ON ST. CLARUS OF NANTES, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN ARMORICAN BRITTANY,
PROBABLY IN THE THIRD CENTURY OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Clarus, bishop and confessor, at Nantes in Armorican Brittany. (S.)
BY C. B.
§ I. His age, translations and cult at Nantes and at Angers.
Of the ancient city among the Namnetes, or Nannetes, in Lesser Brittany, or Armorica, which is also called Nennetum, St. Clarus, who, contrary to what from the former of the two Nannetes, Namneta or even Namnetes, or the Namnetic or Nannetic city, we have already given a concise notice in our Work at the 24th day of May, on which we had to treat, with the Roman Martyrology, of the holy brothers and martyrs Donatian and Rogatian, who suffered there. In that city, which is even today a most celebrated emporium, St. Clarus enjoys each year on this day a quite remarkable ecclesiastical cult, as we shall see below. Would that now, as he has the name of Clarus, so also his deeds were clear, that is, known and certain. But besides the ecclesiastical cult which he enjoys, besides the place which he holds among the bishops of Nantes, and the translations of the relics with which he has been honoured, scarcely, or not even scarcely, is anything held to be sufficiently ascertained about him. This will become plain from what is to be said. In the Proper of the Saints of Nantes, which, having first been published by decree of Charles de Bourgneuf, bishop of Nantes, and then revised and enlarged by the authority of Philippe Cospean, likewise bishop of Nantes, came out in a second printing at Nantes in the year 1623, an Office of St. Clarus, first bishop of Nantes and confessor, is set forth; and although the two lessons, to be recited in the fourth and fifth place, in which it sets before the eyes the chief things concerning our Saint, cannot produce full credit, because they are not known to have been drawn from sufficiently ancient documents, I nevertheless transcribe them here, in order that I may set before the reader's eyes, immediately from the beginning of this Commentary, some sort of picture of the Saint.
[2] The first of them, that is, the one which holds the fourth place among the nine, which are recited here, of the Proper of Nantes has thus: Clarus, an illustrious man and of holy disposition, learned in heavenly doctrines, having forsaken the delights of the world and rejecting the luxuriant pleasures of the flesh, suspended with the whole spirit of his mind towards God, girded himself with the vigour of chastity and penance. He, having attained the fellowship of the holy Apostles, was filled with the Holy Spirit. He, having been sent by the Roman Pontiff to the parts of Gaul together with the deacon Deodatus, to preach the word of the Lord and by his preaching to instruct unbelievers in the Catholic faith, bringing with him the nail with which the right hand of blessed Peter the Apostle had been fastened to the cross, came, the Lord leading, into Lesser Brittany, and, divine grace inspiring, was made the first bishop of the Nannetic city; and the second is conceived in these following words: There he built a basilica in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul, in which he placed the aforesaid nail, which he had brought with him, as relics of so great an Apostle. He, shining with wonderful virtues, after many preachings and almost innumerable works most worthy of praise, rested in the Lord on the sixth day before the Ides of October. And his feast day is celebrated with a great concourse of people in the visiting of the chapel dedicated in his name. His head, together with his pastoral ring, is most honourably kept in the basilica of the Apostles Peter and Paul. At the touch of which ring healings are conferred on many sick. And his body, translated to Angers and placed in the church of St. Albinus, has great veneration. If, therefore, one must stand here by the former of these two lessons, St. Clarus will have brought the light of the Gospel into Lesser Brittany, or Armorica, already from the first century of the Christian era, having established an episcopal see at Nantes.
[3] to be maintained concerning him by the Lessons, So it appears, because, although indeed it does not expressly state it, it nevertheless seems to insinuate that Clarus flourished while the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, or at least some of them, say Peter and Paul, were still surviving among the living, since it affirms that he attained the fellowship of the holy Apostles. I know indeed that not only those who, as the first century was passing, scattered the seed of the Gospel in every direction, but also some other sacred heralds who afterwards devoted themselves to the work of propagating the faith, are now and then distinguished by the name of Apostles; but I am greatly mistaken unless he who composed the two lessons just transcribed here wished to designate the very Apostles of our Lord Jesus, who were the first heralds of the Gospel. Certainly Albert le Grand, in the Lives of the Saints of Armorican Brittany, seems to have thought that the author of those lessons was to be understood of these. For although there, at the 1st day of October, on which he exhibits some sort of Life of St. Clarus, he cites at the end the Proper of the Saints of Nantes which I have praised above here, and therefore had before his eyes the lessons now taken from it, Clarus nevertheless
he writes, was sent into the Gauls by Linus, who immediately succeeded St. Peter. Moreover, among the writers of Lesser Brittany who flourished before the fiftieth year of the century just past, I have been able to find none who does not tie the mission of St. Clarus into the Gauls to the first century; so that from this alone it becomes probable that the author of the lessons of which we are speaking here wished to be understood by the Apostles, whose fellowship he says Clarus attained, none other than those who lived with our Lord Jesus Christ.
[4] and seems to have been reckoned by the Bretons from a very long time, Lobineau, in the Lives of the Saints of Armorican Brittany at the 1st day of October, on which he treats of St. Clarus, affirms indeed that Acts of St. Clarus were seen by him in the manuscript Legendary of the church of Tréguier, which by no means support the Bretons who contend that this Saint was sent into the Gauls by St. Linus, that is, already from the first century of the Christian era; but since he adds at the same time that it is also related in those Acts that St. Clarus was sent into Armorican Brittany by the Roman Pontiff, the nail with which the right hand of St. Peter had been fixed to the cross having been handed to him, I strongly suspect that in the same Acts, not otherwise than in the lesson of the Proper of Nantes mentioned above, the fellowship of the holy Apostles is attributed to St. Clarus in either the same or at least similar words, and that consequently they support no less than that lesson the opinion of the Bretons which ties the mission of St. Clarus to the first century. However that may be, the Bretons at any rate seem to have so thought already for a very long space of time. Hence at the 1st day of June, on which it was treated with us of St. Clarus as a bishop and martyr honoured at Lectoure in Novempopulana, our Papebroch, having first said that it seemed more probable that the memory of several Saints of this name, and belonging to different times, had been confused into one, presently subjoins these following words, which, because they will still be of use here, I transcribe here: First, therefore, I think one can stand by the tradition which is held, that someone of this name (namely Clarus), and perhaps a Roman, was sent by the Roman Pontiff into Aquitaine to preach the faith of Christ, about the hundredth year, who, ordained, as then often happened, bishop for no certain see, laid there the foundations of various churches: and thence, having crossed over to the Armoricans, at length fixed his episcopal see at Nantes, and, having died a confessor, obtained burial at Réguiny, in a chapel close beside the parish church, within the bounds of the diocese of Vannes; where even now both the monument and the head are shown, the rest of the body having been carried back to Nantes; and he is honoured on the 10th day of October.
[5] So Papebroch. Nor are there lacking those who affirm that St. Clarus was sent into Lesser Brittany not only, into Armorican Brittany probably only in the third, as the opinion or tradition which he records, and which I have said has held among the Armoricans for a very long time, has it, already from the first century, but also by St. Peter himself. While I say this, Argentré and du Saussay presently occur to me, the former in the History of Lesser Brittany, page 50 verso, and the latter in the Supplement of his Gallican Martyrology, in which he celebrates St. Clarus today with the following elogium: At Nantes in Armorica, the feast of St. Clarus, who, being led by the Spirit of God to every good, having been ordained bishop by St. Peter and sent as legate to that city, and having undertaken wonderful things for the name of Christ, by the light of Gospel truth which he bore before him drove far away from there the darkness of heathen unbelief. He enlightened the minds of the citizens of that city, handed on to them the rule of the Christian religion and imprinted its form, and at length, the Apostolic office entrusted to him having been fulfilled, came to the reward set before valiant contestants. But did St. Clarus in very fact, sent into Armorica either in the first century or by St. Peter himself, illuminate the heathen there with the new light of the Gospel? Not a few learned critics today judge that St. Clarus came into Armorican Brittany only when St. Gatian, the first bishop of the people of Tours, was sent to Tours, or, if he received his mission from him, somewhat later still; so that consequently, if one must stand by these, it happened that St. Clarus was sent into the Gauls, that is, into Armorica, not in the first century, much less by St. Peter himself, but not earlier than under the emperor Decius, that is, about the middle of the third century, in which, as Gregory of Tours testifies, who it appears must be believed here, especially since a matter concerning the church of Tours is treated, in book I of the History of the Franks, chapter 28, and again in book X of the same History, chapter 31, St. Gatian was sent to Tours by the Roman Pontiff.
[6] as the things adduced here And indeed the opinion of those who contend that St. Clarus, sent into Armorican Brittany either by the Roman Pontiff or by St. Gatian, illuminated the inhabitants of this region with the light of faith only at that time appears more probable than that of those who would have it done already from the first century, if only because, as most of the learned now judge, the light of the Gospel was scarcely brought already from the first century of the Christian era into the other regions of the Gauls which are more remote from Italy, as Lesser Brittany is. Moreover, it has already been treated with us at the 16th day of June of St. Similinus or Similianus, likewise bishop of Nantes in Gaul, that is, in Armorican Brittany, and he, as appears from what was said there, departed from the living only in the fourth century; and since in all the catalogues of the bishops of Nantes which Argentré in the History of Lesser Brittany, the brothers Sainte-Marthe in the Gallia Christiana, and others exhibit, Ennius alone is placed between St. Similianus and St. Clarus, then indeed, if, as I think, no error lurks in those catalogues at that place, and St. Clarus is determined to have been sent into Armorica not later than the first century of the Christian era, it will follow that in the space of almost two hundred years which, from what has been said, intervened between Similinus and Clarus, Ennius alone, which appears little probable, governed the church of Nantes with the office of bishop. It may indeed be replied that this happened because, although the seeds of the Christian faith had been sown in Lesser Brittany already from the first century, they nevertheless sprouted there with so little happy success that the episcopate which had been instituted at Nantes by St. Clarus failed immediately after his death, the faith having been cut out by the roots.
[7] suggest, brought the faith in the century, But besides the fact that this is maintained without any ancient witness, the monument of St. Clarus, as Papebroch in the words just transcribed here, Lobineau in the History of Lesser Brittany, page 3, Albert le Grand in the place cited above, and several others besides teach, is shown even today at Réguiny in the diocese of Vannes; and since, if the Christian faith had been exiled from Brittany for a very long space of time immediately after the death of St. Clarus, it could only with the greatest difficulty have come about that both the memory of the said monument and that monument itself (for no one would easily believe that the heathen had a care to preserve it or to mark it with an appropriate sign) survived up to our age, it comes about from this alone that it appears little probable that the Christian faith was exiled from Armorica immediately after the death of St. Clarus, and that consequently he exchanged life for death, not in the first century, but, as the catalogues of the bishops of Nantes praised above, compared with the epoch of the death of St. Similinus, seem to require, in the third century or at the beginning of the following (in which Ennius succeeded him, and, not very long after, the Christian faith having by no means been entirely blotted out in Brittany, St. Similinus), when he had already for some time devoted his labour to propagating the Christian faith in that region to which, as has been said, he had been sent either by the Roman Pontiff or by Gatian, bishop of Tours. No argument or indication, indeed, is brought forward from which it might be established that what is shown even today at Réguiny, as has been said, is in very fact the monument of St. Clarus; but, although it is so, I find nothing either which suggests that that monument is certainly not St. Clarus's, and since it appears sufficiently probable from other things said above that St. Clarus was sent into Gaul, that is, into Armorica, not in the first century but in the third, I now proceed, adding nothing more by which to prove this, to other things which concern our Saint. It is asserted in the latter of the two lessons of the Proper of Nantes transcribed here above that St. Clarus, when he had come to Nantes and had already fixed his episcopal see in that city, also built a church there under the name of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, and placed in it the nail with which the right hand of St. Peter had been fixed to the cross.
[8] But whether these things, since it is entirely in obscurity, as I have already indicated above, from what monuments they have been drawn, is said to have died at Réguiny, not on the 1st but on the 10th of October, were in fact done by St. Clarus, may be called into doubt. Nor, even if a nail with which the right hand of St. Peter was fixed to the cross had formerly been kept at Nantes or were kept there even today, could they be confirmed from this. For why may it not have happened that, although a nail of this kind had been brought from Rome to Nantes only in the fourth or fifth century or still later, the people of Nantes nevertheless, having forgotten this in the lapse of time, believed more readily than was right that the thing had been done by St. Clarus himself? However that may be, Lobineau, in the Lives of the Saints of Lesser Brittany at the aforesaid day of October on which he treats of our Saint, affirms that Clarus, when he had already established the Christian faith in the city and county of Nantes, very probably advanced further and performed the office of an apostle in the territory of the neighbouring cities, presently also adding that he is said to have been taken from the living on the 1st day of October at Réguiny in the diocese of Vannes; but Étienne Baluze, in his History of Tulle, page 35, teaches that this is said by the Bretons and the people of Angers to have happened not on the 1st but on the 10th day of October; and that he must be believed in this matter appears if only from the fact that Albert le Grand himself, although he brought what he writes of St. Clarus into his work in which he embraced the Lives of the Saints of Armorican Brittany at the 1st day of October, nevertheless by no means records the death of our Saint on this day, but on the 10th day of this month, and the same is also done in the Proper of the Saints of Nantes, already praised more than once, in the words transcribed here above; so that I am entirely ignorant by whom what Lobineau affirms is said of the Saint's death day is said, and that I also doubt as much as possible whether it is said by anyone, and consequently whether that writer was not deluded in asserting the contrary.
[9] But although it is so, he rightly asserts that our Saint is said to have died at Réguiny; [and then also at Nantes, and at the place to which he was translated hence in the year 878,] for the tradition of the people of Nantes holds that this was done there, as also that the body of the Saint, which there also
place had obtained burial, was afterwards translated thence to Nantes. But whether this, as the same writer also says, did not happen before some centuries had already elapsed from the death of St. Clarus may be doubted. Otherwise, indeed, in any case, I would think it should be determined, if certain and undoubted credit could be given to Albert le Grand, who relates in the Lives of the Saints of Lesser Brittany praised above that our Saint died at Réguiny in the year 96, and was only thence translated to Nantes in the year 386; but it appears more probable from what has been said above that the Saint died not in the year 96, but about the end of the third century or the beginning of the following, and it is besides altogether uncertain whether the document on whose authority and credit the praised Albert ties the translation of St. Clarus to the people of Nantes to the year 386 was of sound note; and since these things are so, it must likewise be held uncertain whether this writer, who is not seldom detected embracing fictions and altogether false narratives and so straying from the truth, does not err also in assigning the time at which the translation of the Saint to the people of Nantes occurred. But although this is uncertain, it at any rate appears certain that the body of our Saint, while the Northmen in the ninth century were frequently breaking into Gaul and Armorica and laying waste there everything, and chiefly sacred places, with fire and sword, was translated from Nantes to Juliomagus, that is, Angers, in the year 878, and deposited there in the abbey of St. Albinus. So I think, because not only the inmates of this monastery, but also, as Étienne Baluze, praised above, teaches in his History of Tulle, page 34, the writers of Armorican Brittany themselves affirm it, and because the cult which is paid to the Saint both at Angers in the said monastery and at Nantes suggests in some way that the matter is so.
[10] [his heavenly birthday is honoured at Angers, and in this latter place another translation also,] And Lobineau says there, in the Lives of the Saints of Lesser Brittany, that this is done in both places each year on the first day of October; but he does this, as it is permissible to gather from what has been said, very probably only because he thought that St. Clarus was believed to have died on that day. However that may be, it appears certain that the Saint is honoured each year at Nantes not on the 1st but on the 10th day of October, and that the cult with which he is then honoured there is quite remarkable, both from the Proper of the Saints of Nantes, already praised above more than once, since it sets forth the ecclesiastical Office of St. Clarus to be recited at the 10th day of October under the double rite of the first class, and also from the Calendar prefixed to it, since it bears the title which is conceived in these words, Feasts to be observed in the diocese of Nantes by all by precept of the Church, on which it is not lawful to do servile work, and then numbers St. Clarus at the 10th day of October among the Saints whose feasts, as is prescribed in it, are to be celebrated in the diocese of Nantes; and as regards Angers, that is, the monastery of St. Albinus in this city, that the Saint is honoured there too with the honours of the heavenly ones, not on the 1st but on the 10th day of October, is suggested by the manuscript Calendar of that very monastery extant with us, since it prescribes that the deposition of St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes, be celebrated on this latter day. Further, to the feast with which the monks of St. Albinus recall each year on the 10th day of October the heavenly birthday, that is, the deposition, of St. Clarus, they join another feast on the 25th day of the same month, with which they celebrate the translation of the relics of this Saint of ours together with those of St. Albinus; but since this is distinguished from the translation by which our Saint was carried from Nantes to Angers, it will be helpful to have set forth what it is.
[11] [by which in the year 1070 he was placed there on the principal altar, is celebrated on the 25th of October.] Henschenius, at the 1st day of March, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Albinus, bishop of Angers, num. 8, writes thus: The Chronicles of the monastery of St. Albinus cited before record another translation of him (St. Albinus) made in the year 1070, while Eusebius was bishop presiding over the church of Angers, and Otbrann abbot over the said monastery. For the Chronicles have thus: "1070. The bodies of the holy bishops Albinus and Clarus, with other relics, were translated on the 8th day before the Kalends of November." That translation Hugues Ménard inscribed at that day in the Benedictine Martyrology, citing in the margin the Breviary of the monastery of St. Albinus. The bishop Clarus who was translated with St. Albinus is perhaps the first bishop and apostle of the people of Nantes, whose memory Morlaix writes is kept on the 10th of October. For although several Clarus priests and abbots are reported in the Martyrologies, yet I have read of no bishop of that name. So our praised predecessor, insinuating that he still doubted whether by the bishop Clarus, whose relics and those of other Saints are reported in the Chronicles of the monastery of St. Albinus to have been translated in the year 1070, our Saint, the bishop of Nantes, is designated; but since this Saint, which that writer did not know, was translated from Nantes to Angers in the year 878, as I have already taught above, there does not indeed seem to be any reason why there should still be doubt now on that matter (for no one would easily prove that the body of our Saint, after it had been brought to Angers, was afterwards carried away whole elsewhere). And this new translation, by which, as Lobineau hands down to memory, the relics of St. Clarus were carried to the high altar of the abbey of St. Albinus, is that very one which, as Baluze testifies in his History of Tulle, page 35, the manuscript Calendar of St. Albinus of Angers too, which is extant with us and which I have praised above, and the Benedictine Martyrology, which Henschenius praises in the words just given, supporting him, the monks of St. Albinus of Angers celebrate each year on the 25th day of October; so that consequently our Saint is likewise honoured each year at Angers with no common cult.
§ II. In what other places chiefly besides the Saint is honoured, and whether this is done at Tulle also.
The Saint is also honoured in the places mentioned here; St. Clarus is honoured with ecclesiastical cult not only at Nantes, and, from what has just been said, at Angers, but also in the village of Réguiny of the diocese of Vannes, already mentioned above more than once, where, as Lobineau affirms, some of his relics are kept even today and a parish church is dedicated to him, and likewise elsewhere in this diocese and in the dioceses of Léon and Quimper, likewise of Lesser Brittany. So I judge, if only because Albert le Grand adds at the end of the Acts of St. Clarus that he drew what he writes of St. Clarus partly from their Breviaries, and it is an undoubted argument that he has a place in those Breviaries, and therefore enjoys a cult in the churches whose Breviaries these are. Further, although no like reason impels me to believe that the Saint, who is very probably honoured in the remaining dioceses of Lesser Brittany too, and by name, as you will understand from what is to be alleged below, in that of Saint-Brieuc, is also honoured outside Brittany in the diocese of Bordeaux, I am nevertheless persuaded that this is in very fact done there too, because he is commemorated today in the Bordeaux auctarium of Usuard in Sollerius, without the place in which he is honoured or died being expressed; and since he enjoys ecclesiastical cult in so many places as I have already said, and peculiarly at Nantes, where also, as is understood from the lessons of the Proper of Nantes transcribed here above, he has a chapel sacred to his name, hence, as I think, it came about that, although he is inserted neither in any of the Martyrologies which we call Classical nor in the present-day Roman one itself, he is nevertheless announced today at Nantes not only by Ferrarius in the general Catalogue of the Saints who are not in the Roman Martyrology, but also in the Paris Martyrology, and likewise by Castellan in his Universal one. And by Ferrarius indeed this is done, without even the church of which St. Clarus was bishop being named, in these very few words: At Nantes, of St. Clarus, bishop; while Castellan expressly calls the Saint, who the Paris Martyrology only says is honoured by the church of Nantes as its first bishop, the first bishop of Nantes, nor does it appear that one should here dissent from him, who thus indicates that St. Clarus is judged by him, without any doubt, to be the first bishop of Nantes.
[13] and whether at Tulle too, that is, whether his relics there, But indeed another thing now remains to be investigated here. In the lower province of the Limousin in Gaul, at the confluence of the Corrèze and the Solane, there is a city named Tulle, raised into a bishopric by Pope John XXII, the church of the celebrated abbey of St. Martin, which stood in that place, having been converted into its cathedral; and since there, as is plain from what was said with us at the 1st day of June in the Historical Commentary on St. Clarus, bishop and martyr of Lectoure in Novempopulana, §2, some Saint named Clarus is honoured, and it becomes plain chiefly from what is then alleged in the same Commentary, num. 23 and the following, that it is not sufficiently ascertained who he is, it must now also be examined here whether our Saint is one and the same with that Clarus, and consequently whether he does not also enjoy ecclesiastical cult among the people of Tulle. In what wonderful and almost incredible manner the people of Tulle received the head and some other bones of some Saint named Clarus is narrated from Baluze in the aforesaid Commentary with us, num. 9; and since they certainly honour no other St. Clarus than the one whose sacred remains these were, it must only be examined by us now, in order that it may become known whether this Saint is also honoured by the people of Tulle, whether these were our Saint's. The praised Baluze, who was born among them, in the fifty-sixth year of the century just past published first a learned little Dissertation on SS. Clarus, Laudus, Ulfard and Baumadus, whose sacred relics are kept in the cathedral church of Tulle in the Limousin; and at that time he embraced the opinion by which the St. Clarus whose relics are kept at Tulle is thought to be none other than St. Clarus who suffered martyrdom at Lectoure; but afterwards, having changed his opinion, he endeavoured to prove in his History of Tulle, published in the year 1717, that the same relics of St. Clarus were of none other than St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes.
[14] as Baluze, the opinion which he had first embraced Hear how he speaks there, page 34 and the following, having first said that he would show that the relics of SS. Laudus and Clarus were translated, while the Northmen were frequently breaking into Gaul, from Normandy and Brittany first to Juliomagus and then to Tulle: The greater difficulty is about Clarus, both because it has not yet been ascertained who he was or whence, and because the author of his Life, which is extant in the very ancient Breviary of our church, relates that he was sent to Cologne with his Companions by the Roman Pontiff to preach the faith of Christ. And I indeed, when I saw that that Life of Clarus was found among us and was extant in the prayer book of our monastery, did not doubt that those relics were his whose Life our ancestors had copied out in their books. But now, since I see that the writers of Armorican Brittany relate that the relics of St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes, were translated to Juliomagus in the year of Christ
878 and deposited in the monastery of St. Albinus, and since it is no light conjecture that they came further from that city to us with the bones of St. Laudus, I am not unwillingly led into that opinion, although I formerly thought otherwise, so as to judge that the relics which are held among us are from the body of St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes. Nor does it move me that the Bretons and the people of Angers say that he died on the tenth day of the month of October, whereas our feast day is celebrated on the first day of June. For it could easily have happened that those who did not know his Life thought, from a false tradition, that the day of his death fell in the month of October. For our very ancient books set his heavenly birthday on the Kalends of June, and his translation on the 5th day before the Kalends of June.
[15] So the praised Baluze. And it is by no means certain that he erred in abandoning the opinion without any, perhaps, as here by which he had at first held the St. Clarus whose relics are preserved at Tulle for St. Clarus honoured at Lectoure and at Albi, whose Acts were extant in the ancient books of the people of Tulle; for although these Acts fit Clarus of Lectoure, it does not follow from this that the relics of St. Clarus which are kept at Tulle are this Saint's, but only that the writer who composed those Acts judged them to be those of Clarus of Lectoure; and since it is not certain that he did not err in so thinking, it is likewise not certain that Baluze erred in abandoning the opinion by which, from what has been said, he had followed that writer. But did he at least not err in holding the St. Clarus whose relics are kept at Tulle for St. Clarus, the first bishop of the people of Nantes? It is not altogether far from every appearance of truth that the people of Tulle likewise held, towards the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the following, the St. Clarus whose relics had been brought to them for St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes, who died a confessor. So a charter of Tulle suggests, adduced by Henschenius at the 1st day of June in the Historical Commentary on St. Clarus, bishop and martyr of Lectoure, num. 7, and, as he noted there, written in the year 895; for in this the St. Clarus who rests at Tulle, that is, whose relics are kept there, is called a confessor; and although in another charter likewise of Tulle, likewise adduced there by Henschenius, and written, as he noted, in the year 932, he is called a martyr, this perhaps happens only in that sense in which several bishops who, although indeed they did not shed their blood for the faith, are nevertheless found called martyrs because they were ready for it in heart and mind.
[16] So, as Lobineau, praised above more than once, teaches in the Lives of the Saints of Armorican Brittany, page 6, suggest the things adduced, St. Clarus himself, the first bishop of the people of Nantes, although he is believed by the Bretons to have rested in peace, is nevertheless reckoned among the martyrs in the Litanies added at the end of the penitential Psalms in an ancient Breviary of the church of Saint-Brieuc in Lesser Brittany, and is also adorned with the title of martyr in an ancient Breviary of the church of Léon in the same Lesser Brittany, which contains an Office of nine lessons about him at the 4th day of November. But even if it were otherwise, and the people of Tulle, no less already from the ninth century and the following than afterwards, had held the St. Clarus whose relics they possess for a true martyr, and indeed for a bishop and martyr who underwent martyrdom at Lectoure, it could nevertheless not be concluded from this that Baluze erred when he held the Clarus whose relics are kept at Tulle for St. Clarus, bishop of the people of Nantes. So I judge, because the little narrative, drawn from Baluze, which is extant with us at the 1st day of June in the Historical Commentary on St. Clarus of Lectoure, num. 9, about the manner in which the relics of St. Clarus which are kept at Tulle were brought there, persuades me that the very people of Tulle who flourished in the ninth century and the following could easily have erred in assigning the Clarus whose relics those were which were kept among them. For whoever has considered the things reported in it will not without reason doubt whether the people of Tulle ever had sufficiently clear either which Clarus's these were or whence they had been brought to their city; and since this is so, and besides the Clarus who suffered at Lectoure other Claruses, whose relics could have been brought to Tulle, are assigned with us in the Commentary just mentioned, num. 23 and the following, it may indeed easily have happened that the very people of Tulle of whom I have spoken erred in assigning the Clarus whose relics they possessed, and that consequently, even if they had held him for the Clarus who suffered at Lectoure, it could not be concluded from that that Baluze undoubtedly erred when he took him for Clarus of Nantes.
[17] changed by error, But must one, then, certainly assent to that writer in this matter, that is, is the St. Clarus whose relics are preserved at Tulle without doubt to be held for St. Clarus, the first bishop of the people of Nantes? Baluze affirms in the words transcribed here above that he is not moved to think otherwise by the fact that the Bretons and the people of Angers record the death of Clarus of Nantes on the 10th day of October, while the people of Tulle celebrate the feast of the Clarus whose relics they possess on the 1st day of June; and he is so disposed in mind, as he adds, because, since the Bretons and the people of Angers did not know the Life of Clarus of Nantes, it could easily have happened that they thought, from a false tradition, that his death day fell in the month of October. But, however much the Bretons and the people of Angers be determined to have erred in assigning the month and day on which Clarus of Nantes died, from the fact at any rate that the people of Tulle celebrate the Clarus whose relics they possess on the same 1st day of June on which the people of Lectoure celebrate their Clarus, and further, although perhaps, on account of what has just been said, not already from the ninth century or the following, have nevertheless celebrated him from a very long time, it follows, unless I am mistaken, that they then thought, and still think now, that he is to be held for the Clarus who suffered at Lectoure; and since this is so, let us consider whether one must stand by the said people of Tulle or by Baluze. The second of the lessons of the Proper of Nantes transcribed here above, which in this matter is rather to be believed, suggests that, not indeed the body, but, contrary to what is declared in the words of Papebroch recited at num. 4, the head of St. Clarus of Nantes is still preserved at Nantes; and since this is so, and the sacred relics of St. Clarus which are preserved at Tulle are said by the people of Tulle, as the Historical Commentary on St. Clarus of Lectoure, already praised more than once, with us at the 1st day of June, num. 9, attests, to be the head and some bones, it surely cannot be that these are of St. Clarus of Nantes, if his head, which is asserted in the Proper of the Saints of Nantes to be still kept at Nantes, is an entire head.
[18] But although indeed I would not wish to call into doubt whether the head of St. Clarus of Nantes, thought, if it was carried from Nantes to Angers in the year 878 together with his body for fear of the Normans, was afterwards brought back thence to Nantes when their irruptions into Armorican Brittany ceased, I cannot prove that it is held there entire; and since this is so, it remains that we now also discuss the chief reason by which Baluze, impelled by it, judged, even changing the opinion which he had first followed, that the St. Clarus whose relics are kept at Tulle is to be held for St. Clarus of Nantes. In our Work at the 22nd day of September it was treated of St. Laudus or Lauto, bishop, and, having regard to what is said there in the Historical Commentary on this Saint, §3, it appears that it is by no means to be doubted that some sacred body, which was, or was believed to be, of some St. Laudus, was at some time translated first to Juliomagus, that is, Angers, and then to Tulle, whether entire or in part; and since this is so, and, as we have seen above, the body of St. Clarus of Nantes was also carried down to Angers while the Northmen were ravaging through Lesser Brittany, Baluze, abandoning the opinion by which he had at first thought otherwise, was led to believe that it too was carried thence to Tulle. But although indeed from the fact that the body of St. Laudus, which had been brought to Angers, was carried away thence to Tulle, it appears to follow that the relics of St. Clarus of Nantes also could without difficulty have been brought there from the same city, it nevertheless seems that it may not without reason be doubted whether this was in very fact done.
[19] I could indeed in any case be brought to think the contrary, are preserved, is doubtful, if the relics of St. Clarus were said to have been carried to Tulle on the same day as those of St. Laudus; but Baluze himself says that this was done on different days, since he writes thus in his History of Tulle, page 36 and the following: For the rest, that Laudus and Clarus did not come to Tulle on one and the same day is clear from this, that in the very ancient Calendar of our monastery "The reception of St. Laudus, bishop" is noted on the 11th day before the Kalends of November, and "The translation of St. Clarus, bishop and martyr" on the 5th day before the Kalends of June. Moreover, the relics of St. Clarus which are preserved at Tulle existed there already from the tenth century, and indeed from the ninth, as is clear from the two charters of Tulle which I praised at num. 15; and since the relics of St. Clarus of Nantes still existed at Angers in the year 1070, as is clear from the new translation of them which I mentioned at num. XI, made there at that time, and the relics of St. Clarus which existed at Tulle already from the tenth and ninth centuries are certainly the very ones which are kept there even today, it may indeed not without reason be called into doubt whether these are of Clarus of Nantes. It may indeed be replied that it may have happened that not all the relics of St. Clarus of Nantes which had been carried from Nantes to Angers in the year 878, but only certain parts of them, were translated from Angers to Tulle while the ninth century was still passing, other parts being still left in the former of these cities. But although it is so, it appears doubtful and uncertain whether this, which is nowhere found committed to writing, was in fact done, if only from the fact that the relics of St. Clarus which are kept at Tulle could equally easily have been brought there from the places mentioned with us in tome 1 of June, in St. Clarus of Lectoure, pages 15 and 16, as from Angers; and since this is so, and consequently, all things now weighed, it still remains doubtful whether the St. Clarus whose relics are preserved at Tulle is St. Clarus of Nantes, it must likewise still remain doubtful whether he obtains ecclesiastical cult among the people of Tulle, who certainly, as has been said, honour on the 1st day of June no other St. Clarus than the one whose relics they possess.
[20] and at the same time the St. Clarus whose relics are kept near Genoa, For the rest, in our Work at the 4th day of May there is listed St. Clarus, bishop, in the territory of Genoa, whose body rests in the parish church of St. Mary of Vallis-regia, 10 Roman miles distant from Genoa,
among the Passed Over; and since Ferrarius, who had noted that he, announced by him on that day, is related to have been bishop of Arles, afterwards in the index calls him bishop of Nantes, assigning to him the 4th day of May and at the same time the 10th of October, hence our predecessors referred to this place the examination of whether that St. Clarus whom Ferrarius affirms rests in the church of the territory of Genoa mentioned by him is St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes, hoping that we should meanwhile receive from somewhere more certain monuments by which this could be done. But although indeed it has not yet been fully possible to obtain what they had hoped, monuments of this kind having been brought to us, two letters nevertheless, which are extant in our literary furniture, written to our Papebroch from Genoa by Giovanni Stefano Fieschi, priest of the Society of Jesus, towards the end of the century just past, suggest that the Clarus whose relics are found, on the testimony of Ferrarius, in the territory of Genoa is different from St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes.
[21] is not St. Clarus of Nantes appears more like the truth. For from these, in which it is asserted that it is not known whence the relics of St. Clarus which are kept in the said church of the territory of Genoa were brought to it, I understand that this Saint is commonly held by the inhabitants of the place for St. Clarus, abbot of St. Marcellus at Vienne in Gaul, who is mentioned by Trithemius, On the Illustrious Men of the Order of St. Benedict, book 3, chapter 246. Nor indeed is this done without reason, as appears from what I now subjoin. Of this holy abbot of St. Marcellus at Vienne in Gaul it has already been treated in our Work at the 1st day of January, on which he is commemorated in several sacred Fasti; and although nothing at all was then produced there by Bolland from which you might gather that the relics of that holy abbot are preserved in the church of the territory of Genoa mentioned by Ferrarius, authentic monuments were nevertheless afterwards, as I find noted, transmitted to our predecessors, from which it is established that relics of the same St. Clarus, abbot at Vienne in Gaul, were translated to Turin; and since this is so, and it could therefore very easily have happened that, as to Turin, so also to the territory of Genoa, which is not very far removed from there, some relics of that Saint were translated, either from Turin or even from Vienne (for this city is not very far distant from Genoa), it surely appears more like the truth from this that the St. Clarus whose relics are kept in the aforesaid church of the territory of Genoa is not St. Clarus, bishop of Nantes, but St. Clarus, abbot of St. Marcellus at Vienne in Gaul.