Dionysius and Rusticus and Eleutherius

ON SS. DIONYSIUS AND RUSTICUS AND ELEUTHERIUS, BISHOP, PRIEST AND DEACON, MARTYRS, AT PARIS IN FRANCE,

MORE PROBABLY ABOUT THE YEAR 286.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Dionysius, bishop and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Rusticus, priest and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Eleutherius, deacon and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. When the ancient Acts of the Saints, which Bosquet first edited, were written.

The Acts of the Saints which Bosquet edited, The Acts composed by Hilduin and falsely attributed to Rusticus and Eleutherius, as well as to the two Dionysiuses fused into one, had long since been sent out into the light by Surius and others, when at length also some other Acts of our three holy Martyrs, namely Dionysius the bishop, Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the deacon, which had perhaps been of use to that abbot of Saint-Denis for composing these (see the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, number 56), were edited first of all by François Bosquet, from praetor of Narbonne first bishop of Lodève or Lutevensis and then of Montpellier, in the Histories of the Gallican Church which, while he was still praetor, he published by the Paris press in the year 1636, part 2, page 68 and the five following, from five manuscript

codices made public on their credit; and the same were afterwards published again by Michel Félibien, a Benedictine monk of the Congregation of St. Maur, in the authentic Monuments which he added to the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis in France composed by him and edited at Paris in the year 1706, page 163 and the two following, from a most ancient manuscript codex of Claude Joly, canon of the Cathedral church of Paris. Further, all the learned admit with unanimous consent that those Acts are certainly older both than the Hilduinian ones, which I diligently discussed above in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts falsely attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and than all the others which, in whatever way falsely attributed to our three holy Martyrs, have hitherto come out; but it is far from being equally agreed among them about the age in which they were written or composed. For some fix the epoch of their writing in the VIth century, others on the contrary in the VIIth century. There are also those who contend that it is to be removed as far as the age of Charlemagne, or the VIIIth century nearly elapsed, or even further.

[2] Among those who stand for attributing greater antiquity to the mentioned Acts, by Pierre de Marca to the 6th century, by Valois to the beginning of the 7th the first place is easily held by Pierre de Marca, first of Toulouse and then archbishop of Paris in the century just elapsed, in his letter to Henri de Valois on the faith first preached in the Gauls, which the latter prefixed to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius rendered by him into Latin. Hear how that mentioned archbishop speaks at number 20 in this letter, which, divided according to our custom into various §§ and numbers, Papebroch also brought into our Work at the 30th day of June, sacred to St. Martial, bishop of Limoges in Gaul. Certainly, he says, Bede and Usuard teach in their Martyrologies that Dionysius was sent into the Gauls by Clement (what is to be thought of this matter the things to be said below will disclose); and it is certain that they drew this tradition from the ancient Acts of the Life of St. Dionysius, which the illustrious and most learned François Bosquet, now the most deserving bishop of the church of Montpellier, long ago edited from manuscript codices. The manuscript of the church of Tours, which comprises the Lives of some Saints written out by Fortunatus, and among others that of Dionysius of Paris, which, as I have said, has now been edited in public. The praised archbishop, therefore, thought that the ancient Acts of Dionysius of Paris and of his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, which Bosquet edited, have Venantius Fortunatus as their author (for by the Fortunatus of whom he speaks he understands him), and were accordingly composed as early as the sixth century, inasmuch as in it that holy prelate of Poitiers flourished. Nor does Adrien de Valois much dissent from this opinion of this most learned man; for in his Disquisition which he composed on the Basilicas founded by the first kings of the Franks, chapter 8, he calls the Acts of Dionysius of Paris of which we are here speaking most ancient, and affirms that they seem to him to have been composed before the reign of Dagobert I, king of the Franks from the year 622 up to the year 638, in which he died.

[3] and du Bois bind them; but, as by Launoy, who to the age of Charlemagne Gérard du Bois, in the History of the church of Paris, book 3, chapter 6, towards the end, insinuates that the ancient Acts of Dionysius of Paris and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, already often praised, which Bosquet edited, may have been written by St. Ceraunus, bishop of the Parisians; so that, since Ceraunus, as may be seen in our Work at the 27th day of September, on which he has already been treated, occupied the chair of Paris between the year 601 and the year 625, the historiographer of the church of Paris just praised is likewise not much at variance, as regards the age in which the Bosquet Acts of Dionysius were composed, with the opinion of Pierre de Marca already set forth above. But indeed some others, and above all Launoy, judge that the same Acts were written in the age of Charlemagne or even later than it. After Charles, says the latter author on page 70 of his Judgment on the Disquisition of Valois praised above, uncertain and obscure writers published Acts of the martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, which no one will read without having rejected them as sprinkled with fables. These things Launoy says of the ancient Acts of Dionysius and the Companion martyrs edited by Bosquet; so that certainly, since Charles (namely the emperor, surnamed the Great, of whom he speaks) exchanged this mortal life for the immortal in the year 814, he makes the aforesaid Acts more recent than the VIIIth century.

[4] But rightly? Certainly not. For the opinion makes them later, later than is fitting, which makes Dionysius of Paris the same as, or confuses him with, the Areopagite had already long since arisen, as I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of the latter Saint, §§1 and 2, before the end of the VIIIth century and accordingly also before the death of Charlemagne; and since the author of the ancient Acts whose epoch we are here inquiring into, if he had composed them only when that opinion had already arisen, would undoubtedly have put forth somewhere at least a word by which he would have shown himself either to patronise or to oppose it, and yet he does not do so, it indeed does not seem to be doubted that he wrote those Acts before the rise of that opinion, or the end of the VIIIth century; nay, almost parity of reason persuades that he did so even before the middle of that century, since about then, as I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite in the places just cited, the opinion arose which confuses Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite. But since, from what has already been said, Launoy certainly places the writing of the Acts of Dionysius of Paris and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius later than is right, let us now examine whether the three other writers praised above, namely Pierre de Marca, Valois and Gérard du Bois, more rightly assign it much earlier, or to the sixth century, or the seventh not yet advanced to its middle part. Pierre de Marca, who, as he discloses in the words recited above, attributes the writing of the ancient Acts of which we are here speaking to St. Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, and so, as I have already shown, fixes it to the VIth century, does this for no other cause than that (go to his words just transcribed here) he found those Acts or Life of Dionysius of Paris in the manuscript codex of the church of Tours which, as he says, comprised the Lives of some Saints written out by Fortunatus.

[5] But hear how Launoy speaks in the Dispunctio of the Letter praised above, so by those three writers, as neither by Fortunatus, to whom also in the Ms. in which Pierre de Marca therefore ascribes that writing to Fortunatus, edited in the year 1659, chapter 10, number 15. In the codex, he says, of which the most illustrious man (namely Pierre de Marca, archbishop of Toulouse and then of Paris) speaks, many Passions and Lives are contained, but, by your leave, besides the Life of saint Hilary there is none which bears the name of Fortunatus; these things he first says beforehand of the codex of Tours, in which Pierre de Marca found the Life or Passion of St. Dionysius, and then, having brought forward an accurate little index or catalogue of all the Lives or Passions which are contained in that codex, which the kind and learned Jean Boëtius of Tours had communicated to him, and having transcribed besides the titles of some Sermons which are likewise contained in the said codex, he presently subjoins the beginning of the same codex, couched in these following words, Here begins the Prologue of blessed Hilary, bishop and confessor, Fortunatus to his Lord and most blessed in merits Father, Pope Pascentius, and then proceeds thus: In the rest (namely the Lives or Passions of the Saints contained in the said codex of Tours) not even a word is thrown in about Fortunatus. Besides, it is established by sure arguments that this codex was written out in the time of Rodulf, archbishop of Tours, who was illustrious about the year 1080. These things having been thus established, when the most illustrious man (namely Pierre de Marca) says, "I discovered the name of the author of that Life in a manuscript codex of the church of Tours, which comprises the Lives of some Saints written out by Fortunatus," if by written out he understands the same as composed, he understands altogether wrongly, because Fortunatus did not compose all these Passions, Lives and Sermons which are named in the Index; but if by written out he understands the same as transcribed, he likewise understands wrongly, because he could not have transcribed all the Passions, Lives and Sermons unless he lived after the year of Christ one thousand and seventy.

[6] in the codex of the church of Tours mentioned here Thus Launoy, contending against Pierre de Marca, certainly not undeservedly, that not all the Lives of the Saints which he enumerates in the Index supplied by him, and by name the Bosquet Passion of St. Dionysius, were composed by St. Fortunatus; for the contrary seemed so to this most learned archbishop only because he thought that they were attributed to that holy bishop of Poitiers in the very codex of Tours in which he found them contained; but that codex, as the recited words of Launoy show, was written not before the end of the XIth century; so that, even if perhaps it expressly ascribed all the said Lives to St. Fortunatus, it nevertheless arose too remote from the age of this Saint, or from the VIth century, to deserve undoubted credit in that matter; nor, even if it were otherwise, would you make out anything thence for claiming the said Lives for Fortunatus. For the aforesaid codex of Tours by no means attributes these to this holy bishop of Poitiers; at the head indeed, whence alone it came about that Pierre de Marca thought the contrary, it bears the inscription of the Life of St. Hilary, or rather of the Prologue by which this (go to the initial words of the codex of Tours which I recited in the preceding number) is dedicated by Fortunatus to Pascentius, bishop of Poitiers, marked with the name of this Saint; but, besides that this was perhaps not St. Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, but (see the Writers of the Literary History of France, tome 3, page 301 and following) another of the same name, already given in our Work at the 18th of June, and that to him, inasmuch as he is known to have written only very few things, so many Lives of Saints as are reviewed in the praised index by Launoy cannot with any appearance of truth be ascribed, the inscription just mentioned refers only to the Life of St. Hilary subjoined to it, which Fortunatus truly wrote; so that, even granted that the Fortunatus with whose name this is marked in the codex of Tours is none other than St. Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, that codex is nevertheless not to be considered on that account to ascribe all those Lives, and by name the Passion of St. Dionysius, to this Saint.

[7] are not attributed, But indeed, you will say, in the codex of Tours already often praised there is set before the Lives or Passions of Dionysius and of the other Saints whom Pierre de Marca found in it the said Life of St. Hilary, or the inscription which, as I have said, its Prologue has prefixed to it, marked with the name of Fortunatus. I admit, so it stands; but what then? That very inscription, together with the

Life of St. Hilary subjoined to it, which Fortunatus composed, is likewise set before the two Lives of St. Meinrad the hermit, of whom at the 21st of January, and of St. Hermeland the abbot, of whom at the 25th of March, has already been treated with us, in our most ancient Molsheim manuscript codex, which is marked P Ms. 12; and yet that the mentioned inscription, which is marked with this Saint's name, does not refer in our said codex to those Lives, which this codex too would otherwise have to be judged to ascribe to St. Fortunatus, becomes evident even from this, that, since of the two Saints already named the latter indeed, or St. Hermeland, died in the VIIIth century, and the former, or St. Meinrad, only in the year 863, the Life of neither could certainly have been put into writing by Fortunatus, inasmuch as he did not prolong his age longer than to the beginning of the VIIth century. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, it seems to be held as beyond doubt that likewise in the codex of Tours which lit the way for Pierre de Marca the aforesaid inscription, though set before them, does not refer to the Lives of the Saints, and by name of St. Dionysius, subjoined to the Life of St. Hilary composed by Fortunatus, and that these are accordingly not attributed to Fortunatus. And thus we have now clearly shown that the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius and his Companions, which Pierre de Marca found with some Lives of Saints in the manuscript codex of the church of Tours, is not ascribed in it to St. Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers; and that it does not in very truth have this holy prelate as its author appears to be concluded even from this, that it is attributed to Fortunatus not only not in the codex of Tours very often praised, but in no other in which it stands inserted.

[8] Moreover, the style in which it is written differs as much as possible from the style composed, in which the Lives of the Saints which are known to have been written by Fortunatus are composed. Hence Launoy, in the cited chapter 10, number XI, of the work praised above, argues thus against Pierre de Marca: As regards … the Acts of St. Dionysius which Bosquet made public, they are as little Fortunatus's as the things which Plautus wrote are Tully's. The Plautine style differs less from the Tullian than the style of the Acts of Dionysius from the style of Fortunatus. The manner of writing of Fortunatus shows itself wholly both in his other Works and in the Life of saint Germanus of Paris and in that of Albinus of Angers, which he illustrated with his monuments. Assuredly, to me and to others the most illustrious man, Pierre de Marca, seemed to be joking when he attributed those Acts of Dionysius to Fortunatus. Thus far he, and certainly not undeservedly, as anyone will easily discover who has compared with the Bosquet Acts of our Saints the Acts which he praises, of St. Albinus, bishop of Angers, and of St. Germanus, bishop of Paris, certainly written by Fortunatus and already brought into our Work at the 28th day of May, on which the latter, and at the 1st of March, on which the former of these two Saints is venerated; so that indeed it appears beyond doubt from all that has already been said that these do not have Fortunatus as their author, and that Pierre de Marca therefore by no means proves by the things which he writes in the words alleged above that they were written as early as the VIth century. Let us now examine whether the things which Adrien de Valois adduces in the place cited above do not likewise fail to prove that they were composed before the reign of Dagobert I, or before the middle of the VIIth century. This …, he says, Passion of Dionysius seems to me most ancient, and composed before the reign of Dagobert (namely I) (he began in Austrasia in the year 622, but in Neustria in the year 628), because it makes no mention of the basilica of Blessed Dionysius founded by that king.

[9] Valois, therefore, thought that the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius and the Companion martyrs was composed before the reign of Dagobert I, king of the Franks, nor, even if of the basilica which Dagobert I built, mention, or before the year 622, or, if you prefer, 628, because nowhere in it does mention occur of the basilica founded anew from the foundations by that king over the bodies of those holy Martyrs. But what if we deny that Dagobert founded a basilica of this kind anew? Surely, whether that prince did this is not altogether certain, as will be clear from what is to be said below; nor, even if we gratuitously grant that the matter stands otherwise, does Valois make out hence what he would have. For in the said Passion of the Saints, which I shall subjoin to this Commentary, these following words are read at number 12: The aforesaid … mother of a household, … as soon as she saw that the heat of persecution had cooled, sought out … the place keeping the bones of such great Martyrs, and, having found it, marked it by the construction of an eminent mausoleum. Whence afterwards the Christians built a basilica over the bodies of the Martyrs at great expense and with excellent adornment; and why could not by the basilica here mentioned be understood the church which Dagobert I, king of the Franks, built anew from the foundations over the tombs of St. Dionysius and the Companion martyrs? To declare more openly what I think, it indeed seems to me beyond doubt that either this can in very truth be understood by the basilica mentioned in the words of the Dionysian Passion just recited, or certainly, if it be otherwise, that it cannot be concluded thence that the Passion is earlier than the age of Dagobert; and how deservedly I think so will be clear from the things which I now subjoin. St. Genevieve the virgin, of whom, at the 3rd day of January sacred to her cult, there has been treatment in our Work, built a basilica in honour of St. Dionysius at the end of the Vth century, as both the Lives of that most holy virgin edited by us there teach, chapter 4; and that this was sufficiently great and magnificent and comparable with the chief churches of the Gauls is clear from the things which Gregory of Tours, who departed this life in the year 595, hands down to memory both in the book On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 72, and in the History, book 5, chapters 33 and 35, about the Dionysian church of his time, which all the learned admit with unanimous consent was not different from the church built by St. Genevieve.

[10] [which nevertheless perhaps stands otherwise, they would not institute, therefore than Dagobert] These things being thus laid down, I now ask whether by the basilica which the Christians are said, in the words of the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius just recited, to have built at great expense and with excellent adornment over the bodies of St. Dionysius and the Companion martyrs, there cannot be understood also the church already mentioned, built by St. Genevieve. If you answer that this can be understood by that, I ask likewise why the same cannot be asserted of the church which Dagobert built anew from the foundations, when the church erected by St. Genevieve had fallen; and since absolutely no solid reason can be assigned for which one rather than the other should be asserted, indeed, if by the basilica mentioned in the Dionysian Passion in the words transcribed above the church built by St. Genevieve can be understood, it appears beyond doubt that the church which Dagobert built anew can likewise be understood by it, and even so the argument by which Valois, in the words recited above, makes the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius earlier than the age of Dagobert becomes altogether weak and nerveless; but if you reply that the church built by St. Genevieve cannot likewise be understood by it, because you perhaps think that the basilica mentioned in the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius was built not very long after the persecutions moved against the Christians by the heathen Roman emperors had come to an end, and therefore in the fourth century, its middle part not yet elapsed, you must certainly admit that from the fact that neither can the church which Dagobert built be understood by it, and that mention of that sacred building is accordingly not made in the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius, it is not to be made earlier than the age of Dagobert I.

[11] For since all the learned have hitherto made that Passion later than the IVth century, to be made earlier, are held to have been written earlier than is right or than the basilica of SS. Dionysius and the Companion martyrs built by St. Genevieve, you would certainly wrongly attribute greater antiquity to the same Passion, against the common consent of all these, because it does not make mention of the church built by St. Genevieve, which it could easily have omitted for more than one cause; and since this is so, neither, it being supposed that mention of the church which Dagobert built is not made in the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius, would you rightly attribute to it an antiquity greater than the age of Dagobert, since it could likewise easily have come about on more than one head that the author of the Passion omitted to make mention of the aforesaid church or basilica, though it already existed in his age. Further, it flows from all that has already been said that by the basilica which the Christians are said in the Bosquet Passion of our Saints to have built at great expense and with excellent adornment over the bodies of SS. Dionysius and the Companion Martyrs either the church which Dagobert built is understood, or, if it be otherwise, it cannot be inferred thence that that Passion is earlier than the age of Dagobert; so that, all things now having been diligently weighed, neither does Valois prove that the same Passion was written as early as the VIIth century, its middle part not yet advanced, even it being gratuitously granted that the basilica over the bodies of the holy Martyrs was built anew by Dagobert. Further, as regards the historiographer of the church of Paris praised above, who himself also, as I have shown, assigns the Writing of the Bosquet Passion of the Saints to the VIIth century not yet at its middle, he indeed, as I have likewise already shown, ascribes it to St. Ceraunus, prelate of the Parisians, who departed this life between the year 601 and the year 625; but he alleges absolutely no reason impelled by which he did so, nor does any reason even in appearance solid seem able to be assigned. He, therefore, as well as Pierre de Marca and Valois, has held the Bosquet Acts of the Saints to have been written earlier than is right; and how true this is will be still more luminously clear from the things which I shall now adduce for defining the time at which their writing more probably took place.

[12] The Bosquet Acts or Passion of the Saints, divided according to our custom into various numbers, but since their author, as the words recited here disclose, the Parisian, speaks at number 5 of the city of Paris, when Dionysius came to it to promulgate the Gospel, in the following manner: Then the said city was strong both in the gathering of the Germans and in nobility, because it was healthful in air, pleasant in its river, fertile in lands, most abundant in vineyards and wooded with trees, crowded with peoples, filled with commerce; and then of Dionysius announcing Christ to the Parisians, he has thus at number 6: And in a wonderful manner the armed populace was not able to resist the unarmed Man; but the stiff neck of Germany submitted itself to him in rivalry, and asked with close compunction of heart that the sweet yoke of Christ be imposed on it. The author of the Passion, therefore, indicates in the places cited that the city to which Dionysius came to discharge the office of divine herald was then thronged by Germans, who then inhabited it or frequented it for the sake of carrying on commerce; and since this is false from what is to be said, hence a certain … to him, of some Saint who

lived in the middle age around the Rhine, his Life, lit the way as an exemplar, and that he borrowed from it in part the description which he supplies of the city of Paris and of its inhabitants, Dom le Beuf, canon and succentor of the church of Auxerre, suspects in his new Observations on the Bosquet Acts of Dionysius, published at Paris in the year 1739; but it appears very little probable that that author, if he had drawn the description of the city of Paris which he supplies from the Life or Passion of a Saint who lived near the Rhine in the middle age, would not at least have changed the proper names which he thought did not fit the city of Paris situated on the Seine. Although he who wrote the Life of St. Albert, abbot of Gambron, had before his eyes the little book of the deeds of blessed Ebrulf, abbot of Ouche, and transferred by imposture to St. Albert (see Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, book IX, number XI) almost all the things which he found handed down to memory in it about the latter Saint, he nevertheless changed the proper names which he noticed did not fit his argument.

[13] in which, when he flourished, Germans were frequent, The same thing also, as the praised Dom le Beuf himself teaches in his Observations just cited, was cunningly done by the chancellor or scholasticus of the church of Arles, who fraudulently applied to St. Trophimus, apostle of the people of Arles, the things which he found committed to writing by Constantius the priest about St. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre. Nor among the very many other impostors who, just as the two already reviewed, transferred the Acts of one Saint to another, is there to be found even one so stupid or incautious as not to have changed in them the proper names which he knew were of a nature to betray his fraud or deceit. And since this is so, shall we think that the author of the solemn ancient Passion of SS. Dionysius and the Companion martyrs would have been so mad and stupid that, if he had applied to SS. Dionysius and the Companion martyrs either the Acts of some Saint who had lived near the Rhine in the middle age or Fragments taken from them, he would not have changed the proper names of Germans and Germany occurring in them, which did not fit the city, the field of the Gospel preaching by Dionysius, and were of a nature to uncover the fraud or theft? This indeed appears to me very little credible, and hence it appears that from the proper names of Germany and Germans which occur in the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius and the Companion martyrs there is to be concluded, not what the praised le Beuf would have, but that that city, at the time when the author of the Passion flourished, was thronged by Germans, partly inhabiting Paris, partly going there not rarely for the sake of carrying on trade. For since the biographer of our Saints signifies, not obscurely, though wrongly, in the words recited at number 12, that the city of Paris, when St. Dionysius came to it, was celebrated for the gathering or frequency of Germans, and since he did not borrow these things, as I have already shown, from the Passion or Life of some Saint who dwelt near the Rhine, retaining even the proper names of Germany and Germans which occurred in it, the next thing is that we say that he committed these things to writing because at that time, when he was writing the Acts or Passion of our Saints, Lutetia abounded in Germans, both inhabiting this city and frequently going to it for the sake of commerce.

[14] the city, even at that time when Dionysius came to it, by that nation, But let these things suffice on that matter; let us now come to that which chiefly concerns this point. Since, from what has just been said, the city of Paris, while the biographer of our Saints flourished, was thronged by Germans, and he at the same time expressly relates that the same city, even at that time when Dionysius came to it to announce the Gospel, was noble for the gathering and frequency of Germans, it follows that he committed the Passion of our Saints to writing certainly not before the VIth century, but most probably not except after the VIIth century had already advanced some while past its middle part, or towards the end of this latter century or the beginning of the following. The matter will be clear from what is now to be said. Adrien de Valois, book 6 of the Frankish Affairs, at the year 511, writes thus: That Genevieve was Frankish by nation her Germanic name teaches, compounded like Genobaldus, Marcovefa; whether her ancestors had been captured in war by the Romans and settled in the village of Nanterre or Nemptodorum in the Parisian territory, or had of their own accord, having left their homeland, settled there, and, becoming accustomed among the Gauls to Gallic manners and rites, had changed the worship of idols for the Christian religion. So he, who assuredly would not have explained, as he does in the words recited, how it could have come about that the most holy patroness of the Parisians, called by the Germanic name Genevieve and Frankish by nation, obtained her birth in the Gauls, then subject to the empire of the Romans, if he had believed that either Paris or the Parisian territory was thronged by Germans in the Vth century, in which that most celebrated Saint was born. And indeed nothing at all persuades that Germans were frequent either at Paris or in the Parisian territory as early as the Vth century, much less earlier, nor has it hitherto been possible to find any learned man who contends it.

[15] But was it not at length in the VIth century that it came about that Germans were frequent there? which nevertheless was done only in the sixth century, Clovis I, king of the Franks, when, after the victory gained over Syagrius, general of the Romans, and not a few others, and very many cities and regions of the Gauls subdued to himself, he had inflicted a destructive defeat on the Goths also, Alaric their king being killed, in the plains of Vouillé, and had so added Aquitaine to his empire, returned in the year 508 to Paris, whence he had set out against the Goths, and ordered that city to be the seat of his kingdom, as Gregory of Tours testifies, book 2 of the History of the Franks, chapter 28, writing thus there of Clovis, who, the Goths having been overcome in the battle of Vouillé, had set out to Tours to the tomb of St. Martin: Clovis, having gone out from Tours, came to Paris, and there established the chair of his kingdom; and since, from the time when Clovis I established the seat of his kingdom at Paris, that city received the greatest increases, as the praised Valois and not a few others teach, then most probably, not to say undoubtedly, not a few Germans gradually migrated to Paris, either attracted by the pleasantness of the place and the hope of gain, or transferred thither by order of Clovis and his successors, who held under their dominion the regions adjoining the Rhine and several other tracts of Germany; so that, although indeed either no Germans or certainly only very few had a seat at Paris in the Vth century, it nevertheless most probably came about that towards the end of the next following century, or even a little earlier, they inhabited the aforesaid city in that multitude which the author of the Dionysian Passion indicates, not a few of that nation also coming to it not rarely for the sake of carrying on trade.

[16] Further, since these things are so, from the fact indeed that, [he writes was thronged, it is concluded thence that it was not composed before the end of the 7th century.] as I have already shown, the Germans were not frequent at Paris before the VIth century, and yet this must necessarily have been the case there when the author of the Dionysian Passion flourished, it follows that he certainly did not compose it before the VIth century; and from the fact that, from what has already been said, the Germans were frequent at Paris only towards the end of the VIth century, or only a little earlier, and yet the author of the Passion of our Saints, in the words recited above, not obscurely represents that this was the case there even from the time when Dionysius illuminated that city with the light of the faith, it follows that he prepared that work not earlier than either towards the end of the VIIth century or perhaps even when the VIIIth was somewhat advanced. For the city of Paris began to be inhabited by not a few Germans, as I have just shown, and frequented for the sake of carrying on trade, only first in the VIth century; and since the author of the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius and the Companion martyrs, inasmuch as he teaches not obscurely, from what has already been said, that that city was thronged by Germans as early as the 1st century, or already then when, as he would have it, St. Dionysius came to it, was most certainly ignorant of this, and yet, if he had flourished either in the VIth century itself or only a little later, would most probably not have been ignorant of it, the next thing is that we hold that he flourished, if not a little later, certainly not earlier than as the VIIth century was growing old or the eighth beginning, and composed the Passion of our Saints. And so we have now determined at what time this was written by its author, as nearly as was possible through the few indications which it contains for defining this; now we undertake to examine in the following § what credit he possesses.

§ II. What credit or authority the Bosquet Acts possess, and in what way all the things which concern the Saints are to be treated.

[The biographer of the Saints, who whether he wrote in the monastery of Saint-Denis] The author of the Bosquet Acts, having said beforehand in the Prologue some things about the source from which he drew what he is going to say about the martyrdom of the Saints, presently indicates that he is going to explain in what way the place which enjoys the patronage of St. Dionysius, or has this Saint as patron, deserved to obtain his sacred body. Let us explain …, he says at number 2, how the place, rejoicing in his patronage, deserved to have the Worshipper of the Lord (namely St. Dionysius). Moreover, having set down beforehand at number 4 some things about two other apostles of the Gauls, namely St. Saturninus of Toulouse and St. Paul of Narbonne, he presently, in order to come to his argument, speaks in the following manner: While, therefore, the service of the office undertaken tends to the deeds of the particular * Patron; and from the two texts already transcribed here, Dom le Beuf, praised above, in his new Observations on the ancient or Bosquet Acts of St. Dionysius, thought that the author of the Acts both wrote in the monastery of St. Dionysius and had Dionysius as his particular patron, and was therefore a monk or even an abbot of Saint-Denis, adding also in confirmation of that opinion of his that in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, in one or the other of which, as I have already shown, the author of the said Acts flourished, the monks of Saint-Denis in France had it established as a custom to distinguish St. Dionysius, if perchance he was to be mentioned in the Writings which they composed, by the name of their particular or singular patron.

[18] and whether he was a monk there, as le Beuf would have it, is doubtful, But the author of the Acts, while he makes mention of the place of which Dionysius was patron in the former of the two texts already given, nowhere brings forward anything at all by which he might in any way insinuate that he was either a native or a resident of it; and although he distinguishes Dionysius in the second of the same texts by the name of particular or singular patron, he by no means qualifies the name of Patron with the possessive pronoun either my or our. Hence, further, it now comes about that the things which Dom le Beuf alleges in his Observations just praised by no means make it certain and undoubted that the author of the Acts wrote in the monastery of Saint-Denis and was either its monk or its abbot. But, although this is so, and the biographer of our Saints nowhere even insinuates what his name was, nevertheless not a few things, from which

you may gather what credit he deserves, he supplies to the reader. And first indeed in the Prologue he speaks thus: By this consideration, therefore (namely of the divine help that would be present), taking up the boldness of excessive rashness, the things which had been overshadowed by long silence of time are to be revealed, undertaken with the help of the Divinity itself; because, as the testimony of truth has it, more things have been ascertained by the report of the faithful than are proved to have been transmitted to us by reading. Whence it is known not without sure estimation that the newness of the peoples then believing, terrified by the cruelty of the gentiles, feared to write what nevertheless it rejoiced that the servants of God had merited; since without doubt those things are judged written which the speech of the faithful testifies to have been fulfilled. For it is to be believed of these, and, the cloud of doubt having been wiped away, to be confessed with all our strength, that those who were worthy to undergo martyrdom for the confession of our Lord and God were able also to endure greater things than the report, transmitted through the peoples to succeeding ages, seems to recall.

[19] Second, only a few words further being supplied after these, [does not deserve the credit of a contemporary author, in view of the things which he himself writes,] he writes thus: For let us explain, with the help of the Martyrs themselves, as far as they grant us to know of them, how the place, rejoicing in his patronage, deserved to have the worshipper of the Lord, how we have recognised that the fellowship of other Saints was bound to him, as we have learned by the report of the faithful; and by these words, which are contained in the two texts already transcribed here, he himself admits that he committed the Acts of the Saints to writing not from a History already written, but from the common report, or the tradition or relation of the faithful, which obtained when he was writing, and that not until a very long space of time had already elapsed since the martyrdom of the Saints; so that indeed, in view even of the things which he himself writes, he by no means joins to himself the authority or credit of an author either contemporary or nearly contemporary, especially since, from what has been said above, he flourished not earlier than as the VIIth century was growing old or even when the VIIIth had somewhat begun, and that very long space of time which elapsed, before he set his hand to writing the Acts of the Saints, from about the end of the IIIrd century, or from their martyrdom, which from what is to be said below is to be bound to this epoch, accordingly extends to at least four centuries. Michel Félibien, in the learned Dissertation which he prefixed to the History of the monastery of Saint-Denis written by him, §1, a little after the middle, contends that credit is to be given to the Bosquet Passion of our Saints rather than to the Life of St. Genevieve in the things which concern St. Dionysius. But since he would have this chiefly because he thinks that the Bosquet Passion of the Saints was composed in the same VIth century in which the Life of St. Genevieve was composed, and this opinion of his is foreign to the truth, as I have just proved, there is no reason why that writer should detain us here.

[20] nor does anything of moment for this come from the letter of Louis the Pious Nor is there reason for that to be done by the letter, written about the year 836, as I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, by which the emperor Louis the Pious gave a mandate to Hilduin, then abbot of Saint-Denis, that whatever he had found handed down to memory here and there in various documents, either Greek or Latin, about St. Dionysius, prelate of Paris, whom he thought the same as the Areopagite, he should draw together into a compendium, a new work being prepared to that end; for although that prince counts among those documents a little book of the Dionysian Passion, it is nevertheless plainly uncertain whether he understands the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius by it, and even if it were otherwise, nothing at all occurs in the aforesaid letter which is of a nature to commend the antiquity or credit of that little book, as may be seen in Surius, who inserted it in the Acts of the Saints collected by him at the 9th day of October. Some indeed, in order to extol the value of the Dionysian Passion published by Bosquet, which they make the same as the said little book of the Dionysian Passion, affirm that the mentioned little book was comprised by the emperor Louis among the ancient monuments which he ordered Hilduin to draw out of the archive of the church of Paris; but, that it may be clear how certainly they stray from the truth in this assertion of theirs, I transcribe the very words bearing on this, in which, as has been said, that prince gave his command to Hilduin in the said letter. Therefore … we wish to admonish you that whatever concerning the knowledge of him (Dionysius) has been taken by translation from the histories of the Greeks, or whatever from the books written by him in his native speech, and explained into our tongue by the order of our authority and by your sagacious study and the sweat of interpreters, shall be fitting to be inserted in this business, and also what you already have found in the Latin codices, there being added the things which are contained in the little book of his passion, and also those which you had found in the most ancient volumes or charters brought forth from the press of the church of Paris, namely of his sacred see, and had shown to the eyes of our serenity, … you bring into one body.

[21] it is shown is added to Hilduin by the letter, Such are the words of Louis the Pious which, as I hinted, bear on this; by which it is certainly made altogether evident that the mentioned little book of the Dionysian Passion was by no means comprised by him among the monuments which that prince ordered Hilduin to draw out of the archive of the church of Paris for composing the new work on St. Dionysius, as no one will fail to admit who has even perfunctorily weighed the aforesaid words, already transcribed here. Whether, therefore, the Bosquet Passion of Dionysius is understood or is not understood by the little book of the Dionysian Passion mentioned in the said letter of Louis the Pious, that letter adds absolutely nothing to its value for which it ought to detain us longer here. Dom le Beuf, already often praised, who thinks the same as I have already said about the mentioned little book of the Dionysian Passion and about the said letter of Louis to Hilduin in which it is perhaps reviewed, brings forward besides not a few other things in his new Observations on the Bosquet Acts of Dionysius, in order to lower their credit; but, this credit having already been sufficiently and more than sufficiently weakened by the very long space of time by which the author lived removed from the Saints and the things concerning them, and by the untrustworthy report or popular tradition from which he committed them to writing, I am going to adduce all, or certainly the chief, of the things which the praised writer alleges to that end, not in this preliminary Commentary, but in the Annotations which, according to our custom, I shall subjoin to the Acts to be set below it; and it is fixed that these are to be reprinted, not as they were first (go to what was said at number 1) published by François Bosquet, bishop of Montpellier, but as they came forth into the light more correctly the second time, Michel Félibien, the Benedictine monk, taking care of it.

[22] Further, in order that I may now also set forth both the things which I am still to accomplish before, and those after, what I have already said I shall do, [and the order in which the things concerning the Saints are to be treated is set forth.] and so the whole manner and order in which I am going to treat the things concerning our Saints, I shall discuss in this preliminary Commentary all the things which are found handed down to memory about our Saints and the things concerning them, either in the Acts to be edited or in any other literary monuments earlier than the VIIIth century, about which, as I have shown, they were written; but all the things which are narrated in works or writings of whatever kind later than the VIIth century, and were at the same time done after it, I shall examine in the two Appendices which I shall subjoin to the Acts to be edited; and in the former of these indeed I shall treat generally of all the things which concern the cult, relics and miracles of our Saints from the VIIIth century; but in the latter I shall examine the singular controversy by which it has long been disputed among the learned, and is still disputed, whether the body of St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris and martyr, is preserved even today in the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, or whether on the contrary, stolen as early as the end of the IXth century and translated from France into Bavaria by the emperor Arnulf, the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg in Bavaria possesses it. Let us approach the matter itself.

* Bosquet peculiaria

§ III. What epoch the Bosquet Acts assign to the mission of St. Dionysius and his Companions into Gaul, and whether either these, or the command given to the Apostles of preaching the faith everywhere, or finally certain general assertions of the Fathers, prove that it is to be embraced.

[The Acts of the Saints, inasmuch as, as they have been edited by Félibien, in the words adduced here about the mission of Dionysius] The ancient Acts of SS. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, as they were first edited by Bosquet in part 2 of the Histories of the Gallican Church, page 68 and the five following, on the credit of five manuscript codices of the best repute, have thus at number 5: Saint Dionysius, therefore, who, as they say, had received from the successors of the Apostles the seeds of the divine Word to be bestowed on the nations, … came, the Lord leading, to Paris; and since by the successors of the Apostles, by whom Dionysius is related in these words to have been sent into Gaul, or to Paris, for the sake of announcing the Gospel, the Roman Pontiffs who flourished in the IIIrd or IVth as well as those who flourished in the 1st century of the Church can be understood, and the aforesaid Acts do not teach more distinctly elsewhere when Dionysius was sent into the Gauls, it follows that, if their reading which I have just supplied is genuine, their anonymous author assigns no definite epoch to the mission of St. Dionysius and his Companions into the Gauls, and accordingly fixes it no more to the 1st century than to the IIIrd or IVth. But in place of the words which I have already recited from the said Acts of the Saints, as they were first published by Bosquet, in their more correct edition prepared by Michel Félibien, from which I too, as I have already noted, am going to subjoin them to this Commentary, these following are read at number 5: Saint Dionysius, therefore, who, saint Clement, the successor of Peter the Apostle, handing them on, had received the seeds of the divine Word to be bestowed on the nations, went fearless and inflamed with the heat of faith where he learned that the error of gentilism seethed more abundantly, and came, the Lord leading, to Paris; and it appears more probable that this reading is genuine, or that the anonymous author of the Acts in very truth meant to signify what is signified by it.

[24] appear genuine, fix this to the 1st century; This opinion sits with me first indeed because it seems to be concluded that the same reading was also found by this most learned writer in at least one of the five manuscript codices of the best repute from which Bosquet edited those Acts, as appears from the marginal note placed on them, by which he indicates that it is read elsewhere, Who, blessed Clement, the successor of Peter the Apostle, handing them on; and then because in most, and those the older, of the copies of those Acts which Dom le Beuf, already very often praised above, had before his eyes, and which displayed an age of eight hundred or even nine hundred years, that writer, as he himself affirms in his new Observations on the Bosquet Acts of Dionysius, pages 45 and 49, likewise found: Saint Dionysius, therefore, who, St. Clement, the successor of Peter the Apostle, handing them on, the seeds of the divine Word to the nations

to be bestowed had received, … came, the Lord leading, to Paris. Moreover the author of the Acts, before he sets up discourse about the coming of St. Dionysius to the city of Paris, setting down beforehand some things about SS. Saturninus and Paul by way of preface, indicates not obscurely that both these Saints, of whom the one founded the church of Toulouse and the other that of Narbonne, were consecrated bishops by the Apostles themselves, as will be clear to anyone weighing even in any way the context of the words which he uses; and since this is so, and, in view of the manner of narration which he keeps, he seems to insinuate that St. Dionysius came into Gaul together with the two said holy prelates, or certainly not long after them, there is surely reason why, even for that reason, he should be believed to have ascribed the mission of the latter into this most ample province of the Roman empire to St. Clement, Pope I, who was nearest to the age of the Apostles. All things, therefore, having been diligently weighed, the reading of the ancient Acts of Dionysius which I exhibited from Félibien's edition of them at number 23 is, as appears, more probably to be held for genuine. Hence, further, it now follows that the author of the Acts more probably meant to signify, and in very fact signified by that reading, that St. Dionysius was sent into the Gauls by St. Clement, Pope I, and accordingly in the 1st century, in which he presided over the Church.

[25] but they cannot make certain the epoch which they so assign to that event, But is it certain that we are here to stand by him, or by the ancient Acts which he wrote? Dom le Beuf, very often praised above, in his new Observations on those ancient Acts of Dionysius, brings forward, as I have already noted above, not a few things which greatly lower their credit and authority, and at length concludes that of all the things which they assert it is certain only that Dionysius underwent various punishments for Christ and was at length beheaded. Launoy, although he indeed alleges nothing for which those Acts seem deservedly to be much carped at, nevertheless holds them in no value. But in whatever place at length they may be, either with those two writers or with any others, the things which I discussed above about their age show sufficiently and more than sufficiently that the time at which Dionysius came into the Gauls cannot safely be determined from them. For since (go to §1) they were written not before either the VIIth century growing old or the VIIIth, perhaps even somewhat advanced, and Dionysius certainly obtained the palm of martyrdom not later than when the third century was already inclining to its end, as will be clear from what is to be said below, the author of the Acts lived removed from the time at which this, and accordingly the mission of our Saint into the Gauls, took place, by at least four, nay, if this is to be ascribed, as he would have it, to Pope Clement I, by more than six centuries. And since this is so, he was certainly too far removed from that event to be able, by his sole authority, to make certain and undoubted the epoch which he assigns to it only from popular report (for, as is clear from what has been said above, he adduces nothing else for his purpose), and accordingly from untrustworthy rumour; this saying of Baronius, which is made much of by all the learned, namely having place here: What is put forth by a more recent author about ancient things without the authority of some older one is despised. However much, therefore, it may appear more probable, nay even almost certain, that it is written by the anonymous author of the Acts that Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were sent into the Gauls by Clement I, it must nevertheless still remain very doubtful and uncertain whether this was in very truth done by that Pontiff, or in the 1st century, in which he flourished.

[26] But indeed, you will say, Christ the Lord (see Mark chapter 16, [nor either the command given to the Apostles of announcing the Gospel everywhere,] verse 15) enjoined on the Apostles that, going through the whole world, they should preach the Gospel to every creature, and they, to obey their divine Master, went, for the sake of spreading the Gospel in every direction, not only to the nations subject to the Roman empire but also to the Scythians, Parthians, Indians, Ethiopians and other barbarous nations. I admit, so it stands; and hence indeed it becomes probable that the Apostles, especially if, as Eusebius observes, book 3 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 5, having sailed past the Ocean they brought the light of the faith to the British islands themselves too, likewise spread the light of the Gospel in Gaul, through which the way lies to these, either by themselves or at least by their disciples. But what then? Let it be so; nay rather, let it even be most firmly believed that divine Providence, which willed the seed of the Gospel to be disseminated through the whole world, would by no means have permitted that it should not at once be spread in the Gauls, neighbouring Italy, to which Peter and Paul went, and therefore easily able to be traversed by them, and let it besides be held for certain even hence that the light of the Christian faith was brought to the Gauls as early as the 1st century, St. Peter the Apostle, on whom the care of the West peculiarly lay, chiefly taking care of it; can it deservedly be inferred hence that already then also Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were sent into the Gauls by Pope Clement I to illuminate the Parisians with the light of the faith? Certainly not, unless perhaps it can be proved that in the 1st century not only was the faith preached at Paris, but also, this having been received, a church (for Dionysius not only preached there but also founded a church, an episcopate also being instituted) was founded and endowed with its own bishop. Those who contend that the mission of our Saints into the Gauls is to be bound to the 1st century recognise this without difficulty, and hence they strive to prove that many other churches of the Gauls, which, just as the church of Paris, glory that they were founded as early as the 1st century and had their own bishops by whom they were ruled, were in very truth founded already then and ruled by their own bishops whom they had.

[27] [or the general assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, which are couched in the words recited here] And in order to accomplish this, they bring forward in defence of their opinion certain general assertions of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, from which they contend that already from the 2nd and IIIrd century the faith was received in the Gauls and churches founded, episcopal ones also, or such as were ruled by their own bishops; but besides that, even granted that several churches already existed in the Gauls then, it does not yet follow thence, from what is to be said below, that this also obtained there as early as the 1st century, those general assertions which they bring forward, if more maturely weighed, by no means prove that so many churches having their own bishops as they would have existed in the Gauls in the 2nd and IIIrd century. That I may render this proved, I first transcribe here all the words in which each is found couched in the three praised writers, or what each of them supplies bearing on this. The first, or St. Justin, who wrote about the middle of the 2nd century, objecting in the Dialogue to Trypho the Jew that not even then was the Jewish nation dispersed from the rising of the sun to the West, has thus: There are some nations where no one of your body has yet dwelt. But there is not even one race of mortals, whether of barbarians or of Greeks or of any others whatever, by whatever name they are called, among whom supplications and thanksgivings are not made through the name of the crucified Jesus to the Father and Maker of all things. The second, or St. Irenaeus, in the Work which he wrote against the heresies about the year 180, as it seems to some, book 1, chapter 3, writes thus: And in the world the speeches are unlike, but yet the power of the tradition is one and the same: and neither do these churches which have been founded in the Germanies believe otherwise or hand down otherwise; nor these which are among the Iberians, nor these which are among the Celts, nor these which are in the East, nor these which are in Egypt, nor these which are in Libya, nor these which are established in the middle of the world.

[28] certain assertions, inasmuch as they The third, or Tertullian, who flourished at the beginning of the third century, records thus in the book against the Jews, chapter 7: The varieties of the Gaetulians, and the many borders of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the places of the Britons inaccessible to the Romans, but subject to Christ &c. And these are the general assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian which those who bind the mission of Dionysius to the pontificate of Pope Clement I, or to the 1st century, allege for their purpose; but in order that the first of these, or Justin's, be true, it is not even required that already then, when that Saint was writing, or about the middle of the 2nd century, parochial churches, or such as were ruled not by bishops but only by priests of inferior order, had been founded among absolutely all the nations which he mentions; for it suffices if then at least some who supplicated God the Father through the name of the crucified Jesus, or believed in God and His only Son Jesus Christ, were found in each of them. This will become evident to anyone who has attentively weighed the recited words of Justin, as words which, as the philosophers speak, can be expounded of the genera of individuals, and so ought not necessarily to be expounded of the individuals of the genera; so that indeed it cannot be inferred in any way from these, or from the general assertion of Justin given above, that already then, when that Saint flourished, or about the middle of the 2nd century, not a few churches having their own bishops had been founded in the Gauls. And so much thus far of Justin; I now come to St. Irenaeus. He indeed, while in book 1 against the heresies, chapter 3, he affirms that the true faith is proved from the one and the same doctrine which the various churches or congregations of the faithful established through the whole world professed, openly insinuates that churches existed already then, when he was writing, or as the 2nd century was verging to its end, among the Celts (go to his words transcribed above), or, what comes to the same, that the region of the Celts had churches embraced in its bosom.

[29] But whether his discourse is of episcopal or only of parochial churches which were then among the Celts, in a particular sense, or as here by name both he does not disclose by the least word; and since this is so, in order that the general, or rather indefinite, assertion by which he insinuates what I have said may be true, it is likewise not even required that even many parochial churches, or such as were governed not by bishops but only by priests of inferior order, then existed among the Celts. For in order that this may obtain, it suffices if even only two or three churches of this kind, though each consisted of no great number of worshippers of Christ, had been established there, or in Celtic Gaul, at that time. The matter will become manifest even from the words of Irenaeus alone attentively considered. They reply indeed that by the Celts mentioned by Irenaeus

there are to be understood not only the inhabitants of the Gaul which is called Celtic by Caesar, and which was never extended much beyond Lugdunensian and Narbonensian Gaul, but also all the Gauls universally, and accordingly also those who inhabited Aquitaine and Belgica. They judge so because, since St. Irenaeus was a Greek by nation and also wrote in Greek, he used the word Celt, as it does not appear to be doubted, in the signification which it has among the Greeks or in their tongue; and the Greeks were wont to distinguish all the Gauls universally, and accordingly both those who inhabited Aquitanian and Belgic Gaul and those who inhabited Lugdunensian and Narbonensian, by the name of Celts, as may be seen in Strabo, book 4 of the Geography, and Appian, book 4 on the civil war. But indeed, let this also be as they would have it; and let all the Gauls universally, namely the Belgae and Aquitani no less than the Lugdunenses and Narbonenses, have come beyond all controversy in Irenaeus under the name of the Celts, among whom he indicates that churches had been established when he was writing his Work against the heresies; nevertheless it will not yet be necessary hence, in order that that holy writer be believed to have recorded true things, that already then many parochial churches existed in Gaul, both in Aquitanian and Belgic, and in Lugdunensian and Narbonensian, or in each and every one of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul.

[30] For suppose that Irenaeus had handed down to memory in his Work against the heresies as regards St. Irenaeus, who from Eusebius that churches existed, when he was writing it, not among the Celts or in Celtica, but among the Gauls or in Gaul, under which name certainly all the Celtic or Gallic provinces are comprised; who would say that he so strayed from the truth, if, when he wrote this, only two or three parochial churches, or such as were ruled only by priests of inferior order, existed in Gaul, either Narbonensian or Lugdunensian, which two provinces of Gaul are less remote from Italy than the Aquitanian and Belgic? No one surely, as I think, except one who at the same time judges, contrary to what reason dictates, that it likewise cannot be said, with truth preserved, that the light of the faith was brought into the Gauls in the 1st century, if it happened then to be brought into only one or another city or province of the Gauls. Although, therefore, the words of Irenaeus transcribed above seem at first sight to support the opinion which holds that many churches ruled by their own bishops existed in the Gauls, or in their four provinces mentioned above, as early as the 2nd century, yet in strictness, or in the signification which they import considered barely in themselves, they do not prove that already then even many churches, over which only priests of inferior order presided, existed in each and every one of those provinces. But indeed, you will say, Eusebius, setting up discourse in book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 23, about the controversy which boiled up between Pope Victor and the Asiatics, seems in some way to insinuate that not a few churches, parochial at least, over which St. Irenaeus presided, existed in the Gauls.

[31] many parochial ones indeed, For there, among the letters which, a decree having been made on the matter, synods of bishops and various churches wrote to all the faithful of Christ, that the mystery of the Lord's Resurrection should never be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's day, he counts the letter of the churches or parishes of Gaul which Irenaeus administered, using these Greek words: Τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν … παροικιῶν, ἃς εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει·; and thus, as it can not undeservedly seem, he insinuates in some way that the churches, parochial at least, over which St. Irenaeus presided in the Gauls were not few in number. Although, therefore, in order that the text of Irenaeus transcribed here at number 27 may accord with the truth, it is not even required, from what has already been said, that in the age of this holy bishop of Lyons not a few parochial churches existed in the Gauls, it appears nevertheless to be concluded from Eusebius that many churches of this kind did in very truth exist there, and chiefly indeed in the Narbonensian and Lugdunensian provinces, nearer to Italy. I admit, so it stands; for it does not appear probable that Irenaeus presided over only one or another parochial church in the Gauls. But what then? Would you perhaps infer hence also that likewise then — which those who contend that Dionysius was sent in the 1st century ought chiefly to prove — not a few episcopal churches, or ones endowed with their own bishops, over which Irenaeus presided, existed in Gaul, and that he accordingly understood these by the churches which, in the words transcribed above, he indicates believed in Christ there in his age?

[32] but not likewise episcopal ones, But the same Eusebius just now praised himself stands in the way of this being believed. For although the Greek word παροικία, which he employs in the text just now given, is at times used for a diocese, or the ampler tract which is governed in spirituals by a bishop, it nevertheless seems to be used by that writer there not in this signification, but in the other, in which it is found employed by the ancient writers also for a less ample tract subject to a priest of inferior order. This opinion sits with me because he supplies in other places things from which you would not undeservedly gather that in the age of Irenaeus not many bishops, and accordingly not many tracts governed by them, existed in the Gauls. For whenever he sets up discourse about things done in Gaul at that time, and about the founding of churches there or their harassment by the gentiles, he always makes mention of the bishop of Lyons alone, nowhere of another. Moreover, while he sets forth in the place cited above the controversy which arose between Pope Victor and the Asiatics about the time at which Easter ought to be celebrated, he exhibits Irenaeus in two different places as if he alone then governed the churches of the Gauls with episcopal right; in the one indeed, when he counts that holy bishop of Lyons among those who by letters rebuked Pope Victor, who was meditating cutting off the Asiatic churches from his communion, and writes in book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History cited above, chapter 24, that he did this in the name of the brethren dwelling in Gaul over whom he presided; and in the other, when he relates in the same book 5 of the said History, chapter 23, that Irenaeus, absolutely no mention being made of another bishop, presided over the churches of the Gauls which by letters written to them had admonished all the faithful of Christ that Easter should never be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's day. The former place runs almost thus: Irenaeus wrote in the person of the brethren dwelling in Gaul, over whom he presided, to the same, namely Pope Victor: by which words it is certainly most expressly related that Irenaeus presided over the brethren living in Gaul, or governed them.

[33] And over them indeed he seems to have presided only by episcopal, as I have already hinted, over churches and not by metropolitical or even exarchal or patriarchal right. For I find it nowhere proved by anyone that that form of hierarchy which subjected both bishops to metropolitans and metropolitans to exarchs had been introduced into the churches of the Gauls as early as the age of Irenaeus, or the 2nd century. Moreover, ancient writers, such as Eusebius is, are wont to designate by those whom they call brethren not bishops but the Christian people. And since these things are so, Eusebius certainly seems to exhibit Irenaeus in the former of the two places just mentioned as if he alone, when the controversy which I have mentioned arose, governed the churches of the Gauls, and that only by episcopal right. And he does this still more luminously, unless I am mistaken, in the latter. For there, while he reviews the various synods, namely the Roman, the Palestinian, the Pontic, the Osrhoene and the Corinthian, gathered against the Asiatics who contended that Easter was to be celebrated on the fourteenth moon, he expressly calls them all, with only the Osrhoene excepted, which perhaps was not even of bishops, synods of bishops, and the things defined in them decrees of bishops, not omitting even the names of those who were present at the synods; but when he sets up discourse about the decree which the churches of the Gauls made on the same controversy and, when made, communicated to all the faithful by letters given to them, he calls it not the decree of bishops, but of churches, or rather (for the Greek text of Eusebius has Τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν) the decree of the parishes of Gaul.

[34] Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and Eusebius would seem likely to have distinguished that decree of the churches or parishes of Gaul, presided over if it had been made by several bishops, by the name of a decree of bishops no less than the other decrees which he mentions, published by bishops gathered in synod, and yet does not so distinguish it, that decree was most probably made not by several bishops of the Gauls, but only by the churches which Irenaeus governed by episcopal right. Hence, further, you would now not undeservedly infer that then, besides Irenaeus, either no bishops, or certainly only very few, existed in the Gauls. There can indeed be objected here the synodical little book praised by Labbe and other editors of the Councils, first published by Johann Pappus at Strasbourg in the year 1601, in which thirteen bishops are asserted to have been present at the synod of Lyons held by Irenaeus about the time at which Easter was to be celebrated; but it deserves either no credit or certainly only a little in this matter, inasmuch as it was written only in the IXth century, and accordingly by an unknown author several centuries after that synod was held. And since this is so, and that monument ought accordingly not to detain us here, it follows from all that has already been said that, if we are willing to stand by Eusebius, there certainly existed in the Gauls in the age of Irenaeus not many bishops, and accordingly not many episcopal churches governed by them. But indeed, you will say besides, what if Eusebius, in the two places cited above, mentioned St. Irenaeus alone, and no other churches than those which he governed by episcopal right in the Gauls when the said controversy arose, not because there were then, besides Irenaeus and those churches, no other bishops in numbers nor other episcopal churches in numbers in the Gauls, but because St. Irenaeus alone, the other bishops of the Gauls being silent, involved himself in the aforesaid controversy?

[35] seems, Certainly there is no reason why Eusebius, while in one of the two places cited above he makes discourse of the brethren or faithful of Christ, and in the other of the churches, subject to Irenaeus in Gaul, should be understood of absolutely all the faithful of Christ and churches existing in Gaul. Nor accordingly is there reason why, with the truth of what he writes preserved, other faithful also, and likewise other churches than those over which Irenaeus presided, could not have been in Gaul then. I admit, so it stands: but besides that Eusebius nowhere makes mention of other churches indeed, not subject to Irenaeus, which were then in the Gauls, it appears very little probable that it would have come about that, of the bishops of the Gauls, if they had then been not few in number, Irenaeus alone involved himself in the aforesaid controversy; and since these things are so, surely, from the things which Eusebius supplies, not many bishops, and accordingly not many episcopal churches, or tracts governed by bishops, in the Gauls

in the age of Irenaeus, or as the 2nd century was growing old, appears to be concluded. But let us grant even that in the age of Irenaeus at least some bishops besides Irenaeus, and accordingly also some episcopal churches, existed in Lugdunensian Gaul, in which he acted as bishop, and that Eusebius accordingly understood these by the parishes over which he writes Irenaeus presided in the Gauls; it will not yet follow hence that some other bishops, and accordingly also tracts over which bishops presided, then existed likewise in the remaining provinces of the Gauls, namely the Narbonensian, Aquitanian and Belgic, much less that Irenaeus meant this to be signified by the words transcribed above.

[36] as regards Tertullian's, But indeed, you will say, Tertullian indeed hands down to memory in the words transcribed above that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age; and hence (for otherwise these things do not seem likely to accord with the truth) it appears that it is to be held that in the age of that writer not only the nations or peoples of Lugdunensian Gaul but also of the Aquitanian, Belgic and Narbonensian believed in Christ, and that there were accordingly at least some episcopal churches in each and every one of those four provinces of the Gauls, and bishops who presided over them. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and Irenaeus preceded Tertullian by only about thirty years, why should we not believe that likewise in the age of the former some episcopal churches also, though fewer than when Tertullian afterwards flourished, and bishops who presided over them, existed in each and every one of the said four provinces of the Gauls? So can argue those who contend that this then obtained there and is handed down to memory by Irenaeus in the words transcribed above. But what if not even in the age of Tertullian did so many episcopal churches as they would have exist in each and every one of the said four provinces of the Gauls? That writer does indeed relate in the place cited above that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age, whence you might infer so great a multitude of episcopal churches there for that time; but what if by the Gauls, of whose diverse nations he there makes discourse, he understood not only the Gauls situated beyond the Alps, but also those on this side of the Alps? Surely it appears that he in very fact designated by the name of the Gauls in the place cited both Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, even from the fact that in the very long enumeration which he there makes of the various parts of the world subject to Christ in his age he did not expressly mention by the least word those which Cisalpine Gaul comprised.

[37] Some indeed contend that these cannot be understood by Tertullian under the name of the Gauls, whom in the text adduced because, as Strabo, Mela and Pliny teach, Augustus, having divided Italy Proper into eleven regions, cut the Gauls into four provinces, namely the Narbonensian, Lugdunensian, Belgic and Aquitanian, long before the age of Tertullian, and so, as Pierre de Marca would have it in his letter to Adrien de Valois praised above, by that new division of the provinces of the Roman empire removed the name of the Gauls, these being bounded by the barrier of the Alps, from Italy, some parts of which had formerly come under the name of Cisalpine Gaul. But Augustus, in instituting a new division of the provinces of the Roman empire, by no means removed Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul from their number, or, what comes to the same, did not bring it about that either this or that Gaul should no longer be named. This is proved by various ancient writers, who, although they flourished after Augustus, nevertheless continued to call the parts of Italy which had been called Cisalpine or Hither Gaul before Augustus either by this or at least by the name of Gaul, giving their inhabitants also names derived from that appellation. And the first place among them is held by Strabo in the Geography and Gaius Sempronius in the Little Book on the Division of Italy. I transcribe here only the words which are supplied by the latter writer in two different places and bear chiefly on this, because they are clearer than the words supplied by Strabo. The former are these following: The rivers divide Cisappennine Italy, and likewise Transappennine. The river Po first divided Cisalpine Gaul; the Tuscans held the whole Cispadane country, colonies having been sent; and the latter these: The Gaul of the Senones is called Togata from those who, under the leadership of Arruns, first crossed the Alps into Italy, by whom the Etruscans were gradually driven from the Cispadane and Transpadane region, which now has the name of Gaul.

[38] To the two writers already praised are added further Ptolemy and Aethicus, of whom the former has thus, book 2 of the Geography, chapter 7: Gallia Togata lies beneath the mountains themselves, extended as far as Ravenna; and the latter, whom they would have to have lived about the age of Constantine, or about Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul together, reviewing in the Cosmography the provinces of the Western Ocean, names Belgic, Braccata, Comata, Togata, Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. Add to these several others besides who likewise, although they flourished after Augustus, still continue (see Launoy in the Dispunctio of the Letter just praised, chapter 3) to impose the name of Hither or Cisalpine Gaul on the regions of Italy which were certainly wont to be so called formerly, when Transalpine Gaul had not yet been divided by Augustus into the Narbonensian, Lugdunensian, Belgic and Aquitanian. The matter therefore having been more deeply inspected, nothing at all prevents Tertullian from being said to have done this also, and accordingly to have understood by the Gauls, diverse nations of which he insinuates believed in Christ in his age, both Cisalpine or Hither and Transalpine or Further Gaul. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and Cisalpine or Hither Gaul comprised several nations, that writer certainly, if even these alone, together with those which inhabited the part of Transalpine Gaul distinguished by the name of Lugdunensis, believed in Christ at the beginning of the IIIrd century and had churches and bishops set over them, will by no means be to be said to stray from the truth when he writes that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age.

[39] or you would not ineptly say that he did not speak of all its nations, Nor would you rightly assert otherwise, even if we granted for the moment that by the Gauls, diverse nations of which he says believed in Christ in his age, only Transalpine Gaul was understood by that writer. The matter will be clear from what is now to be said. Transalpine Gaul was indeed, as has already been said, divided by Augustus long before the age of Tertullian into the four provinces already often named; but, although this is so, it is by no means necessarily required, in order that Tertullian, with truth preserved, could write that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age, or at the beginning of the 3rd century, that already then each and every one of those four provinces believed in Christ, and had founded among themselves at least some churches which were ruled by their own bishops. For what if, this which I have said being granted, Tertullian understood by the diverse nations of the Gauls which he hands down to memory believed in Christ in his age not the nations of each and every one of those four provinces, but of two of these, or even of one only? This indeed, since not only in those four provinces taken together but also in each of them diverse nations or peoples then existed, as may be seen in Baudrand under the word Gallia and in other geographers, can be asserted not altogether ineptly; and if, as it can be, it is also in fact so asserted, the words transcribed above, by which Tertullian discloses that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age, will have accorded with the truth if even the nations of only two of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul then believed in Christ, at least some churches over which bishops presided having been founded among them. Nay rather, since nation can also signify the same as people in Tertullian in the place cited, it can happen that by the words transcribed above he only means that diverse peoples of the Gauls believed in Christ in his age; and since this is so, neither will the same words be to be called discordant with the truth if of the four said provinces of Transalpine Gaul even one, for example the Lugdunensian, embraced in its bosom diverse cities whose inhabitants or peoples, churches over which bishops presided having been founded among them, believed in Christ at the beginning of the third century, or while Tertullian flourished.

[40] Whether, therefore, Transalpine Gaul alone, or this together with Cisalpine Gaul, be understood by the Gauls, the assertion is proved, can be in a sense not extended to all the Gauls, diverse nations of which that writer affirms believed in Christ in his age, it is nevertheless by no means required for the truth of the words in which he does this that the inhabitants or nations of each and every one of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul then believed in Christ, episcopal churches also having been founded among them. The matter appears manifest from the things which I have already discussed in the four numbers immediately preceding. Now indeed, since these things are so, those who contend that this obtained there as early as the age of Irenaeus, from the very words of that Saint given above, certainly bring forward Tertullian in vain in defence of this opinion of theirs. The words, namely, both of Tertullian and of Irenaeus transcribed above can altogether aptly, as is clear from what has already been said, be expounded in a sense not general, or, to speak more distinctly, in a sense which extends itself not to each and every, but only to some, and not even very many in number, of the nations or provinces or regions of the Gauls. Tertullian does not say that all, but only that diverse nations of the Gauls were subject to Christ in his age; and he does not seem likely to have spoken so if he had wished to assert this of all the nations of the Gauls, or of each and every one of the provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul. And as regards Irenaeus, he only hints that churches existed in his age among the Celts, or, what comes to the same, that the region of the Celts had churches embraced in its bosom; and since, if even a few churches then existed in the region of the Celts, or in the Gauls, that indefinite assertion of Irenaeus certainly accords with the truth, who would judge that he likewise would not have spoken otherwise if he had wished to signify that churches then existed among all the Celts, or in each and every one of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul? All things, therefore, having now been diligently weighed, the general, or rather indefinite, assertions of Irenaeus and Tertullian (concerning that which Justin supplies, see number 28) by no means prove that so many churches existed in the Gauls already from the second and third century as those who bind the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century contend.

[41] For these indeed do not require for their truth, and accordingly, as with the ancient one of the Acts of St. Saturninus, as is clear from what has already been disputed, so great a multitude of churches existing there at that time, and hence, with their truth preserved, of only some churches, and indeed not

very many in number, which were then founded in some places of the Gauls, most probably those nearer to Italy, they can be understood or expounded. Nay rather, they not only can, but also, to come now to what likewise bears on this, necessarily must be expounded in this manner. To render this proved, it will help first to have transcribed here, in the order in which I judge they were given, two ancient testimonies to which the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian related and discussed above are in appearance opposed. Ruinart, in the genuine and select Acts of the martyrs, Paris edition of the year 1689, page 109 and the four following, reviews the ancient Acts of St. Saturninus, bishop of Toulouse; and their anonymous author, who, as I shall presently show, flourished not later than about the beginning of the IVth century, supplies the first testimony bearing on this, couched in these following words: After the sound of the Gospels gradually and step by step went out into all the earth, and with equal progress (others read, but both readings come to the same, and with slow progress) the preaching of the Apostles shone forth in our regions (namely the provinces of the Gauls), when rare churches arose in some cities by the devotion of a few Christians, but nevertheless the temples smoked frequently in all places with the fetid fumes of the gentiles in miserable error, fifty years ago, as in the public Acts *, that is, in the consulship of Decius and Gratus (so the year of Christ 250 is designated), as is retained by faithful remembrance, the city of Toulouse had begun to have saint Saturninus as the first and highest priest of Christ.

[42] who, as Ruinart holds, The second testimony, which is in appearance opposed to the sayings of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian already discussed, is supplied by seven bishops of the Gauls of the VIth century, speaking in the following manner, in a letter written to St. Radegund the queen, in Gregory of Tours, book 9 of the History of the Franks, chapter 39: And so, when with the very rise of the Catholic religion (so here, lest otherwise room be left for the wonder of Ruinart in his note on this text of Gregory, there is designated, unless I am mistaken, the age of Constantine the Great, or rather a time not much later than it, in which the Christian religion, now spread in every direction, began chiefly to be called Catholic or Universal) the beginnings of the venerable faith (namely announced long before and received by some) had begun to breathe again (from the persecutions of the tyrants) in the Gallican territories, and the ineffable Sacraments of the Lord's Trinity had then still come to the knowledge of few, in order that it might acquire nothing less here than it obtained in the circle of the world through the Apostles preaching, (God) deigned to direct blessed Martin, of foreign stock, to the illumination of the homeland, mercy counselling. The praised letter, in which these words are read, was written in the year 570, as is agreed among all, by the said seven bishops of the Gauls: and as regards the time of the Acts of St. Saturninus, from which I have transcribed here the first testimony bearing on our present purpose, or, if you prefer, the age of the author who wrote them, Ruinart, in the admonition which he prefixed to them, published by himself as I have already indicated, writes on this matter in the following manner; We bring forth his (namely St. Saturninus's) genuine Acts from the codex of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, which approaches nine hundred years, collated with many other manuscript codices and the edition of Surius: whose author, although he was not present at the deeds, yet since he wrote these things a little after, that is, in the fiftieth year thence, as the codex of Fossés has it, deserves entire credit.

[43] and here besides, Ruinart, therefore, here holds that the author who committed the Acts of St. Saturninus to writing carried this out already then when only fifty years had elapsed after the things which he records, or after the consulship of Decius and Gratus, which falls in the year of Christ 250, and accordingly at the beginning of the IVth century; and he thought this was to be done because he judged that the fifty years expressed in the said Acts, as he found them in the Codex of Fossés, are to be understood of the years elapsed from the things done by St. Saturninus at Toulouse up to the time at which the author of the Acts consigned them to writing. But rightly? The place or text of the said Codex of Fossés, or of the Acts of St. Saturninus which Ruinart edited from it, recounting those fifty years, runs thus: When rare churches arose in some cities by the devotion of a few Christians; but nevertheless the temples smoked frequently in all places with the fetid fumes of the gentiles in miserable error, fifty years ago, as in the public Acts *, that is, in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, as is retained by faithful remembrance, the city of Toulouse had begun to have saint Saturninus as the first and highest priest of Christ; by whose faith and virtue the soothsayings of the demons who were worshipped in the same city began to cease, … and since the aforesaid bishop frequently went to and returned from the church, at that time very small, near the capitol, which was between his house and the house of God, the deceitful crowd of demons could not bear the presence of the holy Man; and, as they were dumb images …, began to remain in silence towards the sacrilegious services and the anxious vows of those consulting.

[44] Such is the praised text; and these words of it, and others immediately following, together also in which the author of the Acts narrates that St. Saturninus, because the oracles fell dumb at his presence, was tumultuously killed by the people raging on this account, when he was hastening to the solemn office and would not sacrifice to the idols, having been diligently and accurately weighed, I at first hesitated, very doubtful whether, contrary to what Ruinart would have, the fifty years mentioned in the text already given were not to be understood of the years elapsed from the time when St. Saturninus first came to Toulouse up to the time at which he underwent martyrdom there; and hence, as will be clear to one who considers it, I must needs hesitate likewise, very doubtful, about the time at which Ruinart holds the Acts were written. But I turned these over again and a third time from head to heel, not perfunctorily but most attentively, and in doing so their context seemed such that it by no means permits fifty years to be held as lying between the arrival of St. Saturninus in the city of Toulouse and the martyrdom endured by him there; and hence I laid aside all doubt and came over to the opinion of Ruinart, who holds that the Acts of St. Saturninus were written at the beginning of the IVth century. And yet, since in the same Acts, where the translation of the Body of St. Saturninus is treated, mention occurs of St. Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse at the beginning of the Vth century, this thing still cast a scruple on me. But Ruinart took this also from me, observing thus on the place of the said Acts in which it is narrated how it came about that only two women buried the body of St. Saturninus: In one of our manuscript codices this clause is placed here, "Thanks to almighty God, who crowned His martyr in peace, to whom be honour and glory for ages of ages. Amen." Then under the title "Of his translation. In those Days he remained for some time &c." "The things which follow seem to have been added afterwards to the earlier Acts."

[45] So he; and surely, since the Acts of St. Saturninus of which we speak here are not prolix, and the other objection and in one of the codices employed by Ruinart, after the clause subjoined, by which they are indicated to end where they have narrated the martyrdom of that Saint, they then treat under another title of the translation of the same Saint, the words by which this latter is done there seem to this writer, not undeservedly, to have been added afterwards to the mentioned Acts, or to their former part, already written some while before, in which the martyrdom of St. Saturninus is narrated. Now indeed, since this is so, the mention made in the said Acts, or rather in their latter part, in which the Translation of St. Saturninus is treated, of St. Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse at the beginning of the Vth century, ought certainly not, as will be clear to one who considers it, to prevent the Acts of St. Saturninus, or, to speak more distinctly, their former part, in which the martyrdom and deeds of this Saint are narrated, from being held with Ruinart to have been written at the beginning of the IVth century. But indeed, you will say, although Ruinart employed several codices for editing the Acts of St. Saturninus, he nevertheless makes mention, in the place just cited, of only one in which the Acts of St. Saturninus, the martyrdom of this Saint having been narrated, have the clause mentioned above subjoined to them and then treat under another title of the translation of the same martyr; and hence it appears altogether certain that in all the others, and even in the codex of Fossés itself, which by the words recited at number 42 he makes older than all the rest (for otherwise he would not have neglected to express it by name), the martyrdom and translation of St. Saturninus are treated in continuous series, or one not interrupted by a new title prefixed to the narrative of the translation and by the aforesaid clause.

[46] being solved, it is proved, only fifty years I admit, so it stands: but although indeed, for the most part, or even almost always, one should stand by that reading of Acts which is supported by the authority not of one codex only but of several, especially if among these there is one older than all the rest, this nevertheless cannot have place here as regards the Acts of St. Saturninus. For thence, as will become evident to anyone attentively weighing the matter, it would follow that not only their latter part, in which the translation of that holy bishop and martyr of Toulouse is related to have been made in the Vth century by Exsuperius, likewise bishop of Toulouse, but also the former, in which the deeds and martyrdom of the same holy martyr are narrated, would have to be held to have been written at the beginning of the Vth century; and what prevents this from being held to have been written then is the context of the words in which it is couched, which, since, as has already been said, it does not permit fifty years to be held as lying between the arrival of St. Saturninus in the city of Toulouse and the martyrdom endured by him there, necessarily requires that the fifty years mentioned in the former part of the Acts of St. Saturninus be understood of the fifty years elapsed from the arrival of this Saint in the city of Toulouse, or from the consulship of Decius and Gratus, which is joined with it there, up to the time at which the former part of the Acts of St. Saturninus, just mentioned again, was put into writing, and that accordingly this was composed at the beginning of the IVth century (for thither the fifty years elapsed from the consulship of Decius and Gratus, inasmuch as it fell in the year of Christ 250, lead). Hence, further, it now comes about that, although the manuscript codex praised by Ruinart, which permits this epoch to be assigned to that writing, though all the other codices which he also praises stand against it, is solitary and single, one should nevertheless stand by its reading, already sufficiently explained above.

[47] wrote fifty years after the death of St. Saturninus, Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and nothing besides occurs from elsewhere on account of which the epoch of the said Writing, or of the written former part of the Acts of St. Saturninus, should be deferred beyond the beginning of the IVth century, the author or writer who committed it to writing, from the things which, of the Christian Religion, when St. Saturninus came to Toulouse, in

the Gauls was the state, and of the death inflicted on this holy prelate by the tumultuous people of Toulouse in hatred of the faith, in the year about 260, as pleases most, which he hands down to memory, was removed only by about half a century, and could accordingly have had them most fully known, as things which he either himself saw or certainly heard from older Christians, whose then still persisting remembrance by which they retained them he praises. Moreover, the things which he relates of St. Saturninus agree admirably with those which Sidonius, book 9, Letter 16, and Fortunatus, book 2 of the Poems, chapter IX, hand down to memory of this Saint; and even by the style, full of grave and holy eloquence, in which he wrote the Acts of St. Saturninus, he achieved that these, as Tillemont says, Memoirs, tome 3, page 297, deservedly claim for themselves the approbation which they enjoy among all the learned. Wherefore, since it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently established from what has already been said that that author is of altogether proved credit and authority, I now proceed to that which I promised above I would prove.

[48] Still rare, when St. Saturninus came to Toulouse in the middle of the third century, by the anonymous author and seven bishops of the Gauls were the churches erected in some cities of the Gauls by the devotion of a few Christians, as he who composed the Acts of that holy prelate of Toulouse, or at least their former part, testifies in the words recited above. That writer indeed can seem at first sight to have spoken only comparatively of the churches which then existed in the Gauls, few in respect of the frequent temples in which the idolaters sacrificed to the gods, and therefore by no means to stand in the way of its being believed that many churches did in fact exist then in the Gauls; but if the said words are compared with what precedes and follows, and so are more deeply weighed, anyone free of prejudices will easily recognise, unless I am mistaken, that by them he spoke of churches which, when St. Saturninus came to Toulouse, existed in the Gauls few or rare in number, not only comparatively to the frequent temples of the idols but absolutely, and only in some cities. Further, since this is so, and in the IVth century also, in which St. Martin presided over the church of Tours, the ineffable mysteries of the Lord's Trinity had in the Gallican territories still come only to the knowledge of a few, as the words of the seven bishops of Gaul recited at number 42 disclose, to be understood in the manner which I set forth there, the two ancient testimonies already adduced above, by which both the latter and the former is asserted by those bishops and by the writer of the Acts of St. Saturninus, certainly fight in appearance with Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, or with their assertions transcribed above, which, if they be understood with that extension which some would have, seem to require for their truth that at the beginning of the third century, nay as early as the 2nd century, diverse nations in the Gauls, or in each of their provinces, believed in Christ, supplicated God through Him, and that churches which had also their own bishops were founded among the Celts or Gauls, nay among each of their provinces.

[49] But what, the matter standing so, are we now to do? are reconciled, ought to be expounded, Shall we then attribute so extended or general a sense to the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, and pronounce that the anonymous writer of the Acts of St. Saturninus and the seven bishops of Gaul praised above certainly strayed from the truth? Certainly not: for the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian of which we speak here can, with truth preserved, be expounded in a sense not general, or, as I have already shown, in a particular sense and such as extends itself not to each and every, but only to some, and not even very many in number, nations or provinces of the Gauls; and since, so expounded, they by no means fight with the words related above which the anonymous writer of the Acts of St. Saturninus and the seven bishops of the Gauls supply, and which require for their truth that in the middle of the third century, nay even as the fourth was already passing, only few churches and not very many Christians existed in the Gauls, and since the equity of reason requires that ancient Writers who are in appearance opposed to one another should not be dashed against each other, but, if it can be done, reconciled or brought into concord, those same assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, as from what has been said they can be, so in very fact ought to be expounded in a sense not general, or extended only in that manner which I have said. And so, when Justin, in the words transcribed here at number 27, discloses in general that in his age supplication was made among the Gallic nation through the name of the Crucified Jesus to God the Founder of all things, he is to be judged to have spoken not of each and every, but only of some men of that nation among whom supplication was then so made to God.

[50] prove is to be embraced. And as regards Irenaeus and Tertullian, when, in the words recited at number 27 and following, they relate that in their age churches existed among the Celts and that diverse nations of the Gauls believed in Christ, they must necessarily be understood not of each and every, but at most of only some provinces or nations of the Celts or Gauls which then believed in Christ and had churches founded among them. And since the matter indeed stands so, the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, already sufficiently and more than sufficiently discussed, by no means prove that as many churches having their own bishops existed in the Gauls already from the second century and the beginning of the third as those are wont to lay down who, with the Bosquet Acts to be edited, bind the mission of St. Dionysius to the 1st century. Hence, further, it now follows besides that neither do they prove that the epoch just mentioned and often mentioned before, which the Bosquet Acts assign to the mission of Dionysius into the Gauls, is to be embraced. For since they are true, from what has been said, if even a few episcopal churches existed in the second century and the beginning of the third in only one or another of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul, who would conclude from assertions of this kind that as early as the 1st century there existed in the same four provinces — which nevertheless would be chiefly necessary for asserting or claiming that epoch — many churches of this kind, and among them that of Paris, which Dionysius, then sent from Rome by Pope Clement, founded? No one surely, as I think, especially one who has considered that most of the churches of the Gauls which are nearer to Italy were founded before others which are more remote from it, and that that of Lyons, much nearer to Italy than that of Paris is, was founded only in the 2nd century, as is agreed among all, by St. Photinus the bishop, who obtained the palm of martyrdom in the year 177.

* perhaps continetur is to be supplied.

* perhaps continetur is to be supplied.

§ IV. The things said in the preceding § about the epoch which the Bosquet Acts assign to the mission of Dionysius into the Gauls not being embraced on account of the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are confirmed.

[The assertions mentioned here, taken even in a wider sense, do not prove that many churches existed in the Gauls in the 1st century] Since the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, which we discussed in the § immediately preceding, can, nay even, as I proved at number 49, must be expounded in a sense not general, or extended only to that breadth which I set forth at number 40, hence, as I have already shown, it comes about that they by no means prove that the epoch of the mission of Dionysius into the Gauls which the Bosquet Acts bind to the first century is to be embraced. The matter, unless I am mistaken, is sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear from what has already been said above; but in order that it may become more confirmed against those who will perhaps still contend that the aforesaid assertions must necessarily be expounded in a general sense, or at least extended more widely than I have just laid down, I undertake to prove in the present § that, even this granted, the mentioned epoch is not to be embraced. The assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian which I have mentioned do not, from what was disputed above, prove that that epoch is to be embraced, or that the mission of Dionysius into the Gauls is to be bound to the 1st century, if they can be expounded in a sense not general, or extended only to that breadth which I have explained, for this reason, that, this being admitted, it can by no means be inferred from them that many episcopal churches had been founded in the Gauls as early as the 1st century: but can this likewise not be inferred from those same assertions, if they are to be expounded with all the breadth which they can have, or so that they signify that as early as the 2nd century and the beginning of the following, or in the age of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, episcopal churches and worshippers of Christ existed in great number in each and every one of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul? Certainly not: for why could it not have come about that churches of this kind grew to no moderate number in the Gauls after one or two centuries from the preaching of the faith, although meanwhile only few had existed there in the first century?

[52] Whether, therefore, the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian be expounded with only that breadth or extension which I set forth above, do not prove churches existed, and since weighty reasons to the contrary or with all which they can have, they by no means compel us to admit that many episcopal churches existed in the Gauls as early as the 1st century; on the contrary, not a few weighty reasons prevent us from admitting it, as those which I am now going to adduce will show. Most of the churches of the Gauls which glory that they were founded and adorned with episcopal sees as early as the 1st century exhibit, and can exhibit, no other catalogues of their bishops than such as require that the beginnings of the episcopates erected among them be not placed before about the middle of the IIIrd century, unless otherwise very long, and accordingly incredible, vacancies of almost all of these at the same period are to be admitted. Moreover, if as many churches as they would have, and bishops set over them, had existed in the Gauls as early as the 1st century, it would follow that at that time the Christian religion flourished there more than in any other places of the earth whatever; which no one will deny to be foreign to the truth who has attentively weighed even the two testimonies already recited above which the anonymous writer of the Acts of St. Saturninus and the seven bishops of the Gauls in their letter to St. Radegund supply.

[53] and above all those which For since, as the first of these has it, churches were still only rarely arising in only some cities of the Gauls by the devotion of a few Christians when St. Saturninus began to govern Toulouse with the episcopal office, which happened in the middle of the IIIrd century; nay rather, since also, as the second has it, in the IVth century, in which St. Martin presided over the church of Tours, the ineffable Sacraments of the Lord's Trinity had in the Gallican territories still come only to the knowledge of a few, I am indeed brought only with the greatest difficulty to believe that as early as the 1st century in almost all, or at least in the chief, as the patrons of the opinion which fixes the mission of Dionysius and his companions to the 1st century contend, of the Gauls

cities Episcopal churches, or churches over which bishops presided, were founded, and that worshippers of Christ existed in great number in each of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Gaul. Further, I am not a little confirmed in this opinion also by Sulpicius Severus, a most weighty as well as most ancient author, who in book 2, chapter 32, of the Sacred History writes thus: Under Aurelius, the son of Antoninus, the fifth persecution was set in motion, and then first martyrdoms were seen within the Gauls, the Religion of God having been received later beyond the Alps. For if, as the praised writer teaches by these words, martyrdoms were not seen in the Gauls before the fifth persecution was set in motion under Aurelius, who began to govern the Roman empire in the year 161, and this, as the same writer indicates, happened only then because the Religion of God was received later beyond the Alps, it follows that, if Sulpicius records true things, not even then, when the last of the first four persecutions by which the Church was shaken was stirred up under Hadrian, emperor of the Romans from the year 117 up to the year 138, had the Christian Religion been received in the Gauls, and that accordingly there did not exist as early as the 1st century, in each of the four provinces into which these were divided by Augustus, churches and bishops who presided over them.

[54] by the authority of Sulpicius Severus But indeed, say those who bind the mission of Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius into the Gauls to the 1st century, Sulpicius Severus, although he flourished as the IVth century was growing old and the fifth beginning, nevertheless not rarely erred in the very history of the IVth century, and it is not a little to be feared even for that reason that he erred still more often in the deeds of the earlier centuries, as being further removed from them. So they: but although indeed I could bring forward here not contemptible considerations of reasons which are of a nature to vindicate from error the authority of Sulpicius Severus, and by name the place just transcribed here from him, I nevertheless omit to do so, lest, slipping thus into the general controversy about the beginnings of the faith first brought into the Gauls, we be led away from our purpose further than is fitting; and, conceding for the moment that error accordingly lies in the said text of Sulpicius as regards the time at which the faith of Christ was received in the Gauls, I contend that this writer nevertheless stands not a little in the way of the opinion which holds that as early as the 1st century there were episcopal churches in each and every one of the four provinces into which Augustus divided Transalpine Gaul, and among them that of Paris; and how deservedly I do this will be clear from what is now to be said. Although Sulpicius Severus, as we have already granted, perhaps in very fact went astray about the time at which the faith of Christ was first received in the Gauls, he certainly committed the error not knowingly and willingly but in ignorance; but although indeed it could easily have come about that this writer was ignorant that the faith had been received in the Gauls as early as the 1st century, if only one or another church, for example that of Arles and that of Vienne, had been founded already then, I can by no means be brought to believe that he would have been ignorant of it if all the churches which they would have, in each and every one of the four provinces of the Gauls, had already then been founded and adorned with episcopal sees.

[55] And indeed, if as many churches as they would have there, and by name indeed that of Paris, by the authority, of Auvergne, of Metz, of Tours, of Reims, of Soissons, of Sens, of Beauvais, of Rouen, of Orléans, of Meaux, of Le Mans, of Châlons, and finally, to omit several others besides, of Évreux, had been founded as early as the 1st century and had their own bishops by whom they were ruled, and had therefore received the faith already then, no one will easily persuade himself that Sulpicius Severus would not have had this ascertained as regards even one of the churches already mentioned, either from the older monuments which he had to light his way or from the tradition propagated up to his own age, who has considered that that writer flourished in the IVth century in the Gauls themselves and applied the greatest diligence to searching out and further handing down to memory chiefly the things which had been done there. They reply indeed that Sulpicius Severus reduced the ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into a compendium, and, since he had found in it no mention, before the reign of Marcus Aurelius, either of the faith announced or received in the Gauls or of martyrs suffering there, he handed down to memory in the place transcribed above things from which, if they accord with the truth, it follows that the faith was nowhere received in the Gauls before the second century of the Christian era was already passing. But Sulpicius Severus neither had the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius alone to light his way, nor composed his Work, which is entitled the Sacred History, from it alone. This writer teaches us this, speaking thus in the preface prefixed to this little work: I have not spared my labour, so as to enclose in two little books the things which were contained written out in very many volumes, so studying brevity that I took away almost nothing from the deeds. Since, therefore, Sulpicius, as is clear from these words of his, used very many volumes for composing the Sacred History which he wrote, nay, enclosed in the two little books written by him on it all the things which he found in very many volumes, he certainly, contrary to what they contend, did not reduce the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into a compendium, nor compose from it alone the Work which is entitled the Sacred History.

[56] Ménard indeed, in his Diatribe on the single Dionysius against Launoy, chapter 1, observes, in order thus to lower the authority of Sulpicius, that no writer at all of Ecclesiastical Affairs earlier than Sulpicius Severus existed in the Gauls by Ménard in vain, from whom he could have learned the time noted by him of the faith received in the Gauls and of the martyrdoms first seen there, and that he fell into many most grave errors when he speaks of the heathen emperors who persecuted the Christians; but in the list of errors which he there imputes to Sulpicius there occurs absolutely none which he committed in things done in Gaul, his homeland; and as regards the scarcity of Ecclesiastical Writers from which Gaul suffered before Sulpicius Severus, why could it not have come about that, even if indeed before Sulpicius Severus no one wrote in the Gauls ecclesiastical affairs digested according to the series of the times, the Passions of the martyrs, both those who suffered under Marcus Aurelius and those under Diocletian or Maximian, had nevertheless been put into writing by some, and Sulpicius learned from them the things which he writes about the beginning of the faith received in the Gauls? That Passions of the martyrs who were crowned under Diocletian were written in the Gauls by writers earlier than Sulpicius this author himself teaches not obscurely, when he discloses, in book 2 of the Sacred History, that these still survived in his age; and although he nowhere declares that the Passions likewise of the martyrs who shed their blood under Marcus Aurelius still existed or survived in his age, it does not follow hence, since he does not enumerate all the monuments employed by him for composing his Sacred History, that Passions of this kind no longer survived in the Gauls then.

[57] as is proved, But why more on this matter? Let Sulpicius have had before his eyes no Passions of martyrs, no monuments at all, from which he could have learned the things which he writes about the time of the faith received in the Gauls and of the martyrdoms seen there, and let him therefore, as Ménard also would have it in the place cited, have committed these things to writing without a sure author; I contend that he would not have done this if as early as the first century of the Christian era as many churches as they would have had existed, not only in Narbonensian Gaul but also in Aquitanian and Belgic, and had bishops set over them. For what? If as many churches as they would have had already then been founded in each and every one of those provinces of Gaul and adorned with episcopal sees, all those churches in the age of Sulpicius Severus either had ancient monuments or traditions from which this was established, or were destitute of them: and if you assert that the first was the case, it must be either that Sulpicius Severus was utterly ignorant of the monuments and traditions of this kind of all those churches, or that, against the authority of the latter and the former, which nevertheless could not but seem to him the highest, he taught that the Christian faith was received in the Gauls not before the persecutions moved against the Church of God by the emperors Trajan and Hadrian in the 2nd century had come to an end; but no one, as I think, will persuade himself of either, who has considered that Sulpicius Severus was so upright that he would not write things which he knew to be foreign to the truth, and, if not altogether skilled in Gallic Affairs, yet not so ignorant that he would not know things which could not but be most well known to almost all.

[58] attacked, It remains, therefore, that we say that all those churches, or at least by far the greatest part of them, lacked in the age of Sulpicius ancient monuments and traditions from which they had it ascertained that they had been founded and adorned with episcopal sees as early as the 1st century; and since the matter stands so, and accordingly either no churches, or certainly only few, in the Gauls had monuments and traditions of this kind at that time, say, I pray, how did it come about that as many Gallican churches as they would have afterwards gloried, and now still glory, that they were founded as early as the 1st century, bishops also having been appointed by whom they were ruled? It follows from what has already been said that they were certainly led to this by no other documents or notices than those which were later than the age of Sulpicius. And I indeed would think that nothing nearer the truth will be laid down than if the matter be said to have happened in the following manner. Since it was held ascertained from genuine, and accordingly, as many think, also true tradition that the faith had been brought into the Gauls as early as the 1st century by the Apostles or their disciples and that some, though very few, churches had also been founded there, certain men, carried away by a preposterous love of antiquity, with which, as with a most beautiful title of nobility, they wished their churches to be adorned even if they had been founded later, thought more easily than was right that these too had nevertheless been established by bishops sent by the Apostles themselves or their nearest successors; and these opinions of theirs, afterwards spread among the people and also committed to writing, at length, when they had become in some way venerable by the name of antiquity acquired in the lapse of time, so prevailed with the said churches, though founded, as I have said, later, that these both held them for true traditions and hence without difficulty persuaded themselves that they had been founded as early as the 1st century by disciples of the Apostles or bishops sent by them.

[59] However that may be, since indeed most of the churches of the Gauls which is repeated, persuade, glory that they were founded as early as the 1st century, lest Sulpicius Severus be charged either with altogether supine ignorance in Gallic affairs or with bad faith in writing, both of which are impious,

judge themselves to have been founded, must necessarily be asserted, from what has already been said, to be destitute of monuments and traditions older than Sulpicius by which they might confirm this opinion of theirs, and to defend so great an antiquity of theirs only by more recent documents of slight credit, indeed the honour due and further to be preserved to this writer also brings it about that the opinion which asserts that, if not absolutely no, certainly only very few churches were founded in the Gauls in the 1st century, turns out most probable, not to say almost certain. Hence, further, it comes about that the things said above about the epoch which the Bosquet Acts assign to the mission of Dionysius not being admitted on account of the general assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are not a little confirmed. But indeed there will perhaps still be someone who, in order to weaken and lighten the argument just now sought from the authority of Sulpicius Severus, will oppose to this ancient author Orosius, who flourished in the same age as he, and hands down to memory things from which someone perhaps might conclude that not a few churches, and bishops by whom these were governed, existed in the Gauls as early as the 1st century. For two places or texts are found in which this likewise ancient writer does this, the one in book 7 of the histories written by him, chapter 7, the other in chapter 10 of the same book.

[60] And in the former indeed he speaks thus of Nero, emperor of the Romans from the year 54 up to the year 68: hence the things about the epoch of the Dionysian mission, He first afflicted the Christians at Rome with punishments and deaths, and ordered them to be tormented through all the provinces with a like persecution; and in the latter he writes in the following manner of Domitian, who presided over the Roman empire from the year 81 up to the year 96: For fifteen years he grew little by little through all the degrees of crimes to such a point that he dared to tear up the church of Christ, most firmly established in the whole world, edicts of most cruel persecution having been given everywhere. Such are the two texts of Orosius which I mentioned; but from neither is anything made out against the opinion which holds only very few episcopal churches in the Gauls in the 1st century. I show the matter thus as regards the former; when Nero, as he discloses, ordered the Christians to be tormented through all the provinces of the Roman empire, he certainly did not signify, by the edict promulgated against them, that at that time, when he did this, Christians existed through all the provinces of the Roman empire, but only that he wished that in whatever provinces of the empire Christians should be found, they should be afflicted with punishments. So, if some prince should order that a new kind of punishment be applied with severity against household thieves through all the cities of his dominion, he by no means thus signifies that household thieves already exist in all the cities subject to him at the time when he publishes the edict to this end, but only that he wishes that, wherever in the cities of his dominion thieves of this kind be found, they be punished with the new kind of punishment which he prescribes.

[61] [on account of the assertions of the Fathers, the two texts of Orosius which tell to the contrary] Now indeed, if Nero, when he ordered the Christians to be tormented through all the provinces of the empire, meant only that to be signified which I have just said, indeed no signification by which anything more is understood is to be attributed to the former text of Orosius of which we are here treating, and hence it comes about that it cannot even be inferred from it that Christians existed through all the provinces of the empire when Nero persecuted the Church. The matter appears manifest; but let us grant even that it stands otherwise, and that the truth of the Orosian text requires that, when Nero persecuted the Church, Christians existed in all the provinces of the empire, and accordingly also in the Gauls, which constituted one of them; will it follow hence that these too were many in number there, and that episcopal churches — which nevertheless would be necessary for anything to be made out against the opinion defended by us here — existed also not few? Certainly not, as no one will fail to admit who has weighed in any way even the words alone in which the said former text of Orosius is couched. I now come to the latter. In it this writer relates that the Church of Christ, while Domitian reigned, or as the 1st century was growing old, was most firmly established in the whole world; but it is admitted among all that at that time the faith of Christ had not yet been received by not a few nations, especially Northern ones.

[62] being solved, which were said not to be bound to the 1st century, are confirmed. Moreover, as the Acts of St. Saturninus, written from what was said above at the beginning of the IVth century, testify, churches were still only rarely arising in some cities of the Gauls by the devotion of a few Christians when this Saint came to Toulouse in the middle of the IIIrd century; nay rather, in the IVth century, when St. Martin had not yet come into Gaul, the mysteries of the Christian Religion had not even yet come there to the knowledge of many (go to the things which I adduced at number 42 from the letter of the seven bishops of Gaul to St. Radegund). When, therefore, Orosius says in the words transcribed above that the Church of Christ was most firmly established in the whole world towards the end of the 1st century, he is either to be said to stray from the truth, or to be understood so that it is signified by those words that the faith of Christ had then been received not in each and every, but only in many regions of the world, churches having been erected here and there, which nevertheless were not very many in number. Now indeed, since the matter undoubtedly stands so, as is clear from what has already been said, likewise nothing is had from the latter text of Orosius already discussed from which you could in any way make out that many episcopal churches existed in the Gauls as early as the 1st century; and since the things which I adduced above for defending the opposite opinion therefore stand firm and unshaken, indeed the things which were said in the § immediately preceding about the epoch of the Dionysian mission not being bound to the 1st century on account of the assertions of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian are not a little confirmed, as I have already said, by what has just been disputed here.

§ V. What is to be thought of the two testimonies which tell for fixing the mission of St. Dionysius into the Gauls to the 1st century, and which they contend were given by the biographer of St. Genevieve and by St. Fortunatus.

[For binding the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century, St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve] Those who defend the epoch assigned to the mission of St. Dionysius into the Gauls in the Bosquet Acts of him and of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius bring forward chiefly two ancient testimonies, much favouring, as they judge, their opinion, of which they ascribe the one to the writer of the Life of St. Genevieve, the other to St. Fortunatus. But they neither sufficiently prove that they do this deservedly, nor, even if they proved it, would they make out from testimonies of this kind what they would have. The things which I am now going to say about both of these will prove the matter clearly, unless I am mistaken. I begin from the testimony which they attribute to the biographer of St. Genevieve. Bolland, the first author and parent of our Work, at the 3rd day of January, on which St. Genevieve stands inscribed in the sacred Fasti, exhibits two Lives of her from old manuscripts, or rather two copies of the same Life. The latter of these has thus at number 14: But this bishop (namely Dionysius) ended his life by martyrdom at the sixth milestone from Paris, who was blessed into the priesthood by Clement the bishop, disciple of St. Peter, and is said to have been destined by the same into these parts, which Clement also described with admirable preaching the contest of the aforesaid saint Peter the apostle with Simon Magus at Caesarea or elsewhere.

[64] The said copy of the Life of St. Genevieve, in which these words are read, [adduce; but since the words of this which they allege, though found in many Ms. codices,] Rosweyde had once copied from the manuscript of D. Preudhomme, canon of Cambrai. So Bolland notes at number 2 in the things which he says by way of preface to the two Lives of St. Genevieve edited by him; and since, as he also says there, he compared the mentioned manuscript of Rosweyde, or, if you prefer, the extract, with the manuscripts of the imperial monastery of St. Maximin and of the church of St. Omer and others, and does not note that they differ among themselves as regards the words already transcribed above, he undoubtedly found them not only in this one but also in all those. Moreover, the same words are likewise found in the Life of St. Genevieve edited by Surius at the third day of January, and likewise, as Ménard says in his Diatribe on the single Dionysius against Launoy, chapter 18, in the manuscripts of St. Remigius of Reims, and in the ancient codices of the monastery of SS. Cornelius and Cyprian at Compiègne exhibiting the Life of St. Genevieve, and still others could be joined to these, as will be clear from the things to be alleged below. Further, since in the words transcribed above, which are read in so many manuscript Lives of St. Genevieve and in so many ancient codices, St. Dionysius is expressly related to have been sent into the Gauls by St. Clement, the Roman Pontiff, hence those who likewise ascribe the mission of Dionysius to this Pontiff, or bind it to the 1st century, contend that this epoch assigned to that mission is not a little confirmed.

[65] yet in several other Mss., And they judge so because, as is insinuated in the very former of the two copies of the Life of St. Genevieve edited, as has been said, by Bolland, number 51, it was written only eighteen years after the death of this holy Virgin, and because accordingly, since St. Genevieve closed her last day at the beginning of the VIth century, as is agreed among all, the aforesaid epoch is founded on a testimony which, inasmuch as it is excerpted from that Life, is certainly not much more recent than the VIth century advanced only to about its twentieth year. But whether the Life of St. Genevieve, two copies of which Bolland edited in the place cited, and several more of which exist elsewhere, is the original Life of that Saint, which was written only eighteen years after her death, is uncertain and doubtful, as Bolland observes in his Preface there, number 2. Moreover, although so many ancient manuscripts, as I have already set forth, and so many ancient manuscript codices likewise, comprising the same Life of St. Genevieve, of whatever kind it be at length, contain the words transcribed above, by which, in the latter copy of it published by Bolland, St. Dionysius is related to have been sent into the Gauls by St. Clement the Pope, there are nevertheless found not a few ancient manuscripts too, and likewise not a few ancient manuscript codices, likewise exhibiting the same Life of St. Genevieve, from which those words are utterly absent.

[66] as, from Bolland, by these Bolland, after these following words, which are read in the former Life of St. Genevieve which he edited, chapter 4, number 16, With what great veneration and love (St. Genevieve) loved the village of Catulliacum, in which saint Dionysius with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius suffered and was buried, I think is by no means to be passed over in silence, observes thus in the Annotation subjoined: The Utrecht manuscript inserts many things about the mission of St. Dionysius into the Gauls; which, since they are absent from the other manuscripts, we omit; and on account of this omission François Pagi, in his historico-critical Dissertation on St. Dionysius prefixed to tome 4 of the Breviarium of the Roman Pontiffs, number 41, carps at Bolland thus;

It would have been better to report the things which were in the manuscript codex than to take them away. But since Bolland, as he teaches in the notices immediately preceding it, number 2, employed for editing that Life not only the Utrecht manuscript but two others besides, namely that of St. Mary of Ripatorium and that of the monastery of St. Mary of Bonnefontaine, he judged that the reading was rather to be followed, not which he found in that one alone, but which he found in these two latter manuscripts, and indeed, as appears, not undeservedly. However that may be, he had to light his way at least two ancient manuscripts, as becomes manifest from the things already alleged, in which the words transcribed above, by which St. Dionysius is asserted to have been sent into the Gauls by St. Clement the Pope, are absent from the Life of St. Genevieve.

[67] and the notice sent to us Further, to these two manuscripts is added an ancient manuscript codex seen by Launoy in the library of the Celestines of Paris, in which, as this writer testifies in the Discussion of the Answer to the Dissertation on the two Dionysiuses, chapter 18, those words are likewise absent from the Life of St. Genevieve. Moreover, the most learned Dom Pingré, canon Regular of the abbey of St. Genevieve at Paris, whom I have praised above at folio 805, writes thus in the notice sent to us about the manuscript Codices which Carpentier, likewise canon Regular of the same abbey, had used for editing the Life of St. Genevieve: We hold here five manuscript codices of the Life of Blessed Genevieve. Baluze referred the most ancient of them to the beginnings of the ninth century; the rest are more recent, say of the twelfth, thirteenth or fourteenth century. In one of them, which I would willingly believe of the twelfth century, the scholium about Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Blessed Clement is lacking, but it is to be found in the four others. It is likewise lacking in the text of the Life of St. Genevieve which our Carpentier edited in the year 1697. That Life was brought to the standard of nine manuscripts, one most ancient of Sainte-Geneviève, of which above, eight others of Colbert's.

[68] Of these nine there were three in which Dionysius was reported sent by Clement, reviewed, is proved. are not found in the copies of the Life of St. Genevieve, namely the Sainte-Geneviève one and two Colbertine ones written about the thirteenth century. In another Colbertine one of the twelfth century the scholium was wholly lacking, but Dionysius was called the Areopagite. In another manuscript of the end of the twelfth century, in three of the thirteenth century, and in one of the end of the same century or the beginning of the fourteenth, the scholium is both lacking and Dionysius is called only bishop of the Parisii; and since there are six of the ancient manuscript codices reviewed here in which the scholium, or the words transcribed above about Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Clement, are absent from the Life of St. Genevieve, and we have besides assigned above three other ancient manuscript codices in which these are likewise absent from the Life of St. Genevieve, it follows that at least nine ancient manuscript codices of this kind are found. Now indeed, since the matter stands so, and it would not be difficult to assign still more such codices, what, I ask, do those who judge that Dionysius was sent into the Gauls by St. Clement the Pope in the 1st century make out for establishing this opinion of theirs from the ancient manuscript codices, though many in number, in which, as has been said, the aforesaid words are not absent from the Life of St. Genevieve? Nothing surely, unless perhaps they shall have clearly shown that the nine ancient manuscript copies of the Life of St. Genevieve assigned above, in which the scholium, or the words already often mentioned about Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Clement, are not found, are corrupt or mutilated.

[69] But by what reason they could do this I do not see, and by corruption, not these but others, and on the contrary it appears to me, for the reasons now to be adduced, that the ancient manuscript copies of the Life of St. Genevieve already reviewed above, in which those words are read, are rather corrupt or interpolated. Pingré, just praised, having supplied the notice, which I have just transcribed, about the ancient manuscript codices comprising the Life of St. Genevieve, at once subjoins: Let it be permitted to note that that scholium (about St. Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Clement), wherever I have found it, ends with these words: "Therefore, since I have discoursed briefly of saint Clement, successor of the aforesaid apostle" (namely Peter) "and of saint Dionysius destined by him with many others into Gaul, let me return to my purpose." From which words I would willingly infer that such a scholium was added to the original Life of St. Genevieve at the time when the opinion about St. Dionysius sent by St. Clement into Gaul had begun to be spread abroad, yet not all as yet coming down into the same opinion. So he, showing himself inclined to admit both that the scholium, or the words about Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Clement, were thrust into the original Life of St. Genevieve by a writer of a later age, and that this was done only then when the opinion that the Dionysian mission was to be attributed to St. Clement the Pope had arisen.

[70] the copies of the Life of St. Genevieve in which they are found And indeed what makes it most probable to me that those words were in very fact thrust into the original Life of St. Genevieve by a writer who had embraced the already arisen opinion about Dionysius sent by Clement is both the silence of Hilduin about this Life and the connection of the parts of the discourse, which in the Life of St. Genevieve, the same words being rejected or cut away, is excellently preserved, but, they being retained, is either altogether lost or certainly, the series of the speech being thereby disturbed, found only with great difficulty. That I may set out more clearly what I mean, it will help to have transcribed here again the aforesaid words about Dionysius sent by Clement, although already transcribed above from the latter copy of the Life of St. Genevieve edited by Bolland, together with the two parts of the Discourse, of which one is set before them and the other subjoined. The discourse, or entire text, which is compounded thence, runs thus: She (St. Genevieve) loved with great love and veneration the village of Catulliacum, in which St. Dionysius both suffered and was buried. But this Bishop ended his life by martyrdom at the sixth milestone from Paris, who was blessed into the priesthood by Clement the bishop, disciple of St. Peter, and is said to have been destined by the same into these parts, which Clement also described with admirable preaching the contest of the aforesaid saint Peter the Apostle with Simon Magus at Caesarea or elsewhere. For St. Genevieve desired with the greatest ambition to build a basilica to this holy martyr Dionysius in the aforesaid village.

[71] [seem defiled, those words, which not even Hilduin cites, into the original Life of St. Genevieve] Compare now the latter part of this text with the former, and you will see that this is most fitly joined or connected with that if the words inserted about Dionysius and Clement are cut away, but on the contrary, if they are retained, that all conjunction or connection is almost taken away, the series of the discourse being thereby disturbed. Now indeed, since it is so, hence it is certainly proved, in some way at least, that those words proceeded not from the pen of the biographer of St. Genevieve but from the untrustworthy hand of an interpolator; but this is done far more strongly from the things which I shall now bring forward about Hilduin. This abbot of Saint-Denis, when the IXth century was advanced, wrote a sufficiently prolix Dissertation, customarily distinguished under the name of the Areopagitica together with the two letters accompanying it (go to the Commentary which I prefixed above to the fictitious Acts of the latter Saint), in order to show that St. Dionysius, apostle of the Parisians, was sent by St. Clement and was the same as St. Dionysius the Areopagite; and although he most eagerly reviews in that work any documents or testimonies found by him which he judged in any way suitable for establishing the opinion about Dionysius sent by Clement, he nevertheless nowhere makes mention of the words by which in the Life of St. Genevieve, the most celebrated patroness of the Parisians, Dionysius is said to have been sent into the Gauls by Clement.

[72] were most probably thrust into the Life even after the age of Hilduin; Since, further, as seems most probable, he had well perceived each and every thing which was contained in that Life, as having undoubtedly read it through more than once, who, I ask, would easily persuade himself that he would have done this if that same Life, such as it then existed, had comprised those words? No one surely, as I think, who has considered that Hilduin applied even the greatest diligence in searching out the things which might in any way conduce to proving his opinion about Dionysius sent by Clement. Now indeed, since this is so, indeed what I asserted above is not ineptly made out from Hilduin's silence about the Life of St. Genevieve. Nor do we have only this from it, but also that the same words about Dionysius sent by Clement were thrust into the original Life of St. Genevieve by an interpolator, not from the rise (which perhaps took place in the VIth century) of the opinion about Dionysius sent by Clement, but only then when the Areopagitica of Hilduin had already seen the light in the IXth century. The matter can easily be gathered from the things which have just now been said, attentively weighed; so that it is not necessary to bring forward more about it here. I proceed to the testimony which the patrons of the opinion about Dionysius sent by Clement ascribe to St. Fortunatus.

[73] This holy bishop of Poitiers, as the VIth century was growing old, composed, they say, a hymn on St. Dionysius of Paris, and whether the hymn ascribed to Fortunatus is truly Fortunatus's can published by Doublet in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, and in it sings in the following manner:

The strong faithful soldier, Who followed Christ the prince, Dionysius the martyr, Let the people sound with heart and voice. Clement being bishop at Rome, Sent from the city he came, That of the seed of the word on high There might be fruit for Gaul.

But that hymn, as Doublet teaches in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 1, is joined in one and the same codex of Saint-Denis, written in letters of gold, with another hymn in praise of St. Dionysius, which I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, §8, to have been falsely attributed to St. Eugenius, prelate of Toledo. Moreover the same hymn — which chiefly makes me doubt whether it was truly composed by St. Fortunatus — is not found in the by no means suspect collections of all the hymns and poems of Fortunatus sent forth into the light by Brouwer and Binius. Ménard indeed and others who would have Dionysius sent into the Gauls by Clement reply that the said hymn, although not extant in the two collections of the Works of Fortunatus which I have reviewed, is nevertheless found in the manuscript codices of the monasteries of St. Germain-des-Prés, of St. Peter in the Valley at Chartres, and of Saint-Denis in France; but those three codices, the last of which is perhaps not different from the codex of Saint-Denis written in letters of gold mentioned above, are the very ones in which (see the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in the place just cited) is also found the hymn falsely attributed to St. Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, and even from this those codices become very suspect to me.

[74] Moreover, since Ménard and the others by whom the same codices are cited for the reasons which here nowhere declare that they were written before the age of Hilduin, and yet, had they been so ancient, they would very probably have known it, and at the same time would seemingly have said so, in order thereby to vindicate the more strongly to this holy bishop of Poitiers the hymn whose ascription to Fortunatus is in dispute, it appears hence almost beyond doubt that they were written only after the age of Hilduin. Further, since that hymn is very probably, nay undoubtedly, no other than the hymn which the said Hilduin, in his Rescript to the emperor Louis the Pious, num. 12, cites as composed by Fortunatus in order to confirm the opinion that Dionysius was sent by Clement, it very probably passed first into the Saint-Denis codex just cited from a separate leaf, or one not bound together with others in the manner of a book, on which, as it appears, it had been found by that writer. What if, further, it was afterwards carried from this one into the two other codices likewise cited above? Indeed it is by no means out of all likelihood that this was actually done by their scribes, who, having embraced the opinion that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by Clement, and thinking that it was strengthened by Hilduin's Areopagitica and above all by the hymn of Fortunatus cited in them, took care to have a copy of it sent to them from the monastery of Saint-Denis. Now, the matter standing thus, the aforesaid codices, in which the hymn we are speaking of is ascribed to Fortunatus, by no means remove the doubt, which the collections of Brouwer and Binius cited above especially raise, whether it was truly composed by this holy bishop of Poitiers; since the very copy of that hymn cited by Hilduin, from which, for the reasons already stated, you may not unreasonably suspect that hymn to have passed into them, cannot accomplish this, as appears from what I shall presently add.

[75] are adduced, be called into doubt; nor, even were it otherwise, Hilduin, as he himself says in his Rescript to the emperor Louis the Pious, num. 7, found all the documents which he used for writing the Passion of Dionysius and for confirming his assertions in it hidden away and negligently left; and since among these (see the Commentary prefixed to the fictitious Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, especially §§3 and 8) there were several spurious and supposititious pieces, it seems surely not altogether without reason that one may doubt whether the copy of the hymn ascribed to Fortunatus, which Hilduin found marked with the name of this holy prelate in a hidden place of his monastery, had not thus been falsely fathered on Fortunatus by an impostor; and so it is plainly unfit for securely vindicating that hymn to this holy writer. Someone perhaps may here reply that Hilduin cites that hymn in the Areopagitica under the name of Fortunatus without using any formula of speech whatever by which he might insinuate that he doubts whether it is truly Fortunatus's, and that he would not have dared to do so unless that hymn had then been generally admitted by all as a genuine offspring of Fortunatus. But why, I ask, even if at that time it had been doubted by not a few whether the same hymn truly had Fortunatus for its author, would Hilduin not have dared to cite it in the manner described? Certainly in doing so he would in no way have exposed his reputation to danger, since he could have shown the doubters the leaf or writing on which he had found that hymn signed with the name of Fortunatus. But let us grant that the hymn was in fact composed by Fortunatus; let us grant likewise that the words transcribed above, by which in the later copy of the Life of St. Genevieve St. Dionysius is related to have been sent into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope, came from the biographer of St. Genevieve himself; still they do not thereby prove that the epoch of the mission of Dionysius is to be tied to the 1st century.

[76] from the testimonies of those two writers, inasmuch as they are neither ancient, For however much those two writers be admitted openly to testify that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by Clement, they nonetheless lived too remote from the matter in question for undoubted credence to be owed to what they say of it. It is indeed lawful, when contemporary writers are lacking by whose testimony some fact may be established, to have recourse also to those who are nearer the epoch of that fact; but this holds only when they were not too far removed from it. This rule or principle is readily admitted even by those who are strangers to the severer criticism. Now St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve, who, as we have already granted, relate that St. Dionysius was sent by St. Clement the Pope, flourished, as I noted above, in the 6th century; and since that Pontiff occupied the Roman Chair of St. Peter in the 1st century, it follows that, going by what they themselves write, they stood more than four centuries away from that fact, namely the mission of St. Dionysius by St. Clement, and therefore so great a space of time that sound reason seems altogether to require that we not build this upon their testimony, unless either a legitimate tradition or more ancient testimonies be added to it. But what testimonies of this kind, I ask, can have lighted the way for those writers? I certainly, even after the most diligent search, have been unable to find even one. Moreover, that more ancient testimonies, from which St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve might have learned that the mission of Dionysius was made by Clement, very probably did not light the way for these two writers, you may not unreasonably conclude from what was argued in the immediately preceding §.

[77] But some here allege, together with this abbot of Saint-Denis, the Conscriptio of Visbius, who indicates that he saw Dionysius, as here, as regards the Conscriptio of Visbius cited by Hilduin, which is cited by Hilduin in the Areopagitica; and although in that Conscriptio, as you will see from the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, where we gave it entire at num. 44 and the two following, no mention whatever occurs of Dionysius being sent by Clement, Hilduin nevertheless writes thus of Dionysius in his Rescript to the emperor Louis the Pious, num. 5: "But that blessed Clement directed him hither," namely to the nation of the Gauls, "... the most ancient little book of the Passion of the same" (that is, of St. Dionysius) "explains. But chiefly the Conscriptio of Visbius"; by which words he most expressly affirms that the mission of St. Dionysius is ascribed to St. Clement the Pope in the Conscriptio of Visbius. Was this Conscriptio, then, which Hilduin had in his hands, different from the one we inserted at the place just cited in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius? I for my part do not think so; whether rightly or otherwise, let the reader discern from what is now to be said. Although the nobility of the family from which St. Dionysius the Areopagite sprang is nowhere mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Hilduin nevertheless, because that nobility can be inferred from the title of Areopagite which is given to that Saint in them (see the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of the same Saint, num. 6 and 7), expressly affirms in his Rescript to the emperor Louis the Pious, num. 3, that it was known in early centuries from the testimony of the Acts of the Apostles.

[78] What if, then, Hilduin noted that the mission of Dionysius was attributed to this holy Pontiff in the Conscriptio of Visbius, nor different from the one which we gave before, which lighted his way, not because it was asserted in it that Dionysius was sent by Clement, but because something was found in it from which it could be concluded that this was done by Clement? Indeed it appears beyond doubt that Hilduin here again used this manner of writing, however little to be approved, which he used both at the place just cited and elsewhere besides. In the Conscriptio of Visbius, transcribed by us at the place just cited, it is indicated that St. Dionysius underwent martyrdom under the emperor Domitian; and since Hilduin judged it to follow from this that this holy Apostle of the Parisians was sent by Clement, he noted at the place cited above that this was actually asserted in the Conscriptio which he had before his eyes; so that there is accordingly no reason why we should think this one, in which, as he says, the mission of St. Dionysius is ascribed to St. Clement, different from the same Conscriptio of Visbius transcribed by us, in which, as already said, not even a single mention of Clement occurs. But, they now say, since the Conscriptio of Visbius indeed places the martyrdom of Dionysius under Domitian, it certainly supports the opinion of this holy Bishop of Paris being sent by Clement. I confess it is so; but even if the Conscriptio of Visbius most expressly related that Dionysius was sent by Clement, still it could not on that account be said that what Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve wrote on this matter was in any way sufficiently founded on a testimony more ancient than these. For that Conscriptio, being spurious and fathered by an impostor on a fictitious writer Visbius in perhaps the 8th century or later still, is to be held in no esteem whatever.

[79] it is shown by name that, by proper testimonies The matter is more than sufficiently clear from what was adduced in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, § three. Nevertheless, that it may appear still more plainly, it will help to add to it the following also, which tend to that end. Painters and sculptors, in order to express the kind of death which martyrs slain for the faith by the cutting off of the head had undergone, generally represented them holding their head in their hand. Hence it came about long afterwards that the Saints so represented were falsely supposed by the unlearned to have carried their severed head in their own hands after death, and that this error also crept into the Acts of those Saints, the writers, that is, who committed them to letters incautiously believing, more readily than was fitting, in miracles and prodigious deeds that had accompanied the death of the Martyrs. Now since those writers, had they either themselves seen death inflicted on the martyrs or heard the event related by others who had seen it, would certainly not have committed an error of this kind, and the author of the Visbian Conscriptio nevertheless commits it, he indeed, indicating not obscurely that he himself saw the martyrdom of Dionysius, or at any rate heard it related by those who had seen it, notably imposes on the reader. And now, since he thus forfeits for himself all credit in plainly everything he writes, and therefore also as to the time at which he hints that he flourished, nothing whatever prevents us from believing that the spurious offspring we are dealing with here was produced by him only in the 8th century or later. The Conscriptio of Visbius, as Hilduin teaches in his Rescript to the emperor Louis, num. 5, was found at Paris by divine dispensation in a volume more than sufficiently hidden away. What if, then, those who administered the affairs of the church of Paris in the said 8th century, fearing perhaps lest they should some day be compelled to produce a written title of possession of certain goods which belonged to it, either themselves forged the aforesaid Conscriptio under the false name of Visbius, to stand in place of the title they lacked, or at least had it forged by another's hand? Certainly there were once those who, to the original diplomas of princes

that had been lost substituted new ones forged by themselves, the learned generally know; and the Visbian Conscriptio seems to display the character and some sort of form of an instrument by which certain things were conferred on the church of Paris or on its bishop Massus.

[80] However that may be, content to have added here these things to those adduced above, in order to show more clearly that the mission of Dionysius by Clement can in no way be founded on a monument of this kind, nor even on a tradition which as genuine I now proceed to examine whether it is not sufficiently solidly founded on tradition either. Indeed, since the reverence owed to St. Fortunatus and to the biographer of St. Genevieve demands that they not be said to have invented what they handed down to memory, as we have granted, concerning St. Dionysius sent by Clement, no one may rightly deny that they at least drew it from tradition. But of what sort that tradition was, whether true and derived from the very origin of the event, or on the contrary merely popular and born only from uncertain rumours in the very 6th century in which St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve flourished, or not much earlier, may not without reason be doubted. Longueval, in the Dissertation prefixed to the History of the Gallican Church written by him, art. 3, speaks in roughly this manner, in French words which I render into Latin: "Since antiquity is reckoned among the finest titles of nobility, most peoples have sought their origin in the remotest times; and since they knew nothing more celebrated, nothing more ancient in profane history than the siege of Troy, not a few referred the foundations of their realms to the Trojan princes, who, as they had learned from elsewhere, founded certain republics or principalities in their dispersion. Did nothing similar happen to the particular churches of Gaul? That the faith was brought into Gaul by the Apostles or their disciples was known from tradition; but from this true tradition many false ones were forged, which gave to most of our churches bishops sent by the Apostles themselves as their founders.

[81] "These opinions, moreover, which seemed honourable to them, and is to be held certainly true, were received without sufficient examination, and, although they were recent, the fine name of tradition was soon imposed on them; but these pretended traditions of certain particular churches concerning their origin are no more certain than those which are put forward by certain families concerning the antiquity of their nobility." Thus far he; and since what he relates concerning the traditions of certain particular churches seems indeed most true, hence it comes that I hold not a little suspect whatever traditions of particular churches trace their foundations either to the Apostles themselves or to bishops sent by them, unless it can be solidly proved from some quarter that they are traditions worthy of the name and not born of empty rumours. Although it is established from the ancient Acts of this holy prelate himself, reported by Ruinart among the genuine Acts of the Martyrs, that St. Saturninus, first bishop of the people of Toulouse, came to Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is, only in the 3rd century, there is nevertheless reason to doubt whether in the 6th century a tradition did not also prevail which maintained that he was sent to Toulouse by the very disciples of the Apostles.

[82] For Gregory of Tours, who flourished in that century, [sufficiently founded, do not make out what they would wish for their opinion about Dionysius,] writes thus in book 1 of the Glory of the Martyrs, chap. 48: "But Saturninus the martyr, as is reported, ordained by disciples of the Apostles, was directed to the city of the people of Toulouse." There are indeed those who, in order to reconcile Gregory with the Acts of St. Saturninus, contend that he did not speak accurately here and understood by disciples of the Apostles only the Roman Pontiffs, who professed the faith sown at Rome by the Apostles; but there are also those who will have Gregory to understand by disciples of the Apostles none other than those who, having received the faith from the Apostles themselves, were truly their disciples; and if one must assent to these, it follows from the words of this writer already given that in the 6th century a tradition also flourished by which the mission of St. Saturninus to the people of Toulouse was ascribed, against the certain and undoubted credit of the Acts of this Saint, to those who had been disciples of the Apostles in the true sense of the name. What if, then, the other tradition mentioned above, by which Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve were moved to ascribe the mission of Dionysius into Gaul to St. Clement the Pope, is not much better than a tradition of this kind? However that may be, nothing occurs to me for my part by which I could affirm that the latter is better than the former. Now, since the matter stands thus, and it is therefore very doubtful and uncertain whether the tradition, from which alone, as follows from what has been said here, the testimonies of St. Fortunatus and of the biographer of St. Genevieve concerning Dionysius sent by Clement can have flowed, is to be held as true and genuine, indeed from these testimonies, even if they had in fact been given by those two writers, the patrons of the opinion of Dionysius sent by Clement in no way make out what they would wish for confirming or establishing it.

[83] [although meanwhile it must be said that it flourished in the 6th century, the contrary also prevailing.] But although this be so, Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve, already so very often cited, who flourished at that time, are, if they in fact themselves asserted this, a by no means doubtful argument that the opinion which asserted that Dionysius was sent by Clement in the 1st century flourished in the 6th century. But the other opinion also, which tied the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century, undoubtedly prevailed at that time too. This is made plain from Gregory of Tours, just cited, inasmuch as in book 1 of the History of the Franks, chap. 30, he places the mission of Dionysius under the consuls Decius and Gratus, or, what comes to the same, ties it to the year 250. They say indeed that Gregory does this because he supposed that Dionysius came into Gaul with St. Saturninus; but what then? Since Gregory supposed (consult his History of the Franks at the place just cited) that Saturninus arrived at Toulouse under the consuls Decius and Gratus in the middle of the 3rd century, it follows that he also judged that Dionysius came or was sent into Gaul at that time. Moreover, since the anonymous author who, as you will find proved with us in volume 2 of October, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Thyrsus, and likewise of SS. Boniface and Companions, num. 6 and the two following, committed to writing in the 6th century the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, martyrs, edited by Bosquet, makes these two Saints, whom he writes suffered under Maximian, companions of Dionysius, it follows that he, no differently from Gregory of Tours, judged that Dionysius was sent into Gaul not in the 1st century by St. Clement the Pope, but only in the 3rd century by another Roman Pontiff. Now, the matter standing thus, two opinions flourished in Gaul in the 6th century, of which one referred the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century, the other to the 3rd. The former Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve embraced, if they in fact wrote what was said above; the latter Gregory of Tours and the anonymous writer whom I have just cited followed. Which of the two, further, ought to seem the better and more probable, I shall discuss in the following §.

§ VI. When the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century most flourished, and whether the opposite one, which defers it to the third century, is not more probable.

[From the charters of the kings Pepin and Theodoric, whose words are given here, in the eighth century] To accomplish first what is here inquired, I bring forward the ancient testimonies which serve in any way to confirm the opinion of Dionysius being sent into Gaul in the 1st century. Mabillon, in book 6 of De Re Diplomatica, page 488, records a precept of Theodoric of Chelles, king of the Franks, given in the year of Christ 723, in which Theodoric, confirming the privileges of earlier kings and Pontiffs granted to the monks of Saint-Denis, says: "Therefore whereas the almighty Father also, who said that light should shine out of darkness, through the mysteries of the Incarnation of His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, or by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, has shone into the hearts of holy Christians, for whose love and desire, among the other glorious triumphs of the Martyrs, blessed Dionysius with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, who first after the Apostles, under the ordination of blessed Clement, successor of Peter the Apostle, came into this province of the Gauls." What is here asserted of the coming of St. Dionysius and his Companions into Gaul under blessed Clement, successor of Peter the Apostle, is related also in a charter of Pepin, king of the Franks, given in the year 768 and recited by Doublet in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 3, chap. 5, in these words: "Dionysius and the often-mentioned Rusticus and Eleutherius, who first after the Apostles, under the ordination of B. Clement, successor of Peter the Apostle, came into this province of the Gauls," etc.

[85] The writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, at col. 8 of the preface, having stated that the coming of Dionysius into Gaul under the ordination of blessed Clement is asserted in the two charters or precepts of Pepin and Theodoric already mentioned, [it appears certain that the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century prevailed among many;] presently add: "But they had drawn this opinion of the coming of Dionysius into Gaul under Clement" (namely the kings Theodoric and Pepin, or at any rate those who wrote their precepts just mentioned) "wholly from the Acts of the Passion of St. Dionysius which Hilduin cites, where it was read written that St. Dionysius was ordained bishop by Clement, the Roman Pontiff, and sent across into Gaul. The Acts of this Life Francis Bosquet edited from manuscript codices; and Pierre de Marca found its author named as Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, in a manuscript codex of the church of Tours." Thus they; but that the Acts of St. Dionysius which Bosquet edited most certainly do not have Fortunatus for their author has already been clearly shown in §1 of this preliminary Commentary. Nor is this only established from what was said there, but also that those Acts were not yet very ancient in the age of Pepin and Theodoric; so that for that very reason it may be doubted whether the opinion of the mission of Dionysius into Gaul by Clement truly flowed from them into the two precepts or diplomas mentioned above. But, you will say, from wherever either the two said kings or those who drew up those diplomas drew it, these are at any rate an argument that in the 8th century, in which they were given, there were not a few in Gaul who supposed that Dionysius was sent by Clement. I confess it is so; but what, I ask, sufficiently firm and certain can you elicit from this for establishing the opinion of Dionysius sent by Clement?

[86] and that it afterwards, as the Gallican bishops assembled in the year 825 This opinion, inasmuch as no traces or indications of it at all, of a kind to produce any credence, are found before the 6th century, undoubtedly arose first in the 7th century, or at any rate not earlier than the 6th, in which perhaps, as we granted gratuitously above, Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve wrote; but from that time (for I have no mind to deny this) more and more in Gaul, generally, that is, without any examination, by many who

were courting the greatest antiquity they could for their churches, was most eagerly taken up and gained strength. The Gallican bishops, in the numerous assembly which they held at Paris in the year 825 on the veneration of sacred images, speak thus towards the end of Action VII, in Jacques Bongars: "Nor let it be wearisome to you if, for showing the reason of truth and the truth of reason, the discourse draw itself out a little longer, provided that the line of truth, which has been drawn inflexibly from our ancient Fathers down to us, namely that blessed Dionysius, who by holy Clement *, who stood forth as the first successor of blessed Peter the Apostle in the Apostolate, was directed into Gaul with a company of twelve as the first preacher, and after some time, together with his Companions dispersed hither and thither through the same kingdom for the sake of preaching, was crowned with martyrdom."

[87] produce credence, gained still more strength; yet not even Since, then, so many Gallican bishops as are here mentioned believed in the 9th century, that is in the year 825, that Dionysius was sent by Clement, indeed it appears that it must be concluded even from this that that opinion then flourished in Gaul still more than in the immediately preceding century. However that may be, it appears placed beyond all controversy, from the words of the Gallican bishops just recited and from the two diplomas or precepts mentioned above, that very many in that same place in the 8th century, and likewise in the 9th century, even before Hilduin's Areopagitica had been published, attributed the mission of Dionysius into Gaul to St. Clement the Pope, and therefore tied it also to the 1st century. This indeed, although it may even be doubted whether both those diplomas are genuine, I freely concede to those who think this epoch is to be assigned to the Dionysian mission; and even from this, what I shall argue below against this opinion of theirs will come out the stronger, as will be plain to one who considers it. At the same time, meanwhile, I contend (what they would however most wish, since for a thing to seem so to all is some argument of truth) that the same opinion was not common, or received by all, even at the time when Hilduin brought out his Areopagitica in the year 836; and how rightly I do so, I show from Hilduin himself.

[88] as is proved from Hilduin, in the year 836, This writer, in his Rescript to the emperor Louis the Pious, num. 8, writes in the following manner: "For the rest, we fall short in wonder at the garrulity of the levity of those who, contending that this Dionysius cannot be the Areopagite, vainly gather together for their own defence the things which follow, namely that the venerable and holy Bede the priest said, in his treatise on the Acts of the Apostles, that Dionysius the Areopagite was bishop not of Athens but of the Corinthians, adding that the same died there. And since the little book of his Passion testifies that he was ordained bishop by Clement, the Roman Pontiff, and sent across into these parts of the Gauls; because also the Passions of divers holy Martyrs, slain under various emperors, contain that the same came to these parts with this most holy Man" (namely Dionysius), "which the very hearing of sensible men manifestly refutes. And that Gregory of Tours, as he had said he read in the Passion of St. Saturninus, records by way of supposition that this very man" (namely St. Dionysius) "was directed into these regions in the time of the persecution of Decius, under blessed Sixtus, with six other bishops, whose Lives or Passions by no means agree with his statements in the reckoning of times."

[89] There were, then, those who, when Hilduin wrote the Areopagitica, when he was writing the Areopagitica, was received by all, opposed to this writer and to others who contended that Dionysius of Paris is the same as Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Tours, who assigns the coming of Dionysius into Gaul to the time of the Decian persecution, and the Passions of divers Martyrs which, although these suffered martyrdom under various emperors later, namely, than the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd (for otherwise those Passions could not have been held contrary to Hilduin), nevertheless make them companions of Dionysius; but that those who thus argued against Hilduin's opinion on the Areopagitism of Dionysius did not, surely, follow that opinion, nay did not even suppose that this Saint was sent into Gaul by Clement, will come out altogether certain and beyond doubt to anyone who weighs the matter in any way. Nor is there reason perhaps to think that those Passions were objected by Hilduin to himself only for the sake of exercise; for that the matter is otherwise is more than sufficiently clear from the manner in which this abbot of Saint-Denis (consult his words just transcribed here) speaks of those who objected the same Passions to him. Now, since these things are so, everyone sees that the opinion which attributes the mission of Dionysius to Clement the Pope, and so ties it to the first century, was not common, or received or admitted by all, even at the time when Hilduin was busy writing the Areopagitica.

[90] Nor could Hilduin bring it about by his Areopagitica that it should afterwards be admitted by all. nor by these, that afterwards by all, This is clear from Ado and Usuard, who, although they brought out the Martyrologies compiled by them in the same 9th century in which Hilduin's Areopagitica had already been published, nevertheless in the Annunciations with which they celebrate today in these St. Dionysius and his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, supply nothing whatever from which you might in any way gather that these were sent into Gaul by St. Clement the Pope. Further, since not only do they supply nothing of this kind, but also do not express in those Annunciations the name of the Roman Pontiff by whom they record that St. Dionysius and his Companions were sent into Gaul, which however would have been very easy to do, who, I ask, could persuade himself that those two martyrologists embraced the Hilduinian opinion which establishes that the same Saints were sent by Clement? Will you perhaps say that Hilduin's Areopagitica were not seen by Ado? Well, granted that this be so, however very hard to believe; Usuard at any rate, being a Benedictine monk in the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés at Lutetia of the Parisians, can by no means have been ignorant of them, and yet he not only did not embrace, as already said, Hilduin's opinion of Dionysius sent by Clement, but also openly went over to the contrary one, which establishes that this Saint of ours was sent only in the third century.

[91] For that Dionysius and his Companions came into Gaul together with St. Piatus or Piato the priest, and by name, as is proved, that martyrologist declares not obscurely, announcing this Saint thus on the first day of October: "In the city of Tournai, the passion of St. Piato the priest, who with blessed Dionysius the bishop and his Companions set out from the city of Rome for Gaul for the sake of preaching, and afterwards, his martyrdom completed, passed to the Lord"; and since it is acknowledged among absolutely all the learned, both more recent and more ancient, that St. Piatus came into Gaul only in the 3rd century, and Usuard is not to be thought to have dissented from them in that matter, it follows that this martyrologist judged that Dionysius also was sent or came into Gaul only in the 3rd century. But, they say, whether the reading by which, in the Annunciation just transcribed here, St. Piatus is asserted to have come into Gaul with St. Dionysius and his Companions truly proceeded from Usuard is doubtful and uncertain; and to give this as proved they allege Usuard as edited by Molanus, in which he has here, on 1 October, substituted Quintinus for Dionysius, and affirms that he did so from other Martyrologies, of which the Centula one, cited by Sollerius in the Auctaria of Usuard on the 1st day of October, may perhaps have been one. Further, to Molanus, or, if you prefer, to the Martyrology of Usuard published by him, they add two Usuardine apographs or transcripts, in both of which no mention at all of Dionysius occurs on the 1st day of October, and likewise two more Usuardine Martyrologies, one of Tournai, of the monastery of St. Medard, the other of Paris, of the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, in one of which indeed, as in Molanus, Quintinus is marked on 1 October in place of Dionysius, and in the other Fuscianus in place of Dionysius.

[92] by Usuard was taken up, it was done, But absolutely all the Martyrologies of Usuard which were published by the benefit of printing before Molanus make St. Piatus, by unanimous consent, a companion of St. Dionysius. Moreover Launoy, as may be seen in volume 2, part 1, fol. 498, of the Complete Works of this writer published at Geneva in the year 1731, alleges so many manuscript Martyrologies of Usuard seen by him, in all of which it is most constantly read that St. Piatus came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, that they certainly far surpass in number the others mentioned above, from which the name of St. Dionysius is absent on the same day of October. To these manuscript Martyrologies of Usuard seen by Launoy are added, further, very many others extant with us, in which likewise it is most constantly read that St. Piatus came into Gaul with St. Dionysius; and who would not think that a reading founded on so many copies of Usuard, both printed and manuscript, and not found only in very few copies of this kind, is to be held true and genuine? Usuard composed the elogium with which he celebrates St. Piatus on the 1st day of October from the Acts of this Saint, as Sollerius rightly observes at the same place in the Usuard illustrated by him; and since this is so, and in those Acts, inserted in the first volume of October of our Work, it is expressly related at num. 4 that St. Piatus came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, indeed even from this it comes out beyond doubt that the reading by which this very thing is asserted in so many of the Usuardine Martyrologies mentioned above truly flowed from Usuard. Nor have you ground to reply that the Acts of St. Piatus, such as they were edited by us, did not light Usuard's way; for in all the Acts of St. Piatus, whether pure or interpolated, St. Piatus is asserted to have come into Gaul with St. Dionysius.

[93] and the opposite, as here from those of divers ones which to Hilduin And thus, unless I am mistaken, through all the things that have now been said, it has now been sufficiently proved that Usuard certainly not only did not embrace the Hilduinian opinion of St. Dionysius sent by Clement, but also openly went over to the one opposite to it, which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century. Not a few others besides followed Usuard, although the Hilduinian opinion always occupied the minds of most; and among these by name, that I may abstain for brevity's sake from recounting the rest, Fulbert of Chartres comes to be mentioned, as you will easily gather from what this writer supplies in volume 1 of October of our Work, pages 10 and XI; and how rightly they did so is plain from the fact that they thus embraced an opinion at least much more probable and likely than the Hilduinian, as the things which I now proceed to say will show. To the opinion by which Hilduin (consult his words just transcribed here) contended that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by Clement, the Passions of divers holy Martyrs, which, although they noted that these were slain under various emperors, nevertheless affirmed that the same came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, were opposed by those who asserted that he came into Gaul only in the 3rd century; and since in that space of time,

which elapsed between about the year 120 and the year 249, no one notes a coming of Dionysius into Gaul, and those Passions, if the various emperors under whom they record their athletes to have been slain were to be referred to the 1st century or the beginning of the second, could in no way, as I have already hinted above, have been opposed to the Hilduinian opinion, indeed it must be that by those various emperors none other are understood than those who ruled the Roman empire in the 3rd century, its middle part being already past.

[94] Now, since the matter stands thus, it surely follows, were objected, and here as everyone sees, that the Passions of divers Martyrs which, although they wrote that these suffered under emperors who persecuted the Christians after the middle of the 3rd century, nevertheless affirmed that the same came into Gaul with Dionysius, certainly existed in the age of Hilduin. Hence, further, it now follows that the authors of those Passions undoubtedly adhered not to the Hilduinian opinion, which establishes that Dionysius came into Gaul in the 1st century, but to the opposite one, which establishes that he came only in the 3rd. I now ask when these committed those Passions to writing. If you answer that they did so only in the 8th century or even at the beginning of the 9th, how, I ask, did it come about that, although at that time the opinion which establishes that Dionysius was sent by Clement, admitted generally by almost all, as we saw above, most especially flourished in Gaul, they nevertheless went over to the opposite opinion, which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century? Indeed it seems they must be said to have done so out of love of truth alone, and to have had this opinion ascertained from documents or traditions of proper stamp (for otherwise they would not have gone, as they do, against the torrent of almost all who then thought otherwise). But if, on the contrary, you contend that the said Passions were written in the 6th century or still earlier, then at least what they write of the coming of Dionysius into Gaul only in the 3rd century their authors undoubtedly learned, if not from ancient monuments, at least from tradition; and that not from a tradition of any sort whatever, but from one which probably was a tradition true and genuine in name.

[95] For since they tie the coming of St. Dionysius into Gaul to the 3rd century, are weighed, of martyrs as said, they thus assign the origin of the church of Paris, founded by this Saint, to a century less remote from their own age than is assigned to it by others; whereas writers who, using false traditions, have recounted the origins of churches or cities have very rarely referred them to nearer, but very frequently to more remote times, as all the learned generally, who are accustomed to sift ancient histories and to weigh each by its own weights, have found by almost daily experience. This consideration, further, causes that, although I esteem the tradition which the writers of the said Passions perhaps followed to be not certainly, but only probably genuine and true, I nevertheless hold strongly suspect the opposite one, from which alone St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve, as I showed above, can have learned what they perhaps wrote of St. Dionysius sent by St. Clement; and that accordingly, even for that reason, even if other reasons were lacking, I would think one should adhere not to these two writers but rather to the authors of the Passions of which we are here speaking, even if these too had drawn from tradition alone what they record of Dionysius having set out into Gaul with Companions who gained the palm of martyrdom only in the 3rd century. And let this be said of the writers of those Passions, if perhaps they drew from tradition alone the fellowship, asserted by them, of Dionysius with divers martyrs slain for Christ after the middle of the 3rd century. But what if they learned it not from tradition alone, but besides from older Acts of those martyrs or other monuments which had been written before their age and have since perished? Sulpicius Severus, in book 2 of the Sacred History, where he treats of Diocletian and Maximian, writes thus: "There are also extant, committed to writing, illustrious Passions of the Martyrs of that time, which I have not thought fit to connect, lest I exceed the measure of the Work."

[96] Passions, and by name from that of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, Since, then, the Passions cited here by Sulpicius were of Martyrs who underwent martyrdom under Diocletian and Maximian, that is, after the middle of the 3rd century, and the Passions of which we are here speaking were also of this kind, it appears sufficiently probable that these were either the very Passions cited by Sulpicius, or were committed to writing by writers who had drawn most of their material from these; and I am the firmer, even from this, in the opinion by which, as I said, I judge that one should rather adhere to the authors of those Passions than to Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve. And what I here affirm in general of those Passions which, as said, were objected to Hilduin must be said by name of the Passion of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, cited by us above already. The writer who committed this to writing, inserted by Bosquet in the second part of the Histories of the Gallican Church, hands down to memory that those two martyrs, although, as all agree, crowned with martyrdom under Maximian after the middle of the 3rd century, nevertheless came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, others besides whom he enumerates accompanying them; and hence it appears surely most probable, to say no more, that that Passion is one of those mentioned here above which were objected to Hilduin (consult the words of this writer transcribed here at num. 88), as no one will fail to confess who has weighed the matter attentively. That writer of the Passion of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, further, being about to narrate in it what befell these Saints and St. Gentianus when on a certain day they had met him, hints that he will do so "as the deeds of History record"; so that he surely had ancient writings or monuments lighting his way.

[97] which, although not everywhere true, But what if from these, as he drew not a few other things which he records, so he drew also what he hands down to memory of the fellowship of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus with St. Dionysius? For that this indeed was done, and therefore that, if not more of the writers who wrote Passions of divers Martyrs opposed to the Hilduinian opinion of St. Dionysius sent by Clement, then at least one of them drew from older monuments what he records of martyrs who suffered when the 3rd century was already at its middle and yet had set out from Rome into Gaul with Dionysius, appears very likely on account of what has just now been said. But, you will say with Tillemont, besides that the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus are rather unaptly composed if you look at their style, they are scarcely probable in many of the circumstances with which they are clothed, and in others seem hardly able to be reconciled among themselves. I confess it: such indeed is the judgment which that writer passes on those Acts in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 454. But all credit is not straightway to be denied to Acts of the Saints in which some things occur little consistent among themselves and little probable; otherwise almost all the Acts of the Saints would have to be rejected as born to produce credence nowhere. Moreover, although the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus contain some things that will not easily find credence with all, at the same time they also comprise far more things by no means out of keeping with the appearance of truth. Furthermore, among the things which seemed to Tillemont little probable in them is surely not to be reckoned what they hand down to memory of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus having gained the palm of martyrdom only in the 3rd century, as is acknowledged among all, and yet having set out from Rome with St. Dionysius.

[98] But here now Ménard comes to mind, not, however, as to Ménard who seems to warn me not to assert this last point too confidently. For (see this writer's Diatribe against Launoy on the single Dionysius, bishop at once of Athens and of Paris, chap. 6) he affirms that the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, of which we are treating here, are corrupted in the name of St. Dionysius, both because in them this Saint is asserted to have come into Gaul under Diocletian and Maximian, which no writer ever handed down to memory, and because in other manuscript Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus the name of St. Dionysius is not read. But although at first sight they may indeed seem to mark the coming of St. Dionysius into Gaul under Maximian, it is nevertheless sufficiently manifest that they do not in fact mark that event under Maximian, and make mention of that emperor only to determine the epoch of the principal fact, namely the martyrdom suffered by SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, of which they treat. So Tillemont observes in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 10 on St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris; and not unaptly: for although the author of those Acts, having stated at the beginning that Rictius Varus obtained the dignity of the prefecture at the same time at which Maximian Augustus governed Gaul, immediately afterwards relates the coming of SS. Victoricus and Fuscianus with Dionysius and others into Gaul, he nevertheless does so in such a way as to indicate by no word anywhere that this is assigned by him to the same time also, that is, under Maximian. Nay, since afterwards, having narrated the coming of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus with St. Dionysius and others into Gaul, he teaches not obscurely that only then for the first time, when those Saints had done many things there and had already stayed there a fairly long time, a new persecution against the Christians arose in the same Gaul, in which SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus suffered, hence indeed it is sufficiently clearly evident that the coming of Dionysius into Gaul is not assigned by him under Maximian, who began to persecute the Christians there immediately on receiving the rule over Gaul.

[99] it seemed, in the name of Dionysius, just as those which As now regards the other reason on account of which Ménard pronounces the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus edited by Bosquet to be corrupt: since they do not, as I have already shown, place the coming of Dionysius into Gaul under Maximian, why, I ask, are they to be called corrupt rather than other Acts of the same Saints, cited by Ménard, from which the name of Dionysius is absent? The Acts or Passion of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus published by Bosquet is very probably, as I have taught above already, one of the Passions which Hilduin (consult his words transcribed here at num. 88) records to have been objected to his opinion of Dionysius sent by Clement; and since all these, as this writer himself testifies at the same place, affirm that those divers Martyrs, whom they relate to have suffered in the 3rd century, came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, it follows that, if those Acts are truly, as Ménard will have it, corrupted in the name of Dionysius, that blemish was certainly brought into them before the age of Hilduin. And it would have to be established that this was done by those who transcribed those Acts, written, as I taught above, from as early as the 6th century, at the beginning of the 9th century or in one or other of the two centuries immediately preceding it; but since at that time the opinion

of Dionysius sent by Clement most especially flourished in Gaul, as we taught above, it appears very little probable indeed that there were also found at that time men who so opposed that opinion, though then generally received by all, that, in order to weaken it or bring in the contrary, they even inserted into the copy they were making of the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus the name of St. Dionysius, found nowhere in them before, of their mere arbitrary will, truth being set aside besides.

[100] are adduced here, But in order to prove the matter still more clearly to those to whom perhaps it will not yet seem sufficiently proved in this way, I shall now show that the very Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus cited by Ménard, from which the name of Dionysius is absent, are very probably vitiated or corrupted by an interpolation made in them after the age of Hilduin, or at least after the Areopagitica were written by him. To Hilduin, who contended that St. Dionysius came into Gaul as early as the 1st century, the Passions of divers Martyrs were objected, as said above, which related that these, though they suffered martyrdom only in the 3rd century, nevertheless came into Gaul with Dionysius. And surely the argument drawn from those Passions told most strongly against Hilduin, as will be plain to one who considers it; but even were this so, this writer could nevertheless have very easily extricated himself from it by alleging the authority of copies of those Passions lacking the name of Dionysius, if such had then existed; and since the same writer, who however neither resolves the said argument by any other reason, nay does not even touch it, does not adduce copies of this kind in his own defence, and yet would seemingly very probably have done so, to shut the mouths of his adversaries, had any then existed, this is indeed a very strong argument that copies of the said Passions from which the name of Dionysius was absent did not exist in the age of Hilduin, or at any rate when he was writing the Areopagitica.

[101] show, are corrupt, It may indeed be replied that copies of those Passions from which the name of Dionysius was absent, even though they would surely have been by far the most apt for weakening and wholly overthrowing the argument which was objected to Hilduin from other copies of the same Passions containing that name, and which this writer ought by no means to have left untouched, as he does, were nevertheless not adduced by Hilduin in defence of his opinion because he had no knowledge of them: but since this abbot of Saint-Denis, as he himself discloses at the place already often cited, knew very well the copies of the Passions which, as bearing the name of Dionysius, were against him, who, I ask, could persuade himself that the same man would have been ignorant of these, if copies of the Passions likewise existed at that time not comprising the name of Dionysius and so favouring him? No one surely who has considered that Hilduin spared no effort and labour whatever to gather from every quarter documents fitted either to defend or to confirm his opinion of Dionysius sent by Clement. Now, since the matter stands thus, it appears sufficiently certain that in fact no copies whatever of the said Passions which were objected to Hilduin, from which the name of Dionysius was absent, existed in that writer's age; and since among the number of those Passions, as I taught above, was very probably the Passion of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, it follows that likewise no copies of it lacking the name of Dionysius were found in that writer's age, or at any rate when he was writing his Areopagitica. Hence, further, it now follows that copies of that Passion of this kind, mentioned by Ménard as we saw above, must have been made either at least some time after, or later, the name of Dionysius being omitted in them although it was found in the older copy which was before the eyes; and since for that reason, as everyone sees follows from this, they are to be held interpolated or vitiated, it comes out almost beyond doubt from all that has been said that the other copies of the same Passion, in which SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus and other martyrs besides, who suffered only in the 3rd century, are recorded to have come into Gaul with St. Dionysius, are not corrupted in the name of this Saint, contrary to what Ménard will have.

[102] Now, since this is so, and the author who committed the Passion of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus to writing from Acts written in the 6th century, it is proved, very probably flourished in the 6th century, as I showed above, and certainly learned not a few things, and very probably also the fellowship he asserts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus and others who underwent martyrdom only in the 3rd century with St. Dionysius, from older monuments, as I taught before already, surely the opinion here defended by us, which ties the coming of Dionysius into Gaul to the 3rd century, receives very much strength and weight from that Passion; and since, as is clear from what was said above, it is also not a little confirmed by the often-mentioned Passions of divers Martyrs which were objected in general to Hilduin, and moreover beyond all controversy prevailed in the 6th century, and afterwards, while the opinion which establishes that Dionysius was sent by Clement in the 1st century was gaining strength and acquiring force almost continuously throughout Gaul from an immoderate love of antiquity, nevertheless stood firm and unshaken, and could never be wholly torn out of men's minds by breaking the very firm roots it had put forth; indeed, since all these things would seemingly have had place only with great difficulty unless it had been consonant with the truth, it comes about even from this that the opposite one, which ties the coming of Dionysius into Gaul to the 1st century, may not undeservedly be esteemed more probable and preferable.

[103] ought to seem more probable and preferable. Further, to the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, by which, as already said, the opinion of the coming of St. Dionysius into Gaul after the middle of the 3rd century is not a little strengthened, there could also be added here the Acts of St. Piatus, already inserted in the first volume of October of our Work, which likewise relate that this Saint, although put to martyrdom under Maximian and therefore when the 3rd century was already growing old, nevertheless came into Gaul with Dionysius; but although these, no more than the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus just mentioned, note that this was done under Diocletian and Maximian, and so are not at all against us, who with Gregory of Tours establish the coming of Dionysius under the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is in the year 250, nevertheless they were perhaps put into writing not earlier than the 8th century or the beginning of the 9th (see the Commentary prefixed to them with us, num. 18); and since even for that reason they are not apt to add much strength to what we brought forward above from the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus and from the Passions objected to Hilduin for strengthening our opinion of Dionysius sent into Gaul about the middle of the 3rd century, I do not here adduce in defence of our opinion those Acts and other Acts of other Martyrs still extant which, although these suffered in the 3rd century, likewise make them companions of Dionysius and can be held in almost the same place as the Acts of St. Piatus; and I propose in the following § for the reader's judgment reasons sought from elsewhere by which it may be confirmed besides.

* perhaps "who" should be supplied.

§ VII. The things said in the preceding § for asserting the greater appearance of truth of the opinion which establishes that Dionysius was sent in the third century are confirmed, and this is pronounced by far the more probable and even nearly certain.

That Dionysius was sent in the 3rd century, Gregory of Tours writes; What authors the Passions or Acts of the holy Martyrs have which we brought forward in the immediately preceding § for deferring the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century is wholly obscure. Now we are here going to bring forward in our cause at least two testimonies which it is altogether certain were given by Gregory of Tours and Sulpicius Severus, writers as well known as they are celebrated. I begin with the testimony of Gregory, who, as I taught before already, flourished in the 6th century. It was cited already above at num. 83 only to make plain to the reader that the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century prevailed in the 4th century; but now it will be brought forward in order to show how much it is to be esteemed in the matter we are treating. In that writer, book 1 of the History of the Franks, chap. 28, it is couched in these following words: "In the time of this man" (Decius) "seven men ordained bishops were sent into Gaul to preach, as the History of the Passion of the holy martyr Saturninus relates. For it says: 'Under the consuls Decius and Gratus, as is retained by faithful remembrance, the city of Toulouse had begun to have holy Saturninus as its first and highest priest.' These, then, were sent: to the people of Tours Gatianus the bishop, to the people of Arles Trophimus the bishop, to Narbonne Paul the bishop, to Toulouse Saturninus the bishop, to the Parisians Dionysius the bishop, to the Arverni Stremonius the bishop, to the Lemovices Martial was appointed bishop." François Pagi, in his historico-critical Dissertation on Dionysius of Paris, cited above already, contends that the time of the Dionysian mission cannot be defined by the authority of Gregory of Tours, who surely here ties it most clearly to the 3rd century.

[105] To give this, further, as proved, he tries to show, by various examples adduced from num. 27 to num. 31, that that writer, in assigning the beginnings of the first bishops of the Gallican church, writes things conflicting among themselves and dissents wonderfully from himself; and although he did not attain the truth everywhere, but none at all of these sufficiently certainly makes out what Pagi wishes. This is clear even from what Ruinart, who is certainly not to be held suspect of prejudices in the matter here in controversy, brings forward in his Preface to the new edition of Gregory of Tours prepared by him, num. 61, proving there also that Gregory was not of the heresy of supposing that there were no bishops in Gaul older than those seven whom he enumerates in the words just transcribed here. Ruinart indeed confesses, in the Preface just cited, num. 63, that Gregory is at times mistaken in the History of the Franks written by him; but, as he adds, "this is the singular prerogative of the sacred books, that they alone are immune from error; and the errors into which Gregory fell are not of such moment as to hinder the History, whether civil or ecclesiastical, of the nation of the Franks." But, you will say, Gregory in the very text just transcribed here reckons among the bishops sent into Gaul under Decius, that is in the middle of the 3rd century, St. Trophimus, who is proved by arguments so solid and strong to have come into Gaul as early as the 1st century that scarcely any learned man is to be found who does not judge the matter plainly established by them. I confess it is so: but what then? Will you perhaps say that Gregory, as in the epoch of the mission of St. Trophimus, so also in the time at which he writes that St. Dionysius and the other bishops enumerated above were sent into Gaul, was deceived? But he who, treating historical matters, errs in one thing is not at once made guilty of all; otherwise the authority of Gregory would be unstable throughout the whole History.

[106] Pierre de Marca, formerly archbishop of Paris, in his learned work on the time of the faith first preached

in Gaul, a letter to Henri de Valois, [and how far as regards the epoch of the Dionysian mission he is abandoned by Pierre de Marca,] reprinted with us in volume V of June from page 544 to page 552, contends that Gregory of Tours erred, in the words transcribed here above, in assigning the time of the mission not only of St. Trophimus but also of SS. Paul, Martial, Dionysius and Saturninus, and nevertheless judges it rash to oppose the same Gregory in the time at which he relates, in the same place, that St. Gatianus of Tours and St. Stremonius of Auvergne also were sent as bishops into Gaul. Hear him speaking at this place. "But as regards Gatianus," he says, "bishop of the church of Tours: since his successor Gregory, to whom the archives of his church were well known, teaches in express words in book 9 of the History, chap. 31, that Gatianus was sent across by the Pope of the Roman See in the first year of Decius, adding also some deeds of that bishop; and since no authority is available to us from elsewhere by which we might recall him to more ancient times, I judge it rash to dispute against Gregory about the state of his own church. The same, I think, must be said of the beginnings of Stremonius, bishop of the Arverni, which could not be hidden from Gregory, being by birth an Arvernian, and so no stranger in his own affairs." Thus he; by no means concluding, surely, from the error which, as he thought, Gregory committed in the epoch of the mission not of St. Trophimus alone but also at the same time of SS. Dionysius, Paul, Saturninus and Martial, that he likewise erred in the time at which SS. Gatianus and Stremonius were sent.

[107] [there was nevertheless reason why it should be received from this writer as regards that also;] And thus indeed this most learned man thought he should act, because, as he indicates, Gregory could have the affairs pertaining to SS. Gatianus and Stremonius better ascertained than those pertaining to the five other bishops; but, the matter standing thus, it surely also cannot be inferred from the fact that Gregory, as said above, certainly errs in assigning the epoch of the mission of St. Trophimus, that he likewise erred in the time at which he writes that St. Dionysius was sent. For Gregory in his Works treated of St. Dionysius, or of the miracles wrought by him, in more than one place, came frequently to Paris, and was joined by the bond of friendship, as I find noted by several, with Germanus, bishop of Paris, and with his successor Ragnemod; so that he could surely have had the affairs pertaining to the church of Paris and to its first bishop St. Dionysius better ascertained than those pertaining to the church of Arles, far distant from Tours, and likewise to its first bishop St. Trophimus. Moreover, no authority is likewise available from elsewhere, namely one to be admitted with certainty and not rightly to be called into doubt, on account of which we should recall the mission of Dionysius to a time earlier than the 3rd century; so that Pierre de Marca could not undeservedly have joined St. Dionysius to SS. Gatianus and Stremonius, in the epoch of whose mission he did not dare, from what has been said, to oppose Gregory of Tours, and therefore have revered the testimony of this writer also in the time at which he records this Saint to have been sent.

[108] the testimony he gave in that matter is better than the testimony of Fortunatus, And indeed perhaps this most learned man would have done so, had he not believed that the Acts of St. Dionysius and his Companions, to be edited by us, in which Dionysius is expressly asserted to have been sent into Gaul by Clement the Pope, had St. Fortunatus for their author; but that they were not composed by this holy bishop of Poitiers I have already clearly proved in §1 of this preliminary Commentary. Nor was there reason either why Pierre de Marca should depart from the testimony of Gregory, who hands down the contrary, on account of the hymn composed, as they will have it, by the same Fortunatus and cited by us, in which also the mission of Dionysius is ascribed to St. Clement the Pope. For although we granted for the moment above that that hymn, of which not even the writers of the Literary History of France make mention among the writings of St. Fortunatus, was composed by Fortunatus, it is nevertheless very doubtful whether it in fact proceeded from that writer, as is more than sufficiently clear from what I discussed in § V; and since the testimony of Gregory, couched in the words just transcribed here, proceeded beyond all controversy from Gregory, whatever they may adduce to weaken his authority, there was surely reason why it should be preferred by Pierre de Marca to the testimony of Fortunatus, which is not established to be truly Fortunatus's, and in fact it is to be held in esteem above the testimony of Fortunatus. But, since Gregory flourished only in the 6th century, and so was about three centuries distant from the age of Dionysius, sent, as he writes, in the 3rd century, someone perhaps will now contend that he was also too remote from that age to deserve certain credence in the time he assigns to the mission of Dionysius; and not altogether without reason, as it appears to me at least; but Sulpicius Severus, already often cited by us above, who, since he flourished as the 4th century grew old and so was only about one century distant from the age of Dionysius, could certainly have had the affairs pertaining to him well ascertained, supports Gregory, as will easily be gathered from what I am now going to say of that writer.

[109] That the Christian religion had not yet been received in Gaul even at the time and Sulpicius, as you will gather from what is said here, supports him. when Hadrian, emperor of the Romans from the year 117 to the year 138, persecuted the church of Christ, the cited Sulpicius Severus teaches not obscurely, as you will easily understand on inspecting his words which I transcribed here at num. 53; hence, further, it follows that that writer surely judged also that the churches of Paris, Tours, Reims, Rouen, Orléans, Arles, Narbonne and all the other churches of Gaul, which some contend were founded as early as the 1st century, had in fact not yet been founded at that time. This is certain and cannot be called into doubt by anyone. I have indeed already granted above that Sulpicius erred as to the time at which the faith of Christ was received in Gaul; but what then? Granted that he also erred, as from what has been said he in fact did, as to the time at which he believed the church of Arles to have been founded, nay even, if you wish, as to that at which he believed the church of Vienne to have been founded; will it follow from this that he was likewise deceived as to the time at which he thought the churches of Paris, Lyon, Reims and the other churches of Gaul were founded? By no means surely, as sufficiently appears from what we just brought forward of Gregory of Tours: and indeed, if from the fact that some writer had fallen into one or another error it were lawful to charge likewise with error everything else he writes, it would now be all over with all profane histories whatsoever, and nothing sufficiently certain and firm could be held as ascertained from them, since among the authors who committed them to writing scarcely any is to be found who is not detected as having at times been deceived and so having deviated from the truth. However much, therefore, Sulpicius be believed to have been deceived in the epoch to which the foundation of one or another church in Gaul should be referred, he is not straightway on that account to be judged to have erred also in the epochs pertaining to the foundation of other Gallican churches and, by name, of that of Paris, which Dionysius made.

[110] But although this be so, nevertheless, lest with those [Further, as is proved, he also judged that Dionysius was sent in the 3rd century,] who, whatever I do, will never admit the testimony of Sulpicius for the decision of the matter here in controversy, I uselessly waste time drawing a contentious rope, I omit to vindicate Sulpicius from errors, and shall here adduce from that writer, as part of my argument, only what I think will be called into doubt by no one. Since Sulpicius Severus, as is clear from what has been said, judged that the church of Paris had not yet been founded in the 1st century, it follows that he likewise supposed that Dionysius, who did this, and who, as they will have it, died a martyr in the same 1st century or at any rate at the beginning of the following, had not yet come or been sent into Gaul at that time, especially since he also hands down to memory, in the words transcribed here above, that martyrdoms were not seen in Gaul before the principate of Aurelius, that is the year 161, in which he began to reign; and since Dionysius, as all agree, certainly came or was sent into Gaul in either the first or the third century, it follows further from what has been said that Sulpicius Severus undoubtedly judged that this happened only in the later of these two centuries. Now, since this is so, it is necessary that the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century prevailed already from the 4th century growing old or the 5th beginning, at which time Sulpicius flourished. Let those who impugn it now assign a time either less remote from the event, or at least only equally remote, at which the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century began to prevail in any way; or, if they cannot in fact do this, as they certainly cannot, by adducing solid reasons, then indeed, since besides they cannot demonstrate by documents or testimonies, either contemporary with Sulpicius or more ancient, against which there is no room for exception, that the opinion which defers the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century is certainly foreign to the truth, it is necessary that they candidly confess it to be more ancient than their own and therefore, on account of what has been said, also preferable and more probable, as the reasons adduced here and in the immediately preceding § demand.

[111] and since this opinion, which besides by the argument, Further, although, as we granted above and as is clear from what has been said, Sulpicius erred in the time at which the faith of Christ was first received in Gaul, it nevertheless follows from this error of his that very probably, as the things I discussed in this Commentary from num. 54 to num. 59 show, only very few churches existed in Gaul in the 1st century, which is clear also from other things adduced in § IV; and since this is so, it is very little probable that that of Paris was of their number, and therefore that St. Dionysius, who founded it, came into Gaul as early as the same century. Documents or testimonies, indeed, more ancient than Sulpicius, by which this matter, and so the reasons brought forward above for the opinion which ties the Saint's coming into Gaul to the 3rd century, might now be further confirmed, are not available; but although this be so, arguments sought from elsewhere by which this may be done are not lacking. It will help to subjoin these also here. When the Apostles had been divinely admonished that the gentiles also were called to the Gospel, they began to go into all provinces and to scatter the seeds of the divine Word, especially in the greater towns and chief cities, founding churches there also. Hence it came about that they came to Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Athens, and at length, to omit many other notable cities visited by them, Thessalonica, reckoning, that is,

that the countryside and villages would easily come to agreement in the faith which the chief cities had received, churches having been founded among them, and that thus whole provinces could be claimed for Christ. This Christian skill, further, in spreading in every direction the Religion of God, not only the Apostles employed, but also their disciples, and others who strove to emulate the examples and excellent deeds of the Apostles.

[112] here, from the custom of apostolic men Having stated nearly all these things, Gérard du Bois, who in the year 1690 published the History of the church of Paris composed by him, speaks in the following manner in book 1, chap. 2: "To me, then, seeking in these places the beginnings of our Religion, the cities of Celtic Gaul must be surveyed which in the beginning of the nascent Church were stronger in power and authority, so that the judgment concerning our first beginnings and the origins of our churches may be more sincere and certain." What that writer here thought he should do in general as regards the cities of Celtic Gaul, in order to be able to determine more certainly at what time churches were founded in them, it has seemed good to me to do here by name as regards Lutetia, or the city of Paris, so that, having set forth the slenderness of its condition in the 1st century, it may be more certainly defined in what place the opinion is to be held which maintains that a church was founded there by St. Dionysius as early as that century and that he was therefore sent into Gaul already at that time. Although indeed, at the time when Caesar waged war in Gaul, and therefore a good while before the Christian era, Lutetia of the Parisii existed as a town not altogether undistinguished, it soon nevertheless fell away from whatever splendour it enjoyed. For at that very time, as the same Caesar relates in book 7 of his Commentaries on the Gallic War, it was consumed by fire, its bridges also being cut down, and, as it appears, it had not yet been restored even when Domitian was already reigning, that is, when the first century of Christ was growing old.

[113] Nay, it seems not to have been brought into the form of a complete city even in the 4th century itself. in founding churches Certainly the emperor Julian, who stayed at Lutetia about the year 360, calls Lutetia a little town. Moreover Ammianus Marcellinus, the companion of Julian, who wrote at that time, calls the same only a fortress, and everyone knows how much difference there is between that and a city. However that may be, it is acknowledged among all that Lutetia, or the city of Paris, was in the 1st century only a small town, enclosed within the narrow bounds of the smaller island formed by the Seine. Now, since the matter stands thus, and besides most of the churches of Gaul which were nearer to Italy were founded before others which were more remote from it, who, I ask, taking account of this matter and above all of the plan which, as I set forth above, the Apostles chiefly and apostolic men followed in founding churches, would suppose it probable that a church was founded at Lutetia, or Paris, as early as the 1st century, although meanwhile it happened that a church was founded at Toulouse, which is nearer to Italy, and at Tours, which Ammianus Marcellinus in book 15 reckons among the chief cities of Gaul, not before the 3rd century, nay at Lyon too, which was the metropolis of Gaul and an emporium celebrated throughout the whole world, frequented by Latins as well as by Greeks, not before the 2nd century, and that, as all agree, when it was already somewhat advanced?

[114] Who, pray, would easily persuade himself that Dionysius, coming from Italy, custom, passing over all the most renowned cities of Gaul, where the Religion of God was hitherto unknown or at any rate churches had not yet been founded, and that very city of Lyon which I have just named, most ample as well as most populous in inhabitants and nearer to Italy, settled in the very middle of the same Gaul, in a little town of smaller compass, such as from what has been said Lutetia then was, to spread the religion of God and found a church? No one indeed, as I think, especially one who has considered that Dionysius very probably wished to observe the custom of the Apostles in scattering the seed of the divine Word and founding churches, which I have explained above. Now, since the matter stands thus, and the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century nevertheless requires for its own truth both that Dionysius acted, in spreading the Gospel, contrary to what the said custom of the Apostles and apostolic men would bear, and that the church at Paris was founded before that at Lyon, indeed even from this our opinion opposed to it, inasmuch as, deferring the mission of Dionysius to the 3rd century, it requires neither of these for its own truth, seems to be held the preferable and more probable, and at the same time the reasons for which I have already shown above that it is to be so esteemed are not a little strengthened.

[115] and by another argument sought from the catalogues of the bishops of Paris Further, the ancient catalogues of the bishops who presided over the church of Paris also tend to this; if you weigh them, you will find that Victorinus, bishop of Paris, subscribed the synod of Sardica in the year 347; and since in the same catalogues only four or five bishops are enumerated who sat in the chair of Paris between him and St. Dionysius, and these would certainly not suffice to fill the space of at the least 247 years which lay between the said year 347 and the Pontificate exercised by St. Clement in the 1st century, the aforesaid catalogues of the church of Paris are certainly against the opinion which establishes that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by this Pontiff, and cause it to appear still less probable than it otherwise would; but on the contrary, since between the same said year 347 and the year 286, about which we shall teach below that the martyrdom of St. Dionysius took place, an interval of only about 60 years lay, and four bishops are undoubtedly sufficient to fill it, the same catalogues of the church of Paris certainly support the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius into Gaul to the 3rd century, and make it still more probable than it otherwise would be. They say indeed that most grievous persecutions were stirred up in Gaul by the heathen emperors against the Christians, and that it could thus have come about that, when through these the church of Paris, though founded by Dionysius as early as the 1st century, had been either wholly or nearly destroyed, the Christians being partly put to flight, partly slain for the faith, bishops to govern it were not ordained for many courses of years; moreover that war was declared by the emperors persecuting the church on the books of the Christians also, and that it could thus also have come about that the Commentaries of the church of Paris, in which, if they survived, far more bishops would be found than are enumerated in the published catalogues, perished on that occasion.

[116] is confirmed, But although both the one and the other thing which they here adduce in reply against the catalogues of the bishops of Paris objected to them could have happened, it is nevertheless very doubtful whether either of them in fact happened; and since it is also in no way certain, as they must confess, that the church of Paris was founded by Dionysius as early as the 1st century, the equity of reason demands that, in order to maintain nevertheless that it was founded already then, neither should the aforesaid catalogues of the bishops of Paris be held suspect of error or defect on account of a merely doubtful loss of the Commentaries of the church of Paris, nor should long vacancies of the same church, for which perhaps there was never any place, arising from the cause alleged above, be maintained without solid foundation. Now, since the matter stands thus, and no foundation of this kind can be assigned on which those vacancies might rest, surely the argument sought above from the said catalogues of the bishops of Paris retains its whole force against the opinion assigning the 1st century to the mission of Dionysius, and so makes our opinion, which is opposed to it and defers the Saint's mission into Gaul to the 3rd century, still more probable, as said, than it otherwise would be. Let the studious reader now discern whether this or the opposite one is deservedly to be held the preferable and more probable. That he may be able to do this better, it will help to repeat here in summary most of the things adduced above which chiefly tend to this.

[117] The opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century flourished indeed most of all in the 8th and 9th centuries, than the opposite opinion as we saw above; but since only doubtful traces of it, perhaps left by St. Fortunatus and the biographer of St. Genevieve (see § V of this Commentary) in the 6th century, and no certain ones more ancient than this century, are found, we may not undeservedly suspect that it arose only in the 8th century, or at any rate not earlier than the 7th or 6th, out of an immoderate love of the antiquity it favours; but on the contrary the opinion which throws back the same mission to the 3rd century not only stood firm and unshaken in the said 8th and 9th centuries against the opinion opposed to it of Dionysius sent by Clement, although that was then most gaining strength, but also beyond all controversy, as is manifest from Gregory of Tours, to whom you may not undeservedly join also the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, very often cited above, prevailed already from the 6th century, nay even from the 5th and 4th, as is gathered from Sulpicius; and since it does not favour antiquity, there is surely reason to believe that it clung to men's minds out of love of truth alone. Moreover the opinion which ties the mission of Dionysius to the 1st century has in its favour no testimonies at all certainly given before the 8th century which are not to be esteemed either very probably or undoubtedly supposititious or fictitious; but on the contrary the opinion which defers the same mission as far as the 3rd century is supported by testimonies given by Gregory of Tours and Sulpicius Severus, of whom the former flourished in the 6th century, the latter as the 4th century grew old and the fifth began.

[118] They contend indeed that these are not consonant with the truth: but since they prove this neither by sufficiently solid arguments, as they should, [is certainly more ancient, by far also, the objection which is raised being further resolved,] nor by testimonies of writers more ancient than Gregory and Sulpicius, or at least nearly contemporary or contemporary with them, and those testimonies, on which, as said, the opinion of Dionysius sent into Gaul only in the 3rd century is founded, undoubtedly flowed from Gregory and Sulpicius, I indeed, on account of what I have already discussed in the present § and the one immediately preceding, and most of all from the fact that it is much more ancient than the opposite opinion, of which, as is clear from what was argued above, no certain and undoubted traces are found before the 8th century, think it is to be held not only as the more probable and preferable, but also as nearly certain. But, you will say, if the mission of St. Dionysius into Gaul must be tied to the 3rd century, and one must therefore assent to Gregory of Tours in what he writes of it, it follows both that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by the Roman Pontiff when Decius was already reigning, and that he arrived there with St. Saturninus, who began to occupy the see of Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is in the year 250; and since Decius, who began to reign from the month of July of the year 249, as may be seen in Pagi in the Critica, at once stirred up a persecution against the Christians, and the Roman priests, when in it Fabian, the supreme Pontiff, in the year 250 towards the end of January

had been taken off by martyrdom, did not dare for more than the space of one year to fill the Roman See by the election of a new Pontiff, it appears barely, barely credible that Dionysius was sent into Gaul by the Roman Pontiff, as Gregory hands down to memory, at the time when Decius ruled the Roman empire, and arrived there in that year 250.

[119] So say further those who contend that the Saint was sent by Clement in the 1st century; but since Decius, having begun to reign, as said, from the month of July of the year 249, difficulty, is pronounced more probable and nearly certain. began the persecution, by issuing an edict against the Christians, only towards the end of that year (see Pagi in the Critica), why could it not have come about in that space of time which lay between July and December of the year 249 that Pope Fabian, not taken off by martyrdom before the year 250, from what has been said, put into execution a plan formed earlier, while the Church enjoyed the desired peace under the Philips, of sending apostolic men into Gaul, and sent Dionysius and some others thither for this purpose? In the Roman Martyrology, on the 18th day of December, St. Gatianus, who came into Gaul with St. Dionysius, is expressly asserted to have been ordained bishop of Tours by Fabian, the Roman Pontiff; nor, though I applied the most diligent investigation, could I find anything which ought to prevent both him and St. Dionysius, together with some others, from being believed to have been sent into Gaul by Fabian in the aforesaid space of time which lay between July and December of the year 249. Now, since the matter stands thus, and the difficulty drawn from the time at which Dionysius could have been sent under Decius in no way weakens the arguments which we brought forward above for proving and strengthening the opinion which establishes that Dionysius was sent in the 3rd century, I, having now carefully weighed everything, judge it not only by far more probable than the opposite, but also, as I have already said, nearly certain.

§ VIII. Whether St. Dionysius betook himself straight from Rome to Paris; whether, and whom, he then had joined to him as companions; and what he did in that city.

Dionysius, of whose birthplace and family nothing is known, Although indeed both those who in the century just past established one Dionysius and those who established two, one of Athens, the other of Paris, affirm with unanimous consent that the latter came from Rome to Paris, only those who confuse the two Dionysiuses nevertheless bring forward some things about the noble family and country of the Dionysius whom they mention; but those who distinguish one Dionysius from the other nowhere declare by a single word whether he whom they bring from Rome to Paris was a Roman or a Greek, born of humble or of noble family; and since they undoubtedly did so because older monuments of good stamp, from which they could have had anything ascertained on that matter, were lacking to them, we here likewise, for the same reason, must keep silence about the place and the family, nay also about the time, at which Dionysius was born. But although we are also destitute of documents of this kind by which what is proposed here to be investigated in the first place could be sufficiently aptly defined, it has nevertheless not seemed good to leave the matter wholly untouched, because ancient documents of some sort at least give room for discussing it; and so I now proceed to investigate here whether Dionysius, sent from Rome into Gaul, went straight to Paris, or on the contrary at times stopped somewhere on the way to pour the light of the Gospel upon the peoples through whom he was passing. In volume 2 of the Vetera Analecta which Mabillon edited, page 432, there stand inserted the Diptychs of the church of Arles, exhibiting an ancient index or catalogue of the bishops of Arles, which at its head, even before St. Trophimus, by the common opinion of all the first bishop of the people of Arles, displays Dionysius the bishop, with the word "commemoration" prefixed to his name, which is thereafter understood before the name of each of the following bishops.

[121] Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 1 on St. Dionysius of Paris, half doubts stopped at Arles before he went to Paris, in the Acts of St. Regulus, from which whether the Dionysius mentioned in the said Diptychs, or in the catalogue they supply, is not St. Dionysius himself, bishop of Paris, reckoned there in the first place among the bishops of Arles, not because he was ever in fact bishop of the people of Arles, but because he stopped at Arles before going to Paris and announced the Gospel, consecrating also a church there. Indeed the Life of St. Regulus, bishop of Senlis, which chiefly gave Tillemont ground for doubting on that matter, edited with us in the second place on the 30th day of March, chap. 3, num. 3, supplies these following words, which, because they must here be weighed a little more accurately, I transcribe here: "Then these holy men" (namely Regulus and the others sent from Rome into Gaul with St. Dionysius), "strengthened by the Apostolic blessing and kindled by the love of the Holy Spirit, faithful husbandmen of the Lord's field, bearing the Word of God into barbarian breasts, came to the city of Arles. For very many merchants had come thither from divers parts (for there was there a port abounding in much commerce), some of whom had heard the preaching of the Apostles, and for this reason they rendered to the aforesaid Saints the offices of humanity.

[122] "For the Lord bestowed such great grace on His Saints some words are recited here, that the people of Arles in no way resisted their preaching, but, receiving the Gospel of Christ with devout minds, faithfully adored the Creator of all. For there was a most venerable temple, in which a statue of Mars was worshipped by all, which B. Dionysius broke, by no labour of men, but by the invocation of the divine Name; and, all filth being cast out, he commanded a baptistery to be made for regenerating the people of God. And the temple itself he consecrated as a church in veneration of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. But seeing the people of that region serving the sacrifices of idolatry, dividing his ministers through divers provinces, he blessed them, saying: 'As the Lord was with my lords the Apostles, so may He be with you for ever'; and giving peace to all, and dividing the kiss of love to each, he weeping let them depart. But holy Regulus, adorned with the Pontifical blessing, he appointed to preside over the church of Arles. He himself, with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, penetrating the bounds of Gaul, came to Paris, where, afflicted with many torments, they received the palm of their labour by capital sentence."

[123] If, then, that Life records what is consonant with the truth here, it is related: but, to believe that the Saint truly did this, neither by them, St. Dionysius, whom it makes the leader of all those sent into Gaul with St. Regulus, certainly made some stay at Arles, and indeed, as it appears, a rather long one, in order to announce the Gospel there, and so did not betake himself straight from Rome to Paris. But the anonymous writer who composed that Life flourished only in the tenth or eleventh century, as may be seen with us in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Regulus on the said day of March, num. 5. Moreover he infected that lucubration of his with not a few fictions and errors, as Tillemont hints at the place cited above. And indeed, to abstain from recounting the rest of what he narrates in it that is either certainly fictitious or at least very little probable, what he relates even in the very words just recited, of a more notable temple of the heathen converted by Dionysius into a church of the Christians, the statue of Mars which was worshipped in it having first been broken at the mere invocation of God, certainly appears at once fictitious and altogether incredible. For since the heathen, who undoubtedly, even if you believe that many had already been converted to the faith by Dionysius, still remained addicted in great number to the worship of idols, could certainly have prevented the said temple from being snatched from them, who could persuade himself that they would not in fact have done so? No one surely, as I think, who has considered how great a power the heathen then wielded, and how much the Christians had to beware of them in the exercise of their religion. Since, then, as is more than sufficiently clear from what has been said, the aforesaid author of the Life of St. Regulus deserves sufficiently certain credence neither from the time at which he flourished nor from the things he hands down to memory, there is surely no reason why, moved by his authority, we should believe that Dionysius made a stay at Arles, announced the faith of Christ, and so did not go straight to Paris.

[124] nor are we moved by the diptychs which support them: and although In this matter indeed the Diptychs of the church of Arles cited above, inasmuch as they truly, as it appears to me at least, designate Dionysius of Paris and make him the first bishop of the people of Arles, support that anonymous writer; but these, although found by Mabillon in a very old Gregorian Sacramentary book, are nevertheless not so very ancient, since Iterius or Hyterius, whom the older of the writers who wrote out those Diptychs enumerates in the last place, did not occupy the chair of Arles before the 10th century was already growing old, as Denis de Sainte-Marthe teaches in volume 1 of the enlarged Gallia Christiana. Moreover, in enumerating the bishops of Arles there, this writer not only very frequently departs from the said Diptychs, instructed by better documents than these are, but also expressly affirms, at St. Caesarius, the 19th bishop of Arles, that there are many things which lessen the authority of the same Diptychs. The matter therefore having been maturely weighed, we ought no more to be moved by these than by the Life of St. Regulus of slight credit mentioned above to judge that Dionysius stayed for some time at Arles, whether to announce the Gospel or to do any other things whatever, and so did not betake himself straight from Rome to Paris. But although this be so, it is by no means certain that Dionysius, before he went to Paris, did not stop either at Arles or elsewhere to announce the faith to the peoples through whom he was passing.

[125] [he very probably stopped at least somewhere at that time, yet it is not certain either that he did so,] There would indeed be some reason for thinking otherwise if Dionysius had been consecrated bishop at Rome in order to go to the Parisians, illuminate them with the light of faith, and govern them, once illuminated by it, with the episcopal office. But what if the Saint, as was the custom at that age (consult what was said with us in volume 2 of January, page 81, on St. Genulphus, num. 2) and long afterwards too, was created bishop by the Roman Pontiff of no fixed see, but for performing the Apostolic office more aptly anywhere and for initiating into the priesthood those whom he found suitable? Indeed it appears very probable and nearly beyond doubt that the matter was truly so carried out, and that Dionysius was afterwards held by the peoples to be the first bishop of the Parisians, nay even the apostle sent to convert the Parisians, only because he had both announced the Gospel and founded a church at Paris and at length, besides not a few other things done and endured there for the faith, had also undergone martyrdom not far from there; Gregory of Tours himself, for that reason, asserting in the words transcribed here at num. 104 that the Saint was appointed bishop for the Parisians. Hence, further, it now comes about that it certainly cannot be inferred from the episcopal consecration which the Saint received at Rome that he nowhere stopped to announce the faith before he came to Paris; nay on the contrary, since to

perform the Apostolic office anywhere, no church at all being assigned to him over which to preside, he was very probably, as said, consecrated bishop by the Roman Pontiff, it seems sufficiently probable that he gave his effort to spreading the Gospel light elsewhere besides before he came to Paris. And the Acts of St. Dionysius and his Companions, to be subjoined by us to this Commentary, tend in some way to confirm this matter; for in these it seems to be indicated, at num. 5, that Dionysius endured labours for the faith elsewhere besides before he arrived at Paris; but since the author of the Acts neither relates this sufficiently clearly in that place, nor, even were it otherwise, deserves certain and undoubted credence, as I have already taught in §2 of this Commentary, in what he hands down to memory of our Saints, it is by no means beyond doubt and certain that Dionysius preached the Gospel elsewhere before he went to Paris, and so did not proceed straight from Rome to this city.

[126] Nor is it certain either whether Dionysius, when he proceeded from Rome into Gaul and made for Paris, [and likewise whether at that time either the Saints in the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus,] had joined to him on the way as Companions, besides some of the priests of the higher order, or bishops, whom Gregory of Tours, at the place just cited again, writes were sent with him, SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius and moreover other Saints, whether already established in an inferior grade of the clerical order or at that time still only laymen, whom the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus record. These, to treat in the first place of the Saints whom they enumerate, read thus towards the beginning: "The holy men, then, Fuscianus and Victoricus, with a company of twelve companions gathered in order, together with the venerable prelate Dionysius, the other companions being Piato, Ruffinus, Crispinus, Crispinianus, Valerius, Lucianus, Marcellus, Quintinus and Regulus, setting out from the city of Rome with intrepid course, fighting for the victory of Christ, the warriors of God came excellently within the bounds of Gaul to Paris, Christ being the guide of the journey; and, the Spirit enlightening them from above, they chose, one by one, places which had lacked the preaching of the divine Name." To this passage of the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus the Gallican bishops assembled in the year 825 very probably had regard when they said that Dionysius (consult their words transcribed here at num. 86) was directed into Gaul together with a company of twelve Companions.

[127] In the Acts of St. Piatus, cited above already more than once and inserted with us in the first volume of October, and in the Acts of other Saints, it is related at num. 4 that St. Piatus came from Rome into Gaul with St. Dionysius; and there are besides many other Acts, not to be enumerated here for brevity's sake, pertaining to the Saints mentioned in the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, in which the same is done as regards the Saints they celebrate. But copies of all of these, or at least of most of them, are also found which either record that the Companions whom they join to Dionysius as he hastened from Rome into Gaul suffered not under Diocletian, as those relate, but under Domitian, or make no mention at all of Dionysius. Moreover the writer who put the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus into writing affirms that these came into Gaul together with St. Dionysius and a company of twelve Companions, and yet, when he makes the count of them, joins by name to Dionysius only nine, as is clear from his words just given; nor does he seem always to have spoken accurately elsewhere, although meanwhile, as I taught above, he deserves sufficiently certain credence in many things. What if, then, St. Quintinus, St. Lucianus and some other Saints, who are mentioned both in the Acts of Fuscianus and Victoricus and in those of other Saints, are said, both in these and in their own Acts, to have come into Gaul with Dionysius perhaps only because, although not all at the same time as Dionysius, they nevertheless arrived in Gaul at about the same time as he, and because, having afterwards attached themselves to him as disciples, they were also initiated into the priesthood by him, as is expressly asserted of St. Piatus in his Acts at the place just cited, or at any rate were sent by him to scatter the seed of the Gospel in other places? Certainly not a few learned men judge that the Acts of the Saints mentioned here are to be understood or interpreted in this manner.

[128] of which I have now alleged here some copies But, says Gérard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 5, num. 3, "why ... those Acts" (namely of St. Lucianus, and the others of St. Regulus cited by us above here) "refer to the persecution of Domitian the martyrdoms of Lucianus and the rest, who are established from elsewhere to have fought an excellent contest under Diocletian; and why in other Acts" (namely of St. Quintinus, and likewise of SS. Crispinus and Crispinianus) "the name of St. Dionysius is kept silent, I shall briefly explain. Those who published new Acts of the Companions of St. Dionysius after the controversy had arisen about one or two Dionysiuses, when they read in the older writings that these were Companions of St. Dionysius and suffered under Diocletian, and noticed that this conflicted with the opinion of one Dionysius which they were defending, undertook to reconcile the discrepancies of the times in two ways. Some struck out the years of Diocletian and Maximian and substituted the reign of Domitian and the pontificate of St. Clement the Pope. Others, who were ashamed of so open a falsification, which was known to anyone from the ancient monuments, retained indeed in the Acts of these Martyrs the times of Diocletian, but suppressed the name of Dionysius; reckoning, that is, that they would preserve the contests fought under Diocletian, attested by public documents, together with the passion of St. Dionysius under Domitian, and that the diligence of the reader could easily be deceived by the omission of one word, and that the striking out of one name was not of such moment that the Acts would thereby be convicted of falsehood." Thus he, and indeed rightly enough.

[129] were very probably interpolated, those mentioned, For what I discussed above in § VI concerning the Passions of the Martyrs which were objected to Hilduin makes it most probable that the Acts of the Martyrs he here mentions were truly interpolated in the manner he says; and since this is so, and therefore according to those Acts, as they had originally been written, Dionysius came into Gaul with the Companions they mention who suffered under Diocletian, there is surely reason to judge that these and others named in the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus in fact accompanied him from Rome into Gaul, especially since, even looking at reason alone, it appears sufficiently probable that St. Dionysius, being a bishop, had joined to him at that time at least some clerics of an inferior order by whom he might be served. So those who will have it that Dionysius truly came from Rome into Gaul with the Companions whom the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus attribute to him can argue not altogether unaptly. But if Dionysius, who, as said above, arrived in Gaul in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is in the year 250, had joined to him at that time all the Companions who are mentioned in the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus, it follows that these, being put to martyrdom only under Diocletian about the year 286 or 287, all still survived together among the living after about forty years had already elapsed from their coming into Gaul; and since this appears little probable, and the authors of the Acts which the cited du Bois mentions, as many things persuade, did not always speak accurately any more than he who committed the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus to writing, I surely think the interpretation, which I have just taught is applied by learned men both to those and to these, is not altogether to be spurned; so that, all things considered, it is surely still uncertain and doubtful whether Dionysius, proceeding to Paris, had joined to him on the way the Saints mentioned in the Acts of SS. Fuscianus and Victoricus.

[130] And let this now have been said of them; or at least had SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius joined to him, but as now regards SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, not mentioned in these Acts, they are said to have accompanied Dionysius as he hastened from Rome into Gaul in the diplomas or privileges of Theodoric and Pepin, kings of France, cited at num. 84 and partly transcribed, and the same is also hinted sufficiently clearly in the Acts of St. Regulus at the place just cited; nor do I doubt that this very thing is found handed down to memory in other monuments of more recent age besides. But neither these nor the said Acts and Diplomas, being committed to writing only by those who lived several centuries removed from the age of Dionysius, are apt to produce certain and undoubted credence in this matter. Moreover the Acts of St. Dionysius and his Companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, to be edited by us, supply nothing whatever from which you might in any way gather that these accompanied Dionysius when he betook himself from Rome to Paris; and although Ado and Usuard join SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius to St. Dionysius today in the Martyrologies compiled by them, they nevertheless so arranged the announcements by which they do so that they seem to have studiously abstained from periods or modes of speech by which they would assert the fellowship of those two Saints with Dionysius while he made for Paris from Rome. Even the words alone in which those announcements are couched sufficiently show this, as it appears. The Usuardine ones, with which the Adonian agree almost exactly, if you except the correction, to be mentioned below, which Usuard rightly applied to Ado's text, read thus: "At Paris, the birthday of the holy martyrs Dionysius the bishop, Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the deacon; which blessed Bishop, directed into Gaul by the Roman Pontiff for the sake of preaching, came to the aforesaid city, where, ardently pursuing for some years the work committed to him, at length, punished with the sword by the prefect Fescenninus together with his Companions, he completed his martyrdom."

[131] had, is uncertain and doubtful; yet afterwards with these as helpers, Such are the words of Usuard; and in place of these that martyrologist, had he not wished to guard against what I have said, would seemingly have substituted these following or similar: "At Paris, the birthday of the holy martyrs Dionysius the bishop, Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the deacon; which blessed Bishop, directed into Gaul by the Roman Pontiff for the cause of preaching, came WITH HIS COMPANIONS to the aforesaid city, where, ardently pursuing for some years the work committed to him, at length, punished with the sword WITH THEM by the prefect Fescenninus, he completed his martyrdom." Usuard indeed writes, on the 1st day of October in the elogium of St. Piatus, that St. Piatus made for Gaul with St. Dionysius and his Companions; but since, as I have already noted above, he composed this from the Acts of this Saint, and Rusticus and Eleutherius are not mentioned in these, he very probably understood by the Companions whom he notes in the said elogium to have gone to Gaul with Dionysius not these two Saints but others named in the same Acts. However that may be, since neither Usuard nor other martyrologists or writers who can safely be trusted anywhere teach sufficiently clearly the fellowship of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius with Dionysius while he went from Rome to Paris, I would not dare to assert for certain that they in fact accompanied him at that time. But although indeed those Saints

came from Rome into Gaul with Dionysius is, as is clear from what has been said, not altogether certain, it is nevertheless not to be doubted that they at least afterwards joined themselves to him and brought him help at Paris, both in converting the heathen and in administering, or promoting and caring for, the affairs of the church which, as has already often been said, Dionysius founded there, being also afterwards joined to him, as we shall see, in the confession of the faith and in martyrdom. The matter is established from the constant tradition of the church of Paris and from ancient monuments, nor is it called into doubt by anyone.

[132] [the former indeed as priest, the latter as deacon, he certainly made use of at Paris;] And of them indeed one helped Dionysius in the office of priest, the other in that of deacon; but which was the priest and which the deacon someone perhaps may question. Ado, and after him Notker, announcing these Saints today together with St. Dionysius in the Martyrologies composed by them, attribute to Eleutherius the title of priest and to Rusticus that of deacon, and Rabanus also does the same; but on the contrary Usuard, accustomed for the most part to express Ado almost word for word unless he detected him straying from the truth, distinguishes today in the Martyrology compiled by him Rusticus with the appellation of priest and Eleutherius with that of deacon, and so judged that Ado must here be corrected; and not without reason; for Ado himself, before whom documents with the names of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius confused very probably lay on this account, puts Rusticus before Eleutherius on the 25th of July, speaking of the church consecrated to these Saints and to St. Dionysius. Moreover in the Corbie Hieronymian apograph, and in another which Fiorentini chiefly used, Rusticus is called priest and Eleutherius deacon, and the same is also done, or at any rate Rusticus is put before Eleutherius, in nearly all the other documents, both older and more recent, in which these two Saints are mentioned. Nor are the Acts of our Saints, to be subjoined to this Commentary, to be judged to disagree with those documents, although meanwhile, while they keep for Rusticus the appellation of priest, they ascribe to Eleutherius the title not of deacon but of archdeacon, which certainly does not savour of the age of Dionysius; so that no room for doubt is left that the former in fact discharged the office of priest with Dionysius, and the latter that of deacon.

[133] Now let us discuss what he accomplished in this city when he had arrived at Paris. where a church, as our anonymous author, whose words together with some The anonymous author of the Acts which we are about to edit writes thus at num. 6: "This place, then" (Paris), "the Servant of God" (namely St. Dionysius) "chose as one to be sought. To which when first he had come, armed with faith and intrepid with the constancy of confession, he built a church, which was not yet in those places and was new to those peoples, and established the offices of ministering clerics according to custom, and enlarged approved persons with the honour of the second order. Girded, then, with faith, and now strengthened by the construction of a basilica, he ceased not to make known to the gentiles the God whom he knew, and, setting before all both His judgment and His mercy, little by little he joined to God those whom he withdrew from the devil. The Lord also deigned to work such great mighty works through him that he won the hearts of the rebellious gentiles no less by miracles than by preachings." Monsieur le Beuf, cited above already at num. 12, who contends in his Dissertations on the History of Paris, published in the year 1739, that those Acts were patched together from other Acts of other Saints, or, to speak more exactly, from various fragments and shreds received partly from these, partly from elsewhere, judges that the second of the phrases couched in the words just now recited also bears the marks of a fragment received from elsewhere; and he holds this opinion because, as he says there at page 47, the writer of the Acts hands down to memory that St. Dionysius, as soon as he had arrived at Paris, both built a church there and formed a whole clergy, the faith, which appears incredible, not yet having been preached, and asserts besides that this plan was put into execution by the Saint "according to custom," which locution, as he will have it, is foreign to the Acts of the first centuries.

[134] Moreover the same Monsieur le Beuf, to lessen still more the credit of what the author of the Acts writes in the words just given observations on these are given here, of a church erected by St. Dionysius at Paris and of a clergy also established there, observes thus in his aforesaid Dissertations, page 55 and following, in French words which I make Latin: "Men well imbued with the circumstances which are narrated by this historiographer" (Gregory of Tours) "to have accompanied the beginnings of the faith at Tours, of which city he was bishop, would have made the anonymous writer of the Acts of St. Dionysius observe that two things which could not stand together were joined by him, namely, at a time when idolatry had put forth its firmest roots, the mission of Dionysius, and at the same time a sudden erection of a church and of a clergy made at Paris with the same facility with which it could have been done in the fourth or fifth century. Anyone skilled in criticism who had been contemporary with the author of the Life of St. Dionysius would have made him observe that it is handed down to memory by Gregory, who had the History of Tours thoroughly ascertained, that St. Gatianus, who brought the faith to Tours, was compelled to hide himself in subterranean places or crypts in order to celebrate the sacred mysteries on Sundays with the small number of Christians whom he had acquired for Jesus Christ, because he had frequently been affected with injuries and insults by the magistrates of the city when he had met them."

[135] Thus far he; but although indeed the author hands down to memory, built, whom these remarks sting deserves, as I have already more than once noted, by no means undoubted credence in what he records, what he writes in the words transcribed here above of a church built by St. Dionysius at Paris and of a clergy established seems nevertheless by no means foreign to the custom of the apostolic men who in the first centuries of the Church disseminated the faith of Christ in every direction. At times indeed the heathen magistrates stood in the way of their being able to keep it; but these were not all everywhere of the same inhumanity and hatred towards the sacred heralds as the people of Tours towards St. Gatianus. Certainly Firmianus Lactantius, in book 2 of On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chap. 12, most clearly discloses that, before the deadly persecution against the Christians had been set in motion by Diocletian, the Christians at Nicomedia in Bithynia, where the emperors not seldom used to stay, had for celebrating their synaxes a church even of rather lofty elevation, which could be seen from the imperial palace itself. Moreover St. Saturninus, who came to Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is in the year 250, built a church there, as is clear from his ancient Acts, very often cited above; nor would it be difficult to assign many other apostolic men who likewise in the 3rd century erected churches in the cities of Gaul illuminated by them with the light of faith. And indeed all the sacred heralds seem then to have held it customary to do this, as I could show by alleging very many examples.

[136] and a clergy in the same, as to the historian of Paris Since this is so, it appears not at all incredible that they were also accustomed to establish in the churches built by them a clergy, if not a larger one, at least such as the order of affairs and of the time allowed; so that, contrary to what the cited le Beuf will have, there is no reason why we should judge foreign to the Acts of the first centuries the locution by which the anonymous author of the Acts to be edited by us, while he writes that Dionysius both built a church and established a clergy at Paris, says that this was done by him "according to custom." Such it certainly does not appear to me in any way at all, although meanwhile I shall not persuade myself that Dionysius, when he had arrived at Paris, built a church there as quickly as our anonymous writer hints that it was done; so that indeed, matters standing as I have said, Gérard du Bois, cited above already, seems to have spoken here opportunely for our purpose, writing thus in the History of the Church of Paris, book 1, chap. 3, num. 6: "Not all things are to be despised which the author" (namely the anonymous author of the Acts of St. Dionysius, in the words just transcribed here) "records from the tradition of his times, and which, as things were in the age of St. Dionysius, were foreign neither to the ancient manners of the Church nor to the early custom of the Christians, such as are chiefly what he hands down concerning the ordination of clerics and the construction of a basilica. Indeed it was the custom of the first Apostles, if they saw an abundant harvest growing up, at once to call in a band of workers and to take to themselves ministers with whom they shared their labours, and to constitute a church out of clergy and people.

[137] it likewise seemed, as cited here, "In this manner St. Dionysius chose Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the deacon, whom the Acts of their Passion and the Martyrologies proclaim, and other ancient monuments attest, to have been companions both of his sacred expedition and of his contest. Why should not St. Dionysius also have built a basilica? For both the meeting-places and the churches of the Christians were held publicly, while there was quiet for the churches, before and after the times of Decius. Under the principate of the emperor Alexander, 'when the Christians had occupied a certain place which was public, and the cook-shop keepers said on the contrary that it was owed to them, the emperor Alexander rescribed that it was better that God be worshipped there in whatever way than that it be given up to the cook-shop keepers'" (so Lampridius in the Alexander, as is noted in the margin). "And Gallienus, peace having been restored to the churches after the disaster of Valerian, ordained by edict that those who had occupied places sacred to the Christian Religion while the persecution was hot should withdraw from them without any delay. These and other testimonies prove that it was lawful for the Christians to have churches openly in times of quiet, and therefore that nothing prevents St. Dionysius from having built a church at Lutetia, whether it was a house in these beginnings or a meeting-place."

[138] Thus he, likewise judging that both a church was built by Dionysius at Paris established, and undoubtedly did other things excellently, which are unknown. and clergy established to discharge the sacred functions in it; and surely, as is clear from what was said above, not without reason. Further, he afterwards subjoins also some things devised by the learned for determining the place in which a church was built by Dionysius at Paris; but that matter, whatever they have done, is in obscurity, and might perhaps be more easily brought into light if that sacred building had stood longer; but since at the beginning of the 4th century, when a most savage persecution had been raised against the Christians by Diocletian, very many, nay perhaps nearly all, of their temples in Gaul were destroyed, as is understood from what Firmianus Lactantius writes in book 2 of On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chap. 15, it appears probable that the church which Dionysius had built at Paris was also levelled to the ground at that time. Further, although it is not to be doubted that Dionysius did many other things excellently there, we are nevertheless no less ignorant of them than of the place in which the said church stood at Paris. Nor have we better ascertained whom St. Dionysius brought to the faith there, and how long he governed the church founded by him. Meanwhile Ado and Usuard and other hagiologists, that Dionysius at Paris for some years diligently to the work committed to him

applied himself, affirm in the sacred Fasti composed by them. And indeed, those some years must have been not very few in number, since Dionysius, as it appears, arrived at Paris not very long after the year 250, and was crowned with martyrdom there not earlier than about the year 286, as seems more probable, as we shall see in the immediately following §.

§ IX. By whom, and at about what time, SS. Dionysius and his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were put to martyrdom.

The Saints, a persecution against the Christians having arisen, The anonymous author of the Acts which we shall subjoin to this Commentary, having stated some things about the ancient enemy of the human race, who, seeing how great losses were being inflicted on him by the continual conversion of the peoples through Dionysius, stirred up a dire persecution against the sacred heralds of the Gospel, his followers being roused against them, presently adds at num. 8: "The sentence of persecution, then, being published, the rejoicing crowd of the impious goes forth, and conspires to fight against the Lord's people, not delaying to attack with the sword those whom the Lord had shown by His seal to be His own. And so, when they were running through a part of the western world in search of the Christians, they found St. Dionysius at Paris contending against the unbelievers; with whom the fury of the persecution found Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the archdeacon." Hilduin, while recording what corresponds to this text of our anonymous author in his Passion of our Saints in Surius, num. 24 and the two following, writes that the prefect Fescenninus Sisinnius, the sentence of persecution against the Christians having been published, was sent from the City into the West with a chosen band of attendants to search out St. Dionysius and to kill him with the most exquisite torments unless he would sacrifice to idols, and that he was found by him at Paris together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, and further that, an urgent command of the emperor for seizing the holy Prelate having first been made public, he was also arrested. But from where that writer drew these things I do not discover; certainly, however, everyone who is even moderately versed in historical criticism will see that they are very little probable. Since the narration of our anonymous author, couched in the words just transcribed here, is silent about Fescenninus Sisinnius and the attendants sent from the City to search out Dionysius, and comprises besides nothing which is out of keeping with the appearance of truth, it certainly far surpasses the Hilduinian, although meanwhile neither does its author deserve undoubted credence everywhere, as I have already more than once hinted.

[140] by a prefect, who whether Fescenninus Sisinnius, However that may be, it is indeed not to be doubted that Dionysius, when he had already spent many years in spreading the faith and governing the church of Paris, and a savage persecution against the Christians had arisen, was arrested and sent into prison together with SS. Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the deacon. But mention of the prefect by whom this was done, much less his name, is nowhere found in the Acts to be edited; he is nevertheless called Fescenninus Sisinnius by Ado, just as by Hilduin; but by Usuard, and likewise by the author of the Little Roman, who is more ancient not only than Usuard but also than Ado and Hilduin, he is distinguished only by the name Fescenninus. It does not appear that it is to be doubted that this latter martyrologist drew this from a document written before about the year 740, in which, as our Sollerius teaches in his Preface to Usuard, num. 142, he composed his Martyrology; but what or of what sort that document was, I am not able to determine. I find cited indeed the Acts of St. Nicasius, in which he, held by some also to be a companion of St. Dionysius, is asserted to have suffered under Fescenninus, yet with no more distinct notice of him added; but whether those Acts are more ancient than the eighth century I have not ascertained, nor do I sufficiently know either by what authority Ado called the said prefect Fescenninus Sisinnius, or Usuard, omitting the word Sisinnius, distinguished him by the name of Fescenninus alone. As now regards Hilduin, who is more ancient not only than Usuard but also than Ado: since the Writer who put into writing the Visbian Conscriptio, forged only in the 8th century, as appears from what was said above, affirms, or rather, to say what the matter is, invents, that his father Lisbius was betrayed by his mother Larcia to Fescenninus Sisinnius (see the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, num. 45), and Hilduin also hands this down to memory in the Passion of our Saints, num. 27, he very probably received from that muddy and turbid source alone that the prefect by whom he writes that Dionysius was taken was called Fescenninus Sisinnius.

[141] But although this be so, it seems nevertheless to be held as certain and beyond doubt that that prefect, or at least was called Fescenninus, arrested, into prison, of whom I find nothing at all noted in writers certainly more ancient than the Visbian Conscriptio and the cited martyrologists, was in fact called Fescenninus Sisinnius, or at any rate Fescenninus. This opinion stands, both because no authority at all impels one to believe the contrary, and because he is distinguished by this latter name not only by Usuard but also by the author of the Little Roman, before whom surely no one could rightly say that the Visbian Conscriptio lay as a guide, inasmuch as it was written only in the middle of the eighth century, as I taught above, and was known to no one before Hilduin, as this writer himself discloses in his Rescript to the emperor Louis, num. 5. Further, Hilduin undoubtedly learned from the Visbian Conscriptio not only what the prefect by whom our Saints were arrested was called, but also what the very prison into which they were thrown at his command was called. For that writer, who, as he himself discloses and as I have already taught above, had that lucubration, such as it is, as his guide in writing the Acts of our Saints, distinguishes that prison by the same name of Glaucinus by which it is called in it; nor do I know whether any other document is found, more ancient than Hilduin, in which this is also done. Doublet, in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 1, chap. 7, adds by conjecture that that prison was so called from the name of him by whom it was guarded; but as the very name of the prison, being founded only on the Visbian Conscriptio of very slight credit, so also this conjecture of Doublet is plainly uncertain.

[142] Nor is it altogether certain either in what place of the city of Paris that prison was situated. at Paris, perhaps in one or other of the places This is clear from what Gérard du Bois, already more than once cited, writes on this matter in the History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 4, num. 2. His words, because they tend not a little to the glory of St. Dionysius, I transcribe here. They read thus: "The common opinion is that the Dionysian prison was in the place where now is the church of Saint-Denis-de-la-Chartre; but I find that this is not so certain. For from old charters, Ansoldus, a nobleman or knight, as it was said in those times, with his wife Retrude founded the church of Saint-Denis-de-la-Chartre with the consent of Rainold, count of Melun and bishop of Paris, and endowed it for the use of clerics or canons; which foundation king Robert confirmed at Orléans in the 19th year of his reign, as we have learned from the letters of the king and afterwards of Girbert, bishop of Paris, given in the year MCCXXII. In these, further, that church is called 'of the Parisian prison,' and in others 'of the prison of Paris,' as if it had formerly been not so much St. Dionysius's as the public prison of the city. Whatever the case, the report is that that prison where the holy Martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius entered upon their first contests for the faith either existed there, or not far from that place.

[143] "For they relate that the church which is now called that of St. Symphorian situated, assigned here, was formerly the Dionysian prison, in testimony of which they produce letters of Matthew, count of Beaumont, and of Odo, bishop of Paris. In the year MCCVI that count, both for the salvation of his soul and in compensation for the journey to Jerusalem, 'granted to God and to Odo, bishop of Paris,' the place 'of reverence and of ancient religion in which the glorious martyr Dionysius is said to have been held in prison,' for building a church and establishing three priests to minister to God continually. From the same letters we understand that there had formerly been in the same place a chapel under the name of St. Catherine, founded by the piety of the faithful, which had been neglected through disuse and the carelessness of men and had fallen down, and which, by the liberality of Count Matthew, as has been said, was restored in honour and veneration of St. Dionysius; and that it is further the same as that which is now the basilica of St. Symphorian, the charter of foundation teaches; for in describing its situation it mentions 'the paved road' which lies between it and the church of Saint-Denis-de-la-Chartre. But why it is called the said church of St. Symphorian I do not remember having read; if one may conjecture, I shall say that, on account of the nearness of the other church of St. Dionysius, the name was easily changed, and it was called the church of St. Symphorian on account of the relics of that holy Martyr which are kept in it exposed to the veneration of the faithful. Before the times of Odo there is, so far as I know, no monument that that church was built on the place of the Dionysian prison."

[144] were thrown, and with various punishments, which by Hilduin, Thus far he on the prison into which our Saints were thrown; and since I have nothing to add to his statements, I now subjoin some things on the punishments with which they were afflicted. The anonymous author of the Acts which we shall edit relates at num. 9 that Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, when on being questioned they had freely professed the faith, were afflicted with many injuries and punishments, and were also wasted with stripes. Further, Gregory of Tours agrees entirely with this writer as regards Dionysius (for of Rusticus and Eleutherius he is silent); for he writes in book 1 of the History of the Franks, chap. 28, that Dionysius was afflicted with divers punishments for the name of Christ before he passed by martyrdom to those above. "Blessed Dionysius," he says, "bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with divers punishments for the name of Christ, ended the present life by the sword threatening him." And indeed, since no authority at all, either greater or more ancient than the authority of our anonymous author or of Gregory, persuades the contrary, it appears sufficiently certain that Dionysius was in fact afflicted with various punishments before he gained the crown of martyrdom by the sword. But what or of what sort those were, Gregory and our anonymous author do not set forth, nor can I determine it, any other ancient documents of sufficiently proper stamp for the purpose being also lacking. Hilduin meanwhile says that Dionysius, after he had first, together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, been beaten with scourges once and again, was first placed on an iron bed with fire set under it, glowing; then, when he had been drawn out from there burned over his whole body, he was thrown to most ferocious beasts; and when, these being tamed at his prayers, he had also come out unharmed from a burning furnace into which he had been thrown, and did not succumb to the punishments, variously tortured on a cross on which he had afterwards been put, he was taken down from it and thrown again into prison, and from it, in which also the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, wonderfully meanwhile

refreshed with holy communion by Jesus Christ Himself appearing to him with angels, he celebrated, he was brought out not very long after and at length gained the palm of martyrdom together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, after he had again been scourged together with them, by the cutting off of his head.

[145] whether rightly or otherwise is uncertain, are enumerated, Such are the punishments which Hilduin confidently writes, in the Passion of our Saints, num. 27 and the three following, that Dionysius endured before he was crowned with martyrdom, without using any formula of speech whatever by which he might hint that he doubted; but let us now discern whether rightly or otherwise. All these things, as everyone will conclude from what he himself records in his Rescript to the emperor Louis, num. 5, this writer undoubtedly received from the little book of the Dionysian Passion, from the Visbian Conscriptio, and from the ancient Missal books, or from the two Masses of SS. Dionysius and his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius which were contained in them. But both the said little book of the Dionysian Passion, although it is even called most ancient by Hilduin, and the Visbian Conscriptio, to be held, as I taught above, in no esteem at all, were of very slight credit, as is clear from what I discussed in §2 of the Commentary prefixed to the fabulous Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; and as now regards the ancient Missal books or the two Masses contained in them, neither could Hilduin have ascertained from these anything certain about the punishments inflicted on St. Dionysius, as you will gather without difficulty from what I brought forward in the same Commentary prefixed to the fabulous Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, num. 50 and the four following. Whatever, therefore, Hilduin hands down to memory in particular about the punishments which Dionysius endured is plainly uncertain. Meanwhile it appears beyond doubt that he and SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius were afflicted with various punishments, as also that they gained the crown of martyrdom, their necks being cut through with the sword. Indeed from what I now subjoin, this last point at least seems altogether established.

[146] Fortunatus, already very often cited above, extols St. Dionysius with praises they consummated their martyrdom by the cutting off of the head. because he gave his neck to be cut for the faith, and speaks of him in the following manner in the excellent elogium which he composed in verse, book 1 of the poems, chap. XI:

Who, made firm in fervent faith by the love of Christ, Bowing his head, gave his neck to be cut. He was a despiser of his limbs, desiring the crown, Thinking cheap whatever he bore for the love of God. That the flesh about to die might procure an immortal gift, He loved wounds, but wounds that would lack death. Running to meet the hostile sword, he sent himself to heaven; Whence he willed to die, he has the vows of salvation.

Further, Gregory of Tours, as is clear from his words just transcribed here, assents to Fortunatus; and to these two writers, against whom besides I find no authority at all opposed in this matter, are to be joined the Acts of our Saints, which will be subjoined to this Commentary, and likewise not a few Martyrologies, both older or classical and more recent, which constant tradition also supports, all of which affirm that Dionysius, nay also his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, consummated their martyrdom by the sword. But the two said writers and all these literary monuments, which thus relate with unanimous consent that Dionysius ended his martyrdom with his head cut off, with equal consent are silent about the iron bed, the condemnation to the beasts, and the burning furnace; and although, as Gérard du Bois teaches me in the History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 4, num. 3, the piety of the faithful towards Dionysius made a furnace an object of veneration at Paris in the church of Saint-Denis-du-Pas, we can by no means be made certain from this about the punishment which, as we have said, Hilduin says Dionysius endured in the furnace, as neither about the apparition mentioned above, which was granted to Dionysius in prison, from the stone or rock on which, as Félibien testifies in his History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 76, that miracle is still today seen expressed or represented above one of the doors of the church of Saint-Denis older than Hilduin; for it is generally known to the learned that it has very often happened that both popular devotions and representations of this kind have drawn their origin either from mere errors and hallucinations or from false traditions.

[147] This, whose epoch is very difficult to determine, Let us now proceed to what is to be inquired here in the second place, namely the time at which our Saints underwent martyrdom. Although Gregory of Tours marked most clearly, as we saw above, the emperor under whom St. Dionysius was sent into Gaul, he nevertheless left nothing anywhere handed down to memory from which the time can be determined at which the Saint was afterwards put to martyrdom there together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius. Nor did the anonymous writer of the Acts which we shall edit, nor the author of the Little Roman Martyrology, nor the classical martyrologists more recent than it, Usuard and Ado, nor finally any other ancient writers, do so; so that indeed it is exceedingly difficult to determine at what time, or in what persecution, our Saints gained the palm of martyrdom by shedding their blood for Christ. Ado and Usuard indeed note that Dionysius was punished with the sword by the prefect Fescenninus, or Fescenninus Sisinnius, and since the author of the Little Roman besides agrees with them, there is surely reason to judge that the belief that Dionysius suffered under that prefect also flowed from true and genuine tradition. But at what time Fescenninus, or Fescenninus Sisinnius, lived, as also under what emperor he acted as prefect in Gaul, is no less in obscurity than the very time at which Dionysius and his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius underwent martyrdom; and since this is so, let us try to dig out from elsewhere this thing which, from what has been said, the silence of all the ancient Writers and Monuments has withdrawn from our knowledge, and to this end let us examine with which of the persecutions raised against the Christians after the coming of Dionysius into Gaul the martyrdom of our Saints best agrees.

[148] not under the Emperors enumerated here Since Decius, in whose reign Dionysius came into Gaul in the year 250, as we taught above, held the Roman empire for only two years, certainly this Saint of ours, who, as Ado and Usuard teach in their Martyrologies at this day, tradition also supporting and no authority at all of any other ancient document or writer protesting, ardently fulfilled for some years the work committed to him of propagating the faith in Gaul, was not taken from among the living by martyrdom while the Decian persecution raged. Further, Gallus and Volusianus, who, Decius having been slain by the Goths, succeeded to the Roman empire in the year 252 together with Hostilianus, persecuted the Christians indeed, no differently from Decius; but (see Pagi in the Critica at the said year, num. 18) their persecution was only local, and while it lasted there was raging against the Christians only at Rome; and when afterwards those two emperors had been killed by their soldiers in the year 253, Hostilianus having already been carried off by plague, Valerian, substituted for them together with his son Gallienus, soon restored peace to the Church; and although he afterwards, namely in the year 257, renewed the persecution against the Christians, we have nevertheless not found that martyrs were made in Gaul at that time; and when Valerian fell into captivity among the Persians in the year 259, Gallienus, taught better by his father's disaster, soon granted peace to the Church, nor are Postumus and the others who from the year 260 up to the year 273, the fourth of the emperor Aurelian, usurped the Roman empire in Gaul read anywhere to have disturbed it there in any way. Chrocus indeed, the heathen king of the Alemanni, about the year 260 burst into Gaul with a numerous army, and there, having wretchedly laid waste very many places, put not a few Christians to martyrdom; but this persecution of Chrocus, whatever it was, by no means fits the martyrdom of Dionysius, inasmuch as he suffered it not from an Alemannic but from a Roman prefect, as even the Roman name alone of this Fescenninus, or Fescenninus Sisinnius, discloses; especially since it does not appear from any at all of the circumstances narrated as accompanying it that Dionysius underwent martyrdom in a persecution which fell upon Gaul while it was troubled by external or barbarian enemies.

[149] Further, since from the year 250, in which Dionysius came into Gaul, nor either, contrary to the historian of the church of Paris up to the fourth year of Aurelian, of Christ 273, the affairs of Gaul stood in the position I have already described, certainly no persecution against the Christians was set in motion there at that time in which it is probable that Dionysius fell. But Aurelian, who, when he first began to reign, had been of a mind not altogether hostile to the Christians, afterwards nevertheless, his opinion gradually changed, came even to this, that by issuing a new edict in the last year of his reign, of Christ 275, he renewed the cruel edicts of persecution formerly passed against them; and although, as Lactantius writes in On the Deaths of the Persecutors, at the beginnings of his fury he was slain by his own friends from some false suspicion, his bloody edicts not yet having been carried to the further Provinces, there will nevertheless perhaps be someone who, because the Martyrologies and ecclesiastical tables note Martyrs in Gaul under Aurelian, will persuade himself that an edict of this emperor against the Christians was then promulgated there and that a persecution blazed up by virtue of it. Certainly Gérard du Bois, in his History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 5, num. 6, judges that this in fact happened, and hence, having enumerated some Gallican martyrs whom the said Martyrologies and ecclesiastical tables assign under Aurelian, he also reasons in the following manner (whether rightly or otherwise we shall soon see) for tying the martyrdom of Dionysius to the persecution set in motion by Aurelian: "From these I am easily led to believe that St. Dionysius with his companions was arrested in the persecution of Aurelian, afflicted with various punishments, and at length beheaded by order of the prefect Fescenninus.

[150] "It is established that St. Dionysius survived Decius; the fury of Valerian did not invade Gaul; reasoning, in words which under the governorship and tyranny of Postumus they were quiet: St. Dionysius 'pursued for some years the work committed to him,' as the Martyrologies have it; these years he surely spent usefully in founding the church of Paris and in establishing the faith, which he so fixed in the inmost minds of the Parisians that it was necessary neither for the Parisian church to be restored anew nor for the faith to be handed on again in these places, which was not the work of one or two years. To this is added that this persecution of Aurelian raged most of all in these tracts of Gaul; nor would you easily attribute another persecution or another time to the martyrdom of St. Dionysius. But that you will find nowhere that he suffered under Aurelian, I think happened from what I am going to say. Aurelian, after publishing the edict against us, was slain at Caenophrurium between Heraclea and Byzantium. While the senate and the army deferred to each other the honour of substituting an emperor in his place, there was an interregnum, so that (as Flavius Vopiscus witnesses) 'for six months the Roman world had no emperor, and all the judges remained whom either the senate or Aurelian

had chosen.' Since meanwhile the bloody edicts of the prince remained, and were not revoked until Tacitus reigned, the prefects and governors of the provinces were free either to use mildness or to exercise cruelty against the Christians, according as each was carried by hatred of them or by goodwill.

[151] are transcribed here, couched, and with divers "There were, then, two times of this persecution: the one while Aurelian lived, or was believed still to live in the provinces; the other when, he having been removed, there was an interregnum, and the persecution was nevertheless continued. Hence it happened that those who suffered in the first days of the persecution were said to have suffered under Aurelian; but to the Acts of those who underwent martyrdom in the time of the interregnum the name rather of the governor than of the emperor was attached, or sometimes of neither. I conjecture that the contest of St. Dionysius took place in this latter time, and that therefore only the name of the prefect Fescenninus was noted in the Fasti of the church. Led by these conjectures we say that St. Dionysius was crowned with martyrdom on the 7th before the Ides of October, in the year of Christ CCLXXVIII" — nay rather (the Baronian reckoning which this cited author uses being corrected) in the year 275 — "in which year the ecclesiastical Annals note that the slaying of Aurelian and the interregnum of the empire took place. And since Tacitus was proclaimed emperor on the 7th before the Kalends of October, St. Dionysius must have suffered 14 days after he was raised to the empire, the news of the election of Tacitus not yet having been carried into these regions, much less the edict of Aurelian against the Christians revoked." Thus far the cited writer, building the whole of this reasoning of his, long as it is, chiefly on the edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians, which, after the slaying of this prince, perpetrated in the year 275 about the twentieth day of March, as Pagi teaches in the Critica at the same place, num. 3, was, he supposes, both published in Gaul and continued still to hold its force there, many being for that reason put to martyrdom there at that time, for more than six months, until the interregnum of the Roman empire had ceased through the election of Tacitus and this had been announced in Gaul.

[152] which here But whether the edict which Aurelian issued against the Christians a little before his slaying was in fact ever promulgated in Gaul appears to me very doubtful. Nor do the Martyrs who, as the cited author hints, were then slain for the faith in Gaul by virtue of that edict make me certain on that matter. And indeed the epoch which he thus assigns to their martyrdom appears to me surely no less doubtful and uncertain than the very promulgation of the aforesaid edict in Gaul. Whether deservedly or otherwise, let the studious reader judge from what I am now going to say. The Martyrologies indeed, as the same author says at the place cited, and the ecclesiastical tables expressly relate that St. Columba the Virgin at Sens, Savinianus in the territory of Troyes, Julia the virgin, Claudius, Justus, Jucundinus with five of their companions, and Patroclus at Troyes underwent martyrdom under Aurelian; but that this was done by virtue of an edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians which was promulgated in Gaul even after this prince's death and still had its force, they nowhere hint in any way, much less declare openly. Our Bolland, on the 21st day of January, on which St. Patroclus is asserted in the Roman Martyrology to have suffered at Troyes in Gaul under Aurelian, published an older Life of this Saint; and since at its end St. Patroclus is said to have been beheaded on the 12th before the Kalends of February, a Friday, and Friday, so long as Aurelian reigned, coincided with the 12th before the Kalends of February, that is the 21st of January, only in the year 271, it follows that Patroclus certainly, contrary to what the said writer thought, was not put to martyrdom by virtue of the edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians only in the year 275, as said.

[153] Moreover, since the Aurelian under whom St. Patroclus fell forward is called in the said Life which Bolland edited not emperor but governor, and not only is there talk in the Acts of St. Alexander the Pope of an Aurelian, count of both militias, who persecuted the Christians in the reign of Trajan, but mention also occurs elsewhere of others of the same name established in dignity, it is also altogether uncertain whether St. Patroclus gained the crown of martyrdom in the persecution set in motion by Aurelian or in another, as Pagi has already rightly observed in the Critica at the year 277, num. 4. Further, as now regards the other Saints already named above with St. Patroclus, whom the cited historiographer of the Church of Paris likewise judged to have been crowned with martyrdom in Gaul by virtue of the edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians, the Acts of all of them, those alone excepted which pertain to St. Columba, inscribed in the sacred Fasti on the 31st day of December, stand inserted in our Work on the 29th day of January, on which St. Sabinianus or Savinianus is venerated, and on the 21st day of July, on which St. Julia the virgin, Claudius, Justus, Jucundinus and their five Companions are venerated; and they nowhere supply anything from which you might conclude that these Saints underwent martyrdom by virtue of an edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians which, after this prince's death, was both published in Gaul and had its force. They note indeed that all the same Saints were crowned under Aurelian, but they add that this was done by him while he still survived among the living and was indeed present in Gaul. And indeed Aurelian, when he was already emperor, came twice into Gaul: the first time when, as Vopiscus relates in the Aurelian, he received into his power, together with his army, the tyrant Tetricus, who, having become emperor from governor of Aquitaine, held Gaul, which, as Pagi teaches in the Critica, was done in the year 273; and the second when, as the same Vopiscus narrates in the Aurelian, he set at liberty the Vindelici, pressed by a barbarian siege, which the said Pagi refers to the year 274.

[154] Now, since the matter stands thus, it surely appears sufficiently probable that the aforesaid Saints, are adduced, as their Acts, as said, relate, were beheaded for the faith by order of Aurelian while he was present in Gaul (which must also be said of St. Columba, since she too, as her Acts report, was put to martyrdom by the said emperor while he was staying in Gaul) in the two said years or in one or other of them; especially since Aurelian, in the course of time, or, as Eusebius speaks of him in book 7 of the History, chap. 30, as the time of his reign advanced, gradually put off the kindly mind which he had shown towards the Christians at the beginning of his reign, and it could thus easily have come about that a man at all times, as Victor writes in the Epitome, both savage and bloodthirsty and fierce, began to rage against them in Gaul even from the years 273 and 274, before the edict against the Christians which I mentioned above had yet been issued. In the Acts of St. Reverianus and eleven other Martyrs at Autun in Gaul, already inserted in our Work on the 1st day of June, these Saints are narrated to have been killed for the faith by order of the emperor Aurelian when he was staying in Gaul, and hence our Henschen referred their martyrdom to the year in which Aurelian received the tyrant Tetricus in surrender and made a journey through the Aedui. The Acts indeed both of St. Columba, not yet edited by us, and of St. Savinianus, and likewise of SS. Julia, Claudius and the other Martyrs mentioned above, which we have already brought out on the 29th of January and the 21st of July, are perhaps of a stamp not so very approved; but, whatever they are, since they are shown false by no argument at all, whether from authority or sought from elsewhere, in the time at which they relate that the Saints they mention suffered martyrdom, they at least bring it about that it cannot undeservedly be doubted whether those Saints were not truly killed for Christ at that time. Tillemont, while he treats in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 345 and following, of the persecution set in motion by Aurelian and at the same time of St. Columba and the other Saints who are said to have undergone martyrdom in Gaul under this emperor, nowhere utters a single word by which he might in any way hint that even one of them certainly suffered martyrdom by virtue of the edict issued by Aurelian against the Christians and still taking effect after his slaying; so that this writer, both from this and from some things which he writes in the same place, seems surely to have doubted not a little whether any of the Martyrs whom he enumerates was slain in Gaul by virtue of the edict issued by Aurelian a little before his death.

[155] having been weakened by reasons, contends, under Aurelian, And indeed neither have I, however great the search made, been able to find any Martyr in Gaul who was certainly killed by virtue of the same edict; and since the matter stands thus, and from what has been said it must be held at least doubtful, to say no more, whether truly even one person there was put to martyrdom by virtue of the mentioned edict, issued by Aurelian against the Christians and still having its effect after his slaying, the reasoning transcribed here above, by which the cited historiographer of the Church of Paris contends that the martyrdom of Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius is to be ascribed to the persecution set in motion by Aurelian through the aforesaid edict, loses its whole force, being founded only on the multitude of Martyrs who were slain in Gaul by virtue of the same edict after the slaying of Aurelian; and so there is no reason why on account of it we should judge that our Saints underwent martyrdom under Aurelian. Moreover the Germans, during the interregnum of the Roman empire, lasting from about the 20th day of March, on which, as said, Aurelian was killed in the year 275, up to the September next following, broke through the Roman frontiers across the Rhine, and by the time Tacitus was elected emperor on the 25th day of this latter month, had already occupied divers cities of Gaul, strong, noble, rich and powerful, as Vopiscus teaches in the Tacitus, chap. 3; and since it appears little probable that the Romans, in this state of their affairs, still turned their mind to persecuting the Christians in Gaul, the opinion likewise by which the cited historiographer establishes that Dionysius and his Companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius were nevertheless put to martyrdom at that time by virtue of the edict issued by Aurelian seems little probable.

[156] at that time also, while in Gaul Further, even if, contrary to what appears, many in Gaul also had been put to death by the Romans in hatred of the Christian faith, while the Roman empire was vacant and the election of Tacitus not yet announced, on the occasion of the edict issued by Aurelian which, he being slain, still retained its force, you would not on that account rightly judge that of their number those indeed who were killed while Aurelian lived, or was believed still to live in the provinces, were noted in their Acts or in the Fasti of the churches as under Aurelian, but those who met death afterwards, so long as, the slaying of Aurelian being already known, the interregnum of the Roman empire still lasted and the election of Tacitus had not yet been announced, as under governors or prefects, the emperor's name being suppressed; and although the conjecture formed hence, led by which the historian of the Church of Paris, because, as he thought, St. Dionysius and his Companions were killed by virtue of the edict already very often mentioned when Aurelian had already been slain more than six months and the election of Tacitus not yet announced,

established that they were recorded in the sacred Fasti under the prefect Fescenninus, or Fescenninus Sisinnius, alone, the name of Aurelian being suppressed, surely has much acuteness, as it seemed to Tillemont in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 6 on Dionysius of Paris, nevertheless the said usage, as observed in the Ecclesiastical books and the Acts of the Saints, on which alone it seems to rest, is wrongly maintained. The matter will be evident from the few things I subjoin. Aurelian, as Pagi teaches in the Critica, was killed by his friends in Thrace in the year 275 about the 20th day of March, from which day the Roman empire was afterwards vacant up to the election of Tacitus, made on the 25th day of the September next following, when he had a little before issued an edict against the Christians; and yet St. Reverianus and eleven others, who stand inscribed in the sacred Fasti on the 1st of June, and likewise St. Julia, SS. Justus and Jucundinus and several others besides, who stand so inscribed on the 21st day of July, as having been then first born in heaven by martyrdom, are noted as having suffered under Aurelian either in these or at any rate in the Acts which both set forth their passion and tie it to the said two days.

[157] It may indeed be replied that the slaying of Aurelian had not yet been announced in Gaul at that time; was staying, the Christians, but since this was perpetrated, as said, about the 20th day of March, who would believe that it was still unknown there on the 1st day of June next following, nay even on the 21st of July? "Aurelian having been killed," says Pagi in the Critica at the year 272, num. 12, "one or two months, as it seems, after he issued the decree of persecution, it lasted after his death for some months, namely through the interregnum, which was of six months; and whatever Christians" (whether in Gaul, namely, or elsewhere) "suffered martyrdom at that time are said in the Martyrologies to have suffered under Aurelian, because, namely, they were killed by virtue of his decree." But, someone perhaps will now say, since indeed, as appears from what has been said, very many in Gaul were killed in hatred of the Christian faith by order of this emperor while Aurelian was staying there, nothing whatever seems to prevent our Saints also from being believed to have fallen, shedding their blood for Christ, in one or other of the years 273 and 274, in both of which Aurelian was in Gaul, and so the historiographer of the Church of Paris rightly assigned their martyrdom under Aurelian. So indeed it may seem, not altogether without reason, especially if credit is to be given to the Acts of St. Priscus and very many other Martyrs, already brought out in our Work on the 26th day of May, on which these stand inserted in the sacred Fasti.

[158] For these read thus at the beginning: "In the days of the emperor Aurelian, not however so great as the Acts of St. Priscus indicate it to have been, the worship of idols decreasing, and the doctrine of the Christian religion advancing with better success, the fury of the persecutors so blazed up that the emperors themselves too, by no means trusting the minions of their crimes, traversed the inmost parts of the several provinces. At the same time indeed the emperor Aurelian, a most cruel man, leaving the city of Rome, had come into the parts of Gaul: who, coming into the city of Sens, sent across the companions of his ferocity to search out the Christians throughout all Gaul"; and afterwards, after some further things by which they indicate that the persecution of which they treat blazed up most of all, they presently subjoin that St. Priscus and very many other Christians found there were, by Alexander the Protector, sent by Aurelian to the Territory of Auxerre, and afterwards by order of the same Alexander, beheaded with the sword. But, says Tillemont in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 349, it is evident to the eye that those Acts are rather recent, even if judgment be passed on them from the swollen and barbarous style alone in which they are written; and since they also comprise phrases smacking, as he adds, of the 9th century, and so are very probably not more ancient than this century, they indeed deserve either no credit or at any rate only slight credit in what they hand down to memory of Aurelian, emperor of the Romans from the year 270 to the year 275, much less are they to be thought free from errors. What if, then, at their beginning, where one reads "in the days of the emperor Aurelian," one should read "in the days of the emperor Aurelius"? The Acts of St. Symphorian the martyr are surely far superior to the Acts of St. Priscus mentioned here, inasmuch as Ruinart rightly reckoned them among the genuine Acts of the Martyrs published by him, and yet at their beginning, where one should read "under the prince Aurelius," one wrongly reads "under the prince Aurelian," as Ruinart in his Admonition on the same Acts, and after him Pagi in the Critica, and our Predecessors on the 22nd day of August, on which St. Symphorian is venerated, judged.

[159] the vehemence In manuscript Codices, as the same Ruinart also notes at the place cited, Aurelius and Aurelianus, Fabius and Fabianus, Valerius and Valerianus and other similar names are not seldom confused; nor in the Hieronymian apographs and other ancient sacred Fasti is St. Priscus, although announced in these, asserted to have suffered under Aurelian. What if the persecution also which in the Acts of St. Priscus is attributed to Aurelian is to be ascribed to Maximian? However the matter stands, what is related in them of ministers sent by the emperor in every direction to search out the Christians and deliver them to death fits very well the persecution set in motion in Gaul by Maximian, from what will be said below, and the other raised there by Aurelius, or Marcus Aurelius, in the year 177, in which very many Christians, as Pagi teaches in the Critica at this year, were killed in hatred of the faith; but not so any persecution whatever which Aurelian raised in Gaul while he was staying there in the year 273 or 274. Nor indeed does there fit this not only not what I have already said, but not even so great a vehemence as is asserted in the Acts of St. Priscus. Certainly the more ancient monuments worthy of credit supply nothing from which you might in any way elicit it, nor can those Acts, being, as already said, only rather recent, be held as equal to all in getting the matter believed. Although, therefore, I would judge it sufficiently credible that Reverianus and the other holy Martyrs mentioned above already, inscribed in the sacred Fasti on the 1st day of June, and likewise St. Julia together with some others, likewise inserted in the sacred Fasti on the 21st day of July, were killed for the faith at that time, as their Acts report, under this prince, at Autun and Troyes, which two cities Aurelian visited while he was staying in Gaul in the year 273, it nevertheless does not appear that very many other holy Martyrs besides are to be joined to these who were killed under this emperor in hatred of the faith at that time in other places also than those which Aurelian visited while staying in Gaul.

[160] Now, since the matter stands thus, and martyrs seem to have been made by his order at that time almost only in those places in which Aurelian was present while he was staying in Gaul, having persecuted, there is surely no reason why we should judge that our Saints were likewise crowned with martyrdom at that time under this prince, who is nowhere read to have betaken himself to Paris while he was staying in Gaul in the years 273 and 274, on account of the multitude of martyrs who gained the palm of martyrdom in Gaul at that time. Moreover, although indeed of the martyrs who suffered in Gaul under Maximian Herculius, under whom our Saints also fell for Christ, as I shall show below, some, and in the first place Rufinus and Valerius, are read noted in the sacred Fasti with only the name expressed of the governor or prefect under whom they shed their blood for Christ, without any mention of Maximian Herculius, I have nevertheless been able to find none at all of those who certainly suffered there under Aurelian who is said in the same sacred Fasti to have undergone martyrdom only under a governor or prefect, without even the least mention being made of Aurelian; and since our Saints are recorded in the said sacred Fasti only under the prefect Fescenninus, or Fescenninus Sisinnius, the name of the emperor under whom they suffered not being expressed, this too is certainly an argument that they were not put to martyrdom under Aurelian. But since, both from this and from not a few other things which I have already brought forward, the persecution which Aurelian raised, whether while present in Gaul or afterwards by issuing an edict against the Christians a little before his slaying, does not seem sufficiently apt for us to tie the martyrdom of our Saints to it with the cited historiographer of the Church of Paris, in what persecution at length, or under what emperor, shall we establish that they flew to heaven, having shed their blood for Christ?

[161] Tacitus, when he had been substituted in the place of the slain Aurelian in the year 275 on the 25th day of September, but of the persecutions which here at once restored to the Church the peace which the latter, as we saw, had disturbed; and although, when he was already emperor, he survived among the living for only six months more, nevertheless under the princes who ruled the Roman empire after him Christian affairs were quiet up to the year 285. Under Numerian indeed, who, having been made partner of the empire together with his brother Carinus by his father Carus in the year 283, was killed not long after the latter's death in the following year, the Martyrologies record not a few martyrs both in the West and in the East; but even if it appears in some way certain that they do this rightly, it is at any rate very doubtful and uncertain whether even one of the Christians was killed in Gaul by order of Numerian, as everyone will determine from what Tillemont discusses in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments from page 564 to page 570. Further, in that space of time which lay between the year 284 and the year 313, the Church was shaken by two most grievous persecutions. And of these indeed the one, when there had already been begun from the year 298 a raging against soldiers devoted to the Christian rites, broke out in the year 303, a most severe edict being issued by Diocletian against Christians of every condition and state; but the other, which raged far and wide through Gaul, was set in motion by Maximian Herculius between the year 284 and 292. That Dionysius together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius did not fall in the former, at any rate, or in another persecution which followed it, one may assert even from the fact that, since he came into Gaul, as said, in the year 250, and was then very probably about thirty-five years of age, it would be altogether necessary, if he had been killed for the faith only in the persecution begun in the year 303 or another following it, to establish that he departed from among the living by martyrdom already more than eighty years old, which appears little probable.

[162] are mentioned, the other, by Maximian Moreover Constantius Chlorus, father of Constantine the Great, held the government of Roman affairs in Gaul from the year 292 up to the year 306, in which he died; and although he, lest, when the persecution against the Christians had been proclaimed by Diocletian in the year 303, he should seem to dissent from the precepts of his elders, as Firmianus Lactantius, book 2 of On the Deaths of the Persecutors,

chap. 15, says, allowed the meeting-places, that is, the walls, which could be restored, to be pulled down, he nevertheless kept safe the true temple of God, which is in men; and since afterwards, he having been taken from among the living, Constantine the Great ruled in Gaul so long as the persecution prescribed by Diocletian still lasted, it must certainly be held as certain and beyond doubt, as all the learned now confess, that no martyrs were made there in it. Now, since this is so, and our Saints therefore likewise did not suffer martyrdom at that time, it remains that this be said to have happened in the other of the persecutions just mentioned, which, as said, Maximian Herculius raised. And indeed it surely appears more probable that this was done under this prince; but since the persecution set in motion by him lasted for several years, as many things persuade, to which of these shall we tie that event? Maximian Herculius, who, it is altogether established from ancient documents and historians, was frequently staying in Gaul from the year 286 up to the year 291, and who raised a persecution against the Christians there at that time, as not only the Martyrologies and ecclesiastical Offices but also the very Acts of the Martyrs who fell in it testify, having been made partner of the empire by Diocletian in the year 284, subdued in the year 285, or, as others contend, in the next following, the rustics or countrymen who, taking the name of Bagaudae, had shaken off the yoke of the Romans and, under the leaders Amandus and Aelianus, were roaming widely through Gaul, laying waste cities and fields; and then at once began an atrocious persecution against the Christians, which he also continued for several years, employing for carrying out his cruelty the services of Rictius Varus and other prefects whom he sent in every direction.

[163] raised, it took place. Further, since he seems to have done this on a pretext sought from the rebellion and disturbances of the Bagaudae, some of whom, as it appears, had professed the Christian religion, and hence it appears probable that that persecution blazed up most of all, soon after their overthrow, in those places of Gaul which the Bagaudae had held under their power, and therefore also in the Parisian district, where these were both conquered by Maximian Herculius and had, as Gérard du Bois hands down to memory in the History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 6, num. 5, citing the Cartulary of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés in the margin, a fortress, I indeed easily persuade myself that our Saints, staying not far from there, were also killed for the faith at that time. Further, in this opinion, by which I tie the martyrdom of Dionysius and his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius both to the persecution raised by Maximian, which raged only in the parts of the West, that is in Gaul, and at the same time to its beginning, that is to about the year 286, I am confirmed in some way also by the Acts of our Saints to be edited, because these relate not obscurely, at num. 8, that the persecution in which they note that our Saints fell for the faith both arose for the first time when this happened and raged in a part of the Western world, that is in Gaul. Those Acts indeed, as I have already often noted, do not deserve certain and undoubted credence; but although this be so, I nevertheless think one must stand by them here, both because the authority of no ancient writer or monument at all, against which exception cannot rightly be taken, opposes them, and because the epoch just assigned to the martyrdom of our Saints, which they support, is most aptly reconciled with the time at about which, as is established from the ecclesiastical Tables, from ancient documents of proper stamp and from a tradition by no means suspect, St. Piatus and not a few other Martyrs, who, as I taught above, are believed to have come from Rome into Gaul either together with St. Dionysius or at any rate at about the same time as he, gained the palm of martyrdom, likewise shedding their blood for the faith under Maximian.

§ X. Where St. Dionysius and his Companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius underwent martyrdom, and were afterwards buried.

The Saints, not at Paris, as by the reasons adduced here Launoy, in his Disquisition on the old basilicas of the Christians of Paris, chap. 4, contends that St. Dionysius and his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius were put to martyrdom within the very walls of the city of Paris, in the furthest part of the island, which faces the East and contains the church now called Saint-Denis-du-Pas; and he afterwards tried to defend this plainly new and singular opinion of his, which was attacked by Adrien de Valois with very strong arguments and all but wholly crushed by the weight of invincible reasons; but how little happily he accomplished this is clear even from the fact that afterwards scarcely anyone even among the learned was found who judged, with that writer, that the arena of our Saints is to be placed at Paris. Nor indeed do the reasons alleged by Launoy, by which one could have been driven to this, appear sufficiently strong and solid. For what? Would anyone conclude, from the fact that the aforesaid part of the island, being, as he says, empty of houses and citizens, and therefore very convenient for inflicting public punishments, as being placed as it were outside the city, existed in the age of Dionysius, that he was in fact put to martyrdom there together with SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius? No one surely, as I think, unless one who would wish by a faulty consequence to gather the act from the possibility. Launoy adds indeed that by Usuard and other martyrologists, in the sacred fasti which they composed, the birthday of Dionysius and of his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius is recorded "apud Parisium," "Parisiis," or "Parisius," and that the church called Saint-Denis-du-Pas, which is situated in the part of the island mentioned above, is most ancient and is so named from St. Dionysius having suffered there. But that that church is far from enjoying so great an antiquity as would be needed for Launoy's opinion to be able to be true will be made plain from what will be brought forward below concerning the place in which our Saints were buried.

[165] and further, other reasons Meanwhile, to treat here now of the Etymology of the appellation with which the same church is distinguished, as asserted by Launoy, I for my part have not ascertained whence that writer can have drawn it. Certainly he himself does not allege any ancient document on which it is founded, nor could I find one. What if, then, the surname of the sacred building of which we are here speaking proceeded not from where Launoy will have it, but from the step or steps by which it had to be approached? Indeed the church of Saint-Jacques-du-Haut-Pas, situated in a suburb of Paris, seems to have obtained this naming of its from the higher step by which one ascended to it. Launoy says indeed that the church called Saint-Denis-du-Pas was always situated in so low a place that there was never an ascent into it; but since at the same time he also affirms that one descended into it through the West door, what prevents its being said to have been called Saint-Denis-du-Pas from the step or steps by which it formerly had to be approached by descending? However that may be, even if this church had in fact obtained its name not from a step by which it had to be approached, whether by ascending or descending, but from the passion of St. Dionysius, Launoy would not make out from this what he wishes; for, this being granted, nothing prevents it from being believed to have been derived from the beginning of the passion of Dionysius, namely because in that place in which that church was built Dionysius was interrogated and subjected to examination, which among the Romans, as Tillemont observes in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 5 on Dionysius of Paris, was usually done in the middle of the forum of cities.

[166] by opposition Further, as now regards the martyrologists who record the birthday or martyrdom of Dionysius "apud Parisium" or "Parisiis" or "Parisius," these very frequently record the birthdays of Martyrs in cities also which were not in fact their arenas, but were only nearer to the places in which those holy Athletes contended for the faith, shedding their blood, and afterwards obtained burial. The matter appears certain, nor is it called into doubt by any who are accustomed to use the Martyrologies and to weigh them more deeply. Hence, when these or those Martyrs are read in the Martyrologies as buried "at Rome" in the cemeteries of Priscilla or Callistus or others, it is not straightway to be thought that those cemeteries were situated in the City itself. And indeed that they were placed not within but outside it is attested by the law of the Twelve Tables, by which, as Baronius teaches in his Notes on the Roman Martyrology on the 3rd day of January, it was provided that the dead should not be committed to the tomb within the walls. Hence likewise, when Martyrs are marked in the Roman Martyrology "at Rome, between the two laurels," or "on the Salarian way," or others, it is only signified that they were put to martyrdom not in the City itself but near it. Usuard indeed records in the Martyrology composed by him some Saints who made Paris illustrious by their happy passage to those above as in this very city, and others, on the contrary, who departed from among the living near Paris, as in the territory of Paris.

[167] But it does not follow from this that, when he notes that Dionysius together with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius was punished with the sword by the prefect Fiscenninus "apud Parisium," he intends to signify that this was done within the very bounds of the city of Paris; having been refuted, Launoy wrongly contends, for besides that "apud" sometimes signifies the same as "prope" (near) even in Latin writers of the best stamp, it may be that, if "apud Parisium" perhaps signifies, in the sense here intended by Usuard, the same as "in the city of Paris," that martyrologist noted our Saints as having suffered within the very bounds of the city of Paris only because he found them announced "apud Parisium" by Ado, whom for the most part, unless he judged him to have strayed from the truth, he expresses almost word for word, and did not judge that they were wrongly announced there, since, although they did not finish their martyrdom at Paris, they nevertheless began it in this city, inasmuch as in it they were both subjected to examination and afflicted with various punishments before they were led outside to be punished with the loss of their heads. Launoy therefore, as will become manifest to anyone attentively weighing what has been said, no more proves from Usuard and the other Martyrologists, who mark the birthday or martyrdom of our Saints "apud Parisium" or "Parisiis," than from the church which is said to be called Saint-Denis-du-Pas from the passion of Dionysius, that our Saints were crowned with martyrdom at Paris in the place where this church stands.

[168] And indeed that this was done not within but outside the bounds of this city, or the island but outside that city, and indeed, as those which to Hilduin which then comprised Paris, you may not undeservedly gather even from the fact that the Romans, if not always, at least for the most part, inflicted this supreme punishment on those whom they punished with death outside the walls of cities. There is added, in the first place, the ancient Life of St. Genevieve, very often cited by us above, which expressly affirms that St. Dionysius suffered with his Companions Rusticus and Eleutherius in the village of Catolacus, and then also the constant tradition which flourishes among the Parisians, placing the arena of our Saints on the mount or hill, from the city of Paris,

such as it was in their age, about three quarters of an hour distant. There are indeed those who have judged that this tradition is not very ancient, and did not arise before Hilduin had written his Areopagitica; but these have most certainly not hit the matter, as they say, with a needle's point. For although Hilduin, in the Passion of them which he wrote, at the last number, relates most openly that Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius consummated their martyrdom over against the city of the Parisians on the hill which, having formerly been called the mount of Mercury from the Idol which was worshipped there by the Gauls, was afterwards called the mount of Martyrs from our Saints who suffered on it, nevertheless this writer did not invent it, but drew it either from the Deeds of Dagobert, king of the Franks, put into writing at the beginning of the ninth century, as Bouquet, who inserted them in volume 2 of the Writers of French Affairs edited by him, teaches in the admonition prefixed to them, or at any rate from the ancient little book of the passion, which, as I showed in §2 of the Commentary prefixed to the fabulous Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, was written in the eighth century, when its middle part had already passed.

[169] So I suppose, because this undoubtedly, as I likewise showed in the same place, is more ancient, tradition carries, on the mount of Martyrs, lighted Hilduin's way, and because besides both the Deeds of Dagobert, which Hilduin very probably also saw, inasmuch as they were written both before him and in the monastery of which he was afterwards abbot, and the said little book of the Passion place the arena of our Saints in plainly the same spot as Hilduin. The said Deeds indeed, as Bouquet also teaches at the place just cited, are defiled with not a few fables, nor does the aforesaid little book of the Passion deserve more credit than they; but since the writers who wrote out the one and the other very probably noted that Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius in fact underwent martyrdom on the mount mentioned above only because, at the time when they flourished, it was commonly and generally thought that it was done there, hence surely, since very probably this opinion did not then arise for the first time, it seems to follow that the tradition mentioned above, which flourishes among the Parisians, is very probably more ancient not only than Hilduin, but also than the writers who committed the said little book and the Deeds of Dagobert to writing; but I would not dare to assert for certain on that account that it is also genuine and true. Nevertheless, since it has flourished already for about a thousand years and perhaps even earlier, as you will gather without difficulty from what has been said, and it is not fitting that, led by mere conjectures, we should send a tradition so ancient its dismissal, unless perhaps the authority of a writer or document sufficiently ancient opposes it, surely on its account it appears to me not altogether unlike the truth that our Saints ended their glorious contest for the faith by the cutting off of their heads on the mount mentioned above, which was afterwards for that reason called the mount of martyrs.

[170] or at any rate, if the way of reconciling this with the Life of St. Genevieve But, you will say, the Life of St. Genevieve cited above, which is very ancient, expressly relates that St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius suffered martyrdom in the village of Catolacus. I confess it is so; nor is this Life, as I shall show below, corrupted by interpolation in the place where it discloses this; but what then? It never came into anyone's mind, you will say, that Dionysius and his companions were buried on the aforesaid mount, or that a village which was called Catolacus was situated on it, and so the said Life of St. Genevieve requires that, contrary to what the constant tradition of which we are here speaking carries, the arena of our Saints be not established on that mount. Félibien, who likewise judged, in the Dissertation to be often cited below, that one should not rashly depart from a tradition so ancient, thinks that, in order to bring the Life of St. Genevieve into concord with it, the village of Catolacus of the Life of St. Genevieve can not unaptly be explained not only of that very village which, as he says, was afterwards called Saint-Denis, its name changed, and stood about six miles from the city of Paris in the same place where the town of the same name now stands, but also of the suburb of Paris and the road which led through it to the same village; so that he judged that, even if St. Dionysius and his companions had truly suffered on the mount called that of the Martyrs, or at least in a place not much removed from it, their arena could nevertheless not unaptly have been placed in it by the biographer of St. Genevieve, because that mount or place was situated beside the road which led to the village of Catolacus.

[171] the way assigned here But since what had been done only beside the road, or on the road, which leads to some parish, and is not contained in it, would wrongly be said today to have been done in that parish, the interpretation applied by Félibien to the Life of St. Genevieve by no means pleases me, and so it is necessary to have recourse to another by which it may be in some way reconciled with the tradition. Rural villages (for of urban ones there is no need to say anything here) are hamlets put together from several farms and country houses, as even the lexicons, and in the first place the one which Calepinus composed, will teach, and, separated by some small space from cities, they also comprise and have subject to them certain lands destined for growing crops of divers kinds and for other uses. What if, then, in the age of Dionysius, or of the writer who committed the Life of St. Genevieve to writing, the village of Catolacus, or, to speak more distinctly, the tract of lands which belonged to it, extended as far as the mount mentioned above, now named that of the Martyrs? Indeed, looking at the changes which are accustomed to happen in a space of more than a thousand years, it appears not altogether incredible that that village was then of so great an extent as has been said; and so, if at that time, as could be, this also in fact had place, it could easily have come about that, even if our Saints had undergone martyrdom on that mount, afterwards called that of the Martyrs, the writer of the Life of St. Genevieve nevertheless noted that it was perpetrated in the village of Catolacus, because this comprised it or had it subject to itself; and in this way he will by no means be judged to conflict with the tradition of the Parisians which establishes the martyrdom of our Saints on the same mount, as will be plain to anyone considering the matter even lightly.

[172] But if, further, this interpretation of the Life of St. Genevieve just applied, or, displease, in the village of Catolacus, as in that Life, than the tradition if you prefer, the way already assigned of reconciling it with the tradition, displeases, nothing at all (for nothing else occurs by which that Life may be brought into concord with the tradition of the Parisians) seems to remain but that, abandoning the latter, we should adhere to the Life of St. Genevieve, and so establish the arena of our Saints at about that place where now, about six miles or two leagues from the city of Paris, is seen the town which has obtained its appellation from St. Dionysius and which, as will be evident from what is to be said below, is not to be distinguished from the village of Catolacus, if this is not taken together with the whole tract of lands which it had subject to it. And indeed the Life of St. Genevieve edited by our Bolland in the second place on the third day of January expressly relates, at num. 14, that St. Dionysius ended his life by martyrdom at the sixth milestone from Paris. Those words indeed were very probably thrust into it by an interpolator, as I have already shown here above in § V; but he, as I also taught in the same place, flourished not before the Areopagitica had already been written by Hilduin, and nevertheless did not embrace the tradition of the Parisians which establishes the arena of our Saints on the mount about three quarters of an hour removed from the city of Paris, although it had been most openly committed to writing by that writer, as we saw above; and since in this way it gives room for doubting whether this tradition was accepted, while he flourished, by as many as perhaps some think, indeed even from this there seems to be reason why we too should not admit it, especially since it is rejected even today by very many learned men, or at any rate why we should prefer to it the Life of St. Genevieve, if they cannot be reconciled with each other.

[173] But, you will now say, although the Romans held it customary to punish the guilty with the supreme punishment outside the walls of cities, it is certainly to be preferred, it nevertheless appears very hard to believe that our Saints, being about to be put to death, were led away by them about three quarters of an hour outside the city of Paris, much less about six miles; and since nevertheless, as is gathered from what has been said, the tradition of the Parisians requires the one, and the Life of St. Genevieve either requires or maintains the other, it appears that one must stand by the latter no more than by the former. Indeed the matter would plainly be so, if it were altogether incredible that our Saints were led out so far from Paris to death; but it may be that the prefect Fescenninus, under whom our Saints underwent martyrdom, was then staying at a country house removed from Paris either three or more quarters of an hour, and commanded them to be brought to him, to be interrogated there for the last time and afterwards delivered to death. Certainly it was on such an occasion that St. Cyprian, as may be seen with us in volume 4 of September, page 323, num. 820 and following, ended his glorious martyrdom, shedding his blood for Christ, in a field or country house placed outside the city of Carthage; and since the matter stands thus, the difficulty just objected vanishes, and so it cannot bring it about that we should adhere no more to the Life of St. Genevieve than to the tradition of the Parisians of which we speak here. And on the contrary indeed I think one must stand by the former rather than the latter for this reason, that, since the writer who committed the Life of St. Genevieve to writing says that he did so when only thrice six years had elapsed after the death of this holy Virgin, it follows that he flourished when the 6th century, at whose beginning St. Genevieve died, was not yet much advanced; at which time it is very doubtful and uncertain whether the aforesaid tradition, although more ancient than Hilduin, already prevailed.

[174] and, on account of the age in which it was written, or interpolations I know indeed that not a few interpolations crept into the Life of St. Genevieve, and also that its writer, who, as said, flourished only in the 6th century, lived too remote from the age of our Saints to gain for himself certain credence in what he writes of them. But although this be so, I have been able to find no writing or monument either more remote, or even only equally remote, from the age of our Saints which notes their arena; and since besides no argument sufficiently solid, sought from elsewhere, is brought forward by which we should be impelled to reject the one which the Life of St. Genevieve assigns, the equity of reason demands that we not proceed to that, especially since it may be that the writer of the same Life, although removed by a very long space of years from the age of our Saints, nevertheless learned the place in which they suffered from a true and genuine tradition differing from the one mentioned above, or from older monuments which have since perished. And let this suffice concerning the things which, from the time at which

the Life of St. Genevieve was written, are urged against the arena of our Saints asserted in it in the village of Catolacus; as now regards the interpolations by which it is corrupted, it appears surely beyond doubt that interpolations have slipped not only into the Life of St. Genevieve which Bolland edited in the second place, but also into the other, which he edited in the first place. But although the matter stands thus, the text of this latter Life, by which our Saints are asserted to have suffered martyrdom in the village of Catolacus, undoubtedly proceeded not from the interpolator but from the original writer of the Life of St. Genevieve.

[175] introduced into it, inasmuch as by them indeed that which pertains here, That text, the greater part of which was already transcribed here above at num. 66, reads thus: "With how great veneration and love" (St. Genevieve) "cherished the village of Catolacus, in which St. Dionysius with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius suffered and was buried, I think must by no means be passed over in silence. For there was a fervent devotion in the most blessed Genevieve herself to build a basilica in honour of St. Dionysius, bishop and martyr; but the means were lacking." Here, then, St. Genevieve, who, as is narrated presently in the words subjoined to this text, also in fact built a church in honour of St. Dionysius in the village of Catolacus, is asserted to have first burned with the greatest desire of doing so because St. Dionysius had suffered there with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius and had been buried; and that this is consonant with the truth all the learned who have discussed the deeds done by St. Genevieve admit with unanimous consent, as also that the writer who committed to writing the original Life of this holy patroness of the Parisians undoubtedly set forth in that little lucubration of his that ardent desire of the same Saint and the cause from which it arose. Now, since the matter stands thus, why should we judge that the words by which this is done in the alleged text proceeded not from that writer himself but from another, later one, who interpolated his writing? Will you perhaps say that St. Genevieve could have been possessed with the desire of building a church in his honour there even from the fact that St. Dionysius was buried in the village of Catolacus, and that there is therefore reason to suspect that the words which disclose in the recited text that she was so affected also because Dionysius had suffered in the said village are to be ascribed to interpolation? But although this be so, it does not however follow from this that the original text of the Life of St. Genevieve was certainly and undoubtedly in fact altered by an interpolator, those words being thrust into it.

[176] And indeed that there was never room for an alteration of this kind, by which it would be signified that our Saints were not only buried in the village of Catolacus of that text, as by the reasons but also, contrary to what had been related in the original Life of St. Genevieve, suffered martyrdom there, the things which I now subjoin show. That the writer who interpolated the Life of St. Genevieve edited in the second place by Bolland flourished only when the Areopagitica had already been written by Hilduin appears most probable from what I discussed above in § V; and since, as you will easily gather from what was said above, the tradition or opinion by which Dionysius is asserted to have suffered on the mount named that of the Martyrs certainly flourished at that time, and he nevertheless, taking no account of it, also expressly relates that Dionysius was not only buried but also suffered in the village of Catolacus, he very probably did so because he found it so written in the copy of the Life of St. Genevieve which he used for making a new one, and because, on account of the very great antiquity which he believed that document enjoyed, he judged that one should stand by it rather than by the tradition. Nor only in the ancient copy which lighted that interpolator's way, but in all the other copies of the same Life which were found anywhere in his age, not only the burial of St. Dionysius but also the place or arena of his martyrdom was very probably ascribed to the village of Catolacus by the words mixed into the text just transcribed here, or by similar ones. So I think, because this is done, so far as I have been able to ascertain after the most diligent search, in absolutely all the copies of the Life of St. Genevieve which are now found in great number, and because, if any had once existed in which the contrary had been done, it is rendered probable on no head that none of them would survive any longer today.

[177] Now, since the matter stands thus, and therefore, as appears from all that has been said, is proved by the reasons alleged here, is not defiled, absolutely all the copies of the Life of St. Genevieve, both those which still exist now and those which existed formerly, relate that St. Dionysius was not only buried but also suffered in the village of Catolacus, indeed it appears nearly beyond doubt that the text transcribed here above from the Life of St. Genevieve which Bolland edited in the first place, by which this very thing is related, cannot therefore rightly be held suspect of interpolation, much less be asserted to be in fact interpolated. But, you will perhaps still say, in that text not only Dionysius but also his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius are mentioned; and since these two Saints of ours seem not to have been known in the 6th century, in which, not yet much advanced, the Life of St. Genevieve was written, and are therefore probably thrust into the said text by the faithless hand of an interpolator, there is surely reason to suspect that it is likewise interpolated in the assertion by which it asserts that Dionysius was not only buried but also suffered in the village of Catolacus. Indeed, if SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius had truly been unknown in the 6th century, this objection would not be altogether weak and feeble; but I do not find it sufficiently proved that they were in fact unknown at that time. Le Cointe indeed, in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 574, num. 6, and again at the year 630, num. 12 and following, judges that the memory of our Saints had been wholly erased from men's minds by the lapse of time before their names were found in the seventh century, under Dagobert, set down on the sarcophagi then moved from their place; but, says Tillemont in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 446, whatever he brings forward to establish this conjecture or opinion of his is weak and infirm.

[178] not to be repudiated, it is related, they suffered martyrdom, And surely Le Cointe by no means proves what he wishes from the fact that Gregory of Tours and Fortunatus, already often cited by us above, nowhere make mention of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, although a most apt occasion of mentioning them offered itself more than once while they speak of Dionysius. For it may be that, even if those two writers knew very well not only Dionysius but also his two companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, they nevertheless wished to speak of Dionysius alone, because he was more celebrated among them and had been more eminent in dignity while he lived. Suppose even that those two Saints of ours were plainly unknown to Gregory and Fortunatus; will it follow from this that they were likewise not known to all others, and in the first place to the writer who put the original Life of St. Genevieve into writing? By no means surely, as it appears to me at least, and especially as regards this biographer, who, being more ancient than Gregory and Fortunatus, is not to be thought to have laboured under the same ignorance of our Saints Rusticus and Eleutherius under which, as Le Cointe will have it, these two writers laboured. However this last point stands, it is more than sufficiently clear from all that has been said that the words by which St. Dionysius with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius is related, in the Life of St. Genevieve edited in the first place by Bolland, to have been not only buried but also to have suffered in the village of Catolacus were very probably not thrust into it by an interpolator. Now, since this is so, and there is also no reason, as you will gather from what was alleged above, why that Life should not both be preferred to the tradition mentioned above, and, on account of the age in which it was written, not deserve credit in the arena which it assigns to the martyrdom of our Saints, indeed it appears sufficiently certain from what I have just discussed that our Saints, as it discloses in the text transcribed here above, in truth suffered martyrdom in the village of Catolacus. But in what place of that village this was done, no one surely could easily declare.

[179] and there also, at the sixth, as our anonymous author But although the place in which our Saints underwent martyrdom seems for that reason unable to be determined more nearly and distinctly than has now been done, one must speak somewhat differently of the place in which they obtained burial in the same village of Catolacus. The matter will be evident from what is now to be said. A heathen woman, when our Saints had finished their martyrdom by the cutting off of their heads, having by craft snatched their sacred bodies from the lictors, who were planning to throw them into the deep eddy of the Seine lest they be honoured by the Christians, had them hidden at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris in a field prepared to receive the sowing; and afterwards, the persecution being ended, she marked the place, sought and found by her, where those sacred pledges lay, by the construction of a prominent mausoleum; and afterwards also the Christians built over them a church at great expense and with exceptional ornament. So the anonymous author of the Acts which we shall join to this Commentary hands down to memory at num. 10 and the two following. Further, the author of the Acts which you will find joined to our Commentary on Dionysius the Areopagite (for of Hilduin, who is certainly more recent both than this one and than our anonymous author, there is no need to speak here) also does the same. But he, although indeed in not a few places he expresses the lucubration of our anonymous author almost word for word, at the same time very unskilfully and inelegantly enlarged it with various scarcely credible circumstances, and here in the first place with a prodigy, attached to very many Saints and yet rightly not received by the more learned critics (see what was said at num. 79 of this Commentary), by which the corpse of St. Dionysius is feigned to have raised itself and to have carried in its hands the head cut off from the Saint, while the corpses of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius meanwhile remained motionless; and since even from this he must be judged more recent than our anonymous author, there is surely reason to think that he adds no weight whatever to the latter's narration, just adduced, of the bodies of our three Saints stolen by craft, committed to the earth at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris, and afterwards honoured there by the construction of a mausoleum and a church.

[180] What then? Is this narration, no differently from most writes, from the city of Paris, milestone, of the other narrations which the same anonymous author of ours supplies, to be held altogether doubtful and uncertain? By no means surely, as it seems to me at least, as regards that part of it in which, what chiefly pertains here to our purpose, he hands down to memory that the bodies of our Saints were committed to the earth at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris, and that a church was afterwards built over them. For this, although perhaps it was not then found noted anywhere in an older writer or monument, he could, from the fact that he saw the bodies of our Saints honoured there in his own age, a church also having been built over them, and not from that

tomb which they had formerly had elsewhere were they known to have been brought, very probably gathered, and not without reason, since besides in the first centuries of the Church the Christians were accustomed to build sacred buildings over the tombs of the Martyrs. Further, as in the 8th century, about its middle part having elapsed, that is in the age of our anonymous author, who flourished then, so also in the centuries following it for more than a thousand years, it was most constantly held, with the highest agreement of all, that the bodies of our Saints were buried at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris, and moreover always rested, a church also having been built over them, at so great a distance from the city of Paris; nor is it found to have ever been called into doubt by anyone whether this was truly so before the century just elapsed, in which, as we shall see below, two most celebrated writers tried in vain to tear up and shake a tradition so ancient; so that surely we too may safely believe what was always believed for so many centuries, and so here assent to our anonymous author.

[181] But does this writer, who, as said, writes that the bodies of our Saints were committed to the earth at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris and that a church was built there over them, in that place where now Saint-Denis not conflict with the Life of St. Genevieve, edited in the first place by Bolland and written by an author of the sixth century, which hands down to memory, in the text transcribed here above and not corrupted, as was shown, by interpolation, that St. Dionysius and his companions were buried in the village of Catolacus, and that a church was built there over their tomb by St. Genevieve? By no means surely; for, that they may be understood to agree, it is necessary only that the place removed by six milestones from the city of Paris, in which our anonymous author writes that the bodies of our Saints were committed to the earth and a church built over them, was situated in the village of Catolacus, and that this village, or at any rate the place of it in which, according to the Life of St. Genevieve, our Saints obtained burial and a church built over their bodies by St. Genevieve, was distant six milestones from the city of Paris; and that the matter was truly so is clear even from the fact that both the church mentioned by our anonymous author and that which was erected by St. Genevieve were, from what has been said, built over the bodies of our Saints, and these, committed to the earth at the sixth milestone from Paris, always rested, as I taught in the preceding number, at so great a distance from that city. And indeed that the said place of the village of Catolacus in which they were buried is now contained or situated in the town of Saint-Denis in France appears nearly certain from what I now subjoin.

[182] the town of France stands, Monsieur le Beuf, cited above already more than once, in the first of the Dissertations which he composed on the ecclesiastical and civil History of the city of Paris, brings forward not a few things about the village in which our Saints are related in the Life of St. Genevieve to have suffered and been buried; and having stated that it is not rightly called Catholiacum, nor yet, as it is named by Hilduin, Catulliacum, but was called Catolocum in the sixth century, he presently adds that Catolocum is a word of the same nature as Cadolacum, and that this is found to have been imposed on places abounding in water, which, as he says, fits most aptly the town of Saint-Denis, as being watered by two streams flowing through it. He had also stated before that he holds the town of Saint-Denis itself to be Catolacus without any doubt, and does not question that the basilica erected by the care of St. Genevieve stood in the same place where the church of the abbey of Saint-Denis is now seen. Chastelain, who had first written in his Two Months of January that the church built by St. Genevieve could be the church of the hamlet which is situated between Paris and the shrine of St. Dionysius and is named La Chapelle, afterwards, his opinion changed, declared in the Geographical Map added to his universal Martyrology that Catolacus is the very town of Saint-Denis. And indeed that the town of Saint-Denis in France is now situated at least in the village which was formerly named Catholiacum, or (for it does not please me to dispute here about the way in which this word is to be written) Catolocum, and that the place of that village in which, as said, the bodies of our Saints were committed to the earth is also contained, or, as I have already hinted, situated, in that town, appears to me almost certain and beyond doubt.

[183] were buried. This opinion stands not only because the same town is distant from that city about six miles or two leagues, the same space by which, as you will understand from what has been said, the tomb of St. Dionysius and his Companions in the village of Catolacus must have been distant from Paris, but also because, since the bodies of those Saints, committed to the earth at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris, as our anonymous author writes, always remained deposited at so great a distance from the same city, as I taught at num. 180, they are rightly to be judged hence to have rested perpetually in the said town of Saint-Denis in France, where they are still kept to this very day (for what the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg contend we leave for the moment untouched), if you except those most wretched times in which, translated to safer places for fear of the Northmen bursting into Gaul, they were kept elsewhere from time to time for a while. Launoy indeed contends that the sacred relics of St. Dionysius were stolen by theft from the church which had originally been built over them in the very city of Paris and translated to the town of Saint-Denis; but hear what Gérard du Bois says here, opportunely for our purpose, in his History of the church of Paris, book 1, chap. 4, num. 8.

[184] "Indeed," he says, "if the tomb and church of St. Dionysius had first been founded within the city" (of Paris), "more certain testimonies of this matter would still be shown, nor would the memory of St. Dionysius entombed within the city have been so abolished by a long space of times that no monuments at all survived, either committed to letters or faithfully handed down to us by the ancient veneration of the Christians; or at any rate mention would be made somewhere of the body of St. Dionysius having been translated, or secretly carried off into a suburban basilica. Add that these holy pledges, laid in a tomb in the island city and kept in a basilica, could neither have been stolen secretly, nor would the clergy and people have allowed them to be carried off openly. Nor do I find that there was ever before any protest against the suburban tomb of St. Dionysius; nay it has always been believed that the tomb of the holy Martyrs" (namely of Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius) "was at the sixth or fifth milestone from the city" (of Paris), "and the highest agreement of all ages, and the religious practice handed down as it were from hand to hand from the first origin down to us, forbid its being called into doubt." Thus far he; and although even so he more than sufficiently tears up and weakens the opinion by which Launoy maintains that the tomb of St. Dionysius, buried with his companions certainly, from what has been said, in the place where the town of Saint-Denis in France now stands, was at Paris, and that the church of Saint-Denis-du-Pas was originally built over it there, it will nevertheless help to show further in the following § that it rests on a very weak foundation, as also that the difficulties objected by Tillemont, on account of which this writer doubted, not indeed whether the church originally built over the tomb of St. Dionysius was not to be placed at Paris, but nevertheless whether it was not to be placed in a place removed from this city by less than about two leagues, can be resolved with easy effort.

§ XI. The opinion by which Launoy places the ancient church of St. Dionysius at Paris is refuted, and the difficulties are satisfied on account of which Tillemont doubted whether it could have been about two leagues distant from that city.

The reason for which Launoy thinks the ancient church of St. Dionysius Launoy, who, as we saw in the immediately preceding §, contends that St. Dionysius suffered and was buried in the very city of Paris, and that the church called for that reason Saint-Denis-du-Pas was built there over the sacred remains of that Saint, affirms also in his Disquisition on the old basilicas of the Parisians, chap. 4, that this was erected as early as the sixth century, judging, that is, that so great an antiquity was to be attributed to that sacred building because he had ascertained from ancient monuments, to which he could not refuse credence, that a most celebrated church stood over the tomb of St. Dionysius as early as that century; but Adrien de Valois clearly showed that the Parisian church which is named Saint-Denis-du-Pas was built only about the year of Christ MCXLVIII, and Gérard du Bois also does the same in his History of the church of Paris; and since this is so, it is not necessary to bring forward more here to refute that last assertion of Launoy about this sacred building of the Parisians. Nor indeed does brevity, which must now be studied lest this volume grow to an immense mass, permit it to be done. Hence also I shall apply myself here not to refuting each of the arguments by which he busies himself to prove that the church built over the tomb of Dionysius as early as the sixth century existed within the very bounds of the city and island of Paris, but only to overturning in a general way the foundation on which they rest. Let us approach the matter itself. The opinion by which Launoy places the church anciently built over the tomb of St. Dionysius in the very island of the city of Paris is founded chiefly, nay almost solely, on the fact that Gregory of Tours and other ancient writers, while speaking of that sacred building, place it "Parisius," "in the Parisian city," "in the city Parisius," or "apud Parisios." But must these words, signifying the place in which the church of St. Dionysius was situated, necessarily be understood of the very bounds of the city of Paris? So Launoy was altogether persuaded.

[186] is to be placed at Paris, is infirm and weak But all the learned universally, even having scrutinised Launoy's tenets in this matter more deeply, have judged that they can also be explained of the suburban places of the city of Paris, nay also of others distant from it about two or even three leagues; and in the first place indeed Adrien de Valois, cited above already, who, adducing various examples in the writings which he published against Launoy's opinion here attacked by us, clearly showed that Gregory of Tours and all the other ancient writers spoke in an improper manner, though one meanwhile most customary with them, and that by the words adduced above, "Parisius," "in the Parisian city," "in the city Parisius," or "apud Parisios," they wished to designate nothing other than near the city of Paris, around the city of Paris, at the city of the Parisians. And indeed that what Valois here says certainly held as regards Gregory of Tours is clear even from the fact that this holy writer, speaking in book 6 of the History of the Franks, chaps. 9 and 46, of the church of St. Laurence and of another of St. Vincent, today Saint-Germain-des-Prés, places the former "apud Parisius" and the latter "Parisius," although at that time both were much removed from the city of Paris. Nor is there reason why this should seem wonderful to anyone, since in book 4, chap. 6

of the Miracles of St. Martin he calls Aredius abbot of the city of Limoges, who nevertheless is established to have presided with the office of abbot only over the monastery of Attane, founded by himself in the diocese of Limoges eight leagues from the city of the same name. Very many similar examples could be brought forward, from which it is plain that other writers also spoke in the same manner; but for the sake of brevity I subjoin here only a few further, selected from many. The Annalist of Metz, who had written, in Duchesne, volume 3 of the Writers of France, page 272, that Charles Martel was buried "not far from the Parisian city in the basilica of St. Dionysius the martyr," afterwards, speaking of Charles the Bald in the same Duchesne, page 317, says that the bones of this prince, first committed to the earth at Nantua, were some years afterwards translated thence "and honourably buried Parisius in the monastery of St. Dionysius."

[187] This writer, as appears hence, places the abbey of Saint-Denis indiscriminately "Parisius" and "not far from the Parisian city." is shown, and so, his opinion Ordericus Vitalis also marks the place in which Charles the Bald was buried as "Parisius," History, pages 634 and 637. Helgaud, monk of Fleury, who, since he frequently came to Paris, undoubtedly knew the situation of the abbey of Saint-Denis and its distance from this city, speaks in the following manner, in Duchesne, volume 4 of the Writers of France, page 78, of Robert, king of the Franks, and of the place in which he was buried: "He fell asleep in the Lord on the 13th before the Kalends of August at the castle of Melun ... and, carried Parisius, he is buried at St. Dionysius beside his father." The Fleury Manuscript, cited by Duchesne in the volume just cited, page 86, expresses the matter still more distinctly in these following words: "He died at Melun in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MXXXII, and is buried Parisius in the monastery of St. Dionysius." Aimoin, finally, speaking in book 2 of the miracles of St. Benedict, chap. 20, of Adelaide, a rather illustrious woman, carried to the sepulchre of St. Dionysius at the beginning of the eleventh century, that is, at the time when, as Launoy himself confesses, the relics of St. Dionysius were honoured in the same place as today, says that she was carried "Parisius to the sepulchre of St. Dionysius." Now, since these things are so, it appears to me indeed beyond doubt that the more ancient writers, and by name Gregory of Tours, nay also St. Ouen, when in the Life of St. Eligius, book 1, chap. 32, speaking of this Saint, he hands down to memory that he built a mausoleum for St. Dionysius "in the city Parisius," wished to designate by the word "Parisius" not only the city of Paris but also its suburbs and whole territory. Let the studious reader now discern what is to be judged of the opinion by which Launoy places the church anciently built over the tomb of St. Dionysius in the very island of the city of Paris.

[188] Surely everyone who has attentively weighed even the things that have now been said will confess that the foundation on which it rests is very weak and infirm; being rejected, the opposite is admitted as certain, and further and since the matter stands thus, it is necessary that that very opinion likewise be very little firm. And indeed such it seemed not only to Valois, who first refuted it with plainly invincible arguments, but also to all the learned afterwards to whom an occasion offered itself of speaking on that matter. Hence, further, and chiefly from other things adduced by me in the immediately preceding §, it comes about that I reject the Launoian opinion even as false, and embrace as certain and beyond doubt the opposite one, which places the aforesaid church of St. Dionysius about two leagues from the city of Paris in the town of Saint-Denis. But although the reasons on account of which I do so are very solid, as will be plain to one who weighs them, and strong, Tillemont nevertheless doubted whether the church built over the tomb of St. Dionysius could be placed two leagues from the city of Paris; and he was impelled to this by the Life of St. Genevieve, very often cited by us above, which our Bolland edited in the first place, in which, as he says, are found many things which seem to require that that church, built by this most holy patroness of the Parisians, was removed from the city of Paris by much less than two leagues; but that this matter undoubtedly stands otherwise than that writer judged will be evident from what is now to be said. "In the Life of St. Genevieve," says Tillemont in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 5 on Dionysius of Paris, "it is read that it happened that, when drink had failed the carpenters working on the building of the church of Saint-Denis, the priest Genesius asked St. Genevieve to watch over the workmen while he himself ran out to Paris to procure drink as quickly as possible.

[189] also the difficulties, on account of which, of its truth "If water," Tillemont adds, "was needed, certainly one did not have to come to Paris from the town of Saint-Denis to get it; but if wine, it is hard to believe that it would not have been found nearer. St. Genevieve," the same writer continues, "once betook herself in the night time from her dwelling to the church of Saint-Denis through mud and rain, some other virgins accompanying her; nor does it appear probable that she then went from Paris to the town of Saint-Denis. She sent twelve possessed persons who had been led to her to the church of Saint-Denis, and there they remained in silence, their hands bound behind their backs, the Saint following a little after. It happened on the bridge of Paris that two swineherds talked together about two lime-kilns which served for building the church of Saint-Denis. In a word," Tillemont further adds, "whatever things are said in that Life give room for thinking that the church of Saint-Denis which St. Genevieve built was not far from Paris." So, roughly, thus far he; but let us examine whether by the difficulties here objected from the Life of St. Genevieve Tillemont makes out what he wishes, and therefore whether on account of them he rightly doubted of the truth of the opinion by which we place that church in the town of Saint-Denis and therefore about two leagues from the city of Paris. Even if the carpenters of whom there is talk in the Life of St. Genevieve had worked not far from Paris, what, I ask, could Tillemont conclude from this in his own favour? It is added that this was done not in the same place in which the church of Saint-Denis was being built, but on the contrary in a wood, where no one ever asserted that St. Dionysius was buried. It may be, then, that the carpenters were about a league and a half distant from the church which St. Genevieve was having built; and since at that time many groves were found around the city of Paris, nothing whatever prevents our believing that of those carpenters some were occupied in the neighbouring Forest in cutting down the trees which were needed for constructing the new building, and others in either hewing or carting them away. "Carpenters having been gathered," says the writer of the Life of St. Genevieve, chap. 4, num. 19, "who, of the things in wood which were needed for the building, some should cut and hew in the wood, others carry together on wagons."

[190] Surely, the Workmen being occupied, as is related here and as I have already said above, Tillemont doubted, by the reasons, in a wood near Paris, there also seems to be no reason why the priest Genesius should not be believed, drink failing them, to have run out to that city to procure either water or wine. It happens daily that trees are cut down in forests and sold for buildings to be constructed far from there. Secondly, why is it to be wondered at that St. Genevieve betook herself early on a Sunday morning, even with the weather not favourable, to the church of St. Dionysius, towards whom she was of the greatest piety? If that holy Virgin did so at that season of the year in which, as towards the end of Autumn or in winter, the days are shorter, it was surely necessary that, in order to arrive at St. Dionysius's about the seventh or eighth hour, she should set out thither early, the day not yet dawning. And indeed even the very precaution used of leaving so early indicates that she had some distance of road to cover. Will you perhaps say that it ill became a Virgin to go through the streets while the darkness was not yet dispelled? But she had several companions of the journey joined to her. But if, further, it appears credible that a road of about two leagues was longer than that the Saint should have betaken herself, by a custom adopted by her, to a church distant from Paris by so great a space, you may perhaps now argue that in her Life in Bolland it is declared neither how often she betook herself thither nor whether she held it customary. Besides, it is not known whether she did not have outside Paris, on the road which leads from this city to St. Dionysius's, some very small house serving for retirement, to which, as is narrated in her first Life in Bolland, num. 33, she was accustomed every year to give herself up, to be free for God alone from the Epiphany up to the fifth day of Holy Week, that is the Lord's Supper.

[191] Nay indeed, her biographer gives occasion for thinking that a little house of this kind of St. Genevieve's was in fact in that place, forward saying at num. 20 in Bolland that it happened that on a certain occasion she set out very early, Sunday being at hand, not from the city of Paris but from the place of her retirement to the basilica of St. Dionysius. "On a certain occasion," says that Writer at the place cited, "after the dead of night, the crowing or song of the cocks already indicating that Sunday was near, she goes out of her lodging to proceed to the basilica of St. Dionysius." Surely it appears at least more probable that St. Genevieve proceeded to the basilica of St. Dionysius, while the night still lasted, from a little house of this kind, situated between Paris and the town of Saint-Denis, than that the gates of the city of Paris were opened for her, as Tillemont will have it at the place cited above, so that she might betake herself to a suburban church at midnight. Moreover, the church of the Hamlet situated between Paris and the town of Saint-Denis, which is today called La Chapelle, is consecrated to God under the invocation of St. Genevieve; so that it may not undeservedly seem to have been built in memory of this holy Virgin, who formerly stayed in that place from time to time. Thirdly, what, I ask, can be concluded from the twelve possessed persons sent by St. Genevieve from Paris to the church of St. Dionysius for placing it in the vicinity of this city? Does it not very often happen that the sick, that they may be restored to health through the intercession of the Saints, are led to churches distant even by a longer space than two leagues? Fourthly, finally and lastly, as now regards the swineherds who talked together on the bridge of Paris about two lime-kilns which they had found in the forest, this by no means signifies either that those lime-kilns were far removed from the place in which St. Genevieve was planning to build the church, or that they were near the bridge on which the two swineherds were narrating what had happened to them; so that accordingly nothing is made out from this either for placing that church not far from the city of Paris.

[192] adduced here But if meanwhile what is narrated in the earlier Life of St. Genevieve, num. 17 in Bolland, of the lime-kilns wonderfully discovered by the swineherds is consonant with the truth, very probably, that these about those kilns among themselves in

conversing on the bridge of Paris, it was brought about by a singular providence of God, that thus the priests who desired to bring help to St. Genevieve in building the church over the tomb of St. Dionysius might be made more certain about that matter. For the rest, since Tillemont objects definitely from the Life of St. Genevieve nothing else besides which compels us either to place the church built by St. Genevieve over the tomb of St. Dionysius nearer to the city of Paris than the town of Saint-Denis in France now stands, or even only to doubt of its distance of about two leagues from the city of Paris, and nothing of the kind appears in fact to be found in it, there is surely also no reason why, on account of that Life, one should question the truth of the opinion, solidly founded on the reasons adduced in the immediately preceding §, by which that church is placed at so great a distance from the city of Paris. Félibien, having argued in almost the same way as I here against Tillemont, who from what has been said thought otherwise, in the learned Dissertation which he prefixed to the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis composed by him, § I, adds that that writer, having weighed the reasons of a more prolix Dissertation which are contained in summary in this one, at length went over to the opinion resting on the better authority, which places the church built by St. Genevieve over the tomb or bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius about two leagues from the city of Paris, nay even corrected, before he died, his fifth note on St. Dionysius of Paris in plainly the same manner as is read in the second edition of his Ecclesiastical Monuments, volume IV, page 715.

[193] being resolved, is not a little confirmed. So indeed it stands; Tillemont, although meanwhile he still contends at the place cited that the difficulties which he had objected from the Life of St. Genevieve are great, nevertheless corrected his aforesaid Note; and he did so chiefly for this reason, that the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, if they first rested in a church built by St. Genevieve near Paris, must indeed (which however seemed very hard for him to believe) have been translated from there to the town of Saint-Denis in the seventh century, either when only its middle part had elapsed or even when it was already growing old, and it is not credible that only a hundred years, or not even so many, afterwards that translation was so given over to oblivion that in the eighth century, as appears from the anonymous writer of the Acts to be edited, who flourished at that time, men universally were persuaded that those sacred pledges had perpetually rested in the town of Saint-Denis, in which they then rested. For the rest, if any should still now contend that they were translated thither in the seventh century from the church, for example, of the village which is now named La Chapelle (see num. 182), it can be asked of them either to assign an ancient author who makes mention of so memorable an event; or, if they will have it that this was done from another church not far distant from Paris which no longer exists now, it can be asked that they either show some traces, of whatever sort, of that sacred building, or at least teach us in what place it stood, or at what time, by what accident, or by whom it was destroyed; but if, as they certainly will not be able, they can answer nothing solid to these things, it is necessary that they confess with us that the opinion which places the church built by St. Genevieve over the bodies of our Saints not near Paris but about two leagues from this city is not a little confirmed by all that has now been said, nay is so certain that there is in no way to be doubt of its truth.

§ XII. In what place of the town of Saint-Denis stood the church built by St. Genevieve over the tomb of St. Dionysius and his Companions; whether an older one preceded it; and whether Dagobert translated their bodies into a new one which he built.

[For our Saints, not where the Sacred building of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, of which notice is given here,] In the town of Saint-Denis in France I find recorded not only the abbey of the same name, of most celebrated name, but also another, less celebrated monastery, which, likewise having obtained its appellation from St. Dionysius, is named the Priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée. That abbey is so generally known to all that it is superfluous to bring forward anything here by which it might be made better known. But as regards the said priory or church, Félibien, in his Dissertation cited above already, §2, about the middle, supplies the following notice of it in French words, which, because they will be of use here, I transcribe as rendered by me into Latin. "As regards the origin of the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée," he says, "it can be said that it was not always either a monastery or a priory. It may formerly have been a chapel destined for burying the religious of the abbey of Saint-Denis; for a custom, of which several examples were seen both at Paris and elsewhere, formerly carried it that the greater monasteries had some church or chapel which served in place of a cemetery. But, that I may put forward nothing which is not founded on the testimony of an ancient writer, from what the author of the collection of the miracles of St. Dionysius (see the third Benedictine Century, part 2, page 351) committed to writing, the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée seems, when Fardulf was abbot under the empire of Charlemagne, to have been a parish, which was served by a certain Martinianus, called by that author 'PRIEST OF THE PLACE,' that is, according to the usual manner of speaking of the writers of that time, CURÉ. Afterwards that parochial church was changed into a monastery not later than about the end of the tenth century.

[195] the building of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée "Thither the religious of the abbey who laboured under ill health were sent, as we learn (consult part 1, page 697 of the VIth Benedictine Century) from the Life of St. Odilo, where moreover it occurs to be observed that that little monastery was then named that of St. Martin and not that of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, although afterwards, when the parish was joined to it, the name of St. Dionysius was imposed on the priory and that of St. Martin on the parish, so that those two churches might be distinguished from each other, or for another cause unknown to us." Thus far he. Let us now examine whether the church in honour of our Saints was built by St. Genevieve in that place of the town of Saint-Denis in which the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée is now seen, or rather in the other, in which the abbey of Saint-Denis of most celebrated name stands. That this was not done by this holy Virgin in the former of those two places appears to me surely sufficiently certain. Whether rightly or otherwise, what is now to be said will disclose. The notice of the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée just transcribed here, which Félibien supplies, offers nothing at all of a nature to persuade in any way that a church stood as early as the sixth century in the place where this is now seen, and since nothing of the kind occurs either in the ancient writers, it comes about even from this that it may not undeservedly be questioned whether St. Genevieve built a church for our Saints there at that time. Moreover the things which are mentioned in the said notice of the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée do not fit the church built by Genevieve.

[196] is now seen, For this, as that notice carries, was first only a chapel, then a monastery or priory, or only a small monastery, but never, as it appears, a larger and more elegant church; whereas that the church which St. Genevieve built for our Saints was a building of not inelegant structure and of no small mass will be evident from what is to be said below, and it is lawful to gather it beforehand even from the fact that, as is related in the Life of St. Genevieve in Bolland, num. 18, it was brought up to the roof with all the citizens of Paris bringing help. But, you will say, the same Life of St. Genevieve, chap. 4, displays this following title: "She" (namely St. Genevieve) "builds the basilica which is now called the priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée"; and thus it is clearly declared that the church which St. Genevieve built for our Saints stood in that place where the church or priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée is now seen. I confess it is so; but in the manuscripts (see Pagi in the Critica at the year 272, num. 8) of the Works of many ancient writers titles are not found prefixed to the chapters into which they were divided by them. What if, then, titles are likewise not found prefixed, in the manuscript copies of it, to the chapters into which the original Life of St. Genevieve was divided by its author? However that may be, that the title just transcribed here, which I have not ascertained whether Bolland found in the ancient manuscripts which lighted his way or on the contrary made himself, was added to the Life of St. Genevieve by a writer of later age is clear even from the fact that the author of the title, as will be plain to one considering even the recited words in which it is couched, discloses not obscurely, by the adverbial word "now" which he uses, that he is later than St. Genevieve and her contemporary biographer; so that certainly nothing at all certain can be concluded from that title for determining the place in which St. Genevieve built a church for our Saints in the town of Saint-Denis. And indeed that it was very probably not built there where the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée is now seen, the things now to be subjoined persuade still more strongly than those which have already been said.

[197] The heathen woman, as we related at num. 179 from our anonymous author, but where the abbey of Saint-Denis stands, St. Genevieve built a church, having snatched by craft the bodies of our Saints from the lictors or attendants, had them hidden and buried by her servants in ploughed land, that is a field prepared to receive the sowing, at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris; but that that field was situated in that place which the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée now occupies seems foreign to all appearance of truth. For it, lying beside the Strata, or public road, from which this church also drew its name, was most openly exposed to the view of the pagans or heathen; and who would persuade himself that the aforesaid woman, who wished those sacred pledges withdrawn from their eyes and search, had them laid away and buried in a public and conspicuous place of this kind? Surely, since the abbey of Saint-Denis of the said town does not lie beside the Strata, or public road, it appears far more probable that the field in which our Saints obtained burial existed in the same place where this stands. Further, nothing at all is found in the ancient writers of a nature to persuade that our Saints exchanged the first place of their burial for another. The ancient discipline only rarely allowed changes of this kind, and the sepulchres of the Martyrs were in themselves so venerable that the faithful, content to adorn them, by no means dared to raise the bodies from the earth, much less to translate them elsewhere to other churches. Now, since these things are so, and in very truth, as is clear from what was said above, the bodies of our Saints both always rested in the same place in which they had first been committed to the earth, and St. Genevieve built a church over them there, it follows

from what has just now been said, that it was erected not in that place of the town of Saint-Denis which the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée now occupies, but in the other, in which the abbey of Saint-Denis, of very celebrated name, stands.

[198] Three very ancient cenotaphs, or stone sepulchres, of our Saints, and other monuments besides, which indicate that they once lay buried there, are indeed still seen today in the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée; [and this not a poor one, as the author of the Deeds of Dagobert, of very slight credit,] but since all these, as appears certain, are later than the ninth century, that is, than the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis, the writer of the deeds of Dagobert I, king of the Franks, who first of all then committed to writing that our Saints first lay buried in a poor little building erected by St. Genevieve and were translated thence by that prince into another sacred building, there is surely reason to believe that they were placed or erected in the said church as a result of the opinion born hence that the bodies of our Saints were once laid in a tomb in it; which opinion, although false from what has been said and will be said further, nevertheless gradually, the ignorance and simplicity of the subsequent centuries favouring it, was admitted by some as certainly true, and also obtained patrons who were zealous to commend it to eternity by stone cenotaphs and other monuments of that kind; and since the matter stands thus, we surely ought not to be moved by these things, which, as said, are still seen today in the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, to believe that the bodies of our Saints first rested in the place where it stands and that a church was built over them by St. Genevieve. For the cited anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, who, by bringing in the opinion I have mentioned, gave the occasion or handle for placing those monuments, is of very slight credit, nay, in the matter which chiefly pertains here to our purpose, of no credit at all. Hear what Bouquet says of him in the Admonition which he prefixed to those Deeds of Dagobert, inserted by him in volume 2 of the Writers of Gallic Affairs. "That monk," he says, "stained his history with things so fabulous and so remote from the truth that he is not undeservedly called by some the anonymous fabler, and scarcely deserves any credit except in those things which he borrows from Fredegar.

[199] as learned men judge, writes, "It is not to be doubted, however, that the donations which he relates were made by Dagobert to the monastery of St. Dionysius were known and ascertained to him, since he testifies that copies of them were kept in his age in the archive of this monastery." Félibien, in his Dissertation which I have already cited above more than once, §2, censures the same writer and anonymous monk with no less sharp a criticism, and then adds, in French words here rendered by me into Latin: "What he dared to bring forward about the state of the ancient church of Saint-Denis, about the foundation of the abbey of the same name, about the monks established in that place, and about the relics of St. Dionysius and his Companions translated, all conflicts so much with what is read whether in ancient authors or in the monuments of that time which survive, that, to refute them, it suffices to have compared the latter with the former." Thus he, and surely not without reason. For that monk and anonymous writer, speaking in the said Deeds of Dagobert, chap. 3, of the church erected by St. Genevieve over the tombs of our Saints in the village of Catolacus, writes in the following manner: "In that village indeed" (namely, as it is called by him, the Catulliacensian one) "the most blessed Dionysius, first bishop of the said city" (namely Paris), "and with him Rusticus and Eleutherius, ... slain for the name of Christ ..., a certain matron ..., because she dared not openly, committed secretly to burial... Thus the incomparable treasure lay hidden for a long time... And although certain things had been conferred there by earlier kings on account of the constant miracles which were wrought there, yet ... that place was too much neglected. For only a poor little building, which, as was reported, blessed Genevieve had devoutly built over the holy Martyrs, surrounded the bodies of such great Martyrs."

[200] was a little building, but, as by the reasons If, then, one is to believe this writer here, who afterwards narrates, in chap. 17, that the bodies of our Saints were translated from the little building mentioned here by him to a new church by Dagobert, the sacred building which St. Genevieve built for our Saints in the village of Catolacus was very neglected in the age of Dagobert, and so small that it could scarcely hold their bodies buried there. But that the church which St. Genevieve built for our Saints was not small I have already taught above; and how rightly I did so will be more clearly evident from what is now to be said. In the Acts of our Saints to be edited, their anonymous author hands down to memory thus at num. 12: "The aforesaid ... matron, not unmindful of these secrets, as soon as she saw that the fervour of the persecution had grown lukewarm, sought out with the solicitude that was fitting the place keeping the bones of such great Martyrs, and, having found it, marked it by the construction of a prominent mausoleum. Whence afterwards the Christians built a basilica over the bodies of the Martyrs at great expense and with exceptional ornament." The church or basilica mentioned here by our anonymous author is not an older one which preceded the one built by St. Genevieve, but is that very basilica or church which this holy Virgin, as her Life in Bolland, very often cited above, discloses, built over the bodies of our Saints in the village of Catolacus. So at least some learned men judge, and not without reason, as appears from what I subjoin. Whatever our anonymous author writes of the church mentioned by him all fits exactly the church celebrated by the biographer of St. Genevieve, and vice versa, whatever the latter relates of this one all fits exactly the church mentioned by our anonymous author. The church mentioned by our anonymous author was erected over the bodies of our Saints. The church celebrated by the biographer of St. Genevieve was also erected over them.

[201] The former is said to have been built with the Christians striving, the latter with all the Parisians labouring together. adduced here The one is related to have been built in a rural village, the other at the sixth milestone from the city of Paris. Moreover the Life of St. Genevieve offers nothing at all by which it might in any way hint that an older church stood in the place where this holy Virgin founded hers; nay, all the things it records of this sacred building present to the mind the appearance by no means of a church merely restored, or substituted in place of an older one, but of one wholly new and erected from the foundations. Now, since these things are so, and the church or basilica which the anonymous author of the Acts to be edited relates the Christians built over the bodies of our Saints at great expense and with exceptional ornament is therefore, as appears from what has been said, one and the same with the church built by St. Genevieve, it follows that this was surely, contrary to what the writer of the Deeds of Dagobert cited above relates, not small and poor. It may indeed be replied that by our anonymous author, who, as said, flourished only in the 8th century, the church of St. Dionysius and his Companions is depicted not according to the state which it had received through the care of St. Genevieve, but according to the more recent and more excellent one to which, as we shall see below, it was brought by Dagobert in the seventh century.

[202] But granted it be so, and that therefore it cannot be defined from that writer whether the church which St. Genevieve built was slender or great, and especially from Gregory of Tours poor or elegant, it cannot be denied that this is very aptly made out from Gregory of Tours, who flourished before Dagobert. This writer represents the church of St. Dionysius as very notable and the tomb as most richly adorned, in the book of the Glory of the Martyrs, chap. 72. He narrates, namely, in that place, that a certain soldier of Sigebert, king of the Franks, when the latter was staying near Paris with his army (in the year 574), came to the basilica of St. Dionysius, and, having found it empty of guards and open with its doors not locked, stole the pall of pure silk, adorned with gold and gems, which covered the tomb of the Saint; and that likewise another soldier of the same Sigebert at that time, by no means afraid to tread upon or climb the tomb of St. Dionysius, which, as he says, was towered, or pointed in the manner of a pyramid, tried to carry off a golden dove hung on it. Further, he relates in the History of the Franks, book 5, chap. 35, that Dagobert, son of king Chilperic and queen Fredegund, who died at an age not yet adult, was buried in the same basilica of St. Dionysius. Moreover in book 5 likewise of the same History, chap. 33, he speaks of a scandal which happened in the same place on the occasion of a woman accused of adultery, who came thither to clear herself by an oath taken over the tomb of St. Dionysius.

[203] and from Fredegar He makes mention of doors broken in by force, and of the divine office in that church interrupted on account of the blood then shed there; all which circumstances designate a sufficiently great church, inasmuch as, if these things be true, it must have been both furnished with several doors and, as it appears, with a community also accustomed to attend to the divine offices, and therefore notable. Such was the state of the church of St. Dionysius in the age of Gregory of Tours, that is, under Chilperic I, who, having begun to reign in the year 561, was killed in the year 584; and what it was under Chlothar II, his son, who died in the year 628 after reigning about forty-four years, Fredegar teaches us in his Chronicle, chap. 54, where, speaking of Godinus, son of Warnachar, mayor of the palace, who died in the year 626, as Ruinart, the editor of that Chronicle, notes in the margin, — a son who after his father's death had offended Chlothar by a most grievous crime, — he says that he was led, in order to take an oath of fidelity to this prince, to the chief churches of the Saints in which such solemn oaths were then accustomed to be taken, and he reckons among those sacred places "the place," or church, "of the Lord Dionysius Parisius." Further, since no one has hitherto said that another church was substituted by anyone, before Dagobert I, son of Chlothar II, reigned, for the church erected by St. Genevieve to our Saints at the end of the 5th century, the church of St. Dionysius which existed in the reigns of Chilperic I and Chlothar II was certainly no other than the one which had been built by St. Genevieve.

[204] is proved, the church was larger and more elegant, Now, since the matter stands thus, and, as is clear from the testimonies of Fredegar and Gregory of Tours just adduced, the church of St. Dionysius and his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius which existed in the age of this latter writer, that is, in the reigns of Chilperic I and Chlothar II, was then of such size that it had many doors, of such elegance that it comprised a towered tomb of the Martyrs, with a golden dove also and many other most precious gifts hanging over it, covered with a pall of pure silk adorned with gold and gems, and finally of such celebrity that both Dagobert, son of king Chilperic I, was buried in it, and not only men of the lowest people but also the nobles of the Franks, whenever the matter required, were accustomed to clear themselves and theirs by oath in it, it follows

that beyond all doubt the church of St. Dionysius and his Companions which St. Genevieve built, being certainly, from what has just now been said, not different from that of which Gregory of Tours and Fredegar speak at the places cited above, was by no means a small and poor little building, such as is described by the anonymous monk cited above, the writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, but a larger and more elegant church. Will you perhaps say that by this writer the church of St. Dionysius built by St. Genevieve is described not as it was under Chilperic I and Chlothar II, but as it was under Dagobert, the latter's son? But since, as you will easily gather from what was alleged above, it was still reckoned among the chief churches in the year 626, and the time at which that anonymous monk relates that it was under Dagobert only a poor little building cannot be much later than this year, who would easily persuade himself that that sacred building had so fallen away from its former splendour under this prince that it had suddenly been reduced from a larger and more elegant basilica, such as it had still been a few years before, to only a poor and neglected little building? I surely cannot persuade myself of it.

[205] And indeed that author himself, as it appears, spoke so contemptuously, as he did in the words recited above, of the church and the place where this stood, Dagobert, whom not there either, built by St. Genevieve, only because he judged it to be the same as the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, which he saw in his age to be only poor, neglected and small; but that the church built by St. Genevieve did not stand in that place of the village of Catolacus, or town of Saint-Denis, where in the anonymous author's age, and still now, the church of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée was and is seen, and that this is therefore most certainly different from that, is more than sufficiently clear from what has just been argued. Now it is to be inquired whether Dagobert built a new church in another place of the same village or town, where the church built by St. Genevieve formerly stood and the abbey of Saint-Denis now stands, and likewise whether he translated into it the sacred relics of our Saints from another place. Both the latter and the former, as I have already hinted above, the same anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert hands down to memory in chap. 17, in Bouquet; but the latter indeed is certainly false, and the former appears very doubtful. The matter will be evident from what is now to be said. That author, at the place just cited, writes in the following manner: "Dagobert at length ... came to the place mentioned above" (namely the poor little building, as he writes in chap. 3 in the words given above, of the village of Catulliacum, in which the bodies of our Saints lay), "and seeking the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, found their names set down on the sarcophagi; and these he translated with the greatest veneration into another place of the same village on the 10th before the Kalends of May, and adorned their memorials with pure gold and most precious gems. And although he built the church, which he himself had built from the foundations, with wonderful beauty within, outside also, in order to fulfil more fully the desire of his devout mind, he wonderfully covered over from above that apse, beneath which he had entombed the venerable bodies of the Martyrs, with purest silver."

[206] Thus far he; but in order first to define here whether Dagobert truly built for our Saints, as he teaches in these words, a church from the foundations, or substituted a new one for the old one built by St. Genevieve, contrary to what, from the words of Fredegar recited here, it is now necessary before all to examine whether this writer perhaps drew what he hands down to memory of a sacred building of this kind built by Dagobert from sources so approved — inasmuch as in matters done long before him he gains full credit for himself only when he learned them from documents or more ancient writers. And indeed I have been unable to find any Diplomas at all, or other documents of that kind, which he could have had to light his way; and as regards the more ancient writers, one occurs among them who flourished in the reign of Dagobert, Fredegar, who in his Chronicle, edited together with the works of Gregory of Tours in the year 1699 by Ruinart, chap. 79, supplies these following words which bear on this: "These things done, after a few days Dagobert gave up the spirit, and was buried in the church of St. Dionysius, which he himself had before worthily adorned with gold and gems and many most precious kinds, and had commanded to be worthily wrought round about *, expecting his precious patronage." The cited Anonymous writer of the deeds of Dagobert, who used Fredegar for narrating the things done by this prince, and often interpreted him at his own discretion, though not everywhere with equal felicity, undoubtedly gathered from the fact that this author relates, in the text just transcribed here, that Dagobert commanded the church of St. Dionysius to be "worthily wrought round about," that a church was built from the foundations by Dagobert for St. Dionysius, and further commended it to writing in the words recited above; and in this matter not a few other writers, both ancient and more recent, afterwards followed him, together with Aimoin, book 4, chap. 35.

[207] some, partly enumerated here, have gathered, And among these later ones the first place is held by Adrien de Valois in his Disceptation on the basilicas and in his Defence of it against Launoy, by Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 630, by Gérard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, book 4, chap. 2, num. 10, and finally, to omit many others for brevity's sake, by Félibien in his Dissertation which I have cited very often above; and although Mabillon, who also comes to be reckoned among these, at first judged, in his learned Work on Diplomatics published in the year 1681, that by these words of Fredegar about Dagobert, "he commanded [it] to be worthily wrought round about" (that is, his church), there is signified not a church built from the foundations by Dagobert, but only the dwellings of monks placed round about, which Dagobert added to the basilica more magnificently adorned by him, he nevertheless afterwards, impelled by I know not what reasons, changed his opinion. For in volume 1 of the Annals of his Order, which he published in the year 1703, book 12, num. 3, he writes thus of Dagobert: "After this the same prince, in order to earn for himself and his kingdom the patronage and prayers of blessed Dionysius, the apostle of the Franks, resolved to erect for him a new basilica, larger and more august, more elegant and more magnificent in workmanship and material than any others. This he supported with marble columns of every kind, decorated it with gold, silver, gems and ornaments of every sort, laid it with a mosaic pavement, and clothed its walls, columns and arches with garments woven with gold and with palls of pure silk"; by which words surely, abandoning his former opinion, by which he had judged that the church of St. Dionysius was only adorned and enriched with various gifts by Dagobert, he most openly went over to the opposite one, which establishes that a new church was built from the foundations for the same Saint by that prince. But rightly? The whole matter, since one must here stand by Fredegar beyond all controversy, depends on the interpretation to be applied to the words by which this author says, at the place cited above, that Dagobert commanded the church of St. Dionysius to be "worthily wrought round about."

[208] a new church for St. Dionysius Valois, in the latter part of the Defence by which he protected his Disceptation on the basilicas against Launoy, chap. 7, asserts that in Fredegar "to work a church round about" there means nothing other than to build a church from the foundations, and that the words of which we are here speaking are to be understood in this sense. But he confirms his assertion by no examples at all, sought from elsewhere in this writer, from which it would be established that they were so taken by Fredegar elsewhere too, which however would be necessary here for gaining it credence. Le Beuf, cited above already more than once, having stated against Valois, whom he cites in the margin, in the first of his Dissertations on the ecclesiastical and civil History of the city of Paris, page 3, that it cannot be proved that a church was built by Dagobert in honour of St. Dionysius, first asserts that it is ascertained from Fredegar only that Dagobert enriched the church of St. Dionysius which existed before him with various votive gifts both of gold and of gems, and decorated it on the outside with divers ornaments, whether to provide for the durability of the building or to render it more magnificent; and then, having transcribed the words of Fredegar which I gave above, he adds that he does not see how the last part of the period contained in them can be explained otherwise than with the pronoun "its" understood, asserting also that these words, "and had commanded to be worthily wrought round about it," signify nothing other than that Dagobert caused work to be done, or Works made, round about the church of St. Dionysius in a manner which much adorned it. Thus the cited writer; and indeed this interpretation applied by him to the words of Fredegar does not altogether displease. What if, then, Dagobert adorned the church built in honour of St. Dionysius by St. Genevieve with divers most precious votive gifts of gems and gold, and besides caused its walls round about within to be overlaid or clothed with more polished or finer works of the carpenter's or joiner's art in wood, and Fredegar wished only this to be signified by the words recited above?

[209] However that may be, I do not think it certain that by these words a church built from the foundations by Dagobert is signified. it is certain that he built, This opinion stands because the words of Fredegar, as is clear even from the varied interpretation given them by various men, are not clear, and because besides there makes me greatly doubt whether Dagobert truly built a new church from the foundations for St. Dionysius the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis who, under the emperor Charles the Bald, that is when the ninth century had already passed its middle part, comprised in writing divers miracles of St. Dionysius; for he (consult the third Benedictine Century, part 2, page 347), book 1, chap. 14, speaking of the new church for our Saints begun by king Pepin and brought to completion by Charlemagne, writes thus: "When the craftsmen were building the basilica of the Saints, the former one having been pulled down, which, begun by king Pepin, was completed more augustly by Charles, his successor in the kingdom, one of the nails ... fell," etc.; and since, as is understood from these words, the older church of St. Dionysius, as appears most probable falling down from age, was destroyed in the reign of Pepin, that is, when the eighth century had not yet advanced to the year 68, and it would seem that this would certainly not have happened then if that sacred building had been built from the foundations only about a hundred years before by Dagobert, who died in the year 638, with that ornament and that solidity which they will have, indeed it is by no means to be held as certain and beyond doubt that this prince left his veneration for Dionysius attested in this way, and that Fredegar wished this to be signified by the words recited above, which, as said, are not clear.

[210] Nor, even were it otherwise, would it become certain on that account the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions, that the sacred relics of our Saints were translated by Dagobert into the new church which he had built for them

from another place. This indeed the anonymous writer of the deeds of Dagobert expressly relates in the words transcribed here at num. 205; but that he is here, as often elsewhere, a stranger to the truth is clear even from the fact that Clovis II, king of the Franks, who, being the son of the Dagobert just mentioned, certainly had the matter thoroughly ascertained, indicates not obscurely, in a charter given in the year 653 and reported by Félibien among the authentic documents which he added to his History of Saint-Denis, num. 5, that the bodies of our Saints had rested already for a long time, while he reigned, in the church of St. Dionysius in which Dagobert and queen Nanthild were buried; and since this is so, they had certainly not been brought thither from elsewhere a few years before by Dagobert, his father. Moreover, although Fredegar speaks, in the words transcribed here above, of the church of St. Dionysius and of the various ornaments conferred on it by Dagobert, he nevertheless keeps the deepest silence about relics of our Saints translated into it from elsewhere by this prince; nay, he supplies not even a word from which you might in any way suspect that this was done. Nor does St. Ouen do so either, although meanwhile he found a most apt occasion of speaking of that matter, had it ever taken place, in the description which he supplies, in the Life of this holy bishop of Noyon, inserted in the fifth volume of d'Achery's Spicilegium in the edition of the year 1661, book 1, chap. 32, of the most magnificent mausoleum built for St. Dionysius by St. Eligius, Dagobert supplying the expenses.

[211] from another place, The words of that Saint's biographer which bear here on our purpose are these following: "Moreover Eligius also wrought the mausoleum of the holy martyr Dionysius in the city Parisius, and a marble canopy over it of wonderful work of gold and gems: he also magnificently composed a crest and ornaments on the front, and covered with gold the boards round about the altar, and placed on them golden apples, round and jewelled: he also diligently covered the lectern and the doors with silver metal; and he also covered the roof of the throne of the altar with silver boards: he made also a screen in the place of the former tomb, and built an altar outside at the feet of the holy Martyr; and so much did he exercise his industry there *, the king supplying the means, and so did he spread abroad his specimen, that it is almost a singular ornament in Gaul, and in great admiration of all to the present day. These Works being wonderfully completed, and all the nations round about being quieted, and the most ferocious Vaccaei subdued to his own dominion by the hostile sword, the great and renowned king Dagobert died, and was buried in the same basilica of St. Dionysius under the arch on the right side." Let the studious reader now weigh, if he pleases, each of these words, and he will find none among them of a nature to raise even the slightest suspicion of relics of our Saints translated by Dagobert from elsewhere to the place in which they relate that Eligius built a mausoleum for St. Dionysius. The same tomb appears everywhere, which, remaining always in the same place, is only decorated and enriched with divers precious ornaments.

[212] in which by him Now, since the matter stands thus, and the place in which St. Eligius built a mausoleum for St. Dionysius is undoubtedly, as all the learned now agree, none other than that in which the church of the most celebrated abbey of the same name now stands in the town of Saint-Denis, hence surely, and from the other things by which it has already been proved that the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were not translated by Dagobert from elsewhere into a new church, it follows that this place, and therefore also the field of the village of Catolacus mentioned above, in which our Saints were first buried and obtained the church erected for them by St. Genevieve, being, as has already been shown above, not different from the place in which the said church of the town of Saint-Denis is seen today, was most certainly not enriched by this prince with the aforesaid sacred pledges brought from another place in which they had been found by Dagobert. But, someone perhaps will now say, if Dagobert did not find the bodies of St. Dionysius and his two Companions, sought by him, in a poor little building, as the anonymous writer of that prince's Deeds records, and did not translate them, when found, to the new church which he had built, why is a translation, by which, when they had been found by Dagobert, they were translated by him to the new church which he built, celebrated yearly at Paris with a solemn feast on the 22nd day of April? So it may be argued in some way for relics of our Saints translated thither from elsewhere by Dagobert; but although the anonymous writer of this prince's Deeds hands down to memory, in the words at num. 205, that Dagobert translated the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, sought and found, into the new church which he had built on the 10th before the Kalends of May, that is, on the 22nd day of April, those nevertheless who suppose that that translation is commemorated in the feast customarily celebrated yearly at Paris on this day in honour of our Saints are most certainly deceived. For in absolutely all the Breviaries or sacred Fasti in which it is mentioned, it is named a feast not of the translation but of the finding. Nor are those less deluded who, with the Paris Martyrology printed in the year 1727, derive the origin of that feast from the finding of our Saints attributed to Dagobert by the anonymous writer of this prince's Deeds at the place cited above.

[213] For not only the sacred building which contained the bodies of our Saints, were found, but also the very tomb existing in it, under which they rested, was in the age of Dagobert, nay also before it, as everyone will gather from what I discussed at num. 202 and the two following, so well known that Dagobert surely had no great need to search for those sacred pledges in order to find them, and that accordingly, even if he could in some way have been said to have found them when the earth of the tomb under which they were known to lie had been dug out, that finding would nevertheless not have been of such account as to have deserved to be celebrated yearly by a feast instituted in its memory. Moreover Usuard, or at any rate (see our Sollerius in his Observations on Usuard at the 22nd day of April) another ancient hagiologist, who announces the finding of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius on the 22nd day of April, undoubtedly did not have regard to what is asserted by the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert about the relics of our Saints found and translated. For if he had done so, he would indeed have announced not their finding but their translation, as being the only thing which the latter relates was done by Dagobert on that day. These things those who first corrected the Paris Breviary of the year 1636 undoubtedly observed, and hence took care that for the Lesson by which the finding of our Saints, noted in it on the 22nd day of April, is referred to the age of Dagobert, another Lesson should be substituted by which it is traced somewhat higher, and from the very beginnings of the faith established in Gaul. The pious woman who, as is related in the Acts of our Saints to be edited, num. XI, had caused the three bodies of our Saints to be secretly committed to the earth in a field prepared to receive the sowing, desiring, when the fury of the persecution had grown lukewarm, to erect a mausoleum over them, and not knowing well enough the place in that field in which they had been laid away, ordered careful search to be made for them, and at length, as is added in the same Acts, num. 12, found the treasure sought.

[214] From this happy event, then, the Paris Breviaries printed in the years 1680 and 1736, which I have before my eyes, derive the finding of our Saints brought thither, he did not enrich, although meanwhile them which they propose to be celebrated on the 22nd day of April; and indeed very rightly: for it appears beyond doubt from what was said above that the finding of our Saints related in the Acts to be edited, and not that which the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert mentions, was always celebrated yearly on that day in the diocese of Paris by a feast instituted in its memory. Now, since these things are so, the feast by which the finding of the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius is celebrated yearly in the diocese of Paris surely supplies nothing at all from which you might in any way conclude that they were found by Dagobert and translated from the place in which they had lain hidden to the place in which he had substituted a new church for the one built by St. Genevieve. But although this be so, and it seems from all that has been said that it must be held as certain and beyond doubt that this place was not in fact enriched with those sacred pledges by Dagobert, it nevertheless appears sufficiently probable that they were transferred by that prince from the ancient sarcophagi or shrines in which they had lain into new ones. The things which I am now going to subjoin persuade of this. In the account of the uncovering of the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, made, as we shall see below, about the middle of the 11th century, added by Félibien at the end of his History of Saint-Denis from page CLXV and ascribed to Haymo, monk of Saint-Denis, chap. 5, these following words are read: "In the Deeds of king Dagobert it is found most evidently described how he honourably placed the said Saint with his two Companions in silver shrines, fortified within, with wonderful and subtle diligence, with most artful locks and bars, as can still be seen today."

[215] from the ancient shrines into new ones What is here asserted to be found most evidently described in the Deeds of king Dagobert I nowhere find in the Deeds of the same king written by the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis and already often cited by us above. In these indeed it is recorded, in chap. 17, that Dagobert translated the bodies of our Saints and adorned their memorials with pure gold and most precious gems; but no mention anywhere occurs in the same of silver shrines in which they were enclosed by Dagobert. I would believe that Haymo, or at any rate those to whom he attributes the words just transcribed here, affirmed that what they had found noted in writing elsewhere was found by them in the Deeds of Dagobert, through a lapse of memory or an error arising from another cause. However that may be, I think what is related in those words to have been done by Dagobert concerning the bodies of our Saints is consonant with the truth even for this reason, that, since the older shrines in which our Saints had lain were very probably worn and wholly corroded with age in the age of Dagobert, the very great veneration and piety towards them which shone forth in that prince, who, as is established from the words of Ouen transcribed here above, greatly adorned the tomb of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius by the work of St. Eligius, makes it most probable that new ones were substituted for them by him.

[216] probably transferred. Nor ought the description of the mausoleum erected by this prince for our Saints by the work and industry of Eligius, couched in the words of Ouen already given above, to prevent its being believed that Dagobert transferred the bodies of our Saints from the ancient shrines into new ones. For although in it no mention at all occurs of new shrines made for our Saints at Dagobert's command, that silence about those shrines perhaps arises only from this,

that Ouen intended to record only the outer ornaments of that mausoleum described by him, that is, those standing out above the earth, and not also those which lay hidden beneath it. Moreover, since mausoleum, as may be seen in Du Cange in the Glossary of middle and low Latinity, is taken by the writers of the middle age not only for the more magnificent tomb erected in honour of some prince or other more illustrious person, but also for the bier, sepulchre or casket in which the bones of some Saint are contained, it may be that Ouen, who speaks of only one mausoleum erected for St. Dionysius by Dagobert through the work of Eligius, understood not only the more magnificent tomb, which is constituted chiefly of the ornaments standing out above the earth, but also the bier or shrine in which the body of St. Dionysius was enclosed.

* other copies: "fabricare."

* other copies: "suam exercuit industriam."

§ XIII. What further proofs of veneration towards St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, earlier than the 8th century, are found.

St. Dionysius, of whose church in the town of Saint-Denis We have already seen above that over the bodies of our Saints a mausoleum was first erected as soon as, peace having been restored to the Church, the heathen ceased from persecuting the Christians, as also that afterwards, in the same place in which they rested under it and where the town of Saint-Denis now stands, a church was built by St. Genevieve in honour of the same Saints, whom this most holy patroness of the Parisians attended with a piety as well as a veneration plainly singular. But although I have already examined also whether, when about a hundred and fifty years only had rolled by after it had been built by St. Genevieve, a new one was substituted for it, fallen down, by Dagobert I, who was taken from among the living before the middle of the seventh century, I have nevertheless hitherto not discussed whether the monastery joined to that church and likewise built in honour of our Saints owes its first origin to that prince, nor shall I discuss it here either, because the matter does not touch our purpose more nearly, and brevity must be studied. But if meanwhile anyone desires to know what is to be judged of the antiquity and beginnings of that monastery, he can consult the Dissertation already very often cited above which Félibien prefixed to the History of Saint-Denis composed by him, and he will find it proved there, by more than one argument, in §2, that Dagobert, although he is commonly and not undeservedly held to be the founder of the said monastery on account of his plainly royal munificence towards it, nevertheless did not lay its first foundations, contrary to what I myself once thought with not a few learned men.

[218] Further, before I turn my discourse from the church built for our Saints by St. Genevieve and restored by Dagobert, passing over the monastery which he likewise built, to other proofs of veneration towards St. Dionysius and his Companions more ancient than the 8th century, some further it pleases me to add here some things further to those which we taught above concerning that sacred building. It ought to be credited no less to the faith than to the care of St. Genevieve, as is made plain from what is narrated in the Life of this holy Virgin edited in the first place by Bolland, chap. 4, and it was distinguished by God with various miracles, both those which happened while it was being built and those which happened afterwards, as is understood from the same Life of St. Genevieve and other ancient documents. Hence it came about that, as the place in which it was erected by St. Genevieve had seemed to this Saint (see the aforesaid Life, num. 16) awesome and venerable on account of our Saints buried there, so also it, being held in honour by all, as was fitting, became most celebrated even under the kings of the first race of the Franks; so much so that it was then frequented by pilgrimages undertaken from the furthest bounds of France to the tombs of our Saints, as may be gathered from the Life of St. Marius, abbot of Bodane in Gaul, inserted in our Work on the 27th day of January, on which he is mentioned in the sacred Fasti. In this, namely, it is narrated in the same place, num. 6 and 7, how that holy abbot, who, as Bolland teaches in the Preface or Admonition prefixed to the said Life, num. 7, flourished in the sixth century, came to Paris to the threshold of St. Dionysius, others besides accompanying him, and there, when he had fallen into a grave illness, was in a wonderful manner restored to health, beyond the expectation of all, by St. Dionysius appearing to him. Nor was it customarily visited only for undertaking pilgrimages, but also for the cause of uncovering the truth, which otherwise could not be uncovered, by an oath taken, as was then the custom, at the tombs of the Saints.

[219] are mentioned here, Of this matter, which took place about the year 561 under Chilperic I, who had then begun to reign, Gregory of Tours brings forward, in book 5 of the History of the Franks, chap. 33, the example mentioned above already at num. 202. He brings forward also, in the book of the Glory of the Martyrs, chap. 72, two examples, likewise already mentioned above, of divine justice exercised in the year 574 on those who had dared to lay rapacious hands on that sacred building of St. Dionysius. These, as being to be reckoned among the miracles of St. Dionysius, I shall presently set forth below, when I treat of them, in the very words of that holy writer; for now they are mentioned by me only to recall to the reader's memory how preciously the sepulchre of St. Dionysius was then adorned in that sacred building. It was, namely, as Gregory teaches in those examples of divine justice, towered, or built in the manner of a pyramid, and distinguished by many most precious votive gifts and in the first place by a golden dove hung on it, and by the pall of pure silk with which it was covered, set off with gold and gems; and afterwards it was so greatly adorned by St. Eligius, as Ouen attests by the words transcribed here at num. 211 from the Life of this holy bishop of Noyon, with divers works very skilfully made, for the greater part of gold and silver, the king of the Franks Dagobert I supplying the expenses, that it easily gained the chief place among all the ornaments of the whole of Gaul. For the rest, the church so magnificently adorned with the tomb or mausoleum of St. Dionysius, which, as said, built by St. Genevieve in the 5th century, Dagobert had restored in the 7th century, stood up to the 8th century, when its middle part had already elapsed, that is, up to the age of Pepin, king of the Franks, who, when he had thrown down that ancient building, as the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis cited above already teaches in the former of the two books of the Miracles of St. Dionysius written by him and inserted in part 2 of the third Benedictine Century, chap. 14, began a new one in its place, which Charlemagne, his son, afterwards completed; and how this was afterwards enlarged in the twelfth century under the care of Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis, and how the new one which had begun to be substituted for it in the reign of St. Louis was brought to its topmost point in the year 1281, you will find set forth in Félibien in the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 528.

[220] I now proceed to record some other churches built for St. Dionysius in other places before the 8th century. [others besides elsewhere, and in the first place in that of Bordeaux, as from the verses of Fortunatus] Fortunatus, book 1 of the Poems, chap. XI, sings thus:

You who desire to know the excellent builder of the temple, I will not suffer such pious wishes to be hidden from you. When formerly the sacred shrines had been farther off from here, And the people often feared the journey on account of the distance, Bishop Amelius had given a small stronghold here, The place not holding the Christ-worshipping people: He closing the day of life, thenceforth by offspring and by rank This work and place came to an heir, And Pope Leontius founded this pious hall, And offered splendid gifts to his Lord; Which venerable Dionysius has as his own house, Under whose name it shines sanctified.

Here Fortunatus subjoins the verses, already transcribed by us above at num. 146, in which the martyrdom of St. Dionysius and the kind of death by which he underwent it are celebrated, and then continues:

Nor did the priest withdraw the narrow fanes before, Unless he had completed these which now, adorned *, give pleasure, Assiduously performing the ceremonies in the old temple, Until, duly following, he had made firm the work.

Fortunatus speaks here of three different churches, of which for the first, because it was removed from the city by so great a space that the Christian people dreaded to betake themselves thither to attend the divine offices, a second was substituted by Amelius, situated in the very city; and for this second, because it did not suffice to hold the people, a third, more ample and capacious, was substituted by Leontius. Launoy, in On the Basilicas of the Parisians, chap. 4, and elsewhere, contends that Amelius, who presided over the church of Paris about the year 530, is the very Amelius mentioned here, and that the church built by him, or at any rate the other which Leontius substituted for it, is the very church of Saint-Denis-du-Pas situated within the walls of the city of Paris.

[221] But besides that this latter sacred building, it is gathered from the verses recited here, in the city, as we saw above, was built much later than the sixth century, the Leontius mentioned in the verses just recited here was, as Launoy himself confesses, bishop of the people of Bordeaux, and the Amelius mentioned by Fortunatus was, as is declared not obscurely in them, his predecessor in the episcopal chair, which does not fit Amelius, bishop of the Parisians about the year 530, as Launoy will have it; and since, as follows hence, both Fortunatus's Amelius and Leontius were bishops of the people of Bordeaux, and no one ever said that a church was built at Paris by either the one or the other, indeed it appears not to be doubted that Fortunatus, in the verses transcribed here, is treating of churches built in the city of Bordeaux by Amelius and Leontius, bishops of Bordeaux. And that the church which Leontius built was situated in the very city of Bordeaux, nay was also its cathedral, appears even from the fact that Leontius continually attended to the divine office in it, as the last two of the verses of Fortunatus recited above hint; and since the matter stands thus, and the church which, from what has been said, Leontius built there was consecrated to God under the name of St. Dionysius, as Fortunatus (see his earlier verses just transcribed here) most openly declares, it follows that in the sixth century, in which, as Denis de Sainte-Marthe teaches in volume 1 of the enlarged Gallia Christiana among the Archbishops of Bordeaux, Amelius and Leontius occupied the chair of Bordeaux, St. Dionysius obtained at Bordeaux a plainly notable cult, which chiefly bears here on our purpose, a church having also been built there to God under his invocation. Launoy indeed replies that no church exists today at Bordeaux which is consecrated to God under the name of Dionysius; but since the space of more than a thousand years which has flowed by since the age of Amelius and Leontius brings in not so many, nay more, changes, that objection of his ought not to delay us, and so, disregarding it, let us continue what we have begun.

[222] and likewise in the diocese of Tours, to God under his name St. Perpetuus, bishop of Tours in Gaul, about the year, as our predecessors, of him

treating on the 8th day of April, on which he stands inscribed in the sacred fasti, noted, 490, having ended his life, made a testament, as Gregory of Tours testifies in book 10 of the History of the Franks, chap. 31; and in this, which, first published by d'Achery in volume 5 of the Spicilegium, our predecessors illustrated with observations and further took care to have reprinted on the said day, these following words are read in the same place, num. 19: "To the church of St. Dionysius of Rambasciacum I give and bequeath a silver chalice and a cross likewise of silver, in whose handle is a relic of the same St. Dionysius." "The church of St. Dionysius mentioned here is perhaps the same which in the general Pouillé of the diocese of Tours is called the cure church of St. Dionysius on the Loire." So our predecessors in the said Observations; but even if what they say here, using the word "perhaps" in the manner of those who doubt, be not in fact consonant with the truth, it appears beyond doubt that the said church of St. Dionysius was at any rate situated in the diocese of Tours; so that accordingly we have it ascertained from the cited testament of St. Perpetuus, which suffices here for our purpose, that there stood there already from the 5th century a church consecrated to God under the name or invocation of St. Dionysius. Nor does it appear to be doubted that other churches besides, consecrated to God under the invocation of St. Dionysius, existed before the 8th century in many other places of Gaul, both cities and lesser places. For although, besides those already enumerated, I can assign by name absolutely none which was then endowed with the name of Dionysius from writers or monuments more ancient than the eighth century, the very great veneration in which Dionysius then was scarcely allows me to doubt that at least some of the churches which were from time to time erected then were distinguished with the name of Dionysius and also dedicated to God under the invocation of this Saint.

[223] churches dedicated before the 8th century, and very great, as here However that may be, what I have just discussed here, both concerning the pilgrimages undertaken to his sepulchre in the sixth century and concerning the churches built for him in the same century and the preceding one in the dioceses of Bordeaux and Tours, more than sufficiently shows that Dionysius at least then enjoyed very great veneration. It will help further to adduce now other arguments also which persuade of this very thing. Fortunatus, who at the place just cited celebrates Dionysius for the martyrdom bravely endured, in the Apostrophe by which he sends the little book on the Life of St. Martin, afterwards written by him in metre, to the sacred buildings of various Saints whom, as it appears, he held in love and veneration above the rest, or to the cities chiefly devoted to their cult, bids it hasten also to the church sacred to St. Dionysius near Paris. St. Eligius, when once, as Ouen relates in his Life in words to be transcribed here below, he had found on the feast of St. Dionysius a man contracted in all his limbs lying near the sepulchre of St. Dionysius for the sake of obtaining health, exhorted him to put his hope in Dionysius; and when not much later the sick man, prayers having been poured out to God for him by Eligius, was healed, he wished the prodigy by which this was done to be ascribed to St. Dionysius. Dagobert I, king of the Franks, who, as we saw above, had enriched the church of Saint-Denis near Paris with very many gifts and had most magnificently adorned the tomb of St. Dionysius in it, also instituted there a perpetual psalmody, and wished, out of a plainly singular veneration towards the Saint, that his body should be committed to the earth in that same sacred building in which the body of St. Dionysius lay. "These works," says Ouen at the place cited above in the Life of St. Eligius, "being wonderfully completed ... the great and renowned king Dagobert died, and was buried in the same Basilica of St. Dionysius under the arch" ("thus," says Mabillon in volume 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 370, "he calls the transept") "on the right side." Dagobert, namely, as may be gathered from the words of Fredegar transcribed here at num. 206, had the greatest hope in St. Dionysius. Nor indeed would this hope of his have been in vain, if the apparition by which St. Dionysius together with SS. Martin and Maurice is narrated by various writers to have snatched Dagobert from the demons is to be believed to have taken place at least in the manner in which it is explained with us in volume 6 of September in the posthumous Glory of St. Maurice, num. 255.

[224] Gregory of Tours, in book 10 of the History of the Franks, chap. 29, relates how St. Aredius, abbot of Attane among the Lemovices in Gaul in the sixth century, of whom we have already treated on the 25th day of August, is proved, veneration, by divers also, having first visited the sepulchre of St. Martin at Tours, fell into the illness from which he died; and then he adds: "On the sixth day also of his" (St. Aredius's) "sickness, a woman who, often vexed by an unclean spirit, could not be cleansed by the Saint, her hands bound behind her of themselves, began to cry out and say: 'Run, citizens, leap forth, peoples, go out to meet the Martyrs and confessors who are assembling for the funeral of blessed Aredius. Behold, here is Julian from Brioude, Privatus from Mende, Martin from Tours, and Martial from his own city. Here is Saturninus from Toulouse, Dionysius from the city of Paris, and some others also whom heaven holds, whom you adore as confessors and Martyrs of God.'" I know indeed that not much is to be attributed to the sayings or visions of possessed women, such as the woman mentioned here was; but Gregory presently adds to these words: "When she had begun to cry out these things at the beginning of the night, she was bound fast by her master, but could by no means be restrained: and breaking her bonds she began to hasten to the monastery" (namely of Aredius), "and soon the blessed man gave up the spirit, not without testimony of the truth that he was received by angels. The woman also, at his funeral, together with another woman vexed by a worse spirit, as soon as he was covered by the sepulchre, he cleansed from the wickedness of the hostile demon. And I believe that by God's will he could not cleanse them while placed in the body for this reason, that his funeral might be glorified by this mighty work"; and hence it appears that Gregory certainly did not wholly hold in contempt the vision, or, if that name be preferred, the ecstasy, by which the possessed woman whom he records foretold the imminent death of St. Aredius. However that may be, since that possessed woman pronounced that the Saints whom she cried out were proceeding to the funeral of St. Aredius were then honoured as confessors and Martyrs of God, and would seemingly not have done so unless the matter had been so, it follows that Dionysius, whom she reckoned among those Saints, was certainly then honoured by the faithful as a martyr and confessor of God. Further, the very great veneration which, as is clear from what has been said, St. Dionysius enjoyed even before the eighth century undoubtedly received increases from time to time from the frequent miracles wrought at his tomb.

[225] of which here one from the biographer of St. Marius, The anonymous author of the Acts to be edited writes thus at num. 13: "The Christians built a basilica over the bodies of the Martyrs" (Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius) "at great expense and with exceptional ornament; where daily, our Lord Jesus Christ working, their merits are proved to be shown by the frequency of mighty works; and the sick experience how fitting it is that the Servants of God be honoured, where blindness receives sight, weakness the power to walk, and the obstructed doors of the ears deserve to receive hearing." Thus he; but although he discloses most clearly by these words that very frequent miracles happened in his age, that is (see num. 16 of this commentary) when the seventh century was growing old or the eighth beginning, in the church built over the bodies of our Saints, or at their tomb, he nevertheless enumerates none in particular. In order, then, to do here what I think will not be unwelcome to the reader, I shall now set before his eyes at least a few miracles by name, received from elsewhere, and wrought either at the tomb of St. Dionysius or at any rate by his patronage. The miracle which I hinted at num. 218 befell St. Marius, abbot of Bodane in Gaul in the sixth century, when he had come to the threshold or tomb of St. Dionysius, is narrated in Bolland, at the place cited there, in the Life of that holy abbot, num. 7, in these following words: "This also we have thought worth adding, that, before he went out of that city" (namely Marius, of Paris), "he began, not without the sorrow of his followers, to be very ill. On the following night, therefore, he laid his limbs, almost dead with languor, on the bed; but in the very space of the night the divine clemency so came to his help that very early in the morning he rose glad and sound, and exhorted his companions to make the journey. And when all who were present wondered at his sudden recovery, he said: 'St. Dionysius came to me this night, touched me, and by his presence restored me to my former health.'"

[226] another from the Life of St. Eligius In d'Achery, volume 5 of the Spicilegium, is extant the Life of St. Eligius, bishop of Noyon, who died in the year 665, cited by us above already, and written by Ouen, a contemporary author; and in it this holy biographer writes thus in book 1, chap. 23: "At length, at a certain time, when the anniversary passion of the holy martyr Dionysius was being celebrated Parisius, while the vigil was being sung by the clergy in the choir, Eligius, having gone out of the temple, was walking in the court, and saw from afar a man contracted in all his limbs lying on the pavement opposite the sepulchre of the Saint; inspired perhaps by God, he soon stood at the sick man's side, and, addressing him kindly, began to inquire of him both the times of his lameness and the cause of his sickness, asking whether he had hope in Christ, whether he believed that he would some time be healed, and whether he also believed that he would rise again after death and receive rewards or punishments according to the quality of his merits: and when he, following his words, confessed that he believed all these things, Eligius again began: 'If, then, you believe these things, as you maintain, why do you lie here in vain? Rather ask this Saint that, interceding with the Lord, he may straightway restore you to health.' And when he said that he was keeping watch there for this, Eligius, looking at him, said: 'And do you believe that this Saint can obtain these things from the Lord?' And when he persisted in the same, Eligius said again: 'If, then, you believe these things as you promise, promise now that you will henceforth serve God, and see that your faith tremble not, and without delay this Lord will heal you.'

[227] "And when he gave his pledge in all things, Eligius fixed his knees upon the ground and prayed at length; by St. Ouen, of the Life then, stretching his eyes and palms alike to heaven, full of faith he faithfully reminded the Lord Jesus of His promise, in which He says: 'Whatsoever ye shall ask believing, it shall be done unto you.' And, 'If ye have faith, ye shall do greater things than these.' And when he had asked these things with a full breast, with faith and devotion, turning to the sick man and taking his right hand, he said: 'If you believe without doubting, as you promise, in the name of Jesus Christ rise, and stand upon your feet.' Saying this, he drew him strongly to himself, and immediately, the bonds of his joints

being loosed, the sick man, raised up, stood, and soon his feet and limbs were made firm, and he was healed from that very hour; and Eligius, threatening and adjuring him, commanded that, if he did not wish to suffer such things again, he should declare to no one any other word of his healing except that the Lord Jesus had healed him through St. Dionysius." The miracle which is narrated here by Ouen seems indeed to be ascribed chiefly to St. Eligius; but St. Dionysius also, as it appears, had a part in it, and Eligius wished that it should be ascribed by the man in whose favour it had been wrought to St. Dionysius, at whose sepulchre he had found him lying in order to be restored to health. Further, since Ouen hints that the miracle which he here narrates happened at the tomb of St. Dionysius was wrought "Parisius," Launoy hence again contends that the tomb and church of Dionysius existed in the age of Eligius, that is in the 7th century, not outside but within the walls of the city of Paris; but Ouen and other writers of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries designate for the most part by the word "Parisius," as I taught at num. 186 and following, not only the city of Paris but also its suburbs and whole territory. Since, then, Launoy ought not to delay us here, let us continue what we have now undertaken.

[228] Gregory of Tours, in the book of the Glory of the Martyrs, chap. 72, writes in the following manner: and finally two others from Gregory of Tours "But Dionysius the bishop was given as a martyr to the city of the Parisians; and at the time when king Sigibert came with his army to that city and burned with fire the greatest part of its villages, one of his chief men hastens to the basilica of the aforesaid Martyr, not with devotion of prayer, but only to defraud something from the building: who, namely, when he had found the doors unlocked and the temple empty of guards, with rash daring tore away the pall of pure silk, adorned with gold and gems, which covered the holy sepulchre, and carried it off with him. But coming to the camp, he had need to sail, and when his servant, whom he then held entrusted, with two hundred gold pieces hung at his neck, had gone up into the ship with him, suddenly, touched by no one, he fell from the ship, and, overwhelmed by the waters, could never be found. He too, perceiving the judgment of God upon himself through the loss of the servant and of the gold, quickly returned to the shore from which he had departed, and restored the pall of the sepulchre with the utmost speed. And although he did this, nevertheless he did not reach the day on which he had committed these things, as the circle of the year came round. And another, not fearing to tread upon the holy sepulchre, while he sought to strike down a golden dove with his lance, his feet slipping on either side, because the tomb was towered, his testicles being crushed, and the lance fixed in his side, was found lifeless. Let no one doubt that this did not happen by chance, but was done by the judgment of God."

[229] are narrated, by miracles, by St. Dionysius, From the fact that Sigibert is here said to have come to the city of Paris, which was done in the year 574, and to have burned the greatest part of its villages, Launoy contends that the ancient church of Saint-Denis and the sepulchres of the martyrs Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius existed at that time in the very city of the Parisians. But Gregory does not write that either Sigibert or his army entered Paris. Nay indeed, Gregory, speaking in book 4 of the History of the Franks, chap. 50, of the same expedition of Sigibert of which he speaks in the words just given, most openly discloses that neither the one nor the other did so, writing there that the villages burned by the army of Dagobert were not those which were within, but those which were around Paris. Consult Le Cointe in the Annals at the year 574, Ruinart's observation on the text of Gregory just transcribed here, and Gérard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris. Further, that text comprises, as I have already noted above, two examples of divine justice exercised on those who had been injurious to the church of Saint-Denis; and to these, likewise enumerated by himself, the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis who comprised in writing the first two books of the miracles of St. Dionysius, which stand printed in the IIIrd Benedictine Century, part 2, adds in book 1, chap. 2: "Nor are the holy Martyrs, passing their age in heaven, to be thought to prefer to men the gold which they despised on earth; but God avenges in a few cases their, nay His own, injuries for this reason, lest souls infected by the example of many who commit sacrileges with impunity perish for ever."

[230] [to whom other things also are falsely attached by the anonymous author of the Deeds of Dagobert,] The same author complains in the Prologue of his Opuscule that the miracles which happened at the tomb of St. Dionysius after the age of Charlemagne are not commended to writing through negligence, and so fall into oblivion; but he could with equal or even better right have complained that so few of those which are earlier than the principate of Charlemagne, nay than the whole 8th century, are found committed to writing. Indeed, besides those very few which I have just brought forward here, I have been able to find absolutely no others earlier than the said 8th century. The anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, cited above already more than once, does indeed hand down to memory, in Bouquet, Writers of Gallic Affairs, volume 2, chap. 4 and some following, divers miracles by which it was wonderfully brought about that at length in the 7th century the monastery of Saint-Denis and the church joined to it were founded by Dagobert; but all the learned today affirm with unanimous consent that all these are nothing but mere fictions devised by that anonymous monk of Saint-Denis to make the beginnings of his monastery more august; so that they certainly by no means claim a place here. The same author indeed narrates in the last chapter yet another miracle, not invented for the said end, in these following words: "And so king Hludowius" (Clovis II) "had peace in the kingdom all his days without wars; but, fortune impelling, in a certain one of the last years of his life he came to the bodies of the aforesaid Martyrs as if for the sake of prayer, and wishing to have their pledges with him, ordered the sepulchre to be uncovered.

[231] "And looking upon the body of the blessed and most excellent martyr and pontiff Dionysius, are falsely attached by the author, less religiously, though eagerly, he broke and snatched a bone of his arm, and at once, stupefied, fell into madness. And such terror and fear and darkness filled that place that all who were present, struck with the greatest fear, sought the protection of flight. After this, to recover his senses, he gave certain estates to that place; the bone too which he had taken from the holy body he clothed with gold and gems in wonderful work, and replaced it there. But recovering his senses in some small part, though not receiving them wholly, after two years he ended his life with his reign." But if Clovis, as is narrated here by the aforesaid anonymous author, by the continuator of Fredegar, by Hermann the Lame and others, truly fell into madness, Adrien de Valois, in book 20 of the Res Francicae, page 212, contends that this did not befall him on account of the arm of St. Dionysius broken and snatched. Nor could he be moved to think the contrary by the Deeds of the kings of the Franks, likewise edited by Bouquet in volume 2 of the Res Francicae, in which it is read in chap. 44 that Clovis, at the instigation of the devil, cut off the arm of B. Dionysius the martyr, and that at the same time the kingdom of the Franks fell into pestilential calamities. And indeed, since the author who put those Deeds of the Franks into writing defiled his History, no differently from the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, with the most rotten fables, as Bouquet and others rightly affirm, there is surely no reason why, on account of what he narrates of the Arm of St. Dionysius stolen by Clovis at the instigation of the devil, we should judge certainly consonant with the truth the miracle reported by the said anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, of very slight credit, by which Clovis was divinely punished with madness for the irreverence committed in stealing the arm of St. Dionysius.

[232] The cited Valois, in the book of the Res Francicae just cited, page 213, suspects that this flowed not from zeal for truth but from license of invention. wrought, increased from time to time, obtained. Hear him speaking in the same place. "I am easily led," he says, "to believe that the monks, the writers of our History, as they were always very tenacious of their own things, accused Chlodoveus, on account of the broken arm of B. Dionysius, of excessive audacity and sacrilegious greed, and affirmed that what could seem to have been done with God as author, or at least propitious, was done at the instigation of the devil, and invented that the prince at once became insane, in order to deter all by so memorable an example from a similar attempt, and that no one should afterwards be found who would lay hands on the venerable relics of the Blessed kept among them and despoil them of their sacred deposits and, as it were, their treasures." Thus far he; whether rightly or otherwise, let the reader determine. Meanwhile, from wherever that pretended miracle flowed, I suppose it is to be reckoned, no differently from all the other miracles narrated by that anonymous fabler of the Deeds of Dagobert, among fictions, or at least uncertain little tales. But although this opinion stands, I think the few miracles which we reported above from the biographer of St. Marius, from St. Ouen and from St. Gregory of Tours altogether certain and beyond doubt; nor does it appear to be doubted that from these and others, wrought at the tomb of St. Dionysius and elsewhere by his patronage before the 8th century, the veneration which the Saint enjoyed in very many places then increased exceedingly from time to time, as I have already asserted above; and, content now to have repeated this here, I put an end to this Commentary.

* other copies: "facta."

ACTS,

By an Anonymous Author,

From the edition added by Félibien at the end of the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis.

Dionysius, bishop and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Rusticus, priest and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Eleutherius, deacon and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

BHL Number: 2171

By an Anonymous author.

PROLOGUE.

He declares whence the author drew the things he is about to write, and states some things beforehand about the Apostles and their successors.

[The author affirms that he will commend to writing things which had long been wrapped in silence, from the report of the faithful,] The glorious passions of the Martyrs, and the contests precious in the Lord's sight, although they are worthy to be written in keeping with the dignity of the miracles, cannot nevertheless be completed without the trembling of fear, because, when the undertaking of great things is considered, the magnitude of the work is not undeservedly feared, inasmuch as slender speech is not able to unfold as much as the truth of the passion imposes to be said of itself. Yet, although the exposition of so great a matter may seem to have a hard beginning, in this the mind breathes again from its trembling, that the mastery of divine instruction forms its own craftsman, and commends the beginning of one who begins by the furnishing of talent. With this consideration, then, assuming the audacity of excessive rashness, the things which had been overshadowed by long silence of time have been undertaken to be revealed with the help of the divinity itself. Because, as the testimony of truth has it, more things have been ascertained by the report of the faithful than are proved to have been transmitted to us by reading ^b.

[2] recalling even fewer than he should, Whence it is known, not without certain estimation, that the newness of the peoples still believing, terrified by the cruelty of the Gentiles, feared to write what nevertheless it rejoiced that the servants of God had merited, since without doubt those things are judged written which the speech of the faithful testifies to have been fulfilled. For these things are to be believed, and, the cloud of doubt being wiped away, with whole

strength it must be confessed that those who were worthy to undergo martyrdom for the confession of our Lord and God were able to endure even greater things than the report transmitted through the peoples seems to recall in succeeding ages. Let common supplication, then, obtain this, that the devout man may gain pardon if in ignorance he has passed over anything of their mighty works. For even if not all things are set forth, let the whole body nevertheless deserve to believe, so as to think even greater things of the servants of God than the account of the passion explains. How, then, his place, rejoicing in his patronage, merited to have the worshipper of the Lord ^c, how we have come to know that the fellowship of other Saints was joined to him, as we have learned by the report of the faithful, let us explain by the help of the martyrs themselves, so far as they grant us to know of them ^d.

[3] After the saving passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, after the mystery of the unique and singular Resurrection, after His Ascension, and with some things in general about the Apostles and their successors, by which He showed to men that He had never been absent from the place to which He returned, there followed the preaching of the Apostles, to be of profit to all nations. And they, when they saw their passions impending, taught, filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, what they had learned from the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ; so much so that, the faith growing, not a few merited to become Confessors, whom the catholic Church now rejoices to have gained as Martyrs. These, then, whose virtue the conflict of the persecutors did not prevail to overcome, whom the testing of the flames rendered precious after the likeness of gold, the choice of the Apostles judged fit to receive the commands of the Lord, to whom they might commit the Gospel seeds to be ever kept by the nations; and to these chosen men they providently decreed, by the disposition of God, to add the honour of the episcopate, so that those gained by their preachings might the more easily be advanced to the ministry of the sacred altar.

[4] From which throng of Confessors the city of Toulouse rejoices to have gained as bishop the holy Saturninus ^e, of venerable merit, [and having stated by name things about Saturninus and Paul of Narbonne, he girds himself to his subject.] whom the impiety of the watching people gave, bound with many knots of ropes to the hindquarters of a bull, to be dashed upon the steps of the Capitol. Where, the frame of the holy head being loosed, the injury of the frequent dashing scattered the brain: but such a departure was followed by an ascent to the Lord. Happy person of so great merit and so great virtue, to whom it was granted to be first a teacher, afterwards a martyr, who fulfilled by evident examples what he taught in words. With like grace also the most blessed Paul ^f, prelate and confessor, gained the province of Narbonne by his saving eloquence: whom the labour of domestic tribulation so exercised that you would approve him to be a true servant of the Lord. But thanks to Thee, Lord Jesus Christ, who hast permitted the darts of the assailing enemy to be a proving of Thy faithful, not wounds, and givest to Thine such a reward for their labour that the enemy rejoices that none of Thine was unwarlike. While, then, the service of the office undertaken tends towards the deeds of our particular Patron ^g, we do not pursue in full what has been ascertained of the Servant of God, but let it suffice that we have not been unmindful of him; for in such causes it is more fitting for the faithful to believe than human report can show.

ANNOTATIONS.

SOLE CHAPTER.

St. Dionysius comes to Paris, announces Christ there to idolaters, builds a church; a persecution having arisen, he is taken with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, and, put to martyrdom with them, makes illustrious also by miracles the place in which all three are secretly committed to the earth, adorned first with a mausoleum and then with a church.

Dionysius to Paris, of what sort the city then was is set forth, So, then, St. Dionysius, who, St. Clement, successor of Peter the Apostle, delivering them to him, had received the seeds of the divine Word to be dispensed to the gentiles, approached intrepid and inflamed with the heat of faith to where he knew the error of paganism to boil more fiercely, and, the Lord leading, arrived at Paris ^a, not fearing to seek out the savagery of an unbelieving nation, because the remembrance of past punishments strengthened his virtue, and he who had merited to be a confessor did not hesitate to approach savage peoples as a preacher. At that time the said city was strong both in the gathering of Germans and in nobility, because it was healthy in air, pleasant in its river, fruitful in lands, most rich in vineyards, and wooded with trees, crowded with peoples, full of commerce; and again, the space rather of an island than of a city, which the wave of the river poured round it provided for habitation, it rendered small for the growing throngs of those settling there, and had contracted by the solicitation of its pleasantness ^b.

[6] This place, then, the Servant of God chose as one to be sought. To which when first he had come, armed with faith and intrepid with the constancy of confession, he comes, and while there, a sacred building having been built, with great fruit he built a church, which was not yet in those places and was new to those peoples, and established the offices of ministering clerics according to custom ^c, and enlarged approved persons with the honour of the second order. Girded, then, with faith, and now strengthened by the construction of a basilica, he ceased not to make known to the gentiles the God whom he knew, and, setting before all both His judgment and His mercy, little by little he joined to God those whom he withdrew from the devil. The Lord also deigned to work such great mighty works through him that he won the hearts of the rebellious gentiles no less by miracles than by preachings ^d; and in a wonderful manner the armed people was not able to resist the unarmed man, but the stiff neck of Germany submitted itself to him in rivalry, and with close compunction of heart begged that the sweet yoke of Christ be laid upon it.

[7] By them also were the idols destroyed which had been fashioned at their expense and by their zeal, [he announces Christ; a sudden persecution, by the instigation of the ancient enemy,] and, the harbour of salvation being found, they rejoiced that the shipwrecks of the idols should perish. The vanquished portion of the Devil mourned, while the victorious legion of the Church triumphed over it ^e. Then the ancient enemy, seeing that what was evidently being gained for the Lord by the continual conversion of the peoples was perishing for himself, turned the whole engine of his artifice to attacking what had been built, and armed the authors of his party, weeping the destruction of their gods, for the impiety of a sudden persecution, that they might make haste to destroy by a diversity of punishment those who had made known that the one true God was to be worshipped and feared, lest there should survive anyone able to gain what was perishing.

[8] [a persecution having arisen, he is taken with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius,] The sentence of persecution, then, being published, the rejoicing crowd of the impious goes forth, and conspires to fight against the Lord's people, not delaying to attack with the sword those whom the Lord had shown by His seal to be His own. And so, when they were running through a part of the western world in search of the Christians, they found St. Dionysius at Paris contending against the unbelievers; with whom the fury of the persecution found Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the archdeacon ^f. These blessed Men never endured to be absent from the presence of St. Dionysius; the interrogation of the persecutor found them together, but could not find one whom it might separate from the fellowship of martyrdom.

[9] [and all three, having freely professed the faith, are at length beheaded after various punishments,] Being interrogated, they confess one and true God in Trinity. Then, terror being added, and afflicted with many injuries, or wasted with punishments, they testify that they are Christians, and, seeing the stroke of the executioner, they proclaim with a great voice of confession that they are servants of our Lord and God. Persevering, then, in this constancy of faith, rendering their bodies to the earth, they bore their blessed souls into heaven, and merited to pass to the Lord with such a profession that, their heads being cut off, the tongue still palpitating was thought to confess the Lord. A fellowship exceedingly blessed and pleasing to God, among whom neither could one be first nor another third; but confessing the Trinity, they merited to adorn the venerable place with a threefold martyrdom ^g.

[10] [and burial for their bodies, which the lictors were planning to throw into the Seine,] The executioners, then, fearing lest the most faithful and approved devotion of the converted people should entomb the bodies of the Saints to profit them, and the Relics for patronage, chose to commit the bodies of the Martyrs to be lost in the waters of the Seine and its deep eddies; and these, placed on boats, are ordered to be destined for an eddy foreseen. Then a certain matron ^h, although she was held entangled in the error of the pagans, nevertheless showed in mind that she desired conversion, and, thinking to do in deed some things that would please the Lord, using subtlety of counsel, asks the executioners to come to a banquet, and while she lavishes on them the abundance of proffered hospitality, she drove from their memory what they had undertaken to do, and commits to her faithful servants by a secret arrangement that a diligent provision should labour to hide the bodies withdrawn by theft.

[11] obtained, by the pious craft of a woman, in a ploughed field, They, having learned their mistress's arrangement, hastily carry out what had been commanded them, and by the industry of the tiller hide the laudable theft at the sixth milestone from the said city, that is, in ploughed land which they had prepared for the seeds ⁱ. The sowing being afterwards made, as is the custom, neither did the crop deny its service, which, made fruitful by such

fatness, so poured out in it the benefit of abundance that both the tiller acquired, and the country merited, hundredfold fruits. But while the crop was growing up, that which was to profit the peoples of Paris long lay hidden.

[12] this place, adorned first with a mausoleum and then with a church, The aforesaid matron, however, not unmindful of these secrets, as soon as she saw that the fervour of the persecution had grown lukewarm, sought out with the solicitude that was fitting the place keeping the bones of such great Martyrs, and, having found it, marked it by the construction of a prominent mausoleum ^k. Whence afterwards the Christians built a basilica over the bodies of the martyrs at great expense and with exceptional ornament ^l: where daily, our Lord Jesus Christ working, their merits are proved to be shown by the frequency of mighty works; and the sick experience how fitting it is that the servants of God be honoured, where blindness receives sight, weakness the power to walk, and the obstructed doors of the ears deserve to receive hearing.

[13] But neither must this be passed over in silence, that those vexed by the assault of an unclean spirit, they render illustrious also by miracles. while they are led to the said place to be tried by the divine power, are compelled by the command of the Saints themselves to indicate, the names being designated, in what place each of the Martyrs is laid. In whose passion on the 7th before the Ides of October the Lord has willed us to rejoice ^m, who promised that the fruit of the Martyrs would be a hundredfold, to whom be honour and glory, power and dominion, for ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

prefixed, §1, which I adduced, more than sufficiently prove, as also that the Acts of our Saints are wrongly ascribed to St. Fortunatus as their genuine author. Nor indeed would Pierre de Marca perhaps have been about to attribute them so easily as he did to this holy bishop of Poitiers, had he not also persuaded himself, from the preconceived opinions by which he thought that the church of Paris was founded as early as the 1st century, that the hymn cited by Hilduin in the Areopagitica, in which, no differently from the Acts of our Saints, the mission of St. Dionysius is ascribed to the Roman Pontiff Clement, was truly composed by him. But whether that hymn in fact has Fortunatus for its author the things which I discussed on this matter in the preliminary Commentary from num. 73 to num. 75 render very doubtful and uncertain. Further, the doubt which these raise is increased not a little more by the writers of the Literary History of France, which accordingly I would wish to be added to what was said there. For these, in volume 3 of their Work, where they treat of St. Fortunatus and enumerate all the writings of this holy bishop of Poitiers, make no mention at all of a hymn composed by him in which the mission of Dionysius is attributed to Clement, the Roman Pontiff; and yet they would very probably have recorded a hymn of this kind, had they ascertained from documents of proper stamp and credit that it was truly composed by Fortunatus, especially since they also speak of the meaning and force of the word "scholasticissimus," with which Hilduin honours this writer while affirming that Fortunatus ascribes the mission of Dionysius to Pope Clement in a hymn composed by him, and so they obtained a most apt occasion of speaking also of the said hymn. And since this is so, the cited writers very probably did not think that the hymn attributed to Fortunatus by Hilduin is to be adjudged to this holy bishop of Poitiers: nay, the things I now subjoin persuade that on the contrary they judged it to be adjudged to Fortunatus. In the volume of their Work just cited, page 470, speaking, in French words which I make Latin, of two letters written by Fortunatus to St. Martin, bishop in Galicia, they write in the following manner: "In these Fortunatus assigns the regions in which the Apostles were believed in his age to have preached the Gospel, namely St. Peter at Rome, St. Andrew in Achaia, St. Matthew in Ethiopia, St. Thomas in Persia, St. Bartholomew in the Indies, St. Paul in Illyricum and, as he says more clearly in the title of the former letter, in Spain. For the rest, it is known that many ancient Fathers were of the same opinion. As regards Gaul, he says that St. Martin of Tours was their apostle. Which, as sufficiently follows thence, is to confirm the opinion of St. Severus Sulpicius, of the author of the Acts of St. Saturninus, and of Gregory of Tours, who, as has been observed elsewhere, hint that the Gospel was announced among the Gauls somewhat later." Since, then, those writers judged that Fortunatus did what they say in the words recited here, they undoubtedly took away from this holy bishop of Poitiers the hymn ascribed to Fortunatus by Hilduin, in which the mission of Dionysius is attributed to Clement and so tied to the first century.

APPENDIX

Of the cult of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, and of the translations of their relics and their miracles later than the 7th century.

Dionysius, bishop and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Rusticus, priest and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Eleutherius, deacon and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

BHL Number: 2201, 2202

CHAPTER I.

Some miracles wrought by the Saints after the 7th century, and proofs of the cult then paid to them, are brought forward.

Pope Stephen, to health, as the letter which Pope Stephen II, in the year 754, as Anastasius the Librarian and not a few other writers hand down to memory, came into Gaul to Pepin, king of the Franks, to implore his help against Aistulf, king of the Lombards, who was troubling the Church; and when, staying there rather a long time, he was lodged in the abbey of Saint-Denis in France, he fell into so grave an illness, as the cited Anastasius testifies in the Life of that Pontiff, that absolutely all, both those namely who had come with him and the Franks, despaired of his life; "but," this writer adds, "the ineffable clemency of our Lord God, who does not desert those who hope in Him, desiring the most Christian lord to be saved, while they thought to find him dead in the morning, he was found suddenly healed that day." Further, that this benefit which Anastasius here records was imparted to Stephen in a wonderful manner by St. Dionysius we are taught by a letter given on that matter and inscribed with the very name of that Pontiff. This, although already published by Surius from a very old manuscript codex and by others besides, I set again in print before the eyes of the reader, before I proceed to other things, as it stands in the same Surius. It reads thus: "Stephen, bishop, servant of the servants of God. As no one ought to boast of his own merits, so he ought not to keep silent the works of God which are done in him through His Saints without his own merits, but to proclaim them, because thus the angel admonishes Tobias.

[2] "Whence I, on account of the oppression of the holy Church by a most atrocious and blasphemous king, are recited here entire, testify, and one not to be named, Aistulf, came into France to the excellent and faithful servant of St. Peter, the Lord Pepin, the most Christian king, where I fell sick even unto death, and remained some time in the district of Paris in the venerable monastery of the blessed martyr of Christ Dionysius. Where, when the physicians already despaired of me, I was at prayer in the church of the same blessed Martyr beneath the bells, and I saw before the altar the good Shepherd the Lord Peter and the Master of the gentiles the Lord Paul, and with a mind that knew them I recognized them from their surcariis; and the thrice-blessed Lord Dionysius at the right hand of the Lord Peter, slender and rather tall, with a beautiful face, white hair, clad in a most white colobium striped with purple, with a pallium wholly purple, starred with gold; and they were conversing among themselves rejoicing, and the good Shepherd the Lord Peter said: 'This our brother asks for health.' And the blessed Lord Paul said: 'He shall now be healed.' And drawing near he put his hand in a friendly way on the breast of the Lord Dionysius, and looked at the Lord Peter. And the Lord Peter said cheerfully to the Lord Dionysius: 'His health is your grace'; and at once blessed Dionysius, holding a censer of incense and a palm in his hand, with a priest and a deacon who stood at the side, came to me and said to me: 'Peace be with you, brother. Fear not; you shall not die until you return prosperously to your see. Rise up healed, and dedicate this altar in honour of God and of His Apostles Peter and Paul, whom you see, saying Masses of thanksgiving.' For there was there an inestimable brightness and sweetness. And soon, made healthy by the grace of God, I wished to fulfil what had been commanded me, and those who were present there said that I was raving. Wherefore I related in order to them and to the king and his nobles the things I had seen, and how I had been made healthy. And I fulfilled all the things that were commanded me. Blessed be God."

[3] and some things against Morin, who holds these to be supposititious, Further, to this letter these following words also are immediately subjoined in Surius: "These things were done in blessed Pope Stephen by the divine clemency, the holy apostles Peter and Paul helping, through the most blessed martyr Dionysius, in this year, which is the seven hundred and fifty-fourth from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the fifth before the Kalends of August." Jean Morin, in On Sacred Ordinations, part 2, chap. 4, having stated some things about the revelation recorded here in the letter marked with the name of Stephen, or rather about that very letter just recited, or the account contained in it by which that revelation is set forth, presently adds: "I do not now inquire into the truth of this ... Whatever the case, it is ancient, and was composed or supposed a little after the time noted" (namely the year 754, subjoined to that letter by an author, as it appears, contemporary). "I assume it as true. It is joined to Hilduin's Areopagitica, and he used it as an elegant and memorable monument. There are many things in it little credible. Nothing, however, in it of Dionysius the Areopagite as bishop of Paris. The author of this account, who without doubt was a Dionysian monk, would never have omitted the Areopagite if the slightest little rumour of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of Paris, had then been spread in the Dionysian district and monastery." Thus he, indicating not obscurely that the letter just transcribed here, or the account contained in it by which the aforesaid revelation is set forth, by no means proceeded from Stephen himself, but was supposed to this Pontiff by a monk of Saint-Denis. But whatever is to be said of this suspicion, or more truly opinion, of Morin, which also pleased Launoy at the place to be cited presently below, and others besides, that the revelation reported in the said letter, by which it was enjoined on Stephen by St. Dionysius to consecrate an altar in honour of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, did befall that Pontiff is attested by the letter of the emperor Louis the Pious to Hilduin, written in the year 834 or the following, as I taught in the Commentary on St. Dionysius the Areopagite, num. 4, and inserted in Hilduin's Areopagitica in Surius.

[4] For in it that prince speaks thus: "Our grandfather Pepin, of holy the things adduced persuade, was restored by Dionysius, to him the monastery memory, on account of the altar which before the sepulchre of the oft-mentioned and oftener to be mentioned Lord Dionysius was dedicated, through a divine and memorable revelation, by the command of that most holy Martyr himself, in honour of God and of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who were shown present, by the blessed and angelic man Stephen, the supreme Pontiff, was anointed king of the Franks by the same apostolic Pope during the sacred solemnities of the Masses, together with his two sons, namely Carloman and our Lord and father of divine memory Charles, rightly surnamed the Great, and received the blessing of the heavenly gift." Launoy indeed conjectures, in his Discussion by which he defended Sirmond's Dissertation on the Two Dionysiuses against the reply given to it by Millet, chap. 18, that that letter of Louis the Pious was dictated by Hilduin himself or by his fellow-initiates, as he speaks. But this prince is by no means defamed, as he will have it, by the fact that Dagobert is said in the said letter to have been snatched from punishments and claimed for life everlasting by the patronage of St. Dionysius; nor anything else solid by which that of his, very little, as it seems to me at least, for reasons for brevity's sake here

it appears not to be recorded, might confirm his conjecture as probable, does he bring forward. Now, since this is so, and the aforesaid revelation, which the said letter inscribed with the name of Stephen records, therefore undoubtedly took place, as anyone not thinking with Launoy will determine from the words of Louis the Pious already given, why should we not likewise believe that what is also related in it of health prodigiously restored to Pope Stephen through St. Dionysius, and which chiefly pertains here to our purpose, took place? Indeed I judge that this is by no means to be reckoned among the things which seemed to Morin little credible in the same letter or in the account contained in it, and I therefore easily persuade myself that Stephen, especially since the Anastasius cited above writes that he was suddenly healed beyond the expectation of all, was also in fact restored to health in a wonderful manner, as that letter discloses, by St. Dionysius appearing to him together with the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul.

[5] Further, to turn our discourse now to another matter, likewise bearing on this, is recorded to have begun to build at Rome, and certainly Dionysius there let us examine here also what the same Pope Stephen, restored to health by Dionysius and afterwards returned to Rome from Gaul, is recorded to have done. To the letter transcribed here above, which is marked with the name of that holy Pontiff, these following words are subjoined in Surius, some others besides, which do not bear on this, being placed before them: "The same ... holy Pontiff" (namely Stephen II) "carried relics of the most holy Dionysius to Rome, and began to build a monastery in his honour on his own property, which his brother Paul, he having been prevented by death, since he had succeeded him in the Pontificate, nobly completed, and, very many bodies of holy Martyrs having been brought together there, consecrated; or, as he had been commanded by his brother and predecessor, he established in it servants of the Lord, Greeks by nation, and caused the same monastery to be called 'at the holy Martyrs in the school of the Greeks,' to the honour and memory of the most precious Dionysius and his companions, whose cult redounds to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Whether what is here handed down to memory is to be attributed to Hilduin or to another, perhaps also a monk of Saint-Denis, I cannot declare for certain; but from whomever at length it be established to have proceeded, Launoy contends, in his Discussion just cited here, that the monastery mentioned in the recited words was neither begun to be founded at Rome by Pope Stephen in honour of St. Dionysius, as is related in them, nor that Greek monks were established in it by Paul, Stephen's brother and successor, that St. Dionysius might be venerated by them; and he does so for this reason, that, as he says in the same place, it is expressly asserted, both by Pope Paul in the letter given concerning the foundation of the same monastery and by Anastasius the Librarian in the Life of this Pontiff, that that monastery was built, and the monks established in it, in honour of St. Stephen, Pope and Martyr, and of St. Sylvester, no mention at all being made of St. Dionysius.

[6] after the 7th century had a church, and the same also, by many miracles, But this writer most openly teaches, in the Life of Pope Nicholas I, that at least the greater church of the monastery built by Pope Paul in honour of SS. Stephen and Sylvester was distinguished with the name of St. Dionysius; and hence it comes about that it appears not altogether improbable that that greater church was begun to be founded at Rome in honour of St. Dionysius by Pope Stephen, either in fact and work, as I have already hinted in the Commentary prefixed to the fabulous Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, §2, or at any rate by virtue of a mandate which he gave when dying to his brother Paul, built through the latter from the very foundations, and that the monastery afterwards joined to it was given to Greek monks for the end which I expressed in the same place. However that may be, we have it from the cited Anastasius the librarian that there existed at Rome in the 9th century, when Pope Nicholas I presided over the universal Church, a notable church which was dedicated to God under the name of Dionysius. And thus, from the things argued hitherto in the present §, two things which chiefly bear here on our matter become known now, at least in some way: namely the miracle wrought by which health was restored to Pope Stephen II by Dionysius, and a church built for him at Rome after the 7th century, whether by that supreme Pontiff himself as a token of a grateful mind, or by another, whoever at length he was. But if, further, that miracle, surely not certain on every side, as is sufficiently clear from what has been said, perhaps displeases anyone for that reason, I have thought it to be placed before the reader's eyes in this Appendix, lest I should leave anything wanting here which someone perhaps could judge very worthy of mention; and I put it forward in the first place lest I should exhibit what, from what has been said, is not wholly certain mixed with a few other miracles, altogether certain or at least much more certain, which I shall now subjoin.

[7] of which here two In part 2 of the third Benedictine Century there are extant three books on the miracles of St. Dionysius, subjoined to the elogium of Fulrad, abbot of Saint-Denis, from page 343 to page 365; and concerning these, already often cited by us above, these things are noted in the said elogium of Fulrad, num. 20: "It is pleasing to subjoin to the elogium of Fulrad three books on the miracles of St. Dionysius which were wrought under the abbot Fulrad and his successors Maginarius, Fardulf, Walto and Hilduin; of which the two former books were written at the request of Samuel, a monk, I think, of Saint-Denis, praised at the end of the second book, by an anonymous monk of Saint-Denis at the beginning of the principate of Charles the Bald; but the third at its end, as is evident from the conveyance of the bodies related in chap. 1, at which the author was present." Mabillon, the author of this observation, was persuaded, as it appears, that all three books of miracles which he here mentions were committed to writing by one and the same writer; and yet they seem to have proceeded from two different authors, of whom one wrote the two former, the other the latter, from the two different Prologues, of which the latter has one, the former the other, prefixed. However that may be, the same Mabillon rightly teaches us whence chiefly the miracles contained in those three books were originally taken, writing thus in his Work on Diplomatics, page 628, of a certain other little book of the miracles of St. Dionysius seen by him: "That little book is contained in a parchment codex of the greater church of Reims, written out not less than eight hundred years ago, which is the opinion of the most distinguished man Antoine Faure, doctor and fellow of the Sorbonne, provost of the same church, to whom I showed that codex. That little book was used by him who composed the three books on the miracles of the same Saint in the reign of Charles the Bald, edited in the second part of the third Benedictine Century, in which most of the earlier miracles are related in as many words as in the Reims one." Thus he, presently adding also that some of the miracles which he found in the Reims codex cited by him are wanting in the Miracles edited in the aforesaid IIIrd Benedictine Century. Further, he recounts two miracles of this kind entire from the said Reims codex, and these two, entire likewise as they were published by him, I transcribe here, adding only a few others besides which occur in the said books of the Miracles of St. Dionysius already edited and appear more worthy of note.

[8] The first of the two which, as said, Mabillon recounts entire from the mentioned Reims codex in the Reims manuscript codex is couched in him, in the Work cited above, page 628, in the following words: "Under Charles, prince of the Franks and mayor of the palace (as was then the custom), a certain man named Godobald, sprung from the province of Hesbaye, from the estate which is called Arbridum, when he had shown himself a partner and accomplice to a certain count named Dodo in the murder of the most blessed man Lantbert the bishop, God exacting the penalty, was made lame. And so, recognizing his guilt at the admonition of the divine scourge, going round for a long time the places of the Saints, he begged both that pardon be given for his misdeeds and soundness restored to his limbs; and at length, coming to Rome to the threshold of most blessed Peter, he learned by divine revelation that the place of recovering his health had been granted to him in Gaul at the memorials of the holy martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius. Returning, therefore, from the City, he sought the place designated from heaven, and there recovers the health desired and long sought. The abbot of the place at that time was Helardus, who, rejoicing with him at the divine miracle, granted him a place and common sustenance; and so, spending his life in the same place, since he appeared upright to all in many things, at the command of prince Charles he took up the office of abbot there, and administered it most vigorously for twenty-five years." St. Lantbert, or Lambert, mentioned here, of whom we have already treated in our Work on the 17th day of September, was bishop of Maastricht; and since he is here said to have been killed by count Dodo under Charles, prince of the Franks or mayor of the palace, namely Martel or Tudites, who certainly did not hold the Mayoralty of the palace before the year 715, this epoch of the martyrdom inflicted on Lambert by no means agrees with the year 709, to which we established in the same place that it is more probably to be tied.

[9] But although this be so, the miracle related in the words already given undoubtedly happened after the 7th century, found by Mabillon, which suffices for our present purpose. Let us now transcribe the other which Mabillon recites entire from the Reims codex. In the cited Work of this writer, page 630, it is set forth in these following words: "Besides, we have determined that this is not to be negligently omitted, which the Almighty willed to be done for His own praise by the same Martyr. In the time, then, of the aforesaid king Pippin there was a certain count named Gerard, of Paris, whose wife was called Rotrudis. She, dwelling on the fisc of Rueil, not far from Paris, about the birthday of blessed Dionysius sees her maids idle: and when they had been called to her, she severely inveighed against them as to why they were growing torpid in idleness. One of them, who was over the rest, said: 'It is the Solemnity of blessed Dionysius, and for this reason we have thought it settled that it should be celebrated solemnly.' And the matron said: 'Go, and work urgently. But we, who are outside his lordship, ought by no means to keep it.' But when they wished to obey her command, the Lord favouring and the merits of the Martyr of Christ obtaining it, suddenly there came so great a flashing of lightning and flood of waters that the house, carried off with all its furniture at one onset, was plunged into the river Seine; and she who would not keep one day as a feast came to lose the whole provision of the year; but the men were by God's providence delivered from that storm. Which we believe was done so that that day might be observed perpetually as solemn."

[10] and three others from the three books of miracles Pepin was raised to the throne of the Franks in the year 752, as is agreed among the learned, and since the miracle narrated here is referred to the age of this prince, it follows that it likewise happened after the 7th century. Further, from the fact which gave the handle or occasion for the miracle, that there was then in

honour of St. Dionysius a feast, on which one also had to abstain from servile Works, celebrated yearly on the ninth day of October, that is on the birthday of that Saint, we are taught. Now to these two miracles which the Reims codex seen by Mabillon comprises I subjoin three others besides, taken from the books of the miracles of St. Dionysius cited above, of which the two former also happened under Pepin, the third under Charlemagne, his son. The first of these these following words set forth in the same place, book 1, chap. 5: "In the time of the said king Pippin a certain man lame from birth, whose name was Otholdo, having gone round the memorials of the Saints for thirty years, one day, placed on a carriage, was carried to the monastery of blessed Dionysius. He, led into his temple before the altar which was first dedicated in honour of the Lord Saviour, while he was praying, the Martyrs supporting him and God having mercy, was granted sudden health. Fulrad the abbot, pitying his need (since indeed he knew neither his family nor his country), and embracing the health conferred by God through the intercession of blessed Dionysius, placed him among those who take the daily stipends of the monastery. So, being tonsured, he both faithfully obeyed the commands of his elders according to his strength, and, for the days that he lived, gave thanks according to his capacity to God and to blessed Dionysius"; and the second, in the same book, chap. XI, these words: "A certain John, a soldier of king Pippin, having set out from Paris, was making his journey along the road which leads to the village of the holy Martyrs. And since on either side the fields of the monastery had begun to whiten with harvests, intent on other, contrary things, he let his horse graze on the crop. A servant of the monastery by chance met him.

[11] in the books of St. Dionysius, "He complains that the crop is being trampled. Then the soldier: 'St. Dionysius,' he says, 'I know, will not eat of this crop.' He had scarcely finished the words when suddenly the horse fell dead to the ground; and he himself was deprived of the use of walking, so much so that he could not even be moved from the place, much less walk on his feet. This was announced to king Pippin, who was not far from the monastery; and because he loved the man very much, he grieved that he had suffered such things. He therefore sent him a silver vessel to offer to St. Dionysius, ordering that he be carried straightway to his holy house: in which, when, the vessel delivered, he prayed, he obtained the fullest health; so that all might manifestly understand both that B. Dionysius cares for the labours of his own, and that he can, if he will, bring help to those who ask without delay. And the vessel remains to this day in the treasury of the church of B. Dionysius." As now regards the third miracle, wrought under Charlemagne, which I said was also to be recounted here, it is related thus in the same first of the two said books of the miracles of St. Dionysius, chap. 20: "When Karolus, distinguished not only in glory but also in power, was conducting with memorable industry the war undertaken against the Saxons, against which nation the Franks fought long and spiritedly, sharpening the forces of the army by his presence, it happened that Fardulf, who, Maginarius departing this light, had succeeded to the governing of the monastery of the Saints, was present among the others who, summoned from every side, had flowed together to bear the weight of battle and to curb the audacity of the nation.

[12] "He had caused the pledges of the blessed Martyrs to be carried with him, inserted in the IIIrd Benedictine Century, are related, and had appointed clerics as guardians who set out with him, so that by them, succeeding one another in turn, due religious observance might be shown. One of these, Rothardus by name, having set a candle before them, under what pressing necessity is uncertain, went away, having locked the door of the little house. The solemn altar was then a wooden board, which, covered with a linen cloth, had made the form of an altar. Onto it, then, the candle falling burned up entirely, but not even the linen cloth with which the board was concealed was scorched. A splendid and truly stupendous miracle, that a linen covering with fire placed upon it should not be scorched. You would have seen that the linen, under cover of the relics, had changed its nature, and that the food friendly to fires had suddenly been hardened by the merit of the Martyrs. The guardian and others coming up found, the candle burned out, the relics and the linen intact: only its ash indicated what had happened. Lifting up the linen, then, and shaking it out, when they had proved that it had lost neither its integrity nor its whiteness, exulting with great joy they report the order of what had been done to Fardulf the Abbot. Which being known, he gave solemn thanks with them to God and to the holy Martyrs." From the fact that the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius are here said to have been carried to the camp of Charlemagne when about to fight against the Saxons, Mabillon subjoins the following observation to the miracle now related. "Hence," he says, "it is evident that St. Dionysius, whom all the early kings of the Franks are accustomed to call their special patron in the diplomas granted to the monastery of Saint-Denis, was already then in war held as the defender of Gaul; and that for this reason his relics were carried to the camp by monks. Indeed Charles the Bald, on the point of battle engaged with the Northmen at Charlevanne, visited the sepulchre of blessed Dionysius, to beg heavenly help through him; and in the year MCCXIV the Franks, under king Philip, fighting against the emperor Otto, are said to have invoked blessed Dionysius, apostle of the Franks, in anguish of heart, in the book on the Triumph of St. Landebert, bishop of Liège, obtained at Steppes, chap. 15."

[13] then illustrious by those wrought, honour in other places Thus the cited writer. And of the matter of which he here speaks discourse will return presently below; but as regards the miracles of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius later than the seventh century, and already recounted here as I had determined, all these, as I have taught, happened in the age of Charles Martel, king Pepin and Charlemagne; and many were likewise wrought under Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, both near the tombs of our Saints and in the abbey of Fleury in the diocese of Orléans, when their relics, which the abbot Boso had received from Hilduin, were brought thither. And of the former indeed Hilduin teaches us in his Rescript to Louis the Pious, very often cited above; of the latter Adrevald, monk of Fleury, in the miracles of St. Benedict inserted in our Work on the 21st day of March, book 1, chap. 3. The words in which both the latter does this, who affirms that he saw, while still a little boy, some of the almost innumerable miracles then wrought, as he says, at Fleury, and Hilduin, who does it only in general, relating no miracle at all in particular, I pass over for brevity's sake, as also, lest this volume grow to an immense mass, the remaining miracles which are contained in the said three books of the Miracles of St. Dionysius. Those which have just been related by name from these and from Mabillon, together with the general notice supplied of many others besides wrought after the 7th century, suffice for us to judge that Dionysius shone forth even then with the glory of miracles, and was held a most powerful patron with God. Hence, further, it came about that very many churches were erected to him in divers places, even, or especially, at that time. And these were indeed so great in number that to enumerate them all would be too long and exceedingly difficult.

[14] and in the first place at Reims, where also, what here But although this is so, and it is therefore fixed to abstain here no less from enumerating them than from the remaining miracles of St. Dionysius later than the seventh century, I nevertheless cannot allow myself wholly to pass over here in silence both the church in which the relics of St. Dionysius and his Companions, carried to Reims in the year 887 for fear of the Northmen devastating Gaul, rested for the space of three years, and at the same time the miracle which was then done there. And that church indeed, which, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach from Flodoard in volume 9, col. 288, was formerly the burial place of the canons of Reims, was afterwards distinguished with the name of St. Dionysius, most celebrated, together with the monastery which was added to it and still exists now; and as regards the miracle wrought while the relics of St. Dionysius rested in the said church, it is related by Flodoard in the History of Reims, book 1, chap. 24, and is ascribed at least in part to St. Dionysius; and since I find nowhere related by an author of equally approved credit any other which happened at that time, and it does not appear to be doubted that it is consonant with the truth, I think it will come about that, if it is likewise placed before the eyes here together with the five others mentioned above, a thing not unwelcome will be furnished to the reader. And so I transcribe here the very words in which it is narrated by that writer at the place just cited. They read thus: "Through sloth ... or the rarity of writers, it is established that very many wonders have been neglected in silence. We, however, have decided to insert one which we have lately learned was done.

[15] is narrated from Flodoard, "At length, on a certain Saturday, the Vespers of the Lord's day already approaching, a certain poor little woman named Gillaidis, of the household of St. Dionysius, of the estate of Upper Cortis *, while she was turning a mill by hand, the handle of the mill itself stuck to her right hand, so that it could be torn away by no one. At length she is compelled to cut off the handle of the mill on both sides of her hand, unwilling to carry with her the evidence of her wretched work. But anxious for her welfare, since the members of B. Dionysius were then kept at Reims on account of the harrying of the pagans, she strives with swift step to approach the pledges of the same holy Martyr, her Lord. Arriving, then, having fallen to the ground with great fear and reverence, she prays for deliverance from the misery of so great a confusion. When she had done this day and night, not despairing of receiving a remedy thence, there appeared to her in sleep one in clerical habit, clothed in a white garment, with a pleasant face, very white hair, a countenance somewhat lean, saying to her: 'Rise up from here and go to St. Theodoric: because on the second Feria, which is the day after tomorrow, his festival will be celebrated; and see that you do not appear empty in his house; but take wax, as far as your means at present allow, and so go to his church, and you will obtain what you implore by his intervention.' She soon awaking, stupefied at this vision, prays that the things seen may be confirmed to her according to the will of God, and with joy hastens to carry out the commands. She came, then, to the church of the Saint on the day of the venerable solemnity, namely of blessed Theodoric, having had three weeks since that peril had befallen her.

[16] "Then, prostrating herself before his sepulchre with tears, she pours out prayers for her welfare, the miracle happened, obtained. and persevering there the whole night in prayer, she humbly and confidently begs pardon for her sins; and while she still lay before the tomb of the blessed confessor of Christ, the divine grace commanding, through the intercession of the Saint the hands of the woman herself began little by little to be disjoined from the wood, and to be opened without injury of any pain; and so then the whole hand is spread out, and the wood, quicker than speech, slips to the pavement, as if it seemed never to have stuck to the hand. And many who were present, seeing this miracle of the heavenly piety, glorified God, wonderful in His Saints." The woman who, while the relics of our Saints were kept in the Reims church mentioned above, to which, as said, they had been carried in the year 887, was divinely punished in a plainly singular manner because she was working at the mill on the evening preceding the Lord's day, and afterwards by a miracle the punishment inflicted on her

was freed, as is here related by Flodoard, teaches us that it was then forbidden to attend to servile works not only on the Lord's day but also on the evening which immediately preceded it. Further, by this miracle, which beyond all doubt was to be ascribed no less to St. Dionysius than to St. Theodoric, the veneration of St. Dionysius among the people of Reims very probably increased not a little. Certainly afterwards the church in which his relics and those of his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius had then rested among them was distinguished, as I have already taught, with the name of Dionysius, and enlarged with a monastery of the same name in his honour. Nor did the veneration of our Saints among the people of Reims and other peoples of Gaul receive increases after the 7th century only from the miracles mentioned above, and accordingly also from that which I have just recounted from Flodoard; but the things to be said in the immediately following chap. will show that the very kings of Gaul also brought it about by their example that it should then increase more and more widely throughout all Gaul.

* in the vernacular, Consevreu.

CHAPTER II.

How the Saints after the 7th century were honoured by the very kings of Gaul, and enjoyed a cult spread even beyond Gaul.

Dionysius, held in great honour even by the very kings of Gaul Most of the kings of Gaul who flourished after the 7th century not only venerated our Saints exceedingly, but also not seldom openly gave by no means doubtful specimens of the veneration with which they attended them. To recount all and each of these here would be a longer business, and since the mass of the volume, already almost too great, now compels us to study brevity, I shall adduce only a few out of many, and of these also I shall touch on only the chief heads, roughly as they first present themselves. That the kings of the Franks later than the 7th century frequently visited the sepulchre of St. Dionysius, and there, when they were either about to go to war or to undertake a longer or more difficult journey, implored his help with great solemnity, is ascertained from the Histories of the Frankish or French nation. There also they received the standard which was to be borne before them in warlike expeditions; and there are those who, as Tillemont says in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 450, contend that that most celebrated flame-coloured standard which was called by the French l'Oriflamme was the very labarum of the abbey of Saint-Denis. They invoked Dionysius in battles, and, crediting the success of their arms to the powerful patronage which he had with God, they came also to the Dionysian church to give him thanks for the victory obtained; nor did they desire their ashes to be laid after death in any other place than that in which the ashes of St. Dionysius were laid. Pepin, as we saw above, began to build a new church for St. Dionysius when the old one, which St. Genevieve had built for him, had fallen down; and since Charlemagne, his son, afterwards brought it to completion, as we likewise saw above, both these princes surely thus manifested their veneration towards St. Dionysius by erecting a public monument.

[18] held after the 7th century, with a plainly notable through all No less clearly did Louis the Pious make plain to all how greatly he venerated Dionysius by the letter written by him to Hilduin, which I weighed in the Commentary prefixed to the fictitious Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, §1. Further, what Charles the Bald did tending likewise to this, the Observation of Mabillon on the miracle related at num. 9, transcribed here above, teaches us. To turn my discourse now to St. Louis (for I have no mind to enumerate all the kings of Gaul who next followed Charles the Bald), he indeed always held St. Dionysius in the highest veneration, and not seldom, and most of all when he was either preparing himself for the Overseas expeditions against the Saracens or was just about to undertake them, made it attested by public exercises of piety, as may be seen in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of French History, pages 384 and 401. Philip III, son of St. Louis, before he went on a warlike expedition against Alfonso, king of Castile, came to the basilica of Saint-Denis, and there, as is read in his Deeds in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of France, page 533, having received the Dionysian standard from the hand of the abbot, suppliantly prayed God to favour his undertakings. In a word, scarcely any king of Gaul is to be found from the 8th century who did not show by some public token his veneration towards St. Dionysius. Further, this notable veneration and piety towards the Saint flowed from the kings to the nobles and princes and even to the people itself, and perhaps also brought it about that Dionysius, although he seemed to be, and deservedly to be able to be called, only the apostle of the Parisians, was nevertheless thought by some to be both Apostle and patron of the whole of Gaul.

[19] However that may be, he obtained there in many places honours not less than if he had in fact been apostle of the whole of Gaul. widely through Gaul, and especially, whether at Paris Certainly it is ascertained that his feast was most celebrated in that whole kingdom, and was celebrated yearly by many churches, with the obligation also added of abstaining from servile works. Now indeed, in order to provide for the daily food and necessity of workmen, that obligation has been abrogated in many places; but the cult which was then accustomed to be shown to St. Dionysius by the clergy is shown to him by the same still today. This is done, as is also commonly known, on the 9th day of October, and on it also the Saint, together with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, stands inscribed in the sacred Fasti both older and more recent, namely the Hieronymian Apographs, the Little Roman Martyrology, Ado, Usuard, Notker, Rabanus, the present Roman Martyrology and very many other hagiologies not to be named here for brevity's sake. And this day of October was indeed chosen for celebrating the martyrdom of St. Dionysius and his companions, as the Acts already edited here hint by these words, "in whose" (namely of Dionysius and his Companions) "passion on the 7th before the Ides of October the Lord has willed us to rejoice." But besides, other days were adopted on which commemorations also of other matters or events pertaining to our Saints should be celebrated, by annual feasts instituted in their honour whether in the abbey of Saint-Denis or in the diocese of Paris. Among these feasts the first place after the chief one, which, as said, falls on the 9th day of October, sacred to commemorating the martyrdom of our Saints, is held by that by which, on the 22nd day of April, the finding of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, inserted also in some sacred Fasti at that time, is celebrated yearly in the diocese of Paris; what this finding is I have taught in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of our Saints already given, num. 212 and following.

[20] Du Saussay, in the Gallican Martyrology composed by him, at the said day of April, distinguishes the Feast by which, as said, the finding of our Saints is celebrated yearly on the 22nd day of April, or in the diocese of Paris by the name not of a finding but of a revelation, and records in his said Martyrology on the 23rd day of March another Feast of our Saints, which he names "the first finding of the sacred bodies of St. Dionysius and his companion Martyrs." In the Acts of our Saints, as they were first brought out by Bosquet, these following words are read: "The aforesaid matron, however, unmindful of these secrets, as soon as the fury of the persecution had grown lukewarm, saw in sleep the place keeping the bones of such great ones glowing, and with the solicitude that was fitting sought it out, and, having found it, marked it by the construction of a prominent mausoleum." I would believe, therefore, that du Saussay, in his announcement on the 22nd day of April, had regard to the vision by which it is here narrated that it was revealed to the woman in what place the bodies of our Saints lay, and hence distinguished the feast customarily celebrated on this day at Paris in honour of our Saints by the name not of a finding, as others do, but of a revelation; and further, that by the first finding of St. Dionysius and his Companions, which, as I have already noted, he announces on the 23rd day of March, he wished to designate that happy event in which these were discovered by that woman after the said vision. This opinion stands because he calls the finding of our Saints which he records on the 23rd day of March the first, and undoubtedly does so having regard to the other finding, which he afterwards mentions on the 22nd day of May.

[21] and in the monastery of Saint-Denis, as the things which Moreover, the finding which he records on the 23rd day of March he assigns to the village of Catulanum in the Parisian district; and the other, which he announces on the 22nd day of May in these words, "In the Parisian district, in the town of Saint-Denis, the finding of the garments and dust of the holy Martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius in the priory de Strata, where their bodies first lay," he openly places in the town of Saint-Denis and in the priory mentioned here, situated in it. Since this is so, it is not to be doubted that by the former announcement he designates the finding by which, as the Acts of our Saints already edited teach at num. 12, their sacred bodies were found first by the woman in the village of Catolacus, and by the latter the other, by which, as some suppose, giving credit to the writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, they were found secondly by Dagobert in the priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée. But not this, but only the former finding of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius was formerly celebrated at Paris yearly with a solemn feast and is still celebrated today; nor can Dagobert rightly be said to have found the bodies of our Saints in the priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, as I showed in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts just edited, num. 213. But let these things now suffice on that matter; let us now say a few things about another feast of our Saints, which is also announced by du Saussay on the 9th day of June. There is celebrated yearly on it in the monastery of Saint-Denis the uncovering of the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, which is reported to have been carried out about the middle of the 11th century, in order that the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg in Germany, who contended that the body of St. Dionysius had been brought by theft from France to their church, might be convicted of falsehood. But discourse will be held of that uncovering below, when I shall examine the controversy by which the monks of Saint-Denis in France and the said monks in Germany have long disputed among themselves, and still now dispute, about the possession of the body of St. Dionysius.

[22] forward here, Let us proceed to unfold the remaining proofs of the cult paid to St. Dionysius and his Companions, whether in the Diocese of Paris or at least in the monastery of Saint-Denis, which is situated in it. Du Saussay, in his Gallican Martyrology, on the 28th day of July supplies this following announcement: "On the same day" (namely the 28th of July), "in the same place" (namely at Sandionysiopolis), "the apparition of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and also of blessed Dionysius and his companions, made to the same Pope Stephen" (namely the second of this name), "when, praying by night in the basilica of the Martyrs themselves, he was divinely healed through St. Dionysius from a violent sickness from which he had long laboured, and received from him the command of consecrating that altar" (of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul) "and the promise of returning safely to his own see, from which he had been driven out in the preceding year (751) by the Lombards." What is to be judged of the apparition mentioned here,

can be determined in some way from what I discussed in the preceding chap. Meanwhile, whether it took place or did not, the announcement of it already given, or, if you prefer, the feast by which it is commemorated yearly in the monastery of Saint-Denis on the same 28th day of July on which it is narrated to have happened, at any rate furnishes another proof of the cult accustomed to be paid to St. Dionysius there. In the old Calendar which stands inserted in volume 10 of d'Achery's Spicilegium from page 130 to page 142, these following words are read on the 15th day of July: "The Ides. The reception of the relics of St. Dionysius with his companions." That Kalendar, as appears from the year 854, which it has ascribed to it at the last day of the year, was undoubtedly made in the reign of Louis the Pious; so that certainly that feast of the Saints which it announces in the words given was celebrated already from the age of that prince; but whether elsewhere or in the diocese of Paris I cannot declare for certain, because the Kalendar, announcing the said reception of the relics which it mentions, does not add the name of the church by which it was made. Nor could I find either what is the translation or deposition of the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius announced on the 17th day of February by Maurolico and Ferrari.

[23] But the announcement of yet another feast or solemnity, which is better known, although meanwhile, what of the consecration of the Dionysian church, and which also pertains in some way to the cult paid to St. Dionysius in the church of Saint-Denis, occurs among divers hagiologists. On the 24th day of February "the dedication of the church of St. Dionysius the bishop near Paris, formerly made by Christ appearing," is celebrated in the Martyrologies composed by Wion, Dorgan, Ménard, Bucelin, du Saussay and Ferrari, and likewise in our manuscript Florarium. A very prolix History of this dedication Bucelin, at the place cited, and some other writers supply. It will help to set it in summary before the reader's eyes here, before I declare whether it appears to me true or false. While everything necessary for the dedication, soon to follow, of the church built from the foundations by Dagobert I, king of the Franks, was being prepared with the greatest zeal, a leper, covered all over with ulcers, left alone at night time in the temple, whether under pretext of religion or in hope of recovering health is uncertain, saw Christ the Lord Himself, the Apostles Peter and Paul ministering to Him and Dionysius and his companion Martyrs standing by, performing the consecration of the place and imprinting clear signs of it on the walls; and when, being commanded by Christ to report to the bishops what he had seen, he answered that credence would not be given him, the Lord at once, His hand applied, healed the man; and he afterwards, showing the skin or hide which, when he received this benefit, had been miraculously stripped from him and cast onto some stone of the church, found credence with Dagobert and the bishops; and hence these, having also seen the most manifest indications of the consecration made by the Lord Himself, which were imprinted on the walls and could not be effaced, permitted it to be celebrated yearly with solemn rite.

[24] Doublet, who sets forth most diffusely in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 1, chap. 22, the matter already set forth in summary in this manner, made by Christ Himself, is narrated, for a pure alleges at the end, in his own favour, to win credence for his narration, the Legends, Breviaries and Manuscripts of his monastery, and likewise Suger the abbot, Vincent of Beauvais, Algeria, the annalists of France and other writers whom he does not express by name, nay even the very charters of the kings of France, none of which however is likewise expressed by name. But none at all of the writers whom either he here, or Bucelin or the other hagiologists cited above, recording the consecration of the church of St. Dionysius performed by Christ Himself, cite in their own favour is sufficiently ancient to be of a nature to produce certain and undoubted credence, by his sole authority, for so wonderful a thing, about which there is the deepest silence among absolutely all writers both nearly contemporary and contemporary. The matter will be evident from what is now to be said. Of all the writers who are adduced to confirm that history, or rather fable, the most ancient is Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis from the year 1122 up to the year 1151. And he indeed, speaking of the consecration of the new church of Saint-Denis built by him, makes mention, in Duchesne, volume 4 of the Writers of France, page 354, of the consecration made by Christ Himself of the ancient church of Saint-Denis built by Dagobert; but since Suger flourished only in the 12th century, as I have already hinted, he lived removed by more than four centuries from the age of Dagobert, who died in the year 638, as all now agree; and since this is so, he surely could not have had ascertained by himself what he records of the consecration, made by Christ, of the church built by Dagobert.

[25] and I think a fiction He adds indeed at the place cited that venerable writings testify to it; but what or of what sort they are he does not declare. I would believe that in the age of Suger they were not yet very ancient, nay that the very opinion of the church of Saint-Denis formerly consecrated by Christ was not yet very old at that time. Why this opinion stands you will understand from what is now to be said. The anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, who, as I taught above, flourished at the beginning of the 9th century, and therefore more than two centuries before Suger, makes no mention at all of a consecration by which the church built by Dagobert was dedicated by Christ Himself; but if at that time even any rumour whatever of so wonderful a thing, which would have been of a nature to commend the church of Saint-Denis exceedingly and to render it venerable, had spread abroad, who would think it would have come about that that writer, who speaks of it, built from the foundations by Dagobert as he discloses, in more than one place in the Deeds of this prince written by him, would nowhere in them have recorded so memorable a prerogative of the same? Indeed, since he brought not a few fables or fictions into the Deeds of Dagobert written by him, as I taught above, in order to render the beginnings of the monastery of Saint-Denis, of which he was an inmate and monk, more august, it appears beyond doubt, even for that reason, that he would likewise have brought into them the wonderful consecration of which we are here speaking, had it been known to him in any way at all, because he could scarcely have found or even invented anything else more apt for making the church of his monastery more august.

[26] for reasons. Now, since the matter stands thus, and the opinion which establishes that the church of Saint-Denis built by Dagobert was consecrated by Christ Himself was therefore not even known to the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, it follows that it is perhaps at most only two centuries older than the age of the abbot Suger. Will you perhaps say that it could have come about that, even if the wonderful consecration of which we treat here had taken place, the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert was nevertheless ignorant of it? But since, after it had happened, it was to be celebrated yearly with a solemn feast, as they say, by the precept of the bishops, who would persuade himself that it could, had it ever taken place, have been unknown to a monk, an inmate of the monastery in which it must have been done? And these things indeed persuade that credence is not to be given to Suger and to other writers still more recent than he in the matter of which we are treating here; and as now regards the royal charters which the cited Doublet also cites in his favour, these certainly will not have been older than the ninth century, and therefore are very little apt for winning credence for the matter of which we are here speaking. For since the royal Charters cited by Doublet are undoubtedly none other than those which were granted to the monastery of Saint-Denis by the kings of the Franks, and the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert, as Bouquet in the Notice prefixed to these and other learned men teach, turned over the charters imparted to it by the kings of the Franks before his age, that is before the ninth century, and yet nowhere makes mention of a consecration which the church of Saint-Denis built by Dagobert received from Christ Himself, it follows that he certainly found it recorded in none of those charters, inasmuch as otherwise, as is clear from what has been said, he would undoubtedly have recorded it; and that accordingly, if Doublet perhaps found in the monastery of Saint-Denis any royal charters in which that wonderful consecration is related, these were undoubtedly not granted before the 9th century.

[27] What more? Since the matter stands thus, and these therefore are no more apt than Suger and the other writers not earlier than the ninth century showing that narration wholly unworthy of credence, to produce certain credence for so wonderful a thing, done long before that century, the next thing is that, as the divers miracles and prodigies which are read in the anonymous writer of the Deeds of Dagobert are thought to have been invented by that writer to render the beginnings of his monastery more august, so also we should judge that that wonderful consecration of the ancient church of Saint-Denis, which Doublet and the hagiologists cited above record, was likewise born solely of the license of feigning, in order that this most celebrated sacred building might be rendered still more celebrated and august. Doublet indeed recounts some miracles which were wrought in that temple soon after this consecration, so that it might be believed that the temple of Saint-Denis truly received consecration from Christ Himself; but he adds nothing at all sufficiently solid which is in any way apt to win credence for them. Did he perhaps find them in the ancient Breviaries or Legends of his monastery? This indeed I would easily believe; but since Doublet does not teach the age of those monuments, we surely ought not to be moved by things which, for causes sought also from elsewhere, are for the most part not undeservedly suspect to the learned, to give credence either to the said miracles or to the very prodigious consecration, in confirmation of which these were done, applied by Christ Himself to the temple of Saint-Denis which Dagobert built. Nor indeed is the consecration of the church of Saint-Denis, which is celebrated yearly by the monks of Saint-Denis on the 24th day of February, referred to the church which Dagobert built, but to that which, begun by Pepin, Charlemagne, as we saw above, brought to completion. Hear what Félibien says, opportunely for our purpose, in the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 57, of the new church of Saint-Denis begun to be founded by Pepin and completed by Charlemagne, in French words here rendered by me into Latin.

[28] showing, "The new building," he says, "was brought to its top in the month of February of the year 775, and was fit to receive consecration. The king came for this cause to Saint-Denis, and ordered the ceremony of dedication to be performed with that pomp which could be expected from so magnificent a prince. The monastery experienced his munificence amid the joys of the solemnity; he gave to it as a gift his estates of Luzarches in the territory of Paris, together with the church of the place, which had been built under the invocation of SS. Cosmas and Damian, and another estate situated at Messy in the diocese of Meaux. His charter was given in the monastery of St. Dionysius on the fifth before the Kalends of March, in the seventh year of his reign in France and the first in Lombardy; which designates the year 775 and the 25th day of February; and it is probable that the dedication was performed on the day before the feast of St. Matthias; on which day yearly

the anniversary feast of the dedication of the church is still celebrated today at Saint-Denis." The charter given by Charlemagne to the abbey of Saint-Denis, which Félibien cites here, he recounts entire among the documents which he added at the end of the History of Saint-Denis composed by him, part 1, num. 51; and since in it, which is noted there as truly given, as he says, on the 5th before the Kalends of March, that is on the 25th day of February, Charlemagne affirms that he had just ordered the church of St. Dionysius which he built to be dedicated with great beauty, indeed it comes out probable, nay most probable and nearly beyond doubt, that that dedication was performed on no other day than that which immediately preceded the 25th of February. Very probably, therefore, the dedication of the church of Saint-Denis, which is celebrated yearly at Saint-Denis on the 24th day of February, is referred to the church built not by Dagobert but by Charlemagne, or, what comes to the same, that feast drew its origin not from the consecration of the church which was made under Dagobert, but from that which was made under Charlemagne.

[29] seems to be held, the things just adduced show, by ecclesiastical cult But if, further, as follows hence, the dedication of the church of Saint-Denis which was made under Dagobert is not celebrated yearly at Saint-Denis on that day, it follows that the annual feast which was instituted in memory of that dedication, performed by Christ Himself in the reign of Dagobert, is undoubtedly fictitious. Hence, further, and from other things already brought forward above, it follows further that the very consecration also of the church of Saint-Denis said to have been performed by Christ is deservedly to be held fictitious. Nor does what Doublet besides affirms at the place cited above deserve to be touched with a less sharp censure, about the skin stripped by a prodigy from the leper when he was healed by Christ and kept in the monastery of Saint-Denis together with other sacred relics as a perpetual testimony of the consecration, already sufficiently discussed here, and about the name of St. Peregrinus afterwards given to the same venerated leper. Of St. Peregrinus, bishop of Auxerre, who suffered martyrdom in the 3rd century, we have already treated in the third volume of May on the 16th day of May, on which he is marked in the sacred Fasti, and we showed in the same place, page 562, that his sacred body was formerly translated, perhaps in the reign of Dagobert, to the church of Saint-Denis, where Félibien, in the History of that sacred monastery, page 465, hints that it is still kept today. Did perhaps this translation of St. Peregrinus from Auxerre to the monastery of Saint-Denis, which, as is related, was performed not without a prodigy, formerly furnish the occasion or handle for feigning what Doublet says of the leper restored to health by Christ and of the name of St. Peregrinus afterwards given to him? However that may be, this circumstance attached to the consecration just discussed surely deserves no less than the consecration itself to be held a fiction. But although the matter stands thus, the consecration of the church of Saint-Denis made in the reign of Charlemagne is at any rate, as the things just adduced from Félibien concerning Charlemagne prove, celebrated yearly at Saint-Denis on the 24th day of February, and thus again we have a proof of the cult paid there to this Saint of ours and his companions SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius.

[30] Further, that I may also leave untouched nothing which pertains to the cult customarily paid to our Saints, whether at Paris or chiefly in the diocese of Paris, enjoyed, I add to the things alleged above some others besides which bear on it. Not only there is the secondary or less principal feast, by which, as I have already taught, the finding of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius is commemorated yearly on the 22nd day of April, added to the primary or chief feast by which their birthday or martyrdom is celebrated yearly on the 9th day of October; but also this latter feast is performed with the same rite as the Epiphany of the Lord and the feast of All Saints, the "greater-solemn" rite as it is called, and with an Octave. Moreover, what also constitutes a part, most worthy of note, of the cult customarily paid to our Saints there, seven stations in their honour have been instituted at Paris and in the vicinity of this city, as I learn from Baillet and from the Paris Kalendars called spiritual. The first of these is held at the church of the most holy virgin Mary of the Fields, the second at St. Stephen des Grès, or, as Baillet will have it in the History of the cult of our Saints which he supplies on the 9th day of October, "de Egressu," the third at St. Benedict's, the fourth at Saint-Denis-du-Pas, the fifth at Saint-Denis-de-la-Chartre, where they will also have the chains of the Saints to be kept, the sixth at that of the Holy Martyrs, or Montmartre, and the seventh finally in the church of Saint-Denis and in the priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée, which is near to it. Those who instituted those stations undoubtedly had as their purpose that the memory not only of the martyrdom endured by the Saints, but also of the prison in which they were shut up, of the chains with which they were bound, of the torments with which they were afflicted, and finally also of the tomb in which they were laid, should be frequently recalled. And these are the things which I have found chiefly to be recorded of the cult of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, especially in the diocese of Paris and in the abbey of Saint-Denis.

[31] It pleases me now to set forth how this cult was also introduced into the Premonstratensian and Cistercian orders, [and that it was introduced, at the time and in the manner set forth here, into the Cistercian] and how widely it was spread beyond Gaul. When the abbot and monks of Saint-Denis had asked the Cistercians to keep the feast of St. Dionysius, these decreed, in the general chapter which they held in the year 1232, that it should be celebrated yearly with great solemnity in all the monasteries of their order; and not very long afterwards the Premonstratensians followed in their footsteps in their general chapter of the year 1236 at the prayers of the same monks of Saint-Denis. The letters by which both the latter and the former, from their general chapters held at the time I have already stated, made the monks of Saint-Denis more certain that this had been done by them, Félibien recounts entire in the authentic Documents added at the end of the History of Saint-Denis composed by him, part 1, num. 167 and 169. Their words, which give proved what I have just asserted, I transcribe here. Those of the Cistercians are these following: "From this also (by the grace of the Lord) ... that laudable petition of yours, which you directed to us through the venerable F., Chancellor of Meaux, for honouring the most glorious father and patron, yours and ours, blessed Dionysius; which, because we perceived that it flowed from the fount of charity and devotion, we have thought should be met with a grateful mind and assent, admitting it with pious devotion within the sanctuary of hearing. We have decreed, therefore, and have judged that it should be written among the statutes of the definition of this year, that on the feast of your aforesaid Father and Patron blessed Dionysius two Masses be celebrated in convent in each abbey of our order throughout the whole order for ever, in the manner of the other festivals on which two Masses are accustomed to be sung in convent; yet so that, while the monks keep holiday, the lay brothers shall work on that day according to the custom of the Order." And those of the Premonstratensians these: "To the Reverend Father in Christ etc., abbot of St. Dionysius in France, greeting, and with prayers a sincere will to his service.

[32] and into the Premonstratensian orders it was introduced, "Considering that your petition is sufficiently favourable and honourable, that a double feast should be made of blessed Dionysius, namely your patron, throughout the whole Order, we have thought it should be admitted, most attentively beseeching your paternity that by your grace, if it please you, you would deign to send us some of the relics of the same Saint, so that we may be held the more devoutly to thanks on this account, the more we shall have experienced your discretion in this part." Whether St. Dionysius still today enjoys among these the cult expressed in the letters of the Cistercians and Premonstratensians partly just recited here, I cannot declare for certain, nor have I thought the matter, because it seemed of less moment, to be inquired into more laboriously. Meanwhile, that Dionysius together with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius still enjoyed a singular cult among the Cistercians and Premonstratensians for a very long time after the time at which the letters I have mentioned were given is gathered from their Breviaries extant with us and printed in the century just elapsed, which not only assign the ecclesiastical Office to be recited of our Saints on the 9th day of October, but also have prefixed to them a Kalendar in which these, no differently from other Saints accustomed to be venerated with a more solemn rite in those two Orders, are marked in red letters. And thus indeed, since the two cited Orders extend themselves also beyond Gaul, the cult of our Saints was in some way spread also beyond the bounds of that kingdom; but whither besides it chiefly reached, the things now to be said will disclose. Pope Stephen II, who, as we saw above, had very probably been restored to health in France by St. Dionysius appearing to him in sleep, having returned thence to Rome safe and sound, first brought the cult of this holy Saviour of his, some of whose relics also, as we likewise saw above, he had taken with him from the monastery of Saint-Denis, to Rome and into Italy, as it appears, from about the year 756.

[33] into other regions also beyond Gaul, and chiefly, Certainly it is ascertained from not a few Breviaries, Missals and ritual books that the Saints are now venerated at Rome from time immemorial, nay already from many centuries back, on the 9th day of October with a yearly ecclesiastical Office under the semi-double rite. Nor is this done at Rome only, but also in other cities and places, even though situated outside Gaul, among all who in venerating the Saints follow the Roman footsteps, everywhere among the nations. But among the churches which, although they do not pertain to the kingdom of Gaul, either now venerate our Saints or at least formerly venerated them, there are also those by which this is done with a more solemn rite than by the Roman Church. And this chiefly holds, or at least formerly held, in one or another church of Germany, as the things to be said presently will show, when I shall first have brought forward some things about the cult which our Saints enjoyed in England also, while the Catholic religion still stood entire there. Félibien, in the History of the abbey of Saint-Denis composed by him, seems to indicate that the feast of St. Dionysius was formerly celebrated by the English in some singular manner. For in it he cites, at page 126, a charter inserted among the authentic documents which he added at the end of the same History, num. 112, and says that in it, St. Edward, king of England, imparting some land situated in the county of Oxford to the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, it is hinted that the feast of St. Dionysius is most celebrated among the English.

[34] But the words which are used by Edward in that Charter, dated in the year 1059, in England also and which bear on Félibien's purpose, are only these following: "I Edward, king of the English, being in peace, in the glory of my kingdom, for the salvation of my soul and of my fathers who reigned before me, ... have given to St. Dionysius, who is indeed named of celebrated memory among us, among

the Franks, however, is both venerated and held, a certain estate named Teintuna, in the territory and county of the city which is called Oxenaforda." Thus, however, as it appears to me at least, the cited holy king of the English does not hint that the feast of St. Dionysius was kept in England in any singular manner, or that it was most celebrated among the nation of the English. However that may be, that our Saints anciently enjoyed ecclesiastical cult in England also appears to me sufficiently certain from elsewhere. The cited Félibien, in the aforesaid authentic Documents, num. 62, also exhibits a charter granted in the year 790 by Offa, king of the Mercians in England, in favour of the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, in which that prince speaks thus: "The donation which our friend and faithful man Duke Berthwald and his brother Eadbald made from their holding of Rotherfield, which is in the district which is called Sussex, on the river Saforda, and from the harbour on the sea, Hastings and Pevensey, as before these days, with witnesses lawfully subscribed, to the same holy" (Dionysius and his Companions) "Martyrs, who by their intercession had raised up the said duke from the excessive infirmity by which he was held, they" (namely Duke Berthwald and his brother Eadbald) "and the aforesaid Maginarius, abbot of Saint-Denis, asking it, we and the assembly of my nobles with one and the same consent praise and confirm."

[35] What if, then, Duke Berthwald, to show himself grateful towards St. Dionysius and his Companions, his saviours, not passed over, not only enriched the monastery of Saint-Denis with the donation mentioned here, but also took care that these should thenceforth enjoy ecclesiastical cult in England? Indeed that this was done many centuries ago, either by him or by others, perhaps the very monks of Saint-Denis themselves, when the priory of Deerhurst in England had been given to them in the year 1069 (see the Monasticon Anglicanum, volume 1, page 547), appears altogether beyond doubt from what I now subjoin. In Martène, volume 5 of the Old Writers and Monuments, from col. 652 to col. 658, there is extant a very ancient English Kalendar, which, as Martène teaches in the prefatory Observation, is prefixed to an ancient book of Sacraments, written for the use of the English church about the year one thousand and brought to the monastery of Jumièges in the diocese of Rouen about the year 1032; and in that very ancient Kalendar, in which only very few Saints are recorded on each day of each month, SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius stand inscribed on the 9th day of October. Moreover, in our literary equipment there is found an ancient English Missal, which both proposes on the 9th day of October a Mass to be celebrated of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, and has prefixed to it a Kalendar in which these are marked on the same day.

[36] through Germany Let us now turn our discourse to the churches of Germany, which, as it appears, easily hold the first place after Gaul in venerating St. Dionysius. With us is extant the Bamberg Breviary, printed at Dillingen in the year 1575, which prescribes on the 9th of October a Mass to be celebrated at Bamberg of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, and besides has prefixed to it a Kalendar in which these, like other Saints to be venerated by the church of Bamberg with a more solemn rite and with an annual feast to which is annexed the obligation of abstaining from servile works, are marked in red letters. But if not all three of our Saints, Dionysius at least enjoys, unless I am mistaken, a still more notable cult at Regensburg in Bavaria. So I gather from what John Baptist, prince of the holy Roman empire and abbot of the Order of St. Benedict at St. Emmeram's at Regensburg, writes in his Dissertation on the body of St. Dionysius translated from Gaul into Bavaria to the city of Regensburg, published in the year 1750. For this writer in that lucubration of his, page 76, has thus: "To this present day every year this feast of the translation" (namely of St. Dionysius) "is kept under the double rite of the second class on the last Sunday after Pentecost. But the festival itself of St. Dionysius is celebrated on the 9th of October under the rite of the first class." So he in the same place of the cult which St. Dionysius enjoys in the abbey or church of St. Emmeram at Regensburg; and what that is which is customarily paid to him in the city and whole diocese of Regensburg he afterwards also discloses, where, having first stated at page 82 that St. Dionysius was chosen as patron by the whole city and diocese of Regensburg, he then affirms at page 83 that his feast is celebrated yearly by the diocese of Regensburg under the greater double rite.

[37] spread itself. Nor does that writer teach us only the things I have already said about the cult of St. Dionysius among the people of Regensburg, but also that the feast by which the translation of the same St. Dionysius is commemorated yearly in the Benedictine monastery of St. Emmeram is celebrated by the precept of Leo IX, supreme Pontiff. And indeed in the letter inscribed with his name, to be cited below more than once, these following words are read: "Moreover we also strictly command that the venerable solemnity of the translation itself" (of the body of St. Dionysius from Gaul into Germany) "be celebrated every year with all pleasantness and joy, both by the brethren of the same church" (namely of St. Emmeram) "and by all of the said city" (of Regensburg). I know indeed that the notable cult which St. Dionysius enjoys among the people of Regensburg arose chiefly from his translation, said to have been made to them from Gaul at the end of the 9th century, and that this is held fictitious by many learned men not only of the French but also of other nations; but whether it is in fact fictitious or not we shall examine in the Appendix immediately following: meanwhile the things alleged here just now from the cited abbot of St. Emmeram show that St. Dionysius enjoys among the people of Regensburg, and besides has enjoyed for a very long time already, a plainly notable cult, although very probably arisen from that translation, whether true or false; which chiefly remained to be said here before I proceeded to other things.

CHAPTER III.

How the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions were often translated for fear of enemies, and were otherwise further honoured and openly brought forth for driving away public dangers.

The bodies of our Saints, which for fear of the Northmen Although indeed Dagobert I, king of the Franks, very probably caused the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius to be transferred from the ancient sarcophagi or shrines in which they lay into new silver ones, as I taught above in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts just edited, num. 214 and the two following, it appears nevertheless altogether certain from what I discussed in the same Commentary, num. 210 and the four following, that those sacred pledges were not translated at the command of that prince either from the priory of Saint-Denis-de-l'Estrée or from elsewhere to the church of the town and monastery of the same name of Saint-Denis. Nor do the things which I adduced likewise in the same Commentary, § X and the two following, seem to leave any room for doubting that they always rested in the same place in which they had first been buried up to the age of Dagobert. But were they not at length moved thence, at least for a time, after Dagobert had been taken from among the living about the year 638? They were carried to the camp of Charlemagne when he was about to make war on the Saxons, as the miracle related in this Appendix, num. XI and following, attests. And indeed I find no translation at all, of whatever kind, applied to the bodies of our Saints, founded on a sufficiently old and credible monument, older or earlier than this one; but before a whole century had elapsed from the death of Charlemagne, three others not altogether unlike it, inasmuch as they too were made only for a time, followed it. That the discourse may proceed in reason and order, I set forth each of the three in the order in which they happened. The Annals of Saint-Bertin speak thus at the year 859: "The bones of the blessed Martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, for fear of the same Danes, were carried into the Mauripensian district, to their own estate of Novientum, and on the 11th before the Kalends of October were diligently placed in caskets."

[39] in the year 859 to Novientum, about twenty These words also of the Annals of Saint-Bertin Launoy recites in the Life and Miracles of St. Dionysius, tenth observation, and then adds: "Novientum is an estate of the Parisian district, which is now named Saint-Cloud: Hincmar in the life of St. Remigius, of Clodoald: 'But the estate of Novientum in the Parisian district, with all things pertaining to it, he gave to the mother church of the city Parisius, where he had been ordained priest.' To this estate, which belonged to the church of Paris, not to the monastery of St. Dionysius, the relics of Dionysius and his companions were translated." Thus he, meaning, namely, that the estate named Novientum, to which the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions were translated in the year 859 for fear of the Northmen or Danes, as the Annals of Saint-Bertin testify, was an estate of that name which pertained not to the monastery of St. Dionysius but to the church of Paris. But since Launoy brings forward nothing at all by which to prove this tenet of his, who, I ask, would think he is to be believed rather than the Annals of Saint-Bertin, which expressly assert that the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions were then translated to an estate named Novientum which was of the right of St. Dionysius, that is, pertained to the monastery of St. Dionysius? No one surely, as I think, who has judged that, when nothing stands in the way, one must stand by the more ancient rather than by the more recent writers in matters done far from our age. And indeed, since Novientum, the estate of the Parisian district now distinguished by the name of Saint-Cloud, to which Launoy contends that the relics of our Saints were then translated, is only about two leagues distant from Paris, indeed, if those sacred pledges had then been translated only to it, they would by no means have been placed in safety against the Northmen, who were then continually threatening the places neighbouring the city of Paris.

[40] distant from the city of Paris by leagues, And so the relics of our Saints were then translated not to the Novientum asserted by Launoy, but to another, on the Seine, in the tract of lands which, called in the cited Annals Mauripensian and in other ancient monuments now Huripensian, now Heripensian, or Morivensian or Moripensian, or by other kindred names as well, is now named in French L'Hurepoix, situated about six leagues from Troyes and eighteen or nearly twenty leagues from the city of Paris and belonging to the abbey of Saint-Denis; where it seemed good to lay them away even in hidden places; and surely very providently and prudently, since otherwise they would not have been safe there either from the Northmen, who a little afterwards were raging far and wide through Gaul with even greater fury than ever before and plundering everything indiscriminately. Further, in what year afterwards the bodies of our Saints were brought back from the aforesaid estate to the monastery of St. Dionysius I find nowhere handed down to memory; but that this was done before the year 876 appears to be concluded from the fact that then, the Northmen having again slipped into Gaul by the Seine, to the land of Upper Cortis, called in French Consevreux, and to Reims

and Laon situated on the Aisne, those sacred pledges were translated again, not from elsewhere, but, as appears from the words which I shall presently subjoin from the miracles of our Saints, inserted in the IIIrd Benedictine Century, part 2, and already very often cited above, from the said monastery.

[41] Those words, in the same place, book 3, chap. 1, set forth this translation, now to be recorded here, and then in the year 876 to the place of the diocese of Reims, and they are these following: "So, then, in the thirty-seventh year of the reign of the most pious Karolus the Third, lover of God and most eager lover of His Saints, but the first of his empire, the sins of the people weighing heavily, and the Gospel sentence also supplying it, by which it is prescribed that nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; and besides the prophetic utterance meeting us, by which he said that the sword had reached even unto the soul; the impious rovers of the world, the Northmen, entering the Seine and laying waste all things round about, accompanied by a throng of monks, the most precious bodies of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius are raised on the day before the Kalends of December, and at length are conducted to Upper Cortis, which the renowned Bertha, daughter of the great king Charles, had given to them for the remedy of her soul. And when they had come to the third milestone from the estate itself, they are taken out of the ship and, no small throng of peoples following, are set down in the church of St. Martin. On the provisioning of which journey, as we afterwards learned from a certain faithful priest named Rodulf, none of those following, by whatever disease he had been held, returned home other than healed." Charles the Bald, who is here called the Third undoubtedly by reason of his grandfather Charlemagne and of the latter's first-born son, named Charles, who died in the year 811 king of the Neustrian Franks, on the 16th before the Kalends of January, that is the 17th day of December, was received with great glory by Pope John VIII in the church of St. Peter at Rome, and, as the Annals of Saint-Bertin cited above already relate, "in the year of the Lord DCCCLXXVI, on the day of the Nativity of the Lord ... was ... crowned emperor."

[42] Further, since the author of those Annals begins the year of the Incarnation from the day of Christ's Birth, of which notice is given here, the place, on the day before the Kalends of December, that is the 30th day of November, on which, while the first year of the empire assumed by Charles the Bald was still running, the bodies of our Saints are said, in the text just transcribed here from their Miracles, to have been raised, the year of Christ 876 was still in course; so that accordingly, since the author who committed these things to writing flourished in the reign of Charles the Bald, or at any rate, as everyone will gather from his words already given, at the end of the ninth century, it can surely in no way be questioned that that event happened at that time. Further, notice of the place to which the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were then translated is supplied by Mabillon, in the Observation subjoined to the chapter or text of the Miracles just recited here, in these words: "Upper Cortis, in the vernacular Consevreu, is situated in the diocese of Reims towards Laon, on the river Aisne, near the village of Caldarda, Chaudard, below chap. 10, still of the right of the monastery of Saint-Denis." Thus he; and that that land was of the right of the monastery of Saint-Denis even in the ninth century, or pertained to it at that time, is clear from the miracle which I narrated in this Appendix, num. 15 and 16, from Flodoard. For the rest, although it is altogether certain and beyond doubt from what has just been alleged that the bodies of our Saints were translated at the time already stated to the mentioned place of the diocese of Reims, I again find nothing committed to writing anywhere from which the time at which they were brought back thence to the monastery of Saint-Denis in France might become known in any way.

[43] But since in the year 887, the Northmen continually laying waste Gaul in wretched manner and then besieging even the very city of Paris, and to Reims also at length in the year, as from the Chronicle the bodies of our Saints were carried to Reims from the very monastery of Saint-Denis, as it appears, it follows that they had been brought back to it at least some time before the said year 887, although meanwhile in what determined year this was done is obscure. Let us now continue the discourse we have begun concerning the third translation of our Saints, likewise to be recorded here. Flodoard, in book 4 of the History of Reims, chap. 8, writes thus of Fulk, archbishop of Reims: "At that time, the Northmen harrying the lands of the Franks and laying waste divers places, this pontiff kindly received and paternally cherished many, both priests and other clerics and monks, flowing together to him from every quarter. Among whom also he received and nourished the monks of St. Dionysius with the precious body of the Martyr himself and the pledges of other Saints." The year in which this was done, or in which Fulk first received the monks of Saint-Denis, fugitives to Reims for fear of the Northmen together with the body of St. Dionysius their patron and the pledges of other Saints, Flodoard does not express, nor does he supply anything from which it can be determined sufficiently certainly; but the chronicle of Reims, which came out in the century just elapsed, does so, opportunely for our present purpose, handing down to memory the following: "In the 5th year of the episcopate of Fulk, archbishop of Reims, the most holy Martyr of Christ Dionysius was translated for fear of the Northmen to the city of Reims, into the church which is now dedicated in his honour, and stayed there for nearly the courses of three years."

[44] is established from that of Reims, had been translated in 887, Since, Hincmar having been taken from among the living in the year 882, Fulk was substituted in the see of Reims, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach in volume 9, col. 35, at the beginning of the year 883, and the fifth year of his episcopate therefore fell in the year of Christ 887, the translation of St. Dionysius to Reims, which is here put together with the fifth year of Fulk's episcopate in the cited chronicle of Reims, undoubtedly happened in this very year. Further, the things which I have already brought forward in this Appendix, num. 14, supply at least some notice, such as it is, of the church in which the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius are narrated in the chronicle of Reims to have rested in the city of Reims; but if anyone perhaps desires a fuller or more distinct one, let him consult the enlarged Gallia Christiana at the place already cited by me there. For the rest, although the time at which the bodies of our Saints, when they had been translated first to Novientum and then to the place distinguished by the name of Upper Cortis, were afterwards brought back from these two places to the monastery of Saint-Denis can in no way at all be defined, as we have already seen — nay perhaps they were not brought back thither from those places, but were translated first from Novientum to Upper Cortis and afterwards thence to Reims — we have nevertheless ascertained from the cited Chronicle of Reims, in which Dionysius is said to have stayed at Reims for only about the courses of three years, that, having been brought to Reims in the year 887, as already said, they were brought back thence to the monastery of Saint-Denis about the year 890. And these are the things which I had to record concerning the three translations of our Saints made in the 9th century for fear of the Northmen. Further, other translations of our Saints besides, which happened much later for fear of other enemies, Félibien recounts in his History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, pages 332, 362, 388, 400, 438 and elsewhere; but these, content to have assigned the author by whom they are recorded, I omit for brevity's sake.

[45] Nor shall I here begin discourse either about the other translation, although made in the same 9th century, if indeed it ever took place, [afterwards, by the care of Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis, from the old resting-place with the greatest] by which, from the monastery of Saint-Denis, not indeed the relics of all our Saints, but at least those of Dionysius, stolen by theft, were carried to Regensburg. For of this, as I promised at the beginning that I would do, I shall treat of set purpose in the other Appendix which will immediately follow this one. But if meanwhile, as they will have it, that theft was in fact committed, whatever things are narrated by writers about the body of St. Dionysius as still kept after the ninth century in the abbey of Saint-Denis in France will certainly have taken place not in the true body of St. Dionysius but in another which was substituted for it. But although this be so, I nevertheless now adduce here some things of this kind, the subject to be treated here so requiring, because they are for the most part connected with the things which occur to be said about the bodies of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius, and because it is by no means certain that the body of St. Dionysius is no longer kept in the abbey of Saint-Denis. And first indeed among these holds place what is found handed down to memory about the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius translated from the old resting-place into a new one by the care of Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis from the year 1122 up to the year 1151, in which he died. He, desiring to render the old church of his monastery, which Charlemagne had substituted for the earlier one built by St. Genevieve, more capacious, by adding new to the old structure, because it did not suffice to hold the more numerous people who often flowed together thither, began from the part midway between the main door and the choir; and when this, enlarged in the manner he had purposed, had already been dedicated to God with solemn rite, soon also, some men conspicuous in dignity as well as piety advising it, he turned his mind to rendering likewise more ample the part behind the choir, which contained the subterranean tomb of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius.

[46] In this upper church, further, to which one had to ascend by steps, the greatest care, from the old resting-place, above the vault of the subterranean tomb or crypt in which the bodies of our Saints lay, he built a new resting-place for them, and likewise before it a new altar in place of the old one, which was either the very altar built by St. Eligius at the feet of St. Dionysius (see Ouen's words transcribed here at num. 211) or at any rate another which had afterwards been substituted for it; and when both that new altar and the new building in which it was erected had now been made fit to receive consecration, this, and at the same time the translation of our Saints from their old resting-place to the new one, was carried out with the greatest solemnity, not a few archbishops and bishops and abbots flocking to it, and Louis VII himself, king of Gaul, carrying the silver shrine containing the sacred remains of St. Dionysius from the old resting-place, in which it lay under the earth, to the new one built above it, in the year 1144, on the 11th day of June appointed by Suger. How all these things were done is set forth in a little book written either by this abbot of Saint-Denis himself, as appears from various locutions suiting Suger alone, or at any rate, as Duchesne, who inserted that opuscule in volume 4 of the Writers of Gaul, found noted in some manuscript copies of it, by brother William, who was Suger's secretary, and wrote it in his name and place. That little book, which, as I have already hinted, Duchesne presented to public light, Félibien, from this writer's edition, the part also in which it is deficient in this being supplied from the Paris codex of St. Victor,

caused to be reprinted in the authentic Documents which he added at the end of the History of Saint-Denis, part 2, num. 4. The words which set forth in what manner, when the new part of the church of Saint-Denis behind the choir had then been dedicated, the translation of our Saints which I have mentioned was soon also carried out, and which therefore pertain more nearly here to our purpose, I transcribe here from Félibien's edition.

[47] which, in the very words of Suger They read thus: "And when, the mysteries of the holy consecration" (namely of the new building added to the choir of Saint-Denis) "having been performed in order, we came to the replacing of the holy relics, we approached the ancient and venerable tombs of our holy Lords... And prostrating themselves, both the pontiffs themselves and the lord king and all of us, so far as we were permitted by the narrowness of the place, having looked upon, when this" (namely the place) "being covered , the venerable shrines made by king Dagobert, in which their most holy bodies, dear to God, were contained, they sang psalms and wept with inestimable joy, and summoning the king, as devout as he was humble, they say: 'Go, and do you yourself with your own hands help to bring hither our Lord and Apostle and protector, that we may venerate the most sacred ashes, embrace the most sacred urns, and rejoice all the time of our life that we have received them, that we have held them. For these are the holy Men who gave up their bodies for the testament of God, who, kindled by the fire of charity, went out from their land and kindred for our salvation, who taught all Gaul the faith of Jesus Christ with apostolic authority, who manfully contended for it, who naked endured rods, who bound tamed fierce and hungry beasts, who unharmed endured the stretching of the rack and the kindling of the furnace, and at length a happy beheading by blunted axes. Come then, most Christian king, let us receive blessed Dionysius our receiver, suppliantly beseeching him that he ask for us from Him who faithfully promised, "the love and kindness which thou hast shall always obtain for whomsoever thou shalt ask."' At once arms are moved, hands are stretched out, so many and such hands are sent forward that not even a seventh hand was able to touch the holy shrines themselves.

[48] is described here in words, with solemnity "Wherefore the lord king himself, thrusting himself into their midst, taking the silver litter of the special Patron" (namely St. Dionysius) "from the hand of the bishops, as it seems from the hand of the archbishop of Reims, of Sens, of Chartres and others, went out in front as devoutly as becomingly. Wonderful to see! No one could ever see such a procession, besides that which was seen at the ancient consecration of the heavenly host, when the bodies of the Saints, Martyrs and Confessors, from the tents, on the cloaked shoulders and necks of bishops and counts and barons" (for, while these approached the tombs of St. Dionysius and his companions in the manner of suppliants, all the other bodies of Saints also kept in the church of Saint-Denis and then taken out of their resting-places were being carried) "went to meet most holy Dionysius and his companions at the ivory door: they proceeded through the cloister with candlesticks and crosses and other festive ornaments, with odes and many praises: they carried their lords as familiarly as tearfully for joy. Never could they be raised up in all things by a greater joy. Returning, then, to the church, and ascending by the steps to the upper altar destined for the rest of the Saints, the pledges of the Saints being laid upon the ancient altar, there was treated the consecration of the new principal altar before their new sepulchre, which we laid upon the lord archbishop of Reims, Samson, to be consecrated."

[49] Thus far he, interspersing among other true and certain things, of which he was an eyewitness, some things also about our Saints which, as I showed above, are either doubtful or certainly false. Meanwhile he presently adds to the words already given that at that time also, which he likewise saw, besides the principal altar, distinguished with the name of St. Dionysius, twenty other lesser altars were dedicated, namely ten in the upper and as many in the lower church. transferred into the new one in the year 1144, Further, Louis VII, king of the Franks, soon after the translation of our Saints already set forth here, made his munificence towards the church or monastery of St. Dionysius attested by some donations made to it. The charter by which he did this Félibien exhibits entire among the documents added to his History of Saint-Denis, num. 135. In it the king indicates not obscurely, as it appears, in these following words that he carried the sacred pledges of our Saints into the very new resting-place which had been prepared for them in the new upper church: "We hastened, with our consort queen Eleanor and the company of very many of our nobles, to the dedication of the basilica of the most holy Martyrs themselves" (namely Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius), "which was most solemnly made in the new enlargement of the church, namely in the head part. Where, when after the consecration of the church itself we had approached, with a very great assembly of archbishops and bishops, the ancient place in which the sacred bodies of our particular patron, namely the most blessed Dionysius, and of his Companions were contained, the shrines having been opened and taken out and carried on our own shoulders through the church itself, we replaced the sacred pledges with glad tears in the most glorious place prepared above"; but since the bodies of our Saints are said, in the words of either Suger or William, who was his secretary, transcribed here above, to have been placed by the king not in the new resting-place but upon the ancient altar of the upper church, in order to bring these into concord with the words of the king just recited, it appears that it must be said that the bodies of our Saints were first deposited by this prince upon the ancient altar, and then, when the new altar had been consecrated, in the new resting-place. For the rest, the Charter of king Louis of which we are here speaking is noted as given in the year 1144; so that the translation of our Saints which is recorded in the words just transcribed here, both from this and from the little book cited above, was undoubtedly carried out in that year.

[50] I adduce now only one more translation of the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, which happened when not yet fifty years had elapsed from this one, from the Deeds of Philip Augustus, king of the Franks, inserted by Duchesne in volume 5 of the Writers of the History of France. and to Paris also afterwards, when there the king's son Their contemporary author Rigord teaches it in the same place, page 33, in these following words: "In the same year" (namely 1191) "... on the tenth before the Kalends of August Louis, the king's son, began to be sick with a most grievous disease, which is called by physicians * dysentery; and all despairing of his life, it was done by common counsel that the holy convent of blessed Dionysius, fasts and prayers having first been devoutly performed, carrying with them the nail and the crown of thorns of the Lord and the arm of the holy old man Simeon, with a procession of clergy and people going barefoot and pouring out prayers with tears to the Lord, came to the church of St. Lazarus near Paris. Where, prayer having been made and the offering of the people following, all the convents of religious of Paris, and the venerable Maurice, bishop of Paris, with his canons and clerics, and an infinite multitude of scholars and people running together, carrying with them bodies of Saints and relics, came to meet them barefoot, weeping and shedding tears. And joining themselves to them, singing with much weeping and sighs, they came to the palace of the king, where the boy lay sick; and a sermon having been made there to the people, and prayer of the people having been poured out for him to the Lord with much effusion of tears, at the touch of the nail and of the crown of thorns and of the arm of St. Simeon over the whole belly of the boy in the manner of a cross, on the same day he was delivered from the imminent danger; and his father king Philip, being in the parts beyond the sea, was on the same day and at the same hour cured of a like disease.

[51] in the year 1191 was most grievously sick, carried "Then, the boy Louis having kissed the relics and received the blessing, all the processions came to the church of blessed Mary; where, paying praises with offerings to the Lord, the procession of blessed Mary, with many other processions, conducted the convent of blessed Dionysius with hymns and praises and much thanksgiving to the Lord as far as the exit of the town. And there, blessing one another mutually with the relics, each returned home. And the canons of blessed Mary returned with the people rejoicing, because in their time the aforesaid relics of blessed Dionysius had been carried to Paris. For it is not read in any writing that up to that time they were carried outside the town of blessed Dionysius for any imminent danger. Nor is it to be passed over in silence that on the same day, through the prayers of clergy and people, serenity of the air and fair weather were restored to all lands. For the Lord, the sins of men requiring it, had rained for a long time upon the earth." What Rigord here says of the relics of St. Dionysius never having been carried, before the time of which he speaks, outside the shrine of St. Dionysius to avert some imminent danger appears altogether consonant with the truth. Certainly nothing occurs in the ancient writers by which I should hold it false.

[52] [and very often; to Taverny also, when there in the year 1335 the son of Philip VI] But although this is so, and the bodies of our Saints are certainly read to have been carried outside the town of Saint-Denis not frequently, whether for the cause of driving away public calamity or of anything else whatever, nevertheless very frequently, the interest either of the king or of the kingdom requiring it, they were taken out of their resting-places and exposed to the veneration of the people in the church of Saint-Denis. Nay, when in the year 1335 John, the first-born son of Philip VI, king of the Franks, lay most dangerously ill at Taverny, not indeed the body, but at least a finger of St. Dionysius was carried thither. And this latter the continuator of the Chronicle written by Guillaume de Nangis teaches us, in d'Achery, volume XI of the Spicilegium, page 764 and following, writing thus: "In this same year" (namely 1335) "about the middle of June a grave and very dangerous infirmity seized the lord John, the first-born, nay then the only-begotten, of Philip king of France, duke of Normandy; for, as the physicians asserted, he not only laboured with a quotidian type for fourteen continuous days, but also endured several attacks of tertian fever: and when he was altogether despaired of by the physicians and human comfort failed, the king and queen fled to divine help, sending to all the cathedral churches and to all the colleges, both of mendicants and of non-mendicants, to which it could then be sent, preachers to exhort the people, asking all humbly that they would make devout processions and solicit the divine ears with tears and prayers, that the Divine Mercy might come to the help of their son, the heir of the kingdom, in so great a necessity.

[53] "For the king trusted so much in the mercy of God and in His help through the prayers of the Saints and of good persons [lying dangerously ill, a finger of Dionysius being carried, from their resting-places,] that he several times said to the queen and to some others that, if the aforesaid duke their son had died, he would not quickly bury him, hoping firmly that God would raise him from death. Whence it came about that * by the clergy and people, and especially by the canons of the cathedral church

of blessed Mary of Paris, and by all the colleges of the same city, and also by the convent of St. Dionysius, the most sacred relics, namely the nail and the crown of the Lord, with the finger of St. Dionysius, having been carried thrice barefoot to Taverny, where the sick man was, and having remained there for about fifteen days, solemn and devout processions having been made, the aforesaid sick man recovered and was healed." Thus far he. As now regards the other thing which I asserted above, about the bodies of our Saints having very often been taken out of their resting-places and exposed to the veneration of the people, the interest either of the king or of the kingdom requiring it, that this is consonant with the truth is established from the French historians commonly met with. Rigord, to pass over the rest, writes thus, in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of Gaul, page 34: "In the same year" (namely 1191), "on the eighth before the Kalends of September, by the counsel of the lord G., archbishop of Reims, and of queen Adela and of all the bishops, the bodies of the most blessed Martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were taken out with the most pure silver vessels in which they were contained, most diligently sealed, and placed upon the altar." This was then done in order that our Saints might win the divine favour by their powerful patronage for Philip Augustus, king of the Franks, who was still staying in the Holy Land and waging war there against the infidels.

[54] Nor then only, but very often at other times too, and chiefly when the kings of the Franks were either proceeding to wars which, St. Louis most dangerously, or lay ill with dangerous diseases, the bodies of St. Dionysius and his Companions were treated with the same honour, so that these might render God propitious to those princes by their intercession. All and each of the kings under whom this was done I do not adduce here, because the matter would be a longer business. But although the matter stands thus, and hence also I abstain from enumerating specifically the causes for which the sacred remains of our Saints were from time to time taken out of their resting-places and exposed to public veneration, I nevertheless cannot refrain from setting forth at least in what manner this was also done under St. Louis, king of the Franks. He had fallen in the year 1244 into a most grievous illness, and when the danger was very great that he would die of it, at the petition of queen Blanche, his mother, the bodies of our Saints were taken out of their resting-places and exposed to public veneration. Guillaume de Nangis, or of Nangiac, teaches us this in the Deeds of St. Louis, in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of France, page 341 and following. All the words in which he does so, prolix as they are, I transcribe here for this very reason, that they tend in the highest degree to the glory of our Saints. They read thus: "At length, because the sickness of the king" (St. Louis) "was so grave that the physicians despaired of him, the king and his most serene mother, the lady queen Blanche, asked Odo, abbot of the church of the blessed Dionysius, that he should not delay to take up and cause to be raised from the crypt in which they rested the most sacred bodies of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, in whose patronage the whole region rejoices and the power of the kingdom stands, that by their prayers they might obtain health for the king from the Lord.

[55] as is narrated here, lying ill at Pontoise, "For the king, after the Lord and the most sacred Virgin His Mother, hoped in them, as in the advocates and protectors of himself and of his kingdom, even more confidently, and not without reason. For what could the Lord deny to blessed Dionysius, who had said to him when thrust into prison for the Catholic faith: 'The love and kindness which thou hast shall always obtain for whomsoever thou shalt ask'? Then Odo Clément, abbot of the aforesaid church, considering the devotion of the king towards blessed Dionysius, assenting to his petition, hastened to his church on the Thursday next before the feast of the Lord's Nativity. Which he at once, candles being placed all round, as is accustomed to be done on the chief solemnities, ordered to be adorned with most precious palls, so that on the morrow the devotion and minds of those present might be stirred up to God for removing such holy relics, and that fitting honour might be graciously shown to the Martyrs themselves. But while these things were being prepared in the aforesaid church on the Thursday before the Nativity of the Lord, it was heard at Paris that for the welfare of the king the bodies of the blessed Martyrs, which are never taken out of their place except only for the welfare of the king of France or the danger of his kingdom, were to be taken out on the morrow and carried in procession. Whence on the morrow a copious multitude of both sexes, men and women, ran together to so holy a spectacle. But both clerics and laymen too rushed in throngs, desiring to see the glorious Martyrs.

[56] it was done, were taken out and exposed to public veneration. "Thus, then, there being present the reverend Fathers Charles, bishop of Noyon, and Peter, bishop of Meaux, and Odo, abbot of a certain church of St. Dionysius, and very many other glorious and honourable persons, on the Friday before the feast of the Lord's Nativity, prayer having been made, those most precious bodies were raised and taken out of the crypt which is beneath the golden pyramids, where they had rested a long time in electrum caskets most diligently sealed, and were placed upon the altar of the Martyrs themselves, adorned with precious palls. Then, a procession having been prepared, which was made barefoot, with sighs, sobs and tears resounding to the Lord more than psalms, they were carried in procession through the cloister and the church for the welfare of the king, which the same king hoped would be obtained for him through the said Martyrs. Nor was the king cheated of his desire. For from the time the holy Martyrs knocked at the ears of the kindly Jesus, the Lord, remembering His mercy, visited him. And from that hour in which the most sacred bodies of the glorious Martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were carried in procession, the king's sickness gradually decreasing, the king began to be better. And his health, following in a short time wholly, gladdened exceedingly with exultation and joy the hearts of the French and of all the faithful." Nangis had placed before this account that Innocent IV came into Gaul in the year 1244, and that a little before he reached Lyon, king Louis, in the month of December, on the Saturday before the feast of St. Lucy the virgin, fell into the illness just related; so that both this and the king's healing from it undoubtedly happened in that year. For the rest, although, as I have already said, I do not here enumerate for brevity's sake all the kings under whom, and each of the causes for which, the bodies of our Saints were very often taken out of their resting-places at other times also, whoever desires to know what I thus wrap in silence will find abundantly in Félibien's History of Saint-Denis and in Doublet's Antiquities of Saint-Denis whence to satisfy his desire.

* perhaps "aperto" (opened)?

* "famelicas."

* "medicis."

* "cum."

CHAPTER IV.

What communication, chiefly, of the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius was made, or at least is contended to have been made.

[Relics of St. Dionysius or of his Companions, which before the 6th century with the church of Rambasciacum,] That some part of the relics of St. Dionysius was communicated already before the 6th century to the church of Rambasciacum in the diocese of Tours is ascertained from the testament of St. Perpetuus, which we cited in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts just edited, num. 222. For by it, as is plain from what was alleged there, that holy archbishop of Tours, who died in the year 490, bequeathed to that sacred building "a silver cross ..., in whose handle was a relic of ... St. Dionysius." But whence, when and in what manner had St. Perpetuus received this part or particle of the relics of St. Dionysius? That is wholly obscure, as also of what kind and how great that sacred pledge was. Nor am I likewise able to declare whether, either before or after the age of St. Perpetuus, before the Christian era had advanced to the middle of the eighth century, relics of St. Dionysius or of his companions were communicated to anyone else. But I find it committed to writing that this was afterwards done three times in that space of time which lay between the year 750 and the year 800. And this favour indeed, as is understood from the words of Hilduin or of some other monk of Saint-Denis, already transcribed here in this Appendix, num. 5, from Surius, fell to St. Stephen II, Pope, when, restored to health through the patronage of St. Dionysius, he afterwards returned from Gaul to Rome in the year 754.

[58] But what was that part of the relics of St. Dionysius which, as Hilduin, or another in the 8th century, with Pope Stephen II, monk of Saint-Denis, whoever at length he is, says in the same words already recited above, that holy Pontiff then carried with him from Gaul to Rome? The writer, whether Hilduin or another, who supplies the notice just put forward of the relics of St. Dionysius carried to Rome by St. Stephen II, Pope, did not express it; but Rigord, in the Deeds of Philip Augustus, inserted by Duchesne in the fifth volume of the Writers of Gaul, speaking at the fifth year of that prince of the uncovering of the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius, still to be recorded by us below, writes thus: "Prayer ... having been made, the three silver vessels of St. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were brought, most diligently sealed, before all the people; and, the vessel of the blessed martyr Dionysius being opened, his whole body was found with the head, except two bones of the neck, which are in the church of Vergy, and a certain bone of the arm, which Pope Stephen the third" (nay, as you will easily gather from Pagi in the Critica at the year 752, num. 13, the second) "carried with him to the Roman church, and placed in the church which today is called the school of the Greeks." The part of the relics, then, which St. Stephen II, Pope, received from the monks of Saint-Denis and carried with him to Rome, was a certain bone of those which enter into the structure of the arm, if indeed Rigord, or another writer who, as Launoy suspects, supposed the words already given, together with some others besides, to Rigord or thrust them into Rigord's text, records the truth here. But Rigord flourished not earlier than when the 12th century was already growing old and at the beginning of the following one, and therefore lived removed by about a century and a half from the uncovering of the relics already mentioned, made, as we shall see below, in the year 1053, and by four hundred years and more from the time at which these, as said, were communicated to Stephen in the year 754.

[59] and likewise, which however from those, Further, since this is so, Rigord, or another who perhaps attached the words I have mentioned to him or thrust them into his text, perhaps did not sufficiently ascertain which either of the bones of the Dionysian body were not found when it was uncovered in the year 1053, or which of them had been imparted to Stephen in the year 754. But content to have now warned the reader of this matter, I continue the discourse begun about the communication made of the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius. Doublet, in the Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 1, chap. 18 and 27, narrates that Duke Berthwald, a very rich

prince under Offa, king of the Mercians in England, having heard the very celebrated fame of the healings and miracles which were continually being done at the tomb of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius in France, likewise betook himself thither in order that, having already long been afflicted with a most grievous illness, he might obtain health by their most powerful intercession with God; and that, when, after staying only a few days at the monument of the Saints, he had obtained his wish, the monks of Saint-Denis, in order to impel the illustrious man to introduce the cult of St. Dionysius into England, imparted to him some relics or bones of Dionysius and his Companions, towards whom he too showed himself munificent by divers donations made to the monastery of Saint-Denis in France as a token of a grateful mind. Indeed, that the Berthwald mentioned here recovered health at the tomb of our Saints at the end of the 8th century, and proved himself grateful towards the Saints by his munificence towards the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, is attested by the words transcribed here at num. 34 from the charter of Offa, king of the Mercians in England, which is noted as given in the year 790. But for me to believe that some relics or bones of our Saints were then imparted to that duke, the authority of Doublet alone, since that charter too makes no mention of this gift, by no means suffices.

[60] This writer indeed, in his said Antiquities of Saint-Denis, book 3, chap. 6, which are adduced here, also exhibits a charter inscribed with the name of the aforesaid Duke Berthwald, in which these following words are read, together with some others not to be transcribed here because they do not bear on our purpose: "I, Duke Berthwald, by the just judgment of God fell into an infirmity from which none of the physicians could heal me. And I heard that in Gaul, at the monastery of the holy martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, over which presides the venerable abbot Folerad, many mighty works are done through the same Saints; and asking passage of the Lord Charles the emperor, I came thither. Where, when, sick, I had lain at their memorial for very few days, by the compassion of the Lord and the intercession of the same Martyrs I was most fully healed. And I vowed a vow to the Lord and to those Saints, and brought with me patronages obtained from their holy relics, and built a church in their name at my seat in the estate called Rotherfield, which had been left to me by my forefathers by hereditary right." But although Félibien, in his History of Saint-Denis, page 62, mentions the charter given in the year 790 by which Offa, king of the Mercians, confirmed the donation made by Duke Berthwald to the monastery of Saint-Denis, he nevertheless nowhere makes any mention of relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius which the latter received from the monks of Saint-Denis. Nor, although he recounts the said charter of king Offa entire among the documents added at the end of the same History of Saint-Denis of his, does he anywhere give a place among these to the charter inscribed with the name of Duke Berthwald in Doublet at the place just cited.

[61] And surely he did not undeservedly use this manner of proceeding. it does not appear certain, with Duke Berthwald, For it is spurious and falsely fathered on Duke Berthwald. And this indeed is clear even from the fact that, although it is noted as given in the year 795, and certainly, inasmuch as by it are given the things which are confirmed by the aforesaid charter of Offa, dated in the year 790, it ought to have been given either in this very year or even before it, if it was ever given, it nevertheless distinguishes Charlemagne, then still only king, and not crowned emperor before the year 800, with the name of emperor. Moreover, in that charter inscribed with the name of Berthwald and noted, as said, in the year 795, it is signified towards the beginning (see its words just now transcribed here) that at the time when it was given Fulrad, or, as he is called in it, Folerad, who, as the catalogues of the abbots of Saint-Denis, and in the first place that which Félibien prefixed to his History of Saint-Denis, generally teach, had already died in the year 784, still survived among the living and was abbot of the monastery of Saint-Denis. I add no more: the things already said, unless I am mistaken, more than sufficiently prove that the charter of which we are treating here is supposititious. But although this be so, I would not with difficulty persuade myself that relics of our Saints were nevertheless communicated by the monks of Saint-Denis to Duke Berthwald, as is indicated in it, if only it were established from some quarter that he built at Rotherfield, where he was accustomed to have his seat, a monastery in their honour, as Doublet says at the place cited, or at least a church, as is asserted in the recited words of the aforesaid charter; but since the matter stands otherwise, and it therefore seems uncertain, on account of all that has been said, whether some bones of our Saints were imparted to Duke Berthwald by the monks of Saint-Denis, I now proceed to another thing which is certain.

[62] and with Bosulf, mentioned here, In the Miracles of St. Dionysius, inserted in the IIIrd Benedictine Century, part II, and very often cited above, book 1, chap. 21, these following words are supplied: "Bosulf, the cleric of the abbot himself, once carried relics of blessed Dionysius with him into Italy, and, having built a church in honour of the same most illustrious Martyr and enriched it from his inheritance, placed them in it to profit the faithful"; and then there is subjoined a miracle done in Italy in the presence of the relics of St. Dionysius, when the Bosulf mentioned here had already carried them thither, the same Bosulf intervening; and since this is reckoned among the miracles wrought under Fardulf, abbot of Saint-Denis, in the said lucubration on the Dionysian Miracles, it follows that he was undoubtedly that very abbot of Saint-Denis by whose cleric, that is, unless I am mistaken, scribe, or monk of Saint-Denis who was secretary to the same abbot, we are taught, by the words just transcribed here, that relics of St. Dionysius were carried into Italy. And hence it now further follows that, since Fardulf presided over the monastery of Saint-Denis as abbot from about the year 792 up to the year 806, those relics, which I think were one or another bone or little bone of the Dionysian body, were very probably, at the end of the 8th century or at any rate at the beginning of the following, both communicated to Bosulf and carried by him into Italy and placed in the church which he had built there in honour of Dionysius. Further, not very long after, another communication also was made of the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius. Adrevald, monk of Fleury, teaches us this in the Miracles of St. Benedict, inserted in our work on the 21st day of March and cited by us above already at num. 13.

[63] in the ninth century, with Boso, abbot of Fleury, For there, in book 1, chap. 3, he writes thus: "Boso, abbot" (namely of Fleury) "of the monastery of the holy confessor Benedict, had gone to the palace when summoned, and returning thence, he had a convenient passage through the monastery of St. Dionysius. Accordingly, turning aside to the aforesaid monastery, he had a familiar conversation with Hilduin, the reverend abbot, and among the conversations of familiarity he asked of him relics of the holy Martyrs, namely of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius and of Sebastian. The most noble abbot, most willingly assenting to his prayers, granted what was asked on this condition, that every year, when the birthday of the same Martyrs came round, their most celebrated festival should be held with us after the monastic manner. Abbot Boso, having most gratefully received the pledges of the Saints, returns glad to his own"; and since the Hilduin mentioned here presided over the monastery of Saint-Denis as abbot from about the year 814 up to about the year 842, what is here related of the relics of our Saints given by him to Boso, abbot of Fleury, undoubtedly happened in the 9th century, before its middle part had elapsed, and therefore not long after relics of St. Dionysius were communicated to Bosulf. But you will perhaps now ask, in what determined year of this century was this done? Du Saussay, in the Annals of the church of Orléans, page 232, refers the matter to about the year of Christ 820. But whether rightly or otherwise I cannot assert for certain, on account of the scarcity of ancient monuments agreeing with that writer, as neither what or of what sort were the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius then imparted to Boso, although meanwhile they very probably, unless I am mistaken, consisted of some of their sacred bones.

[64] But what, finally, is now to be said of the two bones of the neck of St. Dionysius which, Rigord hints in the words transcribed here above, and likewise perhaps with the church of Vergy were still kept in his age in the church of Vergy? Were they perhaps also granted to this sacred building while Hilduin was already governing the abbey of Saint-Denis in the 9th century? Certainly this, unless perhaps, which however I do not think, it is to be referred to a time earlier than the 9th century, must have been done in that space of time which lay between the beginning of this century and the 11th century, when its middle part had already elapsed, if Rigord, at the place cited above, rightly writes that the two said bones were not found in the Dionysian body, whether the true one or one substituted for the true, when it was uncovered or taken out of the shrine in which it lay in order to refute the people of Regensburg, which, from what will be said below, was done in the year 1053. But were the two bones of it mentioned by Rigord conferred on the church of Vergy before or after the year 890, about which the people of Regensburg contend that that sacred pledge was stolen by theft from the monks of Saint-Denis? Rigord only teaches that they still existed in his age in that sacred building, and were not found in the body of St. Dionysius when it was uncovered in the year 1053; and since it may be consonant with the truth that both the latter and the former were given to the church of Vergy, whether before or after the said year 890, Rigord surely by no means compels us to establish that this was done in the time preceding rather than following this year.

[65] Nor, however great the search made, could I find anything committed to writing elsewhere which persuades us to do so; were communicated with the church, but if, nevertheless, the body of St. Dionysius was in fact stolen by theft from the monks of Saint-Denis, as the people of Regensburg contend, either in the year 890 or not long after, and the two bones of Dionysius which existed in Rigord's age in the church of Vergy were genuine parts of the Dionysian body, these were undoubtedly granted to that church before that theft was committed, or at any rate taken from the body of Dionysius and kept separately by the monks of Saint-Denis until they were given to the same church. For unless one or other of these had then been done, on the said hypothesis, the bones imparted to the said church of Vergy by the Dionysian monks would have been parts not of the Dionysian body but of another substituted for it afterwards, as will be plain to one considering it. For the rest, being about to examine in the Appendix immediately following, as has already been said more than once, whether the theft of the Dionysian body asserted by the people of Regensburg truly took place, let us proceed to set forth with what sacred places or persons especially, after the time at which they will have it to have been committed, relics of our Saints, and chiefly parts of the Dionysian body, whether the true one or another which had been substituted for the true, are narrated to have been communicated.

[66] Widukind, monk of New Corvey, who comprised in three written books of Annals very many things done chiefly in the 10th century, in which he flourished, hands down to memory thus in book 1, in Meibom the Younger, volume 1 of the Res Germanicae, afterwards also, namely, as here page 638: "But when the king" (Henry of Germany, surnamed the Fowler) "had crossed the Rhine to extend his empire over the Lotharingians, an envoy of Charles" (surnamed the Simple, king of the Franks) "met him, and, having saluted him in most humble words, said: 'My lord Charles, formerly endowed with royal power, now deprived of it, has sent me to you, declaring that nothing can be more pleasant, nothing sweeter to him, beset by enemies, than to hear something of the glory of your magnificent progress and to be consoled by the fame of your virtues; and he has sent you this sign of faith and truth.' And he brought out from his bosom a hand of the precious martyr Dionysius, enclosed in gold and gems: 'Have this,' he said, 'as a pledge of perpetual alliance and of mutual love. This part of the only solace of the Franks dwelling in Gaul he has preferred to share with you, since the illustrious martyr Vitus deserted us to our ruin and visited Saxony for your perpetual peace. For since the body was translated from us, civil and foreign wars have not ceased: for in the same year'" (the translation of St. Vitus the martyr from Gaul to New, or Saxon, Corvey was carried out in the year 836, as may be seen in volume 2 of June of our Work, page 1033, and in the same year, as the Annalists of Fulda and of Saint-Bertin testify, the Northmen burst into Gaul) "'the Danes and Northmen invaded our region'" (Gaul). "And the king, receiving the divine gift with all thanksgiving, prostrated himself before the holy relics and, kissing them, venerated them with the highest veneration."

[67] is shown, with Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, of whom there is talk here, was not wholly stripped of royal power until, after the battle fought near Soissons in the year 923, in which, although Duke Robert, whom the Rebels had taken as king against him, was also killed, he had been compelled to turn his back, he was detained by the most shameful treachery and perfidy of Heribert, count of the Vermandois, and had already been shut up in the castle of Thierry in the same year 923. Further, since this is so, as may be gathered from what the Chronicle of Frodoard supplies, in Duchesne, volume 2 of the Writers of Gaul, at the year 920 and the three following, and besides Dietmar, bishop of Merseburg in the 11th century, expressly relates in the Chronicle, book 1, that the embassy to Henry the Fowler mentioned in the words of Widukind just recited was sent by Charles the Simple when already shut up in prison, it follows that what Widukind relates, in the words just transcribed here, about the hand of Dionysius carried to Henry the Fowler by that embassy certainly did not happen before the said year 923; and since Widukind also writes, in the same words already given, that this was done when Henry the Fowler, Charles the Simple having already been captured by count Heribert, had crossed the Rhine for the sake of extending his empire, it follows further that this prince, inasmuch as with the same purpose, as is established from the cited Chronicle of Frodoard, he crossed that river towards the end of the same year 923 and again afterwards in the year 925, received that surpassing gift of the hand of St. Dionysius from Charles the Simple in one or other of these two years, although meanwhile I cannot determine whether it was done in the latter rather than in the former.

[68] For the rest, although that golden hand of St. Dionysius which Charles the Simple sent to Henry the Fowler in one or other of the two years already stated was probably, from what will be said below, a genuine part of the body of St. Dionysius, with St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, you would nevertheless not rightly infer hence that the body of St. Dionysius was not in fact carried from Gaul into Germany about the year 890, as the people of Regensburg contend. The matter will be evident from what will be said below about the controversy in which the monks of Saint-Denis and those of St. Emmeram at Regensburg dispute among themselves on this point. Behold now another kind of relics of St. Dionysius, which, although it is certainly not a part of his body, is nevertheless reckoned among the genuine relics of the Saint. St. Gerard, abbot of Brogne, of whom we have just treated in volume 2 of October, having already been a professed monk for some years in the monastery of Saint-Denis in France, returned thence about the year 928 or the following, as we taught there in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of this Saint, § IV and VI, into Belgium, his fatherland, enriched by the monks of Saint-Denis with not a few relics of Saints which he had desired; and among these was a portable altar which St. Dionysius, apostle and martyr of the Parisians, was reported once to have used when he performed the sacred rites. Mabillon, in the Vth Benedictine Century, subjoined to the Life of St. Gerard an Appendix in which that portable altar is chiefly treated of, and the studious reader will find the same entire also in our Commentary just cited, num. 72 and following.

[69] In it, further, is related the apparition mentioned by us above in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of our Saints, with St. Bernward, bishop of Hildesheim, num. 144 and 146, in which Christ gave Himself to be seen by St. Dionysius when he was already shut up in prison and was performing the Sacred rites there on the said portable altar; but since the author of that Appendix, being none other than he who committed the Life of St. Gerard to writing, flourished only in the 11th century, he is certainly too recent to be able to produce undoubted credence for his statements about that apparition. For the rest, that the portable altar which the monks of Saint-Denis gave to St. Gerard was in fact that which St. Dionysius had once used they very probably ascertained from tradition alone, and there will perhaps be someone who judges it to be doubted whether this was sufficiently true and genuine. Let each determine on the matter what shall seem good. Let us continue our purpose. St. Bernward, bishop of Hildesheim in the 11th century, visiting the more celebrated sacred places of Gaul at the beginning of this century, obtained there various relics of various Saints and by name of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius, and, having returned to Hildesheim, placed them to be kept with fitting veneration. So namely Thangmar the priest, a contemporary of the Saint, expressly relates in the Life of this holy bishop of Hildesheim, inserted in the VIth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 223, so that the matter requires no other proof at all; and in what place St. Bernward placed to be kept the relics of our Saints carried off by him from Gaul, whether of bone or of another kind, you may gather, as it appears, not unaptly from the VIth Lesson of the ecclesiastical Office with which that Saint is venerated yearly at Hildesheim on the 20th day of November, inasmuch as in it he is asserted to have enriched the temple of Hildesheim with many relics of Saints carried off with him from Italy and Gaul.

[70] Helgaud, monk of Fleury in the 11th century, who wrote the Epitome of the life of Robert, king of the Franks from the year 998 up to the year 1032, with Helgaud, monk of Fleury, inserted in Duchesne, Writers of French History, volume 4, hands down to memory in it, in the same place, page 75, how, when he had built for God on the land of his monastery a small building under the invocation of St. Dionysius the martyr, he came to Paris, and there, at the recommendation of king Robert, obtained various relics of Saints, and in the first place of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius. And that writer indeed first sets forth at the place cited what and of what sort those relics were, in these words: "Of the chasuble of St. Dionysius, the dalmatic of St. Rusticus, the chasuble of St. Eleutherius, of their garments sprinkled with blood, of the dust of their flesh, and the threefold cord with which Dionysius, the precious martyr of the Lord, was bound"; and then he adds that those relics were carried to Fleury, received on the first day of October by the abbot Gauzlin with the highest veneration, and placed in the sacred building destined for them. Félibien, who likewise teaches in his History of Saint-Denis, page 120, what I here say about the relics of our Saints communicated to the monk Helgaud, or to the sacred building built by him at Fleury, refers it to the 11th century, placing the year 1029 in the margin, nor does it appear that he is to be opposed in this matter. Further, not a few churches besides judge (whether rightly or otherwise, let the studious reader determine at his discretion when he has maturely weighed the things which will be said in the Appendix immediately to follow this one) that, after the same 11th century, and therefore after the year 890, about which the people of Regensburg contend that the body of St. Dionysius was carried off from Gaul into Germany, genuine relics of our Saints, and especially of St. Dionysius, were communicated to them.

[71] and likewise with the metropolitan church of Prague, In the manuscript Martyrology of the Metropolitan church of Prague, which is kept in our literary storehouse, on the second day of January (see volume 1 of January of our Work, page 1084), is announced a proper feast of all the relics which Charles IV, emperor of the Romans and king of Bohemia, obtained with great prayers in divers parts of the world and gave to the church of Prague, to be celebrated yearly in the diocese of Prague by the precept of Pope Innocent VI, given at the request of the same emperor; and then those relics are enumerated according to the days on which the Saints whose they are stand inscribed in the sacred fasti; and on the 9th day of October, sacred in the ecclesiastical fasti to the memory of our Saints, these few words are read there: "Of St. Dionysius, Apostle of the Parisians, an Arm." In the Diary or index of the holy relics which are kept in the Metropolitan church of St. Vitus at Prague, which, arranged in the same order as our manuscript Martyrology just mentioned, Pessina inserted in his Seven-horned Phosphorus, or lucubration on the church of Prague, published in the year 1673, there is likewise recorded on the 9th of October an arm of St. Dionysius, given to the church of Prague by the emperor Charles IV. But besides that the title of Areopagite is there wrongly attributed to Dionysius, that arm is asserted to have been obtained at Paris by the said emperor Charles and sent to him in the year 1356; but this latter appears certainly foreign to the truth. For that prince first betook himself to Paris, to Charles V, king of the Franks, at the end of the year 1377, as the commonly met historians teach, and when he had stayed there for some days, returned thence into Germany at the beginning of the year 1378, enriched by this king, as Félibien writes in his History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 289, with sacred relics of St. Dionysius which he had asked for with the greatest eagerness.

[72] and with many other churches they are said to have been communicated. Since this is so, it does not seem to be doubted that the emperor Charles IV either carried with him from Paris to Prague in the year 1378 the arm of St. Dionysius mentioned above, or received it sent to him from there in the same year, in which, before it had elapsed, he died, and gave it to the metropolitan church of Prague. For the rest, a tooth of St. Dionysius is also reckoned by Pessina, in the said Diary and other places of the cited Phosphorus, among the relics of the Saints which are kept in the metropolitan church of St. Vitus at Prague and are exposed to the veneration of the faithful. And so indeed, as regards this notable sacred building

the matter stands; but as now regards the other churches which likewise assert that relics of St. Dionysius were communicated to them, if not before, at least after the 11th century, it is not necessary that all and each of them, which for the most part ascribe to themselves only lesser parts or particles of the bones of Dionysius or of his Companions, be enumerated here; he who desires to know the chief ones which glory in smaller remains of St. Dionysius of this kind will be able to satisfy his desire in some way by inspecting Raissius's Belgian Hierogazophylacium, pages 41, 189, 219, 504 and 445, and likewise Gelenius's On the Sacred and Civil Greatness of Cologne, pages 437, 464, 501, 510 and 616. I now, adding nothing further to what Félibien relates, in his History of Saint-Denis, page 465, about the relics of St. Dionysius communicated in the year 1636 to Anne of Austria, wife of Louis XIII, king of the Franks, turn my discourse to the ancient, and, as it appears, not yet wholly extinct dissension of the canons of the archiepiscopal church of St. Mary of the Parisians with the monks of Saint-Denis concerning the head of St. Dionysius; and I undertake in the following chap., before I put an end to this Appendix, not indeed to settle it (for I am not equal to composing so great a dispute), but at least to unravel it in some way, so far as the literary monuments tending thither will allow.

CHAPTER V.

The canons of the archiepiscopal church of St. Mary of Paris contend that the head of St. Dionysius is with them, the monks of Saint-Denis claiming that very thing for themselves against them.

That the head of St. Dionysius is with them, The canons of the cathedral church of St. Mary at Paris contend, as I understand from Baillet's present History of the cult of our Saints and from elsewhere besides, that the head of St. Dionysius is kept in the same church, and further contended so already before the year 1191, as will be evident from what is now to be subjoined. In Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of Gaul, page 34, in the Deeds of Philip Augustus, king of the Franks, Rigord speaks thus at the said year: "In the same year, on the eighth before the Kalends of September, by the counsel of the lord G., archbishop of Reims, and of queen Adela and of all the bishops, the crown of the most blessed martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were taken out with the most pure silver vessels in which they were contained, most diligently sealed, and placed upon the altar. ... But on the following feast of blessed Dionysius, the silver vessel being opened in which the body of the most sacred martyr Dionysius was contained, there being present the venerable bishops of Senlis and Meaux, and Ala queen of the Franks, and many abbots and religious men, his whole body with the head, as we have said before, was found; and it was most devoutly shown to all the faithful of God who had come from distant parts for the sake of praying.

[74] contend, and further already before the year 1191 "And for removing the error of the Parisians, the head of the hieromartyr Dionysius being retained and fittingly placed in a silver vessel, the bodies of the Saints with their vessels were most devoutly replaced under the altar in the marble crypt from which they had been taken out. But the head, for stirring up the devotion of the faithful, was shown to all pilgrims throughout the whole year, and on the following feast of blessed Dionysius was replaced with the body in its vessel." Guillaume de Nangis in the Chronicle, in d'Achery, volume XI of the Spicilegium, page 467, writes thus at the same year 1191: "In the monastery of St. Dionysius in France the head of the precious martyr Dionysius the Areopagite was taken out of the reliquary, where it rested with the body, to remove the error of the canons of Paris, who said that they had the head of the aforesaid Martyr; and that most holy head was placed in a fitting silver vessel, that thenceforth it might be openly shown to the nations to be kissed: which afterwards the venerable Matthew, abbot of that monastery, caused to be transferred into another golden vessel, adorned with precious stones and wonderful work, made by himself, by the hands of the venerable Father in Christ the lord Simon, then Cardinal priest of St. Cecilia, who was afterwards called Pope Martin the fourth, in the presence of the king of France Philip, son of the most holy king of France Louis, as all who come to the said monastery see in the present time."

[75] the canons of the church of St. Mary of Paris contended; Thus far the cited chronographer; so that certainly the canons of St. Mary of Paris contended already before the said year 1191 that the head of St. Dionysius was kept in their church. But the reasons, relying on which they did so, I have been unable, though I made the most diligent search, to find committed to writing anywhere. Rigord, or another anonymous monk of Saint-Denis, who wrote other deeds of Philip Augustus, king of the Franks, added in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of French History, at the end of the Philippis composed by William the Breton, in the same place, page 258, having supplied almost the same words as I have just transcribed here from Rigord, presently adds: "Now it is an intolerable error of the Parisians, saving their reverence as is fitting, that the head of this most holy Dionysius, which elsewhere, as has been said and shown above, was found in his aforesaid shrine with his sacred body, many persons of great dignity being present, is held with us *, whereas nevertheless it appears clearly from the Passion of the same Saint that he carried his own head after the beheading, guided by angelic direction, to the village which was formerly called Catulliacus, but is now called Saint-Denis, and they can allege no reasonable or legitimate title by which it can be said that the same holy head was translated again to Paris; and also we read it well written of certain bones of St. Dionysius translated elsewhere, as has been said above; but of this lying translation of the head to them we find nothing written at all, especially since the Parisians themselves too show to the peoples flocking together not the head of a man beheaded at the neck, but the shell of the scalp of some decapitated man, only that hinder part.

[76] "In this certainly they oppose, by deeds and words and pictures, those things which not only they themselves but also all the Gallican churches read and sing of the Passion of St. Dionysius, namely that the same holy martyr was not decapitated but rather beheaded at the neck, and although that they did this without reason since indeed it is contained in the Passion of the same St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius that after excessive torments they were ordered to bend the knee for beheading, and again at one and the same moment, with blunted axes, according to the prince's precept, they were beheaded at the neck. But how is anyone said to be beheaded at the neck unless the head is wholly cut off from the body through the neck?" Surely, although the body of St. Dionysius was carried to Catulliacum, or rather to the village of Catolacus, where the town of Saint-Denis is now seen, not in the manner which is here put forward, but in the other which is maintained in the Acts of our Saints already edited, it is nevertheless plain, from what was argued in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts already edited, § X and following, that the whole of it, and therefore also the head of St. Dionysius, existed there immediately from his passion. If, then, the Parisians, or those who are here designated by the Parisians, the canons of the cathedral church of St. Mary among them, have proved by no reason at all, or, as is openly declared in the words just recited, by no legitimate title at all, that that notable part of the Dionysian body was translated thence to their cathedral church before the said year 1191, I indeed do not sufficiently understand how these could have persuaded themselves or others that this had then been done. But Rigord, or another writer who put into writing the words which I have already given, seems to hint sufficiently clearly by them that the Parisian canons were destitute, for proving the translation of the head of St. Dionysius to themselves, not of any title whatever, but only of such a one as would be legitimate.

[77] What if, then, the title or reason, led by which they asserted that the head of St. Dionysius had been translated to them, they do not seem, very many nevertheless opposing them seemed to the monks of Saint-Denis indeed illegitimate and invalid, but to the said canons legitimate and valid? That the matter was so I persuade myself even for this reason, that otherwise not only the said canons, but also very many who assented to them, would have to be charged with bad faith, which is not to be done rashly. But however valid perhaps the reason was, impelled by which the Parisian canons contended what I have said, I nevertheless find it handed down to memory that they were contradicted in that matter not only by the monks of Saint-Denis when they began to do so at the end of the 12th century, but also afterwards by others. Félibien, in his History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 209, having first stated what I have already related from Rigord about the Parisian canons asserting that the head of St. Dionysius was kept in their church, and having besides narrated what Guillaume de Nangis hands down to memory, in the words just transcribed here by me, about the head of St. Dionysius transferred in the church of Saint-Denis into the golden reliquary in which it is still kept today, in the presence of Philip III, king of the Franks, at the end of the 13th century, by the care of Matthew of Vendôme, abbot of Saint-Denis from the year 1258 up to the year 1287, presently writes, in French words which I make Latin, in the following manner: "After that time, when on a certain day on which the feast of St. Dionysius is celebrated king Charles V was at Saint-Denis, he summoned thither the dean, the chancellor and some of the more learned canons of the church of St. Mary, and, having shown them the head of the holy Martyr before all the nobles by whom he was surrounded, he admonished them to acknowledge the truth and no longer to abuse the simplicity of the people by thrusting upon it a fabricated skull for the true head of St. Dionysius, and at the same time enjoined that every year on the same day, when the king should be present, the true head of St. Dionysius should be carried round with the solemn rite of suppliants."

[78] had, and at length the matter Thus he, alleging also in the margin, to win credence for his statements, the Chronicle of Charles VI, composed by a monk of Saint-Denis. But although the Parisian canons, contending that the genuine head of Dionysius was with them, thus most clearly experienced Charles V, who occupied the throne of Gaul from the year 1364 up to the year 1384, in which he died, as wholly contrary to themselves, and it is not to be doubted that they then had not only the monks of Saint-Denis but also many others opposing them, they nevertheless persisted in their old opinion, and showed this sufficiently some years afterwards under Charles VI, king of the Franks from the year 1384 up to the year 1422, in which he died, as Félibien adds to the words just now given, adding also that hence it came about that a dispute arose then between the canons and the monks of Saint-Denis, which was carried on on both sides with no measure at all kept. Further, this writer sets forth, from the Chronicle of Charles VI cited above, at the year 1406, page 322, by whom and about when this dispute took its beginning. The French words in which he does so in the same place, presented by me with Latinity, sound thus: "When the duke of Berry had been unable to obtain from the monks of Saint-Denis some part of the head of their holy Patron, he had recourse to the Parisian canons of St. Mary, in order to obtain his wish,

who, against all the faith of antiquity, boasted that the head of the holy Martyr was with them. This opinion of theirs had been rejected as frivolous already from the times of Philip Augustus and afterwards by Charles V. Nevertheless, when they had understood that Charles VI, who had betaken himself to Saint-Denis to celebrate there the feast of the Saint according to his custom, had wished to kiss the bare head of the Saint, they seized hence the occasion of renewing the old suit against the religious of that abbey. The head which they gave out to be that of St. Dionysius, their apostle and first bishop, they carried round with the solemn rite of suppliants, a mandate being also added by which anyone in the diocese was forbidden to maintain the contrary.

[79] brought before the supreme senate of the kingdom, "Matters went so far that the bishop, who had embraced the opinion of his chapter, interdicted all the pulpits of his diocese to the monks of Saint-Denis, although there were among them not a few doctors, professors and bachelors fit to fill them." Thus far Félibien. Further, the dissension, as the same writer says, then boiled up more and more day by day through partisan zeal; but the king, in order to end it, or at least to prevent the evils which would otherwise follow from it, called to himself the cognizance and decision of the matter, and severely inhibited both sides, namely both the Parisian canons and the monks of Saint-Denis, from speaking thenceforth of that controversy; and since the king's precept was obeyed on both sides, the matter remained in almost the same position in which it had been before, until at length, after some further proceedings, which Félibien also mentions at the place cited, it was brought before the supreme senate of the kingdom, which resides at Paris (they commonly call it the Parlement), and, having been agitated there for many years, received some sort of end by virtue of a decree given by it. Of this decree Félibien, citing the Dionysian archive in the margin, speaks in his History of Saint-Denis, page 323, in French words which I make Latin, in this manner: "There survives a decree, signed in the year 1410 on the 19th day of April, by which it was asserted that the head of St. Dionysius of Athens is with the church of Saint-Denis, and that of St. Dionysius of Corinth with the Parisian canons of St. Mary. Hence it is evident that the suit was continued for the space of many years with every form of law observed."

[80] Thus he; further, as he presently adds, the Parisian canons, lost their case, taking no account afterwards of the decision of the senators of Paris which he here records, continued to expose the controverted head of St. Dionysius which is with them to the veneration of the people as the genuine head of St. Dionysius, apostle and first bishop of the Parisians. So indeed, as Félibien says, it seems to stand, and they are still accustomed to do this every year on the Octave of St. Dionysius, that is the 16th day of October, as I learn from the Spiritual Kalendars of the church of Paris, at the time of the more solemn Mass; and yet the suit which they conducted against the monastery of Saint-Denis about that sacred pledge was not decided, as appears from what has been said, in their favour. For since it was pronounced by decree of the senate that of the two heads of the two Dionysiuses, namely of Corinth and, as they then thought, of Athens, only the head of the former is with them, and they contended that the head not of this one but of Dionysius of Athens, who, as was then thought, had been the first bishop of the Parisians, was with them, indeed everyone sees that they lost their case. But although the matter stands thus, it still comes upon me to wonder that the reasons for which they contended what we have said are found nowhere committed to writing, and that not even the slightest mention is made by Félibien either of them or of the manner or occasion by which the canons said that the head of Dionysius had come to them. This writer indeed, after he has narrated how the Parisian canons, setting aside also the decision of the suit already treated of, still expose the head of Dionysius which they have as the genuine head of St. Dionysius of Paris, presently adds that probably it will never come about that that difficulty is soon removed or composed, and that each side brings forward for itself the tradition and possession of its church.

[81] But I would wish that he had set forth definitely on what the tradition and possession of their church, nor does it seem that the decree of the senate is to be opposed. which the Parisian canons allege for themselves, is founded. That silence suggests to me I know not what suspicion, and makes me doubt whether, in setting forth all the circumstances of the dissension which we have already related from him, he everywhere uses due sincerity and faith. However that may be, the tradition which, as he says, the Parisian canons cite took its beginning, as it appears, not earlier than in the 12th century (for they are not read to have asserted before this that the head of St. Dionysius of Paris was with them); and since the reasons for which they seem then first to have asserted it were not very strong, as seems from the words of the author who flourished in the 13th century, transcribed here above at num. 75 and 76, indeed, unless someone solidly proves to me that this is otherwise and that credence is therefore not to be given to that author, who was a monk of Saint-Denis, I think one must stand with Launoy, in On the Life and Miracles of St. Dionysius, Observation XI, by the decree of the senate already mentioned, in so far as by it the head of St. Dionysius of Paris was adjudged away from them; although meanwhile, being ignorant in what manner even the very head of St. Dionysius of Corinth came to them, I do not hold for wholly certain that even this very one is with them; and besides I would not suppose that the head of St. Dionysius, bishop of Paris, exists with the monks of Saint-Denis themselves either, if the body of our Saint was in fact snatched from them by theft about the year 890, as the people of Regensburg contend, and carried to Regensburg in that integrity which they will have; and whether this is true we are now about to investigate.

* perhaps "corpora" (bodies)?

* Adela.

* supply "not."

* perhaps "quæ" (which things)?

* perhaps "abscindatur"?

SECOND APPENDIX,

In which is examined the controversy of the monks of Saint-Denis in France and of Regensburg in Germany, each claiming for themselves the same body of St. Dionysius.

Dionysius, bishop and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Rusticus, priest and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

Eleutherius, deacon and martyr, at Paris in France. (S.)

BHL Number: 2196

CHAPTER I.

When the controversy about the body of St. Dionysius, carried by theft into Germany, was chiefly agitated, and what is to be thought of the manner in which this is narrated by an anonymous writer of the 11th century to have been done.

[The controversy in which there is dispute about the body of St. Dionysius of Paris,] Although indeed, when the controversy which we now undertake to examine here first arose between the monks of Saint-Denis and those of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, both the latter and the former distinguished the Dionysius about whose body they were disputing with the name of Areopagite, they nevertheless did so only because they judged that Dionysius the Areopagite was one and the same with the Dionysius who announced the faith to the Parisians and ended his life among them by an illustrious martyrdom. Nor for any other cause are some, while they still today call the St. Dionysius about whose body the Dionysian and Emmeramian monks dispute among themselves the Areopagite, to be judged to do so; and since the matter stands thus, and of those two Dionysiuses the one is undoubtedly different from the other, as we gave proved in the Commentary prefixed to the fictitious Acts of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg never contended that the body of any other Dionysius was with them than of him who was the Apostle and first bishop of the Parisians, while the monks of Saint-Denis on the contrary claimed for themselves the same body of the same Dionysius, it is here only to be examined, all discourse of St. Dionysius the Areopagite being dismissed, whether the body of St. Dionysius, apostle and first bishop of the Parisians, is with the monks of Saint-Denis or with those of St. Emmeram, or at any rate the merits of the case which both these and those defend are to be weighed and each balanced by its own weights. Let us approach the matter itself, and, that the discourse may proceed better in reason and order, let us place before the reader's eyes, straightway from the very beginning, when it chiefly came about that the controversy of which we are here speaking was agitated, being presently about to add also what is to be thought of the manner in which the body of St. Dionysius is narrated by an anonymous writer of the 11th century to have been carried by theft from France into Germany.

[2] Reginward, who began to govern the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg with the office of abbot in the year 1049, at Regensburg, with a body which the adjoined inscriptions having undertaken to restore the burned church of his monastery, found beyond expectation, in the Western part of it, in a wall from which the lime was being removed, three bricks which, by letters cut into them, testified that the body of St. Dionysius was kept there; and this too was afterwards, those stones or bricks having been removed, found in two shrines, of which one contained the head, the other the remaining limbs. So, roughly, the most serene prince and abbot of St. Emmeram, John Baptist, in his Dissertation on the body of St. Dionysius translated from Gaul into Bavaria, published in print at Regensburg in the year 1750 and to be cited by us here often, page 51 and following, indicating also in more than one place of the same Dissertation that the mentioned finding of the body which the bricks set before it testified to be that of Dionysius took place in the year 1052. But Oefele, in volume 1 of the Writers of Boian Affairs, brought out at Augsburg in the year 1763, page 46, exhibits from very old parchments of the Bavarian library a short chronicle of Bavaria, brought down from the year of Christ 732 up to the year 1062; and although this, which was written by an anonymous monk of St. Emmeram in the 11th century, as it appears, expressly notes the burning of the monastery of St. Emmeram at the year 1062, it nevertheless makes no mention of another fire by which it happened that either the monastery or the church of St. Emmeram was consumed earlier still, about the year 1052. Moreover, in the same Oefele, in the volume of the Boian Affairs just cited, from page 148 up to page 242, is extant a Catalogue, divided into three books, of the bishops who occupied the see of Regensburg from the 7th century up to the advanced 16th century; and although the author of this Catalogue, Laurentius Hochwart, hands down to memory in book 2, chap. 18, that the church of St. Emmeram was laid waste by fire not very long before the coming of Pope Leo IX to Regensburg, which, as we shall see below, happened in the year 1052, he nevertheless afterwards, as it were tacitly retracting it, writes thus towards the end of the same chapter: "Although many things have been said in this chap., nevertheless, concerning St. Dionysius, more certain things are to be noted here for the perpetual memory of the matter.

[3] "Blessed bishop Tuto, when he had received the body of St. Dionysius the martyr after the death of Arnulf, to be the body of St. Dionysius, fearing Gallic plots, enclosed the venerable relics of the Martyr in the Western wall of the temple with letters cut into bricks, lest the matter be abolished by fire, to be revealed in their own time. Then, conveniently, the abbot Reginbard, being about to build I know not what, under Gebhard" (namely from the year 1036 up to the year 1059 or 1060) "III, bishop of Regensburg, throws down the wall: he finds the remains with the inscribed bricks, produces these with others in testimony, and induces the Roman Pontiff to confirm the matter." Reginward, then, or, as he is called here by Hochwart, Reginbard, on the occasion not of a church laid waste by fire and restored by himself, but only of a wall thrown down for building something else,

is asserted by Hochwart, as it appears, to have found the body which the bricks, placed in that wall before it, indicated to be the body of St. Dionysius. And indeed, that this befell Reginward only on the occasion of a wall thrown down appears probable even from the very ancient chronicle of Bavaria alone which I have just cited, and which does not note that the church of St. Emmeram was burned yet another time about the year 1052; and since, as follows hence, the Emmeramian prince and abbot John Baptist, cited just now, probably errs in assigning the occasion on which that body was found, it comes about hence that it is to be feared lest he likewise erred in the year 1052, in which he says that that finding took place. However that may be, it is altogether certain that it at any rate happened about the middle of the eleventh century, inasmuch as it was made not long before the coming of Leo IX to Regensburg, which, as said, took place in the year 1052.

[4] [by theft by Giselbert, Ebulo being abbot of St. Dionysius, stolen, and there, Tuto being bishop,] Nor is it less certain that at that time also three stones or bricks were found in the wall, placed before the body found or before the shrines containing it, which by the characters impressed on them attested that it was the body of Dionysius. Those three bricks, or stones baked from clay, are still religiously kept today in the monastery of St. Emmeram. And the inscriptions indeed, expressed in the said characters, which they display, Caelestinus, abbot of St. Emmeram, first made public in the Work which he edited in the century just elapsed and entitled the Mausoleum of St. Emmeram; and afterwards the most serene prince and abbot of St. Emmeram, John Baptist, gave the same to an Engraver to be imitated, and further exhibits them engraved on copper in his Dissertation cited above, page 116. I exhibit them here as they stand in the abbot Caelestinus. The first is couched in these following words: "Emmeram of Aquitaine. Dionysius the Areopagite rests here under the emperor Arnulf and Odo the King"; the second in these: "Under Ebulo, abbot of the monastery of St. Dionysius, Gisalbert stole [it]"; and the third finally in these: "It was stolen on the 5th before the Nones of July. It came hither on the 2nd before the Nones of December, in the time of Tuto the bishop." Georg von Eckhart, in the Commentaries composed by him on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 746, writes thus: "Gisalbert is said to have stolen the relics of St. Dionysius under Ebulo, abbot of St. Dionysius. The name of Ebulo could scarcely have been known in Germany to any other than a contemporary man. That warlike Ebulo, or Ebolus, was made abbot of St. Dionysius in the year 886 and died in the year 893, on the 6th before the Ides of October, as Regino and other monuments testify. Tuto was created bishop of Regensburg in the year 894. Since, then, St. Dionysius was taken away from Gaul under abbot Ebulo on the 5th before the Nones of July, and came to Regensburg on the 2nd before the Nones of December in the time of bishop Tuto, it must be established that this pious theft was done in the year 893, and that St. Dionysius was brought into the church of St. Emmeram in the year 894."

[5] not however, if one is to assent to Eckhart, by gift of the emperor Arnulf, Thus he. And rightly indeed, since Ebulo, during whose time as abbot of Saint-Denis the body of St. Dionysius is asserted in the second of the inscriptions already given to have been stolen by theft, did not prolong his life beyond the year 893, he places that theft, if it ever took place, before the year 894. But since the same Ebulo was already abbot of Saint-Denis from the year 886, and Tuto, during whose time as bishop of Regensburg St. Dionysius is related, in the third of the Inscriptions transcribed here above, to have come to the church of St. Emmeram, presided over the church of Regensburg from the year 894 up to the year 931, as Mabillon shows in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, the truth of the second and third of the two said Inscriptions in no way at all, as will be plain to one considering it, requires that Dionysius be established to have been snatched from the Dionysians not earlier than the year 893, nor to have come to the church of St. Emmeram not later than the year 894. Why then does the cited Eckhart affirm, in the words just now given, that the former is to be established in the definite year 893 and the latter in the definite year 894? This writer, who, if Tuto had been bishop of the people of Regensburg already from the year 893, would also establish that Dionysius was not only snatched from the Gauls in this very year but also came to the church of St. Emmeram, undoubtedly does so because he attributes the theft of the Dionysian body not to the emperor Arnulf but to Giselbert alone, who also gave that sacred pledge to the Emmeramian church, and because, since Dionysius was thus, as he thinks, both snatched from the Gauls and carried to the church of St. Emmeram by Giselbert, he judges that the latter was accomplished by him with only the least delay he could make after the theft. Hear him speaking immediately after the words just recited: "Gisalbert," he says, "without doubt, lest he be detected and arrested on the journey, used circuitous ways, and, when he hesitated in doubt where to deposit the sacred treasure, kept it secretly with him for some time. But since no church was then dearer to Arnulf and more illustrious in Bavaria than that of St. Emmeram at Regensburg... Gisalbert believed that the relics of St. Dionysius could rest nowhere more honourably than at Regensburg, and carried them to this royal city."

[6] But did Eckhart rightly establish that Dionysius was neither snatched by theft from the Gauls by the emperor Arnulf nor given to the Emmeramian church? Since neither the one nor the other is found recorded as done by Arnulf in any literary monuments at all earlier than the year 1050, and neither is asserted in the inscriptions already given, indeed I would not wish to oppose Eckhart wholly here. Nevertheless, since the people of Regensburg are asserted, in the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX and to be recited here below, to have said to that Pope that Dionysius was both stolen from the Gauls and translated to the church of St. Emmeram through the emperor Arnulf, why, if the theft of the Dionysian body ever took place, could not the emperor Arnulf, who, as Eckhart rightly thinks, was never at Lutetia of the Parisians, be said to have snatched Dionysius from the Gauls, not indeed because that theft was perpetrated by himself, but because it was perpetrated by Giselbert at his command? Surely what one does through another by his command is not undeservedly judged to be done by himself. And let this be said of the theft of the Dionysian body; but as now regards the donation of the same body, Eckhart establishes that it was not made to the Emmeramian monastery by Arnulf, because Arnolf, from count of Vohburg monk of St. Emmeram, accurately enumerating the gifts which the emperor Arnulf conferred on the church of St. Emmeram, does not mention even by a little word the Dionysian body. But that on account of this silence of Arnolf, or, as he is called by others, Arnold, what Eckhart here establishes is not necessarily to be established will be evident from what is to be said below. But if nevertheless anyone, not approving what I am going to bring forward there, shall continue with Eckhart to ascribe both the theft of that sacred pledge and the donation made to the Emmeramian monastery not to Arnulf but to Giselbert alone, I have no mind to struggle vehemently against him. And indeed why should I not be so disposed?

[7] had been placed in the church of St. Emmeram, indicated, The translation of Dionysius from Gaul into Germany rests chiefly on the three bricks or stones mentioned here at num. 4, and the Inscriptions cut into these disclose that it was done only in the time of Arnulf, but not likewise that the thing was done with this prince himself either acting or commanding. The opinion indeed which establishes that Dionysius was given to the Emmeramian church by Arnulf is founded also in the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX and to be recited here below, or rather in the tradition of the people of Regensburg which prevailed about the middle of the 11th century; but who would assert for certain that this tradition was then still pure, and not enlarged and further defiled with false circumstances born from the unreliable report of the crowd? Who, I ask, would give sufficiently solidly, or in any way, proved that the inscriptions which also agree with the same opinion, and which, before the body was found by the abbot Reginward, as I recorded above, are reported to have existed in the Emmeramian church, as we shall see presently, were placed immediately after the same body was brought to it, and not composed much later from the tradition already corrupted in the manner I have just said? But however this matter stands, the body which the people of Regensburg judge to be that of Dionysius came, Tuto being already bishop of the people of Regensburg, to Regensburg, to the church of St. Emmeram, as the third of the inscriptions transcribed here above attests; and Tuto afterwards, lest it should either be stolen by craft and fraud by the Gauls, who would perhaps try to recover the sacred treasure snatched from them, or be profaned by the Hungarians, frequently bursting into Bavaria at the beginning of the 10th century, enclosed it in the wall of the Emmeramian church, adding also the three bricks which I mentioned above.

[8] found about the year 1050, the agitated But since, as it appears, only very few had been aware of this hiding, lest perhaps the sacred relics be uncovered by betrayal, the place in which they had been hidden gradually came into oblivion, until at length, on the occasion which I have set forth above, it was uncovered by the abbot Reginward, together with the body which it contained, about the year 1050. So almost all with unanimous consent who contend that St. Dionysius was translated by theft from France to Regensburg, to the church of St. Emmeram. Further, although indeed, before the body which I recorded before was found by the abbot Reginward about the middle of the 11th century, together with the inscriptions given above which indicated that it was the body of Dionysius, the matter stood as I have already said, nevertheless divers other inscriptions, nay also pictures impressed on the walls, which taught not obscurely that the body of St. Dionysius was kept there, were found in the church of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, if John Baptist, abbot of St. Emmeram, writes rightly in his aforesaid Dissertation, chap. 5. And to me indeed it appears sufficiently probable that such inscriptions and pictures in fact existed there already at that time; but however that was, the rumour nevertheless of the body of St. Dionysius stolen from the Dionysians and carried from France into Germany had hitherto not spread itself very widely through Germany and Gaul, because it was not known in what place in the Emmeramian church it lay hidden; but this rumour, when the body which I have mentioned had been found by Reginward, at once gained strength more and more, report spreading the matter with perhaps even greater noise than was fitting; and, the Emmeramian monks proclaiming everywhere that the body of St. Dionysius of Paris was with them, being scattered in every direction, it affected the Gauls very badly, as it appears, and was received by them with by no means favourable ears. How true this is will be evident from what I now subjoin. Pope Leo IX came into Germany in the year 1052 to compose peace between Andrew, king of Hungary, and the emperor Henry IV, and in the same year, as Pagi in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs and others rightly teach at the same year, came to Regensburg.

[9] And there, further, not only St. Wolfgang, but also St. Erhard into the number of the Saints

he enrolled, was in the highest degree, and, as some add, also diligently examined whether or not the body of St. Dionysius, first bishop of the Parisians, was with the Emmeramian monks. Nor did he only examine it, but also, if credit is to be given to the Germans, declared, by a letter given to Henry, king of Gaul, that that sacred pledge, snatched by theft from the Gauls, was with the Emmeramian monks. The Gauls indeed generally deny that a letter of this kind was given by Leo; but whether rightly or otherwise it will be the reader's to determine from what will be said below. Meanwhile, on the other side, Henry I, king of the Franks, when rumours about the body found by the abbot Reginward at Regensburg in the church of St. Emmeram had been brought to him in such a way that their truth could not be doubted, lest perhaps the opinion of those who asserted that it was the body of St. Dionysius, Apostle of the Parisians, should creep more widely, caused the shrine or casket in which the body of St. Dionysius was believed to have been formerly deposited by Dagobert I, king of the Franks, to be publicly unlocked, and the sacred relics enclosed in it to be shown to a numerous multitude with the greatest possible solemnity. This, as I shall teach below, is altogether certain and called into doubt by no one; so that surely the controversy in which the Dionysians and the Emmeramians contend about the body of St. Dionysius came to be agitated chiefly at the time when the body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius had been found at Regensburg in the church of St. Emmeram about the middle of the 11th century.

[10] Further, the Gauls, having made the visitation of the Dionysian casket or shrine which I have mentioned, [and the Gauls contending that the body of Dionysius could not have been snatched from them,] boldly asserted (whether rightly or otherwise, what is to be said will disclose) not only that the body of St. Dionysius had not been taken away from there, but that it could not even have been stolen. And this latter they seem to have contended chiefly from the fortified place in which that sacred pledge had always been guarded with the greatest care. Certainly Haymo, who, as we shall see below, described at the end of the 12th century the visitation or uncovering of the Dionysian body already mentioned, — Haymo, I say, or rather those Gauls whom he here brings in speaking in the lucubration by which he did this, — speak thus in it, in Félibien at the end of the History of Saint-Denis, chap. 5: "As we have learned from the authentic opinion of very many whom they say to be of greater usefulness and worth in the disciplines of literary and liberal studies in our country, it is found most evidently described in the Deeds of king Dagobert how he honourably placed the said Saint" (namely Dionysius) "with his two companions in silver shrines, fortified within, with wonderful and subtle diligence, with most artful locks and bars, as can still be seen today. And he placed them behind the altar in a crypt of such depth that, if anyone wished to take anything out of it, he would put himself in altogether up to the knees. Nay more, before one reaches the bodies of the Saints, there is a certain little crypt, decorated on the outside with golden gems, in which, diligently fortified with two locks, the pledges of the Lord's nail and crown are kept laid away; and by no other approach than this can the shrines of the Saints be seen, or in any way be touched by anyone. Behold how the body of St. Dionysius, so fortified, can be taken away by no art of thieves."

[11] could not have been, at that time also the manner in which it Thus they; so that the Gauls then seem surely to have contended that the body of St. Dionysius could not even have been stolen by theft, both from the fortified place in which it was hidden and from the very great care with which it had always been guarded. Hence, further, unless I am mistaken, it also then came about that the Germans, in order to show that the theft of Giselbert not only could have taken place but in fact took place, most studiously investigated, applying every care, the method by which it both could have been committed and in fact had been committed. At least the abbot of St. Emmeram, John Baptist, already cited above more than once, gives some handle for so supposing. For this most serene author exhibits at the end of his Dissertation on Dionysius translated to Regensburg a lucubration written either not long after or about the middle of the 11th century, as will be evident from what is soon to be said, in which the anonymous writer of this Opuscule unfolds not only the translation of St. Dionysius from Gaul but also the method by which it was carried out. And that that lucubration was written either not long after, as I have already said, or about the middle of the 11th century appears certain and beyond doubt for this reason, that at the end of the Dissertation just mentioned it displays, or has prefixed to it, a letter inscribed by the same anonymous writer to the abbot Reginward, who, as the cited abbot of St. Emmeram John Baptist teaches in his Annotations on that letter, presided over the monastery of St. Emmeram from the year 1049 up to the year 1064. Further, in it that anonymous writer, who in the prefixed title is called a priest, promises immediately from the beginning that he will most willingly commend to writing, as Reginward had asked of him, how the bones of St. Dionysius were stolen at Paris and translated from Gaul to Regensburg, and then declares that he will carry this out partly from the letter sent to him by Reginward himself, partly from the notices which he had received from the wisest and most truthful men of the Gauls (for among them, as he says, he had stayed for some time).

[12] was done, by an anonymous writer, through a lucubration, partly indeed, But did he accomplish this rightly and with the truth everywhere preserved? It does not appear so to me at least. Nor indeed does he, writing not a few things very little probable, nay altogether out of keeping with all appearance of truth, gain any credit for himself in matters done long before his age which he relates without an older surety for his statements. But that the studious reader may himself discern by himself whether I so judge deservedly, I exhibit here in summary, at least in part, the aforesaid lucubration in which that anonymous priest, by nation, as it appears, a German, did what I have said, most of the absurdities which are mixed into it besides being nevertheless omitted, being presently to subjoin afterwards also the things in it which chiefly displease. All the heads of that lucubration, then, which bear here on our purpose, reduced for the greater part to a summary, come roughly to this. The emperor Arnulf, in order to bring help to Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, who, compelled by Odo, taken as king by the Gauls, to withdraw from the kingdom, had come to Cologne and had suppliantly asked him, then staying there, for help against his enemies, enters Gaul with a very great army, storms not a few cities of this kingdom, and soon nevertheless, although the Gauls everywhere yield to his arms, softened by gifts from Odo, brings both him and Charles into an assembly, and at the same time decrees that Odo should continue to reign in Gaul, and that Charles, who would reign there only after Odo, should withdraw into Burgundy; and, matters being so settled, he proceeds with his army together with Odo as far as Paris, in order to place him again on the throne there, pitches camp near this city for some time, sends Odo, increased by six legions of his army, against the Northmen who were laying waste Gaul, approaches the Dionysian church in order to venerate the holy patron of this place, is honourably received by the abbot Ebulo, and, having returned to the camp, unrolls with attentive mind the Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius, which he receives from him.

[13] Hence he is kindled with the desire of carrying off the sacred body of so sublime a writer from Gaul into Germany, which is given here, communicates this with Giselbert, and, taught by him with how great care the body of Dionysius is kept and that it can scarcely come about that it be stolen by any art, embraces the plan which the latter offers him: he condemns Giselbert, accused by arrangement of treason or betrayal, to the extreme punishment before Ebulo, abbot of Saint-Denis, joined to him by kinship, and nevertheless, this one and other Gauls interceding, grants pardon to Giselbert, guilty in appearance. He, matters being thus arranged, having first been presented by Arnulf with a great sum of money, so that he might carry out the theft of the Dionysian body which he was planning, withdraws to the monastery of St. Dionysius as to an asylum, with the abbot Ebulo, joined to him by the bond of blood, feigns a purpose of taking the monk's habit there, and, having offered for this end one part of the money which he had brought with him to the community and another to the abbot Ebulo, at length with difficulty obtaining, on the pretext of placing a third part upon the very tomb of St. Dionysius, that the place where this was situated be shown him, is introduced by the abbot Ebulo at night time, by a hidden approach, into the crypt in which the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius lay hidden; he sees there divers marble tombs, but, uncertain in which of these the body of St. Dionysius lay, asks that the sepulchre or tomb which contained it be opened to him; and having at length obtained this too from Ebulo by largesses and prayers, the lid of the tomb being moved not without enormous labour, he gazes upon the most holy limbs of the Dionysian body; and since a paper found near the head attested that the body of St. Dionysius lay in this one, he honours the sacred spoils of the holy Martyr with the money which he had feigned that he wished to place upon it, and pours out prayers to the Saint.

[14] Soon afterwards, further, having gone out of the crypt, and now knowing exactly all the things which he had desired to know for safely perpetrating the deed which he was planning, in summary, he most diligently prepares a banquet, to which he had invited the abbot and the monks; he then prolongs it, together with the supper that followed, for a very long time, and, all being exceedingly loaded with food and drink and hence going off to bed, he himself asks of Ebulo that it be permitted him to keep watch that night in the church; and having obtained this under a feigned appearance of piety, he plies the guardians of the sacred place with wine in great abundance; and these being thence dissolved in sleep, Giselbert, now seeing everything safe, with instruments which he had ordered, enclosed in a little case, to be brought to him under the appearance of books, breaks first the bars of the crypt which contained the tombs of our Saints and then the tomb in which he had learned, in the manner related above, that the body of St. Dionysius lay; he snatches thence the sacred bones of Dionysius, puts them into two bags, and, laden with these, betakes himself without delay to the place where he had ordered a horse prepared for him to be held, and, leaping onto this, makes for the camp of Arnulf at a swift gallop, and delivers into his hands the sacred prey which he had sought; and, received by him according to his merits, he is soon dismissed with the sacred relics of St. Dionysius stolen by theft, in order that these might be placed in safety, from Gaul into Germany, five hundred horsemen being joined to him for guard. The emperor, who nevertheless had kept with himself from the relics of St. Dionysius the bone which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm (these are the very words of the anonymous writer, to be of use further below), is not long afterwards met by the abbot Ebulo.

[15] partly in the very ones, in which For the guardians of the church, inspecting it in the morning, had found the bars of the crypt in which the bodies of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius had lain twisted, and the tomb of Dionysius broken open and bereft of the bones of the holy Martyr, Giselbert appearing nowhere; and when they had soon made Ebulo aware of all these things, he, scenting what the matter was,

betakes himself without any delay to the camp of Arnulf, boldly enters the emperor's tent, cries out that the stolen body of Dionysius be restored to him; and while afterwards, gaining nothing by his cries, he humbly supplicates the emperor to restore that sacred pledge, Arnulf, denying that he will do so, nevertheless promises Ebulo that, if he will deliver to him a precious book of the Gospels existing in his abbey, he will give him counsel by which he may be freed from all the distress which had arisen for him from the theft of the Dionysian body; and when Ebulo answers that he will do this with a willing mind, the emperor presently suggests to him the counsel he had promised. This and some other things which further occur in the said lucubration are so singular and strange, I might almost say ridiculous, that it is better for them all to be recounted in the very words of the anonymous writer who committed it to writing. They read thus: "The emperor said: 'Seek again the monastery with swift course, and, calling together the brethren, say that you have found with me the body of St. Dionysius, which the apostate Gisilbert, having carried it off by theft, had brought to me, in order to return into favour by that bargain, but that I cast him away with disgrace, and, he having slipped away in flight, kept the holy relics with me, and will give them back to you, unless they refuse, at an agreed price.

[16] are recited, "'Then, a few elders being taken with you, secretly approach the sepulchres of the Saints, and raise from the sepulchre the limbs of one of the Companions of Dionysius, or of some one of the Martyrs, of whose number you have plenty, and bring openly the book, secretly the relics, to me in the camp. It is mine to prepare for you two bags of leather, most like these in which the body of Dionysius was brought; these I cause to be stuffed with the holy relics which you have brought; and mixing with them the one limb of holy Dionysius which I have kept with me, I hand them over to you. For by synecdoche the part is taken for the whole, so that you may be able to confirm by oath that you truly hold the body of Dionysius recovered. So laden, openly with our escort, dancing for joy, hasten home from the camp; and when you have arrived there, eagerly go up into the ambo, and announce to the raging people that you had rescued, by right of kinship, a certain wanderer and apostate thrust out by me and condemned to proscription and death, and that he at the same time, having feigned conversion, that you would receive him into the monastery, had snatched from you by theft the relics of Dionysius, that by such a gift he might restore our favour; whom I, having cast him into chains, would rather wish to perish with an example; that he slipped away in flight and disappeared. But that I had presented you, at the price of so great a book, with the holy body of Dionysius.' Having received, then, so great a comfort and so great a counsel, the abbot Ebulo flies back swiftly to the monastery, more swiftly called together the brethren, and related to them the munificence of the august one towards him; and they all, for this benefit, advised that there should be granted not only the book which he asked for, but even, if he asked, half the kingdom of Gaul. After this, with the elders of whose faith and silence he was secure, he entered the crypt secretly, and raised from the sepulchre the bones of another Saint, to be carried in place of the bones of Dionysius, but also relocated in the emptied sepulchre itself the bones of a certain venerable man, lest the place appear empty.

[17] "These things, then, being so perpetrated, he runs back, as had been agreed, to the august one in the camp, in the words of the writer offers him the book, receiving secretly, by exchange, the limb of Dionysius mixed with the very relics which he had brought. And these the abbot Ebulo, receiving them on a glad neck, accompanied by clergy and people, carried back to the holy place, and soon, going up into the ambo, proclaimed to the raging people (for, the report having spread, the people of Paris had flowed together) how he had lost the holy relics and how he had recovered them. So, the aforesaid limb, as he stood in the pulpit, he confirmed by oath that this was truly the body of Dionysius the Areopagite. Then he put forward whether it pleased them that the most holy body be laid away again in the old sepulchre, or be placed more cautiously. And all crying out together that it ought to be placed more cautiously, in the sight of the multitude he put the limbs themselves in a small leaden shrine, and this in a silver one." Such are the very words of the cited anonymous writer which I have thought should be transcribed here. Further, he subjoins after a few more things: "Thus the bones of Dionysius were taken away from Paris, thus they were translated from Gaul, thus the emperor Arnolph acquired them by such an artifice, thus by wonderful astuteness he composed all disturbances"; and then, having stated that Arnulf began to withdraw from Gaul with his army on the fifth day after the things already said had been done, he speaks further, in the last chapter of his lucubration, in the following manner: "So long as Arnolph lived in safety, he kept with him the bones of St. Dionysius. At length, seized with illness, when he felt that his end was imminent, he gave the bones of Dionysius to the monastery of St. Emmeram to be kept perpetually, together with the book of the Gospels which we mentioned before...

[18] "Then Tuto, prelate of Regensburg, guarding against Gallic plots, exhibited here, was adduced; but this and lest any overpowerful person should snatch away the holy relics thence, vigorously took precautions. For he bound all who were aware of this matter by oath, lest anyone should betray the bones of Dionysius, saying: 'When it shall be timely, the divine predestination will reveal these things more opportunely.' So, laying away the holy bones in a mean little shrine, he placed them in a sarcophagus, but committed the matter to memory cut letter by letter into three tablets of baked brick, and enclosed these in the wall on the Western side... Thus the bones of Dionysius were placed at Regensburg." Behold, learned reader, a truly excellent manner in which the body of St. Dionysius was translated from Gaul into Germany and afterwards to Regensburg, if credence is to be given to the anonymous writer of the aforesaid Lucubration. But what is to be thought of that manner? The Writer by whom it is related flourished, as I have already taught above, about the middle of the 11th century, and the translation which he records happened, if it ever took place, about the year 890, as I shall teach below; and since it stands thus, and he therefore lived removed from it by more than a century and a half, whence, I ask, did he have ascertained the manner in which he says it was done? He affirms indeed, in his letter to the abbot Reginward cited above, that he heard "how Dionysius was translated from Gaul, and who carried him off by theft from Paris ... both from the abbot of Paris himself and from others, brethren of that monastery, in whose companionship he long delighted." But when the Germans, about the middle of the 11th century, asserted more confidently than they had done before that the body of St. Dionysius had been translated by theft from Gaul to them, the Gauls, as has already been said, and above all the Dionysian monks, denied it.

[19] on account of those things which Did these, then, at the same time also teach their guest, although a German by nation, the method by which the very thing which they denied to the Germans had been done was in fact done? If it was so, it must surely be that that anonymous German priest entered into the greatest favour with the Gauls, and also gained for himself plainly notable credit among them. And indeed, if he was at times asked by them, a hope also, as he says, of no mean reward being held out, either himself to bring Dionysius back from Bavaria into Gaul, or to suggest the method by which he could be carried away from Regensburg, he certainly had no small credit with them. Let the matter, then, have stood as he discloses, and let the Dionysian monks have confessed to their guest secretly, and, as he speaks in his letter just cited, more privately, what they publicly denied; yet all those things which he heard from them, whether about the very translation of St. Dionysius into Germany or about the manner in which it was done, were founded, as he indicates not obscurely in the same letter, on tradition alone; and that this was not genuine and true is clear even from the fact that the anonymous writer who, using the accounts of those monks which, as he indicates, flowed from it, composed his lucubration on the translation of Dionysius, exhibited above for the greater part in summary, strays not a little in it from historical truth. To give this proved, I adduce, of the many errors in which he sins in it, only three, the rest being dismissed for brevity's sake.

[20] are brought forward here He writes, in the words transcribed here at num. 17, that the precious book of the Gospels, of which more below, was given to the Emmeramian monastery by the emperor Arnulf when already near death; but that this was done by that prince much earlier is shown altogether certainly, as will be evident from what is to be said below, from Arnolf, who, made in the 11th century from count of Vohburg a monk of St. Emmeram, put into writing the miracles of St. Emmeram about the year 1030. I confess indeed that the method by which he relates that the translation of St. Dionysius from Gaul was made is by no means overthrown by this error; but it is overthrown by two others now to be recorded. Whatever he relates in the summary already given, and by name in the words already recited at num. 16 and 17, about Ebulo, abbot of Saint-Denis, necessarily requires that he was in the monastery of St. Dionysius at the time when the emperor Arnulf, or rather the king of Germany, brought help to Charles the Simple, which was done, as all agree, in the year 893; but Ebulo, as the Annals of Metz teach in Duchesne, volume 3 of the Writers of Gaul, at the years 892 and 893, had already withdrawn into Aquitaine in the year 892, and there bore arms against Odo up to his death, which happened in the year 893. Moreover he writes that the emperor Arnulf, in order to bring help to Charles the Simple, who, driven from the kingdom, had implored his help against Odo, led an army into Gaul, and, having advanced as far as Paris, also encamped for some days around this city; but although indeed Charles the Simple, driven from the kingdom by Odo, implored the help of Arnulf against him in the year 89[ ], and he also supplied forces to bring help to Charles, Odo nevertheless took his stand with an army on the Aisne and prevented them from entering the kingdom. Hear what the Annals of Metz say, in Duchesne, volume 3 of the Writers of Gaul, page 328, at the said year 893.

[21] "Charles," they say, "not being able to bear the forces of Odo, forward, is certainly to be rejected as fictitious. suppliantly begs the patronage of Arnulf. In the summer time indeed the aforesaid king held a public assembly at the city of Worms, where Charles came, and wins Arnulf to himself with great gifts, and received from his hand the kingdom which he had usurped. It was also ordered that the bishops and counts who resided about the Meuse should bring him help, and, leading him into the kingdom, enthrone him in the royal seat. But neither of these things profited him anything. At length king Odo, hearing this, sat down with an army on the bank of the river Aisne, and by no means permitted the forces of Arnulf to enter the kingdom. The king's commanders, seeing that Odo was manfully prepared for battle, turned aside from him and returned to their own. Charles withdrew into Burgundy, and, Odo returning to Paris, again occupies the bounds of the kingdom, and thus alternately many perish on both sides." Since, then, Arnulf, having sent an army to the help of Charles the Simple in the mentioned year 893, did not penetrate as far as Paris, as is clear from the text of the Annals of Metz just recited, nor is he read at any other time to have supplied auxiliary forces to Charles the Simple, indeed that which, concerning Arnulf, as far as Paris, of the undertaken against Odo

expedition, as having advanced on that occasion, and as having pitched camp near this city for some time, the anonymous author of the lucubration of which we speak here writes, as already said, by no means agrees with the truth; and since this is so, and, if Arnulf never encamped with an army near Paris, the manner in which he hands down to memory that the body of St. Dionysius was stolen from the Dionysians by Giselbert could never, as will be plain to one considering it, have taken place, it follows, both from this and from what I have just said about Ebulo, that that manner is certainly to be rejected as fictitious.

CHAPTER II.

How besides the theft of the Dionysian body is said to have been perpetrated, and when, if it was in fact committed either thus or otherwise, it happened.

The theft of the Dionysian body, if in the manner which Aventinus I have shown clearly, unless I am mistaken, in the immediately preceding chapter, that the manner in which the body of St. Dionysius is asserted, in the Lucubration written by an anonymous writer of the 11th century and published in the year 1750 by John Baptist, abbot and prince of St. Emmeram, to have been stolen from the Dionysian monks and translated from Gaul into Germany, is by no means to be admitted but is certainly to be rejected as fictitious. Now I undertake to examine how besides that theft is said to have been perpetrated, and when, if it was in fact perpetrated either thus or otherwise, it happened. Johannes Aventinus, in the Annals of the Boii, book 4, writes thus: "Arnulf, content with the lot which had been offered beyond hope, judging Germany itself too great to be conveniently ruled by one, commits Western France to the faith and guardianship of Otto" (more commonly he is distinguished here by others with the name of Odo)... "And Otto, in order to gratify Arnulf in turn, steals the peculiar sacred treasures of Gaul and delivers them to Arnulf; namely that Dionysius, the tutelary heavenly patron of the Gauls, and a book, which they esteem so highly, gilded and jewelled, written in golden letters for the honour of so great a hero by command of the emperor Charles the Bald, ruler of the Western Franks, and given as a gift to the most ample shrine of the same Saint, situated in the district of the Parisians.

[23] into concord with himself "Arnulf laid up these monuments of piety at Regensburg in the temple of St. Emmeram, the tutelary divinity of the Boii, where they are still shown... and we have entered in the Fasti and Acts, and keep as feasts, these days on which those pledges of religion, taken away by theft from Gaul, were translated into Bavaria"; and then, having first stated some further things which do not pertain so nearly to our purpose, and having transcribed also the three inscriptions already recited here above, in one of which Giselbert is said to have stolen the body of St. Dionysius, he adds: "That Gisalbert was the richest of the nobles; condemned by arrangement for sacrilege, deliberately carried off to the monastery of St. Dionysius, he is willingly received by the monks, with whom, frequently living well (for he both had what to give, and no one gave more largely), he became far more welcome. When he sees that sufficient trust is had in him, supplying expenses abundantly, he prepares a rich supper, wine studiously of the best, with royal luxury, for the monks and all the inmates of the monastery, prolongs the banquet into the night, and, all of them being buried in wine and sleep, then Gisalbert perpetrated the sacrilege" (namely the theft of the Dionysian body), "as is handed down in writing." Aventinus, if all his words just transcribed here are considered barely in themselves, conflicts with himself. For first he says that St. Dionysius was stolen from the Gauls by Odo and delivered to this prince in order to gratify Arnulf; but then he affirms that he was carried off by theft by Giselbert.

[24] But since authors who conflict with one another in appearance are not to be set against each other but, if it can be done, reconciled, persuades to be brought, the words also in which one and the same author seems to write conflicting things are to be so understood that he is not set against himself, but, if it can be done, brought into concord. When Odo, after the death of the emperor Charles the Fat, had been taken as king by the Gauls in the year 888, he came to Arnulf, then still only king of Germany and Lotharingia, at Worms, and showed himself there such, as the Annals of Freher and the commonly met writers testify, that he was able thenceforth to reign with the consent of Arnulf, and that he always had him, whom he strove in every way to bind to himself, most friendly up to the year 893, in which the same Arnulf, moved partly by the letters of Fulk, archbishop of Reims, partly by the prayers of Charles the Simple, took up arms against Odo. What if, then, Odo stole Dionysius from the Gauls, not indeed by himself, but, lest he should thereby stir up the hatred of the Gauls against himself, secretly employing for it the Services of Giselbert, sent to him by Arnulf for this end, who deceived the Dionysian monks by a feigned purpose of taking the monk's habit, and carried the body of Dionysius, stolen from them by craft, into Germany, Odo secretly furnishing him help? Moreover Ebulo, abbot of St. Dionysius, withdrew into Aquitaine in the year 892, and there, as the Annals of Metz testify, bore arms against Odo up to the 10th day of October of the following year, on which he perished in the siege of some castle.

[25] What if, then, Odo, as soon as Ebulo had withdrawn into Aquitaine, was perpetrated, in the year 892, or, if occupied the Dionysian monastery in order to punish its abbot, rebellious against him, snatched from it that precious book of the Gospels which Aventinus records, gave to Giselbert, in order to gratify Arnulf, the opportunity of stealing the Dionysian body, and afterwards caused this to be carried secretly, together with the said book of the Gospels, into Germany to Arnulf by the same Giselbert? Indeed, if the matter be established to have been so done, Aventinus will by no means have to be said to conflict with himself in the words recited above. Nor will this only be had thence, but also in what year, more probably, the Dionysian body was snatched from the Gauls, if indeed that sacred pledge is in fact with the people of Regensburg. For since, as appears from what has been said, that theft, if king Odo had a part in it, probably did not happen before Ebulo, abbot of St. Dionysius, who, as said, died in the year 893, had already withdrawn into Aquitaine in the year 892, it follows that it was perpetrated either in the year 892 or in the following; and since Arnulf, king of Germany, made war on Odo in the year 893 on behalf of Charles the Simple, and it is not probable that the latter then helped Giselbert to steal from the Dionysians the Dionysian body, to be carried to Arnulf, it follows further hence that it more probably came about that that sacred pledge was snatched from them in the year 892. Aventinus indeed, from whom we thus determine both the manner and the time of that pious theft, as it was then accustomed to be called, flourished not earlier than the 15th century; but at least two older writers very probably lighted his way, by one of whom indeed the theft of the Dionysian body was ascribed to Odo, by the other to Giselbert. So I suppose, because, as it appears, he would not otherwise have committed to writing the things adduced here above, which conflict in appearance.

[26] in the manner in which it is maintained by more recent writers, done, But someone will perhaps inquire, were those writers who lighted the way for Aventinus very ancient? This I indeed would not dare to assert; nay rather, since nothing at all is found committed to writing before the 11th century about the translation of Dionysius into Germany, they were very probably not older than the 12th century or the following; so that in what he writes of it Aventinus, although following guides even much older than himself, does not deserve certain and undoubted credence. Hence perhaps it came about that some more recent writers who flourished after Aventinus ascribed to king Odo no part at all, as he himself does, in the theft of the Dionysian body, and, not branding that prince with a mark of this kind, established that it was perpetrated roughly in the following manner. Gisalbert, or, as others write, Giselbert, a man dear to the emperor Arnulf, judging that he would do this prince a pleasing thing if he could steal from the Gauls and offer to him the body of St. Dionysius, first bishop of the Parisians, and, as they then thought, formerly of the Athenians, resolved to carry it out, opens his plan to Arnulf, and, this one approving it, nay even commanding the proposed theft, makes for the monastery of Saint-Denis in France in order to commit it, and feigns that he has fled thither as one guilty of a crime, so that by the sanctity of the place he might be withdrawn from punishment. Kindly received by the abbot and the monks, he diligently searches out everything to procure a happy outcome for his plan, and above all strives by every means that, staying in that place as in an asylum, he may have easy access to the sacred tomb of St. Dionysius.

[27] in the year 890 All things being arranged for perpetrating the deed, he furnishes a sumptuous and splendid banquet for the abbot and the monks, adds to the banquet a supper no less splendid, studiously prolongs this far into the night, and, all being well drunk and thence dissolved in sleep, he himself enters the church, unlocks the door of the Dionysian tomb, breaks open by force the case barred with a lock, in which he had learned that the sacred body which he was intent on stealing was contained, snatches the bones of the holy Martyr, and, laden with the sacred spoils, flees by great journeys into Germany, and there delivers the holy prey into the hands of the emperor Arnulf. And this is the manner in which, as I have said, more recent writers conjecture that the theft of the Dionysian body was perpetrated; and they do so to show that that sacred pledge, although always guarded with the highest care and kept in a most firmly closed place, could nevertheless have been brought out of the monastery and carried out of the kingdom. But what if Giselbert, who carried it off by theft, was a man so skilful that he could open and close again with the greatest dexterity any doors and chests whatever, however firmly closed, and he, having stayed some time in the monastery of Saint-Denis, whether under the pretext of taking the monk's habit there or of anything else, and being now well informed of the place in which the body of Dionysius lay hidden, extracted it from the resting-place or casket by the rare art in which he was skilled, and carried it into Germany, the theft still lying hidden from the Dionysian monks for a long time after?

[28] or at any rate in one or other of the two following years it happened. What if also that sacred pledge, when it had first been brought back from Reims, whither it had been carried for fear of the Northmen in the year 887, to the monastery of Saint-Denis, was stolen from the Dionysian monks by craft and fraud? Then surely it is most probable that the sacred treasure lay open to the snares of thieves more than at other times, and that it was snatched from the Dionysians, if indeed it is with the people of Regensburg, either in the very year in which it was brought back from Reims to Saint-Denis or at any rate not long after, will be evident from what is soon to be said. However that may be, if all the manners already assigned in which the theft of the Dionysian body could have been perpetrated perhaps displease, there is at any rate no reason why it should be said that it could not have been perpetrated in any other way at all. Not a few things, most diligently guarded and kept under a hundred keys, so to speak, have been carried off by theft, of which no one could easily explain in what manner they could have been stolen. But if meanwhile the theft of which we are here speaking was perpetrated in the manner just now assigned, which is maintained by more recent writers, it must be that it happened either in the year 890 or in one or other of the two following. So it must altogether be established, because, as all agree,

the body of Dionysius was snatched from the Dionysian monks neither earlier than when it had been brought back from Reims to Saint-Denis, which was done in the year 890, as I taught in the preceding Appendix, num. 44, nor later than the year 893, the year of the death of the abbot Ebulo, under whom that theft was perpetrated. For the rest, if, as Eckhart establishes, Dionysius was both snatched from the Gauls and given to the Emmeramian church by Giselbert alone, the former probably happened, for the cause already set forth here at num. 5, in the year 893, and the latter in the year 894.

CHAPTER III.

Whether, either from Widukind, or from the silence of all writers, and by name of the monk Arnolph, concerning the translation of St. Dionysius into Germany, it is proved that this certainly did not take place.

[Mabillon, from Widukind, that the theft of the Dionysian body is certainly fictitious] Mabillon, in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 112, and likewise in more than one place of the Benedictine Annals, Gérard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, book 10, chap. 5, Launoy in the Life and Miracles of St. Dionysius, Observation XI and following, and many other writers, chiefly French, decry the narration mentioned by us above, by which the body of St. Dionysius is related to have been stolen by theft from the monks of Saint-Denis and at length carried to Regensburg to the church of St. Emmeram, or rather the theft which is maintained by it, as an undoubted fable and fiction, which neither took place nor could ever have taken place. And Mabillon indeed, to show that he does this deservedly, having first stated in volume 3 of the said Annals, book 39, num. 29, some things about the relics of St. Dionysius stolen and carried into Germany and about the manner in which this is maintained by some to have been done, presently continues in this manner: "But to refute this little fable there is need of no other authors than German ones, Widukind, I say, Dietmar and Arnolf, monk of St. Emmeram, who all wrote towards the end of the tenth century." Then, further, after he has shown from the testimonies of Widukind, Dietmar, Conrad abbot of Ursperg and Sigebert, partly already adduced by me above in the immediately preceding Appendix, num. 66 and following, that a hand of the precious martyr Dionysius, enclosed in gold and gems, was sent by Charles the Simple, king of the Franks, already detained in prison, to Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, he reasons thus: "Since, then, in the principate of king Henry, who reigned in the twentieth year after Arnulf, this arm was taken from the body of St. Dionysius, it follows that that sacred body was then kept with the Dionysians. For it is not probable that this arm was granted before that time to Charles when under age and not yet declared king."

[30] the theft of the Dionysian body, But since Charles the Simple, when he sent that hand, not arm, as Mabillon says, to Henry the Fowler, was detained in prison, as Mabillon himself confesses, and at that time certainly did not have that power by which he could have ordered the monks of Saint-Denis to give him a precious pledge of this kind, it is likewise not probable that it was then taken from the body of St. Dionysius; and since the matter is so, it must surely be that Charles had in his treasury, already from about the year 919, in which Henry the Fowler began to reign, or from a time still earlier, that precious hand of Dionysius mentioned by Widukind, and sent it, taken out of this treasury, of which, captive though he was, he had not yet been wholly deprived, to Henry the Fowler either in the year 923 or (see the preceding Appendix, num. 67) 925. Hence, further, it follows that it is at least not certain, contrary to what Mabillon will have, that that hand was taken from the body of St. Dionysius when Henry the Fowler was already reigning. Nay indeed, that that sacred pledge, which is named by Widukind the hand of St. Dionysius, was very probably taken from it before the year 890, about which the body of the Saint is narrated to have been stolen from the monks of Saint-Denis, and that it was not, contrary to what Mabillon also seems to have judged, an entire hand, will be evident from what is now to be said. The aforesaid sacred pledge, or hand of St. Dionysius, as it is called by Widukind, was undoubtedly a part either of the true Dionysian body or of another which had been substituted for it.

[31] none at all, as from those things, If the latter took place, the argument which Mabillon deduces from Widukind, in the words just transcribed here, against the asserted theft of the Dionysian body proves nothing at all against it, as will be plain to one considering it; but if the former, namely that the hand of St. Dionysius which Charles the Simple is narrated by Widukind to have sent to Henry the Fowler was a genuine and true part of the Dionysian body, be admitted, this surely either was not an entire hand, or it will follow that the body of St. Dionysius, which beyond all controversy existed in the middle of the 11th century either with the monks of Saint-Denis in France or with those of Regensburg in Germany, nevertheless existed at that time neither with these nor with those. For, in order that the people of Regensburg, claiming for themselves the body of St. Dionysius, might be refuted, in the abbey of Saint-Denis in France, either in the year 1053, as we shall see below, or not long before, the body which was there held to be the true body of St. Dionysius was uncovered and, as Rigord testifies at the place cited above, was found entire, only two bones of the neck and a certain other bone of the arm being lacking. Further, all who have treated of the matter affirm that the body which, found at Regensburg not very long before the said year, the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg said was the body of St. Dionysius, existed in no less integrity, only a single and that a very small particle of the right hand being lacking to it. Since, then, both the body which the monks of Saint-Denis and that which the monks of Regensburg then said was that of St. Dionysius were furnished with two hands, it follows that neither this nor that was the genuine or true body of St. Dionysius, inasmuch as a hand had already long before been taken from it; and since this is so, and yet, as already said, the genuine body of St. Dionysius undoubtedly then existed with either the monks of Saint-Denis or those of Regensburg, nothing remains but that the hand of St. Dionysius which Widukind, at the place cited above, relates was sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler be said to have been not the entire hand of the Saint, but only a hand, or part, or particle, whose absence from the whole could easily have gone unobserved.

[32] What if, then, that golden hand of Dionysius, mentioned by Widukind and others, which forward was a Reliquary adorned with gold and gems, which, because it both contained a part of the hand of St. Dionysius and also represented a hand by its form, was also distinguished by the name of a hand? This indeed, since from what has been said it could not be an entire hand, appears to me most probable, as also that a hand or Reliquary of this kind could with easy effort still survive with Charles the Simple, captive though he was, whether received from the royal treasury, to which it had passed by order of preceding kings, or from the monastery of Saint-Denis by himself before he was detained in custody. Georg von Eckhart, in his Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, book 32, page 747, having stated that Charles the Simple was detained in custody at the time when he sent the hand of St. Dionysius mentioned by Widukind and others to Henry the Fowler, and having stated against Mabillon almost the same things also which I have already brought forward above, continues thus at page 748: "By order of Charles, therefore, the arm could not be taken from the body of St. Dionysius. Nor had he, a captive, abundance of gold and gems in which to have it enclosed. Whence it follows that the hand of St. Dionysius, or rather part of it, separated from the body of St. Dionysius already long before these times and enclosed in gold and adorned with gems, was kept in the royal chapel, which Charles sent to Henry the Fowler from the treasury of the old kings remaining with him, and wished by that sign to show that he would keep holily the things which he had caused to be said and promised.

[33] "For this golden hand, in which was enclosed a part of a finger of St. Dionysius, are adduced here, the Dionysian monks kept separately in their church already long before the times of Charles the Simple; and upon it, as a revealer of truth and avenger of perjury, solemn oaths were exacted. Mabillon, in the IIIrd Benedictine Century, part II, pages 343 and following, edited three books 'on the mighty works and miracles of the blessed Areopagite Dionysius and his companions,' as the old inscription had it. Their author, as the contents indicate and Mabillon confesses, lived under Charles the Bald, and in chap. XXIII confirms the things which we have said. For when he had narrated in chap. XX that Fardulf, abbot of St. Dionysius, accompanied Charlemagne in the year 792 on the Saxon expedition, and had with him 'the pledges of the holy Martyrs' Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius; and had added in chap. XXI that 'Bosulf, the cleric of the abbot himself, once carried relics of blessed Dionysius' (which I interpret as a very small particle of them) 'with him into Italy, and, having built a church in honour of the same most illustrious Martyr and enriched it from his inheritance, placed them in it to profit the faithful'; after a few things he writes in chap. XXIII: 'In the time of the same abbot a certain man, Wanilo by name, was claimed into the servitude of blessed Dionysius.

[34] becomes evident, "'The matter having been brought before count Lantbert, Wanilo answered that he could defend his liberty by oath according to the law. On the appointed day, then, there were present the count and the provost of the monastery, Agleboldus by name, having with him a part of a finger of St. Dionysius, enclosed in gold skilfully made in the likeness of a hand. The count's relics are brought forward, upon which the man should take the oath. On the other side Agleboldus the provost asks that he swear upon the hand which he had brought. The count and the judges consenting, the hand, revealer of truth, is placed on a shield with other protecting relics. And when Wanilo, about to swear, wished to apply his hand to it, avoiding the sacrilegious touch, wonderful to say, the golden hand leapt far away; but when he withdrew his hand, driven by divine power, the golden hand containing the relics returned to its former place. And when the man, still persevering in his purpose, had again applied his hand, as before, the golden hand again gave way. He being thus convicted both by the sentence of the judges and also by his own, all who were present extolled in common with the highest praises the power of St. Dionysius, through whom the Lord had shown so celebrated a miracle. The aforesaid hand, hung among other chief ornaments at the memorial of the Martyr, still today deters all the obstinate from the daring of perjury.' Behold for you now a golden hand, made before the age of Charles the Bald, in which was a part of a finger of St. Dionysius. Behold the same hand which Charles the Simple sent to Henry the Fowler as a sign of the faith and truth of his promises. Behold a hand winning credence for the narration which is contained in the letter of Pope Leo IX (we shall give it entire below). For in it it is said that the entire body of St. Dionysius was found at Regensburg, 'except a single and very small particle of the right hand.' This particle, then, in the right hand, wrought of gold and with gems

adorned, was inserted.

[35] by reason gives as proved, "But this same hand, or 'very small particle of the hand,' or 'part of a finger' of St. Dionysius, given by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler and not found in the body at Regensburg, shows that that body which was visited and shown to the people in the year 1053 in the basilica of St. Dionysius was not that of St. Dionysius. For that body had the members of both hands entire, nor was anything lacking to it, as Rigord witnesses, 'besides two bones of the neck, which are in the church of Vergy, and a certain bone of the arm, which Pope Stephen the third carried with him to the Roman church.' The arguments of the Gauls, then, about St. Dionysius never translated to Regensburg are of no weight, and the body which they displayed is convicted of substitution; but the proofs which the people of Regensburg have of the possession of the same holy body are strong, and they can object them to the Gauls." Thus far he. And indeed that it is in no way at all proved by Mabillon, from the hand which Widukind writes at the place cited above was sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler, that the sacred body of St. Dionysius still existed with the monks of Saint-Denis when this latter prince was already reigning, that is about the year 920, and therefore had not been translated into Germany before, both the things which he argues in the words already given and those which I myself have already brought forward above render altogether certain and beyond doubt; but whether he also rightly concludes, from the part of a finger of St. Dionysius found indeed in the body which was visited in the church of St. Dionysius about the year 1050 and shown to the people, but not likewise in the body which the people of Regensburg said was that of St. Dionysius, that the latter was the genuine body of St. Dionysius and that which the Gauls displayed was convicted of substitution, it will be the studious reader's to determine when he has weighed the things to be said below.

[36] Let us now discuss the other argument by which Mabillon hoots off as a fiction the theft of the body of St. Dionysius, or the translation of it made from Gaul into Germany. [and that Dionysius was not given to the Emmeramians by Arnulf, by a negative one, which in the very words] This argument, which, although it is only negative, he calls decisive, he draws, at the place cited above, from Arnolf, from count of Vohburg monk of St. Emmeram. He, namely, not very long after the year 1030, as appears from what was said with us in volume 6 of September in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Emmeram, num. 15 and 16, comprised the miracles of St. Emmeram in two books, inserted in Canisius's Ancient Readings, Amsterdam edition of the year 1725, volume three, from page 103; and although in book 1 of these, chap. 5, he records one by one the benefactions of the emperor Arnulf towards St. Emmeram, relates the estates given by him and the illustrious codex of the gospels granted as a gift, he nevertheless makes no mention of the body of Dionysius. And that argument, although negative, the same Mabillon proposes in a still clearer and stronger manner in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, in his Elucidations on B. Tuto, bishop of Regensburg. For he first writes thus there, at num. 7: "If this translation" (of St. Dionysius from Gaul into Germany) "had been made by Arnulf" (the emperor) "into the church of St. Emmeram, Arnolf, a monk of that place, would not have omitted it, who so accurately enumerated the benefits conferred by king Arnulf on St. Emmeram about forty years" (nay perhaps not even twenty) "before Leo IX. What of this, that, treating of that notable codex of the Gospels, he by no means says that it was brought from the Parisian basilica of St. Dionysius together with the body of the holy Martyr, as the people of Regensburg commonly boast; but he says that it was given as a gift by Arnulf, no mention being made of the translated body (where surely the occasion required it)."

[37] And then at num. 14 he argues in this manner: "But that they" (the relics of St. Dionysius is proposed here, with an argument no better either, as shown to Leo IX at Regensburg by the monks of St. Emmeram) "are not those of St. Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, is evident from this, that no one before Leo IX made mention of this matter, not even Arnolf, monk of St. Emmeram, where place and occasion required it. For he, as I have already said, speaking of the eminent codex of the Gospels and other gifts granted by the emperor Arnulf to the church of St. Emmeram, makes no mention at all of the body of St. Dionysius; which nevertheless ought to have been recorded first of all, since indeed they say that this was brought from Paris with that codex of the Gospels which Arnolf recorded was given by Arnulf." But although indeed there are those who write that the body of St. Dionysius was given by the emperor Arnulf to the church or monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, there are nevertheless also those who relate that it was conferred by that prince not on that sacred building but on Tuto, bishop of Regensburg, from whom it afterwards came to it; and since both those who say the former and those who say the latter lived very far removed from the event, there is no reason why we should think one must stand by those rather than by these. What if, then, one must assent to those who narrate that that sacred pledge was imparted first by Arnulf to Tuto and by him afterwards to the church of St. Emmeram? Surely, the matter standing so, it will not be wonderful why Arnolf, the monk of St. Emmeram cited above, while he enumerates at the place cited above the benefits conferred by the emperor Arnulf on the church of St. Emmeram, does not reckon among them the sacred body of St. Dionysius, even though he speaks of the notable codex of the Gospels given to the aforesaid church of St. Emmeram by the same emperor.

[38] from more than one reason, on account of which But since indeed the people of Regensburg are asserted, in the letter inscribed with the name of this Pontiff and to be recited here below, to have said to Leo IX that the body of St. Dionysius was given by Arnulf to the Emmeramian church, let us grant for the moment that the body of St. Dionysius was granted by Arnulf to that very sacred building; not even so will it be wonderful that no mention at all of this gift is made by the monk Arnolf at the place cited above. Let us make this clear from what Mabillon himself writes in volume 3 of the Benedictine Annals, book 39, num. 74. There, then, he has thus: "The Annals of Fulda relate the Moravian expedition of Arnulf in this year" (892), "in which the king is related" (namely at the place just cited here by us) "by Arnolf, from count monk, to have felt St. Emmeram propitious to him in the battle line, and for that reason to have sent 'gifts of thanks throughout all the monasteries of Noricum.' Above the rest he showed himself munificent to the monastery of St. Emmeram, on which 'for thanksgiving he conferred the whole ornament of the palace, in which was a square ciborium, whose roof was covered with gold, its top crowned with a garland of gems,' which was supported 'by eight little golden columns.' 'There were also in it plenary books of the Gospels, covered with gold and gems, written, painted and adorned in every way: of which one is a cubit long, such in work, price and weight that its equal could not easily be found.' This codex survives at St. Emmeram's, written in golden letters, such as I do not remember having seen anywhere: Moreover, as though these did not suffice for the devotion of so great a prince towards the holy patron, he also gave as a gift 'a silver grating,' to be placed under the aforesaid ciborium.

[39] about that donation of Arnulf the monk Arnolf "He added 'also palls,' of colours both alike and varied, among which one, which was of a single weave, had 'a length of thirty cubits.' These things are more fully in Arnolf, a monk of St. Emmeram one century later, who surely would not have omitted in this place the body of St. Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, if king Arnulf had conferred it on the same monastery, as our Emmeramians contend." Thus he. But Arnolf, as anyone who has inspected his lucubration on the miracles of St. Emmeram at the place cited above will find, and as Mabillon himself sufficiently hints in the words already given, enumerates there only the gifts by which Arnulf, on the occasion of his happy expedition against the Maravians or Moravians, carried out in the year 892 or at any rate, as others write, 893, showed himself munificent towards the monastery of St. Emmeram in one or other of those two years; and since this is so, indeed, if, as could have been the case, Arnulf bestowed the body of St. Dionysius on the same monastery not on the same occasion on which he imparted to the Emmeramian monastery that notable codex of the Gospels, as is understood from Mabillon's words, it will by no means be wonderful either that that sacred pledge is not recorded by Arnolf at the place cited above. There are indeed those who assert that both these gifts were conferred by Arnulf on the monastery of St. Emmeram at one and the same time; but they neither prove it, nor does the theft of the body of St. Dionysius asserted by the people of Regensburg require for its own truth that it was so done.

[40] And indeed that both the aforesaid gifts did not fall to the Emmeramian monastery at one and the same time could have kept silence, is plain from the fact that it obtained that precious codex of the Gospels, as is clear from what has been said, either in the year 892 or at any rate in the following, and yet, as the third of the inscriptions transcribed here at num. 4 attests, did not receive the Dionysian body before the episcopate of Tuto, which, as Mabillon himself clearly proves in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 110 and following, began only in the year 894. But let us grant even that this sacred pledge and that notable codex of the Gospels were granted to the Emmeramians by the emperor Arnulf at one and the same time; not even so would Mabillon make out what he wishes from the silence of Arnolf about this donation. For Arnolf does not enumerate at the place cited all and each of the gifts which Arnulf conferred on the monastery of St. Emmeram on the occasion of his happy expedition against the Moravians. This is clear from Arnolf himself. For there this writer, having recorded the precious codex of the Gospels and not a few other gifts which that prince then imparted to this monastery, presently adds: "He" (Arnulf) "added also palls, alike and varied in colouring: among which one of a single weave had a length of thirty cubits. But why dwell longer on these things? For at length he ordered a mausoleum to be prepared for himself at St. Emmeram's; whereby, when about to meet death, he might have more kindly, as patron in the churches, him whom, living and in health on earth, he wished, nay made, to be powerful on behalf of himself and his."

[41] Further, although surely, if the body of St. Dionysius too came to the Emmeramians on the same occasion as the said codex of the Gospels, forward Arnolf could very opportunely have spoken of the latter also where he spoke of the former, nevertheless John Baptist, prince of the holy Roman empire and abbot of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, already cited by us above, renders, in his Dissertation on the body of St. Dionysius translated from Gaul into Bavaria, published in print at Regensburg in the year 1750, a not altogether unapt reason for which that writer, even if he had had ascertained the translation of Dionysius from Gaul into Germany and afterwards to the temple of St. Emmeram, could have not wished to do so. Hear what

he says in the same place, §155, page 95: "These sacred relics" (the body of St. Dionysius), he says, "were hidden in the wall of the church by Tutto, bishop and at the same time abbot at St. Emmeram, who had received them from the emperor Arnulf, no one at that time" (namely in the age of Arnolf, or Arnold, as they call him) "knowing where they had been placed. Our monk Arnold inscribed his cited book 'on the miracles of St. Emmeram,' where in chap. 5 he treats of the donation of the emperor Arnulf and of the precious codex, to the abbot Burchard, who ruled the abbey of St. Emmeram for six years and eight months and died in 1036. He then wrote 'a dialogue between Ammonitius and Collectitius under the abbot Udalric, 1044.' All these things Arnold had written before the relics of St. Dionysius had been found (which happened in 1052 under the abbot Reginward).

[42] "What wonder if Arnold, whom Mabillon himself and Baronius call a weighty writer, adduced here, it is clear, seems to make out; did not wish to relate that history about which (the relics not yet found) a great suit was still being aired between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg? The people of Regensburg maintained that they were with them, but no relics could be seen, inasmuch as they were hidden in the wall. What wonder if the weighty writer Arnold took thence a cause for relating nothing of this translation? For although there was common report of this translation, no relics nevertheless appeared. What wonder, I say, that Arnold wrapped it in silence? He narrated that the precious book was handed over by the emperor Arnulf; for this he saw with his eyes and handled with his hands; but the relics he neither saw nor knew where they were hidden. By no means, then, can anything firm be brought from the silence of this Arnold against the truth of this translation. That weighty man did everything cautiously. Therefore he is to be judged to have wished to write nothing in the book on the Miracles of St. Emmeram about the relics of St. Dionysius, since he saw none and did not know where they were." Thus the cited abbot of St. Emmeram. Let the studious reader now weigh what he and I have already said about the silence by which Arnolf, or Arnold, from count monk, passed over the donation of the Dionysian body made to the Emmeramians by Arnulf, and discern whether Mabillon deservedly hoots it off on that account as certainly fictitious. From the silence of writers, of which a not unapt reason can be rendered, nothing at all, as is agreed among all the learned, can be concluded against the fact about which they are silent; and since the matter stands thus, and all and each of the reasons just brought forward, on account of which it could have come about that Arnold did not speak of the body of Dionysius given to the Emmeramians by Arnulf, cannot easily, as it appears, be overthrown and weakened, indeed it appears beyond doubt that Mabillon makes out what he wishes no better from the silence of Arnold already discussed than from the words of Widukind recited above.

[43] [and although it were otherwise, yet that Dionysius was not translated from France] But if nevertheless, contrary to what I think will happen, anyone should still suppose the contrary, and contend that it could not have come about by any of the reasons just adduced that the monk Arnolf would not have made mention of the body of Dionysius given to the Emmeramians by Arnulf, if it had in fact been given to them by that prince, I shall not unwillingly (see what was already said above in this Appendix, num. 6 and 7) assent to Georg Eckhart, who establishes that that sacred pledge was in fact imparted, not by that prince either to bishop Tuto or to the Emmeramian church, but to this sacred place by Giselbert himself, who had carried it off from Gaul by theft. It may indeed be said that this most openly conflicts with the tradition of the people of Regensburg, expressed in the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX and to be recited here below, inasmuch as it discloses that the body of St. Dionysius was given to the Emmeramian church by the emperor Arnulf. But what then? Add also, if you please, that this very thing likewise conflicts with the inscriptions which are recorded by the Emmeramian abbot John Baptist (consult num. 8 of this Appendix) in his Dissertation already often cited as having been placed in the Emmeramian church before the body which the adjoined other inscriptions, on the three stones chiefly mentioned here already above at num. 4, indicated to be the body of Dionysius was found by the abbot Reginward in its wall. Indeed I shall deny neither the latter nor the former; but I now ask whether that tradition is genuine and derived from the first head or beginning of the event.

[44] I ask also whether the inscriptions which are said to have been placed in the Emmeramian church before the finding by Reginward of the body to the Emmeramians, it would not follow, which the adjoined other inscriptions indicated to be the body of Dionysius were so ancient that by their antiquity they were not very far removed from the origin of the event which they record as done. If you answer affirmatively, then indeed it cannot be argued, from the fact that the monk Arnolf makes no mention of the Dionysian body, that it was not granted by the emperor Arnulf to the Emmeramian church; for not even the silence of a thousand writers has any strength for overthrowing a fact which either a tradition derived from the very origin of this fact, or some contemporary and credible writer, or finally also an ancient inscription, which is equivalent to a writer of this kind, made and placed not very long after the time at which that fact happened, attests. But if you reply that those inscriptions are not so ancient, and that the mentioned tradition of the people of Regensburg is not of so proper a stamp either, there will surely be no reason why both this and those should be believed not to stray from the truth, and they will therefore not be able to prevent its being established with Eckhart that the body of Dionysius was both snatched by theft from the Dionysians and given to the Emmeramian church, not by the emperor Arnulf, but by Giselbert alone. Hence, further, or from these things already said, it flows that, even if perhaps it can be concluded from the silence of the monk Arnolf mentioned above that the body of St. Dionysius was not granted to the Emmeramian church by the emperor Arnulf, it nevertheless cannot likewise be inferred thence, which however Mabillon and others would chiefly wish, that that sacred pledge was neither translated from Gaul into Germany nor given to the Emmeramian church.

[45] Let us now examine whether this likewise cannot be done on account of the universal silence by which the translation of the Dionysian body to that sacred building is passed over also by all other writers, whether contemporary or nearly contemporary. nor this either from the universal, Launoy, in On the Life and Miracles of Dionysius, Observation XI, enumerates not a few writers who flourished both in Gaul and in Germany from the time of the emperor Arnulf up to Leo IX, supreme Pontiff, and then, since these, as he says, were accustomed to enumerate most diligently the miracles of the Saints, their relics and the translations of these, and yet do not speak of relics of St. Dionysius carried from Gaul into Germany, he confidently affirms that from their universal silence on this matter there is deservedly a prescription against the people of Regensburg's stones, or stone tablets, in which, as we saw above, the body of St. Dionysius is related to have been stolen by theft by Giselbert from the monks of Saint-Denis in France and carried into Germany. Nor do Mabillon and other writers of Gaul disagree with him in this matter. And indeed, if, as Launoy will have it, the translation of the Dionysian body to the Emmeramians asserted on those tablets could not but have been at once most well known both to the Germans and to the Franks, the universal silence in which it is nevertheless wrapped by all writers would certainly be a very strong argument that it never took place. But what if it was carried out secretly from almost all, both Germans and Gauls? Surely I find nothing committed to writing, either in the Diploma of Leo IX to be given below, contrary to what Launoy will have, or anywhere else, which compels us to say that the matter was done in another way.

[46] And indeed, if, as Eckhart establishes according to what has already been said above by us, inasmuch as of it also the reason the theft of the Dionysian body is to be ascribed not to the emperor Arnulf but to Giselbert alone, he certainly, having perpetrated it, withdrew himself as soon as he could from the sight and lands of the Gauls, no noise at all being made, nor, when he had returned into Germany, did he at once publish the matter, lest perhaps the sacred prey be snatched from him. What of this, that it is not read that, when the sacred body of Dionysius had been brought to the people of Regensburg, it was exposed to the public veneration of the people? The Emmeramian monks, namely, who had already obtained it, will have feared lest the Gauls, solicitous about the treasure snatched from them, should have taken care by every means to have it restored to them. Now, since the theft of the Dionysian body, if, as it could have been perpetrated and is established by Eckhart to have been perpetrated, it was in fact also perpetrated, was very little known, as becomes probable from what has been said, indeed it is not wonderful that it is recorded neither by the writers enumerated by Launoy at the place cited above, nor by any others, whether Gauls or Germans, who flourished from the year 890, about which it is said to have been committed, up to the time at which Leo IX, created Pontiff in the year 1048, is reported to have spoken of it. But if, further, the same theft was perpetrated by Giselbert by command of the emperor Arnulf, not even, this being granted, can anything be made out against it from the universal silence in which it is wrapped by all writers both contemporary and nearly contemporary. John Baptist, the abbot of St. Emmeram already cited above, in his said Dissertation on St. Dionysius translated from Gaul into Germany, having first brought forward some things about the force of the negative argument in §155, speaks further thus at page 94: "I shall add that this fact" (the translation of St. Dionysius from Gaul) "could easily have lain hidden from those writers" (cited by Launoy and others). "For since the emperor Arnulf translated that body of St. Dionysius by theft from France into Bavaria, this theft, done in silence and by craft, could have lain hidden from very many writers."

[47] not unapt Thus he; but this most serene writer, be it said with his good leave, does not seem sufficiently consistent with himself. For in §148 of his Dissertation just mentioned, page 46, he also writes in the following manner: "The report of this translation" (namely by which the Dionysian body was carried from Gaul into Germany) "at once gained strength through Germany and Gaul." But if, as soon as the body of St. Dionysius had been stolen by theft and carried from Gaul into Germany, the report of this matter spread itself through Gaul and Germany, how can it have come about that very many writers even earlier than the year 1052, about which the people of Regensburg contend that the body of St. Dionysius was found among them, were ignorant of that translation? What if, then, Arnulf, when he had received from Giselbert the body of St. Dionysius, which the latter had stolen at his command, either kept it some time with himself, the matter with only a few, so that of the Gauls, who the sacred

treasure, if they had ascertained whither it had gone, would undoubtedly have sought it back, he might avoid the importunate prayers, kept it; or, if this prince at once gave the sacred pledge either to Tuto or to the Emmeramian monks, these soon hid it, the matter being likewise communicated only to a few, in order to guard themselves against the Gauls? Indeed nothing at all seems to stand in the way of our judging that the matter was so done; and if, as it could have been, it was also in fact so done, it was surely known at the beginning to very few, and therefore it will not be wonderful that, even with the theft of the Dionysian body attributed to the emperor Arnulf, it is wrapped in silence by contemporary or nearly contemporary writers. The cited abbot indeed, to prove that, as soon as Dionysius had been translated to Regensburg, the report of this translation gained strength through Germany and Gaul, adduces at the place just cited certain ancient inscriptions of the Emmeramian church.

[48] But what if these were made not before almost a hundred years had elapsed after the event, can be rendered, from the tradition persisting among the Emmeramians of Dionysius translated to them? Certainly the things which the most serene author brings forward in the same place by no means prove that they are older; and since this is so, he surely does not give proved from them what he wishes. Nor does he accomplish it either from the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX, in which it is asserted that the suit about the most holy bones of Dionysius was aired very long between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg. This will become manifest from what I am going to adduce below, when I shall pass my judgment on this letter. From the same indeed it will at the same time follow that at least for a long time, nay perhaps for thirty or even nearly forty years before the middle of the 11th century, the report of the Dionysian translation spread not only through Germany but also through Gaul, or at least the tradition prevailed which disclosed that this translation had taken place; but although this be so, a not unapt reason can nevertheless be rendered for the silence by which, even within those forty or thirty years immediately preceding the middle of the 11th century, the translation of Dionysius is passed over by absolutely all writers, although perhaps they then also had an occasion of speaking of it; and to this end it can be answered that some of these were ignorant of that translation, while others, although perhaps they knew of it, nevertheless did not wish to record it for this reason, that, the Gauls contending that they had possessed that sacred treasure and further, whatever the people of Regensburg asserted, still possessed it, they by no means believed the matter, or at least doubted its truth. In the like manner too it could be answered, even if it were to be said that, as soon as Dionysius had been carried by theft into Germany, the report of this translation gained strength through Germany and Gaul.

[49] Surely writers wrap in silence not only things of which they are ignorant, can be inferred from the silence of all writers. but frequently also things which they have not sufficiently ascertained, judging that they must so act lest they either rashly affirm anything or expose themselves to the danger of erring; and since this is so, and the theft of the Dionysian body was not sufficiently ascertained while the Germans and Gauls were still litigating about the matter, it is clear from other things already adduced above that either a not unapt reason can certainly be rendered for the silence in which that theft is wrapped by all the writers mentioned by Launoy, or at least that the same silence ought to seem wonderful to no one; so that surely it cannot be concluded from this, beyond doubt, that there never was room for that theft. What more? About the year 1050, as we shall soon see, the silver shrine in which the body of St. Dionysius was believed to have been enclosed by Dagobert I, king of the Franks, was opened and visited at Saint-Denis before an innumerable multitude of people, and yet of this visitation, although carried out with the greatest solemnity, many bishops, abbots, nobles of the kingdom and the very brother of the king being present, no writer at all made mention before Rigord and Haimo, who both flourished at the end of the 12th century, and therefore a hundred years and more after the event. As, then, on account of the silence of all writers from about the year 1050 up to about the year 1190 concerning the said visitation no one calls it into doubt, so neither does it seem that the translation of Dionysius from France to Regensburg is to be called into doubt on account of the silence of writers about it for only a little longer, much less to be decried as certainly false and fictitious.

CHAPTER IV.

Whether from the visitation of the Dionysian shrine, made about the year 1050, and from the state in which both it and the body which it contained were found, it was proved that this was certainly the body of Dionysius.

Mabillon, from Haimo, whose age Mabillon, in the Vth Benedictine Century, page 112, having first stated in his own cause against the people of Regensburg, who claim for themselves the Dionysian body, some things already discussed above about the silence by which the monk Arnold passes over the theft of the Dionysian body, and likewise about the hand of St. Dionysius sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler, presently continues thus: "But what overcomes every difficulty: a letter of Pope Leo IX having been sent to Henry, king of the Franks, and to the bishops of the kingdom concerning the pretended manifestation of the body of St. Dionysius among the people of Regensburg, Henry himself at once commanded Hugh, abbot of Saint-Denis, that, the casket of St. Dionysius being solemnly unlocked, it should be discerned whether his sacred relics had in truth been carried off by theft. Hugh undertook this without delay, and appointed a day for the solemn uncovering, 'on the fifth day before the Ides of January.'" (Haimo, in Félibien, has "on the 5th day before the Ides of June.") "On that very day, in a numerous assembly of bishops, abbots and nobles, the tomb and casket of the holy Martyr were unlocked: where the relics were found entire with the most precious casket, no appearance of a violated tomb appearing. The history of this matter Haimo, monk of St. Dionysius, related in an unedited little book, which he dedicated to another abbot Hugh." The little book of Haimo, monk of Saint-Denis, which, when Mabillon edited the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, that is in the year 1685, had not yet been edited, Félibien afterwards brought to light at the end of his History of Saint-Denis, published in the year 1706. Nor did he do this only; but he also determined the time at which that Haimo flourished. For he writes roughly thus in his aforesaid History, page 122: "Haymo, or Haimo, inscribed his account or lucubration on the uncovering of the body of St. Dionysius, in the letter which it displays at its head, to the abbot Hugh.

[51] is defined here, the Dionysian, which took place about the year 1050, "But since he notes no epoch at all from which you might gather in what century either this one or he himself lived, and only hints that he writes long after the event, it is credible, nay beyond doubt, that that Hugh of whom he speaks is not the abbot of this name under whom he places the uncovering of the body of St. Dionysius, but, as Mabillon also hints in the words already given, one or other of the abbots of the same name who governed the abbey of St. Dionysius in the reign of Philip Augustus." So, roughly, as I said, Félibien, and surely most rightly, as becomes clear from the letter of Haimo which he here mentions; and since Philip Augustus reigned at the end of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th, it follows that Haimo also flourished then. Further, although he thus lived removed by more than a hundred years from the uncovering of the body of St. Dionysius which he describes in the said lucubration, no one nevertheless calls into doubt that that uncovering, or rather visitation of the Dionysian shrine, took place; but as to the year in which it was made all do not agree. In the title which Haimo's Lucubration displays in Félibien it is asserted to have been made about the year 1050, and it undoubtedly did in fact happen at that time, inasmuch as it was carried out not long after the finding of the Dionysian body at Regensburg. But Haimo hands down to memory that it took place on the 5th day before the Ides of June only when at Regensburg, Pope Leo IX staying there, action had been taken about elevating the body which the abbot Reginward had found and which they said was that of Dionysius; and if the matter was so, surely, since Leo, as you will easily gather from Hermann the Lame, was at Regensburg not before the summer of the year 1052 was much advanced or even past, it follows that, if credence is to be given to Haimo here, which however I shall show below may not undeservedly be called into doubt, the aforesaid visitation of the Dionysian body, or rather of the shrine, undoubtedly took place in the year 1053, inasmuch as it was carried out not long after what, as Haimo says, had happened at Regensburg in the presence of Leo IX. Further, Mabillon seems to indicate in the words already given that the body of St. Dionysius was then found entire, the casket in which it lay being unlocked; but Haimo, whom he nevertheless cites, in no way at all relates this.

[52] Everyone will clearly understand this who has unrolled the said lucubration or little book of Haimo, the visitation of the shrine or, if perhaps Félibien's History of Saint-Denis, in which, as I have said, it stands, is not at hand, he will find the same from inspecting the Uncovering of the bodies of St. Dionysius and his Companions, made under Henry I, king of the Franks, which Duchesne made public in volume IV of the Writers of France, page 157 and the four following, from a manuscript codex of the library of de Thou. For this is the very little book of Haimo on the same uncovering of those sacred pledges, mutilated only of the first chapter and of the letter of the author, or Haimo, to Hugh, abbot of blessed Dionysius, in which places there is nothing about the integrity of the relics of St. Dionysius. That this is so those lucubrations, or, to speak more exactly, the two copies of that lucubration, which is only one, of which one stands in Duchesne, although mutilated, as I have already said, at the beginning, the other in Félibien, compared with each other, will render manifest. Mabillon, in the Benedictine Annals, volume 4, book 60, num. 34, exhibits in summary, from Duchesne's volume just cited, not indeed the entire lucubration of Haymo, but at least all the things which properly pertain to the uncovering of the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius. In order that the studious reader may perceive even from Mabillon himself that nothing at all can be made out from this against the theft of the Dionysian body, I transcribe here all the words in which he sets it forth from Haymo at the place cited, for this reason, that, even when read, they will show the truth of the matter to be proved here. They read thus: "When Henry, king of the Franks, learned from messengers what had been done at Regensburg in the previous year" (namely 1052), "namely that in the basilica of St. Emmeram a certain body had been found which the people of Regensburg boasted was that of St. Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, lest this opinion should creep more widely and at length gain strength, he caused the casket in which the body of St. Dionysius was kept in his monastery to be publicly unlocked, and its sacred relics to be shown to a numerous multitude.

[53] relates; but from the body which was then found in it, "For the sake of this matter, through Hugh, abbot of Saint-Denis, bishops, abbots and clerics, by royal authority, to this solemnity

he ordered to be called together. Fasts having first been kept, on the appointed day, that is on the 5th before the Ides of January" (Haimo has June), "there assembled a very great multitude of bishops, abbots, clerics and of both sexes mixed. There also, in place of the king, was present Odo his brother with many nobles. The bodies of St. Dionysius and his two Companions, in silver shrines wrought by order of king Dagobert and diligently locked, had been laid up to that time behind the altar in a crypt of great depth, and shut in another little crypt decorated on the outside with gold and gems, in which under two locks the nail and crown of Christ the Lord were also kept together. The shrine in which the body of St. Dionysius had been laid away being brought forth into the midst and unlocked not without difficulty, his sacred bones were found, wrapped in a pall of such great age that it was reduced to dust between the hands of those holding it. The bones, taken out of the casket, were shown to those standing round, and wrapped in another pall, which the king had sent thither beforehand. Then the sacred body was carried in solemn procession, and was exposed for fifteen continuous days upon the principal altar. Rigord, a monk of Saint-Denis, mentions this uncovering in the Life of Philip Augustus." Thus Mabillon, afterwards also enumerating the bishops, abbots and other more illustrious men, not to be named here by me for brevity's sake, who were present at the uncovering; but he adds nothing besides, concerning the uncovering of the Dionysian body related by Haymo, which overcomes every difficulty, that is, proves that the body of St. Dionysius was then still kept with the monks of Saint-Denis in France, nor does anything of this kind occur in it as it is narrated in the words of Mabillon just recited; so that surely it comes upon one to wonder that the contrary is most confidently asserted by Mabillon in the words transcribed here above at num. 50. Did this writer perhaps think that what has already been said was given as proved from the uncovering of the Dionysian body, or rather shrine, for this reason, that, when the silver shrine in which the body of St. Dionysius was believed to have been deposited by Dagobert had then been unlocked, a body was found in it?

[54] by no means; what, as the Emmeramian abbot But what if it is called into doubt whether the body found in the silver shrine which Dagobert had ordered to be made for the Dionysian body was the genuine and true body of St. Dionysius? Certainly Haymo nowhere makes mention of any sign or title, joined to the body found, from which it was established that it was the true body of St. Dionysius. And, the matter indeed standing thus, it seems surely that it cannot be concluded, from the body which was found in the Dionysian casket or shrine, that the genuine body of Dionysius was then with the Dionysians. John Baptist, the abbot of St. Emmeram already cited above and to be cited further below several times, in his Dissertation, of which before, page 111, having stated that it is by no means conceded by him that the body which was found in Dagobert's Dionysian casket at the time when the uncovering of our Saints recorded by Haymo was made was the genuine and true body of St. Dionysius, presently continues thus: "What, then, shall I say or conjecture that body to have been? I should quickly extricate myself if I said of the French monks at Saint-Denis what they do not blush to say of the monks at St. Emmeram. For I remember, while I had stayed at Paris in the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés from the year 1721 to 1723, and had often gone as a guest to the most celebrated monastery of Saint-Denis, united to the congregation of St. Maur, always received with the greatest charity by our confrères, I remember, I say, that I once read on the feast of the uncovering of the Relics of St. Dionysius, in the Lessons of the 2nd Nocturn, these words: 'The monks of St. Emmeram, finding the body of I know not what man, said that it was the body of the Areopagite, etc.'; quickly, I say, I could extricate myself with like words, saying: 'The monks of St. Dionysius, uncovering the body of I know not whom, said that it was the body of the Areopagite.'

[55] "But I would not wish to free myself in such a manner. It is established that in this monastery, most celebrated on every side, many bodies of Saints are contained; John Baptist suspects in the words given here, as is evident from a little book printed at Paris in 1721, which I received from my confrères of Saint-Denis themselves; in which are described various relics of the Saints resting there in the church. In the high altar are hidden or enclosed relics of St. Dionysius, as they say, and of SS. Rusticus and Eleutherius. Now, after Gisalbert, by order of the emperor Arnulf, had stolen the sacred relics of Dionysius, what remained to the monks? Would it have been advisable to confess and publish it openly? By no means. That they could likewise have had recourse to a pious fraud, on account of the straits pressing them on every side, does not seem contrary either to probability or to conjectures which are very easily so born. That these afflicted monks, the Patron of the kingdom having been taken away, were supremely vigilant, so that such a theft and the loss from the theft might be made good, anyone will easily be able to persuade himself. Since that church had been adorned with many bodies of Saints, the body of another Saint could easily have succeeded in the place of this one; and by such a pious fraud nothing would have been derogated from the cult of the Saints, which tends chiefly to God. For we do not venerate bones merely, which contain no virtue in themselves, 'but the bones of this Saint,' better, 'we venerate this Saint.' If anyone should presume to thrust forward any bones whatever for instituting the cult of some Saint, he would act very wickedly; but if the body of some Saint is venerated for the body of another Saint, then the Saint is venerated, and the bones only with a cult relative to the Saint: and God chiefly in all things and above all things. We know that bodies of Saints are venerated in various churches; we know also that not seldom the body of this Saint is exposed to veneration in this church which nevertheless is at the same time venerated in another church.

[56] "Divine worship is by no means defiled by this; for God is worshipped in His Saints, the body of another Saint by the Dionysians whether their bodies be afterwards in this or in another church. For the cult of relics is only relative." Thus he; and surely, as it appears to me at least, by no means unaptly. Further, a few things more being interposed, he adds: "Meanwhile, from the... book which a certain priest is reported to have written to the abbot Reginward in the 11th century, and from its chap. 37 and 38, similar things are read in the history of the translation of St. Dionysius: that Ebulo, abbot of St. Dionysius, the theft having been detected and the body of St. Dionysius carried off, surrounded by straits, weeping and groaning, cast at the feet of the emperor Arnulf, cried out that his St. Dionysius be restored to him. But the emperor Arnulf by no means did this, allowing himself to be prevailed upon only so far as to promise that, if the abbot Ebulo would deliver to (Arnulf) the precious book of the Gospel from the treasury of his monastery, he (Arnulf) would restore a certain bone of St. Dionysius. Let the abbot Ebulo act, then, and bring with him the relics of a certain Saint to the emperor Arnulf, from whom he would receive a bone of St. Dionysius; let him join it with the bones of this Saint which he had brought, and so carry it back into his church, and say that by tears and by the gift of the book of the Gospels he had again received the sacred relics of St. Dionysius. See below in the history of the translation of St. Dionysius, chapter 37 and 38." Almost all the words in which these two chapters of the Lucubration cited here are couched I have already transcribed here above in this Appendix, chap. 1, and since I have clearly shown in the same place that the things narrated in them about the abbot Ebulo cannot be true, the Emmeramian abbot just cited surely wrongly embraces them here as entirely true.

[57] was perhaps substituted for the Dionysian one, with them But although this be so, he rightly indeed affirms, as I have already said, that it could easily have come about that the Dionysian monks, when the body of St. Dionysius had been stolen from them, substituted for it another from the bodies of the Saints which are kept in great number among them. And indeed that there was at times in fact room for a fraud of this kind Muratori, in volume 5 of the Antiquities of Italy of the middle age, col. XI, first teaches not obscurely, and then adds: "Excellent on this matter is a passage of Guibert, abbot of Nogent, who about the year MCXII wrote thus: 'There is also to be considered on this occasion a very widespread, but not pernicious, error which has beset chiefly the Gallican churches concerning the bodies of the Saints: these boasting that they have this martyr or confessor, those that they have the same, when one entire person cannot occupy two places.'" Georg von Eckhart, in volume 2 of his Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, page 745, the visitation of the Dionysian shrine being objected to him, in which, while it was carried out about the middle of the 11th century, they report that the bones found in that shrine were shown to the people for fifteen days, answers thus: "This I willingly concede. But this is the primary question, whether the Dionysian monks, when they perceived that the body of St. Dionysius had been carried off, did not substitute another skeleton of a dead man. For pious frauds of this kind were not unusual. How many heads, I ask, of St. John are brought forward? Yet only one must be genuine, the rest supposititious. The people of Soissons and of Osnabrück affirm that they have with them the bones of SS. Crispin and Crispinian. The contest about the body of St. Benedict between the Cassinese and the Fleury monks is well known. The head of Charlemagne is shown at Aachen and at Osnabrück. The bodies of the holy Martyrs Eoban and Adelar are asserted to be still at Erfurt, and I remember that, when I was young, the same were inspected there.

[58] it follows that this was certainly then, "But the series of the abbots of Fulda, written by a contemporary anonymous author, says that Huoggi, abbot of Fulda, 'acquired the holy martyrs Eoban and Adalhar and part of the body of St. Vitus, and, altars having been built and dedicated in their honour, made them rest honourably.' A thousand examples of this kind could be added; but these suffice." Thus he, hinting not obscurely that he suspects that the Dionysian monks substituted for the lost Dionysian body another body (whether of a Saint or of any other dead man he does not declare). And certainly, however the matter stands, that these monks, if they truly lost the Dionysian body by theft, substituted for it at least the body of another Saint is less out of keeping with the appearance of truth than that the Emmeramian monks, finding the body of I know not what man, affirmed without any solid reason that it was the body of St. Dionysius. Now, since this is so, and the body which was found in the visitation of the Dionysian casket made about the year 1050 had joined to it, as I have already said, no sign or title which indicated that it was the body of Dionysius, indeed from that visitation, or from the body which, when this was made, was found in the Dionysian casket or shrine, nothing at all can be inferred by which you might produce credence that the true and genuine body of St. Dionysius was then with the Dionysians. But, you will say, Rigord, in the Deeds of Philip Augustus, in Duchesne, volume 5 of the Writers of Gaul, page 18, writes thus of Henry I, king of Gaul: "This Henry, having heard rumours that

in Alemannia, in the city of Regensburg, in the abbey of St. Emmeram the martyr, a certain body had been found which they said was that of Dionysius the Areopagite, sent his messengers to the emperor Henry with his letters, that they should put off the day of its elevation until he should be most fully made certain by sure messengers whether the body of the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, archbishop of Athens, disciple of the apostle Paul, was in France in the church which Dagobert had founded, or not. Which being heard, the emperor sent great and wise men into France, that they might plainly know the truth of the matter.

[59] "The emperor's messengers being seen, king Henry called together the archbishops, nor this either from the state, bishops and barons of the whole kingdom, and sent them with Odo, his dearest brother, to the church of the most blessed martyr Dionysius. And prayer having been made, the three silver vessels of Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius were brought before all the people, most diligently sealed; and, the vessel of the blessed martyr Dionysius being opened, his whole body was found with the head, except two bones of the neck, which are in the church of Vergy, and a certain bone of the arm, which Stephen the third carried with him to the Roman church and placed in the church which today is called the school of the Greeks. All the peoples seeing this, with tears and sighs raising pure hands to the Lord, commending themselves to God and to the blessed Virgin Mary and to the holy Martyrs, departed with joy. Then the messengers who had been sent, returning most swiftly to the emperor, made the emperor most fully certain of the things which they had seen and heard. This was done in the time of Pope Leo IX, in the year of the Lord ML"; and since he speaks of the same visitation of the Dionysian casket of which we are here speaking, and, as he teaches, the body contained in it was then found deprived of plainly the same bones which he knew to have been taken from the genuine body of Dionysius before about the year 890, this indeed is an argument that it was by no means different from it. So it can be argued, from the state in which the body contained in the Dionysian casket was found when its visitation was made about the year 1050, for claiming the true and genuine body of Dionysius for the monks of Saint-Denis in France.

[60] But whether or not the two bones of the neck of Dionysius which Rigord, or (see the immediately preceding Appendix, num. 58) some other writer, mentions in the words just recited were communicated with the church of Vergy after about the year 890 is doubtful, in which then either the contained as also whether those same bones were genuine parts of the Dionysian body. The matter will become clear to the studious reader from what I discussed in the Appendix just mentioned, num. 64 and following. And as now regards the bone of the arm of St. Dionysius, of which the body contained in the Dionysian casket, when it was visited about the year 1050, is reported in the text just transcribed here to have been destitute, it is not altogether certain either that it was truly one of the bones which enter into the structure of the arm, as is clear from what I brought forward in the same Appendix, num. 58 and following; and since the matter stands thus, indeed from the three bones already mentioned, which the body found or uncovered in the Dionysian casket about the year 1050 lacked, nothing at all certain can be concluded by which you might attribute the true body of Dionysius to the monks of Saint-Denis. Nor does it appear that this will likewise be rightly inferred thence, even if we grant for the moment that the three bones already mentioned were certainly not only genuine parts of the Dionysian body, but also such as they are said to be in the recited words.

[61] the body in the Dionysian shrine For why could it not have come about that those who substituted another body for the Dionysian body taken away cautiously took from this one, when they did so, all those parts also which they knew had previously been taken from the genuine body? Nor is there reason either why, from the fact that the three bones already mentioned are not recorded to have been lacking to the body found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward, you should conclude that this was not the genuine body of Dionysius. For besides that two of these, communicated with the church of Vergy, were perhaps, as I have just said, not genuine parts of the Dionysian body, those three bones were only lesser parts or particles of the Dionysian body, and hence it could easily have come about that it was not observed whether they were lacking or not to the body found at Regensburg, especially since, as it appears, those who were skilled in anatomy were not employed to examine it. All things, therefore, being duly weighed, surely from the three bones mentioned above by Rigord, or by the other writer who thrust the words just transcribed here into Rigord's text, not found in the Dionysian casket or shrine when it was visited about the year 1050, nothing can deservedly be concluded for attributing the genuine body of St. Dionysius to the Dionysians. Hence, further, it now comes about that likewise nothing certain can be inferred for attributing possession of the Dionysian body to the people of Regensburg from the very small particle of the right hand which is recorded to have been lacking to the body found at Regensburg but not likewise to that which was visited or uncovered in France.

[62] or that very shrine For although, from what I have already adduced above in this Appendix, chap. 3, it is altogether certain and beyond doubt that a part of the hand was taken from the genuine body of St. Dionysius before the year 890, and that part, or very small particle of the right hand, if it had in fact been found in the body uncovered in France, would therefore be a very strong argument that this was not the true body of St. Dionysius, it may nevertheless be that, even if that part of the Dionysian hand was in very truth lacking to the body uncovered in France, this, because it was only a very small particle, was not observed and therefore also not recorded. Now, since these things are so, it surely follows that from the state in which the body contained in the Dionysian casket or shrine was found about the year 1050, when it was visited, nothing sufficiently certain either can be concluded for attributing possession of the Dionysian body to the people of Regensburg. Meanwhile I would wish it to be diligently observed here that the cause of the people of Regensburg is at least still much better than that of the Dionysians, because indeed it is altogether certain and beyond doubt, from what was already said above in chap. 3, that such a bone as was absent from the body found at Regensburg was in truth taken from the genuine body of Dionysius before the year 890 (see, however, what is to be said below in the last chap.); but the matter, as is likewise established from what has been said, stands otherwise as regards the bones which are recorded to have been lacking to the body uncovered or visited at Saint-Denis. Let us now discern whether it cannot be concluded either from the state in which the Dionysian casket was found about the year 1050 that the body which was contained in it was the genuine and true body of St. Dionysius. Mabillon, in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 112, speaking of the uncovering of the Dionysian shrine of which we speak here, transcribes the words of Haimo already recited by me above at num. 10, in which it is set forth how firmly the silver shrines containing the relics of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius were fortified and closed with most artful locks and bars, and then adds: "Since all these were found entire and inviolate, they could leave to no one a suspicion of the body having been taken away (which indeed was found there).

[63] "The sacred body was left for fifteen continuous days upon the principal altar, was found, the brethren succeeding one another day and night for its guard." From the fact, therefore, that the silver shrine in which the body of St. Dionysius had been deposited through the care of Dagobert I was still entire about the year 1050, no trace at all of even the least violation appearing, Mabillon contends that the body which was then found in it was the genuine body of St. Dionysius; but, says the Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, already often cited above, in his Dissertation on Dionysius translated to Regensburg, page 113: "Who would wish to say that the monks of St. Dionysius were so careless of their affairs that they would have allowed the violated and broken doors or little chests, where the relics of St. Dionysius were formerly kept, to remain such, and would not have been zealous to secure them against all suspicion of violation?" Surely, if the body of St. Dionysius was in fact taken from the Dionysians, and the locks and cases had to be broken for this end by the thief by whom this was done, everyone, unless I am mistaken, will easily persuade himself with the cited abbot that the Dionysian monks, who, as said, in that case very probably substituted the body of another Saint for the stolen Dionysian body, soon caused them to be repaired with the greatest care and solicitude in such a way that no trace of breaking or violation was left; and since the matter stands thus, it can be concluded no better from the state in which the Dionysian shrine than from the state in which the body contained in it was found about the year 1050 that this was the genuine and true body of St. Dionysius.

[64] Nor will you argue more strongly for claiming this sacred pledge for the Dionysians from the fact that the pall nor finally from other things still, in which the bones then found in the Dionysian shrine were wrapped was of such great age that, as Haymo in Félibien speaks, it vanished between the hands of those holding it into the likeness of spiders' webs. For if any bones of another Saint, the genuine bones of St. Dionysius having been stolen about the year 890, were substituted not very long after, as some will have it, and were perhaps then, as could have been the case, wrapped in a pall, surely the space alone of at the least a hundred and fifty years, which runs from about the year 890 up to about the year 1050, in which the mentioned visitation of the Dionysian shrine was made, could very easily have brought so great an age as Haymo says. Moreover, since the bones of a Saint which were substituted for the genuine bones of St. Dionysius about the year 890 could also have been wrapped in a pall before this was done, surely nothing at all can be elicited from the age of the pall in which the bones found in the Dionysian shrine about the year 1050 were wrapped by which it may become beyond doubt that the body of St. Dionysius was still possessed by the Dionysian monks about the middle of the 11th century and further is possessed still today. But however consonant with reason and truth the things I have said appear, these nevertheless triumph in the visitation of the Dionysian body, or rather shrine, made about the year 1050, and, no differently than if the body which was then found in it was certainly the genuine body of St. Dionysius, ascribe to themselves undoubtingly its possession. Certainly Félibien, from whom you may not unaptly make a conjecture about the rest, does so most clearly.

[65] which are placed here before the eyes For, having brought the visitation of the Dionysian shrine of which we are here speaking into his History of Saint-Denis in summary from Haimo, he writes thus at page 122, in French words which I make Latin: "The action, published with so much noise, whose memory has been in a manner consecrated at Saint-Denis by an annual feast instituted, which is kept on the 9th day of June, seemed to have more than sufficient force for asserting the victory of truth against illusion. The error nevertheless persevered in Germany." And then, having brought forward some further things which he judged apt for claiming the body of St. Dionysius for the Dionysians, he speaks in the following manner at page 124: "If in the time of that Pope" (Leo IX) "the asserted carrying off of the body of St. Dionysius raised any rumour, the visitation of his reliquary, made in the presence of the nobles of the kingdom, so dispelled all suspicion that from that time our kings came still more assiduously to venerate the relics of the holy Martyr." Thus he; but although indeed the piety of the kings of Gaul in venerating the relics of the Saints which are kept in the Dionysian monastery is to be praised, and these, in doing what Félibien here relates, seem to have believed that the genuine relics of St. Dionysius are kept in the same monastery, it does not however follow thence that these in fact exist there. Nor indeed shall I ever persuade myself that the matter is undoubtedly so on account of the visitation of the Dionysian shrine made about the year 1050, whatever Félibien writes about all suspicion having been driven away by it, unless it shall first have been solidly proved that there was joined to the body found in the Dionysian reliquary, when it was unlocked about the year 1050, either a sign or a title from which it was established that it was the genuine body of St. Dionysius.

[66] can be inferred. For, whatever the Dionysian monks may protest, the body alone, found then in the Dionysian shrine without any sign or title of this kind, does not by any means seem to suffice, a doubt having already long before then arisen about the place in which the relics of Dionysius were, for it to be believed that it was the genuine body of St. Dionysius. Félibien himself also, unless I am mistaken, saw this, and hence, beginning his discourse in his History of Saint-Denis, page 299, about the repeated visitation of the Dionysian shrine, which took place in the year 1385, he writes thus in French words which I render into Latin: "The reliquary of the holy martyr" (namely Dionysius) "was therefore opened a second time, and authentic titles were found in it, which attested that the relics of St. Dionysius, Apostle of France, were kept there." Thus he; but what or of what sort are the titles he here mentions? This, unless I am mistaken, he deliberately does not declare, lest he be compelled to disclose that they are by no means apt for proving his proposition. Haimo, in Félibien, chap. 8, narrates how the body found in the Dionysian shrine, when it was unlocked about the year 1050, was exposed for fifteen days to public veneration, and then adds of that body: "And then, the brethren succeeding one another for its guard, by turns of day and night it was most diligently guarded so long, until, letters having been put in indicating the first error and the truth which followed, the shrine, fortified with locks and bars and containing the sacred limbs with subtle artifice, was honourably restored to its former casket, very many being present." The letters which Haimo here writes were placed in the Dionysian shrine after the visitation of it made about the year 1050 are undoubtedly the titles which Félibien affirms were found in the same shrine when it was opened in the year 1385. This opinion stands because neither in Haimo nor elsewhere does any mention occur of another title which was found in the Dionysian shrine when it was unlocked about the year 1050. Now, since this is so, and titles made only at the time when the Dionysian shrine was visited about the year 1050 are not of a nature to prove that the body which was then found in it was the genuine body of St. Dionysius, likewise from the titles which Félibien writes were found in the Dionysian shrine when it was opened in the year 1385 there cannot be concluded what both this writer and the other monks of Saint-Denis would most wish.

CHAPTER V.

The chief of the remaining arguments by which the theft of the Dionysian body, or its translation from France into Germany, is attacked are weighed.

[From the silence of two stones, which alone he saw at Regensburg, about the translation of the Dionysian body] Mabillon, in his German Itinerary, speaking of the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg and of its treasury, as it is called, first writes in the following manner: "In the treasury, as they call it, is kept a notable book of the Gospels, than which we have never seen any more precious or more elegant, written excellently in golden capital letters in the year 870 by command of Charles the Bald; afterwards granted to the church of St. Emmeram by the emperor Arnulf, as Arnolf, a monk of the same place, relates"; and then, having stated some further things about the precious book of the Gospels which he here mentions, he continues thus: "They assert that this book was carried off by stealth from the Parisian monastery of St. Dionysius together with the body of the holy Martyr, and given as a gift to Arnulf and by him handed over to the church of St. Emmeram. But it is wonderful, I said, that Arnolf, from count monk of the same monastery, who wrote about the year one thousand, mentioned that codex granted by Arnulf, no mention being made of the body of St. Dionysius. We then asked that his body or relics be shown to us: they, saying that they were laid away in a hidden place, brought forth to us two stones as witnesses of the gift, on one of which is read written in ancient uncial letters: 'Under Ebulo, abbot of St. Dionysius, Gisalbert stole [it].' On the other: 'It was stolen on the 5th before the Nones of June, it came hither on the day before the Nones of December, in the time of Tuto the bishop,' without any mention of the body or the book."

[68] from the silence about the body, Mabillon wrongly argues against this, Thus he, contending here, not only from the silence of Arnolf but also from the silence of the very stones he mentions about the body of St. Dionysius, that it was by no means either given to the monastery of St. Emmeram by the emperor Arnulf or is with the Emmeramian monks. But I have already shown above that Mabillon by no means gives as proved from Arnolf's silence what he wishes; and as regards the silence of the two stones he mentions, or rather of the two inscriptions which these have cut into them, these indeed make no mention of the body of St. Dionysius; but those two stones or bricks on which they are inscribed were found by the abbot Reginward in the wall of the Emmeramian church together with yet another stone joined to them, from whose inscription it is plain that there is talk in these of the body of St. Dionysius, and I wonder that this latter stone too was not shown by the Emmeramian monks to the most learned man. It was certainly kept in their monastery in the century just elapsed, as it is today, and the inscription which it displays, together with the inscriptions which the two other stones mentioned by Mabillon supply, indicates not obscurely that the body of Dionysius was stolen by theft and translated to the church of St. Emmeram, as anyone will easily find who has inspected the inscriptions of those three stones, already given by us above in this Appendix, num. 4; so that surely from the silence of the two stones or bricks which Mabillon mentions about the body of St. Dionysius nothing at all can be inferred against its theft asserted by the people of Regensburg.

[69] nor either from those of king Edgar, Further, the same Mabillon, in volume 3 of the Benedictine Annals, book 46, num. 40, at the year 960, writes thus: "The provost of the Dionysian monastery at that time was a vigorous man named Vitalis, who, bearing it hard that the properties of St. Dionysius in England were harried by the royal ministers, went to the most pious king Edgar in the second year of his reign, the third Indiction, on the seventh before the Kalends of January. The king, having heard the complaints of Vitalis concerning Togred, provost of the royal household, extorting many and grievous exactions from the estates subject to St. Dionysius, ordered the losses to be restored and that thenceforth there be abstention from vexations of this kind; and he ordered the diploma of this matter to be carried by Togred himself 'to the sepulchres of the holy martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius,' 'whose sacred bodies,' he asserts, are 'honourably' placed 'there.' From which it is understood how vain is the persuasion of the people of Regensburg, who say that the body of St. Dionysius was obtained by king Arnulf and laid in the monastery of St. Emmeram." Moreover the same Mabillon again, having thus spoken in the Benedictine Annals at the place cited on the occasion of the diploma granted by Edgar, king of England, in the year 960, which the chronological notes expressed in that monument, as he testifies, designate, then speaks in the following manner in book 48 of the same, num. 92, at the year 980: "Nor indeed did the emperor Otto go to Italy so soon as Sigonius thought. For in the month of October he was staying at Brochsale, when by an imperial precept he confirmed the possessions of the monastery of St. Dionysius of Paris situated in his own empire, at the request of Robert, abbot of that place. 'Given on the Ides of October, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCCCCLXXX, indiction V'" (read VIII), "but in the year of the reign of the second Otto XX, of the empire XIII.

[70] "'Done at Brochsale'; which is to be interpreted of Brussels, as they now call it, and of the emperor Otto formerly called Brutsela. In the aforesaid diploma is to be observed what is said of the monastery of St. Dionysius, 'to this day,' says Otto, 'bodily held there.' Which passage plainly refutes the opinion of the people of Regensburg, who boast that the body of St. Dionysius was translated to Regensburg by the emperor Arnulf at the beginning of the tenth century" (nay, towards the end of the IXth century). From the fact, then, that Edgar, king of England, in the diploma of the year 960 hints that the body of Dionysius was still kept in the church of St. Dionysius at the time when it was given, and that the emperor Otto II also does the same in the diploma of the year 980, Mabillon contends that that sacred pledge was not translated thence to Regensburg. But the body brought by Giselbert into Germany, which, when it was found by the abbot Reginward about the middle of the 11th century, the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be the body of St. Dionysius, still lay hidden in the year 960 and in the year 980 in the wall in which, as we saw above, it had been enclosed by bishop Tuto at the beginning of the 10th century; and although some inscriptions which disclosed that the body of St. Dionysius was kept there probably existed already then in the church of St. Emmeram, the people of Regensburg nevertheless very probably neither boasted much nor spoke very confidently about the possession of the sacred treasure, which they could not exhibit because they did not even know the place in which it was hidden, although it was founded, as appears from what will be said below, on an ancient tradition which flourished among them.

[71] Further, since the Gauls on the contrary generally proclaimed most assertively that the body of St. Dionysius was with them, given in the 10th century or at least cautiously dissembled that it had been carried off by theft, lest the devotion of the pious towards St. Dionysius should grow lukewarm, it could very easily have come about that, even if that sacred pledge had perhaps in fact been snatched from them already long before, there were nevertheless still in the 10th century very many who, the Dionysian monks asserting that the sacred treasure was with them,

either gave them credence or were even wholly ignorant that it had been snatched from them. Now, since this is so, and nothing prevents Edgar, king of England, and the emperor Otto II from being believed to have been of their number, Mabillon surely by no means effectively and strongly proves what he wishes, namely that that sacred pledge was not carried thence to Regensburg at the end of the 9th century, from the fact that these two princes disclose in the diplomas mentioned above that the body of St. Dionysius was still kept in the Dionysian abbey of France when they gave these in the year 960 and the year 980. Moreover, Georg von Eckhart says in his Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 747: "Those who sought the precepts of kings suggested whatever they wished to be comprised in them; whence it can be concluded that the monks, certain of the absence of the body of St. Dionysius from among them, with the greatest zeal suggested the words in which it is said" (namely in the diploma of Otto mentioned above) "that 'St. Dionysius to this day is bodily held' in their monastery, in order that by the emperor's confession they might some day defend their cause, or even stop the mouths of those who were already doubting, not without foundation, the presence of the Saint among them."

[72] diplomas, or from the charter of king St. Edward Whatever is to be said of the end for which Eckhart thinks the Dionysian monks suggested the words which he here mentions, it appears beyond doubt that both these and those in which it is asserted in the aforesaid diploma of Edgar, king of England, that the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius are honourably placed in the monastery of St. Dionysius were suggested by the said monks. This opinion stands because those who, having maturely discussed very many precepts or diplomas of princes, have passed their judgment on this matter judge that, although perhaps not all the things which occur in the diplomas of princes granted in favour of monasteries are to be said to have been suggested by their religious inmates, this is nevertheless for the most part so as regards the things which are read in monuments of this kind concerning the cult of the Saints in those sacred places or the relics kept there. Although, therefore, the testimonies which Mabillon brings forward of Edgar, king of England, and of the emperor Otto II about the Dionysian body kept in the church of Saint-Denis could not be said to have proceeded from ignorance of the theft by which Dionysius was snatched from the Gauls, nevertheless no one would rightly infer from these, inasmuch as they were given not by those two princes but, as already said, by the very Dionysian monks themselves, that that sacred treasure is still with these, and therefore was not translated into Germany. Nor would one do this with better right either from the charter of St. Edward, king of England, given in the year 1059 in favour of the monastery of Saint-Denis in France and cited by us above in the Appendix which immediately precedes this one, num. 34, or from several letters or Briefs of the Roman Pontiffs given in favour of the Dionysian monks.

[73] the charter, and the letters of the Pontiffs, For although both in these and in the said charter of king Edward Dionysius is asserted either to be held or to rest in the Dionysian abbey of France, it appears beyond doubt that the words in which this is done proceeded not from the said king or the supreme Pontiffs but from the very monks of Saint-Denis themselves; as also that they were used by the supreme Pontiffs not for defining or declaring the place which possessed the sacred remains of St. Dionysius, but only for keeping the custom which requires that the Saints be said in letters of this kind to rest in the monasteries which think they possess their sacred remains. John Baptist, the Emmeramian abbot already often cited above, in his Dissertation on Dionysius translated into Bavaria, which, as I have said, he published in the year 1750, page 79 and following, brings forward entire a Brief of Alexander IV, in which this supreme Pontiff, granting an indulgence of forty days to those who should come to the church of St. Emmeram at the time and in the manner assigned in the said Brief, affirms that Dionysius rests in it together with SS. Emmeram and Wolfgang. Further, since that Brief was granted in the third year of the Pontificate of Alexander IV, which falls in the year of Christ 1256, the most serene author infers thence that in the 13th century it was believed at Rome also that the body of St. Dionysius rested at Regensburg in the monastery of St. Emmeram. But as the Dionysian monks in France will undoubtedly answer that Alexander IV at least did not wish to define or declare this by the said Brief, so the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg will not undeservedly contend that other Pontiffs likewise did not wish to define or declare this by their Briefs or letters in which the body of St. Dionysius is asserted to rest in the Dionysian monastery of France.

[74] Nor indeed did the cited Emmeramian abbot, although, as it appears, he does not rightly conclude what I have already said from the aforesaid letter of Alexander IV, you would rightly infer that there was no place for the said translation; judge that possession of the Dionysian body is ascribed by it to his monastery. For afterwards, beginning his discourse about the Briefs or Pontifical letters granted by Nicholas II and Alexander II for confirming the privileges of the monastery of St. Dionysius, in which it is asserted that the body of St. Dionysius rests there, he writes thus: "Nicholas II and Alexander II confirm by the said Briefs the privileges to the monastery of St. Dionysius, nor was it the mind of those Pontiffs there to treat of set purpose of the relics of St. Dionysius; but they confirmed privileges to the monastery of St. Dionysius (where the body of St. Dionysius formerly rested), and it was asserted by the monks of the same monastery still to rest there, the words being joined by the notary in the manner customary in such Briefs: 'Where the Saint himself rests in the body,' etc. Such an Apostolic Brief for gaining indulgences was granted by Alexander IV to our church also, as we saw above ... where likewise these words are inserted: 'Where the bodies of SS. Emmeram, Dionysius and Wolfgang rest.' For when churches or monasteries supplicate at the Apostolic See for obtaining such confirmations of privileges and indulgences, they inscribe the names of their patrons, whose bodies they boast that they possess, and the graces asked are often obtained from the supreme See." Thus he, clearly indicating that neither the Dionysian nor the Emmeramian monks can claim the Dionysian body for themselves from the Pontifical letters in which it is asserted to rest either in the church of St. Emmeram or in that of St. Dionysius. And indeed that the matter is so, and therefore that it can no more be inferred from the said Pontifical letters than from the charters of princes mentioned above that that sacred pledge was not translated to Regensburg, is more than sufficiently clear, unless I am mistaken, from all that has been said.

[75] Let us now proceed to another argument by which they likewise attack the theft of the Dionysian body or its translation from Gaul to the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg. and although Otto of Freising perhaps did not believe it, They draw it from Otto, bishop of Freising, who, since he was grandson of the emperor Henry the fourth, brother-in-law of Henry the fifth, uterine brother of king Conrad and paternal uncle of the emperor Frederick the first, is deservedly proclaimed by Bellarmine as notable not only in learning and piety but also in nobility; and he, they say, a writer most zealous for faith as well as truth, who flourished in the 12th century, and who, being both a German and the brother of Leopold, duke of Bavaria, where Regensburg is situated, certainly had causes for favouring the people of Regensburg more than the Franks, nevertheless censures the people of Regensburg's account of the translation of Dionysius from France to Regensburg, or to the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, in the Chronicle composed by him, book 6, chap. XI, in these following words: "But he" (namely the emperor Arnulf) "loved above the other places of his kingdom the Metropolis of Bavaria, Regensburg. Whence he both enlarged its walls and adorned the monastery of St. Emmeram with many ornaments and enriched it with large possessions. They relate there, and show it written, that the aforesaid king translated St. Dionysius from the Gauls to the aforesaid monastery; whether this be so, let them see." Hence, further, they conclude that the translation of St. Dionysius from France to the Emmeramian monks which the people of Regensburg assert was not believed by Otto of Freising. But what then? Granted that Otto held this translation, which he knew was denied by the Gauls, not only as doubtful but even as certainly false; will it follow hence that it certainly never took place?

[76] yet that it is false, either from this, or from the mark of a thief, which he Indeed this can no more be concluded thence than from the fact that some today assent rather to the Gauls, who assert that the body of St. Dionysius is still with them, than to the Germans, who claim that very thing for themselves. Moreover, what if the cited Otto only doubted whether the translation by which the body of St. Dionysius had been carried to the people of Regensburg had been made or not, and, not wishing himself to investigate the matter more laboriously but to leave it to the examination of others, wished to signify only this by the last five of the words transcribed here above? However that may be, whatever Otto thought of the translation of the Dionysian body into Germany, you would not rightly pronounce it certainly foreign to the truth on account of the opinion which this writer perhaps followed. Further, this opinion stands with me not only as regards Otto, but also as regards any other writers who are later than the 10th century, if perhaps any of them either deny or even only call into doubt the theft or translation of the Dionysian body to the people of Regensburg. But, some further say, to steal without cause from its most just possessors of the longest time that which is so sacred, so religious in some kingdom, that which is celebrated with so much cult and veneration, that than which nothing more precious, nothing holier is held among all the relics of that nation, is surely of extreme wickedness and dishonesty; and who would think it came about that anyone would wish to brand his name with so shameful a mark of an impious and sacrilegious thief by stealing the most holy body of Dionysius, which was held in the greatest esteem among the Gauls, and which the Dionysian monks in France had already possessed both for a very long time and most justly? So, as I said, some further argue; but truly those who argue thus have very little ascertained the manners of the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. For at that time men, and above all even monks, were so disposed that they held it by no means a matter of conscience to steal relics of the Saints, and commonly snatched them by theft from their possessors without any scruple when they could, not seldom employing even frauds and tricks for this end.

[77] by whom it was perpetrated, would incur, it by no means follows. Whoever desires to know how true this is, let him consult the Writers of the Literary History of France, volume XI, page 133 and following, Muratori, Italian Antiquities of the middle age, volume 5, Dissertation 58, and finally Benedict XIV, On the Beatification of the servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed, book 4, part 2, chap.

25, where he enumerates in long order not a few thefts of sacred relics, related by various writers and partly also in our work; and since those who perpetrated these thefts, as you will find, by no means blushed at the name of thief, there is surely no reason why we should argue that the body of Dionysius was not carried off by theft from the fact that he who had done it would have had to take upon himself the shameful name of thief. Nor would you rightly argue either that it was not done from the fact that the Dionysian monks celebrate yearly on the 9th day of June the uncovering of the Dionysian body, or the visitation of the shrine in which it is reported to have been deposited by Dagobert, made, as I have said, about the year 1050, and began to do this immediately after that visitation, the Roman Pontiff not opposing them in this matter. For as they celebrate the said uncovering or visitation on the 9th day of June, so the Emmeramian monks celebrate yearly on the last Sunday after Pentecost the translation of Dionysius from France to their church, and began to do this also already from the 11th century, as the abbot John Baptist, already very often cited, shows rightly enough in his Dissertation on Dionysius translated into Germany, §151, contending also that that feast was instituted by the mandate of Leo IX expressed in the letter inscribed with the name of this Pontiff and to be recited here below.

CHAPTER VI.

Whether Pope Leo IX approved the relics found at Regensburg, which they said were those of Dionysius, and gave a letter on this matter to Henry I, king of the Franks.

[That Leo IX gave a letter, by which he attributed the body of St. Dionysius to the people of Regensburg,] Although indeed Mabillon, in volume 4 of the Benedictine Annals, book 60, num. 21, contends that the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX to Henry I, king of the Franks, concerning the body of St. Dionysius found among the people of Regensburg, which is carried about and already edited by many, and will be subjoined here also by us, reprinted, before the reader's eyes in the immediately following chap., is supposititious, he nevertheless seems to have judged that a letter about the manifestation of the body of St. Dionysius among the people of Regensburg was in fact given by this Pontiff to the said king of the Franks. Certainly this writer hints not obscurely, in the words transcribed here above at num. 50 from that part, that he was of that opinion when in the year 1685 he brought out the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, making mention also of the little book mentioned by us above in which Haimo, monk of Saint-Denis, described the uncovering, as it is called, of the Dionysian body. Hence it came about that John Baptist, the Emmeramian abbot already often cited by us, not having at hand Félibien's History of Saint-Denis, although made public already from the year 1706 together with Haimo's aforesaid little book added at its end, judged that it is handed down to memory by Haimo himself that a letter was given by Pope Leo IX to Henry I, king of the Franks, about the manifestation of the Dionysian body among the people of Regensburg, and hence fell into divers other errors in his Dissertation on Dionysius translated into Germany, already mentioned more than once above.

[79] But although indeed the Emmeramian abbot could not undeservedly have supposed what I have already said of Haimo from the said words of Mabillon, [to Henry I, king of the Franks, Haimo does not write; nay, on the contrary, those things,] as will be plain to one considering them, this writer nevertheless nowhere in his lucubration, already edited, as said, from the year 1706, which Mabillon at the place just cited cites under the name of an unedited little book, makes mention of a letter which Pope Leo IX sent to Henry I, king of the Franks, on the subject just mentioned. This will become clear to anyone who is willing to unroll the said little book of Haimo, of no great bulk. Nay rather, on the contrary, Haimo hands down to memory things from which, if they are true, it follows that Leo IX, while he was staying at Regensburg, which from what was said above was in the year 1052, sent no letter on the said subject to Henry, king of the Franks. That this may be made plain, I place here in summary from Haimo before the reader's eyes the things which tend to it. At Regensburg, not a few men of the highest dignity, and in the first place some other bishops, having been invited thither, everything was already prepared that on an appointed day there should be elevated the entire body of one dead man found there, which, "under the testimony," as he speaks, "of fallacious and invented letters," they did not fear to call that of Dionysius the Areopagite; and Pope Leo IX and the emperor Henry, who had come to Regensburg, were to be present at the very great solemnity with which it was to be performed. But at that very point of time at which the matter was now just about to be put into execution, two messengers suddenly arrive at Regensburg by God's will, sent by the king of the Franks to the emperor for the sake of some other matter.

[80] from which it seems to follow that that Pontiff did not do this, These, having seen the enormous multitude of people flowing together from every side and having been told what was being done, go to the emperor, set forth to him the things which they had in their instructions, then turn their discourse to the body found at Regensburg, which they had heard was held for the body of Dionysius and was now to be elevated under that name, contend in a sufficiently prolix speech, already partly given above at num. 10, that it cannot be the body of Dionysius, affirm that their king would bear it most grievously if that body found should nevertheless be elevated as this, and at length ask of the emperor that he not permit this to be done before he should have understood from his friend the king of Gaul, who would most diligently investigate the matter, that the body of Dionysius was no longer to be found in Gaul. Further, the emperor answers that he will hold a council thereupon with the lord Pope and the throng of his dukes and nobles, and dismisses the envoys from him, their petition having first been approved as just by the counsel of the Pontiff and his nobles. These and many other things, which I omit because they pertain less nearly here to our purpose, Haimo writes in chaps. 3, 4 and 5 of his lucubration cited above; and since, as he writes from what has been said, Pope Leo thought he should assent to the French envoys asking of the emperor that he not permit the body found at Regensburg to be elevated before he should have understood from the king of the Franks that the body of Dionysius was no longer in Gaul, indeed it follows hence that Leo, if indeed Haimo records the truth, certainly did not give to Henry, king of the Franks, a letter by which he declared that the body of Dionysius had been stolen from the Gauls and was with the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg before this had been examined, and therefore certainly did not do so before the year 1053, inasmuch as it was only in this year that the latter caused it to be investigated, by opening and visiting the reliquary in which it was believed to be contained, whether the body of Dionysius was still in Gaul or not.

[81] [hands down to memory; but this writer, both on account of his age remote from the event,] For who would persuade himself that the Pontiff thought that the body which had been found at Regensburg was not to be elevated before that examination, and yet wished, that examination not being awaited, to declare, by a letter given even to Henry, king of the Franks, that it was the genuine body of Dionysius? Now, since the matter stands thus, Leo surely, if Haimo records the truth, did not send to Henry, king of the Franks, in the year 1052 a letter by which he declared that the body of Dionysius was with the people of Regensburg. But is one to assent to Haimo here? This writer, as you will easily gather from what has already been said above, flourished not earlier than the end of the 12th century, and was therefore too remote from the year 1052, in which the said letter of Leo is reported to have been written to the king of the Franks, to win certain and undoubted credence for his statements, from which it follows that no letter was then written by Leo to that prince. Further, he still lessens this credit not only from the fact that he was of the number of the Dionysian monks, who contend that the body of St. Dionysius is with them, but also from the fact that, carried away by excessive partisan zeal, he shows himself in more than one place not sufficiently fair to the Emmeramians, who affirm that that sacred pledge was brought by theft to their church. That you may understand how true this is, hear what he says at the end of chap. 2 and at the beginning of the following: "In the Bavarian nation," he says, "the city of Regensburg is reported to be, in which is held a monastery built by the commendable devotion of the ancients under the title of St. Hermentrannus, which a gathering of monks living under the rule of an abbot serves. They, miserably wrapped in the darkness of blindness and ignorance and forgetful of the divine fear, did not blush to exalt their place by the fiction of a certain lie, arrogantly prating that the body of blessed Dionysius was with them, which the truth of the aforesaid matter shows to be altogether frivolous.

[82] "And because their garrulity, which must be exterminated, is to be pursued more widely, both on account of partisan zeal that writer does not deserve credit, we have thought to insert into this course of the narration begun whence they are said to have seized the beginning of this wickedness. Prosperous things succeeding in the aforesaid place, and its affairs being enlarged by the devout munificence of those faithfully adhering to God, it seemed commendable to the abbot that, the structure of the old work being pulled down, since it was of mean value, he should strive to build for the better, to honour it, the monastery of the aforesaid Hermentrannus. And while he was sweating more zealously at this work and more diligently searching out the places of the ancient foundations, according to their vain assertion the entire body of one dead man was found; whom, under the testimony of fallacious and invented letters, they did not fear to call Dionysius the Areopagite." Since, then, Haimo, who was distant, as said, by nearly a century and a half from the uncovering of the bodies of St. Dionysius and his companions Rusticus and Eleutherius which he describes, put his hand to writing with so great and such partisan zeal as he here discloses, it is surely not undeservedly to be feared that he did not everywhere have due regard for truth. What if, then, he wrote the things which I have mentioned above deliberately, in order to make it ambiguous whether Leo had given the letter we have spoken of? However that may be, Haimo at any rate, as is more than sufficiently clear from what has been said, is not such that he can render it beyond doubt by his authority alone that this was not done by that Pontiff. And indeed it appears to me sufficiently certain from elsewhere that Leo IX declared, either by letter or at any rate by word of mouth, that the body found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward, which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius, was also in fact the true and genuine body of this Saint.

[83] An author who, although, as Leibniz says in volume 1 of the Writers of Brunswick, page 707, he is uncertain, nevertheless lived under this same Henry, who reigned at the beginning of the 12th century, described the illustrious deeds of the emperors from Henry the Fowler to Henry V; [and that Leo the relics found at Regensburg, which were said to be those of Dionysius] and in the summary of these, made by a monk of Hamersleben, which ends at the year 1126, these following words, excerpted from that uncertain author, are read concerning Leo IX in the same Leibniz, in the volume cited, page 709: "That at Regensburg there are truly held the relics

of St. Dionysius, he confirmed." Moreover, in Georg Eckhart, in the Historical Corpus of the middle age, volume 1, there is extant under the name of the Saxon Annalist a Chronicle brought down from the rise of the Frankish kingdom up to the year 1139, and, as its cited editor teaches in his prefatory admonitions to the reader, prefixed to the said volume, num. 10, written by Ekkehard of Aura, a notable master, as he says, of histories of his time; and this, which, although it is called by some the Magdeburg Chronicle, is nevertheless by others not undeservedly distinguished with the name of the Saxon Annals because its author, who began to flourish under the emperor Henry the fifth, that is at the beginning of the 12th century, was a Saxon, writes thus at the year 1052: "The emperor Henry again makes for Pannonia, and returns with nothing done, having in his company Leo, prelate of the Apostolic see; which Pope, coming to Regensburg, examined, in the presence of the envoys of the Parisians, the relics of blessed Dionysius the martyr, about which it had long been doubted whether they were held there, and proved that they were held there."

[84] approved, is certain from elsewhere; and this his, as Mabillon also We have, then, two writers who hand down to memory that Leo IX, when he was at Regensburg in the year 1052, declared that the relics or body of St. Dionysius were held there; and since both preceded Haimo by at least half a century, and do not seem to have been driven, as he was, by immoderate partisan zeal, there is indeed reason why we should give credence to them rather than to Haimo, when he hints that the relics found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward, which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be those of Dionysius, were not approved by Leo IX by a letter given to Henry I, king of the Franks. Although indeed Mabillon decries as spurious and supposititious the letter which is carried about, inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX, to Henry, king of the Franks, about the manifestation of the body of St. Dionysius among the people of Regensburg, he nevertheless admits, or at any rate once admitted, as I have already said above at num. 78, that a letter on that matter was sent to this prince by that Pontiff; and he did this, as it appears, only on the credit of the Saxon Annalist, whose words I have just transcribed here. Certainly he seems to have held in great esteem this writer, whom he calls now the Magdeburg Chronographer, now the Saxon Annalist, and whom, elegantly copied from the Paris manuscript of the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, he formerly communicated to Leibniz, as Eckhart teaches in his admonitions mentioned above; and since he notes, in the Vth Benedictine Century, part 1, page 812, from what that Saxon, whether Chronographer or Annalist, hands down to memory at the said year about St. Wolfgang, bishop of Regensburg, that he was raised from the tomb by Pope Leo IX when the latter was staying at Regensburg in the year 1052, it surely appears to me by no means to be questioned that he likewise drew from the same writer what he says in the same place, page 112, about the letter which I have mentioned as sent to Henry, king of the Franks.

[85] seems to have judged, that Pontiff, the judgment, The cited Saxon Annalist nowhere indeed mentions a letter which Leo IX either wrote for approving the Regensburg relics or sent to Henry, king of the Franks; but since other writers expressly relate that this was done by that Pontiff, Mabillon either gathered or judged that one must assent to them in this matter from the fact that he found committed to writing by that cited Magdeburg chronographer, or Saxon annalist, at the year 1052 just mentioned, that the relics which the people of Regensburg affirm are those of Dionysius were approved by Leo IX when he was staying at Regensburg in the year 1052. And indeed it appears sufficiently probable that what not only the said annalist but also the monk of Hamersleben cited above hands down to memory, from the Deeds of the emperors, mentioned above, of the uncertain author who, as said, flourished at the beginning of the 12th century, was in fact done by Leo IX not only by word of mouth but also by a letter sent to Henry, king of the Franks. This opinion stands not only because a clear and express mention is found in many writers later than the 12th century of a letter sent to Henry, king of the Franks, by which Leo IX declared that the relics found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward were those of St. Dionysius, but also because a letter inscribed with the name of Leo, by which this Pontiff did so, is carried about, already published in print by many. This indeed, as it appears, is faulty and infected with more than one blemish; but I would not dare to assert for certain that it is undoubtedly supposititious, and that no letter, not differing much from it, was given by Leo to Henry, king of the Franks. But there will be place below for saying more on this matter. Meanwhile it appears altogether certain and beyond doubt, from the Saxon Annalist and the monk of Hamersleben cited above, or rather from the deeds of the emperors which the latter here contracted into a summary, that the relics which Reginward had found at Regensburg and which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be those of Dionysius were approved by Leo IX.

[86] But, says Gérard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, book 10, chap. 5, num. 6, which by him, both sides being heard, "Who ... would believe that Leo, the supreme Pontiff, judged a case of this moment, the other side unheard, and pronounced judgment from the answers of the Regensburg monks? Ought not the reasons of the Dionysians first to have been weighed, should he not have gone to their monastery and called each thing to examination, then defined the matter equitably?" But if one is to assent to him, it would follow not only that Pope Leo did not send to Henry, king of the Franks, a letter by which he declared that the relics found at Regensburg were those of St. Dionysius, but also that he in no way at all approved them. What, then, is to be done here? Shall we embrace the reasoning proposed in the words of the cited Parisian historiographer just recited, or, to speak better, the things which he thinks follow from it, and say that both the writers of the 12th century already adduced by us, who, as said, expressly relate that the Regensburg relics of St. Dionysius were approved by Leo IX, stray from the truth? By no means surely; for all the learned generally judge that one is not to depart from the testimony of writers either contemporary, or even, when these are lacking, nearly contemporary, such as both those writers are, except for reasons which can in no way at all be overthrown and weakened. In the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX and to be recited here below, these following words are attributed to this Pontiff: "Your envoys, king of the Franks, son most dear in Christ, have solicitously asked us, in your stead and that of all yours, that we would take care, the truth being discussed, to settle the suit which had been aired very long between you and the aforesaid city" (of Regensburg) "concerning the most holy bones of the most blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, you indeed saying that the same are with you, but the citizens and inhabitants of the aforesaid city maintaining on the contrary that they were translated through the most invincible Arnulf, formerly emperor, to the church of the blessed martyr Emmeram, and are contained there thenceforth."

[87] with Haimo's narration, What if, then, we should say that Leo, while he was staying at Regensburg in the year 1052, was asked through envoys by Henry, king of the Franks, to settle the suit which was between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg about the possession of the Dionysian body? Leo indeed, if he ever approved the Regensburg relics of St. Dionysius, certainly did so, as all agree, in the year 1052, and the visitation of the Dionysian shrine already mentioned above was carried out at Saint-Denis not earlier than the year 1053, if one is to stand by the things which are recorded by Haimo; and since, this not yet having been undertaken, Henry, king of the Franks, does not seem likely to have asked the Pontiff for the decision of the aforesaid suit, it follows that he, if he in fact approved the Regensburg relics of St. Dionysius in the year 1052, and therefore settled the suit which was being aired between the people of Regensburg and the Dionysian monks, was very probably not asked to do so by Henry, king of the Franks. So surely it can be argued, if the said visitation did not take place before the year 1053; but why should one stand here by Haimo, who alone prevents it from being placed earlier? This surely I do not sufficiently perceive. That writer was distant, as I have already taught above, by about a century and a half from the event, and so it could easily have come about that he strayed from the truth in narrating the things from which it follows that the said visitation is to be tied to the year 1053.

[88] inasmuch as suspect, nor proceeding from an author of entire credit Moreover the envoys of the king of the Franks, as Haimo narrates, arrive at Regensburg, while everything there was prepared for elevating the body which was said to be that of Dionysius, plainly by chance and with no previous knowledge of the matter, and there, at the very moment of time at which the said body was just about to be elevated, are set present in a manner by a miracle and as it were from a machine, learn what is being done, oppose themselves to the elevation, and soon also obtain from the emperor that it be deferred until it should have been examined whether the body of St. Dionysius was still in France or not; and that arrival of the envoys of the king of France at Regensburg, at once so fortuitous and so opportune for disturbing the elevation of which we are here speaking, is very suspect to me, and makes me fear that it was devised only to deceive those who would perhaps believe that the Regensburg relics of St. Dionysius were then approved by Leo IX. Rigord, or at any rate another writer who thrust the words transcribed here at num. 58 and following into Rigord's text, writes that the envoys of the king of the Franks came to Regensburg, while the body which was said to be that of Dionysius was to be elevated there, not by fortuitous chance, but were sent by deliberate counsel by the king of the Franks to the emperor to cause that elevation to be deferred. Rigord indeed also affirms that Henry I, king of the Franks, asked through his messengers of the emperor Henry that he defer the elevation of the body found at Regensburg until it should be examined whether the body of St. Dionysius was still in France or not; but he does not write that this was done at the time when Leo IX was staying at Regensburg, and what he says can easily be brought into concord with the things which seem to be established concerning the approval of the Regensburg relics, which they said were those of Dionysius, made by Leo IX.

[89] The matter will be evident from what is now to be said. it is shown could be given, one must not stand, Whether rightly or not the finding of the Regensburg body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius is joined by John Baptist, the Emmeramian abbot, with the year 1052 may not undeservedly be doubted, as is plain from what I discussed above at num. 2 and following. Moreover, that the visitation of the Dionysian shrine mentioned above was made in the year 1053 follows only from what Haimo writes, and since these things, as I have already said, are suspect, and Haimo otherwise does not deserve full credit, nothing at all compels us to fix that visitation necessarily to the said year 1053. What if, then, this, which at least on the 5th before the Ides of June

or the 9th day of June, the feast of the same visitation, accustomed to be celebrated yearly on that day at Saint-Denis, persuades is rightly marked by Haimo in Félibien, we should establish in the year 1052, and the said finding of the Regensburg body in the year 1050? What if, further, Henry I, king of the Franks, when he had understood from by no means doubtful reports that the body which they said was that of Dionysius had been found at Regensburg and that its elevation was being treated of, first asked of the emperor already from the year 1051, through his messengers, that it be deferred until he had examined whether the body of Dionysius was still in France or not? What if then, when he had already caused this to be examined on the 9th day of June in the year 1052, perhaps also, as Rigord says, with envoys of the emperor present, and had learned that Leo IX was about to come to Regensburg, he made him more certain through his messengers in what manner, this examination being undertaken with great solemnity, a body had been found in the Dionysian shrine, and at the same time asked him to decide the suit which was being aired between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg about the possession of the Dionysian body? Indeed, if these things were in fact also carried out thus, as they can have been, and Leo then pronounced that the body of St. Dionysius was with the people of Regensburg, he surely did not decide the said suit with the other side unheard.

[90] But if these things displease, it can be answered probably communicated with the king of the Franks by a letter given to him, that Leo did not pronounce sentence from the answers alone of the Emmeramian monks, but that, because he judged the documents by which the Emmeramian monks claimed for themselves the body of St. Dionysius to be very clear and convincing, he thought the suit was to be adjudged to these, even without the Gauls being heard. However that may be, it is altogether certain and beyond doubt, from what has already been said above, that Leo approved the relics found at Regensburg which were believed to be those of Dionysius. Nor indeed does Haimo openly conflict either with the monk of Hamersleben and the Saxon Annalist cited above, who most expressly affirm, as I have already taught above, that this was done by Leo. For although it appears to follow from what he writes that Leo did not, by a letter which he gave to Henry I, king of the Franks, adjudge the body of St. Dionysius to the Emmeramians after the arrival at Regensburg of the messengers whom this prince had sent, at the same time he nevertheless also supplies things from which you may not unaptly gather that the relics found at Regensburg, which they said were those of Dionysius, were approved by Leo IX before the arrival of the same messengers at Regensburg. For since, as he says, those relics, when the messengers of the king of the Franks came to Regensburg, were just about to be elevated, Leo IX also being present, and this would seemingly not have been going to happen except with the previous approval of this Pontiff, indeed it seems that it can be concluded hence that those sacred pledges were approved by Leo before the said messengers arrived at Regensburg; and although, if one is to stand by what Haimo writes, Leo does not seem to have signified to Henry I, king of the Franks, by letter that this had been done by him, it nevertheless surely appears to me sufficiently probable, on account of the things I have already said above, that a letter of this kind was given by this Pontiff to that prince.

[91] communicated. And Eckhart indeed, from the fact that in this letter these following words are read: "But you, son most beloved in the Lord, king of the Franks, and your faithful ones, although you seem indeed to have just matter for envying the joy of Teutonia, so that you deservedly think that you must grieve at the gladness of the Alemanni"; and then, some further things being interposed, these: "Why, then, do you not permit Alemannia to cherish for its solace and protection the bones of him whom Athens permitted you to receive living, to hear, and to send to heaven, that he might gain [you] for Christ?", has persuaded himself that Henry I, king of the Franks, not only sent to this Pontiff a letter by which he asked that the suit about the body of Dionysius be decided by Leo IX, but also declared in it that he must grieve at the gladness of the Alemanni, and that he would not permit Alemannia to cherish the bones of St. Dionysius. Nor did the cited writer gather this only from the words of the Letter of Leo IX already recited, but also that Henry, king of the Franks, because he altogether believed that Dionysius had been carried by theft to Regensburg, demanded him back. Most of the words in which he sets forth these conjectures of his will be transcribed here in the following chap., and stand inserted in his cited Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 742 and following. But is one certainly to assent to Eckhart here? This I would not dare to assert. For the king of the Franks, if he had certainly believed that the relics of St. Dionysius were with the people of Regensburg, would seemingly not have asked of Leo IX to decide the suit which was between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg about them; which nevertheless Eckhart admits was done by that prince. However that may be, content to have already adduced above the reasons from which it also appears probable that Leo gave a letter to Henry I, king of the Franks, about the relics, which they said were those of Dionysius, approved by himself at Regensburg, I put an end to this chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

The letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX is brought forward, together with the judgment of Georg Eckhart upon it.

Leo IX, by the letter which is given here, the suit about the bones of Dionysius The letter sent to Henry I, king of the Franks, by which Pope Leo IX declared that the body of St. Dionysius is with the monks of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, has been published in print, now by Baronius at the year 1051, by Gewold in the Additions to Hund's Metropolis of Salzburg, volume 1, page 169, by the abbot Caelestinus in the Mausoleum of St. Emmeram, and by very many others besides. But although this be so, nevertheless, to serve the reader's convenience, I exhibit it here also, reprinted, as it stands in the same abbot Caelestinus, that it may not have to be sought elsewhere. It reads thus: "In the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son, the renowned king of the Franks, and to the venerable brethren the archbishops, bishops, and to the beloved sons in Christ the abbots, priors, provosts and deans, and to all, both subjects and prelates, of the same kingdom, greeting and Apostolic blessing. Almighty God, who not undeservedly is proclaimed by the prophet to be wonderful in His Saints, disposes certain wonderful things by the depth of His inscrutable counsel, which, while the human mind does not suffice to consider them, failing by its own very infirmity, it is compelled to be carried away into a certain going out of itself and into stupor. Which we ourselves have lately experienced, and are compelled to promulgate to you, most dear in Christ, and to the whole body of the faithful, that we may alike wonder at the works of God. For when, at the instance of the most serene emperor Henry, we had been summoned to visit the parts of Germany, and chiefly to the city which is called Ratisbona or Regenspurg, to translate the venerable body of blessed Wolfgang, bishop of the same city, this having been performed with the reverence and devotion that was fitting, your envoys, king of the Franks, son most dear in Christ, solicitously asked us, in your stead and that of all yours, that we would take care, the truth being discussed, to settle the suit which had been aired very long between you and the aforesaid city concerning the most holy bones of the most blessed Dionysius the Areopagite.

[93] "You indeed saying that the same are with you; but the citizens or inhabitants of the aforesaid city maintaining which, that he might decide, the Gauls and the people of Regensburg had asked, that they were translated through the most invincible Arnulf, formerly emperor, to the church of the blessed martyr Emmeram, and are contained there thenceforth; which church indeed is situated there, and, free and exempt from all subjection and jurisdiction, is known to belong immediately to the right and property of blessed Peter and of the Apostolic See, namely by the offering of the most excellent emperor of the Romans Charles the Great and of his posterity, who have hitherto succeeded him, whether in the empire or in the kingdom. The venerable abbot Reginhard and the brethren of the same church, with the whole body of Regensburg, nonetheless most instantly asked that this very thing be done. We, then, inclined by the prayers of both parties, and not wishing that the hearts of the faithful should be darkened further by the ambiguity of this doubt, in the presence of our brethren and of many bishops and prelates, and having looked upon the Writing of Arnulf Augustus, and most diligently reading through the order of the matter, and not content with that, discussing with careful examination, as far as the eye allows, the cases, receptacles and shrines in which the sacred relics were said to be laid, and their titles and epigrams, and omitting nothing which pertains to the investigation of certainty, sufficiently instructed both by the imperial letters and by the papal letters of our Predecessors, and also by manifold pictures on the walls and very ancient sculptures expressing indications and marks of the truth, we have ascertained with undoubted faith that the venerable bones of the said doctor and martyr, except a single and at the same time very small particle of the right hand, are contained entire in the mentioned monastery of blessed Emmeram.

[94] "For lest the testimonies of men which we have already mentioned should not suffice, decided in favour of the people of Regensburg, divine prodigies and portents also were not lacking, which drove away every doubt completely: which we too have ordered to be diligently written down and transmitted to you through your messengers and envoys, and also to be preserved at the aforesaid church, that both the knowledge of the thing done may be brought down to posterity and the matter for further litigating may wholly be laid to rest. Moreover we also strictly command, decreeing that the venerable solemnity of the translation itself be celebrated every year with all pleasantness and joy, both by the brethren of the same church and by all of the said city, and that the whole region of the Germans dance for joy, not ungrateful for the coming of so great a father and patron. But you, sons most beloved in the Lord, king of the Franks and your faithful ones, although you seem to have just matter for envying Teutonia, so that you deservedly think that you must grieve at the gladness of the Alemanni; considering nevertheless the will both of almighty God and of His unconquered Martyr, whom you lament as taken away, at length admit the soothing of consolation, weighing more attentively that he has not been wholly taken away from you either: since indeed he has left behind the dearest partners of his preaching and passion, Rusticus and Eleutherius, as a pledge still of love and protection and as a certainty of the matter. Nor grieve, if he has now deigned to visit the Germans even when dead, who still living preached to you and among you fought the good fight, finishing his course, keeping the faith, accomplished the triumph of a most virtuous passion, performing the signs of his apostolate over you as well in life as in death.

[95] and consoles the Gauls also for the lost treasure, "Why, then, do you not permit Alemannia to cherish his bones for its solace and protection, him whom Athens permitted you to receive living, to hear, and to send to heaven, that he might gain you for Christ? There will come besides another reason also for consolation, namely the authority and excellence of him who withdrew him. We confess indeed that you have lost a precious treasure, but consider the dignity of him who took it away, and at the same time rejoice together in the glory of your Father and Apostle, who, while he enriched you with the treasure of his merits and doctrine, in order to enrich the Teutonic storehouses at least with the preciousness of his relics and bones, had so devout as well as so notable a thief of his body, better surely than gold and topaz, who by his own worth bowed even the Caesarean head to withdraw the most holy bones. Nor the majesty

imperial nor the royal Highness blushed here at the mark or name of a pious thief in Arnulf, provided only it deserved to be hallowed and enriched by the spoils of the B. body, whether by way of craft or of theft or of sacrilege; and he who had been accustomed to condemn thieves and sacrilegious men did not disdain to become here himself a thief and sacrilegious, provided only he might enjoy the precious body of the blessed Dionysius.

[96] and diligently exhorts them to confess that he is with the Emmeramians. "Whose faith and devotion, moreover, wholly cut off every doubt by this also: that not in Rome itself, not in any metropolis, not in any city or citadel of the kingdom did he strive to choose burial for himself, but where he both knew and rejoiced that he had laid away his Dionysius, hoping to be defended by his patronage, and to be raised up on the last day with the Blessed present. We therefore admonish your love more attentively and exhort you in the Lord, also strictly commanding, that, piously content with BB. Rusticus and Eleutherius, not deceiving yourselves and others, you both know and confess that the bones of the most blessed Dionysius shine in the city of Regensburg at the church of St. Emmeram the martyr. Given and done at Regensburg by the hands of Frederick, deacon, Librarian and chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, Catholic and Apostolic, in the year of the Lord MLII, on the Nones of October," etc. Georg von Eckhart, who also exhibits this letter entire in his Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 740 and the two following, then observes on it thus: "Baronius, at the year 1052, exhibited this same letter of Leo IX from the old writings of the Roman Pontiffs of Antonio Agustín, and brought forward this date of it: 'Given and done at Regensburg by the hands of Frederick, deacon, librarian and chancellor of the Catholic and Apostolic church, in the year of the Lord MLII, of the Pontificate of the lord Pope Leo IV, Indiction VI, on the 5th before the Nones of October.'

[97] "But Mabillon, in volume IV of the Benedictine Annals, book 60, Mabillon says that that letter is supposititious; but by the reasons num. 21, says that this letter is supposititious, and that this is persuaded even by the very reading of the text, and by the style, which is altogether foreign to the Pontifical letters of Leo and of other Romans. But since I have read many bulls of Leo, I have observed that he certainly used a style other than earlier Pontiffs had done. Nor is this paper of Leo a bull, but a letter written out to the king and to the clergy and people of Gaul. Mabillon thinks that what is read in it is false, that this case had been 'aired very long'; since before this time no mention of this controversy is found among the ancients. But the writers of those times are so barren and dry that they passed over unsaid many things most worthy of note and surely of greater moment. That there was nevertheless a contest between the Gauls and the Germans about the possession of the relics of St. Dionysius is sufficiently established from what we shall bring forward a little below. 'It is false,' says Mabillon, 'that Leo was instructed for discussing this both by imperial and by Papal letters of his predecessors. For who ever brought forth these imperial and Papal letters?' But they could have perished. Besides, 'imperial letters' can be interpreted of the parchment found in the case beside the relics, which the people of Regensburg vaunted as a testimony written by the emperor Arnulf's own hand; in which matter Leo believed them.

[98] "Whether the word 'Papalis' is German and was not otherwise in use in this age, which are produced here, we do not know. Leo, however, a German by nation, could have used it, or it was substituted by the copyists in transcribing. Mabillon himself many times brings forward diplomas corrupted and interpolated by copyists, and, the faults being removed, holds them as genuine and uses them for proving his opinions. Since Mabillon says that the word 'Papalis' is German, I wonder that he attacks this, when he does not attack the Bulls of Leo IX noted with the years of Christ; but in book 11 of the Res Diplomatica, page 185, he establishes that Leo used them 'because he sprang from the family of the emperors of Germany,' who used the years of the Incarnation, and was 'bishop of Toul,' where the use of this reckoning was frequent, and finally because 'he had as chancellor the primicerius of Toul,' who was accustomed to a reckoning of this kind. If in this matter he could follow the custom of the Germans, why could he not also, like them, use the word 'Papalis'? The words 'of the Alemanni' and 'Alemannia' which occur in this letter the same Mabillon judges savour of 'the genius of later times.' But the Gauls, because of the Germans they had the Alemanni as their nearest neighbours, long ago gave the name of Alemannia to all Germany. Leo names the Germans several times; but he took the appellation of 'Alemanni' and 'Alemannia' from the letter of the king of Gaul, since he" (consult the immediately preceding chap., num. 91) "had written 'that he must grieve at the gladness of the Alemanni' and that he 'would not permit Alemannia to cherish the bones of St. Dionysius.'

[99] only faulty or corrupted "Since, then, Leo was replying to these things, he retained the very words which the king had used. Mabillon further says that it is false that the body of St. Dionysius was translated by the emperor Arnulf. That this is false we too acknowledge" (see what was already said above in this Appendix, num. 6 and 7, and likewise num. 43 and 44). "But the ancestral tradition of the people of Regensburg led Leo into this historical error. The people of Regensburg, when they had read on the brick recited above that St. Dionysius was stolen in the time of the emperor Arnulf, thought that this was done by Arnulf himself, who nevertheless never came to Lutetia of the Parisians. Mabillon exclaims: 'What words of Pope Leo to Henry, king of the Franks, by which he tries to console him for this withdrawal! What discourses of a Pontiff, that he should approve the theft of Arnulf!' I confess that this discourse does not suit our times; yet it suited those times in which Leo IX lived. For in them, and long also before them, thefts of relics were not reckoned among crimes, as so many thieves of relics, loved and esteemed by most pious men, bishops and abbots conspicuous for their sanctity, show. To one reading Einhard's books on the translation of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, the monk Rudolf's Life of Rabanus Maurus, abbot of Fulda, Sigebert's Life of Theoderic, bishop of Metz, and other writers, these things will be proved more than sufficiently.

[100] Eckhart contends, "For from these a very long catalogue of thieves of notable relics can be made with easy effort: nor were these blamed on that account, but praised and amply rewarded. I would rather have marked with the censor's rod in the letter of Leo its beginning: 'In the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ Amen,' which is unfitting to a Pontifical letter and was not used by Leo elsewhere. In Korner's copy, however, this formula does not stand. I would also have called into doubt 'the Year of the Lord MLII' added in the date. For although I know, and have already said, that it is asserted by Mabillon that Leo IX was the first of all the Pontiffs sometimes to use the years of the Incarnation in bulls, I have nevertheless hitherto observed no autograph Bull, placed beyond suspicion of falsity, in which the year of the Incarnation was expressed. In apographs there is great suspicion that it was added by copyists. The locution also 'Given and done at Regensburg' displeases, nor does it agree with the other Bulls or letters of Leo. But these blemishes could have come from half-learned copyists. The matter itself is certain; and that there was a suit between the people of Regensburg and the Gauls about the true possession of the body of St. Dionysius the very things which Mabillon brings forward in long order under the year 1053 most clearly demonstrate." Thus the cited writer. And he hints not obscurely that he holds the letter which we gave above, inscribed with the name of Leo IX, to be faulty, but not likewise false and supposititious. But what I judge of the same letter I shall set forth in the immediately following chap., as also whether the difficulties objected against it by Mabillon have been wholly satisfied by Eckhart through the text just transcribed here.

CHAPTER VIII.

What is to be thought of the Letter inscribed with the name of Leo IX, and of the judgment which Eckhart passed upon it.

[Leo IX, in a letter of the year 1052, that the suit about the body of Dionysius had been aired very long,] Most indeed of the difficulties or objections which Mabillon adduces against the letter of Leo IX about the manifestation of the body of St. Dionysius among the people of Regensburg Georg Eckhart resolves aptly enough by his answers to them, which I recounted in the immediately preceding chap.; but whether it will come about that what he answers to the difficulty drawn from the words of that letter in which the suit about the body of Dionysius is asserted to have been aired very long will sufficiently please all I have not ascertained. Surely the things he brings forward most clearly prove that there was a contest between the Germans and the Gauls about the possession of the relics of St. Dionysius; but he brings forward nothing at all which shows that that contest or suit lasted very long, as is asserted in the letter of Leo. He adds indeed also a reason for the silence by which that controversy, although most lasting, is passed over by all writers, saying that the writers of those times are so barren and dry that they passed over unsaid many things most worthy of note and surely of greater moment. But what if it should at least be shown that it could easily have come about that the same controversy in fact lasted very long? Indeed thus anyone would more readily persuade himself that it took place, although passed over in silence by all, for a not inconsiderable space of time also. Let us now, then, add here to the answer which Eckhart brings forward some things which are of a nature to persuade that that suit or controversy, which the Saxon Annalist, in the words transcribed here at num. 83, gives a handle for conjecturing lasted at least long, could easily have lasted even very long.

[102] That it is not necessary for us to tie to the year 1052 the finding at Regensburg, made by the abbot Reginward, of the body which the adjoined Inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius inasmuch as already from about the year 1049, nay much earlier, is clear from what I discussed in this Appendix, num. 2 and 3. What if, then, we should say that that finding happened not in the very year 1052, in which Leo IX is reported to have given the letter mentioned above, but already from the year 1049, in which Reginward began to govern the abbey of St. Emmeram at Regensburg, or at least at the beginning of the year 1050? Indeed, since the Emmeramian monks, as soon as the aforesaid body had been found in their church, published in every direction, as we saw above, that the sacred remains of St. Dionysius were with them, and the Gauls, the matter being reported to them, could easily have soon contended or disputed against the people of Regensburg about that sacred treasure, it will thus perhaps be understood without difficulty how Leo IX could say, the truth being preserved, in a letter granted in the year 1052, when the month of October was already advanced, and sent to Henry, king of the Franks, that the suit about the most holy bones of Dionysius had been aired very long between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg. The matter will become clear, unless I am mistaken, to anyone who has weighed what I have already said. But if nevertheless about three

only, the space of years which thus lay between the finding of the Regensburg body, which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius, made about the year 1049, or the contestation about the body of Dionysius begun thence, and the said letter of Leo, perhaps does not seem to suffice for Leo IX to have been able, the truth being preserved, to say in it, in a letter given in the year 1052, that that contestation or suit had been aired very long, another way still, sufficiently apt and ready, as it appears, is available by which you may understand how this Pontiff did so, and how that suit could have been begun long even before the year 1049.

[103] as, from the German priest's anonymous It is opened up by the anonymous German priest cited above, who wrote the lucubration on Dionysius translated into Germany requested by the abbot Reginward, which I partly exhibited in summary in chap. 1, in his letter to this abbot, published together with that lucubration, as I taught above, by John Baptist, abbot of St. Emmeram, in the year 1750. The authority of that German priest, indeed, in matters from which he lived far removed, is to be weighed at very little or even at nothing, as the things which I adduced in the chap. just cited more than sufficiently show; but although this be so, I nevertheless cannot refrain from giving him credence in the things which he affirms that he either saw or heard. And indeed everyone who has ascertained in what way the statements and assertions of ancient writers are to be esteemed will determine that either that writer must be believed at least in these things, or the said lucubration, which is attributed to him together with the letter written to the abbot Reginward, must be held a pure and simple fiction, devised only in the thirteenth century or still later to win credence for the asserted translation of Dionysius from Gaul into Germany; and since no one, as it appears to me at least, will easily prove invincibly that the same lucubration and the letter which it displays at its head in the cited Emmeramian abbot are undoubtedly supposititious or fictitious, the equity of reason seems to require that we give credence to that anonymous German priest in the things which he says he either saw or heard. What more?

[104] from the conversation of the abbot of Reims and of Arnolf That writer, who, as I taught above, committed to writing his aforesaid lucubration and the letter prefixed to it in the Emmeramian abbot John Baptist between the year 1049 and the year 1064, narrates in this letter how, while he was lodged with the monks of Saint-Denis in France, he not seldom spoke with them about the translation of Dionysius from Gaul into Germany, and how once, while he was doing so, it happened that the abbot of Reims (very probably of St. Remigius) came up by chance, and he, the discourse about the translation of Dionysius being continued, also brought forward some things about it. And first indeed, as he says, he said that it was very well known to himself and to the inhabitants of the same city, from the tradition of the fathers, that the body of Dionysius was contained at Regensburg in the monastery of St. Emmeram, and that hence he had betaken himself to Regensburg on three different occasions in the habit of a pilgrim, in order to be able to bring it back thence into Gaul, stolen by craft or cunning; and then, after he had further added that he had been compelled on each occasion to return thence with the thing not done, soon also, as the cited anonymous German writer says, the same abbot, having first stated some other things which do not pertain here, narrated how, when he had now gone to Regensburg for the third time for the said end and had betaken himself to the monastery of St. Emmeram, the body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius not yet having been found there, he fell in with the provost of the monastery, named Arnolf, and how this one then, some words having first been exchanged back and forth about the city of Regensburg and about St. Emmeram, affirmed that among the innumerable ashes of other Saints there was also held in his monastery the body of St. Dionysius, and that he had ascertained this from the tradition of the Fathers.

[105] Arnolf, provost of the monastery of St. Emmeram, of whom there is talk here, of the Emmeramian provost, by no means, as it appears, is very probably none other than he who, as we saw above, comprised in two books the miracles of St. Emmeram not very long after the year 1030; and since from what has been said the conversation already mentioned, in which he asserted possession of the Dionysian body for his monastery from the tradition of the Fathers, happened when the body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius had not yet been found at Regensburg, it follows that before about the middle of the 11th century, or when that body had not yet been found there, a tradition prevailed among the people of Regensburg of the body of St. Dionysius translated to the Emmeramians. But what if that conversation of the provost Arnolph with the abbot of Reims should be said to be fictitious? About the middle of the 11th century, before which the same conversation must have happened if it ever took place, the monastery of St. Remigius alone and only at Reims was governed by a ruler distinguished by the appellation of abbot; and since, as the things already said disclose, the same abbot of Reims both had the aforesaid conversation, already as abbot, when the body which I have mentioned had not yet been found at Regensburg, and narrated that he had had it to the anonymous German priest cited above only when the same body had already been found there, and this seems able to fit no one but the abbot Herimar, who, as the writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana teach in volume IX, col. 228 and following, presided over the abbey of St. Remigius at Reims from about the year 1048 up to the year 1071, it follows that that same conversation of the provost Arnolf with the abbot of Reims happened either about the year 1048 or the following, if the body at Regensburg which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius was found about the year 1050, as I think, or at any rate about the year 1048 or in some one of the four following, if that finding happened in the year 1052, as the Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, already very often cited, establishes.

[106] But did Arnolf then still survive among the living and act as provost of the Emmeramian monastery? fictitious, from the things narrated, is understood, But if either of these be otherwise, the conversation already mentioned is undoubtedly fictitious, and hence it will be lawful to suspect that the letter of the anonymous German priest to the abbot Reginward, which contains it, and the lucubration on Dionysius translated into Germany joined to it, are likewise fictitious; and since it is of great importance for the decision of the present question of which we are treating here whether this lucubration and the letter placed before it are such or not, I have most studiously inquired into the year of Arnolf's death, and have left nothing unobserved by which he might seem to be fixed before the year 1048. Thus, namely, I tried to lessen likewise the credit of that anonymous German priest, who, as we saw above, very often strays from the truth in matters done far from his age, in the things also which he records as done in his very age and either heard or seen by himself; but whatever I either attempted or did to this end, I was in vain; for although it is nowhere expressly noted that Arnolf was still among the living in the year 1048 and acted as provost of the Emmeramian monastery, I could nevertheless find nothing either committed to writing anywhere which persuades the contrary; and since this is so, and his conversation with the abbot of Reims is therefore not to be held fictitious, there is also no reason why the tradition of the people of Regensburg about Dionysius translated to the church of St. Emmeram, which, the truth of the same conversation standing, took place long even before the body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius was found at Regensburg, should be called into doubt. Let our discourse, then, now return thither whence it digressed.

[107] could have been begun, he could, the truth being preserved, say; Surely it could easily have come about, either from that tradition or from titles or inscriptions made from it and placed in the Emmeramian church, that very long, nay perhaps for the space of thirty or even more years before the letter which is marked with the name of Leo IX and the year 1052 was given, the Dionysian monks, when they understood either that the said tradition was put forward, or from the aforesaid Inscriptions that the Emmeramian monks ascribed to themselves the body of St. Dionysius, from time to time disputed with them, opportunity being given, about the possession of that sacred treasure. Certainly, as soon as in the conversation just mentioned the provost Arnolf had asserted the body of St. Dionysius for his Emmeramian monastery from the tradition of the Fathers, a dispute arose hence between him and the abbot of Reims, as the anonymous German priest relates, in his letter to the abbot Reginward cited above, that he heard from this one himself; so that there is surely reason to believe that this likewise took place from time to time between the Dionysian and the Emmeramian monks within the space of thirty or more years which immediately preceded the letter inscribed with the name of Leo; and if, as it could, a dispute or controversy of this kind also in fact blazed up from time to time between these then, it will thus indeed be understood without difficulty how Leo IX could say, the truth being preserved, in a letter given in the year 1052, that the suit about the most holy bones of Dionysius had been aired very long between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg.

[108] But the praises with which, in that letter, the theft of the Dionysian body Let us now proceed to the words in which Leo IX in his said letter approves the theft of the Dionysian body, or rather to the praises with which he extols the emperor Arnulf on account of it. Certain more recent writers, in order to prove that these cannot have proceeded from Leo, note from Liutprand and some other older writers that the emperor Arnulf was most impious and perished of the lousy disease in punishment of his crimes; but although indeed I am persuaded, from what is said by Pagi in the Critica at the year 899 and by Georg Eckhart in the often-cited Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 786, that they are false in this matter, I would nevertheless not easily believe that Arnulf was praised by Leo on account of the said theft. In the eleventh century indeed, in which this Pontiff flourished, nay even long both before and after it, thefts of relics, as I have also already taught above, were not reckoned among crimes, and some thieves of relics are found also to have been loved and esteemed in those times by the very men conspicuous for piety as well as dignity. But hear what Muratori says on this matter in the Italian Antiquities of the Middle Age, volume 5, Dissertation 58, col. 10, having first enumerated not a few thefts of relics. "Innumerable," he says, "are examples of this kind throughout the bounds of the whole Christian empire, since in so many divers cities, I will not say small relics, but the very heads and bodies of one and the same heavenly saint are held and venerated. Further, it is clear that, as often as the bodies of the Saints were taken away secretly and by theft from ancient tombs, this was done against the canons, since it was by no means lawful to translate sacred relics without consulting the bishop, who should recognize the truth of the matter and assure both those present and posterity that no error or fraud had intervened. And yet,

where the thing was done by theft, credence was to be given only to those pious thieves."

[109] Since, then, as follows from these words of Muratori and is established from elsewhere, is extolled, do not seem to have proceeded from that Pontiff, the theft of the Dionysian body, if it ever took place, was opposed to the prescription of the sacred canons, who would think it came about that Leo IX, a most holy Pontiff, extolled it, or rather Arnulf, by whom it was committed, with praises so lavish as are read in the said letter? However that may be, I have hitherto been able to find no theft of relics which was praised by even one supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and vicar of Christ on earth; so that even from this it may not undeservedly seem unlike the truth that the theft of the Dionysian body, or the thief, was extolled by this Pontiff with such great praises as is done in the Letter of Leo. Nor does what is asserted in the same letter about the emperor Arnulf, who (consult num. 95) bowed even the Caesarean head to withdraw the most holy bones, appear more probable, unless perhaps these words can be understood of the most holy bones taken away or withdrawn from Gaul when Arnulf indeed was reigning, but not with this prince himself carrying off the sacred remains. But if perhaps an error lies here in the letter of Leo as regards Arnulf, it will have flowed from the tradition of the people of Regensburg (see the words of Georg Eckhart recited in the preceding chap.), and can have been admitted by Leo, credence being given to the same people of Regensburg; but as regards the immoderate praises with which the theft of the Dionysian body, or the emperor Arnulf on account of committing it, is extolled in the Letter of Leo, these certainly, being, as it appears, altogether unworthy of a supreme Pontiff, cannot have proceeded from Leo IX, and must therefore have come into his letter from elsewhere.

[110] But since the matter stands thus, and that letter is infected with other blemishes besides, and him the same letter, in which two further things as the learned generally suppose, what at length is now to be determined about it? I shall presently bring forth my opinion on this matter, when I shall have placed before the reader's eyes two things more which also displease in the same letter, and which Georg Eckhart left untouched. The first is supplied by these following words about the emperor Arnulf: "Whose faith and devotion, moreover, wholly cut off every doubt by this also: that not in Rome itself, not in any Metropolis, not in any city or citadel of the kingdom did he strive to choose burial for himself, but where he both knew and rejoiced that he had laid away his Dionysius, hoping to be defended by his patronage and to be raised up on the last day with the Blessed present." So it stands there; but Arnolf, from count of Vohburg monk of St. Emmeram, already often cited, in the Miracles of St. Emmeram, book 1, chap. 5, towards the end, writes thus of the same emperor Arnulf: "At length ... he ordered a mausoleum to be prepared for himself at St. Emmeram's, whereby, when about to meet death, he might have more kindly, as patron in the churches, him whom, living and in health on earth, he wished, nay made, to be powerful on behalf of himself and his." If, then, credit is to be given to this writer, the emperor Arnulf wished to be buried in the church of St. Emmeram for the sake of the patronage of St. Emmeram, but if the letter of Leo is to be believed, for the sake of the patronage of St. Dionysius. It may indeed be that that prince wished this in order that he might have both the one and the other Saint propitious to him; but although this be so, it appears wonderful that no mention at all is made by the monk Arnolf of patronage likewise expected through this from Dionysius. I now proceed to the other thing which is further to be proposed here about the said letter. In it these following words are attributed to Leo: "We have ascertained with undoubted faith that the venerable bones of the said doctor and martyr" (namely St. Dionysius) "... are contained entire in the monastery of B. Emmeram.

[111] placed here before the eyes "For lest the testimonies of men which we have already mentioned should not suffice, divine prodigies and portents also were not lacking, which drove away every doubt completely; which we too have ordered to be diligently written down and transmitted to you through your messengers and envoys, and also to be preserved at the aforesaid church." But, say those who hold the letter of Leo as supposititious, or at least as suspect or corrupted, what are those divine prodigies, what portents, which drove away every doubt completely, and which Leo transmitted, written down by his order, to the king of the Franks? When the three bricks, or stones baked from clay, which by the inscriptions cut into them, as I taught above at num. 4, attested that the body of St. Dionysius rested in the church of St. Emmeram, had been taken out of the wall of the same church about the middle of the 11th century, there appeared two little cases, in one of which the head, in the other the remaining bones of the Dionysian body, as they say, were found. Further, since all were in doubt whether that head and the remaining bones belonged to one and the same entire body, the Lord deigned, a little before Pope Leo IX came to Regensburg in the year 1052, to remove all doubt on that matter by an evident miracle, as is read in the ancient Emmeramian Office of the translation of St. Dionysius, Lesson IV. The words in which this is set forth there are these following: "In the sight of all ... who were present, behold, the case bearing the precious head, namely, of itself gradually approached the case carrying the sacred body, and at once by a sweet bond and covenant the one is joined to the other, and they associate and compose themselves in their ancient fellowship, not without the joy and amazement of all who stood by...

[112] displease, "When this matter had been reported by faithful and sure attestation to the pope and the emperor and the princes who were present; they themselves besides inquiring into the matter more curiously by their own inspection and the handling of their own hands ... the blessed Pope and the emperor, by such great and such miracles, and also by the attestation and writings of their predecessors, removed all doubt, both for the Franks, whose envoys were then present, and for all Germany, by public instruments," etc. The Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, after he had brought these very words of the office of the translation of St. Dionysius, from the codex of his monastery marked with the numerals 499 and written, as he says, in characters of the 12th or 13th century, into his dissertation on St. Dionysius translated to Regensburg, page 57, then observes thus: "Of these divine prodigies and portents, as I persuade myself, Pope Leo is to be understood in his letter, which were reported to him by faithful and sure attestation." But whatever is to be said of the prodigy or miracle by which the case containing the head of St. Dionysius approached of its own accord the case containing the remaining bones of the Saint, this at any rate is one only and single; and since the matter stands thus, how, I ask, could Pope Leo, the truth being preserved, say in the said letter that divine prodigies and portents also were not lacking which drove away every doubt completely? Did he perhaps, using amplification, employ the plural for the singular? But that does not appear very probable. Were there perhaps still other divine prodigies wrought which testified that what had been found at Regensburg was the body of Dionysius? But this is found nowhere handed down to memory, nor does the letter inscribed with the name of Pope Leo IX seem to suffice for its being believed. For, to declare now what I think of it, it is very probably corrupted in more than one place, as may be gathered from what I have already said, and interpolated with adventitious additions; and since this is so, who would affirm for certain that what is asserted in it of prodigies which removed all doubt whatever about the truth of the Dionysian body found at Regensburg was not likewise added to it?

[113] But, someone perhaps will say, are very probably infected with various other blemishes, if the matter stands thus as regards the letter of Leo, plainly nothing certain can be made out from it by which the body of Dionysius may be asserted for the people of Regensburg. I confess it is so: for, contrary to what Eckhart seems to will, it is infected not only with blemishes of lesser moment, which could easily have come from half-learned copyists trying perhaps to correct what was not to be corrected, but also, as it appears to me at least, with others of greater moment, which can only have proceeded from writers who dared to change that letter at their discretion by various additions and even to enlarge it with entire sentences. Hence, further, it comes about that, although I would not dare to assert that that letter is certainly supposititious, I nevertheless hold it very suspect, nay even fear that it is not the original letter of Leo, merely defiled with various interpolations, but a new one which was substituted for it when it had been lost by fire or some other accident. The Emmeramian monastery was consumed by burning in the year 1062, as its very ancient Chronicle, which I cited above at num. 3, testifies. What if, then, by this unhappy accident the letter of Leo concerning the manifestation of the Dionysian body among the people of Regensburg perished, and another was then substituted for it by someone who knew well what was contained in the original and genuine letter of Leo? I find indeed nothing committed to writing which persuades in any way that this was in fact done; but what is found to have been done at other times now and then, when diplomas or letters of Pontiffs or kings had been lost, it is not altogether absurd to suspect was also done, if the letter which Leo sent to Henry I, king of the Franks, concerning the Regensburg relics of St. Dionysius approved by him perished by the aforesaid misfortune.

[114] But if, further, this was perhaps done in very truth, cannot much support the people of Regensburg. then indeed it will by no means be wonderful that some things foreign to the truth lie in that letter as it is now carried about, however much he who substituted that letter for the original letter of Leo may have thought that he had ascertained what was contained in it; for he could easily either fall into errors through a lapse of memory, or insert into the same letter, from excessive partisan zeal, things which support the opinion of the people of Regensburg about Dionysius translated to them more than is fair. But at the same time he will also have recorded some things consonant with the truth. And in the first place, in what he teaches about the suit aired very long between the Gauls and the people of Regensburg about the Dionysian relics, about Leo IX having been asked by both sides to decide it, about the sentence pronounced in favour of the people of Regensburg, and about the letter by which he declared this having been sent to Henry I, king of the Franks, he will, unless I am mistaken, have attained the truth. So I think, because it appears very probable, from what I have already discussed above about the Regensburg relics, which they said were those of Dionysius, approved by Leo, that all these things were in fact also done. But however these things stand, it is by no means certain and beyond doubt that the letter on this matter carried about under the name of Leo, such as it is, recited by us just above, is sincere, pure and genuine, as the things just now argued make clear: and since the matter stands thus, the people of Regensburg surely from that letter, for their own, about the Dionysian

body translated to them from Gaul, have not much support for confirming it; but strong weights of reasons, sought from elsewhere, by which to give it proved, are not lacking, as I shall now show more clearly in the following chap.

CHAPTER IX.

The chief weights of reasons which favour the people of Regensburg are weighed.

[Leo IX and the tradition of the people of Regensburg most strongly confirm the opinion;] Among the various weights of reasons which support the opinion of Dionysius translated into Germany, not the lowest place is held by the approval of the Regensburg relics, which were said to be those of Dionysius, most certainly made by Leo IX at Regensburg in the year 1052, either by word of mouth or, as appears most probable from what was adduced above in chap. 6, also by letter, as the two nearly contemporary writers cited above testify, namely the Saxon Annalist and the anonymous monk of Hamersleben, in his summary mentioned above. I confess indeed that the authority of Pontiffs generally, in asserting facts which long preceded their age, is no greater than that of those by whom these were suggested to them; but although this be so, their declarations are nevertheless not to be rashly rejected even when mere historical facts are concerned; nay rather, when they are known to have been given after an accurate and diligent examination, they are to be held in great esteem and are to be judged to add great weight to the opinion which they support; so that surely the declaration of Leo IX by which the body of St. Dionysius was adjudged to the people of Regensburg, inasmuch as it was made after a mature as well as accurate examination, is a very strong argument that it is with them. Further, to that declaration, or to the approval of the Regensburg relics which were said to be those of Dionysius made by Leo IX, is added the tradition by which, as is clear from the conversation mentioned above between the abbot of Reims and Arnolf, provost of the Emmeramian monastery, the people of Regensburg believed that the relics of St. Dionysius were with them, even before the body which the adjoined inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius had been found in the church of St. Emmeram.

[116] The Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, already very often cited above, to this tradition of the people of Regensburg, which the things he brings forward in §148 of his Dissertation on Dionysius translated into Germany prove strongly enough, and although this, contrary to what the Emmeramian abbot adds in §153 of the same Dissertation the precious codex of the Gospels, kept in the monastery of St. Emmeram, which we have already mentioned above in more than one place; and in order to give it proved that not a little weight accrues from that most precious book to the opinion of the people of Regensburg about Dionysius brought to them, having first stated some things both about this and about Duchesne, who, speaking of the same book from Aventinus, omitted some words of this writer, he argues in the following manner: "It pleased André du Chesne to relate that the precious codex, gilded and jewelled, was written by command of Charles the Bald for the monastery of St. Dionysius and given to the same monastery; but it displeased this writer that this codex together with the relics of St. Dionysius is said by Aventinus to have now fallen to the monastery of St. Emmeram... He omitted, therefore, to narrate what displeased him, and narrated what pleased him. Indeed the writer du Chesne noticed that this codex could not have been written in Bavaria in the year 870 by command of Charles the Bald. And he easily persuaded himself that this book was given to St. Dionysius by Charles the Bald, who rests buried in the church of St. Dionysius. But how it was willed to be transferred to the monastery of St. Emmeram, where it is now shown, he stuck anxious, and thought it advisable not to say everything.

[117] "Truly, kindly reader, you will easily persuade yourself with me John Baptist contends, from the precious codex of the Gospels that this precious codex of the Gospels is no light monument by which the truth of the translation of the body of St. Dionysius into Bavaria is fortified. Since the codex was written by the command of that one" (Charles the Bald), "that is, by his order, certainly not in Bavaria but in Gaul; since it was handed to us by the emperor Arnulf, as our weighty author Arnold writes in the 11th century, and not by Charles the Bald; since the emperor Arnulf came into France before the end of the ninth century and returned thence victorious; since the tradition and the history of the priest written to the abbot Reginward in the 11th century relate that this book came hither to Regensburg together with the bones of St. Dionysius; since this book, gilded and jewelled, is still shown by us, who would deny that this codex is a great monument by which the truth of this translation" (of the Dionysian body to the church of St. Emmeram) "is established?" Thus the cited most serene writer. But although indeed the precious codex of the Gospels which he mentions was written not in Bavaria but in Gaul by command of Charles the Bald, and it could easily have come about that it was given by this prince to the Dionysian monastery, nothing nevertheless occurs anywhere which persuades that this was in fact done by Charles the Bald. What if, then, that book should be said not to have been given to the monastery of St. Dionysius, but after the death of Charles the Bald to have come to Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Fat and from this one afterwards to Arnulf?

[118] Certainly Arnulf, inasmuch as he (see this Appendix, chap. 1) never came into Gaul with an army, from the codex possessed by the Emmeramians today, not much did not carry it with him into Germany, taken from this kingdom by force or fraud. But let us grant even that that precious codex of the Gospels was given by Charles the Bald to the monastery of Saint-Denis, and that it came thence also to Arnulf; you would not on that account rightly judge that the Dionysian body likewise was carried from that sacred monastery to this prince. For why could not the codex have been brought without that sacred pledge? But, says the most serene author, the tradition and the history of the priest written to the abbot Reginward in the 11th century relate that this book came hither to Regensburg together with the bones of St. Dionysius. I confess it is so; but what then? Here certainly both the tradition and the history cited by the most serene author stray from the truth. For the said codex of the Gospels was given by Arnulf to the monastery of St. Emmeram not later than the year 893, as I gave proved in this Appendix, num. 39; but the Dionysian body certainly arrived thither not earlier than the year 894, as I have already shown in the same Appendix, num. 40. Moreover, that History, which in matters done long before the middle of the 11th century deserves no credit at all, or at any rate very little, as I have already taught above, has thus in its last chapter, already partly transcribed here above: "So long as Arnolph lived in safety, he kept with him the bones of St. Dionysius. At length, seized with illness, when he felt that his end was imminent, he gave the bones of Dionysius to the monastery of St. Emmeram to be kept perpetually, together with the book of the Gospels which we mentioned before."

[119] receives support, yet from the three already mentioned before, But since, as everyone will gather from what has been said, that precious codex of the Gospels was given to the Emmeramian monastery by the emperor Arnulf at least six years before the year 899, the year of the emperor Arnulf's death, and therefore much earlier than is hinted in these words, it follows that the said History, or the lucubration of the anonymous German priest on Dionysius translated to Regensburg, already often cited above, not only wrongly, as the tradition does, joins the donation of the Dionysian body with the donation of the precious codex of the Gospels, but also defers the latter later than the truth allows. Now, since this is so, indeed from that precious codex now kept among the Emmeramians, and from the aforesaid tradition and history, which carry that the Dionysian body was imparted to the same Emmeramians by Arnulf together with this, it is argued not very strongly, as will be plain to one considering it, for claiming that sacred pledge for them. But this is done most strongly from the three stones mentioned above, or rather from the three Inscriptions which these have cut into them, and which I have already exhibited entire at num. 4 from the abbot Caelestinus's Monastic Regensburg, or Mausoleum of St. Emmeram. Of these, of which I have already brought forward some things above, I must now bring forth my judgment more specifically. Those inscriptions are written in uncial characters, such as were in use in the 9th and 10th centuries. Anyone will find this who is willing to consult them, either on those three stones themselves kept in the monastery of St. Emmeram, or as they are exhibited, engraved on copper, in the Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, already very often cited, at the place cited above; so that surely it is not to be doubted that they were cut or carved into the stones, found in the wall of the church of St. Emmeram under the abbot Reginward (see this Appendix, chap. 1) about the middle of the 11th century, not very long after the year 890, about which the body of Dionysius is said to have been brought from France to Regensburg.

[120] as the things which are adduced here, This appears altogether certain and beyond doubt, yet in such a way that, since Arnulf was not emperor before the year 896, and yet that prince is distinguished by this title in the first of the three said inscriptions, these at any rate were undoubtedly not placed before the said year 896. Further, the anonymous German priest, already often cited above, also mentions the said stones and the inscriptions which these have cut into them, in his letter to the abbot Reginward, and places the greatest force in them for claiming the body of St. Dionysius for the people of Regensburg against the Gauls. Nor indeed, as it appears, undeservedly: for since they labour under no chronological error at all, as the Gauls themselves confess, and are strong with that antiquity which I have already stated, why should they not avail to produce credence for the translation of the relics of St. Dionysius which they expressly disclose? In order that true relics of the Saints may be distinguished from false, the fourth council of Milan, celebrated under St. Charles Borromeo, requires "First, that writings, tablets, letters, certain codices of Annals, or monuments of any other kind which exist in the churches themselves or their courts and buildings or in other places, and little schedules affixed to or enclosed in the vessels or chests of the sacred relics, be accurately and diligently recognized, from which either their translation or their placing there may be known, or other such notice of them may be had."

[121] Since, then, as said, the three inscriptions given above at num. 4, which attested that the body of St. Dionysius rested there, were found in the church of St. Emmeram about the middle of the 11th century, show, why may we not also deservedly believe, following the rule of the council of Milan expressed in the words just transcribed here, on their credit, that that sacred pledge in fact rests there? While the same Leo IX, who declared that the relics found at Regensburg by Reginward were those of Dionysius, was governing the universal Church of Christ about the middle of the 11th century, a certain sepulchre was opened in Germany, as Honoré de Sainte-Marie teaches in his Animadversions on Criticism, volume 3, book 5, dissertation 6, part 2, and since with the body found in it a lead tablet which displayed this following inscription, "The body of St. Aurelius the bishop, laid away in the time of king Arnulf,"

Herderad being abbot, on the 8th before the Kalends of September," was joined to it, all believed without any hesitation that it was the body of St. Aurelius the bishop. Cardinal Baronius, as he himself relates in his Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 270, num. 10, had persuaded himself that the bodies of the holy martyrs Papias and Maurus, Roman soldiers, rested at Rome in the church in the title of Equitius; but when in a sepulchre of the church of St. Hadrian a marble tablet had been found with this inscription, "In this place rest the bodies of the holy martyrs Papias and Maurus," both Baronius and others believed without difficulty that the bodies of these two holy Martyrs in fact rested in that sacred building. But, you will say, the three bricks or stones which we mentioned above being taken out of the wall, two cases or receptacles appeared, in one of which was found the head of a human body, in the other the remaining bones.

[122] So indeed the abbot Caelestinus in the Monastic Regensburg, [by inscriptions, and likewise by another of a little tablet, of which notice is given here,] and generally all others who have treated of the body of St. Dionysius found in the church of St. Emmeram by the abbot Reginward; and since of the three inscriptions which were found on the Stones placed before those receptacles or cases the first has "Emmeram of Aquitaine, Dionysius the Areopagite rests here," it must be either that the church of St. Emmeram is signified by the adverb "here" in this inscription, or that the bones both of St. Emmeram and of St. Dionysius were enclosed in those two cases or receptacles. I confess it is so; but that the bones of St. Dionysius alone were enclosed in those two receptacles is ascertained from the fact that the bones of St. Emmeram were kept in another place of the Emmeramian church, very well known to all and each. Moreover, in the other of the two said receptacles or cases was found a little tablet furnished with this following inscription: "Here was laid away the body of our most holy patron Dionysius the Areopagite." The Emmeramian abbot John Baptist, already very often cited, who teaches in his Dissertation on Dionysius translated into Germany what I have already said of the aforesaid little tablet, supplies in the same place, §150, the following notice of it: "I inquired carefully, with one of my most beloved confrères, of what material this little tablet was made. We both detected, from particles torn from the upper right side of this tablet, that bark, or rather particles of bark, joined with soap... were here united, although that part from which the particles were torn presents itself to the eyes as if the whole little tablet consisted of certain most fine leaves glued together. This little tablet is very light and must be handled cautiously with the hands, lest on account of its age it be worn away by even a slightly stronger touch of the finger."

[123] is proved most strongly by the inscription, Further, the same abbot, who also says at the place cited that this little tablet is still kept today in the archive of his monastery, exhibits, at page 116 of the aforesaid Dissertation, immediately before the three other inscriptions likewise engraved on copper, as said above, and already transcribed here at num. 4, the inscription already given, which, as said, it contains, engraved on copper, or rather on a bronze plate of plainly the same length and breadth as the little tablet; and since from this and from what the cited abbot relates of this little tablet in the words just given it must necessarily be very ancient, it appears surely most probable that it was found either in one of the cases or receptacles mentioned above, or at least not far from them, together with the body found by Reginward; so that indeed it could be concluded from the inscription just now recited here, which it had impressed on it, that the relics contained in the said receptacles were not those of St. Emmeram but of St. Dionysius. The cited most serene writer doubts indeed whether the said little tablet was brought from France with the sacred bones of St. Dionysius, or on the contrary was only joined to them by bishop Tuto when he enclosed in the wall of the church of St. Emmeram the body, or the same bones, afterwards found by Reginward. Moreover Georg Eckhart (see his words transcribed here in the immediately preceding chap.) seems also to doubt whether this little tablet, or, as he calls it, parchment, found in the case beside the relics, was not vaunted by the people of Regensburg to Pope Leo IX as a testimony written by the emperor Arnulf's own hand; but whatever is to be said of these doubts of Georg Eckhart and of the cited most serene writer, the said little tablet at any rate, or the inscription already given which it displayed, is also a very strong argument that the bones of St. Dionysius are kept with the Emmeramian monks.

[124] nor those inscriptions, from the statements of Giselbert But, they say, although one must generally stand undoubtedly by the inscriptions which are found either set beside or affixed to receptacles containing relics of the Saints, as regards the Saints whose they disclose them to be, this nevertheless does not hold when things occur from elsewhere on account of which those inscriptions can be held suspect of fraud or craft; and since whatever things are said in the inscription just given and in the three others transcribed here at num. 4 seem to have flowed only from what Giselbert, who stole, as they say, the Dionysian body, said to the people of Regensburg of this theft of his, there is surely reason why undoubted credence should not be had in those inscriptions and in the other tenets of the Emmeramians founded on them about the body of St. Dionysius translated to Regensburg. Gérard du Bois, in the History of the church of Paris, book X, chap. 5, num. VI, writes thus: "I make nothing of the narration of Gisalbert, whom they feign to have perpetrated the theft. For what credit is to be given to the statements of a man who by composed lies creeps into the Dionysian buildings to circumvent his hosts, who under pretence of friendship prepares a banquet with evil mind to gorge the abbot and monks with food and wine, who does not hesitate to break open the sepulchres of the Saints, who wickedly and with no reverence of the sacred place plunders the holy spoils?

[125] "Certainly no other credit is owed to him than that which is owed to a thief, perhaps made, it matters much, to a robber, to a sacrilegious man, who would not be believed even when speaking the truth." Thus he; but although indeed all and each of the four inscriptions already mentioned were perhaps made from the statements of Giselbert, and the accounts adduced by robbers or thieves of sacred relics alone by no means suffice for whatever these said of the relics carried off by them by theft to be held as undoubted, nevertheless at times the relics which they had stolen had joined to them clear and by no means doubtful indications from which it was established that they were those of the Saints whose they were asserted by the thieves to be. And the relics indeed, or the body, which Giselbert carried to Regensburg seem likewise to have had joined to them not obscure indications from which it was established that it was the body of Dionysius; so that Giselbert alone, asserting that he was bringing the relics of St. Dionysius, need not have been believed without any proof of his assertion. Further, that the relics which Giselbert carried to Regensburg in fact also had joined to them indications of this kind is clear even from the fact that Leo IX, who, having first instituted a mature and accurate examination, approved those relics, as we saw above, would otherwise very probably not have approved them; and although I am not able to declare what all those indications could have been, I shall nevertheless bring forward one sufficiently clear and evident one in the immediately following chap.

CHAPTER X.

Who the Giselbert was who is said to have stolen the relics of St. Dionysius, whether he duly proved that the body which he brought to Regensburg was that of Dionysius, and whether it was in fact that of Dionysius.

Giselbert, who stole the body of Dionysius, from the clergy Aventinus says in the Annals of the Boii, in the words transcribed here at num. 23, that the thief of the relics of St. Dionysius was one of the nobles of the emperor Arnulf, and he the richest; but the anonymous German author of the lucubration on Dionysius translated from France to Regensburg, already often cited above, writes thus in chap. VIII of Giselbert, whom he afterwards narrates to have stolen the relics of Dionysius: "There was in the ministry of the emperor a certain cleric named Gisilbert, a man of liberal talent, thoroughly learned in letters, a most eloquent rhetor, fit for counsels, venerable in countenance, conspicuous for honourable manners; whom, on account of the fame of his talent, the emperor, having called him forth from Gaul, had appointed his confidential adviser and secret preceptor." Such was he who carried off the body of St. Dionysius by theft from Gaul, if credit is to be given to that anonymous German writer; but although indeed I trust this man very little in matters from which he lived far removed, I am nevertheless not with difficulty led to believe that Giselbert, although distant by about a century and a half from his age, was truly of the clergy. Georg Eckhart makes me so disposed of mind, writing thus in his Commentaries on the Affairs of Eastern France, volume 2, page 746: "Common tradition calls Gisalbert one of the nobles and the richest from conjecture; but I suspect that he was of the clergy; for it is rarely read that laymen stole sacred relics or handled them with their own hands.

[127] was probably, "And behold! In the diocese of Freising, neighbouring Regensburg, there lived at this same time Gisalbert the deacon, possessor of property of his own, whom you might suspect to have been the pious thief of St. Dionysius. Meichelbeck, in the History of Freising, volume 1, Instrument Part, chap. 805, brings forward a charter in which it is said 'that the venerable Waldo, bishop of the church of Freising, and a certain deacon named Kisalperht, made a certain exchange.' The bishop gave to the aforesaid deacon, with the consent of his canons and through the licence of the most serene king Arnulf, in the place which is called 'Puotilinpach, a court, a house, a barn, of arable land 31 jugera, of meadows 3 cartloads; and in recompense for these things he received from the deacon, to be possessed by the church by hereditary right, in the place called Vilisa, a court, a house, a barn, of arable land 31 jugera, of meadows 9 cartloads, of wood 5 jugera.'" Thus far Eckhart, and indeed rightly enough too, as it appears to me. Let us now discern what Giselbert, who, as the things just adduced show, very probably was of the clergy, brought from Gaul to Regensburg, and whether he duly proved that he had snatched thence the body of Dionysius. It is indeed not to be doubted, from what has already been said above, that that pious thief of Dionysius, as they report, brought some body to Regensburg. It is not to be doubted either that he both said that it was the body of Dionysius and found credence for his statements among the people of Regensburg.

[128] and a schedule, whose content is given here, But did he also earn this credence for himself by adducing legitimate reasons by which he proved what he said? The abbot Caelestinus, in the Monastic Regensburg, or Mausoleum of St. Emmeram, says that in one of the two cases, in one of which the head, in the other the remaining bones of the body found at Regensburg by Reginward were found, a schedule was found containing these words: "In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, be it known to all that here is the body of the most holy Dionysius, who from the place Areopagite and by patriotic surname

Ionicus, but by Christian agnomen was called Macharius, ordained archbishop of the Athenians by St. Paul the apostle, by the apostolic authority of blessed Clement the universal Pope constituted apostle of all Gaul, accomplished a glorious martyrdom for the faith of Christ under Domitian Caesar, Sisinnius being prefect, on the 7th before the Ides of October, and carried his own head for nearly two miles to the place in which he now rests buried by the disposition of God, praising Thee without ceasing and saying: Glory to Thee, O Lord"; and that this schedule or paper was in fact found, as the abbot Caelestinus says, in one of the cases containing the bones of St. Dionysius found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward, an argument to me is the lucubration of the anonymous German priest on Dionysius translated from France to Regensburg, already often cited above: for in it (see this Appendix, num. 13) it is related that Giselbert, while he was staying in the abbey of Saint-Denis, the theft of the body of St. Dionysius not yet committed, was introduced by the abbot Ebulo into the crypt in which the bodies of SS. Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius lay, and there, in the tomb containing the body of Dionysius, saw a schedule or paper which attested that it was the body of Dionysius; and this paper or schedule is also exhibited entire in that Lucubration, chap. 25, and consists of plainly the same words as the paper already transcribed from the abbot Caelestinus.

[129] But, you will say, hence it is understood indeed that that paper was joined to the Dionysian bones while they were still in Gaul, together with, found, as from the things but not likewise that it was found about the middle of the 11th century in one of the cases containing them when already translated into Germany. I confess it is so; but the author of that Lucubration, the anonymous German priest, who, as is clear from what has already been said above, did not have sufficiently well ascertained the matters done long before his age, put into writing almost all the things which he relates in that Lucubration about Dionysius translated from France into Germany, as I taught above, either from the accounts of the Dionysian monks, among whom, as has already been said above, he had been lodged for some time, or from notices received from the abbot Reginward himself. And this indeed appears certain; but to these two sources, from which he chiefly drew his material, he sometimes also joined conjectures easily either born or formed from them, as it does not appear to be doubted. Hence, when he learned from the notices sent to him by Reginward that the paper or schedule which I gave from the abbot Caelestinus had been found in one of the cases containing the body found at Regensburg by the abbot Reginward, and at the same time judged from the words in which he saw it couched that it had originally been joined to the bones of Dionysius while they still rested in Gaul, he very probably handed down to memory, only from a conjecture formed thence, that it was also seen by Giselbert in the tomb of Dionysius when this was unlocked for him, while he was staying in the Dionysian abbey, by order of the abbot Ebulo. Surely, since he was furnished or equipped, as he himself sufficiently indicates, with no ancient documents at all, and nevertheless supplies each of the words in which the aforesaid schedule or paper is couched, he very probably did this from the notices sent to him by the abbot Reginward, and at the same time formed from them the conjecture I have mentioned.

[130] Now, since this is so, and the abbot Reginward therefore very probably communicated that paper or schedule to the cited anonymous German priest, which forward it follows that the same paper, inasmuch as otherwise even Reginward himself would seemingly not have had it, was found by him at Regensburg in one of the two said cases or receptacles together with the body of St. Dionysius. Further, that that writer wrote what I have already said only from a conjecture which he formed from the notices supplied by the abbot Reginward becomes still more probable from the fact that he writes that of the relics of St. Dionysius, already snatched by theft from the Dionysian monks by Giselbert, one member, that which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm, was restored by the emperor Arnulf to the abbot Ebulo, and he does this, as it appears, likewise from a similar conjecture. He either heard from the Dionysian monks that some bone of St. Dionysius had been given back by Arnulf to the abbot Ebulo, or conjectured it from the fact that, the Dionysian relics having already been carried into Germany, he nevertheless saw bones resting or kept in the shrine made by Dagobert for keeping the relics of St. Dionysius honoured in France as the bones of Dionysius, and thought that this would not have been done unless at least some bone of Dionysius had been mixed with these; and since he had not ascertained what bone or member of Dionysius had been restored to Ebulo by Arnulf, he determined it by conjecture in the manner which I shall now set forth. That the bone which was absent from the body found at Regensburg was the bone which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm, John Baptist, the Emmeramian abbot, teaches us in his Dissertation, already very often cited above.

[131] are adduced here, For in it, at page 70 and the six following, he exhibits eight lessons of an ecclesiastical office, written, as he says, in the 12th century or the following, and then accustomed to be recited by the Emmeramian monks on the feast of the translation of St. Dionysius, which is celebrated yearly by them on the last Sunday after Pentecost; and in the sixth of these roughly these following words are read: "The Pope and the emperor and the princes, inquiring into the Matter more curiously, found with us the body of the precious Martyr" (namely St. Dionysius) "with all integrity of members, except the member which in the right hand connects the middle finger to the arm." The bone or member, then, which was absent from the body found at Regensburg was, as appears hence, the member or bone which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm. In the letter inscribed with the name of Leo IX and already given above that bone is called "a very small particle of the right hand"; but this, as will be plain to one considering it, does not conflict with the appellation given to it in the ecclesiastical office just cited. But, someone perhaps will say, the bone which was absent from the body found at Regensburg by Reginward is that very bone which was enclosed in the golden hand (consult this Appendix, chap. 3) sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler; and this, if one is to stand by the writer of the miracles of St. Dionysius cited in the same place, his words also being transcribed, was not the member or bone which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm, but only part of a finger. I confess it: the bone which was enclosed in that hand is named part of a finger by that writer; but this is done by him, as it appears to me at least, not because it was in fact a part of a finger, but because it is most nearly joined with the finger in the human body, and because he did not sufficiently know by what name he should otherwise call that bone, which, no differently than a part of a finger, constitutes part of the hand.

[132] it appears, found at Regensburg, he probably brought from Gaul the bodies, Although, therefore, the bone which was enclosed in the golden hand sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler was very probably, as it appears to me at least, that very bone of which the body found at Regensburg was destitute, this latter was nevertheless probably the bone or member which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm; and since Reginward very probably noted, in his notices to the anonymous German priest, that the body found at Regensburg was destitute of this bone, hence this writer will have written that the bone which in the hand connects the middle finger to the arm was restored by the emperor Arnulf to the abbot Ebulo. Further, he probably did this only from a conjecture which he formed from the bone not found in the relics found at Regensburg; and hence it comes about that it becomes more probable that what he writes of the paper or schedule seen by Giselbert in the Dionysian shrine before the body of Dionysius was stolen thence by theft he likewise wrote only from a conjecture which he formed from the schedule or paper found near the relics found at Regensburg. Now, since this is so, and the said paper must therefore have been communicated by Reginward to the said anonymous German priest, it becomes likewise more probable that it was found at Regensburg together with the bones of St. Dionysius in one of the two cases or receptacles containing them. These things being premised, let us see what can be made out from that paper found near the bones of St. Dionysius at Regensburg. It is said in it: "Here is the body of the most holy Dionysius, who ... carried his own head for nearly two miles to the place in which he now rests by the disposition of God"; and since this, as everyone will admit, cannot be said of the place in which Dionysius, already carried from Gaul into Germany, rested at Regensburg, it must be that that paper was joined to the Dionysian bones while they still rested in the abbey of Saint-Denis and was carried thence with them to Regensburg.

[133] What more? Since besides the things which are said in that paper fit St. Dionysius alone, and by this not altogether unaptly that that is the body of Dionysius Giselbert, who, as it appears, truly carried it together with the bones of St. Dionysius from France into Germany, surely brought at the same time a clear indication by which he gave it proved that he was bringing the bones of none other than St. Dionysius. But, you will perhaps say, it may be that Giselbert himself forged that paper and fitted it at his discretion to proving the matter which he had proposed to himself. I confess it is so; but since the fraud, if he had done this, could have been detected with no effort, it does not appear probable that this was in fact done by him. Further, although this is so, and that paper was therefore very probably made in Gaul itself, there is nevertheless no reason why anyone should persuade himself that it was joined to the bones of Dionysius when Dagobert I deposited them in the new shrine. For that this was not done even before the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, that is before the year 836, is clear even from the fact that otherwise that document would be very apt for proving Hilduin's tenets on the Areopagitism of Dionysius, and yet Hilduin nowhere makes any mention of it, who, since he searched through all the shelves of the libraries of Paris and not a few hidden places of his monastery in order to dig out thence documents suitable for proving the Areopagitism of Dionysius, very probably for the same end also scrutinised the sarcophagus in which he knew that Dionysius had been deposited by Dagobert. Hence, further, it now flows that that schedule or paper was very probably made after the Areopagitica were written by Hilduin, that is after the year 836, and joined to the relics of St. Dionysius while they still rested in France; and this indeed, as it appears to me, happened either while Hilduin, who died about the year 840, still survived among the living, or at any rate not long after his death.

[134] But in whatever year at length you establish the thing to have been done, from the said schedule or

paper, brought from France into Germany together with the body found at Regensburg, as appears from what has been said, Giselbert gave proved, not altogether unaptly, as has already been hinted, that it was the body of St. Dionysius; gave proved; and although that it was in fact that of Dionysius, but whether it was also in fact the body of Dionysius let us now discern. That it is not proved that the body of St. Dionysius was not carried by theft from France into Germany, neither from the silence of Arnolf, monk of St. Emmeram, and of all other writers on this matter, nor from the hand of Dionysius sent by Charles the Simple to Henry the Fowler after the year 920, nor from the visitation of the Dionysian shrine made at Saint-Denis about the year 1050, nor finally from the other things which the Gauls bring forward in their cause, is clear, unless I am mistaken, from what has already been alleged above; but although this be so, it does not yet follow thence that the body of Dionysius was in fact carried by theft from Gaul to Regensburg. Nor does it come out altogether certain and beyond doubt that this was done, either from the tradition of the people of Regensburg mentioned above about the relics of Dionysius translated to them, or from the three Inscriptions transcribed here at num. 4, in one of which Dionysius is said to rest in the temple of St. Emmeram, in another to have been stolen by theft by Giselbert, and in the third finally to have been brought to the monastery of St. Emmeram on the day before the Nones of December. For although both these and the tradition show that the people of Regensburg, as soon as Giselbert had brought to Regensburg the body which he said was that of Dionysius, gave credence to that man, they are nevertheless not apt for proving and placing beyond all controversy that it was in fact the body of Dionysius. And as now regards the declaration by which Leo IX in the year 1052 acknowledged as the genuine body of Dionysius the body found at Regensburg which those inscriptions indicated to be that of Dionysius, from it indeed it seems that one can argue somewhat more strongly still for the people of Regensburg; nevertheless, since even supreme Pontiffs are liable to error in deciding mere facts, it is not altogether certain from that declaration either that the body of St. Dionysius is with the people of Regensburg.

[135] nor from the narration of the anonymous priest given here But the anonymous German priest, already very often cited above, writes thus in his letter to the abbot Reginward: "But how" (St. Dionysius) "was translated from Gaul, or who carried him off by theft from Paris, or under what princes it was done, I confess I have more often heard more privately, not without groaning and contrition of hearts, both from the abbot of Paris himself and from other brethren of that monastery, in whose companionship I long delighted, as will appear more manifestly in what follows. And the inward grief of the Gauls over the translation of the most holy Dionysius was conveyed to me in this tenor, that if, faith being pledged, I would go to Bavaria and would cautiously explore under what guard the most holy relics were kept there, or whether in any way they could have been carried away from there, my reward being secure, I should obtain for myself a perpetual memorial among them and heap up glory." Since, then, as is understood from these words of the anonymous German priest, this writer, while he was lodged in the monastery of St. Dionysius in France, understood not only from its abbot himself but also from the monks that Dionysius had been carried off by theft from Gaul, indeed it does not seem to be doubted, if only that anonymous German priest records the truth here, that he was in fact snatched from the Gauls and translated to the people of Regensburg. The things indeed which the abbot and monks of St. Dionysius said to that priest about this translation were founded only on tradition, as I have already taught in this Appendix, num. 19.

[136] But although this be so, and that tradition was not everywhere consonant with the truth in the circumstances of that translation, [is altogether certain, yet the cause of the people of Regensburg seems the better.] as I showed in chap. 1, it is nevertheless lawful to determine that it was not false as regards the translation itself, even from the fact that it agreed exactly with the tradition of the people of Regensburg on the same matter. Nevertheless, since that anonymous German priest committed to writing his letter to the abbot Reginward and the Lucubration on Dionysius translated into Germany joined to it between the year 1049 and the year 1064, as I have already taught above, and in that space of time the monks of Saint-Denis publicly contended that the body of St. Dionysius was still with them, hence surely, as I have already hinted in this Appendix, num. 18 and 19, there seems to be reason why the narration by which the same Dionysian monks are related by that anonymous German priest to have confessed secretly and in private at the same time that the body of St. Dionysius had been snatched from them by theft should be held in some way suspect. But although this be so, and therefore I would dare to assert as altogether beyond doubt that the body of St. Dionysius is with the Emmeramians at Regensburg no more from that narration than from the other arguments adduced above, I nevertheless persuade myself, all things having now been carefully weighed, that the cause of the Emmeramians, who say that the body of St. Dionysius was carried to them by theft, is better than that of the Dionysian monks in France, who affirm that it is still kept with them; nor, as I think, will anyone easily contend that I do this undeservedly who, partisan zeal being set aside, has accurately and maturely weighed the things which I have already discussed in this Appendix.