Bruno

ON ST. BRUNO, CONFESSOR, FOUNDER OF THE CARTHUSIAN ORDER, IN CALABRIA, IN THE YEAR MCI.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. Which Lives or Acts are to be published: the various aids or documents from which these were either composed or will be illustrated, and one of these to be published also at the end of the Acts.

Although before the beginning of the sixteenth century no one at all set down in writing of set purpose the whole course of the Life of St. Bruno, Although the Saint's Life was only late written of set purpose, who died, as will be said, in the year 1101, his manners and deeds, yet there were not lacking men of the most celebrated Order which this most holy Patriarch instituted, notable alike for learning and piety, who much earlier also most diligently committed to writing what they had ascertained concerning the beginnings and founders of the chief Charterhouse and of some others, if not to be published openly to the common people (for perhaps their great modesty would not have permitted that), at least to be communicated privately, within the retreats of their houses, as an example to the future followers of their institute; and in these writings they touched upon at least the chief heads of the life led by their holy Founder. How consonant this is with the truth is shown by the Short History of the Carthusian Order inserted in Martène's Veterum Scriptorum volume VI, in the Prologue of which these words are read: Although the first five Priors (of the Grande Chartreuse), described here below, are found in several Chronicles, yet their successors, for what cause I know not, have been so given over to oblivion that no memory whatever of them is had through any writing.

[2] For since the anonymous author who records this wrote about the beginning of the fifteenth century, yet in certain Chronicles concerning him, as I shall show at num. 17, the Chronicles of which he makes mention in the words recited were certainly composed long before the sixteenth century. Moreover, since they without doubt treated in some fashion of the deeds of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, it appears beyond doubt that they touched upon at least the chief heads of the matters pertaining to Bruno, as also that they were written by Carthusians, especially since they were found almost solely in the houses of the Carthusians, and lay hidden in them for a long time almost wholly unpublished. Further, of Chronicles of this kind, which could not undeservedly be called by this name because they present events arranged according to their times, and which are nevertheless found also named otherwise, two chiefly have come to my knowledge, one more concise, the other more extended. Concerning the age and authority of both, inasmuch as not a few of the things that are narrated of St. Bruno have their foundation in them, it will help to inform the reader at the very beginning of this Commentary, in which all the deeds of the same Saint are to be discussed and illustrated.

[3] and above all in the more concise Chronicle, I begin with the more concise Chronicle. Labbe, in volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum, page 638 and the two following, among the Historical Opuscula, lists from a manuscript codex of St. Remi at Reims five different elogia, in the first of which the chief deeds done by St. Bruno are contained in summary, and in the rest those which pertain to his four next successors in the Priorate of the Grande Chartreuse. At the head of the elogia this title is prefixed: Of the Institutions of the Carthusian Order: but since in the List of books which the aforesaid volume of manuscript books presents, after these words, Of the Institutions of the Carthusian Order, there is at once placed, Or of St. Bruno, of Landuin, of Peter Francis, of John the Tuscan, and of Guigo of Saint-Romain, the first Priors of the Chartreuse, I do not know whether institutoribus (founders) should not rather be read for institutionibus (institutions). But whether it be so or otherwise matters little, and therefore, having briefly noted this, let us return to the matter itself, and now inquire into the time at which the said elogia were written. Launoy, in the Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1, § V, also brings forward that very elogium of St. Bruno which Labbe presents at the place just cited, from a manuscript codex of the Carthusian Order of the statutes and customs written by Guigo, fifth Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, and says that this codex, in which there likewise exist the elogia of the next four successors of our Saint in the Priorate of the Chartreuse, as in Labbe at the place cited, is preserved at Paris among the Carthusians.

[4] under Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, Hence further an anonymous Carthusian author, who composed the fourth book of the Annals of his Order, which, though printed, has not hitherto been given to the public light, but which nonetheless has been communicated to me by the Carthusian Fathers out of their great kindness, conjectures at num. 101 that that codex which the Charterhouse of Paris preserves was written only after the year 1257, about which time this Charterhouse was first founded, and the Statutes of Rifferius, which are called the old ones, had not yet been prescribed. But presently he affirms, and indeed deservedly, that what is found in the same codex concerning St. Bruno and the first three Priors of the Chartreuse after him was committed to writing in the time of Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, and that this is established from another manuscript codex of the same Customs of the Carthusian Order, sent to him at the Chartreuse by the venerable Father Prior of the Charterhouse of Mont-Dieu, which likewise contains the elogia that occur in the Paris Codex of our Saint and his next four successors in the Priorate of the Grande Chartreuse, and is the most ancient of all those which are now found in the Order, as having been copied at the Grande Chartreuse and carried to the house of Mont-Dieu by Gaufred, its first prior, in the year of Christ 1136, in which that house was founded; as is plain from that codex itself, at the end of which these words are read: Formerly of the desert of the Chartreuse, now of the desert of Mont-Dieu from the year MCXXXVI. And below: Gaufred, Prior of Mont-Dieu, had it by gift of the lord Guigo.

[5] So, almost as to substance, the praised anonymous Carthusian annalist, before the year in which he had already died, who moreover affirms that the elogium of St. Bruno transcribed in his most ancient codex, and agreeing exactly, as is gathered from the same writer's words, with the elogium which Labbe presents at the place cited above, is one and the same, a few things being added, with the elogium of the same Saint which Launoy extracted from the Paris codex; and he transcribes from his most ancient codex the entire elogia of three other Priors thereafter, namely Landuin, Peter the Frank or Francis, and John the Tuscan, who governed the Chartreuse next after St. Bruno, which also agree exactly with their elogia existing in Labbe at the place cited above; and presently, lest anyone should perhaps deny the antiquity established above of this codex, because it also contains the elogium composed for Guigo, with his death noted, which took place in the year 1137, he proceeds thus: So much there of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse; and immediately on the same leaf (namely the verso), towards the end of the other (namely the second) page, in the same script in which the whole codex is written, and with no space of lines intervening, there followed the little index of the chapters of the Customs of Guigo, which had been continued on the three following pages.

[6] But afterwards the first lines of this little index, which immediately, as we have just said, written, as we have just said, in 1138, or the elogium which to him filled the remainder of the other page of the first leaf after the short elogium of John the Tuscan (the fourth Prior of the Grande Chartreuse), were obliterated (that is, expunged) by a more recent hand, which nevertheless appears very old, and in their place the beginning of a Brief Life of Guigo was written over, which Life was continued by the same recent hand on another half-leaf, which is easily detected to have been inserted between the preceding leaf, on which are the elogia of the aforesaid four Priors, and the other following leaf, on which the aforesaid index of chapters had been continued. Whence it is plain that the said elogium of Guigo was interposed or brought into the aforesaid codex after his death. Thus far, if you except a few things which I have added, using other type, for the sake of clarity, the praised anonymous annalist of the Carthusian Order. From these, further, and from the other things brought forward above, it follows, as has already been more than once mentioned, that, although it contains also the elogium of Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, the codex of Mont-Dieu, and the elogia of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse which it and Labbe at the place cited above supply, were written while Guigo himself was still surviving among the living, or before the year 1138, in which he had already ceased to live. Now indeed, since the matter is so, these things, the whole of which I shall henceforward, after the example of the anonymous Carthusian annalist already more than once praised, call the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, and have already above distinguished by the simple name of Chronicle, certainly deserve the highest credit with all, as having been put into writing by an author who, though not certainly known, was contemporary with the matters narrated in them, and very probably by Guigo himself, the writer of the primitive Customs of the Chartreuse, to which they are prefixed; who indeed, if he did not write what is related in that Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, and by name of St. Bruno, very probably at least saw and approved it.

[7] is included, and is recited here, certain things are handed down. Wherefore, that at the very threshold of this Commentary I may present to the studious reader a certain compendium of our Saint's Life that may be safely trusted, I transcribe here now the elogium of St. Bruno included in that Chronicle, and embracing those things which are narrated of him in it, such as it exists in Labbe at the place already very often cited. It runs thus: Master Bruno, by nation a German from the famous city of Cologne, of parents not obscure , well furnished with letters both secular and divine, canon and master of the schools of the church of Reims, which is second to none among those of Gaul, having left the world, founded the desert of the Chartreuse and governed it for six years. He, at the urging of Pope Urban, whose teacher he had once been, went to the Roman curia, to help the same Pope with comfort and counsel in Ecclesiastical affairs. But since he could not bear the tumults and manners of the curia, burning with love of the solitude and quiet he had left, having left the curia, and having also despised the archbishopric of the church of Reggio, to which he had been elected by the Pope's own will, he withdrew into the desert of Calabria, whose name is La Torre, and there, having gathered together a great many laymen and clerics, he practised the purpose of the solitary life as long as he lived. And having died there, he was buried in the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse.

[8] as also in the more extended Chronicle, This elogium will be of use not seldom in the course of this Commentary; it is, however, to be noted besides that its last four words, although they are not found in the codex of the Charterhouse of Paris from which Launoy brought it into his Dissertation praised above, are nevertheless to be retained, since both by Labbe in the Reims codex of St. Remi, and by the anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, both in the already above

mentioned codex, more ancient than all the rest, and also in others, as he himself testifies, they were found, and they seem to be required for the completion of the sense. I now proceed to the other of the two Chronicles, which supplies still more concerning St. Bruno, and of which it is also to be discussed here what it is and when it was written. This is nothing other than the Work or treatise of a Carthusian, of which John Columbi, a priest of our Society, discourses at length in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 57 and many others, rightly proving there, at num. 61, that that Treatise was not composed by William of Elbura or of Ivrea, or, if you prefer, by the author of the treatise On the Origin and Truth of the Perfect Religion, whether that author be in fact, as Columbi thought, William of Elbura, or Boso, seventeenth Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, as the anonymous annalist already praised several times, who wrote the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, contends at num. 55, and promises that he will prove afterwards.

[9] which is variously named by various people. Who, meanwhile, that other Carthusian was, or what name he had, who composed the treatise or Chronicle mentioned by Columbi, I have been able by no means to discover, and he prefixed no title to the Work; whence it came about that it was called by some the Chronicles of the beginning of the Carthusian Order, and by others the Treatise on the narration of the history of the beginning and advancement of the Carthusian Order. And indeed it could fittingly be distinguished by this title as well as by that; for, as the praised Columbi (for I do not have that Work entire at hand) shows at num. 49 of his Beginnings of the Carthusians, it is divided into two different parts, of which the one embraces the beginning of the Carthusian Order, the other St. Bruno and the four Priors of the Grande Chartreuse next after him, each placed in his order, and besides also adorned with elogia; as, so far as this last point is concerned, I understand from a letter sent to me from Cologne by Augustine Aldenbrück, a priest of our Society, when he had examined here at my request the same Work, which exists among the Carthusians there. I shall henceforth call it, from its principal part, which presents the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, keeping the order of time in which they governed the Chartreuse, the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Grande Chartreuse, just as I see has already been done before me in the manuscript Chronological-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, which is in my possession, which F. Michael Morckens of the Carthusian Order at Cologne composed and sent to my predecessors in the year 1727.

[10] This religious man, distinguished no less for learning, as this Work alone amply proves, [and which, containing the elogium to be published here under the name of the older Life,] than for piety, brought into it the entire elogium of St. Bruno, copied from the aforesaid Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Grande Chartreuse, as he calls it, and as others nevertheless, as I have already shown, call it otherwise; or rather from a most ancient copy of it, written, as he judges from the characters, easily four hundred years before, which is preserved in the library of the Carthusians of Cologne, having been given to it formerly by Peter Rinck, a notable benefactor of the Charterhouse of Cologne, and found to be entire and genuine by collation with the most ancient copy of the Grande Chartreuse. That elogium of our Saint, distinguished with the title of the older Life, and divided into numbers according to our custom, with Annotations also added at the end where it shall be fitting, I intend to append to this Commentary for this reason, that I have found no other more ancient writing in which more things are recounted concerning Bruno. And the reader, indeed, will easily discover by unrolling it how much the said elogium supplies concerning the holy Founder of the Carthusian Order; and how ancient it is will become plain from what I shall now say of the antiquity of the Chronicle from which it has been taken.

[11] That this was written as early as about the year 1151, or under Basil, not in the year, as Columbi would have it, who presided over the Chartreuse from this year to the year 1173, John Columbi, already several times praised, contends in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 57 and the three following. He endeavours to prove this opinion of his from the fact that the anonymous author of the Chronicle, after saying beforehand that he would treat Of the ancient wise men and holy founders and promoters of the Carthusian Order, places among these only Bruno, Landuin, Peter, John and Guigo, and passes over in silence Anthelm, the seventh, and Basil, the eighth Prior of the Chartreuse, who nevertheless, as he clearly shows, are deservedly to be reckoned among the ancient founders and promoters of the Carthusian Order. Whence, since he thinks that this was done by him because, when he was writing, these were not ancient, he concludes that he wrote as early as about the year 1151, or under Basil, eighth Prior of the Chartreuse. But what if the anonymous author of the Chronicle, when he had already recounted Bruno and the other four just named, was prevented by death or by other grave causes intervening from recounting Anthelm and Basil likewise? What if the book of the ancient or primitive Customs written by Guigo (for this anonymous writer praises it towards the end of the Life of St. Bruno to be published, for fixing the year of his death), after the manner of the most ancient Codex of Mont-Dieu and of several others which were mentioned at num. 4 and 5 and contain the same Customs of Guigo, set only the first five Priors of the Chartreuse at its head, and he therefore held only these among the ancient founders and promoters of the Carthusian Order, or at least thought that Anthelm and Basil should be passed over in silence because he neither found them mentioned there nor perhaps knew them well enough from elsewhere?

[12] about 1151, However that may be, it appears to me at any rate most probable, not to say beyond doubt, that the Chronicle of which we speak here was written later than about the year 1151. For its author, in our Saint's elogium or older Life, num. 2, distinguishes the academy of Paris with the name of University, which, although as early as about the year 1151 it had begun to constitute a certain society, and was flourishing with masters instructed in every kind of learning and with a huge multitude of students flocking to their lectures, was nevertheless not honoured with the name of University before the thirteenth century had begun, whatever Bulæus may argue to the contrary in the History of the University of Paris, as the Writers of the Literary History of France teach, volume 9, page 80, and as is now admitted by almost all the learned. Moreover the same author, a nursling, as I have said, of the Grande Chartreuse, in the Life of the Saint to be published, num. 20, mentions a Cartulary which existed in the Grande Chartreuse when he was writing; and it appears hardly credible that the Chartreuse was furnished as early as about the year 1151 with as many instruments as would have sufficed to compose a Cartulary.

[13] but probably not before about the year 1250, And indeed, since the Charterhouses neighbouring the chief Charterhouse, such as are the houses of Portes, of Meyriat, of Durbon, of Arvières and of the Valley of St. Hugh, a little before the year 1250, as a manuscript Treatise on the Life of St. Bruno, communicated to me by the Carthusian Fathers of this place, discloses at num. 24, were first concerned with gathering their documents into Cartularies, which exist entire even today, it becomes probable that the same care was then first undertaken by the Grande Chartreuse also. Hence further it now follows that the anonymous author of the Chronicle, into whose age we are inquiring here, since he makes mention, from what has been said, of a Cartulary which existed in the Grande Chartreuse when he wrote, probably did not write before about the year 1250, contrary to what Columbi determined. But how much time later, indeed, did that chronologer put his hand to writing?

[14] but certainly before the year 1314, Since William of Ivrea, to whom John Columbi attributes the Treatise On the Origin and Truth of the Perfect Religion in the Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 55, wrote it in the year 1313 in the opinion of the same Columbi; and Boso, to whom the said Treatise is perhaps in fact to be ascribed, died in the year 1313, it must certainly have been composed before the year 1314. Wherefore, since its author, whoever he may be, inserted into his work (go to John Columbi's Dissertation already often cited, num. 55 and 61) the entire Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse of which we speak here, it is altogether consequent that the author wrote this before the year 1314. Which, although it appears certain enough, there is nevertheless nothing further available by which I could safely determine how many years before he did it.

[15] Meanwhile nothing seems to stand in the way of believing that it was done by him about fifty or even sixty years before the said year 1314: nay, even if someone should contend that that writing, although by how long a space of time is not established, it was written. or the composition of the Chronicle of which we speak here, should be fixed before about the year 1250, or even before about the year 1230, I could not certainly convict him of falsehood, because it is not altogether beyond doubt that a Cartulary did not already exist then in the Grande Chartreuse; which nevertheless is altogether required in order that it could be proved that that composition is to be placed before neither of these years, all other arguments by which the matter might be certainly established being, so far as I think, entirely lacking. And these are the things which occur for determining in some fashion the age of the Chronicle which recounts in order the first five Priors of the Grande Chartreuse and in part their deeds. That it was written neither before the thirteenth century nor after the year 1314 appears certain from all that has been said; but how much time before this year it was done is quite uncertain, nor does anything occur by which I could determine the age of that monument more closely.

[16] But although the matter is so, nevertheless in subsequent times it was so approved by the Carthusians The Carthusians followed it, as here by the example that, if they had occasion to record in the books they were writing anything either of the origin of their Order or of St. Bruno or of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse after him, they mostly extracted from it what they did in fact record, not seldom using almost the same words as its author. And first among these is to be mentioned the author already more than once praised above, whether he be William of Ivrea or Boso, who brought that monument into his treatise On the Origin and Truth of the Perfect Religion. To him is added the chronologer of the Priors of the Carthusian Order mentioned by Columbi in the Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 54, who, as this writer there indicates, sets forth the horrible prodigy by which a man come back to life at Paris publicly proclaimed from the bier that he was damned, in plainly the same words in which this is done in the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or in the older Life of our Saint to be published from it, num. 1 and following, making mention thus in another place of his Work too than that in which these things occur: In a short time the prayer of John Birelli, Prior of the Chartreuse, and of the community was heard, and Amadeus the Green, count of Savoy, received a son from his wife, who was thought barren, who,

being also called Amadeus, has now been made count of Savoy.

[17] From these words, moreover, it follows that the said chronologer undoubtedly wrote in the space of time is shown by not one, which elapsed from the year 1383 to the year 1391; for in the former of these two years Amadeus the Green, and in the latter his son, likewise called Amadeus, departed from the living, as Columbi teaches at the place cited. These very words, meanwhile, just now recited, are also read in the short History of the Carthusian Order in Martène, volume 6 of the Veteres Scriptores, col. 189, and this History is nevertheless carried on by its author up to the year 1409; for which reason, since it moreover presents the deeds of the Priors of the Chartreuse in chronicle order, it seems altogether consequent either that it is the very Work of the chronologer of the Carthusian Priors just adduced from Columbi, which he himself enlarged in the said year 1409 or even later with additions embracing the deeds from the time at which he had written before, no change being made in what he had written before; or that it was compiled in the same said year 1409 or even later by another writer, both from the Work of the chronologer of the Carthusian Priors praised by Columbi (his very words being kept intact) and from notices or writings received from elsewhere.

[18] they always valued greatly. However that may be, the anonymous author of this Work too, in which it has pleased me to observe these things, since it is still to be praised below, copied almost word for word, only a few things being changed, from the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, which he intimates not obscurely in his Prologue had lighted his way, the entire elogium of our Saint, which I have already said is to be published under the name of the older Life, as also what it presents of the other four Priors of the Chartreuse next after St. Bruno, as I again understand from the letter which Augustine Aldenbrück sent me from Cologne, and which I praised at num. XI. Nor could not a few others undeservedly be recounted in this place, and among these Henry Kalkar, a learned writer of the Carthusian Order, taken from the living in the year 1408, who, when they treated of our Saint only incidentally, extracted some things from that older monument, though not all of them used its very words. But since I do not think that worth while, I proceed to those who at length, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, undertook to treat of set purpose all the things done by St. Bruno, taught the material of their writing, which they too expressed not in others' words but in their own, from the two ancient Chronicles whose age has already been dealt with, and besides, as is not to be doubted, from other monuments both older and more recent.

[19] Four Lives of the Saint written at the beginning of the 16th century: Four chiefly are to be mentioned here, among whom the first place is held by an anonymous Carthusian and Zacharias Benedictus, a nursling of the Charterhouse of St. Andrew of the Lido at Venice, of whom the former in prose, the latter in verse, embraced the deeds of their holy Father. The composition of the former was made public in the year 1508, in which Berthold Rembolt, a printer of Paris, prefixed it to St. Bruno's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, then printed by him; that of the latter, however, although it did not come to light before the year 1524, in which Jodocus Badius added it at the end of the Works of St. Bruno then published by him in type at Paris, had nevertheless been composed by its author as early as the same year 1508, as the dedicatory Epistle which it bears at its head in the same place, inscribed to Francis du Puits, Prior General of the Carthusian Order, on the Fifth day before the Kalends of May MDVIII, clearly shows. Not very long after those two biographers of the Saint, this same General of the Carthusian Order, Francis du Puits, in Latin a Puteo, or de Puteo, or also, as I find it written by others (for that French surname can not ineptly be rendered variously in the Latin idiom), Puteanus, wrote the Life of his holy Father in plain prose, as the anonymous Carthusian last mentioned had done, as Theodore Petræus in the Bibliotheca Cartusiana, Morotius in the Theatrum chronologicum and others teach; from which likewise, as the same testify, not so very long after, Peter Blomevenna, a nursling of the Charterhouse of Cologne and for many years its ruler, made a fuller one, with additions received from elsewhere, and published it in type in his own seat at Cologne.

[20] The composition of Puteanus, which is nowhere found marked with its author's name, which was printed from these at Basel in the year 1515, Puteanus, appears to be that very Life of St. Bruno which about the year 1515 was printed at Basel in Gothic letters without the author's name, and afterwards, with the type repeated, was added at Paris by Jodocus Badius, together with the above-mentioned metrical composition of Zacharias Benedictus, at the end of the Works of St. Bruno, likewise without the author's name, having a Prologue prefixed to it whose beginning is this, Not only the Lord in His Saints, etc., and thus begun: In the times of Gregory the seventh, Roman Pontiff, etc. But a difficulty which presents itself here compels me to interrupt the course of my discourse. Possevinus in the Apparatus Sacer relates that the Life of the Saint which has Puteanus as its author was given to the press at Paris by Jean Petit; wherefore, since moreover Launoy, in the Dissertation on the cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 5, about the middle, affirms that in the Life written by Puteanus our Saint's withdrawal into the desert is placed in the year 1082, while in the Life of the Saint printed at Basel it is nevertheless expressly connected with the year 1084, there will perhaps be someone who suspects that this is not the offspring of Puteanus.

[21] But the same Life which was printed at Basel and then at Paris by Jodocus Badius as, various reasons being adduced, may perhaps have been reprinted at the same place by Jean Petit; or, if the matter be otherwise, Possevinus perhaps erred in assigning the printer of the Life composed by Puteanus; which last indeed appears to me most probable, for this reason, that, a most diligent search having been made at Paris in libraries both public and private, no Life of St. Bruno at all, as I learn from a letter received thence from a friend, could be found that was printed by Jean Petit. As for Launoy, he probably took by mistake for the composition of this biographer a Life which was not written by Puteanus, a thing the more easily committed because, as I have already said, the Life composed by Puteanus is not found marked with its author's name. However that may be, many things persuade that the Life of our Saint printed at Basel about the year 1515 is the offspring of Puteanus. For first, the plate representing the prodigious resurrection of the man who publicly declared at Paris that he was damned, and thence Bruno's conversion, his withdrawal into the solitude of the Chartreuse, and some other things preceding it, which is prefixed to the Statutes and Privileges of the Carthusian Order printed at Basel in the year 1510 by Johann Amerbach by order of Francis a Puteo, or, to speak more briefly, Puteanus, is likewise prefixed to the Basel Life of our Saint.

[22] Secondly, it appears most probable that Puteanus, inasmuch as he laboured very much in the year 1514, or even a little earlier, is proved, has as its author, that Bruno should be inscribed in the roll of the Saints, then committed his Life to writing, and, when in the said year 1514, with the assent of the supreme Pontiff Leo X, the honours proper to the heavenly citizens had begun to be paid to him, had it printed not much later. Thirdly, when there is question of the Basel Life of St. Bruno, the tradition of the Carthusians holds that that of Puteanus is meant, as a notice supplied by Joseph Phily, secretary of the Most Reverend Father and of the General Chapter of the Carthusian Order, informs me; and it appears certain from Theodore Petræus, the Carthusian writer praised above, who in his Elucidations on the Chronicle of Dorlandus, page 12, calls the offspring of Puteanus that Life of St. Bruno at the end of which over a hundred and sixty funeral Titles, of which presently, or, as he calls them, Epitaphs, are added, which in such number are found added only to the Life of the Saint printed at Basel. Fourthly and lastly, the Life which Blomevenna, as I have already shown, composed partly from the Life written by Puteanus has so great a likeness, as is plain from a collation of the two, with the Life printed at Basel, that it must be that either the latter was composed from the former or the former from the latter, at least in part. Wherefore, all these things having been weighed, I do not at all doubt that the Life which has Puteanus as its author is that very one which came to light about the year 1515 from the Basel press.

[23] [and I shall reprint it alone together with the older one mentioned above and that of Surius,] I now continue, therefore, the discourse begun concerning the Lives of the Saint written at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Of the four already recounted only that is lacking to me which the anonymous Carthusian composed and Berthold Rembolt printed at Paris; of the other three, none of which can be commended for antiquity, considering the long interval of time after the Saint's death at which their authors wrote, I shall reprint only that of Puteanus, divided according to custom into chapters and numbers, from a copy of the first Basel edition, the other two being passed over for this reason, that the one presents the appearance merely of a poetic sport, not of a Life historically and sincerely written, while the other, with superfluous digressions and excursions too long and frequent, would bring the reader much tedium and almost no pleasure; but that the want of the Life composed by Blomevenna, if anyone perhaps feels it, may be borne more easily, I shall append to the Life written by Puteanus another Life, which, as the sixteenth century was already growing old, was composed by Surius both from this one and from Blomevenna's fuller composition, and which therefore without doubt contains whatever worthy of mention occurs in the latter; and at the same time I shall weave into this Commentary, whenever it shall be fitting, words excerpted from the compositions of Blomevenna and also of Zacharias Benedictus, so that the words of the Lives of Puteanus and Surius may come to be cited more rarely; or at least, if they supply anything which is absent from the Lives to be published and deserves to be noted, I shall not pass it over unobserved in the Annotations which I am going to append to these.

[24] [yet so that I shall add to it the funeral Titles of the Saint, of which a notion is given here,] I shall reprint, therefore, only three different Lives of our Saint, of which two are more recent, and one older, mentioned above, though even this was written no less than a hundred years and more after his death; to which, since besides I am going to add the various funeral Titles, which at length a Posthumous Glory, or rather a certain supplement to it, collected from various notices or writings, will follow — Titles divided into different sections, each of which contains several of them, for the convenience of the Annotations to be added from time to time, and each distinguished by its own numbers, from the Basel Life of the Saint, in the order in which they are found at its end — it is fitting that the reader should now further be informed here of the reason for this plan of mine, and of what comes under the name of these. It was formerly the custom, even in the age of St. Bruno, that monks, when any of the more distinguished men of their monastery had died, a sheet

or encyclical letter announcing his death, which generally consisted of membranes stretched out lengthwise, and which, because it was not folded but rolled after the fashion of the Roman volumes, was distinguished by the name of Rotulus or Roll, they sent by one of their number, who was therefore called the Rotularius or Rolliger (roll-bearer), to the monasteries, churches or persons with whom they were joined either by association or by friendship or in some other singular manner, asking for the agreed, or ordinary, or fixed prayers for the soul of the departed; and the responses which were given to letters of this kind by the persons to whom they had been sent, mostly in verse, and sometimes also in prose, and were inscribed on the roll brought, or also on a separate sheet, as the case required, came under the name of funeral Titles. All these things, or at any rate things not much different, are gathered from what Du Cange, citing various writers, brings forward in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity at the words Rotulus, Titulus and Brevia mortuorum.

[25] According, therefore, to the custom already described, the religious inhabitants of the Calabrian desert, for the causes recorded here I am also going to add. when St. Bruno had died in it, sent in every direction by one of their number an encyclical letter announcing his death to the monasteries and churches of Italy, Gaul and England, and indeed, contrary to the custom mostly used then, to some others also than those with which they were joined by association, as that Letter itself, which is also to be published in its place immediately before the funeral titles, bears witness; and they received very many responses, which are therefore to be distinguished here henceforward by the name of funeral Titles. These, as I understand from a manuscript Life of St. Bruno, composed especially from his funeral titles, of which we speak here, by an anonymous Carthusian of Liget, and sent to our predecessors by Frederick Flouet, a priest of our Society, were found in the Calabrian desert of St. Stephen, when this, which the Cistercians had held for a very long time after it had been transferred to them about sixty years after the death of St. Bruno, had at length returned to the Carthusians in the year 1514, at about this very time, by these, who thought them worthy of the press, and in fact added them at the end of the Life of the Saint which not so very long after was printed at Basel; and not undeservedly indeed. For they contribute not a little to illustrating the Saint's deeds, as will become plain from the course of this Commentary; and although most of them consist of insipid and badly turned verses, very many of them nevertheless teach some things pertaining specially to the Saint; or if, as also not seldom happens, they are conceived in too general a manner, they at least commend Bruno, if you except a few, for his exceptional learning, humility or other virtue, so that they also mostly serve as proof of how highly he was then esteemed by all. Hence, therefore, I shall reprint not only the principal ones, as Surius did in the Life of the Saint composed by him, but each and every one of them, as precious monuments of antiquity, written immediately upon the happy departure of St. Bruno from the living, especially since they are, as I understand, eagerly desired by many, and the Basel or Puteanian Life of the Saint, at the end of which alone they are found, is in the hands of few.

[26] Further, since the Lives of St. Bruno to be published, not excepting even that very one which is to be excerpted from the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, The Lives of the Saint to be published, with which besides do not enjoy, as is easy to gather from what has already been said, so great a merit of antiquity that they can of themselves command credit; nay rather, since, if only because they were not written by contemporary or nearly contemporary authors, it can not undeservedly be doubted whether whatever they assert certainly agrees with the truth, there will certainly be no little labour in this Commentary in separating, among the things that are in them, the true from the false, the certain from the doubtful, the probable from the improbable, and the likely from what is destitute of likelihood. And in order to bring this to effect, I shall frequently employ not only the elogium of the Saint transcribed above from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, and the funeral titles of which I have already spoken, but also some other ancient writings composed by authors who handed down to memory at least something, incidentally, concerning St. Bruno, and also diplomas or charters or public instruments, of the authority and credit of all of which I shall speak when they are to be brought forward or cited; and all the labour will be not a little lightened by some more recent writers who have treated of St. Bruno, adducing not only ancient documents but also the arguments which they could form from these, either of set purpose or, if only incidentally, at least at some length. And among these no lowest place will be held by Surianus in his Annotations on the Surian Life of St. Bruno, by Mabillon both elsewhere and most of all in the Ecclesiastical Annals, and by Hercules Zanotti in his History of St. Bruno written in Italian, printed at Bologna in the year 1741, and sent to us in the year 1761 by the most reverend lord abbot of the Charterhouse of Mauerbach in Austria.

[27] to be illustrated and discussed Nor will they be of less use: the anonymous Carthusian who composed the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, printed indeed, but hitherto, as I have already said above, not made public; the Writers of the Literary History of France, especially in volume 9, in the Life of St. Bruno; Camillus Tutinus in his Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, although I meanwhile have this Work at hand only in mutilated form; Morotius in the Theatrum chronologicum of the sacred Carthusian Order; John Columbi in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians; Innocent le Masson in book 1 of the Carthusian Annals; and not a few others to be named in the course of the work. Meanwhile let the studious reader not expect Severus of Naples, or de Trafaglionibus, to be cited by me as seen or inspected, who, besides other things which I suspect are suggested by him to our purpose, also brought out of darkness into light many monuments and diplomas pertaining to St. Bruno and to Carthusian affairs, as Surianus teaches in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno, page 197 and following; for this writer does not exist in our possession; and in the other libraries which I have had searched here he could not be found, nor have I thought it right to seek him in remote regions, especially since I think his lack is supplied at least in great part by three different manuscript Treatises on St. Bruno already mentioned above, of which one, which is entitled the Chronological-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, and contains many ancient documents and diplomas, was sent to my predecessors in the year 1727 by Michael Morkens, a nursling of the Charterhouse of Cologne; the second, which supplies not a few things likewise occurring in the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, hitherto unpublished and presently to be praised again, was communicated to us by the Carthusians of this place; and the third, finally, which, as I have already said, was composed chiefly from the Saint's funeral Titles by an anonymous Carthusian of Liget, was sent as a gift to our predecessors by F. Frederick Flouet in the year 1658, as I have likewise already said.

[28] are aids. To these may further be added also a Historical-chronological-critical Compendium of the Life of St. Bruno, filled with much learning, communicated to me not so very long ago by a nursling of the Charterhouse of Paris, who wishes his name to be wholly kept silent. And so, studious reader, you now have the principal aids recorded in the present §, which I shall use in this Commentary for illustrating and examining the Acts of St. Bruno. For the rest, it is to be known that the words Cartusia and Carthusiani are written by me indiscriminately both without and with the aspirate, because I find this done by most of the writers who preceded me, whom I would not dare to accuse of error. For although the word Cartus, as Puteanus would have it in his exhortatory address added to the Life of the Saint composed by him, of which I shall speak in the last Annotation to it, were truly a Hebrew word, signifying perfectly called, and although in fact Jerome, On Hebrew names (go to the Paris edition of the year 1699 of the Works of this holy Father, volume 2, col. 27), interprets the Hebrew word Cartham in Latin as vocationem perfecit (he perfected the calling), it does not therefore follow that the names Cartusia and Carthusiani received their nomenclature either from the Hebrew word Cartus or from Cartham. Let us now approach the matter itself.

* otherwise there is added natus (born)

* otherwise melitit secessit

§ II. The noble family of the Saint, his fatherland, the time of his birth.

The Saint of noble family, though meanwhile, whether of an illustrious one, That St. Bruno was born of a noble family all his Lives to be published relate with unanimous consent, and it appears beyond doubt: for his short elogium, which I recited at num. 7 from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, has it thus: Master Bruno, by nation a German, from the famous city of Cologne, of parents not obscure (born, namely, as is added elsewhere) … founded the desert of the Chartreuse. Moreover testimony to the nobility of the stock from which Bruno sprang is also given by the church of St. Mary of Rouen, in its funeral title sent to the Calabrian Carthusians in the year 1102, which among the titles of this kind to be published, as I have said, at the end of the Lives, holds place 146, speaking thus of the Saint: He was wise, a man noble, shining in nature. Nor can anything deservedly be argued against the nobility of the family from which the Saint sprang from Manasses, the Simoniac archbishop of Reims after Gervase, who died in the year 1067, who in his Apology, to be praised several times below, speaks thus of Bruno (go to Mabillon, Museum Italicum volume 1, part 2, page 121): Whose (namely Bruno's) fellowship we do not greatly desire, inasmuch as we are wholly ignorant of his life and his free status; for although by these words Manasses indicates that he doubts whether the Saint were freeborn, he does it only from the most vehement hatred with which he was borne against Bruno, who opposed his most evil morals. But there are some who, having tried to search more deeply into the nobility of the family from which Bruno sprang, have written that he drew his origin from that most noble family of Cologne which the inhabitants designate as of Hartenfaust, or of the hard fist, and likewise from other most noble families which they name below.

[30] Although the matter, as you will understand from what is to be said, is very uncertain, as some, whose words yet, since I think it will not be unwelcome, I present to the reader what is related and by whom. Erhard Winheim, a nursling of the Charterhouse of Würzburg, in his Work which he entitled Sacrarium Agrippinense and published from the Cologne press in the year 1607, writes thus at page 212: As regards, then, the initiator (of the Carthusian Order), St. Bruno, he drew his origin from the noble lineage of Hartenfaust, one of the fifteen Roman families brought for the garrison of the city (namely of Cologne) through St. Maternus and the emperor Trajan, as the arms of four of his family bear witness from the Chronicle of Cologne. Theodore Petræus, a nursling of the Charterhouse of Cologne, in his (Elucidations) on the Carthusian Chronicle of Peter Dorlandus, which he brought out of darkness and in type in the year

1608 published, observes thus in his elucidations: He (namely St. Bruno) had parents most distinguished among the Ubii both for birth and for virtue, sprung, namely, from that most noble Roman lineage which led a new colony to Agrippina, which the inhabitants even now designate as of the Hard Fist. So these: and the latter indeed, since he affirms that both parents of St. Bruno sprang from the most noble family which is called of the Hard Fist, makes the Saint sprung from the family of the Hard Fist, or Hartefaust, both on his father's and on his mother's side; but the former, since he only relates that the Saint drew his origin from the family of Hartenfaust, or of the Hard Fist, without making any mention of his parents, does not define whether it was on the father's side or on the mother's, or even on both sides at once.

[31] bring forward Those who flourished before Petræus and Winheim spoke more distinctly: Peter Blomevenna, and Stephen Broelmann, an antiquary of the Ubii who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, praised by Gelenius in his Work on the greatness of Cologne at the very beginning and not seldom elsewhere; of whom the one makes the Saint of the Hartefaust family on his father's side, the other on his mother's side. The words of the former, which he adds immediately after the Prologue of the Life of the Saint published by him from the Cologne press not very long after the year 1515, and not to be reprinted here by us, as I have already said above, are these: Blessed Bruno, the initiator of the sacred Carthusian Order, by nation a German, from the notable city of Cologne, which in ancient times was called Agrippina from Marcus Agrippa, son-in-law of Octavian, drew his origin from parents distinguished both by birth and by virtue. For the emperor Trajan and the senate of the Romans had formerly directed noble Romans thither to inhabit the city and guard the land; to whom the neighbouring nobles were joined in marriage. Of these one tribe was called Of the Wise, and of the Romans one was called Of the Hard Fist. From these blessed Bruno sprang on his father's side. On his mother's side he drew his blood from a noble tribe of the Romans named Of the Little Thought, from the family which was afterwards called Of the Red Stessen.

[32] hand down to memory, are adduced here, And those of the latter, which he answered, as Morkens witnesses, when asked about the noble birth of the Saint, are these: St. Bruno was surnamed Aimilius or the Wise, sprung from Cologne, from a father of the Roman-Frankish and patrician family Aimilia and of the Wise (Vondem Wiesen), which is the stock and cause of the surname; and he had a patrician mother of the family of the Catos, which in the vernacular Frankish idiom was called (Vonder Hartenfaust) of the Hard Fist, since it was of the Catos under the Ubio-Romans; a maternal grandmother of the patricians of the Aimilii (Vondem Cleingedancken), Of the Little Thought among the Franks; a great-grandmother from a certain branch of this, the family Of the Red Stessa (Vonder Roder-Stessen). When the line had descended further, marriages were contracted, and from this line a certain knight, for notable exploits in the Crusade, had increased his shield by gift of kings with the crowned head of an Ethiopian. So Blomevenna and Broelmann, of whom the one besides makes the Saint a Stessen on his mother's side, the other an Aimilian on his father's side; but whether each and every one of the assertions, both of Broelmann and of Petræus, Blomevenna and Winheim, contained in the words already recited, agree with the truth (which God forbid that I should think), it is not my pleasure to examine here, but only whether the Saint is rightly asserted to have sprung from the most noble families which are named in the words recited, and especially from the Hartefaust family, to which the four praised writers attribute him with unanimous consent.

[33] And Petræus indeed, and Winheim, praise no ancient monument at all, and Broelmann also strives to prove, much less bring one forward, by which they might prove the Hartefaust origin of the Saint. Nor does Blomevenna better establish what he hands down to memory about the Saint's Hartefaust birth on his father's side and Stessen birth on his mother's side. As for Broelmann, Morkens, in the manuscript Chronological-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno which I have already praised above, affirms that he drew what he brings forward about the Saint's family from ancient monuments of the house mentioned by Gelenius, On the Greatness of Cologne book 3, syntagma 19, which is called At the Red Stessa, and which, because the Saint is said to have been born in it, displays his sacred image fixed to the gate; but what or of what kind these are he does not state. Moreover Broelmann himself, in order to prove the family which he attributes to the Saint, writes in Morkens: After the manner of German nobles he (namely St. Bruno) had four ensigns by which he might show and defend his illustrious family and house: 1. Of the Wise (Von den Weisen), who had a blue lion rampant on a white field; 2. Of the Hard Fist (Von der Hartefaust), who adorned a white shield with two red and latticed arms, the hand clenched in the manner of a fist, as though for wrestling; 3. Of the Little Thought (Von den Kleingedancken), whose shield was red with a snowy bar twisted in windings; 4. Of the Red Stessa (Von der Roder-Stessen), whose shield had on a red field two twisted bars, and on either side two crowned heads of Ethiopians.

[34] But that the armorial ensigns which Broelmann records here, [draws his origin from the family of the Hartefausts, as wholly uncertain, as here,] and which the Life written by Blomevenna, and existing in my possession, also presents at the end together with the image of the Saint, were proper to St. Bruno, or belonged to him on account of the family from which he sprang, appears by no means probable. For armorial ensigns such as Broelmann records, and such as are now in use, first arose when the Christians undertook the holy war in the East against the infidels, which took place only towards the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century, as Muratori rightly teaches from various authors in volume IV of the Antiquitates Italiæ, col. 689 and following; but Bruno, as will become plain from what is to be said below, was born beyond all doubt before the year 1050, so that consequently ensigns of this kind belonged neither to his parents nor to himself. I find also, however, the Commentaries on Civil Affairs which Broelmann composed in illustrating the affairs of Cologne praised in Morkens; wherefore, since I thought that perhaps things suited to proving the family which he attributes to the Saint were supplied by him in these, and yet I knew by no means those Commentaries, nor, as I have already intimated, the ancient monuments of the house called At the Red Stessa from which Broelmann could have drawn out what he relates of the Saint's family, I sent a letter to Cologne in which I asked Augustine Aldenbrück, a priest of our Society, that, if he had found anything which would serve to demonstrate the Hartefaust or other family of the Saint, either concerning those monuments, or concerning Broelmann and the Commentaries written by him, or also concerning the family or families from which the Saint is asserted by this writer to have sprung, or could attain it by searching, he would deign to write the whole of it to me.

[35] the matter having also been diligently examined at Cologne And the man, most deserving of our Museum, satisfied the request excellently indeed, sending us two letters to this end, in the first of which he speaks thus of Broelmann and the Commentaries written by him: He expended great labour in collecting the ancient monuments of the city (namely Cologne), but nothing of them was made public except the Epideigma, containing various little plates engraved on copper and inscribed on the reverse side with a Preface or dedication. Where his manuscript Commentaries on civil affairs lie hidden, the Powers above know; I should believe them divided among friends and heirs after his death, and that I, twenty-two years ago, saw his first book, which is on the origin and ancient seats of the Ubii, in the possession of P. Hartzheim of pious memory; and concerning the family or families from which the Saint is said to have drawn his origin he writes thus: As regards demonstrating the splendour of St. Bruno's family, nothing else remains than constant tradition and public report. It is certain indeed that those families (mentioned above by Broelmann) flourished here at Cologne, as very many monuments testify, which still remain to be seen in various buildings both sacred and profane, together with the same shields and armorial devices which Morkens, Broelmann and Gelenius adduce. But by no sufficiently firm document besides the aforesaid tradition can I thus far show that St. Bruno sprang from these same families.

[36] both in the house in which the Saint is said to have been born, As for the ancient monuments of the house in which the Saint is said to have been born at Cologne, from which Broelmann drew what he relates of Bruno's family, I went again, he says, some days ago, to the house which received him (namely St. Bruno) in his first cradle; but that old one, of most ancient work, which I had often gone through as a youth, and again afterwards as master of polite literature in this place, I sought in vain in the modern one, built some years ago according to the taste of this age. And then, some things being interposed which will be more opportunely described when I treat of the posthumous glory of the Saint, he continues in this manner: By whom (the owners and inhabitants of the house in which the Saint is said to have been born) new windows too were substituted for the old, little account being taken of the shields and inscriptions which, as I do not at all doubt, it would have been possible to find in the old ones. Above the gate St. Bruno is seen, and on the upper panelling of the chamber (namely the one which they will have it Bruno inhabited) the same Saint is seen surrounded by four shields (namely those which Broelmann records above). But I scarcely think that that work exceeds two hundred and fifty years in age. And those four shields indeed, which is to be noted here, I would have presented here to the reader engraved on copper from Blomevenna or Morkens, in whose works they exist, if it were established in any way that St. Bruno derived his family from the families to which they belong. But that the matter stands otherwise will become plain more and more from what is to be said.

[37] and examined from the public archives of that city, The praised Augustine Aldenbrück had also added to the words last recited that, in order to be able to write me more certain things, he would besides take care to be informed by friends, to whom he hoped, when occasion offered, to have them opened and searched, whether anything suited to defining the noble family of St. Bruno might perhaps be found in the public archives, which at Cologne are called die schrein, scrinia (chests); and when this had been done he wrote the second of the two letters mentioned above, conceived for the greatest part in these words: By the help of friends I have obtained that in the principal archives of this kind (namely those which at Cologne are called die schrein, scrinia) all the older charters which dealt with the Red Stessa have been diligently gone through and examined; but nothing else could be drawn out of them than that for six hundred years and more there have been two stocks of the chief city nobility, of which one was distinguished by the name of the Whites, the other of the Reds. But in vain are family and children sought from these charters, since in the most ancient only the names of the Whites or

of the de Albis, and of the Reds, are found, and in a later age the name of one or another son is sometimes found added, almost only in this manner: Above, De albis; below, Hilliger etc., sons. From which I should think this one thing only can be concluded, that St. Bruno drew from his parent the name de Albis, Von den Weisen (of the Whites), rather than of Aemilius or of the Wise, as Broelmann, according to Morkens's account, judged, or rather guessed.

[38] And these are the things which the praised Augustine Aldenbrück wrote back to the questions by more than one reason proposed to him by us and expressed above; but from them nothing whatever can be drawn out for determining the Hartefaust or Aemilian origin of the Saint. For first, since he declares at num. 35 that he does not know in what place the Commentaries on Civil Affairs written by Broelmann now lie hidden, whether anything is contained in them from which this author might prove the family asserted by him for the Saint is left as uncertain as before; and as for the shields and inscriptions expressed in the old windows of the Stessen house, which is reported to be St. Bruno's birthplace, that they were earlier in age than the fifteenth century, or even than the image itself which represents St. Bruno surrounded by the four armorial shields enumerated above by Broelmann on the upper panelling of the chamber which the Saint inhabited, and which (go to num. 36) seems to be only about two hundred and fifty years old, can be proved by no argument at all, so far as I know; so that consequently, even if it were granted that the Hartefaust or Aemilian origin of the Saint had been most clearly expressed in them (which nevertheless is by no means established), it would not on that account become at all certain, as will be plain to one who considers it. Wherefore, since it is in no way confirmed either by the public archives of the city of Cologne, as the praised Aldenbrück indicates in the preceding number, or by other monuments of known authority and age that are to hand, so far as I know, it remains that it is founded solely on the public report and constant tradition alleged at num. 35, and is consequently plainly uncertain, since a tradition which is propped up only by testimonies removed by the space of at least three centuries from the matter with which it is concerned cannot, as is plain of itself, command undoubted credit; and such, as is plain from what has already been said, is the tradition of the people of Cologne concerning the Hartefaust or Aemilian origin of the Saint.

[39] Nor is there reason why you should object from Gelenius, On the Greatness of Cologne, book 3, is shown, is to be held, syntagma 19, and from Broelmann in Morkens, that the house which is even today called At the Red Stessa belonged to the parents of St. Bruno, who was also born in it, and that consequently at least one of them came from the Hartefaust family, already then joined in kinship with the Stessen; for besides the fact that this rests solely on tradition, which does not seem to be of value from what has just been said, how, I ask, will you prove that that house (which nevertheless is required in order that anything be drawn from it) was either, before it belonged to the Saint's parents, possessed by the Stessen, from whom it then also received its name, or, if it was already then possessed by them, passed to the Saint's parents on account of a kinship subsisting between the latter and the former? Moreover the authority of Gelenius, who may have believed similar things, by no means suffices to make me believe the same likewise; for this writer, which also, as I now understand, must almost be said of Broelmann, is known to have scraped together indiscriminately, without any distinction, with no selection made, whatever things made for the greatness of the Ubian nation. All things, therefore, having been accurately weighed, whether the Saint was of the Hartefaust family, or rather, to speak generally, of what determinate illustrious family he was born, is plainly doubtful, ancient and sufficiently suitable monuments by which it might safely be assigned being lacking; so that Surius indeed in his Life, contrary to what he saw done by Blomevenna, from whom, as has been said, he partly composed it, prudently abstained from defining the Saint's noble origin, and wrote only, at num. 1, that he had parents distinguished both by birth and by virtue. Nevertheless Ferdinand, prince elector of Cologne, or rather those who wrote the encyclical letter given in his name in the year 1624 to the clergy of Cologne concerning the celebration of the feast of St. Bruno, which I shall weave entire into the Posthumous Glory, preferred to follow Blomevenna rather than Surius, using these words in it: Saint Bruno, the great glory and ornament of the Church, a citizen of Cologne, born and educated at Cologne of the noble family of Hartenfaust. But these, as is plain of itself, cannot be of such authority that they are to be listened to here.

[40] at Cologne, The same must also be said of the bishop of Gerace (this was without doubt, as I gather from Ughelli, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, on the bishops of Gerace, Octavian, who died in the year 1591), who, as Severus of Naples witnesses in Surianus, in the illustrated Life of our Saint, page 86, hands down to memory, in the Catalogue of the archbishops of Reggio in Calabria collected by him, into which St. Bruno is inserted after Arnulf as elected prelate of this church, that he was born of the family Alcuina or Alchanirina. For from what monuments did Octavian collect that Catalogue? From ancient ones? That indeed I should believe, with Surianus at the place cited. But also from ones so ancient that they were fitted of themselves to command undoubted credit? That indeed neither does Surianus affirm, nor shall I easily bring myself to believe it without the testimony of a credit by no means suspect. However that may be, certainly Ughelli, by whom, in volume 9 of Italia Sacra, in the Catalogue of the archbishops of Reggio, St. Bruno is likewise recounted after Arnulf as his elected successor in that see, and is moreover adorned with a notable elogium, makes no mention at all of the Saint's Alcuinan or Alchanirinan origin. And let these things suffice concerning Bruno's family, which no one can easily define; I now turn my discourse to his native soil alone. The same who with unanimous consent assert that the Saint sprang of a noble family, all his biographers, assert also that he was born in Germany at Cologne. And indeed that this assertion of theirs agrees excellently with the truth is plain enough even from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Grande Chartreuse alone, composed, as I have already shown, before the year 1137, and most worthy of credit, which in the elogium of St. Bruno transcribed here at num. 7 has, opportunely for the present purpose, thus: Master Bruno, by nation a German, born of parents not obscure from the famous city of Cologne, … founded the desert of the Chartreuse.

[41] There is added further the Chronography of Sigebert of Gembloux, although also of Reims or a Gaul who was taken from the living in the year 1113, which in almost the same words places the Saint's native soil at Cologne, as also Peter the Venerable, who died in the year 1156, who in book 2 of the Miracles, chap. 28, calls Master Bruno a man of Cologne. But our Saint is also called of Reims by two writers contemporary with him, of whom one wrote the Chronicle of Maillezais, published by Labbe in volume 2 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, the other the Fragment of the History of France from the time of Robert to the death of King Philip I, inserted by Duchesne in volume IV of the Scriptores Franciæ. I transcribe here the words of both. Those of the former, in the volume of Labbe cited, fol. 205, are these: Fulbert taught Berengar, canon of Saint Martin. Who likewise left Bruno of Reims and many others heirs of Philosophy; those of the latter, in the volume of Duchesne likewise cited, fol. 89, these: At this time there flourished in divine as well as in human Philosophy Lanfranc, bishop of the men of Canterbury, Guido the Lombard, Maingaud the German, Bruno of Reims, who afterwards led a hermit's life. Moreover among the Saint's funeral titles two occur, in one of which, the thirty-second among those to be published, Bruno is expressly called Gallic, in the other it is intimated plainly enough that he was a Gaul. The former, which is that of the scholars of the church of St. Mary of Chartres, runs thus: As Phoebe to Phoebus, as the other stars to the moon, So may the whole world be present to thee, Gallic Bruno; The latter, which is that of Saint Gervase of Falaise in Normandy, and holds place 114 among those to be reprinted, sounds thus: Gaul, mother and nurse of many men, When wilt thou have males equal to this one? This thine once offered the wave of doctrine To peoples and clergy, etc.

[42] Hence further, since besides other funeral titles of his too, which it is not worth while to recount here, seem to indicate that St. Bruno was a Gaul, he is found called, he was born, someone will perhaps think that he originated from Gaul, and was born not at Cologne but at Reims; but since ancient monuments are not to be dashed against one another but, if it can be done, reconciled among themselves, and the Saint could be called a Gaul for another reason than origin, and likewise of Reims for another reason than birth, it is to be believed that it was in fact so done in the Chronicle of Maillezais, in the historical Fragment alleged from Duchesne, and in the funeral titles; lest otherwise these ancient monuments must be said to conflict with the most ancient Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, or the elogium of the Saint taken from it, which, since it teaches most expressly that Bruno was by nation a German and born at Cologne, can in no way at all be understood as agreeing with the truth unless he was in fact born here at Cologne. The Saint, therefore, will have been called of Reims by the writers of the Chronicle of Maillezais and of the said historical Fragment, because he was known to them not so much from his fatherland as from the studies to which he had devoted himself for a very long time at Reims both in learning and in teaching, and from the dignities which he had obtained there; and he will have been held for a Gaul in the funeral Titles either for almost a similar cause, or because he had been educated chiefly in Gaul; which last is the less to be rejected because in funeral Title 115, which is that of St. Mary of Tournai, he is said to have been born at Cologne and educated in Gaul. Behold it: He whom Cologne claims to have begotten, France to have nurtured, Bruno, father, glory common to both peoples, Is joined by an easy ascent to the hosts of heaven.

[43] and this not, as Baillet would have it, in the year which And so, all things having been duly weighed, I consider it beyond all controversy that St. Bruno was born at Cologne; but it is far from being possible to define the year of his birth so certainly. Meanwhile Baillet, at the 6th of October, col. 83, places it after the year of Christ 1050; but the Writers of the Literary History of France, volume IX, page 233, and many others observe that it must be put earlier by at least ten years; and rightly indeed, as the course of the life led by the Saint shows. For St. Bruno, as I shall show below, on the occasion of the disturbances which Archbishop Manasses had stirred up in the church of Reims, laid down in the year 1076 or the following the headship of the schools which he held in it; which consequently, if he was born only after the year 1050, as Baillet would have it, he would have done in the twenty-fifth or at most the twenty-sixth year of his age. Wherefore, since at the same time, before he did this, he had already governed the schools of Reims for many years, and consequently for at least twelve or fifteen, it will follow that he was placed over the headship of these most celebrated schools as early as the twelfth year of his age, or at most the fifteenth, which no one of sound mind will admit,

would have been advanced. But that Bruno held the headship of the schools of Reims for many years before he resigned it follows clearly from what Marlot writes in the History of the metropolis of Reims, book 1, page 115, and at the same time from what has already been said about the year in which the Saint laid down that headship: for that writer relates at the place cited that Bruno was appointed head or rector of the schools of Reims by Archbishop Gervase as early as the year 1056, and that he does not stray far from the truth will become clearly plain from what is to be said below about the time at which Bruno first began to teach at Reims. Meanwhile I now prove in advance from elsewhere that the Saint presided for a long time over the schools of Reims. And for this there opportunely comes to our help here the one of the Saint's funeral Titles which is the hundred and seventy-third. For in this the canons Regular of the monastery of St. Vincent of Nouaillé (Nolienses), who, having seen the schedule which made known the death of Bruno, the incomparable philosopher, groaned, affirm in express words that he held for a long time the headship of the schools of Reims, speaking thus: Bruno … had and preserved true knowledge and prudence in the liberal arts, and also the other Cardinal virtues, which he consummated in a good end. For formerly he was the chief teacher of the church of the see of Reims, as being most brilliant in the psalter and in the other sciences, and was for a long time the pillar of the whole metropolis.

[44] in the middle of the eleventh century Moreover, that the Saint, when he resigned the headship of the schools of Reims, was not merely twenty-five or twenty-six years old, which, as has been said, follows from Baillet's opinion, but of a more advanced age, the latter of these two writers proves most effectively from various funeral Titles of our Saint, in the Life of Pope Urban II inserted in volume 3 of the Posthumous Works of Mabillon and Ruinart, pages 6 and 7. I therefore transcribe here his words, designating at the same time the Titles from which they are in part drawn, with its number set beside each. They run thus: Him (namely St. Bruno) the canons of St. Mary of Blois call "the Gem of wisdom" (Title 74); the monks of Saint Lucian of Beauvais "the Light of the churches" (Title 82); those of Saint Maximin of Micy "the most famous sophist" (Title 107); those of Bernay "the Doctor of doctors" (Title 77); the canons of the church of St. Mary the Greater at Paris "the Glory of masters, the oarage of the throng of Reims" (Title 109); the Valesienses of Saint Gervase say that he "offered the wave of doctrine to peoples and clergy" (Title 114); those of Saint Timothy at Reims that he "surpassed all masters in the whole world" (Title 64); those of St. Mary of Spalding "that by his teaching so many were made wise as the mind knows not" (Title 131); and the monks of Saint Nicholas of Angers, "that his teaching shines in the whole world," whence the canons of the cathedral church of the Holy Cross of Orleans wish to be his "Followers" (Title 78). I should be excessive in recounting the rest of his elogia. But it is not permissible to omit the testimony of the canons of the cathedral church of Saint Maurice of Angers, by which they assert that Bruno was a master not of boys or of minor clerics, but of grave men already learned, who under him learned divine things, that is, Theology. Which certainly argues that he was already then of mature age when he was teaching at Reims before his withdrawal.

[45] So he, who then, having presented to the reader from the Title of the canons of the cathedral church of Angers, was later, which holds place 166 among those to be reprinted, some verses which run thus, And his exceptional wisdom is celebrated everywhere, The tongue of Bruno is praised more than that of Maro, The glory of Plato grows cheap beside the praise of Bruno. He excelled among doctors, he made The highest doctors, not by instructing the lesser. He was the doctor of doctors, not of little clerics. For no one took up the honesties of words, nor the gravities Of Bruno, save a Man of great reason. By teaching Divine things he announces an excellent wisdom, continues thus presently after a few things which make less for our purpose: Now who would say that so great a Man, whom almost all the churches of Gaul, England and Italy vied in commending as a most celebrated master of the sciences, earned these praises at the age of twenty years, or a little more or less? Who, I say, would bring himself to believe that Bruno at that age governed for a long time schools so celebrated with so great a fame for erudition and learning that after twenty (namely about twenty) years of withdrawal his death was lamented by most of the more celebrated churches of the Christian world as that of the master of all doctors? Thus far Ruinart: and indeed, since the Saint in so many funeral Titles adduced by him is adorned with praises so various and so profuse, which he earned while teaching the schools of Reims or holding their headship, and which are not easily earned in a short space and at a youthful age, it is a very strong argument that he was, when he laid down that headship in the year 1076 or the following, as has been said, older than twenty-five or twenty-six years, and consequently was born before the eleventh century had already passed its middle part, or before the year 1050.

[46] But how much earlier indeed did this happen? Zanotti (go to num. 26), in the Life of the Saint composed by him, page 3, brings forward from the monuments of Calabria which he praises two different testimonies, nor in the year for which the two testimonies alleged here make, which relate that St. Bruno died older than ninety. The one, which he calls an Epigram, and which was inscribed on the cave in which the Saint dwelt in Calabria, consists of these two little verses: Now he had completed ninety-two years of life, When, loosed from frail flesh, he went to those above; the other, which he says was taken from a most ancient manuscript, has this of Bruno: He died on the day before the Nones of October, in the one thousand one hundred and second year from the redemption of the world, in the eighth month, but in the ninety-second year of his age. Since, then, the Saint, as will be proved below in its place, died beyond all doubt in the year 1101, he would undoubtedly have been born about the year 1008, if we are to stand by those two adduced testimonies, in one of which the Saint is related to have died when he had already completed ninety-two years of life, in the other when he was already in the ninety-second year of life. But these do not seem to me to have proceeded from sources so ancient that they deserve undoubted credit: for although Zanotti indicates that the one was drawn from a most ancient manuscript, he does not add how ancient this was, and consequently leaves room for doubt whether it existed in the fourteenth or even in the fifteenth century, both of which are too remote from our Saint's age for writings then composed about him to be able to have certain credit.

[47] 1008, or even 1020, And indeed Zanotti himself did not think much of that manuscript, however most ancient: for although, in order that it may be held free of error in chronology as regards the year of Christ 1102, with which it connects the Saint's death, he affirms that the years of Christ are numbered in it from the Incarnation, as this preceded the Nativity, yet, having recited the two testimonies which I have already transcribed here, he presently adds that it is not probable that the Saint reached so great an age as is asserted in them, and adds also that it seems so to him for this reason, that it does not appear how he in so advanced an age (for so in the year 1084, in which, as will be said, he first entered the desert of the Chartreuse, he would already have passed the seventy-sixth year of his age) could have led so austere a kind of life as he led both in the Grande Chartreuse and in Calabria, and borne the labours and hardships, and the discomforts of the journeys to which he gave himself. So, almost as to substance, Zanotti, and rightly indeed. And hence it is that the opinion of those who determine that the Saint was born in the year 1020 also displeases me: for in this he would have been sixty-four years old when he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084; and that he was equal at that age likewise to leading a most rigid life, exposed to the gravest discomforts, which he would then have embraced for the first time, appears less credible.

[48] but about the year Wherefore, since the Saint was, as shown above, without doubt older than twenty-five or twenty-six years when in the year 1076 or the following he resigned the headship of the schools of Reims, his birth seems to be placed about the year 1030, or a little later, between this year and the year 1040. For so, when he withdrew into the Chartreuse, he would have been only about fifty years old; at which age experience shows that there have been, and are still found, many men still vigorous and robust and fit to bear the hardest labours. So too it can be understood how it came about that Bruno, when he laid down the headship of the schools of Reims in the year 1076 or the following, had held it for a long while already, that is, for about fifteen years, as was said above, or at least twelve, nay from the year 1056, if Marlot at the place cited above notes rightly, and had already acquired that celebrity of name for which he is expressly asserted to have then been renowned by Guibert of Nogent, a contemporary author to be very often praised below, and which is intimated in various funeral Titles cited above. And indeed that the Saint, when he entered the desert of the Chartreuse, was about fifty or even a little older, and consequently was born at the time already assigned, is persuaded in some fashion also by the manner in which he is spoken of, as of a man by far most grave and of plainly mature age, both in various funeral Titles praised above and in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, inserted with us in volume 1 of April, in which the contemporary author Guigo, fifth Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, speaks thus at num. XI of St. Bruno coming to this holy bishop a few days before he entered the Chartreuse: There is present Master Bruno, a man famous for religion and knowledge, as it were a certain image of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity.

[49] There is added that already at the time when the Saint withdrew into the desert in the year 1084, 1030 it took place. celebrated men were flourishing in various churches whom he had had as disciples, and among these Odo of Châtillon, who in the year 1088 was raised to the supreme Pontificate and took the name of Urban II. Nor can I pass over here an ancient codex of the Charterhouse of Mont-Dieu in Picardy, in which it is read that St. Bruno died a septuagenarian, as James Martin, a nursling of this Charterhouse, testifies in Morkens, in his manuscript Chronological-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, § I: for if that codex notes rightly, the Saint, as having died in the year 1101, would certainly have been born about the year 1030. But since I find nothing added concerning the age of that codex either by Martin or by Morkens, it will help to have confirmed the matter by yet another argument, which appears to me the strongest of all. The Saint probably, as I shall prove below, had Berengar as his master in Philosophy before the year 1050; wherefore, since he very probably did not take it up before he was about seventeen years old, and these years, computed in retrograde order from the year 1050, lead back to about the year 1030, it follows that the Saint was born about this very year. And hence chiefly, and at the same time from other things above

brought forward, it appears most probable indeed that the Saint was born about the year 1030, or a little later, between this year and the year 1040; and since I think this has now been sufficiently proved, I proceed to other matters.

§ III. What the Saint was like in boyhood; whether he was a canon of St. Cunibert, and of what age he was when he went to Gaul for the sake of learning letters, and whether he had Berengar there as his master in Philosophy.

[The Saint, who even in boyhood was grave in his manners, went to Gaul for the sake of learning.] Blomevenna, in the Life composed by him, speaks thus of the Saint while still a boy: From the cradle his mother wisdom suckled his infancy, and always taught him, in the progress of age, to progress to better things. He also, while he was a boy, did nothing boyish in his conduct, but, displaying as it were the likeness of his future religious life, he was being prepared by the Lord as the instructor of many monks. And he was allotted by the Lord a good soul, a praiseworthy nature, a teachable mind, a retentive memory, a will affectionately inclined to the best things. Surius has the same things in the Life of the Saint to be published, and has expressed Blomevenna exactly here as to substance, differing only in the words he uses. And all these things indeed, even if they cannot be expressly confirmed by the testimony of a writer or of an ancient monument, appear most probable on the whole; and as for what pertains by name to the exceptional endowments of mind with which the Saint shone while still a boy, his subsequent deeds throughout his whole life do not allow us to doubt that this agrees with the truth, and it will become clearly plain from what is to be said. But truly these are lighter matters; far graver matters, entangled in almost inextricable difficulties, now follow. Blomevenna, after the words just now recited from him, adds these: But having been handed over to the schools of Paris to be imbued with the liberal arts, advancing beyond his contemporaries, and held among the first philosophers, he was made master of the schools. The Saint, then, according to Blomevenna, with whom Surius also agrees, would have been imbued with letters and the liberal arts at Paris, the most celebrated city of Gaul.

[51] Before that he had not been imbued with the higher sciences, And that the Saint went from Cologne to Gaul to apply himself to letters is admitted by all, nor can it be called into doubt by any reasoning, as everyone will easily understand from what is to be said. But it may be asked here at what age he went to Gaul; whether he applied himself to letters not at all before in his fatherland; whether he had not previously been a canon of St. Cunibert; and whether at length he truly sought the city of Paris and devoted it to his studies. And first, that Bruno was imbued in his fatherland, before he set out for Gaul, with the rudiments of letters and of Grammar appears most probable: but whether also with the higher sciences? This indeed the Writers of the Literary History of France, volume 9, page 233, seem to intimate while they assign the place where Bruno studied there. For they write here not only that the Saint was very well imbued with letters both divine and human, and educated with great care, in the collegiate church of St. Cunibert, but they also cite in the margin Labbe, Bibliotheca Nova, volume 1, page 638, that is, the elogium of our Saint transcribed here from this place of Labbe at num. 7, in which, however, nothing occurs to their purpose except that Bruno was well furnished with letters both secular and divine; which words of the elogium, as will be plain to one who considers, are to be understood chiefly of the higher sciences, Philosophy and Theology, in which the Saint was at one time skilled, and which meanwhile it appears certain he did not learn at Cologne before he went to Gaul, from the less advanced age at which, as will be proved below, he then was. And as for the place where they say the Saint was educated and imbued with letters at Cologne, the Saint's elogium in Labbe by no means expresses this either.

[52] nor a canon of St. Cunibert either, It must be, therefore, that those writers drew what they committed to writing on that matter at the place cited solely from the long Epistle of Manasses, archbishop of Reims, sent to Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See in Gaul, which they cite there in their favour alone together with the Saint's elogium, and which Mabillon presents in the Museum Italicum, volume 1, part 2, page 119 and following, in which he speaks thus: Bruno is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert of Cologne, situated in the kingdom of the Germans. And indeed the Saint, who from these words of Manasses is established to have been a canon at Cologne in the collegiate church of St. Cunibert, would very probably also, at least in part, have been both educated and cultivated in letters in it, if only he had been enrolled among the canons of Cunibert as early as the time when he had not yet betaken himself to Gaul and was still living as a youth at Cologne. But there are those who contend that the Saint was presented with a canonry in the collegiate church of St. Cunibert only when, about the year 1076 or the following, he had been compelled by the wicked morals of Archbishop Manasses to leave Reims; and this for the reason that the Saint could not, in the year 1079, in which Manasses wrote the aforesaid letter, have been called a canon of the church of Cunibert by reason of a canonry obtained in it in his youth, since he would then without doubt have resigned a benefice of this kind, having been made a canon of the church of Reims already many years before. The matter indeed appears to me likely enough.

[53] Yet it may be that Manasses spoke of the Saint although meanwhile the opposite is not altogether improbable, as of a canon of the church of Cunibert because, although not any longer then, he had nevertheless at some time obtained a canonry in it, and out of hatred he would not have him, as one opposed to his depraved morals, held as a canon of Reims; and this can be the more easily believed on account of the words which he adds immediately after those already recited: Whose (namely Bruno's) fellowship we do not greatly desire, inasmuch as we are wholly ignorant of his life and his free status; and because, when he was with us, after many benefits conferred by us upon him, we were treated badly and wickedly. For thus, in order to stir up ill-will against the Saint with the legate of the Apostolic See, Manasses speaks here. Moreover the Saint might perhaps still have been called a canon of Cunibert, from the college of canons of Cunibert in which he had first given himself to the life to be led according to the prescription of the canons, even though he had already passed to another college of canons, because for the time during which he was living at Reims he had renounced only the fruits of the canonry possessed in the church of Cunibert, meanwhile retaining the canonry itself and the title of canon of Cunibert, so that he could return to it if ever he should fall from that of Reims. Certainly the Saint does not seem to have been going to sin against the canons by possessing two different benefices in this manner, especially if lawful authority intervened, as could have happened. These things therefore being considered, the opinion of those who hold that Bruno, before he went to Gaul, was a canon at Cologne in the collegiate church of St. Cunibert does not appear altogether improbable; and consequently I should not dare to accuse of undoubted error the writers of the Literary History when they make the Saint, before he sought Gaul, both a canon of the church of Cunibert and affirm that he was educated in it, although meanwhile the opinion of those who think the contrary appears more probable.

[54] And this will indeed be much more probable if, he seems to have been. So persuades the tender age at which he studied at Reims in order that the Saint could be a canon of the church of Cunibert, an age more advanced than fourteen or fifteen years was required. For the Saint, when he was about that age, or still younger, seems to have already set out from Cologne into Gaul for the sake of learning letters, and to have studied at Reims. For the funeral Title, 56 among those to be reprinted, by which the canons of the metropolitan church of St. Mary of Reims paid their funeral honours to the Saint, runs thus: Him whom, a tender nursling, the mother of Reims taught, Rejoicing that Bruno has kept faith with his purpose, She salutes with tears and prayers as he passes to the Lord. By a tender nursling, however, there seems to be understood here a youth of fourteen or fifteen years, or even a little younger. So I judge, both because the adjective tener (tender), when it qualifies age, of itself restricts this to few years, and because the Saint learned humane letters at Reims, and about the year 1047, when he was probably only about seventeen years old, began to hear Philosophy at Tours. And this last I shall indeed prove below; but that the Saint learned humane letters at Reims is attested in Mabillon, Preface to the Sixth Benedictine Century, part 2, num. 85, by Baldric, abbot of Bourgueil, a contemporary author; for there, in a poem to Godfrey of Reims not yet published, he sings thus of St. Bruno: And then at Reims there was, at Reims also Bruno studied, Bruno, then the mirror of the study of the Latins. Here, however, by the study of the Latins he very probably understands not Philosophy or other higher sciences, but humane letters, in which the study of the Latin language and grammar is comprehended.

[55] There with happy success poetry And indeed that the Saint, who, since he studied at Reims when quite young, as has been said, very probably had not applied himself to letters either at Paris or in any other city of Gaul before he did so, cultivated himself at Reims in polite literature or humane letters, the writers of the Literary History of France themselves teach not obscurely at the place cited above, asserting that he applied himself there to Poetry equally with the other sciences, as the custom of the age in which he lived required; so that, very probably, while they praise his elogium existing in Labbe at the place cited above for the sciences drawn by Bruno at Cologne, they intended less to be deduced from it than their words indicate, or at least perceived less clearly what would follow from it. Further, the Saint devoted himself wholly, with such ardour and such success, to humane letters or the study of the Latin language in the then most celebrated school of Reims, that he was proposed to others as an example. So it seems to be gathered from the last of the two little verses of Baldric, abbot of Bourgueil, transcribed here just now: Bruno, then the mirror of the study of the Latins. Moreover, how much progress the Saint made by name in the poetic faculty is sufficiently shown even by the Parenetic Epigram on seizing heavenly things, composed by him alone, and printed often elsewhere, and at Paris by Jodocus Badius with the other Works of the holy man in the year 1524; inasmuch as in its verses, however not altogether exact according to art, there shines wonderfully both a charm and an elegance which you would seek in vain in almost all the other poets of the eleventh century, in which the Saint flourished.

[56] he cultivated; but Philosophy, not at Paris, I transcribe it entire here by way of specimen. It runs thus: The Lord created all mortals in the light, That by their merits they may take the highest joys of heaven. Happy indeed is he who continually directs His mind thither, and watchful shuns every harmful thing! Yet not unhappy is he who repents of the crime committed, And who is wont often to bewail his misdeed. But men live as though no death were to follow, And as though hell were an idle tale, Although sense teaches that the living are dissolved by death, And the sacred page proves the pains of Erebus; Which he who fears not lives utterly unhappy and mad, And, extinguished, he shall feel the pyre.

So therefore let all mortals take care so to live, That the marsh of hell may be nothing to be feared. Nor did the Saint, as it will be easy to gather from what is to be said, study less to imbue himself with the sciences of a higher order than with the poetic faculty. But where did he learn these, and by name Philosophy? For the city of Paris stand not only Blomevenna in the words transcribed here at num. 50, Surius in the Saint's Life, and not a few other writers of the Carthusian Order, but also some others, whom there is no leisure to name all, and by name César Égasse du Boulay (Bulæus) in the History of the University of Paris published by him in the year 1665, volume 1, page 467 and following; who, although he does not openly declare there that the Saint applied himself to Philosophy at Paris, indicates it sufficiently nonetheless, and who, what the rest do not do, also strives to prove his opinion, by which he besides holds that the Saint taught at Paris.

[57] And for this he employs three different conjectures. as du Boulay (strives to prove) by conjectures which here The last of all, since it tends only to prove that the Saint taught at Paris, which is to be discussed only below, I pass over, and examine only the two remaining. The latter of these is drawn (the words are du Boulay's) from the anonymous author who carried the History from Robert up to the death of Philip I, and who knew Bruno or could have known him. He numbers him among those who it is almost certain studied and taught at Paris. "At this time," he says, namely about the year MLX, "there flourished in divine as well as in human Philosophy Lanfranc, bishop of Canterbury, Guido the Lombard, Manigaud the German, Bruno of Reims, who afterwards led a hermit's life." But no one would say that those Men taught at Reims. So he, who, although he does not expressly declare that the Saint applied himself to Philosophy at Paris, yet intimates it sufficiently, since he will have it almost certain that he studied at Paris, and at the same time, in order to establish the matter, brings forward the text of the anonymous writer by which the Saint is asserted to have flourished in Philosophy. But whence, I ask, can it be certain that Bruno applied himself to Philosophy nowhere else than at Paris, or even taught this science there?

[58] Indeed, that Bruno taught Philosophy at Reims appears more probable from what is to be said below, and by name from the very historical Fragment which du Boulay praises here, are proposed, by three different so that consequently the contrary is uncertain, and even for this reason du Boulay's conjecture concerning Philosophy received by Bruno at Paris ought to be held as very uncertain; whether it is more certain concerning the others whom the anonymous writer adduced by du Boulay praises, I leave to others to examine, and I now come to this writer's other conjecture. This is from the manuscript codex of the Chronicle of Maillezais (the words again are du Boulay's), which is said to be preserved at Paris in the library of the Dupuys (Puteana), and which was written by its author about the year MCLX, and brought to light by Philippe Labbe. In it these words are read at the year DCCCCLXXXXVI: "Gerbert taught Fulbert, bishop of Chartres. This Fulbert again taught Berengar, canon of St. Martin. Who likewise left Bruno of Reims and many others heirs of Philosophy. Bruno indeed, a perfect philosopher and a hermit in Calabria, father of many monks, died in Christ." But where did Berengar leave him heir of Philosophy? Certainly where he himself was teaching; but he is not read to have taught at Reims, but at Tours, and he is presumed to have taught at Paris after the death of Fulbert of Chartres, his teacher. Therefore it is likely that Bruno heard him (namely in Philosophy) at Paris.

[59] strives in vain to prove, Thus far du Boulay, contending, namely, not only that our Saint received the tenets of Philosophy at Paris, but also that he there had as his master in these Berengar, canon of St. Martin of Tours, that man most notorious throughout all Europe far and wide for the poison of his heresy which he spread, by which he denied the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and was a forerunner of Calvin and his followers. But since Berengar (go to the writers of the Literary History of France, volume IX, page 140) is nowhere read to have taught at Paris, and it is consequently, as du Boulay himself sufficiently indicates in the words recited, very doubtful whether he in fact ever taught there, why did he not rather infer from the recited words of the Chronicle of Maillezais that he was heard by the Saint in Philosophy at Tours, where he certainly taught? Indeed, since Berengar, vanquished by Lanfranc in various disputations and therefore deserted by his disciples, was compelled, in du Boulay's own opinion, about the year 1038 to leave Paris and his schools and to return to Tours, he could certainly not have had the Saint as his disciple in Philosophy there, since he, having been born, as I have shown, only about the year 1030, would not then have reached the tenth year of his age. The other conjecture, therefore, formed by du Boulay, by which it is proved that Philosophy was received by Bruno at Paris, also falls to the ground. And indeed it must be said that the Saint applied himself to Philosophy not at Paris but at Reims or at Tours: at Reims indeed, if Berengar did not fall to him as his master in that science, but at Tours, if he did.

[60] but at Tours under Berengar, contrary to what Mabillon, And the first of these pleases because it is altogether certain, both from what has already been said and from what is further to be said, that the Saint studied and taught for a long time at Reims; but the latter, because, at any rate, if the Saint in fact heard Berengar in Philosophy, as the Chronicle of Maillezais seems to relate, it appears most probable that this took place where the latter was teaching. In order, therefore, that it may be defined in some fashion whether Bruno received the tenets of Philosophy at Reims or at Tours, it must be investigated whether he had Berengar as his master in Philosophy. And it is my opinion that the Saint did have Berengar as his master in Philosophy; to prove which I first address those who oppose it or at least do not favour it. Marlot, after saying in the History of the metropolis of Reims, volume 2, page 135, that St. Bruno obtained as his teacher, namely in Philosophy, Berengar, canon of St. Martin of Tours, immediately adds: if the chronographer of Maillezais, Bruno's contemporary, is to be believed. Mabillon prefixed this annotation to the profession of faith of St. Bruno, which he published in volume 4 of the Vetera Analecta, page 400: On account of the affinity of subject it has seemed good to subjoin to the letter of Deoduinus the profession of faith of St. Bruno, which he published when near death, condemning the heresy of Berengar, whose disciple he had been, if the Chronicle of Maillezais is to be believed. Those two learned men, therefore, namely Marlot and Mabillon, whatever the author of the Chronicle of Maillezais writes in the words adduced by du Boulay at num. 58, did not hold it as undoubted that Bruno ever had Berengar as his master in Philosophy. And Mabillon judged this matter not only doubtful but even foreign to the truth.

[61] whose words here For in the Preface to the Sixth Benedictine Century, num. 7, about the middle, he writes thus: The chronographer of Saint-Maixent, treating of this propagation (of learning and erudition), derives it, as from its source, from Girbert or Gerbert, monk of Aurillac, who is said to have taught Fulbert of Chartres. "And Fulbert," he says, "taught Berengar, canon of Saint Martin: who likewise left Bruno of Reims and many others heirs of Philosophy:" from which passage some gather that Bruno, the founder of the sacred Carthusian Order, was a disciple of Berengar. But besides the fact that the authority of that chronographer of Saint-Maixent is not so great that it can establish this, certainly the very words of the chronographer seem to be interpreted far otherwise. For these words, "who likewise Bruno of Reims," etc., are to be referred not to Berengar but to Fulbert, who taught Berengar, who likewise (taught) Bruno of Reims. Then the words themselves do not establish that Fulbert, much less Berengar, had Bruno as a hearer, but only that Bruno and many others were left heirs of Philosophy either by Fulbert or by Berengar, by whatever teacher at length they were instructed, that is, Bruno and the other heirs of Philosophy. Certainly it is established that Bruno, being already a cleric and a canon of Cologne, and consequently cultivated in letters, came from the city of Cologne into the city of the Remi; but it is far more probable that he was instructed by Notger, bishop of Liège, and his disciples. Of this matter the richest witness is Manasses, archbishop of the Remi, in his Apology, where concerning Bruno, who opposed his morals, he has this: "Bruno is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert situated in the kingdom of the Germans, etc." It has seemed good to observe this in this place concerning a most holy Man, who, even if he had been a disciple of Berengar, shrank far from his error, as is proved by his own confession concerning the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, which we have reported elsewhere. But it matters to distinguish the true from the false, and to remove that little cloud, if there was one, from so great a light.

[62] Then, in the other Preface to the Sixth Benedictine Century, are recited, in order to confirm his opinion, he writes thus at num. 85: This Godfrey (of Reims, who was put in St. Bruno's place in the mastership of the schools at Reims by Manasses, archbishop of Reims) Abbot Baldric praised living and dead, who says that he was born at Reims and instructed in letters with Bruno. For thus he sings in a poem not yet published "to Godfrey of Reims": "A noble city, sister of Rome, I say, and a second Rome, Begot thee, brought thee forth, and won thee for herself. She, thee supported by the nectar of all doctrine, Received into her studies and set over them. Gaul then too was flourishing with rich studies, And Gaul flourished more by thy study. To thee ran swarms of disciples, And the bees were refreshed with the honey of their parent. And then at Reims there was, at Reims also Bruno studied, Bruno, then the mirror of the study of the Latins. In the same times old Herimann also studied, And was a bright lamp of study to the world. Thou hadst been young, and hadst been sharper than they. Thou comest therefore third; now too thou wast first. To Gervase as prince, that prince of thine, Manasses, Succeeded, who promotes thee to the study." From these it is understood, as we showed in the former Preface (namely in the place transcribed here above, immediately before this one), that Bruno applied himself to letters (namely in Philosophy) at Reims, not at Tours under Berengar as master, as some would persuade from the Chronicle of Maillezais wrongly understood; and indeed not only with the aforesaid Godfrey, but also with the elder Herimann, whom Gozechin the scholastic praises first among the wise men of that age and those pre-eminent in authority who, having left the lower studies, had withdrawn into the leisure of Theology.

[63] and the reasons included in these, Thus far Mabillon: but these words of Baldric, abbot of Bourgueil, as I have already shown above, And then at Reims there was, at Reims also Bruno studied, Bruno, then the mirror of the study of the Latins, which chiefly ought to establish what Mabillon contends, taken in their natural and more obvious sense seem to signify only that Bruno applied himself to humane letters at Reims. But if you should obstinately wish that by the study of the Latins humane letters were not understood by Baldric, there seems indeed to be no reason why this author ought to be understood of philosophical rather than of theological studies, to which Bruno

cultivated his mind at Reims. If, then, in the whole text transcribed here Abbot Baldric in fact speaks only of Theology, to which the Saint applied himself at Reims together with Godfrey of Reims and the elder Herimann, what, I ask, will be gained from it for the opinion by which Mabillon will have it that the Saint received Philosophy not at Tours under Berengar but at Reims? Nevertheless the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 9, page 233, afterwards agreed with this writer, noting thus in the lower margin of this page: It came about from error and from the sense of the Chronicle of Maillezais wrongly understood that certain authors wrote that Bruno studied at Tours under Berengar. That it was at Reims, Baldric, abbot of Bourgueil, expressly affirms (namely at the place adduced above by Mabillon). So they; but let us now see whether those who wrote that the Saint studied at Tours under Berengar, or received the tenets of Philosophy, undoubtedly erred and wrongly understood the Chronicle of Maillezais, or rather whether Mabillon, in the words given at num. 61, interprets it with sufficiently happy success. First this writer says: These… (of the Chronicle of Maillezais) words, "who likewise Bruno of Reims, etc." are to be referred not to Berengar, but to Fulbert, who taught Berengar, "who likewise Bruno of Reims." According to this interpretation of Mabillon, then, the Saint would have had Fulbert, not Berengar, as his master in Philosophy. But this cannot be admitted unless we wish at the same time to accuse the author of the Chronicle of Maillezais of error.

[64] by the reasons For the Fulbert of whom he speaks was bishop of Chartres; and he, as the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 7, page 265, clearly show, departed from the living in the year 1029, in which the Saint was either not born, or certainly, from age still too feeble, was not yet fit to receive and understand lectures in Philosophy, as it is easy to draw from what has been said above about the year of Bruno's birth. And indeed Mabillon himself perhaps observed that Fulbert of Chartres could not have been the Saint's master in Philosophy. So I suspect, because to the interpretation of the Chronicle of Maillezais already spoken of he immediately subjoins this other: Then the very words (alleged from the Chronicle of Maillezais) do not establish that Fulbert, much less Berengar, had Bruno as a hearer, but only that Bruno and many others were left "Heirs of Philosophy" either by Fulbert or by Berengar, by whatever teacher at length they were instructed, that is, Bruno and the other heirs of Philosophy. Indeed all the learned will easily depart from the opinion by which it is determined that the Saint studied at Tours under Berengar, if this other manner of interpreting the Chronicle of Maillezais which Mabillon uses ought to have place. But the matter, as it appears to me at least, very probably stands otherwise; to give proof of which I recite the very words of the Chronicle of Maillezais, not only those which Mabillon transcribed at the place cited above, but also some others which are put before them, constituting a somewhat longer text, which runs thus: And Girbert, by nation an Aquitanian, a monk of the church of Saint Gerald of Aurillac, … was raised by the emperor to be Pope of the Romans on account of the grace of Philosophy: his former name was changed, and he was called Silvester. For Girbert taught Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, who became bishop after Leobinus. Concerning whom many things have remained written either on the page or in the chant of holy Church. This Fulbert again taught Berengar, canon of Saint Martin. Who likewise left Bruno of Reims and many others heirs of Philosophy.

[65] Here there are recounted, in the order in which they flourished, as will be plain to one who considers, adduced to the contrary some doctors or masters of Philosophy, of whom some handed down this science to others; wherefore, since Berengar, as is admitted by all, was also a doctor or master of Philosophy, these words of the chronographer of Maillezais, Who likewise left Bruno of Reims and many others heirs of Philosophy, are to be referred not to Fulbert, as Mabillon would have it, but to Berengar, and are to be so understood as to signify that he himself handed down the science of Philosophy to St. Bruno. And indeed the natural and most obvious sense which they offer requires that they be so understood, as, so far as I think, anyone will easily admit who is free of prejudices. Mabillon indeed, in order to establish that the Saint was not taught Philosophy by Berengar, and consequently that these words, Who likewise Bruno of Reims, etc., are to be expounded in the manner he assigns, adds further in proof that Bruno, being already a cleric and a canon of Cologne, and consequently cultivated in letters, came from the city of Cologne into the city of the Remi, and that this is established from these words (go to num. 52) of Manasses, archbishop of the Remi, concerning St. Bruno: Bruno is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert, situated in the kingdom of the Germans, etc. But we have shown above that the Saint, when he went from Cologne to Reims, had not yet been cultivated in letters of a higher order, such as Philosophy; nor can this be established from the words of Archbishop Manasses alleged by Mabillon, since from these, as has already been said above, it rather appears that our Saint was not a canon of St. Cunibert before he went to Reims for the sake of learning letters, but only when, in the year 1076 or the following, he had been compelled to leave Reims.

[66] None, therefore, of the arguments by which Mabillon will have it proved that the words of the Chronicle of Maillezais, which have now been discussed at length, are refuted, he contends, are to be explained in one or the other manner assigned by him, establishes the matter certainly; and consequently, adhering to the natural and more obvious sense which they offer, I continue to take them so as to signify that Berengar handed down to St. Bruno the tenets of Philosophy: which I therefore hold as most probable to have in fact happened, impelled by the authority of the Chronicle of Maillezais, which has an author almost contemporary with our Saint. Mabillon indeed also adds (see num. 61) that this authority is not so great that that Chronicle can command undoubted credit for what it asserts; and in fact some things which it hands down to memory have been detected as foreign to the truth, both by Labbe, by whom it was first made public, and after him by the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 12, page 79 and the following. But even though it be so, what it affirms concerning Philosophy handed down to St. Bruno by Berengar still appears most probable. For the things in which the author of that Chronicle is noted to have deviated from the truth were further removed from his age; but in those things which were done either in his own time or not long before, he is scarcely ever noted to have erred by Labbe, who nevertheless diligently annotated his errors; so that consequently, since he was contemporary or certainly almost equal in age with our Saint, he is not at any rate to be thought to have erred in what he relates of Philosophy heard by him under Berengar, nor indeed is he noted by Labbe to have erred. Wherefore, if not altogether certain, it is at least most probable, all things considered, that our Saint was taught Philosophy by Berengar.

[67] he very probably learned. Hence further it now follows that he very probably received it not at Paris, which was also to be proved here, but at Tours, since Berengar taught in this city, and not (as is now sufficiently agreed among the more recent critics) in another. But, you will say, Berengar was infamous as well as dangerous for his impious heresy, with which he was trying to infect others also, and consequently it does not appear that it is to be thought that either the Saint's parents or those who had the care of him while still young would have permitted that the Saint, handed over to the discipline of such a master, should be exposed to the danger of drinking in a poisoned and impious doctrine. But Berengar did not fall into heresy immediately when he began to govern the schools of Tours, nor, immediately when he began to spread the venom of his heresy, was he held everywhere by all as a heretic. And Hugh, bishop of Langres, once Berengar's fellow-student, was the first who detected (go to the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 8, page 202) that both the reality and the transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist were denied by him, and who not so long after, in order to lead the erring man back into the way, sent him a fine letter; wherefore, since this (go again to the praised writers at the place cited) was written not earlier than a little before October of the year 1049, it follows that very probably the depraved doctrine of Berengar was detected by Hugh, bishop of Langres, only in the year immediately preceding this, in which also, or only a little earlier, it seems to have stirred up disturbances in the Church. Now indeed, since this is so, nothing certainly ought to have prevented the Saint's parents or guardians from sending him in the year 1047, in which, from what has been said above, he could already have been about seventeen years old, to Tours to be imbued with the tenets of Philosophy by Berengar. Nay rather, I do not sufficiently see why he could not have been sent even in the year 1048 or the following, since only in the year 1050 were the Berengarian errors condemned by Pope Leo IX in a council celebrated at Rome.

[68] Nor, further, ought it to be turned to the discredit of Bruno or of his sons This meanwhile either from the profession of faith issued by the Saint that he heard in Philosophy a man who did not think rightly concerning the faith, but who had not yet been condemned as a heretic; for although this appears so from what has already been said, there is nevertheless no doubt that he withdrew from Berengar at least when the latter had first been condemned in the Roman council. So I judge, if only from the fact that he shrank most greatly from his impious heresy, as is attested both by the commentaries which he made on Psalm 21 and on chap. XI of the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians, to be mentioned here below, and by the profession of faith which he issued when near death, reported by Mabillon in volume 4 of the Analecta, page 400 and following, and to be transcribed here below. But since discourse has fallen here upon the profession of faith issued by the Saint when near death, the reader must here be warned of one thing further. Since in that profession Bruno, immediately after these words, I believe the Sacraments which the Catholic Church believes and venerates, subjoins, And by name that what is consecrated on the altar is the true Body, the true Flesh and the true Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we also receive for the remission of our sins, in the hope of eternal salvation, there will perhaps be someone who, since in these words a doctrine diametrically opposed to the Berengarian is contained, will have this also to be an argument that the Saint studied Philosophy at Tours under Berengar, as one who included those words in the profession of faith issued by him for no other reason than to remove from himself any suspicion of Berengarian heresy to which he might on that account be liable.

[69] And indeed there was a time when I too thought that an argument could be drawn from it for Philosophy when near death, or from the things recited here heard by the Saint under Berengar; but, having examined the matter more deeply, I found that this custom was long observed after the Berengarian heresy arose, that the more learned and more illustrious

men generally, when they were near death, issued a profession of faith, in which they professed both the other dogmas of the faith and especially those which pertain to the most sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist. And first let Gervase, archbishop of Reims, who died in the year 1067, serve as an example, who, when he was about to die, issued a profession of faith not much different, as regards the hidden dogma concerning the Eucharist, from that issued by the Saint, as may be seen in the series of the archbishops of Reims which the enlarged Gallia Christiana presents in volume 9. There is added Matthew, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, whose profession of faith, not much unlike Bruno's, which he issued towards the end of his life, exists in Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, Miracles book 2, chap. 22; and Louis VI, king of the Franks, whose profession of faith, likewise not much unlike Bruno's, which he issued when about to die, is recited by Baronius in the Annals at the year 1131. That St. Bruno was a disciple of Berengar in Philosophy, therefore, cannot be argued from the profession of faith which he issued when near death. Nor, to make the Saint a disciple of Berengar in Philosophy, can it be argued more strongly from the hundred and sixty-sixth funeral Title, by which the cathedral church of Angers, dedicated to St. Maurice, celebrates Bruno wonderfully; for although this contains these two little verses, Formerly a leader of error, he showed afterwards the way Of better doctrine, which gives joys without end, from which someone might perhaps suspect that the Saint had fallen into an error against the faith, which he afterwards laid aside, and consequently not only had Berengar as his master but at one time was also a follower of his perverse doctrine against the Sacrament of the Eucharist, anyone will nevertheless easily discover that there can deservedly be no room from them for a sinister suspicion of this kind concerning the Saint, who has considered the two little verses recited together with the others preceding and following them in the same Title.

[70] by the verses of the funeral Title, as (to be understood) in another manner, For so it will become plain that by error in these is to be understood not an error against the faith to which the Saint at one time adhered, but the profane sciences, which he had at first cultivated and taught diligently and with great praise; and by better doctrine, not any dogma of sincere and true faith to which he was at one time opposed, but the divine instruction of the Gospel, by which afterwards, having deserted the world, he withdrew into the desert, and taught others by his example to despise earthly things and to pursue heavenly ones. That this may be the more easily discovered, I transcribe here the little verses bearing on this, both those that follow and those that precede the two recited. The preceding are these: The tongue of Bruno is praised more than that of Maro, The glory of Plato grows cheap beside the praise of Bruno. He excelled among doctors, he made The highest doctors, not by instructing the lesser. He was the doctor of doctors, not of little clerics. For no one took up the honesties of words, nor the gravities Of Bruno, save a man of great reason. The rightness of his prudence surpassed the keenness of mind; So that he was sufficiently a doctor of these teachings. He wished to set above these a more perfect way, By teaching divine things he announces an excellent wisdom, And the first things he destroyed and held as frivolous.

[71] And the following these: But worldly wisdom gives nothing save vanities; than that by which the Saint erred in faith, This pomp makes men proud, that makes them blessed. He fulfilled in deeds, by working, what he taught with his mouth: He made many sermons through the regions. He passed through the city of Rome and sought the Calabrians. The anonymous writer who composed the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place interprets the funeral Title consecrated to him by the church of Angers somewhat otherwise, in order to free the Saint from suspicion of error in faith. For concerning its author he pronounces thus at num. 7: He praises Bruno first because he excelled the more celebrated doctors in all profane science (such as are Grammar, Dialectic and others of the kind). Then he shows him worthy of greater praise because "he wished to set above these a more perfect way," that is, science, namely Theology, as he explains in the following verse, "By teaching divine things he announces an excellent wisdom." Therefore he who had formerly been a leader of error, not indeed of false doctrine but of perishable and worldly science, as he afterwards says, or of Philosophy, which many Saints despised as availing nothing or little for salvation, "showed afterwards the way of better doctrine," either by preaching (for "he made many sermons through the regions") or by teaching and interpreting sacred Scripture to his disciples, as we have seen above the canons of Nouaillé (Niolenses) declared, when they said he was formerly the chief teacher of the church of Reims, as being most brilliant in the psalter and in the other sciences.

[72] So he: and indeed the interpretation which he suggests here, intimated, is to be understood, cannot be confirmed, or another similar one, if that assigned above by me, which nevertheless seems to be preferable, should perhaps displease, must necessarily be admitted, since it is certain that the Saint never strayed from the faith from various other funeral Titles of his, in which it is expressly related, or certainly not obscurely indicated, that he always kept the faith sound and entire. To dismiss the rest for brevity's sake, I bring forward only one, namely the hundred and twentieth, in which this is declared more expressly. In this, then, the monks of St. Omer address the Saint thus: Therefore the true faith, which thou didst always cultivate, May it draw thee to the rest of Christ, which thou, Bruno, didst seek. For the rest, it has pleased me to pursue here a little more at length these matters, both concerning error in faith, of which Bruno might seem suspect, and concerning the profession of faith issued by him towards the end of his life, so that it may be more evidently plain that nothing can be concluded from them for the opinion by which we make our Saint a disciple of Berengar in Philosophy. And to this indeed the love of truth compelled me, by which moreover it now comes about that I cannot refrain from now placing before the reader's eyes one thing further which in some fashion stands against that same opinion of ours, or at least does not favour it. Among the funeral Titles of the Saint, which are nevertheless about 180 in number, none occurs by which the church of Tours paid him funeral honours; whence it may seem that the nursling of the Calabrian Charterhouse who carried round the encyclical letter on the death of St. Bruno did not go to Tours, though he would seemingly have done so if the Saint had received Philosophy at Tours, as very probably following the custom usual in his age, by which encyclical letters of this kind were wont to be carried especially to the churches to which the deceased was known, or at least was presumed to be known.

[73] So can argue those who oppose our opinion concerning Berengar heard in Philosophy by Bruno at Tours. as neither is it weakened by the objection proposed here. But probably not all the funeral Titles of the Saint were inscribed on one and the same roll, which contained the encyclical letter (go to num. 25 and what is to be noted below on it) on the Saint's death, carried round by the Calabrian Carthusian, and certainly several responses to it, or funeral Titles; and the separate sheets, onto which some of these were probably put, could easily have perished by the injury of time. What if, then, this happened with the funeral Title by which the church of Tours paid funeral honours to the Saint? Moreover the nursling of the Calabrian Charterhouse who carried round the encyclical letter announcing the death of St. Bruno perhaps did not go to all the churches to which he had been known while surviving among the living, departing from the usual custom for causes which are hidden from us. However that may be, from the fact that among the Saint's funeral Titles none at all occurs marked with the name of the church of Tours, it does not follow either that Bruno was not known at Tours or that he did not apply himself to Philosophy there. For it can by no means be doubted that the Saint was very well known at Cologne, as the city in which he was born and in great part educated; and yet among his funeral Titles there is none which bears the name of the church of Cologne, whether the cathedral or the collegiate church of St. Cunibert, in which nevertheless the Saint had been a canon; so that indeed the opinion by which we judge that the Saint learned Philosophy at Tours under Berengar is not weakened by the difficulty which has just been proposed. Hence further, and from the other things said above, it is consequent that the Saint very probably, when he was already eighteen years old, had not yet studied at Paris. For since, when he was about fourteen years old or still younger, he pursued at Reims the humane letters whose rudiments he had laid at Cologne, and, having been imbued with these there, began to hear Philosophy at Tours, and very probably completed it in not fewer than two years, at what time, I ask, before the completion of the eighteenth year of his age could he have studied at Paris? And whether he ever certainly studied or even taught there afterwards, what is to be said will disclose.

§ IV. Whither the Saint betook himself on leaving Berengar at Tours, what he did first at that time, when he began to teach at Reims, and what sciences he handed on there, and what offices he discharged.

The Saint, who, leaving Tours, (sought again) his fatherland That St. Bruno left Tours, leaving Berengar, about the year 1048, or certainly not later than the year 1050, the things which I brought forward in the preceding § make most probable indeed. But whither did the holy Man then betake himself? To Paris, or to Reims? No ancient monument at all is available by which I might assert either without doubt. Yet I should prefer to stand for the city of Reims, because it is ascertained from what is to be said that the Saint both studied and taught in it for a long time. Morkens, in his manuscript Chronological-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, is of the opinion by which he thinks that the Founder of his Order, after the heresy of Berengar had been detected, returned to his fatherland, Cologne; which indeed appears not unlike the truth, although meanwhile it likewise cannot be proved by any sufficiently ancient monument. But what is to be said of the other assertion, by which Morkens further affirms that our Saint was then first created a canon in the church of St. Cunibert? Nor does this appear unlike the truth, as also that Bruno then applied himself there to sacred Scripture and Theological matters. And if meanwhile the matter was in fact so, as it could have been, the Saint could also have been called by Manasses, archbishop of Reims, a canon of St. Cunibert in the sense which I explained at num. 53, although he had not been a canon in the church of St. Cunibert before he first went away from his fatherland into Gaul for the sake of learning letters; so that consequently, even if it had to be admitted that he had been a canon in the church of St. Cunibert long before the year 1067, about which he resigned, as will be said, the headship of the schools of Reims, it could not deservedly be argued from Manasses that he had certainly embraced this rule of living there as early as the time when he had not yet gone to Gaul. Add these things to what was said at num. 52, the following, and 65.

[75] perhaps sought again, and there applied himself for some time to Theology, Further, that the Saint returned to his fatherland after receiving Philosophy at Tours, then first began to be a canon there, and at the same time applied himself to Theological matters, would become far more probable if, as the praised Morkens also relates, the Saint was called from Cologne by Gervase, archbishop of Reims, who had been

promoted to this see in the year 1055, back to the city of Reims to teach there the sciences in which he was skilled, and if this could be proved by a sufficiently certain argument. For himself, indeed, Morkens cites the ancient codex of the Charterhouse of Mont-Dieu in Picardy, of which at num. 49, praised also by Surianus in his Annotations on the Surian Life of the Saint, page 79; but since concerning its antiquity and authority, Surianus as well as Morkens and Martin (of whom likewise at num. 49) keeping deep silence, nothing is established for me from elsewhere, that codex, however it be called ancient by the aforesaid writers, can by no means suffice for me to hold it as undoubted that the Saint was in fact called back by Gervase from Cologne to Reims to teach there. This matter, therefore, as also whether Bruno, when, having already heard Philosophy, he left Tours, returned to his fatherland and was a canon there for some time, applying himself meanwhile to sacred Scripture and Theological matters, I leave undecided, and proceed to treat other things pertaining to the Saint which are built upon more certain and more solid foundations.

[76] That Bruno, first of all, when he had probably also already diligently cultivated, either in this very city acted as master at Reims, or elsewhere, both sacred Scripture and also Theology, acted as master of the schools at Reims ought to be certain even from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse alone, or rather from the short elogium of the Saint which I transcribed here from it at num. 7, inasmuch as in it he is expressly called master of the schools of the church of Reims by a contemporary author. This is meanwhile confirmed also from Sigebert of Gembloux and from Hugh, bishop of Die and legate of the Apostolic See in Gaul, of whom the former in his Chronography at the year 1084, the latter in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 365, in a Letter written to Pope Gregory VII in the year 1077, and still to be mentioned below here, likewise call Bruno Master of the church of Reims. To these add Meinard, Prior of Cormery in the territory of Tours, who in the funeral Title, 176 among those to be reprinted, by which he paid funeral honours to the Saint, speaks thus: I, I say, Mainard, in the monastery of Cormery Prior of very many monks in name, not in deed, originated from the city of the Remi, heard for some years the teaching of this lord Bruno, and by God's will profited greatly. So he, who, although he does not openly declare that he studied at Reims under Bruno, the matter was yet probably so, because he pronounces that he originated or was born at Reims, and probably learned letters for some time there where he was born.

[77] And these things indeed, so far as I think, more than sufficiently establish that St. Bruno taught at Reims, and there humane letters, or acted as master: but what sciences he taught there, and at about what time he first undertook that work or office, is now to be investigated. And first it appears to be concluded from his funeral Title 126 that the Saint taught poetry there; for in this the school of the monastery of St. Vaast of Nobiliacum at Arras addresses him thus: … to thee, Bruno, keen master, This world grew cheap in its flower, and with barren beauty It was a flower in the hay: it flourished under a serene sun, While thy muse sang, while it gave itself to study, While it now suckled the Remi, now fed them with bread. Nor did the Saint teach at Reims poetry alone among the sciences or arts of a lower order, but also Grammar itself, it seems. For in the scholars' verses of the church of St. Mary of Coutances, which constitute his funeral title 156 among those to be reprinted, he is declared to have been the teacher of many grammarians; and although it is not added whether he instructed grammarians at Reims or elsewhere, it appears probable that he did it at Reims for this reason, that it can be shown by no ancient monument at all fitted to command undoubted credit that he ever taught elsewhere than at Reims. No other things occur which could conduce to my establishing that the sciences of a lower order, or humane letters, were handed on by the Saint at Reims.

[78] as also Philosophy But what is to be said of the more sublime sciences, namely Theology and Philosophy? The Saint seems also to have taught both the latter and the former at Reims. And first, since various praises, fitting properly almost only to a man who publicly professed Philosophy and Theology, are attributed to Bruno in some funeral Titles, and chiefly indeed Titles 31, 32, 107, 124, 126, 131, 146, 166, 168 and 173, no mention at all being made of the place where he taught these sciences, it follows from that very argument just adduced, by which he seems to have taught Grammar at Reims, that he taught Philosophy and Theology there too; but it pleases me to confirm the matter in yet another way. The anonymous writer of the historical Fragment, which is carried from the time of Robert, king of the Franks, to the death of Philip I, and which is praised by Marlot at num. 57, calls Bruno of Reims, as I showed at num. 12, because he knew him not so much from his fatherland as from the studies to which he had devoted himself for a very long time at Reims both in learning and in teaching, and from the dignities which he had obtained there; wherefore, since besides he gives the Saint this appellation in the very place in which he relates that he flourished in divine as well as in human Philosophy, namely by teaching or publicly professing these two sciences, he very probably did it chiefly for this reason, that he knew him most of all from human and divine Philosophy, or from Theology and Philosophy, both of which sciences he was then teaching at Reims.

[79] and Theology, and this indeed, And so we now have it that Bruno taught both Philosophy and Theology at Reims; and as regards by name this latter science, I further show it thus: that our Saint discharged the office of scholarch or scholasticus, which was wont to be conferred only on the most learned and gravest men, we have ascertained both from his funeral Title 173, in which he is asserted by the Regular canons of the church of St. Vincent of Nouaillé to have been Formerly … the chief teacher of the church of the see of Reims, and from Guibert of Nogent, a contemporary writer, who in book 1 of his own Life, chap. XI, writes thus of our Saint: There was, not long before these days, a certain Bruno in the city of Reims, a man both instructed in the liberal arts and rector of great studies; and formerly, even in the age of St. Bruno, or in the eleventh century, it pertained chiefly to the charge of the scholasticus or scholarch in the greater churches to instruct the clerics in the liberal arts and consequently, and indeed chiefly, as appears, in the Theological faculties, to form them in good morals, to promote ecclesiastical discipline, and to answer, when asked, about all things pertaining to divine worship. These things, or at any rate things not much different, it is permitted to gather from Thomassin, On the old and new Discipline of the Church, volume 1, book 3, chap. 70, num. 8, and from the Annals of Papire Masson in Philip, although meanwhile the office of scholarch or scholasticus, since there are now not lacking those who teach the liberal arts elsewhere, has been abolished in great part as to its exercise in churches both greater or cathedral and others, and has remained almost solely as to dignity and title. Now indeed, since the Saint, as has already been proved, most certainly discharged the office of scholasticus or scholarch in the church of Reims, it is not to be doubted that he handed on Theology in it to the clerics.

[80] And that he then taught only the more sublime sciences, and among these Theology, having been made scholarch, he taught it almost alone. I think most probable. For the cathedral church of Angers, in the funeral Title, 166 among those to be reprinted, by which it wonderfully celebrated the Saint, sings thus of him: He excelled among doctors, he made The highest doctors, not by instructing the lesser; He was the doctor of doctors, not of little clerics; and by these three little verses, since they indicate that the Saint taught not little clerics, or younger clerics fit only for learning sciences of a lower order, but only men of a more advanced age, it is intimated that the lower sciences were not handed on by him at Reims; and this, since from what has been said above Bruno taught both Poetry and Grammar at Reims, cannot agree with the truth unless it be understood of the Saint when already made scholarch of the church of Reims, or rector and head of the highest studies; for it does not appear likely that the Saint taught the more sublime sciences when not yet appointed to this office, and only the lower ones when appointed. Bruno, therefore, when he had already obtained the mastership of the schools of Reims, will have taught only the higher sciences and chiefly Theology, but before he had been honoured with this office, the lower ones also. And let these things suffice concerning the sciences which the Saint handed on at Reims; next it is that we now inquire into the time at about which he took this burden upon himself.

[81] If Morkens at num. 75 rightly notes that the Saint was called out from Cologne by Gervase, archbishop of Reims, to teach letters at Reims, The time at which he first devoted himself there to the office of teaching, Bruno certainly did not begin to teach letters at Reims before the year 1055, as that in which Gervase was first raised to the see of Reims; but if we are to stand by Marlot, who writes in the History of the Metropolis of Reims, volume 2, page 115, that Bruno was appointed head or rector of the schools of Reims by Gervase in the year 1056, it appears that it must be said that our Saint began to teach the schools of Reims before the year 1055, since he does not seem to have obtained the headship of the schools unless when he had already taught for some time. But since neither Marlot nor Morkens, as is easy to gather from what has been said above, wins certain credit for himself here, recourse must be had elsewhere in order that I may determine in some fashion the time at about which the Saint devoted himself to the office of teaching among the Remi. Baldric, abbot of Bourgueil, in the verses to Godfrey of Reims, who was substituted for Bruno in the mastership of the schools of Reims by Manasses, prelate of the Remi, about the year 1077, transcribed here at num. 62, teaches that this Godfrey of his, whom he praises lavishly, studied at Reims with Herimann and Bruno, and then adds: Thou hadst been young, and hadst been sharper than they; Thou comest therefore third; now too thou wast first. To Gervase as prince, that prince of thine, Manasses, Succeeded, who promotes thee to the study; and by these four little verses (for nothing else appears to be able to be signified by them) it is without doubt indicated that Godfrey came in the third place, that is, after Herimann and Bruno, whom nevertheless he surpassed in keenness of wit, to the headship of the schools of Reims, Manasses promoting him to that office.

[82] from the time at which Herimann (laid down) this Hence further, which alone bears on the matter here, it now follows that Herimann was head of the schools of Reims, and indeed before Godfrey. Wherefore, since he likewise held that office before Bruno, to whom Godfrey was immediately substituted in it, we shall have perceived from the time at which Herimann laid it down the time at about which Bruno began to discharge it. Let us therefore inquire into that. Mabillon, in volume 4 of the Analecta, recites a letter written by Gozechin, scholasticus of Liège, from Mainz, whither he had withdrawn after leaving the mastership of the chair of Liège, in which he, the vices and evils of his time,

born chiefly of the errors of Berengar, deploring, speaks thus at page 385: All these things were wisely despised by Herimann of Reims, Drogo of Paris, Huoremann of Speyer, Meinhard of Bamberg, and many more besides, men both eminent and of chief authority, who, the species being cut off, that is, as Mabillon interprets in the Preface to the Sixth Benedictine Century, num. XI, "the stipends and emoluments," and their labours renounced, bade farewell to studies, and, using wise counsel, withdrew into the leisure of Theology, that is, as appears from what precedes and follows, and as the writers of the Literary History of France interpret, volume 9, page 234, into solitude, to give themselves solely to the meditation of divine things and true wisdom.

[83] his predecessor renounced, it is determined. Herimann, then, who is mentioned here, and who seems to be none other than Herimann, the head or scholarch of the schools of Reims before Bruno, last named, had already withdrawn into solitude, having left his studies and consequently resigned the office of scholarch, when Gozechin wrote the aforesaid letter. Wherefore, since he undoubtedly did this before the year 1060, as you will easily understand from what Mabillon discusses at the place last cited, Herimann had already resigned the mastership of the schools of Reims before this very year. Now indeed, since our Saint, from what has been said, was substituted immediately for Herimann, it follows that he very probably received the governance of the schools of Reims from Gervase, archbishop of Reims, before the same said year 1060, and consequently that Marlot, who determines, as I have already said twice above, that this was done in the year 1056, perhaps did not stray far from the truth. For which reason, since the Saint indeed seems to have taught letters, or at least the sciences of a lower order, for some time at Reims, while Herimann still held the headship of the schools, before he was created head of the schools of Reims, or rector of great studies, as Guibert of Nogent, praised above, speaks, or also chief teacher, as the Regular canons of the church of St. Vincent of Nouaillé likewise write above in their funeral Title on St. Bruno, it becomes consequent that he first began to teach at Reims between the year 1050 and the year 1060, whether meanwhile, already then living in the city of Reims, he had applied himself there to Theological studies, or whether he was only then called out by Archbishop Gervase, as Morkens would have it above, from Cologne, where he had cultivated them.

[84] Certainly that he did not undertake that burden before the year 1050 He acted also as chancellor of the church of Reims. This is plain appears beyond doubt for this reason, that he had then, as it is easy to gather from what has been said above, come out of the course of Philosophy only one or two years before, and, this completed, very probably applied himself at least for some time to Theological studies before he began to teach. And so we now have not only when approximately the Saint first acted as master in the city of Reims, but also at about what time he was promoted to the headship of the schools of Reims or the office of chief teacher. Further, the Saint not only held the headship of the schools at Reims, concerning which enough has already been said, but also acted as canon and chancellor of the metropolitan church. And the first is established both from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, or the elogium of the Saint drawn from it which I transcribed here at num. 7, and from the Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux; in both of which monuments, very ancient indeed, regard being had to the time at which they were written after Bruno's death, he is distinguished with the title of canon of the church of Reims; and as for the office of chancellor, which he likewise discharged, this becomes manifest even from the Charter alone, granted in the year 1076 by Archbishop Manasses in favour of the abbey of St. Basle, to which Bruno, having written it as chancellor, also subscribed. I therefore transcribe it here, as it is presented in the fourth book, not yet published, of the Carthusian Annals.

[85] It runs thus: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. from the Charter, which is transcribed here. I, Manasses, by the ineffable providence of God archbishop of Reims, mindful of things past and to come, how all things suffer irrecoverably the losses of ruin and decay: since I have known that the state of my life will not always endure, I have studied, by stretching out the hand of charity, to prepare a most tranquil harbour for my soul. Compelled, therefore, by this necessity and by the care of the churches committed to me, and at the request of Abbot Stephen, I have given and subjected to the monastery of Saint Basle two altars, namely of Alteja and of Caprilla, that the brethren may hold them perpetually without personatus, paying only the summatici, and that for me, as long as I live, they may celebrate every week two Masses, one privately, and the other in common: and every year on the day of my anniversary the brethren of the same church may feast regularly in the refectory from the revenues of those altars. If anyone take them away thence, let him be anathema. Done at Reims in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and seventy-six, and in the XVII of the reign of King Philip, and in the VII of the archiepiscopate of the lord Manasses, in the fourteenth indiction. Sign of Guido the archdeacon. S. of Guarin the archdeacon. Sign of Manasses the provost. S. of Leuvin the dean. S. of Odo the cantor. S. of Abbot Henry. S. of Abbot Jotzelin. S. of Abbot Gebuin. S. of Abbot Raimbald. S. of Dudo the dean. S. of Dominic the dean. S. of Lambert the dean. S. of Bavo the dean. S. of Wido the knight. S. of Albert the knight. S. of Rodulph. S. of Haymo. S. of Lambert. Bruno the chancellor wrote and subscribed.

[86] This Charter exists also in Marlot, who nevertheless does not state whence he received it, Some things in this volume 2 of the History of the Metropolis of Reims, page 170 and following, as also in the manuscript Treatise on St. Bruno, of which at num. 28, communicated to me by the Carthusian Fathers of this place, so that consequently I have three copies of the same instrument before my eyes. And all these indeed agree with one another almost exactly both in the chronological notes by which they are marked and in the words in which they are conceived; but not so in the witnesses subscribed to the instrument; for besides the fact that the Marlot copy presents some of their names written otherwise than the two remaining copies do, it adds to the abbots subscribed to the charter the name of the monastery or abbey over which each presided, which is not done in the two other copies, and whether it is rightly done in Marlot's I have not sufficiently ascertained. Meanwhile the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book of the Annals of his Order, subjoins to the Charter recited by him the following annotation, by which he declares that it was taken from the autograph: It was extracted (namely the instrument or charter already recited) from the Original, sealed with a larger seal of yellow wax, in whose shell is impressed the image of the blessed Virgin Mary, holding the child Jesus with right and left hand. This instrument was found in the aforesaid abbey of Saint Basle near Reims by a certain V. P., a Benedictine monk of the reformed congregation, dwelling at Compiègne, in the year MDCXLIX, and lent to a certain Carthusian of the house of Mont-Dieu, from whose writings we have drawn it.

[87] are observed. But Mabillon, who in the Benedictine Annals, book 64, num. 129, recites part of the Charter already transcribed here entire, and who intimates that the very autograph of this instrument, or at least an authentic copy of it, lighted his way, observes thus there: After the two archdeacons (subscribed to the Charter of which there is question here), the provost, dean and cantor of the church of Reims, there are set the signs of Henry, abbot of Saint Remi, Jotselin, abbot of Hautvillers, Gibbuin, abbot of Mouzon, Raimbald, abbot of Saint Thierry, and others. "Bruno the chancellor wrote and subscribed," the same, as it seems, who not much later withdrew from Manasses on account of his crimes and instituted the Carthusian Order. To the authentic copy is affixed the seal of Archbishop Manasses, displaying the likeness of blessed Mary bearing the child Christ on her left arm, with this inscription, "Manasses archbishop of the Remi." So he, adding to the abbots subscribed to the Charter or instrument of which there is question here the names of the monasteries or abbeys over which they presided, which, however, whether he drew them from the autograph itself, which he perhaps had at hand, or from Marlot, whom he cites in the margin, I cannot declare; and consequently whether those names are set rightly or otherwise beside the abbots in Marlot, I leave undecided, and I now inquire into the time at which the Saint was first created chancellor of Reims.

[88] Whether he was already adorned with that dignity from the year 1073, Marlot, already often praised, writes thus in volume 2 of the History of the Metropolis of Reims, page 134: The Fragment… of the History of France which begins from Philip speaks of Bruno as though he had been born at Reims. But the Letter of Manasses to be cited presently removes the scruple with these words: "This Bruno is neither born ours nor reborn." He is called of Reims, therefore, as I conjecture, because he is said to have professed letters at Reims with praise, and to have been presented with the dignity of the chancellorship on account of his skill in law, which he still exercised under Manasses, as is established from various charters, but most of all from the instrument of foundation of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux of the diocese of Amiens, which was publicly recited before King Philip, Manasses holding a synod at Reims, to which Bruno the chancellor subscribed in the year MLXXIII. From this text of Marlot and from the charter last recited and marked with the year 1076, the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 9, page 234, assert that Bruno discharged the office of chancellor of Reims from at least the year 1073 up to the year 1076: and rightly indeed, if only no error lurks in the year in which Marlot says Bruno subscribed the Charter or instrument of foundation of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux. Meanwhile the manuscript Treatise on St. Bruno, which I have already praised several times, communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, makes me doubt vehemently concerning this matter.

[89] For this has thus at num. 12: About the same time he was adorned, on account of some things, at which this charter (already recited here just now) was given, Manasses confirmed the foundation of the abbey of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux of the diocese of Amiens, made three years before, to the instrument of which Bruno added these confirmatory words: "In the VII year of his episcopate Archbishop Manasses confirmed it. Sign of Wido the archdeacon, and of Guarin Waric the archdeacon, and of Manasses the provost, and of Leuvin the dean, of Odo the cantor. Bruno the chancellor wrote it;" but if these words, whence they were drawn not being added, agree with the truth, the Charter of foundation of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux, or rather the instrument by which this foundation was confirmed, as being marked with the seventh year of Manasses, who obtained the see of Reims only in the year 1069, would have been given not in the year 1073, as Marlot (for he seems to speak of the same charter as the praised Treatise) notes at the place cited, but in the year 1075 or 1076. Perhaps Marlot by error put the year in which the foundation of the monastery of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux took place, which preceded by three years, as the recited words of the Treatise presently to be praised again teach, the confirmation made by Manasses, for the year in which the latter happened. Perhaps also he had at hand only faulty or untrustworthy documents from which what he records bearing on this was drawn.

[90] And this last I suspect chiefly for this reason, on account of the things adduced here, that he writes that the instrument of foundation (he would perhaps better have said, from what has already been said, of confirmation) of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux which he praises was publicly recited (go to this writer's words recited above) before Philip, king of the Franks, Manasses holding a synod at Reims; and yet no mention occurs of a synod celebrated at Reims by Manasses at which Philip, king of the Franks, was present, either in the collectors of councils and synods, or even in the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, who in volume 9, among the archbishops of Reims, recount at least the principal deeds of Manasses, among which the celebration of that synod would certainly have been. They say indeed there, col. 72, that a council was celebrated by Manasses in the city of Reims in the year 1074 to ratify the unlawful marriage of King Philip and Bertrada; but they do not add that Philip was present at it; nor would they without doubt have said that the council, or general synod of the archdiocese of Reims, which Manasses truly celebrated in the year 1074, was celebrated to ratify the marriage of Philip with Bertrada, if they had considered that this was certainly not contracted before the year 1092.

[91] However that may be, it becomes indeed doubtful from all that has been said is doubtful, whether the instrument of which there has just been treatment at length here was granted to the monastery of Saint-Martin-aux-Jumeaux as early as the year 1073, as Marlot notes, and consequently also whether our Saint, because he subscribed it as chancellor, was chancellor at least, as the writers of the Literary History of France judged, as I said above, as early as the same said year 1073. But even though it be so, some think that the Saint discharged the office of chancellor of Reims even before the year 1073 itself. And indeed Bruno would have discharged it very long before that year if Marlot writes rightly in the History of the Metropolis of Reims, volume 2, page 115. For there he records thus of Gervase, archbishop of Reims, who died in the year 1067: That Gervase might in every way benefit the commonwealth, especially that of letters, he resolved to render more illustrious the schools of Reims, fallen down through age, by the work of St. Bruno of Cologne, who had been nurtured from boyhood in the church of Reims, whom he appointed head or rector of the schools, adding the office of the chancellorship, which he discharged excellently up to Manasses I, until he himself, having trampled on the pomps of dignities, withdrew into the desert, as will be said below.

[92] and this certainly not before the year 1070. Thus far he, teaching not obscurely that our Saint was created chancellor of the church of Reims by Gervase, prelate of Reims, and consequently before the year 1068, in which the latter had already died, nay even as early as the year 1056, to which he refers these things. But afterwards Marlot himself brings forward things which persuade that Bruno was not appointed to this office so early. And first, at page 139 and the two following, he recites a charter given by Archbishop Gervase in the year 1067, as is noted at the end, for the foundation of the very celebrated monastery of Saint-Denis at Reims, and written and subscribed by Oderic the chancellor, who is also found called, with some variation of the name, Odalric or Oldaric; then at page 166 and following he brings another charter, granted in favour of St. Peter of Rumigny by Walter, a nobleman, and ended thus: Done publicly at Rumigny in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MLXX, Alexander being Pope at Rome, Philip reigning as king of the Franks, Manasses being archbishop at Reims, Odo archdeacon, Odalric chancellor, etc. Since, then, as is established from these two public instruments adduced by Marlot himself, Odalric was still chancellor of the church of Reims in the year 1067 and in the year 1070, the Saint was certainly not adorned with that dignity before the year 1070, much less before the year 1067.

[93] and perhaps not before the year 1074, Nay rather this perhaps did not happen even before the year 1074. For in the same Marlot again, in the Work and volume cited, page 168 and following, there exists a charter imparted by Manasses, archbishop of Reims, for confirming the foundation of the monastery of Montier-en-Argonne (Maurimontensis) in the diocese of Châlons, which these words close: In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MLXXIV, in the XII indiction, on the Kalends of November, epact one, the venerable King Philip reigning, this charter, strengthened and confirmed in the general synod of Reims, I Oldaric wrote and subscribed; and although there flourished at Reims at that time two Oldarics, one the chancellor of the church of Reims, the other the provost of the same (go to Marlot in the Work and volume presently cited again, page 151) and afterwards the first abbot of the monastery of Saint-Denis at Reims, and although the recited subscription of the charter given to the monastery of Montier-en-Argonne, since it does not have the title of chancellor joined to the name of Odalric the writer, contrary to the custom wont to be observed in charters written by the chancellors of churches, seems to suit Odalric the provost, it is nevertheless more probably to be attributed to Odalric the chancellor, because it was the chancellors' business to write out the public charters which were given by the chapter or bishop of the churches whose chancellors they were, and to fortify them by the ascription of their name; and it could easily happen that he neglected to add the title of chancellor to his name, since it was probably not required for the validity of a Charter solemnly strengthened and confirmed in the general synod of the diocese of Reims.

[94] But however the matter stands as regards the subscription of the charter mentioned here, [but nevertheless it took place in the year 1070 or in another of the six following,] in whose closing formula, given in the preceding number, the epact, usual with the ancient computists, moreover does not agree with the year, Bruno indeed, as will be plain to one who considers all the things now adduced for the present purpose, was chancellor of the church of Reims in the year 1076, and had not yet obtained this dignity in the year 1069, so that consequently he was without doubt first adorned with it either in the year which immediately followed this, or in another of the six following, the see of Reims being meanwhile occupied not by Gervase but by Manasses. Further, although Bruno for some time, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, and his successor Godfrey discharged at Reims the offices of scholarch and chancellor at the same time, yet he who acted as scholarch of the church of Reims was not always also its chancellor, since in the year 1192, the chancellorship being vacant, Garnerius, as Marlot teaches in the History of the metropolis of Reims, volume 2, page 427 and following, obtained the mastership of the schools; so that from the fact that the Saint, from what has been said above, acted as head of the schools of Reims long before the year 1070, it cannot be argued that he likewise already then acted as chancellor, contrary to what we have now determined, although Mabillon seems to have thought the contrary, being in agreement with the words of Marlot transcribed here at num. 91, which, however, he does not cite, and thus writing of Bruno in the Preface to the second part of the Sixth Benedictine Century, num. 85: In the same (of Reims) church, Gervase being then Pontiff, he was made canon and master of the schools … and chancellor. And these are the things which occur to be said both of the office of chancellor itself, held by Bruno at Reims, and of the time at which he was first appointed to it.

[95] As regards now the time at which he was first enrolled among the canons of the church of Reims, whether he had long been a canon of the same church. most of the more recent writers judge that this took place before he received the schools of Reims to govern, and consequently also long before he discharged the office of chancellor; and although this cannot be confirmed by any testimony of antiquity, it appears likely enough even from the fact that a more fitting time at which Bruno obtained that honour does not seem able to be assigned. Moreover there are also those who contend that the Saint, while still living at Reims, was a herald of the divine word, relying, as I think, partly on the following little verse which the funeral Title of the church of Angers, 166 among those to be reprinted, includes: He made many sermons through the regions. But who would assert for certain that there is question here of Bruno while still living at Reims? For immediately after the recited verse another is subjoined there: He passed through the city of Rome, and sought the Calabrians; and Surius joins those two little verses, the former somewhat changed, without punctuation, thus: Making many sermons through the regions He passed through the city of Rome, and sought the Calabrians. However that may be, that Bruno at times also spoke words to the people at Reims is perhaps foreign to the truth, as also that he taught there more sciences than have been enumerated above. Nor do I think it doubtful that he besides expounded there to his disciples the sacred Pages, in which indeed he was very well skilled, and at the same time in the Greek and Hebrew languages, which conduce very much to their understanding, as will become clear from what will occur to be discussed concerning his Commentaries on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St. Paul.

§ V. What sort of disciples the Saint had; that he formed them in good morals no less than in letters; and what endowments of mind and virtues then shone forth in him.

The Saint had very many disciples. Some of the more illustrious of these That there was indeed a huge multitude of those whom our Saint had as disciples, and whom he taught letters with plainly the wished-for success (whence his industry in handing these on shone forth wonderfully), his funeral Title 131 indicates not obscurely in these following little verses, of which it in part consists: He was the splendour of speech and the light of religion. His religion is known sufficiently everywhere. By his teaching so many were made wise, Whom my mind knows not, and my pen is silent. Nor were St. Bruno's disciples many in number only, but also some of them were notable both for virtue and uprightness of morals, and for the offices and dignities with which they were afterwards adorned. Since the uprightness and renown of disciples also redounds in a certain manner to the glory of their masters, it pleases me to recount here, by way of example, some of the more illustrious of these. Easily the first of all is Otto or Odo, born of a noble house in Gaul, from Prior of Cluny bishop of Ostia, and at length supreme Pontiff, created in the year 1088 taking the name of Urban II, most celebrated both for the excommunication of Philip, king of the Franks, and of his concubine Bertrada, and for the promotion of the holy war at the council of Clermont; that Bruno was at one time his teacher is taught by the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, or the elogium of the Saint transcribed from it at num. 7, and the matter consequently ought to be beyond all controversy, as Ruinart rightly contends in volume 3 of the Posthumous Works, in the Life of this Pontiff. There is added Robert of Burgundy, sprung from the royal stock of the dukes of Burgundy, namely son of Henry of Burgundy, grandson of Robert, king of France, promoted to the see of Langres about the year 1085, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach in volume IV among the bishops of Langres, who himself, in the funeral Title, 39 among those to be reprinted, which he inscribed to our Saint, professes that he was his disciple.

[97] are recounted here, whom (he formed) in good morals also, as all To these I further add Lambert, abbot of the monastery of the Order of St. Benedict of Pothières on the Seine, Peter, likewise abbot of the canons Regular of St. John of the Vineyards near Soissons, and Mainard of the monastery of Cormery, or Cormaricum, in the territory of Tours, when to him the encyclical letter, of the death

of St. Bruno announcing it, was brought, Prior and afterwards abbot; all of whom likewise profess, in the funeral Titles which they consecrated to the Saint, namely 45, 79 and 176, that they were his disciples. And that these three abbots, as also Robert, bishop of Langres, and Urban, the supreme Pontiff, had Bruno as their master nowhere else than at Reims I shall show below, when I inquire whether the Saint, after resigning the headship of the schools of Reims about the year 1076 or the following, taught letters at Paris before he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse; but that all of them were illustrious for virtue, which is an argument that they were formed by Bruno not only in letters but also in good morals, I now show here. And first, how far this agrees with the truth as regards Urban is shown more than sufficiently by the Life of this most celebrated Pontiff written by Ruinart and inserted in the third volume of the Posthumous Works of this writer and of Mabillon; and as regards Robert, bishop of Langres, and the three abbots recounted, namely Lambert, Peter and Mainard, Robert, when he had fulfilled all the parts of a most excellent Pastor in administering his diocese, ended his long rule of about twenty-five years by a most pious death, as is plain from what the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana hand down to memory concerning this praiseworthy prelate in volume IV, col. 566.

[98] Lambert, although he was abbot of his monastery of Pothières, by virtue, nevertheless calls himself its servant and slight procurator in the funeral Title, 45 among those to be reprinted, by which he paid funeral honours to our Saint; whence indeed his great humility shines forth. Peter, abbot of the canons Regular of St. John of the Vineyards near Soissons, uses among others these words in the Saint's funeral Title 79, directed to the hermits of the Calabrian Charterhouse: To the beloved in Christ and brethren worthy of God of Calabria, the reverend hermits serving God in the monastery of the holy Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, Peter, humble abbot of the canons Regular of Saint John of Soissons, and the whole Congregation of brethren living with him and serving God: to have begun well, to persevere better, to finish happily. Having heard of the blessed end of your holy Father and my master Bruno, from whose mouth it befell me very often to drink the streams of sound doctrine, although I have not fulfilled it in deed, we are vehemently saddened at his absence; that he has escaped the straits of the flesh and obtained rest and lives with God, as we can conjecture from the purity and perfection of his past life, sufficiently known to us, we rejoice more vehemently. His memory, therefore, both because he was our master and because we trust in his prayers and yours, the more efficacious with God the more holy they are, we promise to keep in this manner: for thirty days Masses, etc.

[99] By which method of writing indeed this man, as is shown, most worthy of manifold praise, manifests the highest modesty and humility of mind, as it is permitted to gather from the Calendar of St. Gervase, which has this of him in Claude Dormay, History of Soissons, volume 2, book 5, chap. 13, at the XXI of March: There died Peter, abbot of Saint John, a man of all uprightness, praiseworthy to God and the world in all things and celebrated in memory. Mainard, Prior and afterwards abbot of Cormery, in the funeral Title which he inscribed to the Saint, speaks thus to the Calabrian Carthusians: I rejoiced indeed at the glorious end of so great a Man ("Bruno"), but because there was in me an unwearied intention to go to him shortly, and to see and hear him, and to pour out into him all the surgings of my mind, and to obey the Holy Trinity with you under his leadership, I was troubled beyond what I can say at his unexpected passing, nor could I hold back the reins of the tears flowing forth of their own accord. I, I say, Mainard, in the monastery of Cormery Prior of very many monks in name, not in deed, originated from the city of the Remi, heard for some years the teaching of this lord Bruno, and by God's will profited greatly, etc.

[100] illustrious, he very probably formed. By which words he certainly shows the most vehement inclination of mind by which he was held to go to St. Bruno, if the latter had survived longer here among the living, and to follow his footsteps; nor does it appear to be doubted that that man, who had his will so inclined to the austere and holy kind of life instituted by Bruno, his former master, diligently cultivated his mind in the exercise of virtues. Such were the disciples of St. Bruno, whom consequently he very probably formed in virtue and uprightness of morals no less than in the perishable sciences of the world. And perhaps to this manner of teaching, most commending the Saint, the monks of Saint-Denis of Reims alluded in their funeral Title, which holds place 61 among those to be reprinted, singing thus of Bruno: As the four fountains, going out from one source, Which paradise has, flowing through the kingdoms of the world, Overflow the lands, so he adorns those whom he has imbued, Fills and forms, inflames, directs, arms, Forges and illumines, and further rules, cultivates, fits. He was like a star to all whom he taught.

[101] and this not only by words, but also (by) uprightness of morals Nor by words alone, breathing learning and virtue together, did the Saint bring it about that his disciples eagerly drank in both the one and the other, but he also contributed not a little to it by the exceptional uprightness of his morals and the rare virtues which then shone forth in him. And the uprightness of morals by which Bruno then made himself conspicuous is celebrated thus in funeral Title 66, which is that of the cathedral church of St. Mary of Laon, situated in the archdiocese of Reims: Bruno, the glory of the clergy, the glory and the prudence of the world, While he was on earth, flourished by keenness of mind, While he was among us, flourished also by his teachings. Integrity of morals filled up the heap of his honours. To this also bear funeral Titles 29 and 31, in the former of which, which is that of the Holy Cross and of Saint Faro of Meaux, the Saint is adorned with these following little verses: Well known was he for doctrine and blessed Morals and life, Bruno the wise hermit; In his first beginnings, he shone among the highest and the lowest, Afterwards made a monk. In the latter, written by the church of St. Mary of Chartres, he is honoured with these epithets: Just, sincere, severe in gravity of morals.

[102] with exceptional learning, As regards the virtues which then shone forth in him, the anonymous Carthusian who wrote book 4 of the Annals of his Order, hitherto unpublished and existing in my possession, being about to set before our eyes these and at the same time the notable endowments of mind with which the Saint then shone, from various funeral Titles of his, speaks thus: There can chiefly be noted those things which shone forth in Bruno: wisdom, eloquence, gravity foreign to pride, sweetness and integrity of morals, irreproachable doctrine, and finally an exemplary life, after whose idea all good men would not shrink from being formed and composing their morals. It pleases me to touch briefly here on a corollary of these virtues from his funeral Titles, not indeed of those which shone forth in him more abundantly and more perfectly after his conversion, but only of the virtues with which, while still placed in the world, he shed rays upon the world. Having said this by way of preface, he presently approaches the matter itself. I transcribe his words here, adding to the funeral Titles which he cites the numbers by which each is distinguished among those to be published. They run thus: His (namely Bruno's) wisdom, doctrine and exemplary life the Title (112) of Saint Peter of Neufchâtel commends in these few but pithy verses: "In whatever district he lived, living he remained an image Of true justice, of doctrine, of Philosophy."

"Bruno was a wall of the Church not about to fall, For he was good and of pious mind, and of wisdom He was a true doctor, etc." And afterwards in the scholars' verses (Title 32) the same things are not only proclaimed, but testimony is also borne to the greatness of his mind, when it is said there: "He was the flower of the Fathers, the solace, the glory of the brethren, A follower of the true, a lover of the divine law, The path of justice, he the fount and origin of wisdom, The light, the mirror of the world, the sublime summit of things, The staff of the falling, the sweet relief of the wretched. Nor was his mind broken by evils, nor too elated by prosperity." With these agrees the Title (150) of the church of St. Mary of Bayeux: "The solace of the Brethren, the lover of holy virtue, The just corrector of morals, the pious hope of the wretched, The ruler of justice, and everywhere the guardian of the good; Adorned with morals; and a vessel full of piety, Strongly armed with the shield of true probity."

[104] But no one commended his wisdom so much as Lambert, abbot of Saint Nicholas of Angers, by wisdom, by subtlety of wit, who speaks thus in his Title (131): …"The wisdom of Bruno shone so greatly, That among the stars of the Franks he alone Was the flower of all, and the fount of philosophers: He was a beautiful flower, and he was a deep fount. From him flowed so great wisdom through the world, That those whom he imbued, he made philosophers." How great was the sublimity of his wit, although it may become known from the books written by him before his conversion, the Titles of various churches also attest, among which it is had thus in the Title (66) of St. Mary of Laon: "Bruno, the glory of the clergy, the glory and the prudence of the world, While he was on earth, flourished by keenness of mind, While he was among us, flourished also by his teachings."

[105] And in the Title (173) of the church of blessed Vincent of the convent of Nouaillé (Nioliensium) he is called an incomparable philosopher, and having eloquence joined (with them). where it is also added: "For who would not be astounded, nay who would not groan from the inmost parts of his heart, when he heard that so great a Man, the light and foundation of all knowledge and of almost all clerics, had yielded to nature?" Writing things in conformity with which, Nauclerus (in the Chronography, vol. 2, Generation 37) called blessed Bruno a most famous Doctor of Philosophy and of the Sacred Page, and a most eloquent Doctor of the scholastics at Paris (whether this Bruno ever taught there, I shall inquire below). And lest anyone think that this holy Doctor lacked a learned tongue, by which he might know how to sustain with a word him that is weary, let him take it from the Title (64) of the holy martyrs Timothy and Apollinaris, in which it is read thus: "Such was this Doctor's power of heart and mouth, That he surpassed all masters in the whole world. To him all wisdom gave itself, and all of it sat A rich guest in the hidden inner chambers of his secrets. What I say, I know; France too knows it with me, And the whole world knows it through its four climes."

[106] by examples of virtues Nor did he teach others by word only, which would have been little, but also by example, as we learn from certain Titles: for thus we read in the Title (120) of the church of Saint Omer: "Thou wast wont to be an example to wretched mortals, That they might worship Christ, whom thou, Bruno, didst always worship." And in the Title (124) of St. Mary of Arras: "Bruno, the leader of the right way and the origin of wisdom, Taught not otherwise than as he studied to live." Thus far the praised anonymous Carthusian; and although perhaps not in all the funeral Titles which he praises is allusion made to the virtues and rare endowments of mind of which the Saint gave specimens at the time when he was still discharging the office of teaching and had not yet sent the world its dismissal, yet there is no doubt that this is done in most of them, as will be plain to one who considers. However that may be, the Saint indeed at that time, when still as scholarch or head of the schools

and rector he was acting at Reims, appears most probably to have shone forth with various examples of virtues, by which in part he brought it about that his disciples likewise embraced them.

[107] he very probably brought it about. So persuades both the exceptional fortitude by which he then opposed the wicked morals of Archbishop Manasses, despising even the loss of dignities and fortunes, as we shall see below, and the letter written in the year 1067 or the following to Gregory VII, the supreme Pontiff, by Hugh, bishop of Die and legate of the Apostolic See, in which, to be mentioned several times more below, Hugh speaks in this manner of the other Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, and at the same time of our Saint, who had then not long resigned the headship of the schools of Reims and had not yet withdrawn into the desert: Manasses … our friend in Christ, who at the council of Clermont resigned into our hand the provostship of the church of Reims ill acquired, we commend to the grace of your Holiness, as a sincere defender of the Catholic faith, and the lord Bruno, master of the church of Reims IN ALL UPRIGHTNESS. For both are worthy to be confirmed by you, and in the things which are of God, by your authority, since they have been accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And therefore employ them as counsellors who will profit the cause of God and as fellow-workers in the parts of France. For the rest, the same anonymous Carthusian last praised indicates at num. 104 that books were written by the Saint before his conversion, or before he withdrew into the desert, leaving all the perishable things of the world; but since this is not sufficiently established, whether the matter is so or otherwise I shall only examine when I treat of the life led by the Saint in the desert of Calabria and of the two letters certainly written by him there, being about to set up discourse in one and the same place concerning all the Works which either are the Saint's or are attributed to him.

§ VI. He opposes the abominable attempts of his archbishop Manasses: how much he suffered on this occasion, and how he purposed to put on the monk.

[The Saint, (with regard to) Manasses, who had obtained simoniacally the place of the deceased archbishop Gervase] When Gervase, archbishop of Reims, a man most deserving of his church on many counts, and especially because he had rendered the schools of Reims, celebrated and illustrious indeed before, yet more celebrated and more illustrious by the work of Bruno, had been taken from the living in the year 1067, the archiepiscopal see vacant by his death was obtained simoniacally, or rather invaded, by Manasses, distinguished by the nobility of his family, not by the adornment of virtues, who in an old manuscript codex of Reims is found called Manasses de Gournai, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana testify in volume 9, col. 71. He, although he had not entered into the sheepfold by the door, yet so conducted himself at the beginning of his promotion and consecration, which took place in the year 1069, that, if not in all things, at least in many he fulfilled the office of a true pastor. For it is known that at that time he now and then defended the rights of the Church with great readiness of mind, and was beneficent towards monasteries, from what both Marlot, in volume 2 of the History of the Metropolis of Reims, page 165 and the eight following, and the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana at the place last cited hand down to memory concerning him. Nor at that time did that simoniac prelate so act as to stir up against himself the hatred of all good men, although meanwhile he was rather unjust towards some of them. Nay, on the contrary, he seems to have taken diligent care to deserve well even of men who were notable both for gravity of morals and for virtue.

[109] How true this is our Saint is an argument, not bearing any longer (his) wicked morals, whom, as you will easily gather from what has been said above, he either himself promoted to the office of chancellor of the church of Reims, which was vacant by the death of Odalric, or took pains that he should be promoted by the canons of his church; whether meanwhile he did this because he had observed in the Saint the manifold knowledge and uprightness of morals required above all for worthily discharging that office, or because he desired solely in this way to win for himself the friendship of Bruno, a most celebrated man and of great authority in the city of Reims, lest he should ever find him an adversary of the depraved counsels which he was perhaps already then turning over in his mind. And the Saint indeed seems to have adhered to Manasses with a mind not altogether averse, as long as this was in any way permitted by the latter's deeds and morals, and, as appears likely enough, by his counsels meanwhile brought it about that the man of abandoned conscience performed some good things and abstained from the evils which he was meditating. But when Manasses became daily worse, sold ecclesiastical benefices, plundered the sacred furniture, excommunicated many unjustly, tried to seize or even actually seized the goods of clerics, churches and abbeys, and, to say it in a word, acted the wolf and not the shepherd, our Saint showed himself wholly his adversary, most of all perhaps because the man's simoniacal promotion to the see of Reims, of which he had hitherto been ignorant, had now at length been made plain to him. But since he would most certainly have been in no small danger from Manasses if he had remained longer at Reims opposing him, very probably both for the sake of withdrawing himself from danger and so as not to be compelled to be a witness of the man's impious deeds, which he could not prevent, he left Reims and the dignities which he held there, together with some of the more illustrious clerics of the church of Reims.

[110] from the city of Reims, his dignities resigned, All these things, nearly, Guibert of Nogent in his own Life, book 1, chap. XI, either expressly teaches, or at least they can be gathered from him. Hear what he discourses there: A certain Manasses, he says, after the death of Gervase, the most famous archbishop, thrust himself simoniacally into the government of the aforesaid city (namely of Reims), a man noble indeed, but having nothing at all of that serenity which chiefly befits noble birth. For he had conceived such pride from that novelty that he seemed to imitate the royal majesties of foreign nations, nay the ferocities of majesties. And then, a few things which do not bear on this being interposed, he continues thus: He therefore (Manasses), since he courted knights exceedingly and neglected the clergy, is reported to have said once: "The archbishopric of Reims would be a good thing, if one did not have to sing Masses for it." Since, then, every upright man shuddered at his utterly wicked morals and most stupid bearing, Bruno, then most highly esteemed in the churches of Gaul, with certain other nobles among the clerics of Reims, left the city (namely Reims) out of hatred of that infamous man. So Guibert. And the Saint, indeed, at that very time at which, as he says here, out of hatred, whether that by which he himself was borne not so much against his bishop as against his most evil morals, or that by which he was held as an enemy by the latter himself, he left the city of Reims, very probably, not to say without doubt, resigned the government of the great studies or the headship of the schools, and the office of chancellor, or at least, if you prefer, lost them, being despoiled of all his dignities by Manasses.

[111] in the year 1076 or the following But about what year, and with what more illustrious clerics of the church of Reims accompanying him, did that departure of the Saint from the city of Reims take place? Whither did he then first betake himself? That I may answer these several questions in order: Bruno certainly migrated from Reims elsewhere neither before the year 1076 nor after the year which immediately followed it, so that consequently he undoubtedly did so either in the year 1076 or in the following. And that he did not leave Reims before the year 1076 is plain from the charter granted at Reims in this very year by Manasses in favour of the abbey of St. Basle and transcribed here above, which ends thus: Bruno the chancellor wrote and subscribed; and that this was not done after the year 1077 becomes plain from the fact that in that year at the council of Autun, nay very probably also at that of Clermont, which preceded it, he accused Manasses, archbishop of Reims, as we shall presently see, of simony and other crimes, and very probably did not do this before he had left the city of Reims in opposition to Manasses, as is persuaded both by the huge danger to which he would otherwise have exposed himself with a prelate thereby blazing up and unable to control his anger, and by the course of the events that followed, from which it becomes most probable, nay beyond doubt, that our Saint, after he had accused Manasses at the council of Autun, did not return to the city of Reims before the latter had been deposed in the year 1080 at the council of Lyons, as everyone will easily gather from what is to be said below.

[112] I now turn my discourse to the more illustrious clerics who, he leaves with Manasses the provost, Fulcius and others, turning away from Manasses, left the city of Reims together with the Saint. That among these were Ralph the Green (Radulphus Viridis), to whom the Saint wrote from the desert of Calabria a letter to be mentioned several times below, and Fulcius the One-eyed, of whom mention is made in the same letter, appears not at all unlike the truth, on account of the conversation which, as the same letter likewise teaches, he had with them concerning the perishable delights of this world and the joys of heaven that will endure for ever, on the occasion, as is admitted by almost all, of the very great tribulations which the church of Reims was suffering from Archbishop Manasses; but that Manasses, then provost of the church of Reims, and a certain Pontius were companions of the Saint in his departure from the city of Reims is beyond doubt, since both of these together with Bruno were accusers of the simoniac prelate at the council of Autun and elsewhere, as he himself in part declares in Mabillon, Museum Italicum volume 1, part 2, page 121, in his Apology already praised more than once above and to be praised several times more below, and as will become plain from what is to be said. As regards now the place to which the Saint, leaving Reims, withdrew, some conjecture that he went to Paris, and among these du Boulay above all presents himself, who, inclining besides to the opinion which determines that the Saint then devoted himself at Paris to the office of teaching, writes thus in the History of Paris, volume 1, page 468: From this passage (of Guibert, already transcribed here above) it is established that Bruno, having left Reims, migrated elsewhere with certain other noble clerics of the church of Reims; which companions, although Guibert does not name them, yet from the letter of Bruno himself to Ralph the Green, provost of Reims, we understand that these three friends departed together: Bruno, Ralph and Fulcius the One-eyed.

[113] For thus he writes: "Your love remembers, indeed, and then himself, not, as du Boulay conjectures, that when I and you and Fulcius the One-eyed had been together one day in the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, where I was then lodging, we were treating of false delights." Therefore Bruno was then lodging with Adam, not at any rate at Reims; for since he was a canon of the church of Reims and its scholasticus, it is not likely that he would have stayed in another's lodging. Whence I conjecture that Bruno came with those two friends to Paris, and chose the house of Adam as his host, and then resumed the profession of teaching. That is perhaps Adam, canon of Paris, who after Gualeram was cantor of the same church about the year MC, and discharged that office beyond the year MCXXIII. So he: but although very probably, as I shall show below, Bruno in his letter to Ralph the Green is not speaking of lodging in which he was received at Reims by Adam, yet on that account by no means

does it follow that the Saint, while he was holding the discussion, of which he makes mention in the words recited by du Boulay, concerning the false delights of the world with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, was lodging at Paris with Adam. For why could he not then have lodged outside the city of Reims elsewhere just as well as at Paris? Nor does what he adds about Adam, canon of Paris, bear on the matter at all, since elsewhere too there could then have flourished several men, or even, if you like, canons, who likewise had the name of Adam.

[114] to Paris, Du Boulay indeed, in order to prove in some fashion that the Saint, when he went away from Reims, betook himself immediately to Paris, adds also to the words last recited: Guibert, praised above, agrees, who, writing of his (namely St. Bruno's) conversion, says thus: "There was, not long before these days, a certain Bruno in the city of Reims, a man both instructed in the liberal arts and rector of Great studies, who is known to have obtained the beginnings of his conversion on the occasion set down below." By which words he seems to denote that Bruno was rector of the study of Paris and of Reims, which are called by Aimoin, monk of Fleury, in the Life of Abbo, the greater workshops of wisdom or of studies; but why could not the Saint have been called by Guibert rector of great studies because at Reims he presided over the studies both of Philosophy and of Theology, which are the greater or higher sciences? Indeed that he was not called by Guibert rector of great studies in the sense which du Boulay intimates is plain even from the fact that by this very writer, in the words produced by du Boulay, he is indicated to have discharged that office not at Paris but at Reims, as will be plain to one who considers. Moreover, even if I granted that the Saint is called by Guibert rector of great studies in the sense in which du Boulay would have it, would it follow from this that, when the Saint left Reims, he immediately acted as rector of great studies at Paris, and therefore betook himself thither immediately after his departure from the city of Reims? No one, indeed, so far as I think, would assert it.

[115] but probably withdrew to Roucy. And indeed it is most probable that the Saint at that time, when he left Reims to avoid Manasses, withdrew not to Paris but to Reciacum, or Roceium, Rocum, Roscium, or also (for it is variously named by various people) Rauciacum, a castle in that age fortified (go to Marlot, History of the metropolis of Reims, volume 2, page 195, and Valesius in the Notitia Galliarum at the word Rauciacum) and celebrated, of French Champagne on the Aisne. So it appears to me, both because Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, and others who adhered to him, and consequently our Saint also, were in the aforesaid castle, under the protection of Count Ebalus (namely of Roucy; for I find no other count named Ebalus to whom this could fit), in the year 1078, as is gathered from the letter of Archbishop Manasses himself to Pope Gregory VII, written, as will be said below, in the year 1078, and to be recited here at num. 123 at least in part; and because Ebalus, lord or toparch of the same castle, in which also, as appears, he had fixed his dwelling, stood wholly on the side of the clerics of Reims, and consequently of our Saint, against Manasses, the simoniac archbishop of Reims, inasmuch as, as is likewise understood from the same letter, when Archbishop Manasses had appealed to the supreme Pontiff from the sentence passed against him in the year 1077 by Hugh, bishop of Die and legate of the Apostolic See, at the council of Autun, and had in fact betaken himself to Rome to defend his cause before him, he too betook himself to Rome, in order to protect against the latter's machinations Manasses the provost and the other clerics who were fugitives from the city of Reims. And so it has now been determined in some fashion both with whom accompanying him and about what year our Saint left the city of Reims, as also whither he then withdrew: let us now pursue the order of the matters to be treated here.

[116] Among the various councils which were celebrated in our Saint's age against simoniacs and investitures received from laymen, then at that of Clermont, which was celebrated in the year 1076 or 1077, there comes to be mentioned here that which Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See in Gaul, celebrated at Clermont. He in it, as Hugh of Flavigny teaches in the Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, page 201, passed sentence of excommunication on Stephen, invader of the church of Le Puy (Aniciensis); and this sentence Gregory, who was raised to the supreme Chair of the Church in the year 1073, in which the Pontifical Indiction XI ran from January to the end of December, as is admitted by all, afterwards confirmed by two different letters, one to the canons of Le Puy, the other to the bishops of Gaul, as may be seen in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 164, written on one and the same day, namely the tenth before the Kalends of April, in the fifteenth indiction; wherefore, since this latter chronological note, as is plain from what has already been said about the year in which the Pontificate was obtained by Gregory, designates the year 1077, it follows that the aforementioned council, which Hugh of Die celebrated at Clermont, was very probably celebrated either at the beginning of the very year 1077 or towards the end of the one immediately preceding. At this, from the castle of Roucy, in which, from what has already been said, he was probably staying with Bruno and others, Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, presented himself in person, and, as the letter of Hugh to be transcribed here below bears witness, resigned into the hands of Hugh the legate the ill-acquired chief dignity of the church of Reims, which he had obtained about the year 1076 from the simoniac prelate Manasses himself.

[117] Hence further it appears likely that Bruno, and the other clerics of the church of Reims who had migrated with him to Roucy, were also present at the same council, he very probably was present at the council, and there set forth to the council the heads of accusation which they had against Manasses, prelate of Reims; as also that it was decreed in it that Manasses should be summoned to the next future council to clear himself of the crimes objected. And indeed an occasion of this soon presented itself: for Gregory, the supreme Pontiff, by a letter given on the fourth day before the Ides of May, in the fifteenth indiction, which, as I have said, designates the year 1077, gave commandment to Hugh, his legate in Gaul, that, a synod of the bishops of France being assembled, he should diligently discuss the cause of Gerard, bishop-elect of Cambrai, who after his lawful election had received investiture from King Henry, ignorant both that the latter was excommunicated and that the receiving of investiture from lay princes had been forbidden by the Pontiff; and that he should determine the causes of some other churches of Gaul, and the business which should seem to him to conduce to their advantage or that of the universal Church, Hugh, abbot of Cluny, being also summoned to the synod for the cause of the church of Auvergne. Hugh obeyed the Pontiff's will, and proclaimed a council at Autun, and celebrated it there in that very year 1077 in which the Pope had written him the letter last mentioned.

[118] So, who cannot be convicted of error here, Hugh of Flavigny, a contemporary author, expressly relates, [and when afterwards by Archbishop Manasses, whom he had accused at that of Autun,] writing thus in the Chronicle of Verdun in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, page 199: According to these Apostolic mandates, therefore (given by Pope Gregory to Hugh of Die by the letter just mentioned), a synod of venerable Fathers was assembled at Autun (Edua) under the guardianship and protection of Christ the Lord … in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MLXXVII, where there assembled from France and Burgundy many illustrious men. Further, at this council there were present Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, and likewise our Saint and other clerics of Reims who had withdrawn with them from Reims to Roucy, and they accused their archbishop Manasses of simony and other crimes; and he, when he had been summoned to the council and, despising the legate's admonitions and precepts, had neglected to present himself at it, had the sentence of suspension pronounced upon him as contumacious. But from this Manasses presently appealed, as appears, to the Pontiff, and, being meanwhile, until he could go to Rome, most eager for revenge, he laid very many ambushes on the way for the canons of the church of Reims, his accusers, as they returned from the council to the castle of Roucy, as appears from what has been said above and is to be said below; he broke into their houses at Reims, sold their prebends and plundered their goods. Hear Hugh of Flavigny setting forth these things in his own words at the place last cited. There was accused at the same council (namely of Autun) the simoniac invader of the church of Reims, Manasses, by the clerics of Reims, and he was suspended from office, because, being summoned to the council to clear himself, he did not come. He, when he had prepared very many ambushes for the canons of the church of Reims, his accusers, returning from the council, at last broke into their houses, sold their prebends, and plundered their goods

[119] various injuries, as the letter of Hugh of Die, So Hugh. And that it agrees excellently with the truth is also plain from the letter given to Pope Gregory by Hugh the legate after the celebration of the council, having heard of the various injuries which Manasses had inflicted on Bruno and the other canons of the church of Reims returning from it, in which he declares that our Saint and Manasses the provost had been accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus, alluding very probably, not to say without doubt, to the injuries which both, returning from the council of Autun to Roucy, had suffered both on the way and at Reims in their goods. That letter, since besides it proves invincibly what I have asserted above concerning the coming of Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, to the council of Clermont or of Auvergne, and embraces other things bearing on this and especially on Archbishop Manasses, I transcribe here, mutilated at the end, as it exists in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 365 and following. It runs thus: To the most reverend Father and lord Pope Gregory, the most useless servant of his holiness, Hugh, humble priest of Die, greeting. Since we have learned that your R. of Paris has returned, whom we had enjoined faithfully, as your son, to report to you the acts of the council of Autun, at which he was present, who neither returned by way of us nor wrote us anything concerning your state, we ask your paternity to deign to write us your judgment concerning the ordering of the churches of Reims, Bourges and Chartres.

[120] which, from Labbe's Councils Let your paternity know also that that so-called bishop of Noyon, pressed privately by us under threat of public examination, confessed his simony to us, the bishops of Laon and Langres being present with certain others. Whence also he confirmed to us by oath upon the sacred Gospels that, on seeing your letter or your legation, he would duly give up the church which he had wrongly occupied, and would help, according to his power and knowledge, that it might be ordered according to God. But the bishop of Senlis, having received investiture from the hand of the king, was ordained by that (he designates Manasses, the simoniac bishop, or rather invader, of the church of Reims) heresiarch of Reims, whom you forbade by your letter to receive such men as bishops. The bishop of Auxerre, ordained under age, did not indeed receive investiture from the hand of the king, although he obtained his favour through the king's intimates. But concerning the archbishop of Sens, how great a contumely, or how great an injury, he inflicted on your authority in our legation, I hope you have sufficiently

heard from the aforesaid R. Nor in saying this, God is witness, do I seek my own glory. The archbishop of Bordeaux also, since, being summoned last year to the council of Auvergne, he neither came nor canonically excused himself, was suspended in the same council from the episcopal office. Which he, making light of it, usurped the office forbidden him. Being summoned again to the council of Autun, since he sent us no excuse, we suspended him also from the priesthood.

[121] Concerning all these things, therefore, what your Greatness has judged, is recited here from volume ten, what it has pleased you to do thereupon, write back, we ask, to our littleness. Besides, we earnestly request that you send us the Pallium by the lord bishop Valentinus, to confirm the ordination of the most religious archbishop of the church of Lyons, against the heretics who bark against it and who glory carnally in the king's indignation against the ordination of God. For he himself, putting aside all the discomforts and dangers of want and of the journey, would most devotedly present himself before the sight of your Holiness, if the church committed to him, so long languishing and destitute of the solace of a pastor, could in any way bear his absence without great detriment. Instruct Bishop Valentinus and take security in your hand, that about the feast of St. John the Baptist, as we have agreed with him, his church may receive him to celebrate the Office, because he seems very opportune for combating the arrogance of the provincials. But Manasses, our friend in Christ, who at the council of Clermont resigned into our hand the provostship of the church of Reims ill acquired, we commend to the grace of your Holiness, as a sincere defender of the Catholic faith, and the lord Bruno, master of the church of Reims in all uprightness. For both are worthy to be confirmed by you, and in the things which are of God, by your authority, since they have been accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And therefore employ them as counsellors who will profit the cause of God and as fellow-workers in the parts of France.

[122] The deposition of the heretic of Reims con… the revealed iniquity, the blood of heaven and … cries out, bears witness, he had suffered, strengthen … with the writing of your authority … these we ask destine to the church of Reims … his satisfaction, or he himself, if it please … or command it to be received by us. Because … your excommunication, without consulting us, they made the election of a bishop. Tiezo your son would already have returned to you, were he not detained for the convoking of the council to be celebrated, God willing, at Poitiers on the XVIII day before the Kalends of February; in which council we suppliantly beg that the patronage of your merits may be present to us. Pray for us, most holy Father. Such is the letter given by Hugh of Die to the supreme Pontiff after the council of Autun, in the year, as appears, 1077 or at the beginning of the following; from which indeed the things which I declared above, both concerning the injuries inflicted on the Saint by Archbishop Manasses and concerning his and Manasses the provost's presence at the council of Clermont, are excellently confirmed. Let us now pursue the course of the matter. Bruno and the clerics of Reims, his companions, having avoided the ambushes which Archbishop Manasses had laid for them as they returned from the council of Autun, withdrew again to Count Ebalus in his castle of Roucy, from which they had gone to it, to await there the outcome of the very grave suit pending between themselves and their archbishop.

[123] he withdrew again from Autun to Roucy, So I judge, because Archbishop Manasses, in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 363, in the letter cited above which he gave to Pope Gregory VII, speaks thus: Concerning Count OEbalus, who tried to accuse me in your presence, and commended himself and his fidelity to you with feigning words, you have it readily at hand to know whose sincerity of fidelity towards you seems rather to exist: whether mine, who am ready to obey God and you in all things, or his, who both before you, through Manasses and his followers received in his castle, persecutes blessed Mary. For Manasses, of whom we have spoken, to whom by your command we forgave what he had committed against us, if he should return to his mother church, weighed down by the consciousness of his crime, neither will return to us nor agree with the peace of the Church, but rather with those followers of his, since he cannot by deeds, does not cease to tear the church and me with words and curses. Wherefore, to say nothing of OEbalus himself, against whom I believe you will exercise a just and Apostolic sentence, I urgently beseech your holiness concerning Manasses that you either order him to return to his own, and no further to assail the church, or direct against him and his abettors and fellow-workers the chastisement of Apostolic vigour. Deign also to write a fitting letter to those who receive them, that they either do not retain them against the rights of the Church, or know themselves punished with a like sentence: from which words it will become plain to one who considers that Manasses the provost and the clerics of the church of Reims adhering to him, one of whom was our Saint, were certainly staying with Count OEbalus in the castle of Roucy (Reciacum or Rauciacum) at the time when the letter containing these things was written by Archbishop Manasses to the Pontiff, which was done, as I shall show below, in the year 1078; and since this is so, they had probably withdrawn into it in the year 1077, returning from the council of Autun, in order to avoid the ambushes of Archbishop Manasses.

[124] and there, while Count Ebalus went to Rome for the sake of the clergy of Reims, Nor do we learn from the recited words of the letter of Manasses only what I have just proposed, but also that Count Ebalus or OEbalus, who was protecting the Saint and his companions against Archbishop Manasses in his castle, acted as the latter's accuser at Rome before Pope Gregory. How this was done I set forth. Archbishop Manasses, who, as I showed above, had probably appealed to the supreme Pontiff from the sentence passed against him in the council of Autun, betook himself to Rome in the year 1078, when, as Hugh of Flavigny witnesses at the place last cited, letters had been delivered to him from there that he should clear himself with six bishops in a council, namely another, to be celebrated anew in Gaul. Count Ebalus, having heard of the departure and design of the simoniac prelate, likewise took the road towards Rome, in order to protect there against him the cause of the clerics of Reims whom he had received into his castle and protection, joining some of them also to himself. And that Pontius was one of these the Apology of Archbishop Manasses, already often praised, in Mabillon, volume 1, part 2 of the Museum Italicum, page 121, makes beyond doubt; and that Fulcius the One-eyed, of whom the Saint speaks in the letter to Ralph the Green to be recited below, was likewise one of them appears likely, first because that Fulcius mentioned by the Saint betook himself to Rome, as this letter itself bears witness, immediately after the conversation held with Bruno and Ralph the Green concerning the false delights of the world and the true joys of heaven, in which they resolved to take the monastic habit; and then because this seems to have been held after the council of Autun in the year 1077 or the following, and nowhere else than in the castle of Roucy.

[125] That I may give this as proved in some fashion, I first transcribe here the words the conference with Fulcius, recorded here, as one which neither at Reims, in which the Saint mentions that conversation. They run thus: Your love remembers… that when I and you and Fulcius the One-eyed had been together one day in the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, where I was then lodging, and were treating for some time, as I think, of false delights and the perishable riches of this world, and also of the joys of everlasting glory, whence, burning with divine love, we promised and vowed to the Holy Spirit shortly to leave the fleeting things of the world and to seize the eternal, and also to receive the monastic habit; which would also have been accomplished in the near future, had not Fulcius then gone to Rome: we deferred the things to be accomplished to his return; and he making delay, and other causes intervening, the divine love languished, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished. When, therefore, the Saint held the conference recorded here, in which he vowed himself a monk, with Ralph the Green and Fulcius, he was staying not at home but in another's lodging. Hence further it follows that he without doubt did not hold it at Reims before he left this city with Manasses and other clerics of Reims about the year 1076. For it does not appear likely that Bruno then lived in another's house at Reims, where he was not only canon but besides also scholasticus and chancellor, as du Boulay rightly argues in the words recited at num. 113. Nay rather, as the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place rightly notes at num. 20 of his Work, it is not to be doubted that the Saint then had there a dwelling befitting his dignity both as chancellor and as canon and scholasticus, and indeed in the common cloister itself, which the canons of Reims used long before and after the age of St. Bruno, as it is permitted to gather from Flodoard, History of Reims, book 2, chap. XI, from the Chronicle of Mouzon in d'Achery, volume 7 of the Spicilegium, and from the Letter 160 of Stephen of Tournai to Ralph, dean of Reims, a different man from Ralph the Green, written about the year 1176 or, as seems, not very long after.

[126] Stephen's words bearing on this, since from them where the canons then led a common life in the cloister, it is chiefly understood that the canons of Reims in Bruno's age led a common life in the cloister, I copy from the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, already often praised, which has not hitherto been published. They run thus: A report has gone out among many that certain of you are striving to change the ancient footsteps of the Fathers, instituted by the sacred councils and observed for a long time hitherto by the glorious church of Reims, and are studying, by a certain singularity, to efface, cast down and trample upon the golden plate of religious custom which, set on the forehead of the Metropolitan Church, shines to all who are in the kingdom. By a certain singular privilege the see of Reims was eminent among the other churches of Gaul, persevering with the Apostles in the communion of bread and in prayer, and, displaying a sacramental one in social communion, it was a spectacle to the greater, a lesson to the lesser. Of the remnants of the Regular institutions it had kept for itself two places, the dining-hall of refection and the house of sleep, in the one following a chastened abstinence, in the other observing a white continence… In these and other Regular observances the church of Reims went forward, terrible as an army set in array, lovable to its own, admirable to strangers. If these things begin to be changed, what will Germany say, her sister in place and order, which among other ecclesiastical institutions still so observes the brotherly communion of refection and of rest that it does not admit the modern dissolution?

[127] nor was probably held at Paris, Since, then, the canons of Reims, as it is easy to draw from these words, led in our Saint's age a common life in houses separate indeed, as was then the custom, but enclosed in one and the same cloister, he certainly, while he was living among them before his departure from the city of Reims, or before the year 1076, about which it happened, did not inhabit another's house there, and consequently did not then hold the conference with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, as one which took place while Bruno was living in another's house. From the same head also

it appears hardly likely that that conference or conversation took place after the Saint had already, the simoniac invader Manasses having been deposed and driven out, been restored to almost his former state, or perhaps even a better one, how and when which happened we shall see below. Further, from the fact that the Saint, while he joined discourse concerning the false delights of the world with Ralph the Green and Fulcius, was staying in another's lodging, it is besides consequent that this did not happen at Paris either. For those who determine that that conference or conversation took place at Paris affirm that our Saint, at the time when he held it, was discharging the office of teaching there; but if Bruno had in fact ever taught in that city, he would not seem to have been going to use another's house then, as a guest. There is added that nothing at all is had from elsewhere from which it becomes in any way probable that the Saint's conference with Ralph and Fulcius was held at Paris, so that consequently, just as not at Reims, so neither did it probably take place there. But that it took place at Roucy (Reciacum or Rauciacum) after the council of Autun appears most probable from the circumstances of the state in which the Saint then was there.

[128] and the state in which the Saint was at Roucy. For there at that time both he and other clerics of the church of Reims, his companions in exile, were staying in others' houses, received into hospitality, as appears likely, by the will of Count Ebalus, by various inhabitants of that castle (for that it embraced several houses Valesius at the place cited above does not allow us to doubt), probably indicated by Archbishop Manasses at num. 123 by "the receivers of Manasses the provost and of those adhering to him." Moreover, in the space of time during which the Saint was staying with other clerics of Reims at Roucy, and could already have held the conference concerning the false delights of the world after the council of Autun, Ebalus, toparch of this castle, took the road towards Rome, as I have shown above, and some clerics of Reims accompanied him thither, as I have likewise shown above; and not long after the conference held by Bruno with Ralph and Fulcius, as the words recited above from our Saint's letter to Ralph the Green teach, the latter departed for Rome. There is added that Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, from what has already been said, were staying with our Saint at Roucy before Count Ebalus went away to Rome. The writers of the Literary History of France indeed, who judge that the conference held by Bruno with Ralph and Fulcius concerning the vanity of the riches and delights of this world preceded this withdrawal, recount in volume 9, page 235, only three canons of the church of Reims, namely Manasses the provost, Pontius and Bruno, who accused Archbishop Manasses at the council of Autun in the year 1077 and then withdrew into the castle of Roucy. But what then?

[129] The number of the clerics of Reims who accused Manasses and withdrew into the castle of Roucy, as assigned by them, agrees excellently with the circumstances, is not to be relied on so that it should follow from it that Ralph the Green and Fulcius neither were in the castle of Roucy under the protection of Count Ebalus nor held there with Bruno the conference of which we speak here. For that the number of the canons of Reims who accused Archbishop Manasses was greater he himself discloses in his Apology, in Mabillon, Museum Italicum volume 1, part 2, page 121, writing thus to Hugh of Die: You said that we should come to the council to answer our accusers, namely Manasses and his companions; and I tell you that I and Manasses have made agreement for all his companions, except two, of whom one, namely Bruno, is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert of Cologne, situated in the kingdom of the Germans; whose fellowship we do not greatly desire, inasmuch as we are wholly ignorant of his life and free status; and because, when he was with us, after many benefits conferred by us upon him, we were treated badly and wickedly. But the other, that is, Pontius, was proved a falsifier in the Roman council in our presence; and therefore we neither will nor ought to answer either the one or the other in ecclesiastical judgment. Since, then, as is understood from these words, there were certainly more than three canons or clerics of the church of Reims who accused Archbishop Manasses, and who consequently withdrew after the council of Autun into the castle of Roucy, there is no reason why we should deny that Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed were among these; and since this is so, there is also no reason why it should be thought that our Saint did not hold with them in the same castle (concerning which, however, see the Addenda and Corrigenda to page 519, num. 124) that conference of which we are discoursing here.

[130] he had probably already held. And indeed that it was held there by Bruno is persuaded both by the things bearing on this which I have already brought forward and by those which I now further add here. That conference, as one in which there was treatment of the vanity of the world, the eternity of heaven and the taking of the monastic habit, fits excellently the state in which the Saint was at Roucy after the council of Autun; for there he was then, despoiled of his goods by Archbishop Manasses, suffering adverse fortune, pressed by which mortals are wont to despise earthly things, to value heavenly ones and to turn themselves to God. Moreover it is indicated by the Saint himself, in the words transcribed here above, that he and the others for a long time put off fulfilling what they had vowed in that conference; and this in fact took place on the opinion by which we determine that the said conference was held at Roucy after the council of Autun. For the Saint, as I shall prove below, certainly did not give himself to a better life by withdrawing into the desert before the year 1081; and before he did this the celebrated conference with Fulcius, of which there is question here, had taken place at least three years before, as it is easy to draw from what has already been said. For Fulcius, according to this, went to Rome with Count Ebalus in the year 1077 (for the year 1078 at num. 124 crept in by error), and this journey of his was preceded by the conference held with Bruno concerning the false delights of the world after the council of Autun, likewise celebrated in the year 1077, so that this took place in the very year 1077, and consequently at least three years before the Saint withdrew into the desert. Let us now dispatch the remaining things which pertain to the suit brought against Archbishop Manasses by our Saint and other clerics of the church of Reims.

§ VII. Manasses defends his cause in a council at Rome, and obtains from the Pontiff the rescinding of the sentence of suspension passed against him at Autun: what he did besides thereafter, and who at length was ordered to restore Bruno to his former honour.

Manasses, the sentence of suspension passed against him, When Manasses, archbishop of the church of Reims, had already arrived at Rome before the supreme Pontiff, Gregory VII, to whom, from what has been said, he had appealed, he was kindly received by him, who still hoped that the man would return to a better way, and he tried to defend his cause in the council which was celebrated there at that time, that is, in the month of March of the year 1078, there being present also (go to the words from the letter of Manasses transcribed here at num. 123) Count Ebalus and the clerics of Reims who had accompanied him, as I have shown, and who had come to speak for the clergy of Reims. What defences he used for this I have not found handed down in writing; but with what success he conducted the matter he himself sets forth in his Apology, in Mabillon, in the Work cited, page 119, writing thus there to Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See: It is known not only through almost all Gaul, but also in Italy and at Rome, how two years ago (namely in the year 1077) in the same province action was taken violently and unjustly against us by you and certain others: and I, having suffered force and prejudice, went to Rome, and there appealed on this to the Roman and Apostolic judgment. But since you were absent, by order of the lord Apostolic I remained in that region, and awaited your coming for almost XI weeks. And since you did not come, at last, in the presence of the lord Apostolic and in a general council, a disputation was held between us and those who were present there in your place, as directed by you, and from their accusation and our defence it was judged and corrected that whatever we had suffered had been done rashly and violently and ought not to stand. In this manner Manasses, who, although he is rather unjust towards Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See, and sets forth the matter, as is plain from what has been said and is further to be said, with little sincerity, yet rightly indicates that the sentence passed against him by Hugh at the council of Autun was corrected or rescinded.

[132] under some conditions, from the Pontiff For Gregory, hoping that Apostolic indulgence would bring Manasses to a better way, absolved the man from the sentence of suspension by which he had been condemned at Autun, and sent him back into Gaul restored to his former rank and office, certain conditions, however, being added, which the latter here passes over in silence. So Gregory himself teaches us in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, in a letter written on the seventh day before the Ides of March, in the first indiction, which from what has been said above designates the year 1078, writing thus: Since it is the custom of the holy Roman Church, which by God's authority, though unworthy, we serve, to tolerate some things, and also to overlook some things, following the temperance of discretion rather than the rigour of the canons, we have discussed, not without grave labour, the causes of the bishops of France and Burgundy who had been suspended or condemned by our legate Hugh, bishop of Die. Finally Manasses, archbishop of Reims, who had been accused in many things, and had withdrawn himself from the synods to which Hugh, bishop of Die, invited him: since the sentence given upon him did not seem to be of the gravity and wonted mildness of the Roman Church, we have restored to his own rank and office, on this condition indeed, that he should swear upon the body of Saint Peter in this manner: "I Manasses, archbishop of Reims, did not out of pride omit to come to the synod of Autun, to which the bishop of Die summoned me. If I shall be summoned by a messenger or by letters of the Apostolic See, I will not withdraw myself by any evil device or by any fraud, but, coming, I will faithfully obey the definition and judgment of this Church. And if it shall please the lord Pope Gregory or his successor that I answer to the charges before his legate, I will do the same in all things. And the treasures, ornaments and estates of the church of Reims committed to me I will faithfully handle for the honour of that church, and I will not alienate them for resisting justice."

[133] This letter, or rescript, in which there then follow some other things he obtains at Rome, in the year 1078, the rescinding, not bearing on our matter and therefore not necessarily to be transcribed here, ends thus: Done at Rome on the seventh day before the Ides of March, in the first indiction; and the latter chronological note included in this closing formula designates the year of Christ 1078 (go to what was said at num. 116); so that consequently the sentence passed against Manasses, who himself

from what has been said had betaken himself to Rome in the year 1077 after the council of Autun, without waiting for the time of the other council, at Poitiers (see in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, the Chronicle of Verdun, page 206), to be celebrated at the beginning of the year 1078, although he had been summoned to it — that sentence of suspension, when he had waited there almost XI weeks (go to his words transcribed here at num. 131) for the coming of Hugh of Die, was rescinded by Gregory VII, the supreme Pontiff, from the month of March of the year 1078, under the condition which the words last transcribed here involve. But this indulgence and kindness which Gregory used towards Manasses, the simoniac prelate, very probably displeased not a little Hugh, bishop of Die and legate of the Apostolic See in Gaul. It is permitted to gather this from the letter written to that supreme Pastor of the Church by the same Hugh after the celebration of the council of Poitiers in the year 1078, although not concerning Manasses, in which, towards the end, in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 367, he speaks thus: Let your Holiness therefore provide that it be no longer so opprobriously cast in our teeth that simoniacs or any criminals whatever, suspended or deposed or even condemned by us, gladly run to Rome, and whence they ought to feel a fuller rigour of justice, thence bring back as it were mercy according to their will. And those who before did not presume to sin even in light matters, afterwards carry on a most fitting traffic with tyranny in the churches committed to them.

[134] and returned to Reims, a letter, by which the Apostolic legate's By these words further he also teaches that the simoniacs then, from the indulgence which they had experienced at Rome, became worse and more insolent; how true this was Manasses clearly showed by his manner of acting. For although he had most solemnly promised (go to the words of Pope Gregory transcribed here at num. 132), by an oath taken at Rome, that he would answer to the Apostolic legate concerning the crimes objected to him whenever the Pontiff should please, yet scarcely had he returned into Gaul from the Roman council, in which, from what has been said, he had been heard and absolved in the year 1078, when he gave to the Pontiff, to whom he had to write for other causes, a letter in which, besides the complaints expressed in the words given at num. 123 which he brings against Count Ebalus, Manasses the provost and the other clerics of Reims, his followers, he contends from the privileges of his church that he had to answer concerning the crimes objected only either to the Pontiff himself or to his legates who were Italians, or at least educated at Rome. Thus, namely, Manasses tried to withdraw himself from the judgment of Hugh of Die, who was neither born in Italy nor educated at Rome, and by whom he most feared lest he should again be summoned to some council to clear himself of the crimes objected. Hear what he brings forward bearing on this in the said letter in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, page 363.

[135] he may withdraw himself from the judgment, he writes to the Pontiff. I beseech also, he says, the benevolence of your honour, that you deign to reserve to me the dignity which your predecessors preserved to my predecessors the archbishops, and left in privileges and other writings for the memory of posterity. Let not the privilege be made void or broken which you yourself gave me, namely that, whether called upon or not called upon, I should answer to you yourself and to your Roman legates, not the ultramontane ones, who, joined to the Romans, seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, and under honourable names consult their own cupidity, not the Church of God. Wherefore, on account of the shameful reprimands and summonses of such men, let it be permitted to me, who ought to convoke the bishops of all Gaul, to trust in you without the summons of legates, until at Easter I come to you, God willing. So Manasses, lest he should ever be compelled to answer to Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See, concerning the crimes objected to him. But Gregory by no means heard him in this matter, sharply confuting also whatever he had written in the recited words either concerning the legates of the Apostolic See or concerning the privilege of the church of Reims, although meanwhile he thought that account should be taken of the complaints made by him against Count Ebalus, Manasses the provost and others, as is attested both by the letter by which he answered Manasses and by another which besides, when he did this, he gave to Hugh of Die, his legate in Gaul. Both are noted in Labbe, by whom they are recited in volume X of the Councils, col. 196 and the three following, as given on the Eleventh day before the Kalends of September, in the first indiction, which here, from what has been said above, designates the year 1078; whence it follows that the letter last mentioned which Archbishop Manasses gave to Pope Gregory was undoubtedly written in the year 1078, as being earlier than both of these, and, from what has been said, later than the Roman council which was celebrated in the same year 1078; which it has seemed good to prove here, that I might redeem the pledge given at num. 123.

[136] Now I transcribe here the words occurring in the two letters of Gregory last mentioned which in some way bear on the present purpose. While he desires that peace be made with Archbishop Manasses, Such in the former are these: Concerning Manasses, who, since he cannot by evil deeds, does not cease to assail you and your church with evil words, and concerning all the other things about which it may please you to make complaint, we have sent our letters to our aforementioned brethren, namely the bishop of Die and the abbot of Cluny, that they may study diligently to inquire into all things, to discuss them carefully, and, the things discussed and investigated to the bottom, to judge justly, lawfully and canonically; and in the latter these present themselves: Since in the government of the holy Church of God, over which by divine disposition we preside, we must watch carefully, we ask that by your assiduous prayers you obtain for us the divine protection. Wherefore we command you, admonishing you to apply the utmost zeal, that you inquire and take care to put an end canonically, as far as you can, to the matters of which the archbishop of Reims, our brother, has complained to us in his letter. For he complains of our brother Warmund, archbishop of Vienne, who in his archbishopric deposed priests and restored the same… But concerning Manasses, of whom he likewise complains, who by the refuge and help of OEbalus and his men does not cease to weary him and his church, labour that he may return to peace and rest from disquieting the Church and persecuting the archbishop. But if perchance, persisting in his contumacy, he refuse to obey, unless you know him to have a just excuse, do whatever seems to you more just. And in his other necessities help the same archbishop (if he shall obey you), as is fitting, and defend the church committed to him by the authority of blessed Peter (which you must also do for the other churches).

[137] It was, therefore, the Pontiff's wish, as appears chiefly from these words of the letter Manasses the provost complies with his desire, which he gave to Hugh of Die, that, if by any means this could be done, Ebalus, count of Roucy, and Manasses, provost of the church of Reims, should return to favour with Archbishop Manasses. Hence further I conjecture it came about that Manasses the provost, informed of the Pontiff's will either through Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See, or through Archbishop Manasses himself, entered into an agreement with the latter, which that simoniac prelate himself records in his Apology, already very often praised, in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, part 2, page 121, in these words: I tell you that I and Manasses have made agreement for all his companions, except two, of whom one, namely Bruno, is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert of Cologne, situated in the kingdom of the Germans; whose fellowship we do not greatly desire, inasmuch as we are wholly ignorant of his life and free status; and because, when he was with us, after many benefits conferred by us upon him, we were treated badly and wickedly. But the other, that is, Pontius, was proved a falsifier in the Roman council in our presence; and therefore we neither will nor ought to answer either the one or the other in ecclesiastical judgment; and in this conjecture I am still further confirmed by the fact that when afterwards it pleased the Pontiff that a council should be celebrated at Lyons in the year 1080 to discuss and decide the cause of Archbishop Manasses, Manasses the provost, most observant of the Pontiff's will, again presented himself at it, and was also there one of the accusers of that simoniac prelate, with whom, from what has been said, he had already before made peace, as seems to be gathered from the letter of Gregory VII which exists in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 241, written to Manasses, archbishop of Reims, after he had been deposed in the said council of Lyons, in the third indiction, that is, from what has been said above, in the year 1080; from which it also appears that Manasses the provost had again been despoiled by the latter of his goods, into which, peace having been made with Archbishop Manasses, he had very probably been restored, because he had again joined himself to his accusers in the council of Lyons.

[138] and in the name of others too he makes peace with the archbishop. For in it the Pontiff speaks thus: We grant you leave to clear yourself, on this condition, namely, that, Manasses and Bruno, who seem to have spoken for justice against you, having been restored entirely to their possessions, you leave the church of Reims wholly free from all occupation up to the next Ascension of the Lord. Further, Manasses the provost not only made peace with Manasses, archbishop of Reims, after the two letters mentioned at num. 135, of which Pope Gregory gave one to Archbishop Manasses and the other to Hugh, his legate in Gaul, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of September, in the first indiction, or in the year 1078; but he also betook himself to him at Reims to treat in the name of the other clerics of Reims who had left this city with him and Bruno in the year, from what has been said, 1076 or the following, and settled the matter. So I gather from the Apology of Archbishop Manasses, very often praised, in which he first speaks thus in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, part 2, page 121: I and Manasses have made agreement for all his companions, except two, etc.; and then at page 122 has thus: Although we expect no accusation from the aforesaid Manasses and his companions, because they, unless perhaps on the occasion of this council they return to their vomit, have made with us a composition of agreement, except two, as I said, Bruno and Pontius, to whom according to the preceding reason I neither will nor ought to answer. And if any of those whom we have said were reconciled through Manasses's embassy have gone there, the peace being broken, and wish to say anything against us, it is not to be received.

[139] Bruno, not consenting to the pact, (left) Roucy And this conference concerning peace of Manasses the provost with Archbishop Manasses, as having been held after the letter written by Gregory to the bishop of Die on the eleventh day before the Kalends of September in the year 1078, very probably took place either in this very year or at the beginning of the following; but whether then all the clerics of Reims besides Bruno and Pontius, since in their name Manasses the provost had made peace with Archbishop Manasses, likewise to Reims,

as he had already done, returned, I have not ascertained. Meanwhile the letter last praised, which Gregory wrote to Archbishop Manasses when already deposed in the council of Lyons in the year 1080, makes me doubt much about this matter. For in it Gregory prescribes to Archbishop Manasses that he permit the clerics … (namely of Reims, whom Manasses by his wicked morals had compelled to leave Reims) who have suffered exile for so long a time for justice to serve God securely in the church. However that may be, I conjecture that from the aforesaid peace, which Manasses the provost and the other clerics of Reims had made with Archbishop Manasses, it came about that Bruno and Pontius, because they had refused to consent to it, as the words recited at num. 137 from the Apology of Manasses bear witness, separated themselves from Manasses the provost and the remaining clerics of Reims who consented to him, and went elsewhere, most of all perhaps because Count Ebalus, under whose protection they were at Roucy, had then also made peace with Manasses, as the letter written by Pope Gregory to Ebalus in the year 1080 makes me suspect (go to Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 265), in which he commands him henceforth to withdraw himself from the pestilent friendship of that man (Manasses, then deposed).

[140] And that Bruno (for there is no occasion to say anything here of Pontius) then went back from Roucy to Cologne, [he went back, as appears more probable, to Cologne his fatherland, and when afterwards] and was there enrolled among the canons in the church of St. Cunibert, appears to me very like the truth, because in the Apology already very often praised, which Archbishop Manasses wrote in the year 1080, or at least towards the end of the preceding, he is said to have been a canon of Cunibert in these words: Bruno is neither our cleric, nor born nor reborn ours, but is a canon of Saint Cunibert of Cologne, situated in the kingdom of the Germans: which words, as I showed in § III, are more probably to be so taken as to signify that the Saint was then, that is, in the year 1079 or at the beginning of the following, when Manasses wrote these things, a canon of the church of Cunibert. But even if things were so, and the Saint was thus no longer living in Gaul, he nevertheless did not desist from the suit which he had brought, together with other clerics of Reims, against Manasses, the simoniac prelate. The matter will become plain from what is now to be said. The Pontiff, as we saw above, had given commandment to Hugh of Die in the year 1078, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of September, or the XXII of August, that he should meet the complaints brought to him by Manasses, archbishop of Reims, and help him if he were obedient to his word.

[141] And to the letter by which he enjoined this on Hugh he had added, a council, which had been proclaimed at Troyes, having not taken place, as he himself testifies in it after the words transcribed here at num. 136, a copy of another letter written to Manasses, in which, some other things being put first, he at length addresses him thus: Meanwhile we admonish your love, on the part of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, that, as we determined for you when placed at Rome, before the bishop of Die and the abbot of Cluny, to whom we have committed our place in these matters, all pretexts and obstacles being removed, you be ready to answer concerning all the charges, to satisfy lawfully, to be canonically cleared; lest, if anything else be done by you (which God forbid), it be ascribed by many to tergiversation and flight and the consciousness of crimes, not to the exaction of justice and equity; and from this letter to Manasses, communicated by the Pontiff to Hugh of Die, and from the other last mentioned which he gave to Hugh himself, the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 8, page 653, suspect that it came about that Hugh proclaimed a council to be held at Troyes, of which mention is made by Manasses in his Apology, in Mabillon, in the Work already often cited, page 120. And indeed from the words already recited from the former letter there is reason why they may seem not undeservedly able to suspect this. But however this matter stands, the council proclaimed at Troyes (for what cause I do not know) did not take place.

[142] But when Pope Gregory had learned this, he enjoined on Hugh his legate to another proclaimed at Lyons, that he should celebrate a council elsewhere to decide the cause of Archbishop Manasses. The letter by which he did this exists inserted in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, in the Chronicle of Verdun, page 205, and contains these words, which chiefly pertain to our purpose here: But since you could not usefully celebrate a council in the parts appointed beforehand (namely at Troyes), we judge it fitting that your diligence find a suitable place where, a synod being assembled, the cause of the archbishop of Reims may be examined. And indeed, if suitable accusers and witnesses are found, canonically proving what is objected to him, we will that you give without hesitation the sentence which justice shall dictate. Otherwise, if they be such persons as cannot reasonably be received, since the foul report of him has filled not only Gaul but also almost the whole of Italy, let him, if he can, excuse himself, taking with him six bishops whose life is not marked with infamy, and, thus cleared, let him remain in peace in his church and in his own dignity. Hugh the legate, having received the letter by which the Pontiff commanded both these and other things, proclaimed the council at Lyons, as the Chronicle of Verdun at the place cited, or Hugh of Flavigny, its author, contemporary with the event, witnesses, and summoned to it Manasses, archbishop of Reims.

[143] to which Manasses, although by the Pontiff, that he should do so, But he, who had already refused to present himself at the councils celebrated at Autun and Poitiers, would not come to that to be celebrated shortly at Lyons either; but since, as we have shown above, he had previously promised the Pontiff on oath at Rome that if ever he should be summoned by the Apostolic legate to a council to answer concerning the crimes objected to him, he would obey him, he craftily gave to the latter, in order to excuse himself in some fashion for refusing to go to the council proclaimed by the legate at Lyons, a letter in which he alleges that for fear of the kingdom being at variance he cannot go to the council of Lyons, to which he had been summoned, adding also that, when the roads should be safe, he would again seek Rome and would hear the sentence, the supreme Pontiff himself pronouncing it, with filial submission. Almost all these things are understood from Gregory's reply to Manasses, in which that Pontiff, in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 235 and following, by no means accepting the words given him by Manasses, sharply rebukes him in these words, which chiefly bear on this: Unmindful of your promise, by which at Rome you bound yourself over the body of blessed Peter, you allege another excuse, namely that for fear of the kingdom being at variance you cannot come to the council of Lyons, to which you have been summoned. In which matter how far your excuse totters can be clearly weighed…

[144] most gravely admonished, Since you could pass all the dangers of that road, if there are any, with the safest and most secure guides, namely the archbishop of Lyons and the bishop of Langres, who would treat you with brotherly charity and lead you without any fear to the aforenamed place… But if perchance you do not go to the aforesaid council, if you do not incline the ear of due obedience to your mother the Roman Church, which has long borne with you; if the bishop of Die, with the consent of our religious brethren, does anything against you, we shall not only not change the sentence pronounced against you, but shall even confirm it by Apostolic authority. And if it shall seem to your fraternity that the sentence pronounced can reasonably be opposed, we would rather that you set forth your reasons before our vicar, namely the bishop of Die, and other religious men, in that country where a greater abundance of accusers and defenders is found, than that you should seek at Rome, through so many labours and difficulties, where both are lacking, in vain hope of judgment. Meanwhile we admonish your fraternity, on the part of almighty God, by the authority of blessed Peter, that, if you know yourself culpable in this cause, rather than think you ought to excuse yourself by some worldly device, you study to free your soul by worthy fruits of penance.

[145] Vehement indeed and urgent was this address of the Pontiff: he would not present himself, and, having sent an Apology, but Manasses, not at all moved by it, did not present himself at the council celebrated shortly afterwards at Lyons, as we shall see, content to have sent to Hugh of Die, its president, the Apology already very often praised above, and made public by Mabillon in volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, part 2, page 119 and the eight following, in which, after he has set forth in a compendium what had been done in his cause both at Autun and at Rome, he brings forward or pretends various reasons why he could not come to the council at Lyons. And these are in appearance just, and such that, if the manner of life of Archbishop Manasses were less known than it is, it could be believed that the sentence against him had been passed unjustly, precipitately and out of envy, as the clerics of Noyon said it was being passed in a letter written to those of Cambrai which exists in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, part 2, page 128 and the two following; yet most of them are not true, but only invented or fabricated by Manasses, so that with his wonted craft and astuteness, by which, as Pope Gregory speaks in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 199, he sought delays in order to escape, he might either elude or decline the ecclesiastical judgment to be passed in his cause according to the prescription of the canons; how greatly he shrank from which is also proved by the most ample gifts which, in order to make himself immune from undergoing it, he offered to Hugh of Die when the time for celebrating the council at Lyons was already at hand.

[146] Hear Hugh of Flavigny in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, page 205 and following: and, gifts being offered, he strove to decline its judgment, While therefore…, he says, the place of the council had been appointed at Lyons, and the archbishop of Reims also (namely Manasses), according to the tenor of the letters (namely of Pope Gregory, of which I recited part at num. 142), was invited to the same council to clear himself, the lord Hugh being at Vienne for the cure of his body, messengers of the aforesaid archbishop came to him, desiring to bend him to this by many and very great prayers and gifts, and on that account offering him at present three hundred ounces of the purest gold, and precious gifts to his household also, and moreover wishing to swear concealment, that they would betray it to no mortal, if he would grant him to clear himself with six bishops whom the man of Reims himself should choose from among his suffragans, the inquiry into his infamy being removed. Adding also, what they could not even hope for, but nevertheless wished to leave nothing untried, that if the power of clearing himself were granted him alone *, they would swear inestimable treasures of gold, and such as would even exceed number, and besides an oath that they would betray this to no one. All of which the manly mind of the same legate rejected. And because he saw his mind impregnable towards money, fearing for himself, he would not be present at the council. And hence now also, even if the matter were not established from elsewhere, as it is, it becomes manifest that indeed most justly by our Saint (in whose honour therefore it has pleased me to pursue these things more at length here)

and by the other clerics of the church of Reims who had left Reims with him, Manasses was charged with many crimes. For if he had not been guilty, if he had been able fittingly to wash away the charges, why would he have striven with such effort, such gifts, such frauds, to decline a judgment to be passed in council by most upright and in no way suspect men? But let us pursue the course of the matter.

[147] When the time appointed for celebrating the council at Lyons had come, Bruno and Pontius, as is gathered from the words of Manasses recited at num. 137, and other clerics of the church of Reims, he betook himself. Manasses is deposed in this, and among them, as appears, also Manasses the provost, presenting themselves at the council, set forth the same heads of accusation against Archbishop Manasses as before in the council of Autun; and the Fathers, having heard these, and having also read, as appears likely, the Apology which, from what has been said, Manasses had sent them, and yet not having admitted the excuses which he pretended in it for not coming to the council, deposed the simoniac prelate by synodal judgment, both because, as Hugh of Flavigny speaks at the place last cited, he would not clear himself, and because he escaped the hearing of the (councils, namely) of Autun, of Poitiers and of Lyons itself; and they sent this sentence pronounced against him to the Pontiff to be approved and confirmed. This happened, whence also the time of the celebrated council is plain, between the third day of January of the year 1080 and the seventeenth of April of the same year. For the letter, transcribed here above in part, by which in Labbe at the place cited Pope Gregory most urgently exhorts Manasses to betake himself to the council to be celebrated at Lyons, is noted as given on the Third day before the Nones of January, in the third indiction, which from what has been said designates the year 1080; and another letter, by which, likewise in Labbe in the volume of the Councils last cited, col. 241, the same Gregory confirms the sentence passed against Manasses in the same council, was written likewise in the third indiction, or the year 1080, on the seventeenth day of April, as the chronological notes which it presents at the end bear witness.

[148] [and the Saint (be restored) to his possessions, by a letter by which this sentence of the council] This letter I transcribe here entire from Labbe at the place cited, both because it brings light and adds strength to what has been said above, and because in it the Pontiff gives a clear testimony to the equity of our Saint in accusing Manasses, and orders that his possessions be restored in full by the latter. It is conceived in these words: Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Manasses of Reims. Let your fraternity know that the sentence of deposition pronounced by our legate the bishop of Die in the council of Lyons by the counsel of religious men we too, justice dictating, have confirmed in the Roman synod by Apostolic authority. But nevertheless, led, contrary to the custom of the Roman Church, by excessive mercy, so to speak, we grant you leave, until the feast of Saint Michael, to clear yourself, joining to yourself the bishops of Soissons, Laon, Cambrai and Châlons, or men like them, with two others in whose testimony we may equally trust, if you trust in the justice of your cause and can have them; on this condition, namely, that, Manasses and Bruno and the others who seem to have spoken for justice against you having been restored entirely to their possessions, you leave the church of Reims wholly free from your occupation up to the next Ascension of the Lord, and withdraw to Cluny or to La Chaise-Dieu with one cleric and two laymen, to live religiously at your own charges.

[149] is confirmed, is ordered by the Pontiff to restore. And if you will do this, take care to announce it beforehand to the aforesaid bishop of Die, that in his presence you may confirm by oath that you will meanwhile alienate nothing of the goods of the aforesaid church, except as much as shall competently suffice for you and your aforesaid companions. And the clerics who have suffered exile for so long a time for justice, permit to serve God securely in the church. And since it would be laborious for you to come all the way to us, we grant that you clear yourself of the infamy before the bishop of Die and the abbot of Cluny, or, if the abbot should happen to be lacking, before Amatus, in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid witnesses. But if you scorn to obey this precept of our dispensation, know that, since we can bear your iniquity no further, the sentence of deposition will not only remain unchangeable, but also no hearing will be left to you hereafter. Given at Rome on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May, in the third indiction. This letter bears witness that Gregory indeed used the highest kindness and indulgence towards Manasses; but the latter, his mind hardened in crimes, did not fulfil what that Pontiff prescribed. And by name he restored neither Bruno nor the other clerics of the church of Reims, whom he had afflicted with the gravest losses (go to num. 118 and following), to their dignities and means, as the Pontiff enjoined in the letter recited; but how this was afterwards done as regards our Saint the following § will disclose.

* soli

§ VIII. How and when the Saint was restored at Reims to his former, or even a better, state, and whether after his departure from this city under Manasses, or indeed ever otherwise, he taught at Paris.

[The Pontiff, that the deposed Manasses may be resisted, by letters given to various persons] Since Manasses, the deposed archbishop of Reims, not only, as I have already shown, fulfilled nothing of all that Gregory had prescribed to him in the letter transcribed here in the preceding §, but even fell into such madness that he strove to keep for himself even by arms the bishopric which he had acquired simoniacally, and which he ought already to have given up by force both of the Pontiff's command and of the sentence passed against him in the council of Lyons, or at least to claim its goods for himself, the Pontiff, thinking that the man's impiety must be met in good time, wrote four different letters on one and the same day, the twenty-seventh of December, not very long, as appears, after the celebration of the council of Lyons in which Manasses had been deposed, and consequently in the year 1080: one, namely, to the clergy and people of Reims, another to Hebolus, or, as is also found written elsewhere, Ebalus or even OEbalus, count of Roucy, a third to the suffragan bishops of the archdiocese of Reims, and a fourth, finally, to Philip, king of the Franks. And in those letters he most earnestly commended to each and all in general that, no longer holding Manasses as bishop, they should substitute a successor to him; and by name he seriously admonished the clergy and people, as also Count Ebalus and the suffragans of the church of Reims, to resist Manasses with all their strength as an unjust invader, enjoining also by Apostolic authority on Philip, king of the Franks, that he should not hinder the election which the clergy and people of the church of Reims were about to make. All those letters exist in Labbe, volume X of the Councils, col. 264 and the three following. I transcribe here the words of the first, which chiefly bear on this, since at the same time they show that Manasses, when he had already been deposed in the council of Lyons and had received from the Pontiff the letter transcribed here in the preceding §, still tried to keep the ill-acquired archbishopric of Reims for himself by arms or to plunder its treasures.

[152] he commands by letters, Behold them: Which (sentence passed against Manasses in the council of Lyons), therefore, diligently examining it and approving it as most just in view of the greatness of his (Manasses's) iniquities, we confirmed in the Roman synod, at the request of many brethren, on this tenor: that, a respite being granted him, he should have, if he could, leave to come to clear himself of the charges, and free power of acting concerning himself; yet so that meanwhile he should yield the government of that church, and live at Cluny or in some religious monastery, so that it might be proved of what obedience and how great humility he was. But (as you yourselves know) he not only did not obey this definition, but in contempt of our interdict presumed to invade your church and to confound it with shameless devastation; inasmuch as he entered it not by the door, as a shepherd, but some other way, as a thief and most savage robber; namely to this end, that he might slaughter and destroy the Lord's flock, not that he might protect and defend it with a shepherd's vigilance. For the iniquity of his acts has stretched so immeasurably that he lies most deservedly under damnation and excommunication, so that he ought to conceive no hope of his restitution for ever. Wherefore we admonish you by Apostolic authority that you communicate in nothing with his perverse acts; nay rather, that he may be taken away from your midst and delivered to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that the spirit may be saved, resist him in every way. Take care also that by common counsel and equal wish, our aforesaid brother the bishop of Die assenting to you, you elect for yourselves a father according to the Lord. Nor was Gregory, who, as these his words bear witness, wished besides that Manasses be driven from Reims, disappointed in his wish; for not only the people and clergy of the church of Reims, but also the chief men rose up against the simoniac and now deposed prelate, and cast him out of the usurped see.

[153] and that simoniac prelate is cast out of the see: This Guibert of Nogent teaches, a contemporary author already several times praised, subjoining these following words immediately after the words concerning Manasses transcribed here at num. 110: Whom (namely Manasses) afterwards the nobles, the clergy and the burgesses, when he was being struck with most frequent anathema by Hugh (who was surnamed of Die), (afterwards, namely, made) archbishop of Lyons, legate of the Apostolic See, a man most renowned in the interest of justice, and he was striving with military force to squander the treasures of the church, drove from the see which he had wrongly besieged, and, banished into perpetual exile, when he himself also, excommunicated, had betaken himself to the emperor Henry, excommunicated at that time, wandering hither and thither without communion, he at last died. So Guibert: and although whether, as he here intimates, Manasses ended his life in the excommunication with which he had been struck by the Pontiff chiefly on account of his crimes and obstinacy can not undeservedly be called into doubt from what the writers of the Literary History of France observe in volume 8, page 655 and following, it is nevertheless not to be doubted that, as he likewise relates here, that simoniac prelate was cast out of the see of Reims by the clergy, people and nobles; for all the learned who have examined the matter affirm with unanimous consent that this was truly done, nor can any testimony of a contemporary or even nearly contemporary writer be brought, as happens in the preceding case, which makes in any way to the contrary. And that expulsion of Manasses, as being somewhat later, as can scarcely be doubted, than the letters given by the Pontiff (go to num. 151) on the twenty-seventh of December in the year 1080, very probably did not take place earlier than the year 1081; and that it did not take place later either is plain from the fact that Rainald du Bellay, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, volume 9, col. 75, was raised to the see of Reims in the year 1083, after Elinand, bishop of Laon, had held it for two years after the expulsion of Manasses.

[154] Let us now resume our discourse about our Saint. The simoniac prelate Manasses having been driven out, as has now been set forth, which done, the Saint (was restored) to his former state, as from the funeral Bruno returned to Reims, and was there restored to his former state and perhaps even a better one. I prove the matter thus: the funeral Title inscribed to him by the cathedral church of Reims itself, of which indeed

he was very well known to Manasses the provost, several times praised here, and to the canons, a Title holding place 52 among those to be reprinted, runs thus: This excellent Father, founder of a religious life, Showed himself an exemplar to the brethren, Giving them a pattern of spurning the vile things of the world, While he follows the rewards of the heavenly fatherland, For whose fault we do not believe we must groan, Whom we believe already rejoicing in rest. For if a good life merits rest for any Saint, To him also for his merits the highest rest is given; Who, when he was powerful in manifold ways in our city, And was becoming a solace and a glory to his own, And when fortune favoured him in all things, and now We were preferring him to all, and deservedly; For he was kind, and skilled in every art, And eloquent enough, and powerful in riches; He put all things after Christ, and, following the naked Christ, the desert receives him with many. Therefore we believe rest has been prepared for him. If yet any light stain has clung to him, (For it is plain that no one abides on earth without blemish) May God wipe it away by giving him pardon.

[155] The Saint, then, as these little verses most openly disclose, is plain from the Title of the cathedral church of Reims, withdrew into the desert, having cast these things away, at the very time when in the city of Reims he was most powerful in authority and riches, fortune smiling on him greatly. But this cannot fit either the time during which he lived at Reims before his departure from this city on account of the abominable morals of Archbishop Manasses, or likewise the time which intervened between that and the ejection of Manasses from the see of Reims. For although the Saint, at the time when, avoiding Manasses, he had not yet left Reims, had long enjoyed prosperous fortune there, yet at that time, as is admitted by all, he did not withdraw into the desert, leaving his riches; and as regards now the time which ran between his departure from the city of Reims, to be connected, from what has been said above, with the year 1076 or the following, and the expulsion of Manasses from the see of Reims, the Saint was not then living at Reims, much less flourishing there in riches, as it is easy to draw partly from what has been said above, partly from the letter of Pope Gregory VII transcribed here at num. 148 and following, and given, from what was said there, in the year 1080, in which he commands Archbishop Manasses, already deposed, from what has been said, in the council of Lyons, to restore their possessions entirely to Manasses and Bruno, and to permit the clerics who had suffered exile for so long a time for justice, one of whom was our Saint, to serve God securely in the church. It remains, therefore, that Bruno's having enjoyed prosperous fortune at Reims, and his having then withdrawn thence into solitude, fits solely, as will be plain to one who considers, the time which followed the expulsion of Manasses from the see of Reims.

[156] is restored. This did not happen under Bishop Rainald. Wherefore it is beyond doubt that the Saint was then restored at Reims to his former, or perhaps even a better, state. But did this happen immediately after the expulsion of Manasses, carried out, from what has been said, in the year 1081? There are those who contend that the matter is to be put off to the time when Rainald du Bellay, first raised to the see of Reims in the year 1083, had already occupied it. But their opinion is probably not to be admitted. For the Saint, when he had been restored to his former state, was probably also sought or requested for the see of Reims before he withdrew into the desert, which, from what is to be said, could not happen under Rainald, as I now show: Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See, in his letter to the supreme Pontiff given after the council of Autun in the year 1077 or the following, and transcribed here above at num. 119 and the three following, says towards the end concerning Manasses the provost and Bruno: These, we ask, destine to the church of Reims; by which words he seems to have asked the Pontiff to take care that one or the other, namely Bruno or Manasses the provost, be substituted in the place of Archbishop Manasses, whom he probably thought would be deposed. Wherefore it appears likely that the same legate, when Manasses had already been driven out, acted with the greatest zeal among the clergy and people of Reims, to whom the Pontiff, by a letter given towards the end of the year 1080 (go to num. 151), had commended that by common counsel and equal wish, Hugh of Die his legate assenting to them, they should substitute a new bishop for the deposed Manasses, that they should elect for themselves as bishop either Bruno or Manasses the provost.

[157] For under him the Saint, which nevertheless (was done), from various Hence further I am led into that opinion, which is also pleasing to the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, by which I think it likely that among many of the people and clergy of Reims, a discussion having been held among themselves concerning the election of a new bishop, it had been settled and fixed to elect our Saint as bishop when he withdrew into the desert; and that this is indicated both by these little verses, of which the funeral Title of the cathedral church of Reims, just transcribed here, consists: And when fortune favoured him in all things, and now We were preferring him to all, and deservedly; He put all things after Christ, and, following the naked Christ, the desert receives him with many; and also by these others, which another title of the cathedral church of Reims, 53 among those to be reprinted, contains: As Joseph scorned to serve the love of his mistress, And fled incestuous embraces with manly mind, So the glory of the world lies scorned by thee, Bruno, While it desired to embrace thee, stretching its arms to thee, The world showed many riches, many honours, And thou, slipping away by flight, the pompous garment cast off, Embracing the desert, art clothed with a blessed lot.

[158] Moreover, that I may be more and more confirmed in the said opinion, appears from his funeral titles, funeral Title 146 also serves, in which the canons of the cathedral church of St. Mary of Rouen celebrate Bruno in this manner: Let the whole order of holy Church mourn, Weeping the irreparable loss of the human race, There has departed from the world the victor over worldly honour, Bruno, the father, founder of a holy religious life, Whose pious life so great an uprightness commends, That there is no power to make any the equal of him. He was wise, a man noble, shining in nature, Imbued from the fount of all Philosophy; In whom, since the virtue of probity shone living, The glorious fasces, which he was able to have merited, He, a trampler on riches, a despiser of all honours, Crushed with his foot, and the foolish ambition of the world, And by his zeal founded a holy religious life. Declining the world, avoiding the lofty things of the world, He chose rather to spend his life in a private station. For although perhaps allusion is made by these little verses to the bishopric of Reggio, which the Saint refused when, as I shall show below, he had been elected or requested for it, yet I think it more probable that allusion is made to the future election as archbishop of Reims which the Saint, withdrawing into the desert, studiously avoided, for this reason, that in the recited verses, immediately after the contempt of honours and riches for which Bruno is praised in them, there is subjoined the flight from the world, for which he is likewise praised, and this did not follow the Saint's election to the archbishopric of Reggio, but preceded it.

[159] That the Saint, therefore, when he withdrew into the desert, and consequently had already been restored at Reims to his former state, or perhaps even a better, he could not be requested as bishop of Reims; which since somewhat earlier, was desired by many both of the clergy and of the people as prelate of this city, nay would even have been in fact elected had he not, foreseeing this, gone away, appears likely enough from all the things brought forward. Now indeed, since this is so, and yet (go to the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume IX, col. 77) Rainald, raised to the see of Reims from the year 1083, as I have shown above, did not die before the year 1096, by which time Bruno, from what is to be said, had long since withdrawn into the desert, it becomes consequent that the Saint could not have been sought or requested for the see of Reims while this man was already prelate, and consequently that both this and his restoration to his former, or perhaps even better, state happened earlier. But by how much space of time did both these and the Saint's request for the see of Reims precede the promotion of Rainald to the same? The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume IX, col. 75, write thus: Manasses (namely the simoniac prelate of Reims of whom above) having been deposed, the report is that Bruno, whom he had despoiled of his benefices, was sought by many (namely as bishop), because he had long shone in the church of Reims by learning and gravity of morals. But Elinand, bishop of Laon, having received the archbishopric from the king (Philip of the Franks) both by gifts and by the zeal of friends, held it about two years, namely from the year 1081 to the year 1083. He, however, after a great sum of money had been spent, was admonished by the supreme Pontiff to resign the other benefice, because one having a wife could by no means bring in another. He burned with such greed, says Marlot, that he is related to have said that he would not spare labour if he could by any means attain the supreme pontificate.

[160] although perhaps not before Helinand. If, then, the report which the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana here praise agrees with the truth, our Saint was, immediately after the expulsion of the simoniac Manasses, both restored to his former state or even a better one, and requested or sought for the see of Reims. And indeed, since Gregory, who then occupied the Roman see, had commended to the people and clergy of Reims, by a letter towards the end of the year 1080 (see num. 151), that they should substitute a new prelate for the expelled Manasses, it appears likely enough that immediately after the expulsion of Manasses there was thought and action about electing a new prelate, and by name about taking our Saint, especially since it is reported, even by public report, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana disclose at the place last cited, that this was then done. Yet the matter is not certain; for since Elinand was most greedy to obtain the archbishopric of Reims, it may be that immediately after the expulsion of Manasses he obtained from Philip, king of the Franks, by the help of friends and by money, that that archbishopric should be conferred upon him, and, supported by royal aid, wholly took away from the clergy and people of Reims the place and time for then treating of the election of a new prelate.

[161] who held the see of Reims for two years after Manasses, Hear what Guibert, a contemporary author, from whom also we are taught that he truly held the archbishopric of Reims for two years, says of Elinand or Helinand, book 3 of his own Life, chap. 2: Helinand, he says, a man of a very poor house and obscurely born, very slender in letters and of a sufficiently mean person, when through the acquaintance of Walter, the elder count of Pontoise, from whose county he derived his origin, he had attained to the favour of Edward, king of the English (for his wife had created with the aforesaid count some kinship, I know not what), was his chaplain; and because he knew French elegance, that Englishman often sent him to Henry, king of the Franks. With which king, because he was very greedy and accustomed to the sale of bishoprics, he managed, by most lavish enticing presents, that if any one of the bishops of France should die, he himself should succeed to the pontifical insignia. For he, being placed in the chaplaincy of the king and queen, since England at that time flourished with infinite riches, had heaped up many mountains of money,

therefore, the aforesaid cause of his largesses smiling on him, his voice was one to be heard with King Henry. And so it was done: for, having been brought in at Laon, since he thought he would prevail neither by the esteem of his parents nor by knowledge of letters, his hope had been in the opulence, of which very much was at his disposal and which he had learned to dispense most cautiously, and in liberality. He turned himself, therefore, to adorning and building churches, and though he seemed to do many things for God, he nevertheless gave most evident signs that he sought thence only favours, only the spreading of his name in things well done. By these arts too he himself sat in the archbishopric of Reims, which, when he had held it for two years, great revenues having been squandered with King Philip, a man most venal in the things of God, he heard from the lord Pope that one having a wife can by no means bring in another. And to a certain man who asked him why he aimed at this, he said plainly that if he could even become Pope he would by no means conceal it.

[162] Since, then, Elinand, as is understood from these words of Guibert, his asserted right to it being yielded, was a man of the greatest ambition, whence it came about that he by no means shrank from procuring for himself by money, with which he was excellently provided, all the highest dignities and benefices of the Church, it appears by no means unlike the truth that by largesses he brought it about with Philip, king of the Franks, immediately after the expulsion of Manasses, that no discussion could be held by the clergy and people of Reims about substituting a successor in the place of the deposed Manasses, especially since it is admitted by all who have written on this matter that he in fact stood in the way for two whole years of a new archbishop of Reims being elected after the expulsion of Manasses. The author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place writes thus at num. 20 of this work of his: The aforesaid Elinand (bishop of Laon) yielding the right which he claimed for himself to the archbishopric of Reims, peace is restored to this church, and the canons formerly expelled by Manasses having returned from their exile towards the end of the year 1083 or towards the beginning of the following, the clergy and people began to treat seriously of setting a pastor over them. That Bruno and Manasses the provost were proposed to the electors by the legate (of the Apostolic See) Hugh it is fair to believe, since the legate himself, as we have seen above, had already commended both to the supreme Pontiff for the same end: "These," he says, "we ask, destine to the church of Reims." Then, that our Patriarch, already restored to possession both of his goods and of his dignities, was sought by many we gather from the elogium composed by the (Reims) cathedral church itself, over which at the time when Bruno died the aforesaid Manasses the provost presided, in these words, namely those transcribed here at num. 154.

[163] So he; who, although he intimates that perhaps only in the year 1084, contrary to what the time of Rainald's entry into the see of Reims seems to allow, took place, in the year 1081 or not much later there was action by the clergy and people of Reims about substituting a successor to Manasses, yet it appears not unlike the truth that St. Bruno was, as he relates, first sought by many as bishop at that time when Elinand, which was done in the year 1083, yielded the right to the archbishopric of Reims which he had arrogated to himself. So I judge, because the Saint, when he was requested or sought for the bishopric of Reims, had already lived at Reims for some space of time, as the little verses transcribed here at num. 154 from the funeral Title of the cathedral church of Reims seem to intimate, restored to his former, or perhaps even a better, state; and this could not sufficiently fitly be understood as agreeing with the truth if he had himself been requested or sought for it immediately after the expulsion of Manasses from the see of Reims. Further, although perhaps, from what has been said, this first happened in the year 1083, yet the Saint, as one who had already been living at Reims for some space of time before, restored to his former state and fortune, and who perhaps, from what has been said, had been requested for the archbishopric of Reims even from the year 1081, probably recovered, as was to be shown here, his former state of honour and means, having returned to Reims from exile either immediately after the expulsion of Manasses, that is, either from the year 1081 or not much later. Nor is there reason why you should object that Elinand, supported by the king's aid, held the see of the church of Reims in the space of time which runs from the expulsion of Manasses to the election of Rainald, and that it does not seem likely that Bruno would have wished to return to Reims and stay there under a prelate of this sort; for although Elinand was not free from the stain of simony, he was nevertheless munificent towards churches, and is not found to have been unjust towards clerics.

[164] he was probably restored at Reims to his former state. He therefore (Guibert subjoins to the words about Elinand recited at num. 161), whatever he may have been in himself, either by ambition or by any other human quality, in this honour is wholly to be preserved to him, that he both magnificently protected the liberty of the Church and advanced both the see itself (namely of Laon) and its dependent churches by most abundant largess. And it was fitting that outward goods should be available to him, to be spent on the adornment of the Lord's houses. Since, then, Elinand was such, I do not see why Bruno should be believed not to have returned to Reims and not to have lived there while he held the see of Reims, especially since he was perhaps ignorant of the man's simoniacal stain. What if the Saint was even invited by Elinand himself to return to Reims? Indeed, since, from what has been said, it was very much the wish of Gregory VII, then supreme Pontiff, that he be restored to his possessions, you would not ineptly or rashly conjecture that Elinand himself acted, by letters or in another way, that the clerics of the church of Reims driven out by Manasses, and consequently our Saint also, should return to Reims to be restored to their goods; being impelled to it, namely, lest, if he did otherwise, he should lose by Pontifical authority, as afterwards happened, the archbishopric of Reims so greatly desired by him, which he had not rightly enough obtained by royal favour.

[165] When this took place, he had not yet taught at Paris, But there are those who contend that the Saint, before he was restored to his former state, from the year 1081, nay even from about the year 1076, in which he left Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, went to Paris and taught there up to the year 1082, in which the prodigy of the doctor come back to life for a time, who proclaimed from the bier that he was damned, took place. And du Boulay indeed, in the History of the University of Paris, volume 1, page 468, thinks that the Saint, who nevertheless, from what has been said, stayed with Count Ebalus from about the year 1076 to the year 1078 or even the beginning of the following, betook himself to Paris immediately after his departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, and resumed there the office of teaching, which, however, whether he had ever before discharged there is very doubtful from what has been said. But the several conjectures and arguments by which he strives to confirm this opinion of his in some fashion establish nothing at all, as is plain from what has been said above; and now it is to be discussed whether other things are of greater weight which are brought forward both by him and by others who would have it that our Saint taught at Paris, if not immediately from about the year 1076, or from his departure from the city of Reims, at least from the year 1079 or from one of the two following. It is not likely, they say, that Bruno, so great a man, led a plainly idle life for three or four or even more years immediately before his withdrawal into solitude. Let it indeed not be likely; I allow it. But since the Saint, as I have shown above, was restored at Reims to his former state in the year 1081, what if he then also recovered the headship of the schools, and held it thereafter up to his departure into the desert? So indeed he would not have led an idle life from the said year 1081 until this happened, even if it be determined that he did not then teach at Paris. Nor is he to be thought to have then led an idle life in the year 1079 and the following, in both of which, from what has been said above, he more probably lived at Cologne among the canons of the church of Cunibert, since it may be that he then expended diligent labour both on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, both of which parts of sacred Scripture he illustrated, as I shall show below, by the most learned Commentaries he published.

[166] But if this displeases, and you will have it that the Saint did not stay at Cologne in those two years, nor does he seem ever at any other time to have taught there. not even so, even this being granted, does it follow that Bruno, unless he then taught at Paris, spent his life in idleness. For what if it be asserted that he then withdrew to the monastery of St. Mary of Déols (Dolense) and taught there? Indeed it appears that it must be said that the Saint, either then or at another time, discharged the office of teaching in that monastery, or at least, when he was discharging it at Reims, had very many of its nurslings as disciples there; for the religious inhabitants of that monastery, in the funeral Title, 169 among those to be published, which they inscribed to the Saint, seem to profess themselves his disciples in these words to the Calabrian Carthusians: As your holiness deigns to ask, we too, the brethren of the monastery of Déols, compassionating the desolation of your brotherhood, have taken care, as soon as we heard of his death, to pay to almighty God the suffrages of most devout prayers for the soul of our blessed father and master Bruno. From the life, therefore, which the Saint would have led in idleness unless it be admitted that he taught at Paris in the year 1079 and some following, it can by no means be concluded that he then taught there. Nay rather it appears most probable that the Saint not only did not teach at Paris then, but never at any other time either. For three contemporary, or at least coeval, writers, namely he who composed the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, Guibert of Nogent, and the author of the funeral Title, 173 among those to be reprinted, by which the Regular canons of the church of St. Vincent of Nouaillé paid funeral honours to the Saint, either intimate that he was (go to num. 7, 114 and 43) master of the schools of the church of Reims, or expressly distinguish him by this name, and would very probably have distinguished him also by the title of master of the schools of Paris, if he had ever taught these, as he did those of Reims. There is added that nothing at all is found anywhere in any ancient writer of equal authority and credit from which it follows in any way that the Saint ever taught at Paris.

[167] But the anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, Nor on account of the notable (fame) the contrary, having brought forward three different conjectures by which Égasse du Boulay (go to what has been said bearing on this at num. 112, following and elsewhere) wrongly contends that Bruno taught at Paris, reasons thus: We can add a fourth conjecture, taken from the funeral Titles by which funeral honours were paid to the pious memory of Saint Bruno by almost all the churches and monasteries of Gaul. For how can it be that a Man most notable and most renowned throughout the whole kingdom of France, "and," as Guibert says, "became most highly esteemed in the churches of the same kingdom," since this can scarcely be asserted of the academy of Reims, but should rather be understood of that of Paris, to which, as to the seat of the kingdom and the midmost point of France,

and the most celebrated emporium and queen of academies, it seemed more fitting that so many friends and disciples, who celebrated his funeral honours, should flock? For concerning the suffragan churches and the monasteries of the province of Reims there is no doubt that their nurslings applied themselves to the study of letters under Bruno at Reims. But when we read of all the remote churches which accompanied his death with lamentations and weeping, such as were those of England, Brittany, Normandy, Poitou, Touraine, the Seine, and very many others, we think it absurd to say that all the nurslings of these churches were instructed at Reims, since this seems more, according to the mind of du Boulay, to fit the academy of Paris, to which he had at one time been transferred.

[168] by which the Saint became famous, But what shall we say of the churches of Paris which bewailed the death of Saint Bruno, as of a very well-known man, with celebrated elogia, namely the cathedral church of St. Mary, the abbey of Saint Magloire, the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the abbey of Saint-Denis, the abbey of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés and the abbey of Saint Peter of Lagny? Is it not incongruous that so many clerics and so many monks, placed within the fountain of the sciences of the academy of Paris, should have set out to a foreign diocese to acquire the sciences? And what we say of those of Paris, the same we attest of the other religious of more remote monasteries, whom it was better to be instructed at Paris than at Reims. So he, conjecturing, or even contending, that the Saint taught at Paris, chiefly both from the notable celebrity of name which he had throughout the whole kingdom of France, and which he judges he would not have had unless he had taught at Paris, and from the huge multitude of churches and monasteries which paid him funeral honours by the inscription of funeral Titles, and which do not seem likely to have known him in a special manner or to have had him as master unless he had taught at Paris. But I do not see why the Saint, even if he had never taught at Paris, and only at Reims, could not have acquired that notable celebrity of name by which he became widely famous throughout the whole kingdom of France, nay also through many provinces situated outside it. Is he not called of Reims by the contemporary writers of the Chronicle of Maillezais and of the historical Fragment carried from the time of Robert to the death of King Philip (go to num. 41 and following), because he was known to them almost solely from the fame of name which he had acquired at Reims both in learning and in teaching and in discharging various offices?

[169] the celebrity of name, Would he perhaps for a similar cause have been known also as of Paris? If you affirm it, I demand that even one ancient writer of approved credit be assigned by whom he is called of Paris; but if you cannot do this, as you certainly will not be able, whence at length will you prove that he must have acquired the celebrity of name by which the Saint became famous by teaching at Paris, and not at Reims? Moreover Bruno, by the almost unanimous consent of all those by whom he is asserted to have taught at Paris, did not begin to discharge that office there before about the year 1076, in which, from what has been said, he left the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses; and yet it is most expressly related by Guibert of Nogent, a contemporary author, that he was of most celebrated name even before he left the city of Reims under compulsion of Manasses, and consequently had not yet taught at Paris. Bruno, he says in his own Life, book 1, chap. XI, then most highly esteemed in the churches of Gaul (namely when Manasses was wretchedly afflicting the city of Reims with his abominable morals before the Saint's departure from it), with certain other nobles among the clerics of Reims left the city, namely of Reims, out of hatred of that infamous man (namely Manasses). That the Saint, therefore, could have acquired the huge celebrity of name which he won for himself even though he had never taught at Paris, almost all those very ones also who will have it that he discharged the office of teaching at Paris must admit. There is added that to those also who contend that the Saint taught at Paris before he left Reims under Manasses it can be answered that Bruno could have been of most celebrated name solely from the most learned Commentaries which he composed on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St. Paul, perhaps already very widely published when he died, even though meanwhile he had never taught at Paris, nay not even at Reims.

[170] As regards now the huge multitude of churches and monasteries which celebrated the Saint by the inscription of funeral Titles, [nor on account of the huge (multitude) which nevertheless, how great from the funeral Titles] it does not follow from it that our Saint was known to all of them, or was their master, not only by fame but also in a certain special manner, as the praised anonymous Carthusian seems to wish. For the religious inhabitants of the Calabrian Charterhouse or desert announced his death, asking prayers for the soul of the departed, not only to the churches and monasteries to which he was known in such a manner or of which he had been master. This is plain from the beginning of the encyclical letter by which they did this, in which it is intimated in the following words to whom it is destined or to whom it is to be carried: In the first place, the Prelate of the Apostolic See, whom we believe and confess to be the primate and head in the Church, and all that principal curia, we, the humble hermits of Calabria of the monastery of the holy Mother of God Mary, of which father Bruno was the founder and prelate while he lived in the flesh, venerate and salute with due subjection, and we announce the death of our holy Father on the day before the Nones of October, that he may be helped with God by their merits and prayers. We salute also the whole holy Church in its orders and professions, canons, monks, hermits, holy virgins dedicated to God; before whom also and all we prostrate ourselves with spiritual presence, that they may be willing to be mindful of our deceased Father, that from that beloved soul, if a stain has clung, since there is no just man who sins not, it may be wiped away by multiplied intercessors and the urgency of prayers, and it may pass to rest. To whatever monasteries and churches, therefore, as is understood from this text, whether they knew the Saint or not, the encyclical letter announcing his death was sent; so that from the huge multitude of the Responses to it, or funeral Titles, by which funeral honours were paid to the Saint, as having proceeded from those same monasteries and churches, it cannot be argued that he was known in a certain special manner to all of them, or was their master. Wherefore, even if I granted that our Saint, unless he taught at Paris, could not have been known in a special manner to all those monasteries and churches, nor have been their master, it would not yet on that account be consequent that he in fact ever taught at Paris.

[171] Nor does it bear at all on the matter that several churches of Paris bewailed the death of St. Bruno, is argued, was not, the multitude of disciples as of a man very well known to them, with celebrated elogia; for it may be that they did this because, although not by face or in any other special manner in which masters are known to disciples, yet by fame, as one who, from what has been said, became famous with the greatest celebrity of name, he was very well known to them. Let the same judgment be made also concerning some other churches and monasteries which mourned the Saint's death as that of a man very well known to them; and although also of the funeral Titles by which funeral honours were paid to the Saint at least some were inscribed to him by persons to whom he was known also by face or in another special manner, or of whom he had been master, nothing nevertheless compels us to admit that these studied under him not at Reims but at Paris. For why could not the Saint have had many foreigners also as disciples at Reims? Indeed in the eleventh century, in which Bruno flourished, the various schools of various cities and churches, as the writers of the Literary History of France teach, volume 9, page 30 and following, were frequented more or less by strangers and foreigners according to the celebrity of name which their masters enjoyed; wherefore, since the Saint, while he acted as chief teacher of the schools of Reims, was most celebrated by the fame of his learning, as is plain enough from what has been said above, not only through all Gaul but also through many other remote regions, it is not to be doubted that he attracted to himself at Reims a huge multitude not only of natives but also of strangers and foreigners, that they might apply themselves to letters under a master of most famous name.

[172] is to be admitted, as neither on account of the Parisian prodigy, And among these especially I judge were Odo or Otto, afterwards supreme Pontiff under the name of Urban II, Robert of Burgundy, bishop of Langres, and the three other illustrious men recounted in § V, both on account of what has been said and because nothing at all can be brought forward why they should be believed to have studied elsewhere rather than at Reims. Nay rather, as regards Urban by name, he must be said to have studied at Reims rather than elsewhere for this reason, that it is ascertained from elsewhere both that he lived for some time at Reims and that he was a canon of the metropolitan church there, as may be seen in Ruinart, volume 3 of the Posthumous Works of this writer and of Mabillon. And so I now hope it will come about that he who has duly weighed all the things thus far adduced will judge it not necessary that the Saint be admitted to have taught at Paris at some time, either on account of the celebrity of name by which he became famous, or on account of the multitude of disciples, or of those to whom he was known in a special manner, the arguments which I have adduced above to the contrary opposing it. But, you will say, the Saint at least at that time, when he withdrew into solitude with some companions joined to himself, taught at Paris. For so it is found to have been handed down to memory and thought by not a few writers. So it is indeed; but these are by no means contemporary with the Saint, nor does this opinion which they hold please me, both because, from what has been said, the Saint seems never at any time to have taught at Paris, and also, and indeed chiefly, from the fact that Bruno, when he withdrew into the desert, was living not at Paris but at Reims, having already for some time been restored to his former, and perhaps even a better, state, amid the highest favours of prosperous fortune, as the studious reader will easily perceive chiefly from what I brought forward at num. 154 and the two following.

[173] [to which, even if it be granted to have happened, the Saint, not teaching at Paris,] Hence further, even if that horrible prodigy, by which a Parisian doctor proclaimed from the bier first that he had been accused, secondly that he had been judged, and thirdly at length that he had been condemned, had in fact happened at Paris, which I shall discuss below, and had been the true cause why Bruno withdrew into solitude, it could not yet on that account be admitted that he was teaching there at the time when it happened. For since the Saint, having been restored at Reims after the expulsion of Archbishop Manasses to his possessions or former means, seems not to have left that city again, to fix his dwelling elsewhere, before his departure into solitude, it is consequent that, if he was teaching at Paris at the time when the said prodigy happened, or about the year 1082, he had not yet then been restored at Reims to his former means, and consequently that it befell him to be at length restored to them after the aforesaid prodigy, since this, from what has been said, was done before he withdrew into solitude. But besides the fact that the Saint, from what has been said, was more probably restored at Reims before the year 1082 to his former state, and perhaps even a better one, it does not besides seem that this happened after that prodigy, for the reason that, since Bruno, in the opinion of those who champion the prodigy, most firmly determined from it to bid farewell to the world, and carried out his purpose, his affairs being settled in some fashion, it appears hardly likely that he, having seen the prodigy, would have suffered, much less

taken care, or even gone to Reims, to recover the means and dignities which he had lost there under Manasses. Wherefore, if the aforementioned prodigy must be admitted as true, which, as I have said, I shall examine below, it more probably, on account of what has been said, happened while St. Bruno was not teaching at Paris, but was only present there, whether to visit friends or for any other cause whatever.

[174] Nor is there reason why this should seem to anyone wonderful or newly invented; but, being there only by chance, he was present. for from the very Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Grande Chartreuse, or from the elogium of our Saint contained in it, to be published under the name of Life (go to §1), before whose author no one is thought to have committed to writing the prodigy of the doctor come back to life which happened at Paris, it seems to be gathered that St. Bruno was present at it when he was staying at Paris only by chance. Hear what he says at num. 5, after narrating that prodigy: At that time, he says, there was there (namely at Paris, in the place where the prodigy happened) Master Bruno, by nation a German, born of parents not obscure of the city of Cologne, canon of the church of Reims and there master of the schools in Theology, who, wholesomely terrified and pricked by the words written above (namely of the doctor who cried out from the bier that he was damned), addressed certain companions present there, etc. So that older Life of the Saint, whose anonymous author would surely have called St. Bruno, if he had thought that he was teaching at Paris when the prodigy which he narrates happened, master not of the schools of Reims, as he does in the words recited, but of those of Paris, since he is setting up discourse about a matter which was both done at Paris and would have been seen there by the Saint while teaching. And that there are found not only Puteanus and the other biographers of St. Bruno who flourished at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but also writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, to be praised below, who hand down to memory that our Saint was teaching there at the very time when they record that the aforesaid prodigy happened at Paris, or at least in the place where they do so call him master of the schools of Paris, or intimate that he was, I think came about from this, that, since they had either read somewhere, or received by tradition communicated to them, that this prodigy happened at Paris, they judged thence that the Saint, as one whom they found both present at the prodigy and acting as master of the schools, was then teaching there, although meanwhile they did not find this committed to writing in writers either contemporary with the Saint or even only nearly contemporary.

§ IX. Whether the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into solitude is assigned by Guibert of Nogent, and whether Bruno needed for it, besides the vow he had made of putting on the monastic habit, another graver reason.

The wicked morals of Manasses which Guibert narrates Launoy, who in his published Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert reckons the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor among fictions, affirms that the true cause of the conversion, or withdrawal into the desert, of St. Bruno is related by Guibert of Nogent, a contemporary author, in book 1 of his own Life, chap. XI. The whole text of Guibert, which Launoy reviews to this end in the Dissertation praised, chap. 1, §4, I do not transcribe here, but only those words of it which can in some fashion serve to establish what Launoy wishes. And they are these: There was, not long before these days, a certain Bruno in the city of Reims, a man both instructed in the liberal arts and rector of great studies, who is known to have obtained the beginnings of his conversion from the occasion set down below. A certain Manasses, after the death of Gervase, the most famous archbishop, thrust himself simoniacally into the government of the aforesaid city, a man noble indeed, but having nothing at all of that serenity which chiefly befits noble birth. For he had conceived such pride from that novelty that he seemed to imitate the royal majesties of foreign nations, nay the ferocities of majesties… He therefore, since he courted knights exceedingly and neglected the clergy, is reported to have said once: "The archbishopric of Reims would be a good thing, if one did not have to sing Masses for it." Since, then, every upright man shuddered at his utterly wicked morals and most stupid bearing, Bruno, then most highly esteemed in the churches of Gaul, with certain other nobles among the clerics of Reims, left the city, namely of Reims, out of hatred of that infamous man.

[176] of the Saint's withdrawal into the desert, as the reasons Thus far Guibert; but does he thus record the true cause by which St. Bruno was driven into the desert? So indeed, as I have said, the praised Launoy judges, and chiefly both because in his opinion our Saint, when he left Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, immediately withdrew into the desert; and because, as he thinks, the conference, which I have already mentioned above, held by him with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed concerning the false delights of the world preceded the Saint's departure from the city of Reims. But neither did the Saint, when he left Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, immediately hide himself in solitude, nor did the conference mentioned precede his departure from the city of Reims. Both are sufficiently plain from almost only what has already been said above. And first, since the Saint, as I clearly proved at num. III, left Reims in the year 1076 or the following for the sake of avoiding Manasses, and certainly, as I shall show below, did not go away into the desert, leaving the world, before the year 1081, it is most manifest that he did not do this immediately after his departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses. And indeed some will have it that it is also indicated by Guibert himself at the place cited above that the Saint withdrew into the desert only after the expulsion of Archbishop Manasses from the see of Reims, or a little after the year 1080, in which this happened. So they judge, because he, after he has subjoined to the words last recited, Whom (Archbishop Manasses) afterwards the nobles, the clergy and the burgesses, when he was being struck with most frequent anathema by Hugh (who was surnamed of Die), archbishop (namely afterwards created of Lyons), legate of the Apostolic See, a man most renowned in the interest of justice, and he was striving with military force to squander the treasures of the Church, drove from the see which he had wrongly besieged, then, some things being interposed which, although they regard Manasses, bear less on this, continues thus: But Bruno, having deserted the city (namely of Reims), purposes also to renounce the world, who, shuddering at the acquaintance of his own people, proceeded to the territory of Grenoble; but in this matter, as I shall show below, they are not to be assented to.

[177] Meanwhile, even though this be so, nothing makes against us here either adduced here, in what Launoy at the place cited adds besides about the clerics of Reims who went out of the city of Reims with the Saint on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, that, unless Bruno had then withdrawn into the desert, they would have had to accompany him for a long time, wherever he went, and meanwhile to wait for a God from the machine, by whom they might be converted and driven with the Saint into the desert; for there went with the Saint into the desert, as Guigo, fifth Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, testifies in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, with us in volume 1 of April, page 40, num. XI, Master Landuin, born to the world at Lucca in Tuscany (go in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, page 639, to the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Grande Chartreuse, of which I gave notice at num. 6), two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, Hugh the chaplain, and two laymen or conversi, Andrew and Guarin; and none of these is found to have been among those noble clerics of Reims who left Reims with the Saint on account of the wicked morals of Manasses. As regards now the conference held by the Saint with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, that it did not precede Bruno's departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses the things which I brought forward at num. 125 and following more than sufficiently establish; and meanwhile Guibert of Nogent at the place last cited also supports what was said there, inasmuch as to the narration in which he relates the Saint's departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses he subjoins, after a few things interposed which do not bear on this, But Bruno, having deserted the city (namely of Reims), purposes also to renounce the world.

[178] Now indeed, since the Saint neither went away into the desert immediately after his departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, shown, were not the cause, nor was this preceded by the conference held with Ralph and Fulcius in which they with Bruno made the vow of taking the monastic habit, who would admit the wicked morals of Manasses as the true cause on account of which the Saint withdrew into the desert? Indeed Guibert by no means favours this being done. For although in the words recited above he affirms that Saint Bruno obtained the beginnings of his conversion from the occasion of the wicked morals of Manasses, yet he does not declare that these were the cause on account of which the Saint withdrew into the desert and was perfectly converted. Nay rather he intimates the contrary, since he relates only that the wicked morals of Manasses gave occasion to the beginnings of the Saint's conversion, and these are different from the perfected conversion itself. In order that Guibert may be understood to have written things agreeing with the truth, the matter seems to be conceived thus. Bruno, compelled to leave Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, experienced a most adverse fortune, under the pressure of which mortals are chiefly wont to think of God and to conceive amendment of life; and hence it came about that he held with Ralph and Fulcius the One-eyed the celebrated conference in which he vowed that he would shortly take the monastic habit. For thus, since that vow is deservedly to be held in the place of the beginnings of the conversion afterwards completed by the Saint, and the wicked morals of Manasses gave occasion to the conference in which the same vow was made, Guibert is understood to have written rightly that our Saint obtained the beginnings of his conversion from the occasion of the wicked morals of Manasses, whether meanwhile it came about at length from that vow, or from the conference in which it was made, that the Saint instituted the new religious life of the Carthusians, or whether he was impelled to do so by a new reason supervening.

[179] nor, that Bruno should institute a new Religious life, from that, as here And Launoy, in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1, § III, contends that Bruno took from the said conference the occasion of instituting his new Religious life; but, on the contrary, the anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals thinks that that conference contributed nothing at all to the institution of the new Carthusian Order, replying in this manner, at num. 89 of his Work, to Launoy, who contends the former: There … (namely in the Epistle of St. Bruno to Ralph the Green, in the words transcribed here at num. 125) Saint Bruno does not speak of a plan of founding any new Order, but only of the vow of receiving the monastic habit. A certain adversary will perhaps laugh at this distinction, which nevertheless will be more easily observed than that occasion of instituting the Carthusian Religious life (namely the one observed by Launoy in Bruno's words which I have just praised) by anyone considering the words of Saint Bruno more attentively and without agitation of mind. "We promised," he says, "and vowed to the Holy Spirit

shortly to leave the fleeting things of the world and to seize the eternal, and also to receive the monastic habit." Who does not see that it is one thing to vow to take the monastic habit, another to enter on a plan of founding a new Religious life? And when he immediately adds, "which (vow) would also have been accomplished in the near future, had not Fulcius then gone away to Rome," by these words he sufficiently intimates that they thought only of putting on the monastic habit, not in a new Order which they were to institute, but in some monastery of another Order.

[180] the anonymous Carthusian For if they had treated of a new religious life in this conference, they could not have brought a plan of this kind to effect so quickly, as in fact they did not, since many things would first have had to be arranged by them for accomplishing so great a work, such as the kind and manner of life, the habit, buildings however humble, above all a place suited to the purpose, and not a few other things of this kind, as regards both temporal and spiritual matters, absolutely necessary for duly instituting a new Religious life. Moreover from the context of the words of the same Epistle it appears clearer than the sun that this whole purpose undertaken in this conference fell to nothing in the course of time, as the blessed Man himself ingenuously confesses in these words: "Which would have been accomplished in the near future, had not Fulcius then gone away to Rome, to whose return we deferred the things to be accomplished. And he making delay, and other causes intervening, the divine love languished, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished." What could have been said more evidently? For what is it to say that "the divine love languished, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished," but openly to say that not only did they not then renounce the world, but also that Ralph and Fulcius cast away the plan of renouncing it, while Saint Bruno put it off to another time? Which is signified more openly by those words, "The fervour vanished," and becomes still most open if we consider that Saint Bruno bade farewell to the world not with those with whom he had held the conference and made the vow, but with six others who had not been present at the conference.

[181] Nor does it help to reply with Launoy that "Saint Bruno is speaking not of his own procrastination, but of Ralph's." he deservedly contends, was made in the conference with Ralph, For Bruno spoke in the plural number, "to whose return we deferred the things to be accomplished," in order to give to understand that not Ralph alone but he himself also had deferred with him, and consequently that the fervour had then vanished for a time in him too: for he subjoins: "And he making delay, and other causes intervening, the divine love languished, etc." But that the truth of this matter may become still more manifest, account must be had of the time which elapsed from the said conference up to the year in which Saint Bruno withdrew into solitude. For it is established, and this most of all if this conference was held at Reims, as Launoy will have it beyond doubt; it is established, I say, that between it and the withdrawal of Saint Bruno (if namely, which is to be discussed below, he first gave himself to a better life in the year 1084) eight or ten years elapsed. For we saw above that Saint Bruno was expelled from Reims about the year MLXXVI, and we shall prove in what is to be set down that he instituted his Religious life (it will be proved below that he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084) in the year MLXXXIV or in the year MLXXXVI, as Launoy himself, after Baronius, wrote. Therefore, whatever Launoy may protest against the most famous du Saussay, Bruno, deferring and procrastinating to discharge the vow he had made, needed a stronger incitement by which he might at length obey the divine calling. And that was the horrible spectacle of the damned man, by which at length, shaken to the soul, he not only thought of receiving the monastic habit, but, called by God to more sublime things, entered on the plan of embracing a new kind of most austere life, and happily completed it. Thus far he, deservedly indeed contending that in the conference which the Saint held with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed concerning the false delights of the world and the joys of heaven that will endure for ever there was no treatment of instituting a new order, so that consequently it was not the occasion of instituting the new Order, or certainly only a very remote one; nay rather, that the vow made in it could not in any way impose on the Saint even any obligation of embracing a new and more austere life, such as he led in the deserts of the Chartreuse and then of Calabria.

[182] But what he says at the end, that Bruno, deferring to discharge to God [although meanwhile for the discharge of the vow made in it (he did not need) a stronger (incitement) than] what he had promised and vowed in that conference, needed a stronger incitement by which he might at length obey the divine calling, by no means pleases. For although the Saint in fact deferred to fulfil what he had promised in the aforesaid conference, held, from what has been said above, most probably in the year 1077, up to at least the year 1081, as I shall prove below, and consequently, if not for eight or ten years, at least for a long space of time, yet I do not see why he should have had to be impelled to fulfil the vow by a new, stronger and more efficacious incitement supervening. For since the vow he had made without doubt came into the Saint's mind from time to time, why could he not have been moved to fulfil it solely by those reasons with which in his letter to Ralph the Green he exhorts him to satisfy the same vow? These indeed were most grave, and most fitted to reprove Ralph's delay and to rouse his mind to the prompt discharge of the vow. For the Saint chiefly inculcated the strict obligation of discharging the vow, by not satisfying which Ralph would incur eternal punishments. Hear how he speaks to Ralph. Although, he says, our bodies are separated from each other by a long tract of lands and a rather lengthy space of time, yet the mind of your benevolence could not be torn from your friend. And, a few things being interposed, he continues thus: But in the borders of Calabria, with religious brethren, and some well learned, I inhabit a desert sufficiently removed on every side from the habitation of men; and then, some things again being put between, he says: Which (namely contemplation) would that you, dearest brother, loved uniquely, that, cherished by its embraces, you might grow warm with divine love.

[183] The Saint's Epistle to Ralph And a little after: Flee, then, my brother, flee all these troubles and miseries, and transfer yourself from the tempest of this world to the safe and quiet anchorage of the harbour. And again after: Wherefore it is worth while for your prudence to weigh these things with diligent examination; and if the love of God does not invite you, if the profit of such great rewards does not provoke you, at least the necessity and fear of punishments ought to compel you to it. For you know by what engagement you are bound, and how almighty and terrible He is to whom you have vowed yourself as a pleasing and wholly acceptable gift, to whom it is neither lawful nor expedient to lie. For He does not suffer Himself to be mocked unjustly. There now follow the words transcribed here at num. 125, in which the conference of which we speak here and the vow made in it are contained, and then, with nothing further intervening, these are subjoined: What then remains, dearest, but to free yourself more quickly from the bonds of so great a debt, lest for so grave and so long-continued a crime of falsehood you incur the wrath of the Most Mighty, and on account of this monstrous torments? For who would leave it unpunished to be defrauded by any subject of his of a promised gift, especially if it were of great esteem and value to him? Wherefore yield, not to me, but to the Prophet, nay to the Holy Spirit saying, "Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God, all you that round about Him bring presents, to the terrible and to Him who taketh away the spirit of princes, to the terrible with the kings of the earth." Why does the Spirit of God inculcate all these things, but that He may urge you, who vowed, to pay what you vowed?

[184] supplies, he did not need an incitement, Here he most gravely admonishes Ralph not to decline from so sublime an engagement on account of riches, dignities, and most of all the favour of the archbishop in which he was strong, and be recalled from the divine charity; and then after a few things he subjoins: Would that you may not spurn a friend admonishing you; would that you may not hear with a deaf ear the words of the Spirit of God; would that you may satisfy my desire and long expectation, most beloved; lest my soul be tormented any longer for you with cares and anxieties and fear. For if it should come about (which God avert) that you depart from this life before you have paid the vow of your debt, you will leave me wasting away in continual sadness without any consolation of hope. And at length towards the end of the Epistle he adds: I earnestly desire that your fraternity may long flourish in health, mindful of our counsel and not unmindful of your vow. These are the incitements, these the goads, applied by Bruno studiously indeed and industriously in order to draw Ralph to the discharge of the vow which he had made in the conference held with him; and who would declare that our Saint, to whom without doubt its memory recurred again and again, had need of greater and sharper ones to discharge the same vow? Bruno, therefore, by no means needed a stronger incitement, to put on the monk and thus discharge the vow of taking the monastic habit, than that which the making of the vow and the obligation arising from it brought. But is the same also to be said of the new and more austere rule of life which he kept in the Chartreuse and then in Calabria?

[185] Since the Saint, as I shall show below, some space of time as neither to the more austere life which he led in the Chartreuse. before he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse, probably lived as a monk, or, if you prefer, as a hermit, in the desert of Sèche-Fontaine, it may be that there, having gradually conceived a greater glow of divine love, and the desire of doing penance being increased thereby, he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse to lead a more austere life with others to whom he had inspired the same will. It may also be that he betook himself thither after making the vow of taking the monastic habit, no other cause at all supervening, for this reason, that on account of the long-delayed discharge of the vow he wished to satisfy by a more rigid and more austere kind of life the divine goodness, which he thought offended thereby. Wherefore our Saint does not seem to have needed a new incitement stronger than the religious obligation of the vow he had made, in order to withdraw into the desert of the Chartreuse, leaving the world. But even though this be so, it by no means follows that in fact a stronger and more efficacious goad, by which he was at length driven into the desert of the Chartreuse, did not supervene upon the vow he had made of taking the monastic habit. And this indeed is related by some to have been done by the horrible spectacle of the most celebrated Parisian doctor who, come back to life for a time, proclaimed from the bier that he had been damned by the divine Justice; whether they are therefore certainly to be assented to must now be investigated; and in order that I may fittingly discuss this matter of no small moment, which has exercised the wits and pens of many learned men of the century just past, I shall divide the whole treatment of it, that I may proceed more distinctly and in better order, into various articles or §§, and not seldom I shall express what comes to be discussed in the very words, when this can conveniently be done, of the anonymous Carthusian who composed the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, both that I may present some specimens of this Work, by the desire of which I understand not a few are held, and lest perhaps of the things which are brought forward in it for proving the resurrection of the Parisian doctor, and which I understand are highly esteemed,

I should be thought to have diminished the force. I take my beginning from the things bearing on this which took place in the two centuries just past.

§ X. Whether the resurrection of the Parisian doctor, by which Bruno was converted, was expunged from the Roman Breviary in the last century because it was held to be false; and who first began to gnaw at it either then or before; and who opposed themselves to these.

The resurrection of the Parisian doctor, which, although by René Benoist That that most mournful and most notorious story of the Parisian doctor, who announced his damnation with his own mouth from the bier to those standing by, furnished either the cause or the occasion of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse, had already been believed for a very long space of years indeed, when at length, in the two centuries just past, men were found who dared either to call it into doubt or even to assail it with arguments sought out from every quarter. And the first, so far as we know, who (these are the very words supplied by the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals) began to call it into doubt was René Benoist (Renatus Benedictus) (nay more probably, as I shall show below, only in the second place, Papire Masson, to be named here presently), or another who under his name published, about the end of the century just past (that is, since these things were written in the past century, before the year 1600), the Legend of the Saints dressed in French garb, who in the Life of Saint Bruno wrote in the margin opposite that narration, "Guigo has nothing of the kind in the Life of Saint Hugh the bishop," and besides, "the clerics of the church of Paris oppose these things." Whence we judge that no one would ever have opposed this story, if mention of a canonry of Paris had not crept into the plain narration of the event, which alone and solely seems afterwards to have been the seedbed of the whole discord. But whether that man was a canon or a doctor we shall say below. The second who joined in with this doubt was Papire Masson, who died in the year MDCXI, a man of more accurate letters.

[187] and had also been called into doubt by Masson, He, in book 3 of the Annals of the Franks, page CCXXXII, treating of the time of the foundation of the Order of the Carthusians, after he has related a few things of Saint Bruno and Landuin, subjoins these words: "Peter of Cluny, surnamed of Montboissier (Mauriacenus), who lived under the Fat and Louis, names Bruno and Landuin as the authors of this Order, and though he describes most accurately the origin, institute and manners of the Carthusians, he makes no mention of the canon of Paris who is said, when dead, to have answered during the solemn funeral rites." So he, whose whole doubt seems to turn upon the silence of Peter and the canonry of the damned man. But the observations of both René Benoist and Masson were not of such weight that they could prevent the supreme Pontiff Gregory XV, having proclaimed through the whole Church the feast of Saint Bruno, to be kept every year by all clerics and religious whatever, from ordering (namely in the year 1623) that his Office be composed and, revised and approved by the sacred Congregation of rites, be placed in the Roman Breviary, the three Lessons of whose second Nocturn are taken from his Life, the second of which contains this whole resurrection under the name of a certain master, no specific mention being made of a doctorate or canonry.

[188] Urban the Eighth also, Gregory's successor, by a new decree willed that the Office of Saint Bruno, with the narration of the stupendous story, be inserted into the Roman Breviary, had been inserted into the Roman Breviary by order of Urban VIII, as the most famous du Saussay testifies in his didactic Epistle in these words: "Meanwhile there came out to light the Roman Breviary, into which by the decree of Urban VIII the Office of Saint Bruno had recently been inserted. In this that narration was contained in a brief indeed, but open, sequence. But I was then spending labour with others, as delegates of the most illustrious lord archbishop and of the venerable chapter, in revising the Paris Breviary. The Carthusians of Paris urged on this occasion that the feast and Office of Saint Bruno be assigned to his natal day, since it had hitherto had no place in our Breviary. It seemed that their honest request should be granted. Saint Bruno was therefore ascribed to the Fasti of Paris, but on the understanding that no mention whatever should be made of the aforesaid narration in the lessons of his Office; which one could also see suppressed a little after in the Roman codex of the divine Offices." So he, in whose words the true cause of the whole discord is detected, which we said above was none other than the mention made of the canonry in certain narrations of this story.

[189] After this, some years having rolled by, John Launoy, rightly aspiring to the final laurel of the doctorate, from the same afterwards publicly asserted in the theological schools, in a thesis printed in type, at the prompting of Marsyas, a most learned man, "that whatever had been spread abroad concerning the threefold voice uttered from the bier by the dead doctor was wholly fictitious and invented, in short an old wives' tale." It pleased those present: for This hour demands not these spectacles for itself. Not thence, however (that we may speak what is true and sound), but from other specimens given of an excellent and learned wit, was he deservedly presented with the laurel he desired. He, pleased with himself for the approved thesis against the story of the man come back to life, went to Rome to establish it with stronger argumentation. There he pressed, by whatever ways and labours he could, that that prodigy be cut out of the lessons of the Roman Breviary, pretending chiefly, from what had been done at Paris in the acceptance of the feast of Saint Bruno, that the clergy and the Carthusians of Paris requested it. These are the arts which the author (namely Théophile Raynaud) of the Hercules Commodianus reproaches him (pages 114 and 115) with having used to obtain it, in these words: "And it could," he says, "have brought ease to that cutting-out that you, who were present, urged, by the arts which you know, and especially by a great clamour about the infamy of the clergy and academy of Paris, and by wishes of the royal city invented by you, that that narration, even if it were true, should be passed over. This last your letters have shown. The former, which contain the most genuine cause of the change" (namely that made in the Office of St. Bruno), "a most wise theologian of the Congregation of rites has clearly confirmed both to others and to me." And a little after: "It must be said elsewhere which man of Paris helped you at Rome, bringing it about that it should be held persuaded that the Carthusian Fathers requested the expunction of this narration from the Breviary, etc."

[190] Those who presided over the sacred Congregation of rites, was expunged; which nevertheless for this reason, then applying themselves to the revision of the whole Breviary by order of Urban VIII, who nevertheless had before (see num. 188) ordered the Office of St. Bruno, containing the resurrection of the Parisian doctor, to be inserted into the Roman Breviary, being religious men of incorrupt integrity, not deceived by the arts of Launoy but induced by wiser reasons, took care that not only the narration of this story but also that excellent and most pious confession of faith uttered by Bruno himself when near death and inserted by order of Gregory XV into the third lesson of the second Nocturn should be expunged together from the same Breviary, as also many other things from other lessons of other Saints. These, when afterwards questioned about such cutting-out by Christopher du Puy (Puteanus), Prior of the Charterhouse of Rome, a petition being presented in the name of the reverend Father Prior of the Chartreuse and minister general of the whole Order, gave such a reply, as Théophile Raynaud witnesses: "That it was never the mind of the sacred Congregation to disapprove or to call into doubt the truth of this narration; but that it seemed more advisable to expunge it, because the custom of the Church bears that in the sacred Offices of the Saints who instituted religious families their Lives be recounted, not the causes by which they were impelled to institute their Order." And after a few things he adds that he had received from a most wise man then staying at Rome: "That since the lessons of the Office of Saint Bruno had on other grounds to be shortened, nothing occurred which could be removed with less inconvenience. But that the sacred Congregation had not even thought of overthrowing the truth of its narration, or of depreciating it."

[191] that it was thought false, Something not unlike had a little before been testified by Bartold, writing to the most distinguished man Andrew du Saussay (go to the Epistle which the didactic Epistle of the latter, printed at Cologne in the year 1645, bears at its front) in these words: "I inquired at Rome, through Janus Nicius Erythræus, of the sacred Congregation which watches over and presides over the direction of Rites, what it thought. And behold, the answer is that what we spoke of was by no means removed from the Breviary because it was judged fabulous, but for another cause." And this cause is expressly and clearly disclosed in the book preserved in the Vatican library concerning the things changed in the revision of the Roman Breviary; where among the acts of the congregation held on Thursday, XVI January MDCXXXI, this decree is read: "It was resolved that there be removed from the lessons of St. Bruno that which is put down as having been the cause of his conversion, for the sake of greater brevity, and because it contributes nothing to the sanctity of St. Bruno." These things were taken from the cited book by the learned man Emmanuel Schelstrate, prefect of the same Vatican library, at the instance of the V. P. procurator general of our Order, by whom they have also lately been transmitted to us. Not, therefore, because it was judged fabulous, as those who urged the correction tried to persuade, was this story expunged from the Roman Breviary, but for the sake of greater brevity, and because it contributed nothing to the sanctity of Saint Bruno. Nor was it on that account the mind of the sacred Congregation to prohibit those who wished from inserting it in their Breviaries.

[192] was not done, For which reason afterwards, namely in the years MDCXLVIII and MDCLII, in the Breviaries published at Paris "By the typographical society for the books of the ecclesiastical Office to be printed according to the decree of the Council of Trent," it was restored, no one protesting. These things we have thought must necessarily be said beforehand, that the reader might be forewarned that it ought not to have been asserted by Doctor Launoy that whatever pertained to that prodigy was deleted solely from the Lessons of Saint Bruno, and that no other stronger cause of removing anything from the Breviary is prescribed by ecclesiastical rules than falsity detected; since, as we have already seen, that most celebrated profession of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, made by Saint Bruno at his death, was also removed by those very persons set over the sacred Congregation, which no one will be so senseless as to think was therefore deleted because it is false, as John Columbi of the Society of Jesus prudently warned before us, namely in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, in which besides at num. 94 and following (he treats) some things which the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals brings forward in the words already recited, writing thus at num. 8: The same censors (the Roman ones of the sacred Congregation of rites) removed from the Breviary that most celebrated profession of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, made by Bruno at his death, which no one will be so senseless as to think they deleted because it is false; for those who had stood by him as he was dying at La Torre in Calabria wrote to their companions staying in the Chartreuse and to other monks throughout the whole world that, when about to die, he had spoken in these words: "I believe that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the consecration the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ and the true Blood."

[193] So Columbi, and after him the Carthusian

anonymous, last praised; it appears beyond doubt, although meanwhile, from whom indeed, and from the other things adduced above by the latter writer, it appears beyond doubt that the mournful story of the damned doctor was not expunged from the Roman Breviary in the past century because it was thought false. But even though this be so, yet all the other things which the same anonymous Carthusian relates in the words recited do not agree so certainly with the truth. And first, as regards the writers who first undertook to call into doubt the Parisian prodigy of the doctor come back to life for a time, he more probably wrongly grants the first place among these to René Benoist and only the second to Masson. For although Masson exchanged life for death only in the year 1611, yet he brought out in type in the year 1578 his Annals of the Franks, in which he declared his mind doubtful on that matter; and since René Benoist gave little to the critical art, it appears more probable that the little Note mentioned at num. 186 was added in the margin not in the first of the editions of the Legend praised at num. 186, which came out in the year 1577 under René's own care, but only in the later ones, namely of the year 1585 and of the year 1593, the only one existing in my possession, which others looked after. Then, since that which is put down as having been the cause of his conversion was removed from the Lessons of St. Bruno in the Roman Breviary in the year 1631, as is understood from the words given at num. 191, I do not sufficiently grasp how the journey which Launoy undertook to Rome to take care that that very thing be expunged from the Breviary can be put off, as is done in the words recited at num. 189, to the time when he had already exposed the story of the damned Parisian doctor as an invented thing and an old wives' tale in a publicly proposed thesis, which he himself intimates was done about the year 1635 in the Preface which he prefixed to his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, first given to the press in the year 1646. Moreover, although Gregory XV, when the sacred Congregation of Rites had approved in the year 1622 the Office of St. Bruno containing the resurrection of the Parisian doctor, granted and permitted in the following year, by a Bull given, that a semidouble Office of him might be freely and lawfully recited by all the faithful everywhere, yet Urban VIII seems to have been the first to order that Office to be inserted into the Roman Breviary, as I understand from the Treatise communicated to me by the Carthusian Fathers of this place.

[194] although also championed by some recounted here Other things of lesser moment which could still be observed in the words of the anonymous Carthusian recited above I omit, and I now proceed to the principal writers to be added to those already mentioned, both those who disapproved the resurrection of the Parisian doctor which drove our Saint into the desert of the Chartreuse, and those who on the contrary tried to defend it as true against Launoy. And first, since among these there are some who are not at hand to me, as being hitherto unpublished, and yet are mentioned by the anonymous author of the fourth Book of the Carthusian Annals, for this very reason I transcribe here the words of this writer bearing on this. They run thus: Among those who tried to prove that the story of the Parisian doctor who cried out from the bier that he was damned is not fabulous, Francis Ganneron, a most learned monk of Mont-Dieu, would easily deserve the first place, if his Work, hitherto unpublished, had not lain hidden within private walls. He, when he heard that Launoy had striven by a publicly proposed thesis to prove that all the things hitherto spread abroad about the damned man were fictitious, took up his pen and wrote a sufficiently ample Treatise, which, entitled "Vindication of the origin of the Carthusians," he sent to the Chartreuse in the year MDCXL. Some years after, Andrew du Saussay, first celebrated for the published Martyrology of the Gallican church, defended our cause, and expressly struck down some objections of the adversaries in that most learned Epistle written to Bartold Nihus, which Nihus himself gave to the press at Cologne in the year MDCXLV under the title of Didactic Epistle. "Launoy, feeling himself attacked in it, though his name was suppressed, published in the year MDCXLVI a Dissertation" On the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert. Théophile Raynaud of the Society of Jesus immediately replied to Launoy, under the name of Honoratus Leotardus, in a little book entitled "Hercules Commodianus." Not long after, Archangel Monchozon, a professed monk of the Charterhouse of Toulouse, wrote a great volume, dedicated to R. P. Pegon, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, to which he prefixed this title: "The Carthusian Alitiphilus *, contending for the ancestral tradition concerning the institution of the Carthusian Order."

[195] [was vigorously championed, is not admitted by all as certain, nor does Papebroch himself,] In this volume he gathered together not only the reasons and arguments of the aforesaid authors, but also their entire treatises, copied word for word, many reasons sought out by his own wit being nevertheless added. This Work still lies hidden, known almost to us alone. Finally John Columbi of the Society of Jesus rose up, the newest champion of all, who in a recent Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, published in the year MDCLXVIII, heaped new and strong arguments and most certain authorities upon the former. These things the anonymous Carthusian, who, although he not undeservedly asserts that new and strong arguments were adduced by Columbi for establishing the story of the doctor come back to life, yet these were not such as to have wrung assent from all. And first of all Mabillon in his Works, in more than one place, holds that Story, if not for a fiction or fable, at least for a very uncertain and doubtful narration. Nor do the authors of the Literary History of France, who wrote after Mabillon, favour it more, nor other learned men who in Works brought to light have declared their opinion of that prodigious event either only in passing or in some fashion of set purpose. And although Papebroch wrote in the Conatus Chronico-historicus, part 1, page 32, num. 17, that Columbi has witnesses for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor from the year MCCCLXXXXI, MCCCLXXXIII, MCCCXIII, nay MCCLXXXXVIII and MCL, so that the last is distant only XLIX years from the death of the holy Founder, which took place in the year MCI, and hence Janning, in his Apology for the Acta Sanctorum printed in the year 1685, in the friendly Expostulation, num. 24, had spoken of him as one doubting nothing about the said story itself, yet Papebroch himself afterwards, in his Responses to the Exhibition of errors, published in the year 1697, article 15, §20, writes such things by which, although he also confirms what Janning had said at the place just cited, he seems to indicate that he was not free of every scruple about the truth of that story.

[196] For he writes thus there at num. 291: These two testimonies (alleged by Polycarp de la Rivière from the tables of foundation of the Chartreuse, signed in the year 1084, and from the codex of Grandmont, which was written in the year 1115), some words of whom are recited here, if they stood, I see nothing further that could be required for the highest certainty; but the silence of Columbi, writing thirty years after Launoy and refuting him, and not producing these two, makes suspect to me the good faith of Polycarp, and the credulity of Théophile, if he copied him. Therefore, willy-nilly, I am compelled to look into Launoy, and at page CXXXV I read that in the alleged "charter there is not even one tittle about a doctor or canon of Paris," which the "Prior general, when asked, ingenuously professed." And at page CXXXVII: "In the Chronicle of Grandmont at the year CXV, where the page was vacant, there is written in a different character and a recent hand, in a place not its own, what follows." At Paris a horrible spectacle happened, etc., "as we ourselves saw." So he. Whence cause is had why Columbi despised these testimonies, tacitly acknowledging the bad faith of Polycarp; and why I, knowing nothing of him, nothing of Théophile, was content for the time with those which Columbi uses; until time require to treat that subject of set purpose and to examine Launoy's replies to the remaining testimonies. Meanwhile perhaps others, more sincere than Polycarp, will find many more and more ancient ones, and nearer to the event itself, than Columbi found, although helped by all the diligence of the whole Order; so that Launoy's contradiction (as we wish) may be wholly dissolved, and doubt concerning the truth of that story be abolished from the minds of all.

[197] Thus far Papebroch, who, since he writes that he was content for the time with those by which Columbi strove to prove the story of the damned doctor, he seems free of every scruple about it. until the matter should be examined of set purpose, and hopes that more and more ancient testimonies than were found by Columbi will be alleged, by which Launoy's contradiction may be wholly dissolved and doubt concerning the truth of that story be abolished from the minds of all, seems sufficiently to indicate that he was not free of every scruple concerning it. Nor do I know whether he would have gone so readily as he nevertheless does into the opinion of those who reckon among true histories the horrible spectacle of the doctor come back to life proclaiming himself damned, if he had foreseen that the testimonies more ancient than those adduced by Columbi, which, when he wrote these things, he thought might perhaps be found to win it the highest credit, would not be found up to our time, and, on the contrary, had known that it would be detected, as has now been done, that the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the Treatise on the narration of the history of the beginning and advancement of the Carthusian Order, which Columbi, and after him Papebroch, thought written about the year 1150, or only about fifty years after the death of St. Bruno, was certainly not written before the thirteenth century had already begun some years, as the things which I brought forward at num. 12 and following sufficiently show. But whatever the judgment which Papebroch passed on the mournful narration of the damned doctor, it ought not to hinder us from inquiring freely into its truth. From the writers, therefore, who in the two centuries just past tried either to disapprove it in some fashion or on the contrary to defend it, I proceed to the testimonies of the more ancient writers in its favour, and I shall adduce not only more ancient ones, such as Columbi's, but also the less ancient ones given by writers of the fourteenth and the following century, and this both because they will be of use from time to time below, and chiefly because I find it so done by the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, from whom the reason given at the end of num. 185 chiefly persuades me not to depart here.

* Alethophilus

§ XI. The testimonies of Carthusian writers older than the sixteenth century concerning the resurrection of the Parisian doctor who publicly disclosed his damnation from the bier are reported, and what is to be thought of the circumstances afterwards added to it.

The prodigy by which the doctor cried out that he was damned, Not all the writers of the Carthusian Order who committed to writing the horrible spectacle of the Parisian Doctor crying out from the bier that he was damned set it before our eyes clothed in the same circumstances, and hence there is not sufficient agreement, even among those by whom it is believed today, about the manner in which it happened. For some of them (say) that it happened publicly in a church, or at least before a huge multitude of men standing round, others on the contrary privately in the hall of the house of the deceased, before these alone, among whom Bruno and his

several companions were, friends being present, will have it that it happened. Others again affirm that the three different outcries of the unhappy doctor recurred on one and the same day, and likewise at one and the same time of the recitation of the Office; others on the contrary assign a single day to each outcry. And indeed if the said spectacle took place not publicly before a huge multitude of the people but within the private walls of the house of the deceased, and the words of the ill-fated doctor recurred not on three different days but on one and the same, there will certainly be no reason why the constant silence of all the contemporary writers concerning so memorable a story should be greatly wondered at, and thus the gravest difficulty, on account of which it appears most difficult to believe, will vanish. But since far more writers write that that horrible spectacle of the damned doctor took place publicly in a church, or at least before a huge multitude of men, I shall first inquire what credit they deserve in this matter, or whether their narration can seem sufficiently credible and likely, and afterwards discuss the opinion of those who determine that the thing happened within the private walls of the house of the deceased. I take my beginning from recounting the testimonies of the older Carthusian writers who handed down to memory that the horrible event happened before a huge multitude of men, keeping the chronological order in which they were given, being about to report below those of others who are not of the Carthusian Order.

[199] Although the author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or of the Treatise on the narration of the history of the beginning and advancement of the Carthusian Order, is not so ancient happened publicly, the anonymous as Columbi (go to num. 12 and the three following) thought in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, he is nevertheless held by common opinion to be more ancient than all the others who have committed to writing the story of the doctor come back to life for a time, although on account of what was said at the place last cited, and what is to be said below of the Carthusian of Meyriat, this is not altogether certain. Before all the rest, therefore, I transcribe here entire the testimony supplied by him bearing on this, since it ought to be had before our eyes here from time to time, from the older Life of the Saint, to be subjoined to this Commentary, as I have already said, before two other less ancient ones. It runs thus: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MLXXXII, or about it, while a solemn study was flourishing at Paris, chiefly in Philosophy and Theology and Canon Law, as it has generally been wont, such a prodigy is said to have happened there. For a certain eminent doctor, excellently honoured and wonderfully in favour among all the doctors of Paris for life, as it seemed, reputation and learning and knowledge, overtaken by a grave and final sickness, after lying ill not long, closed his last day. And when during the whole day on which he died, according to the custom of Paris, the divine Offices had been continually sung in the hall, the corpse lying on the bier, on the morrow in the morning, the university of Paris, both of scholars and of doctors, having assembled there to give so honourable a man the solemn and honourable burial of the funeral Office, when they wished to raise the bier of the reverend man, on which the corpse lay, to carry it to the church, suddenly, all being astounded, he who seemed to be and was dead, raising his head, sat up on the bier, and, all hearing, cried with a loud and terrible voice: By the just judgment of God I am accused; and, having said this, laid down his head and lay dead as before.

[200] At which voice all, astonished and terrified, deliberated that he should by no means be buried on that day, the author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, but should be kept until the morrow. On the following morning, therefore, when a very great multitude had come together, and they wished to carry the said corpse, as before, to the church, the dead man, as before, raising his head, thundered with a sorrowful and terrible voice: "By the just judgment of God I am judged." Which voice the multitude that was present, understanding and hearing it clearly, was astounded more than before, and inquiring of one another what such unwonted and unheard-of cries of a dead man might mean to intimate, they determined further that he should by no means be buried until another morrow. But on the third day, when on account of these prodigies almost the whole city had come together, and, all things being prepared, they wished to carry the corpse to the tomb, the dead man, as before, now for the third time sounded forth with a very loud and most sorrowful cry: "By the just judgment of God I am condemned." Which horrible sentence being heard, almost all were struck with immense fear and trembling, being made certain of the condemnation of so great a man, who seemed among others and above others to shine forth with uprightness of life, brightness of fame, excellence of dignity, and manifold knowledge and wisdom. At that time there was there Master Bruno, by nation a German, born of parents not obscure of the city of Cologne, canon of the church of Reims and there master of the schools in Theology, who, wholesomely terrified and pricked by the words written above, addressed certain companions present there in the words written below or similar ones: Come, dearest ones, what shall we do? All together, etc. The anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals brought into his work the same testimony already transcribed here, as it exists in the codex of de Thou, which uses some words different from the words in which it is expressed here, not however changing the substance of the matter; and when he has then observed that the said anonymous author from whom he transcribes it was of great authority with all the subsequent writers of the Carthusian Order, as I also said at the beginning of this Commentary, he recounts some of these too.

[201] as also those who afterwards followed him, whether Boso, And first he grants the place among them to Boso, Prior of the Chartreuse, in these words: Among those, namely, who made much of the authority of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or, if you prefer, of the anonymous Carthusian who composed it, let Boso, Prior of the Chartreuse, come forward first, a man of no common Sanctity, which God also manifested by miracles. He, as we have already said, in the Treatise "On the Origin and truth of the perfect Religion," hitherto wrongly attributed to William of Ivrea, as we shall prove in its place, reported the entire Chronicle of our anonymous writer with the narration of the same prodigy (namely the resurrection of the Parisian doctor) in the same words, only a few, but not essential, things being omitted or changed. And to show how great credit its author deserved to obtain with all, he first exhorts his reader "not to neglect to write, or read, or hear for edification the following Treatise on the narration of the history of the beginning and advancement of the Carthusian Order." So he, most openly attributing to Boso the Treatise On the Origin and truth of the perfect religion, which, as I showed above, our Columbi ascribes to William of Elbura or of Ivrea. Hence, since I hoped that something perhaps might be gathered from the arguments by which that Treatise was proved attributable to Boso for determining more closely the time at which the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was written, I inquired about these in a letter given to the Carthusian of Paris praised above at num. 28, and to him, when he had had recourse by letter to the Chartreuse on that matter, it was answered that those arguments were indeed unknown, but that it mattered nothing, since the said Treatise, however it were attributed to William of Ivrea, could also in a certain manner be ascribed to Boso, as under whose auspices the former at any rate worked it out.

[202] or William of Ivrea, the Carthusian of Meyriat, Not much different from this answer is the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, writing thus at num. 22 of this Work of his: Nor would Boso have turned aside from the path of the Fathers (who had not published what pertained to their Carthusian Order), had he not been compelled, in order to vindicate his Institute from the calumnies of certain religious of another Order, to violate the laws of this humble and holy silence so long kept, by publishing a most extensive treatise, whether by his own effort, as some will have it, or by his order, using namely the pen of William of Ivrea, an Italian Carthusian, a learned man, whom he had called to the Grande Chartreuse about three years before his death. This Treatise he entitled "On the origin and truth of the perfect religion, for defending the Carthusian Order." So he; but whoever at length was the author of that Treatise, he at any rate made much of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, and consequently approved with his vote the prodigy of the Parisian doctor transcribed from it, inasmuch as he even exhorted the reader to read or write it. I now turn my discourse to others who did the same. Columbi, in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 56, writes thus: The Carthusian of Meyriat wrote a very short Treatise with this title: "How the Carthusian Order took its beginning." In it the following are contained word for word. "It came to this, that the body of the deceased had to be put in the sepulchre. The clerics therefore standing round, he who had died cried out, saying:" "By the just judgment of God I am accused, etc. On the following day, therefore, etc., the dead man cried out again and said, By the just judgment of God I am judged, etc.; again he cried out, By the just judgment of God I am condemned, etc. Now there was at that time a certain master in Theology, by name Bruno, of great sanctity, etc."… The Treatise itself is said by its author to have been written "In the year one thousand two hundred and ninety-eight."

[203] Wherefore, since how long a space of time before the year 1313 the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was composed cannot, as I have shown above, be sufficiently certainly defined, its author perhaps the anonymous chronologer of the Grande Chartreuse, did not put his hand to writing before the Carthusian of Meyriat already praised, or before the year 1298, in which the latter himself declares that he wrote. However that may be, I place his testimony after the two others which I have already adduced from the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and from Boso, or, if you prefer, William of Ivrea, for this reason, that he is by common opinion more recent than the former of these, and I find it so done by the author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals. He further, where he has briefly mentioned the testimony of the Carthusian of Meyriat from Columbi, subjoins thus: Another anonymous Carthusian also, who lived under Elzear, Prior of the Chartreuse, about the year 1360, and wrote his Chronicle, or rather continued and enlarged the aforesaid Treatise or Chronicle (namely of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse) on the beginning of the Carthusian Order, narrated the same story in the same words, some parentheses however being interposed, and these words being changed, namely HALL and CHURCH. For where the old author has in the HALL, that recent one has put IN THE CHURCH; and where mention is made of the CHURCH in the earlier, in the later SEPULCHRE is read. Whence it is plain that most writers very often accommodate the circumstances of stories to the usage of the time in which they write. And that this author saw that cited chronicle of the beginning of the Carthusian Order we gather from these words towards the beginning of the Preface: "And although the first five Priors described here below are found in several Chronicles, yet their successors, etc." When he says, "in several Chronicles," he seems also to intimate that he had the Treatise of Boso, into which the aforesaid Chronicle is inserted, as we have said. From this writer he does not seem different who, as Columbi teaches in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 54, wrote about the year 1390, the (chronologer) of the Chartreuse

Priors, or, if the matter be otherwise, he ought here to be held as next joined to that one among the Christian writers who have handed down to memory the Parisian prodigy of the doctor come back to life.

[204] Henry Kalkar, I now pursue the series of these from our anonymous Carthusian. Henry Kalkar, formerly a doctor of Paris, Prior of the Charterhouses of Cologne and of Strasbourg, and for many years visitor and commissary of various provinces, when, having resigned all offices, he had withdrawn into solitude, among the many books which he published wrote one "On the rise and progress of the Carthusian Order," of which many copies are preserved in the libraries of the Charterhouses of Cologne and of Dijon, and of the city of Basel, and elsewhere. In this treatise he comprised the wretched end of this damned man in more concise words, as follows: "But behold, in those dark shakings of the church, arising chiefly from perfidy, … by the mercy of God a new light through faith arose for the Parisians, with whom at that time there was a concourse of students of all nations that are under Christendom; namely concerning that man four days dead, who, the funeral rites having been performed for him on one day, on the second day, when about to be buried, cried out that he was summoned to the just judgment of God, on the third that he was judged, on the fourth that he was damned, as this is commonly found written among the Carthusians. For this terrible and prodigious deed most faithfully taught those who then heard and saw it, the sound of whom went out after this concerning it into all the earth, that the resurrection of the dead and the future judgment are to be expected; by its horror striking fear and terror, that every man should do penance and amend his state and life." And after a few things: "For a venerable man, Bruno by name, then present, perceiving that those Parisian cries had not been given for salvation to that damned man, but to himself and others hearing with him for a change of state and life, etc." So Kalkar, who, since he died at over eighty, had already learned this story, or could have learned it, before the year MCCCXL, and not as recently invented by idle men, since he says that he narrated it as this is commonly found written among the Carthusians; that is, among the Carthusians, or in the houses of the Carthusians through France, Germany, Spain, England and other regions. And not only among the Carthusians, but also among any strangers whatever, since we shall show below that this story had already been written by some English authors before the year MCCCLXX.

[205] Hermann a Petra, Hermann Steenken, or a Petra, by fatherland of Schuttdorf, a contemporary of Henry Kalkar, professed of the Charterhouse of Diest about the year MCCCXC, and afterwards of the house of Trier, as those times allowed, for many years Vicar of the nuns of Bruges, among whom he died not without the reputation of sanctity in the year MCDXXVIII, in a treatise on the Lord's Prayer, which John of Westphalia, printer, struck off the press in the year MCDLXXXIV, gives testimony of so great a spectacle in these words: "Similarly it was with that wretched master regent in Theology at Paris, of whom it is read in the Chronicles of the Chartreuse: Who, since he was of great knowledge, and was thought to be of good and holy life, died about the year MLXXXII; to whose funeral rites, when almost the whole university of masters and scholars had assembled, and he was to be buried, he said with a clear voice, all hearing:" By the just judgment of God I am accused. On the following day, many more having assembled, he said: "By the just judgment of God I am judged." Wherefore, being kept until another day, when the whole city had assembled, he said before all: "By the just judgment of God I am condemned. Behold, how he who shone falsely and only in appearance was expelled from his light into true darkness." The same treatise was published at Rouen in the year MDXII by Richard Goupil; but the author is wrongly called Arnold, whom it is established from the capitular charters of the Order was called Hermann.

[206] Aymar Savelli, professed of the Grande Chartreuse, whose procurator he was for twenty years and more, Aymar Savelli, namely from the year MCDXXXVIII up to his death, which he met in the year MCDLIX, wrote, or caused to be written, during this whole time many books which they call of Recognitions. Among which one still exists written in the year MCDLV, in which this story of ours is expressed in entirely the same words as it is had in our old anonymous author, with such an inscription at the front: "How the Carthusian Order had its origin." And immediately after the story has been narrated there follow the letters of foundation of the Chartreuse of the year MLXXXIV. Whence we think arose the error of D. Polycarp de la Rivière, who recounts those same letters among the authors who mentioned this prodigy, against whom therefore Launoy was seen to inveigh somewhat sharply, as against a man of bad faith in writing.

[207] Dionysius Rickel, commonly called the ECSTATIC DOCTOR, who flourished among us from about the year MCDXXIII to the year MCDLXXI, Dionysius Rickel, in which he departed from the living, in the treatise "On the Heralding, or praise, of the Carthusian Order," often published among his Opuscula, in the first article, on the cause of our institution, has this: "Plainly acknowledged and famous is that miracle of the dead man raised to life at Paris, a master in Theology, virtuous to the face, and outwardly adorned with a great charm of manners, who on the second day of his death, and the first of his resurrection, raising himself on the bier, uttered with terrible apparatus: By the just judgment of God I am accused. Further on the following day he said more terribly: By the just judgment of God I am judged. And on the third day he brought forth with a most terrible voice: By the just judgment of God I am eternally damned. On the occasion of which prodigy the Carthusian Order began. For a man of lofty consideration, Master Bruno, etc." When Dionysius says: plainly acknowledged, and adds and famous, he indicates clearer than the sun that there was no doubt at all at the time when he lived, namely in the year MCDXXIII, about the said spectacle, but rather that it was most certain and most true, since it had been divulged everywhere; for these words Plainly acknowledged and famous signify this. Which also agree with what Henry Kalkar, who we said above flourished already in the year MCCCXL, had said, namely that this is commonly found written among the Carthusians.

[208] Bernard of Eger, professed of the destroyed house of Liegnitz in Silesia, Bernard of Eger a man studious and learned in the divine Scriptures, says Trithemius, composed in the year MCDLXXXI a Dialogue "On the praises and miracles of the blessed Virgin Mary," printed at Leipzig in the year MCDLXXXXIII immediately after the death of the author; in which he narrates the origin of the Carthusian Order almost as it is read in the Chronicle of the Chartreuse which we said was composed by the other anonymous writer flourishing under Elzear. Henry Arnoldi of Alfeld, who, having discharged for five years the office of notary in the council of Basel, gave his name to the Order in the Charterhouse of the same city about the year MCDXXXVI, and lived with all praise up to the year MCDLXXXVII, after he had held the government of the same house for thirty years and more with the greatest profit of both states. He, among the other monuments of his piety and learning, of which Petreius (treats), left also a Life of Saint Bruno, which indeed we have not seen, but that it is preserved in the library of the city of Basel, and that mention is made in it of the damned man, the reverend father Mabillon testifies in his German Journey in these words.

[209] and Peter Dorlandus hand down to memory; "In Lesser Basel, which is joined to the greater by a pile bridge over the Rhine, there existed before the Swiss disturbances a notable Charterhouse, from which many codices have been transferred into that public library which we described above. It is well to note only two, one which contains the statutes of Guigo, the other a Life of Saint Bruno beginning with these words: What the Wise man says by way of exhortation. At the end these words are read: Brother Louis Moser, professed monk of this valley of Bl. Margaret at Basel, of the Carthusian Order, transcribed this from the printed copy of father Henry of Alfeld, formerly Prior of the same house, in the year MCDLXXXVI, on the XVIII day of April, in the L year of the aforesaid father Henry in the Order of the Carthusians. These things it has seemed good to note for this reason, that in that little book there is treatment of the famous funeral of that doctor of Paris." So Mabillon. Peter Dorlandus, nearly contemporary with Henry Arnoldi, a monk of most upright life, professed and once vicar of the Charterhouse of Diest, in which also he died most piously in the year MDVII, among the many compositions which he left to posterity wrote a Carthusian Chronicle divided into seven books, which our Petreius published illustrated with notes in the year MDCVIII. In it he reported the substance of this story, with the style indeed changed, but with no circumstance added which differs from those which are found in the Chronicle of the anonymous writer writing about the year MCCCLX, of whom above. Nor does he make mention of the fourth lesson of the Vigils for the dead, as Launoy believed incautiously or through a lapse of memory.

[210] whose narration with new circumstances, under that recited here And these are the writers of the Carthusian Order older than the sixteenth century by whom I find the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor handed down to memory; and Dorlandus, although he died when the sixteenth century was already running, is rightly numbered with them for this reason, that he flourished chiefly in the preceding century, and very probably committed to writing then what he has about Bruno. Further, there were also those who enlarged the story of the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor with circumstances which are not in the older writers already recounted, and these were afterwards followed by two writers of the sacred Carthusian Order, namely Puteanus and Blomevenna, who at the beginning of the sixteenth century described of set purpose the Life of their holy Patriarch. Whether rightly will become plain from what is to be said. I now transcribe here the words of Blomevenna, so that from them, a collation being made with those of the older anonymous writer already given at num. 199 and following, it may be plain what those circumstances are. They run thus: It happened, while the venerable man Bruno was toiling at these most excellent studies in the times of St. Gregory VII, Roman Pontiff, and of the emperor Henry IV, about the eighty-second year above the thousandth of our Salvation, when in the city of Paris a solemn study was flourishing, abounding equally with a multitude of scholars and a copious company of solemn doctors, that such a spectacle, horrible and memorable to all ages, took place in it. For a certain solemn doctor, eminent among the other doctors, excellently adorned with knowledge and manners, and honoured before the rest, overtaken by a grave infirmity, lying in bed, closed the last day of his life. And when solemn funeral rites were being prepared for him according to custom, there came together to honour him a copious multitude of masters, students and other citizens; with whom accompanying and following the funeral, the body of the deceased was carried to the church in which it was to be given to burial, and when by the invited churchmen who were then present the customary Office of the dead was being sung, and they had come to that Lesson which begins, Answer me, he who was dead rose up, and, raising his head a little, sat up on the bier, and, all seeing and hearing and being astounded at the novelty of the thing, began to cry out with a loud and horrible voice, By the just judgment of God I am accused.

[211] Which said, he lay down again; but those who had heard and seen these things, of the Life of the Saint, written by Blomevenna, no small

terrified, and not undeservedly, decreed, advisedly indeed and providently, that his burial should be put off to the morrow, to await the outcome of the matter. On the following day, therefore, when so great a spectacle had already been spread abroad in the whole city, there came together to the said church a very great and almost innumerable multitude of the people of both sexes, where, the funeral rites having been begun again and continued from that point, when they had come to the beginning of the aforesaid Lesson, the same dead man, raising his head as before, began to cry out and say, By the just judgment of God I am judged, and, having said this, withdrew again within the bier. But no small wonder grew among those standing by, astounded at a thing terrible beyond what can be believed. Yet because from these they had not yet been made certain of his reprobation, since those words, I am accused, and I am judged, could also be taken in a good sense, as though he had first been unjustly, undeservedly accused before the tribunal of Christ by him who hastens to destroy all things, and thence by the just judgment of God freed from his calumnious accusation, it pleased all that his burial should be put off also to the following third day. On the third day, therefore, there was an excessive concourse of men and women, so that almost the whole city flocked together to await so wonderful a judgment of God. And behold, when the funeral rites were being continued and performed in the former manner, the same dead man rose up a third time, and with a huge bellowing and a despairing voice, to be feared by all mortals, said, By the just judgment of God I am condemned. This said, he laid down his head again, swallowed up in everlasting destruction. Which voice, so stupendous and horrible and unheard of from the beginning of the world, rendered all who stood by almost lifeless; who nevertheless all, judging him, as reprobated by the Lord and condemned by His just judgment, as he himself testified, unworthy of every suffrage of the Church and also of ecclesiastical burial, caused him to be buried in a dunghill.

[212] But since in the church of Paris and the other neighbouring churches the fourth Lesson in the Office of the dead begins thus: comprehended in the text, was afterwards enlarged; How many iniquities and sins have I, etc., the former words, namely Answer me, being omitted, it is reported by some that those words were from that time deleted from that Lesson for a perpetual and indelible memory of the judgment to be feared. Puteanus too presents this narration in the Life of the Saint to be published, num. 4 and the two following, and indeed in entirely the same words; which is no wonder, as it is easy to understand from what I discussed in § I concerning the Life of the Saint composed by Blomevenna. Compare now these recited words of Blomevenna, and consequently, from what has been said, of Puteanus also, with the words transcribed here at num. 199 and following from the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, and you will see that in the latter the story of the Parisian doctor is not clothed with the same circumstances as in Puteanus and Blomevenna. And first of all the author of the said Chronicle writes that the threefold resurrection and outcry of the doctor took place in the hall of the deceased, Puteanus and Blomevenna on the contrary in the church; but this discrepancy of these two writers from the Chronicle, as one which occurs also in older writers (go to the words of the anonymous Carthusian transcribed here at num. 203) and is still to be mentioned below, ought not to detain us here. But turn your mind to two other following ones. Puteanus and Blomevenna (go to the latter's words last recited) relate that the threefold outcry from the bier was uttered by the doctor, come back to life for a while, at the time when in reciting the Office of the dead they had come to the Lesson whose beginning is Answer me, and also that his body was buried in a dunghill; but of these two circumstances which are said to have accompanied the horrible story of the Parisian doctor the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse (go to its words given at num. 199 and following) makes no mention at all.

[213] which, since they are to be cut off from it, Wherefore, since other ancient writers likewise did not mention the same, whether the Carthusians already adduced, or those professing any other institute of Life whatever, who will be mentioned below, I think that they must be expunged from the story of the Parisian doctor, even if it be admitted as true. But whence at length did Blomevenna, or rather Puteanus, from whom he drew them, draw those two circumstances, which, from what has been said, are nowhere found among the ancients? The anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals writes thus opportunely for the present purpose at num. 85 of his Work: Berthold Rembolt gave to the press at Paris in the year MDVIII a Life of St. Bruno, which he prefixed to his Commentaries on the Epistles of divine Paul. The anonymous author of this Life described the story of the damned man at length: but he first of all published that that man uttered the words of his damnation at those words: "Answer me." Which, however, he does not plainly assert, but only doubtfully, this Parenthesis being added, "if any credit is to be given to the things narrated." But our Sutor, who lived at the same time, and a little after published his treatise on the Carthusian life, mentions the same words indeed, "but," he says, "as some writers have mentioned, the rest being silent on this." Certainly all the authors whom we have produced above were silent on it. But who they were in whom Sutor read mention of this circumstance, he does not have. Among them, however, we judge was the aforesaid anonymous author of the Life of Saint Bruno. The one, therefore, of the two circumstances mentioned above is found first mentioned by two writers of the sixteenth century, of whom the one, since he speaks not asserting but only doubting, sufficiently indicates that the authors in whom he had read this circumstance were of great neither antiquity nor authority; and the other, since he does not name the authors in whom he had found it, cannot bring it about that we should think these were not much more recent than those recounted above who did not mention the same circumstance.

[214] Now indeed, since this is so, it remains that the aforesaid circumstance is not found in the older writers [cannot bring it about that the story of the doctor come back to life is to be held false.] who, either first of all or even next after these, committed to writing the deathly spectacle of the Parisian Doctor. Nor is there reason why you should object here Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, who, as some say, records thus in the book entitled On the sacred reckoning of times: Seven years before our days, Gregory the seventh occupying the first See, when I was at Paris for the sake of studies, I saw a prodigious thing and worthy of all memory, nor did I alone marvel, praising God. There died a cleric, by name Raymond Milleban, who on three alternate days, at the same hour of the Office at which the Lesson was said which begins thus, "Answer me," rose from the bier and cried out with a horrible voice: By the just judgment of God I am accused; the second time: Judged; the third: Condemned; which said, all the clergy ceased to pray, and the corpse was forthwith thrown out of the church and given an ass's burial; for this testimony, so clear for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, which, if it were truly that of Theodoric, an eyewitness of the event, as the recited words intimate, would place it beyond all controversy, is very probably, not to say without doubt, fabricated, as I shall show below. As regards now the burial of the ill-fated doctor in a dunghill asserted by Puteanus and Blomevenna, I do not doubt indeed that they drew it from authors who preceded their age; but no reason at all persuades that these were either among the first, or even among those next following the first, who committed to writing the Parisian spectacle of the doctor come back to life. And so it is plain from all that has been said that from the two circumstances of the prodigious resurrection of the doctor already mentioned here, however they be held as false, it could not deservedly be exploded by Launoy as a fiction or fable, since, in order that any story be pronounced true or false, account is to be had only of the circumstances with which it was clothed by the primitive and oldest of all, and not also of those with which it was clothed at will by the writers who followed afterwards.

§ XII. The testimonies of writers earlier than the sixteenth century who were not of the Carthusian Order are produced.

That the prodigy of the doctor come back to life happened publicly, Among the authors who were not of the Carthusian Order, and who before the sixteenth century gave testimony to the Parisian prodigy of the doctor come back to life, the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals grants the first place to Caesarius of Heisterbach, who flourished as the twelfth century was growing old and at the beginning of the following. But since it is fixed to produce here only those testimonies which militate beyond all controversy for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, and for our Saint's withdrawal into the desert which followed hence, as his biographers and other older writers, either already praised above or presently to be praised below, hand down to memory, and there are found those who will have it that Caesarius is not speaking of the Parisian prodigy of the doctor come back to life, I shall not now review here the testimony of this writer, concerning which, however, what is to be thought I shall discuss in a separate § below, as neither the one mentioned above, which, although attributed by some to Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, is nevertheless very probably supposititious, as I have already intimated, and fabricated, as what is to be said below will disclose. I pass over here also the testimony produced by the anonymous author of book 4 of the Carthusian Annals, supplied by the author of the book to be mentioned below which is entitled On the four rivers of Paradise. For according to this the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor happened not in a church or publicly before an innumerable multitude of the people, but privately in the house of the deceased before a few, his friends alone; whereas the present purpose requires that only those testimonies be recounted here which declare that horrible prodigy to have been done publicly. Behold now the things bearing on this, copied from the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, hitherto unpublished and already very often praised, together with the observations which the anonymous author of that book mixed with them.

[216] the manuscript codex of Mont-Dieu also declares, There exists even now, he says, at Mont-Dieu a thick volume, written on excellent parchment, containing Lives of the Saints, which John, a monk of the abbey of Saint Arnulf of Metz, who about the year MCCCXXIV put on the Carthusian habit, brought with him to Mont-Dieu. The codex is inscribed thus: "Golden Life upon the Legends of very many Saints, with certain very useful additions." And at the end, in red letters, these things are read concerning the time the codex was written: "Brother John, monk of Saint Arnulf of Metz, son of Bertrand called Trancon, surnamed of the Holy Cross, caused this book to be made and written, and it was finished in the year of the Lord MCCCXXII on the Vigil of Saint Vincent, deacon and martyr. The book being finished, let there be praise and glory to Christ. Amen." In this volume, therefore, the story of the damned man is described thus with the following title, "Here begins how the Carthusian Order was instituted. As our fathers have told us, there was a certain great cleric, actually regent in Theology at Paris, of great name and no mean fame, who was brought to the end of his life; at whose loss, as of so great a man, so great a master, when all the other clerics present, being not a little saddened, to

his funeral rites, as is the custom at Paris, had come together; and all things pertaining to the funeral rites having been honourably and duly prepared, it came to this, that the body of the deceased had to be put in the sepulchre, and, the clerics standing round, he who had died cried out, saying: By the just judgment of God I am accused.

[217] whose words Hearing which, the said masters and clerics, and not undeservedly astounded, having taken counsel, carried the body back to the church, reserving it for the morrow. And on the following day, the funeral rites having been celebrated again, when they wished to put the body in the tomb, the dead man cried out again and said: By the just judgment of God I am accused. Then the said clerics, wondering more and more, and inquiring among themselves what they ought to do, some said that judgment could sound in a good sense and in a bad. Whence it was the common counsel that he who had died should be kept unburied also until the following day; which was also done. And the report of the aforesaid things being spread abroad, on the following day almost the whole city came together. And when they were putting the deceased into the prepared burial-place, he cried out again: By the just judgment of God I am condemned. And the said masters, having heard this word and a diligent discussion being held, said that he was damned. Now there was at that time a certain canon of Reims, a master in Theology, by name Bruno, of great sanctity and profound understanding, who, attentively considering the thing heard, called certain of his scholars secretly and said to them: Behold, you see, … what we ought to do. If a man of so great knowledge, so great a life, so great fame, says that he is accused, judged, condemned, what ought we wretched sinners to hope? And when they said to him, Master, we are ready in all things to acquiesce in your counsel, he said: I counsel that we flee the world and the things that are of the world, and dwell in solitude according to that saying: Lo, I have gone far off flying away, and I abode in the wilderness. And let us begin for ourselves an Order of penance and security."

[218] And he added: "There is for us a certain holy bishop in the parts of Burgundy, in the city of Grenoble, are recited here, in whose bishopric there are deserted and almost inaccessible places. Let us go to him, and do all things by his counsel. Seven came, therefore, unanimous and of one will. And when they were entering the aforesaid city, it happened that the holy man, the said bishop, was asleep in his chamber. And he saw in his sleep, and behold, seven stars were falling before his feet, and afterwards ascending through various mountains and many deserts up to a certain very horrid place, far from men: and there they stood. And the said bishop awaking, and thinking of the vision of the seven stars, Master Bruno is present with his companions. And the said seven falling before the feet of the holy man, he pondered in his heart concerning the seven stars, for they themselves were seven. And he raised them kindly to the kiss. And, having inquired and diligently understood for what cause they had come, he said to them: I know your place, prepared for you by God, and he led them, not without great labour, to the place where the seven stars had stood, and said, Behold your place. There, therefore, the holy man himself helping, they began to build the first house of the Carthusian Order, which is called the House of the Chartreuse."

[219] These things there, which do not differ from the rest, but it is to be noted the manuscript codex likewise of Longpré, that Saint Bruno is said to have addressed his companions secretly. It is likely also that the author of this codex saw the Chronicle published by our anonymous writer (go to the words transcribed from it at num. 199 and following, and to num. 12 and the two following) about the year MCCXX. Fifty years ago there was preserved in the Charterhouse of Montreuil a manuscript codex of the church of Longpré of the diocese of Amiens, in which a certain monk of Mont-Dieu then read the aforesaid story. In this codex too were contained very many French metres together with the Epistle or Treatise on the solitary Life to the Brethren of Mont-Dieu under the name of William. And this codex was given to the Charterhouse of Montreuil about the year MCCCXXX, as is read in it, "By my lord Robert Bataille, Canon of Longpré in Santerre, to the Carthusians of Montreuil." From these things it is plain that this story was most notorious at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and consequently that its origin was most ancient; for it is not likely that it was devised at the same time in so many places with unanimous consent. These things being observed, the anonymous Carthusian inserts among the testimonies already adduced and still to be adduced below ancient paintings and panels, which, since they present the deathly spectacle of the doctor crying out that he was damned, and can therefore be in a manner in the place of testimonies, I also add the words in which he does this to those last recited.

[220] as also those which painted panels also support. They run thus: Innocent, the VI of this name, supreme Pontiff, in the refectory of the Charterhouse of Villeneuve, which he founded in the year MCCCLVI, ordered the rise and progress of the Carthusian Order to be painted, beginning from the conversion of Saint Bruno and his companions, and there even now among other panels one is seen expressing that dreadful spectacle of the damned man. Although Launoy despised and mocked paintings and colours in this story, we cannot but add to the aforesaid panels the prayer book which John, duke of Berry, son of John, king of France, born in the year MCCCXL and died in the year MCDXVI, used. This book, now placed in the Chartreuse, we have in our hands, written in polished and elegant letters, gilded characters being interspersed, and adorned here and there with many images painted in exquisite work laid on in oil, among which eight are seen expressing the whole story of the conversion of Saint Bruno, of which three most elegantly represent the threefold resurrection of the damned man, with the subscription of the threefold voice, namely of accusation, judgment and damnation. A certain man who did not see the book, in order to render the testimony of its painting more ancient and more luminous, wrote that the aforesaid duke was not the author of painting these images, which he therefore believed painted long before. But we ingenuously confess that they were not older than the age of the same prince, as appears from the first leaf of this book, where we read written thus: "Ces heures fit faire tres-excellent & puissant prince Jehan, fils de roy de France, duc de Berry & d'Auvergne, conte de Poitou, d'Estampes, de Bouloingne & d'Auvergne," that is, "These prayer hours were compiled by order of the most excellent and most mighty prince John, son of the king of France, duke of Berry and of Auvergne, and count of Poitou, of Étampes, of Boulogne and of Auvergne." Then the name of the writer or painter is subscribed thus, "Flamel." Whose Work all who see it admire, so that it deserves to have a place among the excellent painters of that time.

[221] Ranulph Higden, an English monk, The anonymous Carthusian now returns to the testimonies of writers who are not of his Order, and so proceeds to recount these: Ranulph Lygden (Higden), a monk originating in the Western part of the English, who lived in the year MCCCLXIII, among the many things which he wrote published a Polychronicon, comprising seven books, in the last of which, chapter IV, he speaks thus of Saint Bruno and the cause of his conversion: "Bruno, originating from Cologne, betook himself for the sake of letters to Paris, then most celebrated for the name of its studies. There, having been made a canon, he held a place among the professors. But moved by the voice of his teacher, for whom, already dead, funeral rites were being prepared, by which, putting his head out of the bier, he complained that he was damned, he went out, six others accompanying him, into a certain desert, and led a hard life. From the place which they inhabited the name was given to the Order of the Carthusians. After the sixth year, recalled by Urban his disciple, who was already presiding over the Roman Church, he gave him his help for some time in the affairs of the Church. But weary of the labours of the sacred curia, he returned to his former place, rejecting at the same time the archbishopric of Risa *, which he was bidden to accept." This author errs here when he says that Saint Bruno was made a canon at Paris, and that after giving his help to Pope Urban he returned to his former place, by which he seems to understand the Chartreuse. But such slips are light, nor can they detract from his credit regarding what he narrates of the story of the damned man. And these things agree sufficiently with the narration of the codex of Metz, in which (to be mentioned several times below) that unhappy man is called the master or teacher of those three who had spent the night in prayers about his corpse. Launoy did not carp at the words of this author, because he did not know him. And these things we had twenty years ago from the Charterhouse of Villefranche of our province of Aquitaine. But whether they were excerpted from a manuscript codex or from the printed Treatise of the author, we confess we do not know.

[222] About that time (namely in the fourteenth century) there lived John John of Ypres of Ypres (Iperius), a Benedictine of the abbey of St. Bertin of the diocese of Saint-Omer, who, treating in the Chronicle of the same monastery of the foundation of the Carthusian Order, mentions our story. The very words of this Chronicle (it now exists inserted in Martène, volume 3 of the Anecdota), not yet (namely when these things were being written) printed in type, as they were obligingly transmitted to us by the R. Father Mabillon, we subjoin here. "In the study of Paris a certain very solemn doctor in Theology died, to whose funeral rites a multitude of masters and scholars came together. And when the body of the deceased was to be put in the sepulchre, he cried out, saying: By the just judgment of God I am accused. The masters, astounded, carried it back to the church. On the morrow, the Mass with the funeral rites having been celebrated again, when he was to be entombed, he cried out again: By the just judgment of God I am judged. And on the next morrow, Masses and funeral rites having been celebrated, when he was being put in the sepulchre, he cried out again: By the just judgment of God I am condemned. So, believing that he was truly damned, they withdrew. There was among the rest a certain solemn doctor, by name Bruno, canon of Reims. Terrified by this event he said to certain of his scholars: What shall we do, when a man of so great knowledge says that he is accused, judged and damned? To whom, promising to stand by his counsel, he said: Fleeing the world, let us begin in solitude an Order of penance. In this purpose Master Bruno with six companions of one heart came to the city of Grenoble among the mountains of Burgundy.

[223] On that day the holy man, the bishop of that city, saw in his sleep seven stars falling before his feet, in the Chronicle, John Gerson, thence ascending and * deserts, up to a certain horrible place, far from men, and there they stood. Immediately on the same morning Master Bruno is present with his companions, falling before the feet of the bishop. And the bishop, pondering in his heart concerning the seven stars, for they too were seven, kindly raised them to the kiss, and, the cause for which they had come being known, led them to the place where the seven stars had stood, saying: Behold the place prepared for you by God. There, therefore, the holy bishop helping, they began to build the first house of the Order, which is called the Chartreuse." So he, relating the vision of Saint Hugh a little otherwise than it is read in his Life, published by our Guigo. Nor did Launoy know this author. Iperius died in the year

MCCCLXXXIII. There follows the authority of John Gerson, the most celebrated chancellor of the most illustrious academy of Paris, whom Launoy thinks was the first to write of the doctor's resurrection. But since it is established from what has been said above that it (namely in the opinion of the anonymous Carthusian writing these things, who determines that the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was written about the year 1220, which from what has been said above is uncertain) had been committed to writing two hundred years and more before the death of Gerson, which took place in the year 1429, the arguments of Launoy by which he strove to strike out the testimony of so great a man fall to the ground.

[224] Saint Antoninus But of him again below. Nearly contemporary with Gerson was St. Antoninus, who describes this story at length. Launoy asserts that this Saint enlarged with many things of his own the matter related by Gerson. But the contrary is plain from the words cited above of the anonymous Carthusian who was writing (namely the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse) about the year (go to what has been brought forward bearing on this at num. 12 and following) MCCXX; from whom Antoninus seems to have taken his narration, only the style and some words being changed, such as CHURCH for HALL, SEPULCHRE for CHURCH, and a few other similar ones. Which indeed another anonymous writer had done before him, who compiled the Chronicle of the Chartreuse about the year MCCCLX, as we have already noted in its place. And St. Antoninus added nothing at all except the ass's burial. The speech also of St. Bruno to his companions, which Launoy carps at as though invented by St. Antoninus, is found in our Boso, or certainly (see what was said at num. 8) in the author of the Treatise On the Origin and truth of the perfect religion, who had borrowed it from the same anonymous writer, as is also to be proved from the codex of de Thou, in which it is described entire, as it was read in the older codices. Nor on that account does that old author come to be carped at with Antoninus, who, according to the custom of many historians, described Saint Bruno addressing his companions and exhorting them to contempt of the world, not indeed in the very words of the blessed Man, but in similar ones, as he himself professes, writing thus: "There was there Master Bruno, who, wholesomely terrified and pricked by the words aforesaid, addressed certain of his companions present there in these or similar words, etc."

[225] and some others. After the testimony of Saint Antoninus (Launoy) adds that he deliberately passes over Dionysius the Carthusian, John Nauclerus, Hartmann Schedel, Polydore Vergil, Sixtus of Siena, Gabriel du Préau and other more recent ones, who he asserts "changed almost nothing in the narration of Antoninus, although they changed something in the phrasing." That is true indeed of Nauclerus, Schedel and du Préau, but not of the others. For our Dionysius makes mention only of the three days on which the damned man uttered those terrible words, but has nothing about the church, the ass's burial and the speech of Saint Bruno to his companions, as neither have Polydore Vergil and Sixtus of Siena, who say in few words that Saint Bruno, when he had heard a certain friend of his crying out after death, "By the just judgment of God I am damned," terrified thereby, withdrew with certain companions into a deserted place; in which certainly the whole substance of the matter is contained, which we assert to be most true. The anonymous Carthusian who writes these things, very often praised, now subjoins the words transcribed here at num. 213, in which he observes certain things concerning the anonymous author of the Life of St. Bruno which Berthold Rembolt published in type at Paris in the year 1508, and then discusses some things also, to his purpose, concerning the testimony of Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, already praised above; whether this is genuine or supposititious he sufficiently intimates that he doubts; and deservedly indeed, as will become manifest from what I shall bring forward in the following §.

* Rhegiensi

* or ad:

§ XIII. Whether Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, can deservedly be reckoned among the writers who have testified for the resurrection of the Parisian doctor and its circumstances.

The testimony which (is attributed) to Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, The anonymous Carthusian who composed the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, being about to bring forward the older writers who, although they were not Carthusians, nevertheless gave testimony for the resurrection of the Parisian doctor and the principal circumstances that accompanied it, makes this preface at num. 73 of his Work: The testimonies taken from authors of the Carthusian profession having been set out above, we pass to the testimonies of outside authors, or those who are not of the Carthusian Order. Among whom we could report Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond of the Order of Saint Benedict, of the diocese of Liège, and begin this series from him, because he lived about the year MC and was contemporary with Saint Bruno; but we nevertheless pass him over, because we have not seen his Works, although we know that his words have been reported by men worthy of credit, in which he narrated this story of the ill-fated Parisian doctor. Of him, however, we shall treat more fully below when occasion is given. So he; who, having recited the testimonies of some outside writers, in fact also carries out what he promises here at the end, writing thus at num. 86 of his Work: There is also another who is said to be the first author and eyewitness writer of these words, namely those constituting the beginning of the fourth Lesson in reciting the Office of the dead, at which the unhappy doctor answered first that he was accused, secondly that he was judged, and thirdly at length that he was damned, namely Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, who lived about the year MC, or that author, whoever he may be, of the book "On the sacred reckoning of times," in which they assert that the Parisian prodigy… is described. The anonymous Carthusian now recites the words already transcribed at num. 214, and therefore not to be transcribed again here, in which this is asserted to be done in that Work, and then proceeds thus: If the authority of this narration were established, nothing clearer or more certain could be brought forward to establish the truth of this story.

[227] The first who adduced Theodoric as witness was John Galaud, a priest of Toulouse and doctor of Theology, who, led by a pious affection towards the Carthusian Order, is attributed, Galaud, a priest, first praised. composed a Chronicle of it in the year MDCXV. Which, since, prevented by death, he could not give to the press, he left and gave to the Charterhouse of Paris. In that Work, where he discourses of the doctor's resurrection, he used for proving it the testimonies of two authors, namely Caesarius of Heisterbach and Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond in the diocese of Liège, whose very words, as copied out by us above, he himself reported, saying of Theodoric that he has these words "in his very elegant volume On the Holy reckoning of times"; whence it is plain that the Carthusians did not "heap up this story with a new lie," as Launoy reproaches in the conclusion of the fifth chapter, when, to confirm it, they showed Bartold Nihus the authority of Theodoric on the good faith of Galaud, an honest and learned man. We know, however, that neither by Trithemius nor by Possevinus is a Chronicle or Book under the title "On the Sacred reckoning of times," which Galaud ascribed to him, recounted by name among the books written by the said abbot, unless perhaps it is contained under this general conclusion of Trithemius, "He wrote many other things which have not come to me." However that may be, let the credit remain with Galaud, the first copier of this text, until something more certain be revealed. Thus far the anonymous Carthusian, very often praised, deservedly indeed judging that nothing more apt and suited could be brought for winning undoubted credit for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor than the testimony of Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, transcribed here at num. 214, if only its genuineness were established.

[228] That in the Office of the Dead of the Saint's age, But that it is supposititious appears most probable for this reason, that it very probably contains things which are foreign to the truth and therefore do not befit Theodoric, a contemporary author as well as an eyewitness. The matter will become plain from what is now to be said. It indicates most openly (go to num. 214) that a Lesson which began with these words, Answer me, and was consequently taken from the book of Job, existed in the Parisian Office of the Dead in our Saint's age; but John, bishop of Avranches, in the book which he wrote on the ecclesiastical Offices in the age of St. Bruno, hands down to memory the following things, as Launoy testifies, to whom I find credit in this matter denied by no one, in his dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 3: On the morrow of All Saints let there be a festive celebration of all the dead, in which no Hymn or Invitatory is said. Two clerics are to sing each Responsory, two are to rule the choir, two in copes the Gradual, four are to sing the Tract. Matins and the Hours of the day are by no means to be omitted, but, these being said as on a feria, the festive Office of the dead is to follow. Prime being said, three Psalms, namely Ad Dominum, cum tribularer, Levavi, Lætatus sum, are to be said in tone, and, the verse being said, Kyrie eleison is to be sung. The Lord's Prayer being finished, with only the first chapter, Requiem æternam, the prayer is to follow. In the same manner in the rest, the Hours and Matins excepted. At Terce Ad te levavi, Nisi quia Dominus, Qui confidunt. The versicle will be A porta inferi. At Sext, In convertendo, Nisi Dominus ædificaverit, Beati omnes. Verse, Non intres in judicium. At None, Sæpe expugnaverunt, De profundis, Domine non est. Versicle, In memoria æterna. At Compline, Deus misereatur, Deus in adjutorium, Domine exaudi orationem meam auribus. Versicle, Requiem æternam.

[229] In which words, which is well to be noted, no mention at all occurs which was not in it, intimates was read, of Lessons which were then to be recited in the Office of the Dead. Moreover (as the same Launoy testifies at the place last cited), concerning the anniversary of King Dagobert, which Adam, abbot of Saint-Denis, the successor of Suger, prescribed a little after Bruno's death, these words are found at the end of an old Martyrology: These same things (as at Vespers) we have appointed also at Matins; four (cantors) in copes are to sing the Invitatory, the Lessons of the first and second Nocturn being from the Gospel, the last are to follow concerning his life and death. The Lessons, therefore, which were recited in this Office of the dead were drawn not from the book of Job but from the Gospel; wherefore, since besides it can be proved by no argument at all received from elsewhere that Lessons were recited at Paris in the Office of the Dead in our Saint's age, it appears more probable from the words of John, bishop of Avranches, and from what is found at the end of the old Martyrology praised by Launoy, that either this was not done then, or that they were taken from elsewhere than from the book of Job. Now indeed, since this is so, the testimony concerning the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor transcribed here above, which is carried about under the name of Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, more probably deviates from the truth when it indicates that a Lesson which began with these words, Answer me, and was consequently taken from the book of Job, existed in the Parisian Office of the dead in our Saint's age.

[230] And this is the first thing in which the testimony attributed to Theodoric, abbot [as also that (he was) at Paris for the sake of studies when the story of the damned man happened,]

of Saint-Trond, probably turns aside from the truth. Now have another in which it probably also labours under the same blemish. It expressly relates that Theodoric was staying at Paris for the sake of studies at the time when the deathly spectacle of the doctor come back to life happened there. But besides the fact that it can be proved by no ancient monument at all of approved credit that Theodoric ever applied himself to letters at Paris, that this is foreign to the truth appears from the Chronicle of Saint-Trond, which exists in d'Achery, volume 7 of the Spicilegium, written by Radulf, the next abbot of the abbey of Saint-Trond after the Theodoric of whom we speak here. For Theodoric, as this teaches at page 396 and the two following, was called out to the government of the abbey of Saint-Trond, in which he had been educated from his early age and had then put on the monk, from the monastery of St. Peter at Ghent, to which he had withdrawn when it (Saint-Trond) was wretchedly agitated by disturbances, by Olbert, bishop of Liège, and by the monks of Saint-Trond, his brethren, in the year 1099, or rather, as the same Chronicle of Saint-Trond in manuscript has it in our possession, in the year 1098; and at that time, when this was done, he was a man excellently imbued with the liberal arts, second to none of his time in skill of style, whether verse or prose, and already advanced, as the same Chronicle speaks, to middle age. Now indeed, since this is so, Theodoric would at that time, or in the said year 1098 or, if you prefer, 1099, in one of which he received the abbey of Saint-Trond to govern, have been at least forty years old; and consequently, since he very probably put on the monk before he was twenty years old in the same abbey of Saint-Trond in which, as has been said, he had been educated from boyhood, it becomes consequent that he very probably did so before the year 1082, in which, as the praised Chronicle of Saint-Trond in d'Achery, page 369, bears witness, Adelard II, abbot of Saint-Trond, departed from the living.

[231] that Theodoric the abbot was staying, who nevertheless either before And this indeed becomes still far more probable from the fact that, when Lanzo and Luipo contended for the headship of the abbey after the death of Adelard, which first began in the year 1085 (go to the Chronicle of Saint-Trond, page 370 and following), he withdrew, already a monk of Saint-Trond, to the monastery of St. Peter at Ghent, as the same Chronicle again teaches at page 396; and it appears in no way likely that he first took the monastic habit under Lanzo, who, at the instance of Henry of Liège and Herimann of Metz, the bishops, had been substituted in the place of the deceased Adelard II, the monks being wholly unwilling. Now indeed, since Theodoric, as appears most probable from what has been said, put on the monk at Saint-Trond under Adelard II, and while the latter governed the abbey of Saint-Trond with the office of abbot the study of letters flourished greatly in it, as the writers of the Literary History of France rightly teach from the praised Chronicle of Saint-Trond, volume 7, page 30, it appears by no means likely that Theodoric, already a monk, then went to Paris to apply himself to letters there, from the monastery of Saint-Trond in which he had been educated and instructed in letters while still a boy, or was sent by his abbot; especially since the aforesaid Chronicle of Saint-Trond makes no mention at all of any monk of Saint-Trond who, under Abbot Adelard, went to Paris for the sake of learning letters, nor was it necessary that the nurslings of the abbey of Saint-Trond should betake themselves to Paris to that end, since they were abundantly provided at home with the necessary aids for learning letters. And so from what has just been said we have it that Theodoric was very probably not staying at Paris for the sake of learning letters while Adelard II was abbot of the monastery of Saint-Trond, before the year 1082, in which the latter (go again to the Chronicle of Saint-Trond, page 369) ceased to live. But did he not betake himself thither for the same cause after Adelard's death, either in the said year 1082 itself, about which the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor is narrated to have happened, or in the following?

[232] about which it happened, the year 1082, or about it, There will indeed perhaps be someone who suspects this from the Chronicle of Saint-Trond already often praised; for, as it hands down to memory in books 2 and 3, Herimann of Metz and Henry of Liège, the bishops, having rejected Gerard, whom the nurslings of the abbey of Saint-Trond had elected abbot from their own bosom, set over it after Adelard's death, in the year, as appears, 1083, Lanzo, abbot of Saint-Vincent at Metz; and hence almost all the monks of Saint-Trond, being greatly angered, and understanding besides that they were to be driven into exile, slipped away in flight and left their monastery, some going one way, some another; whence the suspicion can arise that Theodoric then sought Paris. But to remove this, the Chronicle of Saint-Trond itself supplies means in the very places in which the things already said are narrated. That the matter may become manifest, I transcribe the very words of the Chronicle which occur, bearing on this, in its books 2 and 3 already cited. Those of book 2, then, are these: The bishops (namely Herimann of Metz and Henry of Liège), neither acquiescing in the just petition of our men, nor understanding that God was persecuting our men in them for the sins both of themselves and of ours, having despised the worthy election of our men, and one which could not be reproved by any regular objection, as they had long since deliberated … with the eyes of the monks astounded, introduced into our monastery a certain Lanzo, abbot of the monastery of Saint Vincent at Metz… But on the day of the chapter all our brethren came together into the choir for Vespers, clothing the choir with handsome men of great personages and excellently learned in all the Offices of the ecclesiastical institutions.

[233] Happy indeed the church in so many and such and so great men, as appears from the Chronicle of Saint-Trond, some words of which if it had not had God the Father angry, if for its sins it had known how to bear even His anger in humility of heart and contrition of flesh. But why do I linger? The same night, understanding from friends that on the following day they would be violently and insultingly thrust into exile if they were united in the cloister, dissolved by fear (as is human nature, and most of all the fearful simplicity of monks), they took counsel for themselves by flight. Only one of them, Luipo by name, having chosen exile rather than flight, was sent over to Liège under Abbot Berengar at Saint Lawrence; and very few remained with Abbot Lanzo, namely Gerard the provost, that elected one of our men, and also Blinger, the elder Herimann too with another Herimann his nephew, and Eugo was a little after sent into exile at Metz, very many of the rest being dispersed through Flanders and England, Denmark and Saxony, and also the kingdom of the Germans. The smallest part, keeping the habit, were given hospitality through various monasteries; the greatest part, keeping nothing of the monk for themselves, were carried about wandering through various parishes after the manner of priests. But at Liège too and at Cologne, after the repentance of God's anger over our place and the restoration of the grace of His mercy to our men, we saw some of them grown old among clerics, under the habit of clerics, in the Order of canons, at Liège in the monastery of the Holy Cross, and also of Saint John at Cologne in the monastery of Saint George; and those of the third book these: In the year, then, of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and eighty-two, Abbot Adelard II died, on the eighth day before the Ides of December; and on the third day before the Ides of August a chapter was held over our brethren by the two bishops, namely Herimann of Metz and Henry of Liège, on which night all our brethren were dispersed except the few whom we have named above.

[234] Although, then, as is plain from these words, after the death of Adelard II their abbot almost all the monks of Saint-Trond slipped away in flight from their monastery and withdrew elsewhere, are given here, it appears, and Theodoric very probably was among these, since he is not numbered here by Radulf among the few who remained with Abbot Lanzo at Saint-Trond, yet it appears to be concluded from the same words already recited that he did not then go to Paris, since among the various regions to which the fugitive monks of Saint-Trond then betook themselves there are recounted not Gaul, in which the city of Paris is situated, but only Flanders, England, Denmark, Saxony and Germany. But, someone will say, whither then did Theodoric withdraw, a fugitive with very many others from his monastery of Saint-Trond after Lanzo had been introduced into it? I think that he stayed not far from Saint-Trond. For of those monks of Saint-Trond with whom Theodoric then departed from Saint-Trond there were some who not so long after, Lanzo assenting, returned to their monastery. So again it is gathered from the Chronicle of Saint-Trond, which in d'Achery, in the volume of the Spicilegium cited, page 370, has thus of Luipo, a monk of Saint-Trond, still suffering the exile into which he had been driven when Lanzo was already abbot of Saint-Trond: He (Luipo), when through all whom he thought would be useful to him, through the emperor himself also, he pleaded with all humility with Abbot Lanzo that, being received into his cloister in which he had been nurtured, he might come in his rank, as the others also had, could by no means obtain it. By which words and others following it is intimated that at that time, or, as appears from the place of the same Chronicle last cited, in the year 1085, in which Luipo tried to obtain that it should be permitted him to return to his monastery of Saint-Trond, some other monks of Saint-Trond, who had departed thence, not indeed driven into exile, but slipping away in flight, had already returned to it; and these, as having returned not so long after to the monastery which they had deserted, as also appears from the place of the Chronicle of Saint-Trond last praised, do not seem to have gone to regions far removed when they withdrew thence in flight; and consequently neither did Theodoric, as one who was one of them, as it is easy to draw from the fact that, when afterwards Lanzo and Luipo, just mentioned, contended for the abbey of Saint-Trond, he withdrew thence to Ghent to the monastery of St. Peter, as again the Chronicle of Saint-Trond teaches in d'Achery, in the volume of the Spicilegium cited, page 369 and following.

[235] applied himself there to letters The words in which it does this there, and some others joined to these in the same place, since most of the things already said of Theodoric for the present purpose have been drawn from them, I transcribe here. They run thus: It was therefore sought (namely when Olbert, bishop of Liège, had now determined to come to the help of the abbey of Saint-Trond, reduced almost to extremities by long-continued dissensions) most diligently whether there survived any of the sons of our church to whom the care of helping his mother could suitably be committed. Our Brethren, and also clerics and laymen who had known him, say that there was staying at Ghent in the monastery of Saint Peter one of our Brethren, by name Theodoric, who had withdrawn from our place during the contention of the abbots Lanzo and Luipo. If he could be drawn out from there, he seemed to them suitable for governing the abbey, since, ready in German and in the Walloon (Gualicana *) tongue, excellently instructed in the liberal arts, he was second to none in his time in prose and verse, resonant with a sweet and very high vocal quality, of short but handsome person, and of middle age, who would also know better how to have compassion on the infirmities of his Brethren, as one nurtured with them from boyhood, and who had seen and

heard the evils which they had suffered in their tribulations. So the praised Chronicle. Now indeed, since Theodoric, as is understood from all that has been said, did not betake himself to Paris when Adelard II, abbot of Saint-Trond, had died in the year 1082; and since shortly after he had deserted his monastery, Lanzo having been introduced into it in the year 1083, he returned from the neighbouring place to which he had withdrawn to Saint-Trond, and stayed there, as appears, with Lanzo up to the year 1085, in which, a contention having arisen between the latter and Luipo, he withdrew to Ghent to the monastery of St. Peter, it becomes consequent that he probably did not study at Paris about the year 1082, as one who, as I have shown above, had not stayed there for the sake of studies before that either.

[236] That this may become more evident, nay that it may be plain that Theodoric never studied at Paris, I set forth in compendium and in order in this manner all his deeds from his early age up to that time he probably did not apply himself. That therefore, at which, recalled from Ghent, he received the abbey of Saint-Trond to govern. While still a boy he was educated in the monastery of Saint-Trond, according to the custom of those times, and set to learning letters; and when afterwards, having grown older in age, he had been enrolled among the monks by Abbot Adelard II, he went on cultivating his mind in letters up to the year 1082, in which the latter ceased to live, in the school of his monastery, which then, from what has been said, flourished greatly. Adelard then having died in the year 1082, and Lanzo having been appointed to the government of the monastery against the will of the monks, he went out of Saint-Trond with very many of them; and when he had then returned to the monastery, Abbot Lanzo assenting, from the place not far distant, as appears, to which he had withdrawn, and a contention had arisen in the year 1085 between the latter and Luipo, he went, again leaving the monastery, to Ghent, and stayed there in the abbey of St. Peter up to the year 1099, or at least 1098, in one of which, called out thence by letters of Olbert, bishop of Liège, he received the monastery of Saint-Trond to govern with the office of abbot. Such are the deeds of Theodoric up to the time at which this was done, which indeed do not seem to permit us to believe that Theodoric ever studied at Paris, and by name about the year 1082. Now indeed, since this is so, the testimony transcribed here at num. 214 and attributed to Theodoric, by which this is asserted, is very probably supposititious and invented, as it also appears on account of other things which I add to what has been said.

[237] That testimony seems to have been unknown before the beginning of the century just past, or before the year 1615, and at the same time on account of some other things, in which the anonymous Carthusian affirms in the words transcribed above that it was praised by Galaud the priest, even to the Carthusians themselves; as also that the damned doctor was called Raymond Malliban or Milleban, or, as others will have it, Raymond Diocres. It is permitted to gather this even from Petreius alone, a nursling of the Charterhouse of Cologne, who in his Elucidations on the first book of the Carthusian Chronicle composed by Dorlandus, printed in the year 1608, studiously inquires in a particular § Why the name of that damned and thrice-unhappy doctor (namely he who proclaimed from the bier at Paris that he was damned) was not recorded in the monuments of letters. And lest you think Petreius erred here, Peter Sutor, Prior of the Charterhouse of Paris, taken from the living in the year 1537, whose Work on the Carthusian life first saw the light from the Cologne press in the year 1609, writes thus in book 1 of it, tract. 1, chap. 3: We ingenuously confess that no name of that doctor (the damned Parisian) has been adduced by us, because none has been handed down in the monuments of letters, so far as we have seen; and so we have wished not to invent a new one, but to be silent about an unknown one. Nor is there reason why you should oppose here the manuscript Life of St. Bruno, already praised by the anonymous Carthusian in the words recited at num. 209, which is preserved in the library of Basel and was written in the year 1486, and consequently long before the sixteenth century; for although in it, as I find noted in the lower margin of page 376 of volume 2, part 2 of the Works of Launoy, enlarged and illustrated, printed at Geneva in the year 1731, these following words are found written, There happened about the year of the Lord MLXXXII at Paris a horrible prodigy in a certain master, whose name according to some was Raymond, yet it does not follow thence that the unhappy Parisian doctor had another name added to that of Raymond, by which he was called Diocres, or also Milleban, as the testimony ascribed to Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, discloses; and consequently it can deservedly be held either as supposititious or as very suspect, unless perhaps the book from which it is said to have been drawn by Galaud be brought to light and be held as a genuine offspring of Theodoric.

[238] which are brought forward here But in what place, or in the corner of whose library, is it kept? Whence did Galaud procure for himself that book, or, if you prefer, a copy of it, from which he excerpted the words recited at num. 214? Does he anywhere declare, in the Chronicle of the Carthusians written by him, the library or person by whom a precious monument of this kind was communicated to him? All these things the anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, from whom alone almost I have been able to learn what I have already said of Galaud, leaves in obscurity. He indicates indeed that Galaud was an honest and learned man; but who would assert from this that he was a man of so keen a judgment that he could neither be deceived by an impostor nor take a Work supposititiously attributed to Theodoric for the latter's true composition? It must be admitted, meanwhile, that Bartold Nihus, or, if you prefer, the Carthusians who had shown him the testimony of Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, which he praises in the letter prefixed to this didactic Epistle printed in the year 1645 and given to Andrew du Saussay, are wrongly accused of falsehood on account of it, whether cited or exhibited, by Launoy in the Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 5, § III; for it could in good faith both be cited by Nihus and be shown to him by the Carthusians as received from Galaud. But let us now discuss other things bearing on this which the anonymous Carthusian did not include in the words recited at num. 227. Various copies, sent from various places, of the testimony which is attributed to Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, exist in our possession; and one among these bears at its head these following words: Andrew Quercetanus (Du Chesne), in the Fragments of History, book 4, cites a manuscript of the monastery of St. Thierry near Reims, whose title is "On the Reckoning of times," where it is read; after which, the testimony conceived in the words transcribed here at num. 214 is subjoined, and then at the end, as a closing formula, there is added So far there.

[239] are adduced here, When I had first fallen upon this copy of the testimony ascribed to Theodoric, roused by the recited words which I saw prefixed to it, I eagerly seized the fourth book of the Writers of French History of Andrew Quercetanus or Duchesne, and diligently searched it from head to foot. But behold! At page 162, at which alone in that whole book or volume of Duchesne the manuscript book of the monastery of St. Thierry near Reims whose title is "On the reckoning of times" is cited, a historical Fragment is supplied in which, as will be plain to one inspecting it, not even a tittle occurs either about the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor or about St. Bruno being driven by it into the desert. Hence I understood that the copier of the words which I have just recited wished to signify by them that the testimony attributed to Theodoric, abbot of Saint-Trond, was inscribed not in the fourth book or volume of Duchesne which he praises, but in the manuscript book On the reckoning of times from which Duchesne brought the historical Fragment into that volume. But I do not think that this agrees with the truth either, because this matter, if it were so, would very probably be found mentioned by many other writers, and yet it could not hitherto be found mentioned by any by me. But there are, as I learn from notices which I have at hand, those who affirm that the vaunted book of Theodoric, who formerly governed it with the office of abbot, On the Sacred reckoning of times, in which he supplies the testimony recited at num. 214 for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, is preserved in the library of the monastery of Saint-Trond of the diocese of Liège, adding also that the silence about that book of Martène and Durand, writers of the Order of St. Benedict, in their Literary Journey, where they treat of that abbey of their Order and its library, ought to seem strange to no one.

[240] So they pronounce, because these two writers did not have perfect knowledge of all the manuscript books seems to be held as supposititious. which are kept in the library of the abbey of Saint-Trond, as they themselves declare, writing indeed in the first volume of the Work cited that the library of Saint-Trond is sufficiently good and furnished with sufficiently notable manuscript books; but relating in the second volume that when they had come again to the abbey of Saint-Trond and wished to search its manuscript books anew, they could not obtain this from the abbot. Hence, although I could only with the greatest difficulty bring myself to believe that that manuscript book on the sacred reckoning of times lay hidden in the library of the monastery of Saint-Trond, yet, lest I should seem to have neglected anything which could conduce to investigating the cause of St. Bruno's conversion, I thought the matter should be diligently inquired into, and, being ready to betake myself to the monastery of Saint-Trond if only I had known that leave to search the manuscript books kept in its library would be imparted to me, I most earnestly begged through friends that this be granted me; but, as it was to Martène and Durand, so too it was denied to me. Meanwhile letters written thence persuade that the aforesaid book is not found in the abbey of Saint-Trond, or at least that the testimony transcribed here above for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor is not contained in it; among which there is also one written by the abbot himself in the year 1745, in which he writes thus: I remember that a few years ago, at the request of the Most Reverend Lord abbot of St. Lawrence, I saw the same Transcript (namely of the testimony attributed to Theodoric the abbot), and I then diligently inquired whether I could have found it in the authentic original, but I found it nowhere in the Chronicles of Abbot Theodoric, from which it can apparently have been transcribed. Now indeed, since that book is not found either, as I learn from a letter written to me after the matter had been most diligently examined, in the abbey of St. Victor near Paris, in which I had also found it noted that it was preserved, the testimony of Theodoric the abbot, which is asserted by some to be included in it, seems from all that has been said to be held as wholly invented.

* Vualonica

§ XIV. The testimony of Caesarius of Heisterbach is reviewed, and what is to be thought of it is determined.

Testimony to the story of the damned man is borne by Caesarius of Heisterbach. The anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, being about to bring forward the testimony of Caesarius of Heisterbach for the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, makes this preface: The first … among outsiders in whom we have read the narration of this prodigy presents himself, Caesarius of Heisterbach of the Cistercian Order, who was already flourishing in the year MCLXXXVIII, that is, about fifty years after the death of the first Fathers of the Carthusian Order who with Saint Bruno

instituted it; or at least in the first century after the death of Saint Bruno, in which he also lived about twenty years; and then he transcribes the words of Caesarius containing that testimony, and discourses at length against Launoy in order to prove that it supports the Parisian prodigy. I transcribe here all his words, lest I should seem to have detracted anything from the force of the arguments included in them, being about to add at the end also some things which I shall think should be observed on them. They run, then, thus: He (Caesarius of Heisterbach), in his Work which, arranged in twelve books in the form of a dialogue, he entitled "On illustrious miracles and memorable histories which had happened before or about his times in Germany, Italy and Gaul," in book XI, which is inscribed "On the Dying," sets forth this spectacle in entirely these words: "There was in the kingdom of France a certain cleric, noble and rich, two things which often lift men up and subject them to evil vices; who, when he had died and been placed on the bier, a multitude of the people sitting round, as well of clerics as of laymen, raised himself up, all hearing, bursting forth into these words:" The just Judge has judged, the one judged He has condemned, the one condemned He has delivered into the hands of the wicked. "Which said, reclining himself again, he did not fall asleep, but passed from rest to labour, from delights to misery."

[242] What sort of man he was. The anonymous Carthusian (contends that) his narration In these very few words Caesarius perfectly represents the dreadful spectacle of the damned man, in conformity with both the narrations which we have described above, both from the anonymous Carthusian and from the codex (to be mentioned here more than once below) of the college of Metz, so that there is no discrepancy as to the substance of the matter between the same authors, nay not even any contradiction in the circumstances themselves; whence we think there will be no one who judges that it is not the same narration, however much Launoy may protest. Of great weight, therefore, is this testimony, given by a very ancient writer, a man of the highest authority, most celebrated for piety and learning, whom Henry of Molenark, archbishop of Cologne, under whom he lived, chose alone from among the most judicious men of Germany to adorn with a noble style the life of his predecessor St. Engelbert, archbishop and martyr. Whose merits and those of his Works Cardinal Bona commends thus in few but grave and pithy words: "Caesarius of Heisterbach of the Cistercian Order, pious, truthful and simple in memorable histories." Whom also the Cistercians write became renowned after death for miracles. In order to elude the most powerful authority of Caesarius, Launoy tried to prove that the story thus related by him is different from that which St. Antoninus narrated. But he sweated in vain by comparing the narration of St. Antoninus with the narration of Caesarius, as though St. Antoninus had first published it. For in fact what Caesarius recounts agrees with the ancient Chronicles of the Order cited above, which were drawn up almost two hundred and fifty years before Antoninus, and at the same time at which Caesarius was living.

[243] But since St. Antoninus does not differ much from the Chronicles, from the narration of Antoninus, although with the same circumstances as it, let us now see whether that mutual contention which Launoy will have found between the narrations of Antoninus and Caesarius is so great that the one ought deservedly to be called different from the other, and consequently that the truth of the whole story is overthrown. Thus, then, Launoy approaches both. "First," he says, "Caesarius does not designate a certain time at which his prodigy happened; but Antoninus designates the very year in which his prodigy took place." But what reader, however sagacious, will detect in this even the least discord between the two authors? Certainly if Caesarius designated a certain time different from the time which Antoninus designates and much removed from it, in this indeed a contention would appear; but since he is silent about the time, he brings forward nothing contrary to Antoninus, and consequently the substance of both narrations remains the same. To this, moreover, and to the following objections of Launoy we can satisfy with a single answer, if we say, what is most true, that Caesarius touched on this story only in compendium. Whence it is no wonder if he was silent about many circumstances afterwards related by Antoninus. "Then," Launoy adds, "Caesarius does not define a certain place in the kingdom of France, but Antoninus defines a certain place in the kingdom of France," that is, "Paris." An objection like the former, which deserves a like answer, namely that no contrariety is found there between the two authors; which would be found if Caesarius had defined Spain, Italy or some other region or kingdom. But he said that this prodigy happened in the kingdom of France; and Antoninus that it happened at Paris, which is in the kingdom of France. Therefore what Caesarius had omitted, Bl. Antoninus supplied. And equal to this is the excellent reasoning of the most learned Andrew du Saussay for proving that it is the same narration, however harshly Launoy may cry out against it, "O pitiable evasion!"

[244] "Caesarius holds discourse about a certain noble and rich cleric; in each and all (the circumstances) but Antoninus describes a certain eminent doctor." These words, Cleric and Doctor, seem at first sight to have some difference between them, but they are easily reconciled. For we are taught by various examples that men conspicuous for literature and erudition were often called clerics. In Orderic Vitalis, book 3: "He was surnamed the Cleric, because he was excellently imbued with skill in letters and the other arts." In the history of the bishops of Eichstätt: "This John the bishop was a great cleric in canon law." John Birelli also, Prior of the Chartreuse, was called "the Cleric of the world" by Innocent VI, who had heard that he had died, as we shall see at the year MCCCLX, not only because he was a perfect monk (for monks too were sometimes called clerics) but most of all because in divine as well as in human knowledge he had no superior. Therefore Caesarius and Antoninus are not opposed to each other when the one called the unhappy man a cleric, the other an eminent doctor. But Launoy presses as follows. "Caesarius indicates that his cleric had become a proud man through nobility and riches, but Antoninus signifies that he was a doctor who flourished in a great esteem for knowledge and uprightness." This objection is of no greater weight than the preceding. For nothing is concluded from it, or can be concluded, for demonstrating even the least difference between these two narrations. For Caesarius does not set forth what sort of man that cleric was, whether proud and subject to evil vices; but that he was "Noble and rich, two things which often lift men up and subject them to evil vices." And these things are not repugnant to the common narration, which describes that man as "Powerful in eminence of knowledge and uprightness of life and the greatest fame," but only according to the things which appeared outwardly. For which reason the author of the codex of Metz thinks that he was damned on account of the vice of vainglory.

[245] circumstances From this objection Launoy passes to the fifth, which he sets forth thus: "Caesarius does not touch here with even a word on the academy of Paris; but Antoninus proclaims it. And yet that Caesarius in many places mentions both the academy of Paris and things done in the academy of Paris." Then Launoy collects manifold citations from Caesarius in which Caesarius made mention of the academy of Paris. But to what purpose these citations? For just as we have shown that it is not rightly concluded that the narration of Caesarius is other than the narration of Antoninus because the former did not define a certain place in the kingdom of France which the latter defines, so neither can the silence of Caesarius about the academy of Paris, which Antoninus proclaims, import any dissonance. But let us hasten to wash away the other objections of Launoy. "Caesarius openly signifies that his cleric said at one and the same time: The just Judge has judged, the one judged He has condemned, the one condemned He has delivered into the hands of the wicked; but Antoninus expressly asserts that his doctor spoke on three distinct days." We have already seen above that of the cited authors of the Carthusian Order some wrote that this threefold voice was uttered by the damned man on one and the same day, but others on three distinct days. And so the words of Caesarius agree with the first, those of Antoninus with the last; nor on that account are they to be judged two different narrations, since they agree in the matter. Moreover Caesarius does not so openly, as Launoy would have it, signify that his cleric spoke at one and the same time; for he does not distinctly express that he pronounced these words together and at once, or at three distinct times, but only summarily that he pronounced them: which are the same as to sense as those which Antoninus testifies his doctor pronounced, not indeed in entirely the same words, nor said in the same manner, but in others signifying the same, so that there is no contrariety in the essence of the matter, nor diversity, except only that Caesarius, studying brevity, did not take care to express the matter so fully and broadly.

[246] is not clothed, yet in the matter It is to be noted also that the author of the codex of Metz, of which above, expressed that threefold outcry of the damned man in almost the same words which Caesarius too had used before him. Further, how many and how great similar differences occur in the Sacred Scriptures, even among the holy Evangelists, narrating the same thing in different manner, whom it would be a crime not only to say but even to think contrary to one another on that account? "Caesarius does not write that his cleric uttered these words while the Office for the dead appointed by the Church was being celebrated; but Antoninus writes this altogether." Who would not wonder that such a diversity was objected by Launoy, a judicious and learned man? It is true, nor can we deny it, that Caesarius did not make manifest mention of the Office of the dead. But who would deny that he intimated it when he wrote that that dead man "had been placed on the bier, a multitude of the people sitting round, as well of clerics as of laymen?" "Caesarius by no means signifies whether the cleric was deprived of ecclesiastical burial or not; but Antoninus openly signifies it." Neither did the cited Carthusian authors signify this; therefore they too are contrary to Antoninus; therefore their narration too is different from the narration of Antoninus. Who would think this? "Caesarius does not say that Bruno, the author of the Carthusian religious life, was present at the spectacle which he narrates; but Antoninus says that Bruno, the author of the Carthusian religious life, was present at the spectacle which he describes." But Caesarius was silent because perhaps he did not know that Saint Bruno was present at the spectacle; for only two years after it was accomplished he withdrew into the Chartreuse. Or, if Caesarius knew it, he nevertheless did not wish to say what would be foreign to his purpose. For his purpose was to propose various examples concerning the dying, not to explain conversions or the institutions of Orders.

[247] Then the conversion of Saint Bruno was not made in public, does not differ, he contends against Launoy; just as it is not established whether that spectacle took place in a church or in the hall of the deceased (which nevertheless is more likely), before many or before few men. Nor was Bruno's conversion made at the same instant as the said spectacle, but within private walls, and long after it had been accomplished, as is established from the cited authors. Whence not even by anyone who had been present at the said spectacle could it be perceived

it. But Antoninus said this because he read it so written and heard it so narrated. "Caesarius does not affirm that Bruno took from his spectacle the occasion of instituting his Religious life; but Antoninus affirms it." This objection of Launoy is not different from the preceding; but he divided into two what could have been said together and at once, so that what he could not overwhelm with solid reasons he might at least try to overwhelm with many words. To this objection, therefore, satisfaction has been made from the answer above. For what wonder if Caesarius, who had made no mention of Bruno, was also silent about the occasion of instituting the Carthusian Order, for the same reasons which we touched on above? "Caesarius does not relate that his prodigy happened at Paris; but Antoninus relates it." This objection too is the same as the second; for what Launoy says here he had said above in the second place, only the words and the manner of speaking being changed. Nay, both objections are also very like the fifth. Whence is plain Launoy's too anxious zeal in exaggerating differences of this kind. "Lastly, Caesarius has nothing of that whole business of the fourth Lesson of the Vigils for the dead, which was treated after the time of Antoninus by the anonymous writer of the Life of Bruno." But neither does Antoninus have anything of that whole business of the fourth Lesson; therefore he does not differ from Caesarius. Nor did the old Carthusians either mention this fourth Lesson and the words "Answer me." Therefore neither are they contrary to Caesarius.

[248] by whom also (he contends) that the credit of Caesarius is undeservedly lowered, Moreover Launoy tries to depress the authority of Caesarius by the authority of the most famous and most reverend man Nicholas Coëffeteau, a theologian of Paris, who in the reply to the Mystery of iniquity says that the Dialogues of Caesarius are full of fables. But since Coëffeteau confirms his opinion only by the judgment of Conrad Gesner, a Zwinglian, as Launoy himself confesses, we rather believe Cardinal Bona, a man equally pious and learned, who praises Caesarius as truthful in memorable histories. And not undeservedly, since Caesarius himself most solemnly swears that he invented nothing, saying: "God is my witness that I have not invented even one chapter in this Dialogue." To the authorities of Coëffeteau and Gesner, therefore, we prefer the authorities of the most illustrious du Saussay, and of Jacques du Breul, distinguished for piety and learning, and of others who have judged more honourably of Caesarius, and especially of the eminent doctor of sacred Theology and canon of St. Gereon at Cologne, Tilman Bredembach, notable for many titles both of knowledge and of virtues; by whose zeal and labour many monuments of old writers have been brought to light; who also put much labour into revising and expurgating the books of the Dialogues of Caesarius, being about to send them out to light, had he not, when he had now almost reached the end, been called to heavenly things. But that the pious studies of so great a man might not perish, James Fischer, doctor of sacred Theology, among others, brought it about, who completed what he had begun, and in his Preface properly refuted Gesner's calumny about Caesarius.

[249] and other things which are proposed here, Finally Launoy, in the conclusion of the third chapter of his Dissertation, pursues du Saussay, a learned man, as ridiculous, because he said that in the narration of Caesarius the substance of the matter is to be distinguished from its circumstances; and Launoy, against all right, insipidly turns this distinction of du Saussay against Pope Joan. But since we profess not to repel injury with injury, we leave it to the reader's judgment whether this is the best manner of disputing for asserting the truth and reconciling any authors whatever describing the same matter in different ways. But Launoy imposes on du Saussay, saying that he placed the substance of the matter in this, that Caesarius "reports the prodigy done in the kingdom of France, and done not in his own time." For du Saussay by no means said that. For after he had reported the whole narration of Caesarius, he adds: "So Caesarius, who plainly comprehends the substance of the matter of which there is discourse in this description." Saying thus, therefore, du Saussay indeed admonishes that the substance of the matter is found in Caesarius's description, but in what it consists he does not explain. Then immediately he subjoins concerning the circumstances: "Which ("description"), although it does not go to express all the circumstances adequately, since it does not record the year, nor the special place of Gaul, in which the things he relates happened." And these are the circumstances, noted also by Launoy, which du Saussay asserts are touched summarily in Caesarius's description, when a little after he says: "Nevertheless he (Caesarius) says the whole, since he asserts that it was done in the kingdom of France, and signifies sufficiently evidently by the word THERE WAS that it was not in his own time but before." Therefore by these words, "He says the whole, etc.," du Saussay understands those circumstances which he had said a little before were not "adequately expressed" by Caesarius, "since he does not record the year, nor the special place of Gaul, etc." This is the true and sincere sense of du Saussay's words, whose order Launoy inverted in order to twist them more conveniently to his own opinion and more easily persuade the reader that du Saussay placed the substance of the matter in this, "that Caesarius reports the prodigy done in the kingdom of France, and done not in his own time."

[250] Towards the end of the same conclusion of the third chapter Launoy again attacks Caesarius, he pronounces it is wrongly done. or rather the Carthusians from Caesarius, when he describes entire two examples drawn by him from the same treatise of Caesarius, from which he will have it "that idle men forged one prodigy," which he contends "furnished the cause of inventing such a beginning of the Carthusians as" he now shakes out, or strives to shake out. One is that of a certain canon of Paris who, after his death and honourable burial, appearing to a friend, announced that he was damned because true contrition had been lacking to him when dying. The other is that story which Launoy tried above to prove different from the narration of Antoninus. Who would not wonder at Launoy's astuteness? He joins two things which he asserts have a great affinity of likeness, in order the more subtly to dazzle the eyes and mind of the reader. But we constantly deny that there is any likeness between those two examples besides the misfortune of damnation common to both men: or that "idle men" invented from these two prodigies, or even from only one, the cause of Saint Bruno's withdrawal in the progress of time, as Launoy will have it; since we have proved above that that anonymous Carthusian *, who first committed the matter to writing, lived in the very time of Caesarius, from whom, and not from Caesarius, the other Carthusians cited borrowed the narration of the same story. Thus far the praised author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, on whom some things are now to be observed.

[251] First of all, then, he rightly contends against Launoy Nor is the Parisian prodigy from the prodigy that from the various circumstances which affect the narration of the dead man who proclaimed from the bier that he was damned, as supplied by Antoninus, or rather by the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, from whom he drew it, and which are absent from the narration of the dead man who likewise cried out from the bier that he was damned presented by Caesarius, it cannot deservedly be argued either that the narration of Antoninus or of the anonymous writer conflicts with the substance of the narration of Caesarius, or that the prodigy which is the subject of the latter is undoubtedly different from the prodigy which the former sets before our eyes. For what is more obvious than to find historical facts related by different writers which, although they are the same, are yet adorned by one with circumstances which are passed over in silence by another? Nor is there reason why this should seem wonderful, since it not seldom happens that a matter which one has set forth at length, with no circumstances at all of it, or certainly only few, omitted, another relates only in compendium, stripped of almost all circumstances. Nay rather, not even from circumstances conflicting with one another and by no means fitted to be brought into agreement can it always be argued that the narrations in which these occur concern different matters. Firmianus Lactantius, in Baluze, book 2 of the Miscellanea, page 37, hands down to memory that the emperor Constantine the Great was divinely admonished in sleep to use a military standard formed in the manner of a cross in the army about to fight against Maxentius. Eusebius too does the same in the Life of the same Constantine, book 1, chap. 29. But in the time at which that vision was offered to Constantine these two writers by no means agree. For Lactantius connects it with the night immediately preceding the battle fought on the XXVII day of October of the year 312 at the bridge of the Tiber, in which Maxentius perished; but Eusebius, by what he writes in the book on the Life of Constantine cited, chaps. 28, 29 and 37, indicates not obscurely that it was made when Constantine was still in Gaul and had not yet crossed the Alps to move arms against Maxentius, and consequently some space of time before the said night. Eusebius and Lactantius, then, conflict in the circumstances, and yet it is not certain that the two narrations of these writers concern different visions offered to Constantine.

[252] which Caesarius narrates, is certainly different, The death of Julian the Apostate in war is related by various writers contemporary or nearly so; but with how many circumstances conflicting among themselves do they adorn this event! Moreover, to adduce an example also from the very subject we are treating here, the writers recounted in § XI and following affirm that the horrible prodigy of the damned doctor happened publicly before a huge multitude of men; but the author of the Codex of Metz, to be praised below, relates that it happened privately within the walls of the house of the deceased; yet who on that account would say that the prodigy which the latter narrates is different from the prodigy which the former report? Although, therefore, the writers just praised also record that the three outcries of the Parisian doctor, in the first of which he declared himself accused, in the second judged and in the third damned, were uttered on three different days, and Caesarius, as Launoy would have it, seems to relate that his cleric or doctor declared together and at once, and consequently on one and the same day, that he had been judged, condemned and delivered into the hands of the wicked, yet the prodigy which the latter narrates is not certainly different from the prodigy which the former recount. Nor yet is it certainly one and the same with it either. Columbi, in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 64, writes thus: That … (namely related by Caesarius) prodigy some make the same as the Parisian one with which we are now dealing; others deny it: I would not now assert it either the same as that, or different from it. Certainly it is not added by Caesarius that it drove Bruno and his companions to the desert; and that is the one thing that has made me now deal with the Parisian one. I would rather assert, and it is altogether the business of this place, that the adversary (namely Launoy) ought not to have written the following in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, page CXLV: "Caesarius the Cistercian narrates two things which furnished idle men with the cause of inventing such a beginning of the Carthusians as we are now shaking out." For since one of the two is that very thing which I have just related, of the man in the kingdom of the Franks come back to life and crying out that he was damned by the judgment of God, I do not see why idle men for inventing the Parisian

(prodigy) should have had to add that of the canon of Paris who, a few days after death, showed himself without a body to be seen by a man very familiar with him.

[253] or invented from this together with the other which is mentioned here. That is, this canon had nothing in common either with the Parisian man come back to life of whom there is now discourse, or with the other who, while he was being prepared for the tomb, was restored to life in the kingdom of the Franks. So he: and deservedly indeed he contends that the prodigy which is narrated by Caesarius is not certainly one and the same with the Parisian prodigy which was handed down to memory by the author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and then by Antoninus. But does he rightly add at the same time, against Launoy, that this latter prodigy was not forged or invented by idle men from the prodigy which is related by Caesarius and from the other of the Parisian canon who, appearing after death to a friend, announced that he was damned? So I judge, if only because, for inventing it, if perhaps it is in fact to be held as a fable or fiction, the prodigy related by Caesarius alone could have sufficed, and no reason persuades that that other of the Parisian canon also concurred; nay rather the greatest possible dissimilarity subsisting between this and the Parisian prodigy by which Bruno was driven into the desert persuades the contrary, which is so great that those two prodigies have almost nothing in common, as will be plain to one who considers. Further, although, as I have already said, and as Columbi also intimates in the words just recited, the Parisian prodigy by which the Saint was driven into the desert is not certainly one and the same with the prodigy which Caesarius relates, yet it appears likely that the one is not distinct from the other, for this reason, that the substance of both is the same, namely that a man who had died and been already placed on the bier, coming back to life for a while, announced his damnation to those standing by. Nor is it an obstacle that the circumstances of the two prodigies differ from each other, since these are to be distinguished from the substance, which according to what has been said is common both to the one and to the other of these two prodigies, as I shall show below. And hence it now comes about that from the prodigy which Caesarius narrates that other, by which our Saint withdrew into the desert, is confirmed in some fashion.

[254] But Launoy calls into doubt the very narration of Caesarius, Yet the prodigy related by Caesarius and not undeservedly indeed. For whatever our anonymous Carthusian may bring forward to the contrary in the words recited above, and although Caesarius deserves to be commended for the sincerity which he used in writing, yet all the more skilful critics now agree that he was too credulous, as one who in his twelve Dialogues did not separate true histories from false with a sufficiently accurate criterion, and sometimes inserted trifles and fables, scraped together from every quarter, without any selection at all. Our Stilting, in volume 1 of September, in the Life of Bl. Margaret of Louvain, virgin and martyr, page 590, num. 44, writes thus opportunely for the present purpose: As regards the credit to be given to these Acts (namely of Bl. Margaret, written by the contemporary Caesarius, book 6 of the Dialogues, chap. 34), there will perhaps not be the same opinion of all, unless a diligent distinction be made between the various things narrated by the same author. For Caesarius was a pious and learned man indeed, but, for the time in which he lived, simple and credulous; and from this it comes about that his Dialogues are not without certain little stories which are read as fables in this time; but we shall not judge rightly if we pass plainly the same judgment on all, because he narrated many things which are not foreign to likelihood, and which he could know exactly because he was near them both in place and in time. Therefore, since suspicion of falsehood does not fall on Caesarius, a man pious and sincere at any rate, and since in things so near as were to him those pertaining to Margaret there is almost no danger of erring, we cannot deny credit to Caesarius in these things, and his authority seems here to be preferred to all others who wrote later. For which cause I shall publish in the first place the elogium of our Blessed which he himself composed, as to be preferred to the narrations of later writers.

[255] does not certainly agree with the truth: but if it agree, Caesarius, therefore, even according to Stilting, who nevertheless, as is plain enough from his very words, uses a less severe criticism, though a most equitable one indeed, towards this writer, cannot win undoubted credit for the prodigy which he narrates in the words transcribed here at num. 241, since that, if it ever in fact took place, must have been done both long before the age of Caesarius and in Gaul, less near to the monastery of Heisterbach; and this writer (see Stilting's words just recited) does not deserve undoubted credit in those things to which he was not near both in time and in place. Rightly, therefore, is it called into doubt by Launoy on account of the weak authority of Caesarius on which it rests. Yet, since it is probably, as I have already shown, one and the same with the Parisian prodigy by which Bruno was driven into the desert, and this was committed to writing by the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who flourished in the thirteenth century, it seems at any rate to be held less suspect of falsity, as being founded thus at least on two writers of the thirteenth century; unless perhaps someone should will that that other Parisian prodigy, by which Bruno was driven into the desert, was taken, either by the author of the Chronicle of the Priors of the Chartreuse just praised or by another from whom he drew his material, from the prodigy related by Caesarius, which never happened, and was enlarged with circumstances invented at will. And Mabillon too seems to have been inclined to think this.

[256] [and it be the same as the Parisian one, it was probably the cause of the Saint's conversion.] For in the Benedictine Annals, book 66, num. 64, he writes thus: Another cause of this withdrawal (of St. Bruno into the desert) certain authors brought forward at least two hundred years afterwards, namely that Bruno, while he was engaged in the schools at Paris, terrified by the prodigy of a canon come back to life who cried out that he was damned, withdrew into the desert, and, companions being joined to him, instituted the Order of the Carthusians. Which narration, enlarged from time to time with various circumstances, approved by Saint Antoninus and by Gerson himself, a man of solid learning and piety, it is no wonder if it has been admitted and asserted in good faith by the nurslings of the whole sacred Order; to which Caesarius of Heisterbach seems to have played the prelude. So he: but whether Caesarius in fact played the prelude to the Parisian prodigy by which the Saint was converted, or gave idle wits the occasion of inventing it, I leave to each to see from what is to be said below. Meanwhile, that someone may suspect the more vehemently that this was drawn from Caesarius, he can be moved by the fact that this writer undoubtedly flourished at the beginning of the thirteenth century, while the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse more probably did not work out this composition of his, in which he relates the Parisian prodigy, before about the year 1250, as is sufficiently plain from what I discussed in §1. Further, if it were certain that the prodigy which Caesarius relates happened, and that it is not different from the Parisian prodigy by which Bruno is reported to have been driven into the desert, the opinion of the Carthusians, who derive hence the cause of the conversion of their holy Patriarch, would certainly appear sufficiently likely, even though meanwhile Caesarius does not declare that Bruno was driven into the desert by the prodigy which he narrates. And hence it is why it must chiefly be inquired, not whether it was the cause of the Saint's conversion, but whether the Parisian prodigy agrees with the truth; concerning which what at length my opinion is I shall then declare, when, after the ancient writers already reported who support the prodigy by their testimonies, I shall also have recounted the ancient writers who seem to stand in its way by their silence.

* that anonymous Carthusian

§ XV. Whether anything can be made out against the resurrection by which the doctor publicly announced that he was damned, from the silence either of St. Bruno, or of Guigo, or of Guibert of Nogent.

Of the negative (argument), which is sought from the silence of the ancients, That in historical matters no small force frequently inheres in the negative argument all the more skilful critics now admit. Let it suffice to have brought forward here Muratori in the place of all. He writes thus in the Anecdota, volume 2, chap. 21: But now I seem to hear some replying to me that this manner of arguing is enervated and leaden, since, as the logicians call it, nothing can be proved by a negative argument. So perhaps may answer those who have not saluted ecclesiastical erudition even from the threshold, and have devoted their whole brain to scholastic trifles. For how much strength inheres in the negative argument both a clear treatise on this matter discloses and the whole republic of the learned experiences daily. And how, pray, could the fictions and fables which have crept into the histories of later times be exploded and hissed off, unless the silence of the more ancient were weighed more than the unskilled and bold loquacity of the more recent? These affirm at their own will, and dream of deeds most remote from their own times; but those left not even a sole or footprint of these things, and would surely have left them had they had knowledge of them. And shall we let ourselves be led rather by the unskilfulness of those who affirm than by the learning of those who are silent? So Muratori in general on the force of the negative argument; how great this may be from time to time, as also how and when it can have place, it will be easy to draw from what is now to be said.

[258] Since it is admitted by almost all, and does not seem able deservedly to be denied, that many things, and those also most worthy of note, were done in past ages which are not found committed to writing, the force of the argument. and perhaps even never were, it does not forthwith follow that things which are mentioned only by more recent writers are undoubtedly false; yet they will then be certainly, or only probably, false according as it shall be established, which indeed will rarely happen, or shall be only probable or likely, that the ancient writers, or at least one or another of them, by whom they are kept in silence, are such that they would have known of them if they had existed, and, knowing them, would have mentioned them. Our Papebroch does not depart much from these things, writing thus most rightly, as it appears to me at least, for the present purpose, in the Propylaeum of the month of May: Although in dialectical rigour it does not follow, It is not written or said; therefore it was not done; for Lazarus would not have been any the less raised by Christ, even if John and the three other Evangelists had been silent about it, and if the disciples of the Apostles too had been silent, and all who were nearest to them in age; yet it rightly follows, This or that lacks the testimony of fitting antiquity and authority; therefore it is not prudently credible that it was done, just as the raising of Lazarus would not be credible in the universal silence of all who had themselves been present at the event, or had received it from those present, etc. And the demonstration from the negative argument becomes the more certain and evident the more the knowledge of the fact whose credibility is in controversy ought to have reached many, and to have been committed to writing by many, on account of its notable celebrity. So Papebroch, teaching namely that by the negative argument, although the facts against which it militates

are foreign to the truth, it does not prove it invincibly, yet it has that force by which it comes about that these approach more or less, according to it, to the class of incredible things.

[259] Launoy employs it against the story of the damned doctor. Let us now see whether, and what, according to what has been said, can be made out from the silence of the ancient writers, or from the negative arguments formed from this silence, against the Parisian prodigy, by which Bruno was driven into the desert, of the doctor come back to life for a while and crying out then publicly, before an almost infinite multitude of the people, that he was damned. Launoy, in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, brings forward twenty-nine ancient authors, who, since they do not mention the Parisian prodigy, he contends testify by their silence that it is invented. Of these some were contemporary or nearly contemporary with the Saint, others flourished about one or two centuries after him, and the last of all, John of Saint Victor, made an end of writing in the year 1322. But by no reasoning is it a wonder why some of these were silent about that prodigy, and consequently the negative argument formed from their silence has either no force or indeed very little. Wherefore it pleases me to discuss by name the silence of those authors, not of all, but only of the principal ones, and most of all of those who would probably have mentioned the prodigy if it had been, and whose not having done so can therefore not undeservedly seem a wonder, and to weigh what the several negative arguments adduced from it by Launoy are worth. I take my beginning from the silence of St. Bruno himself, to whom I shall join in the present § two others, namely Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, and Guibert of Nogent, likewise silent about the prodigy. The Saint, then, in the letter already praised several times above and to be recited entire below here, which he wrote to Ralph the Green to rouse him to fulfil the vow he had made of taking the monastic habit, makes no mention at all of the horrible spectacle of the damned doctor, on seeing which he himself fulfilled his vow and withdrew into the desert, where nevertheless this would have been very opportune for moving Ralph's mind to discharge his vow.

[260] What he derives from the silence of St. Bruno himself, Hence Launoy argues thus in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, just praised again, chap. 1: Ralph needed sharper goads by which he might be roused to the discharge of his … vow (which he had made with Bruno concerning taking the monastic habit in the conference mentioned above). Whence it comes about that Bruno in this letter sets before Ralph, as glory for him who pays the vow, so eternal punishment for him who does not pay it; where certainly there was a place for that horrible spectacle, if one enacted at Paris had previously impelled Bruno to fulfil his vow. For what was readier for piercing Ralph's delay than to inculcate on him in season and out of season that kind of spectacle by which Bruno's own delay, if we believe the Didactic Epistle (namely that written by du Saussay to Bartold Nihus and printed, as I have shown above, in the year 1645 at the Cologne press), was overcome? Nor does the didactic author sufficiently fitly parry this weapon, with which he foresaw he would be attacked; nay, he offers his breast to be pierced through, where, comparing the religious obligation of the vow by which Bruno and Ralph were bound with that horrible spectacle which he teaches drove Bruno into the desert, he reckons the horrible spectacle as the stronger incitement. But if Bruno needed this stronger incitement, why not, I ask, Ralph, who so put off the discharge of his vow that he never, so far as I know, fulfilled it? But that a wise man in a letter in which he applies all his engines to move Ralph should have passed over, or not rather often exaggerated, the punishment sought from the spectacle which had been placed ready to hand, if yet it ever was placed there, that indeed would have in Bruno, I think, just cause for wonder. Since, therefore, among the moments of the reasons by which Bruno moves Ralph to pay his vow he omitted the horrible spectacle with which the didactic writer (namely du Saussay, so called here from his didactic Epistle just mentioned) professes himself to have been imbued from boyhood, he omitted what he could not say. And he could not say what did not happen to him, and what some brought in long after him and made the origin of the Carthusians.

[261] Thus far Launoy; hear now what the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, answers to this argument of his against the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor. with all force, contrary to what the anonymous Carthusian contends here, To what end … (he says at num. 90 of his Composition) the mention of this spectacle, which did not concern Ralph, since he had perhaps made his vow long before? And since from the Chronicles of the Order (namely the Carthusian) it is said to have happened at Paris in the year MLXXXII, at which time indeed the clerics of Reims formerly expelled by Manasses had already returned to their church, it may be that Ralph either did not know of it, if the thing was done in a hall among friends, as is to be gathered from the same Chronicles, or at least was not present at it. But even if we granted that he was present then, it would not follow thence that Bruno ought to have rubbed up in his friend the memory of the prodigy rather than of the vow he had made. For it was readier for piercing Ralph's delay to inculcate on him in season and out of season the vow by which he was held bound, to discharge which he was obliged under pain of mortal sin, from failure in which he would incur eternal damnation, which otherwise he would not incur, even if he did not hear nor heed the aforesaid spectacle. For which reason Saint Bruno thrusts upon him nothing more frequently in his Epistle than the obligation of discharging the vow, and the punishments which God threatens to those who do not perform what they have promised Him. So he, contending that nothing at all is established against the story of the damned doctor by the argument proposed by Launoy, chiefly for this reason, that the Saint in his Epistle to Ralph ought to have mentioned the vow, or the obligation annexed to it, rather than the deathly story of the damned man, as being less apt than the former for extorting from Ralph the discharge of his vow.

[262] But even though this be so, it is certain indeed does not lack. Yet another (argument) from the other, that the mention of that mournful spectacle would have been very opportune and most suited for moving Ralph's mind. Wherefore, since it appears likely enough that Bruno, a prudent man, in a letter in which he applies all engines to bend Ralph to the discharge of his vow, would have made mention of the same horrible spectacle if it had happened publicly, even though Ralph was absent, and he nevertheless omits it in the whole letter to Ralph, long as it is, certainly this, which rests on no other testimonies of writers either contemporary or coeval, is rendered, if only for this reason, in some fashion suspect of falsity, or at least more difficult to believe, although meanwhile it is not on that account certainly false. I now proceed to the second negative argument to be discussed in this present §, which Launoy derives in the Dissertation and chapter last cited from the silence of Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse. Launoy, then, copies from the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, described by Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, these following words: In these things he (St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble) was engaged, and behold, three years in the episcopate after his return from the monastery not yet being completed, there is present Master Bruno, a man famous for religion and knowledge, as it were a certain image of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity. And he had as companions Master Landuin, who after him was Prior of the Chartreuse, the two Stephens of Bourg and of Die. These had been canons of Saint-Ruf, but out of desire for the solitary life had joined themselves to him, their abbot favouring it. Hugh also, whom they surnamed the Chaplain because he alone of them discharged the office of priest, and two laymen, whom we call Conversi, Andrew and Guarin.

[263] which is formed from the silence of Guigo, And they were seeking a place fitting for the eremitical life, and had not yet found one. Drawn, therefore, by this hope and by the sweet odour of his holy conversation, they came to the holy man, whom he received not only gladly but also reverently, treated them, and made them masters of their wish. For by his counsel, help and company they entered the solitude of the Chartreuse and built in it. Now he had seen about that time in a dream God building in the same solitude a habitation for His own dignity, and seven stars also furnishing him the leadership of the journey. And these too were seven; and then, since in these words of Guigo no mention at all occurs of the Parisian prodigy, intimating that it is false, he concludes thus: This author (namely Guigo) describes the cradle of the Carthusian Religious life, and pursues every minute detail most diligently, and yet he does not touch with a word those two things, namely the Parisian prodigy, by which the doctor come back to life cried out from the bier that he was damned, and St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert that followed hence. So Launoy. Behold now what the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, answers to these things. To these things, namely proposed by Launoy from Guigo, we reply, he says at num. 92 of his Work, that Guigo's sole aim was to write the Life of Saint Hugh, not of Saint Bruno; which he did not even do unless first compelled by the supreme Pontiff. For which reason he had some things of Saint Bruno only incidentally, so far as they touched Saint Hugh; nor did he wish to narrate more of the Order of the Carthusians, held back by this reason, concerning which Peter of Cluny wrote thus: "I have learned from many that many miracles have happened in that sacred Order" of the Carthusians, "but they themselves, by the virtue of humility, by which the servants of God always hide their wonderful works with as much effort as they can, have been willing to disclose scarcely anything of them."

[264] against the things adduced here to the contrary But now let us see whether Guigo so described the cradle of the Carthusian Religious life, and so diligently pursued every minute detail, that his silence about the spectacle is an argument of its falsity. He narrates indeed in very few words that Bruno with six companions, whose names he recounts, attracted by the fame of Hugh's sanctity, came to him to obtain from him a place fitting for the eremitical life; and that by his counsel, help and company they entered the solitude of the Chartreuse and built in it. But how these things were transacted he does not narrate. Nor does he even mention whence Saint Bruno came, whether from Reims, where he was a canon, or from Paris, where last he had either taught, or at least taken up the plan of leaving the world. He is silent about his dignities in the church of Reims, about the labours which he had sustained in various councils for the defence of the liberty and rights of the Church, whence he had also merited the glorious titles of Pillar of the whole metropolis and sincere defender of the Catholic faith. He is silent about that conference between Saint Bruno, Ralph and Fulcius, about the vow of receiving the monastic habit, about the persecutions of Manasses, so that he has nothing at all about the cause and occasion of his conversion, whatever they were. He is silent, finally, about all the things done by him from his departure from the city of Reims up to his withdrawal into the Chartreuse. Which indeed

all, and many other things of this kind, in enumerating which one must not linger longer, were truly minute details, although very great ones and plainly necessary for duly describing the cradle of the Order; which nevertheless Guigo passed over, as also the Parisian spectacle, because they had nothing to do with the Life of Saint Hugh, which alone he had undertaken to write. If, then, from the silence of Guigo the other things which could be related of the story of Bruno totter, that alone will have to be held which Guigo wrote; which to say or to think must be judged more than ridiculous.

[265] Thus far the praised anonymous Carthusian, deservedly indeed contending appears to be determined; but not so, that nothing at all can be concluded from the silence of Guigo against the resurrection of the Parisian doctor and Bruno's being driven by it into solitude. For besides the fact that he passed over in silence many other things pertaining to St. Bruno, and did not describe his Life of set purpose, it appears on no head likely that he would have committed that prodigy to writing, even if he had known for certain that it was done, in the cited Life of St. Hugh, to which it in no way pertained. But what is now to be said of the silence of Guibert, abbot of Nogent in the district of Laon, which is still to be examined in the present §? Launoy writes thus in the Dissertation and chapter cited above: Guibert, abbot of Nogent, composed a Treatise on his own life, in which he sets forth still more precisely the origin and institute of the Carthusians, and closes every approach to the fables of certain more recent writers; and then, having transcribed in great part chapter XI of book 1 of Guibert On his own life, he subjoins: According to this author (namely Guibert) no place is left for the prodigious resurrection of the doctor which drove Bruno into the desert of the Chartreuse. For he relates an altogether different cause which did this, in these words: "Who is known to have obtained the beginnings of his conversion from the occasion set down below: A certain Manasses, after the death of Gervase, the most famous archbishop, thrust himself simoniacally into the government of the aforesaid city (of Reims), a man noble indeed, but having nothing at all of that serenity which chiefly befits noble birth." And after other things: "Since, then, every upright man shuddered at his utterly wicked morals and most stupid bearing, Bruno, then most highly esteemed in the churches of Gaul, with certain other nobles among the clerics of Reims, left the city out of hatred of that infamous man." That is, when he took the plan of leaving, the conference being held with Ralph, of which Bruno makes mention in the letter to the same.

[266] whatever Columbi to the contrary But, I ask you, in this rather long narration of Guibert, in what place is there one word about Paris, which then had an academy flourishing with every kind of letters? About the doctor come back to life, who said three times during the solemn funeral rites that he was damned? About the solemn funeral rites, finally, which the whole order of the church honoured? So Launoy. But that the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert is not assigned by Guibert, as that writer would have it in the words recited, the things which I brought forward in § IX establish more than sufficiently, so far as I think. As regards the same Guibert's silence about the doctor's resurrection, Columbi answers Launoy on this in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, num. 35 and following, in this manner: Guibert recites that Bruno obtained the beginnings of his conversion from the occasion set down, and he himself (Launoy) observes that he was silent about the man come back to life who at Paris cried out from the bier with a horrible voice that he was damned; and to one meditating a conversion conceived from the occasion recited above through pious discourses with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, and confirmed by a vow, it was a great incitement and more powerful than any speech to lead a life far harsher in the Chartreuse than he had already thought of and vowed. It pleases me to reply to the exclaimer with an exclamation. I ask you, in this rather long narration of Guibert, in what place is there one word about the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, about the disputation of Bruno with Ralph and Fulcius, about the Roman journey of Fulcius, which brought it about that Bruno and Ralph did not receive the monastic habit immediately after making the vow?

[267] argue, concerning the argument Why then do you not reject these things kept silent by Guibert, you who assert that those things (namely the doctor's resurrection and Bruno's being driven hence into the desert) have no truth because they are kept silent by Guibert? But Guibert, as I have shown, proposed to himself to tell the occasion from which Bruno obtained the beginnings of his conversion, not those causes of his conversion: which therefore ought not to have been told by him, and ought not to be demanded by us in his discourse. These were two: the disputation in the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, in an unknown place outside Reims, "Concerning false delights and the perishable riches of this world, and also concerning the joys of everlasting glory," with Ralph and Fulcius; and the horrible and deadly words at Paris of the man come back to life, crying out from the bier that he was accused, judged, damned. The first made Bruno vow with Ralph and Fulcius conversion and the monastic habit: the second drove him, as he was thinking about the conversion confirmed by vow, into the Chartreuse with Landuin and five other companions, more powerfully than any discourse and disputation. As, therefore, Bruno in his letter to him put the first, which concerned Ralph, without the second, which did not pertain to him, so Guibert was silent about both, because he had not proposed to speak of the causes of Bruno's conversion, but of the occasion, to which neither of them pertained. So Columbi: but since Guibert indeed recounts Bruno's purpose of renouncing the world, as also his withdrawal into the desert, or perfect conversion, and in the very place where he does this sets forth the occasion by which the Saint obtained its beginnings, he would very probably also have mentioned the cause of the conversion, or the doctor's resurrection, which, if it had ever taken place, would have been much more worthy of note than this, and would also have been perceived by him.

[268] Nor does it bear on the matter that some other things pertaining to Bruno, namely the conference with Ralph and Fulcius, which the silence of Guibert supplies. the Roman journey of the latter, and the slackening of mind which followed hence both in these and in Bruno towards fulfilling the vow of taking the monastic habit, were passed over in silence by Guibert; for all these things, as will be plain to one who considers, are of such a kind that they could easily be unknown to this writer; but it appears by no means likely that Guibert, a contemporary of the event, was ignorant of the Parisian prodigy of the doctor come back to life, if it was done publicly, as some whose narration we are examining here have handed down to memory, before an almost innumerable multitude of men. Further, as regards the occasion of the beginnings of St. Bruno's conversion, which alone, and not also the causes of the conversion, it was Guibert's purpose to mention, this cannot bring it about that it becomes in any way likely that Guibert would have passed over that prodigy in silence if it had happened. For who would bring himself to believe that this writer, while he recounted not only the beginnings of St. Bruno's conversion but also his perfect conversion, or withdrawal into the desert, wished, or had it as his purpose, to mention rather the occasion of those beginnings, or the wicked morals of Manasses, less worthy of mention, than the cause of the perfect conversion, or that resurrection of the Parisian doctor, if it had ever taken place, a thing at any rate, if it happened, by far most worthy of all the memory of all ages? The anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals, in order to enervate the argument adduced by Launoy from the silence of Guibert against the deathly story of the damned doctor, enters on another way.

[269] For he both accuses Guibert himself of ignorance of the things pertaining to St. Bruno and the Carthusians, Nor (can) the place of Guibert's Life in which this is kept, and contends that chapter XI of book 1 of Guibert's Life, in which the story of the damned doctor should have been mentioned and yet is passed over in silence, has been notably interpolated, or even has another author than Guibert. The principal arguments, or the stronger ones, by which he either strives to prove this opinion of his, or may even seem to give it in fact as proved, I again transcribe here in his very words. First, then, at num. 94 of his composition, some things which I pass over here being put first, he has thus: He (namely Guibert at the place cited) describes the Grande Chartreuse in the manner in which it was after the death of our Guigo, who died in the year MCXXXVI. "Having," he says, "a cloister sufficiently suitable for cenobitic custom, but not living together in cloister fashion like the others. For each have their own little cells round the circuit of the cloister, etc." By which words he expresses the new monastery of the Chartreuse, built from the year MCXXXII after the monks had been overwhelmed by snow (go to Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca manuscriptorum, page 640) in the former place. For at the time at which Guibert is believed to have written, namely before or about the year MCXXIV, the little cells were not arranged round the circuit of the cloister, but wholly separated from the cloister itself, as we shall prove in the Annals at the year MLXXXIV. And when he subjoins: "And they have water both for drinking and for the remaining use from the conduit of a fountain which goes round the cells of all and flows into the little houses of each through certain openings," by these words he intimates the times of Saint Anthelm, seventh Prior of the Chartreuse, who, as the author of his Life says, "building aqueducts with much but untiring labour, directed so great an abundance of waters by long channels to the cells, the kitchen and the other offices, etc." Which work indeed Guigo had first undertaken, but, prevented by death, had not been able to carry it through the cells.

[270] (brought) forward from the same here concerning St. Bruno He writes (namely Guibert at the place cited above) that the Carthusians "almost never speak, for if anything must be asked for, it is requested by a sign." But let us see from the customs of our Guigo whether Guibert rightly knew our manners. Guigo, then, speaks thus: "Living alone, we know either none or few of the signs of the cenobites, thinking it enough for the tongue alone, and not also the other limbs, to be entangled in the guilt of speaking; and therefore, if so great a necessity presses, we have preferred that what the matter requires be indicated with one or two, or at least very few, words." Not, therefore, by signs, as Guibert will have it, but with the tongue do we request what is necessary for us. "And there are," says Guibert, "below that mountain (of the Chartreuse) dwellings containing most faithful laymen, exceeding the number of twenty." But the same Guigo has thus decreed: "The number of laymen, whom we call Conversi, is fixed at sixteen." Hence we suspect either that Guibert did not die in the year MCXXIV and lived up to the times of Basil, Prior of the Chartreuse, that is, after the year MCL, or that that chapter (namely XI of book 1 cited above) was inserted into Guibert's Work by someone else. For about the times of Basil the number of conversi and hired servants began to be increased, as is plain from the charters of the general chapters, and is confirmed by Peter of Cluny, who in chapter XXVIII of book 2 On Miracles, which he published about the year MCL, as we shall say in its place, writes that the number of conversi was then eighteen. Guibert asserts that the Carthusians "are borne by so great a fervour of the contemplation they have begun that they do not desist from their institution through any length of time, nor grow lukewarm through any long continuance of that arduous way of life." From these words certainly we gather that a great "length of time"

or "long continuance of the way of life" had elapsed from the institution of the Order up to the time at which these things were being written, so that it was a matter for admiration, which certainly it would not have been if it did not extend beyond the age of Guibert, who was contemporary with St. Bruno. Nor on that account would the Carthusians have been so greatly to be praised.

[271] and adduced concerning the Carthusians, Guibert goes on to betray his ignorance concerning Saint Bruno, saying: "Thence too" (from the Chartreuse) "on what occasion I know not, that wonderful Bruno withdrawing, after he had furnished to those whom we have touched on many rudiments by the inculcation of words and deeds, went to the Apulians, or, I know not, the Calabrians, and there instituted a kind of life somewhat like this." Saint Bruno withdrew unwillingly from the Chartreuse, Urban II, the supreme Pontiff, ordering and compelling him, whom he helped with pious counsels for some years, especially in the councils then celebrated. But these things, known to all, Guibert alone did not know, who confesses that he does not know on what occasion Saint Bruno left the Chartreuse. Then he thinks that the holy Patriarch betook himself by a straight road from Gaul into Apulia or Calabria, but to which he in fact went he does not know. Saint Bruno, while he was staying at the court of Urban, being requested as archbishop by the clergy of Reggio with the Pontiff's assent, would not give his assent to the election, and, having received leave from Urban himself, withdrew into the solitude which he had chosen in Calabria. But Guibert, ignorant of all these things, writes that he, while he lay hidden in the desert, betrayed nevertheless by the brightness of his virtues, fled when he had been sought and held by the supreme Pontiff that he might become a bishop. "There," says Guibert (whether in Apulia or in Calabria he does not know), "when he was conducting himself with much humility, and shining round about by the display of pious examples of every kind, being sought and held for the dignity of bishop by the Apostolic See, he fled." From these things it is plain that Guibert was wholly ignorant whether Saint Bruno had ever attached himself to Pope Urban, which nevertheless he ought to have known excellently; since he was both a contemporary of Urban and born as it were in the same province. For he himself originated from the city of Beauvais, and was afterwards made abbot of Nogent in the diocese of Laon, both cities being under the metropolis of Reims; and Urban was of the territory and clergy of Reims, as Guibert himself writes.

[272] After the words copied by Launoy from Guibert, as we have reported them above, some of which (are shown) not to pertain Guibert immediately subjoins in the same chapter: "These, I say, were the persons who at that time brought forth the beginnings of conversions. To these forthwith flocks of men and women attached themselves, every order ran together at once." And below: "But women likewise, notable ones, having deserted the wedlock of celebrated husbands and abstained with pious hearts from children, their wealth being brought together there, gave themselves up to ecclesiastical stipends." What do these things mean? Guibert died about the year MCXXIV, and yet speaks of women, or Carthusian nuns, who we shall prove in the Annals were admitted into the Order only about the year MCXLV. And indeed he speaks of women who, "having deserted the wedlock of husbands," had embraced our institute, although it is established that no women, whether widows or married, were ever received into our nunneries, but only women or virgins wholly without experience of marriage, on account of the consecration which was always in use among our nuns and which is granted only to virgins. Besides, in the whole first century of our Order only one Carthusian nunnery was founded. Guibert goes on in the same place: "What shall I say of ages, when little children of ten and eleven years were meditating like things and doing many things more chastened than their tender age would allow?" Who ever heard or wrote such things of the Carthusian Order? to which no entrance was ever open to boys; nay, it was always forbidden according to the statute of R. F. Guigo, writing thus concerning the age of those to be received: "We do not receive boys or youths, because we grieve that many things have befallen monasteries through them … but men who, according to the precept of the Lord by the hand of Moses, of at least twenty years, can go forth to the sacred wars."

[273] There are also many other things like these in the same chapter in Guibert, to pertain to these so foreign to the institutes of our Order that, as we read them, it came into our mind either that they are not Guibert's, or at least that they by no means pertain to us, although d'Achery, a man otherwise most sagacious, thinks the contrary, writing thus in the scholia in the margin of the same words, after the little Notes on Saint Bruno: "Men and women seize upon that kind of life. Even infants of ten and eleven years. He" (namely Bruno, who besides the Grande Chartreuse and the monastery in Calabria built no other) "founded innumerable monasteries." And in the Index to the same Guibert: "Origin of the Carthusian Order, page CDLXV or CDLXVII. Description of the Chartreuse, CDLXVI or CDLXVIII. Men, women and boys seize upon that kind of life. They found innumerable monasteries, ibid. They are abundantly enriched. CDLXVII, etc." Guibert wrote indeed in the same place that by the men, whether Carthusians or others, of whom he spoke, "new monasteries began to be built everywhere, and great revenues of provisions were applied by those flocking together from every quarter," but to us, searching the more hidden things of Carthusian affairs, the foundations of these innumerable monasteries have nowhere occurred; nay it will be plain in our Annals that before the year MCXXIV scarcely five or six charterhouses had then been founded, and those indeed very poor. Thus far the anonymous Carthusian, deservedly indeed judging, contrary to what d'Achery had before thought, that the things related by Guibert in the book and chapter cited about the huge multitude of women and boys giving themselves to the religious or monastic life do not pertain to the Carthusians.

[274] are shown, (to have) another author than Guibert For these following words, which he subjoins immediately to what he had said there of St. Bruno, These … were the persons who at that time brought forth the beginnings of conversions, are to be referred not to St. Bruno alone, but also to St. Simon of Crépy, from count a monk of the Order of St. Benedict, already given in our Work at the XXX day of September, to Ebrard, count of Breteuil, and others converted to the monastic life, or at least to a better one, different nevertheless from the Carthusian, of whom he had treated immediately before the discourse held about St. Bruno; and consequently what he then subjoins, To these (namely the persons who at that time brought forth the beginnings of conversions) forthwith flocks of men and women attached themselves, every order ran together at once. What shall I say of ages? When little children of ten and eleven years were meditating the things of old age, and doing much more chastened things than their tender age would allow. There took place in those conversions, etc., are to be so taken as to signify that at that time women and men, nay also boys, gave themselves indeed to a better and more chastened life, yet not all embraced the Order instituted by Bruno, but either this or another, as the sex or condition of each allowed, and thus attached themselves to Bruno and to the others of whose conversion Guibert had treated, namely by giving themselves to one or another of the kinds of better life which these had either instituted or followed. Now indeed, since this is so, there is certainly no reason why the things mentioned in Guibert in the book and chapter cited about men, women and boys should be accused of error or falsity, and hence taken away from Guibert as one who could not have committed such things to writing. Which otherwise would have to be done, since certainly in the age of Guibert, who died in the year 1124, as Mabillon teaches in the Benedictine Annals, book 74, num. 71, and after him the writers of the Literary History of France, volume X, page 438, there existed no nuns at all who were of the Carthusian Order, nor were any widows or women experienced in marriage ever admitted into it.

[275] to have as author, But what is to be said of other things likewise mentioned by Guibert which, as our anonymous Carthusian thinks, require a writer later than the year 1124, and which consequently, unless Guibert prolonged his life beyond this year, cannot have been committed to writing by him? Such are (go to num. 269) the number of laymen or conversi, fitting only the subsequent time, the construction of the little cells round the circuit of the cloister, and finally the conduit of the fountain going round all the little cells and flowing into them. But Guibert could have made the number of laymen or conversi greater than it was from an erroneous narration made to him. He could also from the same cause have erred in assigning the situation of the little cells (though what the anonymous Carthusian means at num. 269 against Guibert on this I do not sufficiently understand). As for the conduit of the fountain, since, as our anonymous Carthusian himself teaches, that work was begun by Guigo, who presided over the Chartreuse from the year 1110 up to the year 1136, what if Guibert persuaded himself that what he had understood to have been begun by Guigo with great industry and labour had also been brought to completion? What if a more excellent aqueduct was substituted by Anthelm for the conduit of the fountain going round all the little cells of the Chartreuse in Guibert's age and sprinkling them with water? It is not necessary, therefore, that these things were written either by another than Guibert, or that he prolonged his life beyond the year 1124. The same must also be said of the following words, in which Guibert, in the cited chap. XI of book 1 of his Life, celebrates the Carthusians in these words: They are borne by so great a fervour of the contemplation they have begun that they do not desist from their institution through any length of time, nor grow lukewarm through any long continuance of that arduous way of life. For why could not Guibert, who died only in the year 1124, pronounce these things of the Carthusians, who had already persevered constantly for thirty or even only twenty years in the rule of most austere life undertaken in the Chartreuse, first begun to be instituted by Bruno in the year 1084?

[276] Now indeed, since all these things are so, the things brought forward above from the anonymous Carthusian annalist by no means establish that the praised chapter XI of Guibert's Life does not have Guibert himself as author, [establish: who, since besides he would have known the story of the damned man, if it had been,] or was inserted into his said Work by a later writer, although meanwhile it must be confessed that it is plain from these things that Guibert was not sufficiently acquainted with all the things pertaining to St. Bruno and the Order instituted by him. When I say this, there is no reason why you should forthwith think that Guibert strayed from the truth in the other things too which he narrates of Bruno, and was ignorant of the Parisian prodigy by which the latter was driven into the desert, and that consequently his silence about it ought to seem a wonder to no one. For the things which our Saint did in the Chartreuse, removed from the sight of almost all men, and then in Calabria, far removed from Gaul and the abbey of Nogent, are to be distinguished from those which he performed at Reims and in other places not much removed from Nogent. For although Guibert is detected from time to time to have erred in the former, yet he is not therefore to be judged to have likewise erred in the latter, as being near to them not only in time but also in place, unless a solid reason proving it can be brought from elsewhere. And as regards by name the Parisian prodigy, since publicly, before an almost innumerable multitude of men,

in the opinion which we are discussing here, and not very far from the abbey of Nogent, it took place, it can in no way become likely that Guibert was ignorant of it from the fact that he did not have sufficiently ascertained and perceived some things done by the Saint either in the Chartreuse or in Calabria, far from Nogent, or at any rate outside the sight of almost all men.

[277] But the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place [argument, which (derives from) his silence about it in his Life, not so interpolated as is intimated here,] writes besides, at num. 36 of his composition, things by which he indicates that the Work written by Guibert on his own Life and published by d'Achery is to be held as suspect and interpolated. Behold his words: When Claude Hémeré, a doctor of the Sorbonne, had dedicated in the year MDCLXXII to Bruno d'Affringues, prior general of our Order, a sufficiently large Work entitled The Carthusian, or the Journey to wisdom, and had caused to be joined at the end of the same Work a Fragment from Guibert's Treatise containing the praises of St. Bruno and of our institute, the same prior general wrote this concerning the credit of this Fragment to John de Bacca, Prior of the Charterhouse of El Paular in Castile: "That lord Hémeré acted imprudently, who in his Carthusian inserted a Fragment on the Origin of our Order which is false and fictitious, as the Prior of Paris warned me, writing about the aforesaid lord Hémeré, author of the said book, which is entitled The Carthusian. And in truth Luc d'Achery, a Benedictine monk, well deserving of the Church for the codices he has published, confesses that the copy of the whole treatise is written in a more recent hand, teeming with very many errors, words inverted, sentences sometimes either changed or wholly taken away, so that some things, to him inspecting more deeply, had almost to be divined. For which reason, when he wished to send out to light all the Works of Guibert, he left no stone unturned to find the autograph of the aforesaid treatise, which he had heard had a little before passed into the hands of a certain doctor of Paris; but in vain."

[278] attributes silence, its force assigned above remains. So he: but although only a copy of the Work which Guibert wrote on his own Life lighted d'Achery's way, and that most diligent editor of manuscript books lying hidden in libraries teaches in the preliminary Admonition which he prefixed to the Works of Guibert published by him that it teemed with many errors, and that he had not been able, after a most diligent search, to find the autograph, yet that copy of this Work does not seem to have been so corrupted that it had inserted in it entire chapters, or even fragments of chapters in any way worthy of note, which were not Guibert's. It is permitted to gather this from d'Achery's very words which occur on this matter in the praised preliminary Admonition. I therefore transcribe them here. They run thus: Of the books of our abbot (Guibert) on his own Life it has been possible to find only a copy, written indeed elegantly and in a more recent hand, but teeming with very many errors, words inverted, sentences sometimes (namely by the writing of one or another word, as appears from what follows, either erroneous or difficult to read) either changed or wholly taken away, so that some things, to me inspecting more deeply, had almost to be divined; and in place of the other words which escaped me I have supplied points, or written certain other things in the margin. I had indeed heard, and had learned by frequent repetition, that the autograph was preserved up to our times among the old codices of the church of Laon, and afterwards given to a man skilled in antiquity, D. Dey, doctor of Paris, who died some time ago; but into what hands it afterwards passed, I left no stone unturned that I might be able to find out, but in vain. So d'Achery: but since he declares that only words and sentences laboured under errors in the manner I have already noted, who would conclude from this that entire chapters and notable fragments which were not Guibert's were added to the Work? Now indeed, since this is so, the place of this writer cited above more than once, in which the occasion of the beginnings of St. Bruno's conversion is mentioned, cannot be held as an addition made to Guibert; and consequently the negative argument which is formed from the silence kept there by this writer about the resurrection of the Parisian doctor keeps all the force which I attributed to it above.

§ XVI. What is to be thought of the silence of the Carthusian Order, as Launoy calls it, and of Peter the Venerable.

[The silence concerning the doctor's resurrection, occurring in the elogia of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse] That the elogia of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse which exist in Labbe, volume 1 of the Nova Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum, page 638 and the two following, enjoy the highest merit of antiquity, and by name that the first four were written before the year 1138, the things which I brought forward in §1 more than sufficiently establish. Hence Launoy, in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1, not undeservedly reckons their authors, or rather, if there is question only of the first four, their author, among the ancient writers who have mentioned St. Bruno. But does he likewise not undeservedly argue there, from the silence kept in those five elogia, found in an old manuscript codex of the Statutes and Customs of the Carthusian Order, concerning the prodigious resurrection of the doctor, that the Order of the Carthusians, whose he calls it, testifies against it? Before I declare what my opinion is on this matter, I transcribe here the words of Launoy together with the reply to them of our anonymous Carthusian in the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order. Launoy, then, after copying out the elogium of our Saint from the manuscript codex just praised, discourses thus: Here there is no mention of a dead doctor or canon of Paris who answered during the solemn funeral rites that he was damned, or of this portent which drove blessed Bruno into the desert of the Chartreuse: which two things, nevertheless, Raynaud did not hesitate to write were held certain among all the ancients. Further, I cannot but reckon among the ancient writers those who copied that codex of the Statutes at Paris, where it is now kept among the Carthusians, or in another place, and published the history of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse in such a manner as to observe whatever miracle was detected in them.

[280] For which reason there is no great cause why you should plead occurring, attributed to it here by Launoy, so that deservedly that these authors of whom we speak passed over in silence those things which would conduce to commending the conversion and flight from the world of those Priors. Nor indeed is any cause available to me why the older Carthusians should have omitted the principal monument of their origin, which some of the more recent among them so eagerly throw into books and on walls, and call "a spectacle horrible and memorable to all ages." This monument certainly is not of such a kind that it could have lain hidden from all the ancient Carthusians and been known only to the more recent, who, if they were rightly wise in this part, ought to be wise only from the commentaries of the older ones. "For what," says Baronius, "is brought forward about things so ancient without the authority of some older writer is despised." So he: hear now what the praised anonymous Carthusian replies. We call the kind reader as witness, he says at num. 102 of the book of his Annals cited, whether the things which the author of the codex (which, from the preceding number, lighted Launoy's way) set down above about Bruno and his successors (namely the next four) in that meagre (go to Labbe, Bibliotheca Nova, at the place last cited) Breviary of their life in so few words are of such weight that Launoy could justly and deservedly draw from them this consequence: "I cannot," he says, "but reckon among the ancient writers those who copied that codex of the Statutes at Paris, where it is now kept among the Carthusians, or in another place, and published the history of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse in such a manner as to observe whatever miracle was detected in them." Behold how many bombastic words he throws out, according to the Poet's saying, to exalt his authorities with a swollen style. "I cannot," he says, "those who copied that codex." Would he not have said better and more truly, him who copied that codex, "since it contains scarcely thirty little leaves," unless he will have it that there were as many writers as there are leaves of the codex?

[281] our anonymous Carthusian contends, But these are light things. Hear more swollen ones. "Those who copied that codex published the history of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse in such a manner as to observe whatever miracle was detected in them." But, I ask, what are these miracles which those writers observed in so brief a narration, contained in one leaf? None certainly, at least in the elogia of the first four Priors, which we have reported above from the most ancient of all codices of this kind (go to what was said at num. 4). For of Guigo we now say nothing, because his elogium, as we have warned, was written over by a recent hand. Was nothing miraculous therefore done among these first Fathers, or by them? Let Peter of Cluny again answer for us. "I have learned from many," he says, "that many miracles have happened in that sacred (namely the Carthusians') Order." Are they then false because the writers of the codex were silent about them? But let us return to Saint Bruno. The writers, or rather the writer, of this codex, to speak now more correctly, comprises his whole life from his infancy up to his withdrawal into the Chartreuse in these very few words: "Bruno the German, born of parents not obscure of the city of Cologne, well furnished with letters both secular and divine, canon of the church of Reims and master of the schools, having left the world, founded the desert of the Chartreuse and governed it for six years." Behold, he comprehends the whole conversion of St. Bruno in five words, "Having left the world, founded the desert of the Chartreuse," which can be said of the conversion of anyone renouncing the world. Did that writer "so publish" the history of Bruno in so few words "as to observe whatever miracle was detected in it," as Launoy would have it? But as he was silent about the vision of the seven stars shown to Saint Hugh, about the six companions of Saint Bruno, about the persecutions of Manasses, about his vow, and about many other things excellently done by him, so it is no wonder if he also passed over the spectacle.

[282] does not obtain force. Finally it is to be noted that the writer's sole aim seems to have been this, namely to compose a catalogue of the Priors of the Chartreuse and to designate the years of their prelacy. For he seems to describe nothing more accurately, since he observes most of all about Bruno that "he governed the Chartreuse for six years," and died in Calabria "in the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse." Which he also diligently notes about the others, so that towards the end he repeats summarily the years which had elapsed from the foundation of the Chartreuse up to the death of John the Tuscan. "There are therefore gathered," he says, "from the first year of Master Bruno up to the last of this one" (John) "twenty-five years (which before his death, which is on the Nones of October) are completed about the nativity of Bl. John the Baptist; for at such a time the aforesaid desert began to be inhabited by Master Bruno." Which he also observed who inserted the elogium of Guigo into the same codex. So

stands the anonymous Carthusian's reply to the negative argument sought by Launoy from the silence of the codex praised at num. 279. And indeed, since the author of the Codex, that is, of the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, did not describe of set purpose the life and all the deeds of our Saint, and passes over in silence many things about Bruno which nevertheless he had excellently ascertained, especially if, as appears, it was Guigo, the argument formed from his silence has here either no force at all or certainly very little, especially since no reason can be brought by which it becomes in any way likely that that writer would not have allowed himself to pass over in silence the Parisian prodigy, of which, if it was done, he would without doubt have known.

[283] Let us proceed now to the other negative argument, which is also to be examined in the present §, Peter of Cluny too is silent about the same resurrection. and which is formed from the silence of Peter, surnamed the Venerable. This man, born about the year 1093, when he had performed glorious service in warfare for some years, having left the world, joined himself to the monks of Cluny, and when he had then been set over them as abbot in the year 1122, and had discharged this office for thirty-four years and more, he passed to the Lord in the year 1156, illustrious for holiness of life as well as for the various Works which he had composed and left behind him. Among these is one written on miracles and divided into two books. In the second of these Peter says in his preface that he had proposed to write, for strengthening faith and forming morals, the miracles done either in his own time or about his times, of which undoubted knowledge is given, and yet he nowhere in the whole of his praised Work makes mention of the miracle or prodigy by which the Parisian doctor publicly announced to an innumerable multitude of people standing by that he was damned. Hence Launoy pronounces, in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 3, that every narration of this mournful story is to be held among fables. But did he, going beyond Papire Masson, deservedly hold in so great esteem that silence of Peter the Venerable on that matter? Our anonymous Carthusian, who composed the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, in order to show that Peter ought not to have mentioned the Parisian prodigy in his whole Work on miracles, first brings forward some things about the aim which that holy abbot of Cluny had set before himself in composing it, and at the same time examines what and what sort of miracles he relates in it, and then tries to confute with contrary reasons the reasons which impelled Launoy to think that Peter's silence about it has great force against the resurrection of the damned doctor. The whole reasoning which he set up to this end, since he judges it to be of very great value for confuting Launoy, I transcribe here entire, for the reason given at the end of num. 185, however very long it may be, being about to add at the end also what my opinion is on this matter.

[284] Thus, then, he makes his preface at num. 105 of his Work: Whose (Peter the Venerable's) silence about our (the doctor come back to life and damned) spectacle Launoy, after Papire Masson, makes so much of The cause of this silence, by words that he boldly pronounces thence that that narration is to be held among fables. But before we refute his argumentations, it is better to weigh minutely the Work of Peter the Venerable which is in question, entitled by its author "On miracles," so that from an accurate examination of it readers may cease to wonder that he was silent about so stupendous a prodigy; and then, presently approaching the matter itself, he proceeds in this manner: This Work is divided into two parts or books. In the little Preface of the first book the holy Abbot gives this reason why he undertook to write on this subject (namely on miracles), namely lest "those miracles which come about," he says, "in our times, since there is no one who applies his mind to writing them, should perish, covered in fruitless silence, which, if made manifest, could profit the readers." This book comprises twenty-eight chapters, of which twenty-one contain wonderful things which were accomplished either in the abbey of Cluny itself or in other monasteries of the same Order. In five other chapters are related histories which happened in places not far removed from Cluny, if you except one or two. For the abbot himself declares in the ninth and twenty-third chapters that he will relate what he had heard happened in the monastery of Cluny or round about. Finally the other two make mention of a certain Priest and a certain youth in the German parts abusing the divine mysteries and holy Communion.

[285] which are brought forward The one Peter had received from the bishop of Clermont, who seems to be Aymeric, formerly abbot of La Chaise-Dieu of the Cluniac Order, the other from the Prior and brethren of a certain monastery situated in the same places. And what he understands here by the German parts he seems afterwards to indicate, where, speaking of the city of Mâcon, in whose diocese Cluny is situated, he writes thus: "The same Mâcon is on the borders of the kingdom of the Franks, which the river Saône, taking its beginning from Lorraine, and the Rhône, having its outflow into the Mediterranean sea, divide from the empire of the Germans or Romans." From which words it is permitted to conjecture that these two miracles also were done in a region not far removed from Cluny. Whence Peter's aim seems to have been to narrate only those things which had been done in his Order, some things nevertheless being added which he had heard by chance happened about Cluny. All which things indeed, contained in these twenty-eight chapters, seem to have been accomplished while the abbot himself was already presiding, that is, after the year MCXXII, except certain things pertaining to the Cluniac Order which were done under Hugh, who had ruled the same abbey for about sixty years and died in his rule in the year MCIX. Moreover it is to be noted that all the things recounted by Peter in this book, except two or three examples, were related to him by persons of the same Order, among whom is also to be numbered, as we have said, Aymeric, bishop of Clermont.

[286] are adduced here, In the Prologue of the latter book the venerable Abbot writes thus: "Since I have proposed to write, for strengthening faith and forming morals, the miracles done in our time or about our times, of which undoubted knowledge is given, etc." These words pertain not only to the following book, but to the first, in which, as we have warned, certain things had been done about his times, that is, in the time of Saint Hugh the abbot; and indeed only concerning matters touching the Cluniac Order. This second Book on miracles contains thirty-two chapters, in the first of which Peter narrates from common report how a certain count of Mâcon was once visibly carried off by the devil. In the second he treats of a man "Who, buried under the earth, was fed by an angel through the Sacrifices and prayers of the Church;" which he asserts happened in the bishopric of Grenoble, and perhaps he had received it when coming to the Grande Chartreuse, to which we shall say in their places in the Annals that he ascended more than once. From the third chapter to the twenty-third chapter inclusive he writes out the life of Matthew, monk of Cluny and bishop of Albano, who died most holily in the year MCXXXIX. In the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, thirty-first and thirty-second chapters the things he recounts had happened in his Order while he presided. In the twenty-eighth chapter he treats "Of the institutes of the Carthusian monks." In the twenty-ninth "Of a certain Carthusian brother who saw wonderful things while awake." In the thirtieth "Of the miracle of the Roman candles," which he affirms happens every year in the church of St. Mary Major, "up to this our age," he says, "and as long hereafter as it shall please God." Of these thirty-two chapters twenty-seven pertain to the Cluniac Order: the first two, with the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth, which are about the Carthusians, comprise things transacted in regions not far removed from Cluny. Only the thirtieth chapter narrates a thing accomplished far from Cluny, namely at Rome, which perhaps he himself, staying there some years before, had either heard or seen.

[287] That whole Work, therefore, divided into two books, the same anonymous Carthusian assigns, contains sixty chapters, of which forty-eight are about miracles accomplished among the Cluniacs under Peter himself as abbot or under St. Hugh, who had made him a monk. In the ten others (for of the two concerning the Carthusians we do not now speak) there is treatment of wonderful things which happened while Peter was living or even presiding, as it is permitted to conjecture from their narrations, if you except one portent concerning the count of Mâcon, foreign indeed to the Cluniac Order, but either done about Cluny (as the abbot himself warned), almost only the Roman miracle being taken away, or narrated to Peter by monks of the same Order, except five or six which he had learned from outside men, but worthy of credit and neighbours of Cluny. And all these things, diligently and perhaps a little too broadly examined, declare evidently enough that the silence of Peter of Cluny detracts nothing from the truth of our story. For what wonder if among five or six miracles not pertaining to his Order he did not recount our spectacle? These, besides one or two, seem to have been done about Cluny while Peter was living, and were related to him by neighbouring friends; but the prodigy of the damned man happened at Paris, sufficiently far from Cluny, and perhaps within private walls (if also before few, the argument sought from Peter's silence certainly has no force), and almost fifteen years before the same abbot was born. Nor ought it to be doubtful that many other prodigies happened in Gaul, in Spain, in England, in Italy, in Peter's times or about his times, and yet, except those which pertain to his Order, he mentions none, although he is read to have gone to these foreign regions to promote the business not only of the monasteries of his Order but of the whole Church. Why, then, should he have inserted ours rather than those other prodigies into his Work?

[288] But I hear someone answering for Launoy: I "That Peter resolved to commit to writing the miracles which had happened anywhere in his time." II "That he comprised in two books each of the miracles which he had used his own eyes to see, or which he had received from men worthy of credit." III "That at the end of the second book he depicted in fuller discourse the beginning, statutes and manners of the Carthusian religious life." IV "That he testified that he grieved very much that he could not relate more miracles which pertain to the Carthusian Order, most beloved to him." V "That among the miracles which he records as done here and there in Gaul in his time, and among those which he discussed concerning the first origin and miracles of the Carthusians, the stupendous narration of the dead man is lacking." Finally, that Peter himself "said that the Order of the Carthusians was instituted in his time." These are the reasons which, from both the words and the silence of Peter the Venerable,

Launoy deduced against the truth of the Parisian prodigy. To I we answer that Peter did indeed say that his plan was "to transmit to the memory of posterity the miracles done anywhere in his time," but we have proved that he also said that his mind was to narrate the things which were done about Cluny; and from the discussion of the whole Work we have found that almost all the miracles written by him which do not regard his Order were accomplished in regions not much removed from Cluny: and those which had happened in foreign or more remote places were either done in monasteries of his Order or related to him by persons of the same. To II we have given satisfaction when we showed that in his whole Work he comprised only miracles pertaining to his Order, besides ten, of which he had learned four or five from Cluniac monks and the rest from friends neighbouring Cluny.

[289] by other reasons by which he judges its force to be shaken To III we confess that Peter depicted in a long narration the statutes and manners of our Order, but he did not depict its beginnings so abundantly as Launoy would have it. For he has this about them: "There is kept," he says, "in the parts of Burgundy, among all the professions of the monastic Order of our Europe, a certain profession holier and more cautious than many others of the same monastic purpose, instituted in our time by certain great Fathers, learned and holy, Master Bruno of Cologne, Master Landuin the Italian, and certain other men, truly great, as I have said, and fearing God, who, forewarned by the lukewarmness, negligence and sloth of certain ancient monks, wishing to renounce the world, took more cautious counsel for themselves and their followers in the way of God, etc." Then he adds many things about clothes, revenues, manners and statutes. This is his more abundant, or rather more barren, narration of the beginning of the Order. For there he only says that "A certain profession holier than others was instituted by Master Bruno of Cologne, Master Landuin the Italian and certain other truly great Fathers." But afterwards, as Launoy rightly noted, "he depicts in fuller discourse the statutes and manners of the Order." For this was his aim, as the learned du Saussay wisely warned, namely "to treat of the institute, not of the institution, of the Carthusian Order." And in truth, if he had decided to depict the institution of the Order, he would have narrated many other things which he could not be ignorant of. Whence he said nothing of the cause of the institution, whether it arose from the conference held between Saint Bruno and other clerics of Reims, or from the persecutions of Manasses, or from the terrifying cries of the damned man: nothing also of the manner, of the coming of Saint Bruno and his six companions to Grenoble, nothing of their approach to Saint Hugh the bishop, nothing of the vision of the seven stars made to the same bishop; which nevertheless he is by no means to be believed to have been ignorant of: nay, he utters not even one word about Saint Hugh, very well known to him, by whose counsel, help and company the first Fathers went to the solitude of the Chartreuse and built there; so tenacious is Peter of his purpose or aim, by which he had undertaken to speak only of the Carthusian institutes. And what is more to be observed, he names neither the Chartreuse itself nor the Order itself of which he was speaking. Whence it could be doubted of what he is speaking, unless he had inscribed his narration with such a title: "Of the institutes of the Carthusian monks." Du Saussay, therefore, is not to be mocked by Launoy for having distinguished the institution from the institutes.

[290] To IV, we do not know what Launoy means when he describes Peter of Cluny or to be torn up, "grieving that he cannot relate more miracles which pertain to the Order of the Carthusians, most beloved to him." If nevertheless it is permitted to guess, we believe that by these ingenious words he wished subtly to decline an objection to be made against him from the words of the Venerable abbot, by the force of which he foresaw that all the consequences which he draws from his silence would wholly collapse. For by these words the pious Abbot signifies that other miracles had indeed been accomplished in the Carthusian Order, but that he is affected with grief that he cannot relate them. And immediately the holy man declares that this was the cause of his grief in these words already cited above, but necessarily to be repeated here: "I have learned from many," he says, "that many miracles have happened in that sacred Order; but because they themselves, by the virtue of humility, by which the servants of God always hide their wonderful works with as much effort as they can, have been willing to disclose scarcely anything of them to anyone, rare, nay most rare, miracles to which entire credit was to be given have come to me. Yet those which I have found certain without doubt I neither wish nor have proposed to be silent about." Then he narrates two wonderful things about a certain lay brother, and no more about him or others. These things Peter wrote long after the year MCXLV, as we gather from chapter XXV of the second book, where he speaks thus: "In the beginnings of the Pontificate of the lord Pope Eugenius I went to Rome to visit both him and our common mother the Roman Church." Eugenius was elected in the year MCXLV, but when Peter was writing these things he intimates that several years had already elapsed, saying: "In the beginnings of the Pontificate of the lord Pope Eugenius." Since, then, he mentions our Order only in chapters XXVIII and XXVIIII of the same book, it is plain that what he relates of the ancient Fathers was written by him only long after the year MCXLV. Whence it is no wonder if that spectacle too, which had happened almost seventy years or even more before, and long before the birth of the same abbot, as we shall presently prove, was concealed from Peter by the Carthusians, who hide their works.

[291] To V: satisfaction has been made to this reason from the answers above, (reasons) sought out from every quarter by which we have proved that most of the miracles which he records as done here and there in Gaul in his time concern monasteries of the Cluniac Order; and that the very few which do not pertain to it were brought about about Cluny; which, even if we granted that they were done here and there in Gaul, the silence of Peter would still not stand against us at all, who, describing so few things in his whole Work, was either ignorant of or silent about many others. To the last, we grant that Peter wrote that the Religious life of the Carthusians was instituted in his time, but that his words are not to be taken so strictly is plain from this very fact, that it is established that he was born several years after the Order was founded. For since he is said to have been elected abbot in the year of Christ MCXXII, and in about the twenty-eighth year of his age (determine otherwise from num. 283), he must have been born only in the year MXCV, or about, that is, fourteen years after the cries of the damned man were uttered. Therefore the Order was instituted not in Peter's time, but before his times. Nor does it help to reply that he also related histories and miracles accomplished about his times, which indeed is true as regards the affairs of the Cluniacs, but not as regards prodigies foreign to the same Order, almost all of which, one or two only being excepted, we have shown from the preceding examination happened while Peter was living or even presiding. Finally, that many miracles escaped Peter or lay hidden from him we gather from his Preface to the second book on miracles, where he complains thus that there is no one who applies his mind to writing miracles: "To such fruit," he says, "has the fruitless sluggishness of this silence now come, that whatever things have been done in the Church of God or in the Christian kingdoms for almost four or five hundred years are almost all unknown to us and to all."

[292] he strives to wash away and enervate, "For so great a distance of our times appears that the things which were done five hundred and a thousand years ago are very well known to us, but those which have been done from then even up to our own days are wholly unknown. Hence it is that we abound in ancient histories, ecclesiastical acts, books of manifold learning containing the instructions and examples of the Fathers; but of the things which have happened in times contiguous to us I know not whether we have even one." So he, who had said above "that he grieved, and, beyond what would perhaps be credible to many, was angry at the torpor of many who, though they abound in knowledge, letters and eloquence, are slothful in committing to the memory of posterity by writing the wonderful works of almighty God which are often done in various parts of the earth for the instruction of the Church." For which reason towards the end he professes that he "will, according to the strength given by God, if he can find anything worthy or useful, make it manifest to the praise of God or the profit of readers, modern or later." And yet, although he was held by so great a desire of this kind, he said nothing of the wonder-worker of his time, namely Saint Bernard, most friendly and familiar to him, although an ample field lay open to him of the miracles most frequently accomplished by him, from which he could at least have excerpted a few, and those the more notable, among which would have been that conversion, worthy of note, of William, duke of Aquitaine. Nothing of Saints Norbert and Robert of Arbrissel; nothing of so many other most holy men who lived at the same time as Peter; nothing of the Orders of monks which then shone with many signs and powers; nothing, I say, did he write of all these. And though he could have related more of the Carthusians, who he confesses in a certain letter, which we shall give at the year MCLVI, "shone with innumerable miracles diffused through the world," which therefore could not have lain hidden from him, yet he mentions only one lay brother, not only because the first Fathers did not wish to proclaim their works, but certainly also from a defect of his memory, as seems to be established from that miraculous story of Auduin, monk of the Chartreuse, found alive after twelve days within the snows and ruins of the monastery, which Peter omitted, although he knew it very well, since he wrote a consolatory letter to Guigo about that disaster of the snows and rocks, which we shall give in its place in the Annals.

[293] But what you will wonder at more, Peter narrated nothing of Saint Hugh, abbot of Cluny, yet not, what is formed from the silence of Peter, wholly (of all force), from whom he had received the monastic habit, except a certain vision; by whom nevertheless we read in his Life that many excellent and stupendous miracles were accomplished both in life and after death. Weak, therefore, is the argumentation from the silence of Peter of Cluny which Launoy, with Masson, has searched out, who by that sole reason has exposed this story under the name of a fable and an old wives' tale. If we were held by his rules, we should also judge among fables whatever Peter was silent about concerning other Saints. All these things our anonymous Carthusian. But do they take away all force from the negative argument which is formed from the silence of Peter of Cluny? By Peter the Venerable, he says as to substance, only five or six miracles which do not pertain to the Cluniac Order are recounted, and consequently it is no wonder that the prodigious resurrection of the damned doctor is not found among these few, especially since Peter passes over in silence the vision of the seven stars offered to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, when St. Bruno came to him with six companions, and some other things pertaining to St. Bruno,

also passed over in silence. And this indeed seems the principal reason why he thinks the argument sought from Peter's silence against the story of the damned doctor enervated and weak; but although almost all the miracles which Peter committed to writing pertain to the Cluniac Order, yet this writer had it as his purpose to transmit to posterity also miracles which had happened elsewhere than in his Cluniac Order. This, he says in book 2, chap. 28, … in this whole Work was, as I have often said already, my principal cause of writing, that is, of transmitting to the memory of the present or of posterity miracles done anywhere and at any time. Hear also what he had said beforehand bearing on this in the same second book. Since for strengthening faith (the words are Peter's) and forming morals I have proposed to write the miracles done in our time or about our times, of which undoubted knowledge is given. After those things which have been set down before, other things too, not less useful, as I believe, to readers or hearers, are to be added.

[294] In which, as I have already said above, I keep no order of time, as of none of those adduced here I avoid miracles of no kind, but as I have either formerly learned them, or can learn them daily from various and credible persons, I commit them to writing. Why, then, did Peter, whose purpose it was, as is understood from these recited words, to put into writing whatever miracles had been done and wherever, pass over in silence, if it was ever done, that horrible prodigy by which the Parisian doctor, come back to life for a while, proclaimed from the bier publicly, before an almost innumerable multitude of people, that he was damned by the just judgment of God? You say indeed that many other prodigies and miracles are likewise wrapped in silence by Peter; but these, which are likewise not mentioned by this writer, are of such a kind that they could easily either be unknown to him, or not be held in memory when he was writing, or finally be passed over as less worthy of note. But the Parisian prodigy, as one which, in the opinion which we are discussing here, was done before an almost innumerable multitude of people, and would consequently have been divulged far and wide and transmitted to posterity, could not easily have been unknown to the same Peter, by whom consequently, as being at once most worthy of note and besides by far most suited to the end intended by Peter, or to strengthening faith (go to his words just recited) and inspiring good morals, it would probably have been both held in mind and mentioned; especially since Peter besides put zeal and labour into seeking out from every quarter the miracles which pertained to the Carthusian Order and committing those ascertained to the monuments of letters, as he himself indicates in book 2, chap. 29, in these words: I have learned from many that many miracles have happened in that sacred (namely the Carthusians') Order, but because they themselves, by the virtue of humility, by which the servants of God always hide their wonderful works with as much effort as they can, have been willing to disclose scarcely anything of them to anyone, rare, nay most rare, miracles to which entire credit was to be given have come to me; yet those which I have found without doubt I neither wish nor have proposed to be silent about.

[295] it appears, the negative argument is destitute of force. Moreover Peter writes thus in book 2, chap. 28: There is kept in the borders of Burgundy, among all the professions of the monastic Order of our Europe, a certain profession holier and more cautious than many others of the same monastic purpose, instituted in our time by certain great Fathers, learned and holy, Master Bruno, Master Landuin the Italian and certain others. Since by these words he records at least a few things of the institution of the Carthusian Order, it appears likely that that writer, who is wholly occupied in relating miracles, having obtained this apt occasion of setting forth what had been the cause of instituting that sacred Order, would not have passed over in silence the mournful as well as prodigious story of the damned doctor, if it had ever had place. All the reasons, therefore, which are included in the words of the anonymous Carthusian recited above having been duly weighed, I should not dare to deny all force whatever to the negative argument which is formed from the silence of Peter the Venerable against the resurrection of the Parisian doctor, although meanwhile it is far from my assenting to Launoy, who in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert judges that the doctor's prodigious resurrection is to be reckoned among fables and fictions even on account of the silence of Peter the Venerable alone about it. And indeed, since Peter (go to his words recited in the preceding number) expressly affirms that he had learned rare, nay most rare, miracles pertaining to the Carthusian Order and deserving entire credit, and nevertheless committed to writing those which he found to be undoubted, it may be that he did not think the horrible story of the damned doctor, however not unknown to him, was to be mentioned, because he did not hold it as wholly certain and undoubted, as one which he had perhaps learned from no monuments of letters at all, but from tradition alone or the report of the people.

§ XVII. What ought to be determined concerning the silence of the other ancient writers whom Launoy further praises.

The narration of the damned doctor (was) not known (to) Sigebert of Gembloux That among the ancient writers who, as Launoy would have it, have testified by keeping silence that the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor is foreign to the truth there are also some whose silence has either no force or very little against it, I have already indicated above. But to those of whose silence I have discoursed in the two §§ immediately preceding, it pleases me to add here further, from among those recounted by Launoy, some others adduced by du Boulay in the History of the University of Paris, volume 1, for this reason, that the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, all of whose arguments supporting in any fashion the story of the damned doctor I have resolved to bring forward, contends against this writer, who makes very much of it, that the silence of all of them is of no strength at all. I take my beginning from Sigebert of Gembloux. He writes thus of Saint Bruno in his Chronography at the year 1084: Bruno, by nation a German from the city of Cologne, excellently learned in letters, canon of the church of Reims and master of the schools, having left the world, founds the desert of the Chartreuse and institutes a sufficiently arduous purpose of monastic conversation. A fellow-worker and emulator of this holy purpose, Hugh of blessed memory, bishop of Grenoble, took the monastic habit from the same Bruno, and furnished a notable example to all dwelling there. Launoy, in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, having recited these words too, subjoins: These are from the edition of Pistorius, which are lacking in the edition of Miraeus. Miraeus nevertheless in his edition cites one manuscript codex of Sigebert from the library of Justus Lipsius, in which there were these things about Bruno: "In a vast desert which is called the Chartreuse near Grenoble he begins to build a monastery and cells."

[297] I did not wish to conceal all these things from the reader, lest he should complain that a trick had been played on him from Sigebert. or rather he who interpolated him, But whether we follow the codex of Lipsius or the edition of Pistorius, it will always be established thence that the narration of the doctor was not held certain among all the ancients. So Launoy, rightly indeed intimating here that the edition of Sigebert's Chronography by Pistorius deviates from the genuine text of Sigebert in the words just recited from it. This, further, our anonymous Carthusian declares more fully at num. 101 of his Work in this manner: Sigibert is said to have died in the year MCXIII. If this is so, it must necessarily be granted that these words (already recited just above) were added to his Chronography by someone else. For, as we noted above under the fifth witness, the former part of Sigibert's words about Bruno is had in almost the same words in the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, which is established to have been published only after the death of Sigibert. Nor should the author of the Chronicle be said to have borrowed them from Sigibert; for what follows in Sigibert most openly declares that it was written when Saint Hugh, who survived Sigibert by almost twenty years, was already dead. "Of this holy purpose," says that supposititious Sigibert, "a fellow-worker and emulator, Hugh of blessed memory, bishop of Grenoble, took the monastic habit from the same Bruno, and furnished a notable example to all dwelling there." Who does not see that here words are spoken of Hugh as dead and already enrolled among the Saints, since he is adorned with the title "Of blessed Memory" and is said in the past tense to have "furnished a notable example?" Moreover it is established that a most gross error has crept into the same words, where the holy prelate is said to have taken the monastic habit from the same Bruno, which we shall prove most false in the Annals at the year MLXXXVII.

[298] an ancient writer, Into these errors certainly Sigibert would not have fallen, who lived at the same time at which Saint Hugh frequented the Chartreuse, and died several years before him. But even if it were granted that these things were written by the same Sigibert, they would not stand against us at all, since he is to be called less a historian than an abridger, who has nothing of the things which are set out by the others. Indeed our anonymous Carthusian deservedly contends here that the words transcribed here above from the Chronography of Sigebert of Gembloux are not Sigebert's but of a later writer who intruded them into it, having Launoy also agreeing with him, as the latter's words just recited sufficiently indicate. And this indeed he gives as sufficiently, not to say invincibly, proved, although meanwhile he wrongly thinks that by the words which he assigns there is discourse of Hugh as dead and already enrolled among the Saints, solely from the title Of blessed memory with which he is adorned in them, since this was sometimes attributed by ancient writers even to the living, as Du Cange in the Glossary at the word Memoria and others teach. But does the silence which is kept concerning the prodigious resurrection of the doctor in the praised words of Sigebert's Chronography deservedly count for nothing, even if these be granted to be truly Sigebert's? So indeed I judge, because no reason at all occurs by which it becomes in any way likely that Sigebert would have mentioned that mournful story, however very well perceived by him, in the very few things which he hands down to memory of Bruno. And hence also the silence kept in the same words appears of no weight at all, whoever at length the ancient writer be by whom these were brought, as has been done from what has been said, into Sigebert's Chronography.

[299] nor likewise, as the things which here Let us now see whether it is argued more strongly against the Parisian prodigy from the silence of Robert of Torigni (de Monte), who continued Sigebert's Chronography. He discourses much, says Launoy of this writer in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1, about the institutes, customs and very origin of the Carthusians, and yet gives no testimony to the damned doctor. All the words which Launoy attributes to Robert of Torigni, and prefixes to this objection of his against the Parisian prodigy, our anonymous Carthusian transcribes, and at the same time answers it. I transfer his text entire here, together with the words of Robert which it includes. It runs thus: Robert of Torigni… mentions the Carthusian monks at the year MCXXXI in these words: "The Carthusian monks gradually

were sprouting forth, who, more continent than the others, set bounds to the plague of avarice with which we see very many labouring under the habit of religion, while they fixed a certain number of men, animals and possessions which it is by no means lawful for them to exceed; and they themselves, each having single little cells, and coming together rarely except either for the worship of God or for mutual solace in charity, chose to die to the world more perfectly and to live to God the more diligently than the rest the more secretly they lived." These words are Robert's in the edition which Launoy used; for in the edition which we now have in our hands, made in the year MDCLI at Paris by Jean Billaine through the zeal and labour of the most learned and most religious Luc d'Achery, nothing at all is had at the aforesaid year MCXXXI, nor in the whole Appendix, about the Carthusians, as neither at the year MCXXXII, where Launoy read this about Saint Hugh in his copy: "There died the holy man Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, whose very religious life Guigo, Prior of the Chartreuse, wrote."

[300] The codex which d'Achery had he judges to be the autograph; are recited, our anonymous Carthusian's whence it is plain that the things which have been found in other codices about Saints Bruno and Hugh were added by someone more recent. Which, although it would suffice us for rejecting the authority of the words reported by Launoy, nevertheless, as though they were genuine words of Robert, we Answer Launoy: I, that Robert in his whole Appendix to Sigibert, according to our edition, reports nothing of the things which had happened before the year MCI, at which he began to continue the Chronicle of Sigibert, except when he treats of the genealogy of princes or the succession of bishops, which indeed he sometimes, though rarely, takes up from further back. II, that the words reported by Launoy speak not of the beginnings of the Order, but of its progress, as appears from the very words, "The Carthusian monks were gradually sprouting forth." And in truth in the year MCXXXI, that is, almost fifty years after the Order was founded, there were only five or six houses of the Carthusian Institute in the whole Church: III, that Robert's principal aim in this Appendix was to describe the history of the Normans and English, which he himself professes in the Prologue in these words: "Therefore, since the aforesaid Sigibert begins his Chronicles from the year of the Lord's Incarnation CCCLXXXI and carried them up to the year of the same Lord's Incarnation MC, I from then … up to the year MCLXXXII will undertake to collect under the years of the Lord's Incarnation the things which happened in various provinces, and most of all in Normandy and England, and came to my knowledge. And this the more willingly because I wish to note summarily, year by year, the deeds of the first Henry, the most vigorous king of the English and duke of the Normans, with whom I have to begin."

[301] Robert kept his promises; for through his whole Work he passes over no year persuade the words, in which he does not relate many things about the Normans and English, often writing nothing, or very little, about other provinces. IV, that Robert wrote almost nothing about the other Orders or their origins and institutes in this Appendix; whence it is no wonder if he was also silent about the Carthusians, or said so little according to the citation made by Launoy. Finally it is to be noted that this author in his Prologue intimates indeed that he will relate many prodigies, as he also did, but it is established that he mentioned only those which happened from the year MCI, as we have already warned above. Robert, therefore, is not to be numbered among the authors "who would not have passed over the famous resurrection of the damned man if they had either read or heard that it happened." Nor ought the contrary to be concluded from the words of the same Robert, who "in the Treatise on the change of the Order of monks, on the abbots and abbeys of the Normans," chapter II, on the origin of the Carthusians, has this: "At about the same time at which the Cistercian Order arose in the parish of Chalon, the Carthusian too was devised in the bishopric of Grenoble. This kind of hermits lives under a Prior, nor does the multitude exceed the thirteenth number. Each one on private days, separated from the others in his cell, prays, sleeps and eats; which cells, however, are contiguous and joined in place. On feast days they come together to the church and to the table, and confer among themselves on spiritual things. And they discharge the institutes of both the day and the night Office according to the Rule of Saint Benedict."

[302] Robert of Torigni, So he, who does not bring forward the cause or occasion which drove Saint Bruno into the desert, because he has nothing at all about Saint Bruno, nor even his name. But he speaks only of certain manners of the Carthusians, which he seems to have drawn from the Customs of our Guigo. So too he mentions the other founders and patriarchs of other Orders so summarily that he relates almost nothing memorable of them, content to assign the time of their conversion with the year in which they either renounced the world or began their Institute. These things certainly establish most clearly that the silence kept concerning the mournful story of the damned man by Robert of Torigni stands very little or not at all in its way. Nor indeed did Launoy himself think that either this silence, or that already mentioned above of Sigebert of Gembloux or of the ancient writer who brought into his Chronography the words transcribed here at num. 296, conduces much to showing the falsity of the horrible prodigy, inasmuch as from the recited words of both those writers, in which nothing at all occurs about the resurrection of the ill-fated doctor, he infers only against Raynaud that it was not held certain among all the ancient writers; for which to be true it is not required that that mournful event be false. But let these things suffice concerning the silence of Sigebert and of Robert of Torigni, who continued his Chronography. Among the ancient writers recounted by Launoy whose silence concerning the damned doctor du Boulay held in greater esteem there holds a place also Geoffrey, Prior of Vigeois, who composed the Chronicle made public by Labbe in volume 2 of the Nova Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum as the twelfth century was growing old.

[303] or even Geoffrey, Prior of Vigeois, That writer in this his Work, chap. 21, writes thus: The most holy Order of the Carthusians began at this time, namely in the year MLXXXVI (rather in the year 1084, as we shall prove below), through Bruno, a holy man, by nation a German of Cologne, a master in Theology, with six other venerable men in the diocese of Grenoble. This Order, as Bl. Bernard witnesses, holds the primacy among all ecclesiastical orders, not by reason of time but by vigour of sanctity: whence he himself calls it the Most beautiful pillar of the Church. Pope Victor, while he was a monk of Monte Cassino, saw in a dream God building for His dignity a habitation in the solitude of the Chartreuse, and it is said that he was strong in the spirit of prophecy. But do Launoy and after him du Boulay rightly argue against the story of the damned man, as for that very reason fictitious or at least suspect of invention, from the fact that Geoffrey here does not mention it? Our anonymous Carthusian, after bringing into his Work the words of Geoffrey just now recited, subjoins thus: So Geoffrey, who reveals to us new things, hitherto unheard of and mentioned by no one, when he says that Pope Victor foresaw by the spirit of prophecy the foundation of the Order (what there is in this matter will be examined below), of whose vision we shall speak at the year MLXXXVI. To these words of Geoffrey (just recited) Launoy subjoins: "Here there was a most ample place for speaking of the damned doctor and canon; Geoffrey was silent because idle men had not yet brought it in."

[304] But that, not indeed brought in, but committed to writing as it had been related to them by persons worthy of credit, by his silence weakens; weakens it, however, in some fashion, our anonymous Carthusian and Caesarius of Heisterbach, contemporaries of Geoffrey, had already done. Nor is it any wonder if Geoffrey was silent about it, since he was silent also about almost all the other things to be said of Saint Bruno and the Order, and could also be ignorant of a story accomplished already a hundred years and more before, the memory of which was then preserved almost solely among the Carthusians. But if that story happened publicly, a huge multitude of men standing by, it appears by no means likely that its memory in the age of Geoffrey, who flourished when not yet a hundred, nay perhaps not even sixty, years had elapsed from the death of Bruno, survived almost solely among the Carthusians. Who, then, would believe it came about that Geoffrey was ignorant of the horrible prodigy, and therefore did not mention it? Yet, since this writer, as the anonymous Carthusian also rightly observes, omits almost all the other things pertaining to Bruno, and does not seem likely on any head to have mentioned the Parisian prodigy, however he had perceived and ascertained it, among the few things he relates of the Saint, the argument which his silence supplies appears indeed very weak. But I now subjoin those in which there seems to be somewhat more strength. The monk of Auxerre, who flourished towards the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the following, or at least when Innocent III was supreme Pontiff, writes thus in Launoy, Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1: About that time St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, saw in a dream in the solitude of the Chartreuse God building a habitation for His dignity, and seven stars also furnishing him the leadership of the journey. And behold, drawn by the odour of his sanctity, there come to him seven men, who, all kindled with one desire, were seeking a place fitting for the eremitical life and had not yet found one. The first of these was Master Bruno, a man most famous for religion and knowledge, four others learned men, two laymen, whom St. Hugh received gladly and made masters of their wish. For by his help, counsel and company they entered the solitude of the Chartreuse. So began the Carthusian Order, singular among the other Orders for purity of minds and zeal for contemplation.

[305] Launoy, who, as I have already intimated, recites these words in his praised Dissertation, whatever the anonymous Carthusian (says) against this here then subjoins to them: No more with this man, namely the monk of Auxerre, than with the others, namely those whom he has already reported before, is the narration of the doctor held certain, and the terrible event which drove Bruno into the desert. Nor indeed would that monk have passed over the horrible resurrection of that doctor, who everywhere records the uncertain outcomes of things and in most men the doubtful fortune of life, spectres and prodigies of that kind. Take now what our anonymous Carthusian replies to these things. Thus, then, he has it in book 4 of the Annals of his Order, num. 116: These things (namely the words of the monk of Auxerre just transcribed here from Launoy) that anonymous writer in Launoy, who, as it seems, copied all these from the Life of Saint Hugh published by Guigo, only the order of the words being changed; against whose testimony therefore we oppose the same things which we opposed above to the testimony of Guigo (go to num. 263 and the following). Moreover, let learned men judge what weight negative authority has. The monk of Auxerre has nothing of the spectacle, therefore the spectacle is false. If it were permitted to argue thus, the very Gospel Truths would fall,

many of which rest on tradition alone. But grant that that monk "everywhere records," as Launoy asserts, "the uncertain outcomes of things and in most men the doubtful fortune of life, spectres and prodigies of that kind," does he record them all, or record them in all men? Which certainly it seems rash to assert. Some outcomes of things, therefore, nay very many, he omitted, and among them he could omit this prodigy, just as three holy Evangelists had omitted the most admirable pool of Probatica and the stupendous raising of Lazarus.

[306] may oppose, the monk of Auxerre, Lastly, that monk, as Launoy has it, flourished under Innocent III, the supreme Pontiff, at which time our anonymous Carthusian (see his testimony at num. 199 and following, as also what was said at num. 12 and following) first of all began to commit this story to writing, the memory of which was guarded almost solely among the Carthusians, still sprouting forth only gradually. Whence it is no wonder if that monk of Auxerre, who perhaps had no acquaintance with the Carthusians, did not know the true origin of the Order, of which therefore he brought forward no cause, but only copied out the words which he had read in the Life of Saint Hugh. Finally, since we do not now have the Chronicle of the aforesaid author in our hands, we cannot draw out more from it against Launoy. So he; but whether rightly in all things must now be said. And first, since it appears beyond doubt that the monk of Auxerre drew the words transcribed here above from the Life of Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, written by Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, and the silence kept by the latter in them concerning the resurrection of the Parisian doctor has no force at all against it (go to num. 265), it becomes consequent that neither is the silence which the monk of Auxerre keeps in the same words about the same of great strength. But as regards the silence by which he passes over the horrible prodigy in all the other places too of his Chronicle, it is not rightly concluded from it either that this is false. For since, as our anonymous Carthusian rightly observes, he does not record absolutely all the outcomes of things, the horrible end of the doctor can be one of those which he suppressed by silence. Yet, since that monk, as Launoy intimates, is indeed copious in recounting prodigies, it appears less likely that he would have omitted to commit to writing the Parisian spectacle of the damned man, if it had happened, which was at any rate far more worthy of mention than all the other prodigies which he narrates.

[307] as also the chronographer of Maillezais, and three others; And hence it now comes about that to the opinion of those who deny the mournful event some strength accrues from the praised monk of Auxerre passing it over in silence. Nor does it help to reply that the horrible story, as one the memory of which, if truly done, survived in the thirteenth century almost solely among the Carthusians, was unknown to the monk of Auxerre, who, from what has been said, flourished then; for how little likely that is is plain from what has already been said above. Further, reasons almost similar and equal to those on account of which, as I have just shown, the silence of the monk of Auxerre obtains strength against the prodigious resurrection of the doctor, bring it about also that the silence of the Chronicle of Maillezais, whose author flourished about the year 1140, stands in its way. For of this Chronicle Launoy speaks thus in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 1: It is full of visions and memorable events, which are most eagerly narrated by the author; so that even from this you may judge that he would never have passed over such a spectacle if it had happened, and had happened in such a manner as would have filled the books of all authors; and that Launoy is to be assented to in what he here affirms of the Chronicle of Maillezais, or rather of its author, this Chronicle itself, inspected, will teach, which now exists inserted in Labbe, volume 2 of the Nova Bibliotheca librorum manuscriptorum. Nor is the silence kept about the doctor's resurrection by the author of the manuscript Flores Historiarum, Adam, by Vincent of Beauvais, and by the writer of the Chronicle of St. Martin of Tours, destitute of all force either. For although these three writers, as our anonymous Carthusian rightly observes, undoubtedly received their words recited by Launoy either from Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, or from Geoffrey of Vigeois, or finally from others whose silence, from what has been said, stands either not at all or certainly very little in the way of the prodigious resurrection, yet they employed also not a few other writers older than the thirteenth century, in which they flourished, and, if they found in these anything worthy of mention, brought it everywhere into their compositions.

[308] Wherefore, since they nowhere make any mention in these of the doctor come back to life to whom, nevertheless, neither St. Bernard who publicly announced from the bier to those standing by that he was damned by the just judgment of God, it is an argument that the deathly story was not found by Vincent and the two other writers praised in those writers, some of whom perhaps have now also perished by the injury of the times. Whence it comes about that these three writers make not a little against it, as by their silence in a certain manner testifying to and involving the silence of all the others employed by them, of whom nevertheless some at least would probably have known and recorded a mournful and most noteworthy event of this kind if it had ever had place. For the rest, to the ancient writers who by their silence stand in some fashion in the way of the horrible prodigy, as being likely to have mentioned it likewise, if it had been, either by reason of the subject which they treated or for some other cause, there could also be added both Hugh of Flavigny and many others not mentioned by Launoy, whom it is not necessary to enumerate here, and most of all the ascetic writers and preachers of the divine word, who, since they gave pious sermons, published sacred treatises and composed religious meditations in order both to call men away from vices and sins and to inflame them to virtue, would probably have mentioned that horrible prodigy somewhere in these if it had happened, since they could hardly have devised or invented anything more apt or more conducive to the end they intended. Hence Launoy, in chap. 1 of his Dissertation already very often praised, reckons among the ancient writers whose silence stands in the way of the prodigious resurrection of the doctor also Humbert of Burgundy, fifth master general of the Preachers, and St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux; and the former indeed rightly; but not so the latter, account being had also of the letter written to the Brethren of Mont-Dieu.

[309] nor are many others whom Launoy still praises to be joined. For this Saint, in order to rouse his readers or hearers to avoid vices and embrace virtue, was wont to employ almost solely the incitements which Sacred Scripture supplies, in the pious sermons which he gave and the sacred treatises which he published: and that the letter written to the Brethren of Mont-Dieu is the offspring not of Bernard but of William, abbot of the monastery of St. Thierry near Reims, Mabillon, in volume 2 of the Works of St. Bernard, page 198, and after him the writers of the Literary History of France, volume XI, page 654, clearly show, and that it certainly cannot be attributed to this holy abbot is now admitted by all the learned. Nor is there reason, however, why you should now infer from this that William, abbot of St. Thierry near Reims, whose, from what has been said, the praised letter is, is to be reckoned among the ancient authors whose silence stands in the way of the mournful story of the damned doctor. For although William is truly ancient, yet nothing occurs by which it becomes in any way likely that he would have mentioned the horrible prodigy in that letter if he had known that it was done. As regards now the other writers whom Launoy still adduces to his purpose, since they are not such, if you perhaps except John of Saint Victor, as would probably have mentioned the famous resurrection of the doctor if they had either read it anywhere or heard that it happened, I refrain here from recounting them by name, as I warned above that I would do, and proceed to discuss the conclusions, pertaining chiefly to our purpose, which Launoy forms from the silence of the authors praised by him.

§ XVIII. The principal conclusions which Launoy forms from the silence of the ancient writers adduced by him are discussed.

[Of the conclusions which (Launoy draws) against the doctor's resurrection from the universal silence of the ancients,] That it may become still clearer what, and whether as much as Launoy will have it, the silence of the ancient writers, or rather the negative arguments formed from it, avail against the mournful story of the damned doctor, it will help, these being now discussed, to examine also the conclusions which Launoy asserts follow from the same. And this indeed, lest I should seem either to have attributed too much to this writer, whose Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert the Roman censure has newly inscribed in the Catalogue of prohibited books, or to have weakened the arguments which the anonymous author of the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Carthusian Annals opposes to Launoy, I shall perform in this manner, that I shall for the most part copy the very words both of the one and of the other, and only then add what my opinion is of Launoy's conclusions and of the Carthusian's replies to them. Launoy, then, from the silence of all the authors whom he has adduced first concludes: That coloured and painted story (namely in the Charterhouse of Paris chiefly) which is reported to have given Bruno the cause of withdrawing into the desert is overwhelmed by the stubborn silence of all the authors who flourished from the year of Christ MLXXXIV to the year MCCCXXII and beyond. Which among sensible and learned men suffices for the confutation of a fable. To crown the heap there is added on the one hand the authority of Bruno himself, the founder of the Carthusians, who writes that he received the cause of going away into the desert not at Paris but at Durocortorum of the Remi (Reims); on the other hand the testimony of Guibert, abbot of Nogent, who designates peculiarly a certain cause of the departure into the desert. Both cut out the Parisian fable of the canon and doctor come back to life, and set forth the simple account of the truth.

[311] Behold now what the anonymous Carthusian replies, these words of Launoy being recited. whose force the anonymous Carthusian here strives to lessen, Launoy, he says, has these things, as though he were saying: These writers were silent about this story, therefore they denied that it was true. Let the reader judge of the strength of such argumentation. But let us say what we have sufficiently shown in what precedes, namely that those authors were silent about this prodigy just as they were silent about other excellent deeds of St. Bruno. For none of so many adduced by Launoy undertook to describe (his life); but all, whatever they wrote of him or of the Order of the Carthusians, delivered it in very few words after the manner of abridgers. Nay most called St. Bruno by his name alone; others did not even express his name; and to others who spoke more fully of him it was enough to say in four or five lines that he was the founder of the Carthusian Order, and instituted it in such a year and under such a Pontiff. Certain men well disposed towards the Carthusians wrote more of their statutes, manners and customs; but none had it in mind to treat singly of their institution, of the cause of their origin, or of the other things excellently done by them and among us. Whence it is no wonder if in the cited authors nothing occurs of the man come back to life

spectacle. But when the Carthusian Order began to be propagated, our anonymous writer, who first, about the year MCCXX (rather probably, as I showed at num. 12 and following, not before the year 1250), undertook of set purpose to commit its beginnings to writing, describing the Acts of St. Bruno more fully and at greater length, did not omit to set forth that this resurrection was the cause of his withdrawal into the desert.

[312] So he, then, these words of Launoy which I have already recited, To crown the heap there is added, etc., being transcribed, Launoy forms, the first is not to be admitted, proceeding thus: We have already sufficiently shown above that Saint Bruno took the plan of withdrawing into the desert not at Durocortorum of the Remi but at Paris, as the learned du Boulay also judges. Besides, how uncertain the testimony of Guibert is is plain from the many hallucinations which we have detected in the text of his narration. That I may declare in a few words what my opinion now is of these things: certainly Launoy wrongly concludes from the silence of all the authors whom he brings forward about the deadly resurrection of the doctor that it is to be held among fables, or that it is undoubtedly false, as I shall show below, when I inquire what the universal silence about it of all the writers, both contemporary and later, avails against the mournful event. But that the silence of some of the writers whom Launoy cites is not wholly enervated and without sinew, or that the negative arguments which are formed from it are not wholly without force, I have proved above; and by name the things which I brought forward at num. 267 and following establish more than sufficiently, so far as I think, that there is some strength in the negative argument which is deduced from the silence of Guibert, abbot of Nogent, although meanwhile Guibert was not sufficiently skilled in the things pertaining to St. Bruno and the Order instituted by him, as I also declared there must be confessed. Let us proceed to Launoy's second conclusion.

[313] as neither the second. The second, he says, which follows from the silence of the authors adduced, is that the correctors of the Roman Breviary, in the things which they expunged from the Lessons of Saint Bruno, excellently followed the canons of the Church, by which it is decreed that whatever foreign to the truth has crept into the codices of the sacred Offices be removed. But what does our anonymous Carthusian now say to these things? Therefore, he says, if this manner of arguing of Launoy is true, whatever the correctors of the Roman Breviary expunged from the Lessons of Saint Bruno was foreign to the truth; therefore also that excellent profession of faith, made by St. Bruno when placed at the point of death and removed from his Lessons, is foreign to the truth. Who would say this or think of saying it? Certainly we do not believe that Launoy himself would have said this if he had observed the matter more attentively. The true cause, then, which moved the Roman censors, most learned and most wise men, to remove from the Breviary both that spectacle and the profession of faith, the censors themselves signified to have been this, namely that those lessons were longer than was right. Indeed the things which have been brought forward at num. 190 and the two following make it beyond doubt that the prodigious resurrection of the doctor was not expunged from the Lessons of St. Bruno because it was thought false. Nor is there reason why anyone should reply for Launoy that falsity detected alone can be the cause for which anything is expunged from the Breviary. For Launoy himself not obscurely confesses this to be foreign to the truth in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 5, in the conclusion, writing thus: No other stronger cause (namely of expunging anything from the Breviary) is prescribed by ecclesiastical rules than falsity detected. In which words, since he affirms that no stronger cause than falsity is given for expunging anything from the Breviary, he acknowledges at any rate that another can besides be given.

[314] Yet otherwise concerning the third, But let us hear what Launoy further goes on to conclude from the silence of the authors cited by him. The third is, he says, that Bruno's having been a Parisian theologian and having at one time governed the schools at Paris can still be taken out of his nightly vigils, not only because none of the old authors made Bruno a master of Paris or said that he governed the schools at Paris, as we have seen, but also because it would scarcely be proved that before Bruno's age the study of Theology had been established at Paris and that the mastership in Theology was wont to be given there. What our anonymous Carthusian answers to these things is of no moment; for du Boulay, as he says, by no means establishes by the authorities and arguments which he adduces that Bruno at one time studied at Paris and governed the schools. The matter is plain from what has been said above, and chiefly from those things by which we have shown that Bruno very probably never taught at Paris, and that it is even doubtful whether he ever studied there. I cannot, therefore, oppose Launoy when he contends that St. Bruno was neither a Theologian at Paris nor governed the schools there. Yet this writer wrongly calls into doubt whether before our Saint's age the study of Theology had been established at Paris; for although the mastership in Theology was not then wont to be given there (for the various degrees now used in the universities had not yet been devised), yet the liberal arts and sciences of every kind were being handed on, and the city of Paris already then enjoyed a most celebrated and most flourishing academy, which lacked almost nothing but the name for the splendour of a university, as the things which the writers of the Literary History of France teach in volume 7, page 102 and following, prove. Let us now examine Launoy's fourth conclusion.

[315] The fourth, he says, which follows from the silence of the praised ancients, and the fourth to be determined. is that it was wrongly asserted by Théophile Raynaud that that narration of the threefold resurrection of the doctor which drove Bruno into the desert is held certain among all the ancients; then that it was also falsely added, "That the silence of Peter of Cluny concerning the prodigious resurrection of the doctor and Bruno's being driven thence to solitude is supplied by very ancient authors and by most of the time at which the event is reported." Since we have made it plain that Peter of Cluny wrote in such conditions of things and times that from his silence a reason equivalent to an affirmation is drawn; then that there are no authors contemporary or nearly contemporary with Bruno or Peter of Cluny who support this story of the doctor's resurrection. Nay even the sole Guibert, abbot of Nogent, produced, has that which both solidly confirms the argument taken from the silence of Peter of Cluny and clearly sets forth the whole cause of the Carthusian religious life instituted. Nor does our anonymous Carthusian reply anything here which overturns this conclusion of Launoy. And indeed it appears on no head that this, as regards the first thing it embraces, is out of harmony with the truth. For since the ancient writers, certainly not few in number, whom Launoy cited to his purpose, nowhere mention the Parisian prodigy, or the mournful story of the damned doctor, with what appearance of truth could it be asserted that it is held certain among all the ancients? But as regards the silence of Peter of Cluny and of Guibert, I have shown above that some force, yet not that which Launoy contends, inheres in the negative arguments formed thence. Launoy meanwhile deservedly affirms that the silence of Peter of Cluny concerning the prodigious resurrection of the doctor is not supplied by ancient authors and by most of the time at which the event is related. For the writers of this kind whom Raynaud praised he praised from Polycarp de la Rivière, whom Launoy contends was of bad faith in obtruding these things, and whom Columbi tacitly, and after him (go to num. 196) our Papebroch, acknowledge to have been so.

[316] The fifth is (so Launoy continues in his conclusions) that the didactic writer did not sufficiently accurately weigh, or certainly concealed, all the moments of the Epistle which Bruno sent from Apulia (rather Calabria) to Ralph, provost of Reims … [The fifth (attributes) too much to the silence of St. Bruno and of Peter the Venerable] Then that he erred no less when he taught that Peter the Venerable did not recount the spectacle mentioned because he had resolved to recount only those miracles which had happened in his own time. As though Peter himself did not affirm in express words that the Order of the Carthusians had been instituted in his time. To these things our anonymous Carthusian replies thus: Certainly what Launoy reproaches du Saussay with here can be reproached to him more justly. For if he had accurately weighed these words, in which Saint Bruno confesses that after the vow was made, "other causes intervening, the divine love languished, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished;" and had examined them with a fairer balance of judgment together with the narration of Guibert of Nogent, he would not have concluded that Saint Bruno made the vow at Reims and immediately after leaving the city of Reims sought the Chartreuse without any delay. For it is established from what has been proved by us at length above that Saint Bruno went away into the desert only eight years after his departure from Reims. And as regards the age of Peter of Cluny, we have also clearly demonstrated that the Order was instituted several years before the abbot himself was born, and that he wrote nothing of miracles accomplished among the Carthusians except certain visions made to a certain lay brother about the times at which he published his Work on miracles, that is, almost seventy years after the institution of the Order. Hence let the reader judge whether Launoy weighs accurately the words of Peter of Cluny when he asserts that the Order was instituted in his age. But someone will reply for Launoy that Peter the Venerable affirms it in express words. For the aforesaid abbot speaks thus: "There is kept in the parts of Burgundy … a certain profession … instituted in our time."

[317] [to the silence, which nevertheless is not without all force, attributes too much.] It is true that these are Peter's words, but it is true also that he wrote them seventy years after the spectacle of the damned man; nor is that a small interval of time, nay a very great one, which, together with the various business by which he was held by reason of his office, was quite sufficient to take from his mind all recollection of the said spectacle, as it also took away the recollection of many wonderful things done in his age by most holy men both in his Order and in the other Orders of the Church. Although to the negative arguments which are sought from the silence concerning the prodigious resurrection of the doctor of St. Bruno himself, in the letter written to Ralph the Green, and of Peter the Venerable, so great a force as Launoy attributes to them both above and here in his conclusions by no means belongs, yet I have shown above that they are not altogether weak and destitute of strength, nor do the things which our anonymous Carthusian here replies to Launoy establish the contrary. For even if it be granted that Peter did not put his hand to his composition On Miracles before seventy years had elapsed from the Parisian prodigy, it yet appears hardly likely that this was passed over by him, as one who, from what has been said, diligently inquired at that time into the miracles pertaining to the Carthusian Order, either from ignorance or from a lapse of memory. Nor does it matter that the Venerable writer passed over in silence other miracles too, and indeed ones done both in his age and in his Order. For since, as he himself indicates in the words transcribed here at num. 293, he had it as his purpose to recount those miracles which would conduce to strengthening faith and forming morals, he could omit some miracles, even pertaining to his Order, not because they

were unknown to him or, known before, had slipped from his memory, but because they seemed not sufficiently suitable for the end just mentioned; and since scarcely anything more conducive to that end than the Parisian prodigy can be imagined, it becomes to me even for this reason less likely that this mournful event, if it had taken place, would not have been mentioned by Peter the Venerable, to whom nevertheless, as has been said, it would then very probably have been known.

[318] The eighth supplies what is to be discussed below. In the sixth and seventh conclusion Launoy assigns almost solely what difference in reasoning he thinks subsists between Raynaud and du Saussay, so that it ought not to detain us here. In the eighth conclusion he affirms that the vulgar cause of Saint Bruno's conversion, or the horrible Parisian prodigy by which the doctor, come back to life for a while, publicly announced from the bier to those standing by that he was damned by the just judgment of God, if it be called back to its origins, is at last called back to a public rumour without an author. But our anonymous Carthusian, on the contrary, contends, and also strives to prove, that that cause of St. Bruno's conversion, if it be called back to its origins, will be called back not to a public rumour without an author, but to St. Bruno himself and his companions. For these, he says in book 4, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, num. 124, knew well for what cause and in what manner they renounced the world, and without doubt handed it down to their followers. And we think there is no one who would wish obstinately to assert that Saint Bruno and his companions did not teach their followers how and for what cause they had embraced so arduous a kind of life; or that the Carthusian Order itself was ignorant of the occasion and cause of its institution. And among these followers there was found one who about eighty years after their death (he speaks here of the anonymous writer adduced at num. 199 and following, about what time he more probably flourished I have shown at num. 12 and following) committed this cause to writing, which perhaps someone had also done before him, whose codex could have perished in the lapse of time. And as the number of houses of the Order grew, the number of copies of the codex published by our anonymous writer grew also, so that about the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth it was found in all the provinces of the Order, and thence the fame of this story flowed out to all the common people. Thus far he: whether rightly or otherwise, or whether a true and genuine tradition exists in the Carthusian Order on which the Parisian prodigy, or the vulgar cause of St. Bruno's conversion, is built, I shall discuss below. Let us proceed to the remaining conclusions of Launoy.

[319] The ninth is, says this writer, that scarcely any fiction is found in history which is more strongly The ninth (attributes) to the universal silence of the ancient writers, and more frequently confuted (than the Parisian prodigy, namely), more strongly indeed, if one regards the battle line, drawn up of so many writers, which is directed against that narration of the horrible spectacle of the doctor and against the beginning of the Carthusians sought from it; more frequently, if one considers the several of those writers who separately overturn the same narration and the appendix of the narration. So Launoy, contending, namely, that the celebrated narration of the spectacle of the damned doctor is false, both because absolutely all the writers whom he has praised are silent about that horrible story, and because there are several of them who, since they would have known it, if it had happened, and, knowing it, would have mentioned it, bring it about by their particular silence that it ought to be held as a detected falsity. Our anonymous Carthusian took the words of Launoy just recited somewhat otherwise, and perhaps not undeservedly, as is plain from his reply to them, which runs thus: Who would not wonder at the vain hyperbole in these words, by which only the simple could be deceived? None of so many writers adduced by Launoy refutes or denies the story, but all merely do not narrate it, nay neither can nor ought to narrate it according to their purpose; for all have little about Saint Bruno and nothing about his conversion, as may be seen above, if you except the one Guibert of Nogent. And nevertheless Launoy dares to pronounce, "Scarcely any fiction is found which is more strongly and more frequently confuted," whereas on the contrary nothing is weaker than the negative authority which he uses, producing so many testimonies which testify nothing against the truth of this story.

[320] And as for what he adds, "and is more frequently confuted, if one considers the several of those writers" whom he has cited "who separately overturn the same narration however not to be defended, it attributes more force than is just. and the appendix of the narration," that certainly does not appear true from the discussion which we made above of the authorities of those writers, since not even one of them, separately or conjointly, overturns the said narration or its appendix, nor even shakes it for a moment. Thus far the anonymous Carthusian, wishing, namely, against Launoy, who attributes too much to it, that no force at all inheres in the negative argument, and consequently that the prodigious resurrection of the doctor is not only not denied by the silence of the ancient writers about it, but is not shaken by any reasoning, much less torn up. But that the silence of the principal ancient writers among those praised by Launoy has some strength against it I have already shown above; and how much the silence of absolutely all the writers who flourished while the whole first, and perhaps also the second, century after the event was running avails against the same the following § will disclose, as also whether Launoy, in the conclusion with which we are here concerned, deservedly holds the celebrated narration of the spectacle of the damned doctor as false from the silence alone of the authors whom he praises, and explodes it as a fiction and fable in his tenth and last conclusion, concerning which the plan of my undertaking requires that I say some things more here first.

[321] as also the tenth and last. Lastly, then, as he will have it by this one, there follows from the unanimous silence of all the authors whom he has adduced that that narration of the resurrection of the doctor or canon of Paris which drove St. Bruno into the desert was invented two hundred and forty years and more after the Carthusian Order was founded. This is, he says, the boundary stake by which this narration is held fixed; this is the epoch of time which leaves no room for evasion to the champions of fables. The famous narration, then, of the doctor who cried out publicly from the bier that he was damned was invented by idle men only after the year 1324, inasmuch as up to it from the first foundation of the Carthusian Order, or from the year, as will be said, 1084, fully 240 years elapsed, if Launoy is to be assented to here. But if that narration was in fact invented, which whether it was done you will determine from what is to be said below, it must necessarily have been invented long before the said year 1324. For some ancient writers recounted in §§ XI and XII had already committed it to writing before this year, and first of all, to dismiss the rest, the anonymous Carthusian, author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, and the likewise anonymous Carthusian of Meyriat, of whom the one (go to num. 12 and following) certainly before the year 1313, the other in the year 1298, as he himself affirms, put his hand to writing. Somewhat more bearing on this our anonymous Carthusian, who composed the fourth book, hitherto unpublished, of the Annals of his Order, supplies. It has not seemed good, however, to transcribe his words here, because the few things already adduced sufficiently establish what was to be proved. Nor is only this had from them, but also that Gerson, contrary to what Launoy further will have it in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chap. 2, was not the first who about the year 1420 committed to writing the deathly narration about the ill-fated Parisian doctor, or, as he calls it, the fable, invented already some time before. Let us now proceed to the other things which I just said are to be discussed in the following §.

§ XIX. What the universal silence of all the writers who flourished while the whole first, and perhaps also the second, century after the event was running avails against the prodigious resurrection by which the Parisian doctor publicly announced from the bier that he was damned; flourished, avails; and whether, this standing, the ancient testimonies adduced above can make it certain or even probable.

Wrongly does Launoy, on account of the universal silence of the ancient writers, That among those adduced by Launoy against the mournful story of the Parisian doctor there are some who by their silence stand somewhat in its way I have shown in the four §§ immediately preceding. Now it must be seen what the universal silence of all of them avails against that deathly event, and most of all of the ancient writers who flourished while the whole first, and perhaps also the second, century after the event was running, or when this had not yet been committed to writing. Launoy, in not a few places of his Dissertation already very often praised, exposes that wonderful prodigy, most worthy of mention if it happened, as an undoubted falsity, an old wives' tale and a rotten fiction, and this solely because it was not committed to writing by the ancient writers whom he praises. But rightly? By no means indeed, as is sufficiently plain from what I have just said at num. 258, and will become more fully plain from what I am now about to say. Behold one or another example, to omit others, by which we are taught that things which are related as done and yet are not found committed to writing by contemporary writers are not forthwith to be reckoned among fables and fictions. Pope Benedict XIV, On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 3, chap. 10, num. 5, towards the end, hands down to memory thus: There was a report that Saints Faustinus and Jovita, Patrons of the city of Brescia, appeared in golden arms for its protection against Niccolò Piccinino, commander of the forces of Milan, who was besieging it and attacking it with the greatest force. But the miracle of this notable apparition was doubted by most, namely the contemporary historians of Brescia being silent, and Elias Capreolus narrating it, who died fully eighty years after the siege was raised and inserted certain fabulous things into his Commentaries; when, by the labour and zeal of Cardinal Angelo Maria Querini, two letters of Ludovico Foscarini to Saint Lawrence Justinian, then patriarch of Venice, were found, which put the whole matter in the open.

[323] For when, fourteen years after Brescia had been freed from the siege, Foscarini had undertaken the administration of that city, inasmuch as by which, as two committed to him by the Venetian senate, two days after he had entered the province a rumour spread that a plan had been formed by certain religious men to carry away thence to Venice the bodies of Saints Faustinus and Jovita; and unless he himself had opportunely saved those religious, they would have perished by the anger and sword of the people. Foscarini, disclosing in the letters brought forward the cause of the pious fury which had inflamed the minds of the Brescians, has this: "They remember that, when, besieged and shut in, they were labouring with hunger and were experiencing the last dangers, the most holy guardians were seen by the enemy defending Brescia in golden arms: astounded by which miracle, Niccolò Piccinino, a most valiant commander, lost hope of gaining the city, and relaxed his eagerness to exact punishment and to have gold.

For which reasons they would with the more difficulty be deprived of these bodies." The letters of Foscarini are inserted entire in the letter of the aforesaid Cardinal, printed and given to Father Cyprian Benaglia, abbot and president general of the Cassinese Congregation. After which the same learned Cardinal subjoins this to the matter: "It remains at length that you confess with me that the argument" which the masters of the Critical art call negative, and which some of them not so rarely abuse to overthrow the authority of ecclesiastical monuments, "can easily happen to be found destitute of all authority. Certainly it seemed to triumph as much as possible in the matter subjected to this letter, for the silence of the old writers could be hurled against it the more vehemently because several Commentaries are now available, written at the time of the siege of Brescia about the affairs of that siege.

[324] adduced here But how vain that triumph would be the letters of Foscarini detected by me have shown. Whence, by the immortal God, will that nation of Critics be confident that it can divine with certainty that testimonies of this kind were once lacking to those ancient monuments on which they themselves declare war with headlong daring, when in the lapse of so many ages, perhaps by evil fate, they have either wholly perished or still lie hidden in darkness?" Behold indeed an excellent example of a fact which, although it truly happened, is nevertheless not found handed down to memory by contemporary authors, and which therefore would always have been held either as false or at least called into doubt, had not the Letters of Foscarini, which bear most luminous testimony to it, been detected by the most eminent Cardinal Querini; who meanwhile seems hence to lower the force of the negative argument too much. For although this does not suffice for anything to which it is opposed to be pronounced foreign to the truth, yet it not seldom has (go to num. 258) this strength joined to it, that it makes the fact against which it militates unlike the truth, more or less, according as the circumstances of things and times have been; for which, unless you will have it that there is never room for negative arguments, it is not required that it be certain, but only that it be probable, that the thing was not handed down to memory by ancient writers who have perished; and this is had if it be certainly known that it is found committed to writing by no ancient writers now still extant, of whom some, or at least one or another, are probably such that they would have known it if it had been, and, knowing it, would have mentioned it. Take now another example of a thing which happened and yet is not mentioned by contemporary writers.

[325] examples are an argument, things truly done That St. Francis of Assisi asked for, and further obtained, from Honorius the Third, the supreme Pontiff, the most celebrated indulgence which is called of the Portiuncula, absolutely no contemporary writers (record), nay not even those who of set purpose most diligently described his whole life and deeds, Thomas of Celano and St. Bonaventure. Hence in the sixteenth century chiefly there were not lacking those who either with obstinate mind denied, or at least called into doubt, that that indulgence was ever granted to St. Francis by Honorius, being impelled to it besides by this reason, that the grant of an indulgence so ample as that of the Portiuncula would by no means fit the discipline and usages which flourished in the Church in the age of St. Francis. But in the century just past there were at length brought to light from ancient codices (go to our Work, volume 2 of October, page 887 and the following) testimonies given about forty years after the death of St. Francis, when that indulgence had already then been called into doubt or even denied by some because no Pontifical letters existed concerning it, by Bl. Benedict of Arezzo, formerly admitted into the Order by St. Francis himself, and by Rayner of Mariano, this Benedict's companion, in which both of these testify, from the narration made to them on this matter by brother Masseo of Marignano, who had been present, that the said indulgence was both asked for by St. Francis and granted by Honorius the third. There was added most of all another testimony also, in which Peter Zalfani (see the same volume 2 of October of our Work, page 890) testified that he had been present in the church of Holy Mary of the Portiuncula when St. Francis, seven bishops standing by, promulgated in it the indulgence received from Honorius. These three testimonies, further, no longer allow it to be doubted that that notable indulgence was both in fact asked for by St. Francis and granted to him by Honorius; and yet absolutely no contemporary writers, as has already been said, nor even the biographers of Francis themselves, however they most diligently embraced with the pen all the things done by him, mention this matter; which indeed is a very strong argument that it does not forthwith follow that things which are not mentioned by contemporary writers are undoubtedly false.

[326] Now indeed, since it is very easy are sometimes also suppressed, the story of the damned man that things which, although done, are not mentioned by contemporary writers should also be passed over in silence by writers of a later age, it certainly does not forthwith follow that what is kept silent both by these and by the others is to be held as false or not done; and consequently Launoy wrongly explodes the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, because it is found committed to writing neither by contemporary writers nor by others who flourished later after the event, as an empty fiction and an old wives' tale, beyond all doubt most far removed from the truth. Nor is there reason why you should reply for Launoy that ancient testimonies already adduced do exist for the Portiuncula indulgence, and that a legitimate reason can be brought why mention of it is not made by contemporary writers; for although a not inept reason for the silence kept by contemporary writers and by the biographers of St. Francis themselves concerning the Portiuncula indulgence is in fact adduced, as may again be seen in the same volume 2 of October of our Work, page 890, yet it may be that the writers both of the eleventh century, in which the prodigious resurrection of the doctor is narrated to have happened, and of the following did not mention it for a cause unknown to us: or, if that displeases, they could have omitted all mention of that prodigy and mournful event, not indeed because they were impelled to it by some legitimate cause, but because in handing down to memory the things done in their time they employed almost no accuracy, or certainly only a middling one. The apparition by which Saints Faustinus and Jovita terrified Niccolò Piccinino, commander of the forces of Milan, and his soldiers, besieging the city of Brescia with the greatest force, the contemporary historians of Brescia did not commit to writing, and yet I find no reason brought forward for this silence which is sufficiently certainly legitimate; whence the omission which they committed seems to be attributed either to a cause unknown to us or to the moderate accuracy which they employed in noting the affairs of their time.

[327] certainly affirms false. Yet such it probably is; As regards the testimonies praised above, which make the Portiuncula indulgence certain although contemporary authors are silent, this has nothing to do with the matter; for it is plain from this very thing that it may come about that, although a certain fact related by more recent writers is suppressed in silence by all contemporary writers, it nevertheless in fact happened. Since this is so, you would certainly wrongly pronounce undoubtedly false the deathly story of the doctor who publicly announced from the bier to those standing by that he was damned, for this sole cause, that it was not committed to writing by contemporary authors. Nor does Launoy rightly assert it undoubtedly false, as I have already said, because it is besides passed over in silence by other writers who flourished later. But can that mournful event not at least be held as very doubtful, or even as probably, or even likely, false, because it is suppressed in silence by all the writers both contemporary and others who flourished while the whole first, and perhaps also the second, century after the event was running? So indeed I judge; for although of all the negative arguments which the silence concerning the deathly story of some of these, adduced also above, supplies, scarcely any one, taken separately, is very strong, yet all, taken together, certainly render it likely that it never had place, in almost the same manner in which several reasons which concur to establish some assertion sometimes, if taken together, make it solidly probable, although meanwhile each, taken separately, is of little strength. And indeed to whom would it not appear likely that a prodigy of this kind never had place, which is passed over in silence by all the writers just mentioned, and which nevertheless, if it had happened, would have flown through the mouths and pens of all, as one that would have been at the same time both most worthy of note and, in the opinion which is here discussed and which determines that it was done publicly before an almost innumerable multitude of the people, most well known to all everywhere?

[328] [nor (did) the (author of the Chronicle) of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse] Nor should you reply here that that prodigious resurrection, by which the doctor, come back to life for a while, terrified a huge multitude of men by the announcement of the deathly judgment on himself, however it be suppressed in silence by contemporary and nearly contemporary writers, is nevertheless mentioned by those who flourished not so very long after them. For he who first committed this mournful story to writing is the anonymous Carthusian who composed the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, of which I gave notice in §1; and he, as I also showed there, very probably did not put his hand to writing before the year 1250, nay perhaps not even before about the year 1300, and would consequently not have done so before a hundred and fifty years and more, nay perhaps two hundred, had already elapsed after the event, or after the horrible occurrence. You will say indeed that that writer perhaps flourished as early as about the year 1220, or even a little earlier, and had as a light before him an older writer from whom he drew what he relates of the prodigy of the doctor come back to life and of his holy Father being driven hence into the desert. But neither the one nor the other appears in any way to agree with the truth. Nay rather, to answer first that which is put in the last place, it seems to be gathered from the very formula of speaking which he uses at the beginning that no older writer from whom he drew his material was a light before the author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse. For it runs thus: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MLXXXII, or about it, while a solemn study was flourishing at Paris, etc., such a prodigy is said to have happened there. For a certain doctor, etc. By which words that anonymous Chronologer seems to indicate that he did not read the prodigy of the doctor come back to life which he subjoins in older writers or monuments, but received it from others narrating the matter by word of mouth.

[329] Moreover the same chronologer, if he brought elsewhere into our Saint's Life anything received from writers who preceded him, who had another older (writer) as a light before him warns the reader of the matter, nay even discloses their name. At num. 10, being about to transcribe what is read concerning St. Bruno and his six companions in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, written by Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse,

he puts before them these words: That I may use entirely the words written in the Legend of the Life of St. Hugh the bishop mentioned; and then, all the words of Guigo pertaining to St. Bruno and his companions being recited, he subjoins: All the foregoing are the words of the lord Guigo written in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. At num. 24 and last, where he designated from the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, prefixed to the ancient Customs of Guigo (go to num. 6), the time at which the Saint, after his departure from the Chartreuse, closed his last day, he presently subjoins: As is contained in the books of the Customs of the lord Guigo which are in the house of the Chartreuse. If, therefore, he had drawn from older writers the prodigious resurrection of the doctor which he narrates, he would very probably also have either indicated it or named them too, especially since, being about to narrate that deathly story, he says beforehand: Such a prodigy is said to have happened there; and it would have been easy and opportune, in order to win credit for so wonderful a thing, to add by whom it is said or narrated. Now indeed, since these things are so, it appears at any rate most probable, not to say beyond doubt, that older writers by whom the Parisian prodigy had been handed down to memory were not a light before the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the older biographer of our Saint; so that consequently he cannot on this head add greater credit to his narration of the resurrection of the damned doctor. Further, since the praised chronologer, or biographer of the Saint, as has already been said, would very probably have named the older writers, if he had employed any for the horrible narration about the doctor, and yet does not name Caesarius, it becomes consequent that he very probably either did not see the narration of this writer given at num. 241, or judged it different from his own.

[330] As regards now the year 1220, about which, or even a little earlier, the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or biographer of our Saint, flourished, and does not seem to have flourished about the year 1220, this, from what was said at num. 12 and following, is probably otherwise. Nor, even if it were so, could anything be made out from it by which the mournful story of the Parisian doctor would be rendered sufficiently certain or even likely. For suppose that the praised chronologer, who first committed it to writing, in fact put his hand to writing about the year 1220; so he would still have been about a hundred and forty years distant from the event, and consequently by a space of time too long to be able to win it undoubted credit. For although it sometimes happens that a fact, even if it is mentioned only by writers who flourished more than a whole century after it was done, is to be held as likely, nay even as certain, yet this, as appears, cannot have place when, as happens here, the fact or thing in controversy is of such a kind that, if it had ever happened, it would probably have been mentioned even by contemporary and coeval writers themselves. But, you will say, the slaughter of St. Maurice and his companions, martyrs, soldiers of the Theban legion, is not found handed down to memory by contemporary writers, and may seem to be such that, if it had happened, it would probably have been mentioned by them, and yet no one would deservedly pronounce it on that account false or hardly likely. I confess it is so: but what then? Not inept reasons why contemporary writers passed over in silence that slaughter, however most worthy of note and most well known, are given with us in volume IV of September, in which those holy martyrs are treated from page 308, in the Commentary prefatory to their Acts, § VII; and when this can be done, or rather is done, it is admitted by all that no force inheres in the negative arguments which are sought from the silence of writers.

[331] an older chronologer, There is added that the slaughter of those most celebrated martyrs (whence whatever of probability could arise against it from the silence of authors is struck down) is established both from the many things adduced in the Commentary just cited, and most of all from St. Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, who first committed it to writing, and who, although he flourished only in the fifth century, yet drew his material from the source of a genuine tradition, which he himself assigns. But neither can any sufficiently suitable reason be given for the universal silence with which the writers who flourished while more than the whole first century after the event was running pass over the prodigious resurrection of the doctor, nor is this horrible story established from any monument, much less from the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who does not declare whence he drew it, nor is it ascertained from elsewhere. And indeed, since he, as I have already shown, had no older writers as a light before him from whom he drew it, from what source, then, on which we may safely rely, can he have drawn his narration? Perhaps from report or public rumour? But how uncertain this author is, everyone knows. From the tradition of his Order? So indeed think those who defend the story of the Parisian prodigy and of St. Bruno's being driven hence into the desert, and further, in order to champion their opinion, must affirm. But whether that tradition of the Carthusian Order deserves the name of genuine tradition, as also how much it avails for asserting the truth of the Parisian prodigy, I shall discuss below, when I shall first have examined, which I have resolved to do in the present §, whether the remaining testimonies of older writers adduced in §§ XI and XII for the resurrection of the Parisian doctor who publicly announced that he was damned can make it certain or even likely, the universal silence of the writers just mentioned standing.

[332] nor the others praised above, nor even John of Ypres himself, Since all those writers either received their narration from the very narration, already discussed, of the chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, only some change being made in it at will, or at any rate undoubtedly drew it from other writers whose narration too owes its origin to that one, they certainly cannot win for the prodigy greater credit than the said chronologer who first committed it to writing deserves, although meanwhile, as I have already shown above, their testimonies establish both that the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor was undoubtingly believed by many for a very long time, and that it was committed to writing long before the age of John Gerson, contrary to what Launoy will have it. What, therefore, the authority of each of those writers, whom you may see enumerated in §§ XI and XII, avails here need not be investigated at greater length. But, however the matter stands, and although the contrary cannot be proved by any sufficiently solid reason, there are nevertheless those who, as I understand from manuscript Notices existing in my possession, contend that the testimony of John of Ypres, transcribed here at num. 222, is to be made much of. And they judge so for this reason, that, although Iperius did not flourish before the fourteenth century, and consequently, considering the long space of time by which he was distant from the epoch appointed for the Parisian prodigy, or the year 1082, cannot make it certain and undoubted by his sole authority, he nevertheless had as a light before him an older author, contemporary with the event, from whom he drew what he relates of it. That this last should be thought, Martène brought about by his preliminary Admonition to the Chronicle of Iperius, or of St. Bertin, inserted in volume 3 of the Thesaurus Anecdotorum. For in this, towards the end, he speaks thus: Hence you will gather that this Chronicle of St. Bertin deserves so much the greater credit among the learned, the older the authors it has, who committed to writing the deeds of their own time as they had seen them or heard them from eyewitnesses, and that it ought not to seem a wonder that it was held in so great esteem by subsequent authors that they did not hesitate to take from it what they had to say about the affairs of Belgium.

[333] Iperius, then, as Martène here teaches, received the things narrated in his Chronicle from older writers who had either themselves seen them or heard them from eyewitnesses, concerning which the judgment which Martène passed is by no means exact, and these, as the same Martène also teaches in the praised preliminary Admonition, were three in number, namely Folquin, a monk of St. Bertin, who in the tenth century brought together into one volume the old instruments of his monastery; Simon, forty-second abbot of Sithiu or St. Bertin, who died in the year 1148, who described the Chronicles of the church of St. Bertin or Sithiu from the time of Roderic, that is, from the beginning of the eleventh century, in which Abbot Roderic presided over the monastery of Sithiu, up to his own age; and finally an anonymous writer, who was writing in the year 1229 and continued Simon's Work up to his own time. Now indeed, since only one, namely Abbot Simon, of these three writers who were a light before Iperius in composing the Chronicle of St. Bertin, was contemporary with the mournful story of the damned doctor, as is plain from what has just been said, they concluded thence that it was brought by Iperius into the Chronicle of Sithiu from him, and consequently from a contemporary author who had at least heard it from eyewitnesses, and so deserves the highest credit. And indeed, if we are to stand by the judgment passed by Martène on the Chronicle of Sithiu composed by Iperius, there will certainly be reason why someone may not undeservedly suspect that the story of the damned man was in fact drawn by Iperius from the Work of Abbot Simon. But it is far from the case that Martène's judgment on the praised Chronicle can be held as accurate. That this may be plain, and that the studious reader may at the same time understand that from the testimony of Iperius concerning the mournful story of the damned doctor nothing at all, or certainly very little weight, can accrue to it, I transcribe here the reply to Martène's judgment on the Chronicle of Iperius supplied by our Stilting in volume 2 of September, page 555, from num. 25.

[334] transcribed hence in words Thus, then, he has it there: I would rather that the praised editor (namely Martène) had given an accurate criticism of this Chronicle than exaggerated praises: for so the studious reader would better have understood what he can safely embrace from it, and against what on the contrary he ought to be on guard. Certainly the chronology is for the most part faulty in the earlier centuries of this Chronicle, as will be plain in the course of the work. Nay I shall not seldom be compelled to show that not even the facts related in this Chronicle are so certain and so free from errors that they do not need rather frequent correction. Martène tries to prove the authority of the Chronicle because Iperius followed Folquin the deacon, Abbot Simon and their anonymous continuator of the thirteenth century, whom he says wrote in the year MCCXXIX. "From whom," he says, "John of Ypres seems to have so made his Chronicle that he is deservedly to be judged to have inserted their entire compositions into his Work." He tries to show this by certain words alleged which Iperius could not utter of himself, and which are therefore to be attributed to older writers whose sayings, thus far unchanged, Iperius inserted into his Chronicle. But I vehemently suspect that Martène never collated the Chronicle of Iperius with those three writers from whom he says he borrowed so much. Certainly, if he had diligently collated the words of Iperius with the words of the anonymous continuator, who is the compiler of the Life of St. Bertin published by Mabillon, he would have seen the whole sense of the words changed by Iperius in the fact which will be related in the Appendix

of the miracles, number XXV, as I shall observe in the same place.

[335] Our Stilting teaches, Moreover, if he had diligently compared and examined these three authors, he would have seen that very few things are narrated by them as things seen, but most as long past; and for that reason he would not have said, "that this Bertinian Chronicle deserves so much the greater credit among the learned, the more ancient the authors it has, who committed to writing the deeds of their own time as they had seen them or had heard them from eyewitnesses." These things were said inconsiderately and without sufficient examination: for Iperius drew few things from writers who had seen them, or had written of things done in their own time, at least in the first centuries of his Chronicle, but far more from those writers who were far later than the deeds which they related. Nay, Iperius has more from other writers than from those three whose virtual continuator Martène makes him. These things concerning Iperius I judged worth observing, lest anyone, deceived by the immoderate praises of Martène, should at once think me to be reprehended when he sees that I do not acquiesce in the authority of this writer. I would not, however, defraud Iperius of his due praise, whose Chronicle I judge useful and by no means to be despised, but not to be followed blindly. Whence he drew his material, and with how much fidelity he wrote, he himself indicates in his second Prologue in these words: "The present little Work we have gathered with pleasing labour out of many volumes and authentic writings, taking from each whatever seemed to pertain to our purpose, inserting nothing which is not approved by authentic writings." Then he explains what he designates by authentic writings, namely many Lives of the Saints, likewise not a few Chronicles, Antiquities, Annals, Histories, and the archives both of the church of Sithiu and of other monasteries of Belgium and France, other historical books, and finally charters of privileges.

[336] Out of all these monuments he asserts that he composed his Chronicle, he makes it in some measure probable. "harmonizing times with times from the day and the consul, and affairs with affairs from the causes contained in it." I do not doubt that the pious and learned man performed this both diligently and in good faith; but that it was not done without errors is clearer than light. And indeed to compose such a Work without various errors, in the age in which Iperius lived, was beyond human industry, both because many of the monuments which he had to use were not free from every error, and because various things had to be reconciled by conjectures. And this reconciliation was the more difficult, the less the science of chronology and criticism approached its present perfection. Thus far our Stilting, who proves most powerfully and at the same time most lucidly, in more than one place afterwards in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Bertinus, the things which he affirms here concerning the Chronicle of Iperius, as will become manifest to anyone who turns its pages. Now then, since Iperius, to omit other things, drew the matters narrated in his Chronicle not only from the three writers mentioned by Martène, namely Folquin, monk of Sithiu, Abbot Simon, and the anonymous continuator, but also from many others, soon to be assigned by Stilting, there is no reason why we should think the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor which he narrates to have been drawn from the Chronicles of Simon, abbot of Sithiu; and consequently there falls to the ground the highest credibility which would otherwise accrue to the famous narrative about it. Nay rather, since the matter stands thus, the Parisian prodigy is not made in any degree probable even from the Chronicle of Iperius, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said above.

§ XX. Whether tradition can render certain, or at least probable, the prodigy by which the doctor proclaimed publicly to those standing by that he was damned, given the universal silence of the writers mentioned before.

That the dreadful story of the damned man, by a continuous Innocent le Masson, according to the recension of Morozzo the 49th Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, in the Work composed by him which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, and published in the year 1687 at the Correr press, book 1, chapter 1, discourses at length on the prodigious resurrection of the doctor by which St. Bruno was driven into the desert, and to prove that this truly happened he also adduces the tradition of his most celebrated Order. Lest anyone complain that anything which could in any way conduce to proving that horrible story, or at least to rendering it probable, has been passed over by me in silence, I transcribe here from that Work, which is not commonly worn by everyone's hands, the whole reasoning of Masson bearing on this, however prolix and little cogent. It is expressed in these words, placed there at number 8 and following: They are deceived who think that the life of the Carthusians is shortened by abstinence from flesh meats, even in sickness, and by other austerities; for we see by experience that many among us live to a decrepit old age, and attain their eightieth, nay sometimes nearly their ninetieth year. We therefore not rarely see monks who have lived sixty years and more in the Order, even in this age, when all confess that the length of human life has been diminished if it is compared with the preceding ages. Let there be for an example of this firmer health the reverend Father of holy memory, Dom John Pegon, our predecessor, who lived beyond sixty-six years in the Order, and died at LXXXV years of age, and was strong with such vigour of mind that on the day before he died he still used his pen to make dispositions in the Order. Let there also be for an example two nuns who closed their last day in our own days: of whom one had lived LXX years in the Order, the other LXXII. It would be ready to hand to relate here many similar persons who died in our own age.

[338] tradition of the Carthusians, handed down from one to another But if we go back to past centuries, we shall find persons who lived LXXX years and more, nay one above the rest who lived beyond a hundred years in the Order. There will meet us the Reverend Father Jancelinus, who presided over the whole Order for LVIII years. And when the calculation has been made, and the longer age reduced to only LXX years spent in the Order, an age which it is certain that many in each century attained, nay far exceeded, we shall find that the old man who in this age lived LXX years in the Order could have seen and learned from another old man of the same age the things which he had heard from another old man, which last old man had also learned and heard from another the story in question; and thus the tradition of those four old men extends to nearly three hundred years. That they could easily have received this tradition from one another is evident, since three of them could have seen one another and spoken together without any violence done to the common course of nature; for nothing prevents the beginnings of the last from concurring with the end of the first, and a monk in his twentieth year from having seen and heard a man of ninety. We have at hand the pictures prefixed at the head of the old Statutes, which were printed a hundred and eighty years ago, in which that story is seen depicted, with the narration added which we related above. If then we set up for ourselves as an epoch that time at which those pictures were printed, and make those four elders precede it, we shall find that they could have learned that story from those who immediately succeeded the first Fathers of the Order; nay, that there could then have been found in the village neighbouring the Chartreuse peasants who had seen St. Bruno and his companions. For peasants in those rocks, where the air is purer and the manner of living very frugal, live long.

[339] could have come down to Du Puy, Masson explains; I myself saw, and questioned more than once, an old servant of the house of the Chartreuse, called Nicholas Planes, a native of the village of Corbel, who had seen the Reverend Father Dom Bernard Carrasse, who died about the year MDLXXXVI, and he related many things which he had heard in his youth from others then in decrepit age, who had seen the Reverend Father Francis du Puy, who died about the year MDXXI. This Nicholas was about a hundred years old when he closed his last day in the year MDCLXXVII. And that the matter may be set out and expressed still more closely and clearly, let us suppose that one of the companions of St. Bruno lived only thirty years from the day of their arrival at the rocks of the Chartreuse, and that one of those whom the first Fathers had received into their Institute survived him by LXX years: behold, we already hold nearly a hundred years, and thus we have reached the year MCLXXXIV; to which if the age of those four elders be added, which comes to CCLXXX years, we shall have the year MCDLXIV, and thus we shall reach the age of the Reverend Father Francis du Puy, a man most versed in both branches of learning and a distinguished doctor, who caused those old Statutes to be printed, at the head of which was placed the picture representing that story, with the aforesaid narration; which, if he had had any suspicion of its being a fable, a man of such great intellect would never have permitted to be portrayed. Add to these that the house of the Chartreuse, several times consumed by fires, had old writings from which the truth of this story was clearly established; which were read and seen by many, as we too learned from the older monks whom we saw in our youth, who had heard it from eyewitnesses. And finally this tradition always and everywhere flourished in the Order, with no one ever objecting. Who then would not confess that such a tradition rests on firm foundations?

[340] Thus far Masson, by this prolix speech of his showing only that it could have happened, by a continuous tradition begun from the very age of St. Bruno and his companions, he nevertheless does not prove that it really happened so. and transmitted by the Carthusians from some to others, that knowledge of the dreadful story of the damned doctor reached Francis du Puy, who, having had it cut in wood, prefixed it to the Statutes of his Order published by him in the year 1510. But that this really happened so he in no way gives proven, as will be evident to one who considers it; which nevertheless was altogether necessary for him to accomplish anything toward establishing the prodigy, or rather toward establishing a true tradition, begun from the very beginning of the event, by which these things became known to Du Puy. For it can easily happen that what is asserted, as Masson does, to have been capable of being handed down from the very beginning of the event for more than three hundred years elapsed after it, only began in reality to be handed down long afterwards, and thus draws its origin not from a true tradition but from an uncertain rumour. Hence I do not sufficiently understand why our anonymous Carthusian writes thus at number 47 of his very often praised Lucubration: As regards the tradition of the Fathers, the Reverend Father (namely, Innocent le Masson) established it more than enough by solid reasoning in book 1, chapter 1, showing clearly and lucidly that all the Carthusians, as many as have been and are in the Christian world, never acknowledged any other cause or occasion of the founding of our Religious Order than the deadly resurrection of this man, which they assert that they received from older men, who themselves learned it from their Fathers, to whom it had come down from St. Bruno and his companions, and their disciples and followers, through a long tradition of many years.

[341] But in truth, although he speaks thus here, he nevertheless tacitly acknowledges that the Chronographer who first committed the matter to writing, that the age of Du Puy, to which Masson carries the Parisian prodigy down by tradition, is too remote from the event for that tradition, which from what has already been said is of merely doubtful name, to be able to create certain and undoubted credit for it in the manner which Masson assigns. For, in order to contract that long deduction of tradition, he subjoins the following to the words just recited: But lest a thing so unusual and stupendous and so difficult to believe should seem altogether incredible from so long a deduction of tradition, especially to the worthless men of this age, who believe almost nothing except what, as the common proverb says, leaps into the eyes of the beholders, we shall cut short this argument drawn from tradition by nearly five centuries, if one may so speak, drawing out tradition of this kind by a line of no longer than sixty, or at most eighty, years from the death of the companions of St. Bruno, as follows. He who first of the Carthusians committed this story to writing lived about the year MCCXX, or even before (as we shall prove below), that is, eighty years, and not much more, after Stephen of Die, one of the companions of St. Bruno, had died, whom we shall see in our Annals to have still been alive about the year MCXXXVI. Nor is it impossible that certain others of the seven first founders of the Order lived longer. For who would deny that among them some, who had not reached the twenty-fifth year of their age when they withdrew into solitude, could afterwards have arrived at the seventieth or even the eightieth year of life, and the one thousand one hundred and fortieth year of Christ and beyond?

[342] [learned it from those who had lived with the disciples of the companions of St. Bruno,] This first writer of this story had beyond doubt seen many monks who had known, or at least could have known, some of the disciples of the aforesaid seven chief standard-bearers of the Order; which disciples indeed we know to have prolonged their life beyond the year MCC, such as St. Artaldus, professed of the house of Portes, who was sent about the year MCXXXII to found the Chartreuse of Arvières, afterwards became Prior there and bishop of the church of Belley, and finally, having returned to Arvières, died in the year MCCVI, aged one hundred and five years; Garnerius, lord of Balmetum, co-founder of the house of Meyriat, erected in the year MCXVI, who, having become a lay brother there after the death of his wife, saw the year one thousand two hundred and fourteen; Brother Aynard, lay brother, professed of the Grande Chartreuse, who had perhaps seen St. Bruno, since it is established from the Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln that he died only in the one hundred and twenty-sixth year of his age, which was the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and four or a little more, as we learn from the same Life, written by a contemporary author, and shall narrate more fully in their own places. It ought therefore to be established that the aforesaid writer received this story rather from monks who had lived together with these and other disciples of the companions of St. Bruno (among whom may also be numbered the Reverend Father Jancelinus, Prior of the Chartreuse, who after a government of nearly sixty years died in the year MCCXXXIII, whom our author himself had beyond doubt known), than "from the uncertain rumour of the credulous populace and the fables of certain more recent men," as Launoy objected to us as though to idle men.

[343] [and the anonymous annalist would have him to have been living already about the year 1220,] Whence, I ask, could that "uncertain rumour" have been dispersed in our cloisters at that time? Must it not rather be said to have been gradually diffused far and wide from those same cloisters? And indeed by the pupils of the Fathers themselves, men certainly most grave and most holy; whose credit, and that of their successors, William Durand, an author of great name and learning, esteemed so highly that in the Speculum juris, which he dedicated to Adrian V at the time when this story had already been published by our men, he judged "that the Rule of Law by which no one is permitted to give testimony in his own cause has no place among the Carthusians and Cistercians, on account of their holiness." While Durand was writing these things, there flourished in the Order Boso, Prior of the Chartreuse, and William of Ivrea, a monk of the same, both of whom, or at least one of them, made mention of this story in their writings, as we shall presently say. Durand would certainly not have persuaded himself that these men, whom he esteemed so worthy of credit, had given the beginning to this resurrection or fabrication, as the adversaries will have it, in order to trumpet the cradle of their Order to the peoples with swollen cheeks on the strength of so unusual a prodigy. But how light and puerile such vanity is, is evident of itself; which assuredly was born in the mouth of those who calumniate us before it was conceived in the heart of our men. For even if this were a fable, or approached a fable, the Religious Order of the Carthusians would not be held of less account in the Church of God, which all know to shine forth with prerogatives illustrious enough from other sources. Thus far our anonymous Carthusian, wishing chiefly that the anonymous writer, who first of the Carthusians committed to writing the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor and inserted it in the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse composed by him, flourished only sixty or at most eighty years after the death of the companions of St. Bruno, or from about the year 1220, and received the matter from the very disciples of these men, and hence from true tradition, not from the uncertain rumour of the credulous populace.

[344] The reasoning already transcribed here, by which our anonymous Carthusian strives to prove these things, nor from him, as the words the likewise anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno, communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, exhibits amplified with some additions. And this man indeed, while he does so, proposing to prove some matter afterwards, says: As we shall say in its place in the Annals; and elsewhere also he praises these as about to be published by him. Hence, however, as I thought should be observed on this occasion, it may not undeservedly be doubted whether Masson, praised above, when about to write the Annals of his Order, did not compose that Treatise, from which some things were afterwards brought by our anonymous Carthusian into the 4th book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published. However that may be, I transcribe his words here too, lest I seem to have omitted anything which could in any way support the assertion of a genuine tradition concerning the Parisian prodigy. They run thus: From the foundation of the Order to the age of Boso, who ruled the houses of St. Hugh and of the Grande Chartreuse together with the whole Order from the year MCCLXXII to the year MCCCXIII, in which he died in decrepit age, the Carthusians kept deep silence in their cloisters, and allowed nothing to be divulged either about the origin of their Order or about the wonders which were done here and there among them. This Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, testifies of them and complains in a friendly way: "Many miracles," he says, "I have learned from several persons to have happened in that sacred Order; but they themselves, by the virtue of humility with which the servants of God always hide their wonderful works with as much effort as they can, have been willing to disclose scarcely anything of them." Nor would Boso have turned aside from the path of the Fathers, had he not been compelled, in order to vindicate his institute from the calumnies of certain religious of another Order, to violate the laws of this humble and holy silence so long observed, by publishing a very full treatise, either by his own effort, as some will have it, or by his command, namely using the pen of William of Ivrea, an Italian Carthusian, a learned man, whom he had summoned to the Grande Chartreuse about three years before his death.

[345] This treatise he entitled "On the origin and truth of the perfect Religious Life," for defending the Carthusian Order. which here He treated nothing in it about the tragic end of the damned man (for at that time this question had not been raised), but he wished to have added at the end of it the Chronicle of the beginning of the Carthusian Order, narrating this story, written formerly by an author of uncertain name, yet a professed member of the same Order, whom for that reason we shall henceforth designate by the appellation of the anonymous. One codex, both of the Treatise of Boso or of William of Ivrea, which, containing the Chronicle of the aforesaid anonymous, we have had from the Chartreuse of Mont-Dieu, was written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, that is, about the end of Boso's government, as we gather from the script; which also a certain very learned man, most versed in scripts of this kind, whom we consulted at Paris through the intervention of a certain friend, judged with us. Since therefore Boso professed our institute in the middle of the thirteenth century, there is no doubt that the anonymous author of the Chronicle is a little older than he; which can also be proved from a codex of the Colbertine library, in which a copy of the same Chronicle is found, transcribed before the middle of the said thirteenth century, as Stephen Baluze, a man most illustrious in learning and most zealous in deserving well of anyone, advised us by letter in these words: "In codex 3806 there is a certain table containing LI chapters on the perfection and privileges of the Carthusian Order. It is imperfect and begins at chapter XVI. That codex is CDL years old," that is, about the year MCCXL. "It contains the Chronicle of the beginning of the Carthusian Order" (so too it is entitled in our codex) "up to the year MCXXXVII, in which Guigo died. Then follows Bernard on contemplation. It begins Cum die quodam. It is probable that this copy was made from the autograph itself, which has now perished, and was brought thither from the Grande Chartreuse by one of the first members of the Chartreuse of Paris, and was afterwards assigned to the Thuanean library, and finally to the Colbertine."

[346] are transcribed, Since therefore this anonymous wrote his Chronicle about or before MCCXL, he could have become a monk at the beginning of the same century, and therefore have received this story from older Fathers who were surviving at the same time, of whom it is established that some were disciples of the companions of St. Bruno and of the founders of our way of life together with him; such as were Blessed Artaldus, who, while St. Anthelm was ruling the Order, was made Prior of the house of Arvières, and afterwards bishop of Belley, and finally, having laid down the mitre, prolonged his life to the year MCCVI, in which, more than a hundred years old, he died in his cell; and Aynard the lay brother, professed of the Grande Chartreuse, of whom wonderful things are narrated in the Life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, where he is also said to have died in sound mind in the one hundred and twenty-sixth year of his age, about four years after St. Hugh, namely about MCCIV. Which could scarcely be believed, had not one who knew him asserted it in writing, as we shall say in its place in the Annals. Among these may deservedly be numbered the truly venerable old men Bovo, successor of St. Hugh of Lincoln in the Priorate of Witham, and, though much greater in years spent in the Order, Jancelinus, who governed the mother Chartreuse and the whole Order for nearly sixty years, a little after Basil, the successor of St. Anthelm; Guifridus, a lay brother of the Chartreuse, who, in the year MCCXII, sixty years in the Order, testified in certain letters that he had seen Brother Olmarus, a lay brother in the time of Guigo the Great, and who beyond doubt had known some of the seven founders of the Order. From these therefore and certain others of the same credit and authority

monks our anonymous received this story, or at any rate those who related it to him and to Boso and his contemporaries, rather than from the uncertain rumour of the credulous populace and the fables of certain more recent men, as Launoy objected.

[347] For whence, I ask, could that uncertain rumour have been dispersed in our cloisters at that time? make it credible, Must it not rather be said to have been gradually diffused far and wide from those same cloisters, and indeed by the very pupils of the first Fathers, men certainly most grave and holy, whose credit and that of their successors William Durand, an author of great name, esteemed so highly that in the Speculum juris, which he dedicated to Adrian V at the time when the first writers of this story were flourishing, he judged that the Rule of law by which no one is permitted to give testimony in his own cause has no place among the Carthusians and Cistercians on account of their holiness? Durand would certainly not have persuaded himself that these men, whom he esteemed so worthy of credit, had given the beginning to the narrative of this resurrection, if it had been a fabrication, as the adversaries will have it, in order to disseminate the cradle of their Order among the peoples with swollen cheeks on the strength of so unusual a prodigy; from which, whether it were true or false, they could nevertheless confer no glory or disgrace, no advantage, on a Religious Order shining forth abundantly enough with illustrious prerogatives of piety; nor would they have believed, as Launoy reproaches, that the history of Bruno was not illustrious enough if it lacked that event. For if both they themselves and their posterity loved, as a certain writer (namely Colombi, in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, number 20) has observed on our behalf, and kept seeking, to tell illustrious things about Bruno, fit for the admiration of the people, they would assuredly have made his Life far more illustrious and most apt for holding the multitude in suspense with admiration, if they had attributed to Bruno and his companions the things we read of Paul, Antony, and other more ancient monks or anchorites. But men who loved the truth and hated all fiction ingenuously narrated about Bruno what they had heard from the Fathers, according to that saying of Moses: "Ask thy father and he will declare to thee, thy elders and they will tell thee."

[348] Therefore, since our anonymous wrote down this story from the mouth of those narrating it, the other anonymous differs little. who had known the companions of Bruno, or at least had professed our institute before the thirteenth century, that is, during the first century of our Order, it follows hence that this tradition did not lack the authority of writing beyond sixty or seventy years after the death of some of the authors of our Order; which is scarcely to be found in many traditions of holy Church. For how many things (I speak beyond all comparison), and how great, were believed, venerated, preserved, observed by the Church, not only through one but through two, three, and still more centuries, which rested on tradition alone, not yet confirmed by writings? Whence her enemies had nothing, nor have today, more ancient than to attack her traditions. These are the arms which Launoy too chiefly used against us, as we shall see afterwards. Thus far the anonymous author praised above, aiming chiefly by the whole of his reasoning, already transcribed here, to persuade that the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who first put in writing the Parisian prodigy of the doctor who for a short while came back to life and publicly cried out that he was damned, drew or understood it from the very disciples of the first companions of St. Bruno, or at any rate from monks of the same institute who had heard it from these; which last alone the author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, seems to intend by his reasoning, likewise already transcribed here. Both of them indeed labour, not without reason, to persuade one or the other. For if either the anonymous author of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or those who narrated it to him, heard the dreadful story from the disciples of the companions of St. Bruno, who would lightly dare to pronounce it false? But how do they prove that the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse drew his narrative from so approved a source?

[349] But that that chronographer was already then alive, Since therefore, says the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusian Fathers of this place, this anonymous (namely, the writer of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse) wrote his Chronicle about or before MCCXL, he could have become a monk at the beginning of the same century and therefore have received this story from older Fathers who were surviving at the same time, of whom it is established that some were disciples of the companions of St. Bruno and of the founders of our way of life together with him. So he; from whom the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, does not differ much. He who first of the Carthusians, he says, committed this story to writing lived about the year MCCXX; and then, after some things interposed: This first writer of this story had beyond doubt seen many monks who had known, or at least could have known, some of the disciples of the aforesaid seven chief standard-bearers of the Order; which disciples indeed we know to have prolonged their life beyond the year MCC… It ought therefore to be established that the aforesaid writer received this story … from monks who had lived together with these and other disciples of the companions of St. Bruno. They therefore hold that the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was already living, or even had already been professed a Carthusian, at the very time when some of the disciples of St. Bruno and his companions were still surviving among the living, and that hence either he himself, or at any rate those who narrated it to him, drew the mournful story from these. But is it established from any source that the anonymous, who first committed the Parisian prodigy to writing, was already then alive, or even had become a Carthusian? That that writer probably did not set his hand to writing before the year 1250 I showed at number 12 and following, nor had I decided to dispute further about his age, or the time at which he began to live or to act as a monk; but since the two writers here in question will have it that the anonymous who first consigned the Parisian prodigy to writing was alive already, as has just been said, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, and hence chiefly contend that he learned it either from the disciples of St. Bruno and his companions, or at any rate from those who had at some time lived together with these, it pleases me now further to examine whether they do not put the age of the said anonymous too early, or whether they prove in any way that he lived already from the beginning of the thirteenth century.

[350] nor by a rather long reasoning, The author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, agrees altogether with us (see number 12) that that anonymous indeed did not write his Chronicle about the year 1151, because he makes mention of the Chartulary existing in the Chartreuse, near the beginning of which the papal letters (of Urban II) and the instrument of Siguin (both this and those will be recited below) are found; but to prove that he was indeed living already from about the year 1220, he discourses in the following manner: We conjecture, however, that he (namely, the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse) lived before the times of the Reverend Father Boso, who, having entered our Order about the year MCCLX, began his government of the Chartreuse in the year MCCLXXVII. This conjecture we establish thus from the Chartularies which we now have in the Chartreuse. For two are found there, one made under the government of the Reverend Father Francis du Puy and by his care in the year MDVII, and it contains two volumes, in the former of which, towards the end, not near the beginning, as is said in the cited Chronicle, are the aforesaid letters of Urban II. The instrument of Siguin, however, is copied before them, but well past the middle. Whence it is clear that the author of the treatise does not mention this chartulary. And in truth the Thuanean codex, which all can consult, although more recent than our codex, was written long before this chartulary. The other chartulary of the Chartreuse was made up of three volumes, the first of which perished in the last fire, as the officials of the Chartreuse affirm to us with sorrow; the other two are still preserved unharmed and entirely whole, written in different hands; of which the former, which was the second, bears such a title at the head of the index of the charters contained in it: "In this volume are contained the charters and letters of the house of the Chartreuse pertaining to the county of Savoy."

[351] Then at the top of the first folio, which contains the first instrument, which entire dated only in the year MCCCIII, it reads thus: "Here begins the new chartulary of the county." From these words "New chartulary" we understand that there was some other more ancient one, which also perished formerly. The second instrument of this volume is dated in the year MCCCVI. Then follow many others transacted at various times from the year MCCVII to the year MCCCXXVI, except one dated in the year MCCCXXXI, but which is copied on a separate folio. Since therefore the charter which begins this volume is dated in the year MCCCIII, and the more recent charter is of the year MCCCXXXVI, we rightly gather hence that the same volume was composed under the government and care of Aymo, Prior of the Chartreuse, who presided from the year MCCCXIII to the year MCCCXXX; and indeed after that deplorable fire which happened in the year MCCCXX; since the more ancient chartulary had perhaps been consumed by its flames, the Reverend Father Aymo caused a new one to be copied. The other volume, which was the third, is also written in several hands, of which, however, none seems more recent than the script of the former volume; whence we also gather that it was begun under the same Aymo and continued under his successors up to the year MCCCXLVI, in which the most recent instrument of this volume is dated; which we also conjecture from these words set at the head of the Index in this manner: "Let this chartulary be bound entire with boards, when it shall seem to be thick enough and complete; and afterwards let another be begun." Then follow the bulls of the supreme Pontiffs from Alexander IV to John XXII inclusive. After which instruments are copied in another hand, the first of which is dated in the year MCCC, to which such an inscription is prefixed: "Here begins the new Chartulary of the Dauphiné."

[352] is recited in these, Finally, without distinction, as in the former volume, charters and letters are inserted from the year MCCXV to the year MCCCXLVI. And in certain transcripts also some more ancient ones, such as the letters of St. Hugh of Grenoble and others. But in neither of the two volumes are found the bulls of Urban II and the instrument of Abbot Siguin. There is therefore no doubt that the first volume of the same Chartulary also, which is now missing, was copied through the care of the same Reverend Father Aymo, in which, if it were still extant, perhaps the aforesaid bulls and the instrument of Siguin would be found, which however is not established. But even if we granted it, it would not follow that it is the same one of which our anonymous author speaks. Nay, from the two following volumes, which we have seen to have been called NEW, it follows that this first volume too was recent at that time; and consequently that it was other than the one which we believe the flame of the fire of the year MCCCXX to have devoured. But all these

doubts are removed by the treatise of the Reverend Father Boso "On the Origin and truth of the perfect Religious Life," in which the Chronicle of our anonymous on the beginning of the Carthusian Order is found inserted entire. For since Boso presided over the houses of the Valley of St. Hugh and of the Grande Chartreuse from the year MCCLXXII to the year MCCCXIII, in which he died, it is clear from this that the chartulary cited in the aforesaid Chronicle was written before the times of Boso, and for that reason that the author himself also flourished before the year MCCLXXII; and in assigning the time of his life to about the year MCCXX we do not think we incur any reproach thereby, since he could even have lived some years before, and have seen also that blessed old man Jancelinus, Prior of the Chartreuse, and many other monks, disciples of the disciples of St. Bruno or even of his companions. So our anonymous Carthusian annalist, indicating also in more than one place of his Work that the anonymous chronographer, whom he here determines to have been alive already from the year 1220 or even earlier, had composed his lucubration on the first five Priors of the Chartreuse from this very year or earlier. But in the whole of his reasoning, already transcribed here, nothing at all occurs which proves that that anonymous chronographer, or author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, was already living among the living in that year, or, if that were so, had composed his Chronicle.

[353] the former of those anonymous writers, For suppose that the Chartulary which he mentions in it, as bearing at its head the Pontifical letters of Urban II and the instrument of Abbot Siguin, is not the one which was written after the year 1320 through the care of Aymo, Prior of the Chartreuse, but another more ancient one, which, for example, had been made already from the year 1120, or even, if you like, earlier: will it follow from this that the anonymous chronographer who praised it was either alive, or composed his said lucubration, already from the same year also? Since the more ancient Chartulary, which contained the Pontifical letters of Urban II and the instrument of Abbot Siguin, was perhaps consumed by the flames only in the year 1320, in which the fire of the Chartreuse happened, or at any rate it is not established that it perished earlier, why could the anonymous chronographer not have praised it, even if he had set his hand to writing only in the year 1290 or even somewhat later? Nor is what our anonymous Carthusian adds (see his words just recited) about Boso, who presided over the houses of the Valley of St. Hugh and of the Grande Chartreuse from the year 1272 to the year 1313, anything to the purpose. For suppose the Chartulary which the anonymous author praises in his Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was in reality written before the age of Boso; yet it will not yet be a consequence from this that the anonymous writer likewise flourished and composed his lucubration before this, or before the year 1272. For why could he not, even though he wrote long after this year, have praised a Chartulary made much before? Moreover, from the fact too that Boso inserted the entire Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse into the Treatise composed either by himself or by his command, which is entitled On the Origin and truth of the perfect Religious Life, it by no means follows that its anonymous author wrote it before the year 1272.

[354] For Boso, as the author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place teaches in the words just transcribed here, nor by the reasons which are proposed here, either himself wrote, or caused to be written, the Treatise just praised only three years before his death, which occurred in the year 1313; and nothing prevents the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse from having been inserted into it, even though its author had composed it only ten or even fewer years before. That this lucubration was therefore composed about the year 1220 or even earlier, absolutely nothing of all that is brought forward in the words just recited by the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals proves. Nay rather, it does not even follow in any way from these that the anonymous author of the same lucubration had already begun to live among the living from the said year 1220 or even earlier. But the anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place enters upon another way, by which to give it proved that the same anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse lived from about the year 1220, nay was already then a professed Carthusian, and hence could have understood, or even in fact did understand, what he hands down to memory about the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor from the disciples of the companions of St. Bruno, or at least from others who had heard the matter from these. He says therefore that the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse was written, not indeed already from the year 1220, but at least from about the year 1240, and hence that its author not only lived already from the year 1220, but was also a professed Carthusian. But does he prove the matter in any way? Stephen Baluze, in a letter given to the Carthusians, taught that the copy of that Chronicle which is preserved in the Colbertine Library was written four hundred and fifty years before, and hence, since this letter was written in the past century, when it was already nearly advanced to its end, about the year 1240. So, as to substance, the anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, whom I praised just now.

[355] But whence did Baluze learn that that copy of the said Chronicle was of such great antiquity? the latter proves. That most illustrious man, to create credit for himself in this matter, ought surely to have added it. I think that he gathered so great an antiquity of it as he asserts solely from the script in which the same copy of the Chronicle was written. But although from the script in which ancient monuments are written the century in which they were written may be determined roughly in some way, who would determine from it with sufficient certainty also the approximate year in which they happened to be written? Whatever therefore may be the judgment of Stephen Baluze concerning the time at which the copy of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse which is preserved in the Colbertine library was written, the doubt remains with me just as before, whether that Chronicle was not written thirty or even forty years later than he determines here. Nor does it remove that doubt from me that, as the Carthusian just praised here teaches at number 24 of his Lucubration, the chartulary of the Grande Chartreuse which is praised in the Chronicle in question was probably made about the year 1240. For why could it not have been praised by the author of the Chronicle writing only long afterwards, nay even thirty or forty years later? Now then, since all these things stand thus, and it is therefore doubtful whether the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse did not first begin to flourish only when one or another decade had already elapsed after the middle of the thirteenth century, it must likewise be doubtful whether he could have seen the disciples of the first companions of St. Bruno, and others who most closely followed these in the Carthusian Institute, and have learned from them what, as is commonly believed, he first of all committed to writing about the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor.

[356] Nor, if the matter were otherwise, would it be established that he And hence further it now comes about that it must be doubted whether the dreadful narrative of the damned doctor was transmitted to posterity by true tradition, that is, whether it was transmitted, either by living voice or in any other way, from St. Bruno himself and his first companions, contemporaries of the event, from whom it then came to the Carthusians of a later age and finally to the anonymous who first of all consigned it to writing. And since this is so, the Parisian prodigy remains to be held as scarcely probable, chiefly on account of the universal silence about it of all the ancient writers, among whom, as I have already taught above, there are probably some who would have known it, had it happened, and having known it would have recorded it. And so indeed the matter stands on the opinion by which it is determined that the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse did not live, much less act as a Carthusian, already from about the year 1220. Nor would it stand otherwise, even if we granted for a while that he was already then living among the living and had been professed a Carthusian. For although the two anonymous writers rightly teach in their words just recited that he could have understood the dreadful narrative of the damned doctor from the disciples of the companions of St. Bruno, or at any rate from those to whom these had related it, if he had been a Carthusian already from about the year 1220, yet they by no means prove that this was done in reality. They indicate indeed that it is to be thought that the praised chronologer learned the matter from these rather than from the uncertain rumour of the credulous populace; but, besides that they do not give even this proved by any reason, the contrary seems to be thought, both because he does not declare whence he drew his narrative, and yet, if he had drawn it from so approved a source, he would probably have done so, as I already taught at number 329; and because, when about to narrate the Parisian prodigy, he says, Such a prodigy is said to have happened there (namely at Paris), and thus speaks rather in the manner of one doubting than of one asserting about the horrible story, about which nevertheless, if it had been related to him either by the disciples of the companions of St. Bruno, or by those who had heard it from these, he would probably not have doubted.

[357] Moreover, the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, learned the prodigy by tradition. even if he be determined to have lived already from about the year 1220, would indeed have been about a hundred and forty years distant from the Parisian prodigy; and although it does happen from time to time that things handed down to memory by writers who are not contemporaries must be believed to have come to these by true tradition, this can yet scarcely have place when, as happens here, the things narrated are such that, had they happened, they would probably have been recorded by contemporary writers also, and yet they are not found recorded by any of these. Nor is what the author of the Treatise communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place adds about the traditions of the Church anything to the purpose; for since the things which were received by traditions of this kind were long, nay through one, two, three or even more centuries, believed, venerated and observed in the Church, he speaks undoubtedly of Apostolic ones; But just as nothing (these are the words of our Papebroch in his Responses to the Exhibition of errors, article 19, number XI) is received as Divine and Apostolic tradition which is not proved from the holy Fathers to have been observed in their own age in the universal Church, as having been so handed down from the beginning; so neither do we prudently admit human traditions, alleged as such, which either conflict with more certain authorities, or could not have failed to be touched upon at some time by more ancient writers, if they were true. But, you will say, whence then, if the Parisian prodigy was not received by true tradition, could there have arisen the uncertain, as Launoy will have it,

rumour in the cloisters of the Carthusians? Did these perhaps invent it? So, nearly, the two anonymous Carthusians praised above as well. But even if it be determined that the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse did not learn it by true tradition, it does not follow from this that he received it either from uncertain rumour or from the fictions of the ancient Carthusians. For what if the horrible story of the damned man happened not publicly, but within the private house of the deceased before a few people, and was then corrupted in its circumstances by the lapse of time, though no fiction intervened? That this could indeed have happened will become plain from what is to be said below, as also the manner in which it could have happened.

§ XXI. Certain other weighty arguments are adduced in favour of the prodigy by which the Parisian doctor publicly announced from the bier to the multitude standing by that he was damned, and it is examined whether from these at length it may not in some way become probable.

[That he sought the desert from fear of the judgment and of hell is hinted in the funeral titles of St. Mary of Reims,] Because some of the funeral titles with which various churches and monasteries paid their last honours to our Saint indicate not obscurely that he withdrew into the desert from fear of the divine judgments and of hell, the anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place conjectures from this that in them allusion is made to the mournful story of the damned doctor; and if allusion is in reality made in the said Titles to the dreadful event, it follows that this not only happened but also happened publicly, since otherwise the churches and monasteries to which they belong would not have had it well known. Therefore, lest I pass over unobserved anything which may seem in any way to favour the Parisian prodigy, I transcribe here the words of the praised anonymous author containing the conjecture mentioned, together with the funeral titles on which he builds it, intending afterwards to add also what my opinion on this matter is. They run thus: No one could know so exactly the true cause of his (that is, of St. Bruno's) withdrawal into the desert as the canons of the church of St. Mary of Reims, in which the Saint had formerly lived as a canon, who insinuate it thus in their Title, which holds place 54 among those to be published:

"Bruno, dreading the examination of the Judge who is to come, Despised the riches of the world, and sought the desert; And there he sent forth fruits of sweet odour, Calling back to Christ those whom vain glory had deceived."

[359] and others, which are here Ralph the Green then enjoyed the dignity of the provostship in that church, to whose invitation, by which he had shortly before been urged by Bruno through a letter to put on the monastic habit according to his vow, the author of this Title perhaps tacitly alludes in these words: "Calling back to Christ those whom vain glory had deceived." In agreement with the church of Reims is the particular church of St. Bartholomew on Mont-d'Or, situated not far from the same city, whose eulogy, the 65th in order among the funeral Titles to be published, is entirely about the horror of death and hell, by which Bruno, terrified, is said to have entered the desert.

"The world, growing bitter, goes lame under the weight of death, And drags toward the semblance of human lot through byways. And wasting away it sinks all things in the exile of their own; Whence dost thou swell, wretched man, growing old in this age? In the Charybdian fount thou art sunk to the last things of the end; And ash into ashes thou shalt be dissolved, as a shadow by lamps. Its labour is its love, and an inextricable wandering, Through the failing of which horror embraces the soul, After it has been stripped from the prison of the flesh, Or hemmed in here by the troops of Satan's leaders. Fearing which, the courageous Bruno in this peril Enters the desert with a single service of combat, Leaves riches and the glory of the world, lest glory become Punishment unto destruction, etc."

[360] transcribed, the funeral titles Something similar the canons of the principal church of Paris sing in succession, paying their last honours to their friend Bruno (namely in the Title numbered 109 among those to be reprinted):

"O you worldly ones, who rejoice in an empty thing, Spurn the cultivation of the flesh, which will suddenly perish. For the vast body, fed with various fatness, The more it is filled, the more putrid it will become. Why is the flesh so fattened, with which the worm is sated? Why do we so desire goods which we cannot keep? Those whom the world wickedly seduces, it leads through byways, And deceives the followers of the flesh by honours, And holds out alluring things, while it spreads its nets for us. There is also in this world anxiety for the worldly, And punishment earns punishment; the flesh is tormented twice. Those who pursue gain are cast headlong by sudden death, And the flesh enters the cave, and the souls the abyss. Bruno, treating of these things attentively enough, suddenly, That glory of masters, the shaping of morals, The greater oar of the throng in the city of Reims, Despised the world, turned his road to heavenly things, Clothed in vile rags, followed thee, O Christ. To him therefore let the heavens lie open, and to the faithful people, With whom Bruno rejoices, let him ever be associated."

[361] The monks also of St. Germain of the same City (namely Paris) testify (in funeral Title 26, that is) that Bruno was terrified by the remembrance of the last judgment. [is hinted at by Bruno. Yet the Parisian prodigy is not made probable even from these,]

"In our minds there should always be kept The day on which the reprobate shall take away evil things, or the just good things. This Bruno feared, who was a true lover of wisdom."

From these and certain other titles which indicate similar things, we can not absurdly conjecture that the friends of Bruno implicitly alluded in them to the spectacle of the man restored to life; but that they did not clearly designate the story, lest they should seem to violate his reputation and that of his kindred. We confess that the same things could be said of any other man bidding farewell to the world, the cause of whose conversion is hidden; but since it has always been held as settled among all the Carthusians that Bruno, made to tremble by the horrible judgment of the damned master, renounced the world, a weighty conjecture is drawn from this, that the same judgment is contained in the words of the aforesaid titles. For why did his dearer friends, who knew best what the cause of his conversion was, bring forward no other than the fear of death, judgment and hell? Why did they make no mention of the accusations against the simoniac Manasses, or of his perverse morals, if these drove Bruno into the desert, as Launoy will have it necessarily follow from Guibert? Thus far he; who, since he confesses that whatever is contained in the funeral Titles already transcribed here and in others is of such a kind that it could be pronounced of any other man who bade farewell to the world, acknowledges not obscurely that there is not much strength in the conjectures formed by him from them; in which matter indeed one must here assent to him, as will be evident to one who considers it. Let us now proceed to other things which seem in some way to make for the prodigious resurrection of the doctor.

[362] Du Saussay, in his Didascalic Epistle, already praised above more than once, or from the pictures which came to light in the year 1645 from the presses of Cologne, calls also to the support of the Parisian prodigy the images and the celebrated painting of the Chartreuse of Paris representing the horrible story of the damned doctor. And first indeed he writes thus on this argument at page 22: There were added figures and images by which that deadly spectacle was represented. These were depicted in the little books of sacred short prayers which they call Hours, nay even in some Breviaries and Missals, not only of this diocese (namely Paris) but of certain others also. And then on the same page 22 he has this: Moreover there was shown to us that celebrated painting which is still seen in the cloister nearer the church of the monastery of the Carthusian Fathers of this city (Paris), expressing the course of the life of this wretched man, and of his deadly departure, and of that horrible damnation declared publicly by himself in the church after death, and the horrible catastrophe of the casting of his corpse into an unhallowed place. So he; but to the latter points Launoy responds thus in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert: This painting has no more authority than the books from which it draws its origin. It does not reach back to the time designated by its subject, but follows it after a long interval. For it was drawn about the year MDXXXII, as was lately seen written above the door by which one goes from the lesser to the greater cloister: lately, I say, since in the course of last year that celebrated painting was partly effaced, and partly hidden by new substructures which adhere to the walls, and these arranged in arches both of stone and of wood.

[363] and images, Then the form of the cap with which Bruno was covered, teaching his hearers on this side and that, altogether testified that the figure was recent. For this covering of the head, which in the old books of the university was both called and was a round biretta, began about the year MDXX to be shaped otherwise, and to end in a horned square; of which kind was the cap or biretta, the badge of the mastership, with which, as we said, Bruno's head was covered. For the rest, those who painted the prodigy, and the brothers who caused it to be painted, believed, I think, that it happened as it was painted, but they were deceived by those who gave the subject of the false thing to be painted. To the former points, however, he replies thus: We too have seen many books of this kind in which nothing of the sort appeared. But why these figures and images were painted in certain books of the diocese of Paris and of other dioceses, and not painted in others, let him who will conjecture. We, however, give credit to the author (that is, Du Saussay). But these figures and images are of no weight, since they are supported only by the authors whom we have rejected. But those images which had been painted in Bruno's time we would embrace as witnesses of the truth. So Launoy; and indeed most rightly. For from paintings and images, as he afterwards teaches in the conclusion of chapter 3 of his Dissertation, no solid argument can be drawn until the certain time at which they were made is defined; and the reason is that, as he also adds in the same place, Painters are accustomed to form their images after the pattern of things which in their own time are commonly believed or done, so that, if we imagine an image painted a hundred or two hundred years ago, the consequence will be that the thing exhibited by it was then so commonly believed or done. Hence those things by which the Parisian prodigy is expressed cannot win credit for it, whether the images and paintings of the fourteenth century mentioned here at number 220, or the little pictures prefixed to the statutes and customs of the Carthusian Order printed at Basel in the year 1510; for these are an argument only that the dreadful story was believed both in the fourteenth century and in the year 1510; from which it by no means follows that it ever certainly took place. But let these things said about the paintings and images representing the mournful event suffice.

[364] Du Saussay, in proof of the horrible story, again on the same page 22 of his Didascalic Epistle, says or from the Office of the Dead formerly changed, or from the chapel, that it was made more probable to him by the fact that, as he had understood, in the Parisian Office of the Dead that opening of the fourth Lesson, Answer me, had at one time been deleted, because, when the cleric was according to custom pronouncing these words in the Office of the funeral, that wretched dead man answered: "By the just judgment of God I am accused, then I am judged, and finally I am damned." But that in the age of our Saint in the Parisian Office of the Dead probably either no Lessons were recited, or these, of which accordingly one would have begun with these words, Answer me, from the book

of Job were not drawn, I have already shown above. Now then, since this is so, it is indeed very doubtful, to say no more, whether those spoke the truth who reported to Du Saussay that, for the cause expressed in the words just recited, those words, Answer me, had at one time been struck out of the fourth Lesson in the Parisian Office of the Dead. See what Launoy supplies bearing on this in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, in which part I find him contradicted by no one. Behold yet another argument which is adduced for the Parisian prodigy. In the church of Paris, they say, dedicated to the Most Holy Mother of God, there is a chapel which is called the chapel of the Damned, having without doubt obtained this name from the damned man, whether canon or doctor, who in the said church proclaimed publicly, before an almost innumerable multitude of people, that by the just judgment of God he was accused, judged, and finally also damned. But that the church of St. Mary of Paris which now exists had not yet been built in the age of St. Bruno, Robert of Mont teaches us in the Appendix to Sigebert at the year 1177, writing thus: Maurice, bishop of Paris, has now long been labouring much and making progress in the building of the church of the aforesaid city (Paris), whose head is now completed, except for the greater roof. If this work is completed, there will be no work this side of the mountains which could openly be compared to it.

[365] But, they say, in the place where Bishop Maurice built the Parisian church of St. Mary, from the name by which it is called the chapel of the damned, there previously stood another church, which included the chapel of the damned, and this was retained and preserved in the new building. Forsooth, says Launoy ironically in the place just cited, for the everlasting memory of so great a matter, so that the name of him to whom the honour of burial had been denied might be dignified by such a basilica. So far was it from being the case that perpetual oblivion should obscure him whom the Parisian clergy had ordered to go off to the gallows. Into these straits, willing or unwilling, are driven those who do not separate the true from the false. So he, again evidently hinting that the mournful story of the damned man must undoubtedly be held among fables. And indeed this, as I have already taught above, even if it is not certainly a fable or fabrication, appears indeed scarcely probable, nor can the chapel which is called of the Damned add any probability to it. For what if it was so called by the people, who erroneously thought that the dreadful story, though it never happened, had yet happened in the aforesaid church? What if it acquired that name from an image or figure of a damned man existing there, not indeed of one who publicly declared his damnation there, but of some other? What if also from this it came about in the lapse of time that the erroneous opinion about a canon or doctor who publicly proclaimed in the said church that he was damned grew strong among the people? However the matter stands, that naming of the chapel of the Parisian church can indeed have arisen from more than one cause, and hence no valid argument can be drawn from it for the mournful story of the damned doctor. And these are the chief weighty arguments which I have found besides for the Parisian prodigy, and which do either nothing or at any rate very little toward establishing it, as is plain from what has already been said. Others, which are of still less strength than these, I omit, lest I perform a thing altogether useless and superfluous.

[366] or by the charter And hence also I had determined at the outset to mention neither here nor above the tablets of the foundation of the Chartreuse signed in the year 1084 and the Grandmont codex written in the year 1115, because I had been persuaded by the words of our Papebroch, transcribed here at number 196, that both this and those were alleged for the Parisian prodigy in bad faith, or at least without warrant, by Polycarp de la Rivière, a pupil of the Carthusian Order, just like certain others which accordingly are not to be mentioned here. But since I now understand that it is possible that the reasons adduced by Théophile Raynaud in his Hercules Commodianus may persuade someone that those two monuments were praised by the aforesaid Carthusian writer, in the Work which is entitled Angelica, and which came to light in the year 1626 from the presses of Lyons, neither in bad faith nor even without warrant, it pleases me to set these too before the reader's eyes, before I put an end to the discussion of the Parisian prodigy, and at the same time to examine of what weight they are. Raynaud therefore, in the cited Opuscule, series 2, question 3, to show that the charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse, in which the Parisian prodigy is recorded, was not cited in bad faith by Polycarp de la Rivière, writes thus: The excellent and most religious father Justus Perrot, a Parisian, who a little before, having been raised from scribe of the Chartreuse to General, departed this life most holily, confirmed that he had seen that charter (namely of the foundation of the Chartreuse), written not in a recent hand but in a most ancient one, containing the prodigy of the damned doctor at the head of the book. Nor do I alone assert this, who was honoured with the conversations and benevolence of that Nestor, when he had kindly invited me to the Chartreuse; but the very same, received from his mouth not once but more often, is testified by Dom Chrysanthus Paulinus, Prior of the Val-de-Bénédiction near Avignon, a man to be numbered among the principal fathers of the Carthusian Order by his merit and by the prerogative of age, and it is attested by very many others still surviving, so that there can be no room for doubting, except out of mere obstinacy.

[367] of the foundation of the Chartreuse, So he; from which indeed it appears to me probable enough that the Charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse was not praised by Polycarp for the Parisian prodigy in bad faith. But what if both this writer and Justus Perrot, praised by Raynaud, thought by error that there was in that Charter what was not truly in it? How this could have happened, or rather did happen, these words of our anonymous Carthusian, transcribed here at number 206, teach us: Among which (the books written by Aymar Savelli, a professed monk of the Grande Chartreuse) one still exists, written in the year MCDLV, in which this our story (of the damned doctor) is expressed in precisely the same words in which it is found in our old anonymous author, with such an inscription at the head: "How the Carthusian Order had its origin." And immediately after the story has been narrated follow the letters of the foundation of the Chartreuse of the year MLXXXIV. Whence we think arose the error of Dom Polycarp de la Rivière, who reckons the same letters among the authors who made mention of such a prodigy, against whom for that reason Launoy was seen to inveigh rather sharply, as against a man of bad faith in writing. Whatever therefore Perrot, General of the Carthusian Order, affirmed about the Charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse, in which he had found mention of the Parisian prodigy, this he most probably affirmed only through an error admitted in the manner which our anonymous Carthusian here expounds; so that accordingly Polycarp, even if perhaps not in bad faith, yet wrongly or without warrant alleged that monument for the mournful story, since it makes no mention of it, as our anonymous Carthusian also here ingenuously acknowledges. Nor is there reason for you to reply here with Raynaud that the charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse is different from the charter of donation of the same, and that mention of the prodigy was made not in this, which still exists at present, but in that, which perished in the burning of the Chartreuse. For that a charter of foundation which was different from the charter of donation of the Chartreuse ever existed neither appears probable nor can be proved by any argument.

[368] As now pertains to the Grandmont codex, likewise praised by Polycarp for the prodigious resurrection of the doctor, nor finally is it made certain from the Grandmont Chronicle; Raynaud indeed endeavours to lessen the credit of Launoy, who asserted that the things found written about the prodigy in that codex or Chronicle were written in a more recent, nay a most recent, hand; but I think credit must be given to Launoy, who asserts this after inspecting the codex with his own eyes, both because the things which Raynaud adduces are not of great strength, and because Colombi, in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, does not praise the Grandmont Chronicle for the prodigious resurrection of the doctor; and he, since he would without doubt have praised it had Launoy not spoken the truth, tacitly acknowledges the bad faith of Polycarp in citing that monument, as our Papebroch already observed before me in the words transcribed here at number 196. There is added that the bad faith of Polycarp in citing many other monuments is established, so that from this alone it becomes most probable that he used bad faith also in citing the Grandmont Chronicle. Now then, since the matter stands, as has already been said, about this monument and the charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse, the Parisian prodigy cannot be made certain either from this or from that. Nor indeed, as it pleases me still to note here by way, as it were, of a finishing touch, did the Carthusian author himself of the fourth book of the Annals of his Order, not yet published, hold the dreadful story, if it be determined to have happened publicly, as altogether certain.

[369] For he speaks thus at number 127 of his lucubration: nor indeed by our anonymous Carthusian himself, as his words, Why therefore credit should be withdrawn from … our anonymous (namely the author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who writes that the mournful event happened publicly) does not appear; and then, with absolutely no other words interposed, at the next number he subjoins: We speak of and demand faith not divine but human, or rather the piety of faith. For we confess that the truth of this spectacle is not of faith; wherefore whether it be admitted or not makes no difference. Nevertheless we do not think that by sensible readers it can be denied a place among those truths which can obtain some credence among pious men without injury to the faith. Of which John Gerson, a man as pious as he was learned, speaks thus in the Declaration of truths which are to be believed of necessity for salvation: "Finally in the sixth grade, which is the fourth in the manner stated, are placed those truths which serve only to nourish or foster the religious piety of devotion, which are brought in more to inflame the affection than to instruct the intellect, where devout piety is regarded more than certain truth, etc." By these words of Gerson our narrative of the damned man is not shaken, nor condemned or convicted of falsity. Nay, who would not see that it can most fittingly be placed among "those truths which serve only to nourish or foster the religious piety of devotion?" And although in them "devout piety is regarded more than certain truth," nevertheless the most pious doctor calls them "Truths," and places them in the sixth grade of "Truths to be believed." What could be said more suitable for confirming and establishing the truth of our narrative? Which we experience daily to "serve" much "to nourish or foster the religious piety of devotion," since many do not disdain to regard in it both "devout piety and truth."

[370] which are transcribed here, Yet Gerson, no less prudent than religious, lest he should seem to neglect "truth" under the appearance of "devout piety," to the aforecited

words immediately added a qualification, saying: "Where this one thing is reproved, if there were rashness of assertion, before the truth itself were elucidated in another way through the Church or certain reason": that is, if some matter were rashly asserted, about whose truth there was such doubt, and it were so doubtful that it ought deservedly to be elucidated "through the Church or certain reason." But there is here no "rashness of assertion" in the asserted truth about the damned man, nor did Gerson himself believe there was any rashness in it, when afterwards he proposed "this one celebrated example out of very many," as he himself speaks, for inspiring the fear of the Lord in "those who are exercised," and "for nourishing or fostering the religious piety of devotion." Nor was there need that it should "be elucidated through the Church or certain reason," being lucid enough, and which for that reason Gerson called "celebrated," as having been received and approved without contradiction from the institution of the Order (this is very doubtful from what has been said above); which so many authors have asserted, none has condemned; to which the whole Christian people has hitherto lent its ears; which the whole Carthusian Order, although it pertains only very remotely to its praise, has for six hundred years (this again is very doubtful from what has been said above) up to this day constantly, perseveringly and unanimously believed and believes to be certain and true, Launoy alone attacking it. To which, finally, the supreme Pontiffs have assented, and both Gregory XV and Urban VIII openly approved it when placed in the Office of St. Bruno, although afterwards it seemed good to the sacred Congregation of Rites to cut it out of the lessons of the Breviary, together with the profession of faith made by St. Bruno when breathing forth his soul, for no other cause than that by both of them the lessons had been made somewhat too long, as the most wise censors afterwards declared to those inquiring the cause of the excision.

[371] And in truth, if it had then been removed from the Breviary as fabulous, his words show, why would it afterwards have been restored in other Breviaries newly published in the years MDCXLVIII and MDCLII? Why do doctors daily approve with their signatures Legends of the Saints in which the Life of St. Bruno is written with the narrative of the same spectacle? This is certainly done so by them and permitted by the sacred Congregation of Rites because nothing contrary to the faith is detected in this narrative. According to which the same master Gerson, in the place cited, judged that the Lives of the Saints are contained under the sixth grade of truths to be believed. "This grade," he says, "regards the Legends and miracles of the Saints, the Lives of the Fathers, the visions of devout persons, the recitations and opinions of the sacred doctors, all which the Church receives and permits to be read, not that she determines that such things are to be believed of necessity for salvation, but because they profit for moving the pious affections of the faithful and for their edification, so long as in such things nothing is known with certainty to be false, although it is also not known with certainty to be true." Thus Gerson; who, having said above in general "that in the sixth grade are to be placed those truths which serve only to nourish and foster the religious piety of devotion," here declares which these are in particular, namely "Legends" etc. "and Miracles of the Saints, Lives of the Fathers, Visions" etc., all which are placed among truths and are recognized and judged as such by the Church, which permits them to be read, yet compelling no one to believe them, as she compels to the Bible, but permits them to be read, not forbidding, nor commanding that they be believed to be true. And indeed she permits them to be read "Because," as Gerson says, they profit for moving the pious affections of the faithful and for their edification. "And this with such a condition, So long as in such things nothing is known with certainty to be false, although it is also not known with certainty to be true."

[372] The Church therefore, according to the pronouncement of master Gerson, permits the Lives and miracles of the Saints, and visions and miracles of this kind, to be read, and places them among truths, is held as certain. that is, judges them to be true and not false, although "she does not determine that such things are to be believed of necessity for salvation, so long as in such things nothing is known with certainty to be false." But this miracle, or wonderful thing, about the damned man pertains to the Legend of St. Bruno, and nothing in it "is known with certainty to be false," although it is also not known with certainty to be true. Therefore, according to the rule of master Gerson, received by the Church, it is to be placed among truths. Thus far our anonymous Carthusian, demanding that scarcely anything more be attributed to the Parisian prodigy than we would attribute to it. For he demands only that it be placed among truths which are truths of merely doubtful name, and which belong only to things or assertions neither certainly true nor yet certainly false. And in this matter indeed there is complete agreement between our Carthusian and us, since we likewise assert that prodigious story to be neither certainly true nor yet, contrary to what Launoy does from what has been said, certainly false. But there is this difference between us and the same Carthusian of ours: that he indeed holds that the mournful event ought at least to be held as probable, since he affirms both that it is judged true by the Church (which however is otherwise) and that it has been believed certain and true by the whole Carthusian Order for six hundred years up to his own age constantly, perseveringly and unanimously; whereas we hold the same as scarcely probable, not to say as probably false, if namely it happened publicly before an almost infinite multitude of the people, as the opinion which we have hitherto discussed determines it to have happened. For the rest, the Church, as must be well noted against our anonymous Carthusian, does not by this very fact judge the Lives, Miracles etc. of the Saints to be true when she permits them to be read. Let us now weigh what is to be thought of the mournful story on the opinion of those who determine that it happened within the private walls of the house of the deceased, only a few of his friends being present, and among these St. Bruno and some of his companions, and not on three different days, but on one and the same.

§ XXII. The opinion which determines that the prodigy of the damned man happened within the private house of the deceased before a few is proposed, and it is examined whether it ought not to be repudiated as inept and newly contrived.

[The opinion which determines that the prodigy of the damned man happened, not publicly,] Our anonymous Carthusian, who from what has just now been said does not hold the prodigy of the damned doctor as certain if it be asserted to have been done publicly, seems to think it undoubtedly consonant with truth if it be determined to have happened, not publicly, but within the private house of the deceased before a few only; and in this case he proposes that the dreadful story should be conceived thus, the various circumstances which are found in other writers, and which from what has been said greatly damage its probability, being omitted and cut away: In the year MLXXXII a certain man, notable for learning and uprightness of life as appeared from outward indications, died at Paris; who, while at home, until he should be carried out to the church, prayers were being poured out by his friends for the refreshment of his soul, raising his head from the bier, declared with a terrible voice thrice repeated that by the just judgment of God he was accused, judged, and finally condemned. On hearing which, Master Bruno, then present, thoroughly terrified and pricked to the heart, joining to himself companions, some of whom had been present at the same spectacle, and persuading them by his pious exhortations to flight from the world, fled away into the desert of the Chartreuse in the year MLXXXIV. So he, presently also subjoining: The matter being so considered, there is indeed no reason why anyone should wonder at the silence of the contemporary authors who did not mention this story. Nor can we be reproached as though we were devising a new narrative of this prodigy, since in it we bring forward nothing which is not found written in more ancient authors. For all agree that a learned man, when he had lived and died with an appearance of piety, being placed on the bier thrice raised his head and, to the amazement of those who were present, announced by a threefold outcry that he was damned.

[374] Some relate that such a spectacle happened not in the church but in the hall of the house of the same deceased. Some, that the threefold voice returned not on three days but on the same day, but within the private house of the deceased before a few, and at the same time of the recitation of the Office. Others narrate that friends, not a multitude of men, were present, among whom were Bruno and some of the companions who afterwards with him sent a message of farewell to the world. Thus our anonymous Carthusian; but in this matter Innocent le Masson, praised above, had already gone before him, writing thus in book 1 of the Annals of his Order, chapter 1, number 3 and following: Concerning that story of the doctor, as he is commonly called, the damned, no small difficulties have arisen among the critics, some asserting that it is most true, others referring it almost among old wives' fables; but others saying that the story is indeed true in substance, but has been augmented by various circumstances which are not unlike fables. Among which is chiefly reckoned that threefold deliberation put off to three different days concerning the state of the deceased, to be discerned through the mouth of the lifeless corpse crying out, while meanwhile at a suitable hour the funeral ceremonies and the prayers for the dead instituted by the Church were repeated, and thus, the rumour spreading itself through the whole city, everyone could freely assemble to see that spectacle; as if by agreement God ought to have given a sign through the mouth of the speaking corpse by those three distinct cries returning while the same words "Answer me" were repeated, by which a unanimous judgment could have been passed by those standing by on the damnation of the deceased. This is the part of those who wish to tempt God, which therefore would never have been permitted by the bishop, especially in that most flourishing city, which abounded in so many learned and wise men.

[375] Whatever be the case with that third opinion, which seems more plausible; is proposed: this, with the substance for by abstracting the circumstances from the substance of the story, and saying that this thing happened within the private walls of the house of the deceased, where St. Bruno and his companions were discharging the task of charity toward the lifeless body of their dear deceased friend by reciting the Office of the Dead, during which, at three distinct times, the deceased, as though awakened from the sleep of death, cried out with a horrible voice that he was accused, judged and condemned, all the arguments fall to the ground which are sought from the silence of the contemporary authors, who, speaking of St. Bruno's coming to the desert of the Chartreuse, are said to relate absolutely nothing about that story. For although those authors were contemporary with St. Bruno, it was easy for them to have been ignorant of that occurrence, which was long, and as much as possible, suppressed in silence and kept secret on account of the honour both of the distinguished deceased man and of his family. But moreover at that time there was lacking the facility of communicating so promptly to foreign regions what had happened in some region; for there was lacking the convenience of couriers and public messengers, which was then very rare. Whatever, I say, be the case with that opinion, etc. Assuredly, if the prodigious story of the damned man, in the manner in which by some, as Masson here testifies, and by our anonymous Carthusian himself

in the words just recited it is expounded, be determined to have happened, it will have much less on account of which it is at variance with probability. But it may now be asked here, first, whether the narrative by which the thing is reported to have been done in this way ought not to be held as newly and ineptly contrived, or rather whether and by what testimonies of antiquity it can be confirmed; and second, whether and what credit it deserves, that is, whether the prodigious resurrection of the damned man, as that narrative hands it down, really happened and drove our Saint into the desert. And the first of these it pleases me to discuss in the present §, the second in the following. It not rarely happens that historical facts, even those which are called into doubt by absolutely no one and most certainly did take place, are found, if they are duly examined, to be adorned with circumstances very far removed from the truth and altogether fictitious.

[376] from the circumstances of the thing in historical facts. The sacred contests of the martyrs, the cruel persecutions stirred up by tyrants against the faithful of Christ, the battles joined between hostile armies, the sieges of cities undertaken, and very many other things which were done in past ages, historians both sacred and profane have committed to writing. But how many of the things or facts which they narrate have these not disfigured with altogether false and fabulous circumstances, whether deceived by impostors or by the rumours of the credulous populace, or led away by perverse affections of mind, or finally fallen into errors from any other cause whatever! The finding of the Holy Cross, made through Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, is to be reckoned among things certain by historical credit, and was first committed to writing by Theodoret. But afterwards it was defiled with very many fictions, as may be seen with us in volume 1 of May, page 363. The glorious contest for the faith of St. Maurice and his Companions, the Theban soldier martyrs, is altogether certain and undoubted. But the Acts of those holy martyrs in Surius exhibit it clothed with not a few false circumstances, as the things said about these with us in volume VI of September, page 340 and following, clearly show. I add no more, since scarcely anything is more common than to find true histories corrupted with false and fictitious circumstances. And hence it now comes about that in historical facts, contrary to what Launoy will have in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, the substance of the event must be distinguished from its circumstances, and it does not immediately follow, from the fact that these are false, that that too is likewise false. False, from what has been said, are some of the circumstances with which the Passion of the holy Theban martyrs is adorned in Surius, and nevertheless this is to be held as most certain.

[377] especially in those which are known by tradition, The same holds in many other contests of other martyrs and other historical facts, very many of which would have to be erased from history both sacred and profane if each one that is clothed with false and fictitious circumstances were to be reckoned among fictions and fables or certainly held as false. And these things, indeed, which have been said here of facts committed to writing immediately from the very beginning of the event or at any rate not long afterwards, have place much more in those which are known only by tradition, carried down from the origin of the event through one or another or even through several centuries. For although what was done can easily be transmitted by living voice to others by those who either saw it or heard it from eyewitnesses, and propagated by these afterwards to others without any notable change having been made, yet this can scarcely, nay not even scarcely, happen if things are transmitted to one after another through more than one century by continuous tradition not confirmed by any safeguard of writing. Now then, since from what has been said above the prodigious resurrection of the Parisian doctor, if it ever took place, happened more than a hundred years before it was committed to writing, it would indeed be wonderful if it had not reached the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who first put it in writing, much vitiated and changed in the circumstances which accompanied it. And hence it now comes about that it is very doubtful whether that writer, even granting that the prodigy really happened, did not clothe it with false circumstances which he learned from a tradition corrupted in these. How this could have happened I set forth. The substance of that horrible event seems to consist solely in this: that the deceased, who had lived with an appearance of piety, declared to those standing by, with a threefold voice sent forth from the bier on which he had already been placed, that by the just judgment of God he was accused, judged and condemned; whence it came about that St. Bruno, who was present, pricked to the heart by the horrible event, withdrew into the desert.

[378] What then if certain men in the lapse of time, is to be distinguished, setting forth how it had happened, adorned this story, stripped of almost all circumstances, with circumstances assumed at will, or with those which they thought more like the truth, and it then reached the anonymous just praised so adorned? That it does indeed sometimes happen that writers adorn at will with probable circumstances things which they find destitute of circumstances, or even substitute for the circumstances with which they find them clothed other new ones which they judge more probable, the Carthusian Chronographer mentioned at number 203, who flourished in the fourteenth century under Elzéar, Prior of the Chartreuse, can be an argument in this very matter which we are treating. For although he adopted entire the narrative of the damned doctor which he had found in the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, yet he writes that the horrible story, which the anonymous relates to have happened in the hall of the deceased, was done in the church; and he made this change in the anonymous's narrative, as far as I think, because the latter reports that almost the whole city of Paris assembled for the dreadful spectacle, and he did not think it probable that this was done in the hall of the deceased, as not capable of holding so great a multitude. Perhaps for the same cause it also came about that some, whom Sutor mentions in book 1 On the Carthusian Life, tractate 2, chapter 2, handed down to memory that the three outcries of the damned man returned not on three different days but on one and the same.

[379] And indeed, since the horrible prodigy, if it ever took place, is not inept, as neither is it newly contrived, reached the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse by a tradition probably vitiated, as has been said, in its circumstances, those men indeed, changing what seemed less probable in these, seem not ineptly to have assigned to the outcries of the ill-starred doctor not three different days, as he did, but one only; especially since the substance of the narrative, whether those three outcries be determined to have been made on one day or on three different days, remains entire and unharmed, as will be evident to one who considers what was said in the preceding number. Now then, since this is so, and it appears also more probable that the horrible prodigy, if it ever happened, happened not publicly before an innumerable multitude of the people but within the private walls of the house of the deceased, a few standing by, neither would he indeed seem to act ineptly who should determine that it was done both in this latter manner and on one and the same day, especially since the substance of the narrative assigned in the preceding number is not injured by this either. But would he not at least in this way bring forward something newly contrived? Nor on this head, as appears, would his narrative have to be repudiated. For there were also ancients who believed that the three different outcries of the damned man happened both on one and the same day and within the private walls of the house of the deceased. This may be gathered from the author who composed in the French language the commentary which he entitled On the four rivers of paradise for purging the city of the soul. His narrative of the damned doctor, rendered by him into Latin, Launoy recites in his Dissertation on the true cause of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, chapter 2, and our anonymous Carthusian afterwards brought the same into the fourth book of the Annals of his Order, not yet published, both in the French language, in which it was originally written, and also in Latin.

[380] as in the more ancient one, whose narrative is here And he indeed, about to do this, prefaces concerning the author of the said Commentary, who in the circumstances of the Parisian prodigy disagrees with the anonymous author of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, in this manner: This is the author of a manuscript codex on goatskin parchment, in obsolete script and style, found in the archive of the Châtillon family and now preserved in the Library of the college of the Society of Jesus at Metz, in which that story is found written in the French language. We reckon its writer among the Carthusians because he professes that he received his whole narrative from a very aged and most grave monk of our Order. The codex we have not seen, but the testimony of this story transcribed from it, as it was sent in the year MDCXXXIX by the Reverend Father Claude Tiphaine of the Society of Jesus, provincial of the province of Champagne, while visiting the college of Metz, to the Venerable Father Charles le Bret, Prior of the Chartreuse of Mont-Dieu, we subjoin here word for word, without even a tittle omitted or changed, that the reader may judge more soundly and more certainly of its antiquity and of our notes on it; and then he transcribes the narrative of the damned doctor expressed in French words, with a Latin interpretation of it also added at the end. It will suffice for my purpose to have brought this alone over to here. It runs thus, then: It is narrated that there was at Paris a certain master who surpassed all the other masters of that time in genius and learning. He, as appeared outwardly, was of honourable conduct, nor were any perverse morals or any base vice whatever detected in him, unless perhaps vanity on account of the distinguished learning and exceptional judgment with which he had been excellently furnished by the Lord. It happened in his time that three scholars of the chief nobility came to Paris for the sake of study, who at once gave themselves over to the teaching of the aforesaid master, as being the most eminent of all the other masters.

[381] is given, And when they had applied themselves to studies under him, after a long time he died. Whence the disciples, much saddened, continuing to honour even after death the master whom they had loved in life, resolved out of special devotion to keep vigil that night around the body of the deceased. And the Office of the dead having been said, they began the Psalter. And when they had finished the first Matins, or Nocturn, the body which lay dead here raised itself up and, sitting up on the bier, uttered these words: "Just is he who has judged me." Then these three clerics and the companions who were present around the body, though vehemently terrified, nevertheless did not desist from the pious work, but went on with the second nocturn of the Psalter; which being finished, the body of the deceased, raising itself as before, said: "Just and fair is he who has judged and condemned me." Then those three clerics, still more astounded than they had been before, signing themselves with the sign of the cross, began the third Nocturn most devoutly; which being finished, the same body, raising its head for the third time, said: "Just and fair is he who has judged me and condemned me, and has adjudged and handed me over to the torturers." And these words having been said,

something like a sudden whirlwind coming upon it snatched the body of the deceased and carried it away from the eyes of all, nor could it afterwards be learned what had become of it. But those three clerics, who had been his disciples, were struck with vehement amazement and bitter grief at so unhappy an end of their master. Then, withdrawing to their own lodgings, they inquired through acquaintances and intimates for what cause so great a man had been consigned to eternal punishments. And after diligent inquiry had been made they could discover nothing which according to outward indications was to be judged a mortal sin, except vainglory. For which reason these three clerics, men conspicuous for power and for nobility of birth, having conceived a fear of the divine judgments, determined by common counsel, for the saving of their souls and the escaping of the peril of perpetual damnation, to abandon the conversation of the world, and in solitude to undertake and pursue a hard and severe manner of life.

[382] Stirred up therefore by the divine spirit, they proceeded into Burgundy to a place desert and uncultivated founded on the writer; the time about and beset with mountains, where among the mountains, having built little cells, they lived very religiously and austerely. And thus through these three holy men, and those who, following their example, led the same kind of life, the Carthusian Order began, and still stands and is observed, as I heard from one of the elders and more ancient members of the same Order, narrating all these things in the presence of the lady Countess of Saint-Pol. So runs the whole narrative of the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise about the ill-starred doctor, in the interpretation of our anonymous Carthusian; and he subjoins the following to determine the time at which the author of that book approximately flourished: Launoy thinks that the author of this narrative lived only about the times of Gerson or Antoninus, and conjectures it from two things: from the French idiom, which he will have to belong to their age, and from the manner of speaking, which he also contends implies a knowledge of the thing not yet sufficiently ascertained and received. But other learned men think otherwise. Claude Tiphaine, of whom above, judged from the style both of the same narrative and of the whole codex that it is of the thirteenth century; and this can also be proved from these somewhat obscure words which Raynaud asserts occur in the same narrative (as indeed they do in fact occur in it). One is Useille, the other Graigneur. The first signifies Vigil, the latter signifies great. This last word is found in the same chapter of the cited codex, where the author renders these words of Ecclesiasticus, "The greater thou art, humble thyself in all things," thus in that disused French idiom: De tant humilie toy plus, comme tu seras Graigneur. And in the copy sent by the aforesaid Claude to Mont-Dieu these most ancient and obsolete expressions are further read: "Que Dieu absoille," that is, May God absolve.

[383] From all these things it is evident enough that the author of this narrative is older than Launoy thought. at which, according to our Carthusian's opinion, he flourished, And it will be still more evident if it be considered who this lady Countess of Saint-Pol is. There is no doubt that she was the wife of some count of Saint-Pol. We have read through the History of the family of the lords of Châtillon-sur-Marne, from whom the ancient counts of Saint-Pol came, published by André Du Chesne, and among the wives of the counts of Saint-Pol we find none especially well disposed toward our Order except Mary, daughter of John II duke of Brittany and of Beatrice of England, wife of Guy III count of Saint-Pol, and mother of Mathilda, spouse of the count of Valois and with him foundress of the Chartreuse of Bourgfontaine. Guy her husband was count of Saint-Pol after the death of Joanna, his kinswoman, daughter and heiress of John count of Blois, the paternal uncle of the same Guy. This Joanna, wife of Peter count of Alençon (on whose death without children in the year MCCLXXXIII she remained a widow), we first thought to be the lady Countess of Saint-Pol of whom in the aforesaid narrative, because she was a great benefactress of the Chartreuse of the Val-Saint-Pierre, and as it were a second foundress of that of Paris, in which she built and endowed fourteen cells. But although she enjoyed the revenues of the county of Saint-Pol until the year MCCLXXXXI, in which she died, yet nowhere, either in the documents of either Chartreuse or in the cited History of Du Chesne, have we found that she bore the title of Countess of Saint-Pol, but only of Alençon and of Blois. For which reason we judged that this lady countess, in whose presence this narrative was made, was rather the aforesaid Mary, whose maternal kin, namely the kings of England, were great patrons of our Order. And she lived with Guy her husband from the year MCCXCII to the year MCCCXVII, in which he died, whom she long survived, persevering in widowhood until her death, which she met in the year MCCCXXXIX. Since therefore the writer of this codex was contemporary with the aforesaid countess, and received this story, as he testifies in the same place, from a very ancient Carthusian monk, we gather hence that the latter was nearly contemporary with our anonymous who first committed the story to writing, since he could already have been living in our Order before the year MCCLXXX; and hence it is evident that the matter was already undoubted in the thirteenth century, that is, at most eighty years after the death of the companions of St. Bruno, and at the time when the Carthusian Order began to spread more widely from its principal house.

[384] and in fact to have written, Thus our anonymous Carthusian, to determine at about what time the author of the narrative just transcribed here flourished. And indeed from the things which he brings forward about the Countess of Saint-Pol it appears probable enough that he flourished either when the thirteenth century had nearly elapsed, or rather then and in some years of the next following century. Nor do the two conjectures of Launoy prove the contrary, of which this writer derives the one from the French idiom, the other from the manner of speaking, contending that both this and that belong to the age of Gerson and St. Antoninus. For suppose the manner of speaking which the author employs does in fact imply, as Launoy will have it, a knowledge of the thing not yet sufficiently ascertained and received, it will not yet follow from this that his narrative belongs to the age of Gerson and St. Antoninus; and Launoy thought so only because he will have it that Gerson, who speaks of the prodigy almost in the manner of one doubting, was the first to put it in writing. But that this is far from the truth is sufficiently clear from what has already been said above. Moreover, since Launoy affirms that the dreadful narrative of the damned doctor was contrived before it was consigned to writing by Gerson, why could not one who wrote before the age of Gerson have spoken of it as of a thing not yet sufficiently ascertained and received? As now pertains to the French idiom which the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise, of whose age we are here discoursing, uses: since he, as our anonymous Carthusian teaches in the words just recited, learned the dreadful narrative of the damned doctor which he supplies from an aged Carthusian in the presence of Mary Countess of Saint-Pol, who prolonged her life up to the year 1339, it is possible that this happened not long before this year; and since it is possible that he did not put the matter in writing as soon as he had heard it, he perhaps did so only about the year 1350; and that at that time the French idiom was so different from that which it was in the age of Gerson, or at the beginning of the fifteenth century, that Launoy could conclude from it that the author who used it wrote only then, does not appear to me probable enough, because a space of only fifty or a few more years is not wont to bring about so great a change in languages or idioms.

[385] And now it comes about that I would not dare either to adhere without doubt to Tiphaine, or rather to have learned what he wrote. who judged, from the style alone which the author uses, that the narrative here in question, and the whole codex which contains it, is of the thirteenth century. For I do not see why this style could not still have been about the year 1350 nearly such as it is thought to have been when the thirteenth century was already growing old, or in the year 1292, before which that narrative was probably not committed to writing, as it is easy to gather from the things which our anonymous Carthusian teaches in the words just recited. However that may be, since it is also understood from the same words of our anonymous Carthusian that the same narrative was heard by the author who put it in writing from a Carthusian of very advanced age only at the time when Mary, daughter of John II duke of Brittany, was Countess of Saint-Pol, that is, in the space of time which runs from the year 1292 up to the year 1339, we have indeed defined the time at about which it probably became known to the author by whom it was consigned to writing; which is the principal thing here, and nearly suffices for the present purpose; although meanwhile it appears very doubtful whether the Carthusian of very advanced age, from whom this man learned the mournful story, flourished not later than eighty years after the death of the companions of St. Bruno, for this reason, that I find none of these to have prolonged his life beyond the year 1145, and it could easily happen, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, that he who committed the story to writing heard it from that Carthusian of advanced age not before the year 1330. Now hear, further, what judgment our anonymous Carthusian passes on the aforesaid narrative. A narrative of this kind, he says, seems ingenuous and sincere enough, and expresses altogether candidly the marrow of the whole story from the testimonies of the ancients. For there you have it that that prodigy happened at Paris, and that on its occasion the Carthusian institute had its origin.

[386] The threefold outcry also is reported to have been heard by the friends alone of the damned master in his house. That narrative the same anonymous Carthusian And nothing occurs which does not agree with the original narrative of our anonymous except that threefold repetition of the words, which he says was made thrice not on three days but on the same day. But that it is narrated there that the corpse, carried off by a whirlwind, vanished from the eyes of those standing by, carries no contradiction, since our anonymous and the other cited authors have been silent about what became of it. For that it was buried in a dunghill only the more recent writers have mentioned, and that by a suitable consequence, because his damnation was certain. So he; but somewhat more difference lies between the narrative of the anonymous Chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and the other which the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise supplies than he assigns here. For the former, contrary to what is done by the latter, indicates not obscurely that an innumerable multitude of the people ran together to the dreadful spectacle of the doctor crying out that by the just judgment of God he was damned, and were thus present at it; which circumstance, however, if it is absent from the narrative, the latter will thereby turn out less difficult to believe and less unlike the truth, as is sufficiently evident from what has already been said, and will become still more evident from what I am about to say, after the things which Launoy, to reject the aforesaid narrative as futile

and to hoot it off, our anonymous Carthusian opposes, I shall have transcribed here. He proceeds thus, then, after the words just recited: Launoy, who confounds the circumstances of the ancients and the moderns, and exaggerates their disagreement at great length, rises up against this narrative as "inept and full of ignorance" chiefly on three grounds: first, because "it ascribes the beginning of the Carthusian Order to youths, or three clerics or scholars;" second, because "it relates that the foundations of the same Order were laid in the mountains of Burgundy; third, because what it hands down about the corpse of the master being carried off does not agree with the paintings and the walls of the monastery of Paris."

[387] by the weighty reasons which in his very To the first we answer that that narrative was made only by word of mouth by that monk, and therefore the writer of the codex, who perhaps wrote it long afterwards, could easily have been deceived by a failing memory. For we confess that only three clerics are there mentioned by name, whereas in reality there were seven who laid the foundations of the Order, including two laymen, of whom however it is not established that all were present at the spectacle. But whether the falsity of the whole story is rightly inferred from this, let the sensible reader judge. Nay, what there disagrees with other authors is reconciled without labour from the context of the same narrative. For although the author in the course of his narrative mentions only three, yet he hints that more instituted the Order, since towards the end of his discourse he adds: "Et par ces trois Saints hommes, & par ceux, qui prendrent exemple a eux, & vesquirent & converserent aussy comme eux, fut commencie, & est encore maintenue & gardee l'Ordro de Chartreuxe": that is, "And thus through these three holy men, and those who followed their example and led the same kind of life, the Carthusian Order began, and still stands and is observed." And above: "Lors ces trois clercs & lor compagnie, qui estoient environ le corps: Then these three clerics and their companions, who were around the body." Could not the four others, who with these three clerics gave a beginning to the Order, have been contained in that company? But even if we granted that absolutely no mention is made there except of three clerics, could it not have happened that of that number of seven only three indeed were present at the funeral, but that these afterwards drew the other four with them into solitude?

[388] words are brought forward, For in truth we conjecture that they wished to persuade many others to the same kind of life from Ralph and Fulcius, whom St. Bruno had endeavoured to gain for God, even having made a vow with them to put on the monastic habit; of whom nevertheless it can rightly be doubted whether they were present at the spectacle, since they could have made such a vow even before it took place. Moreover, of the seven first fathers only three seem properly to be called clerics, namely St. Bruno, Landuin and Hugh; for of the four others two were canons of Saint-Ruf and two laymen. Finally, in that narrative that master is said to have died long after he had taught those three clerics. For thus it is read there: "Et quant il i orent este & lonc tems leur mestre mourut," that is, "When they had studied under him, long afterwards their master died, or, as we rendered above, And when they had applied themselves to studies under him, after a long time he died." But Launoy interprets these words thus: "Who, when he had taught them for some while, departed this life." But in this interpretation, we say it unwillingly, he was not sincere; for "Aliquamdiu" does not signify "long-tems" or "For a long time," but "For some time." Since therefore that man died long after he had taught those three clerics, they were not then in the state of YOUTH taken strictly, as it seems to be taken by Launoy, so that this narrative might thereby appear more inept. Nor were they even scholars, but two of them were already doctors and masters, as is established of St. Bruno and Landuin. Nor does this prevent some of the other companions of St. Bruno from perhaps having then been scholars; for the two Stephens were fairly young, not yet promoted to the priesthood.

[389] Nothing inept, therefore, will occur in this narrative to any reader defends against Launoy, who interprets the sense of its words kindly and without any prepossession of mind. Whatever the adversaries may reply to these things, the ground, so to speak, of the story itself and its whole substance will constantly persist, nor will such light disagreements in the circumstances be able to overturn it. We cannot sufficiently wonder at the inconsiderateness of Launoy, a most perspicacious man, in this observation; who, having previously in chapter 1 of his Dissertation, in expounding the testimony of Peter of Cluny, read and written that "there is observed in the borders of Burgundy," or "the parts," as it is read elsewhere, "a certain profession," that is, the Carthusian, "holier than many other forms of the monastic purpose," and in expounding the testimony of James of Vitry, "There is another Congregation of Saints, whom they call Carthusians, in the furthest parts of Burgundy," here nevertheless accuses the author of the codex of ineptitude and ignorance because he related that the foundations of the Order were laid in the mountains of Burgundy. For although the Grande Chartreuse is now reckoned to be situated in the Dauphiné, yet formerly it was counted in Burgundy, because both Savoy and the Dauphiné were parts of the old Burgundy. Whence also the antiquity of the Châtillon codex is established, whose author, had he written after the year MCCCXLVI, at or about which the Dauphiné began to be attached to the kingdom of France, would have spoken otherwise of the Dauphiné. To the III we think we have already given satisfaction above, when we said that only the more recent writers, among whom we reckon the paintings and walls of the Chartreuse of Paris, invented this kind of burial in a dunghill, although it seems more like the truth than that carrying off by a whirlwind. These are the things which our anonymous Carthusian opposes to Launoy, who hoots off the narrative supplied by the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise as inept and full of ignorance.

[390] And indeed Launoy quite undeservedly repudiates it, either on the ground and that it is not truly to be repudiated, that it relates the foundations of the Carthusian Order to have been laid in the mountains of Burgundy, or that it insinuates that the corpse of the ill-starred doctor was seized and carried off by the demon, contrary to what is expressed in the paintings of the Chartreuse of Paris. For truly the mountains enclosing the Grande Chartreuse belonged in our Saint's age to the old Burgundy, as is clear from what Valois brings forward in the Notitia Galliarum under the word Burgundia. And that it hands down that there was done with the corpse of the damned man not the same as is expressed in the paintings of the Chartreuse of Paris is nothing whatever to the purpose, since the paintings of the Chartreuse of Paris, even granting that the Parisian prodigy happened, do not possess such authority that what conflicts with them must be rejected. Nor is the narrative here in question to be reputed inept because it ascribes the beginning of the Carthusian Order to three youths, whether clerics or scholars. For it hints that these, when they did this, were no longer youths. Moreover, although it hands down that only three were present at the horrible spectacle of the damned man, yet it indicates by the context of the discourse that more instituted the Order; nor does any of the ancient writers who mention the spectacle affirm that all of them stood present at it. But even if most of these expressly asserted it, the consequence would only be that these and the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise do not agree exactly in the circumstances. But what then? It is an argument only that he did not draw from the same source from which they drew, not that the narrative which he supplies is different in substance from the narrative which they supply, or that it is for that reason far from the truth. For, as is clear from what has already been said above, the substance of any narrative can be most exactly consonant with the truth, although meanwhile it is clothed with circumstances either certainly false or only doubtfully true. And indeed I am persuaded that all the circumstances which clothe both the narrative which the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and others who followed him supply, and the other which is ascribed to the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise, are of this kind, for this reason: that those with which both the latter and the former are adorned were born of tradition alone, carried down to a time which is distant more than a hundred years from the origin of the event, which, when it lasts so long without the safeguard of writing, is wont to cause not a few circumstances, which were unknown at the beginning, to accrue to the substance of the event.

[391] [nor is the opinion which is chiefly founded on this, spoken of above, to be repudiated.] Hence, even granting that the mournful story of the damned man happened, it will always be doubtful to me whether our Saint, as nevertheless appears to be concluded from the narrative of the book On the four rivers of Paradise transcribed here above, ever studied at Paris. Likewise it will always remain doubtful, even granting this, whether he who manifested his damnation from the bier to those standing by was a cleric or a doctor. I have, however, mostly named him a doctor above, because he is adorned with this title by the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and by others who followed him. Although therefore the narrative about which we are here disputing differs in its circumstances from that which the more ancient biographer of our Saint and others following him supply, it does not follow that it is for that reason to be repudiated. Nor is there reason for you to reply that it is the only one which determines that the prodigy of the damned doctor happened, not publicly, but within the private house of the deceased before a few. For although this be so, the author of the book On the four rivers of Paradise, by whom it was put in writing, learned it from a Carthusian of advanced age, as has been said above. Wherefore, since he had undoubtedly heard the dreadful story from the Carthusians with whom he lived, it ought to be held as equivalent to the testimony of many, and hence I have also spoken of it above as handed down by several. There is added that the ancient testimonies adduced above, which determine that the prodigy was done publicly, were taken from the narrative of the anonymous chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, and that all of them, therefore, taken together constitute in a manner only one testimony. Now then, since these things are so, and nothing besides militates against the narrative of the book On the four rivers of Paradise, neither it nor the opinion which is chiefly founded on it, and which determines that the Parisian prodigy was done not publicly but only before a few, is to be rejected as inept and newly contrived.

§ XXIII. What credit the opinion deserves which determines that the resurrection of the damned doctor happened in his private house before a few, and what at length is to be thought of it even so considered.

Since traditions, however false in their circumstances, something of truth That historical facts which are known only by tradition, however clothed with false circumstances, not rarely also contain something of truth, it is easy to gather from what was said in the § immediately preceding. Yet, that what is now to be said here about the mournful story of the damned man may become more lucidly plain, it pleases me further to set certain things, not altogether foreign to the present purpose, which our Papebroch supplies,

in the midst. He, then, in his Responses to the Exhibition of errors, article 19, number 10, writes thus: It happens … often that the substance of a tradition is such that it cannot be called into doubt except rashly, even though destitute of the testimonies of contemporaries; for instance, that a certain St. Ursula with a very great throng of companions was slain by barbarians before the walls of the city of Cologne, which was besieged by them, etc.; that St. Dionysius, a bishop sent from Rome into Gaul, preached the faith at Paris and sealed it with his blood, and other like things; it happens, I say, often, that the things which afterwards accrued to the substance of the first tradition, as though from tradition or revelation (as was done through the compositions of Legends, for instance the Dionysian Legend in the IX century, the Ursuline in the XI century), are deservedly rejected as the dreams and fabrications of more recent men, unknown to all antiquity before them: of more recent men, I say, not with respect to us living today, but with respect to the thing, which preceded them by many centuries. So most rightly, as it indeed appears to me, the praised Papebroch, who then in the same article, number 13, supplies these things also bearing on this: Beneath popular traditions, sacred or profane, … there mostly lies something of truth as to substance, but much bran has been successively sprinkled over it, from which it is difficult for them to be so purged that the understanding of a prudent man may rest in them without fear, as certain so far; and afterwards at number 19 these too: Rumour, arising mostly from a very small and often untrue beginning,

"Flourishes by motion and gains strength as it goes; Small at first through fear, soon it raises itself into the air, And walks upon the ground and hides its head among the clouds."

[393] In nearly the same way stands popular tradition. Its beginning is mostly some memorable fact, [sometimes contain, the opinion which determines that the prodigy of the damned man happened before only a few] either one which really happened at some time, but in the course of time is clothed with such ornaments and additions that it afterwards wonders at itself and scarcely recognizes itself; or one which is feigned to have happened by an idle wit searching out the ancient origins of things for the commendation of himself or his own; and by the light multitude, eagerly believing what it wishes, it is adopted as true, and cherished as such often through many centuries. Examples occur both in sacred and in profane history. All these things concerning traditions says Papebroch, and indeed, as I have already said, most rightly. Wherefore, since according to these things it not rarely happens that, although traditions, or, if you prefer, narratives which are built on traditions alone, are infected with very many falsehoods, they are yet true in substance, or at any rate contain something of truth as regards it, it can easily happen that the tradition of the Carthusians concerning the horrible Parisian prodigy by which St. Bruno was driven into the desert, or, if you prefer, the narrative of the anonymous Chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse and of the other writers praised above concerning the same, which proceeded originally from that tradition, is true in substance, or at any rate contains something of truth as regards the substance, even though not a few false circumstances have accrued to it in the lapse of time in the manner which I set forth above. To speak more clearly, it can have happened that his first companions or disciples narrated to their followers that our Saint had been driven into the desert by a prodigy in which a deceased man, already placed on the bier, had declared to those standing by first that he was accused, then judged, and finally condemned; and that the posterity of these, the matter having been augmented with false circumstances in the lapse of time, then believed that that prodigy happened publicly before an almost infinite multitude of the people, and that the voices of the damned man returned on three different days; although meanwhile the dreadful story had happened within the private house of the deceased before only a few, of whom one was St. Bruno, and the voices of the damned man had been repeated not on three different days but on one and the same.

[394] is not altogether at variance with probability, What then if the thing happened in this latter manner? Assuredly the opinion of one who should hold that it truly happened so will not be much at variance with probability; nay rather it could seem in some way probable. So I think, because, as I have already sufficiently insinuated above, it sometimes also happens that historical facts, even if they were suppressed in silence by all contemporary writers, and were transmitted to those by whom they were finally committed to writing only by a tradition which is distant more than a hundred years from the origin of the event, are to be held as true; nor does the universal silence about it of all the writers who flourished during the whole first, and perhaps also the second, century after the event stand in the way of the Parisian prodigy being reckoned among facts of this kind, if it be determined to have happened not publicly but only before a few within the private house of the deceased, since a not inept reason for that silence occurs, drawn from ignorance of the fact. For since the mournful event, if it did not happen publicly, could easily have escaped the ancients reviewed above, there is indeed no reason why their silence about it should seem wonderful, or why we should argue from this that the thing is false. Moreover, unless it be admitted that the Parisian prodigy by which St. Bruno was driven into the desert took place at least before a few within the private house of the deceased, it must be that either the Carthusians themselves wholly invented the horrible story, or that they adopted it when already invented by others; but who would easily bring himself to believe that religious men, most loving of the truth and haters of fables, did the first? Shall we then assert that they fell into the other?

[395] If it is a fable, says Masson, praised above, of the story of the damned man in the Work nor does this, so considered, three different prodigies, which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, book 1, chapter 1, number XI, by whom, I ask, was it composed? Certainly it cannot be said to have been devised by any others than secular men. But in what way could such a fable, fabricated by secular men, have been admitted as a most true thing by the first Carthusians and then by their successors, and transferred to their posterity so firmly and without any contradiction or objection ever? That this is morally impossible, everyone sees. That the dreadful narrative of the damned man, if it is a fable, was certainly not adopted and transmitted to posterity by the first Carthusians, that is, by the companions of St. Bruno or their disciples, anyone will easily acknowledge; but, someone will say, why could it not have happened that Carthusians of a later age, that is, those who flourished in the thirteenth century, deceived by an impostor, accepted that story, however fictitious, as true? Nay rather, there will perhaps be someone who will here object Blomevenna, who in the Life of St. Bruno composed by him narrates three different prodigies, of which one indeed is beyond all doubt a fabrication, while the two remaining are most vehemently suspect of fabrication, not to say anything worse. It had at first been my intention not to bring forward here those three prodigies, or rather fables, lest I should give a handle for sinister suspicion concerning the ancient Carthusians; but since the nature of my office requires that I set before the studious reader both what can harm and what can help the tradition of the Carthusians concerning the prodigy by which Bruno was driven into the desert, and since the Life of our Saint composed by Blomevenna is not in the hands of many, I transcribe here the very words of this writer containing the aforesaid miracles, or rather fables, intending afterwards to add at the end both what difficulty can be formed from them against the Parisian prodigy and what ought to be answered to it.

[396] Thus, then, this biographer of our Saint has it: It must not be passed over in silence which, each of them, in the Life of our Saint, that at the first entrance into the Chartreuse, before they had established a rule of living for themselves, a stupendous miracle is read to have happened. When on a certain occasion the blessed Hugh, about to visit his diocese according to custom (as he was accustomed to do in Advent and Lent), was bidding farewell to the brothers and blessing them, a refection of meat was sent. On the very Sunday of Quinquagesima, the Divine Office having been performed, at the hour of dinner, the tables having first been blessed, St. Bruno, a man of deep heart, in place of the reading set forth a most wholesome admonition, saying among other things: Let us take heed, I pray, dearest brothers, for the ancient enemy is deceiving us. For we have come into this desert to do penance after the manner of the ancient fathers, Paul the first hermit, Antony, Arsenius, Hilarion, Macarius etc. Did these eat flesh, as we have begun to do? Those who sat at the opposite table answered him: Are we, venerable Father, greater and better than the Apostles, to whom the Lord commanded, Into whatsoever house you shall enter etc., eating and drinking such things as are with them? And Bruno with those who sat at his table holding the contrary, the dispute was prolonged until evening. At length, wearied, bowing themselves down to the ground, they fell asleep. And the bishop, having returned from the visitation, sent messengers to the holy brothers, informing them of his return, and that according to his usual custom he wished on the following day, that is, the day of the Lord's Supper, to take the new commandment with them. And the messenger, finding them sleeping beside the tables, and seeing at the same time the meat smoking on the tables, was greatly scandalized, and returning reported to his lord what he had seen. But he did not believe his words, until, a second and third messenger having been sent, the same thing was reported.

[397] by Blomevenna in the words The bishop, astounded, and still not giving credence, and saying, Unless I see it myself I will not believe, mounted his horse and came to the mountain. Where, when he had found all things as the servants had reported before, turned away from them and about to withdraw with indignation, as soon as he set foot on the threshold St. Bruno with his companions, awakened, reverently greeted the bishop, rendering him devout thanksgivings for all the benefits conferred on them by him. For the bishop himself was accustomed to bestow liberally upon them from his own means, and to supply every necessary thing. And the bishop, questioning Bruno, said: What day is it today? And he answered: The Sunday of Quinquagesima. And the bishop: Why, he said, have you delayed so long over dinner? And when Bruno narrated the order of what had been done, and of the dispute held among them, the bishop, having secretly summoned the steward of his house, asks whether this is the same meat which he had supplied on the Sunday of Quinquagesima. And he, considering carefully, reports that it is the same. Then the bishop, astounded, turning to the brothers, said: Know, my dearest brothers, that today is the fourth feria after Palm Sunday. And when the servants at the bishop's command wished to take away the meat, as soon as they touched it, it was turned into dust, all wondering and being astounded. When the bishop had seen this, he together with his household on bended knees humbly asked pardon of St. Bruno and the brothers for the false judgment with which they had begun to judge them. And to the brothers this was the occasion of resolving to abstain from flesh meat perpetually; which afterwards, other miracles following, they keep to this day most strictly sanctioned.

[398] transcribed here For at another time a certain young man, noble by birth, excellently learned, putting on the monk's habit in the house of the Chartreuse, lived praiseworthily even to old age, making such progress in the spiritual life

that he deserved to have also the spirit of prophecy. But at the last, worn out with old age, when he was held by a most grievous sickness, he asked with burning desire of the Prior, who was visiting him, that meat be served to him. But he, reckoning that through old age or sickness he was not of sound mind, or at any rate was being deluded by the wiles of the ancient enemy, went away on that occasion, dissembling. But after three days, when the Prior returned to him, the sick man, burning with desire for meat, said that by the grace of God he had by no means said such things out of his mind, but because he knew that he would certainly die unless the use of meat were granted him; and saying this he adjured the Prior that, unless he quickly satisfied his desire, he should know that he would render an account of his death on the day of judgment. On hearing this, the Prior, knowing that the sick man was a holy man, greatly frightened, called together the community and set out the whole matter. And they unanimously decreed that meat should be served to one placed in extreme necessity. The sick man was then asked what meat he chiefly desired, and he answered, partridge. And at once the Prior, having summoned a certain noble young man, a novice monk from Grenoble, ordered him to bring to the sick man a partridge obtained from the hunters. And he set out without delay, both on account of obedience to his superior and on account of charity toward the sick man, whose disciple he had been, and not heeding to go by the bridge, by which the common passage was, walking upon the waters he crossed the river, and quickly brought the partridge.

[399] When the Prior had presented it, very well cooked, to the sick man in the presence of the community, are narrated, he, looking up to heaven with tears, said: Lord Jesus Christ, hear me, a sinner, thy servant, humbly beseeching thy goodness, that, if this so vehement appetite is pleasing to thy will, this food may turn out for me to the health of body and soul. But if otherwise, most merciful Lord, who holdest the dominion of life and death, deign to restore life to this thy creature, which has been killed for my sake, that, flying away on its road, it may make us thy servants know that it is contrary to thy will that I or any monk whatever of our religious order should eat meat on any occasion or in any infirmity. And when at the conclusion of the prayer all who were present had answered Amen, immediately the bird, having received life, clothed with feathers, vanished in a sudden flight, all who were present seeing it and being astounded and giving thanks to God, who does great wonders in heaven and on earth. At another time also, when certain bishops and others, coming to the Chartreuse before Quinquagesima, had seen certain feeble old men, attributing this to the lack of meat, they most urgently asked the Prior that those feeble men might have some refreshment from the meat which the whole world was using at that time, adding that many learned men both had feared and feared concerning the excessive hardness of the Order in this. But when the Prior by no means assented, they asked that at least he would have meat bought for themselves and their companions. What more? The meat was bought and carried to the Chartreuse, and when the packs were opened, it was seen to have been turned into true and excellent fish, in colour, smell and taste. On seeing which the Prior said, It appears that it is not the will of the Lord that we should nourish flesh with flesh. Then the fish, cooked, were set before the community and the others, and by tasting them the sick and feeble were healed and strengthened. The bishops did not believe that the meat had been turned into fish, until, sending to the meat-markets and inquiring most diligently, they heard most evident testimonies of so stupendous a thing.

[400] Such are the three different prodigies related by Blomevenna: and they all seem fictitious, and the first of these indeed, as I have already said, is beyond all doubt fictitious. For Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, does not mention it; and there is no doubt that that biographer, if a prodigy of this kind, pertaining as it does at once to the Carthusian Order and to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who would have had no small part in it, had ever happened, would have known it and having known it would have recorded it in the lucubration in which he embraced most diligently the whole life of St. Hugh and even his less memorable deeds. As pertains to the two other prodigies, likewise recorded by Blomevenna, these too, as I have already advised, are most probably fictitious; for although no argument sufficiently strong is at hand by which I might give this invincibly proved, yet I hold it so, if only because both these and the first seem to have been invented in order to show against detractors that the perpetual abstinence from meat which the Carthusians were accustomed to keep, even when lying dangerously ill, is altogether approved by God, and to have been brought by Blomevenna, since they had already been invented before, into the Life of St. Bruno which he composed solely to this end. But, someone will say, since of those three prodigies which Blomevenna relates one is undoubtedly fictitious and the two remaining are probably so, what then if formerly also there were found in the monasteries of the Carthusians, just as in those of other Orders, men pious indeed, but at the same time so simple that they thought it lawful for themselves to devise at will new prodigies which might conduce either to the splendour and commendation of their Order or to the glory of God and the Saints, and in fact even in the thirteenth century, in which especially many are known to have given their labour in the cloisters to inventing fables, from time to time devised some?

[401] show that it must be held as an undoubted fabrication. What if one of those fabrications be the horrible prodigy of the doctor restored to life for a little while, who publicly proclaimed from the bier that he was damned, first committed to writing, as is clear from what has been said above, in the said thirteenth century? What if it was invented then, in order that an account might be rendered of the most austere life instituted by St. Bruno, which some formerly carped at? To this the prodigies, or rather fictions, related by Blomevenna lead. But, whatever be the case, not even these can make me hold the dreadful story of the damned man as an undoubted fabrication or fable, especially on the opinion by which it is determined, as is now being done here, to have been done not publicly before an almost innumerable multitude of the people, but within the private walls of the house of the deceased before a few only. For neither is everything which the writers of the thirteenth century put in writing fictitious; nor, although the three aforementioned prodigies, or rather fabrications, have been brought into the Life of St. Bruno by Blomevenna, is the whole Order of the Carthusians found either to hold or ever to have held them as true; and it seems accordingly that it would not have held the Parisian prodigy as true and undoubted either, as it has constantly held it now for several centuries, if it had been only a fabrication and fable. However that may be, the opinion, indeed, which determines that the Parisian prodigy was done within the private walls of the house of the deceased is much less at variance with probability than that which establishes that it happened publicly before an almost innumerable multitude of the people. Whether meanwhile the mournful story, whether it be determined to have happened publicly or within the private walls of the house of the deceased, ever really took place and drove our Saint into the desert, I leave to the studious reader to judge from all the things which have now been disputed at length about it, since the reasons adduced above are not sufficient, as it indeed appears to me, for me to pronounce it either certainly true or certainly false. Let us now pursue the series of the matters pertaining to our Saint.

§ XXIV. Whether the Saint withdrew into solitude from Reims or from Paris, when he did so, and whether he then went straight to the desert of the Chartreuse.

With some companions, of whom here The anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, who composed the rather prolix eulogy of our Saint to be published under the name of the more ancient Life, as I advised above, Francis du Puy, Peter Blomevenna, and his other more recent biographers, who put in writing the Parisian prodigy in which the doctor publicly cried out from the bier that he was damned, hand down to memory that Bruno, after this had happened, by delivering a most vehement and most effective speech, brought it about that some, who had themselves also been present at the horrible spectacle, resolved to send a message of farewell to the world and to withdraw together with him into the desert. And the anonymous indeed, who does not write that the Saint was then teaching at Paris, indicates that all of them were his companions or intimates; but the more recent writers, who will have it that Bruno was then acting as master there, make some of them his disciples as well. The words bearing on this, both of the anonymous and of the more recent writers, or rather of Blomevenna, who, since the rest of them agree with him, will hold the place of all, I transcribe here. The anonymous, then, at number 5 writes thus: At that time there was there master Bruno, a German by nation, born of not obscure parents in the city of Cologne, canon of the church of Reims and master of the schools in Theology there, who, wholesomely terrified and pricked to the heart by the above-written words (namely of the doctor crying out that he was damned), addressed certain companions present there; and then, having recited the speech which the Saint delivered to these, he subjoins at number 8: St. Bruno, addressing and exhorting himself and certain companions with these or similar words and sentiments, he himself and six other upright men with him deliberated to renounce the world and its pomps, and to seek suitable deserts of the wilderness for doing perpetual penance, etc.

[403] Behold now what Blomevenna records. Terrified therefore, he says, and wholesomely some things are discussed, having joined to himself, pricked to the heart (namely St. Bruno), having called some of the companions and disciples more intimate with him, among whom were master Landuin, who after him first undertook the Priorate of the Chartreuse, the two Stephens, one of Bourg, the other of Die, both canons of Saint-Ruf, Hugh also, whom they called the Chaplain because he alone of them discharged the office of priest, and two laymen, namely Andrew and Guarinus, all of whom had been present at the aforesaid horrible cries of the deceased, he addressed them tearfully with these or similar words, Saying: O friends and comrades, etc. Thus he, teaching certainly not obscurely that some of those whom St. Bruno, after the horrible prodigy had been seen and heard, addressed with a most vehement speech were disciples of this Saint. But this, even granting that the horrible story of the damned doctor really took place, appears to me scarcely probable, for this reason, that most probably the Saint, as I showed in § VIII, neither at the time at which the mournful occurrence happened nor ever at any other time taught at Paris or acted as master there. There is added that in the anonymous chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, who is certainly of greater authority than Blomevenna and the other more recent writers, those to whom he reports a speech to have been delivered by the Saint after the dreadful event come only under the name of companions, and not also of disciples. However that may be, that some indeed of those whom the Saint drew with him into the desert had previously been his disciples, and that on this occasion it came about that he inspired them with the counsel of withdrawing with him into the desert, appears on no head at all unlike the truth, especially since to Reims, while Bruno was teaching there, a huge multitude from every side, not only of natives but also of strangers and foreigners, flowed together for the sake of learning letters, as I taught above at number 171.

[404] Bruno withdrew into solitude not from Paris but from Reims. But it may now be asked here whether the Saint went away into solitude from Reims or from Paris, and likewise in what year he did so. Blomevenna, Du Puy and other more recent writers, who in the Life of St. Bruno which they wrote of set purpose hand down that he, while teaching at Paris, was driven into the desert by the horrible prodigy of the man restored to life, indicate not obscurely that he also withdrew thither from Paris, having settled his affairs. The same is done also by our more ancient biographer, or the chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, although meanwhile he does not hand down to memory that the Saint taught at Paris, as I have just now taught. But the Saint, when he withdrew into the desert, was living at Reims, having been restored there to his former state after the expulsion of Archbishop Manasses. So teach us the following verses about Bruno, already recited at number 154, which form in part the funeral title, the 52nd among those to be reprinted, with which the canons of the cathedral church of Reims paid their last honours to the Saint:

Who, while he was powerful in many ways in our city, And became a solace and an ornament to his own, And while fortune favoured him in all things, and already We preferred him to all, and deservedly; For he was kindly and skilled in every art, And eloquent enough and powerful in riches; He put all things after Christ, and, following the naked Christ, the desert receives him with many.

Now then, since this is so, it appears most probable, not to say undoubted, that Bruno, even granting that he stood present at Paris at the prodigy in which the doctor announced that he was damned, and that hence it came about that he sent a message of farewell to the world, betook himself into the desert not from Paris but from Reims, to which he had returned from there, after the prodigy had taken place, to settle his affairs.

[405] [This did not happen before the year 1081, contrary to what the writers of the Literary History] And this indeed is the first thing which was to be defined here; as now pertains to the second, or to the time at which the Saint, having left the world, sought the desert: on the opinion of those who stand for the mournful story of the damned doctor and for St. Bruno's having been driven thence into the desert, it is necessary that this certainly did not take place before about the year 1082, since they write with unanimous consent that the dreadful spectacle happened about this year, as will become plain to one who inspects the three different Lives of our Saint which, from what has been said, are to be subjoined to this Commentary. But since the dreadful story is not certain from what has been said above, another way must necessarily be entered upon, by which either the epoch of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, or even only the time before which it cannot be fixed, may be determined more safely and more certainly. Our Saint, as the things said in § VIII make manifest, was not restored to his former state at Reims before the year 1081, and hence, since from what has just been said he did not withdraw into the desert before this had been done, it follows altogether that he did not do this last before the same year 1081; so that accordingly the writers of the Literary History of France seem to deviate from the truth when, in volume 9 of this Work of theirs, page 236, they affirm that Bruno's withdrawal into the desert happened either in the year 1078, or at any rate when Manasses, the deposed archbishop of Reims, was endeavouring to claim for himself by arms the archbishopric ill acquired, that is, in the year 1080. Nor do the praised writers only put our Saint's withdrawal into solitude too early in the place cited, but they also assert that the companions who accompanied him to it were of the clergy of Reims, whereas it is doubtful whether any of them belonged to it. But of this I shall treat below; now the time at which the Saint's withdrawal into solitude happened must be inquired into before all things. The writers just praised, who, as has already been said, set it in the year 1080 or even in the year 1078, seem to do this because they determine that the conversation of the Saint with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed on the false delights of the world and the joys of heaven which shall endure eternally, which has already been treated at length above, happened about the year 1077, and thought at the same time that Bruno, who together with these had then made the vow of renouncing the world and taking the monastic habit, did not long defer fulfilling it to God. But the Saint himself, in the letter praised above more than once, in which he exhorted Ralph the Green to the fulfilment of it, indicates not obscurely that he did not fulfil the vow immediately.

[406] For in this he writes thus to Ralph: Thy love remembers, of France determine, that when I and thou and Fulcius the One-eyed had been together one day in the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, where I was then lodging, and were treating for some while, as I think, of the false delights and perishing riches of this world, and also of the joys of everlasting glory, whence, burning with divine love, we promised and vowed to the Holy Spirit shortly to leave the fleeting things of the world and to lay hold of eternal things, and also to receive the monastic habit; which also would have been carried out soon, had not Fulcius then gone off to Rome, until whose return we deferred what was to be carried out; and as he made delay and other causes intervened, the divine love grew languid, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished. So our Saint, who indeed, since he says in the plural number, we deferred what was to be carried out, undoubtedly speaks not only of Ralph, who deferred the fulfilment of the vow made, but also of himself, who likewise did so; so that accordingly the praised writers of the Literary History of France ought not to have been moved by the promptness which Bruno brought to fulfilling the obligation of the vow to fix his departure into the desert to the very year 1078, in which they determine the vow to have been made, or at any rate not to defer it beyond the year 1080. Nor is there reason either why anyone should think, on account of the authority of Guibert, abbot of Nogent, already praised very often above, that our Saint's withdrawal into solitude happened before the year 1081. This writer indeed writes in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI: Since therefore every honourable man shuddered at his (Manasses's, the simoniac archbishop of Reims) altogether wicked morals and most stupid habits, Bruno, then very highly esteemed in the churches of Gaul, with certain other nobles of the clerics of Reims, departed from the city of Reims out of hatred of that infamous man; and then, after some things interposed, he subjoins: But Bruno, the city (namely Reims) having been deserted, proposes also to renounce the world, and, shrinking from the acquaintance of his own, went forward to the territory of Grenoble. There, choosing to dwell on a steep and very terrible promontory, to which a most difficult and very unusual road is directed, and beneath which also the chasm of a most precipitous valley yawns, he instituted a way of life of this kind, and his followers live so to this day.

[407] although meanwhile from Guibert of Nogent But although this writer, as is clear from his words already transcribed here, subjoins our Saint's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to his departure from the city of Reims, yet he does not declare that absolutely no space of time, or only a very small one, intervened between the latter and the former, that is, that Bruno went off into the desert as soon as he had departed from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses; nor could he declare it with truth preserved, as it is easy to gather from what has been said above both about the time at which the Saint went away from the city of Reims and about the things which he afterwards did. But, you will say, does Guibert supply nothing else from which the time of the Saint's withdrawal into the desert may be determined in some way? Between the two texts just recited he inserts the following words: Whom (Manasses) afterwards the nobles, the clergy and the burgesses, when he was being struck with very frequent anathema by Hugh, who was surnamed of Die, archbishop of Lyons, legate of the Apostolic see, a man most renowned in the interest of justice, and he was striving with military force to squander the treasures of the church, drove from the see which he had wrongly occupied; and, relegated to eternal exile, having betaken himself, himself also excommunicated, to Henry, the emperor excommunicated at that time, wandering hither and thither, at last he died without communion. But since that writer places these words immediately before the words which the latter of his two texts transcribed here in the preceding number includes, he places our Saint's withdrawal into the desert after the expulsion of Manasses from the city and see of Reims; and hence it can happen that Guibert may seem to someone to indicate that the latter preceded the former, and hence, if this writer is to be stood by, that St. Bruno did not go away into the desert before the year 1081, since it did not happen that Manasses was expelled from the city and see of Reims before that year. But although Guibert places Bruno's retreat into the desert after the expulsion of Manasses, it does not follow for that reason that he wished it signified that the latter preceded the former.

[408] nor the epoch of that event, For, having related our Saint's departure from the city of Reims on account of the wicked morals of Manasses, he seems to have had the purpose only of informing the reader what was afterwards done both about the latter and about the former, meanwhile having no regard to the order in which each thing had been done. So it altogether appears, because, while he narrates what in fact happened both with Manasses and with Bruno, he places even the death of Manasses before the Saint's withdrawal into the desert, although it is not to be doubted that the former was long after the latter. For Guibert himself, in the words just recited, seems to indicate, as will be evident to one who considers them, that Manasses closed his last day only long after he had been ejected from the city of Reims, and what the writers of the Literary History of France hand down to memory in volume VIII, page 655 and following, altogether persuades it; but that the Saint withdrew into solitude not very long after the expulsion of Manasses from the city of Reims you will easily gather from what is to be said here. Now then, since the matter stands thus, it by no means follows from the fact that Guibert places our Saint's withdrawal into the desert after the expulsion of Manasses that he wishes it signified that the latter preceded the former, although meanwhile, from what was said in § VIII, the Saint did not in fact withdraw into the desert before Manasses had been expelled from the city of Reims.

[409] And hence it now follows that Guibert did not wish it signified [nor can the time at which the Saint proposed to renounce the world be established;] that our Saint's purpose of renouncing the world was later than the expulsion of Manasses, even though he places this too after it in the words recited above; which I thought should be accurately noted here for this reason, that someone might contend from these words that the vow of putting on the monastic habit, which the Saint made in the conversation held with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, was likewise later, contrary to what we determined above, than the expulsion of Manasses from the city of Reims, which took place in the year 1081. This matter meanwhile, as must also be well noted, would not be so undoubtedly so, even if Guibert expressly asserted that the expulsion of Manasses from the city of Reims preceded the purpose of renouncing the world of which he speaks in the words recited at number 406 and elsewhere. For whether this writer is speaking in those words of the vow made by the Saint of withdrawing into the desert and renouncing the world, or of his withdrawal itself into the desert, which was certainly joined with the counsel or purpose of withdrawing, is very doubtful, especially since Guibert, who

from what has been said above was less acquainted with the things not done publicly by St. Bruno, could easily have been ignorant of the vow which our Saint made with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed within the private walls of the house of Adam, in which he was lodging, separated from the company of other men. And this is why, in § VI, to establish the opinion which places the conversation held by Bruno with Ralph the Green and Fulcius the One-eyed, and the vow made in it of renouncing the world and seeking the desert, after his departure from the city of Reims, I did not call to its support the words of Guibert recited above which bear on this, although meanwhile I declared at number 177 that these support the same opinion, if perhaps Guibert indeed wished to speak in them of the vow made by the Saint. These things now being noted, let us proceed to inquire into the time at which the Saint withdrew into the desert, which from what has been said did not happen before the year 1081.

[410] St. Bruno first entered the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084 beyond all doubt, but that Bruno, bidding farewell to the world, not straight, contrary to what as I shall show below; wherefore, if the desert which the Saint first went to, sending a message of farewell to the world, was the Carthusian one, that is, if he then went straight to the Chartreuse, there will be no doubt that he first bade farewell to the world and hid himself in solitude in the same year 1084. And this indeed the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, who determines that the prodigy of the doctor crying out that he was damned happened in the year 1082, altogether contends, and that, as appears, in order to defend its having truly taken place, or rather in order to be able to render a suitable reason for the silence with which Guibert, abbot of Nogent, passed it over. And indeed, if the said prodigy happened in the year 1082 and the Saint's withdrawal into solitude only in the year 1084, it could easily have happened that Guibert did not know whether the former was the cause of the latter, and hence that he passed over the mournful story in silence, even though it was very well known to him, while he treated of the Saint's conversion and its beginnings in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI. Hear how the praised anonymous Carthusian, to whom I shall afterwards reply in order that the silence of Guibert, or the negative argument formed from it against the prodigy, may keep its force assigned above, speaks of this matter in the fourth book, not yet published, of the Annals of his Order, again just cited, at the end of number 99. Nor does it help, he says, to reply that Guibert was silent about the spectacle. For he was silent because either he did not know it, if it happened only within private walls; or, if it was public and done before a huge multitude of men, he did not know whether it was the cause of the withdrawal of St. Bruno, who withdrew only about two years after it, as is read in our anonymous and in the cited Chronicles published by Carthusian authors.

[411] the anonymous Carthusian, a space of about two years Whence it is not wonderful if this cause was known to the Carthusians alone; and especially since counsels of this kind are wont to be kept secret, and not opened and communicated except to a few intimates; which it is credible that St. Bruno did, according to that celebrated maxim, commended, as we have already said, by Peter of Cluny, which the holy Patriarch inspired in his followers, "to hide their wonderful works with as much effort as they could." Which nevertheless is to be understood only of the works of those present and of their own, not of the illustrious deeds of the ancient Fathers, which God commands to be commended to posterity for edification through Ecclesiasticus saying: "Let us praise glorious men and our fathers in their generation." So far he; tacitly acknowledging meanwhile that it would have been the case that Guibert would have had it ascertained that St. Bruno was driven into the desert by the Parisian prodigy, if the latter had betaken himself into the desert shortly after the dreadful story had publicly happened. And indeed, if the Saint had gone away into the desert, joining six companions to himself, as soon as the prodigy had happened or at any rate not long after, it would certainly have been very well known to Guibert and to others everywhere that he did this impelled by the horrible event, especially since the Saint stirred up to do penance by that horrible example of the damned doctor both those whom he drew with him into solitude and not a few others, as all who champion the prodigy contend with unanimous consent. But, says our anonymous Carthusian, the Saint did not betake himself into the desert until nearly two years had already elapsed from the prodigious resurrection of the doctor, and hence Guibert did not know that he did so impelled by the horrible event. But to whom, I ask, would it appear probable that Bruno, who was already bound by the religious obligation of a vow made long before to take up the monastic habit, and who, deferring longer to satisfy this obligation, would expose himself to the danger of graver guilt, withdrew into solitude only when nearly two years had elapsed from the prodigy by which, as some speak, he had been shaken to the soul?

[412] between the Saint's withdrawal into the desert and the Parisian prodigy, This indeed accords very little with the burning desire of eternal salvation and of heavenly things which he conceived on seeing the horrible spectacle. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the Saint needed so great a space of time for settling his affairs and preparing the things which were needed for taking up the new kind of life. For although it is not to be doubted that after the prodigy, if it ever really took place, he did truly spend some space of time in settling his affairs and preparing what was necessary for the new kind of life, yet no reason at all persuades that it was, or ought to have been, of about two years. For why could he not have divested himself of his goods, bade farewell to his friends, and prepared the few things which would be necessary for him who was about to lead a most poor life, even in the space of only two or three months? But, says our anonymous Carthusian, the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, expressly hands down at number XI that the Saint entered the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084, and the other Carthusians who flourished afterwards, witnesses for the prodigious resurrection of the damned doctor, already brought forward in § XI, also agree with him. I confess it is so: but what then? He nowhere affirms that the Saint, after the prodigy had taken place, did not hide himself in a solitude different from the desert of the Chartreuse before he went to the latter. Nor, even if he affirmed it, would it follow for that reason, considering the things which that writer hands down to memory, that our Saint let about two years elapse from the prodigious resurrection before he withdrew into solitude. For although that anonymous chronologer, or our more ancient biographer, attaches Bruno's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to the defined year 1084, yet by his manner of writing he does not bring it about that the Parisian prodigy must necessarily be attached to the year 1082. For, about to relate it, he records it thus at number 1: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MLXXXII, or about it, while a solemn school was flourishing at Paris, especially in Philosophy and Theology and Canon law, as it has generally been wont, such a prodigy (namely, that in which the Parisian doctor, for a little while restored to life, announced from the bier to those standing by that he was damned) is said to have happened there.

[413] The prodigious resurrection of the damned doctor, therefore, considering the things wrongly interposing, thinks, which our more ancient biographer hands down to memory, happened not in the defined year 1082, but either in this very year or in one or another immediately preceding or following; nor does anything occur elsewhere which compels us to attach that dreadful story, if it ever happened, to the determined year 1082. What then if it be determined that it, if it happened, happened in reality in the year 1083 itself, when already nearly advanced to its end, as from what has been said it can have done; then indeed between it and the Saint's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse, which from what is to be said happened in the year 1084 about the day sacred to St. John the Baptist, there will have intervened not about two years, but a far narrower space of time, which the Saint could have spent in settling his affairs and preparing the things which he judged opportune for the execution of his counsel; and which, if it should still seem longer than can be believed to have been spent by the Saint in settling his affairs and preparing the things necessary for embracing the eremitical life, can be contracted still further by deferring the Parisian prodigy even up to the year 1084, since from what has already been said it did not necessarily happen before this year. In whatever way therefore the matter stands, it does not follow from the things which the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, hands down to memory, that a space of about two years intervened between the year in which the Saint went away into the desert of the Chartreuse and the epoch of the Parisian prodigy. And this indeed we have determined, not undeservedly in view of what has been said, granting for a while to our anonymous Carthusian that our Saint, when he departed from Reims to bid farewell to the world, withdrew straight into the desert of the Chartreuse, or betook himself to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, by whom, from what is to be said, he was led into it.

[414] But the Saint, before he did this, seems to have gone to a solitude different from the desert of the Chartreuse, [went to the Chartreuse, but before that, as from the charter of the monastery of Molesme praised by Mabillon] and to have stayed in it for some while. A handle or foundation for so thinking is furnished by various funeral Titles of the Saint, as also by Mabillon in the Annals of his Benedictine Order, book 66, number 66. For this writer there, making mention of our Saint, who, on his way to the Chartreuse, consulted a hermit of great name on the road, if Blomevenna notes rightly from Henry of Kalkar, hands down these following things to memory: Who that hermit of great name was whom Bruno consulted on going to the Chartreuse, no one has hitherto attained, not even by divining. I conjectured at one time that it was Stephen of Thiers, who was then leading the eremitical life with his followers at Muret near Limoges, not without the fame of a great name. But by certain monuments I am led to believe that that hermit of great name was none other than Robert, abbot of Molesme. There exists in the cartulary of that monastery a charter of Rainard of Bar and John of Laignes, by which they confer on the church of Molesme "land at Sèche-Fontaine, partly already levelled by the labour of men," with the approval of Valentius count of Brienne and of Bar, whose "tenement" this was.

[415] and from various "And when the church of that place, which Peter and Lambert, disciples of master Bruno, who were with him in that territory and had lived as hermits, had built, was dedicated by Dom Robert bishop of Langres in honour of the blessed ever-Virgin Mary, and the court was blessed, the aforesaid count and the same Raynard and Acelenus with many others were present." From which it is understood that Bruno lived for some while as a hermit at Sèche-Fontaine, which is a place of the diocese of Langres in the archdeaconry of Bar-sur-Aube, with the aforesaid Peter and Lambert, his disciples, and could have consulted from near at hand Robert, abbot of Molesme, then of great name, who was leading an eremitical life here and there. No chronological note is appended to the aforesaid instrument; but in the margin the year MLXXXI is written in a more recent hand, which can agree exactly with the time of Bruno's withdrawal. Nor does it stand in the way that Robert

bishop of Langres, himself also a disciple of Bruno, who dedicated the church of Sèche-Fontaine, did not enter upon this see before the year MLXXXV. For this dedication was made some while after the departure of Bruno. Certainly, for Bruno going from Reims to Grenoble, the monastery of Molesme lay on the way, and so Robert its abbot, whom there was then no one of the hermits or monks striving after perfection in those parts who did not desire to have as his ruler and leader. So he; and of the funeral Titles, from which I judge that the Saint, when he bade farewell to the world, did not withdraw straight to the Chartreuse, the first is that of St. Peter of Troyes, and, holding place 47 among those to be published, runs thus:

As the Title says, he overcame the temptations of the world, Bruno, a wise man, doing the commands of God. He spurned many riches, nor had he any means for himself; But whatever he could, he gave to the brethren. He fled from this life, becomes a monk, and thence a hermit. While he abstained thus, he merited the kingdoms of heaven, etc.

[416] from the funeral Titles of the Saint, The second, which is the Title of the nuns of St. John the Baptist and will be reprinted in place 68, includes these two verses together with some others:

Bruno lives still, life is given to him by the Father. He himself was a cleric, becomes a monk, thence a hermit.

The third, 139 among those to be reprinted, with which Albert, canon of the church of Beverley, paid his last honours to the Saint, consists only of a hexameter and a pentameter:

May the loving-kindness of Christ give thee, Bruno, what thou hast merited. Made in this life first a monk, thence a hermit.

The fourth, or 143 among those to be reprinted, which the church of St. Peter of Castres inscribed to the Saint, is expressed chiefly in these verses:

The glory of the just, the only solace of the guilty, Was Bruno living, and an equal grief when dying. The ornament of the whole clergy, the pattern also of truth, Death, O grief, has snatched away, when the Father fell. Made first a monk, thence an upright hermit, May the supreme grace of God be propitious to him.

The Saint therefore, as appears from these funeral Titles of his already recited, put on and played the monk before he embraced the eremitical life. So, namely, as the writers of the Literary History of France observe in volume 9, page 237, the authors of those Titles wished to designate the time at which the Saint, before he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse, inhabited a solitude; or, what comes to the same, that our Saint inhabited a solitude different from the desert of the Chartreuse before he hid himself in the latter, and led a monastic life in it.

[417] So, nearly as to substance, they, adding also that the place it is gathered, in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine in which the Saint lived for some while before he withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse was the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine. And that the Saint did indeed dwell in this for some space of time before he went to the Chartreuse, the things which Mabillon, whom they also praise in the margin, brings forward in the place cited above make probable enough to me, not to say certain. But since from these it is understood in the same place that the Saint led not a monastic but only an eremitical life, in what way do the different funeral Titles just recited, by which we are taught that Bruno was made first a monk and then a hermit, agree with the truth? The knot here seems difficult indeed and very entangled. But what if the Saint is said in the aforesaid funeral Titles to have been made first indeed a monk from the monastic habit which he put on as soon as he hid himself in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, but afterwards a hermit from the rule of living which he also then embraced? What if also this be the case, that in the abbey of Molesme, neighbouring the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, he really acted as a monk, having also taken the monastic habit, and then gave himself to the eremitical life both in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine and in the deserts of the Chartreuse and of Calabria? Indeed what makes me think this last most probable is both the said funeral Titles and the vow of putting on the monk's habit, made previously by the Saint from what has been said; and that one or the other of these is to be established, the funeral Title, 40 among those to be reprinted, with which the last honours were paid to the Saint by the monks of the church or abbey of Molesme, or Molernium, also seems to persuade. For the praised monks declare in this that St. Bruno was most intimate with them. By our verses, they say, we who dwell at Molernium, adding for you who are at the Tower, make known that for the lord Bruno, your patron and our most intimate friend, we have celebrated the solemnities of Masses for thirty days; also we have written the anniversary day of his death in the catalogue of our brethren.

[418] But, you will say, although the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, and other more recent writers do not prevent whatever may be argued to the contrary from the more ancient the Parisian prodigy, if it ever happened, from being deferred beyond the year 1082, yet, the things which they write standing, our Saint seems, when he bade farewell to the world, to have withdrawn straight to the Chartreuse, and not to have stayed for some while elsewhere before he betook himself thither. For, to take the beginning from our more ancient biographer, he, as soon as he has reviewed the speech which the Saint delivered on seeing the horrible spectacle, proceeds thus: Addressing and exhorting himself and certain others with these or similar words and sentiments, he himself and six other upright men with him deliberated to renounce the world and its pomps, and to seek suitable deserts of the wilderness for doing perpetual penance, and there, having left all the riches and delights and honours of this world, each to take up his cross and follow the naked Christ by the narrow way which leads to life, and to forsake the broad and spacious one, which leads the lovers and followers of the world to the punishments of the damned. And therefore, because they had heard the fame of the sanctity of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who is believed formerly for some time to have been a companion of the same master Bruno in the schools, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they proposed to go together to the said holy bishop and seek his help and counsel, that in his diocese, which they had heard abounded in many desert mountains, they might deserve to obtain a suitable place in which they could bring their holy and wholesome purpose into effect. The seven holy men written above therefore, for the aforesaid cause, came, the Holy Spirit leading, to the aforesaid holy bishop. Since therefore to the speech held by St. Bruno after the prodigy he immediately subjoins the counsel of him and his companions to go to Hugh, and the going to this holy bishop which followed next, with absolutely no mention made of any thing which intervened in between, he indicates not obscurely that the Saint, after the Parisian prodigy had taken place, betook himself straight to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and did not previously stay elsewhere for some while, as anyone, as far as I think, considering the matter attentively, will easily acknowledge.

[419] and other biographers of the Saint, Nor does Blomevenna indicate this less clearly in the Life of our Saint composed by him. For, having reviewed the speech with which Bruno, after seeing the spectacle of the damned doctor, first addressed some of his disciples and intimates called to him, and exhorted them to do penance, he introduces the two Stephens, one of Bourg, the other of Die, whom he reckons among these, first speaking thus: Not far from the city of Valence, to which our monastery of Saint-Ruf adjoins, near the streams of the Rhône, on the border of the diocese of Die, is the city of Grenoble, and in it the blessed Hugh, bishop of the same city, whom we have frequently seen and know to be a man certainly holy, just and upright and fearing God, a man exercised and perfect in every virtue. He has in his diocese very high mountains, in which there are very many desert places, separated from all passage and company of men, and for that reason most suited for doing penance. He too, inviting all to penance by example and admonitions, will rejoice at our coming, if we go to him, and will make us possessors of our wish. For he is beyond measure pious, kind and merciful. And we, who have frequently walked the road by which one goes to him, are able to lead you to him; and then he sets forth how Bruno and his companions, the counsel of both Stephens, which is contained in these words, having at once been approved by the votes of all, betook themselves to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, having settled their affairs, and having consulted on the way a hermit of great name, with absolutely no mention made of any stay in another place which preceded their going to him. Du Puy, further, in the Life of the Saint which he composed, to be published, agrees nearly exactly with Blomevenna (for his not mentioning the hermit consulted on the way is nothing to the purpose here); so that accordingly, both according to these biographers of our Saint and according to the other, mentioned in the preceding number, or the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, Bruno and his companions, when they sent a message of farewell to the world and sought the desert, betook themselves straight to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, by whom, from what is to be said, they were not much later led into the solitude of the Chartreuse.

[420] But since Du Puy and Blomevenna composed their lucubration on the Saint only in the sixteenth century, stayed for some while, and the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, more ancient than these, did not flourish, from what has been said above, until more than a hundred years had already elapsed from Bruno's death, they are all too recent and too remote from his withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse ever to be able to create certain and undoubted credit for the things which they narrate about it, much less when they conflict with a more ancient monument of entire credibility; and this last has place here. For an ancient charter of the monastery of Molesme, which Mabillon praises in the words recited above, declares that the Saint, before he hid himself in the desert of the Chartreuse, led the eremitical life for some while in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine; nor does this old monument, contemporary with our Saint, appear supposititious or spurious on any head. Moreover, Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, written by him, also supports the opinion which determines that the Saint, when he bade farewell to the world, did not withdraw straight into the desert of the Chartreuse. For where he relates the coming of Bruno and his companions to Hugh (see the words from it which will be transcribed here at number 422), he writes thus of them: And they were seeking a place suitable for the eremitical life, and had not yet found one. By which words he indicates not obscurely that Bruno and his companions, before they had come to Hugh, had already given their efforts to finding a place suitable for the eremitical life; and hence it comes about, first indeed, that it seems far from the truth that Bruno and his companions, when after the prodigy they were on the very point of bidding farewell to the world, determined by common counsel, as the biographers just praised teach, to betake themselves to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, in order to obtain from him a place suitable for the eremitical life in the mountains of the diocese of Grenoble; and then, that from this alone it becomes probable that our Saint, before he went to Hugh, stayed for some while in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, to explore whether this place was suitable for the eremitical life, and hence that some weight accrues to the charter of the monastery of Molesme praised by Mabillon, which from what has been said declares that this was done.

[421] There are added the funeral Titles praised above,

which, withdrew into solitude either in the year 1081 or in one of the two following. if our Saint, when he bade farewell to the world, withdrew straight to the Chartreuse, where he led the eremitical life, will not be understood to agree aptly enough with the truth. All things therefore being carefully weighed, it scarcely appears to be doubted that the Saint, when he sent a message of farewell to the world, went not straight to the Chartreuse but first elsewhere. And that the place which he then sought and inhabited for some while was the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, the charter of the monastery of Molesme praised above by Mabillon makes credible. But for how long a space of time did Bruno stay in this before he betook himself to the desert of the Chartreuse, or to Hugh bishop of Grenoble? Nothing at all occurs whereby anything certain may be determined on this matter. Since the monks of the church or monastery of Molesme, adjacent to the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, in the funeral title with which they paid their last honours to Bruno, call him from what has already been said their most intimate friend, it appears probable enough that the Saint, to have been able to become so well known to them, stayed a sufficiently long space of time in that solitude, or even in the very monastery of Molesme, in which from what has been said he acted as a monk. What then if he remained there for about a year or still longer, and only then, when he found the place less suitable for the eremitical life to which he had given himself, betook himself to Hugh of Grenoble in order to obtain a more suitable one from him? This indeed seems to me by no means at variance with probability. Now then, since these things are so, and the Saint, as I taught above, certainly did not go away into solitude, having left the world, before the year 1081, nor, from what is to be said, entered the desert of the Chartreuse later than the year 1084 about the day sacred to St. John the Baptist, it follows that either in the year 1081 or in one or the other of the two following he first hid himself, having left the world, in the solitude which from what has been said was undoubtedly that of Sèche-Fontaine. Other things by which I might determine more nearly the time at which this happened I have not been able to find. Let us now proceed to discuss other things which followed afterwards.

§ XXV. The Saint's coming to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, what sort of men his companions were, and whether he was then initiated in the priesthood.

The Saint came to Hugh of Grenoble. There was to this man, what from Guigo When our Saint and his six companions, in whom, as appears, he had inspired the desire of the eremitical life, had hitherto not found a place sufficiently suitable for this kind of life, though diligently sought, they came at length to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, in order to obtain from him, of whose altogether exceptional virtues and holiness of life they had heard, some place fit for their purpose. These and some other things may be gathered from Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, in the Life of that holy prelate, published with us in volume 1 of April, writing thus at number XI: In these things was he (St. Hugh) occupied, and behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno, a man famous for religion and learning, as it were a kind of image of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity. And he had as companions master Landuin, who after him was Prior of the Chartreuse, the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die (these had been canons of Saint-Ruf, but from desire of the solitary life had joined themselves to him with the favour of their abbot), Hugh also, whom they surnamed the Chaplain because he alone of them discharged the office of priest; two laymen, whom we call Converse Brothers, Andrew and Guarinus. And they were seeking a place suitable for the eremitical life and had not yet found one. With this hope, therefore, and at the same time drawn by the sweet odour of his holy conversation, they came to the holy man. Whom he not only gladly but also reverently received, treated with, and made possessors of their wish. For by his counsel, help and companionship they entered and built up the solitude of the Chartreuse. And about that time he had seen in a dream God building in the same solitude a dwelling for his own dignity, and also seven stars providing him with guidance on the way. And these too were seven.

[423] The anonymous writer who composed from the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, praised very often above, from a brief History of the Carthusian Order, and from others a brief history of the Carthusian Order, inserted by Martène in volume 6 of his Most Ample Collection from column 151, also supplies a narrative in which, as is done here by Guigo, he relates both our Saint's coming to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and the vision divinely shown to the latter; but it differs somewhat from Guigo's narrative already transcribed here, although meanwhile he professes both that this was drawn from Guigo by the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, and that the latter used the very words of Guigo. It pleases me to transcribe here also his words bearing on this, since they offer some things to be annotated. I take the beginning from those in which he sets out the Saint's coming to Hugh. They run thus: There comes master Bruno, a religious man and famous for learning, as it were a kind of image of uprightness, gravity and of all maturity; and he had companions of his purpose, namely master Landuin, who after him was Prior of the Chartreuse, and the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die: these both were canons of blessed Rufus, but from desire of the solitary life had joined themselves to him with the favour of their abbot; Hugh also, whom they surnamed the Chaplain because he alone of them discharged the priesthood, and two laymen, whom they call Converse Brothers, namely Andrew and Guarinus. And they were seeking a place suitable for the eremitical life and had not yet found one: and while the aforesaid bishop was awake and thinking about the vision of the seven stars (namely that which had been shown him a little before), the aforesaid seven men arrive, namely master Bruno with his six aforesaid companions. And when these seven fell before the feet of the holy man, the holy man himself pondered in his heart about the seven stars which he had seen in the vision; and he kindly raised them to the kiss of peace, and having inquired and diligently understood for what cause they had come, he said to them: I know your place, prepared for you by God; and he led them, not without great labour, to the place where the seven stars had stood, and said: Behold your place.

[424] So the anonymous author of the praised History of the Carthusian Order, somewhat disagreeing with Guigo, disagreeing indeed somewhat both from Guigo and from the anonymous who brought the words of Guigo just recited into his Opuscule, the chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, as will be evident to one who compares his words, likewise just recited here, with the words of Guigo. Hear now how he relates the vision divinely shown to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, when our Saint came to this holy prelate, of which from what has been said Guigo also speaks. This, which Guigo, and the said anonymous following him, record only in these few words, And the aforesaid bishop (namely Hugh) had seen about the same time (namely at which St. Bruno and his companions were coming to him) in a dream the Lord building in the same solitude (of the Chartreuse) a dwelling for his own dignity, and also seven stars providing him with guidance on the way, he sets forth more at length, with some circumstances also added which are absent from Guigo, in this manner, immediately before the words recited above: The seven men described below (namely Bruno and his six companions), therefore, for the aforesaid cause (namely that they might find a place suitable for the eremitical life), came, the Holy Spirit leading, to the aforesaid holy bishop (Hugh of Grenoble). And as they were entering the aforesaid city (Grenoble), it happened that the aforesaid holy bishop was asleep in his chamber: and he saw in his sleep a holy vision: and behold, seven stars were falling before his feet, and afterwards were ascending through various mountains and many deserts as far as a certain very rugged place, far from the peoples, called the Chartreuse, and they stood there. Thus far the author of the praised History of the Carthusian Order; who, since besides he insinuates that, in giving the narrative transcribed here in the preceding number, he would do so in the very words of the Chronicle of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, seems to have had in his hands a copy of this Opuscule augmented with those circumstances which a more recent writer, who added them to it, thought probable, and yet did not, as far as I think, find in an older author or monument.

[425] and from the more recent biographer of our Saint So I hold as regards this last point, if only because he writes that the vision was shown to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, only at the moment when Bruno and his six companions were already entering the city of Grenoble, and this does not agree well enough with Guigo's narrative. For this biographer of St. Hugh declares that it was done not at the same time, but about the same time at which Bruno and his companions came to Grenoble; so that accordingly, considering the authority of Guigo, the vision shown to St. Hugh preceded the Saint's entry into the city of Grenoble by some space of time. The more recent biographers of our Saint, namely Du Puy, Blomevenna and Surius, who adorn our Saint's coming to St. Hugh of Grenoble and the vision shown to the latter with various circumstances expressed neither by Guigo nor by our more ancient biographer, speak more probably and more in accord with Guigo's narrative about the time at which this happened. And Du Puy indeed relates that the vision was shown to Hugh in the night which preceded the arrival of Bruno and his companions in the city of Grenoble, while Blomevenna, and Surius from him, place it at the time when our Saint and his six companions were proceeding to Grenoble. All the words of Blomevenna bearing on that vision and our Saint's coming to St. Hugh I transcribe here, for the reasons which I stated at number 23. First, then, he narrates that our Saint, proceeding to Grenoble, having consulted a hermit of great name on the way, continued his journey, and then subjoins what pertains to the present purpose.

[426] of Blomevenna is reviewed; the vision, They are these: At the same time the holy bishop Hugh had seen in his sleep God building in the solitude of the Chartreuse a dwelling for his own dignity; also seven golden stars arranged in the manner of a crown and raised a little from the earth, differing from the rest fixed in the firmament in position, motion, colour and splendour, providing him with guidance on the way. And while he was thinking about the vision, the men spoken of above (namely Bruno and his companions) were present before the doors of the episcopal palace. Of this matter the venerable man Guigo makes mention in the Life of the same St. Hugh in these words, "There comes," he says, "master Bruno, a religious man and famous for learning, as it were a kind of image of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity. And he had the companions named above." And they were seeking a place suitable for the eremitical life, and had not yet found one. When therefore it had been announced to the bishop that the aforesaid men, requesting a conversation with him, were waiting before the doors, he at once orders them to be brought in. And when they had entered and humbly prostrated themselves at his feet, he bestowed the desired blessing. And when, raised up by him, they had sat down together with him, he diligently inquired the cause of their coming. And when Bruno went through the things which had been done at Paris in the cries of the aforesaid doctor, and also their mutual confederation in the purpose of the solitary life, help

also for finding a place suitable for penance being asked again and again, the bishop at first was astounded at the novelty of the thing; but turning his eyes to their conversion, their steadfastness of mind, and the usefulness of their arduous purpose, which would profit many and was fitted to the vision shown to him, embracing the men with huge joy he received them not only gladly but also reverently, and treated them kindly. The Spirit of the Lord also having come upon him, he understood the vision, and narrated to them in order all things which he had seen, and asserted that the place which they were seeking had already been divinely revealed to him.

[427] For he did not hesitate that seven men despising earthly things, seeking deserts, and through the desire of eternal things was shown while Bruno had not yet entered Grenoble. shining like stars, were designated by the number of the seven stars. Thus far Blomevenna, handing down to memory, as I have already advised, that the vision was shown to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, not only at the moment when Bruno and his companions were already entering the city of Grenoble, but somewhat earlier, namely when they were still on the road toward it. And indeed it is most probable that that vision happened either then, or at any rate, as Du Puy from what has been said hands down, in that night which immediately preceded the arrival of the Saint and his companions in the aforementioned city, and not only at the moment when they were already entering Grenoble; both because from what has been said this agrees more with Guigo's narrative, and because that vision, being shown to Hugh through a dream, most probably happened at night, while the Saint and his companions most probably entered Grenoble not at night-time but in the day. Let us now discuss also other things which Blomevenna and others record about the vision shown to Hugh. According to this writer Bishop Hugh, when Bruno and his companions had already arrived at Grenoble and were standing before the doors of the episcopal palace, was thinking about the vision divinely shown to him. The same is also handed down to memory by the very brief History of the Carthusian Order, inserted by Martène from what has been said in volume 6 of his Most Ample Collection, as also by Du Puy in the Life of our Saint, number 29. And indeed, if that vision happened either only at the moment when Bruno and his companions were entering Grenoble, or in the night immediately preceding this entry of theirs, it appears by no means unlike the truth that Hugh was thinking about it at the time when they were already standing at the door, asking for a conversation with him.

[428] Whether the things which Du Puy about the stars seen in this vision For although Guigo, in the words recited above, only insinuates that Bishop Hugh was thinking about the vision shown to him while Bruno and his six companions were already standing present before him, nothing prevents Hugh from having thought of the same vision both then and a little before, namely when Bruno and his companions had not yet been brought into the bishop's presence. Yet since, from what has been said, this was most probably not shown to Hugh only at the moment when Bruno and his companions were entering Grenoble, and since it is likewise doubtful from what has been said whether it happened in that night which immediately preceded the Saint's entry into the city of Grenoble, or somewhat earlier; and since, if this last took place, no reason is at hand which persuades that Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, was meditating on the vision while the Saint was still awaiting a conversation with him at the door of the palace; whether that holy prelate truly did this then cannot be asserted for certain, since it has no foundation either in the authority of Guigo or in that of any other ancient writer. Hence also it appears to me very doubtful whether the seven stars which appeared to Hugh in the aforementioned vision were such as Blomevenna, with whom Du Puy also agrees in this matter in the Life of the Saint, number 29, hands down in the words just transcribed here that they were; as also whether they exhibited themselves to be beheld by Hugh in the manner which either these two biographers of St. Bruno or the very brief History of the Carthusian Order, already praised more than once, assigns; and likewise whether one of these, by which St. Bruno was designated, was brighter than the rest; which too I find handed down to memory, not indeed in Blomevenna or Du Puy, but in Zacharias Benedictus in the Life of our Saint written in verse, from what has been said above, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, and in some other more recent writers whom it is of no concern to name here.

[429] and Benedictus hand down to memory, It pleases me to transcribe here all the verses in which that metrical biographer of the Saint sings both this and the whole vision of the seven stars shown to Hugh, since I hope that it will not be unwelcome to the reader. They run thus:

And now Bruno, with a band crowding round him, was drawing near To Grenoble; by the ancients it was once called Misora.

And then, after some things interposed,

Soon therefore from the highest ether the poles sent down Seven stars; of which one went more shining Before the others, and from the rising of the newborn Phoebus Seemed to bear its step to the lofty roofs Of the Prelate Hugh, and to ascend the stiff mountain Which was near, and to lean upon the lofty rock. Such things, while he lay in sweet slumber, He beholds; after he awakens from sleep, the whole Deed he turns over in mind, weighs it with himself and weighs again. What, good God, he says, does this wonderful sign mean? What, I ask, do these seven stars portend to the world? While he thinks of these things more deeply, the Doctor, accompanied By six companions, draws near the city, and enters the house Of the Pontiff, whom he said in a secret address He wished to visit. He is brought within the inner parts of the hall, And his companions likewise. Bending his knees, Bruno fixes kisses On the consecrated hands, and thus begins with his mouth, etc.

[430] Nor are only the circumstances of the vision shown to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, is doubtful, as also whether Bruno spoke to Hugh of the damned doctor. which have just now been mentioned here, and which are related by Du Puy, Blomevenna, Zacharias Benedictus and other more recent writers without any ancient surety, of very uncertain and doubtful credit, but also what Blomevenna (see his words just transcribed here) affirms about the mournful story of the damned Parisian doctor having been related by Bruno to Bishop Hugh. For besides that it is not certain from what has already been said above that this ever took place, I find it committed to writing by absolutely no other writer who is of a nature to create any credit for the thing, that our Saint made mention of the dreadful prodigy before Hugh. However that may be, from the manner meanwhile in which both Blomevenna and the other writers already praised relate the said vision of the seven stars and its circumstances, it is clear that what I taught in § XXII is most exactly consonant with the truth: namely, that in historical things or facts the substance of the thing must be distinguished from its circumstances, and that it sometimes happens that more recent writers have adorned at will, with circumstances which they thought probable, things which they found in ancient writers either clothed with almost no circumstances or altogether destitute of all. Guigo in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble (see his words recited at number 422), relates only the vision in which Hugh saw in his sleep God building in the solitude of the Chartreuse a dwelling for his dignity or majesty, and moreover seven stars which offered themselves to Hugh as guides of the road leading thither; but the writers just cited added to the substance of this thing both the manner and the time of the vision and other circumstances, which nevertheless, all and each of them, are not probable, contrary to what they seem to have thought, as is plain from what has already been said. But I find also one who has written that that vision was shown to another than Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. This is Geoffrey, Prior of Vigeois.

[431] This matter, to discharge the promise given above, The same or a similar vision must now be examined. This writer, then, records thus in his Chronicle, in Labbe, volume 2 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 289: The most holy Order of the Carthusians began at this time, namely in the year MLXXXVI (nay, from what is to be said, in the year 1084), through Bruno, a holy man, by nation a German of Cologne Agrippina, master in Theology, with six other venerable men, in the diocese of Grenoble. This Order, as blessed Bernard testifies, holds the primacy among all ecclesiastical Orders, not by reason of time but by the vigour of holiness; whence he calls it the most beautiful column of the Church. Pope Victor, while he was a monk of Cassino, saw in a dream God building in the solitude of the Chartreuse a dwelling for his own dignity, and it is said that he was strong in the spirit of prophecy. Geoffrey flourished in the twelfth century, and hence when not yet a hundred years, nay perhaps not even fifty, had elapsed from the death of St. Bruno; whence it may seem that he had sufficiently well ascertained the things which he put in writing about Bruno and the Order instituted by him: but, whatever be the case with Geoffrey's age and authority, in this matter indeed one must stand by Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse and biographer of St. Hugh. For besides that he was contemporary with and intimate with Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, whatever he hands down to memory in the Life of the latter, composed by him at the command of the supreme Pontiff, he either saw with his own eyes or learned from eyewitnesses or even from St. Hugh himself; so that most probably what he writes about the aforementioned vision shown to Hugh he also heard from this very man. But, you will say, even if this be so, it is not yet a consequence that Geoffrey wrongly ascribes to Pope Victor III, formerly a monk of Cassino by the name of Desiderius, the vision in which he saw God building for himself a dwelling in the solitude of the Chartreuse. For God could have revealed to both Victor and Hugh, by two different visions, what he was going to do in the solitude of the Chartreuse.

[432] to Pope Victor III I confess it is so: but that Geoffrey too is speaking of one and the same vision of which Guigo speaks is clear if only from this, that the following words, He saw God building in the solitude of the Chartreuse a dwelling for his own dignity, with which he sets it forth, occur almost to a tittle in the narrative of Guigo also, given at number 422. Nay rather, it seems to follow from this that Geoffrey borrowed those words from the Life of St. Hugh written by Guigo, or at any rate from another writing into which the same had been brought from it, and by I know not what chance wrongly ascribed to Pope Victor the vision attributed by them to that holy prelate. There is added that Geoffrey, in doing this, reveals new and unheard-of things, as the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book, not yet published, of the Annals of his Order, rightly observes in the words transcribed here at number 303; for of those writers too who have mentioned Pope Victor there is none who hands down to memory that the vision of which we are here treating was shown to him. Moreover, to what end, I ask, would the Lord have shown a vision of this kind to Victor while still a monk of Cassino? But to Hugh God showed it, both that he might open to Hugh what place for leading the eremitical life was to be assigned to Bruno and his companions, who were about to come to Grenoble, and that he might stir him up to bestow favour and help on Bruno and his companions. This may be gathered from the words which Guigo places before the vision which he narrates, and also subjoins afterwards.

[433] [does not seem to have been shown. Whether of the Saint's six companions to the Chartreuse] For to the words transcribed here at number 422, in which he relates the vision divinely shown to Hugh, he immediately subjoins: And these too were seven. Wherefore he gladly embraced the counsels not only of these but also of those who succeeded them, and until his death always cherished the inhabitants of the Chartreuse with counsels and benefits. By which words he indicates not obscurely that by the seven stars which had appeared to St. Hugh in the vision were designated St. Bruno and his six companions, and that hence it came about that that holy prelate of Grenoble, who had been persuaded of this by God working within, was beneficent during the whole time of his life not only toward St. Bruno and his companions but also toward their followers. Nor does Guigo hint less clearly that it was from no other cause that Hugh assigned the Chartreuse to Bruno and his companions to inhabit, joined himself as companion to them as they went to it, and brought them help and aid as they built the necessary buildings, as will become plain to one who considers his words transcribed here at number 422. Now then, since this is so, there was indeed reason why the Divine benignity should show the vision narrated by Guigo to Hugh. But to what end, I ask again, would it have visited Pope Victor, still a monk of Cassino, with a like favour? This indeed (for Victor is not to be thought, as I shall teach below, to have confirmed the Order instituted by Bruno) seems likely to have been of no use whatever, and hence from this alone it appears that it did not happen. There could indeed be treated here now the benevolence of St. Hugh toward St. Bruno and his companions, their introduction by him into the Chartreuse, and some other things bearing on this; but this will be performed more conveniently in the following §, when I shall have elucidated here some further things which pertain to the Saint and his companions. And he had (these are Guigo's words concerning St. Bruno coming to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, already recited at number 422) as companions master Landuin, who after him was Prior of the Chartreuse, the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die (these had been canons of Saint-Ruf, but from desire of the solitary life had joined themselves to him with the favour of their abbot), Hugh also, whom they surnamed the Chaplain because he alone of them discharged the office of priest; two laymen, whom we call Converse Brothers, Andrew and Guarinus.

[434] The Saint, therefore, when he came to St. Hugh, prelate of Grenoble, had joined to himself only six companions; any was of the clergy of Reims, but since all these, together with the Saint, as Guigo makes credible in the words recited at number 422, had sought a place suitable for the eremitical life, and had not yet found such when they came to Hugh, they all seem to have led the eremitical life for some space of time together with our Saint in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine before they betook themselves to Hugh at Grenoble. Now then, since in the charter of the monastery of Molesme, praised above from Mabillon and partly recited, Peter and Lambert, who are not reckoned by Guigo among the six companions who set out with Bruno for Grenoble, are reported to have been disciples of Bruno in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, the Saint probably had joined to himself more than six companions when he departed from Reims to bid farewell to the world, or at least when he was already living in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine: namely the six enumerated above by Guigo, Peter and Lambert, mentioned in the charter praised from Mabillon, and perhaps some others besides, who lived in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine together with these two when our Saint betook himself from there with the companions enumerated by Guigo to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, to seek a place more suitable for carrying out his purpose. But were all these of the clergy of Reims? That there were some of the clergy of Reims who withdrew with the Saint into solitude, the writers of the Literary History of France teach not obscurely in volume 9, page 236. But whether Peter and Lambert, who from what has been said adhered to the Saint when he went away from Reims into the desert, or at any rate when he was already living in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, were truly of that clergy, I have not ascertained; and as pertains to the companions of the Saint reviewed by Guigo, whether any of these was of the same clergy is very doubtful. So it appears from the things which I shall now bring forward about each of them in the order in which they are reviewed above by Guigo.

[435] Landuin has a notable eulogy composed of him in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639, in the most ancient Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, of which notice was given at number 4 and following. the things which are brought forward about Landuin, It is expressed in these words: Landuin, a Tuscan by nation from the city of Lucca, himself also learned in letters divine and human, presided over the Chartreuse for ten years. Who, while he was going to master Bruno, fell into the hands of the schismatic Guibert, which he greatly dreaded. Against whose threats and promises, deceits and violences, by the help of divine grace, he persevered unbending in every way. Whom, dead in his error, he bewailed with tears, so much that he was blamed by those standing around because he wept for him from whose perversity the goodness of Christ had freed His Church. On the seventh day after his death he himself also died, and was laid in the monastery of St. Andrew at the foot of Mount Soracte, near which is the castle where, captured, he had been held in custody. Such is the eulogy of Landuin in that most ancient and most credible monument, in which there occurs not even a word from which you could in any way gather that he was of the clergy of Reims. Nay rather, since at the beginning of that eulogy, already transcribed here, he is said to have been a Tuscan by nation, he seems to have been of another clergy rather than that of Reims. Next after Landuin Guigo subjoins both Stephens, one of Bourg, the other of Die, who, since they were, as the same Guigo testifies, canons of Saint-Ruf, that is, Regulars, were undoubtedly not clerics of the clergy of Reims. Hear meanwhile how the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book of the Annals of his Order, not yet published, praised very often above, speaks of both those canons, that the things pertaining to them may be more elucidated.

[436] the two Stephens By Guigo, he says, they (namely the Two Stephens) are said simply to have been "Canons of Saint-Ruf, and from desire of the solitary life, with the favour of their abbot, to have joined themselves to St. Bruno." But whether they were of the very monastery of Saint-Ruf, head of the whole Order, or of some house of the same Order, he does not have. Surius, after the anonymous author of the Life of St. Bruno prefixed to his Works (printed, as I taught above, by Berthold Rembolt), writes that they were pupils of the monastery of Saint-Ruf, which indeed is not improbable; but he errs with his anonymous in saying that that monastery was then established near Valence. For thus he introduces the aforesaid Stephens conversing with St. Bruno: "Not far from Valence, to which our monastery of Saint-Ruf is adjacent, near the streams of the Rhône, on the borders of the diocese of Die, whence one of us drew his origin, is the city of Grenoble," etc. But it is established that the abbey of Saint-Ruf, head of the canons Regular, was originally built at Avignon outside the city. "But," says Choppin, book 2 on monasteries, title 1, number 1, "when the sacred war of the Albi (Albigensians) was raging, the religious men were compelled to transfer their seats and household gods elsewhere, toward Valence in the Dauphiné, where a greater cloister is erected under the name of blessed Rufus." And the Sainte-Marthe brothers write that this transfer was made only in the year MCCX; others refer it higher; but it is nothing to us. Therefore the things which are read in Surius and others about the same monastery being established near Valence must be corrected, since it still stood near Avignon at the time of the institution of the Carthusian Order. In the Sainte-Marthes, at the place cited, there exist letters of Pope Urban II, dated in the year MLXXXXVI, in which the supreme Pontiff confirms to the abbey of Saint-Ruf outside the walls of Avignon the churches of St. Mary below the city of Lyons and of St. Peter near Die.

[437] It could indeed be that both our Stephens were canons of the aforesaid church of St. Peter of Die, namely of Die and of Bourg, but it is not established whether in those times churches or priories of this kind, which they also called cells, admitted novices to profession, or received canons already professed from the mother monastery of Avignon, as may be conjectured from the example subjoined. Among the Titles written within the year of St. Bruno's death is read the Title of the brothers of Saint-Ruf at La Côte-Saint-André, in the borders of the Allobroges near Vienne the metropolis, in which Title (14 among those to be reprinted) the canons of the same church speak thus: "We brothers of the canons of Saint-Ruf dwelling in a certain little cell of St. Andrew, which is commonly called La Côte, will celebrate Matins and Masses for seven continuous days for the soul of the most pious Bruno. And we will give a prebend to him as to one of ourselves for the solace of his soul. And we will have his name written in the catalogue of our Brothers." Since they call themselves "Brothers of the canons of Saint-Ruf dwelling in a certain little cell of St. Andrew, etc.," they openly hint that they were pupils of the principal abbey of Saint-Ruf. From which too it is more probable that our Stephens came, and it seems rightly to be gathered from the words of our Guigo, in which he says that they, "with the favour of the abbot," who can be no other than the abbot of Saint-Ruf of Avignon, "joined themselves to St. Bruno." Moreover, since the aforesaid canons, then inhabitants of the little cell of St. Andrew, conferred so great a benefit on St. Bruno and inscribed his name in the catalogue of their Brothers, it is no light conjecture that they granted this to the blessed Man at the request of the two Stephens, formerly their fellow soldiers in the principal monastery of Saint-Ruf, but then Carthusian monks. Thus far our anonymous Carthusian annalist, contending to prove here chiefly two things, namely that the principal monastery of the canons Regular of Saint-Ruf was situated near Avignon in Bruno's age, and that the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, companions of our Saint, were its pupils.

[438] And the first indeed he makes undoubted against Surius, and Du Puy and Blomevenna who preceded him, and about Hugh, leave it doubtful. who indicate by a speech devised by them for one of the Stephens that that monastery was then attached to Valence; as pertains to the second, he renders it at least probable. But of whatever monastery the two Stephens were in the end pupils, they were indeed canons Regular, and hence, which is chiefly to the point here, undoubtedly not of the clergy of Reims, as I have already advised above. It remains that we now give some notice of Hugh, who is named in the last place among the companions who accompanied St. Bruno to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. Morozzo, in the Chronological Theatre of the sacred Carthusian Order, places him sixth among the Priors of the Grande Chartreuse, and adorns him with the following eulogy: Hugh, the fourth of the six fellow initiates of Bruno when he withdrew from the world, and distinguished from the rest by the title of chaplain because he served at the sacred rites for them, who were not at all initiated in the priesthood, ruled the Chartreuse, begun at the first time of his conversion, for two years when his age was already worn out. This being completed, when he had joyfully received the successor for whom he had earnestly entreated, for seven years

he survived, during all of which he composed himself for eternity. Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, closed his last day in the year 1137; wherefore, if Morozzo records the truth here, Hugh prolonged his life up to the year 1145, as will be evident to one who considers the words of this writer just now recited. However this matter stands, Morozzo indeed supplies nothing in the words recited from which you could in any way infer that Hugh was of the clergy of Reims, and hence this, since it cannot be proved from elsewhere either, is very doubtful, although meanwhile nothing occurs either from which you might deservedly argue that Hugh was of another clergy rather than that of Reims. It is therefore, as is made manifest from all the things now brought forward (for Andrew and Guarinus, being laymen, are not to be mentioned here), very doubtful whether any of the companions whom the Saint, sending a message of farewell to the world and departing from Reims, had joined to himself was of the clergy of Reims.

[439] Nor, although of these Landuin and Stephen of Bourg Nor would the praised writers of the Literary History of France have asserted that some of these were clerics of Reims, if they had considered that the Saint twice departed from the city of Reims to migrate elsewhere: first indeed, to avoid Archbishop Manasses, in the year, according to what has been said, 1076 or the following; and second, to go into the desert, after he had been restored at Reims to his former state, or perhaps even a better one, Manasses having been expelled, in the year 1081 or in one or the other of the two following, as I have already taught above; and that certainly on the former occasion, but not likewise on the latter, the Saint, from what has been said before and chiefly from the testimony of Guibert, abbot of Nogent, had some clerics of Reims joined to himself as companions. Further, the words of Guigo transcribed here at number 422 need still further commentary. For since in them Hugh, one of St. Bruno's companions, is said to have been called chaplain because he alone of them discharged the office of priest, it may now be asked here, first, whether the Saint and his three other clerical companions, namely both Stephens and Landuin, were ever initiated in the priesthood; and second, whether the Saint had not already then, when he came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, been raised to that dignity. And that Landuin indeed, and one of the two Stephens, namely the one of Bourg, although they were not yet priests when they came with Bruno to Grenoble, were yet afterwards promoted to this dignity, our anonymous Carthusian annalist seems to prove aptly enough. I therefore transcribe here his words bearing on this.

[440] were at some time priests, That Landuin and Stephen of Bourg were afterwards raised to the dignity of the priesthood, he says, ought to be beyond all doubt, because, namely, as he adds, they could not otherwise have had the government of souls in the Order, as they had: Landuin in the Grande Chartreuse, over which he presided after St. Bruno; and Stephen of Bourg in the house of Meyriat, of which he was instituted first prior by Guigo. Nor can the examples of certain abbots be opposed, who governed monasteries even though they had never been priests. For at the time when the Carthusian Order began, it had been sanctioned that no one should be made abbot unless he were also made priest, according to the decree in the Roman synod under Eugene II, which expressly has that abbots should also obtain the priestly honour; and it was renewed under Hugh and Robert, kings of the Franks, as may be seen among the canons of Abbo, abbot of Fleury, chapter nineteen: "Abbots who are not priests, let them become priests or lose their prelacies," as the council of Poitiers, celebrated in the year MLXXVIII by Hugh of Die, Apostolic legate, had decreed; which was afterwards inserted into the Decretals. According to these decrees St. Bruno, instructing his followers, commanded that no one should be elected Prior unless he could be promoted to the priesthood. Whence Guigo, describing the Customs of the Order as St. Bruno had instituted them long before him by living voice and example, declares that, when the Prior has died, the conventuals "by the counsel of the elder and better men elect one from among themselves," either a priest or one to be promoted to the priesthood, who on the more solemn feasts, "and when some brother is about to make profession, sings the High Mass."

[441] So he; from which indeed it appears undoubted that Landuin and Stephen of Bourg were at some time initiated in the priesthood. and the same too seems to be said of Bruno, As now pertains to Stephen of Die and to St. Bruno himself, whether that Stephen was ever a priest is very doubtful, nor does anything occur by which this doubt could be removed; but that Bruno, if not at the time when he came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, was yet afterwards a priest, is persuaded to me by the Baptism alone conferred by him, with all the ceremonies of the Church observed, on the son of Count Roger, as we shall see afterwards. Moreover, our Saint himself seems in some way to indicate that he was a priest in his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10. For there he writes thus: You must flee from the worship of idols, because the chalice, that is the Blood of Christ, the chalice, I say, of benediction, through which we receive the benedictions of graces, since through the blood of Christ, if we receive it worthily, we are both freed from former sins and strengthened against those to come: which chalice we bless, praising it, because there never was a chalice of this kind which both freed from sins and strengthened us not to sin further. Or the chalice of benediction, that is, which God himself blesses and consecrates; and which we bless through our office; for God effects this through the priest as minister. By these words Bruno speaks here in the manner in which he does not seem likely to have spoken if he had not been a priest, and hence, as appears, he indicates in some way that he was a priest.

[442] But had he already been raised to that dignity when he came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble? yet that he was already then, when he came to Grenoble, There comes, says Guigo in the place cited above, of St. Bruno coming to Hugh at Grenoble, master Bruno… And he had as companions master Landuin… The two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die… Hugh also, whom they surnamed the Chaplain, because he alone of them discharged the office of priest. From which words, since in them, in the very place where the discourse is both of Bruno and of his companions, Hugh alone is asserted to have discharged the office of priest, it appears that it must be concluded that our Saint, when he came to Hugh, had not yet been initiated in the priesthood. Yet, say some, and among these our anonymous Carthusian annalist praised very often above, the recited words of Guigo, in which Hugh alone is affirmed to have been a priest, seem to be understood not of St. Bruno himself but only of his companions. For since, they say, after the names of the clerical companions whom the Saint had with him have been reviewed, Guigo immediately subjoins about Hugh, Whom they surnamed chaplain, because he alone of them discharged the office of priest, these two words Of them seem to be referred to the clerical companions of the Saint alone, and not also to Bruno. So they; but I do not know whether this interpretation of Guigo's words will appear sufficiently accurate and accommodated to the author's mind. Indeed these words Whom they surnamed chaplain seem to be understood as much of St. Bruno, who would have called Hugh Chaplain, as of the Saint's companions, Landuin and the two Stephens, and hence I do not see why these other two words also, Of them, are not to be referred equally to Bruno as to his companions.

[443] initiated in the priesthood, does not appear certain. There is added that the whole text of Guigo's words, taken in the more obvious and natural sense, which this writer undoubtedly followed, seems to require that Guigo be understood of the priesthood which Hugh alone then enjoyed, and which the Saint and his other companions lacked; so that accordingly, if Guigo's words are understood in the manner in which they more probably ought to be, our Saint, when he came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, does not seem to have been yet initiated in the priesthood; unless perhaps, which however I would scarcely dare to establish either, you wish that Guigo asserts that Hugh alone discharged the office of priest, not because he alone was a priest, but because he alone performed the duties befitting a priest, Bruno himself and his other companions abstaining from them out of humility or for another cause. But, you will say, the Saint is in many funeral titles either expressly asserted, or at any rate not obscurely hinted, to have been the wall of the Church, the light of churches, the column of the metropolis of Reims, even before his withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse. I confess it is so: But why could he not have been honoured with titles of this kind because he was altogether distinguished both for the learning with which he had instructed the pupils of the church of Reims and of other churches, who flowed together to Reims in great concourse to hear the Saint, and also for the virtue with which he had long defended the church of Reims against the impious attempts of Manasses, the simoniac prelate? Nothing of strength, therefore, can accrue even from the titles of honour with which the Saint is graced, whether in those funeral verses or elsewhere, to the opinion which determines that he was already initiated in the priesthood when he came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble; and hence, all things considered, it appears to me far more probable that he was in fact not yet a priest at that time. Let us now pursue the series of matters pertaining to the Saint.

§ XXVI. The Saint enters the desert of the Chartreuse: when this happened.

[The Saint, with St. Hugh accompanying him, into the desert of the Chartreuse, of which something here,] When Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, having narrated the vision in which he had beheld God building a dwelling for himself in that desert, had informed St. Bruno and his six companions named above, whom he did not doubt to have been designated by the seven stars divinely shown to him in sleep, that the desert or mountain of the Chartreuse was the place destined for them by God for leading the eremitical life and establishing a dwelling, and had also, as appears, exhorted them in words to choose that place for themselves to inhabit, they all showed themselves most ready both to obey the divine will and to withdraw into the rugged solitude. Nor had they spent much time in refreshing their bodies, wearied from the road, in the episcopal palace, under the most kindly care of Hugh, when they committed themselves to the journey toward the Chartreuse, having joined to themselves St. Hugh the bishop himself as associate and companion. For by his (namely Hugh bishop of Grenoble's) counsel and help and companionship they entered and built up the solitude of the Chartreuse, says Guigo of St. Bruno and his companions in the Life of that holy prelate, in the place cited above. It does not appear to be doubted that this most holy prelate caused the things necessary both for that journey and for building houses or little cells of whatever kind for himself and for Bruno and his companions in the desert of the Chartreuse to be prepared and carried thither. And that this was in fact done, Zacharias Benedictus in the metrical Life of our Saint indicates not obscurely, having first narrated the things which he establishes were done between these and St. Hugh on the day before the withdrawal of our Saint and his companions into the desert, with some description of the solitude of the Chartreuse also added. The verses in which he carries this out I transcribe here.

And the spaces of day returned with a new sun, The prelate orders horses, and much provision to be prepared, And various masters of the builder's craft to be chosen. All things are ready; the masters run about through the buildings. Mortar and bricks and timbers are carried, laden; The beasts of burden send forth neighings under the heavy weight. Now all make for the mountains; to the sunny summit A difficult track leads; the hollow mouths of the lowest valley Lie open, and now from on high as they go they gaze upon The plain of the land, and the towers and towns around. The column of horses gapes, galloping over the mounds. The stirrup-bearers sweat, and labour in rivalry to go on. To the highest peak therefore at length they came; They see Hernican rocks, and cliffs bristling on every side. No shrubs are there, nor trees bearing fruit. There are scarcely green grasses there and lowly broom, And larches and firs and pines stretched out toward the stars.

Blomevenna, although he makes absolutely no mention in a word of the things which Benedictus here records about the necessaries prepared by the bishop's order for the journey and for fixing a dwelling at the Chartreuse, yet introduces the prelate Hugh setting forth to Bruno and his companions, when they were already about to go to it, what the solitude of the Chartreuse was like, thus: The place… designated for you by God is a certain desert in very high mountains, and it is called the Chartreuse. Spacious indeed but altogether uninhabited, * passable to wild beasts alone, but to men and the other domestic animals almost unknown on account of the roughness of the place.

[446] Walled round on this side and that with high and as it were hewn rocks then from Blomevenna a general notice, and crags, planted with fruitless trees, cold beyond measure and for the greater part of the time covered with snows; so precipitous, too, sterile and unfruitful, that nothing can be either sown or reaped in it; the ascent to which, too, is heavy and laborious, and the entrance difficult and dangerous, since it is between two rocks of wonderful height, which, raising themselves upward like straight lines, at length come together at the summit, so that they are a horror and terror to those entering. And in the midst of it is a small river, which is called the Dead Guerus, as it were a certain image of death, gathered from the mountains standing round on every side, flowing with the very great noise of torrents or of flooding waters; and, to be brief, so great is the roughness of that place, so great the horror, that it could be called a prison or a place of purgatory rather than a dwelling of human life. Thus far Blomevenna, having borrowed nearly all these things of his, as not rarely elsewhere, from Du Puy. And so, studious reader, you now have from Benedictus and from Blomevenna, and, if you like, also from Du Puy, some general notice or description of the desert of the Chartreuse; a far more distinct one, extended to its principal parts, is supplied by Innocent le Masson, still praised above more than once, in book 1, chapter 2 of the Work which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order and published in the year 1687 at the Correr press. It pleases me to transcribe this also here, because it has as its author Masson, who from what has been said stayed many years in the Chartreuse itself, and was therefore most exactly acquainted with the things he writes of it, and because the said Work of the same Masson is not worn in everyone's hands; that thus each may have at hand what that most celebrated desert is like, which lies about ten miles, or three leagues, northward from Grenoble, and was first inhabited by our Saint. That description, then, is expressed in these words: This our desert at that time (when the Saint hid himself in it) appeared far rougher than it is now seen to be; for it was altogether uncultivated and its access plainly difficult.

[447] and far more ample from Masson, diffused, the things which Woods occupied almost everything, which afterwards, having been uprooted in most places, were converted into pleasant enough meadows. The shape of this desert is as it were of an oblong amphitheatre, girt on every side with lofty rocks; whose arena on the southern side is far lower, and rises gradually in the manner of little hills surpassing one another, until, in the place where the chapel of St. Bruno is situated, it is raised up like a high mountain, which is at once closed in by almost precipitous rocks. On its slope the house of the Chartreuse is now built, distant from that chapel by a space for the covering of which on foot a quarter and a half of an hour is needed. On the sloping and lower part, then, of the arena of our amphitheatre formed by nature itself, which part faces the South, there flows past a torrent, composed at first of springs gushing out from various places of the desert round about and flowing together there; then swollen by the waters of the rains and of the melting snows flowing down from the highest rocks, it commonly rivals moderate rivers. But when there is abundance of rain, it is then equalled to great rivers. It also bears excellent fish, which are called rock trout. And in the upper part, which is the Northern, it is girt by that rock which is called le Col, on whose summit is situated a spacious and pleasant meadow, which is set upon that rock like a diadem. On the right it has the rock which is called Bovinant, and on the left another, on whose top (for these rocks rise on high as though surpassing one another by steps) is situated that very high rock which is called Alienard.

[448] On the Eastern side there rise, and as it were hold one another by the hand, very high rocks, are recited, in the words among which the first place is held by that which is called Le grand son, which in Latin sounds great summit, because it is reckoned the highest of all the rocks; and so those rocks extend in the manner of walls, until, at the place where the bridge of the Chartreuse now is, failing through a precipitous drop, they open an entrance to the desert only thirty or forty feet wide. For at once another precipitous rock rises on the other side of the torrent, so that these two rocks seem to raise themselves up in such a way that, being made nearer on the upper side, they rush as it were into mutual embraces, which is certainly a wonderful artifice of nature. Between the two rocks the torrent flows past, and there stands that bridge through which access is given from the side of the city of Grenoble to the desert and house of the Chartreuse. There also the holy prelate Hugh caused a little house to be built, that a keeper might dwell in it who should grant or refuse entry to those wishing to go in. About midway between that bridge and the house of the Chartreuse is situated the house of the Correrie, which in the Customs of the Reverend Father Guigo is called the Lower House, where the procurator and the lay brothers stayed to manage domestic affairs; and between that bridge and the chapel of St. Bruno, at which place the house of the Chartreuse was first built, there lies a journey of one hour; whence it can be conjectured how great is the length of the arena of our amphitheatre from the Southern side to the Northern. Beyond the torrent is seen a most pleasant meadow, called Valombrey, which is girt by rocks gradually surpassing one another and at length raising their heads on high as though in rivalry; all of which are surpassed by that which is called Charmanson, on whose head a very broad meadow is seen, which could scarcely be believed by those looking at that rock from the house of the Chartreuse, since its summit seems to end in the manner of the teeth of some crag.

[449] But the greatest part of those things which are situated beyond the torrent the description is exhibited here, withdraws. had not been given to the first fathers, and their boundaries were closed by the torrent; which part, however, was afterwards given as a gift to the house of the Chartreuse by pious seculars, as will be explained more at large in its places in the second volume. To those proceeding from that Southern side to the Western there at once occur very high rocks separated from one another, between which flows a torrent toward the little town of Saint-Laurent-du-Pont. On the bank of this torrent, with great labour, the rocks having been either torn out or cut or blasted with gunpowder, a road has been opened by which one comes to the Chartreuse from the side of Saint-Laurent. Thence there presents itself to the eyes that rock on whose summit is situated a grange, called Chartrousette; where we believe the first Fathers placed their farming and the feeding of their flocks; for there are very ample meadows and pastures there, and certain fields which are ploughed. The rocks, touching one another, thus continue their position in the manner of walls until they come to that one over which, we said, the very high rock of Alienard towers, and close the circle of our amphitheatre. And a little stream flowing through cuts it as it were in the middle, which, taking its rise from the spring of St. Bruno and receiving also the waters of the neighbouring rocks, runs from the Northern side down to the Southern, until it is merged in the torrent. Further, in our amphitheatre, formed by nature, as we said, oblong, three distinct degrees of elevation appear to those looking, in the lowest of which are green meadows, in the second woods filled with aged trees; which woods gird the place in the manner of a very broad band. Thirdly, finally, are seen the rocks, which by their unequal summits bear the appearance of gnashing teeth a little distinct from one another. This is the desert into which the Saint, when it was still altogether uncultivated, withdrew together with his six companions, Landuin, the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, Hugh, Andrew and Guarinus, Hugh bishop of Grenoble accompanying them, and supplying the things necessary, as appears, both for food and for building dwellings in which they might stay.

[450] Baronius determines that this was done in the year 1086, And that as soon as they had entered the desert they set their hand to the work appears undoubted. But of this matter I shall treat below; now the only inquiry is into the time at which the Saint and his companions came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, first entered the desert of the Chartreuse with this holy prelate accompanying, and began to set their hand to building a monastery there. Some determine that this was done in the year 1084, others on the contrary contend for the year 1085 or even for the year 1086. And Baronius indeed, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at this very year, sets the coming of our Saint and his companions to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and their entry into the Chartreuse under Hugh's guidance, which followed not long after, in the year 1086, writing thus there: Since it was said above, from the Acts of the Life of St. Hugh (namely, the bishop of Grenoble), that he was created bishop of Grenoble in the year one thousand and eighty, and after two years went to the Cluniacs and stayed there one year, and thence, having returned to his bishopric, spent three years in it, you will find it plain that in the sixth year from his ordination, namely this year, he made for the Chartreuse with the companions. This epoch, therefore, of the withdrawal of St. Hugh and of St. Bruno and his companions into the desert, which he assigns, the most learned father of the Ecclesiastical Annals gathered from the Acts of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, or rather from Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, who is their author; wherefore, since this writer was contemporary both with St. Hugh and with St. Bruno, and most exactly acquainted with the things pertaining both to the latter and to the former, and not on any head of credit

can be suspect or weak, it could indeed scarcely happen that one should not assent to Baronius, provided only he has rightly interpreted Guigo; which must therefore now be examined.

[451] the words of Guigo, from which this writer so thought, Colombi, in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, number 102 and following, having premised that two different opinions are current about the year in which St. Bruno came to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse, one of the ancient Carthusians, the other of Baronius, asserts that the latter, which from the Acts of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, written by Guigo, stands for the year 1086, is false, but that the former, which fights for the year 1084, is true; and then he subjoins: That these things may be plain, come, let us compare both (namely the opinions about the year of St. Bruno's withdrawal into the Chartreuse) with the words of Guigo. He speaks thus: "Hugh (bishop of Grenoble), two years having been completed after his consecration" (this had been done at Rome, as I shall teach below, in the year 1080), "having despised all things, was made a monk of the Cluniac Order at La Chaise-Dieu, and there lived a year as a novice. After this," that is, after this year of novitiate, and so in the third from his Roman consecration, "Gregory the seventh compelling him, from the monastery which he had entered fervent he returned more fervent; having, in place of the cloister, a watchful circumspection … in place of an abbot, justice … in place of a community, either religious companions, whom he never wished to be without, or the universal Church… In these things he was occupied," that is, in this way he seemed to himself to have cloister, abbot, community, "and behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno." Thus far Guigo. Baronius so interprets his words that Hugh first spent two whole years after his Roman consecration, and the third in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu; then, having returned from La Chaise-Dieu to Grenoble, spent nearly three others in the episcopate before the arrival of Bruno. He will have it therefore that Bruno came to him when he was not far from the end of the sixth year of his episcopate. And not undeservedly does he so think and interpret the words of Guigo. For altogether, if the three years "in the episcopate," which are reported "not yet completed," be judged to have elapsed after the return from the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, which three years "after the consecration" at Rome had preceded, as Guigo's discourse at first sight seems to require, Hugh must be thought to have passed about six years, not fewer, from his consecration to the arrival of Bruno.

[452] So the praised writer, affirming that the words of Guigo, recited both by Baronius and by himself, nor in the manner are rightly expounded by Baronius as regards the sense which they offer at first sight, and that from them St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse is not undeservedly set in the year 1086. But since he nevertheless judges that one must adhere to the opinion of the ancient Carthusians who attached this event to the year 1084, he contends that those words must be interpreted in another manner than that in which they seem at first sight to be taken, and were in fact taken by Baronius. But, he subjoins immediately after the words just transcribed here, nothing compels us so to interpret Guigo (namely as he had premised that Baronius did), and what is said, "after the return from the monastery," we can expound so that it is the same as "following the return from the monastery," that is, immediately, and not long after the return from the monastery, and has been placed out of its own place before the words "having been completed." This then will be the sense: "Behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate, there comes, a short time after the return from the monastery, master Bruno." But see that the years which are reported not yet completed are years spent in the episcopate after the consecration and the return from Rome, and passed in episcopal charge. For if you reckon the years from Hugh's Roman consecration, three had already been completed and the fourth was running when Bruno came to him, since, as Guigo had said, "two years having been completed after his consecration," Hugh was a novice in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu for one year. Such is the interpretation which Colombi fastens on the words of Guigo recited by him; but it is altogether violent and forced.

[453] For besides that it establishes that these words After the return from the monastery have been placed out of their own place by Guigo, proposed here, who nevertheless is not rashly to be accused of disorder in writing, it seems to have been sought by Colombi too studiously, in order that the words of Guigo which he recited above might be understood to be true even with the opinion standing which fixes St. Bruno's withdrawal into the Chartreuse to the year 1084; and it is, to omit the other defects from which it suffers, altogether foreign to any customary method of computing the years which bishops have spent in the episcopate. I show it thus: Guigo, as Colombi will have it, hands down in the words recited above that our Saint came to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, when the latter had not yet completed three years in the episcopate; which the same Colombi must so interpret that by those three years in the episcopate not yet completed are understood the years spent by that holy prelate in episcopal charge at Grenoble, since he had been consecrated bishop at Rome at the beginning of the year 1080, from the same year 1080 already advanced beyond the month of June up to the June of the year 1084, in which, from what is to be said, St. Bruno came to him; but since from the former of these two chronological terms to the latter not merely three but four years, not yet completed, ran out, he must subtract from these the one year which Hugh meanwhile spent as a novice without episcopal charge in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, situated in Auvergne, in order thus to obtain those three years in the episcopate, or, as he expounds, not yet completed in episcopal charge, after which Bruno came to that holy prelate.

[454] aptly Colombi, But although the years which bishops have spent in the episcopate are sometimes wont to be computed not only from the time at which they were either elected or consecrated, but also from that at which, already consecrated, they entered into possession of the bishopric, yet I nowhere find it done so that the years in which bishops, absent from their flock, did not exercise charge of it are subtracted from the years spent in the episcopate in order that an accurate number of these may be had; and since from what has been said this must be done in the interpretation fastened by Colombi on Guigo's words, it indeed does not appear apt. Nor, as far as I think, would Colombi himself have been about to have recourse to it in order to defend the opinion which ties our Saint's retreat into the Chartreuse to the year 1084, if he had had before his eyes all and each of the words in which the time spent by St. Hugh after his episcopal ordination, before he sought the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, is defined by Guigo both in Surius and with us in volume 1 of April, page 40. For that biographer of St. Hugh says there not, Hugh, two, but Hugh, NOT YET two years having been completed after his consecration … was made a monk of the Cluniac Order at La Chaise-Dieu; so that either Colombi omitted the little word not yet by error from the text of Guigo which he transcribes above, or he had before him as a guide a text from which it had been erased by another, and hence it came about that, in order to defend that the Saint withdrew into the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084, he was compelled to interpret wrongly the words of Guigo, which otherwise can be expounded most aptly to Guigo's mind in such a way that Guigo is understood to have written the truth, and the opinion which attaches St. Bruno's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to the year 1084 is not at all harmed, as I shall show when I have met Pagi in the Critica for a little while.

[455] nor by the words which are recited here, This writer, who against Baronius likewise ties Bruno's withdrawal into the desert, or the foundation of the Carthusian Order, to the year 1084, writes thus at the year 1086, number 7: Baronius deferred the foundation of the most holy Order (namely the Carthusian) to this year because Guigo, writer of the Acts of the Life of St. Hugh, with whom he was most closely joined in intimacy, speaks thus: "Hugh, two years having been completed after his consecration, having despised all things, was made a monk of the Cluniac Order at La Chaise-Dieu. There he lived a year as a novice. After this" (that is, after this year of novitiate, and so in the third from his ordination), "Gregory the seventh compelling him, from the monastery which he had entered fervent he returned more fervent… And behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno." Which words Baronius so interprets that Hugh first spent two whole years after his consecration at Rome, where it was done, and the third in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu; then, having returned from La Chaise-Dieu to Grenoble, spent nearly three others in the episcopate before the arrival of Bruno, and in the sixth year from his ordination, namely the current one, made for the Chartreuse with the companions. So indeed at first sight that passage seems to be explained; but the charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse, which Baronius had not seen, is adverse to this interpretation, and demonstrates that it must be so understood that "Bruno after the return from the monastery," that is, immediately or a little after, came to Hugh, who at that time had not yet completed three years in the episcopate. Nor does it matter that Guigo says that Hugh put on the monk's habit "two years having been completed after his consecration." For in the Hypatic Dissertation, as also in this Critica, I have shown here and there by various testimonies that writers by these formulas of speech, "three years having elapsed" or "a three-year period having passed," or similar ones, often understand three years incomplete at both ends, and take a two-year period for a single year, namely if the thing was begun at the end of one and completed at the beginning of the following.

[456] So far Pagi, who, although he has borrowed most of his material here from Colombi, with sufficiently happy success as will become plain to one who compares the words of the one and the other, yet thought he should abstain from naming him. Whether he did this after his custom, by which he is wont to name authors almost only while he refutes them, or because he dissents a little from Colombi as well, I have not ascertained. But however that may be, in truth he does differ somewhat from Colombi. For although he introduces Guigo defining the time at which our Saint came to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and withdrew into the Chartreuse, in precisely the same words as Colombi above, yet, in order to prove that this was done not later than the fourth year from Hugh's episcopal consecration, he does not interpret with Colombi these following words of Guigo, And behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno, of three years not yet spent by Hugh in episcopal charge when St. Bruno came to him; but he thinks that these other words of Guigo, Hugh, two years having been completed after his consecration (namely episcopal, received at Rome in the year 1080), having despised all things, was made a monk of the Cluniac Order at La Chaise-Dieu, can be expounded so as to signify that Hugh, when part of the year 1080, in which he was consecrated bishop, and another part of the following year after that consecration had elapsed, that is, only one year after it, was made a monk in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu. This opinion is settled with him because, as he says, it not rarely happens that writers by a two-year period

completed, or even by two years passed, or similar expressions, signify only a year which has its beginning and end joined with two different years of Christ.

[457] But even if we grant this to Pagi for a while, it cannot have place Pagi interprets. when the authors themselves indicate by their manner of writing whether they take the years and other spaces or intervals of time of which they are discoursing as complete or as incomplete. And this Guigo would have to be thought to do in the text containing these words two years having been completed, if Colombi and Pagi recorded it rightly, and hence not to take the said words for two incomplete years of Christ, or for one entire year which has its beginning and end joined with two different years of Christ. For in that same text, as found in Colombi and Pagi, treating of the three years which St. Hugh spent in the episcopate after his return from the monastery before our Saint came to him, he signifies that they were incomplete by adding the little word not yet: Behold, he says, when three years had NOT YET been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno. For which reason, if in the same text by these words two years having been completed, after which, elapsed from the Roman consecration, he writes that Hugh was made a monk of La Chaise-Dieu, he had wished to signify only incomplete years, or one year, or a space of time a little more, having its beginning and end joined with two different years of Christ, he would likewise undoubtedly have indicated this by adding the little word not yet or a similar one; and since he does not do so in that text as found in Colombi and Pagi, Pagi wrongly interprets the said two years of incomplete years, or of a year which had its beginning and end joined with two different years of Christ, that is, with the year 1080 and the following. But if meanwhile the matter were otherwise, and hence, even admitting as genuine the text of Guigo as it is recorded by Colombi and Pagi, it could be admitted that Hugh sought the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu in the year 1081, that text, even so taken, would agree exactly with the opinion which attaches our Saint's withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to the year of Christ 1084. The matter will become plain from what is now to be said about the genuine text in which Guigo sets forth when St. Bruno came to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble.

[458] the genuine words of Guigo: That text, with us in volume 1 of April, page 40, runs thus: Hugh … not yet two years having been completed after his consecration, having despised all things, was made a monk of the Cluniac Order at La Chaise-Dieu; where … as a novice … he spent a year … After this, Gregory the seventh … compelling him, he returned to the bishopric from the monastery which he had entered fervent more fervent … and behold, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, there comes master Bruno. Since both the two years which St. Hugh spent from the reception of episcopal consecration before he put on the monk's habit in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, and the three years which the same holy prelate, having returned from the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, lived in the episcopate before the arrival of St. Bruno, are taken as incomplete years, that is, the former not as an entire two-year period and the latter not as an entire three-year period, the whole text of Guigo can be reconciled without any trouble with the opinion which ties our Saint's coming to Hugh to the year 1084; nay rather it can even be explained how St. Hugh, after he had returned from the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, spent three years in the episcopate not yet completed, that is, more than two years, before St. Bruno's arrival to him, and this nevertheless happened in the year 1084. To set out the matter in order and lucidly, it must first be considered when St. Hugh was consecrated bishop at Rome. Guigo, with us in volume 1 of April, in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, page 37, number 5, writes thus: Some while of time having thereafter passed, the same legate celebrated a great council at Avignon, a not ignoble city of Provence, in which he accomplished many things worthy of praise for the honour of God and the advantage of the Church.

[459] To this council the canons of Grenoble came, lacking a bishop and seeking a bishop, the council of Avignon, and having learned that the aforesaid young man was present at the assembly, they humbly asked, the council supporting them, of his venerable patron, to whom he was showing the office of a welcome companionship, that he would give him to them as bishop without delay. To which he at once assented with rejoicing, both glad at the honours of his beloved companion and favouring the progress of the Church, for whose sacred offices too he did not doubt that he would be suitable. So he; after some things interposed, also teaching that St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, when the council of Avignon was finished, set out for Rome with Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See, to be consecrated bishop there by the supreme Pontiff. The same is also handed down to memory, in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, by Hugh of Flavigny, writing thus of Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See: He celebrated also a seventh council at Avignon, in which Achard, the invader of Arles, was deposed, and Gibilinus was elected archbishop of Arles… Hugh as bishop of Grenoble … whom after the completion of the council he took with him to Rome, and they were consecrated by the Pope, who had proclaimed a council at Rome. Hugh of Grenoble, therefore, was requested and given as bishop to the church of Grenoble in the council of Avignon, and then, the council being finished, set out for Rome with Hugh, legate of the Apostolic see, to be ordained bishop there by the supreme Pontiff, which was also done.

[460] But at what time was that council celebrated? not in the year 1078, Since the definition of the time, to be traced out here from what has been said, at which Hugh was consecrated bishop at Rome, depends in some way on the time at which that was done, and some fix the celebration of that council to the year 1078, but others, and this more commonly, to the year 1080, it pleases me on this occasion to inquire into it somewhat laboriously, that at length it may be known for certain in what year it happened. And first indeed, that that council was not celebrated in the year 1078 is clear from the Letter written in the year 1079, on the Kalends of March, in which Pope Gregory VII (see Labbe, volume X of the Councils, column 213) admonished the clergy and people of Arles to elect for themselves an archbishop, who was designated in the council of Avignon, into whose epoch we are here inquiring, as is understood from the words of Hugh of Flavigny just recited. As now pertains to the year 1080, to which others tie that council, the author of the Treatise communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place writes thus at number 17 of this lucubration of his, about the said council and Hugh elected bishop of Grenoble in it: The aforesaid council of Avignon and the election of Hugh are thrown back to the year 1080 by Baronius and others; but it is easy to prove that they must be recalled to the preceding one. For our Guigo, whose authority too Baronius used, writes (namely in the Life of St. Hugh of Grenoble) that St. Hugh departed this life on the first of April in the year MCXXXII, in the fourth month of at least the eightieth year of his age, that is, at seventy-nine years and four months.

[461] but in the year, as from the Life of St. Hugh written by Guigo Whence we rightly gather that he was born in the year MLII about November, and hence only in the same month of the year MLXXIX completed the twenty-seventh year of his age; and since he is said by the same author to have been about twenty-seven years old when he was requested as pastor by the clergy of Grenoble in the council of Avignon, it seems necessarily to be concluded from this that that council was assembled in the same year before November; which may also be conjectured from the letter of Gregory VII, given at the Lateran on the fourth of the Kalends of July, in the second Indiction, in which the supreme Pontiff admonishes a certain Boso that, if he trusts that he has any right in the church (namely the one in question), he ought to present himself before the legate, the bishop of Die, in the council which he is about to celebrate shortly. Nor certainly does Gregory speak of the council of Lyons, which he testifies in another letter, to Manasses archbishop of Reims, was to be held only in the month of January of the following year. Moreover, according to the same Guigo, Hugh afterwards set out for Rome with Hugh the legate, to be consecrated by the supreme prelate of the Apostolic See. The same is reported by Hugh of Flavigny, treating of the same legate. "He celebrated," he says, "also a seventh council at Avignon, in which Achard, the invader of Arles, was deposed, and Gibilinus was elected archbishop of Arles… Hugh as bishop of Grenoble … whom after the completion of the council he took with him to Rome, and they were consecrated by the Pope," who had proclaimed a council at Rome in the year MLXXX in Lent, whose first Sunday fell on the Kalends of March; at which council indeed we learn from the Letters of Gregory that Hugh the legate, and consequently our Hugh, were present.

[462] the Life of St. Hugh From these things it is again plain that the election of Hugh to the bishopric, which Baronius does not distinguish from the consecration, as also the celebration of the synod of Avignon, must be referred to the aforesaid year MLXXIX, but the consecration to the following; which also must be absolutely concluded from the words of Guigo, adding that he died "in at least the fifty-second year of his consecration," which, by a just calculation deduced from the year MLXXX, we find had already been completed in the month of March MCXXXII, in which, as we said, he died on the first of April. So he, contending chiefly from the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, committed to writing by Guigo, a contemporary writer and most worthy of credit, both that the council of Avignon was celebrated in the year 1079, and that St. Hugh, who in it was requested by the people of Grenoble and given as bishop, was consecrated at Rome in the year 1080. And indeed that that council was celebrated in the year which he assigns appears undoubted, considering the words of the aforesaid Life of St. Hugh from which he endeavours to give it proved. For, as Guigo says, St. Hugh died in the year … from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and thirty-two, in the fourth month … of at least the eightieth year of his age … on the Kalends of April; which is just as if he said, Hugh died in the year 1132, either when he was already in the eightieth year of his age, or even when he was more than eighty; but if he died more than eighty, it follows that he was born before the year 1052, and hence that the council of Avignon, at which, as Guigo testifies, he was present at about twenty-seven years of age, was celebrated before the year 1079; and since from what has been said this cannot be admitted, he must be said to have died in the fourth month of the eightieth year of his age, and hence the council of Avignon, at which from what has been said he was present at about twenty-seven years of age, to have been celebrated in the year 1079.

[463] But Hugh of Flavigny, likewise a contemporary author, against Hugh of Flavigny seems to be adverse to this calculation, included in the words, just recited, of the author who composed the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place. For this writer of the Chronicle of Verdun, of six different

councils which Hugh of Die, legate of the Apostolic See, had celebrated in the Gauls, subjoins the Avignon one immediately after his review of these, and thus seems to indicate that the Avignon council was later than these six, of which nevertheless one, namely that of Lyons, was not celebrated before the year 1080 according to the common opinion of all the learned, and hence that it too was not celebrated before the same year 1080. So one may argue against the calculation by which the celebration of the council of Avignon is set in the year 1079. But since Hugh of Flavigny (see the writers of the Literary History of France, volume 10, page 79 and following) does not always observe, in reviewing the facts both of the eleventh century, in which he flourished, and of earlier centuries, the order in which each was done, it can be that he did not observe it in reviewing the council of Avignon and the six other councils which preceded the Avignon one either. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the Avignon council is expressly called the seventh by that writer after he has discoursed of the six other councils; for it can be that in so calling it he regarded, not the order in which both this and the six others had been celebrated, but solely the one which he himself keeps in recording them. Moreover Hugh of Flavigny (see again the writers of the Literary History of France, in the volume just cited), even in narrating the things which were done in his own age, sometimes wanders both from true chronology and from historical truth, and Guigo is not detected suffering from this blemish; so that accordingly, even if the council of Avignon, into whose epoch we are here inquiring, were fixed to the year 1080 by Hugh in express words, it would yet rather have to be believed that it was celebrated, not only then, but in the year immediately preceding, that is, in the year 1079, as is drawn out from the chronological characters supplied by Guigo by the anonymous author of the Treatise which the Carthusians of this place communicated to me, in the words recited above.

[464] Nor here should you bring forward with Mabillon, in the Preface to the 6th Benedictine Century, part 2, is shown here, number 86, in favour of Hugh of Flavigny, or rather in favour of the time at which the council of Avignon is gathered by some from this writer to have been celebrated, the letter written by Gregory VII, supreme Pontiff, to the clergy and people of Arles, by which these were admonished to elect an archbishop for themselves, written on the Kalends of March in the year 1079 and inserted by Labbe in volume X of the councils, column 213. For although by this the supreme Pontiff admonishes the clergy and people of Arles to elect an archbishop for themselves, and this Pontifical admonition was obeyed in the council of Avignon, yet it by no means follows from this that that council was not celebrated before the year 1080. For why could it not have been celebrated after the Kalends of March of the same year 1079 in which Gregory wrote the letter just mentioned? Indeed the time elapsed from the Kalends of March of the year 1079 to the beginning of the next following year is not too narrow for it to be believed that this was done then; and Mabillon, in the Annals, book 66, number 34, hints not obscurely that the year 1079 is to be substituted for the year 1080, to which he had first tied that council in the place just cited. Further, in favour of the year 1079, to which the author of the treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place attaches the aforementioned council of Avignon, there also militates in some way the letter which he praises in the words recited above, written by the same supreme Pontiff to a certain Boso on the fourth of the Kalends of July in the year 1079. For in this the Pontiff mentions a council to be celebrated shortly by Hugh of Die, his legate; and he seems to designate the council of Avignon, which accordingly was celebrated in the year 1079 itself, for this reason, that the two councils celebrated next after the Kalends of July of the year 1079 are that of Avignon and that of Lyons, and this last certainly did not take place before the year 1080.

[465] was celebrated in the year 1079. All things being considered, therefore, it does not appear to be doubted that the council of Avignon, in which St. Hugh was requested by the people of Grenoble and given as bishop, was celebrated in the year 1079, and that before its month of November, as the praised author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place also teaches above from Guigo; although meanwhile the epoch which he set for that council is by no means confirmed by the things which he also adds in the same place about the journey of St. Hugh with Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See, undertaken toward Rome after the council of Avignon, and about his episcopal ordination there and his presence in the council celebrated in Lent in the year 1080. For Hugh the legate set out for Rome, to be present at the council to be celebrated there, not in the year 1079 but only in the following. This is clear from the council of Lyons, which he celebrated before he did so, and after which, since he had celebrated it in the year 1080 (see what was said at number 147) after the third day of January, he could have celebrated another at Avignon before he betook himself to Rome. As now pertains to St. Hugh's episcopal ordination and his presence in the council celebrated at Rome: this council, as the praised author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place himself teaches (see number 461), was celebrated in Lent, whose first Sunday fell on the Kalends of March, in the year 1080; so that, this very year 1080 having already begun, Hugh the legate could both celebrate the council at Avignon and, this done, arrive at Rome to take part in the council to be celebrated there in Lent; and hence, although from what has been said the council of Avignon was celebrated in the year 1079, it cannot yet be argued that it was done then from the asserted presence of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble already elected, in the Roman council.

[466] After that, Hugh at Rome, whither however he did not betake himself this year, Nor can it be argued that it was done then from the episcopal ordination which St. Hugh received at Rome from the supreme Pontiff in the year 1080 either. For nothing at all compels us to determine that this took place so early in this year that he could not have been at Rome to receive it unless he had already set out on the journey from Avignon to go thither from the year 1079. And indeed it is undoubted that St. Hugh did not proceed toward Rome before the year 1080, because he gave himself to that journey with Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See, and this man did not undertake it before the year 1080, nay not before its month of February; which I show thus: Gregory VII, supreme Pontiff, admonished Manasses, the simoniac archbishop of Reims, by a letter signed on the third of the nones of January, in the second Indiction, that is, from what was said at number 147, in the year 1080 (see Labbe, volume X of the councils, column 223), to present himself at the council to be celebrated at Lyons by Hugh, legate of the Apostolic See; and it does not appear to be doubted that between the writing of this letter and the celebration of the council of Lyons so much space of time intervened that in it both the said letter could be carried to Manasses and he, having received it, could arrive at Lyons for the council. Now then, since for this a space of not less than four or five weeks seems to have been necessary, it follows that the council of Lyons was not celebrated before February of the year 1080, and hence that both St. Hugh and Hugh the legate, who from what has been said set out for Rome only when the council of Lyons had already been celebrated, did not undertake that journey before the same time.

[467] Since this is so, St. Hugh certainly did not receive episcopal ordination at Rome so early in the year 1080 that he could not have been there then was consecrated by the Pontiff in the year 1080 in the month of March. unless he had already given himself to the journey from Avignon toward that city from the year 1079. And let these things suffice about the time at which the council of Avignon was celebrated, and about the arguments by which it is or is not proved to have been celebrated in the year 1079. But when, after it had been celebrated, was St. Hugh ordained bishop at Rome? Since from what has been said he did not set out for Rome with Hugh the legate until the council of Lyons had already been celebrated, and this likewise from what has been said was not celebrated before February of the year 1080, he most probably did not arrive at Rome before the month of March of the year 1080, and hence was not consecrated bishop there by the supreme Pontiff before this time either. But did this not happen some space of time later still? Since St. Hugh, as Guigo testifies with us in volume 1 of April, page 46, in his Life, number 33, departed to the Lord in the year … from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and thirty-two, … in at least the fifty-second … of his consecration, on the Kalends of April …, and from the first day of the month of March of the year 1080 to the first day of April of the year 1132, on which St. Hugh died, there elapsed fifty-two years together with only some weeks, it appears most probable, not to say undoubted, that he was consecrated bishop by the supreme Pontiff not later than the month of March of the year 1080 either; and hence, since from what has been said he did not receive episcopal consecration at Rome from the Pontiff before the same month of the said year, it follows that this most probably happened in that very year and month.

[468] We now have, therefore, the time also at which St. Hugh was consecrated bishop at Rome. [Hence most exactly to the truth, if only they be expounded as proposed here, even on the opinion,] It is next now that we should also show how, on the opinion which fixes St. Bruno's coming to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and his withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to the year 1084, already advanced, from what is to be said, to June, the words recited from Guigo at number 458 can be understood to be consonant with the truth, the words in which this writer of altogether approved credit defines, or rather indicates, when St. Bruno came to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and sought the desert of the Chartreuse. Since from what has been said St. Hugh was consecrated bishop at Rome in the month of March of the year 1080, what if in the year 1081, already advanced to the month of May or June, he sought the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, as could in fact have happened, put on the monk's habit having despised all things, and, when he had spent about a year there as a novice, that is, nine or ten months (for Guigo does not seem to indicate an entire year here), returned from the said monastery to the bishopric, at the command of the supreme Pontiff, about the month of March in the year 1082? Thus indeed it could have been said by Guigo without any loss of truth that he was made a monk of La Chaise-Dieu when two years had not yet been completed after his consecration, lived a year there as a novice, and finally, when three years had not yet been completed in the episcopate after his return from the monastery, that is, from his return from La Chaise-Dieu, received at Grenoble St. Bruno coming in the year 1084, as everyone, as far as I think, who weighs the matter attentively will easily perceive; and accordingly it is necessary that the matter be conceived, or, if you prefer, admitted, to have been in fact carried out in the manner now assigned, lest otherwise, since it is indeed established from elsewhere that St. Bruno's coming to St. Hugh must be attached to the year 1084, Guigo should be believed to have written things dissonant from the truth.

[469] [which ties the Saint's coming to Hugh to the year 1084, the words of Guigo agree,] But, you will say, in this way Hugh would have put on the monk's habit in the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu only one year and about two months after his consecration, and after his return from it would have spent only two years and about as many months in the episcopate before St. Bruno came to him; and from the recited words of Guigo these words, Two years not yet having been completed, seem to signify some space of time longer than one year and two months, and those, Three years not yet having been completed, longer than two years and as many months. I confess it; the matter indeed, if it be taken in the more obvious sense, stands altogether so; but if it be considered according to the strict signification of the words, I do not see why Guigo could not have wished one year and two months to be designated by two years not yet completed, and two years and about as many months by three years not yet completed. For truly, he who has completed only one year and two months has not yet completed an entire two-year period, and likewise he who has completed only two years and as many months has not yet completed an entire three-year period; nor do I see that he would be deviating from the truth who should designate only one year and two months by the name of a two-year period not yet completed, and likewise only two years and as many months by the appellation of a three-year period not yet completed. However that may be, the aforesaid words of Guigo here in question seem to be taken in the manner now assigned, both lest we should be compelled to say with Colombi, what appears absurd and not sufficiently founded, that the three following words After the return from the monastery have been placed out of their own place, and lest the same Guigo, on whom no suspicion of falsity falls, should have to be asserted to conflict with the opinion which attaches St. Bruno's coming to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and his withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse to the year 1084; which not a few things now to be brought forward persuade to be beyond all doubt most exactly consonant with the truth. I take the beginning from the charter of donation of the Chartreuse.

[470] and so, accordingly, in actual fact too, since the Saint, as is here by various This, which I shall publish entire below from the copy added by Michael Morkens at the end of the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe which he composed on St. Bruno, has thus towards the end: The aforesaid land (namely of the Chartreuse), enclosed by these boundaries (namely those determined above), began to be inhabited and built by master Bruno and by the brothers who were with him in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MLXXXIV, and in the fourth of the episcopate of the lord Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who namely approves and corroborates this gift which the persons written above have made, with the whole assembly of his clerics, and, as far as pertains to himself, concedes altogether whatever seems to be of his right. That the Saint entered the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084, therefore, is had as ascertained from the very charter by which it was founded; and how, as is hinted in it, the fourth year of the episcopate of St. Hugh, who from what has been said was consecrated bishop already from the month of March of the year 1080, could still be in course when our Saint first went to the desert of the Chartreuse and began to inhabit it in the year 1084, already advanced, from what is to be said, to June, I shall explain below when I transcribe that charter entire here, as I have just advised that I would do. That the Saint's coming to Hugh of Grenoble and his withdrawal into the desert of the Chartreuse happened in the year 1084 is now to be further proved here. The Saint, as I shall teach below, was summoned from the Chartreuse to Rome by Urban II, supreme Pontiff, who had formerly been his disciple, and, because on his departure Landuin likewise and the others with whom he had hidden himself in that sacred solitude wished to depart from it, he resigned the desert of the Chartreuse to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, who afterwards restored the same, by means of a public charter, to the same Landuin and the other disciples of the Saint when, at the Saint's persuasion, they returned to the place deserted by them; and this charter is noted as given in the year 1090, so that in this year Landuin and the other disciples of our Saint had already returned to the Chartreuse, which they had deserted when Bruno went away to Rome.

[471] Now then, since in the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, by arguments a monument certainly of the highest antiquity and credit (see what was said of it in §1), our Saint is said to have ruled the Chartreuse for six years before he made for Rome to obey the Pontifical will, and these years, if they are to be held as complete, counted in retrograde order from the year 1090, advanced to June, in which from what is to be said he first hid himself in that desert, or, if they ought to be held as incomplete, such as from what is to be said they truly were, from the same year 1090 not yet advanced to June, or from the year 1089 already advanced beyond June, lead down to the year 1084, it becomes from this alone altogether undoubted that St. Bruno came to St. Hugh and went to the Chartreuse in this year. Moreover, in that same Chronicle, or rather in the eulogy of our Saint which is contained in it, Bruno is handed down to have exchanged this mortal life for the immortal About the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse (see number 7); wherefore, since the Saint, as has already been said, had ruled the Chartreuse for six years before he departed from it on being summoned by the Supreme Pontiff, it follows that the year 1101, in which, as is agreed among all, he closed his last day, was the seventeenth from his entry into it, and hence that he had first entered it in the year 1084. And that this was done then is also concluded from the eulogy of Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, which exists added to the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639 and following, and which seems to have been composed by an author either contemporary or at any rate nearly contemporary with St. Bruno. For in this Guigo is asserted to have died when the fifty-third year from the beginning of the Carthusian desert was running; wherefore, since Guigo, as is agreed among all, closed his last day in the year 1137, and fifty-three years computed in retrograde order from this year lead down to the year 1084, it follows that the desert of the Chartreuse took its beginning in this year, or, what comes to the same, that our Saint then first entered it.

[472] is clearly proved, in the year 1084 Finally, says Mabillon in the Preface to the sixth Benedictine century, part 2, number 86, that this was done then is also proved by the epitaph of St. Bruno, copied from an old codex, in these words:

"In the year one thousand, and four, if you weigh well, And eighty, the Carthusians arose. Here the lofty master Bruno gave them their rise," etc.

Of how great antiquity is the codex from which he drew these little verses Mabillon nowhere declares, nor have I been able to ascertain it elsewhere. There could besides be adduced here in confirmation the testimony of Sigebert of Gembloux, and a charter granted in favour of the Carthusians in the month of July of the year 1084 by Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, as Mabillon records in the place just cited; but since this is not at hand, and the words which the Pistorius edition attributes to Sigebert about St. Bruno are supposititious from what was said at number 298, nor are those which occur in the Miraeus edition expressed in the same type in which those which are certainly Sigebert's are, I did not think it should be done; nor indeed was it at all necessary, since from the other things which I have already brought forward it seems altogether certain and placed beyond all controversy that our Saint came to Hugh of Grenoble and entered the desert of the Chartreuse in the year 1084.

[473] withdrew into the Chartreuse in the month of June, are to be expounded. Since this is so, the words of Guigo, from which Baronius and others thought that this was done in the year 1086, must beyond all doubt be understood in the manner which I set forth above, since moreover the Saint's withdrawal into the Chartreuse happened in the month of June, as I now show. The chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, what credit he deserves I set forth in §1, hands down to memory thus in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639, in the eulogy of John the Tuscan, fourth Prior of the Chartreuse: There are thus gathered from the first year of master Bruno to the last of this man (namely John the Tuscan) twenty-five years, which, before his death, which is on the Nones of October, are completed about the nativity of blessed John the Baptist. For at such a time the aforesaid desert began to be inhabited by master Bruno. The Saint therefore, as is clear from these words, first betook himself into the desert of the Chartreuse about the day sacred to St. John the Baptist. Wherefore, since the feast of the holy Forerunner of the Lord falls every year on the twenty-fourth day of June, and our Saint and his companions, after they had arrived at Grenoble, do not seem to have stayed long with the holy prelate of this city before they went to the Chartreuse, it does not seem to be doubted that in the same month of June, in which the festal day of the Forerunner of the Lord falls, they both came to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and, with him accompanying them and supplying the things necessary for the end which they intended, went to the desert of the Chartreuse and laid in it the foundations of the new Order, which from that place in which it took its beginning is called the Carthusian. And thus, the year, the month and even nearly the very day on which the thing, truly most worthy of record, happened having now been determined, it is next that we should examine what Bruno and his companions afterwards did, having now obtained according to their wish a place most suitable for the eremitical life, and the manner of life which they entered upon there.

* not inhabited

§ XXVII. What the Saint and his companions, having now entered the Chartreuse, first did, and what manner of living they held.

The Saint, as soon as he had entered the Chartreuse, little cells, Of St. Bruno and his six companions, having now entered the Chartreuse with St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, accompanying them, Blomevenna writes thus in the Life of that holy Patriarch of his Order: There (in the desert of the Chartreuse), in the upper part of the mountain, at the place which is now called At blessed Mary of the Cottages, they began to build a church, and also small little cells, near a certain spring, which to this day is called the Spring of St. Bruno, not far distant from it, distinct from one another and somewhat separated, lest one should hinder the solitude of another. In these, dwelling two and two in each cell, after the manner of the ancient monks of Egypt, they devoted themselves to silence, reading, prayer, purity of heart and contemplation, and then also applied themselves to the work of their hands, especially in copying books. So the praised biographer of our Saint, from whom Du Puy, in the Life of St. Bruno composed by him, does not differ much. And indeed that the things which Blomevenna records in these words are most true may be proved by what Guibert of Nogent in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI, Peter the Venerable in book 2 On Miracles, chapter 28, and Guigo, fifth Prior of the Chartreuse, in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, number 12, hand down to memory, either

concerning St. Bruno and his companions already living in the Chartreuse, or concerning the institutes of the Carthusians. It pleases me to transcribe the words of each which can chiefly bear on this. I take the beginning from those which Guigo supplies.

[475] In the place already cited, then, concerning St. Hugh staying in the desert of the Chartreuse with our Saint and his companions, which they then inhabited two and two, he has thus: And although even before (namely when he had not yet gone to the Chartreuse with Bruno) he was all aflame with the fires of divine love, yet he grew fervent in the exercises of heavenly discipline by their (St. Bruno's and his companions') examples and familiarity no otherwise than if one should set many other burning torches around a flaming torch. He was with them not as a lord or a bishop, but as a companion and most humble brother, and most ready, as far as lay in him, for the services of all; so much so that the venerable man William, then Prior of Saint-Laurent, afterwards abbot of Saint-Chaffre, himself also bound not moderately to master Bruno by religious devotion, the cell-mate of blessed Hugh (for then two and two dwelt in each cell), complained not lightly to master Bruno that he snatched from him almost all the offices within the cell pertaining to humility, and that the bishop conducted himself with him not even as a companion but rather as a servant: asserting sadly that he was not permitted to touch anything of the servile works which according to custom they ought to perform by turns, since he snatched them all from him. Thus Guigo; from which it is ascertained, first, that little cells were built by St. Bruno and his companions when they first entered the desert of the Chartreuse; second, that not single monks in single cells, as the things handed down about the institutes of the Carthusians by Guibert and Peter the Venerable, in the places cited above, make manifest was done afterwards, but two and two in one and the same cell, as Blomevenna teaches in the words just recited, then stayed; third, that each two who inhabited the same cell were bound to perform the domestic services by alternate turns. Receive now the words of Guibert bearing on this.

[476] and a church, as There is a church there (in the desert of the Chartreuse), he says in the place cited, not far from the brow of the mountain, having a slope somewhat curved, in which there are thirteen monks; having indeed a cloister fit enough for the cenobitic custom, but not living together in cloister fashion like the rest. For each have their own little cells around the circuit of the cloister, in which they work, sleep and eat. So he; and since he departed from the living about the year 1124, as I taught at number 170, and makes mention of the church built on the brow of the mountain which the desert of the Chartreuse contained in his age, it appears most probable, not to say undoubted, that the church mentioned by Blomevenna, being most probably not different from this one, was built by our Saint and his companions already at the time when they first entered the Chartreuse. And indeed their altogether exceptional love for God does not allow us to doubt that the Saint and his companions did this then, since by it most probably it came about that, having entered the Chartreuse, they held nothing of more account than to build a house or church consecrated solely to His worship, or at least a chapel. Moreover, to come now to the words of Peter the Venerable which bear chiefly on this, he supplies these following things about the Carthusians inhabiting the desert of the Chartreuse in his time, or in the twelfth century, in which, when it had advanced to its twenty-second year, he began to discharge the office of abbot among the Cluniacs, in book 2 On Miracles, chapter 28: After the ancient manner of the monks of Egypt they perpetually inhabited single cells (St. Bruno and his companions, when they first entered the Chartreuse, inhabited them two and two, as has already been said, in each cell, perhaps because these did not equal the number of the monks); where they apply themselves unrestingly to silence, reading and the work of their hands, especially in writing books. In the same cells, admonished by the signal of the church, they pay to God the debt of the regular hours, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Compline. For Vespers and Matins they all assemble in the church.

[477] is variously proved, Since therefore in the age of Peter the Venerable the inhabitants of the Carthusian desert, as is understood from these words of Peter, were accustomed to assemble at fixed times for Matins and Vespers, and these beyond all doubt passed their life according to the rule which St. Bruno and his companions had expressed in their conduct, it is not to be doubted that the Saint and his companions were likewise accustomed to assemble for Matins and Vespers; so that accordingly, in order to have a place in which to do this, they most probably, not to say undoubtedly, caused a church or chapel of at least some sort to be built as soon as they had entered the desert of the Chartreuse, St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, most liberally supplying the costs. Further, Masson, not rarely already praised above, in the Work which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, book 1, chapter 2, number 10, to the question by which he asks himself how… St. Bruno and his companions began to establish a dwelling for themselves in this desert (of the Chartreuse), in that prominent place where the chapel of St. Bruno (see number 447) is now seen, answers with these following words, to confirm that the Saint and his companions, when they first entered the desert of the Chartreuse, set their hand to building a monastery or little cells and a church or chapel: It is established by tradition that he (namely St. Bruno) had a cell there, nay also a neighbouring chapel, in which he celebrated Mass; for the altar of that chapel is believed to have remained unmoved to this day. There too are seen three or four great fragments of rock, once loosened and broken off from the high rocks, somewhat separated from one another, at the feet of which many have suspected that they then built huts; and indeed it is probable that this was done as it were in passing.

[478] But it is to be believed that at once they treated with St. Hugh, caused to be built. and with his help, about building a small monastery there and erecting the regular places. For the vision which the holy prelate had seen in sleep, of Christ building a house for himself in this desert, impelled him to this. Thus Masson, adding besides, to prove that both a church and namely a monastery began at once to be built then by Bruno and his companions, that in the time of Guigo very many buildings had already been built, and that this would not have been the case unless the Saint had caused the work to be set in hand immediately from his entry into the Chartreuse. But since from the time at which the Saint and his companions first hid themselves in the desert of the Chartreuse up to the time at which Guigo received the Chartreuse to govern twenty-six years ran out, as Masson himself confesses in the place cited, I do not see how the buildings which the Chartreuse comprised in Guigo's age could not already have been built by then, even if Bruno and his companions had not begun to build them immediately from their entry into the Chartreuse. However that may be, both what has already been said above and the necessity, by which Bruno and his companions were undoubtedly pressed, of protecting themselves against the injuries of the weather do not allow us to doubt that immediately from their entry into the Chartreuse they built little cells of some sort, which all together bore some appearance of a monastery. Raynaud indeed says in the Stylita mysticus, point 2, number 3, that others assert that they then fixed their seats in the hollows of the rocks and used huts built in hasty work; but this, however it may perhaps have been at the beginning, did not however last long, and that cells and a church were meanwhile built by Bruno and his companions is made credible by the charter of the foundation of the Chartreuse alone, to be recited below, in which among other things these are read: The aforesaid… land (of the Chartreuse), enclosed by these boundaries, began to be inhabited and built by master Bruno and by the brothers who were with him in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MLXXXIV.

[479] Further, that the church and the little cells were then built by St. Bruno and his companions near the spring which is still today called the Spring of St. Bruno, The spring, near which they built, is said to have been called forth by miracle; Blomevenna affirms in the words recited at number 474. And this indeed appears certain; nor is it to be doubted that those buildings, of whatever sort, were built In honour of God and of the blessed ever-Virgin Mary and of blessed John the Baptist, since it is so expressly asserted in the Customs of Guigo, a witness above all exception, chapter 23. But there are those who write that that spring was called forth by miracle; and some indeed, whom Raynaud mentions in the Stylita mysticus, point 2, number 3, attribute this to the merits of St. Bruno, but others, and among these Dorlandus in the Carthusian Chronicle, book 2, chapter 8, to the prayers of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. Zacharias Benedictus, in the metrical Life of our Saint composed by him, sings in this manner that that spring was obtained from God by the prayers both of St. Bruno and of all the others who were with him in the Chartreuse, when, having first entered it, they were building the necessary buildings and were suffering from lack of water:

On the highest level ground both cells and shrines are built, And an altar is dedicated, sacred to the Christ-bearing Mother. That place was deprived of river waters. There were no cisterns there, nor any well there. Rain-water remained in a pit as it were, Dead, and at times it stank with a muddy smell. All in grief were bearing such great inconveniences; But what does sure faith not obtain and merit? That illustrious company gave itself to tears and prayed, And, suppliant, obtained what it asked from the bow; For at once they dug into the hard brow of the rock; And without delay fresh waters flowed continually, And drove ample streams, even like a river. Rejoicing, all shouted aloud and gave praises, And saluted heaven from the bottom of their breasts. That spring still licks the summits with its curving course, And flows around the gardens of the cells with its glassy stream.

[480] this seems far from the truth: Thus far the praised Benedictus, who, although he does not declare that the spring of which he speaks is still today called the spring of St. Bruno, yet undoubtedly celebrates the same spring which the authors praised above affirm is so named up to the present day, since both the spring of which they speak and the spring of which he speaks is reported to have arisen by miracle. But does that spring truly owe its origin to a miracle? That indeed I do not think. For what is asserted by more recent writers to have been done by miracle, as happens here, with absolutely no ancient surety supporting, ought not to be believed to have truly been done by miracle, unless an altogether solid and convincing reason persuades the contrary. But what, I ask, occurs to make us bring ourselves to believe that the spring which still today keeps its name from St. Bruno in the Chartreuse was once called forth by a prodigy? Is it because it is still today called the spring of St. Bruno? But why could it not have contracted this naming, and preserved it up to the present day, because it supplied the Saint and his companions with the water which they needed for their daily uses? Why also could it not have been so called because Bruno had the little cell in which he dwelt built near it? However that may be,

Du Puy indeed, Blomevenna and Surius, although they all make mention of the spring to which St. Bruno's cell was adjoined, are yet deeply silent about the miracle by which it was called forth; and they, and especially Du Puy, since to him the metrical Life of St. Bruno by Zacharias Benedictus, in which this is recorded, was inscribed and dedicated by the author himself in the year 1510, that is, five years before he composed his lucubration on this holy Father of his, had undoubtedly well examined what was said about the prodigious spring; so that accordingly by their silence they seem to indicate that these things were by no means approved by them. But let these things said about the spring called forth by a prodigy when the Saint and his companions had entered the Chartreuse suffice; whoever desires more about it, let him go to Surianus in his Observations on chapter 12 of Surius, number 12, and to Raynaud in the Stylita mysticus, point 2, number 3.

[481] Zacharias Benedictus, in the metrical Life of our Saint which he composed, [yet concerning the dedication of the church, which is here by the metrical biographer,] subjoins to the prodigy of the spring divinely called forth the consecration, performed by Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, with the greatest pomp, of the new church which, together with other buildings of whatever sort in the Chartreuse, had from what has been said begun to be built as soon as the Saint and his companions had entered this desert, and had now been brought to completion with them. That I may perform here too what I hope will not be unwelcome to the curious reader, I transcribe here the principal verses in which that metrical biographer describes and celebrates this matter. They run thus:

And now it was the solemn day on which the rising structure Could keep the monks in fitting lodging. Hugh summons the clergy and invites the citizens from the city To the highest approaches and the uncultivated thresholds of the mountain, To see the dedication of the festal temple performed. The lofty bronze sounds, and calls the throngs to the feast. Then they prepare the shrines, and adorn them with green leaves. The wall is fitted with ivies, the clusters hanging; And these bind box, and the boughs which Tritonia Keeps; from the lofty beams the Peneian laurel Puts forth leaves, and the shaggy tamarisks come together into garlands, Flowers are scattered, and violets, over the steep roofs. Lilies are not lacking, narcissus, acanthus and ajax, And purple roses, which the servants gathered Through the neighbouring towns; there is crocus and fragrant myrtle. You would think here were the gardens and fields of Paestum. Here hangings lie open; here painted tapestries shine. The prelate sent various ephemerides and gifts To the new shrines, with which the walls and altars might be covered. The altars all around are starred with purple and lights.

[482] To these verses Benedictus immediately subjoins some others, in which he records that the dwellers of heaven themselves also came together to the solemnity, performed by Bishop Hugh, is celebrated, something altogether different, or rather feigns it after the Poetic manner, and indeed somewhat more licentiously than is fitting, and then proceeds thus:

The prelate is present, takes the sacred vestments in the accustomed order, And places the ornament on his head, and the two-horned tiara. Fragrant smoke coming from Sabaean frankincense Ascends on high, and fills the volumes of the shrine. One prepares the chair for the Pontiff, another spreads the coverings, And now the priests, with even distinction of voices, Begin the chants; the Shepherd rises to the ruddy altars, And with palms raised to the heights of heaven Offers holy mysteries to those above and pours out gifts. All is filled with the blare of the trumpet; the hollow pipe of ivory Was blowing to sweet measures; the organs give applause. The clarions alternate verses in divided song; Plectra and lyres were present, and all the furniture of Phoebus. Meanwhile the priest dedicates the temple and the cloister, And commands that the name of the new house be Chartreuse, And that the houses to be founded shall have their name from it. He gave estates, he gave rich acres of a farm, That the monks might be able to live without gain.

So the praised metrical biographer of our Saint. And indeed that the church of the Chartreuse, when it had been brought to completion, was consecrated by St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, everyone, as far as I think, will easily believe even without an ancient surety, although meanwhile this writer is not of a nature to persuade that it was carried out with so great pomp as is hinted here, since, besides having lived more than four centuries removed from the event, he speaks after the manner of the poets, who mostly amplify the things they treat with various fictions holding in a manner the place of ornaments.

[483] [but not likewise concerning the monastic habit which the Saint and his companions then] But I am far from so readily believing what the same Benedictus then hands down, likewise without any ancient surety, about the monastic habit which St. Bruno and his companions received from St. Hugh on the very day on which the aforementioned dedication of the Carthusian church was made. Hear how he sets forth that matter in verse immediately after he has related the solemn dedication of the Carthusian church. His discourse is expressed in these verses:

Then Bruno enters the inner shrine, and his six companions; Each one is stripped of his precious and soft Cloaks, and all at once draw the shoes from their legs, They shear the hair from the noble crown. The noble and milk-white limbs of the young men appear, And they remain stripped, bent at the knees and in body. The panting breast sent forth sweet sighs; Nor could the pious breasts hold back their pious laments. O fervour of the young men, and affection of divine love! The white and most tender backs of the Doctor and the brothers The shepherd, weeping, soon covers with a covering of haircloth, And with a rough sackcloth, and places on them a snowy amice Of virgin wool, then girds them with snowy hemp, And covers their shoulders with a white and closed cowl, A token of eternal enclosure and of cleanness. Innumerable throngs stood by, and all were groaning, Moved by this so great example and so great sweetness.

[484] The praised metrical biographer of our Saint adds besides that the voices of angels were heard received from Bishop Hugh, the habit, it must be determined. applauding the things done that day in the Chartreuse. But what is to be thought of this matter each will easily understand from what has already been said; and as pertains to the monastic habit which Bruno and his companions then received from Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, although it indeed appears that it must be gathered from Peter the Venerable, book 2 On Miracles, chapter 28, that they used in the Chartreuse meaner and rougher garments than before, yet I do not believe that the Saint was first clothed in the monastic habit by Hugh. For besides that this is found handed down to memory by absolutely no ancient writer, the things already brought forward in § XXIV persuade that Bruno was clothed in the monastic habit already from the time when he was still living in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, and hence had not yet gone to the Chartreuse, and was in actual fact a monk. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the Saint is honoured by Guigo with the title of Master in the Life of St. Hugh of Grenoble, at the place where he is narrated to have come to him, and hence that he was not yet clothed in the monastic habit when he came to St. Hugh, much less was a monk; for besides that the Saint, because he was then honoured with the title of Master by Landuin and the others who had come with him to Grenoble and had given themselves over to his discipline, could have been called master by Guigo, he could also, however much he had already renounced the mastership or presidency of the schools of Reims, still be so called on account of that office formerly held. And in this latter sense indeed I think the Saint is called Master by Guigo for this reason, that in the same place Landuin too is called Master by him, and for no other cause than that he had formerly held the mastership of schools somewhere, or had taught the sciences of a higher order, does it seem that such a naming could have been attributed to him. However that may be, it cannot indeed be argued that the Saint was not yet then clothed in the monastic habit from the fact that he is named Master by Guigo at the place where he is narrated to have come with six companions to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, since in the charter of donation of the Chartreuse too, to be transcribed here below, and given in the year 1086, when he had already been acting as a Carthusian for two years, he is called Master, and he was honoured with the same title too, when afterwards he was already living in the Calabrian desert, up to his death.

[485] Let us now turn our discourse to the manner of living which the Saint and his companions held in the Chartreuse. Of the rule to which the Saint and his companions their life It does not appear to be doubted that the religious inhabitants of the Carthusian desert who flourished when forty years had not yet elapsed after the Saint's death, or in the age of Peter the Venerable, kept the same manner of living which St. Bruno and his companions held in the Chartreuse, or at any rate one not much unlike it. That I may therefore inform the reader in some way what manner of life those men followed, I exhibit to him from Peter the Venerable the principal heads of the life led by these. This writer, then, by far the most worthy of credit in this matter, records thus of the Carthusians of his time, in book 2 On Miracles, chapter 28: To tame the beast of burden of their body, and to subdue, according to the Apostle, the law of their members warring against the law of their mind, they always chafe their flesh with hard haircloths, they afflict, attenuate and dry up their bodies with sharp fasts almost continuous. Hence it is that they always use bran bread, and wine so watered that it may deservedly be called rather vinelet than wine. From all eating of flesh, both healthy and sick, they abstain perpetually. They never buy fish, but accept it when perchance given out of charity. On the Lord's Day and on the fifth Feria only do they admit cheese or eggs for eating. On the third feria and on Saturday they use either pulse or cooked vegetables. On every second, fourth and sixth feria they are content with bread alone and water. They always eat once a day, except for the eight days of the Lord's Nativity, the eight days of Easter, the eight days of Pentecost, the Epiphany of the Lord, His Presentation, that is, the Purification of holy Mary, the Annunciation of the Lord, when it comes in Paschal time; the Ascension of the Lord, the Assumption and Nativity of the aforesaid sacred Virgin, His Mother; and except the feasts of the twelve Apostles, of St. John the Baptist, of St. Michael, of St. Martin, and that feast of All Saints which is celebrated on the Kalends of November.

[486] some heads of what they passed Over and above all these things, after the ancient manner of the monks of Egypt, they perpetually inhabit single cells (in the time of St. Bruno, from what was said at number 475, two stayed in each cell), where they apply themselves unrestingly to silence, reading, prayer and the work of their hands, especially in writing books. In the same cells, admonished by the signal of the church, they pay to God the debt of the regular Hours, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Compline. For Vespers and Matins they all assemble in the church, and there, not perfunctorily, as some do, but most intently, with eyes cast down to the ground and hearts fixed on heaven, they pay prayers to God, thanksgivings to God, and show that their whole man, both inner and outer, disregarding all other things, is intent, nay fixed, by habit, voice, countenance, on things exceeding the visible. From this custom they except those festal days which are written above, on which they eat twice, and on which, after the manner of monks living not in cells but together, they not only sing all the Regular Hours in the church, but also eat in common in the refectory both after Sext and after Vespers, no one in health excepted. On which days only, in emulation of the ancient hermits,

lest they be hindered by other sacred works, though inferior in dignity, they offer to almighty God for their own salvation and that of the world the saving Sacrifice which, by a name drawn from long-old usage, because it is sent to God, is called the Mass. On these sacred days, which by singular privilege are called Dominical from the Lord or from His Resurrection, and on the oft-mentioned solemnities of Himself or of His Saints, they celebrate Masses. On the days on which they are permitted to use pulse, they themselves prepare it, received by measure, and cook it for themselves.

[487] Peter the Venerable teaches in the words here recited. This, however, they do at the times when the eremitical institution prescribes that they eat not in common in the refectory but alone in their cells. At no time do they take wine before the meal or after. But if anyone has then suffered thirst, he is permitted to use water, not wine. Nearly the same things, or at any rate things not much unlike, as were observed by the Carthusians flourishing in his age, are reviewed by Guibert of Nogent, very often praised above, who departed from the living in the year 1124, in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI; to whom accordingly I refer the curious reader, content to have brought forward the words of Peter the Venerable bearing on this, who is certainly of greater credit and authority than Guibert in this matter. I cannot, however, but transcribe here the words in which this writer praises the zeal of the Carthusians in copying books, undoubtedly transmitted to them by their parent St. Bruno. Although, he says in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI, they abase themselves in every kind of poverty, they nevertheless heap up a very rich library. For the less they abound in the plenty of this material bread, the more laboriously do they sweat for that food which does not perish but endures for ever. He then confirms this by the example of the count of Nevers, who, when he had learned that the silver gifts which he had sent to the Carthusians had been refused, sent them the hides of oxen and a great deal of parchment, which he knew to be almost inevitably necessary to them (namely for writing and sewing books). Further, why they put the greatest diligence and labour into copying books Guigo teaches us, writing thus in the Customs, chapter 28: Books … as the everlasting food of our souls, we wish to be guarded most carefully and made most zealously; that, since we cannot with the mouth, we may preach the word of God with our hands. For as many books as we write, so many heralds of the truth we seem to make for ourselves. It may be added that they also did this partly both to provide for their own poverty (for they were truly poor, and called themselves either the Poor or the Poor of Christ, as may be seen in Du Cange at the word Pauper), and lest they should seem altogether useless to the Church, and malevolent men should hence seize a handle for calumniating their institute.

§ XXVIII. Whether the Saint wrote a new Rule, and whether he bound himself and his disciples to observe any of those written before, and namely the Benedictine.

The Saint a new Rule for his disciples That the life which the Saint and his disciples led in the Chartreuse was very austere is sufficiently shown by the heads alone of the rule to which they passed it, set forth from Peter the Venerable in the preceding §; but it may now be asked here, first, whether St. Bruno enjoined these and other things on his disciples to be observed, prescribed by some Rule; and then whether he bound them, together with himself, to any of those written before, and namely the Rule of St. Benedict. Innocent le Masson, in the Work which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, book 1, chapter 3, number 3, writes thus: We believe that no rule of living was written by St. Bruno: but the teachings and examples of that holy Man were to them as it were a living Rule, which they had learned to fulfil and themselves also to transfer to their successors by examples. Yet we do not doubt that it is the very same as that which the Reverend Father Guigo afterwards committed to writing; and we believe that nothing is found in his Customs which he did not learn as it were from the mouth of St. Bruno through the disciples who had seen and heard him. For St. Bruno had died scarcely five or six years before, when our Guigo came to the Order. In those Customs written by the Reverend Father Guigo, therefore, it must be firmly believed that the mind, teachings and manner of directing of St. Bruno are depicted and contained, as if they had been written by his own hand. Which everyone will the more easily be persuaded of, the more certain it ought to be that blessed Landuin, whom St. Bruno had set over his companions returning to the desert of the Chartreuse, took a very long road in order to go to the founder of the Carthusian Institute himself, then living in the desert of Calabria, to treat with him about the Carthusian observances and to hear from his mouth what and in what way was to be observed by his followers in the Carthusian conversation and manner of living. The first Constitutions of the Carthusians, therefore, were not unlike the law of grace; for they were written rather on the fleshly tables of the heart, not in the letter but in the spirit, than in manuscript codices.

[489] did not write. Arguments by which, that the Saint himself and his own So Masson, teaching that no Rule was written by St. Bruno; in which matter indeed I cannot but assent to him, since I have found it handed down to memory by no writer hitherto, whether more recent or more ancient, that this was done by the Saint. But did he likewise bind himself and his own to none of the Rules written before, and namely not to the Benedictine? Mabillon, in the Preface to the second part of the sixth Benedictine Century, number 87, writes thus: Now the place requires that we treat of the first Rule of the Carthusians, which St. Bruno prescribed to them before the first Statutes of that Order were reduced to writing by Guigo. And that this was the Rule of St. Benedict is established by many arguments. First, Guigo himself published his Statutes according to the mind of this Rule, as the inscription of the same Statutes in the codex of Portes teaches, in which they are found under this title: "Statutes of Guigo, Prior of the Chartreuse, and of other Fathers, according to the Rule of St. Benedict." Whence Guigo himself in his Preface says that he had deferred writing these statutes "because we believed that nearly all the things which here," he says, "we have been accustomed to do religiously, were contained either in the Epistles of blessed Jerome, or in the Rule of blessed Benedict, or in the other authentic writings." Certainly in chapter XXIII he proposes no other formula of profession than the Benedictine. Then Eugene III, in the privilege granted to the Chartreuse of Mont-Dieu, decreed "that the monastic Order according to the Rule of blessed Benedict, and also the rule and Institutions of the Carthusian brothers, be inviolably preserved there for perpetual times." Moreover Paschal II grants to Lanvinus, Prior of Squillace after St. Bruno, that in a certain church of the desert's jurisdiction, which was situated near Squillace, he may establish a monastery, "that the brothers who are not able to bear the austerity of the desert may there serve almighty God according to the Rule of blessed Benedict: which dwelling indeed," he says, "we command to be governed and ordered through a provost and a dean; yet so that the provost of the desert be always preferred and held as greater, and so that the same monastery be subject to the ordering of the desert; likewise that the provost and dean of the same place be subject to the master of the desert. Given at the Lateran on the sixth of the Kalends of February."

[490] Mabillon contends bound to the Benedictine Rule. From which it is understood that there were there two kinds of Carthusians, anchorites and cenobites, as among the Camaldolese; and that the Prior of the desert presided over both according to the Rule of St. Benedict, who instituted both in his Rule. And this diploma is understood of the monastery of Mentaurum, which was three miles distant from Squillace, as we shall relate more at length in our Annals, where we shall relate the constitutions of both, namely of the anchorites and of the cenobites of Squillace. Finally, the Carthusians before the canonization of St. Bruno used to call St. Benedict their Father in their confession, and they retain even now the arrangement of the divine Office from the Rule of St. Benedict, whose feast they have always observed with a solemn rite after their custom. Thus far Mabillon, contending that St. Bruno, who from what has been said did not found a new Rule, yet prescribed a particular Rule to his own, or bound himself and his disciples to one certain particular Rule, and that this was the Rule of St. Benedict. But do the arguments which he brings forward plainly prove the matter? That indeed I do not think; nay rather from those which Guigo supplies in the Preface placed before the Customs or statutes of the Chartreuse written by him, and which Mabillon praises in his own favour, in the following words, From which business (namely of writing the Customs of the Chartreuse) we long held back for reasonable causes, as we think, namely because we believed that nearly all the things which here (namely in the Chartreuse) we have been accustomed to do religiously were contained either in the Epistles of blessed Jerome, or in the Rule of blessed Benedict, or in the other authentic writings, the consequence rather seems to be that St. Bruno bound himself and his own to absolutely no particular Rule.

[491] Hear how Masson, in the Work which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, he draws from the words of Guigo, harms him himself, comments on those words. Hence (namely from the recited words of Guigo), he says, is plain the liberty with which St. Bruno and his successors wished to choose and compose for themselves a purpose and manner of living as the spirit and prudence should suggest, and not to bind themselves to those Rules or specific constitutions which had long since been founded in the various monastic Orders, whether in the East or in the West. St. Bruno chose for himself nothing for his manner of living which was not praised in the writings of Saints Jerome, Benedict and others, but he did not therefore devote himself to their Rules, although from them, like a spiritual bee, he gathered whence he might compose his own honey and wax. It cannot therefore be made a reproach to the professors of his Institute that they do not follow these or those institutes and practices of the saints, whether of Antony or of Climacus or of Benedict or of Bernard or of the ancient Eastern Fathers, because they are not of their purpose, nor did they choose them to be observed by themselves. Indeed, since Guigo teaches in the recited words that what had been accustomed to be done religiously in the Chartreuse up to the time at which he wrote was contained not in the Rule of St. Benedict alone, but either in the Epistles of St. Jerome, or in the Rule of St. Benedict, or finally in other writings, he certainly indicates sufficiently that the Carthusians were then not bound to observe the one Rule of St. Benedict, but followed those best institutes of living which, whether in St. Jerome or Benedict, or in any other holy Fathers whatever, they judged more suitable to the kind of life which they had embraced; so that the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, deservedly contends that St. Bruno and his disciples never bound themselves to any determined one of the monastic Rules, but took at will, both from the writings and from the examples of the ancients, what seemed accommodated to the perfection of the eremitical life.

[462] But, says Mabillon in the words just recited, the statutes founded by Guigo, in the codex of Portes

bear this title: nor the things which, either from the title of the codex of Portes, Statutes of Guigo, Prior of the Chartreuse, and of other Fathers, according to the Rule of St. Benedict. This is the first argument which this writer adduces for his opinion. But let Guigo's Statutes bear this title in that codex, as he says; yet it does not follow from this, as he will have it, that Guigo drew them up according to the mind of the Benedictine Rule. For since that title, as appears, does not have Guigo himself as its author, it may be that it was written on the aforesaid codex by someone who had less ascertained on what principle Guigo had founded his statutes. However that may be, that Guigo did not draw up or found his Statutes according to the mind of the Benedictine Rule alone, he himself indicates not obscurely in the Preface which he prefixed to them. For he says that he is committing to writing not new precepts or statutes but Customs, that is, the things which were then accustomed to be done in the Chartreuse; wherefore, since these, as he himself indicates in the words transcribed here above, are contained not in the Rule of St. Benedict alone but either in this or in the Epistles of Jerome or in other authentic writings, it follows that Guigo did not draw up his Statutes according to the Rule of St. Benedict alone, and hence that St. Bruno and his disciples did not bind themselves and their followers to observe this alone. Nor does the privilege granted by Eugene III to the Chartreuse of Mont-Dieu, which Mabillon also praises, prove that the Saint and his disciples bound themselves to the one Rule of St. Benedict.

[493] or from the privilege of Eugene III, or from the arrangement of the Divine For by this the Pontiff decreed that the monastic Order be inviolably kept there not only according to the Rule of blessed Benedict, but also according to the rule and institutions of the Carthusian brothers; so that accordingly, by force of that Pontifical Privilege, in the monastery of Mont-Dieu not the one, nay not even the whole, Rule of St. Benedict was to be observed, but only those parts of it which agreed with the particular institutions of the Carthusians; and from the fact that some institutes of the Benedictine Rule were adopted and observed by St. Bruno and his disciples or their followers, it does not follow that St. Bruno and his disciples wished to bind themselves to observe that one and whole Rule. Hence Mabillon could accomplish nothing for his opinion, even if we granted him for a while what he adduces besides as an argument, that the Carthusians still today retain the arrangement of the Divine Office from the Rule of St. Benedict. But not even this seems exactly consonant with the truth. For Masson, in the Work which he entitled the Annals of the Carthusian Order, comments thus on these words of the Statutes of Guigo, In which (namely the divine Office) they are found in much agreement with the other monks, especially in the Regular Psalmody: He does not say "In the whole," because in truth in composing the Carthusian divine Office the monastic rite was indeed adopted in the twelve psalms, three Canticles and XII Lessons and other similar things, but not a few things were also added to it from the rites both of the church of Lyons and of that of Grenoble, in whose diocese the Chartreuse is situated, as can be proved from the ancient Missals of the church of Grenoble and the manner of celebrating Mass then used there, which are reproduced almost to a nicety in ours; and likewise from the old Antiphonaries and prayers, which it is established were taken over for our use from the church of Lyons.

[494] which is in use among the Carthusians, of the Office, The anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book, not yet published, of the Annals of his Order, in a fuller copy of this Work of his, which is not in my hands, and which belongs to the Chartreuse of Val-Dieu, also supplies at page 56 some things bearing on this. The words in which he does so the Parisian Carthusian still praised above, who, as he himself informed me, has it at hand, and who wishes his name by all means to be passed over in silence, in his very great kindness deigned to copy out and communicate to me. They are these: Our men have venerated from the very cradle of the Order St. Benedict, the restorer of the cenobitic life in the Western parts, always celebrating his feast as solemn beyond others, as may be seen from the Customs of Guigo. And not undeservedly, since from his Rule they drew certain things suited to the cenobitic life, especially those which concern the Divine Office. Whence Robert of Mont, treating of the origin of the Carthusians in the Treatise on abbots and abbeys, says: "And they discharge the institutes of the night and day Office according to the Rule of St. Benedict." And our Guigo in the Prologue of his Customs says "that in the Divine Office they are found in much agreement with the other monks, especially in the Regular Psalmody." Yet we do not observe the rites of St. Benedict so strictly that we do not differ from them in certain things, especially concerning the ceremonies both of the Mass and of the divine Office, concerning the Lessons of Matins, the prayers of the Hours, the Chants, the Hymns, and other things of this kind, which Cardinal Bona partly reviews. So he, at the same time also suggesting why the Carthusians always held the feast of St. Benedict as solemn, namely because they had inscribed in the Statutes or Customs of their Order, not indeed the whole and sole Rule of this holy father of monks, but at least some heads from it. And hence also it may have come about that the Carthusians before the canonization of St. Bruno called St. Benedict their Father in their confession; so that accordingly from this too Mabillon by no means proves that the Rule of St. Benedict was prescribed by St. Bruno to the first Carthusians.

[495] Nor further does he prove it by two other arguments still to be discussed here, [or finally deduces from the formula of profession or from the privilege of Paschal III, prove the matter,] of which one is drawn from the privilege granted by Paschal II to Lanvinus, Prior of Squillace after St. Bruno, the other from the formula of profession used among the Carthusians. For who would think it deservedly to be concluded, from the fact that this is the same as that of the Benedictines, that the Rule which is theirs is likewise the Carthusians'? The formula of profession is nearly the same as to substance in most, not to say all, religious Orders, and yet not for that reason is the Rule of all these likewise the same as to substance. Nor does it matter that the formula of profession both of the Carthusians and of the Benedictines is expressed in precisely the same words. For just as from the fact that some statutes of the Benedictine Rule have been brought word for word into the Rule of the Carthusians it does not follow, according to what has been said, that St. Bruno prescribed this whole and alone to the first Carthusians to be observed, so neither, as will be evident to one who considers it, can this be a consequence from the fact that the Carthusians took for their own use the formula of profession in the same words in which it is expressed among the Benedictines. As now pertains to the Privilege granted by Paschal II to Lanvinus, in it the matter concerns solely the particular monastery of Mentaurum, erected by Lanvinus with the Pontiff's indulgence three miles from Squillace, in which those who were not suited to the eremitical life held a manner of living different from the manner of living of the rest of the Carthusians; wherefore, even if we granted for a while that the sole and entire Rule of St. Benedict was expressly prescribed to the new inhabitants of that monastery, it would not yet be a consequence from this that this was likewise prescribed by St. Bruno to the first Carthusians. And thus it is sufficiently clear from all that has already been said that it is in absolutely no way given proved, from the arguments by which Mabillon contends that the Carthusians were bound by St. Bruno to the Benedictine Rule, that this is so.

[496] and to the anonymous Carthusian, asserting that a special kind of life And indeed, to state my opinion now openly on this matter, that our Saint bound neither himself nor his own to observe the sole and whole Rule of St. Benedict is plain if only from this, that whatever he imposed on himself and his own to be observed, and in fact observed, Guigo expressed in writing nearly all of it in the Customs, and it is far from being the case that these comprise the sole and whole Benedictine Rule. Mabillon at length saw this, as far as I think, and hence, turning somewhat from his former opinion, wrote in the Benedictine Annals, book 66, number 65, that Bruno proposed to himself and his own to follow the Rule of St. Benedict only in so far as the institute of anchorites allowed. But not even this, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said and is further to be said, do the arguments adduced above from that writer prove, whom nevertheless Martène here follows in the Preface to volume VI of the Ancient Writers, number 32. But on the contrary, the anonymous Carthusian, author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, deservedly contends that St. Bruno and his followers took up a certain special kind of life, or bound themselves to a certain special Rule, which was different both from the Benedictine and from any others founded before; writing thus in this lucubration of his, as the Parisian Carthusian, praised again at number 494, also taught me, in the place there cited: Haeften … in the first book of the Monastic Disquisitions, tractate nine on the Rules written in the twelfth century, disquisition four, distinguishes our Statutes, which he confesses may truly be called a Rule, from the Rule of St. Benedict. And in tractate two of the second book, disquisition five, he speaks of the Carthusians as different from the Benedictine Order: "To omit those," he says, "who serve God under the Rule of St. Benedict (who are to be reckoned rather various Congregations of one Order than distinct Orders), the Carthusian Order has borrowed very many things from St. Benedict, etc." By which words he openly hints that the Carthusians, although they have borrowed very many things from St. Benedict, do not however serve God under his Rule. And in truth, in tractate six of the same book, disquisition four, reviewing the Orders professing the Benedictine Rule, he makes no mention of the Carthusians.

[497] St. Bruno and his companions followed, asserting, St. Antoninus judged the same two hundred years ago, writing thus (namely in part 2 of the history, title 15, chapter 14): "After Benedict all the monks of the West serve under the Rule of blessed Benedict and have him as father, except the Carthusians, who have their own special Constitutions." And in truth, since Guigo, our first lawgiver, says in the place cited "that in the Epistles of blessed Jerome or in the Rule of blessed Benedict or in the other authentic writings nearly all the things which we have been accustomed to do religiously in the Chartreuse are contained," by these words he hints openly enough that the Carthusians prescribed for themselves some special rule of living, different from the other Rules. For which reason Francis du Puy, explaining that statute of our Raynald by which it is forbidden that those professed in the Order of the Cistercians and the like, passing over to us, may have any obedience, declares that by that word The like are understood all monks who serve under the Rule of St. Benedict. Who would not see that our Du Puy tacitly distinguishes the Carthusians from the other monks of St. Benedict, as subject to another Rule? Our Boso, writing against those who say that the Carthusian Order has no Rule, acknowledges indeed that our Statutes, out of the diverse writings of the holy

Fathers, were composed: "for it is plain," he says, "in the same Statutes, that the things which are written there are either from the Rule of blessed Benedict, or from the Epistles of blessed Jerome, or from the Conferences of the Fathers or from the Lives of the Fathers, or also from the books of Cassian and of other holy doctors of the Church." Then he reviews many Rules, and subjoins: "But the Carthusian Order could assume none of these aforesaid, because all the aforesaid Rules are or were instituted for the common and cenobitic life; for the eremitical life, indeed, there is found a praiseworthy and devout Rule, published and arranged by Peter Damian in a most eloquent style; but the Carthusians could not, and would not, assume that either, because the life of the Carthusians, as has been shown above, although it is to be judged eremitical in its greater and worthier part, is yet composed of the solitary and the common.

[498] And therefore it was altogether necessary, since there was previously no such Religious way of life, it is concluded that one must assent. that they should make a special Rule for themselves. Because according to the Rules spoken of above, of blessed Augustine, Benedict and the others written above, monks or canons must dwell together, eat together, sleep together, and so of each thing, as the cenobitic and common life requires. The Carthusians, therefore, who for the greater part lead the anchoretic life, and frequently eat alone and sleep alone, as has been shown above, could not take any Rule from the aforesaid. But they published for themselves a new, holy and reasonable one, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which, by the working of the same Spirit, the holy Roman Church, from certain knowledge, has most perfectly confirmed, as we shall prove elsewhere." From these and the other things which we have said above it is plain that the Carthusians took up a certain special kind of monastic life, and hence constitute an Order in the Church of God different from the other Orders. Thus far the praised anonymous Carthusian, contending, from the reasons both which he reviews from Boso in the latter's very words and which he draws from elsewhere, that the Carthusians, and hence St. Bruno, who had taught them it by his example and manner of living, determined to keep for themselves a Rule different from all the preceding Rules. And indeed, since, as Boso says, the Carthusians' manner of life is partly eremitical, partly cenobitic, and none of the Rules written before the age of St. Bruno was accommodated to this kind of life, our Saint and his first disciples indeed needed to prescribe for themselves and their followers another which should enjoy this prerogative, or to fashion it for these by their example; and hence, as the anonymous author of the Carthusian Annals contends in the recited words, they are to be thought to have done this in actual fact; and since this besides appears sufficiently manifest from the other things said above as well, I put an end to the discussion of this matter.

§ XXIX. Whether Pope Victor III approved the Carthusian Order, and how the Saint had Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, reverent toward him, and obtained that the desert of the Chartreuse be given to him.

From the vision which he believed divinely shown to Pope Victor III, Zacharias Benedictus, in the metrical Life of our Saint which he composed, gave credence to Geoffrey, Prior of Vigeois, who, as I taught above, relates that the vision in which Pope Victor III saw the Lord building a dwelling for himself in the desert of the Chartreuse was divinely shown to him; and hence, having reckoned that that vision was undoubtedly shown by God, who does nothing in vain, to Victor, not indeed while still a monk, as Geoffrey says, but when already Pope, in order that from it he might understand that the foundation of the Chartreuse made by the Saint was the work of God, and so be moved to confirm it by Apostolic authority, he brought himself to believe that the foundation of the Chartreuse was in fact confirmed by him, as the following verses, in which he sings this matter, make credible:

Gregory the Seventh, sitting in the Latin see with lofty titles, Was holding the reins of the world; On whose death Victor had the governance of Peter, And he by chance then looked up to the Olympian poles, And saw the happy choirs, with flashing splendour, Joyfully accompanying the Thunderer from the holy seats; Who, going to visit the Carthusian hills, Where these were founding for themselves worthy dwellings on the crags. He was astounded, and noted those mountains and the region, And sent a swift courier thither, and swift letters, And wrote to Hugh these miracles seen. Hugh, amazed, wrote back whatever had happened at that Time, and what the Almighty had done in those borders He gives in notes with flying pen: The Doctor and six companions converted from the whirlwind Of the world, the lights of the seven stars, and also The course of the Order begun, and its strict rigour.

[500] The messenger departed, and returned to the Latin city. that the foundation of the Chartreuse was confirmed by him, As the greatest Pastor received the new tidings, rejoicing He at once calls together the fathers and the holy senate, Whom the Roman purple makes exalted; he lays open All the deed that had happened, and the work divinely increased He confirmed with the concordant votes of the court, And, a writing having been drawn up, fortified it With divine gifts, and made it fostering with various endowments, And the bronzes are kept, sealed with two-faced marks. He was, before the step of the supreme summit, abbot Of the Olive-bearing Mount, which has its name from the city Casinas, Which was once a celebrated colony of the sons of Aeneas. This same many supreme fathers also did, Who gird their lofty head with the triple diadem.

So he, handing down to memory both that the vision which he here sings was shown to Pope Victor, not while still, as I have already said, a monk of Cassino, or, if you prefer, abbot, but when already created supreme Pontiff, contrary to what Geoffrey writes; and that the foundation of the Chartreuse, when he had understood from Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, that it had been made by St. Bruno, was confirmed by him with Apostolic letters given. But of this confirmation neither Geoffrey himself, who writes of the vision shown to Pope Victor, nor any other writers older than Zacharias Benedictus, at least whom I have hitherto seen, have made mention. Hence it comes about that I most vehemently suspect, not to say hold as undoubted, that that metrical biographer of our Saint established it only from the conjecture which he formed from the vision which he believed to have been shown to Victor. But since, from what has been said above, Geoffrey wandered from the truth when he committed to writing the vision in which Pope Victor III saw God building a dwelling for himself in the solitude of the Chartreuse, it is not to be doubted that the said conjecture which he forms from that vision likewise wanders from it.

[501] Moreover, Victor was raised to the Pontifical throne in the year 1086, Zacharias Benedictus wrongly conjectures, nor did he prolong his life beyond the next following year, in which Urban II succeeded him; and that Pontifical letters making mention of the Carthusian Order did not exist before the time at which Urban II began to occupy the Chair of St. Peter, the anonymous chronographer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, who is certainly of greater credit and authority than the metrical biographer here in question, Zacharias Benedictus, teaches not obscurely; for after he has related at number 19 that the letters, to be transcribed here below, were written by Urban II, in which Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, was ordered to restore the Chartreuse to Landuin and his companions, who had deserted it when Bruno went away to Rome, he subjoins at the next following number: And these seem to be the first Papal letters which are found to make mention of the Carthusian Order. Now then, since those letters which from what has been said Urban wrote are the first which are found to make mention of the Carthusian Order, it must be held as undoubted, the universal silence of all the ancient writers on this matter being added besides, that the foundation of the Chartreuse was not confirmed or approved by letters written by Victor III; so that accordingly Zacharias Benedictus wrongly noted that this was done. Nor is this metrical biographer of the Saint to be convicted of error from this alone; but also from the fact that he hands down to memory that St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, received the Carthusian habit from St. Bruno and was thus even enrolled among the Carthusians; for Guigo, the most accurate and most credible biographer of Hugh, nowhere mentions this matter, who nevertheless would beyond all doubt have known it, had it been so, and having known it would have committed it to writing. [nor does he rightly make Hugh a Carthusian. This man, however, being excellently disposed toward the Carthusians,]

[502] But this error, first proceeding from the supposititious Sigebert (see number 297), seems in some way excusable: for although Hugh never put on the Carthusian habit, he could yet be esteemed in a manner a Carthusian, both on account of the desire with which he is known to have burned to be able to profess as a Carthusian, having renounced his bishopric, and on account of the singular affection with which he was borne toward the Carthusians, and his frequent sojourning with them in the Chartreuse. And that the affection of St. Hugh toward St. Bruno and the Carthusians was indeed very great is plain both from the words of Guigo transcribed here above, and from this, that, as Guibert of Nogent teaches in book 1 of his own life, chapter XI, that holy prelate did not find it burdensome to act in a manner as abbot and provider of the Carthusian house, namely when Bruno had already departed from it. There is added the more ancient biographer of our Saint, who writes at number 14 that he was so beneficent toward the Carthusian Order and house that he may be called the founder, together with St. Bruno, both of the one and of the other, and, although not the first, yet in a manner the principal institutor. As now pertains to Hugh's sojourning in the Chartreuse, that it was indeed very frequent, and that during it he conformed his life exactly to the pattern and rule of the Carthusians, whence too he could be held in a manner for a Carthusian, Guigo again teaches us in the Life of that holy prelate written by him, partly in the words already transcribed here above, partly in these which I now subjoin: So devoutly and so assiduously, moreover, did he (namely St. Hugh) inhabit the desert (of the Chartreuse, with St. Bruno and his companions), that master Bruno sometimes compelled him to go out, saying, Go, go to your sheep, and pay them what you owe. At that time, kindled with the ardour of great poverty and humility, he wished to sell all his horses and, the price being divided among the poor, to go about in preaching on his own feet. But the man of deep heart, namely master Bruno, whose counsels he obeyed no otherwise than the precepts of an abbot, did not consent, fearing lest perhaps he should be exalted in his own eyes, or be judged by the other bishops for singularity; or (which was not doubtful) lest he should be unable to accomplish it on account of the roughness and unevenness of the roads.

[503] ceded his right to them in the Chartreuse, and others, at his instance, Nor is only what I have already said understood from these words of Guigo, but also that Hugh was toward St. Bruno of no less veneration than affection, and that it was so great that he held him in a manner in the place of an abbot. Hence deservedly the more ancient biographer of our Saint, having transcribed both these and the other words of Guigo which have already been given above, subjoins at number 14: All the aforesaid are the words of Dom Guigo written in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, which we have judged should be inserted here, because in them the beginnings of the foundation of the Chartreuse are declared, and the excellence of master Bruno becomes known, also in this, that so venerable, so holy a bishop, with so great reverence, so fervently and humbly

adhered to him. Further, that our Saint and his companions stood in the greatest love and esteem with St. Hugh you will also rightly conclude, both from the charter which, if Mabillon notes rightly in the Preface to part 2 of the VI Benedictine Century, number 86 (for I do not know whether it exists anywhere), that holy prelate wrote to the priests and laymen of his bishopric scarcely one entire month after St. Bruno's coming to Hugh, commanding That women (these are Mabillon's words) should not pass through the land of the brothers of the Chartreuse, who, desiring to please God, were fleeing the world and the crowds; and that no one should practise fishing or hunting within the boundaries of their possession, or lead his animals there to pasture; and from the fact that he willingly ceded to the Saint and his companions whatever right belonged to him in the Chartreuse, and most probably also, as Blomevenna affirms, having Du Puy again and the other biographers of the Saint in agreement with him, brought it about that others who had any right in the same desert renounced it in favour of St. Bruno and his companions by a public charter given. That charter, as the place seems to require, I now transcribe here entire from the copy inserted in the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe of Morkens, already praised above rather often. It runs thus: Mercifully admonished of our salvation by the grace of the holy and undivided Trinity, we have called to mind the state of the human condition and the inevitable lapses of the frail life which we lead without end in sins. Therefore we have judged it right to redeem ourselves, slaves of sin, from the hand of death, to exchange temporal things for heavenly, to purchase an eternal inheritance at the price of a perishing possession, lest we be crushed by a double contrition, and take the miseries of the present life as the beginning of labours and sorrows.

[504] Therefore to master Bruno and to the brothers who came with him, by a diploma which here seeking a solitude to inhabit that they might have leisure for God, to them and to their successors in eternal possession we have granted a spacious desert, I Humbert of Miribel, together with Odo my brother and the others who had any right in the aforesaid place; namely these: Hugh of Tolnone, Anselm Garcinus; then Lucy and her sons Rostanus, Guigo, Anselm, Pontius and Boso, at the prayers and intervention of their aforesaid mother; Bernard the Lombard also with his sons; likewise also the lord abbot Siguin of La Chaise-Dieu with the assembly of his brothers, conceded to the aforesaid brothers whatever right they seemed to have there. And the desert itself which we have given them has these boundaries, namely below the place which is called the Cluse, and the rock closing the valley and reaching as far as the ridge closing and dividing Combe-Chaude, and reaching as far as the middle rock which is above the Borghesi; then another ridge, which descending is carried right through to the rock of Bonviant. Thence another ridge, which descending is carried along the edge of the plane-grove of Bonviant as far as the rock which is above the oven of la Follia. Likewise from that mountain which stretches from the same rock as far as mount Aillinart, and from mount Aillinart, descending, it extends beside the Morta toward the West as far as the rock which is above the Correrie, and from this rock it stretches as far as the rock of Pertuso. Thence finally it extends, descending, as far as the river which is called the Dead Guerus. Thence also from the same it is closed as far as the Cluse. But if any person, powerful or powerless, shall break this donation, as guilty of sacrilege, separated from the grace of Almighty God and from the company of the faithful, let him be struck with the anathema maranatha, to be burned with Dathan and Abiron and Judas the traitor in the fire of eternal burning, unless he shall have made worthy satisfaction.

[505] The aforesaid land, enclosed by these boundaries, is recited, a charter given did the same. began to be inhabited and built by master Bruno and by the brothers who were with him in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MLXXXIV, and in the fourth of the episcopate of the lord Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who namely approves and corroborates this gift which the persons written above have made, with the whole assembly of his clerics, and, as far as pertains to himself, concedes altogether whatever seems to be of his right. Witnesses: Hugh the dean, John of Podio, and Rostagnus, Guigo of Lanz, and Walter Bueta, Peter and Gilbert, Agelbert and Aldelemus, Peter and Richard. And this charter was read at Grenoble in the church of the Blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, on the fourth Feria of the second week of the Lord's Advent, in the presence of the aforesaid lord Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and of his canons, and of many others, both priests and clerics of the other Orders, celebrating a holy synod on the fifth of the Ides of December. Since this charter, which, as the chronological characters with which it is furnished testify, was read on the fourth Feria of the second week of Advent, which fell on the ninth day of December, was undoubtedly given while St. Bruno was still inhabiting the Chartreuse, that is, in the space of time comprising the year 1084, the five following, and part of the year 1090, and since at that time, as will become plain to one computing, or even only inspecting the Technical Chronology of Labbe, it happened in the year 1086 alone that the fourth Feria of the second week of Advent fell on the fifth of the Ides, or the ninth day of December, it is most manifest that the charter which has just been transcribed here was read or given in this very year.

[506] This, from the fourth year of Hugh, with which it is marked, And this is the first thing which occurs to be noted about it. Further, lest it be thought by anyone erroneous in its chronological notes, it must now be explained how in it the desert of the Chartreuse is rightly said to have begun to be inhabited by the Saint and his companions, which from what has been said was done in the month of June of the year 1084, in the fourth year of the episcopate of Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who meanwhile, as I showed above, was elected already from the year 1079 and consecrated bishop of Grenoble at the beginning of the next following year, and who therefore, when the desert of the Chartreuse began to be inhabited by the Saint, was already passing the fifth year of his episcopate, if only the years of his episcopate are to be computed either from his election or from his consecration. But is it necessary that this be done so? The anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno communicated to me by the Carthusians of this place, having premised that the years of Hugh's episcopate were accustomed to be computed not from election or consecration but from the entering upon possession of the bishopric, and that Hugh did not enter upon possession of the bishopric of Grenoble before the end of the year 1080, presently subjoins thus, by which he gives both this and that proved: There is preserved in the archive of the Grande Chartreuse a donation made by count Guigo and queen Mathilda his wife to the house of Chalais, which was given in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord MCX, on the XI of the Kalends of November, in the XXX year of the Pontificate of the lord Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. This year of Hugh's pontificate is not that of election or consecration; for otherwise (namely since, as I have again just advised, Hugh was elected in the year 1079 and consecrated bishop of Grenoble at the beginning of the next following year) the XXXI or XXXII would have had to be noted. It must therefore be said to be the year of possession, which it follows (he) had not yet obtained in the year MLXXX in the month of October, from the designated day, the XI of the Kalends of November.

[507] for it is to be convicted of error. The same must necessarily be concluded from another instrument, which exists published in the work On the use of fiefs of the Dauphiné, whose beginning and end run thus: "I Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, at the request of the canons, have granted to Boso, abbot of blessed Mary of Cruas, and to his successors, three churches… This donation of the three aforesaid churches was made … on the IV of the Nones of November in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord MCX, in the XXX year of the pontificate of the lord bishop Hugh." Therefore Hugh had not yet entered upon the bishopric about the beginning of November of the oft-mentioned year MLXXX. Moreover, to add what the plan of my purpose here requires: since for Hugh, as elected bishop of Grenoble from what has been said in the year 1079 and consecrated at the beginning of the year 1080, in the year 1110, already advanced to the IV of the Nones, or to the second day of November, the year running from his election and consecration was not the thirtieth but the thirty-first, and yet the instrument whose beginning and end the anonymous author of the Treatise on St. Bruno here exhibits is noted as given in the thirtieth year of Hugh's episcopate, it follows that both in this and in the other, in which count Guigo and his wife Mathilda benefited the house of Chalais, the years of the episcopate of Hugh, prelate of Grenoble, are numbered not from election or consecration but from the possession of that see entered upon after consecration. Now then, since the matter stands as the praised anonymous Carthusian affirms above, and it thus appears consonant with the truth that the years of Hugh's episcopate were accustomed to be computed not from election or consecration but from possession first entered upon, there is indeed no reason why the charter of donation of the Chartreuse transcribed here above should be held suspect of error in its chronological notes, or be accused, from the fact that it declares that the desert of the Chartreuse began to be inhabited by St. Bruno and his companions in the fourth year of the episcopate of Hugh, prelate of Grenoble; which from what has been said above cannot be true unless the computation be set up from the time at which Hugh entered upon possession of the bishopric.

§ XXX. The Saint, summoned by the supreme Pontiff, is compelled to leave the Chartreuse, now duly ordered and increased in the number of its inhabitants: when this was done, and with how great grief of Bruno's disciples.

The Saint, the Chartreuse being now duly ordered, and of its inhabitants When four or five, or even fewer, years had elapsed from the entry of the Saint and his companions into the Chartreuse, it does not appear to be doubted that all things had been duly ordered, in the manner which best befits the eremitical life, both as regards the dwellings of the religious inhabitants of the desert and as regards the rule of living; as also that the Saint and his companions had become renowned far and wide for the austerity as well as the holiness of the life they had undertaken. And hence I think it came about that some others also came to the desert, previously uncultivated and almost inaccessible, and asked to be co-opted into the number of the disciples of the most celebrated Man who governed it. And first, that Peter and Lambert, who, as the charter of the monastery of Molesme already praised more than once from Mabillon makes credible, led the eremitical life for some while together with the Saint in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine before he had entered the Chartreuse, at length also embraced the kind of life instituted by Bruno, whether in the Chartreuse or in Calabria, the writers of the Literary History of France indicate not obscurely in volume 9, page 241. For there they make manifest that they think that Peter is not different from the Peter who, although born at Béthune, was yet surnamed the Frank from his long sojourn in France, and was second Prior of the Chartreuse after St. Bruno (see Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639), and Lambert not different from the Lambert who, as Prior or master of the Calabrian Chartreuse, prescribed excellent laws to its religious inhabitants. And indeed, since it could easily have happened that Peter and Lambert, who previously had been unwilling to follow Bruno when he went away from the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine to Grenoble, afterwards, when they had heard of the seat fixed by the Saint in the Chartreuse, changed their counsel

and withdrew, with the Saint's consent, into this rugged desert, it appears by no means unlike the truth that they did so in fact, although meanwhile I would not dare to assert that the Lambert who lived with the Saint in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine is the same as Lambert, Prior of the Calabrian Chartreuse.

[509] in number, as here But in whatever way the matter stands, that his disciples were indeed more in number when the Saint departed from the desert of the Chartreuse than when he first entered this solitude is persuaded to me by two charters, to be transcribed entire here below, in one of which Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, gives the Calabrian desert to St. Bruno and his companions, and in the other Roger, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, whose paternal uncle count Roger was, confirms this donation. For in the former the count speaks thus: Roger, by the grace of God count of Calabria and Sicily, to all his faithful and to the sons of the Church of God, both present and future, greeting. We wish it to be known to your brotherhood that by the mercy of God there have come from the parts of the Gauls to this region of Calabria men of holy religion, namely Bruno and Lanvinus, with their companions, etc. And in the latter duke Roger speaks in this manner: Roger, by the grace of God duke of Apulia, Calabria, Sicily, to all faithful Christians present and future, greeting in the lord. We wish it to be known to your brotherhood concerning two men, namely Bruno and Lanvinus, who, kindled with zeal for holy religion, came with their companions into the land of Calabria from the parts of the Gauls, God so disposing, etc. The Saint therefore, when he came into Calabria to count Roger, which from what is to be said was done not very long after his departure from the Chartreuse, had joined to himself some companions arrived from Gaul, of whom mention is made in these charters; wherefore, since at least one of these, namely Lanvinus, is different from all the six companions of the Saint who first entered the desert of the Chartreuse with him, it follows that the Saint's disciples, when he departed from the desert of the Chartreuse to go to the Pontiff, were more in number than when he first entered that solitude; and that Lanvinus, mentioned in the two praised charters, is different from all the said six companions of the Saint, or rather, which may here chiefly seem doubtful to someone, from Landuin, I show thus: The Saint, as will become plain from what is to be said, did not withdraw with Lanvinus into the Calabrian desert, and obtain by the said two charters that it be given and confirmed to him, until Landuin, together with the disciples or Carthusians over whom he had been set by St. Bruno, had gone back to the Grande Chartreuse which they had deserted; so that accordingly it is necessary that the latter be different from the former.

[510] Moreover, Lanvinus, who withdrew with the Saint into the Calabrian desert, is proved, increased, had been born in Normandy, a province of France, but Landuin, who at St. Bruno's admonition went back to the Grande Chartreuse, in Tuscany. There is added that Landuin the Tuscan, in the year 1100, when he had come from the Grande Chartreuse, over which he presided as Prior, to visit Bruno in Calabria, closed his last day (see Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639); but that Lanvinus survived St. Bruno, who from what is to be said died in the year 1101, and was substituted for him in the government of the Calabrian Chartreuse, as may be seen in Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, book 70, number 30. That Lanvinus, therefore, who stayed with the Saint in the Calabrian desert, is distinct from Landuin the Tuscan is undoubted; which must be well noted, lest you confuse the one with the other in the course of the narrative. Further, of the Saint's companions of whom the two charters just mentioned make mention, at least some others besides were most probably different from the Saint's six companions who first entered the desert of the Chartreuse with him; so that accordingly these, when the Saint went away from there and sought Calabria, were already increased in number. Nor is there reason for you to reply that the companions with whom the Saint is recorded in the two praised charters to have come into Calabria, and namely Lanvinus (see Zanotti in the Life of Bruno, chapter 17), did not join themselves to him until, having left the Chartreuse, he was already in Italy; for that the Saint, in the short space of time during which, from what is to be said, he stayed with the Pontiff before he withdrew into Calabria, at once found at Rome men arrived from the parts of the Gauls who gave themselves over to his discipline, which however would be required for anything to be accomplished here against our opinion, appears scarcely probable.

[511] Since this is so, there does not indeed seem to be reason is summoned into Italy by the Pontiff: why it should be called into doubt whether the Saint, when he departed from the Chartreuse, saw the number of his disciples increased; and he would undoubtedly have seen it still more increased had his stay in the Chartreuse been able to be longer. But when he had ruled the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, of which the last at least, from what is to be said, was incomplete, as Prior, or rather (for this title is attributed to him and to his immediate successors by nearly all writers) as Master, a Pontifical mandate was brought by which he was most severely enjoined by Pope Urban II, raised to the Pontifical summit in the year 1088, to betake himself to the Roman curia. This man, as I have already taught above, had formerly been a disciple of our Saint at Reims, and hence, having most thoroughly perceived the rare prudence and sagacity of mind of the Man, wished to have him with him, to be employed for counsels, in those most difficult times in which, the emperor Henry IV being at variance with the Pope and frequently moving arms against the Pontifical party in Italy, the affairs of the Church in Italy and Germany were disturbed in a deplorable manner. As soon as that message reached the ears of Bruno's disciples, huge grief at once came over the minds of all. Hear what Blomevenna records bearing on this in the Life of our Saint written by him. And behold, he says, scarcely six years having been passed in such a conversation, he is again tried… For Pope Urban II, formerly called Otto, abbot of Cluny, who had formerly been a disciple of blessed Bruno, when he had obtained the supreme Pontificate, desiring to administer it worthily, not unmindful of the most excellent learning and uprightness of this same Preceptor of his, called him to the service of Holy Church, adding also a precept of obedience.

[512] he consoles his disciples, saddened by this, When this mandate had been read through, a voice was heard in Rama, the wailing and much lamentation of the sons of St. Bruno, refusing to be consoled and adjuring their Father, because, bereft of his solace, they could by no means persevere in the place of horror and vast solitude. But if he remained, they would remain; if he went away, they too would go away. By whose weeping the most pious Bruno was vehemently troubled and moved to compassion, since it was also most hard for him, after the quiet of so peaceful and tranquil a solitude, to be again entangled in external cares and disquiets. Yet he strove to calm and console their minds. He knew himself that it was written, "He that heareth you heareth me, and what God speaks once, he does not repeat a second time." And therefore he received the command of the Apostolic no otherwise than as a voice come down to him from a heavenly oracle. Wherefore, addressing his own, he said: To remain with you, my most beloved brothers, is most welcome to me; to be separated from you, most grievous. But to obey the Apostolic mandates is necessary for me. For what would it profit to wear down the flesh outwardly here with you by fasts and abstinences, if through disobedience it should befall me to acquire the damnation of my soul, etc. And then, some further things being interposed, in which he introduces the Saint and his disciples conversing back and forth, he subjoins: Blessed Bruno, hearing these things, when he saw that they would not receive consolation, nor could be persuaded to remain, fearing lest after his and their departure the desert of the Chartreuse, a place already dedicated to God, should again come into lay and profane hands, and thinking namely of seeking it again with his own, commended and gave it to the venerable man, the lord Siguin, abbot of the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, who had been one of the first donors of whom we have spoken, a public instrument having been drawn up on this. And thus blessed Bruno, having received the Blessing of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, set out for Rome, obedience compelling him.

[513] and to these nevertheless, as, on his departure, they had resolved to do, Thus far he, agreeing most exactly with Du Puy, from whom again he borrowed nearly all his material, and not conflicting with the more ancient biographer of our Saint, or the chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse. And all these three indeed, as also Surius, who drew his material from the two more recent of these, namely Du Puy and Blomevenna, seem rightly to have consigned to writing that all the Saint's disciples, when they understood that he was being summoned from the Chartreuse by the Pontiff, were affected with the greatest grief, and resolved to desert the Chartreuse when the Saint went away. For this, however much it is found handed down to memory by absolutely no contemporary or coeval author, yet seems consonant with the truth from the charter of the restitution of the Chartreuse, to be transcribed here below, since in it the companions of St. Bruno are hinted to have withdrawn from this desert on account of his absence. But the praised more recent biographers of our Saint also indicate that Bruno, when he gave the Chartreuse to Siguin and went out from it to betake himself to the Pontiff, resolved to return thither afterwards; which, since in the instrument by which the Saint, on his way to the Pontiff, gave the Chartreuse to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, absolutely no mention whatever is brought in of its being restored to Bruno and his companions if they returned, appears to me scarcely probable. Nor is it more probable, what however some also will have, that the instrument by which the Saint conferred the Chartreuse on Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, was given to him already at the time when his disciples were not yet dispersing from the Chartreuse on account of the departure from it of their beloved Master, and were only foreseen by the Saint as about to disperse shortly after.

[514] For in the charter of the restitution of the Chartreuse Bruno is said to have given and commended the Chartreuse to Abbot Siguin when he saw the abandonment of the place, dispersing from the Chartreuse, by a public instrument this the brothers withdrawing on account of his absence; so that accordingly the instrument by which the Saint gave the Chartreuse to Siguin was not conferred on him while the Saint's disciples, the first inhabitants of the Grande Chartreuse, were not yet dispersing or leaving the Chartreuse; especially since it is expressly handed down that this was done at the withdrawal of the brothers or disciples of the Saint from the Chartreuse in the epistle, likewise to be transcribed here below, in which Pope Urban II enjoins Abbot Siguin to restore the desert of the Chartreuse to the disciples of St. Bruno returning to it. But, you will say, if the Saint imparted the charter by which he gave the Chartreuse to Siguin while his disciples were dispersing from the Chartreuse, or at their withdrawal from that desert, how will it be understood to be true that they dispersed from the Chartreuse on account of the Saint's absence, or when he was already on the journey from the Chartreuse toward the Pontiff, as the charter of the restitution of the Chartreuse, already praised several times, indicates? Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 77, number 92, writes thus: At the same time at which Bernard was born, Bruno, first institutor of the Grande Chartreuse, by Urban II, who had been his disciple at Reims, to Rome

is summoned, that he might use his counsels in the government of the Church. The new little flock bore this departure hard, bereft of the solace of so great a Pastor; and to all, in his absence, the dwelling in the Chartreuse and the roughness of life seemed intolerable. But at length the authority of the supreme Pontiff had to be obeyed, who commended the place to Seguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu. Bruno therefore withdrew from the Chartreuse six years after he had begun to inhabit it. The brothers, troubled by his departure, which is the human temptation in arduous things when a Leader of great merit is lacking, desert the place; and when Bruno had learned this, by letters written to Seguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, he granted the Chartreuse to him and his monastery.

[515] So Mabillon, indicating namely that Bruno only then, hands it over to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu. when he was on the Roman journey or even at Rome, drew up the instrument by which he transferred the Chartreuse to Abbot Seguin, and sent it to him with a letter. And indeed, the matter being so considered, everyone will easily understand how, when the Saint was already absent, that is, on the journey toward the Pontiff or at Rome, his disciples could disperse from the Chartreuse, and he himself, while these were dispersing or rather had dispersed, could grant the public instrument by which he handed it over to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, with the truth preserved of all the things which occur in the charter of the restitution of the Chartreuse. Yet, since the Saint seems to have transferred the Chartreuse to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, before he undertook the Roman journey, in the very act of his disciples' withdrawal from the Chartreuse, I would rather conceive the course of events thus: that St. Bruno, when he had already departed from the Chartreuse, Landuin having been substituted in his place, betook himself to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, to bid him farewell, as he is in fact narrated by Blomevenna and others to have done; and that meanwhile the disciples whom he had left in the Chartreuse, having heard of the Saint's departure, likewise left the Chartreuse, being unable to bear the longing for him. Thus indeed it will be understood with easy labour how the Saint, departing from the Chartreuse, while his disciples were dispersing from it, could soon hear this and draw up the instrument by which he commended the Chartreuse to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, and, when it was drawn up, either carry it to him himself or cause it to be carried by another.

[516] [The Saint set out for the Pontiff, perhaps with none of his disciples as companion.] Further, gather also from the charter of the restitution of the Chartreuse that the opinion of those who determine that the Saint, on the journey which he undertook toward the Pontiff, had as companions absolutely all his disciples in the Chartreuse can by no means agree with the truth. For in that charter, by which Siguin restored the Chartreuse to these, Bruno on going away is said to have set Landuin over all his other disciples staying in the Chartreuse; and how could this have been done if both Landuin and all his other disciples had undertaken the journey toward the Pontiff with the Saint? But did not the Saint have joined to himself at least some of these as companions of the journey? There is indeed reason why someone might persuade himself of this, since, as I taught above, in the charters of count Roger and of duke Roger the Saint is said to have arrived in Calabria from the parts of Gaul with companions joined to him, nor does it seem that this can be said aptly enough unless the Saint, together with the companions whom he had joined to himself, began the journey toward Calabria from Gaul itself. But if meanwhile this displeases, it is indeed not to be doubted that the Saint, when all his Carthusian disciples had followed him into Italy, kept some of these with himself, the others having been sent back to the Chartreuse. For whence otherwise, when he came to count Roger in Calabria (see number 509 and following), would he have had joined to himself companions who had come from the parts of the Gauls? But let these things said about the disciples whom the Saint had under his discipline when he deserted the Chartreuse at the command of the supreme Pontiff and sought the Roman curia suffice; let us now inquire into the time at which, having deserted the Chartreuse, he betook himself to the Roman curia.

[517] [this journey, which is commonly assigned by others to the year 1090, Ruinart thinks is to be attached to the year 1089] Baronius determines that this was done in the year 1092, because the Saint, as he had understood, had been summoned to the Roman curia in the sixth year of his stay in the Chartreuse, and six years lead down from the year 1086, to which, as we saw above, he assigns the Saint's withdrawal into the Chartreuse, to the said year 1092. But since from what has been said above Bruno fixed his seat in the desert of the Chartreuse not first in the year 1086, but already from the year 1084, and betook himself to the Roman curia, as the most ancient and from what has been said most credible Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse testifies in the eulogy of the Saint transcribed here at number 7, when he had ruled the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, it follows that he undoubtedly did this in the year 1090, already advanced beyond the month of June, in which from what has been said the Saint hid himself in the Chartreuse, if the six years during which he is handed down by the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse to have stayed in the Chartreuse are to be held as complete. And Mabillon indeed, in the Benedictine Annals, book 67, number 92, attaches the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse to the year 1090. In agreement with Mabillon are the Writers of the Literary History of France, volume 9, page 239, as also Pagi in the Critica, and all the other learned everywhere. But in the Life of Pope Urban II, inserted in volume 3 of the Posthumous Works of Mabillon and Ruinart, page 69, the latter of these two writers, after narrating that Pope Urban II in the year 1089 celebrated a council or synod at Melfi, translated the bones of St. Nicholas at Bari, consecrated Bishop Elias, and finally, traversing Calabria, penetrated as far as Reggio, records thus: On the same occasion too it is more than probable that Bruno, the parent of the Carthusians, traversed Calabria with Urban. He namely, summoned by the Pontiff, formerly, as we have said, his disciple when the holy Man was teaching letters in the academy of the church of Reims, came to him this year (namely 1089), nor is it doubtful that he also followed him into Apulia and Calabria, since Urban had summoned Bruno with this intent, that he might use his counsels in the most difficult affairs which then frequently arose. Another argument of the same thing is had, namely that Bruno's sanctity became from that time so well known among the Calabrians that shortly after a place was given him in that region to inhabit, which he in fact inhabited the following year with some of his own. This is established from the diploma of count Roger, which G. Surianus in the Notes to the Life of St. Bruno, and Ughelli in volume IX, published together with the confirmation of Theodore, bishop of Squillace.

[518] If then Ruinart notes rightly here, our Saint came to Pope Urban II already from the year 1089, and indeed, [thinks it is to be attached. But this opinion, although our more ancient biographer too wrongly ties this same journey] this year not yet advanced beyond the month of September; for, as he will have it, he accompanied Urban setting out into Apulia in that year, and was present with him at the council celebrated there then in the month of September, as he teaches. But is there nothing which forbids us to embrace this opinion of Ruinart, or evidently proves it far from the truth? The more ancient biographer of our Saint hands down thus to memory about Bruno at number 24: He ruled the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, and afterwards, as has been said before, called by the Pope, and not long after passing to the desert of Calabria, whose name is the Tower, there, having built a holy monastery, he was ruler and minister of many servants of God, anchorites, and there, the happy course of his life being completed, he departed to the Lord in the eleventh year after his departure from the Chartreuse, neither more nor less, as is contained in the books of the Customs of Dom Guigo which are in the house of the Chartreuse. So he; and if one must assent to him, Ruinart beyond all doubt wrongly attaches the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse, or his coming to Pope Urban II, to the year 1089, not advanced beyond September. For since the Saint, as is confessed among all and will be proved below, departed from the living in the year 1101, on the VI day of October, it is necessary, if the eleventh year running from his departure from the Chartreuse is rightly set together with his death-year 1101 just mentioned by our more ancient biographer in the recited words, that his departure from the Chartreuse happened not in the year 1089, not yet advanced beyond September, as Ruinart determines, but in the year 1090, and indeed already advanced beyond the VI day of October; since from the year 1089, not yet advanced beyond September, up to the sixth day of October of the year 1101, more than twelve complete years, and from the year 1090, not yet advanced to the VI day of October, to the same sixth day of October of the year 1101, more than eleven complete years ran out; and thus, contrary to what our more ancient biographer writes, the Saint would have ceased to live not in the eleventh but either in the twelfth or even in the thirteenth year after his departure from the Chartreuse. But does this chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or more ancient biographer of our Saint, rightly set together the year 1101, the Saint's death-year, with the defined eleventh year after his departure from the Chartreuse?

[519] [wrongly ties to the defined eleventh year after the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse,] By no means indeed: for that the Saint betook himself from the Chartreuse to Pope Urban II before the year 1090 had advanced to October, nay to the seventeenth day of September, is altogether certain and undoubted from the Charter, to be transcribed here below, by which Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, restores the Chartreuse to the Carthusians returning to it, by whom it had been left when Bruno went away to Urban, since it is noted as given in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MXC, on the XV of the Kalends of October, and more than eleven years ran out from the seventeenth day of September of the year 1090 up to the sixth day of October of the year 1101, the death-day of our Saint. And thus indeed it is now clear that the year of Bruno's death is wrongly attached by the more ancient biographer of our Saint to the defined eleventh year after his departure from the Chartreuse. Nay rather, in doing this, since at the same time he says at number 23 that the Saint's disciples, while he had gone away to Rome to Pope Urban II, withdrew from the Chartreuse at the end of the sixth year from his entry into it, he conflicts with himself, as will be evident to one who considers it. But does he not also wrongly cite the books of the Customs of Dom Guigo, or was not the copy of these which he had at hand corrupted in the chronological notes expressing the year after his departure from the Chartreuse in which the Saint died? That it was corrupted is indeed altogether necessary. For the books of the Customs which he praises are undoubtedly none other than the Statutes or Customs of Guigo (see what was said in §1 from number 4 to number 7) having prefixed to them the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, or the eulogies of these four, in which, and not in the Customs themselves, he found the chronological notes by which he defines in what year after his departure from the Chartreuse the Saint died; and the most ancient and

genuine copy (see again §1) of the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse hands down to memory that our Saint died after his departure from the Chartreuse, not, as his more ancient biographer affirms that he makes it from the books of the Customs of Guigo, in the eleventh year neither more nor less, but in the eleventh year more or less.

[520] adduced either by Ruinart himself, Now then, since these things stand thus, it cannot indeed be argued from the fact that our more ancient biographer writes that Bruno died in the eleventh year from his departure from the Chartreuse, neither more nor less, that Ruinart's opinion, which from what has been said assigns the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse, or his coming to Pope Urban II, to the year 1089, not yet advanced beyond September, deviates from the truth. But does not the Chronicle of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, in which the Saint is handed down to have departed to the Lord in the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse, harm the same opinion? Since by this formula of speech it seems to be signified that the Saint died not in the defined eleventh year after his departure from the Chartreuse, but either in the eleventh year after that departure or some space of time either before or after it, and so, as may perhaps appear to someone, a space of time is designated which is neither much earlier nor much later than that year, I do not know whether, the aforesaid formula of speech which the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse employs standing, the death of our Saint, who from what has already been said certainly did not depart this life before the twelfth year from his departure from the Chartreuse, can be placed so great a space of time after the eleventh year from that departure that it can be deferred to the thirteenth year from that departure of the Saint from the Chartreuse, as Ruinart's opinion requires, with no other reason at all persuading it. Ruinart indeed says that Bruno was summoned by Urban with the intent that he might be employed as counsellor in the most difficult affairs which then frequently arose, and hence that this was done so early that Bruno departed from the living only in the thirteenth year after. But I do not see how it could not have happened that Urban, even though he both held Bruno, his former master, in the greatest esteem and altogether wished to employ him for counsels, yet chose to abstain from summoning him to himself up to the year 1090, or about two years after he had already been created supreme Pontiff.

[521] Nor is it persuaded that this was done already from the year 1089 or by Mörkens, adhering to him by the Saint's sanctity known among the Calabrians from that time, which Ruinart also adduces as an argument; for besides that Ruinart does not prove that Bruno had already then become renowned for it among that people, the fame of sanctity which he had won for himself far and wide through all Gaul by his life most austerely led in the solitude of the Chartreuse, and by his contempt of riches, dignities and the world, could also have been carried to the Calabrians already then. And hence it comes about that I do not think it can be argued solidly enough for establishing Ruinart's opinion either from the place which, from what is to be said, the Saint obtained to inhabit in Calabria already from the year 1090 or at any rate at the beginning of the following, or even from his election to the archbishopric of Reggio, which happened at the same time. Moreover, although from the fact that he was elected archbishop by the people of Reggio in the year 1090 it may seem to someone that he had been known to these in some special way, and hence had been living in the city of Reggio, which is situated in the furthest corner of Calabria, already from the year 1089 in which, from what has been said, Pope Urban II visited it, yet it can be that he was elected archbishop by the people of Reggio, even though he was almost entirely unknown to them, solely on the recommendation of the latter, since, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse testifies, it was done at the wish of Pope Urban. But, says Mörkens, who likewise attaches the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse and his coming to Urban to the year 1089, in his Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, the things done in the time between the two events require that a space of at least one year intervened between the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse and the return at length made to it of his disciples, who, unable to bear the absence of their most beloved Father, had likewise gone away into Italy on his departure, leaving the Chartreuse; and hence, since from what has already been said and is further to be said the disciples of St. Bruno returned to the Chartreuse before October of the year 1090, it is necessary that he went away from it in the year 1089, not yet advanced to October. So he, nearly as to substance.

[522] But I do not see that so many and so great things happened between the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse [do not prove sufficiently validly; and hence, the reason here brought forward being added, that the Saint in the said year 1090] and the return of his disciples to it that they could not have been done in a far smaller space than one year. For what? Bruno, having left the Chartreuse and commended or given it to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, betook himself into Italy to the supreme Pontiff Urban II, by whom he had been summoned; he kindly received the disciples who, likewise leaving the Chartreuse, had followed him into Italy on his departure and came to him; he persuaded them to return to the Chartreuse; and he also brought it about that they did in fact return to this desert beloved of their holy Father, furnished with Pontifical letters to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, in which Pope Urban commanded him to restore the Chartreuse to the disciples of St. Bruno returning to it. But why could all these things not have been done in the space of only about six or seven months? Nay rather, why could not the Saint also, as was truly done from what is to be said below, in the very year in which he deserted the Chartreuse and came to the Pontiff Urban II, betake himself into Calabria, having obtained from him the faculty of returning to the eremitical life? No more, therefore, than the things adduced above from Ruinart do those which Mörkens brings compel us to determine the departure of our Saint from the Chartreuse, and his coming to Urban II, by whom he had been summoned, before the year 1090. Since this is so, to declare openly what at length my opinion is: our Saint cannot without solid reason be determined to have died after his departure from the Chartreuse at a longer space of time than the formula of speech seems to allow by which, as has already been said, he is handed down by the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse to have closed his last day In the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse; wherefore, since absolutely no sufficiently valid argument occurs which proves that the Saint departed from the Chartreuse to the Pontiff already from the year 1089, not yet advanced to October, from which it would follow that he died at such a time, I bring myself to believe that he did not do so before the year 1090, as Mabillon and others more commonly determine.

[523] [appears to have gone away from the Chartreuse to the Pontiff about the month of March.] But about what month of that year did this happen? Since Bruno departed from the living, which from what is to be said was done in the year 1101, in the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse testifies, from whom from what has been said we must not depart, and hence this event seems able to be placed not very long after the eleventh year from the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse had elapsed, Bruno probably departed from the Chartreuse about the month of March of the said year, and arrived in the following month of April, or at any rate at the beginning of May, at Pope Urban, who then, as Ruinart most lucidly proves in his Life cited above more than once, had returned from Apulia and Calabria to Rome. I think that the matter was done so chiefly for this reason: both because on this opinion our Saint, having departed this life in the year 1101, closed his last day not later than when about five or six months had already elapsed after the eleventh year from his departure from the Chartreuse, and the formula of speech by which he is asserted by the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse to have died in the eleventh year, more or less, after his departure from the Chartreuse does not seem to prevent his death from being placed so great a space of time after that eleventh year; and because also on the same opinion it is easily understood how the things which are handed down to have been done between the Saint's departure from the Chartreuse and the return of his disciples to it could in fact have been done, as will shine out more from the things which I am about to supply in the following §. Moreover, since the Saint seems to have gone away from the Chartreuse not long before his disciples followed him, our more ancient biographer also, as will be evident to one who considers it, supports this opinion, writing as he does at number 23 that they withdrew from the Chartreuse at the end of the sixth year from his entry into it, which from what has already been said above took place in the month of June of the year 1084.

§ XXXI. The Saint comes to Rome to Pope Urban, persuades his disciples to go back to the Chartreuse, obtains for them from the Pontiff letters to Abbot Siguin, refuses the archbishopric of Reggio, and obtains from Urban that he may again withdraw from the curia into the desert.

Pope Urban, when Bruno came to him, was at Rome. Blomevenna, in the Life of our Saint composed by him, hands down to memory thus: Blessed Bruno, having received the blessing of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, set out for Rome, obedience compelling him; at whose coming the supreme Pontiff, filled with ineffable joy, received him most kindly (as one whom he intimately loved and venerated), and always held him among the first and chief of his own particular and familiar counsellors and faithful friends, always using his counsels in the arduous affairs of the Church. So this biographer of our Saint, here again borrowing his material almost word for word from Du Puy, who however, as Surius also does, hands down more expressly than Blomevenna that Bruno's coming to Urban happened at Rome, or that Urban was at Rome when Bruno came to him. But was Urban truly living at Rome when our Saint came to him? On the opinion of those who determine that the Saint came to Urban already from the year 1089, not yet advanced beyond September, Pope Urban most probably was not living at Rome when this happened, since the things adduced by Ruinart in the Life of that Pontiff prove that during the last four months of that year he was either in Apulia, where he also celebrated the council of Melfi in the month of September, or in Calabria. But since Urban, as the same Ruinart shows in his Life, page 77, had already returned to Rome in the year 1090, on the fifth of the Kalends of April, or the XXVIII of March, and remained there until about the middle of summer, on the opinion indeed by which we determined above that the Saint came to Urban not before April of the year 1090, at Rome

this Pontiff undoubtedly was when our Saint came to him.

[525] As now pertains to the remaining things comprised in the words of Blomevenna just recited, Thither, as Blomevenna hands down here, it appears undoubted that they are most exactly consonant with the truth, and first of all that the Saint was employed by Urban for counsels, since, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse testifies, he had been summoned by him for this end. Let us now turn our discourse to other things to be discussed here. Our Saint had arrived at the Pontiff not very long before, as far as appears, when, as all the biographers of our Saint affirm with unanimous consent, his disciples likewise, having left the Chartreuse, came to their most beloved Parent. And there came to him (Blomevenna subjoins to his words just transcribed here), by the working of the Holy Spirit, all his own who had been with him in the Chartreuse, grieving very much (and he even more) that they had left the aforesaid place of the Chartreuse, which the Lord had chosen for himself, and in which He had been seen to build a place for himself. There came also into their mind, not flesh-meats, cucumbers or melons (as to those murmurers in the desert), but the devout meditations, prayers, readings and spiritual consolations which they had previously had in the desert of the Chartreuse; and therefore, when they now saw themselves in the curia, after so pleasant a silence of their quiet, surrounded by the greatest tumult and din, they could not abstain from tears. Thus far Blomevenna, with whom again Du Puy, from whom he drew his material, as also Surius, agree almost exactly. But two things may now be asked here. The one is whether his disciples truly followed the Saint into Italy and to Rome; the other, whether, if the matter stands so, they did it impelled divinely in some singular and prodigious manner, as the words of Blomevenna just now recited seem to hint.

[526] his disciples followed from the Chartreuse. To take the beginning from that which is first: that our Saint's disciples betook themselves to him before he had set out, having left the Pontifical curia, into the desert of Calabria, appears to be concluded from the charter, to be transcribed in the present §, by which Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, restored the Chartreuse to Landuin and his companions returning to it; for in this it is hinted that Bruno, having already set out for Rome and being with the Pontiff, brought it about that these went back with unanimous consent to that most celebrated desert which they had deserted when their most beloved Father went away to the Pontiff, in these words: At the request of our Father Pope Urban, and at the prayers of the aforementioned brother Bruno, and the same brothers (namely his disciples) having been very greatly encouraged by their Prior Bruno to remain there, to brother Lauduin, whom master Bruno on departing (namely from the Chartreuse to the Pontiff) set over the other brothers, to him and to the other brothers living under him and to their successors, the gift which the aforesaid Bruno had made to us (namely when his disciples, as is said at the beginning of this charter, were withdrawing from the Chartreuse), before the congregation committed to us… I myself, brother Siguin, abbot of the aforesaid La Chaise-Dieu … relinquished; wherefore, since our Saint most probably, unless he had had them present with him, could either by no means at all, or at any rate only with the greatest difficulty, have brought it about by letters that his disciples should return with unanimous consent to the Chartreuse which they had left, these seem in fact to have then been present with the Saint, and hence to have followed him into Italy after his departure from the Chartreuse. There is added both the tradition of the Carthusians and our more ancient biographer, who also seems to indicate at number 19 that all the Saint's disciples came to him while he was in the Pontifical curia: so that both these things, and most of all the public letters by which Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, restored the Chartreuse, as I have just said, to the disciples of St. Bruno returning to it, render it indeed most probable to me, not to say undoubted, that this was truly done.

[527] It was not, as appears, done with a miracle intervening. As now pertains to the manner in which it came about that all his disciples, having left the Chartreuse, came to the Saint while he was in the Pontifical curia, our more ancient biographer likewise seems to place it in a prodigy; for he indicates that the Saint's disciples did not follow their most beloved Father into Italy immediately after his departure from the Chartreuse, but went off then some one way and some another; and then, when he has narrated that the Saint obtained from Urban that it should be lawful for him to withdraw again from the Pontifical curia into the desert, he subjoins: Yet before he withdrew from the curia, by his merits and prayers, as is believed, the divine Mercy recalled all his companions and subjects, so that absolutely all consented to return to the Chartreuse; by which words certainly, taking account at the same time of those by which he had previously insinuated that the Saint's disciples had been dispersed into various parts after his departure from the Chartreuse, he seems to establish a prodigy divinely done, by which these flowed together to the Saint before he departed from the Pontifical curia and consented to return to the Chartreuse. But although indeed, as I have already said, I think it almost undoubted that his disciples came from the Chartreuse to Bruno while he was in the Pontifical curia, yet I would not easily believe that this was done with any prodigy intervening, because this matter, unlike the coming of the Saint's disciples to him in Italy, is not founded in the charter of Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, already praised rather often, nor are our biographers, even the older of them, by whom it is handed down to memory, ancient enough to be able to create undoubted credit for the things which they alone narrate about the Saint and his disciples. Let us now consider what the Saint chiefly did when the disciples whom he had had in the Chartreuse had come to him at Rome.

[528] That he took care with the Pontiff that they should be received in a convenient lodging, at Bruno's instance, they go back to the Chartreuse, in which they could perform exercises befitting their state, is not to be doubted, although meanwhile this cannot be confirmed by absolutely any testimony of an ancient writer. But since the Saint bore most grievously that the desert of the Chartreuse, beloved by him, had been deserted by its religious inhabitants, he repeatedly endeavoured to persuade these to return to it; nor in vain: for since, however much they had probably been received, as has been said, in a lodging befitting their state, they yet did not enjoy the accustomed quiet which they had enjoyed in the Chartreuse, and hence repented of having deserted the Carthusian desert, they lent ready ears to Bruno persuading them to return to it, and, furnished with letters, both Pontifical ones, in which Pope Urban commanded Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, to restore the Chartreuse to the disciples of St. Bruno returning to it, and others, in which Bruno most earnestly asked this very thing of this abbot, they at length gave themselves to the journey, returning to that desert which they had left, as our biographers hand down with unanimous consent. Those letters of Urban, copied out from the Val-Dieu copy, praised above, of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, and communicated to me by the Parisian Carthusian already praised rather often, who by no means wishes himself to be named, I transcribe here. They are expressed in these words: Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, and to the whole congregation, greeting and Apostolic benediction. It is fitting that those who are wearied with labours for obedience to the Roman Church should also be relieved by the help of the Roman Church. Since therefore we have summoned Bruno, our dearest son, to the service of the Apostolic See, we cannot suffer, because neither ought we, that, while he is coming to us, his cell should suffer any detriment. We therefore ask your love, and in asking command, that you restore the same cell to its former liberty, and for love of us restore also the chirograph which our aforesaid Son had made to you concerning the same cell at the dispersal of the brothers, that it may be able to remain in its former liberty. For now the brothers who had dispersed have returned, God inspiring them, and do not otherwise consent to persist in the same place. Assuredly, after these letters have been brought to you, do not delay to restore the aforesaid chirograph within thirty days, out of reverence for our command.

[529] which is restored to them by the charter here recited. Further, Siguin, as soon as these letters and those of St. Bruno had been shown to him, obeying the Pontifical mandate, as all the Saint's biographers again write, restored the Chartreuse to Landuin and the other disciples of St. Bruno returning to it. The public charter, already very often praised above, by which he did this, I subjoin. It runs thus: I brother Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, wish it to be made known to those present and to come that brother Bruno, summoned to Rome by the lord Pope Urban, seeing the abandonment of the place, the brothers withdrawing on account of his absence, gave the place of the Chartreuse to us and to the Congregation committed to us. But afterwards, at the request of our Father Pope Urban, and at the prayers of the aforementioned brother Bruno, and the same brothers having been very greatly encouraged by their Prior Bruno to remain there, to brother Lauduin, whom master Bruno on departing set over the other brothers, to him and to the other brothers living under him, and to their successors, the gift which the aforesaid Bruno had made to us, before the congregation committed to us, in our chapter, in the presence of Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, I myself, brother Siguin, abbot of the aforesaid La Chaise-Dieu, with the consent of our brothers, have relinquished, and have made the place of the aforesaid Chartreuse altogether free for them and for their successors according to their will, and have handed it over altogether into their right. But the charter which the aforesaid Bruno had made to us has not been returned for this reason, that, sought by our brothers in chapter under interdict, it could not be found; and if it is ever found, let that charter itself be of their right. Done in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MXC, on the XV of the Kalends of October. I, Siguin, abbot, have subscribed, and in the presence of Archbishop Hugh have confirmed this charter entire.

[530] This is not to be held as suspect. Mörkens, from whose copy, brought into the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe which he composed on St. Bruno, and checked, as he says, against the autograph, I have copied this charter, deservedly pronounces the archbishop Hugh, in whose presence Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, affirms that he confirmed the charter just recited entire, to be distinct from Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, since the latter was not an archbishop, and insinuates that he is none other than Hugh, created archbishop of Lyons in the year 1080 from bishop of Die and legate of the Apostolic See, very often praised above. Colombi also observes the same in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, number 108, where he likewise transcribes the charter already transcribed here, and rightly indeed; for I know of no other archbishop Hugh whom it would be probable to have stood by Siguin confirming the recited charter. Nor is there reason why it should seem wonderful that one Hugh is mentioned in the charter and another in the subscription of the charter; for nothing seems to prevent it being believed that Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, was present with Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, at the time when he restored the Chartreuse to Landuin and his companions, but Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, at the time when he confirmed the charter by which he made this restitution. But if this displeases, see whether these words of the charter, The gift which the aforesaid Bruno had made to us, before the congregation committed to us, in our chapter, in the presence of Hugh, bishop of Grenoble,

I myself brother Siguin… relinquished, cannot be read with the punctuation after the word had made omitted, and placed after the name of Hugh, so that the sense of the charter is that Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, stood present with Bruno when he gave the Chartreuse to Siguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, but Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, with Siguin when he restored it to Landuin and his companions. In whichever way the matter stood, it thus indeed appears that there is no reason why this ancient monument should be held suspect on account of the two different Hughs, of whom one is mentioned in the charter itself, the other in its subscription.

[531] From this, further, besides not a few other things which have already been treated above, Of the disciples who had come to Rome, the Saint kept some with himself. we also have that Landuin and the other disciples of the Saint returned to the Chartreuse from Rome, whither they had followed Bruno, from the fifteenth of the Kalends of October, or the seventeenth day of September, of the year 1090, on which the said monument is noted as given. And hence it now follows that they stayed with Bruno at the Pontiff's court not more than one year, as some contend without ancient surety, but only a few months. But did all who had previously inhabited the Chartreuse then return to it with Landuin? Indeed nearly all did so, if Zanotti is to be believed, who affirms in the Life or History of Bruno written by him, page 89, that only two, namely Lanvinus and Lambert, remained with the Saint. But although I cannot define the number of those who returned with Landuin to the Chartreuse and of the others who remained with Bruno, it is yet plain that these latter were more than the two mentioned from what has been said by Zanotti, from the two diplomas still cited above, of which one was granted by Roger, duke of Apulia and Sicily, and the other by Roger likewise, his paternal uncle, count of Calabria and Sicily, in favour of St. Bruno and his companions, who had withdrawn into Calabria when the other disciples of the Saint had already returned to the Chartreuse. For both in the one and in the other (see number 509) Bruno and Lanvinus are said to have arrived in Calabria from the parts of the Gauls with companions; so that accordingly, while Landuin and some others went back to the Chartreuse, more than Lanvinus and Lambert remained with the Saint. For how otherwise (see number 510) could Bruno and at the same time Lanvinus, if, when they came into Calabria, Lambert alone was with them, be said in the two aforesaid diplomas to have had companions joined to them from the parts of the Gauls? That the Saint therefore kept with him at least two companions besides Lanvinus, the others having been sent back to the Chartreuse, scarcely appears to be doubted.

[532] Let us now examine what was afterwards done by these and by the Saint. Bruno to the archbishopric of Reggio neither later The chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, in the eulogy of our Saint (see number 7 of this Commentary), writes thus of Bruno when already living with Pope Urban: But since he could not bear the tumults and manners of the curia (namely the Pontifical), having left the curia, having also despised the archbishopric of the church of Reggio, to which he had been elected at the wish of the Pope himself, he succeeded, or, as is better written elsewhere, withdrew, into the desert of Calabria. The Saint therefore, who, as we are taught here by a writer truly most worthy of credit, withdrew into Calabria having left the Pontifical curia, was also elected to the archbishopric of Reggio before he withdrew into that region; so that accordingly, since that withdrawal, from what is to be said, happened while the very year 1090 was still running, he was certainly requested for that dignity not later than this year either. But did it also happen not earlier than the same year 1090? That indeed appears on no head; for Bruno from what has already been said did not come to the Pontiff before the said year 1090, nor does it seem probable in any way that he was elected archbishop by the people of Reggio when he had not yet come to Urban, his former disciple. Moreover, Ughelli, in volume 9 of Italia Sacra, among the Archbishops of Reggio, column 324, adorns our Saint with the following eulogy: He (Arnulf, archbishop of Reggio) dies in the year … MXC. In his place the senate of the clergy is reported to have chosen St. Bruno, patriarch of the Carthusians, as its archbishop; but they write that he refused that dignity, and out of love of solitude humbly rejected the dignity. Then Bruno, having shaken off the yoke of worldly glory, sought a desert near Squillace in the borders of Calabria, where, having built a cloister sacred to St. Stephen, and, Roger being duke, he passed an angelic life there, and, full of merits, illustrious not less for sanctity than for the fame of miracles and learning, fell asleep in the Lord in the year MCI, and was buried in the cloister mentioned above, where he is honourably venerated to this day.

[533] nor earlier, So he, affirming not only that our Saint was elected to the archiepiscopal see of the church of Reggio, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, just praised again, does, but also that Arnulf, archbishop of Reggio, after whose death this happened, closed his last day in the year 1090. This very thing, further, as Mörkens teaches in his Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, Severus of Naples, a pupil of the Carthusian Order, found noted in an ancient Manuscript catalogue of the archbishops of Reggio; so that accordingly it is not to be doubted that Arnulf died in the said year 1090, especially since nothing occurs which in any way persuades us to set another epoch for this event. Now then, since the matter stands thus, and Arnulf, as the praised Ughelli also teaches in the place just cited, was created archbishop of Reggio while Gregory VII, who died in the year 1085, occupied the Chair of St. Peter, or at any rate, if this displeases because Arnulf's predecessor seems to have been still living in the year 1086, while Urban II had not yet been raised to it, it follows that under Urban's Pontificate the see of Reggio was not vacant before the year 1090, and hence also that the election of our Saint to it, since it was made, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse hands down to memory in the words just recited, at the wish of Pope Urban, did not happen before this year. Nor will it be difficult to prove by a similar manner of reasoning that the same did not happen later, as has already been proved above, if only Rangerius was elected to the archbishopric of Reggio in the very year 1090, as more probably was done; for since he held that see up to at least the year 1106, it will follow that the election of our Saint to it most certainly did not happen after the year 1090, since after it, while Urban lived, under whose Pontificate from what has been said this happened, that see was no longer vacant.

[534] Hence Ruinart, in the Life of Pope Urban II already praised several times, number 81, deservedly writes thus: To this year (namely 1090) we recall the election of Bruno to the archbishopric of Reggio, which, in the year 1090, which the common authors are wont to assign to the year MXCV, for this reason, that only in this year under Urban's Pontificate was that see vacant, namely by the death of Archbishop Arnulf, in whose place, Bruno refusing that dignity, Rangerius was substituted toward the end of this year. For he, as archbishop-elect of Reggio, confirmed the privilege of Theodore, bishop of Squillace, praised above (we shall recite it below), on the XVII day of December in the year MXC, and thereafter up to the year MCVI he is recorded to have subscribed various councils and public instruments under the title of archbishop, as may be seen in Ughelli, volume IX of Italia Sacra. That St. Bruno, therefore, was elected to the archbishopric of Reggio neither later nor earlier than in the year 1090 seems altogether certain and placed beyond all controversy by the arguments just brought forward; so that accordingly our more recent biographers, and other writers who will have it that our Saint was first requested as archbishop by the people of Reggio at the council of Piacenza, or at the time of that council, which was not celebrated before the year 1095, are not to be heeded. But about what month of the year 1090 did it happen that St. Bruno was elected archbishop of Reggio? Since from what has been said the Saint did not arrive at Rome to Pope Urban before April of the said year 1090, nor, as likewise appears from what has been said, was he elected or requested for the see of Reggio before his coming to him, it follows that this did not happen before April of the said year 1090 either; but whether in this very month or later I cannot define, absolutely all arguments which might in any way suffice for it being lacking. Yet let us consider whether from the things which followed the return of St. Bruno's disciples to the Chartreuse absolutely nothing can be drawn by which the time of the Saint's election to the archbishopric of Reggio may be defined more nearly still.

[535] It seemed good, says Ruinart of Pope Urban in his Life, number 82, was elected, advanced to April, about the middle of this year (namely 1090), since he was scarcely permitted to breathe at Rome, to go to the provinces subject to Roger (namely duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily) and Bohemond (brother of the former), that there he might take care of ecclesiastical affairs somewhat more freely. Certainly it is established that he was in Campania about the middle of the month of August this year from the privilege of Saint-Basle, which was given at Sinuessa this year on the XVIII day of the Kalends of September, addressed to Burchard, abbot of the same place. That Urban was then scarcely permitted to breathe at Rome, as Ruinart says here, undoubtedly came about from this, that, since the emperor Henry, having crossed the Alps, was bearing down with a hostile column, as is understood from the Appendix of Berthold, priest of Constance, to Hermann the Lame, at the said year 1090, on the Pontiff and his helpers, the followers at Rome of the antipope Guibert, made bolder by this, could scarcely be kept in their duty, and left Urban by no means a safe stay at Rome. But, to come now to the matter, there will perhaps be someone who, because Urban then withdrew from Rome into Campania and was thus made nearer to the city of Reggio, suspects that our Saint was elected to the archbishopric of Reggio at the instance of that Pontiff, whom he had followed into Campania. And indeed, if Urban had been at Reggio in the year 1090 as he was in the year 1089, there would be reason why someone might not undeservedly suspect this. But since the Pontiff seems to have stayed in Campania for the rest of that year after he had gone out from Rome, and could have caused St. Bruno to be elected archbishop of Reggio no less effectively while he was still at Rome than when he was already living in Campania, whether he did this while still at Rome or when already staying in Campania is altogether uncertain, and hence also whether our Saint was elected archbishop of Reggio before or after the middle of the summer of the year 1090, at which time, as has already been said, Urban went away from Rome into Campania. However that may be, that this was done in the year 1090, and indeed advanced at least to its April, is undoubted from what has been said above.

[536] [and, that dignity having been refused, of seeking the desert again, not in the year 1095,] No less, since in the irrefragable … of the chronographer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse

testimony (see number 532) it is founded, is it undoubted that St. Bruno, when he had refused the very sublime dignity offered to him, withdrew into the desert of Calabria whose name is the Tower. But when did the Saint do this, or, to begin with what was undoubtedly prior, when did he obtain from Pope Urban the faculty of doing it? Blomevenna, in the Life of our Saint written by him, hands down to memory thus: Blessed … Bruno, when, adhering for a few years to the supreme Pontiff out of obedience, he had profited the Church not a little by his counsels, prudence and incomparable wisdom, as may be conjectured from the decrees and other acts of the same Pope Urban, in which St. Bruno (there is no doubt) had toiled with unwearied labour, yet always desiring to return to the embraces of his beloved Rachel, to the quiet of the desert and of solitude, always bore most irksomely the din and tumults of the curia; and when he could no longer suppress the flame of so great a desire, before the aforesaid supreme Pontiff passed from Piacenza into Gaul, with much insistence he at last scarcely obtained leave, having left the curia, to go back to the desert which he had inhabited, or to choose another if he pleased. Thus far Blomevenna, having borrowed at least the principal things which he records here from the Life composed by Du Puy; nor does Surius, who composed his lucubration on St. Bruno from both these biographers, dissent much here from either the one or the other; and if they note rightly, the Saint did not obtain from the Pontiff the faculty of withdrawing into the desert, having left the Pontifical curia, until he, the council of Piacenza having been celebrated, was already about to go away into Gaul; and since this was done, as is agreed among all, in the year 1095, it will follow that the Saint obtained the faculty of withdrawing from the Pontifical curia and going back to the desert neither before this year nor before a stay of about five years with Urban (for, from what has been said, he had come to him in the year 1090).

[537] but in 1090, having stayed only a few months But just as the charters of count Roger, of Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace, and others, to be transcribed here below, prove that the Saint was elected archbishop of Reggio before the year 1095, contrary to what the same biographers of Bruno write, so also they prove that he obtained from Urban the faculty of going back to the desert and the solitary life before the same year; from which it is manifest that the Saint was living in the Calabrian desert, having left the Pontifical curia, before the year 1095, nay already from the year 1090, or at any rate from the year 1091, as everyone will easily understand from what is to be said below. And indeed the praised biographers, or rather those from whom Du Puy, the more ancient of these, drew it, perhaps put in writing that our Saint stayed so long with Pope Urban from no other head than that during the first five years in which he inhabited the Calabrian desert he was from time to time summoned from his solitude by that Pontiff, who wished to use his counsels in the arduous and entangled affairs frequently arising in those most difficult times, as I shall teach below. However that may be, that the Saint indeed remained with Urban after his departure from the Chartreuse not five years but only as many months, or perhaps even fewer, is plain from this, that from what has been said he did not come to him before April or May of the year 1090, and, while that very year was still running, was already in Calabria and obtained there, by a public charter granted to him by Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, the desert which he began to inhabit either in the same year 1090 or at any rate not long after, as the things to be said below will disclose. Nor did the older Carthusians, as appears, believe that the Saint, after his departure from the Chartreuse, stayed with Pope Urban longer than I have now determined before he obtained the faculty of withdrawing from the Pontifical curia and sought Calabria.

[538] For the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or the more ancient biographer of our Saint, stayed with the Pontiff, obtained the faculty. who from what has been said above flourished in the XIII century, first indeed at number 16 and following hands down to memory thus of St. Bruno: The venerable Father, coming to the supreme Pontiff, and assisting him not for a long but for a short time, bore many of his burdens by his wholesome counsels and aids, and by his promptness much relieved his solicitude in the government of the holy Church of God. Yet he could not long patiently dissemble the sadness and grief conceived at the dispersion of his sons, and, bearing heavily and not enduring to bear longer the din and tumults of the curia, which hindered the sweetness and quiet with which he had been accustomed to be delighted and fed in the desert, having set forth his desolation to the supreme Pontiff, he implored with the greatest insistence and obtained to be separated from the curia, and that he might return to the desert and to the already foretasted sweetness of the cell and the desired rest; and then at number 24 he supplies the following, which also bear on this: Bruno therefore, a most holy man and endowed with a twofold knowledge, namely divine as well as human, … ruled the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, and afterwards, as has been said before, called by the Pope, and not long after passing to the desert of Calabria whose name is the Tower, there, having built a holy monastery, he was ruler and minister of many servants of God, anchorites. So he in both places, indicating, as far as appears, by the formulas of speech which he employs, that St. Bruno stayed with Pope Urban not five years but a far shorter space of time before he obtained the faculty of leaving the Pontifical curia and withdrew into Calabria. Wherefore, since the older Carthusians who consigned anything to writing about the holy Institutor of their Order drew nearly all their material from the praised chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, whose words have just been recited here, they most probably, adhering to his footsteps, attributed to our Saint not a five-year but a far less lasting stay with Pope Urban; and indeed not undeservedly, since the Saint did not come to him before April of the year 1090, and left the Pontifical curia in this very year, as is sufficiently clear from what has already been said above, and will become plainer from what is to be said.

§ XXXII. Whether the Saint was found by Roger, count of Calabria, while hunting, in a cave of Calabria in which he had hidden himself with his companions; whither, having left the Pontifical curia, he first withdrew, and why he did not then go back to the Chartreuse.

That the Saint was found by count Roger, not yet knowing him, while hunting, That our Saint, having left the Pontifical curia with Pope Urban's consent, withdrew into the desert of Calabria whose name is the Tower, fixed his seat there, humble huts having been built, was found in the caves in which he was staying with his companions by Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, who then did not yet know him, while he was hunting, and that on this occasion it came about that he obtained that desert from this prince, all the principal biographers of St. Bruno later than the fifteenth century whom I have at hand hand down to memory, namely Zacharias Benedictus, Du Puy, Blomevenna and Surius. I transcribe the words bearing on this of Blomevenna alone, since he has the rest almost exactly agreeing with him and can therefore hold the place of all of them, nearly all the others being omitted. They run thus: Dismissed therefore with the will and blessing of the supreme Pontiff, he (namely St. Bruno) sought the deserts of Calabria with some men of the same purpose, whom he had brought to contempt of the world by his most fervent exhortations. For he had heard that there were very many desert places there most suited to doing penance and following the solitary life. He wished, as he had frequently resolved, to return to the Chartreuse to his dearest brothers, whom he had sent on ahead; but because the supreme Pontiff with his curia was passing into Gaul, in whose borders the Chartreuse is situated, he feared lest he should be unable to avoid there the curia which he was fleeing. And therefore he betook himself rather to the deserts of Calabria… The holy Man came therefore to a certain desert of Calabria whose name is the Tower, in the diocese of Squillace, and there they built, not costly cells, since the means for them were not at hand, but humble huts of cheap material, yet precious in Christ…

[540] contrary to what Blomevenna hands down in the words here recited, And when they had begun to inhabit the said desert, it happened, the Lord working this, that one day Roger, count of Calabria, engaged in hunting with his not small company and a copious multitude of dogs in the same desert of the Tower, came to the place where the servants of God had begun to dwell. And the dogs, following by their scent the various tracks of wild beasts, came to the caves or huts in which St. Bruno dwelt with his own. Where, with feet fixed, by much barking they indicated to their master that they had found great prey. On seeing this the count, coming with his men at a rapid run, found the aforesaid Fathers in the same caves, on bended knees and with faces and hands raised to heaven, praying together and praising God. The count seeing this, filled with great wonder, leaping down from the horse on which he was sitting, devoutly and humbly saluted them, and anxiously asked about the cause of their coming and their state. When he had learned each thing in order from them, he rejoiced greatly, praising God and glorifying Him because He had judged him worthy of such prey. For the religious count hoped that he and his land would be helped before God by their merits and prayers and preserved in peace. And therefore, that they might live more quietly there and persevere longer, he gave them the church of blessed Mary and of blessed Stephen of the desert; where, frequently visiting them, he provided for the necessities of life, and willingly heard from them the teachings of salvation; and blessed Bruno, the pastor and father of them all, whom he loved more closely than the rest, he frequently summoned to himself. Whom also he always held in great reverence, and as the first in his house, acquiescing in his counsels, commending himself continually to his prayers, in which he trusted very much.

[541] Thus far Blomevenna, or rather all the biographers of St. Bruno praised above: was not found, from the diploma of duke Roger, now each, or at least the principal, of the things which are established in the recited words must be examined, and first of all whether the Saint, having obtained from the Pontiff the faculty of going back to the desert, betook himself straight into the Calabrian desert of the Tower, and was found there in a cave by Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, while he was hunting and, as the recited words of Blomevenna indicate, did not yet know him. Roger, son of Robert Guiscard, brother of count Roger just mentioned, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, in the diploma to be transcribed here below, in which, from what is to be said, in the year 1093 he confirmed the donation of the Calabrian desert made to St. Bruno and his companions by count Roger his paternal uncle, speaks thus: We wish it to be known to your brotherhood concerning two men, namely Bruno and Lanvinus, who, kindled with zeal for holy religion, came with their companions into the land of Calabria from the parts of the Gauls, God so disposing, and under my guidance sought in the land which has been mentioned a place which would suit their purpose; which, when they had not found one suitable for themselves in my territory,

they chose to remain between the place which is called Arena and the town which is called Stilo. And that place Roger, count of Sicily, my paternal uncle … gave to them; for it was of his county by my concession. Since therefore our Saint and his companions, as duke Roger here declares, came into Calabria, then subject partly to him, as I shall teach below, partly to count Roger, and there, when they had previously sought under the guidance of duke Roger himself, in the lands subject to him, a place suited to their purpose, and had not found one, at length chose such a one in the county of count Roger, or in the lands subject to him, it follows that, having obtained from the Pontiff the faculty of leaving the curia and seeking the desert, they betook themselves not straight, as Blomevenna teaches in the words just recited, into the Calabrian desert of the Tower, subject to count Roger, but into the lands subject to duke Roger, to seek there a place suitable for the eremitical life.

[542] Nay rather, since, as I have already said, not having found in these and it is proved from another of count Roger himself. a place which they judged fit for their purpose, they sought such a one in the lands subject to count Roger, as the words just recited of the diploma granted by duke Roger make credible, the Saint and his companions were probably previously brought by duke Roger to count Roger, in order that they might become possessors of their wish and obtain a place from this prince, if they found one in his lands suited to their purpose. What also makes me believe this is the diploma by which count Roger granted the Calabrian desert to St. Bruno and his companions. For in this the count speaks in the following manner: We wish it to be known to your brotherhood that by the mercy of God there have come from the parts of the Gauls to this region of Calabria Men of holy Religion, namely Bruno and Lanvinus with their companions, who, having despised the vanity of worldly glory, had chosen to serve as soldiers to God alone. Knowing therefore the desire of these, and desiring to be helped before God by their merits and prayers, I obtained from their charity with many prayers that they should choose in my land a place suitable for themselves, in which they might prepare such dwellings as they wished for serving God; and since by these words the count indicates that he brought it about that Bruno and his companions chose in his land, that is, in the Calabrian desert of the Tower, as is understood from what follows, a place suited to their purpose in which they might build such dwellings as they wished, it follows that, before they did so, they dealt with count Roger about the matter, having probably been brought to him by duke Roger, who from what has been said had previously helped them by his guidance in seeking a place in his lands. And hence, further, it now follows that, when they had already chosen for themselves a seat in the aforesaid desert and built dwellings of whatever sort, they were not found, while he was hunting, by count Roger altogether unaware of this matter, as Blomevenna in the words recited above and the other praised biographers indicate.

[543] [That the things which Blomevenna establishes do not agree with these was observed already before.] Wherefore I think it happened that count Roger gave Bruno and his companions the choice of a place in his dominion which should be suitable for the eremitical life, not on the occasion of a hunt in which he found them hidden in a cave and intent on prayer, but through the intervention of duke Roger, from whom, having heard some things of the most austere life and most holy morals of Bruno and his companions, he desired that men of this kind, by whose prayers and merits he hoped that help would be at hand for him from the Lord, as he himself indicates in the words just recited of his diploma, should fix their seat in his dominion, and, when they had been brought to him, asked them to choose for themselves in it whatever place they wished. And indeed, that what is handed down to memory by the praised biographers of our Saint about St. Bruno and his companions, whom, never before seen by him and altogether unknown, count Roger found while hunting in a cave most intently praying to God, and therefore enriched with very many benefits, does not agree aptly enough with the two diplomas already cited, as I have just abundantly indicated, I find to have been already observed before me by Cesare d'Engenio in the Napoli sacra, in Surianus's Annotations on the Life of our Saint composed by Surius, page 189. Nor have Mörkens, a pupil of the Chartreuse of Cologne, in his Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, and Zanotti, in the Life or History of the same Saint composed by him and inscribed to the Bolognese and to the Carthusians in Italy, dared to pronounce this observation far from the truth; yet they endeavour to show that our Saint and his companions were truly found praying in a cave by prince Roger while he was engaged in hunting, and that hence it came about that he conferred very many benefits on them, and that by two different ways.

[544] Of what sort are the things which bear on this And the former indeed establishes that the Saint was found, not by count Roger in the Calabrian desert of the Tower or of Squillace, but by duke Roger in a certain grotto or cave of his dominion, with Lanvinus and the other companions whom he had joined to himself; and when he has declared that he adheres to this opinion rather than the other, which determines that the Saint was found not by duke Roger but by the count, on account of the words recited above of the diploma granted by duke Roger, he also renders to the reader the reason for which he thinks that the Saint was indeed in reality found, while engaged in prayer in a cave, by one or the other Roger while hunting, writing of the story which declares that this was done in the following manner: These things for the truth of the story, which I acknowledge to be most true from the tradition of our elders, and which were acknowledged by the compiler of the Fasciculus temporum, Henry of Kalkar in On the Rise and Progress of the Carthusian Order, Du Puy the writer of the Life, and all the domestic writers. And lest anyone should also argue against that tradition, as he says, from the fact that mention of the Saint, found in the caves by Roger, whether duke or count, while hunting, does not occur in the diplomas of either of these princes cited above, he immediately subjoins these following to the words just transcribed here: Nor is there reason why anyone should hesitate or doubt of the truth of the thing from the fact that neither the duke nor the count, both Rogers, the former in the aforesaid diploma, the latter in his charters (for he gave more, to be recited below, besides the one already mentioned more than once above, in favour of St. Bruno and his companions), make any mention of it; the latter of whom nevertheless, in another charter of his given long afterwards, mentions the Capuan treason revealed to him by St. Bruno in a vision by night; for the condition of the one and of the other is different. In the one he gives a place deserted by the cultivation of men, and he could do so lawfully even with no reason given; but in the other he hands over to St. Bruno into perpetual servitude those guilty of the Capuan treason condemned to death; of which kind of conveyance the cause had to be set forth according to the laws.

[545] Thus far he, contending namely that there was no reason why, either Mörkens, even if the Saint had truly been found praying to God in a cave together with his companions by Roger, whether duke or count, while relaxing his mind with hunting, mention of this matter should be made in the aforementioned diplomas, and that hence it cannot be argued to be false from their silence. But be it so; that the Saint was indeed found by duke Roger while hunting, as he holds to be more probable, can be confirmed by absolutely no testimony of any writer, whether more recent or more ancient; so that accordingly this seems to have been devised by Mörkens altogether gratuitously, although meanwhile against this opinion of his, as against the opinion of Blomevenna and our other biographers, who determine that the Saint was found in the Calabrian desert of the Tower by count Roger, who did not know that he was staying in it, it can be that absolutely no positive argument can be formed from the diplomas already often praised, and that nothing also from elsewhere stands in the way of its being believed that our Saint was found by duke Roger in a certain cave of his dominion, since the words recited above from the latter's diploma make credible that he was in the lands of duke Roger before he went to the lands of count Roger. But Surianus, who stands for the opinion which establishes that our Saint was found in a cave of the desert by count Roger, to whom he was still altogether unknown, or rather for Surius, who hands it down, in his Annotations on him, page 192, against Cesare d'Engenio, who, as has already been said, had observed in his Napoli sacra that that story is not aptly enough reconciled with the diplomas cited above, calls to his aid the diploma or privilege, to be recited below, which Bruno received from Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace.

[546] or Surianus, For he writes thus in the same place: The aforesaid Cesare says that he used exquisite diligence in investigating this truth (namely of Bruno being found in the hiding places of the Calabrian desert or wilderness by count Roger, to whom he was still altogether unknown): I would not deny it. But nevertheless many things persuade that he did not see, or at any rate lightly weighed, the diploma of Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace. For if he had weighed what he says there, that St. Bruno lived for a sufficiently long time in desert places of Calabria before he passed to the desert of Squillace, he would certainly agree that he dwelt not in fixed tents but in caves that came to hand and little underground lodgings of this kind. Thus far he; but Mesimerius, the Greek bishop of Squillace, contrary to what he will have in these words, nowhere hands down in his diploma, written in Greek, that St. Bruno lived for a sufficiently long time in desert places of Calabria before he passed to the desert of Squillace. For in this he records only the following things of St. Bruno and his companions by which he could seem to do so, according to the version of Mörkens: Who indeed, living for a sufficiently long time in desert places, migrated thither to the parts of Stilo in my diocese; or, if you prefer, according to the version of Ughelli, volume IX of Italia Sacra, column 425, these: Who, when they had passed their life for many years in solitary places, migrated hither to the parts of Stilo in my diocese; and by these words he does not declare whether the Saint had stayed with his companions for a sufficiently long time in the deserts of Calabria or in others before he hid himself in the desert of Squillace. What if Mesimerius speaks only of the deserts of the Chartreuse and of Sèche-Fontaine, in which the Saint, before he went to Calabria, had lived for a sufficiently long time, or for many years? This indeed appears on no head unlike the truth, much less incredible.

[547] or finally Zanotti brings forward. Moreover, if Mesimerius's discourse is also of other deserts than those of the Chartreuse and of Sèche-Fontaine, will it follow from this that our Saint was found in these by count Roger while hunting, when he was still altogether unknown to him? By no means indeed, as everyone, as far as I think, will without difficulty acknowledge. But, you will say, it could indeed thus easily have come about that, as Mörkens from what has been said inclines to believe, the Saint

our … was found, not indeed by count Roger, but by the duke of the same name, whose paternal uncle he was, while the Saint was still altogether unknown to him, in the cave into which he had withdrawn with his companions, while hunting. I confess it is so, nor do the diplomas mentioned above oppose its having been able to happen so; but whether it really happened so will always be doubtful to me, if only because the matter can be proved by absolutely no monument of approved and certain credit. Let us now come to Zanotti. He, in order to defend what Surius and other biographers of the Saint hand down, that the Saint was found in a cave by count Roger while he was engaged in hunting, determines that this matter was done not before, but after the Saint had become known to count Roger and had already received from him the desert of the Tower or of Squillace in Calabria to inhabit; and since this does not conflict even in appearance, as will be evident to one who considers it, with the diplomas cited above, and hence these cannot prevent its being believed that it was done then, the opinion of Zanotti appears no less credible than that of Mörkens; but whether it is in fact consonant with the truth is altogether doubtful, since it is founded on no ancient author or monument of sufficiently certain credit; nor can the biographers of our Saint praised above make it certain, who, besides clothing it with other circumstances than Zanotti does, are all too recent to be able by their authority alone to create certain and undoubted credit for the things which they narrate about St. Bruno.

[548] Wherefore, all things being duly weighed, I think it most probable that the Saint's withdrawal from the Pontifical curia into the Calabrian desert of the Tower happened nearly in the manner which I subjoin here. How the Saint more probably obtained the Calabrian desert from count Roger, St. Bruno, from what has been said above, accompanied the Pontiff as he went away from Rome in the middle of the summer of the year 1090 into Campania and the dominions subject to duke Roger and his brother Bohemond, and there most earnestly sought from him the faculty of leaving the curia and going back to the desert. Having at length obtained this, he presently betook himself into Calabria, where he had heard that there were very many desert places, to duke Roger, whom perhaps he had already seen somewhere in Campania and had informed of his desire of returning to the solitary life; and when, with his consent and under his guidance, he had sought in the part of Calabria subject to him a place suitable for the eremitical life and had not found one, he was led by the same prince, who perhaps was hastening to him for other causes, to count Roger; and having obtained from him, to whom he had been much commended by duke Roger on account of the distinguished holiness of his life, the faculty of choosing for himself in the part of Calabria which obeyed him whatever place he judged fit for his purpose, he chose the desert of the Tower, and obtained that it be given to him, as we shall presently see, by the said count Roger. The matter so arranged and conceived has indeed nothing which either conflicts with the diplomas praised above or is in any way at variance with probability. Since this is so, I think it almost certain and undoubted that the Saint withdrew into Calabria and obtained that the desert of the Tower be given to him in the manner which I have now stated. But if meanwhile anyone should contend with Zanotti that the Saint, most intently praying to God in this desert already given to him, was found by count Roger while he was engaged in hunting, or should stubbornly establish with Mörkens that this befell him in Apulia from duke Roger, I shall indeed not greatly oppose him, since this opinion of his, however less probable, will not conflict with the diplomas cited above. But however all these things finally stand, our Saint indeed, when he went away from the Pontifical curia, withdrew, as has already been said, into the Calabrian desert of the Tower. And Zanotti indeed narrates in the Life of the Saint composed by him, chapter 18, that he, when he was on the journey toward it, visited the churches of St. Nicholas at Bari and of St. Michael on Mount Gargano, had this archangel appear to him twice, and some other things; but he himself neither confirms these by any testimony of antiquity, nor do I find them confirmed elsewhere.

[549] Now therefore it remains to be examined here why it seemed good to the Saint at that time to betake himself into Calabria rather and why he betook himself to this, than to return to his beloved Chartreuse. He wished (these are the words of Blomevenna still recited above) to return to the Chartreuse to his dearest brothers, whom he had sent on ahead; but because the supreme Pontiff (Urban II) with his curia was passing into Gaul, in whose borders the Chartreuse is situated, he feared lest he should be unable to avoid the curia which he was fleeing, and therefore he betook himself rather to the deserts of Calabria; so he: but that Bruno withdrew into Calabria rather than returned to the Chartreuse not for the reason which he alleges in these words, the reckoning alone of the time at which Pope Urban passed into Gaul and the Saint withdrew into Calabria proves. For Urban, as is agreed among all, did not go away into Gaul before the year 1095, in which, after he had celebrated a council at Piacenza in Italy, he went into Gaul to celebrate another, far the most celebrated, at Clermont, in which the foundation was laid of the sacred expeditions against the infidels for the recovery of the Holy Land; but Bruno, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said and is further to be said, betook himself from the Pontifical curia into Calabria in the year 1090. I think, therefore, that the Saint betook himself into Calabria rather than returned to the Chartreuse because the Pontiff, foreknowing that in the most difficult times in which he was living he would from time to time be compelled to leave Rome and withdraw into the lands subject to duke Roger and the count of the same name, did not wish Bruno, whom he wished sometimes to summon to himself and employ for counsels, to go away into Gaul, or to the Chartreuse, situated far from the dominions of both Rogers.

[550] but did not rather return to the Chartreuse This opinion is settled with me because the epistle written by Pope Paschal II, the next successor of Urban, to Lanvinus, disciple of our Saint and his next successor in the priorate of the Calabrian desert, on the VI of the Kalends of December in the year 1101, a fragment of which Mabillon supplies in book 70 of the Benedictine Annals, number 30, persuades that the Saint, when he was already living in the desert of the Tower, was in fact summoned from time to time by Urban, whether to be present at councils that had been proclaimed or for any other cause. For this epistle, which the Parisian Carthusian, already praised more than once above, communicated to me entire, copied from the Val-Dieu copy of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, runs thus: Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son Lanvinus, greeting and Apostolic benediction. What we greatly desired and awaited with vehement desire has, the Lord being propitious, been accomplished. For on the return of brother R. *, bishop of Albano, we have learned that the peace and concord of the desert have been restored, and that you have succeeded to the place of master Bruno of holy memory. Let therefore the spirit of the same Man be in you, let there be the same rigour of eremitical discipline, the same constancy of morals and gravity: since we, the Lord helping, grant to you, the same spirit accompanying you, whatever authority and power the approved wisdom and religion of that Master earned personally from the Apostolic See. We wish, moreover, that you should visit us in the coming Lent, so that we may speak more fully mouth to mouth the secrets of the heart. Meanwhile we admonish you to busy yourself with our brothers and the religious men who are around you about restoring the peace of the land, which we have heard is vehemently disturbed, and to take care to admonish others to this. Command the abbot of St. Julian, whom we have heard to be reprehensible, on our part to present himself to our hearing; and reprove him vehemently for his contempt of the letters of our legate. Given at Rome on the sixth of the Kalends of December.

[551] returned. Since therefore, as is clear from this epistle of Pope Paschal, Lanvinus, the Saint's next successor in the Priorate of the desert of the Tower, was summoned to Rome by this next successor of Urban II in the Chair of St. Peter, it does not appear to be doubted that St. Bruno himself, whom Paschal here extols with the highest praises, was also summoned by Urban II. Since this is so, you will not undeservedly conjecture that this supreme Pontiff, in order to be able easily to summon Bruno to himself from time to time, did not wish him to depart far from the regions in which he foresaw that he would himself not rarely stay, and that hence it came about that Bruno did not return to the Chartreuse but betook himself into Calabria. This conjecture, further, is also in some way confirmed both by the tradition, as it is called, of the Carthusian Order, and by this, that, as the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, a witness above all exception, testifies in the eulogy of our Saint transcribed here at number 7, he was summoned from the Chartreuse by the Pontiff Urban II in order to help him with his counsels; whence it becomes probable that Urban, when he granted Bruno the faculty of departing from his curia, still wished to use his counsels thereafter, and to this end summoned him to himself from time to time while he was not too far from Calabria. Moreover, unless it be established that the Saint withdrew into Calabria because the Pontiff wished him to stay not far from the places in which he himself was living, for the said end, what reason, in the end, will be brought forward why he did this, after the faculty of withdrawing into the desert had been obtained from the Pontiff, and did not rather return to the Chartreuse?

* Richard

§ XXXIII. The Saint is given the desert of the Tower in Calabria by count Roger, and this donation is then confirmed to him by Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace, and afterwards by Pope Urban II.

Count Roger gives the desert of the Tower to the Saint. The Saint, the choice having been given him, in the manner which I set forth in the preceding §, by Roger, count of Sicily and Calabria, of choosing in the dominions subject to this prince the place which he should judge most fit for leading the eremitical life, presently traversed Calabria diligently; and when he had found in it the desert whose name is the Tower, situated between Stilo and Arena and enclosed within the boundaries of the diocese of Scyllacium, or, as others write, Squillace, which he judged very convenient for his purpose, as being very mountainous and steep and difficult of access, count Roger most kindly bestowed this place on him by a public instrument or diploma drawn up, and Mesimerius, bishop of Scyllacium, and Pope Urban II afterwards confirmed the donation. It will be helpful to have set beneath the reader's eyes the charters or instruments by which they did this, since they are not all readily at hand, and they bring light to not a few of the things which have already been said and will further be said about the Saint, some things being observed at the foot of each, whether about the chronological notes with which they are furnished, or about the persons in whose name they are recorded, or finally about any other things whatever which needed elucidation or commentary. I begin with transcribing the diploma of count Roger. It is expressed in these words according to the recension of Mörkens: Roger, by the grace of God count of Calabria and Sicily, to all his faithful and to the sons of the Church of God, both present and future, greeting in the Lord. We wish it to be known to your brotherhood that by the mercy of God from

the parts of the Gauls to this region of Calabria there have come men of holy Religion, namely Bruno and Lanvinus with their companions, who, having despised the vanity of worldly glory, had chosen to serve as soldiers to God alone.

[553] The public charter, Knowing therefore the desire of these, and desiring to be helped before God by their merits and prayers, I obtained from their charity with many prayers that they should choose in my land a place suitable for themselves, in which they might prepare such dwellings as they wished for serving God. They chose accordingly in my land a certain place of solitude, situated between the place which is called Arena and the town which is called Stilo. This place I have given, to the honour of God Almighty, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and to the honour of most blessed Mary ever Virgin, mother of Christ our God and Lord, and of all the Saints, to them and to their successors who shall serve God there, with the whole wood and land and water and mountain for the space of one league on every adjacent side, granting and establishing that they possess this place freely and quietly with this its adjacency for ever; and that they do not render for this any corvée or service to me or to any person. And I solemnly charge and forbid, on the part of God Almighty and of holy Mary perpetual Virgin and of all the Saints, and on my own, that there be anyone of mine or of strangers, namely a Strategos or viscount, peasant or knight, slave or free, who in this place, on the occasion of pasture or agriculture or even fishing or timber, or for any cause whatever, should cause trouble or injury to the servants of God; but let it be in their power to possess, dispose, order and bestow the aforesaid place with its whole adjacency according to their will. But if anyone henceforth shall presume to come against the ordinance of this page, first of all, unless he shall have made worthy satisfaction, let him incur the wrath and curse of God, and, such an attempt having been brought to nothing, let him bear for so great presumption a penalty of a hundred pounds of gold in our court.

[554] by which he did this. Therefore, that this ordinance may remain inviolable and altogether firm, with the consent of my wife the countess Adelaide and of my son Geoffrey, I have made this donation in the presence of good men and have commanded it to be sealed with my seal. I, Geoffrey, bishop of the church of Malta, though unworthy, have written this charter with my hand at the request of count Roger, praising and confirming this ordinance, and condemning with anathema and excommunication whoever shall presume to break it, unless however, coming to his senses, he shall have made satisfaction. These things were done in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and ninety. Moreover I have given Mule with his sons to guard the wood. And these witnesses were present: Stephen the priest, Giraldus the priest, Peter of Mortain *, Richard Malet, Ragnulf the almoner, Nicholas the notary, and many others. Mörkens, from whose recension, as I have already advised, I exhibit this charter here, subjoins to it, recited entire: Note, I received this charter of donation of the Calabrian desert, etc., from Italy, taken from the autograph. It is also in the Annotations (namely page 199 and the three following) of our Surianus to the Life of St. Bruno. From it it is manifestly established that our holy Father Bruno came with Lanvinus and some companions from the parts of Gaul into Calabria already in the year MXC, and was asked by count Roger to remain in that land of his and to choose a desert accommodated to his purpose. So he, and rightly indeed, as far as appears to me: there are, however, those who contend that the recited charter of the donation made by Roger was not given before the year 1091, because they will have it that it was written in the month of January or February, and that these two months, considering the method of computing which count Roger followed, reckoning the years of the Lord not from His Nativity but from the Incarnation, following us by three months, must have fallen not in the year 1090, in the months of January and February of which the Saint was most probably, not to say undoubtedly, still living in the Chartreuse, but in the year 1091.

[555] But that Roger was accustomed to compute the years of the Lord not from His Incarnation Mabillon wrongly confuses this with another. but from the Nativity, his various diplomas extant in Rocco Pirro, Ughelli and others make credible, as everyone who is willing to consult these will easily detect. Further, Mabillon, in book 68 of the Annals, number 32, confuses the charter of donation just recited with the charter, also to be recited by us below, by which count Roger afterwards circumscribed or assigned boundaries to the desert of the Tower which he had already previously given to Bruno and his companions, and moreover wrongly attributes this to duke Roger; at both of which things I cannot but wonder, since this very charter, which he transcribes in part in that very place, and which, as I have advised, he attributes to duke Roger, bears at its head, in his text, not the name of duke Roger but of count Roger, and contains in its body the following words: This place therefore, situated namely between the place which is called Arena and the town which is called Stilo, that is, the desert of the Tower, and all the things adjacent on every side in circuit for the space of one league, we have given to God and to blessed Mary, and to them and their successors in ownership, as they were ours, under every immunity and liberty… We have asked moreover the venerable man Geoffrey, bishop of Malta, to write a charter of confirmation of this our donation, which we have also sealed… and this our donation both our lord the Apostolic Urban and Theodore, bishop of Squillace, in whose bishopric the place itself is situated, have praised, confirmed by privileges and fortified with a terrible anathema; and since by these words Pope Urban is said to have confirmed the donation of the Calabrian desert of the Tower made to St. Bruno by count Roger, and the charter by which he did this was given in the year 1092, as Mabillon himself confesses in the place cited, I do not see how this writer could deservedly take the charter which he recites in part, and which he exhibits as signed in the year 1093, for the charter by which Roger first gave the said desert to St. Bruno and his companions.

[556] Yet, since Mabillon seems not to have had at hand the charter recited above, by which Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, truly gave the desert of the Tower to our Saint, Of the lineage of duke and count Roger, hence perhaps he fell into this error; but nothing of this kind in any way excuses the other error by which, as I have already advised, he attributes the charter which he transcribes in part, issued by count Roger, to duke Roger, whose paternal uncle he was; for that the latter is different from the former everyone who has greeted Sicilian History even from the threshold has well perceived, nor was Mabillon himself ignorant of it, so that accordingly it would be superfluous to prove it here. Yet, that everyone may both distinguish between the two Rogers and be able to pass judgment on the genuineness of the charters to be transcribed here, which both duke Roger and the count gave in favour of St. Bruno and his companions, it pleases me to bring forward here some things which chiefly concern both those princes and their Norman stock and progeny. Tancred of Hauteville, as Geoffrey Malaterra, a contemporary author, relates in book 1 of the Sicilian History composed by him, born of a noble place near Coutances in Normandy, a province of Gaul, flourished in the eleventh century, and from two different wives begot twelve sons: from the former, whose name has fallen out, William, surnamed Iron-arm, Drogo, Humphrey, Geoffrey and Serlo; and from the latter, who was surnamed Fransendis, Robert, afterwards called Guiscard, Malger, William, Alfred, Humbert, Tancred, and finally Roger; all of whom, except two who remained in their native soil to take the paternal inheritance, sought Italy, and, renowned for warlike deeds chiefly in Apulia and Campania, gradually subjected to themselves these and some other neighbouring regions, the Greeks and Saracens, their lords, having been expelled. Chiefly, however, there shone out among them Robert, surnamed Guiscard, and Roger, who was the youngest of all, who gained for himself a great name even with late posterity no less by his benefits toward St. Bruno and his singular liberality toward other persons and sacred places than by arms.

[557] notice of their wives, children and dominions. And Robert indeed held the duchy of Apulia together with a part of Calabria and some other neighbouring dominions, and exchanged life for death in the year 1085, leaving after him three or four sons, of whom Roger, the second born, succeeded to the duchy of Apulia and the greater part of the paternal inheritance, and had as wife Adela, daughter of Robert the Frisian, count of Flanders; but Roger, who, although he held only a part of Calabria, and the supreme dominion of this whole region seems to have been in the hands of Guiscard and then of his son Roger, was called count no less of Calabria than of Sicily, had three different wives joined to him in marriage, if however the first of these, who is called Judith by Orderic Vitalis, History of the Normans, book 3, page 484, but Delicia by Geoffrey Malaterra, Sicilian History, book 2, chapter 29, can come under the name of a lawful wife. The first bore him no children, as the praised Orderic Vitalis teaches in the place cited; the second, called Elemburga in Malaterra, book 4, chapter 14, and Eremburgis in Du Cange in the Sicilian Stemma inserted in the Annotations on Anna Comnena, bore a son Gaufredus, or, as it is written by others, Goffredus, and some daughters; the third, by name Adelaide, or, as others mark it, Adelasia, who was the daughter of Boniface, marquess of Montferrat, was given to him in marriage in the year 1089, and from her he begot two sons, of whom the one, by name Simon, died an infant, the other, called Roger like his father, was afterwards made king of Sicily. And these things I have thought should be premised here, partly from Geoffrey Malaterra, partly from Orderic Vitalis, that the things which will have to be annotated on the various diplomas of count Roger and the one of duke Roger granted in favour of St. Bruno and his companions may be understood. And first indeed it is now clear from these that nothing can be opposed to the sincerity of the diploma, just transcribed here, by which count Roger granted the desert of the Tower, or of Squillace, in Calabria to St. Bruno in the year 1090, from the fact that it is said to have been given with the consent of the count's wife Adelaide and his son Geoffrey. Nor is there reason why that monument should be made suspect from the fact that it was given in Calabria, and count Roger is not known to have been in Calabria at the end of the year 1090, in which it was given; for although Malaterra and the others who committed his deeds to writing do not expressly declare that that prince was there then, yet they hand down to memory nothing either from which the contrary certainly follows.

[558] I come now to the charter by which Theodore Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace, [The bishop of Squillace confirms the donation made to the Saint by Roger. The instrument,] in whose diocese the desert of the Tower was situated, as I have already advised, approved the donation of it made to St. Bruno by count Roger. Of this instrument, which, in Greek, by Mesimerius, since in Calabria public instruments even of the Norman dominion

were at first accustomed to be written in Greek, was originally given as bishop of the Greek church, Mörkens, as he says in his Annotations on it, had in his hands a copy taken from the Greek autograph itself and sent to him from Italy, and added it, rendered into Latin by himself, at the end of the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe which he composed on St. Bruno. I took pains to be able to obtain the Greek copy of that monument too, to exhibit it here to the reader; but since I have laboured in vain, and am compelled to be content with another's interpretation, namely either that of Surianus in the Annotations on the Life of the Saint written by Surius, page 207 and following, or that of Ughelli in volume IX of Italia Sacra among the bishops of Squillace, or finally that of Mörkens, I transcribe here that instrument as it has been turned into the Latin language by this last writer. According to his recension, then, it runs thus: Theodore Mesimerius, by the mercy of God bishop of Castra, Scyllacium, Stilo and Taverna, and protosyncellus, at the petition of the most illustrious count, our lord Roger, who deigned to ask me on behalf of the most honoured monks and hermits, namely the lords Bruno and Lanvinus, not indeed dealing with me with supreme and tyrannical authority, but, as I have said, deigning to ask me on behalf of the above-written monks, inhabiting the place preserved by God which is called the Tower, in the very venerable church of our most glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and of St. John the Baptist, the forerunner; who indeed, living for a sufficiently long time in desert places, migrated thither to the parts of Stilo in my diocese.

[559] And just as our lord the count has given you the mountain, by which he did this, fields and mills around the church up to two miles, may you possess them for ever, you monks praised above, and your companions and successors who shall inhabit this place to the end of the ages, without anyone's prohibition or molestation; and let no one, neither I myself nor others who after me shall be elected bishops, impose on you and the other companions and successors tribute or tithe, or any vexation whatever; but if anyone shall dare to despise this our seal (that is, diploma), let him have anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and from the three hundred and eighteen (namely of the I council of Nicaea) God-bearing Fathers. Let this seal remain firm and inviolable to the end of the ages. For I have made this present sealed seal for the aforesaid monks, and sealing it have signed it with my leaden bull ✠. On the seventh of the Month of December, in the fifteenth Indiction, of the year one thousand and ninety. I, Raingerius, by the clemency of God archbishop-elect of the holy metropolitan church of Reggio, being present have confirmed it, just as it is altogether written, and let it remain ratified and fixed both with those servants of God of whom mention has been made above, Bruno, Lanvinus and the other companions, and also with those who shall succeed, and let it obtain validity to the end of the ages. To the Greek charter of Mesimerius, here already given according to the recension of Mörkens, there exists added, as this writer and Surianus, page 209, testify, another Latin one also, or rather a somewhat freer interpretation of the said Greek charter made, as appears, by Mesimerius himself. That the studious reader may be able to pass his judgment on the donation which count Roger made to St. Bruno, approved by Mesimerius, it pleases me to transcribe that Latin charter too here.

[560] with a Latin interpretation also added, did, It is expressed in these words: I, Theodore Mesimerius, by the grace of God bishop of Squillace, and of Stilo and of Taverna, and protosynquillos, give freely, not compelled, but acquiescing in the prayers of count Roger and the counsel of very many of his nobles, the land of the Towers, namely two miles around the church, established on the mountain, on every side, to the lord Bruno and Lanvinus and their companions, and their successors inhabiting that mountain, in such manner and tenor that they may freely have and possess it in life, and after their decease their successors likewise may freely possess the mountain and land with the wood within the bounds of the aforesaid two miles on every side around the church established on the aforesaid mountain, paying no service to the bishop of Squillace nor to the count, nor to any person; and if they wish to make any ordination or consecration, let them do as they please. But whoever shall wish to go against these things, let him perish with Judas the traitor, unless he come to satisfaction and amendment to the brothers of the church. I, Raingerius, elect of Reggio, confirm and approve this little charter. Behold now also what chiefly, besides what I have already said, Mörkens observes at the end of this instrument transcribed by him. Πρωτοσυγκελλὸς Mesimerius (namely in the interpretation made, from what has been said, by Mesimerius himself, which exists added to this Greek charter) wrote in Latin Protosynquillos; I, imitating certain Latins, have written protosyncellus; another perhaps will translate first chaplain; but it is nothing to the purpose, let each read as he will. The original has hanging from it, on white hemp, a small leaden bull, on one side of which is a certain Saint with arms and palms spread out. I judge it to be St. Agatius the martyr, patron of the Scyllacians; but on the other side are very minute Greek characters, scarcely legible.

[561] labours under a chronological difficulty. Yet on that account, So he. And rightly indeed he renders the Greek word Πρωτοσυγκελλὸς in Latin as Protosyncellus; but would anyone also rightly translate the same Greek word as First chaplain? Protosyncellus or Πρωτοσυγκελλὸς signifies the same as the first of the syncelli; but what signification belongs to the word syncellus I cannot declare for certain. See Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity at the Words Protosyncellus and Syncellus. I come to the things which the chronological notes, with which the Greek charter of Mesimerius is furnished, offer to be observed and elucidated. The year in which that instrument is noted as given does not agree with the Indiction. What then shall we determine about it here? Shall we therefore pronounce it spurious or supposititious? That charters are not easily to be rejected because they contain chronological difficulties is solidly proved in Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity at the word Annus. It will help to have transcribed here all the words, however rather prolix, in which this is done, lest anyone should easily repudiate, or even only hold suspect, the recited charter of Mesimerius, especially if the said chronological difficulty under which it labours can in any way be removed. They run thus: There are found nevertheless, says the same author (Mabillon, On Diplomatics, book 2, chapter 25, number 9), certain diplomas of the Pontiffs whose calculation runs ahead of our more recent one. Of this kind the learned Chifflet supplies us two of Callistus II in the History of Tournus. The first is "Given at Alba by the hand of Grisogonus, deacon Cardinal and librarian of the H. R. C., on the XV of the Kalends of June, Ind. XIV, of the Lord's Incarnation the year MCXXII, in the III year of the Pontificate of the Lord Pope Callistus." The other has the same notes.

[562] But the XIV indiction agrees not with the year MCXXII according to our calculation, since for a like cause instruments are not easily to be rejected, but with the preceding year. Whence the same Chifflet notes in the lemma of the former privilege that the privilege was given in the year MCXXII reckoned from the XXV day of March, namely in so far as the Incarnation precedes by nine months: but in the Dionysian year MCXXI, as the XIV Indiction shows. Other Pontifical diplomas of this kind are seen. But certain ones are found whose calculation precedes the Dionysian by one year, not only by nine months; which accordingly cannot be accommodated to the Pisan calculation, … which takes its beginning from the Lord's Incarnation as this preceded the Nativity by nine months, and so runs ahead of the common calculation by as many months. There exists an undoubted autograph of this kind in the archive of Saint-Denis given "on the XII of the Kalends of April, Ind. X, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCIII, but in the III of the Pontificate of the lord Pope Paschal the second." Which Indiction, as also the third year of Paschal, agree with the year MCII in March; nor can they agree with the following year, even if the Pisan calculation be admitted, unless this Diploma be said to have preceded the Dionysian by an entire year. There occurs also another in Puricelli, page DXII, of the same Paschal, plainly quite similar. "Given at the Lateran by the hand of John, deacon Cardinal of the H. R. C., on the XVI of the Kalends of March, indict. X, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCIII; but in the III of the Pontificate of the Lord Pope Paschal the second." Here the same chancellor, the same chronological notes, which are proposed to the learned for discussion, and other similar ones occurring not rarely. These things nearly word for word from Mabillon, more at length indeed, but not uselessly for showing that charters in which chronological difficulties occur are not easily to be rejected, since such are also noticed in those diplomas which can in no way be called into doubt.

[563] Thus far in the same place, and rightly indeed, as I have already advised. and the Indiction, in which error does not seem to lie, But how now shall we remove the chronological difficulty which occurs in the charter of Mesimerius? Shall we say that error lies either in the year or in the Indiction, proceeding from the heedlessness of copyists, who did not note accurately enough what year or what indiction is designated by the Greek letters subscribed to Roger's charter? But the chronological characters with which not only the autograph of this instrument but also the copy or transcript which guided Mörkens was furnished were expressed, as this writer himself teaches here by a little note added in the margin, not in abbreviation by letters holding the place of numbers, but in whole words, in this manner: Μηνὶ Δεκεμβρίῳ εἶς τὰς ἔπτα, ἰνδικτιόνος δεκατὴς πεμπτὴς τοῦ ἐννεακοστοῦ χιλιοστοῦ ἔτους, that is, On the seventh of the Month of December, in the fifteenth Indiction, of the year one thousand and ninety, as Mörkens rightly interprets. For although there is no substantive with which the feminine article τὰς agrees, yet there is understood the substantive in the accusative plural ἠμέρας with the participle προβεβηκότι, which refers to the substantive μηνὶ, so that the sense is μηνὶ Δεκεμβρίῳ εἰς τὰς ἕπτα ἡμερὰς προβεβηκότι, that is, the month of December being already advanced to seven days. So, in the appendix to Bernard de Montfaucon's Palaeographia, page 512, the following Greek inscription, or rather colophon, of a codex of the Octateuch preserved in University College at Oxford, Τέλος εἴληφεν ἡ Ὀκτάτευχος βίβλος Νοεμβρίῳ εἰς τὰς κ᾽, is rendered in Latin, The Octateuch received its end on the twentieth of November. From the things indeed which Surianus supplies in his Annotations on the Life of the Saint composed by Surius, there seems to have been written in the copy which guided this writer εἰς τὴς, and not εἰς τὰς ἕπτα; but this is to be put down either to the error of the copyist or to the dialect which Mesimerius perhaps followed. However that may be, an error committed by copyists does not indeed seem to lie in the chronological characters with which the charter of Mesimerius, or rather its copy, already transcribed here according to the recension of Mörkens, is marked. How then, in the end, will the chronological difficulty which those characters offer be removed?

[564] since with the year, with which it is likewise marked, it can by that, Mörkens, having brought forward at the end of his Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe some things for the chronological notes with which the various diplomas or public instruments which he produced

are furnished, to be brought into agreement, sets before the reader, says of Mesimerius that he follows us by one year after the Sicilian custom, and that therefore his date must be carried forward to our following year; and if this is true, the charter of that prelate of Squillace recited above, which is noted as given in the year 1090, was given in the next following year, and thus the XV Indiction with which it is marked will agree exactly with the year in which it was truly given, and every chronological difficulty under which that instrument labours will vanish. But since this method of computing the years of Christ is not known to have been in common use among the Sicilians, it must be considered whether it is also certain that it was never used by anyone. Rocco Pirro, in the first Notice of the church of Palermo, at the year 1144, having premised that the year of the birth of Christ is commonly set together by the Greeks with the year from the creation of the world 5508, and that this method of computing flowed from them into Sicily, writes thus: Friedrich Sylburg exhibits Sicilian Fasti drawn out from a Chronicle which was found in an old library of Sicily by Jerónimo Zurita, and was then carried by Antonio Agustín into Italy, afterwards into Spain; and he reports that in it the year of the birth of Christ is placed under the consuls Lentulus and Piso, and in the year from the creation of the world 5507. Nor ought this variety to disturb the reader, if namely he adverts that many writers have run ahead of the common era of Christ by one or two years. I think therefore that in our Sicily, according to this method of computing, the number of the years from the creation of the world in diplomas is to be explained so that you throw away 5508 years, and the number which will be left will mark the year of Christ in this common and vulgar era which we now use; for Sicily thought that Christ was born after the year from the creation of the world 5508, and that the first year of Christ falls in the year 5509.

[565] which is explained here, can be reconciled in the manner, Thus far he. What then if, as others, of whom Rocco Pirro speaks here, ran ahead by one or another year of the Common era of Christ of the Greeks, which is the year from the creation of the world 5508, so Mesimerius followed after by one year, and thought that Christ was born not in the year from the creation of the world 5508 but in 5509? Indeed, since different men determine that Christ was born in different years from the creation of the world, it appears to me by no means unlike the truth that Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace or Scyllacium, was of that opinion; and according to it the year from the creation of the world 6599, which, as will be evident to one computing, was running in the year of Christ 1091 according to the already mentioned common era of the Sicilians and Greeks, will have run in the year of Christ 1090; so that accordingly this latter year of Christ, with which the charter granted by Mesimerius in favour of St. Bruno and his companions is marked, is properly to be held as the year 1091; with which, already advanced to the seventh day of December, as the same charter bears, the fifteenth Indiction, marked in that same instrument, agrees exactly, as will become plain to one computing. And hence it now comes about that I would not dare to hold as spurious or suspect that instrument, which from what has been said was truly given not in the year 1090, with which it is noted, but in the year 1091, especially since Ruinart, in the Life of Pope Urban II written by him, page 86, and other learned men in the various Works which they composed praise it as genuine, and not only Surianus in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, but also Ughelli in volume 9 of Italia Sacra inserted it entire, nor have I hitherto found any writer by whom it is marked with an unfavourable censure.

[566] Nor, further, is there reason why it should be held suspect because it defines the extent of the desert of Squillace or of the Tower, the things which can still be brought against its sincerity prove anything, granted to St. Bruno by count Roger, as two miles, whereas the charter of the donation made by count Roger, already transcribed here above, makes it one league; for although the league was sometimes taken by the ancients for three thousand paces, yet this did not always obtain among all of them; nor, even if it were otherwise, would Mesimerius on that account have to be said to conflict with count Roger in the extent which he attributes to the desert given to St. Bruno in possession. For the league in the praised charter of Roger is taken, as appears, for a measure of land; and the league, taken in this sense, among the Franks, or in France, from whose province of Normandy Roger came, consisted of two thousand paces, or miles, as Du Cange teaches in the Glossary at the word Leuca. But, someone will say, in the charter granted by Mesimerius Rangerius is called archbishop-elect of Reggio; so that at the time when this was given he seems not yet to have been consecrated or ordained; and since from what has been said above he was elected to the see of Reggio in the year 1090, it does not appear probable that he was not yet a consecrated or ordained bishop in the year 1091, already advanced to the VII of December, at which time the said charter is noted as given; and it consequently follows that that instrument was probably given, not in the year 1091, in which it is determined by us to have been given, but in the year 1090, with which it is in fact marked, and hence that it bears an Indiction conflicting with the year with which it is marked. So, moreover, it can be argued by those who would have the charter of Mesimerius held as spurious. But although indeed it is, from what has been said, more probable that Rangerius was elected to the see of Reggio in the very year 1090 in which our Saint had refused it, yet this is not altogether certain. For why could it not have happened that, when Bruno had refused to be promoted to that dignity, the people of Reggio deferred for some while electing another to the same, whether of their own accord or hindered from elsewhere from doing it?

[567] still, it is not to be held as spurious, as neither However that may be, if it cannot be admitted that Rangerius, in the year 1091 advanced to December, had not yet been consecrated archbishop of Reggio and yet had been elected already from the year 1090, it must for that reason be determined that he was promoted to this dignity, not in the year 1090, but in the year 1091, because the mentioned charter, which he confirmed and approved as elect of Reggio, does not seem able to have been given before the year 1091; which I show thus: Bruno and his companions are said in that charter to have inhabited the church of our most glorious lady the Mother of God and of St. John the Baptist, situated in the desert of Squillace or of the Tower; and this church, as I shall teach below, was first built when that desert had been given to St. Bruno by count Roger; wherefore, since this from what has been said above was not done until the year 1090 was already verging to its end, it is by no means probable that a church sacred to the most glorious Mother of God and to St. John the Baptist, which the Saint and his companions inhabited also in this very year, existed in the desert of the Tower already from this year, and hence it is necessary that the aforesaid charter of Mesimerius, in which this is hinted, was given not in the year 1090 but in the year 1091. And thus there falls to the ground the argument too which could still be brought against the sincerity of the charter given by Mesimerius, and it is therefore not to be held as spurious. It is next now, that I may carry out in deed what I determined to do in the present §, that I should also transcribe here the Bull by which Pope Urban II confirmed the charters of count Roger and of Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace, recited above, and visited Bruno and his companions with new favour. It is expressed, then, in these words: Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved sons in Christ Bruno and Lanvinus, greeting and Apostolic benediction. The affection of a pious will ought to be fulfilled with zeal following it up. Since therefore it concerns our office to provide for the quiet of the servants of God as far as the Lord shall have given power, we clemently assent to your petitions, sons in Christ most dear and most reverend.

[568] by which the charters of Roger and Mesimerius were approved, By the page of this Apostolic privilege, therefore, we decree by Apostolic authority that that place which, the Lord disposing, you have chosen for your habitation remain altogether free from the yoke, power, injury, molestation of all men, with the whole wood and mountain, land and water, for the space of one league * on every adjacent side, in the disposition in every way of you and your successors, as it has been given to you by our beloved son count Roger, and confirmed by our fellow brother Theodore, bishop of Squillace. Let no one within the aforesaid space be permitted, on the occasion of pasture, agriculture or fishing or timber or for any cause whatever, to inflict injury or molestation on you or your successors, but may you possess, dispose, order and bestow the whole according to your will. If moreover you need anything of episcopal office, we grant by the present decree free licence of having recourse to whichever of the neighbouring prelates you chiefly wish. We decree also that the use of the tithes from your own labours, or those of your servants, be of your right. And if any offence of your servants should occur, let all correction of them remain in your hand alone. Nor let anyone on any occasion intrude himself, without your will, into the things which pertain to you, so that you may apply yourselves with free minds to the contemplation of almighty God, and may be able, by His granting, to attain to the sweetness of His face. Assuredly, if hereafter any archbishop or bishop, emperor or king, prince or duke, count or viscount, judge or any person whatever, powerful or powerless, knowing the page of this our privilege, shall rashly attempt to come against it, being admonished a second or third time, if he shall not have amended by fitting satisfaction, we decree that he lie under peril of his honour and office, and by the authority of the Apostolic power we separate him from the body of Christ and of the Church. But to those who keep it may peace from God and mercy be preserved in the present and future ages. Amen, Amen, Amen. Given by the hand of John, deacon Cardinal of the H. R. C., on the day before the ides of October, in the first Indiction, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-two, and in the fifth year of the Pontificate of the lord Urban the second.

[569] Mörkens, from whose Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno these Pontifical letters of Urban II were drawn, the bull of Pope Urban. subjoins to them this following Annotation. This Bull, he says, of Pope Urban II, as is written from Italy, is lost; a copy of it however exists in a very ancient Ms. codex, which is entitled the Breviary of the privileges of the Calabrian house. In it are contained all the privileges written on parchment which were given to this desert from the year MXC up to the year MCC. So he; but lest anyone should think that the chronological notes with which Urban's recited letters are marked, namely the year 1092 and the fifteenth Indiction, do not agree with one another, the year from January, but the Indiction from the beginning of the preceding year, or from September after the manner of the Greeks, or at any rate from the VIII of the Kalends of October, or the XXIV of September

day Urban began to compute it, having followed, of the three common kinds of Indictions, the Constantinian or Caesarean. This is clear from various bulls given by this Pontiff, and namely, to omit the rest, from another bull granted in favour of St. Bruno in the year 1098, to be transcribed here below, which is noted as given at Salerno in the month of September, Indict. 6, and from another, which was granted by him when he had consecrated Archbishop Elias at Bari, and which is noted as given At Bari in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MLXXXIX, in the II of the Pontificate, Indict. XIII, IX of October. Now then, since this is so, and the first Indiction began to run in the year 1092 from the beginning of September in the Constantinopolitan or Greek reckoning, and from the XXIV day of September in the Caesarean, the year and the Indiction with which the letters of Pope Urban II transcribed here are noted, who, as Ruinart teaches in his Life, number 116 and following, was in Calabria in this year and month, agree exactly with one another, and hence every chronological difficulty on account of which someone might perhaps hold these spurious vanishes.

* otherwise leuca

* otherwise Stategus

* otherwise Moritonio

* otherwise leucae

§ XXXIV. What the Saint did after the donation of the Calabrian desert had been made by count Roger, how duke Roger then confirmed it, and count Roger circumscribed it with boundaries.

The Saint causes a church to be built in the Calabrian desert. Blomevenna, in the words transcribed here at number 540, seems to indicate that count Roger gave to St. Bruno and his companions not only the desert of the Tower but also the church sacred to the most holy Mother of God Mary and to St. Stephen, as soon as he had found them praying in the cave; nor do Du Puy and Surius dissent from him in this matter. But this appears far from the truth. For that desert was given to St. Bruno and his companions not, as they determine, in the year 1095 but in the year 1090, and then did not yet, as it seems, contain a church which was sacred either to the most holy Mother of God or to St. Stephen. So I hold, because the church of that desert sacred to St. Stephen was built only long afterwards, as will become plain from what is to be said below; and the church which was sacred to the most holy Mother of God Mary was not consecrated before the year 1094, as will likewise become plain from what is to be said below; whence it appears most probable, not to say undoubted, that it was founded through the care of our Saint himself. Bruno, namely, just as when he first entered the Chartreuse he caused, from what has been said above, a church to be built in honour of God, the most holy Mother of God and St. John the Baptist, so also in the desert of Calabria, when he had obtained it from Roger, he most probably caused this to be done. And in this opinion I am chiefly confirmed by the fact that count Roger, in the charter transcribed here above by which he gave the aforesaid Calabrian desert to St. Bruno and his companions, does not mention a church in it sacred to the most holy Mother of God, and yet he would seem most probably to have been about to make mention of it, if it had already existed then, since it would have constituted the principal part of the almost uncultivated and deserted desert which he imparted to Bruno by that instrument.

[571] While this was being done, the Saint seems to have stayed with count Roger Further, in another charter, to be transcribed here below and given from what is to be said in the year 1099, I find indicated something which seems to have been done at the time when the Calabrian desert was first given to the Saint, and which accordingly is to be reviewed here. In this charter, then, count Roger speaks of St. Bruno in the following manner: I also humbly asked that for the love of God he would deign to take in the land of Squillace the ample revenues which I was giving; refusing to receive them, he said that he had left the house of his father and mine for this, that, a stranger to the things of the world, he might freely serve his God. He had been in my whole house as it were first and great; and from these words it appears that the Saint stayed for some while in the house of count Roger. And this indeed I think happened after the desert of the Tower had been given him, while buildings of whatever sort that were most necessary were being built in it; but the anonymous author of book 4 of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, although indeed he thinks that the Saint stayed for some while in the court of count Roger, yet thinks that this was done before the Saint withdrew into the Chartreuse. Hear how he speaks at number 13 of his Work not yet published. Those, he says, who know the deeds of St. Bruno slightly have perhaps thought that we gravely hallucinated when we said that the holy Patriarch at one time stayed with Roger, count of Calabria, before his conversion, since he is reported to have been seen in Calabria only after the Grande Chartreuse had been planted. New things indeed we confess that we reveal, but we establish them as most true from the letters which the same count gave to St. Bruno, not only already converted but also already established as master or Prior of the Calabrian Chartreuse, in which he says that St. Bruno refused to accept very many donations offered to him by Roger himself, because "he had left the house of his father and mine" (these are Roger's words in the diploma) "for this, that, a stranger to the things of the world, he might freely serve his God. He had been in my whole house as it were first and great," etc. From which words we gather (if we think rightly) that the blessed Man remained in the court and retinue of Roger not after but before his conversion; for the gravity of the eremitical institute forbids us to think that this could have been done. Yet we permit the sagacious reader to think otherwise.

[572] So he: but the opinion which he proposes in these words [the Saint seems. The charter by which the donation made to the Saint by count Roger] by no means pleases me: for besides that, as he himself confesses, it is altogether new, it rests on no foundation whatever. For what he says, that the Saint's stay at the court of Roger would have been contrary to the gravity of the eremitical Institute, proves nothing at all. For why could not the Saint, having already obtained the Calabrian desert from count Roger, have stayed with him for some while until the church and the other most necessary buildings had been built, and, when he was urged to continue living there longer, have courteously refused it? That the matter was done so indeed appears to me most probable, especially since I do not see in what better way the words of the aforesaid charter, transcribed here in the preceding number, can be understood to be consonant with the truth, nor is the Saint read anywhere to have been in Italy before his entry into the Chartreuse. I proceed now to the charter by which duke Roger confirmed the donation of the Calabrian desert made by count Roger. It runs thus: Roger, by the grace of God duke of Apulia, Calabria, Sicily, to all faithful Christians, present and future, greeting in the Lord. We wish it to be known to your brotherhood concerning two men, namely Bruno and Lanvinus, who, kindled with zeal for holy religion, came with their companions into the land of Calabria from the parts of the Gauls, God so disposing, and under my guidance sought in the land which has been mentioned a place which would suit their purpose; which, when they had not found one suitable for themselves in my territory, they chose to remain between the place which is called Arena and the town which is called Stilo. And that place Roger, count of Sicily, my paternal uncle and faithful man, desiring to be helped before God by their prayers, gave to them with the whole affection of his heart; for it was of his county by my concession; and he freed it for ever from the debt of all servitude and from every corvée; so namely that there be no one of his men or of strangers, strategos or viscount, peasant or knight, slave or free, who in that place, on the occasion of pasture or agriculture, or of fishing or hunting or timber, or for any cause whatever, should cause molestation or injury to the Servants of God, but that the aforesaid place be altogether in their power, that they may possess, order and dispose it according as they wish.

[573] [duke Roger confirmed. This, because the year does not seem to agree with the Indiction with which it is here marked,] Such donation of that place, and the grant of the aforesaid liberty, I, duke Roger, approve and corroborate, and since that land is of my duchy, I forbid in every way that it suffer any false claim for ever. But if anyone shall presume to act against the decision which has been given, and shall violate our precept, let him hold it most certain that either he will be banished for ever from all our borders, or will be struck by my sword or that of my successors. That all things therefore granted above may remain firm and unimpaired, I, duke Roger, and my wife Adela have ordered this little charter to be written by a certain cleric of ours, Rodolph, and have signed it with our seal. In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1094. Indict. 1. Mörkens, after he transcribed this charter entire at the end of his Diatribe on St. Bruno, subjoins that he found its copy among the Analecta of Garnefelt, a pupil of the Chartreuse of Cologne, famed for the Lives of the ancient hermits which he published, and that it agreed with the autograph; and Surianus, although he did not think that monument should be brought, with the other public instruments pertaining to St. Bruno and the Carthusian affair, into his Annotations on the Life of the Saint written by Surius, yet praises it at page 395, and says that it was given in the year 1094. But although that very charter exhibits this year, yet it can seem to have been given not then but in the year 1093 from the Indiction 1 which is appended to it, and which agrees not with the year 1094 but with the year 1093. Nor is it to be held as supposititious from the fact that these two chronological notes with which that charter or diploma is furnished do not agree with one another, since from what has been said above public instruments are not easily to be rejected as spurious, and it can be that either an error crept into the said chronological characters by the fault of copyists, or that the notary who wrote the instrument here mentioned at the command of duke Roger numbered the years of Christ not from the Nativity, as is commonly wont to be done, but after the manner of the Pisans from the Incarnation, as this preceded the Nativity by nine months; by which method of computing, from the twenty-fifth day of March of the year 1093, or the feast of the Annunciation of the most holy Mother of God, the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1094 was already running, and ran through the rest of the same year 1093 and the same feast of the most holy Mother of God of the following year.

[574] does not seem to agree, It can indeed be objected here that this method of computing the years of Christ cannot be proved to have been used by duke Roger by any diplomas at all which were given in his name either in Sicily or in Calabria; but, besides that the contrary cannot be proved by diplomas of this kind either, it can be that, although both duke Roger and most others began to number the years of Christ in Calabria and Sicily from His Nativity, or, if you prefer, from the Kalends of January, yet the notary who wrote the diploma or instrument here in question the method of computing

the years of Christ followed a manner less used even there. Indeed, although Sicily formerly, contrary to what Zanotti will have in the Life of St. Bruno composed by him, chapter 16, did not depart in numbering the years of Christ from the common custom of others, yet, as the praised Rocco Pirro teaches in the Notice 1 of the Church of Palermo at the year 1144, in the instruments of notaries the custom flourished up to the age of this writer That they themselves set the beginning of the year on the XXV day of March, although the people, nay also the magistrates, numbered from the Kalends of January; where therefore we say, on the XVIII day of Feb. of the year MDCXXX, they would have said on the XVIII day of Feb. of the year MDCXXIX. Just as therefore the notaries of whom Rocco here speaks numbered the years of Christ not from the Nativity but, contrary to the received custom, from the Incarnation, following the Nativity by a space of three months, so he who wrote the charter of duke Roger recited above, here in question, could have begun their computation from the Incarnation, or the twenty-fifth day of March, running ahead of it by nine months, as truly happened, and following the Pisan calculation. And if he did in fact number the years of Christ so, this charter will have been granted according to the common calculation in the year, as will be evident to one who considers it, 1093 before September, and thus it will not bear an Indiction conflicting with the year in which it was truly given. Further, that charter exists entire in book 4 of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, and there, as I learn from notes sent to me by the Parisian Carthusian, very often praised, it is noted as given in the year 1094, Indiction 2; and if the autograph of the charter is truly furnished with these chronological notes, it labours under absolutely no chronological difficulty, since the Indiction 2 agrees with the year 1094, and it follows that the error lay in the copy of it which guided Mörkens.

[575] But since this writer says that in the autograph itself, is not to be rejected, as neither the other charter, as he learned from letters received from Italy, that is, as far as I think, from the Calabrian Chartreuse, the Indiction 1 is set together with the year 1094, it is more probable that an erroneous copy guided the anonymous author of the Carthusian Annals himself. However that may be, since indeed, either by following this writer or by admitting the Pisan method of computing the years of Christ in the diploma here in question, every chronological difficulty under which it seems to labour vanishes, it is not to be rejected on account of this. I meanwhile have thought that that charter, against which, as is clear from what was said at number 557, nothing can be objected from the name of Adela, wife of duke Roger, included in it either, should be reviewed in this place, because more probably, as it is easy to gather from what has been said, it was given in the year 1093, and so perhaps even preceded the other charter, given also in this very year, by which count Roger assigned boundaries to the Calabrian desert previously given by him to St. Bruno, and further strengthened and enlarged the donation. It pleases me to transcribe this too entire here, both for other causes and most of all lest henceforth it should either be confused by anyone, after Mabillon's example, with the charter by which count Roger first bestowed that desert on the Saint, or a precious monument of antiquity be left to be desired by the studious reader. It is expressed in these following words: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Roger, by divine clemency count of Calabria and Sicily. Be it known to all the faithful of Christ and ours, both future and present, that the divine mercy has sent all the way to us Men of holy religion, namely Bruno and Lanvinus with their companions, seeking a place of solitude suited to their holy purpose; rejoicing together in whose desire, and trusting to be helped before God by the merits and prayers of such men, we exhorted them with many prayers to choose in our land a place suitable for themselves, in which they might prepare such dwellings as they wished for serving God.

[576] They chose therefore a certain place of solitude, situated between the place by which count Roger, of the desert of the Tower already given to St. Bruno, which is called Arena and the town which is called Stilo. This place therefore and all the things adjacent in circuit for the space of one league we have given to God and to blessed Mary and to them and their successors in ownership, as they were ours, under every immunity and liberty, with all the things situated within, lands, woods, waters, pastures and all other things cultivated or uncultivated, movable or immovable. We asked moreover the venerable man Geoffrey, bishop of Malta, to write a charter of confirmation of this our donation, which also we sealed. But when afterwards, for the sake of commending ourselves to their prayers, we had visited the aforesaid brothers, and had received (thanks be to God) their fellowship, we ourselves distinctly designated the space of the aforesaid league with these boundaries in circuit, and ordered the names of the boundaries to be written down for a memorial to those to come: on the side of the East the castle, which is a place on the summit of the mountain of Stilo; thence it goes along the ridge of the same mountain as far as Malareposta, namely to the upper hill of the mountain; and thence it descends by the great hollow, which is turned toward the West, as far as the foot of the mountain, in which water runs down; and thence it crosses two brooks and the ravine straight to the ridge of the mountain which is toward the West, as the aforesaid hollow faces; and thence by the ridge of the same mountain as far as Brontismenon; and thence it crosses the ravine straight to the road which comes from Arena and goes to the place which is called Santa Croce; and thence straight as far as over the summit of the mountain Embacaht; and thence it descends by the hollow, as the water runs down, by the shoulder as far as the river Enchinar; and thence it ascends that river as far as another river which is called Alba; and thence it ascends the same river as far as the great hollow which the Greeks call Bachiriache, and ascends by the same hollow as far as the castle, whence we began.

[577] assigns limits to the desert of the Tower And this our donation both the lord Apostolic Urban and Theodore, bishop of Squillace, in whose bishopric the place itself is situated, have praised, confirmed by privileges, and fortified with a terrible anathema. Wherefore in commanding we ask, and in asking we command, on the part of God Almighty, of blessed Mary, to whom we have granted this place, and on our own, that no one at any time, of whatever dignity or power he be, ours or a stranger, claim for himself anything great or small in the whole aforesaid space, not even we ourselves. Let no one ever on any occasion or cause inflict injury or molestation, or cause any disquiet, on the brothers who shall serve God there, and let neither they * nor their men render any corvée or service at all. Let it be lawful for no one, not even for ourselves, to do any cultivation there, to pasture any animal, to cut timber, to hunt or fish, or anything at all without the licence of the brothers; but let it be in their power to possess, dispose, order and bestow whatever things are contained within the aforesaid space according to their will, as the possession of God and their own, immune and free. But if anyone at any time shall presume to violate this our ordinance in anything, let him make worthy satisfaction to the brothers living there. And if he shall despise it, let him pay a hundred pounds of gold to the prince of the land, whoever he shall be. That therefore this ordinance may remain inviolable and altogether firm, with the consent of my wife the countess Adelaide and of our son Geoffrey, we have made this donation in the presence of good men and have signed it with our own seal.

[578] circumscribes, Moreover I have given Mule with his sons to guard the wood. Given in the meadows of Squillace, where we were then staying, with the army assembled. In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and ninety-three, in the first Indiction, on the Nones of May. ✠ Count Roger. ✠ Countess Adelaide. ✠ Geoffrey, son of count Roger. ✠ William of Hauteville. ✠ William Culchebret. ✠ Gosbert of Luciacum. ✠ Roger, priest of Stilo. ✠ Bastardus. Mörkens, from whose Diatribe on St. Bruno, already very often praised, I received this instrument too, observes thus on it at the end: I found this charter among the Analecta of our George Garnefelt; but since it had been interpolated here and there, I feared lest perhaps it had also been vitiated; wherefore it seemed good to me to collate it with the autograph, that is, if I am not mistaken, with a transcript of the autograph (for I do not think that this was at hand to Mörkens); I did so and have noted those interpolations in the margin. From the autograph there hangs on a silken cord of white colour a leaden bull, and on it the image of Mary, Mother of God, holding with her left arm the Son, who has a bird in his right hand. The interpolations which Mörkens here mentions, and which he says he noted in the margin, are almost only variant readings, and accordingly I have likewise written them in the margin as such.

[579] Further, Mörkens, in his Diatribe on St. Bruno, just praised again, in the place [and that he was made a participant in the merits of St. Bruno and his companions,] where he weaves the chronology of the matters pertaining to him, writes thus of count Roger at the year 1093: In the year MXCIII, visiting the brothers (namely St. Bruno and his companions) in the desert, he earnestly commends himself to their prayers, and demands that they make him a participant in their merits, and, having become possessor of his wish, by a charter written on the VII of May he designates the limits of the desert amply enough and circumscribes them accurately, and brings it about that Roger, duke of Apulia, his nephew by his brother, by a diploma given in the same year still (and indeed perhaps, as I have already hinted, before the said VII day of May) (I have already recited it at number 572 and following) corroborates the donations made. So he, deducing the things which he here records from the two charters already transcribed here, of which one is duke Roger's and the other count Roger's; and indeed, as regards the things which he deduces from the latter, most rightly, as will be evident to one who considers it. For count Roger, as he himself teaches in his charter just recited, visited St. Bruno and his companions in the year 1093 for the sake of commending himself to their prayers, and received their fellowship (for which thing he also gives thanks to God); from which words indeed it seems rightly to be concluded that count Roger demanded of the Saint and his companions that they make him a participant in their merits, and also became possessor of his wish. Surianus indeed, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 221, relying on the same already recited words of the diploma granted by count Roger, says that this prince in the year MXCIII asked of Bruno and his companions that they would deign to receive him into their fellowship and write his name among their names, and that he in actual fact obtained this; but this by no means conflicts with the interpretation which Mörkens applies to the transcribed words of the diploma granted by Roger, and it also probably took place, although meanwhile I find this matter called into doubt, as from the diploma of the foundation of the Latin bishopric in the city of Squillace, still to be praised below, which exists in Ughelli, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, column 426, which in it Lanvinus as its Brother

count Roger calls, it seems to be gathered.

[580] and declares that he was in the meadows of Scyllacium when he gave it, As now pertains to the diploma by which the donations previously made to St. Bruno were confirmed by duke Roger, at the instance, as Mörkens says, of count Roger: whether duke Roger imparted that charter to the Saint of his own accord or at the impulse of Roger his paternal uncle appears to me very doubtful for this reason, that he too was excellently disposed toward St. Bruno, as is sufficiently clear from what has been said above, and hence did not need a spur to benefit him. Further, lest perhaps a scruple should arise for anyone against the charter of count Roger just transcribed here from the fact that it is noted as given by the count while he was then staying in the meadows of Squillace with an army: Bohemond, brother of duke Roger, was living in Calabria in the year 1093, and when he had heard by a false rumour that the latter had died, he occupied some castles pertaining to him in Calabria; moved to anger by which thing, count Roger commanded his soldiers to attack Bohemond with arms, and expelled him from the whole of Calabria. So, as to substance, the contemporary author Geoffrey, a monk of the Benedictine Order, surnamed Malaterra, often praised here already and to be praised further, in book 4, chapter 20 of the Sicilian History, which he composed at the command of count Roger himself, as Muratori, who inserted it in the fifth volume of the Writers of Italian Affairs, teaches in his Preface to it. Nothing therefore stands in the way of its being believed that count Roger, having assembled an army, stayed in the year 1093 in the meadows of Scyllacium, as is asserted in his charter here in question. Nay rather, since from this it is not to be doubted that that prince was in fact there, and Scyllacium is situated not far from the Calabrian desert of the Tower, it could also easily have come about that count Roger, as from what has been said he further says here in the same charter that he did, visited St. Bruno and his companions, commended himself to their prayers, and granted them the charter here in question. Since these things are so, and the chronological notes with which it is noted, namely the year and the Indiction, agree with one another, and nothing besides occurs from elsewhere which makes against the sincerity of that instrument, there is truly no reason why it should be held suspect, much less spurious; and accordingly I turn my discourse to other matters pertaining to our Saint.

* otherwise leucae

* otherwise leucae

* otherwise indirectly

* otherwise that

* otherwise nor they

§ XXXV. The Saint causes the church built in the Calabrian desert to be consecrated with great pomp, and experiences count Roger more and more benevolent toward him.

The church of the desert of the Tower, most probably at Bruno's instance, When Bruno saw brought to completion the church which, from what has been said, he caused to be built there in honour of God, the most holy Mother of God and St. John the Baptist as soon as he had obtained from count Roger the Calabrian desert of the Tower, he most probably dealt with count Roger that he should cause it to be consecrated with solemn rite. However the matter stands, that church indeed was consecrated with the greatest pomp by Alcherius, archbishop of Palermo, five bishops assisting, and the praised count Roger not only caused this to be done, but also enriched that sacred house on this occasion with not a few gifts conferred on St. Bruno, as is clear from the charter granted by the same count at that time in favour of that church and of St. Bruno. Of this charter or diploma Ughelli, in volume IX of Italia Sacra, column 425, recites only a part, and Rocco Pirro does the same in the Notice of the church of Catania. But I, lest I should withdraw from the eyes of the curious reader a monument of venerable antiquity which it has not yet befallen me to see printed entire and given to public light, transcribe it here entire according to the recension of Mörkens.

[582] It runs thus: In the name of the eternal God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and ninety-four, he causes to be consecrated, and by a diploma given, many in the second Indiction, when I, Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, for the love of God and the remedy of my soul, and for the salvation of the soul of Robert Guiscard my brother, most glorious duke of Apulia and Calabria, and for the remedy of the souls of my brothers and of all my kindred and wives, wished to cause to be dedicated, to the honour of God and of blessed Mary and of blessed John the Baptist, the church of the desert which is situated between Arena and the town * which is called Stilo, on the territory of the said town of Stilo, by the venerable and most holy fathers the archbishop of Palermo, and the bishops of Malta, Tropea, Nicastro, Catania and Squillace, with the approval of the same most holy fathers I gave to the blessed father Bruno, master of the same desert, to him and his successors, the monastery of holy Mary of Arsafia with all its appurtenances wherever they be, exempting the same church or monastery of Arsafia from this present day onward for ever from every temporal service, and from the Tower, to which it was bound, my town of Stilo, that the church of the desert and the brothers may have it quietly for ever without any false claim and without temporal service, all tremarium and placarium removed, and the vexations of all these removed.

[583] And these gifts I gave as dowry to the aforesaid church of the Wood, which he here determines, and to the brothers serving God there, with my wife Adelaide counselling and approving, and with the consent of Geoffrey my son and Malger my son. Which monastery of Arsafia was my chapel, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction through the sacrosanct Roman Church, which I caused to be established to the aforesaid archbishop and bishops, who are witnesses of this donation; and witnesses are Gosbert of Luciacum, Paganus of Gorges, Roger Bonellus , Fulco my chaplain, who wrote these things. And these things I gave by the testimony of the above-written witnesses, and these are the bounds and limits of holy Mary of Arsafia, namely from the oak tree etc. "There follows," says Mörkens here, "the demarcation of the limits, which I omit, because it makes little or nothing for our matter, and I copy only the places included by this circumscription." With the two hamlets enclosed, namely of Sant'Andrea and of Roseto, free and exempt from all community with my hamlets of the town of Stilo; likewise the place which is called … with the two hamlets of Vingi and Buaungi, likewise free and exempt from all community with my hamlets of the said town of Stilo; likewise the church of San Fantino, exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Gerace , which pertains to the same church of Arsafia, which is placed in the appurtenances of Agrotteria in the holding of Gerace *, with all its rights and appurtenances; likewise the hamlet of Arunchi in the appurtenances of the city of Squillace with all its rights and appurtenances, as the same church of Arsafia has been accustomed to hold and have them.

[584] he grants goods to St. Bruno. And these noted * places I give and grant as dowry for the same church to the lord father Bruno and his successors, with all rights, courses of waters, mills, groves and trees, cultivated and uncultivated, mines of copper and iron and of all metals, pastures and all rights which I and my court have hitherto been accustomed to have, so that no one may have anything there except the said church of the desert, just as from then on no one had any right except me. Likewise I grant to the same church of the desert, in the rest of my land, the free use of the mines of copper and iron, and free pastures in the same land of mine for the animals of the same church, and of its keepers, and also of those who dwell in the said hamlets. I grant also that the said church of the desert may have commended men in the above-said Hamlets and places which I have given to the same church. Let no one in the above-said places presume, in his own name or mine or of my heirs and successors, to pursue or have any right, nor I; but let all things be preserved solid and intact for the same church, since it is little for the love of God to give to His servants, who has bestowed many things on me with a lavish hand. But if any person, my son or any heir or successor, shall break this my gift or privilege, let him pay a hundred pounds of gold to me or to my posterity or to the Roman Church, unless he come to worthy satisfaction of the Brothers serving God there, and let him lie under perpetual damnation.

[585] This, which, either the expedition undertaken against William, And these things were done in the month of August, when I had returned from the expedition which I had made against William and from the siege of Castrovillari, and this my privilege, for perpetual firmness, I ordered and commanded and caused to be fortified with my hanging bull. ✠ Count Roger. ✠ Countess Adelaide. ✠ Geoffrey, son of the lord count. ✠ Malger, son of count Roger. ✠ Paganus of Gorges. ✠ Josbert of Luciacum. ✠ Roger Bonellus *. ✠ I, Fulco, chaplain of the lord count Roger, by his mandate have written this privilege and have subscribed myself. Have now also the Annotation which Mörkens subjoins to this charter transcribed by him. This institution of the church of the desert, he says, I found also among the Analecta of our Garnefelt, interpolated, and I rewrote it checked against the autograph, and wrote in the margin the interpolations, marked with an asterisk. The seal is of lead, as above, and hangs from a cord of saffron colour. The interpolations which this writer again mentions are almost only somewhat varying readings; I have meanwhile likewise added them here at the margin. But there are also other things to be noted about the same instrument. And first indeed the chronological notes which it bears at its head, namely the year 1094 and the Indiction 2, agree exactly with one another. Nor is there reason why it should throw a scruple on anyone that it is said at the end to have been given when count Roger had returned from the expedition undertaken against William and from the siege of Castrovillari.

[586] For, as Geoffrey Malaterra testifies in the Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 21 and following, what sort it was is explained, the expedition, William of Grantavul, or, as it is written by others, of Grandmesnil, who was joined in marriage to Mabilia, sister of duke Roger, in the year 1093, when he too, just like Bohemond, of whom above, had believed from a rumour falsely brought to him that duke Roger had departed from the living, occupied various both castles and towns pertaining to that prince, his wife's brother, and among these Castrovillari; and when he would not return these to his lawful lord, even after hearing of the falsity of the mentioned rumour, pretending the right of his wife Mabilia to them, duke Roger attacked him in war, and together with count Roger, his paternal uncle, who had joined himself to him, besieged and took Castrovillari. But in that diploma of count Roger other

difficulty occurs which may perhaps render it suspect to someone. For since, as I taught above, count Roger had absolutely no children from his former wife Judith, or, as she is also otherwise called, Delicia, and besides several daughters begot only one son from the second, surnamed Elemburga or Eremburga, who had already died in the year 1089, whence, or who, is that Malger, son of count Roger, who is subscribed to the recited diploma? Roger indeed seems to have begotten him of none of his lawful wives. What then? Shall we call him a bastard? But Geoffrey Malaterra stands in the way, Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 18, writing in the following manner of Jordan, who was, as the same author teaches in book 3, chapter 36, a bastard son of count Roger: Jordan … the count's son, lovable to all for his vigour, whom many suspected would be the count's heir, because elephantiasis had already pervaded Geoffrey, which did not lessen the grief (for he had no other male), was struck with an attack of fever at Syracuse, a city under his rule.

[587] Since therefore, as is understood from these words of Geoffrey, count Roger, while Jordan, his natural or bastard son, lay seized with fever at Syracuse, or mentions Malger, son of Roger, it is not to be held as spurious. which the praised Malaterra teaches in the chapter of book 4 just cited happened in the year 1092, had no other male offspring than the said Jordan and Geoffrey, it follows that Malger, who is subscribed to the charter just transcribed here and given by count Roger in the year 1094, was not a natural or bastard son of count Roger either. It remains, therefore, either that the second wife of count Roger, Elemburga, or the third, Adelasia, was a widow when she entered into marriage with him and had a son Malger from her former marriage; or that that Malger who wrote his name as the son of count Roger was raised by him from the sacred font or even adopted as a son; or finally that count Roger, besides the daughters which the Sicilian stemma inserted by Du Cange in the Annotations to Anna Comnena, and the genealogical Tree of the Norman princes prefixed to Malaterra's Sicilian History in Muratori, volume V of the Writers of Italian Affairs, attribute to him, each with her husband assigned, had at least one other, and that Malger was joined in marriage to her. However that may be, since it can indeed have come about on one or another of these heads that that Malger was called the son of count Roger, there is no reason why the charter of this prince transcribed here should be held spurious or suspect solely because the name of Malger, son of the count, is written on it. Somewhat more against it may seem to make the title of Blessed which it joins to the Saint (see number 582): yet, since this, even if it was absent from the autograph of the charter, was perhaps imprudently added to the transcript only by a more recent copyist out of veneration for the Saint, and since it is not altogether incredible that the title of Blessed was attributed to him while still living by count Roger himself, who, as will become more fully plain from what is to be said, held Bruno for a Saint, I would not dare for that reason to reject that instrument, which otherwise has no marks of supposition, as certainly spurious, especially since whatever is handed down in it about the consecration of the church of the Tower and the time at which it was done is consonant with the truth.

[588] Another instrument, which is transcribed here, supports it. That the studious reader may perceive how nothing I pronounce here is far from the truth, it pleases me to bring over here, according to the recension of Mörkens, a public instrument existing in Rocco Pirro in Sicilia Sacra, Ughelli in volume IX of Italia Sacra, column 425, and other writers; for in this Alcherius, archbishop of Palermo, who performed that solemnity with great pomp and splendour, himself testifies that that church was consecrated with five bishops assisting, namely of Malta, Tropea, Nicastro, Catania and Squillace, and that monument thus supports the recited charter of count Roger, in which the same is handed down. It is expressed in these following words: In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ MXCIV, in the month of August, on the feast of blessed Mary assumed, I Alcherius Hic…, archbishop of Palermo, consecrated this church in honour of God and of B. Mary the Virgin, and of B. John the Baptist, in the presence of the bishops of Malta, Tropea, Nicastro and Squillace, together with the lord Roger, count of Calabria, the countess Adelaide, master Bruno and Lanvinus, and the other fathers assisting, and in the presence of good men. I Alcherius, archbishop of Palermo. I Tristerius, bishop of Tropea, was present. I Angerius, bishop of Catania. I Theodore, bishop of Squillace. I N., bishop of Nicastro, was present. Further, since the charter of count Roger just transcribed here, in which mention is made of the consecration of the church of the Tower as of a thing about to take place as soon as possible, is noted as given in the month of August (see number 585), and the testimony of Alcherius, archbishop of Palermo, just recited assigns the fifteenth of August to this consecration, the chronological notes with which both these instruments are marked agree exactly with one another.

[589] This, with only four bishops But since the very testimony of Alcherius transcribed here from Mörkens, just like the recited charter of count Roger, hands down that five bishops stood by at the consecration, namely of Malta, Tropea, Nicastro, Catania and Squillace, and yet exhibits subscribed not five but only four bishops who were present at that solemnity, namely of Tropea, Catania, Squillace and Nicastro, the one of Malta being omitted, it must be that either a copy of that Testimony corrupted in the subscription of the bishops guided Mörkens, or that he himself erred in copying it, especially since that testimony, both in Rocco Pirro in the Notice of the church of Catania at the year 1094, number 10, and in Ughelli, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, column 425, has subscribed to it not only the four bishops already praised but also the one of Malta, in this manner: ✠ I Archerius Nic … archbishop of Palermo. ✠ I Tristanus, bishop of Tropea, was present. ✠ I An., bishop of Catania, was present. ✠ I Theodore, bishop of Squillace, was present. ✠ I Geoffrey, bishop of Malta, was present. ✠ I Henry, bishop of Nicastro, was present. Morozzo, who recites the same monument in the Chronological Theatre of the sacred Carthusian Order, part 6, at the year 1090, does not reckon the bishop of Malta either among the bishops subscribed to it, contrary nevertheless to what Camillo Tutini, from whom he says there that he took it, does in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order.

[590] Hence I think that Mörkens drew the testimony of Alcherius, already transcribed here, from Morozzo, to whom accordingly exhibits subscribed to it through error, by throwing it on Morozzo; and other what from what has been said was sinned by omission is to be attributed; and in this opinion I am also chiefly confirmed by the fact that these following words, Who, to all who are truly penitent and have confessed … relaxed forty days of penance by true indulgence … in the year … of his archiepiscopate, which in this monument, in the places just cited in Ughelli and Rocco Pirro, are subjoined to these words In the presence of good men, and which were omitted by Morozzo although they exist in Camillo Tutini, are likewise omitted in Mörkens, who does not declare whence he drew the monument of which we are here discoursing. Further, in the various copies already mentioned of the testimony given by Alcherius, there occur not only the two variant readings just set forth, in which Morozzo and Mörkens disagree with Rocco, Ughelli and Tutini, but also others, in which Ughelli and Rocco differ from Morozzo, Tutini and Mörkens, and these two also from each other, both in the body of that monument and in the names of the bishops who subscribed it. To review the principal ones, the rest being passed over: for the reading by which Morozzo and Mörkens read in the body of the testimony, Master Bruno and Lanvinus and the other Fathers (Tutini has Brothers) assisting, Ughelli indeed, the conjunction and after the word Bruno being omitted and a comma substituted for it, reads Master Bruno, Lanvinus B. and the other hermit brothers assisting; but Rocco, the comma also being omitted, has Master Bruno Lanvinus and the other hermit brothers assisting; but this latter reading, as is plain of itself, is beyond all doubt faulty.

[591] From it meanwhile it chiefly came about that Rocco wrongly made one and the same person of Bruno and Lanvinus, variant readings in its various copies, which are reviewed, observing thus on the testimony of Alcherius recited by him in the place cited above: From these words "Master Bruno Lanvinus" you will easily understand that that diploma which we related in the Notice of Messina at the year MXCIV, number VIII, was sent by the Pontiff Paschal II to this Bruno; for in it you have: "Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God. To his beloved son Lanvinus greeting and Apost. benedict. concerning the cause of the bishop of Messina," etc. Of the bishops who are subscribed to the testimony, the archbishop of Palermo, who gave it, is called Alcherius by Tutini, Morozzo and Mörkens, Archerius by Ughelli and Rocco, with a change of one letter made in the name, and with the addition, which Morozzo and after him Mörkens supply in the text of the charter by Hic, of a fragment of the name, in Ughelli indeed Nic …, but in Rocco Nico …. But since that archbishop is called Alcherius by Rocco himself, in the Notice of the church of Palermo at the year 1094, number 6, in the diploma which Roger, count of Sicily and Calabria, gave to the church of Palermo in the year 1095, I think his name is to be pronounced Alcherius rather than Archerius, as is done by Tutini and by Morozzo and Mörkens following him. As now pertains to the fragment of the name Nic. or Nico, which is read only in Rocco and Ughelli in the subscription of the charter, Tutini perhaps thought it should be omitted because it was not a whole word; but, to inform the reader of what name it is probably a part, Rocco, in the place just cited, where he declared that Alcherius occupied the archiepiscopal see of the church of Palermo from the year 1083 to at least the year 1099, thinks that it can be said that the appellation of Nicodemus was perhaps attributed to Alcherius either as a second name or as a surname, and the things which he brings forward there make this probable enough.

[592] admits readings. Among the bishops subscribed to the testimony on the consecration of the church of the Tower, next after Alcherius, archbishop of the church of Palermo, appears the prelate of the church of Tropea, or, as it is written by others, Tropeia, in Further Calabria, who in Ughelli and Rocco, in the places cited above, is named Tristanus; but by Morozzo and Mörkens Tristerius, although meanwhile he is called Tristenus by Tutini. Ughelli, in volume X of Italia Sacra, among the bishops of Tropea, column 450, writes thus of that bishop: Justegus or Justeyrus, and Tusteius, who is also Tristanus, first of the Latins, undertook the episcopal office of the church of Tropea about the year of the Lord MXCIV; and he subjoins, some things being interposed, the diploma granted in the year 1094 by Roger, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, to the church of Tropea, in which he who was then its prelate, Justegus

is named. He who, of the bishops subscribed to the testimony, follows after the bishop of Tropea, the bishop of Catania, is designated by Ughelli and Rocco only by the two first letters of his name; but by Tutini and Morozzo following him he is called Augerius, and by Mörkens Angerius. That this prelate was properly named Ansgerius, and sat from the year 1091 up to the year 1124, is clear from the things which Rocco Pirro brings forward about him in the Notice of the church of Catania from the year 1091. As now pertains to the bishops of Squillace and of Malta, whose subscription is placed next under the subscription of the bishop of Catania: the name of the former of these, who, as I shall teach below against Ughelli, completed his mortality in the year 1095 or the following, is expressed everywhere in the same manner; nor does that of the latter, which from what has been said is omitted by Morozzo and Mörkens following him, suffer any variation in Rocco, Ughelli and Tutini, by whom he is reviewed.

[593] nor is it however on that account to be held spurious. It is further to be noted that this man was prelate not of the most celebrated island of Malta, but of Melitum, or rather Militum, a city of Further Calabria, as is plain from the things which Rocco Pirro, in the Notice of the church of Melita, immediately before the year 1089, and Ughelli, in volume 1 of Italia Sacra among the bishops of Melitum, column 942 and following, put in writing. I come now at length to the bishop of Nicastro, who last of all subscribed to the testimony of Alcherius on the consecration of the church of the Tower. He, whom the things adduced by Ughelli in volume 9 of Italia Sacra, column 402 and the two following, persuade to have sat from the year 1094 up to at least the year 1112, is named Henry by Rocco and Ughelli; and although by Tutini, and Morozzo and Mörkens following him, he is reckoned among the bishops subscribed to the testimony just praised again, yet he is not graced with the name either of Henry or any other, perhaps because Tutini found none in the copy of that testimony which guided him; so that accordingly here too Rocco Pirro and Ughelli differ from Tutini and his followers by a sufficiently notable diversity of reading. But, although this is so, since indeed among all these there is exact agreement as regards the reading both of the year 1094 and of the feast of the most holy Mother of God taken up into heaven, on which the consecration of the church of the Tower was performed, and nothing occurs from elsewhere why that monument, which from what has been said is read so variously by various men, should be held spurious or suspect, it is by no means to be rejected as such on account of the various variant readings of various copies, which are mostly only errors of amanuenses or copyists. And hence now, and partly from the diploma of count Roger just recited, it comes about that it is not to be doubted that that dedication of the said church, which Tutini, as is clear from this instrument too, wrongly confuses with the church of St. Mary of Arsafia at page 7 of the Prospectus, was performed both in the year 1094, as has already been said, and on the very feast of the most holy Mother of God taken up into heaven.

* otherwise Miletensem

* otherwise Tonellus

* otherwise Giracii

* otherwise Giracii

* otherwise prænotata

* otherwise Tonellus

§ XXXVI. Whether the Saint was present at the council of Piacenza, in which he composed the Preface of the Blessed Virgin, and why, if this is so, he did not return to the Grande Chartreuse when it had been celebrated.

The Saint, who was probably present at the councils of Troia and Benevento, That after the Saint's retreat from the Pontifical curia into the Calabrian desert of the Tower two councils were celebrated by Pope Urban II not far from there before the year 1095, namely one at Benevento in Campania, another at Troia in Apulia, is had as ascertained from the very writers and monuments of this time. To the first, which, as Berthold, priest of Constance and contemporary writer, testifies in his Appendix to Hermann the Lame, was celebrated in the year 1091 against the antipope Guibert and his followers, so many bishops and abbots, as is read in the old Roman codex from which Labbe published its canons, came together That their number could not easily be noted. Nor was the number of the fathers who came together to the second small, as the title of that council, brought by Labbe into volume 10 of the councils from ancient Manuscript codices and expressed in these words, makes credible: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXCIII, on the V of the Ides of March, there assembled at Troia in Apulia a council of about LXXV bishops and XII abbots. And that Bruno was summoned by Urban from his solitude to these two councils, celebrated not very far from Calabria and the desert in which he was living, appears probable if only because, when he was already staying in the Calabrian desert, he was most probably summoned from it from time to time by that Pontiff, who wished to use the counsels of the most prudent Man in affairs of greater moment, as I have already taught above.

[595] he was probably also summoned by the Pontiff to that of Piacenza. But was the Saint also summoned by Pope Urban to the most celebrated and most numerous council celebrated in the year 1095, as the priest Berthold, just praised again, testifies, in a place somewhat more remote from Calabria, namely at Piacenza, and to another which preceded it, and which (for nothing is read to have been decreed in it) seems to have been not so much a council as a preparation for the council of Piacenza, held at Guastalla, or, as it is written by others, Guardistalla or Ewardastalla, at the end of the year 1094? That Bruno was indeed present at the council of Piacenza just mentioned, in which again the antipope Guibert and the emperor Henry were deprived of Ecclesiastical communion, Blomevenna and his other biographers later than the fifteenth century, who will have it that the holy Man was with Urban from his departure from the Chartreuse up to the year 1095, and only then, having refused the archbishopric of Reggio to which he had been elected, and having left the Pontifical curia, betook himself into the Calabrian desert of the Tower, affirm with unanimous consent. And indeed, although I cannot confirm this assertion of theirs by any sufficiently ancient testimony, I yet think it by no means unlike the truth, since it could easily have happened that the Pontiff, who from what has been said had probably wished the Saint to be present at the councils celebrated at Troia and Benevento, also summoned him from the Calabrian solitude to that of Piacenza, in which business of the gravest weight was to be treated. That St. Bruno, parent of the Carthusians, was present with the Pontiff in the same synod (namely of Piacenza) as counsellor, says Ruinart in the Life of Pope Urban II already praised rather often, number 171, nearly all the common authors have handed down, nor is it my mind to attack this opinion; but I cannot assent to those who assert that the archbishopric of Reggio in Calabria was offered to this holy Man by the Pontiff at that time. So he, not differing much, as appears, from the opinion by which I think that the Saint was probably present at the council of Piacenza, and yet that the archbishopric of Reggio was not offered to him in it.

[596] He is thought by some to have composed in it the Preface of the Blessed Virgin. But there are also those who contend that Bruno not only was present at this council but also composed, of the Prefaces accustomed to be recited in the Mass, the tenth, which is of blessed Mary, and which was promulgated in this council. And first of all Surianus thinks so, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 192 and following, and then in his Chronotaxis on the same Life, page 396. All his words, by the first of which he chiefly strives to prove that the Saint was present at the council of Piacenza, I transcribe here. In the former place he uses these following: It is judged of equal difficulty that he (namely St. Bruno) is said to have been present at the council of Piacenza, which was celebrated in the year MXCV, since the diplomas of the donation (of the desert of the Tower by count Roger), made in the year MXC and confirmed by Urban II two years after, are opposed. But neither is this destitute of its foundation, since Antonio Beuter, chronographer of Valencia, an excellent investigator of antiquities, in his little book which he entitled On the ceremonies of the Mass, asserts it not obscurely, when he says that the Preface of the B. Virgin Mary, which is the tenth, was then composed by him. He could therefore still have adhered to the Pontiff about the times of the council of Piacenza, and nevertheless have presided over his monastery of the Tower; for that this was then solemn and customary is proved by various acts, especially of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in which it is read that he was absent from his Clairvaux for six years and more, having undertaken various labours and journeys for the Apostolic See, to say nothing of others who were summoned from the most remote parts of the world to quench the common fire of the schism; and in the latter place these: Antonio Beuter, chronographer of Valencia, a wonderful observer of antiquities, in the little book which he published on the parts and ceremonies of the Mass, relates that the Preface of the B. Virgin Mary was composed in this council, which Urban held at Piacenza, by a Carthusian. Who is that, unless St. Bruno, whose wisdom Pope Paschal extols in a certain diploma, and says that he obtained much authority with the Apostolic See?

[597] Thus far he, alleging only Antonio Beuter for the opinion which determines that the Preface of the B. Virgin Mary was composed by St. Bruno at the time of the council of Piacenza; But this opinion, since the monuments which are praised for it, but since this writer, removed as he is by a very long interval of time from the age of our Saint and of the council of Piacenza, cannot by his authority alone create undoubted credit for this thing, it must now chiefly be considered whence he drew it. Since, in order to be able to do this more conveniently and certainly, the Work of Beuter praised by Surianus would be necessary, and it is not at hand, Mörkens opportunely comes to help here, recording thus in his Manuscript Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno: In the following year MXCIV, since the Guibertines, as the same Berthold testifies, still held the Tower of Crescentius, and Urban was by no means safe from his enemies, he went out of the City into Lombardy, and at Guastalla on the river Po, having assembled a gathering of sacred prelates, provided for the necessities of the Church, in which he published the Preface of the B. V. Mary. The Ms. Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs in Papebroch at Urban; Sigonio and Leandro Alberti in the Description of Lombardy at Guardistallum. That Preface, which is the tenth, composed by a Carthusian, Antonio Beuter found among ancient monuments in his book on the parts of the Mass; he will have it, however, promulgated in the council of Piacenza, perhaps repeated in this latter, as more celebrated. Beuter therefore drew what he asserts about the Preface of the B. Virgin Mary composed by a Carthusian from ancient monuments. But since at the same time Mörkens does not declare of how great antiquity these were, most probably because he did not find it noted by Beuter, whether the said Preface was truly composed by a Carthusian, as Beuter learned from those monuments, still appears to me very doubtful, since those monuments which guided Beuter were perhaps only of slight credit.

[598] Moreover, even if we granted for a while that the monuments

ancient, speak not of St. Bruno, or only of a Carthusian in general, from which Beuter learned it, were altogether of approved character and credit, it would not yet be a consequence from this that the tenth Preface, which is of the B. Virgin Mary, was composed by St. Bruno. For he hands down from the monuments which he praises only that it was composed, not by St. Bruno, but by a Carthusian, without defining whether this was the Saint or another. It can indeed be replied that no other Carthusian than Bruno was present at the council of Piacenza; but if the Saint, as from what has been said is probable, was in fact present at this council, it appears most probable, not to say undoubted, that he had joined a companion to himself. Nor is there reason why, this granted, you should think that work is to be attributed to Bruno rather than to any other Carthusian who accompanied him to the council of Piacenza, on the ground that he, as a man of the highest erudition, was most apt for composing it; for, besides that great erudition was not needed for this, the Saint, as he himself teaches in his epistle, to be transcribed here below, to Ralph the Green, provost of the church of Reims, had joined to himself in the Calabrian desert of the Tower some companions, or, if you prefer, disciples, well learned; so that accordingly that Preface could have been composed by one of these, whom the Saint had taken with him to the said council. But there are those who contend that it is the work neither of Bruno nor of any other Carthusian, but of Pope Urban II himself; and first of all Cardinal Bona, book 2 of Liturgical Matters, chapter 10, number 3, and Ruinart in the Life of this Pontiff composed by him, number 176. All the words of this latter writer I transcribe here, if only because they comprise the ancient testimonies or monuments from which he drew what he commits to writing there bearing on this.

[599] and the said Preface Pandulf, They run thus: The tradition is received among the common authors that Pope Urban in this council (namely of Piacenza) added to the nine ancient Prefaces the tenth, which is of blessed Mary. This is expressly found in an old Manuscript codex of the arch-monastery of Saint-Remi at Reims, written about five hundred years ago, where, after the decree on the nine Prefaces related under the name of Pope Pelagius, these words are added in the same hand: "The tenth was added in the council of Piacenza celebrated under Pope Urban." And they report that the thing happened thus. When the Pontiff was performing the sacred rites "At Santa Maria di Campagna, a temple of most ancient piety," that God might turn the undertakings of the council to good, and was now offering the Preface, suddenly by divine instinct he broke out, to the wonder of the people, into those most sweet words: "And to praise, bless and proclaim thee in the veneration of blessed Mary the virgin; who both conceived thy Only-begotten by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, and, the glory of Virginity remaining, poured forth upon this world the eternal light, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom etc." Which Preface the universal Church afterwards approved by adopting it, and retains even now. Some will have it that this was published by blessed Bruno; but Pandulf expressly hands down in his Life that it was made by Urban himself, not indeed in the synod of Piacenza, but in that of Guastalla, as we have already (namely at number 168) advised. Petrus Maria Campi has more about this Preface in the History of Piacenza, book XII, at the year MXCV, which, since they are not sufficiently consistent, it has not seemed good to report here.

[600] a nearly contemporary writer of approved credit, Thus far Ruinart. And from these his words it is understood that the Preface which is of the B. Virgin Mary was made, not certainly in the council of Piacenza, but either in this, if credit is to be given to the Remigian codex which he praises, or in that of Guastalla, if Pandulf is to be believed. But whether it was made in the latter, which I think more probable, or in the former of these two councils, the opinion of those who make our Saint its author can be true, since nothing at all stands in the way of its being believed that he was present both at that of Guastalla, which from what has been said was celebrated at the end of the year 1094, and at that of Piacenza, which was not much later than that of Guastalla. But since the words adduced here by Ruinart from the Remigian codex suggest absolutely nothing which persuades that the said Preface was composed by Urban himself, it must now chiefly be considered here, first, whether Pandulf, who asserts that it was made by Urban, deserves undoubted credit; and then, whether that assertion of his is so clear and so distinct that no doubt remains that he wished it signified that that Preface was composed by Urban himself. And that Pandulf is worthy to be given undoubted credit does not seem to be doubted. For although Muratori, in volume 3 of the Writers of Italian Affairs, page 274 verso, rightly teaches with Pagi that he is different, contrary to what some think, from Pandulf Masca, whom Lucius III, raised to the Pontificate in the year 1181, enrolled in the senate of the purpled Fathers, yet he was contemporary, or at any rate nearly contemporary, with the Pontiff Urban II, as is clear from what the same Muratori teaches about the same writer in the place cited, writing in this manner: Since the very rich storehouse of the Ambrosian library exhibits Lives of certain supreme Pontiffs written by Pandulf of Pisa, the Palatine associates and I thought it most useful to insert these too in the present collection.

[601] And they begin from Gregory VII and end with Alexander III, to Pope Urban II and proceed from a writer who was living in those same times and committed them to writing. And already, on the testimony of Felino, Onofrio Panvinio, Louis of Saint-Charles and others, we had known that Pandulf had elaborated Lives of this kind; and from them too Baronius, the supreme illustrator of ecclesiastical history, had derived many things into his Annals. Nay, Costantino Gaetani in the year MDCXXXVIII at the presses of Rome delivered, and illustrated with notes, the Life of Gelasius II written by the same Pandulf, from which we understand that this writer, enrolled in the ecclesiastical militia, lived in the Roman curia in the year MCXVIII. That Pandulf therefore deserves credit in the things which he hands down to memory about Pope Urban II does not appear to be doubted. Let us now consider whether he declares so expressly and so explicitly that the Preface which is of the B. Virgin Mary was composed by that Pontiff that he hints that he did it by his own effort. His words bearing on this, in Papebroch, in the Propylaeum of May, in the Chronico-historical Attempt at a Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, at Urban II, and in Muratori, volume 3 of the Writers of Italian Affairs, page 352, are these: He (Pope Urban II) celebrated six councils: one at Clermont; another at Guardestallum in Lombardy, in which he made the Preface for the festivities of the B. Virgin Mary; another at Melfi, and another at Rome in the church of B. Peter. Another at Troia in Apulia, and another at Piacenza. Thus far Pandulf. And by these words indeed he seemed to Ruinart expressly to assert that the Preface here in question was composed by Pope Urban II by his own effort; and it will indeed have to be said that it was composed by Urban by his own effort, if the thing did in fact happen in the manner in which they report (see Ruinart's words recited at number 599) that it happened. But, to reply first to what is placed here in the latter place: besides that those by whom the thing is narrated as so done, and first of all Petrus Maria Campi, praised by Ruinart, are all more recent, and hence not of a nature to create undoubted credit, they determine that it was done at Piacenza (see again Ruinart's words at number 599, and Maria Campi at the place cited by them) in such a way that it could not even have taken its beginning elsewhere, and thus they conflict so greatly with Pandulf, who hands down that the same happened at Guastalla or Guardestallum, that they cannot be brought into agreement even in the manner assigned above by Mörkens.

[602] attributes, appears very doubtful. As now pertains to the words just transcribed here, in which Pandulf seemed to Ruinart to hand down expressly that the Preface of the Blessed Virgin was composed by Urban himself: since it not rarely happens that kings, emperors, Pontiffs and other persons placed in power are said to have done even those things which were done not by their own effort but only by their command, I do not know whether it will come about that everyone, on account of the said words of Pandulf, will undoubtingly ascribe that Preface to Pope Urban as composed by him by his own effort. As pertains to me, since the matter stands thus, and nothing from what has been said stands in the way of its being believed that our Saint was present, as at that of Piacenza, so also at the council of Guastalla, at the time of which the recited words of Pandulf, whose authority, as I think, is to be preferred to the Reims codex praised above by Ruinart, at least make it most probable that the Preface of the Blessed Virgin was composed, I would not dare undoubtingly to adjudge it away from Bruno, although meanwhile I vehemently doubt whether it is truly his work, both on account of what has already been said above, and because I hold the opinion which determines that it is to be attributed to Pope Urban as his own work far more probable for this reason, that the recited words of Pandulf, taken in the more natural and obvious sense, support it. There is added that that Preface (see the Writers of the Literary History of France, volume 8, pages 533 and 553) is perhaps older than both Urban and Bruno. But let it suffice to have discoursed thus about the tenth of the Prefaces accustomed to be recited in the Mass, which is attributed by some to the Saint, as also about his presence at the councils of Guastalla and Piacenza. Let us now consider whither Bruno betook himself when the council of Piacenza, at which from what has already been said he was perhaps present, was finished, why he did not go back then at least to the Grande Chartreuse, and what he first did then, or rather is handed down to have done.

[603] Why the Saint did not go back to the Chartreuse from the council of Piacenza. That the Saint returned at once from the council of Piacenza to the Calabrian desert of the Tower absolutely all the writers who establish that he was present at it affirm with unanimous consent. But it is far from being the case that they agree so rightly among themselves as regards the reason for which the Saint then sought Calabria and did not return to the Grande Chartreuse. For some, and among these Du Puy, Blomevenna and Surius, will have it that the Saint did so because, since the Pontiff was then setting out into Gaul, in which the Grande Chartreuse is situated, he feared, if he too (these are the words of Surius) should betake himself thither, either that he would be unable to avoid the curia, or that he would seem not to have left it but to be following it; others on the contrary allege other causes of that thing, which it is not necessary to recount all here. But, although this is so, and, as I have already taught above, the cause alleged by our biographers did not bring it about that the Saint did not return to the Chartreuse in the year 1090, they are not on that account to be said to conflict with one another

since it can have happened that for different causes he was unwilling to return to the Grande Chartreuse. And to me indeed, whatever at length be the case with the causes alleged by others, Bruno seems not to have gone back to the Grande Chartreuse, but to have returned to the Calabrian desert of the Tower, chiefly for this reason: both because he knew that it still needed his care in the highest degree, and because Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, who from what has been said had most earnestly entreated the holy Man already from the year 1090, when he was as yet scarcely known, to choose for himself whatever place he wished in his dominion, because he hoped that protection for himself and his dominions would be at hand from the Lord through his most holy prayers, and who venerated him, now well known to him, no otherwise than as a Saint, wished in every way that he should return to Calabria; nor could Bruno fail to satisfy the desire of a prince so pious and so benevolent, whom, as we have already seen, he had experienced to be most beneficent toward himself and his companions.

[604] However that may be, the Saint indeed returned from the council of Piacenza, if perhaps he was present at it, and what he is handed down to have done on the return to the desert of Calabria. into Calabria, nor did it seem good to him to go back to the Chartreuse, however much he perhaps most greatly desired to do so. And Zanotti, in the History or Life of St. Bruno, chapter XXV, hands down to memory that the Saint, when he was returning from that council to Calabria, turned aside to a place two miles distant from Siena, stayed there for some while, went several times from there to the neighbouring Sienese, and at length by his admonitions brought it about that they came to the obedience of Pope Urban II, by whom, because they adhered to the antipope Guibert, their city had been placed under interdict; he cites also for this narrative of his a Manuscript Life of St. Bruno whose author is Fulgenzio Ceccaroni; but since I find that this was done by our Saint recorded by absolutely no other writer, and Fulgenzio Ceccaroni, from whom Zanotti drew it, cannot be held as an ancient writer, taking account of the age in which he flourished after St. Bruno, I cannot assert that the things recorded here by Zanotti are consonant with the truth, and accordingly, leaving the matter undecided, I turn my discourse to the things which befell the Saint when he had now returned to the Calabrian desert, and which his disciples in the Chartreuse are narrated to have suffered.

§ XXXVII. The religious inhabitants of the Grande Chartreuse, the Saint being absent, suffer a most grievous temptation; the Saint baptizes a son born to count Roger, and is visited by him with a new benefit.

Bruno's disciples in the Chartreuse suffer a most grievous temptation, That St. Bruno did not return to the Grande Chartreuse from the council of Piacenza when it had been celebrated, at which from what has been said he had perhaps been present, fell out indeed most inopportunely for its religious inhabitants, if our biographers record the truth; for, if they write rightly, they suffered a most grievous temptation from the demon, in which, if the holy Man had been present with his beloved disciples, he could have been to them both a solace and a help. That temptation, which, if it truly took place, more probably happened not so very long, as you will understand from what is to be said, after the council of Piacenza and the other, of Clermont, which next followed it, it pleases me to record here in the words of Blomevenna. This biographer of the Saint, then, from whom and from Du Puy Surius borrowed what he supplies bearing on the same, writes thus: There was not lacking in this spiritual paradise (namely the Chartreuse) the ancient serpent also. For, foreseeing how great losses he was going to receive from that Order, whose foundations were already then being laid, he troubled them with the greatest faintness of heart and perplexity, chiefly through tongues, that is, through those who, accusing them of novelty, namely thrust upon them the danger of their own death, so that they altogether did not know what they should do, both on account of the rigour of the life instituted, and on account of the horrible desert, in which, moved by the discourses of those men, they themselves also feared that they were endangering themselves. But on the other hand they feared, if they went away, that they would offend their guiding stars and God.

[606] and they are freed from it by an apparition divinely shown. With such a temptation were the inhabitants of the Grande Chartreuse vexed by the evil spirit in Bruno's absence; for dispelling which the Saint would indeed have been most opportune; but what he, being absent, could not perform, the divine Clemency, if credit again is to be given to the writers just mentioned, most kindly deigned to perform. And when (Blomevenna subjoins to the words just recited) they had been harassed for some while by these perplexities, behold, the most kind Lord, who never deserts those who hope in Him, sent to them, as they were conversing about this matter (as is written of the Spirit, Thou knowest not whence it cometh or whither it goeth), an honourable man, having curly and white hair, saying to them: "You are perplexed, brothers, whether you ought to remain in this place or to withdraw; but I say to you on the part of God that the blessed Mother of God, ever Virgin Mary, will preserve you in this place, if you read her Hours before the canonical Hours, and her Compline after them." When this had been said, the man vanished; and they rejoiced with great joy, and chose the blessed Virgin Mary as patroness of the Order, and St. John the Baptist as patron. And that that man was the holy Apostle Peter they conjectured chiefly from this, that his successor Urban the second in the council of Clermont instituted that the Hours of blessed Mary be said daily by the clerics. And by this vision they were so strengthened in the Lord that neither death nor life could separate them from the charity of Christ. Thus far Blomevenna: now certain things are to be observed on his words, or rather on the things which he hands down to memory or teaches in them.

[607] [This, which, whether it was truly also the cause of all the things of which it is asserted to be the cause,] And first indeed, as pertains to the apparition in which St. Peter, having assumed the appearance of an old man, showed himself to be seen by the first inhabitants of the Chartreuse, or Landuin and his companions, and stirred them up to the daily recitation of the Little Office of the most holy Virgin Mary, and by which it came about that they were both freed from a most perilous temptation and chose as patroness of their Order the same most holy Virgin Mary and as patron St. John the Baptist: that event indeed, although confirmed by the testimony or authority of no sufficiently ancient or contemporary writer or monument, I would not dare undoubtingly to deny, for this reason, that both the constant tradition, as they call it, of the whole Order, and the assiduous usage in the same of reciting the Little Office of the Most Holy Virgin, support it; but is there nothing also on account of which it may seem that it can be doubted whether that apparition, or the things which are narrated to have followed it, ever took place? The most holy Virgin Mary as patroness and St. John the Baptist as patron were probably chosen by the Saint and his disciples long before the aforementioned apparition, since, from what has been said above, St. Bruno founded the Chartreuse in their honour; so that accordingly it is doubtful whether that apparition was the cause of this choice, as Blomevenna hints in the recited words, especially since it (see Blomevenna's words just given) is recorded to have shown to Landuin and his companions, to be seen, not St. John the Baptist but St. Peter the Apostle, and they would accordingly seem likely to have chosen for themselves as patron the latter of these two Saints, not the former, if the aforesaid apparition had been the cause of the choice which Blomevenna records. Moreover Ruinart, in the Life of Pope Urban II, already very often praised, number 226, writes thus: They report also that on this very occasion of the sacred expedition the hour prayers of blessed Mary, which had already before been instituted by Peter Damian in his monasteries, began to be frequented by clerics, nay even by laymen themselves, by the prescription of Urban (namely in the synod of Clermont, in which the sacred expeditions into the Holy Land were decreed), so that in that way those who were unfit to undertake the expedition might at least help the soldiers by these prayers, by earning for them the patronage of so great a Virgin.

[608] Since therefore it is reported that it was enjoined on the clerics by Pope Urban, as the recited words of Ruinart declare, that those hour prayers of the most blessed Virgin, [is doubtful; that it was posterior to the council of Clermont, contrary to what Petreius,] which are commonly accustomed to be called her Office, should be recited by the clerics, nay it was in fact, as appears, enjoined in the council of Clermont (see Labbe, volume X of the Councils, column 517), the Carthusians could have been moved to do the same by that recent prescription of Urban; wherefore, since they had no need for this of the apparition already related in the words of Blomevenna, it seems that it can be doubted whether they were truly impelled by it to take up those prayers for recitation. But there will perhaps be someone who, to defend that this was done by the said apparition, contends that it was earlier than the celebration of the council of Clermont. And in this opinion indeed Petreius seems to have been. For in his Elucidations on the Chronicle of Dorlandus, book 4, chapter 4, he writes thus: Appearing to them (the Carthusians), St. Peter the Apostle suggested a wholesome counsel, that they should daily chant canonical Hours in honour of the most sacred Virgin, which afterwards the whole clergy also undertook to imitate, as is established from the decrees of the council of Clermont. So he: but what he asserts here he proves by absolutely no argument, nor can he by his authority alone make us give credit to it. Dorlandus, whom Petreius wished to elucidate by that observation of his, introduces St. Peter speaking thus to the Carthusians to whom he appears: Know one thing, that the most sacred Mother of God Mary will preserve you here from all inconveniences, and will be the patroness of your Order, if only you chant her Hours, as has lately been instituted in the Roman Church.

[609] Dorlandus therefore thought that St. Peter appeared to the Carthusians, from whom Blomevenna and others dissent, and admonished them to chant the Hours of the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the time when not long before the recitation of the Hours of the most blessed Virgin had been decreed in the Roman Church, and hence, since this is not found to have been decreed elsewhere than in the council of Clermont about the time at which the said apparition happened, that this was later than that council. And Blomevenna also thought this very thing, as the things which, after he has narrated the said apparition of the Apostle Peter, he immediately subjoins sufficiently manifest, these following words of his, still recited above: And that that man was the holy Apostle Peter they conjectured chiefly from this, that his successor Urban the second in the council of Clermont instituted that the Hours of blessed Mary be said daily by the clerics. Surius further also assents to Blomevenna; and although neither he, nor Blomevenna and Dorlandus, bring any ancient testimony or monument by which to confirm their opinion, yet I hold that, if the mentioned apparition of St. Peter the Apostle ever took place, one must rather adhere to these three writers than to Petreius alone. For he seems to make it earlier than the council of Clermont only from a preconceived opinion by which he thinks that the custom of reciting the Hours of the most holy Virgin Mary was first used by the Carthusians and then propagated by these to others. But this is beyond all doubt deviant from the truth.

[610] thought; more probably, if it ever happened, it was later. For, as Peter the Deacon testifies on the Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 64, the Hours of the most holy Virgin were already added daily at Monte Cassino to the greater Office by the constitution of Pope Gregory II, who entered on the Pontificate in the year 715, and hence long before the Carthusians arose. Moreover, that the recitation of the same Hours was divinely confirmed in one of his monasteries in which it was accustomed to be frequented, Peter Damian, who had already departed to those above before the beginning of the Carthusian Order and the council of Clermont, teaches against the monk Bozo, an opponent of that holy custom, in epistle 32 to the hermits of Gamugno. Now then, since this is so, I think it more probable, on account of the authority of Dorlandus together with Blomevenna and Surius, which for what has been said must here be weightier than the authority of Petreius alone, that the aforesaid apparition, in which St. Peter appeared to the Carthusians and admonished them to pay the daily task of the Hours to the most holy Virgin Mary, was later than the council of Clermont. Now then, since the matter stands thus, it seems, as I have already said, that it can be doubted whether it was by that apparition that it came about that the daily usage of reciting the Little Office of the most holy Virgin Mary grew strong among the Carthusians; and hence, since besides it is deservedly to be doubted from what has already been said above whether these were impelled by that same apparition to choose the most holy Virgin Mary as Patroness and St. John the Baptist as patron, it also appears to be doubted whether it itself ever took place. It has seemed good to me meanwhile to mention it here because, although from what has been said, if it ever took place, it was later than the council of Clermont, yet it perhaps happened still in the very year 1095, in the November of which that council was celebrated, and here the matters done about this time and pertaining to the Saint were to be treated. Let us now pursue the series of matters touching him somewhat more nearly.

[611] Roger, son of count Roger, who not in the year 1097, as Tutini determines, Bruno had returned not long before from the council of Piacenza, if indeed it is true that he was present at it, when count Roger manifested in how great esteem and love he held him otherwise also than by the donations most liberally conferred, as he had done before, on the Calabrian desert of the Tower. Camillo Tutini, just praised again, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, at the year 1097, records thus: A son is born to count Roger of Adelaide, whom Bruno baptizes in the church of Mileto, and Lanvinus raises from the font. This Roger was the first king of Sicily. Maraldus, himself also a Carthusian, was present, who published a melic Rhythm on this function. So he; but does he rightly assign the nativity of Roger, the first king of this island after the Saracens had been driven out of Sicily, to the year 1097? Romuald of Salerno, a contemporary author, in the Chronicle in Muratori, volume 7 of the Writers of Italian Affairs, column 196, writes thus of Roger, son of count Roger and first king of Sicily: The most glorious king Roger, after so many victories and triumphs, died of fever at Palermo and was buried in the archiepiscopal church of the same city, in the fifty-eighth year of his life, two months, five days, on the XXVI day of the month of February, in the XXIV year of his reign; and in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCLII, Indict. I. So Romuald; and since he could very well have ascertained in what year of his age king Roger died, I bring myself to believe that he in fact died, as he hands down in the recited words, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. That Roger indeed exchanged life for death not in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1152, as Romuald here, or rather the recited words attributed to this writer, mark, but in the year 1154, advanced to the XXVII day of February, Pagi proves by most lucid arguments in the Critica at this year; nor is there doubt that still other errors lie in the chronological notes which the text of Romuald transcribed here exhibits.

[612] But these are written only in abbreviation by letters holding the place of numbers, but in the year, as appears partly from Romuald of Salerno, into which it is ascertained by experience that errors very easily and not rarely creep through the heedlessness of copyists; but in what year of his age Roger closed his last day is expressed in the recited text of Romuald not in abbreviation by numerical letters but in whole words, into which all the learned know that error creeps with difficulty, or at any rate not so easily and so frequently; moreover, absolutely nothing occurs anywhere which is of a nature in any way to persuade that Roger died in another year of his life; so that accordingly, if not certain, it is at least most probable that he died in the 58th year of his Life assigned in Romuald's text, and indeed, as I shall teach below, with two months and five days already completed, which are likewise expressed in the same text in whole words. Now then, since this is so, and fifty-eight years, two months, five days, subtracted from the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1154, already advanced to the XXVII day of January, in which Pagi from what has been said gives it most lucidly proved that king Roger departed from the living, lead down to the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1095, already nearly ended, it follows that king Roger, into the time of whose birth we are here inquiring, was born in this latter year, already advanced to December.

[613] But, you will say, Geoffrey Malaterra, not rarely praised already above, whatever also be brought to the contrary from Malaterra, who seems certainly to deserve greater credit here than Romuald, writes thus in book 4 of the Sicilian History, chapter 26, of Capua besieged by Roger, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, and his paternal uncle Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXCVII there (namely in the camp before besieged Capua) the countess Adalasia became pregnant by count Roger; and since the discourse here is of Roger, afterwards king, conceived by Adalasia or Adelaide, and count Roger, husband of Adalasia, could not, as will become plain from what is to be said below about the time at which the siege of Capua happened, have been in the Camp before Capua before Pentecost, which in the year 1097 fell on the twenty-fourth day of May, even granting that this city was besieged by count Roger in that year, it follows from the recited words of Geoffrey Malaterra that Roger, first king of Sicily, was born not in the year 1095, nearly finished, but only at the beginning of the year 1098. I confess it is so: but, besides that even so that nativity would not yet have happened in the year 1097, to which from what has been said Camillo Tutini attaches it, it cannot be proved that the discourse in the words brought over here from Malaterra's Sicilian History is of Roger, afterwards king, whom Adelasia conceived in the camp before Capua by count Roger her husband. Nor, even if it were otherwise, would anything be had from it for fixing the nativity of king Roger to the year 1097, since those words are not to be attributed to Malaterra, but were written at the margin of the page by an inept annotator, from which they were afterwards carried by an unskilled copyist into the text itself, as I shall show below when I institute discourse both on the time of the siege of Capua and on the diploma by which after it count Roger conferred many goods on St. Bruno and the Calabrian desert.

[614] as appears partly from the sepulchral Inscription, was born at the end of 1095, To me therefore, all things considered, it still remains more probable that Roger, son of count Roger, and afterwards king of Sicily, was born not in the year 1097, as Tutini determines, but at the end of the year 1095; partly on account of the following words of Romuald about king Roger, which I recited still above, He died… in the fifty-eighth year of his life, two months, five days; partly because these, although Romuald in his Chronicle is not accustomed to take a year designated by the ordinal number which he joins to it for a completed year without an addition by which he openly declares that this is done by him, are yet to be interpreted here of the fifty-eighth year with two months and five days already completed, as is clear from the sepulchral inscription of king Roger, which exists in Rocco Pirro in the Chronology of the kings of Sicily prefixed to volume 1 of Sicilia Sacra, page 8, and which runs thus: He lived LIX years, reigned XXIV, died MCLIV. Now then, since this is so, and fifty-eight years, two months and five days, computed in retrograde order from the twenty-seventh day of February of the year 1154, on which from what has been said the same prince beyond all doubt departed this life, lead down to the year 1095 nearly elapsed, it follows that king Roger obtained his birth then, as has already been said. Since this is so, we have at the same time also determined the time at which it happened that he was baptized by Bruno. But whence is it established that this honour was paid to the Saint by count Roger, that he wished his son to be baptized by him?

[615] by the sacred waters, as in the melic Rhythm composed by him Among the inhabitants of the Calabrian desert who after the death of St. Bruno were present at the election of a new Prior or Master to preside over the whole desert, Maraldus is reckoned in their Catalogue, to be transcribed here below, which was found in an ancient charter on which each had himself inscribed his name. Rocco Pirro also, in the Chronology of the kings of Sicily and elsewhere, not rarely mentions Maraldus, a Carthusian monk who compiled a certain Chronicle, and Morozzo affirms in the Chronological Theatre of the Carthusian Order that he was rich in poetic vein and flourished about the year 1095. And from all these it now comes about that I am persuaded both that Maraldus, a pupil of the Calabrian Chartreuse, truly stood by at the baptism of Roger, afterwards king, as Tutini says, and that Roger, first king of Sicily after the Saracens had been driven out, was truly baptized by our Saint, as he teaches us in the melic Rhythm which, as Tutini and others testify, he sang on that matter; and I think that the studious reader will be persuaded of the same with me from that monument. I think it therefore worth while to transcribe it entire here from Tutini, although meanwhile in some places the verses are so badly turned, either by the author himself or vitiated by the error of copyists, that you scarcely, nay not even scarcely, understand what is signified by them.

The whole world shines, the world, With a bright nativity: Of the Marquess of Militum, Boniface the Italian, The niece adorns him whom she adorns, The wife Adelasia, Of the Bruttians and Sicilians The Count Roger; And the venerable Norman The woman presents with offspring, Noble, glorious, Whom in travail she brought forth. The ancestral * he felt, foresaw himself, That count, in his son, Who in the tenth month, covered With earthly weight, comes forth. The ancient city of Melitum Is made to have immense joys. The lowest things all stand unjoined, And Trinacria with the glad. A glad and ordered choir Plays glad songs, For the divine sacred washing Of the lustral wave then The Count prays and entreats

Bruno the German; For he is held, that there be bound His devotion. Summoned, not unwilling, Rejoicing he comes. The Boy is baptized and washed In the sacred stream; Lanvinus is godfather, The noble Norman, And then from the sacred washing He is anointed with olive by Bruno.

[617] They cease war after the little boy For Christ the God above. Maraldus makes credible in the Rhythm, Happy omen: this boy Holds the name Roger. All sing, they stand sleepless With rejoicing metres. The forum burns, the bridal bed rejoices For excessive joy. For the church of Melitum Rejoiced at the things shown, Because it is seen adorned With tapestry and with fir; It is green with leafage, no one is silent, All play with joys. Then Urban, but humane, Rejoices at the birth, This the second, whom the whole world Straightway adores, In the see of Christ, with the reward Of the most blessed kingdom; He prays, while he is raised, For the boyish Lord A saving and equal Celibate life of Christ. Therefore to the born, but reborn, Boy may Christ give the kingdoms Of heaven by the gift of zeal, And also to the most just. To the Most High be continual praise of fruit, To God for ever. Amen.

[618] the Saint washed, Whether Adelasia, wife of count Roger, had as her grandfather or paternal uncle, as she had as father, one by the name of Boniface, I would not dare to define from the third of these verses and the three following, since they are very obscure; and of the rest, which of them besides labour most from the fault of obscurity everyone will easily perceive, even with me silent; those chiefly to be noted, which teach both that the Saint was asked by count Roger to baptize his son, and that he performed that office, are the following:

For the divine sacred washing Of the lustral wave then The Count prays and entreats Bruno the German; For he is held, that there be bound His devotion. Summoned, not unwilling, Rejoicing he comes, The boy is baptized and washed In the sacred stream, Lanvinus is godfather, The noble Norman, And then from the sacred washing He is anointed with olive by Bruno.

And what is signified by these verses is clear enough; yet lest anyone perhaps doubt of the signification of the last, which chiefly bears on this: Bruno in it is a dative, from the name Brunus, which the poet here, as is made manifest from these two earlier verses of his, The Count prays and entreats Bruno (Brunum) the German, uses for the name Bruno, deduced from it, and employed in place of the ablative with the preposition a going before, after the manner of the Greeks; so that the sense of that verse is He is anointed with olive by Bruno, and it teaches, with some verses immediately preceding and following, that Roger, son of Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, was baptized by St. Bruno at Mileto in Calabria with solemn rite, and that in the year, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said above, 1095 at its end.

[619] and not long after is visited by count Roger with a new benefit. Further, not much space of time had elapsed from the baptism of Roger, afterwards king of Sicily, when the Saint again experienced the benevolent mind of Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, toward him. Surianus teaches me this, writing thus in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno written by Surius, page 397: In the year MXCVI count Roger gives certain villeins to St. Bruno, by a diploma given, in which he entitles himself helper of the Christians. The donation which Surianus here records is undoubtedly the same of which Camillo Tutini, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, at the same year 1096 noted in these words of Surianus, speaks thus: There is added also another donation by the same count to Bruno and Lanvinus, and to their successors in the said monastery (namely of the Tower in Calabria), of fifty men of one household, liege and in homage to them. The privilege is written in the Greek idiom. The privilege or diploma by which that donation was made to the Saint, as Camillo Tutini and Surianus assert in the recited words, I have been able to find nowhere; I do not doubt, however, that it was at hand to at least one of these writers, namely Tutini, who says that it was written in Greek. Wherefore I am persuaded that that donation too was truly made to the Saint by count Roger, although meanwhile, in order to be able to render the matter more certain to the reader, I would wish to have that privilege or diploma to exhibit to him here.

* perhaps auctum?

§ XXXVIII. Theodore Mesimerius, the Greek bishop of Squillace, having died, the Saint persuades that John de Nicephoro, a Latin, be substituted, and then obtains from him a most ample privilege, which he also causes to be confirmed by the Pontiff, for the desert of the Tower, a new monastery of St. Stephen having now been built in it.

He persuades that John de Nicephoro be chosen bishop of Scyllacium. So long as Calabria had obeyed the Greek emperors of the East, scarcely any others had sat as bishops at Scyllacium than those who were of the Greek Church. But when that region had been subdued in the eleventh century by the Norman people and princes, who followed the rite of the Latin Church, it seemed good to Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, to whose dominion Scyllacium, or, as others write, Squillacum or Squillacium, belonged, to substitute in the place of Theodore Mesimerius, the Greek bishop of Scyllacium, who was taken from the living in the year 1095 or at the beginning of the following, no other bishop than one who was of the Latin Church; and, St. Bruno and Lanvinus persuading him to this together with some bishops of the Latin rite, he chose John de Nicephoro as the first bishop of the Latin rite of that see. All these things are taught by the diploma existing in Ughelli, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, among the Bishops of Squillace, column 426, marked with the year 1096, Indiction five (whence it is clear that the death of Mesimerius is wrongly set by this writer, in the place cited, at the end of the year 1096 or the beginning of the following), by which the same Roger besides conferred at that time not a few goods on the see of Scyllacium, and in a manner founded it anew. Its words bearing on this run thus: I, Roger, count of Sicily and of Calabria, together with my wife, by name Adelasia … by the counsel of Saxo, bishop of Cassano, and Vicar of the Lord Pope Urban, and with the assent of the bishops, the Lord Robert of Messina, Stephen … Angerius of Catania, Stephen of Mazara, Engerland of Agrigento, Roger of Syracuse, and by the counsels of the Lord Bruno and of our brother Lanvinus, hermits, holy men, have chosen there as master and pontiff the Lord John de Nicephoro, who was a canon and venerable dean of the holy church of Mileto, an honourable man, a prudent man, and abundant in all honourableness, and have enriched his church with as many and as great benefits as pleased me, and honoured it with dignities, and, as far as pertained to me, have determined and described its parish, etc.

[621] Since Roger here honours St. Bruno and Lanvinus with the title of Holy Men, A new monastery, because, as Tutini says, the old one for the monks, and partly by their counsel, as he himself declares, imparted to the see of Scyllacium John de Nicephoro as bishop and not a few goods, the said diploma is indeed also a proof of how great esteem Lanvinus, and namely St. Bruno, stood in with that prince. Further, not long after Mesimerius, the bishop of the Greek rite of the church of Squillace, had departed this life, John de Nicephoro, who was of the Latin rite, had been substituted by count Roger at the persuasion of our Saint and Lanvinus, when Bruno began to found in the Calabrian desert of the Tower a new church and monastery under the name of the most holy Virgin Mary and of St. Stephen the protomartyr. The multitude of monks, says Camillo Tutini in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, at the year 1097, page 12, had now increased in the desert of St. Mary, and since that place did not hold the number, at the command of count Roger a very ample and magnificent monastery is built near the desert under the title of the same Virgin and of Stephen the protomartyr. The Saint therefore, if credit is to be given to Tutini here, not only added a new monastery to the former monastery which from what has been said he had built immediately on his entry into the Calabrian Chartreuse in honour of the most holy Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist, but also did so because count Roger both wished it to be done so, and the monks had grown to such a multitude that the monastery sacred to St. Mary and St. John the Baptist did not hold them. And that Bruno did this partly for this latter cause appears probable to me if only because, in the year 1101, in which from what is to be said the Saint departed to the Lord, and hence only five years having elapsed after the promotion of John de Nicephoro to the cathedral of Scyllacium, there were more than thirty monks in the desert of the Tower, as is made credible by the Catalogue, still praised before, of its monks who after the death of the holy Parent promised obedience to Lanvinus as master of the desert, excerpted from an ancient charter on which each of them inscribed his name, and brought into the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published.

[622] whose number had now greatly increased, did not suffice, That monument, copied from the Val-Dieu copy of this book, the Parisian Carthusian, already rather often praised above, deigned to communicate to me, as many other things; and I too think it worth while to communicate the same, since it has also been cited here before and is still to be cited below, with the reader, to whom I think it will by no means be unwelcome. It is expressed in these words: I, brother Vugo, have promised obedience to master Lanvinus. Likewise also brother Leo; likewise also brother Maraldus; likewise also brother Romanus; likewise also brother Stabilis; likewise also brother Radulph of the Crucifix; likewise also brother Ursus, subdeacon; likewise also brother Rainerius, subdeacon; likewise also brother Guildericus; likewise also brother Girardus; likewise also brother Tricus; likewise also brother Gualterius Morinus; likewise also brother Landulph; likewise also brother Herchen. ("This name," notes the anonymous author of the said fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, "does not exist entire, because the charter is gnawed away.") Likewise also brother Renaldus the Mason; likewise also Br. Albert; likewise also Br. Rembaldus and Br. Ugo; likewise also Br. Odo; likewise also Br. Longuisus; likewise also Br. Odo; likewise also Br. Anselm; likewise also brother Gumbert; likewise also brother Bernard; likewise also brother Durandus; likewise also brother Loinus; likewise also brother Hato; likewise also brother Fulco, deacon; likewise also Brother Heldicus; likewise also brother Guarinus, subdeacon; likewise also Brother Lambert. So the praised Catalogue, comprising more than thirty monks of the desert of the Tower, as will be evident to one counting, who after the Saint's death promised obedience to Lanvinus; so that accordingly it indeed appears probable, as I have already said, that their number, also about five years before, or when John de Nicephoro was first promoted to the cathedral of Scyllacium, was much greater than it had been at the beginning, and that hence partly it came about that the Saint built the new monastery of St. Stephen.

[623] But a far different cause for which Bruno did this is assigned by the author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published,

anonymous. [and which, as the Carthusian Annalist will have it, to the infirmity of some of these] Behold his words bearing on this, copied from the Val-Dieu copy of the said book, and sent to me by the Parisian Carthusian, very often praised already, who forbids his name to be disclosed. Further, the Calabrian desert itself, which St. Bruno obtained from Roger, he wished to be built up in honour of St. Mary and St. John the Baptist, whom he had already chosen as special patrons in the Chartreuse, as we have seen in the letters of Theodore (the bishop of Squillace, already recited above), and under the same names he caused it to be dedicated in the year MXCIV with great pomp… But what kind of desert this was which the holy Patriarch inhabited he himself described thus in the epistle to Ralph, then provost of the church of Reims, saying: "In the borders of Calabria with religious brothers" etc., up to these words inclusively: "For a bow, if it be continually stretched, is slacker and less fit for its Office." These things St. Bruno says of his solitude, where he stayed rather often with those of his companions whom he had ascertained to be called by God to lead the anchoretic life. For when he saw many men of different condition and of different strength coming to him for the sake of conversion, he determined to keep with him in his desert the stronger and those in whom he had proved a Divine calling to this; but for the rest, whom he judged less fit for the eremitical life, he built a monastery, consecrated in honour of St. Stephen the protomartyr, distant about one mile from the desert, in which they might lead a life eremitical indeed, but somewhat more relaxed and less rigid.

[624] Bruno therefore, if one must stand by the praised anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, [wished to be relieved, caused to be built, not first after the diploma given in the year 1099,] built the new monastery of St. Stephen because he wished the infirmity of those who were less fit for the eremitical life to be relieved; which also can be true, since nothing at all stands in the way of its being believed that he did it partly for this reason, partly for the one assigned above. In whatever way meanwhile the matter stands, it is undoubted that the Saint added to the monastery sacred to the most holy Mother of God and to John the Baptist, which was also called the monastery of St. Mary of the desert or of the Tower, another, dedicated to the same most holy Mother of God and to St. Stephen the protomartyr, as also that it was already inhabited in the year 1099, on the second day of August. For Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, in the diploma to be transcribed here below, which he granted in favour of St. Bruno in that year and on that day, makes mention of the monastery of St. Stephen as then existing in the desert of the Tower and inhabited by brothers. I wish to be known, he says, to all faithful Christians the benefits which God has granted to me, a sinner, through the prayers of the reverend man Br. Bruno, the most pious Father of the brothers who dwell in the churches of Holy Mary of the desert and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which are situated in my land between the town which is called Stilo and Arena. And hence it is now clear that Blomevenna wanders beyond all doubt from the truth when, after he has transcribed in part the diploma just mentioned, by which count Roger gave many things to St. Bruno, he immediately subjoins: By virtue of this donation, therefore, he built there (in the Calabrian desert of the Tower) first a church in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary beside a certain cave or underground grotto in which he himself stayed. He built also another, not far distant from it, in honour of St. Stephen the protomartyr, with a monastery contiguous to it, in which the other brothers dwelt, serving as soldiers of Christ under the care and government of so great a Father.

[625] as is here proved against the Saint's biographers, So he, handing down that the church or monastery of St. Stephen was not built by our Saint until count Roger had made him the donation expressed in the diploma of which he recites a part; wherefore, since in this very diploma mention is made of that monastery as already existing or built, he indeed admits a most manifest error; and at this, into which two others also, namely Du Puy before him and Surius after him, have slipped, it comes to one to wonder chiefly for this reason alone, that in that very part of the said diploma which both these and he recite, mention is made of the monastery of St. Stephen as already built. Moreover, both Blomevenna in the words just recited, and the two other biographers of ours just praised, namely Du Puy and Surius, hand down that the church sacred to the Most holy Mother of God in the Calabrian desert was likewise not built by the Saint until the donation expressed in the mentioned diploma had been conferred by count Roger on our Saint; which narrative of theirs is no less erroneous than the preceding one about the church of St. Stephen, since it is established from what has already been said above that the said church of the most holy Mother of God began to be built already from the year 1090, and was consecrated in the year 1094. Nor do I see how the things which the three aforesaid biographers of ours hand down about the church of St. Stephen in the Calabrian desert, first built by our Saint after the diploma here in question had been given, can cohere with other words of theirs in which they have already before handed down to memory that the churches of St. Mary and St. Stephen were given to St. Bruno by count Roger when he, not yet knowing him, had found him while hunting in the desert of the Tower. For if the Saint was ever found by count Roger while hunting and not yet knowing him, this certainly, as the praised biographers themselves must admit from what has already been said above, happened not later than the year 1095 or the beginning of the following; and since this is so, how can it be true that count Roger then bestowed the church of St. Stephen on Bruno, and yet that it was first built after the diploma mentioned above, given, from what is to be said below, not earlier than the year 1099?

[626] the diploma of count Roger is proved, Were there perhaps in our Saint's age four churches in the Calabrian desert, of which two, namely one sacred to St. Mary, the other to St. Stephen, existed before Bruno's entry into that solitude, and two, likewise one sacred to St. Mary, the other to St. Stephen, were first built after the Saint's entry into the same solitude? But this neither appears probable, nor do I find it handed down to memory by absolutely any writer, whether more recent or more ancient. And indeed the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, records not four, but only two churches or monasteries, inhabited by Bruno and his disciples, which existed in our Saint's age in the Calabrian desert of the Tower, writing thus at the year 1114, as the Parisian Carthusian, again very often praised already, whom I do not name because he does not wish it, has taught me: In the years MXC and MXCVII we have seen that already in the time of St. Bruno there existed two monasteries (namely in the Calabrian desert of the Tower), one dedicated to B. Mary (it may be added, and to St. John the Baptist), where he himself stayed; another not much distant from the former, built in honour of the same B. Mary and of St. Stephen, in which, with all the lay brothers, certain monks also lived who were either less fervent, or rather had become infirm, of whom Lanvinus himself was Prior; but all up to the present year (namely 1114) had lived eremitically, as though composing only one community, as seems to be established from the encyclical epistle sent after the death of St. Bruno to his friends, in which (see it, prefixed to the funeral Titles to be published) they make mention of only one monastery, since they inscribe themselves "The humble hermits of the monastery of Calabria of holy Mary Mother of God."

[627] And in most of the letters given by Paschal II to Lanvinus, but caused about the year 1097, which we have copied out above in their places, the Pope himself calls Lanvinus "provost of the Hermits and father and master of many anchorites." Nor does he speak except of only one monastery: "We have learned," he says, "that the peace and concord of the desert (see number 550) have been restored." And writing to all, "To Lanvinus and the other brothers inhabiting the desert of the lord Bruno, greeting." And to the master of the desert himself, "We greet your brothers, fellow inhabitants of the desert." And thus they were called hermits and persisted, until at length in the present year (namely 1114) another, a third, monastery was erected for cenobites near Squillace, as is said in the letters written above. Thus far he, reviewing only two monasteries, as I have already said, inhabited by the Carthusians, which existed in the Calabrian desert not only in the age of St. Bruno but also long after it, or up to the year 1114. And one of these indeed, dedicated to the most holy Mother of God and St. John the Baptist, to whose Prior or master the monastery of St. Stephen, though also having its own Prior, was subject, having begun to be founded from what has been said in the year 1090, was consecrated in the year 1094 with solemn rite and great pomp, as I have already taught above; but the other, sacred to the same most holy Mother of God and to St. Stephen the protomartyr, which was afterwards named the monastery of St. Stephen of the wood or of the grove, was already built in the year 1099, on the second day of August, on which the diploma mentioned above is noted as given, as is clear from the things which I have already discoursed on this matter. But how much earlier indeed did it begin to be built? Since from what has been said above the monastery or church sacred to the most holy Mother of God was not solemnly consecrated before the year 1094, and the monastery of St. Stephen does not seem to have begun to be founded before this was done, its construction most probably, as everyone will easily gather from what has been said, took place between the year 1094 and the year 1099; so that accordingly Camillo Tutini, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, perhaps rightly assigns it to the year 1097, which the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, also does.

[628] And indeed, since in the diploma which, as I taught above, and in the following year a privilege from the bishop of Squillace, count Roger granted to St. Bruno in the year 1096, absolutely no mention, as far as I think, is made of the monastery of St. Stephen as then already existing, and yet it is made in the other diploma of the year 1099, which I have just mentioned, I think it most probable that that monastery began to be founded through St. Bruno's care about the year 1097, if only because, since by the consent of all it was ample, at least two years seem to have been required for its structure, and it had already been brought to completion in the year 1099, as no one will fail to understand from what has been said. Further, not long after this building had begun to be founded, it came about that John de Nicephoro manifested how benevolent a mind he had toward our Saint, by whose counsel from what has been said he had been raised to the cathedral of Squillace, and toward the desert of the Tower.

For in the year one thousand and ninety-eight, when he had perhaps not yet sat an entire year, in the presence of Henry, bishop of Nicastro, and others, he confirmed all the donations and all the privileges granted to St. Bruno and his successors in the monastery of St. Mary of the Tower, and moreover gave that ascetery such liberty that he took away from himself and his successors the episcopal right over it, as the public instrument or privilege by which he performed this makes credible. This again, copied from the Val-Dieu copy of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, the Parisian Carthusian, very often praised, deigned in his very great kindness to communicate to me; and it pleases me likewise to communicate it here with the reader, as a precious monument of antiquity, and hence, as far as I think, not likely to be unwelcome.

[629] which is here brought forward, It is expressed, then, in these words: In the name of the holy and Undivided Trinity. I, John, by the will of God bishop of the see of Squillace, following the footsteps of the holy Fathers who preceded, wish to imitate their deeds and religious decrees, and to preserve them inviolate as far as I can. The monastery therefore which is called St. Mary of the Tower, over which the venerable Father Bruno presides, I approve, assert and confirm to be free, with that liberty with which it was founded by count Roger, and granted by the B. Pope Urban, and confirmed by my predecessor of good memory, bishop Theodore. Let all faithful men and lovers of the truth know, therefore, that the aforesaid monastery, and moreover that place which is called Arsafia, with which the aforesaid monastery has been endowed, with all its appurtenances and with all the men, both of the clergy and of the people, whom the above-said monastery has at present or shall have hereafter, and also of all strangers who dwell, or shall dwell, in its power, has been given this liberty; that neither I nor any of my successors shall have any episcopal right there, without the common spontaneous will of the Brothers of the aforesaid monastery. Consecrations, Ordinations, Chrism, and the other needs of episcopal office, let them obtain from whatever bishop they chiefly wish, far or near, and let there be none who forbids. Let their tithes be their own. Let the offence and correction of their subjects pertain to them. These things which we have said have been confirmed by the authority and privilege of my predecessor Theodore, by nation a Greek. These things we too testify and confirm by the present privilege and by the authority which we have obtained from God; and let it not be lawful for me myself, should I at some time, which God forbid, think otherwise, or for any of my successors, to violate these things. If anyone therefore shall pertinaciously strive by craft or power to blot out this our sentence, truthfully uttered, written, and signed in token of stability, let him too be blotted out of the book of the living. But to those assenting and defending be peace and life with Him who Lives and Reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

[630] This diploma or privilege, which exhibits here no chronological notes attached to it, he obtained. This, which as suspect neither at the beginning nor at the end, the anonymous Carthusian, from whose fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, it was, as I have already advised, communicated to me, affirms to be noted as given in the year 1098, Indict. 6, on the seventh of the Ides of May, or the ninth day of this month. But whether he found those chronological notes in the very autograph or copy of that privilege which guided him, or elsewhere, he does not declare. Hence at first I remained doubtful whether that instrument had truly been given in the year 1098, until I found that the same epoch is assigned to it by Ughelli, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, column 427. But although Ughelli and the praised anonymous Carthusian assign the same year, as also the Indiction, to this diploma, or to the benefits conferred by it on the Saint, they by no means agree in the month in which it happened to be given. For the latter, as I have already taught, affirms that the privilege was given on the ninth day of May, the former on the contrary on the ninth day of March. But ought that ancient monument to be held suspect on account of this difference? Camillo Pellegrino, in the Annotations which he added to the chronicle of Lupus Protospata at the year 1098, observes thus: It is manifest that the month of March has often elsewhere been substituted for May; and this perhaps arose from the occasion that, since proper names in the age of the Normans were abbreviated, being depicted only with capital letters, the month of March, so written, has very often been taken for May by more recent copyists. As in the Calendar of an ancient Campanian Breviary also, in which the feast of St. Potentiana, virgin, is wrongly noted at the XIX day of March, which is venerated on the XIX of May. Perhaps therefore the month in which the privilege of John de Nicephoro, transcribed here above, was given to St. Bruno, was originally expressed only by the capital letter M, and hence some of the copyists or transcribers noted it as given in the month of May, others on the contrary in the month of March.

[631] Now then, since the matter stands thus, there is indeed no reason is not to be held; Pope Urban II, by giving, which also here why that ancient monument, which is noted as given in the month of May by the praised anonymous Carthusian, but in March by Ughelli, should be held suspect, although meanwhile it comes about from this that it cannot be determined in which month it was in fact given. And what also makes me think so is both that absolutely nothing else occurs anywhere from which that diploma or privilege is in any way rendered suspect, and that another diploma, by which Pope Urban II confirmed what had been granted by him, makes credible that a diploma or privilege was in fact given to St. Bruno by John de Nicephoro, bishop of Squillace. It pleases me to bring this over here too, since it pertains no less than the preceding to our Saint, from Ughelli, in whom it exists, volume 9 of Italia Sacra, column 427 and following. It runs thus: Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved sons in Christ Bruno and Lanvinus, greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Since therefore it concerns our office to provide for the quiet and advantage of the servants of God, as far as He shall have been able in the Lord, we clemently assent to your petitions, sons in Christ most dear and most reverend. By the page of this Apostolic privilege, therefore, by Apostolic authority we grant, and confirm as firm and stable and to remain for ever, the donation of the lands which have been given to you in the territory of Squillace, and written down and determined and designated by fixed boundaries by our beloved son count R., and granted and confirmed by John, our fellow brother, bishop of Squillace.

[632] is brought, by the diploma Wherefore by the aforesaid authority we command, decree, and by the licence of the things which have been granted to you we forbid, that from this day onward it be lawful neither for the count himself nor for any of his heirs to violate or diminish your above-said donation and this our confirmation. Nor let any person intrude in any matter concerning the things which we confirm without your will, so that you may apply yourselves with free minds to the contemplation of Almighty God, and may be able, by His granting, to attain to the sweetness of His face. But if any person or heir of the count shall violate it, unless he come to worthy satisfaction, we decree that he lie under peril of his honour or office, and, separated from Christ and the body of the Church, let him lie strictly under vengeance in the eternal examination without intermission and remedy; but to those who keep it piously may it be preserved from God and His mercy in the present and future ages. Amen. But if either the lawful count or his heir shall wish to add anything to this donation, we decree that it be ratified under this our confirmation. Urban, bishop of the Catholic Church. I, Rainerius, Cardinal, have subscribed. I, John, Cardinal, have subscribed. I, Alfanus, archbishop of Salerno, have subscribed. I, Amatus, Chaplain and priest, have subscribed. I, Dis, Chaplain, have subscribed. I, Constantine, bishop of Catacium, have subscribed. Given at Salerno in the month of September, Indict. 6, in the year from the Lord's Incarnation MXCVIII.

[633] at Salerno in the same year Ruinart, in the Life of Pope Urban II, having narrated the meeting of this Pontiff in the city of Salerno with Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, after Capua had been taken by that prince in the month of June of the year 1098, as I shall prove below, records thus at page 299, at the same year 1098: A little after that time, namely on the XX day of the following July, the Pontiff, at the prayers of the other Roger, namely the duke of Apulia, and of Archbishop Alfanus, granted a notable privilege to the church of Salerno, conferring on it the primacy over two metropolises, of Conza and Acerenza, which had formerly been subject to it by metropolitan right. The bull is dated on the XIII day of the Kalends of August in the year MXCIX, as its copies bear, but which is to be begun from the month of March of the preceding year, that it may be recalled to the present year. But the Indiction IV which is appended there cannot be excused, unless the error be thrown on the Amanuenses. This would be the place to treat of another rescript of Urban, by which the privileges of the monastery of Cava are revoked in favour of the same church, if it were not said to be given at Rome, and if the Indiction VII which it bears could agree with this year. Of it below. But altogether sincere and entirely undoubted is that which Urban in the month of September of this year (namely 1098) granted to St. Bruno, parent of the Carthusians, who was then staying in the desert of Squillace, for confirming and securing to him all the goods which had been conferred on his monastery by count Roger and John, bishop of Squillace. It was given at Salerno This year (namely 1098, as I have already advised) in the month of September, in the VI indiction; whence we conjecture that Urban remained in that city until the council of Bari, which was celebrated in the said year 1098 in the month of October.

[634] These things Ruinart says of the diploma recited above, which Pope Urban granted to St. Bruno. And from these we have that in the year 1098 Urban was at Salerno, confirmed before the 24th of September. at which place and in which year the diploma is noted as given; so that perhaps, since that city is not very remote from the desert of the Tower, our Saint, at whose and Lanvinus's petition the Pontiff hints that he gave the privilege which I have already recited, then betook himself with Lanvinus to him at Salerno, and was present at the council of Bari, celebrated not long after the privilege was given; and as pertains to the chronological notes with which the Pontifical privilege is marked, since Pope Urban II, as I taught at number 569, used the Caesarean or Constantinian Indiction, and the seventh Indiction of this kind, not the sixth, was in course from the twenty-fourth day of September of the year 1098 up to the same day of September of the following year, it follows that the Pontifical privilege, being noted with the year 1098, Indiction six, and the month of September, was given when this month had not yet advanced to the twenty-fourth day.

§ XXXIX. The Saint frees count Roger from most imminent peril in the siege of Capua by a vision in which he warns him of it, and on this occasion obtains a new diploma, by which Roger confers very many goods on him.

By the Saint's merits count Roger is freed from most imminent peril, Among all the diplomas which the Saint obtained, whether from count Roger or from any others, in favour of the desert of the Tower in Calabria, none is more illustrious and more celebrated by writers than that which he obtained from that prince on the occasion of the siege of Capua in the year, as I shall prove below, 1099. It happened, says Geoffrey Malaterra, Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 26, that Richard the Younger, son of prince Jordan, himself also prince of Aversa, left an orphan when his father died, a little one surviving, had long since been unjustly deprived of the city of Capua by the fraud of the Lombards; and when he had now come to an age of understanding, seeing and grieving at the damage inflicted on him, and disposing himself to seek vengeance on its authors, he, a suppliant, prudent men thither to the count his kinsman (namely Roger of Calabria and Sicily) * that he should not delay to hasten to bring him help with his service. The count, moved by the embassy of his kinsman, collected no small army, and having brought it into Campania to his aid, and joined it with the forces of duke Roger, whose paternal uncle he was, and of Richard, prince of Aversa, his kinsman, besieged and took Capua, as I shall teach below, in the year 1098. But in the time of the siege the count incurred great peril. Sergius the Greek, whom he had placed over two hundred men-at-arms of the Greek nation, had bargained for money with the Capuans that he would open an entrance to them, by which at night-time they could burst unexpectedly into Roger's army, and so slaughter it and kill the count himself. The night was already at hand in which the treason was to take effect, and the forces of the Capuans stood ready to carry out what Sergius had bargained with them, when St. Bruno, or rather, from what is to be said, an angel in the habit and appearance of Bruno, his merits and prayers bringing this about, appeared to the count in sleep and warned him of the imminent peril. The count, struck with fear by this, and so awakened, called out the soldiers to arms, dispelled the ambush laid for him, put the enemy to flight, captured most of those guilty of the treason, and not long after subdued Capua.

[636] and hence grants him a privilege celebrated by many. Further, this expedition having been brought to a happy end, he betook himself first to Salerno, where Pope Urban II held a conference with him, and stayed there for some space of time, and then to Squillace in Calabria; and when he was suffering there from ill health for the space of fourteen days, St. Bruno, to console him in the troubles of his illness, came to the prince who loved him most dearly, having joined to himself four other religious inhabitants of the Calabrian desert. The count received the holy Man most kindly, according to his custom, and gave him the highest thanks because he had taken care of him even while absent in the siege of Capua, offering him many gifts for the sake of his grateful mind. But these Bruno, who asserted that not he but an angel, who stands by princes in time of war, had appeared to the count in the siege of Capua, would not accept. Yet, when the Saint had afterwards consented that at least some things be given him by the count, the latter, by a diploma given, rendered the possessions of the desert of the Tower far ampler than they had been before, and handed over to him and to the desert of the Tower into perpetual servitude the soldiers guilty of the Capuan treason, whom he had brought with him from there to Squillace to be punished with death, and yet, at our Saint's intercession, had granted their lives. All these things are established partly from Geoffrey Malaterra, in the chapter just cited and the two following, partly from the very diploma which count Roger gave to our Saint when the said warlike expedition was finished. And this, both for this cause and because it is exhibited only in part by Du Puy, Blomevenna, Surius in the Lives of St. Bruno composed by them, by Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals, by Summonte in the History of the kingdom of Naples, and by nearly all the other writers by whom it is mentioned, it has seemed good to set beneath the reader's eyes entire, according to the recension of Mörkens, in the present §, adding also at the end the things which can conveniently be noted on it here; but to defer to the following § the definition of the time both at which it was given and at which the siege of Capua happened, and hence St. Bruno, appearing to count Roger in sleep, snatched him from imminent peril, lest otherwise the present § grow to too great a bulk.

[637] This, in which Roger first the peril to which in the siege of Capua That monument, then, runs thus: In the name of the eternal God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. In the year from His Incarnation one thousand and ninety-eight, in the sixth indiction, the glorious King David, forestalled by the spirit, said, "I will tell all thy wonders"; on account of which I, Roger, by the divine mercy count of Calabria and Sicily, wish to be known * to all faithful Christians the benefits which God granted to me, a sinner, through the prayers of the reverend man Br. Bruno, the most pious Father of the Brothers who dwell in the churches of holy Mary of the desert and of the holy Protomartyr Stephen, which are situated in my land between the town which is called Stilo and Arena, when I was in the siege of Capua on the Kalends of March, and had placed Sergius, by nation a Greek, as chief over two hundred men-at-arms of his nation, and master of the watches of the army, who, forestalled by satanic persuasion, promised the prince of Capua, who promised him no small quantity of gold, to afford him an entrance by night for attacking me and my army. The night of the treason came, and the prince of Capua and his army were ready in arms according to the promise; and while I had given myself to sleep, some space of the night having intervened, there stood by my bed a certain old man of reverend countenance, with torn garments, unable to hold back his tears. And when I said to him in the vision, What is the cause of the weeping and tears, he seemed to me to weep more bitterly. When I asked a second time what the weeping was, he said thus: I weep for the souls of Christians, and for thee with them; but rising up as quickly as possible take arms, if God shall permit thee to free Thyself and the souls of thy fighting men. He seemed to me throughout as if he were in all things the venerable father Bruno.

[638] I awoke with great terror, had been exposed, narrates, trembling for the vision; immediately I took arms, crying out also to the soldiers that they should mount their horses armed, being anxious to prove the vision, if it were true. At which noise and blare, fleeing, the impious Sergius and his followers followed the prince of Capua, hoping that they would have refuge in the said city; but the soldiers took, between wounded and sound, a hundred and sixty-two, from whom we proved that the vision was true. I returned, God willing, on the twenty-ninth of the month of July to Squillace, after the city of Capua had been taken, where I was ill for a continuous fortnight; and there came to me the already mentioned venerable father Bruno with four of his brothers, who consoled me with holy and devout conversations; to which reverend Man I both related the vision and gave humble thanks, because he had had a care of me in his prayers even while I was absent. Who, humbling himself, asserted that it was not he *, whom I believed, but an angel of God, who stands for princes in time of war. I also humbly asked that for the love of God he would deign to take in the land of Squillace the ample revenues which I was giving; refusing to receive them, he said that he had left the house of his father and mine for this, that, a stranger to the things of the world, he might freely serve his God. He had been in my whole house as it were first and great. At length I could scarcely obtain from him that he would acquiesce in taking freely a small gift of mine.

[639] And I gave to the same father Bruno and his successors, to have for ever without temporal service, the monastery of St. James of Nuntaurum with the castle, and then many both donations, which is below the said monastery, anciently built, and the wooden castle situated on the summit of the mountain toward the sea, which mountain descends straight from the built castle, which castle is named Belvider by the inhabitants of the place, and the hamlet of St. Mary, which is at the bank of the said mountain between the East and the South; also my house which is called the Buttarium, with the Casks which are in that house, which were Robert Guiscard's my brother's, and which duke Roger, my dearest nephew, gave me. The hamlets of Mentabrum and of Olivianum, and Gasparina, where anciently there had been a hamlet, with all the appurtenances of the same, as they are here written divided: namely from the land of Coxanum etc. (the description of the boundaries of this land Mörkens has omitted here because, as he says, it made nothing for his matter); and all things whatever that are within these boundaries, both the vassals who dwell in the said hamlets now and those who shall dwell there, I grant to be of thy right, father Bruno, and of thy Brothers succeeding thee. I grant also that thou and thy successors may have commended men, both from the county of Calabria and Sicily and from outside, wherever they be. It shall be lawful for thee and thy successors, whenever you wish, to change the habitations of the hamlets, and also to do with the monastery itself of St. James, which I have given, and with all things in the same, and concerning the same land, whatever I could do when it was lawful.

[640] and then immunities, It shall be lawful for no one within these divisions to call or have anything his own, since to all who had possessions therein I have given a voluntary and quite welcome exchange, to one lands, to another money, but to some, because they were villeins, perpetual liberties. There are many lands within these divisions which belong to thee, father Bruno, and to thy successors, which I gave with Arsafia to your greater church at the time of its dedication. Let no one within these divisions dare to fowl, hunt, or fish in the sea without the consent of the said brothers, and in all these let the said brothers have thy rights: to take pastures or acorns, to cut timber, to divert waters, to have forests or meadows; nor let anyone at all in these lands act or come against it on the occasion of any custom, on the pretext of a noble or baron, or exact anything of temporal service from them, whether vassals or villeins of theirs, both those who are and those whom they shall have, or from their commended men; nor compel the same vassals or villeins to have communities with the land of Squillace or of Severetum, or of their hamlets; but let the use and dominion of the brothers themselves be preserved in solid liberty to hold for ever. And in the sea, along the boundaries which I have assessed, they shall have every right which I too had in times past.

[641] one by one here At the petition of brother Lanvinus I have ordered to be set here the boundaries of the hamlet of Arunchi and of its holding, which from of old pertains to Arsafia. I gave also to the same father Bruno and his successors the garden of St. Nicholas, which I held as my own in my hand. I gave also to the same the inheritance of Calogericus, my villein, who had died without tongue and children, and the vassals and villeins dwelling in the same hamlet, and in the same liberty and quiet usage in which the other places given above and freed by my will are

freed from every servile yoke, both as regards the said Brothers and as regards the vassals, commended men and villeins; and they shall enjoy every liberty in this place which is called Arunchum, and in all places which can be joined to these divisions, which, God willing, they shall have, or villeins, both as lords and as faithful Christians, as I have foreseen that they enjoy in the places written above. I give also to thee, father Bruno, and to thy successors for ever, my mill and fulling-mill, which are below Squillace near the spring which is called Alexi, under every liberty and immunity, so that you be bound to no one for them, neither to me nor to my successors. From my own torrent you may take all the water, and, if you wish to change for the better the position of the aqueduct of the mill and fulling-mill in my own land, without any contradiction of any man, or of me, or of my successors; and of the waters which are in your land do every profitable thing at the pleasure of your will.

[642] reviewed, I give also to thee, father Bruno, and to thy successors, as perpetual serfs and villeins, a hundred and twelve lines of serfs and villeins and their sons for ever, wherever they be and dwell, with all their goods, whom I have reserved to the service of thee and thy successors, who were found at the siege of Capua in the confederacy of the treason of the pestilent Sergius. These, liable to death, I had kept on my return to Squillace, to be punished by various deaths, but, freed at thy requests, I bind them and their sons to thee and thy successors, and their sons' sons for ever, as perpetual serfs and villeins, to the personal and perpetual servitude of blessed Mary and of the protomartyr Stephen. Moreover I grant at thy petition, brother Lanvinus, that the animals of your vassals, commended men and villeins may pasture freely through the holdings of the lands and places lying around, and have acorns through all my groves. This privilege was written on the second of the month of August, in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and ninety-nine, in the seventh Indiction, by the hands of Fulco my chaplain, at Squillace in the chapel of St. Matthew, the venerable and most holy father John, bishop of the see of Squillace, being present and confirming, sitting there near the doors of the church, and with the consent of the countess Adelaide my wife, there sitting also with me and being witnesses of this donation Rodulph, count of Loritello, my nephew, William of Hauteville, Odo Bonomarchisius; Josbert of Luciacum, Borellus, Malger my son, Malduithus Berengerius, Niellus of Ferlit, Richard of Treves, Rodulph Pain evin, Hubert of Solma, Renald of Chincham, Robert of Cuculum, Ermenfred, Chaplain of St. Matthew, Robert of Layna, strategos of the town, Basil the protospatharius, Theodore Manchinus.

[643] Let no one presume to do or say anything against this my voluntary and desired donation in anything he bestows on St. Bruno, least or great; if indeed he be a peasant or Burgess, let him believe that my court will have whatever he himself has of movable things, and nevertheless he shall pay ten pounds of gold to the Brothers themselves, and the losses of the Brothers, if they have suffered any, shall be restored from the goods of those evildoers, if he has been accused and convicted. But if he be a knight or baron, he shall pay two hundred pounds of gold to the court of my successors, or to mine; and if he shall not have so much, all his movables shall be mine, and he shall pay fifty pounds of gold to the same brothers, unless he have made worthy satisfaction. Nor let it be lawful for me or for my successors henceforth to innovate, do or gainsay anything in any small or great matter concerning all the things which have been freely given by me. But if I, which God forbid, at any time, or my successors, shall do the contrary in any small or great matter in all the things above said, may we incur the wrath of the everlasting God, and of blessed Mary, and of the blessed protomartyr Stephen. And the same father John the bishop, at my petition, in his greater church, with all the people present, and with those who are mentioned above as witnesses, promulgated a most grievous anathema against such; but to those who keep it, the communion of the Saints and good merit from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen, Amen, Amen. ✠ Count Roger. ✠ Countess Adelaide. ✠ William of Hauteville. ✠ Rodulph, Count of Loritello. ✠ Odo Bonus Marchisius. ✠ Josbert of Luciacum. ✠ Niellus of Ferlit. ✠ Malger, Son of Count Roger. ✠ Rodulph Pain evin. ✠ Richard of Treves. ✠ I, Fulco, Chaplain of the Lord Roger, by his mandate have written and subscribed this privilege.

[644] not of Bruno, but of an angel, by whom under his habit he appeared to Roger, Such is that most ample and at the same time most celebrated privilege or diploma, to whose autograph, Mörkens notes at the end, a leaden bull is appended, granted to St. Bruno by count Roger when he did not doubt that he had been freed from most imminent peril in the siege of Capua by the warning and merits of the Saint appearing to him. Now certain things are to be observed about it, and first of all about the vision in which count Roger affirms that St. Bruno, or at any rate an old man who resembled this holy Man in face and in the bearing of his whole body, was seen by him in sleep and heard warning him. To perform this in the manner that befits, it will nearly suffice to have recited here only what the anonymous author of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, put in writing bearing on this, and what again the Parisian Carthusian, very often praised, communicated to me, copied from the Val-Dieu copy of this Work. That annalist of the Carthusian Order, then, has thus: From the apparition of St. Bruno (made to count Roger) a question can arise whether St. Bruno truly appeared to count Roger, since, meeting the count himself in person when he was ill after his return from the siege (see number 638, the diploma already transcribed here), he denied that he himself was the one who appeared, but an angel of God, who stands by the prince in time of war, as is read in the former (namely the one already recited) diploma: whether St. Bruno said this out of humility, or out of the truth of the matter, can be resolved from the things which St. Augustine writes (namely in the book On care for the dead, chapter 10 and following, and in the book On spirit and soul, chapter 29), and after him Durandus (namely book 7, chapter 35, On the Office of the dead), saying that the living often appear in dreams to those sleeping, while they themselves do not know that they appear, and they hear from those who have dreamed this, saying that they saw them in dreams doing or saying something. Whence it is credible that they are operations of angels appearing under the form and habit of those on account of whose merits the apparitions take place, by the dispensation of the providence of God, for some solace of the living. And thus it is probable that an angel of God appeared to count Roger under the form and habit of St. Bruno, by whose grace and merits the apparition was made. Let the reader see Thyraeus in the book on the apparition of spirits, treating these things excellently.

[645] [is to be understood. The notice of the Capuan prince who is mentioned in it is uncertain.] So he, and rightly indeed, as far as appears. Further, since by these words of the recited diploma, I wish to be known the benefits which God granted to me through the prayers of the R. man Br. Bruno, the most pious Father of the Brothers who dwell in the churches of holy Mary of the desert and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, mention is made of two churches, namely of St. Mary of the desert and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, as if they were, as from what has been said they truly were, two different monasteries, and it is hinted that St. Bruno presided over both of them, he observes thus on it: Although St. Bruno is called Father of the brothers of both churches, yet this is to be understood only of the supreme authority which he had in both, as patriarch; for Lanvinus in the other diploma (namely that which was given in the year 1101 and will be recited below) is called Prior of St. Stephen. "At the petition," says Roger, "of Br. Lanvinus, Prior of the church of St. Stephen." Yet the goods granted by Roger were common to both. This is plain from the former diploma (namely the one already given), in which Roger grants the conspirators, "and the sons of the sons" (namely theirs), "for ever as perpetual serfs and villeins, to the personal and perpetual servitude of blessed Mary and of St. Stephen the protomartyr." For the rest, since in the transcribed diploma mention occurs of the monastery of St. James of Mentaurum, conferred by Roger on St. Bruno and his disciples, and of the Capuan prince to whom Sergius wished to betray Roger, the same author also supplies some notice both of this prince and of the monastery of St. James of Mentaurum. And of the prince indeed he writes thus: The name of the prince of Capua, "to whom Sergius promised to afford an entrance by night for attacking Roger," Michael the monk confesses, in the Sanctuarium Capuanum published by him in the year MDCXXX, could not be found in the writers; but in the revision of his Work, made in the year MDCXXXVII, he gives the name of this hitherto unknown prince: "The name of the prince, unknown to me," he says, "has at length become known: Dom Camillo Tutini, the Neapolitan investigator of antiquities, preserves a Ms. Chronicle, in which it is read that Lando, count of Teano, of the race of the Lombard princes, was elected prince by the Capuans, the son of Richard having been ejected." But since the prince who was ejected by the Capuans was the son not of Richard but of Jordan, as Malaterra teaches in book 4, chapter 26, contrary to what is read in that Ms. Chronicle preserved by Tutini, this appears suspect to me, and hence cannot make me hold for certain that Lando was the prince of the Capuans to whom Sergius wished to hand over Roger.

[646] As now pertains to the monastery of St. James of Mentaurum, What became of the monastery of St. James granted to Bruno, the praised annalist of the Carthusian Order observes thus of it: The monastery of St. James of Mentaurum, granted by Roger to St. Bruno, is according to the notes of our Constantius a grange which is now called St. Anne, in which, about the beginning of the recovery of this Chartreuse, one lay brother assiduously stayed. There, after the death of St. Bruno, Lanvinus with the licence of the Pontiff established certain monks, less fit for the eremitical life, who should lead a cenobitic life, as we shall say in its place. And that too which the praised author of the Carthusian Annals promises that he will say here afterwards he did in fact carry out at the year 1114, writing thus there: As now pertains to Carthusian affairs in Calabria, this year (namely 1114) Lanvinus, when, according to the licence obtained the year before from Paschal (the supreme Pontiff), he had received to the eremitical life many not only of the peoples but also from distant parts, as the Pontifical bulls speak, seeing that some of them were less fit for it, decreed to establish another monastery in which at least they might live cenobitically. This he wisely

devised; for since, according to the Rule handed down by the holy Patriarch not in writing but by living voice, a novice was received among us only on this condition, "that, if perchance he could not or would not bear our purpose, he should by no means return to the world, but should rather take some other kind of religious life which he could bear," thus provision was made for the honour and salvation of the departing novice, who could pass at once from the desert to the cloister. The master of the desert had the care of both monasteries, and he who presided over the cenobites under the name of Provost or Dean, or even of Prior, obeyed the same master as the supreme Prior, according to the decree of the supreme Pontiff Paschal, from whom Lanvinus obtained the following letters to this end. Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, etc.

[647] and what besides is to be observed on the diploma given by count Roger. These things the praised anonymous Annalist; further, there are hardly other things to be observed here on the transcribed diploma of count Roger; something indeed could be noted besides on the words in which it is hinted in that instrument that the Saint stayed for some while in the house of count Roger; but of these enough has already been treated at number 571 and following, as also at number 586 and following of Malger, who in both the body and the subscriptions of the diploma is called the son of count Roger, and yet was not his son, whether lawful or natural. As pertains to the others who either are subscribed to the diploma or are recorded in the body of the same instrument to have been present as witnesses to the donation made by it: Rodulph, count of Loritello, whom count Roger calls his nephew in it, probably had him as his paternal uncle, as you will easily understand from Du Cange in the Annotations on Anna Comnena, page 238 and following; and of the rest, some of whom are also subscribed to other diplomas of count Roger already given, not a few are found subscribed also to some public instruments existing in Rocco Pirro in Sicilia Sacra and given by count Roger, as anyone who is willing to consult these will detect; which it will help to have noted here at least, since I cannot give a distinct notice of each. For the rest, lest the Commentary, which by its bulk already nearly exceeds measure, should grow further without necessity, I do not explain what each of the barbarous words occurring in the diploma given here signifies; and so I have thought it should be done without reluctance both for this and for the other diplomas granted to our Saint, since the signification of those words can easily be found by the studious reader both in our onomastic Indexes and in Du Cange's Glossary of middle and low Latinity.

* supply sends,

* otherwise nota

* otherwise fuisse

* otherwise Mentuaro

* otherwise infra

* otherwise infra

* otherwise infra

§ XL. At what time count Roger besieged Capua, and whether the diploma which, this city having been subdued, this prince conferred on Bruno was given in the same year in which that happened.

[In the diploma here mentioned the siege of Capua is handed down to have happened in the year 1098,] At what time it happened that Capua was besieged by count Roger this prince himself teaches us openly enough in the diploma which he granted to St. Bruno, just transcribed here. For at its beginning he speaks thus: In the name of the eternal God and of our saviour Jesus Christ. In the year from His Incarnation one thousand and ninety-eight, in the sixth Indiction, the glorious king David, forestalled by the Holy Spirit, said, "I will tell all thy wonders." On account of which I, Roger, by the divine mercy count of Calabria and Sicily, wish to be known to all faithful Christians the benefits which God granted to me, a sinner, through the prayers of the reverend man Br. Bruno, the most pious father of the brothers who dwell in the churches of holy Mary of the desert and of the holy protomartyr Stephen, which are situated in my land between the town which is called Stilo and Arena, when I was in the siege of Capua on the Kalends of March and had placed Sergius, by nation a Greek, as chief over two hundred men-at-arms of his nation, and master of the watches of the army, etc. And by these he signifies that he was in the siege of Capua in the year 1098. For all the words which are interposed between these two words in the sixth Indiction and these others when I was in the siege of Capua ought to be held only for a little preface enclosed in parenthesis, so that the sense is: In the year from the Incarnation of the same (Jesus Christ) MXCVIII, in the sixth Indiction … when I was in the siege of Capua on the Kalends of March. So I hold, first indeed, because in another diploma, to be transcribed here below and given in the year 1101, count Roger himself most openly indicates that the siege of Capua happened in the year 1098, in these words: These are the names of those … who were found in the siege of the city of Capua on the Kalends of March, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXCVIII, in the sixth indiction, whom I, Roger, etc. And then because in the said diploma, into whose epoch we must inquire in the present §, the year in which it was given cannot be designated by the year 1098, since from what is to be said count Roger did not impart it to the Saint before the year which next followed the siege of Capua, and hence the apparition of the Saint shown to this prince in it, and since it is established from elsewhere that this warlike expedition happened in the year 1098, as I now undertake to prove.

[649] Lupus Protospata, a contemporary author, who, and in this year too, to which it is also assigned by Lupus Protospata, as must be well noted, begins the year after the manner of the Greeks from September, writes thus in Muratori, volume 5 of the writers of Italian affairs, page 47: In the year MXCVIII, in the month of October, a comet star appeared … and in this year Capua was taken by count Roger in the month of March. But Michael the monk, in the Sanctuarium Capuanum, having premised that the diploma of which we are here discoursing, copied entire from the acts of the royal chamber, had been delivered to him to read, writes thus: Lupus Protospata, published by Father Dom Antonio Caracciolo, writes that the year MXCVIII was the year of the siege of Capua; but one must not depart from the computation of Baronius, who, according to Geoffrey's narrative, notes the year of the siege as MXCVII; with whom the anonymous of Cassino, printed with the same Protospata, agrees; nay, this privilege too supports it. Behold, Roger returns from the siege to Squillace on the twenty-ninth of July. The same on the second of August grants this privilege to St. Bruno. But because between the grant of the privilege and Roger's return many days intervene, especially those fifteen during which Roger (see number 638) is ill, is visited by St. Bruno, treats of making the donation; therefore July and August, the months named, cannot belong to the same year, but July with its twenty-ninth is of the year MXCVII, and August with its second day is of the year MXCVIII. Thus far he: and rightly indeed he affirms that the month of July in which count Roger returned to Squillace from the siege of Capua and the month of August in which the diploma is noted as given belong to two different years; for the count, as he himself teaches in the diploma (see again number 638), returned to Squillace on the twenty-ninth of July, but the diploma is marked as given on the second day of August; so that, if the count's return and the grant of the diploma did not belong to different years, only three days would have intervened between the latter and the former; which, as appears from the very body of the diploma (see again the same at number 638), is not probable.

[650] that it truly happened, from Romuald of Salerno, But although indeed the praised writer rightly, as has been said, refers the month of July, in which count Roger returned to Squillace from the siege of Capua, and the month of August, in which he gave the very celebrated diploma to the Saint, to two different years, yet he wrongly attaches the siege of Capua to the year 1097 with Baronius, from whom he pronounces one must not depart, against the open testimony of Lupus Protospata, on account of the authority of Geoffrey Malaterra, likewise a contemporary writer. For although indeed in the Sicilian History of this Writer, book 4, chapter 26, words occur by which that siege is assigned not obscurely to the year 1097, yet they are not Malaterra's, and the epoch which Lupus Protospata set for this event in the words just transcribed here is certainly to be retained. These two assertions will become plain from what is now to be said. I take the beginning from demonstrating the latter, that is, the truth of the epoch which Lupus Protospata assigns to the siege of Capua, tying it to the year 1098. Romuald of Salerno, a nearly contemporary author, in the Chronicle, writing of the Christians signed with the cross waging war in the East against the infidels, writes thus: They took Antioch, a most famous city, in the year of the Incarnate Word one thousand and ninety-eight, Indict. VI; and then, some things being interposed which do not bear on this, he subjoins: In the same year also, in the same Indiction, duke Roger together with Roger, count of Sicily, besieged the city of Capua, and on the fortieth day of its siege, having acquired it, restored it to prince Richard. It can indeed be replied here that errors very often lie in the chronological notes by which Romuald determines the time of the things he narrates; but, although this is so, this nearly only takes place, as will become plain to one weighing Romuald's Work, when he expresses the chronological characters in abbreviation by numbers or by letters holding the place of numbers; but the year 1098 of the taking of Antioch by the Christians, in which he also hands down to memory that Capua was besieged by duke Roger and his paternal uncle count Roger, he designates not in abbreviation by numbers or letters holding the place of numbers but by whole words, and that Antioch was truly taken by the Christians in the year 1098, as he notes, is confessed among all; so that accordingly, since he does not err in the year 1098 in which he marks that this was done, he is not to be judged to err either when in the same place he fixes the siege of Capua to the same year 1098.

[651] and chiefly from Eadmer, a writer above all exception, But let this matter stand otherwise, and let the testimony of Romuald be made little of here; that the siege of Capua is rightly assigned to the year 1098 by this writer and by Lupus Protospata, Eadmer makes undoubted, who not only flourished at the time of that siege but was also present at it. He clung as an assiduous companion to St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, as for the whole time of his life, so also in the year 1097 when he departed from England for Rome and then hastened to Roger, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, who was in the camp before besieged Capua; and he composed not only his life divided into two books, as may be seen with us in volume 2 of April, page 865, but also the six books of the History of New Things in England, published in print by Selden and then brought into the aforesaid volume of our Work, in the four former of which he also comprised the things pertaining to the same holy archbishop of Canterbury, and namely his said Roman journey and his coming to duke Roger before Capua; and of this History with us, book 2, chapter 2, number 19, at the end, after …

he has informed the reader how at length, after many troubles, Anselm obtained from the king of England the faculty of going to Rome, he subjoins: In the year from the Incarnation of the Son of God one thousand and ninety-seven these things were done, on the fifth feria, which was the Ides of October; and then, some things being interposed which were done not long after the fifteenth day of October in the year assigned in these words, he narrates the journey of that holy prelate undertaken toward Rome; so that accordingly he undoubtedly entered upon it in the same year 1097. Further, Anselm on that journey, as is understood partly from book 2, chapter 4 of his Life, likewise written from what has been said by Eadmer and brought into the aforesaid volume of our Work, partly from the said History, which has the same Eadmer as author, book likewise 2, chapter 2 and following, celebrated the festival of the Nativity of Christ with St. Hugh, abbot of Cluny, proceeded thence to Lyons, and continuing his journey from there, when he had passed Susa unknown, celebrated the solemnities of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection at St. Michael of the Chiusa in Piedmont, and, having happily avoided the ambushes of the Guibertines which had been prepared for him, at length arrived at Rome not long after.

[652] Further, ten days having been spent at Rome, being invited by John, formerly his disciple at Bec, [is clearly proved, and the words of the Sicilian History which make for the year 1097] but then abbot of St. Saviour near Telese, a city in the Terra di Lavoro, he turned aside to him; and when he had been led by him to a farm of his monastery, by name Sclavia, situated on a neighbouring mountain, and had spent some space of time there, he went to duke Roger, who, being then in the camp before besieged Capua, and having been informed of the man's notable sanctity, had invited him to come to him. So, nearly as to substance, as I have already advised, Eadmer, partly in the Life of St. Anselm written by him, partly in the History of New Things in England, in the places cited above. Now then, since Anselm, as Eadmer testifies, from what has been said a contemporary author and a companion of this holy prelate on that journey, set out from England toward Rome in the year 1097 in the month of October, arrived there not long after the feast of the Lord's Resurrection which next followed October of the year 1097, and not much later came to duke Roger, who together with his paternal uncle count Roger and his kinsman Richard was then besieging Capua, it indeed follows from the things which Anselm, an author here above all exception, hands down to memory, that Capua was beyond all doubt besieged in the year 1098. And this is the first thing which was to be shown here; the other is that I should now give it proved that the words in the Sicilian History of Geoffrey Malaterra by which it is indicated that the siege of Capua, during which St. Bruno appeared to count Roger and snatched him from imminent peril, happened in the year 1097, are not this writer's. Those words run thus: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXCVII there (namely in the camp before besieged Capua) the countess Adelasia became pregnant by count Roger; and these, as Pellegrino before me rightly observed in his notes to the Chronicle of Lupus Protospata, are only a little gloss written at the margin of the page by an idle annotator, and thence afterwards carried by an unskilled copyist into the very text of the author.

[653] by one argument I show it thus: Malaterra, Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 26, towards the end, has thus: But the count himself (namely Roger), rising at every dawn before light, visiting both armies by crossing the bridge "(namely the one," as the praised Pellegrino notes in the place cited, "which he had built over the Volturno, that a common and easy way might lie open for his army and for that of duke Roger and prince Richard, who were besieging Capua beyond the river to the North)," went to see whether they were attentive at the watches. And they were suffused with blushes because they, young men and those to whom the business more particularly pertained, were more sluggish than the count, of more advanced age, who was a man more vigilant in body against the roughness of blows and labours. For his vigilance was an object of wonder to the whole army, and all were made more vigilant by his example. So far the text, which is beyond all controversy Malaterra's; and to it, which ends the said chapter 26 of the fourth book, are immediately subjoined the words about Adelasia made pregnant before Capua, recited in the preceding number, whether they are Malaterra's being what we are here inquiring; and then follows chapter 27, which begins thus: While these things are being done, Pope Urban, desiring a conference with the duke and the count, proceeding from Rome, came to Capua, where they were holding the siege. Such is the beginning which chapter 27 of the fourth book of the Sicilian History has in Malaterra; but who does not see that by the words about Adelasia made pregnant in the camp before Capua, which are interposed between this and the genuine text of Malaterra which I have already recited, and which the immediately preceding chapter supplies, the continuous narrative of this writer is rendered disturbed and divided? Since this is so, and so faulty a manner of narrating things does not seem to fit Malaterra, those words are to be attributed, as I have already said, not to him but to an inept annotator. That the matter may come out more certain, it will help to have confirmed it by yet another argument.

[654] and by another, from Malaterra's own Malaterra, having promised in the Preface to book 2 of his Work, or of the Sicilian History written by him, that he would keep the order of times and years in narrating, professes again in book 4, chapter 18 of the same Work that he will do that very thing; and after he had thus twice bound himself to the order of times and years in narrating, in the same fourth book, in chapter 18 of which he imposed this obligation on himself the second time, he narrates in chapter 25 how count Roger gave his daughter in marriage to the king of the Hungarians, and caused her to be conducted into Pannonia by sea journey by Henry, bishop of Nicastro, in the year 1097, in the month of May. Behold his very words: In the year therefore, he says, of the Incarnation one thousand and ninety-seven, the things which were necessary having been prepared, in the month of May he (count Roger) causes (his daughter) to be conducted with three hundred soldiers as far as Termini by Henry, bishop of Nicastro, and certain of his faithful men, causing them to proceed thence by sea course as far as Pannonia with the girl; who, having prepared the ships and put the girl on board with many betrothal gifts, committing their sails to the wind, with a prosperous breeze blowing are borne over the seas until they land unharmed in the harbour of Alba, which is of the right of the kings of the Hungarians. These things, which were done in the year 1097 partly in the month of May, partly a little later, Malaterra records in the said book 4, chapter 25; and he sets forth in the next chapter how count Roger was asked by Richard, prince of Aversa, and by duke Roger, his kinsmen, to bring them help against the Capuans, rebels against Richard, duke Roger having even sent his wife to him; and then in the same chapter he subjoins: But the count, enticed and persuaded by piety toward his kinsman the prince and by the many words of the duchess, delegated to him by the duke, by the embassy of the intercessor and the humility of her setting it forth, an army such as he is known never to have had before having been gathered from all Sicily and Calabria by strong command, crossing the Faro in favourable peace in the first week of April, hastens thither (namely toward Capua, or toward those to whom he was going to bring help, toward Richard, prince of Aversa, and duke Roger).

[655] These things Malaterra in the place cited, also presently handing down in the same place how Roger, Sicilian History, formed, when he had crossed the Faro in the month of April, led his army through Calabria and Apulia, had duke Roger meet him on the way, celebrated Pentecost near the river called the Sabatum, or, as he himself writes, Sabbatum, and at length pitched camp at Capua, and besieged this city together with duke Roger and Richard, prince of Aversa; and since that writer, who professes that he keeps the order of times and years in narrating, puts all these things in writing, as is clear from what has been said, after he has narrated what had been done in the year 1097 in the month of May, it must be that, according to his own narrative, both the April in which count Roger crossed the Faro, and the Pentecost which he celebrated near the river Sabatum, and hence also the very time at which shortly after he pitched camp at Capua and besieged this city, belong not to the year 1097 but to the next following. And indeed, unless the matter stands so, Malaterra will have to be said to conflict with himself; for since, as he narrates from what has been said, count Roger besieged Capua after he had crossed the Faro in the month of April and had celebrated Pentecost near the river Sabatum, if that April was joined with the year 1097, in which it happened that Easter was celebrated on the fifth of April and hence Pentecost on the twenty-fourth of May, it will follow that in the month of May of the said year 1097 count Roger was partly in Calabria or at any rate Apulia, partly in the camp before Capua. But Malaterra makes this prince present in that very year and month neither in Calabria nor Apulia, nor in the camp before Capua, but in Sicily, handing down to memory, namely in book 4, chapter 25, as I have already taught, that by him, then being in Sicily, as is clear from the context of the things which he writes there, his daughter was sent from this region into Pannonia by sea journey under the guidance of Henry, bishop of Nicastro, in the same year and month, to be joined in marriage to the king of this kingdom.

[656] Now then, since these things stand thus, lest Malaterra, it is shown not to be Malaterra's. whom no one would say to have written things conflicting among themselves, should have to be said to set count Roger, whom he makes present in Sicily during the whole month of May of the year 1097, present in that very month in Apulia and in the Camp before Capua, far distant from Sicily, it is altogether necessary that the month of April in which count Roger, as that writer narrates, crossed the Faro, the Pentecost which he celebrated near the river Sabatum, and the time at which shortly after he besieged Capua, belonged, even according to Malaterra himself, not to the year 1097 but to the next following. Hence, further, it now follows that this writer assigns the siege of Capua to no other year than Lupus Protospata does, and hence that either the words about Adelasia made pregnant in the year 1097 in the camp before Capua, transcribed here above, are not Malaterra's, or, if they ought to be attributed to him and not to an inept annotator, error crept into the year 1097 with which they are marked by the fault or heedlessness of copyists, and the year 1098 ought to be substituted for that year. Further, Pagi in the Critica, wishing to bring into agreement Malaterra, by whom he thought the siege of Capua was assigned to the year 1097 on account of the mentioned words about Adalasia made pregnant before Capua, with Lupus Protospata, who attaches the same siege to the year 1098, established that Capua began to be besieged in the year 1097, and was taken only in the year 1098, advanced to the month of May. But since, from what has been said, not in the year 1097, as some, on account of the words about Adalasia made pregnant before Capua in that year, persuaded

themselves, but in the year 1098 the siege of Capua happened, as Malaterra himself hands down, that writer is to be corrected.

[657] That warlike expedition neither lasted so long as Pagi determines, For if one were to stand by him, it would follow that the siege of Capua lasted several months; but that this is far from the truth is established both from Malaterra, who teaches, partly in book 4, the chapter cited, partly in chapter 27 and the two following, which next follow it, that count Roger in the year 1098 celebrated Pentecost near the river Sabatum, which in that year fell on the sixteenth of May, only then moved his army up to besiege Capua, and not very long after received that city in surrender; and also from Romuald of Salerno and the anonymous monk of Cassino, given to public light first by Antonio Caracciolo and then by Camillo Pellegrino, and finally brought by Muratori, with the Annotations of this latter editor also added, together with Lupus Protospata into volume V of the Writers of Italian Affairs; both of whom expressly hand down in their Chronicles that Capua surrendered on the fortieth day of the siege, or was subdued by duke Roger and his paternal uncle count Roger, the former indeed in the words transcribed here at number 650, the latter in these following: Duke Roger with count Roger, besieging Capua for forty days, took it back, and restored it to Richard, son of Jordan. These things indeed are reported at the year 1097, whence someone might perhaps argue for fixing the siege of Capua to this year, in the Cassino codex 47, from which the Chronicle of that anonymous monk was first published by Caracciolo, in him and in Muratori; but Pellegrino observes thus on this place of that codex: Codex XLVII, and the edition from it, anticipates the year according to its custom. Not so codex CXCIX, in which these things are under the year MXCVIII. So he: and, as you will easily perceive from the things which he observes in his prefatory notice to that Chronicle, that the siege and surrender of Capua are referred to the year 1097 in the Cassino codex 47 is to be ascribed not to the praised anonymous monk, who flourished at about the same time at which Capua was besieged, but to a more recent copyist, who arranged at his own will what the former had here put in writing, and distinguished it by years. Since this is so, nothing either is had from that anonymous monk against the opinion by which we fix the siege of Capua to the year 1098, and it therefore remains that one must not depart from Lupus Protospata, who assigns that warlike expedition of the Rogers, duke and count, to this very year.

[658] But although the matter indeed stands so as regards the year to which this writer assigns the surrender of Capua, nor was it ended by the surrender of Capua in March, as Lupus writes. yet otherwise must be thought of the month to which he fixes it. For he notes that that city was taken by count Roger in the month of March; but that this happened later than the year 1098 advanced to the month of March is clear both from the Life of St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, written by Eadmer, and also from Geoffrey Malaterra. To prove first that it is established from the said Life of Anselm: Eadmer in it, with us volume 2 of April, page 886 and following, hands down to memory that he, together with St. Anselm, celebrated the feast of the Lord's Resurrection, which in the year 1098 fell on the twenty-eighth of March, in the cloister of St. Michael situated in the dominion of Piedmont, then came to Rome, and, ten days having been spent there, turned aside into the Terra di Lavoro to the monastery of St. Saviour, by whose abbot, formerly his disciple, he had been most amicably invited, and at length came to duke Roger, who was besieging Capua, and who had ordered him to be asked to come to him, and remained with him some space of time. Now then, since this is so, and, if Capua had surrendered already from March in the year 1098, St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, who from what has already been said was present for some while at the siege of Capua, could in no way have been present at it, as everyone will easily understand from all the things just adduced from the Life of this holy prelate, it indeed becomes altogether clear from this Life that Capua did not surrender to count Roger in the year 1098 in the month of March. Nor is this made less manifest from Malaterra. For since, as this writer hands down to memory from what has already been said, count Roger did not move his forces up to besiege Capua before he had celebrated Pentecost, which in the year 1098 fell on the sixteenth day of May, near the river Sabatum, it is truly undoubted from Malaterra that this city had not surrendered to him already from the month of March of that year.

[659] But, you will say, what month then is to be substituted for the March For this month, however, not May, which Lupus Protospata assigns to the surrender of the city of Capua? Pagi in the Critica at the year 1098, Henschenius in his Annotations on Eadmer's New Things in England, book 2, chapter 2, and other learned men pronounce for May; but Pellegrino, in his Annotations on Lupus Protospata, somewhat doubts whether June also cannot be substituted for March in Protospata's text on the surrender of Capua, transcribed here above. For he writes thus in the same place: Capua therefore was recovered, at the earliest, at the end of the month of May and with summer coming on, since the forty days of the siege (namely those assigned, as I taught above, by Romuald and the anonymous of Cassino) seem to be counted not from the arrival of the count, but from the day on which prince Richard II, who had retained the neighbouring city of Aversa, had alone surrounded Capua with a rampart; for otherwise it must be said that it was recovered in the month of June; which I indeed would not refuse, if in Lupus the month * of March ought to be restored as June, not May. But in truth it is manifest that the month of March has often elsewhere been substituted for May; and this perhaps arose from the occasion that, since proper names in the age of the Normans were abbreviated, being depicted only with capital letters, the month of March, so written, has very often been taken for May by more recent copyists. As in the Calendar of an ancient Campanian Breviary also, in which the feast of St. Potentiana, virgin, is wrongly noted at the XIX day of March, which is venerated on the XIX of May.

[660] but, as from various, So he, somewhat doubting indeed, as I have already advised, whether May is to be put back for the month of March in which Capua is narrated to have been taken in the Chronicle of Lupus Protospata, and at the same time yet inclining more to the opinion which will have May altogether substituted for March, and hence, to defend it, pronouncing that the city of Capua, to the besieging of which count Roger certainly did not move his army before the sixteenth day of May, as it is easy to gather from what has been said above, was surrounded with a rampart by Richard, prince of Aversa, and that the forty days during which, on the testimony of Romuald of Salerno and the anonymous of Cassino, writers praised above, the siege of Capua lasted, are to be counted from the time at which this was done, and not from that at which count Roger first came to the camp with his army. But it appears to be concluded from the things which Malaterra hands down to memory in the Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 26 and the two following, that Capua was neither surrounded with a rampart before the arrival of count Roger, nor subdued while the month of May was still running, in which that prince pitched camp at it. For count Roger, as that writer narrates in the same place, when he was leading his army from Calabria toward Apulia, had duke Roger meet him at Liscum, and after a conference held between them, the latter moved his army toward Melfi, the former toward Benevento; so that accordingly, while count Roger was already hastening to besiege Capua, the army of duke Roger was not yet encamped at this city, by which prince Richard, not having, from what is to be said, sufficient forces of his own with which to have done it, could already then have held it surrounded with a rampart. Further, count Roger, moving from Benevento when he had refreshed his army for some space of time near this city, encamped at the river Sabatum; and when he had celebrated there the feast of Pentecost, which in that year, which from what has been said above was 1098 from the nativity of Christ, fell on the sixteenth day of May, and had understood not long after, as appears, from the envoys whom he had sent to the Capuans, that these would by no means either admit counsels of peace or return into favour with prince Richard, he at length entered the Capuan borders with his army to besiege Capua.

[661] which here both from the Sicilian Hear now what Malaterra supplies besides in chapter 26 bearing on this. But, he says of count Roger, when the envoys returning he hears that they (the Capuans) are attempting nothing, but persisting altogether proudly in their malice, moving thence (from the river Sabatum) he invades the Capuan borders, where at dawn, going before the army with a thousand armed men, he approaches the city (namely Capua), and, having thrown down in military fashion very many who had come out, mocked them to their hurt, and would have injured many more had not the dust, raised by the feet of the horses and driven most thickly by the wind, intervened. Thus returning to his camp, on the morrow, betaking himself nearer to the city with the whole army, he girds it from the Southern quarter, walling it with siege, from the Eastern bank to the Western. Since therefore the Capuans, as is understood from these words of Malaterra, sent out an armed band of soldiers against count Roger, who, before he had moved his army up to it, had approached their city attended by only a thousand soldiers, it appears that Capua had not then yet been surrounded with a rampart. Moreover, since Malaterra hands down in the words just recited that count Roger, his army having now been moved up to Capua, girded it from the Eastern and Western quarter, and immediately subjoins to these the following, But the duke and the prince with their army, besieging the city from the Northern side, strive that it be weighed down heavily, he seems to hint that Capua was first surrounded from the Northern quarter by duke Roger and prince Richard at that very time at which count Roger girded it from the Southern and Western quarter; so that accordingly the latter is not to be thought to have surrounded it with a rampart before the arrival of count Roger.

[662] And indeed prince Richard does not seem to have had forces sufficient to do this at that time. the History of Malaterra, For besides that he held under his dominion only Aversa and a small tract of lands adjacent to this city, Malaterra, to the words just now recited, also next adds these: Further the count, by whose counsel all proceeded, because he was more solicitous, because more prudent in all things to be done with vigilant care, raising a bridge of timbers, arranged it thus across the river (namely the Volturno), that, a free approach lying open, a passage should be made for his army and for the duke's, and thus the city was so pressed by both armies that on no side, by land or water, did an approach lie open for going out or coming in safely; and from these words, since in them Malaterra records only two armies, one obeying count Roger, the other duke Roger, it appears to be gathered that only few forces to prince Richard, who

nevertheless undoubtedly brought nearly all those he had to that expedition, since its happy success chiefly concerned him, were in the army of duke Roger, although meanwhile this is also called by Malaterra, in other words transcribed here above, the army both of Richard, namely because this prince had at least some forces in it, and of duke Roger. Now then, since prince Richard, as appears from what has been said, was very little provided with forces, it appears scarcely probable that Capua was surrounded with a rampart before count Roger's arrival at it by him, with whom, from what has been said, the army of duke Roger was not then present either.

[663] Hence, further, it now follows that the siege of Capua probably took its beginning only both from the Life of St. Anselm, when count Roger had moved his army up to this city, and hence that, since thus from what has been said it was not begun before the sixteenth day of this month and lasted forty days, it was not brought to an end in the month of May. But let us even grant for a while that Capua was surrounded with a rampart by prince Richard before count Roger's approach to it with his army; not even so will it become probable that that city surrendered in the month of May. For since, as is clear from what has been said above, count Roger halted with his army at the river Sabatum, not far from Benevento, on the sixteenth day of May, on which in the year 1098 Pentecost fell, and celebrated this feast there, and does not seem to have moved thence with it immediately after, it appears most probable that he did not pitch camp at Capua before the twentieth day of May; so that accordingly, if this city surrendered while May was still running, it will be a consequence that count Roger could have been present at its siege only about ten days. But that that prince was present at this warlike expedition more than ten days appears manifest from the things which both Malaterra, Sicilian History, book 4, chapter 26 and the two following, and Eadmer, in the Life of St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, with us volume 2 of April, page 887, number 45 and following, hand down to memory. That, for brevity's sake, I may omit the things bearing on this which Malaterra supplies in the place cited, and which prove the matter less clearly than those which Eadmer suggests, it pleases me to transcribe only the words of this latter writer, and only those which chiefly make for this.

[664] written by Eadmer, After, then, he has narrated in a few words that St. Anselm was invited to deign to betake himself to Roger, duke of Apulia, who was occupied with the siege of Capua, to which warlike expedition, as he says, Roger, count of Sicily, had brought many thousands of Saracens, and was therefore then present at it, he immediately subjoins: We went up, we went, and passed several days at the siege, removed in tents from the throng and tumult of the din-filled army. And there was, where we were, a certain little church entirely deserted, and beside the door a cistern broken open from above, presenting by its breaking a gaping hole of great depth. In which church, as in a chamber, we lived at will, indulging in it both in rest and in work, and having the duke himself with his men at hand with us every day, as we wished. But on a certain night, while we were sleeping in it, it happened that Anselm rose in silence for a necessity of his body, and, lest we should be disturbed, after his custom made for the door with slow foot. When he had gone out, and, forgetful of the pit, had turned aside in the darkness toward that side, he fell into the depth, saying with a loud voice as he fell: Holy Mary. At which sound we and our companions, who were resting in the tents, awakened, leapt from our beds, and running up saw the man in the depth, and were almost lifeless with fear and at the same time with anguish of heart. Which he perceiving, soon raising his head, with a joyful countenance, signed to us by his look that he had suffered no hurt. Some of our men therefore, going down on the other side of the precipice, where there was a way of descending, brought him out of the place altogether sound and unharmed.

[665] are brought forward, it is proved When after these things Urban, Pontiff of the Apostolic see, was arriving there, and Anselm and the chiefs of the whole army had gone to meet him, he was conducted with a huge pomp of worldly glory into the tent which had been set up for him near us, more excellent than the rest. And thus, until the city passed into surrender, its siege had the Lord Pope and Anselm as neighbours, so that the household of both seemed rather one than two, nor would anyone easily turn aside to the Pope who did not turn aside to Anselm. For the Pope was venerated by all as common father and pastor; but Anselm was loved by all as a gentle and mild man, and one to whom, in his own judgment, nothing was owed by anyone. Since therefore, as Eadmer teaches in the words already recited here, St. Anselm, who was then, as the same Eadmer handed down a little before, living at Sclavia, a farm of the monastery of St. Saviour near Telese, was invited by duke Roger to come to him at the camp before Capua, and stayed for several days in this camp, in which, as Eadmer again testifies a little after the words already recited, count Roger was then present, and after these days Pope Urban II came to the same camp, and remained there with Anselm until the siege was ended by the surrender of the city, Eadmer indeed, while he hands down that all these things happened during the siege of Capua and with count Roger present, seems altogether to indicate that that siege lasted more than ten days while the aforesaid count was already present at it, especially since he also adds to the words just recited some things by which he indicates not obscurely that Anselm was frequently in the camp of the duke and the count during the siege. Now then, since these things stand thus, count Roger was most probably present at the siege of Capua more than ten days, and hence, even granting that it had already been begun before his arrival, it will still be most probable, not to say undoubted, from the things which Eadmer narrates, that the Capuans did not surrender while the month of May was still running. Moreover, that Capua was subdued not in the spring but in the summer season Peter the Deacon teaches in the Cassino Chronicle, book 4, chapter 10, and Eadmer also supports him, handing down in the Life of this holy prelate with us, number 43, that St. Anselm was living in summer time at the farm of Sclavia, from which he was invited by duke Roger to the camp before Capua. Wherefore, since May, strictly speaking, does not comprise the summer season, Capua, the things which Peter the Deacon and Eadmer write standing, will not have been subdued in this month.

[666] And I wished to prove here at length and laboriously that this city did not surrender while the month of May was still running, [but June is more probably to be substituted. How March crept into Roger's diploma in place of this.] both that the time of the apparition in which the Saint, or rather, as has been said above, an angel under his appearance, rescued count Roger from most imminent peril might be known as nearly as can be done, and that it might be plain that for the March to which Lupus Protospata fixes the surrender of Capua is to be put back not May, but June, or even, which however pleases less, July, and that thus the diploma of count Roger last transcribed here may not be held suspect on account of the month in which it requires that the surrender of that city happened. For since count Roger affirms in it that he was in the siege of Capua on the Kalends of March (see number 648), and he certainly, as is clear from what has already been said above, did not move his army up to besiege Capua before the sixteenth of May, or, what comes to the same, was not in the siege of this city, then indeed for the March on whose Kalends, or first day, he says that he was in the siege of Capua, not May but June, or perhaps even July, ought to be substituted. But lest anyone reject that instrument as spurious and supposititious on account of that chronological error, I set forth whence it could have arisen, and also in truth probably did arise. Since in the age of the Normans, as Pellegrino teaches above in his Annotations on the Chronicle of Lupus Protospata, proper names were abbreviated, being depicted only with capital letters, it can be that in this way the month in which count Roger affirms in the said diploma that he was in the siege of Capua was expressed only so; and that afterwards, that capital letter with which this month was expressed having been either eaten away in the autograph by age or rubbed off by some chance, a less skilled copyist who was copying it, in the place where he noticed that a letter had existed or still existed which he could not read, either because it was nearly rubbed off or also because of the singularity of its form, added March to the word Kalends to complete the sense, thinking namely, on the authority and credit of Lupus Protospata, whose Chronicle he had perhaps read, that the city of Capua, at whose siege he observed count Roger in that place asserting that he had been present, surrendered in the month of March.

[667] But, you will say, although it can indeed have come about in the manner now set forth that the chronological error noted above crept into the diploma of count Roger just recited, or rather into its copy or transcript, the Saint by this from Roger, not in the year 1098. yet that it truly happened so can be proved by no sufficiently certain argument or indication. I confess it is so; but if not in that, it is certainly necessary that the mentioned error crept into that instrument in another way by which errors are known to have slipped even into sincere documents, or rather into their transcripts, since indeed it both labours under absolutely no other fault on account of which it ought to be held suspect, much less certainly spurious, and is praised by very many writers as genuine and sincere, nor rejected, as far as I know, by absolutely anyone. It remains now that I should show that it was given not in the year 1098, in which it happened that Capua was besieged, but in the year 1099. That ancient monument, or rather its copy existing in the Manuscript Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno of Mörkens, from which I have transcribed it, has thus towards the end: This privilege was written on the second of the month of August in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and ninety-nine, in the seventh Indiction; the diploma into whose epoch we are here to inquire was therefore granted by count Roger to St. Bruno not in the year 1098, or in the same year in which Capua was besieged, but in the year which next followed this siege, 1099. But I find two well-learned writers who oppose us here, Michael the monk, still praised above, and Camillo Pellegrino in his Annotations on Lupus Protospata. And the former indeed, although he will have the diploma given in another year than that in which Capua was besieged, yet, since at the same time he contends that the siege of this city happened in the year 1097, thinks that it was given in the year 1098; and this opinion is settled with him because, as he says, in the copy of the diploma which is preserved in the acts of the royal chamber, the year

he read it to have been given 1098. But be it so: since indeed he confesses that the same instrument is noted both with the second day of August and with the seventh Indiction, it is necessary that he confess that an error lies in the copy of the royal chamber praised by him, either as regards the year or as regards the Indiction.

[668] but in the year, contrary to what Camillo Pellegrino For from the first day of September of the year 1097 to the first day of September likewise of the year 1098 the sixth Indiction ran, and from the first day of September again of this latter year to the first day of September likewise of the year 1099 the seventh Indiction; so that accordingly the copy of the diploma of the royal chamber which was given to Michael the monk to read, and which, as he says, is marked the second of August in the year 1098, in the seventh Indiction, bears a year not agreeing with the Indiction, and hence, since it is thereby established to be corrupted in its chronological notes, it cannot of itself render to us certain and undoubted the year in which it was truly given. Since this is so, and it appears scarcely probable that Roger imparted the diploma to Bruno on the second day of August of the very year on whose twenty-ninth day of July (see number 638), and hence only three days before, he had arrived at Squillace from the siege of Capua, made from what has been said in the year 1098, I think one must stand by the chronological notes which mark the time at which that instrument was given or written in its copy transcribed here from the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno of Mörkens, and hence that it was given in the year 1099, as is noted in it. But, to come now to Camillo Pellegrino, who will have it that Capua was besieged by count Roger in the year 1098, and that the diploma here in question was granted to our Saint by that prince in the same year: he, in the Annotations which he appended to the Chronicle of Lupus Protospata at the year 1098, writes in the following manner of the diploma into whose epoch we are here inquiring: But I think that another mistake sits in this very diploma, and that it should be read in it that Roger returned "on the twenty-ninth of the month of June to Squillace, not of July," unless you prefer "the ninth of July, the city of Capua having been obtained, and was ill there for a continuous fortnight"; and that he made the privilege "on the II day of August in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MXCVIII, in the VI Indiction" (some wrongly publish Indiction VII) "with John, bishop of the see of Squillace, confirming, sitting near the doors of the church."

[669] Nor is one to think with the learned man that the privilege was indeed given in the year MXCVIII, contends here, but that Capua was by no means besieged and recovered, as Lupus reports, in the same year, but in the preceding year, as Geoffrey Malaterra has it, who, at the time of this siege, "affirms that the countess Adelasia became pregnant there in the year MXCVII by count Roger"; the year of the given diploma, I say, does not seem to be distinguished from the year of the siege of Capua and of count Roger's illness; nor would the count have deferred his voluntary donation, after receiving the benefit, to the following year, no occasion of such a delay being meanwhile set forth, which indeed there is none; nay rather, we should say most fittingly that Roger did not return to Squillace after a year had come round nor in the anniversary year, but that, as soon as he had arrived there from Capua and had become strong in health, he indulged the aforesaid privilege. Thus far Pellegrino, contending that the diploma or privilege was given to St. Bruno in the very year in which Capua was besieged by count Roger and restored to him, for this reason, as appears, chiefly, not to say solely, that he did not think it probable that that privilege, most liberally granted to our Saint by count Roger for the sake of a grateful mind, because by his appearing and warning he had escaped a most grievous peril before Capua, was deferred by that prince, excellently disposed and most benevolent toward Bruno, for more than an entire year after the benefit received, being so minded namely because he believed that there could have been no cause for the count to defer it for a year, or at any rate had not ascertained what it could have been. But although indeed the count, in the very year in which he returned from the siege of Capua, was most ready to impart that most ample privilege to St. Bruno, and would undoubtedly in fact have imparted it, if this had been altogether free to him, yet the very diploma or privilege itself suggests the reason why he did not do it then.

[670] For in this count Roger (see number 638) speaks thus of himself, he obtained in 1099. when he had first returned from the siege of Capua to Squillace: I also humbly asked (namely St. Bruno) that for the love of God he would deign to take in the land of Squillace the ample revenues which I was giving: refusing to receive them, he said that he had left the house of his father and mine for this, that, a stranger to the things of the world, he might freely serve his God. He had been in my whole house as it were first and great. At length I could scarcely obtain from him that he would acquiesce in taking freely a small gift of mine. That therefore the most ample privilege of which we are here speaking was not granted to St. Bruno by count Roger in the very year 1098 in which Capua was besieged and subdued by count Roger, the cause was not he, but St. Bruno himself, who namely would not accept the most ample and most liberal donations then offered to him by this prince, and who at length, namely when more than an entire year had elapsed from the time at which those donations had been offered to him at Squillace by count Roger, reluctantly consented that some part of them be transferred to him by public instrument. But if for the twenty-ninth day of July, on which after the taking of Capua Roger is said in the diploma to have returned to Squillace, there could be put, as pleases Pellegrino, the twenty-ninth of June, or even the ninth day of July, then indeed this instrument itself would by no means stand, by the chronological characters included in it, in the way of its being believed to have been given in the year 1098; but since it is not to be admitted that errors lie in ancient instruments of which it is not altogether established, nor is it established from anywhere that the twenty-ninth of July is wrongly noted in the instrument here in question, I cannot assent to Pellegrino in this matter, and I think that it was not given before the year 1099 for the reasons already adduced, especially since it is marked with that year in Surianus also, and Severus of Naples found the autograph itself noted with the same year, as the excerpts which the Parisian Carthusian, very often praised, communicated to me from the copy of the fourth book of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, which belongs to the Chartreuse of Val-Dieu, teach me. Nor is there reason for you still to object that count Roger was at Squillace in the year 1098, and that the diploma which has already been disputed is also noted as given at Squillace; for why could not Roger have been at Squillace in the year 1098, and again in the year 1099?

* read pro mense

§ XLI. The Saint again experiences duke Roger too benevolent toward him, is visited by Landuin, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, and through him, whom he dismisses from himself reluctantly, writes letters to the brothers of the Chartreuse. These, together with the letters written to Ralph the Green, are produced here.

The Saint experiences duke Roger benevolent toward him, Not only after the siege of Capua, in which from what has been said count Roger had been freed from most imminent peril, the Saint's merits bringing this about, did our Saint feel this prince beneficent toward him anew; but also duke Roger of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, whose paternal uncle the former was. In the year MXCIX, says Surianus in his Annotations on the Life of the Saint written by Surius, page 400, Roger, duke of Apulia, Calabria and Sicily, in the XIV year of his duchy, gave to the church of St. Mary, which is situated in the desert, at the place which is called by the inhabitants the Tower, the villeins whom he had near Squillace, for the love of God and out of reverence for M. Bruno, who presided over the monastery. The diploma was subscribed by Roger, archbishop of Reggio; after whom duke Roger, Fallo, bishop of Cassano and vicar of the Pope; Arnulf, archbishop of Cosenza *, Tustenus, bishop, Guido, son of duke Robert. Camillo Tutini also mentions this donation in the Prospectus of the Carthusian History, page 14; but since the diploma by which Surianus hands down that it was made is not at hand, I do not think it advisable to add more about it, and accordingly I proceed to other things.

[672] Surianus, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 172, comments thus on these words of Surius about the Saint, He wrote frequently to them (the religious inhabitants of the Grande Chartreuse): By Landuin, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, When … his (namely St. Bruno's) return was deferred from day to day, Landuin the Prior is sent to him from the Chartreuse, to hold as it were a chapter with him, and to confer about the universal institute of the Order. And he indeed, having set out to him by great journeys, conferred with him as much as the matter and the time permitted, and when he had begun to return by the road by which he had come, he fell into the hands of the antipope, by whom, when he could not be brought by any prayers or threats to deny the lawful Pontiff, he was thrown into a most foul prison, where also he died, having testified true fidelity to the Vicar of Christ up to his last breath. So he; and first indeed, that Landuin came to St. Bruno in Calabria the letters, to be recited in the present §, which the Saint sent through him, when he was returning to the Grande Chartreuse, to his disciples staying there, make undoubted at their very beginning. Wherefore these words of the eulogy with which Landuin is adorned by the Chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, from what was said in § I by far the most worthy of credit, in Labbe, volume 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 639, concerning this second Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, Who, while he was going to master Bruno, fell into the hands of the schismatic Guibert, ought to be so understood that they comprise at once Landuin's coming to St. Bruno and his return from him, or the whole journey which Landuin made for the sake of visiting his holy Father. For since, as the same Chronologer teaches, Landuin, having slipped into the hands of the antipope Guibert, was thrown into the prison in which he died, it would be a consequence that he did not arrive at Bruno in the Calabrian desert of the Tower if he fell into the hands of Guibert while he was on the journey toward it to visit his holy Father, as the recited words of the praised chronologer seem at first sight to signify.

[673] As now pertains to the cause for which Landuin came by a very long and very perilous journey to the Saint in Calabria, for the cause here set forth, he most probably did this not only to confer with the holy Patriarch about the common institute of the life which they were following, but also, if it could be done in any way, to bring the holy Man back from Calabria to the Chartreuse. So I am persuaded, both because Landuin and the other religious men who lived under him in the Grande Chartreuse, with the greatest longing for their holy Father, as from

what has been said of their withdrawal from the Chartreuse on account of his absence is manifest, were held; and because the Saint concludes thus the letters written to these, which, as I have already said, he sent through Landuin, and which I shall transcribe entire here below: Of me, brothers, know that my one desire after God is of coming to you and seeing you. And, when I can, I shall fulfil it in deed, God helping; from which words it appears that the Saint had been asked by his disciples of the Chartreuse, or, if you prefer, by Landuin in their name, to return to it. Zanotti also, in the Life of the holy Patriarch composed by him, chapter 29, thinks that Landuin came to the Calabrian desert of the Tower to persuade St. Bruno to return to the Chartreuse; and rightly indeed, as appears from what has been said; but what he adds about a lay brother previously sent by Bruno from Calabria to the Chartreuse with letters, with whom, as he returned thither to their holy Father, Landuin betook himself, he neither himself confirms by an ancient monument of certain credit, nor can I confirm it. He cites indeed, as often elsewhere, in the lower margin of the page Manuscript Monuments of Calabria; but what and of what kind these are he nowhere declares. Nay rather, indicating from time to time that he doubts whether the things which they narrate are true, he seems not even himself to have held them as documents of certain and undoubted credit.

[674] he is visited, and him, whom he dismisses from himself reluctantly, But although this is so, there is no one who calls into doubt that Landuin, as he likewise narrates in the same place, was most amicably received by St. Bruno, as also that there was treating between the Saint and him about the institute of the Carthusian life. The ancient writers are indeed silent about these things; but besides that their testimony is not required for such things to be believed, the epistle already twice praised, which he sent through Landuin returning to the Chartreuse to his disciples staying in it, makes credible that conversations were held by the Saint with Landuin about the Carthusian institute and its followers in the Chartreuse. For in it he indicates that he had understood from Landuin some things about their religious Life, rigour of discipline and holy morals, as will become plain to one who turns its pages. Nor does it become less plain from the same that Landuin was received by St. Bruno no otherwise than a most beloved son by a father. Behold the words which make this manifest. Brother …, says the Saint, Landuin I wished to keep with us on account of our grave and frequent infirmities; but because he reckons nothing sound, nothing pleasant, nothing vital and useful to himself without you, he did not acquiesce, protesting to me, in a fountain of tears flowing forth for you and with many sighs, how much you are to him and with how perfect a charity he loves you. Whence I wished to use no compulsion, lest I should hurt him or you, whom I hold most dear for the merit of your virtues. So the Saint: but who would think that he did not receive with the highest love and benevolence him whom, being already afflicted, as the recited words make credible, by grave and almost constant infirmities, he would so gladly have kept with him? But Landuin, however kindly and lovingly received by his holy Father, and however most earnestly asked to stay a longer space of time with him in the desert of the Tower, preferred to revisit the inhabitants of the Chartreuse most dear to him, lest he should afflict them by his longer absence; nor did the Saint wish to deny him the faculty of returning to these, although he could have done so by virtue of the obedience by which he held the man bound to him.

[675] [on his departure he hands him letters to his disciples in the Chartreuse. To these they,] With the same signification of love and benevolence, then, with which he had received Landuin coming to him in Calabria, he dismissed him from himself, having delivered into his hands the epistle which he had written, and which Landuin, when he had returned to the Chartreuse, was to give to its religious inhabitants. But Landuin, while he was going back to the Chartreuse by the same road by which he had come to the Saint, was captured by the followers of the antipope Guibert, and, because he would not acknowledge this man as the lawful vicar of Christ on earth, was thrown by them into a foul prison, in which, consumed by starvation, he died. The principal words of the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse bearing on this, already recited above, I transcribe here again, because from these chiefly becomes known the time at about which both St. Bruno wrote the epistle already mentioned and Landuin visited him in the desert of Calabria, and afterwards, captured by the followers of Guibert, closed his last day in prison, leaving an altogether exceptional example of faith toward the Apostolic See. That writer, then, writes of Landuin in this manner: He fell into the hands of the schismatic Guibert, which he greatly dreaded. Against whose threats and promises, deceits and violences, by the help of divine grace, he persevered unbending in every way. Whom, dead in his error, he bewailed with tears, so much that he was blamed by those standing around because he wept for him from whose perversity the goodness of Christ had freed His Church. On the seventh day after his death he himself also died, and was laid in the monastery of St. Andrew at the foot of Mount Soracte, near which is the castle where, captured, he had been held in custody. Landuin therefore, as that writer, certainly most worthy of credit from what has been said, makes undoubted by these words, departed to the Lord from the prison into which he had been thrown because he would not depart from the side of the lawful Pope, on the seventh day after the death of the antipope Guibert.

[676] For which reason, since the antipope Guibert, as Pagi teaches in the Critica at the year 1100 from Hugh of Flavigny, which neither later than the year 1100, nor earlier than the year departed this life in the year 1100, during the council of Valence, which in this very year was begun on the II of the Kalends of October, that is, the thirtieth day of September, and was finished shortly after, it follows that Landuin, since he survived Guibert by only seven days, exchanged this mortal life for the immortal in the year 1100, while the month of October was running. Yet Landuin, as I learn from the Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno of Mörkens, is noted in the Menology of the Chartreuse to have died on the XIV of September. And indeed, since the text of Hugh of Flavigny, from which Pagi in the place cited defines the time at which the pseudo-pontiff Guibert died, consists only of these words, In the space of time in which the council of Valence was celebrated, Wibert died, I do not know whether Hugh cannot be so understood as to have wished it signified only that Wibert, or the antipope Guibert, departed from the living about the time at which the council of Valence was celebrated; and if Hugh can be so understood, it will have to be said that Guibert died on the seventh day of September, so that this writer may be brought into agreement with the Carthusian Menology. However that may be, it is indeed certain from the said text of Hugh of Flavigny that the antipope Guibert, and hence from what has been said Landuin also, died in the year 1100, and that this year, when it happened, had advanced at least to September. Now then, since this is so, it follows that certainly not later than the year 1100 did Landuin visit St. Bruno, staying in the Calabrian desert of the Tower, or did the latter send through him, as he went back from Calabria to the Chartreuse, the epistle already mentioned more than once to its religious pupils, his most loving disciples. But did these things not happen before the same year 1100 either?

[677] Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals at the year 1099, for which the opinion of Mabillon makes, number 109, writes thus: This year Landuin, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, set out to Bruno, who was living in Calabria, both to visit him and to consult him about various doubts of his institute. His arrival was so welcome and pleasant to the venerable Father that he tried to keep him with him. But Landuin could not bear that his brothers, whom he had left in the Grande Chartreuse and had informed of his return, should be defrauded of his presence and direction. The holy Father, acquiescing in so just a purpose of his, allowed him to depart from him, letters being given to the brothers of the Grande Chartreuse, the former part of which it pleases me to bring here. Mabillon then transcribes the former part of the letters which he here mentions, and then, after he has also recited the latter part of the same, some things being interposed, he subjoins: At the end (namely of the letters, not a few words of which he brought into his Work) the holy Man testifies that his one desire after God is of revisiting them, and that he would carry it out in deed at the first opportunity, if it could be done. But neither was it given to Bruno to return into Gaul, nor to Landuin himself, who on his return was seized by the antipope Guibert, and, unbending to his threats and promises, was detained in prison so long as the schismatic survived, namely up to the following year. Mabillon therefore thought that in the year 1099 Landuin both came to St. Bruno in Calabria and, when he was returning from there to the Grande Chartreuse, was captured by Guibert and thrown into prison; so that accordingly, on that writer's opinion, the letters also sent by the Saint through Landuin to the pupils of the Grande Chartreuse, into whose epoch we must chiefly inquire here, were written in the year 1099.

[678] [were written in 1099, probably, and reached them, although Landuin died on the way.] But since the praised Mabillon brings forward absolutely no reason why he thought so, and the eight months of the year 1100 preceding its September, before which from what has been said Landuin certainly did not die, constitute a space of time sufficiently long for Landuin in it to have been able to visit St. Bruno, living in the desert of Calabria, stay with him for some while, and then on his return to the Chartreuse, captured by Guibert and thrown into prison, perish in it by starvation, it is very doubtful to me whether it was in the year 1099 or at the beginning of the following that Landuin visited Bruno, and that the latter sent letters to his first disciples of the Chartreuse through their Prior departing from him. In whatever way the matter meanwhile stands, it is sufficiently clear from what has been said that these things were indeed done either in the year 1099 or in the next following, and hence also not earlier than the year 1099. And this is why, lest I deviate from the chronological order which I have determined to follow, as far as can conveniently be done, in reviewing the matters pertaining to the Saint, I have wished to treat in this place both of Landuin's coming to our Saint in Calabria and of the epistle which the holy Man gave to Landuin on his departure, to be delivered to its religious inhabitants. This, further, although it did not befall Landuin to return into Gaul, yet reached the hands of those to whom it was inscribed, if the Writers of the Literary History of France note rightly in volume IX, page 249. And indeed that they note rightly seems probable from the fact that that precious monument has come down to posterity. It entire, of which Mabillon only two parts in the Benedictine … composed by him

Annals composed by him brought in, is comprised in volume 3 of the Works of the Saint, printed at Cologne Agrippina in the year 1611 and then again in 1640, as also in the Annotations of Surianus on the Life of Bruno composed by Surius. It pleases me to bring it over here from these.

[679] In these the Saint the non-lay to joy at their vocation, It runs thus: To his Brothers uniquely beloved in Christ, Br. Bruno, greeting in the Lord. Having learned the inflexible rigour of your reasonable and truly praiseworthy discipline from the frequent and sweet report of our most blessed Brother Landuin; and having heard also of your holy love and unceasing zeal for the things which are of integrity and uprightness, my spirit exults in the Lord. For truly I exult and am borne into praise and thanksgiving to the Lord, and yet I sigh bitterly. I exult indeed, as is just, for the increase of the fruits of your virtues; but I grieve and blush for myself, that I lie inert and sluggish in the filth of my sins. Rejoice therefore, my dearest brothers, for the lot of your blessedness, and for the bountiful hand of the grace of God toward you. Rejoice, because you have escaped the manifold perils and shipwrecks of the tossing world. Rejoice, because you have obtained the quiet and safe station of a more secret harbour, to which, though many desire to come, and many also strive with no small effort, they yet do not arrive. And many, after they have gained it, have been shut out, since to none of them was it granted from above.

[680] Therefore, my brothers, let it be certain and proved to you but exhorts the lay brothers to perseverance in good, that whoever has enjoyed this desirable good, if in any way he has lost it, will grieve to the end, if he have any regard or care for the salvation of his soul. Of you, my dearest lay brothers, I say: My soul doth magnify the Lord, because I behold the magnificence of His mercy upon you according to the intimation of your Prior and most loving father, who glories much for you and rejoices. We too rejoice, since, though you are without knowledge of letters, the mighty God with His finger writes in your hearts not only the love but also the knowledge of His holy law. For you show by deed what you love and what you know. For when you observe true obedience with all caution and zeal (which is the execution of the commandments of God, and the key and seal of the whole spiritual discipline, which is never without much humility and notable patience, which chaste love of the Lord and true charity always accompany) it is manifest … and useful of the divine Scripture. Therefore, my brothers, remain in that to which you have attained, and avoid as a plague the diseased flock of certain most vain laymen, who carry about their little papers, muttering things which they neither understand nor love, which they contradict by words and deeds. Who, idle and wandering, disparage all good and religious men, and think themselves praiseworthy in this, if they have defamed those who are to be praised, to whom obedience and all discipline is hateful.

[681] Brother Landuin I wished to keep with us on account of our grave and frequent infirmities: [and he diligently admonishes all to take care of Landuin's already impaired health.] but because he reckons nothing sound, nothing pleasant, nothing vital and useful to be to himself without you, he did not acquiesce, protesting to me, in a fountain of tears flowing forth for you, and with many sighs, how much you are to him and with how perfect a charity he loves you. Whence I wished to use no compulsion, lest I should hurt him or you, whom I hold most dear for the merit of your virtues. Wherefore I diligently admonish your Brotherhood, and humbly and singly pray, that the charity which you bear in your heart you show by the execution of the work toward him, as toward your Prior and dearest father, by kindly and providently supplying the things which are necessary for him for his manifold ill health. But if in this office of humanity he will not consent to you, preferring to be in peril of his health and life rather than omit anything of the rigour of bodily discipline, which is altogether to be disapproved, perhaps he will blush that he who is first in religion should be found later in this part, fearing lest on his occasion anyone of you should become more remiss or lukewarm, which I think is by no means to be feared. Lest you be without this grace, we grant to your charity our place in this alone, that it be lawful for you reverently to compel him to the things which you have judged convenient for his health.

[682] Of what kind is the epistle which he wrote to Ralph the Green. Of me, Brothers, know that my one desire after God is of coming to you and seeing you. And when I can, I shall fulfil it in deed, God helping. Farewell. Surianus, when he has recited this epistle entire, presently observes thus on it: Of this paraenetic letter let it be permitted to say what Peter, abbot of Celle, epistle 3, book 3, wrote to the Prior and brothers of the Chartreuse of Mont-Dieu: "In the fatness of a well-fed soul, in the abundance of the sweetness of God you have written, and as it were with the fat and fatness of spiritual gladness you have filled my throat. For your discourse is not such as, adulterine forms being laid over it, presents the appearance of piety and denies its virtue. For this belongs to those who speak with a heart and a heart, or who make their words softer than oil, while they themselves are darts. But your word is not so insipid, but, strengthened by the fulness of grace, fills the bowels of the Saints, etc." These words of Peter the Venerable, which Surianus affirms may deservedly be pronounced of the epistle written by Bruno to the pupils of the Grande Chartreuse, may be pronounced with no less right of the other epistle, already very often praised above, in which the holy Man most vehemently exhorted Ralph the Green, provost of the church of Reims, to the fulfilment of the vow made in the conversation formerly held with him and Fulcius the One-eyed on the false delights of the world. With such affection of mind toward an old friend, with such outpouring, so to speak, of the heart, with such anointing of the divine Spirit is this written. It was not possible to see it entire at the beginning of this Commentary, because the books in which it is inserted mutilated in no part, and the very Works of St. Bruno printed at Cologne Agrippina in the year 1611 and reprinted there in the year 1640, were not at hand.

[683] In this he first praises Ralph for his faithfulness toward a friend, But since at length the Carthusians of this city have in their kindness deigned to lend me these, it pleases me also to bring over here that precious monument copied from them, both that it, which is found inserted in only a few books, and which I wonder was not brought even into the Works of the Saint printed by Josse Bade at Paris in the year 1524 and extant with us, may be ready to hand for the reader, and that I may thus at the same time discharge the promise given more than once above. It runs thus: To his venerable lord Ralph, provost of Reims, to be regarded with the cultivation of most sincere charity, Bruno, greeting. The faithfulness of an old, approved friendship is seen in thee the more illustrious and worthy of ampler praise, the rarer it is found among men. For although our bodies have been separated from each other by a long tract of lands and a lengthier space of time, yet the mind of thy benevolence could not be torn away from thy friend. Which indeed has been sufficiently shown by thy most sweet letters (in which thou hast flattered me in friendly fashion), and also by benefits largely bestowed not only on me but also on brother Bernard for our sake, and by some other indications. Whence we render to thy kindness thanks, not indeed equal to thy merits, but yet flowing from a pure source. We sent to thee some while ago with letters a certain pilgrim, faithful enough in other embassies, but up to now he does not appear. We have judged it fitting to send to thy charity one of our own, who may set forth more copiously by living voice all the things which concern us (since we are less sufficient for these with pen and ink).

[684] We make known therefore to thy love, to thy condescension, then the pleasantness of the desert which he inhabited, since we think this not unwelcome to thee, that we are well in body (would that we were so in mind), and that the things which pertain to outward matters are sufficient to our wish. But I also wait, beseeching the hand of the divine mercy, that it may heal all my inward infirmities, and satisfy my desire with good things. And in the borders of Calabria, with religious brothers, and some well learned (who, persisting in the divine watches, await the return of their Lord, that when He knocks they may at once open to Him), I inhabit a desert sufficiently remote on every side from the habitation of men. Of whose pleasantness, and temperateness and healthfulness of air, or of the ample and pleasing plain stretched out long between the mountains, where there are green meadows and flowery pastures, what shall I say worthily? Or who could sufficiently unfold the prospect of the hills rising gently on every side, and the recess of the shady valleys with the lovely abundance of rivers, brooks and springs? Nor are watered gardens lacking, and the fertility of divers trees. But why do I linger longer on these? For there are other delights of a prudent man, more pleasing and far more useful, because divine. Yet the weaker mind, wearied by stricter discipline and spiritual studies, is rather often relieved and breathes again by these. For a bow, if it be continually stretched, is slacker and less fit for its office. But what utility and pleasantness solitude and the silence of the desert confer on their lovers, those alone know who have experienced it. For here it is permitted to strenuous men to return into themselves as much as they please; and to dwell with themselves, and assiduously to cultivate the seeds of the virtues, and to enjoy happily the fruits of paradise. Here that eye is acquired by whose serene gaze the Bridegroom is wounded with love, by which, clean and pure, God is seen. Here a busy leisure is celebrated, and one rests in quiet action.

[685] Here for the labour of the contest God repays to His athletes the desired reward, and teaches the worth of the solitary life, namely peace, which the world knows not, and joy in the Holy Spirit. This is that beautiful Rachel, fair of aspect, more loved by Jacob, though less fruitful of sons than Leah, more fecund, but blear-eyed. For fewer are the sons of contemplation than of action. Yet Joseph and Benjamin are more loved by their father than the other brothers. This is that best part which Mary chose, which shall not be taken away. This is the most beautiful Shunammite, alone found in all the borders of Israel, who should cherish and warm the old David. Whom, dearest brother, would that thou didst love singly, that, cherished in her embraces, thou mightest grow warm with divine love! Whose charity, if once it has settled in the mind, soon that enticing and flattering deceiver, the glory of the world, would grow vile to thee, and thou wouldst lightly cast off anxious riches (truly burdensome to the mind), and wouldst altogether loathe pleasures, equally hurtful to mind and body. For thy prudence knows who says: "He who loves the world and the things which are in the world" (which are the pleasures of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the ambition of the age) "the charity of the Father is not in him."

And likewise: "Whoever is a friend of this world is made an enemy of God." What then is so unjust, what so much the part of an insane and headlong mind, what is so pernicious or what more unhappy, than that thou shouldst wish to exercise enmity against Him whose power thou art not able to resist, or whose avenging justice thou art not able to escape? Are we stronger than He? Because by the patience of His loving-kindness He now calls to penance, will He not at length avenge the injuries of contempt?

[686] and then to flight from the world, For what is more perverse, what so much fighting against reason, justice and nature itself, than to love the creature more than the Maker? What then dost thou judge should be done, dearest? What but to yield to the divine counsels, to yield to the truth, which cannot deceive? For it counsels in common, saying: "Come to me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will refresh you." Is it not a most evil and useless labour to be distended with concupiscence, to be incessantly afflicted with cares and anxieties, fear and grief, for the things coveted? And what burden is heavier than that which presses down the mind from the lofty citadel of its dignity to the lowest things, which is all injustice? Flee therefore, my brother, flee all these troubles and miseries, and transfer thyself from the tempest of this world to the safe and quiet station of the harbour. Thy prudence knows also what Wisdom says to us: "Unless one shall renounce all that he possesses, he cannot be my disciple." How beautiful, how useful, and how pleasant this is, to remain in His school under the discipline of the Holy Spirit, to obtain the divine philosophy, which alone gives true blessedness, who does not see? Wherefore it is worth the while for thy prudence to weigh these things with diligent examination; and if the love of God does not invite thee, if the usefulness of such great rewards does not provoke thee, at least necessity and the fear of punishments ought to compel thee to this.

[687] [recalling to his memory the obligation contracted by the vow made of taking the monastic habit, most vehemently] For thou knowest by what promise thou art bound, and how almighty and terrible He is to whom thou hast devoted thyself as a welcome and altogether acceptable gift; to whom it is neither lawful nor expedient to lie. For He does not suffer Himself to be mocked unavenged. For thy love remembers that, when I and thou and Fulcius the One-eyed had been together one day in the little garden adjoining the house of Adam, where I was then lodging *, and were treating for some while, as I think, of the false delights and perishing riches of this world, and also of the joys of everlasting glory, whence, burning with divine love, we promised and vowed to the Holy Spirit shortly to leave the fleeting things of the world and to lay hold of eternal things, and also to receive the monastic habit. Which also would have been carried out soon, had not Fulcius then gone off to Rome, until whose return we deferred what was to be carried out. As he made delay and other causes intervened, the divine love grew languid, the mind grew cold, and the fervour vanished. What then remains, dearest, but to free thyself quickly from the bonds of so great a debt, lest for so great and so long-continued a crime of falsehood thou incur the wrath of the Most Mighty, and on account of this monstrous torments? For who would leave unavenged his being defrauded by any subject of his of a promised gift, especially if it were of great estimation and price to him? Wherefore believe, not me, but the prophet, nay the Holy Spirit, saying: "Vow ye and pay to the Lord your God, all you that round about Him bring presents. To Him that is terrible, even to Him who taketh away the spirit of princes, to the terrible with the kings of the earth." Why does the Spirit of God inculcate all these things, except to press thee, who vowed, to pay what thou hast vowed?

[688] But why art thou reluctant to pay what causes no loss or diminution of thy goods, he exhorts, and what accumulates gains rather for thee than for Him to whom thou shalt pay it? Wherefore let not deceitful riches detain thee, since they cannot drive out want; nor the dignity of the provostship, which they cannot administer without great peril of soul. For to convert to one's own uses the goods of others, of which thou art the minister and not the possessor, is (by thy leave be it said) as hateful as it is unjust. But if, desirous of splendour and glory, thou wilt keep a large household, is it not necessary, when thy own goods, which thou hast justly, do not suffice, that thou snatch from others in some way what thou mayest bestow on others? Which is not to be beneficent or liberal: for nothing is liberal which is not also just. But I desire this too to be persuaded to thy love, that thou turn not aside from so sublime a promise for the sake of intimacy with the lord archbishop, who trusts and leans very much on thy counsels, which are not all easily given just or useful; mayest thou be recalled * by divine charity, which, the more just it is, the more useful too. And what is so just and so useful, or what is so implanted in and congruous with human nature, as to love the good? And what else is so good as God? Nay, what else is good but God alone? Whence the holy soul, perceiving in part the incomparable comeliness, splendour and beauty of this good, kindled with the flame of love, says: "My soul hath thirsted for God, the living fountain; when shall I come and appear before the face of God."

[689] Would that thou mayest not spurn a friend admonishing thee; would that thou mayest not hear with a deaf ear the words of the Spirit of God; exhorts would that thou mayest satisfy my desire and long expectation, most beloved, lest my soul be tormented longer on thy account with cares and anxieties and fear. For if it should happen (which may God avert) that thou depart from this life before thou hast paid the vow of thy debt, thou wilt leave me wasting away in continual sadness without any consolation of hope. Wherefore I desire thee to be entreated and implored that thou deign to come all the way to us, if only for the sake of prayer at St. Nicholas and thence, that thou mayest see him who loves thee singly, and that we may treat by mutual living voice of the state of our affairs and the order of religion, and also the things which pertain to common utility. And I trust in the Lord that thou wilt not repent of having undergone the labour of so great a journey. I have exceeded the measure of epistolary brevity, because, while I cannot have thee in body, I shall at least linger longer with thee by conversing; I earnestly wish that thy brotherhood may flourish long unharmed, mindful of our counsel and not unmindful of thy vow. Send us, I pray, the Life of St. Remigius, because it is found nowhere in our parts. Farewell. That this epistle was written by the Saint when he was living in the Calabrian desert of the Tower, its very words placed at number 684 make manifest; and that it may be understood why Bruno, towards its end, invites Ralph to St. Nicholas, it must be known that the body of that holy prelate of Myra was translated from Myra to Bari, a city of Apulia, in the year 1087, as Lupus Protospata in the Chronicle and others teach; and since from that time it had become renowned there by very many miracles, it was honoured by most frequent pilgrimages undertaken to Bari for it even from the most remote regions.

[690] Further, before the Saint wrote the epistle already recited to Ralph the Green, he had already been approached by him by letters, and had sent other letters to that old friend of his, By whom he sent that Epistle to Ralph. though it is doubtful whether they were delivered to him. All these things may be gathered from the very epistle of our Saint to Ralph which I have already given. For this at the beginning has thus: Although our bodies have been separated from each other by a long tract of lands and a lengthier space of time, yet the mind of thy benevolence could not be torn away from thy friend. Which indeed has been sufficiently shown by thy most sweet letters (in which thou hast flattered me in friendly fashion), and also by benefits largely bestowed not only on me but also on brother Bernard for our sake, and by some other indications. Whence we render to thy kindness thanks, not indeed equal to thy merits, but yet flowing from a pure source. We sent to thee some while ago with letters a certain pilgrim, faithful enough in other embassies, but up to now he does not appear. We have judged it fitting to send to thy charity one of our own, who may set forth more copiously by living voice all the things which concern us, since we are less sufficient for these with pen and ink. We make known therefore to thy love, etc. Such is the beginning of the epistle written by the Saint to Ralph the Green; and from the words already given it is manifest that it was sent to this old friend of Bruno's by one of the pupils of the desert of the Tower. But who it was on whom the Saint enjoined this charge I cannot declare for certain, as neither who was that brother Bernard to whom Ralph the Green is recorded, in the words of the epistle to him just brought over here, to have done good for our Saint's sake. The ancient Catalogue indeed, which I have still praised above, of the monks who after the Saint's death promised obedience in the desert of the Tower to Lanvinus as Prior, exhibits a certain brother, by name Bernard.

[691] and why it seemed good to mention it here. But I would not dare to assert that he is the same as the brother Bernard who was most lovingly received by Ralph for Bruno's sake, for this reason, that the Bernard mentioned in the said Catalogue, if the matter stood so, would have had to be sent by the Saint from the desert of the Tower to Ralph, and it appears that this was not done, since Bruno, if he had done so, would probably have sent a letter to Ralph by him, and yet, before he gave to him the epistle already transcribed here, he seems from the given words of the epistle to Ralph to have written to him only one other, which he sent by the pilgrim. Further, just as it is obscure who that Bernard was, most kindly received by Ralph for Bruno's sake, so also the year in which the epistle which the Saint sent to Ralph by one of his own was written altogether escapes me. But although this is so, it pleased me to mention it here for this reason, that the epistle which the Saint wrote to his first disciples in the Chartreuse was to be reviewed, and right order seems to require that both the one and the other be treated in one and the same place. And hence also it is that I have determined to treat already above, in the very place where it was fitting that the two epistles of the Saint already mentioned be treated, of all the other lucubrations also which either are truly the Saint's or at least are attributed to him, in continuous series, and shall in fact treat of them in the two following §§.

* Cusentinus

* otherwise, better, hospitabar

* otherwise revoceris

§ XLII. The Saint in actual fact composed the Commentaries on the Psalms and on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle which are circulated under his name; when he did this, and by what method, and what other lucubrations are certainly to be attributed to him.

[Many Works, which are reviewed here, have been published under the name of our Saint.] Two Commentaries, one on the Psalms, the other on all the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, together with some Opuscules or Treatises

and a sufficiently ample collection of Sermons, Josse Badius Ascensius published through the benefit of print at Paris in the year 1524, under the name of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, from a manuscript which he had received from Guillaume Bibauce, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse; and afterwards the same complete Works, with some others also added, and with the single volume in which they had been published by Ascensius divided into three distinct tomes, of which the first contains the Commentary on the Psalms, the second the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, and the third, finally, the Opuscula and Sermons, were reprinted at Cologne in the year 1611 and again in the year 1640, likewise under the name of Bruno the Carthusian. But some of them are works which certainly have our Saint as their author; others, on the contrary, are works over which it is disputed whether they are his. And of the former I now begin to treat in the present §, in which I have resolved to inform the reader what Works, besides the two Letters recited in the preceding §, ought to be attributed to the holy Father of the Carthusians, the treatment of the latter being deferred to the following §. I begin with the Commentary on the Psalms.

[693] The Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 9, Of these, the Commentary on the Psalms truly has him, page 243, having premised that a certain Commentary on the Psalms had been struck out of the Catalogue of the Works composed by him by some persons for no other reason than that they had confused St. Bruno of Segni with St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, add, roughly as to substance, as follows: That this difficulty may be better elucidated, it is important to know that within the space of not yet one entire century, namely from the year 1040 to the year 1123, there flourished three Brunos, all of whom were of celebrated name, and all of whom devoted their labour to explaining or commenting on the Psalms: namely St. Bruno, bishop of Würzburg, who departed this life in the year 1045; St. Bruno, of whom we are here speaking; and St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, taken from among the living in the year 1123. The Work of the first on the Psalter, together with his other lucubrations, was printed as early as the year 1494, and afterwards, separated from these, at Würzburg in the year 1531, and then again at Leipzig in the year 1533; which later edition was conformed to the one immediately preceding it, made by Johannes Cochlaeus. At length it was brought into the Library of the Fathers, and it is extant in the Lyons edition of that work, tome 18. The Commentary of the bishop of Segni was given to the public light by Marchesi, and forms part of the first tome of his Works, in which it is placed between the Commentary on Deuteronomy and the Commentary on the Song of Songs.

[694] who, by arguments, composed a Work of this kind, This, roughly, as I have already said, is what they say as to substance; and thus they chiefly inform the reader which exposition of the Psalms is to be attributed to St. Bruno of Würzburg and which to St. Bruno of Segni, both of whom commented on the Psalms; but before they set out which is to be ascribed to St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, who they admit likewise explained the Psalms, they first bring forward the arguments by which they strive to prove that our Saint did in very truth comment on the Psalms. I am pleased to employ here nearly the same arguments to prove this very point, since I have not been able to find others that would be stronger. Of the few little verses with which the monks of the abbey of Micy near Orléans celebrate the Saint in Title 107 among the Saint's Funeral Titles to be reprinted, the following one holds the first place: A learned Psalmist, most renowned and a sophist. The Regular Canons of the monastery of St. Vincent of Nieul in the Lower province of Poitou, in Funeral Title 173, with which they paid funeral honours to the Saint, have thus: For Bruno had and preserved the true knowledge and prudence of the liberal arts, and also the other cardinal virtues, which he brought to consummation in a good end. For formerly, being the chief teacher of the church of the see of Reims, inasmuch as he was most brilliant in the Psalter and the other sciences, he long stood as the pillar of the whole metropolis. Since, therefore, in one of these two funeral titles our Saint's learning in the Psalms is celebrated, and in the other, as it appears, his renown in explaining or commenting on them, an allusion seems to be made to the exposition or commentary which he composed on them; and hence it appears that one must conclude, with the Writers of the Literary History of France praised above, that the Psalms were truly explained by Bruno in a commentary.

[695] by several Yet, since it may happen that someone perhaps will contend that the aforesaid two Funeral Titles allude not to a Commentary on the Psalms which the Saint committed to writing, but to the explanation of them which he gave by the living voice when he taught letters of the higher order at Reims or elsewhere, I am pleased, with the praised Writers of the Literary History of France, to confirm with still other arguments that a Commentary on the Psalms was in fact composed by Bruno. In the same century in which the Saint died, it was so firmly held as a settled conviction that a Commentary on the Psalms had been composed by him that a copyist, if he had perhaps come upon a similar writing which did not bear the author's name, would mark the copy taken from it, both at the head and at the foot of the dedicatory epistle and in the very title of the Work, with the name of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians. A copy of this kind was preserved in Mabillon's time in the monastery of Souvigny of the Cluniac Order, situated two hours' distance from Moulins in Burgundy; for in it, as this writer himself, who found it there, testifies in tome 2 of his Posthumous Works, page 29, one read: Here begins the Letter of Bruno, provost of the Chartreuse, to Hugh, bishop of Asti. To his lord Hugh, etc. … Here ends the Letter of Bruno, provost of the Chartreuse, etc. Here begins the exposition of the Psalter, excerpted by Bruno, provost of the Chartreuse, from the treatises of the holy Fathers. And Mabillon indeed, in book 70 of the Benedictine Annals, number 29, judged that copy to be an exemplar of the Commentary on the Psalms composed by St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, whose beginning differed from the printed exemplars; but, say the writers of the Literary History of France in the place cited, it is an exemplar neither of the Work composed by that prelate nor of the one composed by the holy Founder of the Carthusian Order. The first words which are read in the text of the Work show that the Commentary was composed by Odo, a monk of Asti, which Marchesi made public at the end of the Works of Bruno of Segni, to whom it is inscribed. The copyist, therefore, of whom we have just now spoken, erred not only in the name of the author to whom that writing is to be attributed, but also in the name of the patron to whom it was dedicated; unless perhaps, as is found to have happened at times elsewhere too, it was inscribed to two different persons, namely to Hugh, bishop of Asti, as is read in the manuscript exemplar, and to Bruno of Segni, as the printed exemplar shows.

[696] Thus, as to substance, the praised Writers of the Literary History of France. it is shown here, Now indeed, since the ancient copyists, if they happened to find some Commentary on the Psalms destitute of an author's name, ascribed to it the name of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, it is not to be doubted that they were certainly of that opinion by which they reckoned that a Work of this kind had been composed by that Saint; which accordingly is a most valid argument that it was in very truth done by the Saint. To this, moreover, is added the fact that by nearly all the writers who survey the more celebrated authors in the field of letters and the books written by them, a Commentary on the Psalms is recorded as having been produced by St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusian Order. But indeed, someone will perhaps say, it may have come about solely through the homonymy of several Brunos that a Commentary on the Psalms, which one of them, different from St. Bruno the Carthusian, had composed, was nevertheless ascribed to this man by the copyists in error. I confess that this could altogether have happened so; but that it did in fact happen so appears to me hardly probable. For if it came about solely through the homonymy of several Brunos, by one of whom a Work of this kind was composed, that some Commentary on the Psalms should be attributed to our Saint, why did it not also happen by the same means that the Commentaries composed both by St. Bruno, bishop of Würzburg, on all the Canticles of the Old and New Testament, and by St. Bruno of Segni on the Books of Moses, on Job, on the Song of Songs and on the Apocalypse, were ascribed to our Bruno? Surely, since this is found to have been done by absolutely no writers, whether older or more recent, and yet, as has already been said, some Commentary on the Psalms is attributed by nearly all of these to Bruno the Carthusian, the opinion which maintains that a Commentary on the Psalms was truly worked out by him is indeed much confirmed even from this; and so one must stand by it, as being, both for this reason and for the other causes already adduced, by far the most probable, or even altogether beyond doubt.

[697] Since, moreover, the matter stands thus, it also does not appear to be doubtful has him as author. that the Commentary on the Psalms written by St. Bruno the Carthusian is the very one which first appeared at Paris in the year 1524 with Josse Badius Ascensius, and afterwards in the year 1611, and again in the year 1640, from the Cologne presses. For this Commentary differs greatly from the Commentary which is attributed to Bruno, bishop of Würzburg; nor, contrary to what was at one time erroneously supposed by some who on that account had wrongly taken from our Saint the honour of having composed a Commentary on the Psalms, is it the same as the Commentary which bears the name of Bruno, bishop of Segni; which again is an argument that a Commentary on the Psalms was worked out by our Saint; so that everything concurs for its being ascribed to him, as the writers of the Literary History of France, from whom nearly all that has so far been adduced here is taken, rightly observe in tome 9, page 245, soon after also setting out there what they think of this Work of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, roughly in the following manner: Whoever has turned its pages with even moderate attention will confess that it is exceedingly difficult to find a writing of this kind which is at once more solid and clear, more concise and free from the fault of obscurity. Had it been better known, it would also have been more used, and not so neglected as it has been up to now: it would have been judged most apt for instilling a right understanding of the Psalms. It shows an author skilled in all the sciences and filled with the spirit of God, such as we have exhibited St. Bruno to be, following those who knew him best. Thus, roughly as to substance, they say; and how far what they here affirm in general concerning the said Work of the Saint accords with the truth is shown by the more particular things which they then add, after some intervening matter, regarding the method observed in it.

[698] An honourable judgment on that lucubration. And these indeed come to nearly this: After the Saint has explained in a brief Preface what is to be understood by the Psalter, and the different senses to be distinguished in the Psalms, namely the literal, the moral and the mystical, he proceeds to the exposition of the text. He observes this method in such a way that, when he assigns the literal sense, he always refers it to the spiritual or mystical sense, the one chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit in the Psalms. Thus Bruno nearly everywhere points to Jesus Christ and His members, that is, to Him and His Church. And indeed this alone is the way that leads to a perfect understanding of the Psalms. Our Saint had turned the pages of the ancient Fathers who had explained these before him, and them at times,

and by name St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, he even cites, yet without transcribing their words; so that what he took from them he made in a certain manner his own, and the whole Work has been drawn from his own store. While he expounds the titles of the individual Psalms, which he does shedding light on many obscure matters, he most manifestly reveals that he was versed in the Hebrew tongue. The same is clear from various passages occurring in the text of the Work, as also that he has recourse to the original or Hebrew text in order to explain better the one which the Vulgate offers. Throughout the whole course of the Commentary he excites admiration for himself, and most of all when he expounds the mysteries of Jesus Christ, and explains some passage of the Psalms by another text of Sacred Scripture. He uses a style that is concise, simple, vigorous, clear, polished, and as properly Latin as the style of any other writer who flourished in the same century as the Saint could have been. We know of no editions of this excellent Commentary other than those which the Works printed under the name of St. Bruno, both at Paris in the year 1524 and at Cologne in the year 1611 and then again in the year 1640, bear at their head, as has already been said above. Meanwhile it were to be wished that the Work might be worn by the hands of all the faithful, and especially of those who are consecrated to the public ministry of divine prayers.

[699] Such is the judgment which the Writers of the Literary History of France pass on our Saint's excellent Commentary on the Psalms; which appears to me indeed most fair, if however you except what it implies about that Work as being wholly drawn from the Saint's own store and yet partly taken from the holy Fathers. [The time at which this was composed is uncertain, nor that at which another Commentary,] It remains now for me to determine at what time Bruno worked it out. Since our Saint appears to have had leisure to devote himself to the study of sacred Scripture most of all while he dwelt in the Grande Chartreuse and afterwards in the hermitage of La Torre in Calabria, it may seem probable that the Commentary of which we are here speaking was composed by him at that time. Yet, since nothing at all prevents him from having been able to do it also while he still held the direction of the schools at Reims and taught the sciences of the higher order, and since nothing occurs in that lucubration of our Saint which concerns the instruction of the anchorites over whom he presided in the solitude rather than that of any other faithful whatever, it appears very doubtful and uncertain whether he produced it when he had already bidden farewell to the world, or before. Nor can it be defined with more certainty at what time the other lucubration was composed, namely the Commentary on all the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, which holds not the lowest place among the Works printed under the Saint's name and fills the whole second tome of the Cologne edition of them, as will become plain from what I shall say when I have shown that that Work is truly to be attributed to Bruno the Carthusian.

[700] The homonymy of several Brunos, which, as appears from what was said above, at one time caused the Commentary on the Psalms to be denied to our Saint, which is shown likewise to be truly attributable to the Saint, although he had produced it, can by no reasoning whatever have place here. For there is no writer bearing the name of Bruno who flourished in the same century as he, or at least in the same age, and composed a Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle. Wherefore, if it can be proved by an argument sufficiently solid, sought from any quarter, that St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, commented on these Epistles, absolutely all the copies of the Work which are marked with the Saint's name lend their support to the opinion of those who ascribe it to him; and in very truth a sufficiently solid argument, which shows that our Saint commented on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, is drawn from his Commentary on the Psalms, since, from what has been said, that one was certainly composed by him. For the same style, and the same method which the Saint followed in commenting on the Psalms, is found also in the Commentary in which he expounded the Epistles of St. Paul. The words "that is," which he not seldom employs in explaining the Psalms so as to render a preceding expression of the author clearer or better explained by another expression or phrase, also frequently recur in the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle. Moreover, what removes all room for doubting that this last Work is truly St. Bruno's is a closing formula found by Mabillon in an ancient copy of this Commentary and conceived in these words: Here ends the Glossary of Bruno the hermit on the Epistles of Blessed Paul the Apostle.

[701] And so we now have it that the Commentary on all the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, was written, appears less uncertain. published under the Saint's name, is deservedly attributed to him; let us now speak, then, of the time at which it happened to be composed by Bruno. There are indeed those who think it more probable that the Saint composed that Work when he was already dwelling in the solitude, whether of the Chartreuse or of La Torre: and indeed, since at that time, free from every other care, he could easily have given himself to the writing of books, there seems to be reason why you might not undeservedly judge that he did it then; yet, since Bruno, while he still dwelt at Reims, not yet having left the world, assiduously cultivated his mind with studies, and could easily have composed that Work in the meantime, there is also no reason why he should be believed certainly not to have done it then. Wherefore it seems most especially open to doubt whether he accomplished it then or when he had already withdrawn into solitude; and since nothing occurs, not only not in that Work itself but nowhere else either, whereby this may cease to be doubtful, the time at which the Saint wrote the Commentary just mentioned appears certainly no less uncertain than that at which he produced the Commentary on the Psalms; and so, leaving this undecided, I set out what is to be said of the method which our Saint followed in producing that Work. He first transcribes the entire text of each chapter, and then expounds the individual sentences in order, clearly and succinctly, studying solely to make manifest to the reader all the heads contained in them, whether of ethics or of faith and dogma. He sometimes explains the words of the sentences according to the laws of Grammar; sometimes also he sets out what meaning belongs to them in other words in Greek and Hebrew, which is an argument that he was versed in both these languages. This too is, roughly as to substance, everything which the praised Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 9, page 247, supply concerning the method which our Saint held in his Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, adding also some remarks on the Saint's doctrine regarding the grace of God and the free will of man under it.

[702] Other Works to be ascribed to the Saint. But since these matters do not concern the method observed by the Saint in the Work of which we are here speaking, and would lead us further than is fitting from our purpose, which requires only that we examine what Works are attributed to the Saint, and at what time and in what manner those which are truly his were written, I pass over them, and am now pleased to bring forward some remarks about the Paraenetic Epigram on striving after heavenly things and the excellent confession of faith, which still remain to be mentioned here among the writings to be attributed to our Saint without doubt. And first, indeed, that that Paraenetic Epigram, or, as it is called by others, the Elegy on contempt of the world, is certainly Bruno's is clear if only from the fact that it is attributed to no other author either by more recent or by older writers; but of what worth it is I leave to each person to judge, both from inspection of the Opusculum, which I have already recited in full at number 56, and from its frequently repeated insertions into various Works, which it is not worth the effort to review here. As now regards the excellent confession of faith, which is also certainly the Saint's, the holy Man uttered it when he felt himself near to death, and inserted into it by name what concerns the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the divine Word, adding also at the end, most probably in order to show, according to the custom then in use (see number 69), how greatly he detested the heresy of Berengar: I believe also the Sacraments which the holy Church believes and venerates, and by name that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the consecration the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, true flesh and true Blood, which we also receive for the remission of our sins and in the hope of eternal salvation. His biographers had brought only some fragments of this writing into the Lives of the Saint composed by them; but the Surian annotator made it public entire in his Annotations on the Life of the Saint composed by Surius, page 253 and following, and afterwards Mabillon too, in the fourth tome of the Analecta, page 400 and following. We likewise shall insert it entire into this Commentary when we treat of the time at which the Saint died; now we must deal with the Works which are attributed to the Saint and yet are not certainly his.

§ XLIII. Whether the Works different from those already mentioned, which have been published under the Saint's name, truly have him as their author.

Titles of the Opuscula over which it is disputed whether they are the Saint's, The lucubrations which have been published under the Saint's name, and yet over which it is disputed whether they truly have him as author, are divided into Opuscula or particular Treatises, and into Sermons or Homilies. So that what is to be said in the course of the discussion may be set before the studious reader more clearly, I premise some sort of notice of each of those lucubrations before I inquire whether they truly have our Saint as author, transferring here at least the titles with which each is furnished in tome 3 of the Works published under Bruno's name at Cologne in the year 1611 and again in the year 1640. And first, indeed, the titles with which the Opuscula and their chapters are marked are these following: The Book on the Praises of the Church, eight chapters, namely I On Paradise, II On Noah's ark, III On the tabernacle of the covenant, IV On the temple of Solomon, V On the woman by whom the Church is signified, VI On the holy city Jerusalem, VII On the basilicas which are ordained by bishops, VIII On the Gospel readings. The Book on the ornaments of the Church, containing twelve chapters, I On faith, II On hope, III On charity, IV On the four cardinal virtues, V On humility, VI On mercy, VII On peace, VIII On patience, IX On chastity, X On obedience, XI On abstinence, XII In what virtues the Church is adorned. The Book On new things, containing ten chapters, namely I On the new world, II On the new heavens, III On the new clouds, IV On the new mountains, V On the new trees, VI On the new animals, VII On the new powers, VIII On the new sea and the new fishermen, IX On the new birds, X On the new rivers.

[704] And these indeed are the titles of the Opuscula, to the last chapter of the first of which a sermon On the dedication of a church is also added; [as also the titles of the Sermons, over which it is likewise disputed whether they are the Saint's, are reviewed.] but those of the Sermons or Homilies which the book entitled On the festivals of festivals comprises are the following: Three sermons On the Most Holy Trinity. On the Nativity

of the Lord, one sermon. On the octave of the Epiphany, one sermon. On Palm Sunday, two sermons. On the Lord's Supper, one sermon. On the day of the Preparation, two sermons. On the holy day of Easter, one sermon. On the Lord's Ascension, two sermons. On the holy day of Pentecost, two sermons. Five sermons on the blessed Virgin: I On the praise of Blessed Mary, the City of God; II On her Nativity; III On the Purification; IV On the Annunciation; V On the Assumption. Five sermons: I On the Martyrs; II On Christ the vine, and His vineyard; III On the Martyrs; IV On good and bad brethren dwelling together, or martyrs slain together; V On praising God with musical instruments, by which the torments of the martyrs and the afflictions and confessions of the confessors are designated. To these Sermons or Homilies, which the Works published under the Saint's name, which I have already mentioned above, comprise, are subjoined eleven Sermons on the Holy Confessors and three others. And of these latter indeed the first is entitled On Virgins, the II On St. Michael the archangel, the III On contempt of riches; but of the other eleven, which precede these, the first is On salt and light from the words of the Lord, and on the city set on a mountain, on the Apostles and the other doctors and confessors; II On the lamp set upon the lampstand, applied to Solomon, to Christ and to blessed Benedict, on whose feast it was delivered, and applicable to any confessor; III On various eyes and on bishops; IV On the wells of Abraham, that is, of Sacred Scripture, which the Apostles and Catholic doctors open; V On the girded loins and burning lamps of the Confessors; VI On the talents entrusted by the Lord to each one, but chiefly to bishops and other prelates, for making profit in them; VII On the Confessors, who must keep watch; VIII On continence and a clean heart, and on the office of Pontiffs signified by the Rationale; IX On any Saint who, having left all things, followed God, also on a Virgin; X On the holy Apostles, Evangelists and Doctors; XI On holy doctors and preachers.

[705] Marchesi claimed all those lucubrations for Bruno of Segni. And these are all the Opuscula or treatises, and likewise the homilies or sermons, which make up the third tome of the Works of our Saint printed under his name at Cologne, under the care of Theodorus Petreius, in the year 1611, and again after his death in the year 1640. But the Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 9, page 242, having reviewed in general all the Opuscula or treatises and sermons which are attributed to Bruno the Carthusian both in this edition of his Works and in the other, mentioned above, prepared in the year 1524 by Josse Badius, or, as he is also called from his native place, Ascensius, add: But from that great number of writings printed under the name of St. Bruno in those two editions there must be struck out, on the one hand, all the Opuscula or particular treatises, and on the other, all the sermons or homilies. Neither the one nor the other, however much they are adorned with his name, belong to him, and it happened only through an error, born from that very name, that they were ascribed to him. They are so many offspring of the pen of St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, who departed this life in the year 1123 and was accordingly a contemporary of the Founder of the Carthusians. There can be no doubt on this matter, since we see them attributed to him by Peter the Deacon, librarian of Monte Cassino, who wrote before the middle of the same (twelfth) century, in two of his Works, namely the Opusculum on the illustrious men of Monte Cassino and the Chronicle of the monastery of Monte Cassino, where he enumerates them one by one. And indeed Mauro Marchesi, dean of Monte Cassino, took care to claim them and restore them to their true author, under whose name he had them printed at Venice, divided into two tomes, which make up only one volume of fair bulk. The edition is of the year 1651, and conformed to several ancient manuscripts, which comprise other Works of the same prelate, among which are some that had escaped the diligence of Peter the Deacon.

[706] Some of them are perhaps wrongly noted by the ancients under his name, Thus far they; but since among the Works which Mauro Marchesi published at Venice in the year 1651 under the name of St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, there are also, as they themselves here admit, some which do not occur in the list supplied by Peter the Deacon of the Works composed by this holy prelate of the Benedictine Order, why did they give their assent, as they do in the words recited, to Marchesi when he contends that these too are St. Bruno of Segni's? Was it because they had been found by Marchesi in ancient manuscripts comprising other Works which certainly belong to the prelate of Segni? That they held this opinion for this reason certainly appears from the last period of the words transferred here. But since it could happen from the name of Bruno, which the holy Founder of the Carthusians has in common with the holy bishop of Segni of the Benedictine Order, indeed since it actually did happen, as the praised Writers of the Literary History of France hold in the words recited, that Works which are expressly attributed by Peter the Deacon to St. Bruno of Segni were ascribed by copyists to St. Bruno the Carthusian, why could it not also have happened from the same cause that some Opuscula or Works, not expressly mentioned in the Catalogue supplied by Peter the Deacon of the Works which Bruno of Segni composed, were ascribed to him in error by the copyists who were the authors of the ancient manuscripts in which they were found by Marchesi, although meanwhile they were not his but St. Bruno's, the Founder of the Carthusians? They say indeed that in these ancient manuscripts from which they were brought out by Marchesi, they were joined to other Works which it is altogether certain and indubitable are Bruno of Segni's. But what then? The ancient manuscript codex from which Josse Ascensius published the Works of St. Bruno the Carthusian in the year 1524, and another, which was then preserved at the Grande Chartreuse, had, joined to the Commentaries written on the Psalms and on all the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, which are certainly our Saint's, other Opuscula as well, as the praised Josse Ascensius attests in the dedicatory Epistle prefixed to them, which he published here together with those Commentaries, and which nevertheless are not all St. Bruno the Carthusian's, as I shall presently show, partly agreeing with the aforesaid writers, who attribute none of these to him.

[707] And I indeed think that their having been brought into the said manuscript codices, or into one of them, some, on the contrary, most probably to him from which the other was afterwards transcribed, came about from the ignorance or hasty judgment of a copyist who, having taken it upon himself to copy out all the Works of our Saint, and having by chance come upon Opuscula which bore simply the name of Bruno, with no title added to this name, judged them, with either no examination at all or a very slight one, to be our Bruno's, and for that reason added them to the other genuine Works of his already copied out by him. But since the matter stands thus, why could it not also have happened in a similar way that into the ancient manuscript codices which guided Marchesi, or at least into one of them from which the rest were afterwards copied, some Opuscula were brought which are not St. Bruno's, bishop of Segni? Of the Opuscula and Homilies, therefore, which came to light under our Saint's name at Paris and afterwards at Cologne, and which meanwhile are attributed by Marchesi, and by the writers of the Literary History of France following him, to St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, those seem truly to be attributed to the latter which, by reason both of the rather uncommon title they bear and of the subject they treat, agree with the Works which Peter the Deacon, in the Opusculum On the illustrious men of Monte Cassino, chapter 34, or elsewhere, expressly testifies were composed by Bruno, bishop of Segni. This opinion is settled for this reason: that, although this writer is found at times to have strayed from the truth, and does not seem comparable in gravity and authority with Leo Marsicanus, who began the Cassinese Chronicle which Peter afterwards continued, yet he is not to be thought to have ascribed to Bruno of Segni Works which were not this holy prelate's, since not long after the latter had passed to the Lord he acted as librarian in the monastery of Monte Cassino, as Giovanni Battista Mari, who first made his Opusculum On illustrious men public, teaches in his Preface to it in Muratori, tome VI of the Writers of Italian Affairs, and other bibliographers here and there; and it is accordingly credible that he had at hand the Works which he asserts, in the place cited, were written by that holy prelate, who himself also had for some time been a monk and even abbot in the monastery of Monte Cassino.

[708] are to be attributed, and these are reviewed here: but of the Sermons, Hence, since Peter the Deacon, having premised in the chapter cited that an Exposition on the Psalter, on Genesis, on Exodus, on Leviticus, on Numbers, on Deuteronomy, on the Song of Songs and on Judges was written by Bruno of Segni, soon adds: He also made these sermons: On the praises of the Church at the dedication of a temple, On Paradise, On Noah's ark, On the tabernacle of the covenant, On the temple of Solomon, and on the woman by whom the Church is signified. On the holy city Jerusalem; on the basilicas which are dedicated by bishops. Likewise on the Gospels; on the ornaments of the Church, On faith, On hope, On charity, On the four virtues, On humility, On mercy, On peace, On patience, On chastity, On obedience, On abstinence: Wherein the Church is adorned, On the new world, On the new heavens, On the new clouds, On the new mountains, on the new trees, On the new powers, On the new sea and fishermen, On the new birds, On the new rivers, On the new animals, it appears most probable, from the unusualness or novelty of the titles expressing the subject they treat, occurring also here in Peter the Deacon, that the three books or treatises mentioned at number 703 and ascribed to our Saint in the aforesaid editions of his Works, of which the first, divided into eight chapters, is entitled On the praises of the Church, the second, comprising twelve chapters, On the ornaments of the Church, and the third, finally, divided into ten chapters, On new things, were in fact composed by St. Bruno, bishop of Segni. But as regards the book entitled On the festivals of festivals, since this, as it has been published whether under our Saint's name or under Bruno of Segni's, comprises not a few sermons which it is not certainly established, either from a singular or uncommon title which might also occur in Peter the Deacon in the place just cited, or from elsewhere, to belong to that holy prelate, it is doubtful whether they are to be attributed to him or to our Saint; since, besides the fact that it is not established, as has already been said, either from Peter the Deacon or from elsewhere, that they belong to the former of these two Saints, it could happen that into the manuscript codices in which they were found by Mauro Marchesi together with Works certainly having Bruno of Segni as author, they were brought in for the reason set out above, although they were not truly this holy prelate's.

[709] which are not distinguished by the singular titles they bear, But indeed, you will say, Peter, in the Supplement to the Cassinese Chronicle, book 4, chapter 31, writes thus of Bruno of Segni: But this same man is not to be believed to have lived here idly, who expounded for us such and so great books of the Scriptures, of which we take care to set forth the sum, namely of those which have come into our hands: on the Psalter, on Genesis, on Exodus, on Leviticus, on Numbers, on Deuteronomy, on Isaiah, on the Song of Songs, on Judges, on the Apocalypse. And on the festivals of the whole year and on the Lord's days he composed sixty-nine sermons, and one hundred and fifty-five Homilies. Since in these words Peter the Deacon attributes more sermons and homilies to St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, than he reviews in chapter 34 On illustrious men, and at the same time intimates that he did not have at hand all the Works composed by this holy prelate, it can easily happen that the sermons published under the name of the holy Patriarch in the editions of the Works of St. Bruno the Carthusian mentioned above, although they are not found in Peter the Deacon's list of the Homilies and sermons of St. Bruno of Segni furnished with little-used or unusual titles, were nevertheless truly composed by the latter. I confess it is so; but since it is not certain from Peter the Deacon, as has already been said, that the said homilies and sermons have Bruno of Segni as author, and since, from what has already been said above, the same were found both in ancient manuscript codices which comprised the Works that are certainly St. Bruno the Carthusian's and in ancient manuscript codices likewise which contained the lucubrations that no one denies to Bruno of Segni, it still remains doubtful whether they are to be attributed to this holy prelate of the Benedictine Order or rather to St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians.

[710] Nor is there reason for you to reply that it is at least established from Peter the Deacon that our Saint, who himself also composed many lucubrations of this kind, that many sermons were composed by Bruno of Segni, and that those of which we are here discoursing are accordingly to be ascribed to him rather than to Bruno the Carthusian: for just as it is not to be doubted that Bruno of Segni composed many, indeed very many, sermons, so neither can it be called into doubt that our Bruno did so. So I think it must be gathered both from the Saint's Epitaph and from the Funeral Title, number 166 among those to be reprinted; for in the former of these two ancient monuments, which was inscribed on Bruno's tomb, this holy Founder of the Carthusians is introduced speaking thus:

First founder in this desert of Christ's fold Was I found worthy to be, who am covered by this stone. Bruno is my name; my mother, Germany; and me The welcome quiet of the desert brought across to the Calabrians. I was a doctor, a herald of Christ, etc.

But in the latter, with which the church of St. Maurice of Angers paid funeral honours to our Saint, the following little verse is read concerning St. Bruno, together with many others: He made many sermons throughout the regions. Since, therefore, our Saint, as is manifest from the testimonies already recited which the aforesaid two ancient monuments supply, acted as a herald of Christ, it is not to be doubted that he also composed the sermons which he spoke to the people. And since this is so, there is surely no reason why, on account of the multitude of sermons composed by St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, we should attribute to him rather than to our Bruno the sermons published under the latter's name which are not distinguished by unusual or uncommon titles expressing the subject they treat.

[711] It can indeed be replied that the sermons which the Saint delivered to the people some perhaps have as author. were undoubtedly written not in the Latin tongue but in the vulgar idiom, and that accordingly it cannot be argued from the multitude of those which he composed that the Latin-written sermons of which we are here disputing should be attributed to him; but from the fact that Bruno produced many sermons in the vulgar idiom, it appears credible that he also composed in Latin many which he spoke to his own, whether to his disciples in the sciences of the higher Order at Reims or to the monks in the hermitages of the Chartreuse and of Calabria. Wherefore it is not altogether unlike the truth that he is in fact the author of at least some of those which have come out under his name and are not expressly attributed by Peter the Deacon to Bruno of Segni; although meanwhile I would not dare to assert this of all of them, and by name of the one which holds the second place among the eleven sermons On confessors attributed to him, because, as Marchesi rightly notes in his historical Dissertation on St. Bruno of Segni and his Works, prefixed to them, it contains at its end things which seem to have been able to be said only by a monk professing the Benedictine Rule. The first Carthusians indeed, from the very times of St. Bruno, called St. Benedict their Father, and they celebrate his feast with solemn rite even today; so that accordingly, even if the author in that sermon also honoured St. Benedict with the name of Father, which however he does not do, it would not yet follow that on that account it must certainly be denied to Bruno, founder of the Carthusians; but at its end he moreover speaks out such things both about St. Benedict and about the Benedictine houses as I do not know whether all who have attentively turned the pages of the sermon here in question would readily admit to fit a man who had not professed the Rule of St. Benedict.

[712] When he produced them, However that may be, I bring myself to believe, from what I have already brought forward before, that some at least of the sermons which are attributed to our Saint in the editions of his Works praised above perhaps in very truth belong to him, although meanwhile the manner of style in them does not seem to be plainly the same as in the Saint's other Works; for what wonder is it that a somewhat different manner of style should at times be employed by one and the same writer in different kinds of writing? But when did the Saint compose those sermons? Since the exhortations which they comprise for the most part suit monks, they were more probably composed by him when he was already dwelling in the hermitage, whether of the Chartreuse or of La Torre, and delivered to those who had given themselves to his discipline there. Nor, however, should you think on that account that it is not probable that our Saint, when he still dwelt at Reims, ever addressed words to the people, contrary to what we taught at number 95; for although he most probably did not then deliver the Latin sermons of which we are here speaking, he could have delivered others, composed in the vulgar idiom, which have now perished or were never even committed to writing. Think the same also of sermons, if perhaps the Saint ever delivered any to the people when, having left the world, he had already withdrawn into solitude; which it appears not unlike the truth to have actually happened. For why could it not have happened that our Saint, although he had already embraced the way of life of hermits, whose part it is not to address words to the people, at times delivered sermons to the people, either on the journeys which, from what has been said, he made, or in churches neighbouring the hermitage, whether of La Torre or of the Chartreuse, which he inhabited, summoned to them by bishops who wished to benefit the flock committed to them through the pious and fervent admonitions of a Man whose rare holiness of life they had thoroughly observed? He made many sermons (these are the words of the Funeral Title just praised, with which funeral honours were paid to the Saint) throughout the regions.

[713] But let it suffice to have discoursed thus far concerning the sermons which the Saint composed and spoke to the people or to his disciples. There are, further, two other Works still which are attributed to our Saint besides those already reviewed above. [and what is to be thought of two other Opuscula which are still found attributed to him.] The first of these is one which Possevino mentions in the Apparatus sacer, adding to his list of all the Works which the Saint either truly composed or which he knew were believed by some to have been composed by him: And there is extant in manuscript a book On the praises of the solitary life, written by the same Bruno, with Paolo Ruggieri, Carthusian of the Charterhouse of Venice. Hence Theodorus Petreius, when he was about to see to the reprinting of all the Works of St. Bruno at Cologne, desiring to have that book so that it might be printed together with them, having enumerated in the Carthusian Library which he produced, page 33, all the Works he thought were Bruno's, added: To which (namely the Works composed by Bruno) Possevino adds a book On the praises of the solitary life, which he says is preserved in manuscript in the Charterhouse of Venice with Paolo Ruggieri, a Religious of our family; would that it were permitted to obtain it, so that it might be committed to the press together with the other Works of Divine Bruno, which are now presently to be revised and reprinted by us by the will of our superiors. The Surian annotator also mentions, from Possevino, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 251, the book On the praises of the solitary life which is preserved with Paolo Ruggieri, a son of the Charterhouse of Venice. But since Petreius committed to writing what I have already said in the Library of the Writers of the Carthusian Order which he composed and published in print in the year 1609, and yet the praised book On the praises of the solitary life, as written by Bruno, has not up to now, so far as I know, been brought to light, I very much doubt whether it did not happen by error that Possevino judged that book to be extant in manuscript with Paolo Ruggieri, a son of the Charterhouse of Venice.

[714] What if there existed with Paolo Ruggieri some book Opuscula is to be thought. comprising several Opuscula attributed to St. Bruno the Carthusian, and the title Book on the praises of the solitary life was inscribed on it because it also contained the Letter written by the Saint to Ralph the Green, in which some things are mentioned in praise of the solitary life? And this concerning the first of the two Works which are not in the editions of the Works attributed to the Saint and yet, as I have already advised, are ascribed to him by some; as now regards the second of these, it is the prayer to Jesus crucified beginning with these words, Before Thine eyes, O Lord, we bear our faults etc., which Meleagro Pentimalli prefixed to the brief Life of St. Bruno written by him and published from the Roman presses in the year 1622, and attributed to this holy Founder of the Carthusians. But, says Zanotti, already praised above several times, roughly as to substance in his History or Life of St. Bruno, Pentimalli errs greatly here, since that prayer, as Antonio Maggi, an Augustinian of Bologna, gives it as proved in a Work which he published in print in the year 1700, was composed by St. Augustine when the city of Hippo, of which he was bishop, was besieged on all sides by the Vandals, in order that by it he might both encourage the flock committed to him to implore divine help and, kneeling before the Crucifix, bitterly bewail his own sins. I find nothing else to be said about the Works which either are the Saint's or are attributed to him, and I therefore now hasten to other matters which concern him.

§ XLIV. The Saint again experiences the goodwill of Count Roger towards himself, when the latter was already lying in his fatal illness, and then not long afterwards follows him when he had departed this life, having had confirmed to him beforehand by Paschal

the Pope all the donations and privileges which he had received either from Count Roger or from others.

Count Roger, near to death, and out of singular love for Bruno, All the soldiers who at the siege of Capua had wished to betray Count Roger, their lord, to the Capuans, and who had been captured when they were just about to put the plan of treason into execution, this prince had, from what has already been said, handed over to our Saint into perpetual servitude in the year 1099, by the charter which I recited nearly in full in §39; but since in this the names of each of those soldiers, and of their sons, whom the prince had likewise then given at the same time into perpetual servitude to the Saint and to the hermitage of La Torre, were not expressed, Lanvinus, Prior of the monastery of St. Stephen, for the greater firmness of the donation, requested from Count Roger, as he lay at Mileto in the illness of which he died, another charter in which these would be expressed one by one; and the prince, assenting to his request, his singular love for St. Bruno, as it does not appear to be doubted, impelling him not a little to it, granted a charter such as he desired. It is extant, but, as I think, mutilated at the beginning, in the Surian annotator's Annotations on the Life of the Saint written by Surius, page 234 and following.

[716] [grants to the hermitage of La Torre a new charter, in which those whom he had before given it into servitude] It is conceived in these words: These are the names and lines of the one hundred and twelve serfs and villeins who were found with Sergius the traitor at the siege of the city of Capua on the Kalends of March, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-eight, the sixth Indiction, whom I, Roger, by the will of God count of Calabria and Sicily, for the miracle which God deigned to show me visibly through the prayers of Blessed Bruno for the safety of the Christian faithful who were with me, and for my own, have given to the same Father Bruno and his successors, not only themselves but also the sons of their sons for ever, as perpetual serfs and villeins, with all their goods movable and immovable, had and to be had, situated in any place whatsoever, of whatever craft or business they may be, or seafaring; whom, as traitors, I had condemned by sentence to be put to death by various kinds of punishments; but at the petition of the said Father Bruno I then spared them a ruinous death; and I bound them to perpetual servitudes and villeinages to the churches of Blessed Mary of the hermitage and of Blessed Stephen the Protomartyr, and thereupon I had a chirograph made at Squillace together with the donation which I made of the monastery of St. James of Montauro and of its holding. But their names and lines are not contained in that same chirograph. At the petition, however, of Brother Lanvinus, Prior of the church of St. Stephen, I have ordered these names and lines of the said serfs and villeins also to be set down in this privilege for everlasting memory.

[717] Roger now reviews the names of the families which he gave into perpetual servitude to St. Bruno and his successors, expressed by name. which whoever wishes will find in the place cited in the Surian annotator, who first indeed observes thus on some of them which he transcribes: The names of these families persist at present for the great part, and they live in the villages subject to the monastery (namely La Torre in Calabria, or St. Stephen del Bosco) in both jurisdictions, which are Serra, Spatola, Bivongi, Gasperina and Montauro, and in Montepaone, subject in temporal matters only, where Olivianum or Arunchum is thought to have been, and in other surrounding villages and towns. Some have changed their vowels or a few syllables. Then, however, having given the names of the remaining families which Roger gave into servitude to the Saint, he appends the end or closing clause of the charter, or privilege, of which I have already given the beginning; and it runs thus: These are the one hundred and twelve lines of serfs and villeins whom I have given to Father Bruno and his successors with all their goods, wherever they may be, in perpetuity, and wherever they may dwell; and they were almost all from the holding of Squillace and of Soverato. This privilege was written on the fourth of the month of June in the chapel of St. Martin, which is situated in the middle of the city of Mileto, my Lord the count being ill, by the hands of me, Fulco, chaplain of the said lord count, and read aloud in the chamber where the same my lord count lay ill, in the presence of my lady Adelaide the countess and with the consent of Malgerius, son of the lord count, there being present Peter of Mortain, Robert of Layna, Toraldus Carbonellus, Raynaldus of Climpcam, Ubertus of Selona, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ one thousand one hundred and one, the ninth Indiction. Amen. ✠ Count Roger. Adelaide the countess. Peter of Mortain. Malgerius, son of Count Roger. Robert of Layna. Thoraldus Carbonellus. Raynaldus of Climpcam. Ubertus of Solona. I, Fulco, chaplain of the lord Count Roger, wrote this privilege at his command and subscribed myself.

[718] Mörkens, who introduced part of this instrument into the chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno which he compiled in manuscript, The Surian annotator rightly observes certain things on it. observes, from letters which he had received from Italy, that is, if I am not mistaken, from the Charterhouse of La Torre, that a leaden seal hangs from the autograph on a cord; and he agrees nearly exactly with the Surian annotator both in the closing clause of the said instrument, which he gives in full, and in the persons who subscribed that instrument. Nor does he leave unobserved that the names of those who subscribed the charters which he gave are not everywhere written in one and the same way; for the man who, for example, in one charter is called Ubertus of Solma, in another is called Ubertus of Solona or of Selona; but he adds, what I too must say here, that since he does not have the autographs of those instruments at hand, he cannot determine whether those names are to be written in this way or in that. And these indeed are Mörkens' remarks on that instrument; but since it may be that someone perhaps hesitates in doubt whether Roger, who handed over to Bruno into servitude those guilty of the treason at Capua, and the Saint, who permitted them to be subjected to himself in this way, did not sin against Christian gentleness, the Surian annotator, in his Annotations on the Life of the Saint composed by Surius, page 247 and following, rightly shows, from a custom received for just causes in Bruno's age, that he was free of all fault. Further, if this author is to be believed, Count Roger granted in the year 1101 not only the charter or privilege of which we are treating in favour of St. Bruno and the hermitage of La Torre, but also two others besides.

[719] [But he is more probably mistaken when he writes that other charters were still given to Bruno in the year 1101 by Count Roger.] For after he has recorded at the said year 1101, in the Chronotaxis which he added to his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno, in the words given above, the grant made of the charter in which Count Roger reviewed, with the names of each expressed, those guilty of the treason at Capua given by him to St. Bruno into servitude, he presently adds at the same year: Likewise, under another charter, the aforesaid Count Roger gave to the church of Blessed Mary of the hermitage and to master Bruno the hamlet of Arunchium with all its appurtenances, and all the villeins. Moreover he granted to the same church of Blessed Mary and to his aforesaid brethren the mill below Squillace, situated at the spring of Alexi. The aforesaid count confirmed this donation again in his great and fatal illness in the presence of Robert, bishop-elect of the Miletans, and John, bishop of Squillace. From what the Surian annotator here relates, Camillo Tutini does not altogether differ in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, writing thus at the year 1102: Count Roger gives to the monastery of St. Mary of the hermitage, and also to Bruno and Lanvinus, monks, and to their successors in perpetuity, three castles, Aruncum, Mons Aureus and Olivianum, and their inhabitants, and moreover a mill in the city of Squillace. But, besides the fact that Tutini records these things at the year 1102, by which time, from what is to be said, Count Roger had already died, doubtless wrongly, I do not sufficiently grasp how it can be true either that three castles, namely Aruncum, Mons Aureus or Montauro, and Olivianum, together with the mill of Squillace, as Tutini here writes, or even only Aruncium and the aforesaid mill, as the Surian annotator says, were first granted to our Saint by Count Roger after the year 1099, as both these writers relate; for, as the charter recited at number 637 and following attests, that mill and two of the three said castles, namely Montauro and Olivanum or Olivianum, were conferred by this prince on St. Bruno and the hermitage of La Torre as early as the year 1099, and the third, which some call Aruncum or Arunchum and others Aruncium, as early even as the year 1094, as is clear from the charter transcribed here at number 582 and the two following. I believe, therefore, either that the two praised writers mean only that the donations of those castles, or (see number 717) villages, previously made to our Saint by Count Roger were confirmed after the year 1099, once and again, by new charters given, or, which I would think more probable, that not only Tutini, as everyone will readily admit, since from what has already been said he certainly errs in the very year in which the thing was done, but also the Surian annotator is mistaken.

[720] he is mistaken. And indeed I bring myself without great difficulty to believe this also as regards the latter writer, because in the part of the charter just mentioned, given, from what has been said, in the year 1099, which he himself recites on page 223 and following of his Work, the donation made to St. Bruno by Count Roger both of Aruncium and of the mill of Squillace occurs. Nor is there reason for you to reply here on the Surian annotator's behalf that Count Roger, in the charter of the year 1101 in which he reviews the donations made by him to the Saint in the year 1099, makes mention only of the guilty men whom he handed over into servitude to the Saint by the charter of the year 1099, and of the monastery of St. James of Montauro, which he likewise bestowed on St. Bruno by the charter of the year 1099; and that accordingly it is not the Surian annotator, who writes that Arunchum and the mill below Squillace were given to St. Bruno by Count Roger in the year 1101, who is mistaken, but that the charter of the year 1099, transferred here at number 637 and following, by which the count gave the Saint both these and many other things, partly mentioned in the words of Tutini just recited, is corrupt; for the count did not first bestow Arunchum or Aruncum on St. Bruno by the charter of the year 1099, but ordered boundaries or limits (see number 641) to be set to it, having already bestowed it earlier (see number 583) by the charter of the year 1094; as regards the mill below Squillace, however, Count Roger did indeed first bestow this on the Saint, together with Olivianum or Olivanum and some other things, by the charter of the year 1099; but besides the fact that not a few of these things pertained to the monastery of St. James of Montauro, and thus Roger, in making mention of this in the said charter of the year 1101, likewise makes mention of them, it could

happen that this prince wished to commemorate in the aforesaid charter of the year 1101 not all the donations which he had conferred on St. Bruno in the year 1099, but only the chief ones; so that accordingly it does not follow that those which he does not review in it were not made in the said year 1099. Now indeed, since these things are so, not only Tutini but also the Surian annotator was mistaken when he writes that Arunchum and the mill of Squillace were given to our Saint by Count Roger in the year 1101.

[721] And I suspect this happened because, How it could have happened that he fell into this error. having read somewhere that Count Roger in the year 1101 confirmed the donations of Arunchum, of the mill of Squillace, and of many other things which he had previously made to the Saint, he took this confirmation for the first donation as regards Arunchum and the mill of Squillace, being led into this erroneous opinion partly because he did not have at hand the charter given at number 582 and the two following, and did not turn his mind to the charter of the year 1099 recited by himself, and partly because he had at hand only the part, brought here above, of the charter by which Count Roger in the year 1101 confirmed all the donations previously made by him to St. Bruno, in which no mention is made either of Arunchum or of the mill of Squillace. But lest anyone think that I wrongly hold what has been transcribed here above from Count Roger's charter of the year 1101 to be only a part of it, Mörkens, in his Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, at the year 1101, writes thus: Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, in his fatal illness confirms the donations, immunities and privileges hitherto granted to St. Bruno and to the brethren of the Calabrian hermitage, by a charter given at Mileto on 4 June, in which he also expresses each of those guilty of the treason at Capua by his own name. Thus Mörkens, who, as he himself says, had in his hands the entire charter of Count Roger last transcribed here; and since the charter which he mentions in the words recited was given, as he says, on the fourth of June, he is surely not speaking of another charter than that in which Count Roger is related by the Surian annotator to have expressed the names of each of those whom he handed over into servitude to the Saint; and since this is so, it follows that in it Roger not only reviewed those names but also confirmed all the donations previously made to St. Bruno, and that accordingly, since that charter, as it stands in the Surian annotator, does not comprise that confirmation, it can be held not as the entire instrument but only as a part of it.

[722] Count Roger closes his last day, The Surian annotator, further, after bringing this forward, adds, with only a few things interposed which need not be mentioned here: Moreover in this very month of June in which, namely, the charter last mentioned is noted as having been given (on the 21st day, as is read in the death-roll of that Charterhouse, namely the Calabrian one of St. Stephen, or the 22nd, as in the Cassinese one), Count Roger died in the year 1101, as the Chronicle of Lupus Protospatarius has it, who was living at this time in Apulia, although he wrongly has July for June, perhaps by fault of the scribe. Happy the prince if only on this account, that after this most liberal donation, as though about to receive his reward in the other world, he passed at once to God, honoured with the most beautiful fruits of mercy; whom, after the space of only three months had elapsed, St. Bruno followed, drawn out of the whirlwinds of this world in the same year as Roger, glad at death now very near and secure of the approaching summons, after he had seen go before him the one man for whose salvation he was still compelled to be anxious. Whom he also seemed to have wished to follow the more swiftly and hastily, so that he might intercede with greater confidence before God the supreme judge for the absolution of his soul, if perhaps it was still held liable to the places of purgation, having first offered the sacrifices of the body and blood of Him who had once been redeemed by His Mother with five shekels. Thus he; and rightly indeed, as I think, he contends from the Necrology of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen that Count Roger died in the month of June, not July, as Lupus Protospatarius writes, although meanwhile Fazello, book 7, decade 2, and after him Rocco Pirri in the Chronology of the kings of Sicily stand for the month of July; for that this month is noted by Fazello as Roger's death-month was done, if I am not mistaken, solely on the authority of Lupus Protospatarius; and it not rarely happens in the Chronicle of Lupus, because in its autograph, as it appears, the names of the months were written with a single capital or initial letter only, that the month of March is found set down by copyists for May or the reverse, and likewise the month of July for June or the reverse. Now indeed, since the matter stands thus, Roger remained alive only seven or eighteen days from the charter given by which he confirmed whatever donations he had previously made to St. Bruno.

[723] [and either the Saint himself stood by him as he struggled at the last, or he sent another of his own] Zanotti, in the Life or History, as he calls it, of the Saint written by him, chapter 30, writes that our Saint, together with Lanvinus, hastened to Roger as he struggled with his last illness at Mileto, and assiduously consoled him with pious exhortations and admonitions amid the most grievous troubles of his fatal sickness; adding also that Bruno, when he had returned from Mileto to the hermitage of La Torre after Count Roger had already been taken from the living, had exequies celebrated and a great number of Masses said for that prince, to whom he was certainly very greatly beholden, and moreover enjoined his monks to implore the divine Mercy with multiplied prayers, fasts and other works of penance for the soul of the prince who had been most beneficent to the hermitage of La Torre. Thus he, in the place cited. And surely this last point, which the Surian annotator also hints, in the words just recited at the end, was done by the Saint, no one, as I think, who has considered that the Saint was without doubt as far as possible removed from the vice of an ungrateful mind, will readily call into doubt, although meanwhile the matter is found confirmed by absolutely no testimony of antiquity. Nor does it seem to be doubted that the Saint either himself betook himself to Count Roger as he lay at Mileto in the most grievous illness by which he closed his last day, in order to comfort him in the troubles of his sickness and to prepare him with pious admonitions for the journey to eternity, or at least sent Lanvinus or another of his own to do it, since in the year 1098, as we saw above, he went to the same Count Roger, with four companions also joined to himself, to comfort him in the troubles of the illness in which he then lay at Squillace, having returned from the siege of Capua; and Mileto is not much further distant from the hermitage of La Torre than Squillace.

[724] Yet, since the Saint from the year 1100, or even (see number 678) from the year 1099, laboured under almost continual and grave who should do it; he obtains that everything hitherto granted to him infirmities, as the very letter already given above, which he then sent by Landuinus to the brethren of the Grande Chartreuse, attests, and not long after, as we shall see below, passed from this mortal life to the immortal one, I am in no small doubt whether he was then prevented by illness from going himself to the count as he laboured in ill health at Mileto, although meanwhile I would not think it to be doubted, as I have already said, that either the Saint himself did so or sent another in his place to Roger. However the matter stands meanwhile, everyone will readily understand from what has already been said that the salvation of a most loving prince, from whom he had received very many benefits, was indeed of the greatest concern to St. Bruno. Nor indeed does it appear unlikely that by his prayers with God he brought it about that Count Roger at length ended with a happy exit a life passed amid the almost continual turmoils of war, being transferred from this miserable valley of tears and hardships to the eternal joys of heaven. Not long, further, as I have already advised, after the death of Count Roger the Saint too departed from the living; before this happened, however, he obtained that the donations, immunities and all the charters hitherto granted to the hermitage of La Torre be confirmed by Paschal II, the supreme Pontiff, who, Urban II having been taken from the living in the year 1099, had succeeded to the Chair of St. Peter. Namely, in the year 1101, already advanced to July, Paschal had come to Mileto, and on this occasion the Saint took care that a request be made to him, or even requested himself in person, that he would strengthen with a new bull granted whatever had been conferred on the hermitage of La Torre, whether by Count Roger or by any others whatsoever; and the Pontiff most kindly assented to the holy Man's request.

[725] Pope Paschal, says the Surian annotator at the year 1101 in the Chronotaxis from Pope Paschal be confirmed, added to his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 403, being at Mileto on the sixth day before the Kalends of August, at the petition of St. Bruno and Lanuinus, again confirms by his charter the donation of the place which they (namely Bruno and his companions) had chosen for their dwelling, made by Count Roger of illustrious memory and confirmed by Urban II, and likewise the other donations and privileges granted to them. Tutini writes in the Prospectus of the Carthusian History, page 14, that only the donation by which Count Roger had bestowed on St. Bruno the three castles of Aruncum, Mons Aureus and Olivanum, and moreover the mill of Squillace, was confirmed by Paschal. But Mörkens persuades me to agree with the Surian annotator, who affirms in his chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno that the Bull, or if you prefer, the Brief, which Paschal bestowed on Bruno is preserved entire up to now in the Calabrian house or Charterhouse of St. Stephen, and moreover writes in this manner: Pope Paschal II, being at Mileto on the sixth day before the Kalends of August in the year 1101, corroborates by a bull given all the donations, immunities and other privileges granted by the Rogers, duke and count, approved by the bishops (see number 558 and following) of Reggio and Squillace, and confirmed by Urban II. Thus he, and rightly indeed, as I think, although meanwhile I should wish to have the Pontifical bull itself at hand, so that I might pronounce more certainly on what he here records.

[726] he falls into a most grievous illness, and by a profession of faith, But indeed, when only a short space of time had elapsed after the Bull was granted by Paschal, the languor or infirmities with which the Saint, as has been said, had been struggling since the year 1100 or even a little earlier gradually growing heavier, he fell into a most grievous illness, by which, brought at length to extremity, he passed from this mortal life to the immortal one, the Lord calling him to the heavenly nuptials; and when the holy Man felt death approaching, he called his brethren or disciples to himself and set out to them the course of his whole life from infancy, and performed other things which the religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre set out in the encyclical letter which they wrote on the death of their holy Father, and which I shall place in full before the Funeral Titles. Knowing, they say, that his hour had come to pass out of this world to the Father, having called together the brethren

he went over each of his ages from his very infancy, and proclaimed the knowledge and judgment of his whole time to be worthy, that is, as Mabillon interprets in the Annals, book 70, number 29, "worthy of divine chastisement." Afterwards he set forth his faith concerning the Trinity in a long and profound discourse, and concluded thus. They then append a part of the profession of faith which the Saint then uttered; but I am pleased to transfer it here in full, both to perform what I promised above and so as not to leave the studious reader in want here of a precious monument of venerable antiquity and of the pure and unblemished faith of our Saint, from the fourth tome of Mabillon's Analecta, in which it stands inserted at page 400.

[727] which is transcribed here from Mabillon's Analecta, It runs thus: I firmly believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son only-begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeding from both; and these three persons one God. I believe that the same Son of God was conceived of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. I believe that the Virgin was most chaste before childbirth, a virgin in childbirth, and after childbirth remained a virgin for ever. I believe that the same Son of God was conceived among men, as true man, without sin. I believe that the same Son of God was seized out of envy by the faithless Jews, treated with insult, unjustly bound, spat upon, scourged, dead and buried. He descended into hell to free His captives from there; He descended for our redemption, and rose again. He ascended into the heavens; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe the Sacraments which the Catholic Church believes and venerates: and by name, that what is consecrated on the altar is the true Body, the true Flesh, and the true Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we also receive for the remission of our sins, in the hope of eternal salvation. I believe the resurrection of the flesh, and life eternal. Amen. I confess and believe the holy and ineffable Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, one God by nature, of one substance, of one nature, of one majesty and power. And the Father indeed we profess to be not begotten, not created, but unbegotten. The Father Himself takes His origin from no one; from Him the Son received His birth, and the Holy Spirit His procession. He Himself therefore is the fount and origin of the whole Godhead: the Father Himself too, ineffable indeed in essence, begot the Son ineffably from His own substance, and yet nothing other than what He Himself is. God begot God, Light begot Light. From Him, therefore, is all fatherhood in heaven and on earth. Amen.

[728] This monument in Mabillon bears at its head the following title, or, and which is not to be held a spurious document, having uttered, if you prefer, a little note written by the Saint's disciples: The faith of master Bruno, which he professed in common to his brethren when he had felt the hour approaching for him to enter upon the way of all flesh, we have taken care to preserve in writing, because he asked us quite earnestly to be witnesses of that faith before God. The Surian annotator, who also recites that monument in full, differing from Mabillon's exemplar only in some readings of slight moment, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, page 253 and following, observes that it was found at the end of a certain old Menology in the house of St. Stephen in the year 1514, when that house happened to be restored to the Carthusian Order by postliminy; so that accordingly the little note in Mabillon, just transcribed here, in which the Saint's disciples dwelling in the Calabrian hermitage declare that they took care to preserve it, is not to be held suspect. Nor is there reason why anyone should be troubled by the scruple that the religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre, in the encyclical letter just praised, say of the Saint: He set forth his faith concerning the Trinity in a long and profound discourse and concluded thus: "I believe also the Sacraments which the holy Church believes and venerates, and by name that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the consecration the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, true Flesh and true Blood, which we also receive for the remission of our sins and in the hope of eternal salvation," and yet the profession of faith which the Saint uttered when near to death, just given, is not concluded with these words; for although, in the monument just recited from Mabillon's Analecta, some other things concerning faith in the most holy Trinity are subjoined to these words on the hidden Sacrament of the Eucharist, yet at the very beginning of it also are placed the words in which the Saint set forth his faith concerning the same most holy Trinity, and the words just transcribed here, in which he declared to the brethren standing by his faith concerning the most holy and hidden Sacrament of the Eucharist, follow only after the words in which the Saint professed what else he believed.

[729] Since this is so, the inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre, or disciples of St. Bruno, say in the aforesaid encyclical letter, he departs from the living on the sixth day of October in the year 1101, with sufficient justice in any case, that their holy Father concluded or ended the profession of his faith which he uttered when already about to die with what he believed concerning the Eucharist, although meanwhile some other things concerning the most holy Trinity are subjoined to the words, brought forward by the praised disciples of the Saint, with which he did so. But if this displeases, it seems indeed that one should rather say that the Saint's disciples of the hermitage of La Torre were less exact in speaking than that the ancient document which I have given from Mabillon's Analecta is corrupt, or disordered in the order in which what it comprises has been set down both in him and in the Surian annotator. What further this offers to be noted by reason of its doctrine, diametrically opposed to the Berengarian doctrine as regards the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, everyone will easily perceive from what was said at number 68 and following. Wherefore, content to have referred the reader there, I now set out what remains to be said here concerning the time at which the Saint passed to the Heavenly Ones. The Saint's disciples in the hermitage of La Torre, in the encyclical letter written to various churches and monasteries and already praised several times, by which they announced to these the death of their most beloved Father and asked of them prayers for his soul, write thus towards the end: On the next Lord's day that holy soul (namely Bruno's) was loosed from the flesh on the day before the Nones, that is, on the sixth day, of October, in the year of the Lord one thousand one hundred and one. Of the verses of which the Epitaphium set on the Saint's tomb, and to be transcribed here below, consists, the penultimate runs thus: The sixth day of October loosed the bonds of the flesh. Wherefore, since the said encyclical letter was written immediately after the Saint's death, and that epitaph too seems to have been set on the Saint's tomb not long after, it is surely in no way to be doubted that Bruno passed to the Lord both in the year 1101 and on the sixth day of October; so that it is indeed to be wondered at that Tutini, in the Prospectus of the Carthusian History, page 14, attached St. Bruno's death to the year 1102.

[730] nor does Ruinart assign the Saint's death to another year. Nor is it less to be wondered at that the Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 9, at the lower margin of page 239, note that it cannot be conceived how Ruinart, in the Life of Pope Urban II, number 2, page 8, attaches St. Bruno's death to the year 1099; for there Ruinart speaks not of Bruno but of Pope Urban II, who died in this year, nor elsewhere, so far as I know, in the same Life of Pope Urban does he assign our Saint's death to any year other than we do; so that accordingly the praised Writers most probably misinterpreted him. Further, the older biographer of our Saint records of him thus at the last number: He passed to the Lord in the eleventh year after leaving the Chartreuse, neither more nor less, as is contained in the books of the Customs of dom Guigo which are in the house of the Chartreuse; but that an error lies in these words, and that for the words "in the eleventh year, neither more nor less" there must be substituted these following, "in the eleventh year, more or less," which the elogium of the Saint supplied by the chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse, and already given here at number 7, presents, is plain from what I brought forward at number 518 and following in §30, discoursing on the time at which the Saint was summoned from the Chartreuse to Rome by Pope Urban II. And let this suffice to have been said concerning the year and the day on which Bruno passed from this mortal life to the immortal one; let us now step on to the things which followed the Saint's death.

§ XLV. In which church of the hermitage of La Torre the Saint was buried; and what is to be thought of the miracles which followed his burial, and of some other matters in any way concerning him, and of those which preceded the time at which he was entered in the roll of the Saints, or rather of the Blessed.

[The Saint's body in the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, or in the cemetery adjoining it,] Since, as I have already shown above, there existed in our Saint's age two churches in the hermitage of La Torre, of which one was sacred to Mary, the most holy Mother of God, and to St. John the Baptist, the other to the same Mother of God and to St. Stephen the protomartyr, it may not undeservedly be doubted whether he was committed to the earth in the latter or in the former, some pronouncing for the first of those two churches, or certainly for its cemetery, which was also simply called the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, others on the contrary for the second of the two said churches, although meanwhile all perhaps can in some way be brought into agreement, as it will be easy to gather from what is to be said below. And indeed Blömenvenna, and Surius following him, in the Life of the Saint written by them, affirm expressly, as it appears, that Bruno was buried in the church of St. Stephen, which in the lapse of time was also called the church of St. Stephen of the wood, or del Bosco. To these two biographers of the Saint there afterwards joined themselves Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, book 70, number 29, the Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 9, page 240, and some others. But Camillo Tutini, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, relates no less expressly that our Saint obtained burial in the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, writing thus on page 15: The body of St. Bruno is committed to burial by the monks in the church of holy Mary of the hermitage, near its altar. Moreover Zanotti writes in the Life or History of St. Bruno, chapter 31, citing manuscript monuments of Calabria in his support, that the body of the Saint, when he had departed this life, after it had been exposed for public veneration for the space of three days in the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, was then carried to the furthest part of the cemetery adjoining it, as he himself had enjoined, and buried there in a marble chest; and although he nowhere declares of what kind these are or of how great antiquity, yet the Saint, not in the church of St. Stephen, but either in the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, as Tutini relates,

or at least in the cemetery adjoining it, as Zanotti records from those monuments, seems to be believed to have been committed to the earth, because it appears probable that he wished to be buried in the church of the monastery in which, from what has been said, he had led the eremitical life for about ten years, or at least in its cemetery, rather than in the church of another monastery which he had never inhabited and had built for monks less suited to the eremitical life.

[732] Moreover Morozzo, in the Chronological Theatre of the Carthusian Order, page 226, writes thus: was more probably committed to the earth in the cemetery St. Bruno having been entered in the roll of the Saints, his body was translated from the church of St. Mary of La Torre to the other one, of St. Stephen of the wood. Thus he; and since several other writers besides agree with him here, it appears indubitable that the body of St. Bruno, once he had been enrolled among the Saints, or rather, for reasons to be given, among the Blessed, was truly translated to the church of St. Stephen from the church of St. Mary, especially since absolutely no writer is met with who records the contrary. Now indeed, since this is so, and the Saint was probably translated to the church of St. Stephen from the place in which he had been committed to the earth, it appears probable that he obtained burial in the church of St. Mary of the hermitage. But indeed, you will say, after the monastery of St. Stephen had defected from the Carthusian institute to the Cistercian in the year 1192, its abbots, fearing lest the Carthusians should reclaim the sacred relics of their Founder, always guarded them with the greatest care, as Blömenvenna, and after him Surius, record in their lucubrations on Bruno from the account given by the Prior of the Carthusians of Naples (see number 780); and so that they might do this more securely, they placed those sacred pledges now in this place, now in that, with only the abbot and one other man worthy of trust knowing of it; so that accordingly, from the fact that these were translated from the church of St. Mary of the hermitage to the church of St. Stephen of the wood, or del Bosco, when it happened in the year 1514 that Bruno was inscribed in the catalogue of the Saints or of the Blessed, it by no means follows that they had been committed to the earth in the same church of St. Mary. Thus one may argue against the opinion by which we judge that the Saint obtained burial not in the church of St. Stephen but in the church of St. Mary, or at least in its cemetery.

[733] of it. But what if what Blömenvenna and Surius record about the relics of St. Bruno hidden by the Cistercians was carried to the aforesaid Prior of the Carthusians only by a false rumour? There certainly appears to be reason why this should be thought to have happened. For the sacred body of the Saint was found in the year 1513, immediately preceding the Saint's canonization, as they call it, in the church of St. Mary, as Tutini records in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order at the year 1513; and it does not seem probable that this came about from the abbots of St. Stephen having transferred the precious treasure, in order to hide it, from the monastery of St. Stephen, the place of their residence, in whose church it had originally been laid away, to the church of St. Mary, separated or distant from the said monastery. Now indeed, since this is so, it appears more probable, all things considered, that St. Bruno was committed to the earth in the church of St. Mary, or at least in the cemetery adjoining it. Nor is there reason for you to object here the bull of Pope Leo X given in the year 1513 and to be recited below, in which (see number 755) the following words occur, In whose church (namely of the monastery of St. Stephen) the body of St. Bruno, founder of the said Order, is said to be laid away; for besides the fact that the Pontiff speaks thus there only from the account or opinion of others, who could easily have been deceived, the little cells built by St. Bruno near the church of St. Mary of the hermitage, and presenting together with it a certain appearance of a monastery, ceased, as it appears, to be inhabited from the year 1192, in which the religious of this house and the inhabitants of the monastery of St. Stephen transferred themselves, from what is to be said, to the Cistercian Order, or even earlier, the monastery of St. Stephen meanwhile having the care and ownership of the church of St. Mary; so that from that time it had two churches, one namely called St. Mary's and the other St. Stephen's, and so that under the name of the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco there seems to have come not only this one but also the monastery of St. Mary of the hermitage. I think altogether so, because in all the monuments later than the year 1192 in which there is talk of the religious houses of the hermitage of La Torre, only the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco is mentioned.

[734] Now indeed, since this is so, the body of St. Bruno, although it was laid away in the church of St. Mary, The Epitaph which is given here was placed on the tomb. could be said by Pope Leo in the bull cited to lie in the church of the monastery of St. Stephen without loss to the truth. Nor does it appear that Blömenvenna and the others who write that the Saint's body was buried in the monastery of St. Stephen, or in its church, cannot be understood of the church of holy Mary. But whether in the end the Saint obtained his tomb in this or in that church of the Calabrian hermitage, the following Epitaph at any rate was placed on it, as Blömenvenna testifies in the Life of the Saint written by him, when he takes up his account of Bruno's burial:

First founder in this desert of Christ's fold Was I found worthy to be, who am covered by this stone. Bruno is my name; my mother, Germany; and me The welcome quiet of the desert brought across to the Calabrians. I was a doctor, a herald of Christ, a man known in the world; That was grace from above, not merit. The sixth day of October loosed the bonds of the flesh; For the spirit, you who read these things, ask rest.

Thus that biographer of our Saint; and Dupuy too agrees with him in the Life of the Saint composed by him; in the later edition of it, however, prepared at Paris with Josse Ascensius in the year 1524, some change was made in the verses of which the epitaph of the Saint already given consists. For in place of the first hexameter, most probably because in it the second syllable of the word Eremus is contracted against the laws of Prosody, this other was put: First founder of Christ's fold in this desert; and in place of the second pentameter, most probably for the same reason, this following other was substituted: The welcome quiet of the grove brought across to the Calabrians. Moreover Surius, for the last pentameter of the Epitaph recited, presents the following: The bones remain in the tomb, the spirit seeks the stars. But since both in the older edition of the Life composed by Dupuy, prepared at Basel not long after the year 1514, and in the ancient documents added at the end of this edition, the three said verses are read in the same way as in Blömenvenna, it certainly appears most probable, not to say indubitable, that they were also originally written in the same way and placed on the Saint's tomb.

[735] Let us now examine the things which are related to have happened after the Saint's burial. [It is asserted, as it appears, that a spring was made to rise here by a prodigy at his tomb.] And the Man of God, says Blömenvenna in the Life of the Saint, was buried in his monastery of St. Stephen the protomartyr behind the high altar; at whose sepulchre a living spring flows forth, which by the Divine clemency and his merits bestows on many of the faithful the desired remedies of health. Where also, as is read elsewhere, it is a marvel to see the blind given light, the deaf restored to hearing, the maimed and mutilated healed, lepers cleansed, those possessed by the demon swiftly purged. But more to be wondered at than all these miracles, if divine Jerome is to be believed, is this: that nearly all in the aforesaid roll (comprising the funeral titles to be published) show themselves astonished, while they so often repeat and proclaim with harmonious voice that he could trample on such glory and honour, and happily complete the course of his life in such austerity of life, truth and perfection. Thus he; and lest anyone perhaps doubt the truth of the spring stirred up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb, as he seems here to maintain, he presently adds: But it ought to move a scruple in no one if that spring is no longer seen at the sepulchre of the Man of God; for springs miraculously brought forth are not always perpetual, just as neither was the spring of oil which is read to have flowed forth at Rome at the time of Christ's nativity. I myself saw, at St. Maurice, at the place of his beheading, an opening without oil, through which, it was asserted by the inhabitants of that place, oil had once flowed forth. For miracles are done by the Lord for the revelation and commendation of the holiness of His servants, and therefore, where their holiness has become perfectly known, miracles sometimes cease. It is read of St. Nicholas that oil flowed forth from his sacred bones; but on account of the demerits of the people, one of his successors having been unjustly expelled from his see, it ceased to flow.

[736] But whether this accords with the truth is doubtful, In like manner must one judge of the spring of St. Bruno, namely when the religious life, most holily begun by him, was exiled from his monastery. For when the holy Man had fallen asleep in the Lord, the monastery itself remained in the purpose of the eremitical life, or of the Carthusian Order, which St. Bruno instituted first in the desert of the Chartreuse and afterwards in the desert of Calabria. Five Priors succeeded him in the government of the said house up to the times of the venerable Guigo, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse. And so it was all the days of the elders who had seen and heard and known all the works of the Lord which He deigned to work through His servant Bruno; but when at length others succeeded them who did not know these things, when the Carthusian Order had already begun to multiply in Gaul around the Chartreuse and elsewhere, that monastery of Calabria alone remained, degenerating through lukewarmness from the holiness and fervour of so great a Father. But when, seeking visitors and reformers from the house of the Chartreuse, it could not have them on account of the excessive distance, it betook itself to another purpose, namely the Cistercian Order, which, then newly planted and watered by St. Bernard by word and example, persevered in great fervour, when it had already lasted sixty years in the purpose of the Carthusian Order in which it had been founded. Thus far Blömenvenna, having here again, as often elsewhere, Surius agreeing with him as to substance, but not Dupuy, since he writes only in general that the Lord deigned to work many miracles through the Saint's merits after his death; but what now is to be thought of the spring that was stirred up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb, of the miracles wrought in great number there through the Saint's merits, of the time at which it dried up or ceased to be, and finally also of the cause for which this happened?

[737] the spring To begin from the spring stirred up by a prodigy at the tomb: since neither Dupuy in the Life of Bruno written by him nor any writer, so far as I know, whether contemporary or near-contemporary, makes mention of it, there certainly seems to be reason why it should be called into doubt whether a spring truly broke forth by a miracle at the Saint's tomb

by someone. And indeed, since persons were found who, as we saw above, invented, or at least believed in error, that a spring was divinely stirred up at the Chartreuse when the Saint and his companions first entered it, why could it not also have happened that, either from error or from licence of invention, it was committed to writing that a spring bubbled up by a prodigy at our Saint's tomb, and was afterwards believed more readily and easily than was fitting by lovers of prodigies? Yet, since the Chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse, or older biographer of our Saint, at the last number supplies these following words, Immediately beside his sepulchre (namely St. Bruno's) a living spring flows forth, which by the divine Clemency, through the merits of this holy Man, bestows on many ailments of the faithful the desired remedies of health, and since he, as I have already shown above, flourished in the thirteenth century, and accordingly perhaps before two centuries had yet elapsed after the Saint's death, and since it does not appear unlike the truth that what he records in the words recited about the spring prodigiously stirred up at the Saint's tomb he drew either from an older monument or at least from tradition, I would not dare to assert without doubt that a prodigious spring did not break forth from the earth at Bruno's tomb, or, if you prefer, from the tomb itself, although meanwhile I greatly doubt of a thing which does not rest on the pledge of altogether indubitable and certain faith.

[738] Nor can the doubt, which is not a little increased by the fact that, as Blömenvenna himself admits in the words recited, nor do the things alleged as the cause for which that spring dried up a spring is no longer found at the Saint's tomb, be removed by what this biographer of the Saint writes was chiefly the cause why that prodigious spring dried up or ceased to be. For granted that there truly was a spring stirred up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb, it appears hardly probable that it ceased, as he seems to mean by the words recited at number 736, understanding there by the word Religion (see number 742) the same thing as by the word Order, because the religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre embraced the Cistercian institute; since they did this only in order that, religious discipline having collapsed among them, they might serve God more perfectly by passing from a less austere life, to which they had fallen away after abandoning the primitive rigour of their institute, to a stricter and holier rule of living, as Blömenvenna himself seems to indicate in the words recited, and as the Bull or Brief of Pope Celestine, to be recited presently, also attests. There are indeed those who contend that they sprang away from the Carthusian institute for causes which must have been less pleasing to God; but others hold that one ought not to agree with these, and on whose side the truth stands does not much matter for our subject. For let us grant even that there existed no altogether just cause for which the inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre turned aside from the Carthusian to the Cistercian institute; not even so will it become probable that it came about that the spring which had been stirred up by a prodigy at the tomb of St. Bruno dried up on account of their defection to the Cistercian institute. For whatever that defection was, they at any rate transferred themselves to an institute of life to be despised on absolutely no head and in many respects to be commended in the highest degree; nor did they do this except with the assent and approval of the supreme Pontiff Celestine, as is manifest from the bull by which he gave them the faculty of passing to the Cistercian Order.

[739] I am pleased therefore to transfer it here from the Surian annotator, who inserted it in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, or rather in the Chronotaxis added to them, page 469 and following. remove that doubt. It runs thus: Celestine, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved sons the brethren of the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco in Calabria, greeting and Apostolic blessing. For the propagation of the order of Religion and for the extension of its branches we ought, by the duty of our office, to apply a more inclined care, and to hold and cherish it with all our strength as it sprouts with divine fervour. Since therefore, prevented by divine inspiration, you have wished to serve as soldiers under the observance of the Cistercian Order, and your Prior, coming to us, has earnestly requested Apostolic confirmation and favour on this, having taken counsel with our brethren, since the change seems to be of the right hand of the Most High, we commend this your purpose, and by Apostolic authority, saving the right of the Roman Church, we confirm that henceforth you must live under the same observance and under the correction of the abbot and brethren of Fossanova, and render to God a service pleasing to God. Let it therefore be lawful for no man whatsoever to infringe this page of our constitution and confirmation, etc. Given at the Lateran on the third day before the Ides of December, in the second year of our Pontificate. Since therefore, as is understood from this Pontifical Bull or Brief, the brethren of the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco in Calabria, or religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre, migrated to the Cistercian Order with the Pontiff not only not opposing it but even approving it and praising their purpose, and thus in doing so undoubtedly did not sin against God, I do not indeed know whether anyone will judge it sufficiently probable that that passing-over of theirs could have been the cause for which the spring of the hermitage of La Torre, which had been stirred up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb, ceased to exist, or, if you prefer, dried up. Now indeed, since the matter stands thus, it certainly remains doubtful, as much as before, from what has been said above, and especially from the fact that the spring which was stirred up by a prodigy no longer exists, whether there was ever room for a miracle of this kind.

[740] [If, however, there was ever a prodigious spring at the Saint's tomb, it lasted longer] Nor does it much matter that prodigious springs are not always perpetual; for even if we have granted that this is true, it will follow only that, although a spring is no longer found at the Saint's tomb, a prodigious spring could nevertheless at some time have existed there; whence certainly no one will hold it as indubitable that a spring of this kind did in fact once exist there. But if meanwhile a prodigious spring ever existed at our Saint's tomb, and ceased only for the cause adduced by the praised writers, it indeed lasted longer than fifty or sixty years. For since Pope Celestine II exchanged life for death in the year 1144, at which time it is admitted by all who accept this miracle that the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco had not yet been transferred to the Cistercian Order, and accordingly that the spring which was stirred up by a prodigy at St. Bruno's tomb had not yet ceased; and since nevertheless the said monastery passed to the Cistercian order not later than the twelfth century, the Pope Celestine who bestowed the Bull already recited on the brethren of the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco can be no other than Celestine III; wherefore, since he was raised to the supreme chair of the Church in the year 1191, already advanced to April, and the Bull is noted as given on the third day before the Ides, or the 11th day, of December, in the second year of his Pontificate, it follows that the brethren of the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco, or religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre, passed to the Cistercian Order only in the year 1192 or at the beginning of the following one, and accordingly that that monastery lasted in the institute of life which St. Bruno had followed in it not only about sixty years, as Blömenvenna relates in the words transcribed here above, but nearly a hundred and more, and also had more than five Priors of the Carthusian Institute before it passed to the Cistercians.

[741] than fifty or sixty years. And indeed Camillo Tutini, in the brief Chronicle which he appended to his Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, reviews not only five but thirteen Priors who governed the house of St. Stephen of La Torre according to St. Bruno's prescription before it embraced the Cistercian institute, up to the year 1192, setting each one's name beside him, and notes that the one of them who flourished fifth after St. Bruno died in the year 1138. And surely it appears most probable that more than five Priors, who passed their life according to the norm instituted by our Saint in the hermitage of La Torre in Calabria, are rightly enumerated by Tutini, both from what has already been said and also from what Colombi brings forward bearing on this in his Dissertation on the beginnings of the Carthusians, number 20 and some following, as will become plain to anyone who consults him. Now indeed, since these things are so, and since it is not laid down by Blömenvenna and the others who are of the same opinion with him that the spring which arose by a prodigy at St. Bruno's tomb dried up, or ceased to be, before the monastery of St. Stephen had passed to the Cistercian institute, it follows that that spring must have lasted not only about fifty or sixty but more than ninety years after our Saint's death, although meanwhile this, in the opinion of the said writers who lay it down that the defection of the Calabrian hermitage to the Cistercians took place as early as the year 1160 or even earlier, is altogether foreign to the truth. And these are the things that occur to be said both about that prodigious spring which arose at the Saint's tomb, as is related by the writers praised above, and about the time at which, and the cause for which, it ceased to be. Next, I am now to treat of the miracles which Blömenvenna, in the words transferred here above, and others record were wrought in great number through the Saint's merits, and happened especially in favour of those who had drunk from the said prodigious spring.

[742] Although, says Blömenvenna of St. Bruno, he is read to have shone with many miracles, [Many miracles are also related to have been done at that spring through the merits of the Saint after his death;] yet, what I cannot recall without grief, miracles of this kind were not written down with the diligence that was fitting; or, if they were written down, when monks of another Religion (namely the Cistercian) entered his monastery, the writings were first kept rather negligently and then were lost. Thus he, having Surius agreeing with him exactly, and Dupuy likewise as regards the multitude of miracles wrought in general through the Saint's merits; but they review absolutely no miracle wrought by the Saint in particular; and I should wish the assertion by which it is related in general that many miracles were wrought by the Saint to be confirmed by the testimony of at least a synchronous writer worthy of trust. That many who were in poor health, who had drunk from the spring prodigiously arisen at the Saint's tomb, were restored to their former health, the older biographer of our Saint also affirms in the words given above; but neither is he sufficiently ancient for us to be able to trust him safely. Nor does it matter at all that, using words of the present tense, he writes in the following manner, Immediately beside his sepulchre a living spring flows forth, which by the divine clemency, through the merits of this holy Man, bestows on many ailments of the faithful the desired remedies of health, and thus seems to be speaking of a prodigious spring which still existed in his age, and of miracles which were then wrought by the drawing of waters from it; for granted even that this biographer of ours, concerning the miracles

done in his own time, is speaking, since he wrote at the Grande Chartreuse, not a little distant from the hermitage of La Torre, he will with great difficulty win for himself with everyone a credence certain on every side and indubitable in the narration of them. Moreover, he perhaps speaks here in the manner of historians, who not rarely set out things done in times past by means of verbs of the present tense.

[743] Blömenvenna and Surius, in the very place in which they admit that the spring stirred up by a prodigy at Bruno's tomb no longer existed in their age, speak of it, but neither can our older biographer make these things certain. no otherwise than if it still existed, by a verb of the present tense, the former indeed in this way, At whose (namely St. Bruno's) sepulchre a living spring flows forth; the latter in this: At his sepulchre a living spring bursts out. Nor do they use there any other than a verb of the present tense by which to declare that health was once restored to many by water drawn from that spring; so that accordingly, from the fact that the older biographer of our Saint speaks of the miracles wrought through St. Bruno's merits by a verb of the present tense, it does not follow that he meant to signify that these were done in his own age. Now indeed, since this is so, it is very doubtful whether he is not speaking only of things done long before his own age, and accordingly he cannot make altogether certain and indubitable what he records of miracles done in great number through the Saint's merits; although meanwhile it does not appear to be doubted that the Saint, when not yet enrolled among the Blessed, wrought at least some miracles, from the fame of holiness with which he shone among the Calabrians for more than four hundred years before that time. And indeed the Surian annotator, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno, having premised on page 314 that many miracles, which God deigned to work at his invocation to declare the glory of St. Bruno, His confessor, have not come to our knowledge through the lack of writers and the injury of the times, brings forward not a few which are related to have happened by his intercession after Bruno's canonization, as they call it, and also places before these two which happened before Bruno was entered in the roll of the Saints or of the Blessed.

[744] [Meanwhile two miracles preceding the Saint's canonization, in one of which, however, he did not certainly] Since I am here treating of things which happened before a cult proper to Saints was conferred on the Saint by Pontifical authority, I am pleased to transfer here also those two prodigies, which, as I think, will not be unwelcome to the reader given the extreme fewness of the many miracles wrought through the Saint's merits before his ecclesiastical cult was permitted which have come to our knowledge. The first, in which however it is doubtful whether the Saint had a part, runs thus: In the year of the Lord 1131, when the illustrious Geoffrey of Loritello, count of Catanzaro in Calabria, son of Count Ralph of Loritello, nephew of Count Roger, the founder and endower of the hermitage of St. Mary of La Torre, had revoked the donations of a certain church of All Saints, and of lands and vineyards in the holding of the town of Badolato, made by himself and by his mother Berta, by the vengeance of God he was wounded with a grave abscess in the chest, whence he came even to extremity; and having made his will, when he was near to death, being admonished by Roger of Arenis to restore the things unjustly taken away, as soon as he restored what had been taken, blood flowing from his mouth and nostrils, he was restored to his former health; which will be clearer from his own words and from the instrument of restitution, where he speaks thus: "In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1131, the 8th indiction, in the month of October, when I, Geoffrey of Loritello, count of Catanzaro, was held by youthful cupidity, so that I would not confirm but rather revoke what my lady mother, the venerable Berta, had given for the church of All Saints of the holding of Padulato, which she had given to Blessed Mary of the hermitage and to the blessed Protomartyr, namely lands cultivated and uncultivated, domestic and also wild trees, villeins and vineyards, seeking temporal things more than eternal, by God's permission, three years after my revocation I was wounded in the stomach with a horrible abscess so severely that, my vital spirits being diminished, I was despaired of by the physicians.

[745] But after the will was made, the lord Roger of Arenis said to me, had a part; but in the other he certainly had a part; these are related here, who had just been present as a witness to the will at Castelnuovo, where I was at that time lying ill: Confirm with a pure purpose of restoring what you revoked from Blessed Stephen the protomartyr; for he is of such merit with God that he will be able to free you from this abscess. Having heard these words, I ordered it to be confirmed by a new will, which I made again in the moment. In a wonderful manner I suddenly began to be freed, putrid blood flowing from my mouth and nostrils. Having seen this miracle, I devoutly sent letters to the brother hermits on the day on which a ship of the Genoese, coming from Alexandria into the port of Castelnuovo, suffered wreck. And there came to me at my castle of Catanzaro Ralph of the Crucifix, master of the hermits of St. Mary and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, and with him Brother Arnaldus and Odo and Guido, monks, in whose presence I ordered the present privilege to be written by the hands of the scribe Robert, and what my lady mother had given, etc." Such is, from the Surian annotator's account, the first miracle which I have thought fit to commemorate here, confirmed also by a public instrument; but since it seems, perhaps not undeservedly, that it can be doubted whether St. Bruno had any part in it, he presently adds to the said public instrument, by which he confirms it: Which (namely the miracle already related) there is no one who doubts ought also to be attributed to St. Bruno, on account of the care which, placed in heaven, he has for his house. Thus he, indicating that he does not doubt that at least a part in the related miracle is to be attributed to St. Bruno; but that the Saint had a part in the other miracle, or rather apparition, which is also to be given here, is altogether certain, as anyone will readily admit who has merely read it through.

[746] Here are the words in which it is related by the praised Surian annotator, page 317 and following. other things also of doubtful credit are adduced, About the year 1510 at Valencia in Aragon, Juan Luis Bertrán, a notary, who for a long time was a benefactor and procurator of the Charterhouse of Porta Coeli, on account of the great devotion which he bore towards St. Bruno, having come to the borders of death from a long illness before the Wednesday of Holy Week, and when the physicians had given up his recovery as hopeless, suddenly opening his eyes asked for his clothes to put on, and answered those who questioned him that the saints Vincent Ferrer and St. Bruno had come in to him and told him that he would by no means die this time, but must go to the church on that Wednesday to hear the divine Offices, which he in fact did. And on this account he loved St. Bruno so much thereafter that, when afterwards in the year 1514 Leo X had granted his feast to be kept solemnly in the churches of the Order, he himself, going to the same Charterhouse, saw to it at his own expense that his festival was celebrated both in the church and in the refectory, up to his death. Juan Luis Bertrán, to whom the apparition here related befell, afterwards begot, from a second wife, whom he had married after the first had died, St. Louis Bertrand of the Order of Preachers, of whom we shall treat at the 9th day of this month, on which he is venerated. This we learn both from the very Life of this holy Confessor in which the same apparition is narrated, written in the Spanish idiom by Vicente Justiniano Antist of Valencia, a son of the Order of St. Dominic, and afterwards turned into the Italian tongue by another Religious of the same Order, and also from the praised Surian annotator, in his account of another apparition vouchsafed to the same Luis Bertrán, to be mentioned below in the Appendix on the posthumous glory, which he adds immediately after the apparition already narrated. And so indeed, since by the aforesaid apparition, through the merits both of St. Bruno and of St. Vincent Ferrer, Luis Bertrand, lying most dangerously ill, was suddenly and unexpectedly restored to his former health, we now have a miracle which was wrought at least partly by the intercession of our Saint, and which also preceded his canonization, or the oracle of the living voice by which, from what is to be said, Pope Leo X permitted him to be venerated in the Carthusian Order with the cult proper to Saints; but other miracles then wrought in which the Saint had a part I have been unable to find, although I have made the most diligent search.

[747] and the Saint's asserted continual dwelling in the cave is weighed. Further, Zanotti, who in the Life of St. Bruno composed by him, chapter 34, also relates the apparition of St. Bruno and St. Vincent Ferrer already related and vouchsafed to the father of St. Louis Bertrand, adds in chapter 32, in which he writes, with some others who went before him, that a spring broke forth from our Saint's tomb, from the manuscript monuments of Calabria which he praises, that the power of healing diseases put by God into the waters of the said spring passed over to the waters of a small pond in which the Saint, when he was alive, used at times to plunge his body in order to chastise it, as soon as the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre had turned aside from the Carthusian institute to the Cistercian. And to prove this, the same writer adds that even in our age, and especially at Pentecost, when the sacred body of the Saint was translated from the church of St. Mary to the church of St. Stephen, on the three feast-days almost innumerable benefits are divinely conferred every year by the power of those waters, and miracles are wrought; on whose credit let rest both these matters and the power transferred from the waters of the prodigious spring to the waters of the aforesaid pond. However, to close this § with a miracle which is said to have begun from the very death of the Saint and to persist even today, Blömenvenna, whom Surius also afterwards followed, writes thus towards the end of the Life of the Saint composed by him: From that monastery (namely St. Stephen of La Torre), along the edge of the torrent, by a level road of 1500 paces, one comes to a most devout cave. For it is narrow enough, girt by mountains and woods which close the extremities of the same valley, pathless and solitary, and offering no further approach to human use. Above this cave has been built a not large chapel with an altar under the title of St. Bruno, master of Cologne, of holy Mary of La Torre, first founder of the Carthusian Order, whose image is seen painted there. In this cave the same Servant of God remained with incredible fervour from the time when he first came there up to the day of his death. And for the indication and commendation of his exceptional holiness, to the present day the place in which, after the transports of contemplation, he would let his weary limbs strike naked against the ground never yields grass in the space over which the measure of that sacred body was then stretched, although it is seen to grow all around. This so evident miracle all the inhabitants of that place most constantly assert.

[748] Thus far he: but whatever may be the case with the miracle persisting even today which in these words

is recorded, and which I think must be left undecided, at least the charter or privilege of Mesimerius, bishop of Squillace, given at number 558 and following, by itself makes it altogether certain and indubitable to me that the Saint, contrary to what Blömenvenna here relates, did not dwell or live in the cave designated by the words recited from the day on which he first entered the hermitage of St. Mary of La Torre in Calabria up to his death. For in it that prelate speaks in the following manner: He (Count Roger) deigned to ask me on behalf of the most honoured monks and hermits, namely the lords Bruno and Lanvinus … inhabiting the place preserved by God which is called La Torre, in the most venerable church of our most glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and of St. John the Baptist, the forerunner; and since by these words he not obscurely intimates here that both Bruno and Lanvinus dwelt in the church of the most holy Mother of God, who would prudently believe, on the authority of Blömenvenna or of others asserting it without an ancient surety, that the Saint dwelt in the aforesaid cave during the whole time that he spent in the Calabrian hermitage? Some other more recent writers indeed support Blömenvenna; but neither do these cite any ancient author or monument in their favour. Nor is there reason for anyone to bring forward on their behalf here the following words, which, as Zanotti attests in the Life of the Saint, chapter 31 at the end, are read inscribed in the said cave: This place is to be held in the highest veneration and reverence, dearest brethren, in which the faithful servant of Christ and doctor of the sacred Page, Bruno, afflicted his body with manifold kinds of penance; in which, after the course of this miserable life, he flew to heaven; for who would assert for certain that these words were set up in the cave either immediately after the Saint's death, or at least not long after? As far as I am concerned, I think it much to be doubted whether they are older than the Saint's canonization, as they call it. I would therefore not with difficulty believe that Bruno at times withdrew into the cave mentioned by Blömenvenna, which was not far distant from the church or monastery of St. Mary of the hermitage which the Saint inhabited, in order to give himself more quietly to prayer and to the meditation and contemplation of divine things; but whether he dwelt in it I shall remain in doubt until stronger arguments are brought forward, of a nature to remove all doubt about this from the mind.

§ XLVI. Pope Leo X orders the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre in Calabria to be restored to the Carthusian Order, and permits the ecclesiastical cult of the Saint.

[The Saint's canonization had not yet been attempted for a very long time after his death;] In not a few of the Funeral Titles to be reprinted below, that is, the answers of various churches or monasteries to the encyclical letters, likewise to be reprinted below, by which the death of St. Bruno had been announced to them by the Saint's disciples from the hermitage of La Torre, the Saint is not only praised for his learning and exceptional virtue, but it is also declared that he did not so much need the prayers of those who gave those answers as they themselves needed his; which is surely an argument that he was already then universally known as a holy man. But although the matter stood so, yet more than four hundred years had already elapsed since his death, which may seem wonderful, when nothing had yet been attempted by anyone, so far as appears, whereby that most celebrated and equally most holy Man, who had both instituted a most illustrious Order and by his plainly exceptional virtues had illumined first the Chartreuse and afterwards chiefly Calabria, might be inscribed by the supreme Pontiff in the number either of the Saints or of the Blessed.

[750] yet meanwhile his cult was not, as Baillet thought, Baillet adds, in tome 3 of the Lives, column 91, that throughout that whole space of four hundred years the memory of the Saint was so neglected among men in Calabria that absolutely no religious cult was then paid to him by them. But that that writer was mistaken in this matter appears probable from what Blömenvenna commits to writing towards the end of the Life of the Saint composed by him. For there he says thus: To these places (namely to the cave in which the Saint dwelt, and to the church of St. Mary of the hermitage) crowds of people, old men with younger ones, little children and women, nobles and commoners, princes and lords, out of veneration and devotion for the most holy Bruno, and also to obtain his benefits, attending on him as if he were living among men, flock together vying with one another, approach reverently, pray, adore. But especially the cave or grotto, of which above, in which almost always alone he served the Lord, is frequented with such reverence and affection and incredible faith that sometimes even many are seen to approach it only with bare feet from the aforesaid monastery (namely of St. Stephen). Others, walking on bended knees, go round the sacred cave, licking the earth and the rocks out of devotion, and bathed in tears. Further, they take away something from the cave itself or the rock to hold as the greatest relics, and so return home with joy.

[751] neglected in Calabria. But with how great devotion to this most holy Father Bruno the bishops, abbots, religious prelates of Calabria, the princes also, counts, barons and the whole common people are affected, no one will suffice to explain in words. There is moreover, not far from the aforesaid monastery, at a distance of 300 paces, a most ample wood, which they call Folo, deputed by the Servant of God himself solely for the repair of his monastery. But if anyone with rash daring has attempted to go against the ordinance of the holy Man, he does not escape divine vengeance (such is the report of all the peoples of Calabria, confirmed by long experience). Thus he; and since he committed these things to writing not long after the Saint had been entered by Leo X in the roll of the Saints, or rather, from what is to be said, of the Blessed, and since it does not appear probable that a plainly exceptional and singular cult such as he depicts in the words recited was first paid to the Saint in Calabria only then, when this had been done by that Pontiff, I would not dare to agree without doubt with Baillet when he asserts that Bruno, when he was enrolled among the Blessed by Pope Leo, had been both deleted from the memory of nearly everyone in Calabria and honoured there with no cult; especially since from the veneration towards the Saint, even while not yet enrolled among the Blessed, in which, as the recited words of Blömenvenna indicate, the peoples of Calabria held him, it appears probable that a cult proper to Saints was also paid to him by them.

[752] the Carthusians appoint deputies to attempt the Saint's canonization, But, however that may be, that he was indeed held and honoured as a Saint by the Carthusians and others, even when he had not yet obtained the honours of the Blessed to be publicly paid him, we may gather from the account already given of the apparition in which Bruno showed himself to be seen, together with St. Vincent Ferrer, by the sick Luis Bertrán, since in it the latter is related to have been affected in a peculiar manner towards Bruno as towards a Saint; as also from the fact that the Carthusians, who, as Baillet himself admits, venerated him privately at least with the honours of Saints in Charterhouses other than the Calabrian one, at length also thought of procuring either his canonization or his beatification. Camillo Tutini, already praised very many times, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, at the year 1504, for which however 1503 is wrongly written, records thus: In the general chapter (of the Carthusians) celebrated this year, the Carthusian Priors treated of procuring the Canonization of St. Bruno, and of recovering the Charterhouse of St. Stephen of the wood, which for nearly three hundred years had been in the hands of the Cistercians, and afterwards (namely, if it is rightly noted in the brief Chronicle of the monastery of St. Stephen of the wood in Tutini, page 195, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, or even somewhat earlier) had come to commendatory abbots. Hence, to prosecute the suit, Jacopo of Aragon, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, Matthew, Prior of Bologna, Louis, Prior of the Charterhouse of Mantua, and Hugh, Prior of the Charterhouse of Rome, are deputed. At that time the commendatory abbot was Luigi Cardinal of Aragon, grandson of Ferdinand I, king of Naples. Jacopo, therefore, whom we mentioned above, being a kinsman of the Cardinal, treats with him at Rome, together with the other Priors, about the restitution; and after very many articles had been discussed on both sides and conditions attached, the Cardinal allowed himself to be divested. But since its revenues were possessed by emphyteutic right by Evangelista Tornafrancia of Catanzaro, * who had also promised to yield his right, Jacopo came to Naples to fulfil the rest; but Evangelista, who had repented of the condition offered, slipped away in flight; but, royal diligence being applied, he was intercepted and compelled to stand by his promise.

[753] Thus he, relating that the Carthusians turned their mind, and further gave their effort, not only to procuring the canonization of their holy Father and of the monastery of St. Stephen, for whose recovery but also to recovering the Calabrian monastery of St. Stephen of the wood. Nor indeed was this endeavour of those religious men in vain; for they obtained first that the house or monastery of St. Stephen be restored to their Order, and then that their first Founder be entered by Pontifical authority in the roll, if not of the Saints, at least of the Blessed, as will become plain from what is to be said here on these two heads according to the plan of my undertaking. I begin with the recovery of the Calabrian monastery, because this preceded the Saint's canonization, or rather beatification. And first indeed, Camillo Tutini himself, who writes in the words just given that this was done by them as early as that time, makes me doubt whether the Carthusians thought of recovering that monastery as early as the year 1504. For in the Chronicle which he appended to the Prospectus of the Carthusian Order composed by him, he records thus: In the year 1505 the Carthusian monks in general chapter charged the Priors Jacopo of Aragon of the Charterhouse of Naples, Matthew of Bologna, Louis of Mantua, and Hugh of Rome, to see to the restoration of the monastery of St. Stephen to the Religion. These, after various negotiations with the aforesaid Cardinal and Tornafrancia, drawn out for ten years, mutual petitions on both sides having been concluded, brought the controversy to the point that the Cardinal resigned the monastery into the hands of the supreme Pontiff Leo X; which being done, the Pontiff again granted and handed it over to the Carthusians with all its goods, and suppressed the abbatial title by a bull given at Rome in 1513. Wherefore, since Tutini here writes that the charge of attempting the recovery of the monastery of St. Stephen was given to the Priors of the Carthusian Order here named by the general chapter only in the year 1505, whereas in the words recited above from the Prospectus he had taught that it was done as early as the year 1504, he himself certainly makes it doubtful whether it was in this or in that year that the Carthusians decreed to attempt the recovery of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen.

[754] [they had been busying themselves since the year 1504, by letters from the Pontiff,] Yet, since he also relates in the words just given that that monastery was resigned into the hands of the Pontiff, who afterwards returned it to the Carthusians, after ten years had already elapsed from the beginning of the negotiation about restoring it to the Carthusians, it appears more probable that negotiations about recovering the said monastery were truly begun by the Carthusians as early as the year 1504, because the bull by which it was to them

Pope Leo X ordered it to be returned is noted as given in the year 1513, as Tutini himself also admits in the words recited, and it can easily be understood that ten years ran from the year 1504, but not from the year 1505, up to the year 1513. That instrument I transcribe here, both because it will have been asked of me that it be granted a place here, and because it confirms some things that have already been said. It is conceived in these words: Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for the perpetual memory of the matter. By the Office of the Apostolate committed to us from above, by which we preside over the government of the universal Church, we are rendered solicitous with continual attention to direct prosperously and wholesomely the state of churches and monasteries and of all other regular places: whence, in order that in them an observance more pleasing to God may flourish, divine worship grow, and the devotion of the faithful be increased, we sometimes commit some of the same monasteries and places to be governed by new rectors, through the zeal of whose skill and provident diligence the monasteries and places themselves may also otherwise advance with desired increases in spiritual and temporal things.

[755] which, in testimony Indeed, the monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco of the Cistercian Order, of the Diocese of Squillace, which our beloved son Luigi, Cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, lately held in commendam by Apostolic grant and dispensation (a commendam of this kind ceasing from the fact that the same Cardinal Luigi has today spontaneously and freely ceded it into our hands, and we have thought fit to admit the cession itself), being still vacant in the same manner in which it was vacant while it was commended to the same Cardinal Luigi; and we, holding the last manner of vacancy of the said monastery as expressed in these presents, even if from it any general reservation, even one enclosed in the body of the law, should result, and applying ourselves with paternal and solicitous zeal to a speedy and happy provision for the government of the monastery itself, lest the monastery itself be exposed to the inconveniences of a long vacancy, after the diligent deliberation which we have had upon this with our brethren, have at length directed the eyes of our mind to our beloved sons, the brethren of the Carthusian Order, in whom the observance of regular discipline, holiness of life and exemplary manners are known to sprout day by day like new shoots in the field of the Lord; hoping that if in the aforesaid monastery, in whose Church the body of St. Bruno, Founder of the said Carthusian Order, is said to be laid away, and which, as is asserted by some, was once a house of the same Carthusian Order, the abbatial dignity and the Cistercian Order were perpetually suppressed and extinguished, and the Carthusian Order of this kind were instituted and planted there; and if henceforth the monastery itself were called a house under the same invocation of St. Stephen, and were granted in perpetuity to the brethren of the said Carthusian Order, to be ruled and governed by them according to their rites and manners and regular institutes, as the other houses of the same Carthusian Order are ruled and governed, there would thereby be introduced into the said monastery a norm of living well and blessedly, pleasing and acceptable to God, divine worship would be increased, and in other respects the state of the same monastery in spiritual and temporal things would be happily provided for, with the spiritual consolation of the faithful round about.

[756] All of which having been weighed with due meditation, are brought forward here, on the counsel of the said Brethren, by Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these presents, in the same monastery, however and by the person of whomsoever it may be vacant, even if its provision should for any cause pertain specially or generally to the Apostolic See, we perpetually suppress and extinguish the abbatial dignity and the Cistercian Order of this kind, and we institute the said Carthusian Order, so that henceforth it may be and be named not a monastery but a house of the same St. Stephen; and we grant it in perpetuity, with all and each of its movable and immovable goods, rights and appurtenances, to the said brethren, to be ruled and governed by one Prior and brethren in fitting number according to their rites and manners and aforesaid regular institutes, and as the other houses of the said Carthusian Order are ruled and governed. And so let it be lawful for our beloved sons, the present visitors of the said Carthusian Order in the Province of Further Lombardy, according to the custom of the same Carthusian Order, within the limits of which Province the said house of St. Stephen stands, in the name of the Carthusian Order and of its brethren of this kind, freely to take by their own authority, by themselves or by another or others, corporal possession of the house of St. Stephen, and of the aforesaid goods, rights and appurtenances, and, as is premised, to retain it in perpetuity to be ruled and governed, and to convert its fruits, revenues and proceeds to the uses and utility of the brethren and of their house, the licence of the diocesan of the place and of anyone else whatsoever being by no means required for this.

[757] And to the Prior and brethren dwelling for the time in the same house of St. Stephen, the restitution having been obtained, we grant, on like counsel, by the aforesaid authority, that they and the said house may freely and lawfully use, possess and enjoy all and each of the privileges, graces, immunities, indulgences, exemptions, pre-eminences, favours and indults, spiritual and temporal, which the other houses of the said Carthusian Order, or the Priors and brethren dwelling for the time in them, generally use, possess and enjoy, and shall be able in any way to use, possess and enjoy in future; notwithstanding the Apostolic constitutions and ordinances, and the statutes and customs of the said orders, strengthened by oath, by Apostolic confirmation, or by any other firmness, and all other things whatsoever to the contrary. For we decree from now null and void whatever may happen to be attempted otherwise on these matters by anyone, by whatever authority, knowingly or ignorantly. Let it therefore be lawful for no man whatsoever to infringe this page of our suppression, extinction, grant and decree, or with rash daring to go against it. But if anyone should presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and thirteen, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of January, in the first year of our Pontificate. So, as is manifest from the Bull already transcribed here, Leo X restored to the Carthusians the Calabrian monastery of St. Stephen del Bosco, resigned to him by Ludovico or Luigi of Aragon, Cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, of whom Oldoini treats in the Lives of the Pontiffs and Cardinals, tome 3, column 187, in the year 1513, on the 16th day of December; and not long after they entered into possession of it.

[758] finally also, that to their holy Father, Jacopo of Aragon, says Camillo Tutini in his Prospectus of the Carthusian Order at the year 1514, Prior of Naples, with the Prior of Chiaromonte and other Carthusian monks and lay brothers, took possession of the monastery of St. Stephen of the wood on the 27th day of February. The Carthusians therefore entered into possession of the said monastery on the twenty-seventh day of February of the year 1514, and accordingly when three months had not yet elapsed after it had been restored to them; and how this was done Zanotti sets out in his History of St. Bruno, chapter 33, roughly in the following manner: Jacopo of Aragon, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples and visitor of the Province, and Pietro Acerri, Prior and co-visitor of the Charterhouse of Chiaromonte in Basilicata, a province of the kingdom of Naples, who had been designated for this, having joined to themselves the Priors of Bologna, Mantua and Rome, and furnished with Pontifical and royal letters, with the help which Adamo Toraldo, baron of Badolato, gave them, betook themselves to the monastery of St. Stephen; and when they had arrived there, they were received by the Cistercians, who had already been informed beforehand of the Pontiff's will by letters received from him, coming out to meet them in the manner of suppliants amid the festive sound of the bells, and soon entered the church; and when they had read aloud the Pontifical and royal letters, they entered into possession of the monastery in the manner prescribed by law, solemn thanks being given to God after the thing was done. Thus, roughly as to substance, he, from the manuscript monuments of Calabria, which, because they record things done within more recent memory, I think deserve credence here. Leo, further, who had shown himself benevolent towards the Carthusians by the restitution of the aforesaid monastery, not long after affected them with another and still greater favour. For in the same year 1514, the miracles which were reported to have been wrought by St. Bruno not having been examined by judicial process, he granted to the Carthusians by oracle of the living voice that they might celebrate his annual feast with an ecclesiastical Office and make a commemoration of him daily in the hourly prayers. This is made manifest by the letter which Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia, protector of the Carthusians, gave to them on this matter in the very year 1514. I therefore transcribe it here, because it also does much for our Saint's glory, from Pope Benedict XIV, On the Canonization of the Blessed and the Beatification of the servants of God, book 1, chapter 41.

[759] as the letter of the Cardinal of Pavia, protector of the Carthusians, It is conceived in these words: Antonio, by divine mercy Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of St. Praxedes, of Pavia, and also protector of the whole Carthusian Order, to all and each who shall inspect and read these our presents, everlasting greeting in the Lord. Since, out of our office of protection and the benevolence and piety with which we are affected towards the whole aforesaid Carthusian Order, we have today presented at the feet of our Most Holy Lord Leo X, by divine providence Pope, the venerable Religious men, the lords Matthew of Bologna, Louis of Mantua, Jacopo of Naples, and Hugh of Holy Cross in the City, Priors of Houses of the same Carthusian Order; and since both we and the aforesaid religious had related and set forth to His Holiness many things concerning the praises, commendations and holiness of life of blessed Bruno, confessor, first Founder and Institutor of the same Carthusian Order; which blessed Man, when the Christian warfare was declining, and charity was growing very cold on account of the abundance of iniquity, like a vigorous captain drew up and set in order a new army in the Church to resist the enemies, and into the vineyard which the Lord had planted with His right hand, now overgrown with the briers and thorns of vices, like a most skilful Father of the household he hired so many faithful labourers that richer fruits come forth from it day by day for holy Church, and it gives forth an odour of sweetness and of holiness.

[760] For the manifold example of this blessed Confessor's doctrine, brought forward here, of his most chastened life, of his innocence and purity, has begotten, and begets and nourishes daily without ceasing, very many sons of holy adoption; by whose merits the aforesaid Order is adorned and approved by miracles, and grows continually, as it were from virtue to virtue, watering the mountains from its upper rooms, and the earth is filled with the fruit of its works. Therefore we, together with the aforesaid Priors, have humbly besought the same Lord, our Lord, in the name of the Venerable men, François Dupuy, the present General, and of the other Priors, and of all the monks, nuns, lay brothers and persons of the said Order, that, for the glory of Almighty God, who exults in the veneration of His Saints, and for the honour of the aforesaid blessed Confessor, and for his most evident works of holiness and signs of virtues with which he shone while placed in the flesh, and shines perpetually having been called to heaven, and for the adornment of so illustrious an Order, of Apostolic munificence and kindness, under the sixth day of October, on which day, having laid down the burden of the flesh, the same blessed Bruno

confessor flew away to perpetual glory, he would deign to grant licence to celebrate a feast every year in his memory, and a solemn Office with worthy praises and honours in the Lord, and to make a commemoration of him on the other days; although the same blessed Bruno, Confessor, is not found to have been otherwise canonized by the supreme Pontiffs his predecessors, as is the custom.

[761] Our aforesaid most holy Lord the Pope, declaring attests, that he had long since learned very many things concerning the praises and holiness of the same blessed Confessor, and judging it worthy and consonant with reason that he whom God had distinguished in this world with such great gifts and graces should, having been taken up into heaven, be more and more venerated, and that to him to whom, while living, the Almighty had given a heart for the precepts and the law of life and of discipline, there should now, as he stands before the throne of Divine glory, be rendered on earth the homage of due devotion; gladly assenting to our supplications and those of the aforesaid Priors of this kind, benignly and favourably granted and likewise indulged, by oracle of the living voice made to us, to the said lord François, the present General, and to the one who shall be General for the time, and to the other Priors, monks, nuns, lay brothers and persons of the said Order, only in the houses of that Order and in their churches or chapels, licence solemnly to keep the aforesaid feast and to celebrate it with due devotion, and to honour and venerate the body and memory of the aforesaid Bruno with worthy praises in the Lord, and to perform and chant a fitting Office in honour of the same blessed Confessor, and also to make a commemoration on each day, from then and henceforth in perpetuity, with the blessing of God; notwithstanding that the same blessed Bruno, confessor, is not found to have been otherwise canonized, as above; there being also present there the most reverend father in Christ, the lord Lorenzo Pucci, Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the Title of the Four Holy Crowned Ones, and the reverend father the lord Francesco Amellino, clerk of the Apostolic chamber.

[762] may pay cult, Wherefore, lest any doubt concerning a grant of this kind should arise with anyone, we have ordered these presents to be made, subscribed with our own hand and fortified by the appending of our accustomed seal, and have also had them subscribed by our secretary, in faith, strength and testimony of the premises and of the truth. Given at Rome in the Apostolic Palace on the 19th day of the month of July in the year 1514, in the second year of the Pontificate of our Lord. Antonio, Cardinal of St. Praxedes, protector, with his own hand. Antonio Testa of Veroli. Such is the letter by which Antonio, Cardinal priest of Pavia of the Holy Roman Church of the title of St. Praxedes, and protector of the Carthusian Order, publicly testified that Leo the tenth, supreme Pontiff, had by oracle of the living voice indulged to all persons whatsoever belonging to this Order, whether men or women, the faculty of paying St. Bruno the cult expressed in the same letter. Zanotti, in the History or Life of St. Bruno produced by him, chapter 33, writes roughly as to substance thus: Pope Leo the tenth, in the year 1514, on the nineteenth day of July, subscribed a Brief offered to him by Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia, protector of the Carthusian Order, by which he granted that the monks, nuns and any other persons whatsoever professing the Institute of St. Bruno might celebrate the feast of St. Bruno every year on the sixth day of October in their monasteries with solemn rite and a proper Office, and make a commemoration of the same holy Father of theirs in the daily ecclesiastical Office. The autograph of this Brief is now preserved at the Grande Chartreuse, and in it Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci and Francesco Armellino, clerk of the reverend Apostolic chamber, are read to have been witnesses of the Pontifical approval.

[763] obtain by oracle of the living voice. Thus, roughly, as I have already advised, as to substance he. But it is not to be doubted that the recited letter of Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia, was wrongly taken by this writer for a Brief which Pope Leo the tenth granted, since he writes that this was given in the same year and on the same day on which the letter is noted to have been given, and affirms that the same persons, whose names however he writes a little differently, namely Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci of the Holy Roman Church and Francesco Amellino, clerk of the Apostolic Chamber, who in the recited letter itself of Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia, are recorded to have been present with the Pontiff when he granted the aforesaid faculty to the Carthusians by oracle of the living voice, were likewise present at the approval or subscription, made by this Pontiff, of the Brief which Cardinal Antonio, protector of the Carthusian Order, offered to Leo the tenth. Moreover, the recited letter of Cardinal Antonio, signed in that very year 1514 and on the 19th day of July, on which a brief of this kind would, in Zanotti's opinion, have been given, attests that Leo indulged to the Carthusians on the 19th day of July in the year 1514, not by a Brief which he granted, but only by oracle of the living voice, that they might honour the holy Founder of their Order in the manner already stated; so that it ought in no way to be doubted that this writer was mistaken here. Nor do those who contend that St. Bruno was enrolled among the Saints by Leo the tenth by canonization, at least equipollent canonization, seem free from error, as the following § will disclose.

* perhaps "qui"?

§ XLVII. Whether Pope Leo X also canonized Bruno, and what things contributing to the posthumous glory of the Saint most immediately followed the faculty of paying him cult granted by this Pontiff.

[Pope Leo did not canonize Bruno by the very act by which he permitted him to be venerated,] Some think that Pope Leo X not only granted that ecclesiastical cult be paid to Bruno, but also enrolled him among the Saints, or canonized him; and foremost among these indeed seems to have been the most learned father of the Ecclesiastical Annals, Baronius, inasmuch as in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology he observes today of Bruno thus: He departed this life in the year of the Lord 1101, and was entered among the Saints by Leo the tenth, Roman Pontiff. But Pope Benedict XIV thought far otherwise; for in his Work On the Beatification of the servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 1, chapter 41, § III, he contends that it can in no way be said that St. Bruno was canonized by Leo X, and certainly not undeservedly, as is proved both by what he himself adduces there and by what we are now about to adduce here. Since canonization, as I shall show below, implies a precept of cult, it is manifest that Bruno was certainly not entered in the number of the Saints, or canonized, by this Pontiff through the oracle of the living voice by which, as is understood from the recited letter of the Cardinal of Pavia, Pope Leo X in the year 1514 only granted that ecclesiastical cult might be paid to him. Wherefore, in order that it may be true that the holy Founder of the Carthusians was canonized by Leo, it is necessary that he did so afterwards by another declaration, expressed either likewise by oracle of the living voice or by letters. But of a declaration made by oracle of the living voice, and distinct from the declaration mentioned in the letter of the Cardinal of Pavia, by which Pope Leo entered Bruno in the number of the Saints, absolutely no writer makes mention.

[765] But as regards a declaration expressed by letters or a bull, yet some hold that he did this by a bull given afterwards. by which he did so, Tutini indeed, in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, page 135, after he has narrated that Leo X in the year 1514 granted by oracle of the living voice that public cult might be paid to St. Bruno, adds at the year 1515: Leo X transmitted the bull of canonization of St. Bruno to the General of the Carthusian Order, and in it enjoins many things to be observed in the Order. Some others, further, agree with Tutini when he here relates that a bull by which the Saint was canonized was given by Leo. I do not know, however, whether Surius ought to be counted among these. For although at the end of the Life of our Saint written by him he describes his canonization in verse in this manner:

Pope Leo, to be revered for his deeds and majesty, Surrounded by the Cardinal Fathers in a solemn act, Was informed how holily Bruno had once lived; What service he rendered to the City while he lived, And how through him the Church grew in divine worship; And he had heard with certainty of certain miracles of his. Therefore, with the concordant wishes of the Fathers, he Entered him among the Saints; he granted that his feast Be celebrated every year on the sixth light of October (For on that day, dying, he ascended to Olympus), Permitting statues to be erected to him and chapels to be built; On these matters he confers charters duly drawn up. These the Chartreuse, mother of our Order, preserves Among many instruments of the Roman senate;

yet he prefixes to this description this title: The Canonization, as they call it, of St. Bruno, written in verse; from which words he may seem to have doubted whether Bruno was truly canonized by Pope Leo. Moreover, by the charter which he here mentions he perhaps understands, with Zanotti (see number 762), only the Brief by which Leo permitted the Saint's cult. However that may be, it must be held as indubitable that a bull by which Leo X canonized St. Bruno was not given.

[766] But this, since a bull of this kind neither in the ordinance of the year 1515 I show it thus: if a bull of this kind, which, although the most diligent search has been made both at Rome and elsewhere, could not be found, had been given by Leo in the year 1515, it would at any rate have been known either to the general chapter of the Reverend Carthusian Fathers celebrated at the Grande Chartreuse on the seventh day of May and following in the said year 1515, if it preceded May, or certainly, if it was later than this month, to the general chapter of the same Reverend Fathers celebrated likewise at the Grande Chartreuse in the year 1516 on the 21st day of April and following: but it does not seem in any way to have been known to either of these general chapters. For the Fathers ordained in the former of those two general chapters that every year, as had been granted by Pope Leo, the feast of St. Bruno should be celebrated with solemn rite on the sixth day of October, a fitting Office be performed of him, and a daily commemoration be instituted in the ecclesiastical Office; and they confirmed this ordinance by a new ordinance made in the later chapter, enjoining moreover that St. Bruno be both invoked in the Conventual Litanies and inscribed in the Martyrology; but they do not mention a Bull by which the Pontiff canonized Bruno and ordered cult to be paid him, which they would certainly not have omitted to do if they had had knowledge of a bull of this kind. So that the studious reader may perceive how true this is, and that I may pass over nothing that concerns the posthumous glory of the Saint, I transcribe here both those ordinances, procured for me from the Grande Chartreuse by the Carthusian of Paris already praised very often above. The former, or the one which was made in the general chapter of the year 1515, runs thus: Whereas our most holy Lord, the Lord Leo, by divine Providence the tenth and present Pope, has by his grace given and granted to us and to our Order licence and authority that in each house of our said Order, and in their churches or chapels, we may solemnly keep the feast of blessed Bruno our Father and celebrate it with due devotion, and honour and venerate his body and memory with worthy praises in the Lord, and perform and chant a fitting Office in his honour, and also make a commemoration of him on each day, and otherwise, as in the

letters drawn up on this matter (namely those of the Cardinal of Pavia, which I gave in the preceding §) is more fully contained.

[767] Therefore, lest we seem to have neglected so great a grace, to the praise of God and of the same Father of ours, in which they ordained that cult, which was lawful by the Pontiff's grant, and to his honour, to the increase of the Order, and to the salvation, consolation and peace of ourselves and of all our people, following the mind and tenor of the said letters, we will and ordain that henceforth every year in perpetual future times, on the sixth day of the month of October, on which day the same Father of ours, loosed from the flesh, was clothed with blessed immortality, the aforesaid feast be solemnly celebrated with candles in all and each of the houses of our whole aforesaid Order and in their churches or chapels, in honour and under the name and title of the same blessed Bruno, confessor, and be kept with due devotion by all and each of the Priors, monks, lay brothers and other persons of our said Order, and his body and memory be venerated with worthy praises in the Lord; and that a solemn Office of him be performed and chanted on that sixth day of October with twelve lessons, chapter, refectory, and the other ceremonies which are wont to be observed on solemn feasts of candles, namely in this manner which follows. At first Vespers, the Antiphon over the Psalms, Let your loins. The Responsory, "Blessed is the servant." At Matins, the first eight lessons, the sermon of blessed Augustine the bishop which begins: "Our Lord Jesus Christ," as on the feast of St. Martin. But the last four, the Homily of blessed Gregory the Pope which begins: "Of the holy Gospel," on the Gospel according to Luke: "Let your loins," as on the feast of St. Benedict. At Mass, the said Gospel: "Let your loins." All other things, both at Mass, at both Vespers, at Matins, and at the other Hours, are to be done as for one confessor not a bishop, except the prayers, which shall be said as they are noted below at the foot of the present ordinance. We likewise will and ordain that on the vigil of the said feast there be abstinence, and on the day a sermon be made in the chapter of the monks and lay brothers to the praise of the same Saint and for the reformation of the Order, and that on that day there be cessation from all works, so that we may be able to attend more easily and devoutly to the divine praises.

[768] Likewise we ordain that the said feast be written in the Calendars of the Order under the said sixth day of October, to be paid to their holy Father, and that in the Litanies there be placed and written after St. Benedict, and from then on said, "Saint Bruno, pray for us." Likewise we ordain that on each day on which the other accustomed suffrages are said at Matins and Vespers, immediately after the commemoration of St. John, a commemoration of him be made in this manner. Antiphon, I will liken. Versicle, The just man He led. Prayer, "Almighty everlasting God, etc. That through his intercession and merits we may deserve to obtain divine grace in the present and eternal glory in the future." There follow the Prayers to be said at Mass, of which the first shall be said on the day at both Vespers, Lauds and Terce, and daily at the commemoration at Matins and Vespers. Prayer. "Almighty everlasting God, who preparest mansions in heaven for those who renounce the world, we humbly implore Thine immense clemency that, blessed Bruno Thy Confessor interceding, we may be able faithfully to fulfil the vows which we have made in professing, and to attain wholesomely to those things which Thou hast deigned to promise to those who persevere in Thee. Through." Secret. "We offer Thee, O Lord, the gift to be consecrated, suppliantly entreating Thy majesty that, through the intercession and merits of blessed Bruno Thy Confessor, absolved from all sins and from the penalties of all sins, we may be able to offer a sacrifice acceptable to Thee in memory of Thy Passion and of our Redemption. Who livest." Postcommunion. "By these holy things which we have received, O Lord God, kindle in us a pious affection for holy Religion, that, following the footsteps of him whom we venerate as a father on earth, we may deserve to fulfil, by Thy working, what by Thy gift we have promised, and, when the end of life has come, to come to Thee, who art the way, the truth and the life. Who livest, etc."

[769] [nor in the other ordinance of the year 1516, by which they confirmed this statute,] The later one, or that which was prescribed in the year 1516, is conceived in these words: We confirm the Ordinance made in the preceding Chapter concerning the celebration of the feast of blessed Bruno our Father, and we will and command that it be observed in perpetuity in our Order, with this added: that as in the private Litanies, so also in the Conventual ones there be placed and written, and from then on said: "Saint Bruno, pray for us." And in the Martyrology under the sixth day of October let these words be written: In Calabria, the deposition of blessed Bruno, confessor, first Founder of the Carthusian Order. And nonetheless we ordain that from his life, newly printed, reading be made in the refectory every year in each house of the Order on the said feast. These two ordinances, which in the title prefixed to them at their head are noted as taken from the codex of ordinances made by the general chapters, the most reverend minister general of the Carthusian Order, François Biclet, who subscribes them, himself testifies agree with the autographs themselves. Weigh now, studious reader, those two documents just recited, and I scarcely doubt that you will confess that in the later of them at least the Carthusian Fathers of the general chapter celebrated in the year 1516 would have made mention of the Pontifical letters by which St. Bruno had been canonized, if these had come to their knowledge and had therefore been sent, as Tutini records in the words just recited, to the General of the Carthusian Order. For since the Fathers of the general chapter of the year 1515 did not omit to make mention in the former of the faculty by which the Pontiff had granted, only by oracle of the living voice, that the Saint be publicly venerated, who would think that the Fathers of the chapter of 1516, had they known a Pontifical Bull of this kind, not only permitting but decreeing or commanding the ecclesiastical cult of Bruno, would not have made mention of it in the later of the said documents, by which they confirmed what they had previously established about paying cult to their holy Father, when it had not been commanded but only permitted by the Pontiff?

[770] the Carthusians make mention Moreover, in the later of the two recited ordinances, made, from what has been said, in the year 1516, the Fathers of the general chapter then celebrated not only did not mention a Pontifical Bull, sent by Pope Leo the tenth to the General of the Carthusian Order, by which this Pontiff canonized St. Bruno, but in this very ordinance of theirs they furnish occasion for conjecturing that a bull of this kind was not sent by Leo to the General of their Order. For while in it they command that the holy Founder of their Order be inscribed in the Martyrology, they order this to be done not with the title of Saint but only with that of Blessed, though they would most probably have done otherwise if they had perceived that the title of Saint belonged to him by virtue of a Pontifical Bull by which Bruno had been canonized, at least by equipollent canonization, as they call it. Nor is there reason for you to reply that Bruno in the aforesaid ordinance is also honoured with the title of Saint, inasmuch as by it he is ordered to be invoked in the conventual Litanies by these words, Saint Bruno, pray for us; for of the heavenly ones who are invoked in Litanies of this kind, which are not accustomed to be recited publicly, both those who are and those who are not entered in the roll of the Saints by canonization, whether formal or equipollent, are wont to be given the title of Saint. But let us grant even that what we have so far brought forward from the capitular ordinances of the Carthusians against the bull of canonization of St. Bruno asserted by Camillo Tutini, which Pope Leo X is said to have sent to the General of the Carthusian Order in the year 1515, is of no force whatever; yet that a bull of this kind was never given by that Pontiff, and accordingly not sent to the General of the Carthusian Order either, ought to be indubitable for this reason alone, that St. Bruno, father and founder of the Carthusians, was enrolled in the number of the Saints by Leo the tenth by neither formal nor equipollent canonization, as what I am now about to say will make manifest.

[771] Before all things, in order that it may be better perceived whether the Saint was truly canonized by Leo, [and that he be venerated in the universal Church in the manner which is required for canonization,] let us see what Canonization and what Beatification is, and thus what difference lies between the one and the other. Canonization, as Benedict XIV teaches, On the Beatification of the servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 1, chapter 41, number 1, is twofold, one formal, the other equipollent. Formal, that which is done by the supreme Pontiff with judicial form observed and a sentence pronounced, and the customary ceremonies observed. Equipollent, when a servant of God, being in ancient possession of cult, celebrated by fame of virtues and miracles, without any sentence pronounced or judicial order observed, and the customary ceremonies omitted, is ordered to be venerated in the universal Church on a certain day by the recitation and celebration of the Office and Mass, the rite also, whether double or semidouble, in which this is to be done being, contrary to what is usually done in the bulls of formal canonization (see the praised Work of Benedict XIV, book 1, chapter 38, number 5 and following), expressly and by name determined or prescribed, as is understood from various examples of equipollent canonization adduced by Benedict XIV in book 1, chapter 41 of the Work just cited again, and accordingly a further (see again the praised Work of Benedict XIV, book 1, chapter 38, number 5 and following) constitution not being required in order that the Saint who was canonized by equipollent canonization may be so venerated. As now regards Beatification, this, no otherwise than Canonization, is divided into formal and equipollent: formal indeed, when, after a formal discussion of the virtues and miracles, the Pontiff indulges that a servant of God be venerated as Blessed in some certain place; but equipollent, when the supreme Pontiff, after a judicial proof of the fame of virtues and miracles, approves a sentence given by an ordinary or delegated judge on a case excepted from the decrees of Urban VIII. Thus, as to substance, the same Benedict XIV in the Work praised, book 1, chapter 42, number 8.

[772] In this, therefore, Canonization, whether formal or equipollent, chiefly differs from Beatification, whether formal or equipollent, Leo did not command the Saint, appears foreign to the truth. that Beatification implies only a permission, Canonization a precept of cult; and likewise that in Beatification the cult is restricted to some province, diocese, city or religious family, while in Canonization it is extended to the universal Church. Now indeed, since these things are so, and most especially since for formal Canonization a judicial order or form is required in examining the things that concern the Blessed who is canonized, it is manifest that Bruno was certainly not enrolled among the Saints by Leo by this kind. Nor indeed does anyone contend it. But as regards equipollent canonization, neither did Leo enrol Bruno among the Saints by this. For he never commanded him to be venerated in the universal Church by the Office and the celebration of Mass in the manner which the description of equipollent canonization given in the preceding number includes. This is clear

from the fact that, as I shall prove in the Appendix on the posthumous glory of the Saint, it was at length granted in the year 1623 by Pope Gregory XV, at the supplication of the Carthusians, that the feast of St. Bruno … on the sixth day of October … might be placed in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and that the semidouble Office of him (these are the words of the Bull given by Gregory on this matter, and to be recited below) might and could be freely and lawfully recited by all the faithful everywhere; whence it follows indeed that Pope Leo X had not already earlier commanded the Saint to be venerated in the Universal Church by the Office and the celebration of Mass in the manner which the description of equipollent canonization given in the preceding number involves. And hence, and at the same time from what was said before, it further follows that he neither gave in the year 1515 a Bull by which he canonized St. Bruno, still less sent one to the General of the Carthusian Order, contrary to what Camillo Tutini relates in the words recited above, and some others, led into error by him, as I think, still judge today.

[773] Nor did this Pontiff enrol Bruno among the Blessed by formal beatification, Further, since our Saint, who from what has already been said was not canonized by Leo X, is found to have been enrolled among the Blessed by the aforesaid Pontiff in no other way than by the oracle of the living voice by which it was granted to the Carthusians that they might honour him with ecclesiastical cult, everyone, as I think, will easily understand that this too was done by him not by formal Beatification but only by equipollent, partly from the description or notice already given both of the formal and of the equipollent Beatification of Servants of God, and partly from the manner in which Pope Leo is asserted to have proceeded in granting heavenly honours to St. Bruno, both by Blömenvenna, and Surius following him, in the Lives of the Saint composed by them, and by Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia of the Holy Roman Church, in the letter transcribed here above. For for formal (see number 771) Beatification there is required a formal discussion, which goes before it or is preliminary to it, of the virtues and miracles of the Servant of God who is proposed to be enrolled among the Blessed; but the manner in which Leo the tenth proceeded in granting heavenly honours to St. Bruno was the following: When this Pontiff, to whom the deputed Carthusian Priors, and Antonio, Cardinal of Pavia of the Holy Roman Church, in the name of the whole said Order, of which he was protector, made supplication that he would deign to grant to the Carthusian Order the faculty of honouring St. Bruno with an annual feast and ecclesiastical Office and of making a daily commemoration of him in the hourly prayers, had long since learned very many things concerning the praises and holiness of the same blessed Confessor, judging it worthy and consonant with reason that he whom God had distinguished in this world with such great gifts and graces should, having been taken up into heaven, be more and more venerated, and that to him to whom, while living, the Almighty had given a heart for the precepts and the law of life and of discipline, there should now, as he stands before the throne of divine glory, be rendered on earth the homage of due devotion, he most gladly consented to their request.

[774] but enrolled him among the Blessed only by equipollent beatification. Thus the letter of Cardinal Antonio already given above at number 759 and following. Nor does Blömenvenna, with whom Surius also agrees exactly in substance, differ much from it in this matter. Here are his words bearing on this. They run thus: Our most holy lord (namely Pope Leo the tenth), when he had frequently heard by the account of many of the exceptional holiness of blessed Bruno, setting aside an inquiry into miracles, judged it unworthy that he whom God had adorned in this world with such great gifts and graces should not now, taken up into heaven, be extolled with the greatest praises, and that to him to whom the Almighty had given a heart for the precept and the law of life and of discipline, there should not now, as he rests before the throne of divine glory, be rendered on earth the homage of due devotion. And therefore he not only generously assented by Apostolic authority, but also willed that in each house of the whole Carthusian Order … the feast of the most holy Bruno, confessor, every year on the sixth day of October … be solemnly kept and celebrated with fitting and due devotion. Now indeed, since Pope Leo permitted the ecclesiastical cult, likewise expressed in these words, to be paid to St. Bruno not after a formal discussion of virtues and miracles had been premised, but impelled only by the fame of holiness, as is understood from the words already given of Cardinal Antonio's letter and of Blömenvenna, it is surely most manifest that he did not do this by formal Beatification, since for this, from what has been said, a formal discussion of virtues and miracles is required, and accordingly that our Saint was enrolled among the Blessed not by this but only by equipollent beatification, such as was then in use, and which did not demand the Pontifical approval of a sentence given by an ordinary or delegated judge on a case excepted from the decrees of Urban VIII, since these did not yet exist then.

[775] But whatever in the end was the manner in which it happened that Bruno, the most holy Founder of the Carthusians, In the very year in which this happened, 1514, the sacred body of the Saint was enrolled among the Blessed by Leo the tenth, supreme Pontiff, it was at any rate granted to the Carthusians by him that they might publicly pay him heavenly honours. Nor did they long allow that faculty to remain unused. For they strictly decreed in the general chapter which was celebrated in the year 1515, immediately following the grant of the said faculty, as the ordinance made in it and transcribed here above attests, that the cult permitted by the supreme Pontiff should be paid to their holy Parent in each house of their Order by absolutely all, whether clerics or lay brothers; and already in the very year 1514, in which the said faculty had been granted them by the Pontiff, they had translated the body of St. Bruno from the church of St. Mary of La Torre to the church of St. Stephen of the wood, as, with no one contradicting them in this matter, Tutini in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order, page 136, and others teach. The said Tutini indeed writes in the place cited that this was done only in the same year 1515 in which the aforesaid ordinance was made in the general chapter of the Carthusian Order; but just as this writer, who flourished no earlier than the century just past and accordingly was far removed from the event, was mistaken, from what has been said, in asserting a bull sent to the Carthusians by which Pope Leo the tenth canonized St. Bruno, so also here, in assigning the year in which the sacred relics of the Saint were translated from the church of St. Mary to the church of St. Stephen of the wood, he is mistaken beyond all doubt. For Blömenvenna, who was alive at the very time when the said translation of the sacred relics of the Saint took place, and was Prior of the Charterhouse of Cologne (see Morozzo in the Chronological Theatre of the Carthusian Order and Petreius in the Carthusian Library), records in the Life of St. Bruno composed by him, from the account of Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, who had been present at the event, that it was done as early as the year 1514; and he has absolutely all the other writers treating of that matter, at least those whom I have seen, agreeing with him.

[776] [as he teaches here from the account of the Prior of Bologna, who was present at the event, to Blömenvenna, was translated; and in the year 1515 with the Prior of Freiburg] The words by which Blömenvenna fixes the said translation to the year 1514 on the testimony of the praised Prior of Bologna, who had been present at it, are these following: In the year of the Lord … 1514 dom Matthew, Prior of the house of Bologna, who had himself also been deputed to press the business mentioned above (the restitution of the monastery of St. Stephen), being personally present at the translation of the bones of St. Bruno, held his sacred head in his hands so that it should not be placed on the altar with the bones; and when the crowds had gathered and feared to be deprived of the holy relics of their most beloved Patron, he satisfied them by saying that it was needful that the sacred head, separated from the bones, be clothed with gold and silver and adorned with precious stones: and so, removing from them the suspicion of diligent custody, by special licence of the supreme Pontiff he took away some part of the head and shared it with others, and especially gave a small portion of the same head to the venerable father Gregory, Prior of the house of Freiburg, in the year of the Lord 1515, at the time of the general chapter, which he, dividing it into little pieces, distributed through the houses of the province of the Rhine committed to him as principal visitor. But because St. Bruno was a Cologner by nation, the aforesaid dom Matthew had reserved a small portion of the same head for the Prior of the house of Cologne, and gave it to him in the presence of the reverend Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, he rejoicing greatly and receiving it with great devotion, in the year 1516; who, having returned to Cologne in the same year, deposited the most precious and to him most welcome gift in the church of his house on the day of the Finding of St. Stephen; and the dust falling away from the division he distributed to the houses of the province of Germany, namely St. Saviour near Utrecht, St. Mary in Monnikhuizen, St. Andrew near Amsterdam, and St. Bartholomew near Delft.

[777] [and in the following year with the Prior of Cologne a part of the sacred treasure was shared;] And the body of St. Bruno was translated in the year of the Lord 1514 by the lord John Rufi, abbot, and, as the lord Matthew, of whom above, related to me, placed upon the high altar, built of white marble, with a boarding of four fingers' thickness set around it, and an iron grating also going round the altar itself on every side, whose table too is of white marble. And this altar is situated at the head of the church of St. Stephen del Bosco. Thus he, most plainly teaching that the sacred body of St. Bruno was translated in the year 1514. Nor do we have only this from the recited words of Blömenvenna, but also that the translation was carried out by John Rufi, abbot, who perhaps is better called by Surius and others John, abbot of St. Rufus, and that Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, was also present at it. Zanotti, further, says in the Life of the Saint written by him, chapter 33, that not only he but also the Priors of the Charterhouses of Naples, of Chiaromonte in Basilicata, a province of the kingdom of Naples, of Mantua and of Rome stood present at that solemnity. And indeed, although I nowhere find this confirmed by the testimony of a synchronous or contemporary writer, yet I think it most probable if only from the fact that the same Priors had earlier been deputed to see to the restoration of the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre to their Order. But let it suffice to have said this about the things which concern the translation of the sacred treasure; now let us say something about the treasure itself. That while that solemnity was being carried out a part of the head was taken from it by Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, in the manner he sets out, Blömenvenna teaches in the words just given, as also that one portion of that part was given in the year 1515 to Gregory, Prior of the Charterhouse of Freiburg, and another to the Prior of the Charterhouse of Cologne in the year 1516, by the praised Matthew, Prior of the Carthusians of Bologna.

[778] And the Prior of Cologne indeed, on whom this sacred gift was conferred, was Blömenvenna himself, [he who commits these things to writing, and who, because he was born at Leiden, or Lugdunum Batavorum, is also not rarely found named Leidensis from his native place,] as is clear both from the time at which he is recorded by Petreius and Morozzo to have presided over the Charterhouse of Cologne, and from Surius, who, the same things which in the words

already given of Blömenvenna, recording in the Life of our Saint written by him, records the following: Because St. Bruno had Cologne as his native city, the same lord Matthew gave a small portion of his head to the lord Peter of Leiden, Prior of the Charterhouse of Cologne, to whom that gift was by far most welcome, and who, having returned home in the year 1516, reverently deposited the most precious gift in the church of the Charterhouse of Cologne on the 3rd day of August. Thus Surius. But how did it come about that Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, bestowed a portion of the head of St. Bruno on Gregory, Prior of the Charterhouse of Freiburg and visitor of the province of the Rhine, in the year 1515, as Blömenvenna testifies in the words recited, at the general chapter of the Carthusian Order celebrated according to custom at the Chartreuse, and yet did not at the same time deliver into the hands of Blömenvenna, who was then also a visitor of the province of the Rhine, the part of the head destined for the Charterhouse of Cologne, which is itself also situated in the province of the Rhine? Since, of the two visitors of each province of the Carthusian Order, only one, as Innocent Le Masson teaches in the Work which he entitled Annals of the Carthusian Order, book 3, chapter 22, is bound to go every year to the general chapter to be celebrated at the Grande Chartreuse, and since Gregory, Prior of the Charterhouse of Freiburg, was present at the general chapter of the year 1515 as visitor of the said province of the Rhine, it is easily understood how it could have come about that Blömenvenna, although he too was a visitor of the province of the Rhine, was not present at the general chapter in the year 1515, and that accordingly Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, did not deliver into his hands before the year 1516 the small portion of the head of St. Bruno which he had destined for the Charterhouse of Cologne because the Saint had been born in that city, but reserved it to be delivered into his hands until the time when he knew he would be present at the general chapter.

[779] Further, on the occasion of our Saint's translation not only did the Prior of the Charterhouse of Freiburg obtain a part of his sacred remains, [and a part of the sacred bones had been given before the year 1514 to François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse,] and the Prior of the Charterhouse of Cologne another, who, as Blömenvenna also teaches in the words transcribed here above, shared the sacred gift with other Charterhouses of the Provinces of the Rhine and of Germany or Belgium; but also not a few others of the sacred Order of Carthusians, as it does not appear to be doubted. And first indeed the sons of the Charterhouse of Paris obtained for themselves a bone of a finger, which even today, as Baillet teaches in tome 3 of the Lives, column 91, is seen at the foot of a statue representing Bruno. But Zanotti, in the Life of the Saint composed by him, chapter 33, furnishes moreover an assertion bearing on this, about which I am in suspense of mind whether it accords with the truth. For he says that at the very time when it happened that the sacred body of our Saint was translated, Jacopo of Aragon, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, took from the body of St. Bruno, the faculty for this having been given him by the Pontiff, a part of the lower jaw together with two teeth, and sent those sacred remains as a gift to François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, who had contributed not a little to procuring solemn cult for the Saint; but Blömenvenna, who from what has already been said was contemporary with the event, and probably also heard of it from Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, who stood present at the Saint's translation, records that that sacred gift was made to François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, earlier than the year 1514, and that it was not sent to him as a gift but offered to him in person by Jacopo of Aragon himself, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples.

[780] as appears to be established from Blömenvenna, Here are his words bearing on this. When the business, he says, of this restitution (namely of the Calabrian monastery of St. Stephen) was being pressed or negotiated, at the time when the general chapter was being celebrated at the Chartreuse, the Prior of the house of Naples, to whom this business had been committed, came and presented to the reverend father dom François, Prior of the house of the Grande Chartreuse, a part of the jaw with two teeth of St. Bruno, and narrated to all who wished to hear that the abbots of the house of St. Stephen, in which the sacred body of blessed Bruno rests, had guarded his sacred relics with such diligence, out of fear of the Carthusians, namely lest they should take them away, that, the bones having been separated and placed in various more secret places, and those same places often changed, no one could know where the sacred relics were except the abbot and one other person worthy of trust. Thus far he. And by these words of his, as will be plain to one who considers them, he most plainly relates that the Saint's jaw together with two of his teeth was not sent as a gift to Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, by the Prior of the Carthusians of Naples, but that the latter himself, contrary to what Zanotti writes, offered that sacred gift to the said Prior of the Grande Chartreuse when he was present with him in person at the time of the general chapter; and as regards the time at which the thing happened, he writes that it was done at the time when the Carthusians were pressing for the monastery of St. Stephen to be restored to their Order, and accordingly before it had been restored to them. Now indeed, since the business of this restitution was ended in the month of February of the year 1514 by the execution, from what was said above, of the Pontifical decree given in the year 1513 by which it was ordered to be done, and since the general chapter of the Carthusians of the year 1514, at the time of which Jacopo, the Prior of Naples, could have offered the aforesaid sacred gift to François Dupuy, had then certainly not yet been celebrated (for the Carthusians never hold their general chapters before Easter), it altogether follows from what Blömenvenna writes in the words recited that it happened before the year 1514, contrary to what Zanotti relates, that our Saint's jaw together with two of his teeth was offered to François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, by Jacopo, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples.

[781] and what remains of them in Calabria is honourably preserved there. But, you will say, since the Cistercians, while the monastery of St. Stephen was in their hands, hid the sacred bones of St. Bruno very studiously and cunningly, as is understood from the very words of Blömenvenna recited, how did it come about that Jacopo, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, obtained from them, before that monastery had been restored to the Carthusians, the jaw which, together with two of the Saint's teeth, he gave as a gift to the Prior of the Grande Chartreuse? I confess there is certainly reason why this knot appears difficult to untie. Yet, since the place in which the body of St. Bruno, or, if you prefer, his sacred bones, had been laid away had been divinely revealed to Antonio Sabino, appointed procurator or prefect of all the goods and revenues of the monastery of St. Stephen by the Cardinal of Aragon, its commendatory abbot, as early as the year 1513, if Tutini notes rightly, or even, if Zanotti is to be believed, as early as the year 1502, it may be that Jacopo, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, joined to him by kinship, received the jaw and two teeth from them before the year 1514 from the said Cardinal, who was well disposed towards the Carthusians. Since this is so, it appears to me more probable, on account of what Blömenvenna, a synchronous author, records on this matter, that the jaw of St. Bruno with two of his teeth was given to François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, before the year 1514, than the opposite, related by Zanotti, a more recent author; although meanwhile Camillo Tutini also supports the latter, writing in the Prospectus of the History of the Carthusian Order that in the year 1514 some relics collected from Bruno's body were distributed to the Charterhouses of the Grande Chartreuse, of Cologne and of Paris: for since this writer certainly errs, from what has already been said above, as regards the Saint's relics which the Charterhouse of Cologne obtained in the year 1514, he cannot add weight to what Zanotti commits to writing about the time at which the Saint's jaw together with two of his teeth was handed over to François Dupuy, or to the Grande Chartreuse.

[782] However, although what Zanotti commits to writing about the time and manner in which François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, obtained the jaw of the head of St. Bruno together with two teeth from Jacopo of Aragon, Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, cannot, as what has already been said proves, be held as certain and indubitable, yet it appears that one must agree without any scruple with him when he asserts, in chapter 33, just cited, of his lucubration praised very often, that the remaining part of the head of St. Bruno, enclosed in a silver herm representing the Saint, is honourably preserved even today in the Calabrian monastery of St. Stephen. For besides the fact that Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, declared to the people standing by at the Saint's translation, as Blömenvenna teaches in the words recited above, that the sacred head of the Saint, separated from the other bones, was to be clothed with gold and silver and adorned with gems, that writer could certainly have learned from the monuments of Calabria, which he praises very often, what he records on this matter. And even from this it is also not to be doubted that what he teaches in the place cited, likewise, as I think, from the monuments of Calabria, concerning the rest of the Saint's body preserved even today in the monastery of St. Stephen under a magnificent altar in a marble chest, accords with the truth; although meanwhile these monuments cannot produce indubitable credence in matters more remote from our age, and hence I have thought that not a few assertions which Zanotti drew from them, and which it was not worth the effort to refute of set purpose, should be passed over in silence or neglected in the course of this Commentary, no otherwise than some others which are related by other more recent writers and which I judged not to be supported by a sufficiently proven foundation of truth or even of verisimilitude.

OLDER LIFE,

By the anonymous chronologer of the first five Priors of the Chartreuse,

Drawn from a most ancient manuscript of the library of the Carthusians of Cologne.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.) BHL Number: 1467

By an anonymous author.

SOLE CHAPTER

The occasion of St. Bruno's conversion; he resolves to seek solitude, draws others to the same purpose, proceeds to Grenoble, withdraws into the desert of the Chartreuse, is summoned from it and betakes himself to the Pontiff, obtains from him the faculty of returning to solitude, hides himself in the hermitage of La Torre in Calabria, and dies there.

A doctor of Paris of renowned name, who had died, In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1082, or about then, while the solemn school was flourishing at Paris, especially in Philosophy and Theology and Canon Law, as it generally has been wont to, such a prodigy is said to have happened there. For a certain eminent doctor, excellently honoured, as it seemed, in life, fame, doctrine and knowledge among all the doctors of Paris, and wonderfully in favour, being overtaken by a grave and final illness, after lying ill not long closed his last day.

[2] first says he has been accused, And when, during the whole day on which he died, according to the custom of Paris, the body lying on the bier in the hall, the divine Offices had been continually chanted, on the morrow morning, the University ^b of Paris, both of scholars and of doctors, having assembled there in order to give so honourable a man a solemn and honourable burial with the funeral Office, when they wished to raise the bier of the reverend man, on which the body lay, to carry it to the church, suddenly, all being astonished, he who seemed to be dead, and was, raised his head, sat up on the bier, and,

in the hearing of all, cried out with a loud and terrible voice: By the just judgment of God I have been accused; and, having said this, he laid down his head and lay dead, as before.

[3] then that he has been judged, At which voice all, astounded and terrified, decided that he should by no means be buried on that day, but should be kept until the morrow. On the following morning, therefore, when a very great multitude had assembled, and they wished, as before, to carry the said body to the church, the dead man, as before, raising his head, thundered with a sorrowful and terrible voice: By the just judgment of God I have been judged.

[4] The multitude which was present, clearly understanding and hearing this voice, was more astonished than before, and at length that he has been damned, he proclaims publicly from the bier, and, inquiring of one another what the so unaccustomed and unheard-of cries of the dead man could mean, they determined still that he should by no means be entombed until the next morrow. But on the third day, when the city had assembled on account of these prodigies, and, everything having been prepared, they wished to carry the body to the tomb, the dead man, as before, now for the third time, resounded with a most loud and most mournful cry: By the just judgment of God I have been condemned ^c.

[5] This horrible sentence having been heard, nearly all were struck with immense fear and trembling, [Hence Bruno, who was present at the horrifying spectacle, compunct, some of those present] being made certain of the condemnation of so great a man, who among others and above others had seemed to shine with uprightness of life, renown of fame, excellence of dignity, and manifold knowledge and wisdom. At that time there was there master Bruno ^d, a German by nation, born of not obscure parents ^e of the city of Cologne, a canon of the church of Reims and there master of the schools in Theology ^f, who, wholesomely terrified and compunct by the voices written above, addressed certain companions present there in the words written below, or similar ones: Come, dearest ones, what shall we do?

[6] We shall all perish together; none shall be saved but he who flees. with a most vehement and most effective If these things are done in the green wood, what shall be done in the dry? If a man of such dignity, of such learning, who seemed to be of so upright a life, who was of such celebrated fame, is so indubitably damned, what shall we most wretched little men do? If by the mournful voice of one little man we have been shaken and stupefied with such horrible and astounding fear and trembling, what shall we do when the roaring of the lion, when the trumpet of the last judgment strikes our ears? When we all shall hear: Arise, ye dead, come to judgment? Whither shall we then flee? How shall we be able to appear in so horrifying a judgment, where the pillars of heaven shall tremble, and the angels shall be terrified and, terrified, shall be purged *? Where shall we then hide?

[7] It will be impossible to hide, intolerable to appear; let us flee therefore from the face of the sword of God; speech exhorts to penance, let us come before His face in confession; come, let us adore and fall down before God, let us weep before the Lord who made us. Since therefore today we have heard His astounding voice, let us not harden our hearts, but let us go out from the midst of Babylon, let us depart from the Pentapolis, already set on fire with fire and brimstone, and, by the example of blessed Paul the hermit, of the blessed Anthony, Arsenius, Evagrius and other Saints, with blessed John the Baptist, let us seek the caves of the desert, let us save ourselves in the mountains, so that we may be able to escape the wrath of the eternal Judge, and the sentence of eternal damnation, and of the flood * of sins, in the ark of Noah and in the little boat of Peter, in which Christ made the wind and the storm to cease, that is, in the ship of penance, and may be able to arrive at the harbour and tranquillity of eternal salvation.

[8] Addressing and exhorting himself and certain companions with these or similar words and sentiments, he and six other upright men with him resolved to renounce the world and its pomps, and when he finds them obedient to his words, to seek a place fit for penance and to seek suitable deserts of the wilderness for performing perpetual penance, and there, leaving all the riches and delights and honours of this world, each to take up his cross, and naked to follow the naked Christ by the narrow way which leads to life, and to forsake the broad and spacious one which leads the lovers and followers of the world to the torments of the damned.

[9] he betakes himself with them to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble. And therefore, because they had heard the fame of the holiness of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who is believed at some time before to have been a fellow-student of the same master Bruno in the schools ^g, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they proposed to go together to the said holy bishop and to seek his help and counsel, so that in his diocese, which they had heard abounded in many desert mountains, they might deserve to obtain a suitable place in which they might be able to bring their holy and wholesome purpose to effect. The seven holy Men written above, therefore, for the aforesaid cause arrived at the aforesaid holy bishop, the Holy Spirit leading them ^h.

[10] He receives them kindly, And, to use altogether the words written in the Legend of the life of the said St. Hugh, the bishop, approved and confirmed by the supreme Pontiff who canonized him ⁱ: There comes master Bruno, a religious man, famous in knowledge, a kind of likeness of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity; and he had as companions master Landuinus, who after him was Prior of the Chartreuse; two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die (these had been canons of St. Rufus, but out of desire for the solitary life had joined themselves to them with the favour of their abbot); Hugh also ^k, whom they surnamed the Chaplain because he alone of them exercised the office of priest ^l; and two laymen, whom we call Converse, Andrew and Guarinus; and they were seeking a place suited to the eremitical life, and had not yet found one ^m. With this hope, therefore, and at the same time drawn by the sweet odour of holy conversation, they came; whom the bishop not only gladly but also reverently received, treated with, and made to obtain their vow.

[11] helps them in founding the Chartreuse, For with him counselling, helping and accompanying them, they entered the solitude of the Chartreuse and built it in the year of the Lord one thousand and eighty-four; and in the fourth year of the episcopate of the said St. Hugh ⁿ. For the aforesaid holy bishop had seen, about the same time, in a dream, the Lord building in the same solitude a dwelling for His own dignity, and seven stars also furnishing him the guidance of the way ^o. And these too were seven; wherefore he willingly embraced the counsels not only of these but also of those who succeeded them, and up to his death always cherished the inhabitants of the Chartreuse both with benefits and with counsels; and although even before he was wholly burning with the fires of divine love, yet by their examples and familiarity he grew hot for the exercises of the heavenly discipline no otherwise than if someone were to set many other burning torches around a flaming torch.

[12] living there too most humbly among them, He was with them not as a lord or bishop, but as a companion, but as a most humble brother, and most ready, as far as lay in him, for the service of all; so much so that the venerable man William, then Prior of St. Laurence [p], afterwards abbot of Saint-Chaffre, himself also bound to master Bruno by no small religious devotion, being at that time blessed Hugh's companion in the cell (for they dwelt two by two in each cell), complained not lightly to master Bruno that the bishop snatched away from him nearly all the offices pertaining to humility within the cell, and conducted himself with him not at least as a companion, but rather as a servant.

[13] And so devoutly and assiduously did he inhabit the desert and holding Bruno almost in place of an abbot. that master Bruno sometimes compelled him to go out, saying: Go, go to your sheep, and pay them what you owe. At that time the said bishop, fired with the ardour of great poverty and humility, wished to sell all his mounts and bestow their price on the poor, and to run about in preaching on his own feet; but master Bruno, a man of profound heart, whose counsels he obeyed no otherwise than the precepts of an abbot, did not consent, fearing lest he should perhaps be lifted up within himself on account of this, or be judged by the other bishops for singularity, or, which was not doubtful, lest he should be unable to accomplish it on account of the roughness and unevenness of the roads."

[14] All the aforesaid are the words of dom Guigo written in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, But he is summoned by Pope Urban II, whom he had once had as a disciple; which we have judged should be inserted here, because in them the beginnings of the foundation of the Chartreuse are declared, and the excellence of master Bruno becomes known in this too, that so venerable and so holy a bishop clung to him with such reverence, so fervently and humbly; and together with him he can truly be called the patron and founder of the house and Order of the Chartreuse; and although not the first, yet in a certain manner the chief founder. Happily, therefore, was the house and Order of the Chartreuse founded and begun in the time of the supreme Pontiff Gregory the seventh, whom Pope Victor succeeded in the Papacy, who lived a very little while, that is, only one year and about four months. When he had died, Urban the second was created, whose preceptor and master master Bruno had formerly been [q].

[15] He, soon after his creation, remembering the wisdom and holiness and exceptional discretion of his master Bruno, [and although the rest said that, if he went away, they would not remain at the Chartreuse,] at once thought of having him, that he might direct and help him in bearing the solicitude and burdens of the Apostolate [r]. When therefore the aforesaid master Bruno had already inhabited the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, and, being called to the Roman curia, it was necessary for him to obey the supreme Pontiff and to forsake, at least for a time, the most welcome society of his sons the cell-dwellers, his subjects themselves were shaken with such grief on this account and troubled with such sadness that they even said outright that they would by no means remain at the Chartreuse if it befell them to be bereaved of the presence of so most sweet and most beloved a Father and despoiled of his providence.

[16] Master Bruno, therefore, not lightly desolated on account of this desolation of his sons, yet he obeys the Pontiff, yet neither willing nor able lawfully to deny the debt of obedience to the supreme Pontiff, lest the place of the Chartreuse, abandoned by the cell-dwellers, should come into profane and unworthy hands, or to the uses of seculars, left it to the abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, who had been one of the first founders, a donation and cession having been made, and a public instrument drawn up for him on this [s]. Then the venerable Father, coming to the supreme Pontiff and assisting him not for a long but for a short time, bore many of his burdens with wholesome counsels and aids, and by his readiness greatly relieved his solicitude in the government of the holy Church of God.

[17] Yet he could not long patiently conceal the sadness but after a short time obtains from him the faculty of returning to solitude, and grief conceived at the dispersion of his sons; and bearing heavily the din and tumult of the curia, which hindered the sweetness and quiet which he had been wont to enjoy and feed upon in the desert, and not enduring to bear it longer, having set forth his desolation to the supreme Pontiff, he implored with the greatest insistence and obtained to be separated from the curia,

and that he might return to the desert and to the sweetness of the cell already foretasted and to the desired rest.

[18] and withdraws into the desert of Calabria, And when the supreme Pontiff wished to confirm him as archbishop of Reggio, to which church he had been elected with the assent of the Pope himself [t], he by no means consented, but, spurning and despising it, bidding farewell to the Apostolic one, he came, God leading him, to a certain desert of Calabria whose name was La Torre, and there, having gathered many clerics and laymen, he instituted a monastery, in which up to the end of his life, constant in humility in the purpose of the solitary life, flaming with charity, fervent with devotion, he always clung to God, and there happily completed the course of his journey [u]. That this glorious Father obtained the prize and crown of eternal happiness the divine Clemency declared by some miraculous indications.

[19] But before he departed from the curia, through his merits and prayers, having before brought it about that those who had left the Chartreuse, as is believed, the divine Mercy recalled all his companions and subjects, so that absolutely all consented to return to the Chartreuse [x]. And therefore master Bruno obtained from the supreme Pontiff a letter to the venerable man Seguin, abbot of the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, that he should wholly, within thirty days from the reception of the Papal letter, return and restore the place of the Chartreuse, abandoned by master Bruno, to the companions and subjects of master Bruno with all its former freedom.

[20] Landuinus having now been set over them, had returned there. And this seems to be the first Papal letter found to make mention of the Carthusian Order [y]; it is written near the beginning of the Cartulary of the Chartreuse. And abbot Seguin, having received the Apostolic mandate, gladly and cheerfully obeyed, and returned the place of the Chartreuse freely and free to master Landuinus and his companions by a public instrument, which is transcribed near the beginning of the Cartulary of the Chartreuse [z]. Now master Bruno had ordained the aforesaid brother Landuinus Prior of the Chartreuse before he crossed over to the parts of Calabria [aa].

[21] The biographer's, on this occasion, Since therefore the judgments of God are incomprehensible and a great deep, the place of the Chartreuse is not to be judged less worthy from the fact that, after it had been dedicated to divine worship for six years, it was abandoned by the aforesaid holy men; but rather on this account it is to be reputed more wonderful and more worthy, as one which, even when abandoned, was of such power that it deserved and prevailed to recall its inhabitants, and could not remain without worshippers of God nor without the divine praises.

[22] on divine Providence Just as the Providence of the divine dispensation permitted the Apostles, already constituted princes of heaven and earth by eternal predestination, nevertheless to fall in the passion of Christ and to be separated from the truth of the Christian faith [bb], so also that some of the disciples, having left the sanctified city of Jerusalem, dispersed to outlying villages by the wind of unbelief, wavered on the waves of despair; yet when Christ rose again bodily, they too rose again spiritually, to remain afterwards more constant and firmer in the faith and love of Christ; and because they had already gone away from Jerusalem sixty furlongs, returning on the same day they were restored with the other disciples by the vision of Christ; so God first let the inhabitants of the Chartreuse depart, that afterwards, returning, they might be firmer and stronger in holy perseverance.

[23] an observation, For those who had departed at the end of the sixth year returned in the seventh year [cc], that it might be given them to understand that, just as on the seventh day the Lord in the first creation rested from laborious works, and after the passion on the same day likewise rested in the sepulchre, and the seventh year in the general law * had been given to rest, and the seventh time seventh year is called that of jubilee, so the inhabitants of the Chartreuse, returning in the seventh year, ceasing there from the like works of sins, refreshed with the spiritual rest of contemplation, and resting hidden in the sepulchre of Christ, that is, in the cloister and cells, would at length happily arrive, being themselves then seven in number, at the seventh septenary of the jubilee, which designates praise and the eternal rest of eternal glory.

[24] Bruno, therefore, a most holy man and endowed with twofold knowledge, namely divine as well as human, and the time at which Bruno died after leaving the Chartreuse. renowned for Tullian eloquence, shining with discretion, devotion and excellent uprightness of manners, enriched and endowed with a copious treasure of heavenly virtues, beloved and pleasing to God and men, governed the desert of the Chartreuse for six years, and afterwards, having been called by the Pope, as has been said before, and not long after [dd] passing over to the desert of Calabria whose name is La Torre, there, having built a holy monastery, he was the ruler and minister * of many anchorite servants of God, and there, the happy course of his life having been completed, he passed to the Lord in the eleventh year after leaving the Chartreuse, neither more nor less, as is contained in the books of the Customs of dom Guigo which are in the house of the Chartreuse [ee]. Immediately beside his sepulchre a living spring flows forth, which by the divine clemency, through the merits of this holy Man, bestows on many ailments of the faithful the desired remedies of health [ff].

ANNOTATIONS.

the exemplar of the elogium given at number 7 of the Preliminary Commentary, which guided him, and which he nevertheless held to be uncorrupted, was also corrupt, as is clear from what was said at number 519 of the same Preliminary Commentary.

p. It is a cell or priory in the suburb of the city of Grenoble, dependent on the monastery of Saint-Chaffre, here presently subjoined, of which see tome 1 of April of our Work, page 41, in the Annotations at letter d; and William, here mentioned as afterwards abbot of that monastery after being Prior of that cell, although he led the eremitical or solitary life at the Chartreuse with Hugh and Bruno, was not on that account any more a Carthusian than the former of these two Saints. See the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 766.

q. The first of these three Pontiffs departed from the living in the year 1085, and since Desiderius, who had been substituted for him and had taken the name of Victor, had also died in the year 1087, there was at length raised to the Chair of St. Peter Otto or Odo, who took the name of Urban II, and who had at one time had St. Bruno as his master at Reims, as I showed in the Preliminary Commentary, number 96.

r. That the Saint was summoned from the Chartreuse by Pope Urban II is indubitable from the Chronologer of the first four Priors of the Chartreuse in Labbe, tome 1 of the New Library of Manuscript books, page 638, as also that Bruno, before this happened, governed the Chartreuse for six years, as is presently added here; but that the latter of these is to be taken not as complete but only as incomplete, everyone will easily gather from what I discoursed in § XXX concerning the time at which the Saint went to Pope Urban II.

s. On this instrument, granted by St. Bruno to Seguin, abbot of the most celebrated monastery of La Chaise-Dieu in the diocese of Clermont in Auvergne, who is here rightly said to have been one of its first donors, as the letters of donation of the Chartreuse recited at number 503 and the two following of the Preliminary Commentary attest, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 513 and the two following.

t. Our Saint was elected or postulated to the archbishopric of Reggio in Calabria in the year 1090, as is proved by what I adduced bearing on this in the Commentary, number 532 and following.

u. Namely in the year 1101, as I showed at number 729 of the Preliminary Commentary, when he had already joined to himself about thirty disciples in the hermitage of La Torre, as may be gathered from the Catalogue of the monks of La Torre who promised obedience to Lanuinus after the Saint's death, brought into the Preliminary Commentary at number 622.

x. Our biographer seems here to hint that it came about by a miracle that all Bruno's disciples gathered to him at Rome; what I think on this matter I have declared at number 527 of the Preliminary Commentary.

y. I gave that Pontifical letter in full at number 528 of the Preliminary Commentary; and in it mention is made not of the Carthusian Order but only of the cell or monastery built by Bruno.

z. I brought that instrument into the Preliminary Commentary at number 529. For the rest, what appears to be concluded about the time at which this biographer of our Saint flourished from the Cartulary of the Chartreuse which he here mentions, see set out in the Preliminary Commentary, number 12 and following.

aa. St. Bruno appointed Lauduinus Prior not first at the time when he was already with the Pontiff, as seems to be indicated here, but when he departed from the Chartreuse, as is clear from the letter recited in the Preliminary Commentary at number 529, by which Seguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, restored the Chartreuse to Landuinus and the other disciples of the Saint.

bb. That all the Apostles fell away from the faith in the Passion of Christ only the heterodox assert; wherefore the biographer here strays from the truth.

cc. It is clear from this that, even according to this biographer of ours, the six years during which St. Bruno governed the Chartreuse before he was summoned to Rome by Pope Urban II were only incomplete.

dd. Bruno stayed with Pope Urban only a few months before he withdrew into the hermitage of La Torre in Calabria, as is made manifest from what was said in § XXXI of the Preliminary Commentary.

ee. That an error lies here in our biographer is indubitable. See § XXX of the Preliminary Commentary.

ff. On the prodigious spring which is here mentioned, and the miracles which were wrought by the power of its waters, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 735 and some following.

* perhaps "turbabuntur" (shall be troubled)?

* perhaps "diluvium" (the flood)?

* another reading: natural

* another reading: master

ANOTHER LIFE,

By François Dupuy, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse,

From the edition prepared at Basel about the year 1515.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

By François Dupuy.

PROLOGUE.

The author sets out why he undertakes to write the Life of the Saint.

To praise the Saints in the Lord, We are commanded to praise not only the Lord in His Saints, but also the Saints themselves in the Lord, as it is written: Let us praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation ^a. Rich men in virtue, studying beautifulness, living at peace in their houses. Their bodies are buried in peace: and the Church declares their praise. Let us praise, I say, and both by word and by imitation show to be worthy of praise men so called from virtue; not, indeed, wayfarers, since the Truth says: Salute no man by the way ^b; but men of renown, namely those already received into glory and secure of their immortality; and our spiritual fathers, whose faith and works we ought to imitate, and by whose doctrine and examples we have been begotten to God, according to that saying of the Apostle: By the Gospel I have begotten you ^c. In their generation, that is, according to the things which they did in their life.

[2] Rich men in virtue. For virtues are true riches, that is, we ought to narrate their glorious deeds to the honour of God: which cannot be taken away by violence. Studying beautifulness, through true faith and due ordering of thoughts, affections and works. Living at peace, that is, having and making peace in their houses. Whose bodies are buried in expectation of the perfect peace which shall be given in the resurrection: and the Church declares their praise, namely by narrating their examples and glorious deeds to the honour of God and the instruction of others. For this is that continual Sacrifice which is offered in the Church of God without intermission. An acceptable Sacrifice, a fat holocaust, not of goats or calves, but of praise; namely when God is praised in His Saints by man, whom He created, whom He redeemed, to whom He also promised the heavenly kingdom. This is a Sacrifice pleasing to God, and useful and necessary for believers. Necessary indeed, since the Lord says through the prophet: Offer to God the Sacrifice of praise ^d. Pleasing and acceptable to Him, because, He says, the Sacrifice of praise shall glorify me ^e. And useful to us, because there I will show him the salvation of God, namely Christ, who is the head of all the Saints and their reward.

[3] Let us therefore praise, dearest brethren, the Lord in His Saints: [hence the biographer spurs himself and others on to proclaim the deeds of St. Bruno.] and especially in this most blessed father of ours, Bruno, whose festival is kept today, who begot us in Christ; who prepared for us the way of life in the desert, and showed us by his example the norm of living. And although we are not sufficient to praise him as is worthy, yet we ought not to cease from his praise. Let us therefore exalt him and praise him as much as we can, because he is greater than all praise. Let us narrate his wonderful deeds which he did: let us declare his works among the nations, so that God may be glorified from them, and that we may deserve, with the help of his merits and prayers, to have as companion and fellow-brother in heaven him whom we have deserved to have as father on earth.

ANNOTATIONS.

d. Psalm 49, verse 14.

e. Psalm 49, verse 23.

CHAPTER I.

On the occasion of a dead man who, amid his solemn exequies, proclaims from the bier that he is damned, Bruno resolves to withdraw into solitude, draws others to the same purpose, and undertakes the journey with them to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble.

[Amid the exequies held over his body for three successive days, first that he has been accused,] In the times of Gregory the seventh, Roman Pontiff ^a, and of the emperor Henry the fourth ^b, about the year of our salvation one thousand and eighty-two, when a solemn school was flourishing in the city of Paris, abounding then in a multitude of scholars and a very copious throng of solemn doctors in every kind of learning, there happened in it such a horrifying and memorable spectacle. For a certain solemn doctor, chief among the other doctors, excellently adorned with knowledge and morals, and honoured before the others, overtaken by a certain grave illness, lying in bed, closed the last day of his life. When solemn exequies were being prepared for him according to custom, a copious multitude of masters, students and certain citizens came together to honour him. With these accompanying and following the funeral, the body of the dead man was carried to the church in which it was to be given burial. And when the customary Office of the dead was being chanted by the invited ecclesiastics who were then present, when they came to that lesson which begins, Answer me, he who was dead rose up, and raising his head a little, sat up on the bier, and, all seeing and hearing, and astounded at the novelty of the thing, began to cry out with a loud, though horrifying, voice, and said: By the just judgment of God I have been accused.

[5] secondly that he has been judged, Having said this, he lay back again. And those who had heard and seen these things, being not a little and not undeservedly terrified, decided, indeed with counsel and prudence, that his burial should be deferred to the morrow, awaiting the outcome of the matter. On the following day, therefore, when so great a spectacle had already been spread abroad in so great a city, a very great and almost innumerable multitude of both sexes came together to the said church. There, the exequies having been begun again and continued from that point, when they came to the beginning of the same lesson, the same dead man, as on the day before, springing up from the coffin in which he lay dead, said: By the just judgment of God I have been judged. And having said this, he withdrew again within the bier; whence no small wonder grew among those standing by. Since, however, they had not yet been made certain of his reprobation by this, since those words, I have been accused and I have been judged, could also be interpreted in a good sense, as though he had first been unjustly accused before the tribunal of Christ by him who hastens to destroy all things, and then by the just judgment of God freed from his calumnious accusation, it pleased all to put off his burial to the following third day as well.

[6] On the third day, therefore, there was an excessive concourse

of men and women, [and thirdly that he has been damned, the doctor of Paris of good name, for a time brought back to life, proclaims from the bier.] so that nearly the whole city flowed together to recognize so wonderful a judgment of God. And behold, when the exequies were being continued and performed in the former manner, the same dead man rose now for the third time, and with a strong voice, to be feared by all mortals, said: By the just judgment of God I have been condemned. Which voice, so astounding and horrifying and unheard of since the world began, rendered all who stood by almost lifeless. All of whom, however, judging him as reprobated by the Lord and condemned by His just judgment (as he himself had attested), unworthy of every suffrage of the Church and also of ecclesiastical burial, had him buried in a dunghill ^c. Whence, since in the church of Paris and in the other neighbouring churches the fourth lesson in the rites for the dead begins with How many iniquities have I, those first words or expressions, Answer me, being omitted, it is said by some that the said words were from then on deleted for the perpetual and indelible memory of so fearful a judgment ^d.

[7] There was present then at this so horrifying spectacle, among the other doctors, blessed Bruno, [Bruno is present at the horrifying spectacle, who, compunct by it, having called to himself certain friends] a German by nation, from the renowned and royal city of Cologne Agrippina, born of parents illustrious and noble not so much by birth as by virtue ^e, a canon of the church of Reims, a doctor and master of the scholars of Paris ^f. A doctor indeed most learned especially in divine letters, as his writings testify ^g, and honoured before the others. Who, wholesomely terrified and as it were dismayed by these so unaccustomed, so horrible, and so often repeated voices, having called some of the companions and disciples more familiar to him (among whom were master Lauduinus, who after him was first Prior of the Chartreuse; two Stephens, one of Bourg, the other of Die, both canons of St. Rufus near Valence of the Allobroges; Hugh the Chaplain; and two laymen, namely Andrew and Guarinus), said ^h: Often, when we read the Apostle, we have heard, but now we have learned even by experience, my brethren in Christ most beloved and most longed-for, how incomprehensible are the judgments of God and His ways unsearchable.

[8] For this dead man, while he was still alive, we both saw and knew, in a long speech, which is recited here, a man indeed learned in human wisdom, adorned with virtues (if indeed there are true virtues in such men) and with morals, and according to outward wisdom chaste, prudent, modest, ruling his house well, and honoured by all and held in great esteem; but now we have heard from his mouth that he has been condemned by the just judgment of God. Just indeed, since the Lord is just and has loved justice, whose judgments therefore cannot be other than just, although for the most part and very often they are hidden. By the just judgment of God, he says, I have been condemned. A voice truly terrible and to be feared; would that it might sound continually in our ears and penetrate the inmost parts of the heart, so that we might fear Him whose judgment we cannot escape, and by fearing might flee from the wrath to come, and might seek, while there is time, the fitting means of salvation! Let us consider, I pray, my brethren, what does knowledge sought with such labour profit this man now in hell, when he labours in continual and perpetual blindness and ignorance? What do riches profit him, when he cannot have a drop of water to cool his tongue ⁱ? What do honours, what do delights profit him? since he is now compelled to undergo as many torments as he had delights in the world.

[9] We have seen his body now buried without honour in a dunghill; and chiefly drawn from various let us think that his soul is buried in hell, to be tormented eternally with the wicked in eternal fires; where their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched; where there is burning beyond compare, a stench intolerable, pain without end. Where men shall seek death and shall not find it. For then death shall be immortal, which shall feed upon them, not that they may die, but that they may be renewed again for punishments. What then shall we do? To whose counsel shall we flee? For all we like sheep have gone astray, every one has turned aside into his own way; and there is none that does good, no, not one. We have all sinned, we have acted unjustly, we have done iniquity. We are all children of wrath, worthy therefore of equal punishment, unless the mercy of Christ snatch us from it. What shall we do? Shall we not all perish together? If He spared not this man, nor the angels that sinned, nor the natural branches, do we think that He will spare us either? Do we think that His hand is shortened, that He can no longer have mercy? Or that He will shut up His mercies in His wrath? God forbid.

[10] passages of sacred Scripture, to penance, What then shall we do? O my brethren, in a matter so perplexing, so arduous and so grave, lest we seem to have trusted in our own strength, let us seek counsel. Not from the Jews, who believe they are justified by the observance of the law alone. Not from the Greeks and their ancient philosophers, who trust in their own virtue. Not from the other disputers and wise men of this world, who do not know the things that are of God; but rather from those who fear the Lord, who walk in His ways. Let us consult first, therefore, our advocate whom we have with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, who is the propitiation for our sins, and let us hear what He says. Since, He says, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the Gospel ^k, for unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish ^l. Let us hear also the Lord's forerunner John, of whom it is written that among those born of women there has not risen a greater than he ^m. For he, preaching in the desert of Judaea the baptism of penance for the remission of sins, says: Do penance; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ⁿ.

[11] to be performed without delay, And again to the Pharisees and Sadducees: Brood of vipers (he says), who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance ^o. Let us hear also the prince of the Apostles, Peter, saying in the Acts of the Apostles to the people of the Jews: Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out [p]. And again, when some of them, pricked in heart, said to Peter and to the other Apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? Peter answered on behalf of all: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit [q]. Hence the Prophet says: If that nation shall do penance for its evil, against which I have spoken, I also will repent of the evil which I thought to do to it [r]. And the Wise man: If we do not do penance (he says), we shall fall into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men [s]. This, therefore, is sound and wholesome counsel, my brethren, if we wish to escape the just vengeance of God and His tremendous judgment: that we do penance and purge our sins with tears. For this is the way that leads to life. This is the second plank after shipwreck, by which sinners are saved, and by which God is inclined to mercy.

[12] Therefore, dearly beloved, casting away all uncleanness and abundance of malice, and that without delay let us receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save our souls. Let us be converted to the Lord, and He will have mercy on us, for He is kind and ready to forgive evil; nor does He will the death of sinners, but rather that they be converted and live. Nor let us put off being converted till the morrow; for He who has promised pardon to the penitent has not promised the morrow to sinners. Whence those who lose the fitting time of penance come in vain with prayers before the gate of the kingdom. To whom the Lord says through Solomon: I called, and you refused; I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded; you have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reproofs. I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. When sudden calamity shall come, and destruction, as a tempest, shall rush upon you, when tribulation and distress shall come upon you; then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear; they shall rise in the morning, and shall not find me [t].

[13] Let us then be doers of this word, and not hearers, he most vehemently exhorts, deceiving ourselves. Let us at least imitate those Ninevites who were converted at the preaching of Jonah, and proclaimed a fast, and were wrapped in sackcloth, and did penance. And the Lord saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way, and He had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would do to them, and He did it not. So let us too do; for a greater than Jonah is here, who says: Repent and believe the Gospel. Let us open to Him who knocks, let us follow Him who calls. Why do I say calls? rather indeed draws and compels to come in. For that voice which we have now heard was not made on account of him who has died, since, although there is penance in hell, yet it is late and fruitless, but on account of us, that the voice itself may profit us, whom the divine patience still awaits with long-suffering. Let us therefore not delay any longer from day to day: for we do not know at what hour the Lord will come, nor are we able to foresee the uncertain hour of death.

[14] These things heard, one of those standing by, namely master Lauduinus, [and, master Lauduinus saying that a place in the world, full everywhere of the dangers of sinning,] a Tuscan by nation, from the city of Lucca, a man indeed learned and God-fearing, said: Good master, we know now that you are true, and teach the law of God in truth; for your words are most true, that we shall not be able to escape the wrath and just indignation of God unless we purge our sins with tears. But since it is written that all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life [u], who, I pray, being innocent, can live safely among the wicked or bring forth fruits worthy of penance, where pride puffs up, avarice enervates, lust defiles? Where there are quarrels, contentions, emulations, slanders, envyings? Where robberies are done, homicides perpetrated, false testimonies uttered, adulteries, incests, fornications, sacrileges, poisonings and the like committed? Where simplicity has perished in conversation, charity in society, justice in action, truth in speech, and piety in the need of one's neighbours? Where, finally, charity has grown cold and all iniquity has superabounded, as the Prophet testifies, who says: There is no mercy, there is no truth, there is no knowledge of God in the land [x]. I beheld it, and lo, it was void, and the heavens, and there was no light in them. I saw the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills were troubled. I beheld, and lo, there was no just man, and every bird of the air had departed [y].

[15] everywhere full, Whence it seems difficult, nay almost impossible, for anyone to be pure and from all sin

free, to live in the world or to bring forth in it fruits worthy of penance. For, as Augustine says, vain is the penance which a subsequent fault defiles [z]. And laments profit nothing if sins are repeated. And a wound reopened heals more slowly. And Gregory: He who bewails what he has committed, and yet does not forsake it, subjects himself to a heavier punishment; whence for true penance [aa] it is necessarily required that the causes of sins be cut out utterly. And therefore, if we wish to arrive at this degree of perfect penance (since we cannot wholly forsake this sensible world which we see as long as we live in the flesh), it is necessary that we at least leave utterly all things that are in the world, the Lord saying: Every one of you that does not renounce all that he possesses cannot be my disciple [bb]. And again to the young man asking about eternal life: If you will be perfect (He says), go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow me [cc].

[16] asking that a place fit for doing penance be assigned, And when he, hearing this, had gone away sad, the Lord said to the disciples: Amen I say to you, a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven [dd]. Hence the Wise man says: He that trusts in his riches shall fall [ee]; and he that makes haste to be rich shall not be innocent. And again: If you be rich, you shall not be free from sin [ff]. For they that will become rich (says the Apostle) fall into the snare of the devil [gg]. All these things, therefore, being trampled underfoot according to the Lord's counsel, sold and bestowed on the poor, let us follow and imitate Christ, who, being rich, became poor, that through His poverty we might be enriched. And since, most learned Master, by your teaching we have come to know the way of truth and the path of justice, since it is dangerous to sleep with a serpent near, and difficult to walk among flames with unhurt feet, it remains that we seek out a place for ourselves in which, although in the world, as it were without the world, separated from the fellowship of men, we may be able to bewail our sins and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. Teach us therefore, I pray, and show us such a place, and whatever you shall decide on this we will do. For our salvation is in your hand.

[17] into solitude, since, by praising it again with various passages brought forward To these things blessed Bruno answered: Men, brethren and fathers, hear, not me, but let us hear together with me, I say, that one conscious of the supreme secrets of God, the exceptional Prophet David, to whom the Lord manifested the uncertain and hidden things of His wisdom. Let us hear first what he said, let us hear then what he did. For he then, as we now, saddened in his exercise and troubled at the voice of the enemy and at the tribulation of the sinner, said: My heart is troubled within me, and the fear of death is fallen upon me; fear and trembling are come upon me, and darkness has covered me. And he said: Who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly and be at rest? Then he added and said: Lo, I have gone far off flying away, and I abode in the wilderness [hh]. Lo, he says, I have gone far off from every occasion and circumstance of sins, fleeing this world in mind and body, and I abode perseveringly, not in the city, but in solitude. For he flees and goes far off (as Gregory says) who lifts himself up from the throng of earthly desires into the high contemplation of God: and he abides in solitude who perseveres in a withdrawn intention of the mind. Whence the same Prophet testifies that, in order that he might deserve to see the power of God and the glory of God, he sought a place of solitude, saying: In a desert land, and where there is no way, and no water, so in the Sanctuary have I come before Thee, to see Thy power and Thy glory [ii].

[18] For solitude is the way that leads to life; from sacred Scripture, where heavenly things are exchanged for earthly, eternal for transitory. This is the place of penance, the way of justice, the path of grace, the ladder of glory. This is, I say, that ladder which Jacob saw in solitude, standing on the earth and touching heaven; which carries men up to heaven, and receives angels to our help. This is the nurse of virtues, the guardian of patience, the mistress of purest simplicity, and ignorant of fraudulent duplicity. This is the rest of those who labour, the consolation of those who mourn, and refreshment in the heat; in which is the tower of David built with bulwarks, from which hang a thousand shields, and all the armour of valiant men is in it. In which is the field of the divine contest, the spectacle of angels, and the wrestling-ground of wrestlers who fight manfully. In which Adam was safe as long as he remained alone. But when woman was given him as a help, he soon fell. Whence Enoch was carried off into the solitude of paradise, lest wickedness should alter his heart. In which Abraham, while he sat alone under the oak of Mamre, saw three and adored one. In which Jacob, while, having sent all before him, he remained alone, was made happy at once by blessing and by change of name, obtaining more in one moment alone than in the whole time of his life in company.

[19] Moses, when he had driven the flock to the inner parts of the desert, and of holy men, deserved to see the Lord in the burning bush and to hear Him saying to him: Put off the shoes from your feet; for the place on which you stand is holy ground [kk]. To whom the Lord never appeared except when he was alone. David, fleeing to the deserts, escaped the snares of Saul. Jeremiah, asking that water be given to his head, and to his eyes a fountain of tears, that he might weep for the slain of his people, also asks for a place where he might exercise himself more freely in so holy a work, saying: Who will give me a lodging-place of wayfaring men in the wilderness [ll], as if he had no leisure to do this in the city, indicating in this way that companions hinder the grace of tears. Nay more, when he had said, It is good to wait with silence for the salvation of God, and had added: It is good for a man when he has borne the yoke from his youth, he went on and said: He shall sit solitary and hold his peace, because he shall raise himself above himself [mm]. Elijah, on the mountain at the mouth of the cave, alone, recognized the Lord passing by. And Elisha received his double spirit while he was being taken up. John the Baptist, filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, secure neither in his wonderful nativity nor in the holiness of his parents, fleeing the concourse of men as dangerous, sought the deserts of solitude, where what virtue and what merit he acquired the baptism of Christ and the death undergone for justice showed. For he became such in solitude that he was worthy alone to wash Christ, who washes all things, and for truth to shrink neither from prison nor from death.

[20] What more? Jesus Christ our Lord, whose power could neither be helped by secrecy and by the examples of Christ Himself, he intimates they must withdraw, nor hindered by publicity, was led into the desert, without doubt by His own spirit, to be tempted by the devil. The same Christ, leaving the crowds, went up into a mountain alone to pray. Christ fed the crowds in the desert, intimating to us by His example how much solitude profits. The holy and venerable fathers also, Paul, Anthony, Hilarion, the two Macarii, Eulalius, Arsenius, Evagrius, Basil, Benedict, and the others innumerable to us, how much they profited in solitude, consider for yourselves. And you will prove that the sweetness of psalmody, the pursuits of reading, the fervours of prayer, the subtleties of meditation, the transports of contemplation, the baptisms of tears can be helped by nothing more than by solitude. Hence it is that, of the sinful soul which the Lord desires to call back to Himself, the Prophet says: I will lead her into the wilderness, and there I will speak to her heart [nn]. But of her who, loosed from the bonds of the flesh, has deserved to enter into eternal joys, it is said in the Canticles: Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved? [oo] Who is not found through the streets or squares of the city, but in solitude. Therefore, my brethren, let us pray God that He may deign to show us such a place, in which we may be able to accomplish in deed what we have already, by His inspiration, conceived in mind.

[21] [and when he learned from the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, that desert places] Prayer having therefore been made, the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, canons, said: Venerable fathers and preceptors, not far from the city of Valence, to which our monastery of St. Rufus [pp] is joined, near the streams of the Rhône, on the borders of the diocese of Die, whence one of us drew his origin, there is another city, Grenoble, so called either because it was founded under the emperor Gratian, or from the etymology of the name, as though gracious, noble and populous. And in it is Blessed Hugh, bishop of the same city, who before his assumption to the episcopal dignity was a canon of the church of Valence, a native of Châteauneuf on the river Isère, which is only four miles distant from the city [qq]. Whom we ourselves both saw and knew, a man indeed holy, just and upright and fearing God.

[22] suited to penitents are in the mountains of the diocese of Grenoble, For if chastity is praised, who purer than he? If truth of speech, who more careful in speaking? If charity towards God, who more fervent? If towards one's neighbour, who kinder? If humility, who lowlier? If almsgiving, who more generous? If prayer, who more devout? If rivers of tears, who more outpoured in them? If contemplation, who more sublime? If endurance, who stronger in tribulation? If justice, who stricter? If prudence, who more circumspect? If temperance, who more moderate? Not to speak of the good things which had come through him to the clergy and people. He therefore has in his diocese very high mountains, and in them very many desert places, separated from all passage and fellowship of men, and therefore excellently disposed for performing this strict penance. And since he himself by his example and doctrine invites and draws men to penance, if it pleases you to go to him, we shall be able easily to obtain from him the place we are seeking. For he is pious, kind and merciful. He will both rejoice at our coming and make us obtain our wish. We too will direct you on the way, which we both know and have frequently walked.

[23] Then Hugh, whom they surnamed the Chaplain, because he alone among them exercised the priesthood of a chaplain without a canonical or pastoral benefice [rr], and Hugh the Chaplain offers himself ready to seek these things, said: I have certainly heard many things of this man, whose fame is already fragrant everywhere, that he is a man of God and holy, thirsting for the salvation of souls. Who therefore, because the charity with which he is full never falls away, will (as I hope) gladly receive us. And although I am already old and weak, and this way is narrow and difficult, yet because the narrow way leads to life, but the broad to perdition, since no age is too late for penance, the Lord saying: At whatever hour the sinner shall groan, I will no more remember his iniquities

[ss]. He who also ordered a penny apiece to be paid to each of those labouring in His vineyard, to the last as to the first; if you have decided to go there and to undertake this way, I too will follow, and wherever you go, I will go. And whatever land receives you shall receive me, and there I will take a place of burial, and death alone shall part us from one another.

[24] Hearing these things, the remaining two, namely Andrew and Guarinus, what penance ought to be like, to the laymen Andrew and Guarinus, likewise said: We have always heard, and from hearing believe, that God is kind and merciful and ready to forgive evil. Who wills that no one should perish, but rather that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. With whom there is no respect of persons, but in every nation he that does His will is acceptable to Him. And although we both are ignorant of letters, yet we know by faith Christ and Him crucified, without whom all knowing is not knowing. And whatever the Church believes, we firmly believe and simply confess, hoping to be saved in this faith and to receive the remission of sins through His word. Yet we should like to be instructed, since the Lord through His more than prophet admonishes us to bring forth fruits worthy of penance, what these worthy fruits are. Blessed Bruno, answering them, said: Penance is a tree which the heavenly Husbandman has planted in the midst of His Church. Its root is contrition of heart, its branches are good works, its leaves an entire confession, and its fruit the penalty of satisfaction.

[25] Whence he does penance, but not worthy fruits, he sets out to them at their request, who only grieves for what he has committed. And he does penance and fruits, but not worthy fruits, who both grieves and partly makes satisfaction. But he brings forth worthy fruits who in sorrow of heart is afflicted as much through punishment as he offended through fault, according to that saying of the Apocalypse: As much as she has glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give her [tt]. And in Deuteronomy: According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be [uu]. Whence he admonishes that not only fruits of penance but worthy fruits of penance must be brought forth. For justice demands this (says Gregory), that if anyone has fallen into fault, he ought to cut off from himself lawful things as much as he knows he has committed unlawful ones. Let us not, therefore, any longer neglect the time of penance, my most beloved brethren, nor put it off any longer from day to day. For we do not know at what hour the Lord will come, and none of us knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred. Already the axe is laid to the root of the tree. Already this man, whom we knew living, as we have already frequently heard from his mouth, has been damned by the just judgment of God and given over to eternal torments.

[26] What then shall we sinners and wretched men do, who cannot be justified by the works which we have done? and inflames these and the others together still more vehemently to that virtue, Is God a respecter of persons? God forbid. For with God there is no change nor shadow of alteration, but He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. What else, I say, shall we do but flee from the wrath to come? For the Lord has given to them that fear Him a warning, that they may flee from before the bow. Hence also the prophet says: Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and let every one save his own soul [xx]; and again: Depart from the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as kids before the flock [yy]. And again: Flee, save your souls, and you shall be as heath in the wilderness [zz]. Likewise another prophet: Oh, oh, oh, flee out of the land of the north, for I have scattered you into the four winds of heaven [aaa]. And blessed Job: Flee, he says, from the face of the sword, for the sword is the avenger of iniquities, and know that there is a judgment [bbb]. And the bride in the Canticles to the bridegroom: Flee away, O my beloved, and be like to the roe and to the young hart upon the mountains of aromatical spices [ccc]. What else, I say, do all these exhort but that we flee this world by despising it? Which is rightly designated by Babylon and by the North. For Babylon is interpreted Confusion; and from the North shall every evil break forth.

[27] with more vehemence still, Let us flee, therefore, because we overcome it in no better way than by fleeing. Let us flee, I say, not like Jonah, from the face of the Lord, but to the Lord Himself, present everywhere, humbly beseeching that by His mercy He may turn away from us His indignation, which we have justly deserved, lest we too should all perish together with this man and the other wicked [ddd]. Saying these things, both he himself and the others who were present, no longer able to hold back their tears, wept together, and prostrate on the ground lifted up their voices, saying: O Lord God almighty, whose mercy exceeds all judgment; who dost not rejoice in the perdition of the dying, but rather grantest them time and space for repenting; who didst command Abraham Thy servant to go out of his land and from his kindred and out of his father's house; who didst lead Thy people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand; who hast promised pardon to the truly penitent: extend over us, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy, and deign to send Thy holy angel from heaven, to teach us what we ought to do, and to direct us in the way of justice and in the paths of Thy commandments, and to show us the place which Thou shalt have chosen; in which we may be able worthily to serve Thee, to escape the dangers of this world, and to bring forth fruits worthy of penance.

[28] and he takes the road towards Grenoble with all of these same men. Defend us, O Lord, from the snares of our enemies, who hasten to destroy all things, and enter not into judgment with Thy servants; but, expiated from all sins through the merit of the passion of Jesus Christ Thy son our Lord, make us after the end of this life happily come, free from all punishment, to Him who is the way, the truth and the life, our Lord Jesus Christ, who with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, God, for ever and ever. And when all had answered Amen, rising from there, with one mind and the same resolve they sold all their goods and gave them to the poor, and, bidding farewell to all their dear ones and acquaintances, led by the Holy Spirit, they came, though by a long and laborious way, the angel of the Lord going before them, directing and protecting them, to the said most blessed Hugh, bishop of Grenoble [eee].

ANNOTATIONS.

n. Matthew 3, verse 2.

p. Acts 3, verse XIX.

q. Acts 2, verse 38.

r. Jeremiah chapter 18, verse 8.

s. Ecclesiasticus chapter 2, verse 22.

t. Proverbs chapter 1, verse 24 and the four following.

u. Epistle 1 of John, chapter 2, verse 16.

x. So nearly, Hosea chapter 4, verse 1.

y. A little differently, Jeremiah 4, verse 23 and the two following.

z. Not that the preceding sins had not been truly remitted to the penitent, but that he who relapses loses the fruit gained from it.

aa. Namely, that by which one, having left sin, strives towards perfection.

bb. Luke chapter 14, verse 33.

cc. So nearly, Matthew chapter 19, verse 21.

dd. Matthew 19, verse 23.

ee. So nearly, Proverbs chapter XI, verse 28.

ff. Ecclesiasticus XI, verse 10.

gg. Epistle 1 to Timothy chapter 6, verse 9.

hh. See Psalm 54, verse 3 and the five following.

ii. Psalm 62, verse 3.

kk. Exodus chapter 3, verse 5.

ll. So nearly, Jeremiah chapter 9, verse 2.

mm. Lamentations chapter 3, verses 27 and 28.

nn. So nearly, Hosea chapter 2, verse 14.

oo. Song of Songs chapter 8, verse 5.

pp. On this monastery see the Preliminary Commentary, number 436.

qq. On this holy prelate, of whom we have already treated at the 1st day of April, on which he is venerated, see also the Annotations subjoined to the preceding Life, at letter g.

rr. Guigo, of St. Bruno and his companions approaching St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, in

speaking in the Life of this holy prelate written by him, relates that of them only Hugh, who was called the chaplain, exercised the priesthood; but does Dupuy here interpret this as though he meant only to signify that Hugh was then the only one who had not merely been initiated into the priesthood but had moreover been advanced to the dignity either of a canon or of a pastor? But who does not see that an interpretation of this kind is very little suited to the words of Guigo (see these in the Preliminary Commentary, number 442)?

ss. Ezekiel 18, verse 22 and the following: If … the wicked do penance, … I will not remember … all his iniquities.

tt. Apocalypse 18, verse 7.

uu. Deuteronomy 25, verse 2.

xx. So nearly, Jeremiah 51, verse 6.

yy. Jeremiah 50, verse 8.

zz. Jeremiah 48, verse 6.

aaa. So nearly, Zechariah 2, verse 6.

bbb. So nearly, Job 19, verse 29.

ccc. Song of Songs 8, verse 14.

ddd. The biographer here needs a kindly interpretation; for it is not to be thought that Jonah, as he seems to mean, perished or was damned.

eee. See what has been annotated on the preceding Life at letter h.

CHAPTER II.

Bruno, together with his companions, comes to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, obtains from him the desert of the Chartreuse, lives in it very austerely, and after about six years is summoned by the Pontiff, and resolves to obey him who calls.

The Saint and his companions arrive at Grenoble, and by Hugh the bishop, kindly, Now it came to pass, while they were drawing near the city, the same bishop saw in his sleep God building for Himself a worthy dwelling in the solitude of the Chartreuse. He saw also seven golden stars, arranged in the manner of a crown, raised a little from the earth, and differing from the others which are in the firmament in position, motion, colour and splendour, furnishing guidance of the way to seven men of the same number (for so many were they) ^a. And when morning came, while he was anxious about a vision of this kind, the said seven men were there knocking at the doors of the episcopal palace, namely blessed Bruno with his holy, though small, college. And when this had been announced to the same bishop, he at once orders them to be brought in. And they, having entered and prostrated themselves humbly at his feet, having asked and obtained his blessing, relating the causes of their coming to him, asked that he would deign to show them some place in his diocese and grant it by his kind clemency, as a pious bestowal; in which, separated from the dangers of this world and from the fellowship of other men, they might be able to accomplish their desire, serve God alone worthily, and build a worthy dwelling for Him.

[30] Hearing these things, the most blessed bishop, as no longer anxious about the vision, [are received, he thinking that they were designated by the vision vouchsafed to him.] which he now saw fulfilled, received them with immense joy, not only gladly but also reverently, and treated them kindly. To whom he also related that vision which he had seen that night in sleep, and said: My brethren and sons in Christ most beloved, your purpose and desire I not only do not reprove, but even vehemently commend. For this world is full of such and so great snares, dangers, calamities and miseries that it very often compels the elect to despise all prosperous things and to seek God through adversities, since they cannot love God together with the world. For these two loves constitute two cities which are opposed to one another, namely of God and of the devil. And God is good, nay, the supreme good. But the whole world is seated in wickedness. Hence the Apostle beloved more than the others says: If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him ^b. Whence, when God had decided to destroy the cities of Sodom, the angel said to blessed Lot, who belonged to the city of God: Save your soul, look not back, neither stay in any place of the country round about, but save yourself in the mountain, lest you also likewise perish ^c. For those Saints, of whom the world was not worthy, as the Apostle testifies, being in want, distressed, afflicted, went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, wandering in deserts, in mountains and in dens and in caves of the earth ^d.

[31] And therefore they were found approved by the testimony of faith. And first indeed by him, who To follow and imitate their footsteps is praiseworthy and useful, but difficult, especially in these cold regions, which are not like Egypt, the Thebaid, Scythia ^e or Palestine. For there is in these very high mountains which you see, among the other solitudes, a certain desert which is called the Chartreuse, distant about ten miles from the city, ample indeed, but wholly uninhabited *, passable only to wild beasts; but to men and to the other tame animals almost unknown on account of the roughness of the place, walled round on this side and that with high and as it were hewn rocks and crags, planted with fruitless trees, cold beyond measure, and for the greater part of the time covered with snows, and so precipitous, sterile and fruitless that nothing can be sown or reaped in it. In the midst of it is a certain small river, which is called Gnerus mortuus, the Dead, as it were a kind of image of death, gathered from the mountains standing round on every side, and flowing with the greatest din, in the manner of torrents or flooding waters. To this Carthusian desert the approach is heavy and laborious, and the entrance difficult and dangerous, since it lies between two rocks of wonderful height, which rise upwards like straight lines and at length almost meet at the top, so that they are a horror and terror to those entering.

[32] discourses somewhat on the difficulty of their purpose, from Bruno's words And, to be brief, so great is the roughness of that place, so great the horror, that it could be called a prison or a place of purgatory rather than a dwelling of human life ^f. Whence it seems difficult, without a singular gift of God, with whom nothing is impossible, that men can dwell there, or at least persevere long; and you know, my brethren, how grievous it is, having put the hand to the plough, to look back. Whence the example of Lot's wife is to be feared, who looked back, and where she looked, there she remained, and was turned into salt, that she might season the prudent by her example ^g. And when the most blessed bishop had made an end of those words, blessed Bruno answered: Most reverend father, this place is indeed terrible, as we have heard and already in part see. But we seek such a place for doing penance. And although we are weak and frail, yet we trust in the mercy of God, who is mighty, and hope that He who has given us the will to come here will give also the power to persevere, since His hand is not shortened, that He cannot show His mighty works to us now as of old. For He bent down the rocks of the torrents, that the people might rest in Arnon, and lie down in the borders of the Moabites. He delivered Jonathan and his armour-bearer, creeping with hands and feet over lofty rocks and crags broken off in the manner of teeth, out of the hands of the enemies, giving them victory over them.

[33] found full of trust in God and constant, He nourished so great a multitude of the children of Israel and a countless throng in the desert with manna sent from heaven. Shall He not be able now too to give bread, or to prepare a table for His people? He commanded the ravens to feed Elijah on Carmel, who also fed Paul in Egypt. He sent to Daniel in Chaldaea the dinner which Habakkuk had prepared for the reapers in Judaea. He multiplied the loaves in the desert, with which He satisfied so great a multitude of men. He gives to the beasts their food, and to the young ravens that call upon Him. He feeds the birds of the air, which neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns. Are not we too of much more value to the Lord than they? We will not therefore, even if human comforts fail us, distrust God's presence and providence, since He is able of these stones which we have seen to make bread, and to turn water into wine. Who also, when He will, is able to give snow like wool, and to scatter mist like ashes. Trusting therefore in so great power and goodness of His, again and again we humbly beseech you not to put off our desire any longer, nor to confound us in this our petition ^h. Then blessed Hugh, considering their constancy and their perseverance in the purpose begun, lest he should seem to resist their vocation and the divine will, said: Your desire, dearly beloved, I too desire to fulfil; nor did I put it off in order that it might be taken away, but rather that it might be increased by delay.

[34] they are then given the desert of the Chartreuse, Seeing therefore your will rooted and founded in the charity of Christ, to you and to those whom the same charity shall draw with you, now and hereafter, brethren, I grant the aforesaid place and whatever right or action I have in it, with full freedom. And I shall see to it that this same be done by all the others who have any right in it, and I shall gladly show to you and to all yours every kindness possible to me as long as I live. And nonetheless, for your peace and quiet, to remove the things that are contrary to your purpose, I will that a house be built upon the bridge which is situated between the two aforesaid rocks at the entrance of the said solitude, and I shall forbid by divine authority that women by any means pass through your bounds, or men carrying arms. I shall forbid likewise within the said bounds fishing, hunting and fowling, and the pasturing and passage of sheep, goats and all domestic animals, praying God that He multiply in His grace those obedient to this our donation and prohibition, and grant them a share in all the good things which are to be done there up to the end of the world; but the disobedient I leave to be punished by the divine judgment, and I shall also see to it that they are punished by the secular power ⁱ.

[35] Having said these things, rising, he embraced them, and wept for joy over each of them, God having first been invoked to deign to be with them, praising and blessing God for their coming. And then he blessed them, saying: Almighty everlasting God, to whose mercy we can neither set measures nor define times; who callest whom Thou wilt, and whom Thou callest, them Thou justifiest and magnifiest; look, we beseech Thee, with the eyes of Thy clemency upon these Thy servants, whom Thou hast deigned to invite to the homage of Thy service, and grant the help of Thy grace, that they may accomplish with all their strength the things that are pleasing to Thee. Fill them with Thy venerable virtues, fortified by which they may be able to overcome the snares of the flesh, the world and the demons, and thence receive the unfading crown of victory; and make them grow into thousands of thousands, and them, and also

those who shall follow their footsteps and persevere in the said solitude up to the end of their life in true humility and charity, deign to join, free from all fault and punishment, to the college of Thy Saints. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[36] After this, because the said Bruno and all his fellows were not a little, and not undeservedly, wearied by the labours of the journey, they are also led into it. There they build little cells, the same most blessed bishop kept them in his episcopal palace, and with his accustomed kindness cared for and refreshed them for some days. These being completed, and all things prepared and arranged which were necessary on the way, they went up the mountain and entered and began to inhabit the said desert of the Chartreuse about the solemnity of the nativity of St. John the Baptist, in the year of our salvation one thousand and eighty-four ^k, the aforesaid blessed bishop Hugh going before and directing them, and helping them in all things and through all things, and providing for their necessaries ^l. And there, in the upper part of the mountain, which is now called At blessed Mary of the Casalibus, they began to build a church, and also small cells, not far distant from the said church, around a certain spring which up to the present day is called the spring of Bruno, yet distinct from one another and somewhat separated, lest one should hinder another's solitude ^m. In which they dwelt one in each, in the manner of those ancient Egyptian monks ⁿ. Where they applied themselves continually to silence, reading, prayer and the work of their hands, especially in copying books ^o. Who from that time were called the Carthusian Brethren, taking their name from the name of the place, from whom also this Carthusian Order took its origin and likewise its name.

[37] and a way of life, For these seven (blessed Bruno directing the others, who had chosen him as their Prior and pastor of their souls, and to whose obedience, with the assent of blessed Hugh the bishop, they had submitted themselves [p]), wishing to subject to themselves the world which they had left and all the things that are in the world, which are the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, instituted a certain rather arduous norm of living, which they both kept themselves and commanded to be kept by their posterity. For against pride, which is the beginning of all sin, and against its unspeakable offspring, namely envy, ambition and vainglory, and whatever others there are, they made themselves short and narrow garments of coarse white cloth, cheap and rough, which would render them contemptible and abject to beholders, and be a horror to them rather than an honour to themselves. And although pride sometimes lurks in a sordid habit, yet they did whatever they could to drive it away. And against cupidity, which is called the root of all evils, and avarice, which is named the service of idols, they had fixed certain bounds, greater or smaller according to the fertility or sterility of their places, so that outside them, even if the whole world were offered them, it would not be lawful to possess even as much as a human foot can occupy.

[38] certain heads of which They also imposed on their animals and cattle a certain number which it would be in no way lawful to exceed. And so that it might not at some time be necessary for them either to add more land than has been said to their possession or to increase the number of cattle, they decreed that there should be in their houses in perpetuity only twelve monks with a thirteenth, the Prior, and sixteen lay brothers, and a few hired servants, absolutely none being added. And to tame the concupiscence of the flesh and the law of the members which fights against the law of the mind, they always used harsh hair-shirts against the flesh. On the second, fourth and sixth days of the week they were content with bread and water and salt, if it pleased anyone. But on the third, fifth and on Saturday they received from the cook vegetables or something of this kind and wine, and on the fifth day also cheese or something else; yet they abstained in perpetuity from all eating of flesh, both the healthy and the sick. They did not eat white bread, but only cakes [q], although of wheat. They never drank pure wine, but well diluted, which they call watered, and this only at dinner and supper, and on those days on which it was lawful to use it and to sup. With almost continual fasts and prolonged vigils they macerated the flesh. They never bought fish, but if by chance it was given to them free, they received it in charity and distributed it according to the will of the givers (on the days, however, on which it was lawful for them to eat it).

[39] are here reviewed, they keep a very austere one, The divine Office, of the day and likewise of the night, both in the church, on the days and at the hours at which they came together into it, and through the cells, they discharged not perfunctorily, as some do, but most intently, with eyes cast down to the earth but hearts fixed in heaven, most devoutly. They showed also their whole man, both inner and outer, in habit, voice, countenance, intent, nay fixed upon God, in things exceeding the visible, all other things being despised. On Lord's days and on certain festivals of the Saints only, in the manner of the ancient hermits, lest they should be hindered from other sacred works, although lower in dignity, they offered the Sacrifice of the Mass, to which all came together alike. And on those days they ate together in the refectory after the rite of monks. But on other days, in their cells, under strict silence, they gave themselves without intermission to prayer, meditation, contemplation and the other pious and devout exercises, so that where before there had been dens and lairs of wild beasts, you would then see choirs of camps, wedges of prophets, assemblies of monks and gatherings of angels [r].

[40] The aforesaid bishop, St. Hugh, visited them frequently, [always having Hugh benevolent towards them. The biographer proclaims the Chartreuse happy because these,] and loved them most tenderly as sons; whom up to his death, and not only them but also those who succeeded them thereafter, he always cherished with counsels and with benefits. And he was among them not as a lord or bishop, but as a companion and a most humble brother, and most ready (as far as lay in him) for the service of all. And he inhabited the desert so devoutly that blessed Bruno sometimes compelled him to go out from there and return to his sheep. Go, he said, go to your sheep, and pay them what you owe them [s]. At the insistence and through the procurement also of the most blessed bishop himself, all the neighbours round about, both ecclesiastics and nobles and common people, seeing the so holy and so upright and devout conversation of blessed Bruno and his fellows, gave them whatever right they had in the said mountains and within the bounds and limits of the said solitude [t]. These therefore, O happy Chartreuse, are those first fathers who first began to inhabit this vast solitude, and first founded in it this Order, which received from you a name poured out like oil over all the earth. These are the seven pillars which Wisdom hewed out, and on which she built herself a house. These are the seven kine coming up out of the river, and the seven ears on one stalk. And the seven trumpets, whose use was in the jubilee.

[41] These are the seven candlesticks, in the midst of which John, writing to the seven churches which were in Asia, to whose sevenfold number declares that he saw one like to the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and holding in his right hand seven stars, which are the angels of the seven churches; and in the midst of the throne a lamb standing, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. These are the seven baskets full of fragments, and the seven seals of the closed book, and the seven men full of the Holy Spirit whom the Apostles chose as deacons to minister, and the seven steps which Ezekiel saw for the ascent of the outer court. This is the septenary hallowed on account of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. This septenary number is the first among the monads rendered perfect, being made up of its parts. For one and six, two and five, three and four, which are its aliquot parts, make seven. Hence it is that the seventh day, and the seventh week, and the seventh month, and the seventh year, as being perfect, were holidays by the law.

[42] In seven days also all time is carried on and repeated. he alludes here in various ways, And on the seventh day God ceased from all work. And on the seventh day Christ rested in the sepulchre. In all of which is noted the perfection of this hallowed septenary number, and in it of this sacred Religion (which was first instituted by these seven men of the same number). Which is rightly said to be figured by those seven stars which the Lord showed to blessed Hugh at their coming, both on account of the great sacrament of this septenary and on account of the loftiness, stability, brightness, purity and magnitude of the stars. For these virtues not only befit all Religious but are also necessary to them: who ought, first, to be like stars in heaven, through contemplation and affection of mind, not on earth. For the beauty of heaven is the glory of the stars, says the Wise man [u]; secondly they ought to be firm and stable in the purpose of religion they have begun. For God set the stars in the firmament for this, that they might be for signs and for seasons, and for days and months and years. Whence it is written that the stars, remaining in their course and order, fought against Sisera [x], that is, against the devil: for so Sisera is interpreted, Shutting out the rejoicing one. Thirdly they ought to be patient in tribulation, that they may be as the morning star in the midst of a cloud.

[43] he proclaims happy for having obtained inhabitants, For God made the moon and the stars to rule the night. Fourthly, just as corruption, fall and error do not befall the stars according to the Philosopher, so they too ought to preserve the integrity of the flesh without corruption, so that they may be able to say that saying of the Apocalypse: I am the offspring and root of David, the bright and morning star [y]. And lest it be said of them that the stars are not pure in His sight. Fifthly, just as any one of the stars is greater than the whole earth, although it seems small and as it were a point and slight in outward appearance, so Religious ought always to increase by charity, but to be diminished by humility. For these two, namely humility and charity, are the two extremes of religion, the beginning and the end, without which all the other things that lie between are worthy rather of punishment than of merit. O then again and again happy Chartreuse, so long barren, but now fruitful! Happy mountains, which have deserved to have such inhabitants and tillers! Happy, finally, this Religion divinely instituted, which precedes the other Religions after Augustine and Benedict in antiquity, and these too in austerity of life! Let these few things concerning its origin suffice, that we may return to the purpose we began.

[44] Bruno is summoned from it by Pope Urban II, Blessed Bruno, therefore, of whom we are speaking, persevered with his own in this austerity of life in the said solitude for the space of nearly six years, giving himself day and night without intermission to fasts, prayers and other religious exercises [z]. It happened, however, that, Gregory the seventh, Roman Pontiff, having died, Victor the Third succeeded him in the Papacy; and he likewise having died after a few months, there succeeded him Urban the second, formerly called Otto, monk and abbot of Cluny, who, while he was in minor orders, had been a disciple of the same blessed Bruno [aa]. Who, a little after his assumption to the summit of the Apostolate, not unmindful of the doctrine and probity of the same blessed Bruno, once his preceptor, and wishing to use his counsels in the administration entrusted to him by Christ, called him to the service of the holy Roman Church, adding also a precept of obedience. And the said blessed Bruno, having received a mandate of this kind, was not a little troubled, since he had already tasted the sweetness of solitude. For Mary held him, that he might rest; Martha drew him, that he might labour; the brethren begged him not to forsake them; the Pope, to obey. The curia terrified him, if he should go there: and his fearful conscience did not know what to do in so perplexing a matter.

[45] At length obedience conquered. For he knew that true obedience admits no delays, he resolves that the Pontiff must be obeyed, nor allows excuse or postponement. Hence he said to his brethren and disciples: To remain with you, my most beloved brethren, is most welcome; to be separated from you most grievous; but to obey the Apostolic mandates is necessary for me. For in superiors lies the authority of ruling and commanding; in inferiors the necessity of obeying. Whence to resist is as the sin of witchcraft, and to refuse to acquiesce as the crime of idolatry; for the Apostle says that every soul should be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God; and those that are from God are ordained, and he who resists the power resists the ordinance of God: and he who resists acquires damnation to himself [bb]. What then would it profit me to wear down the flesh outwardly here with you with fasts and abstinences, and through disobedience acquire damnation for my soul? Be not therefore saddened, brethren, at my departure, lest you add sorrow to sorrow, but rather persevere in the vocation in which you have been called. And I, the obedience enjoined on me being fulfilled, will return to you, the Lord granting it.

[46] Then all began to cry out with tears and great wailing, saying: and, going away, resigns the place to Seguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu. Why, Father, do you forsake us, or to whom do you leave us desolate? For you are, after God, all our hope and our whole refuge. You are our defence in adversity, our comfort in prosperity, our counsel in temptation, our support in infirmity. What then shall we do when you depart, or to whom shall we have recourse when you are absent? We shall be indeed as sheep straying, not having a shepherd. If therefore obedience draws you to the Roman Pontiff, the surpassing charity which is in Christ Jesus will draw us with you, which neither death nor life nor any creature shall be able to separate. Blessed Bruno, therefore, hearing these things, fearing lest, on account of his own and his companions' departure from there, the aforesaid place, already dedicated to God, should come again into lay and profane hands, and not wishing to forsake it altogether, but intending to return to it with his own after completing the penance imposed on him, commended and gave it to the venerable man, the lord Seguin, abbot of the monastery of La Chaise-Dieu, who had been one of the first aforesaid donors, and had a certain cell near him, close to Grenoble, below the castle of Cornillon [cc].

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Since the Saint, before he hid himself in the Chartreuse, lived for some time as a hermit in the solitude of Sèche-Fontaine, as I showed in the Preliminary Commentary, number 414 and some following, it appears doubtful whether he was not elected Prior by the companions who followed him into the Chartreuse when he had not yet come with them to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, contrary to what Dupuy seems to have thought from what he writes here.

q. The Customs of Guigo, chapter 34, number 3, have thus: The bread, though of wheat, is a cake; for we do not make white bread: and Le Masson, in the Work which he entitled Carthusian Annals, in the Annotations on the said chapter, interprets torta as reddish bread.

r. On the norm of living which the Saint and his companions kept at the Chartreuse, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 485 and the two following.

s. The Saint truly had Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, so obedient to him. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, number 502.

t. The instrument by which they did this I gave in full in the Preliminary Commentary, number 503 and following.

u. Ecclesiasticus 43, verse 10.

x. Judges 5, verse 20.

y. Apocalypse chapter 22, verse 16.

z. See what has been noted on the preceding Life at letter r.

aa. See what I adduced in the Annotations on the preceding Life at letter q.

bb. To the Romans 13, verses 1 and 2; there, however, in place of these words, And those that are from God are ordained, these others are read concerning the powers: And those that are, are ordained by God.

cc. The charter by which the Saint did this was not found afterwards. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 529.

* that is, not inhabited

CHAPTER III.

The Saint betakes himself from the Chartreuse to Rome; he persuades his disciples, who have followed him there, to return to the Chartreuse; and he himself, having obtained from the Pontiff the faculty of withdrawing, and having refused the archbishopric of Reggio, hides himself in the deserts of Calabria, has Count Roger benevolent towards him there, founds new churches, and lives and dies most holily.

Bruno comes to Rome; his disciples, who had followed him there, And then, having received the blessing of blessed Hugh the bishop, he went to Rome ^a. For the Apostolic command was pressing. Whom the Pontiff, rejoicing greatly at the coming of one whom he loved intimately, kindly received, and had him among his first and chief particular and familiar counsellors and faithful friends. Whose counsels he used and adhered to in the greater causes and arduous business of the Church. And there came together to him, the Holy Spirit working this, all the other brethren ^b who had previously been with him at the Chartreuse, grieving greatly, and he himself more, that they had left the aforesaid place of the Chartreuse, which the Lord had chosen for Himself and in which He had built a worthy dwelling for Himself ^c. For when there came into their minds, not, as to those murmurers in the desert, flesh, cucumbers or melons, but those devout meditations, prayers, readings and spiritual consolations which they had previously had in the aforesaid solitude of the Chartreuse; and when they saw the tumults, din and dangers of the curia, they could not keep themselves from tears.

[48] At length, however, by the persuasion and inducement of the same blessed Bruno, he persuades to return to the Chartreuse, since he himself could not yet obtain from the Pontiff licence or leave to return for himself, as being necessary to him in the business then occurring, they all unanimously consented to return to the Chartreuse, having first obtained from the same supreme Pontiff a letter to the aforesaid abbot Seguin for the restitution of the said place ^d, which blessed Bruno, departing from there, had (as has already been said) handed over to him. And so, with master Lauduinus, whom the blessed father Bruno had set over the other brethren as Prior in his place ^e, as their leader, all returned to the Chartreuse. To whom abbot Seguin, at the request of the supreme Pontiff and of the same blessed Bruno, with the consent of his convent and in the presence of the aforesaid blessed Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and of the other Hugh, archbishop of Lyons, freely remitted the aforesaid place of the Chartreuse ^f, and handed it over to their right and that of their successors to be possessed in perpetuity. And from then the said Prior Lauduinus and the other brethren and their successors up to the present

day have held and possessed the said desert of the Chartreuse with its bounds and rights, persevering in it under the common obedience of the general chapter of the whole Carthusian Order, which is celebrated there every year, according to the norm of living given them first by the same blessed Bruno, and afterwards by the other Priors of the Chartreuse and by the said general chapter ^g.

[49] [and when with his counsels he had for some time helped Pope Urban, who celebrated a council at Melfi and at Piacenza, and then also] And the said blessed Bruno, dear to the same Pontiff Urban, served usefully and faithfully in the government of the Church. For the Church was then in the greatest disturbance on account of the persecution of the aforesaid emperor Henry the fourth, who had in fact intruded into the Papacy a certain Guibert, whom he called Clement ^h. Both of whom, namely Henry and the antipope Clement, persecuted the true Pontiff Urban. Avoiding their fury, the same Urban, since he (and deservedly) little trusted the Romans, after he had held a council at Melfi, came to Piacenza, and there celebrated another council ⁱ, in which among other things, as Gratian testifies, he most spiritedly checked the wantonness of certain ecclesiastics. And he made many decrees against them, especially against incontinent and simoniacal ecclesiastics, and against proprietary and unstable monks ^k. Then, not secure there either, fleeing again the fury of the same emperor, he left Italy and passed over into Gaul ^l. Where, again thinking of the safety of the faith, he had another council convoked at Clermont, a city of the Arverni, in which, as the same Gratian testifies, he ordained many other constitutions which seemed to regard the raising up of the state of the falling Church. And among other things he established that the Hours of blessed Mary should be said daily by clerics, and that her Office should be solemnly celebrated on Saturdays ^m.

[50] at Clermont in Gaul, Now I have read in a certain history, which is called the Fasciculus temporum, that the blessed Virgin had revealed this to the brethren in the Chartreuse, without doubt to blessed Bruno and his fellows, since they alone were as yet called Carthusians ⁿ. In the same council also he did a thing worthy of memory. For he so animated the princes of Gaul and the rest of the multitude which had gathered to the council for an expedition against the Turks for the recovery of the Holy Land, that three hundred thousand men gave their names for the warfare of Christ and took the sign of the cross. Among whom was Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine; under whose leadership, moving through the borders of the Germans and Pannonia, they go to Byzantium, and then, having crossed the Hellespont, they take first Nicaea, soon Antioch and many other cities of the Saracens, then Jerusalem, the Holy City, and all the region round about ^o. Where, when the Christians wished to crown the said Godfrey king, he refused, saying that he would not wear a golden crown in that city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns [p]. And the said Godfrey and seven other Christian kings after him held the said kingdom of Jerusalem for eighty-eight years [q], the Babylonians and Egyptians having been conquered, with great slaughter of the infidels and very great increase of the Christian name. Of all which things the same Pontiff Urban gave the cause in the said council of Clermont.

[51] When, therefore, blessed Bruno had adhered to the same Pontiff for the merit of obedience for certain years, he obtains from him the faculty of withdrawing from the curia, though few, and had profited the holy Church of God not a little by his counsels with regard to its reformation and the recovery of the Holy Land, as the decrees of the same Urban which followed thereupon and his other aforesaid acts testify, and could no longer endure such great disquiet and the tumult and din of the curia, continually aspiring to the quiet of the solitude and of the cell which he had left, before the same Pontiff passed from Piacenza into Gaul, he humbly and with redoubled insistence asked of the same Pontiff, and at length obtained, leave and permission that, leaving the curia, he might return to the desert which he had left or seek for himself another which the Lord should deign to show him [r]. And when the same Pontiff had wished to confirm him in the archbishopric of the church of Reggio, which is the first metropolis of all Calabria, to which he had been elected with the assent of the same Pontiff, he, knowing from what he had read in sacred Scripture and from what he had seen and heard in the curia, what and how great are the dangers in prelacy, refused to consent to the election made of him [s], not indeed obstinately, but solely from love and desire of quiet, always preserving (as is fitting) obedience and humility towards his superior and charity towards his neighbours.

[52] For then, as blessed Gregory used to say, true humility is preserved before the eyes of God, he hides himself together with some others in the deserts of Calabria, when one does not obstinately refuse what he is commanded to undertake usefully. Whence even a fit person may laudably, out of humility, refuse the office of prelacy, the same Gregory saying that prelacy is to be fled from for a better intention, especially when the will from above is recognized in this. With the will, therefore, leave and blessing of the Pontiff, the same blessed Bruno, leaving the curia, penetrated the deserts of Calabria, not indeed alone, but having joined to himself certain other men of the same purpose, whom the good odour of his life had drawn to seek solitude [t]. For he had heard that there were very many desert and solitary places there, most apt for performing penance. And although he intended and desired, as he had already often decided, to return to the Chartreuse, which he had left, and to follow there his brethren whom he had sent ahead, yet because (as has been said before) the Pontiff was passing with his curia into Gaul, within whose borders the Chartreuse is situated, lest he should seem to follow the curia which he was fleeing, but that he might be far removed from it, he chose Calabria rather than the Chartreuse [u], yet always with the intention and will that, matters having settled, as soon as he conveniently could, he would return to the Chartreuse, as appears in a certain letter of his which he wrote from Calabria to his brethren who were at the Chartreuse, whose words are these: Of me, brethren, know that my one desire after God is to come to you and see you, and when I can, I will fulfil it in deed, God helping [x].

[53] He came therefore with his aforesaid companions to a certain desert in the borders of Calabria, he is found there by Count Roger, who was engaged in hunting, which is called La Torre, in the diocese of Squillace [y], and there he built not cells, because the means for them were not available, but several caves or hollows suited to hermits, of cheap material indeed, but precious in Christ, in which in night watches as well as by day he and the brethren who had come together with him applied themselves to the divine praises and prayers, in that austerity of life which he had previously kept at the Chartreuse and had commanded his own to keep. It happened, however, the Lord working this, that while one day the prince of Calabria, Roger [z], with his not small retinue and with a copious multitude of dogs, was hunting wild beasts in the said desert of La Torre, the dogs, following by their scent the various tracks of the beasts, came to the said caves in which blessed Bruno and the brethren who had come with him were dwelling together. Where, their feet fixed, with much barking they indicated to their lord that they had found some great prey. The said prince, coming to them with his men at a hasty run, found the aforesaid fathers in the said caves, on bended knees and with faces and hands raised to heaven, praying together and praising God [aa].

[54] he then experiences him as benevolent towards himself. Beholding which, filled with great wonder, leaping down from the horse on which he sat, he devoutly and humbly saluted them, and diligently inquired about their coming there and the state of each one. These things being known, he rejoiced greatly, praising and glorifying God that He had deigned to make him worthy of such a prey, hoping that both he and his land would be helped by their merits and prayers and protected in peace. And therefore, that they might be able to live there more quietly and persevere longer, he gave them the church of blessed Mary and of St. Stephen of the hermitage [bb]; where he frequently visited them, and provided for the necessaries of life, and gladly heard the teachings of salvation from them. And blessed Bruno, the pastor and father of them all, whom he loved intimately above the others, he frequently summoned to himself; whom he always held in great reverence, and as it were the first in his house; in whose counsels he acquiesced, and to whose prayers he continually commended himself; in which he trusted very greatly [cc].

[55] [and when afterwards he delivers the same prince from a most imminent danger into which he had fallen,] Nor did his opinion deceive him. For God, through Bruno's merits, delivered him from the treason prepared against him at the siege of the city of Capua [dd], as the same prince testifies in his letters patent [ee] in these words: I, Roger, by divine mercy count of Calabria and Sicily, will that there be known * to all the Christian faithful the benefits which God granted to me, a sinner, through the prayers of my reverend brother Bruno, most pious father of the brethren who dwell in the churches of holy Mary of the hermitage and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which are situated in my land between the town which is called Stilo and Arena. When I was at the siege of Capua on the Kalends of March, and had set Sergius, a Greek by nation, as prince over two hundred men-at-arms of his nation, and master of the watches of the army; who, overcome by satanic persuasion, the prince of Capua having first promised him no small quantity of gold, promised that he would provide him an entrance by night to attack me and my army.

[56] he delivers from danger, The night of the treason came; the prince of Capua and his army, according to the promise, was ready for arms; and while I had given myself to sleep, some space of the night having passed, there stood by my bed a certain old man of reverend countenance, with torn garments, unable to hold back his tears. When I said to him in the vision: What is the cause of the weeping? he spoke thus: I weep for the souls of Christians, and for you together with them. Arise as soon as possible, take up arms, if God shall permit you to be freed, and the souls of your fighting men. This man seemed to me in everything as if he were in all respects the venerable father Bruno. I awoke with great terror, trembling at the vision. At once I took up arms, crying to the soldiers to arm and mount their horses, being eager to test whether the vision was true. At which din and clamour, the impious Sergius and his followers, fleeing, followed the prince of Capua, hoping to have refuge in the said city. But our soldiers took one hundred and sixty-two [ff], between wounded and unhurt, by whom we also proved that the vision was true.

[57] I returned, God willing, on the twenty-ninth of the month of July to Squillace, therefore with new benefits having first taken the city of Capua, where I was ill for a continuous fortnight. And the already mentioned venerable Bruno came with four of his brethren, who

consoled me with their holy and devout conversations. To which reverend Man I related the vision and gave humble thanks that he had had care of me in his prayers even when I was absent. He humbly asserted that it was not himself whom I believed I had seen, but the angel of God who stands by princes in time of war [gg]. I also humbly asked him that he would therefore deign to take from my possessions in the land of Squillace ample revenues, which I was giving; he, refusing, said that he would not receive them, because he had left his father's house and mine for this, that he might serve our God wholly free of outside things. He had been in my whole house as it were the first and great one [hh]. At length I was hardly able to obtain from him that he would agree to accept freely a small gift of mine.

[58] For I gave to the same father Bruno and his successors, to have in perpetuity, he is favoured, builds two churches, feels his death near, without temporal service, the monastery of St. James with the castle, and several things and several other goods, with most ample liberties, specifically declared in the said letters. Blessed Bruno, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid donation, built there first a certain church in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary next to a certain cave or underground grotto in which he alone dwelt. And at last he likewise built another church, not far distant from the upper one, with a monastery adjoining it, under the title of St. Stephen the protomartyr [ii], in which the other brethren dwelt, and under the care and government of so great a Father served as soldiers of Christ the Lord [kk]. With whom he himself persevered up to the day of his death in that observance which he had previously begun and taught at the Chartreuse, nor did he decline from it. And coming to death, knowing that his hour had come to pass out of this world to the Father, having called together his brethren, he reviewed each of his ages from infancy, and proclaimed the knowledge and judgment of his whole time to be worthy [ll], exhorting and admonishing them to charity and humility and to perseverance.

[59] Afterwards he set forth his faith concerning the Trinity in a long and profound discourse, and concluded thus: I believe also the Sacraments and, having uttered a profession of faith, he dies most piously. which the holy Church believes and venerates, and by name that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the consecration the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, true Flesh and true Blood, which we also receive for the remission of sins and in the hope of eternal salvation [mm]. And on the next Lord's day that holy soul was loosed from the flesh on the day before the Nones of October, in the year of the Lord one thousand one hundred and one. And the brethren laid his body away there with honour. At whose sepulchre such an Epitaph was placed:

First founder in this desert of Christ's fold Was I found worthy to be, who am covered by this tomb. Bruno is my name; my mother, Germany; and me The welcome quiet of the desert brought across to the Calabrians. I was a doctor, a herald of Christ, a man known in the world; That was grace from above, not merit. The sixth day of October loosed the bonds of the flesh; For the spirit, you who read these things, ask rest [nn].

[60] Miracles are then wrought by his merits. But since, even without miracles, Now many miracles followed this holy life of his and precious death, which the Lord deigned to work through the intercessions and merits of His glorious Confessor; although miracles do not make a Saint, since the Apostle does not deny that mountains can be removed without charity. And therefore miracles are not to be sought or looked for in such men, since they can be had in common with the wicked. For the magicians of Pharaoh too did many signs by their enchantments. Judas also, the son of perdition, did miracles while living, who also with the other Apostles received power to cast out demons. Many others also did signs, and yet were not made holier on this account, but rather worse and more damnable. Who, when they shall say in the judgment, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and cast out demons in Thy name, and done many mighty works in Thy name? The Lord will answer them: I know you not. Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity [oo]. Hence it is that, when the disciples, returning, said to the same Lord: Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Thy name, He said to them: Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you. And as though they asked, In what then, good master, shall we rejoice? In this, He said, rejoice, that your names are written in heaven [pp].

[61] anyone can be a Saint, all the things which are here But many, on the contrary, are saints by whom no miracles, or few, are read to have been done, like very many Martyrs, of whose holiness no one doubts. Very many Confessors also, who wrote much for the illumination of the faith, having the proof of their holiness in the eminence of their doctrine, like Augustine, Gregory and the like. Whence, when in the canonization of St. Thomas Aquinas they were inquiring about miracles, the Pope answered that there was no need to inquire into them. For he did as many miracles as he settled questions [qq]. There were many, therefore, who lived in the desert in austerity of life, far removed from the conversation of men, persevering in continual battle against temptations and vices, denying themselves, leaving father, mother and all that they had possessed, carrying their cross and following Christ; like Paul the first hermit, in comparison with whom Anthony said that he himself bore only the name of monk. Like Arsenius too, Hilarion, Macarius, Eulalius and many others. Like also this our father, blessed Bruno, who seems to have done no less than the others. For all of whom the word of the Lord suffices as testimony of holiness, saying in the person of Wisdom: They that explain me shall have life everlasting [rr].

[62] brought forward, show, And again, speaking of the same Wisdom: Above health and beauty, he says, I loved her, and chose to have her instead of light; which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not. For she is an infinite treasure, which they that use become the friends of God, being commended for the gifts of discipline [ss]. And in the Gospel, when Simon Peter had said to Christ: Behold, we have left all things and have followed Thee; what therefore shall we have? He answered: Every one that has left house, or brethren or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold and shall possess life everlasting [tt]. And again to His disciples: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel [uu]. And to the young man asking about eternal life He said: If you will be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me, and you shall have treasure in heaven [xx].

[63] With these testimonies alone, therefore, of the holiness of our father Bruno, our most holy Pope, [Pope Leo X therefore permitted Bruno to be venerated, the miracles not having been examined.] the lord Leo the tenth, at this time Supreme Pontiff [yy], being content without any inquiry into miracles, judged it worthy and consonant with reason that he whom God had distinguished in this world with such great gifts and graces should, now taken up into heaven, be extolled with the greatest praises, so that to him to whom, while living, the Almighty had given a heart for the precept and the law of life and of discipline, there should now, as he rests before the throne of divine glory, be rendered on earth the homage of due devotion. And therefore the same Pontiff willed, and granted to us and to our Order by Apostolic authority, that in each house of our whole Order and in their churches or chapels the feast of the same our father Bruno, confessor, be solemnly kept [zz] every year on the sixth day of the month of October, on which day that blessed soul of his, stripped of the bonds of the flesh, passed to the heavenly kingdoms, and be celebrated with fitting and due devotion, and his body and memory be venerated with worthy praises in the Lord, and a fitting Office be performed and chanted in his honour, and that we may make a commemoration of him on each day. The same Pontiff also restored to our Order the aforesaid house of St. Stephen, which (as has already often been said) blessed Bruno our father had founded in the borders of Calabria after the Chartreuse had first been erected by him, and in which his body lies laid away [aaa], occupied for many years by monks of another Order, and committed it to be ruled and governed under the care, according to the rite, manners and regular institutes of the same our Order, as is contained in the Apostolic letters drawn up on this matter [bbb].

[64] Let us all rejoice, therefore, my most beloved, let us all rejoice in the Lord, Hence he exhorts the Carthusians to rejoice, celebrating a festal day under the honour of our blessed father Bruno, at whose solemnity the angels rejoice and together praise the Son of God. For this is that day which the Lord has made. That day, I say, which is kept by the angels in heaven continually, but by us on earth with annual devotion, to the praise of God and the memory of so great a Father. Let us exult therefore and be glad in it, and to almighty God, who by His mercy went before the leader and prince of this our warfare on the way with such great and such gifts and graces, and afterwards rewarded him in the fatherland with such great endowments and such great glory, let us humbly render worthy praises and thanks, such as we can, and extol the merits of the same Saint with worthy proclamations of praise. For we have a precept concerning honouring parents, not only those according to the flesh, but so much the more the spiritual ones who have begotten us in Christ. Whence it is written that the glory of a man is from the honour of his father, and a father without honour is the disgrace of the son. And that he who honours his father shall enjoy a long life, and shall have joy in his own children, and in the day of his prayer he shall be heard, and a blessing shall come upon him from God, and his blessing remains at the last [ccc].

[65] to praise the Lord Let us moreover render praises and thanks to God, who, just as after four hundred and thirty years from the promise made to Abraham He freed the children of Israel by the hand of Moses from the servitude of the Egyptians, so now too, after as many years, namely four hundred and thirty, has deigned to redeem this our Father, and the aforesaid house of St. Stephen founded by him, from the hand of strangers, by the hands of the supreme lawgiver, the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ on earth, and to restore it under the possession and obedience of our Order. For so many years, namely four hundred and thirty, are numbered, as though by a certain divine presage, from the beginning of the same Order up to the year

one thousand five hundred and fourteen [ddd], in which year the same Pontiff freed the same our Father and his said house, in which, as has already often been said, he lies laid away, from the aforesaid servitude. And since we then worthily venerate and honour the Lord in His Saints and the Saints in the Lord when we imitate and follow the virtues and manners of the Saints, just as he too loves God perfectly who keeps His commandments.

[66] and the biographer exhorts them to follow the footsteps of their holy Father. Therefore, venerable fathers and brethren most beloved in Christ, if we are true sons, not degenerate ones, let us follow and, as far as we shall be able with the Lord's co-operation, imitate the manners and footsteps of this our father, blessed Bruno. For it befits sons to be like their father, since the Lord, speaking of Himself, says that the Son cannot do anything of Himself but what He sees the Father doing. And that whatever things He does, these the son also does in like manner [eee]. As he therefore did, so let us likewise do. For we are Carthusians, and have received our name, as we have already heard, from the Chartreuse. And Chartreuse, according to the etymology of its name, following Jerome in the interpretation of Hebrew names, is so called from Chartus, which is interpreted perfectly called, or perfect calling; and ia, which is Lord or ruler, as though a perfect calling from the Lord; and hence one is called a Carthusian, as though called by the Lord perfectly or to perfection [fff].

ANNOTATIONS.

p. So William of Tyre, book 9, chapter 9.

q. Namely, Jerusalem was stormed by the Christians in the year 1099, and snatched from them by Saladin in the year 1187, as the concordant testimony of all the writers who treat of that matter declares.

r. Bruno asked and obtained from Pope Urban II the faculty of returning to solitude earlier than when he, having celebrated the council at Piacenza, went to Gaul. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 536 and the two following.

s. The Saint was elected to the archbishopric of Reggio, which he refused, not later than the year 1090, contrary to what the biographer thought. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 532 and the two following.

t. Of these one was Lanvinus the Norman, distinct from Landuinus the Tuscan; and the Saint seems to have drawn him and the others with whom he sought the deserts of Calabria from the Pontifical curia to the purpose of the solitary life not first when he was at Rome, but to have had them joined to him already from the time when he was still staying at the Chartreuse, as you will easily gather from what was said in the Preliminary Commentary, number 510.

u. Pope Urban II did not go to Gaul when the Saint withdrew into Calabria, and accordingly the reason here asserted why he did not then return to the Chartreuse does not stand. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 549 and the two following.

x. Since these words close the letter given in full in §41, which the Saint sent to the brethren of the Chartreuse by Landuinus when he was returning to them, this is undoubtedly the very one which the biographer of our Saint here mentions.

y. On this hermitage see the Preliminary Commentary, number 552 and following.

z. Who this prince, or rather count of Calabria and Sicily, was you will find explained in the Preliminary Commentary, number 556 and following.

aa. That our Saint, when he was still unknown to Roger, count of Calabria and Sicily, was not found in the caves by him while engaged in hunting, is clearly proved, as far as appears, by what I brought forward in the Preliminary Commentary, number 541 and the two following.

bb. That these two churches were given to St. Bruno and his companions by Count Roger immediately upon his finding them praying in a grotto while hunting, as our biographer here seems to indicate, appears foreign to the truth. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 570.

cc. What is here recorded of Count Roger's supreme veneration and love for St. Bruno certainly accords thoroughly with the truth, as is abundantly proved by what I have discoursed in not a few places of the Preliminary Commentary.

dd. On the occasion on which this siege took place, and the danger to which Count Roger was exposed at its time from the treason prepared against him, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 635 and following.

ee. This letter or charter I brought into the Preliminary Commentary at number 637 and the six following; and that it was given not in the year 1098, in which, as I proved in §40 of the Preliminary Commentary, the siege of Capua took place, but in the year 1099, is proved by what I brought forward in the same §40.

ff. Whether Sergius, the leader of the treason, was among the captured or escaped by flight I have not ascertained; but if meanwhile he was truly among the captured, it must be that he did not obtain pardon from Count Roger but was punished with death, since his name is not found among the captured men guilty of the treason at Capua, all of whom Roger gave into servitude to St. Bruno and the hermitage of La Torre, in their list in the Surian annotator.

gg. On the apparition here narrated by Count Roger, which was vouchsafed to him not by St. Bruno but by an angel under his appearance and habit, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 644.

hh. It does not follow from these words that the Saint, before his withdrawal into the Chartreuse, spent some time in the court of Count Roger. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 571 and following.

ii. The Saint indeed, as I showed in §38 of the Preliminary Commentary, besides the church sacred to the most holy Mother of God which he had first built in the hermitage of La Torre, built another church dedicated to St. Stephen; but that either one or the other of these two churches was not begun to be built before Count Roger had made to St. Bruno, by the charter which is recited here above in part, the donation expressed in it, as the biographer here indicates, is beyond all doubt foreign to the truth, as anyone who has weighed what was said in the Preliminary Commentary, number 624 and the two following, will without difficulty recognize.

kk. The Saint is thought to have established in this monastery monks less suited to the eremitical life, and to have set Lanvinus over them as Prior, keeping the supreme charge for himself. See the Preliminary Commentary, numbers 623, 626, 645 and 716.

ll. What is more probably signified by this phrase, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 726.

mm. The entire profession of faith uttered by Bruno when near to death, and yet not ended with these words, I brought into the Preliminary Commentary at number 727.

nn. Here, as also in some other places, the later Paris edition of the year

1524 differs somewhat from the Basel edition of this Life (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 734); and I have followed the latter, though not here, yet elsewhere at times, when it offered better or more pleasing readings, because this lucubration is not of such value that it greatly matters for its primitive text to be scrupulously expressed everywhere.

oo. Somewhat differently, Matthew 7, verse 22 and following.

pp. Luke 10, verse 20.

qq. Pope John XXII enrolled St. Thomas Aquinas in the number of the Saints in the year 1323, as may be seen in our work at the 7th day of March, on which we treated of that holy doctor of the Church; but he did not say that there was no need to inquire into the miracles which St. Thomas had wrought, but on the contrary had them inquired into most diligently. This is clear both from the bull of canonization of the said Saint, inserted by Laerzio Cherubini in tome 1 of the Bullarium, and from the Process of the inquiry made concerning the life, conversation and miracles of brother Thomas Aquinas of revered memory, brought into the first tome of this month of our Work at the aforesaid 7th day of March, page 686 and following. Moreover, although indeed, as William of Tocco, a synchronous author, records in the Life of St. Thomas Aquinas written by him, woven into the same tome of March in our work, number 81, Pope John, inspired by the divine Spirit, said to the deputies of the Dominicans who had come to him to request that he order an inquiry into the miracles of St. Thomas by Apostolic authority, that he believed the doctrine of St. Thomas could not have been without a miracle, and afterwards uttered in consistory before the Cardinals some other things which greatly commend it, yet I nowhere find that he asserted of St. Thomas what Dupuy here writes; nor indeed do I think it sufficiently probable that it was said by that Pontiff that this Saint had done as many miracles as he had settled questions.

rr. Ecclesiasticus 24, verse 31.

ss. Wisdom 7, verses 10, 13 and 14.

tt. Matthew 19, verse 29.

uu. Ibid., verse 27 and following.

xx. So nearly also ibid., verse 21.

yy. Dupuy wrote this Life of our Saint about the year 1515; and Leo X occupied the Chair of St. Peter from the year 1513 up to the year 1521.

zz. Since Pope Leo X enrolled our Saint among the Saints by neither formal nor equipollent canonization, each of which implies a precept of cult, but only, as I proved in the last § of the Preliminary Commentary, by equipollent Beatification, made by the mere permission of cult which is expressed in the letter of the Cardinal of Pavia given in §46 of the Preliminary Commentary, our biographer does not here write what accords accurately with the truth, if by a verb of past tense he meant here the same thing as he enjoined by a verb likewise of past tense.

aaa. The sacred body of the Saint is indeed now honourably preserved in the church of St. Stephen of La Torre; but it was more probably committed to the earth in the church of St. Mary. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 731 and the two following.

bbb. The Bull or Apostolic letter by which that Pontiff did this I gave in full in the Preliminary Commentary, number 754 and the three following.

ccc. A little differently, Ecclesiasticus 3, verses 6, 7 and 13.

ddd. Namely, the Carthusian Order is reckoned to have taken its beginning in the year 1084, in which the Saint and his companions first entered the desert of the Chartreuse.

eee. John 5, verse 19.

fff. Not a few things more are added here, which Dupuy noted and published under the name of the Life of St. Bruno no otherwise than those already given; but since they comprise absolutely nothing done by the Saint, and together with what I have just given here in the last three numbers only constitute a hortatory address to the Carthusians, I have thought fit to abstain from reviewing them, since they cannot deservedly be held as part of the Life of our Saint. Meanwhile I am pleased to set before the reader here what Théophile Raynaud observes on the etymology of the Chartreuse supplied here by our biographer, in the Stylita mysticus, point 4, number 9. He has thus there: Whatever may be the case about the primitive origin of the word (namely Chartreuse), who would deny that he spoke to the truth who affirmed that the name of Chartreuse seems to be said from flesh bruised and macerated (carne tusa)? I would not dare to assert that this was the primitive origin of this word, since I know that this was already the name of the place before St. Bruno and his companions arrived there, as is clear from chapters IX and X of the Acts (namely those edited by Surius) of St. Bruno. Unless perhaps, after the dwelling of the Saints there and the macerations and bruisings of the body undergone there by them, it happened that the appellation then given was carried back to the time before it was inhabited by the Saints, whenever talk happened to arise of that earlier time. For Scripture itself also for the most part takes the names of places from later events, as St. Chrysostom pursues at length. Although, therefore, the derivation of the name Chartreuse from flesh bruised and macerated may seem uncertain, yet the notion underlying that derivation is plainly to the truth. It fits indeed much better than that other, for which (after Dupuy, namely, here) Petrus Sutor labours, deriving the word Carthusia from a twofold Hebrew word, of which the one, Cartus, according to St. Jerome signifies Perfect calling; the other, that is, IA, designates God, so that the sense is that the Chartreuse is the perfect calling of God. Add these things to what was said at number 28 of the Preliminary Commentary.

* another reading: known

THIRD LIFE,

Collected by Surius from the Lives written by Dupuy and Blömenvenna.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

By Surius.

CHAPTER I.

A dead man publicly proclaims from the bier that he is damned; on the occasion of this spectacle the Saint resolves to withdraw into solitude to do penance, takes the road to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, with some others whom he moved to do the same, and is kindly received by him.

He was born at Cologne Agrippina of noble parents, The most blessed Bruno, first author and architect of the sacred Carthusian institute, a German by nation, had in renowned Cologne Agrippina parents illustrious both in birth and in virtue ^a, to whom, however, and indeed to his whole family, he brought greater splendour by the holiness of his life. From his very cradle, the grace of God directing him, he always strove to advance to better things, and while he was still a boy he showed nothing boyish, but surpassing his age by gravity of manners, and displaying as it were a certain specimen of the religious life to come, he was being divinely prepared as the father and founder of many monks. And he obtained from the Lord a good soul, to use the words of Scripture, an excellent disposition, a brilliant mind, a tenacious memory, a will studiously inclined to pursue all the best things.

[2] He was therefore sent to Lutetia of the Parisians, to be educated there in letters and the liberal disciplines. he applied himself to letters at Paris, and while he was there, by a horrifying, Where he advanced so far beyond the others of his age that he was counted among the first philosophers ^b, and was made master of the schools ^c. Betaking himself also to the studies of sacred Theology, he was held most learned and most celebrated among Theologians, and his writings which are extant can bear no common testimony to this ^d. He was also a canon of the church of Reims ^e. At that time, while Bruno was engaged in these excellent studies, Gregory VII being the most holy Roman Pontiff ^f, and Henry the third Emperor ^g, about the year of salvation one thousand and eighty-two, the studies of letters were flourishing at Paris, and there was there both a great throng of students and not a few eminent doctors. And there happened in that city at that time a spectacle truly horrifying and memorable for all ages, which gave the occasion for instituting the Carthusian life, divine providence bringing it about, which willed to provide for the salvation of many.

[3] [spectacle, in which, raising himself three times from the bier, first that he has been accused,] For a certain very celebrated doctor, furnished beyond others with much learning and exceptional uprightness of morals, so far at least as men, who look only on externals and cannot see the secrets of the breast, could conjecture and judge from the habit of his life; and also honoured before others on account of that very learning and probity of his, fell into a grave illness, and, lying in bed, the illness growing heavier, closed his last day, having first, however, in Christian manner, as a Catholic man, been fortified with the Sacraments of the Church; and when, according to the custom received among Christians, solemn exequies were being prepared for him for the sake of honouring his funeral, a huge multitude of masters, students and citizens came; and, with them following the funeral itself, the lifeless body of the dead man was brought into the church where it was to be committed to burial. And while the ecclesiastical men who had been invited for this were performing the customary Office and reciting those prayers which they call the Vigils of the dead, when they came to that lesson whose beginning is, Answer me, he who had departed this life raised himself on the very bier, and, his head lifted a little, all seeing and hearing and not undeservedly astounded at so great a novelty, said with a loud and horrifying voice: By the just judgment of God I have been accused; and, having said this, he laid his head down again on the bier.

[4] secondly that he has been judged, And those who heard his words and saw his gestures, being not moderately terrified, decided with counsel and prudence that his burial should be deferred to the following day, to await the outcome of so unusual a matter. On the next day, when the report of this deed had already spread through the whole city and filled the ears of all, an almost innumerable throng of people of both sexes flowed together to that church. Then, the exequies being repeated anew, after the beginning of the aforesaid lesson had begun to be recited, the same dead man, raising his head, cries again with a huge voice, By the just judgment of God I have been judged, and soon lays himself back on the bier. All who stand by are seized with the greatest and incredible wonder, and the horrifying spectacle strikes all with stupor. But because what he had so far said, that he had been both accused and judged by the just judgment of God, did not yet carry a plain signification of his damnation, since it could also be taken in a good sense, that he had indeed first been unjustly accused before the tribunal of Christ by him who hastens to destroy all things, and who from his zeal for calumniating is rightly called devil, that is, calumniator, but had afterwards been vindicated from his calumnies by the sentence of the most just Judge, it seemed good to all to prolong his burial to the third day as well.

[5] and thirdly that he has been damned, the doctor of Paris And when that day dawned, nearly the whole city ran together, desiring to know so unusual and terrible a judgment of God; and when the rites of the exequies were being repeated in the same way, and they had come to the lesson which we have mentioned,

Then again the lifeless man raised his head high from the bier,

And, contemplating himself as wretched, speaking, Thus he said with immense grief and a great bellow: Spare your funeral rites, you can profit me nothing. Alas, why did my parents beget me, unhappy one! Ah, wretch, I go damned to the eternal fires. And thereafter he was silent for ever, and lay on his back ^h.

At that voice who could be of so iron a breast as not to be wholly beside himself? Rightly did the Prophet say: The judgments of God are a great deep. That man was known to all the people, and when no one suspected anything less of him, he said that he was damned by the just judgment of God. That terrible voice, By the just judgment of God I have been damned, penetrated the very marrow of the bones, and all who stood by seemed almost lifeless.

[6] For no common example was set before them, nor was that matter a jest or of small moment. the dead man of renowned name publicly proclaims, He cried out that he was damned by the just judgment of God who had seemed to have lived among men in such a way that he was thought holy by all. They said one to another: If it has so befallen this so great man, so distinguished, what ought we wretches to expect? At length, however, it was the judgment of all, since he had openly confessed that he had been condemned and reprobated by the just judgment of God, that he should be deemed unworthy of every suffrage of the Church and of ecclesiastical burial itself, and be buried in a profane place, in a dunghill; which was also done ⁱ. There are those who affirm that, for the perpetual memory of this fearful judgment, from that time these two words, Answer me, were omitted in the lesson which we have now so often mentioned ^k. So unheard-of a miracle was certainly for many an effective incitement to correcting their life and mind.

[7] For the venerable Bruno himself also, since he was present terrified by the spectacle, some of his friends and disciples, and had taken in with his own eyes and ears all that was said and done, stupefied by the all too fearful example, wholly dissolved in tears, wept bitterly, thinking within himself of the severity of the divine judgment, the uncertain outcome of this life, and how horrifying it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Terrified therefore and wholesomely compunct, he summoned to himself some of the more familiar of his companions and disciples: master Lauduinus, who after him was the first prefect, or Prior, of the Chartreuse; two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, both Canons of St. Rufus; Hugh, whom they called the Chaplain because he alone among them had been initiated into the priesthood ^l; two laymen, Andrew and Guarinus, who themselves too had been present at this spectacle; and said to them in tears: Behold, my brethren and friends, singularly dear in Christ, we have seen and heard in these days things plainly wonderful and astounding, which nevertheless can bring us great profit, if, as is fitting, not the danger or doubtful fall but the most certain damnation of this dead man, in every way most unhappy, makes us cautious and solicitous to appease the Lord, whose hand no one can escape.

[8] And who, I beseech you, can be of so stony a breast most vehemently, setting before them chiefly that such an example does not merely invite but even impel him to do penance? Or who can be pressed by so deadly a sleep of vices that he is not roused and awakened to care for his salvation by the ill-omened cries, nay the thunders, of this lost man? We knew this man endowed with much wisdom, adorned with morals, chaste, modest, prudent, honoured by all and held in great esteem. But now we have heard from his mouth that he has been condemned by the just judgment of God. What can be said or imagined more terrible than this voice? Who does not wholly tremble at hearing it? For what is it to be damned but to have fallen into those evils which no mind can grasp and no tongue can explain? Which yet, if they had an end at some time, might at least seem in some way tolerable; but now, since they are by far the most bitter, and never receive any end even after infinite myriads of years, those who are rolled down into them cannot but be the most miserable and unhappy of all.

[9] the unhappiness of eternal damnation, first to penance, Let us see now, my brethren, what the knowledge gained with so much labour profits him in hell, since there he labours in everlasting blindness and ignorance? What do wealth and abundance profit him, since not one drop of water is available to him with which to cool his tongue, burnt by the heats of seething Gehenna? What do honours and delights profit him, since he is now compelled to bear for all eternity as many torments as he had delights in the world? We have seen his body buried with the utmost ignominy in a dunghill; let us think of his soul, to burn for ever in sulphurous flames, buried in hell, where their worm shall not die nor the fire be quenched, where an intolerable fire rages, an abominable stench torments, an ineffable pain lays waste. Let us think of these things, my brethren, and not perfunctorily but seriously, and let us provide for ourselves by embracing a wholesome remedy for our souls, lest we too perish with him. And one remedy only remains: true penance, since the Saviour Himself says, Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish ^m. Scripture is full of voices exhorting to penance. Let us therefore embrace it, dearest brethren, if we wish to escape the just judgment of God. Let our tears be our bread day and night, and with them let us wash away the filth of our sins.

[10] and then also to flight from the world, Those voices which we have heard were not uttered on account of him who has died, but on account of us, that they may profit us, whom the divine patience still awaits with long-suffering. Let us not, I pray, put off the correction of life from day to day, since we do not know at what hour our Lord will come. For He who, as the most blessed Pontiff Gregory says, has promised pardon to the penitent, has not promised the morrow to the sinner. At these words all of them were pricked in heart, and with ardent desire longed to give themselves to penance, but they did not yet see the manner and place. And so, to Lauduinus, a learned and pious man, inquiring about these things, St. Bruno answered: Let the spectacle which we have seen, which has affected us with wholesome grief, which has troubled and terrified us, and by fear of everlasting punishment has brought us to penance, effect this in us, that we despise this world with our whole heart and, as far as can be done, flee out of it. Let there come to our mind what St. David once said of himself, saddened in his exercise and troubled at the voice of the enemy and at the tribulation of the sinner; when his heart was troubled within him, and the fear of death fell upon him, fear too and trembling came upon him, and darkness covered him, all of which, as you know, we too have experienced.

[11] and exhorts to withdrawal into solitude, Who will give me, he says, wings like a dove, and I will fly and be at rest? Lo, I have gone far off flying away, and I abode in the wilderness ⁿ. He admonishes us to flee the concourse of men and the occasions of sinning, and to live in solitude, which is a fitting place for doing penance, the teacher of virtues, the revealer of glory. It is fitting, therefore, that we seek it most studiously, dwell in it most diligently, and up to the last day of life not carry a foot out of it. We have examples in the Saviour Himself, who, it is established, often sought desert places to provoke us to the like. John the Baptist, than whom no greater has risen among those born of women, was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation. It would be long to recount the other most holy men who hid themselves in the inmost solitudes, wishing to have no commerce with this most deceitful world. Amid these words their minds are inflamed, and they burn with desire for the solitary life; but since they were uncertain which place in particular they should seek, St. Bruno says that some good and faithful man must be sought out who might point out to them a fitting place. Then the two Stephens, of Bourg and of Die, say: Not far from Valence, to which our monastery of St. Rufus is attached ^o, is the city of Grenoble, and in it the blessed bishop Hugh, whom we have often seen and know well [p].

[12] He is a most holy man, just and upright and fearing God, and having heard the fame of holiness with which Hugh of Grenoble shone, and well exercised in every kind of virtue. In his diocese there are very high mountains, and in them very many desert places, separated from all intercourse and habitation of men, and for that reason most fitting for doing penance. And since the holy bishop invites all to penance by words and examples, when we have come to him our coming will be most welcome to him, and he will make us obtain our wish. For he is most humane, kind and clement. And you will have us as guides on this journey, which we have often travelled. Soon also Hugh the priest said: I too have heard many things of this man, since his fame is already fragrant everywhere; and I hold it most certain that he is a holy man and most zealous for the salvation of souls; nor is it doubtful that he will most gladly receive us and bring us help in every way. And although I am already of advanced age and of infirm health, and this way is arduous and difficult, yet since it is the narrow way that leads to life, and no age is late for penance, if you decide to set out there, I will offer myself as your companion, and nothing shall separate us except death alone, us who are perpetually coupled and joined together by the charity of Christ. The same alacrity and readiness of mind was shown also by Andrew and Guarinus, laymen and unlettered, and they asked to be taught briefly in what way they might offer to God fruits worthy of penance.

[13] When this had been done by blessed Bruno, and he had also recounted some things concerning the frailty and inconstancy of this life, he betakes himself with them to him to obtain a place for doing penance. the vanity and deceitfulness of the world, the uncertain exit from this life, and the recent damnation of the doctor, sweet rivulets of tears flowed from the eyes of all, and soon they all together swear themselves into the new warfare of Christ the eternal King; they ask almighty God to confirm them in their holy purpose and send His good angel to them to be the guide of the journey and lead them to a place pleasing to His majesty. Then, having made arrangements concerning their property and means, and duly disposed of all their affairs, they bid farewell to their friends and acquaintances. And, the Holy Spirit leading them, and the angel of the Lord going before, directing and protecting, by a long, troublesome and hard journey they betake themselves to the most blessed Hugh, bishop of Grenoble [q]. And on the journey itself they turn aside to a certain hermit of great religion, that they might learn from him, as from one experienced, about the solitary life [r]. And made more eager by his discourses and pious exhortations, and inflamed with greater love for that life, they continue on their way to Grenoble.

[14] This holy prelate, a vision having been divinely vouchsafed to him, About the same time the holy bishop Hugh saw in his sleep God building a house for His majesty in that desert which was called the Chartreuse, and also seven stars of a ruddy colour, arranged in a circle and raised a little from the earth, differing from the heavenly ones in position, motion, colour and splendour, furnishing him guidance of the way [s]. And while he was thinking about that vision, seven men, blessed Bruno with six companions, stand at the doors of the palace. The venerable man Guigo makes mention of this matter in the Life which he wrote of the same blessed man. There comes, he says, master Bruno, a man famous for religion and knowledge, a kind of likeness of uprightness and gravity and of all maturity. And he had as companions those mentioned above: and they were seeking a place suited to the eremitical life, and had not yet found one. Thus Guigo [t]. When therefore it had been announced to the bishop that seven men were standing before the doors who desired to speak with him, he at once orders them to be brought in. When they had entered and humbly prostrated themselves at his feet, he bestows the desired blessing, and when, raised up by him, they had sat down together, he diligently inquires the cause of their coming. St. Bruno sets out what they had seen and heard at Paris, and how they had holily agreed among themselves to embrace the solitary life, and asks of the Bishop a place fit for penance.

[15] [thinking that St. Bruno and his companions were designated, receives them kindly,] He at first is astounded at the novelty of the matter; but yet, carefully contemplating their conversion, their constancy of mind, and the great usefulness of their arduous purpose, which would at some time benefit many and accorded with his vision, he embraces them with immense joy, and receives them not only gladly but also reverently, and treats them most lovingly and kindly. The divine spirit also teaching him, he now understands the vision, and recounts the whole of it to them, and says that the place which they were seeking had already been divinely shown to him. For he had no doubt that seven men rejecting earthly things, seeking desert places, and shining like stars with desire, zeal and love of heavenly things, were designated by those stars which he had seen [u]. And so, wishing to exhort them to perseverance, which alone obtains the most ample crowns of eternal salvation, he brought forward from the Apostle Paul that passage where he speaks thus: The Saints, of whom the world was not worthy, being in want, distressed, afflicted, went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, wandering in deserts, in mountains and in dens and in caves of the earth [x]. Their examples, especially in these cold regions, which are not like Egypt and Palestine [y].

[16] he teaches that the place designated for them by God is the Chartreuse, But the place divinely assigned to you is a certain desert in very high mountains, which they call the Chartreuse. Ample indeed, but altogether uncultivated, and inhabited by no one, passable only to wild beasts, but to men and the other domestic animals, on account of the roughness of the place, almost unknown and inaccessible. It has high and as it were hewn rocks and crags on this side and that, and wild and unfruitful trees, and it is cold beyond measure, and covered with snows for a great part of the year. Then too it is so precipitous, sterile and fruitless that nothing can be either sown or reaped in it. And the approach and entrance to it is difficult and dangerous on account of two very lofty rocks, which, since they rise straight up on high, seem almost to grow together at the very summit, so that they are both a horror and a terror to those entering. In its midst there is a little river which, gathered from those mountains, runs down with a huge murmur like torrents or flooding waters.

[17] And to comprehend much in few words, so great is the roughness of that desert and so great its horror and finding them constant in this purpose that it deserves the name rather of a kind of prison than of a human habitation; nor does it seem easy indeed that anyone could dwell there, or certainly endure long, without a singular benefit from the all-powerful God [z]. And you yourselves know, my brethren, how shameful and disgraceful it is, having put the hand to the plough, to look back. You know that Lot's wife, where she looked back, there stood fast, and was turned into a statue of salt, that she might season the prudent by her example. When that most blessed prelate had said these and many other things, St. Bruno answered: Truly this place is terrible, most reverend father, and it could frighten us away by this savagery of it, if we had come here with any other mind than that such a place be given us, desiring to endure all things for the love of Christ. And although we are frail and weak indeed, yet, relying on the divine mercy, on which we lean and not on our own strength, we plainly persuade ourselves that He who has granted us the mind and ready will to come here will also give the faculty to persevere.

[18] Wherefore we humbly and earnestly pray you not to put off our desire, he gives them it. nor to suffer us to meet with a refusal in this our petition. And the blessed prelate, seeing their constancy and unmoved purpose of persevering, spoke thus to them: Indeed, dearly beloved, I both greatly approve this holy desire of yours and eagerly seek to fulfil it to the utmost, and will now lead you to the place desired and divinely shown. And he gave them the desert of the Chartreuse and whatever right and action he had in it. He promised also that he would obtain the same from the others who claimed any right for themselves in it [aa]; and also that he would build a house on the bridge which is between those two rocks which we have mentioned, so that women, and also men carrying arms, might be kept from entering. Finally, that he would prohibit there all hunting and fishing [bb]. After this, embracing them, he wept over each for joy, praising and blessing God for their coming, and kept them with him, and, wearied from the journey, saw to their being refreshed for some days in accordance with his humanity.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. See what the Annotations on the older Life of the Saint supply at letter g concerning this holy bishop of Grenoble.

q. Whether the Saint, granted even that he was driven into the desert by the prodigy of the dead man who cried out from the bier that he was damned, betook himself straight with his companions to Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, as the biographer here seems to indicate, has been discussed in the Preliminary Commentary from number 414.

r. On this hermit, consulted by the Saint and his companions on the way, whom Surius found mentioned in Blömenvenna from Henry of Kalkar, not in Dupuy as well, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 414.

s. On this vision vouchsafed to St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and the circumstances with which it is here adorned by Surius and by the two biographers of our Saint who preceded him, namely Dupuy and Blömenvenna, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 423 and some following.

t. Namely at number XI in the Life of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, here presently cited by Surius, edited by us in tome 1 of April, which he wrote at the command of Pope Innocent II. See also what I noted on the older Life of St. Bruno at letter i.

u. Although most of the circumstances of the meeting of Bruno and his companions with St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, which Surius here relates from Blömenvenna and Dupuy, appear by no means unlike the truth, yet they cannot be confirmed by any testimony of antiquity. And this indeed holds by name as regards the discourse made by Bruno concerning the damned doctor. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 430.

x. To the Hebrews XI, verse 38.

y. In very many solitudes of Egypt and Palestine, which regions enjoy a warmer temperature of the air than those adjoining Grenoble, an immense multitude of anchorites once dwelt, as may be seen in the Lives of the Fathers in Rosweyde.

z. I have presented to the reader a lengthy description of the desert of the Chartreuse from Innocent Le Masson in the Preliminary Commentary, number 447 and the two following.

aa. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 503 and the two following.

bb. See what has been annotated on the second chapter of the preceding Life at letter i.

CHAPTER II.

The Saint enters the desert of the Chartreuse; from it, where he lives most holily, he is summoned by Pope Urban II; he persuades his disciples, who have followed him to Rome, to return to the Chartreuse; he refuses the archbishopric of Reggio, and then obtains from the Pontiff the faculty of returning to solitude.

[Bruno and his companions are led into the Chartreuse by Hugh the bishop, and there, piously,] Those days completed, they went up the mountain and began to inhabit the solitude of the Chartreuse

about the solemnity of the nativity of St. John the Baptist, in the year of our salvation one thousand and eighty-four ^a, the blessed bishop Hugh going before, accompanying, directing and helping them in all things, and also supplying them with necessary things. There was then built by them, in the higher part of the mountain, which is now called At blessed Mary of the Casalibus, a church, and small dwellings or little cells near a spring which up to the present is called the spring of St. Bruno ^b, not far distant from that church, but separated from one another, lest one should disturb the quiet and solitude of another. And in each of these little cells two brethren lived ^c, and like those ancient monks of Egypt they gave themselves to silence, prayer, reading, purity of heart and the contemplation of divine things, applying themselves also at certain hours to the work of their hands, especially to copying books, both to provide for their own poverty and also so as not to give any occasion to those who seek an occasion of calumniating their holy institute as rendering no service to the Church of God but attending only to their own affairs ^d.

[20] For ignorant men are wont to judge those idle and of little use to holy Church who, not abstaining meanwhile from all work of their hands, separated from men, give themselves only to God and to themselves. For men of that kind, ignorant and unskilled in spiritual things, do not know how much the prayers of holy men can effect with God, even of those dwelling in the most hidden solitudes, and this on account of purity and innocence of life, which those who live apart from men can guard more easily than those who mingle with the crowds of men, unless holy obedience compels them to do so; since even a certain heathen could say that he had never been among men without returning less than himself. But yet our most holy fathers, who laid the first foundations of the Carthusian life, attributing nothing of this kind to themselves, wished also to devote themselves to writing books, and exhorted their successors to do so, that they might at least preach the word of God with their hands when they could not with their mouth. For so speak the statutes of the ancient Fathers ^e.

[21] they give themselves wholly to exercises; Occupying themselves, therefore, with these and other pious exercises, they cast all their care, as the Psalmist admonishes ^f, upon the Lord, and were not at all solicitous for the morrow about the things which pertained to the following day, all thought being thrown back upon the Lord, not unaware of that Prophetic saying: But I am a beggar and poor; but the Lord is careful for me, whose is the earth and the fulness thereof, who gives to the beasts their food and to the young ravens that call upon Him ^g. And there was in them such charity that they tried to anticipate one another with mutual services, and such humility that each vied with the others in desiring to transfer to others the praise and glory of what he had done rightly. But so it came about that, while each wished to hide under the shadow of another, the reflected splendour of the virtues illuminated all more brightly. In all there was seen gravity and maturity of manners, and nonetheless, amid so many ornaments of virtues, a horror and contempt of all vanity, which, just as the moth eats garments, eats away all virtues and merits. One could admire in them an angelic life. They lived in much patience, in watchings, in fastings, in chastity, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in sweetness, in the Holy Spirit, in charity unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God.

[22] yet among them Bruno, who had already before been very upright, At the beginning indeed, when they had arrived in that solitude, they built themselves huts rather than cells. And the most holy man Bruno, living among them and laying the foundations of the Carthusian Religion, instructed them excellently by words and examples. For as the sun among the stars, so he seemed to excel the others in holiness of life. In his breast Christ the Lord, the eternal wisdom of the eternal Father, dwelt as in a lofty ark, and the Holy Spirit had founded for Himself a most welcome dwelling; for the future architect of a sublime and arduous institute had to be eminent by a singular prerogative of heavenly grace. And it certainly appears that even before dwelling at the Chartreuse he was a man of a certain rare probity, integrity and gravity ^h, which is partly testified by what has been said above, and will be confirmed also by other things which we shall say. From this, therefore, it can easily be gathered what sort of man he showed himself then, when, having despised the whole world, he wished to lead the eremitical life, that is, a life dead to the things of this world and gaping after heavenly things alone.

[23] shines with signal examples of virtues. Hence For he who, living among men and flourishing in the prosperous successes of this world, was zealous for virtue, in that horrid solitude conducted himself much more brilliantly and sublimely, so that he could rightly seem not only zealous for virtue but also adorned with the exceptional splendour of all the virtues. Nor is it doubtful that from his excellent holiness illustrious examples of virtues flowed down into all the monasteries of the Carthusian institute, by which it has come about that the Carthusian Order even today, above others (which however we wish to be said with the leave of all), seems to retain that ancient rigour of its own; not that it has relaxed nothing of it, but that it has not so turned aside from it as to be judged to have suffered any great collapse. Those abstinences, tolerable to few, have been somewhat relaxed, but yet there remains the perpetual eating of fish, many fasts, prolonged vigils, lengthy prayers, and many other things truly troublesome to the flesh. Further, the most blessed bishop Hugh, the celebrated fame of whose holiness had already spread itself into all regions, although he followed all those who lived with St. Bruno in the desert of the Chartreuse with much love and veneration, yet held Bruno himself, because he discerned greater ornaments of divine grace in him, in such honour and reverence that he obeyed his counsels no otherwise than the precepts of an abbot.

[24] And although, as Guigo says in his Life, even before he was wholly burning with the fires of divine love, With Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, who obeys him yet by their examples and familiarity he grew hot for the exercises of the heavenly discipline no otherwise than if someone were to set many other burning torches around a flaming torch. And he was with them not as a lord or bishop but as a companion and a most humble brother, and most ready, as far as lay in him, for the service of all; so much so that the venerable man William, then Prior of St. Laurence ⁱ, afterwards Abbot of Saint-Chaffre, himself also bound to master Bruno by no moderate religious devotion, blessed Hugh's companion in the cell (for they then dwelt two by two in each cell), complained not lightly to master Bruno that he snatched away from him nearly all the offices pertaining to humility within the cell, and that the bishop conducted himself with him not at least as a companion but rather as a servant, sadly asserting that he was not allowed to touch any of the servile works which according to custom they ought to do in turns, since he snatched everything away from him. And so devoutly and assiduously did he inhabit the desert that master Bruno sometimes compelled him to go out, saying: Go, go to your sheep, and pay them what you owe.

[25] He wished also at that time, fired with the ardour of great poverty and humility, no otherwise than an abbot, he is held in esteem; to sell all his mounts and, the price having been divided among the poor, to run about in preaching on his own feet. But master Bruno, a man of profound heart, did not consent, fearing lest he should perhaps be lifted up within himself, or be judged by the other bishops for singularity, or (which was not doubtful) lest he should be unable to accomplish it on account of the roughness and unevenness of the roads. So indeed writes, in the Life of blessed Hugh, which the reader will come upon at the first day of April ^k, that Guigo whom we have mentioned, an author weighty above all and most worthy of trust. And from these things it can be clearly noticed of how great authority and esteem blessed Bruno was with so distinguished a bishop, since he obeyed him no otherwise than his own abbot, by a rare example of exceptional humility, doubtless on account of his excellent holiness and wisdom. There are those who write that the same bishop received from blessed Bruno the monastic habit of the Carthusian institute ^l.

[26] At his insistence and through his agency also, all those round about, [but while he lives thus at the Chartreuse, he is summoned from it by Pope Urban II,] both ecclesiastics and nobles and commoners, with ready will gave to blessed Bruno and his brethren, having seen their so holy, upright and religious conversation, whatever right they held in the mountains of the Chartreuse and within the limits of its desert ^m. But although blessed Bruno, once celebrated in the world, now, having trampled on all the glory of this world, strove with the utmost zeal to lie hidden in the desert, to cling to God alone with ardent love and desire, to taste how sweet the Lord is, and to desire absolutely nothing outside Him, he could not yet obtain his wish to the full. For when he had not spent six whole years in that small indeed but holy fellowship, Pope Urban the second, who had once been the blessed Man's disciple, when he had been raised to that sublime summit of pre-eminent honour and desired to fulfil so great an office accurately, not unmindful of the exceptional virtue and illustrious doctrine of this his Preceptor, summoned him by letter to perform services for holy Church, gravely commanding him not to delay to come to the City ⁿ.

[27] [and resolving that the Pontifical mandate must be obeyed, although this befalls him most grievously,] That mandate of the Pontiff having been read through, immense grief seized all his brethren and sons, and they would admit no consolation, protesting that they could by no means endure in that vast solitude if they were bereaved of the presence of so great a Father; that they would stay indeed if he stayed; but if he went away, they would likewise go away. The most pious Man, greatly dismayed at their tears and moved with much compassion, since it seemed most bitter to him too to be recalled, after so great a quiet of beloved solitude, so great a tranquillity of mind and serenity of conscience, to the cares and din of this world, strove to console them gently. For he knew that it is written: He that hears you, hears me ^o; and likewise: Let every soul be subject to higher powers [p]; and for that reason he received the Pontiff's mandate no otherwise than he would have received a voice brought to him by a heavenly oracle, and said to the brethren: To remain with you, brethren most beloved in the Lord, is most welcome to me; to be separated from you, most grievous: but to obey the Apostolic mandates, as you yourselves also know, is necessary.

[28] obedience must be given, You know that the Pontiff has succeeded to the place of him to whom it was said by Christ, Feed my sheep [q]. He cannot, therefore, be numbered among the sheep of Christ who will not obey him to whom Christ has committed His sheep to be fed. And what could it profit me to afflict my body here with you with want and fasts,

and to wear it down with the hard labours and exercises of the institute undertaken, if meanwhile through disobedience I should lose my soul? Do not therefore, my brethren, afflict my heart with these importunate tears, and heap up my sorrows with your sorrows: but in the vocation in which you have been called, in it remain, and persevere in this place. And I trust in the Lord, who was seen by the blessed bishop Hugh to be building Himself a dwelling in this desert through us lowly ones, that He will not suffer this purpose of His grace to be made void by this separation of ours: but rather will grant, according to His kindness, that I, found obedient and faithful in this trial, truly most troublesome to me, and increased by His blessing, may return to you glad. Nor ought you to doubt that, even if I shall be absent from you in body for a time, I shall always be with you in spirit.

[29] [he betakes himself to Rome, having resigned the Chartreuse to the abbot of La Chaise-Dieu,] As he said these things, all lift up their voice with tears and say to him: You, venerable Father, are after God our hope, you our refuge, you our consolation and counsel. If then you depart, what shall we do? Or, when you are absent, to whom shall we have recourse? We shall be indeed as sheep not having a shepherd. Wherefore, if obedience draws you to the Pontiff, let the surpassing charity which is in Christ Jesus draw us together with you, which neither death nor life nor any creature shall be able to separate and tear apart. Blessed Bruno, hearing these things, and seeing that they admitted no consolation, and that he could not persuade them to remain at the Chartreuse, lest that place, already dedicated to God, should be rolled back again into lay and profane hands, which he prudently feared, commended and gave it to the venerable man Seguin, abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, who was one of the first donors [r]; yet he did this in such a way that he fully resolved to return with his own to the Chartreuse [s]. And everything having been accomplished, and the blessing of the most blessed bishop Hugh having been received, the Pontiff's mandate pressing, he set out for Rome.

[30] Now it can also be seen not obscurely from these things and when he had arrived there, his disciples, who had followed him, with what exceptional virtue he was endowed, on whom those religious brethren so depended that they thought life itself altogether unpleasant and troublesome to them if they must be deprived of his presence. And when blessed Bruno came to Rome, the Pontiff, wonderfully cheered by his coming, received him most kindly, since he singularly loved and venerated him, and always had him among his first and intimate counsellors and faithful friends, never failing to use his counsels in the arduous business of the Church. And there came together to him, the Spirit of God bringing it about, all the brethren whom he had had with him at the Chartreuse [t], and they began to be affected with much grief, he himself grieving most of all, that they had left the solitude of the Chartreuse, which the Lord had chosen for Himself. For there came into their mind not flesh, or cucumbers and melons, as to those murmuring Israelites in the desert, but the holy meditations, fervent prayers, studious readings and spiritual consolations which they had enjoyed in the Carthusian desert; and they could not check their bursting tears when they saw that they had been thrown from so deep a quiet and tranquil silence into most troublesome din and various tumults of affairs.

[31] But since blessed Bruno could not yet obtain from the Pontiff leave to withdraw, he persuades to return to the Chartreuse. he persuaded the brethren to return to the Chartreuse, and obtained from the Pontiff a letter to abbot Seguin [u], that he should restore the desert of the Chartreuse to them. He also set over them in his place as Prior Lauduinus, under whose leadership all returned to the Chartreuse [x]. From these things too the Reader may observe what sort of man blessed Bruno was, whom the Pastor of the whole Church himself valued so highly, and whom he wished to have so great a place of familiarity and authority with him. We do not wish to enlarge on each detail, lest we be prolix. And after the brethren came with Lauduinus to the Chartreuse and showed the Pontiff's letter to abbot Seguin, the brethren of his monastery assenting, in the presence of St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and of Hugh, Archbishop of Lyons, he freely remitted the Carthusian desert to them, and handed it over both to them and to their successors to be possessed in perpetuity [y]. And this indeed was the first letter of the Roman Pontiff concerning the Carthusian institute, which is a great proof that from the very beginnings of the Carthusian Religion it was approved by the Apostolic see [z].

[32] From that day the Carthusian solitude has always remained in the dominion of the Carthusians, These then in it a most grievous temptation, and at the same time the Carthusian Religion endures there up to the present. And when St. Bruno, living in the curia of the Pontiff, learned that those brethren had returned unharmed to the Chartreuse and obtained that place and were enjoying tranquil peace and quiet, he wrote to them frequently, exhorting them to persevere constantly in the way of the Lord. But that twisting snake and ancient serpent was not absent from this spiritual paradise. For foreseeing even then how great losses and injuries would come back upon himself from that illustrious institute of a sublime and angelic life, whose foundations were then being laid, he cast upon those brethren an immoderate faint-heartedness and perplexity, employing for this purpose, as the most apt instruments, the fraudulent and deceitful tongues of certain malignant men, who, accusing them of novelty, said that they were throwing themselves into the danger of death. And it was indeed brought about by them that the excellent fathers wholly doubted what they should do, both on account of the austerity of the life undertaken and on account of the horror and vastness of that desert, in which, moved by the talk of those worthless men, they themselves now also feared they would come into danger of life. But on the other hand they feared not a little that, if they withdrew from there, they would offend God and the guiding stars which bishop Hugh had seen.

[33] they suffer, from which they are divinely freed; When they had been harassed very much for some time by these perplexities, behold, the most kind God, who never forsakes those hoping in Him, sends to them, as they were speaking among themselves of these matters, a venerable man with hoary head and curly hair, who said to them: You are perplexed, brethren, whether you ought to remain in this place or leave it. But I say to you, in the words of the Almighty, that the Mother of God, the perpetual Virgin, will preserve you in this desert place if you will read her hourly prayers daily in her honour. Having said these things, he was suddenly taken from their eyes. And they, affected with incredible joy, chose for themselves as patroness of the whole Carthusian institute that most sacred Virgin, to whom they knew her Son, the immortal King of all ages, could deny nothing, and as patron the most blessed forerunner of the Lord, John. And they conjectured that the man who appeared to them was the holy Apostle Peter most of all from the fact that his successor Urban the second, in the Council of Clermont, instituted that the hourly prayers of the most blessed Mother of God should be said by the whole clergy. And from this vision they were so strengthened in the Lord that neither death nor life could separate them from the charity of Christ [aa].

[34] but the Saint obtains from Urban the faculty of returning to solitude: When blessed Bruno had rendered vigorous service to the supreme Pontiff for a few years, and had profited the Church of God not a little by his counsel, prudence and wisdom, bearing meanwhile most troublesomely the din and tumults of the curia, which he set aside and always longed to return to the tranquil harbour of the solitary life, at length, not enduring to bear any longer the flame of so great a desire, before the Pontiff went away from Piacenza into Gaul, by much insistence of prayers he at length with difficulty obtained leave and faculty to withdraw to his desert, or certainly, if it should so seem good, to seek another. About that time, with the assent of the same Pontiff, the most holy Man was elected Archbishop of the church of Reggio, which is the first metropolis of all Calabria, and Pope Urban was very intent on confirming him in that dignity; but he, not ignorant to how many dangers, how many cares and troubles ecclesiastical functions of this kind are liable, would not give assent to the election [bb]. Nor yet did he do this obstinately, but modestly and humbly, solely from love of quiet, preserving obedience and submission towards the Pontiff and charity towards his neighbours.

[35] yet he does not return to the Chartreuse, but in Calabria At length, departing from the curia with the good leave and blessing of the Pontiff, he sought the desert places of Calabria, having joined to himself some men of the same purpose, whom the good odour of his life and his fervent exhortations had already brought to contempt of the world [cc]. For he had learned that in the region of Calabria there were many solitudes most apt for doing penance and pursuing the solitary life. He would indeed have preferred, as he had also often resolved within himself, to return to the Chartreuse to his dearest brethren, whom he had sent back there; but because the supreme Pontiff was setting out with his curia into Gaul, within whose borders the Chartreuse is situated, he feared that, if he too betook himself there, he might either be unable to avoid the curia, or seem not to have left it but to be following it. It seemed better, therefore, to seek Calabria, his will to revisit his own at the Chartreuse, once matters were composed and settled, being meanwhile in no way changed [dd]. The letter which he wrote from the solitude of Calabria to the brethren living at the Chartreuse declares this sufficiently, at the end of which he says thus: But of me, brethren, know that my one desire after God is to come to you and see you, and when I can, I will fulfil it in deed, God helping [ee].

[36] And in Calabria itself he came to a certain desert, [he withdraws to the hermitage of La Torre, in whose himself, and at the same time in life] whose name is La Torre, in the diocese of Squillace [ff], and there they built not cells of any value, because the means were not available, but lowly huts of cheap material indeed, but precious in Christ. And with how great integrity and holiness of life he lived there with his own, to what exercises of piety and religion he gave himself, who could explain in words? It can indeed become known in some part from the letter which the holy Man wrote to Ralph, then provost of the church of Reims, afterwards bishop, where among other things he says: In the borders of Calabria, with religious brethren, some of them well learned, who, persisting in the divine watches, await the return of their Lord, that when He knocks they may open to Him at once, I inhabit a desert sufficiently remote on every side from the habitation of men. Of whose pleasantness, and the mildness and healthiness of its air, or of the broad and pleasing plain stretched out lengthwise among the mountains, where there are green meadows and flowery pastures, what shall I say that is worthy? Or who could sufficiently explain the prospect of the hills rising gently on every side, and the retreat of the shady valleys, with a lovely abundance of rivers, streams and springs? Nor are watered gardens lacking, and the fertility of various trees.

[37] But why do I linger longer over these things? For other

are the delights of a prudent man, [he runs on into the praises of the solitary life in the letter to Ralph the Green.] far more pleasing and more useful, because divine. Yet the weaker mind, wearied by stricter discipline and spiritual studies, is often relieved and breathes again by these. For a bow, if it is constantly bent, grows slacker and less fit for its office. But what utility and delight solitude and the silence of the desert bring to their lovers, those alone know who have experienced it. For here strenuous men may return into themselves as much as they please, and dwell with themselves, and assiduously cultivate the seeds of the virtues, and happily enjoy the fruits of paradise. Here that eye is acquired by whose serene gaze the bridegroom is wounded with love, by which, clean and pure, God is seen. Here a busy leisure is kept, and there is repose in quiet action. Here God repays to His athletes, for the labour of the contest, the desired reward, namely the peace which the world does not know, and joy in the Holy Spirit. This is that Rachel, fair and beautiful to look on, more loved by Jacob, less fruitful in sons than Leah, who was more fertile but blear-eyed. For fewer are the sons of contemplation than of action. Yet Joseph and Benjamin are more loved by the father than the other brothers. This is that best part which Mary chose, which shall not be taken away. This is the most beautiful Shunammite, alone found in all the borders of Israel, who should cherish the old man David and warm him. These things the holy Man writes in that letter [gg], from which much might be sought for his exceptional praise, but we pass on to other things.

ANNOTATIONS.

f. Psalm 54, verse 23.

g. Psalm 39, verse 18.

o. Luke 10, verse 16.

p. To the Romans 13, verse 1.

q. John 21, verse 17.

r. This abbot here named was advanced to the government of this most celebrated abbey in Auvergne, as Mabillon teaches in the Benedictine Annals, book 65, number 35, in the year 1078, and in the year 1094, as the same author relates in book 68 of the praised Work, number 103, he resigned that office; and that he was among those who gave the desert of the Chartreuse to the Saint is attested by the public charter recited in the Preliminary Commentary, number 503 and the two following, by which it was given to the Saint and his disciples in the year 1086.

s. This appears hardly probable. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 513.

t. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 527.

u. I have presented this letter in full to the studious reader at number 528 of the Preliminary Commentary.

x. Surius here seems to hint that Landuinus was set over the brethren of the Chartreuse by Bruno only then, when they had already come to the Saint at Rome and had agreed to return to the Chartreuse; but that this was done already from the time when the Saint, obeying the Pontifical mandate, left the Chartreuse and went to Rome, is attested by the public instrument by which Seguin restored the desert of the Chartreuse to the Saint's disciples, recited in the Preliminary Commentary, number 529.

y. See what was brought forward concerning this restitution of the Chartreuse in the Preliminary Commentary, number 529 and following.

z. The letter here mentioned is surely an argument that the manner of living which St. Bruno and his companions kept at the Chartreuse pleased Urban II, the supreme Pontiff; but in it (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 528) mention is made only of the cell or monastery of St. Bruno, not of the Carthusian Institute.

aa. See what has been said about this vision and the circumstances that accompanied it in the Preliminary Commentary, number 605 and the five following.

bb. The Saint was neither first elected to the archbishopric of Reggio about the time of the council of Piacenza, celebrated in the year 1095, nor did he obtain from the Pontiff the faculty of returning to the desert then, contrary to what Surius here teaches. See the Preliminary Commentary, numbers 532, 533, 536 and following.

cc. Consult what I noted on the third chapter of the preceding Life at letter t.

dd. Since the Pontiff first went into Gaul in the year 1095, after celebrating the council at Piacenza, and Bruno had gone to Calabria as early as the year 1090, it is surely clear that the reason here asserted why, when he withdrew into Calabria, he did not return to the Chartreuse does not stand.

ee. The letter which these words end, and which the Saint sent to the brethren of the Chartreuse by Landuinus when he was returning from Calabria to them, I gave in full in the Preliminary Commentary, number 679 and following.

ff. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 552.

gg. That you may find that true things are here declared by the biographer, see §41 of the Preliminary Commentary, in which I recited that letter in full and noted on it what I thought fitting.

CHAPTER III.

In the hermitage of La Torre he is found by Count Roger; he frees him from a most imminent danger; he builds there two monasteries through the same man's liberality; in one of them he lives most holily up to his death; after his death he shines with miracles; and at length, the Pontiff permitting, he is honoured by the Carthusians with the honours of the Heavenly Ones.

He is found in a cave by Count Roger, who was engaged in hunting, After blessed Bruno first began to dwell in that hermitage of La Torre with his companions, it happened, God bringing it about, that one day Roger, count of Calabria ^a, hunting in the same solitude with no small throng of his men and a great number of dogs, came, ignorant of the whole matter, to the place which the servants of God had taken for their dwelling. Where, when the dogs were keenly exploring the various tracks of wild beasts, they ran up to the huts in which blessed Bruno was staying with the brethren, and there, their feet fixed, indicated to their lord with great barking that they had found a rich prey. The count, having seen this, flies up swiftly with his men, and comes upon those Fathers in their caves on bended knees, with faces and hands raised to heaven, praying together and praising God ^b. Then he, filled with great wonder, leaps down from the horse on which he sat, greets them piously and courteously, and carefully inquires for what cause they had come there and what their condition was. After he had learned everything from them, he rejoiced exceedingly, praising and glorifying God, who had judged him worthy of such a prey.

[39] and this prince beneficent towards him. For he persuaded himself, and not rashly, that he and his land would be helped with God and preserved in peace by their merits and prayers. And for that reason, that they might be able to live there more quietly and remain longer, he gave them the church of holy Mary and of blessed Stephen of the hermitage ^c. Where indeed he also often visited them, and gave them the things necessary for passing their life, and gladly heard from them the things that pertained to the salvation of the soul. And blessed Bruno himself, the pastor and father of the others, he not only embraced more closely than the rest, but also summoned to himself more often, and showing him much reverence always held him in the first place in his house, and gladly obeyed his counsels, and perpetually commended himself to his prayers, in which he trusted very greatly ^d: nor did his opinion deceive him. For through the merits of this blessed Man the Lord freed him from a most imminent danger and from the dangers contrived against him; which the Count himself, to the glory of God and in order to publish everywhere the holiness of St. Bruno, left attested in his letters in these words.

[40] whom at the siege of Capua from a most imminent I, Roger, by divine mercy Count of Calabria and Sicily, will that there be known to all the Christian faithful the benefits which God granted to me, a sinner, through the prayers of my reverend brother Bruno, most pious father of the brethren who dwell in the churches of holy Mary of the hermitage and of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which are situated in my land between the town which is called Stilo and Arena. When I was at the siege of Capua ^e on the Kalends of March, and had set Sergius, a Greek by nation, as prince over two hundred men-at-arms of his nation, and master of the watches of the army; who, overcome by satanic persuasion, promised the prince of Capua himself, who promised him no small quantity of gold, that he would provide him an entrance by night to attack me and my army.

[41] The night of the treason came; the prince of Capua and his army, according to the promise, was ready for arms; danger and while I had given myself to sleep, some space of the night having passed, there stood by my bed a certain old man of reverend countenance, with torn garments, unable to hold back his tears. When I asked him in the vision what was the cause of the weeping and tears, he seemed to me to weep more bitterly. When I asked again what the weeping was, he spoke thus: I weep for the souls of Christians, and for you together with them. Arise as soon as possible, take up arms, if God shall permit to free you and the souls of your fighting men. This man seemed to me in everything as if he were in all respects the venerable father Bruno. I awoke with terror

great, trembling at the vision. At once I took up arms, crying to the soldiers to arm and mount their horses, being eager to prove whether the vision was true.

[42] At which din and clangour the impious Sergius and his followers, fleeing, followed the prince of Capua, he frees, hoping to have had refuge in the said city. But the soldiers took, between wounded and unhurt, one hundred and sixty-two ^f, from whom we proved that the vision was true. I returned, God willing, on the twenty-ninth of the month of July to Squillace, having * taken the city of Capua, where I was ill for a continuous fortnight. And the already mentioned venerable Bruno came with four of his brethren, who consoled me with their holy and devout conversations. To which reverend man I related the vision and gave humble thanks that he had had care of me in his prayers even when I was absent.

[43] He humbly asserted that it was not himself whom I believed, he experiences, but the Angel of God, who stands by the prince in time of war ^g. I also humbly asked him that he would therefore deign to take from my possessions in the land of Squillace ample revenues, which I was giving. He, refusing, said that he would not receive them, because he had left his father's house and mine for this, that, wholly free of outside things, he might serve his God. He had been in my whole house as it were the first and great one ^h. At length I was hardly able to obtain from him that he would agree to accept freely a small gift of mine. For I gave to the same father Bruno and his successors, to have in perpetuity without temporal service, the monastery of St. James with the castle, and very many other things and goods, with most ample liberties, specifically declared in the said letters ⁱ. Thus that Count.

[44] Relying on this liberality and donation of the Count, blessed Bruno founded there first a church in honour of the Mother of God near a certain underground grotto he builds two churches, in which he himself stayed. Then he built also another, not far distant from it, in honour of the holy protomartyr Stephen ^k, with a monastery joined to it, in which the other brethren dwelt, serving as soldiers of Christ under the care and government of so great a father ^l. With whom the holy Man persevered up to the last day of his life in that manner of living and austerity of life which he had previously begun and taught at the Chartreuse, meanwhile also solicitously taking care of those who lived in the desert of the Chartreuse ^m, master Landuinus having been set over them, as we said before.

[45] he is visited by Lauduinus, This venerable man, indeed, lest he should turn aside from the footsteps and institutes of so great a Father and preceptor of his, or instruct his own otherwise than he had learned from him with his fellow brethren, undertook a very long journey to that very hermitage of Calabria, to inquire of him more accurately about each thing. But when he was returning from the most holy Man, he fell into the hands of Guibert the schismatic, and since he could not be led away from his opinion, he was detained in custody for the defence of justice; whence, released a little after, not much time having intervened, he rendered his undefiled spirit to Christ ⁿ.

[46] he falls into a grave illness, and from it, And the most blessed father Bruno also fell into a most grievous sickness, and how he conducted himself as the illness gathered increase his brethren and sons explain in a certain writing in these words: That you may know with how great confidence, with how certain a hope of his deliverance you pour out your prayers, we make known his passing under a brief title, that in the consummation of the holy Man you may gather the truth and perfection of the life he passed. For knowing that his hour had come to pass out of this world to the Father, having called together his brethren, he went over each of his ages from his very infancy, and proclaimed the course of his whole time worthy of knowledge and judgment ^o.

[47] having uttered a profession of faith, he dies. Afterwards he set forth his faith concerning the Trinity in a long and profound discourse, and concluded thus [p]: I believe also the Sacraments which the holy Church believes and venerates, and by name that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the consecration the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, true flesh and true blood, which we also receive for the remission of our sins and in the hope of eternal salvation. Then on the next Lord's day that holy soul was loosed from the flesh on the day before the Nones of October in the year of Christ one thousand one hundred and one, and the brethren laid away his body there with honour.

[48] [Having been honoured with the Epitaph here recited, and with various honourable answers to the encyclical letter] At his sepulchre an Epitaph of this kind was placed:

First founder of Christ's fold in this desert Was I found worthy to be, who am covered by this stone. Bruno is my name; my mother, Germany; and me The welcome quiet of the grove brought across to the Calabrians. I was a doctor, a herald of Christ, a man known in the world; That was grace from above, not merit. The sixth day of October loosed the bonds of the flesh; The bones remain in the tomb, the spirit seeks the stars [q].

And many miracles followed his most holy life and precious death, which Christ effected on account of his illustrious merits. After his death and burial the brethren of his monastery sent rolls, as the custom has it, into various provinces, and into Britain itself too, by which they both signified his departure from life and asked that prayers be offered to the Lord for his holy soul [r].

[49] announcing his death, For they knew that there is no just man who does not sin. And first indeed his brethren and disciples, and then also others who had known him, and to whom his exceptional learning and holiness of life were known, inscribed testimony about these things in those rolls, either in prose or in verse. If we should wish to recount all of these, we shall be too prolix; if we should pass over entirely the testimonies of so many most weighty men, we shall not escape the mark of ingratitude and impudence, especially since from them the exceptional holiness of the blessed Man can be observed not obscurely. And it is certainly expedient that the things we are about to note should not be unknown, if only chiefly for this reason, that certain inept and witless men have dared to persuade themselves and others that this blessed Man is that doctor whom we said at the beginning of this history was damned; which indeed is a most empty fiction of I know not what dreamer, since it is sufficiently established that that damned doctor gave the most blessed Bruno and his companions the occasion of thinking seriously about ordering their life more holily and, having left all the things of this world, of migrating into a horrid solitude [s].

[50] These illustrious testimonies of so great men, of so many distinguished colleges and persons [t], [These attest his holiness, and it was also made plain by the miracles which he did.] abundantly suffice, unless I am mistaken, to show the excellent learning, uprightness of manners and holiness of life of the most blessed father Bruno, even if no miracles of his were extant. But indeed he is read to have shone with many miracles too, but yet these, which I cannot recount without grief, were not noted down with the diligence that was fitting, or, if they were noted down, when monks of another Institute occupied his monastery, they were first kept rather negligently and then even lost. The most excellent Man was buried in his monastery of St. Stephen behind the high altar [u]. At his sepulchre a living spring bursts out, which by the power of Christ and his merits brings manifold remedies of health to very many. There the blind are given light, the deaf hear, the maimed and mutilated are made whole, lepers are cleansed, demoniacs are swiftly purged. But more wonderful than all these miracles is this, that, as the testimonies already adduced so often repeat, he could reject all glory and honour, and persevere in such austerity, integrity and perfection of life.

[51] And it ought not to move a scruple in anyone Why the spring which had bubbled up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb if that spring is no longer seen at the sepulchre of the blessed Man. For springs miraculously bubbling up are not always perpetual, and sometimes benefits of God of this kind are withdrawn on account of the demerits of men. For miracles are done divinely that the merits of the Saints may be commended and declared; and when these seem to have become sufficiently known, miracles sometimes cease. Nor is it much to be wondered at if that spring was taken away, when that most holy manner of living which the most holy Man had instituted there was exiled from his monastery [x]. For when he had fallen asleep in the Lord, that monastery persevered in the Institute of the Carthusian life under five Priors who succeeded him, up to the times of the venerable Guigo, Prior of the Chartreuse. Then, the Carthusian Order growing in Gaul, that monastery of Calabria alone degenerated by growing lukewarm from the fervour and holiness of the blessed father Bruno. And its inhabitants indeed sought visitors and reformers from the Chartreuse, but the excessive distance of the places did not easily obtain this.

[52] And so they transferred themselves to the Cistercian institute, which, then newly arisen, and wonderfully propagated by the signal holiness and much labour of the incomparable man, blessed Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, continued in great fervour [y]. And up to that time that monastery had remained in the profession of the Carthusian religion for sixty years [z]. [ceased to be; Bruno, his miracles not having been examined, with the honours of the Heavenly Ones] But, the Cistercian religion too growing lukewarm there in course of time, at length the monastery of St. Bruno was made a commendam [aa], up to these times of the most holy Pontiff Leo the tenth. This Pontiff, when he had often heard by the account of many of the exceptional holiness of blessed Bruno, omitting an inquiry into miracles, judged it unworthy that he whom almighty God had enriched in this life with so many gifts and charisms, and now affected with heavenly beatitude, should not be extolled on earth with exceptional praise and proclamation, nor the due offices of pious devotion be paid to him as he rests before the throne of divine glory, to whom the Lord had given a heart for the precept and the law of life and of discipline.

[53] to be honoured by the Carthusians, Pope Leo X permits in the year 1514, And so he not only clemently assented by Apostolic authority, but also willed that in each monastery of the whole Carthusian Order, and in their churches or chapels, the feast of the most holy Bruno, confessor, be solemnly kept every year on the sixth day of October, on which he departed from life, and be celebrated with fitting and due devotion; that his body too and memory should have worthy praise and veneration in the Lord; that a fitting Office too be performed and chanted in his honour, and also that a commemoration of him be made daily in the divine Office [bb]. Moreover, the same Pontiff recalled from the Cistercians to the Carthusians the house of St. Stephen, which blessed Bruno had founded in Calabria, and in which his sacred body rests, in the year of salvation one thousand five hundred and fourteen [cc], so that henceforth life there might be lived according to the Carthusian manner and institute. And while this matter was being transacted, the Prior of the Charterhouse of Naples, to whom the business of pressing and promoting it had been given, presented to the reverend father dom François, Prior of the Grande Chartreuse, a part

of the jaw with two teeth of St. Bruno [dd], and said that the abbots of St. Stephen, where, as has been said, the sacred body of blessed Bruno rests, had always kept his sacred relics with such care, fearing * lest the Carthusians should reclaim them, that, the bones having been placed in various hidden places and those same places frequently changed, no one except the abbot and one other man worthy of trust had ascertained anything about them [ee].

[54] and in the same year his sacred bones, Further, in the year of Christ one thousand five hundred and fourteen those sacred bones were translated, and there was present at that translation dom Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna. He held his sacred head in his hands, so that it should not be placed on the altar with the bones, and he satisfied the crowds, who feared that they would be deprived of the holy relics of their most beloved Patron, thus: It is fitting, he said, that the sacred head, separated from the bones, be adorned with gold, silver and precious stones. Removing all suspicion from the people by these words, by special permission of the supreme Pontiff he took a certain part from the head and shared it thence with others, especially with the venerable father Gregory, Prior of Freiburg, who distributed particles through the houses of the Rhenish province, of which he was visitor, in the year 1515. And because St. Bruno had Cologne Agrippina as his native city, the same dom Matthew gave a small portion of his head to dom Peter of Leiden, Prior of the Charterhouse of Cologne [ff], to whom that gift was by far most welcome, and who, having returned home in the year 1516, reverently deposited the most precious gift in the church of the Charterhouse of Cologne on the 3rd day of August.

[55] And the very sacred body of the most blessed Bruno was translated by John, abbot of St. Rufus, are translated, John, abbot of St. Rufus, performing the solemnity. in the year, as has been said, 1514, and he placed it on the high altar of the church of St. Stephen, built of white marble. From this monastery, at a distance of fifteen hundred paces, lies a very religious grotto, situated in a narrow place among the mountains, girt by woods, which close the extremities of that valley and are altogether pathless and inaccessible to men. Above this grotto a not large chapel has been built with an altar, where the title is held of St. Bruno, master of Cologne, of the hermitage of holy Mary of La Torre, first founder of the Carthusian Order, whose image too is seen painted there. In this grotto that Man of God remained with incredible fervour of spirit from the time when he first came there up to his death [gg]. Further, in proof and commendation of his holiness, to the present day that place in which, after the transports of contemplation, he would dash his wearied limbs against the bare ground never produces grass to the measure of his body, although it grows grassy all around. This so illustrious miracle all the inhabitants of that place most constantly assert [hh]. There is moreover there, at a stone's throw, a church of the most blessed Mary, built by Count Roger for the servant of God master Bruno and master Lanvinus the Norman, his companion [ii].

[56] To these places crowds of people, old men and boys, [The veneration of persons of the first rank and of the people of Calabria towards the Saint.] men and women, nobles and commoners, princes and magnates, out of veneration for the most holy Bruno and pious devotion of mind towards him, and also to obtain his benefits, contemplating him in their minds just as if he were living among men, flock together vying with one another, approach reverently, venerate and pray. But especially they frequent that grotto, in which he almost always served God alone, with such reverence, faith and affection that very many are seen to approach it from the already mentioned monastery only with bare feet. Others, creeping on their knees, lick that sacred grotto, the earth and the rocks, out of piety of mind, and go round it in tears, and scrape something off the grotto itself, to hold as great relics, and so depart cheerfully to their homes. Nor indeed could anyone explain in words with how great devotion and zeal of mind the bishops, abbots, prelates, religious of Calabria, and likewise the princes, counts, barons and the whole common people follow the most holy Man [kk]. Finally, not far from the above-mentioned monastery there is a very ample wood, which they call Folo, deputed by the Man of God solely for the repair of the monastery. And if anyone rash has dared to go against this will of his, as report among all the Calabrians, confirmed by long experience, testifies, he does not escape divine vengeance, almighty God bringing about both this and very many other things to declare the holiness of His most faithful Servant, to whom be honour and glory for ever and ever, Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. The entire profession of faith uttered by the Saint when he felt himself near to death I have presented to the studious reader in the Preliminary Commentary, number 727; meanwhile it is not ended there with the words which are here subjoined.

q. Some of these verses differ from the verses in which the Saint's Epitaph was originally conceived. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, number 734.

r. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, number 24 and following.

s. So Surius here: and rightly indeed, in order to confute the impious calumny against the Saint, he presently adds some of the funeral titles with which funeral honours were paid to the Saint by various churches; but since I am going to give below not only these but also all the others with which very many churches and persons of Italy, Gaul and England celebrated Bruno after his death, I abstain from transcribing here those which Surius reviews.

t. Expressed, namely, in the funeral titles which he recited, from what was said at the preceding letter.

u. On the church of the hermitage of La Torre in which St. Bruno obtained burial see what was disputed in the Preliminary Commentary, number 731 and the two following.

x. On the spring which, as is here related, was stirred up by a prodigy at the Saint's tomb, and the reason for which that spring is at the same time asserted to have ceased or dried up, consult what was said in the Preliminary Commentary, number 735 and some following.

y. Of St. Bernard, first abbot of Clairvaux, we have already treated in tome 4 of August at the 20th day of this month, on which he is venerated and stands inserted in the Roman Martyrology; and he gave his name to the Cistercian Order, which, first begun in the year 1098, had been approved by Pope Paschal II in the year 1100, in the year 1113, and most happily ended in the year 1152 the life he had led in it most holily, as is proved by what was said of that holy abbot in the aforesaid tome.

z. The monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre remained attached to the Carthusian institute longer than is here stated. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 740 and following.

aa. For the time at which this was done see the Preliminary Commentary, number 752.

bb. See what has been annotated on chapter 3 of the preceding Life at letter zz.

cc. The Bull by which Pope Leo X restored the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre to the Carthusians is noted as given in the year 1513; and they entered into possession of it in the year 1514. See §46 of the Preliminary Commentary, in which I gave that Bull in full.

dd. What follows from what Surius here relates after Blömenvenna, see in the Preliminary Commentary, number 779 and following.

ee. It is not certain that the relics of St. Bruno were hidden by the abbots of St. Stephen in the manner here asserted. Consult the Preliminary Commentary, number 733.

ff. Namely in the year in which this Prior himself was present at the general chapter of the Carthusian Order, 1516. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 777 and following.

gg. What I think of the continual stay of the Saint in the grotto here asserted I have declared in the Preliminary Commentary, number 748.

hh. This miracle I left undecided in the Preliminary Commentary, number 748.

ii. The care of this church, as you will understand from the Preliminary Commentary, number 733, is held by the Carthusians who inhabit the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre; and this, which is now called, the name of Bruno having been added to the name of Stephen, the house of SS. Stephen and Bruno, is not the very one which St. Bruno built, but another, distant about a bowshot from the latter, now collapsed, as I understand from the notices which the Carthusian of Paris, praised very often in the Preliminary Commentary, copied from the exemplar of Val-Dieu of book 4 of the Carthusian Annals, not yet published, and communicated to me.

kk. That St. Bruno is even today in the highest veneration among the Calabrians Zanotti teaches in the Life of him composed by him, chapter 34.

* another reading: having first taken

* fearing (veritos)

ENCYCLICAL LETTER,

By which St. Bruno's disciples in the hermitage of La Torre announced his death in every direction, and requested the customary suffrages for his soul.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

In the first place, we, the humble hermits of the Calabrian monastery of Mary, the holy Mother of God, whose founder and prelate father Bruno was while he lived in the flesh, venerate and salute with due subjection the Prelate of the Apostolic see, whom we believe and confess to be the primate and head in the Church, and that whole principal curia, and we announce the death of our holy Father on the day before the Nones of October, that he may be helped with God by their merits and prayers. We salute also the whole holy Church in its orders and professions, canons, monks, hermits, holy virgins dedicated to God, before whom and all we prostrate ourselves in spiritual presence, that they may be pleased to be mindful of our dead Father; that if any stain has clung to that beloved soul (since there is no just man who does not sin), it may be wiped away by multiplied intercessors and insistence of prayers, and it may pass to rest. We pray also that the congregations of whatever places, or religious persons, who make memory of him, may not be reluctant to subscribe by name on this roll; and separately, if any wish to observe his memory in writing and yearly, let them be written down, that we may repay a fitting return to each, as far as we few are able. And that you may know with how great confidence, with how certain a hope of his deliverance you pour out your prayers, we make known his passing * for your benefit under a brief title, that in the consummation of the holy Man you may gather the truth and perfection of the life he passed. Knowing that his hour had come to pass out of this world to the Father, having called together his brethren, he went over each of his ages from his very infancy, and proclaimed the knowledge and judgment of his whole time to be worthy. Afterwards he set forth his faith concerning the Trinity in a long and profound discourse, and concluded thus: I believe also the Sacraments which the holy Church believes and venerates, and by name that the bread and wine which are consecrated on the altar are after the Consecration the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, true flesh and true blood, which we also receive for the remission of our sins and in the hope of eternal salvation. On the next Lord's day that holy soul was loosed from the flesh on the day before the Nones of October in the year of the Lord one thousand one hundred and one. Pray for him and for us sinners. We commend to your charity our brother, the bearer of this letter, travelling for the sake of obedience.

Farewell. ^b

ANNOTATIONS.

To this Letter, sent in every direction according to the custom then in use (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 24 and following) to announce Bruno's death, and prefixed to the Funeral Titles, or answers given to it, which are added at the end of the Life of St. Bruno written by Dupuy and printed at Basel about the year 1515, there are prefixed seven little verses, which are there thrust forward as a second Epitaph of the Saint; others, however, contend that they are the Funeral Title with which funeral honours were paid to the Saint by the religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre themselves. But neither the one nor the other pleases me; not the first, because they do not seem to present the appearance of an Epitaph; not the second, because by those little verses no answer was made to the Letter already given, which, however, would have been necessary, from what was said in the Preliminary Commentary, number 24, for them to constitute a Funeral Title. However that may be, you would not unfittingly call it an ethopoeia, by which the character of St. Bruno is set before the reader's eyes, nor does it appear to me altogether unlike the truth that they were joined by the Saint's disciples to the encyclical Letter already given, in order to teach in some way what sort of man he had been. So the place requires that, before I proceed to the Funeral Titles, I transcribe them here too. They run thus:

Bruno was to be praised in many things and in one. He was a man of even life; a man special in this. He was always of festive countenance, of modest speech. With a father's awe he showed a mother's heart. No one found him great, but gentle as a lamb. Wholly in this life he was a true Israelite. Snatch him, O God, from punishments; bring him into pleasant seats.

* supply "ad" (for)

FUNERAL TITLES,

Or the various answers to the preceding Letter.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

SECTION I.

Title of the brethren of Mons Amatus.

[1] We make known to your holiness that we, the brethren of Vivo, the humble inhabitants of Mons Amatus, together with our lord Prior Jerome, have determined in common, for the most reverend and most dear Bruno, father of your Congregation, to celebrate Vigils ^c and Masses for seven days for his venerable passing, to write him in the register ^d, and to keep his anniversary day. We pray and earnestly ask that you be mindful of us in all your good works. Farewell.

Of the brethren of the monastery of Fisciclum.

[2] We, the brethren of Fisciclum, will most intently and with a very willing mind render to God the Creator the prayers of supplication for the most reverend and most religious lord Bruno, the most eminent hermit, with the libation of the sacred oblation, and will write his venerable name among the most beloved names of our brethren, and will most devoutly celebrate his anniversary day, as your charity asks ^f.

Of Rangerius, disciple of Bruno.

[3] I, Rangerius, formerly a disciple of the venerable man Bruno ^g, desire to offer supplications of prayers to almighty God, that He who honoured him with such great grace and adorned him with such great piety may confer on him the crown too according to the merit of his faith. And specially, both for a special debt and for the privilege of love, I will keep his anniversary memory as circumstances and time allow.

Of the church of St. Frigidian of Lucca.

[4] We, the humble brethren of the church of St. Frigidian ^h of Lucca, willingly render the Office of commemoration ⁱ for so great and so glorious a Man, believing that we are commended to God by his holy merits.

Of the church of Piacenza.

[5] We, the brethren of little merit of the mother church ^k of most holy Mary and holy Justina of Piacenza, willingly promise to perform with ardent mind the due exequies for the most glorious soul of so venerable a Man, and will most lovingly insert his holy memory in our register ^l.

Of the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre.

[6] The congregation of the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre will willingly fulfil what you ask ⁿ.

Of the church of St. Martin of the Rock.

[7] We, the canons of the church of St. Martin, which is called of the Rock ^o, gladly receiving this roll, and with humble mind writing a remembrance in our register, making memory of this religious man, namely Bruno, on the day of his anniversary.

Of the monastery of Chiusa.

[8] The college of Chiusa, humble enough and small, grieving that it will be deprived of the solace of so great a man, will daily [q] entreat the Lord for Bruno, a companion in religion and an exceptional master of distinguished faith, and devoted to the prayers of the most holy man our father Benedict in his life, imposing Masses and the Psalter on the brethren, completing namely its trental [r]. It will also diligently keep him entered among the names of the brethren, and will devoutly celebrate his annual feast, that He may give him perpetual rest, Michael interceding. We desire to be fortified by the shield of your prayers, by which we by no means doubt that we and our dead are admitted into the fellowship of the Saints.

Of the church of Susa.

[9] Divine authority has sanctioned, and the Apostolic sentence also has it, that brethren bear one another's burdens; supported therefore by the teaching of this authority, our church of Susa, humble and small, pouring out prayers, entreats the clemency of God that the soul of so religious a man, namely of Bruno deceased, may obtain pardon of its offences by the perpetual grace of God [t].

Of the provostship of Oulx.

[10] We, the humble brethren of the church of St. Laurence of Oulx, which by another name is called the Plebs of the martyrs [u], will render, divine grace ministering, for so great and so religious a Man, for whom the whole world too ought unceasingly to pour out prayers, the Office with a trental [x], and thereafter his anniversary.

Of the church of Grenoble.

[11] The church of Grenoble, which the lord Bruno, monk and hermit, first destined to make for himself a desert and habitation [y], the more it rejoiced then in his presence, thinking indeed to have it perpetual, so much the more does it now grieve above the others over the absence of so great and so incomparable a Man. Wherefore it willingly renders the assiduous Office of his commemoration up to the thirtieth day [z]. Bread also and wine, with the other dishes which the brethren of the same Congregation meanwhile partook of, were likewise bestowed on the poor for the soul of the same Man. And placing the day of his passing, on which he rendered to God his soul worthy of memory, in the catalogue of its illustrious men, it has promised again to hold it unceasingly as anniversary and solemn. We therefore pray you with humble prayer to be mindful of us, so that we may become partakers of your orations and prayers.

Of the hermitage of the Chartreuse near Grenoble.

[12] We too, the brethren of the Chartreuse, wretchedly deprived above all others of the solace of our most pious father Bruno, a very greatly renowned man, cannot determine what we should do for his beloved and holy soul. For the merits of his benefits towards us surpass whatever we can and are able. And so we will pray, now and without end, as for our only father and lord, and whatever custom of Masses and other spiritual exercise is kept among us regarding the dead, we will render at all times for his soul as sons [aa].

Of the brethren of La Chaise-Dieu below Cornillon near Grenoble.

[13] We, the brethren and servants of the servants of La Chaise-Dieu, dwelling in the little cell of blessed Mary, which by another name is called Cornelio [bb], and is neighbouring to the hermitage of the Chartreuse, for the holiness of so great a Man, through whose doctrine and example so great a stock has borne fruit in Christ, will celebrate the Office and Masses for seven days, and will give bread and wine with the other dishes to the poor, as for one of our brethren, and will write his anniversary memory in our catalogue.

Of the brethren of St. Rufus at the Côte-Saint-André.

[14] We, brethren from the canons of St. Rufus, staying in a certain little cell of St. Andrew, which is commonly called the Côte [cc], will celebrate Matins and Masses for seven continuous days [dd] for the soul of the most pious Bruno, and, as for one of us, we will give a prebend [ee] for the solace of his soul, and we will have his name written in the catalogue of our brethren.

Of the monastery of Ainay at Lyons.

[15] And the community of Ainay, forewarned by a divine oracle, renders the general Office [gg], and at the same time prayers and orations, for the soul of the religious Bruno, beloved of God, and has shown the services of commendation to the brethren enrolled with him.

Of the Cathedral church of Lyons.

[16] So death spares the prudent man, as it does the foolish. Bruno was prudent, but swiftly fell by death. Indeed Bruno lies pressed down in a single tomb, Who, as much as he could, pursued justice.

He flourished, and was made in life a simple hermit. If he was guilty, do Thou, O God, spare him, To whom fair poems are given in vain in place of Psalms. Three times "Have mercy on me" would profit him more.

Of St. Mary of Blois.

[17] He is not to be wept for, nor is the father's death to be grieved. Bruno has not died, who fixed his portion in the One [ii]. God has received him; the pious throng has welcomed him as companion.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of Climiacum.

[18] Rightly should grief be laid aside for the death of the Patron [ll]. Let the mother rejoice too, as the father himself rejoices. We have done the service which the little roll bade be done. And you likewise do the same for us.

Of St. Romanus of the church of Lyons, of the archdeacon.

[19] Lord Bruno, to thee, who ever under one king Kept the sacred law, nor violated it, The end of life is here; for this the hermits are sad. To thee after death the joys of the highest life are given. Let not the hermits therefore utter groans for thee. For, living to the world, thou didst go under to the desert places. Now, having gained the heavens, thou rejoicest in the host of Christ.

Of the church of St. Vincent of Chalon.

[20] Since the letter testifies to a life well passed, And since the power to die is taken from no honour, Tears ought to be laid aside for the death of the Patron. For God has given him the seat on high as his dwelling. Now therefore, brethren, singing Psalms and Masses, Let us render praises and songs to our Christ, That what we shall offer for this man may profit all.

Of the church of St. Mary Belvensis.

[21] Bruno the simple hermit has gone from this life; He is taken up to the citadel of heaven, the earth left behind above the stars, And so with Christ he rests from this world, Praying for all the living and those just dead [pp].

Of St. Anthony of Conteia.

[22] Whatever the world holds, whatever is called vital, If I have discerned well, abides under mobility. Whence we are held under uncertain mutability. We too and ours seem things not stable. He is rolled in the fates; the daily fates are rolled. They themselves indeed totter, as if they were shaken in an urn. The sweetness of the world is a slippery thing and to be feared, And to those placed under it a flame to be shunned like fire. All receive death by such sweetness. Let the sweetness perish which brings gall and vinegar. It deceives all joined to it by a pleasing fetter, To the deceived it gives at last the same reward; That reward indeed is given to all, the same end. O every man wretched, although you see that you will be deceived, You yourself yet seem to care little, And I prove that you, deceived, have the light of the heart. For it is darkened, lest you should be able to see your losses. You neither hold what should be retained, nor will you move what should be removed. Alas, wretched minds, fearing little what is to be feared, Which care briefly for things that endure a long time, Too intent on those which are suddenly changed! Death, a timorous name, gave a miserable omen To the race to come, known evilly to the first parent. Death comes on, and the living man dies, nor is there held A certain end in this life: Bruno the hermit proves this. Bruno has fallen, to whom the wood was house, herb was food; Who, because he was clean, disdained to have the world. Holy parent of Christ, who alone hast pleased God, Grant that to him a seat of rest be given.

Of the same.

[23] Bruno, worshipper of God, noble avenger of vices, May you possess rest before the face of God. Let the reader, secure because now he is about to go on safe, Yet, his debts fulfilled, say amen for him.

Of St. Peter of Chartres.

[24] Assembly of the Wood, spare flowing tears; The life of the Pastor, crowned with the worship of faith, Gives us a wish for rejoicing, not for weeping. If he dies to the world, he gains the seat of paradise. He thoroughly subdued the flesh; while he strives towards the citadel of heaven, He joins himself to Christ, while he migrates from this world. Yet if any fault of the flesh violated the heart of the Father, Though small, may the large mercy wipe it away Of Him whom he hastened with his whole wish to behold. O soldier of Christ, who departed victor of the fight, How well you strove, since by striving you conquered! Spurning earthly things, you gather pleasant wages, You live and exult, and knock at the thresholds of the hall. O Christ, come to meet Your weary one, since he seeks You, Giving him rest, giving day without end.

Of St. Denis near Paris.

[25] If prose or verse could bestow salvation, Neither prose nor verse will take salvation from you, Bruno; For prose or verse flies about you from the eloquent mouth, Which thus profit you: if from the threatening mouth of the serpent They should prevent you from being tormented and devoured, Thus prose or verse can bestow salvation. With the noise of the voice, then, let the melody of the heart sound, That what prose or verse contains, that we may meditate, And what it sounds, let us pray from the heart the Lord that it be done. Bruno, worthy father, that you may be saved from that fire, Which will be not of the just, but always of the reprobate. And if there is anything lacking, which perfection does not grant, May our devotion be able to have it granted to you and superadded To your defects, if God hears. But God will hear, and will do it, because we ask just things. May God therefore hear, and give what just things we ask, That to you the heavenly light without end may be granted, And with you to ours, and to all here entered on the roll.

Of St. Germain of Paris, Bishop.

[26] In our minds should always be held The Light, in which the reprobate will carry off evils, or the just goods. This Bruno feared, who, a true lover of wisdom, Here put off the old parent with mortal flesh. Christ has carried him down from earth to the stars. Servant of God, Bruno, may your maker receive you. May you be able to enjoy the perpetual rest of paradise. May all ours and all the faithful have it.

Of St. Magloire of Paris.

[27] The mortal diseases having been dissolved, why does the world grieve? The punishment consumed, if they enjoy pleasant peace, There is no need of weeping, because they rejoice in perpetual light. The man is to be praised: yet he is to be helped by this word: Spare, O Redeemer, him of earthly matter.

Of St. Peter of Fossés.

[28] May his soul rest in peace in the name of Christ. Amen. Nothing do they profit the soul, if I shall have made a thousand verses; Yet do you pray, may he rest in peace, amen.

Of the Holy Cross and St. Faro of Meaux.

[29] This Bruno was well enough known for his learning and blessed Manners and life, the wise hermit; He shone in the first principles, the highest and the lowest. Afterwards made a monk, he has now gained the heavenly joys. Behold Bruno lies enclosed in a single tomb. For so the wise are taken up, while they die, Into the camps of the Lord, the mighty stars above. Let no one wonder if Bruno is held a saint: He has deserved by his life to be called a simple hermit. But if he sinned, what perhaps he has not yet expiated, May the Lord pardon him this, and crown him in heaven.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of Chézy.

[30] May He who deigned for the salvation of men to become Man deign to grant pardon to your Patron.

ANNOTATIONS.

inscribed here on the same separate sheet; and since this is so, Rangerius, who wrote it, was probably, when he did so, either in the said city of Lucca or not far from it, and accordingly the opinion of the praised anonymous author can seem sufficiently probable, although meanwhile it can by no means be held as certain, because it is not established either from the very Title of which we are here speaking, or from the inscription which it here bears, that Rangerius, whom it has as author, was a bishop.

p. Lubin, in the Brief Notice of the Abbeys of Italy, page 104, reviews two abbeys of the Benedictine Order having their name from Chiusa, of which one is sacred to St. Victor, the other to St. Michael; and it is not to be doubted that the latter of these is the monastery of Chiusa here mentioned, both because it alone is older than the Saint, and because the subjoined Title includes this little verse: That He may give him perpetual rest, Michael interceding.

q. That is, daily.

r. That is, the Office of thirty Masses, to be completed on as many days for the dead. See Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and lower Latinity at the word Tricenarium.

s. Segusium, by its inhabitants Susa, is a city of Italy in Piedmont at the foot of the Cottian Alps, through which is the passage into Savoy and Gaul. Since that city, at the time when our Saint died, or at the beginning of the twelfth century, comprised besides the church of the abbey of St. Justus several other churches still, of which however none was a Cathedral, I cannot determine whether any, and which of these in particular, or whether rather all together are here designated. Is the church of the abbey of St. Justus perhaps named the church of Susa by excellence, because its abbot, as Francesco Agostino della Chiesa teaches in the chronological History of the Cardinals of the H.R.C., the archbishops and the region of Piedmont, chapter 22, exercised not a few episcopal rights at Susa?

t. See again what was said at letter i.

u. In the Geographical Map of the Dauphiné and neighbouring regions, prefixed to the historical monuments which appeared at Paris in the year 1711, not far from Susa towards Lyons occurs Ulcium, doubtless the village which, placed in the same situation in other geographical maps of the Dauphiné, is distinguished by the French name Oulx. The brethren, therefore, who administered the church of that village, sacred to St. Laurence, or inhabited the provostship, most probably wrote this Title (see what was said at letter f).

x. That is, if I am not mistaken, the Office of the Dead, which they call Vigils, together with thirty Masses. See also what was said at letter r.

y. The desert of the Chartreuse, namely, which the Saint inhabited before he withdrew into Calabria, is situated in the diocese of Grenoble.

z. The day, namely. See Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and lower Latinity at the Word Trigesimum.

aa. The religious inhabitants of the desert of the Chartreuse also promise here plainly enough that they will keep the anniversary day of their holy Father.

bb. This little cell or Priory, dependent on the most celebrated abbey of the Order of St. Benedict of La Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, lies next to the part of the city of Grenoble facing Lyons, on the right bank of the river Isère, as I learn from the geographical Map of the Dauphiné praised at letter u.

cc. In the same geographical Map there occurs between Grenoble and Lyons a place called Côte-Saint-André, which accordingly either is the very little cell or Priory here mentioned, dependent on the monastery of St. Rufus now situated near Valence, or certainly comprises it, if it still subsists.

dd. The Office which was formerly called the Septenary, and which was performed for the dead for seven continuous days, is here promised. See Du Cange in the Glossary at the word Septenarius.

ee. Prebend here, if I am not mistaken, signifies an alms consisting of a monastic portion, or that of the monastery; so that the brethren whose Title this is seem also to have promised that for seven days they would give to the poor as much food and drink as their community would meanwhile consume. See Title XI.

ff. This monastery of the Benedictine Order, built at the confluence of the Saône and Rhône in the sixth century or even earlier, was formerly outside the walls of Lyons; now it is enclosed within them. Consult the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 233.

gg. That is, the Office celebrated for the dead with the most solemn rite possible. See Carpentier in the Supplement to Du Cange's Glossary at the words Officium generale.

hh. In the city of Blois, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 8, column 1388, there is seen an abbey of Canons Regular, which in the ninth century secular canons served, called Blessed Mary of Blois or also Bourgmoyen. This is undoubtedly designated here by St. Mary of Blois.

ii. Allusion seems to be made to that saying of Luke 10, verse 42: But one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the best part.

kk. Since I nowhere find a monastery that is called Climiacense, I think an error has crept into the manner in which this name is written, and that for Climiacensis one should read Cluniacensis; so that the monastery founded in the year 910 is here designated.

ll. That is, of the master, lord, or even Prior.

mm. What the inscription of the subjoined Title means I do not sufficiently understand.

nn. The cathedral church of Chalon (Cabilonensis or Cabillonensis) received the name of St. Vincent the martyr as early as the year 541, having left the former one of St. Stephen which it had had; so that doubtless no other than this is designated in this inscription.

oo. In the city Belvensis, or, as it is now more commonly written, Bellovacensis (Beauvais), besides the cathedral church, sacred to St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, there are six collegiate churches, of which one is dedicated to Mary, the most holy Mother of God; so that the subjoined Title most probably refers to this, unless perhaps Belvensis has been wrongly written here for Belnensis, and so the church sacred to the Most Holy Mother of God of the city of Beaune, which is situated in Burgundy not very far from the city of Chalon, is designated.

pp. That St. Bruno was received into heaven and prays there for the living is indicated not obscurely in this Title. The same is also nearly done in the four Titles immediately preceding, and below in many others, which is surely an argument that he was held as a Saint by not a few immediately even after his death. Consult also the Preliminary Commentary, number 749, and the Life of the Saint written by Surius, number 45.

qq. Is perhaps the parish church of St. Anthony of Conteia or Contiacum in Picardy here designated, which is reviewed in the general Catalogue of the benefices of the diocese of Amiens, printed at Paris in the year 1648, page 22?

rr. Already before the tenth century, as may be seen in the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 8, column 1213, there existed at the foot of the hill on which the city of Chartres is set a monastery of the Benedictine Order which is called Saint-Père-en-Vallée. This very one is undoubtedly designated here by St. Peter of Chartres.

ss. There is at Paris no other temple or monastery of St. Germain, bishop of Paris, than that which is called Saint-Germain-des-Prés; wherefore I think that this, which was founded as early as the sixth century, is designated in this inscription of the subjoined Title.

tt. This Parisian monastery, which had been founded long before the age of St. Bruno, is now extinct. See the enlarged Gallia Christiana, column 306 and the three following.

uu. There is added in the Basel edition of these titles: In which place St. Maurus, the disciple of blessed Benedict, rests in body; so that the monastery which is designated by this inscription is no other than that of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, which was built in the ninth century, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 7, columns 282 and 284, and is now abolished.

xx. The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 8, column 1688 and the two following, supply an ample notice of this monastery, which is much older than St. Bruno.

yy. This monastery, which is situated on the left bank of the Marne two leagues below Château-Thierry in the diocese of Soissons, is believed to be older than the ninth, nay the eighth, century. See the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 427 and following.

SECTION II.

Title of the church of St. Mary of Chartres.

[31] Bruno was a wall of the Church not to fall: For he was good, and of a pious mind, and of wisdom. He was a true doctor: let the good people, the clergy, weep for him. Just, sincere, severe with gravity of manners, Bruno is dead, fighting under one king. Who so fought that he overcame the enemies of the Leader Whose soldier he was; wherefore let him seek rewards From the Leader of the Saints, the most joyful kingdoms of the poles. And let us pray in a thousand ways, with Psalms and odes, That Christ may give him the light of the highest rest. For if anyone has deserved to have this reward, Let no one think that Bruno lacks this reward.

Verses of the scholars.

[32] Who Bruno was, in one moment of time, Let him who knows not come here, if he desires to learn. He was just, very wise, and gracious; But he harmed no one by learning what he could. To him we give pious vows, and we beseech our father That, fleeing the fury, he may possess rest. If Bruno lived as he is thought to have lived, May he live for ever, may he enjoy the seat of paradise. He was the flower of fathers, the solace, the glory of brethren, A follower of the true, a lover of the divine law, The path of justice, the fount and origin of wisdom, The light, the mirror of the world, the sublime summit of things, The staff of those who fall, the sweet relief of the wretched; Nor was his mind broken by evils, nor too lofty in prosperity. He lived not for himself, but for the world, which he ruled well. Not he, but life despoiled weeps for this Hermit. He did not lack life who lived for the world, not for himself. To tell briefly, who could tell sufficiently? As Phoebe to Phoebus, as the other stars to the moon, So the whole world assists * thee, Bruno of Gaul ^c.

Of the monastery of St. Margaret.

[33] With the Father and the Son be praise, and with the sacred Spirit, He sustains the world, He governs heaven by His dominion. The Angels with the seraphim, and likewise the blessed cherubim, With the other saints, the just, and at the same time the blessed, Let them come to meet him together exulting and glad. And yet with them, the troops standing round on every side, The thrones of the Virtues, and the just powers, Let them truly bless the Lord, let them praise the king too, And be present, prepared, for the soul of the renowned Bruno. Soon Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Job and Elijah, Isaiah, Daniel, David, the most holy Joel, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Zephaniah and Jeremiah, With the rest of the prophets, will set him before the gaze of Christ. Suppliant and glad, let them ask that he be enriched with the gift, And let us with them give pious songs of praise, Although unworthy, that he may deserve to be blessed with light; Heaven exults, earth groans, and now resounds.

Of St. Mary of the New Monastery.

[34] We, the brethren of the New Monastery, as you have asked, will entreat the clemency of the Lord with ready mind for your Father, a man of holy memory, the lord Bruno.

Of St. Benignus of Dijon.

[35] Because one must rise again, one must not grieve at death. Death knows not how to spare; the just man rests well in death. We give mutual vows, and we ask the same for ours.

Of St. Stephen of Dijon.

[36] May He who rules all that is loose him from every harm. May He associate him with the just, He who rules all that is. What you ask for yours, render the same for ours, Services, Psalms, canticles, vows, prayers. May the spirit of Bruno be received in heaven, And may he be with Christ, whom he followed while he lived. And may he obtain for us that we may be able to approach him, Us whom this world desires to perish in the dregs of sin.

Of St. Peter of Bèze.

[37] Bruno, the highest hermit, passes from this life, Whom all the wise and skilled lament. He lived wise, and wise he departed to the heights. May he now hold heaven, may he now stand assiduously by Christ, Praying secure for the brethren devoted to him.

Of St. Mary of Châtillon.

[38] Bruno was a great man here, and simple as a lamb, Who, seeing the world grow worthless and spurning all things, Changed his life and macerated his body with hunger. Afterwards made a monk, having gained the vast wastes of the desert, Leaving this seat, he ascended to the dwelling of heaven, In which may the desired place of rest be given him; And if he injured anyone, or if anything clung to him by fault, May the great grace of God pardon him this.

Of the bishop of the church of Langres.

[39] Robert, servant of the church of Langres, asked the canons and priests of the same church, the monks and hermits serving the Lord in the bishopric of Langres, to pray for the soul of his dearest master Bruno and to bestow alms on the poor; and he will have the memory of his death observed in writing in the churches in which he can.

Of St. Mary of Molesme.

[40] At the appointed time Bruno departs from the body, Whose life, while he lived, pleased God. Let those come to his help to whom power has been permitted, That there may be rest for him and day without end.

Adding to our little verses, we who dwell at Molernium make known to you who are at La Torre that for the lord Bruno, your patron, and to us most familiar ^m, we have celebrated the solemnities of Masses for thirty days, and have also written the anniversary day of his death in the catalogue of our brethren.

Of the monastery of St. Michael of Tonnerre.

[41] Pious is the death of the just, because it enjoys the kingdoms of the poles; By his death Bruno, joined to the sacred host, May he live, and in rest obtain the gifts of wisdom, May he rejoice here happy, may he see too the face of the Father, Which Christ will make the blessed behold without end.

Of St. Germain of Auxerre.

[42] May Bruno's dwelling be perpetual and wholly heavenly, And may life with God become his companion. Take care always to pray that vows be given to us By his merits in the ethereal seats.

Of St. Stephen of Auxerre.

[43] Bruno, a pious pastor, a lover of pure piety, Overcame everywhere the fiery arrows of the Demon; He was very generous to his subjects and sparing to himself, He fulfilled in deeds whatever he taught through words, He desired himself not to be preferred, but to be loved; May he rejoice in heaven, because he lived faithful in heart.

Of the monastery of St. Mary and St. John of Réome.

[44] Thou who givest good things, O Christ, give the kingdoms of the pole to Thy servant Bruno, Who exchanged the flower of the world and all its beauty For a mean desert, which to him was dearer than a kingdom In this life. Now many writings cease: Let due vows be rendered to the doctor Bruno, And render them too to all our dead, True servants of Christ and just followers, You who now inhabit the dear desert of the stronghold of La Torre; Which will lead you, like your Master, to the stars.

Be it known to you, dearest ones, that we, the brethren of Réome, have kept the memory of your Patron in Masses and prayers for thirty days, and have written his name with the names of our brethren, as is fitting.

Of Lambert, abbot of Pothières.

[45] I, brother Lambert, by necessity of Apostolic obedience servant and lowly procurator of the monastery of Pothières, a disciple of this exceptional master Bruno in the knowledge of literary learning from the beginning of my conversion from the world to the instruction of Catholic conversation and true religion, will not grow weary, with the sons and brethren committed to me, in procuring and devoutly pursuing the memory of this our most pious Father and instructor, to be recalled every year in septenary and trental Offices and on the anniversary day of his death, with spiritual canticles and the refreshment of the poor, and those whom we can we will rouse to pray for him [s].

Of the monastery of St. Peter of Montier-Ramey.

[46] Fount and origin of good, Jesus, be merciful to Bruno; Lest the lion touch the sheep, bring help, good Shepherd; May Bruno be Thy lamb, may he not be the demon's kid; If he has deserved punishments, spare the guilty one, O Goodness.

Of St. Peter of Troyes.

[47] As the title says, Bruno, a wise man, doing the commands of God, Conquered the temptations of the world. He spurned many riches, nor had he any means for himself, But whatever he could, he bestowed on the brethren. He fled from this life, became a monk, and thence a hermit. While he thus abstained, he merited the kingdoms of the pole; But since it is fitting with equal right to pray this for a brother, We ask that rest be yours every day.

Of St. Peter of the German island.

[48] Would that, O death, you had died, or been shut in prison, And had not stolen so great a Doctor from the world, For whom we beseech Christ, the fount of goodness, That He may give to Bruno the gift of His wonted piety. O Christ, Word of the Father, grant the kingdom on high To Thy servant Bruno, who with pure breast joined himself To Thee while living and spurned worldly joys. You therefore, brethren, who inhabit eremitical cloisters, What we do for yours, render now for ours, That, withdrawn from death, they may gain paradise.

Of the church of St. Stephen Catalmiensis.

[49] The first-formed man committed sin; why should his later offspring, Paying for the father's deeds, tend to destruction? All perish, but not all are tormented. Death comes to the unjust, life and salvation to the good. Here therefore Bruno, a man of holy religion, Despising the world, merited heavenly things. We therefore pray the Lord with devout mind That he who was just may be justified still.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of the Mount.

[50] Christ bore us in dying, rising from death; God the hope in death, God the only glory. Grant to Bruno perpetual rest, O Christ; May joys with the Saints be his for his merits.

Of St. Basolus.

[51] May Bruno, whom a strenuous life adorns, go up to the pole, That by the merit of his faith glory may increase for him.

Of St. Mary, the metropolis of Reims.

[52] Here the exceptional Father, founder of a religious life, Showed himself an exemplar to the brethren, Giving them a pattern for spurning the mean things of the world, While he follows the rewards of the heavenly fatherland; For whose fault we do not believe one must lament, Whom we believe already rejoicing in rest. For if a good life merits rest for any Saint, To this man too for his merits the highest rest is given, Who, when he was powerful in many ways in our city, And became the solace and ornament of his own; And when fortune favoured him in all things, and already We preferred him to all, and deservedly; For he was kind and skilled in every art, And eloquent enough and powerful in riches, He set all things after Christ, and, having followed the naked Christ, the desert receives him with many [bb]. Therefore we believe that rest is prepared for him; Yet if any light stain clung to him (For it is plain that no one dwells on earth without blemish), May God wipe it away by giving him pardon.

Another of the same church.

[53] As Joseph scorned to serve the love of his mistress, And fled incestuous embraces with manly mind, So the glory of the world lies scorned by you, Bruno. While the world, desiring to embrace you, stretching out its arms to you, Held out many riches, many loves, You, slipping away in flight, the pompous garment cast off, Embracing the desert, are clothed with a blessed lot. This man, such as he is, we believe to be a companion of the heavenly ones; The whole devotion of the brethren entreats him That he deign to pour out vows to the Lord for them: Yet if the inner part has drawn from the outer Any filth, O God, wash this away with the dew of piety.

Likewise another of the same.

[54] Bruno, dreading the examination of the Judge to come, Scorned worldly riches and sought the desert [cc], And there sent forth fruits of sweet odour, Calling back to Christ those whom vainglory had deceived. Night and day he kept watch over the precepts of God, An exemplar to all whom the life of the desert adorns. O with how happy a reward of merit they enjoy, Who are made companions of the heavenly troops, And find places of light which know no plague, In which joys are celebrated with eternal feasts, For which, sighing, he desired here to be dissolved, That he might so reign together with the Blessed in Christ. At length, the contest finished, loosed from the flesh, And enjoying what he desired, he ascended free to the heavens. But if anything of earthly lot * has clung to him, So that nothing of reward may be lacking to him at the tomb *, Let us knock with prayers on the Lord, whom all things revere, That no torments of hell may lord it over him.

Again another of the same.

[55] This man was equal to Elijah and to John the Baptist, He was a tiller of the desert and a lover of goodness, He was like Abraham, pious and faithful; He, like Peter, following the commands of the Lord, Scorned all things and, poor, clung to Christ;

He preferred to live poor for Christ than rich for the world, And so he fully carried out the precepts of God. But since death snatches with it all things that are of the world, It has joined this man, taken from the world, to the heavenly ones; And let us beseech the piety of the Lord That, if anything of worldly dust has clung to so great a Father, God, the fount of piety, may wipe it away.

Yet another of the same.

[56] The mother of Reims, which taught him as a tender nursling [dd], Rejoicing that Bruno held the faith of his purpose, Salutes him with tears and prayers as he passes to the Lord.

Of the Holy Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus of Angers.

[57] For the just or the reprobate there remains one lot of dying, And the same passage leads them together to the end; But the judge of works distinguishes their seats: The good man passes to rest, the sinner to the fire.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of the maidens.

[58] Pattern of a pious life, censer of all wisdom, Father Bruno, if he has passed from this life, It is clear that he was loosed from the flesh at the nod of the Lord, Who willed to present the just man with the crown of merits; Whom, although we trust he is among the ethereal choirs, Yet the solaces of our service shall not be lacking.

Of St. Symphorian the martyr in the city of Reims.

[59] If it helps at all to mourn and grieve over death, Then let us be sad, and let us weep over this for the Father too; But since neither mourning nor cry carried to the heavens Can call anyone back from death to life, Let us pray Christ, fixed on the cross for us, That this Hermit may gain the heavenly life. We write these things to you, and the same, we ask, give to us.

Of the church of the Holy Trinity.

[60] As you ask of us, brethren, so will we do; But Bruno reigns with Christ, as we reckon, Whom, the cross borne before, he followed here as a hermit, The allurements of the world having been repulsed with constant mind.

Of St. Denis of Reims.

[61] He left all riches, and at once all the honours of the world, For Thee, O Christ the father, for the gift of heaven, having become poor, Bruno, the way of those whose master he was before [kk]. As the four fountains, flowing from one source, Which Paradise holds, streaming through the kingdoms of the world, Overflow the lands, so this man adorns those whom he has imbued, Fills and forms, inflames, directs, arms, Hammers into shape and illumines, and still rules, cultivates, fits. He was like a star to all whom he himself taught. May he rest among the Heaven-dwellers in the hall of Christ.

Of St. Remigius, Apostle of the Franks.

[62] Grieve not, O sheep, weeping at the Shepherd's funeral; For he is not to be wept for, to whom to live was Christ And to die was gain, overcoming the cunning of the demon, This exceptional Father, deservedly to be venerated by us; And not by us alone, but by those whom the flaming sun burns. Whom God Himself cherishes, whom paradise now holds In the rest of peace, why, I ask, do you grieve for such a one? For snatched from the world he is granted to live in heaven, And he lives truly, because he strove to live justly. Grant, O God, we beseech Thee, that he may reign with Thee, Giving him to be perpetuated with Thee in eternal rest.

Of St. Nicasius, archbishop of the Remi.

[63] May God, the light of the faithful and of souls, loose the soul of this Catholic Man from every bond of offences.

Of the Holy Martyrs Timothy and Apollinaris.

[64] Such was the power of heart and of mouth of this Doctor That he surpassed all masters in the whole world: So good was he in meditating and eloquent in speaking. To him all wisdom gave itself, and all of it sat, A rich guest, in the secret inner chambers of this man. What I say, I know, and France knows it with me, And the whole world knows it through its four climes. This taught him to spurn the things of this world, And made him seek only the joys of heaven. If any filth from the law of the flesh has clung to him (For all of us are utterly weighed down by the carnal law), May the Almighty take it away, who remits our crimes, And fulfil for him the wish which he always loved.

Of St. Bartholomew the Apostle on Mount Or.

[65] The world, growing bitter, limps under the weight of death, And draws to the semblance of human lot through byways, And, wasting away, plunges each thing into exile from its own. Whence do you swell, wretched man, growing old in this age? In a Charybdean fount you are plunged to the utmost of the end, And ash, you will be dissolved into ashes, as a shadow before lamps. Its labour is love and inextricable error, By whose failing horror embraces the soul, After it has been stripped from the prison of the flesh, Or, alas! hemmed round by the troops of satan's leaders. Fearing which, courageous Bruno in this crisis Penetrates the desert in the single service of the contest; He leaves riches and the beauty of the world, lest glory become Punishment unto destruction, but that, a vein running with nectar, The flood of his mind may grow sweet, and, constraining within himself The tenor of his heart, he may constrain the love of crimes Through the various courses of the virtue of good works, Mortifying the head of death with the right of the wicked. Wherefore he merited the fellowship of the Heaven-dwellers, Free from the enemy of Styx and of the things of Tartarus, And he is joined to Him through whom the world will be restored, As long in bound, so pure at last from diseases, In whom may he rest, amen, rising again from wretched death, Nor may the serpent harm him, swelling with foul itch.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. The Cathedral church of Auxerre (Antisiodorum or Autisiodorum) is sacred to St. Stephen. I think therefore that the subjoined Title is this church's; for I do not see of what other church or monastery it could be.

q. It is not to be doubted that there is here designated the monastery of Réome (Reomaënse or Reomense) in the diocese of Langres, which, since it had originally been dedicated to the most holy Virgin Mary, afterwards also from St. John, its first abbot, who in the year

founded it about 440, it was named. See again the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 658.

r. On abbot Lambert, whose is the subjoined Title, and the monastery of Pothières over which he presided, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 97 and following, as also the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 4, column 724 and following.

s. Lambert, abbot of Pothières, here shows himself truly grateful in an exceptional manner towards St. Bruno, once his master; and that you may see what he here promises by the septenary and trental Offices, consult what has been annotated after the preceding section at letter r and letter dd.

t. This monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, which is situated in the diocese of Troyes four leagues from the city of Troyes, was founded in the year 837, as may be seen in the brothers Sainte-Marthe in the old Gallia Christiana, tome 4, page 78.

u. Since at Troyes there exists no sacred place distinguished by the name of St. Peter except the cathedral church, this is undoubtedly here designated.

x. I have been able to find notice of this place nowhere.

y. I think that Catalmiensis is here written by mistake for Catalaunensis, and that accordingly the cathedral church of the city of Châlons, which, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 9, columns 858 and 859, acknowledges St. Stephen the protomartyr as patron, is designated.

z. This monastery is situated in the diocese of Châlons, and had been built as early as the eleventh century. See the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 927.

aa. This monastery, which is situated in the diocese of Reims, was built, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 9, column 196, by St. Nivard, archbishop of Reims, who was taken from the living about the year 673, as we showed at the first day of September, on which we treated of him.

bb. Gather from this that Bruno, when he withdrew into the desert, was living amid the highest favours of prosperous fortune not at Paris but at Reims. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 154 and the two following.

cc. The author of the anonymous Treatise on St. Bruno, communicated to me by the Carthusians of those parts, conjectures that allusion is here made to the Parisian prodigy of the dead man who denounced his own damnation. But that writer himself confesses that there is not much strength in that conjecture for establishing the deathly story. Consult §21 of the Preliminary Commentary.

dd. Hence we gather that St. Bruno, while still very young, applied himself to letters in the city of Reims. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 54.

ee. The religious who inhabit it say that the monastery distinguished by the name of these holy Martyrs, which is situated in the suburb of the episcopal city of Angers, was built in the eighth century. See the brothers Sainte-Marthe in the old Gallia Christiana, tome 4, page 820.

ff. There formerly existed in the city of Reims two monasteries of sacred virgins distinguished by the name of St. Peter, of which one was called the Upper, the other the Lower. The latter of these (see the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 178) had most probably already been abolished in the age of St. Bruno; I conjecture, therefore, that the former, which was built towards the end of the sixth century, as may be seen in the said Writers in the same tome, column 270, and which still survives today, is here designated, unless perhaps, which however I do not think, one should rather pronounce for a monastery of maidens situated elsewhere.

gg. This abbey of the Order of St. Benedict was founded in the eleventh century. See the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 807.

hh. What sacred place is here designated I cannot determine for certain.

ii. This monastery of Reims was founded long before the age of St. Bruno, as is clear from what the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana record about it, tome 9, column 288.

kk. You would not altogether ineptly conjecture from this funeral Title of his that Bruno by his example brought it about that some whom he had previously taught the sciences, whether sacred or profane, withdrew into the desert for the sake of doing penance.

ll. This distinguished monastery is situated in the city of Reims, and preceded the age of St. Bruno by no small course of years. See the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 219 and following.

mm. This monastery too is situated in the city of Reims, and is far older than the age of St. Bruno. See again the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 204 and following.

nn. At Reims there exists a collegiate church which is called St. Timothy's. This, if I am not mistaken, is here designated.

oo. Since the monastery of St. Theoderic, situated on the hill called Or by the ancient Gauls, three miles from the city of Reims, and built about the year 500, also formerly went by the name of St. Bartholomew, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 9, column 181, it does not appear to be doubted that it is here designated.

* cessit (yields)

* sordis (of filth)

* cumulum (the heap)

SECTION III.

Title of St. Mary of Laon.

[66] Bruno, the ornament of the clergy, the ornament and prudence of the world, While he was on earth, flourished in keenness of mind, While he was among us ^b, he flourished also in teachings. Integrity of manners filled up the heap of honours; But after he chose to withdraw from our life, Your colleague and a hermit in your places, He laid aside utterly the care of all honour, Embracing the care of the love of Christ alone. You therefore, brethren, who inhabit the wastes of the desert, Seeing that the exceptional Father has thus already overcome the deceitful world, Do not bear it sadly that he has died, Whom we think to have gone to the divine kingdoms of the pole. Since he is a heaven-dweller, what greater could he have had? While he was on earth, these were his wishes.

Another of the same.

[67] Rejoicing, France received you, Bruno, as a doctor; You are now shut in the earth, a Calabrian hermit; Which all cry out: that rest be yours.

Of the Nuns of St. John the Baptist.

[68] Bruno, you are praised; your seemly life is renewed In verses and writings, nor is it told how great it was. He was pious, simple, full of the love of the Godhead, Tireless and clean, worthy of every honour. Bruno lives still; life is given him by the Father. He was a cleric, becomes a monk, and thence a hermit. Now his body lies bloodless, yet it is venerated. Bruno lives still, whose spirit rejoices. He, wearied through the times, nor guilt either, May God now grant him that he rest for ever.

Of St. Nicholas of the forest of Vedocium.

[69] Let no one grieve that anyone succumbs to death, Since he lives rather. He who kills the heats of the body, He for ever escapes the bitter right of death; And may He give you, Bruno, continual quiet with the Saints.

Of Blessed Mary of Noniandum.

[70] The exceptional Bruno is not to be praised in one thing, Who taught the clergy, and was father also of monks, And, dear to God, shone through illustrious deeds. Let him always be commemorated by all of us here, That God may receive his spirit spotless, And by Masses and Psalms he may be joined to the kindly citizens.

Another of the same.

[71] While Bruno lived, he admonished, and by admonishing brought it about That the world should grow worthless to us, lest we perish. The world has frauds, and joins arts to them. Then it wounds the incautious with honeyed arms, And honeys over its deceits, so that thus it may destroy the ill-guarded. Over our Bruno it could never lord it; Lest it lord it over him, naked he sought the deserts, And remained in peace, that long peace might remain for him.

Of the church of Soissons.

[72] The mother church of the Suessones ^f to the most beloved brethren, dear to God, dwelling in the desert which is called La Torre: to have always a heavenly conversation through Christ. Having learned of the holy and glorious departure of the most pious father, beloved of God, the truly venerable Bruno, we were sweetly moved over such and so great a Man; and we have rendered his Office to his happy soul in the manner of the faithful, and, for the anniversary recalling of his blessed memory, we have written in our register the day on which he went out from the prison of the flesh, as we received his holy dissolution announced by you, praying and beseeching that we may be helped by his most holy prayers and yours, both living and dead. Amen.

Of SS. Medard and Sebastian at Soissons.

[73] The pious people of Medard, the royal and renowned saint, To the weeping and sorrowful, welcome solaces of salvation. You who groan for the dead man, lay aside mourning for the dead; It helps nothing to weep for one extinguished, to grieve for one buried. But rather let holy libations profit by the vow. Let these be granted him; whoever fears and shudders At the dangers of death, let him succour and help All of the world who perish with continual prayers. While he asks and entreats, each labours for himself too. When Moses prays, the people of Israel overcome; When he ceases from vows, it falls at once, and the enemy conquers. Let us pray together, nor let any spirit cease. Vows help a man while he lives and goes out at the hour. Wicked death, which destroys life, has taken away the Hermit, Which harms and injures the just, it injures wickedly enough. This so cruel, insatiate Charybdis kills, Whom the all-bearing vows, pitying no sorrows, May He save man from it who bore death on the cross, And give the life which Proserpina may not break.

Of St. Mary of Blois.

[74] Bruno, a man of exceptional probity, gem of wisdom, Of whose uprightness let the present roll be witness. He has the faith of peace, transferred to the dwelling of heaven. Therefore let us praise the Lord, venerate, love Him, Through whom the life of His servants is adorned.

Another of the same.

[75] You had made use of the desert, you left earthly things, Bruno, Nor did death by your death wholly thunder against your rights. The body is dissolved into ashes; you become a heavenly heir.

Of St. Krileffus of Blois.

[76] Every man contracts the hazards of the first fate, And the fault of Eve harms all posterity. Death, therefore, exercising the zeal of impiety, Attacks and dissolves a Man of so great probity.

Of St. Mary of Bernay.

[77] A doctor of doctors was he, and an exemplar of good men In our times, Bruno, an exceptional man; And we believe there is nothing of penal fault in him; May he reconcile God to us by his merits.

Of Holy Cross of Orléans.

[78] Bruno, the highest ornament and glory of this time, You lie in the flesh, but in the better part remain surviving, And receive now the welcome rewards of just labour, Deservedly associated with illustrious doctors. Living in Christ, remember us, holy Man, And of your doctrine, which shines in the whole world; Pour out prayers to Christ, that we may deserve to be followers, And we who ask God for you in brotherly fashion, Bruno, may we always be helped by your prayers, holy man.

You too, most holy brethren, who have sent before you to heaven so great and such a Patron, setting aside all sorrow of human compassion, rejoice and exult in the Lord, and show yourselves by your manners to have been worthy of so great a Father, so that, he interceding for us, the Lord may deign to provide for you a father, if not equal in knowledge, at least very like him in upright life. Farewell.

Of the abbot of the monastery of St. John of Soissons.

[79] To the brethren beloved in Christ and worthy of God, the reverend hermits of Calabria, serving God in the monastery of the holy Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, Peter, humble abbot of the canons regular of St. John of Soissons, and the whole company of brethren living with him and

the congregation serving God: to have begun well, to persevere better, to finish happily. Having heard of the blessed end of your holy father and my master Bruno, from whose mouth it befell me very often to draw streams of sound doctrine, and, if I did not fulfil it in deed, we are vehemently saddened at his absence; that he has escaped the straits of the flesh and obtained rest and lives with God, as we can conjecture from the cleanness and perfection of his past life, sufficiently known to us, we rejoice together more vehemently. We promise therefore that we will hold his memory, both because he was our master and because we trust in his prayers and yours, the more efficacious with God the holier they are, in this manner: celebrating Masses and Vigils for thirty days for the relief of him and of your dead brethren. And in the book where the names of the dead brethren are written we write his name; we will celebrate the anniversary day of his deposition with due veneration, God willing; and we desire him to be a partaker of all the benefits which are done among us and in the places that pertain to us, and we receive you as partakers.

Of St. Symphorian the martyr of Beauvais.

[80] Writings tell that this man was a holy Abbot, And taught the flock committed to him the way of virtue; If therefore he lived as this roll ^o testifies, We ask You, O Christ, to give him perpetual rest.

Of St. Quentin of Beauvais.

[81] The humble congregation of St. Quentin of Beauvais, hoping to be helped with God by the patronage of its reverend father Bruno, obediently ascribes to him a thirtieth-day [q], and with its brethren will henceforth hold his memory and that of all of you.

Snatched from this life, the Hermit thirsting for Christ, Lest present evils should change his holy life, Whatever he proposed living, he proved by dying; It will profit the church to know the footsteps of faith.

A certain brother of the aforesaid church, Gauherius by name, will make a thirtieth-day for the Man of holy memory, whom he greatly loved and proclaimed alone in our times to have renounced the world, and as long as he lives will keep him diligently in memory among his familiars.

Of St. Lucian, Apostle of the Bellovaci.

[82] The leader of hermits, the light of the churches, has fallen; The desert weeps for him, whom every faithful one honours. For he is worthy, since he himself was kind. For he spurned the world and left all worldly things, Exercising the life, making of himself a hermit. May he be a true hermit in the ethereal choirs, Living with our brethren here entered on the roll. [s]

Of St. Fuscian of the Wood.

[83] Bruno, an excellent man, upright and repelling vices, You were a disciple of Christ, your life testifying; Life, rest, day without night, wondrous restoration, He Himself giving it to you, may they open to true joys.

Of St. Peter of Corbie.

[84] Bruno, you set worldly riches after, And by your example taught that they are to be set after, And inhabited the places of the desert for the King of the pole; With sweet discourses you watered the hearts of many; By such deeds you stand forth at once an imitator Of the holy fathers who flourished in doctrines. There, having suffered for many times the snares of the enemy, You remained, whose frauds you overcame. Now however in Christ you have completed with blessed end The course of mortal life, and, having died, you have the joys Of perpetual life; this is your reward.

Of St. Quentin of Vermandois.

[85] While Bruno dies, that dies which he drew from one; His merit stands, because his spirit lives. May the life of the blessed, the hope and crown of the pious, Join him to the starry choirs above the stars.

Of the church of St. Peter of Lehuns.

[86] This dead man lives, because, all things spurned, he went With the cross after Christ, while he left this world. He harmed no one, because he always clung to the Lord. Hence, avoiding punishments, he obtains pleasant seats, To which may the High-Thunderer, giving pious rewards to the just, Grant us to come, to live together.

Of St. Fursey of Péronne.

[87] Here a Man of virtue, virtues thence following. Through the flower of merit may he receive beauty without end. May God Himself, by whom all things are ruled and all things stand, Bruno, give joys to your spirit; Although the vile earth covers your fleshly members, May your spirit pass to the heights of heaven. May Bruno, the pious pastor, leading the life of a hermit, By God's bestowing merit the joys of life.

Of the church of Blessed Mary Alrenensis.

[88] Holy Bruno, venerable father, venerable offspring, Holding the heavenly commands, may you live, a heavenly image.

Of the church of St. Peter Durcurtensis.

[89] The wisdom of the world knows not how to decline "mori," to die, Nor does either sex decline the thing with the word. But I, unless I am mistaken, Bruno declines both. But he fell in Libra [cc], because deservedly his lot was equal. Pure was his life; wise was this hermit. Weighed in the balance, may he know no crisis of wrath.

We notify you therefore, dearest brethren, as you requested, that we have devoutly written for this Son of the Catholic Church a trental and an anniversary day, and an inscription in the catalogue of our brethren.

Of the monastery of St. Saviour of Anchin.

[90] I, Aimeric, abbot of this monastery named above, implore by prayers, although small, eternal rest from the eternal and pious Saviour for the soul of the renowned and famous master Bruno, and I have noted the day of the death of this Bruno in the Calendar.

Of the monastery Marcemensis.

[91] He has departed at length, the body having long since failed, Departing in mind, Bruno famous in song, Who, living in the body, bore the world as an exile. Hence he removed himself; a good hermit, he lay hid; But he lies hid well thus, while he shines with the light of his works. There he is delighted by the hope of beholding the Godhead, Which now, the heavens having been penetrated, is enjoyed for ever.

Of the church of St. Amand of Elnone.

[92] This man, because while he lived he sat in the citadel of the mind, To him too displeased whatever is done by the art of the demon. After the death of the flesh he is laid away in the heavenly city; A seat is given him for his merits, which is worthy of wisdom, To which, living, he applied himself with unfeigned love of heart. Hence let the fold omit mourning for the death of the Father, Although it is bereaved of the honour of much light. But let it rejoice deservedly, as the Father himself rejoices. What we do for yours, do the same for ours.

Of the church of St. Peter of Lille.

[93] The true faith of Christ loosens the sins of the world, Whose flesh was made a victim to the Father on the wood of the cross. Who, believing this with good heart, imitates it by vows, Deserves the glad fellowship of His life; That father Bruno may be made His fellow-citizen, Let a worthy devotion be borne to the throne of the Judge; Let mutual prayer profit our dead.

Of the church of St. Mary of Messines.

[94] Father Bruno being commemorated, may the pious Mother of Christ Deign to ask her Son, who suffered on the cross for us, To give you the rewards of the heavenly kingdom; Where our brethren and sisters may be with you.

Of the church of St. Mary Formosellensis.

[95] In vain do we complain if the just man is lulled to sleep by death. One way for all, coming forth variously, Gives sad things to the damned, full joys to the blessed. Therefore he will be blessed who has passed over well. Happy this Bruno, with whom consonant under one mouth Is the praise modulated by the pious, and adorned by so many studies. And we pray that the light of day may shine for him Which falls not by times nor by changes. Do you too pray for our dead commemorated, Thus, thus I conclude briefly, most celebrated Bruno: May you enjoy without end Christ, whom you served.

Of the church of St. Donatian of Bruges.

[96] This cultivator of truth, while he lived the glory of the clergy, Loosed from the flesh, may he now have joys in safety. What you ask for yours, brethren, bestow on ours; And you who are present as reader, say: may rest be his.

Of the church of St. Nicholas Meltensis.

[97] Death has a short name, but under the name itself a hard Lot lies hid, and a lot which has no short right. It tramples riches and shakes sceptres, and overturns chairs, And no one knows where, when or whence it comes. Sense, honour, merit, beauty, strength, property, race, age, All vanish in the moment of death. Though all these were yours, Bruno [mm], yet on the day before the Nones Of October you yourself have now died. Great Father, who canst do all things, to whom it belongs To see thoroughly the inner parts of a man, and To spare sins, to give medicine after death, Spare so great a Man, and be his healing.

ANNOTATIONS.

I understand, is dedicated to the Holy Cross; so that this is undoubtedly here designated.

p. This monastery was built in honour and memory of the holy martyr Quentin not far from the walls of Beauvais in the year 1067. So the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 818.

q. The meaning of this word I have supplied in the Annotations subjoined to the first Section, at letter r.

r. This monastery was built in the sixth century three hundred paces from Beauvais. See again the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 778.

s. Hence I think it must be gathered that there were ascribed to this Title some deceased persons for whom the monks of the monastery of St. Lucian asked that prayers be made by the religious inhabitants of the hermitage of La Torre.

t. There is undoubtedly here designated the monastery of the diocese of Amiens which is called by the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 10, column 1302, St. Fuscian in the Wood, and which, as is manifest from what they commit to writing there, is much older than the age of St. Bruno.

u. On this monastery, which was built in the seventh century four leagues from the city of Amiens, its chief Basilica dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, see again the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 10, column 1263.

x. This monastery, which is also called St. Quentin of the Mount, is situated at the first milestone from the city of Péronne in the district of Vermandois and in the diocese of Noyon, and it stood, as appears to be established from what the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana record about it, tome 9, column 1097 and the five following, before the eleventh century.

y. The Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana mention the cell of Lehuns, tome 3, column 411, and it is credible from what they write there that it already existed before the age of St. Bruno.

z. Erchinoald, mayor of the palace of Clovis II, built in the seventh century beside his castle of Péronne a monastery for St. Fursey, a Scot by birth, and for his monks; and to the monks in it there succeeded, as early as the ninth century, a college of canons still surviving today, which accordingly I think is designated by this inscription. See the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 9, column 1035 and following.

aa. Nor have I been able to find anywhere a sacred place distinguished by this name, so that I should think it is here expressed erroneously.

bb. In the diocese of Cambrai (see the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 3, column 112), on the river Scheldt not far from the town of Saint-Quentin, is situated a monastery which is mentioned in the division of the monasteries of the kingdom of Lothar made in the year 870 between Louis and Charles, kings of the Franks, and which is called by some Hunnocurtum, by others otherwise, yet without great change being made in this name. I think no other than this monastery is designated in this inscription of the subjoined Title.

cc. Namely, the Saint passed to the Heavenly Ones on the sixth day of October, or at the time when the sun traverses by its own motion the sign of the Zodiac distinguished by the name of Libra.

dd. It does not appear to be doubted that the monastery to which the subjoined Title refers is that very one which in the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 3, column 408, is named the monastery of St. Saviour of Anchin (Aquicintinum, Aquicinctense or also Aquicinense), and which, built in the eleventh century, is situated on the river Scarpe at the second milestone from the city of Douai.

ee. I think there is here designated the monastery of the Order of St. Benedict which is called by the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 3, column 393, Marchiennes (Marchianense), and which was built in the seventh century.

ff. This monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, built by St. Amand himself in the seventh century, is situated about three leagues from the city of Tournai on the river Elnon. Consult the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 3, column 254.

gg. Since the city of Lille (Insulensis) in Flanders is found also called Isla, and has a distinguished collegiate church sacred to St. Peter, it appears indubitable that it is here designated.

hh. There is undoubtedly here designated the abbey of noble virgins of the Order of St. Benedict which is called by some Messinensis, by others Misseniacensis, and which was built in the eleventh century at the second milestone from the city of Ypres. See the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 5, column 341.

ii. This monastery, which is situated not near Furnes, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana relate, tome 5, column 351, but near Ypres, was founded in the year 1068, as the same teach there.

kk. This church, which is now a cathedral, was in the age of St. Bruno only a collegiate church.

ll. Since I find neither a temple nor a monastery which is called Meltense and dedicated to St. Nicholas, I cannot determine what sacred place is here designated.

mm. It is related here not obscurely that Bruno excelled in dignities, riches and lineage; wherefore, both from this and from what I brought forward in §2 of the Preliminary Commentary, it must be held for certain that he was sprung from a noble stock.

SECTION IV.

Title of St. Peter of Poitiers. ^a

Hard of lot are the spectacles of black death. Death is without share in any, and free of fortune, Which weighs the destruction of all in the same balance. As it spares the private man, so the ennobled, And empties narrow homes, as it does those of the people. For youths, flowers, ornament and beauty, property and honours, Save things divine, all are under Libitina. That this Man has died, let this not then be a wonder to you. But what sort of man he was, if perhaps an unlearned one asks me, Let him unroll and unfold the roll ^b and roll it back again.

Of Blessed Mary of Poitiers.

[99] You live, and rejoice in the heavens, faithful Hermit, Whom happiness follows, every necessity flees. O holy Father, for whom it is a crime to give lament, Whose rejoicing no pestilence can abolish, To whom God is life, to whom light, to whom true salvation is. Well done, servant of God, you enjoy the reward on high. You receive the talent found with moderate sweat, Which, prudent, you paid back to the Lord with double interest. For such merits the words of the Thunderer cry out to you: Enjoy, good servant, with Me the highest region.

Of St. Hilary of Poitiers.

[100] Let hermits look upon the life of Bruno, The world flourishing, deceiving worldly men, While he beheld it, yet was free from the stain of the world; While it grows worthless to him, while he knows not its fetid joys, Clinging to Christ he departed from this age. Bruno, the happy hermit, has been deprived of this life, He has gained the Lord, since his act accords with his words. We do not therefore weep for him whom we see to have departed thus.

Another of the same.

[101] While you lived in this world, Bruno, stripped of many vices, You followed the footsteps of Christ; Therefore Christ granted you the kingdoms of the poles, In which the most joyful throng of the good exults.

Of St. Radegund of Poitiers.

[102] King, immense God, who by Thy word didst create all things, Who hast prepared for the Saints rest, the heavenly kingdoms, And who leadest Thine own to the heavenly joys of light, Make this man rejoice with the Saints in the seat of the poles, In which the company of the good rejoices truly without end.

Of Blessed Mary and St. Cyprian the martyr.

[103] O Christ, every image of good, be merciful to Bruno; He was a hermit, whereby he pleased Thee. Having forgotten which things, desiring to visit this shore, He sees Thee not through appearance but face to face.

Of St. John the Evangelist of Poitiers.

[104] Gaul, setting aside the festive odes of song, Now take up mournful chants and sad laments; For your doctor, once a guide through heavenly things, Pious Bruno dies; the flower of the grass is laid under the tomb. Hence it is that you grieve; but he lives; put away complaints; Truly for his just merits he is sounded * among the stars, With whom may there be joys of light for us and for you also.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of Vierzon.

[105] To the monks of La Torre be peace through all ages. While Phoebus was beginning to stretch his tawny rays Through the cosmos, your bearer, weeping for the funeral of the Father, Came here, whom hostile death has slain, For whose soul we have celebrated vows in order, As is known to be the custom of holy Church, And we have committed his kindly soul to Christ. For as long as he lived he desired to serve the Lord, Instructed in manners, supported by divine light, He remained beloved of the brethren and of God for ever.

Of St. Martin of Plein-Pied.

[106] Since no one can in any way escape the inevitable shipwreck of this deadly life by the oar of his own virtues or prayers, and obtain the unfading reward of heaven, you ask, brethren, what befits the Catholic religion. That therefore, the rust of our crimes having been most wholesomely boiled away by his prayers and yours, we may be purged, we will recall the anniversary day of your Father.

Of the monastery of St. Maximin of Micy.

[107] A learned Psalmist, most renowned and a sophist *, Whom Gaul should wondrously have buried as her own, As is said, Bruno is now buried in the Calabrian fields; Having finished this life, established under times, May he pass to the life established without times.

Another of the same.

[108] May Bruno rise to the King who purges crimes, To Christ of the Saints, for whom he lived in this world. He departed from life a monk, a wise hermit; Hence let the sad clergy be admonished by these verses To entreat the thundering Lord who gives rewards, That He give him rest; let the pious people say Amen.

Of St. Mary of the Parisians.

[109] O you worldly ones, who rejoice in an empty thing, Spurn the cultivation of the flesh, which will suddenly perish. For the vast body, fed with various fatness, The more it is filled, the more putrid it will become. Why is the flesh fattened, with which the worm is sated? Why do we so desire goods which we cannot retain? Those whom the world wickedly seduces it leads through byways, And deceives the followers of the flesh through honours, And holds out soft things, while it stretches nets for us. There is also in this world solicitude for worldly men, And punishment gains punishment; the flesh is tormented twice. Those who pursue gains are cast headlong by sudden death, And the flesh goes under the cave, the souls under the abyss. Handling these things attentively enough, Bruno suddenly, That ornament of masters, the shaper of manners, The oarage of the throng of Reims, greater in the city, Despised the world, turned his way to heavenly things, Clothed in cheap rags, following Thee, O Christ. To him therefore let the heavens be open, and to the faithful people, With whom Bruno rejoices, and is ever associated.

Of St. Peter of Rebais.

[110] In our times, while the end of the world draws near, This man stood forth in the world nearest to God; For he had been rich, he conducted his manners wisely, He despised all things, afterwards poor, and is a hermit

Made so for the Lord, who alone reigns on high. He held the way of the flesh: through the ages may he be happy By the piety of God, who redeemed the ages by death.

Of St. Peter of Lagny.

[111] From a certain tree Adam had tasted the fruit, From which tree afterwards an equal lot hangs over all. If he had not sinned, he would have restored the human race. But because he sinned, he prepared all evils for death. Therefore, grief, mourning, pour forth floods of tears, That death so bites, rages, rushes, swallows all things. By this every man falls, for the apple wickedly tasted. Here he is strong and lives; soon he lays his members back in the earth. So flesh is the flower of grass; the glory of the world becomes grass, While the flowers and beauties of youths wither; The great passes with the small, the unjust with the just. Every man proves this; but what every man proves, The father himself brought in; but what the father himself brought in, God Himself expelled; but what God Himself expelled, He made a noble work; but the work which He made noble, The following origin feels; but this too, which the origin feels, This Bruno also felt: since Bruno also feels this, He lives for ever; let us not then weep on his account. Yet if he did anything which did not please the Lord, Let not this mouth, mind, tongue refuse to ask God: O Theos, alpha of good, give the heavenly kingdoms to Bruno.

Of St. Peter of Neufchâtel.

[112] While this happy hermit lived this life, Called Bruno the good, our patron in all things, In the district in which he lived, he remained while living an image Of true justice, doctrine and philosophy, Giving an example to all who are possessed of reason; He built a structure which he knew would not fall, An ethereal seat, remaining through all ages In the highest heavens, where faithful Bruno rejoices; Wondering at whose life, imitating his manners, Let us all pray with such prayer as we can, That he, so worthy, so true and so kind, Pouring out oracles for us with his whole wish, Where he rejoices glad, relying on the heavenly summit, May make us rejoice with him and remain with him.

Of the Holy Trinity of Falaise.

[113] One would have had to grieve at the death of so great a doctor, And all good men groan night and day, If mourning could call back a buried man, And tears bore fruit; it is not foolish to lament. But since the suffrages of Masses avail more than tears, And prayers carry the just man above the heavens, Let the faithful flock of Christ, therefore, with Hymns and Psalms and prayers, Ask His help, complaints being wholly dismissed, That He may make the soul of Bruno reside in the heavens, Lest the robber lay waste the sheep, may He preserve it from his mouth.

Of St. Gervase of the same place.

[114] Gaul, mother of many, and nurse of men, When will you have males equal to this one? This man of yours once offered the wave of doctrine To nations and clergy: alas, good fame, you perish! Letters bring nothing to the Frankish race, you perceive, Now he has died indeed; now you have faith from it. The Calabrian tomb covers the bones of this man in his grave. May the great grace of God grant him to live.

Of St. Mary of Tournai.

[115] Whom Cologne would have begotten, France would have nurtured [s], Father Bruno, a glory common to both nations, By easy ascent is joined to the hosts of heaven, Whose citizen he was, even while life remained. Yet not in vain is just prayer his companion hence. May the Lord confer this, what was lacking to his merits.

Of the monastery of St. Peter of Blandin.

[116] It is common to die; death spares no honour. Death is life to the pious, a daily punishment to the wicked. We shall go without delay, but at what hour we know not, Because life is short, flowing, frail, light. Behold, we know well enough what we cannot escape, And what will be the end: the worm, and thence ash. While he lived, this Hermit shone enough in his life; Yet, being dead, may he rest in peace: amen.

Of St. Leodegar the martyr.

[117] You ask help, which may Christ provide for ever. We ask the Most High for Bruno, departing from the body, That He may grant him the gifts of the desired kingdom.

Of St. Bavo in Ghent.

[118] Although we have great facility in words, Yet let it not be our will to put forth words according to our power, But weeping let us say briefly: Supreme master, To Bruno, dear to Thee, O King, faithful in the flesh, To whom above every good the joys of heaven were pleasing, Grant that to be which nowhere knows to be absent.

Of St. Mary Connatrensis in England.

[119] May Christ the king in His piety set him in the citadel of the poles, And grant him to enjoy their rest.

Of St. Omer the bishop.

[120] You were wont to be an example to wretched mortals, That they might worship Christ, whom you, Bruno, always worshipped; For whom you spurned the riches of the whole world, That the author of the whole world might give you perpetual ones. Therefore may the true faith, which you always cultivated, Draw you to the rest of Christ, which you, Bruno, sought.

Of St. Paul the Apostle of London.

[121] The fame of so great a Man, spread beneath the utmost parts of the world, Stirs ardent minds to worthy prayers; And although, as far as we can, we should wish to fulfil what is asked, The vows of approved men, promised everywhere, Admonish us according to our power to remember the Lord Bruno, And to celebrate his departure with Masses every year.

We, Rengerius, Walter, Quintilian, archdeacons, Robert and Durandus the scholasticus, Theobald, Arthur, and all the other canons of the church of St. Paul of London, salute and bestow with brotherly love on the hermits of the church of Mary, the holy Mother of God, of La Torre in Calabria, and we grant, as you have asked, that an anniversary be made every year for the reverend master the lord Bruno, servant of God, and for all the brethren of your monastery, on the day before the Nones of October; we have granted this by the public consent of our brethren, and have ascribed his name to the names of our brethren in memory of the aforesaid commemoration.

Of the church of St. Peter of Cassel.

[122] The defenceless worms feed on the flesh of Bruno, Alas, the grief! vessel of immense sense and goodness. Yet it is not for this that I weep; for it is established to me That he is a fellow-citizen of the Saints; but because his company Mourns, deprived of a kind Father.

Of St. Mary of the see of Arras.

[123] God, the eternal Light, apart from whom nothing can be, Who willed to be born to us of the seed of Jesse, Make you, Bruno, a partaker of His goodness, He who is the many-flowing fount of wondrous piety.

Another of the same.

[124] Bruno, leader of the right way and fount of Philosophy, Taught no otherwise than he strove to live. While by living well he did whatever by speaking The good man showed, he shone forth from heaven. Whence let perpetual glory be given him as reward, And lasting rest, and day without night.

Of the school of the monastery of St. Vedast of Nobiliacum.

[125] Let life weep that the series of the age passes in short time; For whatever is now seen to be present passes. So it befits, and that which nature holds as necessary asks it. The glory of things stands; it perishes in the time of the end. It has nothing eternal, unless they be imitations of the true. Therefore whatever man wishes to seem prudent, Let him love only those things which are gifts of salvation to him. If his cares stand well, by loving the goods of the light to come, Let him not procure those things which flee like the breeze. Whatever the world has is a kind of capture of the mind, That it may seduce it, the ever-watchful art of the enemy. That roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, the enemy, Never slumbers, nor gives his members to rest. All his care remains restless through the hours, Nor has this fury a setting, nor his sacrilegious will. Whence, I ask, beware, O man, lest you be held by him. But intent in mind on things above, and with your senses Spend all your zeal, by which, having enjoyed true honour, You may always enjoy divine and pure love. Everything that is perishes, the wise and the unwise together, Poor, needy, rich, whom a cheap urn covers; The law of death having been taken, so they become dust and bones. The just man passes away, he dies. He is hurt by some crime, Nor, created under the common law, does he lack stain. For he yields to the lot which father Adam, no doubt, Merited through the mother whom the letter names Eve. While my mind complains about these things, it wanders through many, A too ample reasoning is multiplied through the mind. Renowned father Bruno, I ask that life be yours for ever; Let whoever is faithful say Amen, answering me.

Another of the same.

[126] The light and order of the way leading to the heights of wisdom Has fallen; hence Bruno, yielding to nature, departing Like a brute beast. To you, Bruno, keen master, The world here grew worthless in its flower and barren beauty. It was a flower in the grass; it flourished under the serene sun, While your muse sang, while it was free for study, While now it suckled Reims with milk, now fed it with bread [ee]. Yet hence, riches cast away and studies rejected, Shut in obscurity you enjoy hard toil, And Bruno, following nothing varied, founded in the One, So, father, O Bruno, you take the One, taken by the One [ff].

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Falesia, in French Falaise, a city of Lower Normandy, has a castle, situated on a rock, adjoined to it, and comprises two parish churches, as La Martinière teaches in the Geographical Dictionary, of which one is called of the Holy Trinity, the other of St. Gervase; it does not appear to be doubted, therefore, that the subjoined Title refers to the former of these.

q. In the Basel edition "of the Castle" is added; so that the latter of the two churches mentioned at the preceding letter, which the castle of Falaise comprises, is most probably here designated.

r. The cathedral church of Tournai is sacred to the most holy Mother of God; so that the subjoined Title is accordingly to be ascribed to it.

s. What we learn from this little verse, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 42.

t. This most noble monastery of Ghent is wont today to go by the name of St. Peter alone, under whose patronage and that of St. Paul it was built, although originally it was called Blandinium from the Blandin hill, near the city of Ghent, on which it was built by St. Amand in the seventh century. See on St. Amand tome 1 of February of our Work, page 822, as also the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 5, column 184.

u. Since there are various sacred places distinguished by the name of this Saint, as we showed at the second day of October in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Leodegar, and the funeral Titles are not reviewed in the order in which they were inscribed on the roll, I cannot determine what temple or monastery is here designated.

x. The distinguished monastery which afterwards received the name of St. Bavo was founded in the seventh century by St. Amand in the castle of Ghent at the confluence of the Scheldt and the Leie or Lys; and after various vicissitudes it passed at length in the sixteenth century from the Regular state (for it was of Benedictine monks) to the state of Secular canons, and when it was afterwards to be converted into a citadel, these migrated to the basilica of St. John, then parochial but now cathedral, called of St. Bavo, the name of John having been laid aside, to constitute in it thenceforth the cathedral college of canons of the bishopric of Ghent, then recently erected. See in tome 1 of October of our Work the posthumous Glory of St. Bavo, §5, as also Sanderus, Of the Affairs of Ghent, book 4, chapter 3, and the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 5, column 171 and the three following.

y. Since I find a sacred place so named neither in the Monasticon Anglicanum nor elsewhere, I think an error has crept into its spelling here, and that for Connatrensis one should read Conventrensis; so that there is here designated the cathedral church of that name in England, which, named after the most holy Mother of God, is older than the age of St. Bruno. See Mabillon, tome 4 of the Benedictine Annals, book 58, number 69, and the Monasticon Anglicanum, tome 2, page 428.

z. I think there is here designated the monastery of monks mentioned in the preceding tome of our Work in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, number 245, which we showed there was made one of secular canons as early as the ninth century.

aa. The Cathedral church of London in England is sacred to St. Paul; wherefore I think the subjoined Title refers to it.

bb. Casletum, a town of West Flanders, which in French and Flemish is called Cassel, and hence could be called in Latin Cassella or Cassellum by those who wrote the subjoined Title, has two collegiate churches, of which one is named St. Peter's, the other St. Mary's; so that accordingly one may conjecture that the former of these is here designated.

cc. The cathedral church of Arras, sacred to the most holy Mother of God, is undoubtedly here designated.

dd. The monastery of St. Vedast of Arras, which was formerly called Nobiliacum, was built in the seventh century. It does not appear to be doubted, therefore, that the subjoined Title proceeded from the school which that monastery maintained according to the custom in use at the beginning of the twelfth century.

ee. It appears that it must be concluded from this that the Saint taught Poetry at Reims. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 77.

ff. Allusion seems to be made here too to that saying of Luke 10, verse 42: But one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the best part.

* sociatur (is associated)

* that is, philosopher

SECTION V.

Title of the church of St. Mary Morlivensis. ^a

A prudent Man flourished in the world with profound speech. His lot is a useful pattern and a final norm. For he knew truly that the world cannot remain. He trampled its flowers, he despised its honours. Now may rest be his, since the sacred page has said: The death of the just is not ruinous, but precious; Bruno has ascended to the spiritual Jerusalem.

Of SS. Peter and Augustine, Apostle of the English. ^b

[128] Bruno, pious hermit, may you live in heaven by your life. We have rendered to yours; let what is due be rendered to ours.

Of St. Edmund, king and martyr. ^c

Bruno, father and hermit, passes from this life; May his spirit pass into rest: Amen.

Another of the same.

[130] May the true Lord grant joys to this Bruno, He who contains the hosts of the Saints, the heights of the pious.

Of St. Mary of Spalding, of the church of St. Nicholas of Angers. ^d

[131] In the world the radiance of the sun glows red, and by glowing Passes and exceeds the bright stars of the pole; So too the so great wisdom of Bruno shone forth, That among the stars of the Franks he alone here Was the flower and fount of all Philosophers. A beautiful flower he was, and a deep fount he was. From him so great wisdom flowed through the world, That those whom he imbued he made philosophers. He was the splendour of speech and the light of religion; His religion is known everywhere well enough; By his doctrine so many have been made wise, Whom my mind knows not and my pen is silent of; After his example there are many religious, And followers and disciples of the cross. He himself bore the cross of Christ and left all his possessions, And by denying himself he profited himself. Rich, famous, eloquent and generous, He shone in the world, but displeased himself. The world and its things and worldly power Were not dear to him; he abstained from all. No love or honour harmed him who thirsted for God; But in seeking God he was * into exile. He was an exile from his fatherland; the places and protection of Mary He obtained, whose son he himself was. Happy was the exile whom the Virgin Mary received. May she provide him refuge and help; May He be his harbour, whose birth was intact, The eternal Son; may He be your certain salvation.

To the religious brethren devoutly serving God in the place which is called La Torre, Lambert, abbot, and the whole congregation of St. Nicholas, greeting and love. Sympathizing with the bowels of charity in your grief and desolation, and rejoicing together with the lord Bruno passing, as we believe, from this world to the Father, and paying the debt of the triumphal funeral, we satisfy your just petitions and desires, assenting that his deposition be written in the Martyrology among the names of our brethren and recalled in perpetual memory.

Of the church of St. Mary of Lincoln. ^e

[132] You have passed over the world secure, greatest Bruno, Which, because you spurned it, I think harmed you nothing. It wished to ensnare you in deceitful things, But, looking out for yourself, you do not fall into the snare. It offered indeed what the stooping fool adores, That is, riches and goods which perish. And since no one can be blessed by the splendour of these; Indeed they profit nothing, but hinder too much, All things cast away, you gladly sought the desert, Desiring this alone, to be able to please God. Nor did the good fame of the Man lie hid, spread through the world, But, wandering, it admonished very many peoples. And it profited many, giving an example of serving Him who is good, who is the Lord God. What man could meditate anything better than this? This salvation profited many and you. Who has known one so happy and so wise? I have not known such a one, nor one like you. In you truly true wisdom was made plain; The piety of the Lord nourished and taught you. Him you chose before all, and Him you loved, Whom whoever worships is not ashamed to have worshipped. May light, fatherland, rest and glory be won for you, To serve whom was your only glory.

Of St. Mary of York. ^f

[133] A son of the church, loosed from mortal flesh, Bruno, a wise man, as his deeds prove, Is not to be wept for, because he will never now fall; Hope, love and faith hold what they have deserved.

Another of the same.

O if by the voice of the thing the pomp of the divine trophy Could be praised, or fully made known! But since it would fail, unless my voice restrained itself, What is given me to will is denied me to be able perfectly.

But yet without delay let my prow rise over the sea, That, if it be permitted, it may pray by praising Christ. Praise to Thee, highest Father, to whom black hell is subject, Praise to Thee, praise, O Christ, to whom this world lies subject. Give, I pray, the rewards of the heavenly gift to Bruno; That, as he lived to Thee, who crucified himself to the world, He may live for ever, nor touch the Avernus of death. What you ask for yourselves, bestow in turn upon us.

Of St. Peter of York, metropolis of England. ^g

[135] May He for whom Bruno rejected the harms of short life Repay him the gifts of the perpetual one.

Another of the same.

[136] Fame reported to us before your letter did, Not indeed of the death, but of the goodness of the Man. Bruno was the gem and the pillar of the house of the Lord, And a true cultivator of the apostolic faith. His true faith, built up by virtues, Built for him ethereal dwellings. Glory, riches, person, knowledge of things Were bright enough in him, but he pressed them underfoot. There are things which give a man to be able to live after death, And yet these cannot give to be without death. Death presses every head; if it could spare anyone, Surely it ought to have spared Bruno. Good death, happy death, if that is to be called death Which rest and perpetual life follow. If earthly contagion has given him anything of filth (For no one can live without sin), May God wash it away, who lives three and one, And give him rest; and let everyone say: Amen. What you ask for yours we have done already and will do, And we ask that you do the same for ours.

Of the church of St. John the archbishop of Beverley.

[137] What Bruno spurned while living, he left in death. For he fled the world and called worldly things mean. He served Christ, wherefore he has penetrated heaven. But since the brethren made a roll to transmit such things of him, Our lords have willed to pay, for so great a Servant Deceased at the last time, an Office welcome to all the servants.

Of Richard.

[138] You who grieve at the chance of death, the Father taken away, Lay aside sadness; the same * end awaits all. Hence it must be weighed that the glory of the world is grass; It flourishes for a time; flourishing it passes away and dries up; And because it so flourishes flourishing, so passes and dries up, Let us turn aside from it, rather seeking that to come. Already you have gone before, already, Bruno, you have been a rule, Already you have concluded what you cautiously proposed. You flourished in the fragile world, but with a falling flower; You spurned the fragile world and the falling flower, Seeking to succeed to the contemplative life, Which may He grant you who reigns through all ages.

Of Albert.

[139] May the piety of Christ give you, Bruno, what you have deserved, Made in this life first a monk, thence a hermit ^k.

Of Turstan.

[140] May there be to you, Bruno, rest, may there be light, may there be glory perpetual, May God be to you true salvation, true medicine.

Of Richard.

[141] He grudged us the eternal seat and dwelling, Having been made the first exile from the eternal seat and dwelling, While he suggests to Eve the taste of the forbidden tree. She tastes; tasting she is made subject to mortal fates, And held it out to the man, who would fall by a like fall. He was immortal, as the image of the Godhead; Immortal was the woman, drawn from his ribs; But soon after the taste they are made mortal And by a grievous casting down are cast out of paradise. Savage death entered the world; it subjected it To its laws; everyone who is born dies. It knew not how to spare, but neither did it spare you, Bruno. It has gathered you to the fathers; now may Christ be your life, And may He restore you, snatched from the world, to paradise.

Of William.

[142] If songs could profit so great a Patron, My tuneful muse would already profit him. It would have sung songs to enjoy a perpetual title, In a thousand ways it would psalm to so great a Man; It would psalm to the Man, and with studious mind and hand And tongue it would magnify him magnificent. But since songs of praise profit the dead nothing, May the highest power of God be propitious to him. Phoebus had scorched Libra for twice six and eight days When the hermit departed from this life ^l.

Of the church of St. Peter Castrensis.

[143] The glory of the just, the only solace of the guilty, Was Bruno living, and an equal grief dying. The ornament of the whole clergy, the exemplar too of the true, Death, O grief! has snatched away, as the Father fell. Made first a monk, thence an upright hermit, May the highest grace of God be propitious to him. Hither tend our vows, that all propitiation Be to the fragile life set under brevity. To him, amid monstrous reproaches, the sixth day Of October was his appointed end; may rest now be his.

Another of the same.

[144] The title of the person, entitled under the name Of the Virgin and Mother, whom after the Lord the world worships. The whole world sounds on every side with divers mournings, Leading with it cohorts to many deaths. It lays low all washed in sacred baptism, As the bright lamp of Bruno shows. Though he is praised by the voice of many men, Though he is remarkable for the merits of exceptional manners, Yet by the law of death an impious lot has carried him to the gates. We weep with you; but what need for these things save to ask Christ that rest may be his perpetual after the funeral? As we have given to your dead, so give you to ours.

Of the church of St. Mary and St. Aldhelm of Malmesbury.

[145] This good Athlete, whose most celebrated life Is narrated there, is proved to be praiseworthy. For if he lived thus, as the present little roll has said, And if he was munificent and pious and chaste, If he was sparing to himself, generous too to the needy, If a trampler of riches, if a spurner of delights, If he was cultivated in words and well-mannered, What need is there of words, why labour I to say more? Already now heaven holds him by the art of such great goods; For the star-bearing axis has been rendered him for his merits. Now therefore Bruno rejoices and clings to the One; Bruno, who left many things, has taken up the One. Yet this One alone is more excellent than all. If it helps to learn how great this gain is, I will say it briefly enough, and in few words teach plainly: He has taken up Christ, the sweet solace of labours. What then does it profit that we make verses for him? But I think it profits if I say: God, have mercy. But since no one is without the blemish of sin, If he has any crime, do Thou, good God, wipe it away.

Of the church of St. Mary of Rouen.

[146] Let the whole order of holy Church mourn, Weeping for the irreparable loss of the human race. There has departed from the world the victor over worldly honour, Father Bruno, founder of a holy Religion; Whose pious life so great an uprightness commends, That there is no power to equal him with anyone. He was wise, a noble man, shining with disposition, Imbued with the fount of all philosophy; In whom, when the living virtue of probity shone, Whereby he might have been able to merit glorious fasces, A trampler of riches, a spurner of all honours, He crushed underfoot also the foolish ambition of the world, And with zeal founded a holy Religion. Turning aside from the world, avoiding the heights of the world, He chose rather to live a private life. But although a humble hermit, renowned for merits, Since no one can relate the series of his magnificent piety, Or the acts of his pious goodness, These things passed over, let us keep watch in prayers, And ask the highest Father with devout mind That the exceptional Father may enjoy the vital light, And, just, may be joined to the hosts of the just.

We, the canons of the metropolitan church of Rouen, will keep the anniversary of the venerable man Bruno every year.

Of the Holy Trinity at Rouen.

[147] Although the mind of man knows not how to discern what the end Of all is; but the fount and origin of good things, To whom the hidden is plain, and who leaves nothing unavenged; Yet we, as the outward manners indicate, And the pious consummation of a sweet and well-spent life, Believe that your Hero has passed to the Heavenly Ones. What you ask of the vows celebrated together, These same we ask that you do for ours, That they may live to Christ, whom He has loosed from this prison.

Of St. Leodegar.

[148] Here is written the title of the kindly Leodegar. No strong man can stand before the face of death; But the life of a man is barren, like smoke. Most beautiful youth, being born, slips by like the wind. The worst and the good are taken alike. All fall by death, and corpses seek the earth, They come to nothing, they flow as food for worms. The bodies rot which living were proud; All flesh, dead flesh, becomes horrid. Soon, when a man dies, at once his grave is prepared; Afterwards no dear one of his cares to keep him, But he joins to the ashes the now fetid body of his friend. O how vain is love, when all honour falls! We have given to Bruno what due usage demands; You too render the same to ours written below [r].

Of St. Mary of Pontlevoy.

[149] There went out from the world a Man, a spurner of the world, to Him Who made the world, whom without end he sees; And although he is here called Bruno, as though dark [t], He is yet bright both in fame and in merits. He enjoys the light of God, because he spat out this light, And for the desert inhabits the heavenly kingdoms. Do not you therefore, brethren, grieve for his death; He himself, glad, desires his own to be glad. If anything is lacking to him, may God fill that up for him, And join our prayers to yours for him.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. This monastery, which was situated on the hill near Rouen, was built in the eleventh century, and continued under abbots up to the year 1597, when the abbatial mensa was assigned to the Charterhouse of Gaillon, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome XI, column 124 and following.

q. The monastery of St. Leodegar of Préaux, which is situated in the diocese of Lisieux, and was built in the eleventh century, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome XI, column 853, is most probably here designated.

r. See what was said in the Annotations subjoined to the third Section at letter s.

s. This monastery, which is sacred to the most holy Virgin Mary, and which is called by others Pontilevium, is situated in the diocese of Blois, and was built in the eleventh century, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 8, column 1379.

t. Allusion is made to the name of Bruno, which may seem to be derived from the German name Braun, the Flemish Bruyn and the French Brun, signifying the same as Fuscus or Subniger (dusky, darkish) in Latin.

* fugit (he fled)

* omnes (all)

SECTION VI.

Title of the church of St. Mary of Bayeux.

[150] Strenuous and strong preserver of monks, Provident also of death, founder of monasteries, Pious and clement imitator of the holy fathers, Solace of the brethren, lover of holy virtue, Just handler * of manners, pious hope of the wretched, Ruler of justice, and guardian of the good everywhere, Adorned with manners, and a vessel full of piety, Strongly armed with the shield of true probity, Bruno has undergone the law of the human condition, To be joined to the companies of the angelic legion. There robbers do not dwell, nor a rebellious throng, Nor are there depraved manners there, but each is faithful. Whither may the everlasting King grant us access, A spiritual protection after the passing of death. May the spirit of Bruno here enjoy the highest peace, And by the piety of God obtain light flowing with splendour.

Verses of the scholars of the same city.

[151] This grief, O Bruno, has come forth from more than one; Whence it grieves, laments, since your death wrings it to the depth! Not a little in weeping, the common throng of the schools, And on bended knee, widowed of such a Patron, Pours out vows in praying for merit to be given, And asks the King, who knows all hidden things, That He give you life, receiving you a hermit.

Of St. George of the same city.

[152] Flower of hermits, wondrous light, bright Star, Bruno, vigour of fathers, order, rule of brethren, Exemplar of the heavenly way, and fount of wisdom, Has touched these bounds by which every age is closed. We have written you in the number of the brethren, best of fathers, Devoutly pouring out assiduous prayers for you, That by the piety of God a portion of rest may be given you.

Of St. Stephen.

[153] If either by groaning or by tears this world Could give life, the world would give both, That it might draw back to life Bruno, once taken from it, The hope, ornament and help of the wretched; Who, following the desert, and carrying his own cross, Fulfilled in act what he taught by mouth, And holding the oar of faith fixed his hope in the stars, And with a happy bark has already crossed the sea: And because no one can of himself be blessed, May the immense grace of God justify him.

Of the monastery of St. Vigor of Cerisy.

[154] The humble flock of the monastery of blessed Vigor of Cerisy, forewarned by a divine oracle, renders the general office ^f for the soul of the religious Bruno, beloved of God, praying that the highest piety of God may spare him.

Of the church of St. Mary of Coutances.

[155] Christ, the doctor of doctors and fount of good things, May He give Bruno what the good have merited. It follows from His being true God that He is not severe; To this man therefore may God be gentle without end. For this father taught the human race, vain, wasted by crime, As best he could, Setting forth the command of Christ, to give the beloved gift, Since He gives perpetual life to him who keeps it. Nor does he teach thoroughly only by bitter words, like a harsh doctor, But pursues it by his own deeds. Why this Hermit does not lack perpetual life: Because the only true God is in the world. What you ask for yours, may Christ give this to ours also, That together they may be companions of God without end.

Verses of the scholars of the same.

[156] Bruno, the preceptor of many grammarians, Announces to all bodily destruction. The grammarian, rhetorician, dialectician and astrologer Would escape death, if it could be escaped. But since death cannot be taken away by any medicine, Let each always think of his own destruction.

Of St. Michael in peril of the sea.

[157] The wondrous power of God accomplishes wondrous acts. Some it justifies, some it drives back from death. Whom it will, it ignores; whom it will, it establishes firmly for itself; Among whom this Bruno, a man lover of religion, Is gathered, taken, happily numbered, As the work of this roll testifies.

Of St. Peter of Chézal.

[158] If the life, faith and works of Bruno were such as the letter says,

He is not to be mourned, since he is joined to the Heavenly Ones; But if, while we bear the weights of the fragile flesh, No one appears who so lives without crime That he takes care not to offend in deeds or words;

Therefore we beseech Christ that, if in anything this Father has offended, He deign to pardon.

Of the monastery of St. Mary of Louleium.

[159] Having heard of the passing of the most blessed hermit Bruno, the mother church of Le Mans has made a trental ^m for him, and will celebrate the anniversary day of his deposition.

Of St. Julian of Le Mans.

[160] We do not believe that one must weep at your death, best Bruno, Who, fleeing the vain honours of the perishing world, Wisely imitating the angelic life on earth, Still living in the body, sought heavenly things in mind. Loosed therefore from the evils of the body, Christ having mercy, You enjoy eternal peace in the ethereal seats. O would that I could follow your holy footsteps, Whereby I might gladly undergo the losses of this body!

Another of the same.

[161] Bruno lived in the Church a most firm pillar; He has fallen, whence the ornament of the Church totters. The worldly court mourns, the heavenly rejoices. This loses, that receives so great a Man. He has paid the debts of nature, having followed better things, To whom for a short death there will be perpetual life.

Likewise another of the same.

[162] To the Heavenly Ones a worshipper and companion of the Heavenly Ones has withdrawn, Bruno, commending to the earth what was its; And he despises the light little bundles and the world playing Proteus, Having gained, poor, eternal riches. Meanwhile the deposit is mingled with ash, and the same Hopes and awaits rewards with equal lot. I suspect that the angelic cohorts exult for him, And the citizens of heaven applaud a new Citizen. It was the sixth day of October when Bruno, having followed Nature, went, unburdened, to the Heavenly Ones.

Yet another of the same.

[163] He, seeking things above with sincere religion, Reigns with the Saints in the heavenly region. He laboured; happy labour, whence the glory of the saints, The wondrous reward of labours, called You, Bruno, giving itself to you, a kingdom under one King: Under this King I say, whose majesty shines in Olympus, And is light to the Saints; glory, perpetual life. It befits us therefore to commend his labour, And it befits us to praise the giver of the eternal gift. And may the devotion of our praise obtain for us That by the divine gift we may reign under that King.

Of St. Vincent of Le Mans.

[164] If life could be brought back by tears and lament, With great groaning and tears and wanton lament I would sadly weep for Bruno, bereft of light, The flower of the whole world and ornament of the clergy.

Of Blessed Julian of the meadow.

[165] Let perpetual life be granted to this Bruno, And may his spirit, received in the heavenly seat, Reign with the Lord, may he be happy now and for ever. This man, illustrious in life and a blessed doctor, Shone happy among the clergy, through his dogmas to the world: Whence with pious groaning, with poured-out tears, let us too Pray Christ that He may now give him paradise.

Of St. Maurice, the see of Angers.

[166] Gaul is saddened, the Calabrian people weep, And this one groans for a good doctor, that one weeps for a patron. This praises him by the teachings of the present life, And his exceptional wisdom is celebrated everywhere. The tongue of Bruno is praised more than that of Maro; The glory of Plato grows worthless by the praise of Bruno. He excelled doctors; he made The highest doctors, not by instructing lesser ones. He was the doctor of doctors, not of clerics *. For no one took up the honourable words or the gravities Of Bruno, unless he were a man of great reason. The ruling of the prudent man surpassed the keenness of the mind, So that he stood forth sufficiently as the doctor of these teachings. Than these he wished to set before a more perfect way; He announces an exceptional wisdom by teaching divine things, And destroyed his first things and held them as frivolous. Formerly a leader of error, he showed afterwards the way Of better doctrine [r], which gives joys without end. But worldly wisdom gives nothing but vain things. This pomp makes men proud, that makes them blessed. He fulfilled by deeds, in working, what he taught by mouth. He made many sermons throughout the regions. He passed through the city of Rome, and sought the Calabrians. Here he was made abbot, having at length gained heavenly things. Hence that nation groans, because chance has taken away its father, And when it bewails such a man, so spiritual, Not the death of the pastor, but the loss is the cause of grief.

Of the monastery of St. Florent of Glonne.

[167] That body is distinguished in various members, Whose head is Christ, the ruler of Catholics; In which we monks, placed as middling members, Believe the true hermits to be the lofty ones in it, Of whose number confessing you, great Bruno, Since the spurned honour of the world testifies it to us, And the good end of a holy life confirms it, Although we wholly approve the praises written for you, And think that we can be supported by your merits, Yet, that we may favour the prayers of the praying brethren, We make known that we have poured out prayers for you, Whence we do not doubt that a return will be rendered to us.

Of St. Nicholas of the same city.

[168] Your roll-bearer [u] had not yet reached our home when our abbot Lambert had already received him and had already written worthy verses about so great a Father; and what he promised we gladly grant, and we promise again to increase what has already been promised [x] for Bruno, whom we believe already reigns with God.

Bruno was a fount of doctrine, a norm of true dogma, Surpassing the depths of Aristotle and of Socrates, Going beyond Plato by the gift of the sacred chrism. He lived a man, more than a man, pressed by the mass of flesh, Yet living he pressed down the flesh, striving towards the ethereal, Spurning the dying world for the heavenly kingdoms. May Bruno live happy in the heavens with the companies on high, May he behold the King whose law he kept by his acts; And you, fathers and fellow-brethren, pray for the brethren.

Of the monastery of St. Mary of Déols.

[169] As your holiness deigns to request, we too, the brethren of the monastery of Déols, sympathizing with the desolation of your fraternity, have taken care, as soon as we heard of his death, to render to the almighty Lord for the soul of our blessed father and master Bruno [z] the suffrages of most devout prayers, and, besides other suffrages of trental Masses [aa] and of alms, we have devoted to him with the affection of paternal love the benefit of the annual Mass, which is rendered daily also, the Lord granting. Moreover we commend his memory to the writing of our register [bb], that every year the affection of brotherly devotion may be roused, his name being read, to commend him to the almighty Lord.

Of St. Michael of the Desert.

[170] Cruel is the death of men, which Eve brought upon us. It harms all, as this book teaches. It wears all down, it seeks a kingdom over all things. Bruno was just, as this book has taught. Bruno was just, simple and humble, gracious, Yet, as death willed, he could not live; And since his members lie, let groans for his funeral cease, Since for groaning no one has pardon. Let us therefore press on and entreat the Lord God That He give him rest before His face.

Of St. Mary of Luçon.

[171] Brethren, who are in the desert which is called La Torre, be it known to all of you that for the lord Bruno we perform charitably seven vigils [ee] and seven Masses, and bread and wine, the lord abbot Reginald [ff] commanding.

Of St. Peter the Apostle of Maillezais.

[172] May a place of rest be granted him by the Lord, Whom he always worshipped while he could live.

Of the monastery of St. Vincent of Nieul.

[173] The convent of Nieul, attentive in the church of blessed Vincent to chanting the regular Hours according to the institutes of the supreme father Augustine, having seen the sheet which disclosed the death of Bruno, the incomparable philosopher, was seized with such great fear and such great horror that it scarcely prevailed to complete the due Office. For who would not be astounded, nay groan from the inmost parts of his heart, when he heard that so great a man, the light of all knowledge and of nearly all clerics, and their foundation, had yielded to nature? But since it is established as inevitable, and we believe that our Saviour underwent the law of death at the hour, we change into joy in Bruno the sorrow which we would mourn in others. For Bruno had and preserved the true knowledge and prudence of the liberal arts, and also the other cardinal virtues, which he brought to consummation in a good end. For formerly, being the chief teacher of the church of the see of the Remi, inasmuch as he was most brilliant in the Psalter [ii] and the other sciences, he long stood as the pillar of the whole metropolis. But because he weighed all this as truly transitory, after a stricter eremitical life he sought a most unusual desert in parts across the sea [kk], and thence, the Lord calling, he went glad to the banquets of the highest King; where, although we believe that he sings the angelic Psalter with Christ, yet if he neglected to abolish any stain, while he lived, from the original parent or from actual life, by forgetfulness or carelessness, let us assiduously pray with prayer and mind the Fount of all piety and also of mercy that He may be willing to pardon him; and that we may obtain this for him, we will render to Christ for seven continuous days the Office due to the dead.

The school of the same.

[174] Bruno, while he lived, was the light of the Franks, The light of the clergy; now he enjoys the light of the heaven-dwellers. For he is worthy to obtain such honour, Who in this life led a heavenly life. He plainly raves, he has a heart empty of reason, Whoever testifies otherwise, or meditates anything else, As he relates who brought this roll to us. If anything of earthly dregs has clung to him, May He who purges the crimes of the world wipe it off from him.

Another of the same.

[175] Bruno had been light while he lived in this world, But now he shines again, because he shines again in the seat of heaven. He knew the Psalter [mm], but now he sings instruments on high. He taught many; now he beholds the Saints in the heavens, A doctor of doctors, now one of the heaven-dwellers. A doctor on earth, now he will applaud Christ on high. Pour out prayers therefore for us, renowned Bruno, And we in turn will strive to render vows. For we desire to live with you with Christ above, And we all beg to be placed in the tenth order.

Of St. Paul the Apostle of Cormery.

[176] To my lords and brethren serving almighty God in the monastery of holy Mary of the hermitage, which is called La Torre, Mainard: to use the world, to enjoy God. In the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ one thousand one hundred and two, on the Kalends of November, I received this roll [oo]. I read in it that the blessed soul, as I think, of my most sweet master Bruno had breathed out the transitory vapour of this world, persevering in true charity, and had gone up on the wings of virtues to the heavenly kingdoms. I rejoiced indeed over the glorious end of so great a Man; but because there was in me an unwearied intention of going to him shortly, and of seeing and hearing him, and of pouring out all the surges of my mind upon him, and of obeying the most holy Trinity with you under his leadership, I was troubled beyond what I can say at his unexpected passing, nor could I hold the reins of my freely flowing tears. I, Mainard, I say, Prior in name, not in deed, of very many monks in the monastery of Cormery [pp], was a native of the city of the Remi; I heard the teaching of this lord Bruno for some years, and, God willing, advanced considerably; and the thanks for my advancement, although I could not render them to the lord Bruno in this life, I have resolved now at least to show to his soul. I will have him, therefore, and all who love him in Christ, in my memorial as long as I can breathe, and I will provoke, rouse and promote all my companions, sons and spiritual brethren to the same work according to my power; I will offer prayers, oblations and alms for him no otherwise nor less than for myself to God, the Trinity, as long as there is breath in my nostrils.

Of the Holy Saviour of the world and of St. Gildas, Confessor, of Déols.

[177] Since prayer ought to be faithfully poured out to the Lord for all men whom holy virgin mother Church regenerates day by day through water and the Holy Spirit throughout all the climes of the world, cleansing them from all error and from the first original sin, especially for those ought insistence of prayers and perpetual memory of orations to be applied by every Catholic, by whose help and benefit we believe we can be helped. Wherefore, having heard of the calling of this most excellent man Bruno by the Lord, we have determined to perform three fuller Offices in convent. May his soul rest in peace.

Of the church of St. Mary Tropeiensis.

[178] Whence Bruno was pleasing to God, thence he is blessed. If I were to praise him, I should not bless him by praise. I render thanks to God that he had as many goodnesses As can be said by the tongue of a wise friend. Hence the skin of the neck is worn under the weight of the roll; The neck of the roll-bearer can no longer lift the roll [ss], In which so many things with such great ones are written, and the hall of the Thunderer, And the sun with the moon, the course of the stars, and the one Light, the pole, air, earth, sea, Tartarus, sulphurs, smoke Livid, obscene and fetid, full of putrefaction; Which region of Pluto is far from the lot of Bruno. The sheet was ample; now it seems small and narrow; On which lot, on which fate, on which every created thing is written, And the timeless time of the Creator's honour. Whose life's hermit he was in this life, How pious and mild, simple, without the host of strife, If I knew how to say it, there is nothing on which I could write it. Inside and on the back, therefore, the skin is now written on. What further shall I say? Now I know not how to say anything. But yet, that blessing may increase, I say: may he rest. I say he is given peace, since he is placed above the stars; Yet if in the grave the flesh becomes dust and bones, He has not died, he lives; by returning he has sought the fatherland. May we be able to live, in the One, the things which Bruno lives [tt].

ANNOTATIONS.

g. In

Lower Normandy is situated the city of Coutances, distinguished by an episcopal see; and its cathedral church, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome XI, column 863, is named after Mary, the most holy Mother of God; wherefore I do not think a sacred place distinct from that church is here designated.

p. This monastery of Benedictine nuns is situated in the diocese of Le Mans, and existed long before the age of St. Bruno, as is clear from what Mabillon records of it in books 1 and 2 of the Benedictine Annals.

q. The cathedral church of Angers is dedicated to St. Maurice; wherefore it is not to be doubted that this is here designated by the St. Maurice of the see or chair of Angers.

r. Do not think from this that St. Bruno at some time strayed from the truth of the orthodox faith. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 69 and following.

s. Of St. Florentius, priest and confessor, who is commemorated at the twenty-second day of September in the Roman Martyrology and other sacred calendars, and who exchanged life for death about the beginning of the fifth century, we have already treated, and set out there in the Commentary prefixed to his Acts how the monastery situated on the hill of Glonne, by others Gloma or even Glomna, in the present duchy of Anjou, which has its name from that Saint, and which is now called Old Saint-Florent to distinguish it from the new monastery of Saint-Florent built later near Saumur, was restored anew in the tenth century after a twofold overthrow which it had received first from the Bretons and then from the Normans. That sacred asceterion, of which the brothers Sainte-Marthe also treat in the old Gallia Christiana, tome 4, page 388, is beyond all doubt the very one which is here distinguished by the name of the monastery of St. Florentius Glamuensis, a change of one little letter having been made in this word, most probably by error.

t. That is, if I am not mistaken, of Angers; so that here the monastery of St. Nicholas of Angers, of which I have already recorded something in the Annotations subjoined to the preceding Section at letter d, is designated again.

u. For the meaning of this word see the Preliminary Commentary, number 24.

x. It is clear from this that this Title was written by the monks of the monastery of St. Nicholas of Angers, and another, given above as 131 in order, by their abbot Lambert. Note also that, since the Titles of some other places are interposed between this one and that one, these two were either inscribed apart on a separate sheet (see what was said in the Annotations subjoined to the second section at letter b), or certainly, if the matter is otherwise, not edited in the order in which they were written on the common funeral roll.

y. Since there exists no monastery sacred to the most holy Mother of God either at Dol in Lesser Britain or at Dole in the County of Burgundy, it appears indubitable that there is here designated the monastery of Déols (Dolense) which was built in honour of the same most holy Mother of God among the Bituriges, as may be seen in Mabillon, tome 3 of the Benedictine Annals, book 42, number 12, by Ebbo, lord of Déols, in the tenth century, for Benedictine monks, for whom secular canons were at length substituted in the year 1623, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 2, column 148.

z. What appears to be concluded from this, see the Preliminary Commentary, number 166.

aa. That is, if I am not mistaken, to be celebrated for thirty days, or perhaps even years.

bb. The meaning of this word I assigned in the Annotations subjoined to the first Section, at letter d.

cc. This very ancient monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, which is now commonly called St. Michael in the Desert, is situated in the diocese of Luçon, and was founded about the year 680 by Ansoald, bishop of Poitiers. See the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1418.

dd. This formerly abbatial church, sacred to the most holy Mother of God, which Pope John XXII raised to a cathedral in the year 1317, is older than the eighth century, as is clear from what the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana record of it, tome 2, column 1404 and following.

ee. For the meaning of this word see the Annotations which I subjoined to the first Section, at letter c.

ff. This abbot is reviewed in the Chronicle of Maillezais as the first among the successors of Goffrid, abbot of Luçon, who died in the year 1091. See the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana in the place just cited.

gg. There is undoubtedly here designated the most celebrated abbey of Maillezais (Malleacensis or Malliacensis), built as early as the tenth century and consecrated to St. Peter, which was formerly situated in the bishopric of Poitiers, and afterwards was itself made episcopal by Pope John XXII. See again the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome 2, column 1362 and the two following.

hh. This monastery of the Order of St. Augustine, which was formerly of the diocese of Maillezais, now of La Rochelle, is read in the manuscript Chronicle of Maillezais, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach, tome 2, column 1395, to have begun to be built in the year 1068, or by others 1069.

ii. Allusion seems to be made here to the Commentary in which the Saint clearly expounded all the Psalms of David. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 694.

kk. Those who wrote this Title do not seem to have known sufficiently in what place the hermitage of La Torre is situated, into which the Saint at length, having left Gaul, hid himself; for it is not situated, as they here intimate, in parts across the sea with respect to Gaul. But perhaps, by an error proceeding from copyists, transmarinis (across the sea) is here written for transalpinis (across the Alps).

ll. Namely of the monastery of Nieul (Noliensis), or rather, as it is written by the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana in the place just cited, Nioliensis; so that the two Titles here immediately subjoined undoubtedly refer to the school which this monastery maintained according to the custom then in use.

mm. Allusion seems again to be made here to the Commentary composed by the Saint on all the Psalms of David, or certainly to the plainly exceptional understanding of them with which he shone.

nn. This monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, which is situated in the diocese of Tours, was built in the eighth century in honour of St. Paul the Apostle, as the brothers Sainte-Marthe teach in the old Gallia Christiana, tome 4, page 299.

oo. He, therefore, who carried round the encyclical letter announcing the death of St. Bruno did not come to the monastery of Cormery until a year had already elapsed for some time since St. Bruno's death; wherefore I think that he first visited the sacred places of England whose funeral Titles on St. Bruno are extant above, and only then crossed into Normandy, from which he afterwards betook himself to the monastery of Cormery and other neighbouring sacred places.

pp. On this most pious disciple of St. Bruno see the Preliminary Commentary, numbers 97, 99 and following.

qq. This monastery, formerly of the Order of St. Benedict, which is situated sixteen leagues from Avaricum of the Bituriges on the river Indre in the diocese of Bourges, was founded by Ebbo, lord of the castle of Déols and author of the monastery of the same name mentioned at letter y, for the abbot and monks of the monastery of St. Gildas of Rhuys, who were fleeing the fury of the Normans foully laying waste Armorica, in which it was situated, in the ninth century and at the beginning of the tenth; and how this was done the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana set out, tome 2, column 153 and the two following, as also how secular canons were at length substituted there for the monks in the year 1623.

rr. Tropea, an episcopal city of Further Calabria, enjoys a cathedral church consecrated to the most holy Mother of God, as Ughelli teaches, tome 9 of Italia sacra, column 449. I think, therefore, especially since no other sacred place occurs to which the subjoined Title could belong, that this is the very church of St. Mary of Tropea which is designated by this inscription, although meanwhile the one who carried round the encyclical letter announcing the death of St. Bruno seems, from the various verses in which the subjoined Title is conceived, to have visited it only after the other sacred places whose funeral Titles precede, and it might seem wonderful that he so late

and only when he was on the very point of returning home, visited a church not very far removed from the hermitage of La Torre.

ss. The meaning of roll and roll-bearer I supplied in the Preliminary Commentary, number 24.

tt. That futile and vain things, as Du Cange affirms in the Glossary of middle and lower Latinity at the word Titulus, were at times written in the funeral Titles with which it was formerly the custom to pay funeral honours to the dead, is plain if only from some things which occur both in this and in some other funeral Titles on St. Bruno given above; although meanwhile the same nearly all comprise at the same time things which conduce to making manifest the fame both of Bruno's learning and of the holiness with which he shone immediately after his death.

* corrector

* of little clerics (clericulorum)

APPENDIX

Or supplement on the posthumous glory of the Saint.

Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, in Calabria. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. The veneration shown in Calabria to the Saint, once he had been enrolled among the Blessed and translated to the church of St. Stephen, and the miracles frequently wrought at his invocation, some of which, preceding the year 1600, are reviewed.

[The Saint, by the addition of his name to the appellation of the monastery of St. Stephen,] After the sacred body of Bruno, enrolled among the Blessed by Pope Leo X in the year 1514, as I showed in §47 of the Preliminary Commentary, had been translated in that very said year 1514 from the church of the most holy Mother of God of La Torre, in which it lay laid away, to the church of St. Stephen, likewise of La Torre, the Carthusians universally, and by name those of La Torre, manifested more and more by more than one indication the singular veneration with which they were borne towards the holy Founder of their Order. And first indeed, the monastery of St. Stephen of La Torre, which was then usually called solely St. Stephen del Bosco or of the Wood, the primitive name of St. Mary and St. Stephen having been changed, and under whose name even then, no otherwise than today, the church of St. Mary of La Torre (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 733) and the whole complex of buildings pertaining to the hermitage of La Torre went, they thereafter called, in honour of their holy Father, not only St. Stephen's, as Pope Leo X (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 755 and following) had established, but, the name of St. Bruno having been joined to the name of that holy martyr, the house of St. Stephen and St. Bruno; and to the same end, in the lapse of time, they named the province of their Order which now comprises the Charterhouse of La Torre, and which was formerly distinguished by the name of the Province of Further Lombardy, the province of St. Bruno, a name which it enjoys even today, as I learn partly from Morozzo in the Chronological Theatre, page 226, and partly from Camillo Tutini's Prospectus of the Carthusian Order at the year 1514.

[2] But the plainly exceptional veneration towards that holy Father of theirs of the Carthusians inhabiting the hermitage of La Torre, returned to them at length from the Cistercians by order of Pope Leo X, by no means stopped at the naming of their monastery after St. Bruno, [and is honoured by the institution of an annual solemnity in which his head is carried in procession,] which would indeed have been little. For, seeing to the execution of what Matthew, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bologna, had said (see the words recited in the Preliminary Commentary, number 776) to the people standing by, while his precious remains were being translated, was to be done with the sacred head of Bruno, they enclosed the sacred head of the Saint, or rather the part of it which still remained with them, in a silver herm skilfully wrought. Nor content with having brought it about that this precious pledge should be guarded with fitting and due reverence, they instituted also, not long after the year 1514, as it appears, that every year, so that the Saint's cult might gain increase among the people as well, his sacred head, already enclosed, as I have said, in a silver herm, should on the second feast of Pentecost be carried with solemn rite from the church of St. Stephen, in which it is kept, to the church of St. Mary, and on the following day be carried back in the same manner from the latter to the church of St. Stephen. And indeed the institution of this solemnity was not without happy success. For not only did the Saint's cult increase greatly from it; but it also happened at times that the sick who had come to it, having implored the help of St. Bruno, were restored to their former health.

[3] [and shining with miracles, he preserves unharmed a man falling from a steep place,] So various persons testify who committed to writing the miracles which the Lord then deigned to work to manifest the glory of His Servant. Some of these, and at the same time some others which were wrought at other times too at the invocation of St. Bruno before the year 1600, I am pleased to review in the present §, keeping the chronological order in which they happened. So as not to disturb it, then, I begin from those which were done outside the time of the aforesaid solemnity. The Surian annotator, in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno written by Surius, page 319, writes thus: In the year 1523, on the first day of February, the V. F. Jacopo of Aragon, professed of the Charterhouse of Naples and Prior of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen mentioned above, and the other conventual monks wrote to the general chapter of the Carthusian Order the following miracles, which happened then, recently after the recovery of the house (namely the Calabrian house of St. Stephen): In these our days the noble Alfonso Toraldo of Naples, full brother of the excellent lord Adamo Toraldo, baron of Badolato, very piously devoted to St. Bruno, when he was at Tropea, which is a maritime city of Calabria, walking for recreation beside the sea upon a certain sloping rock of nearly a hundred cubits in height, it happened that, his foot slipping, he fell headlong, head downwards. Who, falling, tried to seize with his hands a crumbling wall, so as not to plunge to the bottom; but the wall itself slid down upon him; whence, placed in that danger, he invoked St. Bruno as helper, and at once saw a monk, in white garments and comely of aspect, holding his right hand and gently leading him down to the low places.

[4] restores health to a sick woman, Whereby it came about that he suffered no injury from that fall, although his companions, who had run up to the falling man, thought him killed or his body broken by the fall. He therefore returned home on foot, needing neither a vehicle nor anyone else's help for the journey; and he attributed this very great benefit to the merits of St. Bruno. This happened about the year 1522. Camillo Tutini also reviews the same miracle in the Prospectus of the Carthusian Order composed by him; but he refers it not, as the Surian annotator here does, to about the year 1522, but to the year 1518. But indeed, even if this is so, these two writers are not on that account to be judged to conflict with each other, since the Surian annotator does not strictly attach that miracle to the year 1522, but only writes that it happened about the year 1522, which formula of speech admits an extension of three or four years. However that may be, that miracle seems to have preceded three others which the Surian annotator goes on to narrate, from the account of Jacopo of Aragon and the other religious inhabitants of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen, in his aforesaid Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno. The first runs thus: Donna Laura Carafa, daughter of the duke of Nevers, countess of Arena, when she was pregnant, fell into a most grievous illness, and when she was at the point of death, her husband Don Francesco, count of Arena, who had always piously venerated St. Bruno, made a vow that he would offer a silver chalice at his altar; and then, as the count himself and the countess testified, she was healed of that grievous infirmity, and in due time gave birth to an infant, on whom they imposed in baptism the name of St. Bruno. And so that the mother might never be unmindful of the benefit received, she vowed to wear white garments, such as the holy Father himself, who had appeared to her in her sleep, had been seen to wear.

[5] The second is conceived in these words: In the year 1522 a certain man from the town of Cimbario of the diocese of Squillace, he expels a demon from a possessed woman, distant nearly four thousand paces from the monastery (namely of St. Stephen), named Gareto Scopacasa, with his wife Isabella, brought to the door of the monastery their only daughter, who had an unclean spirit; and when relics of St. Stephen and of other Saints had been brought to her, that the demon might be cast out of her, as had been done at other times, and no hope of its going out appeared, the V. F. Vicar, Father de Cordova, gave the girl's parents the counsel to take her to the grotto of St. Bruno, which is a mile distant from the monastery. When they had arrived there, they went round the chapel three times on bended knees, praying devoutly. Then the girl, after a kiss imprinted on the feet of the image of St. Bruno, swallowed a little of the dust from the same grotto. Wonderful to tell, after the dust was taken the hostile spirit began to run through the girl's bowels, and thence migrating into her arm it came at length to her hand; and, that it might leave a sign of its departure, a swelling having been made on the tip of one finger, the pores being opened wider, it provided itself an exit, not without blood, and departed utterly. The girl, freed from so evil a guest, returned with her parents to the monastery, where she rendered immense thanks to God and to St. Bruno, her deliverer. Here now is also the last of the three miracles mentioned above. It is set out in the Surian annotator, page 323, in these following words: About the same times (namely not much before the year 1523, in which the general chapter of the Carthusian Order was made more certain of the three said miracles), in the town of Pizzoni of the diocese of Mileto, distant six miles from the monastery (namely St. Stephen of La Torre), a certain priest from the bosom of the secular clergy, named Sofrano Miriano, having an abscess in the chest near the vital parts, made a vow to St. Bruno. Who, being made whole at once, as he himself testified in writing, sent a torch of virgin * wax to the altar of the holy Father Bruno, on which the series of the cure and recovery was read. The Surian annotator here now adds other miracles wrought through the merits of St. Bruno, which, as he says, were copied from the manuscript notes of Dom Niccolò Ricci of Taverna, professed of the same house (of St. Stephen), and were set in order more accurately, some others also having been added, by the V. F. Severo of Naples.

[6] But since the first of these is noted to have happened only in the year 1524, [by a vision of himself vouchsafed, he admonishes the father of St. Louis Bertrand to remain in the world,] and the apparition of St. Bruno and St. Vincent Ferrer divinely vouchsafed to Luis Bertrán or Bertrand, the father of St. Louis Bertrand, which I promised in the Preliminary Commentary, number 746, that I would relate here, perhaps happened earlier, I am pleased to present it to the reader here before I review any of those, so as not to depart from chronological order. It is narrated, then, by the Surian annotator, page 318 and following, in this manner: The same man (namely the father of St. Louis Bertrand) on another occasion, his first wife having died, was going to the same house (namely the Carthusian house) of Porta Coeli, which is four leagues distant from Valencia (namely the city of Tarraconensian Spain, in which he dwelt), to ask for the religious habit; and on the way the same Saints Vincent and Bruno showed themselves to be seen, saying that it was the will

of God, not that he should become a religious, but that he should return to the world. Who, from a second wife, Juana Ángela, married afterwards, begot in the year 1526 Blessed Louis Bertrand of the Order of Preachers, who, renowned for holiness and miracles, went away to heaven in the year 1581. Thus the Surian annotator in the place cited, adding there also that this account was copied by Father Juan Madariaga, part 1 of the Life of St. Bruno, chapter 22, §3, from the Life of St. Louis Bertrand written by brother Justiniano Antist; which indeed, since the same account is found in the latter, I think accords with the truth. I now proceed to the miracles which Severo of Naples, from what has been said on the testimony of the Surian annotator, drew from the manuscript notes of Niccolò Ricci, set in order more accurately, and increased with some others.

[7] [he heals a man resolving to restore what belonged to the Charterhouse of La Torre,] The first, in the Surian annotator's account, runs thus: In the year of the Lord 1524, when the V. F. David de Charcascolis of Milan, professed of the Charterhouse of Pavia, was Prior of this house (of St. Stephen), the excellent lord Giovanni Battista Carafa of Naples, then count of Grotteria and lord of Castelvetere and also of Roccella, fell ill even unto death, and when, deprived of all help of physicians, he was at the point of death, one night St. Bruno presented himself to him in a vision, saying: Giovanni Battista, if you put off restoring to my house of St. Stephen of the Wood the territory unjustly occupied by your people, you shall die the death and shall not live. And he, answering with a like voice, said: What territory, Father? The territory, he replied, which you call of Ninfo, granted to me and my successors by Count Roger the Norman; and, having said this, he vanished. The aforesaid count resolved within himself to learn something more certain about this, and to restore everything. Wonderful to tell, he had scarcely resolved this in his mind when he began to be better, and was wholly freed from the fever and from all danger of life. Then, having summoned a notary and witnesses, he related the vision, and restored the territory, occupied now for many years, and obtained very many other benefits from the holy Father Bruno, which are contained more fully in the instrument of restitution. This was drawn up at Naples on the 18th of November 1519 (an error lies here, and there must be substituted 1529, the year in which, as you will find below at number 13, that restitution was made) by the notary Virgilio de Buluito of Naples, between the V. F. Dom Ottaviano of Mantua, then Prior of the house of St. Stephen and visitor of the province, and the aforesaid count, who, as is written in it, recognizing the good faith, and attending to the very great devotion which he said he bore towards the monastery of St. Stephen, and on account of the reverence which he has for St. Bruno, whose holy relics are venerably laid up in the aforesaid monastery, by whose merit and intercessions he had continually been helped, and especially in obtaining offspring from the Lord, and for the salvation of his own soul and of his predecessors, having first been made certain and fully informed of the jurisdiction of the monastery etc., spontaneously and of good, pure and free will released the aforesaid territory of Ninfo, and resigned it by the staff to the V. father Prior etc. Of which corporal possession was taken on the 39th day of January in the year 1530 by the aforesaid Prior Ottaviano, there being present, with other monks, Dom Stefano de Suriano, professed of the same house.

[8] Such is the first which the Surian annotator relates in the place cited above from the manuscript notes of Niccolò Ricci of Taverna, set in order more accurately by Severo of Naples and increased from elsewhere; and snatches Catherine Thomas, still young, from most grievous danger, and he subjoins the following immediately to it: About the year 1540, when Blessed Catherine Thomas of Majorca, afterwards a Canoness Regular of the Order of St. Augustine in the monastery of St. Mary Magdalene of the city of Majorca, was about five years of age, and was making a journey with her grandfather in a sloping place near the Charterhouse of Majorca, there appeared to her a certain monk in a white garment, which is proper to the Carthusians, who is believed to have been St. Bruno, and who foretold to her that she would be a spouse of Christ, and not, as her grandfather wished, be joined in matrimony. Likewise on another occasion, before she reached the tenth year of her age, when, having gone into a certain cave, she had fallen into a pit from which she could not get out without human help, that failing, she implored the divine, which at once was present: for there stood by her in human form a rather majestic man in a white garment, who in her judgment seemed a Carthusian. But it must have been the holy Father Bruno, who had appeared to her at another time in the same guise; who, having consoled her, admonished her not to fear, and to take hold of the staff which he held in his hand and hold it firmly; which having been taken hold of, the ascent from the pit was easy for her, and at once he was withdrawn from her eyes. This prodigy of a double apparition, about which it seems it can be doubted whether it is truly to be attributed to Bruno, Severo of Naples seems to have drawn not from the notes of Niccolò Ricci but from elsewhere. The Surian annotator makes me think so, since at its end he notes that it was drawn from the Life of Catherine Thomas, who has been reported in our work among the Passed Over at the 5th day of April, written in the Spanish idiom by the V. F. Bartolomé Valperga, a monk of the Charterhouse of Majorca, and printed at Majorca in the year 1617.

[9] Here now is a miracle of another kind, namely not one by which the Saint conferred a benefit on anyone, he has God as avenger of an injury done to him, but by which one who had been injurious towards him was divinely punished. The Surian annotator subjoins it immediately to the one just narrated, and sets it out thus: In the year of the Lord 1544, on the 5th of October, the day before that day which is sacred to the holy Father Bruno, a certain man, noble and illustrious in lineage, but wretchedly seduced by the most cunning heretic Martin Bucer, in the Charterhouse of Cologne, about the time when the Vesper hours are said, was sitting in the heated room where guests are wont to be received, eating and drinking a little with the religious Father Peter Boeehem, then procurator of the same Charterhouse, afterwards Prior of Koblenz; and when he had heard from him that on the following day the solemn feast of St. Bruno was to be celebrated, he answered, not without indignation: Do you think that he has been entered in the number of the Saints? Certainly, if he is a Saint, may it never befall me to enjoy good health after drinking this cup. He spoke, he drank, and soon, as if doing something else, he began to sit lost in thought, as fanciful men are wont. A little after, mounting his horse, he went off to his castle. Without delay: falling into bed, after a few days he perished from the illness, just as he had imprecated upon himself, approving even unwillingly the holiness of St. Bruno. This prodigy, or divine vengeance for the injury inflicted on His Servant, Erhard Winheim also relates in the Sacrarium Agrippinum, page 214; but both he and the Surian annotator do not declare what was the name of the noble man who perished wretchedly on account of the injurious words uttered against St. Bruno, both most probably thinking it should be so done in order to spare the honour of the most noble family, well known even today, from which he sprang. And certainly they did so by a wholly praiseworthy counsel; wherefore I too, after their example, abstain here from disclosing the name of that noble man, although meanwhile I have ascertained it thoroughly from an ancient monument of the Charterhouse of Lier, of approved credit.

[10] he succours workmen placed in most imminent danger, Of the miracles preceding the year 1600 which are related in the Surian annotator from the manuscript notes of Niccolò Ricci of Taverna, increased from elsewhere by Severo of Naples, and which are to be brought forward here, let us now review another. When … the monastery of St. Stephen (see the Surian annotator in his Annotations on the Life of St. Bruno written by Surius, page 331 and following) was being brought into ampler form in the year of the Lord 1553, Dom Pietro Paolo Lumbulo of Gaeta, professed of the house of Naples, being Prior, whose life was full of gentleness, piety and religion, the upper part of the refectory, made in vaulted work, which the Italian inhabitants call Lamia, very handsome indeed and built at great expense, seemed already coherent and stable in itself, so that, the moisture having dried, the wooden supports which held up the stones compacted with mortar could be withdrawn and removed; the masons, having undertaken to demolish that work somewhat sooner than they should have, suddenly hear a horrible crash from the gaping vault. And it happened that a certain man named Bonello, master of the work, and others of the same craft assisting him, being in so imminent a danger and peril, all began to cry with one voice: Saint Bruno, bring us help. Which being said, they see someone in the appearance of a monk, venerable of countenance, who, taking their hands, carried them over to another part outside the refectory, and at once the gaping vault collapsed. Whence, escaping unharmed through the merits of Blessed Bruno, they rendered immense thanks to God and to the blessed Father. How powerful the patronage of St. Bruno is in heaven shone forth exceptionally indeed from this last miracle; and lest anyone doubt its truth, there is presently subjoined in the Surian annotator: That this miracle happened in that year 1553, besides Juan Madariaga, asserting it from the sworn testimony of the V. F. Sylvius the Prior, book I, chapter XXII, the painting of the same refectory also confirms, which indicates that the work (namely that which had been resumed after the vault of the former structure collapsed in the year 1553) was completed in the year 1554; and even now the memory received from the forefathers still flourishes there.

[11] to a priest, formerly a son of his Order, a happy exit from life, Nor does another miracle, which I now also subjoin, prove less of how great merit St. Bruno is with God. It is conceived in the Surian annotator, page 335 and following, in these words: About the same time, namely before the year 1558, a certain Dom Stefano Carozza, from the town of Soriano of the diocese of Mileto, about six thousand paces from the monastery (namely of St. Stephen), one of the first professed of this house, in the year 1535, on account of various crimes (these are the words of the charter of the general chapter of the year 1535 in the disposition of the province and of this house) perpetrated by him to the great scandal of the Order, and on account of his frequent apostasies, was expelled from the Order as incorrigible and declared an alien. Who afterwards lived in the same town in the manner of secular clerics for many years, and at length fell into a very great pain in the sides and a fever; whence, brought to extremity and deprived of absolutely all help, he began to cry with a loud voice: Holy father Bruno, help me. He was seen with grim eyes and sad face to make many movements about the bed, and nonetheless always repeated with loud voices: Holy father Bruno, help me, and having no other words in his mouth he was tormented more and more. His brother Giacomo Carozza, noticing these things, with the other members of the household, moved with compassion, went to the Prior of the monastery, who, having heard these things, at once sent Father Francesco Micelotta of Bivongi, professed and procurator of this house, with his full power and faculty to reconcile him to the Order and to clothe him with its habit. He set out

he, and entering the house according to received custom said: Peace be to this house, etc. And at once the sick man, who was lying as if lifeless, cried out: Clothe me, father, for I cannot die unless I am first received into grace and also receive again the habit which I laid aside. This gift the most holy father Bruno has obtained for me from God. And as soon as he had been clothed with the habit, he began to be better, and, having confessed his sins to the same father, he humbly asked for and received the most sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist. Then with great contrition of heart he was anointed with the holy oil, and, thus fortified, closed his last day; and his body, carried to the monastery, was buried in the common cemetery. This must have happened about the year 1558; for in the year 1559 Brother Micelota was appointed by the chapter Prior of the house of Trisulti, and died in 1560.

[12] That this miracle, or benefit, bestowed by St. Bruno on a priest formerly a son of his Order, [on one who had seized the land of Ninso, restored to the Charterhouse of La Torre by his grandfather,] was originally drawn from a charter of the chapter of the Carthusian Order, as is indicated at the beginning of the account already given, the Surian annotator too, who received it from the notes of Niccolò Ricci increased by Severo of Naples, adds at its end; and then, some other things having been interposed which for brevity's sake I omit, on page 354 he subjoins the following, wrought upon Fabrizio Carafa when he had again occupied the land of Ninfo, restored to the Charterhouse of St. Stephen by his grandfather Giovanni Battista Carafa (see number 7), and brought into the same notes from the archive of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen of La Torre: In the year, he says, 1586, in the month of October, the lord Fabrizio Carafa, marquis of Castelvetere, son of Girolamo and grandson of Giovanni Battista Carafa, when the contumacy of his forebears was being propagated in him in occupying and unduly retaining the often-mentioned territory of Ninfo, and, summoned to court by the Prior of that time, the V. F. Pietro Bono of Grotteria, for restitution, he held it in contempt, fell into a most acute fever, so much so that his life was despaired of by the physicians; the members of the household summoned his most religious mother, still surviving and dwelling in the next town, to weep over the mournful funeral of her son. But she, taught by the misfortunes which had befallen her predecessors on account of the usurpation of the aforesaid territory, answered the messengers: I will come and cure him, God granting and St. Bruno interceding. At once going to her son, already near to death, she addressed him thus: Deservedly you suffer these things, because you unjustly occupy the territory of Ninfo of St. Bruno; and now hear my word: summon the Prior of St. Stephen and restore the said place to him, and at once you will be freed, and you will know that the hand of the Lord is upon you, afflicting and delivering you.

[13] [to him promising restitution, deliverance from the fever; and to many others other things,] At once he obeyed his mother's admonitions, and protested before many standing by that he would do so. And the merciful God, who wills not the death of the sinner but that he be converted and live, at once commanded the fever and it departed; and, made whole, he fulfilled in deed what he had promised, a public instrument being drawn up on the 18th of October 1586, in the 15th Indiction, by the hands of Consalvo Ermogida of the land of Spatola, in which he confesses that he miraculously received health, in these words: For the supreme devotion of the aforesaid St. Bruno, and through the merits and benefits received and had in various ways, and which he hopes to have from the aforesaid St. Bruno, and has daily, and especially in his present great infirmity, etc.; and he confirmed the cession of Giovanni Battista, his grandfather, of the 18th of November of the year 1529, as (see number 7) above. On the same day he also gave a letter to the convent, commending himself to its prayers. I come now at length to the miracles drawn from the notes already often praised, and wrought at his invocation during the annual solemnity in which, from what has been said above, the sacred head of Bruno is now wont to be carried from the church of St. Stephen of La Torre to the church of St. Mary, likewise of La Torre. The Surian annotator writes thus on page 356: In the year 1589, very many priests and throngs of both sexes coming together according to custom from the surrounding villages and towns with the solemn procession, in which on the Monday after Pentecost there is carried conventually by the monks from the monastery of St. Stephen the silver image down to the navel in which is preserved the head of our holy Father Bruno, and the entire finger of St. Stephen the protomartyr, laid away likewise in a silver hand, which is reported to have been given to this house (namely the Calabrian house of St. Stephen) by Urban II at the insistence of Count Roger, to the church of Blessed Mary, a mile distant from here, next to which there was formerly the hermitage built by St. Bruno, many were cured of various ailments by the help of the Mother of God and the merits of St. Bruno, whom many of ours saw with their own eyes; for there were there monks and lay brothers to the number of 25.

[14] and by name to two here mentioned, he obtains signal benefits from God. There you would have seen some suppliantly crying for the help of the Blessed Virgin, others calling on the name of our holy Father Bruno; nor in vain: for they were healed of whatever infirmity held them. There was present then among them a certain woman from the neighbouring town called Pizzoni, mute, who had not uttered a word for eighteen years, and soon in that aforesaid church she began to cry out: Mercy; and then she received the free use of speech. In memory of which benefit received she always wore the white habit of the Order in the manner of our nuns, and every year came among the first to the annual festivity of the same church. Another woman from the town of Soriano came to the aforesaid church, who, having been twelve years in her infirmity, had spent nearly all her substance on physicians in vain. She, praying on bended knees before all, began to cry out: Servant of God, St. Bruno, I have already confessed, I have already received the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; if it is expedient for the salvation of my soul, obtain health for me; but if not, a happy death; for I shall die glad if this befalls me in this church. Wonderful to tell! She died at once, and was seen by all as it were smiling, and was committed to burial in the same church. Such are the two miracles or benefits which remained still to be reviewed in the present §. But there will perhaps be someone who calls into doubt whether the first of these was wrought by the patronage of St. Bruno, because the mute woman in whose favour it befell is not read to have invoked him. Yet, since she thereafter wore the white habit in the manner of Carthusian nuns in memory of the benefit received, she seems to have attributed it to Bruno and thus to have confessed that she had invoked him; and since this is so, it appears that it must be admitted that the Saint had at least a part in that miracle or benefit, unless perhaps, which however I do not think, the whole of it should rather be ascribed to the most holy Mother of God. Let us now proceed to the things which I have resolved to set out in the following §.

* ceræ (of wax)

§ II. Some miracles wrought in the seventeenth century, yet before its year 24, are reviewed, and it is set out how at length the Saint's cult was extended to the universal Church, and his feast was then celebrated at Cologne Agrippina.

A possessed man, by the dust from the cave which has its name from St. Bruno, The Surian annotator, in his Annotations on the Life of Bruno composed by Surius, having premised from Niccolò Ricci of Taverna, praised above, that not a few miracles were wrought in favour of the sick and ailing by dust scraped from the stone of the grotto or cave in which, as some hold from what was said in §45 of the Preliminary Commentary, St. Bruno dwelt continuously after his withdrawal into the hermitage of La Torre, and in which in very truth he seems at times (see the same Preliminary Commentary, number 748) to have stayed, brings forward on page 361 the following miracle, or benefit, which was wrought by the application of that dust, from the account of Severo of Naples, who, as he premises, heard it from Basil, a lay brother of the Charterhouse of La Torre and an eyewitness of the event, in these very words of Severo: Brother Biagio de Pace, from the same Serra, a town a mile away, a lay brother of the monastery (of St. Stephen of the Wood), professed of the same, by God's permission was possessed by a malign spirit and wretchedly vexed. The aforesaid V. Prior (namely Ludwig Süespeckh), sympathizing with him with the supreme charity with which he was endowed, desiring to snatch his sheep from the invasion of the infernal wolf, knowing also that a certain kind of demons is not cast out but by prayer and fasting, lived for three days on bread and water only, and, other business being laid aside, remained giving himself solely to prayer. After the third day, a more careful general confession of sins having been premised, at the altar of the sacristy, on which, in a skilfully made case of ebony mixed with silver and variously chased, there are preserved the head of the holy Father Bruno in a silver image and other relics of Saints, he celebrated Mass as devoutly as he could, there being present brother Biagio, the possessed man, and the aforesaid brother Basil.

[16] After Mass they came to the exorcisms, and when the demon delayed to go out, applied, he gets free, the Father Prior remembered the stone of the grotto of St. Bruno, and at once ordered Brother Basil to mount a horse and bring him as quickly as possible dust of the stone taken from the grotto. He, fulfilling the commands, when, having received the dust from there, he was returning home, in the middle of the journey suddenly felt a strong wind rushing against him. Violently shaken off his horse by it, he fell to the ground, badly received. At the same moment the demon, dissolving into a guffaw, burst out through the mouth of the possessed man in these words in the Calabrian dialect: At come buono conzato se ne terra! which in Latin sound thus: But how well-received he comes back. As the same brother Basil related to me precisely, the horse returning straight to the monastery without its rider, men ran out to the man lying prostrate, as they thought, and not yet able to rise from the ground, and brought him home. By whom, the dust having been received and applied against the demon, it compelled it to go out from the man, and, freed at once, he remained unharmed up to his death. And he died afterwards on the 1st of August 1625. Since Ludwig Süespeckh, who, while he was Prior of the Charterhouse of St. Stephen and St. Bruno of La Torre, expelled the demon, by applying dust from the stone of the cave of St. Bruno, from brother Biagio the possessed man, as is here narrated, was first created Prior, as Severo of Naples teaches in the Surian annotator in the place cited, in the year 1608, and died in the year 1611, it must be that this prodigy happened in the time between these two years; wherefore, since it perhaps even preceded the year 1609, it seemed good to place it here before the other miracles still to be reviewed which happened either in that very year or later.

[17] and another obtains another signal benefit by invoking the Saint. Here now, then, is one which happened in the year 1609, and which, although not by dust taken from the stone of Bruno's cave, was yet wrought by the Saint's patronage. It is extant in the Surian annotator, page

363 and following, expressed in these words: Under the same Father Prior (of the monastery of St. Stephen, Ludwig Süespeckh), in the year 1609, when a great stone, cut from a neighbouring quarry, was being carried to the monastery, squared, having eight or more palms of length on every side and nearly one and a half in thickness, to be used for the table of the high altar of the church, of such weight that it could hardly be brought up on a wooden machine by several yokes of oxen, and many people came to see it, a certain David Müller of Brandenburg, an excellent sculptor in stone and wood, who by his art produced in this monastery many emblems worthy of admiration out of segments of wood of various colours joined together, and who was present as builder of the aforesaid machine and overseer of the work, when midway on the journey he wished, with bent knee, to adjust the cart, and was looking underneath, one of the wheels pressed his shin so strongly that it was hidden in the earth, the ground giving way entirely to the weight, David himself crying: St. Bruno, bring me help; and when very many had run up out of compassion, thinking his shin crushed, it was found somewhat injured in the sinews, and it too was perfectly cured a little after. In the same place the aforesaid sculptor had a little shrine or tiny chapel, situated on the hill, erected at his own expense for the future memory of the event, which still stands. To these two miracles already related, and extant in the Surian annotator, I now subjoin another, not, so far as I know, hitherto committed to print, which was wrought in an image of St. Bruno at Cavaillon, or, as it is written by others, Cavallio, an episcopal city of the county of Venaissin in Provence belonging to the Apostolic See, in the year 1610, and which was communicated to our Predecessors from the Grande Chartreuse in the year 1668, as the notice which they wrote on it informs me.

[18] [An image in which a habit foreign to the Saint had been painted over his own, which had been deleted,] It is described in these following words: In the year of the Lord 1610, in the month of August, Alexandre Maurissius, a citizen of Cavaillon, having seen a certain little panel in the choir of the Capuchin Fathers of Cavaillon, on which there had recently been portrayed by Father Bernardin the likeness of St. Louis, bishop of Toulouse, professed of the same Order (namely of St. Francis of Assisi; for in the thirteenth century, in which St. Louis of Toulouse flourished, the Capuchins were not yet found), being delighted and captivated beyond measure by its elegance, went to Father Fabien de Sault, a friend of his, and most insistently asked and obtained from him that by the work of the said Father Bernardin a little image of St. Bruno, here appended, which he kept on account of his ancient devotion to him, should be painted over with colours into a like representation of St. Louis; on the 20th of the same month, therefore, Father Bernardin puts the first hand to this work and begins to coat the background of the image with indigo, as is the custom. But since the work displeased him on account of its smallness, he hands the brush to a certain painter who came up, named L'Empereur, and asks him to finish it, already well begun, in the likeness of an image of St. Louis; the painter agrees, and stains the background of the image, and the Saviour Himself hanging on the cross, and the Calvary beneath, with black soot worked up with oil; he changes the white garment of St. Bruno into a grey one, lengthens the hood, draws in the sleeves, sews on a hempen cloth in place of the cowl, and finally, the Pontifical insignia, namely the crozier and mitre, and the head of St. Bruno having been removed, transforms the whole image into another. Further, the day being already far on towards evening, departing, he leaves the panel thus treated to Father Bernardin: who the next day, when morning came, being a curious inspector of another's work, while he looks at the image more closely, stands astounded, and, struck by the unaccustomed outcome, scarcely believes his own eyes: no stroke of the brush, no trace of colour, none of indigo; all things stand pure and as if wiped off with a sponge; only the sandarac remained, as a perpetual monument of the event, but with the former lineaments intact; and so St. Bruno, the adventitious form and colour cast off, appeared white in his native garment. Therefore Father Bernardin, doubtful between fear and joy, runs to Father André d'Arles, Guardian of the convent, communicates the whole matter, sets it out point by point, shows the image.

[19] All the Fathers of the house, hearing of the novelty of the thing, is found miraculously restored to its former state. come vying with one another, inquire, hear, examine the image, and exclaim with one voice that this is a huge miracle. There comes also Joseph L'Empereur, the painter, mindful of his promise, to complete his task, but, informed by Father Bernardin of the miracle which had happened, he is forbidden to put his hand to the work any further (since it had turned out inauspiciously) or to undertake thereafter to change any likeness of one Saint into that of another. All these things, therefore, having been seen and heard, not without blushing and fear, Monsieur Maurissius receives with the utmost veneration the image restored to him, and at length gave the same, seen and religiously viewed by many, as a gift to Dom Denis Sailly, Prior of the Charterhouse of Bonpas. There is extant on this matter an authentic instrument, subscribed by the reverend official and vicar General of the most reverend bishop of Cavaillon, by Alexandre Maurissius, Joseph L'Empereur and Jean-Baptiste Gemifrem, notary and clerk of the spiritual Court of Cavaillon, and fortified with the episcopal seal, which, together with the aforesaid image shown above, having been transmitted to the Chartreuse by the same Dom Denis, is preserved entire in the archives of the house. Our Predecessors, who, as I have already indicated above, wrote in the margin that they had received from the Grande Chartreuse the account of the miracle wrought in the image of St. Bruno conceived in these words, also advise in an added little note that they saw both that image of the Saint and the authentic instrument itself, of which mention is made towards the end of the account already given, in the chapel sacred to St. Bruno in the Grande Chartreuse, when they were staying there in the year 1662. Further, it appears from the words with which the account is conceived at the beginning and end that a copy of that image was sent to our Predecessors together with the account of the miracle; but I have been unable to find it among the notices on St. Bruno set aside, which I would otherwise present here to the reader engraved on copper. One more only, which is counted among the miracles done by the Saint in the Surian annotator, and which preceded the year 1624, I present here to the studious reader before I turn my discourse to other things pertaining to the posthumous glory of the Saint.

[20] [An irreverent man in the church is punished by terror struck into him and in another way.] It is set out in these words: In the year 1623, when Dom Giovanni Manduci of Seminara, a town of the diocese of Mileto, was Prior, who had the chapels of SS. Stephen and Bruno, situated in the transept of the church under the dome, adorned with marbles of various colours brought from Rome at great expense, there came here also, for the purpose of fitting the marbles, a certain Gaspare, a marble-worker, from there, who, at the suggestion of the enemy of the human race and with the tinder of the flesh tickling him, one day, with another companion of the same craft, called Michele the Sicilian, within the church of St. Mary (namely of La Torre), alone with him, was exchanging words about soliciting a certain woman to dishonourable things, near the little door on the right side of the said church, and then suddenly they hear the steps struck with four strong blows, then wooden, but afterwards made of stone, by which one ascends from the outer part of the church to the choir built over the porch of the church. Terrified at this din, Gaspare went outside through that lateral door, and clearly saw the back of a monk clothed in our habit making for and entering the neighbouring wood. At the sight of whom he was struck with greater fear, since he well knew that our monks were not there on that day and hour, nor were ever wont to come there alone; whence he not vainly thought that it was St. Bruno, to whom uprightness and the holiness befitting the house of God always was, and is, dear. Then, pricked by fear, he disclosed the whole matter to Dom Mattia Nucifero, professed, and then Sacristan of the monastery: on whose report these things were entered in the Acts. In the same year that woman was killed by her kinsmen, and Gaspare, turning aside by night at the time of the Carnival to the next village, was gravely wounded in the head, but soon recovered, commending himself to our holy Father Bruno: and he also entreated me, who write these things, to offer a Mass at his altar and in his honour; which I gladly performed, not knowing that the matter was secret.

[21] Pope Gregory XV, by a Brief which is here Since the very account here given shows that these things, which Severo of Naples here narrates in the Surian annotator, page 365 and the two following, happened in the year 1623, and since in the same year too it happened that the cult of our Saint was propagated, the chronological order which I have resolved to follow requires that I treat of this matter here now. The public veneration of St. Bruno, from the year 1514, in which he had been entered in the number of the Blessed by the rite explained in §47 of the Preliminary Commentary, had had place almost only among the Carthusians, when at length, at their instance, Pope Gregory XV granted that the feast of St. Bruno be inscribed in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and that the semidouble Office of him might be freely and lawfully recited on the sixth day of October, on which it falls, by all the faithful everywhere who are bound to the canonical Hours. The Apostolic Brief by which he did this Pope Benedict XIV received from the Grande Chartreuse, as he himself teaches, and brought into the first book of the Work composed by him On the beatification of the Servants of God and the canonization of the Blessed; and it is conceived there, chapter 41, number 7, in these words: Pope Gregory XV, for the perpetual memory of the matter. Holding, though unworthy, the place on earth of our Lord Jesus Christ, who presents His servants with the reward of eternal glory in heaven, we are bound by the debt of the pastoral office joined to us to see to it that the due veneration of the same servants of Christ be promoted more day by day, and that the Lord be praised in His Saints. Wherefore we gladly assent to the wishes of any of the faithful whatsoever, but especially of those serving the Most High under the sweet yoke of religion, which regard the peculiar cult and veneration of Saints of this kind, as we perceive it to be wholesomely expedient in the Lord.

[22] Inclined, therefore, to the supplications humbly presented to Us by our beloved son Dom Bernardo Gazio, procurator general of the Carthusian Order, recited, grants the faculty of venerating the Saint with semidouble rite on the counsel of our venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the H.R.C. set over the sacred Rites, we grant and indulge by Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these presents, that henceforth in perpetual future times the feast of St. Bruno, founder of the same Order, on the 6th day of October, on which he flew to heaven, may and can be placed in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and the semidouble Office of him be freely and lawfully recited by all the faithful everywhere. Wherefore we enjoin and command our venerable brethren, the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other prelates of churches established in the whole world, that in each of their churches, provinces and dioceses they have these our present letters solemnly published, and wholly observed by all ecclesiastical persons, secular, and Regular of whatever Orders, notwithstanding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances and all other things whatsoever to the contrary. And we will that to transcripts of these presents, even printed ones, subscribed by the hand of some public notary and fortified with the seal of some person established in ecclesiastical dignity,

altogether the same credence be given as would be given to these presents if they were exhibited or shown. Given at Rome at St. Peter's under the ring of the Fisherman, on the 17th day of February 1623, in the third year of our Pontificate. S. Cardinal of St. Susanna. So it is, Silvestro Spada, notary of the most illustrious and most reverend lord Cardinal vicar. Place ✠ of the seal.

[23] This Apostolic Brief had already been preceded by an indult of the sacred Congregation of rites, [the faculty previously imparted by the living voice, and a plenary indulgence to all] by which the same thing which is granted here by it had already been granted in the year 1622. It is extant likewise in Benedict XIV in the place just cited, and runs thus: To the supplication presented to the sacred Congregation of rites by the lord Bernardo Gazio, procurator general of the Carthusian Order, the same Congregation, inclined by the common assent of the most illustrious Reverend Fathers, and having also the confirmation of our Most Holy Lord, granted that the feast of St. Bruno, founder of the same Order, on the 6th day of October, on which he flew to heaven, be placed in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and that the semidouble Office of him be recited by all the faithful everywhere. For those among the Saints seem especially to demand the universal veneration of the Church who, as founders of sacred Families, have left to the same Church militant suffrages that will never perish. Signed, Francesco Maria, Cardinal del Monte. Place ✠ of the Seal. Giovanni Battista Rinuccini, secretary. This instrument, which Ambroise Crollet, the scribe of the reverend father General of the Carthusian Order, who communicated it with Pope Benedict XIV at his command, notes as given on the 19th of November of the year 1622, was indulged by the sacred Congregation of rites at the petition of the Carthusians, with the supreme Pontiff Gregory XV himself assenting, as the recited words by which this is established attest; so that accordingly he seems to have imparted beforehand by oracle of the living voice the very thing which in the year 1623, by the Brief recited at number 21 and following, he granted to the Carthusians at their request. Nor did this Pontiff only indulge that St. Bruno might be honoured with public cult throughout the universal Church; but also, in order that he might in very fact be honoured with fitting veneration even by those who are not bound to the canonical Hours, he most readily granted a plenary indulgence to all who, on the day sacred to him, should visit the churches of the Carthusians and pour out there the prayers wont to be required for gaining plenary indulgences. I am pleased also to transcribe here the Apostolic letter by which he did this, which is extant in the Surian annotator.

[24] [visiting the churches of the Carthusians on the day sacred to Bruno, an indulgence] It is conceived, then, in this commentator on the Life of St. Bruno composed by Surius, in these following words: Pope Gregory XV, for the perpetual memory of the matter. The Splendour of the paternal glory, who illumines the world with His ineffable brightness, follows with benign favour the pious wishes of the faithful who hope in His most clement majesty, especially then when their devout humility is helped by the prayers and merits of the Saints. Wishing, therefore, to illustrate with some spiritual gift all and each of the churches of the monasteries of Carthusian monks existing anywhere, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we mercifully grant in the Lord to all the faithful of Christ of both sexes, truly penitent and confessed and refreshed with the sacred Communion, who shall devoutly visit any of the said churches every year on the feast day of St. Bruno, wont to be celebrated on the sixth of the month of October, from first Vespers until sunset of such feast, and shall there pour out pious prayers to God for the concord of Christian princes, the extirpation of heresies and the exaltation of holy mother Church, a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins, these presents to be valid in perpetual future times. And we will that to transcripts of these presents, even printed ones, subscribed by the hand of some public notary and fortified with the seal of some person established in ecclesiastical dignity, altogether the same credence be given as would be given to these presents if they were exhibited or shown. Given at Rome at St. Mary Major under the ring of the fisherman, on the 3rd day of July in the year 1623, in the third year of our Pontificate.

[25] granted in the year 1623; and in the following year, an edict, The Surian annotator, having recited on page 266 and following this Pontifical Bull, by which a plenary indulgence was granted by Gregory XV to those frequenting any church of the Carthusians on the sixth day of October, or the day sacred to St. Bruno, presently adds: And by this Bull, as by the trumpet sounding, various peoples of various regions were roused, and each, vying with the others according to his more religious observance towards St. Bruno, paid an enhanced cult (namely to the same St. Bruno); and then he narrates with how great solemnity and pomp the feast of the Saint was then celebrated by name at Cologne Agrippina, at Liège and at Lier in Brabant. To study brevity, I am pleased only to inform the reader, from the praised commentator on the Life of the Saint written by Surius, how it was done in the first of these three cities, which fell to the Saint as his birthplace. And first indeed, before I transcribe here the words in which that writer sets out the matter, some things must be said about the year in which that solemnity took place at Cologne Agrippina, lest perhaps anyone, because it is subjoined by the Surian annotator immediately to the Apostolic letter just recited and given in the year 1623, should judge that it happened in that year too, which, from what is to be said, is otherwise. The solemnity, then, in which, after the Pontifical Bull I just mentioned had been given, the feast of St. Bruno was celebrated at Cologne Agrippina was preceded by an edict in which Ferdinand, prince elector and archbishop of Cologne, vehemently exhorted all the clerics of his archdiocese to celebrate the approaching feast of St. Bruno with fitting and due devotion, and prescribed some things bearing on this. I am pleased to transcribe here in full that Monument too, which I found among the notices on St. Bruno set aside by our Predecessors, both so that I may pass over nothing worthy of note that contributes to the posthumous glory of the Saint, and because from it it is understood that the solemnity of which we are here speaking was celebrated at Cologne Agrippina not in the year 1623 but in the year 1624, as I shall show presently when I have recited it.

[26] It is conceived in these words: Ferdinand, by the grace of God elected and confirmed archbishop of the holy church of Cologne, which, having been brought forward here arch-chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire throughout Italy, and prince elector, bishop of Paderborn, Liège and Münster, administrator of Hildesheim, Corvey and Berchtesgaden, prince of Stavelot, count Palatine of the Rhine, duke of both Bavarias, of Westphalia, Engern and Bouillon, marquis of Franchimont, count of Loon, Longchamps and Horn, born legate of the Holy Apostolic See, etc. To the venerable clergy and to all and each of the faithful of Christ of the city and our archdiocese of Cologne, everlasting greeting in the Lord. Since God, Best and Greatest, that Father of mercies, of His paternal providence and infinite charity towards us, distributes His Saints variously in each place and time, that in this murky world, amid so many errors of dogmas and morals, they may carry a torch before us, and as it were lead us by the hand into the way of eternal salvation, then indeed He has continually regarded this our church of Cologne with the eyes of His most kind mercy, and rendered it more eminent than the other regions and provinces of the world, while He most clemently willed and granted that it should be the parent, nurse, home and guardian of very many and very great Saints; by whose merits and suffrages indeed, after it received the faith, it has not relapsed, but is stable in the faith, and is and is called the faithful daughter of the Roman Church, and obtains other things which spring and are derived thence as from a perpetual fount of all goods. Among whom surely shines like the morning star St. Bruno, a great glory and ornament of the Church of God, a citizen of Cologne, born and educated at Cologne of the noble Hartenfaust family, dead in the year of salvation brought forth one thousand one hundred and one; entered among the Saints by Leo X in one thousand five hundred and fourteen; founder and patriarch of the most celebrated and likewise most holy Carthusian Order (whose praise is in the Church). Further, there have lately been shown and intimated to us letters of our Most Holy Lord Gregory XV, Pope, of happy memory, concerning the celebration of the feast of the above-mentioned St. Bruno, under this tenor.

[27] preceded by, great Here now is recited the Brief of Pope Gregory XV, who departed this life in the year 1623 on the 8th day of July, and accordingly before this edict of the archbishop of Cologne was issued, the Brief given at numbers 21 and 22; and then it continues in this manner: We therefore, both for the obedience which we owe to the Holy Apostolic See and for our religious affection and veneration towards the Saints of God, especially those who touch us and our church more nearly, by the tenor of these presents, by the Apostolic authority committed to us, and also with the counsel and consent of our Venerable Chapter, notify to you the above-said Apostolic letters, and for their execution earnestly require and admonish in the Lord the clerics, both secular and Regular, that they celebrate this day solemnly with due and exemplary devotion according to the tenor of the Apostolic Brief placed above, and go before the other faithful of Christ by their example; and we strictly and seriously enjoin and command the rectors of churches, the pastors and the preachers of the divine Word that on the feast of St. Michael, which falls on the 17th Sunday after Trinity, the 29th of September, they publish it to the faithful people of Christ with a loud and intelligible voice, and, having set out the life of the Saint, diligently exhort them to keep his feast piously and religiously, in the undoubted hope that this Saint, ours by origin and education, with pious affection for his fatherland, will go on to protect and preserve us and the flock committed to us by his prayers and suffrages with the divine Majesty in these most perilous and most ulcerated places and times: which is certainly the more necessary to us, the graver the dangers that stand round from heresy and from war. And that the faithful of Christ may be more stirred to perform due veneration and devotion more promptly, we signify moreover and attest that the above-mentioned Our Most Holy Lord Pope Gregory XV, by other special letters (to be valid in perpetual future times), has mercifully granted in the Lord to all the faithful of Christ of both sexes, truly penitent and confessed and refreshed with the sacred communion, who shall devoutly visit the church of the Carthusians every year on the feast day of St. Bruno, wont to be celebrated on the 6th of the month of October, from first Vespers until sunset of such feast, and shall there pour out pious prayers to God for the concord of Christian Princes, the extirpation of heresies and the exaltation of Holy mother Church, a plenary Indulgence and Remission of all their sins.

[28] at Cologne Agrippina, which in the words of the Surian annotator Which indeed we so declare that the faithful of the female sex (to whom entry within the enclosure of the monastery and the thresholds of the church is barred) may and can gain the same indulgences by praying outside before the monastery itself or church. Since, in the year in which Ferdinand, archbishop of Cologne, issued this edict, the seventeenth Sunday after the feast of the Most Holy Trinity fell on the twenty-ninth day of September, as that instrument itself makes manifest, and this happened not in the year 1623 but, as will be plain to one who calculates, in the year 1624, in which Easter fell on the 7th day of April, and accordingly the feast of the Most Holy Trinity was celebrated on the second day of June,

it must be that that edict was issued in this latter year, in which too it is noted at the end as printed at Cologne Agrippina with Peter Cholinus. Now indeed, since it preceded the Cologne solemnity of which we are here discoursing, as has already been said, it follows that this too did not take place before the year 1624; and it does not appear to be doubted that it happened in this very year, since indeed it took place not long after the aforesaid edict, as may be conjectured from the very words in which the latter is conceived. Let us now transfer here the words in which it is described by the Surian annotator. They are these following: The whole city (namely of Cologne) celebrated and dedicated the feast (namely of St. Bruno) solemnly and in the manner of those who rejoice. The whole senate kept the glad day in the Charterhouse according to the face of the Saints, both in the choir and in the refectory. The whole clergy and absolutely all the Religious of other Orders joined together in fellowship. And lest the weaker sex should grieve and complain that it was excluded, a stage and an altar of notable size was erected before the gate. In which place very crowded women received Mass and Communion and a sermon with eager minds.

[29] Nor was the most pleasing harmony of the choristers lacking at both Vespers and at Mass. the Saint's feast was celebrated with solemnity, which is here described. Then there was a procession through the greater cloister with the gravity and pomp that would befit Saints; the Senate and People of Cologne following behind. On the very feast day itself a baron and canon of the metropolitan church sang the Mass, a count and canon acted as deacon, a priest-canon as subdeacon. On the octave (for throughout the whole Octave the concourse of people did not fail) the vicar of the most serene prince also sang Mass, whom two canons served, and the choristers fulfilled their office truly excellently both at the Mass and at both Vespers. To conclude in a word, since that Charterhouse has stood it has seen nothing comparable, nothing equal to that solemnity. At length the most serene prince elector and archprelate himself added the crowning touch to the whole solemnity, who on the next Sunday after the Octave visited the Charterhouse, received the Holy Eucharist, and was lodged that night in the guest-house. Ferdinand, archbishop of Cologne, here mentioned, was the son of William V, duke of Bavaria, by Renée of Lorraine, born in the year 1577, who, having been given in the year 1595 as coadjutor to his uncle Ernest, archbishop of Cologne, succeeded him too, when he departed this life in the year 1612, in the archbishopric of Cologne, which he administered excellently up to the year of his death, 1650. Further, to the words just recited the Surian annotator presently subjoins how at Liège and then how at Lier, after it had been granted by Pope Gregory XV in the year 1623 that the Saint might be venerated on the sixth day of October throughout the universal Church with semidouble rite, his festal day was solemnly celebrated, even by men of the first rank who were not of the Carthusian Order. But since it is my fixed intention, for the sake of brevity, as I have already advised, to abstain from reviewing the words in which that writer sets out the solemnity then carried out in these two cities, I now step on to other things which still concern the Saint's posthumous glory.

§ III. It is examined whether the Saint was canonized in the year 1623 by Gregory XV, or only later by Clement X, and the remaining things which contribute to his posthumous glory, and seem more worthy of note, are brought forward.

That the Saint was canonized equipollently Pope Benedict XIV, in his Work On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, which I have praised in more than one place of the Preliminary Commentary, judges that the Saint was not canonized equipollently by the Apostolic letters recited in the preceding §, by which Pope Gregory XV in the year 1623 granted that the feast of St. Bruno on the 6th day of October, on which he passed to heaven, might be inscribed in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and the semidouble Office of him be freely and lawfully recited by all the faithful everywhere; for thus he writes in it, book 1, chapter 41, number 6: It seems that it can certainly in no way be said (see what was disputed bearing on this in §47 of the Preliminary Commentary) that St. Bruno was canonized by Leo X; but his equipollent canonization, resting on the exceptional merits of so great a Man, on the foundation of a most illustrious Order, on the continued fame of signal miracles, and on the grant of cult, made first indeed to the whole Carthusian Order by Leo X, afterwards to the whole Church ad libitum by Gregory XV, seems to be assigned to the supreme Pontiff Clement X, as is gathered from the following decree: "Earnest prayers having been presented to Our Most Holy Lord Clement X through the Most Eminent lord Cardinal Nithard in the name of the most serene queen of the Spains, by which His Holiness was supplicated to deign to grant that the Office of St. Bruno, confessor, founder of the Carthusian Order, hitherto recited by the universal Church under semidouble rite" (supply ad libitum) "should henceforth be recited under double rite by all of both sexes, both secular and Regular, who are bound to the canonical Hours; and these having been remitted by His Holiness to the Congregation of sacred rites, the same, on the report of the Most Eminent lord Cardinal Sforza, judged that the aforesaid grace could be granted, if it should seem good to the same Our Most Holy Lord, on the 3rd day of March 1674. And a report on the aforesaid having been made to the Most Holy Father by me, the secretary, His Holiness kindly assented on the 14th day of the same month of March, and of the year 1674."

[31] by Clement X, Benedict XIV judged. But this opinion of his Thus the praised Pope Benedict XIV, teaching not obscurely that St. Bruno was canonized by Clement X, and accordingly not by the aforesaid Apostolic letters of Gregory XV; and he so thought because, as the parenthesis inserted into the decree of the Congregation of sacred rites which he here recites sufficiently indicates, a precept of cult is not included in those letters. But Ambroise Crollet, scribe of the most reverend father General and of the chapter of the Carthusian Order, who communicated the same letters with Benedict XIV at the command of the same Most Reverend Father, judged altogether otherwise. For in the same Benedict, in the praised Work, book 1, chapter 41, number 7, he places before them the following words: In the year 1623 the above-mentioned Pope Gregory commanded that on the 6th day of October all seculars and regulars throughout the world should recite under semidouble rite the Office of St. Bruno, confessor, our founder, and also established that the feast of the same St. Bruno should be written in the Breviary, Missal and Calendars to be printed thereafter; from which it is surely made manifest that the praised Ambroise Crollet was of the opinion by which he judged that the letters of Pope Gregory XV recited above include a precept of ecclesiastical cult. But with which of the two must one agree? With this son of the Carthusian Order, or with Benedict XIV? Although Pope Gregory XV in the aforesaid letters first says only that he imparts that St. Bruno may lawfully be venerated by all the faithful everywhere who are obliged to the canonical Hours with an Office of semidouble rite on the sixth day of October, yet soon, using words that sound as a precept, he adds that he enjoins and commands the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other prelates of churches established in the whole world to have the aforesaid letters observed by all ecclesiastical persons, secular, and Regular of whatever Orders; and hence it perhaps came about that Crollet judged that Gregory by these words wished to bind all the faithful who are bound to the canonical Hours to recite the Office of St. Bruno with semidouble rite on the sixth day of October, on which he died.

[32] Perhaps also, unless it is laid down that Gregory commanded them to do so, does not seem to be admitted as certain. he did not sufficiently understand by what reasoning it could have come about that Pope Urban VIII, the next successor of Gregory XV in the Chair of St. Peter, ordered the Office of Bruno to be inscribed in the Roman Breviary (see the Preliminary Commentary, numbers 188 and 193) without having issued a new decree by which he commanded him to be venerated. The matter certainly, to bring out now my own opinion, seems very involved. And indeed, since the decree of the sacred Congregation of rites, included in the words of Pope Benedict XIV transcribed here at number 30, by which it granted in the year 1674, with the supreme Pontiff Clement X assenting, that the Office of St. Bruno, which had hitherto been recited by the universal Church only under semidouble rite, should thereafter be recited under double, includes absolutely no word which openly sounds as a precept of paying cult to St. Bruno, it seems it can not undeservedly be called into doubt whether the Saint's cult was commanded by Clement X any more than by Gregory XV. And since this is so, and a precept of cult is necessarily required for canonization, I would not dare to assert for certain that St. Bruno was canonized, namely by equipollent canonization, as they call it, by Clement X rather than by Gregory XV. Nor indeed did Benedict XIV himself hold it as altogether indubitable that this was done by Clement; for (see his words recited at number 30) he does not affirmatively assign the canonization of St. Bruno to Clement X, but, using a formula of speech which is wont to be that of those who doubt, says only that it seems to be assigned to this Pontiff. But although the matter is so, and at the same time it may seem doubtful from all that has been said whether the Saint was truly canonized either by Clement or by Gregory, and accordingly whether he was ever canonized (for no Pontiff later than Clement is found to have commanded Bruno to be venerated), it was at any rate granted by Clement X in the year 1674, at the supplication of the queen of the Spains, as the decree of the Congregation of rites adduced above by Benedict XIV attests, that the Office of him, which had been wont to be recited only under semidouble rite, might thereafter be recited under double rite by all who are bound to the canonical Hours. And I have thought fit to mention here what had to be treated concerning that grant of Clement and the decree of the sacred Congregation of rites by which it was declared, although meanwhile three of the miracles to be reviewed in the present § preceded that Pontifical indult, which perhaps partly brought it about that it was given.

[33] Three in the Surian annotator, in one of which a most grievous illness, Here then, since enough has been treated of the aforesaid Pontifical grant, studious reader, are those too, recited in continuous series, as they stand in the Surian annotator, page 369 and following, drawn from the notes already praised above several times. They run thus: The V. F. Bernardo Gort of Barcelona, professed of the Charterhouse of Scala Dei in Catalonia, formerly Prior of Lisbon and afterwards of Évora in Portugal, relates the following miracle. The most illustrious and most reverend Dom Teotónio of Braganza, archbishop of Évora, most generous founder of the Charterhouse of Scala Dei (by others Scala Coeli) near Évora in Portugal, obtained from the reverend father Prior of the Chartreuse, General of the Order, a certain portion or relic of the head of our holy Father Bruno, which he laid away in a silver image representing his likeness down to the navel, which, together with many compositions of emblems, hieroglyphics and poems, he gave to the same Charterhouse of Évora, where it is reverently preserved even today. In the year 1628, about the end of January, a great eclipse of the moon having preceded, the duke of Braganza, Theodosius II, fell into a very great and dangerous illness; of whose

health the members of his household were so afraid that they permitted entrance to him to the physicians alone. Knowing this, the V. F. Antonio Coëllo, then Prior of the Charterhouse of Évora, went with Dom Álvaro de Fonseca, procurator of the same, to the town of Vila Viçosa, where the sick duke lay, bringing with him the aforesaid relic of St. Bruno, to show it to the duke to be venerated, recalling to his memory that this relic had formerly been transmitted by the Reverend Father General to Dom Teotónio, his great-uncle. He at once composed himself most becomingly, and the said Prior with the greatest reverence showed the sacred relic to the duke, and, having recited with his companion certain prayers together with the prayer of the aforesaid Saint, offered it to him to be venerated, there being present the duke of Barcelos, his first-born, now duke of Braganza, and two other sons, Dom Duarte and Alexandre, on bended knees holding lighted candles. And when the duke had venerated the sacred relic, he said in the presence of his sons that he greatly trusted in God that he would recover his health, because in his sickness he had deserved to be visited by that Saint.

[34] in another a dangerous temptation, The Prior withdrew with his companion from the chamber, taking back with him the sacred relic, fearing lest the duke should wish to keep it by him, as he knew he desired. Afterwards the duke began to be relieved of his illness, and on the same night grew so much better that he was found by the physician free of fever, and in a short time was fully restored to his former health. In the year 1631 a certain monk, whose name I purposely pass over because he is still alive, professed of one of the houses of the province of the holy Father Bruno, when he was lodging in the house of St. Stephen of the Wood, having suffered grave straits of mind for a long time, at length came to the point of openly treating about deserting the Order, and procuring this in the Roman curia through a suitable man. The procurator general of the Order, being informed of this matter by him, not only did not oppose it, but even assented to his going out from the Order, so as to free himself from his importunity. Moreover he had contracted a disease of the eyes, so that at night he could scarcely bear a light for reciting the sacred prayers. At length, commending himself to the holy Father Bruno, he washed his eyes with water taken from the pond of St. Bruno, which, namely, is collected from the river running down near the wood of the church of St. Mary into a basin enclosed by a wall on the side of the road, in an oblong round form, in the middle of which a wooden cross is placed, and from which St. Bruno is said to have been wont to drink and to wash. As soon as he washed his eyes with this water, he at once felt himself enlightened outwardly and inwardly, and, having laid aside the plan of deserting the Order, he confirmed himself in his holy purpose, and informed the V. F. Giuseppe Laudino, Prior of the Charterhouse of Rome and procurator general of the Order in the Roman curia, of this enlightenment of his by his letter given from this house in the month of December 1631, which he also read to others of his familiars. He is still alive and well. And many drink of the water of this pond for the sake of devotion and carry it to their homes, and those who take it with some sense of piety experience it as most efficacious also for routing various diseases.

[35] In the course of the year 1633, the most illustrious lord Enrico Loffredo of Naples, marquis of Trevico and count of Potenza, a city in Lucania, [and in the third a likewise most grievous illness was driven away; miracles ascribed to the Saint.] where from a most grievous illness he was in danger of his life. Wherefore, the help and work of the physicians being cast aside, he fled to the protection of the Saints, and so, at the exhortation of brother Angelo Massei of Naples, a lay brother professed of the Charterhouse of St. Laurence near Padula, then staying in the grange of the same Charterhouse situated within the city of Potenza, he commended himself with pious affection of heart to the holy Father Bruno, having also drunk dust from the grotto of the same Saint in place of medicine, shown to him by the same lay brother; and he, by God's benefit, through the merits of St. Bruno, soon recovered, and also by the help of Blessed Giles the Minorite, whose body is preserved entire at the town of Laurenzana, to whom he had been commended by his mother. On this account, in the year 1634, in order to pay due thanks and service to the Saints, about the beginning of July he went to the aforesaid Charterhouse of Padula to render thanks to the holy Father Bruno. Which will be clearer from his letter directed to the V. F. Giovanni Battista Manducio, Prior and visitor of the province. Very reverend and most respected Father. In the preceding months, on account of a most grievous illness, I incurred such danger of life that, considering that the work of the physicians was already vain, I fled to God, Best and Greatest, and to the holy heaven-dwellers, but with peculiar affection to St. Bruno and to Blessed Giles. Now, that I may be able to satisfy the great debt which I owe these Saints, I have resolved to go in person to venerate them, father St. Bruno there, namely at St. Laurence of Padula, and Blessed Giles. Now, that I may be able to satisfy the great debt which I owe these Saints, I have resolved to go in person to venerate them, father St. Bruno there, namely at St. Laurence of Padula, and Blessed Giles of Laurenzana. Wherefore I ask Your Paternity to grant me the favour, and Brother Angelo the faculty, that he may come with me: for recognizing my recovery as in part from him, both by his prayers and by his exhortation that I should commend myself to the holy Father Bruno, I desire this consolation from Your Paternity, that the aforesaid brother, as he was a help to me in obtaining my recovery, so may he be also in rendering thanks. Finally, offering myself always ready for the service of you and of your Religion, I desire to be commended to your prayers. Potenza, the 28th day of June 1634.

[36] Such are the three miracles, wrought at the invocation of St. Bruno, which preceded the decree of the sacred Congregation of rites raising the Saint's cult from the semidouble to the double rite with Clement X assenting, [The second of these proves the power of the pond called after the Saint, and other miracles show it more clearly,] and which I have thought should be reviewed here. And the second of these indeed, although it by no means confirms what Zanotti relates in the Life of the Saint composed by him about the power transferred from the waters of the prodigious spring (see the Preliminary Commentary, number 747) to the waters of the pond which has its name from St. Bruno, is yet some sort of argument that a prodigious power truly inheres in the waters of that pond through the merits of our Saint. But this is shown more clearly by several miracles, which Zanotti himself narrates in his praised Lucubration on St. Bruno, chapter 34, wrought by the power of those waters in the present century, and accordingly after the said decree which the Congregation of Rites gave in the year 1674. I am pleased to present these here to the reader, among many others which are still extant both in the Surian annotator and elsewhere, turned from the Italian tongue into Latin, and this, since Zanotti, contrary to what he is otherwise wont to do, cites for them no writer or monument, on the sole credit of this writer, whom I nonetheless think drew them from an approved source. They are narrated, then, by that biographer of our Saint in these words: In the year 1715 Oliva Spani of Cantazzo was so possessed by a malign spirit that one day she was violently thrown by it upon a mass of burning coals, whence she contracted an incurable wound. Her husband, whom this grievously afflicted, invoked the holy Father (namely Bruno) with great faith, and when he had brought the woman to the pond of St. Bruno and washed her there, he at once saw her freed from the infernal enemy and cured of the wound. In the year 1719, on the 28th day of May, Giovanni Bernardo of San Pietro of Cosenza, when he had been held by illness for seven years already, and contracted in many parts of his body, so that it was a pitiable sight, carried by his parents, who took him in their arms, to the pond of St. Bruno, remained restored to entire health simply by washing himself.

[37] which are here related from Zanotti, In the same year Angela Rizzi of Cantazzo, beset by a demon for several months, felt herself free on entering the said pond, and the same befell many other possessed persons on the same day. In the year 1721 Baron Leffelhol, a captain of the imperial forces in Calabria, a Lutheran by sect, visited the little pond of St. Bruno to satisfy his curiosity, and seeing in one day twenty-four miracles obtained by various possessed persons through the Saint's intercession, was inwardly moved to embrace the Catholic faith, and therefore, obeying the divine vocation, on the 24th day of June, abjuring Lutheranism, he made the profession of the Catholic faith at Reggio in Calabria in the church of the Capuchins, there being present Father Colomban Theysen of Cologne, a Conventual Minorite, chaplain of the imperial army, and Agostino Maria of Lucania, a Capuchin preacher; and the two fathers mentioned above absolved him from censures in the accustomed form of holy Church. The same captain wished an authentic instrument to be drawn up concerning the whole of this, to which the two Religious mentioned above and others besides should subscribe and swear that the whole was true, and afterwards he himself, in the following year, when he had come to render thanks to St. Bruno by visiting his sepulchre, deposited an authentic writing of this kind in the Charterhouse of St. Stephen. Since on the two latter of the three feasts of Pentecost, on one of which the sacred head of the Saint is wont every year to be carried from the church of St. Stephen to the church of St. Mary of La Torre, and on the other brought back to the former, there is a huge concourse of people to the Charterhouse of La Torre, as Zanotti testifies in that very chapter of his Lucubration in which he relates the miracles already reviewed, and at that time sick and possessed persons to be healed are wont to be brought there from every side, the twenty-four miracles by which, wrought on as many possessed persons by the Saint's intercession in one day, the captain of the imperial forces was converted to the Catholic faith, as that writer here relates, perhaps happened on one or other of the said feasts of Pentecost; and if the matter truly stood so, it will be more credible than it would otherwise be that the demon was cast out of twenty-four possessed persons on one and the same day.

[38] However that may be, it appears that it must be believed that not a few miracles were wrought, chiefly on the possessed, by the application of the waters of the pond called after St. Bruno, By them it befell Nünning, which in his own words which accordingly, as I have already advised, show the prodigious power of these waters more clearly than the one related at number 34. Nor does what I have brought above from the Surian annotator and others allow one to doubt that many miracles were also wrought at the mere invocation of the Saint, and this chiefly in the Charterhouse of St. Stephen of La Torre, which now also has its name from St. Bruno. I am pleased now to add to those wrought there and already narrated one more, whether miracle or benefit, which was done elsewhere, in some manner as a crowning touch. Mörkens, in his manuscript Chronologico-diplomatic Diatribe on St. Bruno, which I have praised very often in the Preliminary Commentary, has thus at the end: To end this disquisition at last, I subjoin here that wonder which I mentioned a little before had lately happened on the occasion of this writing of mine, such as it is, from a letter of the most renowned man, Master Jodocus Hermann Nünning, doctor of both laws, Apostolic protonotary and scholasticus of the most illustrious collegiate church of Vreden, etc.

To him I had sent this Diatribe of mine on our holy Father Bruno, to the end that he might read it and judge it, and, for our love and friendship, write back to me what he thought of it: he satisfied me amply; but before he gave his opinion he premises: "But before I gird myself for your affairs, I premise an occurrence, to me truly most wonderful beyond others, and, to speak candidly, full of prodigy. Your manuscript Diatribe on the Life of St. Bruno had already come into my hands, when the heat remaining in my veins from fevers stirred up in me an unexpected dripping from the nostrils, drawn out from evening through most of the night as a rather grim spectacle, to which surgeons summoned from the neighbouring town brought fitting help in good time; which my physician also interpreted, with good omen, as a haemorrhage critical of health."

[39] "Meanwhile, while I am assiduously occupied in turning over your writings, [is related here, whether benefit or miracle, is added, and these things of the Saint] within eight days another attacks me unexpectedly, far more dangerous than the former. It was about the eighth hour of the evening, when I compose my sick body to give it rest; scarcely do I lay back my head, when behold, blood bursts forth most copiously from the same little vein as lately, presaging that I must lose my life within a few hours. Twin rivulets through the mouth and nostrils run continuously with such force and such loss of gore that they afflicted those standing round and drove them to tears. I bore the evil with a calm mind, as sent from heaven. Meanwhile the effusion, in no way lessened, ran on into the third hour of the night; the surgeons of Borken are summoned again; who, however, on account of the closed gates and other hindrances of the military garrison, and the darkness of the night, come the more slowly. As they drew out the delay with increased danger, destitute of human help I have recourse to the heavenly, having made a vow to divine Bruno the patriarch, to whose glory I was then, for your sake, rendering such service as I could, that he would snatch me from the present danger of death, if heaven had decreed that I should pursue pious endeavours: I had scarcely finished the vows in words and mind; behold, notwithstanding the flow of blood, my head, let down supine on the pillow and soon lulled by sweet sleep, makes an end of the deadly dripping, my full brother and the others standing round being astounded at the wonderful thing. The surgeons riding up at last about the fourth hour of the morning learned by a miraculous example how much the helps of the Heavenly Ones are more excellent than all human ones. Pardon a pen poured out in making manifest, as it must, the works of God."

[40] [The Appendix is concluded with a clear argument of the veneration which he enjoys at Cologne.] A brief clause having been added to the account of this miracle, or rather benefit, conferred on Nünning at the invocation of St. Bruno, Mörkens completes the treatise in which he discussed at length and assiduously the matters concerning the Saint. But before I too conclude here the discourse I began on what remained to be said of the posthumous glory of the Saint, there must still be mentioned, that I may redeem the pledge given at the beginning of the Preliminary Commentary, a clear argument of the plainly exceptional veneration with which the Saint is honoured in his native soil, nay in the very house at Cologne Agrippina in which he is thought to have been born. Augustin Aldenbrück, a priest of our Society, in a letter which he gave us on the 27th day of July in the year 1767, after inspecting that house which (see §2 of the Preliminary Commentary) is called At the Red Stair, adds, among some other things pertaining to St. Bruno which he mentions, these following: I saw also in the old house (At the Red Stair, as it is still called) a chamber, which the inhabitants said was inhabited by St. Bruno while he still lived at Cologne, always venerated with such great reverence that night's rest in it was granted to no one. In the same chamber there was shown to me the frame of the bed which he used for rest, very old indeed, of oak wood, but, which I wondered at, not attacked to this day by any bite of woodworms, still less spoiled. Which, because it was being mutilated by too many pieces repeatedly torn off by members of the household, servants and others who were admitted to see it, the present lords and tenants of the dwelling have lately enclosed with a cover. Whether St. Bruno, when he still lived at Cologne Agrippina, truly used the chamber and the bed-frame here mentioned I do not inquire; but however that may be, the singular care with which that bed-frame, used, as is thought, by the Saint for rest, is guarded, and the zeal with which some have been seized to acquire pieces of it for themselves, are an argument by no means doubtful of the plainly exceptional veneration with which not a few at Cologne are borne towards the Saint; and hence it seemed good not to put an end to this Appendix on the posthumous glory of the Saint before I had adduced this too.