Gerard

ON ST. GERARD, ABBOT OF BROGNE IN THE COUNTY OF NAMUR IN BELGIUM,

IN THE YEAR 959.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Gerard, abbot of Brogne in the county of Namur in Belgium. (S.) BHL Number: 3423

BY C. B.

§ I. Announcement of the Saint in the sacred Fasti, ecclesiastical cult, the Life to be edited.

What sometimes befalls us, namely that it is most difficult to determine whether the Saints whose Acts come to be elucidated are entered in the Classical Martyrologies, The Saint, in the sacred Fasti both general gives no trouble here to us who are about to illustrate the Life of St. Gerard. For Bede, Ado and all the others to a man who compiled those more ancient Martyrologies are earlier than the tenth century; whereas Gerard, born when the ninth century had already almost elapsed, was not illustrious by the fame of sanctity before the tenth century. Hence it becomes undoubted that he not only is not celebrated by them, but could not even have been celebrated in the sacred Fasti which they composed. But the commemoration of the Saint which you would therefore seek in vain in these, you will find recorded here and there in almost all the less ancient Martyrologies and Hagiologies. Greven, Molanus, Galesini, Maurolico, du Saussay, Chastelain and a good many others announce Gerard on this day with unanimous consent in their Martyrologies or Hagiologies; to whom our manuscript Florarium and the present Roman Martyrology also accede. To transcribe the announcements of all here would be prolix; nor do I think it worth the trouble. For they furnish nothing which will not become more clearly known from what we shall draw out below from other sources. I therefore write out only the rather brief announcement of the present Roman Martyrology. It is couched in these words: Among the Belgae, in the diocese of Namur, of St. Gerard, abbot.

[2] And so now indeed you have by whom, chiefly in the more general sacred Fasti, which are wont to commemorate Saints of every profession and state, St. Gerard is announced on this day. and in particular ones, I now add also those more restricted Fasti, destined for celebrating only the Saints of some definite institute, in which the name of the Saint is likewise entered. Thus Dorgain, Wion and other Benedictine hagiologists, in the sacred Fasti which they composed for recording only the Saints of their Order, also unanimously announce St. Gerard on this day, and that surely not undeservedly, since the Saint, according to what will be said, was beyond all doubt a monk of the Benedictine institute. Their announcements too, since they likewise contain nothing that should be recorded here in advance, I do not transcribe here. Nor is the Saint celebrated on this day only in the sacred Fasti of the Benedictines, but also by Ghini, a canon Regular, in the Birthdays of the Saints of the canons Regular; which, since Gerard, according to what will be said, most certainly did not profess as a canon Regular, will perhaps seem strange to some. For it was not Ghini's purpose, as they will perhaps think, to enumerate Saints other than those who were canons Regular by institute and profession. Yet that there is not lacking a reason why that hagiologist does so, everyone, as far as I think, will easily understand from the eulogy with which he adorns the Saint. It pleases me therefore to transcribe it here.

[3] is announced on this day, It runs thus: Among the Belgae, of the diocese of Namur, of St. Gerard, abbot, who, admonished by a divine vision, built the monastery of Brogne, where he first instituted canons, and brought from the monastery of St. Denis of Paris (where he learned the Regular life and letters and was made a priest) relics of St. Eugenius, bishop and martyr, and of other Saints. From which monastery afterwards, and from the monasteries of St. Bertin and of St. Amand at Ghent, he either removed the clerics or reformed them to a right rule of living. He himself, a lover of quiet, having left the rich monasteries over which he had been ordered to preside, returned to Brogne, and, serving the Lord with all his strength, fell asleep in peace in the year of the Lord 958, and both living and dead shone with signs. Ghini therefore seems to reckon Gerard among the holy canons for this reason, that by him canons (the Life to be edited calls them clerics living according to the canonical manner) were first instituted at Brogne, and canons, or clerics, were either removed from some monasteries or recalled to a right norm of living. Hence, namely, he counted Gerard among those who deserved well of the canonical Order, and accordingly granted him a place in the sacred Fasti compiled by himself; for he also from time to time honours other Saints with this honour for the same reason, as he advises the reader in the fourth Note of his Preface. From the commemoration of the Saint now proved in the sacred Fasti I proceed likewise to prove his ecclesiastical cult.

[4] [and in the diocese of Namur with an ecclesiastical Office, in which he has three Lessons proper to himself,] I have in my hands the Proper Offices of the feasts of the diocese of Namur, drawn up after the form of the Roman Breviary. In these, on the third day of October, an Office of St. Gerard, abbot, is set down to be recited under double rite; and in this the Saint has three Lessons of the second Nocturn proper to himself, drawn for the most part from the Life to be edited and contracted into a summary. These, therefore, so that I may present to the studious reader at the very threshold of this Commentary a summary notice of what the Saint did, I transcribe here entire. The first is couched in these words: The man of the Lord, Gerard, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but more distinguished by the integrity of his morals and life, was begotten at Stave, a village of the territory of Lomme, of his father Stantius, of the lineage of Hagano, duke of the Austrasians, and of his mother Plectrude, sister of Stephen, bishop of the Tungri. From his earliest age wonderfully devoted to the pursuit of piety, avoiding the company of the wicked, he formed his mind with assiduous prayers and with salutary admonitions, which he drew from the sacred sermons at which he was frequently present. He was endowed with such prudence in conducting affairs that Berengar, count of Namur, entrusted to him above others all the more difficult and more secret matters; so that the government of the whole county depended on his judgment: and for that reason the count rarely suffered him to be absent from his presence. The second in these: Hence, when one day the same count had gone hunting with his people according to the custom of the nobles, and had taken the holy Man with him, and the hour for dining was already calling them home, Gerard, putting spiritual things before bodily, with the count's good leave went to the nearby church of Brogne, which with certain adjacent estates had devolved upon him by hereditary right, in order to be present there at the divine mysteries.

[5] But while the priest who was to perform them is being awaited, transcribed here, sleep falling upon him from heaven, he is taught by a heavenly vision to build an oratory in that place. Having built it without delay, and endowed it with ample revenues from his estates, he instituted there a fellowship of clerics. Meanwhile he remains anxious by what means he might obtain the sacred relics of blessed Eugenius, bishop and martyr, which the Prince of the Apostles had promised him in the vision. And the third, finally, in these: While he was frequently turning this thought over, it opportunely befell him that he himself was sent by Count Berengar as envoy into the Gauls, where with the greatest joy he learned that the said relics of St. Eugenius were preserved in the monastery of blessed Denis. Wherefore, matters having been accomplished to his mind and the embassy completed, bidding farewell to the world and to the count, he put on the monastic habit near Paris in the same monastery of St. Denis: where, like a boy of five years, he learned the first elements of letters, and gradually reached the rank of priest in the ninth year from his conversion. Meanwhile the holy Man, adorned with all virtues to the amazement of the brethren, having set forth the course of his vision to the brethren called together in one place, obtained the sacred pledges of Eugenius for the church of Brogne. Then at once, taking with him some religious of his profession, he returned to Brogne, and there substituted the institute of monks for that of clerics. Finally, after he had, Christ being the author, performed renowned miracles while living, and had been father and abbot of eighteen monasteries, and had administered all things in them with most watchful care, being taught by revelation of the divine Spirit concerning the day of his death, having left the richer monasteries over which he presided, he withdrew to the beloved poverty of the monastery of Brogne, and there, after labours pleasing to God, in the nine hundred and fifty-eighth year he happily rested in the Lord.

[6] Further, among our literary stock there are also extant two Propers of the cathedral church of St. Bavo of Ghent, [he is venerated every year, as also in the cathedral church of St. Bavo at Ghent.] of which one was printed at Ghent in the year 1572, the other, but altered and drawn up after the form of the Roman Breviary, at Antwerp in the year 1661. In the former, on the third day of October, neither an Office of St. Gerard to be recited nor a commemoration to be made is prescribed; but in the latter an Office is set down to be recited under greater double rite, in which the Saint likewise has three Lessons of the second Nocturn proper to himself. Therefore he is solemnly venerated every year not only in the diocese of Namur but also in the cathedral church of St. Bavo at Ghent. Moreover, the great celebrity of name, and the fame of sanctity, which Gerard enjoys, also make me scarcely doubt that the same is likewise done in some other churches both of Belgium and of France. But it does not please me to inquire into all these, since the ecclesiastical cult of the Saint has now been more than sufficiently proved. For the rest, the three Lessons of the said cathedral church of St. Bavo agree in most things with those of Namur already recited; the third, however, which is sixth in order in the Office, has this peculiarity, that it expressly records the things which St. Gerard did pertaining to the monastery of Bavo, and which are only indicated in general in the Namur Lessons. Here are the words: Him (St. Gerard) afterwards Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, set as the twentieth abbot over the monastery of St. Bavo, which had been restored by himself. He, having miraculously freed the said count and the prelate of the monastery of St. Bertin from the most bitter pain of the stone, and having laudably presided over the monastery of St. Bavo for fifteen years, more or less, resigned the prelacy to a certain Hugh, a pious monk of the same monastery.

[7] Mabillon's judgment on the Life to be edited, Some things could here be observed on the Lessons of the Saint, both those of Namur and those of Ghent; but whatever in these needs to be illustrated or corrected will receive light and correction at the same time from what it shall seem good to observe, for the sake of elucidation or comment, in the course of this Commentary on the Life to be edited, from which almost alone, as I have already noted, they have been drawn. Before I proceed to that, since I have already fallen into discourse about the Life to be edited, it pleases me first to discuss now what and of what kind it is, and by what author written. Mabillon, in the fifth Benedictine Century, published in print the Life of St. Gerard from two manuscript copies, of which he had received one from our Papebroch, the other from the Brogne Codex, preserving the genuine style which Surius had altered, and cutting off one of the two prologues which it had; and in the preliminary Observation, at num. 1, he writes this: Two authors committed to writing the deeds of St. Gerard, each anonymous: of whom the more ancient is known only from the first prologue of the Life which we here edit. Since he had composed a discourse grammatically correct indeed, yet not sufficiently clear to the unlettered and to those of less capacity, the other anonymous author, at the exhortation of Abbot Gunter, undertook a new Work in other words, such as we here give, since the other is believed to have perished completely. It were to be wished that the later anonymous had left the primary author pure and unmixed, for he sometimes speaks less aptly, and introduces others speaking. Yet he deserves entire credit in recounting the facts, which he received partly by himself from eyewitnesses, partly from the earlier anonymous.

[8] the age of the biographer Such is Mabillon's verdict on the later biographer of Gerard, whose composition he edits; which I think surely fair enough, nor do I find among the learned anyone who has gone over to the contrary opinion. But what he hints, that that writer received what he writes either from eyewitnesses or from the earlier anonymous, ought not to be understood as regards everything, on account of what will be said in the course of this Commentary: since, however, he had the earlier anonymous, as is clear from the Prologue, shining before him, it becomes most probable that he received some things from him; and some things he probably also received from eyewitnesses. That it may be plain that he did this, or certainly could have done it, let us inquire into his age. He worked out his composition on St. Gerard at the order of Abbot Gunter, as he indicates in the first Prologue. Hence the praised Mabillon, in order to assign his age, continues thus in the preliminary Observation just mentioned, at num. 2: Gunter, at whose command the later anonymous wrote, was acting as abbot at Brogne in the year MXXXI, as Molanus testifies. Fisen * agrees in the Flores Leodienses, where he presents a Catalogue of the abbots of Brogne; in which after Gerard is placed Heribert, who died in the year CMXCVIII, then Guinebald, and in the third place Gunter, in these words: "Gunther caused the Life of St. Gerard to be written, and the church, which he himself had built more magnificently, to be dedicated in the year MXXXVIII. He died in the year MLXII." Since, therefore, according to these words, Gunter acted as abbot at Brogne from the year 1031 up to the year 1062, it is necessary that the later anonymous writer of the Life of St. Gerard, since he wrote it at the order of Abbot Gunter, lived between those two limits, and composed the work in which he comprised the Life of our Saint.

[9] Certain passages, however, says Mabillon in the place just cited, or the time at which he wrote. of the anonymous (namely the later) seem to be opposed to this reckoning. Namely that he speaks of Lietald, abbot of Mouzon, who died in the year CMXCVII, as of one surviving, at num. 12 (with us num. 23): "If this raises any ambiguity for anyone, let him inquire of Abbot Lietald." To the same must be drawn what is read at num. 19 (with us 39) of Rainer the second, Longneck, count of the Hainaulters, "who even now," he says, "is in exile in unknown regions." For he does not seem to have prolonged his life beyond the year CMLXXXV. On the other hand the anonymous (namely the later), at num. 28 (with us 70), treating of the number of monasteries which Gerard recalled to stricter laws, says that he received this from his elders, and at num. 29 (with us 72), where he speaks of the warlike tumults that arose in the time of Gerard, cites the Chronology of the earlier men, that is, of the elders. Which words do not well suit a contemporary author. Therefore, these things having been weighed, it is more probable that he wrote about the year MXXXV, and that what he says of Abbot Lietald and Count Rainer he related in the person of the earlier anonymous (which not rarely befalls interpolators of this kind, as we have noted elsewhere). Surely I do not see what else could be answered sufficiently plausibly to this difficulty which Mabillon here raises against himself from the later anonymous, unless perhaps someone should wish that what he says about Abbot Lietald and Count Rainer was intruded into the anonymous's text by an interpolator. However that may be, since, according to what has been said, Gunter presided as abbot over the monastery of Brogne from the year 1031 up to the year 1062, and the later anonymous wrote the Life of Gerard at his order, he without doubt wrote it between those two limits, and more probably indeed either about the year 1035, as Mabillon would have it, or rather about the year 1038; for in the Catalogue of the abbots of Brogne which Mabillon praises above, Gunter is asserted to have caused the church of Brogne to be dedicated in this year; and it is very credible that he caused the Life of Gerard, which according to what has been said he ordered to be written, to be written on the occasion of that dedication.

[10] Hence now partly, and partly from the age of our Saint, the things cannot stand He was neither Odo, abbot of Cluny, which Baronius, in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology at this

day, thought concerning the writer who committed to writing the Life of Gerard, abbot of Brogne, at the order of Abbot Gunter, writing thus: His (St. Gerard's, abbot of Brogne) Acts are extant, written to Abbot Gunther, which Surius recites in volume 5. Trithemius testifies in his book on Ecclesiastical Writers that St. Odo, abbot of Cluny, wrote a Life of St. Gerard. Peter the deacon of Cassino, in the book on the Illustrious Men of the monastery of Cassino, chap. 32, relates that a Life of St. Gerard, confessor, was written by Gregory, bishop of Terracina. The one, therefore, which Surius recites seems rather to be attributed to the aforesaid Gregory than to the other: for since it is had woven partly in prose and partly also in verses, it seems rather to be his writing; since the same author testifies that many things were written by him in verse. By which words Baronius means that the Life of St. Gerard which, written to Abbot Gunther, is extant in Surius, has as its author either St. Odo, abbot of Cluny, or Gregory, bishop of Terracina; and moreover that it seems to be attributed rather not to Odo but to Gregory. But that composition does not seem able to be ascribed either to the one or to the other. And first indeed, that it was not worked out by Odo becomes plain from his age and that of St. Gerard. Mabillon, in the fifth Benedictine Century, part one, furnishes a long and at the same time accurate eulogy of St. Odo, abbot of Cluny; and Odo, as the praised writer proves in the same place, departed from the living in the year 942. Wherefore, since, according to what will be said, St. Gerard died in the year 959, Odo cannot have committed to writing the aforesaid Life of the Saint, in which he is related both to have died in the said year 959 and to have done many things whose epoch is to be placed after the year 942. In the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis there is extant, written under the name of St. Odo, abbot of Cluny, a Life of St. Gerald, confessor, count of Aurillac, who, as is observed in the Annotations in the same place, departed from the living in the year 907. That very Life of this Gerald or Gerard, written by Odo, is without doubt what is mentioned by Trithemius in the Work cited by Baronius; for he makes mention of only one Gerard whose Life Odo wrote.

[11] nor Gregory, bishop of Terracina, As now regards Gregory, bishop of Terracina, it is most probable that he too did not write the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, which in Surius is dedicated to Gunther. The Opusculum of Peter the deacon on the Illustrious Men of Cassino is extant inserted in volume 6 of the Writers of Italian Affairs; and to its thirty-second chapter is subjoined an Annotation, in which it is observed thus concerning Gregory, bishop of Terracina: He was present at the council of Guastalla in the year 1106. The same subscribed a certain Bull granted to the church of Pisa in the year 1126. To this year, therefore, certainly, if not longer, Gregory, bishop of Terracina, prolonged his life. Wherefore, since, according to what has been said, the Life of St. Gerard which in Surius is dedicated to Abbot Gunther was more probably written about the year 1035 or 1038, it cannot have Gregory, bishop of Terracina, as its author, unless one should wish that he was a centenarian or even more than a centenarian; for Gregory cannot have reached a less advanced age if he be the author of that Life, written in the year 1035 or 1038. For on this hypothesis he would have been in the year 1035 at least twenty years old, and according to what has been said he prolonged his life at least to the year 1126. Since, therefore, it appears less probable that Gregory became of so advanced an age, less probable too is rendered the opinion of Baronius about the Life of Gerard written by him, in which it is necessary that Gregory reached that less probable age. Moreover Gregory, before he was promoted to the mitre of Terracina, was a monk of Monte Cassino, as Peter the deacon insinuates in the words soon to be given. Whence also it comes about that it appears little probable that he is the author of the aforementioned Life, which was written at the order of Gunther, abbot of the monastery of Brogne, situated very far distant from Monte Cassino.

[12] And indeed Peter the deacon, in the place cited by Baronius, writes only thus: is proved, Gregory, bishop of Terracina, he too offered as a little child at Cassino, tenacious of memory, lively of wit, was of such gravity, sweetness and eloquence that he was called by some a pillar of the Church. He wrote the Passion of Sts. Castus and Cassius: the Passion of St. Restituta, virgin: the Life of St. Gerard, confessor of Christ: for the truth of which words it is not at all required that Gregory committed to writing the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, which was inscribed to Abbot Gunther. For he could have written another Life of St. Gerard, which has now perished. Moreover it may also be that he worked out the Life of a St. Gerard, confessor, who is distinct from the one of Brogne. On the eleventh day of August, in our Work, there was treatment of St. Gerard, confessor, who is venerated at the castle of Gallinaro in the diocese of Sora in Italy; and there, to the Preliminary Commentary, are subjoined Acts which are noted as written by an uncertain author. Gregory was perhaps their author: certainly the age of that Gerard, who ended his life about the year eleven hundred, does not prevent its being believed. Moreover, Sts. Castus and Cassius, as also St. Restituta, virgin, the Life or Passion of which Saints Gregory, bishop of Terracina, also described, are likewise venerated in the diocese of Sora, in which is the Gerard just mentioned. Consult the chapter of Peter the Deacon praised above, and the Annotation subjoined to it.

[13] However that may be, that the Life of our Gerard, [and consequently the Life of the Saint is edited under the name of an anonymous author.] dedicated to Abbot Gunther, was not written by Gregory, bishop of Terracina, has now, as far as I think, been made most probable to everyone from what has been said. And indeed this appears to me even certain, if only from the fact that the author of this Life, since he wrote it at the order of the abbot of Brogne, seems to have been a monk of Brogne. Wherefore, since that composition can be attributed neither to Odo, abbot of Cluny, nor to any other definite writer, we shall append it to this Commentary from Mabillon's edition under the name of an anonymous author, who according to what has been said seems to have been a monk of Brogne, adding according to custom Annotations by which obscure things may be elucidated and those corrected which are to be corrected, where this has not been sufficiently done in the Commentary. We shall, however, employ a division into chapters and numbers other than Mabillon's, and the Appendix which he subjoined here to the Life we shall insert into the Commentary, where there will be discourse about the sacred relics brought by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. For the rest, there is also in our possession a briefer manuscript Life of Gerard; but this we shall not edit, because it is of very little value, since, besides what it wrongly relates, as will become plain from what will be said, about Gerard's lineage from Salm and about Count Berengar, it presents only a certain imperfect summary of the Life to be edited, written by a more recent author, as is clear from this clause with which it ends: Now the abbatial dignity of Brogne is annexed to the bishopric of Namur.

* Fisenus

§ II. The Saint's native place, time of birth, parents, military service with Count Berengar, zeal for piety and virtue in his early age.

The county of Lomme or Lomacum, from a more recent The man, therefore, says the anonymous writer of the Life to be edited at num. 1, the man of the Lord, the lord abbot Gerard, wonderfully apt for carrying out gerendis the commands of the Lord, nay worthy in all things of the heavenly hierarchy of a sacred principality, as we have ascertained by the report of truthful men, was sprung from freeborn and orthodox parents at Stave, a village of the territory of Lomme. He shone indeed with illustrious birth, but gleamed more splendidly with probity of morals. His father Stantius was born of the lineage of Hagano, duke of the Austrasians; and his mother, named Plectrude, is related to have been the full sister of the lord Stephen, bishop of the Tungri. By which words we distinctly learn both the Saint's native place and also his parents. The territory of Lomme, in which this anonymous author places Gerard's native place, is not of one and the same extent and situation among all writers. You would scarcely find one who defines its limits accurately enough. Meanwhile I have found no one hitherto who speaks more accurately about these and about the whole territory of Lomme, which is sometimes also written Lomense, Laumense and Lummense, than Jean-Baptiste de Marne, priest of the Society of Jesus, in the most recent History of the county of Namur, which he published in the year 1754. From him, therefore, it pleases me to give here a notice of that region which will be very useful.

[15] notice from the History of Namur. Thus in the Preface which he prefixes to his History of Namur, in French words rendered by me into Latin, he has thus: The county of Namur, such as it now is, in the tenth century constituted the county of Lomme, then called by the name of the pagus of Lomme, the county of Lomacum, and part of the county (pagus) of Darnau. Few writers have spoken exactly about these two counties. Some, like the learned Adrien de Valois and Calmet, have confused the ancient county of Lomme with the county of Loon; others have thought it enough to say in general that it is not different from the present county of Namur. All this is not exact, as neither is the notice of it which a present-day historian has suggested, saying that it is more probable that that region was situated between the Sambre and the Meuse towards St. Gerard. The pagus or county of Lomme was in fact situated between the Meuse and the Sambre; but it also extended much beyond those two rivers. It had for its limits Hainaut, Thiérache, the Fagne, the Famenne, the Condroz, ancient Hesbaye and the ancient county of Brabant. For it is to be observed that the county of Darnau, which extended from the Sambre beyond Gembloux along the length of the little river called Ornau, from which it drew its name, depended on the county of Lomme, although afterwards it was torn away from it, at least in part. Therefore the county of Lomme in its length embraced the region lying between Walhain, placed at the borders of the county of Darnau, and Rouvignies on the Meuse above Givet; and in breadth the interval between Gerpinnes and the village of Corbion, a little distant from Ciney. Perhaps also it extended on the East and on the South beyond the limits which we assign to it.

[16] Thus far the praised de Marne, who then refers to the inquiries into the county of Lomme which he subjoined at the end of his History of Namur. as also of the village situated in that county, in which the Saint To these, therefore, I likewise refer, for brevity's sake, the curious reader who desires more about the county of Lomme or Lomacum. I proceed now to Stave, a township or village of this county, from which the biographer writes that Gerard was sprung. That village, as Mabillon observes in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, is most free and noble, is commonly called Staves, or, as others write, Stave, and is distant about two leagues' journey from the monastery of Brogne. It is found marked everywhere on all the Geographical Maps presenting the county of Namur. Whence anyone will easily find in what place the Saint's native place is situated. Let us now examine by whom and of what kind of parents he was begotten. They were freeborn and orthodox, and also distinguished by illustrious birth. And the father indeed, who had the name Stantius, or, as some write, Stantio, was born of the lineage of Hagano, duke of the Austrasians; while the mother, whose name was Plectrude, is said to have been the full sister of Stephen, bishop of Tongres or Liège.

[17] All these things are taught by the words of the preceding number

transcribed here by the Saint's anonymous biographer. he was begotten of the stock of Duke Hagano; The Saint, therefore, through his father Stantius, was of the same family from which Hagano, duke of the Austrasians, came; and through his mother Plectrude he had as maternal uncle Stephen, bishop of the Tungri or of Liège. But, you will say, who and of what kind was Hagano, who Stephen? Mabillon, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, writes thus of Hagano: He is the Count Hagano who subscribed the pact concluded between Charles the Simple and Henry, king of Germany, in the year 924. I do not know whether he is the same as Hagano, counsellor of the Charles just mentioned, whom from among men of middling rank he had made powerful, as Flodoard says in his Chronicle at the year 920. But if what Mabillon doubtfully hints in these words about Hagano agrees with the truth, it follows that St. Gerard has on his father's side a less illustrious origin than is commonly wont to be attributed to him. But it can not undeservedly be doubted whether the Count Hagano who subscribed the pact between the kings Charles and Henry is the same as the Hagano from whose lineage Stantius, St. Gerard's father, is asserted by our biographer to have been born. For the Hagano who subscribed the said pact was only a count; whereas Hagano, the Saint's father, is called a duke by the biographer.

[18] Further, if we should wish to believe Giles, monk of Orval, in what he added to Anselm on the deeds of the Pontiffs of Liège, [Yet he was not the son of the count of Namur, nor of the lineage of the counts of Salm] St. Gerard was the son of the count of Namur. In vol. 1, book 2, chap. 40 he has thus: In the times of his (Stephen's, bishop of the Tungri or of Liège) pontificate flourished St. Gerard, founder and first abbot of the monastery of St. Peter of Brogne, son of the count of Namur, by Plectrude, sister of that Stephen. But Giles deserves no greater credit here than those who write that Gerard was sprung through his mother from the most illustrious family of the counts of Salm. Among these I find the author of the Briefer Life of St. Gerard, which is extant in our manuscript Collectanea, and which is noted as drawn from a manuscript genealogical series of the most illustrious counts of Salm. This at the beginning has thus: St. Gerard, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but more distinguished by the integrity of his morals and life, was begotten at Stave, a village of the territory of Lomme, of his father Statio (rather Stantio), of the lineage of Hagano, duke of the Austrasians, and of his mother Plectrude, countess of Salm, who was the sister of Stephen, bishop of the Tungri. Hear now what Foullon, priest of the Society of Jesus, in the History of Liège, vol. 1, page 161, observes about a similar assertion, by which some would have Stephen, Gerard's maternal uncle, sprung from the stock of the counts of Salm: From canon of Metz, Stephen (St. Gerard's maternal uncle, as is said) became bishop after Franco. Those who make him the son of a count of Salm ought first to have proved that there were counts with the title of that place in this age. Giles, with like credit, says that Plectrude his sister was the wife of the count of Namur and mother of the holy Gerard of Brogne.

[19] yet that he was noble by birth is proved, both from ancient monuments, Apply these things to the assertion by which Gerard is asserted to be of the stock of the counts of Salm. And surely I do not see how it can be proved that the Saint was sprung from that most noble stock. For there is no reason why you should oppose the Briefer manuscript Life just mentioned; for it has only a more recent author, and consequently one far too remote from Gerard's age to be able, without a suitable testimony, to win credit for his assertions about Gerard's most noble origin. Moreover, that briefer Life, as will become plain from what will be said, is of very doubtful credit. That St. Gerard was begotten of a noble lineage, however, appears undoubted. For, as his anonymous biographer testifies, he shone with illustrious birth. Moreover, many monuments, exceedingly ancient, expressly testify to the nobility of the family from which Gerard arose. In the History of the translation of St. Wandrille, written by an author who seems to several learned men not to have passed the year 1100, it is recorded thus: Behold … there was found, apt for this business, a Man of praiseworthy life, distinguished in sanctity and in birth, Gerard by name, who was a monk by purpose, but an abbot by office. In the Life of St. Bertulf, abbot, which is extant inserted in the first volume of our January, and which seemed to our Predecessors to have been written about the year 1070, it has thus at num. 33: At that time in the monastery of Blandin Gerard dwelt as abbot by merit and by office, whose counsels the glorious marquis (Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders) willingly used. He, since he adorned the titles of nobility yet more nobly with a probity of morals, was found worthy both to preside over and to profit almost all the monasteries of Gaul. Other testimonies of this kind I omit out of zeal for brevity; for I do not think that anyone will any longer doubt of the nobility of the family from which Gerard was sprung.

[20] and from the fact that Stephen, bishop of the Tungri, That, however, no one may henceforth be able in any way at all to entertain the slightest doubt about it, I adduce also ancient Diplomas of princes in confirmation of the matter. Miraeus in the Diplomata Belgica, as also Chapeaville in vol. 1 of the Deeds of the Pontiffs of Liège, recites entire a Diploma which was issued by Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, at the intervention of Stephen, bishop of the Tungri. In this Charles the Simple speaks thus: Dudo, bishop of the Verdunese, Aiginer, a vigorous marquis, and likewise also Robert, most faithful executor of our serenity, approached our excellency, asking earnestly that, at the intervention of Stephen, venerable bishop of the Tungri, most beloved kinsman of our blood, we should hand over as their own to the side of the holy Mother of God Mary and of the kindly martyr Lambert the forest which formerly belonged to the township of Theux, etc. St. Gerard, therefore, will also have been akin to the royal blood of Charles the Simple, and consequently, if only from this, most probably of noble family, provided that, as is commonly believed, he had as maternal uncle Stephen, bishop of the Tungri or of Liège, mentioned in the Diploma. But is it certain enough that he was the Saint's maternal uncle? This I would surely not dare to assert as altogether certain and undoubted. For the biographer himself seems to have doubted about the matter, since he relates not assertively but only doubtfully that Plictrude, or, as others write, Plectrude, Gerard's mother, was the full sister of Stephen, bishop of the Tungri. His mother, he says at num. 3, named Plictrude, is related to have been the full sister of the lord Stephen, bishop of the Tungri.

[21] Yet the same biographer at num. 10, narrating the Saint's approach to Stephen, as is most probable, he had as maternal uncle, to consult him about embracing the monastic life in the monastery of St. Denis, writes thus: But the Man of the Lord (St. Gerard), moving his step from there (from Count Berengar), makes by a prosperous path for the bishop of the Tungri, by name Stephen; so that, because he was his shepherd after the supreme Shepherd, he might receive from him leave and counsel about this matter (about embracing the monastic life). For he believed it would profit him very much if he merited to be offered as a living victim to God with the episcopal blessing; and having been received by him with due reverence, whether on account of the fitness of their mutual kinship, or on account of his sanctity, which he knew very well, among the other conversations of edification which they had together, he humbly insinuates to him for what purpose he had come. From which words, since St. Gerard is said in them to have been reverently received by Stephen for the sake either of mutual kinship or of sanctity, someone will perhaps contend that in the biographer's opinion the Saint was in fact joined with Stephen by kinship, and that he did not doubt that Plectrude was Stephen's full sister, although meanwhile he expressed it in that manner of speaking which is wont to be that of those who doubt. But from the words just recited it does not seem to me to follow certainly that in the biographer's opinion Gerard was undoubtedly joined with Stephen by kinship; for even if he had doubted about the matter as much as possible, he could have written without any loss of truth that the Saint was reverently received by Stephen whether on account of mutual kinship or of sanctity; for this assertion agrees with the truth provided the Saint was reverently received by Stephen on one or the other ground. Therefore I hold it as most probable indeed, but not as certain, that Plectrude, Gerard's mother, was the full sister of Stephen, bishop of the Tungri.

[22] Further, Miraeus in the Codex of pious Donations, chap. 30, presents a Diploma and in most ancient Charters he is called noble. The time about which granted in the year 932 by Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, in favour of the monastery of Brogne, and at chap. 83 a letter on the elevation of the body of St. Gerard issued by Alexander, bishop of Liège, in the year 1131. And in the Diploma indeed, which is also extant in the same Miraeus in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52, Gerard is called by Henry a most noble Man; while in the letter he is said by Alexander to have sprung from a noble lineage. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Gerard was begotten of a noble stock. But let what has been said about the family from which he arose now suffice; I shall now inquire into the time of his birth. The Saint, according to what will be said below, certainly became a monk no later than the year 920 in the monastery of St. Denis near Paris; and of him, as soon as he had entered this monastery, the biographer records this at num. 18: Unwilling therefore to grow sluggish (for idleness is the enemy of the soul), he began suppliantly to beg that he might be allowed to learn letters. At which the brethren greatly wondering, that a Man already long bearded should wish further to be applied to boyish studies of letters; while he asked for it daily the more importunately, he is handed over to one of them to be instructed. But that you may wonder the more at his humility and diligence, he runs through the first elements letter by letter, like a little boy of five years; and so, not at all relaxing his purpose, in a few days he commits the whole Psalter to memory. Moreover the Saint, as the biographer testifies at num. XI, and as what will be said will make plain, had before his entry into the monastery of St. Denis already discharged an embassy for Berengar, count of Lomme, and was especially dear to him both for his military valour and for his rare prudence in suggesting counsels.

[23] he was born. While still young he perhaps gave attention to letters, He was therefore without doubt in the year 920 a man already long bearded, and exceedingly apt for conducting affairs vigorously and promptly both with hand and with counsel, since the aforesaid count committed to him an embassy, and also, as the biographer likewise testifies at num. 5, the more difficult and more secret affairs, which otherwise he would certainly not have done. Wherefore, since these things seem to argue a man of about thirty or twenty-five years, it follows that the Saint was born, when the ninth century had almost elapsed, about the year 890. Other things by which I might determine his birth year more nearly and more certainly occur neither in our biographer nor anywhere else. The sequence of the matters to be treated therefore requires that I now set forth how the Saint spent his early age, to what studies he was devoted, and of what disposition and what probity of morals he was. Whether he applied his mind to learning letters in his youth the biographer nowhere openly declares. From the words, however, which he furnishes in the preceding number, it is in some way lawful to gather that this was done by the Saint. For according to these the Saint, already a monk, wished to be applied further to the studies of letters.

Moreover, within the space of a few days he committed the whole psalter to memory, and consequently was not altogether without letters. With these, therefore, as appears probable, he cultivated his mind while still a youth or younger man. The biographer does indeed say that the Saint ran through the first elements letter by letter like a little boy of five years; but this, as appears, can be taken to mean only that the Saint then repeated the first elements which he had learned before, or ran through them lightly again; not that he then first began to learn them. However that may be, since Gerard, as the biographer testifies at num. XI, was employed by Count Berengar to discharge an embassy before he put on the monk, I would not easily bring myself to think that he was then entirely ignorant of letters. I therefore hold it as probable that our Saint from his earliest age at least in some manner gave attention to letters.

[24] and certainly cultivated virtue, which when older he did not abandon. The biographer sets forth more clearly how the Saint while still young was inclined to piety, and how he devoted himself wholly to virtues. To him, he says of Gerard at num. 4, from his earliest boyhood the clemency of the Godhead granted to advance, namely, in age and in understanding, and to please God as well as men. Who, since he was a youth in body, yet disdained to attend to the obscene conversations of youths: nay rather, accustoming himself to be present at the gatherings of the good, he avoided above all the assemblies of the wicked; and him whom youth adorned in body, a splendid and holy hoariness of mind had graced. He frequented the more ardently the thresholds of the house of God, thirsting to drink up the rivers of ecclesiastical doctrine: whose salutary admonitions, perceiving them there according to his capacity, although he was clad in the lay gown, he ruminated with a more tenacious memory. He meditated beforehand, with a still tender breast, what he afterwards devoutly merited to fulfil.

Shuddering to embrace the luxuries and sports of the age, He merited to become a temple of the kindly Spirit.

So Gerard while still young diligently held to the way of piety and virtue. Nor, further, did he abandon it afterwards when older, even at the time when, not yet a monk, he followed secular military service. Of him, while he was serving as a soldier, the biographer records thus at num. 5 and 6: The military cloak concealed him along with Sebastian, but his frugality showed him a monk along with Martin the soldier. Great was his kindness towards his fellow soldiers, wonderful his charity, great his patience and humility. Accordingly they venerated him as a father to be revered, and revered him as a lord. He therefore laid up treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys. He covered the naked, fed the needy, stood by those in labour, cheered the faint-hearted, protected orphans, supported widows, defended the oppressed, aided the wretched.

[25] Many other things, because they need no comment, I omit; He served as a soldier under Berengar, count of Lomme; which, however, the biographer also records, and which could not but render the Saint by far most acceptable both to his fellow soldiers and especially to the lord under whom he served. This was Berengar, count of the county or territory of Lomme or Lomacum. At that time, says the Saint's biographer at num. 5, Count Berengar presided over the castle of Namur, the posterity of whose stock continues there to this day. To him this Athlete of God (St. Gerard), committed to military office, adhered, and obtained the first degree of his friendship most familiarly. I have already given above, from de Marne, a notice of the county of Lomme. Its counts had fixed their seat in the castle of Namurcum or, as the ancients mostly write, Namucum. Hence in the lapse of time it came about that the whole county of Lomme, or rather part of it, its name being changed, was called the county of Namur or Namuc from the metropolis or seat of its lord. Count Berengar, therefore, who, as the biographer testifies, presided over the castle of Namuc, was count not only of the castle of Namurcum or Namucum, but also of the whole county of Lomme or Lomacum, afterwards called, as to a part of it, Namuc or Namur. This is gathered from the Letter of Louis, king of Germany, son of the emperor Arnulf, given at Aachen in the year 908. For in this, which is presented by Chapeaville in vol. 1 of the Deeds of the Pontiffs of Liège, page 167 and following, and by Miraeus in the Codex of pious donations, chap. 25, Louis speaks thus: The Abbey named Fosses, acquired by precarial grant from Abbess Gisla, our kinswoman, with the consent of our will, situated in the pagus and county of Lomme, of which Count Perengar is now present … to the often-said (namely the Tongres) church and to its present pastor Stephen … we grant: where Berengar, or, by the change of one letter, Perengar, is called count of the pagus and county of Lomme or Lomacum; and all the learned admit that in Louis's Letter the discourse is of no other Berengar than he of whom there is discourse in the Life of St. Gerard.

[26] he had as wife the daughter of Rainer I, count of the Hainaulters, Further, Berengar had married the daughter of Raginer I, or, as others write, Rainer or also Ragenar, count of the Hainaulters, sister of Gisilbert or Gislebert, first duke of Lotharingia, and of Rainer the second, count of Hainaut. Flodoard teaches this, in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers of France, writing thus in his Chronicle at the year 924: Meanwhile Berengar (count of Lomme), who had his sister as wife, seized Gislebert (duke of Lotharingia), and released him when the sons of Ragenar, brother of that Gislebert, had been offered to him as hostages for him. But the same Gislebert, when released, lays waste with very many plunderings the land of Berengar and of Ragenar his brother (count of the Hainaulters) and of Count Isaac. Mabillon, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, calls the said wife of Berengar and sister of Gislebert Symphoriana; but whence he learned that she was called by this name I cannot state for certain. Since, however, in his preliminary Observations on the Life of Gerard, treating of another argument, he praises Vinchant, I suspect that he drew it from the Annals of Hainaut written by Vinchant. For in these, at page 176, among the children of Rainer I, count of Hainaut, is enumerated Symphoriana, married to Berengar, count of Namur. But in the genealogical Tables of the counts and dukes of Brabant which Butkens presents in the Trophies of Brabant, the daughter of Rainer I whom Berengar married is left nameless. The same is also done in the Stemmata Belgica by Miraeus. These two latter writers no doubt followed Frodoard as their leader in this matter, who himself (see the words just recited) does not disclose the name by which Berengar's wife was called.

[27] and most certainly was never king of Italy. I too would prefer here to follow Frodoard with Miraeus and Butkens rather than Vinchant with Mabillon, who is moreover mistaken in this, that he makes Berengar's wife the daughter not of Rainer I, but of Rainer II, surnamed Longneck, count of the Hainaulters or of Hainaut; in which matter he most certainly conflicts with Frodoard, Miraeus, Butkens and Vinchant himself. It has pleased me to pursue these things here a little more fully, because mention of Berengar occurs more than once further in the Life to be edited. And nevertheless, since from what the briefer Life of St. Gerard, already praised more than once, records about Berengar, I can weaken its credit, which I promised I would do, it pleases me to transcribe these things too here. They run thus: At that time Count Berengar, lord of the castle of Namur, afterwards king of Italy, son of Everard, a most powerful marquis, who possessed most ample estates in various places, in Lombardy the county of Treviso, in Alemannia Hesbaye, Taxandria, the Condroz, Austrovandia, Cysoing, Vitry and elsewhere: had as his mother Gisla, daughter of the emperor Louis the Pious and sister of the emperor Charles the Bald. Berengar had as wife the daughter of Rainer and sister of Giselbert, duke of Lotharingia. He took this young man into his household: for Gerard excelled not only in military service but in counsel; so much so that on that account he obtained the chief place of both friendship and familiarity with the count, and he rarely endured him to be absent from his presence.

[28] Berengar, therefore, count of Namur or of Lomme, under whom St. Gerard served, will afterwards have become king of Italy, if credit is to be given to the aforesaid Briefer Life of St. Gerard. But that this is most certainly foreign to the truth I show thus: there were two kings of Italy of this name, one the Elder, the other the Younger, grandson of the former through his daughter Gisla, or, as others write, Gisila. Berengar, therefore, whose military service Gerard followed, is, according to the Life, namely the Briefer, one and the same as Berengar, either the elder or the younger, king of Italy. But that the Berengar of whom we treat here, count of Lomme or Namur, cannot be the same as either of these kings becomes plain from the time of their death and of his alone. Berengar the Elder, or first king of Italy of this name, was slain by his own people in the year 924, as Frodoard notes in his Chronicle, and as is commonly admitted by all the learned: whereas Berengar, count of Namur or Lomme, to whom Gerard adhered as a soldier, is found subscribed to the Letter by which Henry the Fowler, king of Germany (see Miraeus, Codex of pious Donations, chap. 30, and in the Notitia of the Belgian churches, chap. 52), confirms the foundation of the monastery of Brogne in the year 932; most certainly, therefore, he is not the same as Berengar, first king of Italy of this name. As now regards Berengar the Younger, or the second king of Italy of this name; he, as the continuator of Regino testifies, was captured in the year 964 by the emperor Otto and sent into Germany, and died two years later; whereas Berengar, count of Lomme, did not prolong his life to this time; for Frodoard in his Chronicle at the year 960 makes mention of another count of Lomme or Namur, whose name was Rotbert, in vol. 2 of the Writers in Duchesne.

[29] Moreover in the new Collection of the Diplomas of Belgium, or Supplement to the diplomas of Belgium of Miraeus, part 2, chap. 13, page 293, he never was. there is extant a diploma which was granted by Rotbert, count of Namur, in favour of the abbey of Waulsort in the year 946, as is noted at the end. The Berengar of Lomme, therefore, under whom St. Gerard is related in the Life to be edited to have served, cannot be the same as Berengar II, king of Italy either, and consequently he never was king of Italy. That this may become yet more certain, I enter besides upon another way by which to prove it. According to the praised briefer Life of Gerard, Berengar, count of Lomme or Namur, who afterwards became king of Italy, had a father named Everard, and a mother named Gisla, daughter of the emperor Louis the Pious. It is necessary, therefore, that Berengar, count of Lomme, if ever he became king of Italy, be one and the same as Berengar I, king of Italy. For he, and not Berengar the second, as you will understand from the Annals of Metz at the year 888 and from various Chronicles in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers, had a father (of the mother there is no need to speak) named Everard or Eberhard. Wherefore, since, according to what was said in the preceding number, Berengar, count of Lomme, under whom our Saint served, is beyond all doubt different from Berengar the Elder, or first king of Italy of this name, it surely becomes undoubted that he was never king of Italy. The writer of the Briefer Life of St. Gerard, therefore, in affirming it, strays here very far indeed from the truth. There is therefore reason why we should hold his credit suspect in other things too which he affirms without suitable witnesses, and among these is to be counted what, concerning the Saint's descent through his mother from the counts of Salm,

he records; for this, according to what has been said, is propped up by absolutely no testimony of antiquity.

§ III. The Saint rebuilds the church of Brogne, establishes clerics in it for a time, and himself puts on the monk.

The new church of Brogne, Gerard, while still serving as a soldier under Berengar, count of Lomme or Namur, had already then, by the assiduous exercise of those virtues which the preceding § presents from the biographer, reached so great a sanctity that, if credit is to be given to our biographer, he was favoured with a singular grace of heaven, and taken up by divine Providence in an unusual manner, to build a new church at Brogne in the county of Namur. Mabillon furnishes an accurate notice of the monastery of Brogne in his preliminary Observations on the Life of St. Gerard, num. 10. It pleases me, therefore, to transcribe it here, so that the situation both of this and of the church of which we are now treating may become known. It runs thus: The monastery of Brogne is situated between the Meuse and the Sambre, at an equal interval of two hours on either side, distant three from Namur, one more from Philippeville, two and a half from Dinant. It is situated, I say, on a rock not very high, by the village which is called St. Gerard's, as is also the monastery, from its founder, which nevertheless also retains the ancient name of Brogne (for so, according to what will be said, it was originally called). At the foot of the monastery there flows into the place a rivulet called Bornom in the brief Charter (this we shall give below here from Miraeus) of Gerard himself. Such is the situation of the church of Brogne, for rebuilding which Gerard, as the biographer testifies, was chosen by God in an altogether singular manner. How this came about he sets forth at num. 6 and the four following.

[31] which the Saint, admonished by a heavenly vision, His narrative, contracted into a summary, runs more or less thus: Count Berengar had once gone hunting with Gerard; when the hour of dinner had come, they had by chance arrived at Brogne: the count departs from the hunt to dine; but Gerard, to whom praying to God was the most sumptuous food, thinks of feeding his soul with this spiritual food before refreshing his body. Near by was a little sacred chapel, built of old, as is said, by Pepin of Herstal, and consecrated by St. Lambert, bishop of Maastricht. Into this Gerard betakes himself to be present at the sacred rite, prostrates himself in prayer with signal devotion for some space of time, and while he awaits the priest who is to perform the Sacred rites, having fallen into a sweet sleep, he seems to see the princes of the Apostles standing by, and himself taken rather familiarly by the hand by Peter and led round through the little chapel and its forecourt. Gerard asks what these things mean. Peter admonishes him about building a more ample and more elegant church in that place under the invocation of his own name and of Eugenius the martyr, the latter's relics being brought into it, and assigns the dimension and manner of this sacred building. Gerard asks what means he can have for obtaining the relics of Eugenius the martyr. Commit that care to God and to me, Peter answers; do you only build the church in the form which I prescribe to you. He had spoken, and with Paul vanished from Gerard's eyes. But he, restored to himself, resolved to obey the Apostle as soon as possible.

[32] These things, which you have here in summary, the biographer sets forth in a somewhat more involved narrative, with whom alone must also rest the credit of the vision which he relates to have been divinely offered to Gerard. Meanwhile some more recent writers seem to me to doubt of the truth of the vision, to be held true, as appears, built, for this reason, that, when about to relate the construction of the new church of Brogne by Gerard, they make no mention of it, and say only that God inspired Gerard to found, from the oratory which Pepin of Herstal had once built at Brogne, a more ample and more elegant church. Mabillon, however, in the Benedictine Annals, book 42, num. 18, writes thus: He (St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne), since he excelled in piety and religion, was admonished from heaven to found, from the oratory which Prince Pippin, called of Herstal, had built at Brogne and had caused to be consecrated by the holy bishop Landebert, a basilica, and to dedicate it in honour of St. Eugenius the martyr. In Mabillon's mind, therefore, the vision offered to Gerard, of which we are here treating, agrees with the truth. And surely, unless it is so, I do not see whence was born in Gerard that ardent desire, about which I shall begin discourse below, of acquiring the sacred relics of Eugenius the martyr, whom otherwise he did not know. Will you perhaps ascribe it to fiction? But the most open narrative of our biographer stands in the way; and I find no one hitherto who has opposed him in this part. However that may be, Gerard certainly built a new church at Brogne from its foundations. This, indeed, is admitted by all, absolutely no one contradicting. Moreover, the Saint enriched that church, brought to completion by himself, with gifts, and established in it for a time clerics to be free for the divine service.

[33] These things too are certain, and are called into doubt by absolutely no one. in the year 918 to completion But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, says the biographer at num. 10, a most prompt executor of the apostolic command, after he had carried the enjoined work through to its end, conferred upon the same basilica a most devout gift from the ample revenues of his estates, which should meanwhile suffice for those serving God there. He also employed there for the time the religion of clerics, instituting them, through the wisdom given him, to live according to the canonical manner. But it can now be asked here at what time the said church began to be built, at what time it was brought to completion, and at what time clerics living according to the canonical manner were instituted in it. Miraeus, in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52, presents the primary charter, already mentioned above, by which Gerard makes certain donations to the church of Brogne. As I promised I would do, I transcribe it here entire. It runs thus: I, in the name of God, Gerard, thinking of eternal retribution, give, with the consent of my father Stantio and of my brother Wido, some of my goods to the church, where I desire to build a monastery, and to serve as a soldier myself in the service of Almighty God, which is situated in the pagus of Lomme, in the place called Brogne, on the river Bornom; I give the right which I have in Romerias. Done in the township of Brogne, in the year of the Lord DCCCCXVIII. In the eighth year of Charles, most excellent king. Without doubt the discourse in this Charter is of no other donation than that which the biographer records in the words just recited; for this, as he indicates at num. 10 and XI, was made before Gerard's entry into the monastery of St. Denis; and this, according to what will be said, probably took place not very long after the year 918, in which the Charter just transcribed here is dated, and in which consequently the donation which is made by it was beyond all doubt made.

[34] it was brought, and endowed Gerard therefore made the donation which the biographer records in the year 918. From this you will now easily draw out at what time the Saint began the new church of Brogne, at what time he completed it, and at what time he brought clerics into it. For since, according to what has been said, St. Gerard made the donation which the biographer records when he had already brought his new church of Brogne to completion, it follows that it was also completed, or brought to completion, in the same year 918, unless perhaps one should please to determine that this happened a little sooner. About the same time too I think that clerics were brought by the Saint into the new church of Brogne; for he most probably made the donation recorded by the biographer for their sustenance, for which he doubtless wished to provide neither long before nor long after their institution. As now regards the time at which the Saint began his new church, this cannot be so nearly determined, because it is not sufficiently ascertained how much space of time was spent in building that sacred edifice. Since, however, it does not seem to have been of so great a mass that it could not have been completed within three years, it was probably begun, counting from the year 918 in which according to what has been said it was completed, about the year 914 or the following. The three things, therefore, into which inquiry was to be made here become known sufficiently nearly from the praised Charter of Gerard's donation. There are also some other things to be observed either on occasion of it or on it itself. It is noted as given in the year of Christ 918, the eighth of King Charles. Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, is designated. But that it may be known how the year of Christ 918 can be reconciled with the eighth year of Charles the Simple, it must be known that three epochs of the reign begun by Charles the Simple are found in use. The first begins from the year 892, in which he was crowned king, the second from the year 898, in which he succeeded Odo, king of the Franks, and the third, finally, commonly from the year 912, in which, after the death of Louis, the last king of Germany of the Carolingian stock, who ended his life in the year 911, Charles the Simple obtained a larger inheritance.

[35] [from goods which had probably come to the Saint from elsewhere than from his father.] According to this last epoch, and that indeed begun from the year 911 in which Louis died, the year of Christ 918, as will be plain to one who computes it, is coupled with the eighth year of Charles the Simple. Further, in the Charter of donation already very often praised, Gerard says that he makes the donation which he makes with the consent of his father Stantio. He was therefore still surviving among the living in the year 918. Hence it comes about that it can now be asked from what goods Gerard made the donation which he records in the Charter. To the same basilica, says the biographer at num. 10, he conferred a most devout gift from the ample revenues of his estates. Moreover at num. 7, speaking of Gerard when not yet divinely admonished about building the new church at Brogne, and consequently when the tenth century had not yet advanced up to the year 918 and the year of Gerard's father's death, he writes thus: But the Friend of God himself (St. Gerard), putting spiritual things before bodily, went fasting to the neighbouring church situated at Brogne, which with certain adjacent estates had come to his dominion from his forebears. For he was distinguished by the ampleness of his estates, as one who did not degenerate from the virtue of his ancestors. Gerard therefore, while his father was still living, possessed very many goods, very many estates, and from them he was able both to build the new church at Brogne and to increase it with revenues. But since his father, according to what has been said, was still among the living at the time when he exercised those pious works of Christian liberality, it must be that he exercised them either from the goods of his mother, already dead, devolved upon him, or from goods acquired from some other source than the paternal inheritance. Perhaps, however, he also did this partly, with the consent of his father and brother, from paternal goods, not indeed those which he already actually possessed, but those which were to devolve upon him after his father's death.

[36] For the rest, in the Charter of donation already more often praised, Gerard says that he gives some of his goods to the church of Brogne, situated in the pagus of Lomme, where he desired to build a monastery. [But Mabillon thinks that a monastery was joined to the church only ten years later;] Hence Mabillon in the preliminary Observations on the Life of the Saint, num. 10, observes thus: This was the first plan of founding the monastery, which was not put into execution until after ten years (as we said above, num. 3), a little before Gerard into the monastery of St. Denis

withdrew. But truly, is it altogether certain that St. Gerard did not carry out the plan of founding a monastery which he records in the Charter before ten years had already elapsed after it was issued? I confess indeed that the monks came into possession of the church of Brogne not much sooner: yet that no monastery was joined to the church of Brogne about ten years before it passed under the jurisdiction of the monks, in which the clerics or canons established in the church of Brogne by Gerard, according to what has been said, might dwell, may not seem undoubted on every side. For our biographer, at num. 35, narrating that monks were substituted at Brogne for the clerics or canons Regular by Gerard on his return from Gaul, speaks in this manner: But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, striving from good things to better, and wishing to advance the sanctuary of Brogne in all things, removed the way of life of the clerics whom he had placed there before, substituting the religion of the monastic Order. Where perhaps by sanctuary, since he makes no mention thereafter of a monastery founded by Gerard, he understands a monastery.

[37] Moreover in the Rescript by which Pope Stephen, in Miraeus, Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52, confirms the foundation of the Monastery of Brogne about the year 929, some things which are opposed to this opinion, and some Gerard is said to have reformed the monastery of Brogne for the better, and this very thing is also said in the other, more prolix, Rescript of Pope Stephen, which the same Miraeus presents in the Diplomata, page 257. Hence, however, it seems to follow, even granting that one of these Rescripts, which I shall discuss below, is not genuine, that a monastery was built by Gerard at Brogne before he substituted monks there for the clerics or canons Regular; for it does not seem possible to understand how, by substituting the former there for the latter, he reformed the monastery for the better, if there had not been a monastery there before. Yet the praised Miraeus, in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, in the chapter just cited, also presents the Diploma by which Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, confirmed the foundation of the monastery of Brogne in the year 932; and in this Gerard is said to have petitioned that King Henry should take under his protection the monastery which he himself, having been converted, had lately built from his own inheritance in the pagus of Lomme, in the place which is called Brogne … to be looked upon. According, therefore, to these words of Henry's Diploma, the monastery of Brogne had only lately been built in the year 932, and consequently a very long time after the year 918, in which Gerard gave the Charter of donation transcribed here above. Moreover, the Saint built it when already converted, that is, as far as appears, when already made a monk; for no other reason seems able to be assigned for which Gerard is said to have done it when already converted.

[38] Therefore, since Gerard certainly did not become a monk until after he had already established clerics in the church of Brogne, which favour it, reasons. The Saint is sent by Berengar as envoy to Paris, it follows that, when he established them there, he had not yet founded the monastery of Brogne, and consequently that this was not founded before the year 928, in which, according to what will be said, the Saint probably returned from the monastery of St. Denis; for it does not seem to have been founded between this year and the time at which Gerard established clerics at Brogne. So Mabillon's opinion can be defended. But is this to be embraced with certainty in preference to the opposite? This does not indeed appear so to me, as I shall declare more fully when the monks substituted in the place of the clerics are to be treated. I now pursue the series of the matters to be treated here. Gerard had now, according to what has been said, founded the new and more magnificent basilica at Brogne, and had also established in it clerics for the worship of God. But he remained in doubt of mind by what means he could acquire the relics of St. Eugenius the martyr, which he had understood from the Apostle were to be brought into it. Meanwhile, divine Providence so ordaining, a fitting occasion for this presented itself. Berengar, count of Lomme, had business to transact with Robert, the very powerful count of Paris. This Robert was the son of another Robert, surnamed the Strong (the words are Mabillon's in his Annotations), and indeed the brother of King Odo, set up as king at Reims at St. Remigius by bishops and abbots against Charles (namely the Simple), says Frodoard in his Chronicle at the year DCCCCXXII, afterwards, in the following year, pierced through with lances in the battle of Soissons. No one fitter for discharging an embassy to him presented himself than Gerard. Therefore, at the count's command, the Saint sets out for Paris, and when he had arrived there a few days later, the day already declining, he orders his men to see to lodgings, and he himself, in accordance with his piety, goes to the church of St. Denis the martyr for the sake of praying.

[39] [and, in order to obtain the relics of St. Eugenius, he puts on the monk in the monastery of St. Denis;] The monks of St. Denis were then singing together the evening prayers: but behold, towards the end, when according to the solemn custom of the church the help of the Saints is implored, Gerard unexpectedly hears the holy martyr Eugenius invoked for aid. The word strikes his mind. After the Evening Office he asks some of the leading monks who that Eugenius the martyr, sung of by them, is. And they answer that he is a bishop of Toledo, a hearer and colleague of the Great Areopagite, who met his death in a glorious combat for Christ. Gerard did not doubt that this was that very Eugenius whose relics he had understood from Blessed Peter the Apostle, in the vision mentioned above, were to be brought into the church of Brogne. Therefore, anointed with the highest joy, he began to press the monks with most ardent prayers to deem him worthy of his sacred relics. They wonder at the Man's request, and plead that the matter is difficult; yet if he should be willing to give his name to the company of monks in their own basilica, they give him hope that he will obtain his wishes. It was a condition which could not undeservedly seem most foreign to a Man of such a kind. Yet Gerard began seriously to deliberate about fulfilling it, in order to acquire the sacred treasure, the relics, I say, of Eugenius the martyr, and, having maturely weighed everything, he resolved to send a bill of divorce to the world. Therefore, having happily discharged his embassy and returned to Count Berengar, he asks and obtains from him the faculty of serving in the better warfare in religion, and then, having consulted Stephen, bishop of Tongres, he returns to Paris, and is enrolled in the number of the monks of St. Denis of the Benedictine Order, the possessions which were his by right in the Lotharingian region being conferred on the monastery. It has pleased me to present all these things here in summary, because they show the way by which the Saint came to the monastic life. The biographer of the Saint sets forth all of it in a more diffuse discourse at num. XI and the six following. But he does not add the year in which it happened.

[40] That it happened, however, not very long after the construction of the new church of Brogne, which probably in the year 919, after the clerics or canons Regular were brought into it, and the revenues were established by the Saint for that church for their support, is understood from the whole series of the narrative. Indeed it will become most probable, not to say certain, from what will be said below, that it did not happen before Gerard had added a monastery to the church of Brogne. Wherefore, since according to these things the Saint more probably did it in the year 919, he more probably also put on the monk in this very year; for the subsequent deeds of the Saint, as appears, do not allow it to be deferred to the following year. I show the matter thus: Gerard, as the anonymous biographer of his Life teaches at num. 19, was initiated into the priesthood in the ninth year after he had become a monk. In the second year, therefore, he says of Gerard, of his conversion (namely to a holier life and to religion), he is ordained acolyte at Paris by Theodulf, bishop of the same city; by whom also he is consecrated subdeacon in the following, the third; and under his successor Fulrad he ascends to the rank of the diaconate in the fourth. But in the ninth year, raised to the summit of virtues, he is raised also to the priesthood by Adelhelm, the successor of that Fulrad. Further, Gerard, when already consecrated priest, not very long after, having received the relics of St. Eugenius, returned to his native land. He will therefore probably have lived as a monk in the Parisian monastery of St. Denis for nine entire years. Now the Saint, about the year 929, as according to what will be said below appears more probable, received from Pope Stephen a rescript in favour of the monastery of Brogne reformed or founded by himself. Wherefore, since he had then probably already left the monastery of St. Denis from the year 928, and nine years, computed in retrograde order from the year 928, lead back to the year 919, it is necessary that the Saint put on the monk from this year, and consequently that this cannot be deferred to the year 920; for otherwise the nine years during which he stayed in the monastery of St. Denis cannot be found.

[41] But since the Rescript of Pope Stephen just mentioned was perhaps given a little later than the year 929, or certainly in this or the following year I adduce another argument by which it may at least be proved that Gerard embraced the monastic life, if not sooner, certainly not later than the year 920. The Saint, as his biographer testifies according to what has already been said, did not give himself to the monastic life except after first consulting Stephen, bishop of Liège. Now Giles, monk of Orval, in his Additions to Anselm on the Deeds of the Pontiffs of Liège, vol. 1, chap. 41, writes thus of this Stephen, bishop of Liège: The same bishop Stephen presided over the church of Liège for eighteen years, at the time at which, succeeding one another in turn, John the ninth, Benedict the fourth, Leo the fifth and Christopher the first ruled the Roman Church. He died on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June, and was buried under the altar of the holy Trinity, namely in the crypt of St. Lambert, in the reign of Conrad, emperor of the Romans, the first of this name. Who having died, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation nine hundred and twenty, Henry the first, of Saxon race, son of Duke Otto, eightieth in place from Augustus, ruled as emperor for about eighteen years. It is far from the case that John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V and Christopher I occupied the chair of St. Peter for eighteen years. Giles therefore wrongly bounds by their pontificate the eighteen years for which he writes that Stephen, bishop of Liège, sat. Yet, since it is established that Stephen sat from the year 902, it follows that according to Giles he died in the year 920. And indeed that the death of Stephen, if it did not happen sooner, certainly did not happen later, is clear from the Chronicle of Frodoard, priest of the church of Reims. For in this Frodoard ties to the year 920 the contention which arose after the death of Stephen over the see of Liège between Richer, Stephen's successor, and Hilduin, a cleric of the church of Liège.

[42] took place. The same is done in the Verdun Chronicle by Hugh of Flavigny. It is necessary therefore that Stephen, bishop of Liège, into the time of whose death we are here inquiring, be determined to have died not later than the year 920. Since, therefore, according to what has been said, Gerard consulted him a little before his entry into the monastery of St. Denis, it is necessary that the Saint entered it, if not sooner, certainly not later than the year 920. Therefore, according to what has been said, the Saint became a monk more probably indeed in the year 919, but without doubt either in this or in the year 920. For the rest, since Gerard, as his biographer testifies in the words recited above, was consecrated subdeacon by Theodulf, bishop of Paris, in the third year from his conversion, that is, his approach to religion, and deacon in the following year by the latter's successor Fulrad, it could hence for

determining the year in which the Saint put on the monk, a most valid argument be formed, if only the year in which Theodulf died, and the year in which Fulrad succeeded him, were held ascertained. But neither the one nor the other is sufficiently known, and for determining both in some manner the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 7, among the bishops of Paris, have recourse to the very Life of our Saint, from whose words recited above they conclude that Theodulf was no longer among the living in the year 922, and that Fulrad had already then been appointed his successor.

§ IV. He is promoted to the sacred orders and to the priesthood itself, returns from the monastery of St. Denis to his native land with the relics of St. Eugenius the martyr, and these are solemnly brought into the new church of Brogne.

[The Saint, now a monk, diligently exercises virtue, and in the letters which he learns,] The virtue which Gerard had zealously cultivated in the world he embraced more earnestly in religion. There were then in the most celebrated monastery of St. Denis, which he had entered, not a few monks conspicuous for every kind of virtue. Among these, although the Saint was the last in order, he nevertheless applied himself tirelessly to be second to none either in zeal for the virtues or in the exercise of them. He anticipated his seniors in honour, embraced his juniors with love and goodwill, macerated his body with fasting, not rarely spent the night in prayer, was so exact an observer of the monastic Rules that he dreaded to depart from them even by a nail's breadth; in his food there appeared sparingness, in his clothing meanness, in obeying alacrity; he was plainly signal for modesty and self-abasement. All these things, and many others besides, his anonymous biographer teaches at num. 20. Nor did he apply his mind only to virtue, but also to learning letters; which was a most certain proof of how rare a humility it was. For he was then, as the biographer teaches at num. 18, a man already long bearded. Moreover he had discharged an embassy for Count Berengar, and had been born of noble family. And though he was such and so great a man, he wishes to be applied to boyish studies of letters, and runs through (the words are the biographer's) the first elements letter by letter, like a little boy of five years.

[44] Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 42, num. 18, writes thus of Gerard: making great progress, Soon he, detesting sloth, exercised himself in pious works, learned the letters of which he was ignorant, gave himself wholly to sacred readings, to labour and to prayers, so that he equalled the seniors not only in piety but also in learning. Most of the things which Mabillon asserts in these words I hold as undoubted, as is manifest from what I have already said. Yet what he says, that the Saint learned in the monastery of St. Denis, which he had entered, the letters of which he was ignorant, I do not admit as certain; if, namely, it is to be taken so that Mabillon means that Gerard, before he entered the monastery of St. Denis, was entirely destitute of all knowledge of letters; for what my opinion on this matter is I have already disclosed at num. 23. Thither, therefore, lest I set forth again what I have already set forth, I refer you, studious reader, and present the Saint's progress in letters. In a few days, says the biographer at num. 18, he commits the whole Psalter to memory. Nor is it any wonder; for there is no delay in learning where the grace of the Holy Spirit is the teacher. Next the sacred Codices are set before him; he is abundantly inebriated with divine doctrine, so that, as the flower-gathering bee flies over the wide meadows, to compose honey for itself from sweet-flowing nectar, so also this diligent Follower of God, reciting the writings of the doctors, took up the honeycombs of the divine utterance from their honey-flowing doctrine, and wisely stored the sacred commands in his breast.

[45] So great, therefore, was the Saint's progress in the lower studies of letters, he is promoted to the sacred Orders, that, being now sufficiently instructed in these and having advanced to higher things, he applied himself diligently to the sacred Codices of the divine word, and imbued his mind with great fruit with the more sublime doctrine drawn from these. Nor was he on that account less exact in observing the rules of the monastery. Hear now what he obtained both by his great progress in sacred doctrine and by the diligent exercise of all virtues. Which the Prior, says the biographer at num. 19, and the brethren contemplating in silence, and understanding of what kind and how great he was, seeking that the lamp should not lie hidden under the shadow of the bushel, judge him fit to be promoted to the sacred Orders. Moved gradually through these, as the text of our narrative at present sets forth, he merited to attain even the honour of the priesthood, as one whom the beauty of all probity had adorned. Who, although protesting he would have preferred to resist, crying out with manifold excuse that he was unworthy, yet, overcome by the brethren or by the Prior, he was compelled to acquiesce in their commands, lest he should seem to desert obedience, which is wont to be the companion of the other virtues. Gerard therefore, as the biographer teaches us in these words, was promoted step by step to the sacred Orders and at length was also ordained priest.

[46] But, you will say, in what year was the Saint ordained acolyte, in what subdeacon, in what deacon, in what priest? and, having been ordained priest in the year 928 or the following The matter depends on the year in which he entered religion, or the monastery of St. Denis; for the biographer (see num. 40) teaches us in what year after the Saint's entry into religion each of these four ordinations took place. Since, therefore, according to what has been said, the Saint entered religion without any doubt either in the year 919 or in the following, but more probably in the year 919, it follows that he was ordained priest without doubt either in the year 928 or in the following, but more probably in the year 928; since, namely, the biographer writes that this was done in the ninth year of his conversion, or entry into religion: and since he also teaches that Gerard was ordained acolyte in the second year after his conversion or entry into religion, subdeacon in the third, deacon in the fourth, it can be gathered from what has been said about what time each of these ordinations ought to be placed. Meanwhile I have found nothing apt by which I might determine their time or year more nearly, although I spent unremitting and diligent effort. Therefore from all that has been said it can only be said for certain that each of the Saint's ordinations was made in one or the other of two definite years; but one definite year in which they were made cannot be assigned. I now set forth what the Saint did when already enhanced with the sacred dignity of priest.

[47] he asks again for the relics of St. Eugenius, and obtains them: He did not, as I have already said, remain very long more in the monastery of St. Denis. But since he had very often experienced the benevolent will towards him of all the monks with whom he lived there, and there was consequently no room for doubting it, thinking that the time had at length come in which he might acquire the relics of St. Eugenius the martyr desired by him, and, having acquired them, bring them into the church of Brogne, as he had understood in the vision from the prince of the Apostles was to be done, he judges that a new attempt must be employed by which he might become master of his wish. Therefore, in a brief and at the same time apt speech, he teaches the monks of St. Denis gathered together that it is the divine will, which he once learned in a vision, that the relics of St. Eugenius the martyr be brought into the church of Brogne. He accordingly asks that these be given to him to be transferred thither, and adds prayers, as most ardent as he can, that they should not disdain to assent to his request. They readily believe that God in fact wills what the Saint affirms, persuaded, namely, by the very well known virtue of Gerard who asserts it. What more? All with unanimous consent most promptly assent to his wish. Nor do they willingly grant Gerard only the sacred body of Eugenius the martyr, but neither do they refuse other relics of Saints. Some have believed that the entire body of St. Eugenius was given to Gerard, and among these, as appears, our anonymous biographer himself. For at num. 22 he writes thus: At length the salvation-flowing urn of the most desired martyr (Eugenius) is set out, containing his members more precious than refined gold, which, honourably fashioned, as is fitting, with goldsmith's work, is handed over to the Man of God (St. Gerard) to be carried away to his own country, as he had long desired. Since, therefore, the biographer relates in these words that the very urn which contained the members of St. Eugenius was handed over to Gerard, and makes no mention of a part left at St. Denis, he seems to have believed that the whole body of the Martyr was given to the Saint. But whether this is so, and at the same time whether the St. Eugenius whose relics the Saint received was a bishop of Toledo, I shall discuss in the following §; where also I shall endeavour to determine in some manner what relics besides Gerard brought from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. I return to our Saint.

[48] Gerard, having at length obtained the sacred relics which he had most ardently desired, enriched with these, towards Brogne with twelve monks, not very long after took the road towards Brogne with twelve monks of St. Denis. For the Saint had asked for these from the monastery of St. Denis together with the relics of St. Eugenius, because he had decided to substitute monks for the clerics or canons Regular whom he had established in the church of Brogne before he put on the monk. That twelve monks set out with St. Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis is gathered from the Appendix which in Mabillon, in the fifth Benedictine Century, is subjoined to the Life to be edited. For in this the Saint's biographer records thus: When (St. Gerard) obtained leave and liberty to return to his native land from the Parisian monastery of St. Denis, where St. Gerard had changed from the world, God conferred grace on him, that he might bring greater benefit to his own land. Whatever, therefore, he asked, he received. He received twelve persons of the second order, according to the Apostolic number, namely good teachers, formers of morals, formers of Regular discipline. Among these most probably was Lietald, afterwards, according to what will be said, abbot of Mouzon. It is lawful to gather this from what the biographer soon adds, after he has narrated that not only the body of St. Eugenius but also very many other relics of Saints were brought by Gerard to Brogne.

[49] Here are his words: But if this raises any ambiguity for anyone, let him inquire of Abbot Lietald, of whom one was Lietald, afterwards abbot of Mouzon, successor of this Man of God in the monastery of Mouzon, who, having been present with him at the secret packing of so many relics, used to wonder that so wonderful a sanctity was contained in the narrow compass of the little box of Brogne. Lietald, therefore, as the biographer testifies, was present on the journey with St. Gerard as he carried many relics of Saints from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, and consequently most probably, nay without doubt, was one of the twelve monks whom the Saint received from the monastery of St. Denis, and whom, according to what will be said, he afterwards substituted in the church of Brogne for the clerics or canons Regular. And so, indeed, one of the twelve monks whom Gerard received from the monastery of St. Denis is known by name. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 43, num. 8, thinks that among the twelve monks whom Gerard brought with him was also Werembert, who, as the biographer narrates at num. 24, was rebuked in his sleep at Couvin by St. Venantius the abbot. But he was most probably not one of the twelve companions of Gerard, but one of the two monks to whom these, with Gerard, according to what will be said, turned aside at Couvin. This appears to me to be gathered from the passage of the biographer just praised, if it is compared with what precedes. But as regards Anselm, whom also as one of Gerard's twelve

companions he counts, he was most probably one of them on account of what will be said. I now pursue the discourse begun concerning Gerard's journey towards Brogne. It was ended with a happy outcome.

[50] For the Saint with his companions, having set out secretly lest the natives should snatch from him the sacred treasure which he had received from the monks of St. Denis, he takes the road, and at Couvin the sacred treasure, by a prosperous course, says the biographer at num. 23, arrived at the municipality situated in the pagus of Lomme which is called Couvin. Here there dwelt two monks from the monastery of St. Germain, to which the estate of that municipality then belonged, unanimously keeping watch with most watchful care in the vigils of the holy abbot Venantius. Mabillon, in the preliminary Observations, num. 4, writes thus on this passage of the biographer: Perhaps this (he speaks of the municipality of Couvin) is the village of St. Germain in Brabant, not far from the monastery of Gembloux. The writer of the Translation of St. Germain in the eighth century mentions the township of Couvin. Charles the Bald assigns the same to the uses of the monks in the Charter of partition which we published in the second part of the third Century. This in the tenth century was managed by those two monks of St. Germain (mentioned in the words of the biographer just recited), until, while wars raged, it was torn away from the monastery; which the anonymous (writer of the Life of St. Gerard) just cited hints was done in his own time. I should not doubt that the monks, withdrawing thence, carried with them the body of the holy abbot Venantius into our house of St. Germain; that very body which we venerate deposited here under the name of Venantius, abbot of Tours. It was hitherto hidden whence, or on what occasion, the body of the holy confessor had been brought hither: but that it was carried from the pagus of Lomme anyone will readily grant who has attended to the unhappy state of Belgium and of almost all Gaul in the time of the Norman invasion, when the remains of the Saints were being carried away to various places, and to such as were thought safer. But whether the abbot Venantius, whose relics we enjoy, is that very one who in the sixth century ruled the monastery of Tours, or the one who is venerated in the town of the same name among the Atrebates, let others judge.

[51] concerning which place some things here So Mabillon, hinting two things concerning the body of St. Venantius. The one is that it was still in the keeping of the two monks of St. Germain whom the Saint's biographer mentions when Gerard arrived there with the body of St. Eugenius in the year, as he determines, 928; the other is that the body of St. Venantius was translated from Couvin to the monastery of St. Germain on the occasion of the Norman invasion. But I find that after the year 928 it was not the Normans but the Hungarians who ravaged Lotharingia and the pagus of Lomme, so that, if truly (which it is not of my purpose to inquire) the fugitive monks translated the body of St. Venantius from Couvin to the monastery of St. Germain, this was done on the occasion not of the Norman but of the Hungarian invasion. But let it suffice to have noted this here in passing. But what he says, that the municipality of Couvin mentioned by the biographer is perhaps the village of St. Germain in Brabant, lying not far from the monastery of Gembloux, appears to me surely, if not certainly out of harmony with the truth, surely little probable. For it cannot be proved that that village of St. Germain is called Couvin in ancient monuments. Moreover, there is today in the territory of Liège a town, a league's journey distant from Marienbourg, which is called in French Couvin, in Latin Cuvinium; and the county of Lomme, to which our biographer ascribes the Couvin which he mentions, embraced the part of the present territory of Liège in which that town named Couvin is situated. It may be, therefore, that the two monks of St. Germain whom our biographer writes kept watch in the vigils of St. Venantius had their domicile in the present Couvin of the territory of Liège.

[52] are disputed against Mabillon, Indeed I consider it most probable that they did in fact have their domicile there, for this reason, that no other place occurs in the pagus of Lomme which is distinguished in ancient charters or monuments by the name of Couvin. Hence probably also de Marne, praised above, takes the present Couvin of Liège without doubt for the place to which Gerard is narrated by the biographer to have turned aside with the relics of St. Eugenius. Consult his Historico-critical Dissertations, added at the end of the History of Namur, and there moreover at page 89 you will find the notice of Couvin which I have just given. And indeed Mabillon himself seems afterwards to have acknowledged that the present Couvin of Liège is the place to which the Saint turned aside with the relics of St. Eugenius. For in the Benedictine Annals, book 43, num. 8, he writes thus: King Rotbert granted this township (namely that to which St. Gerard turned aside with the relics of St. Eugenius) with others as dowry to his sister Hadwig, when he betrothed her to Raginar, count of Mons: and in compensation he restored to the monks of St. Germain-des-Prés the township of Cumbae, which had formerly been taken away from the same monastery; and it is admitted by all that the township of Couvin, which Mabillon here writes was granted by Rotbert to Hadwig as dowry, is not different from the present Couvin of Liège. Nor does Mabillon seem in these words to have acknowledged only that the township to which Gerard turned aside is not different from the present Couvin of Liège; but also that it was not torn away from the monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés while wars raged, which, however, he had also taught before in the words recited at num. 50.

[53] These things observed, I now return to Gerard. He turned aside to the two monks of St. Germain deposits it for a while, while he asks leave to transfer it to Brogne. who had their domicile at Couvin in the pagus of Lomme, now, according to what has been said, a town of the territory of Liège, and deposited the sacred pledge with them, until he should have obtained leave to transfer it to Brogne from the bishop of Liège, in whose diocese this monastery was then situated. The biographer, after the words just recited, sets forth the matter thus: Commending the pledges of the Saint to their (the two monks of Couvin from the monastery of St. Germain) tried faith, as they had long been joined to him in familiarity, he thought it not unfitting to approach the presence of the lord bishop Stephen aforementioned, so that, since he was bringing so great a pearl to his diocese, he might hear an approving sentence on a matter of this kind. So the biographer; but here he without doubt wrongly calls the bishop of Liège whom, as he relates, Gerard approached, Stephen. For Stephen, bishop of Liège, according to what has already been proved, did not prolong his life beyond the year 920; whereas when Gerard approached the bishop of Liège to treat about the relics which he had brought with him from the monastery of St. Denis in Gaul, the year, as you will easily gather from what has been said, was already 928 or 929. For Stephen, therefore, beyond any doubt, must be substituted Richarius, or, as he is expressed by contemporary writers, Richer, who governed the church of Liège from the year 920 up to the year 945.

[54] He, when he had heard for what cause Gerard came to him, This having been obtained, the relics of St. Eugenius are carried thither was affected with the highest joy, and most willingly granted the leave which the latter asked, to transfer the sacred body of St. Eugenius the martyr to Brogne. Moreover he also issued a mandate, by which he commanded that the husbandmen from all the surrounding fields should receive the holy martyr with the highest veneration, as was fitting. And indeed all obeyed with a certain singular devotion, and especially Adelhelm, archdeacon of the region in which the solemnity of the translation was to be held. Between the Sambre and the Meuse, not far from the monastery of Brogne, was situated the monastery of Fosses, which St. Foillan had built in the seventh century, now, with the adjacent town of the territory of Liège, a college of canons. From here Adelhelm went forth with his clerics to meet him, and took up the body of the holy martyr to be borne on his shoulders, and solemnly brought it into the church of Brogne, an almost infinite multitude of men, which had flowed together from every side, accompanying it. It was the eighteenth day of the month of August when at length this sacred solemnity was accomplished, to the incredible joy of St. Gerard. The Saint's biographer teaches this at num. 28 in these words: So joyful a translation takes place at the feast of blessed Agapitus the martyr, which is on the eighteenth day of the month of August. But, someone will ask, could the year perhaps be drawn out from this in which that solemnity was celebrated? This surely, as far as it seems to me at least, can in no way be done. It would have to be thought otherwise, however, if it were established that that solemnity was performed on a Sunday. For since the said solemnity was performed not long after Gerard's departure from the monastery of St. Denis, which according to what has been said certainly did not happen before the year 928, it would without doubt on that hypothesis have been performed in that year in which, next after the year 928, the eighteenth of August fell on a Sunday, and consequently in the year 933, as the next in which this happens, as will be plain to one who computes it.

[55] are carried on another day than Sunday, But that that solemnity was not performed on a Sunday is clear if only from this, that it cannot be deferred up to the year 933. For from what I have already discussed above, it cannot be doubtful that the body of St. Eugenius was translated to Brogne in the very year in which Gerard returned from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. Since, therefore, according to what has been said, Gerard returned to Brogne either in the year 928 or in the following, it was translated thither sooner than the year 933. Hence it is now clear on how weak a foundation rests that dictum of Pagi in the Critica, which he there often inculcates, that the translations, elevations and similar solemnities of the Saints were of old wont to be held on Sundays, and that hence consequently the year in which they were held can sometimes be drawn out, if they are noted as held on some definite day of some month. I would not, however, wish to deny that translations of the Saints and similar solemnities were of old sometimes held on Sundays, and that hence an argument sufficiently valid can sometimes be constructed for determining the year in which they were held, namely if nothing from elsewhere stands in the way, and a reason in some way probable militates for a Sunday. But as it is then consonant with reason that arguments sought from that ancient custom be not entirely rejected, so the same reason requires that, if anything hinders their being admitted, they be held altogether invalid; since it is also sufficiently established that the said solemnities were sometimes of old performed on other days too than Sundays.

[56] [and it is decreed in a synod that the holy martyr be venerated with an annual feast.] Further, the sacred relics of St. Eugenius having now been translated to Brogne, the fame of this martyr grew far and wide by signs of miracles, and hence a great concourse of people from every side was made to the church of Brogne. But this thing greatly displeased some, most probably more solicitous for their own profit than for the honour of the Saints. They suppliantly approach the bishop of Liège, in whose diocese, as I have already noted, the monastery of Brogne, now in that of Namur, was then situated, and by specious reasons push him so far that he was already meditating abolishing the cult of St. Eugenius. But he, seized by a sudden and most grievous infirmity, recognized the cause of the disease, and, for the recovery of his former health, ordered two wax candles equalling the length of his body to be carried to the monastery of Brogne and offered to the holy martyr. Nor indeed was this salutary counsel of the bishop without fruit. As soon as those were consumed, at once all the force of the disease was entirely routed and departed. And he, not at all unmindful of the benefit, which he did not blush to profess openly, proclaimed a synod to be celebrated, and in it, most probably with Anselm labouring much to this end,

a monk, sacristan of the church of Brogne, who by the bishop's order had brought thither the Passion of the martyr, he issued a decree that throughout the whole tract or deanery to which the church of Brogne belonged, the eighteenth day of August, on which the body of St. Eugenius had been brought thither, should henceforth be observed as solemn, like a Sunday, and that the church of Brogne should be held immune from every obsonium (that is, as some interpret it, stipend) owed to the bishops of Liège. And in this manner, as the biographer sets forth in a more diffuse discourse, the veneration of St. Eugenius was firmly established in the church of Brogne. This matter it has pleased me to explain here, because, although it does not chiefly pertain to Gerard, I nevertheless think that he had no small part in it. For he was most probably the author of those things which, as I have hinted, Anselm, just praised, the sacristan of the church of Brogne, brought forward for establishing the cult of Eugenius in the synod convoked by the bishop of Liège, in which it was established.

§ V. Whether the entire body of St. Eugenius the martyr was granted to St. Gerard by the monks of St. Denis, and whether he was archbishop of Toledo in Spain.

The entire body of St. Eugenius, since parts of it The anonymous biographer of our Saint, according to what has been said, speaks at num. 22 about the sacred relics of Eugenius the martyr granted to Gerard by the monks of St. Denis in such a way that he seems to insinuate that the entire sacred body of that martyr was given to him. Yet that that sacred pledge was not conferred on Gerard entire is held as undoubted among all the learned today, so that it might seem superfluous to prove this matter laboriously here. Nevertheless, so that the studious reader may not be compelled to seek elsewhere what he would perhaps wish to have discussed here, I show here too by more than one argument that the whole body of Eugenius was not carried by Gerard to Brogne. Long after the age of St. Gerard two translations of relics of St. Eugenius the martyr into Spain were carried out from the Parisian monastery of St. Denis, one in the year 1156, the other in the year 1565. The whole body of that martyr, therefore, had not been carried thence beforehand by Gerard to Brogne. Those two translations of relics of Eugenius the martyr into Spain, and the occasion on which they were made, are set forth succinctly and at the same time neatly by Gérard Du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 6, page 34. I therefore transcribe his words here. They run thus: In the year of Christ MCXLVIII, when Pope Eugenius had come into Gaul, a council having been proclaimed at Reims, Raymond, archbishop of Toledo, making for the synod, first came to Lutetia of the Parisii; then he visited the church of St. Denis for devotion's sake; and as he surveys it with his eyes, he sees a sepulchre on which is the inscription: "Here lies St. Eugenius, first archbishop of Toledo, martyr." Raymond, struck by the novelty of the thing (for he had heard nothing of him before, not even at Toledo), having inquired who that martyr had been, and some little documents having been brought, found the Acts of St. Eugenius consonant with the inscription of the church of St. Denis.

[58] were afterwards granted twice to the Spaniards too, Inquiring no further, when the synod was dissolved, he thinks, in Spain, about translating the relics of the holy martyr to Toledo: and the occasion of accomplishing the matter presented itself thus. Louis the Younger, king of the Franks, as the Spanish writers have it, came after some years to Compostela for the sake of fulfilling a vow, then to Toledo. At that time Alfonso VII, king of Castile, obtained from the king of the Franks the right arm of the martyr Eugenius, archbishop of Toledo, which in the year MCLVI was translated to Toledo, as the Martyrologies and the celebrated writers of Spanish Affairs everywhere record. But in the year MDLXV the relics and bones of the martyr Eugenius were translated from the church of St. Denis to Toledo. For Philip II, king of the Spains, solicited by the prayers of the people of Toledo, obtained through his ambassador from the Most Christian king Charles IX the entire casket with the sacred pledges, and on the XVIII day of November it was brought to Toledo with magnificent display and unwonted pomp. That king, putting his shoulders under it, carried the bier, and by this signal piety rendered more honour to the martyr than the persecutor had once inflicted injury. So far the praised Du Bois, drawing all these things from Marineo Siculo, from Tamayo's Spanish Martyrology at the XIII day of February, and from Mariana's Spanish Affairs, book XI, chap. 3, as will become plain to one who consults these authors. Mabillon, in the Benedictine Annals, book 43, num. 8, testifies the same still more briefly in these words: That only a part of the relics of St. Eugenius was granted to Gerard is proved by the fact that his arm was given to Alfonso, king of Castile, through the intervention of Louis the seventh, king of the Franks; and another part, not small, to Philip the second, who laid it up at Toledo with the highest veneration.

[59] [was not given to St. Gerard, nor do the men of Brogne today contend that they possess it entire,] There are also a good many other writers who write to nearly the same effect, so that it is not to be doubted that a large part of the relics of St. Eugenius was translated into Spain after the age of St. Gerard. Whence let it be undoubted that the whole body of St. Eugenius was not carried by him from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. Moreover, says Mabillon immediately after the words from him just recited, our monks of St. Denis preserve the other arm of our holy martyr (Eugenius), and perhaps some particles besides. From this head alone, therefore, it is in no way probable that the whole body of the holy martyr Eugenius was granted to Gerard by the monks of St. Denis. And indeed it appears undoubted that not even the monks of Brogne themselves (what they did of old I cannot assert for certain) contend this at the present day. For Raissius, in the Catalogue of the sacred relics preserved at Brogne which he presents in the Hierogazophylacium Belgii, and which I think was furnished to him by the monks of Brogne themselves, has thus: A part (namely the men of Brogne preserve it) of the body of St. Eugenius, archbishop of Toledo and martyr; who in the territory of Paris, the course of martyrdom having been completed, received from the Lord the crown of a blessed passion. This part of the body was carried by St. Gerard to Brogne in the year (from the preceding § the falsity of this epoch is clear) DCCCCXV. The great bone of his arm the most serene Isabella Eugenia, heroine of the Belgians, adorned with a silver arm industriously worked.

[60] In which words not the entire body of St. Eugenius, the men of Brogne today contend. Yet in their keeping but only a part of it, is ascribed to the men of Brogne. The same is done in the Catalogue of the relics with which Brogne is enriched, which in the year 1618 Gérard Souris, Prior of the abbey of Brogne, added at the end of the Life of St. Gerard published by him in print in French. For in this (which we have already seen Raissius also do), when he treats of the relics of St. Eugenius, he ascribes to the church of Brogne only a silver arm, in which is enclosed the bone of the arm of St. Eugenius, given by Albert and Isabella, princes of the Belgians, and two notable parts of ribs, together with relics of various Saints, and many more minute particles of the body and tunic of the same St. Eugenius, enclosed in a Case covered with a red cloth. Where you see that the praised Prior is far from attributing the whole body of Eugenius to his monastery of Brogne. Therefore the men of Brogne now without doubt do not contend that this sacred pledge is possessed by them entire. But another question can now be raised here. For, as the praised Du Bois writes in the words recited at num. 58, the right arm of St. Eugenius was granted to Alfonso, king of Castile, and the other, as Mabillon testifies at num. 59, the monks of St. Denis still preserve. Since, therefore, according to the testimony of Raissius, which the Catalogue just cited also supports, the great bone of the arm of St. Eugenius is preserved in the church of Brogne, it can not undeservedly be asked whether the right arm of this martyr was granted entire to Alfonso, king of Castile, and whether the monks of St. Denis possess the left entire. For it is necessary either that the left arm of St. Eugenius is not entire in the keeping of the monks of St. Denis, or that the right was not conferred entire on Alfonso, since, according to what has been said, the men of Brogne preserve the great bone of the arm.

[61] The right arm, as I think, was conferred entire on Alfonso; that there are genuine relics of St. Eugenius, but the monks of St. Denis still preserve not the entire left arm, but only a part of it. I think so on account of what du Saussay records at the fifteenth day of November, sacred to St. Eugenius the martyr, in these words: The monks of St. Denis, since they took it ill that so great a pledge (the body of St. Eugenius) should be snatched from them by royal command (at the petition of Philip II, king of the Spains) and carried to a foreign nation, plucked off some little portion from the sacred remains, namely a bone from the arm, which they reserved for themselves, nay for France, as a nourishment of piety, to be venerated with fitting honour. The monks of St. Denis, therefore, as the praised du Saussay testifies in these words, possess not the entire arm of St. Eugenius, but only a bone from it, and hence partly, and partly from what has been said, it follows that probably indeed the entire right arm of St. Eugenius was granted to Alfonso, king of Castile; while one part of the left arm exists with the monks of St. Denis and another with the monks of Brogne. Longueval, priest of the Society of Jesus, in the History of the Gallican church, vol. 1, page 106, seems to doubt whether genuine relics of St. Eugenius ever existed in the church of Brogne. For perhaps, as he says, the monks of St. Denis only pretended that they were giving them to St. Gerard. This author probably wrote so because he held it ascertained that after the age of St. Gerard the greatest part of the relics of St. Eugenius was carried from the monastery of St. Denis into Spain, and at the same time observed that our biographer speaks in such a way that he seems to hint that the entire body of Eugenius was conferred on Gerard by the monks of St. Denis.

[62] although Longueval seems to doubt of this matter, appears certain. But he does not indicate this so openly that it cannot be explained of only a part of the relics conferred on Gerard. And indeed, even if this could not be done, what Longueval, according to what has been said, hints would not on that account please. For perhaps the biographer heard from the elders of his monastery that the reliquary in which in his age the relics of St. Eugenius were enclosed at Brogne was granted to St. Gerard by the monks of St. Denis together with the body of this martyr, and hence concluded that the entire body of Eugenius, with the urn in which it had been enclosed in the monastery of St. Denis, was brought by Gerard to Brogne. But nothing prevents the monks of St. Denis from being believed to have given Gerard a reliquary in which was enclosed only the part of the body of St. Eugenius which they were giving, and nothing is more common than for that to be called the body of some Saint which is only a part of it. So the biographer, even if he expressly asserted that the entire body of Eugenius was conferred on Gerard, would have strayed from the truth only by an error worthy of pardon. Wherefore, since (at which alone Longueval was perhaps aiming) his credit thus remains entire, it was not necessary, in order to keep it unimpaired, to have recourse to a merely feigned donation of the relics of St. Eugenius. But perhaps Longueval also thought that the entire body of St. Eugenius was granted to the Spaniards by the monks of St. Denis. But not even all the Spaniards themselves contend this. This is clear from what Antonio de Yepes, in vol. 5 of the General Benedictine Chronicle, at the year

939, concerning St. Gerard, chap. 1, page 48 verso, records about the number of the bones of St. Eugenius preserved at Toledo. However that may be, on account of what has already been said there is no doubt to me that genuine relics of this holy martyr were granted to Gerard by the monks of St. Denis.

[63] But that he was bishop of Toledo is called into doubt, But it is far from being equally undoubted that that martyr Eugenius was archbishop of Toledo in Spain, with which title he is adorned more than once in the Life to be edited. For, says Gérard Du Bois, already praised more than once, in the place cited above, concerning the martyr Eugenius whose relics St. Gerard received from the monastery of St. Denis: before the reign of Alfonso VII, king of Castile, there is no record of him (namely as archbishop of Toledo), neither at Toledo, nor among the Spanish writers who preceded him, nor in the more ancient Acts of the Martyrs of Belgica Secunda, which I have mentioned above, in which we read that this Eugenius died by martyrdom under Maximian. Further, to one asking whence first came the mention in the church of St. Denis of Eugenius, first bishop of Toledo, nothing is at hand which I can relate for certain. Whether, as some write, but without authority, the relics of Eugenius of Toledo were brought to Lutetia of the Parisii when the Moors were devastating Spain; or, which I would rather approve, although it is conjecture, that the name of Eugenius, which belonged to two pontiffs of Toledo, of whom the younger published poems, was attached to the Parisian Eugenius, after Hilduin once said that a hymn was composed by Eugenius of Toledo in honour of Dionysius the Areopagite. For since the memory of St. Eugenius the martyr was venerated in the church of St. Denis, and his relics were exposed there for veneration, it was easily believed that that Eugenius who was established to be a martyr, and whom the old Acts asserted to be a companion of St. Denis, was the same who was both prelate of the church of Toledo and a Parisian martyr.

[64] Thus far the praised writer of the Ecclesiastical History of Paris, calling into doubt whether the martyr Eugenius, [because under this name he is recorded neither among the ancient writers, whether Spanish,] whose relics St. Gerard brought from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, was bishop of the church of Toledo. And indeed how deservedly this matter is to be doubted the reasons which he brings forward, weighed a little more attentively, will make manifest. No record, he says, of the Eugenius who suffered in the diocese of Paris occurs among the Spanish writers before the reign of Alfonso the seventh, king of Castile in the twelfth century. Julian and Felix, both prelates of Toledo in the seventh century, acknowledged only two Eugeniuses, bishops of Toledo, who both flourished long after St. Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, in the seventh century under the kings Chindaswinth and Recceswinth. For in their Appendix, which they added to the fourteenth chapter of Ildefonsus of Toledo on Ecclesiastical Writers, in Miraeus's Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, they call the younger of those two Eugeniuses, bishops of Toledo, the second, whereas they would certainly have called him the third if they had believed that Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, far more ancient than they, had been archbishop of Toledo. Moreover Isidore of Seville and Ildefonsus, bishop of Toledo, who were both illustrious for their writings in the seventh century, nowhere in these make mention of Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, as having been archbishop of Toledo. Many other ancient Spanish writers who likewise make no mention in their Works of Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, as bishop of Toledo, I do not bring forward; for the constant silence of the ancient writers of Spain about a Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, who suffered near Paris, cannot be hidden from anyone who has consulted the learned works on distinguishing Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysius the Parisian martyr from one another.

[65] To these, therefore, for brevity's sake, I refer the studious reader, or any others whatever. and, the silence of the old Spaniards about a Eugenius, Parisian martyr, who was bishop of Toledo, now being proved, I proceed to prove the silence also of other ancient writers and monuments about the same as bishop of Toledo. Absolutely no writer can be assigned, earlier in age than Hilduin, abbot of St. Denis in the ninth century, who confused Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite, who made the Parisian Eugenius a bishop of Toledo. Moreover all the ancient Calendars prefixed to Missals, Antiphonaries and Breviaries which mention Eugenius add to him only the title of martyr, not that of bishop. Of old, therefore, he was not held to be a bishop of Toledo. The pure Usuard in Sollerius, at the fifteenth day of November, on which Eugenius, crowned with martyrdom near Paris, is venerated, celebrates him with this announcement: On the same day, of St. Eugenius, who in the district of Paris, the course of martyrdom having been completed, received from the Lord the crown of a blessed passion: where likewise Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, is not adorned with the title of bishop, which, however, Usuard, according to the custom received among the compilers of Martyrologies and Calendars, is wont to add to all the Saints whom he commemorates and whom he held ascertained to have been bishops. It does not seem, therefore, to have been known in Usuard's age, what in the lapse of time some afterwards persuaded themselves about the episcopate of the Parisian Eugenius among the men of Toledo.

[66] Yet, that they should believe Eugenius a bishop of Toledo, by some Life similar But, you will say, by what means did it come about that that opinion about the Toledan episcopate of the Parisian Eugenius, if it is false, prevailed in the lapse of time, by what means could it be persuaded to our Saint, and to the synod of Liège itself, in which, according to what has been said, Richer, bishop of Liège, decreed that Eugenius should be venerated with an annual feast? Molanus, in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium, presents in summary a certain Life of St. Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, committed to writing by Floharius, a priest, who, as he says, collected it when it had been dispersed by the devastations of the Normans. In this St. Eugenius, who suffered in the village of Deuil near Paris, is related to have been a disciple of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and bishop of Toledo. That composition, since it was worked out by Floharius only in the twelfth century, Gerard could not see; but he without doubt saw a similar one, as you will gather from what will soon be said, and from it easily believed in the Toledan episcopate of St. Eugenius of Paris. And indeed the Saint did not need a spur of this kind to that end, since he would at once have believed, on their assertion alone, that the Eugenius whom he had heard invoked by the monks of St. Denis in the evening prayers (see the biographer, num. 12 and 13) was a bishop of Toledo. As now regards Richer, bishop of Liège, and the synod celebrated by him, they heard read before them the Passion or Life of St. Eugenius, which Richer had ordered to be brought from Brogne to Liège, and approved it with unanimous consent, as the biographer testifies at num. 33. It appears to me most probable that that Passion or Life was not very different from the Life already mentioned which Floharius the priest wrote. Therefore the Toledan episcopate of St. Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, will have been asserted in it too, and hence Bishop Richer and the synod assembled by him probably persuaded themselves of it.

[67] to that of which a twofold summary is here presented, one from Molanus, That Life, or rather the summary of the Life of St. Eugenius in Molanus, runs thus: The most blessed Dionysius, who by the authority and blessing of St. Clement undertook the apostolate of all Gaul, destined St. Eugenius as first bishop to the people of Toledo in Spain. Coming therefore into the heart of the Spains, and having manfully won the province of Carpetania, he preached Christ God to the nations. But after he had led Toledo, the first city of the Spains, and the province of Toledo to Christ and true piety, and confirmed them by word, by miracles and by example, desiring greatly to see St. Dionysius again, in order to render account of his ministry and to receive consolation from him before the death of both, having left priests at Toledo, he returned to the Gauls, and near the city of the Parisii, in the township or village of Deuil, he is slain by the enemies of Christian doctrine, because he had said that he worshipped Christ, as if a teacher of an evil institute, and his body, lest it should be held in honour by the Christians, is cast headlong into a lake near the township of Marcasium, where it lay hidden many years. But when the bloody war against the Christians ceased, a certain Ercold, admonished by an oracle, found the body as if newly dead, and, having understood the will of God, buried it honourably at Deuil. Whence afterwards, on account of the Normans, it was translated into the church of St. Denis.

[68] the other from Launoy, Richer and the synod convoked by him were led. From this summary of the Life of Eugenius another does not much disagree, which Launoy, on the two Dionysiuses, page 294 and following, presents as compiled by himself from a manuscript Codex of St. Remigius of Reims and from, as I think, the praised composition of Floharius itself. Here it is too: Dionysius the Areopagite departs from Rome into Gaul, brings with him Eugenius, a Roman citizen, a prelate created by himself, sends him away from Arles into Spain to Toledo. This Eugenius founds a church, converts peoples to the faith of Christ, dedicates the church of Toledo in honour of B. Stephen the protomartyr, writes an epic poem composed of XIV verses for the benefit of the Christians, which begins thus: "King God, by whom the fabric of the immense world consists." Then, when he had furnished his church with a suitable number of clerics, he sets out from Toledo to Lutetia to see his master. But when he came, not far from the city, to a place named Deuil, he receives from the inhabitants the news of the death of the Areopagite; then he composes a Hymn, whose beginning is: "Citizens of heaven, applaud." Having sung this cheerfully, he dissolves in tears, but at length consoles himself and others weeping with him on this account, that Dionysius had flown up to heaven. Thence he scatters the seed of the Gospel here and there; which being soon discovered, he is seized by the lictors and ordered by Fescenninus to be slain. Such is the Life of Eugenius, now presented in a twofold summary, one similar to which, as I have said, impelled Richer, bishop of Liège, and the synod which he convoked, to believe in the Toledan episcopate of that holy martyr.

[69] But Launoy, praised above, not obscurely indicates that that whole Life seems to him supposititious. But that Life is perhaps supposititious, And surely, although Launoy not rarely uses an immoderate Criticism, and is hence sometimes not undeservedly beaten by the more prudent learned, I do not know, however, whether he offends against the laws of sound Criticism when he counts the Life of St. Eugenius which he found in the codex of Reims among pure and unmixed fictions. For in that Life St. Dionysius, who came into the Gauls for the sake of preaching the Gospel, is asserted to have been the Areopagite; but that the Areopagite is without doubt different from the Dionysius who brought the light of the Gospel into the Gauls has now been demonstrated by many so lucidly that you would scarcely find any learned man any longer who makes both Dionysiuses, namely the Areopagite and the bishop of Paris, the same. The coming of Dionysius the Areopagite into the Gauls to convert the gentiles is therefore supposititious, and consequently whatever is built upon this concerning St. Eugenius in the summaries of this Life already given may likewise seem fictitious. That a judgment may be passed on the matter more aptly, I present the source from which it may have arisen that Eugenius, the Parisian martyr, was taken by Floharius and others for a bishop of Toledo and for a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite. According to what has been said, all the ancient Spanish writers up to the twelfth century acknowledged only two Eugeniuses, bishops of the city of Toledo, who both flourished long after St. Eugenius, the Parisian martyr. Of these two Eugeniuses the second or younger

composed poems, which Sirmond in the year 1619 made public by the benefit of print.

[70] Further, Molanus says that a Hymn on St. Dionysius, composed by St. Eugenius, and hence the Toledan episcopate of Eugenius, whose source is shown, is preserved at Brogne in a most ancient manuscript of St. Eugenius, together with a metrical prayer which begins with this verse: King God, by whom the fabric of the immense world consists, etc. The Life of St. Eugenius found by Launoy at Reims likewise attributes it to this martyr; as also the other, which begins with this verse, Citizens of heaven, applaud, and which in fact speaks of St. Dionysius. Now Sirmond joined that former metrical prayer with the Works of the younger Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, which, according to what has been said, he made public: and although it hence becomes most probable that it is the offspring not of Eugenius the Parisian martyr but of the younger Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, it may nevertheless be, nay it seems to have happened, that on account of its having been wrongly attributed by some, according to what has been said, to Eugenius the Parisian martyr, he was held for a bishop of Toledo and for a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite. And so you now have the source from which it may have arisen that both in the Reims and in the Molanian summary of the Life of St. Eugenius of Paris, both of which I have transcribed here above, that holy martyr is thrust upon us as a bishop of Toledo and a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite. But, you will say, if Eugenius of Paris was certainly neither bishop of Toledo nor a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite, what at length will there be that can safely be believed about him? I answer, almost nothing else than that he was of old crowned with martyrdom not far from Lutetia, and this probably when, under the emperors Diocletian and Maximian Herculius, the latter raged most cruelly, towards the end of the third century, against the Christians dispersed through the provinces of the Gauls.

[71] is very doubtful. This matter can be proved by valid weights of reasons at the fifteenth day of November, on which Eugenius, who suffered martyrdom not far from Lutetia, is entered in the Roman Martyrology; these I do not bring forward here, because it is not of my purpose to illustrate the Acts of Eugenius, being content to have put forward those things which call into doubt whether the martyr Eugenius, whose relics Gerard brought to Brogne from the monastery of St. Denis near Paris, was ever bishop of Toledo. And this I think has now been sufficiently accomplished; for I do not here dwell on that opinion of Miraeus in the Fasti Belgici, supported by no suitable testimony, as far as I know hitherto, by which Eugenius, of whose relics St. Gerard received, is thought to have been the first bishop of Toledo, whose body, when the Saracens broke into Spain from Mauritania in the eighth century, was translated to the monastery of St. Denis near Paris. Moreover, the Toledan episcopate of Dionysius of Paris is not persuaded to me either by the Fragment of the Chronicle of Flavius Marcus Dexter which Nicolás Antonio, in the Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, vol. 2, page 274, would have held as a genuine and legitimate monument of this historian, if any was transmitted into Spain in the 16th century from the genuine library of Fulda, and which runs thus: Marcus Marcellus, son of Marcus Marcellus, prefect of the city, who is also Eugenius, formerly a disciple of St. Peter the Apostle, but afterwards of St. Clement the Pope, sent by the same and by Dionysius the Areopagite into Spain, preaches and teaches the men of Toledo. XCV. With these things given as advance notice of what will be discussed by us concerning St. Eugenius at the XV day of November, I now undertake another discussion, about the relics brought by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne.

§ VI. Whether, and what, relics St. Gerard brought from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne besides the body of St. Eugenius the martyr.

[That he brought many relics of Saints from Paris to Brogne, in the Life to be edited] That not a few relics of Saints, besides those which he received from the body of St. Eugenius the martyr, were brought by St. Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis near Paris to Brogne is the opinion of many. And indeed this rests on firm reasons, and first of all on the authority of the anonymous writer who committed the Life of Gerard to writing. For he records thus at num. 23: But not only the body of this Saint (Eugenius the martyr) from there (namely from the monastery of St. Denis), but also the pledges of many Saints he is known to have brought (to Brogne), which he had gathered for himself from every quarter with faithful storing. What too (which scarcely seems credible to the incredulous) should be related of one Innocent, cut down with his coevals, like a most tender flower, under Herod, the most cruel king, whom most certainly the sanctuary of the basilica of Brogne most certainly contains, brought thither by this same agent? Moreover, in the Appendix subjoined to the Life in Mabillon, and now to be given here entire by me, as I promised above, he has this: Among the other benefits of the divine largesse which were conferred on the church of Brogne through blessed Gerard, this one out of many I shall not pass over in silence, because it ought not to be passed over. When St. Gerard obtained leave and liberty to return to his native land from the Parisian monastery of St. Denis, where he had changed from the world, God conferred grace on him, that he might bring greater benefit to his own land. Whatever, therefore, he asked, he received. He received twelve persons of the second order, according to the apostolic number, namely good teachers, formers of morals, observers of Regular discipline. He received books of that time, one of which I have seen, which holy antiquity wrote and dedicated.

[73] He received the body of the most blessed martyr Eugenius, archbishop of the men of Toledo, and in its Appendix, transcribed here, Gerard is asserted. whom Peter the Apostle baptized and taught, whom blessed Clement delegated to preach to the Spaniards together with blessed Dionysius, who should preach to the Gauls. He received also, among other gifts, the travelling altar which St. Dionysius used while he lived, on which, as he was celebrating Mass while he was in prison, Christ appearing to him gave Himself to him, saying: Take this, my dear one, which I shall soon fulfil for you together with My Father. This altar was bordered with silver, which in beaten work represented the heads of the Apostles. It is probable enough that, since the Lord of all and the supreme Priest, Christ, ministered Himself, as He was and is, to blessed Dionysius, who was about to triumph, upon this altar, no small power remained in it. For it could not have remained without power where the highest power sat. If the sepulchre of the Lord, because the Body of the Lord was enclosed in it, is venerated with worthy veneration, this altar of the Lord is likewise to be venerated, on which the Lord placed Himself. Likewise if the altars of the patriarchs were endowed with such great powers that God sometimes ministered to them victims and fire and oil and grace and answer and angels, as befell Abraham and Jacob and Zachary, this altar is to be believed to have been distinguished with a privilege of powers not inferior, on which Christ conferred Himself on His athlete as victim and priest. Therefore faith requires that those communicating receive of that which blessed Dionysius received, so that they may never end from this light until they receive the Viaticum, and it shall have been fulfilled for them by Christ and by the Father, who lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God. Amen.

[74] Thus far the Appendix which Mabillon subjoined to the Life of St. Gerard, [Among these was certainly the portable altar which Dionysius is said once to have used;] observing thus on the Travelling Altar concerning which it is inscribed: Altars of this kind they call portable, among which is that notable one which we once saw in the treasury of the monastery of St. Emmeram, received from King Arnulf. On travelling or portable altars we too have already observed some things, which can be of use here too, at page 206 of this volume, in the Annotations which we added to the Passion of Sts. Ewald. Thither, therefore, out of zeal for brevity, I refer the curious reader, and concerning the portable altar which is said in the Appendix now transcribed here to have been given to St. Gerard, I only observe further that the St. Dionysius who is said to have used that altar while surviving among the living is not to be held for the Areopagite. For the Dionysius whose portable altar the monks of St. Denis gave to Gerard had of old proclaimed the faith in the Gauls, had been cast into prison there, and then crowned with an illustrious martyrdom; all of which in no way fit Dionysius the Areopagite, as has already been demonstrated by many learned men, and will be demonstrated again in our Work at the ninth day of this month, on which Dionysius the Areopagite, confused with Dionysius the Parisian martyr, is entered in the present Roman Martyrology. And so indeed from the praised Appendix we now know that besides the sacred relics of St. Eugenius the martyr, a portable altar, which St. Dionysius, the Parisian martyr, is said once to have used when performing the sacred rites, was carried by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. Let us now examine whether, and what, other relics of Saints the Saint carried thither from the same monastery.

[75] but that the relics of St. Leodegar are not to be counted among these, That some portion of the body of St. Leodegar is preserved in the monastery of Brogne I proved in the preceding volume, in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of this Saint, num. 392, and I promised that whether it was brought to Brogne by St. Gerard should be discussed here. I now proceed, therefore, to prove that it was probably brought thither from St. Denis. Le Cointe, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, as I already noted in the preceding volume in the place just cited, at the year 681, num. 6, goes over to that opinion which determines that the relics of St. Leodegar were brought to Brogne no sooner than after the age of St. Gerard. I transcribe his words here: they run thus: In that monastery (of Brogne or of St. Gerard) Raissius says the body of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun and martyr, is preserved. Then he sets forth his mind thus: "I have said that they," namely the monks of Brogne, "have the body, that is, the greatest part of the body, except also his sacred head." More rightly Molanus asserts that not the greatest, but some portion of the body was carried into the monastery of Brogne, thus: "The holy body was carried away to the monastery of St. Maxentius. Afterwards, however, Brogne, the Namur monastery of St. Gerard, received from there some portion of the body on the eleventh day of April." Afterwards he cites a Martyrology, whose words at that day are these: "In the monastery of Brogne, the Coming of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr. His birthday is in the month of October, on the second day."

[76] Le Cointe thinks. To Gonther, who holds the fourth place among the abbots of Brogne and closed his life in the year of Christ one thousand and sixty-two, the Life of St. Gerard is found inscribed. The author testifies that the care of eighteen monasteries, in order that the collapsed discipline of the monastic state might be restored there, was committed to Gerard; he testifies also to relics sought out by the same Gerard from monasteries, with which Brogne might be enriched, but he makes no mention of blessed Leodegar. There is also a deep silence about St. Leodegar in Molanus and the other modern writers who have woven the praises of St. Gerard. The monks of Brogne, therefore, received the sacred remains of Leodegar the martyr later, but whence and when is entirely unknown; for the monuments are lacking by which these things could be demonstrated. Therefore St. Gerard, according to Le Cointe's opinion, did not bring the sacred remains of St. Leodegar which are preserved at Brogne from St. Denis to Brogne. But whether

is this proved solidly enough from the silence of our biographer and of other writers about relics of St. Leodegar brought by Gerard to Brogne? This indeed I do not think. For although the biographer makes no express mention of relics of St. Leodegar which Gerard brought to Brogne, he nevertheless says that besides the body of St. Eugenius the pledges of many Saints were brought by the Saint from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, and he does not record by name any Saint whose relics Gerard brought thence to Brogne. That relics of St. Leodegar were not brought by Gerard from St. Denis to Brogne cannot, therefore, be concluded from the silence of our biographer about that holy martyr; for this cannot be done unless you at the same time maintain that likewise no relics of any other Saints whatever (since the biographer records none of these by name either) were brought by Gerard thence to Brogne; which, however, can in no way be admitted.

[77] For it conflicts most openly with the biographer, who at num. 23 expressly affirms that the relics of many Saints besides the body of St. Eugenius were brought by Gerard from St. Denis to Brogne. Yet the contrary, from Giles, monk of Orval, But not only, he says, the body of this Saint (Eugenius the martyr) from there (from the monastery of St. Denis), but also the pledges of many Saints he (Gerard) is known to have brought (to the monastery of Brogne). As for what the praised Le Cointe further adds, that there is also a deep silence in Molanus and other modern writers about relics of Leodegar brought to Brogne by Gerard, surely not a single person, as far as I think, would conclude without doubt from this, after Le Cointe's example, that the sacred remains of this martyr were received by the monks of Brogne later than Gerard's age; for Molanus and those other modern writers did not have as their purpose to enumerate all the relics which St. Gerard carried from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. And indeed from elsewhere it appears probable enough that the relics of Leodegar were brought by St. Gerard himself from the monastery of St. Denis to that of Brogne. For, as Le Cointe confesses in the words recited above, whence and when the monks of Brogne received the sacred remains of Leodegar the martyr is entirely unknown. Wherefore, since the biographer teaches that the sacred remains of many Saints were brought by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, those relics of St. Leodegar which are preserved at Brogne can surely be counted among these probably enough. Moreover, a silence not equally deep, as Le Cointe nevertheless seems to mean, is kept among all writers about relics of Leodegar brought by Gerard to Brogne. For Giles, monk of Orval, in his Additions to Anselm on the Deeds of the pontiffs of Liège, book 1, chap. 40, writes thus: Relics of St. Leodegar, bishop and martyr, and the stone on which B. Dionysius celebrated the sacred Mystery in prison, when the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him, giving him the Sacraments, are said to have been translated to the said monastery (of Brogne or of St. Gerard) (namely by Gerard from St. Denis, as is understood from the preceding and following words of this writer).

[78] So Giles, although he does not speak assertively, makes mention of relics of Leodegar which St. Gerard brought to Brogne from St. Denis. although Mabillon also doubts of the matter, Mabillon, however, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, touches on that mention by Giles of relics of Leodegar brought to Brogne by Gerard thus: Giles of Liège, in book 1 of the Deeds of the pontiffs, chap. 40, adds to the relics of St. Eugenius translated by Gerard also relics of St. Leodegar, bishop of Autun, carried off by the same from the basilica of St. Denis together with the stone on which St. Dionysius celebrated the Sacrifice in prison. That stone the Appendix to be adduced below calls a travelling Altar, no mention being made of translated relics of St. Leodegar. In which words Mabillon hints openly enough that he doubts whether relics of St. Leodegar were carried by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. But although in the Appendix, already praised several times, no mention occurs of relics of St. Leodegar which Gerard carried from St. Denis to Brogne, several gifts are nevertheless said in the same Appendix to have been conferred on Gerard when he was about to depart from the monastery of St. Denis. Under these, therefore, the author of the Appendix perhaps comprehends the relics of St. Leodegar, or at least does not forbid their being comprehended. How true this is appears if only from this, that the author of the Appendix is the same as the author of the Life to be edited; and in this it is expressly asserted that together with the relics of Eugenius the martyr the sacred remains of many other Saints were brought by Gerard from St. Denis to Brogne. Therefore, although no express mention occurs in his biographer, neither in the Life nor in the Appendix, of relics of St. Leodegar carried from here by Gerard to the monastery of Brogne, it can in no way be concluded from this that this was not done by Gerard.

[79] and from elsewhere besides it appears probable enough. Hence, therefore, the opinion about relics of Leodegar brought by Gerard from St. Denis to Brogne loses nothing at all of the probability which I attributed to it above. Further, that this may still grow in some way, and that it may be more plain that silence is not kept by all about relics of Leodegar brought by Gerard to Brogne, I bring forward two further testimonies in which this is asserted to have been done by the Saint. The first is sought from the Sacrarium Namurcense printed in the year 1619. This has thus: Brogne preserves part of his (St. Leodegar's) body by the work of St. Gerard; the other is sought from the Catalogue of the relics which are preserved at Brogne, praised above. This, as the title shows, enumerates all the relics with which the monastery of Brogne was enriched by the piety and diligence of St. Gerard. Moreover, it is noted as extracted from the recension of the relics found at Brogne which the most illustrious lord Walloncappelle, second bishop of Namur, drew up in the year 1588 when he had visited them. And in this there are attributed to Brogne the bones of the body of St. Leodegar, the head excepted. According to that Catalogue too, therefore, the relics of St. Leodegar which are preserved at Brogne were brought by St. Gerard to Brogne. Therefore I do not indeed hold it as certain that they were brought hither by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis; yet on account of all that has been said I think it probable; although meanwhile some think the contrary, who may be free to determine whatever they will on this point. I proceed now to other relics which are likewise preserved at Brogne and which were carried thither by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis.

[80] The biographer writes thus at num. 23: What too (which scarcely seems credible to the incredulous) should be related of one Innocent cut down with his coevals, [Gerard, as the biographer testifies, brought from the monastery of St. Denis the body of one of the Holy Innocents,] like a most tender flower, under Herod, the most cruel king, whom most certainly the sanctuary of the basilica of Brogne most certainly contains, brought thither (to the monastery of Brogne) by this same agent (St. Gerard)? But if this raises any ambiguity for anyone, let him inquire of Abbot Lietald, successor of this Man of God (St. Gerard) in the monastery of Mouzon, who, having been present with him at the secret packing of so many relics, used to wonder that so wonderful a sanctity was contained in the narrow compass of the little box of Brogne. Gerard, therefore, carried from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne the relics of one of the innocent children slain at Herod's order after the birth of Christ, as our biographer testifies, and this indeed he, since he praises Abbot Lietald (see num. 7 and 9 of this Commentary), most certainly drew from the older biographer of St. Gerard, whose composition has perished, so that it is not to be doubted that what he here records agrees exactly and to a nicety with the truth.

[81] But in the Catalogue of the relics with which St. Gerard enriched the monastery of Brogne, praised above, but the bodies of two other Innocents from the monastery of Chimay, which is added at the end of the summary Life of the Saint printed in the year 1618, the bodies of two Innocents slain by Herod, of whom one was called Philip, the other Benjamin, are enumerated. The same is done by Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgii, and by Gramaye in his Treatise on the Affairs of Namur. The words of both, although they do not treat of relics received from the monastery of St. Denis, I nevertheless also transcribe, because from these writers an objection can here be formed against our biographer. Those of the former are these: The bodies of Philip and Benjamin, of the number of the holy Innocents slain for Christ by Herod of Ascalon, the most impious tetrarch of Judaea, which were translated from the monastery of the Virgin Mother of Christ called Aulae, in the territory of the Terraceni of Chimay, by a divine revelation made to St. Gerard, into this church of Brogne, are preserved in a silver casket in the sacristy. And those of the latter these: Besides the bier … of the most blessed patriarch Gerard, Brogne preserves the body of St. Eugenius, archbishop of the see of Toledo, and of St. Leodegar: finally the sacred pledges of two Innocents, carried from the monastery of Chimay by Gerard, foreknowing the devastation that was to follow, and, when they had long lain hidden, found through a revelation made to a certain blind woman of Nivelles, Tiberia.

[82] The monastery which is here called by Gramaye that of Chimay, by Raissius Aulae, of which a notice of the situation is given here, he carried to Brogne; was situated in the forest of Thiérache, which is also called by others Terracia or Terracea, in that very place where now is Chimay, a little town of Hainaut. Hence without doubt it is placed by Raissius, in the words recited, in the territory of the Terraceni of Chimanum or Chimay. So that the situation of that monastery may be known, I write out here from Baudrand a notice of the little town of Chimay: Chimacum, otherwise Vennae Villa, Chimay, a town of Belgium with a castle in Hainaut, famous with the title of principality, sits on the little river Blanche, towards the Ardennes forest and the borders of the province of Champagne, four leagues distant from Marienbourg, five to the West towards Avesnes, and four from Rocroi, about six towards Maubeuge. The aforesaid monastery, therefore, was not very remote from the monastery of Brogne. Hence it becomes more credible that the bodies of two Innocents were translated to Brogne by Gerard when he had learned divinely that destruction threatened the monastery of Chimay. But what and of what kind was that monastery, and on what occasion was it destroyed? Did this perhaps happen about the middle of the tenth century, when the Hungarians broke into Lotharingia and the regions neighbouring the Meuse, and did the present college of canons of Chimay afterwards emerge from its restoration? I find absolutely no ancient monuments from which I could determine anything certain here. But I now come to the objection which, as I have said, can here be formed against our biographer.

[83] and although only these two latter are counted among the relics of Brogne In the Catalogue of the relics of Brogne, praised more than once already, as also by Raissius and Gramaye, only two bodies of Holy Innocents are enumerated among the relics preserved at Brogne, which both were translated to Brogne by Gerard, divinely forewarned, from the monastery of Chimay then on the point of being destroyed. Wherefore, since, according to what has been said, our biographer teaches that the body of one other holy Innocent besides was brought by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, it can now be asked whether the biographer, in teaching this, is not to be convicted of error from the aforesaid Catalogue, from Raissius and from Gramaye. I answer that it may be that the relics of yet another of the Innocents slain by Herod, which

Gerard brought from the monastery of St. Denis, are still preserved at Brogne today, even if neither Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium, nor Gramaye in the Affairs of Namur, nor the Catalogue already praised more than once, expressly mentions them. For Gramaye enumerates only very few relics brought by Gerard to Brogne, and Raissius is far from enumerating all of them exactly. This last becomes plain from the list of them which this latter writer furnishes, compared with the Brogne Catalogue published in print in the year 1618. For although this makes no express mention of sacred relics of another of the Innocents which Gerard carried from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, it nevertheless has at the end, in French, this Clause, rendered by me into Latin: Likewise (namely relics are preserved at Brogne) of many other holy martyrs, confessors and virgins, whose names are known to God alone: since, therefore, according to this, relics of many Saints whose names are hidden are also preserved at Brogne, among these perhaps is the body of one of the Innocents slain by Herod which, as our biographer relates, Gerard, having received it from the monks of St. Denis, carried to Brogne.

[84] [are found expressly counted, yet the Saint's biographer did not on that account err,] This can surely seem not unlike the truth, if only because that one of the Innocents whose body the Saint obtained from the monks of St. Denis is distinguished by no name by our biographer, nor is it known from elsewhere what he was called. Whence it comes about that it can deservedly be counted among the relics of those Saints whose names are unknown, preserved at Brogne, as the Clause just recited teaches, although it is nowhere expressly recorded in the manner in which are recorded the bodies, of which above, of two other Innocents, of whom one is called Philip, the other Benjamin (whether by a genuine or a supposititious name, let the reader judge). Therefore, according to what has already been said, it cannot be certain from Raissius, Gramaye and the Catalogue of the relics of Brogne that the body of one of the Innocents, received from the monastery of St. Denis, is not preserved at Brogne, and consequently the biographer, who writes that it was brought hither by Gerard, cannot on that ground be convicted of error. Which, moreover, could not be done even if it were held ascertained that that body does not exist among the sacred relics of the Saints which are preserved at Brogne. For although it was carried thither by Gerard, it may have perished by the injury of the times, or been granted to some other church. It does not therefore appear, all things having been weighed, at all to be doubted that the body of one of the Innocents was carried by Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne.

[85] Nor does this alone seem to be believed on the biographer's credit, [on whose credit many other relics are also believed to have been brought by Gerard to Brogne.] but also that when Gerard departed from the monastery of St. Denis many relics of other Saints were carried away to Brogne, although what and of what kind they were it is not lawful to attain even by a sufficiently founded conjecture. For nothing occurs, either in the biographer or elsewhere, which affords room for making any conjecture of this kind whatever. One thing, however, which also pertains here, can be recorded here besides; namely that not all the relics which Gerard, departing from the monastery of St. Denis, carried with him to the monastery of Brogne were granted to him by the monks of St. Denis. For the biographer writes thus in these words recited above: He (St. Gerard) is known to have brought (to Brogne) the pledges of many Saints, which he had gathered for himself from every quarter with faithful storing. The Saint, therefore, had gathered from every quarter the relics which he carried with him to Brogne when he departed from the monastery of St. Denis, and consequently had not received them from the monks of St. Denis alone. Further, Gerard enriched the monastery of Brogne founded by himself not only with those relics of Saints which he brought with him on departing from the monastery of St. Denis, but also with others which he obtained later in various places and carried away to Brogne. These too could, on account of the likeness of the subject, be treated here opportunely enough; but since the time about which they were acquired by the Saint depends on what will be said, they will be treated more conveniently below.

§ VII. He substitutes monks for the clerics at Brogne; at what time he did this, and whether he brought them into a monastery built before for the clerics.

[The Saint, not long returned, substituted at Brogne, for the clerics, monks from the monastery of St. Denis] That monks were substituted for the clerics at Brogne by Gerard on his return from the monastery of St. Denis to his native land there is no one who calls into doubt. But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, says the biographer at num. 35 of Gerard, already returned to Brogne, striving from good things to better, and wishing to advance the sanctuary of Brogne in all things, removed the way of life of the clerics whom he had placed there before, substituting the religion of the monastic Order. But did the Saint effect this immediately after his return to his native land? This the biographer nowhere openly declares. Yet that this happened not very long after the Saint's return seems to be gathered from what the biographer narrates at num. 30 and the three following, and what I have already placed before the eyes in summary at num. 56 of this Commentary. For according to these (consult the biographer in the place cited) it seems to have happened not very long after the Saint's return that Richer, bishop of Liège, proclaimed a synod at Liège, and summoned to it Anselm, sacristan of the church of Brogne, with the Passion of St. Eugenius the martyr, whose relics Gerard had brought to Brogne.

[87] Now it does not appear doubtful that he whom Richer ordered to be present at Liège with the Passion of St. Eugenius was a monk, brought by St. Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne; for the Passion of Eugenius does not seem to have existed then in the keeping of any others than Gerard and the monks accompanied by whom he had carried it hither to Brogne together with the relics of the same holy martyr. Wherefore, since Anselm, without doubt, according to what has been said, a monk, was then, according to the biographer's testimony, sacristan of the church of Brogne, it does not appear to be doubted that monks had already then been substituted there by Gerard for the clerics; for otherwise a monk would not seem to have been at that time the sacristan of that church. Hence now the year too in which monks were substituted for the clerics at Brogne by Gerard is drawn out nearly determined. For since, according to what has already been said, this was done not very long after the Saint's return from the monastery of St. Denis to his native land, and this, as is clear from what was disputed above, took place in the year 928 according to the opinion which appears more probable, it is more probable too that in that very same year monks were substituted for the clerics at Brogne by Gerard. But you would not with equally easy effort determine whether the Saint then first built a monastery at Brogne for the monks; or whether he brought them into a monastery built there before by himself when not yet a monk.

[88] [The chief argument of the opinion which determines that a monastery was then first built there.] This difficulty I have already partly touched upon at num. 36 and the two following, and have referred it hither to be examined more fully. I therefore now proceed to examine it, and, that I may declare what I myself think from the very beginning, it seems to me that Gerard had built a monastery at Brogne already before, when he instituted clerics there and was not yet a monk. Therefore, to begin the matter with this advance notice, for the opinion which determines the contrary, and which has Mabillon as its patron, there militate most strongly, according to what has been said, the Charter of donation granted by Gerard to the church of Brogne in the year 918, and the Diploma by which Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, confirmed the foundation of the monastery of Brogne in the year 932. The arguments, therefore, which can be formed from these two ancient monuments for that opinion of Mabillon are here to be diligently weighed, and an apt solution is to be applied to each. I begin from those which the Diploma of Henry furnishes. In this Gerard is said to have built the monastery of Brogne when already converted. Whence it seems to follow that, looking at Henry's Diploma, he did not do it before he had already put on the monk; for, as we said at num. 37 while for a moment defending Mabillon's opinion, no other reason seems able to be assigned for which the Saint is said to have done it when already converted. This is the first and most valid argument for Mabillon's opinion.

[89] Rightly indeed de Marne holds that this was done sooner, De Marne, already praised more than once, thinks indeed, and that rightly, that the monastery of Brogne was built before Gerard, already a monk, had returned from the monastery of St. Denis. Yet, impelled chiefly, as appears, by the argument just mentioned, he wrongly determines in his Preface to the History of Namur, page 77, that this too was not done before the Saint was already a monk. For in this place, in order nevertheless to maintain, as appears, that the said monastery was already built at the time when the clerics were brought into the church of Brogne, he seems to determine besides that the clerics too were not brought into it before Gerard had already become a monk. In French words, rendered by me into Latin, he writes thus: Gerard, confirmed hence (by the counsel of Stephen, bishop of Liège) in his purpose of leaving the world, decided to follow exactly what the bishop had advised him. Before he left his native land, he arranged everything that pertained to its (the monastery of Brogne's) foundation, and gave orders that, as soon as the monastery had been brought to completion, clerics should meanwhile be established in it, until he himself, after he had cultivated his mind in the exercises of the religious life, could come to occupy it with monks. Then, detained by nothing any longer in the world, he departed to shut himself up in the monastery of St. Denis. The clerics, therefore, as de Marne seems to mean by these words too, were not established in the church of Brogne and in the monastery added to it before Gerard had already entered the monastery of St. Denis.

[90] But this cannot be reconciled with what the biographer relates at num. 10 and XI. yet wrongly, that it was done by Gerard when already a monk; For there he has this: But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, a most prompt executor of the apostolic command, after he had carried the enjoined work through to its end, conferred upon the same basilica (of Brogne, built by himself) a most devout gift from the ample revenues of his estates, which should meanwhile suffice for those serving God there. He also employed there for the time the religion of clerics, instituting them, through the wisdom given him, to live according to the canonical manner: and then, some little verses having been interposed after his inept manner, he continues thus: The holy Man, therefore, the oratory having been built, and the office of the clerics established there, as has been said, began to think very much about the treasure divinely promised him, namely how he might obtain the most sacred body of the blessed martyr and bishop Eugenius. While his intention frequently turns about this, for certain causes an occasion fell to the Count Berengar mentioned above (for so, indeed, the divine Promise was disposing) to direct an embassy into Francia… And having summoned to himself the Athlete of God, alone to him alone he reveals the secrets of his counsel; and commends to him in friendly converse to carry his commissions as far as there. Gerard, therefore, as is clear from this whole narrative of the biographer, established clerics in the church of Brogne before the embassy which he discharged for Count Berengar, and consequently also before his entry into the monastery of St. Denis, since, according to what has been said, this was later than that. The clerics, therefore, after this, into

the church of Brogne were brought in, as de Marne wrongly determines, as also that Gerard built the monastery of Brogne at that time, since, according to what will be said, the Saint had done it already at the time when he brought the clerics into the church of Brogne.

[91] But, you will say, if Gerard did not found the monastery of Brogne after his entry into the monastery of St. Denis, [for however much he built that monastery when not yet a monk, yet that he built it when already converted] by what way, pray, can the argument just proposed from Henry's diploma be sufficiently dissolved, from which it seems to follow that Gerard did not build the aforesaid monastery before he had already become a monk? The Saint, as becomes manifest from his Charter of donation, already very often praised, had resolved already from the year 918, when not yet a monk, to build a new monastery at Brogne and to serve as a soldier to God. The Saint, namely, had the purpose of sending a bill of divorce to the world, and was consequently already then converted from the secular life to the purpose of the religious life, and in fact also most probably to a better and holier life. In the Charter of donation he speaks thus: I give … some of my goods to the church (namely of Brogne) where I desire to build a monastery, and to serve as a soldier myself in the service of Almighty God. When he gave that Charter, therefore, he had given himself to the church of Brogne to serve as a soldier in the service of Almighty God, and had consequently, human things being dismissed, devoted his whole mind to heavenly things. It may be, therefore, that for this reason, since the monastery of Brogne was built at least after that same Charter was given, the Saint is asserted by Henry the Fowler in the diploma to have founded that sacred edifice when already converted, however much he did it when not yet a monk. And this indeed can seem more probable for this reason, that he probably saw the Charter of donation granted by Gerard to the monastery of Brogne at the time when he granted the praised diploma for confirming the foundation of the same monastery and the donations made to it. Nor is there reason for you to say that the conversion of Gerard which the biographer records at num. 19 was taken by us above for the Saint's entry into the monastery of St. Denis; for this was done because, before the biographer speaks of the Saint's conversion, he relates his entry into the monastic life, and thus manifestly designates this by that. Therefore, as indeed appears to me on account of all that has been said, the argument proposed above from Henry's diploma, which moreover, according to what will be said below, is interpolated, loses its force, and consequently it cannot be proved from it that the monastery of Brogne was not built before Gerard had already become a monk. Nor can two other arguments prove this either, of which the one is likewise drawn from Henry's diploma, the other from the Charter of donation granted by Gerard to the monastery of Brogne.

[92] could have been said by Henry the Fowler. The first consists in this, that in Henry's Diploma, which is noted as given in the year 932, Gerard is said to have built the monastery of Brogne only lately, and hence it seems to have been built after the year 919, in which the Saint more probably put on the monk. But it not rarely happens that writers or documents record as done only lately things which were accomplished even much longer before. The monastery of Brogne had surely been founded much longer when Gerard departed from the living than when Henry the Fowler confirmed its foundation by his Diploma, and yet Meyer in the Annals of Flanders at the year 959 writes thus: Gerard of Celle, called St. Gerard, ended his day at Brogne in Hainaut (rather, of the county of Namur), a monastery which he had recently founded. I do not bring forward more examples of this kind, content to have brought forward this one, which pertains to the very matter of which we treat. But in our opinion, by which we determine that the monastery of Brogne was founded by Gerard when not yet a monk, it had been built only about thirteen years' space when the year was 932, so that I do not see why it could not have been said by Henry the Fowler in the Diploma in that year to have been lately built. Much less, therefore, does this last argument make against our opinion. As now regards the other, which, as I have said, is drawn from the Saint's Charter of donation, it consists solely in this, that according to it Gerard had only resolved in the year 918 to build a monastery at Brogne. Whence it seems to follow that, since the Saint became a monk shortly after the year 918, it was first founded by him when already a monk.

[93] So indeed the matter stands, if only between the time at which the Saint put on the monk and the year 918, [Hence, since the matter is not proved even from the Saint's Charter of donation, by arguments] in which the Charter of donation is noted as given, there did not intervene so great a space of time as would have sufficed for building a monastery. But nothing forbids determining that between those two limits there intervened one year, joined with a large part of another as well, and consequently in this space of time the monastery of Brogne may have been built by Gerard when not yet a monk. And indeed, since, according to what will soon be said, Gerard most probably built that monastery before he had shut himself up in the monastery of St. Denis, on account of the argument just produced it seems to me altogether necessary that it be determined that a space of about sixteen months, in which the monastery of Brogne was built, intervened between the time at which the Saint put on the monk and the time at which he issued the very often mentioned Charter of donation. Further, since it is necessary that this be so, it follows that the Saint first assumed the monastic habit not in the year 918, as is commonly thought, but in the year 919 or perhaps at the beginning of the following, as for this reason too I have already taught above in this Preliminary Commentary. I come now to the arguments of the opposed opinion, which determines that the monastery of Brogne was built by Gerard when not yet a monk. Besides those which I brought forward at num. 36 and 37, many others besides militate for it. Therefore, that I may establish it firmly, I propose some of these here besides. In the Supplement to the Diplomata Belgica of Miraeus, chap. 3, a diploma is presented by which Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, confirms the foundation of the monastery of Brogne. And in this it is expressly asserted that Gerard built the monastery of Brogne before he went to the territory of Paris and obtained the sacred body of Eugenius the martyr. I therefore transcribe here the whole beginning of the diploma in which this is done.

[94] It runs thus: Be it known to all the faithful of the holy Church of God, from the diploma of Charles the Simple, and to our own present and future, that the venerable counts Hagano and Ermenfrid, approaching our serenity, brought with them a venerable Man, the servant of God Gerard, who rebuilt and enlarged for the better the monastery of Brogne situated in the pagus of Lomme on the rivulet Bornon, where Pepin, son of Ansegisel, ordered a little oratory to be built for his faithful, and caused the most blessed Lambert, bishop of the church of Tongres, by a pious address, to dedicate it in honour of Mary, the perpetual Virgin, and of St. John the Baptist, and of Peter, the key-bearer of Christ and prince of the Apostles. The building of the said place therefore having been completed, the Man of God went to the Parisian territory, to the monastery of the holy martyrs Dionysius and his companions. He obtained the treasure which he had long desired, namely the most noble body of the eminent martyr Eugenius, bishop of the see of Toledo, with the pledges of many other Saints, and carried it away with great exultation to the said place. Gerard, therefore, looking at this beginning of the diploma which is signed with the name of Charles the Simple, founded the monastery of Brogne, nay even brought it to completion, before he betook himself, as a future monk, to the monastery of St. Denis. But, you will say, that diploma of Charles the Simple is either altogether supposititious, or certainly very much interpolated. I confess it is so, and I shall prove this lucidly myself in the following §. But since it nevertheless appears very ancient, it is at least a proof that already of old the opinion which determines that the monastery of Brogne was built before the monastic life was undertaken by Gerard prevailed, and since it is therefore confirmed even so, it has pleased me to bring it forward here too, although on account of what has been said it can in no way prove the matter. I now add other things.

[95] from the Saint's biographer It is certain from what has been said, and undoubted, that Gerard instituted clerics in the church of Brogne before he shut himself up in the monastery of St. Denis. Moreover, it must also be certain that Gerard wished the clerics whom he instituted there to live according to the canonical manner or institute: so, namely, the biographer teaches at num. 10, nor is there reason why credit should be denied him in this matter. His words are these: He (Gerard) also employed there (in the church of Brogne) for the time the religion of clerics, instituting them, through the wisdom given him, to live according to the canonical manner. Gerard, therefore, wished that the clerics or canons whom he established in the church of Brogne founded by himself should spend their life according to the canonical manner, or according to the sacred canons prescribed by the Fathers for canons or clerics. Now, as Thomassin, vol. 1 of the Old and New Discipline of the Church, book 3, chap. 9, lucidly proves, the sacred canons strictly required that the canons who served God in one and the same church should also dwell together enclosed in one and the same monastery. Wherefore it appears little probable that by our Saint, who wished that the clerics or canons whom he was establishing in the church of Brogne built by himself should lead their life according to the sacred canons, there had not already been built at the time when he placed them there a monastery in which, according to the sacred canons, they might dwell together enclosed and spend their life piously and religiously by the prescription of the Fathers.

[96] and another drawn from Gerard, therefore, already at the time when he established clerics or canons in the church of Brogne founded by himself, will have built a monastery at Brogne and given it to them to inhabit. Wherefore, since, according to what has been said, he established canons or clerics living according to the canonical manner in the church of Brogne before he put on the monk, it follows that he likewise built the monastery of Brogne before he did so. That this may become still more plain, I propose here a little more lucidly the argument which I already touched upon at num. 36 of this Commentary. Gerard, as the biographer testifies at num. 35, having returned from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, removed in the sanctuary of Brogne the way of life of the clerics whom he had placed there before, substituting the religion of the monastic order. The Saint, therefore, as the biographer testifies, on returning from Gaul to Brogne established monks in that very place in which he had before placed clerics or canons. Now St. Gerard beyond all doubt then established monks in the monastery of Brogne, and consequently had also already before placed clerics or canons in that very monastery. Hence it further now follows that it was built, not, as Mabillon would have it, only at the time when Gerard, already a monk, returned to Brogne, but already at the time when he was establishing clerics at Brogne and consequently had not yet put on the monk. To this, studious reader, and to the other arguments by which this has been proved in this manner, add here besides, if you please, that which at num. 37 of this Commentary is drawn from the two Rescripts signed with the name of the Pontiffs Stephen the seventh and eighth, and I do not doubt that you will go over hands and feet, as they say, to our opinion, which determines that the monastery of Brogne was founded by Gerard when not yet a monk.

[97] And indeed, although Mabillon teaches the contrary opinion, which, according to what has been said, he teaches in his preliminary Observations on the Life of St. Gerard, in more than one place too in the Benedictine Annals, the opposite opinion is established. and consequently does not seem to have retracted it, he nevertheless did not cling to it so firmly that he did not sometimes speak according to ours. For in the praised Annals, book 43, num. 8, he writes thus of St. Gerard: Gerard had built the monastery of Brogne in the pagus of Lomme, and had placed clerics there for the meantime, while he confirmed his monastic profession in the monastery of St. Denis. Ten years having been spent there with a peculiar zeal and ardour for the virtues, it settled in his mind to return to Brogne and to institute monks there in place of the clerics. In which words he surely speaks most openly according to our opinion, by which we judge that Gerard built the monastery of Brogne before his monastic profession. He can therefore seem at least to have wavered in the opposite opinion, or perhaps even not to have been sufficiently consistent with himself in embracing either; which, however, would not seem likely to have happened if this writer had thought that, by the arguments which we brought forward above from St. Gerard's Charter of donation and from the diploma of Henry the Fowler, the opinion which determines that the monastery of Brogne was founded by Gerard when already a monk was entirely proved and made undoubted. Wherefore, since this is so, our opinion, which is diametrically opposed to it, is confirmed if only from this, and I therefore hold as most probable, nay even as almost undoubted, that the monastery of Brogne was built by our Saint when not yet a monk. For the rest, since according to what has been said this was without doubt not done before the Charter of donation given by Gerard to the church of Brogne, it is now altogether necessary from this, as I have already noted, that the construction of the monastery of Brogne be determined to have taken place between the time at which that was given and the time at which Gerard entered the monastery of St. Denis, and consequently about the year 919.

§ VIII. Of the diploma of Charles the Simple, and of the two Pontifical rescripts, which are said to have been obtained through Gerard for the monastery of Brogne.

Diplomas or rescripts granted to Gerard. The chronological marks Various diplomas or rescripts of Pontiffs and kings are circulated which are said to have been obtained through St. Gerard for the monastery of Brogne. But among these there is scarcely one which cannot, or even ought not, from some mark which it bears, to be held suspect of interpolation or supposition. The matter will become plain from what will be said. Two of them, however, were in fact granted at the request of Gerard, already returned from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne. And this is why, discourse having now been held on the Saint's monastic life in the monastery of St. Denis, his promotion to the priesthood and his return to his native land, I have in mind to treat of them now; and although the diploma which is signed with the name of Charles the Simple is noted as given sooner, I have thought that it should nevertheless not be treated before I had held discourse on the remaining diplomas or rescripts which are said to have been given to Gerard. I shall therefore treat both of it and of these, and that indeed according to the order of the years too in which each is noted or said to have been given. According to this, the one precedes the rest which has already been mentioned in the preceding § and just now again, which Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, is recorded to have imparted to Gerard at the intervention of the counts Hagano and Ermenfrid. It is corroborated by various chronological marks indicating the time at which it was issued. For it is signed at the end in this manner: Given on the sixth day before the Kalends of September, in the second Indiction, in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of the glorious king Charles, the twenty-fourth of his restoration, and the tenth of his obtaining the larger inheritance. Done at the palace of Aachen, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord nine hundred and fourteen.

[99] by which the diploma of Charles the Simple is signed, are adulterine, Three epochs of the reign of Charles the Simple are employed here, of which the first, according to what has been said, takes its beginning from the year 892, in which he was first crowned king, the second from the year 898, in which he succeeded Odo, king of the Franks, and the third, finally, from the year 912, in which, after the death of Louis, king of Germany, he obtained the ampler inheritance. But the year of Christ 914, with which the diploma is noted, cannot be reconciled with the three different years with which it is likewise signed according to those three different epochs of the Carolingian reign. For in the year of Christ 914 there was running for Charles the Simple neither the twenty-ninth year from the reign first begun, nor the twenty-fourth from the reign, which hitherto he had not possessed entire, restored after the death of Odo, nor, finally, the tenth from the ampler inheritance obtained after the death of Louis, as will be plain to one who computes it. Without doubt, therefore, this diploma is interpolated, and this is why above we did not think fit to determine from it the year or time about which the monastery of Brogne was founded, daring even, on the authority of the Charter which Gerard gave, already very often praised, to determine that this was done later than the diploma indeed notes. But is it not also altogether supposititious? There is surely reason why someone may not undeservedly judge that it is altogether supposititious. For besides the chronological marks already mentioned, which beyond all doubt are adulterine, it bears many other indications of supposition, or certainly of interpolation. The words which were transcribed here from it in the preceding § most openly indicate that it was not given except after the relics of St. Eugenius the martyr had been translated by St. Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, and consequently not sooner than about the year 928 or the following, as you will easily gather from what has already been disputed above.

[100] [and this is perhaps altogether supposititious; yet Charles, as appears, granted Gerard some diploma.] Hence further it now follows that it ought to have been given either in the year 928 or 929; for Charles the Simple, by whom it is noted as given, did not prolong his life beyond the year 929, as becomes manifest from Frodoard in his Chronicle and from the consent of all the learned. But Charles, as the same Frodoard and other historians of that time testify, was held captive by his own people in the year 928 and the following. Whence it comes about, first indeed, that if only from this it is very doubtful whether Charles ever granted the aforesaid diploma to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne; and then, that it is certain that it is wrongly noted as given at Aachen; for how could it happen that Charles, who was held captive by his own people in Francia in the two said years, imparted the aforementioned diploma to the monastery of Brogne at Gerard's prayers in either of these at Aachen, a town of Lotharingia or of the kingdom of Lothar? Add now that from at least the year 925 the whole of Lotharingia, in which Aachen was situated, had passed into the power of Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, so that from this head too it becomes altogether unlike the truth that the aforesaid diploma was granted by Charles the Simple at Aachen in the year 928 or 929. Hence it comes about that, all these things having been weighed, I do not know whether that diploma ought not to be held altogether supposititious. It is surely very suspect to me, both on account of what has already been said and also from this, that in the words recited in the preceding § it says that the monastery of Brogne was restored or rebuilt by Gerard; which, since the Saint, according to what has been said, built the monastery of Brogne anew, is without doubt foreign to the truth. However that may be, since that diploma is nevertheless circulated under the name of Charles the Simple as given to Gerard, I think that some diploma, although not such as is extant in Miraeus, was in fact granted to Gerard by this king in favour of the monastery of Brogne.

[101] And this indeed I think was done in the year 919 or at the beginning of the following, The briefer pontifical rescript, which when, namely, it had just first been founded, and the Saint had not yet put on the monk. For you will easily gather from what has already been said that this could not have been done later or sooner. I now turn my discourse to another, nay to two other diplomas, or rather rescripts, which are both believed by some to have been given to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne. The one is noted as given about the year 929; and although the other is signed as issued some years later, and is consequently later in order of time than the diploma of Henry the Fowler likewise to be discussed here, which bears the year 932, I nevertheless treat here of that later rescript as well as of the former, because both are connected with one another by a certain necessary conjunction on account of the matter to be treated; nay they are only one and the same rescript, as will become plain from what will be said. Further, Miraeus presents them, the one indeed, which is briefer, under the name of Pope Stephen in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52; the other, which is more prolix, likewise under the name of Pope Stephen in the Diplomata Belgica, book 2, chap. 21. Many things are to be discussed here about these two Rescripts, and consequently, that they may be more conveniently understood, it pleases me to transcribe both here. The briefer runs thus: Stephen, bishop, servant of the servants of God, we desire it to be known to all how our son and brother Gerard, abbot, made known to us concerning the monastery of Brogne, which he reformed for the better and restored in honour of the holy Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of St. John the Baptist. But after the pledges of many Saints, he gathered there also the body of St. Eugenius the martyr, archbishop of the see of Toledo, disciple of St. Dionysius, and brought it in there with great reverence and honour: he also gave his own inheritance, both in fields and in slaves, and in all things adjacent by hereditary right, to the aforesaid monastery.

[102] But after he had indicated this to us, prostrate at our feet he asked is transcribed here with the more prolix, that by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul everyone should be cursed who should attempt to take away anything from the same monastery. The bishops therefore standing by and consenting, we decreed that the petition of the servant of God Gerard should be confirmed by Apostolic authority. I, Castorius, Regionary Notary and Scriniarius of the holy Roman Church, Apostolic authority corroborating, and the holy Pope Stephen suggesting, have recognized it. Given on the V day before the Kalends of May, in the year … of the reign of Henry in the kingdom of Lothar, in the second year of the rule of Hugh in Italy, Indiction … Done at Rome happily. Amen. Such is the briefer rescript or privilege which is noted as given in the name of Pope Stephen at Gerard's prayers to the monastery of Brogne. Further, this, except for the clause by which it is designated about what year it was granted, is inserted almost entirely word for word, as will become plain from a comparison of the two, into the more prolix, since, according to what will be said, it was contracted from this. Hence I would surely not write out the beginning of the more prolix, since it consists almost only of the whole briefer one already recited, were it not that it could hence be had plainly in what they differ from one another. I therefore transcribe here the whole more prolix rescript or privilege, with its beginning too. It is couched in these words: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, and of St. Mary ever Virgin. Stephen, supreme bishop of the Apostolic See, servant of the servants of God, to our brethren and sons dwelling in the Catholic faith throughout the whole world.

[103] which here likewise We desire it to be known to all, present as well as future, how our son and brother, by the favour of the divine clemency, Gerard

abbot, made known to us concerning the monastery of Brogne, which he reformed for the better and restored in honour of the holy Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of St. John the Baptist. But after the pledges of many Saints, he gathered there also the body of St. Eugenius the martyr, archbishop of the see of Toledo, disciple and ordinand of St. Dionysius the archbishop, and brought it in there with great reverence and honour: he also devoutly and voluntarily gave his own inheritance, both in fields and in slaves, and in all things adjacent by hereditary right, to the aforesaid monastery. But after he had indicated this to us, prostrate at our feet he asked that by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul everyone should be cursed who should attempt to take away from the same monastery anything, whether of the relics of the Saints, or of the vestments and books, or of the territories, or of the slaves or of any other things whatever which it now has given to it, or may further be able to obtain by the mercy of God. This too he greatly desired, that whoever should in any way presume to infringe the privilege which royal magnificence and imperial authority had already sanctioned concerning the same place and monastery should be bound by the same anathema: namely, that no bishop, no count, no advocate, no public judge, nor anyone of judicial power, should presume to enter the churches or places, or fields, or other possessions of the said monastery, either to hear causes, or to make precariae, or to exact freda or tributes or any obsonia whatever, or to make lodgings or forests or paratae; or to take sureties, or unjustly to distrain the men of the same monastery, both freeborn and slaves, dwelling on its land, nor to seek any redhibitions or illicit occasions, in our and future times.

[104] is recited, But let it be lawful for the said servant of God, Gerard, and his successors, with their monks, to possess and order the goods of the aforesaid monastery in quiet order under the defence of our immunity, without the participation of any arbiter whatever, unless the abbot himself and his monks should reasonably ask that this be done. This too he desired nonetheless to be confirmed, that whoever should in any way presume to depopulate or infringe the place itself and the inhabitants of the place within its boundaries by hostile burning or slaughter, or by any unjust oppression, should be condemned by the same curse. The bishops and brethren of this holy Roman See therefore standing by and consenting, we decreed that the petition of the servant of God Gerard should be confirmed by Apostolic authority. Therefore by the authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of holy Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, and of all the heavenly powers, and of St. John the Baptist, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Eugenius the martyr, patron and provider of the same place, and of the Saints whose relics are there, and at the same time of all the Saints whose names are written in the book of life, we excommunicate, anathematize and condemn all who shall have made void or infringed any of these things which have been set down concerning the immunity and liberty of the church and place of Brogne, unless they repent and do penance, and merit pardon from the abbot and his brethren, and amend for the future. But whoever shall have been an observer of this our precept and of the royal sanction, may he merit to obtain grace and mercy and eternal life from our most merciful Lord God. I, Castorius, regionary Notary and Scriniarius of the holy Roman Church, Apostolic authority corroborating, and the holy Pope Stephen suggesting, have recognized it. The Sign of the lord Stephen, glorious Pope. Given on the V day before the Kalends of May, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord… Done at Rome happily, amen.

[105] Many bishops then subscribe the Privilege or Rescript, and many bishops, even absent ones, subscribed to it, of whom most were most probably not present at Rome when Gerard obtained it there from the Pontiff. Mabillon, in book 2 On Diplomatics, proves by more than one example that diplomas or privileges are sometimes found furnished with the subscription even of bishops who were absent when they were issued; and by what means it came about that many absent bishops subscribed the rescript or privilege just recited, the Saint's biographer teaches us at num. 74, writing thus: He (Stephen, Roman Pontiff) conferred on him (namely St. Gerard) a privilege sealed with a leaden seal, which they also call Pertongar, leave being also granted him that, by precept of the lord Apostolic himself (Stephen, Roman Pontiff), all the bishops through whom he (St. Gerard) hoped to return in going back to his native land should subscribe it for the sake of confirming it. The Pontiff, therefore, as the biographer hints in these words, gave orders that all the bishops to whom Gerard, returning from Rome to his native land, should turn aside should add their name to the Rescript or Privilege which he had granted him. And indeed, among many others whose sees are not expressed, there subscribe to the Privilege the archbishops of Milan and of Trier, and the bishops of Piacenza, Como, Strasbourg or Argentoratum, and Basulensis, that is, as I think, of Basel; through all of whose episcopal cities it is not unlike the truth that Gerard passed in order to return to his native land. And these things indeed thus far, if you except the subscription of the archbishop of Milan on account of what will be said, admit no difficulty. But there likewise subscribe to the Privilege Benedict of Metz and Stephen of Cambrai, bishops, of whom the former, having abdicated his see in the year 929, departed from the living in the year 940, the latter certainly prolonged his life no longer than up to the year 935; and hence Mabillon, in his preliminary Observations on the Life of Gerard, infers that the privilege was granted to Gerard not by Stephen VIII, Roman Pontiff, but by Stephen VII.

[106] And surely, since Stephen VIII, as is agreed among the learned, was raised to the chair of St. Peter only in the year 939, is one and the same rescript. the privilege which I have now transcribed here, to which Stephen, bishop of Cambrai, who certainly ended his life no later than the year 935, and Benno or Benedict, bishop of Metz, who abdicated his see in the year 929, subscribe, cannot have been granted to Gerard by him. But it can be doubted, first indeed, whether it did not come about by interpolation that Stephen and Benno subscribe the aforementioned Privilege or Rescript; and then whether, on the hypothesis that this Privilege cannot be ascribed to Stephen VIII, another was not given by him to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne. The biographer makes mention of only one Pontifical Privilege which Gerard obtained for the monastery of Brogne built by himself, as will be plain to one who turns over his composition on the Saint. And indeed, since almost all the same words which occur in the briefer Privilege occur also in the more prolix, and the same day of the privilege's being given, the V day before the Kalends of May, is marked both in this and in that, the briefer appears to be one and the same privilege with the more prolix, so that only one Pontifical privilege seems to have been given to Gerard. Wherefore, since two Pontifical privileges obtained by Gerard for the monastery of Brogne are circulated as distinct from each other, it is necessary, on account of what has already been said, first that one or the other of these is not genuine; and then that, if the more prolix Privilege is genuine or ought to be held in place of the genuine, Stephen VIII never granted any Privilege or Rescript to the monastery of Brogne. That anything, therefore, may be determined here, it must be examined whether the briefer or the more prolix of the two Pontifical Rescripts recited above is genuine or ought to be held in place of the genuine. This, therefore, I have it in mind to accomplish in the following §.

§ IX. Which of the two Pontifical Rescripts said to have been given to Gerard is genuine, or seems to be held in place of the genuine.

The more prolix rescript appears genuine or next to genuine; The briefer Pontifical Rescript or Privilege, which, according to what has been said, Miraeus presents, seems to me only a certain summary of the more prolix, and that indeed not very accurate, so that the more prolix appears genuine or certainly next to genuine. That I should think so I am impelled chiefly by two reasons; the first is that the briefer rescript can not undeservedly seem interpolated; the other is that the characteristics which the biographer attributes to the Pontifical rescript obtained through Gerard suit the more prolix, and not the briefer. These two reasons, on account of which I pronounce for the more prolix Pontifical rescript, are to be proved. I begin with the former. The briefer rescript or privilege (see num. 102) is noted as given in the reign of Henry in the kingdom of Lothar, in the second year of the rule of Hugh in Italy. Hugh, count of Provence, in the year 926, as is asserted by Frodoard and is admitted among almost all the learned, became king of Italy; wherefore the second year of his reign cannot be reconciled with the Pontificate of the Stephen who is signed as having given that briefer privilege to Gerard, and this whether you determine that it was given by Stephen VIII or by Stephen VII, which will most probably be preferred. For Stephen VIII, according to what has been said, did not ascend the Chair of St. Peter before the year 939; and Stephen the seventh was promoted to the same no sooner than in the year 929; but in the year 929 (of the year 939 there is no need to speak) there was running not the second but the third year of Hugh's reign in Italy. The briefer Privilege, therefore, is wrongly noted as given in the reign of Henry in the kingdom of Lothar, in the second year of the rule of Hugh in Italy, and consequently the briefer Privilege, which is signed with these chronological marks, can not undeservedly seem interpolated. But, you will say, there are also those who join the beginning of Hugh's reign in Italy with the year of Christ 927. I confess it is so; yet since, according to what has been said, it appears that it is indeed more probably to be joined with the year 926, from the second year of Hugh, with which the said briefer rescript is signed, it seems at least deservedly to be doubted whether it is not interpolated. And indeed it can in fact deservedly seem interpolated from this too, that it is noted as given while Hugh ruled as emperor, who was never emperor.

[108] But, you will say further, by the same reasoning the more prolix rescript too can deservedly seem interpolated. for although it may seem interpolated For in this the Pontiff speaks thus: This too (Gerard the abbot) greatly desired, that whoever should in any way presume to infringe the privilege which royal magnificence and imperial authority had already sanctioned concerning the same place and monastery should be bound by the same anathema. By which words it is hinted that some privilege was granted to Gerard by imperial authority before the Pontifical rescript was given to him; which surely, whether it refers to the diploma of Charles the Simple or to that of Henry the Fowler granted to Gerard, since neither of these kings was emperor, is always foreign to the truth. I confess it is so. And indeed this is why someone may not undeservedly suspect that the whole period just recited, in which this is hinted, was inserted into the Pontifical privilege by someone who thought that Gerard obtained it after Henry the Fowler, king of Germany and of Lotharingia or Eastern Francia, had already given him a diploma in favour of the monastery of Brogne, who, although he was never emperor, is nevertheless wrongly adorned by some writers with this title of supreme dignity. But although from what has now been said the more prolix Pontifical privilege too can seem interpolated, it is not on that account to be altogether rejected. For

besides the said period, and besides, as according to what will be said appears more probable, the title of archbishop of Milan which it adds to Bishop Hilduin in the subscriptions, it bears absolutely no other mark of interpolation. Hence it comes about that it appears at least next to the genuine privilege which the Pontiff gave to Gerard.

[109] Nay, that period and the title mentioned being cut off, [could, yet the characteristics which the biographer attributes to the Pontifical rescript obtained through Gerard] it seems for this reason to be held in all the rest in place of the genuine privilege or rescript, that the characteristics which the biographer attributes to the Pontifical privilege obtained through Gerard fit it to a nicety. For according to him (see the words transcribed here at num. 105) many bishops most probably signed with their subscriptions the privilege which Gerard obtained from Pope Stephen; which surely fits excellently the more prolix Pontifical privilege transcribed here above. For, according to what has been said, many bishops, even absent ones, subscribed to it. Moreover the biographer at num. 75 writes thus: For the rest, let the prudent reader wonder at the most perspicacious prudence of this Man of God (St. Gerard), namely with how great nobility in such a writing (the Pontifical privilege) he freed this abbey, and what or how great a penalty of eternal anathema one undergoes if anyone with rash daring, which God forbid, should presume to infringe it. According to the biographer, therefore, all who should dare to infringe the immunities of the monastery of Brogne, or, as he speaks, should presume to with rash daring, were subjected to anathema, and that most grievous, by the Pontifical privilege which Gerard obtained from Stephen; and this again fits exceedingly the more prolix Pontifical rescript which I recited entire above. For in this (see num. 104) the Pontiff speaks thus: We excommunicate, anathematize and condemn all who shall have made void or infringed any of these things which have been set down concerning the immunity and liberty of the church and place of Brogne.

[110] it has as fitting it excellently, But in the briefer Pontifical privilege transcribed here above (see num. 102) the Pontiff pronounces only in this manner: But after he (Gerard the abbot) had indicated this to us, prostrate at our feet he asked that by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul everyone should be cursed who should attempt to take away anything from the same monastery (namely of Brogne). The bishops therefore standing by and consenting, we decreed that the petition of the servant of God Gerard should be confirmed by Apostolic authority. In which words surely the violators of the immunities of the monastery of Brogne are not expressly subjected to anathema by the Pontiff. Which, however, according to the biographer, was done in the privilege which Gerard obtained from Pope Stephen. Wherefore, since also (which, however, according to what has been said, is the other characteristic of the Pontifical privilege obtained through Gerard) absolutely no bishop subscribes the briefer privilege, this, which according to what has been said also seems interpolated, cannot be the genuine Pontifical privilege which Gerard obtained. It remains, therefore, that the more prolix privilege is genuine, or at least is held in place of the genuine. For although both this and the briefer might be altogether spurious, yet since, according to what has been said, the more prolix privilege comes next to the genuine and has as fitting it excellently the characteristics which the biographer attributes to the Pontifical privilege obtained through Gerard, it appears in no way to be admitted that it is altogether spurious. Hence, therefore, the cuttings which I have mentioned having been made, I hold the more prolix privilege in place of the genuine, and I think that the one which is briefer is only a summary of it made by someone who, since in the more prolix Pontifical privilege of the monastery of Brogne he found absolutely no chronological marks besides the day, assumed at his own discretion those mentioned above, because he thought them accommodated to the time of the privilege's being given by the Pontiff.

[111] It was, moreover, by Stephen VII, So surely it appears altogether to be determined, since, as I have already said above, almost all the same words which occur in the briefer privilege occur also in the more prolix, and the same day of the privilege's or rescript's being given, the V day before the Kalends of May, is marked both in this and in that, and on account of what has already been said the more prolix does not seem to have been composed from an amplification of the briefer. But, you will say, if the more prolix Pontifical rescript or privilege which we have transcribed here above ought to be held in place of the genuine, it follows from what was disputed before that it was given not by Stephen VIII but by Stephen VII, and consequently in the year 929 or in one or the other of the two following, for which three years he held the Chair of St. Peter, which seems to conflict both with the Life to be edited and with the diploma of Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, already mentioned above and to be mentioned further below at more length. I answer: The more prolix privilege, which, the cuttings that I have mentioned having been made, seems to be held in place of the genuine Pontifical privilege obtained through Gerard, was surely, as I at least think, granted not by Stephen VIII, who did not ascend the Chair of St. Peter before the year 939, but by Stephen VII, Roman Pontiff, in some one of the said three years. For it has many bishops subscribed to it, and among these, not to enumerate all, Hilduin of Milan and Rother or Rotger, archbishop of Trier, none of whom prolonged his life up to the year 939, in which Stephen VIII was first created Pontiff; and Hilduin indeed, as Sassi teaches among the bishops of Milan, closed his last day in the year 936; while Rotger is nowhere numbered among the living beyond the year 930 by absolutely any ancient writer that I know of.

[112] The privilege, therefore, which the Pontiff granted to Gerard cannot have been granted by Stephen VIII, and that indeed, as appears more probable, granted in the year 929, and consequently it will without doubt have been given to him by Stephen VII; and that indeed, as appears more probable to me at least, in the first year of his Pontificate, whose beginning coincides with the year of Christ 929. For, according to what has been said, it is signed with the subscription of Benedict, bishop of the see of Metz, who voluntarily ceded it in the year 929. Whence it seems to follow that it cannot have been given later than this year. For although it perhaps happened that Benedict, who prolonged his life up to the year 940, still retained the title of bishop of Metz after abdicating his see, and from time to time subscribed diplomas under this name, or, being deprived of the use of his eyes, ordered his name to be affixed to them by others, it nevertheless appears very little probable that this was in fact done. But, you will say, it is also signed with the subscription of Hilduin, archbishop of Milan. Wherefore, since he, as the praised Sassi teaches from the most ancient Catalogues of the archbishops of Milan, did not become archbishop of Milan before the year 931, it follows that the privilege or rescript was not imparted to Gerard by Stephen VII before this year either. I answer: Hilduin had long before been ordained bishop, before he was promoted to the see of Milan, and had then betaken himself into Italy, as the same Sassi rightly teaches from many ancient writers. It may be, therefore, that Hilduin in the year 929, as being already then a bishop, subscribed the Pontifical privilege which Gerard had obtained, and that afterwards the title of archbishop of Milan was added to his name by an interpolator, because he was afterwards raised to this see. And indeed that this, which from what has now been said may have been done, was in fact also done, I think for this reason, that the said privilege ought to have been given to Gerard by Stephen before the year 931, since it also has subscribed to it Rotger, archbishop of Trier, who according to what has been said did not prolong his life beyond the year 930. Therefore I judge that the more prolix privilege of Brogne, which Gerard obtained from the Roman Pontiff, was given by Stephen VII and that indeed in the year 929, and at the same time I contend that this opinion of mine cannot be certainly demonstrated false either from the Life to be edited or from the diploma of Henry the Fowler.

[113] I show the matter thus: The biographer at num. 74 writes thus: and the opinion which determines this, neither from the things But the Friend of the Lord (St. Gerard), looking out in all things and above all things for the benefit of the monastery of Brogne — monk of Brogne, hear; and hearing, beware of forgetting: although he was of a more advanced age, he nevertheless did not count it a burden to weary himself as far as Rome, in order that he might devoutly implore the patronage of the supreme prince of the Apostles Peter, of whose oratory he was the founder, and might endeavour to obtain from his vicar the authentic letters of a confirming decree concerning the goods and liberty of the same monastery. This is the only passage of the Life to be edited which seems to conflict with our opinion, by which we determine that the Pontifical privilege of Brogne was given by Stephen VII; and it seems so for this reason, that according to it Gerard went to Rome and obtained that privilege when he had already become of a more advanced age; whereas Gerard under the Pontificate of Stephen VII, that is, in the year 929 and the two following, in which he governed the universal Church, was not yet of a more advanced age, since, according to what has been said, he was born into the world no sooner than about the year 890. But the biographer seems to put in writing that St. Gerard was of a more advanced age at the time when he went to Rome for the sake of obtaining the Pontifical privilege only for this reason, that he thought this was done by the Saint towards the end of his life. For where at num. 73 he has narrated how he commended the abbey of Brogne, redeemed from the monastery of St. Denis, to the protection of Farabert, bishop of Liège, he sets forth the Saint's Roman journey, and immediately after this relates that he, when he had learned divinely that his death was at hand, wished to visit all the monasteries which he had committed to his care. Farabert governed the church of Liège from the year 947, as Giles in the Additions and others teach, up to the year 953, in which he died; while Gerard, according to what will be said, exchanged this mortal life for the immortal in the year 959. The biographer, therefore, thought that the Saint's Roman journey took place between about the year 950, as it seems, and the year 959, and hence, as appears, he put in writing that the Saint was of a more advanced or older age when he undertook it. But if the biographer in fact judged that that journey was undertaken by the Saint at that time, he most certainly strayed from the truth, and this becomes manifest from what he himself writes.

[114] which the Saint's biographer writes. For, as he teaches, on that journey Gerard obtained for his monastery of Brogne the privilege already very often mentioned above from Stephen, the Roman Pontiff. Wherefore, since no Pontiff whose name was Stephen occupied the Chair of St. Peter from the year 950 up to the year 959, in which Gerard died, it follows that the Saint undertook the Roman journey in which he obtained the privilege from Pope Stephen beyond all doubt before the year 950. If, therefore, the biographer, as appears probable, wrote that Gerard was of a more advanced age at the time when he went to Rome only because he thought otherwise, we ought not to be moved by his authority to believe it. Suppose nevertheless that things are not narrated by the biographer in the order in which they were done, and consequently that from the fact that he relates the Saint's Roman journey after a thing done about the year 950 it does not follow that it certainly took place after that year, it could not yet be concluded from this that the Pontifical privilege was granted to Gerard by Stephen VIII and not by Stephen VII. For in our opinion, according to which the privilege through Gerard from Stephen

VII, and that more probably in the year 929, was obtained, he could even then have been of a more advanced age. We determined indeed above that Gerard, when he put on the monk, was about twenty-five years old; but this age which he then had rests only on probable conjectures, as is sufficiently clear from what has been said, and nothing prevents his being believed to have been then even about thirty-five years old. Let us therefore for a while determine that the Saint in fact then had the age which he could then have: on this hypothesis he will have been nearly fifty years old in the year 930, and consequently, when he obtained the Pontifical privilege for the monastery of Brogne, he could have been of a more advanced age, even if it is determined that it was granted by Stephen VII, who sat in the year 929 and the two following.

[115] But if these things displease, and someone should consequently still contend, from the Saint's more advanced age, at which the biographer indicates the Pontifical privilege was obtained through him, [nor from the words of the diploma of Henry the Fowler, which are transcribed here,] that it was granted by Stephen VIII and not by Stephen VII, I depart from the biographer, and I contend too that he wrongly ascribes what Gerard did when younger to the same when already become of a more advanced age. I determine so because, on account of what has been said, whatever may finally have been the case, the Pontifical privilege of Brogne which Gerard obtained seems to have been given by Stephen VII. Nor is there reason why anyone should wonder that I here convict the biographer of error or falsity; for anyone will easily understand from what has already been said and will further be said that he strays from the truth more than once elsewhere too. As now regards the diploma of Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, Miraeus presents a more prolix copy of it in the Codex of Pious donations, chap. 30; and in this the following is had: But since the same servant Gerard has disposed in his heart to approach the presence of the lord Pope, and wishes to seek privileges from him for strengthening the liberty of the church of Brogne; we command * our Father, the supreme Pontiff, that he confirm with Apostolic blessing the tradition which we have sanctioned concerning the same place by imperial authority, so that the observers of our precept may obtain grace and mercy and eternal life from God; but whoever shall have made void or infringed anything of these things which have been set down, let him be bound by the indissoluble bond of anathema, unless he repent and do penance, and merit pardon from the abbot and brethren, and amend for the future.

[116] From which words it follows that the diploma of Henry, from which these things are taken, since, having most probably arisen from interpolation was granted to St. Gerard before he had obtained the Pontifical Privilege. Wherefore, since that diploma was given in the year 932, it follows that the Pontifical privilege was obtained by Gerard from the Pontiff later than the year 929 or one or the other of the two following, and consequently that it was not given by Stephen VII. This is surely a legitimate conclusion, nor could anything be opposed to it, if those words just recited pertained to the genuine diploma of Henry the Fowler. But they most probably arose from interpolation, as will become plain from what will now be said. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals at the year 932, book 43, num. 33, writes thus: King Henry, surnamed the Fowler, confirmed the possessions of that place (the monastery of Brogne) in this year (at the request of Abbot Gerard). For the sake of this matter Gerard approached the king, then dwelling at Aachen, to ask that he would take under his royal power to protect the monastery which he himself, having been converted, had lately built from his own inheritance in a place of the pagus of Lomme called Brogne, in honour of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and of St. Eugenius, archbishop of Toledo and martyr, and would deign to grant royal immunity to the allod and estates which the said most noble abbot had conferred on the same place for the support of the monks serving God there. Which the king kindly granted, and asks besides the count of Namur, in whose dominion Brogne lies, to bestow his help and aid on the same monastery, so that he may be a sharer with him in the prayers of that church. The other things which are had in this diploma (namely in the place recited above by me) in Miraeus seem to have been added from other letters.

[117] is proved to be certainly false. According to Mabillon, therefore, nothing in Henry's diploma pertains to its genuine text besides what that writer comprises in these words now recited, and consequently in his opinion what is asserted in it, in the words transcribed here above at num. 115, about Gerard's plan of going to Rome, and about the prayer or supplication directed by King Henry to the Pontiff that the latter should confirm by apostolic authority what the former had sanctioned by royal power, arose from interpolation. And indeed that the whole of it arose from interpolation seems to be concluded if only from this, that the words recited at num. 115, in which it is comprised, follow immediately in the diploma after the clause in which Henry speaks thus of the Privilege or precept which he gives: And that through the courses of succeeding times it may be the more truly believed and more attentively observed, we have corroborated it with the impression of our seal; whereas to clauses of this kind in other diplomas it is wont to be subjoined, not a longer period such as those words recited at num. 115 present, but the name of the emperor, king or prince by whom those things are given, immediately, or certainly with very few things interposed, as it is lawful to see in Miraeus and other collectors of diplomas, and that indeed in some diplomas of Henry the Fowler himself. Add that that period holds in the diploma of which we treat a place little accommodated to it, as will easily become known to one who considers it attentively. Further, although from what has now been said alone it does not become certain that the whole period which is comprised in the said words arose from interpolation, it nevertheless becomes almost undoubted to me partly indeed from these things, partly also from this, that the diploma itself into which it is inserted is most probably corrupted by interpolation, as I shall lucidly show in the following §. From the said period, therefore, it is in no way proved that a diploma was granted to Gerard by Henry the Fowler before a rescript by the Pontiff, and consequently our opinion is not proved false, by which we determine that this was given to our Saint not by Stephen VIII but by Stephen VII.

* i.e. we signify or we supplicate

§ X. What appears to be determined about the diploma which was granted to Gerard by Henry the Fowler.

The more prolix diploma of Henry the Fowler is vitiated at the beginning, That some diploma was granted to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne by Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, in the year 932 is admitted among the learned. It also does not appear to be doubted that by it Henry confirmed the donations made to that monastery by the Saint, and received the monastery itself with all these into royal protection, and this indeed appears to be the only thing which Henry did by the said diploma. Further, Miraeus furnishes a twofold copy of it; the one, which is briefer, in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52, and the other, praised already above, which is more prolix, in the Codex of pious donations, chap. 30. Both are most probably vitiated. To prove this, I begin with the more prolix. This begins thus: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Henry, by favour of the divine clemency, emperor of the Romans. In it, therefore, Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, inscribes himself emperor of the Romans. But Henry, as is agreed among all the learned, was never emperor of the Romans, nor did he ascribe this title to himself in his Diplomas. Miraeus in the Codex of pious donations, chap. 29, page 37, presents the Pact of Bonn, concluded between Charles the Simple and Henry the Fowler, kings of France and of Germany; and in this Henry is called not emperor of the Romans but king of the Eastern Franks. Moreover, in the Supplement to the diplomata Belgica of Miraeus there occur two other diplomas of Henry the Fowler, by one of which this prince endows the monastery of St. Maximin, of the Order of St. Benedict, outside the walls of the city of Trier in the year 930, and by the other benefits the secular canons at Crespin in Hainaut in the year 931: and in both these diplomas Henry calls himself not emperor but only king, and this both at the beginning and at the end. It was not, therefore, established custom with Henry to name himself emperor of the Romans in his diplomas; for none occurs anywhere in which he used this title. Without doubt, therefore, the more prolix diploma which Miraeus presents in the Codex of pious donations, chap. 30, is vitiated, and that at its very beginning, where that prince ascribes that pre-eminent title of honour to his name.

[119] Nor does that more prolix copy of the diploma seem vitiated only at the beginning, and it appears doubtful whether what it then has concerning the count of Namur but also, contrary to what Mabillon does in the words recited above, I greatly doubt whether all the words did not arise from interpolation in which Henry the Fowler then in the said diploma entreats the count of Namur to bestow his help and aid on the monastery of Brogne, so that he may be a sharer with him in the prayers of the church; and I am in doubt about this matter for this reason, that those words are of such a kind that Henry does not seem to have addressed with them, as being in no way accommodated to an honoured man, Berengar, count of Namur, who himself subscribed the diploma, and who consequently was most probably present with Henry the Fowler when it was given. That the studious reader may be able to pass judgment on the matter, I transcribe those very words here. They run thus: Moreover, since that place lies in the neighbourhood of the castle of Namur, we entreat the count of Namur, as faithful and friend, that he may be a sharer with us in the prayers of that church (namely of Brogne), and may have thanks from God and praise from us if, when time or the matter shall require, he supply to the church the aid of his help with right hand and true assistance. But if, incited by diabolical persuasion, he shall have transgressed, oppressing the church unjustly in any things, since it is free and its property authentic, if the brethren shall have brought a complaint to our presence, I will counsel them and will free them from oppression. Berengar, count of Namur or Lomme, was, according to what has been said, joined to Gerard in familiarity and friendship, so that he ought not to have needed to be driven by threats from oppressing the monastery which the latter had built. The words just recited, therefore, in which threats seem to be held out by Henry to Berengar to that end, are suspect of interpolation if only from this.

[120] and which in the briefer diploma, which is transcribed here, Moreover, Miraeus, according to what has been said, presents in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 52, a briefer copy of the diploma granted by Henry the Fowler in favour of the monastery of Brogne; and this is couched in these words: Henry, by favour of the divine clemency … let the diligence of all our faithful know that the venerable abbot Gerard approached the presence of our royalty, and asked that we would take under royal power to protect the monastery which he himself, having been converted, had lately built from his own inheritance in the pagus of Lomme in the place which is called Brogne, in honour of St. Peter and of St. Eugenius, archbishop of Toledo and martyr, and the allod and estates which the said

Abbot, or most noble Man, had conferred there for the relief of those serving God, should henceforth remain in our protection and that of our successors. We, then, giving assent to just petitions, receive the same monastery, with all things which pertain to it, into our protection to be preserved perpetually, and we decree that the Abbot of the same monastery shall freely and with full power exercise all rights and judicial powers in the township of Brogne and in Saint-Laurent, in Maisons in his part which he has, in the township of Leubinas, in Montinio, and in Merendrech in his part which he has, in the township of Ermeton, in Fendeserta, in Romereias, in Manisia. And these are the names of the freeborn witnesses. Richer, bishop of Liège, Richwin, bishop of Strasbourg, Rotger, bishop of Trier, Benedict, bishop of Metz. Count Witbert. Count Berengar. Count Herimann. I, Hilduin, notary, in place of Archbishop Rotger, have recognized it. Given on the Nones of April, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation D. CCCCXXXII. Indiction V. In the XIII year of the reign of Henry, the glorious king. Done at the palace of Aachen.

[121] are not read, did not arise from interpolation, Such is the more contracted copy of Henry's diploma in Miraeus, in which, as you see, there occurs absolutely no mention of the entreaty by which Henry the Fowler commended the monastery of Brogne to Berengar, count of Namur. Whence it comes about that those words recited above, in which it is hinted that this was done by Henry, become more and more suspect, and I consequently think that they were probably intruded by an interpolator into the text of Henry's diploma. For although, as will become plain from what will soon be said, the more contracted copy of Henry's diploma too seems interpolated, Henry the Fowler nevertheless seems, as I have already said, to have accomplished by the diploma which he imparted to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne solely what he accomplishes by this one. Nor from this does it only appear doubtful whether Henry's words about the count of Namur did not arise from interpolation; but also whether the same is not to be said of the words which, in the more prolix copy, are immediately subjoined to these just recited from the briefer copy of Henry's diploma, freely and with full power exercise: and they are these: And in these places and in all which it possesses, we grant and confirm to it the ban and justice, impetus and Burina, the finding of blow and blood, the royal pergum, markets, tolls, the viscounty, Wagaria, right and not right, imposts and whatever pertains to jurisdiction, the integrity and safety of the commonwealth, and the rights of field and forest, and its mortmains and abmatrimonia, that it may possess them for ever as freely as the Founder of this place, sprung from a noble lineage, had possessed them before his conversion.

[122] Nor let there be anyone who should presume to lay hands on the male and female slaves of the church, which too of the other words, which from the briefer diploma or on the men dwelling in all its possession; but let it be lawful for the church alone to treat peaceably of all the aforesaid affairs without the chicanery or tyranny of anyone. Nor let there be anyone who should contradict this our royal constitution. Otherwise, if anyone should oppose our will in this, let him know for certain that he gravely incurs our displeasure, and is suspended from our grace and benevolence. And we adjure our successors to be conformable and co-helpers in an establishment of this kind, so that, strengthened by the imperial dignity, without ruin, without wavering, without the stumbling-block of any evil incursion, it may endure firm for ever. All these things are also absent from the briefer copy of Henry's diploma, and this is partly why, according to what has already been said, I am in doubt whether they were not likewise intruded by an interpolator into the more prolix copy of the diploma. And indeed as regards those which constitute the last period, they seem almost certainly to have arisen from interpolation. I think so for this reason, that by them Henry adjures his successors to be willing to confirm his constitution, so that it, strengthened by the imperial dignity, may endure perpetually; and so Henry would allude to the imperial dignity with which afterwards Otto and others of his successors, kings of Germany, shone; which it does not at all appear probable was done by Henry in any diploma which he granted. That last period, therefore, as appears to me at least, most probably, not to say without doubt, arose from interpolation, and consequently on that account the words too which immediately precede it seem to me at least very suspect of the same blemish, even if meanwhile they present a formula by which Henry could have secured possessions and immunities to the monastery of Brogne.

[123] Hence further it now comes about that I would scarcely dare to hold likewise all the other things likewise are absent, seems to be said. which are absent from the briefer copy of the diploma for genuine words of Henry the Fowler. Immediately after the words recited at num. 119 from the more prolix copy of the diploma there are also subjoined these: This precept we have ordered to be made for the aforesaid monastery for eternal remuneration, by which we command that the things which have been conferred by the aforesaid Gerard on the holy place, or which shall henceforth be conferred on it by faithful Christians, the brethren of that place may firmly have, hold and possess with tranquillity through the ages, and may continually implore the mercy of the Lord for our salvation and for the stability of the whole kingdom. And that through the courses of succeeding times it may be the more truly believed and more attentively observed, we have corroborated it with the impression of our seal. These are almost the remaining words from the more prolix copy of Henry's diploma which, besides those already transcribed here above, are also absent from the briefer copy of the same diploma; and although they bear no mark from which they might seem to have been intruded by an interpolator into the text of the diploma, whether they are nevertheless genuine words of Henry appears doubtful to me if only for this reason, that, according to what has already been said, almost all the remaining words of the more prolix copy which do not occur in the briefer, from some mark which, according to what has been said, they bear, raise doubt whether they proceeded from Henry the Fowler or from an interpolator.

[124] And so indeed, studious reader, you now have the things from which it becomes most probable that the more prolix copy of Henry's diploma is interpolated in its context; The briefer diploma also appears interpolated; and further that it is most probably also interpolated in the subscription of bishops which it bears will become plain from what I now proceed to discuss about the briefer copy of the same diploma of Henry. This too seems, as I have already noted above, vitiated, and that by interpolation. For although in its context it bears no certain and undoubted mark of interpolation, it nevertheless has this in common with the more prolix copy, that it presents three bishops subscribing to it who it does not appear probable subscribed to it or even could have subscribed. The first of those bishops is Richwin, Stratzburgis, as is written in the diploma, that is, bishop of Strasbourg or rather of Argentoratum, the second Rotger, bishop of Trier, and the third, finally, Benedict, bishop of Metz. Richwin, as François Guillimann records among the Bishops of Strasbourg, departed from the living on the thirtieth of August in the year 928. Rotger, as is clear from what has already been said above, prolonged his life only up to the year 930. Benedict or Benno, bishop of Metz, abdicated his see in the year 929, as I have already taught above. It does not appear probable, therefore, that those three bishops subscribed Henry's diploma, since it is noted as issued in the year 932, or even could have subscribed it.

[125] for although the bishops whom it has subscribing to it But, someone will say, the praised Guillimann, in that very place where he writes that Richwin died in the year 928, confesses that he is numbered among the living by Wimpheling up to the year 934; and although he affirms that this is done by Wimpheling through error, yet since he proves this assertion of his by absolutely no ancient document, it is doubtful whether one should rather agree with him or with Wimpheling here. Moreover, in the second volume of the Councils of Germany, which Joseph Hartzheim made public, at page 601 and following, there occurs the council of Erfurt celebrated in the year 932; and in this there appears Rino, bishop of the city of Strasbourg, by whom Richwin seems to be designated; for it does not appear probable enough that Ruthard, Richwin's successor, is designated by him. But as now regards Rotger, archbishop of Trier, and Benno or Benedict, bishop of Metz, the former indeed does not seem to have lived beyond the year 930; but his name was perhaps written in the diploma merely by the carelessness of a copyist in place of the name of Ruotbert, who immediately succeeded him in the see of Trier; while the latter indeed, beyond all controversy, as has already been said above, abdicated his see in the year 929 and was at length snatched from human affairs in the year 940. But it is not certain that, after abdicating his see, he no longer subscribed any rescripts and royal diplomas.

[126] could perhaps have subscribed it. For Frodoard in his Chronicle writes thus of Benno or Benedict: In the year of the Lord DCCCCXXVII Benno, while he was leading an eremitical life in the Alps, was elected bishop of Metz, and after two years was blinded by the men of Metz. On account of which monstrous sacrilege this synod, having been assembled, excommunicated all the authors of that crime, and substituted Adalbero in his place. Then the same Frodoard adds at the year 929: A certain abbey was granted to Benno by way of sustenance. Moreover, as Mabillon teaches in the fifth Benedictine Century, part one, in the eulogy of Benno or Benedict, bishop of Metz, he was held by Henry the Fowler in love and at the same time in veneration on account of his most approved morals and rare sanctity of life. Since, therefore, Benno, after he had ceded the bishopric, was presented with an abbey from which he might live, it appears probable enough that the title of bishop of Metz was also kept for him. Moreover, since, according to what has been said, he was not a little in the affections of Henry the Fowler, it may have happened that he was by chance present at Aachen when the latter was imparting the very often mentioned diploma to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne, and that, however much deprived of the use of his eyes, he caused his name with the title of bishop of Metz to be written among the witnesses.

[127] These are the things which can be brought forward against us for vindicating the briefer copy of Henry's diploma. yet it does not appear probable that they all did so; yet no To them, further, I answer thus: I would readily believe that Richwin lived up to at least the year 932, and this is why, when above I held discourse about the more prolix diploma of Pope Stephen, to which Richwin also subscribes, I objected nothing against it on that ground. Nor would I wish, from Rotger's subscription, to accuse either copy of Henry's diploma too obstinately of interpolation. But, however that may be, it appears at least little probable that Benno or Benedict subscribed the diploma which Henry gave at Aachen in the year 932; for Benno, having abdicated his see in the year 929 at the council of Duisburg, withdrew again into the solitude of Switzerland from which he had been taken to the bishopric of Metz, nor does it appear probable that he, being deprived of his eyes, afterwards came to Aachen. Both the briefer and the more prolix copy of Henry's diploma in Miraeus, therefore, seem to have been corrupted by interpolation by some hand later than the age of Henry the Fowler. I would not, however, wish anyone to infer from this that the whole of it, as much as it is, is supposititious, or even, what is still more, that no

diploma was ever granted to Gerard by Henry the Fowler in favour of the monastery of Brogne. For however much both the briefer and the more prolix copy of Henry's diploma may be supposed interpolated, both nevertheless enjoy, as it seems, the highest prerogative of antiquity. Whence it comes about that it does not appear to be doubted that Henry the Fowler once conferred at least some privilege or diploma by which he favoured the monastery of Brogne, as, according to what has been said, is also admitted among the learned; and it appears to me not unlike the truth that it was couched in almost the same words as the briefer copy in Miraeus.

[128] So it appears, because in these nothing at all lies hidden it is not to be inferred from this that Henry gave Gerard a diploma. from which it could deservedly be argued that they take their origin not from Henry but from the hand of an interpolator. But since almost all the same things which occur in the briefer copy also occur in the more prolix, as becomes plain from a comparison of the two, there will perhaps be someone who contends that the former was contracted from the latter in the manner in which we determined above that the briefer was made from the more prolix rescript of Pope Stephen. So, I say, someone will perhaps contend. Yet the great difference which distinguishes the two cases prevents its being deservedly contended. For I said that the more prolix Pontifical privilege is to be held in place of the genuine, the few cuttings which I mentioned having been made, for this reason, that the characteristics which the Saint's biographer assigns fit it, and consequently that the briefer, which is found destitute of those characteristics, was contracted from it. But absolutely nothing occurs by which I might pronounce that the more prolix copy of Henry's diploma, likewise with a few cuttings made, is to be held in place of the genuine, and consequently that the one which is briefer is only a summary of it. And although the briefer was nevertheless perhaps contracted from the more prolix, this is not certain; for the more prolix may also have been composed from an amplification of the briefer. There are no further things which I should record about the diploma granted by Henry the Fowler to Gerard in favour of the monastery of Brogne, and I therefore put an end to this §.

§ XI. The Saint shuts himself up in a little cell, receives the monastery of Celle to be reformed; the time at which this took place.

The Saint, in order to avoid the noise of men coming to him, What is sometimes wont to befall men excelling in a rare abundance of virtues befell Gerard too, now abbot of the monastery of Brogne, namely that, although in his monastery, removed from the noise of men, he desired to live to God alone, he nevertheless continually drew to himself a great multitude of men by the fame of his virtues. But the Saint, impatient of being called away from heavenly things by the noise of the people flowing together to him, and yet not hoping to be freed from the office of abbot by the bishop in whose diocese he lived, having chosen Priors with whom, according to the prescription of the Rule of St. Benedict, he might share his burdens, withdrew into a little cell separated from the monastery, which adjoined the church of Brogne, to be free there alone more freely for divine contemplation. But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, says the biographer at num. 35, striving from good things to better, and wishing to advance the sanctuary of Brogne in all things, removed the way of life of the clerics whom he had placed there before, substituting the religion of the monastic Order. Over whom, when he had presided for some time with the prelacy of a most vigorous shepherd, and could not bear the disturbance of the people flowing together there, nor hoped to obtain release from the bishop to whose diocese he belonged; having chosen Priors with whom he might share his burdens, according to what the Rule of the discretion of the lord Benedict commands, he betakes himself alone to a more remote little cell near the church, so that there he might be able to be free more especially for divine contemplation.

[130] shut himself up in a little cell separated from the monastery, The Saint, therefore, as is clear from these words of the biographer, shut himself up in a little cell near the church of Brogne, separated from the monastery, so that he might avoid the noise of the men constantly flowing together to him, and be free more freely for God. But about what time did this happen? How many years had he already returned from the monastery of St. Denis when he did it? Again the biographer furnishes nothing from which I might in any way determine it. For besides the words which I have just recited, and which furnish absolutely no chronological mark, he records absolutely nothing that pertains to the said enclosing of Gerard. Recourse must therefore be had elsewhere, so that I may determine, in whatever manner, about what time these things happened. The Saint, according to what has been said, having set out for Rome in the year 929, as appears more probable, obtained there a privilege or rescript from Pope Stephen VII in favour of the monastery of Brogne founded by himself, and, this having been obtained, returned to Brogne not much later, as does not appear to be doubted. Further, that voluntary enclosing of the Saint in a separate little cell perhaps took place not very long after his return from the City. I think so because it appears not altogether unlike the truth that at that time the fame of prodigies was added to the odour of virtues with which he had already long before been fragrant far and wide.

[131] It is lawful at least to suspect it from what the biographer furnishes at num. 75 and 76, perhaps in the year, as it is lawful to suspect from the biographer, where he makes discourse about the Saint's journey as he returned to his native land from Italy, whither, according to what has been said, he had set out for the sake of obtaining the Pontifical privilege. For there he writes thus: Let us recall what worthy of relation the divine power performed for its faithful one on the same journey; having advanced most prosperously from the city of Rome, the Blessed man himself had come to the mountain which is called that of Jove. And when with his people he was taking the narrow declivities of the mountain, one of the sagmarii (that is, pack-horses or beasts of burden), walking incautiously, laden with porphyry stones which the Man of God was carrying across to his own place for the sake of a needful beauty, fell down, rolling, to the hollows of the valley. While the companions who were coming together took this most grievously, Gerard, not at all moved (the verses which the biographer here again ineptly interposes I omit), having summoned one of those whom they call Marones (I shall give a notice of these in the Annotations), with payment secured, ordered him at least to search for the pack of the sagmarius containing the stones. For he inclined his mind more to these, perhaps on account of that saying: Everything which is rare is known to be also precious. For who would not without doubt have believed it dead? Who would even have supposed that the body had arrived at the ground whole, when it could have been torn to pieces by the crags interposed everywhere? But having been sought, it was found not only alive, but also safe and unhurt, with the stones. Then it became openly known to all that it could not be hurt for this reason, because the prayer of the Man of God bore it up in its fall.

[132] That the pack-beast, therefore, laden with precious stones, he shuts himself up about the year 930. was preserved unhurt from the most grievous and most perilous fall which the biographer narrates, those who accompanied Gerard most probably ascribed wholly to a heavenly prodigy worked by his great merits. This surely seems to be gathered from the later words of the narrative transcribed here. They, therefore, on returning to their native land, as appears probable, celebrated that astounding event everywhere among their countrymen as a miracle, and spread it abroad far and wide under this name. It may be, therefore, nay it is not at all unlike the truth that it in fact also came about, that from that time Gerard was spoken of not only as a Saint for his known cultivation of the virtues, but also as a thaumaturge, or worker of miracles, by the fame of prodigies. Since, therefore, it is chiefly wont to come about from the fame of virtues and prodigies that the Saints draw a concourse of men to themselves, perhaps then, as appears not unlike the truth, a frequent concourse of men was made to the Saint in his monastery of Brogne as he desired to be free solely for heavenly things; and he, in order to avoid it, shut himself up in a little cell separated from the monastery. Wherefore, since the Saint's return from Italy, as you will easily understand from what has already been said, more probably took place in the year 929, the said enclosing of the Saint in a little cell separated from the monastery was perhaps carried out about the year 930 or one or the other of the two following; for I would not easily believe that it was done in the very year in which he had returned from Rome. However that may be, from what has been said and will further be said anyone will without difficulty gather that it perhaps came about neither long before nor long after the year 930 that the Saint shut himself up in the little cell.

[133] How further the Saint lived in it, what works of virtue he exercised, with what exercises of penance he macerated his body, the biographer does not expressly set forth; yet he sufficiently indicates that Gerard led there a very rigid kind of life by these three little verses which he subjoins concerning the Saint immediately after the words recited at num. 129. He is called out to reform the monastery of Celle; Here they are:

How he lived here, who could set it forth? Dying he becomes a sacrifice, and also a living victim, A living victim to God, truly dead to the world.

Moreover the Saint, as is also gathered from the words of the biographer which immediately precede these little verses, devoted himself wholly in his cell to divine contemplation. For he had betaken himself into it, as the biographer says in them, so that there he might be able to be free more especially for divine contemplation. But I do not know whether it was permitted to the Saint to remain very long in that retreat so dear to him. Mabillon indeed affirms in the Observations prefixed to the Life that Gerard sat enclosed in the little cell at Brogne for some years; but this assertion of his he proves neither from our biographer nor from other ancient writers. However that may be, the Saint did not leave his cell, or that retreat so dear to him, before he received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle in Hainaut to be reformed, if credit is to be given to our biographer. But whether he deserves certain credit here can be doubted for this reason, that, as you will easily gather from what will be said, he has opposing him Rainer, in Mabillon's second Benedictine Century; and which of the two is to be agreed with no one would easily determine. However that may be meanwhile, Gerard, whether he was still remaining in the cell in which he had shut himself up, or had already come out of it, is summoned by Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, to reform the monastery of Celle in Hainaut, when he had already for some time returned from the monastery of St. Denis. Into the time at which the Saint was invited to this burden I shall soon inquire. I first set forth the occasion on which the matter came about.

[134] the occasion on which this Of old St. Ghislain had built a monastery on the Haine, a river of Hainaut, in the place which was called Ursidongus, and had placed monks in it. But, as Rainer, in the book on the miracles of St. Ghislain, in Mabillon's second Benedictine Century, teaches, the monks having been driven out from there by the storms of wars, Stephen, bishop of Cambrai, had raised from the earth the body of St. Ghislain, already given over to oblivion, and restored it to due cult, clerics or canons also being established to guard it diligently and religiously day and night. This was surely done most piously and laudably by Stephen. But those clerics or canons, by the wicked life which they led, rendered themselves altogether unworthy to guard that sacred treasure committed to them. Their wicked morals the just praised Rainer, in Mabillon, in the book cited, num. 6, teaches in these words: When the peoples before devastated (namely by the Normans) had begun to breathe again, in whatever manner the place itself, called Cella, of the resting of St. Ghislain

was rashly entered by canons, who, rejoicing to live in an enormous manner, clinging to marriages, entangling themselves in secular business, were dishonouring the service of the kindly confessor which they ought to have carried out with religiousness: because they took greater solicitude for nourishing their household than for adorning the Lord's church. The very body of the holy confessor Ghislain too they carried about through all sorts of places, and whatever the largesse of the faithful dwelling round about conferred as offering at his bier they did not give to the furnishings of the church, but secretly retained for their own uses. Which thing often in wonderful ways offended the dignity of the aforesaid confessor, nor did he approve the custom of those serving in such a manner.

[135] From this narrative, in which Rainer sets forth the very bad morals of the said clerics or canons, came about, our biographer does not much disagree. For at num. 43 he records this about them: Blessed Ghislain had, and today has, an oratory in a little hamlet which by some is called Cella, but by some Ursidungus: in which place, deputed to the service of the same Saint, there dwelt some petty clerics, altogether ignorant of Regular discipline: and they were not as the canons are today, but were like matricularii, who, partly compelled by the necessity of their household affairs, partly labouring under the disease of love of money, were accustomed to carry about the most sacred members of the kindly confessor, placed upon a bier on their shoulders, through the streets and villages, singing, or rather begging. Those were of old called matricularii who were enrolled in the canon (see Thomassin, vol. 1 of the Old and New Discipline of the Church, book 3, chap. 9, num. 1) or register of the Church, as beneficiaries, to whom a canon, or measured allowance, was dispensed from which to live; for they were, as Du Cange teaches in the Glossary, the poor or the needy. To these without doubt the biographer here likens the said canons or clerics, when he writes thus of them (see the words just recited) as then dwelling in the monastery of St. Ghislain: They were not as the canons are today, but were like matricularii. But let it suffice to have noted this here in passing; as regards the agreement of Rainer with our biographer concerning the wicked morals of the canons of Celle, which I have just asserted, it cannot but be plain to everyone here if only from the words of both those writers which I have recited, compared with one another. I therefore go on to set forth the occasion on which the Saint received the monastery of St. Ghislain in Hainaut to be reformed. St. Ghislain, moved with most just indignation against the said canons who had received his body to guard and who carried it about in every direction for the sake of gain, appears in sleep to Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, which then embraced Hainaut, Brabant and other regions of present-day Belgium, and seriously admonishes him to impose the care of the monastery of St. Ghislain on Gerard. Gislebert obeys the admonition, and pushes Gerard so far that he takes upon himself, although unwilling, the care of the monastery of Celle.

[136] So both our biographer and also the praised Rainer lucidly testify; and the time. This, which but it is wonderful how much they disagree with one another in narrating the circumstances of the matter. This will become plain from what I am about to say below. I now discuss, as I promised I would do, about what time the Saint received the monastery of Celle to be reformed. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 43, num. 61, writes thus concerning the time at which Gerard received the monastery of Celle to be reformed, or, what is the same thing, concerning the time at which he reformed it: Vinchant thinks this was done in the year DCCCCXXXI. But it seems to have happened a little later, yet before the thirty-seventh year of that century, in which Gislebert, the author of that renewal, died; but not before the thirty-third year, in which Artald, Pontiff of the Remi, ordained Fulbert prelate of the church of Cambrai, by whose authority too this change was made. So Mabillon, with whom I think one must here partly agree, partly disagree. And first indeed, as to what he says, that the monastery of Celle in Hainaut seems to have been reformed a little later than the year 931, I would not unwillingly give him assent in this matter. For Gerard, after his departure from the monastery of St. Denis, which according to what has been said more probably took place in the year 928, most probably spent a space of time greater than three years in substituting monks in the place of the clerics and forming them aptly, in the Roman journey for obtaining the pontifical privilege mentioned above, and in leading a solitary life in a little cell separated from the monastery, and consequently received the monastery of Celle to be reformed later than the year 931.

[137] on the foundations which he assigns, But as to what he says, that this was done before the thirty-seventh year of the tenth century, it appears indeed to be admitted as true, as I shall prove below; but not on the foundation on which he says, drawn from the death of Gislebert, which happened in the year 937. For Gislebert ended his life by an unhappy end not in the year 937, but only two years later. The Chronicle of Reichenau, in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers, teaches this; with which Frodoard in his Chronicle and a good many other writers agree, nor have I been able to find anyone who with Mabillon ties Gislebert's unhappy death to the year 937. Further, as to what he affirms, that Gerard did not reform the monastery of Celle before the thirty-third year of the century, because before this year Fulbert, prelate of the church of Cambrai, by whose authority too that change was made, had not been ordained bishop by Artald, prelate of the Remi, this indeed, although, according to what will be said, Gerard more probably did not reform that monastery before that year, does not appear to be admitted for this reason, that it is very doubtful, first indeed, whether the Saint reformed the monastery of Celle with Bishop Fulbert helping; and then also whether Fulbert was ordained bishop no later than the year 933. Balderic in the Chronicle of Cambrai and Arras, book 1, chap. 68, writes thus of Stephen, Fulbert's immediate predecessor in the see of Cambrai: He … closed his day in the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCCCCXXXIV, on the III day before the Ides of February. Frodoard does indeed write that Fulbert was ordained bishop by Artald, metropolitan of Reims, in the year 933. But this writer perhaps begins to number the years from Easter, and so does not disagree with Balderic, who writes that Stephen, bishop of Cambrai, died in the year 934 in the month of February; but if he begins the years from the Nativity of the Lord, as is more probable, he does indeed disagree with Balderic; but the latter is of no less authority than Frodoard, and consequently it is nevertheless to be doubted whether Fulbert was not created bishop of Cambrai later than the year 933.

[138] Mabillon wrongly builds, As now regards Mabillon's latter assertion, by which he indicates that Fulbert, bishop of Cambrai, concurred in reforming the monastery of Celle, I do not see either how it can be sufficiently proved, namely if it is to be understood also of the reform begun through Fulbert, as it seems in fact to be understood by Mabillon. For, granting even that Fulbert (which, however, according to what has already been said, is doubtful) was ordained bishop of Cambrai in the year 933, it will not yet follow from this that Gerard first began to reform the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle by his authority: for nothing, as will become plain from what will be said, prevents its being believed that the Saint did this one or perhaps even two years earlier, when Stephen, Fulbert's immediate predecessor, was still surviving among the living. Moreover, absolutely nothing occurs in ancient writers or monuments which in any way proves that the reform of the monastery of St. Ghislain is to be placed under Fulbert. Therefore Mabillon in the words recited above rightly proves neither of the things which he intends to prove, although meanwhile Gerard without doubt reformed the aforesaid monastery before the year 937, and yet perhaps not before the year 933, as I now proceed to show. It is certain that Gerard reformed the monastery of St. Ghislain before he was summoned to Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders. This is clear from the whole series of our biographer's narrative, nor is it called into doubt by anyone. But, according to what will be said below, Gerard, if not sooner, certainly not later than the year 937, came to Arnulf, count of Flanders, having been summoned. Before this year, therefore, he will have reformed the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle. And so indeed we have sufficiently solidly proved before what year the Saint reformed the monastery of Celle; but it is far from being possible to prove equally solidly that the Saint did not do it before the year 933.

[139] For although, according to what has been said, it is probable that the Saint, after departing from the monastery of St. Denis, seems to be placed between about the year 932 and 937. spent more than three years in the solitary life and in arranging the affairs of the monastery of Brogne, this nevertheless does not appear certain and undoubted, and consequently nothing solid enough is had from it for placing the reform of the monastery of St. Ghislain through Gerard not before the year 933. But if it were certain that Gerard, already at the time when he received the monastery of Celle to be reformed, presided with the name of abbot over several monasteries in Lotharingia, a sufficiently valid argument could hence be constructed for fixing the reform of the monastery of Celle not before the year 933. For it does not at all appear probable that Gerard, having departed from the monastery of St. Denis only three or perhaps even only two years before, already then bore the care of several monasteries and presided over them as abbot. But it seems to be doubted whether the Saint was already then abbot of several monasteries when he received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle to be reformed. For the opinion denying it stands the Saint's biographer; for the one affirming it, Rainer, praised above, who transmitted the Life of St. Ghislain and his miracles to the memory of posterity. Whether one should rather agree here with Rainer or with the biographer I discuss in the following §, and since from what will be said there it appears more probable that Gerard did not govern several monasteries of Lotharingia before he reformed that of St. Ghislain, the opinion which determines that the monastery of Celle was reformed by Gerard not before the year 933, and consequently between the year 932 and, according to what has already been said, the year 937, acquires no strength either from the monasteries over which Gerard presided as abbot in Lotharingia. This, therefore, appears more probable to me solely for this reason, that before the Saint received it to be reformed he seems to have spent at least four years in arranging the affairs of the newly founded monastery of Brogne. For the rest, our biographer at num. 44 relates that the bishop of Cambrai at the time when Gerard reformed the monastery of Celle was Thiedo; but this is most certainly foreign to the truth, since Thiedo, as is agreed among all, did not obtain the chair of Cambrai before the year 964, when Gerard had long since departed from the living.

§ XII. Whether the Saint, already at the time when he received the monastery of Celle to be reformed, presided as abbot over several monasteries of Lotharingia or of the kingdom of Lothar, and whether he ever governed several monasteries both in this and in the kingdom of France.

Gerard, when he reformed the monastery of Celle, was That Rainer, who wrote the deeds and miracles of St. Ghislain, and the biographer of our Saint wonderfully disagree with one another in narrating the circumstances which accompanied the reform of the monastery of Celle made by Gerard, I have already hinted in the preceding §. But how exactly this agrees with the truth will become plain from this §, in which it is chiefly inquired whether Gerard, already at the time when he received the monastery of Celle to be reformed, had been set over several other monasteries. According to our biographer (consult num. 41 and the six following), Gislebert,

duke of Lotharingia, admonished in sleep by St. Ghislain, sends men to invite Gerard seriously to accept the care of the monastery of Celle; and he, although very reluctantly, at length follows those inviting him to the monastery of Celle, having before been set over only the one monastery of Brogne. But according to Rainer, Gislebert, admonished in sleep by St. Ghislain, begs St. Gerard, already the father of many monasteries, to undertake also the prefecture of the monastery of Celle, in the public assembly of the province, to which, to be held at Dinant, the Saint too had come. This latter narrative of Rainer surely disagrees very greatly with the former of the biographer; and so that the one and the other may be more conveniently compared with each other in their very sources, and it may thus be observed how much they differ from one another, I transcribe here Rainer's narrative from Mabillon's second Benedictine Century.

[141] [according to Rainer, whose narrative is here given, set over several other monasteries,] After the words transcribed here at num. 134, Rainer continues thus: On a certain … night he (St. Ghislain) appeared, seen in sleep, to the aforesaid duke (namely of Lotharingia) Gislebert, whom he admonished with the voice of such a petition: Give me one shield, by whose protection my dwelling may be fortified, because I lie open to ruin for all who plunder, nor, condemned, do I feel any advocacy. And to the duke asking whom he wished to have as a shield, the kindly Ghislain gave answer that he wished Abbot Gerard, who, ruling many abbeys in those very days, was held to be of approved life not only before God but also before men. Then the duke, taking care of this matter, appointed an assembly of the princes for holding a plea at the port of Dinant by the force of his precept. When, therefore, at the hour of the appointed time the magnates came together at the duke's command, there was present among them also Abbot Gerard, of good memory, to whom the duke began to make discourse of this kind: You by imperial edict rule very many abbeys, which, by God's gift and your skilful disposition, abound in many possessions and in servants pleasing to God: but necessity demands that what is broken be made solid, and what has fallen be strengthened for the better. There is a certain abbey founded in honour of the primates of the Apostolic Order, namely Peter and Paul, and also of the holy confessor Ghislain, called by the name of Cella, which is counted with many others under the rule of our lord the emperor, but for our faults hitherto neglected: which charitable predecessors built from the goods belonging to them, but, the order of monks who once served there being changed through the sedition of the age, the hands of clerics now leading a base life there drag it to nothing.

[142] Which, I pray, that you receive to yourself, and transform according to the institution of your order, yet the biographer relates the contrary; the voracious clerics being ejected thence. Which precept at first seemed difficult to the abbot on account of the many other abbeys which he had to govern; but rather, asked by the counsel of the other princes his peers, he did not spurn to fulfil the duke's petition, and so received that place to himself, which, while he lived, he did not neglect, as far as he could, to enlarge. Thus far Rainer. Compare now these words of his with the words which the biographer presents at num. 41 and the six following, already assigned above, and you will see how greatly these two writers disagree with one another, and that especially from this, that according to Rainer, but not likewise according to the biographer, Gerard, at the time when he received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle to be reformed, presided as abbot over several other monasteries. But which is rather to be agreed with here? Rainer, or the Saint's biographer? Rainer was a monk of Celle in Hainaut, and at the order of Rathbod, abbot of Celle, who, as Vinchant teaches in the Annals of Hainaut, chap. 17, ended his life in the year one thousand and forty-two, he worked out a new composition on the deeds and miracles of St. Ghislain. This is clear from Rainer's own dedicatory letter to Radhbod, abbot of Celle, which Mabillon, in the second Benedictine Century, in the Observations prefixed to the Life of St. Ghislain, num. 2, brings forward from the manuscript codex of St. Ghislain. Our Saint's biographer, therefore, since, according to what has been said, he composed his work on Gerard before the sixty-second year of the eleventh century, and Rainer, the writer of the Life and Miracles of St. Ghislain, are coeval authors; nay, both, at about the same time, comprised in writing the one the Acts of St. Gerard, the other those of St. Ghislain, so that neither wins greater credit for himself from the prerogative of age.

[143] Yet our Saint's biographer will have written somewhat later than Rainer, biographer; and although there is no reason why if he had the latter's composition shining before him, as Mabillon suspects in his preliminary Observations on the Life of Gerard and then in the Annotations. But this seems to me very doubtful. For Mabillon suspects it only from these few words which the biographer furnishes at num. 52: But how the bishop of Cambrai examined and tried the sacrilegious (he designates those who had carried off the body of St. Ghislain by theft), or by what means (as was fitting) he tormented them when convicted by synodal law, it is not, as we think, for our narrative to set forth to you, especially since his deeds make it clear, if you wish to be seriously wise. But by the Deeds which the biographer here praises the composition of Rainer on the Life and Miracles of St. Ghislain does not seem to me to be understood. For according to the Deeds or Acts which the biographer praises in the words just recited, the men of Maubeuge, the robbers of the body of St. Ghislain, were examined by the bishop of Cambrai and convicted by synodal law; whereas Rainer's composition does not record that this was done by the bishop of Cambrai. For in it Rainer writes nothing at all about the bishop of Cambrai that could bear on this except this: Coming, he arrived as far as the castle of Maubeuge, and, standing outside, sent in men to say to the elders: Restore, I pray, brothers and sisters, the body of the kindly prophet Ghislain, that it may be restored to its place given by Christ; otherwise I will excommunicate, that no one may celebrate Masses or other services of God in this place. Hearing which, the men of Maubeuge, although compelled, yet obeyed the bishop: where there is absolutely no word about the men of Maubeuge having been examined and convicted of the crime or theft by the bishop of Cambrai.

[144] on account of the prerogative of age. By the Deeds or Acts, therefore, which the biographer praises, the Miracles of St. Ghislain written by Rainer do not seem to me to be understood, but some other deeds of this Saint in which it was set forth how the bishop of Cambrai examined the men of Maubeuge, convicted them of carrying off the body of St. Ghislain, and compelled them to restitution by the threat of excommunication; for I do not think that a Work in which he found absolutely no word on the matter is praised by the biographer in order to teach that the men of Maubeuge were examined by the bishop of Cambrai and convicted of the crime. Therefore, since, according to what has been said, Rainer's composition did not shine before our biographer, there is no reason either why he should be believed to have written after him. Nay rather I think it most probable that both those writers, namely Rainer on Ghislain and our biographer on Gerard, composed their works at about the same time. For, according to what has been said, Rainer, at the order of Rathbod, abbot of Celle, comprised in writing the Deeds and Miracles of St. Ghislain; and Rathbod, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 92, teach from Vinchant, praised above, presided as abbot over the abbey of St. Ghislain at Celle from the year 1037 up to the year 1042. Whence it follows that Rainer composed his work on St. Ghislain either in the year 1037 or in some one of the five following. Wherefore, since, according to what was said above, our biographer committed the Life of St. Gerard to writing about the year 1038, as appears more probable, it follows that both these writers worked out their compositions at about the same time.

[145] more should be deferred here to the one than to the other. There is no reason, therefore, why, on account of the prerogative of age, one should deserve credit here more than the other? The biographer, according to what has been said, relates at num. 44 things from which it follows that Gerard received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle to be reformed while Thiedo was governing the church of Cambrai; and since this too, according to what has been said, is most certainly foreign to the truth, there is surely reason why the biographer's credit in this matter should become in some measure suspect. However that may be, I nevertheless do not know whether it is not better to subscribe to our biographer, according to whom Gerard, at the time when he came to the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle, presided over the monastery of Brogne alone. For the Saint, in the diploma of Henry the Fowler, already diligently weighed above, which is noted as given in the year 932, is called only Abbot of the monastery of Brogne, nor is any mention made of other monasteries over which he then presided. In the year 932, therefore, as appears, he presided as abbot over the monastery of Brogne alone. Wherefore, since not very long after, as most suppose, he received the monastery of Celle to be reformed, it can seem probable that he did not then either preside as abbot over several monasteries. Moreover, if the Saint then presided over any monasteries besides that of Brogne, they were situated in Lotharingia or the kingdom of Lothar, which embraced all the provinces about the Meuse, part of the Scheldt, the Sambre, the Moselle and on this side of the Rhine; and now, since Giselbert or Gislebert was duke or governor of Lotharingia, and also usurped in it almost the supreme power of a prince, it can seem probable that the Saint, if he ever presided over any monasteries in Lotharingia besides that of Brogne, was set over them by Gislebert, and consequently that this did not happen sooner than when he had already been set over the monastery of Celle by the same Gislebert, divinely admonished to do so.

[146] Nothing else occurs which can support the narrative of our biographer, according to which yet it seems rather that one should agree with the biographer. Gerard, when he went to the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle, presided as abbot over the one monastery of Brogne. The matter is surely exceedingly involved, nor, however much zeal and labour I have spent, have I been able to find anything from which it could even be certain that the Saint did not preside over several monasteries when he received that of Celle to be reformed. Therefore, I suppose this indeed more probable, and yet I do not entirely reject the opinion of others who think the contrary. Further, Rainer, in the words transcribed here at num. 141, indicates that the Saint was set by the emperor over the monasteries over which he presided in Lotharingia. By the emperor he here without doubt designates Henry the Fowler, who held the kingdom of Germany from the year 919 up to the year 936, or Otto the Great, afterwards emperor; and although neither of them was emperor as long as Gerard survived among the living, he nevertheless calls him emperor, by a custom usual among many other writers, who call even Henry the Fowler emperor, although he never was emperor. However that may be, Rainer surely indicates most openly that Gerard was set over the monasteries over which he presided in Lotharingia by the emperor or supreme lord of Lotharingia; but, on account of what has already been said, this was more probably done by Gislebert, when Gerard, by reforming the monastery of Celle, had already proved to him his industry in ruling religious communities.

[147] Determine here, studious reader, whatever shall seem good; The Saint, to the monastery of Mouzon, I now proceed to examine what I likewise proposed to discuss here, whether Gerard ever, over several monasteries in Lotharingia, as abbot

presided. Our biographer nowhere teaches that several monasteries in Lotharingia were administered by our Saint. Yet at num. 23 he furnishes things from which, if he writes rightly, it at least follows that the Saint presided as abbot over the monastery of Mouzon, which was of Lotharingian jurisdiction. For there he records thus: But if this raises any ambiguity for anyone, let him inquire of Abbot Lietald, successor of this Man of God (St. Gerard) in the monastery of Mouzon; and for the truth of these words it is required that Gerard was at some time abbot of the monastery of Mouzon; for otherwise Lietald does not seem able to be called his successor in the monastery of Mouzon, who, as the writer of the Translation of St. Arnulf the martyr testifies, in Mabillon, fifth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 357, was set as abbot over the monastery of Mouzon by Adalbero, bishop of Reims, when the latter substituted monks there for canons in the year 971. Mabillon, in the Observations prefixed to the Saint's Life, num. 6, observes thus on the words of the biographer just recited: In order that … our anonymous (the biographer of St. Gerard), at num. XII already cited, might legitimately call Lietald Gerard's successor in the monastery of Mouzon, it must be said that Gerard, ordered by the pontiff Heriveus, applied himself to the reform of the nunnery of Mouzon, or presided for some time over the canons soon substituted.

[148] as is proved, Heriveus, prelate of Reims, established canons in the monastery of Mouzon when the nuns, the ancient mistresses of the place, had failed through the storms of wars, as becomes manifest from the already praised History of the Translation of St. Arnulf the martyr. But Heriveus, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 9, col. 50, teach, exchanged life for death in the year 922. Gerard, therefore, at the order of Heriveus, prelate of Reims, neither applied himself to reforming the nunnery of Mouzon, nor presided as abbot over the canons established there; for, according to what has been said, it is not probable that the Saint presided as abbot over any monastery already from the year 922. It remains, therefore, that Gerard, if only the biographer writes rightly, presided over the monastery of Mouzon at the order not of Heriveus but of another. But since the canons, after they had been established in the monastery of Mouzon by Heriveus, continued there up to the year 971, as again is plain from the praised History of the Translation of St. Arnulf, it will perhaps seem to some to be doubted whether the Saint ever presided as abbot over this monastery; for no one will think it probable that a Benedictine monk presided as abbot over canons, men of a far different institute. Yet, since the words of the biographer recited above were without doubt drawn from the more ancient biographer of Gerard (see num. 7 and 9 of this Commentary), and he deserves entire credit without any controversy, it seems altogether to be said that Gerard, however much a monk, presided as abbot over the canons of Mouzon. And so indeed we have that the Saint was abbot of one monastery which was situated in Lotharingia or the kingdom of Lothar.

[149] perhaps also to that of Tinnum, The Chronicle of Mouzon, in d'Achery, first edition of the Spicilegium, vol. 7, in words soon to be transcribed here below, mentions the small monastery of Tinnum or Tignum, which was erected in the county of Porcien, or, as it is written by others, Partensis, of French Champagne, by the counsel of St. Gerard. And this county, since it is mentioned in the division of the kingdom of Lothar made between Louis and Charles, kings of Germany and of France, in the year 870, was of Lotharingian jurisdiction. That small monastery of Tinnum, therefore, will have been another monastery of Lotharingia or of the kingdom of Lothar of which Gerard was abbot, or at least father or founder. However that may be, he certainly caused it to be founded, and embraced it with singular care. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 46, num. 20, says that Lietald was set by Gerard as abbot over the aforesaid monastery of Tinnum. This surely appears most probable to me too. For Lietald, according to what has already been said, was one of the twelve monks who followed Gerard from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, and he was abbot of Tinnum when in the year 971 he was promoted by Adalbero, archbishop of Reims, to the government of the monastery of Mouzon. But I do not know on what foundation the praised writer ties that promotion of Lietald to the year 959. For I have been able to find nothing anywhere which could support Mabillon here.

[150] Nor have I found anything either for determining the time at which the Saint either caused the monastery of Tinnum to be founded or received that of Mouzon to govern. That both the one and the other were most probably done after the year 932, [and without doubt presided as abbot over several other monasteries of Lotharingia;] anyone will easily gather from what has already been said. Let us now examine whether he presided besides over other monasteries situated in the same kingdom. Mabillon in the preliminary Observations, num. 5, having enumerated the monasteries which Gerard restored or reformed in the county of Flanders, writes thus: Ampler things were owed to Gerard's zeal, so that he is not undeservedly held a second parent of the Benedictine family revived both in Belgium and in the whole kingdom of Lothar, which flourished again by his zeal and sacred exhortations. For since all those provinces about the Meuse, part of the Scheldt, the Sambre, the Moselle and on this side of the Rhine were subject to the dominion of Duke Gislebert, as many monasteries as obeyed his dominion, together with many others in Francia, according to the Chronicle of Mouzon, received a new form from Gerard. These words surely hint that there was a vast multitude of monasteries which were reformed by Gerard. And indeed that the Saint at some time presided as abbot, besides those of Brogne, Celle, Mouzon and perhaps also Tinnum, over several other monasteries in Lotharingia seems to be concluded from the words of Rainer recited above, with whom I think one must agree at least in this matter. But what and of what kind were those monasteries? This indeed I cannot declare.

[151] Further, according to the words of Mabillon just recited, the Saint presided over several monasteries not only in Lotharingia but also in Francia; had a singular care of the monastery of St. Remigius at Reims which I likewise think accords exactly with the truth. For the Chronicle of Mouzon which he praises, in vol. 7 of d'Achery's Spicilegium, has thus: There is in the parts of the county of Porcien a very small and poor little place of eight monks with an abbot set over them (Tignus by name), which Freduidis, a noble matron, built with her illustrious husband Count Stephen. This, through the counsel of the lord abbot Gerard, of venerable life, who at that time, by the merit of his name and religious way of life, presided over several monasteries of monks in Francia, among which he also bore the care of the monastery of St. Remigius, this same place, I say, they handed over by a faithful vow to St. Remigius, that he might have it as subject and keep it by his management. This, consecrated in honour of St. Quentin, and set at the roots of the mount Aldiniacum, is called Tignus from the rivulet of a spring which, rising there, flows past. According to these words of the Chronicle of Mouzon, therefore, Gerard presided as abbot over several monasteries in Francia. But is the monastery of St. Remigius at Reims also to be numbered among these? Mabillon, already very often praised, writes thus in the Benedictine Annals, book 46, num. 20: Among other monasteries which were erected by Gerard's counsel is reckoned that of Tinum or Tignum, so called from the Tinus, a rivulet flowing past, which rises from the roots of the mount Aldiniacum. This monastery Freduidis, a noble matron, is related to have built in the county of Porcien with her illustrious husband Count Stephen, and to have subjected it to the monastery of St. Remigius, the care of which Gerard is said in the Chronicle of Mouzon to have had, but on no foundation, as it seems. Since not Gerard, but Ercambold, abbot of Fleury, was the chief author of restoring monastic discipline there, and Hincmar, the first abbot of that holy house after the reform, survived Gerard. So Mabillon, adjudging away from St. Gerard the care of the monastery of St. Remigius at Reims; and rightly indeed: for neither does he mean that absolutely no care of that monastery was borne by the Saint.

[152] he bore, For by the care which he adjudges away from him he understands only the prefecture and the reform. This is clear from this, that as the reason for which he adjudges away from Gerard the care of the said monastery he says at once that not Gerard but Ercambold, abbot of Fleury, was the chief author of restoring discipline in the house of St. Remigius, and that Hincmar, the first abbot after the reform, survived Gerard. From which it in no way follows that the Saint bore no care of the monastery of St. Remigius. And indeed that he had a certain singular care of it is clear if only from this, that by his counsel (see the words of the Chronicle of Mouzon recited) he brought it about not only that Freduidis, a noble matron, and her illustrious husband, Count Stephen, founded the monastery of Tignum or Tinum, but also that they subjected it to the monastery of St. Remigius and gave it to be managed, as becomes most manifest from what Mabillon himself writes in the fifth Benedictine Century, part one, concerning the Translation of St. Arnulf. Therefore neither does Mabillon adjudge away from Gerard all care of the monastery of St. Remigius, nor is it doubtful that he bore a certain singular care of it, although meanwhile, as appears more probable, he neither reformed it nor even governed it as abbot. But the Saint not only embraced several monasteries of Francia in his care, but also ruled them with the office of abbot. This is expressly asserted in the words already recited from the Chronicle of Mouzon, and you will easily gather from what will be said that it is true. But what and of what kind were those monasteries? In what province of Francia were they situated? Since the county of Flanders then belonged to Francia, it can be doubted whether the Chronicle of Mouzon does not designate only the monasteries of Flanders, or of the dominion of the count of Flanders, which, according to what will be said, Gerard reformed and also governed with the office of abbot; and if this is so, Gerard, according to the Chronicle of Mouzon, presided in Francia over no other monasteries than those of Flanders.

[153] and he held the prefecture of several monasteries of Francia too. Yet it seems altogether to be said that Gerard presided in Francia not only over the monasteries of the dominion of the count of Flanders but also over several others. For in the Life of St. Bertulf, abbot, printed by us at the fifth day of January, and written by an anonymous monk of Blandin about the year 1073, as it seemed to our Bolland, these things are read at num. 33: At that time in the monastery of Blandin Gerard dwelt as abbot by merit and by office, whose counsels the glorious marquis (Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders) willingly used. He, since he adorned the titles of nobility yet more nobly with a probity of morals, was found worthy both to preside over and to profit almost all the monasteries of Gaul. Since, therefore, according to this writer, Gerard presided over almost all the monasteries of Gaul, it is altogether necessary that, besides the monasteries of the dominion of the count of Flanders, of which there will be treatment fully enough below, he also administered several others in Francia with the office of abbot. Moreover, that Gerard either reformed, or governed with the office of abbot, more monasteries too than those of the dominion of the count of Flanders, or certainly laboured that they should be restored when they had been destroyed by the Normans, can be proved by the restoration of the monastery of Fontenelle in Normandy, attempted by him, as we shall say below, and yet not attaining a happy outcome. It does not appear to be doubted, therefore, that Gerard, not only in Flanders and Lotharingia but also in Gaul, either reformed several monasteries, or caused them to be restored, or also governed them with the office of abbot, although meanwhile it is in obscurity what and of what kind those monasteries were. I now proceed to discuss another question, which no one would easily decide,

namely

§ XIII. Whether he recovered for the monks of St. Ghislain the relics of St. Ghislain carried off by theft by the men of Maubeuge, and how he was of use to them.

[The recovery of the body of St. Ghislain, which the men of Maubeuge had carried off,] The Saint had scarcely received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle to govern and reform when he began to investigate more diligently the morals of the clerics inhabiting it, and when he had found them to be such as in no way befitted clerics, inhabitants of a religious place which monks had once occupied, he removed them thence, monks being substituted. Who, says the biographer of Gerard at num. 48, having more diligently investigated the not good way of life of the clerics dwelling there, thought it expedient to drive out from that basilica those who had the liberty each to carry on his own business, thereupon substituting swarms of cenobites worthy of God. The Saint did this at the request of Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia. So Rainer testifies in the words recited above, nor does the biographer oppose him. And indeed that the Saint did this also at the petition of Gislebert appears undoubted, nor, if it were otherwise, would I think it worth the trouble to prove it at more length. I proceed, therefore, to discuss other things which the Saint, already abbot of Celle, is narrated by the biographer to have performed. The body of St. Ghislain, before Gerard came to the monastery of Celle, had been carried off from the monks of St. Ghislain by the men of Maubeuge. This both our biographer and Rainer testify; and both writers relate also with unanimous consent that it was recovered for the monks of St. Ghislain. But the biographer records this recovery as made by Gerard; while Rainer records it as made by a certain Adelhelm before Gerard came to Ursidongus.

[155] Moreover in the other circumstances of the recovery, and in the prodigies the biographer ascribes to St. Gerard, which they relate to have accompanied it, they also differ from one another in a wonderful manner. But which of the two is to be agreed with here? Mabillon, in the Observations prefixed to the Life of St. Gerard, num. 7, did not think he should dwell long in discussing this matter, thinking without doubt that it should be done so because he found absolutely nothing from which either Rainer's or the biographer's narrative might be rendered more probable. And indeed, although I have undertaken a most diligent search, I too have been able to find nothing among the ancient writers which impels me to subscribe to one rather than the other of those two writers, and hence too I would dare to pronounce for neither. However, studious reader, that you may be able more conveniently to compare our biographer's narrative with Rainer's, and hence perhaps to examine which is preferable, I transcribe here the words of both those writers. I begin with the words of our biographer. He has thus at num. 48 and the two following: But after a short interval of time had passed (after Gerard's coming to the monastery of Celle), finding by himself (St. Gerard) that the remains of the kindly confessor (St. Ghislain) were, alas! absent (for they had been carried off, as is clear from the account above), he began to be greatly dismayed and to waver in a stormy tempest of mind, altogether ignorant what he should do about the loss of so inestimable a pearl.

[156] Accordingly, calling to himself some of his faithful ones, and indicating with the anguish of what misfortune he was distressed, whose words are transcribed here, he directs them as scouts in every direction, and enjoins, proclaiming it, that they should faithfully investigate it by exploring and explore it by investigating. When they had run about round and round in vain, and reported back nothing serious thence, at length divinely there fell into his mind, as one that would profit, the thought that for this cause he should make for Maubeuge: whither when he had hastened to set out, and was already entering the doors of the oratory, a rather frequent tinkling of a certain little bell began to be heard by those entering, all being ignorant what * of a thing it portended, even (unless we are mistaken) the Servant of God himself. Having most devoutly offered prayer, and tearfully appealed to the kindness of the Lord that He would deign to manifest His Saint, turning to the natives of that place or church, he inquired of them by questioning with all mildness whether they were aware of anything, however little, to indicate about this matter. When they swore most solemnly that they were entirely ignorant, and moreover were vehemently indignant on account of the crime of the suspicion cast upon them, the Man of God with great tranquillity of mind said: Do not, little sons, do not take this too hard: for the condescension of Christ is able to reveal this to us. For indeed divine help must be at hand where human help ceases.

[157] but Rainer, On the following night, therefore, as the Man of God was spending the night in the oratory and importuning the supreme Godhead more earnestly about this matter, suddenly the white image of the stoled Saint himself shone before him, satisfying his importunate supplication and soothing him with this sweet speech: Why, sweet friend of God, he said, do you take so much weariness for my sake? Receive now a most certain indication of what you seek. Behold, above the panelled ceiling which hangs over your head, where, namely, yesterday those arriving wondered that a little bell was tinkling, my little body lies hidden, unfittingly laid away. But I wish you and your posterity to know that this has by no means happened without the will of God. When he had brought forth these things, he ascends to the heights of heaven. The Man of God, greatly cheered by this vision, renders due thanks to God, lest he should seem ungrateful. But when the first dawn had put to flight the stars of the pole, and had brought back laborious cares to sick mortals, he himself with his people at once climbs up to the ceiling of the church; climbing, he seeks; seeking, he finds; finding, he weeps for joy; weeping, he rouses his people to tears; and so he takes down the sacred limbs from there; having taken them down, he arranges them in a clean linen cloth; having arranged them, he sings hymn-making praises to God; singing, he joyfully takes the road. Thus, according to the biographer, St. Gerard, when he was already abbot of Celle, recovered the body of St. Ghislain for the monks of St. Ghislain; but how it was recovered for them according to Rainer, have now.

[158] whose words likewise are recited here, ascribes to the Saint no part in it. He sets forth the matter thus in Mabillon's second Benedictine Century, in the book of the Miracles of St. Ghislain, num. 5: After these things (the furtive carrying off of the body of St. Ghislain by the men of Maubeuge), on the following night a certain Egrard saw in a vision as it were that he was in the oratory of the same cell, standing before the altar of Mary, Mother of God; when behold, a certain man appearing, a Saint, said to him: Who am I? And when he had answered, I do not know; I am, he said, Lantbert, the godson of my lord Ghislain: put away the sadness which you have concerning him, my godfather, who will quickly return to you (St. Ghislain). Rising, therefore, go, tell Count Herbert, who has continually been a very good neighbour to my lord, to go to Maubeuge, telling the brothers and sisters of the place to restore St. Ghislain, whom they secretly carried off hence, and whom they keep with them. For neither God nor he himself desires to remain there, but in the place which the Almighty has deigned to provide for him. But Egrard, neglecting the vision, told none of these things to the count, but, consoling the brethren, rendered the fathers cheerful and joyous. St. Ghislain appeared again in the township of Havay to a certain Frenchman named Adelelm, and said to him: Do not delay to go to Maubeuge to tell the prelate Theodrada and the other sisters and the priests to restore my body without delay, that it may be restored to its place. Rising, therefore, in the morning, the said Adelelm did all that the Saint had commanded: but they, negligent, spurned his words. But a herald having been sent to the bishop of the men of Cambrai, the lord Stephen, coming, he arrived as far as the castle of Maubeuge, and, standing outside, sent in men to say to the elders: Restore, I pray, brothers and sisters, the body of the kindly prophet Ghislain, that it may be restored to its place given by Christ; otherwise I will excommunicate, that no one may celebrate Masses or other services of God in this place.

[159] Hearing which, the men of Maubeuge, although compelled, obeyed the bishop. Then too the bishop ordered the dean to come with all the brethren of his deanery, and to bring back the Saint's remains with reverence and fitting honour. When they had obeyed these orders, the bishop also commanded that the priests should guard the place with the holy body, each for a week in turn, until he should seek with Duke Gislebert men to keep the same place day and night. The bringing back of the sacred ashes was made on the Ides of December, and on the same day they are laid up with the greatest rejoicing of clergy and people in the often-mentioned basilica of the Apostles, where, watches having been appointed, the glory of the sacred orders is paid day and night to Him who is the praise of the angels, and veneration also to the Saint, through the whole course of this life. Such is Rainer's narrative concerning the recovery of the relics of St. Ghislain; and to it, only a few things being interposed, he subjoins the vision divinely offered to Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, about committing the care of the monastery of Celle to Gerard, and the Saint's coming to it, so that he attributes to Gerard absolutely no part in the recovery of the body of St. Ghislain, and openly relates that this had already been recovered before he went to the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle. Mabillon, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, holds as little probable Rainer's narrative, now transcribed here, in which that writer, as will become plain to one who inspects it, ascribes the recovery of the body of St. Ghislain not to Gerard but to a certain Adehelm or Adelelm and to Stephen, bishop of Cambrai.

[160] But he adds absolutely no reason why he so judges. The narrative of both seems suspect of fiction. And indeed I greatly doubt that he had any sufficiently founded reason why he should so judge. Nay, since the discourse is about a matter which pertains to the monastery of Celle, and Rainer was a monk of it, I do not know even whether it is not better to agree with him rather than with the biographer. However that may be, since nevertheless neither this nor any other reason seems to me altogether to suffice for my ascribing the recovery of the body of St. Ghislain to a certain Adelelm and to Stephen, bishop of Cambrai, rather than to Gerard, I leave this matter undecided here too, as I did above. Yet, that I may put forth at least some judgment on the narrative of Rainer and of our biographer, both appear to me very suspect, at least as regards the circumstances. For although the body of St. Ghislain, as is agreed between Rainer and our biographer, was carried off from the monks of St. Ghislain by theft by the men of Maubeuge, and then recovered for them from those men, the circumstances nevertheless, and especially the miracles or heavenly visions with which Rainer and the biographer clothe that recovery, can be held suspect of fiction if only for this reason, that all the things which are related by the one as well as by the other do not seem able to have happened in that recovery. Whence it comes about that at least one seems to have been fabricated, and consequently that all the rest ought to be held suspect of fiction. Turn over somewhat more attentively, studious reader, the narratives of Rainer and of our biographer, already transcribed here above, and you will see that the miracles or heavenly visions with which Rainer clothes his narrative can in no way stand with the prodigies with which the biographer adorns his. Hence I hold absolutely nothing as sufficiently certain besides the substance which the narrative of each comprises, and I doubt as much as possible whether one should rather agree with the biographer or with Rainer, although meanwhile Rainer's narrative, no account being taken of the prodigies, can perhaps seem more probable.

[161] How the Saint profited the monks of St. Ghislain. But if, on account of what has now been said, it is doubtful whether Gerard profited the monks of St. Ghislain by the recovery of the body of St. Ghislain, it is at least not to be doubted that he brought them great benefit both by assiduous exhortation to the virtues and by the diligent exercise of them. The Man of the Lord, therefore (says the biographer at num. 54), exceedingly learned in the regular norm, to those committed to him

brethren presided with a twofold teaching. For according to the most salutary exhortations of the lord Benedict he set forth the Lord's commands in words to the more capable disciples; but to the simpler he demonstrated the divine precepts by his deeds: yet all things which he taught his subjects to be contrary, the Prelate indicated in his own acts as not to be done, bringing forth from the chest of his treasure things new and old, like a most learned scribe, who had such a life as he had teaching. And because he knew that he had undertaken to rule souls, he anxiously prepared himself to render an account, held the golden mean in all things, ruled those committed to him by love rather than by fear. Knowing, therefore, that he acted in the place of Christ, and was called by the forename of the supreme abbot, he so strove to fit himself to all by conforming and to conform himself by fitting, that you would see him serve the ways of all with wonderful charity. Such was the method of governing the monks of Celle which Gerard followed; by which without doubt he greatly promoted their progress in the spirit. Nor did he excel only in a rare dexterity in governing; but he also excelled in those virtues than which you would find nothing in life more useful to men, namely prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice. To these was added a plainly exceptional contempt of earthly things, and, what is wont to accompany it, an altogether wonderful zeal for heavenly things.

[162] The healing of a blind woman through him. Hence it came about that almost daily, amid a copious shower of tears, recalling the memory of the Lord's passion, he performed the Sacred rites, and so fortified his soul with the divine Banquet against all the snares and assaults of the most foul enemy. But since the Saint thus devoted himself wholly to God and to virtue, the divine kindness willed that it should become openly known to the world of how great merit its Servant was with it. There lay not far from the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle a village named Buxutum, probably the same which today is called Boussu, and which is distant from Saint-Ghislain scarcely half the space of a league's journey. Further, in that village there dwelt a woman long since deprived of the use of her eyes. She, having heard of the signal sanctity of life with which Gerard, abbot of Celle, was becoming famous, conceived the hope that a remedy would be brought to her ill by the merits of so exceptional a Man. Therefore, being led to the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle, there, in order to obtain what she hoped, she prostrates herself in prayer, asks that there be held out to her the water in which Gerard had washed his hands after taking the Eucharist, and as soon as, having received it, after first imploring the power of Almighty God and the faith of St. Gerard, she moistened her blind pupils and washed her face, she recovered the use of her eyes. All who were present and knew the woman acknowledge the miracle, and she, prostrate at the Saint's feet, renders him the highest thanks for the benefit received, and ascribes the recovered use of her eyes to him in the hearing of all. Gerard on the contrary affirms that the whole is to be ascribed to God and to the woman's faith and hope, and so, which was a signal proof of a humble mind, strives to hide what fame at once spread abroad in every direction, that a prodigy had been worked by his merits. I now proceed to the more spacious field of the deeds done by the Saint which opens itself.

* portenderet

§ XIV. The Saint is called into Flanders, heals Count Arnulf of the disease of the stone; the time at which he did this, and what he obtained hence from the count.

[The Saint is called to Arnulf, count of Flanders, labouring with the stone, and miraculously frees him from this disease.] The fame of sanctity by which Gerard had long since become illustrious grew stronger day by day, more and more, after he had performed the miracle of which there was treatment in the preceding §, and hence it came about that he was celebrated as a Saint far and wide among the highest as much as the lowest. At that time Arnulf, surnamed the Great, count of Flanders, was held fast by the most acute pains of the stone. He therefore orders many most skilled physicians from every quarter to be present, that he may be cured by them. They say that there is need of an incision, and that without this no remedy can be brought to the count. But the prince, fearing lest, while he applies a remedy to preserve his life, he should entirely lose it, refuses to obey the persuasion of the physicians. They, to give the count courage, cut eighteen men seized with the same disease while he looked on, and all these, with one only excepted, are cured in a short time. But that one easily confirmed the count in his purpose, by which he had resolved not to suffer an incision. The hope of healing, therefore, which before he had placed in the art of men, he afterwards, returning to himself and now by divine grace wiser for the better, places solely in God. He had received by report in what esteem of sanctity Gerard stood, with what odour of virtues he was fragrant, and the miracle lately heard of, concerning the blind woman enlightened, had not moderately increased it. Therefore Arnulf, impelled chiefly by the example of this woman, hoping that he too would obtain by the Saint's merits the remedy which she had obtained, sends a swift messenger to Gerard, and through him most earnestly asks that the Saint should not be burdened to come to him.

[164] is called, and miraculously frees him from this disease. Gerard assents to the count's request, hastens into Flanders, and is received most dutifully, as was fitting, by the prince, who runs to meet him as he comes. He indicates with mourning to the holy Man the bitterness of the disease by which he is afflicted, and asks him to pray to Almighty God for him. The holy Man denies that he is of so great merit with God that Arnulf ought to expect any help from him. Yet, afterwards overcome by his prayers, he first indeed sets forth what needs to be done that the count may render God propitious to himself; and then, all the things which he advises having been fulfilled to a nicety by the prince, he prescribes to him and to himself a three days' fast, that by this sparingness of food they may purify themselves for receiving the sacred Body of Christ. This further having been fulfilled, and the suffrages of the Saints having been implored, the Man of God performs the Sacred rites amid the accustomed shower of tears, and when he had already taken the sacred Eucharist and had likewise imparted it to the count, the latter soon feels the desire to pass urine, and, withdrawing from the sacred place, expels the stone together with the urine with absolutely no trouble, and rejoices that he is restored to his former health. All these things, which I have now related in summary both in this and in the preceding number, the biographer of our Saint, whom you should therefore consult, sets forth in a far more diffuse discourse at num. 59 and the four following. But he neither adds the year in which they happened, nor furnishes any chronological mark from which you might in any way gather it. Here too, therefore, I have recourse elsewhere, in order that I may in some manner determine at what time St. Gerard came to Arnulf, count of Flanders, and healed him when tortured by the pains of the stone.

[165] This happened in the year 937 or the preceding. Gerard had without doubt already come to the count of Flanders when the latter, at the persuasion of him and of Transmar, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, began to restore the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, long since destroyed by the Normans. Wherefore, since, according to what will soon be said, Arnulf did this in the year 937, it follows that Gerard came to him either in this very year or even a little sooner; for I do not think that it happened much sooner for this reason, that the Saint, according to what has been said, first received the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle to be reformed about the year 933, and seems to have spent at least three years in the reform of this and perhaps of some other monasteries in Lotharingia before he came to Arnulf, count of Flanders, having been called. Probably, therefore, Gerard came to Arnulf, count of Flanders, either in the year 937 or the preceding. But did he also at that time render Arnulf, count of Flanders, thoroughly healed of the pains of the stone? So it altogether appears, if only credit is to be given to our biographer. For, as he manifestly indicates in his whole narrative, already presented in summary, Gerard did not come to Arnulf before he had been called to him from the monastery of Celle; and he was summoned hence to the count for no other end than to heal him by his prayers when he was wretchedly tortured by the pains of the stone. Both the healing of Count Arnulf and the Saint's coming to him, therefore, took place at about the same time. Wherefore, since Gerard, according to what has been said, first came to the prince in Flanders either about the year 936 or 937, the latter will also, about one or the other year, have obtained health prodigiously by Gerard's merits, the stone by which he was tortured having been expelled.

[166] Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 44, num. 6, having narrated at the year 939 the restoration of the monastery and church of St. Bavo at Ghent, together with the translation of the relics of the same Saint into it, nor perhaps does Mabillon oppose this opinion; records thus: Perhaps at the same time Count Arnulf was labouring grievously with the stone, so that he could scarcely breathe. The most skilled physicians and surgeons, called to him, judged that no remedy could be applied other than incision. The count resisting, the surgeons, in order to display the skill of their art, cut before his eyes eighteen men affected with the same disease, all of whom except one were healed in a short time. But not even so did the count assent to the incision, and he preferred to implore the help of God in those straits, after the example of blessed Agatha, through blessed Gerard, by whose prayers and merits he was freed from the stone. The praised author, therefore, as will seem to some, means that Arnulf was freed from the stone through Gerard's prayers and merits about the year 939; for he indicates, as is clear from what has been said, that this was done at the time at which Arnulf restored the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, and the relics of the same Saint were translated into its new church; and these, according to what has been said, he refers to the year 939. Yet since Mabillon writes only that Arnulf was freed from the stone at the time at which the said relics were translated into the new church of the restored monastery of St. Bavo, and the words at the same time seem to admit an extension of even some years, that author could perhaps, without loss of truth, write at the year 939 that Arnulf was freed from the stone at the time at which the relics of St. Bavo were translated into the new church, even if this happened both before this translation of the relics and before the year 939

[167] Mabillon, therefore, does not seem undoubtedly to oppose the opinion by which we determine that the healing of Count Arnulf through Gerard was both before the translation of the relics of St. Bavo into the new church of the monastery of Ghent although Locrius certainly opposes it, yet the opposite and also before the year 939, even if meanwhile he perhaps wrongly assigns the year 939 for the time at which the relics of St. Bavo were translated into the new church of Ghent, as you will easily gather from what will be said below. Locrius in the Chronicon Belgicum at the year 959 writes thus: Count Arnulf is miraculously freed from the most bitter pain of the stone by the merits of the said blessed Gerard. This Arnulf is said, when the physicians urged an incision, to have answered in Latin in these words: I will not endure it, lest, while I seek too indulgently to live, I begin too unmercifully to die; since, therefore, the praised writer records these things at the year 959, it does not seem to be doubted that he means that the healing of Arnulf from the pains of the stone was made in this year. Moreover, since he records that it was made not before he has already related Gerard's death, he seems to mean that Arnulf was freed from the stone through Gerard's merits not before Gerard had already ended his life. But both the one and the other, as is plain from what has already been said, most openly conflict with the Saint's biographer; and with him, however much he sometimes strays from the truth elsewhere, one seems to have to agree here, because he has absolutely no ancient writer opposing him,

nor can the thing which he narrates be convicted of falsity on any head. Locrius does indeed praise for himself Frodoard, priest of the church of Reims, a writer of the tenth century and consequently coeval with our Saint and with Arnulf, count of Flanders. But that writer relates absolutely nothing which could support the opinion of Locrius, by which, according to what has been said, he ties to the year 959 the healing of Arnulf from the stone, made by the merits of Gerard when already dead. The words which Locrius judged to favour him in Frodoard I transcribe here. They run thus: Count Arnulf (namely of Flanders) came to Reims, and endowed the church of St. Mary with no small weight of silver: from which the chests in which the members of St. Calixtus and St. Nicasius and St. Eutropia, and the pledges of certain other Saints, are contained were adorned or covered. And he also decorated a certain book of the Gospels of this church with gold and silver: to the monastery of St. Remigius too he conferred gifts.

[168] Thus far Frodoard, nor from Frodoard, who, since he refers these things to the year 959, teaches openly enough that the count of Flanders came to Reims in that year, and was piously munificent there both towards the church of St. Mary and towards the monastery of St. Remigius. But what could Locrius draw out from this for his opinion? He thought, namely, that Arnulf then came to Reims on the occasion or for the cause of the health which he had lately recovered on being freed from the stone through the merits of Gerard when already dead. But Frodoard indicates this in no way, neither in the words now recited nor anywhere else. This writer, therefore, in no way supports Locrius. Let the same be the judgment about Baronius and Surius, whom the same Locrius also praises for himself. For Baronius, where at the year 959 he has narrated the coming of Arnulf, count of Flanders, to the city of Reims and the pious liberality exercised there, sets forth the occasion on which Arnulf was converted to a better life; and although he draws it from his healing made through Gerard, he nevertheless in no way makes this either the occasion or the cause for which Arnulf went to Reims, so that consequently he in no way assents to the opinion of Locrius. As now regards Surius, it is indeed far from the case that Locrius has anything from him for himself. For he furnishes absolutely nothing which bears on this except the Life of St. Gerard; and this, however much interpolated by Surius, stands in the way no less than the Life to be edited by us of the healing of Arnulf from the stone being determined to have been made in the year 959 and after the happy departure of Gerard from life. That Life, even read through in passing, will make the matter manifest. Neither, therefore, does Locrius have Surius favouring him.

[169] But, nor from Meyer, you will say, according to Marlot in the History of Reims, Arnulf was then piously munificent at Reims in order to fulfil vows. Moreover Meyer, whom Locrius likewise cites for himself, in the Annals of Flanders at the year 964, having first narrated the death of Arnulf, writes thus of this prince: In his last days he was carried in a litter, and when he was labouring with a grievous stone, and physicians flocked to him from every quarter for the sake of gain, he did not endure to be cut, as they advised, Lest, he said, while I seek too indulgently to live (for he was skilled in Latin), I begin too unmercifully to die. There are those who relate that he was divinely freed from that disease by the prayers of the holy Gerard of Brogne, a Man then of great name and sanctity. Arnulf, therefore, laboured with the stone in the last days of his life, if Meyer's opinion is regarded. And hence it seems to follow that, since Arnulf is not read to have lain sick of that disease a second time, this prince was freed from the pains of the stone later than the year 937; for in this year he does not seem to have been of so decrepit an age that at the time when he did it he should seem to have laboured with the stone and to have needed also to be carried in a litter. I answer that Arnulf, since by the consent of all he became more than ninety years old and ended his life in the year 964, is asserted by Meyer to have been carried in a litter in the last days of his life, because already in the year 936 or 937, in which this happened while he was tortured by the stone, he had reached nearly the seventieth year of his life. As further now regards Marlot, this writer does indeed say that Arnulf, count of Flanders, was piously munificent towards the church of St. Mary at Reims and the monastery of St. Remigius for the sake of fulfilling a vow; but on what occasion, or for what cause, Arnulf made a vow of this kind he in no way declares. He leaves it doubtful, therefore, whether he did it for the sake of recovered health.

[170] And indeed, even if he expressly asserted that Arnulf was piously munificent at Reims in the year 959 from a vow which he had made when tortured by the pains of the stone, nor from the other writers whom he cites, does he prove it. it would not yet on that account be certain that that prince was first tortured by the pains of the stone in the year 959 and freed by the merits of St. Gerard; for Marlot is so remote from the age of Arnulf and of our Saint that he can in no way win for himself sure and undoubted credit in the things which he writes about them. Let the same be the judgment about Meyer, if perhaps what I have already brought forward should not seem sufficient for weakening the argument which, according to what has just been said, can be sought from that writer against the opinion which determines that Arnulf, count of Flanders, was freed from the pains of the stone about the year 936 or the following through the merits and prayers of St. Gerard, not yet dead. Therefore, whatever finally can be argued, whether from Frodoard or Meyer, or from the other writers whom Locrius alleges, it does not seem to be doubted that Arnulf, count of Flanders, was freed from the pains of the stone about the year 936 or the following through the merits and prayers of Gerard, still surviving among the living. That we may therefore pursue the series of events, let us now examine what happened between Gerard and Arnulf, count of Flanders, after the latter's happy healing from the stone now set forth. The biographer sets this forth lucidly at num. 64 and the three following.

[171] Count Arnulf, now restored to his former health, [The Saint, not accepting the gifts which the count offers him, received all the abbeys of the count's dominion] most munificently offers to Gerard, to whose merits he credited the whole of it, very many gifts of gold and silver; but all these the holy Man most generously rejects, lest he should in any way transgress against the religious poverty which he professed; yet, the count urging that he should at least accept the tithes of his wealth and dispense them at his own discretion, he is at length with difficulty bent to do it; and the tithes, when accepted, he divides into three equal parts, and of these he distributes two among monasteries and the poor; but the third he attributes to the monastery of Brogne: For at that time, says the biographer, relating these things more fully at num. 64 and the two following, the church of Brogne was like a little tree newly planted, not yet fully rooted, which, requiring the aids of watering, if perhaps the industry of the cultivator ceases, is rendered useless and unfruitful. The Saint, therefore, spent on approved uses the tithes which he had accepted with great difficulty, and retained nothing of them for himself. Hence further it came about that the count, having observed the signal probity and religion of the blessed Man together with his contempt of riches, committed to him the administration of all the abbeys which he had under his dominion. Thus, therefore, says the biographer at num. 66, the marquis, having beheld the virtue-bearing probity of the Man of God, and still more his monastic religiousness, which was being spread abroad on every side, thought it expedient to commend to him (namely St. Gerard) the management of the abbeys, as many as he had under his power.

[172] So the biographer, who, however, perhaps does not mean by these words that Gerard was set as abbot over all the abbeys of Arnulf's dominion; but only that he was presented with a certain superior power and care to administer, perhaps in the sense which is set forth here, by which he should watch over all the abbots of each of the abbeys of the count's dominion and over their government. For although the Saint, according to what will be said, ruled some of them also with the office of abbot, yet many perhaps had under him their own abbot. Iperius in the Chronicle of St. Bertin, chap. 25, writes thus opportunely to our purpose: The count … (of Flanders, Arnulf the Great), devoted to God and the Church, and much attached to holy religion, committed to this most holy man Gerard all the abbeys of his land of this Order (of St. Benedict) to be reformed, eighteen in number, which, superintending the abbots and their government, he most gloriously reformed, and restored to the norm of Regular discipline. According to Iperius, therefore, the Saint superintended the abbots of the abbeys which he had committed to him, and their government, that is, he watched over those abbots and their government, and this perhaps is all that the biographer means when he says that Arnulf gave all the abbeys of his dominion to Gerard to administer. In the same sense perhaps are to be understood also the writers praised above who say that Gerard presided over several monasteries in Francia and Lotharingia. Further, the biographer, after the words just recited, soon teaches that the monasteries which the Saint had commended to him by the count were at once visited by him, and that among these the first which he approached and reformed was the monastery of St. Peter of Blandin at Ghent.

[173] abbeys to administer. But is the biographer here to be agreed with without doubt in all things? If perhaps he means that the monastery of Blandin was the first of all the monasteries which Arnulf gave the Saint to administer that Gerard embraced with singular care, this indeed, as will become plain from what will be said, cannot be admitted; but the biographer perhaps means only that the monastery of Blandin was the first which Gerard reformed; and this, as will likewise become plain from what will be said, accords exceedingly with the truth. Further, since the biographer records that the abbeys were given by Arnulf to Gerard to administer before he makes discourse about any care of these borne by the Saint, it seems necessarily to follow from the series of the narrative that Gerard did not manage the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, which we shall teach was made with him too as author and instigator, before he had already received all the abbeys which were under Arnulf's dominion to administer. But there will perhaps be someone to whom it seems more probable that all the abbeys of his dominion were not given by Arnulf to Gerard to administer before he had already caused that of St. Bavo, and perhaps also some other monasteries, to be restored. However that may be, it also appears not unlike the truth that Gerard, soon after Arnulf's healing from the stone, before he had caused any monastery in Flanders to be restored, received from this prince all the abbeys which were under his dominion to administer, and consequently I adhere to the biographer, who seems by the order of his narrative to hint that this was done at that time. And indeed that the Saint was presented by Arnulf with the administration of the monastery of St. Bavo, if not before he had caused it to be restored, certainly very shortly after it had begun to be restored, becomes plain from what I proceed to discuss in the following § concerning the restoration of that monastery, managed by our Saint.

§ XV. The Saint causes the monastery of St. Bavo to be restored, and, having become its abbot, recalls to Ghent the monks exiled in the Gauls.

The monastery of St. Bavo is restored; The monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent having been overthrown and burned about ninety years before by the Normans, the monks who had then fled from there for fear of the barbarous nation, or rather those who had succeeded or joined them, when St. Gerard first to Arnulf, count of Flanders,

came, had not yet returned to Ghent from Gaul, nor did it seem likely that they would return thither soon, unless perhaps hope were given that the monastery in which they might dwell would be restored as soon as possible. But its restoration was an exceedingly difficult matter. For, as the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, book 1, num. 17, testifies in our preceding volume, the site of the monastery of Ghent, that is, of St. Bavo, seemed almost more like a desert, emptied of its cultivators … it was neglected in the worship of all veneration; the very remains of the walls, which had survived the burning, were being covered with springing thistles and dense brambles. With this writer agrees the diploma of Lothar, king of the Franks, to be transcribed here below in part. For in this the king speaks thus: That place (the monastery of St. Bavo), therefore, for long times, as well by the incursion of the pagans as by the incursion and * negligence of the inhabitants, was deserted and reduced to a solitude and made almost uninhabitable; so that nothing whatever of the divine office was paid to God there.

[175] These things both Lothar in the diploma and the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo in the place cited teach concerning the monastery of St. Bavo not yet restored from the disaster of the Normans. [this restoration, which is ascribed to Transmar by the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo] It was therefore then in a surely most wretched state, and consequently of most difficult restoration. You will find this very thing also more fully explained in our preceding volume in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, § three. But however most difficult it was to restore that monastery, the matter was nevertheless at length attempted and happily brought to an outcome. The writer already praised, who comprised the Miracles of St. Bavo with his pen in the eleventh century, ascribes the chief parts in it to Transmar, bishop of Noyon and Tournai. For immediately after the words just recited he adds this: And so wretched an exhaustion of desolation remained there, until, the state of many flowing away with the courses of the times, after some others Transmar succeeded as bishop to the see of Noyon; and he, since he was a cultivator of holy places and a most eager former of the Christian religion, grieved from his inmost heart that the venerable place (for it had been of his diocese) was stripped of the authority of its former vigour, and resolved that it should by all means be restored. And because the long-continued desolation needed very much supply, he sent word by letter, as we find in his writings, on this business to Arnulf the marquis, to whom the same place belonged by royal benefice, namely that he wished to raise a ladder by which both might ascend to heaven with light flight. What more? By these letters and by frequent exhortations in conference he bent the goodwill of the marquis to what he wished, and the same place began to be restored to its former state both by the help of both and by the collaboration of other faithful.

[176] and to some others, With this writer agree Sanderus, or the Chronicler of St. Bavo, Oliver in the manuscript Chronicle of Ghent, and Meyer both in the Chronicles and in the Annals of Flanders. I write out the words of these three writers, which will also be of use here below. Sanderus, in the Chronicle of St. Bavo, or Gandavum, printed separately, which I use, book 4, chap. 3, records thus: In the year DCCCCXXXVII Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, at the exhortation of the venerable man Transmar, bishop of Noyon, restored and reformed for the better the monastery of Ghent, then demolished and like a desert: who established in it the illustrious man St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, the twentieth ruler of the said monastery of Ghent, a Man of exceptional virtue, such as all those times required. Oliver in his manuscript Chronicle of Ghent relates this: The restoration of this (namely of St. Bavo's) monastery of Ghent, made by Arnulf the Great, count of the Flemings, at the exhortation of Transmar, bishop of Noyon or Tournai, in the time of St. Gerard, abbot of this aforesaid monastery, in the year of the Lord DCCCCXXXVII. Meyer finally, both in the Chronicles and also in the Annals of Flanders, records these things: DCCCCXXXVII The Great (namely Arnulf, count of Flanders), at the exhortation of Transmar, bishop of Noyon, rebuilt the monastery of Ghent, overthrown by the Norman rage, restored the accustomed rites and ceremonies, and established there as abbot Gerard of Celle, a man great in virtue. Therefore, not only according to the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, but also according to Sanderus, or the Chronicler of St. Bavo, Oliver in the manuscript Chronicle of Ghent, and Meyer in both his Works, Transmar, or, as others write, Transmarus, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, had the chief part in the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent. But do all those writers rightly affirm this? Surely I do not doubt that Transmar contributed very much to the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo.

[177] owes also in great part to the Saint But truly it occurs to one to wonder why they make absolutely no mention of work likewise contributed to it by Gerard; for that the Saint likewise had no small part in the said restoration appears to me certain and undoubted. For Miraeus in the Codex of Pious donations, chap. 33, presents the diploma already praised above, granted by Lothar, king of the Franks, in the first year of his reign, which coincides with the year of Christ 954, in favour of the monastery of St. Bavo: and in this Lothar speaks thus: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Lothar, by the favour of the divine clemency, king of the Franks. Since it is recognized as worthy that we give assent to the petitions of our faithful, and especially to those pertaining to the religion and restoration of holy Church, we will it to be made known to all our faithful, present as well as future, how our faithful Count Arnulf and his son Baldwin approached our clemency, supplicating concerning a certain monastery situated in the town of Ghent, where the rivers Lys and Scheldt flow together, built in honour of St. Peter (in which also St. Bavo rests buried in body, from whose time too and that of other religious men religion and regular Order are recorded to have been kept there), that the devotion of their will should be confirmed by our authority. That place, therefore, for long times, as well by the incursion of the pagans as by the incursion and * negligence of the inhabitants, was deserted, and reduced to a solitude, and made almost uninhabitable: so that nothing whatever of the divine Office was paid to God there. But by the pious admonition of the memorable man Gerard, abbot, it pleased them to restore the same, and to ordain as abbot a certain pupil of the same Gerard, namely the religious man Womar, and to gather monks who should observe the Rule of St. Benedict.

[178] Therefore, according to Lothar's diploma, St. Gerard, by admonishing and exhorting Arnulf, count of Flanders, to be attributed; and it was and his son Baldwin, brought it about that these princes restored the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent destroyed by the Normans. It is therefore in no way to be doubted that the Saint had no small part in the restoration of this monastery; and there is consequently reason why someone may not undeservedly wonder that absolutely no mention is made of work contributed by Gerard to that restoration by the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, by Sanderus, or the Chronicler of St. Bavo, and by the two other writers, namely Oliver and Meyer, praised above. Therefore, since, according to what has been said, it does not appear at all to be doubted about the work contributed by Gerard to the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo, it is next that I discuss at what time this was spent by the Saint, already then, according to what will be said, abbot of the monastery of St. Bavo. It appears most probable that this did not happen before the year 936. For that the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo was made with Transmar, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, also as exhorter or author becomes manifest from the words which I have just transcribed here both from the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo and from Meyer and the other authors praised above. Now in Mabillon, On Diplomatics, book 6, page 568, there is extant a diploma in which Walbert, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, the immediate predecessor of Transmar, appears as still living in the year 936. Transmar, therefore, before this year was not yet bishop of Noyon and Tournai, and consequently the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo does not seem to have been made then at his exhortation and persuasion; for Transmar does not seem, when not yet bishop, to have spurred Arnulf, count of Flanders, to it. It did not happen before the year 936, therefore, that the monastery of St. Bavo began to be restored, partly with Gerard managing it. But did it not happen either in the year 936 itself or after the year 937? This indeed appears to me less probable.

[179] For that it was done in the very year 937 appears most probable from the unanimous consent of the Belgian writers according to all the Belgian writers, whom the Chronicle of Laon favours, whom I have already brought forward. There is added the manuscript Chronicle of St. Vincent of Laon, from which Mabillon in his preliminary Observations on the Life of St. Gerard brings a passage couched in these words: In the year of the Lord DCCCXCV Elias, XIX abbot of the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, died at Laon in the monastery now called that of St. Vincent, on the IV day before the Ides of December, and is buried there with the mourning of the monks. But the monks, deprived of a shepherd and in great misery, as being placed among strangers, held no election; but wandering through various places they were wretchedly dispersed through many courses of years, up to the time of Abbot Gerard, a man venerable in birth and sanctity, who was ordained abbot of the aforesaid monastery of St. Bavo through Transmar, bishop of Noyon or Tournai, and Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, in the year DCCCCXXXVII. According to the Chronicle just praised, therefore, as is clear from these its words, St. Gerard was set as abbot over the monastery of St. Bavo in the year 937, and consequently, since, according to Meyer and the other Belgian writers already praised, St. Gerard was created its abbot in that very year in which the monastery of St. Bavo began to be restored, the aforementioned Chronicle in some manner supports them, although meanwhile, as is proved in our preceding volume in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, §2, it seems to have been composed by a more recent author.

[180] begun in the year 937, and then also However that may be, it is indeed most probable from the common consent of the Belgian writers that the monastery of St. Bavo began to be restored in the year 937; and this, according to what has already been said, was beyond all doubt effected partly by the work of St. Gerard, who, with Bishop Transmar helping, induced Count Arnulf to that pious work. Let us now examine what the Saint further went on thereafter to do for the benefit of the monastery of St. Bavo. Sanderus in his Gandavum printed separately, book 4, chap. 4, records thus: St. Gerard of Celle, a man of singular example, and likewise the unique ornament of piety, founder of the monastery of Brogne in Hainaut (rather, in the county of Namur), is made through Transmar, bishop of Noyon, and Arnulf, count of Flanders, twentieth abbot of the monastery of Ghent (namely of St. Bavo); which the aforesaid Count Arnulf had previously restored. He at once recalled home from Francia the dispersed monks together with the body of St. Bavo and all the relics. This is that St. Gerard by whose work and merits the aforesaid Count Arnulf and together with him the prelate of St. Bertin were miraculously freed from the most bitter pain of the stone. According to these words of Sanderus, therefore, St. Gerard was not created abbot of the monastery of St. Bavo before it had already been restored. Moreover the Saint, as soon as he had been constituted abbot of that monastery, recalled the monks of St. Bavo exiled in Francia to Ghent

with the body of St. Bavo and other relics of the Saints; which consequently, according to the words of Sanderus just recited, did not happen before the monastery of St. Bavo had already been restored.

[181] [or at the beginning of the following year the Saint, already abbot of St. Bavo, the monks] But this is not reconciled rightly enough with the words which he immediately subjoins to those now recited. For they run thus: In the year DCCCCXXXIX St. Bavo, with other pledges and relics of the Saints, translated from Laon to the monastery of Nesle (see concerning this monastery the preceding volume of our Work, page 260 and following), is carried back to the citadel of his town (Ghent) with seven monks, to the church built in the new castle, on the XIII day before the Kalends of October, because the monastery at Ghent had not yet been fully restored. According to these words of Sanderus, therefore, the monastery of Ghent had not yet been perfectly restored when the monks of St. Bavo returned from Gaul to Ghent; and consequently, since, as appears, they did not return thither unless recalled or invited to return, it seems necessary that they were recalled already at the time when the monastery of St. Bavo had not yet been perfectly restored. Therefore, lest Sanderus should have to be said to conflict with himself, his words recited in the preceding number are to be taken so that he means to signify by them only that Gerard, at the time when the monastery of St. Bavo had been restored not perfectly but only imperfectly, or rather had begun to be restored, was set over it as abbot, and recalled to Ghent the monks of St. Bavo exiled in the Gauls. And indeed that Gerard was already then set as abbot over the monastery of St. Bavo follows necessarily from the words of Meyer, Oliver and the Chronicle of Laon transcribed here above, whom I prefer to believe here. But as regards the monks of St. Bavo, that these too were recalled to Ghent already at the time when the monastery of St. Bavo had only begun to be restored, and that indeed in the year 937 or at the beginning of the following, is clear from this, that they returned hither from Gaul with the relics of St. Bavo and of other Saints in the said year 937 or at the beginning of the following, when it had not yet been brought to completion, as I shall show in the following §.

[182] But, you will say, the exiled monks of St. Bavo returned from Francia to Ghent not recalled by Gerard [of St. Bavo to Ghent, whither, however, they perhaps also hastened for fear of the Hungarians,] but of their own accord. So it appears from the words of the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, to be transcribed here below. For in these the monks of St. Bavo, fugitives at Laon-the-Nailed, when at length the irruptions of the Normans into Flanders ceased, fearing from some quarter, because they were living in a foreign land, some hostile incursion, are said to have hastened to return to Ghent as quickly as possible, taking with them the pledges of the holy father (Bavo). According to that praised writer, therefore, the monks of St. Bavo seem to have returned from Francia to Ghent not invited by Gerard's recall, but impelled by fear of a hostile irruption into the land in which they were living. I answer that the Hungarians, according to what will be said, broke into Francia in the year 937 and devastated it most savagely; that on this account further the monks of St. Bavo perhaps indeed hastened to return to Ghent, but had probably been invited thither already before. For since they could have sought many other places in flight, it appears probable that they betook themselves, for fear of the Hungarians devastating the Gauls, to Ghent rather than elsewhere for this reason, that they had been invited to return thither, a sure hope having been given that the monastery which their predecessors had once inhabited, burned by the Normans, would shortly be restored. I think so because those monks of St. Bavo were probably then almost all Gauls, or at least foreigners. For it does not seem probable that there still survived then any of those who had inhabited the monastery of St. Bavo about ninety years before, and who, allured by the love of their ancient dwelling alone, fled for fear of the Hungarians to Ghent rather than elsewhere.

[183] Probably, therefore, the monks of St. Bavo, he recalled from Francia. impelled by fear of the Hungarians, fled from Laon to Ghent rather than elsewhere for this reason, that, having already been invited to return to the ancient seat of their forebears, they had conceived a sure confidence that they would shortly obtain there a domicile of their own, in which they could dwell securely not as on another's but as on their own ground, and could fittingly deposit the sacred treasure of relics which they had with them. But, you will say further, it is not yet had from this that they were summoned to Ghent by Gerard. I answer that Gerard, according to what has been said, was already at the time when the monastery of St. Bavo began to be restored set over it as abbot by Arnulf, count of Flanders; and further that hence it also becomes like the truth that Gerard soon then turned his cares to this, that the inhabitants of the ancient monastery of Ghent, or rather their successors, should return to Ghent with the relics of St. Bavo and St. Pharaildis. He thought, namely, that this too should be done by him, so that by the presence of those sacred pledges he might both keep Arnulf in his pious purpose of rebuilding the monastery of St. Bavo, and encourage other faithful to complete the work more quickly. However that may be, since it becomes on no head unlike the truth that the monks of St. Bavo were recalled from Francia by Gerard, I adhere to Sanderus, who asserts that this was done by the Saint, and I pursue the series of things done by the Saint, or in which at least he had a part.

* others lack "incursion and"

* others lack "incursion and"

§ XVI. He reforms the new monastery of St. Bavo, and translates into it the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis.

The monks of St. Bavo, in the year 957 or at the beginning of the following The writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, already praised more than once, and, according to what has been said, inserted in the preceding volume of our Work, writes thus at num. 17: Therefore, after the cessation of the Northmannic infestation, the region having at length been settled in the desirable quiet of tranquillity, fearing in some direction the disquiet of some incursion, those, namely, who had fled over to Lugdunum with the holy relics and the monastic furniture, as being placed among strangers, hastened to return to Ghent as quickly as possible, taking with them the pledges of the holy father (Bavo). And since up to that time, like the whole surrounding district, so also the site of the monastery of Ghent seemed almost more like a desert, emptied of its cultivators, they brought them into the church built in the new castle to be guarded there. Which words most openly indicate that the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent had not yet been perfectly restored when the monks returned from Francia to Ghent. Looking, therefore, at the aforesaid writer of the Miracles, who, as being many centuries more ancient than Sanderus and not much remote from our Saint's age, most certainly carries off the palm of authority from him, it had only begun to be restored, and had not yet been brought to completion, when the monks of St. Bavo returned from Gaul to Ghent with the body of St. Bavo and other relics of the Saints. Hence further it now follows that this most probably happened either in the year 937 or at the beginning of the following. For since, according to what has been said, the restoration of the monastery of St. Bavo was begun in the year 937, it will most probably have already been much advanced in the year 939. Wherefore, since, according to what has been said, the monastery of St. Bavo had only begun to be restored, nay, according to the praised writer of the Miracles, still seemed like a desert and was unfit to receive the relics of the Saints, when the monks returned from Francia to Ghent, it appears most probable that they returned either in the year 937 or at the beginning of the following, when, namely, the restoration of the monastery had not long been begun.

[185] returned with the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis to Ghent. Sanderus, Meyer and Oliver therefore stray from the truth; of whom the first, in the words recited at num. 181, fixes the return of the monks from Gaul to the year 939, and the two latter to the year 940; Meyer indeed, both in the Annals and in the Chronicle of Flanders, in these words: DCCCCXL Arnulf, with Gerard of Celle, abbot of Ghent, brought back the bodies of the holy Bavo and Pharaildis from Laon to Ghent; and Oliver in these: The bringing back of the bodies of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis from Mount Laon to this monastery of Ghent through St. Gerard, the abbot above said. In which words, although they do not mention the return of the monks, they nevertheless indicate openly enough that these did not return to Ghent before the year 940. This is clear from this, that they write that the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis were then brought back from Laon to Ghent, and these were not brought back thither from Laon before the exiled monks returned from Francia to Ghent. Meyer and Oliver together, therefore, defer the return of the monks to the year 940, and consequently probably stray from the truth. For, according to what has been said, their return took place in the year 937 or at the beginning of the following. How accordant with the truth this appears I show in another way besides, also from the words of the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo just transcribed here. By these it is indicated that the monks of Bavo, at the time when they returned from Francia to Ghent, feared for themselves from a hostile incursion into the foreign regions of Francia in which they were living. Now, as Pagi proves in the Critica at the year 937 from Widukind, Hermann the Lame, Marianus Scotus, the continuator of Regino and other writers, the Hungarians broke into Francia in this year and depopulated it widely.

[186] Wherefore, since the monks of St. Bavo, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, [These, from the church of the new castle, in which they had for a while been deposited,] certainly did not return to Ghent before the year 937, they probably did it, while the Hungarians were thus wretchedly devastating Francia, in the year 937 or at the beginning of the following; for they do not seem to have done it either when the year 938 was already advanced, or in either of the two following, since then the monks in Francia, as appears, ought not greatly to have feared for themselves either from the Hungarians or from other enemies. Let us now examine what, when they had returned, was afterwards done at Ghent, with the Saint either acting or contributing his work. Since it was then still far from the case that the monastery had been brought to completion, the sacred relics of St. Bavo and of other Saints, which they had brought with them, were meanwhile deposited, as Sanderus teaches in the words recited above, in the church of the new castle, which was then called new in consideration of that old one in which the monastery of St. Bavo had been built. I do not doubt that this too was done chiefly with St. Gerard acting. Anyone will easily gather the matter from the words of the very often praised writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, to be transcribed here below. Further, about two years or a little more having elapsed after the return of the monks, the building of the monastery of St. Bavo was at length brought to such perfection that it seemed apt both for worthily receiving within itself the sacred treasure of relics and for the commodious habitation of the monks. It was therefore decided both that the monks should move over from the church of the new castle, and that the sacred relics which they had brought with them from Gaul should be carried from here into the new church of St. Bavo with great solemnity. That Gerard had surely no small part in this becomes manifest from the words of the writer soon again praised, in which he describes this moving over.

[187] They run thus: When the sacred place (the monastery of St. Bavo) was being raised by such and so great auspices of increase day by day, St. Gerard, into the new monastery of St. Bavo that anyone could easily notice that it was being made illustrious by the most almighty condescension of God, all the devout, both of the monks and of the clerics, taking forethought, the smallness of the narrower oratory (the church of the new

castle) did not befit the dignity of so great a father, decided that his most sacred relics should be transferred thither, and, the things which were needed having been arranged, they resolved to accomplish it on that is * the day before the Kalends of October, on which the holy vigil of his deposition is celebrated. Abbot Gerard was present at this business, and had been a great part of it. But since the opinion of a false rumour had spread abroad, as if the same man had intended some machinations of fraud against the pledges of the Saint, on the way, the holy bier having been placed in the field adjoining the same monastery, in order to drive off the infamy of the sinister rumour, he took away the pall and showed to all who were present the ancient seals, affixed by hand, most entire. How much joy there was there, how many tears were shed from the love of a pious heart, anyone can guess from himself. Who, being of sound mind, would not ever fill his soul with joy and the affection of sweetness, beholding the members of the special patron of the whole province, exiled by the merits of the straying sinful inhabitants, at length, God being appeased, revisiting the enclosures of their own house? They were therefore brought into the lately rebuilt church, raised in a celebrated repository, in which they are seen to this day, all accompanying them with praises in honour of the majesty of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

[188] he translates in the year 940, the monks too moving over thither, Thus far the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo, again furnishing no chronological mark from which you might in any way gather in what year that solemn translation of the relics was made. But Sanderus opportunely teaches us this, writing thus in book 4 of his Gandavum printed separately, chap. 4: In the year DCCCCXL, some relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis being left in the aforesaid church of the new castle, situated on the bank of the river Lys, at the instance and devout supplication of Arnulf, count of Flanders, on this condition, that the clergy of the aforesaid church should venerably pay an annual pilgrimage with their said relics to the said monastery of Ghent; the bodies of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis with other pledges of the Saints are carried back by St. Gerard, abbot of Ghent, from the above-said church of the new castle with an innumerable multitude of peoples to the monastery of Ghent, and are fittingly placed there with great joy. In the year 940, therefore, the Saint accomplished the mentioned solemn translation of the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis. And although neither the writer of the Miracles of St. Bavo nor Sanderus declares that the monks moved over into the rebuilt monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent at the same time only when this took place, it nevertheless appears that this was done no sooner, as also no later. I think so for this reason, that the monks of St. Bavo, compelled for a space of nearly ninety years already before to change their seats often for fear of the Normans, had never sought any place in flight without carrying with them to it too the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis, nor had ever suffered these to be transferred anywhere without betaking themselves thither too, as is shown by us in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo. They had wished, therefore, through that long interval of years, to be inseparable companions of the said relics, however much fugitives and placed in foreign regions; whence it becomes probable that they did not, even when they had already returned to Ghent, suffer themselves to be separated from them, and consequently moved over into the restored monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent neither later nor sooner than when the bodies of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis were brought into its new church; for otherwise, contrary to what they had been accustomed to do before, they would no longer have clung to these as inseparable companions.

[189] it to a stricter Further, Sanderus, in the words just recited, indicates that Gerard, at the time when he transferred the relics of Sts. Bavo and Pharaildis into the restored church of St. Bavo, left part of them in the church of the new castle at the petition of Arnulf, count of Flanders. But whether this certainly accords with the truth, as also what part of the relics of St. Bavo was granted by Gerard to Arnulf for the church of the new castle, has been determined by us in the preceding volume in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, num. 59 and following; to which, therefore, referring the curious reader for brevity's sake, I proceed to the reform of the monastery of St. Bavo. Sanderus, already very often praised, in book 4 of the Affairs of Ghent, chap. 3 and 4, records that this was done by St. Gerard in the year 946; and in the former place indeed in these words: In the year 946 the monastery of Ghent, with the congratulation of the brethren, is reformed by St. Gerard, abbot, and exalted for the better; and in the latter in these: In the year 946 the monastery of Ghent, with the congregation of the brethren, is rebuilt by St. Gerard, abbot, and exalted for the better. And yet, according to what has been said, the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent had already been brought to completion from the year 940. Hence, in the preceding volume of our Work, in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, both these passages of Sanderus having been recited, it is rightly observed thus at num. 64: These things can be taken in a double sense, and probably ought to be taken in both: first, namely, that the building erected in the year 940 sufficed indeed for holding the few monks who had been brought from the Gauls to Ghent, but not for the others who had meanwhile offered themselves in greater number for monastic profession, and that therefore a new enlargement was then added to it. Second, that Abbot Gerard, all things being then duly arranged, introduced a stricter discipline into the monastery, and taught the monks to live according to the prescription of the Rule of St. Benedict.

[190] So in our Work in that place, and indeed, as I have said, discipline recalls rightly; but I do not know whether Sanderus likewise rightly ties to the year 946, in the words transcribed here, the reform of the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent made by Gerard. For, according to what will be said, Gerard in the year 944, after the third day of September, received the monastery of Sithiu, or of St. Bertin, in Artois, to govern with the office of abbot, and when he had recalled it to its former discipline, and had spent more than two years on this work, he at length returned to Ghent. The Saint, therefore, when the year 946 had almost elapsed, was still living in the monastery of St. Bertin, and consequently it does not appear probable that he in this year enlarged the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent and brought a stricter discipline into it, unless perhaps someone should wish that Gerard was not so detained by reforming the monastery of Sithiu in Artois that he could not from time to time run over to Ghent and meanwhile conveniently order there the things which pertained to the enlargement and reform of the monastery of St. Bavo. However that may be, the Saint indeed brought a stricter discipline too into the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, whether meanwhile he did it, as Sanderus relates, in the year 946, or, as appears more probable to me, no sooner than in the year 947, at the beginning of which, or, according to what will be said, towards the end of the preceding, he returned from the monastery of Sithiu to Ghent.

[191] Further, Sanderus, in chap. 4 just cited, continues thus: and causes it to be made free by Transmar, bishop of Noyon. In the year DCCCCXLVII Bishop Transmar, at the request of Arnulf, count of Flanders, privileged and made free the church of St. Peter in the castle of Ghent, situated on the Scheldt and the Lys, which is called the monastery of Ghent. That Transmar made free and presented with a privilege the church or abbey of St. Bavo at Ghent I think was done also by the work of Gerard, and this is why I have transcribed here the words of Sanderus now recited. For although in them Transmar is said to have made the monastery of St. Bavo free at the request of Arnulf, count of Flanders, it appears probable to me that Gerard acted with Arnulf, count of Flanders, that the latter should demand it from Transmar. Let the same be the judgment of the diploma still praised above which Lothar, king of the Franks, granted in favour of the monastery of St. Bavo in the year 954, and which he affirms that he imparted at the prayers of Count Arnulf and of his son Baldwin. For the rest, in order not to interrupt the series of matters pertaining to one and the same argument, I have here discussed some things too concerning the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent which are later in order of time than matters to be treated only below, and I have resolved to observe this very same thing, for the same cause, regarding the monastery of St. Peter of Blandin, of which the order of the Saint's deeds requires that I now treat in the following §.

* perhaps "idem" (the same)

§ XVII. In what year he was set over the monastery of Blandin.

The monastery of Blandin, of which a notice is given here, The most ample and most noble monastery of Blandin, built in the seventh century by St. Amand on Mount Blandin, from which also it drew its name, near Ghent, and now situated within this most celebrated city itself, had been inhabited by monks of the Benedictine institute for not yet an entire century when by the onslaught of adverse fortune it was almost entirely destroyed. At the beginning of the eighth century, when Charles Martel and Ragenfred were fighting it out with one another in Francia, it came about that Charles, returning victor from the battle of Soissons, in which he had entirely crushed Ragenfred, ordered Caelestinus, abbot of Blandin, a holy and innocent man, accused of having favoured the side of Ragenfred, into exile, and, not content with Caelestinus's exile, divided, as is said, the townships of the monastery among his men. Hence further it happened that the monks, needy and wandering without a shepherd, went off in different directions, and remained dispersed up to the ninth century; and since not even then could Eginhard, or, as others write, Einhard, notary of Charlemagne and abbot of Blandin, gather them into one, he substituted clerics in their place, those possessions of the monastery also being recovered and confirmed by a diploma which he obtained from Louis the Pious which would suffice for feeding twenty-four clerics. These, although in the process of time, namely in the years 851 and 880, the monastery of Blandin was almost overthrown by the Normans, nevertheless remained there up to the time at which Gerard came to Arnulf, count of Flanders, and freed him from the stone; but what was done with them afterwards what will be said will disclose.

[193] is one of the abbeys which the Saint received to administer: Among the abbeys which Arnulf, as soon as he had first been prodigiously freed from the stone through Gerard, gave to this holy Man to administer, our biographer, who nevertheless expresses by name only two of them, and not even the monastery of St. Bavo itself of which we have already treated, expressly enumerates the monastery of Blandin, of which I have already given a notice, founded at Ghent by the blessed prelate Amand. Of Gerard, having now obtained, after the healing of Arnulf, count of Flanders, the administration of all the abbeys which were under Arnulf's dominion, he records thus at num. 66 and the following: First of all … approaching the monastery of Blandin, founded at Ghent by the blessed prelate Amand, he found it not only stripped of all religiousness, as being occupied by most secular clerics, but also reduced almost to nothing by the infestation of perverse men; and besides, what was to be bewailed with a fountain of tears, despoiled for a long time already of the watch-keeping of the three Saints (namely Wandrille, Ansbert and, as he thought by error, Wulfram) who had rested there (an error lurks here, to be observed in the Annotations). Further, the most valiant Athlete, endowed with the help of the Godhead, in no way yielded to the sweats of labours; but, clothed with blessed Joseph in the ankle-length tunic, he always prospered his undertakings with a good end, and, the irreligion of the clerics being removed thence, although they boasted themselves of windy nobility, all things having been improved, he did not delay to substitute the religion of cenobites, as you remember that a little before he had already done in two places (namely at Brogne and at Saint-Ghislain).

[194] The monastery of Blandin, therefore, as our biographer testifies, was

one of the abbeys yet not in the year 937, as which Gerard received from Arnulf to administer. Wherefore, since, according to what will be said, it belonged at the time when Arnulf was freed from the stone to clerics and not to monks, Iperius, in the words recited above, may seem wrongly to restrict the abbeys which the Saint received from Arnulf to administer to the abbeys of the Benedictine Order alone. But that writer perhaps did so because all the abbeys committed to the Saint's administration were either in fact of the Benedictine institute at the time when they were committed to him, or at least had been at some time. And among the number of these was without doubt the monastery of Blandin. For this, as will become plain from what will be said, in the year 941, monks being substituted in the place of the clerics, again became of the Benedictine institute, of which it had also once been. But did the Saint first receive that monastery to administer in the said year 941? It appears probable enough, according to what has been said, that Gerard, at the time when he first freed Arnulf, count of Flanders, from the stone, in the year, according to what has been said, either 936 or 937, received from him all the abbeys of Flanders, and consequently that of Blandin too, to administer in the sense which I have set forth above; but that the Saint was set as abbot over that abbey already from the year 937 Sanderus openly teaches in the Affairs of Ghent, book 4, chap. 2.

[195] For there, furnishing a Catalogue of the abbots of Blandin, from Meyer, who by the monastery of Ghent understands the monastery of St. Bavo, he writes thus: Gerard of Celle was the XI abbot, the first of that name and the first abbot after the canons. Arnulf the Great (count of Flanders) in his time, at the exhortation of Transmar, bishop of Noyon, rebuilt the monastery of Ghent, overthrown by the Norman rage; restored the accustomed rites and ceremonies, and established there as abbot Gerard of Celle, a man of great virtue, in the year 937. So Sanderus, meaning, namely, that Gerard was set by Arnulf as abbot over the monastery of Blandin at Ghent (for of this he treats in the words recited) in the year 937; and for himself he soon praises Meyer in these words: These same things (namely concerning the monastery of Ghent restored by Arnulf and Gerard created abbot in the year 937) Meyer repeats in various places in his Chronicle of the counts of Flanders. But Meyer, when he commits these things to writing, makes discourse not about the monastery of Blandin but about the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent. For he says only that Arnulf, at the exhortation of Transmar, restored the monastery of Ghent and established Gerard there as abbot. And by the monastery of Ghent, placed alone without addition, Meyer understands the monastery of St. Bavo. This is clear from various passages of his. It will suffice to have brought forward only two for brevity's sake. At the year 940, both in the Chronicle and in the Annals of Flanders, he enumerates monasteries which he supposes were among the monasteries which are said to have been reformed by Arnulf through Gerard, and counts among them that of Blandin and that of Ghent. Wherefore, since in the tenth century there were only two monasteries at Ghent, namely that of Blandin and that of Ghent, and he calls one of these that of Blandin, by the other, which he calls that of Ghent, he without doubt understands that of St. Bavo. Further, at the year 956 the same Meyer relates that Arnulf, count of Flanders, obtained a diploma from Lothar, king of the Franks, for the monastery of Ghent; where without doubt he again understands by the monastery of Ghent that of St. Bavo; for Lothar is not found to have imparted any diploma to the monastery of Blandin except long after the year 956.

[196] understands, as Sanderus, having wrongly understood him, teaches; Meyer, therefore, when he makes discourse about the monastery of Ghent which Arnulf, count of Flanders, restored and gave to Gerard to govern with the office of abbot, understands the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent. And indeed Sanderus, in the book of the Affairs of Ghent just cited, chap. 3, both himself understood and, as appears, thought that Meyer understood by the monastery of Ghent the monastery of St. Bavo. For in the words still recited above, treating of the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, he writes thus: In the year 937 Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, at the exhortation of the venerable man Transmar, bishop of Noyon, restored and reformed for the better the monastery of Ghent, then demolished and like a desert, who established in it the illustrious man St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne. Which words, since they are almost the same as the words in which Meyer, both in the Chronicle and in the Annals of Flanders, writes at the year 937 that the monastery of Ghent was restored by Arnulf and Gerard set over it as abbot, Sanderus without doubt drew from this author, and consequently, since he applies these, in the words just now recited, to the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, he thought that what Meyer records at the said year 937 about the monastery of Ghent was to be understood of the monastery of St. Bavo. But, you will say, Sanderus also applies what Meyer writes at the year 937 to the monastery of Blandin, in the words recited at num. 195. I confess it is so; but besides that this, according to what has been said, goes against Meyer's mind, this writer is moreover without doubt mistaken there on another head. I think so altogether because he affirms that the monastery of Ghent of which Meyer treats at the aforementioned year 937 was restored in this very year by Arnulf, count of Flanders; and this in no way fits the monastery of Blandin, as I now lucidly show.

[197] Miraeus in the Codex of pious Donations, chap. 31, presents a diploma which Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, granted in the year 941, as I shall prove below, in favour of the monastery of Blandin. In this Arnulf (consult the said diploma) enumerates all the benefits which up to that year he conferred on the monastery of Blandin; but he brings forth absolutely no word by which he in any way indicates that he had then either restored it, or even only begun to restore it. Moreover, the monastery of Blandin, according to what will be said, still lay entirely destroyed in the year 950. Arnulf, therefore, in the year 941 (whether he did it afterwards you will understand from what will be said) had not yet restored it, and consequently Sanderus, when he applies to the monastery of Blandin the words in which Meyer writes that the monastery of Ghent was rebuilt by Arnulf in the year 937, is without doubt mistaken. Therefore, all things now having been weighed, Sanderus wrongly understood of the monastery of Blandin what Meyer writes at the year 937 about the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent, and consequently, since, relying nevertheless on these alone, he writes in the words recited above that Gerard was already from the year 937 created abbot of Blandin, there is no reason why we should admit this on his credit alone. And indeed that the Saint was not set as abbot over the monastery of Blandin sooner than the year 941 appears manifest from what he himself writes in the cited book 4 of the Affairs of Ghent, chap. 2.

[198] For there, at page 297, namely in the Gandavum but in the year, as is proved from the Chronicle of Blandin printed separately, the edition which I use, he has this: The canons are cast out by Arnulf, marquis and count, and monks are restored to this place (the monastery of Blandin) in the year DCCCCXLI, over whom Gerard of Celle is set as abbot. That we may not, however, leave the reader here in suspense, and inquiring about the order and manner in which the canons became monks again, we shall subjoin here in a few words by what reason and in what manner this came about. The Chronicle of Blandin has thus: The lord Count Arnulf, intent on happy pursuits, and consulting for our fatherhood, sent legates to Transmar, bishop of Noyon, to whom he indicated what he wished to do in the Port of Ghent, asking for the presence of the bishop himself there. But the bishop, hindered by royal business, sent his archdeacon Bernaccus to do everything in his place. The archdeacon, indeed, coming to the port of Ghent in the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCCCCXLI, in the sixth year of the reign of King Louis, on the eighth day before the Kalends of July, found there the lord marquis Arnulf, the unconquered count, by whom he was honourably received. Then, having called to him the brethren living negligently at Blandin, they say that he used this address to them blandly: We have heard, brethren, that this monastery was built by St. Amand and dedicated in honour of the Apostles Peter and Paul, where he gathered together a flock of monks, and for many times thereafter they lived there keeping the norm of St. Benedict.

[199] But, wishing for the love of God to restore the place to its former, God-making state, and from the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille, we exhort you (not by earthly domination, but by sincere charity) that, laying aside the canonical garment, you put on the monastic and serve God alone. Of whom very many, spurning the admonitions of their salvation, were dispersed here and there through byways, giving immense joys to the devil. Then (the glorious count moreover commanding) the archdeacon ordained monks there, lovers of holy religion, and set over them as abbot one venerable in birth and sanctity, by name Gerard of Celle. According to the Chronicle of Blandin, therefore, St. Gerard was set as abbot over the monastery of Blandin in the year 941 by Arnulf's order. With the Chronicle of Blandin agrees the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille to Mount Blandin, which seemed to Mabillon, by whom it was published in the fifth Benedictine Century, part 1, to have an author not later than the eleventh century. This is likewise extant printed in our Work at the XXII day of July; and there, opportunely to our purpose, it is written thus at num. 22: There was found, apt for this business (of restoring discipline in the monastery of Blandin), a man of praiseworthy life, distinguished in sanctity and in birth, Gerard by name, who was a monk by purpose, but an abbot by office and Apostolic by merit. To him the renowned marquis (so he calls Arnulf, count of Flanders), disclosing the desire conceived in his soul from the Holy Spirit concerning the ordering of the same monastery (of Blandin) and the restoration of the former monastic way of life, found a counsel prudently useful and usefully prudent, by whom also he was led, in the nine hundred and forty-first year of the Word made man, and entered this apostolic hall (the monastery of Blandin), a devout cohort of monks accompanying him. Where, having first removed the flock of clerics, he restored the school of the Lord's service, established of old by blessed Amand; and, wisely attending to the norm of the monastic rule, as one taught by the Lord, he took care of it.

[200] is proved, St. Gerard, therefore, as the praised History teaches in these words, was led by Arnulf into the monastery of Blandin in the year 941 with a cohort of monks, as it speaks; by which formula of speaking, since it soon adds that the Saint restored monastic discipline there, it seems to mean that he was set by Arnulf as abbot over the monastery of Blandin in the said year 941. Therefore, looking at the authority of the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille, and especially of the Chronicle of Blandin, it appears certain that Gerard received the monastery of Blandin to govern with the office of abbot no sooner than the year 941. Sanderus, already more often praised, however much, according to what has been said, he opines that Gerard was set as abbot over the monastery of Blandin already from the year 937, nevertheless, moved, as it seems, by the authority of the Chronicle of Blandin, also writes thus in his Gandavum printed separately, page 297, in the words still recited above: The canons are cast out by Arnulf, marquis and count, and monks are restored to this place (the monastery of Blandin) in the year DCCCCXLI, over whom Gerard of Celle is set as abbot; by which words he also openly admits that Gerard was created abbot of Blandin in the year 941. But in order to reconcile this with the opinion by which he supposes that Gerard was abbot of Blandin already from the year 937, he writes thus in the same Work, page 299: It may be that Gerard of Celle was constituted abbot (namely of Blandin) in the year 937, thereafter

confirmed by Arnulf, marquis and count, in the year DCCCCXLI, in which year the summit of religion was repaired, and the Regular monks (rather, canons) removed who had once been introduced by Abbot Aynard in the reign of Louis the Pious. According to Sanderus's mind, therefore, St. Gerard was only confirmed in the year 941 in the office of abbot of Blandin, which he had already obtained from the year 937.

[201] he was set over it as abbot in 941. But this opinion of his does not seem supported by a solid enough foundation; for he embraced it only because he wrongly thought that Gerard was written by Meyer to be abbot of Blandin at the year 937, as has already been said above. And indeed, even if Meyer expressly asserted that Gerard was already abbot of Blandin from the year 937, Sanderus ought not to have been moved by his authority, since he was a writer too remote from Gerard's age, to opine that this was undoubtedly consonant with the truth. However that may be, the Chronicle of Blandin, which, according to what has been said, the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille supports, teaches clearly in the words recited above that Gerard was created abbot of Blandin at the time when Count Arnulf, in the year 941, brought monks into the monastery of Blandin in place of the canons. Wherefore, since these things, as appears to me at least, cannot be understood of the office of abbot of Blandin as then confirmed to Gerard, I hold it certain that the Saint was set as abbot over the monastery of Blandin by Arnulf, count of Flanders, no sooner than in the year 941, although meanwhile he had, according to what has already been said, received this monastery, together with all the other monasteries or abbeys of Arnulf's dominion, already from the year 937, when he first miraculously freed Arnulf from the disease of the stone, to administer or manage in the sense which I have set forth above.

[202] Further, the recall of the monastery of Blandin to the Benedictine institute The manner and order in which and the Saint's promotion to govern it with the office of abbot, all things having been weighed which our biographer, the Chronicle of Blandin and the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille record in the words already recited in this §, seem to have been carried out in this manner and order. Gerard, as soon as he had healed Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, of the disease of the stone, at once, or, as appears, shortly after, received in the year 937 all the abbeys which the latter had under his dominion to administer or manage, and among these was the monastery of Blandin, however much it was held by canons; the Saint, from the care entrusted to him, began to watch more attentively over the religious inhabitants of the monasteries, and especially over the Regular canons of the monastery of Blandin; but he found them destitute of the morals which befitted religious men; he informed the count of the matter, and most probably exhorted him to apply a remedy to the evil. But the canons of Blandin were born of the chief families of the region, since, as the biographer testifies at num. 67, they boasted themselves of windy nobility; hence Arnulf, lest perhaps he should turn away from himself the attachments of his chief men, did not dare at first to make any innovation concerning them.

[203] But when the canons of Blandin, after some space of time, had become, as appears, nothing better for Gerard's admonitions, and it comes about and the matter had been brought to the count, he at length resolved to recall the monastery of Blandin to a right norm of living. To this end he disclosed his plan to Gerard, and, taught by him what needed to be done, sent men to summon Transmar, bishop of Noyon and Tournai. He, detained by royal business, sent away his archdeacon to supply his place. The archdeacon, as soon as he came to the count, exhorted the canons of Blandin with an effective speech that, laying aside the canonical garment, they should assume the monastic, and when many of them did not obey this counsel, he established monks in the monastery of Blandin by Arnulf's order, and set over them St. Gerard, called of Celle from the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle in Hainaut, over which he had presided as abbot. This is the manner, this the order, by which at length, as appears probable from the writers praised above, the monks who had before held the place again obtained the monastery of Blandin; St. Gerard, namely, as far at least as I think, bringing it about, since, according to what has been said, he had very great influence with the count on more than one head, and especially on account of the rare sanctity of his life, and by him too, consequently, he was set as abbot over those new monks of Blandin. What further the Saint, now set over it as abbot, then did in favour of the monastery of Blandin I set forth in the following §.

§ XVIII. He translated various relics of the Saints into the monastery of Blandin, and whether he caused it to be rebuilt.

Possessions to the monastery of Blandin, Gerard, as appears, bringing it about, The monastery of Blandin had been reduced to a most wretched state when the Normans in the ninth century raged widely in Flanders with slaughters, burnings and devastations, and it had also already before, as has been said, lost by the injury of the times the possessions once conferred on it by the liberality of the faithful. That it, or rather the monks now restored to it, should acquire these again, at least in part, Gerard, already abbot of Blandin, brought about in a short time, as appears. Miraeus in the Codex of Pious donations, chap. 31, presents a diploma which Arnulf, count of Flanders, surnamed the Great, imparted to the monks of Blandin. By this Arnulf restored to the monastery of Blandin part of the revenues which blessed Amand, the first founder of the place, had obtained from kings and other faithful, that is, says Mabillon, contracting that diploma in book 44, num. 24, of the Benedictine Annals, the rent which is received from the dwellings situated on the Scheldt, the floralia of the meadow adjacent to the port, and other things which are expressed in the charter of Abbot Einhard. All which, besides many other things expressed in the diploma, the count wills to be possessed by the monks with their abbot on this condition, that they serve Christ there exactly as they did in the time of St. Amand, according to whose prescription too he permits them to elect an abbot for themselves. Further, that I may also declare the cause on account of which I record this diploma here, I scarcely doubt that it was granted to the monks of Blandin chiefly with St. Gerard bringing it about.

[205] some Arnulf, count of Flanders, restored, For Arnulf indicates that he imparted it at the exhortation of religious and truthful men, as if roused from a heavy sleep. Hence I think that Gerard, since he was of the highest authority with the count, was probably one, and perhaps indeed the chief, of those religious and truthful men at whose exhortation Arnulf hints that he gave the aforementioned diploma. And indeed what makes me more inclined to believe it is the time which constitutes the epoch of the diploma's being given, and which, according to what will be said, coincides partly with the year of Christ 941, partly with the year 942. For in this year Gerard both was at Ghent and had then, according to what has already been said, first been set as abbot over the monks brought into the monastery of Blandin in place of the canons; whence it becomes probable enough that the Saint then pressed Arnulf that he should cause to be restored to the monastery over which he himself had recently been set as abbot at least that part of the possessions once unjustly taken from it which would suffice for feeding the monks then living there. Surely what also makes me scarcely doubt that Gerard then did this is the fatherly solicitude with which the Saint without doubt shone, and by which he wished to provide for the needs of the monks whom he had then first received committed to his care. There is added that it was, as appears, of the greatest care to Gerard to increase the monastery of Blandin in the number of monks; whence it becomes probable that he was solicitous also about enlarging the revenues of the monastery by which he might feed them, and consequently pressed Count Arnulf to cause at least some of the possessions once taken from the monastery to be restored, and to confirm the restitution by a diploma.

[206] Therefore, all things having been weighed, it surely appears probable that the aforementioned diploma was obtained in favour of the monastery of Blandin with Gerard chiefly pressing Count Arnulf. and the restitution by a diploma, Nor is there reason why anyone should object that, according to what has been said, Gerard in no way sought after riches. For although this is without doubt consonant with the truth, it is nevertheless not probable that the Saint was not solicitous also about the means necessary to his monastery and due to it by right. Further, the chronological mark which the diploma of which we treat bears coincides, as I have already said, partly with the year 941, partly with the year 942. For at the end it is signed in this manner: Done at the monastery of Blandin, in the year … VI of the reign of Louis, son of King Charles the enclosed; and by King Charles here is designated Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, who, as Frodoard in his Chronicle and other writers testify, died in prison at Péronne in the year 929, and hence Louis, namely d'Outremer, his son, in whose reign the diploma is noted as given, is called son of Charles the enclosed. But, you will say, since Charles the Simple, according to what has been said, died in the year 929, how can the sixth year of the reign of Louis d'Outremer, which is the chronological mark of the diploma, be reconciled with the year of Christ 941 or 942, with both of which I have nevertheless already asserted that it is partly reconciled? Miraeus observes thus on the number of six years with which the diploma is signed: The number of the years is without doubt corrupt. Let there be put, therefore, the XVI year of King Louis, computing from the death of his father Charles the Simple. He died in the year DCCCCXXIX at Péronne in prison (as Flodoard testifies in his Chronicle), and therefore he is here called the Enclosed.

[207] So Miraeus, because, namely, he thought that the epoch of the reign of Louis d'Outremer was drawn from the year 929, in which Charles the Simple, his father, died, which was given in the year 941 or 942, he forms. and so the sixth year of Louis d'Outremer would lead to the year 935 or the following, in either of which the diploma most certainly cannot have been given. But that epoch is drawn not from this year, but from the year 936, in which Louis, recalled from England by the nobles of France, was first crowned king of the Franks. This is today the common opinion of the learned, which is also proved by many writers, and among these by Mabillon, On Diplomatics, book 6, page 568 and following, with valid weights of reasons. Further, since in this six years run out from the year 936 up to the year 942, the sixth year of the reign of Louis d'Outremer, with which the aforementioned diploma is signed, coincides, as I asserted above, with the year of Christ 941 or certainly 942; and the diploma may have been given in either the one or the other of these two years. Further, since, according to what has been said, Gerard was first set as abbot over the monastery of Blandin in the year 941, and obtained the aforesaid diploma from Arnulf in the same year or the following, it is now clear from this that nothing was more at heart to the Saint, as soon as he was made abbot of the monastery of Blandin, than that it should not only be recalled to the stricter discipline of the Benedictine Rule, but should also be presented with fitting revenues. This, namely, the solicitous and provident Father also took care of, that those who embraced the monastic life there might, distracted by no care of temporal things, be free more freely for God. It can further now be asked here whether the Saint caused to be rebuilt the monastery of Blandin, which had been overthrown by the Normans almost in the manner of the monastery of St. Bavo, not, however, as will become plain from what will be said, as regards all its buildings. That it had not yet been rebuilt in the year 941 is clear from what has already been said above.

[208] That which, in the year 944, But Meyer, both in the Chronicles and in the Annals of Flanders, at the year 944, writes thus:

On the third day before the Nones of September the bodies of the holy Wandrille, Ansbert and Wulfram were translated from Boulogne, a maritime city of the Morini, to Ghent into the monastery of Blandin by the Great (Arnulf, count of Flanders), and the Regular monks (rather, canons) removed who had been introduced by Abbot Aynard in the reign of Louis the Pious. The monastery was raised from its ruins and restored, and so enriched with tithes and possessions that Arnulf was not without reason called the repairer of Blandin. In which words, as appears, he indicates that the monastery of Blandin was rebuilt in the year 944. But that writer also teaches in the words now recited that in that year monks were first substituted there for the canons, which is most certainly foreign to the truth, as is clear from what has already been said, and moreover from the diploma of Arnulf, count of Flanders, just now mentioned. For in this, which, according to what has been said, was issued in the year 941 or certainly not later than the year 942, Arnulf more than once distinguishes the religious inhabitants of the monastery of Blandin by the name of monks, so that already from the year 941, or certainly in the year 942, monks had without doubt been substituted there for the canons. Since, therefore, Meyer was mistaken in assigning the time at which this was done, it is no wonder if he perhaps strays also from the year in which the monastery of Blandin was rebuilt. And indeed that he did in fact stray from the year in which this happened appears undoubted to me.

[209] nay even in the year 950 For Miraeus in the Diplomata Belgica, chap. 25, presents a diploma granted by Louis d'Outremer in favour of the monastery of Blandin in the year 950; and in this Louis speaks thus: We will it to be known to all the faithful of the holy Church of God, present namely and future, that Arnulf, most noble count and marquis and our most illustrious kinsman, approaching the presence of our dignity, related to us with grief that a certain monastery had once been nobly built by the most blessed prelate Amand, under the Regular norm of monks, beside the castle of Ghent on the waters of the Scheldt, which of old was called Blandinus, but now is called … the monastery now entirely … destroyed. These things, as is also clear from the subsequent words of the diploma, Louis says of the monastery of Blandin at the year 950; it therefore still lay entirely destroyed in this year, and consequently had not yet been rebuilt in the year 944, nay even in the year 950. Yet, since, according to what has been said, monks were brought into the monastery of Blandin in the year 941, there will perhaps be someone to whom it appears little probable that it had not yet been rebuilt in the year 944, nay even in the year 950. But I answer that the monastery of Blandin was not so entirely destroyed by the Normans that some buildings of it did not still survive, fit for the habitation of monks. This is clear from this, that, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, it was inhabited by canons when the monks were brought into it, nor is it found to have been rebuilt before.

[210] had not yet been rebuilt. From the fact, therefore, that monks were brought into the monastery of Blandin in the year 941, it does not follow that it was rebuilt either in that year, or sooner, or certainly before the year 944 or 950. Nor is there reason why anyone should bring forward the words from the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille transcribed here at num. 199. For in these there is treatment not of a rebuilding of the monastery of Blandin made in the year 941 either by Gerard or at least at his exhortation, but only of its reform as regards discipline, then diligently managed by the Saint, as will become plain if only from a reading of the said words. And indeed in the very History of the Translation of St. Wandrille (see it in our vol. V of July) the rebuilding of the monastery of Blandin is not narrated except after the translation of St. Wandrille, which took place in the year 944 in the month of September, has been related. Looking, therefore, at the order in which things are narrated in the very praised History, the monastery of Blandin had not yet been rebuilt in the year 944. But was it not rebuilt shortly after the year 944, or rather shortly after the year 950, by Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, perhaps at Gerard's exhortation? That that sacred edifice was rebuilt from its foundations by Arnulf, who prolonged his life up to the year 964, is altogether certain and undoubted. This is established, namely, from the diploma of Arnulf the second, or the younger, count of Flanders, which is extant inserted in the second part of the Supplement to the diplomas of Miraeus, chap. 19.

[211] For in this, which is noted as given in the 19th year of Lothar, king of the Franks, most certainly Arnulf, count of Flanders, by St. Gerard which partly coincides with the year of Christ 972, Arnulf the younger, grandson of Arnulf the elder, or the Great, through his son Baldwin, says that he gives the things which he there expresses to the monastery, or, as he speaks, to the monastery called Blandinium, built in the beginnings by the apostolic father, the most holy pontiff Amand, and consecrated in honour of the prince of the Apostles, most blessed Peter, and of the teacher of the gentiles Paul, but in the process of time built from its foundations by my grandfather Arnulf with a more excellent edifice, as is plain to the eyes of beholders, in which the lord abbot Womar is seen to preside as an industrious shepherd over no small college of Regular monks. It is therefore not to be doubted that the monastery of Blandin was rebuilt from its foundations by Arnulf the Great, grandfather of the younger Arnulf. But was this effected also at the exhortation of St. Gerard? The matter depends on the time at which Arnulf the Great put his hand to that sacred edifice. For if he did not do so before the year 956, he was probably not spurred to it by St. Gerard, since the latter, according to what will be said, had then already abdicated the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin; but on the contrary, if he undertook the work before that year, or certainly before the year 955, he was most probably aroused to it by the Saint, as being then, according to what will be said, still abbot of Blandin. That anything, therefore, may be determined here, I inquire into the time at which Arnulf rebuilt the monastery of Blandin. In Miraeus's Sigebert, at the year 960, when Gerard had already died, these things are read in the Additions: In this year the monastery of Blandin was built with greater elegance by Arnulf, marquis of Flanders; which work was begun in the month of May. Sanderus in his Gandavum printed separately, page 301, determines that this very thing was done in the year 959, when Womar, who immediately succeeded Gerard in the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin, had already for some years entered upon it. For Gerard, as I shall prove below, either in the year 954 or the following voluntarily ceded that prefecture, and substituted Womar in his place.

[212] But Sigebert and Sanderus, since they are more remote from the age of Arnulf the Great, most probably impelled to it, restored between the year 950 and 956, are certainly of far less authority than the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille, praised more than once already, written by an author who is not later than the XI century; and this, in our cited fifth volume of July, num. 52 and following, has thus concerning Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders: Therefore Arnulf, of divine memory and most renowned marquis, showed in deed the immense devotion which he had in mind towards the said place (namely the monastery of Blandin) and the bodies of the aforesaid Saints (namely Ansbert and Wandrille). The basilica (of Blandin) of St. Peter, to which the patronages of so great Saints had been carried, having been destroyed, because it was unsuitable, on account of its smallness, both for the habitation of the monks and for the frequenting of the promiscuous sex, he rebuilt from the foundations with a certain greater elegance, and enriched it, when perfected, with wealth; townships too and very many estates, and other utensils fitting for ecclesiastical ministries, in gold and silver, he conferred with full devotion of soul; besides, he enclosed the bodies of the Saints themselves most honourably in gold and silver. And afterwards, in the time succeeding, he translated to the same place the bodies of Sts. Gudwal and Bertulf, confessor of Christ, from the city of Boulogne; from which words it follows that Arnulf rebuilt the monastery of Blandin before the year 956 or even before the year 955. For by them it is most openly indicated that Arnulf did this before he translated the bodies of Sts. Gudwal and Bertulf from Bononia, or rather Bolonia, to the monastery of Blandin: and this translation was made towards the end of either the year 954 or 955, as I shall lucidly prove below. Now, since, according to what has been said, Arnulf had not yet rebuilt the monastery of Blandin even in the year 950, it follows that he rebuilt it beyond all doubt between this year and the year 956 or even the year 955. Wherefore, since St. Gerard, according to what will be said, then still presided as abbot over the monastery of Blandin, he most probably, by the authority which he had with him, spurred Arnulf to restore that sacred edifice.

[213] and into it, when it had not yet been restored, Further, the Saint also laboured most vigorously, even at the peril of his life, for the reform of the monastery of Blandin, and that indeed, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, before he induced Arnulf to rebuild it, as the biographer teaches at num. 67 and the two following. Nor indeed was the work so diligently spent by the holy Man without fruit. The writer of the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille teaches this in our vol. V of July, num. 22, writing thus in words partly already transcribed here: Where (in the monastery of Blandin St. Gerard) … restored … the school of the Lord's service; and, wisely attending to the norm of the monastic Rule, as one taught by the Lord, he took care of it. And very many, roused by the example of so great a Master, began to flow together here with the vow of monastic discipline, to tame the neck of the heart, to take up the sweet yoke of the Lord. And it came about in a short time that this monastery of the Lord's sheepfold, enlarged in number and merit, was proved in all things not less noble than the most noble monasteries. The Saint, therefore, as is understood from these words of the praised writer, made very great progress in reforming the monastery of Blandin, and that indeed in a space of time not very long, although meanwhile, as Iperius in the Chronicle of St. Bertin, chap. 24, seems to indicate, it was not so perfectly reformed in a short space of time that it did not still need Gerard's presence and work. What further, the stricter discipline of the Benedictine institute having now been brought into the monastery of Blandin, was done besides by our Saint, which also pertains here, and that indeed before it had been restored, I now set forth.

[214] The bodies of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert, when the Normans in the ninth and tenth centuries frequently broke into Gaul, the bodies of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert, through St. Gerard, in the year 944; had been translated from the church of St. Peter of Fontenelle, their seats being often changed, at length to Boulogne, as is set forth in our Work at the XXII of July in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Wandrille, num. 35 and following. Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, whom Boulogne obeyed from the year 933, had heard this; and wishing to enrich also with sacred relics of the Saints the monastery of Blandin, which he had already increased with revenues, he set his mind on translating thither from the city of Boulogne the bodies of those two Saints. The count, therefore, for the sake of this matter, having taken

St. Gerard with him, takes the road towards Boulogne, and acquires those sacred pledges from Wicfred, bishop of Boulogne or Thérouanne, however unwilling, and though some opposed themselves, and St. Gerard obtains that relics of St. Vulmar, abbot of Samer, be added to these. How these things were done, as also by what means that sacred treasure of relics was translated by Arnulf through Gerard to Ghent, and with how great joy of the people flowing together from every side it was brought into the monastery of Blandin, the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille, praised more than once already, teaches in our Work from num. 24 up to 47. To it, therefore, out of zeal for brevity, I refer the curious reader; whom, however, I would wish to be advised of two things further here; and the first indeed is that the aforesaid sacred remains were carried from the city of Boulogne to Ghent in the year 944 in the month of August, although they did not arrive at the monastery of Blandin, as is said in the History soon praised again, num. 46, before the third day of the month of September of the same year; and the other, that what is moreover asserted in it concerning the body of St. Wulfram, likewise translated to Ghent with the two other bodies of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert, is foreign to the truth, as is solidly demonstrated by us at the XX day of March, page 161. These are the things which it has seemed good to record concerning the bodies of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert translated by Arnulf through Gerard to the monastery of Blandin when it had not yet been restored.

[215] It is next now that I treat of the bodies of Sts. Guduwal, [but when it had already been restored, he translated those of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf:] or, as others write, Gudwal, or even Gudual, bishop, and Bertulf, abbot, likewise translated by Arnulf through Gerard to the monastery of Blandin when it had already been restored. St. Bertulf the abbot was treated by us at the fifth day of February; St. Gudwal at the VI day of June. And Henschen indeed thinks that the Life of St. Gudwal which he gives there was written by an anonymous monk of Blandin of the twelfth century; while Bolland determines that the Life of St. Bertulf which he publishes in print at the said fifth day of February was committed to writing about the year 1073 by an anonymous monk, likewise of Blandin. Further, both in the Life of St. Gudwal and in the Life of St. Bertulf it is related that the bodies of both these Saints were translated to Ghent by Arnulf through Gerard at one and the same time; but in the latter the body of St. Bertulf, to which the body of St. Gudwal and relics of other Saints were joined, is recorded to have been translated from Harelbeke to Ghent; while in the former the body of St. Gudwal is asserted to have been translated from Montreuil, in French Monstrueil, by Arnulf, count of Flanders, who held this town of Picardy for some time, through Gerard to Ghent together with the relics of St. Bertulf, no mention being made of Harelbeke, because perhaps the body of St. Gudwal did not remain there long, having perhaps been brought thither from Montreuil only in order to be translated thence very shortly to Ghent together with the body of St. Bertulf. For the rest, both praised Lives place the translation of which we here treat on the third day of December; but neither determines the year: it seems, however, to have been made in the year 954 or the following, as I shall show, when I have first written out here the words of both Lives bearing on it, so that it may be plain what part Gerard had in it.

[216] which later translation, of which here, from the Life of St. Guduwal The writer of the Life of St. Gudwal, in our Work at the sixth of June, records the matter in these words at num. 51: Whence (from the monastery of Blandin) the venerable abbot Gerard having been summoned, excelling in industry of ecclesiastical religion and of monastic order, he (Arnulf, count of Flanders), with the authority of the bishop of the same (Tournai) diocese, enjoined on him an office of this kind (of translating the body of Gudwal), to which great grace of God had incited his affection: and the venerable Abbot, paying vows of thanks to God, faithfully undertook the faithful business, more faithfully accomplished it; and, having taken up with faith and great trembling the treasure of the precious body, with the treasures, not to be compared with any price, of the members of the eminent confessor of the Lord, Bertulf, a great cohort of clerics and monks accompanying him, he carried them into the monastery of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, which is situated on a bright mount, called by the name Blandinium. And there came together a people of both sexes innumerable, clapping their hands, and blessing God in the voice of exultation; who destined these twin pearls of two gems from the inestimable treasure of His goodness, and placed them for the ornament of His church with so great beauty. Which is established to have been done on the III day before the Nones of December, King Lothar indeed exercising royal right in the sceptre of the Franks, but our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ governing the monarchy of the angels and of the whole world with the Father and the Holy Spirit. These things, which pertain to Gerard, the Life of St. Gudual has; hear now also those which pertain to him in the Life of St. Bertulf.

[217] and from the Life of St. Bertulf This records thus at num. 33: At that time (namely when there was thought of translating the sacred body of St. Bertulf to Ghent) in the monastery of Blandin Gerard dwelt as abbot by merit and by office, whose counsels the glorious marquis (Arnulf, count of Flanders) willingly used. He, since he adorned the titles of nobility yet more nobly with a probity of morals, was found worthy both to preside over and to profit almost all the monasteries of Gaul. Having summoned him, the aforesaid marquis, counsels being shared with him, deals thoroughly about translating the relics of the Saint (Bertulf the abbot). Then it seemed good to both that the pledges of the said Saint should be translated to Blandin. That sentence also pleased the nobles, that the church of Blandin should be enriched with the pledges of so great a confessor. And when it had been so resolved by the ecclesiastical as well as by the political orders, the members of the most holy confessor Bertulf are raised, to be translated whither we have already said, not without great congratulation both of those going before and of those following. Nor did this Saint wish to be translated alone then, but into the fellowship of his translation the bones of B. Gudowal were joined; and also one member of B. Audomar with his tooth, and relics too of the most holy Bertin, for the increase of his glory. O how joyful a spectacle was it on that day for the peoples running together from every quarter, when before the most holy relics on the one side the ecclesiastical pomp went forward with crosses and lamps, on the other the courtly senate of the marquis with the fasces. And although the honour paid by both sides was less than for the Saint's merits, it nevertheless equalled all the glory of princes.

[218] And this translation was made on the third day before the Nones of December, a notice is given, when the Church according to custom celebrates the Advent of the Lord, when also it exulted that in the coming of the Saint Christ had come to it, especially since no one doubts that Christ dwells in the Saints and Elect. The especially fit minister of this translation, together with the religious flock of monks, was the abbot whom we have mentioned, Gerard, to whose prudent disposition the glorious marquis entrusted whatever seemed to be done in that translation. He translated the most sacred limbs into the monastery of Blandin, over which he himself then presided, and laid them up in the Eastern apse with great melody of those singing psalms. These are the things in the Life of St. Bertulf which, concerning the translation of him and of St. Guduwal, ought to be referred to St. Gerard. Further, from these and from the words likewise transcribed here above from the Life of St. Guduwal, anyone, as far as I think, will now easily understand what part our Saint had in the said translation. It remains, therefore, that I now inquire into the year in which the bodies of those two Saints, namely Guduwal and Bertulf, were translated to Ghent. It is established to have been done, as the Life of St. Guduwal relates in these words still recited above, on the III day before the Nones of December, King Lothar indeed exercising royal right in the sceptres of the Franks. Lothar, grandson of Charles the Simple through his son Louis d'Outremer, took up the kingdom of the Franks on the day before the Ides of November in the year 954, as is agreed among the learned. That translation of Sts. Gudwal and Bertulf of which we treat was not, therefore, accomplished sooner than this year. But did it not also happen later?

[219] Meyer refers it to the year 959; but so he is most manifestly mistaken. was carried out by Gerard in the year 954 or the following. For, as both biographers of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf testify in the words just recited, the translation of these Saints of which we here make discourse was accomplished on the third day of December. Wherefore, since Gerard, as Meyer himself confesses, died in the year 959 on the III day of October, how could he bear the chief care of a translation accomplished on the III day of December in the year 959, as, according to what has been said, Meyer would have it, as nevertheless both biographers of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf likewise testify that he did, in the words just transcribed here? Our Bolland at the fifth of February, in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Bertulf, writes thus of that translation at num. 8: If, as translations of this kind are wont to be made, it was accomplished on a Sunday in order to summon a more frequent concourse of peoples, it must have happened in the year CMLV, in which the III day of December fell on a Sunday. Surely, since the translation which is here in question was made, according to what has been said, when Lothar, who began to reign in the year 954, already held the reins of the Frankish kingdom, it appears probable enough that it happened in the year 955, in which the third day of December, as will be plain to one who computes it, fell on a Sunday. But when the translation happened, Gerard still presided over the monastery of Blandin, as the biographer of St. Bertulf expressly testifies in these words still recited above: He (St. Gerard) translated the most sacred limbs (of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf) into the monastery of Blandin, over which he himself then presided, and laid them up in the Eastern apse with great melody of those singing psalms. Gerard, therefore, will not have translated the bodies of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf in the year 955 unless he bore the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin up to this year, and indeed when it had almost elapsed. Wherefore, since it is doubtful, according to what will be said, whether the Saint abdicated the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin, Womar being substituted for him, already from the year 954 or only from the following, it is also doubtful whether he translated the bodies of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf in the year 954 or in the following. This translation, therefore, since nothing is at hand by which I may assign a definite year to it, I determine disjunctively to have been accomplished either in the year 954 or 955, and I put an end to the things done by the Saint in the monastery of Blandin.

§ XIX. He receives the monastery of Sithiu, or of St. Bertin, to govern with the office of abbot, and, this having been recalled to its primitive discipline, he returns to Ghent.

The monastery of St. Bertin is given to the Saint to be reformed, The most noble monastery of St. Bertin, or of Sithiu, at Saint-Omer in Artois, in Gerard's age, as also many others, had departed much from the primitive discipline of the Benedictine institute; which had come about partly from the fault of the monks occupying it and of the most disturbed times, partly from the negligence and fault of the secular rulers or abbots by whom it had long been occupied. Already, says Mabillon at the year 944 in the Benedictine Annals, book 44, num. 71, there were at least forty years since this (Sithiu) abbey had his (Arnulf the Great's,

count of Flanders) father Baldwin, his brother Adolf, and Arnulf himself, laymen, been handed over, and so through the negligence, or rather the lack, of rulers it had fallen away from its former religion. But Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, to whom Gerard, the monastery of Blandin having been recalled to the former institute of the Benedictine Rule, had already proved his industry in reforming monasteries, abdicates the prefecture of the monastery of Sithiu, in order that he might have the collapsed religion there restored, and commits it to the Saint to govern and reform at his discretion. But, that we may serve brevity, says the biographer at num. 70, and, omitting many things, recall a few, we pass over in silence how vigorously he also presided for some time over the monastery of blessed Bertin, and what savoury fruits of Regular discipline he produced there. The Saint, therefore, as the biographer testifies, presided for some time as abbot over the monastery of St. Bertin, and, as he also seems to hint, recalled it to a stricter discipline. But in what year was he first set as abbot over the said monastery in order to reform it? Again the biographer does not teach this; it does not appear to be doubted, however, that this happened in the year 944.

[221] Iperius writes that this was done in the year 944, Iperius, abbot of the monastery of St. Bertin in the 14th century, in the Chronicle of St. Bertin, chap. 23, relates two miracles, of which one was worked by the merits of St. Bertin on Athala, the wife of Count Arnulf himself; the other on Walter, son of Rodulf, the praetor of Sithiu; and then records thus: Then indeed especially Count Arnulf, our abbot, having seen the miracles related above which God deigned to work in his presence through the merits of our blessed father Bertin, compunct in heart within and grieving that here (in the monastery of Sithiu, or of St. Bertin) the monastic religion, long ago built up by blessed Bertin and strongly observed, and now for forty years or thereabouts entirely abolished through the negligence of his father and brother and of himself, in order that he might build up the former religion and ennoble this place with its ancient sanctity, called to himself this St. Gerard, of whom discourse has now been held, who almost alone was observing the destruction of religion in these parts, and, asking him to bring back order here, granted him this abbey and the government of the monks in the year of the Lord CMXLIIII. And again below, only a few things being interposed, in chap. 24, he writes to almost the same effect. I transcribe these words too here.

[222] They run thus: The fame of whose (St. Gerard's) virtues, spread abroad on every side, came to the ears of the count of Flanders, Arnulf the Great, then our abbot; and he seems to be agreed with. which renowned count, having seen the miracle which God deigned to work in his presence on his own wife through the merits of blessed Bertin, and likewise the miracle concerning the son of the praetor of this (namely Sithiu) township, and considering that this place, in which religion built up by the same father had always flourished, was now, through the negligence of his father and brother and of himself, as being laymen, totally destitute * of holy religion, compunct in heart grieved vehemently, and, having summoned the lord St. Gerard, asks and entreats him to be willing to repair the religion abolished here; to which when blessed Gerard assented, the count resigned the abbey into his hands, and caused him to be consecrated abbot by Witfrid, bishop of the Morini, in the year of the Lord nine hundred and forty-four. The Saint, therefore, according to the praised Iperius, received the monastery of Sithiu in the year 944 from Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, to govern and reform with the office of abbot; and with Iperius agrees Mabillon, praised above, and Meyer, Sanderus and the other writers who have treated of that matter do the very same thing, all with unanimous consent, so that it does not seem to be doubted that it in fact happened in that year that Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, set Gerard as abbot over the monastery of Sithiu, in order that he should recall it to a stricter discipline.

[223] But Iperius, in the words now transcribed here, also seems to hint That Arnulf abdicated that abbey that Arnulf was bent, without any previous work or admonition of Gerard, to abdicate the prefecture of the monastery of St. Bertin and to substitute for himself as abbot a Man versed in the monastic life, by whom it should be recalled to the primitive rigour of the Benedictine institute; and this appears little probable. For Gerard, already from the year 937, in which, as according to what has been said appears, he received all the abbeys of Arnulf's dominion, and consequently that of Sithiu too, to administer, had probably watched over the morals and norm of living of the monks of Sithiu, and had consequently long since observed that monastic discipline had collapsed among them, when Arnulf in the year, according to what has been said, 944 laid down the government of the abbey of Sithiu, over which, however much a layman, he presided as abbot according to the wicked custom of the tenth century, and transferred it to Gerard. Hence further, and from the singular care of restoring monastic discipline by which the Saint was held, it surely becomes most probable, first indeed, that he pressed Arnulf, count of Flanders, even long before the year 944, to abdicate the abbey of Sithiu, as having departed from its primitive institute because it lacked a monk abbot, and to set over it as abbot a man imbued with the laws of the monastic life; and then that the prince, impelled at length by the pious admonitions of Gerard, who, according to what has been said, had very great influence with him, and perhaps of other religious men, abdicated that abbey in the year 944, and set over it as abbot Gerard, to restore the collapsed religion there.

[224] was not done, as appears, without Gerard's work. Therefore I would not indeed wish to deny that Arnulf, count of Flanders, was moved to abdicate the abbey of Sithiu, and to have it recalled to a stricter discipline, by the two miracles worked, the one on Athala his wife, the other on Walter, son of the praetor of Sithiu; yet I do not think that this was done by them alone: and how deservedly I think so you will understand if only from this, that those miracles, as Iperius himself testifies in the cited chap. 23, had already been worked from the year 938, and yet Arnulf did not abdicate the abbey of Sithiu before the year 944; which seems to be a proof that this prince did not do it until to the miracles which he had seen present in the church of St. Bertin other incentives had been added, which were probably the pious admonitions of Gerard and of other religious men. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 44, num. 71, supposes that it was brought about partly by the mentioned miracles of St. Bertin, partly by the instigation of St. Gerard, that Arnulf, having abdicated the abbey of Sithiu, had its former splendour restored to this sacred place. With Mabillon, as is clear from what has already been said, I readily agree, nor do I doubt that all will do the same with me who have in some manner weighed what has already been disputed. So that Arnulf abdicated the abbey of Sithiu, and had monastic discipline restored there, was not done without Gerard's work. Let us now examine how he, now constituted abbot of Sithiu, laboured to reform this monastery, Arnulf also contributing his work.

[225] [The Saint, Arnulf contributing his work, recalls it to the primitive discipline of the Benedictine institute,] Iperius in the praised Chronicle of St. Bertin, chap. 24, immediately adds this to the words recited above: This done (namely Gerard having been consecrated abbot of Sithiu by Witfrid, or, as others write, Wicfrid, bishop of the Morini), Arnulf and Abbot Gerard began to treat with the monks about the reform of the order, in order that they might incline them to consent to good counsel, and they found some indeed, but few, acquiescing in good admonitions, some too faint-hearted, whom the abbot, sweetly drawing them, joined to most religious men called hither from various parts of the world, to instruct them in the way of God; but many hardened ones, separating them from the well-disposed, he distributed apart through chambers, lest by their evil speaking they should draw the good back from their holy purpose, nor did he cease to show them the way of salvation, if perchance they might hear and acquiesce: but when he could not bend their hardened minds, and made no progress at all, Abbot Gerard, according to the Rule of blessed Benedict, using the knife of amputation, the secular arm having been invoked, expelled those so hardened and unwilling to be converted from the monastery by the force of the count, lest the diseased sheep should contaminate the pious flock. The people ran together as if to a spectacle, and there was to be seen grief at the departure of the monks, who *, a multitude of people accompanying them, to Longuenesse, a township of this monastery; and there the count made them stay for a while.

[226] and, this done, Then the count many times asked them and caused them to be induced to return to the good purpose, promising them all necessaries liberally, if only they would hold the religion which they had vowed to God; but when he made no progress at all, casting them out of his land he compelled them to cross the sea into England. Thus far Iperius, which Mabillon presents in summary more neatly and elegantly in book 44, num. 71, of the Benedictine Annals, as also the things which, the ancient discipline having now been restored in the monastery of Sithiu, or of St. Bertin, Gerard did, as the same Iperius teaches in the chapter just cited in these words: Gerard our abbot, a most holy man, this (Sithiu, or St. Bertin) abbey having been well disposed as regards religion, deliberating to return to that of Blandin, in the reform of which he had laboured much, and which still much needed his personal presence, seeing that he could not personally be free for both places, committed the government of the regular life in this monastery in his own place to the venerable man Agilo, once a monk of St. Aper of Toledo *, Womar of Blandin being joined to him, yet not under the name of abbot; for blessed Agilo too is not named among our abbots: and so the lord St. Gerard returned to Blandin, after he had ruled the monastery here for three years. The Saint, therefore, monastic discipline having been restored at St. Bertin, returned, as Iperius testifies, to Ghent, in order to bring to completion the reform of the monastery of Blandin which he had begun. But in what year did Gerard return thither from the abbey of Sithiu? In the year, according to what has been said, 944 he first received the monastery of Sithiu, or of St. Bertin, to govern with the office of abbot.

[227] Wherefore, since, as Iperius testifies in the words just transcribed here, when the year 946 had almost elapsed, he had already ruled it for three years when he returned to that of Blandin, it follows that he returned thither either in the year 946 or the following. And he did so when the year 947 had almost elapsed, if complete years; but in the year 946 or at the beginning of the following, if only incomplete years are to be understood by the three years for which Gerard, as Iperius testifies, governed the monastery of St. Bertin before he returned to Ghent. But only incomplete years seem to be understood. For since the Saint, according to what has been said, in the year 944, in the month of September, deposited in the monastery of Blandin the sacred relics of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert brought from Boulogne to Ghent, it seems certain enough that he did not begin the government of the monastery of St. Bertin before the month of September of the year 944. Wherefore, if by the three years for which Gerard ruled the abbey of Sithiu before he returned from the monastery of Sithiu to that of Blandin entire or complete years were to be understood, it would necessarily follow that the Saint returned from the monastery of Sithiu to that of Blandin no sooner than after September of the year 947. But that this can be admitted seems in no way to be the case. For, as Iperius himself testifies in the words now recited, Gerard, returning from the monastery of Sithiu to that of Blandin, to Agilo, a monk of Toul, to whom Womar, monk of Blandin,

he joined as companion, committed the government of the monks of Sithiu, and, Agilo having afterwards been snatched from the living, instituted Wido as abbot of the same monastery of Sithiu in that very year 947. Moreover he deposed Wido, as will become plain from what will be said, also in the same year 947, when he did not satisfy this office of his. If, therefore, the three years for which Gerard, according to Iperius, governed the monastery of Sithiu before he returned from the monastery of Sithiu to Ghent are to be taken for entire and complete years, and so the Saint is determined to have returned to Ghent no sooner than after the September of the year 947 had begun, within a space of about three months Agilo will have been honoured by Gerard with the care of the monastery of Sithiu, and will have died; and Wido will have been created abbot of Sithiu, and also deposed from this office.

[228] or at the beginning of the following he returns to Ghent, But this surely seems very little probable. For, to dismiss the rest, Wido was, as Iperius also testifies in the words recited above, the nephew of St. Gerard; and to whom, pray, would it appear probable that St. Gerard was so headlong that he at once deposed for the sake of a looser life Wido, his nephew, set as abbot over the monastery of Sithiu for a short space of perhaps only one or two months, and did not first try to amend him and bring him to his duty by applying the salutary remedy of admonitions for at least some months? Therefore, lest what appears little credible should have to be maintained, the three years for which, according to Iperius, Gerard ruled the monastery of Sithiu before he returned from the monastery of Sithiu to that of Blandin ought to be taken for only incomplete years, and so Gerard is to be determined to have returned to the monastery of Blandin in the year 946 or at the beginning of the following. For thus a space of at least one year will be had in which the things were carried out which otherwise, according to what has been said, would have been done within an interval of only three months. But if further someone perhaps holds it also little probable that the things which have now been mentioned were carried out in the space of only one year; I answer that, however this may perhaps be, it is nevertheless altogether necessary that Gerard be determined to have returned to Ghent in the year 946 or at the beginning of the following; and that indeed chiefly for this reason, that Wido, on account of what will be said, was without doubt deposed by Gerard from the office of abbot of Sithiu in the year 947, when he had been promoted to it only in the same year.

[229] [committed the monks of Sithiu to Agilo, and, he having died, instituted as abbot of Sithiu Wido,] I shall lucidly prove the matter when I have narrated more fully the things which pertain to Agilo. To him, according to what has already been said, Gerard, when he returned to Blandin, gave the monastery of Sithiu to rule, although meanwhile he did not create him abbot, as Iperius testifies in the words transcribed here above. But that man could not long discharge the office enjoined on him by Gerard. For he was appointed to it only in the year 946 or at the beginning of the following, as you will easily gather from what has already been said; and that he had already died in the year 947 Iperius teaches in the Chronicle of St. Bertin, both in chap. 24, already cited more than once, and also in chap. 25; and in the former place indeed in these words: The lord abbot Gerard, this monastery (namely of Sithiu) and that of Blandin having been reformed, and St. Agilo having died, instituting his nephew Wido abbot here in the year CMXLVII, himself remained with Count Arnulf; and in the latter in these: Wido, fifteenth (rather twenty-fifth) abbot of this place, nephew of the lord blessed Gerard, a youth regularly brought up by him, blessed Agilo, governor or rector of this (namely Sithiu) monastery under blessed Gerard, having died, was instituted abbot here by blessed Gerard through the promotion of Arnulf, count of Flanders, in the year of the Lord CMXLVII. Agilo, therefore, to whom Gerard had committed the government of the monastery of Sithiu, had, according to Iperius, already departed from the living in the year 947. Nor does this author teach us only this in the words now recited; but also that Wido, Gerard's nephew, was set by the Saint as abbot over the monastery of St. Bertin, or of Sithiu, in that very year. And this indeed seems to have been done with Arnulf, count of Flanders, impelling or even commanding. So surely you will rightly understand the words just transcribed here from the latter passage of Iperius, in which Wido is said to have been made abbot through the promotion of Arnulf.

[230] Moreover, Gerard was not of such esteem for blood whom afterwards, because he did not rightly discharge his office, that he can seem, from consideration of it alone, to have of his own accord set as abbot over the monastery of Sithiu Wido, his nephew, still, according to what will be said, a youth and not equal to governing a monastery aptly and prudently. This is clear from the manner in which he is known afterwards to have dealt with that very Wido, his nephew. He, now set as abbot over the abbey of Sithiu, indulged his inclination with youthful levity, as being in fact still a youth, pursued delights and pleasure, and did not satisfy the office to which he had been appointed. Gerard, the matter having been discovered, deposed Wido, his nephew, absolutely no account being taken of blood, and at length scarcely suffered that Arnulf should set him as abbot over the monastery of St. Bavo at Ghent. Iperius again teaches us these things, immediately subjoining this to the words last transcribed here: Who (Wido, Gerard's nephew), promoted to abbot, being somewhat removed from blessed Gerard, pursued too much the joys of his youth; for which reason he was deposed here by blessed Gerard, and the count could scarcely obtain from blessed Gerard that he would permit him to be promoted to another place, but finally, the count insisting, he was transferred to the abbey of St. Bavo of Ghent; and the government of this place was committed for a time by B. Gerard to Womar, monk of Blandin, in the year of the Lord CML. And Wido ruled the monastery (namely of Sithiu) for scarcely three years. Folcuin the Levite, a monk of Sithiu, almost coeval, as will become plain from his words soon to be transcribed here, with St. Gerard and Wido, also expressly records the deposition of Wido asserted by Iperius, though without any mention made of Gerard, in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers of Gallic affairs, page 216.

[231] But in the year in which this was done they disagree with each other. nay even in the year, as from the words of Folcuin transcribed here For Iperius, in the words now recited, says that Wido presided as abbot over the monastery of Sithiu for scarcely three years, that is, for about three years. Wherefore, since Wido, according to what has been said, was first appointed to the government of that monastery in the year 947, it follows that according to Iperius he was deposed in the year 950; which is also confirmed from this, that that author, in the words last recited, also indicates openly enough that the government of the monastery of Sithiu was, at the time when Wido was deposed, committed by Gerard for a time to Womar, monk of Blandin; and he expressly affirms that this was done in the year 950. It does not appear to be doubted, therefore, that Iperius ties the deposition of Wido to the year 950. But Folcuin the Levite, praised above, joins it not with the year 950 but with the year 947. Which author should further be agreed with here I shall soon say, when I have written out Folcuin's words. These, in Bouquet in the place cited, run thus: In the year DCCCCXLVII … the abbot (namely of Sithiu) Wido, because he pursued too much the joys of vain youth, having been accused before the count (of Flanders, Arnulf), was deprived of the abbey, and was destined abbot to the monastery of St. Bavo. And Womar ruled the monastic government under regular strictness, at which time I myself, Folcwin, writing these things, having been brought hither (to the monastery of Sithiu) by my father Folcwin already mentioned above and my mother Thiedala from the kingdom called that of Hlothar, in the year of the most happy Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ DCCCCXLVIII, on the day of the feast of the elevation of St. Bertin, which follows the feast of All Saints, having been offered to St. Bertin, was made a monk (alas!) in outward appearance.

[232] These things Folcuin, with whom indeed, as regards the year 947 is determined, he brings to order in 947, to which he fixes the deposition of Wido, I would more willingly agree than with Iperius, who, according to what has been said, ties it to the year 950. For Folcuin, as is clear from his words now transcribed here, put on the monk in the monastery of Sithiu about the middle of the tenth century, and was consequently contemporary and almost coeval with Wido, so that he could have the things pertaining to him better examined than Iperius, as being a writer only of the fourteenth century. Yet there will perhaps be someone to whom it appears to be doubted whether, absolutely without any fear of erring, the deposition of Wido can be tied to the year 947 on Folcuin's credit alone. For both he and Iperius (see the words of both transcribed here above) set forth in almost the same words the cause on account of which Wido was deposed. Whence it becomes probable that Folcuin shone before Iperius. Hence further, since nevertheless the latter, contrary to what Folcuin does, fixes the deposition of Wido to the year 950, the suspicion can perhaps arise that he was impelled to do so by some weightier reason than Folcuin's authority is. So it can be argued, so that it may be called into doubt whether the deposition of Wido can be joined with the year 947 absolutely without any danger of error. But since no weightier reason by which Iperius could have been moved seems able to be assigned than Folcuin's authority, on account of this alone I tie the deposition of Wido without doubt to the year 947.

[233] [he commits the monks of Sithiu to Womar to rule for a time, and then causes to be set over them] But let it now suffice to have disputed this concerning the year in which Gerard deposed Wido. I go on to set forth what the Saint then, however absent, accomplished for the benefit of the monastery of Sithiu. Then the Saint, when he deposed Wido, and consequently in the year, as according to what has been said is undoubted, 947, committed the monastery of Sithiu for a time to be governed by Womar, then a monk and afterwards abbot of Blandin. The solicitous and provident Father chose this man of approved virtue for this office, namely so that he, whom he himself had brought into the monastery of Sithiu, might preserve the vigour of monastic discipline. And this indeed was the first thing which the Saint, however absent, did after the deposition of Wido for the benefit of the monastery of Sithiu. But afterwards he instituted as its abbot in the year 950 Hildebrand, a plainly signal man, so that according to Folcuin's reckoning Womar had ruled the monastery of Sithiu for about three years when this happened, but according to Iperius's computation not even an entire year; and which of these authors it is better to agree with here is clear from what has been said. What Iperius furnishes concerning the promotion of Hildebrand I write out: Hildebrand, he says, twenty-sixth abbot of this place (the monastery of St. Bertin), nephew of Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, through whose intervention he was instituted abbot here by blessed Gerard, and consecrated by Witfred, bishop of the Morini, in the year of the Lord CML. A man most prompt for every good, he so ruled and advanced this monastery that in his time he was an example to all round about.

[234] abbots, Hildebrand in the year 950 and Regenold in the year 954. Such and so great a man Gerard instituted abbot of the monastery of Sithiu; and although he seems to have done it not of his own accord but by Arnulf's will, it nevertheless seems to be attributed to him at least in part, because, since Arnulf deferred very much to Gerard's counsels, it is probable that the latter did it with the Saint either readily assenting or perhaps even persuading. Nor did Gerard benefit the monastery of Sithiu only then; but also when,

the praised Hildebrand, after he had ruled the abbey of Sithiu for four years, was employed by Arnulf in the year 954 to reform the monastery of St. Vedast. For then the Saint, since Hildebrand could not conveniently rule the monastery of Arras and that of Sithiu at the same time, set over the latter, Arnulf also persuading it, as abbot Regenold, a monk of Sithiu. For Iperius too expressly testifies this in chap. 26, part 2, in these words: After the lord Hildebrand had ruled this church (of Sithiu, or St. Bertin) for four years, he was destined by his maternal uncle, the aforesaid Count Arnulf, to repair the monastery of St. Vedast, our brethren grieving and protesting lest so pious a father should be taken from them. Arriving there, he excellently fulfilled the office enjoined on him: and because he could not attend to both places at once and conveniently, by the counsel of the count, through blessed Gerard, the lord Regenold, a monk of this place (namely of the monastery of Sithiu), was substituted as abbot here in the year of the Lord CMLIV. For the rest, since I find nothing besides which was done by the Saint for the advantage of the monastery of Sithiu, I proceed to other things.

* destitutum

* "qui" is redundant

* read Tullensis or Tullani

§ XX. Of other monasteries of the dominion of Arnulf, count of Flanders, which are said to have been reformed by Gerard.

[The eighteen monasteries which Gerard is said to have administered, in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders] Our biographer, according to whom at num. 66 Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, gave Gerard all the abbeys of his dominion to administer, writes thus of Gerard at num. 70: Lest we should entirely suppress in taciturn silence the things related to us by our elders, he is related to have been the most watchful manager of eighteen monasteries, the Lord fulfilling what He had promised to His faithful who leave this and that, a hundredfold in this time with persecutions. Gerard, therefore, administered eighteen monasteries, if what was reported in our biographer's age agrees with the truth. But were all these both situated in the dominion of Arnulf, count of Flanders, and were all reformed by Gerard, or recalled to a stricter discipline? Iperius affirms both the one and the other, writing thus in chap. 24, in words still recited above: But the count (of Flanders, Arnulf the Great), devoted to God and the Church, and much attached to holy religion, committed to this most holy man Gerard all the abbeys of his land of this (Benedictine) Order to be reformed, eighteen in number, which, superintending the abbots and their government, he most gloriously reformed, and restored to the norm of regular discipline. With Iperius Meyer here agrees, or rather, after his example, affirms that the eighteen monasteries which the biographer writes that the Saint administered were at the same time reformed by Gerard, and were all situated in the dominion of Arnulf, count of Flanders.

[236] Nor does this writer do only this, but he also enumerates for the most part those monasteries, place, and Iperius and Meyer write that they were all reformed by the Saint. writing thus of Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, both in the Chronicles and in the Annals of Flanders at the year 940: He is said to have reformed through Gerard of Celle XVIII Benedictine monasteries in his principality, of whose number I think were that of Blandin, of Ghent, of Tournai, of Marchiennes, of Hasnon, of Ronse, of Arras, of Torhout, of Wormhout, of St. Riquier, of St. Bertin, of St. Omer, of St. Silvinus, of St. Vulmar, of St. Amand, of St. Bertha and of St. Amatus of Douai. So the praised Meyer: but, says Locrius, after making the same enumeration of the monasteries from Meyer at the year 943, I do not have the eighteenth. And surely Meyer's enumeration presents only seventeen monasteries expressed by name. But what then? Meyer does not affirm that he enumerates all. But, what is of greater moment, it appears to be doubted both whether Gerard reformed all those monasteries, and also whether those which he in fact reformed in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders were eighteen in number. For although Iperius, in the words recited above, expressly relates that the abbeys which Gerard received to administer in the dominion of Arnulf, count of Flanders, were eighteen in number, and that all these were reformed by the Saint, he nevertheless does not disclose the name of each, so that Meyer, before whom Iperius shone, asserts most of the monasteries which he names to have been reformed by Gerard on this foundation alone, that they belonged to the principality of Arnulf of Flanders, and that, according to what has been said, the biographer indeed openly teaches that Gerard received all the abbeys of Arnulf's dominion to manage or administer, while Iperius records that eighteen abbeys which were situated in Arnulf's principality were reformed by the Saint.

[237] But whether he reformed all which Meyer enumerates is doubtful. But Iperius, being, according to what has been said, a writer only of the fourteenth century, and consequently more remote from Gerard's age, in no way makes certain and undoubted on his credit alone what and how many monasteries of Arnulf's dominion the Saint reformed, nor does he allege any ancient monument from which he learned it. He had indeed our biographer shining before him; but the latter does not seem to teach what Iperius relates. For although at num. 66 he writes that Arnulf gave Gerard all the abbeys of his dominion to administer, he does not disclose either that these were eighteen in number, or that all were reformed by the Saint. Moreover, although at num. 70 he also expressly declares that Gerard was the manager of eighteen monasteries, he in no way indicates that all these were situated in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders. Therefore, since nothing sufficiently certain occurs from elsewhere either by which it can in any way be determined how many and what monasteries Gerard reformed in Count Arnulf's principality, it surely appears to be doubted both whether Gerard reformed all those monasteries of Arnulf's dominion which Meyer enumerates in the words recited above, and also whether those which he in fact reformed there were eighteen in number. And indeed, that it may become more lucidly plain how doubtful it is whether Gerard reformed all the monasteries enumerated by Meyer, it pleases me now to discuss a few things about each by name.

[238] For that the Saint reformed that of Marchiennes, Molanus at this day in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium records thus: He (Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders), having known the probity and religion of the holy Man (namely Gerard), committed to him the management of all the abbeys which were contained in his dominion. And he (namely Gerard) laboured chiefly in the monasteries of St. Bertin, of Bavo, of Peter at Blandin and of blessed Rictrude. Gerard, therefore, as Molanus seems to mean by these words, laboured very much in reforming these four monasteries, namely that of St. Bertin or Sithiu, of Blandin, of St. Bavo, and of St. Rictrude or Marchiennes. And surely that the Saint spent diligent work in reforming the three former becomes altogether undoubted from what has already been disputed. But it is far from being held equally ascertained of the monastery of St. Rictrude or Marchiennes. For I have been able to find no writer or monument ancient enough in which express mention occurs of the monastery of Marchiennes reformed by Gerard. Of this monastery of the Benedictine Order, however, which is situated on the river Scarpe and is three leagues distant from Douai, the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 394, relate these things: In this, as in almost all the monasteries of Flanders, the domestic order had grown very lukewarm about the middle of the X century, to reform which Count Arnulf invited B. Gerard, abbot of Brogne. So they: but they praise no ancient writer for themselves, nor do I think that they drew it from an author or source that was older than Meyer or Iperius. Therefore that the Saint reformed the monastery of Marchiennes cannot be held for certain; it appears probable, however, for this reason, that Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, caused not a few monasteries of his dominion, to which that of Marchiennes also belonged, to be reformed through Gerard, as is admitted among all, and cannot deservedly be called into doubt.

[239] The same seems to be said of three other monasteries enumerated above by Meyer, that of Elnone, of Ronse namely that of Elnone, that of Rotnacum or Ronse, and that of St. Amatus. And of that of Elnone indeed, which is also called the monastery of St. Amand, and which is situated about three leagues from the city of Tournai on the river Elnon, the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 258, record these things: Rotger presided (over the monastery of Elnone) at least up to the second year of Louis d'Outremer, that is, CMXXXVII according to Mabillon, who deservedly convicts of falsity the statement that, Rotger having died, the abbey was vacant for more than twenty years. Nay, perhaps it was in no way vacant, but Gerard of Brogne was at once summoned to form it. And certainly the monastery of St. Amand is counted among those eighteen (namely by Meyer and other more recent writers) which the pious Father, Count Arnulf willing it, recalled to a better state; and afterwards by his counsel, and that of the abbots Hildebrand and Berner, and especially of the bishops Fulbert of Cambrai and Radulf of Noyon, Leudric was constituted abbot: and of that of Rotnacum, which formerly stood built in the town of the same name, beyond the Scheldt, two and a half miles from Oudenaarde and four from Geraardsbergen, these things, in vol. 5, col. 29: It was destroyed by the Normans about the year 880; but Arnulf, count of Flanders, son of Baldwin the Bald, brought it back to its former state about the middle of the following century. So the praised writers, and if they record true things it does not seem to be doubted that Gerard reformed the two said monasteries. But since they praise no ancient monument for themselves, I think it probable indeed, on account of what was said in the preceding num., that the Saint did this; but not certain.

[240] As now regards the monastery of St. Amatus, and of St. Amatus appears only probable; it had been built as a monastery in the seventh century by St. Rictrude, wife of Adalbald, a noble Frank, and by his son St. Maurontus, at Broyl, which today is a town of West Flanders, called in Flemish Mergem, in French Merville, in Latin Mauronti Villa. But its monks, when the Normans frequently broke into Flanders in the IX century, betook themselves to Douai together with the body of St. Amatus, which they had under their custody, and, having then obtained the faculty of remaining at Douai permanently, St. Amatus gave his name to the monastery of the Benedictine Order which they then founded there, because the body of this Saint had been translated into it. Further, the same monastery was afterwards in the XI century converted into a college of secular canons, likewise under the name of St. Amatus. Consult the Supplement to the Diplomas of Miraeus, and this writer's Treatise on the Colleges of canons, chap. 50. Therefore, since, according to what has been said, the monks of Broyl, when the Normans frequently broke into Flanders in the IX century, built the monastery of St. Amatus of the Benedictine Order at Douai, and secular canons were only introduced into it in the XI century, it becomes probable that Benedictine monks still occupied it in the X century. Wherefore it also appears probable that these were then reformed by Gerard; yet it is not certain, for this reason, that it rests on the authority of no ancient monument.

[241] but that he reformed that of Tournai And so indeed we now have four monasteries which Meyer counts among those reformed by Gerard, and of which it appears to be doubted whether they were in fact reformed by the Saint. I proceed now to six others, namely that of St. Martin of Tournai, that of Arras

of St. Vedast, that of Torhout, that of Wormhout, that of St. Omer and that of Auchy. It appears more probable that these six monasteries were not reformed by Gerard. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 272, relate these things concerning the monastery of St. Martin of Tournai: The Benedictine monastery of St. Martin, situated on a hill outside the Southern gate of the city of Tournai, acknowledges as its parent St. Eligius, bishop of Tournai, in the year DCLII, in which he placed monks under the Rule of blessed Columbanus, says Le Cointe, in the church of St. Martin built by him two years before. About the year 880 it is devastated by the Normans, and then the fugitive monks, carrying with them the old documents and charters, betook themselves to the monastery of Ferrières; nor does it anywhere appear that they returned from there, nay the contrary is well inferred from the deep silence. We know indeed that the renewal of this monastery was thought of by Count Arnulf, nay that it is counted among those which Gerard, abbot of Brogne, reformed; but it is almost established that this, being too arduous, lacked its effect, and that the monastery lay in its ruins, except the little church of St. Martin, up to the year 1092 *, in which Ratbod, bishop of Noyon and Tournai, prepared this place for Odo, a man most excellent in learning, meditating flight from the world with some companions and seeking retirement.

[242] that of St. Martin, that of Arras Thus far the mentioned writers, who, in order to win credit for their statements, then praise the twelfth volume of d'Achery's Spicilegium. Since, therefore, what they write to our purpose concerning the monastery of St. Martin of Tournai agrees, as appears, with the truth, it is most probable, nay almost certain and undoubted, that that monastery was not reformed by our Saint. And by the same reasoning it also appears almost certain that the monastery of St. Vedast at Arras was likewise not reformed by Gerard. For Iperius, chap. 26, part 2, in words still recited above, writes thus: After the lord Hildebrand had ruled this church for four years, he was destined by his maternal uncle, the aforesaid Count Arnulf, to repair the monastery of St. Vedast, our brethren grieving and protesting lest so pious a father should be taken from them. Arriving there, he excellently fulfilled the office enjoined on him, and because he could not attend to both places at once and conveniently, by the counsel of the count, through blessed Gerard, the lord Regenold, a monk of this place, was substituted as abbot here (in the monastery of Sithiu) in the year of the Lord CMLIV. The monastery of St. Vedast at Arras, therefore, not Gerard but Hildebrand, nephew of Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, repaired, or rather reformed. For although Iperius writes that Hildebrand did not reform it but only repaired it, he nevertheless seems to wish the same thing to be signified by the word repair as by the word reform.

[243] I think so because the Chronicle of St. Vedast, in Locrius at the year 954, expressly relates of St. Vedast, that Hildebrand endeavoured to recall the monastery of St. Vedast at Arras to the virtues which adorned monasticism in the first times. Here are the words: Hildebrand, nephew of Arnulf, count of Flanders, formerly abbot of St. Bertin, about the year of restored salvation and grace DCCCCLIV was appointed by his maternal uncle to the government (of the monastery of St. Vedast), a man, as the monks of St. Bertin write, most prompt for every good, and for this reason set over the monks of St. Vedast, that he might recall the religious to those virtues which adorned monasticism in the first times. Which he did for about eight years, it is not known whether with success answering to his wishes; then, as some would have it, driven out of this monastery; then, as the same monks of St. Bertin testify, recalled by Arnulf the Old to preside again over their monastery. Hildebrand, therefore, nephew of Arnulf, count of Flanders, according both to Iperius and also to the Chronicle of St. Vedast, received the monastery of St. Vedast at Arras to be reformed. And this indeed happened in the year 954, so that it is not probable that the reform of this monastery is to be attributed to Gerard, since by those who attribute it to the Saint it is thought to be fixed to him about the same year 954. Therefore I think indeed that it was done by Gerard's counsel that Hildebrand, Arnulf commanding or managing it, received the monastery of Arras to be reformed, but I would not easily bring myself to think that the Saint reformed it by himself, all the ancient documents being silent, nay almost protesting.

[244] Almost the same judgment stands concerning the monasteries of Torhout and Wormhout. that of Torhout, that of Wormhout, Of the monastery of Torhout Miraeus, in his Treatise on the Colleges of Canons, chap. 82, writes thus: Torholtum or Torhautum is a most ancient town of Flanders, or municipality once most famous in repute as a market, situated at the fourth milestone from Bruges of the Flemings. There was in this town of old a notable and opulent monastery of Benedictines; from which I read that Dominium or Domlinus, a most religious priest, came about the year 630 (rather, as you will understand from the preceding volume of our Work under St. Bavo, about the year 654) to Ghent to St. Bavo a little before his death; and then, some things interposed: Today no trace of the monastery survives at Torhout; since it is established that it was destroyed long ago by the Normans. And there is now at Torhout a notable college of canons in the basilica of St. Peter, instituted by Robert the Frisian, count of Flanders, in the year MLXXIII, as Meyer and Marchantius testify. So Miraeus in the place cited, and since he brings forward no other cause on account of which no trace any longer survives at Torhout of the Benedictine monastery, once so celebrated, than the destruction inflicted on it by the Normans, it seems to follow that the said monastery was never restored after the disaster received from the Normans in the IX century, and consequently that in the X century, as being already then destitute of inhabitants, it was more probably not reformed or recalled to holier ways by Gerard. As now regards the monastery of Wormhout, it was likewise in the IX century, like almost all the other monasteries of Flanders, overthrown by the Normans, nor was it ever afterwards, as you will easily gather from Miraeus on the Origins of the Belgian monasteries, restored, and consequently it does not seem to have been reformed by Gerard either, or recalled to the primitive discipline of the monastic rule. Consult also the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 5, col. 325 and 332, and you will hold the matter, as far as I think, for almost undoubted.

[245] that of St. Omer Nor does anything else seem to be said of the monastery of St. Omer, which Meyer, in the words recited above, likewise counts among the monasteries reformed by Gerard. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 485, first set forth how the old monastery of Sithiu was founded, and not very long after the new, and soon subjoin: But besides these two basilicas, Bishop Audomar had built another on a neighbouring hill under the patronage of B. Mary for his own and the monks' burial in the year DCXLVIII, which about the year DCLX he gave to Abbot Bertin; and in it afterwards about forty monks were instituted, whom Fridogisus, a secular abbot, converted into secular canons in the IX century, and that basilica itself was at length raised into the cathedral church of Saint-Omer. That church, founded by St. Audomar, in which there were forty monks, I suppose was called the monastery of St. Omer, and that nothing other than this is understood by the monastery of St. Omer which Meyer counts among the monasteries reformed by Gerard. But did it really receive reform from the Saint? That monastery of St. Omer at Saint-Omer, as the praised writers teach in the words recited, was converted into a college of secular canons in the IX century. Hence further it becomes almost certain and undoubted that it was not reformed by Gerard, since he reformed monasteries only in the X century, unless perhaps, which however appears less probable, someone should also wish that the very secular canons in the dominions of Arnulf of Flanders were recalled by Gerard to a stricter norm of living. I proceed now to the monastery of St. Silvinus at Auchy.

[246] and that of Auchy, This house of the Order of St. Benedict is situated not far from Hesdin, a town of Artois, on the bank of the river Ternoise, which flows into the Canche. It received the same disaster as almost all the other monasteries of France and Flanders, being levelled to the ground by the Normans in the IX century. But was it not afterwards restored in the X century, and recalled by Gerard to the primitive and rigid discipline of the Benedictine institute? Our Bolland at the XVII day of February, in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Silvinus, bishop, num. 30, writes thus: Rollo, duke of the Normans, having embraced the Christian faith, there was peace for the Gallic and Belgian churches and monasteries. What was thereafter the fortune of Auchy up to the year MLXXII is not altogether ascertained by us. Jacob Meyer, book 2 of the Annals of Flanders, at the year DCCCCXL, thinks that among the Benedictine monasteries which St. Gerard, abbot, reformed in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders was also that of St. Silvinus. This is not sufficiently proved to us. We rather suspect that there, in place of the nuns who had before held the place and had been completely dispersed, clerics, as elsewhere, were first placed, then monks substituted for them, until at length in the year MLXXII Heribert, abbot of St. Bertin, constituted an abbot of Auchy. And that an abbot of Auchy was at last constituted in the year 1072 by Heribert, abbot of St. Bertin, Iperius, himself also abbot of St. Bertin, teaches in the Chronicle.

[247] The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana do not much differ from Bolland here. which up to the year 1072, as here For in vol. 10, col. 1598, they write thus of the monastery of St. Silvinus at Auchy: That it was first indeed restored (namely after it had been overthrown by the Normans) by Gerard, abbot of Brogne, with Count Arnulf persuading and helping, who also translated the body of St. Silvinus to the monastery of St. Bertin, Meyer testifies in the Annals at about the year 950; but no mention anywhere is made either of abbots or of the monastery itself up to the year 1072. More certainly, therefore, from this year is to be taken the restoration of this place made by Ingelram, count of Hesdin, before which, however, the count's epitaph seems to hint another: "Here lies Count Ingelram, who restored this church of Auchy, destroyed by the army of Wermond and Isambard, in the year of the incarnate Word MLXXII." So indeed, rightly enough, the praised writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana hint that they doubt whether Gerard restored the monastery of Auchy. But what they say, that another restoration of the monastery of Auchy seems to be hinted by Count Ingelram's epitaph, which was earlier than the restoration made by Ingelram, and which, as they sufficiently indicate, raised the monastery of Auchy from the disaster received through the Normans, seems to me certainly foreign to the truth. For Wermond and Isambard, by whose army the church of Auchy is hinted in Ingelram's epitaph to have been destroyed, flourished in the IX century, and then, an irruption having been made with the army of the Normans into Gaul or Francia, wrought various disasters and destroyed monasteries. Isambard, or, as others write, Isembard, was nephew of Louis the third, king of the Franks, begotten by Louis, likewise king of the Franks. He, driven out of the kingdom by his uncle the king, fled to Wermond, or, as others write, Gnormund, or even Guormund, king of the Normans, and then by his help inflicted many and grievous disasters on the kingdom of the Franks.

[248] In Bouquet, vol. 9 of the writers

of Gallic affairs, from page 57 to 67, there is extant a Chronicle with the Chronicle of Alberic supporting, which is circulated under the name of Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines; in it I find these things committed to writing on page 58, which are attributed to Guy, chronographer of Châlons: Isembard, a youth of exceptional probity and military skill, his (namely Louis III's, king of the Franks) nephew, was the occasion through which he (Louis III, king of the Franks) was compelled to undergo the setting of his life before the noon of his age and magnificence. For he, when through the wicked counsels of flatterers he had incurred the offence of the king his uncle, which he had not deserved, having been driven from the kingdom not by right but by injury, and compelled to flee to King Gnormund while he was still a pagan, was bound to him by so close a bond of familiarity and friendship that, for love of him, in order to demand vengeance on his uncle, with innumerable thousands of armed men, and with Normans and Danes, still heathens, joined to him, having depopulated England, he crossed over into Francia, and devastated the region adjacent to the British sea; and there, with many other things, he burned the village of Centula, the royal and ancient and noble monastery of St. Riquier. This having been learned, the magnanimous king of France, Louis, with the powerful valour of the Franks, not sluggishly met the impious ones and engaged them, cut off a great multitude of them, and compelled the rest to flee. In which conflict, because he was grievously afflicted by too great labour in whirling his lightning blows, he lost his vigour and fell into a languor, by which, as if broken in his youth, he was snatched from life, and Carloman his brother reigned.

[249] lay in ruins, as is proved, it seems more probable that he did not reform, Louis III, king of the Franks, who in the year 879 had succeeded his father Louis the Stammerer in the kingdom, fought in the year 881 with the Normans breaking into Francia, and in the following year departed from the living, as Pagi in the Critica at the year 882, num. 16, lucidly proves from various ancient writers whose testimonies he brings forward. Since, therefore, as the Chronicle of Alberic testifies in the words now recited, Isambard and Guormund broke into Francia at the time when Louis III, king of the Franks, ruled over the Franks, they certainly did this either in the year 879 or in one or the other of the two following, or perhaps even in each of the three. Wherefore, since in Ingelram's epitaph praised above the discourse does not seem to be of another Isambard and another Gnormund than of the Gnormund and Isambard mentioned in Alberic's Chronicle, it is necessary that in the same praised epitaph, by the restoration by which the monastery of Auchy is said to have been raised by Ingelram, no other restoration be designated than that which was made next after the Norman disaster, and consequently that no restoration be at the same time indicated which was earlier than the restoration made by Ingelram. Now, since from what has now been said that monastery was first restored in the year 1072 from the disaster which it received from the Normans in the IX century, it follows that in the X century, as then still lying in ruins, it was probably not reformed by Gerard or recalled to the exact norm of living according to the Benedictine institute. Therefore it appears more probable that all the six monasteries last mentioned, namely that of St. Martin of Tournai, of St. Vedast of Arras, of Torhout, of Wormhout, of St. Omer and of Auchy, were not reformed by Gerard.

[250] and the same perhaps of that of St. Bertha, Further, the same perhaps ought also to be said of the four remaining monasteries, namely those of St. Riquier, St. Bertha, St. Vulmar and Hasnon, the reform of which Meyer likewise attributes to Gerard. The matter will become plain from what I am now about to say of each of these. I begin from the monasteries of St. Bertha and St. Vulmar. The monastery of St. Bertha, so called because it was built by Bertha, a noble matron who merited the honours of the Saints, is also called by another name that of Blangy, because it is placed in the district of Blanziacum or Blangiacum of the territory of Thérouanne, not far from Hesdin, beside the river Ternoise. Of this monastery the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 10, col. 1589, record these things: The monastery having been reduced to ashes in the storm of the Normans, the nuns, wandering, fled with the relics of their patroness (St. Bertha) into Germany, being most kindly received in hospitality in the nunnery of Herstal by Rotrude, abbess of the place; and the nunnery of Blangy was inhabited by a few up to the XI century, in which, after the body of St. Bertha had been brought back to Blangy by two clerics, the monastery having been restored by Hersende, a woman noble as well as pious, Benedictine monks were instituted there, and the estates which had been occupied by invaders were restored. Since, therefore, after the departure of the nuns of Blangy, which took place in the storm of the Normans and consequently in the IX century or at the beginning of the X, clerics occupied the monastery of Blangy up to the XI century, it seems to follow that it was not reformed by St. Gerard in the X century, unless perhaps someone should wish that the very clerics who then occupied it were recalled to a holier norm of life; which perhaps, since the Saint, according to what has been said, received all the abbeys of the dominion of Arnulf, count of Flanders, to administer, will seem to some like enough to the truth.

[251] The monastery of St. Vulmar, which is so called from its founder, of St. Vulmar, is situated three French miles from the city of Boulogne in a township which is called by more recent writers Salmerium, originally named Silviacum. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, also in the volume just cited, col. 1593, record these things of that monastery of St. Vulmar or Silviacum: The monastery of Silviacum, enriched by the cares of Vulmar and the wealth of nobles, had flourished for about three hundred years in the praise of sanctity, when, the Normans emerging, Hernequin or Alfonso, count of the men of Boulogne, grandson of Baldwin of Flanders, being count, the city of Boulogne was taken, and the monks, slain or put to flight, thereafter left the place empty for clerics. When Hugh was inaugurating the French kingdom, a serener light shone upon the monks of St. Vulmar, and the monks recovered their former seats. Hugh Capet, of whom there is discourse here, began to reign in France in the year 987, as is agreed among the learned, and consequently, since only then did the monks, who in the storm of the Normans, that is, in the IX century or at the beginning of the following, had by their flight left the monastery of Silviacum or of St. Vulmar empty for clerics, recover their former seats, there were probably not yet monks in that monastery at the time when Gerard in the X century reformed various monasteries in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders, and so he also did not reform that monastery, unless perhaps someone should wish that the clerics who then still occupied it were also then recalled by the Saint to a stricter and holier norm of living.

[252] As now regards the monastery of St. Riquier and that of Hasnon, the same is to be said of the monasteries of St. Riquier and Hasnon: of the former indeed, which was originally called that of Centula, and which is distant four or five miles from Abbeville towards the North, absolutely nothing occurs from which it appears that it was reformed by Gerard, so that it is perhaps more probable that it was not reformed by the Saint: but of the latter, or the monastery of Hasnon of the Benedictine Order, which is situated on the right bank of the Scarpe, between Marchiennes and the town of Saint-Amand, at the third milestone from Valenciennes, the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 3, col. 400, record these things: The Normans devastated this place (in the year 880). And Locrius relates that it was reformed for the better about the middle of the X century, chiefly by the care of Count Arnulf; and the Life of B. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, edited in the V Benedictine century, page 249, ascribes this to the same Gerard; but either this pious work was not carried through to its effect, or it did not last long. That it was not carried through to its effect I suppose almost certain. For that monastery, after it had been overthrown by the Normans in the year, according to what has been said, 880, fed, in place of the monks and nuns whom it had before fed, a few (so the praised writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, in the cited volume, col. 399) canons or secular clerics, until Baldwin VI of Mons restored it, Philip, king of the Franks, assenting, monks being restored there in the year MLXV, as is clear from their charters.

[253] Since, therefore, this monastery, after the disaster received from the Normans up to the year 1065, fed only a few clerics, it appears probable that it too was not reformed by Gerard, unless perhaps those clerics were recalled by him to a holier norm of living. Yet the Saint, in those which he reformed, Therefore, all things having been weighed in an even balance, there are surely very few, nay, if you except those of St. Bavo, Blandin and Sithiu, there is scarcely any monastery to be found in the dominions which belonged to Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, which was certainly and without doubt reformed by Gerard, although meanwhile it is most probable that the Saint had the care and administration of many, nay even attempted their reform. And indeed the biographer nowhere declares that many monasteries were reformed by our Saint in Arnulf's dominions. Hence I think indeed that Gerard watched over the benefit and advantage of all the abbeys which were under the principality of Arnulf of Flanders, and this whether they were held by clerics or by monks; but that he found few of them which were fit for the reform which he was meditating. But although the Saint probably did not reform as many monasteries in the principality of Arnulf of Flanders as Meyer records, he nevertheless laboured most untiringly to inflame many, whether monks or clerics, with love of the heavenly fatherland, nor, among the monks at least, was his labour without fruit, if credit is to be given to our biographer.

[254] produced most abundant fruits. For at num. 71 he writes thus of Gerard: So great … a fervour for gathering souls for God had kindled him, that he bore the solicitude of the monasteries in such a way that, running about through the dwellings of each, he roused the hearts of his hearers to the love of the heavenly fatherland. Sweating in which happy exercise, he drew the goodwill of many to his familiarity. For from various parts of the places the monastic Order flowed together to him for the sake of edification, thirsting to imitate with all the efforts of their strength the chaste and imitable acts of so great a Man. You would see bees, as it were from different hives, flying together to this flower-bearing tree, that thence they might instil into their dry honeycombs the nectar of honey-flowing dew. Whom he, receiving them with a kindly and grateful mind, and abundantly refreshing them with the food of the monastic norm, rendered of disciples fit teachers, of the more perfect most perfect doctors. Some departed instructed in morals and religion, others nevertheless came to be instructed. For he was unceasingly fragrant, as it were, with a wonderful odour of virtues, and, opening the fountain of the Scriptures, watered the dry meadows of minds. So he took care to communicate the pigment of the divine word, with whose vital sweetness he was fragrant, to the need of the brethren languishing within, so that, chewing it as they passed it through with savoury rumination, they might recover from every infirmity of vices, and by tasting might merit to consider how sweet the Lord is to those who hope in Him. Thus the Saint laboured assiduously for the benefit of the monasteries which he had committed to his care, and at the same time reaped most abundant fruits from his labour.

* others 1091

§ XXI. He redeems the monastery of Brogne from the monks of St. Denis, hands it over, when redeemed, to the church of Liège, and enriches it with many relics of the Saints brought from Ghent and elsewhere.

The monastery of Brogne, from the monks of St. Denis, Although Gerard, of the monastery of Blandin and of the others

monasteries, according to what has been said, diligently managed the advantage both spiritual and also temporal, he was not so detained by this care that he did not also think of the monastery of Brogne, which he had founded and endowed. This house, although it was situated within the borders of Lotharingia or of the Lotharian kingdom, was at the time when Gerard flourished subject to the dominion of the kings of the Franks. Moreover the Saint, when he put on the monk in the Frankish monastery of St. Denis, had handed it over to the monks of St. Denis, or subjected it to their dominion and government. Hence, when wars arose between the Franks and the Lotharians or Lotharingians, it was exposed to the vexation and plundering of the latter, as being both of Frankish dominion and belonging to Frankish men, nor could it receive any protection from the Franks, as being too remote from them. The Saint, therefore, from the plainly fatherly affection with which he embraced that monastery, resolved to meet this evil. Although of the gifts which Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, healed of the disease of the stone through the Saint's merits, had offered him, he had, as has been said, accepted only a few, and had retained nothing of them for himself, he nevertheless possessed not a few means which he had afterwards likewise received from Arnulf. With these he redeems his monastery of Brogne from the dominion of the monks of St. Denis, to whom he goes for the sake of this matter, so that thus, as being no longer to be possessed by Frankish men, he might render it immune from the vexations of the Lotharians or Lotharingians. And in order to obtain this the more surely, he further hands over the same house to the church of St. Lambert of Liège, and commends it to the protection of Farabert, bishop of the men of Liège.

[256] The biographer writes thus at num. 73: By such and so great a storm of disquiet (of the war between the Franks and the Lotharingians) [he redeems it, as the biographer relates, and commends it to the bishop of Liège:] the commonwealth was then being agitated, which after a little the anchor of divine regard, by its inborn goodness, made firm. Compelled, therefore, by this necessity, the lord abbot Gerard, of holy memory, eagerly went to the Catulliacan abbey of blessed Denis (so he calls the monastery of St. Denis, for a cause to be given in the Annotations), redeeming that of Brogne from those serving God there out of the bounty which Count Arnulf had paid out to him. For he feared with no moderate anxiety lest it should succumb to destruction under the whirlwind of so many evils, especially since, remote from the borders of Merovingia (so he names Francia), to which it belonged at that time, it is situated in the middle of Lotharingia; and, handing it over without delay to the greater church of blessed Lantbert, as lying within the parish of Liège, he commended it to the protection of the lord Farabert, then pontiff, formerly abbot of Prüm: by which he surely teaches most openly the chief things which I have already said: namely that St. Gerard both redeemed from the monks of St. Denis the monastery of Brogne which he had founded, and handed it over to the church of St. Lantbert of Liège. And although again he does not mark the year in which this was done, he nevertheless here furnishes the things from which you may in some manner determine it, at least in a broader way. For from what he records in the words now recited, it follows that the Saint did this in the year 947 or another of the six following. For Gerard, as he openly indicates, gave the monastery of Brogne to the church of Liège at once at the time when he redeemed it from the dominion of the monks of St. Denis, and at the same time committed it to Farabert's protection; and Farabert governed the church of Liège from the year 947 up to the year 953, as Giles, monk of Orval, teaches in his Additions to Anselm, vol. 1, chap. 44.

[257] and that indeed without doubt in the year 947 or some one of the six following; And this indeed seems undoubted. For although the praised Giles, in the things which he commits to writing, is very often detected straying from the truth, he nevertheless most rightly ties Farabert's promotion to the see of Liège to the aforesaid year 947, and his death to the year 953. For he has two Chronicles supporting him in this matter, namely that of Liège and that of Lobbes; of which the first indeed, published in print by Labbe in vol. 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, writes thus at page 336: DCCCCXLVII. Bishop Ubogo died, Farabert succeeds; and then, a few things interposed: DCCCCLIII. Bishop Farabert died, Rather succeeds: and the other, which is extant inserted in vol. 3 of the Anecdota in Martène, and which this writer declares in the preliminary Admonition to be of the highest credit, records thus at col. 1415: DCCCCXLVII. Bishop Huogo died, Farabert succeeds. DCCCCLIII. Bishop Farabert died and Rather succeeds. It is therefore not to be doubted that Farabert presided over the church of Liège from the year 947 up to the year 953, and consequently, since Gerard, as the biographer clearly insinuates in the words recited above, redeemed the monastery of Brogne from the monks of St. Denis at the time when Farabert presided over the church of Liège, and commended it to Farabert, it is likewise not to be doubted that the Saint did this either in the year 947, or in some one of the six following. But, you will say, can the time of this thing done by Gerard not be determined even more nearly?

[258] [but more probably, as is proved from the circumstances of the war mentioned by the biographer] The biographer immediately premises this to the words transcribed here above: At this same time (so he speaks, after he has made discourse about the prefecture of the monastery of Sithiu committed to the Saint) there arose a disturbance of no small war between the magnates of Austria and Neustria, which, our sins requiring it, so blazed up everywhere that not only were the affairs of the commonwealth imperilled, but also the least reverence was shown to the holy Church of God. But whence such a quarrel arose, if you wish to know clearly, let the Chronography of the earlier men disclose. There were made, therefore, slaughters of men, widowhoods of women, bereavements of parents, burnings of cities, captivities of peoples, breakings of forecourts, desolations of churches. Who could compare the plunderings and ruins of townships? Who the very frequent cavalcades on this side and that? Or who could touch upon the blood-vomiting battles? The Saint, therefore, the monastery of Brogne, redeemed from the monks of St. Denis, to the protection of Farabert, bishop of Liège, at the time when the war, which peace shortly followed, was blazing between the Neustrians and the Austrasians or Lotharingians. If, therefore, the time can be found in which a war of this kind flared up between the Neustrians and the Austrasians while Farabert governed the church of Liège, the time at the same time in which Gerard redeemed the monastery of Brogne and committed it to Farabert's protection will be held ascertained.

[259] Frodoard in his Chronicle at the year 950 writes thus: and of the peace which shortly followed it, King (of France) Louis (d'Outremer) sets out to King Otto (the Great, king of Germany and of Lotharingia) across the Moselle, seeking counsel and help from him about making peace between himself and Hugh: who promises that he will send him Duke Conrad with the Lotharingians to carry it out. Which duke, coming with certain bishops and counts, spoke with Hugh (the discourse here is about Hugh the Great, son of Odo, king of the Franks) about concluding peace: and what he found with him he reported to King Louis. And so he returns to Otto, having left with Louis certain counts to signify the king's will to Hugh. Therefore King Louis and Prince Hugh come with their people to the river Marne to make peace. And these sitting on one side of the river, those on the other, they send legates to one another; and, Duke Conrad, Hugh the Black, and also the bishops Adalbero and Fulbert mediating and acting as intermediaries, Hugh comes to the king, and becomes his man; and is pacified with Count Arnulf and Ragenold and Archbishop Artald; restoring to him the tower of Laon. I think that our biographer, in the words recited above, is discoursing of this peace concluded in the year 950, as Frodoard here teaches, between Louis d'Outremer and Hugh the Great. For the peace which he mentions here followed a war waged between the Neustrians and the Austrasians; and the peace which Frodoard relates was concluded in the year 950 between Louis d'Outremer and Hugh the Great was preceded by a bloody war, in which the Lotharingians or Austrasians, by order of Otto the Great, king of Lotharingia and Germany, had stood on the side of Louis d'Outremer, and in the year 948 and the following had borne arms against the Neustrians rebelling against this king, as Frodoard teaches in his Chronicle.

[260] However that may be, the peace which the biographer mentions followed, or came after, a war he did it in the year 948 or the following; which was waged between the Neustrians and the Austrasians at the time when Farabert governed the church of Liège, and consequently in the year, according to what has been said, 947 or some one of the six following, as will become manifest to one who considers the words of the biographer transcribed here above. Wherefore, since the ancient writers make no mention of any other war than that recorded by Frodoard which flared up then between the Neustrians and the Austrasians, our biographer probably makes discourse neither of any other turmoil of war, nor of any other peace following it, than that of which Frodoard speaks in the words recited. Now, since Gerard, at the time when the war recorded by the biographer was being waged, or when the commonwealth (see the biographer's words recited at num. 256) was being agitated by that storm of disquiet which after a little the anchor of divine regard, by its inborn goodness, made firm, that is, which shortly after peace followed, since, I say, Gerard at that time redeemed the monastery of Brogne from the dominion of the monks of St. Denis and committed it to the protection of Farabert, bishop of Liège, it follows that the Saint more probably did this either in the year 948 or the following; for then, according to what has been said, both the war recorded by the biographer was waged between the Neustrians and the Austrasians, and the desired peace followed it shortly after, namely in the year 950. And so, from what has just been disputed, it is certain indeed that Gerard redeemed from the monks of St. Denis the monastery of Brogne which he had built and endowed, in the year 947 or another of the six following, and at the same time committed it to the protection of Farabert, bishop of Liège; but more probable that he did this either in the year 948 or the following. Let us now discuss with what relics of the Saints, sought out elsewhere than from the monastery of St. Denis, Gerard enriched the monastery of Brogne.

[261] [further the same monastery with relics of St. Bavo, received not before the year 940,] I begin from the relics which he received from the monastery of St. Bavo. The lord Gérard Souris, already praised more than once, in the Catalogue of the relics with which St. Gerard enriched Brogne, has thus: From the body of St. Bavo, confessor, and from the pall in which he was wrapped. A portion of the body of St. Bavo, therefore, constitutes part of the sacred treasure of relics which Brogne possesses through Gerard's care; and that Gerard received this from the monastery of St. Bavo I suppose for this reason, that he both ruled that monastery as abbot and translated the body of St. Bavo thither, a particle of it being also afterwards granted to Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, as you will find proved in our preceding volume in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, num. 58 and the two following. But, you will say, about what year did the Saint enrich Brogne with relics received from the body of St. Bavo? That this was done before the year 940 I certainly do not think. For in this year the body of St. Bavo, which, according to what has been said, had been brought back from the Gauls to Ghent about three years before, was first translated into the restored monastery of St. Bavo in the year 940. Moreover, that sacred pledge, when this happened, was still with the same seals both entire and unharmed

fortified with which it had once been when, about ninety years before, it was carried into the Gauls for fear of the Normans; and consequently, since, these being unharmed, according to what was said in the Posthumous Glory of St. Bavo in the place just cited, particles of the body of St. Bavo could not be taken from the case in which it was enclosed, Gerard certainly did not receive from it before the year 940 a portion with which to enrich Brogne: but in what definite year he afterwards did this I cannot state for certain; yet I think that the Saint did this too not long after the year 947, for this reason, that about that time he abdicated the abbey of St. Bavo, as I shall teach below.

[262] [and likewise with various sacred relics from the monastery of Blandin, namely of Peter, of Wandrille,] I now set forth what sacred remains of the Saints the Saint likewise transferred from the monastery of Blandin to that of Brogne. Our biographer writes thus at num. 70: But with how great grace of joy and exultation he (St. Gerard) translated the bodies of the saints mentioned above, Wandrille, Ansbert and Wulfram (an error lies here, already noted), bringing them back from the city of Boulogne to his own place, the narrowness of our narrative shrinks from confining, especially since the whole province of Flanders attests that very thing to this day. But neither is the church of Brogne held to be without part and immune from these relics. For besides other things there was carried thither from Ghent an arm of the same blessed abbot Wandrille, and also, what is chief, inestimable pledges of the primate of the Apostles. Gerard, therefore, as the biographer testifies, besides the other sacred pledges of the Saints which he carried to Brogne, transferred thither from Ghent the sacred arm of St. Wandrille together with relics of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles. Nor did the Saint carry from Ghent to Brogne only the sacred arm of St. Wandrille, but also some other particles from his sacred body. For Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 126 and following, counting among the relics preserved in the monastery of Brogne The arm of St. Wandrille, first abbot and founder of Fontenelle, carried by blessed Gerard from the monastery of St. Peter of Blandin, subjoins: Likewise of the same (namely St. Wandrille) a large part of the head, together with one tooth and two fingers of the hands and some of his hairs. Likewise of his chasuble, in which he offered the sacrifice of the Mass to God the Father, of his vestments, shroud and sepulchre. With Raissius agrees, in the Catalogue of the relics of Brogne, Gérard Souris, prior of Brogne, already praised more than once, in his Catalogue of the relics of Brogne. But neither the latter nor the former notes the year in which the thing was done, which is also lacking in the biographer of our Saint.

[263] That it was done, however, neither before the year 944, nor probably also after the year 954 or 955, of Pope Leo, of Vulmar, of Crispin and Crispinian I shall show below, when I have brought forward further some things concerning the sacred remains which the Saint carried from the monastery of Blandin to that of Brogne. Those sacred remains were not few in number. Most of them the lord Gérard Souris, already very often praised, enumerates in his Catalogue of the relics of Brogne, in which, after the sacred arm of St. Wandrille already mentioned, there occurs in the first place a knee-bone of St. Leo, Pope, the second, which had been given through St. Martin, Pope, to the aforesaid St. Wandrille, and then carried by St. Gerard from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne. Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 127, also counts among the relics carried by Gerard to Brogne from the monastery of Blandin a knee-bone of St. Leo, Pope; but he does not name him the second. And indeed he does this rightly: for a knee-bone of Pope Leo the first, but not of the second, since he survived St. Wandrille, could have been given to the latter through St. Martin. Further, among the relics brought by Gerard to Brogne the lord Souris also numbers part of the body of St. Vulmar, abbot. But whence the Saint brought this thither he does not declare. It appears most probable, however, that he brought it from the monastery of Blandin. I think so because among the sacred pledges carried by Gerard from Boulogne to Blandin there was also, according to what has been said, a portion of the body of St. Vulmar. Hence I also think that the relics of Sts. Crispin and Crispinian, which the lord Souris also numbers among the relics of Brogne, were carried by Gerard from the monastery of Blandin to that of Brogne.

[264] For these, in our vol. V of July, page 297, in the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille, num. 30, are counted among the sacred remains and with relics of other Saints, to which, however, which the Saint transferred from Boulogne to the monastery of Blandin. Further, on this cited page a list is furnished of all the relics which the Saint, besides the sacred remains of Sts. Wandrille, Ansbert and Vulmar, carried from Boulogne to the monastery of Blandin; and in it, besides the relics already mentioned of the saints Peter, Pope Leo, Vulmar, Crispin and Crispinian, many others besides are enumerated which likewise occur in the Catalogue which the lord Souris added at the end of the summary Life of St. Gerard. All these, therefore, I think were most probably carried by Gerard to Brogne from the monastery of Blandin. On account, however, of what was said in § VI of this Commentary, except the relics of St. Leodegar which, according to what has been said, the men of Brogne possess, although meanwhile mentioned both in the Brogne Catalogue and in the aforesaid list. Determine the same also concerning relics of other Saints which, although they occur both in this list and in the Catalogue of the relics of Brogne, nevertheless do not seem to have been carried from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne for this reason, that a weightier reason makes it that they should rather be believed to have been brought thither from elsewhere. Hence the portion of the wood of the most holy Cross which Brogne possesses cannot be counted among the sacred remains which Gerard carried thither from the monastery of Blandin. For although a portion of the wood of the most holy Cross is enumerated both in the mentioned List and in Souris's Catalogue of the relics of Brogne; that which Brogne possesses Gerard most certainly did not bring thither from the monastery of Blandin. For Brogne did not obtain it until about two centuries after Gerard's age, as will become plain from what will now be said. Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgii, page 124 and following, writes thus: It (the monastery of Brogne) preserves and presents to be venerated with due cult an exceptional portion of the Cross of our Saviour, first brought from Jerusalem by Manasses, a hero, and bequeathed by his testament to the church of Brogne, which, very many miracles having been exhibited, has made this place more illustrious.

[265] the portion of the wood of the most holy Cross cannot be counted. By the donation, therefore, of Manasses, here mentioned by Raissius, and not by the work of Gerard, the monastery of Brogne obtained the part of the most holy Cross which it possesses. But lest you should perhaps refuse to believe this on Raissius's credit alone, there is extant among our literary stock a manuscript Treatise on the holy Cross, which is marked ✠ Ms. 160 and noted as taken from a Brogne manuscript, divided into three books, and composed by an anonymous monk of Brogne when the XII century had almost elapsed or at the beginning of the following, as rightly follows from what this author himself writes at the beginning of book 2, chap. 3; and in this Treatise it is narrated that Manasses, lord of Hierges or Hirges, departed from the living in the year 1166 or rather the following, and by his last will gave to the monastery of Brogne an exceptional portion of the most holy Cross, which he himself had once obtained at Antioch, having undertaken the sacred expedition into the Holy Land in the year 1141, from his cousin, the wife of Raymond, prince of Antioch. Since further, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, Manasses, mentioned by Raissius, and the praised anonymous monk of Brogne were coeval, it does not appear to be doubted that Manasses, as this author writes, about the year 1166, and consequently two centuries after the death of St. Gerard, bequeathed an exceptional portion of the most holy Cross to the monastery of Brogne. Raissius, therefore, rightly writes that the part of the most holy Cross which Brogne now preserves was obtained by the donation of Manasses, although meanwhile he ought to have asserted that it was brought thither from Antioch rather than from Jerusalem, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said. Gather hence now that the notable part of the most precious Cross of our Saviour, which illustrated the monastery of Brogne with many miracles, is wrongly counted by Souris among the relics acquired for the monastery of Brogne by the piety and zeal of Gerard. Further, if anyone perhaps wishes a further notice of the mentioned Manasses, I refer him to Miraeus in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium, chap. 80, as also to William of Tyre, book 12, chap. 1, and I inquire into the time at which the Saint carried the mentioned relics, received from the monastery of Blandin, to Brogne.

[266] taken in the year 944 or between this year Gerard, according to what has been said, first transferred the relics of Sts. Wandrille, Ansbert and other Saints to Ghent from the city of Boulogne in the year 944. Wherefore, since he transferred thither from Ghent the sacred pledges of Sts. Peter and Wandrille with which he enriched the monastery of Brogne, it seems to follow that he certainly did not do this before the year 944; for he could not transfer from Ghent to Brogne before the year 944 relics of the said Saints which had never been brought to Ghent before that year. But someone will perhaps also ask whether in the very year 944, in which, according to what has been said, the relics were translated to Ghent, Gerard also transferred to Brogne those with which he enriched this monastery? I answer that this cannot be asserted for certain; for it appears credible enough that the Saint did not do this before, the monasteries of Blandin, St. Bavo and St. Bertin having been recalled to the primitive discipline of the Benedictine institute, he began again to bear a more earnest care of the monastery of Brogne, which, being for some time distracted by the reform of those and perhaps of some other monasteries, he had not been able to do. However that may be, I think that the Saint transferred the mentioned sacred pledges of Sts. Peter and Wandrille from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne neither before the year 944, on account of what has already been said, nor after the year 954 or 955, for this reason, that, as I shall prove below, the Saint abdicated the abbey of Blandin in one or the other of these two years, and I think it probable that the sacred relics of the saints Peter and Wandrille which Gerard carried from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne were transferred thither by him while still abbot of Blandin.

[267] As now regards the other remains of other Saints and the year 956, he enriched: which Gerard also, according to what has already been said, carried from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne, it does not appear to be doubted that he carried these thither too in the time which lies between the year 944 and the year 956. For these relics, since they were carried to Ghent only with the body of St. Wandrille, were not yet in the monastery of Blandin before the year 944, and were translated to the monastery of Blandin only in this year, so that hence too, according to what has been said, Gerard could not transfer them to Brogne sooner; and I think that he did not do it later than the year 956 either, for this reason, that then he certainly no longer presided as abbot over the monastery of Blandin, and consequently did not have in his power the sacred treasure of the relics of Blandin. Therefore not only the relics of Sts. Peter and Wandrille, but also absolutely all the others which Gerard from the monastery of Blandin

having received, he carried to Brogne, were carried thither by the Saint either in the year 944 or between this year and 956. Nor did the Saint receive only from the monasteries of St. Bavo and Blandin at Ghent the sacred remains of the Saints with which, besides the relics which, as has been said above, he acquired from the monastery of St. Denis, he enriched the monastery of Brogne; but he also joined to these many others acquired from elsewhere, besides the bodies of two Innocents obtained from the monastery of Chimay, already mentioned above.

[268] Fisen in the History of the church of Liège, book 6, to which also an arm of St. Landelin, page 212, having made mention of the work which the Saint spent on the monasteries of Blandin and St. Bertin, soon continues thus concerning Gerard: Nor meanwhile did he in any way desert his Brogne. Not content with that noble deposit of sanctity which we have recorded that he brought from the monastery of St. Denis, he zealously sought out besides other relics of the Saints, whom he might have both as guardians of his monastery and as patrons before the eternal Judge for obtaining pardon of his sins (so he himself used to speak). He had once by chance come to Crespin, where the body of St. Landelin is venerated. There came upon him the desire of taking some portion from here. For what other patron could he desire by a better right? For he had of old founded Aulne, neighbour to Brogne, and Lobbes. But the mortals at first seemed to resist. When at length they had consented, and they had come to the sacred repository, closed with three seals, they thought it sacrilege to break them. God removed the difficulty. The bier was suddenly unlocked: and with wonder, and at the same time with incredible pleasure of soul, Gerard drew out what he had ardently desired, and brought it to Brogne. That the matter was so is testified by a little schedule written by the hand of St. Gerard himself; which is preserved at Brogne to this day. So Fisen, and rightly indeed, as appears: yet he wrongly refers these things to the year 924. For in this year Gerard, as is clear from what was disputed above, was still living in the monastery of St. Denis, nor is it probable that the Saint then carried any relics of the Saints to Brogne. Moreover the Saint, as Fisen himself indicates in the words recited above, then bore the care of the monasteries of Blandin and St. Bertin when he obtained the relics of St. Landelin for his monastery of Brogne. Wherefore, since, according to what has been said, the Saint was not set as abbot over the monastery of St. Bertin before the year 944, and certainly bore no care of the same house before the year 937, it necessarily follows that he obtained the relics of St. Landelin for his monastery of Brogne not before this year, and consequently later than the year 924.

[269] obtained from the monastery of Crespin in Hainaut. But, you will say, in what year did the Saint obtain these? I answer that absolutely nothing is at hand by which I may present a definite year; yet it seems to me to have been done after the year 946, in which, or at the beginning of the following, Gerard abdicated the abbey of St. Bertin. So it appears because after that year the Saint seems to have cared again more earnestly for the monastery of Brogne, which, being for some time distracted by the administration of other monasteries, he had perhaps cared for somewhat more remissly. Further, Fisen not only strays from the true year in which Gerard obtained the relics of St. Landelin for the monastery of Brogne, but also does not declare what part of the body of St. Landelin the Saint obtained. But Raissius opportunely teaches us this in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 126, counting among the sacred relics of the Saints which the monastery of Brogne possesses the arm of St. Landelin, most precious confessor and founder of Crespin, brought from Crespin to Brogne through St. Gerard. The same is also done by the lord Gérard Souris, praised above, in his Catalogue, still cited before, of the relics which Brogne possesses by the piety and zeal of St. Gerard, writing thus: The arm (the monastery of Brogne possesses) of St. Landelin, abbot and confessor, which St. Gerard carried from the abbey of Crespin in Hainaut. These are the things which I have found to be recorded concerning the relics of St. Landelin obtained through Gerard for the monastery of Brogne.

[270] and he joined other relics of other Saints also acquired from elsewhere. For the rest, besides the relics of the Saints already mentioned here and in § IV and VI of this preliminary Commentary, which Gerard carried to Brogne from elsewhere than from the monastery of Blandin, he likewise acquired others besides from elsewhere. There is a monastery by the name of Malonne, situated on the Sambre above Namur, which St. Bertuin, bishop, who is venerated on the XI of November, built in the VII century, and, having afterwards ended his life, obtained in it the place of his tomb. From that monastery he obtained a joint of this Saint's foot for his monastery of Brogne. This is clear from the two Catalogues of the relics of Brogne, already very often cited, of which Raissius furnishes the one in the Hierogazophylacium, Souris the other at the end of the Life of St. Gerard. As regards the time at which the thing was done, I have nothing more certain to record about it than what I have already indicated in the preceding number, speaking of St. Landelin; and lest I should perhaps create weariness for the reader by enumerating all the relics of the Saints which Gerard carried to Brogne from elsewhere than from the monastery of Blandin, for these I refer him to Souris's Catalogue, content only to have advised further that all those relics of the Saints which are mentioned in this, but not in the List of relics of the History of the Translation of St. Wandrille mentioned above, were most probably transferred by Gerard to Brogne from another place, although it is here in obscurity, than from the monastery of Blandin, unless perhaps a weightier reason persuades the contrary. Hence, although no mention is made of relics of St. Amelberga in the aforementioned List, but mention is made in Souris's Catalogue, these ought to be counted among the relics brought by St. Gerard from the monastery of Blandin to Brogne for this reason, that it is held ascertained from elsewhere that the sacred body of St. Amelberga was preserved in the monastery of Blandin in Gerard's age. But let it suffice to have disputed this concerning the relics acquired by St. Gerard for his house of Brogne; I now proceed to comment on other deeds of the Saint.

§ XXII. He attempts the restoration of the monastery of Fontenelle, and abdicates the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin.

The restoration of the monastery of Fontenelle In the year of Christ 648, not far from the right bank of the river Seine, six leagues below Rouen, but about one league above Caudebec, St. Wandrille, of whose relics translated by Gerard to Ghent there has been treatment above, built a notable monastery which was called that of Fontenelle, and which had long flourished greatly both in wealth and in number of monks, when in the IX century the savagery of the Normans began to rage with sword and fire in all the maritime places of the Gauls. But then Fontenelle too underwent the lot which most, nay all other, monasteries situated not far from the sea underwent. For, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, eleventh volume, col. 158, teach, after a threefold tribute paid to the Normans, it succumbed to the ransoming, and the monks were compelled to leave the place with the sacred remains of Wandrille and Ansbert about the year 856. Then the Normans, having set fire to it, also burned the monastery empty of inhabitants, as the writer who composed the Appendix to the Chronicle of Fontenelle records, in d'Achery, vol. 3 of the Spicilegium, in these words: The savage army of the barbarians (namely the Normans), having come out of the waters, approached this place (the monastery of Fontenelle), and finding it empty of men and stripped of all things, having set fire to it, burned all its buildings with the sanctuary itself, overthrew them, and withdrew.

[272] Further, the monastery of Fontenelle had already lain in ruins for almost a hundred years, he attempts with vain effort: since it had been overthrown about the year 856, when at length, the middle part of the X century having almost elapsed, St. Gerard set his mind on restoring it. Richard then presided with the title of duke of Normandy, grandson of Rollo, the first Christian duke of the Normans, through William, or Guillaume, surnamed Longsword, a prince pious as well as religious, who had already restored many monasteries once destroyed by the Normans, imitating his father's example in this matter. Hence most probably the holy Man conceived the hope that, if he should offer the prince the restitution of the body of St. Wandrille, to be made to the monastery of Fontenelle, the latter would cause to be restored the lands which had once belonged to the said monastery, and so it could be rebuilt from its foundations and entirely restored. Therefore, taking it ill at the same time that, while many other monasteries were being restored, that of Fontenelle, whose holy patron's sacred remains he had in his power, still remained buried under its ruins, he betakes himself with these and also with some companions to the territory of Beauvais, and there, the sacred treasure having been left, he hastens as far as Rouen, offers to Count or Duke Richard the restitution of the body of St. Wandrille, to be made to the monastery of Fontenelle, if he would cause the lands which it had once possessed to be restored. But those to whom these had devolved by the lot of arms being in no way prepared to make restitution, he brought back no fruit from the long journey which he had undertaken, and was compelled to return to Ghent, whence he had come, without any reward of his work.

[273] from the Appendix to the Chronicle of Fontenelle, which how the thing How the whole thing was done is lucidly set forth by the Appendix to the Chronicle of Fontenelle, still praised above, in d'Achery, vol. 3 of the older edition. I therefore transcribe the words here. They run thus: When, therefore, the fame of his (Richard I's, duke or count of Normandy, in whose dominion Fontenelle was) power was already flying far and wide, and the land of the Northmen was exulting in deep peace, the abbot of the monastery of Ghent, Girard by name, having taken the precious body of St. Wandrille, hastened to come as far as the district of Beauvais, and turned aside to lodge in the township which is called Reveriscors, which he took care to send word of to Theodoric, a noble and very powerful man, through the mayor of the same estate; because, though unjustly, he was at that time lording it over that possession which had formerly been of the dominion of the monastery of Fontenelle. Which when that proud and arrogant man learned, he struck the messenger with the staff which he happened to be holding, and compelled him with great injury to go out of his sight. He, therefore, who had brought the news returned; with grave grief he intimated to Abbot Girard what he had suffered: which having been heard, there arises a great groaning of all, and at once they prostrate themselves before the Saint's litter, and amid flowing tears and bitter sighs of heart the aforesaid Abbot, inculcating * many things reproachfully against the Saint, tearfully complains.

[274] was done by the Saint, But meanwhile, the sun setting, the silence of night came on. And Theodoric composed himself in his bed to sleep; to whom suddenly a terrible person in monastic habit appeared, and, vehemently rebuking him for the insult which he had inflicted on him the day before, struck him grievously with the pastoral staff which he bore; he at once, his sleep being broken, awoke and groaned grievously, and cried out with loud and disturbed voices that he had been beaten by a certain white-haired abbot: then, seized by a sudden torture of his inward parts, he sought the privy, where, pouring out all his bowels in foul evacuation, he miserably broke off his life: so that it might be clearly given to the living to perceive of what merit with God the holy father Wandrille was, who could thus condemn to the punishment of death a living enemy guilty of atrocious injury. He (the abbot) then, counsel having been shared with his people, left all the retinue with the holy pledges for their guarding; and so, having mounted horses, he hastened with a few to the city of Rouen; and, being admitted, he diligently and opportunely intimated to Count Richard the causes of his coming, and related that he had ready at hand the body of St. Wandrille, which he would restore to its place,

if the lands were restored to him which he could prove by the privileges of charters: but he, using the counsel of his princes, ordered the charters to be produced and set forth, recited before all.

[275] This done, murmuring and contradiction began to be made by all, is set forth by its author. who said that they could by no means do without their own honours, which * warlike valour had won for them by the arms and blood of their predecessors, or which they themselves had acquired by long service and many sweats. Thus, therefore, difficulty having been made about the thing which the aforesaid abbot Girard was seeking, he could no longer be retained by any promise, but at once returned to his people by the road he had traversed, and hastily carried back St. Wandrille, so great a labour having been spent in vain, to the place from which he had brought him; where he rests to this day in great glory and honour before God and men. These things the author of the mentioned Appendix, who flourished in the XI century, and who consequently deserves credit here, since he is scarcely a hundred years removed from the thing which he narrates, and which, therefore, he could have thoroughly examined either from monuments still then extant, or even from eyewitnesses, or certainly from those who had heard it from eyewitnesses. Further, from the very great labour by which, as he relates, Gerard tried to obtain the restoration of Fontenelle, and yet did not obtain it, it becomes manifest how solicitous he was that the monasteries destroyed by the Normans should be restored; and hence it becomes probable that so solicitous a Parent of monasteries at least attempted, however with vain effort, to restore the many monasteries too of the principality of Arnulf of Flanders which he is said to have restored or reformed, and yet, according to what has been said, did not restore or reform.

[276] But while the Saint thus spends vigorous work in restoring and reforming various monasteries, to the monastery of Blandin, its government having been abdicated, Womar, or at least in attempting their restoration or reform, he thinks it advisable to unburden himself of the care of the monastery of Blandin. This sacred house, namely, which, according to what has been said, in the year 946 and at the beginning of the following had not yet been so perfectly reformed that it did not still need Gerard as rector, had now been brought by the Saint's care to such a state that it could now easily be administered by another rector, provided he were pious and prudent, without danger to the more rigid discipline. Womar, a monk of Blandin, had already proved himself fit for the office of abbot during the nearly three years in which, according to what has been said, he had ruled the monastery of Sithiu. Upon him, therefore, the Saint casts from his own shoulders the care of the monastery of Blandin. Womar, says Sanderus in his Gandavum printed separately, book 4, chap. 2, twelfth abbot (namely of the monastery of Blandin), Gerard of Celle resigning the abbey, is ordained abbot in the year CMLIII by Bishop Folbert of Cambrai. And all these things are more widely plain from the Life of Gerard himself, which we have written out, in which it is also had that this Womar received the blessing of Bishop Rodulf. Therefore that passage does not seem to agree with us, who say that he was ordained at Cambrai by Bishop Folbert. The Life of St. Gerard which Sanderus mentions here is without doubt not different from the Life of the Saint which that writer presents in the Hagiology of Flanders from page 94 up to page 103.

[277] Further, this Life, in the praised Work of Sanderus, page 102, has thus: Blessed Gerard, therefore, when he had presided over Blandin for eight years, resigned in the year CMLIV, instituting Womar abbot of the same monastery, who was ordained abbot not by Rodulf, bishop of Noyon, who likewise, Count Arnulf being present, received the blessing of Rodolph, bishop of Noyon, and when Gerard had rightly taken care of all things, he stayed for some time with the said count for the sake of consolation. Therefore, in Sanderus's opinion, when Gerard abdicated the abbey of Blandin, and set Womar over it as abbot in his place, the latter was ordained abbot by Fulbert, bishop of Cambrai, and not by Rodolph, bishop of Noyon. But does Sanderus think rightly so? Surely the Life of St. Gerard produced by Sanderus in his Hagiology of Flanders can in no way bring it about that I should persuade myself that Womar was ordained abbot by Rodolph, bishop of Noyon. For in this, in the words just now recited, it is also hinted that Gerard presided as abbot over the monastery of Blandin for only eight years; and this, as anyone will easily understand from what has already been said and will further be said, most certainly strays from the truth. Moreover, in the Life of the Saint to be edited by us, absolutely no mention occurs of Womar promoted to the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin, or ordained abbot either by Rodolph or by Fulbert, so that I do not know whence these things were drawn in the Life of St. Gerard which Sanderus praises. Hence it comes about that that Life of St. Gerard which Sanderus produces seems to have been composed by a more recent writer from the Life written by our biographer, since it often expresses it word for word, various interpolations being mixed in, and consequently to be altogether unfit to make certain and undoubted for me the ordination of Womar by Rodulf, bishop of Noyon.

[278] but seems to have been ordained abbot by Fulbert of Cambrai, And indeed that the ordination of Womar cannot be attributed to Rodolph, bishop of Noyon, seems to be concluded from the year in which this was carried out both in fact and according to that very Life of St. Gerard produced by Sanderus in the Hagiology. For according to this (see the words just recited) it was done in the year 954, and in fact it ought to be joined either with this year or with the following, or certainly with the year 956, as will become plain from what will be said. Now of Rodulf, bishop of Noyon, the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, vol. 9, col. 991 and following, write thus: He is believed to have died on the V day before the Ides of January in the year CMLI, that is, CMLII; for we have said in vol. III, col. 258, that Leudric was constituted abbot of St. Amand in Pabula in the year CMLII chiefly by his care and counsel. Perhaps he was still sitting in the year CMLIII. Moreover Fulcher, the immediate successor of Rodulf in the bishopric of Noyon, was consecrated bishop at Reims in the year 954, as Frodoard teaches in his Chronicle, when he had before, after Rodulf's death, contended for some time about the bishopric of Noyon with Frodoard, whom Mabillon, in the Benedictine Annals, vol. 3, page 511, thinks to be no other than Frodoard, the writer of the History of Reims. Rodulf, therefore, bishop of Noyon, does not seem to have prolonged his life up to the year 954, and consequently the ordination of Womar, since according to what has been said it was carried out beyond all doubt either in the year 954, or 955, or certainly the following, does not seem able to be attributed to him. Therefore, since Womar seems to have been ordained abbot of Blandin either by Rodulf or by Fulbert, I think that one must agree with Sanderus's opinion, by which he determines that Womar was ordained abbot of Blandin not by Rodolph, bishop of Noyon, but by Fulbert of Cambrai. But is the same also to be thought of the opinion of the same writer by which he ties to the year 953 the resignation of the monastery of Blandin made by Gerard, and the promotion of the said Womar to the same prefecture? This indeed does not appear so to me.

[279] For the translation of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf, mentioned in § XVIII of this preliminary Commentary, in his place, and that, whatever against it certainly took place no sooner than in the year 954, on the third day of December, as anyone will easily gather from what was disputed there. Wherefore, since, according to what was also said there, Gerard accomplished it at a time when he still bore the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin, he without doubt did not abdicate it before the year 954, advanced up to the third day of December. But, you will say, in the Supplement to the diplomas of Miraeus, part 2, page 941, there is extant a diploma by which Arnulf II, count of Flanders, records and amplifies the benefits granted to the abbey of Blandin by his grandfather Arnulf; and it is signed at the end with these chronological marks: Done publicly in the monastery of Blandin on the II day before the Kalends of February, Indiction XV, in the XVIIII year of the reign of the renowned king (namely of the Franks) Lothar, and in the XX of the rule of the lord abbot (namely of Blandin) Womar. Now the nineteenth year of the reign of Lothar, king of the Franks, with which the said diploma is noted as given, is joined partly with the year 972, partly with the following; wherefore, since Womar, abbot of Blandin, if he was not promoted to the prefecture of the abbey of Blandin before the year 954, advanced up to the third day of December, would not have been passing the twentieth year of his rule in the year 972 and the following on the 2nd day before the Kalends of February, it is necessary that he be determined to have held it already from the year 953. So it can be argued from the aforesaid diploma against the opinion by which we judge that the resignation of the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin made by Gerard to Womar did not happen before the year 954.

[280] But I answer that the objected diploma of Arnulf II, count of Flanders, could be argued from the diploma of Arnulf II, count of Flanders, is corrupt in the chronological marks which it presents. For the nineteenth year of the reign of Lothar, king of the Franks, noted with Indiction XV, in which it is signed as given, designates the year of Christ 972. The aforesaid diploma, therefore, since it is also noted as given on the 2nd day before the Kalends of February, was issued, looking at the chronological marks which it bears, on the XXXI day of January in the year 972. Now, since Lothar, king of the Franks, began to reign on the day before the Ides of November in the year 954, as has already been said above, the nineteenth year of Lothar's reign, with which too, according to what has been said, the diploma is signed, can in no way be reconciled with a year of Christ advanced only to the XXXI of January, as anyone will easily discover who enters into the computation of the years. Hence further it follows that the diploma of Arnulf the Younger which is objected to us is most certainly corrupt in the chronological marks which it presents, and consequently that nothing is had from it which militates validly enough against the opinion by which we determine that Gerard did not abdicate the abbey of Blandin, and set Womar over it as abbot in his place, before the year 954. Moreover, that I may also oppose diploma to diploma, Miraeus in the Codex of Pious Donations, chap. 35, presents a diploma by which Wicmann, count of the new castle of Ghent built by the German emperors, gives the township of Thesla to the monastery of Blandin; and it is fortified at the end with these chronological marks: Done publicly in the monastery of Blandin, on the Kalends of November, in the year of the Word Incarnate DCCCCLXII, Indiction V, in the XIV year of King Lothar (namely of the Franks), the VIII of the lord abbot Womar (namely of Blandin); where the year of Christ 962, advanced up to the first day of November, is joined with the eighth year of the rule begun by Womar. Hence further, as will be plain to one who computes it, it now follows that Womar did not enter upon it before the year 954 had already advanced up to the first day of November.

[281] not sooner than the year 954. Therefore, if the praised diploma of Arnulf the Younger stands against our opinion, the other favours it, which I have just mentioned, issued by Count Wicmann. Yet, since this too, as wrongly connecting the year of Christ 962 with the fourteenth year of the reign of Lothar, king of the Franks, is likewise corrupt in the chronological marks with which it is signed, it certainly our opinion concerning the time of the rule begun by Womar

does not confirm more than the mentioned diploma of Arnulf the Younger, count of Flanders, weakens it. Therefore, dismissing the diplomas, both those which favour and those which oppose the opinion which reconciles the rule of the monastery of Blandin begun by Womar with the year 954 or one later, I embrace it, as I have already done above, without any evasion, relying solely on the Life of St. Guduwal, as written, according to what has been said, by a very ancient author and one worthy of credit; and I think it will come about that all who shall have weighed with attentive mind what we brought forward above from the Life of St. Guduwal will readily agree with me here too. And so we now have that Gerard substituted Womar for himself as abbot in the abbey of Blandin no sooner than in the year 954. But, you will say, did the Saint not also do this later? Surely, as appears to me at least, nothing prevents his being believed to have done it also either in the year 955 or at the beginning of the following. For on account of what has already been said I do not here dwell either on Sanderus, who places the thing sooner, or on the diploma of Arnulf the Younger, count of Flanders, already mentioned more than once, which also agrees here with Sanderus. And indeed, since, according to what has been said, Gerard perhaps did not make the translation of Sts. Guduwal and Bertulf before the year 955, and at the time when he made it still held the prefecture of the monastery of Blandin, it follows that he perhaps did not abdicate it before the year 955.

[282] and not later than the year 956 he set over it; but when he did this, And not only up to the year 955, but even up to the beginning of the following, Gerard perhaps still presided as abbot over the monastery of Blandin. For since, according to what has been said, he perhaps translated the bodies of Sts. Bertulf and Guduwal from Boulogne to Ghent towards the end of the year 955, and at the time when he did this was still abbot of Blandin, nothing surely seems to stand in the way of his being believed to have still governed the monastery of Blandin also at the beginning of the said year 956; yet to prolong his prefecture of Blandin beyond the year 956 seems wrong. For Womar was ordained abbot of Blandin by Fulbert, bishop of Cambrai, as appears according to what has already been said; and hence it follows that this happened no later than the year 956; for Frodoard in his Chronicle expressly affirms that Fulbert did not prolong his life beyond this year. Therefore, all things now having been weighed, Gerard seems to have abdicated the abbey of Blandin, and substituted Womar in his place, either in the year 954 or 955, or certainly not later than the year 956. Further, when he did this, he had already long before, as appears, abdicated the government of the abbey of St. Bavo. For Folcuin, still praised above, a monk of St. Bertin, a coeval author, in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers, in the Cartulary of Sithiu, page 216, writes in these words, still recited above: In the year CMXLVII Abbot Wido, because he pursued too much the joys of vain youth, having been accused before the count (namely of Flanders, Arnulf, surnamed the Great), was deprived of the abbey (namely of Sithiu), and was destined abbot to the monastery of St. Bavo.

[283] Iperius almost agrees with Folcuin in the Chronicle of Sithiu, chap. 25, in words he had already long before, as appears, abdicated the abbey of St. Bavo. which I have likewise still recited above, writing thus: Who (Wido), promoted to abbot (of Sithiu), pursued too much the joys of his youth: for which reason he was deposed hence by B. Gerard, and Count (namely of Flanders) Arnulf could scarcely obtain that he would permit him to be promoted to another place; but finally, the count insisting, he was transferred to the abbey of St. Bavo of Ghent; where surely both Folcuin and Iperius seem to indicate that Wido, in that very year in which he was cast out of the prefecture of the monastery of Sithiu by Gerard for his inept administration, or certainly shortly after, received the monastery of St. Bavo to govern with the office of abbot. Then, namely, Arnulf, count of Flanders, from the plainly singular affection with which he embraced Gerard, wished that Wido, the Saint's nephew, lest he should be too much afflicted by his deposition from the prefecture of Sithiu, should be set over the monastery of St. Bavo, and at the same time induced Gerard, however reluctantly, to permit this to be done, hope having been given that Wido, under the eyes of Gerard himself, his paternal uncle, who was living at Ghent, would govern the abbey committed to him more aptly and prudently. Now, since Wido, according to what has been said, was cast out of the government of the abbey of Sithiu by Gerard in the year 947, it follows that the Saint then, or certainly not very long after, set him as abbot over the monastery of St. Bavo, and consequently that, at the time when he constituted Womar abbot in his place in the abbey of Blandin, in the year, according to what has been said, 954 or 955 or certainly the following, he had long since abdicated the government of the said monastery of St. Bavo, although, as appears, he still reserved to himself a certain superior power over that monastery, as over many others. Further, what was afterwards done with Wido, since this does not pertain to Gerard, how and for how long he ruled the monastery of St. Bavo, and how at length he was promoted also to the prefecture of Blandin, I pass over in silence, and, referring the curious reader for all these things to Sanderus and to the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana among the abbots of Blandin and of St. Bavo, I pursue the series of matters pertaining to the Saint.

* i.e. by repeating before the Saint the insult inflicted on him

* quos

§ XXIII. He visits for the last time the monasteries over which he still presides, withdraws to Brogne, and there closes his last day.

The Saint, the day of his death now impending, from the monasteries Gerard, having now abdicated the government of the monastery of Blandin, still presided, as appears, as abbot over some other monasteries. For, according to what has been said, he abdicated the abbey of Blandin certainly not later than the year 956; and he still presided as abbot over several monasteries when divinely he learned that the day of his calling or death was impending over him, which, according to what will be said, came in the year 959, and which consequently was not yet impending over Gerard when in the year 956, or perhaps about two years sooner, he abdicated the abbey of Blandin, as seems to be concluded from this, if we wish to speak strictly. However that may be, Gerard, when the day of his calling was already impending, still governed several monasteries. Therefore, says the biographer at num. 77 of Gerard, taught by the sacred inspiration, foreknowing that the day of his calling was impending, on which, namely, he should also render account of the stewardship committed to him, he thought it necessary and useful to revisit the monasteries of the brethren living under his government, and henceforth to strip himself of the burdensome weight of so many cares, and to substitute a fit manager in his stead in each of the monasteries. The Saint, therefore, when he was now not much further from the day of his death, still governed several monasteries, as the biographer hints in these words now recited, and that indeed, as appears, with the office of abbot.

[285] over which he still presides, he abdicates, For although the Saint, according to what has been said, probably did not preside with the office of their own abbot over each and all of the eighteen monasteries which he is said by the biographer to have managed, nothing nevertheless prevents his being believed to have governed some of them with the office of abbot. And indeed, according to what has already been said, it can in no way be doubted that he governed under this name those of Blandin, Celle, Sithiu, St. Bavo and Mouzon. Moreover the biographer, by the monasteries which in the words recited above he writes that the Saint, now near to death, visited, probably understood only those over which Gerard then still presided with the office of abbot. I think so because he openly declares that the Saint set over each of the monasteries which he then visited a fit manager or abbot in his place; for he could not have set an abbot in his place over each of the monasteries which he visited if he himself had no longer presided as abbot over even one of them. Therefore the Saint, looking at our biographer, still presided with the office of abbot over several monasteries when the day of his death was already impending. But what and of what kind were those monasteries, and about what year did Gerard abdicate their government? Among them, as does not appear to me at least to be doubted, was that of St. Ghislain at Celle, and probably also that of St. Amand at Elnone, that of Ronse and that of Marchiennes. But whether these or others were those monasteries, the Saint thought it advisable to abdicate them all, in order that he might await more prepared the death which he had divinely learned was near him, and thereafter to be free solely for God and his own salvation, and to this end he visited all the monasteries still constituted under him, in order to set over each a fit abbot in his place, as you will gather with easy effort from the biographer's words recited in the preceding num.

[286] Nor did the Saint only, in that visitation of the monasteries over which he still presided, he withdraws to Brogne, set over each a fit abbot; but he also profited them not a little in another way. The biographer declares this at num. 79 in these words: He went through each of the monasteries of his sons with fatherly solicitude; and admonishing them concerning monastic religion, and abundantly imbuing them with divine erudition, he exhorted them with manifold discourse that, preserving the unity of peace and concord against the darts of evasive Satan, they should always stand in the battle line like armed combatants. Gerard, therefore, in this visitation in which he visited the monasteries still constituted under his government, also earnestly exhorted their religious inhabitants to peace and concord. He knew, namely, that it greatly matters that this, as the firmest bond of charity, be zealously and diligently preserved by religious men. Nor did the provident and solicitous Father then only exhort the religious inhabitants of the monasteries which he visited to peace and concord of minds; but he also rightly arranged all things which could conduce to their good and prosperous government. Thus he cared exceedingly solicitously for the salvation of all whom he had commended to his care; and when he had diligently taken care of all things which he judged to pertain to that, he at once returned to his monastery of Brogne, in order to end his days there quietly and holily. All things, therefore, says the biographer at num. 79, soon after narrating the last visitation of the monasteries which Gerard made, having been duly arranged, and the sheep having been commended to the shepherds by the supreme Shepherd, the Blessed man, poor in spirit, all the richer ones which he had ruled being put aside, joyfully returns to the beloved poverty of the monastery of Brogne.

[287] Hence now gather that that last visitation of the monasteries of which we here treat probably took place only a few months before Gerard's death. and there shortly after closes his last day. That on the third For it took place immediately before Gerard's return to his men of Brogne; and the Saint, at the time when he died at Brogne, had not very long returned to his men of Brogne, as seems to be gathered from the biographer's two last numbers, so that he made the monasteries' visitation now mentioned not long before the Saint's death, and consequently only a few months before it. Further, Gerard, having now returned to Brogne, held nothing more important than to arrange rightly in that of Brogne too, as he had already done in the other monasteries, the things which pertained to its happy government; which done, his strength being at length broken by a more advanced age, he migrated to the Lord. The biographer teaches these things at num. 80, as also the year and the day on which the Saint exchanged this mortal life for the immortal. The words in which

he teaches this last, woven partly in prose and partly in verse, are these:

Having laid aside at length the veil of frail flesh, He passes into the light-flowing hall of Christ Jesus, When the third light of the month of October shines forth.

In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord DCCCCLIX, Indiction II, concurrent V, Epact XX, Feria II. The Saint, therefore, departed from the living in the year 959, on the third day of October: which day indeed fell in that year on a Monday, so that the biographer rightly writes that Gerard died on the second feria. Nor does he rightly join only the third day of October, on which he teaches that the Saint died, with Monday, but also the year 959, which he sets as the Saint's death year, rightly with the second Indiction, as will be plain to one who computes it, with the concurrent or solar epact five, and with the Epact, namely the lunar, twenty, as anyone, as I think, will easily understand from what Joseph Scaliger teaches in book 7 On the Emendation of times, page 776 and the three following.

[288] but not, as Mabillon But, however excellently all these chronological marks agree with the year 959, with which the biographer reconciles them, and although the third day of October in the year 959 fell on a Monday, there are nevertheless those who contend that Gerard was taken from the living neither on the third day of October nor in the year 959. And first indeed, as regards the third day of October on which the Saint died, Mabillon will have it that the Saint departed from the living not on this but on the fifth day of October. For in his preliminary Observations on the Life of St. Gerard, num. 9, he writes thus: His (St. Gerard's) death all, with the primary Epitaph, edited here at the end of the Life (which Molanus relates was cut on a marble sepulchre), fix on the third day before the Nones of October. Moreover, in book 46, num. 18, of the Benedictine Annals, he commits to writing to the same effect these things of Gerard at the year 959: After this Gerard breathed out his soul in this year, and indeed on the third day before the Nones of October, as his Epitaph subjoined to the Life notes, and therefore on the fourth feria, not the second, as the following addition there has. Mabillon, therefore, will have it that Gerard died on the third day before the Nones, that is, on the fifth day of October, and consequently on the fourth feria, or Wednesday, not the second, or Monday; and that writer will have this for this reason, that he thinks that day is set as our Saint's death day by all, and by the very primary Epitaph of Gerard subjoined to the Life. But it is wonderful how much Mabillon is mistaken here. For neither all the writers, nor the very primary Epitaph of St. Gerard which the biographer subjoins at the end of the Life, set the fifth of October as the Saint's death day.

[289] from the writers Meyer, both in the Annals and in the Chronicle of Flanders, at the year 959, writes thus: In the same year (namely 959), on the third day of October, a man of singular example, and likewise the unique ornament of piety, Gerard of Celle, called St. Gerard, closed his day. With Meyer agrees Fisen, recording thus in the History of the church of Liège, page 221: He (namely Gerard) proposed to himself to go through each of the monasteries again. All which having been duly arranged, and the shepherds, together with the sheep, commended to the supreme Shepherd, the blessed Man, poor in spirit, having left the richer monasteries which he had governed, withdrew to the beloved poverty of the monastery of Brogne. Where, his mind holily composed, having prayed well for his dearest companions, on the V day before the Nones of October, that is, on the third day of October, he fell asleep in the Lord. So Fisen, who, for himself and Meyer, has many other writers also agreeing as regards the third day of October, which they set as Gerard's death day, whom I pass over lest I should dwell too long in proving a matter sufficiently known everywhere. As now regards the primary Epitaph which is subjoined to the Life of Gerard, and which, as Mabillon says, fixes the Saint's death on the third day before the Nones of October, that is, on the fifth day of this month, by this that writer without doubt understands nothing other than the six little verses, already partly recited above, with which the Life of Gerard is closed by the biographer; for I find nothing else subjoined to the Life of the Saint which could hold the place of an epitaph. Moreover, Mabillon has thus in the words still recited just above: After this Gerard breathed out his soul in this year, and indeed on the third day before the Nones of October, as his Epitaph subjoined to the Life notes, and therefore on the fourth feria, not the second, as the following addition there has. The addition which Mabillon here mentions is the clause transcribed here above, in which it is indicated in what year, in what Indiction, with what Concurrent or solar Epact, with what lunar Epact, and finally on what feria Gerard died; and that Clause is immediately subjoined to the aforesaid six little verses, so that Mabillon understands these by the Saint's Epitaph, which, as he says, fixes Gerard's death on the third day before the Nones of October.

[290] But those little verses fix Gerard's death not on the third day before the Nones of October, and from the Saint's epitaph wrongly contends, on the fifth day of October, that is, the fifth day of this month, but on the fifth day before the Nones of October, that is, the third day of this month. For the two last of the said little verses, already transcribed here above, have thus of Gerard:

He passes into the light-flowing hall of Christ Jesus, When the third light of the month of October shines forth;

where surely it is most openly declared that Gerard died not on the third but on the fifth day before the Nones of October, that is, not on the fifth but on the third day of this month. Therefore neither does the Epitaph which Mabillon praises fix Gerard's death on the third day before the Nones of October, that is, the fifth day of this month, so that that writer, who nevertheless, according to what has been said, affirms that that day is set as Gerard's death day both by the aforesaid Epitaph and by all writers, is most certainly mistaken, and consequently wrongly contends that Gerard died on the fifth day of October. Further, Mabillon is no less mistaken when he says, in the words recited above, that the epitaph of Gerard which he praises is related by Molanus to have been cut on the Saint's marble sepulchre. For this author, in the Birthdays of the Saints of Belgium at the III day of October, having partly transcribed our biographer's little verses, which, according to what has been said, constitute the primary epitaph of Gerard praised by Mabillon, only records thus immediately: The year of his deposition inscribed on his (St. Gerard's) marble sepulchre is the nine hundred and fifty-eighth; by which words he surely designates not the biographer's little verses just transcribed by him, or that epitaph of Gerard which Mabillon praises, but another far different, to be transcribed here at num. 202, in which the Saint is wrongly determined to have died in the year 958, as will become plain from what I shall soon say, when I have made discourse about two epitaphs which Sanderus presents in his Gandavum printed separately, book 4, chap. 2, among the abbots of Blandin, and attributes to St. Gerard.

[291] It pleases me to transcribe both those epitaphs here. The first is couched in these little verses: in the year, as is proved from two epitaphs which are adjudged away from Gerard,

Passer-by, stay your step here, read the doleful song of death; Behold, it limps with unequal foot. A great crash has struck the little ship of Peter; a dire storm, Shaking out the very Sailor, snatches him away. Ghent has lost a Father, Gaul a renowned person; A great pillar of the Church has fallen. The burning and shining lamp has at once been extinguished; The best Shepherd has fallen among his sheep. Abbot Gerard is taken from our midst; bereaved Of its Father, the hall of Peter remains in tears. As is fitting, and as Paul teaches, made all things to all, One man shone forth among many thousands. Why do I delay? He passed on the eighth day before the Ides of September; A new sun seeks its setting as the sun sinks.

And the other in these:

That flesh is grass, and the glory of the flesh the flower of grass, The sacred page teaches, and this Father proves. As grass, he grew green in the blade in the time of spring, And as the flower of grass his honour flowered. This grass has withered, its flower has fallen. Abbot Gerard grew green, flowered, withers, dies. When in September the sun declines towards the fifth shadows, The spirit departs free from the prison of the flesh.

Such are the two epitaphs which, according to what has been said, Sanderus attributes to our Saint. But St. Gerard, as is clear from what has already been disputed, beyond all doubt exchanged this mortal life for the immortal on the third day of October; whereas the Gerard for whom those two epitaphs were composed departed from the living, according to the first of them, on the eighth day before the Ides of September, that is, on the sixth day of this month; and according to the other, on the fifth day of the same month, When in September the sun declines towards the fifth shadows.

[292] and from another, which is certainly the Saint's, recited, Hence it comes about that I suppose that neither of the said Epitaphs is the epitaph of our Gerard; which, for the same cause, Mabillon also judges in his preliminary Observations on the Life of Gerard, num. 9. But this writer furnishes there besides another Epitaph, which is certainly our Gerard's, and which runs thus:

Illustrious from Austrasia, of noble stock, Gerard The Saint has laid his bones in this humble place. Let all the people rejoice, defended by such a Patron, And let the land of Brogne applaud its leader.

He died in the year CMLVIII, raised onto a bier MCXXXI. This epitaph, as the praised Mabillon also advises, is read at Brogne on the tomb or mausoleum of St. Gerard, which still survives there. Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 125, writes of Gerard in this manner: He died in the year of Christ, as Sigebert relates, CMLIX. Yet the inscription of his marble sepulchre, which we have seen in the crypts of the church of the monastery, notes the year CMLVIII. On the fifth day before the Nones of October. The inscription of the marble sepulchre which Raissius here mentions is most probably not different from the Saint's epitaph now just transcribed here, or certainly from the prose clause subjoined to its four little verses, from which, however, these words, On the fifth day before the Nones of October, are absent in Mabillon. I do not know whether he omitted them on purpose, because, according to what has been said, he would have it that the Saint died on the third day before the Nones of October. However that may be, I give credit to Raissius asserting that he saw at Brogne an inscription which noted the fifth day before the Nones of October for St. Gerard's death day, and since there has already been more than enough treatment above of the day on which the Saint migrated to the Lord, I now discuss whether the year 958, which the Saint's epitaph now transcribed here notes, or rather the year 959, which, according to what has been said, our biographer marks, ought to be constituted Gerard's death year.

[293] is proved, took place in 959. Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals, Miraeus in the Fasti Belgici and not a few other writers tie St. Gerard's death to the year 958, led most probably by the Inscription cut on the Saint's marble sepulchre at Brogne, which, as I have already taught from Mabillon and Raissius, determines that Gerard died in the year 958. But Mabillon and a good many other more recent writers, not at all moved by that Inscription, join the Saint's death with the year 959. And indeed, as appears to me at least, they do this not undeservedly. For our biographer, in the Clause transcribed here above with which he ends his composition, according to what has been said, sets this latter year as Gerard's death year; and he here

deserves greater credit than the aforesaid inscription for this reason, that, according to what has been said, he composed his work about the year 1038, and consequently when not yet an entire century had elapsed from Gerard's age; whereas the Inscription was placed on his tomb or mausoleum not before the year 1131, in which, according to what will be said, the sacred body of Gerard was elevated, and consequently not before almost two centuries had elapsed from the Saint's death, as is clear from this, that it marks not only (consult the preceding num.) Gerard's death year, but also the year in which the Saint's body was raised from the earth. Moreover, I do not know whether it ought not also to be gathered from the very four little verses of which it partly consists, likewise transcribed here in the preceding num., that that Inscription was placed on his tomb only at the time when Gerard's body was elevated. Therefore, on account of what has already been said, I determine with our biographer that Gerard died not in the year 958, but in 959; and to do so I am also partly moved by this, that with the year 959, which that writer, in the Clause of his composition transcribed here above, sets as the Saint's death year, all the other chronological marks which he likewise furnishes in it, namely the second Indiction, Concurrent five, Epact twenty and second Feria, agree, according to what has been said, excellently.

§ XXIV. The body of the Saint elevated, and the abbey of Brogne favoured in his honour.

Alexander, bishop of Liège, the body of St. Gerard, on the occasion, The sacred body of St. Gerard had lain hidden in the earth from the year 959 for more than a century and a half, when at length it was raised from the tomb by Alexander, bishop of the men of Liège, in the year 1131, Innocent II, supreme Pontiff, commanding it: which elevation, made of old by the command, or even merely with the consent, of the supreme Pontiff, was held in place of canonization, as it is easy to gather from what Benedict XIV discusses in his work on the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 1, chap. 6 and following. I find no author or ancient monument from which you might learn for certain by what means or on what occasion it came about that the sacred body of St. Gerard was then raised from the earth. However that may be, I think that it was most probably done on this occasion: Innocent II, supreme Pontiff, formerly Gregory, Cardinal of St. Angelo, compelled to flee while the antipope Anacletus was throwing everything into confusion at Rome, came into Gaul in the year 1130, and thence in the following year, at the time of Lent, betook himself to Lothar II, king of Germany and Lotharingia, whom he afterwards crowned emperor, in order to be present at an assembly or synod to be held at Liège. Thither then (consult Pagi in the Critica at the year 1131) there had come with Lothar numerous bishops and abbots of Lotharingia as well as of Germany and of France. What more? Among these was most probably also Ebroin, who then, as Fisen teaches in the Flores of the church of Liège, page 446, in the Catalogue of the abbots of Brogne, presided as abbot over the monastery of Brogne, and he used this occasion to petition the Pontiff for the canonization of St. Gerard.

[295] which, after the example taken from the canonization of St. Godehard, I think so because certainly Bernard, bishop of Hildesheim, who had likewise then come to Liège, on that opportunity petitioned Innocent, the supreme Pontiff, for the canonization of St. Godehard, bishop of Hildesheim, who ended his life in the year 1038, as the anonymous writer of the translation and miracles of this Saint expressly relates in our vol. 1 of May, page 522, num. 8. I write out his words bearing on this, as also some others, because they prove certain things which have already been said. They run thus: A court was proclaimed at the city of Liège, where Pope Innocent with the Roman Church, and a great part of Gaul with King Lothar, and almost all the bishops of the Teutonic region came together; in order to treat thoroughly of the violence perpetrated against the Roman Church by Peter Leonis (the antipope Anacletus), who at that time violently usurped the Papacy for himself; and to work out how they might destroy that idol placed in the temple of the Lord. It came about, therefore, that at the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem (namely the fourth Sunday of Lent, which in the year 1131 fell on the XXIX of March) many Catholic men came together at the aforesaid city, both with the Apostolic lord and with the king, and treated thoroughly of the common state of the Church. Among whom our prelate Bernard (bishop of Hildesheim), attending with the greater men of ours, seeing the opportunity freely offered to him, approaches the Apostolic lord himself with the whole Roman court, and the Life of our Father (namely St. Godehard, formerly bishop of Hildesheim) is recited before them, and most devout prayers are poured forth that he be canonized by him in the Church of God.

[296] set forth here, by the mandate of Pope Innocent II, On the occasion, therefore, of the assembly or synod celebrated at Liège in the presence of Innocent II, at which he himself was also present, Bernard, bishop of Hildesheim, availed himself to obtain from the supreme Pontiff the canonization of St. Godehard, formerly bishop of Hildesheim. Hence further, as I have already hinted, it becomes most probable to me that Ebroin, abbot of Brogne, since, according to what has been said, he was most probably also present at that synod of Liège, on that occasion, either of his own accord or impelled by the example of Bernard, bishop of Hildesheim, petitioned the supreme Pontiff, Innocent II, for the canonization of Gerard, and that the latter then gave orders to Alexander, bishop of Liège, to raise the sacred body of St. Gerard from the earth. Ebroin, says Fisen in the Flores of the church of Liège, page 446, obtained in the year MCXXXI that the body of St. Gerard should be brought out of the earth for veneration. But it can now be asked here whether the Pontiff, at the time when he was still at Liège, ordered the body of St. Gerard to be brought out of the earth for veneration. Fisen, soon praised again, in the History of the church of Liège, book 10, num. 3, writes thus: When the Pontiff (namely Innocent II) was at Liège, he had commanded Bishop Alexander to bring out of the earth the sacred body of St. Gerard of Brogne, so that mortals might more religiously repay the honours deserved by a life most holily spent and by many prodigies after death, and might more abundantly (if it should seem good to the Deity) receive benefits from him. That this was the will of God had not infrequently been announced from heaven. Alexander obeyed, with a great and religious concourse of all orders. Fisen, therefore, would have it that Innocent, the supreme Pontiff, already at the time when he was still at Liège, gave orders to Alexander, bishop of Liège, to bring out the sacred body of St. Gerard from the earth for the veneration of the faithful.

[297] But I think it more probable that the Pontiff gave these orders not then, but only afterwards, which he does not seem to have given when he was at Liège, when in the same year 1131, in the month of October, he celebrated a council at Reims, for this reason, that he was unwilling also to assent to the requested canonization of St. Godehard while he was still at Liège, but deferred the matter to the time when the council at Reims, which he had proclaimed for the next feast of St. Luke, or the eighteenth day of October, should be celebrated by the bishops of Germany, Lotharingia, France and other regions, as the anonymous writer of the Translation and Miracles of St. Godehard, praised above, expressly testifies, immediately subjoining this at num. 9 to the words transcribed here at num. 295: But since it is the custom of the Roman Church to canonize the Saints of God in a general council, which at that time had been proclaimed at the city of Reims for the feast of St. Luke, having taken counsel, he (Innocent II, supreme Pontiff) deferred the petition of our church (of Hildesheim, concerning the canonization of St. Godehard) up to the aforesaid place, and promised most certainly to decide it there. Further, the Pontiff stood by his promises, and in the council of Reims faithfully performed all things which pertained to Godehard's canonization, as the same writer of the History of the translation of St. Godehard likewise testifies at num. 10. Since, therefore, as is clear from what has already been said, Innocent, at the time when he was still at Liège, was unwilling to assent to the requested canonization of St. Godehard, it now becomes most probable from this that he also did not then give orders to Alexander, bishop of Liège, to raise the body of St. Gerard from the earth. Wherefore, since indeed, according to what will be said, the body of St. Gerard was raised from the earth in the year 1131 by Alexander, bishop of Liège, by mandate of the supreme Pontiff, Innocent most probably commanded this to be done in the council of Reims towards the end of the month of October; for then also, as the praised writer of the Translation of St. Godehard again teaches at num. 10, he sent a letter to the church of Hildesheim concerning the canonization of St. Godehard.

[298] Therefore, as the praised writer of the History of the translation of St. Godehard also deservedly offers a handle for suspecting at num. 10, in the month of November or December of the year the most holy life of St. Gerard and the miracles worked after his death will probably have been proposed to the Fathers in the council of Reims, and they, having heard and approved them, will have judged that the sacred body of St. Gerard was to be brought out of the earth for the veneration of the faithful; and the Pontiff will have commanded Alexander, bishop of Liège, to do it. But what I here say about the miracles of St. Gerard which were probably proposed in the council, do not, I pray, take it as if I held it undoubted that miracles had been worked by Gerard after his death before the aforesaid council of Reims; for this, however much proposed by Fisen in the words recited above without any particle of doubt, I do not think undoubted for this reason, that I find no mention in ancient monuments of miracles which Gerard then worked after his death; yet I think it probable for this reason, that otherwise the Pontiff does not seem likely to have ordered the elevation of his sacred body from the earth. Further, since, according to what has been said, Innocent most probably gave orders to Alexander, bishop of Liège, to raise the Saint's body from the earth only towards the end of the month of October, that solemnity will most probably have been accomplished either in the month of November or of December next following. I think so because, on account of what has already been said, it was most probably accomplished not before the council of Reims, celebrated in the year 1131 when the month of October was declining to its end; but without doubt in the very year 1131 in which this council was celebrated, by order of the supreme Pontiff, as I now proceed to prove, as I promised above that I would do.

[299] as from the Charter then issued by Alexander, In Martène, Collection of the old writers, vol. 1, col. 707 and the five following, there is extant a Charter, which Miraeus too in the Codex of Pious donations, chap. 83, and other collectors of ancient monuments present at least in part, issued by Alexander, bishop of Liège, in the year 1131, as is expressly signed at the end of the Charter itself; and both by its beginning and by its context it is most openly indicated that the sacred body of St. Gerard was raised from the earth on the very day on which that Charter was issued, and that indeed by order of the supreme Pontiff. The words by which this is done in the context you will find transcribed here at num. 306; and those by which it is done at the beginning are these: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Amen. To all the sons of mother Church and the well-disposed, perpetual peace. Amen. The little fire of charity having been kindled on earth upon the lampstand, many have renounced both their own and the world, of whose number God has declared to us by manifold proof the grace of our most holy and venerable father Gerard. Whose I, Alexander, by God's

grace bishop of Liège, though unworthy, admonished by divine revelation and salutary precepts, and also delegated by the mandates of the lord Pope Innocent, who was also Gregory, I commemorate on this day the raising of his most sacred body. Be it known, therefore, to all, future as well as present, that, when we were present at Brogne for this, many of the more noble were present there, among whom especially Godfrey, illustrious count of Namur, came in haste to the honour of God and of His holy soldier Gerard, and, the peoples near and remote being present in crowds, and we reverently assisting at so great a solemnity, as was fitting, all things having been duly celebrated, the venerable said Count Godfrey, led by devotion and admonished divinely, in my presence and that of those assisting, devoutly professed to Gerard, confessor of God, and to his worshippers this exposition of veneration, and for himself and his posterity, that they should not transgress further, bound himself by the surety of a pledge and of a worthier oath.

[300] [is drawn out, raised from the earth in 1131, and then in the Saint's honour Godfrey, who was also present at the thing,] Alexander, therefore, as is clear from these words now recited, brought the sacred body of St. Gerard out of the earth for the veneration of the faithful on that very day, and consequently also in the year, on which he issued the aforesaid Charter in favour of the monastery of Brogne. Wherefore, since, according to what will be said, he issued it in the year 1131, he will also have raised the Saint's body from the earth in this very year, the day on which he did it meanwhile remaining unknown for this reason, that the day on which Alexander gave the aforementioned Charter is likewise unknown. Nor do we learn from it only the year in which the elevation of St. Gerard was made by Alexander, bishop of Liège, but also that there were present then at Brogne, whither he had betaken himself for the sake of that matter, at the solemnity very many noble men, together with an infinite multitude of the promiscuous common people, of whom the chief was Godfrey, illustrious count of Namur; and moreover that this prince, who also founded the abbey of Floreffe of the Premonstratensian Order, then benefited the monastery of Brogne from the singular veneration with which he was borne towards St. Gerard. Godfrey was, namely, the advocate or defender of the monastery of Brogne, and it consequently was incumbent on him by his office, as follows from what Du Cange teaches in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity at the word Advocatus, to protect the rights, goods and means of the monks of Brogne. Further, of old the advocates of churches and monasteries (see the praised Du Cange at the word Advocatia) were of two kinds. For some were honorary, to whom no revenues, no payment was assigned; but others, to whom, in order that they might afford protection to churches or monasteries, no small part of the ecclesiastical goods was attributed. Godfrey seems to have afforded protection to the monastery of Brogne with the name of advocate or defender of the former kind. However that may be, certainly in the honour of St. Gerard, when the elevation of this Saint was accomplished, he professed or declared that he had by right no exaction or respect or advocacy in the lands of St. Gerard, that is, that no right belonged to him to exact anything from its lands or estates under the title of the protection which he afforded to the monastery of Brogne, or to demand revenues or an annual payment.

[301] All these things, as I have already hinted, the Charter already praised more than once above teaches, count of Namur, declares the abbey of Brogne free from every right of exaction, which Alexander, bishop of Liège, issued signed with both his own and the count's seal, indicating also in the same both what right is freely granted to the count over the estates of the men of Brogne, and that he takes these under his protection. That the studious reader may therefore have at hand a signal monument of veneration towards St. Gerard, it pleases me to transcribe here too the rest which remains of that Charter, already partly recited above. Therefore after the words just recited these follow: He (namely Godfrey, count of Namur) therefore acknowledged and professed the free and absolute possession of the land (namely of Brogne) and of the founder (St. Gerard), in which he has, or ever had, by right no exaction, nor respect of any homage from tenure or estate or household property, nor does he claim any advocacy in the said abbey from the land (that is, a payment or render to be paid to him as advocate or defender), but, by royal mandate, if he shall be called by the abbot, owes defence solely for the exchange of his intercession with God. Moreover, he shall not be able, by any liberty of Villers-le-Comte, to retain a fugitive slave or bondwoman of the church (namely of Brogne), contumacious and gainsaying, but ought to grant to his captive fleeing to the church a prosperous return and quiet; he ought to extort nothing violently from the church (of Brogne) and from those belonging to it, nor exact any exaction, nor ought he to sit in the plea or in the judgment of the townships and places of the church, whatever the offence committed.

[302] But if he shall be called by the abbot, he ought to have no recompense for his counsel or defensive power. which it has over its possessions, the said Charter declares free, Of the male and female slaves of the church dwelling from afar, nevertheless, he shall not be able to invest anyone into homage and fief, nor can they pass from his hand and defence, which he owes them by mandate of the emperor, into a second hand, but he ought peaceably to guard the male and female slaves and the goods of the church in a worthier state. It is also decreed by us and by the count that every male and female slave paying head-tax, dwelling for a year and a day at Brogne and Saint-Laurent, be entirely absolved from the former exaction and mortmain of their lord, like the other burgesses of the same count at Namur, and be constrained no longer, both in marriages and on any occasions whatever, except by the abbot of Brogne. Moreover, if anyone within the jurisdiction shall have publicly acknowledged, before witnesses, the mayor and the échevins, that he owes a debt to someone, and refuses to pay, the abbot may take a pledge from the debtor's chattels in his house or wherever he shall find them, and deliver it to the creditor: but if the debtor shall have grown so contumacious that he violently retains or steals away his pledge; if the count shall have been called by the abbot, he ought to restrain the rebellion.

[303] and shows himself to it both munificent The same count also annexes and grants in his wood of Malonne, outside the wood which is the church's and was the most holy father Gerard's, on the rivulet of Laudonia, five hearths daily without any exaction and tributary purchase, and every year three beeches in the same wood, which the inhabitants of the church shall choose for repairing their buildings; the count shall in no way be able to exercise the men of the church's dominion in his expedition and station or circuit without the abbot's leave, and the abbot, if it please him, may remove and retain from service of this kind as many and whom he will. It pleased besides and seemed good to the said count, in our presence, to bestow on the church of Brogne more freely this indulgence and authority, that it may receive, without consulting him, the male and female slaves of the count to conversion with their means, both for life and for death, and also that the count's fief-holders and any nobles whatever, and even of the household and the familiar, may serve God as soldiers in the church with their fiefs.

[304] and benevolent, Likewise that two parts go to the service of the count; or if they are not converted at all, it is likewise lawful for them to resign there any entire allods to God in alms. His huntsmen or their dogs, his hawks and any officials whatever, dependent foresters, from the procuring [of] missi, the cloth of hens and of any exactions whatever, which Brogne and Saint-Laurent never before paid, it pleased him to exclude in every way, and to absolve more fully from the demand of tribute of sale and purchase from all his land within the tenure of the church; in townships, fields, woods, pastures, meadows, waters or courses of waters, he will not claim for himself towers, bulwarks, defensive houses or those of other construction, vines, ponds, mills and any other things which can be fashioned and devised, without the grant and regard of the church, nor will he ever violently quarter himself in the townships of the church, nor usurp anything for himself in the church or in the things of the church, since he has nothing by right in these without the grant and assent of the church, but he will stand as defender and helper solely for the reverend command of the emperor and the privilege of the church's prayers.

[305] But Alexander, that the possessions of the monastery of Brogne We, then, not without the counsel of the count himself, have thought it worthy to note below the liberty of the church, the power of its tenure, in which no one shall claim a share for himself, and to confirm it with both our own and the count's seal, lest any chicanery of an adversary be stirred up henceforth. These, therefore, are the things which the church possesses lawfully and most entirely, in which its abbot and his executors may freely and with full power exercise all their rights and judicial powers in the township of Brogne and in Saint-Laurent and in the part which it has in Libinas, in Laniis, in Montinis, in Sen deserta, in Soseys, in Wasin, in Merinderech, in the part which it has in Hermenton, in Bohordes, in Bohoreles, in Mansionile, in Halleias, in Romereias, in Mannisia.

[306] In these places and villages written above the church possesses the ban and justice, are immune from exactions, impetus and burina, blows and blood, breach and the royal pirgum, markets, tolls, the viscounty, except in Sen deserta, which is held from the abbot only in the same township in fief, nagaria, right and not right, imposts, and whatever pertains to jurisdiction, the integrity and safety of the commonwealth, its fields and woods, if it wished to cut, to sell, to set up in townships, or into agriculture; it will be lawful to receive pannages and any revenues whatever gathered from the woods without partnership of the advocacy, and its mortmains and dues for marriages within its bounds entire and outside its bounds, and banal breweries and mills banal for its tenants, forage dues, and any other revenues whatever which can come in exaction and secular right, it possesses as freely as the founder of that place, sprung from a noble lineage, blessed Gerard, whose body we today lay up in the mausoleum, had possessed before his conversion from God alone and his predecessors; nor let there be anyone who should presume to lay hands on the male and female slaves and the means of the church, or on the men dwelling in all its possession; the viscounty and the other attendant dignities the abbot may bestow when he will, nor is there any of all the tenants of the church who can refuse.

[307] In memory of this observance and for the greater diligence of the count's posterity concerning the church and its men, and declares what right over these is freely granted to the count, the count holds the advocacy of Romereis and, from each quarter of land which is held outside the hand of the church by tenant inhabitants, at Brogne and at Saint-Laurent, at Maysons, at Libinas, at Laniis, at Montignio, at Waslin, at Soseiis, at Merenderech, at Hermenton, one dozen of oats. But if anyone shall have been a despiser of the station,

let him first be restrained by the abbot; and if he shall have neglected it, let him be brought by the count into the abbot's court to submit to justice, and of the ban and law adjudged by the échevins let a third part be granted to the count. Also the law and judgment for all who are brought by the count at the abbot's complaint is reserved. It is lawful, therefore, for the church alone to treat peaceably of all the aforesaid affairs without the chicanery of any savage tyrant. Nor let there be anyone who should contradict this our solemn deliberation; otherwise, if any of posterity shall have opposed this our free confirmation, and shall have done violence to the free tradition, in the final examination, when Christ the judge shall sit, let him incur the sentence of perpetual damnation, unless he return to the exhibition of worthy satisfaction.

[308] Having considered, finally, the count's devotion and the sanctioned tradition, and takes them under his protection. since it is ours to assent to good things and to work good towards all, but especially towards the household of God, we have decreed to raise up the liberty of the church under our protection. Against whose authentic document let it be permitted to it by us, in its solemn procession, more fully to bind with anathema any contumacious persons and invaders whatever, noble as well as ignoble, of its household and public property, and, relying on our authority, to reconcile the cursed, if they repent, for ever to Christ and to itself. Moreover, the means of the church, men and cattle, woods and other things of this kind, we take under our protection and guardianship to be observed as if our own and St. Lambert's. Furthermore, wherever the means of the church are vexatiously and less reasonably detained, let it be lawful for it, without the requisition of any successor of ours, to interdict the place, and after the restitution of the invader likewise to lift the ban, and in like manner, not in his own proper person, anyone excommunicated, and to receive to conversion and to bury men of any advocacy from the house of God with their substance and entire portion; we do not judge that the church of Brogne should cease for an offence of the count at a general interdict, since it is nevertheless held to belong to the count.

[309] [The chronological marks joined with the year in which the Charter is noted as given:] In order, therefore, that these things which we have set down may be in force and prevail as authentic for ever, we have caused them to be confirmed by the impression of the seal both of ourselves and of Godfrey, count of Namur, and the charter to be approved with the reckoning of the Lord's Incarnation, with the subscription of the noble men, clerics and laymen, who were present as witnesses of the thing celebrated. The names of the witnesses follow here, and among these Manasses too, whom we have mentioned before, appears in the last place, and then this clause is subjoined: Done happily at Brogne in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand one hundred and thirty-first, Indiction nine, Concurrent III, Epact XX, Lothar ruling as emperor, in the sixth year of his reign, the III of our episcopate. May it endure for ages of ages. Amen. Where, as you see, various chronological marks occur. But do all agree to a nicety with the year of Christ 1131, in which the Charter is noted as given? Alexander, as Giles, monk of Orval, teaches in his Additions to Anselm, vol. 2, was raised to the chair of Liège on the eighteenth day of March in the year 1129, and consequently, since the Charter already mentioned is signed as issued in the year of Christ 1131, and was most probably, according to what has been said, granted in one or the other of the two last months of the year, it is rightly noted with the third year of Alexander's episcopate. Moreover, as will be plain to one who computes it, it also rightly presents the ninth Indiction and the third Concurrent or solar Epact. Nor is there reason either why the sixth year of the reign or rule of Lothar should be said to be wrongly joined with the year of Christ 1131 in the Clause now transcribed here.

[310] [in one of these an error lies, yet the Charter is not on that account to be rejected.] For although Lothar, as is established on the credit of the Hildesheim chronographer and other historians, was crowned emperor by Innocent II, Roman Pontiff, only in the year 1133, he had nevertheless obtained the kingdom of Germany and Lotharingia already from the year 1125; and the kings of Germany, after the empire had been transferred to the Germans by Otto the Great, were sometimes also adorned with the title of emperor, even if they had not yet been crowned with the crown of the empire by the supreme Pontiff. Therefore it cannot be asserted for certain either that the mentioned Clause wrongly joins the sixth year of Lothar's rule with the year of Christ 1131. But let the judgment be different of the lunar Epact XX, which is also joined by it with the year of Christ 1131. For, as will be plain to one who computes it, in this year the lunar Epact is reckoned not XX but I. The Charter of Alexander, bishop of Liège, now transcribed here, is therefore corrupt in the chronological marks which it bears. Yet since, according to what has been said, it labours with this fault in only one mark, this perhaps came about from the drowsiness or carelessness of copyists; or if this displeases, this fault may also be put down to the unskilfulness of the notary who first wrote the Charter, and who perhaps was less rightly skilled in reconciling the years of Christ with all the chronological marks which he presents. Since this is so, I hold the Charter, however corrupt in one chronological mark, for genuine.

§ XXV. A well in the church of Brogne prodigiously health-giving to the sick, the body of the Saint preserved there to this day, and some of his miracles.

Water at Brogne prodigiously health-giving to the sick: Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 125, records thus: There is seen (in the church of Brogne) before the entrance of the choir a fairly deep well, water drawn from which, and drunk by the sick, according to the promise made to St. Gerard by the Apostles Peter and Paul, restores to them their former health. And on the uppermost rim of the well we read these two little verses carved round about:

Let the sick, the healthy, the drinkers, the thirsty run together. I will afford to all a sweet refreshment.

With Raissius agrees Bucelin, and he adds besides the diseases which the water mentioned by Raissius heals, writing thus in the Benedictine Menology which he composed: There is still seen at Brogne, where the holy Man rests, a well rising from the ground with a brazen enclosure, before the very entrance of the choir; water drawn from which, and drunk by the sick, according to the promise made to St. Gerard by the Princes of the Apostles, the sick are prodigiously healed, that drink being especially efficacious against fevers and the royal disease or jaundice, and most approved by the perpetuity of manifold miracles. So the praised Bucelin, citing soon after the monuments of Brogne for all the things which he here affirms. These I do not think are different from the Treatise on the holy Cross mentioned above, which is extant among us in manuscript, and which seems to have been composed, as has been said, when the XII century had almost elapsed or at the beginning of the following, by an anonymous monk of Brogne.

[312] However that may be, I certainly know no monuments of Brogne which mention the water recorded by Raissius and Bucelin [this the anonymous writer of Brogne records to have been divinely promised and granted to Gerard.] older than the aforesaid Treatise of the anonymous. And this, opportunely to our purpose, in book 1, chap. 2, which I therefore transcribe here entire, has thus concerning St. Gerard: There was an illustrious Man, excelling in both graces, namely of morals and of noble birth, Gerard by name, who, girt with military service in the belt, while he held lordship in the territory of Lomme, came to Brogne, his township. And he entered the basilica to hear Mass. But when he was awaiting the priest for rather long, he was overcome by sleep. To him sleeping the Princes of the Apostles stood by, and became his companions at his sides, and led him round, saying: Build a church for God and for us, and renounce secular warfare, to serve as a soldier to God. Renunciation is twofold, general and particular. The general is of all, namely to renounce the devil and his pomps and his works. The particular is of the perfect, namely to renounce the things of the world, as the Confessors did, and sometimes, in case, temporal life, as the Martyrs, the Apostles; and so they confirmed their narrative to the holy Man with promises, and said: We will give you water from the rock, to profit many. They begin well who promise water. When you receive a friend to eat, you pour water on his hands and for drink. Water washes stains and quenches thirst. O gift of God struck out from the flint by the rod of Moses!

[313] promised and granted, it records. Even to this day it makes a seasoning of salvation for many. And the well is deep, and lest the gift of water should seem little to him from two such chief princes, they added: We will give you the pledges of our most beloved son Eugenius the martyr, archbishop of the men of Toledo, colleague of Dionysius the Areopagite. So indeed for the present, but for you and the place for the future we will give a greater distinction. You shall receive an inestimable treasure reserved for the faith of you and of yours, precious, chosen above gold and topaz. The young man, assenting and applauding them, and, as if leaping upon the work, provoked by the promises, waking from sleep, considered what he had seen. But, clinging to his mind like a most fervent glue, the delay of building seemed hard to him, whereby he might obtain the promises. He laid down the belt of warfare and of wickedness, founding a house for the Apostles on earth and for himself in heaven, transferred himself into a monk, found the water, obtained St. Eugenius; and so it comes about that from the receiving of present gifts there is a firm expectation of future ones. Secure, therefore, and ever growing in pious desire, the Man of God waited, and before he was laid with his fathers, placed at the last, he concluded and commanded this same thing to be awaited by his people, in testamentary order and form. So far the praised anonymous monk of Brogne, meaning that three things were promised to St. Gerard in a heavenly vision by the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, namely water to profit many, the sacred body of St. Eugenius the martyr, and an inestimable treasure reserved for the faith of the Saint and of his monks. By this treasure he without doubt understands nothing other than the sacred portion of the most holy Cross afterwards obtained by the men of Brogne, of which there has already been treatment above. This is clear from what he records in the subsequent chapters of the praised Treatise. Further, he means that this last gift promised to Gerard by the Princes of the Apostles was obtained not by himself, which according to what has been said without doubt accords with the truth, but by the monks, his successors in the monastery of Brogne; but that on the contrary the water and the body of St. Eugenius, the two former gifts which the Princes of the Apostles promised, were obtained by the Saint himself.

[314] But this, since the Saint's biographer, an older writer, does not mention it, That Gerard obtained for his monastery of Brogne the sacred body of St. Eugenius the martyr, that is, a notable part of it, we have taught above. Moreover, that the sacred portion of the most holy Cross which Brogne now possesses was not acquired by the Saint himself appears certain from what was disputed at num. 265. But that this, as also the water to profit many, by which without doubt the water of the well mentioned by Raissius and Bucelin is designated, was promised to Gerard in the vision in which the Princes of the Apostles appeared to him is very uncertain. For the heavenly vision in which that water and the portion of the most holy Cross were promised to Gerard is without doubt the same as the heavenly vision in which the biographer relates at num. 8 and 9 that the Princes of the Apostles appeared to Gerard, promised the sacred body of St. Eugenius the martyr, and commanded that he should rebuild the church of Brogne; in these

he makes no mention by any word, however, either of water to profit many or of a sacred portion of the most holy Cross which was promised to Gerard in that vision by the Princes of the Apostles, as you will at once perceive from his words even read through in passing. Wherefore, since our biographer, being, according to what has been said, a writer of the XI century, is most certainly older than the aforementioned anonymous monk of Brogne, who, according to what has been said, flourished only when the XII century had almost elapsed or at the beginning of the following, it is surely to be feared that the things which he records in the words transcribed here above, both about the sacred portion of the most holy Cross and also about water to profit many, which was promised to Gerard by the princes of the Apostles, wander outside the limits of truth.

[315] Deservedly, therefore, it is to be doubted both whether the sacred portion of the most holy Cross, is very uncertain; and also whether the water of the well which, as Raissius and Bucelin testify, is seen in the church of Brogne before the entrance of the choir, was promised to St. Gerard by the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul. What makes me suppose that this matter is to be doubted still more is also that to the silence of our biographer is added the silence of all writers and monuments older than the praised anonymous monk of Brogne. Hence further it is also rendered doubtful whether St. Gerard himself, while still surviving among the living, received the aforementioned water from the princes of the Apostles, or rather whether it was already spoken of at Brogne from the Saint's age as health-giving to the sick. But, you will say, if that water was neither promised or granted to the Saint by the Princes of the Apostles, nor was already spoken of at Brogne from the Saint's age as health-giving to the sick, how at length did it come about that in the times that followed it was thought fit for healing diseases? I answer that this may have arisen from this, that when perhaps the well mentioned by Raissius and Bucelin had been blessed in the name of St. Gerard (for in some places water is wont to be blessed in the name of the Saints), the water from it, drunk by the sick with lively faith and firm hope, restored them to their former health, and it came to be spoken of everywhere, fame spreading it abroad, as prodigiously health-giving to the sick. Hence further it may also have come about that that water was gradually believed by some to have likewise been promised to Gerard by the Princes of the Apostles in the vision in which, as the biographer writes, the body of St. Eugenius was promised to him by them, and to have been in fact granted too, who, observing in the water the power of healing the sick, easily and willingly brought themselves to think that it was in it for this reason, that it had been divinely granted to Gerard.

[316] However that may be, although indeed, from what has now been said, it is very doubtful yet the virtue of the water of Brogne ought not on that account to be denied, whether the mentioned water was divinely granted to Gerard, there is nevertheless no reason why anyone should deny that it is health-giving to the sick, if it is drawn by them with firm confidence in the merits of St. Gerard. And indeed, even if, according to what has been said, it cannot be certain from the very often praised anonymous monk of Brogne that the water which is health-giving to the sick was divinely received by Gerard, yet since he, according to what has already been said, flourished when the XII century had almost elapsed or certainly at the beginning of the following, and nevertheless mentions water which is health-giving to the sick at Brogne, it becomes almost undoubted from him that the opinion by which the well of Brogne mentioned by Raissius and Bucelin is judged health-giving to the sick had already prevailed from the XII century. Wherefore, since that opinion is so ancient, there is surely no reason why anyone should deservedly call into doubt whether the aforementioned water, if it is taken with firm confidence in St. Gerard, is of a nature to bring remedy to the sick. Therefore I detract nothing from the virtue of that water, but only call into doubt whether it was divinely obtained by the Saint, as is said. Further, often health-giving to the sick was not only the water of Brogne, but also a pilgrimage, either made or only promised, to the Saint's sepulchre or sacred body, which, as Raissius in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum and others testify, is honourably preserved at Brogne in a silver bier industriously worked. The Saint's sepulchre or sacred body was still wont in the XVII century, as the lord Souris, very often praised above, testifies towards the end of the Compendium of the Life of St. Gerard which he composed, to be visited daily by pilgrims flocking to Brogne from every side in order to be healed of fevers and jaundice or the icteric disease; and most of these, as he also adds there, returned entirely restored to health after they had refreshed themselves with the most sacred Body of the Lord and at the same time drunk of the aforesaid water.

[317] [as neither of a pilgrimage to the Saint, either made or promised. For by this way Simon Anseau,] Nor did only those sick persons frequently obtain health who in fact visited the Saint's sepulchre and drew from the water sacred to his name; but also, as the same Souris likewise testifies there, not a few others who, when they had only vowed that they would visit the Saint's sepulchre, at once felt the diseases by which they were vexed driven away. Further, that the praised Souris may win credit for his statements, he adds some miracles which were worked on sick persons who were at once restored to their former health by a pilgrimage to the sepulchre or body of St. Gerard, either only promised or also made. These, because they appear worthy of credit, it pleases me likewise to subjoin here, translated into Latin from the French language in which they were written. The first runs thus: In the year of our Salvation MDCII, on the XXVI day of August, Simon Anseau, apothecary of Thuin or Tudinium, then thirty-two years old, when for the entire space of three months he had laboured with tertian, quartan and quotidian fever, had become yellow like wax. When meanwhile he had tried all kinds of remedies, and had used men most expert in the medical art, the lord Ghoisson and the lord Ghanart, being at length abandoned by them without any hope of life, he vowed to God and to St. Gerard that he would visit his holy relics at Brogne, and in the same hour was restored to his former health, so that on the third day after, which was the XXIX of August, he himself came from Thuin (this is a town of the territory of Liège situated on the Sambre) to Saint-Gérard, about seven leagues distant from there, without anyone's help. Which the said Simon with his mother, called Agnes Haverlant, then testified before the Prior and two other Religious of the place. The same testimony the aforesaid Simon, and his mother and wife, afterwards repeated at Thuin in his house before the Prior of Brogne, Gérard Souris, and his companion Jean Clerici, likewise before the lord Pierre du Bois, priest, and his father the lord Georges du Bois, citizen and échevin of Beaumont. And all the above the said Anseau further testified on the XXV day of August in the year MDCXVIII before the court of Thuin, and affirmed under solemn oath according to the instrument which was drawn up on that matter, signed: Jacques Playoul, clerk of the aforesaid court.

[318] François de Prez, citizen of Thuin, On the third day of September in the year MDCXI François de Prez, native of Thuin and citizen of this place, then twenty-nine years old, when for the space of three weeks he had laboured most severely with a continuous and acute fever, and had sought all remedies by which he might heal himself, and yet had found none which could cure him, by the counsel of the aforesaid Simon Anseau, who had formerly obtained health by the merits of St. Gerard, vowed that he would go to Brogne to visit the Saint, and was at once freed from the fever and restored to full health: which the said François, visiting the holy relics on the XVI day of September in the year MDCXII *, declared and professed before the Prior already named and some Religious, bringing forward as witness the aforesaid Anseau. And then further he confirmed the whole on the twenty-fifth of August in the year MDCXVIII before the aforesaid court of Thuin by solemn oath according to the instrument drawn up on that matter and signed: Jacques Playoul, clerk.

[319] In the month of February, in the year MDCII, the lord Noël Mathieu, born at Mettet, the lord Noël Mathieu, chaplain, and chaplain of the same place, when, being then twenty years of age, he was giving attention to humane letters in the city of Mons, was seized with jaundice through his whole body, and when for the space of two months or thereabouts he had been most badly affected by that ill, and had derived no relief from medicine, he was brought to his parents, and by them to Brogne, that there he might both refresh himself with the most sacred banquet of the Eucharist and direct his prayers to St. Gerard, that he might be willing to succour him in extreme necessity by his intercession and merits. His vows and prayers were heard as soon as possible; for, feeling from this time that he was better, within one or two days he was entirely restored to health. Which the said lord Noël attested in a writing signed with his hand; and afterwards he himself, and his mother, Marie Buseau, testified under their faith on the twenty-second of August in the year MDCXVIII before the lord Bailiff of the aforesaid Mettet, imperial notary. All according to the instrument drawn up on that matter, on the day and year as above; signed: Pierre Douilliet, notary.

[320] About the fifteenth day of June in the year MDCX a boy of eight years, a boy of eight years, born at Rebecq near Enghien, born at Rebecq near Enghien, named Jean, son of Jean du Ray and Martine de Heue, after a long and grievous illness was at length abandoned by all the physicians, who no longer had any hope of healing him, and the said boy remained for the space of eight days speechless and not master of himself, so that day and night nothing else was awaited than his last hour. Nevertheless his parents, incited, as they believe, by God, vowed a pilgrimage to Brogne to St. Gerard in the name of their son, who seemed brought to the extremities of death, and at once, as if he had been roused from sleep, he came to himself, asked for food and drink, and as soon as the pilgrimage (which happened not long after it had been promised) was accomplished, the aforementioned boy was restored to complete health, and now still lives healthy and vigorous, daily exercising the carpenter's craft. A few days after he had obtained health, his father and mother, together with the scribe or notary (so I think the French word clerc is to be interpreted here) of Rebecq, called Jean Rogerie, sent to the Prior of Brogne in writing a testimony of that miracle, fortified with their manual sign; and then the said Jean du Ray, father of the said youth, testified before the court of Rebecq that all that has been said above is true, as is clear from the testimony and instrument of the magistracy of Rebecq given on the tenth day of September MDCXVIII.

Signed

Sébastien Anthoine. Jean du Ray. Guillaume Marsille H. de Moitoimon, clerk.

[321] a noble girl of ten years, and many other sick persons were restored to health. In the month of May in the year MDCXVII a noble girl, named Gertrude, daughter of the lord of Fumal, then ten years old or thereabouts, when for the space of three weeks she had been most grievously afflicted with jaundice spread through her whole body, a like vow having been made in her name by her parents, to her former

colour and health she was at once restored; and she visited St. Gerard's relics at Brogne on the twenty-third day of the said month of May exceedingly healthy: which she then testified, together with her companion, before the Prior of the said place. And so you now have all the miracles, translated by me from the French language into Latin, which the lord Souris narrates were worked by Gerard's intercession and merits in the seventeenth century, in which he himself flourished, soon also subjoining: Many similar miracles have been worked by the merits of this Saint in our time, the relation of which, lest we be too prolix, we omit in this present Compendium, asserting that we will bring them to light afterwards too, together with those which we piously believe happen daily, provided that those who have either been affected with consolation or restored to health shall be willing to give us authentic testimony of the matter. These things he: and since, besides these and those already mentioned above, I find nothing more worthy of note which pertains to the Saint's posthumous glory and deeds, I put an end to this Commentary.

* perhaps in the year MDCXI?

LIFE

by an anonymous author, probably a monk of Brogne,

From the edition of Mabillon, Benedictine Century V, part 1, from page 252 to page 276.

Gerard, abbot of Brogne in the county of Namur in Belgium. (S.) BHL Number: 3422

By an anonymous author.

PROLOGUE.

What deters the author from writing, and the reason To the lord, most loving father and most watchful shepherd, the lord Gonter ^a, prelate of the abbey of Brogne, one of the monastic profession, but none in religion, wishes together with the flock committed to him the pastures of perennial life. Your fatherhood commands ^b, my most beloved father, nay we are compelled by the honey-flowing petition of your sons, that we should endeavour in some manner to shell out, as it were, a kernel concerning the life and virtues, or way of life, of the lord Abbot: so that by this spiritual refreshment you may be able in common to revive the inner man wounded by love of that Father, for you are wounded with charity. But what and of what kind are the things which deter us from undertakings of this kind, it seems should be disclosed: attend to a few words. The pre-eminence, namely, of so great a Man, to be extolled; the stammering unskilfulness of our pen; the detracting sluggishness, nonetheless, of rivals; and also the discourse of the earlier writer, grammatically composed indeed, yet not sufficiently clear to the unlettered and to those of less capacity ^c.

[2] on account of which he nevertheless writes. But all these things we put after your command; and although we are unequal to so great a burden, we have nevertheless decided to obey, even with the loss of our modesty. For He strengthens our faint-heartedness whose truth-speaking cries out salutarily: The strength, He says, which unskilfulness denies, fraternal charity supplies. Trusting in this saying, I presume to begin, most certainly sure that the authority of your command will excuse the faults of our unskilfulness. Out of your benevolence, therefore, towards me, I pray, cut off superfluous things, fill up gaps, receive readily what is aptly said, and advance our little gift with fatherly grace: for so the account of our work will also be established for you, if the things which we draw out from the deeds of the Man of God are approved by the subtle judgment of the wise. Farewell, man of God, and remember me: may the well-disposed fare well, may the rivals come to their senses.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's illustrious birth, piety in youth, military service under Count Berengar, a heavenly vision, rare promptitude in carrying out what he received in command in it, embassy into Francia, the monastic life undertaken.

The Saint obtained an illustrious birth, The man, therefore, of the Lord, the lord abbot Gerard, wonderfully apt for carrying out the commands of the Lord, nay worthy in all things of the heavenly hierarchy of a sacred principality, as we have ascertained by the report of truthful men, was sprung from freeborn and orthodox parents at Stave, a village of the territory of Lomme. He shone indeed with illustrious birth, but gleamed more splendidly with probity of morals. His father Stantius was born of the lineage of Hagano, duke of the Austrasians ^a; and his mother, named Plictrude, is related to have been the full sister of the lord Stephen, bishop of the Tungri ^b.

[4] To him from his earliest boyhood the clemency of the Godhead granted and devoted himself from his earliest age to the pursuit of piety. to advance, namely, in age and in understanding, and to please God as well as men. Who, since he was a youth in body, yet disdained to attend to the obscene conversations of youths: nay rather, accustoming himself to be present at the gatherings of the good, he avoided above all the assemblies of the wicked; and him whom splendid youth adorned in body, a holy hoariness of mind had graced. He frequented the more ardently the thresholds of the house of God, thirsting to drink up the rivers of ecclesiastical doctrine: whose salutary admonitions, perceiving them there according to his capacity, although he was clad in the lay gown, he ruminated with a more tenacious memory. He meditated beforehand, with a still tender breast, what he afterwards devoutly merited to fulfil.

[5] Following military service under Count Berengar, by rare gifts of mind and body At that time Count Berengar ^c presided over the castle of Namur, the posterity of whose stock continues there to this day. To him this Athlete of God, committed to military office, adhered, and obtained the first degree of his friendship most familiarly. He arranged the affairs of the county at his judgment, and committed to him above others the more difficult and more secret matters: because (which is very rare) he both was strong in military service and excelled in more prudent counsel. For he was perspicacious in counsel, faithful in what was committed to him, truthful in speech, most eloquent of mouth, most joyful of face, most serene of mind, most sweet in conversation, most gentle in his way of life, just in judgment, vigorous in help: he was also fortified with a most unconquerable armour; namely the helmet of faith, the breastplate of justice, the spear of the word of the Lord, the impenetrable shield of equity. Walled about with these impregnably, he fought down spiritual wickednesses untiringly: the military cloak concealed him along with Sebastian, but his frugality showed him a monk along with Martin the soldier.

[6] [he is very dear to him, and meanwhile diligently cultivates the Christian virtues,] Great was his kindness towards his fellow soldiers, wonderful his charity, great his patience and humility. Accordingly they venerated him as a father to be revered, and revered him as a lord to be venerated. He therefore laid up treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys. He covered the naked, fed the needy, stood by those in labour, cheered the faint-hearted, protected orphans, supported widows, defended the oppressed, aided the wretched.

He was a lover of peace, put strife and quarrels to flight, Like an apostolic man, he was made all things to all.

Indeed the count exulted with no moderate joy in the companionship of so great a Man, having many times experienced by evident indication that the hand of the Lord Jesus was with him: since for him, God helping, all things proceeded according to his wish. Whence, scarcely able to bear his absence, he rarely endured him to be absent from his presence. And when one day (as is the custom of nobles) he was going out hunting with his people, he thought it useful to take out with him also this Saint of whom we treat.

[7] [but while one day, after the hunt pursued with the count, he intends to hear Mass,] After the pleasant labour of the hunt, therefore, when the sun, now at the centre of the pole, was calling for the bread of dinner, the count and his people, seeking refreshment, hasten to return to their dwelling. But the Friend of God himself, putting spiritual things before bodily, went fasting to the neighbouring church situated at Brogne, which with certain adjacent estates had come to his dominion from his forebears. For he was distinguished by the ampleness of his estates ^d, as one who did not degenerate from the virtue of his ancestors. And this little oratory we have learned was founded by order of Prince Pippin, and dedicated by the lord Lambert, prelate of Tongres ^e, so that, since it was placed in the neighbourhood of the forest of Marlignæn ^f, where the prince himself was wont very often to have the exercise of hunting, he might more conveniently hear the divine office there. In which too a pleasant miracle is said once to have happened, namely that from one stone which the sacred Bishop had anointed oil flowed abundantly for some little time.

[8] The Man of the Lord, therefore, ordering the priest to be summoned, namely to handle the Mysteries of Christ, [he is overcome by sleep in the church, and understands by a heavenly vision that the body of St. Eugenius is to be obtained by him;] meanwhile, as befitted a servant of the Lord, applies himself in praying to divine contemplation: and while he awaits the priest's coming rather long, a sleep from heaven falls upon him, so that the Godhead might show him in spirit the place and manner of the oratory which he afterwards built with material structure. He saw, therefore, in a vision * the pillars of the Church, namely Peter and Paul, standing by him ^g, of whom the one, first in the apostolic band, seemed to link his hand with his hand, and to lead him rather familiarly round through the church and forecourt. When the Man of God inquired what he meant by such a walking about, he began to admonish him concerning the construction of the oratory, and, teaching him that he had chosen the place for himself, and had appointed his little son, the martyr Eugenius ^h, as fellow worker with himself: I have decreed, he said, to be the patron of this place, and after God its guardian and kind manager. And he, cheered by so great a promise, burned to know beforehand how the thing could have effect. In what way, he said, excellent shepherd, may I hope to obtain the body of the holy martyr? At this, with a more joyful face, the Apostle replies: Is anything impossible to God? Commit it to God and to me.

[9] Tear down, therefore, this basilica from its foundation, and be not slow to render it more ample and more elegant, by which he is also ordered to rebuild the church of Brogne; and complete each thing the more urgently according to what is now shown you. For he showed him beforehand both the size of the oratory and how each thing there ought to be fitted. And now the priest who had been summoned had arrived, and, composed according to custom, wished to celebrate Mass, yet did not dare to rouse him by sound or touch, but rather waited in silence that he might awake of his own accord. The apostolic vision at length completed, the blessed Man is released from his beloved sleepiness, and when the presbyter murmured under his breath about the long waiting, he restrained him thus with a friendly voice:

I beseech you, servant of God, cease to be moved about this; It was very profitable to me to have undergone sleep thus: I cannot pay worthy thanks to Christ, Whose wonderful miracles I saw, resting briefly.

[10] For the rest, if anyone of the gainsayers supposes this to be fantastic, [the Saint obeys the command, and in the rebuilt church establishes clerics for a time:] without doubt he condemns a like thing done in the life of the lord Benedict, who, while his disciples slept, designated all the workshops ⁱ of a certain monastery to be built ^k: and when they, keeping watch over the same, hesitated, he commanded them to complete it as they had learned by revelation. So too blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, while standing at the sacred altars, is read to have been present at Tours at the solemn obsequies of the Great Martin ^l. But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, a most prompt executor of the apostolic command, after he had carried the enjoined work through to its end, conferred upon the same basilica a most devout gift from the ample revenues of his estates ^m, which should meanwhile suffice for those serving God there. He also employed there for the time the religion of clerics ⁿ, instituting them, through the wisdom given him, to live according to the canonical manner ^o.

Such a religion went before in the first time, Until, God granting, the order of monks is brought in, Far more illustrious than that in property and office.

[11] but, anxious about acquiring the body of Eugenius, he is sent[illeg. as envoy by Berengar to Paris] The oratory, therefore, having been built, and the office of the clerics established there, as has been said, the holy Man began to think very much about the treasure divinely promised him, namely how he might obtain the most sacred body of the blessed martyr and bishop Eugenius. While his intention frequently turns about this, for certain causes an occasion fell to the Count Berengar mentioned above (for so, indeed, the divine promise was disposing) to direct an embassy into Francia to a certain renowned count named Robert, whom the nobility of the Franks afterwards raised to the sceptre-bearing throne [p]. And having summoned to himself the Athlete of God, alone to him alone he commends in friendly converse that he should carry his commissions. Without delay the Man of the Lord enters on the road with his people, and, a very few days having rolled by, comes to Paris; and, the day now declining, since the later hour forbade him to go further, he enjoins some of his men to seek out suitable lodgings for him. But he himself with a few, approaching the venerable thresholds of Christ's martyrs Dionysius and his companions, offers to God devout libations of prayers, and implores that the desirable patronage of the Saints may be present to him. And it happened, the supernal clemency so providing, that at that same hour the band of monks was singing the evening synaxis: and while the ecclesiastical Man was listening rather attentively to their sweet-sounding modulations, they came to that place of supplication where the choir of brethren was accustomed especially to beseech the suffrages of the Saints.

[12] and there he learns from its monks that it is in the monastery of St. Denis; Some, therefore, having been recited by name, there was added also the commemoration of Eugenius, the most desired martyr. Which word, as it reached the ears of Christ's Athlete, he began to waver not moderately in mind, whether he should judge that he was perhaps the one whose name he had learned before in the vision.

And he began silently to beseech Christ within himself, That He would quickly render him certain from his suspense.

Meanwhile, the evening hymns of the place having been completed, having drawn aside certain of the first of the brethren, he speaks to them privately in words of this kind. I beseech you, he says, lords and most beloved fathers, that you would deign to intimate to my littleness who was this martyr whose name, Eugenius, I have just heard recited among the others? And they, beholding the simplicity and innocence of the Man, unanimously give him an answer of this kind. Do you not know, they say, venerable father, that he was bishop of the city of Toledo [q]? Was he not also the hearer and colleague of our patron, namely the lord Dionysius, in bestowing the seeds of the word of God upon the nations, who also, by the dire punishments of torments, gave back his spirit, drenched with the shower of his blood.

[13] [He therefore asks them for the sacred pledge, and hope of obtaining his wish is given him if he becomes a monk there.] Having heard these things, the venerable Man can no longer dissemble the joys of his mind, and, disclosing his desire to them, asks more earnestly that they reveal it to none of mortals. O, he says, most loving fathers and most devoted to God, if it should please your most sweet love to confer the relics of this Saint upon my littleness, I would, believe me, repay your charity without delay with a worthy requital. They, struck with amazement at this, In what way, they say, Man of God, can what you ask be fulfilled? For scarcely could anyone relate all the miracles which he has performed for many in this Gallic province, whence all love Eugenius as an angel. Believe our brotherhood, you have asked a most difficult thing. To whom the Man of God: Do not, he said, fathers, do not, I pray, speak so, and take away from me so quickly the confidence in this thing; is the hand of the Lord weak? Is anything difficult to Him? Where the divine will is, there assuredly is no difficulty: where there is no difficulty, possibility necessarily follows. Seeing, therefore, so great prudence in his answers, they fully open their benevolence to him in words of this kind. Come, Man of the Lord, hear, if you please, in very few words; receive counsel, if you wish to attain your wish. For if divine love should prick your heart, so that you should greatly desire to become a monk in this place; perhaps God would satisfy your desire, so that you might obtain what you so greatly ask, the body of the blessed martyr: this is the sum of our counsel; but do you weigh what you ought to do.

After these words the brethren go away to their own, The Saint is led to the lodging prepared before.

[14] Therefore, turning over with most frequent meditation the consoling words which the brethren had suggested to him, Hence he resolves to embrace the monastic life, in that very night within himself, drawing out tearful sighs within himself, he at length broke out against himself in the laments of this complaint. What, he said, are we doing, soul? Why do we so love empty things? What does worldly glory help? What will human pomp profit? Are not these things frivolous and transitory? Do they not recede like smoke and shadow? Why are you held suspended in uncertainty? The world passes, and its concupiscence. Let us seek, I pray, abiding things, let us spurn transitory ones. Does not the Gospel word thunder, Unless one renounce the things which he possesses, he cannot be the disciple of Christ? Let us renounce, therefore, let us renounce all things, that we may be able to cleave more freely to Christ. While the Athlete of God complains weeping these and similar things, the dawn, bringing back the day, empurples the pole, and compels him to resume the stages of the journey begun.

[15] Matters succeeding according to his wish, not much later he returned to the count [and, returned from the embassy, he asks and obtains from Berengar the faculty of carrying out his purpose;] on whose mission he had gone: and when he had related in order the messages committed to him, contemplating now in his mind heavenly things, he thus inserts the utterances of his desire. I pray, he says, most illustrious of men, whom the Lord Jesus has raised with princely honour, that you would deign to lend a kindly ear to my petition. I have long endured secular military service under you: now the time requires that I begin to live otherwise. Distinguished, therefore, with the monastic habit, I have chosen henceforth to dwell in the house of my God, that, freed from every forensic care, I may be able to serve as a soldier to the Lord alone. Do not, I pray, oppose my purpose, so that, if I shall do anything good in the monastery, you may merit to become a partaker, Christ being the patron. Thereupon the count, tears springing up, speaks with sobs: Do you wish, he says, most friendly of friends, to desert a friend of one mind? What in me has displeased your love? Alas, I leaned upon you, I rested in the tranquillity of your oneness of mind: but, as I conjecture, and am taught by Gospel authority, the sword of the Lord seeks to separate us from one another. Unless I believed these things were from God, who, even a hundred-handed giant, could tear you from my embrace? But now, since these things have been divinely inspired in you, lest I seem rashly to spurn your prayers, the will of the Lord is yours and your petition.

Then he presses sweet kisses on his brotherly lips, And uttered such a voice from his sorrowful body: Part of our soul, be mindful of us and farewell, And, greatly groaning, he released him, groaning in return, to go.

[16] which also afterwards, after certain salutary admonitions, But the Man of the Lord, moving his step from there, makes by a prosperous path for the bishop of the Tungri, by name Stephen; so that, because he was his shepherd after the supreme Shepherd [r], he might receive from him leave and counsel about this matter. For he believed it would profit him very much if he merited to be offered as a living victim to God with the episcopal blessing; and, having been received by him with due reverence, whether on account of the fitness of their mutual kinship, or on account of his sanctity, which he knew very well, among the other conversations of edification which they had together, he humbly insinuates to him for what purpose he had come. And the venerable Prelate, since he was most learned in the Scriptures and most eloquent in words, began to forewarn him with very many discourses of exhortation. Son, he said, most beloved, whom I love with heartfelt love, I will not be wanting to your devotion: but you must beware above all lest you presume to place on your shoulder a burden which afterwards, willy-nilly, you would lay down with disgrace. The purpose which you have in mind is surely exceedingly praiseworthy: but it is formidable even to more perfect men. Are the craftinesses of thousand-formed Satan hidden from you? What a cleric fortified with the shield of divine Scripture scarcely prevails to do, how will a layman, stripped of such a fortification, fulfil? To this the little Recruit of Christ replies in a few words: This very thing, he says, my father, I have considered more frequently with myself, nor do I trust in any way in my own strength: but rather committing soul and body to the Lord, I spurn the petty glory of the world with its delights.

[17] [with the approval of Stephen, bishop of Tongres, he returns to Paris, and puts on the monk in the monastery of St. Denis.] The lord bishop again: Since indeed, he said, dearest Son, I see you fixed and immovable in this intention, lest I seem to dissuade what I ought rather to persuade, if you have vowed anything to the Lord, pay it. For it is better not to vow than not to pay a vow. And absolving him from all crimes, he signs him with the seal of the supreme Trinity, and, having given the kiss of peace, also pours upon him this prayer of blessing:

Jesus, highest salvation of men, who beholdest our acts, From whom nothing is hidden, to whom our breasts speak, Direct, I beg, Thy servant, blessing him, to good things: That he may keep Thy commands, and seek Thee above all, So that he may grasp the rewards of the eternal palm.

The Man of God, therefore, enriched with so great a viaticum by the lord pontiff, departs with spiritual joy, and returning in haste to Paris, and revisiting the blessed thresholds of blessed Dionysius, proved in all patience, humility and penitence, as the salutary Rule of father Benedict teaches, the hair of beard and head being laid aside, at length obtained the monastic habit, handing over, namely, to the same place the things which were his by right in the Lotharian province [s].

ANNOTATIONS.

the one whom they call of Herstal; for he flourished in the seventh century and at the beginning of the following, being snatched from the living in the year 714.

p. Robert, mentioned here by the biographer, son of Robert surnamed the Strong, and brother of Odo, king of the Franks, was indeed first count of Paris; but afterwards, namely in the year 922, he was also constituted king of the Franks at Reims at St. Remigius by the bishops and chief men of the kingdom against Charles the Simple: but he did not hold the kingdom long. For in the year 923, in the battle fought between him and Charles the Simple near Soissons, he was pierced through with lances. Consult Frodoard in the Chronicle at the year 922 and following.

q. That Eugenius, whose relics Gerard received from the monks of St. Denis, was most probably not archbishop of Toledo, nor a disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite, I have taught in §6 of the Preliminary Commentary.

r. Namely before the bishopric of Namur was erected by Pius IV, supreme Pontiff, the monastery of Brogne was subject in spirituals to the bishop of Tongres or Liège.

s. By this donation Gerard also subjected the monastery of Brogne to the monks of St. Denis, since he afterwards had to redeem it from them in order to provide for its security, as was said in the Preliminary Commentary.

* i.e. in a vision

CHAPTER II.

Life holily spent in the monastery, promotion to the sacred Orders and to the priesthood itself, return to his native land with the body of St. Eugenius and other relics of the Saints, and various circumstances of this.

The Saint, now a monk, learns letters, meanwhile accurately observing the Rule: Unwilling therefore to grow sluggish (for idleness is the enemy of the soul), he began suppliantly to beg that he might be allowed to learn letters. At which the brethren greatly wondering, that a Man already long bearded ^a should wish further to be applied to boyish studies of letters; while he asked for it daily the more importunately, he is handed over to one of them to be instructed. But that you may wonder the more at his humility and diligence, he runs through the first elements letter by letter, like a little boy of five years; and so, not at all relaxing his purpose, in a few days he commits the whole Psalter to memory. Nor is it any wonder; for there is no delay in learning where the grace of the Holy Spirit is the teacher. Next the sacred Codices are set before him; he is abundantly inebriated with divine doctrine, so that, as the flower-gathering bee flies over the wide meadows, to compose honey for itself from sweet-flowing nectar, so also this diligent Follower of God, reciting the writings of the doctors, took up the honeycombs of the divine utterance from their honey-flowing doctrine, and wisely stored the sacred commands in his breast. Nor meanwhile did he languish with any lukewarmness in obeying the Rule, but in all things which he was seen to do he rejoiced to have it as his mistress.

[19] [he is promoted to the priesthood in the ninth year of his entry into the monastery,] Which the Prior ^b and the brethren contemplating in silence, and understanding of what kind and how great he was, seeking that the lamp should not lie hidden under the shadow of the bushel, judge him fit to be promoted to the sacred Orders. Moved gradually through these, as the text of our narrative at present sets forth, he merited to attain even the honour of the priesthood, as one whom the beauty of all probity had adorned. Who, although protesting he would have preferred to resist, crying out with manifold excuse that he was unworthy, yet, overcome by the brethren or by the Prior, he was compelled to acquiesce in their commands, lest he should seem to desert obedience, which is wont to be the companion of the other virtues. In the second year, therefore, of his conversion he is ordained acolyte at Paris by Theodulf, bishop of the same city; by whom also he is consecrated subdeacon in the following, the third; and under his successor Fulrad he ascends to the rank of the diaconate in the fourth. But in the ninth year, raised to the summit of virtues, he is raised also to the priesthood by Adelhelm, the successor of that Fulrad ^c.

Such a gift, good Christ, Thou addest to Thy faithful, Who knowest how to render prudent the mind of the dull. Behold, a rude Layman, taught by divine doctrine, Is found magnified with sacred Orders.

[20] and on account of signal virtues he is beloved of all. There flourished at that time in the same monastery a religious congregation of monks, whose life many testimonies of virtues showed to sigh for heavenly things. Among whom he had arrived last in order, but strove to become first in all goodness: he anticipated his seniors in honour, cherished his juniors with love, macerated his body with fasting, more frequently spent the night in prayer, believed himself inferior to all, showed himself in all things as the minister of God, held the norm of religion, dreaded to swerve from regular rectitude; what he displayed in habit he kept in morals and life. In his clothing there was meanness, in his food sparingness. Prompt to obedience, patient under injury, he took care to humble his body on earth, so that his soul might merit to be exalted in heaven. How great humility he showed towards his superiors, how great kindness he held towards all, who can express in word, who can comprehend with pen? Adorned with these and such flowers of virtues, he was held heartily dear by the little ones as well as the greater. One common decree went out among the brethren, that nothing special

should be done within the cloister without his counsel.

[21] Weighing, therefore, that the opportune time for his petition was at hand, namely when he might hope to obtain the venerable remains of the aforesaid martyr, He asks that the body of St. Eugenius be given him; the congregation of the monks having been gathered, he began to win them to himself with this most sweet speech. O, he said, fathers and lords, eminent cultivators of divine religion, who, like senators of heaven, dwell together within the court of an earthly paradise, what thanksgivings can I repay to your oneness of mind in Christ, you who * deigned to receive me, a sinner and shipwrecked under the waves of the stormy world, into the tranquil port of your monastery? For this I have assuredly no possibility, absolutely no means at hand. Yet what human frailty can less do, the bountiful Godhead is able abundantly to supply. But to what the preface of our speech tends, let the most sweet love of your oneness of mind, I ask, attend in a few words. While I was still placed in the secular habit, and very much occupied with forensic cares, a divine vision (as the Lord lives) appeared to me in sleep, which admonished me to hasten an oratory in the poverty of my possession, in the honour of the prince of the Apostles and in the name of his little son, the martyr Eugenius ^d. Completing this with God's help in a short time, I delegated it to the office of clerics serving there, providing for their uses, as far as I could, the stipend of food and clothing ^e. And since such oracles have become known to me concerning this martyr, may the munificence of your fatherhood, I suppliantly pray, grant him to my sonship, especially since your singular church contains so many luminaries of the Saints, whence the whole of Francia may be sufficiently enlightened: so that the poor little basilica of that little place may be enriched with so great a treasure, and the grace of supernal blessing and the glory of blessed perpetuity may be repaid to you on this account.

[22] To these things the brethren unanimously set forth the following in reply. For, touched by the divine breath, the monks assent to the request, and add other gifts. they could not deny what the Man of God was asking. O Eugenius, most brilliant gem of martyrs, who could worthily extol your praises?

Does not all Gaul shine with your virtues? No one seeks your help without obtaining it: For you know how to heal all languors yourself.

Then to the Man of God: Great things indeed, they said, you demand, most beloved father, and such as could most justly be denied to anyone but you. But since, as you relate, it is of the Lord's will, and the imitable manner of your life among us has excellently deserved it; we assent with all benevolence and alacrity to your most devout supplication. For all our things are, and ought to be, common to all, but more so with your brotherhood, all of whose means our church possesses. Wherefore we both give willingly this one whom you ask, and do not refuse relics of the other Saints. This heard, of what mind or soul the Man of God was, each of us can measure by considering with himself with like affection. But why do we make a more prolix course of words? At length the salvation-flowing urn of the most desired martyr is set out, containing his members more precious than refined gold, which, honourably fashioned, as is fitting, with goldsmith's work, is handed over to the Man of God to be carried away to his own place, as he had long desired.

[23] For the rest, do you demand from us the names of the monks then officials there, as supporting the truth, when the truthful page of the translation of the martyr himself designates them man by man? [Gerard returns to his native land, and deposits the sacred treasure obtained at Couvin for a time.] But not only the body of this Saint from there ^f, but also the pledges of many Saints he is known to have brought, which he had gathered for himself from every quarter with faithful storing ^g. What too (which scarcely seems credible to the incredulous) should be related of one Innocent cut down with his coevals ^h, like a most tender flower, under Herod, the most cruel king, whom most certainly the sanctuary of the basilica of Brogne most certainly contains, brought thither by this same agent? But if this raises any ambiguity for anyone, let him inquire of Abbot Lietald, successor of this Man of God in the monastery of Mouzon ⁱ, who, having been present with him at the secret packing of so many relics, used to wonder that so wonderful a sanctity was contained in the narrow compass of the little box of Brogne. The brethren, therefore, bidding farewell, dismiss him with his people in peace: whence, having set out secretly, namely for fear of the natives, lest perhaps they should perceive so great a treasure to be taken away from them, he arrived by a prosperous course at the municipality situated in the pagus of Lomme which is called Couvin ^k. Here there dwelt two monks from the monastery of St. Germain, to which the estate of the same municipality then belonged, unanimously keeping watch with most watchful care in the vigils of the holy abbot Venantius. Commending the pledges of the Saint to their tried faith, as they had long been joined to him in familiarity, he thought it not unfitting to approach the presence of the lord bishop Stephen aforementioned ^l, so that, since he was bringing so great a pearl to his diocese, he might hear an approving sentence on a matter of this kind.

So Christ is wont to adorn His nurslings. This man, having spurned riches, followed His commands; Whence his native land shines, he returns home with this merchandise.

[24] and there a monk is then prodigiously rebuked by St. Venantius. The Man of God having gone away from there, the little body of the blessed martyr being left there, it seems unfitting that what the Lord deigned to work through it for the praise of His name should be covered with silence. For one of the aforesaid brethren, having one night let himself go in drinking more than usual, was returned to the nocturnal lauds somewhat late, overcome indeed by drink and weighed down with too much sleep. St. Venantius, standing by him, rebuked him with a severer countenance both with words and with a blow: Why, he said, do you now snore, shameless monk? Why do you trifle in paying the hymns due to God? Why are you weighed down with sleep, Werembert ^m? for by this name he was called. Behold, your brother Ermar complains of your sleepiness, he who has long since been awakened to the watches of the vigils. And if reverence for us does not so much stir you, why does not at least the presence of the kindly martyr Eugenius, committed to you, move you? Are you ignorant of his merits? Do they not shine among the bright * bands of the Saints like the sun among the lesser stars? Rise, I say, rise as quickly as possible, and what you ought to have done earlier, hasten to supply even late. Which rebuke so far corrected him that not even for a little while after this did he anywhere withdraw from the service of the martyr, except for the sake of human need, until his faithful creditor demanded back his faithful deposit. But lest any of the incredulous should perhaps think this feigned, it is established that this was related by the relation of him who experienced it.

[25] But when the Man of the Lord had related to the lord bishop the coming and the name of the eminent martyr, at once he, as he was of a more joyful mind and more subtle wit, playing on his sacred name, [the bishop of Tongres orders the body of the martyr Eugenius to be honourably received,] brought forth words of this kind:

May blessed Eugenius obtain for us, I pray, the euge Which the Lord deigns to say to the worthy servant, When He renders to him the joys of the heavenly kingdom.

After this, raising his pious hands and directing his eyes to heaven, he blessed God, giving thanks in these words:

Praise and honour, glory and beauty to Thee, Christ the redeemer, Who, good, repayest many good things to unworthy servants. What manifold thanks could I render to Thee, Who endowest our parts with this so great gift? This eminent martyr, sent to our borders, I believe indeed brings gifts of salvation to all.

And turning to the Man of God: Why, he says, * do you put it off till tomorrow, most beloved son?

Break off all delays, and by no means, I beseech you, cease ⁿ, Until you accomplish what you desire with your whole heart.

Behold, an edict goes out from us through all the neighbourhood of your borders, that a gathered throng of both sexes should hasten emulously to meet him, so that they may bring the great Eugenius with a great euge into the tabernacle prepared for him by God through the service of your devotion.

[26] By his kindly answer the Man of God being vehemently strengthened, [and this is carried by Gerard, with a great multitude of people accompanying, from Couvin towards Brogne,] and greatly corroborated by episcopal authority, returned swiftly to Couvin, and, carrying out from there the recovered pledge of the most desired martyr, he takes the road, and makes for Brogne by a direct path. Who, I ask, could relate the common multitude whom the now known fame of the martyr, flying hither and thither, not knowing how to stand in one place, drew to itself?

It urged many, it admonished many to hasten: The stooping digger comes, and the weary ploughman, The ox-herd desires to see, and the swineherd, Slave and freeborn fly together thither mingled.

For who heard the report of the martyr passing, and sat at home undevout and idle?

The open fields scarcely contain the joys of the peoples; They carry gifts, they greet with devout voice, They fix kisses pressed upon the shining metal, The whole people sweetly sings hymn-making odes together.

They raise their voices to the stars, they praise the mighty works of God. You would see this journey accomplished without labour, with great alacrity of minds, with the pleasant jubilation of the rejoicing; you would think that heaven smiled with the most sweet serenity of the air.

[27] Which having been learned, Adelhelm, at that time archdeacon, [and then by Adelhelm the archdeacon, who had come forth with the clergy to meet him,] a man most prudent in nobility of morals (for these things were being done under his archdeaconry), taking with him the orders of clerics fittingly carrying before them the standards of the cross and the patronages of the Saints, and having also collected no small throng of both sexes, hastily comes forth to meet them from the monastery of St. Foillan ^o. And as the bier of the blessed martyr shone forth close by, the Archdeacon most humbly prostrates himself three times to the ground with his people. Prostrate, they each beat their breasts; beating, they confess the sins committed; confessing, they pour forth tearful sighs; pouring forth, they ask fitting remedies; asking, they vow penitential libations to God; and, pricked with spiritual joy, Let us all, said the archdeacon, give every kind of thanks to God: for the dayspring from on high has visited us; and us, who were foul with the dark cloud of vices, He has gratuitously illumined with the clear light of so great a patron. But how greatly the exultation boiled up when both peoples came together into one, which of writers could enclose in writing? For from exceeding joy the eyes of many were wet with sweet tears.

[28] [he is carried with the highest exultation of those running together from every side into the church of Brogne.] For who of so savage a mind, who of so stony a breast, as to be without devout compunction at this spectacle? They rejoice to come under the salutary burden, rejoice to touch it, rejoice to carry it along, rejoice to give gifts, rejoice to venerate; they sang psalms eagerly, voices resounded on every side, all shout aloud Kyrie eleison with lofty voice: they sang Gloria in excelsis Deo, they sounded forth Te Deum laudamus. Nothing could be found there but the praise of the Lord; the citadel of the ether re-echoes with the harmony, the earth resounds, the ridges of the mountains, the hollows of the valleys, the density of the groves return the song by echo. Did ever, do you think, a more joyful light shine anywhere? With such jubilation, therefore, and so great exultation he is then carried to Brogne on the shoulder of the archdeacon, and, fittingly enthroning him in the oratory of the Prince of the Apostles, namely the place destined by God, they again honour him on the spot with gifts of offerings, promising that in future they will most willingly frequent his patronage. And so joyful a translation takes place at the feast of the blessed martyr Agapitus, which is on the eighteenth day of the month of August [p]. And that it should be recalled every year with most celebrated cult was proclaimed by decree of the whole clergy and people.

[29] [But while the fame of the martyr becomes illustrious, the church of Brogne is frequented and enriched with gifts:] These things thus completed, each returns with joy to his own with the tranquillity of peace. Whoever, therefore, with unfeigned faith seeks the suffrages of this Saint, without the delay of postponement experiences

most prompt [aid], especially since the whole neighbourhood most certainly professes that from the most joyful day of his conveyance many unwonted helps have come to it. And as once in Francia he was beneficent through very many prodigies to individuals, as the miraculous page of his deeds relates; so also now, munificent in Lotharingia, he affords more frequent benefits of powers. Therefore, the fame of the martyr growing far and wide, and making known the signs of his powers, a very great people began to flow together to his memorial from every quarter, like bees to the hives, each bringing gifts of offerings according to his ability with great devotion. There is a running to meet and a running together from far and near; votive gifts are abundantly heaped up for the most pious martyr Eugenius, who is ever ready to succour the afflicted when invoked.

Many come sorrowful for the crimes they have committed; But by the prayers of the Saint they return joyful to their own.

[30] Which the enemy of the human race beholding impatiently, he who thrust the dweller of paradise out of the eternal seats, through the hearts of certain clerics dwelling round about (if it is lawful to say it) pours the poison of envy, so that they tried by all means to obscure so honourable a cult of the blessed martyr. Hence some, whom this displeases, try to hinder the cult of Eugenius. Oh, shame! They approach, therefore, the aforesaid pontiff, who was then by chance staying at Fosses [q], and in querulous speeches vomit out before him the conceived stench of ill-will. Is it, they say, most watchful Shepherd, of your authority and will that some newly arrived Saint should receive the cult of veneration under the dominion of your bishopric, the truth of the matter being uncertain? Behold, lately brought from the borders of the Franks, there is venerated at Brogne some martyr, I know not who, Eugenius, to whom so great veneration is shown by all in candles and other offerings, as if he were believed one of the Apostles. Where is the text of his martyrdom? Where the writing containing his deeds? It surely behoves your prudence to scrutinize above all and investigate whether this Eugenius is from God or not. Suggesting these and similar things deceitfully to the bishop, they try in every way to rouse him against the martyr: now the lord bishop is to be addressed by us for a little while. Hear, I say, bishop, I, the author of this little page, speak to you in a silent ear. You must beware more skilfully and observe more diligently lest any of the envious be able to ensnare your mind with ill-persuading speech.

[31] Why do you think to appease envy, having abandoned virtue? Rottenness his bone envy [r], [But while the bishop is meditating to comply with their specious reasons, suddenly with pain of the flanks] as the words of Solomon indicate. A heathen too in proverbs: The envious man grows lean at the rich things of another. You will be beaten, believe me, you will be beaten most hardly, if you believe the fallacy of rivals. Do not, I pray, do not acquiesce, lest afterwards you repent with late repentance. What more? As the trumpet of the Apostolic voice cries out, "Evil communications corrupt good manners;" while the pontiff listens more than is just to the lies of the ill-willed, the joy which he had before had at the coming of the martyr fell entirely from his memory. Contaminated, therefore, with the pasturage of this poison, he takes the road towards Liège, desiring to annul the services of the magnificent martyr. Him in the township which they call Malonne [s] (for there a lodging had been prepared for him) a deserved punishment overtakes with not a lame foot. For when he had arrived at that place, and suspected nothing untoward, suddenly so great a pain of the flanks seized him that he feared he would at once breathe out his spirit. He was therefore tortured with most grievous torment, and could not rest even for a moment; whence, as if out of his mind *, he began to gnash his teeth, to twist his hands, to throw his legs and arms hither and thither. From his face, which you would see now reddening, now paling, now blackening, you could recognize with how great a sickness he laboured; and at length, returning to his heart, he recognizes the guilt he had committed, and began to upbraid himself with these complaints:

Ah, unhappy Stephen, what judgment has turned you! Ah, of little faith, why did you doubt concerning the martyr!

[32] Deservedly you are now smitten, deservedly you suffer these things, deservedly you are now dying. he is seized, and by the patronage of Eugenius, to which he takes refuge, Why did you acquiesce in the biting words of the envious? Why did you forget the great euge of the martyr Eugenius? So he accused himself, so he behaved, groaning. But the chaplains standing round, drenched with a shower of tears, desiring to console him, say to him with sobs: Cease to inflame us and yourself with your complaints, most loving father; rather seek out by forethought some remedy for this affliction. And he: I beseech you, he said to a certain one faithful to him, most loving brother, if my health is a care to you, and you wish to find me well any longer, hastening, make two candles according to the length and breadth of my body, and hurry to carry them for the recovery of my health to the blessed martyr Eugenius, against whom I heartily profess that I have sinned in that fault. And if by his merits I shall have escaped the peril of death, I truly promise, pledge and vow that I will not be unmindful of the benefit received. He, eager to obey the precepts of him commanding, as the cause of the vehement pain demanded, flies to Brogne, so to speak, having mounted a swift wing-footed steed; and entering the oratory of the Saint he carries the candles, carrying them he longs to present them to the martyr, having presented them he seeks to light them, having lit them he arranges them, sobbing, before his mausoleum in the manner of a cross. A thing indeed wonderful to see and noteworthy to tell. At length, when the candle was reaching the end of its shining, the awaited health at once revisited the sick bishop.

[33] restored to health, he takes care that that Saint He, reinvigorated to the state of his former soundness, and in no way ungrateful for the beneficence of the salvation-bringing martyr, decided to repay him a grateful gift, which should indeed represent his memorial for all days. For, calling the sacristan of the church of Brogne, Anselm by name, if we remember rightly, he commands him to be present before him at Liège with the passion of the martyr [t], that it might be corroborated by episcopal authority in the general synod which was to be at the next session. When the latter had fulfilled this with grateful mind, and the course of the passion had been recited in the plenary synod, and had pleased all who were present, it is decreed by the common counsel of the whole clergy both that the martyr be venerated with worthy veneration, and that his Passion be henceforth recited in the church as ratified and acceptable. And the bishop, speaking forth as a fit witness, did not blush to make known to all the things which had befallen him, nay which he had suffered.

[34] the synod decrees be venerated with an annual feast. Adding also: Behold, he said, dearest brethren, the love of your brotherhood has heard of how great and what merit this Saint is, and how terrible it is to incur his anger, and how most salutary and desirable to acquire his favour: and since, chastising me with a downward stroke, he chastised me, yet by his grace did not deliver me to death; it certainly seems fitting and honourable that with your assent and stipulation we honour him with some gift: so that he may deign to intercede for our excesses before the clemency of the divine goodness. His sentence being approved unanimously by all, the lord bishop consequently continues thus. By pontifical decree, he said, it is confirmed, and this holy synod, adjudging it to be done, stipulates, that throughout the whole deanery in which he rests his solemnity be observed as if a Sunday, and that the church of Brogne be henceforth held immune from every obsonium due to the bishops of Liège: and that it may remain ratified and unshaken for all time, and that none of my successors may dare to infringe or weaken it, let him, inquiring, hear what befell me when ignorantly kicking against him; hearing, let him greatly fear; greatly fearing, let him beware; bewaring, let him guard this inviolate. The first management of preserving such a decree by perpetual right is said, therefore, to have been committed to brother Flodinus *, at that time dean from there.

ANNOTATIONS.

the relics of St. Eugenius returned from the monastery of St. Denis to Brogne, had been snatched from the living, and consequently Richer ought to be substituted here for Stephen. Consult num. 41, 42 and 53 of the Preliminary Commentary.

p. The year in which the translation here recorded was made cannot be drawn out from this. Consult again num. 54 and following of the Preliminary Commentary.

q. Num. 54 of the Preliminary Commentary furnishes a notice of this place.

r. Correct: Putredo ossium invidia (Envy is the rottenness of the bones). For so it is had in Proverbs 14, verse 30.

s. The township of Mallonia, says Mabillon in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, now presented with the title of abbey, commonly Maloigne, lies by the Sambre two leagues above Namur.

t. What and of what kind this Passion of St. Eugenius most probably was you will understand from num. 66 and the two following of the Preliminary Commentary.

* perhaps "qua"?

* others "fulgida"

* inquit

* i.e. mentis inops (out of his mind)

* Ghislain manuscript: Elodino

CHAPTER III.

At Brogne he substitutes monks for the clerics; he is called by Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, divinely admonished, to reform the monastery of St. Ghislain at Celle; he establishes monks in it in place of the clerics, recovers the sacred body of St. Ghislain for the monks of St. Ghislain, and restores sight to a blind woman.

In the monastery of Brogne he substitutes monks for the clerics. But the Man of the Lord, Gerard, striving from good things to better, and wishing to advance the sanctuary of Brogne in all things, removed the way of life of the clerics whom he had placed there before, substituting the religion of the monastic Order. Over whom, when he had presided for some time with the prelacy of a most vigorous shepherd, and could not bear the disturbance of the people flowing together there, nor hoped to obtain release from the bishop to whose diocese he belonged; having chosen Priors with whom he might share his burdens, according to what the Rule of the discretion of the lord Benedict commands, he betakes himself alone to a more remote little cell near the church, so that there he might be able to be free more especially for divine contemplation.

[36] At this time Duke Gislebert ^a held the dukedom of Lotharingia, Gislebert, duke of Lotharingia, who, as the biographer, some things a man indeed of great honour and power, if only he had had the wisdom to understand that prophecy of the Psalmist, "Man, when he was in honour, did not understand ^b." For he was the son-in-law of Henry ^c, the most renowned king, having in marriage the sister of Otto ^d, the most famous emperor. And since mention of such men, namely of father and son, has presented itself to the little sheet of our narrative (although we may seem to make a digression from what was begun), it is worth the trouble to touch briefly on a very few things about them, so that those who wish to know without scruple of ambiguity who or of what kind they were, since we know certain men called by the same name, may be able to recognize them. This Henry, I say, crowned no less with prudence than with fortitude, as we read in the Chronicle ^e, was the son of a certain Otto, a most powerful duke of the Saxons, who, having obtained the royal sceptre, as being most instructed in every military exercise, most vigorously ruled very many nations which we know how to declare.

[37] But, that we may be silent about the many things which he did prudently and bravely, in praise of Henry the Fowler, let us bring forward to the middle something great and illustrious, with which he blessed the whole monarchy of Austria which he ruled, such as none of his predecessors is described to have done, not even he who had subdued almost the whole world, Charles the Great. For he obtained the lance of Constantine the Great, without doubt the son of Queen Helena, the finder, as is read and believed, of the salvation-bearing wood, marked like a cross with nails, wonderful to say, which had been fixed in the Lord's Body. But how most prudently he merited to obtain it, and with how great a cult of observance he took care to venerate it, the splendid discourse of a certain chronographer ^f altogether indicates, which for the sake of edification we have taken care to insert into this our description. King Henry, since he feared God and was a lover of ecclesiastical religion, having heard that Rodulf ^g, king of the Burgundians, had so inestimable a heavenly gift, which Rodulf himself too had received as the highest gift of friendship from a certain Count Samson, having directed messengers, tried whether he could acquire it by some rewards, and prepare for himself most unconquerable arms and perpetual triumph against visible and invisible enemies. And when King Rodulf declared that he would never do this, King Henry, since he could not soften him with gifts, took great care by all means to assail him with the terrors of threats.

[38] For he promised that he would depopulate his whole kingdom with slaughter and burnings. king of Germany, But since what was asked was a gift by which God, pacifying both, had joined earthly things to heavenly; King Rodulf's heart at length softened, and he gave so great a gift to the just king justly asking just things ^h. And with how great love King Henry loved this inestimable gift he showed most evidently in this, that he not only honoured Rodulf with gifts of gold and silver, but also gave him not the least part of the province of the Swabians. And God, the inspector of the heart and rewarder of good will, with how great a reward He presented the pious King Henry on account of this thing in the eternal age, He manifested by certain indications even in this time, while He always terrified and put to flight the enemies rising against him, this victorious sign being present. On such an occasion, therefore, nay by the will of God favouring, King Henry merited to obtain the holy spear ⁱ, which, dying, he left to his son, of whom we are at present speaking, with the hereditary kingdom, to be observed by him with no less veneration, as the many victories show which he accomplished through it by praying.

[39] and of his son, the emperor Otto, having premised But of what kind and how great this most distinguished Otto was, the same chronographer intimates to us here with a very great eulogy in his praise. This, he says, this is Otto, most excellent of princes, by whose power the northern and western parts of the world are ruled, by whose wisdom they are pacified, in whose religion they rejoice, and by the severity of whose just judgment they are made afraid. What is more excellent than this praise? What is more evident than this testimony? He had also a brother Henry ^k, namesake indeed of his father, but far distant in morals. For at the instigation of the reprobate he rebelled faithlessly against his brother. And that some mention, however slight, may be made of his other brother, the duke and archbishop Bruno ^l, whose memory is surely in benediction, who could equal his virtues with worthy relation? Under whose most sagacious management, cutting out by the roots the foul bastard shoots of the wicked, Lotharingia flourished again like a fruitful tree in abundance of peace and justice, asserting that by his protection the golden little times of old had been brought back. Of which thing an indication is Rainer, count of the Hainaulters, not unknown, surnamed Longneck ^m, who, because he was tyrannically troublesome to his fellow provincials, and would not come to his senses when admonished once and twice, is even now in exile in unknown regions, by the ambidextrous industry of this archbishop managing it.

[40] he narrates, perished in the Rhine, But lest a more prolix discourse should breed weariness in the reader, we must henceforth return to the purpose of narrating. For it seems sufficiently known to our countrymen how this Otto, most constant of men, prostrate in prayer before the victory-bearing labarum, put to flight with a small band beyond the channel of the Rhine the copious cavalry of his brother Henry and of the aforesaid Duke Gislebert and of the most powerful Count Everard, his soldiers not yet having been carried across to this side of the Rhine. No less well known, too, is how the same Gislebert and the Frank Everard himself, the forces of many soldiers having been repaired, and the province of the Saxons having been devastated round about, desiring to return home with much booty, came to the river itself; and there perished with their men through the very small army of Otto, he himself in the parts of Alsace awaiting the outcome of the matter, nay imploring divine help: and, to set down the chronographer's words, Everard is slain by swords, Gislebert is submerged in the waves of the Rhine: which, since he could not drink them up for their multitude, the soul departing, he failed ⁿ. And so the prophecy of the Psalmist is fulfilled, who says: "Man, when he was in honour, did not understand ^o." For this came upon them on account of ambition for the kingdom.

[41] admonished by St. Ghislain appearing to him in sleep, Let not these things, therefore, briefly inserted, seem superfluous to anyone; but rather not unfittingly added, for they are not known to all. Now let us gird ourselves to discuss what was begun. To the same Duke Gislebert, then, while he still stood in his honour, Christ's confessor Ghislain, who rests in the territory of Hainaut, appeared in vision [p] in the silence of the dead of night; and addressed him with discourse of this kind, intermingling prayers with complaints:

Do you sleep, or wake? You care too much for worldly things; Gislebert, attend, fulfilling my speech. Give me, duke, one shield, I suppliantly demand, Fortified by which I may bravely fight off the blows Which enemies do not cease to inflict on me.

To which the hero Gislebert answered thus jestingly: For what do you need a warlike shield, Saint of God? You are always and everywhere fortified with the sacred shield of divine protection, and therefore you do not need our arms.

[42] The Saint says to this, and resolves obscure things for the doubtful. that he should hand over to Gerard to govern Lest perhaps you be held doubtful by the perplexed windings of an ambiguous word, I can no longer endure the insults with which the Clerics of Ursidongus-Cella affect me day by day. For in my monastery [q], which Christ granted to me, a Greek [r], absolutely no religion is exercised. All seek their own things, but the things which pertain to God they count as nothing. They carry the remains of my body to and fro through the country, that through the munificence of the faithful they may fill up the hunger of their beggary. They do not cease to provoke me, they do not let me rest. I tell you the sum: nowhere is there reverence for us. And since the management of Lotharingia lies with you, I beseech, I ask, I pray in the name of Christ, that you do not put off seeking out for me a fit shepherd, under whose safe government I may be able to receive a little rest. And how you may be able to perceive this, receive now our mind. There is a village in the pagus of Lomme whose name is Brogne [s], in which there lives a certain Gerard, truly a servant of the Lord, leading a contemplative life in a narrow chamber near the vestibule of the monastery. Take him, therefore, for me, and commit to him the care of my monastery, because no one seems to me more suitable for such a business in this region.

[43] These things thus finished, he vanished from his eyes. But that we may unfold the causes of his complaint, the monastery of Celle, occupied by clerics not honest enough; blessed Ghislain had, and today has, an oratory in a little hamlet which by some is called Cella, but by some Ursidungus: in which place, deputed to the service of the same Saint, there dwelt some petty clerics, altogether ignorant of Regular discipline: and they were not as the canons are today, but were like matricularii [t], who, partly compelled by the necessity of their household affairs, partly labouring under the disease of love of money, were accustomed to carry about the most sacred members of the kindly confessor, placed upon a bier on their shoulders, through the streets and villages, singing, or rather begging [u]. From this presumption

they not coming to their senses, but rather acting perversely, this blessed man, moved with most just indignation, did not endure that it should remain unpunished. He suffered himself indeed to be stolen by thieves, so to speak, faithful ones, who in a manner were sick at heart over so great a dishonour to the Saint, and, that we may confess more truly, who rejoiced more in their own advantage than in that of another. Which being learned, the paramonarii [x] of Ursidungus-Cella, recognizing late the offence of their own guilt, with how great grief they were consumed it seems unseasonable to relate and superfluous to inquire.

[44] Gislebert, therefore, not unmindful of the vision shown, but the duke, in order to obey Ghislain, sends men to summon Gerard. having summoned to himself Tiedo [y], bishop of Cambrai, and Raginer [z], count of Hainaut, took care to make known exactly to both whatever he had received in the same vision, and when he consulted them as to what ought to be done in this matter, We dare to decide nothing else, they said, than what you assert you have received from heaven, especially since this man of venerable life has become known to the whole province by the repute of his probity. But he: Going away, he said, most quickly to the Man of God with the staff of pastoral care, you will compel him, unwilling or of his own accord, to undertake the government of the church. They, as soon as they take the road enjoined, come to the prescribed place: where, seeking the Servant of God, they find him lying hid in the more secret little hut indicated beforehand; finding him, they put forward words of fitting salutation; these having been put forward, they fix mutual kisses of love [aa]. And when they had set forth to him the causes of their journey, and that such an embassy was made by God; he, being of dove-like simplicity, gave them an answer of this kind.

[45] He at first refuses to undertake the burden. How, he said, can I do, most beloved fathers, what you suggest to my smallness? Shall I, who have renounced the frivolous things of the world, and despised all secular things for the love of God, seek again what I have abandoned? Do you yourselves, I pray, discerning more diligently, consider whether such a thing is expedient for me. What does Paul, the teacher of the gentiles, admonish concerning such things? No one, he says, serving as a soldier to God entangles himself in secular business [bb]. Withdraw, I pray, withdraw, let me bewail my sins; I pronounce that I am unworthy to undertake what you seek. I am not fit to preside over any, who can profit neither myself nor anyone. Strength fails me, works of sanctity are lacking: I know that I by no means keep the rule of an innocent life, therefore I have no confidence to receive the helm of ecclesiastical rectitude. Against an apology of this kind the men subjoined, saying these things: We beseech you, most kind Father, by the love of God, that you deign to come with us, and undertake the government of the church which awaits you. Has it fallen from your memory what the same teacher of the gentiles says: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers [cc]?"

[46] and at length reluctantly, overcome by more than one reason, Do you not recall also that saying of the Doorkeeper of heaven, Whether to the king as excelling, or also to the duke [dd]? We do not seek that you omit the cult of religion, nor that you seek again the luxuries of the pandering world, provided that you come out of this cave in which you are held enclosed, so that you may become a mirror to the brethren very much in need of your help. For the brave warrior of God ought not to be hidden in a cloistral cave, but rather to enter the field of combat and engage. Let not your own things alone suffice you, but look also to the salvation of the brethren, since you can profit very many both by the grace of exhortation and by the example of religiousness. Does not the Lord too command: "Let your light shine before men [ee]?" and, "No one lights a lamp and puts it in a hidden place [ff]." But what need is there of many words? Know most certainly that you will render an account for this disobedience in the day of the tremendous examination, unless you acquiesce in our petition, especially since it is of the divine will, and the command of the Almighty presses urgently. Then the Elder, overcome, speaks with tears springing up.

[47] he goes away to the monastery of Celle, I had indeed decided to live alone and to wash away my sins by mourning: but, as I see, willy-nilly I am compelled to break off the rigour of my purpose. I dare not resist the divine commands, I ought not to spurn the duke's edict and your prayer; I resolve to come to the aid of the need of the brethren as far as I know how and am able. I will not delay, therefore, to go with you; I will begin what you command. God is able to perfect what is less possible for me. This heard, the venerable envoys, rejoicing with great congratulation, at once thrust the pastoral staff upon him, soothing the distress of his mind with such an address. Come, they said, most vigorous Shepherd, hasten to visit the image-flock [gg] committed to you, and, trusting in the help of the supreme Shepherd, take care wisely to drive off the gaping jaws of wolves, lest perhaps (which God forbid) the straying little sheep perish. And leading him away with them from there with due honour, yet not without the irremediable mourning of the church of Brogne, they hasten with speedy haste to remain at Ursidungus, and, an ecclesiastical donation having been made to him, namely of the whole furniture of the abbey, according to the decrees of canonical authority, they rejoice to establish him abbot there.

[48] He, having more diligently investigated the not good way of life of the clerics dwelling there, [and there substitutes monks for the clerics, and the body of St. Ghislain which had been carried off,] thought it expedient to drive out from that basilica those who had the liberty each to carry on his own business, thereupon substituting swarms of cenobites worthy of God. But after a short interval of time had passed, finding by himself that the remains of the kindly confessor were, alas! absent (for they had been carried off, as is clear from the account above), he began to be greatly dismayed and to waver in a stormy tempest of mind, altogether ignorant what he should do about the loss of so inestimable a pearl. Accordingly, calling to himself some of his faithful ones, and indicating with the anguish of what misfortune he was distressed, he directs them as scouts in every direction, and enjoins, proclaiming it, that they should faithfully investigate it by exploring and explore it by investigating. When they had run about round and round in vain, and reported back nothing serious thence, at length divinely there fell into his mind, as one that would profit, the thought that for this cause he should make for Maubeuge [hh]: whither when he had hastened to set out, and was already entering the doors of the oratory, a rather frequent tinkling of a certain little bell began to be heard by those entering, all being ignorant what * of a thing it portended, even (unless we are mistaken) the Servant of God himself.

[49] Having most devoutly offered prayer, and tearfully appealed to the kindness of the Lord that He would deign to manifest His Saint, being divinely taught where it lay hidden, turning to the natives of that place or church, he inquired of them by questioning with all mildness whether they were aware of anything, however little, to indicate about this matter. When they swore most solemnly that they were entirely ignorant, and moreover were vehemently indignant on account of the crime of the suspicion cast upon them, the Man of God with great tranquillity of mind said: Do not, little sons, do not take this too hard: for the condescension of Christ is able to reveal this to us. For indeed divine help must be at hand where human help ceases. On the following night, therefore, as the Man of God was spending the night in the oratory and importuning the supreme Godhead more earnestly about this matter, suddenly the white image of the stoled Saint himself shone before him, satisfying his importunate supplication and soothing him with this sweet speech: Why, he said, sweet Friend of God, do you take so much weariness for my sake? Receive now a most certain indication of what you seek.

[50] Behold, above the panelled ceiling which hangs over your head, he recovers it for the monks of St. Ghislain, and from Maubeuge, where, namely, yesterday those arriving wondered that a little bell was tinkling, my little body lies hidden, unfittingly laid away. But I wish you and your posterity to know that this has by no means happened without the will of God. When he had brought forth these things, he ascends to the heights of heaven. The Man of God, greatly cheered by this vision, renders due thanks to God, lest he should seem ungrateful. But when the first dawn had put to flight the stars of the pole, and had brought back laborious cares to sick mortals, he himself with his people at once climbs up to the ceiling of the church; climbing, he seeks; seeking, he finds; finding, he weeps for joy; weeping, he rouses his people to tears; and so he takes down the sacred limbs from there; having taken them down, he arranges them in a clean linen cloth; having arranged them, he sings hymn-making praises to God; singing, he joyfully takes the road.

[51] [the neighbouring people flowing together from every quarter with the highest joy,] What feeling had the man of Maubeuge seeing such things? The clergy with the common folk, confounded, fall silent, and, not bearing the countenance of the Man of God for shame, seek hiding places. Who was there of them all who would move his tongue, open his mouth, dare to mutter? O how fitting here is that saying of David: "All iniquity shall stop her mouth [ii]." Already the swift fame of this thing had spread among many, and was gathering the neighbouring common people from every quarter. They, flowing together thither emulously, all cried out alike: Hail, Saint of God; hail, ashes recovered. We render every kind of thanks to the undivided Trinity and to your kindliness; you have betrayed the invaders of your body, you have confounded the turncoats and the crafty, you have amplified the merits of your powers. What kind of monster is it that the Saints are carried off in this time? Where are they who committed so great an outrage? Where in the world are we? We truly dwell with scorpions. Speaking these and some things like them, and joking with one another, rejoicing and eager on account of the finding of the Saint, they applauded the venerable burden as they went.

[52] he carries it back to the monastery of Celle. There went forward, therefore, the tuneful band of clerics with monks, having in their hands the cross and banners: and there followed no small throngs of both sexes, likewise jubilant to the Lord in gladness. And so, with the greatest rejoicing of clergy and people, through the most perspicacious industry of the Man of whom we speak, the kindly confessor is fittingly placed again in his oratory: where, watches of cenobites having been appointed, praise and jubilation are paid in continual time to the Lord Jesus (who is the praise of the Angels), and to His well-deserving confessor venerable praise and praiseworthy veneration. But how the bishop of Cambrai examined and tried the sacrilegious, or by what means (as was fitting) he tormented them when convicted by synodal law, it is not, as we think, for our narrative to set forth to you, especially since his deeds [kk] make it clear, if you wish to be seriously wise.

[53] The biographer's exhortation to the monks of Celle. For the rest, lest Duke Gislebert, whom we mentioned at the head, should depart from us unpraised and inglorious, he was humane enough and very munificent towards the place of the same Saint, namely withdrawing from those serving him as soldiers certain estates, not a few of which he had spent as benefice on his soldiers, and handing them over there by perpetual right to those serving as soldiers for Christ, with those who should serve. Concerning which matter there is one thing which, repeating, I admonish; I say to you, monk of Ursidungus-Cella, who live on the most bountiful stipend of Duke Gislebert: considering diligently, attend lest you be found at any time unmindful of his soul, but rather knock with most importunate prayer at the inconceivable goodness of the most kind Jesus, so that he may attain the golden rewards of perpetual life. And lest perhaps, despairing, you should mutter that he rebelled against his lord, the Roman prince; he received, alas, the most dire exchange of death, and the Lord Jesus does not avenge twice on the same thing. Now let us return to our purpose. The venerable abbot Gerard, therefore, having obtained (as has been said) the pastoral care, of what kind he showed himself in all things our blunt pen by no means prevails to describe.

[54] Lest, however, we should succumb under the matter begun, and seem a laughing-stock to all the more skilled, with the highest piety and dexterity and, according to that reading of the Gospel, they should begin to mock us, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish [ll]; we implore with urgent prayer the signal suffrage of this Saint of whom we treat, that to the grace of the Holy Spirit, to which Spirit * he dedicated the celibacy of his mind, which we too so often offend with the filth of sins, he may by most efficacious intercession, would that he may endeavour

to reconcile us: so that he may deign with grave * goodness to supply to our dullness what it ought to draw out. The Man of the Lord, therefore, exceedingly learned in the regular norm, presided over the brethren committed to him with a twofold teaching.

[55] For according to the most salutary exhortations of the lord Benedict he set forth the Lord's commands in words to the more capable disciples; Gerard governs the monastery of Celle, but to the simpler he demonstrated the divine precepts by his deeds: yet all things which he taught his subjects to be contrary, the Prelate indicated in his own acts as not to be done, bringing forth from the chest of his treasure things new and old, like a most learned scribe, who had such a life as he had teaching. And because he knew that he had undertaken to rule souls, he anxiously prepared himself to render an account, held the golden mean in all things, ruled those committed to him by love rather than by fear. Knowing, therefore, that he acted in the place of Christ, and was called by the forename of the supreme abbot, he so strove to fit himself to all by conforming and to conform himself by fitting, that you would see him serve the ways of all with wonderful charity. But that his probity may become known more summarily, he excelled in the more excellent virtues, than which nothing is reckoned more useful in the life of man, namely distinguished by prudence, crowned with temperance, strengthened with fortitude, enriched with justice. Accordingly we can most fittingly assign to him that saying of Anicius [mm]: The virtues built up the body of the sacred Man.

[56] And to the heap of so great perfection he applied himself more ardently to the solemnities of Masses, [and while once, by his merits, a blind woman, having drunk the water in which the Saint] celebrating daily the memory of the salvation-bringing passion: so that he, who was dead to earthly pleasures but lived in spiritual riches, being ever incorporated with the Lord's body, might also fight down all the assaults of the ancient enemy. While, therefore, one day according to custom he was celebrating the sacred mystery, and the Lord Jesus was now on the point of placing on the candlestick the taper of a shining lamp, that it might give light to all entering the house of the basilica, there was present a certain one of the women from the village adjoining Cella which they call Buxutum [nn], who, the orbs of her eyes long since extinguished, was lamenting her face deprived of light. And when those standing by asked her what she was waiting for there, or for the sake of what thing she had come: I await, she said, the divine clemency and the munificence of this man of God, the Abbot, and that there may be made in you a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, so that you may deign to grant to me, poor wretch, that water in which Christ's servant Gerard shall wash his hands after receiving the Eucharist.

[57] When she had faithfully obtained it, as she had asked, and had tearfully implored the omnipotence of God and the faith of the holy Man, [the water in which the Saint had washed his hands, she suddenly recovers her sight,] she sipped it with the greatest devotion, taking it in little draughts, and, washing her face with it, she also moistened the extinguished pupils of her little eyes by anointing them, and anointed them by moistening. What more? In that same hour indeed, O wonderful and joyful thing! black night is exiled from her little face, and a strange light flashes forth, and she most clearly sees those who see her, and she throws herself at the feet of the Man of God with thanksgiving: whom he, being of a more clement mind, receiving her clemently, raised up, and, rebuking her with a soft voice of this kind, said: Cease, I pray, daughter, cease to pay the cult of so great veneration to me, and do not wish imprudently to ascribe the gift of God to my littleness.

[58] he ascribes the miracle solely to the woman's faith, For through the merit of your faith and the addition of devout hope the power of the Sacraments has repaired the light of your eyes. Go, daughter, go in peace, and repay thanks to the Lord alone. So the woman, the affliction of blindness having been expelled, who had before grieved that she had come with another leading her, now, by the merits and intercession of the blessed Man, exults to go back without the help of another. The famous joyfulness of which miracle spread far and wide to the praise of God, and roused the hearts of many to the veneration of His Servant: and lest it should seem incredible to any of the incredulous, how, I say, could he be unable, who was always united with the body * of the Almighty?

O true light, God, one Creator of all things, Through all the ages Thy promise is made true. You, He says, saints, you are the lights of the world, Nor can the light of probity be hidden in darkness.

Behold, now Thou hast renewed the eye-salve of Siloe [oo], with which Thou didst once give eyes to one captive in his eyes from birth, whom, first anointed with sacred spittle, Thou didst deign to direct to the pool of the swimming-place of Siloe: whence we too, falling with him before Thy sight, and rendering Thee the due proclamations of praises, confess Thee with the inmost and faithful affection of our hearts true God, Son of the true God.

ANNOTATIONS.

Gerberga, sister of the emperor, had conferred as dowry, he presumed violently to take away from her. Frodoard in the Chronicle at the year 957 records thus: Seeing … that Ragenar could not resist the multitude coming, he came to Bruno: but because he would not give the hostages sought, Bruno, seizing him, led him with him under guard, and not much later sent him into exile across the Rhine. Raginer, therefore, or Ragenar, of whom the biographer here treats, certainly not before the year 950, and more probably indeed, because Frodoard is rather to be believed than Sigebert, not before the year 957, exchanged life for death. Wherefore, since Raginar or Raginer I, count of the Hainaulters, ended his life in the year 916, as the author of the Saxon Chronicle teaches in Bouquet, vol. 8 of the Writers, page 224, the biographer designates Rainer or Raginar the second, and consequently, since he calls him Longneck, he confirms our opinion, by which we opine that Rainer the second, and not the first, was called by this surname. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, num. 27.

o. See here letter b.

p. St. Ghislain is venerated on the ninth day of October. Mabillon has already edited the Life of this Saint in the second Benedictine Century, and has added to it the book which comprises the miracles of St. Ghislain; and in this the author Rainer also records the vision which the biographer here narrates. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, num. 136 and 141.

q. Num. 133 and following of the Preliminary Commentary furnishes a notice of this monastery.

r. St. Ghislain was, as his Life attests in Mabillon, second Benedictine Century, cited, page 790, a Greek by nation, and hence he here calls himself Argolic.

s. For a notice of this district and of the place of Brogne see num. 15 and 30 of the Preliminary Commentary.

t. Who the matricularii were of old I have set forth at num. 135 of the Preliminary Commentary.

u. The wicked morals of these clerics, described in the words of Rainer already praised, I have given at num. 134 of the Preliminary Commentary.

x. This word is Greek, and signifies the same as in Latin mansionarius or keeper of the church.

y. Mabillon, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, rightly observes thus at this place: One should read either Stephen, who presided over the men of Cambrai up to the year 934 (elsewhere he says up to the year 933), or certainly Fulbert, his immediate successor. For Thieddo did not obtain the chair of Cambrai before the year 964.

z. The vision recorded here by the biographer did not take place before about the year 932, as you will easily understand from what I discussed in § XI of the Preliminary Commentary, and consequently Rainer or Raginer the second is again designated here, since Rainer the first was then no longer surviving among the living, as I have already taught at letter m.

aa. It is wonderful how much the biographer here, in the whole series of his narrative, disagrees with Rainer. Consult § XII of the Preliminary Commentary.

bb. Second Epistle to Timothy, chap. 2, verse 4.

cc. So, more or less, the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 13, verse 1.

dd. So, more or less, the first Epistle of Peter, chap. 2, verse 13.

ee. Matthew 5, verse 16.

ff. Luke XI, verse 33.

gg. Agalma here signifies a sheepfold or pen.

hh. Melbodium or Malbodium, a town of Belgium in Hainaut, which St. Aldegund founded in the seventh century, is situated on the river Sambre between Mons and Avesnes, distant a nearly equal space of four leagues on either side.

ii. Psalm 106, verse 42.

kk. On this whole series of our biographer's narrative, in which the recovery of the body of St. Ghislain is ascribed to St. Gerard, see § XIII of the Preliminary Commentary.

ll. Luke 14, verse 30.

mm. So Severinus Boethius is called, because among the names which he had was also the name of Anicius. He was, namely, called Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius.

nn. On this village see the Preliminary Commentary, num. 162.

oo. From the Greek word Κολλούριον, which signifies an eye medicament.

* perhaps "eximius"

* compluribus

* i.e. portenderet

* rather "Spiritui"?

* perhaps "gratuita"?

* corpori

CHAPTER IV.

He is summoned to Arnulf, count of Flanders; from him, whom he prodigiously frees from the disease of the stone, he receives many monasteries to administer, reforms those of Blandin and Sithiu, and then, having abdicated the government of all, withdraws to Brogne, and closes his last day there.

Arnulf, count of Flanders, labouring with the stone At this time, therefore, the marquis Arnulf ruled the province of Flanders ^a, a man very opulent in every kind of possession, as is plain even today in the richer progeny of his descendants. Who, although he was moneyed and of more abundant substance, yet, no remedy being applied to him, could in no way attain a remedy for the most grievous sickness by which he was held fast: to whom we fit a suitable little verse:

The sick rich man has coins, he has not himself.

For the stone macerated him with continual tortures, an intolerable disease, namely, which, stopping the urine, is commonly called the little stone. To him many surgeons strove to fly for the sake of healing, who boasted that they had never yielded to the Paeonian master in the medical art, hoping to receive from him, whom they knew to be superabounding in riches, reward with great liberality. When they unanimously wished to cut him with the Hippocratic scalpel, so that at length they might be able to draw out the little stone with which he laboured, since they said he could not otherwise recover entire soundness, he by no means dared to acquiesce in anything of this kind, lest perhaps, he said, while I seek too indulgently to live, I begin to fail too unmercifully by dying.

[60] summons Gerard to himself, Further, the surgeons, seeking by showing to extol, and by extolling to show, the skill of their art, and to encourage by strengthening and strengthen by encouraging the mind of the marquis, fearful through fear of death, to endure it, cut under his sight twice nine men worn out with the same disease, all of whom indeed, except one, who died, they cured in a short time ^b. And since that one showed him that the remedy of cutting was to be avoided, he would no longer listen to anything of the kind. At length, returning to himself by divine mercy, he began fittingly to turn back to God the hope which he had rashly placed in man, who, as we read the virgin of the blessed martyr Agatha experienced, restores all things, healing by His word alone ^c: so that, scenting the good odour of the Man of God, fame spreading it abroad chiefly from the blind woman who had been rid of her darkness by his intercession, he did not delay to beg with most humble petition through a wing-footed envoy that he would deign to weary himself as far as his presence.

[61] When he had run to meet him honourably as he came, and, as was fitting, had received him with all dutifulness; and earnestly asks his intercession with God for him he mournfully intimated with the misfortune of what disease he was tortured, and suppliantly implored that he would intercede with the clemency of the Almighty for his recovery. To which the Man of the Lord, answering, said to him: Believe me firmly, I do not know that I am of so great virtue or merit that you can commit to me the confidence of so great a thing. This surely belongs to perfect men, and more to those released from the flesh and ever standing before the Lord. But who am I, the vilest little slave of God, from whom you should seek a help so very difficult for human nature? If you wish a perfect remedy, commit it to the Lord. But Count Arnulf, groaning, redoubles these things: As I weigh it, my sweet father, you seek an excuse lest you should have to perform what you are asked. Presume, I pray, presume on the goodness of the Lord, and do not delay to afford me the help which, as I hope with most certain hope, God will deign to confer on me through your intervention in so great anxiety of sickness. Do not, I pray, close the bowels of compassion against me, but, that you may be divinely propitiated, be propitious to me, dying. And the Man of the Lord thus meets him as he weeps. Lest you should seem, most beloved, to have sought solace from my littleness in vain, cast ever, cast your thought upon the Lord, and let our counsel please you.

[62] You have no mean abundance of many things. [the Saint enjoins on the count a three days' fast, which he himself also observes,] By spending some little of it on the necessities of the poor, you will be able to abolish the enormity of your crimes. For through sins such an affliction sometimes happens. So that, while you have in such a manner appeased the kind Christ, you may be able to recover the desired remedy of soundness. For the rich and opulent man ought to minister to the needy and the poor: but you by the grace of God are rich and opulent. You ought therefore to minister to the needy and the poor: for he who ministers to the least brethren is found a most welcome minister of God. The marquis, whom dire wasting hooks, approves all things. Most welcome to me, he said, is what you persuade, Servant of God, provided the goodness of the Lord deign to pity me. And like that Zacchaeus of the Gospel of old, I give half of my goods to the poor, provided the most savage disease can be put to rest which obstinately feeds on my limbs. When, therefore, obediently embracing the Man of God's sentence, he had approved it, and had ordered his household to carry it out faithfully: consequently the abstinence of a three days' fast is enjoined on him by the Man of God himself, abstaining with him, so that both, purified by such sparingness, refreshed in soul with spiritual refreshment, might be found worthy to approach the mysteries of Christ.

[63] When they had fulfilled this most devoutly, as the matter required, [and he, after it, during a Mass celebrated by Gerard, is prodigiously freed from the stone.] and had tearfully appealed to the suffrages of the Saints; the Athlete of God is girt with divine arms, celebrating the solemnities of the Mass with his accustomed sighs of weeping. And when he had partaken of the mysteries of the Sacraments, and for the marquis, awaiting eagerly, a share * was found of the same, disclose, disclose, O page, the wonder, suddenly the desire to make water assailed the marquis himself, and soon, seeking a suitable retreat, he passed without difficulty the burning little stone ^d. He being wonderfully restored to his former health, how great exultation of joy abounded in his little breast, how great praise of the Lord possessed all his faithful, or how great fitting veneration grew towards the Man of God, does the love of your oneness of mind demand from us, when our slender description cannot comprehend it with the pen? Let these things suffice, said more summarily, since the whole province of Flanders which served him, and which had before withered in sadness over his misfortune, on account of his soundness in a manner grew green again in joy.

[64] The Saint, not admitting the very many gifts which Arnulf offers him, But the most reverend Abbot, founded in the citadel of humility, in no way arrogated to his own powers the wonderful gift of this benefit, but rather to the most almighty effects of the Eucharist. O munificence of the all-powerful Lord Jesus, to be proclaimed by the tongues of men of every kind! Such a medicinal plaster the salvation-bearing fringe of His garment once applied to the woman labouring with the flow of blood through the courses of twelve years, who had lavishly * spent her patrimony on physicians, and could obtain from none of them suitable remedies of cure. Count Arnulf, therefore, as rewarder of the beneficence conferred on him, greatly desiring to honour the Man of God most liberally with very many gifts, presented to his sight not a few pounds of gold or silver, as once Naaman the Syrian to Elisha, the household servant of Elijah, so that he might order this to be carried away for the uses of himself and his brethren. Which he repudiated, excusing himself in every way, and, indignant, cast at the marquis a word worthy of memory. If, he said, we have left our own things, how shall we accept another's? A monk seeking property on earth is known to have no religion: a moneyed monk is convicted of being a leper. For what is a heap of money, especially among monks, but leprosy of the soul? Certainly brother Gerard does not wish to be moneyed. He will not, therefore, by the Lord's mercy, become a leper.

[65] he is at length reluctantly bent to accept the tithes of his means. For thus the Man wholly given to the service of the Lord feared to lose the security of his poverty, as avaricious rich men are wont to guard perishable riches. Warned by this example, let us monks beware of love of money ^e, nay the leprosy of Gehazi, who, putting after the presages of the prophesying seer , became the leprous possessor of the money of Naaman the Syrian. Bound, however, by terrible oaths, the count at length scarcely prevails upon him to accept at least the tithes of his means, and, like a prudent steward, to dispense them considerately, as the Holy Spirit should deign to inspire him. And this too he at first humbly declined, and a little later not ambitiously accepted, and these he divided into three with most prudent consideration, and distributed with most faithful dispensation. And two thirds indeed he bestowed on the monks serving God and on the poor, but the third he necessarily reserved for the church of Brogne. For at that time the church of Brogne was like a little tree newly planted, not yet fully rooted, which, requiring the aids of watering, if perhaps the industry of the cultivator ceases, is rendered useless and unfruitful.

[66] [The count adds the administration of all the abbeys which are under his dominion.] Thus, therefore, the marquis, having beheld the virtue-bearing probity of the Man of God, and still more his monastic religiousness, which was being spread abroad on every side, thought it expedient to commend to him the management of the abbeys, as many as he had under his power ^f.

Having again obtained a staff, the venerable Shepherd At once disposes to visit the folds committed to him, Lest the wolf should vex with his bite the unwary lambs.

First of all, approaching the monastery of Blandin ^g, founded at Ghent by the blessed prelate Amand ^h, he found it not only stripped of all religiousness, as being occupied by most secular clerics, but also reduced almost to nothing by the infestation of perverse men; and besides, what was to be bewailed with a fountain of tears, despoiled for a long time already of the watch-keeping of the three Saints who had rested there.

[67] Further, the most valiant Athlete, endowed with the help of the Godhead, The Saint substitutes monks for the clerics at Blandin. in no way yielded to the sweats of labours; but, clothed with blessed Joseph in the ankle-length tunic, he always prospered his undertakings with a good end, and, the irreligion of the clerics being removed thence, although they boasted themselves of windy nobility, all things having been improved, he did not delay to substitute the religion of cenobites, as you remember that a little before he had already done in two places. Which they taking most ill, and deliberating to avenge themselves, struck by the malice of the ancient enemy, began to be jealous of the Man's pursuits, to disparage his way of life too, and to keep back whomever they could from visiting him. And when they now saw that they could not oppose his progress, but that his repute grew more and more; they were brought so far, kindled by the torches of envy, as to presume to devise, O shame! his murder to be inflicted by them.

[68] But, the Lord protecting, when their ambushes were made void, Hence certain impious men meditate killing him: but these from the crime and they could not intercept the animal of God, eyed on every side; one day, the accomplices of the sacrilegious faction being joined, they burst the doors of the church, seeking him, which it is even wicked to say, unanimously to tear him to pieces before the altar, even vested in the sacerdotal robe. Displaying a wonderful constancy towards them, he goes forward undaunted to meet them, eagerly opposing himself as a victim to be sacrificed to God. Thus, thus is the truthful saying fulfilled: The just man remains undaunted, trusting, like a lion. Rebuking them, O, he said, citizens, what so great madness drives your minds, that, rebels, you snatch up arms against me who am unwarlike? Unarmed indeed with earthly arms, I am armed with heavenly arms: therefore your darts do not terrify me, nor this so shameful presumption. I do not indeed refuse to drink the cup of death for the Lord Jesus, who deigned to bear in His body the marks of the passion for me. But they, beholding in his face something divine and wonderful, shaken with great fear, fell prone to the ground before his presence.

[69] And so, dismayed in mind and beyond measure out of their senses, are prodigiously hindered, and they ask and obtain pardon from Gerard. they could scarcely speak words of prayer, throwing themselves likewise at his feet. Pardon us, they said, venerable Father, pardon our errors, and do not reckon, we suppliantly ask, what we have so foolishly done against you: have pity on the mourning, be indulgent to the penitent. Having clemently raised them up, vehemently distressed as they were, the loving Father, most easy to pardon, said: Since indeed, he said, you acknowledge the offence of your guilt, and, pricked, show repentance, may the kindness of the Saviour who remits sins deign to pardon you: I too, pardoning, acquiesce in your supplication only on this condition, that, as until now you have been a hindrance to this church, so henceforth you take care to be a help without dissimulation; now, now withdraw in peace. Whom, pray, did he imitate in this deed, if not Him who, about to suffer, went to Jerusalem with steadfast face, and at the very moment of the passion laid low His persecutors with the dart of His word alone?

[70] The Saint translated to Ghent the bodies of Sts. Wandrille and Ansbert But with how great grace of joy and exultation he translated the bodies of the saints mentioned above, Wandrille, Ansbert and Wulfram ⁱ, bringing them back from the city of Boulogne to his own place, the narrowness of our narrative shrinks from confining, especially since the whole province of Flanders attests that very thing to this day. But neither is the church of Brogne held to be without part and immune from these relics. For besides other things there was carried thither from Ghent an arm of the same blessed abbot Wandrille, and also, what is chief, inestimable pledges of the primate of the Apostles ^k. But, that we may serve brevity, and, omitting many things, recall a few, we pass over in silence how vigorously he also presided for some time over the monastery of blessed Bertin, and what savoury fruits of Regular discipline he produced there ^l. But lest we should entirely suppress in taciturn silence the things related to us by our elders, he is related to have been the most watchful manager of eighteen monasteries ^m, the Lord fulfilling what He had promised to His faithful who leave this and that, a hundredfold in this time with persecutions.

[71] and salutarily instructed the monks flowing together to him from every side. So great a fervour for gathering souls for God had kindled him, that he bore the solicitude of the monasteries in such a way that, running about through the dwellings of each, he roused the hearts of his hearers to the love of the heavenly fatherland. Sweating in which happy exercise, he drew the goodwill of many to his familiarity. For from various parts of the places the monastic Order flowed together to him for the sake of edification, thirsting to imitate with all the efforts of their strength the chaste and imitable acts of so great a Man. You would see bees, as it were from different hives, flying together to this flower-bearing tree, that thence they might instil into their dry honeycombs the nectar of honey-flowing dew. Whom he, receiving them with a kindly and grateful mind, and abundantly refreshing them with the food of the monastic norm, rendered of disciples fit teachers, of the more perfect most perfect doctors. Some departed instructed in morals and religion, others nevertheless came to be instructed. For he was unceasingly fragrant like nard with a wonderful odour of virtues, and, opening the fountain of the Scriptures, watered the dry meadows of minds.

[72] The war between the Neustrians and Austrasians blazing, So he took care to communicate the pigment of the divine word, with whose vital sweetness he was fragrant, to the need of the brethren languishing within, so that, chewing it as they passed it through with savoury rumination, they might recover from every infirmity of vices, and by tasting might merit to consider how sweet the Lord is to those who hope in Him. But lest it should seem to any of the readers unfitting that such a word should be fitted to the words of the Scriptures; let him know certainly that the divine word is most aptly called a pigment, which, the more it is ground by rumination in the mouth of those speaking it, the more it renders the delight of savour or odour, driving deadly loathing from the stomach of the languishing soul, which, although on account of its purity it is felt biting in the mouth, yet salutarily diffuses the sweetness of its virtue in the heart. At this same time there arose a disturbance of no small war ⁿ between the magnates of Austria and Neustria [o], which, our sins requiring it, so blazed up everywhere that not only were the affairs of the commonwealth imperilled, but also the least reverence was shown to the holy Church of God. But whence such a quarrel arose, if you wish to know clearly, let the chronography of the earlier men disclose. There were made, therefore, slaughters of men, widowhoods of women, bereavements of parents, burnings of cities, captivities of peoples, breakings of forecourts, desolations of churches.

Who could compare the plunderings and rapines of townships? Who the very frequent cavalcades [p] on this side and that? Or who could touch upon the blood-vomiting battles?

[73] By such and so great a storm of disquiet the commonwealth was then being agitated, he redeems the monastery of Brogne from the monks of St. Denis, and, that for it which after a little the anchor of divine regard, by its inborn goodness, made firm. Compelled, therefore, by this necessity, the lord abbot Gerard, of holy memory, eagerly went to the Catulliacan abbey of blessed Denis [q], redeeming that of Brogne from those serving God there out of the bounty [r] which Count Arnulf had paid out to him. For he feared with no moderate anxiety lest it should succumb to destruction under the whirlwind of so many evils, especially since, remote from the borders of Merovingia [s], to which it belonged at that time, it is situated in the middle of Lotharingia; and, handing it over without delay to the greater church of blessed Lantbert, as lying within the parish of Liège, he commended it to the protection of the lord Farabert [t], then pontiff, formerly abbot of Prüm. How greatly, valuing it highly, he loved it, though small, he himself declared by most evident liberality, namely recompensing the same abbey in mutual exchange with twenty manses of restored land, which that church possesses up to today placed round about it in solid quiet.

[74] But the Friend of the Lord, looking out in all things and above all things for the benefit of the monastery of Brogne, he may obtain a Pontifical privilege, goes to Rome; — monk of Brogne, hear; and hearing, beware of forgetting: although he was of a more advanced age, he nevertheless did not count it a burden to weary himself as far as Rome [u], in order that he might devoutly implore the patronage of the supreme prince of the Apostles Peter, of whose oratory he was the founder, and might endeavour to obtain from his vicar the authentic letters of a confirming decree concerning the goods and liberty of the same monastery. When the lord Stephen, then Apostolic lord of the holy Roman See, had ordered this to be done with wonderful alacrity of mind (the Man himself being present

of God, nay dictating the things which ought to be written), he conferred on him a privilege sealed with a leaden seal, which they also call pertongar [x], leave being also granted him that, by precept of the lord Apostolic himself, all the bishops through whom he hoped to return in going back to his native land should subscribe it for the sake of confirming it [y]. And since the monuments of this writing are held at hand, since the basilica of Brogne preserves them with all diligence to this day, lest the more prolix train should displease any of the readers, we have refrained from setting down here its individual words.

[75] For the rest, let the prudent reader wonder at the most perspicacious prudence of this Man of God, whence, while he is returning, a thing on the way, whose happy namely with how great nobility in such a writing he freed this abbey, and what or how great a penalty of eternal anathema one undergoes if anyone with rash daring, which God forbid, should presume to infringe it. But that we may return to the matter, and recall what worthy of relation the divine power performed for its Faithful one on the same journey; having advanced most prosperously from the city of Rome, the Blessed man himself had come to the mountain which is called that of Jove [z]. And when with his people he was taking the narrow declivities of the mountain, one of the sagmarii [aa], walking incautiously, laden with porphyry stones which the Man of God was carrying across to his own place for the sake of a needful beauty, fell down, rolling, to the hollows of the valley. While the companions who were coming together took this most grievously,

Not at all moved, the venerable Man thus spoke: Why do such things render you faint-hearted, brothers? Let praise be rendered to the Lord for all His benefits.

[76] outcome was ascribed to Gerard's merits, came about prodigiously. And having summoned one of those whom they call Marones [bb], with payment secured, he ordered him at least to search for the pack of the sagmarius containing the stones. For he inclined his mind more to these, perhaps on account of that saying:

Everything which is rare is known to be also precious.

For who would not without doubt have believed it dead? Who would even have supposed that the body had arrived at the ground whole, when it could have been torn to pieces by the crags interposed everywhere? But having been sought, it was found not only alive, but also safe and unhurt, with the stones. Then it became openly known to all that it could not be hurt for this reason, because the prayer of the Man of God bore it up in its fall. And with this stone, as can at present be seen, the high altar of the basilica of Brogne is distinguished even today.

So the sacred and venerable Abbot returns to his own place, Magnifying the Lord, who directs the acts of His own.

[77] [Divinely taught that death is impending over him, the monasteries committed to his care,] Therefore, taught by the sacred inspiration, foreknowing that the day of his calling was impending, on which, namely, he should also render account of the stewardship committed to him; he thought it necessary and useful to revisit the monasteries of the brethren living under his government, and henceforth to strip himself of the burdensome weight of so many cares, and to substitute a fit manager in his stead in each of the monasteries. And when, having taken the road, he had drawn near to the township which is called Marchiennes [cc], which the river Sambre [dd] also washes, his servants on one side, seeing that the hour of eating was now at hand, seek a suitable turning off the road for themselves and their horses, and, departing into a pleasant and grassy place, at once lie down to eat together. But the Man of the Lord, reclining under a certain tree, as a friend served his friend frugality. Who, although he was asked most importunately by his people, did not yet acquiesce in indulging in the meal. You, he said, sons, receive now, now your daily ration with God's blessing; it is not mine to eat at this hour of the day, since indeed a fish is lacking with which I could refresh myself.

[78] while meanwhile he is once fed on the way by the ministry of a bird, And he used such a contrivance of excuse to this end, that he might somehow escape without dining. But while they were conversing and piously contending in turn, behold a bird, called by name Asperellus [ee], cherishing its young in the same tree, cast a fish, not small, at his feet. Which seen, the Man of God's attendants thus address him, reverently joking with him. Come, they said, most reverend Father, a little before you put forward an excuse for not having a fish; now at least do not reject the relish [ff] sent from heaven; assuredly you now have no just occasion. What more? At length the Lover of Christ, overcome, becomes a fellow-guest. Yet ordering the remnants to be put up for the young of the asperellus: Let us not suffer them to be tortured by hunger, lest perhaps this fish fell from the father wishing to carry it to his young. So great and such was the compassion of the just Man. Here it pleases me to insert that saying of an eminent versifier:

Now good to Elijah, which before was faithless to Noah.

For although, according to its name, it was wont to take, harsh and untamed, now, beyond its custom, it has learned to give, prosperous and domestic.

[79] The refreshment completed with fitting thanksgiving, he visits for the last time, and then, withdrawing to Brogne, the Man of God, going forward by a more prosperous path, went through each of the monasteries of his sons with fatherly solicitude; and admonishing them concerning monastic religion, and abundantly imbuing them with divine erudition, he exhorted them with manifold discourse that, preserving the unity of peace and concord against the darts of evasive Satan, they should always stand in the battle line like armed combatants. Thirstily drinking in his salutary words, and insatiably embracing his bodily presence, drawing long sighs from the depth of the breast, all tearfully besought him not to depart from them. He, since he was of honey-flowing mouth, addressing them with a gentler address, is said to have given them such an answer. Not so, he said, most loving and most desired brethren, not so must it be. For my inheritance is goodly to me; there is my rest for ever and ever; there I will dwell, because I have chosen it before all. All things, therefore, having been duly arranged, and the sheep having been commended to the shepherds by the supreme Shepherd, the Blessed man, poor in spirit, all the richer ones which he had ruled being put aside, joyfully returns to the beloved poverty of the monastery of Brogne.

[80] And these things too, monk of Brogne, commit to memory. he closes his last day there. When he had there too arranged all things with wonderful perspicacity, and had abundantly watered the breasts of the brethren with the most limpid fountain of twofold charity, being vehemently wearied by his more advanced age, he began day by day to fail with a heavier weakness of body: and, weighing that the end of life was now at hand for him, and desiring to be dissolved and to be with Christ, having given peace to the monks standing round, he fortified his departure with the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood. Then ordering the bell to be rung [gg], which, cast by his order, he had obtained to be consecrated with episcopal blessing, O truly memorable deed of a beautiful sign! as it re-echoed with a sweeter sound,

The Soldier merited to be blessed without end with the harmony of heaven, And, well-deserving, bright with the light of his merits, Thirsting to the living Fountain, and full of days, Having laid aside at length the veil of frail flesh, He passes into the light-flowing hall of Christ Jesus, When the third light of the month of October shines forth.

In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord DCCCCLIX, Indiction II, concurrent V, Epact XX, Feria II.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Caballicata, from the Italian word Cavalcata, signifies an incursion, as Du Cange teaches at that word in the Glossary.

q. This abbey is so called here by the biographer because it was built in the township or village of Catolacum, or, as others write, Catulliacum, by Dagobert the elder in honour of St. Denis.

r. This word signifies a donation, by which I do not think here is to be understood the donation by which Arnulf the Great, count of Flanders, as soon as he had been freed from the disease of the stone, conferred on Gerard the tithes of his means. See the Preliminary Commentary, num. 255; where also a comment is made on the words in which the biographer teaches that the monastery of Brogne in Gerard's age, however much situated in Lotharingia, belonged to Francia.

s. That is, of Francia, the appellation being most probably taken from the kings of the Franks of the Merovingian stock.

t. Farabert governed the church of Liège from the year 947 up to the year 953, as I taught in the Preliminary Commentary, num. 256 and following.

u. On the age which Gerard had at the time when he went to Rome for the sake of obtaining the Pontifical privilege for the men of Brogne, see what was disputed in § IX of the Preliminary Commentary, where you will also find discussed at what time and from what Pontiff, by the name of Stephen, the Saint received the privilege.

x. Others write Ptongar; and it is here without doubt, as Mabillon rightly teaches in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, Pancharta or Pantocharta; by which name any charter or any diploma whatever is signified.

y. Mabillon, in book 2 On Diplomatics, page 154, teaches that not a few diplomas too are found which are signed with the names of absent bishops. Among these diplomas mentioned by Mabillon must certainly be counted the diploma or privilege granted to Gerard by the supreme Pontiff. For many bishops, even absent ones, subscribed to it, and that indeed, as the biographer here declares, was done by order of the supreme Pontiff himself.

z. Baudrand records thus of this mountain in the Geographical Dictionary: Mons Jovis, a part of the Alps at the very border of Rhaetia, now the Great Mount of St. Bernard. See there, although there are those who believe it to be Monjovetto, a village of Savoy in the duchy of Aosta. This writer, therefore, means that the Mount of Jove is the same as the mountain which is now called the Great Mount of St. Bernard. Further, he afterwards furnishes this notice of the mountain which is now called the Great Mount of St. Bernard: The Great Mount of St. Bernard, le Grand Saint-Bernard, a lofty mountain, part of the Alps, towards the borders of Italy, between the duchy of Aosta in Savoy to the South and the Valais, a province of Rhaetia, to the North, was once called Mons Jovis, and is now so called from St. Bernard of Menthon, archdeacon of Aosta, who in the year DCCCCLXVI raised a monastery in the neighbourhood.

aa. Sagmarius seems to signify here nothing other than a pack-horse or beast of burden.

bb. Mabillon, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Gerard, observes thus on this gentile name: Marrones are also mentioned in the Life of St. Odo edited above, so named from Mauromons, which is situated on the borders of Gaul and Italy. For certain remnants of the Saracen race inhabiting that mountain, says the most learned Du Cange in the Glossary, infested all the neighbouring places with robberies and incursions, until they were entirely extinguished or put to flight by the princes of Italy in the time of Berengar, king of Italy. Mabillon here without doubt designates Berengar the second, who was crowned king of Italy in the year 950. For Berengar the first, as Frodoard teaches in the Chronicle, was killed by his own people in the year 924, and consequently, if the Marrones had been extinguished under him, and not under Berengar the second, they would no longer have been surviving in the Alps when Gerard crossed these mountains in the year, according to what was said in the Commentary, 929.

cc. Marcianae, in French Marchiennes-au-Pont, is a village of Hainaut, or a district on both banks of the Sambre between Tudinium or Thuin and Charleroi, about one league distant from this latter city. The biographer without doubt makes discourse here of this village.

dd. From the French word Sambre, in Latin Sabis.

ee. Du Cange in the Glossary interprets it as a hawk: and indeed that this word is so to be interpreted is clear from these words of the biographer concerning the bird which fed Gerard: Although, according to its name, it was wont to take, harsh and untamed, now, beyond its custom, it has learned to give, prosperous and domestic. Nor would you prove the contrary from the little verse which the biographer also brings forward: Now good to Elijah, which before was faithless to Noah. For although by this little verse the raven is primarily designated, which, as is narrated in Genesis 8, being sent out of the ark by Noah, did not return to him again, and which, as is related in book 3 of Kings, chap. 17, fed Elijah with bread and flesh, the biographer nevertheless only means that the said little verse, which is commonly applied to the raven, can also be applied to the Asperellus or hawk, because this bird, which is for the most part evil to others, was good to Gerard when it fed him.

ff. Pulmentum or pulmentarium, as Mabillon notes, is also taken for a dish made of fish, and this, as appears, is the meaning it has in John 21.

gg. By this sign, namely, Gerard wished to commend his agony to the prayers of the faithful, as Sturmi the abbot, near to death, is read once to have done at Fulda.

* something seems to be missing here.

* perhaps "profusius"

* fatidici

* bessem