death and the aforesaid synod that expression does not seem to allow, not long after the same synod had elapsed, when Leodegar, on the testimony of Ursinus, was removed from the midst; and therefore it appears that his death must be linked to the year 678. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, who had Mabillon, in the Second Benedictine Century in the Annotations, page 705, lighting the way before them, think in tome 4, column 354, that it can be gathered partly from the anonymous author and Ursinus, partly from Sigebert, that Leodegar was truly killed in the year 678, which we also establish here as the year of his death. Here is their reasoning by which they strive to prove this: Both (the anonymous author and Ursinus) assert that Ebroin was cut down when a space of almost three years had passed from the passion of St. Leodegar: further, Ebroin was extinguished in the ninth year of the reign of Theodoric according to Sigebert, of Christ 681. Therefore the holy Martyr was beheaded in the year 678. But although what the praised writers contend by the reasoning adduced might perhaps be gathered partly from the anonymous author and Ursinus, partly from Sigebert, if there be compared with Sigebert only the almost-three-year period which, according to the anonymous author and Ursinus, flowed by from the passion of Leodegar before the death of Ebroin; it nevertheless cannot be done if other assertions of the anonymous author and Ursinus also are compared with the same Sigebert. For if Ebroin, as Sigebert notes, was extinguished in the ninth year of Theodoric, it seems to follow from this epoch, compared with other assertions of the anonymous author and Ursinus, that Leodegar was killed not in the year 678 but in 679. For according to Ursinus no. 22 and the anonymous author no. 50, the body of Leodegar lay buried at Sarcinium for two years and a half, and when that time had elapsed it was raised from the earth and translated to the territory of Poitiers, which accordingly would have happened in the month of April in the third year from the death of Leodegar.

[259] compared with our biographers, is not proved. Further, according to the anonymous author and Ursinus, Ebroin was killed a little before the translation of Leodegar to the soil of Poitiers, which therefore most probably happened about the month of March, likewise in the third year from the death of Leodegar. Wherefore, if Ebroin, as Sigebert writes, was slain in the ninth year of Theodoric, it follows that this happened in the year 682. For since, according to § VIII of this Preliminary Commentary and the chronology now commonly received by all the learned, and by the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana themselves and by Mabillon (see no. 82 of this Preliminary Commentary), Theodoric can only have begun to reign in the year 673 already advanced to its last four months or a little more, the ninth year of his reign, marked at the month of March, falls in the year of Christ 682, in which therefore, if the chronology of Sigebert here be true, Ebroin would have been removed from the midst. But if from the year 682, advanced to about the month of March, the two years and a half during which Leodegar lay buried at Sarcinium before the death of Ebroin are computed in retrograde order, by descending one comes to the year 679 with the greater part of it elapsed, so that from the ninth year of Theodoric, which Sigebert establishes as the year of Ebroin's death, compared with the assertions of the anonymous author and Ursinus, it follows that Leodegar was killed not in the year 678 but in 679. Nor is there reason for you to reply that Ebroin was perhaps killed in the ninth year of Theodoric not in the month of March or April, but in December or November; for thus he, since he was certainly killed before the translation of Leodegar, would have been slain two years and about as many months after the death of Leodegar, which time, computed in retrograde order from the month of December or November of the year 681, leads to the year 679 advanced to about the month of September or October, and therefore even so it will follow from Sigebert compared with our biographers that Leodegar was killed not in the year 678 but in 679. Therefore the year which we establish as the year of Leodegar's death cannot be gathered partly from these and partly from him; nay rather, since from hence

it follows on the contrary that the Saint, as we have shown, was killed in the year 679, I am compelled here to desert the chronotaxis of Sigebert, both on account of the arguments by which I have already before fixed the death of Leodegar to the year 678, and on account of the chronology now received among all, according to which the death of Leodegar is linked to the same year 678.

* that is, injuriæ of injury

* others pronus prone

* others resumpto spiritu having recovered his breath

* others viribus strength

* that is, consanguinei kinsmen

* others add cupientes desiring

* others lack relinquerent they should leave

* others lamenta laments

* others in [in]

* others ae

* others & … decreto and … by the decree

* others habendi of having

* others datus given

§ XVII. The Saint becomes illustrious after death by miracles: Ebroin strives to hinder the fame of these, and is unhappily killed in the year 681.

Various miracles take place at the Saint's tomb, by the fame of which Just as Ebroin strove that Leodegar, while still surviving among the living, should be believed to have been privy to the murder inflicted on Childeric, so probably he also took pains that the Saint, now taken from among the living, should not be thought to have been innocent of that crime and therefore unjustly killed. And indeed to a crafty and wily man arts and deceits were not lacking by which he might perhaps have been able to remove the innocence of the Saint from the knowledge of most men. But the Lord Himself shortly attested this by so many miracles worked at the tomb of Leodegar that from them anyone could easily understand that the Saint had by no means been guilty of the crime under pretext of which he had been killed. Those miracles our anonymous author, from the relation of Audulf the abbot submitted to him, commemorates in general in these words in no. 51: Which venerable Martyr (Leodegar) healed many crowds of the sick and of those held by divers infirmities who came to his venerable prayers; to the lame also he gave the power to walk, on the blind he bestowed light, those possessed by demons he cleansed, and he shone forth with many miracles in the venerable dwelling of this place in which the Saint lay buried. He then adds in the same number in particular a miracle which, the patronage of Leodegar having been implored, was worked in favour of the sacristan of the church of Sarcinium, in which the Saint lay buried, and he adds in no. 52 that it then came to pass that the illustrious fame of the blessed Martyr's sanctity spread more and more widely, and that the miracles done at the Saint's tomb did not long remain hidden from Ebroin. The things which he then narrates indicate that Ebroin was not a little disturbed by the rumour of the miracles worked by the invocation of Leodegar, spread far and wide. To this, roughly, his narrative comes down.

[261] Ebroin, whether he in fact doubted the truth of the said rumour as it spread, Ebroin, stirred up, sends someone to inquire into it, and he, by divine agency or at least wished to have the miracles which he heard were being done at the tomb of Leodegar ascertained with more exact knowledge, secretly sent a trusted man to the tomb of the holy Prelate, who should inquire into the truth of the matter and report certain things back to him. But that spy, not unlike his master, brought upon himself utter destruction by his irreverence towards the Saint and God. For having entered the church of Sarcinium, and having been informed of the place in which Leodegar lay, he had no regard for the Saint or the sacred place, but, swollen with pride, struck the ground with his foot in contempt of the blessed Martyr, and denied that any miraculous power belonged to a dead man. Hence it came about that that unhappy man, God, as it appears, avenging the injury inflicted on Himself and His Saint, miserably perished on the journey before he could report to Ebroin the things seen and heard, having learned to his own great harm with how great power the holy Martyr was endowed, which he had been unwilling to acknowledge before. All these things, as I have just indicated, the anonymous author reveals, or at least insinuates, in the place just cited, and he adds in no. 53 that Ebroin, having heard of the vengeance of God upon the man sent by him, suffused with shame, dared to communicate the matter to no one except his wife, lest, as the glory of Leodegar increased, his own should decrease and be diminished.

[262] punished with death, he himself, while he strives to obscure the Saint's glory, Here are the very words of the anonymous author on this matter: These things that had befallen the man sent by him being thus known, the most wicked Ebroin kept them in a silent heart, and, trembling within himself with shame, he dared to disclose them to no one except his wife, lest perhaps, as the glory of the Martyr increased, his own, who had desired to extinguish such a light, should be diminished among the peoples. But the more that wretched man, namely Ebroin, desired that the report of the punishment divinely inflicted on his spy, and of the other miracles of Leodegar, should be extinguished, the more it grew strong and was spread in every direction. Hence Ebroin, in order to hinder a thing which he thought most harmful to his name, even threatened harm to those who had learned of any miracles of Leodegar if they should publish what they had learned, which he either held to be false himself, or at least wished to be held false, and feared lest they should be known and believed by anyone. The anonymous author again indicates all these things in the number just cited. But while Ebroin thus attempts to hinder or extinguish the glory of Leodegar among men, he himself was unexpectedly extinguished, struck with a sword, namely, by a Frank of the first rank, from whom, having snatched away almost all his fortunes, he was planning to snatch his life also. Valesius, in tome 3 of the Frankish Affairs, page 332, partly condensing, partly interpreting the words of our anonymous author at nos. 54, 55 and 56, sets forth the matter thus: A Frankish noble, who then was discharging the fiscal office, had intercepted public money. Having found in this an occasion for plunder and cruelty, Ebroin despoiled him of almost all his estates and possessions: and not content with this penalty, he threatened the man besides with graver things.

[263] unhappily slain by Ermenfrid The noble, therefore, understanding that a bloody death, or at least a destitute exile, was hanging over him, now stripped bare, takes courage from desperation, and resolves to kill Ebroin unawares. The laity were then accustomed on Sundays to be present at the morning hymns which were sung in the church. On a Sunday, therefore, early before daylight, he watches armed at Ebroin's door for his coming out, in order to cut him down as he proceeded to the solemnities of the morning Masses, and, leaping out unexpectedly, kills him when he had scarcely come out over the threshold. In this manner Ebroin, who had killed many with the sword, himself also perished, struck with the sword on the head. Unhappy man, who, advanced to such great honours, and most renowned in fame in the whole world, while he will not spare his enemies, while he avenges his injuries by every means, and cruelly kills great priests and nobles, lost with his life a lofty glory and power such as had belonged to no one of the Franks before. Thus Valesius, as I have already indicated, from the anonymous author, from whom, nevertheless, the second continuator of Fredegar dissents somewhat here, who flourished at the beginning of the eighth century, and therefore, since he was not far removed from the age of Ebroin and is otherwise sufficiently exact in narrating things, seems to deserve entire credence. He calls the slayer of Ebroin Ermenfrid, and writes thus in chapter 98: Ebruin also oppressed the Franks cruelly more and more lavishly, until at length he prepares threats for Ermenfrid the Frank, that is, notes Bouquet, makes trouble for him or contrives snares, and arranges to take away his property. Having formed a plan with his own people, by night, having collected a band of companions, rising against him during the night, he killed Ebruin: and he having been slain, he came to Duke Pippin in Austrasia with his gifts. The narrative of this author is approved by Valesius. For having set this down first, he adds in the tome cited, page 333: Certainly it is quite likely that one man, with no partners in the plan, with no helpers, would not have dared so great a deed (the killing of Ebroin), and would not have executed it so easily, and escaped so happily. But be it so: Ermenfrid may not have killed Ebroin except with others joined to himself in the partnership of the crime; yet not on that account does the praised Continuator of Fredegar conflict with the anonymous author, since the latter does not declare that the slayer of Ebroin had no partners in his crime. The epoch of Ebroin's death must now be examined more accurately.

[264] The year in which he was killed is best gathered from the year of Leodegar's death, He is killed in the year 681. and from the time which, as is understood from our anonymous author, intervened between this and the death of Ebroin. This indeed I have already sufficiently indicated by anticipation in no. 259, on account of the connexion of the matter, but now I show it clearly here in its own proper place: the year of Christ 678, advanced to the 2nd of October, was, as we have seen, the year of Leodegar's death; and the slaughter of Ebroin, as the anonymous author indicates, happened a little before the translation of Leodegar from the church of Sarcinium to the soil of Poitiers, and therefore a little before April of the year 681, since this took place in that month and year, as we taught in the preceding §, and shall teach at more length in the following. Further, since from the 2nd of October of the year 678 up to April of the year 681 two years and a half run out, it follows that between the year of Leodegar's death and the slaughter of Ebroin almost two years and a half intervened, and therefore that the latter was killed in the year of Christ 681, and that a little before the month of April. Hence you may now gather what I warned of before, that the ninth year of the reign of Theodoric III, since it only began in the year 681, about the month of September, cannot be joined with the year in which Ebroin was killed; and that the almost three years which the anonymous author indicates in no. 55 intervened between the death of Leodegar and that of Ebroin comprise two whole years with about five months. For the rest, the year which we here establish as the year of Ebroin's death can in some measure be confirmed from the Chronicle of St. Médard of Soissons, which exists inserted in tome 2 of d'Achery's Spicilegium of the more recent edition. For in it is read thus: In the year DCLXXXI Ebroin, prince of the Franks and duke, prefect of the palace and mayor of the house, was killed. The year in which the slaughter of Ebroin happened having been thus examined, it pleases me now to bring forward the judgements of some learned men concerning Ebroin, so that from them the studious reader may discern whether our biographers deservedly or undeservedly from time to time paint that most celebrated man in foul colours.

[265] Pagi in the Critica at the year 681, no. 27, Although all writers ascribe many crimes to Ebroin having narrated the death of Ebroin, pronounces thus: Ebroin held the prefecture of the palace first under Clothar III, and then under Theodoric his brother; a cruel, rapacious, perfidious man, who considered it right to cut the throats of his enemies and to destroy all who were suspect to him; which he accomplished under King Theodoric, a dull man, the more licentiously and easily because, preserving to him an empty name, he had transferred the administration of the kingdom to himself. He then refers, for certain vices and virtues with which Ebroin was endowed, to Hadrien Valesius, whose judgement in this matter we also shall praise below. Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 687, no. 6, announces the death of Ebroin in this way: As regards the affairs of the Franks, in the same year the Gauls are purged of a very great evil, when the truculent executioner, drunk with the blood of the Saints, Ebroin, is killed: for in the third year from the martyrdom of St. Leodegar he is slaughtered by Ermenfrid. Gérard Du Bois in the History of the Church of Paris, having narrated the unhappy end of Ebroin, adds: This was the end of Ebroin, a most audacious man, who left nothing undone to make for himself the supreme power in the kingdom, and who obscured great virtues by very many and very grave vices, the first of all the prefects of the palace who, despising the royal authority, at his own nod all things

began to rule; for although before this there was already great authority in the prefects, it was not nevertheless such that under it the power of the kings should groan abolished, whose counsellors rather than governors they believed themselves to be. Thus plainly all the writers, both more recent and more ancient, whom at least I have been able to consult, when they pass judgement on the character of Ebroin, charge him either with rapacity, or with savagery, or with ambition, or with perfidy, or with all these vices at once.

[266] [nevertheless Le Cointe deservedly attempts to clear him of the crime of apostasy;] Le Cointe nevertheless, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year of Christ 670, no. 3, at the year 681, no. 62, and in some other places, strives to defend the reputation of Ebroin. And indeed he labours, not undeservedly, as it at least appears to me, to clear this prince of the crime of apostasy, writing thus at the year 678, no. 5: The deed of Ebroin (the savagery exercised against Leodegar) cannot be excused; yet not on that account are Audoenus, Reolus and other most holy Prelates to be blamed, between whom and Ebroin it is established that the closest friendship existed at that time and in the following years. For although Ebroin, his hair shorn, had put on the clerical habit, most nevertheless felt that a free return to secular desires lay open to him, because, a married man, he had laid aside his hair neither with his wife's assent nor of his own spontaneous will, nor had he permitted himself to be initiated into sacred Orders. So he, and rightly: yet what he says, that most then felt that a free return to secular desires then lay open to Ebroin, this indeed Audoenus, Reolus and some others perhaps felt; but not most, as it at least appears to me. For by most of the biographers of the Saints of Neustria of the seventh century who have made mention of Ebroin, this prince is branded with the opprobrious name of an impious apostate. Certainly St. Filibert, contemporary with Ebroin, by no means felt what Le Cointe says. For in the Acts of this Saint, which have been illustrated by us at the XX of August, the anonymous and nearly contemporary monk of Jumièges records these things in no. 18.

[267] as he does not likewise When therefore the pestilent Ebroin, who had been driven from the palatine honour by the race of the Franks on account of his excessive cruelty, having entered Luxeuil as a cleric with his hair shorn, having become an apostate, armed with the spirit of malignity, had begun to gnash with rabid teeth against the noble priests and Franks, and, very many consenting with him, had against the command of God recovered his place of honour, the holy Filibert went to him and bestowed on him words of preaching. And when he wished to give him great gifts, the Man of God, rejecting them all, said that he was an apostate, and that a Christian man ought not to have fellowship with him, thinking that by this deed he might have been able to obtain the palm of martyrdom by the edge of the sword. From which words indeed it is clear that Filibert, as also his biographer, did not feel what Le Cointe affirms most felt. I think nevertheless that it can be doubted whether Ebroin, who had put on the monk not of his own accord but compelled by the necessity of escaping death, and had not yet received sacred orders, could not freely return to the world, when opportunity was given, without any offence to God, so that Le Cointe, as I have already said, not undeservedly attempts to remove from him the stain of apostasy.

[268] But this writer exceeds due measure when, at the year 670, no. 3, in the same way from ambition, in order to defend the reputation of Ebroin, he writes thus: Ebroin had as sharers of his counsels and appraisers of his deeds men equally eminent in learning, piety and the pontifical insignia, Chrodobert, bishop of Paris, and St. Audoenus, bishop of Rouen, with whom he ruled the dominions of Clothar tranquilly and peaceably. The contemporary author who wrote the Life of St. Bathild testifies that the kingdom of Clothar stood firm in peace, the most excellent princes applying themselves to that work, Chrodobert, bishop of Paris, and the lord Audoenus, and also Ebroin the mayor of the house, with the rest of the seniors. And St. Audoenus in the Life of St. Eligius constantly affirms that Clothar died while he was reigning quietly and tranquilly. Besides, Ebroin, as we have already taught by some examples, gave not a few signs of remarkable piety under the principate of Clothar, since he himself built monasteries, or helped pious men in building others. These things openly show that there happened to Ebroin what is wont to happen to men placed in such a dignity, that in whatever manner they administer the affairs committed to them, they incur the hatred and envy of others who desire to enjoy similar fortune and do not enjoy it. For since he puts these words immediately before these: Both (our anonymous author and Ursinus), because they stand on the side of Leodegar, rave the more freely against Ebroin, with whom Leodegar had grave contentions, Le Cointe seems to wish that Ebroin was free of those wicked dispositions with which, nevertheless, the anonymous author and Ursinus indicate that he was infected. Of those wicked dispositions the chief are three; namely immoderate ambition, the passion for revenge, and monstrous cruelty in exercising it.

[269] But I do not see by what reasoning Le Cointe can clear Ebroin of those blemishes. from ambition, For it is clear from the undoubted deeds of the man himself how covetous he was of honour and dignities, and how cruel beyond measure towards those whom he held in hatred. To begin with proving that which is first, Ebroin, having come out of Luxeuil after the death of Childeric, considered nothing unlawful for himself in order to be restored to the former honour or dignity of the prefecture of the palace. Having pursued King Theodoric together with the mayor of the house Leudesius with arms, he nefariously killed the latter, summoned to him with safety promised on oath, against the faith given; and the former he harassed with open war until, partly by force, partly by fraud, he recovered the dignity which he had lost. These things indeed invincibly prove that Ebroin laboured very greatly under the vice of ambition; and they are established partly from the anonymous author, nos. 24 and 25, partly from chapter 96 of the continued Fredegar and from the Deeds of the Kings of the Franks, in which in chapter 45 these things are read: Leudesius (Ebroin, namely, coming upon them) together with King Theodoric and very many companions escaped by flight. But Ebroin pursued them as far as the villa of Bacio, and there seized the royal treasures. Then after this, coming to Crisciacum, he received the king; and Leudesius, faith having been given, he bade come to him. Which done, he killed Leudesius, and himself shrewdly recovered the principate.

[270] I show now that it is also clear from the very deeds of Ebroin himself from an immoderate passion for revenge, that he was exceedingly eager for revenge. In the Annals of Metz of the Franks, in Bouquet, tome 2 of the Writers, page 677 and following, these things are read: But in the succeeding years, (Ebroin), when another king, namely Theodoric, who had been a friend to him, had taken up the empire of the Franks, again leaving the monastery, and retaining only the habit of the tonsure, casting off the monastic habit, having taken back his wife, again seized the honour of the mayoralty of the house. But the more inordinately and unlawfully he entered on the administration of that office, the more perversely and wickedly he exercised its government. For those who had been his adversaries at the loss of his first principate he so persecuted that he despoiled some of life, and very many of liberty and of their own means. These things certainly show that Ebroin, from a passion for revenge, raged against many who had formerly opposed him, and therefore was by no means free of that wicked disposition. And although the Annals of Metz were compiled at least two centuries after the age of Ebroin, yet their author, as Bouquet notes in the Preface, drew out from more ancient writers all those things which precede the year 687, and so he seems here to deserve entire credence. In addition, what they report bearing on this matter none of the learned calls into doubt, and it is admitted at the year 681, no. 62, by Le Cointe himself, who, although he indicates in that same place that Ebroin, restored to the mayoralty of the house, raged against many who had formerly opposed him not from a passion for revenge but in order to provide for himself, nevertheless neither expressly strives to clear of revenge, nor indeed could he have cleared of it, the savagery of the same Ebroin against St. Leodegar, who he supposed had at some time opposed him, exercised even then when he had nothing further to fear from him, inasmuch as he was already deprived of his eyes.

[271] and from the cruelty exercised from it: Nay, which is to be proved in the third place, that very savagery of Ebroin most certainly proves also that that man was of a most cruel nature. For from whom, unless from a man to be compared in cruelty with the very tyrants of the first martyrs, could those most dire torments have proceeded with which he afflicted Leodegar, already deprived of his eyes for almost two years? From whom, unless from a man cruel beyond all measure, could that false imputation of a most atrocious crime have proceeded, under pretext of which he at last killed the holy Prelate, almost two years after the cutting off of his tongue and lips, in order to snatch from him his good name together with his life? Truly this cruelty of Ebroin towards Leodegar is so ferocious, so foul a deed, that Le Cointe himself confesses that it cannot be excused, who nevertheless attempts to excuse the crimes of Ebroin wherever he can by any reasoning. For this cause also especially Ebroin is painted in foul colours indeed in the Chronicle of Centula of St. Riquier, in d'Achery, tome 2 of the Spicilegium of the more recent edition, page 301. Here are the words: Theodoric therefore, surviving his mother Baldetild, took up the helm of the kingdom: and when that true dissembler and false monk, namely the most wicked Ebroin, had heard this, he deserted the monastery, cast off the habit, and, restored by the same king as mayor of the royal house, inflicted many evils on those who had formerly resisted his counsel in choosing a king. But among all the unspeakable works of his most savage cruelty, that is proved most detestable, that he afflicted the most reverend pontiff Leodegar with such great injuries and with such manifold torments, that in the very contriving of the punishments he is believed to have equalled, or even surpassed, the savagery of the pagan princes of old. I do not think that more is needed here by which the monstrous savagery of Ebroin may be proved, since from what has already been said the dire torments with which he most wretchedly afflicted Leodegar prove it enough and more than enough. Let the studious reader now discern whether, by the words recited in no. 268, Le Cointe rightly enough exempts Ebroin from the vices under which our biographers indicate that he laboured.

[272] These indeed use, which far be it that I should approve, from time to time a harsher and rougher manner of speaking hence the opinion of Valesius is approved, than is fitting, but not on that account are the things false which they affirm concerning Ebroin. I think nevertheless, which is not opposed to them either, that Ebroin, however given to ambition, revenge, cruelty and other vices too, was a man vigorous in wars, and not destitute of all piety, so that the author of the Life of St. Praejectus, inserted in our Work at the XXV of January, and Valesius in tome 3 of the Frankish Affairs seem to pronounce nearly the truth concerning him. I transcribe here the words of both. Those of the former, in no. 12, are these: Leodegar… most impiously slain by Ebroin, count of the palace, a man vigorous in other respects, but too ferocious in the killing of priests, obtained the palm of martyrdom, and is now mighty with sacred miracles. And those of the latter, on folio 334, are these: Having received it again, he (Ebroin) held the prefecture for nine years (nay, as it is easy to gather from what has already been discussed, for seven years at most, and those incomplete). A man who can neither be sufficiently praised nor abundantly blamed, great in spirit, provident in counsel, vigorous, swift in carrying out affairs, and never resting before he had executed what he had determined, in labours and dangers

unconquered, and one who by the building of the monastery of Soissons and by the friendship of the holy bishops Audoenus, Drausio, Regulus, Aegilbert and others bore witness to some piety: the same man cruel, rapacious, perfidious, who considered it right to deceive his enemies by perjury, to despoil them, to cut their throats; who spared none of those by whom he had been cast down from the prefecture, destroyed all who were suspect to him, and harassed France with frauds, savagery and proscriptions: very many of the nobles of the Franks fleeing to Pippin, and suppliantly begging that he would snatch them from the hands of the tyrant. Why should I recount his ambition, which was so great in Ebroin that for the sake of recovering the prefecture he pursued the king together with the mayor of the royal house with arms and attempted to capture them, and endured no one of the Frankish nobles as his equal, and in fine wished alone to command all, and the king himself?

[273] For Ebroin was the first to seize a tyranny under the name of the palatine prefecture, [according to which Ebroin, although infected with many vices, yet seems to have been a man] and what he had begun after the withdrawal of Queen Balthild in the last years of Prince Clothar, he accomplished under Theodoric, a dull man, the more licentiously and easily because he had been restored to the dignity almost by force, and had occupied the palace as it were by right of war. He therefore had the king in his power, and, preserving to him an empty name, took away from him the administration of the kingdom and transferred it to himself, and usurped the supreme command of all things. Thus far Valesius, from the first, as it appears, and the second continuator of Fredegar and various biographers of the Saints of the seventh century, rightly enough; yet what he says, that Ebroin bore witness to some piety by the building of the monastery of maidens at Soissons, of the most holy Virgin Mary, and by the friendship which he cultivated with Audoenus and certain other holy bishops, might be called into doubt. For as to his having cultivated friendship with St. Audoenus and some other bishops, he could have done this, crafty as he was, partly out of some political view, partly because he did not in the least suspect that those bishops had at any time opposed him, so that, although that friendship is an argument that Ebroin was not opposed to absolutely all pious men, piety perhaps had by far the smallest part in it. But as regards the building of the aforesaid monastery of Soissons, Ebroin first built that monastery, or permitted it to be built, outside the city of Soissons, and then, when the wife of Ebroin had noticed that the religious virgins dwelt there inconveniently, he transferred the same within the walls of the same city; but he seems to have done both not so much in order to serve piety as to comply with the desire and will of his wife. For in the Life of St. Drausius, bishop of Soissons, published by us at the V of March, in no. XI, there is set before the narration of the building of the aforesaid monastery: Therefore at that time, when Ebroin was held the foremost in the royal palace, and most intimate in the counsels of the king, and also the most noble among the primates of royal dignity, the often-mentioned bishop (Drausius) providently chose first to reveal his wish in the ear of the most noble matron Leutrudis, wife of the aforesaid prince Ebroin. For he sought from her and demanded with humble prayer that for the fear and at the same time the love of God she would deign to satisfy his wish, namely by persuading her husband either freely to give him the faculty of building a place of life for virgins, in any one of the places of the neighbouring parts, or that she herself with her husband * should begin it, to be diligently completed for the salvation of their souls. Favouring whose petitions, the pious wife earnestly persuaded her husband to do this very thing, or to permit him to do it, and inclined his ear by her prayers. He, overcome as much by the pious exhortations and votive prayers of his wife as of the Saint of God, promised that he would do what they asked, or permit it to be done. And the Transfer begins to be related thus in no. 14.

[274] vigorous, and not devoid of all piety, Which (that the religious virgins dwelt inconveniently in the monastery placed outside the city) the noble matron Leutrudis perceiving, because she was of a pious mind, grieved in spirit and groaned in heart that the handmaids of God were treated so negligently. Approaching therefore the aforesaid Ebroin, her husband, and drawing long sighs from the inmost heart, Alas, my lord, she said, what did we wish to do, that we should afflict the faithful of God with such great distress and loss? For not only is this the malady, that they lie subject to present evils and misfortunes, but, what is worse, if at any time a hostile attack should suddenly come upon us, or an unforeseen calamity, our sins requiring it, should fall upon us, which God forbid, these, like innocent and guiltless sheep, will be turned to the swords, and, as having no bulwark of protection, will be the first to be cut off. For which reason, fortune turning to no good, what ought to have turned out to us as a help for our souls will become the ruin of both of us in the future: and whence we ought to have purchased for ourselves the grace of God, thence, unless it be guarded against in act, we shall incur His wrath. For the sake of this thing let your clemency order a refuge to be prepared within the circuit of the city, to which they may flee, in which they may abide, and where, free from the incursion of enemies, they may be able to serve God there with secure mind. Soothing the soul of her husband with these and similar addresses, and cherishing him with many blandishments, she at length inclined his mind to her wish. From which words recited in this and the preceding number it seems possible to gather that Ebroin, overcome solely by the prayers of his wife, and that only with difficulty, consented to the building of the monastery of maidens of Soissons, and then to its transfer, so that he may seem to have borne witness hence to either very slight or rather no piety. But, however that may be, since it does not seem fair to interpret all the works of Ebroin in the worse sense, I truly judge that this prince was not wholly devoid of all piety, both from this, that he cultivated friendship with Audoenus and other holy bishops, and built the monastery of maidens of Soissons, or at least permitted it to be built, and from this, that he was killed on a Sunday when, about to perform the duty of a Catholic man, he was hastening to the church in order to be present, according to the custom of those times, at the morning offices on that day.

[275] Far be it also that I should pronounce, with certain persons, that one must altogether despair of the salvation of a man who died in the Catholic communion. whatever certain persons pronounce concerning his salvation. For I hold as a fable that which is narrated by Ado in the Chronicle, and which, if it were true, would indicate that Ebroin was damned. Here is the little fable itself, which, received either from some older writer or from tradition, is subjoined in the praised Ado to the narration of the death inflicted on Ebroin: There was at that time a man blinded in his eyes, one of those whose eyes Ebroin had dug out, on the island of the province of Lyons which is called Barbara. When he was sitting in the night-time on the bank of the river Saône for the sake of praying, he heard the rush of men sailing, and rising with great force of arms against the rush of the river. And when he had asked whither that vessel was bound, a voice resounded in his ears: It is Ebroin, whom we are carrying to the pot of Vulcan: for there he will pay the penalty of his deeds. This the same man heard for his consolation, that he might know what punishment the persecutors of the just experience. This whole narrative, as I have already indicated, appears fabulous, and is also held as such today by Pagi, Le Cointe and all the other learned, and that deservedly. And indeed it is not wonderful that a rotten little fable of this kind was fabricated concerning Ebroin, nor would it be to be wondered at if several more of similar bran had been fabricated, if indeed he, as Valesius writes in tome 3 of the Frankish Affairs, page 231, brought it about by avarice, perfidy and cruelty that while living he was hateful to very many, and that posterity execrated the name of the dead man, as that of Marius or Sulla.

* Duchesne cum viro with her husband

§ XVIII. The contention concerning the body of St. Leodegar, and its translation to the territory of Poitiers and then to the new church built for the Saint.

Ebroin having been killed, the body of Leodegar, Ebroin having been removed from among the living, the fame of the miracles, which were being done daily at the tomb of St. Leodegar in great number, began to wander more freely, and, carried not long after to the court, into which it had hitherto penetrated with difficulty through fear of Ebroin, it reached the very ears of King Theodoric. Then indeed he, believing with admiration that prodigies had been done at the body of Leodegar, which he had previously been ignorant had been done there, began from his heart to venerate and praise the holy Prelate, whom he had previously thought to have been guilty of the crime with which he was charged by Ebroin. But, says the anonymous author in nos. 57 and 58, after the unhappy Ebroin had made an end of life, what he, led by envy, had hidden concerning the Servant of God spread far and wide with great praises. After this, therefore, when it was truly thoroughly known to the serenity of the king and to his palace concerning the miracles of the holy Martyr, that Christ the Lord had glorified him with signs of miracles to the title of His praise, the king with admiration believed it done, and began truly to venerate as a martyr him whom through the accusation of the tyrant he had previously believed to have been culpable. Then that was carried with praise into the palace which for many days had lain hidden, concealed by his rival. There were present at that time at the court many and great bishops, and while they were now conversing among themselves freely and without fear concerning Leodegar and the miracles worked at his tomb, a pious contention arose between Ansoald of Poitiers, Ermenarius of Autun, and Vindicianus of Arras. Each, namely, of these three bishops contended to claim the sacred body of Leodegar for his own church.

[277] while the bishops Ansoald, Ermenarius That contention and its decision the anonymous author relates at more length in nos. 58 and 59, whom Mabillon, in tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 567, sets forth in this manner: The miracles at the tomb of St. Leodegar increasing daily, and the fame of them being easily carried into the court of Theodoric, Ebroin being dead, a contention arose concerning the translating of his body among the bishops who were then numerous in the palace, in the third year after he had completed his martyrdom. Among these Ansoald, prelate of Poitiers, a man of great sanctity, contended that the sacred body was due to him, both on account of the kinship by which he was joined to the holy Martyr: and because in his own parish he had grown up to ecclesiastical honours, first indeed archdeacon of the church of Poitiers under Bishop Dido, then abbot in the monastery of St. Maxentius, before he was advanced to the bishopric of Autun. On the contrary Hermenarius, who had succeeded him in the bishopric of Autun, said: By right this body is due to me: because it is fair that he should rest there where he was bishop.

[278] and Vindicianus contend concerning it, is adjudged to Ansoald, by whose command Vindicianus, prelate of Arras, interposed against both by title of possession, inasmuch as that holy deposit was already resting in the pagus of Arras, where he (Leodegar) had been slain. To end the controversy fasts with prayers were proclaimed: and three little schedules having been placed under the pall of the altar, after the sacred solemnities of the Masses, the schedule of Ansoald is brought out first by the minister of the altar; and so the body of the blessed Martyr is adjudged to him by this lot. Ansoald, having prevailed in this way, commits to Audulf, abbot of the monastery of St. Maxentius, the care of translating the sacred body: so that where the holy Man had first professed the worship of God, there also after death he might shine forth for ever like a lamp. Thus in favour of Ansoald

that pious contention concerning the body of St. Leodegar was decided. The praised Mabillon then likewise narrates, in the place just cited, from the anonymous author, its Translation to the territory of Poitiers.

[279] many miracles having been done on the way, to the territory of Poitiers Audulf, he says, carries out the matter by no means sluggishly, having received the permission of the king, who had commanded all, wherever the holy body should pass, that it should everywhere be honoured with solemn worship. Which was done from the pagus of Arras to that of Poitiers, all both clerics and monks, with an infinite multitude of the mixed common people accompanying, pouring out to meet it with crosses and lighted candles and odours of sweetness, so that it was scarcely possible to approach the sacred bier. Nor was divine power lacking to the honouring of the Martyr, so many miracles being worked on the way that whoever, held by any infirmity whatever, had been able to touch with his hand the bier or the cloth by which it was covered, at once recovered his health. As the sacred procession approached the city of Tours, Bertus or Theodebertus, pontiff of the same city, came out to meet it with choirs of chanters and with lights, and escorted the sacred body as far as the borders of the Poitevins.

[280] it is translated by Audulf the abbot Bishop Ansoald, having heard that the holy body had now drawn near, ordered wine to be supplied to the poor and the mixed common people from his villa of Interamnis, which by no means failed in the little vessels, nay rather overflowed, however much the little vessels were believed to be drained. The wind having been calmed at the river Vigenna *, they proceeded to the villa of Gelnacum, where Ansoald with his clergy came to meet the sacred body, by whose contact one paralytic was healed in the suburban basilica of St. Radegund, and likewise another in the basilica of St. Hilary, which one of the writers of this translation calls the monastery of St. Hilary. The body having been carried out from the city of the Poitevins, the Maxentian monks receive it in great number and company, but with greater joy, and bear it into their monastery, receiving their former pastor with great devotion. There there was no measure of miracles upon all kinds of the weak and sick, to whom soundness was restored. Thus far Mabillon, namely condensing the anonymous author, who by that one writer who, as he says, calls the basilica of St. Hilary a monastery, understands the anonymous of Murbach, biographer of St. Leodegar. This is clear from the Second Benedictine Century, in which Work on page 697 he observes thus at these words the basilica of St. Hilary: The third author, who according to him is the anonymous of Murbach, calls it the monastery of St. Hilary. In addition, in our manuscript apograph of the anonymous of Murbach, monastery is noted in place of basilica.

[281] And the basilica of St. Hilary is perhaps called a monastery by that biographer for this reason, into the monastery of St. Maxentius, that he composed his work before the tenth century, before which the basilica of St. Hilary belonged to the monastery or abbey of the same name, which in the tenth century was converted into a distinguished college of canons by Ebulus, brother of William II, duke of the Aquitanians, who according to the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1227, survived among the living up to about the year 975. The Chronicle of Maillezais teaches this. For in it these things are read: He (William II, duke of the Aquitanians) gave the abbey of St. Hilary to his brother Ebulus, who placed canons there, because through the harassment of the Normans the same place had fallen away from its former habitation by monks. Concerning the monastery of St. Hilary, now a college of canons, the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana just praised supply more in the tome just cited, column 1223, to whom therefore I refer the curious reader. Some other things also might be observed here bearing on the History of the translation of our Saint, but these will more conveniently find a place in the Annotations to be added to the first Life to be published. It pleases me only to discuss here further the time of the said translation, and some other chief circumstances that followed it once it had been made.

[282] The year in which Leodegar was translated from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers in the year 681 indeed, can be determined with easy labour. For the Saint, as we taught in § XVI, was killed on the 2nd day of October of the year 678, and on the same day buried in the church of Sarcinium; and there, before he was translated, he lay interred for two years and a half, as the anonymous author in no. 50 and Ursinus in no. 22 testify. Wherefore, since two years and a half added to the year 678 advanced to the 2nd of October lead to the year 681, it follows beyond all controversy that in this year Leodegar was translated from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers. But it is not so easy to determine on what day or in what month this happened. For it can be doubted whether our biographers understand more or fewer than six months by the half year by which they affirm that Leodegar lay buried in the church of Sarcinium beyond two whole years, and therefore it becomes doubtful to which month of the year 681 the two years and a half, computed from the year 678 advanced up to the 2nd of October, during which Leodegar lay buried at Sarcinium, lead. This will nevertheless by no means be doubtful if the clause of the Life of Leodegar written by the anonymous author, of which I gave the beginning in no. 256, be genuine, and if the translation of which it treats be the translation of the Saint from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers. For that clause, according to our Utrecht manuscript apograph praised above, has thus: The martyrdom of St. Leodegar the bishop was consummated on the sixth * of the Nones of October, and the dedication of his basilica on the third of the Kalends of November; but the Translation of the holy body in the middle of the month of March. Which words openly indicate that the Translation of which they treat was made in the month of March, and therefore undoubtedly in the same month also the Translation of Leodegar from the pagus of Arras would have been made, if this be not different from that, and if the clause just recited must be held as genuine, or as added by the anonymous author himself, and not as the addition of a writer of a later age.

[283] but in the month, as it appears, of April, But however much the aforesaid clause be held as genuine, as perhaps it also is, it seems nevertheless, as I shall shortly teach, that the translation of which it makes mention is different from the translation of Leodegar from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers, and therefore it does not follow from the same clause that this was made in the month of March; nay, it appears that it can be proved in some measure that it was made in the month of April. For our biographers, when they take as incomplete the space of time by which they define things done, are wont either always or at least for the most part to indicate this by adding the particle almost or something similar. Thus Ursinus, when in no. 7 he defines the friendship of Leodegar with Childeric at three years, signifies that they were incomplete by adding the particle nearly. The anonymous author does the same when in no. 44 he restricts the two years during which he affirms that Leodegar resided in the monastery of Fécamp to an incomplete two years by adding the particle almost, and when in no. 55 he indicates with the same accuracy that the three years which he places between the death of our Saint and that of Ebroin are to be held as incomplete. Wherefore, if the same biographers took the half of a year by which they write that Leodegar lay interred in the church of Sarcinium beyond two whole years as an incomplete half year, they would probably also note this by some indication, and therefore, since they do not do so, it becomes probable that that half year is taken by them as a complete half year, or as six months; and since two whole years with six months, during which Leodegar lay buried at Sarcinium after his death before he was translated, computed from the year 678 advanced to the 2nd of October, on which he was killed, lead to the month of April of the year 681, in this very month and year the translation of the Saint from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers probably took place, and therefore that has been proved which I just asserted could be proved in some measure.

[284] and into the new church, Further, as regards now the other point, which I likewise gave notice beforehand that I would shortly teach, namely that the translation of which mention is made in the clause of the Life written by the anonymous author recited in no. 282 seems to be different from the translation of Leodegar from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers, I show the matter thus. The anonymous author, having narrated the Translation of the body of Leodegar to the diocese of Poitiers and its bringing into the monastery of St. Maxentius, proceeds thus in nos. 75 and 76: In honour of the most blessed Martyr himself (Leodegar), by order of the pontiff the lord Ansoald, through the labour of Audulph, father of the monastery, a house of wonderful size was built; the construction of which fabric is unlike the constructions of all basilicas. The aforesaid pontiff, wishing by this charism to fulfil the vow which he had vowed, came to this place with all the priests of his church, and a crowd of magnates, and a great throng of the common people and populace. And indeed with great praises he buried the holy body of the blessed Martyr. Then, a few things having been added which do not bear on this matter, there follows in our Utrecht manuscript apograph and in the Mabillon edition the clause recited in no. 282. Wherefore, since this is subjoined immediately to the words just recited, in which is narrated the bringing of Leodegar, when he had already for some time been translated to the monastery of Saint-Maixent, into the newly built sacred building, by the translation which it reports as made in the month of March nothing else is probably understood than the just-mentioned bringing of the Saint into the newly built church; and therefore the translation of which it makes mention seems to be different from the translation of Leodegar from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers. There is added that in the now often-mentioned clause, as will be plain to one who inspects it, there is assigned in the former place the day on which the basilica, or church, which Audulph the abbot had built in honour of Leodegar, was solemnly consecrated; and in the latter the month in which the translation of Leodegar of which it makes mention was made, so that this seems to have happened after the consecration or dedication of the mentioned basilica; and therefore, since the translation of Leodegar from the pagus of Arras was certainly earlier than that consecration, this was likewise earlier than the translation of which mention is made in the most often mentioned clause, and so also different from it.

[285] Pagi in the Critica at the year 681, no. 29, indeed thinks the same here as I do; which, as it seems, not but it is not so as regards the time at which the consecration or dedication of the Basilica built by Audulph the abbot in honour of Leodegar, and the bringing, or rather translation, of the Saint into it took place. For this writer thinks that the latter happened in the year 693, and the former in the year 690; but to me it appears more probable that the dedication of the Basilica or church built in honour of Leodegar happened on the XXX of October of the year 684, and the translation of the Saint to it in the month of March of the year 685. The reasoning of the praised Pagi, by which he strives to prove that the dedication of the church built by Audulph the abbot in honour of St. Leodegar was carried out in the year of Christ 690, comes down roughly to this: in the seventh century, in which the dedication or consecration of the church built in honour of St. Leodegar by Audulph the abbot was made, it was forbidden to consecrate churches on other days than Sundays, and therefore, since according to the clause with which the Life of St. Leodegar written by the anonymous author is terminated, the consecration of the aforesaid church built in honour of St. Leodegar was carried out on the third of the Kalends of November, or the XXX day of October, it follows

that this happened in some year in which the XXX day of October fell on a Sunday. Thus far rightly enough: for in the Third Council of Saragossa, which was celebrated in the year 691, it is decreed thus: It has been announced to us, sitting in the holy and truly venerable council, that some pontiffs, passing over the rule of truth, consecrate churches, which are built by the faithful with pious devotion, outside of Sundays. If therefore, when any one of us mortals is promoted to the priestly office, we by no means suffer that on the other days, but only on the Sunday festivals, those who are held worthy of the office of honour be set over the ecclesiastical order: how much more that the holy deified temples, which are judged worthy to be honoured by faithful men, be forbidden to be consecrated without Sundays? And we are constrained to prohibit the presumptions of such pontiffs not only by the sentence of the holy Fathers, but we also decree by our own deliberation: that it be lawful henceforth for no pontiffs at all, established * in whatever provinces, to consecrate holy churches except on fixed Sundays.

[286] in the year 690, By which canon, which is the first of the aforesaid council, it is not only prescribed that the consecrations of churches be made henceforth on Sundays, but also the bishops who consecrated churches on other days than Sundays are reprehended as passing over a rule, as it were, which the fathers call the rule of truth; whence it seems that not only in the Spanish but also in the universal Church, before the Third Council of Saragossa, celebrated, as I have said, in the year 691, it was already forbidden in the seventh century to consecrate churches on other days than Sundays. Wherefore from this, that the church built by Audulph the abbot in honour of St. Leodegar was consecrated on the third of the Kalends of November, or the XXX day of October, Pagi rightly concludes that it was consecrated in some year in which the XXX day of October fell on a Sunday. But not equally rightly does the same author bind that consecration without hesitation to the year 690, in which the XXX day of October fell on a Sunday, and not to the year 684, in which that day likewise fell on a Sunday. For he does this for the reason that, as he says, from the year 681, in which the sacred body of Leodegar was brought into the monastery of St. Maxentius, and in which the church began to be built by Audulph the abbot in honour of the holy Prelate, up to the XXX of October of the year 684 only three years flowed by, and within the space of three years a basilica could scarcely have been built which, on the testimony of our biographers, was of wonderful size and superb fabric. But since the body of Leodegar began to be translated from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers in the year 681, in the month of April, as we have already taught, it had probably, considering the distance of the places, already been brought in the same year to the monastery of St. Maxentius about the month of May, from which up to the XXX of October of the year 684 there flowed by not only three years, but three years with six months; and I do not see why within three years and six months such a church could not be built as our biographers commemorate in the words recited in no. 284; nay rather, it appears quite probable that the said church was built within that space of time: first indeed, because it does not seem that it should be doubted that Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers, by whose order Audulph the abbot was building it, vehemently insisted that that work, which was being built in honour of St. Leodegar his kinsman, should quickly be brought to completion; and then, because if it was not built within that space of time, it will follow that it was only finished, as Pagi indicates, about the year 690, and therefore that almost ten years were spent on its construction, which seems to me indeed little probable on account of the vehement and impatient desire by which Audulph the abbot and his monks were probably impelled to wish, and take care, that the church should be completed very quickly, into which they were to translate the sacred relics of that distinguished Saint, namely Leodegar, who while he lived had ruled their monastery as abbot, and, dead, was making it illustrious daily with very many miracles.

[287] but was consecrated in the year 684, Therefore, these things considered, it appears more probable to me that the aforesaid church was brought to completion in the year 684, and consecrated in the same year on the XXX day of October. But Pagi says in the place cited that from the year in which Leodegar was translated to the church built by Audulph the abbot it is more evidently plain that the dedication or consecration of the same church was made in the year 690; because, namely, Leodegar was not translated, as he thinks, earlier than the year 693 to that newly built church; whence it follows that the consecration or dedication of the same church was not made earlier than the year 690, because if it had been made in the year 684, more than eight years would have intervened between it and the translation of the Saint, which is not probable. And in order to prove, the Pagi now more than once praised, that the translation of Leodegar to the new church happened in the year 693, he reasons roughly in this manner. It cannot be called into doubt that both the translation of Leodegar into the new church and the dedication of the same church were carried out on a Sunday; and therefore, since the middle of the month of March, or the sixteenth day of this month, on which according to the clause of the Life written by the anonymous author the translation of Leodegar into the new church was made, does not fall on a Sunday from the year 682 up to the year 693; and since it is certain that that translation was not made in the year 682, it follows that it was carried out in the year 693. But I do not see for what reason it cannot be called into doubt that the translation of Leodegar to the new church was carried out on a Sunday. Was it perhaps provided by some law that no solemnity at all should be held on another day than Sunday? This indeed I find nowhere. Did custom perhaps so bear it? But from that one could depart for just cause. But be it that that translation of Leodegar was carried out on a Sunday, it will not yet follow from this that it certainly happened in the year 693. For to this, as is clear from the reasoning of Pagi just set forth, it is further required that it be certain that it was made on the sixteenth day of the month of March; and this, as it at least appears to me, cannot be made sufficiently certain. For although in the often-mentioned clause of the Life of Leodegar the translation of the Saint is said to have been made in the middle of the month of March, it is not certain that those words in the middle of the month of March cannot be taken with some latitude, so as to comprehend two or three days, on one of which the said translation might have happened.

[288] Pagi indeed adds that in some Martyrologies, on the testimony of our Henschenius, book 2 On the Three Dagoberts, chapter 16, in the year 685 advanced up to the month the translation of Leodegar is noted on the XVII of the Kalends of April, or the sixteenth day of March; but here I oppose the rule which Pagi himself very often inculcates in the Critica, and which he pronounces is to be held as a principle of chronology, when at the year 640, no. 14, having related the opinion of Mabillon concerning the year in which the bishops SS. Audoenus and Eligius were consecrated, he adds these things: Thus the most learned man (Mabillon), and indeed solidly, who, if the rule laid down by us and so often inculcated had come into his mind, would have affirmed it with all assurance: for that the depositions of the Saints, the translations of their relics, and the ordinations of holy Bishops are often inscribed in Martyrologies on other days than those on which they took place, I demonstrate by so many examples in this Work that it ought henceforth to be held as a principle of chronology. Wherefore, since according to Pagi it ought to be held as a principle of chronology that translations of Saints are often inscribed in Martyrologies on other days than those on which they took place, it ought to follow according to the same writer that it is not certain that the translation of Leodegar to the new church was made on the sixteenth day of March, although it is inscribed on that day in some Martyrologies, and therefore that hence also it is at least not certain that by the middle of the month of March, in which the translation of Leodegar is noted in the often-mentioned clause as having been made, only the sixteenth day of the same month ought to be understood. For the rest, just as it did not seem probable to Pagi that more than eight years intervened between the consecration of the church built in honour of Leodegar by Audulph the abbot and the translation of the Saint into this church, so to me it appears, if not altogether unlike the truth, at least little probable, that almost three years flowed between the aforesaid consecration and translation; and therefore, since this nevertheless must be maintained in the opinion of Pagi, as will be plain to one who considers it, it pleases me to link the translation of Leodegar into the new church to the year 685 advanced up to the month of March.

[289] of March, he is brought in. For thus between the dedication of the new church, which we fixed above to the year 684 advanced up to the XXX of October, and the translation of the Saint into the same church, only about six months will intervene, which indeed it is credible that Ansoald, however very eager to honour Leodegar, waited after the consecration of the new church, before he translated into it, with the highest solemnity and pomp, the sacred remains of his holy Kinsman, for which end he had caused it to be built. For the rest, the first translation of Leodegar to the territory of Poitiers, and then the second to the new church built in his honour, and some circumstances of both the latter and the former which our biographers teach concerning the posthumous glory of the Saint, show indeed most clearly that the worship proper to Saints was paid to him by the faithful, and that not long after his death. And these having now been set forth, I proceed to explain other things which pertain to the same argument, and which the same anonymous authors do not reveal; and in order that in narrating things I may, as far as in me lies, observe henceforth also the chronological order which I have studied to follow hitherto, I make my beginning from those things concerning which it has been possible to ascertain in what age, or about what time, they took place; while those which it has not been possible to refer, from the faith of old monuments or writers, to a definite age or century with at least some probability, or which neither are of such a nature nor further ought to be referred to a definite epoch, being mentioned in the latter place, will put an end to this Preliminary Commentary.

* la Vienne

* Mabillon quinto fifth

* perhaps constituto established?

§ XIX. The antiquity of the cult of Leodegar is further proved from the Mass with which he is honoured in an ancient Missal.

A Mass of Leodegar is inscribed in an ancient Missal; Almost all the learned today who have made mention of the antiquity of the cult with which Leodegar is honoured in the Church think that this is very greatly commended by the ancient Missal, whether Gallican or Gothico-Gallican, in which a Mass of him is inscribed. And indeed, after the work of Audulph the abbot concerning the translation of the Saint, which the anonymous author and Ursinus added to the Lives written by them, scarcely any other stronger argument, as will become plain from what is to be said, serves for proving that antiquity. For if that Missal, which, indicated by the most eminent Cardinal Bona in his Work on Liturgical Matters, Giuseppe Tommasi first of all brought out of darkness into light with Roman types in the year 1680, and which Mabillon afterwards had reprinted in his Gallican Liturgy, was written many centuries ago, nay perhaps not long after the death of Leodegar, it follows

that the Mass also with which he is honoured in it was composed either likewise many centuries ago, or not long after the death of the Saint, and that his cult in the Church therefore deservedly enjoys the highest antiquity. It will help, then, to inquire into the age or time in which it is more probable that the aforesaid Missal was written; and to this it contributes not a little if it be known whether it was Spanish or Gallican; for since it exhibits Masses ordered according to the ancient Liturgy, and this, as I shall teach below, was entirely abrogated in Gaul already in the ninth century, but in Spain much later and not entirely, it follows that the aforesaid Missal, if it be Gallican, but not likewise if it be Spanish, was written in the same ninth century or earlier, or at least that the original Missal, from which the exemplar that the praised Tommasi used was drawn, was then compiled. It matters also, as it will be possible to gather from what is to be said, whether the same Missal is ancient Gallican or Gothico-Gallican.

[291] That it is certainly not Spanish Mabillon, who cites Tommasi on his side, this certainly is not Spanish, shows in this manner in book 3 of the praised Gallican Liturgy, pages 175 and 176: Tommasi, he says, proves that this Missal of which we are treating is of the Gallican church from several feasts of the Saints of Gaul, as of St. Saturninus, bishop of Toulouse, of SS. Ferreolus and Ferrutio, martyrs of Besançon, of St. Symphorian, martyr of Autun, and likewise of St. Leodegar, bishop of the same city, and of St. Martin of Tours. He draws another argument also from the three-day Rogations before the Ascension noted in the same Missal with a Mass, which, instituted in the Gauls, came later to other churches: nay among the Spaniards were put back after the Ascension. So that it is certain that this Missal is not Spanish, although in it is related a Mass on the feast-day of St. Eulalia, virgin and martyr of Lusitania, who was formerly celebrated among the Franks, as is plain from Gregory and from Venantius Fortunatus. Thus roughly, as I have already indicated, Mabillon from Tommasi. But what he says, adducing no proof of his assertion, that the three-day Rogations before the Ascension came later to other churches, and among the Spaniards were put back after the Ascension, is partly true, partly must be understood in a sound sense. It is true that the three-day Rogations before the Ascension came to some churches later than the eighth century, in which Mabillon says the Missal of which we are treating was written. Certainly at Rome they were not instituted earlier than the year 801 by Pope Leo III. This is proved by Pagi in the Critica at the same year, no. 2. But as regards Spain in particular, today in that kingdom the supplications of the Rogations, and that, as I learn from ten Spanish Directories, those of Tarragona, Toledo, Urgell, Lleida, Valencia, Vich, Tortosa and three others which are to hand, are observed before the Lord's Ascension; but in the eighth century they either had not yet been received by the Spaniards, or had been put back after the Lord's Ascension, as Mabillon says. For then these followed the Mozarabic rites; and in the Breviary of the Mozarabs, on the testimony of Edmond Martène in the Treatise on the ancient discipline of the Church, page 514, after the Sunday within the Octave of the Lord's Ascension this Rubric is read: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ begins the office of the fasts. They are observed on the fourth feria and the fifth feria and the sixth feria and the sabbath before Pentecost, that we may frequent the church of God to entreat our Lord Jesus Christ for our sins and to obtain peace, or for hearing the holy lessons, and that the Spirit the Paraclete may come and find our dwellings clean. The fasts which are here prescribed for the fourth, fifth and sixth feria before Pentecost probably hold the place of the Rogations before the Ascension, as the praised Martène also indicates, so that the Rogations were put back after the Ascension by the Spaniards, who formerly followed the Mozarabic rites, and it is therefore certain that the ancient Missal, in which Masses to be said in the Rogations before the Ascension are noted, is not of the Spanish church.

[292] but either ancient Gallican But, you will say, of what church, then, is that Missal? Of the whole ancient Gallican church, or of the Gothico-Gallican? Cardinal Bona writes thus in book 1 of Liturgical Matters, chapter 12, no. 6: One of these codices (of the Missals which he said a little before that he had found) exists in the Library of the most serene queen of the Swedes, written nine hundred years ago, as experts judge, in square and majuscule letters, marked no. 626, which they say formerly belonged to the most distinguished man Petau, senator of Paris, but was bought by the queen after his decease. Some leaves are lacking to it at the beginning and at the end. At the beginning this title is prefixed in a more recent hand, Gothic Missal: and from it certain Liturgical prayers have been excerpted and inserted in the sixth tome of the Library of the ancient Fathers of the newest Paris edition, page 155. These words Mabillon also recites in the Work just praised, page 175, and adds: Thus far the pious and learned Cardinal, judging (which in truth it is) that this (the Missal of which we are discoursing) is an old Gallican Missal, especially of Narbonese Gaul, formerly subject to the kingdom of the Spanish Goths, so that he judges both that the Missal of which the praised Cardinal speaks is an old Missal not only of Gothic Narbonensis but also of the whole ancient Gallican church, and that the latter indicates this very thing by the words recited. But that learned Cardinal not only indicates this, but also teaches it most openly; for in the book and chapter cited, no. 5, he writes thus: Since therefore, from the testimony of Hilduin the abbot, this was peculiar to the Gallican Mass, that the passions of the martyrs were inserted in its prayers, since King Charles testifies that he summoned from the church of Toledo priests who should offer the Sacrifice before him in the ancient rite long since abolished in the Gauls: hence it is manifestly deduced that the old Gallican Mass was similar to that which was performed at Toledo and throughout all Spain, and also in Narbonese Gaul subject to the kingdom of the Goths; and then in no. 6, confirming what he had said concerning the similarity of the Gallican and Spanish Mass, he proceeds thus: For the rest, that this opinion concerning the similarity of both the Gallican and the Spanish Mass is not absurd nor incredible, other things also persuade, besides those which have been said. For while I was searching in the more celebrated libraries for old codices pertaining to the aim I had set myself, it came about by the will of God that I found two most ancient ones, and as I carefully considered their series, style, character and the individual Masses contained in them, it came at once into my mind that both are an old Gallican Missal, because they both agree exactly with those things which Hilduin attributes to the Gallic Missals seen by him, and they accord with the ancient rites of the church of Toledo, from which Charles the Bald summoned priests, that he might learn the ancient custom of Gaul from them as they celebrated; and after a few words he adds that one of the two codices found by him bears at the beginning this title added in a more recent hand, Gothic Missal; and this codex is the very Missal of which we are treating, and so the praised Cardinal in the words just recited openly teaches that it is an old Missal not only of Gothic Narbonensis but also of the rest of the Gallican church.

[293] or Gothico-Gallican In addition, in the place just cited the same Most Eminent Bona writes thus: In the codex of the queen, which it was permitted me to use for a long time through the kindness of the most distinguished man Benedetto Mellini, prefect of her library, there is a proper Mass of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, the name of Our Father being given to him; from which I suspect that this Missal was either of the church of Tours or of another Gallican church specially dedicated to this Saint; for in the Mozarabic Missal there exists indeed a proper Mass of him, but without the addition of Our Father. By which words, since the city of Tours is certainly not situated in Narbonese Gaul, he seems again to reveal that the Missal of which we are treating, and in which a Mass of Leodegar is had, was not of the Narbonese or Gothic-Gallican church alone, but also besides of the rest of the Gallican church. Tommasi, praised above, in the Preface which he puts before the book inscribed and published by him as Codices of the Sacraments, also asserts that the Missal in which the Mass of St. Leodegar is inscribed is an old Missal not only of the Gothic-Gallican but also of the whole Gallican church; in order to prove this, having adduced almost the same reasons by which Mabillon showed above that the same Missal is not Spanish, he adds this: That it (the Missal of which the discussion is here) is Gallican will likewise be proved by anyone who has noticed the agreement of the Gallican synods with it. For in the council of Agde, celebrated in the year of Christ DVI and the XXII of Alaric, king of the Goths in Gaul, it was established by Canon XIII that the Creed should be delivered publicly in the church to the competents by all churches on one day, that is, eight days before the Lord's Resurrection. Which you will find here: for the Mass of Palm Sunday is inscribed, Mass at the delivery of the creed. Likewise in Canon XXX prayers are called Collections: by which name it is established that the prayers are called in this Gothic Missal too. We have therefore now three authors who judge that the Missal in which Leodegar is honoured with a Mass is old Gallican.

[294] But Honoré de Sainte-Marie, in the Observations on the rules and use of criticism published in French, tome 3, book 5, dissertation 3, §3, is of another opinion: it is either Gothico-Gallican for he says on page 198 that it must be recalled to memory that Tommasi believed that the Missal which he names Gothic was in use in France before the Roman rites were admitted there, which, in the judgement of the same Tommasi, were very different from those which are seen in the Gothic Missal: Certainly, says Tommasi in the Preface praised in the preceding number, that this is an old Missal of the Gallican church, before it admitted the Roman rites far different from it, is held by me as almost (not fully, as is read in Honoré) ascertained. But now, says Honoré in the place cited, it is certain that the Missal in use in France before the time of Charlemagne was not that which that author (Tommasi) calls Gothic, but that which he elsewhere names old Gallican. For this is the very one, as he himself confesses, which approached much to the rites of the Roman church. Thus Honoré: and since he contends that the ancient Gallican Missal approaches more nearly to the Roman order, he proceeds roughly to this effect: Mabillon in book 3 of the Gallican Liturgy, in the Preface, also agrees that in the old Gallican Missal an order mixed from the Roman and the Gallican is exhibited; which cannot be understood of the Gothic Missal, inasmuch as it is much different from the Roman order; so that Honoré holds that the Missal which is called Gothic by Tommasi, and which contains the Mass of St. Leodegar, is not old Gallican. This very thing he also sufficiently insinuates when he says in the place cited that the liturgy similar to that of Toledo, or the Spanish, which in the Missal of which we are treating

is preserved, is not the ancient Gallican: for if the liturgy which that Missal follows is not old Gallican, it follows that neither can the Missal itself be held as old Gallican; and he holds that liturgy similar to that of Toledo, or the Spanish, as Gothico-Gallican or Gothico-Narbonese, and therefore he must also hold as Gothico-Narbonese the Missal which follows that liturgy, and which contains the Mass of St. Leodegar.

[295] or Gothico-Narbonese, Here are the very words of Honoré himself, made Latin by me from the French: Cardinal Bona, he says on the page cited, seems to have confused this (the ancient Gallican) Liturgy, which was in use among the Gauls, with the Gothic used by the Spaniards, when (in the words recited in no. 292) he says that it (the ancient Gallic) is similar to the Mass which was said at Toledo, in Spain and in Narbonese Gaul. He brings forward here the words in which the praised Cardinal affirms this, and then adds: But this learned Cardinal certainly errs: for the Gallican liturgy which is similar to the Spanish is not the ancient Gallican; but the Gothic Gallican, which is so named because it was used in the provinces of the Gauls which were under the dominion of the Goths: but the Gallican Mass was common to the rest of France. The Gallican Mass, therefore, which is similar to, or the same as, that of the Spaniards, is not the ancient Gallican, or Gelasian; but the Gothic Gallican, which was at first called Gothic because the Goths were masters of the Spains; named also Gallican because those peoples possessed Narbonese Gaul. But when the Goths were cast out of Spain by the Moors, that liturgy was no longer called Gothic or Gothic Gallican, but Mozarabic or Muzarabic. It is clear therefore that Honoré holds the ancient liturgy similar to that of Toledo, or the Spanish, not as the ancient Gallican, but as the Gothico-Gallican or Gothico-Narbonese, and so also holds the Missal which follows that liturgy, and which contains the Mass of St. Leodegar, not as the ancient Gallican but as Gothico-Gallican, however much the often-praised most eminent Cardinal Bona, Tommasi and Mabillon judge the contrary. But this writer seems here to be little consistent with himself. For concerning the three Missals produced by Tommasi and Mabillon, of which one is named by them Gothic, or Gothico-Gallican, of which we are here treating, another that of the Franks, and the third old Gallican; concerning these three Missals, I say, he observes on pages 194 and 195 that those two writers were so little consistent about the distinction which they place between those Missals that without solid foundation they gave such different names to one and the same Missal, and made three out of the one Gelasian alone; so that he holds that the Gothic or Gothico-Gallican Missal also, in which the Mass of St. Leodegar is inscribed, is Gelasian; and since now the same Honoré, on page 194 and the three following, inclines to that opinion which judges that the Missal used in Gaul before the principate of Charlemagne was the same as the Gelasian, it follows that in his own judgement the Missal which is called Gothic or Gothico-Gallican was used in Gaul before the principate of Charlemagne, and is therefore old Gallican, which certainly cannot be reconciled with those things which we have already seen him establish concerning that Missal and the liturgy expressed in it.

[296] which appears less probable; In addition, what he says in the words recited in the preceding number, that the Gallican Liturgy which is similar to the Spanish is not the ancient Gallican, and therefore neither is the Missal which follows that liturgy ancient Gallican, I would not dare to assert for certain. For that a similarity existed up to the times of Pippin and Charlemagne between the liturgy of the churches of Spain and the liturgy of the churches of Gaul was so firmly believed in the ninth century that the emperor Charles the Bald, who flourished in that century, believed that he was seeing that ancient Gallican liturgy when Mass was celebrated before him according to the rite of the church of Toledo. And lest you think this is asserted by me without foundation, there occurs in Cardinal Bona, book 1, chapter 12, no. 5, a fragment of a letter of Charles the Bald himself to the clergy of Ravenna, which has thus: Up to the times of our great-great-grandfather Pippin the Gallican churches celebrated the divine Offices otherwise than the Roman or the Milanese church, as we have seen and heard from those who, coming to us from the parts of the church of Toledo, celebrated the sacred Offices before us according to the custom of that church. There have also been celebrated before us the Offices of the Masses in the manner of Jerusalem, the apostle James being the author, and in the manner of Constantinople, Basil being the author; but we consider that the Roman Church is to be followed in the celebration of the Masses; from which it is clear that Charles the Bald thought that he was seeing the ancient Gallican liturgy when Mass was celebrated before him according to the liturgy of Toledo, and therefore that the former was very similar to the latter. I do not think, meanwhile, that both those liturgies are so altogether similar that no dissimilarity occurs in them, but this does not seem to me so great that it becomes certain on that account that the Gallican liturgy which is similar to the Spanish is not the ancient Gallican, especially if that Gallican liturgy similar to the Spanish, which is met with everywhere in the Missal now most often mentioned which contains the Mass of St. Leodegar, does not agree exactly in all things with the Spanish liturgy. For although in this Missal the order of the Mass is almost everywhere the same as in the ancient Spanish or Mozarabic Missal, the prayers nevertheless are different, as will become manifest to any who have compared the one Missal with the other. All these things considered, it appears more probable to me both that the Gallican liturgy which is similar to the Spanish is the ancient Gallican, and that the Missal about which we are here disputing is old Gallican, that is, used anciently also in Gaul which is not Narbonensis.

[297] It has pleased me to investigate at length here whether the Missal of which we are treating is Gallican for if it be Gothico-Gallican, or Gothico-Gallican, because if it be Gallican it could easily have been written at the beginning of the eighth century, in which, as I shall shortly teach, or perhaps a little earlier, it appears in fact also to have been written. But if it be Gothico-Gallican, it seems to have been written not earlier than when the eighth century was already growing old. I show the matter thus: the Annalist of Metz writes thus at the year of Christ 752: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCCLII King Pippin led an army into Gothia, and besieged the city of Narbonne, in which the Saracens were still lurking. Having tried therefore very many devices, he could not take the most strongly fortified city. Nevertheless, leaving a guard there, he afflicted those citizens with daily sallies, and after a war of three years obtained Narbonne; and having expelled those men from all Gothia, he freed the Christians from the servitude of the Saracens. From which words, since the praised annalist asserts in them that the siege of the city of Narbonne began in the year 752 and lasted for three years, it follows that its storming, and the liberation of Gothia or Narbonese Gaul from the yoke of the Saracens, happened in the year 755. That these things happened in the same year Le Cointe also affirms in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, and Pagi in the Critica: Although, says the latter, the old Chronicle, of which shortly, refers these things to the year DCCLIX. Further, it appears less probable that by the inhabitants of the province of Narbonne, before that time at which, snatched from the yoke of the Saracens, they came under the dominion of the Franks, after the order of the Sacraments and the manner of saying Masses had once been prescribed in the Fourth Council of Toledo, which was celebrated in the year 633, new Masses which were not in use in the Spanish church were introduced. For in its canon 2 it is decreed thus: After the confession of the right faith which is preached in the holy Church of God, it has pleased us that all we priests, who are embraced in the unity of the Catholic faith, do nothing further diverse or discordant in the ecclesiastical Sacraments; lest any diversity of ours should seem to the ignorant or carnal to display the error of schism, and the variety of churches become a scandal to many. Let one order of praying and chanting therefore be preserved by us through all Spain and Gaul (namely Narbonensis), one manner in the solemnities of the Masses, one in the evening and morning Offices; nor let there be any longer a diverse ecclesiastical custom among us who are held together by one faith and kingdom: for this also the ancient canons decreed, that each province should hold an equal custom both of chanting and of ministering.

[298] it does not seem, But although it can perhaps be said that by this canon it is only prescribed that henceforth in the divine Offices and in celebrating Masses the same Order and the same manner be preserved everywhere, it seems nevertheless to forbid also all diversity of the sacred ministries, or of Masses. Let us do nothing further, it says, diverse or discordant in the ecclesiastical Sacraments; lest any diversity of ours should seem to the ignorant or carnal to display the error of schism, and become a scandal to many. By which words certainly the synod disapproves universally of absolutely all diversity in the sacred ministries, and therefore seems by the canon recited to prohibit not only diversity of order in reciting Masses, but also the very diversity of Masses. Wherefore, since in the Spanish church the three-day Rogations before the Ascension, as can be gathered from what was said in no. 291, had not been received in the eighth century, it becomes probable that they were not received by the inhabitants of the province of Narbonne in the eighth century, at least before the year 755, in which, snatched from the yoke of the Saracens, they came under the dominion of the Franks, so that the Missal which prescribes the Mass of St. Leodegar, and which also contains Masses to be celebrated in the three-day Rogations before the Ascension, does not seem to have been written at the beginning of the eighth century, if it must be held as Gothico-Gallican, or if it was used only by the inhabitants of the province of Narbonne formerly subject to the dominion of the Goths; for then, as it appears, Masses for the three-day Rogations before the Ascension would by no means have suited them, and therefore they probably would not have inserted them into a Missal, if they had written one. The Missal about which we are discoursing seems therefore to have been written when the eighth century was already growing old, if it be Gothico-Gallican, or was used only by the presbyters of the province of Narbonne. But if it be old Gallican, nothing prevents its being believed to have been written at the beginning of the eighth century.

[299] [but if it be Gallican, it seems to have been written at the beginning of the eighth century,] For to show that what I asserted in no. 297 is true, there occurs in it no Mass of any feast-day or Saint that began to be celebrated in the Gauls later than the eighth century. And as regards in particular the Masses which it contains for the three-day Rogations before the Ascension, these are undoubtedly of a celebration which is earlier in the Gauls than the eighth century. For it was first instituted by St. Mamertus, bishop of Vienne in the Gauls, who flourished in the fifth century; and it had already in the sixth century been propagated to all the churches of the Gauls; this is clear from St. Gregory of Tours, who departed from among the living when the sixth century was declining to its end, and yet in book 2 of the History of the Franks, chapter 34, the Rogations by St. Mamertus

— having set forth their institution, and its manner and cause — he adds these things: Which (Rogations) up to now are celebrated in the name of Christ through all the churches in compunction of heart and contrition of spirit. Thus Gregory of Tours; but what he says, that the Rogations were celebrated up to his own age through all the churches, must certainly, as the things said in no. 291 teach, be understood not of the Spanish, nor probably also, as you may gather from what has just been said, of the Gothico-Gallican, but almost solely of the Gallican churches, which received the aforesaid institution of St. Mamertus by the prescription of the First Council of Orléans, celebrated in the year 511. For in that Council, canon 27, it is decreed thus: It has pleased that the Rogations, that is, the litanies before the Ascension of the Lord, be celebrated by all churches: so that the three-day fast set before them be broken on the festival of the Lord's Ascension, during which three days menservants and maidservants are to be released from all work, so that the whole people may the more assemble. During which three days let all abstain, and use Lenten foods. That all the churches of the Gauls which were not under the dominion of the Goths obeyed this decree is not to be doubted: so that it becomes certain that the Masses which are read for the three-day Rogations before the Ascension in the Missal of which we are treating are of a celebration earlier than the eighth century, and nothing therefore stands in the way on this side either of its being believed to have been written at the beginning of the eighth century, if it be ancient Gallican.

[300] And that it was written at the beginning of the eighth century Mabillon judges in book 3 of the Gallican Liturgy, page 176: in which, however, as it appears, it was written, for there he speaks thus: Concerning the time at which that codex (the Missal of which we are treating) was written, it is not altogether established: yet from the form of the letters, and from the abrogation of the Gallican Liturgy, which was made nine hundred years ago in the Pontificate of Hadrian I, Charles the Great reigning, it appears that this was written at the entry of the eighth century, namely after the exemplar of another, older codex, not earlier, on account of the feast of St. Leodegar, who was killed in the year 678. Cardinal Bona judges the same, when in the two books of Liturgical Matters published by him in the year 1674 he writes thus: One of these codices (the Missal in question) exists in the library of the most serene queen of the Swedes, written nine hundred years ago, and he adds, as experts judge. I have nothing to oppose here to the judgement of these learned men, and therefore I judge that that Missal was in fact written then, so that the Mass of St. Leodegar which it contains was composed either at the beginning of the eighth century or even earlier. I confess nevertheless that this cannot be made certain by any reasoning, as it at least appears to me. For I see nothing to prevent the same Missal having been able to be written somewhat later than the beginning of the eighth century. However that may be, it appears at least credible enough that it was written at the beginning of the eighth century, and I would not wish to oppose the judgement of all the learned, which redounds to the honour of our Saint, and which therefore, lest anyone should be able to hold it as certainly false, I have discoursed upon here even more than will perhaps seem fitting. It is certain meanwhile that the most often mentioned Missal was written not later than when the ninth century had already passed its middle part, and therefore that the Mass of St. Leodegar which is inscribed in it was composed either certainly then or earlier. I now show this matter thus.

[301] [and certainly not later than the ninth century, so that even thus the Mass of St. Leodegar is very] Mabillon, in the Preface to the Gallican Liturgy published by him, no. 3, speaks thus: This change of the Gallican Liturgy into the Roman was made with such great consent of the churches of all Gaul that, when Charles the Bald, grandson of the Great, was reigning, the knowledge of the Gallican Mass had already been entirely obliterated. Whence Charles the Bald, in order that he might perceive with his eyes and verify its difference from the Roman, wished Mass to be celebrated in the Toledan manner by certain presbyters who had come to him from the parts of the church of Toledo: since he had learned that the old Liturgy of the Gauls had agreed with the Toledan. This is plain from his letter to the clergy of Ravenna, in which he adds: There have also been celebrated before us the solemnities of the Masses in the manner of Jerusalem, the apostle James being the author; and in the manner of Constantinople, Basil being the author: but we consider that the Roman church is to be followed in the celebration of the Masses. By these words Charles indicates that the reason for this deed was that, the various rites of celebrating Mass of different churches having been seen and ascertained, he might determine which form he judged preferable to another: but that at length the Roman rite pleased him before the rest. From that time it came into no one's mind to attempt anything about restoring the Gallican Liturgy or dismissing the Roman; nor before our age was there among the Gauls almost any mention or memory of that ancient rite. Thus Mabillon rightly proves that the ancient Gallican Liturgy had already been entirely abrogated while Charles the Bald was still living; whence it follows that this abrogation was altogether complete already in the ninth century, since Charles the Bald then departed from among the living, so that undoubtedly the Missal indeed which was made according to that liturgy was written not later than the ninth century, since otherwise it would not have been of use; and the Mass of St. Leodegar which it contains was composed not later than the same ninth century.

[302] ancient, in which the parts proper to him Nay, there will perhaps even be someone who thinks it must be held for certain that that Missal was written not later than the eighth century, because the ancient Gallican liturgy which is expressed in it was abrogated by Charlemagne while Hadrian I occupied the Roman chair of St. Peter, who, as Pagi proves in the Critica, exchanged life for death in the year 795. But the Gregorian Liturgy, which Charlemagne substituted for the ancient Gallican, was not yet so generally established in France in the eighth century that the ancient one, which was also called the Gelasian, as being not much unlike the Liturgy founded by Gelasius I, Roman Pontiff, was then already entirely abolished there. For in the description or survey of the goods of the monastery of Centula, made in the year of Christ 831 and printed in d'Achery, tome 4 of the Spicilegium, book 3, chapter 3, these things are read: Of the books of the sacristy which serve the ministry of the altar: Gregorian Missals three; a Gregorian and Gelasian Missal ordered in modern times by Albinus, I. Gelasian Missals XIX. Which words considered, it follows that the ancient Gallican or Gelasian liturgy prevailed in the year 831 in the monastery of Centula, since there were then there nineteen Missals made according to the ancient Gallican or Gelasian rite, and those of a custom not obsolete, not abrogated, but then in use, inasmuch as account is taken of them in the aforesaid survey of goods as of books of the sacristy which serve the ministry of the altar. Wherefore, since the ancient Gallican liturgy was in use in the aforesaid monastery in the year 831, it is not unlike the truth that it was likewise in use then in several other places of the Gauls, and therefore from its abrogation made by Charlemagne as the eighth century was declining it ought not, nay cannot, be held for certain that the Missal which has been treated at length here was written not later than that century. It is only certain, therefore, that this writing, and the Mass of St. Leodegar which it contains, are not to be referred to a century later than the ninth, although meanwhile the Saint, as we taught in no. 300, was probably honoured with the aforesaid Mass already from the beginning of the eighth century, and perhaps even earlier.

[303] It pleases me now to set this, as a venerable and by no means doubtful monument of the ecclesiastical cult paid anciently to Leodegar, are a certain preliminary prayer, called the Preface, before the eyes of readers from Tommasi, and to describe it in some fashion. It exhibits nothing except those things which are proper to Leodegar, and lacks therefore those things which were common to all the ancient Gallican Masses. These can be seen in Mabillon, book 1 of the Gallican Liturgy, chapter 5, where he sets forth one by one the parts of the Gallican Mass from Gregory, bishop of Tours, and other monuments. Among them he also enumerates one lesson from the Old, and two others from the New Testament, which were different in almost every ancient Gallican Mass, and which, on feasts of the Saints, the lesson of the Passion or Life of the same preceded. All these are lacking, as from the rest of the Masses of the most often mentioned Missal, so also from the Mass inscribed to Leodegar; and this begins with the prayer which, if the Mass existed entire, would precede the aforesaid Four Lessons immediately after the Introit, the Kyrie eleison, and the Hymn Glory to God in the highest. Here it is: Supreme, Almighty, eternal God, who didst bid the life of Thy blessed prelate Laudegar the martyr to pass through the tribulations of this world, whose yearly feast we celebrate with devout mind; we beseech Thee: that through his intercession Thou mayest so cherish in the present the people * serving Thy clemency, that Thou mayest lead them to the heavenly kingdoms. Through the Lord. This prayer was wont to be called the Preface, and was as it were a certain exhortation by which the people were admonished by the priest, sometimes less, sometimes more expressly, to spend the day piously. It corresponded, says Mabillon in book 1 of the often-cited Liturgy, chapter 3, page 24, to that prayer which the blessed Spanish Abbot mentions, treating of the Mass of the Mozarabs, in these words related above: The first prayer of the same Mass (the Mozarabic) is of admonition towards the people, that all may be stirred up to entreat God.

[304] The prayer now recited is followed by this: O God, another prayer, or anonymous collect, another After the names, who didst prove Thy blessed martyr Laudegar in the struggle, and, proved, didst sustain him in pain; whom on this day Thou hast deigned to receive into the heavenly joys: grant to us, Thy servants, that we who do not merit glory may merit to obtain the indulgence of our sins, he interceding. Through. This prayer is inscribed Collect; by this name, namely, the prayers of the Mass which we now call Collects were wont anciently to be called. After the prayer just adduced, this is assigned in the third place: Having heard the names of those offering, dearest brethren, let us beseech the majesty of the Lord, that He who translated the life of His supreme prelate Laudegar the martyr to the crown; through the intervention * of the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, Anchorites and Virgins and all the Saints, may deign to grant: that the oblation of the present sacred thing, which is offered, may obtain for the living amendment, and for the dead remission of sins: and that those whose names have been here disclosed by recitation may be written in the heavenly pages. Which may He Himself grant. This prayer was to be recited when the oblation had already been made, and the sacred diptychs also read, that is, the names recited both of the Saints in whose memory, and of the living and the dead in whose favour, the Sacrifice was offered, and hence it is that it bears this title: Collect after the names.

[305] and again another named After the peace, In the fourth place follows this other prayer or collect: Let Thy peace, O Lord, glide into our breasts: who * didst make Thy blessed martyr Leudegar, while dwelling in this world,

to be received today by the heavenly court through zeal for peace: do Thou bid the bond of peace and zeal for charity to be bestowed for ever on us sinners also, his merits supporting us. Through the Lord. It was to be recited when the faithful, after the commemoration of the living and the dead at the oblation, had already imparted the kiss of peace to one another, and hence it is that it is inscribed Collect after the peace. The four prayers already brought forward are followed by the immolation, corresponding to our Preface; it was also called by a name taken from the thing, the Contestation, because in it the faithful testified that they had their hearts lifted up. In this Contestation there was also recited a compendium of the life of the Saint of whom the Mass was said, which had been read entire at the beginning of the Mass. This is clear both from many other instances and from the contestation or immolation of the Mass of St. Leodegar, which must now be subjoined, as being next in the Mass of St. Leodegar to the collect after the peace already recited.

[306] the immolation or contestation, corresponding to our Preface, It is worthy and just: truly it is fitting and beautiful that we should here and everywhere always give praises and thanks to Thee, and lift up praises, O Lord, holy Father, almighty eternal God, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, begotten from the beginning of the world, the Word put forth by the Father, placed as the beginnings of this world, Thou didst bestow throughout the whole earth: where Thy blessed martyr Leudegar the bishop, torn from the height of this world through alternating mutterings , trampled on the pomps of the world and of frailty. To whom Thou, O Lord, didst deign to bring help: that he might despise the love of the present world, and merit to obtain heavenly things: but, taking up his cross, following Thee the Shepherd, that he might possess the delights of Paradise, he forsook all present things. O blessed man Leudegar the prelate, who, through the counsels of the wicked, his body * released from bonds, his mouth diminished of its lips, and bereft of his eyes, exile carried out, the slipperiness of the world set aside, having suffered divers torments, left an example to bishops through his passion or patience: and, restored at the last to life perpetual, penetrated the heavenly kingdoms; is joined to the choir of the angels; is rewarded with a crown of unfading flowers: whence afterwards many relics flourished in the Gauls. We pray Thee therefore, O Lord: that we Thy servants, and all the people, remembering such a Shepherd, may merit to obtain pardon of our sins, his merits supporting us. Through Christ our Lord. To whom all the angels.

[307] and besides two other prayers, of which one, after the Sanctus, This immolation or Contestation was to be followed by the Trisagion, concerning the saying of which there exists in the Second Council of Vaison, which was celebrated in the year 529, the canon third in order, by which it is established that in all Masses, whether Morning, or Lenten, or those which are made for the commemoration of the dead, Holy, Holy, Holy ought always to be said, in that order in which it is said at the public Masses. And indeed it cannot be doubted that in the Mass which we are here describing in some fashion the Trisagion must have followed the immolation or contestation. For this is clear from the title which the prayer or collect bears that is subjoined to the said immolation or contestation; for it is inscribed the collect or prayer After the Sanctus, for no other reason, undoubtedly, than because it was recited after the thrice-repeated Holy, or after the Trisagion. Here it is now: Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. O truly blessed voice, which the powers of angels and archangels sing together, which today bursts forth from us as one voice in praise at the passion of Thy blessed martyr Leudegar. That Thou, God, Father of all, who grantest us pardon of our sins, we beseech Thee, grant oblivion of past misdeeds; who gavest to the martyrs after triumph a crown *. Through our Lord. Who the day before. This prayer holds the place of that which in the Roman Missal is called the Canon, and is as it were a prelude to the sacred action which begins with these words: Who the day before He suffered, etc., as is clear from the words Who the day before, which it has immediately subjoined. These words, says Mabillon in book 1 of the Gallican Liturgy, chapter 5, page 46, received from the holy Gospels, the Apostle and Tradition, are the same in all liturgies, except that in some certain words vary.

[308] In the last place in the Mass of which the discussion is here the other was called After the Secret, or after the mystery. this prayer or collect is indicated: These things we do, O Lord, commemorating Thy passion. These things we do, Father Jesus Christ: who hast delivered to us the new law out of the old. Grant to us, Thy blessed prelate Leudegar the martyr interceding, whose annual commemoration * we celebrate today: that Thy blessing may descend here upon this bread and chalice in the transformation of Thy holy Spirit; that blessing Thou mayest bless these things, sanctifying Thou mayest sanctify them: that whosoever of us shall have partaken of either blessing may merit to obtain the reward of eternity, and life eternal. Through. This prayer is inscribed the collect After the secret, or After the mystery, because it was said immediately after the sacramental words, or those by which the consecration of the bread and wine is accomplished. To this prayer which has now been recited, and which is assigned after the mystery or consecration, there was immediately subjoined in the ancient Gallican Mass, when this was recited entire, another, in the manner of a preface, before the Lord's prayer; but this is lacking in the Mass of which we are treating, for the reason adduced in no. 303, as are also some other prayers or formulas of praying which are required for its integrity, and which do not make mention of Leodegar in particular.

* plebem the people

* interventam intervention

* Mabillon & cum and with

* perhaps principium beginning?

* mutilationes mutilations

* so; they put, notes Mabillon, the accusative case for the ablative absolute.

* oblivionem oblivion

* triumphum triumph

* coronam crown

* commemorantes commemorating

* annuam annual

* commemorationem commemoration

§ XX. Two monasteries built or dedicated in honour of St. Leodegar as the eighth century was growing up.

In honour of St. Leodegar the monastery of Murbach, The antiquity of the cult which is paid by the Church to Leodegar as a Saint is also most strongly proved by two monasteries built in the Saint's honour at the entry of the eighth century, of which the one is named Murbach, or Morbacum, the other Masmünster, or the monastery of Maso. Concerning both these monasteries, in so far as they pertain to the posthumous glory of our Saint, it has seemed good to treat in this whole §. I make my beginning from the former, which is the more celebrated of the two. It is situated in Upper Alsace on the stream Morbach, now under the dominion of the king of France, and is distant, as Baudrand testifies in his Geography, both from Colmar and from Mulhouse, towns of Alsace, about three miles towards the West. Concerning this monastery these things are read in tome 5 of the Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany, page 940: The beginnings of the principal and exempt church of Murbach are referred to the year 726 (nay 727, as will be said), in which, namely, the divine Pirminius, formerly prelate of Meaux (St. Pirminius is named chorepiscopus below by Hermann Contractus), driven out of Reichenau, set his mind on building a new monastery in the most vast and horrid wilderness of the Vosges mountain, which was then called the Vivarium of pilgrims, but before that Muorbach. To the pious endeavours of Pirminius Eberhard, duke of Swabia and Alemannia, grandson of Atticus or Eticho through his son Adalbert, graciously assented, when namely he most copiously supplied to Pirminius a place and expenses for building a monastery, and besides most ample revenues for maintaining the monks, Emeltrude his wife and Lutfrid his brother assenting. That monastery was founded in honour of God and of the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary ever Virgin, of St. Michael the archangel, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and, as I have already indicated, of St. Leodegar the martyr. This is understood from the precept of Theodoric of Chelles for the same monastery of Murbach. This precept exists in the praised Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany, pages 951 and 952, and in Mabillon in the Appendix to tome 2 of the Benedictine Annals, page 700. And since it serves for proving or confirming many things that are to be said in the course of this §, it pleases me to transcribe it here entire from Mabillon.

[310] the foundation of which, by a diploma Theodoric, king of the Franks, to the apostolic men, the fathers the bishops, and also to the illustrious men, dukes, patricians, counts or agents, both present and future. If with devout mind we grant to the petitions of priests what pertains to the property of the church, we trust that we have from this the Lord Jesus Christ as the Rewarder of all good things. Therefore, since the venerable man Perminus also, by the grace of God bishop, in our times, with his monks, God inspiring, having undertaken a pilgrimage for the Gospel of Christ, has endeavoured, God granting, to establish a monastery of men in the vast Wilderness which is called the Vosges, in the Alsatian pagus, in the place which is called Vivarium-of-pilgrims, which was formerly called Mourbach, on the allod of our faithful Count Eberhard, with his help, or to institute there a holy community in honour of God and of the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary ever Virgin, and of St. Michael the archangel, and of St. Peter the apostle and Paul, blessed apostles , and of St. Leodegar the martyr, with their companions, where these servants of God under the holy rule enjoy the solitary life; the man of God, Bishop Perminus himself, together with our already named faithful Count Eberhard, has petitioned our serenity that on this account we should issue such a precept of ours, that concerning the whole body of the possession of that monastery, whatever it is seen to hold or to have dominion over at present, or whatever hereafter shall have been rightly conferred or delegated there by anyone, God inspiring, I should confirm it more fully by our precept in the name of God. Which know ye that we have done in all things for our reward, and to the aforesaid servants of God we have sent forth such a decree, that none of the bishops, neither the present nor whoever shall be successors, nor their ordainers, or any judicial power of whatever kind, by whatever contrivance, may be able in any manner to take away or withdraw anything from that place, so that it may be the more easily permitted to the family of Christ, which desires to be gathered there in the name of God, to possess quietly through the times the delegation made to them, and, keeping the holy rule, they may be able, God commanding, to remain in tranquillity under their own privilege, which they have shown before our hands, because nothing is torn from canonical authority whatever is granted to such a family of Christ for singing the praise of God day and night.

[311] Therefore know ye that we have granted such a benefit for heavenly regard, by Theodoric IV, king of the Franks, that whatever the aforementioned men of God have acquired or laboured for to that monastery , which our already named faithful Eberhard has confirmed there by his instruments , or has been, or shall be, conferred by others, may remain under our immunity in his times, and without his disturbance, God helping, may all things profit them in increase. It is added, however, that if the abbot of that congregation shall have requested the bishop that he should ordain for him presbyters or deacons for celebrating Masses , he shall institute them without the receipt of any fee; and if asked to consecrate a church, the chrism, the altar-slabs, the steps of the church, he shall do it without the receipt of any fee: which

if he himself refuses, let them have licence to supplicate any other pontiff whatever who will grant these things gratis, and let him do this; and let the parish of that pontiff in whose diocese this monastery is situated at no time ever have any power of disturbing it; neither he himself, nor the archdeacon, nor the judges of the church, nor let him dare to send a tax, nor to receive provision or honour in the goods of the monastery . And if the abbot of that congregation shall have been called from this light, let no one be ordained there from another monastery, nor from the city, nor on account of kinship, nor by the bishop, nor through power, nor for a reward or by any contrivance; let no one of the judges whatever presume to ordain an abbot there, nor to institute an abbot whenever necessity shall arise, unless that congregation and the better part shall have elected him; according to what their rule and privilege contains, let them themselves appoint for themselves a worthy pastor.

[312] And this it has pleased us to join on for the integrity or stability of our kingdom, called of Chelles, is confirmed, that the monastery itself, under the defence and protection of God and of our royal stock, may be able to stand unshaken through the succeeding times, and that no public judicial power, neither in the present nor in future time, presume to enter into the courts or territories of the said monastery anywhere to hear causes or exact fines on all sides, nor to take sureties; and whatever the fisc could provide from the fines or the heriban of the free as well as of the servants dwelling upon the territories of the said monastery in every part, let it be assigned entirely by our indulgence to effect, for the lights or stipends of the servants of God written above; and while we reign, or afterwards in the time of succeeding kings, what we have granted for the love and fear of God let no one presume to tear this away; but with quiet and entire immunity let this which we have decreed persevere inviolable, God helping. And that this precept concerning that monastery * may be held more firmly, we have decreed that it be strengthened below with the subscriptions of our hand. Theodoric, king of the Franks. Given, which he did, in the month of July, on the twelfth day, in the VII year of our reign, at Gundulfi-villa, in the name of God, happily, amen. Gerbaldus presented it.

[313] not in the year 724, Another apograph, which, as I have already noted, is inserted in the Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany, often differs from this apograph of the Diploma of Theodoric; those discrepancies I have noted from time to time in the margin; but nowhere does a more notable one occur than in the year of the reign of Theodoric in which the diploma was issued; for in the former apograph it is noted as done in the VII year, but in the latter in the third year of the reign of Theodoric. This latter year was perhaps also expressed by the apograph from which Bruschius brought a part of the Theodorician diploma just recited into the Chronology of the monasteries of Germany published by him, page 93; for although in the part of the diploma which he transcribes in the place cited he exhibits no chronological note whatever, yet in the notice of the monastery of Murbach which he supplies he links the beginning of the reign of Theodoric IV, king of the Franks, to the year of Christ 720; wherefore, since he refers the foundation of the monastery of Murbach to about the year 724, it follows that the apograph of the Theodorician diploma which lit his way perhaps expressed the third year of the reign of Theodoric, because from this and from the beginning of the reign of Theodoric, which he fixes to the year 720, he could deservedly refer the foundation of the monastery of Murbach to about the year 724. But even if that which Bruschius used, and perhaps several other apographs of the aforesaid Theodorician diploma, in the manner of the apograph which exists in the praised Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany, exhibited the third year of the reign of Theodoric, all these would in this matter, as will easily appear from what is to be said, most probably have to be held as faulty, and therefore nothing certain could be concluded from them for fixing the foundation of the monastery of Murbach to the year of Christ 724. And indeed that that monastery was not founded or built in the year 724 the Chronicle of Hermann Contractus, monk of Reichenau, who flourished at the beginning of the eleventh century, most openly teaches; for that Chronicle of this author has at the year 727, in the Canisius edition: St. Pirminius, on account of hatred of Charles, driven out of Reichenau by Theobald, son of Duke Gotfrid, appointed Euto abbot in his place, and himself made for Alsace, to build other monasteries; and in the Pistorius edition: St. Pirminius, expelled by Thietbald, son of Gotofrid, appointed Eto abbot, and himself came into Alsace. Wherefore, since the monastery of Murbach, as is agreed among all the learned, then first began to be founded when St. Pirminius, driven out of the monastery of Reichenau, which he had ruled as abbot for three years, came into Alsace to build other monasteries; and since he did not come thither, as is understood from the praised Chronicle of Hermann Contractus, before the year 727, it follows that the monastery of Murbach was not founded before that year. But, you will say, in what year, then, was that monastery founded or established?

[314] nor in the year 731, as Le Cointe Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks refers that foundation to the year 731; and he does this for the reason that he judges that St. Pirminius, compelled to withdraw from the monastery of Reichenau by command of Theobald, duke of Swabia, came into Alsace not earlier than the year 730. Further, the reasons why he judges this he sets forth thus at the year 730, no. 3: Concerning the year in which Pyrminius left the greater Reichenau we do not agree with Crusius. For this author notes the year of Christ seven hundred and twenty, namely in the opinion of Hermann and his followers, who make Pyrminius abbot of Reichenau for only three years. But since Theobald, who, on the testimony of Hermann in the Pistorius and Canisius editions, expelled Pyrminius, did not enter on the prefecture of Swabia before the year of Christ seven hundred and thirty, neither did Pyrminius withdraw from Reichenau before that year. The series of things done in the same year was this. Charles (namely Martel), mayor of the house, thinking that the hatred with which he pursued Lantfrid (duke of Swabia) was no longer to be dissembled, entered Swabia with an army. Lantfrid yielded to the time, and soothed the mind of Charles with whatever services and compliances he could. The latter thought it would be very much to his interest if he heaped with the most ample benefits those whom he knew in Swabia to be most eminent in piety. Pyrminius shone forth before the rest; he was already in the friendship of Duke Lantfrid, and, that he might become more acceptable to him, he was commended also by Charles, who, peace having been restored, at once departed from Swabia and thought seriously about the Aquitanian or Trans-Loire war. Lantfrid died a little after. Theobald his son succeeded to the duchy or prefecture of Swabia, and, provoked by the example of his father and grandfather, declared himself the enemy of Charles, and ousted Pyrminius the abbot, whom he distrusted on account of the friendship of the same Charles, from the monastery of Reichenau. By which words he makes manifest that he defers the expulsion of St. Pirminius from Reichenau and his withdrawal into Alsace to the year 730 for no other reason than that he judges that Theobald, duke of Swabia, who drove Pirminius from Reichenau, was the son not of Gotofrid, duke of Swabia, who died in the year 709, but of Lantfrid, likewise duke of Swabia, and therefore did not hold the duchy or prefecture of Swabia earlier than the year 730, since up to this year, as is admitted among all, Lantfrid prolonged his life.

[315] But Theobald or Thietbald, who drove St. Pirminius from Reichenau, from the time at which St. Pirminius, driven from Reichenau, is called by Hermann Contractus in the Chronicle at the year 727 the son of Gotofrid, and that both in the Pistorius and in the Canisius edition, as becomes evident from the words which I produced from both in no. 313. Hepidannus, monk of St. Gall, indeed opposes Hermann in the Short Annals carried down to the year 1044, when at the year 715, speaking of Liutfrid, duke of Alamannia, he says, whose son Thietpald drove out St. Pirminius. But Hepidannus is not, says Pagi in the Critica at the year 759, no. 9, of equal authority with Hermann, who lived in the monastery of Reichenau in the eleventh century, and therefore it seems that one must here agree with Hermann, especially since there support him the Continuator of Fredegar in Duchesne, tome 1 of the Writers, page 773, the author of the Appendix to the Deeds of the Franks, in the same place, page 721, and at the year 745 the Annalist of Metz, who all, when they speak of Theobald, duke of the Alemanni or of Swabia, call him the son of Duke Gotofrid. The words of the latter writer, who finished his Work about the year 900, and is thus more ancient than the praised Hepidannus, bearing on this, are these: In the same year, Teobald, son of Godefrid, duke of the Alamanni, rebelling, Pippin, having entered Alamannia with the strength of his army and the help of God, manfully turned him to flight, and drove him fleeing to the blockade of the Alps, and, having recalled him, gave him the duchy of the same place, and returned to his own. And those of the former, which agree almost exactly with the words just recited and with those of the second writer also, are these: About the same time, Theudebald, son of Duke Godfred, rebelling, Pipin with the strength of his army shamefully drove him, fleeing, from the blockade of the Alps, and, having recalled to himself the duchy of the same place, returned as victor to his own. It does not seem, therefore, that it should be doubted that Theobald, who drove St. Pirminius from Reichenau, was the son of Gotofrid, duke of Swabia.

[316] came into Alsace, attempts to prove, But, you will say, it is nevertheless certain that Lantfrid, who, as is agreed among the learned, had Gotofrid as his father, and succeeded him in the duchy of Swabia on his death in the year 709, departed from among the living not earlier than the year 730, and therefore that Theobald did not hold the duchy or prefecture of Swabia before the same year, and so neither drove Pirminius from Reichenau. I confess the matter would be concluded from this if several dukes had not presided at one and the same time over Alamannia, which was also called Swabia. But, says Pagi in the Critica in the place just cited, that region was greater than that it should be committed entire to one duke by the kings of the Franks, as Hadrien Valesius has already observed in book 24 of the Frankish Affairs, whom Le Cointe himself followed in that matter at the year 693, no. 38 and following. There, namely, this author writes thus: Hadrien Valesius writes many things most learnedly concerning the Alamanni and the Suevi in the twenty-fourth book of the Frankish Affairs. First of all he observes that the one people was called promiscuously by the name of the other, but more often then the Suevi. Next he testifies that Alamannia was separated into several duchies, and brings forward two reasons for that partition; the first, that Alamannia seemed greater than that it should be committed entire to one duke; the other, that, a duke of Alamannia having died, his sons divided the prefecture or duchy among themselves according to the good pleasure of the king. He then brings forward some things which manifestly prove that Alemannia or Swabia was not committed to one and the same duke, and moreover that the duchies into which it was separated were divided among themselves by the children of dying dukes at the discretion of the king. Since therefore, according to Le Cointe himself, several dukes of Alemannia or Swabia existed at one and the same time, and the sons of dying dukes the paternal inheritance among themselves,

or duchy, divided, it does not follow that Theobald, son of Duke Gotofrid, did not hold the duchy of Swabia, or rather a duchy in Swabia, before the year 730, although Lantfrid, who had succeeded his father Gotofrid in the duchy of Swabia on his death in the year 709, did not depart from among the living earlier than the year 730. For it becomes most probable from what has been said that Lantfrid and Theobald, since both had as their father Gotofrid, who died in the year 709, divided the paternal inheritance between themselves, and therefore that both the latter and the former held a duchy in Swabia already from the year 709, so that from the duchy of Lantfrid, prolonged up to the year 730, it does not follow either that St. Pirminius was not expelled from Reichenau by Theobald before that year.

[317] contends in vain, but in the year Nay, that St. Pirminius was driven from Reichenau by Duke Theobald in the year 727, and therefore earlier than in the year 730, becomes plain from the years in which St. Pirminius began the prefecture of the abbey of Reichenau, and in which Hetto, or Heddo, or Etho, the next successor of St. Pirminius in the same prefecture, was promoted to the bishopric of Strasbourg, compared with the years during which both the latter, before he was promoted to the mentioned bishopric, and St. Pirminius, before he was driven from Reichenau, presided as abbots over the aforesaid abbey. For Walafrid Strabo, in Canisius, tome 2 of the Ancient Readings, part 2 of the Amsterdam edition of the year 1725, page 206, in the Poem on the Visions of Wettin, monk of Reichenau, enumerating the abbots of Reichenau, sings thus:

Where the Rhine is led down from the Ausonian Alps, it mingles, spread out in the western parts, a huge expanse of water: in the midst of its flood an island hangs suspended, having the name Augia; Germany lies around it. This is wont to bring forth distinguished troops of monks. First in it the holy prelate Pirminius built its walls, and for three years he had protected the flock. Whoever wishes to know the life of this one among the Saints, let him himself seek his tomb; he himself will prove it enough at Hornbach. Afterwards for seven courses, let him seek, Etho presided: then follows Geba the priest, worthy of praise, for two.

And this writer himself presided as abbot over Reichenau when the ninth century had somewhat begun, and therefore scarcely more than one century after the expulsion of St. Pirminius from Reichenau and the promotion of Etho to the bishopric of Strasbourg, so that most probably he either learned the space of time within which he circumscribes their prefecture in the abbey of Reichenau in the verses recited from monuments worthy of credence, or at least had it thoroughly ascertained.

[318] For which reason, since the praised Walafrid Strabo, by the verses recited, attributes only three years to St. Pirminius in the prefecture of Reichenau, 727 it is built it follows that Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 730, no. 13, wrongly defines the same prefecture at six years, and this the more because he brings forward neither a solid reason why he does it, nor an author who is to be compared with Walafrid Strabo either in antiquity or in authority; and moreover he conflicts with Hermann Contractus, who, following Walafrid Strabo, writes thus in his Chronicle at the year 724: St. Pirminius, abbot and chorepiscopus, led by the princes Berchtold and Vehi to Charles (namely Martel), and set over the island of Reichenau by him, put the serpents to flight from it, and instituted the cenobitic life there for three years. Further, Le Cointe defines the prefecture of St. Pirminius in the abbey of Reichenau at six years for no other reason than that he judges that that Saint entered on the said prefecture in the year 724 and was compelled to give it up not earlier than in the year 730, on how weak a foundation which rests is sufficiently clear from what has already been said before. Since therefore it is now, if not altogether certain, at least undoubtedly most probable, that St. Pirminius presided as abbot over the abbey of Reichenau for only three years before he withdrew into Alsace; and since it is admitted among all that the same Saint entered on that prefecture in the year 724, which Le Cointe himself also admits at the year 730, no. 13, it follows that Pirminius, expelled from Reichenau already from the year 727, withdrew into Alsace. This very thing is clear, as I indicated already in the preceding number, from the year in which Etho, the next successor of St. Pirminius in the prefecture of the abbey of Reichenau, was promoted to the bishopric of Strasbourg, compared with the seven years to which Walafrid Strabo, by the verses transcribed in the preceding number, defines the Reichenau prefecture of Etho; for since Etho, as is established from this verse of Walafrid Strabo recited above, afterwards for seven courses Eto presided, presided as abbot over the abbey of Reichenau for seven years; and since these, computed in retrograde order from the year 734, in which Eto, as is certain, and as Le Cointe himself again admits at the year 730, no. 13, was raised to the chair of Strasbourg, lead down to the year 727, it follows that in this year Eto entered on the prefecture of the abbey of Reichenau, and that his next predecessor, St. Pirminius, accordingly gave it up and withdrew into Alsace, which agrees exceedingly well with Hermann Contractus, since he refers the arrival of Pirminius in Alsace to the same year in the words recited in no. 313. Wherefore, since St. Pirminius, as it appears, founded the monastery of Murbach, or began to found it, immediately upon his arrival in Alsace, it does not seem that it should be doubted that it was either built, or at least begun to be built, in the year 727, so that, as I have already noted before, the diploma or precept recited above, by which the possessions and privileges of the monastery of Murbach are confirmed, is faultily marked in the praised Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany with the third year of Theodoric IV, king of the Franks, and the VII year of the same king, with which it is noted in Mabillon, must be retained; for since Theodoric IV, as the common opinion now holds, began to reign in the year 720, the third year of his reign cannot, but the seventh can, be reconciled with the year of Christ 727, before which, however, the aforesaid diploma was undoubtedly not issued, since it is certainly later than the plan of founding the monastery of Murbach, which was not entered on earlier than that year.

[319] by St. Pirminius, Count Eberhard supplying the land and the expenses, The year in which the monastery of Murbach was built having thus been examined, it pleases me now to inquire into its founders; St. Pirminius, driven from Reichenau, not long, as I have already indicated, after his arrival in Alsace set his mind on founding new monasteries, and among them the first of all was that of Murbach. For founding this Count Eberhard, son of Adalbert, supplied the place and the expenses. This is clear from these words of the Diploma already recited: Therefore, since the venerable man Perminius also, by the grace of God bishop, in our times, with his monks, God inspiring, having undertaken a pilgrimage for the Gospel of Christ, has endeavoured, God granting, to establish a monastery of men in the vast Wilderness which is called the Vosges, in the Alsatian pagus, in the place which is called Vivarium-of-pilgrims, which was formerly called Muorbach, on the allod of our faithful * Count Eberhard, with his help, etc. Concerning this Eberhard, who, as is clear from his Charter in Mabillon, tome 2 of the Annals, pages 701 and 702, most copiously endowed the monastery of Murbach, Bucelinus, part 2 of Sacred Germany, page 238, records thus: Eberhard, duke of Swabia and Alsace, parent of Warin and Ruthard, founded it (the Monastery of Murbach) in the year DCCXXVI (nay, as has already been proved, in the year 727), Gregory II, Supreme Pontiff, confirming the foundation, which afterwards Widegern, bishop of Strasbourg, solemnly consecrated in the year of Christ DCCXXXIII (in the praised Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany this is referred to the year 728). The old kings of France of German origin conferred many benefits on the monastery. The founder himself, already worn out with old age, drawn by his intercourse with holy Men and delighted by their familiarity, led by earnest repentance for his former life, having distributed his provinces among his sons, by a memorable example of the world triumphed over and of contempt of honours, embraced the monastic life in the same monastery, wished to be aggregated to the most humble number of the lay brothers, and chose to be the least in the house of God. All the things which Bucelinus here asserts are not of such a kind that I would wish to put myself forward as surety for their truth; and that appears false which he affirms concerning the provinces distributed by Eberhard among his sons when he was about to embrace the monastic life.

[320] For in the praised letters of Count Eberhard himself, concerning whom, and his in Mabillon, tome cited, pages 701 and 702, noted with the eighth year of King Theodoric, with which the year of Christ 728 agrees, in which, as I have already indicated, he makes most ample donations to the monastery of Murbach, these things are read: Therefore I, in the name of God Eberhard, son of Adalbert, formerly duke, although the most vile servant of Christ, since it is not unknown how before these years, together with an assembly of pontiffs and priests, and with my brother Duke Leutfred, and my wife Emeltrude, on my own property, in the place which is called Maurobacus, which is now called Vivarium of pilgrims, in the Alsatian pagus, in honour of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and of the holy Mother of God Mary, and of the other Saints, I built a monastery anew, by my own work, as God gave me strength, and in those days, according to what is contained in that former testament, I enriched it somewhat from my goods; but now the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, not because my merits required it, but for His clemency, has deigned to visit me in the body, and has withdrawn the deceitful and temporal light, that He might lead me, although unworthy, to the true light, which He Himself is, and also by His providence, although I wished it, has likewise withdrawn an heir from my own body who should be my successor. From which words it is clear that Eberhard, when in the year of Christ 728 he issued those letters, was bereft both of children and of eyes, and therefore it does not appear probable to me that this pious count had sons named Warin and Ruthard, or otherwise called, among whom, as Bucelinus says, he divided his provinces when he embraced the monastic life. Hence Georg Eckhart, book 1, chapter 5 of the Habsburg-Austrian Origins, page 22, rightly pronounces concerning Count Eberhard, founder of the monastery of Murbach: Concerning his children nothing is established for us, and he who poured so many goods into the monastery of Murbach seems to have been ἅπαις. For he makes mention of his wife, Emeltrude, now growing old, and by the name of RELICT, but not of children, in the praised endowment of this monastery, a part of which we have just brought forward here; nay he asserts that an heir who should be his successor had been withdrawn from him; and since at the end he calls his wife his relict, and he himself was then bereft of his eyes, he seems already then to have sent notice of renunciation to the world, and so perhaps to have embraced the monastic life, as the praised Bucelinus says.

[321] Which indeed will become less unlike the truth, if Eberhard ever put on the monk before his death, and his, with St. Leodegar, and so if credence be deserved by the Epitaph of the same Eberhard in the monastery of Murbach, which, as the praised Bucelinus in part and page of Sacred Germany

cited says, is read written there with ancient simplicity, for the sake of grateful memory. Here it is:

Let him who knows not say: Duke Eberhard rests here, who, a lofty man, endowed with rich goods this cloister of his own accord; thus he is not snatched away by Phlegethon; clothed in the cloistral garment he lived honourably.

But since this Epitaph consists of Leonine verses, whose invention seems later than the eighth century, it can deservedly be doubted here whether it did not proceed from an author who began to flourish perhaps long after the eighth century, in which Eberhard died; whence it follows that from the said Epitaph it is not certain that Count Eberhard put on the monk in the monastery of Murbach, which he founded. More certain is that which is indicated in the same Bucelinus, in the place cited, by these two other verses with which the Epitaph whose recitation was begun is closed:

For the things given to thee, Leodegar, join him to the blessed; thou shalt live for ever in the heavens, rich above all things.

For by these it is indicated that Eberhard founded the monastery of Murbach in honour of St. Leodegar and enriched it with donations; and although this is not expressed in the praised letters or Charter of Count Eberhard made for the endowment of the monastery of Murbach, it is plainly understood, as I have already noted before, from the often-praised Diploma or precept by which Theodoric IV, king of the Franks, confirmed the possessions of the monastery of Murbach, and ratified the privilege, undoubtedly, says Mabillon, tome 2 of the Annals, page 77, of the Roman Pontiff, by which the aforesaid monastery, as is clear from the diploma recited above, was rendered immune from episcopal jurisdiction, and free faculty was granted to it of electing an abbot according to the Rule.

[322] kinship some things are brought forward here; But why, says the praised Mabillon a few words further on, the monastery of Murbach was founded in honour of St. Leodegar, the cause of this was that Eberhard was related to him through kinship on the maternal line. For he had as grandmother Bereswinda, sister of Sigrada, the mother of Leodegar. There are others who, as we taught in §3 of this Preliminary Commentary, make St. Leodegar the maternal uncle of Bereswinda; but this opinion is attacked by various arguments, and strong ones; and although for these we referred to Georg Eckhart and Hermann Schmincke in the § just cited, nevertheless, in order that that opinion which makes Bereswinda the maternal aunt of Leodegar, and which is the more probable, and now commonly seems more probable to the learned, may also appear such to the studious reader, and that from it it may become known what kinship of blood more probably exists between Leodegar and Eberhard, the founder of the monastery of Murbach, it pleases me here at least to bring forward those things which more certainly and evidently lessen the authority of the two older writers on whom alone the other more recent writers who make Leodegar the maternal uncle of Bereswinda rely. The one of those two older writers, whom we have already praised more than once, is the uncertain and anonymous author of the historical Fragment prefixed by Urstisius to the Chronicle of Albert of Strasbourg, and reprinted by Duchesne in tome 1 of the Writers of France, page 783; the other, whom we have likewise praised more than once above, is the anonymous Writer of the History of the monastery of Novientum: this exists in Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota. Both, in the judgement of Le Cointe and Martène, flourished in the thirteenth century, and therefore are too remote from the age of Leodegar and Bereswinda, who lived in the seventh century, to be able to create certain credence for the things which they write concerning them, especially since in other things which they narrate they are most openly convicted of error more than once by contemporary or nearly contemporary writers. Those errors are the arguments by which the praised Georg Eckhart, Schmincke and other authors contend that credence is not to be given to the anonymous of Urstisius and the historian of Novientum when these make Leodegar the maternal uncle of Bereswinda.

[323] these things from the anonymous of Urstisius, In order therefore that I may now bring forward here some of those arguments, as I proposed, it is necessary that some errors both of the Urstisian and of the Novientine historian be laid open. I make my beginning from a most gross, and a most open, error which is common to both the praised writers, and which is most closely joined with the matter of which the discussion is here. The Urstisian anonymous writes thus in the place just cited: For Leudesius, when he was mayor of the house, had married a wife of the stock of St. Sigismund, king of Burgundy, and begot of her Athicus or Adalric, who, while his father was still surviving and Hilderic was reigning, had married a wife, Berswinda by name, daughter of the sister of St. Leodegar, namely the sister of the queen. And the historian of Novientum, in the praised Martène, tome of the Anecdota cited, column 1129, narrates thus: Leodesius therefore, as we have said before, being mayor of the house, married a most noble wife of the stock of Sigismund and Gothmar, kings of Burgundy, and begot of her a son named Athicus or Adalric. And a few things having then been interposed, he adds: But Athicus his son, (Leudesius's) while his father was still surviving, married Berswinda, daughter of the sister of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, and of Garinus, count of Poitiers, namely the sister of the queen. By which words now recited both those writers most openly declare that Leudesius or Leodesius, while he held the mayoralty of the house, contracted a marriage, and in it begot a son, who himself also, while his father was still living, entered into matrimony. But this is undoubtedly false, for Leudesius, as it is possible to gather from what we discussed in § XI, was first created mayor of the house in the year of Christ 674, and in the following year was killed by Ebroin. How then could he, already made mayor of the house, enter into matrimony, and in it beget a son fit for marriage before his father had died?

[324] I come now to the errors particular to each writer, namely the Urstisian and the Novientine historian. and from the historian of Novientum, who swarm with errors, And in order to pass over in silence the other errors of the historian of Novientum for the sake of brevity, I shall bring forward here only one, which becomes manifest from the often-praised diploma or precept of Theodoric IV concerning the monastery of Murbach, which we have produced entire above. For in the aforesaid diploma is read: Therefore, since the venerable man Perminus … has endeavoured to establish a monastery of men in the vast wilderness which is called the Vosges, in the Alsatian pagus, in the place which is called Vivarium-of-pilgrims, which was formerly called Muorbach …, etc. From which it is understood that the place in which the monastery of Murbach was founded did not first receive the name of Murbach, or Morbach, from Count Eberhard, its founder, but had already been so called before, and therefore that the historian of Novientum most certainly strays from the truth when, in the praised Martène, tome of the Anecdota cited, columns 1134 and 1135, he indicates that the name of Murbach was first given to the monastery of Murbach by Count Eberhard; for thus he writes there: Finally, by the inspiration of God, Eberhard first built a monastery on his estate in honour of St. Maurice, but afterwards ordered it to be dedicated in honour of St. Leodegar by the blessed Bishop Pirminius, and named it also the Vivarium of pilgrims, or Murbach. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 731, no. 21, treating of the error of a certain chronographer of Ebersheim, or Novientum, who indicates that the place in which Count Eberhard built the monastery of Murbach did not previously bear the name of Murbach, says that he judges that the monastery built by Eberhard and distinguished by the name of the Vivarium of pilgrims also put on in the tenth century the ancient name of Murbach, which had formerly belonged to the place in which it was founded. The name of Vivarium, he says, became obsolete afterwards, and the name of Murbach was taken up again in the tenth century, as we judge, when that region had been laid waste by the Huns or Hungarians. There were, says Münster, namely in the Cosmography, page 437, in the time of the Huns, seven monks near the monastery of Murbach, leading a holy life on a neighbouring mountain, who, slaughtered by the infidels, left the name to that place, that it was afterwards called the Field of Robbery. That is, the monastery to which the name of the Vivarium of pilgrims had been given by Eberhard was, in the tenth century, commonly called Murbach on account of its neighbourhood infested, as some say, with robberies, because the place in which it had been founded had anciently been so named for the same reason.

[325] is not to be esteemed, but from the author of the Life of St. Odilia. But the monastery of Murbach is situated on the river Morbach, as we taught in no. 309; and that this is so is understood both from Merian's Topography of Alsace and from the diplomas of Charlemagne and of Lothar Augustus, who, as Mabillon writes in tome 2 of the Annals, page 77, confirmed to the monastery of Lure and the monks dwelling there certain freeborn men granted by Louis his father, at the petition of Sigmar, abbot of the monastery which is called the Vivarium-of-pilgrims, and which is situated in the duchy of Alsace on the river Morbach … and is established to have been built in honour of St. Leodegar and of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles. Thus Mabillon, who after the name Morbach in the words recited rightly inserts whence the ancient name was given to the place; for since, as is established from what has been said, the monastery of Murbach is situated on the river Morbach, it is most probable that it drew its name from the river, and therefore whatever is said about the name given to it on account of a neighbourhood infested with robberies may seem fabulous. I come now to the errors which are particular to the Urstisian anonymous: he relates that Leudesius was created mayor of the house immediately after Ebroin had been shut up in the monastery; but this most openly conflicts with the most ancient monuments, which unanimously testify that this man did not discharge that office before Childeric was killed. He errs likewise in the death of Dagobert, which he refers to the year 674; which chronology cannot be tolerated, whether we understand the first or the second Dagobert, since the former departed from among the living in the year 638, and the latter either in the very year 678 or certainly not earlier. Yet that the anonymous has in mind this first king is established not only from the whole thread of his discourse but also from the children added, Sigebert and Clovis, who have Dagobert the first as their parent. He narrates also that St. Arbogast, bishop of Strasbourg, raised from death the son of Dagobert (of whom, that is the first, he had spoken in the preceding passages), and that St. Florentius, likewise bishop of Strasbourg, freed his daughter, harassed by a demon, which all others will have happened under Dagobert II, as our Henschenius shows at length in book 2 On the three Dagoberts, chapters 5 and 6. I forbear from enumerating the other errors of this writer, since those already reviewed suffice to lessen his credibility. Since, therefore, both those writers, namely the Urstisian anonymous and the historian of Novientum, labour under many most grave errors in narrating things, as we have seen, they do not deserve credence when they make Leodegar the maternal uncle of Bereswinda, who, as we taught in § III, had Eberhard, founder of the monastery of Murbach, as grandson through her son Adalbert; and therefore one must rather adhere to the anonymous author of the eleventh century who, in part 2 of the Third Benedictine Century, page 488, in the Life of St. Odilia, in the words already recited in no. 36, makes Bereswinda the maternal aunt of Leodegar.

[326] The monastery of Maso, or And let these things now suffice that have been said concerning the Monastery of Murbach built in honour of St. Leodegar, and its founder; concerning the head of Leodegar, which the monks of Murbach boast that they possess, it will be said below. We must now treat of Masmünster, or the monastery of Maso in Alsace. Münster, in the Description of the Sundgau, writes thus: There was here

Maso, whom he makes the brother of Eberhard, of whom we have already treated, an only son, who, when he wished to bathe in the stream Olruna, commonly the Tolder, was drowned, when he was eight years old, and that below the castle in which his parents were then living. Maso and his wife, therefore, deprived of a lawful heir, founded a monastery in that place, and at that time when Eberhard, count of Egisheim, founded the monastery of Murbach under Theodoric, king of the Franks, in the year of Christ DCCXXX more or less, contributing all their goods, movable and immovable, lands and men. Bruschius narrates almost the same things from the chronographer of Ebersheim, namely that Maso, brother of Eberhard, had begotten a son of the wife he had married, whom, when he had lost him, drowned there in the little river Olruna flowing past, he, moved by so great grief, built in the same place (where the little son had perished), in honour of St. Leodegar, a convent of nuns, which he called from his own name the monastery of Maso, and that this was done under Theodoric and Childeric, kings of the Gauls, who held power from the year of Christ DCCXX up to the year DCCL. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year of Christ 731, no. 24, also recites both this text of Münster and that of Bruschius, and adds: Deceived by this text of Bruschius, Bucelinus said that the monastery of Maso was founded by Maso about the year of Christ DCCXX. But one must stand by the chronology of Münster, to which the reckoning of Bruschius is not openly opposed, since his epoch is vague and runs out indeterminately through thirty years. Thus Le Cointe, and rightly indeed, because nothing is available whereby the building of the monastery of Maso, or Masmünster, can be fixed to a determinate year with even some probability. Although meanwhile it appears in some measure certain from the common consent of writers that it was built in the first fifty years of the eighth century.

[327] But as the year in which the monastery of Masmünster was founded Masmünster, by Maso, in honour of St. Leodegar, cannot be determined for certain, so also it seems that it cannot be determined for certain whether Maso, the founder of that monastery, was the brother of Count Eberhard, who founded the monastery of Murbach. For in the very old Fragment of the Life of St. Odilia in Jérôme Vignier, page 68, where it is narrated that St. Odilia subjected her brothers and their sons to the Lord, Maso is not numbered among these. Maso nevertheless is made the son of Adalbert and brother of Eberhard and Luitfrid by the Chronicle of Novientum, Lazius, Bruschius in the Chronology of the monasteries of Germany, page 93, Guillimann, On Helvetic Affairs, book 3, chapter 4, Ruyr in the Antiquities of the Vosges, and on his authority Vignier; likewise Bucelinus, Sacred Germany, part 2, page 59, and Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the years 725 and 731, so that almost all who treat of Maso and of the monastery of Masmünster founded by him call him the brother of Eberhard, or at least the son of Adalbert. Eckhart, praised above, inclines at least to that opinion which judges that Maso, founder of the monastery of Masmünster, was at least of the family of Duke Eticho. Yet from the situation, he says on page 26, of the monastery of Maso in the dominion of the descendants of Eticho, I should readily believe that he (Maso) belonged to the family of this Eticho. I am confirmed in that opinion when the forefathers of Maso are reported by Münster to have been of the royal stock of the Franks and Burgundians: for the same thing was feigned of Eticho, as we touched on above. All these things weighed, it appears to me indeed, if not certain, at least in some measure probable, that Maso was either the brother of Eberhard, or at least a kinsman, or of the family of Eticho, whose grandson through his son Adalbert Eberhard was, so that Maso also, who founded the monastery of Masmünster, was a kinsman of Leodegar, and probably built it in his honour for that reason. In addition, Louis Laguille, priest of our Society, in the History of Alsace, book 8, page 95, writes thus: The time of that foundation (of the convent of Masmünster) cannot be accurately noted; but there is no doubt that it was the effect of the munificence of Maso, son of Duke Adalbert and brother of Count Eberhard. The Diploma of Louis the Pious, which is preserved in the archive of that abbey, supplies a proof which cannot be called into doubt. That charter, of which we have a copy, is noted as given on the XI of the Kalends of July, in the X year of the empire of Louis the Pious, indiction 1, which corresponds to the year DCCCXXIII. Which words, taken in rigour, seem to signify that from the diploma of Louis the Pious of which they make mention it is proved not only that the foundation of the convent of Masmünster proceeded from Maso, but also that he was the son of Duke Adalbert and the brother of Count Eberhard. But since the praised Laguille perhaps does not speak so rigidly here, it may be that he calls Maso the brother of Count Eberhard not because he found him so called in the aforesaid diploma of Louis the Pious, but by Lazius, Bruschius and other writers of similar mark, who cannot create certain credence in the present argument, so that it still remains doubtful whether Maso was the brother of Count Eberhard.

[328] It is founded perhaps on the occasion of a son drowned. Georg Eckhart, praised above, in the Habsburg-Austrian Origins, book 1, chapter 5, column 26, raises moreover another doubt concerning the occasion on which, as the words recited in no. 326 from Münster and Bruschius indicate, the abbey of Masmünster was founded. Here are his very words: In the Chronicle of Novientum and in Münster and Ruyr it is narrated that this Maso (namely the founder of the convent of Masmünster) had an only son, who, when he wished to bathe in the stream Olrunna, commonly called the Tolder, when he was eight years old, was drowned: and that this loss of their only son so moved the parents that they founded a monastery of women and, having richly endowed it, consecrated it to St. Leodegar: that the son suffocated by the water was entombed there, and that on his tomb this epitaph is read: "Here lies the son of King Maso, founder of this monastery". That Maso himself then, who gave his name to the monastery and to the Valley, formerly called Wost, in which it is situated, went to Rome with his wife, died there and was buried. But whatever at length may be the truth of it, the little story savours of fable, and suspect for the most part are the origins of monasteries which are derived from children killed by a boar or drowned, devised in order to make their beginnings more notable and sometimes more august, or at the least they seem drawn from the uncertain little tales of the common people, invented to beguile the time. The Epitaph, on which all things rest, was fabricated in more recent centuries, as appears even from the title KING, which cannot be attributed to Maso, at most a count. Thus Eckhart, to whom I have nothing to oppose here; for the Historian of Novientum, Münster and Ruyr are too remote from the eighth century, in which the abbey of Masmünster was founded, for it to be possible to trust safely enough to the things which they narrate concerning that foundation, unless perhaps, which they do not do here, they adduce ancient monuments worthy of credence in testimony. Add that Ruyr and Münster drew most of the things which they wrote on the present argument from the Historian of Novientum, or of Ebersheim, of how slight credit he is has already been proved above enough and more than enough. However that may be, it does not at least seem that it should be doubted that the abbey of Masmünster was built in honour of St. Leodegar by Maso, probably his kinsman, which suffices for the present undertaking.

* others profectum profit

* others allodio fidelis on the allod of our faithful

* others beatorum Apostolorum of the blessed Apostles

* others prædictos famulos the aforesaid servants

* others tale such

* others & ipsum monasterium and the monastery itself

* others instrumenta instruments

* others ullius of anyone

* that is, rogaverit shall have asked

* others Missis celebrandis for celebrating Masses

* others requirere audeant let them dare to demand

* others privilegium privilege

* others quicquid whatever

* others omnibus [all]

* others de bannis from the bans

* others quisquam anyone

* others ipsum monasterium the monastery itself

* others allodio fidelis etc. on the allod of our faithful, etc.

§ XXI. A monastery in the diocese of Langres, and another in the pagus of Portien, consecrated to St. Leodegar.

The monastery of St. Leodegar of Capella, in the eighth century, or After the founding of the monasteries of Murbach and Masmünster in honour of St. Leodegar, I have been able to find no older monument of the Saint's posthumous glory than the monastery of St. Leodegar of Campellum, or Capella, in the diocese of Langres. And although I cannot define exactly in what determinate year it was founded, it is nevertheless certain that it was built, or rather consecrated to Leodegar, not later than either as the ninth century was growing up or as the eighth was slipping away. This is clear from the Chronicle of Bèze, which in tome 1 of d'Achery's Spicilegium, in which it is inserted, page 512, exhibits an instrument by which an exchange of certain properties was made between the abbot of the monastery of Bèze, Seraphim by name, and Abbot Theuto of the monastery of St. Leodegar, which is also called of Capella, and which is subscribed in this manner: Done at Fontaine-Bèze, the public monastery, on the 3rd of the Kalends of April, in the 13th year of the empire of the lord Hlucdovic, emperor. For since Louis, in the 13th year of whose empire the aforesaid instrument is noted, is undoubtedly no other than Louis the Pious, emperor and king of the Franks, and since the thirteenth year of his empire, noted at the third of the Kalends of April, agrees with the year of Christ 826, it follows that the said instrument was drawn up in the year 826, and therefore that already then the monastery of Leodegar of Capella (for its superior in the praised instrument is distinguished by the title of abbot) enjoyed the prerogative of an abbey; whence it further follows that it was built and dedicated to St. Leodegar not later than either as the XI century was growing up or as the VIII was slipping away; nay, if any credence is to be given to Mabillon, that monastery was built even earlier. For he says in part 1 of the Third Benedictine Century, in the Preliminary Observations to the Life of St. Medericus, no. 6, that in the age of this Saint, whose death he places about the year 700, there existed in Gaul a twofold monastery called of Campellum or Cappella; the one, which does not bear on this matter, in the tract of Brie; the other, of which we are treating here, in Burgundy; this, as the praised writer adds, was afterwards called of St. Leodegar, not later, I think, than, as I have already indicated, as the ninth century was growing up. Further, the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana treat of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Campellum in tome 4, columns 652 and 653, and reckon it among the abbeys of the diocese of Langres which have lost their original status. And they do this deservedly, because, as they prove in the place cited, already in the twelfth century, its former splendour lost, it held only the name of a priory, and today undoubtedly holds only the name of a priory. For in the Chronicle of Langres, by Jacques Vignier, priest of our Society, printed at Langres in the year 1665, these things are read concerning the monastery of St. Leodegar of Capella: The monastery of St. Leodegar, formerly most ample and most ancient, is now a priory.

[330] at the entry of the ninth century, to St. Leodegar; But, you will say, whence is it established that that monastery of St. Leodegar was formerly most ample? I answer: from the praised Chronicle of Bèze, in which, in tome 1 of the cited Spicilegium of d'Achery, page 537, I find written: There is a church not far distant from this place of Bèze, dedicated in honour of St. Leodegar, endowed with most ample estates and great lands by kings and dukes and counts. And lest

you doubt whether the discussion is of the church of the monastery of Capella, or of another dedicated to St. Leodegar, the author of the Chronicle soon narrates that quarrels arose between the monks of that place, that is, of the church of which he had treated in the words just recited, and the monks of the monastery of Bèze, and a little after he calls them the monks of St. Leodegar, whose monastery, also called of Capella, was not far distant from the monastery of Bèze, and therefore what he affirms in the words just recited concerning a church not far removed from the monastery of Bèze must be understood of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Capella. Further, from the same words now recited it is also given to be understood for what reason that monastery was distinguished by the name of Leodegar, namely because it had been consecrated in honour of St. Leodegar. I find nothing else concerning the monastery of Leodegar of Capella that deserves to have a place here, and therefore I proceed to another monument of the Saint's posthumous glory. Mabillon, tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 533 and following, gives notice of an Abbey which, if it was not founded in honour of St. Leodegar, the Saint nevertheless afterwards either had consecrated to himself, or at least commended to his patronage and protection. And since this seems to have happened not later than when the ninth century was somewhat advanced, as it was growing up in which, or even earlier, the monastery of Capella, of which I have already treated, was founded, the place seems to require that I should now treat here of that abbey also.

[331] but the monastery of Offonis-villa, The praised Mabillon records these things concerning it in the place cited: Another is Offonis-villa, likewise distinguished by a monastery, which, in the division made between Charles the Bald and Louis his brother, fell to Charles. It was situated in the pagus of Portien of the diocese of Besançon; and the abbey was named after St. Leodegar. Bodo, prelate of Toul, is recorded in the as yet unpublished Acts of the Bishops of Toul to have handed over to his church the monastery of Offonis-villa in honour of St. Leodegar, granted to him by paternal right for the service of God. This Bodo is no other, as I have already said, than Leudinus, own brother of Salaberga, called by another name Bodo, although in the aforesaid Acts he is distinguished from Leudinus. But this seems to stand in the way, that the monastery of Offonis-villa is said to have been then built in honour of St. Leodegar, who survived Bodo-Leudinus. Since Deodatus, his successor in the see of Toul, subscribed the Roman council in the cause of Bishop Wilfrid in the same year in which Leodegar was afflicted with martyrdom. But perhaps it was called by anticipation the monastery of St. Leodegar, who afterwards was added as patron to Offonis-villa. This abbey, together with that of Faverney, situated in the same pagus of Portien, Louis d'Outremer, king of the Franks, at the request of Count Hugh, grants in benefice to a certain faithful man of his, named Adalard, and his wife Addila, in the third year of his reign, the third indiction, or the fortieth year above the nine hundredth *. After about a hundred years Count Burchard gave the place called Offonis-villa, formerly a noble abbey, consecrated in honour of St. Leodegar, to the monastery of St. Benignus of Dijon, on this condition, that the monastic order should be restored there through Halinard the abbot. Up to now it is a Priory subject to the same monastery of St. Benignus. Thus Mabillon, whose statements here must at least be cursorily discussed.

[332] He says, adducing absolutely no proof of his assertion here, because by Bodo, who is not distinguished from Leudinus, that Bodo, prelate of Toul, who is recorded in the unpublished Acts of the bishops of Toul to have handed over to his church the monastery of Offonis-villa in honour of St. Leodegar, granted to him by paternal right for the service of God, is no other than Leudinus, bishop of Toul, brother of St. Salaberga, although in the aforesaid Acts he is distinguished from Leudinus. It seems indeed most probable that the Bodo recorded in those Acts is the same as Leudinus, or Leuduinus, own brother of St. Salaberga, abbess of Laon. For from the Life of St. Salaberga inserted in our Work at the XXII of September it becomes manifest that Bodo, bishop of Toul, own brother of St. Salaberga, was also called by another name Leudinus or Leuduinus. For in that Life, written by a nearly contemporary anonymous author, these things are read in no. 18: Among the other women of the noble Sicambri, Odila, strong in nobility and in natural goodness of disposition, who herself also had formerly received from the venerable Walbert the distinguished and salutary antidote of Christian vigour, having taken counsel with the royal and illustrious man Bodo, whom we mentioned above as Leuduinus, who at that time was industrious and powerful, putting aside the trappings of the world, were converted to the Lord. Their goods having been conferred * on monasteries, holding the same path after the blessed Salaberga, they hastened to Laon. Bodo, his hair shorn, performed the office of a monk as far as circumstances allowed, and not long after, having obtained the bishopric of the town of Toul, paid the debt of nature. From which words it becomes plain that Bodo, bishop of Toul, was also called Leuduinus, so that it is most probable that Bodo, bishop of Toul, is not distinct from Leudinus, or Leuduinus, own brother of St. Salaberga. Since nevertheless, says our Fr. J. B. Stilting in the Life of St. Bodo illustrated by him at the XI of September, that probability alone might deceive if notable reasons for the distinction should occur, I have read through the whole Calendar of Toul praised above, to see whether I might find in that Calendar the name of Leudinus, whose sanctity is wonderfully commended by the eulogy just given: but I did not find Leudinus there. He then adds those things by which he indicates that he does not doubt that Bodo and Leudinus, who are distinguished in the Acts of the bishops of Toul, are one and the same bishop of Toul, called by a twin name Leudinus Bodo, and this is now the common opinion of the learned today.

[333] Mabillon, therefore, rightly says that Bodo, bishop of Toul, in honour of St. Leodegar, to the church of Toul is the same as Leudinus, or Leuduinus, own brother of St. Salaberga; and it has pleased me to show this here lest anyone perhaps should think that I am not here preserving the chronological order, contrary to what I proposed to do, in treating of the things pertaining to the posthumous glory of Leodegar. For if Bodo be distinct from Leudinus, or Leuduinus, own brother of St. Salaberga, he probably flourished, as will be plain to one who considers the catalogue of the bishops of Toul inserted by Martène in tome 3 of the Anecdota, when the eighth century was somewhat advanced, and therefore it could be true that Bodo, as is asserted in the often-mentioned Acts or catalogue of the bishops of Toul, handed over the monastery of Offonis-villa in honour of St. Leodegar, granted to him by paternal right, or, as the praised Martène reads, in perpetuity, for the service of God, to his church, namely that of Toul, of which he was bishop; whence it would follow that the monastery of Offonis-villa was perhaps consecrated to Leodegar when the eighth century had somewhat begun, and therefore that the chronological order is perhaps not preserved by me here, since I have already treated of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Campellum, probably consecrated to him later. But now, since Bodo, bishop of Toul, is not distinct from Leudinus, or Leuduinus, own brother of St. Salaberga, whom Leodegar outlived, it follows that what is asserted in the praised Acts concerning the monastery of Offonis-villa handed over by Bodo to the church of Toul in honour of St. Leodegar is false; whence it further follows that from that assertion in the Acts of Toul it cannot be argued that the monastery of Offonis-villa was consecrated to Leodegar or founded when the eighth century had somewhat begun. But, you will say, when then was that monastery founded or established? Mabillon, in the words recited in the preceding number, indicates that that monastery had already been built in the age of Bodo, although he does not admit that this was done in honour of Leodegar.

[334] does not seem to have been conferred, but about the middle For when he asserted that the often-mentioned monastery, which is indicated in the often-praised Acts to have already been founded in the age of Bodo in honour of St. Leodegar, stood in the way of Bodo being believed to be the same as Leudinus, or Leuduinus, brother of St. Salaberga, whom St. Leodegar outlived, he adds: But perhaps it was called by anticipation the monastery of St. Leodegar, who afterwards was added as patron to Offonis-villa, so that he seems to hold that the said monastery had already been built in the age of Bodo, although he does not admit that this was done in honour of St. Leodegar, and therefore attempts by the words just adduced to excuse from error the often-mentioned Acts of Toul which affirm it. But since it cannot be said without error that the monastery of Offonis-villa was handed over to the church of Toul in honour of Leodegar by Bodo, whom Leodegar outlived, although Leodegar was afterwards made its patron, Mabillon's excuse does not seem admissible; and therefore, since the Acts of the bishops of Toul thus undoubtedly err, whose author, as it seems to Martène, flourished not earlier than at the entry of the twelfth century, and nothing is available from elsewhere by which the foundation of the monastery of Offonis-villa may undoubtedly be established when the eighth century had somewhat begun, or earlier, it is uncertain to me whether it was not made later; and as the time, so also the place in which the aforesaid monastery is to be located seems impossible to define for certain. For Calmet and Mabillon, who touch on that matter, disagree with each other. For the latter, as is clear from the words recited above, locates the often-mentioned monastery of Offonis-villa in the diocese of Besançon; but the former, as has been observed by us in the Annotations to the Acts of St. Gauzlinus illustrated at the VII of September, in that of Toul. Both nevertheless include Offonis-villa in the pagus of Portien, which seems rather to be sought in Champagne than in the diocese of Besançon or Toul, as has already been observed by us with Valesius in the Annotations to the Life of St. Agilus given at the XXX of August.

[335] as it appears probable, it was consecrated in the ninth century But, however uncertain it may be in what place and time the monastery of Offo was founded, it is at least certain that it was founded not later than the tenth century. For in Pérard, in the monuments of the History of Burgundy, there exists a Diploma, or precept, which begins thus: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Louis, by the grace of God king. If we lend our ears to the fitting petitions of our faithful, we maintain the customs of our predecessors the kings, and render them the more familiar to our highness. Wherefore be it known to all our faithful, both present and future, that the illustrious Count Ugo has come into our presence, and has besought that we should give certain abbeys to a certain faithful man of ours, named Adalard, and to his wife Adala, and their heirs, situated in the pagus of Portien; of which monasteries, one is called Faverney, dedicated in honour of St. Mary, the other is called Offonis-villa, dedicated also in honour of St. Leodegar the martyr. Most willingly favouring therefore the prayers of the aforesaid glorious Count Ugo, we grant to the same Adalard and to his wife Addila, with all integrity, the abovesaid abbeys; that is, Faverney, with all its appurtenances, namely with churches, villas, bondsmen of both sexes, fields, meadows, woods, waters and the courses of waters, mills, exits and returns, what has been sought and what is to be sought: Saint-Leodegar likewise, entire and whole, likewise with all things pertaining to it; only so that, etc. And this Diploma or precept, by Louis d'Outremer, king of the Franks, is beyond controversy

issued, and therefore, since this prince began to reign in the year 936, it follows that the monastery of Offonis-villa, which in the beginning of the diploma recited is said to have been consecrated in honour of Leodegar, was built and consecrated to Leodegar not later than the tenth century; nay, that it was built not later than the ninth century becomes evident from the Survey of the monasteries and abbeys in the division of the kingdom of Lothar between the kings Louis and Charles made in the year 870; for in it, which exists in Mabillon, tome 3 of the Benedictine Annals, page 678, the monastery of Offonis-villa is reckoned to the portion of Louis. Wherefore, since in the Acts of the bishops of Toul praised before mention is made of the said monastery as already founded in the eighth century, it is probable enough to me that it had already been built at least even at the beginning of the ninth century, and consecrated to Leodegar about the middle of the same century; and hence it is that it has seemed good to defer the treatment of this monastery to this place, since that of Campellum, of which we treated before, was consecrated to Leodegar not later than as the ninth century was growing up.

* the chronological notes are faulty

* read contulerunt they conferred, or rebus suis … collatis their goods … having been conferred

§ XXII. The body of St. Leodegar is translated several times by the monks of St. Maxentius through fear of the Normans.

The body of St. Leodegar from Poitou The cult of St. Leodegar, which we have proved in the two preceding §§ from the monasteries built in his honour, we now strive to prove also from the care and solicitude with which the sacred body of the Saint was preserved immune from the sacrilegious hands of the Normans, when in the ninth century, bursting very often into the Gauls, they laid waste churches with sword and fire, and profaned all sacred things. That care and solicitude, as we shall teach, was applied by the monks of St. Maxentius, in whose keeping was the sacred pledge. The body of St. Leodegar, says Mabillon in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, translated from the villa of Sarcingum into the monastery of St. Maxentius in Poitou by Audulf the abbot at the command of Ansoald, rested there until the disaster of the Normans: and when these were ravaging through the soil of Poitou, the Maxentian monks carried the sacred remains of the aforesaid Martyr, together with the relics of Blessed Maxentius, first indeed into Armorica, then to the Arverni, afterwards to Auxerre. At length, the monastery of Ebreuil having been built in honour of St. Leodegar (which, distant about six miles from the city of the Arverni, grew into a town, and is today also subject to the Benedictine Order), they left there the greater part of the relics of St. Leodegar with the body of St. Gairinus, his brother. Thus Mabillon, and rightly enough indeed; but he does not bring express proof of all the things which he asserts, referring only, and that undoubtedly for proving solely the translations of Leodegar made through fear of the Normans, to the Life of St. Maxentius published by him in the Second Benedictine Century, towards the end of which he makes mention of a certain charter related by Jean Besly in the History of the dukes of Aquitaine, page 217. That charter our Henschenius transcribed entire from the praised Besly at the end of the Life of St. Maxentius the abbot illustrated by him at the XXVI day of June. Let us see now what can be drawn out of it on the present matter.

[337] into Armorica in the year There is indeed no doubt that it is established from it that the body of St. Maxentius was either translated or sent into Armorican Brittany while the Normans were ravaging in Aquitaine. For the said charter, drawn from the Cartulary of St. Saviour of Redon, and given in the year of Christ 924, is subscribed by Ademar the abbot, Haimeric the viscount, Richard the archdeacon, Turgalus or Tutgalus the priest, and three other persons who, as being contemporaries, had the things which are related or indicated in the aforesaid instrument thoroughly ascertained, and therefore deserve entire credence; and that the body of St. Maxentius was translated from Poitou into Armorican Brittany the aforesaid charter indicates in this manner: Be it known to all Christians fearing God, both clerics and noble laymen, how Tutgalus, priest of Poitou, with the counsel and consent of the lord Haimeric the viscount, came to Brittany from the Poitevins to us on account of the body of Blessed Maxentius; and he spoke with our dean, Moroe by name, that we should carry it back to its own place, promising us very many benefits on the part of Haimeric; and we believed him, and, consenting, we carried it with the greatest labour as far as the river Loire; for since by these words it is signified that Tutgalus the priest came into Brittany, namely the Lesser or Armorican, to reclaim the body of St. Maxentius, it follows that it then existed in Armorican Brittany, having been translated, probably by the Maxentian monks, from the monastery of St. Maxentius in Poitou, in which it had rested before. And lest this should be capable of being called into doubt in any way, Bertrand d'Argentré, in book 2 of Armorican Brittany, chapter 26, asserts that Salomon, king of Armorican Brittany, deposited in the abbey of Plélan, built by him in honour of St. Saviour and at his command named of Salomon, the body of St. Maxentius, sent to him from Aquitaine as a singular gift: and in chapter 27, in the charter of foundation of the said abbey, the aforesaid King Salomon speaks thus: In which (I) have vowed my body to be buried, and also, for the increase of the felicity and peace of all Brittany, I have caused to be placed there the most holy Maxentius, so very great a gift sent to us in past times. It is certain, therefore, that the body of St. Maxentius was carried from Aquitaine, or from the monastery of Saint-Maixent situated in Aquitaine, into Armorica. But, you will say, does it follow from this, then, that the body of St. Leodegar was likewise carried into Armorica?

[338] probably in 857, and then from Armorica, I answer that this is rendered by it, although not certain, yet probable. For, as we shall shortly see, the sending of the body of St. Maxentius was made at the time at which the region of Poitou was being devastated by the Normans, so that the sacred body of Maxentius seems to have been sent to King Salomon for no other reason than that it might be withdrawn from the danger of profanation to be committed by the Normans. Wherefore, since it is probable that the Maxentian monks wished to withdraw the sacred body of St. Leodegar from the same danger, it is also probable that it was carried from the soil of Poitou into Armorican Brittany, which was then, as it appears, free from the Normans. And that this was also in fact done becomes more credible from the words to be recited at the beginning of number 343. I now inquire into the year in which the body of St. Maxentius, and therefore probably also the body of St. Leodegar, was translated into Armorican Brittany. It appears certain that that translation was made between the year of Christ 856 and 870. For it was made while Salomon was reigning in Lesser Brittany or Armorica; this is clear from the charter of foundation just praised, in which Salomon says that the most holy Maxentius had been sent to him; and therefore, since Salomon, as is understood from the author of the Chronicle of St. Michael in Labbe, tome 1 of the Library, and from the Annalist of St. Bertin in Bouquet, tome 5 of the Writers, began to reign in the year of Christ 857, and since the said charter in the praised d'Argentré is noted as drawn up in the year of the Incarnation DCCCLXIX, it follows that the sacred body of St. Maxentius, and therefore also the body of St. Leodegar, was sent between the year 856 and the year 870; for those sacred pledges do not seem to have been sent to Salomon before he was king. And now, since that sending, as I have already noted, seems to have been made when the region of Poitou and Aquitaine was being laid waste by the Normans, it was most probably made in the year 857; for then Pippin, son of Pippin, king of Aquitaine, who, against the will of Louis Augustus his grandfather, had called himself king of Aquitaine after his father's death, together with the Normans, to whom he had joined himself, was laying waste the region of Poitou and Aquitaine. Pippin, says the Annalist of St. Bertin at the year 857, in Bouquet, tome 7, is allied with the pirates of the Danes, devastates the city of the Poitevins, and depopulates many other places of Aquitaine.

[339] We have therefore now the year in which probably the translation of SS. Leodegar and Maxentius from the territory of Poitou into Lesser Brittany or Armorica took place; the ninth century perhaps already growing old, it pleases me now also to inquire into the time at which the same Saints were translated from Armorica to the Arverni. I do not think that this happened while King Salomon was still living, because in the charter of Besly praised above, in which the body of St. Maxentius is narrated to have been translated from Brittany into Auvergne, and the chief persons who concurred in that translation are recorded, there is absolutely no mention made of Salomon, who nevertheless, since he held that sacred pledge, as it is possible to gather from the d'Argentré praised above, in the place of a most precious gift sent to him, would probably have had not the least part in that translation, and therefore, if it had been made under that prince, mention of him would probably be made. There is added that Salomon, since he held the body of St. Maxentius, as he says in the often-praised charter, in the place of a very great gift, does not seem likely to have readily let it go while he survived among the living. Wherefore, since Salomon, as the Annalist of St. Bertin in Bouquet, tome 2 of the Writers, testifies, was killed in the year 874 by the chief men of Brittany, it follows that probably neither the body of St. Maxentius nor the body of St. Leodegar was translated from Brittany to the Arverni before that year. Nay, the translation of those sacred bodies seems, if not later, certainly not earlier than in the last twenty years of the ninth century, to have been carried out. For since, as is clear from the words recited in no. 337 from the praised charter of Besly, that translation was preceded by a negotiation between the monks in whose keeping the body of St. Maxentius was in Brittany, and Turgalus or Tutgalus, priest of Poitou, who had come from Poitou into Brittany, with the counsel and consent of the lord Haimeric the viscount, to reclaim the body of St. Maxentius; and since the name both of the viscount Haimeric and of Tutgalus or Turgalus the priest is found subscribed to the often-praised charter of Besly, which is noted as given in the year 924, it follows that both Haimeric the viscount and Turgalus the priest, when they subscribed the same charter, were either eighty years old or older than eighty, if both be supposed to have been only thirty years of age when Turgalus went to Brittany to reclaim the body of St. Maxentius, and if the aforesaid translation of the sacred bodies be maintained to have been made, for example, about the year 874, in which Salomon, king of Lesser Brittany, was killed; and although an age of eighty years is by no means incredible, it nevertheless appears more probable to me that both Haimeric the viscount and Tutgalus the priest were not of so advanced an age when they subscribed the praised charter produced by Besly, and therefore it is also more probable to me that the translation of the sacred bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar into Auvergne was made, if not later, certainly not earlier than in the last twenty years of the ninth century.

[340] into Auvergne And having thus determined, as well as I could, the time at which that translation to the Arverni was made, I now subjoin the words in which it is narrated in the charter of Besly after the words recited in no. 337. And they are these: Then when we were pitching camp there (at the Loire), we heard that the pagans were devastating the region of Poitou, weeping and wailing in

we fell on our faces; because we had driven the blessed Man from his Mausoleum, which Christ had prepared for him, inasmuch as we could neither return, nor carry him forward to his own place. And since our grief did not then rest, we then moved to the church of Condate, on that river which is called the Bebronus, purchasing it for sixty solidi with all its territory. Which almost last words, we moved to the church of Condate on that river which is called the Bebronus, indicate that the translation was made into Auvergne. For the river Bebronus is situated in Auvergne, and is called today, as Mabillon notes in the margin in the First Benedictine Century at the end of the Life of St. Maxentius, the Sivolis, in French la Sioule. Wherefore by the church of Condate, to which in the words recited the translation is indicated to have been made, there must not be understood some church of the city of Rennes in Lesser Brittany, which, on the testimony of Baudrand, is also found named Condate. Nay, that by the church of Condate there cannot be understood here any church either of the city of Rennes or even of Lesser Brittany becomes plain not only from this, that in Lesser Brittany there is no river of the name Bebronus, today the Sivolis, but also from the very words of Besly's charter just recited. For in them it is said that those who were translating the body of St. Maxentius from Brittany towards Poitou, when they had already arrived at the river Loire, could not, the Normans standing in the way, either carry the body of St. Maxentius forward to its own place or return, that is, could neither carry back the body of that Saint to the monastery of St. Maxentius nor return with the same to the place whence they had come; whence it follows that by the church of Condate, to which they then carried the body of St. Maxentius, and so also of St. Leodegar, there must be understood not a church of the city of Rennes but of the region of the Arverni, although perhaps no place occurs in it which is commonly called Condate.

[341] Further, the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar, translated into Auvergne far from Lesser Brittany and the territory of Poitou through fear of the Normans, and at length, perhaps at the beginning of the tenth century, to Auxerre the fury of the Normans did not allow to rest to the end in the church of Condate, in which they had been deposited there. For in Besly's charter, after the words just recited, a few things having been interposed which we shall recite afterwards, these things are read: But the devastation of the Normans and fear grew upon us, so that for safety we determined to carry away the body of that man (Maxentius), and so we did, carrying it honourably into the pagus of Auxerre, with the help of Count Richard, at that time living in the body. And he, with the bishop and the nobles of the whole region, willed with glad mind and devoutly to give very many benefits and fiscal lands and estates to the blessed Man. The body of St. Maxentius, therefore, and so also the body of St. Leodegar, was translated from Auvergne to the pagus or territory of Auxerre, after both had rested for some time in the church of Condate of that pagus or territory. But, someone will perhaps ask, how long indeed did the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar rest in that church? I answer that nothing at all is available from which this can be defined for certain. For it is uncertain, as is clear from what has already been said, when they were brought into Auvergne, and it seems likewise uncertain when they were translated thence to Auxerre, although perhaps this happened at the beginning of the tenth century; and therefore it is necessary that it be similarly uncertain for what space of time they remained at rest in the church of Condate, so that it seems superfluous to me to inquire at more length into that matter. But now another question arises here, namely whether the two latter mentioned translations of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar were made by the Saint-Maixent monks of the territory of Poitou, or by the monks of Redon in Brittany, who had fled with many relics of the Saints to the monastery of Plélan granted to them by King Salomon. Mabillon, having abandoned his former opinion (see no. 336), inclines to that which judges that those translations were made by the monks of Redon.

[342] For in tome 3 of the Benedictine Annals, page 158, he writes thus concerning the monastery of Plélan granted to those monks by Salomon: by the monks, not, as Mabillon holds, In the process of time, on account of the relics of St. Maxentius the abbot translated thither, as they report, it was called the monastery of St. Maxentius, and it retains that name even now, no longer an abbey, but a cell of the monastery of Redon. And then in the same tome of the same Work, page 380, he has these things: From a certain notice related by Jean Besly, which we have already often mentioned, and a part of which we have also given, we learn that the body of St. Maxentius the abbot was carried from his monastery, situated among the Pictones, by Salomon, duke of Brittany, into a certain cell of the monastery of Redon in the same Brittany, which is distinguished by the name of St. Maxentius. But when it was being carried back thence to its former place, the incursion of the Northmen into those parts having been heard of, it was carried to the church of Condate of the pagus of Auvergne, situated on the river Bebronus, which they now call the Sivolis, purchased for sixty solidi with its territory: where the monks of Redon of the cell of St. Maxentius abode with an ivory casket filled with many relics of the Saints. After this, the harassment of the Northmen again pressing, the aforesaid monks are said to have carried the sacred coffin of Blessed Maxentius, Count Richard favouring, into the pagus of Auxerre. But when the monks of Saint-Maixent reclaimed the sacred body of their blessed Patron, the monks of Redon promised that they would restore it, except the jaws, and his life and Missal. By which words indeed he openly declares that the body of St. Maxentius was translated from Brittany into Auvergne, and then to Auxerre, by the monks of Redon in Brittany, who according to him are called in Besly's charter the monks of St. Maxentius for this reason, that their monastery had put on the name of St. Maxentius on account of the relics of St. Maxentius which it embraced in its bosom. And although he here speaks expressly only of the translations of St. Maxentius, he must be understood also of the translations of the body of St. Leodegar, since he proves these solely from those, as I have already noted in no. 336, and therefore he must be judged to speak of both in the same manner, as far as regards the present undertaking; for if the body of St. Leodegar, which, as we have said, was in Brittany with the body of St. Maxentius, was not translated by the monks of Redon in Brittany, it follows that neither was the body of St. Maxentius, as will be plain to one who considers it, translated by them; and therefore Mabillon undoubtedly holds that the body of St. Leodegar also was translated by the monks of Redon in Brittany.

[343] of Redon in Brittany, But these words of Besly's charter which follow those recited in no. 340: And there our monks abide in honour of St. Maxentius, with one ivory casket full of relics of very many Saints, must be understood, as it at least appears to me, not of the monks of Redon in Brittany, as Mabillon thinks, but of the Saint-Maixent monks in the territory of Poitou, and so by these the two translations of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar of which we have treated in the latter place were carried out. For it appears less probable to me that the monastery of Plélan in Brittany, granted by King Salomon to the fugitive monks of Redon, was already distinguished by the name of the Maxentian monastery on account of the relics of St. Maxentius the abbot translated thither at the time when these were translated from Brittany into Auvergne; for Salomon, in the diploma which exists concerning the foundation of the monastery of Plélan in Brittany in the praised d'Argentré, book 2, chapter 27, speaks thus: In the name of the Lord, amen. Salomon by the grace of God, etc. Be it known to all of Brittany, both bishops and priests, and the other noble dukes and most valiant soldiers, all subject to our dominion, how the venerable Richard the abbot, with some of his monks, bearing however the petition of all the other monks, came into our presence in my monastery which is at Plélan, where I formerly had a hall: but, the Normans harassing, Abbot Connoyon, with the entreaty of his monks, asking for a place of refuge for himself before the Normans, and for his monks, came to us and to our venerable wife Guihenerec and petitioned; to whom, giving assent, we not only handed over to them the abovesaid hall, but also ordered a not ignoble monastery to be built in the same place from our own means, in honour of St. Saviour, as a refuge for the abovesaid monks, for the heavenly inheritance and the redemption of our souls, and also for the perpetual prosperity of our offspring and of our parents, and for the most tranquil stability of our whole kingdom of Brittany and of our faithful; which place also we willed to be called the monastery of Salomon. To these d'Argentré adds a few more things from the same diploma, and says that the rest contains a description of the jewels which Salomon bestowed on the aforesaid monastery. Wherefore, since this prince is understood from this, and from the recited Fragment of the diploma, to have been very beneficent towards the Redon monks of the monastery of Plélan, I should not readily persuade myself that these were so little mindful of the benefit that they named their monastery, which their munificent founder, as is clear from the last words of the diploma recited in part, had willed to be called Salomon's, of St. Maxentius against his express will, and that either while Salomon was still living or certainly not very long after his death, since he departed from among the living in the year 874, as we have already taught, and the translation of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar from Brittany into Auvergne happened, as is plain from what was said before, not very long after the death of Salomon.

[344] In addition, it appears to me very doubtful whether the monastery of Plélan in Brittany was ever commonly called the Maxentian on account of the relics of St. Maxentius translated thither, but also, as it appears, by the monks of Poitou and Mabillon himself seems to have doubted on this matter; for he affirms it not without hesitation, but with this formula of speech added, as they report. Be it, however, that the often-mentioned monastery of Plélan was at some time distinguished by the name of St. Maxentius, it nevertheless appears less probable, as I have already said, that it was already so called at the time when the sacred bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar were translated from Brittany into Auvergne, so that it is also less probable that by the words of Besly's charter recited in the preceding number the monks of Redon in Brittany ought to be understood. Wherefore, since nevertheless the translation of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar from Brittany into Auvergne was made by the monks who are understood in that charter, it follows that it was probably not carried out by the monks of Redon in Brittany; whence it further follows that it was probably made by the Saint-Maixent monks in the territory of Poitou, which it now pleases me also to show directly. That translation was made by those monks, one of whom in the name of the rest sets up the discourse in Besly's often-mentioned charter; this becomes manifest even from the mere reading of the same charter. Wherefore, if those monks in whose name the writer of Besly's charter speaks were of the monastery of St. Maxentius in the territory of Poitou, it will follow that the translation of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar into Auvergne and then to Auxerre was carried out by the Saint-Maixent monks; and that they were of the Saint-Maixent monastery in the territory of Poitou

were those monks in whose name the writer of Besly's charter speaks becomes probable, both from this, that he takes Ademar, abbot of the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius, as his own abbot and that of the monks in whose name he speaks: But Haimeric, he says, and our abbot (Ademar, as the subscription of the charter indicates) promised to give us gladly a hundred measures between bread and wine in this present year (924, in which the charter is signed), and one mill with a little charter on the part of Haimeric, and to divide likewise the land cultivated and uncultivated; and from this, that to the words already recited he adds these, And that we may be the guardians of that body without end, by which is indicated the condition under which, the Poitevins consenting and requesting, the restitution of the body of St. Maxentius was promised by the monks in whose keeping it was at Auxerre. For it appears less probable that those monks, if they had not been Poitevins, would have promised the restitution of the body of St. Maxentius on this condition, that they should have it committed perpetually to their custody. For thus they would have had to migrate from Auxerre to Poitou, which they do not seem likely to have undertaken unless they themselves also had been monks of Poitou, so that both for the second and for the first reason adduced here by me they were probably from the monastery of St. Maxentius in Poitou.

[345] of St. Maxentius, exiles in Brittany, Nor is there reason for you to say that the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar were translated from the monastery of Plélan in Brittany into Auvergne and then to Auxerre, and therefore, since the monks of Plélan were not from the monastery of St. Maxentius in Poitou, that it follows that that translation was not made by the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius; for I answer that it is probable that at least some monks from the monastery of St. Maxentius in the territory of Poitou were in the monastery of Plélan. For the body of St. Maxentius had been sent, as we have taught, from the Poitevin abbey of St. Maxentius through fear of the Normans to King Salomon in Brittany for the sake of safety; and it appears probable that that sending was not made unless at least some part of the Saint-Maixent monks fleeing from the Normans accompanied it, so that consequently in Brittany, in which the body of St. Maxentius was preserved, some Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius, who had carried the body of St. Maxentius thither, probably were, with the permission of King Salomon, and that in the monastery of Plélan, and by them therefore the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar could be translated from Brittany into Auvergne, and then to Auxerre. And indeed that those sacred bodies were in fact translated from Brittany into Auvergne and then to Auxerre by the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius would be altogether certain if credence could be created by a writing inserted in our Collectanea, which is noted as taken from the ancient Parchments of the most distinguished man, the lord de la Mare, royal counsellor at Dijon, and which bears this title: Writing concerning the body of St. Leodegar, how it came to Ebreuil.

[346] they are translated; and in order that this may become more probable, For it has thus: At the time when the most grievous rage of the Danes was laying waste with miserable slaughter the provinces of the Gauls contiguous to the river Vienne, the impious pirates also plunder the castles and villages of the Poitevins, and the whole country from the sea as far as the same city of Poitiers. They likewise approach the city of Tours, and overwhelm it with innumerable slaughter, and at last give it over to the flames. Everywhere they are borne like swift wolves to tear the Lord's sheep, pouring out human blood to their god. They defiled holy things, they burned churches with deadly rage: and they destroyed the monasteries of monks with their buildings, reducing all things to a wilderness; they practised abominable mockery upon the Christian people. For from the very shore towards the East, as far as the city of Aquitaine, no region was able to retain its liberty. When the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius learned of their piratical exercise, sad report bringing it, they yielded their place, and carried with them the most holy bones of the Blessed, and the pious ashes of St. Maxentius and Leodegar. At length, God leading them, they came to the Arverni, as far as Ebreuil, which was then a royal fisc and the royal seat of Charles. By which words the translation of the sacred bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar made by the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius is most clearly asserted, so that this would no longer be doubtful if that writing could create certain credence. But although it does not deservedly enjoy this, since it nevertheless also reveals some things of whose truth there is certainty, it renders at least more probable the opinion by which we ascribe the translation of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar from Brittany into Auvergne and then to Auxerre to the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius; and in order that it may become more probable still, it will help to bring forward here besides certain circumstances which probably accompanied the flight of the same monks from the territory of Poitou with the relics of the Saints, and which we have not yet sufficiently touched upon.

[347] Thus, when the Normans were ravaging through the territory of Poitou in the year 857, a further explanation of the matter is added. the monks of St. Maxentius, having taken the relics of Leodegar, Gerinus, Maxentius and other Saints which they possessed, withdrew into Armorican Brittany, then, as it appears, free from the incursions of the Normans, and, as I at least judge, turned aside first to the monastery of Redon, and then, with the monks of Redon likewise fleeing the Normans, to the monastery of Plélan founded by King Salomon; and hence it is understood why Salomon, king of Lesser Brittany, in the often-mentioned diploma concerning the foundation of the aforesaid monastery, makes no mention of the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius, although he granted it likewise for their use, namely because, since they were dwelling in the monastery of Redon, he comprehended them also under the monks of the abbot of Redon, at whose petition he founds the often-mentioned monastery. Further, the Poitevin and Redon monks afterwards inhabiting the monastery of Plélan together, Salomon, king of Armorican Brittany, handed over the body of St. Maxentius, which the Saint-Maixent monks, as soon as they had arrived as fugitives in Brittany, had probably given as a gift to that prince, both to win his goodwill for themselves and for the sake of safety; and hence it is now understood why Salomon says in the often-mentioned diploma that the most holy Maxentius had been sent to him in past times as a very great gift, as also how the Saint-Maixent monks, although they had previously handed over the body of St. Maxentius to Salomon, received it again into their hands, and then, the monks of Redon, namely, with whom they dwelt, assenting, could translate it into Auvergne and to Auxerre, and in fact, as we have taught, afterwards did translate it, with the relics of Leodegar, Gerinus and other Saints. For the rest, however probable the opinion defended in this § concerning the bodies of SS. Leodegar and Maxentius translated several times by the Saint-Maixent monks in the territory of Poitou may appear, the contrary nevertheless does not lack probability.

§ XXIII. The monasteries of Ebreuil, of Cognac, and others built to St. Leodegar, and his body, except a part which was sent to Poitou, laid up in the former with the body of St. Gerinus.

They promise to bring back the body of St. Maxentius to Poitou When the tenth century had already begun by more than twenty years, and therefore, as the Histories teach, the fear of the Normans was ceasing, the Poitevin monks of St. Maxentius, dwelling, as it appears, at Auxerre, again thought seriously about translating to its former seat the body of St. Maxentius and the relics of other Saints, which they had wished to do while they were still in Brittany. They sent hence to Poitou their provost with two monks, to confer with the Poitevins about that matter. This is understood from Besly's Charter, most often named in the preceding §. For in it, after the words recited in no. 341, it is had thus: But we, waiting, fearing greatly the fear of the Lord, and wishing to hold to the stability of the agreement which we had with our confrere Tutgalus, on account of whom the merits of the Saints had been moved from their places, so that this agreement might be wholly defined, and not be reckoned void on our part, nor on his. And therefore we sent the provost, a priest, with two monks to him at Poitiers, on account of that embassy which he had brought to us to Brittany on the part of the viscount on account of the blessed Man. And the sentence agreeing between us and Tutgalus, he himself directed his man with the brother of our dean, sending to Haimeric. And he, as he heard, with a cheerful countenance, as is fitting, gave them an answer, promising to come before the count and the nobles of the whole city, which he also did; and he brought with him to Poitiers his brother, our abbot. And there came together before Count Ebulus, a man beyond estimation, truthful in speech, the viscount with his brother, and our monks, and Richard, archdeacon of Blessed Peter, and the dean of the same Apostle, who is the truthful teacher of the whole city, devout in mind, Mainard by name; they conferred among themselves concerning the body of St. Maxentius, the eminent confessor, and how or in what manner we held him, and they reasonably examined all things. In sum our monks, and another man of ours, promised to carry the body of the blessed man with his head, except the jaws, to Poitiers, and his Life and Missal. From which words, and from those which are immediately subjoined to them, and which have already been recited in no. 344, it becomes manifest that the Saint-Maixent monks dwelling, as it appears, at Auxerre, a negotiation with the Poitevins having gone before, promised that they would bring back the body of St. Maxentius to Poitou, so that, as I asserted, they then thought seriously about that matter.

[349] the monks, as it appears, of Saint-Maixent, and that, whatever doubt Mabillon nevertheless calls into doubt whether the body of St. Maxentius was in fact carried back to Poitou when the irruptions of the Normans into Gaul had already ceased; and this doubt he sets forth in tome 3 of the Benedictine Annals, page 380, in these words, a part of which I have already given above: When the Maxentian monks reclaimed the sacred body of their blessed Patron (Maxentius), the monks of Redon promised that they would restore it, except the jaws, and his Life and Missal. But at length it was agreed among them that the monks of Redon should be the perpetual guardians of that body with the authority and security of Count Ebulus. This was done in this year (924) on the XII of the Kalends of July, on the first feria, or Sunday. From that time a great part of the relics of St. Maxentius are said to have been preserved in the monastery of St. Leodegar of Ebreuil, of the diocese of Clermont, besides certain particles which are had in the Maxentian monastery among the Pictones. And yet in the Chronicle of Maillezais (in Labbe, tome 2 of the New Library, page 21) it is read that in the year MLIX the body of Blessed Maxentius the helper (that was his surname) was shown in the Maxentian basilica, and a new sepulchre was made for him on the VI of the Nones of October. So difficult is it to unravel disputes about relics, much less to settle them. By which words he indicates that he doubts whether the body of St. Maxentius was carried back to Poitou chiefly for two reasons: the first is that, as he thinks, according to Besly's most often praised charter, the Maxentian monks at length consented that the monks of Redon, who do not seem to have migrated to Poitou, should be the perpetual guardians of the body of St. Maxentius; but, as will be plain to one who considers Besly's charter, the Maxentian monks did not consent to this, but Haimeric the viscount and the other nobles of the Poitevins consented that the monks who were abiding with the body of St. Maxentius at Auxerre, and whom, as appears from what was said in the preceding §, he perhaps wrongly calls monks of Redon, should be the perpetual guardians of the body of St. Maxentius

and that on this condition, that they should transfer it, and therefore also their seats, to Poitou.

[350] The other reason for Mabillon's doubting is that from that time, [Mabillon may raise, was in fact afterwards brought back to the territory of Poitou,] namely from the year 924, a great part of the relics of St. Maxentius is said to have been preserved in the monastery of St. Leodegar of Ebreuil; but how could a great part of the relics of St. Maxentius be preserved from the year 924 in the monastery of St. Leodegar of Ebreuil, if that, as the praised Chronicle of Maillezais observes, was only founded in the year 961? In addition, the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 369, review the holy Patrons of the abbey of St. Leodegar of Ebreuil, and do not number St. Maxentius among them, which seems to be an indication that no notable relics of St. Maxentius exist there. I think, therefore, that the body of St. Maxentius was carried back from Auxerre to Poitou, when the fear of the Normans ceased, by monks not of Redon, but, as it appears, by the Poitevin Maxentians dwelling at Auxerre, so that in the Chronicle of Maillezais it is most probably rightly noted that in the year 1059 the body of Blessed Maxentius was shown in the Maxentian basilica, and a new sepulchre was made for him. Nay, that the body of St. Maxentius, together with the body of St. Leodegar, or at least a part of it, for which reason I treat here of the body of St. Maxentius, had already been brought back to Poitou about the year 963, I now show more clearly. The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1245, supply the following notice concerning the Poitevin abbey of St. Maxentius from a very old, as they say, Cartulary of the same monastery: Therefore in the time of Clovis our abbey (of Saint-Maixent) took its beginning, because he, giving this place on his part to Maxentius the Helper, endowed it very greatly. Before his time, as is known, the monastery of the said St. Maxentius was under the rule of the venerable Agapius, presbyter or abbot, whom the kindly Helper, the grace of his merits requiring it, succeeded in the pastoral charge in the monastery which at that time was called of St. Saturninus the martyr. But the same Helper having died there honourably, as was fitting, the name of the monastery, on account of the presence of the precious body, was long held by all the people in honour of the kindly Confessor, until the time of the lord Ebulo, count, or bishop of the see of Limoges, who translated that body honourably thence into the basilica in which it rests to this day, and also placed together on the same day the body of the most blessed martyr Leodegar from its church into the same basilica, which he also himself ordered to be made at his own expense and dedicated.

[351] Ebulo, bishop of Limoges, who is also found called Ebulus, it is brought into the new church with the relics Eblus and Eblo, and who is recorded here to have translated the body of St. Maxentius and of St. Leodegar, was abbot of the Maxentian monastery in the territory of Poitou; this is understood from the charter by which William, his brother, count of all Aquitaine, makes known how his brother, namely Ebolus, venerable bishop of the see of Limoges and excellent abbot of the monastery of Maxentius, confessor of Christ, acquires from Bego a little wood and the adjacent church, etc. And he ruled that abbey already from at least the year 936; for at this year in the Chronicle of Maillezais, in Labbe, tome 2 of the New Library, page 202, it is read: Ebulus was bishop and abbot of St. Maxentius; wherefore, since he departed from among the living about the year 963 or 964, as the praised Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach in the tome just cited, column 1248, it follows that what the words just recited from the Maxentian Cartulary indicate, namely that Ebulus translated the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar into the basilica, happened, if not earlier, certainly not later than between about the year 936 and 964; namely into that basilica which, as it is possible to gather from the Chronicle of Ademar, monk of St. Eparchius, in Labbe, tome just cited of the New Library, page 166, he had built anew. Since therefore, as is clear from what has already been said, the bodies of St. Maxentius and St. Leodegar were translated into the new church by Ebulus, bishop of Limoges and abbot of the Maxentian abbey, about the middle of the tenth century, it follows that each of those sacred pledges had been brought back from Auxerre to Poitou at least a little before. And hence indeed it becomes to me all but certain that the Monks dwelling at Auxerre with the bodies of St. Maxentius and St. Leodegar redeemed their pledge concerning the carrying back of the body of St. Maxentius to Poitou, which they had bound themselves to, as we have seen, in the year 924, not very long after, and so brought back to Poitou about the year 930 the body of St. Maxentius with the body of St. Leodegar, or at least some part of it.

[352] of St. Leodegar, of which however the greater part I say or at least with some part of it, because it is doubtful to me whether in the Maxentian Cartulary praised above by the body of St. Leodegar the entire body of this holy Prelate is to be understood, or only a certain part, as often happens elsewhere. That doubt is raised by the Writing, a part of which I gave above, drawn from the ancient Parchments of the most distinguished man the Lord de la Mare, royal counsellor at Dijon, and transmitted to our Predecessors by Father Chifflet, priest of our Society. For in this, after the words recited in no. 346 and the narration of a miracle, which will have a place here later at least in substance, these things are read: Forthwith King Karolus assigned that place (Ebreuil) to the Lord, which he enriched with very many revenues of estates, and enlarged with the bestowal of gifts. The boundaries also of that place, as the will of the venerable brethren was, he devoutly conferred. Therefore with the highest industry and skilful zeal a church is built in honour of Blessed Leodegar, which up to now is worshipped and venerated by the faithful. Thither flocked a very great multitude of nobles, * with the delights of the present world and the pomps of worldly means. Finally, after France had rested from the crashes of tumults, many exiles from their fatherland seek again their native soil, rejoicing to visit their birthplaces and their surviving homes. Which when the Poitevin monks noticed, who through fear of the heathen had carried the bodies of the Saints to the Arverni, a certain part resolved to return to their native soil with the body of Blessed Maxentius; the other part also remained, and remains up to the present, at Ebreuil with the body of St. Leodegar; where almighty God has made His Saint wonderful and honoured him with the attestations of miracles. By which words it is indicated that the body of St. Leodegar was not brought back about the year 930, when that fear ceased, to Poitou from Auvergne, whither it had been carried from Poitou through fear of the Normans, so that it is doubtful whether in the Maxentian Cartulary praised above by the body of St. Leodegar the entire body of the same holy Prelate, or only a part, ought to be understood.

[353] at Ebreuil But, you will say, the Writing from which we have now transcribed here a twofold part labours under more than one error, and therefore does not deserve credence. For it says that King Karolus, whom it distinguishes by no indication from the kings of the Gauls of the same name, granted Ebreuil with very many estates to the monks of St. Maxentius fleeing the Normans who were ravaging far and wide through Gaul, so that it indicates that the monastery of Ebreuil in Auvergne was then founded by a certain king named Charles, which therefore, according to the said Writing, necessarily happened either in the ninth century or certainly at the beginning of the following, since the ravages of the Normans through Gaul did not last longer. But this conflicts with the Chronicle of Maillezais already praised more than once, in which, in Labbe, tome still cited of the New Library, at the year 961 is read: At this time was built the monastery of St. Mary and St. Vincent and St. Leodegar the martyr, which is situated on the Severa. S. Ligdaire sur Seure. At the same time the monastery of St. Leodegar among the Arverni, of the monastery of Ebreuil, where Amblard was abbot. In addition, the same Writing, already mentioned more than once, seems to conflict with Besly's Charter, from which we proved above the various translations of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar; for this indicates that the body of St. Maxentius was translated first into Brittany, then into Auvergne to the church of Condate, and to Auxerre, with absolutely no mention made of the monastery of Ebreuil; but the former, as will be plain to one who inspects both its fragments already recited, seems to insinuate that the body of St. Maxentius, as soon as it was carried into Auvergne, was deposited at Ebreuil, and rested there always until it was brought back to Poitou, and therefore was carried neither to the church of Condate nor afterwards to Auxerre as the devastation of the Normans grew, so that consequently it seems to conflict with the praised Charter of Besly, and therefore not to deserve credence. I confess that hence in some measure, but chiefly, as I shall teach below, from elsewhere, the credibility of the praised Writing is not a little suspect to me.

[354] But it seems probable enough that the greater part of the relics of St. Leodegar, together with the body of St. Gerinus, where the sacred pledges of the Saint are preserved even today, his brother, was laid up in the monastery of Ebreuil, since the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana testify that the sacred pledges of the Saint are preserved there even today, when in tome 2, column 369, they write thus concerning the monastery of Ebreuil: Ebrolium or Eborolium, formerly an estate of Apollinaris Sidonius, a noble monastery of Benedictines situated on the bank of the Sivolis or Sicaula, two leagues from the city of Gannat, and three from the monastery of Menat, was founded in the year DCCCCLXXI (nay, in the year DCCCCLXI), Lothar reigning, as the Chronicle of Maillezais observes; whose patrons are Blessed Mary, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and St. Leodegar the martyr, as we have said from the charter of foundation of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Cognac. Commonly, however, it is called the monastery of St. Leodegar, whose sacred pledges, together with the relics of St. Guarinus, brother of the same St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, are preserved in the principal altar. Wherefore, since the often-praised Writing teaches the manner in which the body of St. Leodegar, or at least the greater part of his relics, came to the monastery of Ebreuil, and this is not known from elsewhere, it does not seem that all credence is to be denied to the same Writing, especially since perhaps it can be so explained that by these words recited before, Forthwith King Karolus assigned that place to the Lord, which he enriched with very many revenues of estates, and enlarged with the bestowal of gifts. The boundaries also of that place, as the will of the venerable brethren was, he devoutly conferred. Therefore with the highest industry and skilful zeal a church is built in honour of Blessed Leodegar, etc., it signifies that the Saint-Maixent monks built the monastery not immediately when they had received the royal villa of Ebreuil, but only some time afterwards, let us say, when the devastations of the Normans through the Gauls had ceased, content meanwhile, while these lasted, with the old buildings, so that the often-praised Writing perhaps does not conflict with the Chronicle of Maillezais cited in the preceding number. Further, the opposition which it (see the preceding number) seems to have with Besly's Charter can perhaps also be removed by saying that, omitting the translations of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar into Brittany, Auvergne and then to Auxerre, it relates only the translation to Ebreuil made after the others mentioned, which the most often praised Writing itself seems also in some measure to indicate when, in the words recited in no. 346, in which it narrates the Poitevin monks with the bodies of SS.

Maxentius and Leodegar fleeing through fear of the Normans, it presently adds: At length, God leading them, they came to the Arverni, as far as Ebreuil, which was then a royal fisc and the royal seat of Charles.

[355] There is added also that, since, at least in the opinion of Mabillon (see no. 336), the monks of Ebreuil truly at some time possessed the body of St. Leodegar, or at least the greater part of it, by the Maxentian monks, fugitives from Poitou, which is called the body, it is necessary according to him that, if it did not come to Ebreuil in the manner in which it is set forth in the Writing just cited again, it was sent or granted as a gift to the monks of Ebreuil, when their monastery was being founded or had already been founded, by the Maxentians, by whom in this case it would have been brought back to Poitou: and it appears less probable that these, being most probably lovers of sacred relics, as it is fitting to believe, retained for themselves the lesser part of the most precious treasure, the body, I say, of St. Leodegar, and granted the greater to the monks of Ebreuil in Auvergne. All these things weighed, it is probable enough to me that the sacred body of Leodegar came to the monks of Ebreuil in that manner in which it is set forth in the Writing transmitted by Chifflet to our Predecessors, and I should believe this much more willingly were not the credibility of the same Writing suspect to me from elsewhere, namely from that miracle, which I mentioned above, which it contains, and which seems alien to the truth, and only an idle fiction devised to make the beginnings of the monastery of Ebreuil more august and memorable; in order that the learned reader may pass the same judgement with me on which matter, it is only necessary that I should append it here, at least in substance, as I promised above. The little fable has thus: The Saint-Maixent monks in the territory of Poitou, having slipped away in flight into Auvergne with the bodies of SS. Maxentius and Leodegar through fear of the Normans, come to Ebreuil, a royal villa, in which King Charles was then staying (this was perhaps Charles surnamed the Simple); the monks send to him to beg suppliantly from Charles a place for themselves, wanderers, in which they might build a fitting house; but the king (I omit here circumstances which plainly disgrace the royal majesty and do not appear credible even for that reason), unwilling to assent to their petition, is presently struck with paralysis by the judgement of God on account of his contempt of the monks, and, led to the bodies of the Saints, is at length restored to health after three days' prayers of his people, and, moved by this miracle, grants Ebreuil, enriched with the revenues of very many estates, to the monks to possess and inhabit. Such is the beginning attached to the monastery of Ebreuil in Auvergne in the most often mentioned Writing, which, as I think, everyone will hold as fabricated. But nevertheless it appears that Ebreuil, granted to the monks for the building of a monastery, was formerly a royal villa; for Mabillon, in book 4 On Diplomatics, page 282, writes thus concerning Ebrolium, or Ebroylum, or Evrogilum, in French Ebreuil: Evrogilum on the river Sicaula is a castle, formerly distinguished by a royal palace, now famous for an abbey of the Benedictine Order. There Louis, king of Aquitaine, afterwards emperor, passed his winters every four years by the counsel of Charles his father. The learned man Hadrien Valesius judges that Evrogilum is the same as Eborolacum, which Sidonius mentions in the letter to Hypatius. Nothing indeed is had in this place of Sidonius that designates the situation of Eborolacum; but I willingly accede to the conjecture of the most perspicacious man, which the affinity of the French name Ebreuil also supports. Thus Mabillon, whose text it has pleased me to transcribe entire because it confirms the notice concerning the monastery of Ebreuil in Auvergne given before.

[356] Since, therefore, Ebreuil truly was formerly, as the Writing now so often named indicates, was probably laid up. Another monastery in honour a royal villa, and this has now been converted into a monastery of the Benedictine Order, it appears probable enough not only that the body of St. Leodegar came to the monastery of Ebreuil in that manner which that Writing asserts, but also that this was built, when the irruptions of the Normans into the Gauls ceased, by the fugitive Poitevin monks, and that a part of these remained in it with the bodies of SS. Leodegar and Gerinus, his brother, while others returned to Poitou with the body of St. Maxentius. And let these things suffice that have been said concerning the monastery of St. Leodegar of Ebreuil, or founded in honour of Leodegar in Auvergne. I come now to four other monasteries which are likewise distinguished by the name of Leodegar. That of which the chronological order demands that I should treat first is called the abbey of St. Leodegar on the Separis, in French la Sèvre. This is situated in the diocese of Saintes, and was founded, as the Chronicle of Maillezais testifies, in the year of Christ 961, King Lothar reigning. Concerning this monastery the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1123, give the following notice: This abbey of the Benedictine Order, situated on the stream Separis near Niort, is founded in the year DCCCCLXI, from the Chronicle of Maillezais. And immediately from its beginning it is subjected to the monastery of St. Maxentius. But it did not remain subject to the monastery of St. Maxentius up to now. For the praised Writers of the tome cited, column 1124, speak thus: This monastery of St. Leodegar in the diocese of Saintes exists up to now, and is of its own right; so they, who in the tome cited, column 1123, also record these things concerning the same abbey: The viscounts of Niort usurped this abbey up to the death of Viscount Arbert, after whom Aldeardis the viscountess, his widow, restored it to Bernard, abbot of St. Maxentius, to whose right it had anciently belonged, says the Chronicle of Maillezais. They then subjoin the charter of restitution.

[357] This indicates that the aforesaid monastery of the diocese of Saintes near Niort was built or given to St. Leodegar, of St. Leodegar, perhaps in the year 961, near Niort, and therefore I transcribe it here entire: In the name of God and of our Saviour J. C. I, Audeardis, and my sons, wish it to be made known to the sagacity of all the faithful of the holy Church of God, both present and future, that at the entreaty of the lord Bernard the abbot it has pleased us that the church of St. Mary and of St. Vincent the martyr be restored, which now is called the monastery of St. Leodegar the martyr, which our predecessors, for the remedy of their souls, conferred on the most pious Helper Maxentius and on Leodegar the martyr. And we, examining the matter diligently, first entombed Arbert my lord, praying that the pious Helper Maxentius may deign by his intercession to snatch him from the fires of hell. The office of burial being completed, therefore, we granted to the congregation there serving God that whatever from this day they may wish to do and ordain for the advantage of the same monastery, they may have free choice * in the name of God, through this our authority, of doing whatever they shall choose, no one contradicting, etc. This charter is noted as given on the III of the Ides of May, Robert, king of the Franks, reigning; and the mentioned restitution is noted in the often-praised Chronicle of Maillezais, in Labbe, tome 2 of the New Library, page 205, between the year 996 and 1000; wherefore, since Robert, or Rotbert, king of the Franks, began to reign in the year 997, as Pagi learnedly proves in the Critica at the year 998, nos. 1 and 3, it follows that that restitution happened either in the year 997, or 998, or 999. And now, since from the year 961, in which, as the praised Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach from the Chronicle of Maillezais, up to the year 999 only 38 years run out, it can be doubted whether the monastery of St. Leodegar near Niort was not founded earlier than in the year 961, because, since Audeardis in the aforesaid charter of restitution, drawn up in the year 997, or 998, or even 999, says that her predecessors conferred the church of St. Mary and of St. Vincent the martyr, which now is called the monastery of St. Leodegar the martyr, on St. Maxentius and St. Leodegar the martyr, she seems to understand by her predecessors, the donors of the church of St. Mary and of St. Vincent, or the founders of the abbey of St. Leodegar, since after these some viscounts of Niort had already usurped this abbey, persons who had then lived more than 38 years before, so that it can be doubted whether the abbey of St. Leodegar near Niort was not founded earlier than in the year 961; and therefore whether the Chronicle of Maillezais does not stray in assigning the year in which this was founded; whence it follows that it can also be doubted whether the same Chronicle of Maillezais does not likewise stray in assigning the year assigned above in which the abbey of Ebreuil was founded.

[358] [another as the tenth century was growing old, or at the beginning of the eleventh,] But let it suffice to have noted this here. I proceed now to another monument of the posthumous Glory of our Saint. Helgaldus or Helgaud, monk of Fleury, who committed to writing the History, or rather Epitome, of the Life of Robert, king of the Franks, in Bouquet, tome 10 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs, page 115, enumerates the sacred places built by that prince, with whom he was contemporary, and reckons among them the monastery of St. Leodegar in the forest Aquilina. Robert, king of the Franks, began to reign from the year 997, as we have already taught, and likewise ended his life and reign, as you will find clearly proved in Pagi in the Critica at the years 1033 and 1034, no. 8 and following, in the year 1031; whence it follows that the aforesaid monastery of St. Leodegar in the Forest Aquilina was built between the year 996 and the year 1032; and this alone can I here assert for certain, since nothing is available by which the building or foundation of that monastery may be fixed to a determinate year. Concerning the Forest Aquilina, in which the monastery of St. Leodegar was situated, Baudrand in the Geography has these things: Aquilina Sylva, la forêt d'Iveline, a forest and tract of Gaul in the territory of Chartres of the Beauce, and towards Saint-Arnoult, but now scarcely appears as a forest, and it was also called Aquilina in the Acts of the middle age. But, as Mabillon observes in book 4 On Diplomatics, page 292, some have called Aquilina the forest Lisga, Lisica or Lesga, which is separated from the forest Cotia by the river Aisne, and therefore is far distant from the territory of Chartres of the Beauce, because it was called in French Lesgue and commonly Laigle; and these, as the same Mabillon affirms in the same place, contend that Helgaldus, just praised, already from the eleventh century also does this, when he commemorates the monastery of St. Leodegar in the forest Aquilina built by Rotbert, king of the Franks. Wherefore, if this accords with the truth, it follows that the forest in which Rotbert built the monastery of Leodegar is far distant from the territory of Chartres of the Beauce, and is not that forest which in French is called today la forêt d'Iveline.

[359] But the praised Mabillon subjoins these things to his observation already set forth: in the forest Aquilina, in French la forêt d'Iveline To the opinion of those … who judge that the forest Lisga, Lisica or Lesga is called Aquilina by Helgaldus in the case mentioned, I myself also would willingly accede, if that monastery which Helgaldus narrates was founded in the forest Aquilina by Rotbert were the same as that church of St. Leodegar placed in the castle and forest of Lisga which King Philip in the year mentioned (namely 1083) assigned to the monks of La Sauve-Majeure. But what forbids me so to think is that which I read in the Chronicle of Morigny at the year

MCXXIX, namely that the monks of Morigny, disturbed by the unexpected arrival of Pope Innocent at their monastery, sent swiftly one who should announce such things to Thomas the abbot, who had by chance set out with Guarinus the prior into the Aquilina beyond Saint-Leodegar to a little place of certain Hermits, that he should hasten to come. Which he at once carried out within the same day, or rather that night while the darkness still lasted. The forest Aquilina, therefore, la forêt d'Iveline, which Pippin mentions in Doublet, was very near the monastery of Morigny, and in it was contained the monastery of St. Leodegar, built by the authority of Rotbert. Thus Mabillon, rightly judging and proving that the monastery of St. Leodegar was built by King Rotbert not in the forest Lisga, or Lesga, or Lisica, but in the forest Aquilina, la forêt d'Iveline, and that Helgaldus therefore by the forest Aquilina understands not the forest Lisga, separated from the forest Cotia by the Aisne, but the forest which in French is named la forêt d'Iveline, and which, lying not far from the monastery of Morigny, or the now abolished monastery of St. Maurus of the diocese of Paris, towards the southern part, as is noted in Blaeu's geographical Map of the region and forest of Iveline, borders on the territory of Paris. It has pleased me to note these things from Mabillon concerning the forest Aquilina and the monastery of St. Leodegar built in it by King Rotbert, because, since that monastery has now been abolished, the studious reader will not easily find in other writers where it was situated accurately defined.

[360] After this monastery of St. Leodegar of the Aquilina forest there comes to be mentioned in the third place a monastery of maidens in Normandy, and two others besides, the one in Normandy likewise called of St. Leodegar, of whose situation, since it still exists, it is easier for the studious reader to learn. The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome XI, column 853, place it in the diocese of Lisieux of the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, and illustrate it with the following notice: Humfrey de Vieilles, founder of St. Peter of Préaux, was also founder of St. Leodegar. For a little after he founded the monastery of men, he built also another, of virgins, in the same valley, at the urgent request of Alberada his wife, and had it dedicated in honour of Blessed Mary and St. Leodegar the martyr, and endowed it with many estates, after the manner of the ancients, who were wont to build and join together double monasteries of this kind. From these words, with which the praised Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana only begin the notice which they supply concerning the convent of St. Leodegar in Normandy, we learn three things chiefly: first, indeed, that the aforesaid monastery was founded and consecrated in honour of the most holy Virgin Mary and St. Leodegar; then, at what time and in what place of the diocese of Lisieux it was built; for since in the words just recited it is said to have been built a little after by Humfrey de Vieilles in the same valley in which the monastery of men of Préaux had been founded by him; and since the said monastery of men of Préaux was built by that illustrious and munificent man, as the same praised Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana testify in the tome just cited, columns 834 and 835, in a place set among the narrows of the mountains not far from Pont-Audemer, which the ancients call Pratelli and others Pratellum, before the year 1035, it follows that the maidens' monastery of St. Leodegar of which the discussion is here was also built in the same place set among the narrows of the mountains not far from Pont-Audemer, and that about a little after the year 1035.

[361] about the year 1035, by Humfrey de Vieilles, These things having been noted, it pleases me also to subjoin the remaining words of the notice whose transcription was begun, since they likewise bear on the posthumous glory of our Saint. Here they are: Humfrey (founder of the monastery of men of Préaux) gave to St. Leodegar whatever he possessed in the villa of Bodelfa, Archbishop Malger, from whom he held that benefice, assenting and confirming it on this condition, that the abbess of the same monastery should once a year, on the solemnity of the same our Lady and Mistress Mary, render service in his bishop's house. And lest anyone should raise a dispute about these things, Hugh the grammarian, archdeacon of Rouen, at the dedication of the same church of Préaux, by the precept of Humfrey forbade it under grave penalty, which Hugh, bishop of Lisieux, sanctioned. Roger de Beaumont ratified his father's donation and increased it, and others of his countrymen by his example conferred many things on the same monastery. Among others Alberada is pre-eminent, who, surviving Humfrey her husband, gave with her son Roger two manses of land at Corbellomons of the land of Turchetillus, her maternal uncle, which Turchetillus is recorded to have bestowed certain things on St. Leodegar for the soul of his wife Duranda, who was made a nun in the same convent and was buried there, as was also Alberada, foundress of the same monastery, whose death is noted on the XII of the Kalends of October. These things indeed argue very great veneration towards St. Leodegar; it remains that we now say a few things concerning the monastery of the Saint at Cognac, another monument of the cult paid by the faithful to the holy Martyr. I have not found a sufficiently exact notice of it, and therefore I adduce here only certain things conducing to it. The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 125, write thus in the Catalogue of the Abbots of Saint-Maixent: Aimeric, formerly a monk of Ebreuil in Auvergne, then ruler of the new monastery of Ebreuil in the pagus of Saintes, founded about the year MXLI, then abbot of St. Leodegar near Niort, at length became abbot of St. Maxentius in the year MLIX at least, on the Nones of December.

[362] the other in the diocese of Saintes, called of Cognac, are built, And concerning the new monastery of Ebreuil in the pagus of Saintes they note thus in the margin: The monastery of Ebreuil of the pagus of Saintes is the same as that of Leodegar of Cognac. Then in the same tome, among the bishops of Périgueux, they write thus concerning Arnold, the XIX bishop of Périgueux, who was the founder of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Cognac: The Epitome relates that he ruled the church of Périgueux for XXII years and died in the year of the Lord MXXXVI, on the 2nd of the Ides of July, and was buried in the church of St. Fronto. But he seems to have been still surviving in the year MXLI from the charter of the first foundation of the monastery of St. Leodegar of Cognac, read in the archive of this place by Dom Estiennot, of which he was founder together with his nephews … and Arnold. In addition, in the same tome, column 369, they have these things concerning Gerbert or Girbert, fifth abbot of the monastery of Ebreuil in Auvergne: While he sat, Arnold, nephew of Arnold, bishop of Périgueux, the founder of St. Leodegar of Cognac, to the building of which he also had contributed much, when, travelling to Rome, he had stayed at Ebreuil among the Arverni, handed over the aforesaid monastery of Cognac to this monastery, from the records of the same, on the testimony of our Dom Claude Estiennot. And these are the things which I have been able to find concerning the monastery of St. Leodegar of Cognac. There are perhaps also other monasteries in the Gauls, whether of men or of women, either built or dedicated in honour of St. Leodegar; but I have now reviewed all those of which I have been able to acquire any notice whatever. He (Leodegar), says Mabillon in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, has many priories throughout Gaul named after him. Some of these were perhaps monasteries from their original foundation, which I am readily brought to believe by the three monasteries of St. Leodegar already mentioned in nos. 329, 331 and following, and 361, namely that of Campellum in the diocese of Langres, that of Offonis-villa in the pagus of Portien, and that of Cognac in the diocese of Saintes, which now, their former splendour lost, have been reduced to priories. For the rest, that there are many priories throughout Gaul, as the praised Mabillon says, which St. Leodegar has named after him, the dioceses of Bourges and Poitiers can be an argument, in each of which there are two priories distinguished by the name of St. Leodegar. To those two dioceses add also that of Saintes, in which, besides the priory of St. Leodegar of Cognac, of which it has already been spoken, two other priories besides are named after our Saint. Other dioceses of Gaul, in which likewise there are priories distinguished by the name of Leodegar, I pass over for the sake of brevity. Whoever wishes to have notice of these, let him consult the general Codices or Catalogues which contain the benefices, abbeys, priories, deaneries, etc. of the bishoprics of Gaul, published with Paris types in the past century or even more recently.

* here spretis spurning seems to be lacking

* arbitrium choice

§ XXIV. The special cult of St. Leodegar, ancient and more recent, among the people of Autun.

St. Leodegar, to whom an oratory In the five §§ immediately preceding I have treated, in some sort of chronological order, those things which pertain to the posthumous glory of St. Leodegar, and which I was able in some measure to refer to a definite epoch, or a definite time, taken from time to time, although with greater latitude than will perhaps please the learned reader. Immediately after the discussion held concerning the translation of the Saint from the territory of Arras to the monastery of St. Maxentius of Poitou, and thence afterwards into the new church, it would accordingly have been proper to treat at once of the ancient oratory of Leodegar at Autun; for this, as I shall teach presently, was built, or at least consecrated, to him by the people of Autun before the seventh century had elapsed, and therefore not even thirty years after the Saint's death; but since I had at the same time the intention of setting before the learned reader, as it were under one view, all things pertaining to the special cult, whether ancient or more recent, paid to St. Leodegar by the people of Autun, it has pleased me, although I had prescribed to myself to follow the chronological order in reviewing the monuments of the Saint's posthumous glory, to defer the treatment of the aforesaid oratory to this §, in which I shall embrace, and reduce into a compendium as far as I can, all things which pertain in any way either to the posthumous glory of the Saint or to his ecclesiastical cult among the people of Autun. I make my beginning from the aforesaid oratory. It was founded, or consecrated to Leodegar, before the seventh century had elapsed, and indeed before the year 696. This is clear from the testament of Ansebert, who, after Ermenarius, the next successor of Leodegar in the bishopric of Autun, occupied the episcopal chair of the church of Autun. For the said testament, by which Ansebert makes many donations to the oratory of St. Leodegar, is noted as drawn up on the V day of the month of August, in the 2nd year of the reign of the lord King Childebert; wherefore, since the Childebert who is here mentioned is Childebert III, king of the Franks, and he, as Pagi clearly shows in the Critica at the year 692, no. 18, began to reign before the twenty-third day of the month of March in the year 695, it follows that the aforesaid testament was drawn up in the year 696, and therefore that the oratory to which many donations are made by it by Ansebert, bishop of Autun, was built, or consecrated to Leodegar, either earlier than the year 696 or certainly not later. Mabillon exhibits the mentioned testament, from which we also learn that Ansebert wished to be buried in the oratory of Leodegar, entire in the second Appendix to tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 702 and following. From it I transcribe only those things which pertain in some measure to the present undertaking, and which also excellently prove Ansebert's veneration towards St. Leodegar.

[364] before the seventh century had elapsed And they are these: To the agents of the church of St. Nazarius the martyr of Autun, and of St. Symphorian the martyr, where the precious one himself rests in the body, Ansebert, a sinner, bishop.

The divine reading admonishes us that what the mercy of Christ confers in abundance in earthly things from His largess, which we use in this world, we should offer from His loving-kindness in His poor for washing away the mass of our sins. Therefore I give, etc. Here are set first the donations which Ansebert makes to the churches of St. Nazarius and St. Symphorian, and it then proceeds in this manner: Likewise to the oratory of St. Leodegar, which is seen to have been built below St. Symphorian, where (if it please God) my poor body besides is to rest, I will that the oratory of St. Leodegar have the colonies in the pagus of Maginontensis at Taviniacum, which Wlbert gave us by his instrument, and those colonies which Bertoald gave by his instrument at Fulnicium. And the villa of Corvillum, in the pagus of Auxerre, which we acquired with its appurtenances, I will and decree that that oratory of the lord Leodegar have. Likewise in the pagus of Autun the colonies which Bertoald gave us by sale, I will that that oratory of the lord Leodegar have. And the villa of Buxidum, whatever my brother holds there in usufruct, I will that that oratory of the lord Leodegar have. And the villa of Muidum, which is near the mountain of Wavinae in the pagus of Vertudensis, with all things whatsoever that belong there, I will that the oratory of the lord Leodegar have, yet so that from thence he establish light and sacrifice for that oratory, and that all things ought to be in all respects under the power of the brethren of that church of St. Symphorian.

[365] And four matricularii, who serve that oratory of the lord Leodegar, was built, we have instituted there, that they may have their whole food and clothing from the things written above, in the manner in which those other matricularii also who are seen to serve the basilica of St. Symphorian receive their portion of food and clothing. And for that reason, whatever we have delegated in this letter we have granted in usufruct to our sister Sicolina; let her hold those matricularii, and that light at the oratory of the lord Leodegar, in this use, and she ought to provide for them; and after her departure, both the abovesaid pontiff and the church of St. Nazarius, and the clerics of the said church of St. Symphorian, ought to provide for them in the name of God, as much as we have instituted in that instrument. Here end the things in the aforesaid testament which can be referred to St. Leodegar. And we learn from that ancient monument, besides the things which have already been said, that the oratory of St. Leodegar was situated not in the city of Autun itself but in its suburbs. These words indicate this: The oratory of St. Leodegar, which is seen to have been built below St. Symphorian; for since St. Symphorian, or the church of St. Symphorian, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach in tome 4, column 438, was situated in the suburbs of Autun; and the oratory of St. Leodegar, according to the words just cited from the often-praised testament, had been built below St. Symphorian, or the church of St. Symphorian, it follows that it too was situated in the suburbs of Autun. For the rest, besides the oratory built to our Saint, of which we have already treated, I have been able to find no monument of the cult paid to him as a Saint by the people of Autun that is older than the fifteenth century. I do not doubt, however, that Leodegar, a Saint most celebrated in all Gaul, from the seventh century, or at least from a century earlier than the fifteenth, up to now enjoyed in the bishopric of Autun, inasmuch as he himself had ruled it as prelate while he lived, the cult proper to Saints, and that not only uninterrupted but also from time to time increased; but who or of what kind that cult was, or by what indication manifested, absolutely no testimony teaches that is older than the excellent monument of the fifteenth century which Edmond Martène made public in tome 4 of the Anecdota, and which it will not be beside the point to reprint here entire, since it teaches, at least in part, the cult which our Saint enjoyed among the people of Autun in the fifteenth century, and paves the way to teaching the earlier cult of the Saint.

[366] That monument is a decree or statute by which it is established that the feast of St. Leodegar with a feast, with the obligation of abstaining and some other feasts be celebrated, either in the city of Autun alone and its suburbs, or in the whole diocese, with abstinence from all servile work; it exists among the statutes of the synod which the Most Eminent and most reverend lord Jean Rolin, Cardinal-priest of the title of St. Stephen on the Caelian Mount and bishop of the Aedui, or of Autun, celebrated in the year 1468, and it is the sixty-first statute in order of that synod. Here it is: Jean Rolin, by divine permission Cardinal, bishop of the Aedui, to the archdeacons, archpriests, curates and rectors of churches, and to all our subjects, greeting. As a pious mother is always anxious for the salvation of her sons, and never rests until, if there be any dissension among them, it has been laid to rest: so we also, who undeservedly hold the presidency in the church of the Aedui, desire with all zeal, and wish, to rule our subjects in the union of peace, and that they revere the pious mother church, observe her precepts to the nail, and meet their * dissensions; within a few days past some altercations have arisen among our subjects concerning the festivals of the Saints to be kept, and wishing to meet which differences as far as we can with God, for a perpetual memorial of the matter, adhering to our synodal statutes, we ordain and command all our subjects, under excommunication and every other penalty assessed in the ancient ordinances of our predecessors, to keep the following feasts, abstaining from all servile work.

[367] from all servile work Namely the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, of Stephen the protomartyr, of John the Evangelist, of the Circumcision of the Lord, of the Epiphany of the Lord, of Anthony the confessor, of Vincent the martyr, of the Conversion of St. Paul the Apostle, of the Purification of Blessed Mary, of the Chair of St. Peter, of Matthias the apostle, of the Lord's Annunciation, of the Resurrection of the Lord with the Monday and Tuesday following, of George the martyr, of Mark the Evangelist, of the Apostles Philip and James, of John the Evangelist before the Latin Gate, of the Ascension of the Lord, of Pentecost with the two days following, of the blessed Trinity and of the holy Eucharist, of Barnabas the Apostle, of John the Baptist, of the Apostles Peter and Paul, of Blessed M. Magdalen, of James the Apostle, of Nazarius and Celsus, of Peter in chains, of Lawrence the martyr, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of St. Symphorian in the city and suburbs of the Aedui, of Bartholomew the Apostle, of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist, of Blessed Lazarus in the city and suburbs of the Aedui, of the Nativity of the Mother of our Lord, of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, of Matthew the Apostle, of Andochius in the city and suburbs, of Michael the archangel, of Leodegar in the city and suburbs, of Dionysius the martyr, of Luke the Evangelist, of Simon and Jude, of All Saints, of St. Martin, bishop and confessor, of Andrew the Apostle, of the Conception of our Lady, of Thomas the apostle, of the Patrons of the churches and of those under whose titles they have been endowed; not meaning but that other feasts may be observed according to the devotion of the faithful, but they will not be commanded to be observed under the penalties ordained by law, except in the accustomed manner.

[368] to be kept, it is established in the year 1468, which at least up to the year And lest this salutary statute or synodal constitution pass by with conniving eyes under dissimulation, we enjoin on all the archpriests and rectors of churches of our city and diocese, under penalties of fifty solidi of Tours, that within the next two months he have this constitution written word for word authentically on parchment on a wooden tablet in his parish church, that they place it upon the altar or in an eminent place, that those who see may see, and may not have ignorance of the aforesaid things. Thus far the praised synodal statute or decree of Autun, by which the feasts are enumerated in that order in which they occur through the year computed from the Lord's Nativity, and by which some of them are established to be celebrated with the obligation of abstaining from all servile work throughout the whole diocese of Autun, and others, and among them the feast of St. Leodegar, with the same obligation extended only to the city of Autun and its suburbs, so that Leodegar was undoubtedly honoured among the people of Autun from the year 1468, in which, as I have already indicated before, that statute or decree of Autun concerning the observance of feasts was made, with a feast to be spent without servile work. Nay, since in the decree or statute now recited it is said, we ordain and command all our subjects, under excommunication and every other penalty assessed in the ancient ordinances of our predecessors, to keep the following feasts, among which the feast of St. Leodegar is numbered, it seems to follow that the Saint had already been endowed with that honour at Autun long before the year 1468. With stronger right still this very thing seems possible to be drawn out from this proem set before the statutes or synodal decrees made in the mentioned synod: The ancient Statutes of this city and diocese of the Aedui newly confirmed and corroborated by the most reverend father in Christ and our lord, the lord Jean Rolin, Cardinal-priest of the title of St. Stephen on the Caelian Mount and bishop of the Aedui, in this present year of the Lord MCCCCLXVIII, and by the reverend father in Christ the lord Antoine Busson, professor of sacred Theology, bishop of Bethlehem and prior of Auziacum and of St. Racho: and by the eminent and circumspect men, etc. For since by these words it is insinuated that the ancient statutes or decrees of the city and diocese of the Aedui, or of Autun, are only confirmed by the decrees or statutes which are subjoined, and one of these is the decree recited before, by which the feast of St. Leodegar is established to be celebrated in the city of Autun and its suburbs in the manner said before, it seems to follow that already before the year 1468 there existed among the people of Autun some statute or decree concerning the celebrating of the feast of St. Leodegar with the obligation of abstaining from all servile work in the city of Autun and its suburbs, and therefore that Leodegar, as it appears, had enjoyed long before the year 1468 at Autun the honour of a feast to be celebrated with the obligation already mentioned more than once.

[369] But, you will say, by how much time did that honour paid to Leodegar by the people of Autun precede the year of Christ 1468? was observed up to 1534, as is clear from the Calendar, I answer that nothing at all is available whereby I may define this for certain, and therefore I do not wish to discuss this matter. I assert meanwhile that the decree or statute concerning the feast with which Leodegar is to be worshipped in the city of the Aedui and its suburbs, made in the year 1468 in the synod mentioned several times, without any doubt prevailed at Autun up to the year 1534. For there is to my hand a Breviary according to the rite of the diocese of the Aedui printed by the authority of Jacques Hurault, bishop, in the year 1534; and to this is prefixed a Calendar in which all the feasts to be celebrated in the diocese of Autun by force of the often-mentioned synodal decree or statute are noted in red letters, so that in it probably absolutely all the feasts are so noted, and therefore that the feast of St. Leodegar, since it is likewise noted in red letters in the said Calendar, was undoubtedly to be celebrated in the city of Autun and its suburbs in the year 1534, and that with the often-mentioned obligation, namely of abstaining from all servile work

at least in the city of Autun and its suburbs. For that Calendar notes the feast of St. Leodegar as to be celebrated with the quadruple rite, with which it marks only the Lord's Nativity, the feast of All Saints and certain other greater feasts, so that the feast of our Saint, like the other greater feasts noted there, was to be celebrated at Autun and in the suburbs of this city. Further, the aforesaid Breviary of Autun, which, as I have already said, has prefixed to it a Calendar comprising the feasts to be celebrated in the diocese, or in the city of Autun and its suburbs, contains thirty-nine Lessons to be recited for the ecclesiastical Office in honour of St. Leodegar on the 2nd day of October and on six other days (for the Saint is worshipped there not only with a feast of quadruple rite but also with an Octave), namely nine on the very feast of the Saint, and as many on the Sunday within the Octave and on the Vigil of the Octave; and three on the remaining days of the Octave, except the eighth day, on which, on account of the feast of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, then to be celebrated with an ecclesiastical Office of nine Lessons, only a commemoration of St. Leodegar is made, without any Lesson concerning him. The Prayer proper to the Saint, with which this is then done, and which was to be recited on the preceding days of the Octave at Lauds, Vespers and the Little Hours, is this: O God, who hast made this present day honourable to us in the passion of Blessed Leodegar, bishop and martyr: grant to Thy Church worthily to rejoice in so great a Pontiff, that with Thy mercy we may be helped by his examples and merits. Through the Lord. And the said thirty-nine Lessons which are prescribed to be recited through the Octave of St. Leodegar in the aforesaid Breviary are fragments drawn, in great part, although from time to time expressed in other words, from the Life of the Saint written by the older anonymous author, and from the History of his Translation to the territory of Poitou written by Audulph the abbot.

[370] which is prefixed to the Breviary of Autun of the year 1534, concerning whose He who composed the said Lessons seems nevertheless to have had before his eyes also the anonymous writer of Murbach of the Life of St. Leodegar; for both in the Lesson which he assigns to be recited in the second place on the fifth day of the Octave he says, which the anonymous of Murbach also reveals from Ursinus, that Ebroin sent four men to kill Leodegar when he was now residing in the house of Chrodobert; and in the first Lesson, which he sets forth on the sixth day of the Octave, he calls Wardard the fourth of those four men, who, more pitiless than the three others, obeying the command of Ebroin, killed Leodegar, which the anonymous of Murbach likewise does, and he alone indeed of the three older biographers of Leodegar, so that the compiler of the praised Breviary of Autun drew that name from the anonymous of Murbach, and therefore also had him lighting the way before him; which, however, I hold not as certain but only as probable, because the praised compiler perhaps used another monument, either more recent or even more ancient, now lost or at least unknown to me, in which the name of Wardard was likewise expressed. For that there existed some monument more ancient than the anonymous of Murbach himself, in which that man who killed Leodegar by order of Ebroin was called Wardard, appears probable enough to me from this, that the anonymous of Murbach himself, since he flourished one century or perhaps even later after Leodegar, seems to have learned the name of Wardard, which he attributes to the slayer of Leodegar, from another more ancient monument. And this would become much more probable if the anonymous of Murbach were proved to have lived much later than a whole century after Leodegar, which perhaps also accords with the truth, and does not conflict with those things which I maintained in no. 31 concerning the age of this biographer. For since I said there that the anonymous of Murbach seems to have written only one century or a little later after Leodegar, I sufficiently indicated that I am in doubt about that matter.

[371] Lessons something is noted. And indeed, if any credence be deserved by a certain notice concerning the monastery of Murbach which is given by the Writing, a part of which I recited in no. 346 and then in no. 352, transmitted to our Predecessors by Pierre-François Chifflet, priest of our Society, it is permissible to suspect that the anonymous of Murbach flourished much later than one century after Leodegar. For that notice has thus: There is a certain place in the borders of Alsace, called Morbac, where the Lord placed the head of the holy Martyr (Leodegar), fertile in miracles, as it were in the navel of that land, enclosing, namely, a heavenly little gem in a golden shell. For very rich hills, applying their vine-bearing sides, make a flower-bearing valley as though rivalling paradise, and abounding in the blood of Bacchus. At the top of that valley, in woodland places, a congregation of pilgrims keeps watch over the precious head. For it is a custom from ancient time that in the Rogations which St. Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, devised, namely on the Vigil of the Lord's Ascension, all the relics are drawn out from their hiding-places and carried into the abovesaid valley and spacious plain. In modern time, therefore, namely under Heberhard, abbot of these pilgrims, who ordered the Life of this Martyr (Leodegar) to be most lucidly set forth. The rest, adds the praised Chifflet, was lacking in the manuscript codex; but those things which we have now recited suffice for the present undertaking. Since therefore the anonymous of Murbach, as we taught in no. 31, wrote the Life of Leodegar at the command of a certain father or abbot, probably of Murbach, from whom he had received it in charge that, as he himself speaks in the Prologue, he should reduce by writing the venerable acts and the passion to be celebrated of Blessed Leodegar to a more lucid and ordered manner; and since in the Notice adduced Heberhard, abbot of the pilgrims, that is, of the monastery of Murbach, which was called the Vivarium-of-pilgrims, is said to have ordered the Life of St. Leodegar to be most lucidly set forth, a suspicion can arise that the abbot of Murbach, at whose command the anonymous of Murbach committed the Life of the Saint to writing, is not different from Heberhard, abbot of the monastery of Murbach, who in the aforesaid notice is said to have ordered the Life of St. Leodegar to be clearly set forth; whence it follows that it is permissible to suspect that the anonymous of Murbach wrote later than one century after Leodegar. For in the Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany, tome 5, page 941, in the Catalogue of the abbots of Murbach, these things are read concerning Eberhard or Heberhard, abbot of the monastery of Murbach: That Eberhard lived in the year MXLI is established from the authentic Acts of the Translation of the relics of the most holy martyrs Desiderius and Regenfrid, since in this year, the aforepraised Eberhard assenting, the venerable bones of the most holy martyrs were translated with most solemn pomp from Murbach to the church named after them and situated near Dattenried in the borders of Alsace. By which words, since it is understood that Eberhard flourished in the eleventh century, it follows that, if it be permissible to suspect, what I indicated before is permissible, that Eberhard is not different from the abbot of Murbach at whose command the anonymous of Murbach wrote the Life of St. Leodegar, it is likewise permissible to suspect that the same anonymous of Murbach lived in the eleventh century, and therefore much later than one century after Leodegar. It has pleased me to observe this here, lest anyone perhaps should hold as undoubted that the anonymous of Murbach lived only one century or a little later after Leodegar, and therefore attribute to him greater authority than we have judged should be attributed to him in this Preliminary Commentary.

* perhaps ipsorum their

§ XXV. The cult of St. Leodegar at Arras, at Poitiers, and in several other places of the Gauls and of Belgium, as also of Germany.

The cult of St. Leodegar in the diocese of Arras, It is not easy to say, says Mabillon in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, how great veneration Blessed Leodegar has among his countrymen; thus namely this writer pronounces in general concerning the most celebrated cult of St. Leodegar. But we shall spend this whole § in demonstrating in particular the cult which the Saint enjoys, most widely extended, in several places both of Belgium and of the Gauls and also of Germany. I make my beginning from the bishopric of Arras in Artois, in which the body of the Saint first lay buried. I have to hand the proper Offices of the feasts which, as the title bears, were wont anciently to be celebrated in the church of Arras, printed at Arras in the year 1632. Before those Offices is set a Calendar, or rather a Directory for reading the canonical Hours and celebrating Masses. In this the feast of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, is prescribed to be celebrated with double rite on the 2nd day of October, on which also, among the mentioned proper Offices which are appended to the said Calendar or Directory, an Office of St. Leodegar occurs, in which four Lessons, namely the fourth, fifth and sixth, are proper to the Saint. These are taken from the Life of Leodegar written by Ursinus. Further, I have to hand also a Breviary of Arras which was written by hand long before the year 1632. It is clear from it that that is true which the title prefixed to the aforesaid proper Offices of Arras affirms, namely that the Feasts before whose Offices it is prefixed, and therefore also the feast of St. Leodegar, were wont anciently to be celebrated in the diocese of Arras. For the said manuscript Breviary also assigns an Office of St. Leodegar at the second day of October, so that the feast of St. Leodegar was wont to be celebrated anciently at Arras also in respect of the year 1632. But the Office of the manuscript Breviary just mentioned differs not a little from the Office of Leodegar which exists in the praised proper Offices of Arras as regards the Lessons which each sets forth to be recited on the feast of St. Leodegar. For in the latter only three, but in the former nine, which also are drawn from Ursinus, are assigned; and no wonder, because the latter was made to the norm of the Offices of the Roman Breviary, and the former not likewise. In addition, the Office of the manuscript Breviary differs from the printed Office also on this head, that the latter does not have a Prayer proper to the Saint, while the former has this: Almighty everlasting God, St. Leodegar, priest and martyr, interceding, whose birthday we celebrate today, stretch forth, we beseech Thee, divine help to our frailty: that with Thy Mercy, for which he breathed forth his happy soul, we may merit salvation by sincere profession. Through. Other things concerning the cult of our Saint in the diocese of Arras are not known to me. I come now to the cult which he has in the diocese of Poitiers, to which he was translated from the territory of Arras.

[373] of Poitiers, of Cambrai, I have to hand a manuscript Calendar in which the feasts proper to the diocese of Poitiers are noted. From this I learn that Leodegar is honoured in the said diocese of Arras with an Office of semidouble rite on the second day of October. In this the Saint has only the common Prayer, O God, who us, etc., but has three proper Lessons of the second Nocturn, the last of which is noted to be terminated with these words: His body (namely Leodegar's) was carried to Poitiers, and buried in the monastery of St. Maxentius. After the cult of the Saint at Poitiers, concerning which I find nothing further, the place seems to require that I should now treat of his cult at Cambrai, since the diocese of this name was united with the diocese of Arras while Leodegar lay buried in the latter. Among our ancient Breviaries and Missals, of which we have a great store, there exists an ancient Missal of Cambrai, in which at the second day of October this Mass of St. Leodegar is had: Introit. The just shall rejoice in the Lord, etc. Psalm. Hear, O God, my prayer, etc. Prayer. Us, votive,

O Lord, we beseech Thee, may the birthday of Thy blessed Martyr and pontiff Leodegar always receive, which may both pour into us the joyfulness of his glorification, and render us acceptable to Thee. Through the Lord. Epistle: The just, if by death, etc. Gospel: Unless the grain, etc. Secret: May the sacrifice, O Lord, which we longingly offer, be made acceptable to Thee by the blessed martyr and pontiff Leodegar as intercessor. Through the Lord. Communion: He who will come, etc. Postcommunion: May we be helped, we beseech Thee, O Lord, by the prayers of Thy blessed martyr and pontiff Leodegar, and, as we worthily celebrate his solemnities, make us ever devoted to Thy Name. Through the Lord. Such is, or at least was when the mentioned Missal was printed, the Mass of St. Leodegar in the diocese of Cambrai; and that Missal also has prefixed to it a Calendar or Directory, in which at the second day of October St. Leodegar is noted to be celebrated with an Office of three Lessons, so that from that one book or codex we learn with what ecclesiastical cult chiefly he enjoys in the diocese of Cambrai, or at least enjoyed when that Missal was printed.

[374] From the diocese of Cambrai I now proceed to the dioceses of Saint-Omer, Tournai, and in others Namur and Utrecht, inasmuch as they also are situated in Belgium. In the Breviary according to the manner, use and custom of the collegiate church, as the title bears, of St. Omer of the town of Saint-Omer of the diocese of the Morini, printed in the year 1518, and therefore, which the title just brought forward also sufficiently indicates, before the erection of the new bishoprics in Belgium, St. Leodegar is honoured at the 2nd of October with an ecclesiastical Office divided into nine lessons; these are drawn from the Acts of the Saint, and they have subjoined to them this Prayer proper to Leodegar: O God, who didst make Blessed Leodegar, Thy martyr and pontiff, to be victor amid monstrous torments, grant to us by the merits of him who followed Thee in faith and passion, that, overcome by no temptations, we may merit constantly to serve Thee. Through. But the new bishoprics throughout Belgium, and among them that of Saint-Omer, having been erected, and the ancient ecclesiastical Offices reduced to the form of the Roman Breviary, the following Office is prescribed concerning our Saint in the Ordinary of the Saints who are celebrated particularly in the cathedral church of Saint-Omer, printed in the year 1610: Of Leodegar, bishop and martyr, double. All from the common of one martyr. Prayer, O God, who us. Lessons of the second Nocturn, Princes have persecuted. Of the third, the Homily on the Gospel If any man will come after me, so that into the ecclesiastical Office with which Leodegar was worshipped at Saint-Omer at the entry of the sixteenth century no small change had already been introduced by the year 1610, whether another was afterwards added to which I have not ascertained, nor have I thought it worth the labour to investigate. Think the same of the ecclesiastical cult of St. Leodegar in some other places, which I have either already proved from their ancient Breviaries, Calendars and Missals, or am further about to prove. For the cult of St. Leodegar has this in common with the cult of other Saints, that in most places in which it has been introduced it has undergone frequent changes. Let the studious reader only note here that from the ancient cult of the Saint proved, his present-day cult is rendered at least probable, however different it may perhaps be from the original. This having been noted, let us see now with what cult the Saint enjoys, or rather anciently enjoyed, in the diocese of Tournai. This is taught, at least in part, by a twofold Missal of Tournai which I have to hand, the one published in type in the year 1498, the other in the year 1590; for in both a Mass of St. Leodegar is assigned at the second of October. There is added a Breviary of the city of Lille, situated in the diocese of Tournai, printed in the year 1533, in which the Office to be recited on the second day of October sets forth three Lessons excerpted from the Acts of St. Leodegar.

[375] both of Belgium, As regards now the diocese of Utrecht and that of Namur, in the Missal of the former, which was printed in the year 1514, Leodegar has a Mass inscribed to his name, and in the proper Offices of the latter, printed in the year 1619, two Lessons at the second of October taken from his Life, if you except these last words of the second Lesson: Afterwards, however, Brogne, the Namur monastery of St. Gerard, received some portion of the body (of St. Leodegar). But of the relics of St. Leodegar existing in the monastery of Brogne it will be treated afterwards; it pleases me now to enumerate at least some dioceses of the Gauls in which our Saint enjoys ecclesiastical cult, or at least enjoyed it in those years in which the Missals or Breviaries or even Calendars from which I am going to prove that cult are noted as printed. I begin with the diocese of Auxerre. Of this there are to hand two different Breviaries, of which the one was printed in the year 1571, the other in the year 1736. To these Breviaries is added a Calendar of the year 1735, in which the feast of St. Leodegar is noted to be celebrated with semidouble rite at the 2nd of October. From the said two Breviaries compared with each other it is clear that the cult of Leodegar in the bishopric of Auxerre did not persist unchanged to the end. For in the older the Office of the second day of October exhibits six Lessons proper to the Saint drawn from Ursinus; but the Office of the same day in the more recent one of the year 1735 sets forth only two Lessons concerning St. Leodegar composed from the anonymous author and Ursinus together. There are likewise to hand two Breviaries of the diocese of Amiens, of which the one, which is the older, does not bear the year of its printing, the other is noted as printed in the year 1554. Each assigns in the ecclesiastical Office of the second day of October three Lessons concerning St. Leodegar drawn from the Saint's biographers. The same is also done by four other Breviaries which are in our keeping, namely that of Rheims, which is noted as printed in type in the year 1630, that of Sens in the year 1625, that of Tours of the church of St. Martin in the year 1635, and that of Besançon in the year 1590.

[376] and of Gaul Further, the Breviary of Langres, printed in the year 1604, assigns on the feast of St. Leodegar an Office of nine Lessons drawn from Ursinus. The very same is also done by the Breviary of Évreux printed in the year 1586, in which besides this Prayer proper to St. Leodegar is had: O God, who didst prove Thy blessed martyr Leodegar in the struggle, and, proved, didst sustain him in pain, whom on this day Thou hast deigned to receive into the heavenly joys, grant to us Thy servants that we who do not merit glory may merit to obtain the indulgence of our sins, he interceding. Through the Lord. The same Prayer is assigned to be recited at the second of October on the feast of St. Leodegar in the Breviary of Toul, which was printed in the year 1535, as also in the Breviary of Rheims praised in the preceding number; and this appears to me quite worthy of note for this reason, that it agrees almost word for word with the Prayer from the ancient Missal, concerning which we inquired in § XIX whether it be ancient Gallican or only Gothico-Gallican, recited in no. 304, and therefore it can be an argument in some measure that the said ancient Missal, since the Prayer just recited seems to have passed from it to the three mentioned Gallican Breviaries, namely those of Toul, Évreux and Rheims, was not only Gothico-Gallican but also Gallican; or that it was used not only in Narbonese Gaul subject to the dominion of the Goths, but also in other provinces of the Gauls, which I studied to prove in almost the whole of § XX. This seems also possible to be argued in some measure, and indeed a fortiori, from the Missal of Verdun printed in the year 1554. For in the Mass of St. Leodegar which it exhibits at the 2nd of October there occurs besides not only the Prayer which we have just recited, drawn, as it appears, from the aforesaid ancient Missal, but also another which I gave entire from the same Missal in no. 305, so that it may be suspected that that Verdun Mass of St. Leodegar was composed from the Mass which the often-mentioned Missal contains at the time when the ancient ecclesiastical rites in the Gauls were abrogated, or a little later, and so that the ancient Missal from which it seems to have been composed was probably used in the church of Verdun, which certainly does not belong to Narbonese Gaul, before the aforesaid abrogation of the ancient rites. But let it suffice to have noted this; I return to what I began.

[377] In the Breviary of Paris, which was printed in the year 1640, in the bishoprics, to which some it is noted thus at the second of October: Of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr. Simple. Prayer. O God, who us of blessed. And all the rest from the common of one Martyr… The first Lesson from the Scripture occurring. Two Lessons are then subjoined, taken as to substance from the Life of St. Leodegar; and although in the Paris Breviary of the year 1680 the feast of the Guardian Angels is set forth to be celebrated on the 2nd day of October, a commemoration of Leodegar, of whom there is also the ninth Lesson, is nevertheless prescribed. Likewise, although in the Breviaries of Verdun and Rouen, of which the first was printed in the year 1560, the second in the year 1736, no Office of Leodegar is made, his commemoration is nevertheless prescribed. But, as in the Breviaries mentioned in no. 375, so again in the Breviary of Meaux, which was published in the year 1640, an ecclesiastical Office of St. Leodegar, which contains three Lessons proper to the Saint, is set forth to be recited. The same is done, or at least was done formerly, as I learn from very many manuscript Calendars which I have to hand, in the Breviaries of Saint-Malo, which was revised by Jean du Bec, bishop of Saint-Malo, in the year 1603, of Angers of St. Aubin, of Orléans of St. Anianus, of Beauvais, which is noted as published in the year 1554, of Bourges of the year 1625, and in very many others, so that the cult of St. Leodegar, since he is honoured in so many Missals already mentioned with a Mass, and in so many Breviaries with an ecclesiastical Office, although not in all equally, is most celebrated throughout the Gauls and Belgium, and has been propagated far and wide. An undoubted argument of this matter is also furnished by the almost innumerable churches and altars consecrated to Leodegar, and the rural parishes named after him in both those regions. For, to dispatch the matter briefly, in the diocese of Poitiers alone, as I learn from the Register of benefices of the archbishopric of Bourges printed at Paris in the year 1648, there are at the least ten churches dedicated to St. Leodegar; in the diocese of Arras three rural parishes distinguished by the Saint's name, in that of Limoges at least four, in those of Tournai, Boulogne, Angoulême and Condom at least one, and in many others several occur for the most part, which it would be too long to review all here, so that even from this head it becomes plain that the cult of St. Leodegar has been propagated far and wide through the Gauls and Belgium.

[378] are added also in Germany. Nor does the Saint enjoy an ecclesiastical cult widely diffused in those two regions only, but also in Germany; which also it pleases me to show before I close this §. I have in hand three German Missals, namely those of Speyer, Mainz and Würzburg, printed already more than two hundred years ago, in each of which a Mass of St. Leodegar is inscribed at the 2nd of October. To these ancient Missals are added five Breviaries likewise ancient, and also printed more than two hundred years ago, namely those of Würzburg, Constance, Passau, Worms and Erfurt, in

all of which an Office of St. Leodegar is marked at the second of October, so that there is no doubt that St. Leodegar enjoys a much extended ecclesiastical cult also in Germany, or at least anciently enjoyed it; whence also you will make a not unfounded conjecture, as I have already indicated in no. 374, concerning the present-day cult of the Saint there. For the rest, no monument indeed is available to me from which I might prove that the cult of the recitation of an ecclesiastical Office is paid to Leodegar in the monasteries of Murbach and Masmünster in Alsace; since nevertheless those two monasteries are consecrated to Leodegar, or, as we have seen, built in the Saint's honour, and the monks of the former boast that they possess the head of the holy Martyr, it does not seem that it should be doubted that the Saint is honoured by the religious inhabitants of both monasteries at least once yearly with the recitation of an ecclesiastical Office composed in his honour. I do not doubt also that the Saint enjoys the same veneration in several other places of Germany, but since the cult which he enjoys in that region has now been proved enough and more than enough, I judge it superfluous to inquire further into that matter, and I proceed to treat of the sacred relics of the Saint.

§ XXVI. Several claim the head of St. Leodegar for themselves, and whether it exists entire anywhere.

The head of St. Leodegar is claimed by the monks of Murbach, There are six monasteries of the Benedictine Order which contend that the sacred head of St. Leodegar is preserved among them. Of those monasteries five are of men, namely that of Murbach in Alsace, for notice of which see § XX, that of Meymac in the diocese of Limoges, that of Jumièges in the diocese of Rouen, that of Préaux in the diocese of Lisieux, and that of St. Vaast at Arras; and one of women, namely that of St. Mary at Soissons. To these monasteries is added a certain place in the County of Burgundy called Chastillon sous Mesches, whose inhabitants, as Chifflet, priest of our Society, noted in the margin to the Life of St. Leodegar written by the anonymous of Murbach, likewise glory in the sacred head of St. Leodegar. The monks of the monastery of Murbach, in order to claim the head of St. Leodegar for themselves, rely, says Mabillon in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, on the Primary instruments of their abbey, and on the ancient testimony of that author who, the third, wrote the Life of St. Leodegar eight hundred years ago. For Eberhard, duke of Alsace, founder of the monastery of Murbach, had the church dedicated to St. Peter and Blessed Leodegar by Widegern, bishop of Strasbourg, in the year of Christ DCCXXXIII. Whence in his epitaph, which we recited in no. 321, this verse is read:

For the things given to thee, Leodegar, join him to the blessed.

And the third writer of the Life of Leodegar (namely the anonymous of Murbach), of whom we spoke in the Preliminary Observations, testifies that in the borders of Alamannia the glorious head of the renowned Martyr is preserved and made illustrious by miracles in a certain monastery, which is without doubt no other than that of Murbach. For that monastery is placed on the border of the Vosges, of Alamannia and of Alsace, and the monks of Murbach show up to today the head of St. Leodegar, which they assert that they have had in their keeping from the first founding of the place, and that on that account their church was consecrated in honour of St. Leodegar. Thus Mabillon, who, would that he had produced the primary instruments of the abbey of Murbach on which, as he says, the monks of Murbach rely in affirming that the head of St. Leodegar is preserved among them. From these perhaps something more certain could have been established here. He brings forward indeed, in the Appendix to tome 2 of the Benedictine Annals, page 700 and the four following, three different ancient instruments pertaining to the monastery of Murbach, but from these nothing certain can be concluded for asserting the head to the monks of Murbach in Alsace.

[380] I would not, however, wish to assert that the head of St. Leodegar, of Meymac, or at least a part of it, which perhaps is all these contend, does not exist among the monks of Murbach. Nay, it appears credible enough that Eberhard, the founder of the monastery of Murbach, obtained the head of St. Leodegar, his kinsman, or at least a part of it, from those in whose keeping it was, and placed it in the monastery of Murbach founded by him, so that its religious inhabitants were perhaps already from the beginning of the building of their monastery possessors of that most precious treasure, the head, I say, of St. Leodegar, or at least of a part of it. In addition, that the head of St. Leodegar, or at least a part of it, has been preserved among the monks of Murbach from a very long time can be an argument, that the name of St. Leodegar, which at first was wont to be placed after the names of the other Saints in whose honour the monastery of Murbach had been built in privileges, diplomas and charters of donations, is afterwards often expressed in instruments of this kind either in the first place, or at least, the other holy Patrons of the monastery being omitted, is placed alone. This is clear from eight different diplomas, which are inserted in tome 5 of the Ecclesiastical Spicilegium of Germany from page 955 to page 960, granted to the monastery of Murbach in the eighth and ninth centuries; for in these St. Leodegar is either named alone or is placed before the other Saints, so that the cult of the Saint seems to have grown in the said monastery of Murbach, and that perhaps, as it is permissible to suspect, for no other reason than that his head existed there either entire or at least in part. I come now to the monks of Meymac in the diocese of Limoges, who, as I have already noted, likewise contend that the head of St. Leodegar is preserved among them. Bernard Gui, bishop of Lodève, whose words given in no. 10 I repeat here again, in the Treatise on the Saints of Limoges, no. 40, inserted by Labbe in tome 1 of the New Library, has thus: Of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun and martyr, whom Ebroin, mayor of the royal house, beheaded and blinded, they venerate with pious devotion the hands and head at Meymac in the monastery. With Bernard Gui agrees Geoffrey, prior of Vigeois, in Labbe, tome 2 of the New Library, page 285, writing thus towards the end: The monks of Meymac venerate with pious devotion the hands and head of Leodegar, whom Ebroin beheaded. The monks of Meymac in the diocese of Limoges therefore possess, according to the testimony of those two writers, the head of St. Leodegar, but whether entire? This they do not declare.

[381] the monks of Jumièges and of St. Vaast at Arras, The same is done by Mabillon and other writers as regards the monks of Jumièges in the diocese of Rouen, who, as I have already noted, likewise glory that they possess the head of St. Leodegar. Nor does Arnold Raissius speak with greater distinction in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium, when he attributes the head of St. Leodegar to the monastery of St. Vaast at Arras. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 681, no. 5, writes thus concerning the head of St. Leodegar preserved, as is contended, among the monks of St. Vaast at Arras: In the narration of the translation of the same (Leodegar) from the pagus of Arras to the territory of Poitiers, which we have just described, the head is not read to have been separated from the rest of the body of St. Leodegar. Among the relics, however, which the people of Arras keep in the most celebrated monastery of St. Vaast, there is reviewed by Arnold Raissius in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium the head of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun and martyr, enriched with a little casket wrought of gilded silver. And in André du Saussay, in the Gallican Martyrology, Vindicianus, bishop of Arras and chief founder of the Vedastine monastery, is said to have claimed the same head of St. Leodegar for himself thus: The head of this holy Martyr St. Vindicianus nevertheless claimed for himself as a pledge and memorial of piety, which is preserved today also at Arras in a silver shrine of ancient work, in the monastery of St. Vaast. Thus Le Cointe rightly sets forth what is found written concerning the head of St. Leodegar preserved among the monks of St. Vaast at Arras. But he presently indicates that he does not think that what du Saussay teaches, namely that the head of St. Leodegar remained in the territory of Arras through the intervention of Vindicianus when the body of the Saint was being translated to Poitiers, and he opens a way, although a very common one, by which the controversy which he touches upon concerning the head of St. Leodegar between the monks of Meymac and those of St. Vaast at Arras may be settled.

[382] who nevertheless can perhaps be reconciled both among themselves and Here are his very words: Vindicianus was indeed one of the three bishops who contended about the body of St. Leodegar, but that body was carried entire from the diocese of Arras, where it was first buried, into that of Poitiers, as is established from what has been said above. But after some years the Vedastine monastery, when it had been very greatly enlarged by Bishop Vindicianus, received also most ample possessions from the munificence of King Theodoric. And then Bishop Vindicianus and King Theodoric perhaps had it in their wishes that a part of the relics should be carried back from the monastery of St. Maxentius to the Vedastine, or from the bishopric of Poitiers to that of Arras, where the blessed Athlete had consummated his martyrdom. This we think very probable. There remains a difficulty, since in the Treatise of Bernard Gui on the Saints who adorn the diocese of Limoges the head and hands of Blessed Leodegar are said to be kept with pious devotion at Meymac in the monastery. This controversy will be settled if only a part of the head is attributed to the Vedastine monks, and the other part to the ascetics of Meymac. Whether the sacred body of Leodegar was transported entire, not even the head lacking, to the territory of Poitiers, and afterwards only the head was brought back from Poitiers to the Vedastine monks, I am unable to define from the penury of ancient monuments; but I think that in truth the controversy of the monks of Meymac and of St. Vaast concerning the body of St. Leodegar can be composed, as Le Cointe indicates, if both contend, as perhaps they do, that they possess not the entire head of St. Leodegar but only a part of it.

[383] In the same manner, as I likewise judge, the monks of Murbach, of Jumièges, and those who, as I have already said, are said on the testimony of the praised Chifflet to have the head of St. Leodegar in the county of Burgundy, can be reconciled with the monks of St. Vaast at Arras and those of Meymac, with the nuns of Soissons, as also among themselves, if each contend that they possess not the entire head of the Saint but only a part of it. But not yet on that account, as far as I judge, would agreement be reached between these and the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons, if those religious virgins claimed for themselves the entire head and body of St. Leodegar, as Dom Michel Germain, who nevertheless, according to what is to be said in no. 394, does not approve the fact, seems to indicate is done by them, on page 398 of the History which he wrote of their monastery: but that lord, probably, as it is easy to gather from what was said in no. 10 of this Preliminary Commentary, was deceived here, and therefore there is no reason why I should establish for certain that the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons cannot be brought back into concord with the monks of St. Vaast at Arras and the others, if each contend that they have not the entire head of St. Leodegar but only a part of it. A greater difficulty occurs concerning the monks of Préaux in the diocese of Lisieux. For these, as it appears, contend that the entire head of St. Leodegar is in their keeping, only the jawbone excepted. This is taught by Arthur du Monstier, priest of the Order of Friars Minor Recollects of Rouen, in his Neustria Pia, page 515. For there, under this title, Relics found in the Treasury of the monastery of Préaux, and visited by the lord abbot, in the year of the Lord MCDLXV on the day of St. Mark the Evangelist, he enumerates all the relics of the Saints in the year 1465

found in the monastery of Préaux, and reckons among them in the first place The Head of St. Leodegar with four teeth still holding to it, in a silver-gilt casket; and having reviewed the other remains of the Saints existing in the said monastery, he adds: And on the base of the aforesaid reliquary of St. Leodegar these verses are read inscribed:

This head of Leodegar is placed in the vessel, proved worthily as it were by the threefold penalty of martyrdom: punished in the tongue, it speaks, cut off, as before; bereft of its orbs, it is at last cut away by the auger.

[384] To these four verses the praised Arthur subjoins, but not likewise with the monks of Préaux, who almost entire, what chiefly bears on this matter: Wonderful to say! the head of this holy pontiff and martyr Leodegar is entire in every part, except the jawbone, although it has been bored and perforated through the temples; which out of piety I saw, venerated and kissed, and handled with my hands, * in the year MDCXLI. Since therefore the monks of Préaux, as it is permissible to conjecture from the words of Arthur last recited, judge that they have the whole head of St. Leodegar, only the jawbone excepted, it will not easily come about that they are brought into concord with the monks of St. Vaast at Arras and the others named above, and that even if each of these be supposed to claim for themselves not the entire head of St. Leodegar but only a part of it. For I should not easily persuade myself that all those claim for themselves only a tiny part of the jawbone of the head of St. Leodegar, which nevertheless is necessary if they are to agree with the monks of Préaux, since these contend that the entire head of St. Leodegar, only the jawbone excepted, is in their keeping. Hence it now follows that either the monks of Préaux do not possess the entire head of St. Leodegar, only the jawbone excepted, or that all the others who claim for themselves either the entire head of the Saint or at least a part of it do not have genuine relics of Leodegar, if these which they claim for themselves be not either only the jawbone of the Saint's head, or a particle of it, or perhaps even a little bone taken from the temples of the Saint, perforated on the testimony of the praised Arthur. But someone will perhaps now ask with which must one here agree, with the monks of Préaux, who glory that they have the entire head of St. Leodegar, or with the others, who glory that they have a part of the head of St. Leodegar greater than the jawbone, or only a tiny particle of it?

[385] as it appears, claim the Saint's head for themselves, I answer that this matter cannot be decided with easy labour; but since it seems nevertheless less to be presumed that the monks of Murbach in Alsace and the several others named above err, who claim for themselves the head of St. Leodegar, or at least a part of it probably greater, as I have said, than the jawbone, than the monks of Préaux alone, who contend that they have that same sacred pledge whole and entire, only the jawbone excepted, I incline, until I shall have learned something more certain from ancient and authentic monuments, to this opinion, by which I judge that neither among the monks of Préaux, nor, by likeness of reasoning, among any others, does the entire head of St. Leodegar exist, and that even if you except the jawbone, as the monks of Préaux do, and other small parts also. But, says Mabillon in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, where nevertheless he leaves this matter undecided, the monks of Préaux show letters of Ralph, bishop of Lisieux, to whose diocese they belong, granted in the year one thousand one hundred and eighty-three, in which he gives assurance of the consecration of an altar in honour of St. Thomas of Canterbury and of St. Leodegar the martyr, whose head he signifies is had there, in this manner: "Be it known to all, both present and future, that I, Ralph, by the mercy of God bishop of Lisieux, consecrated this altar in honour of St. Thomas the martyr and of Blessed Leodegar on the day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and eighty-three, Philip reigning as king of the Franks, Henry as king of the English, Rotrou being archbishop of Rouen. Trusting therefore in the mercy of God and the intercession of the aforesaid Martyrs, to all who with pious and contrite heart shall have approached this altar, consecrated by us unworthy, through the whole first year of that consecration, and shall have offered their alms, we relax the third part of the penance enjoined, and we nevertheless relax the sins which human frailty has not been able to retain in memory, of whose forgetting and contempt, however, the sinner has worthily repented. And every year, from the Sunday before the Ascension, within three weeks, we have decreed that all who come and offer their alms be helped in like manner: since on those days the head of the glorious martyr Leodegar ought to be shown by the monks of this church, the people coming, and prayers and alms be made by them, and Mass be solemnly celebrated for the salvation of those offering. This therefore, for the memory of posterity, we have thought fit to strengthen with the defence of our writing and the impression of our seal".

[386] Such is the argument by which, as the praised Mabillon speaks in the place cited, in which matter, as they probably err, the monks of Préaux defend their right, namely to the glory lying in the possession of the head of St. Leodegar. But the letters of Ralph, bishop of Lisieux, adduced were not drawn up to give assurance, as becomes manifest from the tenor of them now recited, concerning the head of St. Leodegar preserved by the monks of Préaux, and therefore Ralph, bishop of Lisieux, must be judged in the aforesaid letters to ascribe the possession of the head of St. Leodegar to the monks of Préaux not from certain knowledge, acquired after diligent examination, but from common report alone, so that these cannot conclude the matter from them. Add that in the same letters Ralph, bishop of Lisieux, does not insinuate even by a word that the head of St. Leodegar, which he indicates is possessed by the monks of Préaux, is whole and entire in every part, only the jawbone excepted. But, you will say, if the entire head of St. Leodegar, except the jawbone, is not in the keeping of the monks of Préaux, it follows that these, or rather their predecessors, rashly, and not without suspicion of deceit and fraud, vaunted as the head of St. Leodegar the head which is preserved among them entire except the jawbone. I answer that neither the monks of Préaux nor any others mentioned above, even if all and each should claim for themselves the entire head of the Saint, no part whatever lacking, would on that account have to be charged with rashness, or with fraud or deceit; which I show thus. Jean Ferrand, priest of our Society, in his Disquisition on Relics, book 1, adduces various causes, as he speaks, of the multitude of the same relics in the individual, a multitude to be regarded with suspicion and suspect; and in chapter 6, article 1, of the book cited he alleges one by which all who claim for themselves the same relics in the individual are easily freed from rashness and from the suspicion of fraud and deceit. That cause he traces back to the loss of the tablets in which the relics had been noted by their possessors. That the matter may become plain, it pleases me to transcribe here some of his words bearing chiefly on our purpose. He begins the article just cited thus: How great is, and always has been, the credit of tablets in all things, whether private or public, among well-constituted commonwealths, nay and among all nations imbued with any humanity, no one can be ignorant, if he be a man: on that account the loss of old tablets has contributed this much more towards multiplying the same relics in number, at least in the opinion, persuasion and belief of the Christian common people, by how much more certainly the facts about them would have been established for posterity had not the monuments of the same tablets perished through various mischances. He then teaches that it concerns the church and the public good of the faithful very much that the names of the individual relics which churches possess be carefully kept inscribed in tablets, annals and other monuments, and, having praised some bishops, and among them St. Charles Borromeo, who applied themselves especially to that care, he also brings forward in his favour, from which, however, he would more advisedly have abstained, an ancient monument produced, or rather fabricated, by the pseudo-Flavius Dexter, and at length concludes in this manner.

[387] O would that that care had always made all the governors and chief men of churches anxious, it happened, fraud and deceit and that they had given most zealous labour, both that the names of the individual relics should be inscribed in ecclesiastical tablets or memorials, and that, once inscribed, they should be preserved in their record-offices and in the archives and favillae * of the temples, lest they perish. Then so great a mass of the same relics would not now be commonly bandied about, perhaps suspect to some more than is fair, to be revered by all, if their truth were plainly and fully established through the old monuments of tablets: from the loss of which tablets it is most probable that that multitude of relics of the same kind was brought into the world. When the names and condition of the individual remains, together with the tablets on which they were inscribed, had by chance perished, the faithful, partly from the faith of their forefathers, partly from common sense and report, partly from religious and blameless error, ascribed those very relics which they enjoyed to those Saints whom they knew to be of the greatest name and fame for sanctity among those of the same name, or whom they remembered were wont to be named by their forefathers, deceived by the likeness either of names or of relics. And if God, of His goodness, to gratify the piety of the faithful, had deigned to work miracles at sacred pledges of this kind (as not seldom happened), then they would not hesitate to cling more tenaciously to the persuasion they had conceived.

[388] ought not to intervene. You perceive now, I think, learned reader, what can be drawn out from this conclusion of the praised Ferrand for the present undertaking, namely that it can come about that the head which the monks of Préaux hold as the head of St. Leodegar is nevertheless not Leodegar's, and that without any fault of those who first vaunted it as the head of Leodegar. Conceive the matter thus: let those from whom the monastery of Préaux, when it was being founded in the eleventh century, received the head boasted of as the head of Leodegar have possessed, with a part of the head of St. Leodegar, other distinguished relics, and have had among them also the head of some Saint distinct from Leodegar. This supposed, it can come about that the possessors of those relics held the said head of a Saint different from Leodegar as the head of Leodegar, and also gave it as such to the monks of Préaux, namely because they lacked documents from which they might learn the names of the individual relics which they possessed, and knew nevertheless, by a tradition received from their forefathers, that there was among them the head of St. Leodegar, by which name, namely, the part of the said head which alone they enjoyed went among them, just as also among many today who speak less rigidly a part of the body or head of some Saint is wont to be called the head or body. Thus, I think, everyone will easily understand how it can come about that the monks of Préaux do not possess the head of St. Leodegar in which they glory, and yet not on that account are those who first vaunted it as the head of St. Leodegar to be suspected of fraud and deceit. Understand almost the same, for the reason brought forward in no. 385, yet in a sound sense, of the monks of Murbach and all others, if any perhaps contend that they possess the entire head of St. Leodegar; namely, they themselves too may anciently have possessed a part of the head of St. Leodegar with the head of a Saint distinct from Leodegar, and then, the ancient tablets from which they might know the names and quality of their relics having been lost, have held it, and hold it today, as the head of St. Leodegar. There are

also other ways by which it can be explained how a head which is not Leodegar's can be thrust forward as the head of St. Leodegar by monks, whether of Préaux or any others whatever, without any fault of the possessors either past or present; but for those ways I refer, for the sake of brevity, to Ferrand, already praised more than once. For the rest, although I do not judge that the entire head of St. Leodegar exists either in the monastery of Murbach or in any others of the places mentioned above, I do not wish nevertheless, as is clear from what was said before, to deny that at least a part of it is found in most of them. We must now treat of the other relics of our Saint.

* perhaps igne by fire

* pertractavi I handled

* faviosis

§ XXVII. Other relics of St. Leodegar honoured in various places.

Some other relics of St. Leodegar Although the greater part of the body of St. Leodegar, according to Mabillon (see no. 336), was formerly deposited in the monastery of Ebreuil in Auvergne, yet one arm of him, says this writer in the Second Benedictine Century, page 706, is reported to be had in the most celebrated monastery of Fécamp among the Caleti, the other in the monastery of St. Basolus of the territory of Rheims; and lastly one of the dug-out eyes of the holy Martyr in the royal abbey of St. Denis near Lutetia of the Parisii. Our Maxentians also, among whom the holy Man lived for some time, and after death long rested, have certain small particles of the sacred body. There exist also relics of St. Leodegar in various churches of the city of Paris, as Baillet testifies in tome 3 of the Lives, column 31, where also he says to our purpose: Nay, even the eyes which the Saint had lost while living were found after his death, if credence be given to those who believe that they possess them; one is shown in the Parisian abbey of St. Victor, of which the Saint is the second patron, and where he has a chapel consecrated to him; and the other is said to be preserved in the treasury of St. Denis in France. Thus Baillet, who, as I think, here says somewhat more than can perhaps be proved (I know not whether with a sufficiently praiseworthy view); namely that the eyes of St. Leodegar, which he had lost while living here, were not found until after his death; for although I would not put myself forward as surety for the mentioned assertion concerning the eyes of St. Leodegar, I do not see on what foundation Baillet asserts that the eyes of Leodegar, of which one is said to exist in the Parisian abbey of St. Victor and the other in the Treasury of St. Denis in France, were not found until after the Saint's death. But concerning this, lest I digress from my purpose, I bring forward nothing more. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 681, no. 6, as I shall teach more fully below, also makes mention of relics of St. Leodegar existing in the monastery of Souvigny of the diocese of Clermont. To Le Cointe is added Raissius, who in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium not only attributes the head of St. Leodegar to the monks of St. Vaast at Arras, but also reviews relics of St. Leodegar in the Lists of relics composed by him in the Work cited, which are possessed by the monastery of Brogne in the county of Namur, that of Park of the Premonstratensian Order near Louvain, that of the Carthusians of Rethel on the bank of the Meuse (nay, of the Moselle), that of Bourbourg of the Veiled Virgins of the Benedictine Order, and two churches besides, namely the collegiate church of St. Amatus at Douai, and that of the Most Holy Virgin Mary at Arras.

[390] And these are the things which I have been able to find in general concerning the relics distinct from the sacred head of the Saint; are enumerated, and of those which either in the monastery of St. Victor I now turn the discourse again, and that almost exclusively, to those of the mentioned relics concerning which some particulars have been committed to writing. I make my beginning from one eye of St. Leodegar, which formerly, as we shall see, was in the chapel of the king of the Franks, and which therefore is the one which is now said to exist either in the monastery of St. Victor mentioned before, or in the abbey of St. Denis. In the writing most often praised in this Preliminary Commentary, which is noted as taken from the ancient parchments of the most distinguished man, the lord de la Mare, royal counsellor at Dijon, and which was transmitted to our Predecessors by Chifflet, priest of our Society, these things are read: In the chapel of the king of the Franks is had one eye of the holy martyr Leodegar, which, among the relics of the Saints, which are very many there, all venerate with most celebrated devotion, and the sick coming from many parts are restored, God working, to their former soundness. Two years before I wrote these things, the son of a certain prince, Odo by name, was seized with a violent sickness. For he was so altogether pervaded by that disease which the French call VARIOLA that he could neither himself make the motion of any limb, nor admit the handling of those who ministered to him. For healing him many physicians came together from many parts: but the skill of their art could confer no help upon the boy; for the diseased pestilence was increasing more and more, and was altogether closing the eyes of the languishing boy. The physicians therefore now promising nothing, when the parents were already despairing of the health of their son, there was present a certain cleric who was bearing a certain embassy on the part of the king to the same prince. He persuaded the dying prince that he should be willing to send for the eye of the holy Martyr for himself; he said that by its touch the boy could return to entire health. At once the father, desirous of his son's health, sent envoys to the king to intercede with the king (as the cleric had advised): and when they had returned, the boy was signed with the eye of the holy Martyr, and immediately after the signing, as though the scales were drawing back, he began to open his eyes, and (which for a long time he could not do) turned himself onto the other side without the help of one ministering: and on the next day he received the functions of all his limbs with soundness. The author of this Writing reveals that he was living when the mentioned miracle happened. For, about to narrate this, he says, Two years before I wrote these things, namely those which we have already recited from his Writing in nos. 346 and 352 concerning the manner in which the body of St. Leodegar came to Ebreuil, the son of a certain prince, etc. Wherefore there does not seem to be reason why his credibility should here also be suspect, as in other things above.

[391] or in the monastery of St. Denis exist, He then subjoins two other miracles, the first of which seems likewise to have happened in his age; for he says that it was done while the aforesaid king, and therefore the one in whose reign he had narrated that the miracle just mentioned happened, was hunting. But as regards the second of the two said miracles, the praised writer indicates by absolutely no sign whether it happened in his age or earlier. I think, however, that he means it to have happened in his age. It pleases me now to transcribe both here. The first has thus: And on a certain day, while the aforesaid king was hunting, it happened that a certain branch struck back into the eye of one of the knights who was running through the forest rather heedlessly, so that a great part of it remained fixed in the same eye. Which thing brought great sorrow to the king and the princes: for that knight was very noble, and the wound seemed to all * in manner incurable. And when on the next day they were returning from the hunt, the king ordered that knight that he should sign that eye, whose function he seemed to have entirely lost, with the eye of St. Leodegar. When a certain priest had performed this, at once, the pain put to flight, light returned with soundness to the wounded eye. The other is set forth in these words: There was in the city of Orléans a certain noble matron, whose head had wonderfully swollen from the bite of a certain little creature which they call a spider, the monstrousness of which swelling had taken away from her sight and hearing. And when the kinds of medicine were not able to succour her, she began to implore the help of St. Leodegar. And she prayed with many prayers that she might be signed with the eye of St. Leodegar the martyr. Which when it was done, without delay that swelling departed, and the beauty of her former form returned. The first two miracles already narrated, and, as I think, perhaps also the third, if they truly happened, which nothing prevents our believing, are to be referred to the eleventh century. For the praised Writing in which they are contained is continued by the words recited in this and the preceding number, and together with these, and with those recited in nos. 346 and 352, it makes up one little work; wherefore, since this is closed with these words recited already in no. 371, In modern time, therefore, namely under Heberhard, abbot of these pilgrims (namely of the monastery of Murbach, which was called the Vivarium-of-pilgrims), who ordered the Life of this Martyr to be most lucidly set forth, it follows that the author of the praised Little Work flourished while Heberhard, abbot of the monastery of Murbach, was living. And now, since Heberhard, as we taught in no. 371, ruled the abbey of Murbach as abbot in the eleventh century, it follows that the three mentioned miracles, which, as we have seen, happened while the writer of the praised little work was living, were worked in the eleventh century.

[392] And these are the particulars which I have found concerning the one eye of St. Leodegar formerly preserved in the chapel of the king of the Franks, as also of those which in the monasteries of Brogne which (see Gérard Du Bois in the History of Paris, tome 1, page 550 and following) was afterwards converted into the monastery of St. Magloire, and then into a parish church. I come now to those things which occur to be said specially concerning the relics of the Saint existing in the monastery of Brogne of the county of Namur. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 681, no. 6, writes thus: At the third mile from Namur is seen the monastery of Brogne, which was built in the tenth century, and also bears the name of St. Gerard, its founder and first abbot. In that monastery, Raissius, whom, namely, we also praised in no. 389, says, namely in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium, page 125, is preserved the body of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun and martyr. Then he sets forth his meaning, namely on page 126 of the same Work, thus: "I have said that they, namely the monks of Brogne, have the body, that is, the greatest part of the body, excepting also his sacred head". More rightly Molanus asserts that not the greatest part, but some portion of the body was carried into the monastery of Brogne, namely in the Feasts of the Saints of Belgium at the 2nd day of October, thus: "The holy body was carried to the monastery of St. Maxentius. Afterwards, however, Brogne, the Namur monastery of St. Gerard, received thence some portion of the body on the eleventh day of April". Afterwards he cites the Martyrology, namely the Usuardine of the later edition illustrated by him, whose words at that day, namely the eleventh of April, are these: "In the monastery of Brogne, the coming of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr. His feast-day is in the month of October, on the second day". To Molanus, whom Le Cointe here praises, can be added the Sacrarium of Namur printed at Liège in the year 1619, and Gazet in the Ecclesiastical History of Belgium; for the latter in the Work cited, page 311, writes thus in French words made Latin by me: St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, is worshipped in the monastery of Brogne founded by St. Gerard, because a part of his body was brought thither on the XI of April; and the former has thus on page 21: Of his body (St. Leodegar's)

Brogne preserves a part, through the work of St. Gerard. But by these last words of the praised Sacrarium, through the work of St. Gerard, it seems to be indicated that the monks of Brogne of the county of Namur obtained the sacred remains of St. Leodegar which they possess through the work of St. Gerard himself. But Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 681, no. 6, thinks that the sacred remains of St. Leodegar were received by the monks of Brogne in the county of Namur later than the age of St. Gerard, so that according to that writer they were not obtained through the work of St. Gerard; what must be established on which matter will be discussed more conveniently at the following day in the Preliminary Commentary to the Life of St. Gerard. It pleases me now to declare a few things concerning the relics of St. Leodegar existing in the monastery of Souvigny of the diocese of Clermont.

[393] and at Souvigny are shown, Du Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology at the XI of April has these things: In the monastery of Brogne, the coming of St. Leodegar, bishop of the Aedui and martyr, whose sacred body, afterwards brought back into Gaul, shining with the greatest miracles, together with the remains of St. Principinus, likewise a martyr, was carried to the monastery of Souvigny of the Cluniac Order in Auvergne, and was placed with the highest honour, as was fitting, in the sanctuary together with the bodies of the holy Confessors Majolus and Odilo, leaders of the aforesaid Order. The opinion concerning the body of St. Leodegar insinuated by these words of du Saussay Le Cointe takes up thus at the year and number just cited: This opinion does not please us, for we judge that the body of St. Leodegar was never entire at Brogne or at Souvigny, but that portions of the same body are still kept in both places. Sébastien Marcaille, in the sixth book of the Antiquities of Souvigny, adds that Ebreuil also is made illustrious by relics of St. Leodegar, of which it has already been treated in § XXIII. Ebreuil is a monastery of the Benedictine Order, and belongs to the diocese of Clermont, in which Souvigny also is situated. The Cluniac monks, to confirm that the body of St. Leodegar, or a part of the body, as the author of the Antiquities of Souvigny interprets it, is in the church of the priory of Souvigny, allege a Bull of Pope Clement the sixth, given at Villeneuve of the diocese of Nevers, on the 2nd of the Nones of October, in the second year of his Pontificate, which you will be able to read entire in the same Antiquities. I do not have to hand the Antiquities of Souvigny made public by Sébastien Marcaille, but I judge the same as Le Cointe, namely that neither now nor ever before was the entire body of St. Leodegar either at Brogne or at Souvigny, since the strongest reasons can be brought against the opinion by which anyone might think so, and those themselves whose interest it is confess that they possess not the entire body of St. Leodegar but only a part of it.

[394] and in some others Further, Le Cointe adds to his words recited in the preceding number: We do not doubt that most other churches of the Gauls also (namely besides those which he had mentioned before) have been enriched with some part of so great a treasure (the body of St. Leodegar). And indeed I think it most true that very many churches of the Gauls besides those which Le Cointe enumerates have been enriched with relics of St. Leodegar; for this becomes plain even from the things which we have already discussed before, so that I cannot agree with those who affirm that the entire body of St. Leodegar is in their keeping. Nay, the lord Michel Germain himself, praised above, as I have already noted in no. 383, cannot agree with the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons, who, as he indicates, affirm this, in the History of their monastery written in French which he brought out in the year 1675, although otherwise he does not seem inclined to omit or deny anything which can conduce to the glory and honour of the said monastery. The words which he has on the present argument in the praised Work, page 398 and following, rendered from French into Latin, are these: As regards the relics of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, and of his brother St. Guerinus or Garinus, also a martyr, whose body and head are shown in the convent of Our Lady (namely at Soissons), I cannot dissemble that much difficulty is had about it. For besides that the religious of the abbey of St. Maxentius in the diocese of Poitiers, where those holy Brothers lay buried, contend that they have remained in possession of some of their relics, the monks of Ebreuil in Auvergne assert that the bodies of those Saints are in their church, excepting the head (see on this matter no. 10 of this Preliminary Commentary) and an arm of St. Guerinus, which were given to the religious of Meymac in the tract of Limoges. Besides, ancient authors are found who note that the head of St. Leodegar was brought to Murbach in Alsace. Others say that it is in the monastery of Jumièges, others in that of Préaux, and they are founded on ancient titles. There is shown also in the monastery of St. Denis in France one of the eyes of this Saint, which Ebroin ordered to be torn out of him; one of his arms in that of St. Basolus of the diocese of Rheims, and the other in that of Fécamp in the territory of Caux; which compels me to suspend my judgement concerning the relics, namely of Leodegar and Gerinus, which the nuns of St. Mary of Soissons think are in their keeping. It is nevertheless very credible that a notable part of the relics of those Saints was given to this abbey, namely of St. Mary of Soissons, in which their mother St. Sigrada had professed the religious life. Whence it comes about that the feast of St. Leodegar was always celebrated there, and that his name is found in the ancient Necrology. Thus the praised lord Germain.

[395] It remains now that we say a few things about two remains of another kind than are the sacred pledges of St. Leodegar, certain things are observed. of which it has been treated in these two last §§. Those remains are the pontifical ring of the Saint, and a marble stone upon which the eyes of Leodegar are reported to have been dug out. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 681, no. 6, records thus concerning the former of those two remains: In the abbey of St. Victor near the walls of Paris an eye and a ring of the blessed Martyr (Leodegar) are preserved. And Bucelinus, in the Benedictine Menology at the 2nd of October, writes thus concerning the aforesaid ring: That we may pass over … other wonders of him (Leodegar); there is preserved in the monastery of St. Victor at Paris his pontifical ring, with which water is blessed, prodigiously salutary for removing defects and pains of the eyes. I have not been able to find other testimonies concerning this ring of the Saint; and I think nevertheless from the two adduced that at least some ring is shown in the said monastery as the pontifical ring of St. Leodegar. As regards now the marble stone upon which the eyes are reported to have been dug out or torn out from Leodegar, this is said to be preserved in the monastery of St. Vaast at Arras, as Raissius testifies in the Belgian Hierogazophylacium, page 526, in these words: At the entrance of the sacristy (in the monastery of St. Vaast at Arras) a white marble is seen today, upon which it is reported that the eyes of Blessed Leodegar were dug out by Ebroin, mayor of the royal house, and this distich increases the credence, which is read on the wall near by:

The light of Leodegar, bored upon this stone, was pierced by the force of the command of Theodoric.

Locrius, in the Belgian Chronicle printed twelve years before the Hierogazophylacium of Raissius, reveals the same, and that in almost the same words, so that Raissius seems only to have copied Locrius. And if now perhaps someone should ask whether the ring which is preserved in the abbey of St. Victor near Paris is truly the pontifical ring of St. Leodegar, and whether the white marble which is seen at the entrance of the sacristy in the Vedastine abbey is truly the stone upon which the eyes of St. Leodegar were dug out or torn out, I answer that neither the one nor the other can be asserted for certain by me, since ancient monuments do not create undoubted credence concerning either. For what Locrius and Raissius say concerning the distich which is read on the wall near the said stone: that can have proceeded from a hand many centuries later than Leodegar, so that, although it increases the credence in some measure, as the two praised writers speak, it by no means renders the matter undoubted.

* perhaps omni in every

LIFE

By an anonymous and contemporary monk of Autun.

From the codex P. Ms. 16, collated with four manuscript apographs and the editions of Duchesne and Mabillon.

Leodegar, bishop, brother, M., in the Gauls. (S.)

Gerinus, count, brother, M., in the Gauls. (S.)

BHL Number: 4853

A. By the Anonymous.

PROLOGUE.

The author excuses the rusticity of his writing. To the lord truly holy and to be revered with apostolic veneration, Erminarius, bishop of the city of Autun. Since, often bidden by you and compelled by the burning desire of the spiritual brethren ^a, I have at length undertaken to write the deeds of Blessed Leodegar, martyr and pontiff ^b. For I therefore long put off fulfilling what was bidden or asked, because I saw a twofold opinion rising up against me: Col. 463F fearing the one, of ignorance, of darkness and of sloth ^c; dreading that the other would lie open to the derision of the prudent. I beg therefore your faithful devotion first of all that you grant pardon to my rusticity, and only read over privately and alone for the meantime what has pleased you; until either you should find again in more cultivated speech the things which we, at your bidding, have taken in hand, or the reading, corrected by the judgement of other prelates *, and irreprehensible, which you may afterwards read, may remain approved after you ^d. This I ask especially, that the timely suffrages of your prayers, with skilful zeal, may obtain from the Lord the strength for carrying out this work, which my conscious inexperience denies me.

ANNOTATIONS.

* others flagitatione urgent demand

* others pœnam penalty

* others altiori loftier

* others reparetis you should restore

* others sapientum of the wise

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's birth, studies, archdeaconate, episcopate, injuries received from the malevolent, accusation before the king, danger of death, exile.

Nobly born, and piously and learnedly educated, he is made at Poitiers The glorious, therefore, and illustrious Leodegar, bishop of the city of Autun, was made a new martyr in Christian times, who, as he was nobly born of earthly generosity ^a, so, divine grace accompanying him, while from his earliest age he grew up to manly strength, in whatever grade or order he was advanced, stood out as raised above the rest. And when he had been vigorously brought up by Dido ^b, his maternal uncle, bishop of the city of Poitiers, who beyond his kinsfolk was filled with a notable abundance of prudence and the resources of riches, and had been fully polished in all things by the file of discipline in the various studies to which the powerful of the world are wont to apply themselves, he was chosen in the same city to the burden of the archdeaconate .

[3] So great a strength of fortitude and wisdom suddenly shone forth in him archdeacon of his maternal uncle, that he appeared unequalled beyond his predecessors; especially since worldly

law's censure he was not ignorant of, he was a terrible judge of seculars, and, being filled with canonical doctrines, he was an excellent teacher of clerics. He was also lively in the discipline of offenders, because he was never relaxed by luxury of the flesh. Watchful with shrewd care in the offices of ecclesiastics, vigorous in reckonings, prudent in counsels, glowing in discourse ^c. Meanwhile a cause of necessity pressed, that they should ordain him bishop in the city of Autun. For lately a contention had arisen between two men concerning the same bishopric, and it had been contested even to the shedding of blood. And when one had fallen there in death , and the other, for the crime committed, had been given over to the thrusting-out of exile , then Queen Balthild, who with Lothar her son was ruling the palace of the Franks ^d, inspired, as we believe, by divine counsel, directed this vigorous Man to the mentioned city to be bishop there; so that * the church, which for almost two years already had remained, as it were widowed, in the tossing of the world, might be protected by his government and fortitude, and defended from those by whom it was assailed ^e.

[4] What more? At his coming all the adversaries of the church and of that city were so terrified , then bishop of Autun, which office, and also those who were incessantly contending among themselves with hatreds and homicides, that they would not hear the memory of the past scandal; because those whom preaching had not brought to concord the dread of justice compelled. For now in the episcopate, the Lord dispensing , how much his especial care was in the feeding of the poor, it is long to relate in detail. But while we are thus silent, his works testify, whether the matricula ^f, which, instituted by him, abides at the door of the church, or the beauty of the vessels, which glows with golden brightness in the ministry of the church, and also the ornaments of the baptistery, fabricated with wonderful works. And how much * his mind was devoted to the love of the martyrs, the burial of St. Symphorian the martyr, or the glorious translation of the holy body, indicates though we be silent ^g.

[5] while he discharges it justly, piously and diligently, Besides, the pavements of the church indicate his industry, and the golden hangings , and the new construction of the atrium, the restoration of the walls and of the city, the repair of houses, and the things which had been consumed by excessive age return of themselves raised up, testimonies seen by those who see. Let these few out of very many suffice in the first place. Let us turn our discourse to that time in which the Athlete of Christ took the beginning of fighting against the devil. The holy pontiff Leodegar, therefore, while he was living happily in peace as bishop in the city of Autun, after he had renewed all things which had been destroyed, and had instructed the clerics in the divine offices, and, assiduous in preaching, admonished the people of heavenly things , cherished the poor with the largeness of alms, and his whole mind was intent on keeping the commandments of God, his will was so effective in all things that whatever he had resolved to accomplish, its effect was granted him by the Lord without difficulty. For not undeservedly had almighty God conferred His grace upon him, because he had first vowed with his whole mind * to keep His commandments.

[6] the envious inciting, But because malice is ever at discord with good will, and the envious ancient serpent always finds those through whom he may sow scandal, certain men of rank, ignorant of spiritual things but rather fearing secular power, seeing that this Man stood inflexible on the summit of justice, began to be tormented with envious spite, and determine, if there be an approach, to obstruct his progress. For there was in those times Hebroin, as we have learned ^h, who under King Lothar was then ruling the palace; for the queen , whom we mentioned above, was already residing in the monastery which she had previously prepared for herself ⁱ. Besides the mentioned envious men approach Hebroin, and stir up his mind to fury against the Man of God: and when they do not find an accusation of truth, they fabricate a lie of falsity, as though, while all obeyed the commands of Hebroin, Bishop Leodegar alone despised his orders.

[7] he suffers Ebroin as an adversary, For the mentioned Hebroin was so kindled with the torch of cupidity and given to the ambition of money that those only had a just cause before him who had brought more money ^k. And when some for fear's sake, others to buy justice, had filled him with an immense sum of gold and silver, the minds of certain men, touched with grief on account of the despoiling which this caused, had already been moved against him; because not only did he carry on the traffic of rapacity, but also for a slight offence he shed the innocent blood of many nobles. He therefore held St. Leodegar the bishop in suspicion for this reason, that he could not overcome him in word, nor did he pay him the homage of flattery as the rest did, and he had known him always to remain intrepid against all his threats. He had then issued a tyrannical edict, that no one from the parts of Burgundy should presume to come to the palace unless he had received his mandate. Then from former fear all were in suspicion that he was devising, for perpetrating his crime *, either to condemn certain men to the loss of their heads, or to inflict losses of their means ^l.

[8] Meanwhile, while the cause is suspended, King Lothar, called by the Lord, who, King Clothar having died, is exiled departed from this light ^m. But when Hebroin ought to have raised his own brother, named Theoderic, to the kingdom solemnly, as is the custom, the nobles having been convoked, swollen with the spirit of pride, he would not afterwards convoke them ⁿ. Therefore they began the more to fear, because the king whom he ought publicly to have raised to the glory of the fatherland, while he retained him behind himself for a name, he might boldly bring harm on whom he had desired it ^o. And when the multitude of nobles who were hastening to meet the new king had received, at Hebroin's command, a refusal of the journey, having entered into counsel in common, abandoning him, they all seek out Hilderic, his younger brother [p], who had obtained the kingdom in Austrasia [q]; and whoever then would not acquiesce in this * counsel either escaped by flight, or, with peril of life, threatened with burning, acquiesced unwillingly. For when all, on account of the tyrannical fear of Hebroin, had brought in Hilderic to the Neustrian as well as the Burgundian kingdom, the tyrant, recognizing it, on account of this crime of his perpetrated, fled to the altar of the church, and his treasure was suddenly plundered in many parts, and what the wicked man had long gathered ill was suddenly scattered well.

[9] Then, certain bishops interceding, and especially by the intervention of the prelate Leodegar, at Luxeuil; Childeric, his brother Theodoric tonsured, reigns; they do not kill him, but he is directed into exile to the monastery of Luxeuil [r], that he might escape by repenting the crimes which he had perpetrated. But because he had the eyes of his heart blinded by the dust of earthly cupidity, therefore spiritual wisdom did not profit his malevolent soul. For when King Hilderic had ordered his brother, over whom he had come at their petition, to be presented to himself, that he might speak with him : then certain men who seemed to be chief in the kingdom, and who desired by flattery to appease Hilderic from slaughter, with rash daring ordered the hair of their lord to be cut off [s]; and so they took pains to present him to his brother. But when he was asked by him what he wished to be done [t] concerning himself; he professed only this, that, since he had been unjustly cast out of the kingdom, he awaited a swift judgement for himself from God. Then he was ordered to reside at the monastery of St. Dionysius the martyr [u], and there he was kept safe [x] until he should grow again the hair which they had cut off *: and the God of heaven, whom he professed to have as his judge, afterwards permitted him happily to reign [y].

[10] Meanwhile all seek out King Hilderic [that he should give such decrees through the three kingdoms he rescinds a law justly established, which he had obtained, that the judges should preserve, as of old, the law or custom of each country; and that rectors should not enter from one province into others [z]] and that no one should assume a tyranny after the likeness of Hebroin, so as afterwards, like him, to despise his companions: but while they knew that they had a mutual succession to the summit, no one should dare to prefer himself to another . But when he had willingly granted them what they asked, depraved by the counsel of foolish and almost heathen men, as he was a youth prevented by levity *, he suddenly revoked what he had confirmed through the counsels of the wise [aa].

[11] St. Leodegar, therefore, because he knew him to be conspicuous above all by the light of wisdom, he had assiduously retained with him in the palace. For this reason the envy of the wicked grew up revived; the Saint, the envious gnashing their teeth, and again seeking out beginnings of accusations against him, so that whatever the king did, or gave by just or unjust judgement, they charge it as his deed , whose counsels if he had obeyed, he would have walked in the divine commandments. But because wisdom given from heaven had not yet come upon him, therefore his heart could not grasp the discipline of justice; but the judgements *, which Theoderic professed that he awaited from the Lord, he merited to have ended by a swift sentence.

[12] rebuking vices, he hears But the Man of the Lord, when he knew that the envy of the devil was growing hot again against him, then, according to the Apostle [bb], taking the breastplate of faith and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, entered into single combat against the ancient enemy; and because priestly integrity knows not how to fear the threats of a king, he began to reprove Hilderic, why he had so suddenly changed the ancestral customs which he had commanded to be preserved, and at the same time he is reported to have said that the queen whom he had as wife was the daughter of his maternal uncle [cc], and that unless he corrected these crimes with the other unlawful wickednesses by amendment, he should know that divine vengeance was certainly hanging over him suddenly.

[13] at first, then is stirred up against him by the malevolent, And indeed at first he began to listen willingly, but prevented by the counsels of his satellites, when he ought to have applied his words to amendment, he began to seek occasions for his death, those persuading this who desired to overturn justice and favoured the undisciplined youthful works of the king in their exercise: and also those who had drawn from him the breaking of his own decree. For all these, and those like them, living in the pleasures of the world, feared the Man of God, and desired his works to be destroyed [dd], since they knew him to walk inflexibly along the path of justice. For the aged world, weighed down by vices, could not bear the freshness of the heavenly citizen.

[14] and on a false accusation For there was present then in those days a certain noble man, called Hector by name, who then ruled in the fasces the patriciate of Marseilles, and who, as he was sprung from a famous lineage, so was endowed above the rest with nobility of race and worldly prudence [ee]. For he had come to King Hilderic for a certain cause, and hoped to obtain what he asked through the intercession of the Man of God, and the Saint of God had received him in his city for the sake of hospitality, until, as he had asked, he should commend him to the king by his intercessions . For he had often asked the said Hilderic to come to the church of his city at the Paschal solemnity. This occasion the envious found , through which the wickedness which they had lately poured into the heart of the king

they might fulfil. They join to themselves in their occasion * the mayor of the house, Vulfoald by name [ff], and fabricate a lying tale concerning Leodegar and Hector, as though they had been joined together for this purpose, that they might overturn the royal dominion and usurp for themselves the rights of power.

[15] the violent counsels of a crime There was present also then a certain man under the habit of religion in the monastery of St. Symphorian the martyr, shut in in body, not in mind, Marcolinus by name, but, as afterwards publicly appeared, rather excessively covetous, under the appearance of a feigned religion, of gaining human praises or honours [gg]: of whose manner of life, especially since it has been plain to all, I think it better to be silent than to speak. This man, therefore, the often-mentioned king, not knowing him, held as a prophet of God in all things, because he flattered his will before all in the accusations against the Man of God. On that night, therefore, on which the vigils of holy Easter are celebrated in the city, the king, already as it were suspicious, would not come there; but, seeking counsel with a few then of the favourers of the aforesaid hypocrite, already exulting with a malignant mind against the Servant of God, he did not fear to receive there an untimely Paschal sacrifice [hh]. But afterwards, when with disgrace, already drunk with wine, while others fasting were awaiting the holy solemnities, he had entered the church, he was seeking Leodegar by name, crying out, that he might as it were turn him to flight; having terrified him, threatening already through messengers with the stroke of the sword.

[16] And when, crying out for him repeatedly, he had learned that he was in the baptistery, there follows: the Saint approaches him and, trying in vain to appease him, entering there also, he was astounded at the brightness of so great a light, or at the odour of the Chrism, which were being employed there in the sanctification of those being baptized [y]. But when he himself answered to his shouting: I am here; not recognizing him at all, he passed through, and sat down in the house of the church, where it had been prepared. And the other bishops, who had celebrated the vigils with the Man of God, returned to their lodgings: but he himself, when he had completed the sacred Office, intrepidly approached the angry king, and asked him with mild words why he had not come before to the vigils [ii], or persisted, filled with anger, in so sacred solemnities of the night. He , when, somewhat disturbed, he could not answer his ineffable wisdom, said that he held him in suspicion for a certain cause.

[17] Leodegar, therefore, the man of the Lord, perceiving that it was fixed in his mind flees with Hector, his guest, that, his satellites persuading him, he would render him slain together with Hector, as he had decreed, or that Hector in his straits, as they feared , would incur contempt against the king, fearing not for his own death, but considering the safety of those who had come to him for the sake of protection, chose rather to lie hid for the meantime through flight than to afford occasion that through his martyrdom the church should be bloodied or plundered in the solemnities of the Resurrection of Christ [kk]. Nor let anyone think that he feared martyrdom to such a degree: for when previously it had been announced to him through a certain monk, Bertharius by name, on the Lord's Supper, concerning his death [ll], on the day following, the day of the Lord's Passion, he went to the palace of the king, and, thrusting himself forward of his own accord, wished to offer his blood to Christ on that day on which Christ had shed His blood for the salvation of the world. For the king also on the same day wished to strike him with his own hand: but out of reverence for God he was prevented by the counsel of certain wise nobles. It must be believed without doubt that he was then preserved for this , that if from human conversation, which is not led without fault, he had perhaps drawn anything contrary, the long furnace of persecution might burn it out, that afterwards, like gold set in the diadem of his King, he might flash with the powers of miracles like glittering gems.

[18] When therefore by those who were awaiting the outcome of this occasion he whom pursuers killed; he himself is led to Luxeuil, a swift persecution had been set in motion after him, the aforesaid Hector was slain there: and because he had tried to defend himself manfully, the Lord permitting, he was overwhelmed by the multitude with some who were accompanying him. Nor is it believed impossible that by the merits of the holy Martyr pardon can be obtained from God for those souls who had wished innocently to avoid the storm of persecution together with him. Leodegar, therefore, the servant of God, when he had been then detained by certain men, they suddenly announce the fact to Hilderic. He who was able to seize Leodegar believed that he would have the greatest favour of the king. Then through the counsel of the nobles and bishops he is ordered to be led into the monastery of Luxeuil, until they should consult in common what they should do concerning a Man of so great a name [mm]. Meanwhile, when those who seemed to be the first of the palace, having been sought out together by Hilderic as to what judgement they would decree concerning the holy Priest of God *, answered this with concordant voice, that, if he granted him life, he should order him to remain in Luxeuil under perpetual exile, he suddenly confirmed the judgement under this decree: some bishops and priests consenting for this reason, that for the present they might render him free from the anger of the king.

[19] where, Abbot Hermenarius deprecating worse things, he is exiled. For the often-mentioned king, enticed by the counsel of the wicked, had ordered him to be brought from Luxeuil, that, deposed with mockery at the will of his accusers, they might render him slain as they wished; as once Herod had determined to do with Peter for the Jews [nn]. For there was present a venerable man, abbot of the basilica of St. Symphorian, Hermenarius by name, to whom after the departure of the Man of God the king, at the petitions of the people, had commended the city of Autun : and when with immense prayers he often cast himself at the feet of the king that he would permit him to reside at Luxeuil, and would not order him to be brought forward to the expectation of the cruel men whom the devil had kindled to fury against him: at length on account of prayers of this kind he was then saved from slaying: certain men falsely supposing that he frequented the dwelling of the king for this reason, that he might be the first of the accusers, so that it might be the more easily permitted him to hold another's bishopric . For it turned out far otherwise, because the carnal eye does not see spiritual love . For his works afterwards were witnesses. Because as long as he survived in the present life , he showed * devoted charity to his needs, in whatever he wished [oo].

ANNOTATIONS.

p. So all our exemplars and Duchesne; but Mabillon reads: All seek out Hilderic, his younger brother, according to which reading the word younger must be referred not to Childeric or Hilderic, but to brother. See nos. 92 and 93 of the Preliminary Commentary, where we discussed at length whether Theodoric was younger than Childeric or, on the contrary, the latter than the former.

q. Childeric had obtained the kingdom of Austrasia already from the year 660, as we taught in no. 115 of the Preliminary Commentary.

r. This celebrated monastery, which belongs to the Order of St. Benedict, is situated in the county of Burgundy at the roots of the mountain Vosagus or Vogesus, and is distant, on the testimony of Baudrand in the Geography, about two leagues from Lorraine and six from Alsace.

s. Mabillon, Duchesne and our manuscript apograph taken from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour have: Then certain men who seemed to be chief in the kingdom, and desired to please Hilderic by quietly flattering, with rash daring ordered the hair of their lord to be cut off, which reading, as it at least appears to me, comes nearer to the genuine, because the author disapproves of this deed of certain nobles of which the discussion is in it, and he does not seem likely to have disapproved of it if it had been perpetrated only, as our reading insinuates, with the design of drawing Childeric back from the slaughter of Theodoric. As regards the deed itself: the kings of the Franks of the first stock were wont to wear long hair, and that spread over the shoulders, which, if by chance it had been shorn from them, they were held unfit to reign at least as long as it had not yet grown again, and therefore to deprive them of this was to do them the greatest injury. Consult on this matter Bouquet in the Preface to tome 3 of the Writers of France, from page 1 to 4.

t. Mabillon, with whom our apograph transcribed from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour agrees, reads: But when the king asked him what he wished to do concerning himself. Than which reading our reading indeed seems to be better, but I know not whether on that account it is more genuine.

u. This most celebrated and best-known monastery of the Benedictine Order of the congregation of St. Maur is situated in the diocese of Paris.

x. Duchesne reads: And there to await, etc., which reading, however, does not seem to be better than ours; nay, since it is discordant with Mabillon and all our manuscript exemplars, it is to be doubted whether it was not born of an interpolation similar to that of Surius; for the Duchesne edition is frequently, as it appears, interpolated. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 47.

y. There are some who have thought that Theodoric was then made a monk in the monastery of St. Dionysius, but, as Valesius rightly says in book 21 of the Frankish Affairs, page 264 and following, they are undoubtedly mistaken. For he was only ordered to be guarded in that monastery, and to wait there until his cut hair should grow again: which, no one is ignorant, by no means befits a monk, or one destined to the profession of the monastic life. For then monks, as also today, were accustomed to be tonsured and to bare their heads of hair.

z. These things enclosed in brackets I transcribed from our Brogne manuscript, because in the codex and in all our other manuscript apographs and in Mabillon they were read more faultily.

aa. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 127.

bb. He says, namely, to the Ephesians, chapter 6, verse 17: Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God.

cc. Childeric II, king of the Franks, as our Henschenius teaches in book 2 On the Three Dagoberts, page 75, had as wife Bilichild, or, as others write, Bilihild, daughter of St. Sigebert, king of Austrasia. Wherefore, since Sigebert, king of Austrasia, and Clovis II, king of Neustria, whom Childeric had as father, were, as is understood from chapters 75 and 76 of Fredegar Scholasticus, sons of Dagobert I, monarch of the Franks, and therefore brothers, it follows that, as our biographer writes, the queen whom Childeric had as wife was the daughter of his, that is Childeric's, avunculus, which word is taken for patruus paternal uncle by an author in whom purity of the Latin tongue is very often lacking; and it was then prohibited by the sacred canons that anyone should take his kinswoman as wife, and that prohibition extended as far as the seventh degree of consanguinity, as is clear from the letter of Gregory the Great, which exists inserted in tome 5 of the Councils in Labbe and Cossart, written at the beginning of the seventh century to Felix, bishop of Messina, so that it was not lawful for Childeric to have Bilihild as wife, even if he had only a much more remote kinship of blood with her than he had, and he was consequently deservedly reprehended by Leodegar for this cause.

dd. Mabillon and Duchesne, with whom our apograph copied from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour agrees, omitting desiring, read thus: For all these and those like them, living in the pleasures of the world, feared that their works would be destroyed by the Man of God, since, etc.

ee. Concerning Hector, and the cause for which he had come to King Childeric, see the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 134, 135, 136 and 144.

ff. From this text, in which Vulfoald, otherwise Wlfoald and Wolfald, is indicated to have been mayor of the house of Childeric reigning in Neustria, we also prove in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 113, that Leodegar was not mayor of the house to Childeric, contrary to what Ursinus writes.

gg. Mabillon and Duchesne read: But as afterwards publicly appeared, rather excessively covetous, under the appearance of religion, for gaining human praises or honours, which reading seems to be preferred, since ours is too faulty.

hh. Here the anonymous author conflicts with Ursinus. See the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 140 and 141.

ii. What the Vigils are to which Childeric is here said not to have come is set forth in no. 141 of the Preliminary Commentary.

kk. After this word, in Mabillon, these things are read which have been omitted here: Lest those who had come together to him should inconsiderately lose their life; but in Duchesne these: Lest they should turn upon the consul that which was being done against themselves, and so the same consul should lose his life.

ll. How this anonymous author seems to conflict with Ursinus, and can be brought back into agreement, see no. 139 of the Preliminary Commentary.

mm. Concerning the sentence passed on Leodegar by Childeric then and afterwards, consult the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 147, 152, 153 and 154.

nn. Acts of the Apostles, chapter 12.

oo. Concerning Ermenarius, who next succeeded Leodegar in the bishopric of Autun, we have brought forward our judgement in no. 154 of the Preliminary Commentary.

* others prudentiæ of prudence

* others ad archidiaconatum to the archdeaconate

* others morte in death

* others extrusionem the thrusting-out

* others quatinus & so that also

* others territæ terrified

* others Justitia & Justice and

* others add elevatus raised

* others rutilant glow

* others quantum quoque how much also

* others vel laquearia or the panelled ceilings

* others reddunt render

* others vera true

* others conversatus est he lived

* others divinis officiis clerum the clergy in the divine offices

* others add alimenta nourishments

* others lack pauperes the poor

* others lack Deus [God]

* others lack mente with mind

* others jam [now]

* others propterea therefore

* others furore with fury

* others invenerunt they found,

* others pecuniam money

* others lack immensa immense

* others lack episcopum bishop

* others supes

* others prioris of the former

* others fuerunt were

* others cumulandum to be heaped up

* others dum posset eum retinere while he could retain him

* others Austro & Auster in the South and South

* others quorum of whom

* others evasisset he might have escaped

* others lack rex king

* others colloqui ei to converse with him

* others add vero [but]

* others amputaverant they had cut off

* others alii to others

* others concessit he granted

* others juvenili ætate by youthful age

* others exquirabant they were seeking out

* others dicerent illius crimine factum they said it was done by his crime

* others judicium judgement

* others At Hildericus But Hilderic

* others his these

* others virilitatem manliness

* others senescens growing old

* others Hictor

* others gerebat he bore

* others commendaret he should commend

* others reperiunt they find

* others accusatione accusation

* others ad [to]

* others reclusus shut in

* others voluntatem will

* others Sanctæ of holy

* others celebrabantur were being celebrated

* others gestans bearing

* others add cum with

* others inter among

* others baptizatorum of the baptized

* others lack ad [to]

* others sacratæ of the sacred

* others nam [for]

* others aliud another thing

* others add se himself

* others timebat he feared

* others subire to undergo

* others salutem safety

* others sollemnia solemnities

* others Bercharium Bercharius

* others add vero [but]

* others lack est [is]

* others add divinitus divinely

* others lack de from

* others longæ of long

* others voluerunt they wished

* others lack tunc then

* others add interim meanwhile

* others Luxovio monasterio to the monastery of Luxeuil

* others lack Sacerdote Priest

* others redderet he should render

* others Augustudunam Autun

* others preces prayers

* others illius of him

* others delectationem delight

* others vitæ of life

* others ministravit he ministered

CHAPTER II.

Childeric dies, a great disturbance of the kingdom arises,

Leodegar goes out of Luxeuil with Ebroin, is restored to his see, experiences Ebroin as an enemy, is besieged at Autun by the partisans of Ebroin, is captured, deprived of his eyes, and handed over to Waimir to be killed by hunger.

King Childeric having died, In those days, therefore, Hebroin was still residing as an exile in Luxeuil, tonsured in the monastic habit, bearing a feigned concord, as though, since both had received one, though unequal, sentence of exile, they were leading a harmonious life. These things having been thus done meanwhile, divine vengeance did not long put off giving its judgement concerning Hilderic. For his dissolute conduct had grown heavy upon all the palatine nobles. Then one of them, bearing this more grievously than the rest, while he was hunting in a forest free from care, struck him with a mortal wound ^a. And before this had happened, while two certain dukes, to whom it had been ordered that St. Leodegar should be brought from Luxeuil, had delayed so far, one of their servants had conspired that, if he saw the Servant of God outside Luxeuil, he would kill him with a stroke of the sword ^b. But when it came to this, so intolerable a dread flooded his heart that he confessed with public voice not only that he had said, but why he had even thought such grave things concerning the Servant of God, and, trembling, prostrate at his feet, he begs that this wickedness be pardoned him by him.

[21] When therefore the death of Hilderic had suddenly been announced, a great disturbance of the kingdom arises; then those who had been condemned to exile at his command, as in springtime after winter venomous serpents are wont to come forth from their caverns, returned without fear: and, as their fury raged, a great disturbance of the fatherland arose, so that it was plainly believed that the coming of Antichrist was imminent. And those who ought to have been the rulers of the regions [rose up against others, and those who ought to have maintained the treaties of peace ^c] began to provoke one another with hatreds. And because a king was not then established on the summit, what seemed right to each in his own will, this he did without dread of discipline. So manifestly did we then know the wrath of God to have come, that even a star appeared in the sky, which astrologers call a comet ^d; at whose rising they assert that the earth is troubled with famine, that change of kings, or commotion of nations, and the sword of slaughter are imminent. For it is established that all these things manifestly came to pass from that time. But because, as it is written, fools are not corrected by words, how much less by signs; those who had returned from exile with malevolent mind accuse themselves of having suffered, through the factions of Leodegar, whatever they had endured for their own crime .

[22] In these days the Man of the Lord was being held by the mentioned dukes for his safety, the Saint has many patrons, by whom he had already been led out of Luxeuil. For then the heavenly grace had there granted to its Servant a venerable dignity, so that in those places both the aforesaid dukes and their matrons [and at the same time the servants, and all the households and the common people, had so conspired in his love that, if necessity threatened, they would not hesitate to offer themselves for him ^e.] And when they, retaining the Servant of God with them, had announced to the other powers ^f dwelling about them that they had recognized the divine grace upon the servant of God Leodegar, these had already joined themselves to their help from religious love of Christianity ^g, and, conspiring among themselves, they confirmed that, since the undisciplined disturbance of this dominion had arisen, if, before they should likewise raise Theoderic to the kingdom *, anyone perhaps should wish to harm St. Leodegar, he should be protected by their help.

[23] For in these days Hebroin also went out of Luxeuil, an enemy, with the envious, in Ebroin; like Julian, who held a feigned life of the monks ^h. For when he was suddenly thronged with a retinue both of friends and servants, the aforesaid exiles, seeking his service, set him up as head of the evil which they had fabricated concerning their accusation, that with his help or counsel, if they prevailed against the Man of God, they might with one mind take vengeance. For Hebroin himself raised his venomous head, like a viper restoring its venoms, pretending that he was then faithful to Theoderic , and on this account hastening to him with his companions as quickly as possible. For when the Man of the Lord with the companions written above was hastening on the same journey, it came about, when there was not even the space of one day's journey before they should reach the city of Autun, that, his favourers urging him, Hebroin, unmindful of the friendship lately promised, wished to seize him there, had he not been prevented by the counsels of Genesius ⁱ, bishop of the metropolis of Lyons, or terrified by the strong hand of those who were present * with him: and, again feigning a false friendship, they came together into the city in a mixed column.

[24] he is received at Autun with the highest joy of all, The church rejoices at the revived presence of its Pastor ^k, the streets are adorned with green branches , the deacons make ready the candles , the whole city rejoices at the coming of its Pontiff after the storm of persecution. Nor undeservedly were watches of praises shown to him who , the Lord being present, was hastening to the crown of martyrdom: and there for the coming of the Prelate they prepared delicacies even for the adversaries: and on the next day, setting out thence together, that they might arrive united at the meeting with Theoderic . Meanwhile, while these, having begun the journey, arrived at the king, the tyrant Hebroin, deserting their company almost already in the middle of that journey ^l, passing across to his own people, casts off the clerical state, returns to his woman, like a dog to his vomit, after the sacred veil ^m, and he who could not serve as a soldier in the camp * of Christ took up secular arms with the adversaries: and since he had forsaken faith and God, he revealed himself an open adversary also against his earthly lord.

[25] Ebroin, adversary to Theodoric, For at the villa of Nogent ⁿ, the kingdom having now been recovered, Theoderic was then residing free from care: when Hebroin had come there by a sudden onset with the Austrasians. For who could plainly enumerate what plundering there then was of the royal treasure and of the ministry of the church, which Catholic princes before, devoted out of love for Christianity, had conferred on the Lord's sanctuary? They report that his mayor of the house also was slain ^o. He perpetrated this evil for this reason, because the counsel was armed by envious diabolical men. For they grieved that they had been cast down by their desert; since they saw the whole people faithfully to have turned aside after Theoderic; and he being now confirmed in the kingdom, and the servant of God Leodegar residing with his favour in his city, they began again to be tormented with envious spite [p]; because while the just stood upright, the perverse could not approach to recovery. And because, the devil persuading them, who had stripped them of faith, when, already blinded, they did not find a counsel of truth by which they might destroy the Saint of God, they turn aside to a greater ruin through a device of falsity, through which they brought in the kingdom a great evil and a slaughter of depopulation in the persecution of many.

[26] he makes king a boy whom he feigns to be the son of Clothar; At length they took a certain little boy, and fabricated that he was the son of Lothar [q]: raising him with them to the kingdom in the parts of Auster. On which account they gathered much people in hostile fashion, because it seemed likely . For when they subjugated the country of all by depopulating it, they gave precepts to the judges even in the name of their king, whom they had falsely made. Then whoever, wishing, would not acquiesce in them either lost the rights of his power, or, if he did not depart by flight in hiding , perished by slaying of the sword. For how many, through this fiction of craftiness, believed that Theoderic was then dead, and that Hlodoveus was the son of Hlothar? For the first in this lie, and as it were the rulers of the palace, were Desideratus, surnamed Deddo [r], who formerly had held the principate in the city of Chalon, and also his colleague Bolo [s], who had had the city of Valence under his dominion: for they are not worthy to be named bishops , who serve earthly desires rather than Christ God, and care nothing for that of which we are to render an account to the strict Judge [t]. Using the counsel of such priests as these and of similar nobles, the tyrant Hebroin was raised up and blinded in this world to such an extent, until, impenitent, he was cast headlong into hell [u]. Let us return to the work begun.

[27] In those days, these things having been thus done and unfolded one by one, after Hilderic had been slain, he sends men to capture Leodegar; after the bishops or patricians with the nobles had returned from the Neustrian parts or from the presence of Theoderic into the parts of Burgundy, and, he being now confirmed in the kingdom, were residing free from care in their own places, meanwhile the envious moved the enemy from the opposite side, and first to act concerning him in the manner in which they thought he had acted with King Hilderic. Then, having joined to himself as counsellors the most wicked associates of his enemies, he began to consult how he might be able to destroy the same Pontiff. For of these counsellors two, namely Deddo and Waimir by name [x], made the head of the malice, said that they could snatch him from the city, and take on him a vengeance with which the malice of Hebroin ought to be satiated . For Hebroin, rejoicing at their answer, gave a very copious army, which went in haste to the city .

[28] But the Man of the Lord, Leodegar, when he was residing in his city to restore his people, he his treasures to the poor when he perceived the onset of the enemies directed against him, did not suffer himself to direct his step further in flight, but intrepidly awaited the judgement of the Lord concerning himself. For when both his household and the clerics and faithful pressed upon him to carry off the treasures which he himself had brought together, and to depart, so that the enemies, hearing this, might desist from the destruction of the city and from his persecution, he, by no means acquiescing in these , but at once calling them together in the treasury , assigning all things which he had added there, followed with such words: "All these things which you see, brethren, as long as the grace of God willed me to have the favour of earthly men, I have faithfully brought together here for the common adornment, as I could. But now perhaps earthly men are therefore angry with me, because the Lord deigns to call us to the grace of heaven. For why should I carry away from here these things which I do not take with me into heaven? Therefore, if it please you, I choose the counsel that these be given rather for the uses of the poor than to wander hither and thither through the world with a shameful burden: and let us imitate Blessed Lawrence [y], who, because he dispersed and gave to the poor, his justice remaineth for ever and ever, and his horn is exalted in glory [z]."

[29] And immediately he ordered the custodian to cast out the silver dishes with very many other vessels, and distributes them to churches, and, giving pious admonitions to his own, and silversmiths to be present with hammers, who should break all into small pieces, which he ordered to be paid out to the poor through the dispensation of the faithful: and those of them which had been fit for ecclesiastical uses he added to the ministry of the church. The monasteries indeed both of men and of virgins within the city or territory he consoled from the same silver, and

the poverty of many. What widow was there then, or orphanhood , or any poverty whatever in common, that was present there, which did not have consolation from his largess? But the Man of the Lord, as he was full of the spirit of wisdom, spoke these words to the brethren: "I, brethren, have now decreed to think nothing at all concerning this world, but rather to fear spiritual wickedness than an earthly enemy. If an earthly man shall have received from the Lord such power as to persecute, seize, plunder , burn, kill; these things we can by no means escape by turning aside, and if here we are handed over for discipline in transitory things, let us not despair, nay rather let us rejoice in the future concerning pardon.

[30] he institutes fasts and public prayers. Let us therefore fortify with virtues both the soul and at the same time the guard of the city, lest either enemy find an approach through which they may be able to bring in danger." Admonishing therefore the whole people of that city, with a three-day fast, with the sign of the Cross and the relics of the Saints, going round the circuit of the walls, and at each entrance of the gates cleaving to the earth, he prayed the Lord with tears that, if He was calling him to passion, He would not permit the people entrusted to him to be taken captive: and so it was granted to come to pass. When therefore, through fear of the enemies, the peoples had eagerly betaken themselves from every side into the city, and had blocked the passages of the gates with strong bars, and had set the bulwarks in order above all, the Man of the Lord ordered all to enter the church, asking of all indulgence for himself, that, if he had rebuked any one of them, as is wont to happen, out of zeal for rectitude, or had hurt him by a word, they would give him indulgence. For the Man of God, entering on the way of passion, knew that martyrdom does not profit where, spite being wiped away, the heart has not first been cleansed, or illumined by the lamp of charity. There was no one there then possessing so iron a breast who, even if he had been gravely hurt, did not devoutly forgive all malice of heart.

[31] the enemies besieging the city, Not long after this the city is surrounded by an army, and on the same day it was fought vigorously by both peoples until evening. But when the city had been surrounded with a strong siege by the column of the enemies, and they went round the city day and night, baying like dogs, the Man of the Lord, perceiving that danger was imminent for the city, restrained all fighting on the walls , and undertook to entreat his people in these words: "Cease, I beg, from contending by fighting against these. If they have come here only on my account, I am ready to satisfy their will concerning myself, and to mitigate their fury. Yet, lest we seem to go out unheard, let one of the brethren be sent to inquire of them for what cause they besiege this city." Then suddenly these prepared a descent for the abbot Meroald [aa] over the rampart of the wall, who, coming to Deddo, said to him: If our crimes have committed these things, I ask that meanwhile you remember the evangelical sentence, where the Lord said: "If you will not forgive men their sins, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your sins [bb]." And that: "For with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged [cc]:" and at the same time beseeching that he would restrain the enemy, and receive the ransom which he wished.

[32] and wishing him alone to be handed over to them, But because he had already hardened his heart as with the hardness of stone, like the Egyptian king of old [dd], he could by no means be softened at the divine words, and he threatened that he would not depart from the assault on the city until he could seize Leodegar and satisfy the mad desire of his fury; unless he promised fealty to Lodoveus, whom they had falsely made king [ee]: for this was the pretended occasion [ff], since all asserted with an oath that Theoderic was dead. The Man of the Lord, therefore, having heard these words, gave them these answers: "Be this known to all of you, friends and brethren as well as enemies and foes; that as long as God shall order me to survive in this life, I will not be changed from the fealty which I promised before the Lord to keep to Theoderic: I have decreed rather to offer my body to death than shamefully to strip bare my soul for infidelity." But the enemies, having heard these answers, pressed hastily on every side with the throwing of missiles and with fire to break into the wall of the city *.

[33] And he himself, bidding farewell to all the brethren, communicating by participation of the Bread and Wine, the Saint presents himself of his own accord; he is blinded; and strengthening their doubtful hearts, commending to them, like Christ , the memory of his passion, went intrepidly to the entrance of the gates, and, the bars having been opened, of his own accord offered himself for his enemies . And the adversaries, rejoicing, received him as an innocent sheep, like wolves, for a prey. He, crying out, is reported to have said: "I give thanks to the almighty Redeemer , who has deigned to glorify me today." But they, devising the contrivance of a most iniquitous punishment, first the light of the eyes is torn from his head, in which tearing out he was seen to have endured the incision of the iron beyond human nature. For many illustrious men are witnesses who were present on the spot: that he neither suffered a bond to be placed on his hands, nor did a groan proceed from his mouth while his eyes were being drawn out of his head, but, glorifying the Lord always, he took pains to sing the melodies of the psalms.

[34] Among the rest there was a certain duke of Champagne, called Waimir by name, and is handed over to Waimir to be guarded, who had come from the borders of Auster with Deddo to perpetrate this evil: these two assigned Autun to a certain Bobo [gg], who had lately been cast out with anathema from the bishopric of the city of Valence, for dominion, nay rather for devastation. And the citizens, oppressed, received the adversary, because they had now lost their Pastor, through whose dispensation they had carried away almost all the support of the church. For, for the ransom of the city, the occasion having been taken , the silver of the church was sold for five thousand solidi, besides the spoils of the citizens. And although the church had suffered loss in transitory things, the Lord permitted no one thence to be led away captive [hh]. When therefore the enemies were rejoicing, they divided the spoils, and handed over the Man of God into the custody of Waimir written above: who hastily returned with the same army to his country [ii].

[35] But Desideratus, surnamed Deddo, together with Bobo and Duke Adalric [kk], and to be killed by hunger; whom they wished to be patrician of the province to be subjugated , went on as far as Lyons [ll], that they might lead away Genesius thence, as they had lately driven Leodegar out of Autun [y]. But the strong hand of the people, collected from every side, God presiding, did not permit them to break into this very great city. But those who had led Leodegar, the servant of God, when they announced to Hebroin what had been done [he orders him to be thrust away into the secret places of the forests, and to fabricate a lying tale concerning his death, as though killed in the waters, he ordered even a tomb of burial to be set up for him, until the starvation of long hunger should consume him [mm].] Whoever could hear or see it believed it to be true [nn]. But He who fed Elijah by a raven in the Wilderness did not forsake His servant there either.

[36] For after the long starvation of hunger which the Martyr of God endured, but he is converted to good fruit. Waimir, reflecting that human nature could not thus endure in him otherwise than if the grace of Christ sustained him, orders him to be brought into his house . For his hard bowels began to be softened with pity. For when he had become accustomed to him in familiar conversation, he so tamed his fierceness in a short space of time, and converted both him and his wife to the fear of God [oo], that he devoutly offered him the silver of the church which he had lately received for the ransom of the city of Autun, and granted whatever he should decree to do with it [pp]. Which the Man of God, having received it, directing it through a certain faithful abbot, Berto by name [qq], to the aforesaid city, and dividing it, according to the Apostle [rr], to the household of the faith, faithfully fulfilled his will by the work of charity.

ANNOTATIONS.

noticed, and hence it is undoubtedly that he takes up the words in which the anonymous author narrates that a comet appeared, at the year 673, nos. 8 and 9, thus: The anonymous author (namely the biographer of the Life of St. Leodegar) speaks without doubt of the rainbow which we showed at the year DCLXXI, no. III, was seen in the month of March of the current year (673). For at the same time Theophanes indicates that a comet and other signs appeared in the sky, since he writes: "In this year a rainbow seen in the sky struck trembling into all flesh in the month of March, Dystrus: so that all proclaimed that the consummation of all things had come, ὃτι συντέλεια ἐστίν." But Christ teaches us in the Gospel that many heavenly signs, not one, will precede the end of the world. Theophanes, however, speaks only of the rainbow, as do also those who copied him, because it terrified the Orientals more; and the writer of the Life of St. Leodegar (namely the older anonymous) only of the comet, intent, namely, on the overturning of things which happened in Gaul after the death of Childeric, according to that of Lucan, book 1, 115, the comet changing kingdoms. Certainly heavenly signs do not always appear in the same manner in all climes, and the rainbow is sometimes reckoned among fatal things, and other things sometimes accompany it, as Gregory of Tours testifies, book 6, chapter 44, happened in Gaul in the IX year of Childebert, king of the Franks, namely of Christ DXLIV. "In this year," he says, "many prodigies appeared in the Gauls, and there were many devastations among the people. For in the month of January roses were seen: around the sun also a great circle appeared, mingled with divers colours, as is wont to be shown in that circuit of the heavenly rainbow when the rain departs." Thus far Pagi, contending, namely, that the comet which is here mentioned by the anonymous author is different from the comet which, as he teaches, was seen by the whole world in the year of Christ DCLXXVII from the month of August for three months. And indeed, if in fact some comet appeared, as the anonymous author relates, either before or a little after the death of Childeric, it must be different from the comet of the year 677, since Childeric departed from among the living in the year 673, as we taught in § VIII of the Preliminary Commentary from the common opinion of the learned. It can indeed be objected here that among any other writers whatever of the seventh and eighth centuries there is everywhere the deepest silence concerning a comet which was different from the comet of the year 677, and which appeared either before or a little after the death of Childeric; but the cause of this silence can be that that comet was seen in fewer places of the world, and was therefore less celebrated, and worthy to be committed to writing for the memory of posterity.

p. Mabillon reads otherwise: For they grieved that they had been cast down by their desert, since they saw the whole people faithfully turning aside after Theodoric, and him now confirmed in the kingdom, and the servant of God Leodegar residing with his favour in his city; they began again to burn with spite and envy. But which is the genuine reading I cannot declare for certain.

q. Since Ebroin and his followers, as is here narrated, were able to substitute a son for Clothar III, king of the Franks, when he had died, and persuade many that Clothar was truly his father, it follows that Clothar, who, when his father Clovis II died, had scarcely completed the fourth year of his age, reigned not only four years, as is read in the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, chapter 45, and in the Continued Chronicle of Fredegar, chapter 93, but fourteen, as is now admitted among absolutely all the learned; nor perhaps do the praised Deeds of the kings of the Franks and the Writer of the continued Fredegarian Chronicle contradict this, since perhaps they speak only of the years in which Clothar held the monarchy. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 115.

r. Desideratus, surnamed Deddo, or, as it is found written elsewhere, Diddo or Dido, is reviewed by the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 873, among the bishops of Chalon as fourteenth in order. He, deposed for crimes and expelled from his see, adhered to Ebroin, and offered himself to him as a minister for harassing Leodegar, as the anonymous author declares below. But, say the praised Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana in the place cited, the most just judgement of God could not long endure so great wickedness. Dido, I know not for what reason, became hateful to Ebroin: whence, when a synod had been assembled, concerning which we have treated in § XV, in a certain royal villa, says the anonymous author, there among others Dido was expelled from his bishopric and given over to punishment, condemned by the synod itself, THE SKULL-CAP RECEIVED ON HIS HEAD, AND SEPARATED FROM THE HOLY CONGREGATION. Then, sent into exile, he at length paid by capital punishment for whatever he had sinned against St. Leodegar.

s. Bolo, who is here numbered among the followers of Ebroin, is called Bobo in our Brogne manuscript, which our Predecessors received transmitted from Pierre-François Chifflet, and Abbo in the Mabillon edition. But whether Bolo, or Bobo, or even Abbo be the better reading, he who is designated by that name was bishop of the city of Valence, and him, excommunicated and deposed a little before, as the anonymous author teaches below in no. 34, Ebroin also used for harassing Leodegar.

t. Mabillon reads: For they are not worthy to be named bishops, who are watchful rather for earthly desires or for increasing money by temporal gains, while they care nothing about the souls committed to them, for which they are to render an account to the strict judge.

u. The author here asserts that Ebroin was consigned by God to the eternal punishments of hell; what our judgement is on which matter, see no. 275 of the Preliminary Commentary.

x. This was a duke, that is, a prefect or governor of Champagne, and, because he had also let out his service in harassing Leodegar, he was created by Ebroin bishop of the city of Troyes; afterwards he incurred his indignation and hatred, and, the same Ebroin acting, was punished in manifold ways, and at length also killed by hanging.

y. The discussion here is of that most celebrated martyr Lawrence, of whom it has been treated by us at the X day of August, on which his memory is held solemn in the Church.

z. Here there is undoubtedly an allusion to the deed of St. Lawrence, by which he, before he was crowned with martyrdom, paid out the treasures of the Church to the poor, as is read in his proper Acts brought into our tome 2 of August, page 518 and following, from the Martyrology of Ado, nos. 1, 2 and 4.

aa. The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 449, doubt of what monastery Meroald, who is here mentioned, was abbot; on which matter see the Preliminary Commentary, no. 183 and the two following.

bb. So, roughly, Matthew 6, verse 15.

cc. In the same, chapter 7, verse 2.

dd. Pharaoh, namely, who after various plagues inflicted on him by God through the ministry of Moses and Aaron would not let the sons of Israel go free out of Egypt, and, pursuing them as they fled with his army, perished most miserably in the Red Sea.

ee. It follows from this that Ebroin, having come out of Luxeuil, had not yet been restored to the prefecture of the palace when Autun was being besieged by the partisans of Ebroin. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 177.

ff. What is probably to be understood here by the pretended occasion we have taught in no. 186 of the Preliminary Commentary.

gg. Concerning Waimir, Diddo and Bobbo see what has been said above at the letters r, s and x.

hh. This the people of Autun ought most probably to have credited to the prayers of St. Leodegar. See no. 191 of the Preliminary Commentary.

ii. What region is probably to be understood by the country to which Waimir is here said to have hastened with Leodegar handed over into his custody, you will find defined in no. 191 of the Preliminary Commentary.

kk. I have found nothing among the historians which I should think is to be referred to Duke Adalric, of whom mention is here made.

ll. Mabillon, with whom our manuscript transcribed from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour agrees, reads thus: But Desideratus, surnamed Diddo, together with Bobo and Duke Adalric, whom they wished to be patrician of the province, went on as far as Lyons to subjugate the patriciate.

mm. See these things enclosed in brackets, whose sense is somewhat obscure, set forth in no. 23 of the Preliminary Commentary.

nn. Mabillon, in the Second Benedictine Century, page 689, in the Annotations to the Life of St. Leodegar, thinks that our biographer here designates himself; but whether rightly, see no. 23 of the Preliminary Commentary.

oo. And yet this writer writes thus concerning Waimir in no. 45: Waimir … condemned to a most shameful death (as befitted the betrayer of a just man), he (namely Ebroin) sent to hell.

pp. Mabillon reads: That he might do whatever he should decree to do with it.

qq. Mabillon reads Berto; but which reading is superior I do not know, as also of what monastery Betto or Bertho was abbot. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 192.

rr. He says here, to the Galatians 6, verse 10: Therefore while we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

* others igitur therefore

* others autem [but]

* others cogitasset he had thought

* others deprecaretur he begged

* others dum while

* others lack ex from

* others quantum how much

* others propter sua facinora on account of their crimes

* others add nuper lately

* others qui retinebant who were retaining

* others in regno, in the kingdom,

* others lack ad [to]

* others add regis of the king

* others nisi unless

* others quæ which

* others aderat was present

* others virentiis with green things

* others add clerici tripudiant cum Antiphonis the clerics dance for joy with Antiphons

* others quia because

* others add regis Fran. king of the Franks

* others quia in castris because in the camp

* others Noviento & Novientem Nogent

* others venit came

* others invido consilio by envious counsel

* others consilio by counsel

* others quos whom

* others regnum the kingdom

* others add cunctis to all

* others latenter secretly

* others internecione by slaughter

* others add urbium of cities

* others lack agere to act

* others cum quo regem Childericum with whom King Childeric

* others esset satiata should be satiated

* others add Augustidunum Autun

* others lack ei [him]

* others hæc these things

* others thesauros treasures

* others huc hither

* others tollam I shall take

* others dare to give

* others quæ which

* others fuerunt were

* others orphana orphan

* others Deo from God

* others perdat destroy

* others trudimur we are thrust

* others commovens moving

* others simul & insimul together and at once

* others super murale upon the wall

* others huc hither

* others voluntatem will

* others repagulum [bar]

* others remiseritis you remit

* others deprecans beseeching

* others vesano desiderio with mad desire

* others quia because

* others fuisse to have been

* others mortem death

* others inrumpere civitatem to break into the city

* others add discipulis to the disciples

* others pro civibus inimicis for the citizens, the enemies

* others Deo to God

* others evulserunt they tore out

* others reperta found

* others spolia spoils

* others lætanter divisissent they had joyfully divided

* others lack festinus hastily

* others lack subjugandæ to be subjugated

* others duxerunt they led

* others enecati killed

* others confingi to be fabricated

* others constitui to be set up

* others eremo wilderness

* others perducere to lead

* others in parvo tempore prostram

CHAPTER III.

Leodegar and Gerinus are summoned to court: the latter is killed by the command of Ebroin, restored to the mayoralty of the house; the former, direly mutilated, is kept for longer torments, speaks with his tongue cut out, converts many, is summoned to a council, deprived of his dignity, and at length killed.

Ebroin, having gained favour with Theodoric, becomes mayor of the house When therefore, as has been said above, the abandoned Hebroin could no longer hide his crime, he turns his wit away from the king whom he had falsely made ^a, that he might return to the palace of Theoderic. He is received by the faction of certain men, and suddenly is again made mayor of the house of the palace. But when some rejoicing, others fearing, had raised him to the summit of honour, he at once issued such an edict, that if anyone had inflicted on anyone either loss or plunder in the disturbance which had been, no false charge should be generated against anyone from this ^b. This was the occasion that he should not restore the spoil which his servants had brought together for him from the plundering of many ^c. For when * he had begun to swell in revived pride, grieving and fearing lest he should have surviving rivals, on whose parents he had inflicted evil: having now obtained the rights of power, he doubled his malice with envy.

[38] For he began urgently to persecute the former nobles, and he rages both against others and whomever of the former nobles he was able to seize he laid low by slaying with the sword, or, their means taken away, drove away to foreign nations ^d. Indeed, destroying the monasteries of noble women, and directing the chief women of their religious houses * into exile: and because he had received power to trample the ornaments of pearls, therefore without any pity, like a hog, he did not fear to break in upon the ornaments of the treasures of Christ by trampling them. And since he could not look up to heaven, therefore his heart was fixed beyond measure in the mud of earthly cupidity. For when the cruel Hebroin had satiated his fury upon the abovesaid things, he again began to seek out occasions whereby he might be able to remove from human eyes the blasphemy of his cruelty.

[39] and against our Saints, Gerinus Then he pretended that he wished to avenge the death of Hilderic, although no one had wished him to perish sooner than he himself ^e; (for otherwise he did not dare to persecute publicly one whom he hated) the princes ordered St. Leodegar, together with his Brother, to come out of the monastery in which he was held hidden ^f, and to stand in the presence of the king. He said to Hebroin : While you desire to overcome all the inhabitants in all France, you rather take away your own glory, which you have undeservedly received. Hearing these things , the most wicked Hebroin, filled with great fury, ordered his servants to drag Gerinus away and separate him from his Brother, that they might be seen to be punished separately, lest it should delight them together to speak such words. And while he was being led away, Blessed Leodegar addresses him, saying: Be of calm mind, dearest Brother; since it behoves us to suffer these things: because the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which shall be revealed in us. For our sins are many; but the mercy of the Almighty is surpassingly great, which is always ready to wash away the offences of those who praise it. These things we suffer for a time, because we are debtors to death: but that life awaits us, if we bear the punishment patiently, where we shall rejoice without end in heavenly glory.

[40] he orders to be killed, and Leodegar, direly mutilated and tortured, Then the servants began to overwhelm Gerinus, bound to a stake, with stones; but he besought the Lord, saying: Good Lord Jesus, who camest not to call the just but sinners, receive the spirit of Thy servant, that Thou who hast deigned, in the likeness of the martyrs , to take away this mortal life by stones, mayest most clemently bid pardon of my crimes to be granted. Saying these things, praying, he breathed out his last breath. Blessed Leodegar, therefore, desired to end his life with his Brother, that they might together merit to share the future and blessed glory: but the tyrant Hebroin, wishing to defer his end, that through punishments long delayed he might prepare eternal ones for himself , and lest he should receive the crown of martyrdom, but rather should lack the rewards of eternal glory, then ordered him to be led barefoot through a certain pool in which there were stones cutting like sharp nails : for which reason he cruelly ordered his lips and face to be cut with a hollowed iron, and also the plectrum of his tongue to be taken away with cutting iron: so that, when his eyes had been taken away, his feet already pierced, his tongue and lips cut, and when he saw all the felicity of his members taken from him, and the strength of his body likewise appeared slain on every side; when he could neither see the way with his eyes, nor walk the path with his feet, nor praise the Creator with the tongue performing its offices, and through this, despairing, he should yield to blasphemy , by taking away the salvation, great, which * by praising he would have merited to obtain from heaven ^g.

[41] to be kept for longer torments. But God, who is the hearer of the heart without words, desires rather a contrite heart than one proud with elation , receives the voice of one silent rather than the lofty voices of those speaking, does not ask the help of the voice for Himself, but the humility of the heart. For when he knew that he had lost all human support, he asked with all his strength that the divine should be present to him; for as much as human impiety desires to call him back from on high, so much has piety made to associate him in heaven. St. Leodegar, therefore, they kept alive longer for vengeance, and, shamefully stripped, ordered him to be dragged naked through the marshy places of the streets, and, as it were deformed, handed him over for vengeance to a man named Waningus ^h, that under his grievous dominion he might send forth his tortured spirit: to whom also the wicked Hebroin said: Take, he says, Leodegar, whom you once saw a proud man, and set him under close custody; for there will be a time of his calling receiving what he has merited from his enemies: and since his lodging was far off, they placed the holy Martyr of God on * a vile beast of burden. And when he knew that it had been so fulfilled, he took up this little verse of the psalm. As a beast of burden, he says, I am become

before Thee, and I am always with Thee ⁱ. And although he had neither lips nor tongue, the devout mind could not keep silent the praises of God, but what sounds it could, it made to resound from the secret place of the heart.

[42] And when all saw him thus grievously bloodied, the Saint, deprived of his tongue, speaks, they believed that on this account he must send forth his spirit. For when one of our brethren, an abbot, Winebert by name ^k, had followed him from afar to the aforesaid lodging, begging the guards that they would not refuse him to approach him secretly; when at length he obtained it, he found him ^l lying on straw, covered with an old cloth of a tent, palpitating with feeble breath: and while he believed that he was about to expire presently, he found an unhoped-for miracle. For amid the spittings of blood the cut tongue without lips began to render its accustomed speech. And because the cutting away of the lips had laid bare the rows of teeth, yet from within, by the abundance of sounds, they rendered speech ^m. Then he who had come to show the watches for his funeral at his passing began to weep for joy, and with hastened step announces the fact to Bishop Hermenarius ⁿ. He also, hearing it, asks of Waningus access to approach the Martyr of God ^o. And when it had also deservedly been granted him (for all feared the savage tyrant like an angry lion [p]), he also took pains diligently to heal his wounds, and, with what art he could, to refresh him with drink and food, and to clothe him with a better garment, which he had. For he paid him reverent honour no longer as to an earthly man, but as to a Martyr translated, on which account he merited from him a blessing not only for past things but also * for future.

[43] For after Waningus led him to his own place, he recovers the cut-off members; converts many, the grace of God accompanying him, his lips began to grow again more quickly, against nature, together with his tongue, and also words beyond the usual began to flow unceasingly from his mouth [q]. When Waningus had learned of this miracle, he does not stop up his mind to inflict evil on him as had been commanded by the tyrant; but, the case being reversed, now recognizing the Martyr of God, he led him, having received him, to his monastery which is called Fécamp [r], where there was a congregation of nuns and virgins, over whom presided Hildomarca, the handmaid of Christ [s], in which, living for many days, he remained a dweller [t] under guard. For the cut tongue also received back its accustomed office, and he showed a great seed of his doctrine among the people: whenever it happened that he came among the throng of the virgins, so much, as is reported, did his sweet discourses shine that whoever heard wondered how greatly the clemency of God was working, and, converted from wicked works, speedily sought the fruit of penance. Where, when within a small space he had received back the office of mouth, face and tongue [u], because he himself had been offered, he now took pains to immolate the daily sacrifice; so that, since the spiritual light had filled him within, he cared nothing for the bodily eyes. For by days and nights he stood watchful in the worship of God, so that scarcely at any time did he go out of the church even a little for the necessities of the body, that he might be able to take even some sleep, or the taking of food.

[44] he grieves for his enemies, several of whom When therefore, after so many scourgings, as befitted a Martyr, the faithful peoples showed him venerable service; because a lamp cannot be hidden under a bushel [x], the Almighty manifestly declared this to all. He began to avenge him on his adversaries [y]. For when he had resided there for almost two years [z] in the praises of God, when they announced to him that they had been slain, or others driven away into regions for the cause of infidelity ; he , weeping grievously, did not rejoice at the vengeance, but groaned that the fall of death had seized them without penance. At the same time the glorious man King Theoderic and the same Hebroin convoked a synod [aa], and, coming to a certain royal villa [bb], caused a great throng of bishops to be present: and there among others Deddo (who with Waimir expelled the holy man Leodegar from his bishopric, and handed him over to punishment), condemned by the synod itself, received the punishment of the skull-cap [cc] on his head, expelled and separated from the holy congregation [dd]; then condemned to exile, and death following, he paid by capital punishment for whatever of pain * he exercised on the holy Man.

[45] they are punished: at the instigation of Ebroin, And other bishops then, having obtained a similar punishment from the king through Hebroin in the same synod, were deported into perpetual exile. [For Waimir , who had been a partner in ruin for capturing the abovesaid Servant of God and for fulfilling the words of Hebroin, after he had been raised by Hebroin himself, deceitfully, to the grade of the episcopate, because he had consented in his vengeance, a little interval having been interposed, falling into offence, was crushed, by the will of God, as we suppose, with many scourges: namely, as is reported, hanged by a halter, and condemned to a most shameful death, as befitted the betrayer of the Just man, he sent him to hell [ee].] For the man of God Leodegar was still abiding in the same monastery of nuns in which he had been placed to be guarded. For the fabricating of the crown of the blessed Martyr, therefore, one crafty artificer of them survived, the tyrant Hebroin , who was to fulfil those things which remained for the glory of his passion. For thus the envious ancient serpent, bearing it ill that he had been expelled from that same place by his prayers, again began to goad Hebroin , and he commanded him to be brought back to the palace, that in a council of bishops he might tear his vestment [ff], so that on this account it might be forbidden him henceforth to presume to offer the sacrifice.

[46] he is examined, stripped of his dignity, condemned Where, when he had been led into the midst [gg], they sought a word from him, that he should confess that he had been an accomplice in the death of Hilderic. Knowing therefore that through a diabolical device a conflict was again threatening him, while he did not excuse himself from human offence, he professed that he had by no means been privy to this crime, but that God rather than men knew this. Then they summoned him also to the same synod, but they do not confirm that he was within the council [hh], but the king and Hebroin are said to have held a conference with him apart, in which he is reported to have foretold to them many future things, which is proved manifestly to have come to pass. And when, demanding for a long time, they had not been able to draw anything else from him, they cut his tunic from the head, and the impious tyrant Hebroin ordered him to be handed over to a certain man Rodobert , who was then count of the palace, and to take away * his present life by the stroke of the sword [ii]. For the Martyr of God rejoiced in all patience, because he perceived that the crown of martyrdom due [kk] to him, the Lord rewarding, was approaching.

[47] Having received him, Robert, in order to lead him to his house [ll], seeing him wearied from the journey and weakness, ordered drink to be given him for refreshment. For before the cupbearer attended him, to death; he is honoured with heavenly light; a great light, as it were in the wheel of a circle, descending from heaven, shone upon his head. Then all who saw this sign, trembling, said: What is this, Lord, which appears upon your head, as it were in the manner of a circle, most splendid , from heaven, the like of which has never been seen by us? He, prone on the earth, adored, saying: I give Thee thanks, almighty God, consoler and refresher of all, who hast deigned to show such a miracle upon Thy servant. Then all, seeing it, as though placed in ecstasy of mind, at length indeed, having recovered their breath, together glorifying almighty God, and turning one to another, saying: Truly this Man is a servant of God: they promised to strive wholly towards God with all their strength. And when the mentioned man had led him into his own house, he so received the heavenly blessing at his coming that, when all dwelling there manifestly recognized this, confessing their own sins, they forsook them, and eagerly fled to the remedies of penance.

[48] For God had illumined His Servant with this grace, he is ordered to be killed secretly; that wherever he had been handed over as an exile, that wickednesses might be inflicted on him, the case being reversed, all paid him serviceable reverence. At length came the day of the reward, on which there should now be an end of his persecution. Then from the palace the sentence of the decree is sent , that Leodegar ought not to live longer. And the impious Hebroin, fearing lest the honour of martyrdom should be paid to him by faithful Christians, orders a well to be sought out among the thickets of the forests, and his slain body to be sunk there, so that, the mouth of the well being stopped up with earth or stones, his tomb might be unknown to men. Meanwhile the aforesaid Robert , he preaching, had already begun to be somewhat converted, and therefore, not bearing to look upon the death of the Man of God, he ordered four of his servants [mm] to undertake to fulfil the things which had been commanded him. For when this messenger arrived at his house, his wife began to weep with bitter mourning, because so cruel a crime had come to the ministry of her husband.

[49] When therefore the Man of the Lord knew that his end was now at hand, he consoles his hostess; he began to console the mourning woman, saying: I do not wish you to weep on account of my passing, because my death will by no means be required of you for vengeance; but rather a blessing from heaven will be given to you by God, if you devoutly lay my poor body in a sepulchre: and when he had said these things, the servants urging, bidding farewell, he is led out into the forest [nn], that they might fulfil the sentence of the command. For they had already before sought a well, that they might hide his body, as had been commanded, and it was by no means found again by them. They led him out, therefore, through unknown places to a certain place, in which he stood still, saying: You have no need, sons, to be wearied further; do quickly that for which you have come, that you may fulfil the wish of the wicked one. And those who had come to slay him were four *. And three of them threw themselves at his feet, begging that he would give them his indulgence, and deign to bestow a blessing upon them. But the fourth [oo] stood by proudly, his sword unsheathed, ready to slay him.

[50] And after he had bestowed a blessing upon them, and announced the word of God to his slayers, he prays for his enemies, is slain, is buried. then the Man of God, bending himself in prayers , said: Lord God almighty, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, God of powers and of every creature, and Creator of the whole human race, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, who hast deigned to lead me to this day of combat: I ask and beseech Thee, Lord, that Thou Thyself bid the mercy of Thy loving-kindness to be bestowed on me, and make me worthy to be a partaker of the merits of Thy Saints and a sharer of life eternal, and grant indulgence to those who afflict me: since I, over * them, in Thy sight, I believe, most clement Father,

to be glorified. And rising, he stretched out his neck, admonished the swordsmen that they should fulfil what had been commanded them. While he was saying these things, the striker, stretching out his sword, cut off his head, and his body is said to have remained standing upright for about the space of one hour; but when the swordsman did not see him fall at once, he struck him with his foot, that even * so he might fall the more quickly to the ground. But not long after, his striker, seized by demons and bereft of his mind and struck by the vengeance of God, threw himself into the fire, and there ended his life. Then, at the command of the wife of this Robert, the blessed Martyr was carried secretly by her people, with great weeping of those lamenting, into a certain villa, Sarcinium [pp], and by the decree of this woman he was buried with the garments in which he had been slaughtered, in a very small oratory, in which sepulchre he is said to have been interred for two years and a half.

ANNOTATIONS.

i. Psalm 72, verse 23.

p. These things enclosed in parenthesis are read in exactly the same manner in absolutely all our manuscript exemplars and in the Duchesne edition; but in the Mabillon edition, which is worthy of note, they are rendered with some amplification thus: For all feared, like an angry lion, Ebremerdus, that is, Hebroin, the son of perdition and stubble of hell, the savage tyrant.

q. Mabillon, from whom Duchesne and our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour do not differ, reads thus: I saw words flowing from his mouth beyond the usual, and hence claims for our anonymous author the prerogative of an eyewitness; but the word I saw is absent from our codex, from both Brogne manuscript exemplars, and from the apograph which is noted as collated with the manuscript of Cornelius Duyn. See the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 22 and 23.

r. Concerning the monastery of Fécamp, or Fiscanum, and its founder St. Waningus or Waringus, we have treated briefly in no. 204 and following of the Preliminary Commentary. The notice of that monastery supplied by the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome XI, column 201, can also be seen.

s. Hildomarca, or Childemarca, which is also written otherwise, is reported in our Work at the 19th of June among the Passed-over in these words: Childomara or Childeomarea, in the monastery of Fécamp, added towards the end of the Martyrology of St. Jerome in the Blumian and Lucca manuscripts, in which her deposition is said to be. By others she is Hildemarca and Childemarca, and she is worshipped on the XXV of October. She had under her discipline, when St. Leodegar came as an exile to the monastery of Fécamp, three hundred and sixty-six religious virgins, as is understood from nos. 6 and 7 of the Fragment of the Life of St. Waningus, which our Bollandus published in the second place at the 9th of January, and Mabillon afterwards reprinted in the Second Benedictine Century.

t. Namely for almost two years, as the author affirms below.

u. How these words of the anonymous author are to be understood I have set forth in no. 205 of the Preliminary Commentary.

x. So absolutely all our manuscript exemplars and Duchesne; Mabillon nevertheless reads: Because a lamp hidden under a bushel cannot not shine; but this reading, as it at least appears to me, is to be placed after ours.

y. Mabillon reads: For He began to avenge him on his adversaries suddenly; and Duchesne: And He began then to avenge him suddenly on his adversaries.

z. Leodegar, namely, came to the monastery of Fécamp in the year 676, as is clear from § XIII of the Preliminary Commentary, and was led out of that monastery in the year 678, as it is possible to gather from § XV of the same Preliminary Commentary.

aa. Concerning this synod convoked by Theodoric and Ebroin we have discoursed at length in § XV of the Preliminary Commentary, and we have taught that it was probably different from the synod in which Chramlinus was deposed, and was probably a general assembly of the kingdom.

bb. What royal villa is here designated I cannot define, since the synod convoked to it is probably not the same as the synod which was celebrated at Morlacum in the year 677, and marked by the deposition of Chramlinus. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 228 and following.

cc. There were, namely, as Mabillon observes in the Second Benedictine Century in the Annotations to the Life of St. Leodegar, two modes of deposing a bishop; for this was done either by shaving the head of him who was to be deposed, or by tearing his tunic. The former mode of deposing is here designated by the punishment of the skull-cap.

dd. So our codex and both Brogne manuscript apographs; but Mabillon, from whom Duchesne does not much differ, reads: And there among others they separate from the holy congregation Diddo, who with Waimer expelled the holy man Leodegar from the see of his bishopric, and, enticed, handed him over to punishment, condemned by the synod itself, the skull-cap received on his head, expelled.

ee. These things enclosed in brackets I have copied from Duchesne, because the sense of all our manuscripts was more obscure. But as regards the thing signified by the sense towards the end, far be it that I should pronounce what is indicated by it, namely that Waimir was certainly damned. Waimir indeed sinned when he let out his service to Ebroin in harassing Leodegar, and when afterwards, as a reward for his crime, he nefariously occupied the see of Troyes, as, together with our anonymous author, the Life of St. Praejectus published by our Bollandus in the first place at the 25th of January teaches in no. 12. But he could repent of the deed, and perhaps in fact did repent, if that accords with the truth which is read in the second book of the miracles of St. Bercharius in Camuzat's Promptuarium of the Antiquities of Troyes, page 95; namely that Waimir joined himself as companion to St. Bercharius, abbot of Montier-en-Der, when the latter afterwards undertook the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

ff. This was then the other mode of deposing a bishop. See what was said at the letters cc. Of this mode, as Mabillon already rightly observed before me in the Annotations to the Life of St. Leodegar in the Second Benedictine Century, page 693, an example exists in St. Gregory, bishop of Tours, when in book 5 of the History of the Franks, chapter 19, he treats of the council of Paris celebrated in the cause of Praetextatus, bishop of Rouen; for in this council King Chilperic, insisting that Praetextatus be deposed, asks of the bishops, in these words existing in the praised Gregory in the place cited, that either his (Praetextatus's) tunic should be torn, or the hundred and eighth psalm, which contains the Iscariotic curses, should be recited over his head, or at least a judgement should be written against him, that he should not communicate for ever.

gg. What is signified here, and by whom Leodegar, as soon as he came summoned to the court, was interrogated concerning the murder inflicted on Childeric, we have taught in nos. 238 and 240 of the Preliminary Commentary.

hh. What kind of council probably it was at which Leodegar is here said not to have been present we have shown in no. 241 and following of the Preliminary Commentary.

ii. These words are not to be so taken as to signify that it was enjoined on Chrodobert, for notice of whose person I have been able to find nothing in other writers, that he should kill Leodegar at once, no further mandate having been received. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 245.

kk. At this word our codex ends; I now follow, as I gave notice beforehand in no. 34 of the Preliminary Commentary that I would do, our manuscript apograph which is noted as taken from the Brogne manuscript, and which was transmitted to our Predecessors by Fr. Pierre-François Chifflet, priest of our Society.

ll. Mabillon reads: Having received him, Chrodobert led him to his house; but the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour: Having received him, Chrodobert, in order to lead him to his house, which reading, since there follows Seeing him, etc., is perhaps genuine.

mm. Ursinus says that Ebroin, about to inflict death on Leodegar, sent four very swift horsemen, and that they, having led the Saint out of the house of Chrodobert, cut him down; but with which of the two one must here agree, see the Preliminary Commentary, no. 250.

nn. What I have been able hitherto to find, or it has been permissible to conjecture, concerning the forest in which St. Leodegar was killed, I have set forth in no. 251 and following of the Preliminary Commentary.

oo. He is called here Wardard by the anonymous of Murbach, biographer of Leodegar; from what source that name was drawn by this author I am wholly ignorant.

pp. Concerning this villa, or village, in which Leodegar was buried by the care of the wife of Chrodobert, count of the palace, we have treated in no. 254 and following of the Preliminary Commentary.

* others autem [but]

* others religionis of religion

* others add conversus converted

* others hoc this

* others add fratrem ejus foras his brother outside

* others eos delectaret it should delight them

* others lack quæ which

* others add istam this

* others ad similitudinem martyrum after the likeness of the martyrs

* others ejus [his]

* others ei for him

* others acutæ sharp

* others auferri to be taken away

* others corporisque and of the body

* others caderet in blasphemiam he should fall into blasphemy

* others add sibi for himself

* others quem whom

* others amat loves

* others add & [and]

* others add divina divine

* others ut recipiat that he may receive

* others super upon

* others Waringum Waringus

* others add sui of his

* others reverenter impertiuntur they reverently impart

* others proineruerunt

* others obdurat hardens

* others lack sanctimonialium of nuns

* others esset & was and

* others add Domino to the Lord

* others laudibus in the praises

* others lack perceptionem taking

* others aut [or]

* others culpa by fault

* others quos ille whom he

* others exsolvit paid

* others doli of deceit

* others Waimerus Waimer

* others vivus alive

* others gloria by glory

* others Hebroïno to Hebroin

* others lack cum when

* others conscium privy

* others add dixit he said

* others infra below

* others Roberto & Chrodoberto to Robert and Chrodobert

* others tradi to be handed over

* others auferri to be taken away

* others splendidum splendid

* others refero I relate

* others lack relinquerent they forsook

* others lamenta laments

* others mandata commands

* others in [in]

* others faceret he should make

* others Chrodobertus Chrodobert

* others ubi where

* others sed [but]

* so three manuscripts

* others ducebant they were leading

* others add numero in number

* others orationi to prayer

* others lack pietatis tuæ of Thy loving-kindness

* others per through

* others gladiatorem the swordsman

* others adimpleret he should fulfil

* others add sic thus

CHAPTER IV.

The Saint becomes illustrious after death by miracles; while Ebroin strives to hinder the fame of these, he himself also is at length killed; the glory of the Saint takes increase, three bishops contend concerning his body, and this, adjudged to Ansoald, is translated to the soil of Poitou, and then into the new church built for the Saint.

Leodegar shines with miracles; these Ebroin, These things having thus been done, a certain priest, who was discharging the office of this oratory, asserted with an oath that a splendid light, known without human ministry, had shone by night in that same place, and that he had heard there, terribly, an angelic song, so that, trembling, he fled back, lest he should be present, unaccustomed, at a spiritual vision; whence a great rumour went forth in the circuit of that place. Those coming to the venerable prayers of the blessed Martyr, a great crowd of the sick held by divers infirmities, he healed ^a, to the lame also he gave power to walk, on the blind he bestowed light, those possessed by demons he cleansed, and he shone forth with many miracles in the venerable dwelling of this place. This, therefore, the priests of the same church attest ^b; for the servant of this priest also, a cleric, the custodian of that church, suffered a robbery one night, so that all his substance was taken away by robbers, among which, they say, he had hidden a sandal of the blessed Martyr, which he had kept for himself out of reverence, which the robber, not knowing, carried away with him. He, rising early from the oratory, going to his dwelling, found all his things stolen, and hastily goes to the sepulchre of the Man of God, begging that he would restore to him what he had lost by theft. For that whole day and the following night he stood at his tomb in prayer, persevering in fasts and psalmody: and when, the prayer completed, he had returned to his little cell, he found all things which he had lost, nothing of them diminished, with the sandal of the blessed Martyr safe: and the master of the robber, who had sworn on behalf of his servant that he had by no means done this evil, having returned home, at once ended his life ^c; and the servant ill consummated the crime which he had done.

[52] into which he also irreverently inquires, Then more and more the fame of the sanctity of the blessed Martyr burst forth, which things, a little after they were done, did not remain hidden from Ebroin. Hearing this, he secretly sent a messenger who, inquiring into this studiously, should report the truth to him. Which messenger, obeying his orders, came to his tomb, and, asking, learned from the custodian where Leodegar lay. And when a blind man, who had received his sight by the miracles of God, told where the body of the Saint rests , and he himself, his sight received, was serving there, he by no means believed this, but, approaching swollen with pride, put off applying himself to prayer; nay rather, despising, he struck the ground with his foot, and speaks foolishly, saying, because he knew not the power of God: For a dead man, he says, will by no means do miracles. For the wretch, having returned, before he could report to him by whom he had been sent, learned in himself with how great miracles the holy Martyr was mighty. For while he was taking his way, he lost his life, and by no means reported back to him by whom he had been sent; and him whom, puffed up, he did not believe, dashed down, he was compelled to recognize, whom he had despised.

[53] But when the report of so great a matter was being divulged, it came to the faithful for joy. he strives to hide from the people, These things having been thus known, the most wicked Hebroin kept them in a silent heart, and, trembling within himself with shame, dared to disclose them to no one except his wife *, lest perhaps, as the glory of the Martyr increased, his own, who had desired to extinguish such a light, should be diminished among the peoples. For in these spaces of days, as much as that wretch desired this good to lie hidden, so much the more did the rumour of the abovesaid miracles of the blessed Martyr, spread abroad, shine everywhere. Presently also, when it had become thoroughly known to Ebroin, he would not correct the evil which he had done, but hardens himself, blind, with his followers, by the obstacle of incredulity. For he ordered with threats to hide what the Lord Jesus Christ, for strengthening the incredulous, for the glory of His Martyr, deigned to show upon the candlestick of the church for the illumination of the faithful.

[54] For when the mind of the tyrant, growing dull, wavered wandering, and becoming nothing better, but continuing to rage, and in no way turned to humility or amendment of himself, and the devil had raised * his neck in the arrogance of pride even beyond the usual against all, then the proverb of Solomon was fulfilled upon him: Before the heart of man is humbled, it is lifted up, AND BEFORE RUIN THE SPIRIT IS EXALTED ^d. And lest the doer of so great a sacrilege should escape unpunished, he himself, as it were frenzied, seeks out for himself the moment of death. For from a certain noble ^e, who was then administering the fiscal office, an occasion having been found, he took away spoils to such a degree that he took away almost all his support: besides, he threatened even the peril of death ^f.

[55] And that man, seeing that after the spoliation the peril of death besides was now hanging over him, at length he himself also is cruelly slain, strengthens his mind with help, and watches before daylight at his door for his morning going out. For it was a Sunday, therefore he was about to go forth to the solemnities of the morning offices ^g. For when he had put his foot outside over the threshold, behold, the other, leaping forth unexpectedly, struck him with a sword on the head ^h: at which blow he fell into a double death ⁱ: and so his iniquitous dominion was taken away from the kingdom, as once David took away the reproach from the sons of Israel, the Allophyle Philistine being laid low. And after the space of almost three years had passed, the ever lamentable Ebroin, since he strove to extinguish this lamp, the divine word is fulfilled in him ^k; for because he slew many with the sword, struck with the sword he himself also perished.

[56] Unhappy and wretched man, who, raised to such great honours, was mighty among men, the fame of his industry spread abroad in the three parts of the world ^l, the judgement concerning his salvation being left very doubtful. because he would not grant indulgence to his enemies by fulfilling the command of God; but by avenging himself on them he caused many to have the kingdoms of heaven. For which reason it is greatly to be feared that he who slew so many priests and nobles by the cruelty of his vengeance prepared rather an eternal punishment for himself, and that he lost so lofty a glory, such as none of the Franks merited to have, and lost the blessed life which he could have obtained through patience ^m.

[57] the Saint is honoured as a martyr, and his body But after the unhappy Hebroin had made an end of life, what he, led by envy, had hidden concerning the Servant of God spread far and wide with great praises. After this, therefore, when it had been truly thoroughly known to the serenity of the king and his palace concerning the miracles of the holy Martyr, that Christ the Lord had glorified him with signs of miracles to the title of His praise, the king with admiration believed it done, and began truly * to venerate as a Martyr ⁿ him whom through the accusation of the tyrant he had previously believed to have been culpable.

[58] to the prelate of Poitiers, who was contending concerning him with two others, Then that was carried with praise into the palace which for many days had lain hidden, concealed by his rival: for there was there a multitude of great men, namely of the very greatest and of the nobles, and while they were holding a conference among themselves concerning the holy Martyr, and were marvelling at the things which were heard concerning him ^o, then Ansoald [p] of Poitiers brought in a word, saying: Would that the choice were given me, since it is known that he is my kinsman , and he went forth to the glory of honour from the parish committed to me [q], that I might merit to have at least his poor body! For there was present there Hermenarius [r] the pontiff, who had succeeded him in the bishopric in the city of Autun, and he himself said: By right the body of this Man of God is given to me, since it is just that he should rest there where he was bishop. Then Vindicianus [s], Prelate of Arras, in whose diocese he had been killed, is said to have answered: By no means shall it be done as you holy pontiffs have spoken; but let the faculty be granted me of having the body of this Blessed man, since it is an honour to this place, in which he deigns to rest [t]. And the throng of all the prelates standing by, it is decreed that fasts and prayers should be made in this conflict, that through this the Lord might deign to show in whose diocese he ought by right to rest.

[59] after fasts and prayers, the lot having been drawn, it falls, Hearing these things they acquiesced in the decree: and prayer having been made with fasting, a decision was written on three little letters placed upon the altar [u], that, the prayer being over, the Lord might declare through them to whose lot this holy poor body of the blessed Martyr should come. And on the next day, the

prayer completed and the solemnities of the Masses consummated, one of the servants, ordered by the pontiffs, put his hand unknowingly under the pall, and the knowledge of the truth came into his hand. Which all seeing, who were present at this spectacle, and recognizing it, cried out that the right was Pontiff Ansoald's, since the letter of this matter was declared to have appeared, which truly was held. Now then without ambiguity, the counsel having been confirmed, the same pontiff Ansoald ordered a certain man of God, his abbot, Audulph by name [x], brought up by the same blessed martyr Leodegar [y], that he should go in haste on account of this holy body, and with due reverence carry it as far as the soil of the city of Poitiers, that where he had first begun to exercise the worship of God, there the lamp of his light might shine forth for him at all times.

[60] and he is translated to Poitou, much people flocking together from every side. Then the man of God, obeying the orders of his holy pontiff, rejoicing, went with haste, and came to the place where the poor body of the Saint had rested. Hearing which, those who dwelt in the circuit of the place, a multitude of monks and of other men and women, pricked with great devotion, ran in haste to the place [z]; and there, when many were healed from their divers sicknesses, they exulted, and, rejoicing with great praises, and with a crowd of many singing and at the same time weeping, they moved forward the holy body of the holy Martyr himself, as had been commanded by the glorious lord king. When therefore they were now proceeding on the journey, it was divulged through the places of the route. There began to run together from every side of their own accord, on the right hand and the left, from monasteries, hamlets and villas, a throng of monks, clerics and people, coming forth to meet them with crosses and lighted candles and odours of great sweetness. For so great was the multitude that scarcely could anyone approach the bier, so as, having taken hold of the horns , to carry it on his shoulders.

[61] For whoever was held by any infirmity, if, approaching the bier, he had been able even to touch it with his hand, health to the sick approaching the bier on the way, at once returned to his former health. For health was denied to no one, when he touched with faith the fringes of the covering of this bier. For in the pagus of Caturnium [aa], certain faithful brethren asking, and especially at the petitions of the abbess Hermenana [bb], who impatiently compelled us among the rest to write this little Work, the mentioned Audulph sent a true relation concerning the holy miracles which accompanied it [cc]; in which he asserted that he could not, for their multitude, write down how great miracles he had seen flash forth, the Lord working, while they are only related: asserting that what he had seen would, in the greatness of the matter, exceed in writing the volume of the psalms. But we briefly make known to those desiring to hear what we have learned through the same relation [dd].

[62] In a certain villa, whose name is Gaudiacus [ee], the use of her limbs to a paralytic girl, there was a certain girl, Radinga by name, who for seven years had lain in her parents' house, blind, dumb and paralysed: but when she had been brought by her parents to the bier of the holy Martyr, held by sleep the same night, she is said to have seen a vision, that two shining men with relics standing by her had stood before her [ff]; but when she had awakened and was marvelling to herself about the vision, both her eyes received sight, and her feet the power of walking, and her tongue the office of speech, so that she herself cried out saying: I give Thee thanks, almighty God, that through Thy holy martyr Leodegar I have been restored to entire health. From this praise, raised up, sound in all her limbs, she went with her parents to her own place, to live a long time afterwards.

[63] Then *, when they had come into the territory of the city of Tours [gg], the expulsion of the demon from a demoniac woman, in a hamlet named Solnacum [hh], there was a certain woman vexed by a demon. Her parents, hearing this, dragged her by the arms, and she began to cry out, because she would not approach the bier of the holy Man, but, dragged at length against her will, she came to his bier; and she, when she had touched a little the covering of this bier, was forthwith cleansed from the demon [ii], and, returned to her own senses, wished rather to stay about the bier, because she feared to be seized again by the adversary from which, being now made free, she departed sound [kk.]

[64] These things having been thus done, they came to the city of Tours. the loosing of a woman unjustly thrown into chains, Hearing this, the pontiff of this city, who was then present, the man of God Robert [ll], came forth to meet them with choirs of chanters, with lamps and with all due honour; and, having taken the bier with his people, while he was passing through the middle of the city, a certain woman accused of the death of her husband, since she was held by a chain on neck and hands, and was being dragged by the guards, cried out saying: Help me, Blessed Leodegar, for I, innocent, have been bound by false accusers [mm]. When she had said this, at once the chain, broken, fell from her neck, and she threw it with her hands upon the bier, and she appeared blameless who had been punished without guilt deserving punishment.

[65] and others, other favours, or of the same, And when the same pontiff had conducted this holy body with great praises through his parish [nn], and it had entered within the soil of Poitou, for which it was destined, it rested a little in a certain hamlet (the name Ignoranda [oo]), where a certain lame man came to meet it; and when he had thrown himself on the ground in prayers at the body of the holy Man, at once made sound and raised upon his feet, he returned unharmed to his own place. Then a certain woman hearing, from whose hands their proper form had been taken away, for her fingers had been made crooked, so that they were fixed in the middle of the palm to such a degree that the nails, hidden in the flesh, had lost * their own strength; when she had approached the bier, the name of the Lord and of the holy Martyr having been invoked, she received back her hand straightened to its former health, and, giving thanks to God, returned to her own house.

[66] or benefits of various kinds are conferred. But this miracle also must not be passed over in silence, that the man of God Ansoald, hearing that the holy body had now drawn near, directed a swift servant, who should give an abundance of wine from his villa of Interamnis [pp], whence the poor and the rest of the common people who were accompanying the holy body might have refreshment for refreshing themselves. But when this had been done, not after much space it was reported back that all the vessels in the storehouse from which that wine had gone out, which had remained almost empty, seemed so full that even the wines running over * fell upon the pavement; and yet those little vessels had remained full.

[67] And at length the sacred pledge, the river by which it is carried being calmed, And afterwards, when they had arrived at the river Vincenna in a village called Sanon [qq], there was a contrary wind prevailing, so that the river itself appeared swollen with waves; the sailors, fearing, began to forbid those sailing to embark, lest they should be endangered on the river. Then the man of God, the abbot already mentioned, whose care it was to carry the holy body, trusting in the merits of the holy Martyr, compelled them, saying: Put it in the ship, and cross over secure: and prosperously, unharmed, they crossed the river itself. And when they had rested there by night in the church, and a certain woman, a stranger, had come there with a little blind infant, watching through that whole night in prayer; at dawn the infant received the light which he had lost.

[68] [approaching Poitiers, it is honourably received by the prelate coming to meet it,] Then, going on by a straight route, they came to a certain villa, Gelnacum [rr], to which the man of God, the prelate Ansoald, came to meet them with his people, namely with a multitude of clerics, common folk, peoples and poor, and with censers and fragrant incense, and with crosses and with lighted candles, and many singing columns, and, receiving this holy body, began to proceed to the city. Then there was present in that place a certain woman for many years so bent that even her bowed head almost clung to her knees; and when she had raised her eyes a little, praying at the bier of the holy Martyr, her poor body returned to its former vigour.

[69] and into the city, where health to some of the sick The pontiff and all standing by with him marvelled at the power of God and of the most blessed Martyr. Then with canticles and great praises they came to the city, and the Pontiff entered with the holy body of the Martyr into the suburban basilica in which Blessed Radegund [ss] rests: and there was present there a certain paralytic, and at its coming he was forthwith made sound, and, having followed the bier some space of the way, remained sound. But when the blessed body had been carried to the basilica of St. Hilary, another paralytic lying in the road, touching this bier, was forthwith made sound. A little after, a certain blind girl, invoking the Saint of God, received back the light she had lost, who, following, and coming as far as his tomb, devoutly serves there up to now [tt].

[70] When therefore that holy body had been removed from the city, from which then carried out, by the monks with great joy, and had been carried on their own shoulders for certain spaces of the place by the prelate of that city with his priests and ministers, and had been carried with great triumph as far as a certain hamlet, Zezinoialum, there a great throng of monks from the monastery of St. Maxentius, in which he had formerly been appointed abbot [uu], came forth rejoicing to meet it, to receive their Pastor with great favour, passing the night with great devotion with psalmody in the same church.

[71] And at dawn a certain woman approached, carrying in her arms a half-dead little infant of almost three years: [while meanwhile a little infant, the holy Martyr invoked by his mother, is raised from the dead,] who, before he could approach the holy body, is said to have lost his breath. But she, approaching, carrying him, placed him upon the bier, and with weeping invoked the holy Man, saying: My lord, give me back my son; and when for about the space of three hours she had cried out, beseeching these things, the infant, as though awakening from a heavy sleep, seeking his mother with what voice he could, said: Mother, where are you? She, rejoicing, received back alive the son whom she had lost dead. This was a great and wonderful miracle, from which great faith proceeded among the people concerning so perfect a Man, whose glory remains in heaven.

[72] Then the body of the most blessed Martyr was taken up, is conducted to the monastery of St. Maxentius, and, as it befitted such a Man to be carried, it was brought. They began to go to the monastery of Blessed Maxentius, in which he had previously been made father of the monks; and because there he had first begun to change the minds of perverse men to divine worship, it is judged by just judgement and providence that, shining with miracles, he should bind very many by the highest examples to the works of God.

[73] And as it was being carried, there met it on the way two poor people, and again very many things, both before namely a man with his wife. For the man had one eye taken away, and the wife two. Each approached the bier. The woman, trusting, received the light of her eyes; but her husband, doubting, went away with one eye. For before they approached, the man was dragging the blind woman with a little rope: but as they returned *, the wife, the light received, returning the turn, afterwards dragged the man

who was blind. And when the monks from that monastery were hastening to meet it, a certain girl was lying paralysed in the atrium of Blessed Maxentius, concerning whom it was known that she had lost all the function of her limbs. She, when she had heard the name of Blessed Leodegar, one of her hands was restored to health.

[74] and after they had come thither, miracles take place at the Saint's bier. And when on the third day the body of the blessed Martyr had arrived * into that atrium, all her loosened limbs, all infirmity lost, returned to their former functions, and she was rendered wholly sound. This miracle those saw who were present there: for so great a multitude of people had come from every side that scarcely could the church or the atria have held the throng of all the peoples arriving. Meanwhile another woman, coming from far off, having lost the light of her eyes, when she had approached the tomb of the holy Martyr, received back the former light which she had lost. A certain youth and at the same time a girl, vexed by demons, when they had approached the place trembling, the demons having been torn out with a vomiting of blood, came to their health. Many and innumerable miracles were worked in those days through the same Martyr of God. For to whoever of many sick had come, blind, lame, deaf, dumb, withered, and vexed by demons, the soundness of health was restored. For while it was being carried on the journey, the multitude of those carrying back health was almost without number.

[75] Gifts are offered in honour of the Saint, and a sacred building is erected, And noble matrons, bearing ornaments of garments, having offered palls, offered a veil of gold and all-silk, and ornaments upon the bier of the Martyr; to such a degree that he rejoiced to be better in merits who had first offered his vow to the Lord in honour of the Martyr. In honour of the most blessed Martyr himself, by order of the pontiff the lord Ansoald, through the labour of Audulph, father of the monastery, a house of wonderful size was built [xx], the construction of which fabric is unlike the constructions of all basilicas.

[76] in which his body is buried. The abovesaid pontiff, wishing by this charism to fulfil the vow which he had vowed, came to this place with all the priests of his church, and a crowd of magnates, and a great throng of the common people and populace. And indeed with great praises he buried the holy body of the blessed Martyr [yy]: in which place the heights of miracles take place, where to the praise of the name of Christ there is a perpetual and joyful recourse of the people for the healing of the sick and the indulgence of sins, and to all who approach with faith it is granted to obtain the fulfilment * of their prayers, our Lord Jesus Christ granting it, to whom is honour and dominion, power and might through infinite ages of ages. Amen [zz]

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Duchesne and Mabillon differ here from our reading and from each other. For the former has: Then a man of most holy life, Ansoald, prelate of the city of Poitiers, brought in a word; and the latter: A man of great sanctity, Ansoald, prelate of the city of Poitiers, brought in a word. Our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour also differs from Mabillon and Duchesne; but it agrees with them in this, that it likewise indicates that Ansoald was conspicuous for sanctity of life. The same is also done by our two manuscript apographs of the Life of Leodegar written by Ursinus, namely that of St. Maximin of Trier and that of Dijon, so that perhaps the genuine reading is that in which the discussion is had of Ansoald as of a Saint. Yet I do not find that the honours of the Saints were paid to Ansoald anywhere after his death, or that his name exists inscribed in any sacred Fasti. In the Life of St. Filibert published by our Predecessors at the 20th of August from Mabillon, it is read in no. 23 that a certain energumen monk was freed by the prayers of Ansoald and Filibert; but no one is ignorant that nothing certain can be concluded from this for asserting sanctity to Ansoald. Further, Ansoald, as is clear from no. 20 of the praised Life of St. Filibert, was already bishop of the Poitevins when St. Filibert, freed from the prison in which he had been shut up by the wiles of Ebroin, came to him at Poitiers; and therefore, since this happened, as it seems to Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks and to other learned men, in the year 674, it follows that Ansoald, when in the year 681 with Vindicianus and Ermenarius concerning

the body of St. Leodegar he disputed, had already occupied the see of Poitiers for about seven years.

q. St. Leodegar, namely, had been brought up in the bishopric of Poitiers, and in it had discharged the office of abbot for almost six years before he was promoted to the see of Autun. See the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 44, 52, 58 and 59.

r. Concerning this bishop the discussion has recurred several times above.

s. Our Predecessors illustrated the Acts of this holy Prelate at the XI of March, and brought back the beginning of his episcopate to the year 676; in which matter the Sainte-Marthe brothers and Le Cointe almost agree with them, so that St. Vindicianus, when in the year 681 the contention arose between him and two other bishops, namely Ermenarius and Ansoald, concerning the body of St. Leodegar, had already held the see of Arras for a space of about five years. Further, from the praised Acts of St. Vindicianus illustrated by our Predecessors at the XI of March are excellently confirmed those things which we brought forward at the letter n from Orderic and Miraeus concerning the church of St. Vaast and concerning the monastery of St. John near Thérouanne, founded by Theodoric, king of the Franks, in expiation of the death inflicted on St. Leodegar. For, as is read in those Acts in no. 9, it was established by the bishops who were present while Vindicianus, Ermenarius and Ansoald were disputing concerning the body of St. Leodegar, that Vindicianus should go to the king and freely set forth to him with what enormous sins he was bound before God, unless, led by timely penance, he should come to his senses and hasten to betake himself to better counsels. Vindicianus took upon himself this dangerous charge, went intrepidly to the king, freely reprehended him, and enjoined on him, in the place of penance, which he also fulfilled, the building of a new monastery near Thérouanne, namely of St. John, of which above, and royal munificence towards the already built monastery of St. Vaast. These things become plain from the very words of the praised Acts, no. 10. Here they are: For the rest, for expiating his sins the king, namely Theodoric, is ordered by Vindicianus to found a new monastery for Benedictine monks near Thérouanne of the Morini, sufficient revenue being added. Likewise, since, the blood of the holy Leodegar the martyr having been shed, he had disturbed the public peace of the church, long since established in the diocese of Arras by the sacred sermons of the holy Vedast, Vindicianus enjoined on him that he should adorn his monastery of Arras (afterwards named the Vedastine), which at that time he himself was ruling by permission of the prince and the clergy, with walls and buildings, and ampler possessions and privileges. Theodoric not only obeyed these mandates, but also pronounced that monastery to be immune and free henceforth from royal power and secular jurisdiction, letters and diplomas having been written on that matter, confirmed at his order by Vindicianus and the other prelates who were present.

t. The oratory, namely, in which the wife of Chrodobert had caused the body of Leodegar to be buried was situated in the diocese of Arras. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 254 and following.

u. Mabillon and Duchesne disagree here, as also all our manuscript apographs; but our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour, whose reading seems less faulty, has: And prayer having been made with fasting, they placed on the altar three little letters written with the decision, that is, sealed.

x. He was, according to the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1246, fifth in order as abbot of the Saint-Maixent abbey in the diocese of Poitiers, and the next successor of Leodegar in that sacred office. He wrote the Little book, which our older anonymous and Ursinus had lighting their way, concerning the miracles that accompanied the translation of St. Leodegar to the soil of Poitou; he was the instigator to Ursinus that he should commit to writing the Life of Leodegar, whose body he had translated to Poitou, and he built a new church for the Saint at the command of Ansoald. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 25, 26, 284 and following.

y. Hence it is understood that Audulph, abbot of St. Maxentius, lived under the discipline of St. Leodegar, when the latter, before he was promoted to the see of Autun, ruled the abbey of St. Maxentius as abbot.

z. So also almost Duchesne and our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour; but Mabillon reads: Hearing which, those who dwelt in the circuit of the place, monks, and the other men and women, pricked with great devotion, ran together in haste to the place.

aa. Mabillon and Duchesne read Caturcino; and there is, says Baudrand in the Geography, the pagus Caturcinus, a province of Gaul in Aquitaine, of which mention is made in the Acts of the middle age, which by more recent writers is called the province of Cahors. Among the Acts of the middle age in which the province of Cahors, or tract, has the name of the pagus Caturcinus, must be reckoned the Chronicle of Fredegar Scholasticus; for in this, among the provinces granted by Dagobert I, king of the Franks, to his brother Charibert, the pagus Caturcinus is numbered in chapter 57. Further, the province or tract of Cahors, in French le Quercy, is situated, on the testimony of the praised Baudrand, between the province of Limoges to the North, those of Auvergne and Rouergue to the East, Languedoc to the South, and the Agenais and Périgord to the West.

bb. Hermenana, or, as others write, Ermenana, was, as is understood hence, abbess of a certain monastery situated in the pagus of Cahors; but, you will say, of which? I answer that this cannot be declared for certain, since it is unknown what monasteries existed in the pagus of Cahors in the seventh century; the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 1, column 157, say indeed that the Ermenana of whom the discussion is here was perhaps abbess of that monastery whose abbess, Alpasia by name, fallen into sin, St. Desiderius, bishop of Cahors, who about the middle of the seventh century flew away from this mortal and toilsome life to the immortal and blessed life, vehemently exhorted to penance, the example of the sinful woman being set before her; but they do not reveal even the name of the monastery over which Alpasia presided as abbess.

cc. He, namely, sent to Ermenana the little book written by him concerning the miracles that accompanied the translation of Leodegar, which comprised all those miracles which are here narrated by the anonymous author. See the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 25 and 26.

dd. That relation, namely, or little book concerning the miracles worked in the translation of Leodegar, this author had received either from Audulph himself, or at least from Ermenana the abbess. See again the Preliminary Commentary, no. 25.

ee. Probably the village which, as Mabillon notes in the margin in the Second Benedictine Century, page 696, is called in French Jouy, and which is situated in the territory or tract of Chartres, as is noted in Blaeu's geographical Map of the Beauce; for réjouir in French means to affect with joy.

ff. So also almost Duchesne and our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour; but Mabillon reads: But when she had been brought by her parents to the bier of the blessed Martyr, held by sleep the same night, she is said to have seen in a vision two shining men on horses standing by her.

gg. This celebrated city of Gaul, situated on the river Loire, is the capital of the province of Touraine, which towards the West and South is bounded by the territory of Poitou.

hh. This village is probably that which in Blaeu's geographical Map of the duchy of Tours is distinguished by the French name Sonay. Certainly Mabillon, in the Second Benedictine Century, page 696, in the Annotations to the Life of St. Leodegar, turns Solnacum into French as Sonay.

ii. So again almost Duchesne; but Mabillon reads: A certain woman vexed by a demon was being dragged by her parents to the bier of the holy Man: who, when at length, coming unwilling and compelled, she had touched the covering of this bier, was forthwith cleansed from the demon.

kk. These things enclosed in brackets, in place of which is read in Duchesne, from which she saw herself now made free, are omitted in Mabillon.

ll. This Robert, who by others is called Bertus and Ruotbert, is reviewed among the archbishops of Tours as thirty-third in order in the Gallia Christiana by the Sainte-Marthe Brothers, and concerning him I have found nothing else handed down to memory either in these or in other writers.

mm. Mabillon has: And when they were passing through the city, a certain woman accused of the death of her husband was being led with a chain on neck and hands. And she, while she was being dragged, was crying out thus: Help me, Blessed Leodegar, for I, innocent, am perishing, bound by false accusers.

nn. That is, diocese, in which signification the anonymous author always takes the name parochia.

oo. So also our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour; but Mabillon, with whom Duchesne agrees, reads Igorande, and notes in the margin Ingrande, rightly indicating, namely, that the village of which the discussion is here is that very village which is now called in French Ingrande; it is noted in Blaeu's geographical Map of the duchy of Poitou not far from Châtellerault on the river Vienne.

pp. I find no villa called by a name akin to this through which the translation of St. Leodegar to Poitou could have been made.

qq. Mabillon has: After this, when they had arrived at the river Vigenna, in a village called Sannon. The river Vigenna, in French la Vienne, rises in the province of Limoges in Gaul, and, flowing through the duchy of Poitou, at length discharges itself into the Loire at the village of Candes. The village named Sanon or Sannon is most probably that which today is called in French Senon; and which is situated in the territory of Poitou at the confluence of the rivers Clanis, in French le Clain, and the Vienne.

rr. I find nothing which supplies notice either of this villa or of the village which below at no. 70 is called Zezinoialum, or, as others read, Zizolliolum. But from the circumstances which are read here to have accompanied the translation of St. Leodegar, it becomes manifest that the former indeed is between Poitiers and the river Vienne; and that the latter is situated between the same city and the abbey of St. Maxentius, which is distant from Poitiers about ten hour-leagues towards the West, on the testimony of Baudrand in the Geography.

ss. Concerning St. Radegund, queen, afterwards a nun at Poitiers in Gaul, we have treated in our Work at the 13th day of August, on which her memory is inscribed in the Usuardine and other sacred Fasti, and we have given the distinguished Acts of this Saint by St. Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, and others by Baudonivia, a contemporary nun and intimate disciple of the Saint; and from no. 37 of these we learn that the church in which St. Radegund was buried was dedicated to the name of St. Mary, which, as is understood from the book of St. Gregory of Tours On the Glory of the Confessors, chapter 106, was situated in the suburb of the city of Poitiers. This afterwards put on the name of St. Radegund, on the testimony of Mabillon, tome 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 200, where he has thus: St. Radegund had likewise caused the basilica of Blessed Mary to be built outside the walls of Poitiers for the burial of the nuns of the Holy Cross, and had willed it to be assigned to monks who should minister the sacred rites to the virgins after the custom of those times. A certain illustrious man, Leo, is recorded to have contributed a hundred solidi to the foundations of the basilica. The basilica was not yet consecrated,

when Blessed Radegund was interred there, and a short time after she gave her name to the place. For the rest, says the praised Mabillon in the place cited, some things having been interposed, both basilicas, namely that of St. Hilary, in which, as is presently related here, the body of St. Leodegar was deposited at Poitiers, and that of Blessed Mary, passed to secular canons. Which was done later in the basilica of St. Hilary, and not before the tenth century: but in the basilica of Blessed Mary, or of St. Radegund, in the preceding century, as is gathered from the capitulary of Louis the Pious for the convent of the Holy Cross.

tt. Perhaps this woman had bound herself, after the custom of those times, to serve St. Hilary, or rather the monastery which was named after the same Saint. See what was said at page 300 of this tome in the Annotations subjoined to book 2 of the Miracles of St. Bavo at the letter c.

uu. There is confirmed hence, and from other words which are had in the number next after the following, what Ursinus narrates in no. 4 concerning the abbey of St. Maxentius administered by Leodegar for almost six years before he was promoted to the bishopric of Autun. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 52.

xx. Concerning the time probably spent in founding this basilica consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 286.

yy. This happened, as according to what was said in no. 288 of the Preliminary Commentary appears more probable, in the year 685 advanced up to the month of March; whence, since our anonymous author here mentions this event, it follows that his work must be deferred later than up to the year 682 or 683, although in no. 21 of the Preliminary Commentary we have seen the contrary to be probable.

zz. In Mabillon and Duchesne this Life of the Saint has this clause: The martyrdom of St. Leodegar was consummated on the fifth of the Nones of October, and the dedication of his basilica on the third of the Kalends of November, but the translation of the holy body in the middle of the month of March. Our Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour also has the same, but it is absent from all our other manuscript apographs. See also concerning this clause the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 23, 256 and 257.

* others cognovit he knew

* others jejunans fasting

* others requiesceret should rest

* others loquutus est he spoke

* others præterquam conjugi except to his wife

* read erexisset had raised

* others lack vere truly

* that is, consanguineum kinsman

* others corporis habendi of having the body

* others incognitam

* others conclamaverunt they cried out together

* others turbæ throngs

* that is, manubriis handles

* others deinde then

* others amiserant they had lost

* others supereffluentia overflowing

* others recedentes going away

* others perlatum brought

* that is, auxilium help

ANOTHER LIFE

By Ursinus, prior, or perhaps abbot, of Ligugé, a contemporary.

From the codices Q.Ms. 5, P.Ms. 159 and two manuscript apographs, collated among themselves and with the edition of Mabillon, as also with the manuscript of Reichenau.

Leodegar, bishop, brother, M., in the Gauls. (S.)

Gerinus, count, brother, M., in the Gauls. (S.)

BHL Number: 4851

A. By Ursinus

PROLOGUE.

The author gives the reason for his writing. To my lord and holy pontiff Ansoald, prelate of Poitiers, Ursinus, a sinner. Obeying your command I have complied, most blessed papa ^a, Audulf, father of the monastery of Blessed Maxentius ^b, insisting in the greatest part, that I should narrate in writing a few things out of the many good things concerning the life or passion of Blessed Leodegar. Which work, in obedience to your commands, I desired to put forth : but the simplicity of my heart and my sluggish eloquence is not able to unfold the praises of the virtues of so great a Man; whose patience, arisen in modern times, how great things he sustained shut away , as it were no one knows, except Him alone to whom he brought them forth inwardly. Who in hidden hiding-places, deprived of the sharpness of his eyes, what and how much good he did, who could relate? Where there stood by no servant who could perceive this, so that he might be able to narrate what was not seen with the eyes. For the end of the work showed outwardly how great things he had worked lying hidden within. Yet in what his life was made known to me, and I learned by the relation of many, although in rustic speech, at your command I have not delayed to put forth ^c. If I have studied to extend anything by certain words, I have set this path for discoursing on the line of truth. But if I have passed over anything of his virtues, I did not do it studiously, but passed over it by omitting it through ignorance ^d. For this I think should be known, that, although anyone whatever should desire to discourse on the Acts of the same Man of God with the eloquence of lofty speech, he would not be able to speak more openly and without deceitful words. And perhaps I had been able, the Lord assenting, to narrate in shut-up words and words unknown to some: but I would not for this reason, that whatever rustic and unlettered people shall have heard these things may understand, and devoutly desire to imitate the examples of him whose miracles they shall have understood by hearing.

ANNOTATIONS.

* others edicere to declare

* others retrorsus backwards

* others quæ which things

* others videbat he saw

* others edicere to declare

* others add longius more at length

CHAPTER I.

Leodegar is educated with his maternal uncle, is created deacon and then archdeacon, is made abbot, is summoned to court, becomes bishop, falls from the king's favour, withdraws to Luxeuil, and, having come out thence, is harassed by Ebroin.

Blessed Leodegar, therefore, sprung from a lofty and most noble stock of the Franks ^a, nobly born, he is educated with his maternal uncle; was handed over by his parents from the infancy of his earliest age in the palace to Lothar, king of the Franks ^b; and by the same king not long after he was given to Dido ^c, prelate of the city of Poitiers, namely his maternal uncle, to be imbued with the studies of letters: whom the same prelate handed over to be instructed to a certain priest of God, a most prudent man ; who taught him with great care for very many years ^d, and, having taught him, returned him to the pontiff. Having received him, therefore, he retained him in his own chambers under the guard of discipline, and as the same pontiff had kept himself in chaste * body, he wished him to be made like himself, saying to him in admonition with the greatest frequency that he should keep himself a virgin, and become a worthy vessel of election in the Church of God; since he desired that he should be bishop of this city after him.

[3] But when he saw him clear-sighted for this work; when he was about twenty years old ^e, he becomes deacon and archdeacon, prudent and diligent; he was chosen to the office of the diaconate, and consecrated by the pontiff himself. Then, not long after ^f, made archdeacon, he was set over all the churches of that diocese in charge under the pontiff. For he was much given to the most honourable eloquence, tall in stature, most beautiful among very many, comely in aspect, sweet in speech, most acute in wit, provident in prudence, fervent in the zeal and love of God, and a keeper of perpetual virginity; in the sacred Scriptures and in the doctrines of the laws and at the same time the canonical he excelled almost all the inhabitants of the parish which he had undertaken to rule. And he was so most fitting to all, elders, equals and subjects, that by his eloquence he pleased all who conversed with him: so that he rendered joy to the mourning, discipline to those doing wickedness. For in the space of a short time, namely under the command of the pontiff, he gave great peace to the soil of Poitou by the government of his providence.

[4] Then, when a certain father of the monastery which is situated in honour of Blessed Maxentius he is set over a monastery, is called to court; had died, at the order of the pontiff he undertook the same to rule ^g: which he ruled vigorously for almost six years, and enriched it with great resources. But when, according to the admonitions of his pontiff, he had prepared himself fit, and was held illustrious before all, then the odour of his sweetness went forth so far that it was fragrant even to the palace of the king. For at the same time the Younger Lothar with Baltild his mother was king ruling the kingdom of the Franks ^h, who , his prudence having been known, desiring to have him in the royal court, asked the pontiff that he would give him his licence to dwell with them in the palace. He, at once fulfilling their commands, obeying their will, strove to send the Man ⁱ, enriched with great things and adorned with the flowers of wisdom.

[5] Whom the king and queen, seeing, received honourably, he is chosen bishop. Clothar having died, and in a few days he showed his sweet words and goodness to such a degree that the king and at the same time the queen, and most of the pontiffs also, received him in love above all, and because they saw him worthy to receive honour, by the consent of all the chief Franks, they proclaimed him fit for the pontifical honour, and all made him, chosen for this, pontiff at Autun , which is the city of the Aedui, which, when he had vigorously governed it for ten years ^k, at the same time King Lothar, who had established him bishop, died. Then the same Pontiff, hearing these things, went with swift course to the palace, and began to treat with his fellow-soldiers * concerning a king ^l.

[6] Who, hearing that Hilderic, king of the Austrasians, in his youth, was disposing the kingdom excellently according to the age of his time, Childeric reigns; Ebroin becomes a monk at Luxeuil; a certain part of the Franks chose him, wishing to have him as king. For Ebroin, who had been mayor of the house under King Lothar, desired to substitute Theoderic, his brother, for his brother in the kingdom ^m. But Ebroin himself was then hateful among the Franks, and because they feared the yoke of this weight which they had sustained through him under King Lothar, abandoning his counsel, they raised Hilderic in the whole kingdom. Then Ebroin, seeing himself destitute, and his counsel counted for nothing, terrified with fear, asked the king that, leaving all things, he would grant him life, and permit him to go away into a monastery : to whose entreaty, the lord Leodegar interceding, the king consented, and at once sent him to the monastery of Luxeuil , that he should be made a monk. And King Hilderic, confirmed in the kingdom, gave his brother Theoderic to a certain servant of God to be kept and brought up.

[7] And he raised the pontiff Leodegar over all his house, and established him mayor of the house in all things. the Saint is set over the court, He, having received the helm * of this kingdom, brought back much to its former state whatever chiefly stood in the way against the laws of the ancient kings and of great nobles praiseworthy in life ⁿ. And he so restored all the kingdoms of the Franks everywhere that all congratulated themselves that they had Hilderic as king, and Leodegar as ruler of the palace ^o. When therefore these things had been done with great honour for almost three years [p], then the adversary, whose custom it is by envy to destroy the good things of his condition, began to instigate with the evil of envy his companions, whom the same Pontiff had chosen to have with him as associates of the government, and to sow the tares of discord between him and the king.

[8] In these days, therefore, there was now at hand the most celebrated

Paschal day. but, since he believed the king angry with him, he secretly deserts this, Then, the Pontiff urgently requesting that the king would order that most holy day to be celebrated at Autun, his city, he by no means refused, but strives to fulfil the wish of the one entreating [q]. And when, the day now approaching, they were going together on the Sabbath to celebrate the solemnities of the Masses, as is the custom on the Vigils of Easter [r], and together had the evil seed-plot of hatred hidden, then the instigator of the evil of both approaching said to the same Pontiff: Look to yourself, he says, Pontiff, for, the celebration of the Masses being over, know that you are to be killed by the king, since the wicked seed which, against you through your enemies, as it was long since sown in his heart, it has been decreed to consummate this night [s]. Which the Pontiff hearing, put it off by dissembling, and showed himself joyful, and, not holding it of great account, appeared bright of countenance , and most honourably consummated the solemnities of the Masses which he had begun.

[9] and, he assenting, But when he and the king had received the holy Communion [t], the king, going to the palace, went away to dine: but the Pontiff, when he had fully consummated his office, and had taken wine with his people, as is of human frailty, fearing the animosity of the king, began to treat with his people what he ought to do in this conflict. Thinking and praying to the Lord, he found counsel; that it was better for him to leave all things and follow Christ than to give place to the king , and to defile the hands of the king with the blood of a Priest on the feast of so great a day ; lest perhaps there should be a reproach of the Franks, and a dispute in the whole people on account of him, one man [u]. Then, leaving the king, and reckoning as nothing the loftiness of all powers, what he had in the world, going forth the same night with a few, he began to go where he might become a poor man of Christ. Hearing this, the king, greatly saddened and grieving, sent after him one of his faithful men with a great army, and he, following him through that whole night, found him at dawn and, according to the command of the king, brought him back with him [x]: and, the Pontiff himself entreating that it might be permitted him, leaving the world, to be free for God at the monastery of Luxeuil , he asked with humble prayer that he be directed thither: whom he did not delay to go thither forthwith.

[10] he withdraws to Luxeuil: Childeric having died, He, arriving in haste at the monastery, found there Ebroin, already a cleric, and, saying that he had sinned somewhat against him [y], asking pardon of each other, they stood in concord; yet separated by the abbot , for some space of time both doing penance, they strove to dwell vigorously among the companies of the monks, as though perpetual monks [z]. At the same time, Hilderic having died [aa], his brother Theoderic is raised in the kingdom. Hearing these things, the friends of both, desiring to see their faces, fulfilling their wishes with great favour, strive to bring them back to their own. For, going from both sides to the abovesaid monastery, they compelled them to come forth and return to their homes. They, burning much with anguish, yet the friendship of love entreating, because they had been very greatly wearied by the long distances of lands, consenting, acquiesced to those entreating [bb].

[11] he returns to Autun. Ebroin, to King Theodoric Joined together, indeed, with the blessing of the monastery in the concord of peace, going forth they came together, namely Ebroin with Leodegar the pontiff, into his city of Autun [cc]. Hearing which thing, the whole city was stirred up to joy. Going out to meet them, the citizens received them with great triumph, rejoicing that they had received back the Father, the governor whom they had formerly lamented that they had lost: whom, having received him, they placed in his former see, that he might enjoy joy with them; and while they, rejoicing together, were exulting with the highest joy, Blessed Leodegar desired on the morrow to send Ebroin away to his own place enriched with great honours and gifts. But the same Ebroin did not suffer his people to rest even a little; but in flight by night departed from that city [dd], and associated with himself as friends the Austrasians whom he had once had as adversaries [ee]. But not long after, many crimes having been done, having collected with him associates of the wicked, he entered by force the borders of the Franks, and, conducting himself with most cruel tyranny, presented himself to the sight of Theoderic, the glorious king, and was restored by him to his former grade [ff].

[12] Made mayor of the house, he began to think of vengeance on his enemies, reconciled, he sends men to seize Leodegar and to rage against him. who had not wished to have him as under-king. Who, like a lion roaring among the other wild beasts, his roaring resounded through the lands of the Franks. And all who had once thought evil against him, terrified, those who had remained from his slaughter, took to flight . In these days, therefore, the man of God Leodegar, when he was residing in his city of the Aedui for his people , Ebroin remembering all the evils which he thought he had done concerning him with King Hilderic [gg], then, having joined to himself the most wicked associates of his enemies, began to consult how he might be able to destroy the same Pontiff. For of these counsellors two, namely Dido and Waimer by name [hh], made the head of the malice, said that they could snatch him from the city, and take vengeance on him, with which the malice of Ebroin would be satiated. For Ebroin, rejoicing at their answer, gave them a very copious army; who at once went to the city of the Aedui *, and, surrounding it with the same army, laid waste round about the circuit of the walls.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. How many months, roughly, besides the whole years the almost three years comprise, during which Leodegar is here said to have been in the friendship of Childeric, gather from no. 130 of the Preliminary Commentary.

q. Concerning this invitation of the king made by Leodegar to celebrate Easter at Autun we have treated in no. 133 and following of the Preliminary Commentary.

r. Ursinus here seems to conflict with the older anonymous; but how both can be brought into concord we have taught in no. 139 of the Preliminary Commentary.

s. This man, namely, although he was the instigator of the king's anger and iniquitous counsel against Leodegar, wished, as is customary with crafty and fraudulent men, to remove the odium of the deed from himself.

t. By these words this author most clearly indicates that Childeric received the holy Communion with Leodegar in the Paschal Vigils at Autun, and indeed in the same church; but the anonymous, with whom one must here agree, most openly teaches the contrary. See no. 140 and the three following of the Preliminary Commentary.

u. Concerning the reasons for which Leodegar entered on the counsel of flight, consult, if you please, the Preliminary Commentary, no. 145.

x. Our Dijon manuscript reads:

But the king, hearing, was greatly saddened, and, grieving and led by penitence because he had thought such things against the holy Man, sent after him one of his faithful men with a copious army, to bring him back to himself safe; and when he went away, and had followed him through that whole night, at length he found him at dawn, and according to the command of the king brought him back to him. Which reading indeed differs much from the reading which our other manuscript exemplars and Mabillon supply; and since this often happens elsewhere also, the said Dijon manuscript seems to me to be not a little interpolated, and therefore I shall labour less henceforth in assigning its variant readings.

y. Concerning the pardon asked of Ebroin by Leodegar see no. 148 of the Preliminary Commentary.

z. Ursinus here seems to make the Saint equal to Ebroin, or the latter to him, as the anonymous of Murbach complains in the Prologue. Consult, if you please, the Preliminary Commentary, no. 149.

aa. Childeric was killed in the year 673, advanced to about the month of September. On this matter see the Preliminary Commentary, nos. 119 and 120, as also what was said at the letter a in the Annotations appended to chapter 2 of the Life already given in the first place.

bb. By these words it is indicated that Leodegar, Childeric having already died, was still an exile in the monastery of Luxeuil; but the contrary seems to be gathered from the older anonymous. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 155 and following.

cc. Mabillon, with whom our manuscript of St. Maximin of Trier and the codex P.Ms. 159 almost agree, reads thus: Joined together, indeed, with the blessing of the father of that monastery in the concord of peace, going forth they came together, namely Ebroin with the pontiff Leodegar, to his city of Autun.

dd. Here Ursinus conflicts with the anonymous; but one must agree with the anonymous. See nos. 163 and 164 of the Preliminary Commentary.

ee. Mabillon and our manuscript exemplars disagree here in words; but in the thing signified by the words they agree, namely that Ebroin joined himself to the Austrasians whom he had at one time had as enemies, namely at the time when Childeric, summoned from Austrasia and coming into Neustria, supported by the help of the Austrasians, had cast down Ebroin from the mayoralty of the house and relegated him into exile at Luxeuil.

ff. Several circumstances went before and accompanied the restoration of Ebroin to the mayoralty of the house; Ursinus narrates scarcely any; most of them I have set forth in § XI of the Preliminary Commentary.

gg. Ursinus, in the middle following last part of this number, agrees almost word for word with the anonymous in those things which the latter sets forth here in the middle last part of his number 27. See the reason in no. 25 of the Preliminary Commentary.

hh. For notice of Dido and Waimir sufficient things have already been said in § XII; but chiefly in the Preliminary Commentary in the Annotations appended to the former Life, which therefore the studious reader may consult, if it shall seem good.

* others eruditissimo most learned

* others receptumque secum in and received with him in

* others castum chaste

* others præ before

* that is, diœcesis of the diocese

* others lack qui [who]

* others visus seen

* others add & proceres and the nobles

* others Augustoduni at Autun

* others similibus with the like

* others habitare to dwell

* others in monasterium Luxovii into the monastery of Luxeuil

* others acceptis gubernaculis having received the helms

* others malorum of the evils

* others hilaris cheerful

* others lack Cogitans Thinking

* others ei to him

* others in tam magno die on so great a day

* others add regni of the kingdom

* others fieret there should be

* others habetur is had

* others ad Luxovii cœnobium to the monastery of Luxeuil

* others dirigere to direct

* others jubente tamen abbate the abbot, however, commanding

* others longinquis distant

* others suis with his own

* others fugaciter in flight

* others in fugam into flight

* others add restaurandam to be restored

* others add illum [him]

* others festini in haste

* others Æduorum of the Aedui

CHAPTER II.

The Saint, captured by the partisans of Ebroin, is blinded, and, shut up in a monastery for almost two years, is summoned to court with his brother Gerinus, and, the latter having been killed, is himself afflicted with various torments, and again, after almost two years, summoned to court and handed over to Chrodobert to be guarded, is at length also killed.

[Leodegar is captured by the partisans of Ebroin, is blinded, and, shut up in a monastery,] For the Man of God, foreseeing these things, kindled with great zeal for the people committed to him, following the example of the Lord, preferring to lay down his life for his sheep, and desiring to gain them *, rather than to seek his temporal safety alone, then ordered all the clergy of the city to be gathered, and with relics, crosses and choirs of chanters went out with the praises of God to meet his enemies ^a, and offered himself of his own accord for the palm of martyrdom; if the will of the striker had not been lacking. For those who had come to punish him seized him without reverence for the relics: and he, crying out, is reported to have said: I give thanks to almighty God the Redeemer, who has deigned to glorify me today. And going on, they led him outside the city ^b, and, fulfilling the orders of the prince Ebroin, dug out his eyes from his head. But, when they took away the human light outwardly, they shut in the divine within. And handing him over to guards ^c, they led him into a certain monastery ^d, in which he lay hid for about two years ^e; and there he left a great example of his humility and patience.

[14] is summoned to court after almost two years At the same time it was decreed, at the order of the glorious King Theoderic and of the prince Ebroin, that his brother, Gairinus by name, who through fear of the aforesaid Ebroin was keeping away in other parts ^f, with others whom he had put to flight from among the nobles of the Franks, should return to the palace . For then Blessed Leodegar also was ordered to come out of the monastery in which he was held hidden, and to be summoned into the presence of the king. And when, joined together, they had been brought before the eyes of the princes, afflicted with many insults, and having received reproaches from Ebroin, he is conjectured to have answered: These things we worthily suffer; because we have sinned against the Lord: but greater is His clemency, who has deigned to call us to such glory. But you, wretched Ebroin, who heap so great punishment on the nation of the Franks, rather take vengeance on yourself, who desire to take away life from others. Many indeed you have deceived, and made exiles from their paternal soil: but you will rather be an exile *; who will quickly lose both temporal and future glory: since, while you desire to overcome all the inhabitants in all France, you rather take away your own glory, which you have undeservedly received ^g.

[15] Then Ebroin, hearing these things, filled with great fury, with his brother Gerinus, whom, to meet death vigorously, ordered his servants to drag Gairinus away and separate him from his Brother, that they might be seen to be punished separately, lest it should delight them together to speak such words. And while he was being led away, Blessed Leodegar addresses him, saying: Be of calm mind, dearest Brother; since it behoves us to suffer these things, because the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory which shall be revealed in us; for our sins are many; but the mercy of the Almighty is surpassingly great: who is always ready to wash away the offences of those who praise Him. These things we suffer for a time, because we are debtors of death. But that life awaits us, if we patiently endure this punishment, where we shall rejoice without end in heavenly glory ^h.

[16] Then the servants began to overwhelm Gairinus, bound to a stake, with stones; [he exhorts, and, the latter having been killed, having himself suffered various torments,] and he besought the Lord, saying: Good Lord Jesus, who camest not to call the just but sinners, receive the spirit of Thy servant, and Thou who hast deigned to take away from me this mortal life by stones after the likeness of the martyrs, mayest most clemently bid pardon of my crimes to be granted. Saying these things, praying, he breathed out his last breath. Blessed Leodegar, therefore, desired to end his life with his Brother, that together they might merit to share the future and blessed life; but Ebroin, wishing to defer his end, that through punishments long delayed he might prepare eternal ones for him, and lest he should receive the crown of martyrdom, but rather should lack the rewards of eternal glory. Then he ordered him to be led barefoot through a certain pool in which there were stones cutting like sharp nails. Then, torn and laid prostrate on the ground, he ordered his tongue and lips to be cut, so that when his eyes had been taken away, his feet already pierced, his tongue and lips cut, and when he saw all the felicity of his members taken from him, and the strength of his body likewise appeared denied on every side, when he could neither see the way with his eyes, nor walk the path with his feet, nor could * praise the Creator with the office of the tongue, and [through this he should yield to blasphemy, hoping to take away from himself the great salvation which by praising he would have merited to obtain from heaven [i].]

[17] But God, who is the hearer of hearts without words, he is handed over to Waningus to be guarded, by whom he is led to Fécamp, and is more desired by a contrite heart than by one proud with elation ^k, received the voice of one silent rather than of one speaking loftily ; He asks for Himself the help not of the voice, but the humility of the heart. For when he knew that he had lost all human support, he asked with all his strength that the divine should be present to him, for as much as human impiety desired to call him back from on high, so much has divine piety made to associate him with heaven ^l. Then he summoned a certain man, Waningus by name ^m. Take, he said, Leodegar, whom you once saw so proud a man, and set him under safe custody. For there will be a time of his calling, receiving what he merits from his enemies. Then, having received him, he led him to his monastery, which is called Fécamp ⁿ, where there was a congregation of nuns and virgins, over whom presided Childomarga ^o, the handmaid of Christ, in which, living for many days [p], he remained kept under guard. For the cut tongue also receives its accustomed office, and he showed a great seed of his doctrine among the people: whenever he came among the virgins , so much, as is reported, did his sweet discourses shine that whoever had heard wondered how greatly the clemency of God was working, and, converted from wicked works, speedily sought the fruits of penance. For by days and nights he stood watchful in the worship of God, so that scarcely at any time did he go out of the church even a little for the necessities of the body, or could take any taking of sleep and food [q].

[18] and then to the synod convoked by Theodoric At the same time the glorious man Theoderic and the same Ebroin convoked a synod [r], and, coming to a certain royal villa, caused a great throng of bishops to be present, and there among others Dido, who with Waimer expelled the holy man Leodegar from the see of his bishopric: who, condemned by the synod itself, and the skull-cap received [s] on his head, was expelled and separated from the holy congregation; then condemned to exile, and death following, he paid by capital punishment for whatever he deceitfully exercised on the holy Man [t]. And other bishops, having then obtained almost a similar punishment from the king through Ebroin in the same synod, were deported into perpetual exile *. [For Waimer, who, for the abovesaid Servant of God, for fulfilling the words of Ebroin, a partner in ruin

had been, after he had been deceitfully raised by Ebroin himself to the grade of the episcopate because he had consented in his vengeance, a little interval having been set, falling into his offence, was bound with many scourges, by the will of God, as is supposed: namely, as is reported, hanged by a halter; and condemned to a most shameful death, as befitted the betrayer of the Just man, he sent him to hell [u].]

[19] he is summoned, bitterly received, For the man of God Leodegar was still abiding in the same monastery of nuns in which he had been placed to be guarded. [Then they summoned him also to the same synod; yet he is not confirmed to have been within the council [x], but the king and Ebroin are said to have held a conference with him apart, in which it is conjectured to be manifest that he foretold to them many future things, and that they came to pass [y]]. Where Ebroin also, persevering in the same destructiveness [z], said: The loftiness of your words persuades you much in speaking; you suppose yourself to be a martyr, therefore you show yourself so rash. Still, he said, you spread yourself much; in vain do you desire to have such a reward: for as you shall have merited, so shall you receive martyrdom [aa]. [He wished him to be utterly extinguished, that, since he now saw him consumed as to the glory of the world, he might be able at least to call him back from the merits of the Saints. For whence he thought him to be cut off, thence rather he made him cleave to Christ, whom he desired, because the more his punishment was extended , the more were his rewards increased [bb].]

[20] he is given into custody to Chrodobert, count of the palace, Then he handed him over to a certain man, Chrodobert [cc]: Take him, he said, to be kept under great custody; the time of his death will yet come, his end . When, having received him, he was leading him to his house, seeing him wearied from the journey and from weakness, he ordered drink to be given him for refreshment. Before the cupbearer attended him, a great light, as it were in the circle of a wheel, descending from heaven, shone upon his head. Then all who saw this sign, trembling, said: What is it, Lord, which appears upon your head, as it were in the manner of a circle, a most splendid light sent forth from heaven? For the like has never been seen by us. He forthwith adored on the ground, saying: I render thanks to Thee, almighty God, Consoler of all, who hast deigned to show such a miracle upon Thy servant. Then all, seeing it, were as though placed in ecstasy of mind. At length indeed, having recovered themselves , together glorifying God almighty, turning one to another they said: Truly this Man is a servant of God, and they promised to strive towards God with all their strength . Then thenceforth, by his preachings, almost all the kinsfolk, the wife and the households of that house [dd] were converted to the worship of God [ee]: and through this, hearing his fame, they ran together to him from the circuit of the place to hear * the saving word. And he did not cease to instruct all by his preaching how they might be able to come to the kingdoms of heaven.

[21] But not long after, when almighty God had now decreed to reward His faithful Servant for so great a gift of patience, and at length, four horsemen having been sent by Ebroin, Ebroin, now obstinate, wishing to complete his cruelty against him, sent after him very swift horsemen, exceedingly destructive [ff], who should destroy him by death. They, coming, took him from the house of the man to whom he had been handed over to be guarded, and leading him through unknown places as far as a certain place, where he stood still, saying: You have no need, sons, to go further : do quickly that for which you have come, that you may fulfil the wish of the wicked one. And those who had come to slay him were four in number. For three of them threw themselves at his feet, begging that he would give them indulgence, and deign to bestow a blessing upon them. But the fourth [gg] stood by proudly, his sword unsheathed, ready to slay him.

[22] And after he had bestowed his blessing upon them, he is killed, and, the wife of Chrodobert taking care, is buried. and announced the word of God to his slayers; then the Man of God, bending himself to prayer, said: Lord God almighty, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, God of powers and of every creature, and Creator of the whole human race, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, who hast deigned to lead me to this day of combat: I ask and beseech Thee, Lord, that Thou Thyself bid the mercy of Thy loving-kindness to be bestowed on me, and make me worthy of the merits of Thy Saints, both a partaker and a sharer of life eternal: and grant indulgence to those who afflict me: since through them, in Thy sight, I believe, most clement Father, to be glorified. While he was saying these things, the striker, stretching out his sword, cut off his head, and his body is said to have remained standing upright for about the space of one hour. But when the swordsman did not yet see him fall, he struck him with his foot, that even so he might fall the more quickly to the ground. But not long after his striker, seized by demons and bereft of his mind, struck by the vengeance of God, threw himself into the fire, and there ended his life. Then, at the command of the wife of this man Chrodobert, he was carried by the servants into a certain villa, Sarcingum [hh] by name, with great weeping of those lamenting; by the decree of this woman the blessed Martyr was buried with the garments in which he had been slaughtered in a very small oratory. And this is believed to have been done on the fifth day of the Nones of October. In which sepulchre he is said to have been interred for two years and a half [ii].

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Leodegar, namely, lived for about two years in the monastery of Fécamp with the nuns placed under the discipline of Childemarca, and then was summoned to the synod convoked by Theodoric and Ebroin, and a little after was killed by Ebroin's order. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 226, 237 and following.

q. This number again agrees in great part word for word with no. 43 of the anonymous, beginning from these words, Having received him, to his, etc.

r. Concerning this synod, concerning the time at which it was celebrated, and other circumstances pertaining to it, see what has been disputed in § XV of the Preliminary Commentary.

s. That is, baldness received on the head; for a bishop was deposed by shaving the head. See the Annotations appended to chapter 3 of the former Life at the letters cc and ff.

t. These things, which are had from the beginning of this number up to here, are rendered thus in Mabillon: At the same time the glorious man King Theoderic and the same Ebroin convoked a synod, and, coming to a certain royal villa, caused a great throng of bishops to be present. And there among others Diddo, who with Waimer expelled the holy man Leodegar from the see of his bishopric, and, enticed, handed him over to punishment, condemned by the synod itself, received the skull-cap on his head, and, expelled, is separated from the holy congregation. Then, condemned to exile, and death following, he bore by capital punishment whatever he deceitfully exercised against the holy Man. Which reading, as will be plain to one who considers it, produces a sense somewhat different from the sense which our reading generates; but which is superior I cannot declare.

u. In place of those things concerning Waimir or Waimer which are read here enclosed in brackets, there is had in Mabillon only: Waimer also received a similar sentence with the rest; but I think that our reading is genuine, and Mabillon's, since it disagrees with all the others, sprung from interpolation; and as regards the thing signified by it at the end, namely that Waimir is damned, see the Annotations subjoined to chapter 3 of the Life written by the anonymous at the letter ee.

x. Concerning the council at which Leodegar is here said not to have been present, see nos. 241 and 242 of the Preliminary Commentary.

y. These things enclosed in brackets are omitted in Mabillon; but I think that his reading, since it is repugnant to all our manuscript exemplars, is again corrupted here.

z. Mabillon reads: Then Ebroin said to B. Leodegar.

aa. This invective of Ebroin against Leodegar is rendered more briefly in Mabillon thus: Why do you persuade such great things by speaking? You suppose yourself to be a martyr, therefore you show yourself so rash. Still much … you will spread yourself; in vain do you desire to have such a reward. For as you shall have merited, so shall you receive martyrdom. But this reading again so notably from our codices and manuscripts

apographs differs that it becomes suspect to me also of interpolation.

bb. These things enclosed in brackets are absent from our Reichenau manuscript apograph, in which, however, they are related after a few words of the following number.

cc. Besides those things which are recorded concerning this Chrodobert by Ursinus and the anonymous, I find, as I have already noted above, no others among the authors which I should think are to be attributed to him.

dd. That is, servants, coloni, who owed service and obedience to Chrodobert. See du Cange in the Glossary of Middle and Lower Latinity at the word familia.

ee. Our Reichenau manuscript apograph reads: Truly this Man is a Servant of God. And they besought him to pray to the Lord for them with all his strength, and thenceforth by his preachings, through all the kinsfolk, especially the household of that house was converted to the worship of God.

ff. The anonymous makes no mention of horsemen sent by Ebroin to kill Leodegar. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, no. 249 and following.

gg. He is called here by the anonymous of Murbach Wardard, or, as others read, Wadard; by which name he is also distinguished in our Dijon manuscript; wherefore, since this manuscript differs in this matter from all the other manuscript as well as printed exemplars of Ursinus, it has probably been corrupted by interpolation, and therefore even from this is confirmed the judgement already brought forward by me before on this matter.

hh. This villa is called by the anonymous Sarcinium; for notice of this villa, or of the oratory in which Leodegar was buried by the wife of Chrodobert, it has not yet hitherto been possible to find out, which was very greatly in my wishes. The same is the case with the forest in which Leodegar was killed. I sent letters into Artois to investigate; but I have received no answer. Meanwhile, in the Life of St. Vindicianus, bishop of Arras, printed by us at the XI of March, no. 9, I found written: The body having been taken up, namely of St. Leodegar, the wife of Chrodebert buried it in a certain small oratory not far from the village of Hursinga, which is placed on the boundary of the diocese of Arras. From which text are confirmed in some measure the things which have been disputed in the Preliminary Commentary concerning the situation of Sarcinium and of the forest called of St. Leodegar. For the village which in the text recited is called Hursingha is probably that which in Blaeu's geographical map of Artois is named Hoisin, and which is noted as removed by a moderate interval from a village named Sars, and from another village called St. Leodegar, of which the latter, according to what was said in no. 251 and following of the Preliminary Commentary, was the arena of martyrdom for Leodegar; and the former, considering the affinity which it has with the name Sarcinium, is probably that very village which fell to St. Leodegar for his burial, and which is also called by another name the village of St. Leodegar. Wherefore, since the village named Hoisin, as also that which is distinguished by the name Sars, is situated in Artois towards the head of the river Quantia, in French la Canche, there are confirmed in some measure, as I have already noted, from the adduced text of the Life of St. Vindicianus, the things which I discoursed in no. 251 and the four following of the Preliminary Commentary concerning the situation of the places in which St. Leodegar was killed and buried.

ii. In our codex P. Ms. 159, and in all our manuscript apographs, is read: And this is believed to have been done on the sixth day of the Nones of October; and this reading, with which Mabillon's also agrees, seems to be better than ours, so that Leodegar was crowned with martyrdom not on the 3rd but on the 2nd day of October. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 256 and following. Further, this number of Ursinus, except the reading of which just now, also agrees almost word for word, for the reason given in number 25 in the Preliminary Commentary, and often mentioned here, with no. 50 of the anonymous. The same happens as regards all the things which are narrated by the anonymous as following the death of Leodegar, and therefore, since it would be superfluous to repeat them under the name of Ursinus, I have thought fit to fix my stylus here.

* others easque and them

* others ut reverteretur that he should return.

* read conjicitur is conjectured

* others exsulabis you will be an exile

* others qui [who]

* others lack evulso torn

* others incederet he should walk

* others vel [or]

* others quiverit he could

* others loquentium of those speaking

* others cupit & cœpit desires and began

* others add Ebroïnus Ebroin

* others defectionis, ut recipiat of failing, that he may receive

* others recepit received

* others virginum catervam the throng of virgins

* others audientes hearing

* others refectionem percipere to take refreshment

* others deputati

* read conjicitur is conjectured

* others protendebatur was stretched out

* others lack exitium [end]

* others pronus prone

* others resumpto spiritu having recovered their breath

* others viribus strength

* others add cupientes desiring

* others add loca places

* others fatigari to be wearied

* others ac [and]

* others & … decreto and … by the decree