Magdalveus

ON ST. MAGDALVEUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, NEAR VERDUN IN LORRAINE,

MORE PROBABLY IN THE YEAR 762.

A Preceding Commentary.

Magdalveus, bishop and confessor, near Verdun in Lorraine. (S.)

BY C. B. AS AUTHOR.

§ I. The various formation of his name, his memory in the sacred Calendars and among writers, from one of whom his Acts are to be published.

Not far from Virodunum or Verodunum, or also Virdunum, a most famous city of Belgic Gaul, of which a brief notice is given among us in volume 2 of June, The Saint, whose name is variously rendered, page 974, there is situated on the right bank of the Meuse toward the north a village called in Latin Nova-Villa, in French Neuville, memorable not so much for the richness of its crops as for the happy death of St. Magdalveus. This holy Bishop of Verdun, who is called in French Mauve or also Mauvis, obtains various Latin formations of his name among various writers. For by some he is called Madelvaeus, Madelveus or Madalveus or Madalfeus; but by others Magdalveus or Magdelveus or even Magdelvaeus. There are also those by whom he is called (most probably however by corruption) Maduleus, Madulutus, Madalneus, Magdalucus, Madaleveus, Maldaveus, or even at last Madulphus. But, someone will ask, which of these different appellations of the Saint is to be embraced? Labbe in volume 6 of the Councils, column 1702, brings forward a Fragment of the assembly of Attigny held under Pippin the Short, king of the Franks, and at the same time the twenty-seven bishops and seventeen abbots who subscribed to it; and among them appears our Saint, and he is called Madalfeus. Wherefore, since no document in which the Saint occurs is found older than that assembly of Attigny, there is certainly reason why he should seem to be called Madalfeus. Yet, since his name is perhaps written there only through the carelessness of copyists, and is now commonly written by the learned Madelveus or Magdalveus, it seems better that he should be called in one of these two ways; and I here choose the latter. For although in the old Breviary of Verdun printed in the year 1625 it is Madelvaeus, and although moreover by Hugh of Flavigny, a writer of the eleventh century, he is generally marked Madelveus, yet in the older Missal of Verdun which we possess, and which is noted as printed in the year 1554, it is Magdalveus. Besides, in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 258, he is written Magdelveus, with the difference of a single letter only, by Berthar or Bercarius, who is by far the most ancient of all the writers known to have treated of the Saint.

[2] These things about the manifold appellation of the Saint being now premised, lest the zealous reader should stumble at it in the course of the work, is inscribed in various sacred Calendars, and by two longer ones, I proceed to the matter itself; and to do this I take my beginning from the chief documents and writers that commemorate Magdalveus. The Saint is inscribed both yesterday and today in various sacred Calendars. The Calendars in which he is inserted yesterday, that is, on the preceding day, have already been enumerated in the list of Those Passed Over of that day, from which day he was also referred — and deservedly, since it is the day on which he died and is honoured among the people of Verdun — to today; and the Calendars in which he is celebrated today are chiefly two enlarged Usuards, the one of Greven, the other of Molanus, or rather of those who prepared the later editions of Molanus of the year 1573 and of the year 1583. There are added our Manuscript Florarium, the General Catalogue of Saints of Ferrari, the Universal Martyrology of Castellan, the Calendars of the Saints of Rosweyde

and the Parisian Martyrology. And all these Hagiologies indeed merely announce the Saint today without any added elogium; but there are two also which subjoin an elogium to the announcement by which they commemorate Magdalveus today: the one, which is called the Gallican Martyrology, composed by André du Saussay; the other, which is entitled The Birthdays of the Holy Canons, by Constantino Ghini; which latter hagiologist's reason for granting St. Magdalveus a place among the holy canons I shall disclose below. I now transcribe both the elogium with which he, and that with which Saussay, adorns the Saint.

[3] which are here transcribed from Saussay The latter runs thus: At Verdun in Lorraine, of saint Magdalucus, bishop and confessor of that city. He, born in the same city, and taught from his earliest years in the study of letters, but especially in the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, consecrated to Christ the integrity of his flesh. And having been taken into the clergy for his most chaste manners, when Agroenus, bishop of Verdun, met his day, he was substituted in his place, king Pippin consenting to the wishes of all. The see, which he found desolate through the whirlwinds of wars, he restored to its former comeliness by the splendour of his holy and admirable works. Hence, fervent in devotion, he set out for Jerusalem and visited the cradle and the burial-place of Christ: where, being received by the patriarch Eusebius, he was loaded with religious gifts on account of his tried holiness. And when, having returned to his own city, he had fittingly placed these in the sacristy of the chief church of the Mother of God, at last, heaping virtues upon virtues, the Man worthy of God fell asleep in the rest of a blessed death. As soon as the holy Bishop had breathed out his spirit, two doves whiter than snow, gliding down from the sky in the sight of all, settled upon the cross which had been placed before his body; and through all the delays of the funeral rites, until he was given to burial, they remained, and so, while those who stood by looked on, sought again the secret places of heaven. And when his tomb shone with daily prodigies of his virtues and was frequented by the constant vigils of the peoples, in the fortieth year after his death his sacred body was exhumed by bishop Peter, and was found as though asleep and living, sprinkled with the whiteness of lilies and the redness of roses, and breathing a wondrous fragrance: by which tokens the greatness of his merits appeared, and the honour of the glory which the Blessed man enjoys with God.

[4] And the former is framed in these words: At Verdun, of S. Magdalveus, the 23rd bishop. and from Ghini, he is adorned with elogia. He, learned in letters, vowed his virginity to God; being made bishop and finding his see desolate through the whirlwind of wars, with God's help he reformed it by teaching and by work: he devoutly visited the Lord's sepulchre, and, when he was at sea, calmed by prayer a storm that had arisen. Returning home, heaping virtues upon virtues, he passed to Christ in a good old age; and at once two doves, in the sight of all, gliding down from heaven, settling upon the cross which was before his body, remained there until the funeral was completed; then, while all marvelled, they sought heaven again. And when miracles shone more and more at his tomb, after the fortieth year, opening it to raise the body, they found it altogether uncorrupt, as though asleep and living, sprinkled with the whiteness of lilies and a rosy colour, and breathing a most sweet odour. He sat nearly 27 years. And he died in the year of the Lord 762. These two Elogia of the Saint do not seem to be approved in every part, as anyone will understand from what is to be said below. But however that may be, Saussay and Ghini, the framers of these, and the other hagiologists praised above, deservedly inserted Magdalveus, bishop of Verdun, as a Saint into the sacred Calendars drawn up by them. For arguments so strong — as everyone will easily gather from what is to be said — fight for this Man's sanctity, and his ancient ecclesiastical cult among the people of Verdun is so certain and undoubted, that I scarcely doubt that, if they had ascertained even this alone, those who reformed today's Roman Martyrology would have granted this St. Magdalveus, though not inscribed in the Classic Martyrologies, a place among today's Saints. From the sacred Calendars in which I have now shown the Saint to be inserted I now turn my discourse to the writers who have embraced his Acts either in a compendium or in a fuller narrative, or have even merely mentioned Magdalveus.

[5] Two here especially come to be mentioned, of whom however neither was contemporary with our Saint or even nearly so. Berthar, in the brief history of the bishops of Verdun which he wove, The one is Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, the other Berthar, or, as he is written by others, Bercharius, priest of the church of Verdun. He, who is much older than Hugh of Flavigny, was born before a hundred years had elapsed from the happy death of St. Magdalveus, in the ninth century, when it had already advanced beyond its middle part, as he himself indicates in his Chronography. From his tenderest years he was educated in the school of the Church of Verdun, and there, as he himself teaches, under bishop Berhard and under the masters appointed by him, he learned human and divine letters. When at the beginning of the tenth century the chief or cathedral church of Verdun had been consumed by an unhappy fire, in which it lost almost all its charters and other documents, he set his mind to writing, and judged that he must labour to preserve for the memory of posterity at least some Fragments of the history of the church of Verdun, as he himself indicates at the beginning. To this end, at that very time — as you will find proved among us in volume 2 of February, in St. Paul bishop of Verdun, numbers 1 and 2; in d'Achery, volume 2 of the Spicilegium of the more recent edition, page 233; and at last in the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 6, page 154 — he set down in a compendium whatever he had either read in ancient writers and documents, or received by the tradition of trustworthy men, concerning the series of the bishops of Verdun and the chief deeds done by them. Whether he drew true things everywhere from these sources, who would assert for certain? That he perhaps sometimes drew false things too, someone may not undeservedly suspect from this, that he does not agree exactly with Gregory of Tours in what that holy historian hands down to memory in book 3, chapter 34, about Desideratus, the ninth bishop of Verdun. Nevertheless he certainly deserves to be commended for sincerity, judgment, and discrimination in the matters he wrote. In that Work, which d'Achery first brought into the light of print in volume 12 of the Spicilegium in the year 1675, and which its author inscribed to Dado, bishop of Verdun, he embraces absolutely all the bishops who governed the church of Verdun from its first origin down to the beginning of the tenth century.

[6] supplies a compendium of the Saint's Life, Some of these he reviews by name only, others with a brief summary of their life added. Among the latter St. Magdalveus holds a place; in narrating whose Acts, although, considering the compendious method of writing which he follows, he is somewhat fuller, yet in truth he treats them very briefly. However brief he may be, nevertheless I should bear his brevity the more easily if only he fortified the matters he narrates with more Chronological notes, and were everywhere sufficiently consistent with himself in those which he supplies, so that one might follow them in the present design without any scruple. But that this cannot be done will become plain from what I shall bring forward when I enquire into the year of our Saint's death. Further, although from what has been said Berthar may perhaps not everywhere agree with the truth, yet since he flourished only about one century after our Saint's death, and since we have no better or more ancient writer who treats of Magdalveus, I think we must stand entirely by what he hands down in his compendium about our Saint. This, on the very threshold of this Commentary, since it will have to be cited often in the course of it and compared with the Life to be published, I here transcribe at once. It runs thus: After him (Peppo or Poppo, bishop of Verdun) there was bishop Volscisus, and bishop Agroenus, and after him the bishopric was vacant for many days. Then there was the lord Magdelveus the bishop, who was of the household of this church (of Verdun, namely), and he was a holy and just Man, by whose industry and zeal he is said to have obtained by precarious tenure Wasnau and the manor of Warnuncus, and Ramisbatium, and very many other things, as I myself have read in charters confirmed by his own hands.

[7] In whose time also the house of that church (the cathedral of Verdun) which is here given, was burnt, our sins requiring it; and on this account he went through Gaul and Italy and so through Greece and Joppa, with great hardship of the roads, and came to Jerusalem, and obtained from the patriarch of that place the relics of many Saints, and brought them, with a crystal chalice carved with marvellous workmanship, to Verdun, and placed them reverently in our principal church. But the relics which were in the older church on the right side of the altar of holy Mary he laid in the underground crypt. For he lived from the time of king Pippin to the time of Charlemagne, and died in the neighbouring village which is called Nova-villa. And when he was being carried thence to Saint Peter's or to St. Vanne's, it is said that upon the cross, in the sight of all, two doves white as snow came, and sat upon it until his body was given to burial. Many good things indeed he established in that church, that is, in the diocese of Verdun. For he built churches in that city very well, and ordered the clergy and people of that church reverently, and was a manifest father and bishop of that church. The properties too which are in Aquitaine, anciently subject to that church — that is, the abbey of Saint Amantius situated in Rouergue, and Marderniacum and Puliniacum — he frequently visited, and carried with him the deeds of our aforesaid bishops (he has above reviewed some bishops of Verdun renowned for sanctity), that by their merits he might the more freely possess those properties situated further off; and on this occasion they say that the miracles of saint Agericus are found written at Marseilles, and that the Life of saint Vanne and of saint Paul are reported to be found in the places bordering beyond the Loire; whose body — wonderful to say! — was found entire after forty years, and was reverently laid where it now lies.

[8] So far the compendium of the Life supplied by Berthar about our Saint. Hugh of Flavigny, in the Chronicle of Verdun which he composed, In it, moreover, several things will have to be observed both here and in the Annotations to be subjoined to the Life to be published. I come now to Hugh, abbot of Flavigny. This writer was born into the world about two hundred years after Berthar, of whom we have already treated, and departed from among the living after nearly the same space of time from him; and at the beginning of the twelfth century, as the writers of the Literary History of France rightly teach in volume 10, in Hugh of Flavigny, he set his hand to weaving that notable Chronicle which Labbe made public in volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscripts. This Work, which is called by some the Chronicle of Flavigny, by others better the Chronicle of Verdun, Hugh divided into two parts, of which the one unrolls the series of historical events from the nativity of our Lord to the end of the tenth century, the other from the year 1002 to the year 1102. The latter especially earned for its author the name of Historian for this reason, that, although

it is not entirely free from all error, yet it teaches not a few things, and those not little worth recording, done in Belgic Gaul in the eleventh century, which would otherwise be hidden from us. The former is of far less moment, both because the things it reveals are generally found described more fully and more accurately by other and earlier writers, and because very many errors have crept into it. Not a few of these Bouquet notes in the succinct Observations which he subjoined to five different Fragments which he inserted from the earlier part of Hugh of Flavigny's Chronicle in volumes 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Writers of France. Further, although Hugh in this part of his Chronicle — into which he moreover inserted many things he had read in the ancient Chronologers, without any discrimination or judgment and often even without order — had it as his purpose to weave a general history of the times running from the first year of the Incarnate Word to the thousandth year, he nevertheless also pursues by design the series of the bishops who in the meantime governed the church of Verdun. And in doing this he recounts not only their names, but also the chief deeds which he found consigned to writing; and although for this he generally uses only a brief discourse, he sets out the Acts of St. Magdalveus in a much fuller one.

[9] Would that he did it with as much accuracy as fullness! But who here, after what I have already brought forward about the first part of the Chronicle of Verdun, in which those deeds stand inserted, would expect accuracy from Hugh? And indeed, as in the Fragments brought by Bouquet just praised into the collection of the Writers of France, so here too he commits not a few errors, especially chronological ones. But however that may be, he certainly supplies a fuller notice of the matters pertaining to St. Magdalveus, inserted fuller Acts, to be published here, and beyond all doubt drew this himself from older documents and writers, although these were not everywhere accurate nor did they present sufficient chronological notes. One of these was Berthar, priest of the church of Verdun: for he mentions with praise that writer and his lucubration on the Acts of the Bishops of Verdun, already weighed above. But although he does this, yet he assigns a year for St. Magdalveus's happy passing to the powers above by no means agreeing with the chronological marks supplied by Berthar. Did Hugh perhaps have documents of this kind, different from Berthar's Opusculum, lighting his way, by which he judged he ought rather to stand? Since this historian in the matters which he found recorded by Berthar generally does not depart from that author, there is certainly reason why someone may perhaps suspect this. But however this matter may stand, whether Berthar's or Hugh's reckoning is the better I shall discuss more fully below. Now I dispatch what remains to be taught here about our Saint's Acts as described by Hugh. These, however inaccurately written, are to be published here for this reason, that they teach more about the Saint than the compendium of the Life supplied by Berthar, and that they carry off the palm of antiquity from the remaining documents which unfold the Saint's deeds, if you except that one. There is also the fact that the promise given by our Predecessors in volume 2 of June, page 982, must be discharged. And so those Acts, of whatever sort they be, divided into chapters and numbers after our custom, I shall subjoin to this Commentary from the first volume of Labbe's New Library of Manuscripts praised above, with Annotations added as well, by which they may not only be elucidated, but also the errors with which they labour may be pointed out, where this has not been sufficiently done in the Commentary.

[10] and to him are added other writers who also treat of the Saint. Further, the Acts or Life of St. Magdalveus is described in a still fuller style in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul by Wassebourg, archdeacon of the church of Verdun in the middle of the sixteenth century, who for this purpose used especially both the ancient charters and documents of his church, as he indicates in more than one place, and also Berthar's lucubration on the bishops of Verdun, inasmuch as he cites it frequently. This lucubration of Wassebourg likewise swarms with very many errors, and often most openly conflicts with the Acts committed to writing by Hugh of Flavigny and mentioned by us above, and especially in the years with which he connects the deeds done by Magdalveus. He evidently did not have before his eyes Hugh of Flavigny's Chronicle of Verdun. For he nowhere cites it, nor perhaps, if he had seen a lucubration of that kind, would he have been about to dissent from it so frequently. So it appears, since from what is to be said the documents of the church of Verdun which he used were probably of inferior authority to Hugh's Chronicle of Verdun. But whether this lighted Wassebourg's way or not, the Life of our Saint woven by him will from time to time be brought forward in this Commentary also, whether that the errors lurking in it may be corrected, or that it may serve in some way to confirm the things I shall bring forward. I now add some other writers, likewise more recent, who also treat of St. Magdalveus, or at least have mentioned him. Surius inserted in his fourth Trimester of the Saints the Life of our Saint as he found it in a very ancient, as he calls it, Manuscript codex, contracted, as it appears, from the lengthy Acts written by Hugh of Flavigny; and afterwards Franciscus Haraeus and Zacharias Lippeloo brought the same from Surius into the Lives of the Saints which they collected. To these are added Demochares, Claude Robert, the Sainte-Marthes, and Jean Chenu, who review St. Magdalveus in their Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun; and at last, far more recent than all these, Calmet also. He in his History of Lorraine treats of our Saint at sufficient length from the older writers praised above, and will therefore have to be praised by us more than once in the course of the work. I now proceed to the matters which more closely concern St. Magdalveus.

§ II. The Saint's native place, parents, time of birth, studies in youth, entry into the clerical state, and virtues.

The Saint was probably born in the city of Verdun; Hugh of Flavigny in the Chronicle of Verdun, a little before he begins to review the Acts of St. Magdalveus, records thus in Labbe, in the volume cited above, page 103: In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 711 the lord Madeleveus was born in the city of Verdun, of the household of the church; and then at page 104, when about to consign those Acts or the Saint's Life to writing, he begins his lucubration in this manner: In the year, therefore, from the Incarnation of the human Word 753 the lord Madelveus receives the bishopric of the church of Verdun. He was brought forth in the same city of Christian and renowned parents. That the city of Verdun, then, was the Saint's birthplace Hugh of Flavigny teaches expressly and consistently, and Wassebourg too affirms it no less expressly in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, page 130, from the ancient charters and documents, as he says, of the church of Verdun (these, however, from what is to be said, are of little credit); and I have been able to find nowhere any writer who maintains the contrary, and therefore there is no reason why I should refuse assent here to this writer and to Hugh. Berthar indeed does not support them in this matter; but what of that? Neither does he oppose them, since he wraps the Saint's birth alone in deep silence. At least therefore it appears likely that the city of Verdun itself, over which he afterwards presided as bishop, was the Saint's birthplace. I could wish that with no less likelihood it might now be determined what parents, and of what sort, the Saint obtained.

[12] Berthar (go to number 6) supplies at the outset only this that can make to our purpose: and although he is said to have been of the household of the church of Verdun, Then there was the lord Magdelveus the bishop, who was of the household of this church (of Verdun, namely); and these words, as will become plain from what is to be said below, admit of more than one sense. That the Saint was born of the household of the church of Verdun was, as it appears, what Hugh persuaded himself Berthar signified by them, and hence it seems to have come about that he wrote in the words quoted in the preceding number that St. Magdalveus was really born of the household of the church of Verdun. But the Saint could have been of or from the household of the church of Verdun in another way than by birth. This I prove thus: Of old those were said to be of the jurisdiction or of the household of any church who, whether of their own will or by an obligation attached to the family from which they sprang, were bound to the service of that church, or at least were held to pay it an annual due. So it is aptly gathered from what du Cange teaches in his Glossary at the words familia and censualis. This will become manifest to anyone who is willing to consult both those places, as also volume 4 of the Benedictine Annals, page 286, to which du Cange also refers the reader. And so let it now be admitted for the moment that St. Magdalveus, though born of free parents, made himself of his own accord a censual of the church of Verdun, that is, bound himself to pay it an annual due: then certainly, this being granted, the Saint would have been of the household of the church of Verdun, and his birth would have contributed nothing to this. Here now is yet another way, likewise not derived from birth, in which the Saint might also have been of the household of the church of Verdun.

[13] he might have been so in another way than by birth, In St. Magdalveus's age, when Pippin did not yet reign in the Gauls, what made this name for those who were called canons was not the profession, as afterwards happened, of keeping something like a Rule of canons, but the register or canon of the church, in which they were inscribed as beneficiaries, to whom the canon — that is, the allotted or just portion of the church's revenues and stipends — was dispensed. So Thomassin rightly teaches in On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, part 1, book 3, chapter 8 and at the beginning of the following, from various statutes of councils and synods. Further, those canons or clerics who were inscribed in the canon or register of any church were bound to the service or ministry of the church in whose canon they had their name entered. This will become plain to anyone who unrolls Thomassin in the places just cited. But now, since from what has been said above those who were bound to the service of any church were said to be of that church's household, let it be supposed for the moment that St. Magdalveus was a canon of the church of Verdun in the sense just set out: then certainly, this being granted, he would have been of the household of the church of Verdun, however much he be believed to have been begotten of parents who were not of that church's household. Hence d'Achery notes thus in the margin on these words of Berthar quoted above, He (St. Magdalveus, namely) was of the household of this church: That is, a canon. This writer meant, namely, that by the words on which he makes this note St. Magdalveus is reckoned by Berthar among the canons of the church of Verdun. And indeed that the Saint really was a canon of the cathedral church of Verdun in the sense just given appears to me not at all unlike the truth. For besides that nothing at all persuades the contrary, I am impelled the more readily to believe it from this, that the Saint was, from what is to be said, set as abbot over the abbey of St. Vanne at Verdun, and that, as Thomassin also teaches in chapter 8 just cited, before the age of Pippin and Charlemagne the canons of cathedral churches were not seldom presented with abbeys.

[14] yet in fact parents bound to the service of the church of Verdun, But however that may be, we have at least from what has been said that St. Magdalveus could have been of the household of the church of Verdun in another way than by birth, and therefore that from Berthar's words, in which he is asserted to be of or from the household of the church of Verdun, Hugh of Flavigny had no ground for ascribing his birth with certainty to the household of the church of Verdun or to parents bound to the service of that church. But perhaps that author did this impelled not by Berthar's words alone, but by other reasons besides. Hence it is worth while now to consider whether the Saint was not perhaps in fact born of parents bound to the service of the church of Verdun. So indeed Hugh of Flavigny most expressly affirms in the words quoted at number 11. But indeed, someone will say, that author does not seem sufficiently consistent with himself in that assertion. For in the words likewise quoted at number 11 he reveals that the Saint was born of renowned and therefore, as it appears, noble parents; and it does not seem able to stand that St. Magdalveus's parents should at the same time be noble by birth and bound to the service of the church of Verdun — which, as it appears, suits only servants and men of ignoble condition. So may they argue who wish to contend, against Hugh of Flavigny, that the Saint was born indeed of a noble stock but not of the household of the church of Verdun. But to these it may be replied thus. The households which either the church of Verdun or any others once had in Neustria and Austrasia were most probably distinguished into a threefold class, namely the ministerial, the servile and the censual. The censual was bound only to paying dues; the servile in addition to services to be rendered with the body as well; but as regards the ministerial, it seems that on those who were of this class, and who, as it appears, earned stipends from the churches, almost the only burden that lay was that they should take up arms at the order of the head of the church whose ministerials they were. Go to du Cange in his Glossary at the words Familia, Censualis, Servilis and Ministerialis, and there you will find these matters more fully set out concerning the three different classes into which the households of churches were divided.

[15] Further, since those who were of the first class of ecclesiastical households seem to have been bound only to paying dues, and noble by birth too, and those of the last class only to rendering military service, why, I ask, could not St. Magdalveus's parents have been of one or the other class of the household of the church of Verdun, and nevertheless at the same time noble by birth? Could they not, in the way in which Gisa, a noble matron, is reported in volume 4 of the Benedictine Annals, page 286, to have made herself a censual of the monastery of St. Michael on the Meuse, likewise have made themselves censuals, that is, bound themselves to pay a yearly due to the church of Verdun, and so have become of the household of the church of Verdun? There is therefore no reason why Hugh of Flavigny should seem inconsistent with himself because he hands down to memory that St. Magdalveus was born of renowned or noble parents and at the same time of the household of the church of Verdun — that is, of parents bound to the service of that church. But is Hugh therefore to be assented to without any doubt at all when he asserts that the Saint was born of the household of the church of Verdun? Since Hugh, as I have already shown above, very often in the matters which he records in the Chronicle of Verdun swerves from the path of truth, I should scarcely venture to give undoubted credit to the assertion in which he writes, resting on no certain testimony of antiquity, that the Saint was born of the household of the church of Verdun; yet, since no one at least opposes this writer here, and since Berthar perhaps wished by the words quoted at number 12 to signify too that the Saint was born of the household of the church of Verdun, it appears probable enough that he was really born of it. Further, let the same judgment stand about the nobility of birth which Hugh attributes to St. Magdalveus and his parents. For although Berthar does not indicate it by any word, even obscurely, yet he nowhere supplies anything from which you might gather that the Saint was not noble by birth; nor did he commit to writing all that pertains to the Saint, as I have already sufficiently hinted above.

[16] Wassebourg indicates in more than one place that the Saint was begotten not only of parents noble by birth, but also sprung from the most noble stock of the Pippins, and affirms that he learned this from the ancient registers and chartularies of the church of Verdun. The words in which he chiefly does this you will find in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, [but not likewise an illustrious origin from the stock of the Pippins, he perhaps had.] page 130. Rendered by me into Latin they run thus: Further, to return to our bishop Magdalveus and to learn both his birth and his upbringing, we have ascertained from the ancient registers and chartularies of our church that he was born in our city of Verdun of an ancient noble stock and of the lineage of the Pippins. So he: but since Wassebourg does not declare of what antiquity the registers and chartularies of the church of Verdun which he praises were, I much doubt whether they had that prerogative of antiquity which could in any way make undoubted the Saint's illustrious origin from the lineage of the Pippins which they taught Wassebourg. And indeed that they probably had not that prerogative of antiquity will become plain from what is to be said. Meanwhile that the Saint was sprung from so lofty and so illustrious a stock becomes doubtful to me also from this, that Hugh of Flavigny makes no mention at all of this matter, however most worthy of record — Hugh who nevertheless, as has been said, hands down to memory that our Saint was born of renowned parents, and who, if St. Magdalveus had been of so illustrious an origin, would certainly have learned it from somewhere, and, having learned it, would not seem likely to have suppressed it in silence in the Acts in which he sets out in a lengthy discourse whatever it was permitted him to find to the Saint's praise. And so, although I in some fashion believe our Saint to have been born of renowned or noble parents, I think it not a little to be questioned whether he also draws his origin from the illustrious stock of the Pippins.

[17] [He seems to have been born at the beginning of the eighth century, and not earlier.] But let these things said about the Saint's noble birth suffice. Now I enquire into the time at which he was born. Berthar again supplies nothing here by which you might in any way define the year of Magdalveus's birth. That he was born in the year seven hundred and eleven Hugh of Flavigny expressly affirms in the words transcribed here at number 11. Wassebourg here follows Berthar, and likewise assigns no year to our Saint's birth. But since from what is to be said he writes that he was promoted to the see of Verdun in the year seven hundred and thirty-five, it is certainly altogether necessary — if only this writer records the truth — that the Saint was born into the world earlier than the year 711, to which his birth is attached by Hugh of Flavigny; for it does not appear that it should be maintained that our Saint was promoted to the episcopal dignity, as is read to have befallen St. Remigius archbishop of Rheims and some other Saints, before his thirtieth year, which the sacred canons required as a minimum in the eighth century for those to be promoted to episcopal sees. St. Magdalveus therefore, by this reckoning of Wassebourg, will certainly have been born no later than the year 705. But which is to be assented to here, Wassebourg or Hugh of Flavigny? Since the Saint was perhaps not made bishop of Verdun before the year 753, or, as appears more probable from what is to be said, not earlier than the year 742, there is certainly no reason why the year 711, assigned by Hugh of Flavigny as the year of St. Magdalveus's birth, should be rejected. Besides, since from what is to be said the opinion is not wanting in all probability by which the Saint is held to have been promoted to the mitre of Verdun in the year 735, Magdalveus may perhaps also have been born no later than the year 705. Wherefore, since both the year 711 and the year 705 are certainly among the first years of the eighth century, I fix the Saint's birth, that something certain may be had here, at the beginning of the eighth century, and contend that it cannot be placed earlier.

[18] But, someone will say, Wassebourg also reports in the place just cited the things which Wassebourg reports from the registers of the church of Verdun, that the Saint followed the court of Pippin of Herstal from his earliest youth, and that this prince, with whom he was in the highest favour, used his counsels in all sorts of affairs. Pippin of Herstal, as is agreed among all the learned, died in the year 714. If therefore our Saint was born no earlier than at the beginning of the eighth century, it is by no means credible that Pippin of Herstal used his counsels in all sorts of affairs; and therefore, if this prince really did as Wassebourg narrates, it is altogether necessary that St. Magdalveus be held to have been born some years, and not a few at that, before the beginning of the eighth century. To this Wassebourg leads. I confess that so it is; nay indeed that author writes in the book cited above, folio 133 verso, that our Saint died in the year 762 when already more than eighty years old — which certainly likewise requires that St. Magdalveus was born long before the beginning of the eighth century. But here Wassebourg is not to be assented to. For he hands down that the Saint came to so advanced an age without any testimony of antiquity. Besides, no writer at all, whether older or even merely more recent, places the birth of saint Magdalveus before the beginning of the eighth century. And for placing it so early, what Wassebourg affirms about the Saint being employed by Pippin for counsel does not seem a sufficient foundation. For this very assertion of that writer is destitute of all testimony of antiquity whatsoever. Wassebourg does indeed praise the ancient registers and chartularies of the church of Verdun, that is, of the chief or cathedral church. But these ancient documents of the church of Verdun are very suspect to me. For besides that Berthar in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 251, hands down to memory in his brief History of the bishops of Verdun that almost all the documents of the church of Verdun were consumed by flames in his own age, that is, at the beginning of the tenth century, Laurence of Liège, the second continuator of the History of the Bishops of Verdun begun by Berthar, who flourished in the twelfth century, writes thus in the same d'Achery, page 275: Yet the devout industry of Berthar is to be praised, who from the very ashes and ruins of the burnt city and church dug out all he could — at least the bare names of the bishops his predecessors — or sparkled forth for us some of their deeds. For that little notice of our bishops we have received from him.

[19] In Laurence's age, therefore, that is, in the twelfth century, they had no notice of the bishops of Verdun older than Berthar, only from documents of a later age, as it appears, except what was drawn from that writer's brief History of the bishops of Verdun. The ancient registers and chartularies of the church of Verdun which Wassebourg praises seem therefore to be more recent than the age of Laurence, that is, than the twelfth century. Certainly it appears sure that they are not older than the eleventh century. This I show thus: the same Laurence in d'Achery, in the volume cited, page 280, records thus: In the second year … (of Theoderic, the 40th bishop of Verdun, raised to this see in the year 1048) the duke himself (Godfrey of Lorraine) and

Baldwin count of the Flemings burst into this city (of Verdun, namely) with a strong force, and in hatred of the emperor set it on fire, with manifold slaughter committed. But the duke wished to preserve the monasteries of the city unharmed by the fire; yet suddenly the victorious flame seized the greater church of the holy Mother of God, and, the duke and his band of soldiers struggling against it in vain, utterly consumed it. A very great treasure, and the written records of the church's property, were burnt there. In the middle of the eleventh century, therefore, the written documents of the greater or cathedral church of Verdun, which is sacred to the most holy Mother of God Mary, were consumed by flames; and accordingly the documents of the church of Verdun which Wassebourg praises are certainly not older than the eleventh century. Besides, since from what has been said the literary documents of the church of Verdun were burnt at the beginning of the tenth century and again in the middle of the eleventh, the registers and chartularies praised by Wassebourg will probably have been substituted in place of the burnt documents (unless perhaps something even worse must be determined), and that by a writer perhaps much more recent than the said tenth and eleventh centuries, and little skilled in historical matters. Those documents of the church of Verdun, therefore, whether their antiquity or their author be regarded, seem to me of very weak credit and authority; and accordingly it has by no means been proved to me by Wassebourg from them that St. Magdalveus was employed for counsel by Pippin of Herstal.

[20] prove to have happened. He is handed over to religious men to be taught letters. But now, since this is so, it is certainly not hence proved that the Saint's birth must be placed before the beginning of the eighth century. Let us therefore believe that Magdalveus was born about the year 701, and now make our step to discussing the other matters pertaining to him. His parents took care that the Saint, while still a boy of very tender age, should be taught letters. We are taught this from the Saint's Acts to be published, which, as has been said, Hugh of Flavigny wove — and he is therefore to be called by me from time to time here the Saint's biographer. They run thus at number 3: In those days the kindly boy Madelveus, being weaned, was handed over to religious men to be taught letters. These words are not to be taken strictly here; for it is not credible that Magdalveus was handed over to be taught letters as soon as he was removed from milk or from his mother's breasts. It seems therefore that the biographer wishes only this to be signified by them, that it was done already when Magdalveus was still of very tender age. This is the first thing which had to be noted upon the biographer's words just quoted. Take now the second also. They affirm that the Saint was handed over to religious men. These were undoubtedly none other than the God-devoted inhabitants of the monastery of St. Vanne at Verdun. Our Saint's biographer indicates this himself, recording thus at number 34: And when the time of his dissolution was at hand, since he (St. Magdalveus, namely) had learned by divine revelation that he was to be freed from worldly tumults, he chose the place of his burial in the church in which he had grown up by a daily increase of virtues, over which he was first appointed pastor and ruler, and from which also he had been promoted to the pontificate. The church over which the Saint was first set as pastor and ruler, that is, as abbot, and from which he was afterwards raised to the pontifical see of the church of Verdun, is, from what is to be said, no other than the church or monastery of St. Vanne at Verdun. Wherefore, since in the words quoted the Saint is said to have grown up in it, there appears no room to doubt that those religious men to whom Magdalveus was handed over to be taught letters were of that same church or monastery.

[21] he makes great progress in these and in virtue, and becomes a cleric. But now someone will ask, of what profession were those religious men — monks or clerics? It appears that they were clerics living in common and serving the church of St. Vanne. Why I think so I shall disclose in the following §, when I treat of St. Magdalveus's promotion to the headship of that church or monastery. I here add now a few things about the Saint's progress, under the training of those religious men, both in letters and in virtue. Magdalveus, as soon as he had been taught the elements of letters, presently applied himself most energetically to Grammar, then to Rhetoric, Philosophy, Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy and at last to the doctrine of sacred Scripture, with a success in all these sciences, both sacred and profane, by no means ordinary answering to his effort. Nor did the Saint meanwhile neglect virtue. On the contrary he so cultivated it that he pleased both God and men, and, despising the allurements of the world, joined himself to the clergy. All these things Hugh of Flavigny teaches at number 3 and the two following; and afterwards too, treating of the Saint when already made a cleric, he reviews not a few virtues which he then especially practised; nor do I think that he must be dissented from as regards Magdalveus's ready disposition toward the virtues and his great progress in these and in letters. But as regards the multitude of the sciences just enumerated, on which he hands down that the Saint bestowed labour, I will let the credit rest with him, and proceed to the matters to be treated in the following §.

§ III. The Saint becomes a priest, then abbot of the monastery of St. Vanne, and at last bishop of the church of Verdun.

The Saint, distinguished with the grade of the priesthood, The Saint's biographer, or Hugh of Flavigny, having enumerated the altogether exceptional and rare virtues in which St. Magdalveus was eminent while not yet of advanced age, presently reports his promotion to the priesthood, with no previous mention at all either of the diaconate or of the subdiaconate. After this, he says at number 6, ascending to greater things (St. Magdalveus, namely) received the honour of the presbyterate when elected, and obtained it when justified. Further, with no word added from which you might in any way extract the time at which this was done, he presently subjoins: And so he (saint Magdalveus) is appointed by unanimous consent and by the election of all ruler and abbot of the church of St. Vanne, which , both improved by zeal for spiritual exercise and in temporal goods, he kindled by example and teaching to the love of the divine service. This text of the biographer offers me two things to discuss here. The one is, about what time St. Magdalveus was presented with the headship of the abbey of St. Vanne; the other, what and of what sort, or of what profession, that monastery of St. Vanne was. I take my beginning from the former. Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks, volume 5, under the year 749, number 69, writes thus: In those times, when the monastery of Gorze was founded in the diocese of Metz, the church of Verdun was labouring in a vacancy of the see. And then there flourished in the suburb of Verdun the notable abbot Madelveus, who after some years under king Pippin obtained the bishopric of Verdun. So he; adding then under the year 752, number 98: In the diocese of Verdun three monasteries flourished, those of saint Vanne, of saint Michael, and Beaulieu. The monastery of saint Vanne was ruled by abbot Madelveus.* Since the Saint, from what is to be said, held the headship of the church or monastery of St. Vanne even at the time when he had already been made bishop of Verdun, I assent not unwillingly to Le Cointe, who in the words quoted indicates that the Saint presided over the church or monastery of St. Vanne in the year 749 and in the year 752.

[23] [between about the year 730 and 740 was presented with the monastery of St. Vanne,] For although in the opinion by which, on Hugh of Flavigny's testimony, the Saint is held to have been promoted to the see of Verdun in the year 753, nothing at all hinders his being believed to have been presented with the headship of the monastery of St. Vanne no earlier than the year 749; yet since St. Magdalveus was made bishop of the people of Verdun not in the year 753 but somewhat earlier — namely, as appears more probable from what is to be said, about the year 742 — and since for some years before he obtained this sacred dignity he held the headship of the monastery of St. Vanne, as is admitted among all, it must needs be that he was more probably presented with it from about the year 735. Nay indeed, from what has been said, St. Magdalveus will have received the monastery of St. Vanne to be governed by the office of abbot already from about the year 730, if only that opinion agrees with the truth which holds the Saint to have been raised to the mitre of Verdun in the year 735. Wherefore, since this opinion from what is to be said does not lack its own probability, and perhaps in fact also agrees with the truth, the Saint will probably have been presented with the headship of the monastery or abbey of St. Vanne in that time which passed between the year 730 and 740; and that this was really done then is by no means opposed, as will be plain to one who considers it, even by the opinion which appears to me more probable from what has been and is to be said, and which attaches the Saint's promotion to the mitre of Verdun to the year 742. And thus indeed the time has now in some fashion been determined at which the Saint was set over the monastery of St. Vanne; let us now consider whether it was one of monks or of clerics.

[24] which at that time was inhabited not by monks, Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 22, number 76, records thus under the year 753: At the same time (in the year 753) Madalveus, abbot of the basilica of saint Vanne, was promoted to the bishopric of Verdun; and we find no other earlier abbot of that place. This notable basilica, formerly outside the walls, now placed in the very citadel of the city, is believed to have been founded from the first times of the Christian religion received there, and is famous for the burial of the first holy bishops of that city. There were buried, among others, the holy confessors and bishops Pulcronius and Vanne, of whom the latter long since gave his name to the basilica. That monks were established in that basilica in the tenth century by bishop Berengar, and have persevered there to our own time, is certain, to the great honour and adornment of the place, which has been a seminary of most holy monks and bishops, and in our age the head of the congregation renowned under the title of saint Vanne. What the state of that place was before Berengar we can scarcely conjecture, much less know for certain, since the fitting documents are lacking, which perished through the injury of the times, except certain Fragments reported by Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, once a monk of that place. So Mabillon, indicating plainly enough that he doubts of what profession the religious inhabitants of the basilica or monastery of St. Vanne were when St. Magdalveus received it in the eighth century to be governed by the office of abbot. But it is probable that at that time that sacred house was inhabited not by monks but by clerics living in common. This I prove thus. Berengar, who in the tenth century governed the church of Verdun, substituted monks for clerics in the monastery of St. Vanne. Mabillon himself confesses this in the words quoted. And indeed it cannot be denied, inasmuch as it is most openly handed down in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 262, by the anonymous continuator of the History of the bishops of Verdun begun by Berthar, who in the eleventh century was a monk in the monastery of St. Vanne.

[25] Here are the words: He (Berengar, bishop of Verdun) restored to a better state, enlarged and adorned the basilica of the holy Apostles (for so too the monastery of St. Vanne was once called) Peter and Paul, but most probably by clerics, in which rests the body of blessed Vanne with many of his predecessors and successors; and he cast out the clerics living in it and given to many base occupations, and appointed monks there to serve the Lord. But now, since clerics, while Berengar governed the church of Verdun in the tenth century, in the church of St. Vanne

existed, is clear from these words, and since it does not appear from any document that they had already before been substituted for monks over whom St. Magdalveus might have presided there, it is most probable indeed that the religious men over whom the Saint was set in the monastery of St. Vanne were by profession clerics living in common. Further, the things which confirm this opinion Mabillon himself supplies, presently subjoining this to the words quoted above: There survives entire a diploma of Pippin of Herstal and of his consort Plectrude, published in Labbe's Miscellanea, by which Pippin and his consort make an exchange of certain estates with the apostolic man Armonius, bishop of Verdun, and with the venerable man Angebert the archdeacon, who presided over the basilica of saint Vanne. And Pippin by this exchange transfers a place by the name of Pararitum to the portion of the church of the lord Vanne, and gives it to those "who shall preside there, or to the clerics serving there"; and in turn bishop Armonius and archdeacon Angebert hand over a place called Commenariae, which Pippin himself and his consort afterwards gave to saint Vanne by a charter of cession. This exchange was made, as is added to the very instrument of exchange, on Mabillon's testimony, in the seventh year of Childebert, king of the Franks; wherefore, since this year agrees with the year of Christ 702, it is clear from Mabillon's words just transcribed here that only about thirty years before St. Magdalveus was set over the monastery of St. Vanne there were clerics in it serving God.

[26] But now, since this is so, and since it does not appear likely he was set as abbot, and then made bishop of the people of Verdun. that between the year 702 and the time between the year 730 and 740, at which, as has been said, the Saint was advanced to the governance of the abbey or monastery of St. Vanne, monks were substituted in it for clerics, certainly from Mabillon's words just quoted the opinion is not a little confirmed by which the religious men over whom the Saint presided in the monastery of St. Vanne are held to have been by profession clerics. This therefore, all these things being weighed, I propose to the zealous reader as very probable, and now turn my discourse to the episcopal dignity to which the Saint was afterwards taken from the monastery of St. Vanne. Hugh of Flavigny, that is, the Saint's biographer, having narrated at number 6 the Saint's promotion to the headship of the monastery of St. Vanne, goes on of him thus: He was … outstanding in humility, diffused in charity, wonderful in prudence, praiseworthy in sobriety, notable in justice, remarkable in fortitude; and, although he surpassed all in dignity, yet he was subject to all in obedience, proved in patience, made from his heart a pattern to the flock, so that in him every subject might recognize what norm of living he should assume for himself. This was the report that went everywhere about him, this the rumour continually in the mouths of all; Madelveus's piety and his probity traversed the countries, filled the squares, knocked at the palace gates. With these messengers going before, he is chosen to the pontificate of the city of Verdun by the votes of all. And although, full of the fear of God, he rejected this with all effort and refused it with all his striving, nevertheless the judgment of many prevailed, God's grace going before; and, with one concord of clergy and people, being judged worthy by the judgment of the bishops, he is exalted on the pontifical chair, confirmed with blessing, and consecrated with unction.*

[27] This dignity he seems to have obtained neither in that way, Magdalveus, then, was raised to the episcopal summit of the church of Verdun by the clergy and people of Verdun, impelled, as it appears, by the Saint's rare virtues, with the common votes of all and by an entirely free election. So I determine on the credit of Hugh of Flavigny, whom Wassebourg too in some fashion supports, writing in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 130, that the Saint was promoted to the see of Verdun by a peaceful election of the clergy. When this happened, that see had already long been vacant by the death of Agroenus, by others Agronius, the bishop of Verdun next before the Saint. Berthar attests this in the words transcribed here at number 6; Hugh too, the Saint's biographer, attests it, recording thus at number 2 of the Life to be published: The city of Verdun … , bishop Agronius being dead, remained vacant for many days, widowed of a pastor. Wassebourg in the book just cited, folio 129 verso, also defines the time during which the see of Verdun was then vacant as about a three-year space (whether rightly or otherwise you will easily gather from what is to be said). Besides, he brings forward a cause why the see of Verdun was vacant so long, and a manner in which it at length ceased to be vacant, which are not, as it appears, very probable. The somewhat lengthier discourse in which he does this, contracted into a summary, runs about thus: Anselinus, count and at the same time governor of the city of Verdun, when Agroenus, Magdalveus's immediate predecessor in the see of Verdun, had been taken from among the living, was canvassing for this see, and even by open force prevented another from being substituted in the place of the deceased. Hence, since the clergy nevertheless would not elect Anselinus bishop, it came about that the see of Verdun was long vacant. But Charles Martel, mayor of the palace of Austrasia and Neustria, being informed of the matter, sent down to Verdun Guarinus the Lothringian, duke and governor of Metz, to check Anselinus and to see that a canonical election was made.

[28] nor in the way Wassebourg hands down, And when that duke faithfully carried out what he had received in his instructions, it came about that at last St. Magdalveus was elected bishop of the people of Verdun, the statutes of the sacred canons being exactly observed. So Wassebourg, as to the substance. But the narrative in which he hands these things down to memory is most probably taken, at least in part, from the fictitious History commonly called a Roman, which in Latin is entitled Guarinus Lotharus, in French Guerin le Loherain, and which is held older than all the histories of like bran, or rather fables, written in the French tongue. So Calmet affirms in his History of Lorraine, volume 1, column 543; and since he proves that he has himself unrolled that fictitious History of Guarinus the Lothringian — a notable Fragment from it being also quoted toward the end of the same volume — I think he must be believed here. Wherefore, since in histories of this kind, or rather fictions, scarcely anything that really happened is set before the zealous reader, there is certainly reason why it should deservedly be called in doubt both whether it came about from Anselinus's ambition that the see of Verdun was long vacant, and also whether it at length ceased to be vacant through Charles Martel sending someone to check Anselinus, Magdalveus being substituted in the place of the deceased Agroenus. Nay indeed, since no Anselinus who was count of Verdun occurs anywhere in historians of approved credit, it can even be doubted whether the Anselinus whom Wassebourg records ever existed in the nature of things. But as regards Charles Martel, that this prince contributed no labour at all toward the see of Verdun at length ceasing to be vacant by the canonical election of Magdalveus will become likely from what I shall now bring forward in disputing about the year in which Magdalveus was made bishop.

[29] Hugh, the Saint's biographer, sets the year 753 as the epoch of Magdalveus's elevation to the see of Verdun, nor does he seem to have obtained it in the year 753, at number 1 of the Life to be published, in these words quoted above: In the year … from the Incarnation of the human Word 753 the lord Madelveus receives the bishopric of the church of Verdun. This reckoning of Hugh Le Cointe embraced in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks under the year 753, and after him Pagi in his Critica under the years 767 and 776. But it is not sufficiently approved by me for this reason, that no one at all among those who have treated of the Saint — not even Hugh of Flavigny himself — limits the duration of the see occupied by Magdalveus to fewer than twenty years; whereas from the year 753 to the year 762, in which our Saint appears more probably to have died from Berthar against Hugh, according to what is to be said, only nine years run. There is also this, that Demochares, Jean Chenu, Claude Robert and the brothers Sainte-Marthe, the writers of the Old Gallia Christiana*, in their Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun join our Saint's promotion to the bishopric of Verdun with the year 735; and although all those writers, as also the Catalogues which they produce, are not of such authority as to be able to make the epoch which they assign to the Saint's entry upon the see of Verdun altogether certain and undoubted, they nevertheless add weight to the opinion by which St. Magdalveus is held to have been raised to the see of the church of Verdun before the year 753.

[30] So I judge, because, even though Demochares and the other writers just praised have transcribed the Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun which they supply either wholly or at least for the greater part from Wassebourg, and although this author generally drew what he hands down to memory about the bishops of Verdun from the registers and chartularies of the church of Verdun — documents, as has been said, of little sure credit — nor in the year 735 either: yet he perhaps learned the year 735, to which he attaches the Saint's promotion to the episcopal mitre, not from the said registers and chartularies, inasmuch as he does not cite them here, but from other documents of better mark; and hence it comes about that the opinion by which Magdalveus's promotion to the see of Verdun is fixed in the year 735, according to the praised writers and the Catalogues they produce, certainly does not lack all probability, and therefore that from it weight accrues to the opinion by which St. Magdalveus is held to have been raised to the see of Verdun before the year 753. Further, although from what has been said the opinion which holds that the Saint was made bishop in the year 735 does not lack all probability, yet I should not venture to affirm that Magdalveus was already then adorned with the episcopal dignity, because it appears more probable that this happened somewhat later, as I now set about showing.

[31] The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume 11, column 18, record thus: for since under Charles Martel, as from the letters of Hincmar, As the first dynasty of our kings … was inclining to its end, most of the churches, whether of the Franks or of the Germans, being deprived of bishops, were passing either to soldiers as pay, or to contractors and tax-farmers in repayment of their money; so much so that they did not begin to recover true and lawful pastors until about the year 742 in that part of the Frankish empire which obeyed king Carloman (rather, the mayor of the palace), and until about the year 743 in the remaining provinces which acknowledged the dominion of Pippin. So they; and how not undeservedly assent deserves to be given them here, as regards the churches of the Austrasian kingdom too, which remained bereft of bishops while Charles Martel held power until the year 742, will at once become plain from what I shall now say. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims in the ninth century, in his sixth letter, given to the bishops of the diocese of Rheims, chapter 19, speaks in this manner: In the time of prince Charles (Martel), when, on account of the discord and contention about the principate between him and Ragamfred, and the frequent and civil — nay more than civil, because internal and parricidal — wars , in the German and Belgic and Gallican provinces all religion of Christianity was almost abolished, so that, with bishops remaining in few places, the bishoprics were given to laymen and their property divided.* There were therefore, on Hincmar's testimony, while Charles Martel was mayor of the palace, in the regions subject to the power of the Franks, very many bishoprics occupied by laymen or secular persons and stripped of their resources.

[32] and by Pope Hadrian, But lest anyone, on account of what has been said among us at the 20th of February in St. Eucherius, should perhaps hold Hincmar's credit suspect here,

this writer is supported by the letter of Hadrian, the supreme Pontiff, the fifteenth in order, written to Tilpin, archbishop of Rheims in the eighth century. For in it the Pontiff speaks thus: Your fraternity has reported to us that, through the discord among the Franks, the archbishop of Rheims by name Rigobert was cast down and expelled from his see against the canons, without any crime and without any consent or consultation of the Apostolic See; but only because he had not previously consented to the party of that man who afterwards received into his power that part of the kingdom in which the city of Rheims is; and that bishopric, together with another bishopric and other churches, was given, or rather usurped, against God and his authority, by the secular powers, to a certain Milo, a cleric by tonsure only, knowing nothing of the ecclesiastical order; and that other bishoprics of that same diocese of Rheims were divided in divers ways, and some of them for the most part remained without bishops, and bishops and clerics sometimes received their ordinations from other metropolitans, and had undue refuges. So far Hadrian; but since he here speaks only of the metropolitan see of Rheims and of the bishoprics subject to it which in the eighth century were without bishops, I bring forward yet another testimony, from which also — and this is what chiefly concerns us here — it may become manifest that likewise in that part of the Austrasian kingdom in which the city of Verdun was situated very many bishoprics were, while Charles Martel held power, occupied by laymen or secular men.

[33] St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, in the letter of congratulation which he gave to Zachary, created Roman Pontiff in the year 741, and by the writings of St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, it is understood, and which Baronius quotes under this year in his Ecclesiastical Annals, records thus: Let it likewise be known to your Paternity that Carloman, duke of the Franks, having summoned me to him, asked that in the part of the kingdom of the Franks which is in his power I should have a synod assembled; and he promised that he wished to correct and amend something of the ecclesiastical religion, which for a long time now — that is, for not less than sixty or seventy years — has been trampled down and scattered. Wherefore, if he shall truly wish to amend this, by God's inspiration, I must have the counsel and precept of your authority. For the Franks (as the elders say) have not held a synod for more than a space of eighty years, nor had an archbishop, nor anywhere founded or renewed the canonical rights of the Church. But now for the greatest part the cities and episcopal sees have been handed over to laymen greedy to possess them, or to fornicating clerics, or to tax-farmers, to be enjoyed in secular fashion. Pagi in his Critica under the year 741, number 24, having quoted these words of St. Boniface, observes thus: Saint Boniface, when he says that Carloman asked him to have a synod assembled in the part of the kingdom of the Franks, understands by the name of France the Austrasian part of France; which interpretation Boniface himself most clearly confirms by these words: "The Franks, as the elders say, have not held a synod for more than a space of eighty years, nor had an archbishop."

[34] That the rest of France during those eighty years (elapsed, namely, from about the year 660 to the year 741) had its own metropolitans, and that various synods were celebrated in it, although the memory of many has perished, is certain. bishoprics and ecclesiastical goods were occupied by secular men, So Pagi, wishing namely to prove — and rightly — that St. Boniface speaks only of the Austrasian part of the kingdom. But however that may be, we certainly have from Boniface's words just quoted that the episcopal sees in that part of the Austrasian kingdom which that Saint designates were then for the greatest part occupied by laymen or secular persons. Hence further, and at the same time from the words of Hadrian the supreme Pontiff and of Hincmar archbishop of Rheims transcribed here above, it becomes most probable that likewise in that part of the Austrasian kingdom which embraced the city of Verdun, and which was afterwards called Lorraine or the kingdom of Lothair, not a few episcopal sees — that is, their goods, estates, farms and revenues — were occupied by laymen or secular persons. But now someone will ask in what way or by what authority a thing so opposed to the sacred canons was perpetrated. Not a few writers affirm that it was done by Charles Martel. Others on the contrary vindicate that prince from this mark of ignominy. Among these first comes our Henschen, and then Le Cointe, who followed him; the latter indeed in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks under the year 741, number 41; and the former at the 20th of February, in the preceding Commentary on the Life of St. Eucherius, bishop of Orléans, number 32, says that no layman can be produced to whom Charles gave a bishopric, and that therefore it is a fiction that is handed down by various writers, that Charles gave bishoprics to laymen.

[35] But hear what Pagi replies to this in the Critica in the place just cited. By these words of saint Boniface in the cited letter (go to number 33), the church of Verdun, as Hugh of Flavigny hints, "Now for the greatest part the cities and episcopal sees have been handed over to laymen," what the same Le Cointe writes in the current year, number 41, is plainly overthrown — namely that no layman can be produced to whom Charles gave a bishopric, and that therefore it is a fiction that is handed down by various writers, that Charles gave several bishoprics to laymen; for since he presided over Austria for so many years, nay and over the rest of Gaul too, I do not see how it could come about that ecclesiastical goods were possessed by lay men without his grant or consent. So far Pagi: but is he right in every respect? Charles Martel does indeed seem, compelled by the necessity of the wars pressing upon him from the Saracens, the Saxons, the Frisians and other enemies, to have granted not a few ecclesiastical goods to his soldiers as pay; but that several bishoprics likewise, or rather the whole revenues of several bishoprics, were bestowed by that prince on laymen or secular men, I shall not easily believe. For although it is established from the words of St. Boniface and of Pope Hadrian already quoted that under Charles Martel not a few episcopal sees in France were occupied by laymen, yet nothing hinders it from being believed that this was done by the dukes and counts, the prefects of provinces and cities, that prince neither striving for it nor granting it, but only not sufficiently resisting it, lest he should alienate the minds of his soldiers from himself. However that may be, that several bishoprics in France, while Charles Martel held power, were in the hands of laymen and were bereft of their goods, appears certain from all that has been said. Hence further it comes about that I do not think that absolutely all that Hugh hands down to this purpose at numbers 13 and 14 of the Life to be published must be rejected.

[36] was afflicted with the same lot, becomes probable. They run thus: He (Charles Martel) did not fear to give the bishoprics themselves to laymen, namely to his supporters and partisans, so much so that a certain Milo, a cleric by tonsure but in manners, habit and act an irreligious layman, held the archbishoprics of Trier and of Rheims for a long time, ruining them; and the see of Vienne too and many other bishoprics through divers lands laymen possessed, as the histories report, and were invested by a lay hand: if there were any bishops, either they wholly favoured him, or the goods of the church were plundered, or at least, when they died, in their place any neophyte whatever, and men whom the canonical sanctions do not admit, were substituted. And from this plundering that city was in some degree immune which favoured him, or which lent him aid; for the city on which he leaned he protected by himself and his men from himself and his men. Hence it is that among the innumerable cities which he had worn down, he enlarged that of Verdun with estates in the time of bishop Peppo, because the same Peppo, as has been related above, in the time of the dissension favoured his party too and served him more familiarly. Nevertheless, when he was dead, what the others suffered this city too experienced. So far Hugh, affirming in these words almost nothing — if you except what he affirms about bishoprics transferred by Charles Martel to laymen — which is not founded either in the letters of Hincmar, Hadrian and Boniface cited above, or in other documents. Wherefore, since he adds to the cities which were deprived of ecclesiastical goods under Charles Martel the city of Verdun, it certainly appears likely to me that this city, on the death of Poppo or Peppo, was bereft of its ecclesiastical goods, Charles Martel not sufficiently resisting, under Volschisus and Agroenus, who succeeded Peppo immediately in the see of Verdun. Hence further it now comes about that it appears likely too that the city or church of Verdun, when Volschisus and Agroenus had died, had been reduced by Charles's connivance to such poverty that, because of it, the clerics or canons having scattered in different directions (go to the Life to be published, number 9), a canonical election of a bishop could not be made.

[37] This certainly seems to be the conclusion here, unless perhaps — which also appears likely enough from what has been said above — and hence, for the reason here added, the bishopric having been transferred to a layman, a new election could not be made at all. But now, since, whether from the transfer of the bishopric to a lay person, or on account of the excessive poverty to which it had been reduced, no new bishop was substituted on the death of Agroenus; and since this, from whichever head it took its rise, was done with Charles Martel's connivance: to whom, I ask, would it appear likely that Magdalveus was substituted in the place of the deceased Agroenus in the year 735, while Charles was still alive? Did that prince perhaps see to it that what had been taken from the church of Verdun was restored? Or did he in every way wish that the bishopric, which had perhaps already passed into lay hands, should at last be snatched from them and conferred on St. Magdalveus by a free election? Neither indeed appears probable to me. For the ecclesiastical goods which Charles had not prevented from being occupied had passed to the soldiers as pay; and whatever had so fallen to them, he did not afterwards take away from them. A proof of this may be what Berthar writes in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 258, concerning Peppo, bishop of Verdun. Here are the words: In his (Peppo's) time there arose no small sedition between Charles the first, who is called Charles Martel, and Rainfrid, prince of the Franks; and because Peppo favoured Charles's party in the time of the sedition, he obtained by purchase from Charles and from a certain noble vassal of his the manor of Calmont with all its appurtenances. But after God had made firm for Charles the kingdom of the Franks, he also gave to our church Pont-Pierre and confirmed it to us by his writing: but Merla and Casa Petria, because his followers had seized them, he retained, and Casa Petria is retained still.

[38] Behold Charles beneficent to the church of Verdun, and yet he did not restore to it the goods [the Saint was more probably made bishop of the people of Verdun not before the year 742.] snatched away by his followers or soldiers; and since he did not do this, however well disposed he was toward Peppo, bishop of Verdun, this either

I think he perhaps never, or at least very rarely, did elsewhere. And as he did not afterwards restore to their owners the ecclesiastical goods which he had either given to his soldiers as pay or had not prevented from being seized by them, so also he probably did not take care that the bishoprics which had fallen into the hands of laymen should afterwards be snatched from them. Wherefore, since from what has been said the bishopric of Verdun, on the death of Agroenus, was either transferred into lay hands or bereft of all its resources — the clerics for the greater part having therefore scattered elsewhere — and so gave no room for electing a new bishop, it certainly does not appear likely to me that a successor was substituted for Agroenus while Charles Martel was still alive. And so, the weight of the reasons on both sides having been carefully balanced, I judge it more probable that the Saint was at length raised to the see of Verdun in the year 742, under Carloman, a very devout prince, who in that year had succeeded his father Charles in the mayoralty of the palace of Austrasia, and who shortly after took care that a synod should be celebrated in which the depraved manners that had crept into the church might be amended, and permitted three new bishoprics to be instituted in the Austrasia subject to him. And indeed that the Saint was made bishop of the people of Verdun not before the year 742, as I have now defined, is confirmed also from this, that these words of Berthar about the Saint, For he lived from the time of king Pippin to the time of Charlemagne, must, from what is to be said below, be so interpreted as to signify that Magdalveus occupied the see of Verdun from about the year 741, in which Pippin the Short succeeded his father Charles Martel in the mayoralty of the palace of Neustria, until the time at which Charlemagne was anointed king. But let these things disputed about the year in which St. Magdalveus was made bishop of the people of Verdun suffice; I now proceed to discuss what he did in his episcopate.

quam* which

or Dei* of God?

rather divini* of the divine

or bella* wars?

§ IV. The things done by the Saint in his episcopate before his journey to Jerusalem.

The Saint finds his church in a mournful state. That the affairs of the church of Verdun, when St. Magdalveus received it to be governed, were in a very mournful state, Hugh the Saint's biographer teaches us. At that time, he says at numbers 8 and 9, the city itself (of Verdun) was worn down by wars through barbarian harassment, wearied by sieges, filled with calamities; the temples of the Lord in it were polluted, the sanctuaries burnt, the ministries violated, the daily and nightly offices neglected. Some of the clerics had been put to flight, some killed; those who remained, given over to great poverty, were more eager about their own or earthly business than about heavenly. I scarcely doubt that Hugh here uses amplification and somewhat exaggerates the wretched state of the church of Verdun; for I nowhere find that under Charles Martel, or immediately before the year 742, about which, as has been said, the Saint was made bishop of the people of Verdun, the city of Verdun was wearied by several sieges, as the quoted words indicate. Yet since, as I have noted above, Hugh probably drew what he reports in them at least partly from older writers or documents, and since the goods of the church of Verdun most probably passed to the soldiers as pay while Charles Martel held power in Neustria and Austrasia before the Saint's promotion to the episcopal mitre, there is certainly reason why we should believe Hugh when he asserts that this church was reduced to the utmost straits and to an altogether wretched state. But the Saint, however much he was afflicted with due grief at those straits of the church which he had lately received commended to his care, by no means lost heart, but judged that the greater the evils were, the more strenuous and assiduous should be the labour he must spend in removing them.

[40] He stirs up his flock to virtue. And first indeed he stirred up the people committed to his care, by a sermon delivered, to the true worship and fear of God, to the works of sincere penance, to mutual charity and to mercy toward the poor. With swift step, therefore, says the biographer of the Saint at number 10, he entered the church, called together the clergy and people, made known the true judgments of the Lord, admonished them to confess their crimes or sins to one another, persuaded them to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, and charged and taught them to frequent the church, to apply themselves to prayers with tears, to hear the praises of the Lord in silence and reverence, to give alms willingly according to their power, to keep hospitality without murmuring, to return to peace before sunset when at variance, not to give a false peace, to fear hell, and to hope for eternal life. And not by words only but by example too did the holy and solicitous Shepherd spur his flock to these virtues. He pressed on, says the biographer again in the cited number, with preachings; he strengthened the people with blessings; he incited them to better things with holy exhortations; what he said in words he showed by examples. Berthar (go to number 7) here indeed by no means conflicts with Hugh; but he supplies only these few words which make to our purpose: He ordered, he says, the clergy and people of that church (of Verdun) reverently. So the first writer of the History of the Bishops of Verdun sets out most briefly the diligent care which Magdalveus, when made bishop of the people of Verdun, took for the flock committed to him. Further, although this regarded the whole people of Verdun, it extended itself especially to the clergy, inasmuch as it was fitting that they should shine before the rest by the good example of an approved life and manners. Hugh, the Saint's biographer, opportunely to this subject hands down this to memory: Then, he says at number 10, he appointed by ecclesiastical sanction that the clerics should live according to rule, say the praises of the Lord seven times a day and rise by night to confess to him; and he arranged their daily sustenance from his own means, so far as he could. I should certainly believe that St. Magdalveus, when now bishop, called back to Verdun to himself the canons of Verdun who had scattered elsewhere, as has been said, through the disturbances of the commonwealth arising from war, and at the same time supplied both to these and to others who had remained at Verdun or had already of their own accord returned thither from flight, and who had been reduced to the utmost poverty, their daily sustenance out of his own resources, on this condition, that they should pass their life according to the canonical norm of living. And this indeed appears to have been done by the Saint as soon as he was advanced to the governance of the church of Verdun.

[41] So I judge, partly because it is reported by Hugh in the order of the narrative among the things done by the Saint when already bishop in the first place, He prescribes, as it appears, a new manner of life for the clergy. and partly because it is fitting that a bishop should embrace his clergy with a certain singular care. But Hugh also seems to indicate in the words just quoted that a certain new manner of life was prescribed by St. Magdalveus to those canons or to the clergy of Verdun. Does this writer perhaps mean that it was instituted by the Saint that the canons of Verdun, enclosed in a cloister, should lead a common life according to the norm of the ecclesiastical canons? Constantino Ghini certainly thought so, and hence most probably inscribed St. Magdalveus in the sacred Calendars which he called The Birthdays of the Holy Canons, and which he enlarged with Saints who had merely deserved well of the Order of Canons Regular. And indeed that a certain manner of life different from the old one was prescribed by the Saint for the canons of Verdun to follow appears to me not at all unlike the truth. But, someone will say, if this perhaps really took place, it most probably happened no earlier than between the year 750 and 760. So it seems must be determined from this, that Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, did not write his Rule of canons before the year 750; and he, as it seems to most of the learned, is the first bishop who in the Gauls compelled the canons of the cathedral church over which he presided to a common life in a cloister. But now, if the Saint prescribed a new manner of life for his canons no earlier than between the year 750 and 760, then Magdalveus certainly — since this appears from what has been said to have been done at the beginning of his episcopate — will not have occupied the see of Verdun before about the year 750, contrary to what we have taught above. So it may be argued against the opinion by which it is held that it is also indicated by the words of Hugh just quoted that a new norm of life was prescribed by the Saint for the canons of Verdun. But I answer that either Hugh does not keep the order of events in narrating — which the authority of this writer certainly does not forbid us to say — or that the Saint prescribed a new norm of living for his clerics impelled by the example not of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, but of St. Rigobert, archbishop of Rheims, who long before Chrodegang's times established a common treasury for his clergy. Neither, certainly, is undoubtedly abhorrent from the truth.

[42] He acquires new possessions for his church, but this, although Hugh, Further, the Saint gave his labour not only to the reformation of his clergy but also to acquiring new possessions for his church. Berthar opportunely to this purpose has it thus at number 6: By whose (saint Magdalveus's) industry and zeal he is said to have obtained by precarious tenure Wasnau and the manor of Warnuncus, and Ramisbatium, and very many other things, as I myself have read in charters confirmed by his own hands. So the author of the brief History of the bishops of Verdun. What he means here by precarious tenure I shall set out at number 53. Meanwhile the goods which he here records the Saint perhaps acquired at the very beginning of his episcopate. For besides that Berthar makes mention of this acquisition in the words quoted before he speaks of the other things done by the Saint when already bishop, the Saint's plainly singular care for his clergy, then reduced to the utmost want, persuades it. Yet Hugh of Flavigny writes to this effect at number 11 of the Life to be published: Meanwhile he (St. Magdalveus) went to the court, made known to Pippin — who by the authority of Pope Stephen had been made king from being prefect of the palace — the devastation of the city and the calamity of the people whom he had undertaken to govern, and sought and obtained help from him out of the royal bounty. For by a contribution of the faithful he received certain estates, namely Wasnau or the manor of Warnuncus, Ramisbatium also, and very many others, which he entered in Charters with his own hand, and which the king's ring confirmed, and which the church of Verdun has not lost from that time. Moreover the king's munificence was not wanting to the citizens; he gladdened the clergy, adorned the church, and presented the Bishop, thus rewarded, to the rejoicing people. And by these words he most clearly indicates that the said estates were acquired by St. Magdalveus only then, when Pippin was already king, and therefore not before the year 752, in which that prince was first anointed king of the Franks; which accordingly did not happen at the very beginning of his episcopate. So it may be objected against the opinion by which we judge that the said estates were perhaps acquired for the church of Verdun by the Saint when he had not long been bishop.

[43] into whom here But since Hugh of Flavigny drew the facts which he consigned to writing about our Saint from older writers or documents which perhaps presented no chronological notes, or very few, as I have already sufficiently hinted, and since he often attached these to years not their own, either because they were altogether destitute of chronological notes, or because he wrongly interpreted those with which they were fortified, there is no reason why we should think it undoubted on his testimony that the estates which he records were not obtained for the church of Verdun by St. Magdalveus before the year 752, in which Pippin was first made king of the Franks. For Hugh perhaps read in some older document or writer that the estates named above were obtained by our Saint in the times of king Pippin, and hence concluded that this did not happen before that time at which Pippin had already occupied the throne of the Franks. But

that this could not certainly be concluded thence I prove thus. Paul the deacon, in our volume 1 of March, page 452, in a brief summary of the Life of St. Godegrand or Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, writes thus of this Saint: In the times of king Pippin he merited the pontifical honour. And yet St. Godegrand was raised to the see of Metz about the year 742, when Pippin had not yet occupied the throne of the Franks, as is admitted among all; so that it must be said either that the time at which Chrodegang obtained the see of Metz is wrongly noted by Paul the deacon, or at least that by the words of this writer just quoted it is not necessarily signified that Chrodegang was promoted to the mitre of Metz only when Pippin had been made king of the Franks. The first cannot be said, because Paul the deacon could have known perfectly the matters pertaining to Chrodegang from Angilram, Chrodegang's immediate successor in the see of Metz (go to our Work in the place just cited); it remains therefore that we assert the second.

[44] And indeed Paul the deacon wrote that Chrodegang merited the pontifical honour in the times of king Pippin (go again to our Work in the place just cited, in St. Chrodegang, number 7) certain things are observed, for this reason, that in the year 742, in which Chrodegang obtained the see of Metz, Pippin with his brother Carloman presided over the kingdom of the Franks without any other king. But now, since this is so, what if — as perhaps really happened — Hugh of Flavigny, because he had read somewhere that the estates which he records were obtained by St. Magdalveus in the times of king Pippin, that writer set down in writing that this was done when Pippin had already been anointed king of the Franks, and indeed by the liberality of this prince, and not of Carloman, which nevertheless appears more likely? We ought not to be moved by his narrative to believe with certainty that the estates which he records were obtained by the Saint through this prince's munificence only when Pippin had already been raised to the throne of the Franks. Wherefore, since Hugh's authority does not make it certain and undoubted that the estates of which we are here discoursing were obtained for the church of Verdun by St. Magdalveus before the year 752, in which Pippin was first made king of the Franks, I judge, for the reasons already given above, that this perhaps was done about the year 742, at the very beginning of the episcopate entered upon by our Saint.

[45] Yet undoubtedly St. Magdalveus will have obtained the aforesaid estates not before the year 752, in which Pippin was crowned king of the Franks by St. Boniface, bishop of Mainz, and Wassebourg write things opposed to this opinion, nay not before the year 753, if only what Wassebourg commits to writing on this subject agrees with the truth. For this writer in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 131, records, as to the substance, about this: that when Stephen the second, the supreme Pontiff, who had come into Gaul in the year 753 at the invitation of Pippin king of the Franks, had anointed this prince and his two sons Carloman and Charles as kings of the Franks, he visited several churches of France or Neustria, and afterwards came into Austrasia, went to Metz, then to Verdun, and conceived a great affection for Magdalveus, drawn by the Saint's rare virtues. For then he shone with the highest fame of sanctity. Treating of this subject (so Wassebourg goes on, roughly), Berthar, the historian of Verdun, hands down to memory that the aforesaid Pontiff, being informed of the calamities, exactions and losses which the church of Verdun had suffered from count Anselinus, obtained from king Pippin not a few estates and lordships, which he gave to Magdalveus for the advantage of the said church; among which Berthar reviews Wasnau, the manor of Warnuncus, and Ramisbaccium. So far Wassebourg as to the substance; adding presently also, with only a few things interposed, that Pippin then conferred various privileges, prerogatives and immunities on the city of Verdun, and that this too is attested in writing by Berthar. But I have unrolled the whole History of the bishops of Verdun once, twice and three times, and have not been able to find a single word about privileges and immunities which Pippin bestowed on the city of Verdun.

[46] [it perhaps happened at the very beginning of the episcopate entered upon by the Saint.] The same happened to me when investigating whether Berthar attests that Stephen, the supreme Pontiff, obtained Wasnau, the manor of Warnuncus and Ramisbatium or Ramisbaccium from king Pippin, and conferred them when obtained on St. Magdalveus. For Berthar merely reports that Magdalveus obtained those estates or lordships and very many other things; but whether this was done by the liberality of Stephen, or of king Pippin, or even of another, he does not declare. Besides, he nowhere even mentions Stephen. But now, since this is so, there is certainly reason why it should deservedly be called in doubt not only whether Magdalveus did not obtain the aforementioned estates without Stephen's intervention, but also whether he did not obtain them before his coming into Gaul, which happened in the year 753. Hence further it now follows that, even regarding what Wassebourg reports, it remains equally uncertain whether St. Magdalveus obtained the aforesaid donation of estates or lordships before or after Pippin had already ascended the throne of the Franks; so that this, as has been said, perhaps happened at the very beginning of the episcopate entered upon by the Saint. Hence it also becomes doubtful to me whether what Wassebourg hands down to memory — and affirms that he drew from authentic bulls — about the church of St. Michael, then situated in the place which is now distinguished by the name of the Old Monastery, and which Pope Stephen, while in the Gauls, consecrated, agrees with the truth. But however these things may stand, the Saint certainly obtained the aforementioned estates or lordships for his church (for Berthar and Hugh too attest this), and from this also is clear the care which the holy Bishop took for it. Nor is this less clear from the wholly pastoral solicitude with which he not only visited the several churches of the diocese committed to him, but also restored those that were ruined or almost fallen down.

[47] The distinguished priest, says the Saint's biographer at number 15, The Saint visits his diocese, and the abbey of St. Amantius; going about his bishopric with pastoral solicitude, set up churches in the places where there were none, restored those that were ruined or decayed, ordered the divine ministries, teaching the peoples with saving doctrine and confirming them with episcopal blessing and with the unction of the sacred chrism . So Hugh: and although these things are not supported by the testimony of an older writer, they yet deserve credit because they befit any holy Bishop. Further, as from what has been said the Saint spent strenuous labour on acquiring new possessions for his church, so also on preserving the old ones, though situated far from his bishopric in Aquitaine. Berthar himself attests this. The words in which he does it, quoted at number 7, are these: The properties too which are in Aquitaine, anciently subject to that church (the chief one of Verdun, namely), that is, the abbey of saint Amantius situated in Rouergue, and Marderniacum and Puliniacum, he (saint Magdalveus) frequently visited, and carried with him the deeds of our aforesaid bishops, that by their merits he might the more freely possess those properties situated further off. On the same subject Hugh, the Saint's biographer, records thus at number 18: Aquitaine received the great works of his (saint Magdalveus's) sanctity, being often traversed by his steps, watered by his tears, strengthened by his teachings and glorified by his miracles. For he frequently visited the properties which the church of Verdun anciently possessed in that region, and carried with him the Lives or Miracles of his predecessors the bishops, that by their merits he might the more freely possess those properties, or that his lordship might be dearer to the country folk and their subjection humbler.* So far Hugh, handing down almost nothing that is not founded in Berthar, or at least does not conflict with that writer.

[48] But to the words just quoted he presently subjoins this: that this was given to the monastery of St. Vanne by St. Amantius himself And those properties were the abbey of saint Amantius in the city of Rodez with its Appurtenances, the royal fisc too of Maderniacus, and another by the name of Puliniacus, given to the uses of the servants of saint Peter and saint Vanne by the bounty of the blessed Amantius himself. And by these words he teaches that the abbey of saint Amantius, together with Maderniacus and Puliniacus, was first granted by St. Amantius himself not to the chief church of Verdun, which is sacred to the most holy Mother of God Mary, but to the church of SS. Peter and Vanne; which is neither founded in Berthar nor appears conformable to the truth. For the abbey of St. Amantius in St. Magdalveus's age was, as Berthar hints in the words of the preceding number, an ancient possession of the chief or cathedral church of Verdun; and I have nowhere found, though I have examined the matter most diligently, that before it passed into the jurisdiction of the said chief church of Verdun it ever belonged to the church of SS. Peter and Vanne. Here therefore Hugh has fallen into error, as it appears to me at least. But what, I ask, gave this writer occasion for erring here? Already more than a century before Hugh's age the possession of the abbey of St. Amantius had been transferred to the church or monastery of SS. Peter and Vanne by Berengar, bishop of Verdun. This is clear from what the anonymous monk of St. Vanne, who first continued the brief History of the bishops of Verdun begun by Berthar, hands down to memory in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 262. The words which this writer supplies there are these: For whose (of the monks substituted for the clerics in the monastery of St. Vanne) sustenance he (Berengar, namely, bishop of Verdun) assigned the manor of Scantia with its ban: the abbey also of saint Amantius in Aquitaine with many churches of this bishopric.

[49] Berengar, who is here narrated to have given the abbey of St. Amantius to the monastery of St. Vanne, the Saint's biographer wrongly writes, departed from among the living when the tenth century had already passed its middle part; and therefore that abbey in the age of Hugh, who flourished toward the end of the eleventh century, had already for more than a century passed into the jurisdiction of the monastery of St. Vanne. Did Hugh perhaps not know this, and therefore write that the aforesaid abbey was given to the monastery of St. Vanne by St. Amantius himself? By no means: for Hugh himself, who in that part of his Chronicle in which he treats of our Saint writes that that donation was made to the monastery of St. Vanne by St. Amantius, afterwards quotes in the same Chronicle the entire charter by which Berengar granted the aforementioned abbey and other goods to the monastery of St. Vanne. And so I should believe that Hugh, when he committed to writing the deeds of our Saint, did not advert to the said charter, which he afterwards quoted, granted by Berengar to the monastery of St. Vanne, and hence wrongly attributed to St. Amantius himself a donation which was first made by Berengar by that charter. And thus indeed this too is a proof how little Hugh deserves to be commended for accuracy. Further, concerning this monastery or abbey of St. Amantius, which the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume 1, column 233, teach was situated in the borough of the city of Rodez, called in French Rhodes, Hugh of Flavigny in his Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, volume 1 of the Library of Manuscripts, page 183, records thus: He (Richard, abbot of St. Vanne, in the year 1028, when famine was raging) received no small sum of money from the count of Rodez, the abbey of St. Amantius being granted in pledge,

which was of the jurisdiction of the church of St. Peter, and he distributed it entirely to the poor. But the count, having given the money, usurped the abbey for himself with its revenues and lands, and, as the inhabitants of the city of Rodez assert, before the money could be recovered out of the lands of the same abbey, he was himself forestalled by death; and so the abbey was retained by his successors — although by the inhabitants not the whole abbey of St. Amantius, which is very extensive and of enormous possession, is said to be of the jurisdiction of the church of Verdun, but a certain part, namely the abbey of saint Marius de Utra … bra, as men of today still testify.

[50] So far the chronographer of Verdun; to whose words also, produced in the place just cited, the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana add this in the following column: [it had already in the year 1236 been changed into a priory. The Saint by his example.] In the year 1079 Pontius, bishop of Rodez, subjected the monastery of St. Amantius to the abbot of St. Victor of Marseilles. See the second charter among the Instruments. But in the year 1090 it is given to abbot Rodulph. So they, teaching afterwards also in column 235 that the abbey of St. Amantius had already in the year 1286 been changed into a priory. This lot, which very many other abbeys in the Gauls also underwent, at last the most wealthy and most ample abbey of St. Amantius of Rodez underwent — that abbey which our Saint had once embraced with the utmost care, having also shared with its religious inhabitants, as Berthar indicates in the words transcribed here above, the miracles and deeds of SS. Vanne, Agericus and Paul, his predecessors, who had once made the church of Verdun illustrious by the exceptional sanctity of their life. But let this suffice for what has been discoursed about the abbey of St. Amantius. I now turn my discourse again to another abbey, of which there has been mention before — namely the monastery of SS. Peter and Vanne of Verdun, which St. Magdalveus likewise embraced with a singular care. The Saint was carried toward it with such affection that he retained for himself its governance, which, as has been said, he had held before he was bishop, even when he was now weighed down with the most grave burden of governing the whole church of Verdun. And the very church of blessed Vanne, says Hugh, the Saint's biographer, at number 15, over which before he received the grace of the Pontificate he had been appointed pastor and ruler, he always cultivated and advanced with such love that he did not lay aside the care of it even when he had taken up the bishopric; nay rather with all effort he both rendered it illustrious by divine services and enlarged it with estates and ecclesiastical furnishings, on account of the blessed memory of his predecessors resting there, from whom he wished to be separated neither in body nor in spirit, but desired to be buried together with them in their place of rest. He therefore gave to that same church, out of his own property, the manor of Raherius with its appurtenances, for the burial of his body, and very many other things, as the record of the charters shows.

[51] These things certainly reveal that St. Magdalveus burned always with the same affection, which he had once conceived, toward the monastery of SS. Peter and Vanne of Verdun. perhaps also at his urging obtains two donations for the monastery of St. Vanne. Hugh, the Saint's biographer, then reviews two donations made to the same monastery by two men outstanding in piety, in which our Saint certainly had some part, and perhaps not the least, inasmuch as it appears that he persuaded them to be made either by open words or probably by his own example of goodwill toward it. The words in which Hugh reports the latter of the two said donations I transcribe here, because they need a comment. They run thus: Following the example of whom (Sarcio, a benefactor of the monastery of St. Vanne) and led by love of the blessed Father (saint Magdalveus), Grimbert, himself also a possessor of that estate and a partaker of its hereditary right, bestowed on the basilica of saint Vanne whatever he possessed in that same place, in farms, fields, olive-grounds, meadows, pastures, cleared lands, woods, waters and the outflows and courses of waters. And afterwards, a precarial grant being made, he received those same properties back from the blessed Man by beneficiary right, with a stated due of twenty pounds of oil every year on the festival of saint Vanne for the lights of his church, in which the same precious confessor rests, and with a prescribed term at which the Saint should receive them back improved. Which testament of precarial grant the blessed Pontiff and abbot confirmed by his authority in the third year of the reign of Carloman, who was the brother of Charlemagne, on the day of the Kalends of July, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 770, in the 8th Indiction.

[52] I have already sufficiently noted above that Hugh of Flavigny marked the facts and instruments which he found destitute of years of Christ with those years of the Christian era which he judged to suit the same facts and instruments from the other chronological notes which they presented, and that he often did this with little happy success. And how true this is is again clear here from the third year of Carloman, which in the words just quoted he sets together with the year of Christ 770, advanced as far as July. A fault in the chronological notes by which one of these is marked, For Carloman, the son of Pippin the Short, of whom there is talk here, did not begin to reign before the September of the year 768, and therefore in the year of Christ 770, advanced only to July, the third year of his reign — inasmuch as it began only in the month of September of the year 770 — was not yet running. Further, since Hugh, as very often elsewhere, here too goes astray in assigning the reckoning of the times, it can not undeservedly be doubted whether the donation of which we are here treating did not happen long before the year 770, to which it is attached by that writer, under Carloman the son of Charles Martel, mayor of the palace of Austrasia — out of whom Hugh here wrongly makes Carloman the king, brother of Charlemagne — and therefore it cannot be concluded from that donation, though made by our Saint's exertion, that he closed his last day later than in the year 762, contrary to what we determine below. This is what had to be noted, as regards chronology, upon Hugh's quoted words. I observe something else in them besides. Hugh says in them that Grimbert received from St. Magdalveus by beneficiary right, a precarial grant being made, those very properties which he had before handed over to the church or monastery of SS. Peter and Vanne.

[53] and what the contract of precarial grant is, is declared. That therefore it may be understood what Hugh means to signify here, I note this: A precaria, as du Cange teaches in his Glossary at this word, is a document or charter by which someone receives an allod or estate from a church under an annual due for use during life, about to possess it by precarious tenure. Further, the praised du Cange assigns at the said word in his Glossary various species or modes of the precaria or contract which was called Precaria. One among these he sets out thus: Sometimes by precarial grants someone handed over the property of his own to a church, and afterwards asked that it be given to him, binding himself to an annual due. The contract of precarial grant which Hugh reports to have passed between Grimbert and Magdalveus was entered upon in the way which I have just given, yet with this condition added, that Grimbert should restore the properties which he had before given to the church of SS. Peter and Vanne, and which he was receiving from it by contract of precarial grant, to the aforementioned church at the time fixed by the same contract, rendered in a better state. Further, in almost the same way will most probably have been entered upon the contract which Berthar records in the words quoted at number 6 and again at number 42. Everyone, as I think, will judge these things consonant with the truth, if only he will weigh with attentive mind Hugh's words transcribed here just now, and likewise what Berthar supplies in the places just mentioned. And these are the things which I have thought must be noted upon the words in which Hugh sets out the one of the two donations made to the church of SS. Peter and Vanne of Verdun. Nor do I find anything else that must be recorded here concerning the care with which the Saint, now bishop of the people of Verdun, promoted the advantages both of the monastery of St. Vanne and of the flock committed to him, in that time which passed between his promotion to the see of Verdun and the design of the journey which he afterwards undertook toward Jerusalem.

episcopium* his bishopric

exstruxit* he built

chrismatis* of chrism

§ V. The Saint determines to go to Jerusalem; some circumstances preceding this journey.

The Saint determines to go to Jerusalem. To this design The Saint, the affairs of his diocese being now settled and brought to a better state, conceived in his mind the desire of visiting the holy places of Jerusalem, sanctified by the very feet of our most holy Saviour and Redeemer, and in fact visited the holy city. Hugh, the Saint's biographer, attests this at number 27; and in this matter he had lighting his way Berthar, the historian of the bishops of Verdun, so very often praised already. But between these two writers, although both hand down to memory that the Saint went to Jerusalem, there does not seem to be agreement about the cause or occasion of this journey. For Berthar (go to number 7) sets out the matter thus: In whose (saint Magdalveus's) time also the house of that church (the cathedral of Verdun) was burnt, our sins requiring it; and on this account he went through Gaul and Italy and so through Greece and Joppa, with great hardship of the roads, and came to Jerusalem, and obtained from the patriarch of that place the relics of many Saints, and brought them, with a crystal chalice carved with marvellous workmanship, to Verdun, and placed them reverently in our principal church; and by these words he seems to indicate that the unfortunate fire by which the cathedral church of Verdun was consumed was the cause, or at least the occasion, by which it came about that the Saint undertook the journey to Jerusalem.

[55] But Hugh of Flavigny writes to this effect at number 20: While therefore he (saint Magdalveus) was burning with a manifold desire of virtues, the thought came upon him of going as a pilgrim to Jerusalem to the sepulchre of the Prince of life. the burning of the cathedral church seems in part to have given occasion. And so he hastened to fulfil by a voluntary performance what he had conceived in mind by divine inspiration; and while all things necessary for the conduct of the journey were being provided, the principal church, our sins requiring it, is caught by fire and, the conflagration raging, is burnt down. And by these words we are most plainly taught that the cathedral church of the people of Verdun was not consumed by fire before the design of the journey to Jerusalem had already been entered upon by the Saint, and therefore that this was not the occasion or cause why the Saint went to Jerusalem. Hugh therefore seems here to conflict with Berthar. But whose narrative must we stand by here, his or Hugh's? There will certainly be, as I think, someone who assents the more readily to Hugh in that matter. For who, he will say, would persuade himself that the Saint was stirred to the journey to Jerusalem by the burning of his cathedral church? Who would not think that by a misfortune of this kind he ought rather to have been kept at Verdun, to see to the rebuilding of the burnt church? But however these things may stand, I nevertheless so assent to Berthar as to think that the Saint was at least partly impelled to the journey to Jerusalem by the fire in which the cathedral church of Verdun had burned — a journey to which he was already before inclined by the singular desire which held him of seeing the holy places which of old had been trodden by the most holy feet of our Saviour and sprinkled with his most sacred blood and sweat. For that custom had once prevailed, that when a church was either to be built new from the foundations, or an old or ruined one to be rebuilt, sacred relics, from wherever

and of whatever kind they could get, to be brought into it, should be sought out with all zeal and labour. Hence, whatever may be objected, it does not seem to me unlike the truth that St. Magdalveus, being most desirous of the sacred relics which he might bring into the new cathedral church of Verdun that was to be built, went to Jerusalem at least partly out of this praiseworthy desire, suited to his age.

[56] However that may be, the Saint certainly brought back with him from Jerusalem into Gaul many sacred relics which he obtained from the patriarch of Jerusalem, The Saint before his departure prepared all things necessary for its rebuilding; and brought them into the cathedral church of Verdun when it had now been rebuilt. This is clear from Berthar's words just quoted, and will be said at greater length when I speak below of the Saint's return from the city of Jerusalem. That I may set out in order the matters pertaining to Magdalveus, I must now treat before all else of certain other circumstances which are narrated to have preceded his journey to Jerusalem. It is not to be doubted that the Saint, before he undertook so long and perilous a journey, most diligently saw to absolutely everything which he judged necessary and useful both for it and for the building of the new church, and departed only when he had also instructed in all that would conduce to administering the bishopric fitly and in order during his absence those very men whom he was appointing meanwhile as his vicars. Then (the cathedral church of Verdun having been burnt, namely) Madelveus's mind, says Hugh, the Saint's biographer, at number 20, is snatched in different directions, his spirit is distressed and his heart troubled. At length, returning to himself and mindful of that proverb — "He is not great who thinks it great that timbers and stones fall and that mortals die" — he bore the temporal loss patiently, and at once ordered the fabric to be restored to a better state. And when an agreement had been made with the workmen, and overseers appointed, and the necessary expenses arranged, he urges, entreats and commands that the work be begun in good time, hastened attentively, and completed diligently: and then, a few things being interposed, he subjoins thus: Finally by their counsel (of the neighbouring bishops, namely) the church (of Verdun) is ordered and the people committed to him are commended.

[57] yet for this he was helped neither by Hildulf of Trier, So Hugh, setting out almost only in general terms what the Saint providently saw to, in order that the burnt church of Verdun might be rebuilt and at the same time the bishopric fitly governed in his absence. But Wassebourg, after committing to writing almost all the same things as Hugh in the words just quoted, goes on thus, as to the substance, in book 2 of the Antiquities so often cited, folio 131 verso. But since a great sum of money was needed for it (namely for the building of the new church and for the journey to Jerusalem), the Saint had recourse to the archbishop of Trier, his metropolitan, and to the neighbouring bishops — those of Metz, of Rheims and of Toul — from whom he obtained a great quantity of money for the rebuilding of his church. Hildulf, as he says, was then archbishop of Trier, sprung from a noble stock of Belgic Gaul at Tournai, a city of the Nervii, and promoted unwillingly to that metropolitan see. And as regards the churches of Metz, Rheims and Toul, whose bishops he affirms to have been munificent toward the Saint too, St. Chrodegang governed the first, Abel the second, and finally Jacob the third. So Wassebourg: but of the four bishops just mentioned, whom he reports to have bestowed large alms on St. Magdalveus for the building of the new cathedral church, beyond all doubt Hildulf, archbishop of Trier, did not do so. For this bishop, illustrious for a notable fame of sanctity, was raised to the see of Trier not about the year 758, as some formerly wrongly thought, but about the year 666 (go to Henschen in his Dissertation on the three Dagoberts, book 4, §5; to Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 15, number 58; and to volume III of July of our Work, in St. Hildulf); and, having resigned it in the year 671, he withdrew into the solitude of the Vosges mountain, and there in the seventh year of the following century flew to the powers above by a happy passing from among the living; so that he certainly could not confer a huge sum of money in alms on our Saint for the rebuilding of the cathedral church of Verdun, which under St. Magdalveus — and therefore later than the year 707, as you will easily gather from what has been and is to be said — was consumed by fire.

[58] [nor, as it appears, by Abel archbishop of Rheims, nor by the two bishops here mentioned] As for the three other bishops mentioned above — namely Abel of Rheims, Jacob of Toul and Chrodegang of Metz — there is indeed nothing at hand by which I might affirm without hesitation that none of them succoured our Saint with alms for rebuilding his burnt cathedral church; yet whether any of them really did so appears doubtful to me for this reason also, that we have Wassebourg alone as the narrator of the matter, and that this writer, being more recent, and in this very place wrongly making St. Hildulf a benefactor with alms toward our Saint, does not deserve sure credit without a fitting testimony of antiquity. And hence indeed it becomes doubtful both whether St. Abel, archbishop of Rheims, and also whether St. Chrodegang of Metz and St. Jacob bishop of Toul bestowed alms on our Saint. But there are also things which not a little increase that doubt, particularly concerning Abel, archbishop of Rheims. And first indeed Wassebourg expressly affirms in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 132 verso, that he drew this holy archbishop's liberality toward the church of Verdun from the chartularies of the church of Verdun. Wherefore, since from what has been said those documents of the church of Verdun are of a later age and credit, the devout munificence of St. Abel toward our Saint cannot be held so certain from them that it may not deservedly be called into doubt.

[59] Besides, St. Abel was raised to the archbishopric of Rheims about the year 744, as it seems to most, he was aided with a huge sum of money. and did not, as it appears, occupy it longer than to the year 748; so at least it seems more probable from what has been disputed in our Work at the 5th day of August, in St. Abel. But now, since this is so, and since at the same time Wassebourg seems to mean that St. Abel, while he still occupied the see of Rheims, bestowed on our Saint no small quantity of money in alms for rebuilding the church of Verdun, this cannot stand with the other assertions of this writer, from which, as it will be easy to gather from what is to be said, it altogether follows that the church of Verdun was burnt in St. Magdalveus's time not earlier than about the year 756. There is also this, that in the space of time between the year 744 and 748, in which perhaps and most probably at no other did St. Abel hold the see of Rheims, that church was in so afflicted a condition in temporal things (go again to our Work in the place just cited) that its bishop was fitter to receive alms than to give them. But suppose that the alms of which we are here treating were not conferred on St. Magdalveus by Abel until he had already been compelled to give up the see of Rheims: who would not think it more likely that Abel then too lacked the means by which he might do it? And so, the matter having been maturely discussed, it appears to me little probable that Abel brought help to our Saint for rebuilding the church of Verdun by a huge sum of money conferred in alms. But even though this be so, and even though from what has been said the Saint perhaps received no money either from Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, or from Jacob of Toul — who nevertheless seem to have had riches enough for it — for the church of Verdun, he certainly procured with all zeal and diligence the things necessary for rebuilding it, whether received from elsewhere or from the resources of his own bishopric. And this being done, and the order given that hands should be set to the building of the new edifice in his absence, he committed himself to the journey, about to go to Jerusalem, for which he was already panting with his prayers.

§ VI. He accomplishes his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and visits the holy places.

Magdalveus, while Constantine Copronymus ruled the Eastern empire, That St. Magdalveus made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem Berthar declares most briefly in the words quoted at number 7 and elsewhere above, thus: He went through Gaul and Italy and so through Greece and Joppa, with great hardship of the roads, and came to Jerusalem, and obtained from the patriarch of that place the relics of many Saints. But Hugh, the Saint's biographer, and Wassebourg review also the chief cities through which Magdalveus passed, and among them Rome and Constantinople. Besides, they also set out who then held the see of St. Peter at Rome and who the reins of the Eastern empire at Constantinople. But here there is by no means agreement between those two writers. For according to Hugh, Hadrian; but according to Wassebourg, Paul, occupied the supreme see of the universal Church when St. Magdalveus came to Rome. Besides, according to the latter writer Constantine Copronymus, but according to the former Constantine the son of Leo IV together with his mother Irene, governed the Eastern empire with supreme power when our Saint arrived at Constantinople. But now someone will ask whether Wassebourg or rather Hugh is to be assented to here. Constantine Copronymus presided over the Eastern empire from the year 741 to the year 775, in which he died, as is agreed among the learned; but Constantine the son of Leo IV, with his mother Irene, did not begin to govern the empire of the East before the year 780, as is likewise agreed among the learned. Wherefore, since St. Magdalveus beyond all doubt undertook the journey to Jerusalem before the year 780 — inasmuch as by then, from what is to be said, he had long since been taken from among the living — Hugh certainly writes wrongly that Constantine the son of Leo IV, with his mother Irene, presided over the Eastern empire at the time when the Saint, in making that journey, came to Constantinople. On the contrary, since the Saint accomplished the journey to Jerusalem, as it is easy to gather from what has been and is to be said, in that space of time which passed between the year 741 and the year 775, Wassebourg certainly asserts rightly that Constantine Copronymus, inasmuch as he reigned, as has been said, from the year 741 to the year 775, presided with supreme power over the Eastern empire at the time when Magdalveus, in making that journey, came to Constantinople.

[61] and while Paul governed the universal Church, made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. And thus indeed we now have that the emperor who governed the Eastern empire at the time when our Saint went from Constantinople to Jerusalem is rightly assigned by Wassebourg; the next thing is that I should now discuss whether this writer too, or rather Hugh, rightly assigns the Pontiff who occupied the Roman see of St. Peter at the time when St. Magdalveus went from Rome to Jerusalem. Pope Paul, under whom according to Wassebourg the Saint went from Rome to Jerusalem, began to sit in the year 757; but Pope Hadrian, under whom according to Hugh of Flavigny this happened, in the year 772. Wherefore, since the Saint, from what is to be said, more probably exchanged life for death in the year 762, and not, as Hugh of Flavigny notes, in the year 776, it is also more probable that Paul, assigned by Wassebourg, and not Hadrian, proposed by Hugh, occupied the Roman see of St. Peter at the time when the Saint made his pilgrimage from Rome to Jerusalem. Nor is there any ground for objecting that the Saint perhaps made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem earlier than the year 757,

and therefore that this happened neither under Pope Paul nor under Pope Hadrian. For since Hugh, who sets the Saint's death together with the year 776, places his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, from what has been said, not before the year 772, while Wassebourg places the same pilgrimage not before the year 757, both those writers certainly with one accord defer it to the Saint's last years. And indeed that this is rightly done by them appears likely from this, that the Saint did not make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem until the affairs of his bishopric had been settled and quieted. For since, as has been said, St. Magdalveus more probably did not receive the church of Verdun to be governed by the office of bishop before the year 742, and found its affairs at that time in a very disturbed and mournful state, as I have shown at number 39, he probably needed no small space of time to settle them and to restore them to their former state of tranquillity. Wherefore, since the Saint most probably also did not go to Jerusalem on pilgrimage immediately upon the settling of his church's affairs, but only some time afterwards, it certainly becomes likely from this — that Magdalveus did not gird himself to that journey until his church's affairs were settled — that he did not do it until he had been advanced almost to his last years, and about the year 757 was running. But another difficulty presents itself here.

[62] For Hugh and Wassebourg, speaking of the Saint when he had now reached Jerusalem, The see of this city at that time, not, as that say that he was received very honourably by the patriarch of the place. And the former of those two writers names this patriarch Eusebius; but the latter, although he confesses that in the opinion of some a patriarch Eusebius then sat in the see of Jerusalem, nevertheless contends that a patriarch by the name of Basil occupied it when St. Magdalveus came to Jerusalem. But our Papebroch, in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem prefixed to volume 3 of May, numbers 167 and following, inclines to the opinion that the patriarch Eusebius mentioned by Hugh of Flavigny and Wassebourg sat in the see of Jerusalem from the year 735 to the year 742. I transcribe his words here. They run thus: But neither could Theodore have immediately succeeded John (the sixty-second patriarch of Jerusalem), who died about the year 735. For there is extant his synodical letter concerning his faith and election, approved in the third session of the second synod of Nicaea, as it was directed to the two other Eastern patriarchs, Cosmas of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch, who themselves received their ordination only about the year 742. To fill this gap of six or seven years, then, there is offered us a certain Eusebius by the Life of St. Madalvaeus, bishop of Verdun, who is honoured on the 4th day of October, and whom Richard Wassebourg in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul demonstrates evidently enough to have held that see from the year 735 to 762; however much others have thought otherwise, because from the Life itself, written not very accurately nor by a contemporary, nothing certain can be elicited as to the time.

[63] So Papebroch; and presently he also subjoins words by which he hints which pleased Papebroch, will have it, that the Eusebius whom he records in the words just quoted then sat upon the patriarchal throne of St. James the brother of the Lord, when our Saint reached Jerusalem on the pilgrimage undertaken to that holy city. Wherefore, since from what has been said Papebroch in the words just quoted inclines to the opinion by which he judges that Eusebius occupied the see of Jerusalem from the year 735 to about the year 742, it will be, according to his mind, that St. Magdalveus made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem in that space of time which elapsed from the year 735 to about the year 742 — contrary to what has seemed to us above. Further, since Wassebourg stands in the way of setting our Saint's pilgrimage to Jerusalem so early, our same Papebroch goes on in these words at number 168 in the aforesaid Historical Chronology of the patriarchs of Jerusalem: The aforesaid Wassebourg indeed defers that journey (to Jerusalem) of St. Madalvaeus to almost his extreme old age and to about the year 757; but without adducing any reason why he does so. So he. But although Wassebourg brings forward no reason why he defers St. Magdalveus's journey to Jerusalem to almost his extreme old age, it does not seem that he must be opposed, on account of what has been said at number 61. Besides, the Saint, as I have shown in §3, was more probably not promoted to the see of Verdun before the year 742. Wherefore, since he did not make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem before he was already bishop, he also more probably did not do it before the said year 742, and therefore not in that space of time which runs from the year 735 to the year 742.

[64] the patriarch Eusebius, Papebroch does indeed say in the words quoted at number 62 that it is demonstrated evidently enough by Wassebourg in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul that St. Magdalveus held the see of Verdun from the year 735 to the year 762; but since he presently confesses that the Life of the Saint, in which he says this is demonstrated by Wassebourg, was written not very accurately nor by a contemporary, he certainly will not have thought that the matter is plainly proved by that demonstration of Wassebourg's. However that may be, our Henschen at least did not think so as regards the year to which Wassebourg attaches St. Magdalveus's promotion to the episcopal mitre, inasmuch as in volume IV of June, in St. Jacob bishop of Toul, page 584, he sets the beginning of the bishopric of Verdun undertaken by our Saint far from the year 735. And indeed everyone, as I think, will conclude without evasion, from what has been said at number 30 and following, that it is by no means proved by the reasons adduced by this writer that the Saint was raised to the see of Verdun already from the year 735. Let it therefore stand that our Saint was more probably made bishop of Verdun not before the year 742, as I have shown in §3, and therefore also made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem not before the same year, when Eusebius was no longer patriarch of Jerusalem; which last thing certainly would probably not have been done earlier — even granting that Magdalveus was bishop of Verdun already from the year 735 — for this further reason, that the Saint, as Hugh and Wassebourg attest and reason itself persuades, did not undertake the journey to Jerusalem until the affairs of his bishopric were settled and placed in a peaceful condition; and these most probably were not in such a state from the year 735 to the year 742, while Charles Martel was still surviving among the living, as it is easy to gather from what I have discoursed in § III.

[65] but Theodore probably occupied it. But now someone will say: since the Saint, from what has been disputed, most probably did not make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem before the year 742, and therefore, when he arrived there, Eusebius, mentioned above by Papebroch, was not sitting on the patriarchal throne of the holy city, what patriarch after all occupied that throne when Magdalveus came to Jerusalem? Was it perhaps Basil, as Wassebourg will have it in the Life of the Saint composed by him, book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133? Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, received his ordination about the year 742, as Papebroch teaches in the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, and still occupied the throne of the holy City about the year 767, as is clear from the synodical letter of faith which he wrote to Paul I, the Roman Pontiff, received from Jerusalem in this year (go to Pagi in the Critica under the year 767, number 5) by Constantine, the pseudo-Pontiff who after Paul's death had invaded the Roman see. Wherefore, since from what has been said St. Magdalveus was more probably not bishop of Verdun before the year 742, and certainly did not die before the year 762, it appears most probable that the Theodore just mentioned held the helm of the church of Jerusalem at the time when our Saint came to Jerusalem.

[66] So it altogether seems to me must be determined, on account of all that has been said; [Nor on that account, however, is the opinion by which, either between John and Theodore,] and although thus, as follows from this and from the other points here determined, I shall neither join the Saint's pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the space of time which runs from the year 735 to the year 742, as our Papebroch does, nor place it under the patriarch Eusebius, yet I do not on that account think that the opinion must certainly be rejected which pleased that same Papebroch, as his words quoted above indicate, and which holds that Eusebius — or else either he or Basil, proposed by Wassebourg — sat between John and Theodore, patriarchs of Jerusalem, from the year 735 to 742. For since Hugh, the Saint's biographer, reveals that Eusebius occupied the patriarchal see at Jerusalem while Magdalveus made his pilgrimage thither, hence at least there arises in me a suspicion — however much Hugh here most probably strays from the truth — that some Eusebius in the eighth century, either before or after our Saint's journey to Jerusalem, presided over the patriarchal church of Jerusalem. Let the same judgment stand about Basil, whom Wassebourg makes patriarch of Jerusalem at the time when Magdalveus came to Jerusalem. Thus, although St. Hildulf, archbishop of Trier, is wrongly produced by Wassebourg, from what has been said, as devoutly munificent toward our Saint about the year 757, yet that holy archbishop of Trier was still surviving among the living in the eighth century, inasmuch as he did not die before the year 707.

[67] Likewise, although it is wrongly asserted by Hugh, from what has been said, that Constantine with his mother Irene presided over the Eastern empire at the time when Magdalveus went from Constantinople to Jerusalem, or between him and Elias, Eusebius is placed in the middle yet Constantine with his mother Irene did take up the reins of the Eastern empire in the year 780. Hugh and Wassebourg, that is, will have learned the facts from older writers or documents; but the years in which these had happened they will have been ignorant of, or at least not sufficiently ascertained. Wherefore, although Hugh hands down to memory wrongly that Eusebius, and Wassebourg that Basil, occupied the patriarchal see at Jerusalem at the time when our Saint made his pilgrimage thither, yet I do not think it unlike the truth that both Basil and Eusebius occupied the see of Jerusalem in the eighth century. Hence further it now comes about that, since the time at which either Eusebius or Basil sat in the see of Jerusalem appears uncertain from what has been said, the opinion must not certainly be rejected by which our Papebroch, in order to fill the gap between John, patriarch of Jerusalem, who died in the year 735, and Theodore, likewise patriarch of Jerusalem, raised to this dignity in the year 742, thought, or at least laid down after the manner of one doubting, that Eusebius or Basil occupied the see of Jerusalem from the year 735 to the year 742. Besides, since perhaps between Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, and Elias, likewise patriarch of Jerusalem, yet another patriarch came in the middle, it likewise does not seem that Papebroch must certainly be opposed when he writes thus in the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, number 170: It remains meanwhile that Theodore of Jerusalem was ordained at least in 742. But when he died is not

equally easy to define; nor to say whether Elias, chief of the pastors of Aelia, as he is named in the Life of St. Tarasius, who was alive at the time of the second synod of Nicaea, succeeded Theodore immediately or with others between.

[68] by Papebroch, to be rejected as certainly false. For this Wherefore here too there would be a place for Eusebius, if it were established that he sat after Theodore, for the year 771, as Hugh of Flavigny will have it; and before the same Theodore a place could be given to Wassebourg's Basil, if anything more certain were had about him too. These things, which perhaps are true, Papebroch says not in the manner of one affirming but only of one doubting or suspecting — and rightly indeed. Yet both on this head, and because in the words transcribed here above he inclines to the opinion which holds that Eusebius held the see of Jerusalem from the year 735 to the year 742 — an opinion which certainly must not be rejected as certainly false — he is dealt with by Pagi in the Critica under the year 767, number 7, in this manner: Papebroch … in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, which he prefixed to volume III of the Saints of the month of May, following Richard Wassebourg in book 2 of the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, thinks that between John and Theodore (the patriarchs of Jerusalem, namely, spoken of above) Eusebius sat, and that Theodore was raised to the throne of Jerusalem about the year seven hundred and forty-one. Papebroch also suspects that Basil obtained the church of Jerusalem after Theodore, and Wassebourg in the Life of St. Madalveus contends that Basil must be substituted for Eusebius. But since from what has been said it is established that Theodore succeeded John, and in the year 766 and in the current year still ruled that see, it is manifest that Wassebourg rather confused than explained the Life of St. Madalveus, and that Basil, whom he obtrudes without foundation, is a fictitious bishop. So Pagi, contending here chiefly for two things against Papebroch: the first is that Eusebius is wrongly placed by him, after Wassebourg's example, in the middle between John and Theodore, patriarchs of Jerusalem; the second is that Basil, whom Papebroch judges perhaps to have sat in the see of Jerusalem after Theodore, most certainly did not sit in that see, inasmuch as he is only a fictitious bishop.

[69] by the reasons which Pagi But indeed those two things which Pagi here most confidently pronounces as most certain seem to me by no means certain and undoubted. For as regards the first, whence does Pagi know with sufficient certainty that Eusebius did not sit in the see of Jerusalem in the middle between the patriarchs John and Theodore? To the words quoted in the preceding number he premises this: Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, who had succeeded John in the year 735, died in an uncertain year, and had Eusebius as successor. For in the Life of saint Madelveus, bishop of Verdun, described by Hugh of Flavigny in his Chronicle, it is read that this Saint about the year 770 visited the sepulchre of Christ at Jerusalem, and that the patriarch Eusebius received him most honourably, and, when he departed from Jerusalem, gave him a crystal chalice and many relics. And St. Madalveus died in the year seven hundred and seventy-six, on the 4th of the Nones of October, whose passing Hugh confirmed with so many notes for that year that, if any marks are found in him which conflict with this opinion about the death of Madalveus, they must be corrected without any hesitation, as Le Cointe rightly writes under the year 776, number 35: which must also be asserted of the other chronological marks in which that author is sometimes inconsistent with himself. For the things that pertain to Madalveus he knew excellently well, although, since he wrote his Chronicle toward the end of the eleventh century, he not rarely stumbled in matters pertaining to general history. In the see of Jerusalem, then, Eusebius did not, according to Pagi's mind, sit in the middle between the patriarchs John and Theodore, because he occupied that see not before but only after Theodore.

[70] So Pagi: but whence or how does this writer prove that Eusebius succeeded Theodore in the see of Jerusalem? whether from Hugh of Flavigny, Namely from the Life of our Saint alone, committed to writing by Hugh of Flavigny, in which St. Magdalveus is narrated to have been honourably received by the patriarch Eusebius when he came to Jerusalem; but from this Life, or rather from Hugh its author, inasmuch as he has very often fallen into most disgraceful errors, nothing sufficiently certain can be determined either as to the time or as to the order in which Eusebius was raised to the see of Jerusalem. Pagi does indeed say that, in order that it may become credible that the Saint was received at Jerusalem by Eusebius — who in his opinion was not promoted to the see of Jerusalem before the year 767 — he departed from among the living not earlier than in the year 776; and he contends that in this matter Hugh, however swarming with errors, must be stood by; but that it is more probable that Hugh must here be departed from I shall show below, when I treat of the year in which our Saint died. Moreover Pagi also says, to win credit for Hugh in hinting that Eusebius was patriarch of Jerusalem about the year 770, that he knew excellently well the things that pertain to Madalveus. But whether Hugh knew even tolerably well who held the patriarchal throne of that city at the time when our Saint went to Jerusalem may not undeservedly be doubted for this reason also, that he was entirely ignorant, beyond all controversy, as is clear from what has been said above, who then presided with supreme power over the Eastern empire — nay, wrote by a manifest error that Constantine with his mother Irene presided over it.

[71] Wherefore, since this is so, who would not question or brings forward from elsewhere, whether Hugh was likewise ignorant of who sat in the see of Jerusalem at the time when our Saint came thither; nay, whether he did not by an error note that Eusebius, who had long since died, then occupied that see? Did Hugh perhaps have a better knowledge of the chronology of the patriarchs of Jerusalem than of that of the Eastern emperors? I know of no foundation at all on which this could be built. But, that there may not be room for Eusebius between the patriarchs John and Theodore, Pagi adds that Theodore succeeded John, and that this is established from what he has already brought forward. I confess that Theodore succeeded John. But is it perhaps established from what Pagi has said before that this happened with no other in the middle? Hear the words in which at the year 749, number 2, he reports that Theodore succeeded John. They run thus: In the Tables … inserted in it (the Chronography of Theophanes), at the year of the Incarnation according to Alexandria 700, which begins on the Kalends of September of the year of Christ 707, it is said that John, patriarch of Jerusalem, sat thirty years, and that that year was the third of his see. Wherefore he ruled the church of Jerusalem until the year of Christ 735 or thereabouts, after which no patriarch is there recorded who succeeded him; and therefore either that church was for some time without a bishop, or Theodore succeeded him at an uncertain time — who, as we shall see below, was patriarch of Jerusalem in the year 763. The see of Jerusalem, therefore, according to Pagi, either was vacant for some time after John's death, or the time at which a successor was substituted for him cannot be assigned; and hence, as will be plain to one who considers it, it by no means follows that Theodore succeeded John immediately in the see of Jerusalem with no other patriarch between; and therefore from Pagi's statements it is not certainly established — which is enough for our purpose — that there was no gap between John and Theodore, for filling which therefore Eusebius or even Basil is wrongly assigned by Papebroch.

[72] to be undoubtedly foreign to the truth, that writer does not prove. But as regards this latter, doubtfully ascribed by Papebroch to the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Pagi affirms in the words quoted at number 68 that this bishop is fictitious, led namely by this reasoning, that Theodore succeeded John, and that he still occupied the see of Jerusalem in the year 766 and the following. But from this what Pagi wishes is not proved. For although from the fact that Theodore succeeded John, and that he still held the see of Jerusalem in the year 767, you may rightly conclude that Basil was not patriarch over the church of Jerusalem at the time when our Saint made his pilgrimage to that city — which from what has been said happened about the year 757 — yet it does not on that account follow, as will be plain to one who considers what has been said above, that that Basil certainly did not sit in the see of Jerusalem either between John and Theodore, or between the latter and Elias; for, as has already been said, it is not held certain that Eusebius succeeded Theodore immediately, or he likewise John immediately. And so, the matter having been weighed with attentive mind, Papebroch's opinion by no means displeases me, who for filling the gap which he finds between John and Theodore assigns Eusebius or Basil, and then again proposes them under a gracious restriction, as he says, and disjunction, so that the place between Theodore and Elias, which otherwise would perhaps remain vacant, may be filled. Further, it must also be noted here that Pagi strays from the truth besides when he says in the words transcribed here above that our Papebroch, in writing that Eusebius sat between John and Theodore on the throne of Jerusalem and that Theodore was raised to it about the year 741, follows Wassebourg's example in this matter. For Wassebourg does not even mention Theodore or John, so that he neither consigns to writing the time at which Theodore was raised to the throne of Jerusalem, nor that Eusebius sat between him and John; and therefore Papebroch beyond all doubt did not write that after his example.

[73] Magdalveus, having come to Jerusalem, visits the holy places, But let this suffice for what has been disputed in vindication of Papebroch and in assigning the patriarch who held the helm of the church of Jerusalem when the Saint arrived there. Let us now consider what St. Magdalveus did in that city, which was then groaning, and had long groaned, under the most harsh yoke of the Saracens, and what he obtained for himself from the patriarch of the place — Theodore, from what has been said. Berthar (go to number 7) supplies only these few words that make to our purpose: And he obtained from the patriarch of that place (of the city of Jerusalem) the relics of many Saints, and brought them, with a crystal chalice carved with marvellous workmanship, to Verdun. That many relics of Saints, together with a crystal chalice carved with marvellous workmanship, were given to the Saint by the patriarch of Jerusalem, Hugh too, the Saint's biographer, hands down to memory, from whom Wassebourg does not dissent. But these two writers indicate that this was done only when the Saint was on the point of departing from Jerusalem; and Hugh, from whom again Wassebourg here does not much differ, premises some things at number 27 before he reports the Saint's departure. And these are chiefly these: Reaching after this Jerusalem, long desired and now offered to his longing mind, he (saint Magdalveus) entered into her tabernacles, frequenting every holy place with faith and love, adoring in them the Lord who is above all things, watering the sepulchre of Jesus of Nazareth crucified day by day with a shower of tears, glorifying and adoring Christ rising from death.

[74] Meanwhile it is announced to the patriarch Eusebius, who at that time governed the holy church of Sion,

[and is honourably received by the patriarch of the place, and dismissed with gifts.] Madelveus's most reverent devotion toward Christ, his daily frequenting of the holy places, his continual night watches, the mortification of his own flesh. He therefore, on hearing these things, knowing no delay in seeking him, at once embraces him when found, admiring in him an angelic countenance, modest speech, gentle gait and reverend bearing. After this he brought him into his mother's house and into the chamber of her that bore him, and gave him a cup of spiced wine and new wine of pomegranates. So Hugh, adding then that the patriarch of Jerusalem was carried away with so great a love for the Saint that he thought of keeping him at Jerusalem with himself; but that, being warned by a divine revelation not to do so, he dismissed Magdalveus from him most lovingly, presented with the gifts which I have already mentioned. Wassebourg too records almost the same; but as regards the revelation by which the patriarch of Jerusalem was divinely admonished to dismiss the Saint from him, let the credit rest with them; and let the same hold good as regards the stormy sea, troubled by a most violent tempest, which the Saint, whether on his way to Jerusalem or on his return thence to his native land, calmed by a miracle. I now set about commenting on what the Saint did at Verdun on his return from Jerusalem.

§ VII. What the Saint chiefly did further on his return from Jerusalem to Verdun.

The Saint into his new church, With what applause and joy of all the Saint was received at Verdun on his return from Jerusalem there is no need to say here. The biographer sets it out at number 31, adding presently also things from which it is clear that the Saint had nothing so much at heart as to deposit in a fit and seemly place the sacred relics which he had brought with him, to be kept there until they could be brought with solemn rite into the chief basilica or cathedral church, which, as has been said, the Saint had ordered to be rebuilt when he departed for Jerusalem. That this had already been brought to its summit when the Saint returned from Jerusalem to Verdun, Hugh, the Saint's biographer, seems to indicate at number 32. For there he writes to this effect: On the next day (after Magdalveus's return, namely), the fabric of the new church having been surveyed, the industry of the workmen praised and the diligence of the overseers rewarded , he appoints a time and a day suitable for the consecration, venerable to all in religion. And when that day dawned, the Bishop with the sacred orders, all things being duly performed within and without by the ecclesiastical rite, reverently placed the relics from Jerusalem in fitting places in the principal apse. But those which had been in the older church he fittingly laid in the underground crypt on the right side of the altar. And by these words Hugh most plainly teaches that the Saint on that very day which immediately followed his return surveyed the new church of Verdun and appointed a day fit for its consecration; and therefore according to this writer it will appear that it had already been completed when Magdalveus first returned from Jerusalem to Verdun. Hence it most probably came about that Calmet in volume 1 of the History of Lorraine, column 545, wrote thus in French words, rendered by me into Latin: Maldaveus, having returned to Verdun, found his church restored.*

[76] [which, however, when he first returned from Jerusalem, was perhaps not yet finished,] But indeed I do not know whether anyone will think it likely enough that the building of the new church of Verdun was so quickly finished. For hand was set to the work, as you will easily gather from what has been said above, only when the Saint was on the very point of departing for Jerusalem, or at least when he stood ready to depart; and the Saint probably spent on the journey to Jerusalem not even a whole year, or at least a space of time not much longer. Wherefore, since the new cathedral church which the Saint ordered to be built was most probably a work of no small mass, who would easily believe that the space of one year only, or a little more, sufficed for bringing a building of this kind to its summit? Hence Wassebourg's narrative seems to me much better, in which that writer records thus of the Saint, opportunely to the present purpose, in French words which I turn into Latin, in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133: He returned to our city of Verdun, where he was received with great joy by everyone, and then ordered his church to be finished with all diligence and brought to its summit, and appointed a day for consecrating it. For these words do not require that the church of Verdun had already been brought to its top when the Saint returned to Verdun; nay, on the contrary they indicate that this had not then yet been done — which certainly seems to me most likely on account of what has just been said, although meanwhile no one would easily define the time at which the last hand was set to that sacred building.

[77] transfers the relics obtained from the journey to Jerusalem, But however the matter may stand, the agreeing narrative of Hugh and Wassebourg, whom Berthar by no means opposes, and reason itself, in some way persuade me that the Saint had nothing more at heart than that, as soon as he saw the new church of Verdun brought to its summit and fit to receive worthily within it the sacred pledges, he should carry into it the sacred relics of the Saints which he had brought with him to Verdun from the journey to Jerusalem. The Saint did this with a very solemn rite and with the greatest veneration he could: and the sacred remains indeed which he had brought back from his journey to Jerusalem he deposited in the chief apse of the whole church; but those which before the fire had been in the older church he brought into the underground crypt which was situated on the right of the altar — the principal one, namely, according to the words of Berthar presently to be quoted. So Hugh attests in the words just quoted, and Berthar too supports him, although he makes no mention of the apse in which the Saint deposited the relics brought back from the journey to Jerusalem: for he writes in this manner (see number 7): He placed them (the relics of the Saints brought back from the journey to Jerusalem) reverently in our principal church. But the relics which were in the older church he laid in the underground crypt on the right side of the altar of holy Mary.

[78] So Berthar, opportunely to the present subject. But this writer and the Saint's biographer, [and deposits the tooth of St. Magdalen, which was among them, in a chapel built by himself.] although both in some way hint that the relics brought back by the Saint from the journey to Jerusalem were not few in number, neither express what or of what sort these were, nor reveal by any word the Saints from whose bodies they had been received. Wassebourg nevertheless (let the credit rest with him) hands down to memory in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133, that among them were two teeth of St. Mary Magdalen; and one of these, as the same Wassebourg writes, he brought into his cathedral church; but the other, together with hairs of the same Saint, he deposited in a chapel which he had built under the invocation of St. Magdalen, adding to it also some buildings after the form of a monastery, in which penitent women might, after the example of Magdalen the sinner, pass a religious life amid various works of penance. Further (so Wassebourg goes on), this foundation lasted nearly two hundred years; but when the chapel and monastery had suffered ruin through wars and the revenues had been scattered, an archdeacon of the cathedral church of Verdun by name Hermenfrid restored the sacred building (go also to the Continuation of the History of the bishops of Verdun in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 267) in the year 1018, and made it ampler than it had been before. Besides, he founded in it a college of canons, which subsists today under the name of St. Magdalen, as Calmet teaches, in respect of this last point, in his History of Lorraine, volume 1, column 545. These are the things which I find must be recorded about the Saint, either on the occasion or by reason of the relics which he brought back from his journey to Jerusalem. I now proceed to set out the other things which, now returned from Jerusalem, he did further at Verdun before his death.

[79] The Saint, the things which have just been explained being now accomplished after the journey to Jerusalem, He chooses a place for the burial of his body in the church of St. Vanne, judging that the remainder of life which was left him must be spent in the assiduous worship of God, devoted himself wholly thenceforth both to the care of his flock and to the virtues, and made such progress in them that he deserved to be adorned by God with signs and prodigies. With pastoral solicitude, says the biographer at number 33, watching over the flock entrusted to him, he (saint Magdalveus) instructed some with the words of heavenly doctrine, strengthened many by the examples of a religious life, healed very many also from all trouble of infirmities, freed some too from demoniac spirits, and showed himself to all a pattern and mirror of all sanctity. So Hugh; and presently he also sets out in these words the place which the Saint chose for the burial of his body when he saw the time of his death now near: And when the time of his dissolution was at hand, since he had learned by divine revelation that he was to be freed from worldly tumults, he chose the place of his burial in the church in which he had grown up by a daily increase of virtues, over which he was first appointed pastor and ruler, and from which also he was advanced to the pontificate. For although he laboured for the advantage of all the churches, yet he honoured, enlarged and advanced this one above all places after the first, which is the episcopal see. The church over which the Saint was first set as pastor and ruler or abbot, and from which he was afterwards promoted to the episcopal or pontifical office, is, from what has been said, no other than that of St. Vanne at Verdun. Wherefore, since Hugh reveals in the words just quoted that the Saint, when the day of his death was now at hand, chose in it a place for the burial of his body, and since it appears most probable that the Saint really did this only then, I much doubt whether this writer keeps the order of events in narrating, when at number 16 he reports that the Saint, before he speaks of his journey to Jerusalem, gave to the same church of St. Vanne out of his own property the manor of Raherius with its appurtenances, for the burial of his body, and very many other things.

[80] and in the last year but one of his life acquires some possessions for it; This donation made by St. Magdalveus to the church of St. Vanne would perhaps more fitly, as regards the time at which it happened, be joined to the donation which our Saint acquired for the church of St. Vanne from a certain Theuthard, and which Hugh discloses at number 37 in these words: To this place, therefore (the church of St. Vanne), blessed Madelveus in the last year but one of his life acquired by the gift of Theuthard certain properties situated in the district of Verdun, in the place which is called the manor of Offebris, and in the territory of Bettiliniaca, and also in the territory of Vindelinse, which the same Teutgard possessed by hereditary right as left to him by his father Gunther, in lands, farms, fields, meadows, pastures, woods, waters and watercourses, and the basilica of saint Martin built in that same village of Bettiliniaca; all of which, as he had and possessed them, he conferred on saint Vanne and on this Father of ours to be possessed perpetually, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 775, in the 14th Indiction, in the reign of Charlemagne, in the eighth year of his reign, on the fifth day of the Ides of November, that is, on the very solemnity of our holy father Vanne. This donation of Theuthard was, as Hugh expressly notes in these words, made to the church of Verdun in the last year but one in which our Saint lived

Wherefore, if, as appears likely, at the very time at which this was made the donation of Magdalveus just mentioned also took place, the Saint will have made it in the last year but one of his life. But was it also in the year 775 of the Christian era, with which the donation of Theuthard is marked by Hugh in the words quoted? By no means: for that this very donation was not made in that year of the Christian era will appear more probable, as I think, from what is to be said, when I enquire into the year of the Saint's death. Let the zealous reader meanwhile note here that those two donations, namely of Theuthard and of our Saint, if only Hugh rightly sets Theuthard's donation together with the last year but one in which our Saint lived, must in our opinion — inasmuch as we shall attach the Saint's death to the year 762 — have been made in the year 761.

[81] [yet he did not, however much Wassebourg asserts it, give to his church the village of Neuville,] Further, Wassebourg records yet another donation which the Saint made — not indeed in the last year but one of his life, but when he was now about to die — to the church of Verdun and to the bishops who should succeed him in its governance. The French words in which he does this in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133 verso, rendered by me into Latin, run thus: At last (saint Magdalveus), about the year 762, while he was staying in a village near the city of Verdun called Neuville, which was of his ancient patrimony, fell into a grave sickness, from which he knew that he would depart from life. For this reason he made disposition of all his goods, and by testament bequeathed the aforesaid village of Neuville, together with the lordship and the castle annexed to it, to the bishops of Verdun who should succeed him, and then rendered up his spirit to God. That the village which is called Neuville was therefore conferred on the bishopric of Verdun by the Saint by a testamentary donation Wassebourg will have in the words here transcribed. But this writer is most probably deceived in this matter. For that village, as he himself hints, is no other than the village in which the Saint by a happy departure from among the living passed to the powers above; and that the village in which the Saint died was a fief of the bishopric of Verdun the biographer expressly affirms in the words to be quoted at number 83. Besides, in the last number he also writes in this manner: We shall find that he (St. Magdalveus, namely) … passed to the Lord on the neighbouring estate of the bishop , which is called Neuville.* But lest anyone should reply that Hugh perhaps speaks thus because that village surnamed Neuville had already by the Saint's donation passed into the jurisdiction of the church of Verdun, Berthar altogether stands in the way.

[82] For this writer in his brief History of the bishops of Verdun, inasmuch as it had received it before St. Magdalveus's age from king Childebert, hands down this to memory in St. Agericus: When the aforesaid king (of the Franks, Childebert II) had made his journey through Verdun, and the aforesaid holy bishop (Agericus) had but little wine in one small vessel, and the Almighty Lord by his merits so multiplied it that the king with all his men had full sufficiency from it, and more wine was found in that vessel at the end than at the beginning, the king, awestruck at so great a miracle, heard that that church (of Verdun) had no place from which to gather wine; therefore he gave to that church two "amandi" upon the Moselle and the Modinus, and whatever is between Luceium and Bava, and all that we have below Trier. He added also Marceium and Sampiniacum and Commeniae, and Marcast-Villa and Harici-Villa, and the villages adjoining that city (of Verdun, namely), Carmacum and Neuville, and many other places, which it would be burdensome to enumerate here, which out of reverence for so great a Man the king and his faithful men handed over to that church to be held. The village of Neuville, adjoining Verdun, which Childebert II, king of the Franks, is here narrated by Berthar to have given to the church of Verdun, is beyond all doubt not different from the village of Neuville recorded by Wassebourg, inasmuch as it too was adjoining or very near Verdun. Wherefore, since Berthar attests in the words just quoted that that village was given to the church of Verdun by Childebert II, king of the Franks, who was raised to the throne of the Franks in the year 579 and died in the year 596, and therefore long before St. Magdalveus's age, Wassebourg certainly records that donation wrongly as made by our Saint's testament to the church of Verdun, or rather to the bishops who should succeed Magdalveus in its governance.

[83] Hence I cannot but wonder that Calmet nevertheless, when now about to die: who both saw the brief History of the bishops of Verdun written by Berthar and undertook to examine with some zeal the matters pertaining to Lorraine, in which the bishopric of Verdun is situated, in his History of Lorraine, volume 1, column 546, assents to Wassebourg here, and commits to writing that St. Magdalveus, when he fell into his mortal sickness, was in the village of Neuville, which was of his patrimony, and that he then gave that village as a gift to his cathedral church. Did this writer perhaps not advert to Berthar's words just quoted, according to which Childebert the second, king of the Franks, who flourished long before St. Magdalveus's age, conferred the village of Neuville, near the city of Verdun, on St. Agericus, bishop of Verdun, or on the church of Verdun? However that may be, on account of what has been said I am by no means moved by the authority of Calmet, a more recent writer, to subscribe to Wassebourg, who hands down that the donation of Neuville was made to the church of Verdun by St. Magdalveus when he was already about to die. And indeed that Calmet's authority must not be reckoned so great by me here is clear even from this, that in this very place, in which together with Wassebourg he attributes to St. Magdalveus the donation of Neuville made to the church of Verdun, he affirms that his happy death — of which the order of the matters pertaining to the Saint demands that I now treat — happened on the fifth day of October; in which matter he has against him Wassebourg himself, Hugh of Flavigny, and all the others who have noted the day of the Saint's death. For all these with unanimous consent consign to writing that the Saint passed to the Lord on the fourth day of October. And he died, says the biographer of the Saint at number 42, … on the neighbouring fief of the bishopric, which is called Neuville, on the fourth of the Nones of October; and he repeats this very thing again in the last number. He rendered up his spirit to God, says Wassebourg in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133 verso, on the fourth day of October of the same year (762, namely).

[84] and on the fourth day of October The words of the other writers who assign the same day as the Saint's death-day I do not transcribe, because probably almost all did it only impelled by the example either of Wassebourg or of Hugh; for I know no writer older than Hugh who marks the Saint's death-day, since Berthar is silent about it. But now, someone will say, since this is so, Calmet perhaps assigns the true day on which the Saint died; for it cannot be altogether certain and undoubted, on the authority of Wassebourg and Hugh alone — inasmuch as they very often stray from the truth — that St. Magdalveus departed from among the living on the fourth day of October. I confess that so it is: but since all the writers at least whom I know and have unrolled, with the single exception of Calmet, record the Saint's death on the fourth day of October, this writer, solely, as I suspect, from an error whose source I shall disclose below when I treat of the Saint's ecclesiastical cult, notes the fifth day of October as the Saint's death-day. It seems therefore that we must here without any scruple assent to Wassebourg and Hugh, who hand down that the Saint flew to the powers above on the fourth day of October, and who have against them in this matter only Calmet, a writer too recent to be able by his own authority alone to overthrow what Wassebourg and Hugh hand down to memory.

[85] he met his last day in that very village. But indeed, however much Wassebourg and Calmet may dissent from Hugh of Flavigny and the other writers in ascribing the donation of Neuville to Magdalveus, and the latter writer besides in assigning the day on which the Saint died, yet they agree excellently with them as regards the place in which they hand down to memory that the Saint fell into his mortal sickness and by a blessed passing from life went to the powers above. For that this happened in that village of which we have just spoken, near the city of Verdun, called Neuville — of which I have given a brief notice at number 1 — they affirm together with Hugh at numbers 42 and the last of the Life to be published, and with all the other writers who mark the place of the Saint's death; and since they have Berthar too agreeing with them in this matter (go again to number 7), hence the place in which the Saint died is held much better ascertained than the day, as you will easily gather from what has been said. That the Saint therefore died in the village called Neuville I hold myself persuaded without any scruple. Would that the year of the Saint's death could be defined with the same security as the place! But although it appears more probable, according to what is to be said, that the Saint departed from among the living in the year 762, yet I should scarcely venture to assert without any scruple that this really happened then, on account of the difficulties occurring in this matter, which are so great that I have thought fit to devote the two following entire §§ to discussing them and to determining the year in which the Saint died.

remunerata* rewarded

episcopii* of the bishopric

supply cum* when

mansos*, that is, measures of land,

§ VIII. Hugh of Flavigny's opinion about the year of the Saint's death is discussed.

Hugh hands down that the Saint died in the year 776. In the year 776, says Hugh of Flavigny in the Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscripts, page 117, which was the ninth of the reign of Charles (surnamed the Great), bishop Madelveus died, while Charles's army was besieging in Treviso, a city of Italy, Stabilinus the father-in-law of Chrotgand, who had rebelled against Charles. The Annalist of Lorsch in Du Chesne, volume 2 of the Writers, page 4, hands down this to memory: In the year 776. King Charles went into Lombardy, Rotgauz having been killed. Afterwards the May field at Worms. And king Charles with the Franks in Saxony, now without war. And the Annalist of Petau, likewise in volume 2 of the praised Du Chesne, page 8, writes thus on the same subject: 776. The lord king Charles went into Italy, and, Hrotgaud having been killed, who had been a rebel to him, they besieged Stabilinius his father-in-law in the city of Treviso. When he was taken, and all things settled, he returns prosperously with his men into France. Charles therefore, as all the learned gather from these two Annalists, reduced the city of Treviso into his power in the year 776. Wherefore, since afterwards in that very year Charles, as is understood from the words of the former annalist transcribed here, still held an assembly of his men in the month of May at Worms, the city of Treviso will have been both besieged and subdued by Charles before the May of the year 776. Hugh therefore, who determines from what has been said that the Saint died on the fourth day of October, wrongly affirms that this happened at the time when Charlemagne was besieging Treviso. Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks under the year 776, number 35, confesses this error of Hugh's, and yet the year 776, to which

Hugh attaches the Saint's death in the words just quoted, he contends without hesitation must altogether be embraced.

[87] Le Cointe's words, since they must here be examined by me more fully, I transcribe here, although they are somewhat lengthy. The chronological notes by which he does this, They run thus: In the same Belgica Prima, Madelveus, bishop of Verdun and abbot of saint Vanne, of whom we have often spoken, passed to the Lord in this year, in which the war of Friuli was happily finished by king Charles. Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, in the Chronicle of Verdun describes copiously the deeds of saint Madelveus, and, although he is sometimes inconsistent with himself in his chronological marks, confirms that bishop's passing with so many notes for this year that he seems to have removed all room for doubt. First he compares the last year but one of the same Bishop, through the month of November, as we have already observed under the preceding year, with the year of Christ seven hundred and seventy-five, the eighth of king Charles already begun, and the fourteenth Indiction likewise begun, thus: "Blessed Madelveus" (here lurks an error to be noted at number 115) in the last year but one of his life conferred all things, as he had and possessed them, on saint Vanne to be possessed perpetually, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 775, in the 14th Indiction, in the reign of Charlemagne, in the eighth year of his reign, on the fifth day of the Ides of November, that is, on the very solemnity of saint Vanne." Then he sets the year of his death, through the month of October, together with the twenty-fourth year of the same bishop then running, with the ninth year of king Charles already begun, and with the fifteenth Indiction already commenced — that is, with the year of Christ seven hundred and seventy-six — thus: "In the ninth year of the reign of Charles this Blessed man put off the man, while Charles was besieging Treviso, a city of Italy, in the twenty-fourth year of his pontificate, on the neighbouring estate of the bishop , which is called Neuville, on the fourth of the Nones of October, in the 15th Indiction."

[88] are here set forth. On account of these Le Cointe And a little after he adds the year of Christ seven hundred and seventy-six thus: "In the year 776, which was the ninth of the reign of Charles, bishop Madelveus died, while Charles's army was besieging in Treviso, a city of Italy, Stabilarius the father-in-law of Chrotgand, who had rebelled against Charles." Finally he attaches the twelfth year from Madelveus's death to the year of Christ seven hundred and eighty-eight thus: "The bishopric of Verdun was vacant for twelve years, because a successor in the bishopric was not received during the aforesaid time; and, after the aforesaid space of years, it was granted to him to enter the city and take possession of the bishopric in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 788." If therefore you find any marks in this author which conflict with our opinion about the death of Madelveus, correct them without any hesitation; and interpret kindly what we have transcribed from the same Chronicle about the siege of Tarvisium or Tharavisia or Tarovisa, so that you may judge Madelveus to have been taken from this life and buried in the monastery of saint Vanne in that year indeed in which that city was besieged, but not at the time during which the siege lasted, because king Charles took Tarvisium with Stabilarius or Stabilinius before bishop Madelveus was snatched from human affairs. So far Le Cointe, thinking that this writer must be assented to on account of the several chronological notes contained in these words, by which Hugh joins St. Magdalveus's death with the year 776.

[89] and Pagi assent to that writer. Further, Pagi in the Critica afterwards also came over to Le Cointe's opinion hand and foot, as we say, as is clear both from his words transcribed here at number 69 and from what he supplies under the year 776, number 15. Mabillon, although he does not mention Hugh, nevertheless with Le Cointe attaches our Saint's death to the year 776. For in the Benedictine Annals, book 24, number 68, under the year 776 he writes thus: At the same time (the year 776) fell the death of Madalveus, bishop of Verdun, who (the same error which Le Cointe admits at number 87 lurks here) in the last year but one of his life gave all his property to saint Vanne on the very solemnity of saint Vanne, on the 5th of the Ides of October — rather of November. Calmet in the Catalogue of the bishops of Verdun, which he prefixed to volume 1 of the History of Lorraine written by him, attaches the Saint's death to about the year 775, so that this writer too does not much differ from Le Cointe, who, moved by the authority of Hugh of Flavigny, sets St. Magdalveus's death together with the year of Christ 776. Behold, then, writers more recent and sufficiently many, and those not to be despised for erudition and learning, who support or even readily agree with Hugh in attaching the Saint's blessed passing to the powers above, by various chronological notes, to the year 776. But now, are there not also some to be found among writers likewise more recent who oppose Hugh? Wassebourg, as is sufficiently clear from what has already been said above, writes that our Saint died in the year 762, and that this is demonstrated clearly enough by that writer our Papebroch expressly affirms in the words quoted at number 62, although he had Hugh of Flavigny before his eyes. Behold therefore already two more recent writers who are contrary to Hugh of Flavigny. To these is further added Castellan in his Universal Martyrology, who, although he also had before his eyes the Chronicle of Verdun written by Hugh of Flavigny, and besides Le Cointe and Pagi, and could therefore weigh the reasons for which these two latter assent to Hugh, nevertheless sets the Saint's death together with the year of Christ 762, with the numbers placed in the margin.

[90] Besides, I add to the writers just praised Demochares, Chenu, Claude Robert and the brothers Sainte-Marthe, But the year of the Saint's death, because Hugh in assigning it who all in their Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun substitute for the Saint in the year 762 his successor Amalbert; and I affirm their opinion to be more probable; and how deservedly I do so, what is now to be said will disclose. The whole of Le Cointe's reasoning transcribed above here comes to this, that this writer will have our Saint's death attached to the year 776 because Hugh of Flavigny assigns several chronological notes which require that the Saint died then. But from this the year of the Saint's death cannot, as it appears, be safely enough drawn. For what of it? Had Le Cointe ascertained that those very chronological notes which Hugh supplies are not spurious? But he brings forward no argument at all to prove it, which nevertheless was here necessary before all else. And indeed whether those notes assigned by Hugh are genuine may deservedly be questioned for this reason too, that this writer falls into several manifest errors, even about those very chronological marks with which he sets the year of the Saint's death. Le Cointe does indeed say in the words quoted at number 88 that the marks that by no means agree with the year of Christ 776, to which he will have Magdalveus's death attached, must be corrected without any hesitation, and that the year 776 must nevertheless be retained as the epoch of the death undergone by our Saint. But those chronological marks are so many in number, and so openly spurious and erroneous, that they make it more and more doubtful whether the chronological notes assigned by Hugh which require the Saint to have died in the year 776 are not likewise erroneous and spurious. It will be well to have transcribed here the words in which those manifold spurious chronological marks lurk, with the errors also noted at the end.

[91] supplies several spurious chronological marks besides, At the last number of the Life to be published these words stand, and run thus: Hence again, counting the 15 years in which Pippin afterwards reigned alone, and the eight years of the reign of Charles — for in the ninth this Blessed man (St. Magdalveus, namely) put off the man, while Charles was besieging Tarovisa, a city of Italy — we shall find that in the twenty-fourth year of his pontificate, exchanging things that were to perish for heavenly and eternal things, he passed to the Lord on the neighbouring estate of the bishop , which is called Neuville, on the fourth of the Nones of October, in the 68th year of his age, in the 15th Indiction, the Epact being 27, in the sixth year of the pontificate of Pope Hadrian, from the Incarnation of the Lord 777, in the times of Constantine and Irene, in the sixth year of their reign, one year before the seventh synod.* Behold now the various errors which they contain. Constantine and Irene first took up the reins of the Eastern empire in the year 780, as has already been said above, and it was in their reign, only in the year 787, that the seventh synod was celebrated at Nicaea in Bithynia for restoring the cult of images. A twofold most manifest error therefore Hugh admits here, when he sets the year of our Saint's death — whether he attaches it to the year of Christ 777, as here, or to the year 776, as above — together with the sixth year of Constantine and Irene, and at the same time with the year immediately preceding the seventh synod. There is also this, that by the same writer, inasmuch as from what has been said he holds the Saint to have been born in the year 711 and to have died either in 776 or 777, this last is wrongly affirmed to have happened when Magdalveus was already in the sixty-eighth year of his life. For if from the year 776, or from the year 777, to which he here attaches the Saint's death, be subtracted the 68 years by which he defines the duration of his life, there will remain 708 or 709; and by this reckoning the Saint will have been born in the year 708 or 709, contrary to what he taught before; and therefore Hugh beyond all doubt strays from the truth either in assigning the year in which the Saint was born, or in assigning the age at which he died.

[92] Besides, although we interpret kindly, as Le Cointe wishes at number 88, what Hugh reveals in the words just quoted about the siege of Tarvisium or Tharavisia or even Tarovisa, so as to judge Madelveus to have been taken from this life and buried in the monastery of saint Vanne in that year indeed in which that city was besieged, but not at the time during which the siege lasted, yet he still wrongly and by a manifest error joins the siege of the city of Treviso with the ninth year of Charlemagne. For this, as the Annalists praised above hand down and all the learned confess, happened in the year 776 of the Christian era before the month of May; but in this year of Christ, not yet advanced to the month of May, the ninth year of Charlemagne — inasmuch as he did not begin to reign before the September of the year 768 — was not yet running, as will be plain to one who considers it. And thus, to omit also that both the year 776 and 777 are wrongly set together with the Epact 27, you have now the chief errors in chronology which lurk in Hugh's words just transcribed here, by which the year of the Saint's death is marked. Who now, when so many erroneous and spurious chronological marks have been noted in a single and not very long text, would not think it must be doubted whether the other notes assigned by Hugh, which require the Saint to have died in the year 776, are not likewise erroneous and spurious? By no means, say those who fight for Hugh, and especially Pagi, who in the words quoted at number 69 says that Hugh, even though he not rarely stumbled in matters pertaining to general history, yet knew excellently well what pertains to Magdalveus. But if Hugh knew excellently well, as Pagi says, what pertains to our Saint, who, pray, even in the very year

of his death is so little consistent with himself that he attaches it now to the year 776 of the Christian era, now to the year 777? Will you say that perhaps by an error of copyists the year 777 was written for the year 776 in the text of the biographer just quoted? But this appears foreign to the truth for this reason, that the aforesaid text of Hugh is likewise marked by the fourth day of October and by the sixth year of Pope Hadrian, and thus, since Hadrian according to all was consecrated Pontiff in the year 772 on the ninth day of the month of February, the year of Christ 777 is designated, as will be plain to one who reckons it.

[93] But even if Hugh were everywhere excellently consistent with himself in assigning the year of Magdalveus's death, and the matters pertaining to the Saint, and brought forward no chronological marks at all conflicting with its being attached to the year of Christ 776, not even so would he have known excellently well all that pertains to the Saint. This I have already proved above by one or two arguments, and I prove it again, that it may become the more certain, from these words supplied by Hugh himself at number 46: When his (St. Magdalveus's, namely) tomb flourished with daily prodigies of virtues, and was frequented by the constant vigils of the peoples, it was nevertheless placed more negligently than the worship of due veneration required. Wherefore the bishop of that time and all the clergy and people thought it worthy to change it more becomingly. At that time bishop Berhard presided over the church of Verdun, a Catholic and religious man, most renowned in the holy faith, while Lothair the son of Louis the Pious was ruling, whose kingdom was Italy with the city of Rome and that part of France which the Meuse and the Rhine enclose between them. And when they were striving to carry out what they had deliberated in mind, the sarcophagus being dug up, suddenly an inestimable sight was shown them. For, the lid of the tomb being removed, they see a corpse dead forty years before, like a living man asleep, suffused with the whiteness of lilies and the redness of roses, defiled with no stain nor with any sign of death. The sacred body of Magdalveus was raised from the earth forty years after the Saint had died, as will be said more fully below, and Hugh himself sufficiently indicates it in these words. This therefore, if with Hugh we attach the Saint's death either to the year 776 or to the year 777, will have happened about the year 816. But now Berhard, as Berthar, contemporary with this bishop of Verdun, plainly teaches in his brief History of the bishops of Verdun so very often already cited, in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 261, was not raised to the see of Verdun before the death of Lothair the Younger, king of Lorraine, who, according to the opinion approved by most of the learned, closed his last day in the year 869. Wherefore, since according to Hugh the sacred body of St. Magdalveus was raised from the earth in the year 816, as has been said, but according to us, from what is to be said below, in the year 802, this certainly did not happen under Berhard, bishop of Verdun; and therefore, since it is hence plain that Hugh deviates from the truth in this matter, this is certainly a proof that this writer did not know excellently well absolutely all the matters pertaining to our Saint.

[94] or at least did not rightly know the chronology of the bishops of Verdun, What, pray, does Pagi say to this? Will he perhaps reply that Hugh, however insufficiently he had ascertained the years of the bishops and princes with which the matters pertaining to St. Magdalveus must be set, yet had a perfect and complete knowledge of these matters? But let it be so: since at least that writer places our Saint's raising from the earth, which according to Hugh himself happened in the year 816, under Berhard bishop of Verdun, who did not occupy this see before the year 869, nay before the year 870, this at least is an indication that he had not sufficiently ascertained the chronology of the bishops of Verdun; which besides could be shown by not a few other arguments. But now, since this is so, who, pray, would not think it must deservedly be questioned whether Hugh had well enough ascertained the chronology of our Saint and of his immediate successors, the bishops of Verdun? Who without scruple would hold that the chronological notes assigned by Hugh are not erroneous — those by which Le Cointe and Pagi, being impelled, attach the year of the Saint's death to the year of Christ 776, as those notes require? For my part I judge that the year of the Saint's death cannot be safely determined from them, and that indeed for this reason, that from what has hitherto been brought forward the value and sincerity of all the aforementioned notes is in general called into doubt: and that it may appear more plainly how not undeservedly I so judge, it is worth while now to discuss and weigh them almost all one by one. Blessed Madelveus in the last year but one of his life acquired from Theuthard for saint Vanne and for himself, to be possessed perpetually, many things which the latter had and possessed, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 775, in the 14th Indiction, in the reign of Charlemagne, in the eighth year of his reign, on the fifth day of the Ides of November, that is, on the very festival of saint Vanne.

[95] [it can by no means be safely determined from those notes, especially since the earlier ones] This donation is recorded by Hugh at number 37 of the Life to be published, and is the first of the notes by which Le Cointe says the opinion is confirmed which holds that our Saint died in the year 776. I confess that, since that donation is noted by Hugh as made by Theuthard in the year 775, in the 14th Indiction, in the eighth year of the reign of Charlemagne, and on the 5th of the Ides of November, that is, on the ninth day of November, it altogether follows hence that the Saint's death, which happened on the fourth day of October, fell in the seventy-sixth year above seven hundred of the Christian era. But although I believe indeed that the donation recorded by Hugh was really made by Theuthard on the ninth day of November, on the festival of St. Vanne, when our Saint was in the last year but one of his life, yet I much doubt both whether it happened in the eighth year of Charlemagne, and also whether it happened in the year of Christ or of the Christian era 775. For since before the end of the eighth century public Acts and Instruments scarcely began to be marked with the years of Christ, and since writers for the most part did not use them in their writings before that time either, I shall hardly persuade myself that Hugh found the donation of which there is talk here marked with the year of Christ 775 either in a public instrument drawn up about it, or in any writer contemporary with our Saint. Besides, since Hugh does not declare whether he learned the donation which he records Theuthard to have made from a public instrument about it or from some writer, I doubt also whether he found it marked with the eighth year of the reign of Charlemagne. He perhaps found it written somewhere that St. Magdalveus obtained the aforesaid donation from Theuthard in the last year but one of his life, on the ninth day of November, and hence concluded that this was done in the eighth year of Charlemagne, and in the year 775 of the Christian era. And he will have done this for this reason, that at the time when he wrote it he thought that St. Magdalveus had departed from among the living in the year 776 on the fourth day of October, for most probably the same reason for which he afterwards, supplying yet other chronological notes assigned by Le Cointe at numbers 87 and 88, sets the year of the Saint's death first indeed together with the ninth year of Charlemagne, marked with the fifteenth Indiction, and afterwards expressly with the year of Christ 776.

[96] But now someone will ask what and of what sort is the reason from the last, which is set forth from Hugh himself, that impelled Hugh to do this. This comprises that very last note assigned by Le Cointe at number 88, which requires that the Saint died in the year 776, and is of such a kind that, if it stands and is conformable to the truth, assent must beyond all doubt be given to the opinion which attaches the year of the Saint's death to the year of Christ 776. It is necessary therefore that I now enquire whether that reason or last note supplied by Hugh, which requires that the Saint met his last day in the year 776, agrees with the truth and stands. To do this I first transcribe here the words in which it is set forth by Hugh of Flavigny himself in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscripts, page 117. They run thus: In the year 776, which was the ninth of the reign of Charles, bishop Madelveus died, while Charles's army was besieging in Treviso, a city of Italy, Stabilarius the father-in-law of Chrotgand, who had rebelled against Charles, and who for … had been killed in the war when Charles entered Italy. There was in the same city Peter, an Italian, by whom the city was handed over, and for this he was honoured with the bishopric of Verdun. At which time there presided over the church of saint Vanne, with the name and office of abbot, Fremodus, deacon and abbot, undertaking after saint Madelveus the governance of that place …. Then the bishopric of Verdun was vacant for twelve years, but a certain servant of God, Amalbert by name, made chorepiscopus according to the custom of that time, ruled that church (of Verdun, namely), and in a certain oratory under the honour of all the Apostles led as it were a solitary life. And then that church lost certain things which it had once possessed as conferred on it, and this in the time of Charlemagne. For although the aforesaid Peter, an Italian, had been honoured by him with that bishopric for the betrayal of Treviso, yet, because traitors are always suspect, he was not received in the bishopric during the aforesaid time. Nevertheless, lest the king's word should be idle and void, after the aforesaid space of years it was granted to him to enter the city and take possession of the bishopric in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 788; and he held it for 25 years and suffered many adversities.

[97] They even charged him with disloyalty to the emperor, nor does it stand, are drawn. and for that reason for twelve years he did not dare to see the emperor. But afterwards, being rightly cleared by the sons of that church before the prince, he came into his presence; and in his days he not only did not acquire for himself the church , but also lost very many things. For it is difficult that those things should end with a good issue which have been begun with bad beginnings.* Hugh of Flavigny thought, therefore — as it is permissible to gather from these words — that the Italian Peter whom he records was presented with the bishopric of Verdun by Charlemagne immediately after St. Magdalveus's death, because he had betrayed the city of Treviso to him in the year 776; and that nevertheless from the year 776 to the year 788, because Peter was not received, it was without a bishop for twelve years, during which a certain servant of God, Amalbert by name, made chorepiscopus, governed the church of Verdun. And this is the last chronological note requiring our Saint to have died in the year 776, contained in Le Cointe's words quoted above: and from this, as I at least think, it most probably came about that Hugh of Flavigny employed the earlier chronological notes likewise contained in the same words of Le Cointe, which either require or expressly note that the Saint's death happened then. For since, as has been said, not only no bishop but also no time during which the see of Verdun was vacant came between, and Peter the Italian succeeded St. Magdalveus immediately in it on account of the city of Treviso betrayed to the Franks in the year 776,

as he judged, he most probably and not undeservedly concluded from this that St. Magdalveus was taken from among the living in that very year 776; and consequently that he set the year of the Saint's death both expressly with the year 776 and with the ninth year of Charlemagne, marked with the fifteenth Indiction; but Theuthard's donation (go to number 95), which he had found to have been made in the last year but one of the Saint's life, he joined with the year 775. But Hugh wrongly hands down that Peter the Italian succeeded our Saint immediately in that see, with no bishop and no interval of vacancy of the see of Verdun coming between, as will become more probable from what I shall say in the following §; and therefore from all the chronological notes assigned by Hugh and praised by Le Cointe the year of the Saint's death cannot be certainly determined.

episcopii* of the bishopric

episcopii* of the bishopric

read: ecclesia* the church

§ IX. The year in which the Saint more probably died is determined.

The see of Verdun was vacant 12 years before a successor was substituted in it Berthar, much older than Hugh according to what has been said, and not convicted, as he is, of manifest errors, teaches clearly in his brief History of the bishops of Verdun, in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 259, that immediately after our Saint's death the see of Verdun was vacant for twelve years, and that only then, when meanwhile Amalbert the chorepiscopus had governed the church of Verdun, was Peter the Italian set over it by Charlemagne, because he had handed over Pavia to him. The words in which Berthar teaches this are subjoined immediately to the matters pertaining to St. Magdalveus, and are these: After him (St. Magdalveus, namely) the bishopric of that church (of Verdun, namely) was vacant for twelve years; but a certain servant of God, Amalbert by name, made chorepiscopus according to the custom of that time, ruled that church, and in a certain oratory under the honour of all the Apostles led as it were a solitary life; and then that church lost Wasloge, and Tilliacum and Stagnum and Merla and Casa Petria and very many other things. For this was in the time of Charlemagne. After him (Amalbert, namely) there was Peter, an Italian. For when the army of the Franks was about Pavia and was besieging it, it was handed over by him, as is said, and for this he was honoured by Charlemagne with that bishopric. For he was in the bishopric for twenty-five years and suffered in it many adversities. They even charged him with disloyalty to the emperor, and for this for twelve years he did not dare to see the emperor; but he was rightly cleared by the sons of that church before the prince. Afterwards in his presence he made many useless precarial grants, and in those days many properties were taken away from that (of Verdun, namely) church.

[99] So far Berthar, teaching clearly indeed, as I have said, from the Saint's death. Hence we judge that he died in the year 762; that Peter the Italian was substituted in that see by Charlemagne not immediately after our Saint's death, but only when the see of Verdun had already been vacant twelve years, Pavia or Ticinum having now been taken. Hence further I now argue thus. Charlemagne, king and afterwards emperor of the Franks, received into his power Pavia or Ticinum, the most strongly fortified bulwark of the Lombards in Italy, together with Desiderius their king and his wife and daughter, in the year 774, as is agreed among all writers. Wherefore, since only then, by Berthar's reckoning, was Peter the Italian substituted by Charlemagne in the see of Verdun, vacant or bereft of a bishop for twelve years now from St. Magdalveus's death, it must needs be, on Berthar's authority, with no room at all left for doubting, that our Saint exchanged this mortal life for the immortal one in the year 762 — the year to which the twelve years in which the see of Verdun was vacant from his death, reckoned backwards from the year 774, lead. And this is the epoch which, as the more probable, we assign to the happy and blessed birth of Magdalveus in heaven; and although from what has been said we have Hugh of Flavigny beyond all doubt against us in this matter, we think we must stand by the authority not of this writer — who has very often fallen into the most manifest errors, both chronological and other, even in the Acts of our Saint themselves — but of Berthar, a writer far superior both in age and in credit.

[100] Nor is there any reason why you should object here the assembly of Attigny held under Pippin the Short, [but the contrary is not proved from the assembly of Attigny, to which Magdalveus subscribed,] whose decree Labbe produces in volume 6 of the Councils, column 1702, by which the bishops and abbots gathered in it decreed that each of those whose names are found subscribed in the … list (which is subjoined to the decree), when any one of them shall depart from this world, should have a hundred psalters sung, and his priests a hundred special Masses. And the bishop himself shall complete thirty Masses in person, unless he be hindered by sickness or some impediment: then let him ask another bishop to sing for him. But the abbots who are not bishops shall ask the bishops to complete thirty Masses in their stead: and let their priests remember to sing a hundred Masses, and their monks a hundred psalters. For although there subscribes to this decree in the same place, together with twenty-six bishops and seventeen abbots, Madalseus bishop of the city of Verdun, yet that assembly in which this decree was made was held not in the year 765, as it seemed to Labbe, Le Cointe and some others, but in the year 762, advanced to the month of May; and the assembly likewise held at Attigny (which town, called in French Attigny, is situated in Champagne on the left bank of the Aisne) in the year 765 must be distinguished from the assembly of Attigny at which our Saint was present and to which he subscribed. I prove the matter thus.

[101] an assembly which is different from that at which Assuerus, Wandalbert, monk and deacon of the monastery of Prüm, a writer of the ninth century, most well known for his Metrical Martyrology, wrote a book On the Miracles of St. Goar; and in this, which stands inserted in our volume 2 of July, and is there divided into chapters and numbers after our custom, he writes at number 38 in this manner concerning Assuerus, who as the first governed with the office of abbot the monastery of Prüm, founded in the year 762: When therefore at a certain time he was making a journey from the monastery (of Prüm, namely) into the province of the Vangiones (the city of the Vangiones is Vormacia, commonly Worms), and on occasion of the road had turned aside to St. Goar's, where one by the name of Herping then presided with the title of rector, and could obtain no convenience of necessary things, he reported the matter, as it had happened, a little after to the prince (Pippin the Short, king of the Franks), saying that it was a most evil thing that all humanity of hospitality should be denied in that place where once under the blessed man (Goar, namely) that same virtue had flourished singularly. The king promises that these things shall be amended when the opportunity of time should smile. And so not long after, when he was set in the palace which is called Attigny, and abbot Assuerus had come at the same time to the general assembly of the people, the prince, calling him to himself, reminds him of what he had said about the Cell of the blessed Man, and commits it to him to be governed. Assuerus, abbot of Prüm, therefore was present at the assembly of Attigny here recorded by Wandalbert, and in it indeed obtained the Cell of St. Goar. Wherefore, since nevertheless among the seventeen abbots who subscribed to the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe the name of Assuerus does not occur, this latter assembly of Attigny seems different from the assembly of Attigny at which Assuerus was present. Further, the assembly of Attigny at which Assuerus was present was held in the year 765. So Le Cointe, Pagi, Mabillon and others determine, and that this is rightly done by them is clear from this, that that assembly, as is understood from Wandalbert's words just quoted, was not held before the monastery of Prüm had already been raised or founded some time — which happened only in the year 762 (go to Pagi in the Critica under this year, number 3); and that after the year 762, or after the founding of the monastery of Prüm, no assembly held at Attigny under Pippin is marked by the Annalist of Loisel, of St. Bertin, of Lorsch, of Metz, by Regino and by all the other writers — if you except the one author of the Appendix to the continuation of Fredegar — except under the year 765.

[102] abbot of Prüm, was present, But now, since from what has been said the assembly of Attigny at which Assuerus was present was held in the year 765, and this seems distinct from the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe, it must needs be, as follows from what has been said, that this latter assembly was held before the year 765. And that it was done in the year 762 I shall presently say, when I have for the moment dealt with Le Cointe, who, although he indeed sets the assembly of Attigny at which Assuerus abbot of Prüm was present together with the year 765, nevertheless thinks it the same as the assembly recorded by Labbe. This writer therefore, to defend this opinion, in his Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks under the year 765, number 1, having quoted the words of Wandalbert which I have transcribed here above, subjoins thus: Among the subscriptions of the abbots appended to the decision of Attigny (the decree transcribed here above) the name of Assuerus abbot of Prüm is missing, which is judged must be restored from the aforecited text of Wandalbert. So Le Cointe, meaning namely that Assuerus was present at the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe, and that it happened only by omission that his name is not found among the abbots who subscribed to that assembly, or rather to the decree made in it. And if this assertion of Le Cointe's were consonant with the truth, the assembly at which Assuerus was present would certainly be one and the same with the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe. But hear what Pagi in the Critica, rightly contending that a twofold assembly of Attigny must be distinguished, replies to that answer or assertion of Le Cointe under the year 762, number 5. Nor is Le Cointe's answer satisfactory, he says, when he says that the name of Assuerus must be restored (in the subscriptions of the assembly of Attigny produced by Labbe) from the praised little book of Wandalbert (the words, namely, quoted from it in the preceding number), because no other assembly of the Franks than that at which Assuerus was present is found to have been held at Attigny by king Pippin after the raising of the monastery of Prüm.

[103] For Wandalbert means the assembly held in the year 765, and it was held in the year 762, advanced only to May, to which cannot be referred the decree (made in the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe and quoted above) subscribed by 17 abbots; since in it the name of Assuerus is not read, and cannot be restored from Wandalbert, who does not express the year of the assembly gathered. So Pagi: but since Le Cointe's answer is chiefly founded on this, that after the raising of the monastery of Prüm, or after the year 760, in which he holds — however wrongly — that it was first built, only one assembly, held in the year 765, is found celebrated at Attigny by Pippin, Pagi goes on thus: In the Annalists of the Franks the places are recorded in which the assemblies of the Franks were held during these times; but in what village or town the assembly was held in this year (762, namely) is nowhere read; and thence

I infer that it was proclaimed at Attigny, and that in it the above-said decree was enacted, in which the name of Assuerus does not appear along with the other abbots. From this, then — that by the annalists of the Franks and by other ancient writers the place is not expressed in which the assembly, which the Franks were once wont to hold every year in the month of May, was held in the year 762 — Pagi concludes that the assembly held then, which is therefore no other than the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe, was celebrated at Attigny. And indeed, since from what has been said two, and yet not more, assemblies of Attigny held by Pippin the Short after the year 760 seem to have to be distinguished, and since the one of these at which Assuerus, abbot of Prüm, was present was held in the year 765, I judge that that conclusion of Pagi's must certainly be admitted — especially since it also seems better that this latter assembly of Attigny, at which Assuerus was present, should be held different from the assembly recorded by Labbe, than that the decree made in the latter should be asserted with Le Cointe to be faulty in the subscriptions of the abbots which it presents; for which assertion of his he brings forward no convincing reason at all.

[104] And so, from what has been disputed, the assembly of Attigny recorded by Labbe, at which our Saint was present and to which he subscribed, will have been held not in the year 765 but in the year 762, advanced only to the month of May; and therefore it cannot be argued from it was held, cannot be proved; nor this from Berthar's text, quoted here, that our Saint, who died on the fourth of October, prolonged his life beyond the year 762, in which we have contended above from Berthar that he died. But now someone will object further: Berthar (go to number 7) also writes to this effect concerning St. Magdalveus: For he lived from the time of king Pippin to the time of Charlemagne; and by these words he seems to indicate that the Saint governed the church of Verdun from about the time in which Pippin was made king of the Franks to the time in which Charlemagne began to reign. Wherefore, since Pippin did not begin to reign before the year 752, and Charlemagne not before the year 768, it must needs be, according to Berthar, that St. Magdalveus did not obtain the mitre of Verdun before the year 752, and did not depart from among the living before the year 768. This is certainly a very strong objection, and it made me at first doubt whether Berthar was sufficiently consistent with himself in the chronology of our Saint, and therefore whether on this writer's credit our Saint's death could safely enough be set together with the year 762. But, the matter having been more maturely discussed, I found that Berthar's words just transcribed here, although they are capable of the sense which the objection bears, are yet not necessarily to be so interpreted. For they can be taken as signifying only that the Saint flourished from the time in which Pippin flourished to the time in which Charlemagne began to flourish. But now, since the Saint was born at the beginning of the eighth century, Pippin in the year 714, and lastly Charlemagne in the year 742, what, pray, can be elicited against the opinion by which the Saint's death is attached to the year of Christ 762 from Berthar's words taken in the sense just given?

[105] inasmuch as it admits of a sense suited to our opinion, Besides, this writer may have meant to signify by them only this, that St. Magdalveus governed the church of Verdun from the time not in which Pippin was first made king of the Franks, but in which, after the death of his father Charles Martel, this prince became mayor of the palace in Neustria, until the time not in which Charlemagne first began to reign in France after the death of his father Pippin, but in which this prince with his brother Carloman was first anointed king by Pope Stephen. But now, since Pippin became mayor of the palace of Neustria in the year 741 after his father's death, and Charlemagne was anointed king by Pope Stephen in the year 753, likewise nothing can be had against the opinion by which we believe the Saint to have died in the year 762 from the same words of Berthar taken in the sense just given. But lest anyone should perhaps contend that the expression by which Berthar says that the Saint lived in the time of king Pippin cannot be so taken as to signify that the Saint presided as bishop over the church of Verdun already from the time in which Pippin was made mayor of the palace of Neustria, I recall to memory what has been said at numbers 43 and following of this Commentary. For Paul the deacon, who well understood the matters pertaining to St. Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, and the time at which they were done, hands down in the words quoted there that this holy bishop was raised to the see of Metz in the times of king Pippin; which nevertheless did not happen later than in the year 742, in which Pippin certainly was not yet king of the Franks. Paul the deacon used that form of speech because, although at that time — that is, in the year 742, when Chrodegang was made bishop of Metz — Pippin did not yet enjoy the title of king, yet in fact, since no prince then wore the crown of the Frankish kingdom, he exercised royal authority over the Franks.

[106] Wherefore, since Paul the deacon, because he knew that it had happened under Pippin while still only mayor of the palace, wrote that it was done in the times of king Pippin, you may rightly conclude, why should not Berthar be believed to have written for the same cause and by a like form of speech that our Saint was raised to the see of Verdun in the time of king Pippin, although he knew that this was done under this prince while still only mayor of the palace? Further, since Berthar, regard being had to the context, seems in the words just quoted to be speaking of the time in which the Saint held the see of Verdun, I should therefore prefer to take them not in the sense which I gave first, but rather in that which I have just assigned; nay rather, as thence becomes likely, they seem necessarily to have to be taken so. But now, since this is so, hence also the opinion by which we hold the Saint to have been raised to the see of Verdun already from the year 742 becomes more probable, and at the same time it is had that from those words of Berthar of which we are discoursing it is not necessary that our Saint's death be deferred beyond the year 762. But if you reply that by those words of Berthar, taken in the more obvious sense, it is signified that the Saint presided as bishop over the church of Verdun from the time in which Pippin was first made king of the Franks to the time in which Charlemagne began to reign, I shall not indeed deny it. But what of that? The words of writers are not to be taken in the more obvious sense if a sufficiently solid reason prevents their being so taken; and this undoubtedly holds good here, since it must not be thought that Berthar wrote things that conflict, and since this writer, as I have already shown at numbers 98 and following, hands down to memory things from which it necessarily follows, with no room at all left for an opposite interpretation, that the Saint exchanged this mortal life for the immortal one in the year 762. But let what has been said suffice, as I think, so that, although perhaps it may not remove all scruple about the manner in which the aforementioned words of Berthar must be taken, it may at least appear to everyone more probable that they must be taken in the manner which we have last stated. Now another head of difficulty, which also pertains to this matter, must likewise be discussed and resolved here.

[107] Hugh of Flavigny (go to number 96 of this Commentary) has it thus in the words quoted there: And for this, however others may think otherwise, a reason too, Then (when, namely, after St. Magdalveus's death, Peter the Italian had been substituted in the see of Verdun by Charlemagne in the year 776) the bishopric of Verdun was vacant for twelve years, but a certain servant of God, Amalbert by name, made chorepiscopus according to the custom of that time, ruled that church … For although the aforesaid Peter, an Italian, had been honoured by him (namely Charlemagne) with that bishopric for the betrayal of Treviso, yet, because traitors are always suspect, he was not received in the bishopric during the aforesaid time. Nevertheless, lest the king's word should be idle and void, after the aforesaid space of years it was granted to him to enter the city and take possession of the bishopric in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 788; so Hugh, giving the reason why, when St. Magdalveus had died, the church of Verdun lacked a bishop for twelve years and was administered only by a chorepiscopus until the year 788. But now, those who will have it that the Saint lived until the year 776 and that the see of Verdun was vacant from this year until the year 788 will say that in the opinion of those who, from Berthar, hold that the Saint died in the year 762 and that the see of Verdun was without a bishop from this year until the year 774, no reason even tolerably probable can be brought forward why from the year 762 to the year 774, under Pippin the Short and his son Charlemagne, princes very devout, the bishopric of Verdun should have been vacant of a bishop and during that whole space of time administered only by a chorepiscopus. So besides may the patrons of the opinion opposed to us argue.

[108] why the see of Verdun was vacant for 12 years, can be brought forward; But herein they are much deceived: for since, as I have shown above, St. Magdalveus took care that the cathedral church of Verdun, which had been consumed by an unhappy fire, should be rebuilt, it becomes likely enough, from the expenses which had to be laid out on bringing so great a work to its completion, that the church of Verdun remained much burdened with debt, which probably had to be contracted for that end, even long after the Saint's death. Hence further it may have come about that, when Magdalveus had died, the bishopric of Verdun was left vacant of a bishop, so that meanwhile out of its annual revenues the debt contracted by the church might be paid off, and was given to a chorepiscopus to be administered according to the custom of the time. Behold therefore a reason, and one, as it appears, sufficiently probable, why in the opinion by which the Saint's death is attached to the year 762 the bishopric of Verdun could have been vacant from this year until the year 774. Hence also you will easily gather how the church of Verdun, while Amalbert the chorepiscopus was administering it, could have lost all the goods enumerated by Berthar in the words quoted at number 98, even though you do not hold with Hugh that the see of Verdun was vacant when Peter the Italian had already been nominated to it by Charlemagne. But now someone will say that the reason adduced by us here, why after St. Magdalveus's death the see of Verdun was perhaps vacant, is founded on no testimony of antiquity. I confess that so it is: but what of that? It certainly appears sufficiently like the truth, and it has this besides, that it is deduced from what Berthar, a writer certainly ancient, hands down to memory.

[109] but Hugh in the reason which he reveals for its happening, Nor is it to be rejected because a far different reason is assigned both by Wassebourg and by Hugh. For neither Hugh nor Wassebourg is to be stood by here. I prove the matter thus: he says in book 3 of the Antiquities

folio 137 verso — Wassebourg, that is — that the see of Verdun was vacant for twelve years from our Saint's death because Pippin and Charlemagne, who had received by Pontifical concession the faculty of nominating to bishoprics that should fall vacant in the Gauls, being distracted by continual wars, were absent from the city of Verdun during that whole space of time. But to whom would it appear likely that those princes, even though they were sometimes then far from Verdun, could not nominate a bishop to the vacant see of this city, or even were neither reminded of doing it nor thought of it of their own accord? Certainly Charlemagne was not staying at Verdun when he nominated Peter the Italian to the episcopal see of this city. As regards the reason expressed by Hugh in the words transcribed here above, besides that it is not found recorded by any author older than Hugh, it is referred to the people and clergy of Verdun, who refused to receive into their city Peter the Italian, though already designated bishop by Charlemagne, because he laboured under the odious name of traitor. But it does not appear likely enough that the clergy and people of Verdun proceeded to such boldness that they dared not to receive a bishop designated for them by Charlemagne, with whom lay the faculty of nominating to sees vacant or about to be vacant in the Gauls. Besides, although Berthar assigns no reason why from the Saint's death the see of Verdun was vacant for twelve years, Hugh nevertheless conflicts with this writer in assigning the reason just mentioned why the see of Verdun was vacant so long.

[110] So I judge, because this requires that the see of Verdun was not left vacant of a bishop before Peter the Italian had already been nominated to it; he is probably mistaken, which certainly conflicts most openly with Berthar's assertions, inasmuch as they require that the see of Verdun was vacant before Peter's nomination. But now, since this is so, and since Berthar's assertions, as those of a writer far superior to Hugh, must rather be stood by, who would not reject the reason for which Hugh will have the see of Verdun to have been vacant, or at least hold it very suspect of falsity? What if it be maintained that Hugh, since he learned from Berthar that the see of Verdun was vacant for twelve years from our Saint's death, but was ignorant of the reason why it was vacant so long, therefore invented the reason which he alleges without any testimony of antiquity? This indeed Hugh perhaps really did, as it appears to me at least; or at any rate — what will perhaps seem to some more probable — he drew that reason from an author by no means approved. Whichever be determined, we at least have from what has been disputed not only that in the opinion by which we attach the Saint's death to the year 762 a not improbable reason can be brought forward why, when Magdalveus had died, the see of Verdun was vacant so very long, but also that the reason for which Hugh reveals this to have been done is probably not founded in truth. And thus indeed this last difficulty, fitted to be raised against the opinion by which the Saint is held to have died in the year 762, has now also been resolved. It remains now that I should resolve another as well, which, although it does not require that the Saint died only in the year 776, yet requires that it happened later than in the year 762, to which we attach his happy passing from among the living.

[111] According to Berthar, Peter the Italian was promoted by Charlemagne to the mitre of Verdun on account of Pavia; as also in the city for whose betrayal he writes that Peter was made bishop: but according to Hugh, on account of the city of Treviso handed over to the Franks. But now, since the city of Treviso came into the power of the Franks in the year 776, and since the twelve years during which, according to us, the see of Verdun was vacant from the Saint's death before Peter's promotion to the episcopal mitre, reckoned backwards from that year, lead to the year 764, St. Magdalveus's death will have to be set together with that very year 764, if only Hugh is to be assented to when he asserts that Peter the Italian was presented with the bishopric of Verdun by Charlemagne for the betrayal of Treviso. But indeed Berthar, who affirms that this was done not for the betrayal of Treviso but of Pavia, is again rather to be assented to here than Hugh. For this writer — not to repeat here the other things adduced before on account of which he is of worse credit than Berthar — wrongly affirms, as I have already shown, that the donation of the abbey of St. Amantius, made to the monastery of St. Vanne by Berengar, who was bishop of Verdun in the tenth century, was made by St. Amantius himself, who flourished in the fifth century. Besides, as I have likewise already shown, he consigns to writing by a manifest error that the glorious raising of St. Magdalveus's body from the earth, which according to himself was done at the beginning of the ninth century, happened under Berhard, bishop of Verdun, who was not promoted to this dignity before the year 870. But now, since Hugh errs both in assigning the donor who was munificent toward the monastery of St. Vanne and in assigning the bishop who raised our Saint's body from the earth at the beginning of the ninth century, who would assert for certain that he does not likewise err in assigning the city for whose betrayal to the Franks Peter the Italian was substituted by Charlemagne in the place of the deceased Saint?

[112] and therefore for the betrayal of Pavia, as Berthar hands down, who here too Berthar's narrative, therefore — who is nowhere convicted of undoubted error, and who hands down that Peter the Italian was made bishop of Verdun for the betrayal of Pavia — seems rather to be embraced. But now someone will object that Pavia, after a long siege of at least six months, reduced to the utmost straits by plague and famine, was at last handed over by agreement to Charlemagne by Desiderius, king of the Lombards, who had shut himself up in it with his wife and daughter; and that no trace of any betrayal by which that city was put into the hands of the Franks by anyone occurs in the ancient historians who record the siege of Pavia or Ticinum made by Charlemagne. I confess that so it is; but what of that? Neither is there anything to be had from the ancient historians by which you might affirm that the city of Treviso was handed over to the Franks by anyone through betrayal. Yet since Berthar hints plainly enough that Pavia was handed over to the Franks by Peter the Italian by betrayal, it will be well here, lest anyone should perhaps charge Berthar with undoubted error, to set out in what sense that may, though not handed down by the historians, more probably be consonant with the truth. Wassebourg in book 3 of the Antiquities, folio 140, says that Desiderius, king of the Lombards, while the Franks were besieging Pavia, had two counsellors of more famous name, of whom the one was Paul the deacon, the other Peter, afterwards raised to the bishopric of Verdun. These were not of one opinion. For the former, of wholly uncorrupted fidelity toward Desiderius his lord, contended that the Franks must be resisted in every way, and that, the siege being prolonged, relief must be awaited and perhaps brought; but the latter, whose fidelity toward Desiderius was not so entire, corrupted perhaps by money or by promises from the Franks, said that no hope of relief remained, and that therefore surrender must be made without further delay, considering the most grievous inconveniences which the inhabitants were suffering from the siege; and by his words and persuasions he so far prevailed that at last Desiderius put Pavia, himself, his wife and daughter into the power of the Franks on certain agreed conditions.

[113] So Wassebourg, roughly as to the substance. is not convicted of error, it will more probably have been done, Peter therefore, according to this writer, betrayed Pavia to the Franks not by open force or fraud, but only by counsel and secret guile proceeding from an evil will toward Desiderius, or at least brought it about that it was surrendered sooner than it otherwise would have been; and since what Wassebourg here hands down to memory about Paul the deacon's notable fidelity toward Desiderius is established from documents of approved credit, he perhaps learned both what he narrates about Peter and what he narrates about Paul the deacon from some older writer of no contemptible authority; and therefore there is no reason to think certainly false what he consigns to writing about the city of Ticinum or Pavia, which Peter the Italian caused to be handed over to the Franks by his counsel. But now, since things that are done only by counsel and secret guile are generally not so well known as those which are effected by open force, it may be that writers were ignorant that Pavia was betrayed to the Franks by Peter the Italian through counsel and secret guile; and therefore from the fact that they pass the matter over in silence it does not follow that Berthar writes by a certain and undoubted error that that city was handed over or betrayed to the Franks by Peter the Italian. Wherefore, since this is so, on the authority of Berthar alone, who here too is not convicted of error, I judge it more probable that Peter the Italian — however otherwise Hugh may write — betrayed Pavia to the Franks or to Charlemagne perhaps in the way which I have now set out, and was for this cause presented with the bishopric of Verdun by that prince. But now, since Charlemagne received Ticinum or Pavia into his power in the year 774, and since the twelve years during which, from what has been said, the bishopric of Verdun had then been vacant, reckoned backwards, lead to the year 762, our opinion remains firm, by which we have above fixed the Saint's death to that year and not to the year 764.

[114] And this opinion, although founded on Berthar's authority alone, and therefore it stands, whatever Le Cointe and Pagi may argue, I judge more and more, all things being now considered, to be more probable than the opinion discussed above which attaches the Saint's death to the year 776, and which is confirmed by Hugh with the chronological notes set forth from Le Cointe at numbers 87 and following. And this opinion, to repeat here briefly the chief foundations of ours, is settled in my mind chiefly for this reason, that Berthar flourished only about one century after our Saint's age, and therefore deserves greater credit than Hugh, who was about three centuries removed from it — especially since he is convicted of no manifest and undoubted error at all; whereas Hugh admits errors, especially chronological ones, so frequent and so manifest, as is clear from what has been disputed above, that even when he fortifies some fact with several chronological notes agreeing excellently with one another and designating the same year of Christ, he cannot safely be trusted; and therefore, although by the chronological notes produced above, agreeing excellently with one another and designating the year of Christ 776, he indicates most clearly that the Saint died in that year, he cannot deserve sufficiently sure credit in this matter. Le Cointe and Pagi indeed contend for the contrary, as has been said. But whatever these two writers, who establish their opinion by no argument at all, may here say without hesitation, whatever they may affirm, whatever they may argue, I at least can by no means be induced to believe, against Berthar's credit, that the Saint died in the year 776 on the sole testimony of Hugh, who, as I have often warned and proved, frequently falls into the most open errors, and who, since he drew most of what he hands down in the first part of his Chronicle from older authors (go to number 8) without discrimination and judgment, perhaps also took from a writer of little credit the above-mentioned notes by which the Saint is said to have departed from among the living in the year 776

— or rather (go to number 95 and the two following) one of them, from which the rest flowed — to whom, through want of a prudent criticism, he judged assent must be given in preference to Berthar, whom nevertheless he had before his eyes.

[115] And indeed I much doubt whether Le Cointe, and especially Pagi, the opinion by which we attach the Saint's death to the year 762. who attaches to the year 762 the assembly of Attigny at which the Saint was present, would not have changed their opinion if they had had before their eyes the brief History of the bishops of Verdun, in which Berthar most openly indicates that the Saint died in the year 762. But this d'Achery first published in print in the year 1675, so that perhaps it was not seen, nay could not even be seen, by Le Cointe when that writer was preparing for the press the sixth volume of his Annals, given to the light already in the year 1676, in which he attaches the Saint's death to the year 776. As regards Pagi, he could indeed have seen that brief lucubration of Berthar's; but most probably he did not consult it, inasmuch as he does not cite it, and, the matter not being sufficiently discussed, he seems to have followed Le Cointe too hastily. The same seems must be said of Mabillon, who, although indeed, like Le Cointe and Pagi, he does not record all the chronological notes supplied by Hugh and designating the year of Christ 776, yet indicates, as has been said, that the Saint died in that year. So I judge, even from this, that he writes in the words quoted at number 89, by a manifest error in which Le Cointe went before him (go to number 87), that the Saint in the last year but one of his life gave all his property to St. Vanne. For the Saint (see the Life to be published, number 37) did not in the last year but one of his life give all his property to St. Vanne, but only acquired for St. Vanne from Theuthard many things which the latter had and possessed. And so, that I may at last, all things being weighed, put an end to this §, although Le Cointe, Pagi, and Mabillon joined to them, connect St. Magdalveus's death with the year 776, I am by no means moved by their authority to do the same, but firmly adhere, as to the more probable, to the opinion which holds that the Saint died in the year 762; and I think that whoever shall weigh with attentive mind free of prejudice what we have brought forward about Hugh and about Berthar will assent to me.

§ X. The Saint's burial, various translations, and ecclesiastical cult.

The Saint was buried in the church of St. Vanne. What befell many men who by a happy and blessed departure from among the living were translated to the powers above, on account of the plainly notable holiness with which they had passed their lives, was granted to our Saint too by God, the supreme rewarder of his altogether notable merits — namely that he was renowned for many miracles after his death. But when, says Berthar of the Saint, or rather of his sacred corpse, at number 7 of this Commentary, he was being carried thence (from the village of Neuville) to saint Peter's or to saint Vanne's, it is said that upon the cross, in the sight of all, two doves white as snow came, and sat upon it until his body was given to burial. Behold a plainly notable miracle by which the Saint was made illustrious after his death! For it, however, inasmuch as Berthar himself, from the doubting form of speech which he uses, does not seem to have held it for certain, I should by no means venture to vouch. The Saint's biographer at number 43 narrates the matter somewhat otherwise. Here are the words. As soon as … (he says) he (St. Magdalveus, namely) rendered his spirit to heaven, two doves whiter than snow, gliding down from the sky in the sight of all, settled upon the cross which was before the body, and through all the delays of the funeral rites, until he was given to burial, they remained, and so, while they looked on, sought again the secret places of heaven. So Hugh, who, whatever be the case about the prodigy of the doves that attended the Saint's funeral, presently subjoins that the Saint's body was committed to the earth with solemn rite in the church of St. Vanne at Verdun, in the presence of the bishops of the neighbouring cities; about which matter, which Berthar too hints at in the words just quoted, there is no room for doubt.

[117] Further, the multitude of miracles by which, as I have already hinted, and when it was made illustrious at his tomb by many miracles, the divine kindness made the Saint illustrious after his death, happened at the tomb which he obtained in that church. Hugh attests this at number 45 in these words: When the Father's body (saint Magdalveus's) had been buried, that it might be shown that he ever lives in heaven, divine miracles were wrought at his tomb to show his distinguished merits. So the Saint's biographer. And although Berthar does not mention even by a word the miracles wrought at St. Magdalveus's tomb after his death, yet that Hugh here in no way strays from the truth it is permissible to conclude from this, that the sacred body of Magdalveus was raised from the earth with solemn rite in the fortieth year after he had died — an honour which at the time when this was done was wont to be paid only to men renowned for the fame of sanctity and of miracles. The few words of Berthar in which he teaches that the Saint was raised from the earth in the fortieth year after his death, and that at the same time his sacred body was then found uncorrupt, I transcribe here. They run thus: Whose (St. Magdalveus's, namely) body — wonderful to say! — was found entire after forty years, and was reverently laid where it now lies. That the sacred body of St. Magdalveus was raised from the earth and found uncorrupt in the fortieth year after he had flown to the powers above, Hugh too, the Saint's biographer, teaches.

[118] And indeed he does it in a somewhat longer discourse than that which I have in part transcribed here above. his sacred body more probably in the year 102, The whole, contracted into a summary, runs thus: when the Saint's tomb was made illustrious with daily miracles, and a frequent concourse of people was made to it on that account, it seemed good to the bishop of Verdun, to the clergy and to the people to bring forth Magdalveus's sacred corpse from the earth and to lay it in a more honourable place. But behold, while the coffin is opened, a marvellous sight presents itself to the bystanders. They find the corpse, which had lain buried in the earth for forty years, entirely uncorrupt, defiled with no stain or sign of death, and diffusing from itself a most sweet odour. All stand astounded at the prodigy, and at the same time, filled with joy, bring forth the sacred pledge from the earth with the utmost veneration, and transfer it to the mausoleum prepared for it. Berhard then presided over the church of Verdun as bishop; and Lothair, the son of Louis the Pious, over the Western empire. So Hugh, roughly as to the substance, admitting two errors in chronology: the one indeed, that he writes that the Saint's translation was made under Berhard, bishop of Verdun; the other, that it was made under Lothair, the son of Louis the Pious. The former of these I have already set before your eyes at number 93; the next thing is that I should now demonstrate the other. To this end I first disclose in what year of Christ the Saint's sacred corpse was raised from the earth. This happened in the fortieth year from the Saint's death, both according to Berthar, as is clear from what has been said, and according to Hugh. Wherefore, since by our opinion the Saint died more probably in the year 762, but by Hugh's reckoning in the year 766, it follows that according to Hugh the Saint's sacred corpse was raised from the earth in the year 816, but more probably in the year 802.

[119] But now, since Lothair, the son of Louis the Pious, did not succeed his father in the empire before the year 840, perhaps by the order or with the consent of the supreme Pontiff Hugh the Saint's biographer wrongly notes that that translation of our Saint of which we are here treating was made while Lothair the son of Louis the Pious was ruling, and therefore admits here a second error, grave enough even in the opinion by which he attaches the Saint's death to the year 776 and therefore the translation to the year 816; but in the opinion more probable from what has been said above, by which we attach the Saint's death to the year 762 and therefore the translation to the year 802, far graver. Further, Hugh not only admits the errors already shown in the narrative in which he reports the Saint's raising from the earth, but also — which is here an inconvenience for us — supplies nothing at all from which you might in any way gather whether that sacred solemnity was performed by the order, or at least with the consent, of the supreme Pontiff. Berthar's narrative labours under the same defect. But Wassebourg in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 133 verso, expressly affirms that the Saint's body was raised from the earth by the authority of the supreme Pontiff. His words, reduced to a summary, run thus: Austrannus, bishop of Verdun, in the fortieth year after the Saint's death, at the people's petition, ordered by the authority of the supreme Pontiff Leo III that his tomb should be opened, the body raised, and when raised placed in a silver chest. So Wassebourg, teaching clearly indeed, as I have said, that our Saint's raising from the earth was performed with the intervening authority of the supreme Pontiff. But must that writer certainly be assented to here? Since neither Berthar nor Hugh writes anything which here opposes Wassebourg, I judge it credible enough that the Saint was raised from the earth by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, as this author reveals; yet I should not venture to affirm it for certain, because for that the authority of Wassebourg, a writer too remote from the event, by no means suffices; and because it is also found that of old both ecclesiastical cult was sometimes decreed to Saints, and their sacred bodies raised from the earth, by the authority of bishops alone.

[120] intervening, was raised from the earth, However this matter may stand, Wassebourg at least rightly places the Saint's translation under Leo III, the supreme Pontiff, and under Austrannus, bishop of Verdun. For Leo, as is sufficiently agreed among the learned, occupied the Roman see of St. Peter from the year 796 to the year 816; and Austrannus, as Berthar teaches in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, pages 259 and following, received the church of Verdun to be governed after Peter the Italian had governed it for twenty-five years — that church having previously been vacant for twelve years from our Saint's death, that is, from the year 762 — and then governed it most prudently for a space of five years; so that in the year 802 he still presided over the people of Verdun with the office of bishop. Wherefore, since from what has been said St. Magdalveus's sacred corpse was more probably raised from the earth in the year 802, Wassebourg, in reporting that this happened under Leo III, the supreme Pontiff, and under Austrannus, bishop of Verdun, is by no means to be censured, and his narrative more probably agrees with the truth. And these are the things which I had to observe upon our Saint's first translation; I now proceed to another. Hugh of Flavigny, in the second part of his Chronicle of Verdun — in which, because he treats there only of the events of his own age, that is, of the eleventh century, he deserves, as has been said, far greater credit — reports in Labbe, New Library of Manuscripts, page 163, that Richard (of whom we have treated in volume VI of July) was ordained by Heimo, bishop of Verdun, in the year 1004 as abbot of the monastery of St. Vanne in the city of Verdun; and then, after narrating at page 164 that a new church, ampler and more elegant than the former or old one, had been built for the aforesaid monastery or abbey by this venerable man,

he then subjoins thus on the following page: When therefore the new church had been built with a greater circuit and more elegant workmanship, it was necessary that the bodies of certain holy bishops should be moved.

[121] Then the body of saint Madelveus was found uncorrupt, was afterwards, between the years 1003 and 1047, translated into a marble vessel and fittingly laid in a marble vessel in the crypt of holy Mary under the altar. Behold therefore a second translation of our Saint; at which, when it was made, his sacred body was again found uncorrupt, on Hugh's testimony. Further, this translation of the Saint — inasmuch as it was made after the new church had been built for the monastery of St. Vanne by Richard when already abbot, as is understood from Hugh, and he was first raised to this dignity, as has been said, in the year 1004 — did not happen before the year 1004: and that it was also not made after the year 1046 it is permissible to gather from what Hugh of Flavigny hands down to memory again in the second part of his Chronicle, in Labbe, the cited volume of the Library, page 189. For there, having narrated the burial and death of the aforesaid abbot Richard, he writes thus: And he (abbot Richard) rests in the underground crypt before the altar of holy Mary the Mother of God and of St. John the Evangelist, and above him the high altar of St. Peter has been set up. In the same crypt, beneath the aforesaid altar of St. Mary, rests saint Madelveus, moved thither by the same father of ours (Richard, namely) and reverently entombed. So Hugh, teaching most clearly that our Saint's translation — certainly not different from the one just mentioned — was performed by Richard, abbot of St. Vanne. Wherefore, since Richard died in the year 1046, as Hugh again attests in Labbe, the cited volume, page 190, the translation of the Saint of which there is talk here undoubtedly was not made after the year 1046. But now, since this translation, by which the Saint's body was moved from the old tomb or rather mausoleum into a new one — that is, into a marble vessel beneath the altar of the most holy Mother of God (see both texts of Hugh just quoted) — was, according to what has been said, also not made before the year 1004, it follows that it happened between the year 1003 and 1047.

[122] For the rest, nothing else is at hand by which I might more closely determine the time to which this second translation of the Saint must be attached. and at last was enclosed in a more precious chest in the year 1477, Of it — which may seem strange — Calmet does not make mention even by a word in his History of Lorraine; but where he has narrated the first translation, which from what has been said was more probably made in the year 802, he subjoins thus in the so often cited volume, column 546, in French words rendered by me into Latin: Then (when, namely, the first translation of the Saint, dead only forty years, was made) it (Magdalveus's sacred corpse) was enclosed in a chest and exposed to the veneration of the people; but in the year 1477 Matthew, abbot of St. Vanne, had a new chest, much more precious, made for him (St. Magdalveus, namely), and his body was translated into it. So Calmet; who, although he wraps in silence the second translation of the Saint already mentioned, yet opportunely teaches us a third, of which I have not been able to find mention elsewhere. Further, the chest or case into which he says the Saint's body was brought when this translation was made will most probably have been made of silver. For Wassebourg — who, which is nevertheless strange, does not make mention even by a word of the two later translations of the Saint which I have now set forth from Hugh and Calmet, and therefore seems to have been ignorant of them — hands down to memory in his Work On the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, which he published in print in the year 1549, folio 133 verso, that in the fortieth year after the Saint's death it came about that his sacred corpse, found uncorrupt, was brought by Austrannus, bishop of Verdun, into a silver chest, as it was still to be seen then. In Wassebourg's age, therefore, that is, in the sixteenth century, Magdalveus's sacred body was enclosed in a silver chest; and since in the eleventh century (see what is said at number 121) it was brought only into a marble vessel from the place in which it had previously lain, by abbot Richard, the silver chest in which it was enclosed in Wassebourg's age will most probably have been made not before — contrary to what Wassebourg thinks at number 119 — but after the Saint's translation made by abbot Richard.

[123] [and the Saint himself every year among the people of Verdun on the 4th of October] Wherefore, since after this translation made by Richard in the eleventh century no new reliquary is found to have been built for the Saint besides the chest into which his sacred body was translated in the year 1477, as Calmet hands down in the words just quoted, this will most probably have been that very silver chest in which in Wassebourg's age the Saint's body was enclosed; and therefore the more precious chest which, on Calmet's testimony, Matthew, abbot of St. Vanne, had made for the Saint in the year 1477, will most probably have been made of silver. And these are the things which I had to record about the various translations of the Saint. Further, the people of Verdun proved their notable veneration for the Saint not only by the three translations already mentioned, with which they honoured his sacred remains, but also by the cult and ecclesiastical Office with which they have yearly recalled his memory, and most probably still recall it today. And they had once consecrated to this festal day the fourth day of October, on which the Saint passed to the Lord; but I doubt whether, some change having been made, they do not today defer the Saint's feast to the fifth day of October. For Calmet in the History of Lorraine, volume 1, column 546, affirms that the Saint is honoured among the people of Verdun on the fifth day of October; and hence it perhaps came about that, since he erroneously thought that Magdalveus had of old also been honoured among the people of Verdun on the fifth day of October, he there wrongly committed to writing, against the credit of Hugh and of all other writers, that he died on that day likewise. Yet since Calmet in the matters which he writes about our Saint does not everywhere deserve the praise of complete accuracy, as you will easily gather from what has been said above, I should not venture to affirm for certain that St. Magdalveus is today honoured by the people of Verdun not on the fourth but on the fifth day of October. However that may be, that the fourth day of October was of old consecrated among the people of Verdun to the Saint's memory is certain and undoubted.

[124] [has been honoured with ecclesiastical cult from the sixteenth century, nay even, as from Hugh's words] For there exists among us a Breviary of Verdun which is marked as printed in the year 1625, and likewise a Missal of Verdun printed in the year 1554; and from both these documents it is established that the Saint was honoured among the people of Verdun at the fourth day of October at the time when they were printed. For at this day in the Missal a Mass of St. Magdalveus is proposed to be said, in which, however, he has nothing proper to himself; and in the Breviary an Office of nine lessons is prescribed to be recited, in which all these are proper to the Saint, and all are taken from his Acts described by Hugh of Flavigny and to be subjoined to this Commentary, as becomes manifest from a comparison made of the one with the other. But now, since these things are so, it becomes certain not only that the Saint was of old honoured at Verdun at the fourth day of October with the cult customarily paid to Saints by the recitation of an ecclesiastical Office and the celebration of an annual feast, but also that that cult is sufficiently ancient. And indeed it is much more ancient still than the two documents already produced indicate. This is again understood from the second part of the Chronicle of Verdun. For in it Hugh of Flavigny, in Labbe, the volume of the New Library of Manuscripts so very often cited, page 190, reports that it came about that to Rodulph, who as the third after the Richard mentioned above governed the monastery of St. Vanne toward the end of the eleventh century — while he often turned over in his mind and desired to know whether that Richard his predecessor had been of so great sanctity as was thought — a vision was offered in sleep, as he was passing the night at his tomb, in which he saw an angel standing by him and heard the angel saying this: Long has your thought detained you with peevish curiosity, that you might know of what merit he is at whose tomb you stand; and lest it should draw you on to be wearied longer, I have been sent to explain these things to you.

[125] There are two resting in this crypt, transcribed here from the Chronicle of Verdun, it is drawn, and awaiting the day of the Lord on which they shall be rewarded with a double stole: this abbot Richard, and the distinguished confessor of Christ Madalveus, whose festival you honour in its own time and on its day with devout offices, as is fitting; inasmuch as God has enrolled him in the number of his Saints and of the strong Just. And he indeed is worthily turned into the memory of men, who has passed to the joy of the Just. But this man, at whose tomb I stand, is to be venerated on earth by you with equal and no less devotion, whom God, adorned with perhaps equal and no inferior glory, has exalted in heaven. Great is the fame of his sanctity on earth, of which however you do not know the half, because the Man, enlightened by the grace of God, studied humility and lowliness, and chose not to make known his deeds but to hide them. But know that you have sent before you a great patron most dear to God, and that what is said of him is true, although greater things could be said. Let the devotion of his sons toward his memory please you; and what I, sent by God, report to you, proclaim this very day to all in common, that they may rejoice at the happy success of the father whom they have as an advocate and devout intercessor in heaven. Do you therefore, having learned these things about the blessed Man, not desert the way which you have begun; watch over the mortification of the flesh, humility, lowliness and chastity; give labour to the winning of souls, that with him and with others you may be endowed with the blessedness of eternal delight.

[126] So Hugh, setting these forth as spoken by an angel in sleep to Rodulph, abbot of the monastery of St. Vanne toward the end of the eleventh century; from the eleventh century, and much earlier still. and although it may deservedly be questioned, even from this, that the writers of the tenth and eleventh centuries were wonderfully prone to believing and inventing visions and prodigies, whether the heavenly vision which Hugh records was truly offered to Rodulph, yet from the words which this writer — inasmuch as he flourished no later than the beginning of the twelfth century — reports as uttered by the angel, it is permissible to gather that St. Magdalveus's festival was honoured yearly at Verdun, most probably on the fourth of October, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when Hugh of Flavigny flourished, with devout offices, and therefore probably with the celebration of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass and the recitation of an ecclesiastical Office. St. Magdalveus therefore obtained at Verdun the cult customarily paid to Saints, and a feast to be celebrated with an ecclesiastical Office, long even before the sixteenth century, as I asserted above; and that this likewise befell him long even before the eleventh century itself appears to me most probable for this reason, that, as we saw above, both by the miracles wrought after his death,

he was made illustrious by the frequent concourse of the people thence to his tomb, and afterwards was raised from the earth with the utmost veneration only forty years after he had died.

LIFE

by Hugh, abbot of Flavigny, as author,

From the Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscripts.

Magdalveus, bishop and confessor, near Verdun in Lorraine. (S.) BHL Number: 5133

A. By Hugh of Flavigny.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's birth, his studies and virtues in youth, his entry into the clerical state, his promotion to the priesthood, to the office of abbot, and afterwards to the bishopric; his deeds at the beginning of it.

The Saint was born at Verdun. In the year, therefore, from the Incarnation of the Human ^a Word 753 the lord Madelveus receives the bishopric of the church of Verdun ^b. He was brought forth in the same city of Christian and renowned parents ^c. Who, as soon as he was reborn of water and the Spirit, in the seven degrees of baptism comprehended the seven gifts of the Paraclete Spirit. He then received the flesh of the immaculate Lamb with his blood, clothed in white with the garment of virginity, adorned with the lamp of immortality. At that time all Belgica was ablaze with the daily pressure of wars ^d. For the royal dignity, which had taken its beginning from king Merovech and had been extended to king Childeric — who by the order of Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, was shorn and thrust into a monastery ^e — was at that time of no vigour, and displayed nothing in itself beyond the empty name of king ^f.

[2] The mournful state of affairs in Belgic Gaul. For the wealth and abundance of revenues, the administration of the kingdom, and all things that had to be done and arranged either at home or abroad, remained in the hands of the prefects of the palace, who were called Mayors of the palace. By which licence of the prefects the insolence of manners grew, the cruel power of the lords increased, nor was envy lacking, which ruined the rights of the kingdoms. One is puffed up against another; each seizes the royal name. As this discord grew, cities are depopulated, churches are burnt, the divine ministries are withdrawn, monasteries of men are destroyed, those of maidens are mocked, and all things are laid waste: and there was at that time no less groaning in the churches than in the times of Decius and Diocletian ^g. Shaken by this whirlwind, the city of Verdun, bishop Agronius being dead, remained vacant for many days, widowed of a pastor ^h.

[3] In those days the kindly boy Madelveus, being weaned, was handed over to religious men to be taught letters ⁱ, He is handed over to be taught letters, and great whose elements being quickly committed to memory, he gave his labour to understanding the precepts of the art of Grammar, by which he might recognize what was true and avoid faults. After this he ascended the tribunal of Rhetoric: but because the rhetor is the imparter of eloquence, and eloquence without wisdom is generally exceedingly harmful and never profitable, he set aside the exercise of speaking and spent all his labour on the most upright and most honourable studies of reason, referring the study of right reason to divine things and the study of honourable duty to human. Hence, understanding that all things which are done in words and deeds and in the whole world are ten, which are called the Predicaments, he distinguished with sagacious mind the disguises of arguments and the perplexities of syllogisms, and in them exercised to a nicety the edge of his teachable understanding.

[4] Thence he enters the quadrivium, where, perceiving with penetrating mind the cubes of Arithmetic, the sounds of Music, in these he makes progress. the measures of Geometry and the rays of Astronomy, he arrived at the perfection of the twofold thesis, that is, the theoretical and the practical. His boyish years, therefore, having been passed simply at home, like the patriarch Jacob, he was knocking at the doors of youth, advancing and pleasing both God and men. Indeed, after the flowers of Rhetoric and the snakes of syllogism, he enters the fields of divine Scripture, where, hearing from the Apostle, Everyone who lives chastely is a temple of the Holy Spirit; and likewise in the Apocalypse, Those who are not defiled with women, these follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes ^k, he at once consecrated his earliest tender age to Christ the Lord, longing to please and serve with his whole soul him who is his portion and inheritance; and, considering his ways, he turned his feet into the testimonies of Jesus, seeking to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living.

[5] Having at length obtained the honour of the clerical state, he received a blessing from the Lord He becomes a cleric, and devotes himself wholly to virtue. and saving mercy from God: for by a daily advance he went from virtue to virtue, shuddering at the broad and spacious way which leads to death and following the narrow and strait one by which men go to the stars; he pierced his flesh with the fear of the Lord, mortifying his members with their vices and concupiscences, walking in the spirit, not fulfilling the desires of the flesh, being zealous for works of mercy, afflicting his body with vigils and fastings, persisting in prayer and devoting himself to meditation, restraining his ears from evil hearing, turning his eyes away from vanity, striving to be a sweet odour to the Lord in every place, guarding his mouth from much speaking and vain speaking, shaking his hands free of every bribe, always turning his counsel and his work to the Lord, and in all his action seeking God's glory and not his own.

The just Young man lived in these pursuits, answering to the sacred orders with fitting manners.

[6] After this, ascending to greater things, he received the honour of the presbyterate when elected, and obtained it when justified. Having taken up the priesthood, he is made abbot of the monastery of St. Vanne And so he is appointed by unanimous assent and by the election of all ruler and abbot of the church of saint Vanne ^l, which, improved both by zeal for spiritual exercise and in temporal goods, he kindled by example and teaching to the love of the divine service. For he was outstanding in humility, diffused in charity, wonderful in prudence, praiseworthy in sobriety, notable in justice, remarkable in fortitude; and although he surpassed all in dignity, yet he was subject to all in obedience, proved in patience, made from his heart a pattern to the flock, so that in him every subject might recognize what norm of living he should assume for himself.

[7] [and then is made bishop of Verdun. At that time Chrodegang over the church of Metz,] This was the report that went everywhere about him, this the rumour continually in the mouths of all; Madelveus's piety and his probity traversed the countries, filled the squares, knocked at the palace gates. With these messengers going before, he is chosen to the pontificate of the city of Verdun by the votes of all ^m. And although, full of the fear of God, he rejected this with all effort and refused it with all his striving, nevertheless the judgment of many prevailed, God's grace going before; and, with one concord of clergy and people, being judged worthy by the judgment of the bishops, he is exalted on the pontifical chair, confirmed with blessing, and consecrated with unction. At that time Stephen the second ruled the Roman Church, and over the Franks ruled Pippin, the son of Charles the Hammer ⁿ, made king from being Mayor of the palace and prefect of the palace ^o; by whom Chrodegang the abbot, a distinguished man and to be extolled with all praises, brought up in the palace of the aforesaid Charles and his referendary, being chosen by him and by all the Franks, was sent to Rome to summon the aforementioned Pope Stephen to the Gauls, as the wishes of all were panting for [p]; which he did, and by him also he was consecrated bishop of the church of Metz, the king and people standing by, and merited the pallium with the name of archbishop [q]….

[8] and Godo presided over that of Toul. In a lamentable state Over the people of Toul too presided the venerable bishop Godo [r], who obtained for his church from the aforesaid king Pippin the immunity of the city and the recovery of the charters consumed by fire. Amid this blessed Madalveus shone with the beauty of virtues, and adorned the pontifical dignity with the brightness of good works. Which office, although he received it while untried in time, he approached fitly with his accustomed abundance of goodness. He pressed on with preachings, strengthened the people with blessings, incited them to better things with holy exhortations; what he said in words he showed by examples. At that time the city itself was worn down by wars through barbarian harassment, wearied by sieges, filled with calamities; the temples of the Lord in it were polluted, the sanctuaries burnt, the ministries violated, the daily and nightly offices neglected.

[9] Magdalveus finds Verdun: Some of the clerics had been put to flight, some killed; those who remained, given over to great poverty, were more eager about their own or earthly business than about heavenly [s]. In view of this, when the Man of the Lord was of a bitter spirit, he placed his hope in the Lord, crying to him with humbled spirit: All that you have done to us, Lord, you have done in true judgment; because we have sinned against you and have not obeyed your commandments. To whom presently the Lord: Call upon me, he says, in the day of tribulation; I will deliver you, and you shall honour me. But he with humble prayer: My God, my mercy, you are my refuge from the tribulation which has surrounded me, my exultation; deliver me from the straits surrounding me and from the necessities of my sons. And without delay consolation came from the mouth of truth: Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all things shall be added to you. Then he, giving thanks: To my hearing, he says, you will give, Lord, joy and gladness, and the humbled bones shall rejoice.

[10] With swift step, therefore, he entered the church, called together the clergy and people, thence he spurs his flock to virtue, reforms the clergy, made known the true judgments of the Lord, admonished them to confess their crimes or sins to one another, persuaded them to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, and charged and taught them to frequent the church, to apply themselves to prayers with tears, to hear the praises of the Lord in silence and reverence, to give alms willingly according to their power, to keep hospitality without murmuring, to return to peace before sunset when at variance, not to give a false peace, to fear hell, and to hope for eternal life. Then he appointed by ecclesiastical sanction that the clerics should live according to rule, say the praises of the Lord seven times a day and rise by night to confess to him; and he arranged their daily sustenance from his own means, so far as he could [t].

[11] Meanwhile he went to the court, and made known to Pippin — who by the authority of Pope Stephen had been made king from being prefect of the palace [u] — and acquires new possessions for his church. the devastation of the city and the calamity of the people whom he had undertaken to govern, and sought and obtained help from him out of the royal bounty. For by a contribution of the faithful he received certain estates, namely Wasnau or the manor of Warnuncus [x], Ramisbatium [y] also, and very many others, which he entered in Charters with his own hand, and which the king's ring confirmed, and which the church of Verdun has not lost from that time [z]. Moreover the king's munificence was not wanting to the citizens; he gladdened the clergy, adorned the church, and presented the Bishop, thus rewarded, to the rejoicing people. And there were many things which ought to have kindled him to love, advance and enlarge that church — namely the profuse love of bishop Peppo toward Charles the Hammer his father, his freely given fidelity, and in the time of the sedition against Rainfrid, prince of the Franks and rival of that same Charles, his undivided partnership in undergoing labour and danger, for which also the same Peppo suffered many adversities [aa].

[12] But something moved him more particularly to the love, restoration and common protection of all the churches, These, in the calamity in which it was, by Charles Martel, which it does not seem out of place to weave into this little Work in praise of this Father of ours, in order to repress the swelling of kings and princes [bb], and that it may be more evidently known what was the cause of the desolation of the churches of Trier and of Verdun. Those, therefore, who have read the histories and search the writings of the ancients know the acts and battles of this Charles the Hammer, who was called Tudites for this reason, that it means a smith's hammer; because, as by a hammer all iron tools are beaten, so he crushed all the kingdoms neighbouring upon him. For during the twenty-seven years in which he held the principate under the kings Dagobert the Younger, Chilperic, Theoderic,

Clothar, Childebert and Childeric [cc], after he had by many wars taken that same principate from the hand of Rainfrid, Mayor of the palace in the kingdom of the Franks, he crushed with such destruction all the kingdoms neighbouring upon him — that is, Saxony, Bavaria, Provence as far as Marseilles, Gascony, Frisia and Alemannia — that many churches to this day lament the desolation wrought upon them under him, and by no lapse of time are able to blot out in themselves the calamity of his affliction.

[13] For with such profusion did he squander the treasure of the whole public exchequer, and so much did he give to the soldiers whom custom has obtained to call Soldarii who gave the goods of the churches to his soldiers, — who flocked to him from all parts of the world for the sake of gain, and whose troublesome and wicked breed took its beginning in his time — that the treasure of the kingdom did not suffice him, nor the plundering of cities, nor the manifold devastations of foreign kingdoms, nor the spoiling of churches and monasteries, nor the tributes of the provinces. He even dared, when these failed, to plunder the lands of the churches and to hand them over to those comrades in arms. Finally he did not fear to give the bishoprics themselves to laymen, namely to his supporters and partisans, so much so that a certain Milo, a cleric by tonsure [dd] but in manners, habit and act an irreligious layman, held the archbishoprics of Trier and of Rheims for a long time, ruining them; and the see of Vienne too and many other bishoprics through divers lands laymen possessed, as the histories report, and were invested by a lay hand: if there were any bishops, either they wholly favoured him, or the goods of the church were plundered, or at least, when they died, in their place any neophyte whatever, and men whom the canonical sanctions do not admit, were substituted [ee].

[14] it had been cast. And from this plundering that city was in some degree immune which favoured him, or which lent him aid; for the city on which he leaned he protected by himself and his men from himself and his men. Hence it is that among the innumerable cities which he had worn down, he enlarged that of Verdun with estates in the time of bishop Peppo, because the same Peppo, as has been related above, in the time of the dissension favoured his party too and served him more familiarly [ff]. Nevertheless, when he was dead, what the others suffered this city too experienced. And the metropolis of Trier was so afflicted by the aforesaid devastation that, while it was vacant on account of its manifold calamity and trampling down, the bishops of the city of the Mediomatrici [gg] afterwards bore the dignity and name of archbishop. The province of Lyons and that of Verdun too having been laid waste and scattered, each church was for some years without bishops [hh]. For Wilcharius of Vienne, who had succeeded Austrobert, seeing the church of Vienne unbecomingly humbled on account of the disaster of the Saracens threatening Septimania and the provinces of Vienne and Lyons, while laymen sacrilegiously and barbarously held the sacred property, left his bishopric and sought the monastery of Agaunum, where he led a venerable life; and this in the time of Pope Stephen, who had succeeded Zachary. And after him Bertericus ruled the church of Vienne, whom Paul succeeded [ii]….

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Among us in volume 1 of March, at the sixth day of this month, there has already been treatment of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, who is honoured as a Saint on that day; and from what is there discoursed about this holy bishop in the historical Commentary, §§2 and 3, it is clear that what Hugh hands down to memory here about him thus far is consonant with the truth. But this writer then also indicates that Chrodegang was consecrated bishop of Metz by Stephen II while he was in the Gauls; and this is undoubtedly foreign to the truth. For Stephen II did not come into the Gauls before the year 753; but at that time Chrodegang had already been bishop of Metz from about the year 742, as is handed down in the Commentary of our Work just cited, number 7, and is admitted by all the learned. Further, although therefore Chrodegang was not consecrated bishop of Metz by Stephen while he was in the Gauls, yet he seems to have received from him — which Hugh also adds — the name of archbishop, nay even the pallium and the power of consecrating bishops. Go to Pagi in the Critica under the year 766, number 7.

q. Certain things here I have thought must be omitted, because they make nothing to our purpose; and in them Hugh gives the reason why some bishops of Metz besides Chrodegang bore the name of archbishop; whether he hits the mark you will understand from Pagi in the Critica under the year 766, number 8.

r. Calmet in the Catalogue of the bishops of Toul, which he prefixed to volume 1 of his History of Lorraine, notes that Godo was already bishop of Toul in the year 735; and if therefore, as Hugh here indicates, he still governed the church of Toul at the time when Pippin was already king of the Franks, Godo will certainly have presided over the church of Toul when our Saint received that of Verdun to be governed, about the year, as we think, 742.

s. Since the Saint found his church in so mournful a state, as Hugh here hands down, hence too it seems must be concluded that he was made bishop of Verdun immediately after the death of Charles Martel, about the year 742, or at least long before the year 753. For in the year 753, in which Hugh writes that this happened, the affairs of the church of Verdun do not seem to have been in so mournful a state, since by then for about ten years partly Carloman, partly Pippin had held the mayoralty of the palace in Austrasia. Add these things to what has been disputed in §3 about the year in which the Saint was made bishop.

t. The biographer here seems to indicate that a certain new manner of life was prescribed for the clergy of Verdun by the Saint; on which matter what is to be thought I have set out at number 41 of the preceding Commentary.

u. Pippin was indeed anointed king of the Franks by Stephen II, who had come into France in the year 753; but that prince had already before been distinguished with the Frankish diadem by the intervening authority of Pope Zachary. See what is said at letter e.

x. In the geographical Table of the bishopric of Verdun which Calmet prefixed to volume 1 of his History of Lorraine, about four or five

hour-leagues from Verdun toward the west, on the river Arola, there occurs a village by the name of Vraincourt; this is perhaps not different from the village which is here called Warnunci-curtis.

y. A village sufficiently akin to this name I have not been able to find on the geographical Tables; yet the village which is here called Ramisbatium or Ramisbaccium is asserted by the ancients to be the same, as Wassebourg says in book 2 of the Antiquities, folio 131, as the village which is now called Rambercourt.

z. Of the estates which Hugh here reports that the Saint obtained for his church, as also of the time in which this was done, I have discoursed at length at number 42 and the four following of the preceding Commentary.

aa. The Neustrians had borne it very ill that Pippin of Herstal, an Austrasian, should hold the mayoralty of the palace in Neustria as well as in Austrasia. Hence a party of them, when this prince departed from among the living in the year 714, took arms against Theudoald, his grandson by his son and his successor in the mayoralty of the palace, to whom his grandmother Plectrude and the Austrasians adhered; and when in the year 715 Theudoald had been defeated and a little after had died, Rainfrid or Raginfred, or, as others write it, Ragenfred, was appointed mayor of the palace among the Neustrians (go to Pagi in the Critica under the year 715, numbers 2 and 3), and the affairs of Austrasia were in the greatest peril. But meanwhile Charles, son of Pippin of Herstal by Alpaïs, afterwards called Martel, having happily escaped from the custody in which he was being kept by his stepmother Plectrude, raised up the broken spirits of the Austrasians, and attacked with a most savage war both Raginfred and Chilperic II — whom Raginfred and the Neustrians had substituted in the place of Dagobert III, king of the Franks, who also died in the year 715 — to whom at length these succumbed, defeated a second and a third time, as the historians of the Franks everywhere hand down. Further, Peppo, the twentieth in order of the bishops of Verdun, favoured Charles's party (see the words quoted at number 37 of the Commentary from Berthar, the historian of the bishops of Verdun).

bb. Hugh here undoubtedly looks to the heavenly vision once believed, in which the damnation of Charles Martel for the church goods plundered and usurped, as was thought, was revealed to St. Eucherius, bishop of Orléans. For he narrates it a little below.

cc. Charles Martel, as is sufficiently agreed among the learned, held the mayoralty of the palace for twenty-six years and six months, from the year 715 to the year 741, in the October of which he died; but during that whole time no king by the name of Childebert occupied the throne of the Franks; and Childeric III, whom Hugh here doubtless records, did not begin to sit on it before the year 742, in which Charles Martel had already died. Hugh therefore errs here in enumerating the kings under whom Charles held the mayoralty of the palace.

dd. The Milo here recorded invaded the see of Trier in the year 713, as is agreed among the learned, and then in the year 717, when St. Rigobert, archbishop of Rheims, had been driven into exile by Charles Martel, he usurped the see of Rheims also. Further, in the year 753, while he was engaged in hunting, he perished most miserably, struck by a boar.

ee. See what I have brought forward in §3 of the preceding Commentary about most of the things here imputed to Charles Martel by Hugh.

ff. See what has already been said at letter aa at the end.

gg. By Julius Caesar and other more ancient writers the city of Lorraine which by more recent writers is called Metz is called Mediomatrice.

hh. Ado in his Chronicle, in the sixth age, has it thus: The province of Vienne and that of Lyons having been laid waste and scattered, each church was for some years without bishops; so that it appears that Hugh took from this place of Ado what he here writes about the churches of Verdun and of Lyons, and substituted the church of Verdun for that of Vienne; which also seems must be concluded from what he presently subjoins about Wilcharius, archbishop of Vienne, likewise taken from Ado's Chronicle at the cited age.

ii. The Sainte-Marthes in Gallia Christiana, volume 1, page 797, Claude Robert, and all others whom I have seen, substitute as successor to Bertericus not Paul but Proculus. Further, there is here subjoined by Hugh the vision mentioned above, in which the damnation of Charles Martel was revealed to St. Eucherius, bishop of Orléans. But since that vision is now held by the learned, and not undeservedly, as a fiction, I have thought it better to omit Hugh's very lengthy words about it — which moreover do not conduce to our purpose — in the Life of the Saint which I here publish, as also some other things which likewise do not pertain to our Saint.

CHAPTER II.

The Saint visits his diocese, restores fallen churches, diligently cares for the affairs of his church, and, these being settled, makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

The Saint visits his diocese and restores the fallen churches, The distinguished Priest, therefore, going about his bishopric with pastoral solicitude, set up churches in the places where there were none, restored those that were ruined or decayed, ordered the divine ministries, teaching the peoples with saving doctrine and confirming them with episcopal blessing and with the unction of the sacred chrism *. And the very church of blessed Vanne, over which before he received the grace of the Pontificate he had been appointed pastor and ruler ^a, he always cultivated and advanced with such love that he did not lay aside the care of it even when he had taken up the bishopric; nay rather with all effort he both rendered it illustrious by divine services and enlarged it with estates and ecclesiastical furnishings, on account of the blessed memory of his predecessors resting there, from whom he wished to be separated neither in body nor in spirit, but desired to be buried together with them in their place of rest.

[16] he shows himself munificent to the monastery of St. Vanne, and others toward it He therefore gave to that same church, out of his own property, the manor of Raherius ^b with its appurtenances, for the burial of his body, and very many other things, as the record of the charters shows. A certain man also, Sarcio by name, coming to his last and asking to be buried in the court of the aforesaid church, having made his testament, made that church his heir of the property which he possessed in the district of Verdun, in the place which is called Ex, from the river of the same name ^c flowing there, so that thereafter saint Vanne, and this father of ours blessed Madelveus, bishop and abbot, and the guardians of the holy body, should be perpetual heirs.

[17] Following the example of whom, and led by love of the blessed Father, Grimbert, himself also a possessor of that estate out of love for the Saint become benefactors. and a partaker of its hereditary right, bestowed on the basilica of saint Vanne whatever he possessed in that same place, in farms, fields, olive-grounds, meadows, pastures, cleared lands, woods, waters and the outflows and courses of waters. And afterwards, a precarial grant ^d being made, he received those same properties back from the blessed Man by beneficiary right, with a stated due of twenty pounds of oil every year on the festival of saint Vanne for the lights of his church, in which the same precious confessor rests, and with a prescribed term at which the Saint should receive them back improved. Which testament of precarial grant the blessed Pontiff and Abbot confirmed by his authority in the third year of the reign of Carloman, who was the brother of Charlemagne, on the day of the Kalends of July, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 770, in the 8th Indiction ^e.

[18] Moreover Aquitaine received the great works of his sanctity, [He diligently cares for the properties of the church of Verdun situated in Aquitaine,] being often traversed by his steps, watered by his tears, strengthened by his teachings and glorified by his miracles. For he frequently visited the properties which the church of Verdun anciently possessed in that region, and carried with him the Lives or Miracles of his predecessors the Bishops, that by their merits he might the more freely possess those properties, or that his lordship might be dearer to the country folk and their subjection humbler. And those properties were: the abbey of saint Amantius in the city of Rodez with its appurtenances, the royal fisc too of Maderniacus, and another by the name of Puliniacus, given to the uses of the servants of saint Peter and saint Vanne by the bounty of the blessed Amantius himself ^f.

[19] And in the 13th year of his ordination, which was the year of the Lord's Incarnation 765 ^g, [and then, the affairs of his bishopric being settled, resolves to go to Jerusalem,] there were brought from the city of Rome by the venerable Chrodegang, archbishop of Metz, the bodies of the holy Gorgonius, Nabor and Nazarius, granted him by Pope Paul, the successor of Stephen, in the ninth year of his Papacy; and in the following year both departed from the world, in the fifth Indiction; and Chrodegang is venerated as entombed in the monastery which is called Gorze, which he himself had built, where afterwards was placed the body of saint Gorgonius in the fourth year after his death, namely in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 768, while now after Pippin his sons Carloman and Charles were reigning ^h. While therefore he was burning with a manifold desire of virtues, the thought came upon him of going as a pilgrim to Jerusalem to the sepulchre of the Prince of life.

[20] And so he hastened to fulfil by a voluntary performance what he had conceived in mind by divine inspiration. and in fact, after he had provided for the rebuilding of his cathedral church, And while all things necessary for the conduct of the journey were being provided, the principal church, our sins requiring it, is caught by fire and, the conflagration raging, is burnt down.

The people are thrown into confusion, voices are raised to the sky; one grief is in the city, a horror shared by all its citizens.

Then Madelveus's mind is snatched in different directions, his spirit is distressed and his heart troubled. At length, returning to himself and mindful of that proverb — He is not great who thinks it great that timbers and stones fall and that mortals die — he bore the temporal loss patiently, and at once ordered the fabric to be restored to a better state. And when an agreement had been made with the workmen, and overseers appointed, and the necessary expenses arranged, he urges, entreats and commands that the work be begun in good time, hastened attentively, and completed diligently.

These things being thus arranged, an answer is given to his prayers.

[21] and had commended his flock to the neighbouring bishops. Provisions and carriages necessary for so great a journey are made ready; companions are chosen, fervent in the love of Christ, humble in prosperity, brave in adversity. The favour of the Metropolitan is sought, the assent of the bishops of the province is asked and not denied. They are saddened at the absence of so great a colleague, they rejoice at his justice, they pray that the presence of Christ may be with him and the grace of the Holy Spirit not fail him. Being asked, they ask a blessing; being greeted, they greet. Finally by their counsel the church is ordered and the people committed to him are commended. So, a blessing having been received and given, the new Pilgrim goes forth in gladness of heart.

[22] he undertakes that journey. He is supported by the throngs whom the love of piety binds: weeping waters their faces, sobs shake their breasts. The loving man himself weeps, seeing the flock that follows weep: he urged them to return; they press on the more fervently; they clasp his face and hands and feet, and he soothes their groaning; again and again is doubled Hail, Farewell, and Happy be your going.

And scarcely after this, escaping their hands with many entreaties, he again strengthens them with blessings, warning and beseeching them to watch more solicitously over the divine worship, and to seek more earnestly the salvation of souls. So at last, commending them to the Lord, he goes on by the public highway, relying on God's help ⁱ.

[23] Rome, where he is kindly received by the Pontiff. And so, his native Gaul being traversed, after the rough and pathless roads of the Alps, Italy received him, conducting him to Rome to the thresholds of the Apostles: where, seeking through the various cemeteries of the martyrs the helps of prayers, he passed the nights in persistent vigils, very frequently revisiting the oratories of blessed Peter. At that time Hadrian presided over the Roman Church

^k, an Apostolic man, to whom Madelveus, the most holy pilgrim, was announced; and he was kindly received by him, more kindly kept for many days, and most kindly, his purpose being approved, dismissed with the Apostolic blessing.

[24] Having passed through Campania and Apulia, he commits himself to the sea, The province of Nursia ^l being passed, therefore, Campania ^m received the new Guest, whom thereafter the church of the Archangel on Gargano ⁿ embraced, before whose doors, keeping watch for several nights, he is comforted with Angelic consolations and gladdened with divine revelations. Apulia ^o awaited him rejoicing, as the fame of his sanctity spread its marks abroad; and when it saw him, it cried out in wonder with the Psalmist: As we have heard, so also we have seen. And after divers byways of the road he enters upon the shores of the sea. Hence troubled waves threaten, stormy winds meet him. They take aboard Madelveus, a bishop, a pilgrim, religious in life, glorious in innocence. He pays the fare for the voyage, entrusting himself to the peril of the sea, fed with the heavenly sacrifice.

[25] he calms a storm that had arisen, The voyage is prolonged through the course of many days. The Priest presses on with preachings, forms the sailors with saving teachings. He fasts on successive days, passes the nights in vigils and prayers. But when on a certain day the sailors were singing their accustomed chant and making a din with nautical chatter, a sudden storm arises. And the ship was tossed amid the waves and was coming apart at its joints. All minds being troubled, the hope of safety taken away, only the fear of death remained. Then the most blessed Bishop — not cast out by lot like Jonas the fugitive, but conspicuous for sanctity, to whom * as an approved servant of the Lord — being asked by the voice of all, knocks at heaven with sobs, calls upon Christ with groans. At once heaven lay open to his prayers, and his petition reached the ears above. And without delay the clearness of the air returns, and the calm of the sea, and the gladness of their minds [p].

[26] Thence they gained the Byzantine [q] harbour rejoicing. In those days Constantine with his mother Irene [r] ruled the empire of Constantinople, he lands at Constantinople, a man strenuous in warlike affairs and most devout in the divine worship. He, learning that the just Madelveus had arrived, ordered him to be sought out and, when found, presented to his sight. From whom, hearing many useful things profitable for his own salvation, he asked with most humble prayer that he would deign to pray to God's mercy for him, and offering him precious gifts *, all of which he despised, dismissed him with reverence on the journey he desired. And Greece, receiving him as a pilgrim, marvelled at a Philosopher among its own, and beyond its own a Theosopher. For he was truly wise, mighty in word and doctrine.

[27] From his mouth proceeded honey, the sweetness of honey was on his tongue, [and then, having visited Ephesus, coming at last to Jerusalem, he visits the holy places.] his lips were a dripping honeycomb, affording to all from the sweetness of his speech a kindling of love. Meanwhile he went down to Ephesus [s] to pray at the tomb of John the Theologian, where he poured out rivers of many prayers, repeating In the beginning was the Word, recalling and teaching the Word was made flesh. Thence he came to Joppa [t] through the various perils of the road, seeking out the coats and garments and alms of Dorcas, and astonished with Peter at the sheet let down from heaven by its four corners, being bidden to kill in it the four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth in the mortification of vices, and to eat, by bringing forth worthy fruits of penance. Reaching after this Jerusalem, long desired and now offered to his longing mind, he entered into her tabernacles, frequenting every holy place with faith and love, adoring in them the Lord who is above all things, watering the sepulchre of Jesus of Nazareth crucified day by day with a shower of tears, and glorifying and adoring Christ rising from death.

[28] Meanwhile it is announced to the patriarch Eusebius [u], who at that time governed the holy church of Sion, He is honourably received by the patriarch of the place, Madelveus's most reverent devotion toward Christ, his daily frequenting of the holy places, his continual night watches, the mortification of his own flesh. He therefore, on hearing these things, knowing no delay in seeking him, at once embraces him when found, admiring in him an angelic countenance, modest speech, gentle gait and reverend bearing. After this he brought him into his mother's house, into the chamber of her that bore him, and gave him a cup of spiced wine and new wine of pomegranates.

[29] And when he was thinking of keeping him with him all the days of his life, who, being divinely warned not to keep the Saint with him as he had determined, he was admonished by a divine revelation [x] not to grudge, in his eagerness for his own advantage, the advantage of others, nor to wish to keep as a pilgrim one whom his sons were sighing for as an angelic father. Struck by this thunderclap, he said to him trembling: It was my will, my Brother, never to be separated from you: but since we cannot resist God, return, my beloved, go forth and go after the footsteps of your flocks, feed your kids beside the tents of the shepherds, catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vines; sit under the shadow of him whom you have desired, who has brought you into the wine cellar and has ordered charity in you, stayed you up with flowers and compassed you about with apples; and let your Beloved come into his garden and eat the fruit of his apple trees; let his left hand be under your head and his right hand embrace you.

[30] dismisses him presented with sacred relics and a crystal chalice. Having said this, bringing out precious relics of many Saints with a crystal chalice carved with marvellous workmanship, he offered them [y], saying: Receive, my dear one, this pledge of mutual love. May Christ the Lord grant, these and the other Saints interceding, that we may see one another again with joy in heaven. At length, kissing one another's faces, hands and eyes, and praying good and prosperous things for each other, they parted from one another in tears. And so Madelveus, revisiting and kissing again and again the Lord's sepulchre and the place of the Ascension where his feet stood, resolved rejoicing and exulting to revisit his native soil, asking and entreating the Lord to attend to his help.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Hugh most probably means that a miracle was here wrought; but go to number 74 of the preceding Commentary.

q. An adjective from the proper name Byzantium, by which Constantinople, a city of Thrace, which from being the seat of the Greek emperors became at last the royal city of the Turks, was once called.

r. Constantine with his mother Irene did not hold the reins of the Constantinopolitan or Eastern empire before the year 780, as I have shown at number 60 of the preceding Commentary. Hugh therefore, who attaches the Saint's death to the year 776, most certainly errs here.

s. This is a maritime city of Asia Minor, which enjoys a convenient harbour on the shore of the Aegean sea and the Ionian gulf, and glories in the tomb of saint John the Evangelist.

t. This city is situated in Palestine on the shore of the Mediterranean sea, and from it one comes to Jerusalem by a land journey. In that city dwelt a woman by the name of Tabitha or Dorcas, who, as is narrated in Acts, chapter 9, made garments and coats for the poor widows, and was raised from the dead by St. Peter the Apostle. Likewise in the same city Peter was staying when there befell him the vision recorded in Acts 10, by which, through the sight of the sheet let down from heaven to earth and enclosing all kinds of animals, he learned that the gentiles were to be admitted to the Gospel. To this vision of Peter, and to Dorcas's piety toward the poor, the biographer alludes in the following words, on the occasion of the city of Joppa through which the Saint went to Jerusalem.

u. When the Saint came to Jerusalem, the patriarch of this holy city was not Eusebius but Theodore. See the Commentary, number 65.

x. The credit of this revelation I will let rest with Hugh. Go to the Commentary, number 74.

y. That the Saint received many relics together with a crystal chalice from the patriarch of Jerusalem, Berthar too attests. See the Commentary, number 7.

episcopium* his bishopric

exstruxit* he built

chrismatis* of chrism

read: ceu* [as]

read: xenia*, that is, gifts customarily given to guests.

CHAPTER III.

He transfers the relics into the new cathedral church, gives himself wholly to virtue and to his flock, acquires several possessions for the monastery of St. Vanne, falls into a mortal sickness and dies.

The Saint, returning from Jerusalem, is received at Verdun with great joy, Thence, after the long and varied labour of the journey, he was restored to his native borders. The glad land of Gaul received its Nursling: the glad people of Verdun ran to meet their Shepherd: Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth exult, the voice of city and countryside sounds together: tears flow full of joy, cheeks are wet with gladness: the city is crowned: cheerfulness fills the streets, delight fills the churches. The distinguished Bishop, supported by God's help and laden with the relics of Saints, enters the church devoutly, and prays to the Lord prostrate in body upon the ground. Rising, he ascends the episcopal throne, greets the clergy and people, giving to all the kiss of peace and adding the seal of a blessing.

[32] he transfers the relics brought from Jerusalem into the new church, Each returns to his own; the Bishop went to the sanctuaries, laid down the pledges, and after this entered his own roof. He asks after each thing — whether there is peace, whether life is wholesome: straightway he hears that all he had wished is prosperous; with his mouth he renders thanks to God, with his heart praises.

On the next day, the fabric of the new church having been surveyed, the industry of the workmen praised and the diligence of the overseers rewarded *, he appoints a time and a day suitable for the consecration, venerable to all in religion ^a. And when that day dawned, the Bishop with the sacred orders, all things being duly performed within and without by the ecclesiastical rite, reverently placed the relics from Jerusalem in fitting places in the principal apse ^b.

[33] he is renowned for miracles, But those which had been in the older church he fittingly laid in the underground crypt on the right side of the altar. And this most blessed Bishop was clean by his zeal for chastity, strong in the vigour of abstinence, filled with the banquets of doctrine, humble in the long-suffering of patience, upright in the strength of authority, kind by the grace of piety, strict in the security of justice. Who, watching with pastoral solicitude over the flock entrusted to him, instructed some with the words of heavenly doctrine, strengthened many by the examples of a religious life, healed very many also from all trouble of infirmities, freed some too from demoniac spirits, and showed himself to all a pattern and mirror of all sanctity.

[34] he chooses the church of St. Vanne for the burial of his body, And when the time of his dissolution was at hand, since he had learned by divine revelation that he was to be freed from worldly tumults, he chose the place of his burial in the church in which he had grown up by a daily increase of virtues, over which he was first appointed pastor and ruler, and from which also he was promoted to the pontificate ^c. For although he laboured for the advantage of all the churches, yet he honoured, enlarged and advanced this one above all sacred places after the first, which is the episcopal see. And this we know that all his predecessors did too, inasmuch as all of them, with very few exceptions, have their seat of rest in it.

[35] That church received this gift of privilege from the blessed Father, and to it, what prerogative, received from St. Sanctinus, Sanctinus, its founder, to be named with due honour, and the first teacher of the Christian religion and name in that city — namely that after the mother church it should be the head of all the churches of the diocese of Verdun ^d, from which also the mother church herself had received her beginning of subsisting: which also is from of old, that is, from the very first beginnings of the infant church, the cemetery of the bishops and of the rest of the Christian faithful. Which privilege so remains and has remained unshaken that in it almost all the bishops of that city are read to have been fitted for the divine services, tonsured, nourished, taught and consecrated — except that very unction of the Pontifical dignity, which is known to belong to the mother church — and more frequently those who have there performed the office of abbot have through the pursuit of virtues been enthroned on the episcopal seat ^e.

[36] And deservedly is that place venerated by all, deservedly sought, and is illustrious for the burial of many bishops, deservedly loved, which the summit of so great a dignity exalts; because, even if to those who assemble there to pray, who serve the Lord there, who beg that their bodies be entombed there for the patronage of the Saints, acquired goods are lacking, yet what shall be granted by the holy Sanctinus the founder of the place and by the Saints resting there can suffice through merit — yet according as the faith of those who ask shall deserve. To this our assertion the memorial antiquity of the lord Berthar bears witness, who, in recounting the Acts of the holy Bishops of Verdun, mentions this basilica also in these words: The basilica, he says, in which the aforesaid bishops rest, is built in honour of saint Peter, and has the tombs of many bishops, and for this reason is much to be venerated by the faithful ^f.

[37] To this place, therefore, blessed Madelveus in the last year but one of his life in the last year but one of his life he acquires certain possessions, acquired by the gift of Theuthard certain properties situated in the district of Verdun, in the place which is called the manor of Offebris ^g, and in the territory of Bettiliniaca ^h, and also in the territory of Vindelinse ⁱ, which the same Teutgard possessed by hereditary right as left to him by his father Gunther, in lands, farms, fields, meadows, pastures, woods, waters and watercourses, and the basilica of saint Martin built in that same village of Bettiliniaca; all of which, as he had and possessed them, the same man conferred on saint Vanne and on this Father of ours to be possessed perpetually, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 775, in the 14th Indiction, in the reign of Charlemagne, in the eighth year of his reign, on the fifth day of the Ides of November, that is, on the very solemnity of our holy father Vanne [k]. And he was loved by all the chief men of the whole kingdom and by the most excellent king Charles himself, because it was fitting that he whom the Lord had filled with grace should be loved by all.

[38] He was zealous to please all in all things, and while he ever strives to comply with all, not in that manner in which men are pleased whose bones the Lord has scattered, that they may be filled with confusion by his indignation, but in that in which the Apostle pleased all in all things, not seeking what was profitable to himself but to many, that they might be saved. Therefore with a good conscience he could say to his hearers with the same Apostle: Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ; who certainly wished to be without offence to the Church of God, teaching, namely, that our manner of life must be so tempered that no one should suffer scandal in it. But why do we attempt in his praise what we are not able to unfold? For he himself is his praise who is praiseworthy in his Saints. Whither, then, does our discourse lead us? Why do we weave delays? Why do we trifle in putting off the recounting of his happy passing from the world? May he himself be favourably present to us, that we may be able to speak worthily; may the Holy Spirit by his merits breathe upon our heart and be poured into our inward parts. Let us therefore say what he himself of whom we speak has given, and let us briefly trace how he passed from the world to Christ whom he devoutly served.

[39] [about to consecrate sacred buildings he is seized with a sharp pain, and this, when the consecration had already been performed,] The time of his dissolution had now come, and the Blessed man himself had gone over to a certain estate of the bishopric for the sake of consecrating ^l churches, where, touched by the fencing stroke of nature's lot, he began to be wearied with a sharp pain. O blessed and truly happy man, who, knowing that the day of his passing was at hand, forced his failing limbs to serve the spirit, judging this to be a good consummation of his virtues, if he should spend in so devout and so renowned a service of God what was left of the strength of his worn body. And so he satisfied his vows. For he consecrated the churches of that village, and that consecration remains in force to this day. For so great was then, and is now, the authority of the holy Man, that no bishop, however holy, however just, dares to repeat or to change that consecration; but the dedication then made is perpetual among all, and will be perpetually.

[40] growing more violent, The whole city, therefore, nay the whole region standing by and hanging on the word of his mouth, he made a sermon to all about that feast of the church, and announced to all that the Holy of holies had come there in his presence, and forbade that the consecration should be repeated [m]. At length he bade farewell to all, and foretold that his own departure would come very soon. O how great was the grief of all at this word! what sighs of the young! what groans of the sorrowing! And who would not weep, when so great a Man announced his own departure from the world? Who would restrain himself from tears, when there was so great a destitution of all in the absence of so great a Father? Therefore, repeating his accustomed lessons of salvation and commending himself to them, he blessed all, and admonished them to be mindful of God; and so, the office being completed, returning home, as the languor grew stronger he began to be more sharply distressed.

[41] amid the groans of the bystanders, fed with the heavenly Viaticum Thereafter, being carried back to the church, he awaited the hour of his departure rejoicing, and announcing the words of life to all. The church was full of tears, full of groans, full of mourners and grievers. He alone rejoiced, who knew whither he was being called, and commended his calling with prayers. When all cried out, To whom, Father, do you leave us? to whom do you leave your sheep desolate? he pitied all, had compassion on all, taught all to refrain from tears. And not long after came the hour desirable to the Saint, welcome to the angelic spirits, mournful to his little sons; and Christ was inviting his Servant, after the long exercises of his battles, to his rewards. In the presence, therefore, of the sons of his church, after sweet admonitions of life, after the last words of consolation, fed with the heavenly Viaticum, having given peace to all, rendering up his spirit to God in a good confession, he was laid with his fathers, having gained the best part, which shall not be taken away from him, because his place was in peace and his dwelling in Sion.

[42] And blessed Maduleus lived from the time of Pippin, who, sprung from Ansegisus, begot Charles the Hammer, who was the father of Pippin, from whom Charlemagne was begotten [n], dies in the village of Neuville on the fourth day of October, until whose times this Just man lived a sober life, with a chaste youth, completing the course of the present life in a good old age. And we call old age that which extends from the fiftieth year of a man's life to the seventy-seventh, when human strength begins to be lessened from its state and to grow weak. And he died, the earth weeping and heaven applauding, on the neighbouring fief of the bishopric which is called Neuville ^o, on the fourth of the Nones of October, in the seventy-sixth year of his age [p], at the very beginning of whitening old age, putting off the corruptible tunic of the flesh and putting on the deifying robe of immortality.

[43] When this report * was received, the whole city is troubled, the whole people is afflicted with mourning. [and his sacred body, at whose burial two doves, gliding down from heaven, sit by,] And without delay every age and either sex indiscriminately rush to meet the body, pour out showers of tears, and beat the air with lamentations. Nor were there wanting at the obsequies of the blessed body heavenly ministers of the obsequies, who

while they surrounded the blessed corpse with their own array, displayed by their presence a most sweet odour, so that it might be openly given to all to understand that the Author of sweetness himself had also come there. And truly so. For the clement divinity itself touches * consoling the tears of the mourners, making known what purity of heart there had been. For as soon as he rendered his spirit to heaven, two doves whiter than snow, gliding down from the sky in the sight of all, settled upon the Cross which was before the body, and through all the delays of the obsequies, until he was given to burial, they remained; and so, while they looked on, they sought again the secret places of heaven [q].

[44] With so great a concourse, therefore, of the heavenly host, the body of the Father was tended by the devout diligence of his sons, is honourably committed to the earth in the church of St. Vanne, and so with all most worthy veneration was carried to the church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles [r], which is situated on the northern side of the city, in which the precious confessor of the Lord Vanne rests with many of his predecessors and successors, holy bishops; where, the Office being solemnly celebrated after the custom, and the bishops of the neighbouring cities coming together, it was committed to the earth with glory. Happy church, worthy of the burial of so great a Father! Happy place, enriched with the bestowal of so great a treasure! Blessed they called the people exalted by the governance of so great a Shepherd, protected by his blessing, gladdened by his miracles. For if the glory of a church is the praise of its teacher, how great were — nay, how great are — the glories of this church, whose Teacher almighty God approved with so great a praise? Behold, at his obsequies heavenly ministers kept watch, that it might be known on earth with how great a glory the Lord had endowed him in heaven.

[45] Plainly blessed are the funeral rites worthy of the visitation of such witnesses. and, while frequent miracles are wrought at the Saint's tomb, And what is it that doves came from heaven, offered service and solace to the funeral, and again in the sight of all sought the secret places of heaven, unless that Christ in the likeness of an innocent bird wished plainly to show to the faithful peoples mourning the death of the Father and lamenting their own destitution that he whose funeral it was had lived in innocence and simplicity, had passed without the gall of bitterness a devout, God-fearing, circumspect and solicitous life, eager for the fellowship of the Saints and free from every blemish of malice, and had by devout devotion deserved the company of the Saints in the glory of the heavenly court? Let yet greater miracles be added; let the Lord be glorified in his Saints, who is wonderful in his works. For when the Father's body had been buried, that it might be shown that he ever lives in heaven, divine miracles were wrought at his tomb to show his distinguished merits. And because God's loving clemency washed him from boyhood from all defilement of the flesh, and, making his mind chaste, powerfully defended it from diabolical illusion, and he served him with a clean heart and a chaste body, this was more evidently manifested after his death.

[46] in the fortieth year after he is raised from the earth, For as his mind remained inviolate by lust, so his flesh remained uncorrupted by decay. For when his tomb flourished with daily prodigies of virtues and was frequented by the constant vigils of the peoples, it was nevertheless placed more negligently than the worship of due veneration required. Wherefore the bishop of that time and all the clergy and people thought it worthy to change it more becomingly. At that time bishop Berhard [s] presided over the church of Verdun, a Catholic and religious man, most renowned in the holy faith, while Lothair the son of Louis the Pious was ruling [t], whose kingdom was Italy with the city of Rome and that part of France which the Meuse and the Rhine enclose between them. And when they were striving to carry out what they had deliberated in mind, the sarcophagus being dug up, suddenly an inestimable sight was shown them. For, the lid of the tomb being removed, they see a corpse dead forty years before, like a living man asleep, suffused with the whiteness of lilies and the redness of roses, defiled with no stain nor with any sign of death.

[47] and is laid in the prepared mausoleum. Seeing this miracle, and suffused with a most sweet odour, they began to weep for joy, and, raising the Saint's body with reverence and jubilation, they place it in the prepared mausoleum, where from that time the divinity works, and God's mercy heals all. There every infirmity is lulled, blindness is put to flight, crookedness is set upright, weakness is strengthened, health is restored to all. Blessed Vanne now has in heaven as companion and fellow-citizen him whom he once had on earth as nursling and devoted successor. He is joined to the Saints in glory whom he devoutly served in this laborious life. Let us too seek him as Patron and guardian, and with the other Saints as a loving intercessor with the Lord, whom we have deserved to have as teacher and herald of the truth. Placed there, therefore, may he hear us praying here, may he watch over and protect us, and may he obtain that those whom he has as suppliant venerators on earth shall be his fellow-citizens in heaven.

[48] The wretched face of the churches in France under the mayors of the palace If therefore the diligent reader, led by love of this blessed Man, desires more zealously to learn at what time he was born, or when he was promoted to the bishopric, how many years he lived before the bishopric and how many in it, and when he put off the man, let him hold to the Chronicle of his memorial, and so, through the times of the kings and of the Roman Pontiffs succeeding one another, he will find what he seeks. It has been related above that before his ordination the people of Verdun were for many courses of days without a pastor. For the wicked licence of the prefects, who were also called mayors of the palace, did not suffer the churches to enjoy their own liberty, since it wore down exceedingly the cities themselves as well, and especially Verdun, which, situated on the border of Neustria and Austrasia, lay open on both sides to the incursion of plunderers and to rapine.

[49] ceased at last in the year 753, This devastation lasted through several years, namely from the time of Theoderic [u] and of prince Ebroin, whose bestial and not human savagery stained the kingdom of the Franks with the blood of nobles and magnates, until the second year of Pippin king of the Franks, in which he was appointed king of the Franks by Pope Stephen, as his predecessor Zachary also had appointed him — which was the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 753. Then first, the darkness of the horrible whirlwind being dispelled, a new light seemed to rise for the peoples of the Gauls, and the congregations which lacked a pastor each vied in seizing their own *; in which year this Blessed man was enthroned by the authority of Pope Stephen [x] and with the approval of prince Pippin.

[50] Since therefore the Chronicle relates what happened from the time of Pippin, and then the Saint, being now forty years old, was made bishop, who, sprung from an Austrasian, begot Charles the Hammer, to the times of Charles, let us hold to the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 712, in which this Blessed man was born, in the 13th Indiction [y]; and so, reckoning upwards, we shall have those years in which Pippin [z] survived; the 27 years too in which Charles held the principate after his father [aa]; the six also in which his sons Carloman and Pippin after him ruled jointly; the four too in which, before the unction, he alone held the principate; and that year also in which he was raised to be king; and thus, gathering the sum of the number, we shall find that in the 43rd year of his age he was consecrated by a heavenly election — namely in that year in which Pippin was appointed king by the Pope [bb].

[51] Hence again, counting the 15 years in which Pippin afterwards reigned alone, and departed from among the living in the year 777 and the eight years of the reign of Charles — for in the ninth this Blessed man put off the man, while Charles was besieging Tarovisa, a city of Italy [cc] — we shall find that in the twenty-fourth year of his pontificate, exchanging things that were to perish for heavenly and eternal things, he passed to the Lord on the neighbouring estate of the bishop *, which is called Neuville, on the fourth of the Nones of October, in the 68th year of his age, in the 15th Indiction, the Epact being 27, in the sixth year of the pontificate of Pope Hadrian, from the Incarnation of the Lord 777, in the times of Constantine and Irene, in the sixth year of their reign, one year before the seventh synod [dd]. Happy therefore was Madelveus's birth, happier the course of his life, happiest his setting, by the grant of the grace of Jesus Christ, to whom be honour and glory unto ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. 254, and they run thus: The basilica, indeed, where the aforesaid (bishops of Verdun)

rest as Saints, was built in ancient times in honor of St. Peter the Apostle,

and, on account of its ancient dignity, it also has many tombs of bodies,

and therefore it is much to be venerated by all the faithful.

I judge it to be different from the Vindelensian or Vindoilensian district of

the territory of Beauvais, on which see Adrianus Valesius under the word Vindoilisus pagus in the Notitia Galliarum.

k. As to

the chronological notes by which Hugo of Flavigny, the Saint's biographer, here marks

the donation made to the monastery or church of St. Vitonus by Teuthardus,

as he relates, see the Preliminary Commentary, nn. 80, 94 and the three following.

m. Let

the credit for everything he here commits to writing concerning the churches consecrated by the Saint when near death,

and concerning the things that accompanied this consecration,

rest with Hugo.

n. Pepin

of Herstal had Ansegisus for father, and for mother Begga, daughter of Pepin of Landen.

Further, by Alpaïs he begot Charles Martel, who fathered

Pepin the Short, first mayor of the palace and afterward king of the Franks, the father

of Charlemagne. These things are certain and are admitted by all, so that

at least in this Hugo does not depart from the truth.

p. Since Hugo assigns the Saint's birth (see Commentary nn. XI and 17) to the year 711, but his death (see Commentary § VIII) to the year 776, or at any rate to the year 777, Magdalveus, according to

this writer, will have died not in the seventy-sixth year of his age but in the sixty-

sixth. An error therefore undoubtedly lurks here; yet since I do not suppose that Hugo

was so very inconsistent with himself, I judge it to have been introduced by the fault of the

copyists rather than of this writer.

q. On this miracle see the Preliminary Commentary, n. 116.

r. This was afterward named Vitoniana from St. Vitonus. See what has been said at letter d, and the words of Mabillon transcribed hither at n. 24 of the Preliminary Commentary.

s. Hugo

goes very far astray here as to the bishop of Verdun under whom the body of our Saint was

raised from the earth. See the Preliminary Commentary, n. 93.

t. Here is yet another error of Hugo's, set out in the Commentary at nn. 118 and 119.

u. Theodoric

III, king of the Franks, of whom Hugo is here undoubtedly speaking, after his brother

Childeric II had been carried off by a violent death, was again substituted into the kingdom of the Franks, which

he had held before after the death of his brother Chlothar, in the year 673, as is agreed

among the learned, and he had Ebroin as mayor of the palace. According to Hugo, then, the churches of Gaul will have been in a very wretched and mournful state from the year 673

to the year 753, and many of them, as he seems to indicate by the words that follow,

and in the first place that of Verdun, will have lacked a bishop right up to the aforesaid

year 753. And hence perhaps it came about that that writer thought the Saint's promotion to the

see of Verdun was to be attached to that same year 753. But Pepin the Short,

and especially his brother Carloman, mayor of the palace of Austrasia,

from the year 742 (see Pagi on this year in his Critica) took care that

the affairs of the Church should be restored to a better state. And indeed the latter of these

princes, in whose mayoralty the city of Verdun lay, in order to restore

the ecclesiastical discipline which had utterly collapsed, saw to it that the

German Synod I, over which St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, presided, was celebrated in the year 742,

and then in the year 743 the council of Leptines, in which (see

Pagi on this year in his Critica) Abel was appointed archbishop of Reims, and Ardobertus

or Artbertus archbishop of Sens. Besides this, St.

Chrodegang was made bishop of the city of Metz about the year 742, as we are taught in our volume I of March, in the Historical Commentary on this Saint, n. 7 — Metz lying in the same

kingdom of Austrasia in which Verdun lay — so that nothing stands in the way

of believing that the Saint was made bishop of the people of Verdun at about the same

time, and consequently that Hugo ought not, on account of

the calamities which afflicted the churches of Gaul in the seventh century and the next, to have deferred the promotion of Magdalveus to the see of Verdun to the year 753. See also the Commentary, nn. 31 and 38.

x. Since

the Saint was made bishop of the people of Verdun about the year 742 (see Commentary §3),

that was certainly not done by the authority of Stephen, inasmuch as he was not raised to

the papal summit before the year 752.

y. Elsewhere Hugo assigns the Saint's birth (see Commentary n. XI and

17) to the year 711; but which of these two years is rather to be preferred, the earlier

or the other, who shall declare? However that may be, Indiction XIII, with which this biographer combines the year 712, agrees neither with that year nor with the year 711.

z. Pepin

of Herstal, of whom Hugo here speaks, died in the year 714, as is

the opinion of absolutely all the learned, and he accordingly survived the birth of Magdalveus, in Hugo's opinion, by about three years.

aa. Charles Martel, here designated by Hugo, ruled the people of the Franks, as the Annalist of Metz writes, for XXVI years and VI months; Hugo

therefore, since incomplete years are not infrequently and not unfittingly reckoned by writers as complete,

here rightly defines Charles's rule as twenty-seven

years.

bb. Pepin

the Short, having obtained the mayoralty of the palace in Neustria in the year 741, in which his father Charles Martel died,

administered the kingdom of the Franks together with his brother Carloman,

who was then likewise made mayor of the palace of Austrasia, down to the year 747, in which Carloman,

sending word of farewell to the world, put on the monastic habit. But now, since the four years

during which Pepin thereafter held the sum of affairs, in Austrasia as well as in Neustria, still

under the title of mayor of the palace alone, and the further year in which at length he was created king of the Franks,

when added to the year 747 bring us only to the year 752,

this biographer seems again to be at variance with himself,

since he writes above that the Saint was born either in the year 711 or in the year 712,

but was promoted to the bishopric in the year 753.

cc. Hugo

here wrongly writes that the Saint died at the time when Charlemagne, or the army of that

prince, was besieging Treviso, a city of Italy. See the Commentary,

n. 86.

dd. The various

chronological notes by which the biographer here defines the year of the Saint's death

labor under several most manifest chronological errors,

which you will find noted for the greater part in § VIII of the Commentary.

* remunerata

* that is, with an unwelcome message

* read affuit

* read quæque

* episcopii