ON ST. LEUDOMER, OR LEODEMIR, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT CHÂLONS IN CHAMPAGNE,
AT CHÂLONS IN CHAMPAGNE IN GAUL.
BEFORE THE YEAR 589.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Leudomer or Leodemir, bishop and confessor, at Châlons in Champagne in Gaul. (S.)
BY C. S.
§ I. The Saint's memory in the Martyrologies at two days: cult on this day: Acts to be published: native land the Limousin: the diaconate received, and a donation made to the church of Châlons.
Catalaunum, otherwise Catalauni, once of Gallia Belgica, now of French Champagne, is a large, fortified and episcopal city under the archbishop of Reims, This holy Bishop in various Martyrologies founded on the river Matrona, commonly la Marne, called in French Châlons, or Châlons-sur-Marne, to distinguish it from Cabillonum, likewise an episcopal city of Gaul, in the duchy of Burgundy, which in the vernacular they also call Challon and Châlons-sur-Saône. Of the holy bishops of Châlons we gave St. Elaphius at the 19th day of August; today there comes to be celebrated his brother and immediate successor in the see, who is called by others Leudomir, Leudomer and Leodomir. Various Martyrologies announce him at the 30th day of September, which is believed to have been his day of death. The manuscript Martyrology of St. Paul's at Besançon, recorded among the Usuardine Auctaria by our Sollerius, has on that day thus: At Châlons, of St. Leudomir, confessor. There follows in the same place the Martyrology of Reims, of the church of SS. Timothy and Apollinaris, very ancient according to the testimony of Fr. Pierre-François Chifflet, which, with the Saint's name somewhat corrupted, but with the episcopal dignity added, says: At Châlons, of St. Ledomar, bishop and confessor.
[2] Perhaps this is the same one which Guillaume Marlot in the History of the metropolis of Reims, tome 2, he is announced at Châlons at the 30th day of September, page 151, also cites, saying: And his Feast is noted on the 30th of September in the Martyrology of Reims. To these Martyrologies, of an age uncertain to me, I add our manuscript Florarium of the Saints, brought to its end in the year 1486, in which at the aforesaid day of September is read: At Châlons, of St. Leodomer, bishop of the same city and confessor. With the Florarium the Lübeck-Cologne edition of the augmented Usuard, made in the year 1490, agrees word for word. There is added Greven in the cited Sollerius, whose words are these: Of Leodomer, bishop of Châlons and confessor. Finally Molanus in the same place says thus: At Châlons, of St. Leudomir, bishop of the same city and confessor; of whom the church thus sings:
Leudomir, father, succour thy sons mightily, That they may live soundly, and seek eternal joys.
So Sollerius, from Molanus's Louvain edition of the year 1568; for in two other editions, namely one of Louvain of the year 1573 and the other of Antwerp of the year 1583, the same things are indeed read, but with a few words changed; and especially, in place of the word filiis sons, famulis servants is substituted, more correctly for the metre; and it is added in the margin that those verses were taken from the ninth Responsory of his Office.
[3] on which perhaps he formerly had a cult. The same day is kept by Maurolico and Galesini in their Martyrologies, and by Filippo Ferrari in the general Catalogue of the Saints who are not in the Roman Martyrology. These too were followed by Chastelain in the Universal Martyrology, in which, when he had said at the 30th of September, At Châlons in Champagne, St. Leodemir (in French St. Lumié), bishop; afterwards in the Supplement he advised that in place of these one should read: At Châlons on the Marne, St. Leudomir (in French St. Lumiér), bishop, some of whose relics are at Paris. Finally the Martyrology
of Paris, published in print in the year 1727, celebrates the memory of the same holy Prelate on the same day thus: At Châlons, of St. Leodemer, bishop. So great a consensus of the martyrologists on the same day of September makes me doubt whether he did not once have an annual cult on that day: however that may be, now at least for a whole century he has been venerated at Châlons on the 2nd day of October, to which André du Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology rightly restored him, with the following elogium composed from his Life, which I subjoin.
[4] But Saussay celebrates the same At Châlons, of St. Leudomir, bishop and wonderful confessor. He, brother of St. Elaphius, bishop (of Châlons), was substituted against his will for the same when he died, on account of the clear testimonies of his virtue, by the election of the clergy, the petition of the people, and the command of king Sigebert, and illuminated this chair with new light. For he shone with such glory of sanctity that, when he was once celebrating the unbloody Sacrifice in the basilica of St. Stephen, while according to custom he was blessing the people, by forming the sign of the Cross he freed several energumens from their vexation; and among them a girl distinguished as much for beauty of body as for nobility of birth, whom very many priests had been unable to heal with any exorcisms. He also turned away a deadly plague from the people by his prayers. A blind woman, who, trusting in his merits, was imploring his help, he enlightened by sending a subdeacon to sign her eyelids with the character of Christ. For he was of such humility that, to avoid the little breaths of praise, he did not perform works of divine power of this kind by himself, but used in them the ministry of another.
[5] He was endowed with wonderful simplicity and innocence, so much so that birds and beasts, in token of his righteousness, obeyed him at his pleasure. [on the 2nd day of October, on which it is proved that he is venerated with an Office] Illustrious with indications of merits of this kind, in the thirty-fifth year of his age the Man, for whom Christ alone was life, dying a happy death, passed to immortality. So Saussay; of what worth these things are we shall see in their place. That the memory of St. Leudomer is celebrated at Châlons on the 2nd day of October is also expressly asserted by Charles Rapine, of the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis whom they call Recollects, both in the Catalogue of the bishops of Châlons, which in the year 1625 at Châlons, being then lector of sacred Theology among his brethren, he inserted into the Life of St. Memmius, first bishop of the same see, and published, and in the ecclesiastical Annals of the said diocese, which he published in print in French in the year 1636 while he was acting as guardian of his brethren at Paris. In these, on page 90, he says thus: His day of death was the second of the month of October, … on which day the church of Châlons celebrates his feast. Usuard (interpolated) mentions him in his Martyrology on the 30th of September. The Benedictine continuators of Gallia Christiana agree, in tome 9, which came to light in the year 1751, in column 862 of which is read of St. Leudomer: He died, according to Molanus, on the day before the Kalends of October; nevertheless he is venerated among the people of Châlons on the sixth day before the Nones of October.
[6] The same day of cult was assigned by the reverend lord Degyves, in the diocese of Châlons, is proved. Canon Regular of St. Augustine of the Gallican Congregation, professor of sacred Theology in the abbey of St. Memmius at Châlons, in a letter sent thence on the 15th day of March of the year 1640 to my Predecessors Henschenius and Papebroch. Receive his words: His body rests in the abbey of All Saints in this city, and his feast day is kept on the second of October. I add finally also Charles Le Cointe, tome 2 of the Annals of the Franks, at the year 584, no. 6, where he has recorded at once the rite of the Office and the reason for its transfer thus: In Molanus, in the additions to Usuard, the deposition of St. Leudomir, bishop and confessor, is noted on the day before the Kalends of October; his feast, however, is celebrated by the people of Châlons on the sixth day before the Nones of October with semidouble rite, and on that day there is an elogium in the Gallican Martyrology. Why the solemnity of the blessed Pontiff is deferred until that day, this reason occurs, that on the day before the Kalends of October the heavenly birthday of St. Jerome, and on the Kalends themselves the Translation of St. Remigius, are venerated with double rite in the diocese of Châlons. Since therefore we are accustomed to give the Acts of the Saints on the days on which they are venerated, I have judged that this holy Prelate too is to be treated of today; whatever may be the case concerning the cult which he perhaps once had, or perhaps still has in the church where he rests, on the 30th day of September, on which the Martyrologies mentioned above, besides Saussay's Gallican one, announce him.
[7] Let us proceed to the deeds of the same Saint. Stephen, abbot of St. Urbain in the diocese of Châlons, in the apologetic Letter to Roger, bishop of Châlons, Stephen, abbot of St. Urbain near Châlons, which is read prefixed to the Passion of St. Urban I, Pope and martyr, indicates that it had been enjoined on him by the same prelate that he should also write, or rather polish, the Life of St. Leudomer. In our copy, which Papebroch transcribed with his own hand from a Cistercian codex, the said abbot addresses Roger thus: Nor let anyone impute to me presumption of this kind; you made me a coquitor (that is, a writer); you placed me in this office, whereas before the friendly violence of your command I attempted nothing of the kind: for you, a violent monitor who must be embraced, also thrust upon me the writing of the deeds of the Saints, namely of Memmius, Elasius and Leudomir, with an unpolished, trembling, blunt * pen. Mabillon, tome 5 of the Annals, page 138, likewise citing the Cistercian codex, and after him the writers of the Literary History of France, tome 8, page 63, admit indeed that these things were said by Stephen, but observe that it is uncertain whether he actually performed it as far as it pertains to the Acts of SS. Memmius, Elasius or Elaphius, and Leudomer.
[8] seems to have written or polished his Life, I confess that this cannot be proved from the words given; yet it seems to me more probable that Stephen speaks in that place of Lives already written by him at that time, not then first to be written. For if I rightly follow his mind, he, after he had said that before Roger's command he had never attempted to write the deeds of the Saints, presently, in order to meet an argument which could be sought against him from the Lives of SS. Memmius, Elaphius and Leudomer, advised that neither had these been begun by him without the command of the same bishop: which reasoning is excellent if he speaks of Lives already written or polished by him at that time; but if of ones to be written, it loses its force. However it may be, the Canon Regular Degyves, in the letter cited in no. 6, wrote that he had the Lives of SS. Memmius, Elaphius and Leudomer by the same abbot Stephen as author; but he did not note their beginnings. I have also in my hands a letter sent from Châlons in the year 1681 to my Predecessors by Jean Robin, presbyter of our Society, in which it is said that there is extant in the same place a very old codex containing the Lives of the three aforesaid Prelates, of which the one of St. Leudomer begins thus: After Blessed Elaphius passed to the Lord, etc.
[9] of which perhaps we have a copy, Of this we have a twofold exemplar, one from the manuscript of St. Victor at Paris, in which gaps indicate that some words are lacking, whether because these had been worn away in the Paris codex, or because they could not be read by the transcriber. The other is fuller, but bears no notice of its place. Perhaps this is the same Life which the aforementioned canon Degyves found with the name of abbot Stephen prefixed, or ascribed to him. If one may form an opinion from the manner of writing, this is certainly so akin to the style of the aforesaid Passion of St. Urban that both could easily have the same author. Further, in tome 9 of Gallia Christiana, column 872 and following, it is read that three Rogers, succeeding one another in immediate succession, held the see of Châlons from the year 1008 until 1093; and in column 924 Stephen is said to have been substituted for Blessed Richard, abbot of Saint-Vanne of Verdun, in the year 1046 in the prelacy of the monastery of St. Urbain of Châlons. Hence conclude that that Life, if it is the offspring of Stephen, was first written some four hundred and forty years after the death of St. Leudomer, which we shall say took place when the sixth century was decrepit. Nevertheless it is probable that some older writing, which he polished, lighted the way for Stephen (if indeed he is its author), as the words given in no. 9 seem to indicate.
[10] in which some things are to be corrected. It is credible that the same biographer (whoever he finally is) used some amplification in narrating the Saint's deeds; but if you except two things, the rest are not remote from the truth. His first and chief error is in the chronology, the beginning of Leudomer's episcopate being placed under Sigebert, king of Austrasia, and its end under Clothar, both of which I shall refute below. The second contains a certain narrative of his dominion over birds that were laying waste his field, and of one of these restored to life by him after it had already been eaten. Saussay, touching that deed in a few words above in no. 5, set it forth in a more probable phrase, saying: He was endowed with wonderful simplicity and innocence; so much so that birds and beasts, in token of his righteousness, obeyed him at his pleasure. If the biographer had said only this, he would without difficulty find credit with me; for several other Saints too are read to have had wild beasts obedient to them. But his narrative here is of such a kind that to me at least it savours of a mere fable, which the uncertain tradition of the common people perhaps devised out of some true fact, and an over-credulous writer adopted. These things premised, I shall give the Life, besides which we have no other, from the cited manuscript of St. Victor at Paris, and I shall supply its small gaps from that other copy of an unknown library.
[11] Before we do this, let us run through, according to custom, the remaining things which need illustration. The Saint, born at Limoges, followed his brother St. Elaphius to Châlons, That St. Leudomer's native city was Lemovicum, which is a city of Gallia Aquitanica, called in the vernacular Limoges, and that he was born there of a distinguished family and was the brother of St. Elaphius and his successor in the see of Châlons, the author of the compendium of the Life of the same St. Elaphius, which our Sollerius printed in tome III of August, page 747, from a manuscript of uncertain place, agrees with our biographer. Elaphius (says he), born in the city of Limoges of a distinguished family, his father being Leo, had a brother Leudomir, who himself afterwards ruled the people of Châlons most holily. There is at hand for me another exemplar of the same compendium, received from the manuscript of St. Victor at Paris, and altogether conformable to the one published, except that in place of the word brother it has son, certainly by a manifest error of the codex or of our transcriber, since in the same further below both Saints are called brothers. In the same compendium St. Elaphius is said, on account of the excellence of his virtues and learning, to have been summoned from Limoges by Sigebert, son of Clothar and grandson of the great Clovis, king of Austrasia, and given as bishop to the see of Châlons, then vacant.
[12] This episcopate of his brother drew St. Leudomer, on the same witness, where the latter was bishop, and together with him he gave much to that church to Châlons; to the great benefit indeed of the same church, as much spiritual as also temporal. Let us hear the author of the compendium again. Led by love and longing for so great a brother, Leudomir, leaving his native land, went to Châlons. And their fraternal concord greatly profited the church of Châlons; to which also their hereditary estates, near the city of Limoges,
they gave. The donations made by them to the aforesaid church are also acknowledged by the continuators of Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 862, under St. Elasius or Elaphius, where they say: Both brothers, dear to Sigebert, handed over to the church of Châlons the very ample possessions which they had received from their parents: and Egidius, archbishop of Reims, subscribed the donation. The time and place of the donation are taught by Thierry Ruinart in the Notes to book 5, chapter 41, of the History of the Franks of St. Gregory of Tours. We have read, he says, the instrument of Blessed Elafius, bishop, concerning the estates which he gave to St. Stephen with his brother Leudomir the deacon, “Done in the city of Châlons, in the church of the aforesaid martyr (St. Stephen), publicly, on the fifth day before the Ides of June, in the fourth year of Sigebert, king of the Franks”: which instrument, after the donors, Egidius, metropolitan of Reims, and Beatus subscribed.
[13] In the same place, among the Additions and emendations, column 1394, after they had recited from the manuscript Breviary of the abbey of All Saints of Châlons the same things in the year 565, when he was already deacon. which I have just related from the manuscript of St. Victor at Paris, they again transcribed these few words from the cited instrument: I, though unworthy, yet called Beatus, have written this deed at the command of Elasius, venerable bishop, together with the consent of Leudomer the deacon, in place of Ernold the notary. Further, in the fourth year of king Sigebert, in the month of June, the year of the Christian era 565 was running, at which time Leudomer therefore had already been initiated into the diaconate, which Egidius, archbishop of Reims, who subscribed the instrument of donation, is said in the Life to be published to have conferred on him; which last I am unable to confirm from elsewhere. It will be helpful, however, to have advised here that the often-cited continuators of Gallia Christiana, on account of the aforesaid instrument cited by Ruinart, established that Egidius was already sitting in the chair of Reims in the year 565; whereas the brothers Sainte-Marthe and others had fixed the beginning of his tenure of the same see in the year 572.
Annotations* retuso or retonso blunted or clipped
§ II. The Saint's succession to his brother's episcopate, and the time of his tenure of the see: the fable about Brunhild: his first burial made illustrious by benefits: the translation of his body: the fabulous preservation of his eye refuted.
He succeeded his brother in the episcopate in the year 580, not 587 or 600; The time of the episcopate undertaken by Leudomer depends on the year of the death of his predecessor, St. Elaphius, which our Sollerius, tome 3 of August, page 747, no. 1, writes is fixed by some to the year 587, by others even to the year 600; he himself, however, with Jacques Longueval, tome 3 of the History of the Gallican church, page 127, whom Le Cointe had already preceded in the Annals of the Franks, placed it at the year 580. To the opinion of these I too adhere, because St. Gregory of Tours, who then flourished, in book 5 of the History, chapter 41, narrates the death of the same St. Elaphius among the things which took place in the said year 580. Those who assign the year 600 are refuted by the same Gregory of Tours, who in book 9, chapter 41, names Felix, the successor of St. Leudomer, among the bishops who in the year 589, with Aetherius, prelate of Lyon, wrote a letter to Gundegisil of Bordeaux in the cause of the seditious Chrodield and the nuns of Poitiers who adhered to her. Finally, those who set down the death of Elaphius in the year 587 contract the episcopate of St. Leudomer too much without any reason, as is clear from what has been said of Felix.
[15] nor under Sigebert, but under his son Childebert. With none of these opinions can the writer of the Life to be published be reconciled, according to whom St. Leudomer was promoted to the see of Châlons by king Sigebert. No other Sigebert can here be indicated than the son of Clothar I, king of Austrasia, whom Gregory of Tours, book 4 of the History, chapter 49, relates was slain in the fourteenth year of his reign, that is, of Christ 575. What may have given occasion to the error is that Leudomer's brother, St. Elaphius, had received that chair from the same Sigebert, and that the same king could have known Leudomer as deacon, or perhaps even as presbyter, and have thought much of him. In place of Sigebert, therefore, must be substituted his son Childebert, who succeeded his father at five years old and began to reign under the tutelage of his mother Brunhild. No less did the biographer err in assigning the time of the death of the same Saint as under Clothar reigning in Gaul; namely the second of this name, who did not obtain the kingdom of Austrasia and the whole monarchy of the Franks before the year 613.
[16] Charles Rapine, already cited before, in the ecclesiastical Annals of the diocese of Châlons, rightly indeed set the beginning of his episcopate under Childebert while a minor, He died before the year 589, not in the year 600 or 626. but nevertheless fixed his death under Clothar II and put it off as far as the year 626, and in this had Chastelain in the Universal Martyrology agreeing with him. A little earlier, but still later than is right, namely in the year 600, his death is marked in the Breviary of Châlons in Le Cointe, tome 2 of the Annals, page 256, where he deservedly rejected both opinions on account of what has already been said, and preferred to refer his death to an uncertain year, but not after the year of Christ 589, in which we have said Felix was already sitting. Before this year, without nearer definition, it was also set down by the author of the Martyrology of Paris published in the year 1727, and by the frequently cited continuators of Gallia Christiana; nor have I hitherto found anything more certain than that St. Leudomer already had a successor in that year. Concerning the Saint's final age I prefer to believe the biographer, who asserts that he died in the seventy-fifth year of his life, rather than Saussay in no. 5, that he died in the thirty-fifth.
[17] This place requires that we say something of what is related concerning the invincible chastity of the holy Prelate, assailed in vain by queen Brunhild. Fable of the Saint's chastity assailed by Brunhild, and of an exile inflicted. Le Cointe, at the year 584, no. 6, recites these things from a certain Breviary of Châlons: Summoned by Brunhild (Leudomer) into an inner chamber, as though to converse on affairs of the Church or conducive to the advantage of the kingdom, being solicited to a wicked deed, like another Joseph, with a chaste and severe gaze he rebuked the wantonness of the lustful queen. Nor did such integrity amid the corrupt manners of the court lack a miracle; for after four hundred years and more the eye with which he had despised the queen's blandishments was found sound and entire at the solemn translation of his body. The writer of the Life to be published keeps deep silence both about the temptation and about the miracle: but Rapine in the Annals of Châlons narrates this deed a little more broadly, and adds that Leudomer was for this reason driven from his see by the ungovernable Brunhild and was in exile twenty years, until he was restored to his city by Clothar II, when he had obtained power in Austrasia, in which city too he died a happy death in the year 626. That so long an exile, the recall by Clothar, and the time of death are fabulous, what has been said thus far demonstrates; but on what authority that attempt of the lustful queen rests, I shall show more fittingly presently, where the discussion will return to the pretended preservation of the eye.
[18] I would more easily believe the same Rapine, who concerning his first burial, famous even in his own time, proceeds thus in French. His first burial famous for benefits: from which his body The bodies of St. Leudomer, and of his brother and predecessor St. Elaphius, were first buried at Châlons in the parish church of St. John, in which to this day are seen the pits of those same first tombs; and thither pious pilgrims hasten from the whole region, bringing sick children, especially those who, to use the vernacular expression, SONT EN CHARTRE (that is, wasting or consumptive), and God has frequently worked prodigious cures there, thus making illustrious the place in which those sacred bodies rested for some centuries. In the same parish are also preserved the chairs in which the same two holy Prelates sat while they were performing the Sacred rites. In that place the body of St. Leudomer remained laid up until the episcopate of Roger, who, taking it up from there, translated it to the monastery of All Saints, which he had then erected and founded.
[19] Bishop Roger II, into the monastery of All Saints Receive the notice of the place and the time of its foundation from the newest Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 947. Roger II, bishop of Châlons, at the beginning of his pontificate founded that monastery on the Island near Châlons under the patronage of Blessed Mary the Virgin and of All Saints; whence it has mostly been called either the Island of Châlons or All-Saints-of-the-Island. There the most pious founder placed servants of God; then he took pains to have the foundation confirmed in the year 1047 by Pope Clement II; he himself finally ratified it in the year 1062 by a letter in which all his donations are reviewed. The writers of the cited Work doubt in the same place whether by servants of God monks are to be understood, or Canons Regular, and observe from the letter of St. Gregory VII, Pope, that that monastery was at least already inhabited by canons of that kind before the year 1079, and in the year 1644 was assigned to the Gallican congregation of Canons Regular.
[20] translated: some of his relics at Reims and Paris. And they had premised in column 873, under the same Roger: In the year 1062, the twentieth of his episcopate, he founded, or rather confirmed the foundation of, the monastery of All Saints, in which he laid the body of St. Leudomer, his predecessor, and in which he himself wished to be entombed after his death. This same thing is also said in the more recent French epitaph of the same Roger, namely added to the tomb in the year 1553, which you may read in the same place. Rapine agrees in the Annals, and adds that that sacred body, enclosed in a case, was then deposited in the principal altar of the same abbey, and he teaches that it was still resting in it in the year 1625, in the little Index of the bishops of Châlons which I said was inserted by him into the Life of St. Memmius, published in that year. Nor have I learned anything from elsewhere about it being afterwards translated to another place, or lost; but that distinguished relics of it were given at a time unknown to me to the church of Saint-Denis at Reims we have from Marlot in the History of the metropolis of Reims, tome 2, page 151, where among the other pledges of the Saints with which this church has been enriched he numbers an arm of St. Leudomer, or Leudomir, bishop of Châlons, in an arm-reliquary covered with silver plates. Likewise that some relics of him are preserved at Paris, Chastelain, reported in no. 3, asserts.
[21] [The assertions of certain persons concerning the preservation of one eye are reported] It remains that we treat of the prodigious preservation of the eye, which some have affirmed was divinely conferred on him as a reward for that chaste and severe gaze by which he is said to have rebuked Brunhild's wantonness. The words of the Breviary of Châlons I have already given from Le Cointe above in no. 17: here I add Rapine, citing his authorities. In the Annals, page 91 and the following, he says these things in French. His soul having been translated to heaven, God made his body illustrious on earth with a signal miracle; namely that the eye with which he had looked so severely on Brunhild and had condemned her unchastity was preserved immune from all corruption. For after that chaste body had been committed to the earth, and, all its flesh being reduced to ashes, was left bare, that eye preserved its former beauty and a more than natural liveliness; and when, after four hundred and thirty or forty years had elapsed, Roger II, the 44th prelate of Châlons (the continuators of Gallia Christiana number the same one the 45th), raised the sacred body from the earth,
in order that it might be translated to the monastery of All Saints, although all the flesh (as has been said) had been consumed, that eye was nevertheless found sound and entire, and was enclosed with the bones in a case and placed upon the principal altar of the said abbey.
[22] Presently, to create certain faith, he subjoins his witnesses thus: [detected at the translation, and the judgments of the continuators of Gallia Christiana] This miracle, of which he himself was an eyewitness, was handed down by John, abbot of the same monastery; Thomas of Cantimpré, book 2, chapter 30; Jean l'Espagnol, doctor and grand Prior of Saint-Remi of Reims, in the History of St. Walburga; and the manuscript Legendary of the abbey of All Saints. Thus far Rapine, who nevertheless even so has not found credit with all. The continuators of Gallia Christiana, under St. Leudomer, set out their judgment in these words: He was buried with his brother (St. Elaphius) in the church of St. John. And when under bishop Roger II he was being translated into the basilica of All Saints, his eye is said to have been found entire and sound, the remaining limbs having been consumed. But we believe that the little fable was born from this, that Leudomer is called in the vernacular Lumier; and the name Lumier is properly the same as the name Lumiere, in Latin Lumen light; and finally lumina signify EYES. Milder is the censure of Le Cointe, who takes the words of the Breviary of Châlons given above, and the assertions of Rapine, thus.
[23] We (he says) consider as devised by recent writers the things that are circulated about Brunhild provoking Leudomir to wantonness. and of Le Cointe upon these things. But although we think thus of Brunhild, we do not therefore deny that the eye of the blessed Pontiff was found entire and sound under bishop Roger the second, especially since Rapine, besides more recent authors, produces as eyewitness John, the abbot set over the monastery of All Saints near Châlons; the glory of this miracle we willingly proclaim; but we contend that another cause preceded it than that which writers have hitherto brought forward. So he: but to me neither censure is pleasing. Not the first, because, although it is true that the French words Lumier and Lumiere are very closely akin, and that the latter is called Lumen in Latin, and finally that lumina are also used for eyes, it does not seem to me sufficiently probable that this little fable arose from that mere kinship and equivocation of the name. With the first part of Le Cointe's censure I willingly agree, but not with the second; because the prodigious preservation of the eye rests on no better testimony than the cause asserted by Rapine; which I proceed to show.
[24] Rapine, who flourished in the seventeenth century, certainly could not have learned this miracle of the eye that was found from John himself, abbot of All Saints, The same story is reviewed from Thomas of Cantimpré, if the latter was present as an eyewitness at the translation in which it first appeared. Nor is there any doubt that here he followed Thomas of Cantimpré, whom he cited in the first place among his authors. Let us hear him, therefore. Cantimpré, in the place cited by Rapine, that is, book 2 of On the Bees, chapter 30, no. 33, whose title is, Of the incorrupt eye of blessed Ludovicus, bishop of Châlons, writes these things: St. Ludovicus, bishop of the people of Châlons, was a man most comely in body and chaste. When a certain queen of the Gauls saw him, she cast her eyes upon him, and, having called him to a convenient place, invited him to lie with her. He, despising her with a grim countenance and an indignant eye, confuted her with wonderful words.
[25] His eye after death, even in the dried corpse, who seems to have gone before the other writers here: could not be extinguished or dimmed, as master John de Firmitate, formerly abbot of the Regular canons in the same city, who saw that eye like the most lucid crystal, afterwards related in the hearing of myself and many others: for he had been present at the elevation of the body of the said Saint, which had lain in the earth more than four hundred years. And justly indeed the eye could not be extinguished even in the dead body which had remained vivid in the frail vessel against the mortifying enemy. And truly, deservedly it ought not to have been dimmed outwardly, which did not care to receive inwardly the poison of corruption. This therefore is the first and chief author who lighted the way for Rapine: for Jean l'Espagnol first published the Life of St. Walburga in the year 1614, and the manuscript Legendary of the abbey of All Saints is most probably not older than Cantimpré, since Rapine puts it in the last place. Now let us see of what worth that narrative of Cantimpré is.
[26] but his narrative The first thing that comes to be noticed here is the name Ludovicus, not Leudomirus; and no Ludovicus occurs in the series of the bishops of Châlons except after the times of Cantimpré. Georges Colvener, the editor of Cantimpré's Work, noticed this, and therefore observed the following in the Notes in the same place: I do not find any Ludovicus in the catalogue of the bishops of Châlons in Demochares or elsewhere, but St. Leudomirus, 18th bishop of that see, as I think should be read here, or Leudomirus, as Molanus reads in the additions to Usuard on the 30th of September… Certainly the name Leudomirus or Ludomirus could easily have been changed by a writer, as usually happens, into the better-known name Ludovicus. Let it be so: for neither do I find any Ludovicus among the bishops of Châlons in the newest Gallia Christiana before the fifteenth century, about whom certainly Cantimpré, who was born at the beginning of the thirteenth century, could not have been speaking; nor do I believe that the Saint of whom we treat was named Ludomicus and Ludovicus on the word of Rapine, who asserts it against all the others, most probably from this single passage of Cantimpré.
[27] so suspect John de Firmitate, formerly abbot of the Regular canons in the same city of Châlons, cited by Cantimpré, is without doubt for Rapine John, abbot of All Saints, namely because about the middle of the eleventh century, in which the translation was made, this was the only monastery of Canons Regular at Châlons. But here again it happens awkwardly that from the beginning of its foundation until the seventeenth century had begun no one by the name of John is read to have presided over it as abbot in the catalogue which the often-cited writers of Gallia Christiana have given. But grant that there was indeed at that time some abbot of this name, whether in this or in another monastery, which Cantimpré did not express; there remains another argument, likewise sought from the time. Jacques Échard, in the Writers of the Order of Preachers, tome 1, column 250 and following, teaches that Thomas of Cantimpré was brought into the light in the year 1201, began the book On the Bees in the year 1256, and finally that those who prolong his life longest put off his death as far as the year 1280.
[28] and make incredible Further, the oft-mentioned translation cannot be fixed later than the year 1065, after which Roger II, the author of the same translation, did not survive among the living. And since between this year and the year 1201, the birth-year of Thomas of Cantimpré, a hundred and thirty-five years in all have flowed by, it would be necessary that that abbot John was more than a hundred and fifty years old when he narrated these things to Cantimpré; how improbable this is, I leave to everyone to consider. Therefore these things are either fabulous, or said of another Saint; or, if they concern St. Leudomer, they are to be understood of another translation of the same body, made much later. I have already indicated that no Ludovicus is found among the bishops of Châlons except after the times of Cantimpré: I have likewise sought in vain among the other holy Ludovici for one to whom those things could be referred; and that they should be understood of St. Ludomer or Ludomir is urged, besides the similarity of name such as it is, by the see of Châlons and the title of Saint asserted by Cantimpré for his Ludovicus.
[29] Finally, I have read of no translation or elevation of St. Leudomer having been made the circumstances of persons and times, besides that which the aforementioned Roger brought about around the middle of the eleventh century, and that he is speaking of the same Cantimpré sufficiently indicates when he says that John had been present at the elevation of the body of the said Saint, which had lain in the earth more than four hundred years. For from the year 588, about which we have said Leudomer died, until the middle of the eleventh century about four and a half centuries are counted. But on the contrary, either Cantimpré speaks of the first translation of the Saint indeed, but made after the times of Roger, or of some second, later one. If the first, at least five and a half centuries would have to be counted, so that John could have been present at it; if the second, you would find scarcely two centuries to have intervened between the two translations.
[30] Finally, from what has been disputed thus far I establish two things. The first is so that it seems in no way admissible. that Thomas of Cantimpré was the first who, in the seventh century, already far advanced, after it had happened, committed to writing the heroic chastity of St. Leudomir assailed in vain by Brunhild; and the prodigious preservation of the eye of the same holy Prelate, two whole centuries after this had been detected at the time of the aforesaid translation; Cantimpré, I say, was the first who committed these things to writing. The second is that so faulty a testimony of his can safely be admitted for neither. However, I remain in doubt whether this fabulous narrative arose from the bad faith of John de Firmitate or from the error of Cantimpré himself. Our Théophile Raynaud also believed Cantimpré without further examination, who in the Triad of the Patriarchs briefly narrates the same things of the eye of Ludovicus, bishop of Châlons, in words which you have with us in tome 2 of June, page 497, no. 41, on the occasion of St. Roseline, Carthusian virgin, whose eyes are there better proved to have been found after her death conspicuous for a wonderful preservation of this kind. I have already said above that the writer of the Life to be published made no mention either of the wickedness of the lustful queen or of the prodigy of the eye. And of the latter indeed he could have been silent, perhaps because he wrote before the translation, of which there is no mention in him: but as regards the former, I do not see that a better cause of this silence can be assigned than that that fable had not yet been born. Now receive the Life, such as it is.
LIFE
Perhaps by Stephen, abbot of St. Urbain.
From the manuscript of St. Victor at Paris, collated with another manuscript.
Leudomer or Leodemir, bishop and confessor, at Châlons in Champagne in Gaul. (S.)
BHL Number: 4858
A. perhaps Stephen.
On the death of St. Elaphius, St. Leudomer After Blessed Elaphius passed to the Lord a, and attained the summit of true honour in the land of the living, the peoples of the city of Châlons, having no shepherd, were knocking at God's door with prayers, lifting up their hearts with their hands to heaven, praying that the divine clemency would look kindly upon them and send into His harvest such a labourer as would form them by his example to well-doing and drench them with the rain of heavenly doctrine, so that by his cultivation and teaching they might prevail to bear the fruits of eternal b salvation. And it seemed to them that their prayers would be heard to their salvation if the widowed chair were restored with Blessed Leudomir c. Him, worthy in morals and modest, learned in doctrine, affable in address, admirable in the ordering of his whole life, a cherisher of the poor, a father of orphans, a visitor of the bedridden, a minister to the infirm, just, devout, hospitable, and whatever popular favour sometimes paints, even without judgment, as affected by any person whatever; they would be happy if a Successor of such goodness succeeded to the nurturer they had lost. Whence also their prayers
they were making to God, that He would inspire the hearts of the princes and of the king to distinguish the city with such an honour, and would fortify it with so strong a [d] tower within and without.
[2] Sought by the people, he is given as bishop. And so the loving God, seeing their desires, saw, looked upon the prayer of the humble, and did not despise their petition: whence also the tender mercies of such great loving-kindness shall be written in another generation, and a new people shall praise the Lord. Therefore king Sigebert [e], having received the pledges of the beloved virgin Eulalia, and having heard of the death of Blessed Elaphius the prelate f, struck with grief, shed the tears due to so great a man, who had served the kingdom so faithfully; then, admonished by the petition of the chief men of the city concerning the restoration of the bishopric, he ordered that they should seek out and offer one worthy of this office. And when they had presented Leudomir by name, he, knowing the person, as one who often frequented the palace with his brother Elaphius, praising the Man, approving the election, assented to their will, and commanded that in an assembly of the citizens their sentiments on these matters should be sought. The people, hearing what they wished, cry out in praise of Leudomir and in favour of the prince, and praise God for their being heard and for their happiness. Led therefore into the king's presence, having suffered a holy violence at the instance of the people, he undertook the pastoral ministry of which he declared himself unworthy; unwilling, compelled, overcome by the thought that the divine providence must be obeyed.
[3] The joyful people resound with solemn rejoicing; the churches are garlanded, His native land was the Limousin, and he was a deacon; he is received with every kind of honourable attendance, and, God favouring the salvation of men, he sat down in the pontifical see, and the city found rest from its long expectation. He was a native of the city of Limoges g, distinguished in birth, of manifold wealth, adorned with a multitude of kinsmen; but, holding all these things cheap, and breaking them like the flimsiest defences of a spider, he cast them away from the eyes of his heart, which were being hindered from the right road, and took up a pilgrimage pleasing to God. Made a cleric by the consecration of archbishop Egidius h, he showed that God was working with him, by the celibacy of a sincere manner of life, and, ever advancing, often stretching himself forth to the things that were before, he was pre-eminent in the order of deacon at the time when he received into his heart the sword of so immense a bitterness at the death of his holy brother Elaphius. The holy Man was fervent in prayers, and, as much for himself as for the people, he frequently wore smooth the thresholds of the Saints i.
[4] When therefore one day he was hastening, some clerics accompanying him, to the church of St. Mary situated in the suburb for the sake of his accustomed prayer, already bishop, he gives light to a blind woman; he saw a blind woman, her feet stumbling, seeking her way with a staff, and, moved with mercy, he said to Laudecius his subdeacon, whom he knew to be a just and holy man: [Go] and imprint the sign of the Lord's Cross on the eyes of this woman, that we may see whether perchance the divine power will deign to succour her. After he had fulfilled his commands, she received her sight, and crying out in praise of Blessed Leudomir, roused many of the neighbours to this spectacle, who blessed God and everywhere spread abroad the merits of His Saint. Sigibert k therefore, hearing of his fame, made him most intimate with himself, entrusting to him first the secrets of his counsels; and he, taking up as his own the business of widows, of orphans and of all the unjustly oppressed, began to grow illustrious in miracles, and, together with the medicine of the word unto life, to bring succour of health to injured bodies as well.
[5] It happened therefore in the fortress which is called Mareuil, situated on the river Marne l, he removes a plague; that a deadly plague m raged with such atrocity that whoever was seized scarcely reached the space of three days. All being afraid, the living no longer dared to be present with the dying; they fled (and sudden death met them as they fled), collapsed in despair; no one promised comfort to his neighbour, dying beforehand even in health through fear of death. All lay in a manner in their agony; the lean and languid hid away the corpulent and fat, not daring to bury them because of the multitude and of fear: for fear and the multitude prevented rendering the honour of burial. Households were exhausted alike; fathers, sparing in the funerals of their sons, kept back the garments to be buried with themselves. At length they flee to Blessed Leudomir and disclose to him the vehemence of the calamity, and beg that he would entreat the Lord for the cessation of that calamity. He prayed, and imposed penance on the sinners, and immediately the calamity itself ceased, so that it was established clearly enough to them that by his merit the plague that was devastating the whole neighbourhood had ceased: whence they praised the Lord, who works wonders through His Saint.
[6] There happened also another memorable thing, which the Lord deigned to make known to the glory of His Saint. those vexed by a demon For, going about the estates of his diocese with pastoral solicitude, the same Saint came once to a property which is called by name Parta. And when the report of his coming was carried round about among the peoples, crowds flocked together, with concourses mingling from every side, to hear what the holy Herald would announce from the chair of God, and to be gladdened and strengthened by his blessings. All was therefore made ready, and the Priest of God approached the altar, to offer the true holocaust for himself and the people. The members of the church are filled, and, the crowds pressing close, the narrow smallness of the walls is complained of. Meanwhile, when the divine chants were being sung by the clerics and the divine ministers were serving, and the basilica too was being perfumed with the smoke of incense, certain persons, as well men as women, who were agitated by the affliction of demons through the monthly courses of the moon, and who are also by custom called Lunatics n, began first, as though in indignation, to murmur under their breath, and, gradually growing hot, to utter insane cries, and, as if they were suffering scourges, to shout out: Why has this hateful man come to us, who brings troubles on us, disturbs our quiet, kindles our anger? Saying these things: Whither shall we flee from his presence? Who will protect us against him? But the Mass being finished, and the episcopal blessing received, they are sprinkled by the Bishop with blessed water, and, freed from them, return sound to their homes; God is blessed, and the Saint is praised.
[7] and he frees a possessed girl. At about the same time a certain girl of noble family, of every kind of beauty, invaded by the foulest enemy, estranged from herself, estranged from men, held captive among her kinsfolk, began to bark out cries not her own, bestial cries, cries plainly demonic. Her friends are in distress; they gather priests, they implore with groans that they would expel the tyrant by divine conjurations. When therefore the enemy was assailed with exorcisms, he resisted atrociously, vomited out insulting words, and, the ministers of God pressing upon [him], at length the liar is compelled to speak the truth. Why, he said, do you press upon me, why do you labour in vain? To you indeed I shall stand unconquered; but would that I might prevail to withstand Leudomir! He alone is the one whom I fear; he alone is the one whom I would I might never see, that I might hear he was taken captive, lest he take me captive from this most pleasing little vessel. When therefore the holy Pontiff came, the demon fled. And the Bishop, raising up the girl sound, restored her unharmed to her parents, who rejoiced and praised God.
[8] A fabulous narrative about birds. Blessed Leudomir also had a cultivated field often grazed bare by birds which are called … o; coming to them, he commanded that none should go away, and led them all to a barn in the suburb and shut them in. But the keeper of the barn, led astray by gluttony, devoured one of them: which being discovered in the morning, the Man of God gave them all leave to depart; and none went away. He, rebuking the glutton, ordered the feathers and bones to be brought, and, having made a prayer, raised the bird to life and restored it to the company of the others. Then, returning thanks to him in the manner they could, they flew away, nor ever afterwards approached the field, as though it were forbidden to them.
[9] The Saint dies and is buried. The glorious Man was accustomed, then, to keep the anniversary commemoration of his ordination, to give himself to the hymns and praises of God, and also to show religious festivity to the people; which custom is loved by the moderns also; but would that the ancient example were kept in all things! And when it pleased almighty God that this blessed Saint should pay the inescapable debt of the transgressor Adam, and, now free, should increase the number of the angelic abiding, he is seized with an infirmity: and as it grew, this dissoluble vessel is broken, the earth of his body is committed to the earth, the happy soul, like a carbuncle, is set in the diadem of the King with the heavenly ones and the Saints. And he departed from the body in the seventy-fifth year of his age, [p] on the day before the Kalends of October, full of days, and entered, as is promised to the just, into the sepulchre in abundance [q], Clothar reigning in Gaul [r], and the Lord Jesus Christ ruling over all things with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit through all ages of ages. Amen.
[10] The ninth Responsory of the same Saint.
Leudomir, father, succour thy servants mightily, Invocation of the Saint. That they may live sound, and seek eternal rewards, And mayest thou make all ascend to the shining heavens: May they tread down the snares of the demon, avoid sins: May they have virtues, may they lay hold of the rewards of virtues: That thou mayest make all ascend to the shining heavens. Glory be to the Father, etc. Pray for us, blessed Leudomir; That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
ANNOTATIONS.
p. Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology, certainly wrongly, reads thirty-fifth.
q. See the Preliminary Commentary, no. 18 and the two following.
r. That St. Leudomer died long before the monarchy of Clothar II I said in the same Commentary, no. 15 and following.