Attilanus

ON ST. ATTILANUS, BISHOP, AT ZAMORA IN SPAIN,

IN THE YEAR MIX.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Various opinions concerning the Saint's age, the beginning of his cult, and his episcopate: he is different from the bishop Attila; he was the disciple of St. Froilan and afterwards, as is shown, bishop of Zamora: the words of Pope Benedict XIV concerning his canonization and episcopate weighed: the Saint's memory in the Martyrologies, his cult, relics: what Acts are to be edited.

Attilanus, bishop, confessor, at Zamora in Spain. (S.)

BY J. G.

Although there seems to be such a connection between the Life of St. Froilan, already edited, and that of St. Attilanus, now to be edited, [The controversies being set forth which are agitated concerning the Saint's age, ecclesiastical cult] that he who knows the former knows the latter likewise for the most part; and although it does not appear, the age of St. Froilan having been established by various diplomas, that there remains any difficulty in defining closely enough the age of St. Attilanus too, whom the common consent of authors makes his disciple in the monastic institute; yet, if the matter be inspected more deeply, and the various authors who have written of this Saint be consulted, everyone will manifestly see that not every difficulty concerning our Prelate of Zamora has been unravelled, nay not even any which pertains to him in particular has been touched in the course of the Commentary already edited. For, besides the fact that, for lack of coeval witnesses, it does not seem so certain that our Attilanus was the pupil of St. Froilan in the monastic institute, there occur testimonies of grave writers concerning his age, episcopate and the beginning of his cult so dissonant and so conflicting among themselves that, to whichever side you turn, you stick in doubt at first sight. And indeed, as Athanasius de Lobera, very often praised above, plainly shows at page 335 verso of the History of the Greatness of the church of León, and elsewhere in the course of his Work, some assert that the Saint exchanged the mortal life for the immortal before the general devastation of the Spains by the Moors in the eighth century; others in the time of Alfonso II, king of León, surnamed the Chaste, that is, before the year of Christ 842; others in the time of Alfonso III, surnamed the Great, that is, before the year 912; others finally at the beginning of the eleventh century, others when it was somewhat advanced: and again, some make him bishop of Zamora, others of León, others of Astorga, others a regionary bishop without a fixed see. Finally concerning the beginning of the cult exhibited to him by the Church there is no more agreement among many authors, since some write that he was referred into the number of the Saints by Pope Urban I, others by Pope Urban II.

[2] and the Zamora episcopate, This place is not difficult of dispatch on that part, as will be plain below; but the assertions of certain persons concerning the Saint's age and episcopal see cannot so easily be satisfied in a few words. For — to pass over the unfounded opinions of others, and the arguments of our adversaries which urge little or nothing — what seems to stand entirely in the way of St. Attilanus's being able to be established, as is related in the Life of St. Froilan, as his companion for some years in the institute of the monastic life, and afterwards consecrated bishop together with him in the year 990, are diplomas of Ordoño II, king of León, issued about the year of Christ 915, to which Ambrosio de Morales, volume 3 of the General Chronicle of Spain, book 15, chapter 44, affirms most confidently, and as an eyewitness, that the name of our St. Attilanus, already then bishop, is subscribed. On the opposite side, what seems to prevent us from calling St. Attilanus bishop of Zamora from the year of Christ 990 are the most express words of Rodrigo, archbishop of Toledo, a writer of the thirteenth century, and of other notable authors, by which they seem to hand down that the city of Zamora was erected into a bishopric only after a whole century had elapsed from the death of Attilanus. Hear Rodrigo, book 6 De Rebus Hispaniae, chapter 27, at the end: Him (Jerome of Périgord, or, as he speaks, from the parts of Périgord) the lord Bernard, his metropolitan and primate (some years having already passed of the twelfth century), placed in the city of Zamora, that he might exercise the episcopal functions there, in which (the city of Zamora) there had not yet been either a bishop or a Cathedral church. He brought also from the same parts Bernard, whom after the death of Jerome he made bishop in the church of Zamora, and he was the first proper bishop of Zamora. Hear also, for the more recent writers, García Loaisa in the Collectio conciliorum Hispaniae, page 157, or the most learned Cardinal Aguirre, volume 2 of the Concilia Hispaniae, page 312, transcribing these words of his: Zamora, he says, was erected into a bishopric at the petition of Alfonso VI, Callixtus II being Roman Pontiff, about the year of the Lord MCXIX, and therefore long after the year of Christ 990, in which we establish St. Attilanus as bishop of Zamora. And these are the principal heads of the difficulties to be explained below, which, because they are proper to Attilanus alone, could not fittingly be discussed in the preceding Commentary, and therefore had necessarily to be deferred to here.

[3] And first, as for what pertains to the opinion of Morales, praised above, it is proved that he is wrongly confused with a certain bishop Attila, by which he judges it certain, in the place cited, that SS. Attilanus and Gennadius of Astorga died under Ordoño II about the year of Christ 920: I shall not oppose him in that part which regards St. Gennadius, whose death our Papebroch too, in volume VI of May, page 94, thought was to be placed about the year 925: but he will not have me agreeing with him when he makes our Attilanus coeval with St. Gennadius, relying on I know not what diplomas issued at Zamora by Ordoño II. For although it be true that under that prince there existed a certain bishop Attila who subscribed one or more diplomas, was that Attila (for so his name is written there) on that account prelate of no other than the city of Zamora? Or is he certainly the same as Attilanus, who, inscribed in the roll of the Saints, is celebrated today in the Roman Martyrology? Neither, in my opinion at least, will Morales have given as concluded from this, since, on the testimony of Athanasius de Lobera, page 367, those diplomas bear indeed a bishop Attila, but without any indication of the episcopal see which he held. And lest you should doubt which of the two is to be given greater credence in this matter, the aforesaid Lobera asserts in the place cited that he too saw with his own eyes the same record office which Morales mentions, and, in the presence of those who had introduced Morales there, examined those diplomas, in which, he says, although the name of Attila the bishop is subscribed, yet the episcopal see itself is nowhere expressed. And hence, since that author (Morales) knew that St. Attilanus was bishop of Zamora, thinking him to be the one who had subscribed those diplomas, he inconsiderately made that Attila bishop of Zamora, not without damage to historical truth. So the mentioned Lobera, who, unless he had reported things perceived by learned witnesses and most certain to the rest, would not with impunity, and with all the Spaniards silent, have publicly accused the royal chronographer of so great carelessness.

[4] nor was he bishop under Alfonso III or Ordoño II, Suppose even that Sandoval, who favours Morales, was not deceived when, writing at page 66 of the monastery of Sahagún, he asserts that one or another diploma exists in which that Attila is called bishop of Zamora, and that this same man is identical with him who, created from a monk of De Domnos sanctos bishop of Numantia or Zamora, transcribed with his own hand the book on the Virginity of St. Mary composed by St. Ildephonsus, as is reported in Mabillon, Saeculum VI Benedictinum, part 1, page 82; let these things, I say, be granted even to Morales. Is it solidly concluded from this that this man is not different from our St. Attilanus, and that two Attilanuses did not sit in the same episcopal chair within the course of one or another century? And yet, even on Sandoval's opinion, unless these things which I maintain are admitted as consonant with the truth, it will consequently be necessary either that St. Froilan, the master of our Attilanus, be established, against the express credit of several diplomas, as having flourished before the end of the ninth century under Alfonso III, or that it be denied, against the most common opinion of writers and the constant tradition of the churches of Spain, that St. Attilanus was the disciple of Froilan in the monastic life and afterwards his fellow bishop. But Morales, volume 3, page 151 and following, finds nothing absurd in its being said that St. Froilan flourished chiefly under Alfonso III; nay rather he himself contends for this very thing at length. This indeed does not escape me. But did Morales confirm his opinion by testimonies of antiquity, as we established ours above? Did he either reject the diplomas adduced by us, or so explain them that his opinion is not overturned by them? The learned man accomplished neither; nay, it may not rashly be conjectured that not even one of the so many diplomas confirmed by St. Froilan from the year 990, which Lobera reviewed, was known to Morales. Nor indeed can it be argued against us, with the same writer in Lobera, page 368, that when Ordoño II about the year 918 caused a church to be made at León out of his own palace, as Lucas of Tuy speaks in the Chronicle, volume 4 of Hispania illustrata, page 81, and established an episcopal chair in it, our Attilanus was present at that solemnity together with eleven other bishops; since, in the diploma of Ordoño II issued on this occasion, not only, as Lobera testifies, was no mention made of Attila or Attilanus, bishop of Zamora, but on the contrary, on the same witness, a prelate of Zamora altogether different from Attila or Attilanus, namely John, is read to have fortified that charter with his signature.

[5] [inasmuch as, St. Froilan having died in the year 1006, younger in age and his disciple] But that, contrary to what the praised chronographer asserts in Lobera, page 366 verso, St. Attilanus was not present under the same king Ordoño at the translation of the relics of St. Froilan, much less contributed much to it himself, becomes most manifest from what has been said above concerning the year of death of the Prelate of León. What? that under that king of León, whose death writers commonly tie to the year of Christ 923, St. Froilan was not yet born, as has likewise been shown above, page 233, Annotation a. But that our Attilanus was not given to the world at the same time either is proved even from this, that he is established by all everywhere as some years younger than St. Froilan and his disciple in the institute of the monastic life. But perhaps it will come into your mind to ask on what foundation this is done. I answer that this indeed cannot be said to be ascertained by the testimony of coevals; yet that, besides the authority of constant tradition and of the old Breviaries which persuades it, there exists a not contemptible document by which it can be established solidly enough. John Giles of Zamora, an author of the close of the thirteenth century, in the History of the Translation and Finding of the body of B. Aldephonsus, or Ildephonsus, archbishop of Toledo, an apograph of which, taken from an authentic manuscript of Zamora, Juan de Ferreras communicated to us in the year 1722, and which will also find its place in the Supplement of January — the praised author of the thirteenth century, I say, narrates at number 3 that, Zamora having been snatched from the barbarians and divine worship extended in the church, there came to Zamora a certain man of Toledo, who, having secretly confessed his sins to Diego, a cleric of that church venerable above the rest, disclosed to him a supernal and heavenly vision, which he recounts in these words at number 4: For he asserted (that man of Toledo) that he had been led in power by B. Aldefonsus to the church aforementioned (the discourse is of the church of St. Peter at Zamora), and had beheld with bodily eyes all the signs which B. Aldefonsus, with God's help, had revealed to him; and in order that it might be proved by necessary arguments that he had impressed the divine revelation upon the apex of his mind, he showed beforehand the place where the body of B. Aldefonsus lay hidden; adding that in the same place rested the body of blessed Attilanus, who had discharged the pontifical office in the same church; and for this reason, if they dug up * that place, they would find the most holy pledge of B. Aldefonsus, namely in the altar which at that time had been dedicated in the old church in honour of the bountiful Virgin; where, about the altar of the same bountiful Virgin, he said that the body of saint Attilanus the pontiff, companion of most blessed Froylan, was laid away, as the revelation declared.

[6] Now since the event, on the testimony of the same writer, proved that this revelation, as far as regards the body of St. Ildephonsus, as also his colleague in the episcopate, was not vain, what, I ask, stands in the way of credence being given also to the things which the pious man asserted he had learned by revelation concerning St. Attilanus; and so that St. Attilanus is rightly established as the companion of Froilan not from the sole tradition of the churches of Spain and the authority of the Breviaries, but also from a revelation divinely made? But if by some critics of severer brow this kind of argumentation, which is drawn from a revelation made to a private man, be held less firm, I oppose to these another argument by which what I contend can be confirmed firmly enough. That that finding of the body of St. Ildephonsus happened in the year of Christ 1260, or, as John Giles writes, while Aldefonsus (X), king of León and Castile, elected king of the Romans, was reigning, and the venerable father lord Suger was governing the church of Zamora, can deservedly be believed, Juan de Ferreras and others asserting it; but that the revelation made to the man of Toledo, or, if you prefer, his relation concerning St. Attilanus, preceded the very finding of the body of St. Ildephonsus by very many years, the praised John Giles sufficiently insinuates when he ties that man of Toledo's approach to the church of Zamora to those times in which Zamora had been snatched from the hands of the Saracens and divine worship had been so far extended in that church that the ecclesiastical Offices were duly performed there by clerics, yet not yet a fixed bishop — inasmuch as Giles makes no mention of one at all — but some more venerable priest of the clergy presided over them, and one endowed with such authority that, if he had judged it agreeable to reason, he could lawfully have searched for the body of St. Ildephonsus laid away under the altar. And since these things cannot be postponed beyond the year 1119, that is, beyond the beginnings of the newly instituted bishopric of Zamora, it follows that the narration of that man of Toledo concerning SS. Ildephonsus and Attilanus which has been recounted preceded the finding of the body of St. Ildephonsus by at least a century and a half, and perhaps happened not long after Zamora had been in some manner restored by king Ferdinand I; and so that not a little before the end of the eleventh century that report which makes our Saint the companion of St. Froilan grew strong commonly throughout Spain; to which opinion, received already then, since no older or nearly contemporary writer opposes himself, what is there to prevent sufficiently certain credence from being attached to it?

[7] although he is not found to have subscribed various diplomas with his master But, you will say, if St. Attilanus was first the companion of St. Froilan in the monastic institute, then created bishop with him in the year of Christ 990, and also, as is maintained by the year of his death assigned in the margin, survived him among the living for some while, why, since St. Froilan, on the testimony of Lobera, page 114, confirmed more than a hundred and fifty diplomas with his signature, is the name of Attilanus read subscribed to no diplomas issued at the same time? I confess this matter can seem wonderful enough at first sight; yet I contend that it is by no means proved hence that St. Attilanus did not hold the chair of Zamora at the same time. For although the diplomas which have hitherto been drawn out of the darkness do not exhibit the name of our holy Prelate from the year of Christ 990 up to 1009, it does not follow hence that St. Attilanus subscribed at those times no royal or private charters which perhaps still lie hidden in darkness. But yet, lest we seem here to rely on conjecture alone, let it be so that our holy Prelate never subscribed any diplomas of Veremund II or Alfonso V. Would you on that account deny that he flourished under these kings? If you did so, how many prelates renowned for holiness will there not be, the epoch of whose life, however established from elsewhere either by the unanimous consent of writers or by the testimony of ancient or nearly contemporary tradition, you ought consequently to pronounce to be at least doubtful and uncertain to you? And indeed, how weak and infirm is the argument drawn from the silence of diplomas against the age of Saints admitted from elsewhere, everyone sees, and especially then when a solid enough reason can be given why one or another prelate did not confirm the diplomas of kings with his signature.

[8] is not found to have subscribed. To pass over here other things which bear on our matter, this very plausible reason is supplied by Yepes, General Chronicle of the Order of St. Benedict, Century 6, page 206: namely, that since St. Froilan dwelt at León, which was the seat of the kings, the king's scribe, if any charter was to be corroborated by an episcopal signature, had recourse without any trouble to him, so that the holy prelate might confirm it by the adscription of his name. On the contrary, since St. Attilanus was absent from the royal court, and shunned it with all his strength, it is not wonderful that no diplomas are found corroborated by his signature. There is added, he says, that frequent wars were waged at that time about the city of Zamora, and that St. Attilanus had long been absent from his episcopal city; so that it is easy to understand that he subscribed no royal diplomas. So, almost, Yepes in the Spanish idiom. From all of which let the learned reader now judge whether the arguments which the adversaries object to us here have such weight that on that account we must depart from the common consent of writers and the constant tradition of the churches of Spain, even if it were not established by a revelation made from heaven. But if it is deservedly permitted to stand here by such authority, it follows that, since St. Froilan, as has been demonstrated above, possessed the chair of León from the year of Christ 990 up to the year 1006, St. Attilanus too, his companion in the monastic life and colleague in the episcopate, be established as having occupied the see of Zamora at the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the following.

[9] But from the opposite side another, and that a more intricate,

difficulty arises, [He was bishop of the city of Zamora, which the name of Numantia before the year of Christ 990,] situated namely in this: how it can be that St. Attilanus, the companion of St. Froilan, is rightly called by us bishop of Zamora, if indeed, on the testimony of Rodrigo of Toledo and many others, Zamora was ennobled with an episcopal see only after a whole century from the Saint's death. Those who dissent from us, pressing closely on the testimonies reviewed at number 2, wonder that it can be doubted whether any bishop sat at Zamora before Pope Callixtus II, that is, before the year of Christ 1119; whence also most of them, although they do not deny that St. Attilanus was a bishop before that time, yet judge it most certain that he was bishop not of Zamora but either of León, or of Astorga, or regionary; nay some go so far as to make him only archdeacon of Astorga. On the contrary, of those who stand with us, some, clinging to what they persuade themselves are authentic Acts of councils and old Catalogues of the dioceses of Spain, ennoble Zamora with an episcopal see not only at the end of the tenth century, in which St. Attilanus flourished, but also long before the expedition of the Moors into Spain. In order that testimonies so contrary to one another, which are brought forward on this side and that, may be fittingly either rejected or explained, and that our opinion may be established by this way, it will be to the purpose to have noted some things here beforehand. Zamora — which, as Baudrand writes, is a city of Spain in the kingdom of León, on the river Douro, episcopal, under the archbishop of Compostela, … and which is about midway between Salamanca to the South and Astorga to the North — many Spanish writers say is that celebrated Numantia; but many deny it. However that may be, this bears on our purpose, and therefore now comes to be proved by the testimony of antiquity: that the name of Numantia was given to the city of Zamora, for whatever cause at length this was done, before the year of Christ 990. This is testified most evidently by a diploma of Veremund II, king of León, preserved in the church of Compostela, where these most express words are read: In the city of Numantia, which is now called Zamora. And since that diploma was issued on the IVth of the Ides of February, in the (Spanish) Era the thirteenth after the thousandth, that is, in the year of Christ 975, as may be seen in volume 4 of Hispania illustrata, page 354, and in volume X of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Baronius under the year of Christ 975, number 7, he must be blind who does not see from this that the name of Numantia was imposed on the city of Zamora before the times of St. Attilanus. I pass over the no less plain testimonies, both of the diplomas to be enumerated below and of the monk of Silos, Lucas of Tuy and other old writers, which abundantly confirm this assertion of ours, and I proceed to discuss those by which our opinion, which establishes a bishop of Zamora at the year 990, can be both attacked and defended.

[10] Those who make Zamora, under the name of Numantia, illustrious with an episcopal see many centuries before the year of Christ 1119, and bishops, according to some, either from the seventh century bring forward for themselves as an Achillean argument the Division of the boundaries of the dioceses and parishes of Spain attributed to king Wamba, reigning in Spain in the seventh century, which García Loaisa in the Collectio Conciliorum Hispaniae, page 135, Cardinal Aguirre, volume 2 of the Concilia Hispaniae, from page 303, and Hardouin, volume 3 of the Collection of Councils, column 376 and following, edited, taken, as they write, from the manuscript books of the church of Toledo and of the church of Oviedo, whose title is Itacius, in which is written the History of the Vandals and Alans in Galicia, and afterwards of the Suevi and finally of the kings of the Goths. Further, in this Partition of the Spanish Dioceses not only does Numantia (afterwards called Zamora) appear as noble with an episcopal see, but also exactly the same boundaries are attributed to it which the diocese of Zamora now has. Have the very words of this instrument: Let Numantia hold these: From Penagodisse up to the Tormes above those Baths: from Valle de Rege up to the Douro: from Villalalle up to Oterum: from Fumus along the dry Brook up to Breto: from Tavara up to the Douro. To these they add, as a most powerful proof, the Catalogue of the Sees of Spain which exists in the codex of Oviedo written in Gothic letters, since in it, as is plain to the eye in the praised collectors of councils, pages 134, 303 and column 376, Numantia, and indeed with the word Zamora added, is reckoned among the episcopal sees then subject to the metropolis of Mérida. But truly, since the documents just now adduced, although held for a very long time as ancient and genuine, were either interpolated or perhaps forged entire before the middle of the twelfth century, as Flórez shows by very many arguments in volume 4 of the España Sagrada from page 181, I shall by no means maintain from them so high an antiquity of the chair of Numantia or Zamora, nor, after the example of some, shall I bring forward bishops of Zamora even before the year of Christ 520; since it is enough for our matter that we show that bishops of Zamora existed in the tenth century, whether meanwhile Zamora was illustrated with an episcopal see before the coming of the Moors into Spain, or a proper prelate was granted to the people of Zamora only afterwards.

[11] and certainly is shown to have had them before St. Attilanus Yet from those instruments just mentioned, although, in the judgement of Flórez, forged in the twelfth century, some support accrues to our opinion. For if Pelagius, bishop of Oviedo, as the praised Flórez shows in volume 4 of the España Sagrada, page 203 and following, is the author of the aforesaid Division of the Spanish dioceses, one or the other must necessarily follow: that he gave his labour to the fiction either before or after he entered the chair of Oviedo. If the former, it follows — unless you call him a most exact prophet of the future — that certainly before the year of Christ 1098, in which, on the testimony of Flórez, volume 4 of the España Sagrada, page 204, the same Pelagius was consecrated bishop of Oviedo, the bishopric of Zamora or Numantia, which he himself expressly mentions there, had been erected; and so — which manifestly follows hence — that the first bishop of Zamora was not granted about the year of Christ 1119 under Pope Callixtus II. But if you would have it that Pelagius of Oviedo prepared this Division of the Spanish dioceses after that time, I shall not indeed oppose it; but, unless you make him a most impudent liar, unless a most incautious impostor, unless you make all the most learned men who held that composition for so many centuries as genuine and contemporary with the times of king Wamba dolts and blockheads, and accuse the churches of Toledo and Oviedo, which most diligently preserved that Division of the dioceses in their record offices, of the grossest ignorance and inept credulity, you must necessarily confess that it could not have come about that Pelagius should establish the city of Numantia or Zamora as episcopal under king Wamba in the seventh century, if that city had been first erected into a bishopric under his own eyes about the year of Christ 1119. And indeed, that there were prelates of Zamora or Numantia before this year of the twelfth century, not only do many things persuade, but not a few diplomas which Athanasius de Lobera adduces from page 362 most manifestly prove; of which I, deservedly trusting his diligence in searching instruments and his excellent faith in reporting them — much approved also by Yepes, Century VI, page 205, column 2, and by Ángel Manrique in the Annales Cistercienses under the year 1131, chapter 8 — shall review here some which exhibit the signature of bishops of Numantia or Zamora before the year of Christ 990; so that hence it may become evident that St. Attilanus, no differently from his predecessors who died before the end of the tenth century, can with the best right be reckoned among the bishops of Zamora, although the testimonies of Rodrigo, archbishop of Toledo, Loaisa, Mariana and others, which will be discussed below, seem most severely to forbid it.

[12] Let the first testimony, therefore, by which our assertion may be most firmly established, from various diplomas and the series of the prelates of Zamora, be the diploma given by Ordoño II, king of León, diligently preserved in the record office of the church of León, where Lobera, page 362, testifies that he saw it with his own eyes; by which diploma the same king, in the Spanish era 954, that is, the year of Christ 916, assigned many possessions to the church of León. And this, on the testimony of the same Lobera, besides the names of king Ordoño and of the prelates of Iria and León confirming, expressly exhibits the subscription of John, bishop of Zamora; and the same, as the praised writer asserts in the same place, three other charters of donation, issued about the year of Christ 916, present to be seen. From which it becomes manifest that at least two centuries, and those complete, before the year of Christ 1119 the church of Zamora was adorned with the majesty of an episcopal see. And in order that from that John, whom it may be permitted to call the first bishop of Zamora of this name, one may arrive in continuous series at St. Attilanus, and so that we may prove superabundantly what we have undertaken to prove, five diplomas reviewed by the same Lobera, page 363, are available, which, as he here again shows, Dulcidius, with the title of bishop of Zamora added, corroborated with other bishops by the adscription of his name from the year of Christ 920 up to 940. Add to these the charters praised by Sandoval in the Description of the monastery of Sahagún, folio 49 verso, issued about the year of Christ 960, in which Dominic, bishop of Zamora, appears, whom I should think John immediately succeeded, whom I make the second of this name. However that be, it suffices for the establishing of our assertion that the name of this John, prelate of Zamora, is found written at the year of Christ 970 in various charters of donation, which Lobera, already often praised, enumerates at page 364; and that in such a way that he who in these writes himself bishop of Numantia, in those calls himself bishop of Zamora; by which promiscuous appellation of bishop of Numantia and of Zamora you have also abundantly confirmed what I thought must be noted beforehand above at number 9. But let us pursue the series of the prelates of Zamora. Salomon seems to have followed John II, either before the year of Christ 986 or certainly in this very year, since in a diploma of Veremund II, king of León, issued in this year, Salomon himself appears as prelate of Zamora among the others who subscribed that diploma; and to him, dying about the year of Christ 990, St. Attilanus would immediately have succeeded, adorned with the episcopal dignity on one day, as the common opinion and tradition of writers holds, with St. Froilan, his former instructor.

[13] which nothing hinders, the epitaph of Bernard of Zamora objected to us, From this series of the bishops of Zamora, which González Dávila too partly exhibits in his Teatro eclesiástico, volume 2, page 393 and following, and from so many diplomas of the kings of León to which we have shown that bishops of Numantia or Zamora subscribed, it is more than sufficiently clear on how groundless a prop the adversaries rely when they exclude from the see of Zamora those bishops who are established to have died before the year of Christ 1119. Nor does it at all favour the adversaries that Bernard, prelate of Zamora, who died in the year of Christ 1149, is called first bishop of Zamora in the epitaph which was placed for him in the greater chapel of the cathedral church, since by this very epitaph, if they read it entire, as by their own sword

the adversaries cut their own throats; for it runs thus in the praised Dávila, page 397: Here lies Bernard, first bishop of Zamora of the moderns; he died in the era MCLXXXVII; to which is subjoined in the Spanish idiom: que es año MCXLIX, which sounds in Latin: which is the year of Christ MCXLIX. Let it now be permitted to ask: if bishops of Zamora did not exist before this Bernard, why then is he called first of the moderns? Does not that epitaph by this very addition intimate clearly enough that he was indeed the first — from the time when the bishopric of Zamora was erected anew, or restored, about the year of Christ 1119 — of those bishops who are traced in uninterrupted series up to the present day, but not absolutely, that is, that he was the first of all those who at any time anciently presided over the church of Zamora? And since the adversaries object that epitaph to us — perhaps, however, without thinking — I with greater reason oppose to them the epitaph of St. Attilanus, placed on his sepulchre at Zamora, to be edited below, which seemed to Mabillon to savour of antiquity; by which it is manifestly handed down that he was the disciple of St. Froilan, who died, as we have taught before, in the year of Christ 1006, and afterwards shepherd of the church of Zamora — which no one will say happened after the year of Christ 1119.

[14] [nor is the silence of diplomas concerning St. Attilanus and his successors harmful,] It remains that, before I set forth the testimonies of grave writers opposed to us, I satisfy another argument of the adversaries. If it is true, they say, that there were bishops of Zamora at least from the end of the tenth century, and namely that St. Attilanus held that see from the year of Christ 990 up to 1009, why not only is that Saint found to have subscribed no diplomas of the kings of León, but also there exists no memory of his successors up to the year of Christ 1119 in authentic charters or other public monuments? As for what pertains to the first part of this question, even on the hypothesis that absolutely no charters, whether private or royal, issued at that time and bearing the name of St. Attilanus, still lie hidden in darkness, that difficulty is removed by this reason obvious to all: namely that, as I have already taught at number 8, the Saint was either always or at any rate for the most part absent from the royal court and the king's retinue, intent solely on gathering together, if in any way he could, the flock dispersed by calamities, and on consoling it; so that it ought therefore not to seem wonderful if he himself confirmed no diplomas of his kings with the adscription of his name. But as regards his successors, of whom the adversaries contend that no memory exists in the course of one century: I answer that this can be roundly denied, since, on the testimony of Dávila, praised above, page 396, Gomesanus, bishop of Zamora, is found to have signed a diploma of Ferdinand I, king of Castile and León, in the year 1042, on the 16th of February. But suppose for the moment — which, however, I do not think will be proved — that Dávila was deceived in this; will you on that account, because after the repeated devastation of Zamora at the end of the tenth century no memory of the successors of Attilanus in the following century has been preserved in public instruments, maintain not only that there were no bishops of Zamora at all in the eleventh century, but also believe that the episcopal chair must deservedly be snatched from Zamora even before the city's devastation? By what rule of Dialectic this follows I confess I am altogether ignorant; nor do I think that anyone will be a fair judge who would applaud so weak an argument of the adversaries. It is not to be dissembled, however, that the face of the church of Zamora, after Attilanus by his death had left most afflicted that church, which he had undertaken in a calamitous tempest and afterwards administered with the highest labour, seemed so mournful that for quite long scarcely or not even scarcely one would seek its episcopal see, or would not refuse it when freely offered; so that perhaps on that account the series of the bishops of Zamora was interrupted in the eleventh century from time to time, or perhaps for the most part, and the care of that diocese was meanwhile more than once entrusted to the neighbouring bishop of Astorga, until Zamora began to emerge from its ruins and at length, at the request of Alfonso VIII, commonly called emperor of the Spains, to be erected into a bishopric, or rather restored to its former dignity, by Pope Callixtus II about the year of Christ 1119, as Loaisa and others write.

[15] When, therefore, Rodrigo, archbishop of Toledo, book 6 De Rebus Hispaniae, chapter 27, asserts [but neither the words of Rodrigo of Toledo, although they seem to make against us,] that before Jerome of Périgord, mentioned at number 2, there had not yet been at Zamora either a bishop or a cathedral church, it can be explained not of the state of the affairs of Zamora such as it was in the tenth century or in preceding time, but of the state of that church such as it was at the beginning of the twelfth century; so that the sense is that when that Jerome, bishop of Valencia in Spain, having lost his city, undertook to exercise the episcopal functions at Zamora, the city of Zamora, after the devastation brought on it anew at the end of the tenth century, still lay at those times so partly wrapped in its ruins that, after the manner of other dioceses, it had neither a proper bishop, that is, one dwelling there assiduously, nor a fixed successor to the dead one, nor was a cathedral church, in which the bishop might sit according to his dignity, built up or restored. And when the praised Rodrigo presently subjoins that Bernard, succeeding the aforesaid Jerome, was the first proper bishop of Zamora, it seems that it too can be explained in no other way than that in which the epitaph of that Bernard is to be understood at number 13; namely in the signification that, when Jerome — who, stripped of the city of Valencia, had acted as bishop of Zamora — had been snatched from the living, that Bernard, after the church of Zamora had been restored, first of the modern bishops, bore its proper see and the title of bishop of Zamora up to his death; from whom the prelates of Zamora, both in fact and in name, were traced in uninterrupted order up to the times of Rodrigo. In a not very dissimilar manner Pope Urban II, in Baronius, Ecclesiastical Annals under the year of Christ 1088, number 12, addresses Bernard, archbishop of Toledo and primate mentioned above, as first prelate of that city (Toledo) — first, namely, since the expulsion of the Saracens from Toledo, not the first of all who at any time presided as prelates over the church of Toledo. But if you will not admit this explanation of Rodrigo's words as native and original, I shall not greatly resist; but the alleged words of a writer not contemporary with St. Attilanus will not on that account effect with me that, rejecting the authority of so many diplomas adduced at number 12 and of the Roman Martyrology to be praised below, I should surrender myself to him with closed eyes, and admit on his testimony that the bishopric of Zamora or Numantia, which ancient monuments and very many writers declare to have existed at least in the tenth century, was not instituted before the twelfth century had somewhat advanced.

[16] much less, of the more recent, Vasaeus, who rather together with others I know indeed that John Vasaeus too, a writer much more recent than Rodrigo, in his Chronicle of Spain, volume 1 of Hispania illustrata, page 630, expressly asserts that there never was a bishop of Numantia. But this writer means nothing else than that a bishop was never given to that Numantia most celebrated in the time of the Romans, since, as he himself presently subjoins: Numantia (namely that ancient one), destroyed long before the saving birth of Christ, was at no time afterwards restored: concerning which matter it is not the place here to dispute. But how far the praised Vasaeus is from being foreign to our opinion his very words in the cited volume, chapter 21, sufficiently show. They run thus: Whether that of Zamora succeeded to some one (an ancient bishopric extinguished or transferred), in so great an antiquity of the matter, is not easy to interpret. There are, however, those who affirm that the bishopric was INSTITUTED ANEW (or restored), at the petition of Alfonso, emperor of the Spains, by Callixtus the second, Roman Pontiff, about the year of the Lord MCXIX, in the first year of the Pontificate of Callixtus, and that Pontifical and imperial instruments on this matter exist in the archives of that church. And that the first bishop of Zamora (after the bishopric was instituted anew) was a certain Bernard, canon of Toledo (John Mariana calls him archdeacon), who died in the year of the Lord MCXLIX. Thus far Vasaeus, leaving undecided indeed whether the city of Zamora received the see of another extinguished or transferred bishopric, yet by no means snatching from Zamora the name of Numantia in the tenth century, nor denying that its proper bishops existed in the same century; nay on the contrary, since he does not seem to dissent from those who assert from Pontifical and imperial instruments that the bishopric of Zamora was instituted anew or renewed under Callixtus II, he can be considered to make this bishopric, with us, much older than the twelfth century.

[17] and namely, with Flórez, he favours us. The learned writer praised above, the R. F. M. Flórez, agrees with us, volume 4 of the España Sagrada, page 243, when he admits that the bishopric of Zamora was erected after the irruption of the Moors into Spain in the eighth century, and writes that, the series of bishops having been interrupted on account of the devastated city, it was restored or instituted anew in the times of Callixtus II about the year 1119, as Loaisa hands down. For the rest, since the Pontifical and imperial instruments just mentioned, from which it would probably be permitted to learn the year and other circumstances of the chair of Zamora constituted again, have either never been printed or at any rate have not come to us, it remains doubtful to me whether the restoration of the see of Zamora is to be ascribed to Pope Callixtus II, or rather to Paschal II, Callixtus's predecessor, since in the year of Christ 1115, in which Callixtus II had not yet ascended the chair of Peter, Bernard was already then bishop of Zamora, and under that name subscribed the council of Oviedo, in Aguirre, volume 3 of the Councils, page 327, together with 14 other prelates of Spain. However these things stand, nothing, as is clear from what has already been disputed, is an impediment to St. Attilanus — whom we have taught cannot be moved from the age of St. Froilan — being rightly constituted by us as prelate of Zamora from the year of Christ 990; from which it also follows, since the holy Prelate passed to immortal life in the XIXth year of his episcopate, as the common opinion holds, that his death, although De Ferreras holds the contrary under the year of Christ 1024, must be tied to the year of Christ 1009.

[18] Now I set about discussing the things which pertain to the reference of our Bishop into the roll of the Saints and to his Ecclesiastical cult. Of various authors There are some writers, reported by Tamayo Salazar at this day, page 422, who hand down that St. Attilanus was inscribed in the roll of the Heavenly ones with solemn rite by Pope Urban I: but that these were either ignorant or forgetful of the age of St. Attilanus and of pontifical chronology, or at any rate went shamefully astray, is as evident as it is undoubted that Urban I held the Roman Pontificate in the third century, and therefore could not have decreed the honours of the Heavenly ones to him almost eight hundred years before our Saint's death, much less have performed this by any solemn rite of canonization, which all the skilled know perfectly well was by no means in use in the third century. A little more correctly Lucius Marineus Siculus, volume 1 of Hispania illustrata, page 341, and from him Laurence Surius at this day, write that our Saint was inscribed among the Heavenly ones in the eleventh century; but both are not free from

all error, when they will have it effected by Urban II at the year 1002, since nevertheless, as the constant and certain opinion of ancient and recent writers holds, Urban II entered upon the Pontificate only in the year 1088, which, after many things done illustriously and happily, he laid down by a blessed departure from the living in the year 1099, on the 29th of July. Further, that our Prelate was referred into the catalogue of the Saints by this Pontiff the Roman Martyrology testifies at this day, nor do I know one author, besides those refuted above, who calls this into doubt.

[19] But in what year of his Pontificate, or in what city, was this effected by Urban II? and especially what Benedict XIV said of the canonization These things I would not dare to define, for lack of monuments which report it. The most learned Cardinal Prosper Lambertini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIV, does indeed assert, in book I De Servorum Dei Beatificatione etc., chapter 8, number 12, that, on the testimony … of Puricelli, book 4, chapter 81, Urban II in the city of Milan (in the year of Christ 1095 or 1096) referred Herlembald among the holy Martyrs, and Attilanus, bishop of Zamora or León, among the holy Confessors, as is also read in the Roman Martyrology at the 5th day of October, and as Pagi pursues more fully in the Life of St. Urban: but — be it said with due respect to the authority of the most learned writer — neither did Puricelli in the cited chapter, nor in chapter 79, where he treats expressly of the canonization of St. Herlembald, make mention by a single word, as will be manifest to anyone consulting his Work, published in the year 1657, of the enrolment of St. Attilanus among the number of the Saints; nor does Francis Pagi, page 521 of the Breviarium Historico-chronologico-criticum of the Roman Pontiffs, bring forward one ancient author who expresses either the place or the year in which Attilanus was reckoned among the Heavenly ones, although he does not deny that canonization to Urban II. Nothing, therefore, is available to us thence by which we might affirm safely enough that our holy Prelate was inscribed among the Saints with solemn rite at Milan in the year 1095 or 1096.

[20] of St. Attilanus and his No more light on this matter is supplied to us by the Life of B. Urban II written by Ruinart, which you have among his and Mabillon's posthumous Works, nor by the Codex of Canonizations edited by Justus Fontanini, in which indeed the Apostolic letters of Urban II, given in the Roman synod in the year 1099, concerning the canonization of B. Nicholas the Pilgrim to be performed in the commissarial form, as they call it, are exhibited at page 9; but I found nothing at all commemorated there concerning St. Attilanus, perhaps inscribed among the Heavenly ones at the same time and in the same form. The Apostolic letters of Urban II, therefore, which Galesini cites in his Notations on the Martyrology for proving the sanctity of our Prelate, must not have lighted the way even of Fontanini, nor has anyone taught where they can be found. Nevertheless, although both the year and the place in which the Saint's canonization was performed cannot as yet be said to be ascertained, yet it cannot deservedly be doubted that it was done by Urban II in some great synod according to the custom of that time, and must therefore be counted almost among the first more solemn canonizations, since the announcement of the Roman Martyrology ascribes it to that Pontiff in express words, and the unanimous authority of learned writers confirms it. For the rest, what moved the praised Benedict XIV to call our Saint bishop of Zamora or León altogether escapes me; nor do I see either in what way, saving the authority of the older writers, these words of his can be explained.

[21] what was said of his episcopate is weighed. For if this author meant to assert that our Attilanus presided at the same time over the church of Zamora and over that of León, he has not only a good many diplomas but also most of the most learned authors protesting against him; for on their testimony it comes out certain that not St. Attilanus but St. Froilan occupied the see of León from the year 990 up to 1006; to which is added that no monuments or testimonies of the ancients declare that St. Attilanus was his master's successor in the chair of León, or that this bishopric was ever entrusted to the care of the bishop of Zamora. But if the writer praised above spoke in a disjunctive sense, as they say, so that he meant it to be signified that St. Attilanus held the bishopric either of the church of Zamora or of that of León, leaving meanwhile undecided which of these sees he determinately occupied, it does not appear what could have stirred a doubt in him concerning the correct announcement of the Roman Martyrology; unless perhaps the authority of Baronius, straying from the truth under the year of Christ 1027, number 14, when he sets St. Froilan — dislocating even his name — as only a priest, and St. Attilanus as bishop of León, at a time at which the former had certainly departed from the living and the latter can scarcely be believed to have survived so long; to which add that St. Attilanus is counted among the prelates of León neither by Gil Dávila nor by any learned historiographer of the church of León or other sufficiently ancient writer. Wherefore, since no documents are brought forward which show that our holy Prelate presided over the church of León, I think we must stand by the ancient tradition and the announcement of the Roman Martyrology, which establish him as bishop of Zamora only.

[22] It pleases me to review here the other things which bear on the Saint's Ecclesiastical cult, besides those which will have to be mentioned in the Acts and Annotations. The Roman Martyrology announces him on the 5th day of October in these words: The Saint's memory and cult in the Martyrologies, his head to Toledo On the same day, of saint Attilanus, bishop of Zamora, whom Urban the second referred into the number of the Saints; and this announcement is found in the Martyrology of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict which is subjoined to the Roman one augmented and corrected by Pope Benedict XIV. Molanus, Galesini, Wion, Ménard and Bucelin agree. The last, however, differs from the others in this, that afterwards, out of one St. Attilanus referred into the number of the Heavenly ones by Urban II, he devises two members of the Benedictine Order, two Priors of the convent of Morerola, two bishops of Zamora, finally two Attilanuses, alike to each other in everything, except that one, as he pleases, migrated to immortal life in the year of Christ 820, the other in the year 1006. We believe there is one and the same St. Attilanus, who, as we have shown above, was the companion of St. Froilan and his fellow bishop at the close of the tenth century. But let us pursue the Saint's cult. That his ecclesiastical Office was common to the dioceses of Zamora, Compostela, Salamanca, León, Tarazona, Burgos and others of Spain is manifest, on the testimony of Tamayo Salazar at this day, page 418, from the Breviaries of these churches. To these I add by name the Proper Offices of the church of Toledo, of which the Most Eminent Cardinal Lambertini, book 4 De Servorum Dei Beatificatione etc., part 2, chapter 6, number 4, speaks thus: Among the proper Offices of the Saints of the church and diocese of Toledo, published at Antwerp in the year 1691, and notably in the proper Calendar of the feasts of the aforesaid Saints approved by the supreme Pontiffs, we see that on the 9th day of February the Office of St. Reinold, martyr, is recited in the mother church, on the 11th of February the Office of St. Aldegund, on the 5th of October the Office of St. Attilanus, bishop and confessor … because in the same mother church notable relics of the aforesaid Saints are preserved. Since treatment has been given with us in its place of the relics of the former, and since discourse will recur in the Acts themselves concerning the body of St. Attilanus, I shall commemorate here those things concerning his sacred remains of which no mention is made in the Acts.

[23] Of these Yepes, in the General Chronicle of the Order of St. Benedict, Century 6, [carried from the church of Zamora by a certain sacristan, and his other relics at Zamora are reviewed.] page 205, speaks thus in Spanish words rendered by me, as before, into Latin: The natives (of Zamora) confess that the head is lacking to the body of St. Attilanus (once deposited in the church of St. Peter at Zamora), because a certain sacristan of the church of St. Peter, thinking that he would deserve excellently of the church of Toledo if he imparted to it some notable part of the body of St. Ildephonsus, carried off a certain sacred head, which in fact was not St. Ildephonsus's but St. Attilanus's, God so disposing that he should be for honour and veneration in such renowned cities. On the testimony of the same Yepes, besides the Saint's body which the people of Zamora keep, they also make very much of some furniture which the Saint used, for instance the episcopal ring, the staff and other things of this kind, which are fitted to renew his memory; and the praised writer adds that the very hospice in which the Saint lodged on returning from pilgrimage is also in honour, and that there is seen painted there the history of his admirable pilgrimage, to be reviewed below in the Acts; he subjoins finally that the people of Zamora are accustomed to go on the principal feasts in a solemn procession of suppliants to this place, which solitaries inhabit, where the sacred Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated either by the bishop or by another principal priest and words are addressed to the people from the pulpit. From which it is easy to know how great a veneration is paid to the relics of St. Attilanus. For the rest, whence Yepes drew the history of the head of St. Attilanus carried to Toledo he himself nowhere declares; nor therefore can it easily be decided whether greater credence is to be given to him than to Manrique, who under the year of Christ 1131, chapter 8, affirms that the whole body of Attilanus is kept at Zamora. This, however, becomes undoubted to me from the words of the most learned Pontiff Benedict XIV mentioned, that some relics of our Saint, and those notable ones, are preserved at Toledo, on account of which the faculty of reciting his ecclesiastical Office was granted to the church of Toledo; although what these are I cannot teach, for penury of documents.

[24] What kind of Acts, and why they are edited here. It remains that I discourse somewhat on the authority of the Acts of St. Attilanus now to be edited. And first, I ask that what was said in the preceding Commentary, page 232, number 13, concerning the Acts of St. Froilan be held as inserted here; for no more certain credence is to be attached to these in everything than to those, since it is established on no ground that all the things reported there were drawn from contemporary or nearly contemporary writers or documents. But because those Acts rest not so much on the authority of Tamayo, whose credit in older matters often wavers, as on that of a not contemptible tradition and of sufficiently old Breviaries — among which, if we believe Athanasius de Lobera, praised at page 229, number 4, some are scarcely one century removed from the death of SS. Froilan and Attilanus — it has seemed good, since the injury of ancient times has begrudged us the original ones, to reprint those Acts here with our Annotations added, so that the reader curious of the affairs of St. Attilanus may thus be satisfied. Behold them, therefore, as they were edited by Tamayo from very many Legendaries, but especially that of Zamora, and various writers; with which, which deserves to be noted, the most learned Mabillon, Saeculum Benedictinum VI, part 1, pages 82 and 83, Yepes in the Benedictine Chronicle, Century VI, under the year of Christ 985, and Athanasius de Lobera in the Life of St. Attilanus agree in substance.

* effoderent they dug up

ACTS

Collected from various Breviaries, even old ones, volume 5 of the Spanish Martyrology, from page 418.

Attilanus, bishop, confessor, at Zamora in Spain. (S.)

From the Breviaries.

Why the deeds of the Saints are written. It is indeed most salutary to know the deeds *, both so that their memory, always recounted with many praises, may shine forth for ever, and also and chiefly so that their works may be lessons to us and may show the way of living holily. And although we are commanded to venerate all the Saints, yet it is fitting to extol with more celebrated praise those to whom we are especially bound by a certain peculiar devotion and charity. Hence it is that we of Zamora pursue with a singular office the praises and deeds of our most holy father and prelate Attilanus, whom we always have with omnipotent God as an excellent patron and principal advocate, to which best Shepherd we, The vows of St. Attilanus's parents, his birth, instruction and monastic life. as his own sheep, were once committed to be guarded ^a.

[2] His parents, who inhabited the city of Tarazona ^b in Spain, of which they were also noble citizens, since they were very desirous of having offspring, asked with many and assiduous prayers, fasts, oblations and alms that it be bestowed on them by God. Whose vows God deigning to hear, He decreed to confer on them a son according to their desire. Hence the mother is said to have been admonished by a heavenly revelation, and she forthwith became pregnant, and promised to consign the son to the service of God ^c. At the appointed time, therefore, He conferred on them the desired son, whom, named Attilanus, they imbued from infancy with holy and good morals. Delivered to the studies of human and sacred letters, he advanced in a few days in a wonderful manner. And when he was in his fifteenth year, he took the monastic habit in a monastery near the city of Tarazona ^d, where his parents lived ^e. And here he lived for some years ^f with a singular specimen of all virtues and observance of monastic discipline, until, having heard the fame of the holy abbot Froilan ^g, he resolved to cling to him and lead his life with him.

[3] He, having obtained the permission of his abbot ^h and bidden farewell to the brethren, [The Saint joins himself as companion to St. Froilan and is set over the monks as Prior;] directed his steps to the place where St. Froilan was hiding, and, having become his companion, lived with him for some while, until, resolving to shun the breezes of men and to flee public places, seeking a fitting dwelling for the solitary life, they came to the mountain Cuturrinus ⁱ, where each built himself a little cell ^k. But since their celebrated fame forthwith flew through the whole region, a crowd of peoples flocked to hear them. Hence, besought by the prayers of many, descending to the town of Vesum ^l, they refreshed many inhabitants and throngs of other regions with spiritual and bodily nourishment. For a monastery having been built there, with divine help favouring, three hundred monks having at once been gathered ^m, B. Attilanus was assigned as their Prior. At that time, when the affairs of Christendom were seen in danger through frequent victories of the Saracens ⁿ, so that continually, the sins of our people requiring it, a second destruction was feared, the virtues and prodigies of the abbot Froilan and the Prior Attilanus came to the king of León ^o, who, hearing of their holiness, asked them to come to him. Froilan came, to whom the king disclosed the state of the kingdom, the insolences of the Hagarenes and the straits of the times. But the most holy Abbot laid bare to the king and the nobles the wrath of God on account of their sins and those of the people, and foretold what was to be done in order that they might merit the mercy of the Godhead. Whereupon * having returned to the monastery, and having been presented with copious money, he built the convent of Tabora [p] and afterwards that of Morerola [q], where he lived for some while with the Prior Attilanus.

[4] And since at that time the churches of the city of Zamora and of León were bereft of prelates, he is created bishop of Zamora and afterwards undertakes a pilgrimage; the king, the clergy and the people, drawn by the fame of these Saints, elected Attilanus pontiff of Zamora, Froilan of León; and they were solemnly consecrated on the day of Pentecost [r]. Attilanus, therefore, raised to the chair, forthwith began to rule the churches, the peoples committed to him and the clergy with wonderful skill [s], and for ten years bore continual labours with frequent prayer. But when he remembered certain imperfections of his youth, he undertook to do penance, and resolved as a penitent to set out abroad and be absent [t]. That he might accomplish this without reproach, he faithfully showed the causes and reason of his going away to his own people, to whom he commanded that the revenues of the bishopric be given to the poor; but if it were done otherwise, he called God to witness, who would condemn them to eternal punishment. And he was already preparing his departure when, behold, all the citizens, crying out with one breast and mouth, said: "Do not, Shepherd, desert the sheep; wherever you go, we will follow you." But the most blessed Prelate, blessing them, promised his future return shortly. And now, as he was journeying, while he crossed the bridge of the city which is beside the church of St. Lawrence, drawing the pontifical ring from his finger, he threw it into the river with these words: "When I see you again, I shall be sure of the pardon of all my offences [u]." Thence, accompanied by one servant, he took the road. Whom having secretly left after some days, his habit changed, under a poor garment, begging alone, visiting holy places, he went on pilgrimage for two years.

[5] ordered to return to his see, he wonderfully finds his pontifical ring After these things he heard a voice sent from heaven saying to him: "Attilanus, hasten to visit your bishopric: for your prayers have been heard [x]." Having heard this, when the day was already drawing to evening, as he approached Zamora with the darkness risen, panting and weary he turned aside to the little chapel of St. Vincent de Cornu, near the holy Sepulchre [y]. A hermit man and his wife, receiving him, refreshed him with a slender supper provided. They, as the following day grew light, having set out to the episcopal palace to ask for the dole (as they were accustomed), left Attilanus resting in their house and as its guard. And when little fishes were bestowed on them as alms, mindful of their Guest they asked a portion for him also. To them one great fish was given for those three, the other small little fishes being dismissed. They, having returned to the little chapel, gave that great fish to Attilanus to be gutted, while they themselves went to seek water and fire. Then the holy Prelate, while he was turning over the milt of that fish, found within its belly the pontifical ring once thrown into the river [z]. Then, on bended knees and with hands raised to heaven, giving huge thanks to God, he said: "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who hath visited and wrought the redemption of His servant. Let all who know Thee magnify Thy mercy, who in due time showest Thy mercies, and dost extol and exalt Thy servants. When, Lord, did my soul merit to see Thy munificences, and when to obtain help in the midst of my tribulation: blessed for ever, Lord, who alone doest great wonders and glorifiest those who fear Thee, and to those who glorify Thee Thou givest them meat in due season. Who am I, Lord, that I, an unworthy little man, should merit the mercies which Thy right hand has sent before to me today?"

[6] and, received at Zamora not without a prodigy, he afterwards dies there. These words said, at once the bells of the whole city, no one ringing them, gave forth sound of themselves [aa]. All the citizens, seeing and being astonished at this miracle, searched the hospices and churches; and when they found nothing certain, the bishop's steward remembered that poor man for whom the hermits had asked alms. This being heard, the whole city hastened to that little chapel. To whom Attilanus, although he had before been clothed in a torn garment, sackcloth and patchwork, yet at once — wonderful to see — adorned with heavenly and precious pontifical array, came forth to the citizens coming to meet him in search of him [bb]. Seeing which, all, admiring, congratulated the Pontiff, and with great joy and pomp led him into the city. Where, living holily and piously, after seven years [cc] he fell asleep in the Lord on the 5th day of the month of October in the year of the Lord MIX, of his age the LXXth, of his pontificate the XIXth [dd]. His body having been entombed amid the tears of all, devotion carved this epitaph on his sepulchre.

[7] This grave contains the bones of Attilanus the prelate, Whom Zamora long venerated, adorned by him. His epitaph He, under the abbot Froilan, freely, While he lived as a monk, discharged the office of Prior. Finally, raised to the staff of the Shepherd's honour, Adorned with all virtues, this Blessed one Both ruled the people and bent not the symbols of right. Made father to the poor, he obtained Pious surnames, and was made master to orphans, and to them Distributing loaves: he repressed the dogs with strength In all places by the thunderbolt of his elegant voice. And he was a protection to widows, for the Spirit had imbued His renowned breast with so many holy doctrines, That he lived as Prelate full of grace: and as an exile (That he might become pleasing to God), bewailing the baleful Sins of guilt of his old life, worn away, He passed two years; and finally, turning His human steps, and pressed by a heavenly voice, And embracing the good sounds which the bells send forth, He comes to the city, and the Saint returns to the welcome Duties of the Shepherd. Hence ascending to the blessed stars, In this grave he has sealed up for us both vows and bones [ee].

[8] Hence, since he shone with many miracles and God honoured his sepulchre with assiduous prodigies, and the canonization by Pope Urban II. with which the whole of Spain was seen to be filled [ff], Urban II, Supreme Pontiff, inscribed the holy Prelate among the number of the Saints in the year of the Lord MLXXXIX or thereabouts [gg]. Whose sacred pledges, honourably raised in the church of St. Peter, which was then the cathedral [hh], and placed in the high altar, remained for some time enclosed within a silver ark, until, the body [ii] of St. Ildephonsus, prelate of Toledo, having been found there — which the Christians of Toledo had left hidden in that church at the destruction of Spain — it is seen placed beside the sacred remains of St. Attilanus in a like silver reliquary above the arch in the place of the high altar, guarded by an iron grating and locked with seven [kk] keys. By whose merits God does wonders up to now for men imploring the help of these Saints and flocking with full faith to their sepulchres, as the innumerable spoils hanging on the walls of the church testify, our Lord Jesus Christ granting it, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit reigns for ever. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

as also the Lectionary, adducing them as witnesses of his narration.

p. Of the monastery of Tabora, or rather Tabara, treatment was given in the same Annotations, letter p.

q. Concerning the situation of the convent of Morerola see the same place, letter r.

r. In the year of Christ 990, as most judge, and so on the 30th day of May, as was said in the Annotations to the Acts of St. Froilan, letter t.

s. Since Zamora had been destroyed before the year of Christ 990 by Almanzor, leader of the Moors, it is more credible that St. Attilanus rather thought of restoring the churches in some manner and of gathering the dispersed flock than that he could have ruled the churches, the people and the clergy with wonderful skill.

t. The pilgrimage undertaken by St. Attilanus Marineus Siculus, book 5 De Rebus Hispanicis, Manrique in the Annales Cistercienses, Surius and other hagiologists report in almost the same manner as follows.

u. Something similar is narrated of St. Arnulf, bishop of Metz, in his Life by his coeval biographer, volume 4 of July, page 436, number 7, and Saeculum 2 Benedictinum, page 150.

x. That St. Attilanus was recalled to Zamora from his pilgrimage by a heavenly voice is also handed down by his epitaph towards the end.

y. Dávila mentions the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Zamora in volume 2 of the Teatro eclesiástico, page 384.

z. You would say that this history was drawn from the Life of St. Arnulf mentioned, so much does the one agree with the other, except that this one, according to the genius of the Spanish biographer, is somewhat more embellished and clothed more with its circumstances.

aa. Since in the year of Christ 1002 Zamora does not yet seem to have emerged from its ruins, after the devastation brought upon it by Almanzor, so far as to have towers and bells everywhere, let it be permitted meanwhile, until someone shows that it had even then been restored, to doubt somewhat of that prodigious sounding of the bells; nay rather, even if it were certain that bells existed everywhere at Zamora at that time, yet that prodigy would not hence become undoubted, since it is found handed down to memory by no contemporary writer, much less by an ear-witness.

bb. Concerning that heavenly and precious pontifical array with which St. Attilanus is here said to have been suddenly adorned, other writers are generally silent. From what source this was drawn I cannot divine.

cc. Namely, as is commonly believed, complete; so that others do not contradict this narration when they say that the Saint afterwards lived about eight years, always applying himself to holy works.

dd. If the common consent of sufficiently old writers teaches these things rightly, St. Attilanus would have been born in the year of Christ 939, and consecrated bishop of Zamora, as has also been said above, in the year of Christ 990.

ee. Since that Epitaph exhibits no chronological notes, its antiquity cannot be exactly defined. If, however, room be given to conjectures while the truth cannot certainly be elicited, I suspect that this Epitaph was placed on the sepulchre of our Saint either at the close of the eleventh century or in the twelfth century itself, at which time it was most customary to seek rhyme or monotony in verses, the metre of the syllables being neglected from time to time. Certainly to the most learned Mabillon too it seemed to savour of antiquity.

ff. It is truly to be grieved that either no one comprised those prodigies in writing, or that they were not diligently preserved up to our times.

gg. See the Commentary, number 18 and following.

hh. Mention is made of this church in the History of the Revelation or Finding of the body of St. Ildephonsus, with us on the 23rd day of January, page 538; and that this building sacred to St. Peter was anciently the cathedral church John Giles of Zamora, a writer of the close of the thirteenth century, expressly testifies in the History of the Translation and Finding of the body of B. Ildephonsus, which we are to edit in the Supplement of January, taken, on the testimony of Juan de Ferreras, from an authentic manuscript of Zamora, in which these words are read expressed: The remaining Christians who had escaped the hands of the devastators (the Arabs depopulating Spain in the eighth century and after), as zealots of the faith, gathered the most sacred relics of the churches, as far as was possible to them, so that they might be carried to the Asturias; among which, bearing the body of B. Aldefonsus, archbishop of Toledo, they came with it to Zamora, and laid up the most holy pledge in the church of B. Peter, where the cathedral see had once been.

ii. The praised Giles of Zamora is the authority that this finding of the body of St. Ildephonsus happened in the reign not of Alfonso VIII but of the Xth king of this name of León and Castile, and while Assuerus, or, as is read in the authentic manuscript of Zamora just praised, Suger, bishop, was governing the church of Zamora — namely in the year of Christ 1260, as Juan de Ferreras writes, while the church of St. Peter was being repaired; he not only flourished in the time of bishop Suger, as the words written in the margin of that authentic manuscript testify, but also heard from his own mouth some of the things which he reports.

kk. Ángel Manrique, Annales Cistercienses under the year of Christ 1131, chapter 8 at the end, makes mention of only three keys. Which of the two is to be assented to here, the Acts or Henríquez, it is not worth the trouble to dispute. Further, it pleases me to recount Henríquez's words which bear on this. Attilanus, whole, adorns Zamora, he says in the place cited, which through him was more than once freed from pestilential contagion (see Lobera, page 415 and following), his sepulchre joined to that of Ildephonsus of Toledo, who also rests there, and to whom, as a guest, he yields the name of the basilica, in other things equals. It is lawful for no one to unlock the railings in the absence or without the knowledge of the abbot of Morerola, with whom is one of the three keys of the treasure. But neither has he been seen to go forth in public — and he did indeed go forth in this very century of ours (namely the XVIIth, in which the praised Manrique was writing these things) — unless carried by the sons of his convent.

* supply Sanctorum of the Saints

* Inde Thence

* recipientes receiving

* perhaps dans giving