Modestus

ON ST. MODESTUS, DEACON AND MARTYR, AT BENEVENTO IN ITALY,

AT BENEVENTO IN ITALY.

About the beginning of the fourth century.

CRITICO-HISTORICAL SYLLOGE.

Modestus, deacon, M., at Benevento in Italy. (S.)

BY C. B.

Mario della Vipera, in the Catalogue of the Saints whom the church of Benevento celebrates with double or semidouble rite, Memorial in the sacred Fasti, and cult asserts that St. Modestus is venerated in that church with an ecclesiastical Office of double rite, and commemorates him at the second day of October with the title of deacon and martyr; the Vatican Usuardine codex, marked no. 5949, which Papebroch calls a new collection made from Usuard, Ado and others for the church of Benevento, also commemorates him at the same day; but the Roman Martyrology and the first Calendar, which Michael the monk inserted into the fourth part of his Capuan Sanctuary, and which comprises in part the Saints once venerated at Capua, announce him with the same title indeed of deacon and martyr, but at another day, namely at the 12th of February; the Calendar of the Saints,

who are venerated in the particular churches of Genoa, page 34, also sets down a St. Modestus, martyr, at the 12th of February, but since it does not distinguish him with the title of Deacon, it is uncertain whether the discussion is of ours or of another St. Modestus, martyr. Ferrari, bringing into some sort of concord the Roman Martyrology and the cited Calendar of the Capuan Sanctuary with Vipera and the Usuardine codex mentioned, with whom, as to the day on which they set down our Saint, Chastelain in his universal Martyrology agrees, inscribes St. Modestus in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy both at the 12th day of February and at the 2nd of October, and says in his annotations that on the former day his finding or translation is recalled, but on the latter his heavenly birthday is celebrated by the church of Benevento, so that from this it may become known why our Saint is not commemorated on the same day in all the sacred Tables. Vincenzo Ciarlanti in the Historical Memoirs of Samnium, book 3, chapter 13, page 186, also mentions our Saint, but supplies nothing worth noting which we have not already given, or shall give later, either from Ferrari or from Mario della Vipera. Further, since, from the assertion of these authors just mentioned concerning the time at which our Saint is venerated, our Predecessors referred him to the Passed Over at the 12th of February, it is necessary that we now treat of St. Modestus at this second day of October, for he had to be treated of on one or the other, which the elogium presently to be recited will show to be his heavenly birthday.

[2] It is extant in the places cited in the preceding number in Vipera and Ferrari, elogium of whom the latter cites the ancient lessons of the Breviary of the church of Benevento, the former a manuscript codex marked no. 168 of the library of Benevento. Receive it whole, transcribed here from Ferrari: Modestus, born in Sardinia of distinguished parents, educated from boyhood in humane letters, surpassed his equals in sharpness of intellect and elegance of manners. As a youth, adorned with all virtues, he was especially humble, chaste, modest, patient, merciful and devout. To the pursuit of piety he applied meditation, prayer and the reading of the divine Scriptures. The fame of the sanctity of his life having spread abroad, many, and especially those deprived of sight, to whom he restored vision, began to flock to him. After the blind, the lame, the dumb and the sick of divers kinds, coming in crowds, returned to their homes with their prayers granted. When also a dead man was being carried out, being entreated by those who were following him, he recalled him to life by prayer and tears. He is said moreover to have obtained light for four blind persons, and life for two dead; but to have freed many more dumb, deaf, lame and possessed. Made deacon, he was seized in the persecution of Diocletian, and variously tempted to worship the gods, he could never be moved from his constancy either by blandishments or by threats; and when, ordered to venerate the gods, he called them evil demons, having been afflicted with many and dire torments, after the rack and fire he was cast into burning baths and consummated martyrdom on the sixth day before the Nones, that is, the 2nd of October, which is therefore, as I have already indicated, the heavenly birthday of our Saint.

[3] The recited elogium seems to have been put together from the uncertain rumours of the common people and the tradition of the populace, of slight credit, which appears clearly enough even from these words of it: He is said moreover to have obtained light for four blind persons, and life for two dead. Where one must note the formula of speech he is said, by which the author is intimated to have been informed of the matter he writes only by uncertain rumour. In Mario Vipera, who differs from Ferrari in some other things of lesser moment as well, I read that three dead persons were recalled to life by our Saint, a little differently, but with the same formula of speech, thus: He (St. Modestus) is said also to have recalled to life by prayer and tears a dead man, when he was being carried to burial, being entreated by those accompanying him, besides two other dead persons raised by him on other occasions. But whether three dead persons, as in Vipera, or only two, as perhaps in Ferrari, are related to have been raised by our Saint, his recited elogium is always of little credibility to me; indeed, even if this same were, as perhaps it is, the same as the Passion of St. Modestus which, as Peter the deacon testifies in On the Illustrious Men of Monte Cassino, chapter 21, Alberic, monk of Monte Cassino, composed, all those things nevertheless, and especially those manifold miracles which it records of our Saint before he was crowned with martyrdom, would find very little credit with me, as being handed down only by an author who is so remote from the age of St. Modestus that he could not certainly have learned all those things which he relates of him, unless perhaps more ancient monuments worthy of faith had lighted his way, which the formula of speech he is said, which he employs, does not leave probable, and he learned them only from popular tradition, as I indicated above, or by another way unfit for creating certain faith. For Alberic, as is noted in part 1 of tome 9 of the Thesaurus of the Antiquities of Italy in the annotation to chapter 21 of the cited Peter the deacon, flourished only in the eleventh century, and therefore at least seven centuries after St. Modestus, who was crowned with martyrdom about the beginning of the fourth century, as I proceed to show.

[4] the martyrdom to the Diocletianic persecution The oft-cited elogium, whose author I think could more easily have learned from ancient monuments the time and place at which our Saint suffered martyrdom than the remaining circumstances of his life prior to the martyrdom; the cited Elogium, I say, affirms that our Saint underwent martyrdom in the persecution of Diocletian; whence, if indeed the Elogium is not false at least in this too, it follows that that martyrdom took place about the beginning of the fourth century. For although from the narrative of the translation of our Saint to be given here below, in which, subjoined immediately by the same author to these last words of the oft-cited Elogium as it stands in Vipera: After the rack and fire, cast into burning baths, he consumed * martyrdom on the sixth day before the Nones of October, and was buried in the same place by the Christians: it is said right at the very beginning: The body of the glorious Martyr himself (Modestus) was translated from the City, by which name Rome is very often understood by pre-eminence, to Benevento; although, I say, it appears manifestly enough from that narrative that St. Modestus suffered at Rome; and at Rome many Christians, as appears from the Acts of St. Sebastian published by Bolland at the 20th of January, were crowned with martyrdom in the year 285, when a persecution had been stirred up, Diocletian already reigning; since, however, by the persecution of Diocletian is usually understood that universal persecution which, as is clear from Firmianus Lactantius, book 2, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, and as the more recent now everywhere admit, was begun in the year 303, on the 23rd of February, and, raging through the whole Roman world by edicts promulgated, laid waste the people of God, as Sulpicius Severus says, for ten continuous years, the martyrdom of St. Modestus is probably to be referred not to the end of the third century but to the beginning of the fourth.

[5] is probably to be referred to the first three years, And that indeed I think cannot more fittingly be referred than either to the year 303, in which the persecution of Diocletian was begun, or to one or the other of the two following, since after them, in the remaining years of the Diocletianic persecution, there was no raging against the Christians in Italy, as it is right to gather from Eusebius, who towards the end of the book on the martyrs of Palestine writes thus: For the regions which are situated farther off, namely the whole of Italy, and Sicily, Gaul also, and whatever stretch towards the setting of the sun, Spain, Mauretania and Africa, since they had experienced the fury of the war scarcely for the first two whole years of the persecution (namely the Diocletianic, of which he treats in the same place), soon obtained the most present help of the divine Power, and peace. And let these things said for determining the time at which our Saint underwent martyrdom suffice. I proceed now to the translation of the glorious body, and to the account of it from Mario Vipera, for which he cites in the margin the Archive of the Monastery and church of St. Modestus in an ancient manuscript codex, where the Acts (the elogium given above) and the Translation, as he says, aforesaid are had.

[6] the translation, and its narrative, And it is this: The body of the glorious Martyr himself (Modestus) was translated from the City to Benevento on the fifth day before the Nones, that is, the 3rd of July, in the year of the Lord 591, by the grant of Gregory the Great, supreme Pontiff, at the prayers of Arechis, second duke of Benevento, and of the brethren of the monastery of St. Mary at Olivola, Linianus, the second of this name, governing the church of Benevento. It, having been received by the bishop with the clergy, by the duke with his soldiery, and by the whole people with every display of glory, was honourably placed in the aforesaid church, and there * to be kept until a worthy basilica should have been raised in his honour. In the year of Salvation 649 Duda Parda, a most noble woman of Benevento, dedicated a stately temple to our Martyr Modestus near the same church of St. Mary, and on the day before the Ides of February, which is his heavenly birthday in the temple dedicated to him, Ildebrand, bishop of Benevento, translated his sacred body with great veneration, and entombed it most honourably under an altar specially raised to him, Honorius the first being Pope, and Grimoald, fifth Duke, reigning at Benevento, who enriched the said church and monastery with wealth and copious possessions, and set over it as abbot Bentigradus, his paternal uncle, and the maternal uncle of duke Rodoald.

[7] If here by duke Rodoald is understood Rodoald, on the occasion of which fourth duke of the Beneventans, the immediate predecessor of Grimoald, the word Patruus or Avunculus is taken in an improper signification, so that each signifies either the father's brother or the mother's brother; for since in the proper signification the one signifies only the father's brother, the other only the mother's brother, and Grimoald and Rodoald, fourth duke of the Beneventans, were brothers, as Paul the deacon witnesses, it cannot be, as will be plain to one who considers it, that of these two brothers the one had Bentigradus as father's brother, and the other as mother's brother, and that whether they were or were not brothers born of the same father and the same mother. There are also certain other things to be noted in the recited history of the translation of our Saint. I take my beginning from these words: On the day before the Ides, that is, the 12th, of February, which is his (St. Modestus's) heavenly birthday in the temple dedicated to him; and I assert that by them perhaps is signified that on the 12th day of February in the temple dedicated to our Saint is celebrated his day, not his heavenly birthday, or that on which, having died a happy death for Christ, he was first born into heaven, but that of the translation, which is perhaps here called the heavenly birthday of our Saint in the temple dedicated to him, into which he was then first translated, in much the same way in which the day on which the Saints, by their blessed departure from life, are first transferred from earth into heaven is usually called their heavenly birthday in heaven. I expound the cited words thus for this reason, that Ferrari, with whom Mario Vipera, who announces our Saint at this day in the Catalogue of the Saints of the church of Benevento and asserts in the Chronology of the bishops of the church of Benevento that he is venerated with an annual solemnity, by no means disagrees, expressly declares that his heavenly birthday is celebrated by the church of Benevento not on the 12th of February but on the 2nd of October, on which he was in fact crowned with martyrdom, as is clear from what has already been said.

[8] But if nevertheless this interpretation displeases anyone, let him see certain things are observed, whether it is better to say that there has been an error in the narrative of the translation, and that one must read not the day before the Ides of February, that is, the 12th of that month, but the sixth day before the Nones of October, that is, the 2nd of this month. Mario Vipera himself seems to me certainly to have suspected this, although he does not advise the reader of his suspicion: for, even though he had referred the translation of St. Modestus made in the year 649 to the 12th of February in the Catalogue of the Saints of the church of Benevento, he nevertheless asserts, in the cited Chronology of the bishops of the same church, published by him in print in the year immediately following that in which he had brought out the said catalogue, at the year 649, page 27, that he was translated by the bishop of Benevento into the newly built church and entombed under an altar specially dedicated to his name on the 2nd of October. And although he offers no reason for his assertion, he perhaps grounds himself on this, that the day on which in the cited Acts of the translation the translation is asserted to have been made is expressly called the heavenly birthday of St. Modestus, which, as the elogium given in no. 2 shows, is the second day of October; and it could easily have come about that some smatterer, who wrote the ancient codex which the same Vipera had cited in the said catalogue of the Saints, in place of the second day of October, which was marked in the autograph, noted the 12th of February in the copy for this reason, that he knew that on that day the translation of our Saint was celebrated with some special cult. But if, as could have happened, this was in fact done, both the nativity of our Saint in heaven and likewise the translation of his body on earth took place on the second day of October, and therefore in the History of the translation one will have to read not the day before the Ides of February, but the sixth day before the Nones of October, and these words: Which is his (Modestus's) heavenly birthday in the temple dedicated to him, will take on not that sense which I assigned in the preceding number, but this more natural and obvious one: Which is the day on which his heavenly birthday is celebrated in the temple dedicated to him. Nor is there reason for you to object that the translation, since it is celebrated only on the 12th day of February, was undoubtedly not made on the 2nd of October; for it is now commonly known that the translations of the Saints are not always celebrated on the days on which they were made, but also on others assumed at pleasure, which without doubt can obtain when some church celebrates the same Saint twice in the year, and his translation and nativity, as perhaps happens with St. Modestus, fall on the same day. I proceed now to the chronological characters which occur in the cited narrative of the translation, so that from them, according as they either agree or disagree with the things narrated, some judgment may be passed on the credibility of the narrative.

[9] and there is a discussion of the dukedom of Benevento of Zotto, which not later, The year of Christ 591, in which our Saint is noted to have been translated from the City, namely Rome, to Benevento, agrees exceedingly well with the Pontificate of Gregory the Great and the Beneventan dukedom of Arechis, or, as others call him, Arogis, second duke of the Beneventans. For Gregory the Great, as may be seen in Baronius in the Annals, in Papebroch in the Chronico-historical Essay on the Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, and in others, occupied the chair of St. Peter from the year 590 until the year 604; and Arechis, who, as Paul the deacon witnesses, book 4, chapter 46, presided as duke over the Beneventans for 50 years, held the dukedom of Benevento either from the year 588 until the year 638, if, as Erchempert in the Catalogue of the dukes of Benevento (if indeed that catalogue of the dukes is Erchempert's) openly relates, Zotto, the immediate predecessor of Arechis, began to administer that dukedom, which, as Paul the deacon again witnesses, book 3, chapter 34, he held for 20 years, in the very year 568 in which the Lombards, as Paul the deacon witnesses in book 2 of the Deeds of the Lombards, chapter 7, entered Italy; or from the year 591 until the year 641, if from Leo of Ostia, book 1 of the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, chapter 48, the beginning of the Beneventan dukedom entered upon by Zotto is to be fixed to the year of Christ 571. The former opinion concerning the time at which Zotto began the Beneventan dukedom Antonio Caracciolo confutes in the Propylaea to the four chronologers published by him; the latter, which Bolland approaches most nearly in tome 2 of February, pages 318 and 319, he confirms with many arguments. Camillo Pellegrino, in part 1 of book 2 of the History which he wrote concerning the Lombard princes, attempts to open a way of bringing both into concord; but whether this or that opinion is true, Arechis will thus at any rate have been duke of the Beneventans in the year 591, which is altogether required for the present purpose.

[10] I say meanwhile that, if not earlier with Bolland and others, certainly not later than the year 571, or at the most 572, can the beginning of the Beneventan dukedom entered upon by Zotto be set, than the year 571 is to be fixed, is shown from Gregory the Great, which also which is shown clearly even by the sole authority of St. Gregory the Pope. For he, in the letter formerly 32 of book 2 of the Register, now 46, namely in the Paris edition of the Works of St. Gregory of the year 1705, writing to John, Bishop of Ravenna, signifies that Arigis or Arechis had joined himself with Ariulf, probably that one who, as Paul the deacon witnesses, book 4, chapter 17, was duke of the Lombards at Spoleto, and had laid many snares for the city of Naples. And this letter is noted as written in Indiction X: wherefore, since St. Gregory the Great sat from the year 590, as we have already seen, until the year 604, and used in his letters the Constantinopolitan or Greek Indiction, which takes its beginning from the Kalends of September, it will become plain to one who calculates that the year of Gregory marked with Indiction X without doubt designates either the year of Christ 591 already advanced to the month of September, or 592 not yet advanced to the month of September, so that the cited letter was written in one or the other year; wherefore, since Gregory in it speaks of Arechis or Arigis as of a duke, it follows that he was duke of the Beneventans in the year 591 or certainly 592, and therefore that Zotto, who held the dukedom at Benevento for 20 years and immediately preceded Arechis, if not earlier, certainly not later than in the year 571 or 572 entered upon the dukedom of Benevento, since, the 20 years in which he presided over the Beneventans being subtracted from 591 or 592, one goes back to the year 571 or 572.

[11] Further, since nothing occurs that is an impediment from the history of the translation, but only then, when the error, to the beginning of the dukedom of Zotto, which, as was said above, lasted 20 years, being set even in the year 571 not yet advanced to July, and, this done, it is rightly understood that Arechis could have held the dukedom of Benevento in the year 591 before the 3rd of the month of July, on which day and year our Saint is indicated in the history of the translation to have been translated, Arechis being duke of Benevento, I should indeed assign that epoch to the beginning of the dukedom of Zotto, unless an earlier one had to be set, relying firmly on the cited history of the translation, provided that it procured sufficiently firm credit for the things it contains, from either the age or the authority of its author and the other requisites. But besides the fact that that author, equally with the time at which he wrote, is in obscurity, the credibility of that history can be somewhat weakened from another quarter. I should not wish, however, to adduce to this end the suspicion treated of in no. 8: for this rests on too weak a foundation for me to think that on account of it one must either firmly adhere to the very thing about which it turns, or deny credit to the other circumstances. Something more certain than a suspicion occurs, namely an error most openly committed in the cited history, which certainly brings it about that something is taken away from its credibility; and that error consists in this, that it joins the Pontificate of Honorius the first with the year of Christ 649 and with the dukedom of Grimoald, fifth duke of the Beneventans; and that the Pontificate of Honorius the first can in no way be joined with the year of Christ 649 and with the dukedom of Grimoald will become plain from what is presently to be said.

[12] For since Paul the deacon, often cited, book 4, chapter 46, attributes in the Beneventan dukedom 50 years to Arechis, one year with five months to Aio, which crept into it, and 5 years to Rodoald, besides whom and the one immediately preceding no one ruled at Benevento between Arechis and Grimoald, it follows that between the dukedom of Benevento entered upon by Arechis and that entered upon by Grimoald 56 years intervene; and since 56 years added to 591 years, in the last of which, if at least not a little earlier, Arechis probably began to rule the dukedom of Benevento, bring us to the year 647, it follows that Grimoald did not enter upon the dukedom of Benevento before that year, and that it therefore cannot fit into the Pontificate of Honorius the first, which had already been ended before the year 640 by the death of the same Pontiff; for Honorius the first, as is understood from the authors cited above for the Pontificate of Gregory the Great and from others, was ordained Pontiff in the year 626, and departed from the living long before the year 640, whence it is also clear that his Pontificate, which is my other assertion, is wrongly combined with the year of Christ 649.

[13] would be due solely to the carelessness of copyists Nevertheless, the fact that the name of Honorius the first is found inserted into the recited history of the translation with an error so open against the true chronology is perhaps to be attributed solely to the carelessness of the copyists, who, although in the autograph which they had before their eyes the name of Theodore the first was had, nevertheless, because it was either somewhat eaten away by age, or at least was expressed too obscurely to be read rightly, hastily put that of Honorius the first; certainly, if in the oft-cited history of the translation Theodore the first is substituted for Honorius the first, it will retain nothing further (for I do not here dwell on the suspicion proposed in no. 8) that does not agree with the right chronology. For since Theodore the first, as again is established from Baronius and Papebroch, cited, sat from the year 642 until 649, and died in it not earlier than after the month of February, it will become plain to one who considers what has already been said that the Beneventan dukedom of Grimoald, and the year 649, in which our Saint is related to have been translated on the 12th of February from the monastery of St. Mary at Olivola into the temple newly built and dedicated to him, are most rightly combined with the Pontificate of Theodore the first, which alone is required for the truth of my latter assertion.

[14] to be ascribed, it could be confirmed in some measure. Wherefore, if in truth, not by the error of the author, but only by the carelessness of the copyists, which is not improbable, the name of Honorius the first has been put in the cited narrative in place of that of Theodore the first, the chief reason is removed on account of which one could deservedly doubt the truth of the things it records, and from it even the opinion of those is confirmed who think that the beginning of the dukedom of Zotto is to be put off not later than the year 571, and that of Arechis not later than the year 591. For although the author of the Acts of the translation

narrates a twofold translation of our Saint, the one made in the year 591, the other in the year 649, and therefore wrote at least 58 years after the former translation, nevertheless he seems to me either nearly contemporary with the latter translation, or certainly, since he employs chronological characters agreeing exceedingly well with the things he commits to writing, which otherwise he would not easily have done, to have been removed from it by only so great an interval of time that he could not be prevented from learning by hearing the circumstances of the said latter translation from those very persons who had seen it, and those of the former from those who had received it from their parents by a tradition then first begun, and from consigning them to writing for the memory of posterity.

[15] However, besides the better-known persons of Gregory the Great and Honorius the first, Other things on the less-known persons, Roman Pontiffs, Arechis or Arogis and Grimoald, dukes of the Beneventans, and Rodoald, perhaps also a duke of the Beneventans, occurring in the very often cited narrative of the translation, of whom we have already treated, there occur besides the less-known persons of Linianus the second and Ildebrand, bishops of the church of Benevento, of Duda Parda, a most noble woman of Benevento, who built a temple to our Saint, and finally of Bentigradus, abbot of the Beneventan monastery of St. Mary at Olivola; concerning whom I have been able to find absolutely nothing in all the writers of Italian affairs, at least those I have seen, just as I could find nothing further, besides what has already been said, pertaining either to the glory or to the cult of St. Modestus, although a diligent examination was undertaken: the often-cited Mario della Vipera, however, in the Chronology of the bishops of the church of Benevento, assigns to Linianus II the 30th place among the bishops of Benevento, and to Ildebrand, who he asserts flourished in the year of the Lord 622, the 32nd, and cites for Linianus indeed nothing other than the Acts of the translation of our Saint, which he affirms were preserved up to his own times in the monastery of St. Modestus in a manuscript codex in Lombardic letters; and for Ildebrand, from the library of Benevento, Fascicle 5 of ancient writings, no. 15.

[16] It does not bear on our purpose which number among the bishops of the Beneventans Linianus was, or which Ildebrand; but since the cited Vipera intimates in the cited Chronology that the latter was already sitting in the see of Benevento in the year 622, which occur here, are observed. and the Acts of the translation of St. Modestus imply that he was still sitting in the year 649, it is required for the truth of those Acts that Ildebrand sat in the see of Benevento, as will be plain to one who calculates, for at least 27 years: and indeed he would have sat, as again will be plain to one who calculates, for far more still, namely forty-one, if only those things are true which Vipera affirms, namely that he was already prelate of the church of Benevento from the year 622, and had for his immediate successor St. Barbatus, of whom we have treated at the 19th day of February, and it was proved that he was raised to the see of Benevento only in the year 663, about the 20th of March: I said, If only those things are true which Vipera affirms: for it can be doubted whether he did not draw his assertions from monuments ancient indeed, but corrupt, whose fault he did not notice, as happened to him in the Acts of the translation of our Saint, deceived by which he places Honorius the first, who, as we have seen above, is most certainly established to have died before the year 640, without hesitation still among the living in the year 649, in the cited Chronology of the bishops of the church of Benevento, page 27.

* consummavit consummated

* perhaps ibi there